Ritual and Politics: Writing the History of a Dynastic Conflict in Medieval Poland (East Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 450-1450)

Ritual and Politics

East Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 450–1450 General Editor

Florin Curta

VOLUME 3

Ritual and Politics Writing the History of a Dynastic Conflict in Medieval Poland

By

Zbigniew Dalewski

LEIDEN • BOSTON 2008

Cover illustration: The three kings and before Herod, a miniature from the Codex Aureas (Złotego Kodeksu Pułtuskiego - rkps 1207, k. 17). With kind permission of Fundacja XX Czartoryskich, Muzeum Narodowym w Karkowie, Crakow, Poland. This book is printed on acid-free paper. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Dalewski, Zbigniew. Ritual and politics : writing the history of a dynastic conflict in medieval Poland / by Zbigniew Dalewski. p. cm. -- (East Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 450-1450 ; v. 3) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-90-04-16657-8 (hardback : alk. paper) 1. Political customs and rites--Poland--History. 2. Poland--Politics and government--To 1572. I. Title. GN492.3.D35 2008 306.209438--dc22 2008005745

ISSN 1872-8103 ISBN 978 90 04 16657 8 Copyright 2008 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing, IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. pr inted in the ne ther l ands

CONTENTS

Acknowledgements .............................................................................. vii Abbreviations ........................................................................................

ix

Introduction ..........................................................................................

1

Chapter One

Advent ....................................................................

13

Chapter Two

Submission and reconciliation ............................

41

Chapter Three

Penance ..................................................................

85

Chapter Four

Oath ........................................................................ 135

Conclusion ............................................................................................ 189 Bibliography .......................................................................................... 195 Index ...................................................................................................... 213

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Many people have contributed to this book. In the course of writing it I had opportunities to discuss the idea of this project with my colleagues in the Institute of History of the Polish Academy of Sciences. For these discussions, s ometimes v ery stormy, w hich a llowed me to lo ok at my text f rom a nother p erspective a nd think s ome issues thr ough a gain I would like to thank all those who participated in them, especially Halina Manikowska, H anna Z aremska, Wojciech Brojer, S tanisław B ylina Roman Mic hałowski. I w ould als o lik e t o t hank Jacek B anaszkiewicz, who read a part of the manuscript and made stimulating comments. The discussions with him prove always fruitful. I also benefited a lot from the discussions with János M. Bak, Dušan Třeštík and Gerd Althoff, who enabled me to visit the Institut für Frühmittelalterforschung in Münster as well. Besides the Institute of History of the Polish Academy of Sciences several other institutions have supported my research and writing. The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and the Maison des Sciences de l’Homme awarded me a research fellowship which made my stay in Paris possible. The Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, the British Academy and the H istorický ust av Akademie v ĕd Č eské r epubliki ga ve gra nts allowing me to carry out research in Vienna, London and Prague, respectively. Without their support this book could not have been written. I would also like to thank Piotr Górecki who recommended my book to be inc luded in B rill’s s eries E ast C entral a nd E astern E urope in the Middle Ages. I a m v ery g rateful to him. And last b y no me ans le ast I want to thank my family – my wife Małgorzata and my sons Aleksander and Tomasz. I thank them for everything.

ABBREVIATIONS

MGH – Monumenta Germaniae Historica SSrG – Scriptores rerum Germanicarum in usum scholarum separatim editi SSrG n. s. – Scriptoter rerum Germanicarum, Nova series SS – Scriptores MPH – Monumenta Poloniae Historica n. s. – Nova Series

INTRODUCTION

The chronicle of an anonymous author referred to as Gallus contains a relatively lengthy account of the tragic events which took place in 1111. According to the chronicler’s description, the older stepbrother of duke Bolesław III Wrymouth o f P oland (1102–1138), Zb igniew, w hom Bolesław had sent to exile several years earlier, had eventually despaired of ever regaining the throne through military intervention or the help of the emperor, the Czechs or the Pomeranians, and decided to seek agreement with his victorious brother. Hearing that Bolesław had forced the Czech duke to allot his younger brother a separate province, Zbigniew humbly asked Bolesław to do alike and return him, too, some part of the patrimony taken away from him. At the same time he assured Bolesław that he did not wa nt t o e qual him in a nything, b ut “would al ways ob ey him as a knight his lord in every regard”. Bolesław answered his b rother’s humble plea and decided to forgive him the offences he had committed and hand him over a certain number of strongholds. S oon, however, i t became c lear that Zbigniew did no t intend to keep the a greement with Bolesław and did no t renounce the plans t o r each f or p rincely p ower. H e ga ve v oice t o thes e as pirations already during the celebrations accompanying his arrival. According to Gallus’ a rgument, the sw ord ca rried b efore him a nd the p resence o f musicians p laying dr ums a nd c ythers in his r etinue, w ere t o indica te clearly that Zbigniew “would not b e coming to s erve but to r ule” and “would not be a knight at his brother’s command but his brother’s lord and master”. In this situation the violent reaction of Bolesław should not be surprising. Zbigniew’s arrogant behaviour could arouse suspicion as to his future plans. The duke had grounds for believing the rumours about Zbigniew’s p lot a nd f or t aking a r esolute ac tion a gainst his tr eacherous brother. To be sure, Gallus dissociated himself from accusing Zbigniew of conspiracy to murder Bolesław, blaming not so much the duke’s brother as his co unsellors. There is no do ubt, ho wever, t hat in t he chr onicler’s opinion, it was Zbigniew’s behaviour and his plans to regain the ducal power that drove Bolesław to crush him.

2

int r oduc t ion

The Chronicle do es no t r eveal w hat fate Zb igniew suff ered. Gallus clearly a voids dis closing w hat sort of p unishment was infl icted upon Zbigniew. N evertheless, e ven in o ur chr onicler’s acco unt, t he ac tions Bolesław took against h is brother – a lbeit to a l arge e xtent justified – were marked by sin and had to be expiated by undertaking public penance. Gallus do es no t s ay a nything a bout the cir cumstances w hich le d directly to Bolesław’s penance. He passes in silence over events that took place b etween Zb igniew’s p unishment a nd B olesław’s p enance. F rom remarks on the plot prepared by Zbigniew he changes the subject to more general deliberations on Bolesław’s sin – without, however, describing its character – justifying it on the grounds of the young age and impetuosity of the d uke, a nd underlinin g his sincer e r egret. N ext, he des cribes in detail the course of the duke’s penance, emphasizing especially Bolesław’s zeal and humility in performing penitential practices. The description of Bolesław’s penance ends with the account of his penitential pilgrimage to Hungary and the ceremony of reconciliation at the tomb of St Adalbert in Gniezno after which Bolesław, by then reconciled with God, appears during the Easter celebrations in full monarchic majesty, and presents the assembled with precious gifts.1 There is no reason to doubt the credibility of Gallus’ account, at least as far as the g eneral course of e vents is co ncerned. His chronicle was composed almost immediately after the events recorded in it. The dedicatory letter of Book One, where the author mentions the names of all the P olish bishops—the ar chbishop of Gn iezno, Mar tin, a nd bi shops Simon of Pło ck, Paul of Poznań, Maurus of Krakow, and Żyrosław of Wrocław—allows us t o da te the time o f co mposition p recisely a t the years 1112–1118; the earlier date is the year when Żyrosław assumed the episcopate, and the later is the year of Maurus’ death.2 To be sure, we are unable to say much about the chronicle’s anonymous author, commonly

1 Galli Anonymi Cronicae et gesta ducum sive principum Polonorum III.25, ed. Karol Maleczyński, MPH n. s. 2 (Krakow, 1952), pp. 154–160. For the English translation, see: Gesta principum Polonorum. The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles III.25, trans. Paul W. Knoll and Frank S chaer, C entral European Medieval Texts 3, s eries e d. Frank S chaer, general eds. János M. Bak, U rszula Borkowska, Giles Constable, Gábor Klaniczay (Budapest-New York, 2003), pp. 271–281 (hereafter cited as: The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles). 2 Galli Anonymi Cronicae I . E p., p . 1 ; The Deeds of the Pr inces of the Poles, p. 3. See: Marian Plezia, Kronika Galla na tle historiografii XII w., RPAU, wydz. hist.-filozof., series II, vol. 46 (Krakow, 1947), p. 136.

intr oduction

3

referred to as Gallus, consistently with a tradition entrenched in the 16th century.3 We may only say with absolute certainty that he was not from Poland, a nd that, in al l li kelihood, he was a mo nk.4 The f requent a nd varied attempts to identify him, and to specify the milieu in w hich he may have originated have, thus far, not led to certain findings, and are all merely more or less strongly grounded hypotheses. The strongest argument appears to tie Gall us with Provence, especially the mo nastery of Saint-Gilles.5 We als o have s ome a rguments in fa vour o f his p ossible connections with Flanders6 or with Venice.7 In view of the resemblance between the rh ytmical prose used in his c hronicle and the co ntemporary wri ting sty le us ed in cen tral F rance, in the r egion o f Tour a nd Orléans, it is als o not impossible that he was e ducated in the s chools there.8 M oreover, his a wareness o f H ungarian cir cumstances, a nd his presumable knowledge of Hungarian sources, seem to indicate that he

3 He was first identified by this na me by the 16th-cen tury Polish historian Martin Kromer, w ho placed on on e of t he m anuscripst o f the c hronicle the f ollowing sho rt annotation: Gallus hanc historiam scripsit, monachus ut opinior aliquis, ut ex proemiis coniicere licet, qui B oleslai tertii tempore vixit. See: Galli Anonymi Cronicae, p . 1 ; The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles, p. xxv; see also: Pierre David, Les sources de l’histoire de Pologne à l’époque des Piasts 963–1386 (Paris, 1934), p. 49; Plezia, Kronika Galla na tle historiografii XII w., p. 13. 4 In his dedication letter, addressed to the Polish clergy, at the start of Book Three, the chronicler describes himself as “an exile and a sojourner among you” (exul apud vos et peregrinus), and expresses the hope that, after completion of his work, he will be able to return “to the p lace o f m y profession” ( ad locum me e p rofessionis); Galli A nonymi Cronicae III. Ep., p. 120; The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles, p. 211. 5 Ple zia, Kronika G alla na t le h istoriografii XII w ., p . 149 ff; David, Les so urces de l’histoire de Pologne, p. 45 ff. 6 Karol Maleczyński, “Wstęp”, in Galli Anonymi Cronicae, p. lxxxix ff; see also Johannes Fried, “Gnesen – Aachen – Rom. Otto III. und der Kult des hl. Adalbert. Beobachtungen zum älteren Adalbertsleben,” in Polen und Deutschland. Die Ber liner Tagung über den ‘Akt von Gnesen’, ed. Michael Borgolte (Berlin, 2002), pp. 267–269. 7 Based o n stylistic s imilarities a nd on the a pproach t o str ucturing the na rration, there have been attempts to attribute to Gallus, in addition to the Chronicle, authorship of t he an onymous translatio o f Sa int N icholas, co mpiled a t the mo nastery o f Sa int Nicholas on the Lido, probably at the turn of the first and the second decades of the 12th century: Monachi anonymi Littorensis Historia de translatione sanctorum Magni Nicolai, terra marique miraculis gloriosi, eiusdem avunculi alterius Nicolai, Theodorique martyris pretiosi, de civitate Mirea in monasterium S. Nicolai de littore Venetiarum, in Recueil des historiens des croisades. Historiens occidentaux, 5 (Paris, 1895), pp. 253–292. See: Danuta Borawska, “Gallus Anonim czy Italus Anonim,” Przegląd Historyczny 56 (1965), 111–119; Tomasz Jasiński, “Czy Gall Anonim to Monachus Littorensis?” Kwartalnik Historyczny 112 (2005), 69–89. 8 Marian Plezia, “Nowe studia nad Gallem Anonimem,” in Mente et litteris. O kulturze i społeczeństwie wieków średnich, ed. Helena Chłopocka (Poznań, 1984), pp. 111–120.

4

int r oduc t ion

spent some time in Hungary, probably at the Benedictine monastery in Somogyvár, a daughter house of Saint-Gilles.9 Likewise, the time and circumstances of Gallus’ arrival in Poland are only a matter of c onjecture. Thus, we do no t k now whether he was already in P oland at the time of Zbigniew’s return to the country, and was therefore in a p osition to observe the e vents comprising the fi nal phase of the conflict between the Piast dukes. Quite possibly, he arrived in Poland only after Bolesław’s final quashing of his older brother; this is because we have some grounds to think tha t Gallus arrived in P oland together with Bolesław Wrymouth’s entourage during that duke’s return from his penitential pilgrimage to Hungary—in the course of which, let us recall, the Polish ruler visited (among other places) the Somogyvár abbey, w hich has b een link ed t o Gall us.10 H owever, t his i n no s ense affects o ur ass essment of o ur a nonymous c hronicler’s r eliability co ncerning the cir cumstances of 1111. As we can tell from the de dication letter preceding Book Three of the chronicle, Gallus enjoyed close relations with the ducal chaplains, who probably comprised the p ersonnel of Bolesław’s chancery.11 Quite apart from the question of his presence or o therwise in P oland as ea rly as 1111, he co uld ha ve ob tained the information a bout the e vents o f tha t y ear a t the d ucal co urt dir ectly from participants and eyewitnesses. In this sense—let us reiterate—we may assume, with a hig h degree of probability, that in i ts general contours his narration reflects the actual course of the dramatic events leading to Zbigniew’s return to Poland, Zbigniew’s downfall, and Bolesław’s penance. Gallus’ story, however, raises serious reservations in matters of detail. This is because we must bear in mind that the tale of Zbigniew’s tragic fate was placed in a framework of a substantial narration, written above all (as the author himself explicitly states) “in honour of one of the most glorious and v ictorious of dukes, by name B olesław”.12 The chronicle’s

9 Ple zia, Kronika G alla na t le h istoriografii XII w ., p . 157 ff; see al so: Da niel Ba gi, Gallus Anonymus és Magyarország. A Geszta magyar adatai, forrásai, mintái, valamint a szerzö t örténetszemlélete a la tin K elet-Közép-Európa 12. s zázad eleji la tin n yelvü törtenetírásának tükrében (Budapest, 2005). 10 D avid, Les sources de l’histoire de Pologne, p. 47; Plezia, Kronika Galla na tle historiografii XII w., p. 180. 11 Galli Anonymi Cronicae III. Ep., p. 120; The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles, p. 211. 12 “Opere pretium duximus quasdam res gesta Polonicorum principum gratia cuiusdam gloriosissimi ducis ac victoriosissimi nomine Bolezlai stilo puerili pocius exarare”, Galli Anonymi Cronicae I. Prohemium, p. 6; The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles, p. 11.

intr oduction

5

entire arrangement, as well as its mode of presentation and selection of the described events, was subordinated to this basic aim: demonstrating Bolesław’s greatness and glory. In Book One, which extendings to the time of Bolesław’s birth, Gallus described the glorious deeds of his hero’s ancestors, thereby portraying him as successor to a dynasty that had reigned over Poland since time immemorial. In his p resentation, Poland’s history became inextricably linked to the histories of the members of the Piast dynasty, and the Piasts were portrayed as the sole rightful rulers—the true “natural lords” summoned b y G od to t he ex ercise o f mo narchical go vernance o ver Poland. In the su bsequent tw o B ooks—encompassing c hronologically the final years of rule by Bolesław and Zbigniew’s father, duke Władysław Herman (1086–1102), then the p eriod of joint governance by his s ons (1102–1107), and fi nally the fi rst years of B olesław’s independent rule (1107–1113)—the chronicler focused his principal attention on presenting the magnificent deeds of his hero, who, since his ea rliest years, had successfully confronted numerous enemies a nd scored major victories against them. Yet, an extremely important place in his tale is occupied by the question of the relationship between Bolesław and Zbigniew. As he describes the stormy and dramatic conflicts between the two Piast dukes, Gallus spares no effort to convince the reader of Bolesław’s superiority over his brother. He expressly points out that Bolesław’s capacity for fulfilling the obligations of a ruler, and for securing prosperity and security for the country, is far superior to Zbigniew’s. Thus, according to Gallus’ vision, the fullness of power over Poland ought to accrue to Bolesław— as Władysława Herman’s sole rightful successor, and as heir to the great Piast rulers described in Book One, above all his namesakes Bolesław I the Brave (992–1025) a nd Bolesław II the B old (1058–1079)—and not to Zbigniew. It is diffi cult to avoid the im pression tha t Gallus’ st ory was m uch affected by the current needs of the ducal court, as that court was confronting a dynastic conflict which threatened the monarchy’s stability, a nd as i t s ought t o justify B olesław Wrymouth’s ac tions a gainst Zbigniew. We should not treat the chronicler’s remarks, made in the dedications let ters t o B ooks One a nd Two, a bout t he im portant r ole supposedly played in the c hronicle’s creation by Bolesław’s chancellor, Michael, as mer ely a topos, or an effort by the c hronicler to fl atter, and obtain favour from, an important dignitary. We would think instead that chancellor Michael—whom Gallus calls “his helper” and a “maker

6

int r oduc t ion

of the task embarked upon”13—not only helped the chronicler (unfamiliar with Poland) in the ga thering of information, indispensible for his work, about the past and the present deeds of the Polish rulers, but that in addition he could have significantly affected the shape of the resulting chronicle.14 We ma y assume, w ith a hig h de gree o f assuranc e, t hat chancellor Michael’s influence was especially marked in those fragments of the chronicle where Gallus broached the delicate, in his time still controversial, q uestion of B olesław’s c onflict wi th Zbigniew. It is diffic ult not t o obs erve tha t Gall us’ na rration a bout the r eturn o f the d uke’s brother to Poland is full of elliptical and oblique statements, and biased opinions. In light of the extrao rdinary importance, and contemporary currency, of the narrated circumstances, even more than any other part of the Chronicle, the narration was subordinated to the need of presenting the duke in the most favourable light and accounting for his decision to crush his older brother.15 In this sense, Gallus’ vision of events accompanying the disp ute b etween the P iast dukes can b e interpreted as a n attempt at appropriating the r emembrance of B olesław’s conflict with Zbigniew by the duke’s supporters as well as promulgating and preserving a “correct” version of these events postulated by the princely court.16 Bolesław’s public penance following his brother’s defeat clearly indicates that Zbigniew’s torture did not meet with universal support and understanding, and seriously undermined the d uke’s position and his r uling authority. It is plausible to assume that Gallus’ account, seeking to justify Bolesław’s actions against his brother and shifting the responsibility for Zbigniew’s tra gedy f rom the p erpetrator o nto the vic tim, r eflects the “official” version of events disseminated by the duke’s court in order to relieve the p olitical t ensions ca used b y Zb igniew’s t orture a nd calm down the situation in the country.17 This p eculiar in volvement of Gallus’ text in the propaganda of the princely co urt calls f or a mo re th orough reading o f his acco unt a nd greater caution in drawing conclusions as to the course of events which led to the t orture of Zbigniew and compelled Bolesław to perform the 13 “Cooperatorii s uo v enerabili c ancelario M ichaeli, c epitque l aboris o pfici”, Galli Anonymi Cronicae I . Ep., p. 1; The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles, p. 3. See also: Galli Anonymi Cronicae II. Ep., p. 60; The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles, p. 111. 14 Ple zia, Kronika Galla na tle historiografii XII w., pp. 182–195. 15 Jan Adamus, O monarchii Gallowej (Warsaw, 1952), p. 45 ff. 16 See: J ames F entress, Chris Wickham, Social Memory (O xford, 1992), p . 144 ff; Patrick Geary, Phantoms of Remembrance. Memory and Oblivion at the End of the First Millenium (Princeton, 1996), p. 134 ff. 17 A damus, O monarchii Gallowej, p. 49 ff.

intr oduction

7

ceremony of public penance. At the same time, however, Gallus’ explicit support for Bolesław in the conflict with Zbigniew gives an opportunity to go beyond the purely informative la yer o f his narrative and try to investigate in mo re det ail his met hods o f co nstructing the v ersion o f events corresponding t o his ne eds.18 Indeed, it s eems t hat i n order t o understand the political reality of the earlier Middle Ages it is necessary to examine both the methods of political action used in political practice and the ways of depicting them in narrative sources.19 The reality of Gallus’ account consisted of many diverse and overlapping elements.20 Elaborating his story, the chronicler used various representations rooted in different narrative traditions, referred to a variety of images and associations, and employed complex forms of literary persuasion, creating with their help a multidimensional picture which was able t o f ully exp ress a nd j ustify the visio n o f the co nflict between Bolesław and Zbigniew put forward by the supporters of Bolesław, thus confirming the rightness and legitimacy of his actions against his older brother. An important place in this rich set of means used to construct an image of the past corresponding with the needs of the princely court and to preserve the correct memory of the course of the conflict between the Piast dukes fell to actions of ritual character or, rather, to descriptions of ritual gestures and attitudes. In the account dedicated to the circumstances of the clash between Bolesław and Zbigniew, the colourful description of the duke’s penance comes to the fore.21 Nevertheless, clear references to different ritualised attitudes and gestures can also be discerned i n o ther f ragments o f G allus’ s tory o f t he c onflict between Bolesław a nd Zb igniew. I ndeed, all usions t o va rious f orms o f ri tual See: Rosamond McKitterick, History and Its Audiences (Cambridge, 2000), p. 24 ff; Rosamond M cKitterick, History a nd M emory i n t he C arolingian World (C ambridge, 2004), p. 265 ff; Brian Stock, The Implication of Literacy. Written Language and Models of Interpretation in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries (Princeton, 1983), p. 455 ff; Timothy Reuter, “ Pre-Gregorian Mentalities,” Journal of E cclesiastical History 45 (1994), 465–474. 19 See: Rosamond McKitterick, “Constructing the Past in the E arly Middle Ages: the Case of the Royal Frankish Annals,” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 7, series 6 (1997), 101–129; McKitterick, History and Memory, p. 120 ff. 20 See for example: Plezia, Kronika Galla na tle historiografii XII w ., p. 23 ff; No rbert Kersken, Geschichtsschreibung i m E uropa der ‘nationes’. N ationalgeschichtliche Gesamtdarstellungen im Mittelalter (Cologne, 1995), p. 491 ff; Thomas Bisson, “On ‘not eating P olish b read i n v ain’. R esonance a nd C onjuncture i n t he D eeds o f t he P olish Princes,” Viator 29 (1998), 279–288. 21 See: A damus, O m onarchii Ga llowej, p . 4 9 ff; K arol M aleczyński, Bolesław III Krzywousty (Wrocław, 1975), p. 76 ff; Stanisław Bieniek, “Z dziejów pokuty publicznej w Polsce wczesnofeudalnej,” Czasopismo Prawno-Historyczne 18 (1966), 9 ff. 18

8

int r oduc t ion

behaviours are often found in many parts of the chronicle22 and are not limited to des criptions o f div erse cer emonies a nd celeb rations, o nly. After all, there are not so many descriptions of this kind in the chronicle. The relation between the chronicler’s text and the ritual consists in something else and has a much more complex character. It seems that in Gallus’ writing, the ritual functions as a fundamental tool for structuring the events described and constructing the image of reality corresponding with his needs. In the early and high Middle Ages, the ritual constituted one of the most important planes of political activity, of expressing political aspirations a nd in tentions a nd ma nifesting o ne’s p osition in the syst em o f power. Rulership was largely manifested in actions of ritual character. It was executed through ritual and in ritual it found its best representation, a justification of its imperious claims and an effective tool for the accomplishment of political goals.23 No wonder, therefore, that the recollections of rulership, of its actions and endeavours often took on the form of recollections of rituals, of ritual gestures and words, which could best preserve, convey and commemorate the ruler and his deeds.24 As a result, al so in th e fi eld o f n arrative wri ting, ri tual beca me o ne of th e 22 See: Jacek Banaszkiewicz, “O nowym łacińsko-anglojęzycznym wydaniu Galla i o samej j ego k ronice,” Roczniki H istoryczne 70 (2004), 209 ff; J acek B anaszkiewicz, “Młodzieńcze Gesta Bolesława Krzywoustego czyli jak zostaje się prawdziwym rycerzem i władcą,” in Theatrum Ceremoniale n a dworze królów i ks iążąt polskich, e ds. Mariusz Markiewicz, Ryszard Skowron (Krakow, 1999), pp. 11–29. 23 See for example: Jean-Claude Schmitt, La raison des gestes dans l’Occident médiéval (Paris, 1990); Janet L. Nelson, “The Lord’s Anointed and the people’s choice: Carolingian royal rituals,” in Rituals of Royalty. Power and Ceremonial in Traditional S ocietes, e ds. David C annadine, Stuart Price (Oxford, 1988), pp. 137–180; G eoffrey Koziol, Begging Pardon and Favor. Ritual and Political Order in Early Medieval France (Ithaca – London, 1992); K arl J . L eyser, “Ritual, Z eremonie und G estik: das o ttonische Reic h,” Frühmittelalterliche Studien 27 (1993), 1–26; Gerd Althoff, “Zur Bedeutung symbolischer Kommunikation f ür das Verständnis des Mi ttelalters,” Frühmittelalterliche S tudien 31 (1997), 370–389; Gerd Althoff, “Die Kultur der Zeichen und Symbole,”Frühmittelalterliche Studien 36 (2002), 1–17; Gerd Althoff, Die Macht der Rituale. Symbolik und Herrschaft im Mittelalter (Darmstadt, 2003); Hagen Keller, “Die Investitur. Ein Beitrag zum Problem der ‘Staatssymbolik’ im Hochmittelalter,” Frühmittelalterliche Studien 27 (1993), 51–86; Hagen K eller, “Ritual, S ymbolik u nd Visualisierung i n d er K ultur d es o ttonischen Reiches,” Frühmittelalterliche Studien 36 (2001), 23–59. 24 See: Johannes Fried, “Mündlichkeit, Erinnerung und Herrschaft. Zugleich zum Modus ‘De Heinrico’,” in Political Thought and the Realities of Power in the Middle Ages. Politisches Denken und die Wirklichkeit der Macht im Mittelalter, eds. Joseph Canning, Otto G. Oexle (Göttingen, 1998), pp. 9–32. See also: Johannes Fried,“Die Königserhebung Heinrichs I.: Erinnerung, Mündlichkeit und Traditionsbildung im 10. Jahrhundert,” in Mittelalterforschung nach der Wende 1989, ed. Michael Borgolte, (Historische Zeitschrift, Beihefte, n. s.) 20 (München, 1995), pp. 267–319.

intr oduction

9

most important elements o f des cription, a nd co nsequently, o f shaping political reality.25 The ambiguity of the ritual26 often left room for discussion and argument between its participants and witnesses as to its actual meaning. Depending on the situation, many ritual gestures and attitudes could carry diff erent, sometimes contradictory messages.27 For this reason, references t o ri tual ac ts in na rrative t exts o nly ra rely ha ve a mer ely descriptive, let us call it neutral, character. More often than not they were used to preserve the correct – from the point of view of the author – recollection of the events described.28 It seems that a simila r use of a ri tual can be found in the acco unt of Gallus, where it serves the purpose of reconstructing the recollection of the conflict between B olesław Wrymouth and Zbigniew, of effacing the memory of these events critical of the duke, and of preserving, precisely by reference to the associations with a variety of ritual activities, the appropriate – from the point of view of the princely court – image of the monarch crushing his brother. The present work is an attempt at a more detailed investigation of Gallus’ methods of constructing his account of the history of the conflict between the P iast dukes and an analysis of the mea nings hidden behind the images of ritualised attitudes and behaviours he evokes. We think that such interpretation of Gallus’ text can significantly contribute to the b etter understanding of its content, and thereby to enable an accurate assessment of the events, described in the Chronicle, surrounding the conflict between Bolesław Wrymouth and his older brother. It a ppears, ho wever, tha t the val ue o f Gall us’ t ale a bout Zb igniew’s tragic fate is not limited to the fact that that tale gives us a glimpse of a single ep isode o f P olish me dieval histo ry. The im portance o f G allus’ account far transcends issues related solely to the conflict between the Piast dukes which it describes. When placed in the broader comparative context of similar narrative accounts, it seems to comprise a good point of departure for further reflection about the role played by activities of a ritual c haracter in the dis course proper t o the p olitical c ulture of the earlier and t he hig h Middle Ages. Referring, as a n example, to Ga llus’ 25 See: Philippe Buc, The Dangers of Ritual. Between Early Medieval Texts and Social Scientific Theory (Princeton, 2001). 26 See: Victor Turner, The Forest of Symbols. Aspects of Ndendu Ritual (Ithaca – London, 1967), p. 50 ff. 27 K oziol, Begging Pardon, p. 289 ff. 28 See for example: Philippe Buc, “Ritual and interpretation: the early medieval case,” Early Medieval Europe 9 (2000), 183–210; David A. Warner, “Ritual and Memory in the Ottonian Reich: The Ceremony of Adventus,” Speculum 76 (2001), 255–283.

10

intr oduction

tale about the conflict between the Piast dukes, we would, therefore, like in the present work to look more closely at the modes of using ritual as an effective t ool o f p olitical ac tion in the Middle Ages—both in the practice of political undertakings, and on the level of narrative information about that practice—and then to reflect about the nature of the relationship between the reality of the written account and the reality of the practical activities described by that account. On the one hand, Gallus’ story demonstrates the significance of ritual as a tool for the ordering, and the structuration, of the narrations developed by the me dieval authors, and yet, at the same time, it proves how strongly the des criptions of a variety of ritualised behaviours and postures—subjected to a range of interpretive activities—were subordinated to the requirements impinging upon the authors of the narrations, and burdened with the task of creating, by means of such descriptions, of a picture of the course of events which was correct from the authors’ perspective. Thereby, Gallus’ story compels us toward caution in formulating, on the basis of such descriptions, far-reaching conclusions about the functions and the roles of ritual in the realm of practical politics; and it suggests tha t, in cas e o f suc h d escriptions, w e a re dealin g in the fi rst order with the reality of the text—a reality that tells us principally about the compositional strategies of medieval authors, but not much, if anything, about actual ritual practice.29 Yet, on the other hand, a close reading of Gallus’ text demonstrates how strongly the narrative constructions elaborated during the Middle Ages were situated within the realities described by them, and how, in their description of those realities, they referred to conceptions, norms, and rules shared and used not only by the authors themselves, but also by the participants in the narrated events. Needless to say, this is true of, among others, ritual activities. This is because, quite independent of the intentions on the part of the authors who invoked ritual activities, and of th e g oals s uch activities ser ved in th e a uthors’ p resentations, th e

29 See: Buc, The Dangers of Ritual; Philippe Buc,“Political Rituals and Political Imagination in the Medieval West from the Fourth Century to the Eleventh,” in The Medieval World, eds. Peter Linehan, Janet L. Nelson (London – N ew York, 2001), pp. 189–213; Philippe Buc, “Rituel politique et imag inaire politique au haut Moyen Age,” Revue Historique 620 (2001), 843–883; Philippe Buc, “Warum weniger die Handelnden selbst als eher die Chronisten das p olitische Ritual erzeugten – und wa rum es niema ndem auf die wahr e Geschichte ankam,” in Die Macht des Königs. Herrschaft in Europa vom Frühmittelalter bis in die Neuzeit, ed. Bernhard Jussen (Munich, 2005), pp. 27–37.

intr oduction 11 authorial invocations contained palpable references to various modes of using ritual, o f ma nipulating its s ense, a nd o f i ts su bjection t o hig hly diverse p rotocols o f in terpretation—including in the a rea o f p olitical undertakings—thereby allowing us insight not only into the intentions of the authors who invoked them, but also into the principles specifying their role in p ractical political life.30 Thus, as we look closely at Gallus’ tale a bout Zb igniew’s tra gic fa te, w e will a ttempt t o demo nstrate the ways in which the reality of the narrative account and the reality of practical undertakings—ritual-in-text and ritual-in-performance—overlaid and in terlaced one a nother, a nd ex ercised a m utual im pact, ther eby jointly creating a framework within which, in the earlier and high Middle Ages, political activity took place. This book may therefore, to a degree, be viewed as a voice in the discussion of recent years about the meaning and role of ritual in me dieval p olitical c ulture;31 and as a n attempt at reconciling two apparently opposed—but in fact, it seems, complementary32—approaches to the problem of ritual and the modes of inquiry into texts that described it. Thus, in the successive chapters that follow—chapters whose sequence and structure are driven by Gallus’ narration—we will look more closely at the individual elements of the tale Gallus constructs about the history of the conflict between the Piast dukes; and, with reference to comparative material, we will a ttempt to place that tale in the b roader context of the political culture of the earlier and high Middle Ages. In the fi rst chapter, we will focus on Zbigniew’s arrival in Poland. We will demonstrate the

30 See: Gerd Althoff, Spielregeln der Politik im Mittelalter. Kommunikation in Frieden und Fehde (Darmstadt, 1997); Althoff, “Zur Bedeutung symbolischer Kommunikation,” pp. 370–389; Althoff, “Die Kultur der Zeichen und Symbole,” pp. 1–17; Althoff, Die Macht der Rituale; Koziol, Begging Pardon; Geoffrey Koziol, “England, France, and the Problem of Sacrality in Twelfth-Century Ritual,” in Cultures of Power. Lordship, Status and Process in Twelfth-Century Europe, e d. Tho mas B isson ( Philadelphia, 1 995), p p. 1 24–148; Geoffrey Koziol, “The dangers of polemic. Is ritual still an interesting topic of historical study?” Early Medieval Europe 11 (2002), 367–388. 31 This discussion is most fully personified by the names of the authors cited in the two foonotes above: Philippe Buc on one side, Geoffrey Koziol and Gerd Althoff o n the other. 32 S ee: Gerd Althoff, “Fußfälle: Re alität und Fi ktionalität einer ri tuellen Kommunikationsform,” in Eine Epoche im Umbruch. Volkssprachliche Literalität 1200– 1300, e ds. Christ a B ertelsmeier-Kierst, Christ opher Young (Tübingen, 2003), p p. 111– 122; Gerd Althoff, “Humiliatio – Exal tatio. Theorie und P raxis eines herr scherlichen Handlungsmusters,” in Text u nd K ontext. F allstudien u nd t heoretische Be gründungen einer k ulturwissenschaftlich a ngeleiteten M ediävistik, e d. J an-Dirk M üller (M unich, 2007), pp. 39–51.

12

intr oduction

ways in w hich Gallus—as, in his des cription of Zbigniew’s return f rom exile, he incorporated the gestures and behaviours comprising the ritual of adventus regis—used the associations related to that ritual and manipulated their sense, in order to re-present Zbigniew’s ceremonial entrance as an act of aggression against Bolesław, thereby justifying the drastic st eps Bolesław t ook a gainst his o lder b rother sho rtly th ereafter. I n the next chapter, we will concentrate on the expectations formulated by the chronicler toward Zbigniew’s behaviour after Zbigniew’s return to Poland; and reflect upon the role played in the chronicler’s description of the conflict between Bolesław and Zbigniew by the ritual of deditio—a ritual through which, co nsistently wi th t he chr onicler’s co nvictions, a r econciliation between the two conflicted brothers ought to have achieved its ceremonial closure. The third chapter will concern Bolesław’s penance. There, we will demonstrate how the richness and complexity of meanings attributed to gestures of p enance in t he Midd le Ages enabled Ga llus to eff ace in his story the co nnection between the p enance carried out by the d uke, and the sin he had co mmitted against Zbigniew—and how that richness and complexity ena bled t he t ransformation o f p enance into a m ultilevelled spactacle serving to demonstrate Bolesław’s glory, and, at the same time, to restore the social order which has been disrupted by the bloody disposal of the problem of Zbigniew. In the final chapter, we will examine Bolesław’s sin, a nd the crime w hich he had co mmitted a gainst Zb igniew. We will attempt to specify more closely the nature of the duke’s transgression, and reflect upon the chronicler’s approaches to engage in a polemic against the accusations Zbigniew’s supporters had lodged against Bolesław. As we thereby uncover, step b y step, the ri tual c urtain hiding Gallus’ text, we hope to discern a bit more closely the rules determining the functioning of the basic me chanisms o f p olitical ac tivity, t o des cribe the t ools o f political action and to g rasp the essential ideological framework which provided the space for political disputes in t he earlier and high Middle Ages.33

33 The subject of the present work has been dealt with in brief in two earlier publications: Zb igniew D alewski, “Polityka, r ytuał i t ekst,” in Ź ródło. T eksty o k ulturze średniowiecza ofiarowane Bronisławowi Geremkowi, ed. Wojciech Brojer (Warsaw, 2003), pp. 11–35; Zbigniew Dalewski, “Ritual im Text. Gallus Anonymus und die dynastischen Konflikte im P olen des f rüheren Mi ttelalters,” Frühmittelalterliche S tudien 38 (2004), 135–151.

CHAPTER ONE

ADVENT We should start our investigations with recalling Gallus’ remarks about the circumstances of Zbigniew’s return from exile. He did not dedicate much space to Zbigniew’s arrival, limiting its description to a single sentence only. This short account, however, plays a very important role in the text of our chronicler. The ceremonial entry of Zbigniew initiated the w hole s equence o f e vents leadin g t o the b loody c lash b etween Bolesław and his older brother. The ostentation manifested by Zbigniew upon his r eturn f rom exile – let us r ecall: he a rrived accompanied by musicians, playing drums and cythers, with a sword carried before him – was supposed to demonstrate his intentions to regain the ducal power, and made Bolesław believe in rumours about a plot prepared by Zbigniew and take decision to step up against him. 1 Gallus clearly puts a str ong emphasis on the meaning of the events accompanying Zbigniew’s arrival. Further on he writes it straight out that if Zbigniew had come in humility, as a man asking for mercy and not “like a lord”, he would have avoided the misf ortune t hat befell him. 2 The role that the s cene of Zbigniew’s 1 Galli Anonymi Cronicae et gesta ducum sive principum Polonorum III.25, ed. Karol Maleczyński, MPH n. s. 2 (Krakow, 1952), p. 155: “At Zbigneus stultorum consiliis acquiescens p romisse sub ieccionis et h umilitatis minime r ecordatus, ad B olezlauum no n humiliter sed arroganter est ingressus, nec sicut homo longo tam exilio castigatus, tantisque laboribus et mis eriis fatigatus, ymmo sic ut dominus cum ense precedente, cum simphonia musicorum tympanis et c ytharis modulantium precinente, non se serviturum s ed r egnaturum designa bat, no n s e sub f ratre mili taturum, s ed su per f ratrem imperaturum pretendebat”. For the English translation see: Gesta principum Polonorum. The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles III.25, trans. Paul Knoll and Frank Schaer, Central European Medieval Texts 3, series ed. Frank Schaer, general eds. János M. Bak, Urszula Borkowska, Giles Constable, Gábor Klaniczay (Budapest-New York, 2003), pp. 271–273 (hereafter cited as: The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles): “Yet Zbigniew gave in to the advice o f f ools. H e r ecalled not a t a ll his p romises o f sub mission a nd h umility; his approach to Bolesław was not humble but arrogant. He behaved not like a man whom long exile had punished and toils and hardship had worn out, but indeed like a lord with a sword carried before him, and a band of musicians playing drums and cythers ahead. He indicated that he would not be coming to serve but to rule, he made as if he would not be a knight at his brother’s command but his brother’s lord and master.” 2 Galli Anonymi Cronicae, III, 25, p. 156: “Si enim Zb igneus humiliter et s apienter adveniret, sicut homo misericordiam pertiturus, non sicut dominus quasi vanitatis fascibus regnaturus, nec ipsemet in dampnum irreparabile corruisset, nec alios in crimen

14

ch apter o ne

entry p lays in Gall us’ t ext gi ves incentive t o investigate this f ragment more closely and to reflect on the meanings associated with the ceremony it describes. Zbigniew’s advent, as presented by Gallus, seems to belong to the tradition of ritual monarchic advents. It is in this perspective that we should understand Gall us’ w ords a bout Zb igniew w ho ca me sicut do minus, showing by the scale of festivities accompanying his entry that he arrived not to serve but to rule. Gallus leaves no doubt about it: Zbigniew returned home not as an exile but as a ruler with all the splendour due to a monarch. Adventus r egis, the s olemn en try o f the r uler, was o ne o f the mo st important f orms o f exp osing the ma jesty o f me dieval mo narchs. Elaborate ritual acts constituting the ceremony of the ruler’s arrival and reception comprised the basic notions of the essence of royal power and the character of relations between the r uler and the receiving community. The ceremony of royal entry reflected the right of the ruler to subjugate the co mmunity which had greeted him wi th solemnity due to a monarch thus manifesting its readiness to submit to his p ower.3 At the same tim e, th e co mplex ri tual g estures a ccompanying th e m onarchic advent highlighted the sacred foundations of the royal power. Clear references to representations and ideas of Christ’s entry into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday and His S econd Advent placed the a rriving r uler in the

lamentabile posuisset”. The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles III.25, pp. 273–275: “For if Zbigniew came humbly and prudently, like a ma n intending to ask f or mercy and not like a lo rd w ho wants to r ule with the r od of his va nity, he w ould not have inc urred irreparable damage on himself and drawn others into a lamentable crime.” 3 See: Ernst Kantorowicz, “The King’s Advent and the Enigmatic Panels in the Doors of Santa Sabina,” The Art Bulletin 26 (1944), 207–231; Andreas Alföldi, Die monarchische Repräsentation im römischen Kaiserreiche (Darmstadt, 1970), p. 88ff; Sabine MacCormack, Art and Ceremony in Late Antiquity (Berkeley, 1982), p. 17 ff; Winfried Dotzauer, “Die Ankunft des Herrschers. Der fürstliche Einzug in die Stadt (bis zum Ende des alten Reichs),” Archiv für Kulturgeschichte 55 (1973), 245–288; Peter Willmes, Der Herrscher‘Adventus’ im Kloster des F rühmittelalters (Munich, 1976); Anna Maria Drabek, Reisen und Reisezeremoniell der römisch-deutschen Herrscher im Spätmittelalter (Vienna, 1964); Bernard Guenée, Françoise Lehoux, Les entrées royales françaises de 1328 à 1515 (Paris, 1968); Lawrence M. Bryant, The K ing a nd t he C ity i n t he P arisian E ntry Cer emony (Geneva, 1986); Lawrence M. Bryant, “La cérémonie de l’entrée à Paris au Moyen Age,” Annales ESC 41 (1986), 513–542; Peter Arnade, Realms of Ritual. Bugundian Ceremony and C ivic L ife i n La te M edieval G hent (Ithaca-London, 1996), p p. 127–158; Gordon Kipling, Enter t he K ing: Theatre, L iturgy, a nd Ritual in t he Medieval C ivic T riumph (Oxford, 1998); see also: Clifford Geertz, “Centers, Kings, and Charisma. Reflections on the Symbolic of Power,” in Local Knowledge. Further Essays in Interpretative Anthropology (New York, 1983), pp. 121–146.

ad vent 15 supernatural o rder o f p ower a nd indica ted the sp ecial b onds linkin g him with the sacrum.4 For the constantly travelling early medieval rulers the rituals of ceremonial advent played the r ole of one of the most im portant instruments of creating an appropriate image of power and shaping the political relations in the st ate. I n the syst em o f ex ecuting p ower o f the ea rly me dieval “itinerant” kingdoms the ceremonies of solemn advent cyclically repeated in the successive places visited by the ruler – palaces, towns or monasteries – served as confirmation of his superior rights and maintained the stability and cohesion of the state subjected to his p ower. They enabled the mo narch who travelled around his co untry to appear in the r ole of the r uler with all the public ceremonial necessary to exercise power, and allowed the community receiving him to demonstrate its recognition of his supremacy – the condition ultimately enabling the ruler to execute his rights.5 There is no do ubt that also in earlier-medieval Poland the ric h and manifold me anings o f t he r oyal adv ent ceremonies w ere f ully under stood and given an important place among actions used to construct the monarchic authority of the P iast dukes. In this context it is esp ecially worth quoting the pass age dedicated to events taking place in 1177 in Krakow from the Chronicle of Master Vincent Kadłubek written at the turn of the 12th and 13th centuries. At th at tim e, th e K rakow m agnates d ecided t o ri se up a gainst t he then-senior of the dynasty, Mieszko the Old, and give the throne to his younger brother, Casimir the Just. In Kadłubek’s account, the description of Casimir’s seizure of Krakow draws special attention. Presenting the victorious duke’s arrival in Krakow, the chronicler refers directly to images connected with the ceremony of royal entry. All citizens regardless 4 Erik Peterson, “Die Einholung des Kyrios,” Zeitschrift für systematische Theologie 7 (1930), 682–702; K antorowicz, “The K ing’s Advent,” p . 216 ff; S abine M acCormack, “Change a nd C ontinuity in L ate Antiquity: The C eremony o f Adventus,” Historia 21 (1972), 721–752; MacCormack, Art and Ceremony, p. 6 5 ff; Pierre Dufraigne, Adventus Augusti. Adventus Ch risti. Re cherche s ur l ’exploitation idé ologique e t l ittéraire d’un cérémonial dans l’antiquité tardive (Paris, 1994). 5 See: Timothy Reuter, “Regemque, quem in Francia pene perdidit, in patria magnifice recepit: Ottonian ruler representation in synchronic and diachronic comparison,” in Herrschaftsrepräsentation i m o ttonischen S achsen, Vorträge u nd F orschungen 4 6, e ds. Gerd Althoff, Ernst Schubert (Sigmaringen, 1998), pp. 363–380; see also: Hans Conrad Peyer, “Das R eisekönigtum d es M ittelalters,” Vierteljahrschrift f ür S ozial- u nd Wirtschaftsgeschichte 5 1 ( 1964), 1 –21; C arlrichard B rühl, Fodrum, Gi stum, S ervitium regis. Studien zu den wirtschaftlichen Grundlagen des Königtums im Frankenreich und in den f ränkischen N achfolgestaaten D eutschland, F rankreich u nd I talien vo m 6. b is zu r Mitte des 14. Jahrhunderts (Cologne-Graz, 1968).

16

ch apter o ne

of their age, status and dignity go out to greet the ruler who is approaching the town and they give him honours and open the gates of Krakow in front of him. It seems especially important, however, that in Kadłubek’s writing the m odel of adventus regis d etermines n ot o nly th e f ormal, external plane of Casimir’s advent. The entry of the Piast duke means not only the ar rival of a ne w ruler whom the co mmunity welcoming him with all due ceremonial recognizes as its superior. The text of the Chronicle suggests that the Krakow entry of Casimir could be associated also with an ideological programme determining the ess ence of the royal advents, placing them within the cosmic world order. In the welcoming shouts of the Krakow citizens Casimir is directly compared to Christ. Hence, Casimir’s entry is placed within a soteriological perspective, gaining a ne w, deeply symbolic sense. In Kadłubek’s rendering, it becomes a r eal Adventus Domini. The Piast duke embodies the Saviour who brings salvation to the community worshiping him.6 The fact that Kadłubek uses the model of adventus regis in his description of Casimir’s entry with such freedom clearly shows that the images associated with the c eremony of roy al a dvent were s trongly ro oted i n the political reality of earlier-medieval Poland. One ma y presume that they were not only an important element of the reality presented in the chronicler’s account but that they had a significant influence on the character o f th e ri tual a ppearances o f Polish rulers al so in th e a ctual functioning of the system of power of the Piast monarchy. The circumstances of the ceremonial entry of Bolesław Wrymouth into Magdeburg in 1135 s eem t o provide additional e vidence of the gr eat signifi cance attached t o the ri tual o f mo narchic ad vent in the 12t h-century P iast court. Upon his arrival in the town, Bolesław was greeted – on request of the emperor Lothar III – b y a solemn procession and ringing of bells. The account of the M agdeburg annalist who does not conceal his indignation at the fac t that Bolesław received the ho nours never given to any

6 Magistri Vincentii d icti K adłubek Ch ronica P olonorum IV.6, e d. M arian P lezia, MPH n. s. 11 (K rakow, 1994), p . 145: “Occurrunt illi alacri tate ine dicibili ex ercitus numerosi, cateruatim undique turbe profluunt, exultant, gratulantur, saluatorem proclamant aduenisse. Omnis i llum et as amplecitur, omnis adorat condicio, dig nitas omnis ueneratur […] Omnium itaque concurrunt uota, omnium coniurant studia, princeps ab omnibus ado ratur”. S ee als o: Zb igniew D alewski, Władza – przestrzeń – ceremoniał. Miejsce i c eremonia i nauguracji wła dcy w P olsce ś redniowiecznej do k ońca XIV w . (Warsaw, 1996), p. 121.

ad vent 17 German d uke c learly indica tes tha t B olesław’s en try in to M agdeburg took place according to all the rules of adventus regis.7 Bolesław visited Magdeburg on his r eturn to Poland from a me eting with Lothar which took place in August 1135 in Merseburg. These talks had essentially altered the character of relations between Bolesław and the emperor. This was confirmed in a ritual way in the ceremony in which Bolesław paid homage to Lothar and probably also in the celeb rations during which the Polish ruler carried the imperial sword before Lothar going to church in procession.8 It is plausible to assume that the celebrations accompanying the assembly in Merseburg, especially the ceremony in which Bolesław carried the imperial sword, were meant to strengthen the newly started friendship between Bolesław and Lothar and to demonstrate the Polish ruler’s distinguished place among the royal vassals of the emperor. It is in these terms that the ceremonial entry of Bolesław into Magdeburg, closing the M erseburg negotiations, should be judged as w ell. The s olemn e ntry d uring w hich th e Polish d uke w as r eceived with a ceremonial due to a king was an additional, spectacular proof of his close contacts with the emperor, and it demonstrated the uniquely royal majesty of his power.9 Bolesław’s use of the ceremony of adventus regis clearly indicates the kind o f values the P iast court associated with this type of ceremonies and the importance the Polish ruler attributed to this pa rticular f orm o f p resenting th e i deological f oundations o f h is supremacy. The Piast d ukes of th e e arlier Midd le Ages considered th e ceremony of the royal entry to be an important instrument of creating an appropriate image of their power. As can be seen, the picture of Zbigniew returning with regal splendour, emerging from Gallus’ account, is well rooted in the tradition of ceremonial appearances of the P iast r ulers. As a ma tter of fac t, references t o 7 Annales Magdeburgenses a. 1135, ed. Georg Heinrich Pertz, MGH SS, 16 (Hanover, 1859), p. 185: “indeque r ediens in M agdeburg p ropter p etitionem im peratoris f estiva processione somantibus campanis suscipitur, quod nullus meminit prius umquam fuisse factum, ut talis persona ibidem susciperetur, nisi tempore Adalberti primi archipresulis, qui H ermannum d ucem S axoniae [ …] s imili m odo s uscepit, i n q uo t amen i psum imperatorem Ottonem […] nimis offendit, ut et scriptum invenitur, vix tandem placavit, licet ille maioris reverentiae esset quam Sclavus et alienigena”. 8 Annales M agdeburgenses a. 1135, p . 185; Chronicon M ontis S ereni, e d. E rnst Ehrenfeuchter, MGH SS, 23 (Hanover, 1874), p. 144. 9 See: Zb igniew D alewski, “Lictor im peratoris. K aiser L othar III., S obĕslav I. v on Böhmen und B olesław III. v on P olen a uf dem H oftag in M erseburg im J ahre 1135,” Zeitschrift f ür Ostmitteleuropa-Forschung 50 (2001), 317–336; K arol M aleczyński, Bolesław III Krzywousty (Wrocław, 1975), pp. 203–248; Tadeusz Grudziński,“Pertraktacje merseburskie z 1135 roku,” Kwartalnik Historyczny 75 (1968), 273–300.

18

ch apter o ne

ideas connected with royal advent can be found in Gallus’ text not only in the des cription of Zbigniew’s return f rom exile . The r itual of royal entry is invoked also in other passages of Gallus’ chronicle. It seems that this is how his remarks about the Czech duke Bořivoj II’s short rule in Prague should be understood. In December 1109, with the help of Bolesław Wrymouth, Bořivoj took control o f P rague a nd w as, a s t he c hronicler p uts i t, “a B ohemis i am receptus”.10 B ořivoj, h owever, w ho h ad a lready r uled B ohemia i n t he years 1101–07, did not manage to keep the power for long. “But the faith of the Czechs goes up and down like a wheel; and so, as previously they had tr eacherously de ceived B ořivoj a nd dri ven him o ut, in the s ame spirit of treachery they took him back, intending to deceive him again”.11 After j ust a f ew w eeks he was a gain dep osed f rom the thr one b y his younger brother Vladislav I.12 Describing how Bořivoj seized power, Gallus puts a strong emphasis on the fact that the duke arriving in P rague was accepted, receptus, b y the Cze chs. I n our c hronicler’s a rgumentation this issue p lays a v ery important role. Bořivoj’s reception proved that his taking power was not only the result of Bolesław’s force. Accepted by the Czechs, albeit falsely and treacherously as it was soon to be shown, Bořivoj could assume the ducal power not as an usurper forced upon, but as a legitimate ruler taking the throne with his future subjects’ consent. Gallus does not write explicitly what this act of receptio of Bořivoj by the Czechs consisted in. Nevertheless we dispose of a sufficient number of other sources allowing us to reconstruct the course of the ceremony of accepting in Prague a ne w ruler assuming power over the Cze chs. Clearly the most important moment of the spectacle of the new duke’s inauguration was the ceremony of his being seated on the stone throne in Prague.13

10 Galli Anonymi Cronicae III.17, pp. 143–144; The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles III.17, p. 251. 11 Galli Anonymi Cronicae III.17, p. 145; The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles III.20, p. 253. 12 See: Josef Žemlička, Čechy v dobĕ knížecí (Prague, 1997), pp. 134–135; Maleczyński, Bolesław III, p. 111 ff. 13 See: Roderich Schmidt, “Die Einsetzung der böhmischen Herzöge auf den Thron zu Prag,” i n Aspekte der Nationenbildung im Mittelalter, e ds. H elmut B eumann, Werner Schröder (Sigmaringen, 1978), pp. 438–463; Michał Kulecki, “Ceremoniał intronizacyjny Przemyślidów,” Przegląd H istoryczny 75 (1984), 441–450; Duš an T řeštík, Anežka Merhautová, “Die böhmischen Insignien und der steinerne Thron,” in Europas Mitte um 1000. Beiträge zur Geschichte, Kunst und Archäologie, eds. Alfried Wieczorek, Hans-Martin Hintz, vol. 2 (Stuttgart, 2000), pp. 904–906.

ad vent 19 The ritual of Prague enthronement, however, was supplemented by other important c eremonial a cts w hich e xpressed t he c onsent o f t he C zech people to submit to the new ruler’s power.14 In 1004, after the fall o f duke Bolesław I the B rave of Poland’s rule in Bohemia, duke Jaromir, exiled just a year before, but now supported by the German king Henry II, arrived in Prague. The citizens went out to greet him and in front of the town’s gate received from him the confirmation of their rights. Then they led him to town and seated on the throne.15 The essential elements of the Prague ceremony of constituting a new ruler in 1004, described by Thietmar of Merseburg, can be found in later sources, as well, referring to the inaugurations of Czech dukes towards the end of the 11th a nd in the 12th cen tury. In the acco unt of C osmas of Prague, written most probably in the early 1120s, dealing with the circumstances of taking power by duke Břetislav II in 1092,the welcoming ceremony and the solemn reception of the ne w duke arriving in P rague preceded and conditioned the subsequent act of his enthronement. According to Cosmas’ description, Břetislav approaching Prague was greeted b y a h uge cr owd o f ci tizens, b oys a nd girls p laying fl ute and drums, and church bells ringing. At the town’s gate he was r eceived by the bishop of Prague C osmas and the clergy w ith a g rand procession which led him t o the throne.16 The ceremony of taking power by duke Soběslav II in 1173 t ook a simila r course, as ca n be inferred from the more general but no less meaningful account of another Czech chronicler, G erlach of M ilevsko, written in the ea rly 13th cen tury. The duke arriving in Prague was “a clero quam a populo magnifice susceptus”, and then “iuxta morem patriae solempniter inthronizatur”.17 It is cer tain, th erefore, th at the receptio o f B ořivoj II in P rague in December 1109, mentioned by Gallus, must have developed according to the established custom, in the f ramework determined by the tradition of royal advent. Hence we may pose the question, whether other receptiones 14 See: Jacek Banaszkiewicz, Polskie dzieje ba jeczne M istrza Wincentego K adłubka (Wrocław, 1998), p. 377 ff; Andrzej Pleszczyński, Przestrzeń i polityka. Studium rezydencji władcy wcze śniejszego ś redniowiecza. Przykła d cze skiego Wyszegradu (Lublin, 2000), p. 219 ff. 15 Thietmari Merseburgensis episcopi Chronicon VI.12, ed. Robert Holtzmann, MGH SSrG n. s., 9 (Berlin, 1935), pp. 288–290. 16 Cosmae Pragensis Chronica Boemorum II.50, ed. Bertold Bretholz, MGH SSrG n. s., 2 (B erlin, 1955), p . 157. S ee als o: J ana N echutová, Latinská literatura českého středovĕku do roku 1400 (Prague, 2000), pp. 67–72. 17 Annales Gerl aci M ilovicensis, ed. Josef Emler, Fontes rerum Bohemicarum, 2 (Prague, 1874), p. 467. See also: Nechutová, Latinská literatura, pp. 76–78.

20

ch apter o ne

of a rriving r ulers in voked b y o ur c hronicler co uld b e in vestigated in similar terms. In this context his account of the dramatic events that took place in Poland in the 1090s draws special attention. In 1093, a group of magnates who had been expelled by Sieciech, the all-powerful palatine of duke Władysław I Herman, and found refuge in Bohemia, recalled the duke’s older son Zbigniew from a monastery in Saxony, and decided to launch a military campaign against Sieciech. The rebels managed to win over the comes of Wrocław, Magnus, who opened the t own’s ga tes t o Zb igniew. Upon hea ring tha t Zb igniew had t aken Wrocław, Władysław H erman a nd S ieciech d ecided t o p ut t he r evolt down by force and set off to Silesia. Eventually, however, faced with the magnates’ r eluctance t o t ake pa rt in a f ratricidal str uggle, Władysław Herman was forced to make concessions to his son. An agreement was concluded, p roviding tha t the d uke w ould r ecognize Zb igniew as his legitimate descendant and give him control over Silesia. Three years later, however, in 1096, Władysław who had managed to win over most of the former supporters of Zbigniew, decided to again try to beat his rebellious son into submission. Deserted by the Silesian magnates, Zbigniew went to K ruszwica, w here he trie d t o r epulse the a ttack o f his fa ther a nd Sieciech. The battle, however, ended in his defeat. Zbigniew a cknowledged t hat in t his si tuation he was una ble to co ntinue t he fi ght and decided, upon receiving guarantee to be exempt from death or maiming, to submit to his father.18 In Gallus’ account of the conflict between Zbigniew and Władysław I Herman we constantly encounter expressions containing clear references t o the r eception, receptio, o f the d ucal s on. Rema rks a bout Zbigniew’s receptiones play an important role in Gallus’ text. They connect the subsequent parts of the story which correspond to the successive stages of the conflict between the Piast dukes, making them into a coherent whole. However, they do not only systematize the chronicler’s story and put his exposition into order. It seems tha t Gallus’ entire 18 Galli Anonymi Cronicae II.4–5, pp. 68–73; The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles II. 4–5, pp. 123–131. See: Roman Grodecki, “Zbigniew książę Polski,” in Studia Staropolskie. Księga ku czci Aleksandra Brücknera (Krakow, 1928), p. 86 ff; Maleczyński, Bolesław III, p. 32 ff; Henryk Łowmiański, Początki Polski. Polityczne i społeczne procesy kształtowania się narodu do początku wieku XIV, vol. 6, part 1 (Warsaw, 1985), p. 117 ff; Janusz Bieniak, “Polska elita polityczna XII wieku (część II. Wróżda i zgoda),” in Społeczeństwo Polski średniowiecznej, e d. Stefan K. Kuczyński, vol. 3 (Warsaw, 1985), p. 29; G erard L abuda, “Władysław i Zbigniew. U genezy podziałów dzielnicowych w Polsce w drugiej połowie XI wiek u,” in Społeczeństwo P olski ś redniowiecznej, e d. S tefan K. K uczyński, v ol. 6 (Warsaw, 1994), pp. 9–21.

ad vent 21 account de dicated t o the hist ory o f the co nflict between Władysław Herman and Zbigniew concentrates around the receptiones of the young duke. They determine the mea ning of the e vents described and justify the actions taken by its participants. Essentially, they set in motion an entire series of consecutive events presented by the chr onicler, leading in the end t o the ba ttle of K ruszwica lost b y Zbigniew. It is ther efore worth investigating them in more detail. In Gallus’ rendition, the beginning of the open revolt against Sieciech is ma rked b y the mo ment when his ad versaries st aying in B ohemia receive Zbigniew coming back from Saxony. No sooner had they decided to send envoys to comes Magnus, asking him t o receive the d ucal son and j oin them in their a ttack against the p alatine.19 Having c onsulted with th e m agnates, M agnus a ccepted th e p roposal p resented b y th e emissaries a nd a greed t o r eceive Zb igniew.20 H aving hea rd a bout the events taking place in Wrocław, Władysław Herman and Sieciech fi rst sent an envoy to Magnus and the S ilesian magnates “sciscitantes, quid hoc esset, quod Zbigneuum cum fugitivis sine pa tris imperio recepissent, si rebelles existere, vel obedire sibi vellent”, and only then marched with their forces to Silesia.21 Three years later, Zbigniew, abandoned by his Silesian supporters, had to flee from Wrocław. He went to Kujavia where “castrum Crusuicz […] ab oppidanis receptus introivit”.22 Władysław, angry that Zbigniew had managed to escape “eumque Crusuicienses contra se ipsum recepisse”, went in p ursuit o f him. Finall y, in K ruszwica, Władysław def eated Zbigniew in battle and forced him to surrender.23 19 Galli Anonymi Cronicae II.4, p. 69: “Recepto igi tur Zb igneo in B ohemia f ugitivi legationem […] co miti mittunt nomine Magno Wrotislauensi”. In the E nglish translation the expression recepto is passed over: The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles II.4, p. 125: “Once they had Zbigniew back in Bohemia the exiles sent a delegation to the comes of Wrocław, named Magnus”. 20 Galli Anonymi Cronicae II.4, p. 69: “Hoc audito Magnus diu imprimis hesitavit, sed communicato consilio maioribus et laudato, verbis eorum eum recipiens acquievit”; The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles II.4, p. 125: “When Magnus had heard this, he first hesitated for a long while, but when he consulted with the elders and they approved the plan, he acquiesced to the proposal and received the boy”. 21 Galli Anonymi Cronicae II.4, p. 70. The English translation does not render the expression recepisse exactly: The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles II.4, p. 127: “demanding to know what they were about in harbouring Zbigniew as well as the exiles without his father’s orders: did they intend to be rebels, or to obey him?”. 22 Galli Anonymi Cronicae II.4, p. 71. The English translation: The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles II.4, p. 129: “town of Kruszvica where he was taken in by the townsmen”. 23 Galli Anonymi Cronicae II.4, pp. 71–72; The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles II.4, pp. 129–131: “and that the people of Kruszwica had defied him by taking Zbigniew in”.

22

ch apter o ne

The exp ression recipere tha t Gall us us ed t o des cribe the successi ve stages of Zbigniew’s peregrinations from Saxony, through Bohemia and Wrocław, to Kruszwica, can, of course, be understood in its basic sense, as meaning to take somebody in, to receive as a guest. In Gallus’ chronicle it is often used in this form. Nevertheless, it seems that in the case investigated here, as well as in the example mentioned before, of Bořivoj received by the Czechs, the expression recipere could, in Gallus’ intention, be associated with a more specific meaning. In this context, it is worth paying a special a ttention t o the a nswer the ma gnates o f Wrocław ga ve t o the envoy o f Władysław H erman a nd S ieciech w ho w ere co ncerned wi th what was happening in that town. To the question what they were about in receiving Zbigniew without his father’s consent, “Wratislauienses unanimiter responderunt, non se patriam Bohemicis vel alienis nationibus tradidisse sed dominum ducis fi lium suosque fugitivos recepisse”.24 The expression used by Gallus – dominum du cis fi lium recepisse – is not entirely clear. It may not be a misinterpretation, however, to discern in it the inf ormation a bout the ci tizens o f Wrocław ha ving r ecognized Zbigniew’s supremacy and accepted him as their ruler.25 The words the chronicler attributed to the Wrocław magnates give reason to consider the possibility of interpreting Zbigniew’s reception inWrocław within the framework of the royal entry ceremonies. It is to b e remembered that the ceremonies of greeting the arriving ruler were the most important moment of the ritual of royal advent, effectively determining its sense.26 Only the reception of the arriving ruler by the community enabled the p lacement of his en try into the Christological perspective and turned it into an authentic Adventus Domini. It also expressed – on the level of p olitical relations – the co mmunity’s consent t o s ubmit t o the 24 Galli Anonymi Cronicae II.4, p. 70. In the English translation the pass age reads as follows: The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles II.4, p. 127: “those in Wrocław unanimously replied that they had not surrendered their country to the Czechs or to foreign nations but had received the lord the duke’s son and the fugitives with him”. 25 The exp ression us ed b y Gall us ca used a p roblem t o the ea rlier e ditors o f t he Chronicle who corrected the phrase dominum ducis fi lium substituting it with domini ducis filium, s ee: Galli Anonymi Cronicae, p. 70, note n. With this emenda tion one can translate the pass age as f ollows: “those in Wrocław… had r eceived the s on of the lo rd duke”. This correction is not, however, either well-founded or needed. The expression dominium ducis fi lium (appearing in ma nuscripts), although not entirely clear, makes enough sense and can be translated as: “those in Wrocław … had received the duke’s son as a lord”. See: Łowmiański, Początki Polski, p. 118. 26 See: Walther Bulst, “Susceptucula regum. Zur Kunde deutscher Reichsaltertümer,” in Corona quernea. Festgabe Karl Strecker, ed. E.E. Stengler (Stuttgart, 1941) pp. 97–135; Kantorowicz, “The King’s Advent,” p. 209 ff; Willmes, Der Herrscher-‘Adventus’, p. 52 ff.

ad vent 23 ruler’s authority and its recognition of his monarchic claims. The reception – susceptio or receptio – constituted the necessary accompaniment of the monarch’s arrival and gave the ceremony of the royal entry the form of a ritual in which both the arriving monarch and the community receiving him could find a reflection of their complex mutual relations. This is why s ources men tioning mo narchic en tries, li ke t he Cze ch exa mples quoted above, often limited the description of the ceremony of the ruler’s arrival to the rite of his reception by the community visited. In t his s ituation i t i s c lear w hat i mportance G allus a ttributed t o t he receptions o f the y oung d uke des cribed in his acco unt o f the co nflict between Zbigniew and Władysław I Herman. It is also easy to understand why the news of Zbigniew’s reception in Wrocław and, later, Kruszwica provoked such anxiety and violent reaction of Władysław. The issue was not just about letting Zbigniew enter Wrocław or Kruszwica. The chronicler’s remarks about his receptiones alluded to a series of associations connected with the welcoming celebrations for visiting rulers and added to Zbigniew’s arrivals a ne w dimension of ceremonial advent clearly manifesting his monarchic aspirations and his intention to reach for the princely power. Therefore, i t i s n ot s urprising t hat u pon h earing t he n ews o f Zbigniew’s reception in Wrocław, in spite of the Wrocław magnates’ declarations of loyalty, Władysław Herman decided to launch an attack against Zbigniew, and when a simila r incident occurred in K ruszwica, the d uke considered it to be an act of rebellion against him. In the political reality of the Piast monarchy at the turn of the 11th and 12th centuries described in Gallus’ chronicle, the ceremony of the ruler’s advent seems to constitute a tr uly mo narchic ri tual us ed t o co nstruct the r elation o f dep endence between the ruler and the community that receives him, and demonstrate unequivocally his exclusive rights to exercise power over that community. The rich set of meanings that earlier-medieval political practice associated with the ceremony of royal entry made it assume also on the level of the narrative account the role of important means of expression used to describe and hence shape the image of historical reality. It can be seen in many texts that authors use the mo del of ceremonial advent which through the uni versally accep ted a nd widel y under stood me anings associated wi th th is cer emony en ables th em t o en rich the ev ents described with content they consider desirable.27 27 See: Philippe Buc, The Dangers of Ritual. Between Early Medieval Texts and Social Scientific Theory (Princeton, 2001), p. 37 ff; David A. Warner, “Ritual and Memory in the Ottonian Reich: The Ceremony of Adventus,” Speculum 76 (2001), 255–283.

24

ch apter o ne

Certainly, in these terms we should also judge the detailed account of Ademar o f Cha bannes de dicated t o the w elcoming celeb rations in Angoulême in 1027 of count William IV returning from a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. A procession of clergy and laymen greeted the co unt “cum laudibus and antiphonis” outside the city walls and then, singing Te Deum in his honour, led him into town.28 In Ademar’s presentation, William’s entry stylized as a true adventus regis was clearly meant to demonstrate the extraordinary power of the count of Angoulême and to imply that in the political as well as religious order of the community receiving him he should be given a royal position. It seems, however, that the chronicler intended to use this ela borate description of count William’s royal entry not only with the purpose of showing the p ower a nd g lory o f the r uler o f Angoulême, b ut als o in order to convey some additional messages. Similarly to Gallus’ writing dedicated to the history of the conflict between the Piast dukes, Ademar’s account, esp ecially r eferring t o the e vents t aking p lace in Angoulême between the 1020s and 1030s, was seriously entangled in the contemporary political conflicts at the count’s court. It is therefore worth paying closer attention to Ademar’s text and trying to investigate the meanings he associated with the count’s advent and the role the description of the ruler’s entry played in his narrative. A few months after his return from Jerusalem and the ceremony of his monarchic en try in Angoulême, William IV sudden ly f ell i ll a nd die d. From Ademar’s account we learn that the causes of his sudden illness were attributed to sorcery. Several women accused of casting spells on William were imprisoned and tortured. Although the count, on his deathbed, had demanded to r elease them, after his dea th the w omen blamed with sorcery were executed on the orders of his son and successor Alduin.29 A later source from the middle of the 12th century brings some more information a bout the cir cumstances o f William IV’s death. We lea rn from there about charges against the wife of Alduin accused of having poisoned her fa ther-in-law.30 The harsh conflict arising after William’s 28 Ademari Cabanensis Chronicon III.65, ed. Pascale Bourgain, Corpus Christianorum. Continuatio M edievalis 129 (T urnhout, 1999), p . 184. S ee: Ric hard L andes, Relics, Apocalypse, a nd t he D eceits o f H istory: Ademar o f Ch abannes, 989–1034 (C ambridge Mass.–London, 1995), p. 167 ff. 29 Ademari Cabanensis Chronicon III.66, p p. 186–187. S ee: M onica B löcker, “Ein Zauberprozess im J ahre 1028, ” Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Geschichte 29 (1979), 535–555. 30 Historia pontificum et comitum engolismensium, ed. Jacques Boussard (Paris, 1954), p. 30.

ad vent 25 death b etween Alduin a nd his y ounger b rother G eoffrey a nd the fac t that after Alduin’s death his sons were removed from power in favour of the descendants of Geoffrey seem to support the supposition that the tradition preserved in later sources of William IV having been poisoned by Alduin’s wife could reflect the tr ue course of events taking place in 1028 at the count’s court in Angoulême.31 However, Ademar, the first-hand witness of these events, closely connected with the count’s court, did not even mention the charges brought against William IV’s daughter-in-law, and dedicated only some space to the disputes between his sons which ended relatively soon with the two brothers’ r econciliation. I nstead, t he chr onicler f ocused his a ttention mainly on the presentation of the solemn entry of Alduin into Angoulême, on Palm Sunday, after the funeral ceremonies of his father had ended. Referring in his description of Alduin’s advent directly to the ceremonies accompanying the celebration of Palm Sunday, the chronicler added new, almost soteriological dimension to the entry of the new count, a nd made i t r esemble C hrist’s en try in to J erusalem. Thus t he inhabitants of Angoulême were said to have cheered Alduin approaching th e to wn: “ ‘Osanna in ex celsis, b enedictum r egnum p atris n ostri David’ preferens manibus victoriae p almas, ramos s ecuritatis et fl ores suavitatis”.32 In Ademar’s presentation which, as evidence shows, constituted the official version of events taking place at the court, propagated by Alduin’s circles, the royal, in a way even christomimetic entry of the new co unt, co mplementing th e ma gnificent m onarchic a dvent o f William IV described not much earlier by the chronicler, was to p rove the legitimacy of his succession and announce the continuation of the glorious and saintly rule of his father.33 The ritual of royal entry was used as a tool in constructing the description of events and lending them a suitable meaning also by Richer of SaintRemi in his acco unt of t he celebrations accompanying t he as cension of Louis IV r eturning f rom En gland t o the thr one of the West Frankish kingdom in 936. The ceremony of Louis’ assumption of power, described very laconically in the Annals of Flodoard of Reims which served as the main source of information for Richer who was writing his account in the end of the 10th century, in the latter’s description took on the form of an elaborate spectacle of monarchic advent which in accordance with 31 32 33

See: Landes, Relics, p. 178 ff. Ademari Cabanensis Chronicon III.66, p. 187. See: Landes, Relics, p. 181 ff.

26

ch apter o ne

the chronicler’s vision of the Frankish history was able to reflect both the power of the new king and the consent of the magnates and the people t o submit to his r ule. According t o Ric her’s acco unt, L ouis was greeted by the magnates in Boulogne and then, in a ceremonial procession, went to Laon where the coronation was to take place. The magnates who accompanied Louis took turns to carry his a rms and the inha bitants of the towns the royal procession visited on the way welcomed their new ruler with joy and solemnity.34 Similar message is conveyed by the account of Dudo of Saint-Quentin, the author of an early 11th-century history of the dukes of Normandy, dedicated to the meeting of the Norman duke William Longsword with the king Henry of Germany. On his way to Henry’s camp, William was met halfway by a German duke Cono who not only greeted William but also took his sword and carrying it before him led the Norman duke in a ceremonial procession to t he camp of Henry. In Dudo’s relation, the ceremonial entry of William le d by the G erman duke, complemented the magnificent speech Cono delivered in his honour, praising his might and nobleness. A ruler who equals the greatest kings – a rgues Dudo – should be given a royal welcome.35 It is p ossible to attribute similar meanings als o to the acco unt of a Czech chronicler Vincent of Prague written probably in 1160s.36 In this text relating the history of the reign of Vladislav II, duke and later king of B ohemia, Vincent metic ulously no ted his successi ve cer emonial entries into Prague. D escribing Vladislav’s return from t he cr usade in 1148, the chronicler did not fail to note that the arriving duke was “cum maximo gaudio tam ab episcopis, quam ab nobilibus suis honestissime Prage susceptus”.37 It was t o be the s ame in 11 58 when Vladislav came 34 Richeri Historiarum Libri IIII II.4, ed. Hartmut Hoffmann, MGH SS, 38 (Hanover, 2000), p p. 100–101: “Inde q uoque de ductus, in vicinis urb ibus gra tulanter ex cipitur. Universi ei a pplaudunt. Omnes let antur, t anta omnium f uit et e adem mens”. S ee als o: Flodoardi Remensis Annales, ed. Philippe Laurer (Paris, 1905), p. 63. See also: Geoffrey Koziol, Begging Pardon and Favor. Ritual and Political Order in Early Medieval France (Ithaca-London, 1992), p. 117; Jason Glenn, Politics and History in the Tenth Century. The Work and World of Richer of Reims (Cambridge, 2004), p. 241. 35 Dudonis de Sancti Quintini De moribus et actis primorum Normanniae ducum 23, ed. Jules Lair (Caen, 1865), pp. 94–95. See: Hermann Kamp, “Die Macht der Zeichen und Gesten. Öffentliches Verhalten bei Dudo von Saint-Quentin,” in Formen und Funktionen öffentlicher Kommunikation im M ittelalter, Vorträge u nd F orschungen 5 1, e d. G erd Althoff (Stuttgart, 2001), pp. 132–133. 36 N echutová, Latinská literatura, pp. 75–76. 37 Annales B ohemorum Vincentii P ragensis, ed. J osef Emler, Fontes rerum Bohemicarum, 2 (Prague, 1874), p. 419.

ad vent 27 back f rom a ca mpaign t o I taly w here he acco mpanied the em peror Frederick B arbarossa. The r uler r eturning t o P rague was “in ci vitate sancta a clero, principibus, nobilibus et populo receptus”.38 Similarly, in 1164, a fter a H ungarian c ampaign, t he k ing e ntering P rague w as “a domno Daniele, Pragensis ecclesie episcopo, canonicis, abbatibus, presbyteris et omni clero, militibus et populo […] honorofice suscipitur”.39 Certainly, t he mag nitude o f celeb rations acco mpanying t he Prague entries of Vladislav II was strongly rooted in the tradition of ceremonial appearances o f the Cze ch r ulers o f the ea rly a nd hig h Middle Ages. There is m uch e vidence tha t the mea nings ass ociated wi th the r oyal advent met with a relatively large response in the political reality of the Přemyslid mo narchy and t o a la rge ext ent shaped the ima ge o f the monarchic rights the Czech dukes were entitled to.40 However, the descriptions of Vladislav’s royal entries were present in the account of Vincent of Prague not only because the rite of advent had been considered important in t he practice of ceremonial actions of the Czech rulers. It seems that the chronicler’s relation was also significantly influenced by the present needs of the royal court. Vladislav’s coronation by Frederick Barbarossa was not received with enthusiasm by a large part of the Czech magnates who were afraid that it might change the balance of p ower in their r elations wi th the mo narch. They al so tr eated wi th reserve Vladislav’s va rious mili tary ca mpaigns, a nd resolutely o pposed his plans to secure the throne succession to his s on, against the c urrent tradition of seniorate.41 In this situation, the descriptions of Vladislav’s royal entries into Prague, woven into the story of his glory and power, gained new significance. They were used first of all to construct and preserve a suitable image of the monarch and his relations with his subjects who, by receiving him wi th all the ceremony due to a kin g, manifested their acceptance of his authority and proved their loyalty. The importance of descriptions of royal entry in creating the appropriate image of the ruler in medieval historiographical accounts is clearly seen also in the early 13th-century account of a German chronicler, Otto of Saint Blasien, dedicated to the events connected with the taking power over Sicily in 1194 by the emperor Henry VI. In Otto’s presentation, the Annales Vincentii Pragensis, p. 443. Annales Vincentii Pragensis, p. 458. 40 Pleszczyń ski, Przestrzeń i po lityka, p . 231 ff; Lisa Wolverton, Hastening T oward Prague. Power and Society in the Medieval Czech Lands (Philadelphia, 2001), p. 83. 41 See: Žemlička, Čechy v dobĕ knížecí, p. 238. 38 39

28

ch apter o ne

magnificent, triumphal entry of Henry VI into Palermo, described as an ideal adventus regis, is the culmination of the emperor’s successful campaign to gain the Sicilian crown. Performing the advent enables Henry who is greeted by the citizens with all due honour to ultimately assume power over Sicily and appear in the role of its legitimate ruler respected by his subjects.42 In the same terms we should also judge the already mentioned account of the Chronicle of Vincent Kadłubek about Casimir the Just taking over power i n K rakow in 1 177. The mo del o f adventus r egis, e mployed by Kadłubek in his des cription of Casimir’s arrival in K rakow, placed the Piast d uke’s ina uguration in a s acred spher e, a nd a t the s ame t ime – thanks to the images associated with this ritual – l egitimised the coup and demonstrated the duke’s rights to the throne. There is no doubt that also in Gallus’ text which is the main subject of the present investigations the entry of Zbigniew r eturning from exile conveys an important message. In Gallus’ rendition, however, the depiction o f the mo narchic sp lendour o f Zb igniew’s a ppearance was no t meant to convince the reader of his ducal rights. On the contrary, the description o f the “monarchic” b ehaviour o f Zb igniew was fi rst of a ll supposed to discredit him and to reveal his vile plans, and hence to justify the actions Bolesław took against him. We should, therefore, take a closer look at Gallus’ narrative method and the way he used the description of Zbigniew’s monarchic advent in his text. Before that, however, it is wor th s topping for a moment to s ee ye t another roy al a dvent presented b y o ur c hronicler, the a rrival o f kin g B olesław II the B old o f Poland in H ungary in 1079. There are signifi cant simi larities b etween these two descriptions, namely in th e method of constructing the p lot and the use of the model of adventus regis in creating an image of reality suiting the author’s needs. One may even get the impression that Gallus conceived the description of Bolesław the Bold’s entry in Hungary as a sort of reference point for the st ory about Zbigniew’s arrival, allowing him to elaborate even more fully his conception of Zbigniew’s fault. 42 Ottonis d e Sancto Bl asio C hronica 40, e d. Adolf H ofmeister, M GH SS rG, 47 (Hanover-Leipzig, 1912), pp. 61–63. See: Thomas Ertl, “Otto von St. Blasien rekonstruiert den tri umphalen Einzug H einrichs VI. in P alermo (1194), ” Römische Historische Mitteilungen 43 (2001), 227–256; Thomas Ertl, “Das Regierungsantritt Heinrichs VI. im Königreich Sizilien (1194). Gedenken zur zeremoniellen Bewältigung der uni r egni ad imperium,” Frühmittelalterliche Studien 37 (2003), 259–289; See: Gerhard Baaken, “Das sizilische K önigtum K aiser H einrichs VI.,” Zeitschrift der S avigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte Ger. Abt. 112 (1995), 202–244.

ad vent 29 Gallus dedicated relatively much space to the events accompanying the arrival in Hungary of Bolesław the Bold who had to flee Poland after the murder of bishop Stanislaus.43 They play a ra ther important role in our chronicler’s text and we shall refer to them a gain and again. Now let us, however, concentrate only on the issues connected with the royal advent. After Bolesław’s arrival in Hungary, king Ladislas I o f Hungary “did not welcome him as a stra nger and a guest o r as a ma n welcomes an equal, but in the manner appropriate for a knight receiving a prince, or a duke a kin g, a kin g an emperor”. He therefore went out to greet him and when he saw Bolesław approaching, he got off his horse to show him respect. Bolesław, however, “showed no regard for the mild king’s humility”. Re calling his r ole in p lacing L adislas o n the H ungarian thr one, Bolesław said: “It is not fit that I should do him honour as an equal, I can kiss him from on horseback as I would any other of the princes”. Ladislas was offended by Bolesław’s behaviour and decided to turn back. Later – adds Gallus – the two rulers were reconciled, but the Hungarians never fully forgave the Polish king. The chronicler even suggests that Bolesław’s early dea th was a co nsequence o f a n a ttempt co mmitted b y the Hungarians in revenge for insulting their king.44 Gallus’ account is problematic. At first glance it seems contradictory. On one hand we learn that the Hungarian king did not welcome Bolesław as an equal but as a knight welcomes a duke, a duke a king, or a king an emperor. On the other hand, however, the chronicler points out that the behaviour of the Polish king who wanted to greet Ladislas in this exact way, na mely as a kin g w ould gr eet a p rince, de eply o ffended the Hungarian ruler and ultimately brought misfortune upon Bolesław. It is not clear w hat was s o offensive in B olesław’s attitude since t he Polish ruler sim ply wa nted to r eturn L adislas’ kiss as he w ould – in Gal lus’ words – a ny other princes’, and hence in acco rdance with the gr eeting formula his Hungarian host had foreseen for him anyway.45 43 See: Tadeusz Grudziński, Boleslaus the Bold, called also the Bountiful, and Bishop Stanislaus: The Story of a Conflict (Warsaw, 1985); Krzysztof Skwierczyński, Recepcja idei gregoriańskich w Polsce do początku XIII wieku (Wrocław, 2005). 44 Galli Anonymi Cronicae I.28, pp. 53–54; The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles I.28, pp. 99–101. 45 The significance of this issue in Gallus’ presentation becomes even more apparent, if in the short poem opening chapter 28. (“Cum audisset Wladislauus Bolezlauum advenire,/ Partim gaudet ex amico, partim restat locus ire,/ Partim ex recepto quidem fratre gaudet et a mico/ Sed de f ratre Wiadislauo facto dolet inimico”) we accept the reading deferre (appearing in the ma nuscripts) i nstead of t he e mendation de f ratre; s ee: Galli Anonymi Cronicae, p. 53, n ote x. With r eading de f ratre (accep ted b y M aleczyński in

30

ch apter o ne

A s hort r emark o f the c hronicler, s aying tha t Bolesław ca me t o Hungary as an exile, w hom e ven a p easant would not obey,46 cl arifies these ostensible inconsistencies. In this situation his ceremonial royal advent gained ne w mea nings. It was no t the en try o f a kin g r eceived with all due ceremony pertaining to his royal dignity and power but the arrival of an exile deprived of power who was unable to appreciate the kindliness he was sho wn and r eached fo r p rivileges he no lo nger deserved. Arriving in Hungary as a king and behaving in a royal manner, Bolesław defi ed the s tatus q uo a nd vio lated the est ablished syst em o f hierarchies and political relations. Gallus’ story of the Hungarian advent of Bolesław the Bold permits also a b etter under standing o f the mo narchic en try o f Zb igniew r eturning from exile, as presented by the chronicler. Both royal advents seem to be placed on the same level and both can be attributed the same meanings. Just as Bolesław the Bold, deposed from the throne and forced to flee the country, should not – argues the chronicler – demand a royal welcome, so Zbigniew, an exile owing his chance of return only to his brother’s mercy, should not behave as a ruler and arrive with such regal splendour. The ri tual o f r oyal e ntry un equivocally d etermined th e pos ition th e arriving ruler should be given in the co mmunity welcoming him. Hence the importance that early medieval rulers attributed to ensuring appropriate ceremonial setting for their entries. To Liudprand of Cremona we owe the story of the arrival in Metz in 888 o f Wido of Spoleto seeking to take over the Carolingian succession and the crown of the West Frankish kingdom. Approaching Metz, Wido sent an envoy to the town, with the task of preparing a suitable royal welcome for him. The bishop of Metz had already the MPH edition of the chronicle) the English translation proposed in the bilingual edition o f C EU P ress i s a s f ollows: “When L adislas h eard B olesław w as a bout h im t o approach,/ As his friend he welcomed him, but there remained still some reproach;/ For as a f riend a nd a b rother he was g lad he did him s ee,/ B ut he grie ved his b rother Władysław had become an enemy”. The name Władysław in the last line refers here to Bolesław’s b rother Władysław H erman w hom the a uthor th us c harges wi th ha ving forced Bolesław into exile. However, with the other reading – deferre – this last sentence could be translated as follows: “But it grieves (him, i.e. Ladislas) (that Bolesław) shows homage t o (him, i .e. L adislas) b ecause o f a hostile ac t”. This act could be Bolesław’s behaviour towards Ladislas’ welcome. Such interpretation is proposed by Gerard Labuda in: Gerard Labuda, Święty Stanisław biskup krakowski, patron Polski. Śladami zabójstwa – męczeństwa – kanonizacji (Poznań, 2000), pp. 70–76. See: The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles I.28, pp. 98–99, note 1. 46 Galli Anonymi Cronicae I.28, p. 54: “Nam cum regnum alienum fugitivus introiret,/ Cumque nullus rusticorum fugitivo obediret.” The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles I.28, p. 99: “For, when he came to a kingdom not his own, as fugitive,/ And not even a poor peasant would obedience to him give”.

ad vent 31 begun the preparations for the royal advent, when Wido’s messenger tried to persuade him tha t the kin g would accept a mo re modest reception in return for a horse. The bishop, however, replied that it would be inappropriate to have as king someone who would agree to such a reduced welcome.47 The reliability of Liudprand’s account, written several decades later, is very dubious. Its main goal was to demonstrate the illegitimacy of Wido’s royal pretences. This, however, does not in a ny way undermine the mess age it communicates about the extraordinary importance of the ritual of advent in constructing the authority of power and in shaping appropriate political relations. The ceremony of solemn entry explicitly determined the arriving monarch’s chances to be seen as the true ruler. Actions undertaken by the Ottonian rulers show that this is the case not only in the reality of narrative texts. They clearly demonstrate that in the practice of political endeavours, too, the cer emony of royal advent was o ne o f the most im portant t ools o f p olitical ac tion, ena bling the German r ulers to demo nstrate t heir do minant position in t he Reich’s unstable political system based on a co mplex network of mutual relations b etween the mo narch a nd his sub jects. At the s ame time the Christological images co nnected wi th the cer emony o f adv ent gave them the opportunity to express more fully the conceptions of supernatural, s acred r oots o f their r oyal p ower co nstituting the ide ological basis of the Ottonian monarchy.48 Hence, in the Ottonian tradition, the ceremony of ad vent was conceived as a st rictly royal ritual, a n exclusively monarchic prerogative.49 In 972 Otto I did not refrain from punishing archbishop Adalbert of Magdeburg f or ha ving co mpleted the cer emony o f w elcoming d uke Hermann Billung of Saxony. One year later, most probably to efface the memory of the spectacular advent of Hermann, Otto himself performed the ceremony of processional entry into Magdeburg.50 No wonder, then, 47 Liudprandi Cremonensis Antapodosis I.16, ed. Paolo Chiesa, Corpus Christianorum. Continuatio M edievalis, 96 (T urnhout, 1997), p p. 18–19. S ee: Warner, “Ritual a nd Memory,” pp. 266–267. 48 See: John W. Bernhardt, Itinerant Kingship and Royal Monasteries in Early Medieval Germany c. 936–1075 (Cambridge, 1993), pp. 49, 140 ff. 49 See: Dotzauer, “Die Ankunft des Herrschers,” p. 251 ff. 50 Thietmari M erseburgensis Ch ronicon II.28, II.30, p p. 74, 76. S ee: G erd Althoff, “Das B ett des K önigs in M agdeburg. Zu Thietmar II, 28,” in Festschrift für B erent Schwineköper, eds. Helmut Maurer, Hans Patze (Sigmaringen, 1982), pp. 141–153; Karl L. Ley ser, Herrschaft u nd K onflikt. Königtum und Adel im ottonischen Sachsen (Göttingen, 1984), pp. 46–47, 151–152; Karl L. Leyser, “Ritual, Zeremonie und Gestik: das ottonische Reich,” Frühmittelalterliche Studien 27 (1993), 10–13.

32

ch apter o ne

that the ceremony of solemn entry was becoming the fi rst attribute of royal power used, in crisis situations, by pretenders to the throne. In 984, the cer emonious en try in to Quedlinburg, o ne o f th e most powerful Ottonian a bbeys, w as co nceived b y th e Ba varian duke H enry th e “Quarelsome” as a road to the throne. Rising up against Otto III, Henry arrived in Que dlinburg w here he r eceived a r oyal w elcome f rom his supporters and was then proclaimed king.51 Similarly, in 1002, after the death of Otto III, the solemn entry of margrave Ekkehard I of Meissen into H ildesheim w here h e w as r eceived a s k ing b y t he l ocal b ishop Bernward, was meant to explicitly demonstrate the margrave’s rights to take o ver t he d ead e mperor’s s uccession t o t he t hrone.52 The ac tions Otto III and Henry II took in response to the usurpations of Henry the “Quarelsome” and Ekkehard respectively clearly indicate the meanings associated with the cer emonies of royal entries. In 985 , h aving forced Henry the “Quarelsome” to humble himself and give up the royal aspirations, Ot to III als o co mpleted the cer emony o f r oyal en try in to Quedlinburg. Similarly, in 1003, the victorious rival of Ekkehard, Henry II, was sur e to visi t H ildesheim, w here a y ear b efore t he ma rgrave o f Meissen had been greeted as king, to demonstrate through the ceremony of royal advent his own indisputable rights to the throne.53 It is in these terms that one should assess the role the entry ceremony played in the ac tions under taken by numerous French lo cal r ulers, as well. F or a n umber o f co unts w ho in the 10th a nd 11th cen turies embarked on building up their own, practically independent rulerships, the ceremony of advent constituted b oth an important point of reference f or th e i deological p rogrammes th ey f ormulated a nd o ne o f th e

51 Thietmari Merseburgensis Chronicon IV.2, p. 132. See: Althoff, “Das Bett des Königs,” p. 145; Franz-Rainer Erkens, “… more Grecorum conregnantem instituere vultis? Zur Legitimation der Re genschaft H einrichs des Z änkers im Thronstreit v on 984, ” Frühmittelalterliche S tudien 27 (1993), 273–289; G erd Althoff, Otto III ( Darmstadt, 1997), p. 37 ff; Warner, “Ritual and Memory,” pp. 278–281. 52 Thietmari Merseburgensis Chronicon V.4, p. 224. See: Althoff, “Das Bett des Königs,” pp. 145–146; David A. Warner, “Thietmar of Merseburg on Rituals of Kingship,” Viator 26 (1995), 73; Eduard Hlawitschka, “‘Merkst du nicht, daß dir das vierte Rad am Wagen fehlt?’ Zur Thronkandidatur Ek kerhards v on M eißen (1002) nac h Thietmar, C hronicon IV, c. 52,” in Geschichtsschreibung und geistiges Leben. Festschrift für Heinrich Löwe, eds. Karl Hauck, Hubert Mordek (Cologne, 1978), pp. 281–311. 53 Thietmari Merseburgensis Chronicon IV. 9, p. 140; Thangmari Vita Bernwardi episcopi Hildesheimensis 40, e d. G eorg H einrich P ertz, M GH SS, 4 (H anover, 1841), p . 775. S ee: Althoff, “Das Bett des Königs,” p. 145, note 22; Warner, “Thietmar of Merseburg,” pp. 66–68.

ad vent 33 most im portant in struments o f sha ping p olitical r elations.54 I n 1004, count Theobald II of Blois, visiting the abbey of Saint Pére in Chartres, demanded that the mo nks p rove their lo yalty a nd r ecognition o f his supremacy by meeting him half way and leading him t o the a bbey in a ceremonial p rocession.55 S imilarly, in 1096, the co nflict b etween the abbey of Saint Thierry and count Robert II of Flanders was concluded in a ritual reception of the count by the monks “cum processione ecclesiastica”, which manifested the abbey’s submission to the count’s authority.56 The extrao rdinarily mea ningful c haracter o f the cer emony o f ad vent was especially emphasized during the celebrations which accompanied the en try in to Limog es in 1024 o f d uke William V o f Aquitaine. The duke a rrived t ogether wi th the ne w b ishop he had a ppointed a nd intended to invest despite protests of the su perior of Limoges – a rchbishop of Burges subordinate to the king. William was led to Limoges in a cer emonial p rocession o f c lergy a nd t own inha bitants, a nd then he invested the newly appointed bishop.57 The ritual of royal entry of the Aquitaine duke was complemented by the royal ceremony of the bishop’s investiture. Hence, it was possible to attribute at least some images of the s acred royal power associated with kingship also to the rank of duke or count. This enabled the d ukes and counts received with royal ceremonial to appear in the r ole of rulers who exercised their p ower – similarly to the kings – on God’s endowment.58 In this perspective, it seems, one should also place the account dedicated to Zbigniew’s return in Gallus’ text. By invoking images associated with the rite of royal advent in the description of Zbigniew’s return, the chronicler left no do ubt tha t the mo narchic s plendour o f the d ucal brother’s arrival was a severe violation of the pact he had concluded with Bolesław Wrymouth and which had ena bled him t o come back home. By returning sicut d ominus, Z bigniew s howed e xplicitly t hat he c ame back not to surrender to his b rother’s authority but to dominate him. 54 See: Koziol, Begging Pardon, p. 133 ff. See also: Hartmut Hoffmann, “Französische Fürstenweichen des Hochmittelalters,” Deutsches Archiv 18 (1962), 92–119. 55 The le tters a nd poems o f F ulbert o f Ch artres 1, e d. F rederick B ehrends (O xford, 1976), p p. 6–7. S ee als o: H einrich Fic htenau, Lebensordnungen de s 10. J ahrhunderts. Studien über Denkart und Existenz im einstigen Karolingerreich (Munich, 1994), p. 77; Koziol, Begging Pardon, pp. 134, 307. 56 Actes des comtes de Flandres 22, ed. Fernand Vercauteren (Brussels, 1938), pp. 56–57. See: Koziol, Begging Pardon, p. 134. 57 Ademari Cabanensis Chronicon III.57, p. 178. 58 See: Landes, Relics, pp. 119–120; Fichtenau, Lebensordnungen, p. 77; Koziol, Begging Pardon, p. 134.

34

ch apter o ne

By appropriating the ritual of royal entry that only rulers were entitled to, Zbigniew demonstrated his in tention to reach for the d ucal power, and put out a challenge to Bolesław, in fact forcing him to act in defence of the established order. The co nditions o f the a greement b etween B olesław Wrymouth a nd Zbigniew which allowed the return of the exiled brother back to Poland are kno wn t o us o nly thr ough Gall us’ acco unt. C osmas o f P rague’s description of the conflict between the Piast dukes, which we shall often refer to, in this case enables us to verify our chronicler’s information only to a limited extent.59 We can not be sure, therefore, whether Bolesław’s consent to his older brother’s return was – as Gallus argues – only due to the remarkable generosity of the duke who pitying the exile had decided to f orgive him his ma ny fa ults. This question we shall examine more closely in the last chapter, but it is worth indicating already at this point that Gallus’ version of events leading to Zbigniew’s return raises serious doubts. Gall us’ w ords a bout the f oolish a nd bad co unsellors ur ging Zbigniew to st and up against B olesław imply that the r eturning ducal brother had numerous supporters ready to back up his monarchic aspirations.60 I t i s pl ausible t hat on e of t hem w as archbi shop Mar tin of Gniezno, whom Bolesław had even ordered to imprison for a while, during an earlier conflict with Zbigniew in 1106.61 It is therefore not excluded that – co ntrary t o Gall us’ ass ertions – B olesław was p ersuaded t o let Zbigniew return not so much by his brother’s humble requests as rather the pressure from his supporters who had remained in Poland and made the duke enter into negotiations with his brother and eventually call him back f rom ex ile. The c hronicler’s remarks about B olesław gi ving s ome strongholds to Zbigniew and promising him new properties in the future enable us to assume tha t the ag reement determining the co nditions of Zbigniew’s comeback could in fact include Bolesław’s pledge to return to his o lder b rother a t least pa rt o f his f ormer t erritory. I n suc h cas e Zbigniew’s entry could assume a completely different meaning. It would no longer reflect his arrogance and wicked plans to deprive Bolesław of power but would only indicate the fact of his taking over the due part of the paternal inheritance as its legitimate ruler. Cosmae Pragensis Chronica III.34, p. 205. Galli Anonymi Cronicae III.25, pp. 155–156; The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles III.25, pp. 270–273. 61 Galli Anonymi Cronicae II.38, p. 108; The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles II.38, pp. 188–189. See: Maleczyński, Bolesław III, p. 64; Bieniak, “Polska elita polityczna,” p. 32 ff. 59 60

ad vent 35 In fact, it seems that Gallus was aware of the reservations his description of Zbigniew’s entry may invoke. He knew very well that not all participants a nd wi tnesses o f the e vents he w as d escribing sha red his conviction t hat Z bigniew, r eturning w ith s uch s plendour, h ad b roken the conditions of his pac t with Bolesław. Writing about the “wise men” who, pointing out Zbigniew’s arrogance manifested in the ad vent ceremony, p ersuaded B olesław t o t ake ac tion against him, the c hronicler admitted that they could have attributed a slightly different sense to the entry of the ducal brother than Zbigniew himself .62 This is why he did not merely note the fact of Zbigniew’s monarchic entry but – indirectly entering into a dispute with contrasting opinions on its meaning – subjected it to specific interpretative procedures which added new meanings to the ducal brother’s advent enabling the chronicler to match it to the story of Zbigniew’s ingratitude he was constructing. The ceremonies of royal entry consisted of a whole set of various ritual acts which, complementing one another, formed an elaborate, complex sp ectacle o f the a rrival a nd the g reeting o f t he r uler b y t he community receiving him. Its fundamental elements were: the arrival of the king’s retinue – adventus, the procession of the citizens going out to meet the r uler – occursus, welcoming and receiving him – susceptio or receptio, and, finally, the ceremonial ingression of the ruler into the town – ingressus.63 In Gallus’ account of Zbigniew’s return, however, only one element of the ceremony of royal entry can be discerned. The chronicler mentions o nly t he adv ent of Zb igniew, a rriving in co mpany o f musicians, with a sword carried before him. There is no men tion of anyone going out to me et the r eturning banished duke halfway or welcoming and r eceiving him. Zb igniew’s a rrival is no t acco mpanied b y jo yful shouts, ringing of bells or music. The only orchestra w hose play celebrates his entry is made of his own musicians. In this situation it is difficult t o c all i t a n e ntry a t a ll. I n c ase o f Zb igniew’s r eturn, i n G allus’ rendition, rather than the entry ceremony itself, we see an imitation, an attempt at performing the ritual of royal advent. Upon his return from exile, Zbigniew tries to behave as a ruler and arrive with all due ceremony b ut no o ne r ecognizes his mo narchic asp irations a nd no o ne receives him as a ruler. Galli Anonymi Cronicae, III, 25, p. 155; The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles, III, 25, p. 273. 63 See: Martin Heinzelmann, Translationberichte und andere Quellen des Reliquienkultes (Turnhout, 1979), pp. 72–74. 62

36

ch apter o ne

In t his c ontext, h owever, a nother f ragment o f G allus’ s tory d eserves some a ttention. D escribing t he a rrival o f Z bigniew, b esides n oting t he presence of musicians among his attendants, the chronicler indicates only one more detail, the sword carried before him. The importance our author attached to co nveying this p iece of information inspires to t ake a c loser look at the meanings he could have associated with this ceremony. The c ustom o f ca rrying a sw ord b efore the r uler was cer tainly w ell embedded in t he t radition of ceremonial monarchic appearances.64 No t seldom it can be encountered in ceremonies of royal entry. As we remember, in the acco unts of Richer of Saint-Remi and Dudo o f Saint-Quentin quoted ea rlier, the sw ord was ca rried als o b efore L ouis IV a nd William Longsword. One ma y assume , o n the basis o f Thietmar o f M erseburg’s relation of the fate of count Ansfrid, the sword-man of Otto I, later bishop of Utrecht and saint, the sword was carried also before the future emperor triumphantly en tering Ro me in 962. 65 The ritual o f carrying the sword appears also regularly in des criptions of processional pageants modelled after the ceremony of adventus regis, which accompanied the German rulers of the early and high Middle Ages on their way to church celebrations.66 Sometimes also Polish r ulers acted as sw ord-men of the German kings during these ceremonies. In 1013 Bolesław I the Brave carried the sword before H enry II d uring the cer emony o f his en try in to the M erseburg cathedral.67 In 1135, as already mentioned, the sword before Lothar III led in procession to the church in Merseburg was carried by Bolesław Wrymouth.68 There ca n be n o d oubt, th erefore, th at Gall us’ d epiction o f Zbigniew a rriving cum en se pr ecedente co rresponded wi th th e m odel o f monarchic advent well known at the Piast co urt. It is pla usible, however, to assume this was not the only reason why Gallus placed the ceremony of carrying the sword before Zbigniew in the focal point of his description. It seems that in Gal lus’ intention the celebrations he depicted were to invoke other important meanings, as well, beyond the purely informative content. See: P ercy Ern st S chramm, Geschichte des englischen Königtums im Lichte der Krönung, 1 (Weimar, 1937), p. 64 ff; Percy Ernst Schramm, Der König von Frankreich. Das Wesen der Monarchie vom 9. bis zum 16. Jahrhundert, 1 (Weimar, 1939), p. 164 ff. 65 Thietmari Merseburgensis Chronicon IV.32, pp. 169–171. See: Warner, “Ritual and Memory,” p. 271. 66 See: Gerd Althoff, Die Macht der R ituale. Symbolik und Herrschaft im Mittelalter (Darmstadt, 2003), p. 95 ff. 67 Thietmari M erseburgensis Ch ronicon VI.91, p. 382. See: Bronisław Nowacki, “Symbolika prawna w ceremoniale zjazdów monarchów polskich z władcami niemieckimi od X do p ołowy XII wiek u,” Roczniki Historyczne 43 (1977), 21 ff; Warner, “Ritual and Memory,” pp. 270–271; Althoff, Die Macht der Rituale, p. 95. 68 Annales Magdeburgenses a. 1135, p. 185; Chronicon Montis Sereni, p. 144. 64

ad vent 37 One should remember that the ceremony of royal entry carried not only the mess age o f a ha ppy w elcome d uring w hich the co mmunity received the ruler with all due honour and thus voluntarily recognized him as i ts lo rd, le d him t o the t own a nd surr endered t o his p ower. Adventus r egis is a lso, ma ybe e ven fi rst o f a ll, a ma nifestation o f t he royal power and force. In the indi vidual elements of the cer emony of the royal entry one may see clear allusions to the p ossible means the ruler co uld us e t o ex ercise his legi timate rights b y f orce in c ase the community tried to refuse to acknowledge them. The armed entourage accompanying the ruler and the sword carried before him were to demonstrate explicitly his readiness to force the disobedient to surrender to his p ower. In fac t, in cas e of royal advent we may sp eak of a sp ecific merging of elements of force and violence with images of peace and harmony between the r uler and his s ubjects.69 Depending on circumstances, in the cer emony o f r oyal ad vent a g reater emphasis was p ut either on the, let us ca ll it, “peaceful” side o f the r uler’s arrival or the “military” asp ect o f his en try. The cer emony o f en try co uld al ways change into a brutal siege whereas the attack of a town could end with a welcoming ceremony.70 In 894 the East Frankish king Arnulf of Carinthia set off t o Italy to undertake armed intervention in the conflict between two pretenders to the Italian crown Berengar I of Friuli and Wido of Spoleto. First he went to Verona w here h e was c eremoniously r eceived. Then h eaded f or Bergamo but its inhabitants refused to go out to greet him, so Arnulf laid siege to the town and when he captured it he ordered all citizens to be killed and the local count to be hanged at the gate. Horrified by the events in B ergamo, the inha bitants o f o ther I talian t owns, inc luding Milan and Pavia, did no t dare to deny Arnulf the rig ht to perform the ceremony of royal advent.71 See: Michael McCormick, Eternal Victory. Triumphal Rulership in Late Antiquity, Byzantium and the Early Medieval West (Cambridge, 1986); MacCormack, “Change and Continuity,” p. 726; Bryant, “La cérémonie de l’entrée,” p. 520 ff; Ralph E. Giesey, “Modèles de pouvoir dans les rites royaux en France,” Annales ESC 41 (1986), p. 588 ff. 70 See: Buc, The Dangers of Ritual, p. 40 ff. See also: Gerd Althoff, “Die Veränderbarkeit von Ritualen im Mittelalter,” in Formen und Funktionen öffentlicher Kommunikation im M ittelalter, Vorträge und F orschungen 51, e d. G erd Althoff (S tuttgart, 2001), pp. 157–175. 71 Liudprandi Cremonensis A ntapodosis I.23–24, p . 20. S ee: B uc, The D angers o f Ritual, p p. 41–42. S ee als o: J örg J arnut, “Die Er oberung B ergamos (894). Eine Entscheidungsschlacht zwis chen K aiser Wido und K önig Arnulf,” Deutsches Archiv 30 (1974), 208–215. 69

38

ch apter o ne

A cen tury a nd a half la ter, the Cze ch d uke S pytihněv II w ent t o Moravia and demanded the local magnates to come and greet him at the castle o f C hrudim. The M oravians ca rried o ut his o rder a nd w ent t o meet the d ucal r etinue half way. S pytihněv’s ad vent, ho wever, was no t concluded as he had envisioned it, and the ritual ceremony of welcoming the duke by Moravian magnates did not take place. The duke, angry that the M oravians had no t met him w here the y w ere s upposed t o, ordered all of them to be imprisoned.72 The opposite course of events took place in 809 in Barcelona. The re, an act of violence eventually led to a joyful advent. After the successful conquest, Louis the Pious entered the town greeted by a procession of ecclesiastics who sang paeans in his praise.73 Similarly one should consider the course of the campaign of Bolesław the Brave to Rus’ in 1018. Having defeated the a rmy of the R uthenian duke Iaroslav the Wise in the battle of Bug river, Bolesław proceeded into the country “ab incolis omnibus suscipitur”. The coping stone of Bolesław’s triumphal advent in Rus’ was the ceremony of his entry into Kiev. The victorious Polish ruler was greeted by the local archbishop, who went out to meet him carrying precious relics and then led him inside the church of Saint Sophia.74 The borderline b etween cer emonial ad vent and a ggressor’s attack was no t always clearly visible. The ambiguity of the ceremony of royal advent allowed its participants and witnesses to understand it in more than one way. They could invest it with different meanings depending on their needs and expectations. This sort of obliqueness of the ritual of advent made it a f requent subject of various interpretative procedures corresponding to o ften contradictory interests o f i ts pa rticipants a nd obs ervers. M edieval a uthors w ere w ell aware of this ambiguity of the ceremony of royal entry and the possibilities it yielded to convey information they considered suitable. Their texts not rarely contain examples of manipulating the description of the royal advent ceremony with the aim of integrating it into the story and in the

Cosmae Pr agensis Chronica II.15, p. 105. S ee: P leszczyński, Przestrzeń i polityka, p. 233, note 50. 73 Astronomi Vita Hludovici imperatoris 13, ed. Ernst Tremp, MGH SSrG, 64 (Hanover, 1995), pp. 314–320. See: Brühl, Fodrum, 1, p. 106, note 419; See also: McCormick, Eternal Victory, pp. 374–375. 74 Thietmari M erseburgensis Ch ronicon VIII.31–32, p p. 528–530. S ee: J acek Banaszkiewicz, “Bolesław i P eredsława. U wagi o ur oczystości st anowienia władc y w związku z w ejściem C hrobrego d o K ijowa,” Kwartalnik H istoryczny 97 (1990), pp. 3–35. 72

ad vent 39 constructed image of reality. Hence, the rite of advent could serve – according to the intentions and sympathies of the author – as a manifestation of the monarch’s power and glory, and the legitimacy of his royal claims, or as proof of his wic kedness, and his det ermination to exercise power by force, regardless of the will of the community.75 The awareness that the ritual of royal entry can be understood in a“wrong” way is clearly reflected in Kadłubek’s account of the arrival of Casimir the Just to Krakow. It is not a coincidence – one may think – tha t the chronicler, describing how the citizens of Krakow welcomed Casimir, stresses emphatically that the duke “Cracouiam cum perpaucis adit, cauens ne uiolenta magis ipsius occupatio uideatur, quam ultronea ciuium electio”.76 In this way Kadłubek eliminated all doubt his readers could have, that Casimir’s entry had nothing to do with an armed occupation of an usurper but that it was a genuine, joyful advent, the arrival of a long awaited saviour. It seems that Gallus’ account dedicated to Zbigniew’s return can be judged in similar terms. By drawing attention chiefly to the sword carried before t he du cal brot her, i n his d escription of Z bigniew’s e ntry, Gallus intentionally referred to imag es ass ociated with the mi litary, if one may say so, aspect of the royal advent. In this presentation of the advent of Zbigniew, who arrived with a sword and in company of an armed entourage, one may discern hardly disguised allusions to an armed entry of a vic torious ruler into a defeated enemy town. Not accidentally, one may assume , in the p rior pa rts o f his Chronicle Gall us twice e voked scenes o f t riumphal mo narchic en tries o f t he P olish rulers in w hich swords played a very important role. In the account of our chronicler the hig h p oint o f B olesław the B rave’s tri umphal entry into K iev was precisely the mo ment in w hich he str uck the G olden Ga te wi th his sword.77 Similarly, Bolesław the Bold’s capture of Kiev culminated in his gesture of hitting the Golden Gate with the sword.78 In comparison with 75 B uc, The D angers o f R itual, p p. 37 ff, 70 ff, 80 ff; Warner, “Ritual a nd M emory,” p. 263 ff. 76 Magistri Vincentii Chronica IV.6, p. 145. 77 Galli Anonymi Cronicae I.7, pp. 22–23: “At Bolezlaus nullo sibi resistente civitatem magnam et opulentam ingrediens et evaginato gladio in auream portam percuciens”. The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles I.7, p. 43: “Bolesław thus met with no resistance when he entered this gra nd and rich city. As he did , he dr ew his sw ord and str uck it upon the Golden Gate”. 78 Galli Anonymi Cronicae I.23, p. 48: “Ipse quoque sicut primus Bolezlauus magnus Ruthenorum regni caput, urben Kygow precipuam hostiliter intravit, ictumque sui ensis in porta aurea signum memorie dereliquit”. The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles I.23, p. 89: “Also, like Bolesław I the Great, he marched on the great city of Kiev the capital of the Ruthenians, and drove his sword into its Golden Gate as a sign to remember.”

40

ch apter o ne

those tw o K iev ad vents the mea nings Gall us a ttributed t o Zb igniew’s arrival cum ense precedente become even clearer. Whereas the two great Polish rulers marked with their swords victories won over the enemies, Zbigniew directed the sword carried before him against his own brother who generously gave consent to his return home. As a r esult, in Gall us’ rendition, the a rrival of Zbigniew assumed the form of a conqueror’s entry who, by having his sword ostentatiously carried before him, manifested his intention to take by force the monarchic rights he was no t entitled to. Zbigniew’s entry is the en try of a usur per who has no other arguments for his claims but violence. The celebrations accompanying his arrival appear as a sort of ritual aggression, leaving no doubt about his p lans to s eize the d ucal p ower. Ess entially, in the wa y Gallus describes these events, Zbigniew’s monarchic entry means in fact his putting out a challenge to Bolesław who, in turn, is presented with a dilemma to either acknowledge the ducal aspirations of his older brother and surrender to his power or fight with him in defence of the throne.

CHAPTER TWO

SUBMISSION AND RECONCILIATION Zbigniew would have avoided the tragic fate that befell him, if – as Gallus argues – he had fulfilled the conditions of the agreement with Bolesław. In our chronicler’s presentation, Bolesław was inclined to give consent to Zbigniew’s r eturn b ecause o f the h umble r equests he had r eceived from his banished brother. The duke decided to receive the exile back on condition that he persisted in humility and obedience. Zbigniew, however, “non humiliter sed arroganter est ingressus”. As a result, the monarchic en try o f Zb igniew s et in mo tion an entire s equence o f dra matic events w hich u ltimately le d to his misf ortune. “For if Zb igniew came humbly and prudently, like a ma n intending to ask f or mercy and not like a lo rd w ho wa nts t o r ule wi th the r od o f va nity, he w ould no t have incurred irreparable damage on himself and drawn others into a lamentable crime” – argues the chronicler.1 Gallus’ statement that Zbigniew’s humble attitude appropriate of a person asking for mercy could have led to a real reconciliation between the two brothers and guarantee Zbigniew a lasting favour of Bolesław merits some more attention. It plays an important role in the chronicler’s argument, r einforcing the r eader’s b elief in B olesław’s inno cence a nd Zbigniew’s guilt, and blaming the latter for having caused his own misfortune as a result of inappropriate behaviour. Once more, the chronicler refers here to the monarchic entry of Zbigniew whose arrival sicut dominus undo ubtedly demo nstrated his in tentions to r each f or t he d ucal power in defiance of the promise of obedience he had made to his brother. However, for mulating charge s ag ainst Z bigniew and sh ifting onto him the responsibility for the tragic course of events, Gallus did not limit his description to the image of the ducal brother arriving cum ense precedente 1 Galli Anonymi Cronicae et gesta ducum sive principum Polonorum III.25, ed. Karol Maleczyński, MPH n. s. 2 (K rakow, 1952), p . 156: “Si enim Zb igneus h umiliter et sapienter a dveniret, s icut h omo m isericordiam p etiturus, n on s icut d ominus q uasi vanitatis fas cibus r egnaturus, ne c i psemet in da mpnum irr eparabile co rruisset, ne c alios in crimen la mentabile p osuisset”. Gesta pr incipum Polonorum. The D eeds of the Princes o f t he P oles III.25, tra ns. P aul W. K noll a nd F rank S chaer, C entral E uropean Medieval Texts 3, series ed. Frank Schaer, general eds. János M. Bak, Urszula Borkowska, Giles Constable, Gábor Klaniczay (Budapest-New York, 2003), pp. 273–275.

42

ch apter t wo

but contrasted the mo narchic entry which led Zbigniew to ruin with a humble a rrival sicut homo m isericordiam peti turus w hich c ould h ave ensured him Bolesław’s mercy and forgiveness of his past sins. By including the des cription of Zbigniew’s entry in the st ory of the conflict b etween the P iast b rothers, Gall us r eferred t o f orms o f ri tual behaviour belonging to the ceremony of adventus regis – dis cussed in the previous chapter. Thanks to these clear references to the ceremony of royal entry his account of Zbigniew’s return inspired a whole set of relevant associations which enabled the chronicler to lend this event a new meaning, suitable from his point of view. However, the sense and effectiveness of the interpretative procedures Gallus used to place the scene of Zbigniew’s return in the narrative of the wickedness and ungratefulness of the ducal brother was determined and justified by the use of the rituals he described in the actual political practice of the Piast monarchy of the early 12th cen tury. To sum u p, the fact that in the p olitical reality of the earlier-medieval Poland the rite of advent was thought to be one of the most im portant forms of ceremonial manifestation of the Piast dukes’ mo narchic ma jesty en sured tha t the r eaders o f the Chronicle would understand the mea nings it carried and thus enabled Gallus to use it to construct his narrative. It is therefore plausible that the words expressing the r oyal entry’s o pposite – the h umble a rrival sicut homo misericordiam peti turus – w ere no t mer ely a rhet orical fi gure, either. Most p robably, simila rly t o the t erm sicut d ominus Ga llus us ed to describe Zbigniew’s arrival, the p hrase he employed to defi ne what he thought would be the appropriate attitude the exile should have adopted entailed a specific ritual reality explicitly understood by the readers of his chronicle. Let us, therefore, take a close look at this set of ritual acts and examine their importance in Gallus’ line of reasoning. A good starting point for investigating the meaning of the image of humble advent depicted by Gallus seems to be his account of the earlier dispute between Bolesław Wrymouth and Zbigniew. In 1106, the growing conflict between the two brothers turned into an open war. Bolesław resolved to reach for full power over the entire monarchy divided in 1102 by their father and drive Zbigniew out of the country. Having made peace with the Czechs and enlisted the help of Rus’ and Hungary, Bolesław collected his army and set off against his brother. Zbigniew, however, did not take up the challenge and withdrew to the other side of the Vistula river. Only the garrison of Kalisz, loyal to Zbigniew, tried to repulse the attack. After a sho rt siege, however, B olesław’s army conquered Kalisz. At the same time his followers seized Gniezno. Having imprisoned archbishop

submission a nd r ec onc il iati on

43

Martin w ho su pported Zb igniew, B olesław heade d t owards Ł ęczyca. There, joined by the Ruthenian and Hungarian reinforcements, he crossed the river. At that point, Zbigniew seeing that he had no capacity to effectively fight bac k his b rother de cided t o ca pitulate. Thanks t o the mediation of R uthenian du ke l aroslav an d bi shop B aldwin of Kr akow peace was made. Zbigniew was summoned by Bolesław to give him satisfaction and declare obedience: “ante fratrem satisfacturus et ob editurus est adductus”. Zbigniew acknowledged to b e inferior to his b rother and swore t o ob ey him. After tha t B olesław allo wed Zb igniew t o r etain Mazovia but only on the condition that he was to hold it “as a knight, not as a lord”. 2 Gallus does not describe in detail the course of this ceremony which ended the conflict and allowed the ultimate reconciliation of the quarrelling parties. We learn only that Zbigniew publicly coram omnibus gave Bolesław satisfaction and promised him obedience. Nevertheless, drawing o n this acco unt, Vincent K adłubek in h is o wn des cription o f the conflict between the Piast dukes, written at the turn of the 12th and 13th centuries had no doubt about the precise course of events. In his rendition, Zb igniew, face d wi th a t otal def eat, was t o fall a t his vic torious brother’s feet and, with the magnates’ mediation, gain his forgiveness.3 The act of prostration, demonstrating – in the c hronicler’s presentation – Zbigniew’s submission to Bolesław’s power and enabling him to gain the favour of his younger brother, had great significance in the religious and political reality of the earlier Middle Ages. In its essence, prostration co nstituted a g esture o f p rayer ma nifesting f ull sub mission t o God a nd r ecognition o f o ne’s sinf ulness a nd no thingness in f ront o f God’s majesty. In the act of humility the faithful put himself in the hands of God, hoping to gain his mercy. It manifested true Christian humility and desire to imitate Christ who died a humiliating death on the cross. Prostration accompanied also many liturgical rites of the Church. It was an important element of the rituals of holy orders and royal anointment.

2 Galli Anonymi Cronicae II.37–38, pp. 107–109; The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles II.37–38, p p. 187–191. S ee: Ro man G rodecki, “Zbigniew książę P olski,” in Studia Staropolskie. Księga ku czci Aleksandra Brücknera (Krakow, 1928), p. 98 ff; Te odor Tyc, Zbygniew i Bolesław (Poznań, 1927), p. 8 ff; Karol Maleczyński, Bolesław III Krzywousty (Wrocław, 1975), p. 63 ff. 3 Magistri Vincentii d icti K adłubek Ch ronica P olonorum III.28, e d. M arian Plezia, MPH n. s. 11 (Krakow, 1994), p. 75: “Quem Boleslaus omnibus eius municipiis interceptis urgentissime insectatur, donec humillime prouolutus uix optimatum tandem inpetrat interuentu, ut miles saltem fratris non regni coheres estimetur”.

44

ch apter t wo

It was also an indispensable constituent of the ritual of penance, opening before the repentant sinner the doors to reconciliation with God.4 The importance of prostration in the liturgical tradition of the Church influenced the meanings associated with this ac t also in the sp here of political action in the early Middle Ages. The gestures of humility, including prostration, played an important role in the s et of ritual acts constructing t he f ramework of pu blic c eremonial a ppearances of t he medieval monarchs. By assuming a humble attitude the ruler could show that he acknowledged his responsibility before God for the kingdom he was entrusted with, and that he desired to seek God’s favour.5 Direct and explicit references to gestures of prayer determined the role of the act of prostration also as a way of gaining the favour and mercy of the r ulers b y th eir s ubjects. Admittedly, in th e West th e cer emony o f humbling oneself before the ruler did not assume the form of an elaborate spectacle as in Byzantium where the subjects worshipped their monarch b y p rostrating them selves b efore him. 6 N evertheless, a lso i n t he political culture of the early medieval monarchies of the Latin West the act of prostration was perceived as an appropriate form of communication with the monarch whose power derived from God.7 The presence of gestures o f h umility was p articularly f elt in the ac tions a imed no t s o much at gaining as a t regaining the mo narch’s favour, and b egging his forgiveness for offences committed. This issue is v ery important for the present investigations and, therefore, merits some more attention. Relatively many sources of the early and high Middle Ages contain information on a ceremony normally labelled with the term deditio – submission, o r satisfactio – satisfaction. The ri tual o f deditio is mentioned usually in the context of ceremonies a imed at r estoring peace disturbed b y s erious p olitical co nflicts in volving the a uthority o f the ruler, most ly dynast ic disp utes o r r ebellions o f mag nates. S ources describing the act of deditio transmit a rather homogeneous picture of the ceremony of submission: in an act of compensation for the offences 4 Rudolf S untrup, Die Be deutung der l iturgischen Ge bärden u nd Bewe gungen i n lateinischen und deutschen Auslegungen des 9. bis 13. Jahrhunderts (Munich, 1978), pp. 166–169. 5 See: Chapter Three. 6 Otto Treitinger, Die o strömische K aiser- u nd Reic hsidee n ach ih rer Ge staltung i m höfischen Zeremoniell (Jena, 1938), p. 84 ff. 7 See: Geoffrey Koziol, Begging Pardon and Favor. Ritual and Political Order in Early Medieval France (Ithaca-London, 1992); Geoffrey Koziol, “The early history of rites of supplication,” in Suppliques et requêtes. Le gouvernement par la grâce en Occident (XIIeXVe siècle), ed. Hélène Millet (Rome, 2003), pp. 21–36.

submission a nd r ec onc il iati on

45

he had committed, the defeated rebel fell at the ruler’s feet, confessed his faults, and begged for mercy.8 The public, ceremonial humiliation of the defeated enemy constituted a constant element of rituals used to celebrate victory in various societies and cultures. They also played an important role in the Roman triumphal ceremonies whose tradition was continued in every respect in the Middle Ages by the Byzantine emperors. The main moment of the celebration of triumph was the ceremony during which the defeated enemy, stripped of the signs of his past ranks and titles, was forced to prostrate himself before the victorious emperor and worship him. In Late Roman ceremonies of triumph and especially in the Byzantine triumphal rites the act of humiliation involving the gesture of prostration was complemented by a ritual – used most frequently during celebrations of defeating a usurper – during which the emperor treaded on the humiliated enemy.9 Certainly, al so in th e cer emony o f deditio co nsiderable importance was a ttached to r itualised gestures a nd a ttitudes w hich sho wed t he defeated rebel’s humbleness and his submission to the victorious monarch’s p ower. It does not seem plausible, however, to s eek the p oint of reference for the ceremony of deditio in the Roman or Byzantine ritual of triumph. The meaning of the rite of deditio was not only (or even – not foremost) determined by the wish to humiliate the defeated enemy and manifest the power and magnitude of the victorious ruler. It seems to have entailed other, much more complex messages. The ceremony of deditio was not limited merely to the ritual humiliation of the defeated rebel through the g esture of prostration before the victorious ruler. The act of humiliation which served as a manifestation of the victory of the monarch who accepted the submission of the defeated enemy was then co mpleted b y subs equent g estures o f f orgiveness and reconciliation. The r uler, sho wing co mpassion, lifted the h umble a nd 8 See f or e xample: G erd Althoff, “Das P rivileg der de ditio. F ormen gü tlicher Konfliktbeendigung in der mittelalterlichen Adelsgesellschaft,”i n Spielregeln der Politik. Kommunikation in F rieden und Fehde (D armstadt, 1997), p p. 99–125; G erd Althoff, “Genugtuung (satisfactio). Zur Eigenart gütlicher Konfliktbeilegung im Mi ttelalter,” in Modernes Mittelalter, ed. Joachim Heinzle (Frankfurt a. M., 1994), pp. 247–265; Karl L. Leyser, Herrschaft und Konflikt. König und Adel im ottonischen Sachsen (Göttingen, 1984), p. 153 ff; Timothy Reuter, “Unruhestiftung, Fehde, Rebellion, Widerstand. Gewalt und Frieden in der Politik der Salierzeit,” in Die Salier und das Reich, 3, Gesellschaftlicher und ideengeschichtlicher Wandel im Reich der Salier, ed. Stefan Weinfurter (Sigmaringen, 1991), p. 320 ff; Koziol, Begging Pardon, p. 185 ff. 9 See: Andreas Alföldi, Die monarchische Repräsentation i m rö mischen Kaiserreiche (Darmstadt, 1970); Michael McCormick, Eternal Victory. Triumphal Rulership in L ate Antiquity, Byzantium and the Early Medieval West (Cambridge, 1986).

46

ch apter t wo

repentant rebel who was b egging for mercy and, exchanging a kiss o f peace with him, restored him to favour. The merging of acts of humiliation and forgiveness or submission and reconciliation characteristic of the ceremony of deditio draws attention to the ritual of public penance. The ritual acts which constitute the ceremony of deditio – humiliation through prostration, confession o f sins and begging for mercy, finally forgiveness and reconciliation – seem to reflect the rituals marking the most important elements of the ceremony of public penance which led the sinner – precisely through an act of humbleness – to reconciliation with God. In the early Church, the reconciliation with God a nd compensation for the sins committed was possible only through the ritual of public penance which the sinner performed only once in a lifetime. It consisted in public confession of sins, wearing penitential garments and prostration of the sinner who humbly accepted the penance. When the period of penance during which the penitent retained the right to participate in masses ended, the ceremony of reconciliation took place. After the penitent had publicly humbled himself in an act of prostration, the bishop restored him back to the congregation of faithful, by putting his hands on him and praying.10 Gradually, however, starting from the 6th century, it had become more widespread in t he Church to b elieve that it was possible to administer the sacrament of penance to the faithful more than once and apply different sorts of penance, depending on the kind of sin committed. The custom of individual confession was also becoming more popular, and the right to forgive sins started to be granted not only to bishops but to ordinary priests, as w ell. The changes in under standing the ess ence of the sacrament of penance, taking place in the 6th and 7th centuries, were reflected particularly in the penitentials written in Irish monastic communities, which defi ned various forms of private penance imposed on the sinners depending on the kind of offences they had committed. The penitentials and the system of penitential tariffs they introduced relatively q uickly ga ined co nsiderable p opularity – in sp ite o f t he ini tial opposition of the Church hierarchies – also on the Continent and started to slowly supplant the practice of public penance.11 10 B ernhard Poschmann, Die a bendländische K irchenbuße i m f rühen M ittelalter (Breslau, 1930), p. 116 ff. 11 Cyrille Vogel, Le pécheur et la pénitence au Moyen Âge (Paris, 1969), p. 24 ff; Raymund Kottje, “Bußpraxis und B ußritus,” in Segni e riti nella chiesa altomedievale occidentale, Settimane di st udio de l C entro i taliano di st udi sull’alto me dioevo 37 (S poleto, 1987),

submission a nd r ec onc il iati on

47

Soon, however, the Carolingian reform movement made an attempt at restoring the p ublic penance to its past f unctions and importance.12 Although the principle that the sacrament of penance should be administered only once in a lifetime could not be restored, established became the custom of using the old forms of paenitentia publica in case of the most grave sins which had a“public character” and thus provoked public outrage a nd w ere esp ecially o ffensive to G od. The C arolingian rulers fully su pported t he e cclesiastic r eformers. I n t heir ca pitularies t hey strongly emphasized the need to impose public penance on those guilty of offences violating the public order and endangering the stability of the Christian m onarchy t hey we re bu ilding. As a re sult, pu blic p enance played the role of one of the foundations of the political and ideological order of the Carolingian monarchy. In the hands of the Carolingian rulers it b ecame an important instrument of p olitical ac tion, a me ans of disciplining disobedient subjects and preserving internal peace. It enabled the monarchs to call to account the perpetrators of the most serious crimes, at the same time giving them a chance to expiate their crimes – by accepting the penance imposed – and reconcile.13 In m any C arolingian c apitularies p ublic p enance i s m entioned together o r r ather b eside a nother p unishment labelled a s harmiscara. Like the public penance, harmiscara, too, was used in case of perpetrators of the most serious crimes, violating the public order. The capitularies usually d o n ot furnish any det ails about t he character if this punishment. It is plausible to assume, however, that it consisted mainly in a public humiliation of the offender b efore the r uler, and an important part of this act – according to the capitulary issued by emperor Louis II in 866 – was a ritual of placing a saddle on the shoulders of the person punished with harmiscara.14 pp. 369–395; Mayke de J ong, “Transformations of penance,” in Rituals of Power: From Late Antiquity t o t he Ea rly M iddle Ages, e ds. F rank Theuws, J anet L. N elson (Leiden, 2000), pp. 185–224. 12 See: Ros amond M cKitterick, The Frankish C hurch an d the Carolingian R eforms, 789–985 (London, 1977). 13 Mayke de Jong, “Power and humility in Carolingian society: the public penance of Louis the P ious,” Early Medieval E urope 1 (1992), 29–52; M ayke de J ong, “What wa s public about public penance? Paenitentia publica and justice in the Carolingian world,” in La giustizia nell’alto medioevo (secoli IX-XI), 2, Settimane di studio del Centro italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo 44 (Spoleto, 1997), p. 880 ff. 14 Constitutio de e xpeditione B eneventana 9 , ed s. Alfred B oretius, Victor K rause, MGH Capitularia regum Francorum, 2 (Hanover, 1890), p. 96: “armiscara, id est sella ad suum dorsum, ante nos a suis s enioribus dirigatur, et us que ad nostra m indulgentiam sustineat”. See: Jean-Marie Moeglin, “Harmiscara, harmschar, hachée. Le dossier des rituels

48

ch apter t wo

Essentially then, in cas e of harmiscara which originated in a to tally different tradition than paenitentia publica one may dis cern the s ame basic r itual ac tions a nd gest ures, stemmin g from the co nviction that public humiliation is needed in order to expiate the crimes committed and avoid punishment, and hence retain one’s position in the community. Similarly to public penance, harmiscara was used in the Carolingian period as a me ans of repression directed first of all against magnates. It resulted from both the character of offences these punishments were used for – m urder, revolt against the r uler, robbery, seizure of Church property and oppressing the poor – and the ceremonial forms they were associated with. In both cases the essence of the punishment constituted an act of public humiliation which included discarding the signs of one’s rank and dignity and assuming a humble attitude in attendance of the ruler’s mercy. As a result, the two orders – religious and secular – as well as the punishment associated with them started to merge. Transgressions of Church laws began to be treated as offences against the authority of the state whereas offences against secular regulations and the monarchic power started to be perceived as violations of God’s law.15 The inclusion of the rite of public penance into the sphere of political endeavours, however, did no t s erve the p urpose of demonstrating the monarch’s majesty only. Certainly, the association of ritual acts belonging to public penance with offences committed against monarchic power gave a specific religious aura to and strengthened the sacred foundations of the r ulers r eceiving the su bmission o f r ebels w ho – f ollowing the example o f p enitents b egging G od f or f orgiveness – ask ed f or their mercy. Nevertheless it als o imposed s erious restrictions on the r ulers. Just like the penitential humiliation ultimately led to reconciliation and restoration of the penitent to his congregation, so the submission to the ruler was followed by an act of forgiveness, reconciliation and restoration of former ranks and titles to the rebel. It is not by chance, then, that the ceremony of submission – deditio – referring to the model of public penance started to be used in the p olitical practice of the C arolingian monarchy only during the reign of Louis the Pious. d’humiliation et de soumission au Moyen Âge,” Archivum Latinitatis Medii Aevi. Bulletin Du Cange 54 (1996), 11–65; de J ong, “Power and humility,” p. 43 ff; Jessica Hemming, “Sellam g estare. Saddle-B earing Punishmen ts a nd the C ase o f R hiannon,” Viator 28 (1997), 45–64; see also: Adalbert Erler, “Harmschar,” in Handwörterbuch zur deutschen Rechtsgeschichte, 1 (Berlin, 1971), cols. 2007–2008. 15 De Jong, “Power and humility,” p. 44 ff; de Jong, “What was public about public penance?,” p. 887 ff.

submission a nd r ec onc il iati on

49

During the reign of his father Charlemagne, the ceremonies of submission of the defeated rebels who remorsefully confessed their faults, humbled themselves b efore the r uler and b egged him f or mercy were also carried out in the f ramework of the tradition of p enitential rites. The act of public humiliation, however, was not sufficient to regain the monarch’s favour. Only a life-long penance served in a monastery could really compensate the ruler for the offences committed by the repentant culprit.16 This is how duke Tassilo III of Bavaria had to atone for disobeying Charlemagne. Sentenced to death during the synod in Ingelheim in 788, he had t o beg Charlemagne to let him en ter a mo nastery and there r epent h is m any s ins. S ix y ears l ater, in 7 94, a t t he sy nod i n Frankfurt, he was obliged to again appear before Charlemagne and beg the ruler to forgive him his faults. This time, the king resolved to have mercy on the Bavarian duke and grant him grace. The royal forgiveness, however, did not mean the end of Tassilo’s penance. The duke had to go back to the monastery and spend the rest of his life there.17 Also the successors to Charlemagne often imposed the punishment of penance in monastic seclusion on their rebellious relatives or disobedient magnates.18 Gradually, however, they began to use the ritual acts and gestures directly referring to the rite of public penance in a larger measure to enable the humble rebels to regain the royal favour almost immediately, sometimes o nly f ollowing a s hort im prisonment, a fter the y had co mpleted the act of submission. This was the case in 834 when the reconciliation b etween t he emperor L ouis t he Pious and his oldest s on L othar I took place, ending the dramatic conflict that had long divided them. A year earlier, in 833, Lothar led to Louis’ deposition from the throne. Louis was also forced to undertake public penance and to plead guilty of many offences.19 It is plausible to assume that in Lothar’s intention the public penance of Louis was to be followed, according to the old Frankish De Jong, “What was public about public penance?,” p. 887 ff. Annales regni Francorum a. 788, ed. Friedrich Kurze, MGH SSrG, 6 (Hanover, 1839), p. 80; Synodus F ranconofurtensis, e d. Alfred B oretius, M GH C apitularia r egum Francorum, 1 (H anover, 1883), p . 72. S ee: M atthias B echer, Eid u nd H errschaft. Untersuchungen zum Herrscherethos Karls des Großen (Sigmaringen, 1993), pp. 21–77; Philippe Depreux, “Tassilon III et le roi de Francs. Examen d’une vassalité controversée,” Revue Historique 293 (1995), 23–73; Stuart Airlie, “Narratives of triumph and rituals of submission. Charlemagne’s mastering of B avaria,” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 9, ser. 6 (1999), 93–119; Gerd Althoff, Die M acht der R ituale. S ymbolik u nd Herrschaft im Mittelalter (Darmstadt, 2003), 53–56. 18 De Jong, “What was public about public penance?,” p. 883 ff. 19 See Chapter Three. 16 17

50

ch apter t wo

tradition, b y banishment to a mo nastery w here the f ormer em peror would spend the rest of his life repenting his sins.20 Lothar, however, did not manage to carry out his plans and was forced by his younger brothers to release the father. Free again, Louis immediately gathered his supporters and set off against his son. Seeing his father’s advantage, Lothar decided to surrender. Together with a group of magnates who had been supporting h im he we nt to t he e mperor’s c amp and fel l a t L ouis’ fe et begging him f or f orgiveness a nd p romising ob edience. The em peror decided to have mercy on his humbling son and agreed to his retaining control over Italy.21 A simila r co urse o f e vents t ook p lace in 871, endin g the co nflict between king Charles the B ald of West Franks and his s on C arloman. Having fou ght h is f ather for man y ye ars, w ith chang ing for tunes, Carloman f ell at C harles’ f eet, b egging f or m ercy. The k ing de cided to forgive the rebel son his disobedience and not only returned the estates seized f rom him b ut als o gra nted him ne w endo wments.22 Two ye ars later, in 873, an act of submission allowed the reconciliation between the East Frankish king Louis II the German and his son Louis the Younger. Accused of preparing a plot against his father, Louis fell at the king’s feet in presence of magnates, lay and ecclesiastic, assembled in Frankfurt, and begged for forgiveness. Louis the German accepted his son’s submission and chose to forgive him his faults.23 The gradual dissemination of the use of ritual of submission and reconciliation in r esolving p olitical disputes can b e related largely to the deep changes aff ecting the C arolingian monarchy in the 9th cen tury, in the sphere of both ideology and politics. The new notions of the character De Jong, “Power and humility,” p. 29 ff. See for example: Thegani Gesta Hludovici imperatoris 25, ed. Ernst Tremp, MGH SSrG, 64 (H anover, 1995), p. 250. See also: Althoff, “Das Privileg der de ditio,” p. 116 ff; Althoff, Die Macht der Rituale, p. 60 ff. 22 Annales Bertiniani a. 871, Georg Waitz, MGH SSrG, 5 (Hanover, 1883), p. 117. See: Janet L. Nelson, Charles the Bald (London, 1992), p. 225 ff. The ceremony of reconciliation between Charles and his oldest son Louis the Stammerer taking place earlier, in 862, must have had a similar course. After the unsuccessful revolt he had inspired, Louis was forced to publicly beg his father for mercy. Charles forgave his son the disobedience and agreed to allot him o ver ne w properties, S ee: Annales Bertiniani a. 862, p. 59; Nelson, Charles the Bald, p. 210–211. 23 Annales X antenses a. 873, e d. B ernhard v on S imson, M GH SS rG, 12 (H anoverLeipzig, 1909), p . 31. S ee: Althoff, Die M acht der R ituale, p . 6 9 ff. S ee al so: Wilfried Hartmann, Ludwig der Deutsche (Darmstadt, 2002), p. 255–256; Eric J. Goldberg, Struggle for Empire. Kingship and Conflict under Louis the German, 817–876 (Ithaca – L ondon, 2006), p. 316–317. 20 21

submission a nd r ec onc il iati on

51

of monarchic power and the r elations between the r uler and the ma gnates developed during the r eign of Louis the P ious and his s ons, the instability of the political situation and the transitory nature of political alliances, as w ell as the im possibility to defi nitely settle matters on the battlefield, all this ne cessitated new solutions which would regulate the norms of p olitical g ame and g ive its p articipants s ome k ind of s afety guarantees. The ceremony of paenitentia publica provided many special opportunities in this fi eld. The public humiliation of rebellious vassals, enabling the r uler to appear in f ull monarchic splendour and demonstrate a truly regal mercy, permitted to end the dispute that had undermined t he public order in a wa y acceptable to b oth parties. The r uler received due satisfaction whereas the rebels gained hope that they would avoid punishment and retain their titles and estates. The practice of using the rite of submission and reconciliation to solve political conflicts traceable already in the late Carolingian sources is well documented by various and numerous later sources originating from different parts of post-Carolingian Europe. The acts of submission putting an end to the conflict and opening the way to reconciliation between the former ri vals co uld a ssume v arious f orms. F or a r elatively l ong tim e, especially in France, the ceremony of deditio was overlapped with ritual acts de eply r ooted in the tradi tion o f harmiscara. According t o the account o f William o f J umièges wri tten a round 1070, thes e ac ts w ere used in the first decades of the 11th century by count Hugh of Chalon in his endeavours to gain the favour of the duke of Normandy. Besieged by the N ormans a nd s eeing tha t f urther r esistance had no s ense, H ugh appeared before Richard, the commander of the Norman forces and son of duke Richard II, carrying a saddle on his shoulders and then fell at his feet begging for mercy.24 In a similar way William of Jumièges described the humbling of the co unt of Alençon, William of B ellême, before the next duke of Normandy, Robert I. Besieged by Robert, William appeared before the duke, to give him satisfaction, barefoot and with a saddle over his sho ulders. Rob ert accep ted t he sub mission o f t he r ebellious vass al and resolved to forgive him his past disobedience.25 Assuming the account of William of Malmesbury from the ea rly 12th cen tury to be true, also 24 The Gesta Normannorum Ducum of William of Jumièges, Orderic Vitalis and Robert of Torigny, ed. Elizabeth M. C. Van Houts, 2 (Oxford, 1995), p. 38. See: Hemming, “Sellam gestare,” p. 46 ff. 25 Gesta Normannorum Ducum, p. 50. See: Koziol, Begging Pardon, p. 186; Hemming, “Sellam gestare,” p. 48.

52

ch apter t wo

Geoffrey II of Anjou (“Martel”) had to go through the same humiliating rite of putting a saddle over his shoulders in 1036, in order to regain the favour of his fa ther, count Fulk Nerra of Anjou. Having walked several miles wi th t he s addle over his sho ulders, G eoffrey pro strated h imself before Fulk who added to the humiliation of his rebel son by placing a foot on his back. Nevertheless, in this case, too, the act of submission was followed by the act of mercy and reconciliation. Fulk forgave Geoffrey his disobedience and returned him his estates.26 Quite often descriptions of the ceremony of carrying a saddle in order to attain the ruler’s forgiveness and regain his favour can be found in the chansons de geste, usually dated to the 12th and 13th centuries.27 Records of the use of the rite of harmiscara in case of political conflicts are rarer in German sources. There the magnates seeking mercy instead of a saddle carried on their shoulders a dog.28 This is how, in 937, the knights of count Eberhard guilty of disturbing the royal peace were forced to repent their offences against Otto I.29 More than two centuries later, in 1155, the ritual of carrying a dog over his shoulders enabled the count palatine of Rhineland Hermann to avoid a more severe punishment for having broken the royal peace and instigated bloody riots, and to regain the favour of Frederick Barbarossa.30 Usually, ho wever, the ac t o f s ubmission assume d the f orm dir ectly referring to th e ritual of public pen ance: the repentant rebel appeared before the ruler in penitential robes and barefoot, and then, falling at his feet, confessed his guilt and begged for mercy. Sometimes the act of humbleness and putting oneself at the ruler’s mercy was further expressed by hanging a r ope round the p enitent’s ne ck or ho lding a sw ord over his head. The public humiliation not always permitted to regain the monarch’s favour immediately. Sometimes, especially in case of guilty of particularly grave (from the ruler’s point of view) offences, the forgiveness took place Willelmi Malmesbiriensis monachi de Gestis regum Anglorum libri quinque, ed. William Stubbs, 2 (L ondon, 1899), p. 292. See: Bernard Bachrach, Fulk Nerra, the NeoRoman Consul, 987–1040. A Political Biography of the Angevin Count (Berkeley, 1993), pp. 235–236; Hemming, “Sellam gestare,” p. 49. 27 Hemming, “Sellam gestare,” p. 55 ff. 28 Bernd Schwenk, “Das Hundetragen. Ein Rechtsbrauch im Mittelalter,” Historisches Jahrbuch 110 (1990), 289–308; M oeglin, “Harmiscara,” p . 27 ff; Hemming, “Sellam gestare,” p. 49 ff. 29 Widukindi monac hi C orbeiensis r erum gesta rum S axonicarum l ibri tr es II.6, ed. Paul Hirsch, MGH SSrG, 60 (Hanover, 1935), pp. 71–72. 30 Ottonis episcopi Frisingensis et Rahevini Gesta Frederici seu rectius Cronica II.45, ed. Franz-Josef Schmale (Darmstadt, 1965), p. 372 ff. 26

submission a nd r ec onc il iati on

53

only after a p eriod of imprisonment. In thes e cas es, the r econciliation which ultimately ended the conflict usually took place on the occasion of an important religious feast and assumed the form of an elaborate spectacle during which the bishops and lay magnates, who had earlier interceded in det ermining the conditions of the p eace agreement and made sure they were respected, testified before the ruler that the prisoner had expiated his sins and pleaded for his release.31 The frequency and certain regularity of information on the ceremony of submission and reconciliation in the sources leave no doubt as to its importance in the political life of the early and high medieval monarchies. By g iving to t he p articipants o f p olitical e vents a p ossibility o f defining their m utual relations, it assumed the r ole of one of the most important instruments of shaping political affairs and solving political disputes. To repeat: the ceremony of deditio although assuming the form of a rite of submission and begging the ruler for mercy, was not aimed at humiliating the def eated rebel only. C ertainly, it was us ed to manifest the p ower o f the r uler w ho r eceived the sub mission o f the r epentant rebel. Above all, however, it permitted to overcome the conflict situation which undermined the basis of the public order, and enabled the restoration of harmony and hierarchies conditioning the proper functioning of the p olitical system. It was a r esult of an agreement negotiated with the help of mediators, guaranteeing to both parties a possibility of ending the conflict in honourable way.32 The mutual relationship of the acts of submission and reconciliation, characteristic of the ceremony of deditio, makes it rather seem a ritual aimed above all at a compromise which would satisfy – in the given circumstances – all main actors of the political scene and allow further effective functioning of the system of power. The ri te o f deditio was the most ade quate exp ression o f f undamental norms of the political and ide ological order of medieval monarchies based on principles of consensus, cooperation between the ruler and the magnates, and the latter’s participation in exercising power.33 The public Al thoff, “Das Privileg der deditio,” pp. 99–125. See: H ermann K amp, Friedensstifter u nd Vermittler i m M ittelalter ( Darmstadt, 2001); H ermann K amp, “Vermittler in den K onflikten des ho hen M ittelalters,” in La giustizia nell’alto medioevo (secoli IX-XI), 2, Settimane di st udio del C entro italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo 44 (Spoleto, 1997), pp. 675–710. 33 See: Bernd Schneidmüller, “Konsensuale Herrschaft. Ein Ess ay über Formen und Konzepte p olitischer Or dnung im Mi ttelalter,” in Reich, Regionen und Europa in Mittelalter u nd N euzeit. Festschrift f ür Peter Moraw, e ds. P aul-Joachim H einig, Sig rid Jahn, Hans-Joachim Schmidt, Rainer Christoph Schwinges, Sabine Wefers, Historische Forschungen 67 (Berlin, 2000), pp. 53–87. 31 32

54

ch apter t wo

humbling of the rebel, satisfying the royal majesty, permitted – thanks to clear references to the ri tual of penance – t o present the r evolt against the ruler as a sort of religious offence and gave the monarch an opportunity to demonstrate a tr uly Christian mercy and forgiveness crucial for shaping his appropriate image.34 At the same time, for the magnates undergoing the ritual of deditio it gave the possibility of regaining royal favour in a way regulated by customary norms (therefore not damaging their honour), and of retaining their position in the structures of power.35 As a r esult, the ri tual of submission and reconciliation became one of the mo st important means of p olitical a ction used to s olve probl ems connected with the preservation of public order and effective execution of royal rights. By creating opportunities to conclude political conflicts by way of agreement necessary for the further harmonious cooperation of the former adversaries, it contributed significantly to strengthening of the basis of public order and keeping the inner cohesion of the medieval monarchies shaken by ceaseless conflicts. In this way the spectacular ceremonies of submission and reconciliation permitted to overcome a s erious crisis due to dynastic disputes in the Capetian monarchy in the 1030s. 36 In 1020s a gainst king Robert II the Pious rose up his oldest and already crowned son Hugh. Soon, however, def eated b y his fa ther, H ugh humbled him self b efore him a nd regained his favour: “ad genitores rediens, humili eos satisfactione benivolos erga se reddidit”.37 In 1027, after the premature death of Hugh, Robert brought about the coronation of his second son Henry. The plans of handing the crown to Henry were, however, decidedly opposed by his mother Constance who wanted to place on the throne his younger brother Robert. After the death of Robert the Pious in 1034, the conflict between Constance and Henry turned into an open war. Count Odo II of Blois rose up against the king, too. R elatively s oon, however, t he s cales were t ipped in Henry’s f avour.

34 See: Leyser, Herrschaft u nd Konflikt, p . 153 ff; Reuter, “Unruhestiftung,” p . 3 21; Koziol, Begging Pardon, p. 187; Ludger Körntgen, Königsherrschaft und Gottes Gnade. Zu Kontext und Funktion sakraler Vorstellungen in Historiographie und Bildzeugnissen der ottonisch-frühsalischen Zeit (Berlin, 2001), p. 136 ff. 35 Al thoff, “Das Privileg der deditio,” p. 100 ff. 36 See: J an Dho ndt, “Une cris e d u p ouvoir ca pétien, 1032–1034,” in Miscellanea Mediaevalia i n memor iam J an F rederick Niermeyer (G roningen, 1967), p p. 137–148; Dominique B arthelémy, L’an m il et la pa ix de D ieu. L a France c hrétienne et féodale, 980–1060 (Paris, 1999), p. 487 ff. 37 Raoul Glaber, Histoires III.33, ed. Mathieu Armoux (Turnhout, 1996), pp. 202–204.

submission a nd r ec onc il iati on

55

In this situation both Odo and Constance started to seek agreement with the king and a way to end the conflict allowing them to retain their estates. With this aim they had recourse to the rite of submission, and humbled themselves before the victorious Henry. Odo “genu flectens ei se subderet eiusque ditioni oboediens pareret”, 38 whereas Constance, after the barons supporting her had been defeated by Henry, “poenitens facti, satisfaciens filii voluntati” fell at his feet, asking for forgiveness.39 A similar use of the ritual of submission and reconciliation with the aim of preventing the escalation of conflict and reaching an agreement acceptable to both parties can be seen also almost one and a half century later, in 1173–1174, during the great rebellion against king Henry II of England, which shook the foundations of the Angevin empire.40 In summer 1174, a fter more t han a year of fi ghting, H enry fi nally managed to gain defi nite advantage over h is adversaries. Having suppressed the revolt in England, Henry went to the continent, made a truce with the oldest of his rebellious sons Henry the Young King and his supporter kin g L ouis VII o f F rance, a nd then ma rched o ff to Aquitaine against his other son, count Richard of Poitou. Richard, unable to resist Henry’s forces, seeing that the fi nal defeat was imminent “venit lacrymans et cecidit in faciem suam pronus in terram, ante pedes regis patris sui, ve niam ab eo postulans”. H enry re solved to forg ive R ichard h is former d efiance and “recepit eum in di lectione et p acis os culo”.41 In a peace agreement concluded soon after, Henry agreed to fully forgive his rebellious s ons the off ences they had committed, let them r etain their estates, and accept the homage of two of them – Richard and Geoffr ey. However, o nly t he sub mission o f t he k ing’s oldest s on H enry t he Young K ing, in April 1175, ul timately p ut a n end t o the co nflict and restored the proper relations between Henry II and his sons. In spite of the agreement concluded in a utumn 1174, Henry the Young King was afraid that his fa ther would treacherously imprison him a nd therefore refused to go with him to England. In this resistance against his father Henry was su pported b y the kin g o f F rance w ho wishe d the co nflict 38 Gl aber, Histoires III.37, p . 210. S ee: M ichele B ur, La f ormation d u c omté de Champagne (vers 950 – vers 1150) (Nancy, 1977), pp. 170–171. 39 Les miracles de saint Benoît, ed. Eugène de Certain (Paris, 1858), p. 243. See: Koziol, Begging Pardon, p. 186. 40 See: Wilfrid L. Warren, Henry II (London, 1977), p. 122 ff. 41 Gesta regis Henrici secundi Benedicti Abbatis, ed. William Stubbs, 1 (London, 1867), p. 76; see also: Chronica Magistri Roger i de Hovedene, ed. William Stubbs, 2 (L ondon, 1869), pp. 66–67.

56

ch apter t wo

between them w ould break out a gain. U ltimately, however, the y oung Henry gave in to his father’s pressure and in the presence of many magnates lay and ecclesiastic appeared before him a nd “procidit pronus in terram ad pedes domini regis patris sui, cum lacrymis postulans ut ab eo homagium et ligantiam reciperet”. In this situation Henry II agreed to accept his son’s homage and restored him to favour.42 Almost twenty years later, in 1194, the ritual of submission and reconciliation ended another dramatic dispute in the Angevin dynasty. In 1192, upon hea ring tha t ma rgrave L eopold V o f Austria had im prisoned Richard I the Lionheart on his way back from crusade, the king’s younger brother count John of Mortain rose up against him, forming an alliance with king Philip II Augustus of France. In 1194, however, Richard managed to regain freedom. Back in England he immediately took decisive action against his fa ithless brother and the French king Philip. In this situation, having lost his English estates and threatened with the further loss of his fiefdom on the Continent, John decided to break the pact with Philip and seek agreement with Richard. He appeared before the king and “procidens ad p edes ejus misericordiam petit et in venit”.43 Having regained his brother’s favour, wanting to demo nstrate his lo yalty, John quite eagerly got down to ravaging the estates of Philip Augustus.44 The importance of the rites of submission and reconciliation in the Angevin and Capetian monarchies of the second half of the 12th century is sho wn als o in the cir cumstances o f the p eace a greement co ncluded in May 1187 in Châteauroux between Henry II and Richard the Lionheart on one side and Philip Augustus on the other. A year before that H enry had r enewed a n o ld disp ute wi th co unt R aymond V o f Toulouse, sending a strong army under Richard against him. Raymond Gesta regis Henrici secundi, 1, pp. 82–83. “R adulfi de Diceto , L undoniensis de cani, Ymagines H istoriarum,” in Radulfi de Diceto Opera Historica, ed. William Stubbs, 2 (London, 1876), p. 114. See also: Chronica Magistri Rogeri de H ovedene, 3, p. 252; L’Histoire de Guillaume le Maréchal, comte de Striguil et de Pembroke, régent d’Angleterre de 1212 à 1219, ed. Paul Meyer, 2 (Paris, 1894), v. 10365–10419. 44 See: Wilfrid L. Warren, King John (New Haven-London, 1997), p. 46. In the 12thcentury Angevin monarchy the ritual of submission not only permitted a compromising solution of disputes between the members of the dynasty. Often it also enabled the magnates who prostrated themselves before the king, hoping to be forgiven, to regain king’s favour and retain their est ates. See: “Radulfi de Diceto, Lundoniensis decani, Ymagines Historiarum,” 1 , p. 4 14; Gesta r egis Henrici s ecundi, 1, p p. 120–121. S ee als o: Warren, Henry II , p . 567; M artin Aurell, “Révolte n obiliaire e t l utte d ynastique d ans l ’empire Angevin (1154–1224),” in Anglo-Norman Studies. Proceedings of the Battle Conference 24 (2001), 25–42. 42 43

submission a nd r ec onc il iati on

57

requested help from Philip who demanded from Henry that Richard’s troops s hould b e w ithdrawn. The k ing of E ngland, ho wever, d id not intend to give up his plans. In May 1187, having gathered considerable forces, Philip a ttacked Henry’s estates and laid siege to Châteauroux. Henry and Richard hastened to the relief of the besieged town and soon both armies stood face to face ready for struggle. Soon, however, it turned out that none of the sides is ready to take the risk of fi ghting a de cisive battle. Instead of fi ghting, the y entered into talks which led to an agreement permitting to conclude the dispute with a compromise. This was then ritually expressed in a ceremony that took place in Philip’s encampment. Richard appeared before the French king as a repentant rebellious vassal seeking the monarch’s mercy. With bare head, on his kne es, he r eturned his sw ord a nd, putting him self at the king’s mercy, humbly begged him to relinquish his anger and treat him and his father with kindliness.45 The act of humbleness that Richard performed in front of Philip demonstrated the latter’s superiority and restored the appropriate character to their relations. It also allowed the French king to withdraw from war without his royal authority being threatened. Also for Henry and Richard, the recognition of feudal allegiance to the French king they had never really questioned, enabled them to avoid military confrontation without an affront to their dignity. In any case the act of humbleness was soon followed and complemented b y a cts of forg iveness and f riendship.46 Having accep ted Ric hard’s sub mission, P hilip t ook him t o P aris “ad ostendendam cunctis initam concordiam”.47 According to the account of Roger o f H owden, the kin g o f F rance r eceived his guest wi th sp ecial honours and manifested great friendship for him by sharing with him not only the table but also the bed.48 The ritual of submission and reconciliation played an important role also in th e po litical li fe o f ea rlier a nd hig h medieval G erman lands. Especially many examples of the use of the ceremony of submission and

“Gervasii Cantuariensis Chronica Maior,” in Gervasii Cantuariensis Opera Historica, ed. William Stubbs, 1 (London, 1879), pp. 370–371. 46 See: Klaus van Eickels, Von inszenierten Konsens zum systematisierten Konflikt. Die english-französischen Beziehungen und ihre Wahrnehmung an der Wende vom Hoch- zum Spätmittelalter (Stuttgart, 2002) p. 365 ff; Klaus van Eickels, “ ‘Homagium’ and ‘Amicitia’: Rituals of peace and their signifi cance in the Anglo-French negotiations of the twelfth century,” Francia 24/1 (1997), 137 ff. 47 “Gervasii Cantuariensis Chronica Maior,” p. 372. 48 Gesta regis Henrici secundi, 2, p. 7; Chronica Magistri Rogeri de Hovedene, 2, p. 318. 45

58

ch apter t wo

reconciliation with the aim of solving political conflicts can be found in sources form the Ottonian period.49 In the hands of Ottonian rulers it assumed the f unction of o ne o f the most im portant in struments o f political a ction, u sed to pre serve pu blic ord er an d ove rcome qu arrels and disagreements. In a society in which conflict was used to constantly redefine the relations between the participants of political affairs and to determine their position in the structures of power, the ritual of deditio gave a p ossibility of avoiding an excessive exacerbation of the disp ute which would threaten the stability and cohesion of the monarchy, and enabled the parties involved in the conflict – the ruler and the magnates – to co nclude a n agreement bas ed o n compromise w hich en sured the proper f unctioning o f the en tire p olitical system o f the Ot tonian monarchy.50 Already the fi rst ruler of the Saxon dynasty Henry I made use of the ceremony of deditio in o rder to consolidate his p ower in 918. Having accepted the submission of the dukes of Svabia, Franconia, and Bavaria who had earlier questioned his royal rights but were forced to recognize his supremacy, he in turn manifested his acknowledgment of their ducal rank and readiness to give them a share in power.51 Frequently, t he rite of deditio was em ployed by Henry I’s success or Otto I who used it to strengthen the network of political relations ensuring stability and permanence of his power. In 942 the rite of submission and reconciliation made it possible to overcome the crisis triggered by the revolt of Otto’s younger brother Henry who had tried to depose him and seize the r oyal power. The king, warned in time of the plot being prepared by his brother, managed to prevent his plans. Henry, defeated, had to flee. This, however, did not solve Otto’s problems because quite a

49 See: Ley ser, Herrschaft und Konflikt, p . 153 ff; Reuter, “Unruhestiftung,” p . 3 20 ff; Althoff, Spielregeln der Politik, pp. 21–56, 57–98, 199–228; David A. Warner, “Thietmar of Merseburg on Rituals of Kingship,” Viator 26 (1995), 55–63. 50 See: Ley ser, Herrschaft und Konflikt; K. L eyser, “Ottonian g overnment,” English Historical Review 96 (1981), p p. 721–753; H agen K eller, “Grundlagen o ttonischer Königsherrschaft,”i n Reich und Kirche vor dem Investiturstreit. Gerd Tellenbach zum 80. Geburtstag, ed. Karl Schmid (Sigmaringen, 1985), pp. 123–162; Gerd Althoff, Die Ottonen. Königsherrschaft ohne Staat (Stuttgart, 2000). 51 Widukindi r erum g estarum S axonicarum I.27, p. 40. See: Althoff, Die O ttonen, pp. 29–46; Althoff, Die Macht der Rituale, pp. 72–73; see also: Philippe Buc, “Noch einmal 918–919. Of the ri tualized demis e o f kin gs a nd o f p olitical ri tuals in g eneral,” in Zeichen – Ri tuale – Werte. I nternationales K olloquium des S onderforschungsbereichs 496 a n der Westfälischen Wilhelms-Universität M ünster, ed. Gerd Althoff (Münster, 2004), pp. 151–178.

submission a nd r ec onc il iati on

59

large group of magnates still supported Henry. In this situation, the king decided t o en ter in to neg otiations wi th his b rother via their m other queen Mathilda. The agreement they had concluded was confirmed by the ceremony of Henry’s submission to Otto. Henry appeared before his brother, fell at his feet, confessed his faults and begged for forgiveness. The king decided to have mercy on his brother and not only returned him to favour but also handed him control over Bavaria.52 In a similar way Otto used the ritual of deditio in the 950s in order to end t he r ebellion o f his oldest s on Liudolf. D efeated b y O tto, L iudolf “patri n udatis pla ntis p rosternitur, in tima t actus p oenitentia”, th us regaining his father’s favour.53 The ceremony of submission and reconciliation retained its position in the repository of royal power also during the reign of Otto’s successors, serving as a n instrument for restoring public order and quieting disputes. In 985, it was used to end a nother conflict within the r uling dynasty. During the assembly in Frankfurt, Otto III received Henry “the Quarelsome” who, a year before, had tried to reach for the royal power and now, full of humility, begged for forgiveness. The public humbling of Henry, satisfying the royal authority of Otto, opened the road to their reconciliation. Along with the royal favour Henry regained control over Bavaria he had lost earlier.54 In 1002, duke Hermann II of Svabia humbled himself before Henry II, his victorious rival in the str uggle for the cr own, to show that he had given up further attempts to gain royal power and agreed to submit to the a uthority o f th e n ew kin g. The cer emony o f sub mission a llowed Hermann to regain Henry’s favour and obtain his friendship.55

52 Widukindi r erum g estarum S axonicarum II.31,36, p p. 92, 95; Reginonis a bbatis Prumiensis Chronicon cum continuatione Treverensi a. 942, ed. Friedrich Kurze, MGH SSrG, 50 (Hanover, 1890), p. 162. See: Gerd Althoff, pp. 32–33. 53 Widukindi rerum gestarum Saxonicarum III.40, p.122; See:Althoff, “Königsherrschaft und Kontliktbewältigung in 10. and 11. Jahrhundert,” in Spielreqelnder Politik, p. 34. 54 Annales Quedlinburgenses a. 985, ed. Georg Heinrich Pertz, MGH SS, 3 (Hanover, 1839), p. 67. See: Gerd Althoff, Otton III. (Darmstadt, 1997), p. 37 ff. 55 Thietmari Merseburgensis ep iscopi Chronicon V.22, e d. Rob ert Holtzmann, M GH SSrG n. s., 9 (Berlin, 1935), p. 247. See: Althoff, Die Macht der Rituale, p. 73, Hagen Keller, “Schwäbische Herzöge als Thronwerber: Hermann II. (1002), Rudolf von Rheinfelden (1077), F riedrich v on S taufen ( 1125). Z ur E ntwicklung v on R eichsidee u nd Fürstenverantwortung, Wahlverständnis und Wahlverfahren im 11.und 12.Jahrhundert.” Zeitschrift für Geschichte des Oberrheins 131 (1983), 123 ff; Stefan Weinfurter, Heinrich II. (1002–1024). Herrscher am Ende der Zeiten (Regensburg, 2003), pp. 51 ff.

60

ch apter t wo

The substantial changes in t he system of state organization and the methods of exercising power that took place in 11th-cen tury Germany did not undermine the role of the ritual of submission and reconciliation as a tool used to restore order and settle political tensions and conflicts. In sp ite o f their endea vours t o c hange the r ules o f p olitical ga me a nd replace the principles of compromise with the royal willpower, the Salian rulers, just as earlier Henry II, were also frequently compelled to use the rite of deditio in order to determine the character of their relations with the arrogant magnates.56 In this way, in 1059, the emperor Henry III had to agree, upon mediation of the p ope Leo IX, to a co mpromise conclusion of his long-standing conflict with the duke Geoffrey III of Lotharingia and to accept the duke’s submission and restore him to favour.57 Similarly, in the period of the reign of Henry IV or Henry V, one frequently fi nds examples of ceremonial acts of humbling of rebellious magnates seeking the monarch’s mercy and usually gaining it, albeit sometimes with certain restrictions and after a longer or shorter imprisonment.58 The reign of Lothar III and subsequently of the first Hohenstauf rulers brought no significant changes in this respect. Lothar who in 1114, still as a S axon d uke, h ad b een f orced t o humble h imself i n f ront o f e mperor Henry V a nd ba refoot, in p enitential r obes, l ying a t H enry’s f eet had begged him for mercy,59 now celebrated his victory over the Stauf opposition with a series of ceremonial acts of submission of the defeated rebels. In 1134, in B amberg, duke Frederick of Svabia humbled himself before Lothar. He arrived barefoot and fell at Lothar’s feet, begging for forgiveness and mer cy.60 A y ear la ter, i n M ühlhausen, h is b rother, a nti-king Conrad was f orced to under go a simi lar ceremony. He appeared before Lothar deprived of the royal insignia and barefoot, and then fell at his feet and begged for mercy.61 In both these cases the acts of humbleness opened

56 Reuter, “Unruhestiftung,” p . 3 21 ff; Althoff, “Königsherrschaft”, p . 3 8 ff; Althoff, Die Macht der Rituale, p. 79 ff. 57 Herimanni Augiensis Chronicon, ed. Georg Heinrich Pertz, MGH SS, 5 (H anover, 1844), pp. 128–129. See: Althoff, Die Macht der Rituale, pp. 80–82. 58 Reuter, “Unruhestiftung,” p. 322; Althoff, Die Macht der Rituale, pp. 82–84, 145 ff. 59 Ottonis episcopi Frisingensis Chronica sive Historia de duabus civitatis VII.15, ed. Adolf H ofmeister, M GH SS rG, 46 (H anover-Lepizig, 1912), p . 329; Annales Patherbrunnenses a. 1114, ed. Paul Scheffer-Boichorst (Innsbruck, 1870), p. 12. See: H.W. Vogr, Das Herzogtum Lothars von Süpplingeburg. 1106–1125 (Hildesheim, 1959), p. 13 ff; Reuter, “Unruhestiftung,” p. 322; Althoff, Die Macht der Rituale, pp. 149–150. 60 Annales Magdeburgenses a. 1134, ed. Georg Heinrich Pertz, MGH SS, 16 (Hanover, 1859), p. 185. 61 Annales Magdeburgenses a. 1134, p. 185.

submission a nd r ec onc il iati on

61

the road to reconciliation between the former adversaries and enabled the dukes submitting to Lothar’s power to regain their lost estates.62 Almost half a century later, the act of public humiliation permitted to end a several years’ conflict between Frederick Barbarossa and Henry the Lion duke of Bavaria and Saxony.63 In 1181, Henry who had been already deprived of his fi efs by Frederick and deserted by his vassals, arrived at the assembly in Erfurt and fell at the emperor’s feet, throwing himself at the ruler’s mercy. Frederick resolved to have mercy upon the duke who was humbling himself. He lifted him and exchanged a kiss of peace with him. Together with the emperor’s mercy Henry gained the right to retain his alods, albeit on the condition of leaving the Reich for a while.64 The early and high medieval German rulers used the ritual of deditio in their political activity not only to shape political relations within the Reich, s ettle q uarrels o ver the r oyal cr own a nd co nclude a greements with rebellious magnates. They often made use of the ceremony of submission and reconciliation with the aim of strengthening their supremacy over the I talian towns as w ell as est ablishing and preserving their relations with the rulers of Central European monarchies. In this way, in 1001, the citizens of the Italian town Tivoli besieged by Otto III had to humble themselves before him. They arrived in the imperial camp barefoot, wearing only shirts, holding swords in their right and twigs in their left hand, and asked the emperor to show mercy and spare their lives.65 In 1015, during an audience granted to the emissary of duke Bolesław the B rave o f P oland, em peror H enry II r eceived the sub mission o f German magnates who had to fall at his feet and beg for mercy. In this way Henry who had been in conflict with Bolesław for more than a decade conveyed a clear message to the Polish envoy and demonstrated explicitly how he conceived of ending the dispute and what he expected from the Polish duke. The same way as the rebellious magnates could Al thoff, Die Macht der Rituale, pp. 150–151. Odilo Engels, “Zur Entmachtung Heinrichs des Löwen,” in Stauferstudien. Beiträge zur Geschichte der Staufer im 12. Jahrhundert (Sigmaringen, 1988), pp. 116–130; Stefan Weinfurter, “Die Entmachtung Heinrichs des L öwen,” in Heinrich d er L öwe un d seine Zeit. Herrschaft und Repräsentation der Welfen 1125–1235, eds. Jochen Lukchardt, Franz Niehoff, 2 (Munich, 1995), pp. 180–189. 64 Arnoldi Chronica S lavorum II.22, e d. J ohannes M. L appenberg, M GH SS rG, 14 (Hanover, 1868), p. 67. See also: Althoff, Die Macht der Rituale, pp. 154–155. 65 Thangmari Vita Bernwardi episcopi Hildesheimensis 23, ed. Georg Heinrich Pertz, MGH SS, 4 (Hanover, 1841), p. 769. See: Gerd Althoff, “Demonstration und Inszenierung. Spielregeln der K ommunikation in mi ttelalterlicher Öff entlichkeit,” in Spielregeln d er Politik, p. 236; Althoff, Die Macht der Rituale, pp. 67–77. 62 63

62

ch apter t wo

regain the emperor’s favour by performing the rite of submission, also Bolesław could obtain the favour and friendship of Henry by humbling himself before and giving due satisfaction to the emperor.66 In the end Bolesław did not humble himself before Henry, but in 1022 duke P andulf IV o f C apua had t o p erform the ri tual o f sub mission before the emperor. Faced with the evident military advantage of Henry who so ught to restore th e i mperial s upremacy o ver so uthern I taly, Pandulf decided to surrender and throw himself at the emperor’s mercy. Initially he was s entenced t o dea th b ut u pon the in tercession o f the archbishop of Cologne the death penalty was replaced by imprisonment. Soon however, after Henry’s death, Pandulf regained freedom and again took control over Capua.67 A miniature found in the Gospel book Henry donated to the abbey of Monte Cassino is often mentioned in connection with the events of 1022 as containing direct references to t he humiliation of Pandulf. It represents a ruler seated on the throne, the Holy Ghost falling over him, surrounded by the p ersonifications of vir tues: wisdom, prudence, justice, piety and law (lex and ius). At his feet a kneeling convict with a rope over his neck and hands held out towards the ruler, and an executioner with a sw ord a re dep icted.68 Rega rdless o f the p ossible links b etween this miniature and the cer emony of submission performed by the d uke of Capua b efore Henry II, the s cene dep icted there co nfirms th at in th e ideological programme of the em peror the ac ts of humbling defeated enemies w hich r eflected b oth the r uler’s p ower a nd his r eadiness t o show mercy played an important role. The successors to Henry II s ought to shape their r elations with the Italian t owns a nd east ern neig hbours in a simila r wa y. I n 1026, the 66 Thietmari Merseburgensis Chronicon VII.9, p. 408. See: Knut Görich, “Eine Wende im Osten: Heinrich II und B oleslaw Chrobry,” in Otto III. – H einrich II. Eine Wende?, eds. Bern Schneidmüller, Stefan Weinfurter (Sigmaringen, 1997), p. 160 ff; Althoff, Die Macht der Rituale, p. 74. 67 Chronica M onasterii C asinensis II.40, e d. H artmut H offmann, MGH SS, 34 (Hanover, 1980), p. 244. See: Warner, “Thietmar of Merseburg,” pp. 60–62. 68 Warner, “Thietmar of Merseburg,” pp. 62–63; John W. Bernhardt, “King Henry II of Germany. Royal Self-Representation and Historical Memory,” in Medieval Concepts of the Past. Ritual, Memory, Historiography, ed s. Ger d Althoff, J ohannes F ried, P atrick J. G eary (C ambridge, 2002), p p. 64–69; J ean-Marie Moeglin, “Pandolf la co rd a u co u (Ottoboni L at. 74, f. 193 v.); q uelques r éflexions a u su jet d ’un r ituel de su pplication (XIe-XVe siè cle),” in Suppliques et r equêtes. L e g ouvernement pa r la g râce e n O ccident (XIIe-XVe siècle), e d. Hélène Millet (Ro me, 2003), pp. 37–76. However s ee als o: Hagen Keller, “Das B ildnis K aiser H einrichs im Reg ensburger E vangeliar a us M ontecassino (Bibl. Vat. Ottob. Lat. 74). Zugleich ein Beitrag zu Wipos ‘Tetralogus’,” Frühmittelalterliche Studien 30 (1996), 173–214.

submission a nd r ec onc il iati on

63

inhabitants of Ravenna had to humble themselves before Conrad II and “in cilicio et nudis pedibus atque exertis gladiis” they had to beg him to forgive their dis obedience.69 Six years later, als o king Mieszko II of Poland, s on o f B olesław t he B rave, w as f orced t o g ive s atisfaction to Conrad and complete the act of submission. This is how, it seems, the account of Hildesheim annals describing events taking place in 1032 in Merseburg should be interpreted. Restored to power after the death of his older brother duke Bezprym who had deprived him of the throne a year earlier, Mieszko had to appear before Conrad and “in imperatoriam potestatem, coronae scilicet ac tocius regalis ornamenti oblitus, humiliter dedit”. The ceremonial humbling allowed Mieszko to regain the emperor’s favour and receive from Conrad confirmation of his rights to power over the Piast monarchy divided by the emperor.70 A few years later the Cze ch duke Břetislav I had t o humble himself before the successor to Conrad II, Henry III. In 1041, Henry who had tried to subjugate the Cze ch duke already a y ear before, started a ne w campaign and soon, bre aking t he defence l ines of Bře tislav, ar rived at the walls o f Prague. In this situation Břetislav decided to renounce of further r esistance a nd t o st art p eace neg otiations. According t o the agreement then concluded, the duke went to Regensburg and stood barefoot b efore Henry “ut poscebat honor re gius”, an d t hen fell at h is feet, begging for mercy. The king resolved to forgive Břetislav for his past disobedience and not only agreed to his retaining the lands conquered during the war with Poland but also took him for a friend.71 69 Wipponis Gesta Chuonradi II imperatoris 13, ed. Harry Bresslau, MGH SSrG, 61 (Hanover-Leipzig, 1915), p. 35. See: Moeglin, “Harmiscara,” 264. In a similar way the citizens of Rome had to satisfy Conrad for having instigated riots during his imperial coronation in 1027: Wipponis G esta C huonradi 13, p . 37: “Romani, q ui s editionem commoverant, ante imperatorem venientes nudatis pedibus, liberi cum n udis gladiis, servi cum torquibus vimineis circa collum, quasi ad suspensionem praeparati, ut imperator iussit, satisfaciebans”. 70 Annales Hildesheimenses a. 1032, ed. Georg Waitz, MGH SSrG, 8 (Hanover, 1878), p. 37. Also: Wipponis Gesta Chuonradi 29, p. 48 ff: “Tunc Misco omnibus modis querebat gratiam imperatricis Giselae et r eliquorum principum, ut mereretur redire ad gra tiam imperatoris. Caesar misericordia motus dedit sibi veniam et divisia provincia Bolanorum in tres partes Misiconem fecit tetrarcham, reliquas duas duobus aliis commendavit, sic imminuta potestate minor facta est temeritas.” See: Gerard Labuda, Mieszko II król Polski (1025–1034). Cze sy p rzełomu w dzieja ch pa ństwa po lskiego (K rakow, 1992), p . 88 ff; Jarosław S ochacki, Stosunki publicznoprawne między pa ństwem po lskim a c esarstwem rzymskim w latach 963–1102 (Słupsk-Gdańsk, 2003), p. 93 ff. 71 Annales A ltahenses maiores a. 1 041, e d. E dmund v on O efele, M GH SS rG, 4 (Hanover, 1891), p. 27; Herimanni Augiensis Chronicon a. 1041, ed. Georg Heinrich Pertz, MGH SS, 5 (Hannover, 1844), p. 123. See: Barbara Krzemieńska, Boj knížete Břetislava I. o u pevněni č eského s tátu ( 1039–1041) (Prague, 1979), p. 59 ff; see al so: Ge rd Althoff,

64

ch apter t wo

In the same year, also king Peter Orseolo of Hungary humbled himself b efore H enry III. Two y ears ea rlier, in 1039, d uring the s truggle between H enry a nd B řetislav, P eter su pported the Cze ch d uke a nd attacked the Bavarian Eastern March. In 1041, however, a revolt of magnates f orced him t o flee f rom H ungary and s eek re fuge i n Germany. Peter appeared before Henry and, falling at his feet, begged him for forgiveness. Henry accepted Peter’s submission and resolved to show him mercy. Soon, demonstrating his good will, Henry undertook a campaign to H ungary w hich r esulted in P eter’s ul timately r egaining the r oyal throne in 1044.72 The use of the ritual of submission and reconciliation as an instrument for establishing suitable – f rom the p oint of view of the G erman rulers – relations with the Italian towns and the east ern neighbours of Germany can be seen particularly clearly in the ac tions undertaken in the second half of the 12th century by Frederick Barbarossa. Frederick attached a lot of weight to activities aimed at manifesting the royal majesty and presenting the imperial splendour and power.73 In the rich set of va rious m eans h e employed t o reach th is g oal th e ri tual o f deditio played a significant role. The act of submission of the defeated adversary who, humbling himself at the feet of the victorious emperor, begged for mercy, contributed to the creation of the appropriate image of the ruler and to the strengthening of his authority.74 In 1157, Frederick Barbarossa decided to finally undertake the campaign he had b een putting off for some time, against Poland in defence of the “Ungeschriebene Gesetze. Wie funktioniert Herrschaft ohne schriftlich fixierte Normen?” in Spielregeln der Politik, p. 297 ff; Josef Žemlička, Čechy w době knížecí (1034– 1195) (Prague, 1997), p. 59 ff. 72 Herimanni Augiensis Chronicon, a. 1041, p. 123. See also: Annales Altahenses maiores a. 1041, p . 25; Die B riefe de s Abtes Ber n vo n Reic henau 27, ed. Franz-Josef Schmale (Stuttgart, 1961), p . 59. S ee: Gá bor Varga, Ungarn u nd das Reic h vo m 10. b is zu m 13. Jahrhundert. Da s H errscherhaus der Árpaden zw ischen Anlehnung u nd E manzipation (Munich, 2 003), p p. 1 02–112; B álint Hóman, Geschichte de s u ngarischen Mittelalters, 1 (Berlin, 1940),p. 253; Gyula Kristó, Die Arpadendynastie. Die Geschichte Ungarns von 895 bis 1301 (Budapest, 1993), pp. 84–86. 73 See: K nut G örich, Die Ehre Friedrich B arbarossas. K ommunikation, K onflikt und politisches Handeln im 12. Jahrhundert (Darmstadt, 2001). 74 Certainly, in similar terms one should also assess the use of the rite of deditio by duke Henry the Lio n of Saxony and B avaria – w ho clearly followed the exa mple of Frederick Barbarossa – in 1163, when accepting the surrender of duke Wartislaw of Obotrites. On Henry’s demand, the defeated Wartislaw, together with a group of magnates, had to appear before him, holding swords above their heads, and then fall at his feet and beg for mercy. See: Helmoldi presbyteri Bozoviensis Chronica Slavorum I.93, ed. Bernhard Schmeidler, MGH SSrG, 32 (Hanover, 1937), pp. 183–184.

submission a nd r ec onc il iati on

65

ducal r ights o f d uke Władysław I I, t he o ldest s on o f a nd s uccessor t o Bolesław Wrymouth, dri ven a way s everal y ears b efore, in 1146, b y his younger brothers. The emperor’s forces, meeting with little resistance, soon reached the vicinity of Poznań. Faced with definite advantage of Frederick, duke Bolesław IV Curly of Poland despaired of being able to repulse the attack and therefore decided to ask the emperor to take up peace negotiations. Frederick consented to conclude an agreement but only on condition that B olesław h umbled him self b efore him. According to t his dema nd, Bolesław arrived at the emperor’s camp in Krzyszkowo barefoot, with a naked sword held above his head, confessed to have offended the imperial majesty and, falling at Frederick’s feet, started to beg him for mercy.75 The following year, Frederick set off to Italy and laid siege to Milan. The growing advantage of the imperial troops as well as famine and diseases s preading i n t he t own fi nally ind uced the ci tizens t o en ter in to negotiations with the emperor. The peace agreement concluded shortly after was then confirmed by a ceremony held in the emperor’s encampment nea r Mila n. Frederick, s eated on the thr one a nd surrounded by dukes, first received a procession of ecclesiastics led by the archbishop of Milan, b egging him t o s how mer cy t o the t own. Then the co nsuls o f Milan appeared before the emperor, barefoot, dressed in shirts only, with naked swords hanging from their ne cks, confessed their gui lt towards the emperor and threw themselves at his mercy.76 Frederick’s e dict o rdering to celeb rate e ach y ear t he a nniversary o f this ev ent,77 le aves no do ubt t hat the em peror co nsidered i t to b e a n 75 Annales B ohemorum Vincentii Pragensis, ed. Josef Emler, F ontes rerum Bohemicarum, 2 (Prague, 1874), p. 424 ff: “imperator in condicta curia suis circumdatus principibus suo s edet pro tribunali, dux Polonie cum suis dis calciatis pedibus nudum supra se ferens gladium, duce Boemie ei securitatem prebente, coram progreditur, imperiali ma iestati p resentatur, s e co ntra im perialem digni tatem male f ecisse co nfitetur”; Friderici I. Diplomata 181, ed. Heinrich Appelt, MGH Diplomata regum et imperatorum Germaniae, 10/1 (H anover, 1975), p p. 304–305; Ottonis e t R ahewini Ge sta F rederici III.1–5, pp. 398–404. 76 Ottonis e t Ra hewini G esta F rederici III.48–52, p p. 490–502. S ee: Thomas Z otz, “Präsenz u nd R epräsentation. B eobachtungen z ur k öniglischen H errschaftspraxis im hohen und sp äten Mittelalter,” in Herrschaft als soziale Praxis. Historische und sozialanthropologische Studien, ed. Alf Lüdtke (Göttingen, 1991), p. 177 ff; Althoff, “Das Privileg der deditio,” p. 104 ff; Klaus Schreiner, “ ‘Gerechtigkeit und Frieden haben sich g eküßt’ (Ps. 84, 11). Friedensstiftung durch symbolisches Handeln,” in Träger und Instrumentarien des F riedens i m h ohen u nd s päten M ittelalter, e d. J ohannes F ried, Vorträge und Forschungen 43 (Sigmaringen, 1996), p. 69 ff; G örich, Die Ehre Friedrich Barbarossas, p. 214 ff. 77 Ottonis e t R ahewini Gesta F rederici III.52, p . 502. S ee: Z otz, “Präsenz und Repräsentation,” p. 180.

66

ch apter t wo

important c eremony. The acco unt o f a Cze ch c hronicler, Vincent o f Prague who personally witnessed the celebrations in Milan, gives further evidence of the special role that this spectacle played in the political plans of Frederick. Describing the ceremony during which the inhabitants of Milan humbled themselves before the emperor, Vincent pointed out that the consuls had tried to alleviate the conditions of the act of submission, asking the emperor to let them a ppear not barefoot but with shoes on. However, a lthough the i nhabitants o f M ilan w ere r eady t o p ay t he emperor a co nsiderable a mount of mo ney f or his p ermission to p ut shoes o n, F rederick d ecidedly r ejected t heir o ffer a nd u ltimately t he consuls had to appear before him barefoot.78 Frederick Barbarossa made use of the ceremony of deditio also in the year 1182 in o rder to demonstrate his su premacy over the Cze chs. At that time the Cze ch magnates rose up against their ruler, duke Bedřich (Frederick) a nd de cided t o p lace o n the thr one the M oravian d uke Conrad III Otto of Znojmo. Driven out of Prague, Bedřich took refuge in Germany where he sought the help of Frederick Barbarossa in returning to p ower. The emperor, “condolens inuriis” infl icted upon B edřich, summoned C onrad a nd the Cze ch ma gnates w ho su pported him t o come to a co urt ass embly in Reg ensburg. The me eting o f B arbarossa with Conrad and the Czech magnates turned into a dramatic spectacle of humiliation. On the emperor’s order, axes were brought into the hall where he was receiving the Czechs in order to give them to understand that the y sho uld b e s entenced t o dea th f or w hat the y had do ne. The Czechs, horrified, “pedibus eius se prouoluunt, ueniam petunt et necessitate mutata in uoluntatem Fridericum in domnum et ducem recipiunt”. Then they returned to Prague, rejoicing that they had managed to escape punishment for the lese-majesty.79 Certainly, the acts of submission of the Italian towns or the Polish and Czech r ulers demonstrated the p ower of Frederick Barbarossa and his supremacy over the adversary forced to capitulation. It is to be remembered, however, that they served not only, maybe even not predominantly, the purpose of humiliating one and elevating the other party. Similarly to the earlier cases of ceremonies of submission – of Mieszko II of Poland before Conrad II or Břetislav I of Bohemia and Peter Orseolo of Hungary 78 Annales Vincentii Pragensis, p. 441. See: Zotz, “Präsenz und Repräsentation,” p. 179; Althoff, “Das Privileg der deditio,” p. 109; Klaus Schreiner, “ ‘Gerechtigkeit und Frieden haben sich geküßt’,” p. 69; Görich, Die Ehre Friedrich Barbarossas, p. 230. 79 Annales Gerlaci Milovicensis, ed. Josef Emler, Fontes rerum Bohemicarum, 2 (Prague, 1874), p. 481. See: Žemlička, Čechy w době knížecí, p. 316 ff.

submission a nd r ec onc il iati on

67

before H enry III – the ri tes co nducted o n the o rder o f F rederick Barbarossa were also concluded by acts of forgiveness and reconciliation. To repeat: the essence of the rite of deditio was determined by an attempt at reaching a compromise and finding a solution acceptable to both sides of the conflict. The submission made it possible not only to end the conflict and gain the em peror’s favour but also to establish cooperation or even to form friendship between the former antagonists.80 The cir cumstances o f the p eace a greement co ncluded in 1175 in Montebello, between Frederick Barbarossa and the Lombard League provide further arguments to support this in terpretation of the mea ning of the ceremony of submission. The Italian campaign Frederick Barbarossa had u ndertaken a lmost a ye ar b efore w ith t he ai m of subju gating t he Lombard towns ended in failure. After an unsuccessful siege of Alessandria lasting more than half a year, the emperor decided to withdraw his troops. In Montebello the retreating imperial army was confronted by the forces of the Lombard League. However, since neither side was r esolved to start the battle, peace negotiations started. Truce was agreed on as well as the appointment of a commission which was to w ork out the details of an agreement ultimately endin g the co nflict b etween the em peror a nd the L ombard League. The representatives of the League pledged to ask Frederick for forgiveness whereas the emperor agreed to restore them to favour.81 According 80 On the role of the notion of “friendship” in early medieval political relations, see: Verena E pp, Amicitia. Z ur G eschichte perso naler, so zialer, po litischer u nd gei stlicher Beziehungen im frühen Mittelalter (Stuttgart, 1999), Verena Epp, “Rituale frühmittelalterlicher ‘amicitia’, ” in Formen und Funktionen öffentlicher Kommunikation im Mittelalter, ed. Gerd Althoff, Vorträge und Forschungen 51 (Stuttgart, 2001), pp. 11–24; Gerd Althoff, Verwande, Freunde und Getreue. Zum politischen Stellenwert der G ruppenbildungen im früheren Mittelalter (Darmstadt, 1990), p. 85 ff; Gerd Althoff, Amicitiae und Pacta. Bündnis, Einung, Politik und Gebetsgedenken im beginnenden 10. Jahrhundert (Hanover, 1992). It is to be remembered, however, that the act of humbling oneself was only the condition of forgiveness and reconciliation. Events accompanying the second surrender of Milan to Frederick B arbarossa in 1162 sho w that it did no t by any means guarantee the r uler’s favour. In this case the act of repeat submission of Milan was not complemented by gestures of reconciliation and forgiveness. The emperor did not restore the citizens of Milan who had again humbled themselves before him to favour. He only agreed to spare them their lives but ordered to raze Milan to the ground. The ritual did not create reality. The decision to use the ri te of submission and reconciliation was eac h time det ermined by political reasons which compelled the q uarrelling parties to seek agreement. The ritual provided only the tools to arrive at compromise. If the victor did not wish to receive submission, the defeated had no o ther choice but unconditional surrender and trust in the ruler’s mercy. See: Zotz, “Präsenz und Repräsentation,” p. 180 ff; Althoff, “Das Privileg der deditio,” p. 103; Görich, Die Ehre Friedrich Barbarossas, p. 249 ff. 81 See: Walter Heinemeyer, “Der Friede von Montebello,” Deutsches Archiv 11 (1954– 1955), 101–139.

68

ch apter t wo

to the a greement tw o r ectors o f the L eague a rrived a t the em peror’s encampment a nd a ppeared b efore F rederick wi th co rds ha nging f rom their necks. As a sign o f submission they handed him their sw ords and begged him for mercy. The emperor did no t have to be asked twice, he decided to show mercy and exchanged a kiss of peace with them.82 The pact concluded in Montebello cannot at any rate be perceived in terms o f the tri umph o f the em peror a nd the def eat o f the L ombard League. It was a co mpromise, in w hich F rederick – in r eturn f or t he League’s formal acknowledgement of his supremacy – agreed to bring the controversial issues to an arbitration court. This is how the ceremony during which the League’s rectors humbled themselves before the emperor should be treated. In the negotiations conducted at Montebello the ritual of deditio seems to have played the role of both the basic means of communication between the two sides of the conflict and the instrument for shaping political relations. It enabled the participants of these events to determine explicitly the r elations b etween them a nd to fi nd solutions for an amicable settlement of their dispute. The ritual of submission and reconciliation led to the restoration of the public order and the hitherto valid system of mutual dep endencies t hat had b een disturbed by the conflict and at the same time o pened the r oad to agreement in w hich a ne w set of political forces and relations – wi thin the existing order – could be accepted.83 Similar meanings can be attributed also to t he other ceremonies of deditio, men tioned p reviously, w hich t ook p lace in the p resence o f Frederick B arbarossa. The cer emony in Reg ensburg in 1182, d uring which d uke C onrad O tto o f Z nojmo h umbled him self b efore t he emperor, acknowledged his supremacy and relinquished any claims to the Cze ch thr one, no t o nly allo wed the d uke t o r etain co ntrol o ver Moravia but also gave him the p ossibility of creating a state practically independent from Prague, which was reflected in his assuming the title of ma rgrave o f Moravia.84 Also th e cer emony o f M ilan’s s urrender in 82 See for example: Magistri Tolosani Chronicon Faventinum 61, ed. Giuseppe Rossini, Rerum Italicarum Scriptores, n. e., 28 (Bologna, 1939), p. 60: “civitatum rectores ad eum ex eius mandato venere, ei reverenciam omnem, ut clementissimo fideles domino, devotissime facien tes: q ui g enibus fl exis et col lis i llaqueatis a nte suos h umiles p rocubuere pedes; conversis gladiis capulos tribuere trenendos et sibi pars ensis tuta relicta fuit”. 83 See: Görich, Die Ehre Friedrich Barbarossas, p. 266 ff. 84 See: Žemlička, Čechy w době knížecí, p. 318 ff; Lisa Wolverton, Hastening Toward Prague. Power and Society in the Medieval Czech Lands (Philadelphia, 2001), p. 222 ff. See a lso: Martin Wihoda, Zlatá b ulla s icilská. Podivuhodný p řiběh ve v rstvách paměti (Prague, 2005), p. 56 ff.

submission a nd r ec onc il iati on

69

1158 ena bled this t own t o r etain – a t the cos t o f ac knowledging the emperor’s supremacy and paying a high compensation – the dominant position in northern Italy.85 In the s ame t erms o ne sho uld j udge the e vents tha t t ook p lace in Krzyszkowo in 1157. It is worth recalling that duke Bolesław Curly arrived at the emperor’s camp only upon receiving safety guarantees, and the ceremony of deditio was preceded by long negotiations determining the conditions of the p eace agreement.86 In this pact concluded with the Polish duke, F rederick in fac t ga ve u p a ny f urther su pport f or the c laims o f Władysław II a nd agreed to Bolesław’s keeping the thr one, settling for a financial compensation only.87 His acknowledgment of the ducal rights of Bolesław f ound i ts ri tual co nfirmation d uring th e ce lebrations in Krzyszkowo in the kiss of peace the emperor exchanged with the duke.88 It seems that this merging of the ac ts of submission and reconciliation characteristic of the ritual of deditio determined also the role this ceremony played in the political reality of the earlier and high medieval Central European monarchies w hich st ayed in t he sphere o f G erman influence. Indeed, their rulers often forced to perform the rite of submission in o rder t o r egain the em peror’s fa vour w ere w ell a ware o f the meaning these gestures conveyed. The attitude of Bolesław Curly during

G örich, Die Ehre Friedrich Barbarossas, p. 230 ff. Annales Vincentii Pragensis, p. 424. 87 See: Zbigniew D alewski, “Między Krzyszkowem a M ediolanem,” in Kościół, kultura, s połeczeństwo. S tudia z dziejó w ś redniowiecza i czasó w n owożytnych (Warsaw, 2000), pp. 131–141; Robert Holztmann, “Über den Polenfeldzug Friedrichs Barbarossas vom J ahr 1157 und die B egründung der s chlesischen H erzogtümer,” Zeitschrift des Vereins für Geschichte S chlesiens 56 (1922), 42–55; G enrod v on G ravert-May, Das staatsrechtliche Verhältnis S chlesiens zu P olen, Bö hmen u nd dem Reic h wä hrend de s Mittelalters (A nfang de s 10. J ahrhunderts b is 1526) (A alen, 1971), p . 72 ff; Gerard Labuda, “O stosunkach prawnopublicznych między Polską a Niemcami w połowie XII wieku (Merseburg – 1135, Kaina – 1146, Krzyszkowo – 1 157),” Czasopismo PrawnoHistoryczne 25 (1973), 48 ff; J erzy H auziński, “Polska a K rólestwo N iemieckie w I I połowie XII wieku,” in Niemcy – Polska w średniowieczu, ed. Jerzy Strzelczyk (Poznań, 1986), p. 143 ff. 88 Annales Vincentii Pragensis, p. 424: “in gratiam imperatoris in osculo pacis recipitur”; See also: Friderici I. Diplomata 181, p. 305: “dux Bolizlaus pedibus maiestatis nostre provolutus […] in gra tiam nostram est r eceptus.” See also: Ottonis et Rahewini Gesta Frederici III.5, p. 402. On the role of the kiss of peace in the sphere of political activity see: K laus S chreiner, “ ‘Er k üsse mic h mi t dem K uß s eines M undes’ (O sculetur me osculo oris sui, Cant. 1,1). Metaphorik, kommunikative und herrschaftliche Funktion einer sym bolischen H andlung,” in Höfische Rep räsentation. D as Zer emoniell u nd d ie Zeichen, e ds. H edda R agotzky, H orst Wenzel (Tübingen, 1990), p p. 89–132; Yannick Carré, Le baiser sur la bo uche au Moyen Âge. Rites, sy mboles, mentalités, à tr avers les textes et les images, XIe-XIVe siècles (Paris, 1992), p. 163 ff. 85 86

70

ch apter t wo

the negotiations in Krzyszkowo or of Mieszko II in Merseburg, just like the behaviour of Břetislav I, Peter Orseolo or Conrad Otto in Regensburg, leave no do ubt in this r espect. No wonder, therefore, that in their o wn political endeavours they also made use of the ritual of submission and reconciliation in o rder to s ettle political conflicts, resolve disputes and restore the proper order of political relations. It seems that this is the way the events taking place in 1106 in Hungary should be understood as well. Duke Álmos who had to leave Hungary a few years earlier, due to conflict with his older brother king Koloman, returned to the country supported by Polish forces and occupied one of the towns. Upon hearing the news of Álmos’ action, Koloman immediately gathered his troops, set off against his brother and laid siege to the town h e h ad c onquered. When t he royal a rmy w as ready t o l aunch a decisive attack, Álmos unexpectedly appeared in the king’s camp and “ad pedes regis venisset et in o re omnium se culpabilem proclamavit”. Koloman decided to have mercy on his brother, restore him t o favour and give him back the estates he had lost earlier.89 The ceremony of submission and reconciliation was also used in 1117 by the Czech duke Vladislav I in o rder to end the disp ute with his older brother Bořivoj II. Vladislav, who in 1109 had defeated Bořivoj in struggle for the Prague throne and had forced him to leave the country, eventually decided to make peace with him and restore him to the ducal power. Thus Vladislav summoned B ořivoj back to B ohemia and “satisfaciens sibi ac semetipsum ei us submittens dominio” placed on the d ucal throne. Vladislav’s p erforming t he r itual o f sub mission b efore B ořivoj made i t possible to re store t he appropriate relations b etween t hem an d op ened the road to their true reconciliation. In response to Vladislav’s satisfactio, Bořivoj ag reed to ha nd him o ver half o f the r egained p rincipality a nd promised to always listen to his advice.90 In 1143, the cer emony of submission allowed the M oravian dukes to work out a compromise over their conflict with the Czech duke Vladislav II. A year before, in 1142, duke Conrad II of Znojmo, supported by the other Moravian dukes, had a ttempted to capture Prague and depose Vladislav from the throne. With the help of the German king Conrad III, Vladislav 89 Chronici H ungarici c ompositio sa eculi XIV 147, e d. Alexander D omanovszky, Scriptores r erum H ungaricarum, 1 (B udapest, 1937), p p. 426–427. S ee: K ristó, Die Arpadendynastie, p. 114; Marta Font, Koloman the Learned, King of Hungary (Szeged, 2001), pp. 22–23. 90 Cosmae Pragensis Chronica Boemorum III.43, ed. B ertold Bretholz, MGH SSrG n. s., 2 (Berlin, 1955), pp. 217–218. See: Žemlička, Čechy w době knížecí, p. 137.

submission a nd r ec onc il iati on

71

managed to repel the attack and stay in power. In retaliation for this in the following year he attacked Moravia. The Czech troops devastated the whole country, taking precious booty. In this situation two Moravian dukes – Otto III of Olomouc and Vratislav of Brno – decided to desert Conrad and, through the m ediation of bi shop Henry Zd ik of O lomouc, s eek ag reement w ith Vladislav. They co nfessed ha ving co mmitted a vi le ac t a nd – “colla sua eburnea gladio suo submittentes” – gained his favour and a confirmation of their rights to rule over their provinces.91 Almost 20 years later, in 1161, the ceremony of submission and reconciliation made it possible to end the dispute between Vladislav II and his cousin duke Soběslav who returned to the country after a long exile and occupied Olomouc. H aving l earned ab out Soběslav’s a ctions, Vladislav quickly gathered his army, took it to Moravia and laid siege to Olomouc. C onfronted with Vladislav’s advantage, S oběslav de cided to take u p p eace nego tiations. Thanks t o t he i ntercession o f M oravian dukes an agreement was concluded. Soběslav submitted to the king who in return restored him to favour, exchanged a kiss of peace with him and promised to allocate him a separate province.92 It is worth mentioning here also the e vents that took place in 1126, during the mili tary ca mpaign o f the G erman kin g L othar III a gainst Bohemia. Shortly after he had been elected king, Lothar decided to intervene in the Czech dynastic conflict. He supported the claims to the throne of the Moravian duke Otto II who had been driven out of the country by his victorious adversary Soběslav I. Near Chlumec, the German army proceeding de ep into the co untry was sto pped by the t roops of S oběslav. The battle ended in a complete defeat for Lothar. Otto and many Saxon magnates died on the battlefield, whereas the king himself, along with a 91 Annales Vincentii Pragensis, pp. 410–413. See: Žemlička, Čechy w době knížecí, pp. 231–232; Wolverton, Hastening Toward Prague, pp. 215–216. 92 Annales Vincentii Pragensis, p . 452. S ee: Ž emlička, Čechy w do bě k nížecí, p . 260. Soon, it turned out that Vladislav was not going to respect the agreement, because he ordered to imprison Soběslav as soon as they both returned to Prague. Similarly, Vladislav I had not kept the peace with Bořivoj II for long, and quite soon expelled him again, see: Cosmae Pragensis Chronica III.46, p. 219. Likewise Koloman treated Álmos, seizing his principality a year after he had restored him to favour, see: Chronici Hungarici 147, p. 428. The ritual only set the framework of the political action. It did not in any way determine the course of political events. In the end the eff ectiveness of the ritual as an instrument for shaping political reality depended on the c urrent needs of its participants and the possibilities of accomplishing their g oals. See: Zbigniew Dalewski, “Political Culture of Central Europe in the High Middle Ages: Aggression and Agreement,” in Political Culture in Central Europe (10 th – 20th Century), vol. 1, Middle Ages and Early Modern Era, e ds. Halina Manikowska, Jaroslav Panek (Prague, 2005), pp. 65–85.

72

ch apter t wo

handful of knights, took refuge on a little hill, where he was soon surrounded by Soběslav’s forces. The peace negotiations which were then undertaken ended with a surprising (taken into consideration the result of the battle at Chlumec) ceremony taking place in the king’s encampment. The victorious Soběslav appeared before defeated Lothar full of humility and, falling at his feet, begged for mercy. Then he paid homage to the king and received a confirmation of his ducal rights.93 Soběslav’s use of the rite of submission after his victory in the ba ttle of Chlumec clearly shows he had a f ull understanding of its meanings and was a ble t o us e them in o rder t o acco mplish his o wn g oals. The humbling of Soběslav before Lothar (who had found himself in a hopeless situation) saved the last shreds of Lothar’s authority undermined by the battle at Chlumec, and allowed him to return home with honour. It also paved the way for a future cooperation between the winner a nd the defeated, as well as for the true establishment of peaceful relations between them. Lothar knew how to appreciate the Czech duke’s gesture and later often showed him particular favour.94 Relating in his chr onicle t he co urse o f va rious disp utes b etween t he Piast dukes, Vincent Kadłubek, too, often referred to the ritual gestures and behaviours forming the ceremony of submission and reconciliation, which shows that this ritual was strongly rooted in the political tradition and to a great extent determined the rules of political action in the late 12th-century Poland, as well. In Kadłubek’s rendition as already mentioned at the beginning o f t his c hapter, t he r ite o f s ubmission a nd r econciliation w as a lso used to resolve the conflict between Bolesław Wrymouth and Zbigniew in 1106. According to the account of Kadłubek (who interpreted Gallus’ testimony in his own way), after Bolesław had seized all of Zbigniew’s strongholds, Zbigniew appeared before his victorious brother, fell at his feet, and through the magnates’ intercession regained his favour.95 In a similar way, in 1180s, the ritual of submission and reconciliation was to end the disp ute between dukes Casimir the Just of Krakow and 93 Ottonis et Rahewini Gesta Frederici I.21, pp. 164–166. See: Canonici Visegradensis continuatio Cosmae, e d. Josef Emler, Fontes rerum B ohemicarum, 2 (P rague, 1874), pp. 203–204. See also: Johannes Laudage, “Symbole der Politik – Politik der Symbole. Lothar III. als H errscherpersönlichkeit,” in Heinrich d er L öwe. H errschaft und Repräsentation der Welfen 1125–1235, eds. Jochen Luckhardt, Franz Niehoff, 2 (Munich, 1995), pp. 99–100. 94 See: A rnold Köster, Die s taatlichen Be ziehungen der bö hmischen H erzöge u nd Könige zu den deutschen Kaisern von Otto dem Großen bis Ottokar II (Breslau, 1912), p. 138; Žemlička, Čechy w době knížecí, p. 223. 95 Magistri Vincentii Chronica II.28, p. 75.

submission a nd r ec onc il iati on

73

his nephew Leszek of Mazovia, son of Bolesław Curly. At the instigation of his other uncle, duke Mieszko the Old of Greater Poland, Leszek who had hitherto been closely connected to duke Casimir, decided to abandon his c ustody and pass “in patrocinia Mesconis”. On the str ength of the pact they concluded, Leszek agreed to acknowledge as his heir the son of Mieszko the Old, Mieszko the Younger. Soon, however, some arguments arose between Leszek and the young Mieszko, and Leszek decided to seek agreement with Casimir, again. In o rder to regain C asimir’s favour – claims the chronicler – Leszek, however, had to humble himself before his unc le a nd gi ve s atisfaction f or ha ving in sulted him. Thu s Leszek “ad Kazimiri pedes penitentia reductus pronus aduoluitur”, confessed the offences he had committed against his uncle and put himself at his mercy. Then Casimir “cum lacrimis exosculans” decided to forgive him. Having acknowledged Casimir’s supremacy in t he act of submission and regained his fa vour, Leszek agreed that his uncle sho uld rule over Mazovia in case of his death.96 In 1177, o n the in vitation o f K rakow ma gnates w ho had r evolted against their ruler Mieszko the Old, Casimir the Just captured Krakow. This event was also purportedly concluded with a ceremony of submission of the town’s officials (a ppointed still b y Mieszk o) w ho “prona ceruice scabello Kazimiri aduoluuntur” gaining his favour in return.97 Similarly, in 1189, by humbling himself before Casimir the J ust, the Ruthenian duke Vladimir of Galich who “ad piissimum Kazimiri numen supplex confugit” managed to ga in not only the Polish ruler’s forgiveness for the crimes he had committed invading Poland but also Casimir’s help in recuperating his lost principality. Casimir accepted the submission of Vladimir whom a year b efore he himself ha d re moved f rom power, and sent his tr oops led by voivode Nicholas to Galich with the task of placing Vladimir back on the throne.98 Three y ears la ter, in 1192, C asimir the J ust la unched a ca mpaign against one of the tribes of Yatwingians, Polexiani. In this case, too, the military actions were said to have ended when the vanquished humbled Magistri Vincentii Chronica IV.13, p. 155. Magistri Vincentii Chronica IV.6, p. 145. See: Janusz Bieniak, “Polska elita polityczna XII wieku (część I. Tło działalności),” in Społeczeństwo Polski średniowiecznej, ed. Stefan K. Kuczyński, 2 (Warsaw, 1982), p. 27. 98 Magistri Vincentii Chronica IV.15, p. 159. See: Stefan M. Kuczyński, “Stosunki polskoruskie do schyłku wieku XII,” in Studia z dziejów Europy Wschodniej (Warsaw, 1965), p. 28 ff; Bronisław Włodarski, “Sąsiedztwo p olsko-ruskie w czas ach K azimierza S prawiedliwego,” Kwartalnik Historyczny 76 (1969), 5–19. 96 97

74

ch apter t wo

themselves before the triumphant Polish ruler. After Casimir had dealt a final blow to the Polexiani and burned almost all their la nds, “princeps illorum quam magistratuum p otestates, ad K azimiri s cabellum pronis ceruicibus prosternuntur”, asking him f or mercy. The duke resolved to forgive them and, upon an appropriate guarantee of their obedience and promise to pay tribute, he returned to Krakow.99 The campaign duke Leszek the White of Krakow, son of Casimir the Just, led against Rus’ with the aim of placing his cousin duke Roman on the Galich throne, which took place most probably in 1198,was described to ha ve a v ery simila r co urse. H aving co nquered most o f the la nd’s strongholds, the Polish troops reached the walls of Galich and laid siege to the t own. Its inhabitants, realizing that they could not count on any relief, “ad scabellum ducis Lestconis prosternuntur” and “summe deuotionis uotis principem sibi creari efflagitant”, agreed to acknowledge the supremacy of Leszek’s favourite – Roman.100 The circumstances accompanying the peace agreement concluded in 1128 between Bolesław Wrymouth and duke Wartislaw I of Pomerania show that also in the first half of the 12th century the rite of submission and reconciliation was p erceived at the P iast court as o ne of the mos t important tools of shaping political relations, settling conflicts and creating the systems of political dependencies. The most elaborate description of these events is found in the Life of Saint Otto written by Ebo of Michaelsberg in the 1150s and based to a large extent on information provided b y the fi rst-hand test imonies. Eb o’s acco unt, a llowing us to examine more closely the rules of political game and norms of political behaviour applied at the court of Bolesław Wrymouth, plays a significant role in our investigations and thus merits more attention. In Ebo’s rendition, Bolesław “graviter a g ente Pomeranorum offensus” launched an armed campaign against them. The terrified Pomeranians sought the hel p of their a postle, bishop Otto of Bamberg, who had j ust arrived in P omerania o n his s econd missio n. The bi shop h eard t heir account of the damages caused by Bolesław and promised to help them. He decided to go and see Bolesław in person to persuade him to stop waging wa r a gainst the r ecently ba ptised P omeranians. The P olish d uke 99 Magistri Vincentii Chronica IV.19, p. 168. See: Jerzy Nalepa, “Połekszanie (Polexiani) – plemię jaćwieskie u północno-wschodnich granic Polski,” Rocznik Białostocki 7 (1967), 7–33. 100 Magistri Vincentii Chronica IV.24, p. 185. See: Bronisław Włodarski, Polska i R uś 1194–1340 (Warsaw, 1966), p. 20 ff.

submission a nd r ec onc il iati on

75

received the bishop “cum reverentia”, however, having learned about the aim of his visit, he “admodum obstupuit” and explained that he had started the war against the Pomeranians, because they had invaded his lands and, moreover, “parentes s uos e s epulchris prot raheret, e t c ollisis c apitibus dentes ex cuteret, oss aque e orum p er p ublicum ag gerem disp ergeret”. Bolesław’s w ords did no t co nvince Ot to t o a bandon the cas e o f t he Pomeranians. I nvoking the a uthority o f the Ro man kin g, the b ishop insisted even more that the Polish duke stopped the war. In response, however, he he ard that “pro nichilo se deinceps a b omni populo suo ha bendum, si Pomeranorum ducem tam graviter sibi obnoxium debito talione non repercuteret”. In this situation, Otto turned to arguments of eschatological character and started to argue that the Polish duke risks his o wn salvation, waging war against the Pomeranians. If, in consequence of his attack, they abandon the Christian faith, Bolesław will have to account for this before God. In the end, Bolesław decided to accede to Otto’s requests. He agreed to stop the fight, “si, inquit, humiliatus Pomeranorum dux per semet ipsum michi occurrere et veniam deprecari voluerit”. Given s afety g uarantees by B olesław, t he Pomeranian du ke Wartislaw arrived in Gniezno. The negotiations continued for two days without any result. O nly up on t he i ntervention of bi shop O tto, on t he t hird d ay an agreement was reached and “pacis oscula libant et abdicata bellandi intentione fedus intemerate dilectionis ambo duces, coram primatum et nobilium frequentia pepigerunt”. In addition, Wartislaw “in testimonium devotionis sue ma gnam p ecunie q uantitatem su per a ltari b eati Adalberti ma rtiris canonicorum illic Deo servientium usibus profuturam obtulit”. 101 It is ha rd not t o see the co nditions f or endin g the disp ute wi th Wartislaw that Bolesław presented during his negotiations with bishop Otto as his dema nds t o sub ject the P omeranian d uke t o the r itual o f submission. In Ebo’s rendition, the humiliation of the Pomeranian duke who was supposed to appear before Bolesław, full of humility and beg him for forgiveness, thus giving the Polish ruler due satisfaction for the offences he had suffered, was me ant to o vercome the co nflict that had separated the two rulers and restore the peace between them. Further on in Ebo’s account, however, there is no mention Wartislaw’s humility whatsoever. The author concentrates all his attention on the Ebonis Vita s. Ottonis episcopi Babenbergensis III.13, eds. Jan Wikarjak, Kazimierz Liman, MPH n. s., vol. 7, part 2 (Warsaw, 1969), pp. 115–118; See: Herbordi Dialogus de vita s. Ottonis episcopi Babenbergensis III.10, eds. Jan Wikarjak, Kazimierz Liman, MPH n. s., vol. 7, part 3 (Warsaw, 1974), pp. 166–169. 101

76

ch apter t wo

description of the ceremony of reconciliation during which the quarrelling dukes, having abandoned their plans of war and formed an alliance, exchanged a k iss o f p eace. N evertheless, co nsidering t he cha racter o f offences committed by the Pomeranians – profanation of the graves of Bolesław’s parents – and the fact that during his talks with bishop Otto the Polish duke attributed great importance to Wartislaw’s humility, it is not very probable that, as Ebo seems to suggest, the act of reconciliation of t he t wo r ulers wa s not p receded, a ccording t o B olesław’s e arlier demands, by the ceremony of submission of the Pomeranian duke who was supposed to humbly beg for mercy. In a similar way, more than half a century earlier, in 1075, the Saxons who u pon s eizing H arzburg had p rofaned the gra ves o f the G erman king Henry IV’s brother and son, had to undergo the act of submission to regain the royal favour. Defeated by Henry, they had to co mpensate the king for the crime the y had committed, by performing a ceremony of submission. The le aders of t he Sax on rebellion appeared in S peyer before Henry barefoot, bareheaded, and without arms, and begged the king to forgive their sins and show mercy.102 One should assume – in spite of Ebo’s silence in this matter – that also Bolesław Wrymouth, concluding the peace agreement with Wartislaw in 1128, which restored his supremacy over Pomerania,103 saw to it that the celebrations in G niezno incl uded t he r itual o f sub mission o f t he Pomeranian duke. Only the humbling of Wartislaw guilty of profaning the p rincely gra ves was in grade t o allo w B olesław t o r econcile a nd exchange a kiss o f peace coram primatum et nobilium, without hurting his honour. Ebo’s remarks about a considerable sum of money Wartislaw offered at the altar of St Adalbert seem to indicate that the meeting of the two quarrelling dukes in G niezno s erved not only the p urpose of manifesting the peace they reached. It had to incl ude also the submission of Wartislaw to Bolesław’s power, which conditioned their a greement and allowed the r estoration of the a ppropriate relations between them. The road to reconciliation and friendship, manifested in the public exchange of the kiss of peace, had to lead through the ceremony of humiliation during which the Pomeranian duke showed his readiness to submit to Bolesław and to expiate the offences he had committed. 102 See for example: Lamperti Hersfeldensis Annales a.1075, ed. Oswald Holder-Egger, MGH SSrG, 38 (Hanover-Leipzig, 1894), p. 212. See: Althoff, Die Macht der Rituale, p. 83. 103 See: Maleczyński, Bolesław III, p. 192 ff; Jürgen Petersohn, Der südliche Ostseeraum im k irchlich-politischen K räftspiel de s Reic hs, P olens u nd D änemarks vo m 10. b is 13. Jahrhundert. Mission – Kirchenorganisation – Kultpolitik (Cologne-Vienna, 1979), p. 223.

submission a nd r ec onc il iati on

77

Ebo’s account, clearly showing the im portance attached to the cer emony of sub mission a nd r econciliation at the co urt o f B olesław Wrymouth, draws our attention back to the c hronicle of Gallus. In his rendition as well, the ritual of deditio seems to have been perceived by the Piast dukes at the turn of the 11th and 12th centuries as an appropriate mode of solving political disputes and restoring peace. Such meanings can be attributed to Gallus’ remarks regarding the end of the conflict between Bolesław and Zbigniew in 1106, and the r econciliation of the two brothers. To recall: having lost K alisz and Gniezno and s een that Bolesław got Ruthenian and Hungarian reinforcements, Zbigniew with the help of mediators asked his younger brother for peace. Then, having given Bolesław satisfaction and shown him obedience, Zbigniew received permission t o r etain M azovia.104 Gall us’ acco unt co ntains c lear r eferences to the ritualised behaviours and gestures constituting the sense of the rite of submission and reconciliation. In the act of public humbling of Zbigniew (as the chronicler’s words about his proffering satisfaction and pledging obedience in the presence of all should certainly be understood) and the subsequent act of mercy on behalf of Bolesław one may see the elements of an elaborate spectacle of submission and reconciliation which opened the wa y to end the co nflict and restore f riendship and peace between them. At any rate, the pact of 1106 was not an act of unconditional capitulation of Zbigniew. Gallus maintains that the war with Zbigniew was conceived by Bolesław as a way to drive his brother out of the country and take full control over the entire Piast monarchy.105 However, in the agreement concluded with Zbigniew, Bolesław allowed his b rother to retain Mazovia, albeit under cer tain conditions – sicut miles non ut dominus. This pact negotiated by the intermediaries – G allus mentions here the names of bishop Baldwin of Krakow and the Ruthenian duke laroslav – has to be assessed in terms of a compromise, acceptable in the given situation by both quarrelling parties and preventing the further escalation of the conflict which would have endangered the mo narchy’s stability. In order to carry out this compromise – similarly to the agreement between Bolesław and Wartislaw n egotiated b y b ishop O tto o f Ba mberg, a nd described by Ebo – the peace negotiations were concluded with the ceremony Galli Anonymi Cronicae II.38, pp. 108–109; The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles II.38, pp. 187–191. 105 Galli Anonymi Cronicae II.37, p. 107: “[…] Bolezlauus […] ac ex ercitu concitato Zbigneum eliminare disposuit”; The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles II.37, p. 189. 104

78

ch apter t wo

of submission of Zbigniew to Bolesław and the subsequent act of reconciliation of the co nflicting brothers. Zbigniew’s act of public humbling gave Bolesław due compensation for the offences he had s uffered from his brother – scrupulously noted by Gallus106 – as well as an opportunity to appear in the role of a merciful ruler, forgiving the repentant sinner, and a co nfirmation of his su premacy. Zbigniew, on the o ther hand, in return for his submission to Bolesław, was able to avoid a total defeat and retain – without battle – at least some of his power. In this way, it was possible to restore the order and sanction the new – the only acceptable in the given situation – system of mutual relations between the dukes. Ten y ears ea rlier, the co mpletion o f the ri te o f sub mission allo wed Zbigniew t o a micably s ettle the disp ute als o wi th his fa ther, d uke Władysław I Herman. In 1096, having lost the battle in Kruszwica to the troops of Władysław and his palatine Sieciech, Zbigniew decided to surrender to his father who promised to exempt him – as Gallus put it – from death or maiming. Victorious Władysław took his defeated son to Mazovia a nd t here i mprisoned h im in S ieciech’s s tronghold. O nly i n May 1097, during the co nsecration of the ca thedral of Gniezno, upon the intervention of bishops and magnates, the duke decided to release his son and restore him to favour.107 The account of the chronicler does not imply directly that Zbigniew’s imprisonment by Władysław or his later release at the request of the bishops a nd m agnates w as a r esult o f t he n egotiations p receding t he young duke’s defeat at Kruszwica. In this context, Gallus mentions only the guarantee Zbigniew received from his father that he would spare his life and limbs. Nevertheless, the way the chronicler describes the events accompanying Zb igniew’s surr ender a nd his la ter r estoration t o his father’s f avour s uggests t hat t hey f ormed a s ingle s equence o f e vents determined during the negotiations in Kruszwica, which were to lead – through a possible compromise – to the end of this dramatic conflict within the r uling d ynasty. Also in this cas e, i t is p ossible t o dis cern in Gal lus’ account of the disp ute between the P iast dukes the ess ential elements of 106 See for example: Galli Anonymi Cronicae, II, 24, p. 91; The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles II.24, p. 161: Zbigniew refuses to attend Bolesław’s wedding and encourages the Czechs to march into Poland; Galli Anonymi Cronicae II, 35, p. 104; The Deeds of the Princes o f t he P oles II.35, p . 183: Zb igniew b reaks his oa ths gi ven t o B olesław; Galli Anonymi Cronicae II, 36, p . 106; The D eeds o f t he Pr inces o f t he P oles II.36, p. 187: Zbigniew imprisons Bolesław’s ambassadors. 107 Galli Anonymi Cronicae II.4–5, p p. 69–73; The D eeds o f t he Pr inces o f t he Poles II.4–5, pp. 123–131.

submission a nd r ec onc il iati on

79

the rite of deditio – the h umbling of the r ebel, his im prisonment, and, finally, the solemn reconciliation enabling him to recover his lost position. Even though it is difficult to determine, on the basis of Gallus’ brief account, whether Zbigniew’s surrender was carried out according to all the requirements of the cer emony of submission – w earing penitential clothes, hanging a sword around one’s neck, and begging for mercy at the feet of the victor – the ceremonial character of the reconciliation between the quarrelling dukes is shown clearly enough. The inclusion of the act of reconciliation in the ceremony of the consecration of the cathedral leaves no doubt that it was a p lanned spectacle during which the decisions of the peace agreement concluded in Kruszwica were to be ultimately fulfilled. The earlier imprisonment of Zbigniew by his father had a definitely ritual character as well. It determined the period of penance which, once completed, was a prerequisite of the reconciliation in Gniezno. We do not know whether Zbigniew was obliged to s ay psalms in the p rison – as i t was the case of some German dukes who had revolted against the king.108 Nevertheless, deeply symbolic, penitential meanings associated with the imprisonment of the young duke are reflected in Gallus’ text. It is worthy noticing that the chronicler provides information on the place of Zbigniew’s imprisonment in the stronghold of Sieciech. It seems that the decision to entrust Zbigniew to the palatine’s care was not only determined by the role Sieciech played at the old duke’s side. The importance Gallus attributed to identifying the place of Zbigniew’s imprisonment suggests that the fact of handing the young duke over to Sieciech had other, additional meanings. It is to be remembered that the revolt of Zbigniew w as d irected n ot s o m uch a gainst Władysław H erman a s against his all-p owerful pala tine.109 The end o f the disp ute, ther efore, meant that Zbigniew had to give satisfaction not only to his father but also the palatine. It is probably for this purpose that Sieciech’s stronghold was chosen as the place of imprisonment of the young duke. In this way, Sieciech could receive his due satisfactio, confirming his position at the side o f Władysław Herman, w hereas Zb igniew had t he cha nce to repent his sins and regain his ducal rank. In his account dedicated to the reconciliation ceremony in Gniezno, Gallus does not say who asked Władysław to release Zbigniew, he only See: Leyser, Herrschaft und Konflikt, p. 153. See: Janusz Bieniak, “Polska elita polityczna XII wieku (część II.Wróżda i zgoda),” in Społeczeństwo Polski średniowiecznej, ed. Stefan K. Kuczyński, 3 (Warsaw, 1985), p. 16 ff. 108 109

80

ch apter t wo

mentions in general that they were bishops and magnates.110 Certainly, one of them must have been Sieciech. It is not excluded, even, that during the ceremony in Gniezno he was entrusted with a special role – along with the host, archbishop Martin – of the main advocate of Zbigniew’s case. In this way, the great spectacle of reconciliation, ending the conflict, could reflect and reinforce the legitimate system of forces and relations decisive for the preservation of the political order. It is wor th recalling h ere on e m ore f ragment of G allus’ c hronicle, dealing with yet another conflict between the Piast dukes, taking place around the year 1100. The two sons of Władysław Herman – Zbigniew and B olesław – w hom the fa ther had alr eady had t o allo cate s eparate provinces earlier, decided to join their forces and together rise up against Sieciech who had been invariably enjoying the steady support of the old duke. The enemy armies met a t Żarnowiec. There was no b attle, however, because during the negotiations carried out by emissaries the young dukes managed to persuade their father to dismiss the palatine. The pact was sealed by Zbigniew and Bolesław performing a ceremony very similar to the act of surrender of the victorious Czech duke Soběslav I to the defeated German king Lothar III after the battle of Chlumec in 1126. Having forced their father to fulfil their demands, the young dukes went to his enca mpment humbly, una rmed, “not as lo rds b ut as knig hts o r servants”, manifesting obedience to their father with bowed necks.111 In this manner, Władysław Herman who under pressure from his sons had to give consent to sending Sieciech away gained a chance to come out of this difficult situation in a way not offending his dignity and enabling him to manifest his monarchic majesty. As for the young dukes, the public manifestation of obedience to their fa ther allowed them to a ttain their goals without having to defend their case on the battlefield. Gallus shows that in the political reality of the Piast monarchy at the turn of the 11th and 12th centuries the ritual of deditio determined both the framework in which political events took place as well as the rules of political action. In this co ntext, yet another passage of the Chronicle, describing events preceding the agreement in Żarnowiec, is worthy of attention. Galli Anonymi Cronicae II.5, p. 73; The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles II.5, p. 131. Galli Anonymi Cronicae II.16, p. 82–83: “ad patrem f raters humiliter inermes et pacifici perrexerunt, eique non ut domini, sed ut milites vel servi suum obsequium pronis mentibus et c ervicibus obtulerunt”; The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles II.16, pp. 147–149: “the brothers went to their father humbly, unarmed and in peace, and not as lords but as his knights or servants offered their obedience with bowed heads and meek hearts”. 110

111

submission a nd r ec onc il iati on

81

The immediate reason for the young dukes’ revolt against Sieciech was the rumour of his plotting an attempt on the life of Bolesław. In Gallus’ rendition, Bolesław, at the request of his father, set off with small group of warriors against the Czechs who were preparing to plunder Poland. The rest of the army was to join them in a designated location. Bolesław’s companions, ho wever, we re tr oubled b y t he f act t hat comes Wojsław, Sieciech’s cousin and the young duke’s guardian did not take part in the campaign.112 Suspecting Sieciech of treachery, they persuaded Bolesław to return t o Wrocław a nd a sk Z bigniew f or h elp. At a n a ssembly c onvened in Wrocław, Bolesław and Zbigniew accused Sieciech of a plot to assassinate Bolesław and take over the throne. The assembled decided to defend the case of the young dukes and attack the treacherous palatine. At this time comes Wojsław arrived in Wrocław, but he was not allowed to enter the town, because of his kinship with Sieciech and his ambiguous behaviour during Bolesław’s campaign against the Czechs. He was subsequently accused of complicity in the palatine’s plot and deprived of the right to manage Bolesław’s affairs. At this p oint Wojsław, claiming to be innocent, wanted to g ive the y oung dukes satisfaction, satisfactio. They refused t o r eceive him, tho ugh, a nd s o he did no t r egain their fa vour. Having rejected Wojsław’s recompense, Bolesław and Zbigniew gathered their army and set off against their father and Sieciech.113 Gallus does not spell out what kind of satisfaction Wojsław intended to give to the young dukes. It is most likely, however, that in this case, too, the term satisfactio used by the chronicler to describe the standpoint of the comes, was meant to designate actions of ritual character, included in the ritual of submission and reconciliation. Wojsław’s satisfactio is to be seen as an a ct of ritual s ubmission of th e comes a ccused of treachery to the young dukes. Demonstrating his wish to be reconciled with them and his readiness to put himself at their mercy, it was aimed at settling the dispute and restoring peaceful relations between them. It s eems p ossible t o interpret in simila r t erms als o Gall us’ r emarks regarding the events that took place during Bolesław’s struggle with the Pomeranians. Soon after the end of the fight with Zbigniew, most probably in 1107, Bolesław undertook a campaign to Pomerania. He chose to attack fi rst Białogard (Alba) w hich, after a f ew days siege, he f orced to surrender. Then he set off towards Kołobrzeg. Having heard that Bolesław See: Bieniak, “Polska elita polityczna (część II),” p. 19 ff. Galli Anonymi Cronicae II.16, pp. 81–82; The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles II.16, pp. 145–147. 112 113

82

ch apter t wo

was approaching the town, its inhabitants “with necks bowed” – “pronis cervicibus” went out to meet him and surrender to his p ower. Also the Pomeranian duke appeared before the Polish ruler, and “bowed before him” – “Bolezlauo (se) inclinavit”.114 The same expression Gallus used when relating the course of another campaign o f B olesław a gainst P omerania, in the f ollowing y ear. This time B olesław attacked Czarnków which he b esieged “until i t surrendered and he sub jected it to his lo rdship”. When the pa gans and their duke learned that Czarnków surrendered to the Polish ruler, “the duke himself was the first of all to bow down to Bolesław”.115 Gallus’ t ext do es no t exp lain ho w this “bowing do wn” o f the Pomeranian dukes b efore B olesław was ca rried o ut. It does no t s eem correct to see in Gallus’ depiction a scene of homage paid by the duke of Pomerania to the P olish ruler.116 It is more plausible to assume that in this case , t oo, th e c hronicler u sed th e ri tual g estures co nstituting th e main p oint o f the cer emony o f deditio. As in Eb o o f Mic haelsberg’s account of the me eting between Bolesław and Wartislaw in 1128 o r in Kadłubek’s des cription o f the ca mpaigns o f C asimir the J ust a gainst Yatwingians and Leszek the White to Rus’, the h umbling of the enem y dukes before the victorious Piast rulers enabled them to be restored to favour, so in Gallus’ depiction, the surrender and “bowing down” of the Pomeranian dukes before Bolesław, expressing the new system of political r elations, le d t o the end o f the wa r a nd the r estoration o f p eace. Gallus’ story of B olesław’s deeds in Pomerania s eems to complete the elaborate picture of the Piast monarchy at the turn of the 11th and 12th centuries drawn by our chronicler, in which the ritual of submission and reconciliation, ena bling the pa rticipants o f p olitical e vents t o defi ne unambiguously the c haracter of their m utual relations, played the r ole of one of the most important instruments of shaping political reality. In this context, also Gallus’ account of Zbigniew’s return from exile, which constitutes the main subject of the present investigations, assumes completely new meanings. It becomes understandable why the chronicler claims Zbigniew would have avoided his tragic fate had he appeared before Bolesław sicut homo misericordiam petiturus, non sicut dominus. 114 Galli Anonymi Cronicae II.39, p. 110; The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles II.39, pp. 191–193. 115 Galli Anonymi Cronicae II.44, pp. 114–115: “ipse dux Bolezlauuo primus omnium (se) inclinavit”, The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles II.44, p. 201. 116 See: Maleczyński, Bolesław III, p. 140.

submission a nd r ec onc il iati on

83

In Gallus’ rendition, the ag reement enabling Zbigniew to return home, takes o n the f orm o f a n act o f mer cy B olesław sho ws t o his y ounger brother. The agreement thus described could have been fulfilled – argues the chronicler – only through the ceremony of public humbling of Zbigniew before Bolesław. The act of mercy and reconciliation had to be preceded by the ceremony of submission. Gallus leaves no doubt about it. His words about Zbigniew having to arrive sicut homo misericordiam petiturus should be interpreted in this way. The road to p eace b etween the tw o feuding brothers had t o lead through the ceremony of submission and reconciliation. Only Zbigniew’s humbling before Bolesław, public confession of the offences he had committed against his b rother a nd b egging f or mercy – in s hort, his p erforming the ritual of deditio – could have given the chance of stability to their ag reement. According to Gal lus, the p act ending their disp utes could ha ve b een exp ressed o nly in the ri tual o f sub mission in w hich Zbigniew humbling himself before his brother sicut homo misericordiam petiturus would have given him s atisfaction for the numerous offences and in the subs equent ac t o f r econciliation in w hich B olesław w ould have received the repentant exile back in his favour. In this way it would have b een p ossible t o r estore p eace b etween them a nd p ut rig ht the character of their relations. Zbigniew, however, non humiliter sed arroganter est ingressus, moreover, cum ense precedente. In the previous chapter relatively much space was dedicated to the motif o f the sw ord ca rried b efore Zb igniew, exa mining the mea ning associated with it in Gallus’ story. This question, however, merits some more attention. In the ritual of deditio, which Gallus’ believed should have taken place between Zb igniew r eturning f rom exile a nd B olesław sho wing him mercy, the gesture of carrying the sword played a very important role. As seen above, the rebel undergoing the rite of submission often appeared with a sword. Certainly, however, he did not arrive, as Zbigniew did, cum ense precedente. Seeking to regain the monarch’s favour, the former rebel appeared, like Bolesław Curly in Krzyszkowo, with a naked sword held above his head or hung from his neck, and then handed it over to the ruler, thus putting himself at his mercy. It is p ossible t o assume , then, tha t through the ima ge o f Zb igniew arriving with a sword ostentatiously carried before him, besides its associations with the r oyal advent, Gallus consciously referred als o t o the ritual gestures of the ceremony of deditio. By pointing at the sword carried before Zbigniew, Gallus deliberately contrasted his monarchic entry

84

ch apter t wo

with the humble attitude of a surrendering rebel who sicut homo misericordiam petiturus with a naked sword held above his head or hung from his neck demonstrated his desire to compensate for his sins. In effect, the chronicler’s portrayal of the dra matic events leading to Zbigniew’s fall gained expressiveness, a nd his a rgument a bout Zb igniew’s fa ult a nd Bolesław’s innocence found stronger justification. By making reference to the imagery associated with the ceremony of submission seen as an instrument for regulating political relations and to the belief in humility being the necessary prerequisite of reconciliation and restoration of order, Gallus clearly indicated that Zbigniew’s entry meant a violation of generally accepted rules of political action. It went against the universally used principles of conducting and settling political disp utes, w hich en sured in ternal st ability t o the P iast mo narchy’s political system. I n our chr onicler’s r endition, Zb igniew’s ac tions no t only threatened his b rother b ut als o, a nd f oremost, undermine d the basis of the public order, disturbed the proper functioning of the mechanisms regulating p olitical tensions and c onflicts. S een f rom this p erspective, b y ac ting a gainst Zb igniew, B olesław no t o nly def ended his throne but also protected the pr inciples of aff ecting political relations vital for the stability of the monarchy.

CHAPTER THREE

PENANCE Describing th e ev ents th at led t o the co nflict b etween B olesław a nd Zbigniew, Gallus leaves no doubt that the duke’s action against his older brother was fully justified. By breaking the agreement that enabled him to return from exile and by revealing his intentions to reach for princely power, Zbigniew, in fact, forced Bolesław to rise up against him. Gallus clearly indicates that it is Zbigniew’s fault, and presents Bolesław almost as a vic tim of his half-b rother’s aggression. The duke merely reacts to Zbigniew’s challenge and stands up to fight him not only in self-defence but also in protection of the public order that had been endangered. Further on in Gallus’ story, the coherent narrative of our chronicler apparently b egins t o los e its tra nsparency a nd s ome visib le fl aws and cracks appear on the hitherto consistent depiction of the dramatic events accompanying the conflict between Bolesław and Zbigniew. Creating a negative image of the duke’s brother and recalling the rumours about his companions preparing an attempt on Bolesław’s life, Gallus at the same time admits that, by standing up against Zbigniew, the duke committed a sin w hich needed to be expiated before God and his b rother by performing a rite of penance. Clearly, the chronicler is justifying his hero, pointing o ut B olesław’s y outhfulness a nd em phasizing the extrao rdinary circumstances in w hich his ac tion against Zb igniew took p lace. Nevertheless, it does not change the fact that also in Gallus Anonymous’ version o f t he d ramatic s tory o f t he d ucal c onflict B olesław’s de ed is marked by sin and deserves to be condemned. One can get the impression that Gallus’ text reflects a sort of collision between two recollections of the conflict between Bolesław and Zbigniew, two traditions differently judging the course of events and the character of actions undertaken on both sides of the dispute. The penance Bolesław had to perform clearly indicates that the d uke’s behaviour towards his brother must have been perceived – at least by a part of public opinion – in categories of sin and evoked serious reservations. Gallus, addressing his account to the participants and witnesses of the events he described, could not leave out the duke’s penance, despite the major disturbances it introduced to the story of Zbigniew’s guilt and Bolesław’s innocence.

86

ch apter thr ee

It is worth observing, however, that the chronicler did not limit himself to merely noting t he f act of t he m onarch’s p enance. Even t hough Gallus mentions the duke’s sin in a very general way only, not determining its nature specifically, he dedicates a lot of space to the penance itself, describing in det ail i ts p articular st ages. What is mo re, t he exten sive account of Bolesław’s penance plays an exceptionally important role in his narrative. It not only organizes the chronicler’s story but also allows it to be filled with details that were important from the author’s point of view. The fact of the duke’s penance opens – according to Gallus – the way to the ultimate reconciliation of the quarrelling brothers, the confirmation of B olesław’s r uling p osition and the r estoration o f the o rder violated by the conflict. It seems, therefore, that according to our chronicler’s intention, the inclusion of the story of Bolesław’s penance into the narrative of Zbigniew’s tragic fate was, paradoxically, supposed to erase the m emory of t he n egative reactions t o t he duke’s a ction a gainst h is older brother. In Gallus’ interpretation, the fact that Bolesław completed public penance does not at any rate diminish the reliability of the chronicler’s version of events. On the contrary, the picture of the penitent ruler which Gall us dra ws wi th m uch v erve adds s trength t o the ima ge o f Bolesław he propagates, and contributes to the preservation of the “correct” memo ry o f t he d uke. The fac t tha t in his st ory o f Zb igniew’s wickedness and Bolesław’s virtues Gallus found a place for the duke’s sin and penance, too, draws our attention again to the question of the meaning of rituals in the image of historical reality constructed by our author. It inspires us to investigate once more the possibility of various interpretations of the message they contain, and to reflect on the ways they were applied in order to shape the political relations both on the level of the narrative account and the practice of political action. Let us, therefore, give voice to Gallus again. After some general remarks on Bolesław’s sin and considerations on the need to support him with spiritual remedy, our author immediately steps forward to praise his hero for “worthily repenting and properly humbling him self ”. H ence w e lea rn tha t the d uke, “bereft o f hu man company and conversation”, persevered in stric t fasting and, crying his eyes out, lay on the fl oor in ashes a nd s ackcloth. B ishops, a bbots a nd priests supported his labours. They not only fasted and said masses for him b ut als o, o n the o ccasion o f va rious celeb rations, usin g t he lega l force of their canonical power, alleviated the severity of duke’s penance. In addition, Bolesław ordered a mass to be said for the sins and the dead, and the P salter to be sung every day. He also helped the p oor, feeding

penance 87 and clothing t hem. Furthermore, w hat Gallus st rongly emphasizes, he appeased his b rother and was r econciled with him. Then, although his realm was t hreatened b y ma ny p agan a nd C hristian enemies, he entrusted it and his own self to God’s care, and left for a pilgrimage to Hungary to the sanctuaries of St Giles and St Stephen. During the pilgrimage, it was only under the influence of the bishops saying mass es and prayers for him tha t Bolesław s omewhat eased the rigours of his fasts. Each day, he walk ed part of the wa y on foot, often barefoot, together with the bishops and priests, singing the H ours and the seven penitential psalms with litany. With great zeal he washed the feet of the poor and gave them alms. In the bishoprics and monasteries visited on the way Bolesław was greeted by ceremonial processions led by local b ishops a nd a bbots, s ometimes e ven b y kin g K oloman o f Hungary. Everywhere the Polish duke made valuable offerings. After his r eturn from Hungary the d uke “did not give up the lif e of penitent and a habit of a pilgrim” but set off for a pilgrimage to the tomb of St Adalbert, where he proceeded “with tears and prayers on bare foot”. Upon arrival in G niezno, he dist ributed magnificent alms to the poor and la id a bundant gifts o n the al tars. “In wi tness o f his de votion a nd penitence” he f ounded a g olden r eliquary em bellished wi th p recious stones and pearls to hold the relics of St Adalbert. Finally, during the feast of Easter, he gave away valuable garments to the bishops, princes, chaplains and knights. Also the canons of Gniezno cathedral and other clergy as well as numerous inhabitants of G niezno received from the duke clothes, horses and other gifts “each according to his rank”.1 Bolesław’s penance, as described by Gallus, seems to develop according to the rules applied in performing the rite of public penance mentioned in the previous chapter.2 In the C hurch tradition, at least from Carolingian times, if not earlier, one may discern the p resence of two forms of penance, although in practice not always clearly distinguishable – the p ublic

1 Galli Anonymi Cronicae et gesta ducum sive principum Polonorum III.25, ed. Karol Maleczyński, MPH n. s. 2 (Krakow, 1952), pp. 157–160. For the English translation, see: Gesta principum Polonorum. The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles III.25, trans. Paul W. Knoll and Frank Schaer, Central European Medieval Texts 3, series ed. F. Schaer, general eds. János M. B ak, Urszula B orkowska, G iles C onstable, Gá bor K laniczay (B udapestNew York, 2003), pp. 271–281; hereafter cited as: The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles. 2 See: Stanisław Bieniek, “Z dziejów pokuty publicznej w P olsce wczesnofeudalnej,” Czasopismo Pr awno-Historyczne 18 (1966), 9–28; K arol M aleczyński, Bolesław III Krzywousty (Wrocław, 1975), p. 75 ff.

88

ch apter thr ee

penance, paenitentia publica, and the private, secret penance, paenitentia secreta, paenitentia occulta.3 The right to impose public penance belonged exclusively to the bishops. It was accompanied by an elaborate ceremony whose main elements were marked by the rituals celebrated on Ash Wednesday and Maundy Thursday. During the ceremonies of Ash Wednesday the sinner publicly confessed his sins, expressed regret, and, falling at the feet of the bishop performing the celebrations, begged for forgiveness, and, subsequently, accepted the p enance imposed on him. On M aundy Thursday, on the other hand, the act of reconciliation took place, during which the penitent, having completed his penance which lasted for the entire period of the Lent, was r eadmitted to the congregation.4 The rite of private penance, executed by ordinary clergy, had a much simpler form. It did not have a p rivate character in the mo dern sense;5 nevertheless, it did not imply the exclusion of the penitent from the community of the faithful and did not require the sinner to humble himself in public.6 In Gallus’ description of Bolesław’s penance the references to the ritual of p ublic p enance a re suffi ciently c lear. According t o o ur c hronicler’s

3 See for example: Bernhard Poschmann, Die abendländische Kirchenbuße im frühen Mittelalter (B reslau, 1930); J osef A. J ungmann, Die la teinischen B ußriten i n ih rer geschichtlichen Entwicklung (Innsbruck, 1932); Cyrille Vogel, Le pécheur et la pénitence au Moyen Âge (Paris, 1969); Mary C. Mansfield, The Humiliation of Sinners. Public Penance in Thirteenth-Century F rance (Ithaca, 1995); M ayke de J ong, “What was p ublic a bout public penance? Paenitentia publica and justice in the Carolingian world,” in La giustizia nell’alto m edioevo (se coli IX–XI), 2, S ettimane di st udio del C entro i taliano di st udi sull’alto medioevo 44 (Spoleto, 1997), pp. 863–902; Mayke de Jong, “Transformations of penance,” in Rituals of Power: From Late Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages, eds. Frank Theuws, Janet L. Nelson (Leiden, 2000), pp. 185–224; Arnold Angenendt, Geschichte der Religiosität im Mittelalter (Darmstadt, 2000), pp. 626–658; Sarah Hamilton, The Practice of Penance, 900–1050 (Woodbridge, 2001). 4 See: C yrille Vogel, “Les ri tes de la p énitence p ublique a ux X e et XI e siè cles,” in Mélanges o fferts à René Crozet, 1, eds. Pierre Gallais, Yves-Jean Riou (Paris, 1966), pp. 137–144; Mansfield, The Humiliation of Sinners, pp. 168–182; Hamilton, The Practice of Penance, pp. 104–121. 5 See: Hamilton, The Practice of Penance, p. 4. 6 See: Jungmann, Die lateinischen Bußriten, pp. 190–197; Étienne Amann, “Pénitencesacrement: la pénitence privée. Son organisation, premières spéculations à son sujet,” in Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, 12 (Paris, 1933), cols. 845–948; Cyrille Vogel, “Les rituals de la p énitence t ariffée,” in Liturgia o pera d ivina e u mana. S tudi s ulla r iforma liturgica offerti a S. E. Mons. Annibale Bugnini in occasione del suo 70 c ompleanno, e d. Pierre Jounel (Rome, 1938), pp. 419–427; Raymund Kottje, “Bußpraxis und Bußritus,” in Segni e riti nella chiesa altomedievale occidentale, Settimane di studio del Centro italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo, 37 (S poleto, 1987), pp. 369–395; Hamilton, The Practice of Penance, pp. 122–128.

penance 89 relation, the duke starts his penance at the beginning of the Lent whereas the ceremony of reconciliation is included into the celebrations of Easter. Even if the co rrelation of B olesław’s p enance with the p eriod of L ent does not une quivocally determine its character as paenitentia publica, because i t was als o the time o f p erforming p rivate p enance,7 fu rther remarks made by Gallus leave no doubt about it. The chronicler not only emphasizes the p ublic dimension of the d uke’s p enitential ac tivities – fasts, alms or, lastly, pilgrimage – b ut he als o seems to refer directly to the rites connected with the ceremony of public penance. His remark on the separation of the duke from the company of other people recalls the act of expelling the penitent from the church and his symbolic exclusion from the congregation, which ended the ceremony of imposing penance performed o n the da y o f Ash Wednesday.8 Gall us’ ima ge o f the d uke lying on the floor in ashes a nd sackcloth induces similar associations. This expression, clearly, has a solid base in the biblical tradition. However, it seems relevant, too, that the rite of scattering ashes on the penitent’s head and dressing him in sackcloth marked one of the most important moments of the ceremony of imposing public penance. By undertaking the penance in cinere et cilicio, the sinner was su pposed to h umble his soul and change his heart, thus gaining forgiveness for his sins.9 According to the tradi tion developed in the C arolingian period, the public penance was im posed on sinners guilty of committing offences referred to as scandala. This t erm indicated grave sins w hich aroused public o utrage a nd tra nsgressed the p ublic o rder bas ed o n G od’s law.

H amilton, The Practice of Penance, p. 127. Le p ontifical r omano-germanique d u d ixième s iècle 2.XCIC.73, eds. Cyrille Vogel, Reinhard Elze, Studi e t esti 227 (Ci ttà del Vaticano, 1963), p. 21: “Ecce eieceris hodie a sinu ma tris t uae s anctae e cclesiae p ropter p eccatum t uum sic ut Adam p rimus ho mo eiectus est a paradiso propter transgressionem suam”. The rite of expulsion of the sinner from the church appears for the first time in the description of the ceremony of imposing p enance in the co llection o f ca non la w r egulations o f Regino o f P rüm f rom the beginning of the 10th century, since then constituting a stable element of the penitential ritual. Libri duo de synodalibus causis et disciplines ecclesiasticis, e d. Friedrich Wilhelm Hermann Wasserschleben (Leipzig, 1840), pp. 136–137; see: Vogel, “Les rites de la pénitence publique,” p. 109; Mansfield, The Humiliation of Sinners, pp. 171–173; Hamilton, The Practice of Penance, p. 114. 9 Le pontifical romano-germanique 2.XCIX.71, p. 21: “Hic mittendus est cinis su per caput penitentis et dicend um: ‘Memento homo, quia puluis es et in p uluerem reuertis’. Statimque im ponendum ci licium et dicend um: ‘Convertere co r t uum et h umilia a nimam tuam in cinere et cilicio. Cor enim contritum et humiliatum Deus non despicit’”. See also: Vogel, “Les rites de la pénitence publique,” pp. 139–140; Hamilton, The Practice of Penance, p. 114. 7 8

90

ch apter thr ee

However, the distinc tion b etween public and private p enance did no t result from the differentiation between grave and light sins. The decision concerning the kind of penance to impose depended fi rst of all on the public or social dimension of the act.10 A sin co mmitted in p ublic and therefore threatening the p roper functioning of the en tire community required a p ublic recompense. Hence the ess ence of the ri te of public penance was above all determined by its collective character. The act of penance took place in front of the community offended by the penitent’s sin, and the rite of the public humiliation of the sinner was aimed equally at compensating God and giving due satisfaction to the people.11 The images of public sin were associated in a special way with violations committed by rulers. In their case, if we may say so, the offence had a doubly public character. On one hand, the monarch’s sin, due to his position in the social hierarchy, entailed the danger of a universal scandal, disrupted the natural order of things and brought chaos into public life. At the same time, however, owing to the kind of duties resting with the Christian ruler, the monarch’s sin entailed yet other dangers. It was a scandalum not only in the moral or social dimension. The consequences of his sin stretched much further. It meant that the ruler diverted from the tasks imposed on him by God, striking a b low at the w ell-being of the en tire co mmunity a nd exp osing i t t o G od’s p unishment in b oth earthly and, above all, eternal perspective.12 The p oint o f r eference f or me dieval ima ges o f r uler’s sin was the description o f kin g D avid’s p enance f rom the Old T estament. L et us recall it: David, having been reproached by Nathan for his sins – murdering Uriah and marrying Bathsheba – co nfessed his guil t and humbled himself. This biblical model of the royal penance was applied in practice in 390 in the p ublic p enance tha t bishop Ambrose o f Mila n imposed on emperor Theodosius. Ambrose blamed the emperor for the massacre of the inhabitants of Thessalonica by the imperial troops and, recalling David’s example, summoned him t o perform the ri te of penance. The emperor initially opposed to bishop’s demands insisting on his

10 See: Vogel, Le pécheur et la pénitence, pp. 24–27; Kottje, “Bußpraxis und Bußritus,” pp. 369–371; de Jong, “What Was Public about Public Penance?” pp. 893–901; Hamilton, The Practice of Penance, pp. 5–9. 11 See: Mansfield, The Humiliation of Sinners, p. 179 ff. 12 See: de Jong, “What was public about public penance?” p. 898; Rob Meens, “Politics, mirrors o f p rinces a nd the B ible: sin, kings a nd the w ell-being o f the r ealm,” Early Medieval Europe 7 (1998), 345–357.

penance 91 public humiliation eventually gave in, and, having completed the penance, was r eadmitted to t he co ngregation by t he b ishop, p robably a t Christmas of 390.13 The early Middle Ages saw in David’s penance and Theodosius’ selfhumiliation an exemplary model of a r uler’s attitude towards sins and his respect for the t eaching authority of the Ch urch. Christi an r ulers, after the example of David and Theodosius, were supposed to recognize the sinful character of their nature, repent, show respect for the Church, and submit to penance imposed by its bishops. In B yzantium, the memo ry o f Theodosius’ p enance laste d a lo ng time, r einforced b y the tradi tion o f p enance a ttributed t o the fi rst Christian e mperor C onstantine t he G reat. The r ole t hat D avid, p erceived as the model of ideal ruler embodied by the Christian emperors, played in the imperial ideology created suitable conditions for accepting the penitential aspect of Davidic regal position, too. The emperor, the new David, following the model of the Old Testament king of Israel and the example of his imperial predecessors, had to be ready to confess any s ins c ommitted and h umble h imself b efore G od i n ord er to obtain forgiveness.14 In 869, referring to the ideas connected with the penitential aspect of David’s tradition, the emperor Basil I in a letter addressed to the bishops gathered at the synod admitted to have committed many sinful acts and expressed r eadiness t o h umble h imself b y l ying p rostrate i n f ront o f them and to undergo the rite of penance in order to give an example of humility.15 Also the son of and successor to Basil, Leo VI had to confess his sins in public and humble himself. In 907 during the celebrations of the day of Epiphany the patriarch Nicholas the Mystic, referring to the tradition originating in the 5th century, of Ambrose closing the church gates in front of Theodosius,16 denied Leo the right to enter the church of Hagia Sophia through the main entrance, accusing him of the sin of tetragamy – getting married for the fourth time, which was condemned

Rudolf S chieffer, “Von Mailand nac h Canossa. Ein B eitrag zur G eschichte der christlichen Herrscherbuße von Theodosius d. Gr. bis zu Heinrich IV,” Deutsches Archiv 28 (1972), 333–370; Neil B. McLynn, Ambrose of Milan. Church and Court in a Christian Capital (Berkeley-London, 1994), pp. 317–330; Kazimierz Ilski, Idea jedności politycznej, społecznej i religijnej w świetle pism Ambrożego z Mediolanu (Poznań, 2001), p. 81 ff. 14 Gilbert Dagron, Empereur et prêtre. Étu des sur l e ‘césaropapisme’ by zantin (Paris, 1996), p. 122 ff. 15 D agron, Empereur et prêtre, pp. 134–135. 16 See: Schieffer, “Von Mailand nach Canossa,” p. 342. 13

92

ch apter thr ee

by the Church. The emperor, crying, fell at the patriarch’s feet, and admitted that he deserved fair punishment for his sins.17 It is believed that these dramatic events found their reflection in the mosaic placed above the main entrance of the inner narthex of the Hagia Sophia ch urch, r epresenting the em peror a t the f eet o f C hrist w ho is seated on the throne and accompanied by the figures of the Holy Virgin and archangel depicted in medallions.18 Regardless of the difficulties in identifying the em peror r epresented o n the mos aic wi th L eo VI,19 i ts message definitely had a more general meaning, going beyond the individual acts of penance of Leo or Basil I. It pointed to the limi ts of the imperial supremacy, the obliga tion affecting e ven the em peror to surrender to the bishops’ power “to bind and unbind” and to humbly carry out the penance imposed by them.20 Also in the West, the figure of David played a very important role in the conceptions of royal power elaborated by the Carolingian reformers. Trying t o r edefine the character of duties resting with the Christian ruler, and i ndicating t he p articular na ture of t he k ing’s obl igations towards God, the Church and his subjects, they saw in David the personification of ruler’s virtues and the model of a monarch summoned to rule b y G od a nd f ulfilling His will t o be f ollowed by t he Ca rolingian rulers.21

D agron, Empereur et prêtre, pp. 122–123, 129 ff. Nicolas Oikonomidès, “Leo VI and the Nartex Mosaic of Saint Sophia,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 30 (1976), 151–172; Dagron, Empereur et prêtre, pp. 129–138. 19 See: Andreas S chminck, “Rota t u v olubilis. K aisermacht und P atriarchenmacht in Mosaiken,” in Cupido leg um, e ds. L udwig B urgmann, M arie Theres Fögen, Andr eas Schminck (F rankfurt, 1985), p p. 21 1–234; Rob ert D eschman, “The E xalted Se rvant: the Ruler Theology of the Prayerbook of Charles the Bald,” Viator 11 (1980), 416, note 108. 20 D agron, Empereur et prêtre, p. 138. In 969 also the patriarch Polyeuktos forbade the emperor J ohn I T zimiskes w ho acce ded t o p ower a fter m urdering his p redecessor Nikephoros I I Phok as to enter t he church of Hagia Sophia. The ne w emperor had t o humble himself in front of the patriarch, confess his sins and express readiness to receive the penance imposed by him. See Dagron, Empereur et prêtre, pp. 124–125. 21 Hans Hubert Anton, Fürstenspiegel und Herrscherethos in der Karolingerzeit (Bonn, 1968), pp. 419–430; Hugo Steger, David rex et propheta (Nürnberg, 1961); Deschman, “The Exalted Servant,” p. 406 ff; Aryeh Graboïs, “Un mythe fondamental de l’histoire de France au Moyen Âge: Le ‘roi David’, précurseur du ‘roi très chrétien’,” Revue Historique 581 (1992), 17 ff; Ro man Mic hałowski, “Podstawy r eligijne mo narchii w e w czesnym średniowieczu zachodnioeuropejskim. P róba typologii,” Kwartalnik H istoryczny 105 (1998), 12 ff; Yves Sassier, Royauté et idéologie au Moyen Âge. Bas-Empire, monde franc, France (IVe-XIIe siècle) (Paris, 2002), p. 125 ff; Franz-Reiner Erkens, Herrschersakralität im Mittelalter. Von den Anfängen bis zum Investiturstreit (Stuttgart, 2006), pp. 133–155. 17 18

penance 93 Gradually, however, especially during the reign of Louis the Pious, the idea o f imitatio D avid r egis, st arted to acq uire addi tional me anings. A greater emphasis was put on David’s humility, his readiness to wholly surrender to God’s will a nd the w ords of His prophet, and to do p enance. Humility and willingness to repent became features characterizing the royal elect.22 At the same time – as mentioned in the previous chapter – in the f ramework of the great project of correctio the Carolingian priests made an effort to assign to public penance the function of the most f undamental inst rument used to r estore o rder, no t o nly in r eligious terms but also, what was of particular importance to the Carolingian reformers, on the social and political level. In the Carolingian times the rite of public penance assumed a new form, starting to fulfil the idea of creating a Christian kingdom and eliminating from public life any sins that were pa rticularly o ffensive to G od a nd ther efore enda ngered the entire community.23 As a result, in the 9th century, the conviction that it was necessary to use the ri te of public penance in the cas e of the kin g committing a sin b ecame increasingly popular among the C arolingian bishops. The sin o f the r uler w ho was a ppointed to ensure that God’s commandments were obeyed was a pa rticularly harsh violation of the legitimate order and caused universal scandal.24 Hence it required that the ruler followed David’s example and repented, humbly undergoing the public penance imposed by the Church. In 833 it was the emperor Louis the Pious who was confronted with the demand of doing public penance. As we recall, he was defeated and taken hostage by his rebellious eldest son Lothar I, and consequently forced to humble himself in public and confess his sins. In the church of St Medard in S oissons the em peror prostrated himself in f ront of the bishops and magnates, confessed his various faults, expressed regret and asked the bishops to impose penance. Subsequently, he placed his weapon on the altar, took off his regal clothes and put on penitential garments.25 The conviction of at least some of the Carolingian bishops that 22 A nton, Fürstenspiegel und Herrscherethos, p . 426 ff; Deschman, “The Exalted Servant,” p . 406 ff; Sassier, Royauté et idéo logie, p . 149 ff; Erkens, Herrschersakralität, p. 147 ff. 23 De Jong, “What was public about public penance?” p. 880 ff. 24 See: Meens, “Politics, mirrors of princes and the Bible,” pp. 345–357. 25 See for example Episcoporum de poenitentia, quam Hludovicus imperator professus est, relatio Compendiensis, eds. Alfred Boretius, Victor Krause, MGH Capitularia regnum Francorum, 2 (Hanover, 1890), pp. 51–55, no 197. See also: Mayke de Jong, “Power and humility in Carolingian society: the public penance of Louis the Pious,” Early Medieval Europe 1 (1992), 29–52; Schieffer, “Von Mailand nach Canossa,” pp. 355–356.

94

ch apter thr ee

they were entitled to control the ruler’s behaviour, reproach him and, if necessary, impose penance, was further developed in the numerous literary works, mirrors of princes, letters, political treatises, as well as iconographical representations. They presented the new image of the ruler surrendering to the bishops’ instructions and humbly fulfilling the penance imposed on him. David rex e t p ropheta w as r eplaced b y p enitent D avid a s a n example t o f ollow b y the Christia n mo narch.26 At the s ame t ime, t he Carolingian literature began to mention more frequently the fi gure of Theodosius in connection with the images of ruler’s virtues. The attitude of this em peror, w ho mo destly accepted St Ambrose’s commands and consequently set off to do the penance he imposed, became an important point of reference for reflections on the character of the royal power and the range of obligations resting with the Christian ruler.27 The mo del o f mo narchic p enance fo rmed d uring t he C arolingian period, which gave the b ishops the rig ht to judge the r ulers, reproach them for their misdeeds, and impose penance on them as they would do with ordinary sinners, was still valid in the Ottonian era. The christocentric idea of monarchic power28 developed by the Ottonian and, subsequently, Salian r ulers did no t undermine the basis o f the co nceptions elaborated by late Carolingian clergy, regarding the nature of relations

26 A nton, Fürstenspiegel und Herrscherethos, p . 423 ff; Deschman, “The Exalted Servant,” p. 406 ff. 27 A nton, Fürstenspiegel und Herrscherethos, p. 442 ff; Schieffer, “Von Mailand nac h Canossa,” pp. 356–359. 28 See for example: Ernst H. Kantorowicz, The King’s Two Bodies. A Study in Medieval Political Theolog y (P rinceton, 1957), p p. 61–78; Walter Dürig, “Der the ologische Ausgangspunkt der mittelalterlichen liturgischen Auffassung vom Herrscher als Vicarius Dei,” Historisches J ahrbuch 77 (1958), 174–187 ; Ro bert D eshman, “Otto III a nd the Warmund Sacramentary. A Study in P olitical The ology,” Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte 34 (1971), 1–20; Rob ert Deshman, “Christus r ex a nd ma gi r eges. K ingship a nd Christology in Ot tonian and Anglo-Saxon Art,” Frühmittelalterliche Studien 10 (1976), 367–405; Johannes Fried, “Tugend und H eiligkeit. B eobachtungen und Üb erlegungen zu den H errscherbildern Heinrichs III. in E chternacher Handschriften,” in Mittelalter. Annäherungen an eine Fremde Zeit, ed. Wilfried Hartman (Regensburg, 1993), pp. 41–85; Stefan Weinfurter, “Zur ‘Funktion’ des o ttonischen und s alischen K önigtum,” in Mittelalterforschung nach der Wende 1989, ed. Michael Borgolte, Historische Zeitschrift, Beihefte, n. s. 20 (Munich, 1995), pp. 349–261; Roman Michałowski, “Otto III w obliczu ideowego wyzwania. Monarcha jako wizerunek Chrystusa,” in Człowiek w społeczeństwie średniowiecznym, ed. Roman Michałowski (Warsaw, 1997), pp. 57–72; Franz-Reiner Erkens,“Vicarius Christi – sacratissimus legislator – sacra majestas. Religiöse Herrschaftslegitimierungen im Mi ttelalter,” Zeitschrift der S avigny-Stiftung f ür Re chtsgeschichte Ger. Abt 89 (203), 1–55; Erkens, Herrschersakralität, p. 157 ff.

penance 95 between the ecclesiastical and secular power. Even the vicarius Christi, if he erred, was to be reproached by the bishops and summoned to do the right p enance. It was the r uler’s d uty t o mo destly accep t the b ishop’s reprimand and humble himself in order to be cleansed of sins. In this manner, also, the author of the history of the Halberstadt bishopric presented the conflict between the local bishop Bernhard and the emperor Otto I. The bishop, opposing Otto’s plans to found an archbishopric in Magdeburg, angered the emperor and was imprisoned. Once free, he excommunicated Otto. In this situation Otto decided to humble himself before the bishop. More poenitentium he arrived in Halberstadt, barefoot, dressed in penitential garb, and fell to Bernhard’s feet begging him to wi thdraw the ex communication a nd accep t him aga in in t he community of faithful.29 The reliability of this account can raise doubts.30 Nevertheless, it does not change the value of its meaning. For its author, public penance and public humiliation were the only ways to reconcile the sinf ul r uler with the Ch urch, and thus t o preserve his r oyal rank. Only having c ompleted t he p enance, c ould O tto c ome to Halberstadt again, t his t ime a s a r uler, a nd b e r eceived b y B ernhard w ith d ue respect. Similar topics are present also in descriptions of the penance of Otto I’s grandson, Otto III. 31 It is mentioned in tw o texts – Life of S aint Nilus from the early 11th cen tury, and Life of S aint R omuald written in the 1040s by Peter Damiani – which tell the story of the emperor undertaking a penitential pi lgrimage to Mount Gargano, after having suppressed a rebellion in Rome in 998. The two texts differ slightly in presenting the causes and the course of Otto’s penance. According to the Life of St Nilus, Nilus was to receive from Otto permission to transfer to his monastery 29 Gesta episcoporum Halberstadensium, ed. Ludwig Weiland, MGH SS, 23 (Hanover, 1874), p. 83 ff; see also: Gerd Althoff,“Magdeburg – Halberstadt – Merseburg. Bischöfliche Repräsentation und Interessenvertretung im ottonischen Sachsen,” in Herrschaftsrepräsentation i m o ttonischen S achsen, ed s. Ge rd Althoff, Ern st S chubert, Vorträge und Forschungen 47 (Sigmaringen, 1998), pp. 274–275; Gerd Althoff, Die Macht der Rituale. Symbolik und Herrschaft im Mittelalter (Darmstadt, 2003), pp. 110–111. 30 The gesta were preserved in a redaction originated at the turn of the 12th and 13th centuries. It seems, however, that the fragments dedicated to the quarrel between Bernhard and Otto can be attributed to the oldest layer of the text, going back as far as the end o f the 10th cen tury. S ee: K urt-Ulrich J äschke, Die ä lteste H alberstädter B ischofschronik (Cologne, 1970); Althoff, “Magdeburg – Halberstadt – Merseburg,” p. 270. 31 See: Sarah Hamilton, “Otto III’s penance: a case study of unity and diversity in the eleventh cen tury C hurch,” in Unity a nd Di versity i n t he Ch urch, e d. R obert N. S wanson, S tudies in Ch urch H istory 32 (O xford, 1996), p p. 83–94; Hamilton, The Practice of Penance, pp. 175–177.

96

ch apter thr ee

the anti-pope John Philagathus, captured by the emperor. Later on, however, Ot to, igno ring the p romise gi ven t o the s aintly ma n, ordered Philagathus t o be cr uelly mutilated. Angry Nilus c ursed the em peror, who then understood to have sinned and promised to repent. He walked on foot to the s anctuary o f Sa int Mic hael the Archangel o n Mount Gargano, and on the way back he met with Nilus who, deeply touched by Otto’s honest regret, gave him his blessing.32 Peter Damiani, on the other hand, connects Otto’s penance with his betrayal of the leader of the Roman revolt and protector of Philagathus, John Crescentius, whom the emperor – contrary to the earlier promise of spa ring his lif e – o rdered t o b e ex ecuted. S ubsequently, Ot to co nfessed his sin to Romuald and poenitentia causa set off on foot to Mount Gargano, f rom w here he proceeded to Romuald’s hermitage. There he spent the entire Lent, doing penance, wearing sackcloth, fasting, sleeping on rushes and singing psalms.33 Both texts, regardless of the diff erences in des cribing Otto’s penance, refer to the same model of monarchic penitence – the sinful ruler, having been reproached by the s aintly man, repents and st arts doing p enance, subsequently humbles himself before the saint, and gains forgiveness for his sins. In the Life of Saint Romuald the reference to the biblical example of David’s penance, present in both texts, is additionally strengthened by the n ature o f t he e mperor’s s in. O tto n ot o nly murders C rescentius b y deceit, but also makes the man’s widow his concubine.34 Otto’s penance, as described by the a uthors of both lives, is en tirely in acco rd with the la te Carolingian vision of the penitent king who surrenders to the instructions of p riests reproving him f or his sin s a nd under takes wi th humility the penance imposed by them.35

Ex Vita s ancti Nili, e d. G eorg H einrich P ertz, M GH SS, 4 (H anover, 1841), pp. 616–618. 33 Petri D amiani Vita beati Romualdi 25, e d. Giovanni Tabacco, Fonti p er la S toria d’Italia, 94 (Rome, 1957), pp. 52–54. 34 Petri Damiani Vita beati Romualdi 25, p. 53. 35 Hamilton, “Otto III’s penance,” p. 94. A separate problem remains the question to what extent the model of David’s monarchic penance propagated by the authors of both lives was co nnected to the e vents acco mpanying the p ilgrimage o f Ot to to M ount Garano. There is strong evidence that in Otto’s intention it was not related to the Roman happenings. It seems that the emperor – contrary to the report given in both texts – did not show any remorse because of the b loody clash with Philagathus and Crescentius. Hence Otto’s peregrination on Mount Gargano should rather be viewed in a wider context of his sp irituality and the im portance he a ttributed to ascetic practices. See: Stanisław 32

penance 97 We fi nd similar images of the r epenting king also in the lif e of king Robert the Pious of France, written approximately in the same period by Helgaud o f Fleur y. B orrowing almost li terally f rom the tr eatise o f St Ambrose Apologia pr ophetae David, H elgaud r ecalls the p icture of Robert who exemplo beati David humbly receives the instructions of abbot of Fleur y, Abbo (who stands in f or Nathan) who condemns the king for committing bigamy. He then confesses his sins and decides to send a way t he i llegitimate w ife a nd, t hrough p enance, r egain G od’s favour.36 Also the events accompanying the great dispute between pope Gregory VII and king Henry IV of Germany can be placed in the same current of the penitential tr adition.37 I n his ac tions a gainst H enry, the p ope r eferred directly to the example of St Ambrose and the penance he imposed on The odosius.38 In e valuating t he meaning of p enance, t he supporters of the papal reform referred directly to the conceptions already elaborated in Carolingian times, seeing in the ri te of public penance an important instrument for preserving God’s order.39 Even though the programmes formulated in the pope’s environment greatly exceeded the conceptions of t he m utual r elations b etween t he e cclesiastical a nd s ecular p ower developed by the Carolingian clergy, their underlying principle, recognizing

Trawkowski, “Pielgrzymka Ottona III do Gniezna,” in Polska w świecie. Szkice z dziejów kultury p olskiej, e d. Jerzy D owiat (Warsaw, 19 72), pp. 107 –124; G erd Althoff, Otto III (Darmstadt, 1 997), p p. 1 01–114. F or t he p urpose o f o ur i nvestigations, h owever, t he most important is to recognize that, regardless of Otto’s intentions and the actual course of his pilgrimage, the authors who related the story referred in its description to the model of David’s penance. 36 Helgaud de Fleur y, Epitoma v itae regis Roberti Pii 17, eds. Robert-Henri Bautier, Gillette L abory (Paris, 1965), pp. 94–96. S ee: Sarah Hamilton, “A new model for royal penance? Helgaud of Fleury’s Life of Robert the Pious,” Early Medieval Europe 6 (1997), 189–200; Geoffrey Koziol, Begging Pardon and Favor. Ritual and Political Order in Early Medieval France (Ithaca-London, 1992), 165–173; Claude Carozzi, “La vie du roi Robert par Helgaud de Fleury historiographe et hagiographe,” Annales de B retagne et P ays de l’Ouest 87 (1980), 219–236. 37 Harald Z immermann, Der Ca nossagang vo n 1077. Wirkungen u nd Wirklichkeit (Mainz, 1975). See also: Gerd Althoff, Heinrich IV. (Darmstadt, 2006), p. 116 ff. 38 Gregorii VII Registrum IV.2, ed. Erich Caspar, MGH Epistolae selectae, vol. 2, part 1 (Berlin, 1920), p. 294. See: Schieffer, “Von Mailand nach Canossa,” pp. 360–361, Edward Peters, The Shadow King. Rex I nutilis in Medieval Law and Literature, 751–1327 (New Haven, 1970), p. 35 ff. 39 Sarah H amilton, “Penance in the a ge o f G regorian r eform,” in Retribution, Repentance, and Reconciliation, e ds. K ate C ooper, Jeremy G regory, S tudies in C hurch History 40 (Oxford, 2004), pp. 47–73; Herbert E. J. Cowdrey, Pope Gregory VII, 1073–1085 (Oxford, 1998), p. 512 ff.

98

ch apter thr ee

the bishops’ right to “bind and unbind”, excommunicate, impose penance and give absolution also to the rulers, was deeply rooted in the traditional ideas a nd ra ised no r eservations, no t e ven a mong the su pporters o f Henry.40 Also the penance eventually undertaken by Henry did not differ fundamentally from the earlier royal penitential acts. Having recognized the papal excommunication and declared the willingness to do penance in autumn of 1076 in Oppenheim, Henry started to perform his penitential acts already during his stay in Speyer, before departing to Italy.41 The events that took place in January 1077 in Canossa, in spite of their unique, individual character, generally corresponded with the rite of reconciliation, closing the ceremony of public penance, and opening the penitent’s way back to the Church.42 More than a quarter of a century later king Philip I of France had to undergo a similar public penance ceremony. His marriage with the wife of the count of Anjou awoke the indignation of the papacy and a part of the French bishops connected with the reform movement, and led to the king’s excommunication in 1094 by the papal legate. Philip’s attempts at settling the dispute failed, so eventually the king was forced to submit to the Church’s decision. In December 1104 he appeared in front of the synod in Paris, dressed in penitential clothes “satis devote nudis pedibus humiliter”, repented his past sins, and promised to dismiss his illegitimately married wife.43 Clear references to the model of David’s penance and, above all, to the example o f Theodosius ca n b e dis cerned als o in the acco unt o f Sax o Grammaticus relating the penance of king Sven II Estridsen of Denmark. Sven’s order to kill a gr oup of magnates while they were praying in the church on the feast of Circumcision, because the day before during banquet they had cri ticized him, met wi th strong condemnation from the king’s closest advisor and friend bishop William of Roskilde. The bishop barred the kin g’s wa y w hen he was t rying to en ter the ch urch, “non regem eum, sed humani cruoris carnificem appellabat”, excommunicated

S chieffer, “Von Mailand nach Canossa,” p. 365 ff. Z immermann, Der Canossagang von 1077, p. 174. 42 Z immermann, Der Canossagang von 1077, p. 158 ff; Cowdrey, Pope Gregory VII, p. 153 ff. 43 Papsturkunden in Frankreich. Neue Folge, 3, ed. Johannes Ramackers (Göttingen, 1939), p. 46; s ee als o: G eorges Duby, Le chevalier, la femme et le prêtre. L e mariage dans la F rance féodale (Paris, 1999), pp. 5–24; Z immermann, Der Canossagang von 1077, p. 168. 40 41

penance 99 him, and summoned him to repent his crime in the act of penance. The knights a ccompanying th e kin g wa nted t o kill th e b ishop b ut S ven stopped them. The king humbly accepted William’s reproof and “abiectis regiae ma iestatis in signibus, in signae p aenitentiae s agulum sum psit”. Then “nudatis pedibus” he walked to the vestibule of the church, where he fell to the ground, showing repentance for his sin.At that moment the bishop led Sven into the church, levied the curse, and, remembering that “nec m inus i n p aenitentia v enerationis q uam a usteritatis i n a dmisso”, ordered him to do appropriate penance. Having completed his penance, Sven, already “regio cultu ornatus”, arrived in the cathedral for the mass during which the bishop granted him absolution.44 The r eliability o f the acco unt o f Sax o G rammaticus, wri tten in the early 1 3th c entury but d escribing e vents b elieved t o h ave t aken p lace most probably in the 1070s, shortly before the death of both their protagonists, raises serious doubts. The point, however, is not only to determine whether e vents acco mpanying S ven’s p enance r eally ha ppened in the way described by the Danish chronicler. It seems much more important to hig hlight the p ersistence and enormous infl uence of the ima ges of royal p enance, shaped by the b iblical tradition and the memo ry of St Ambrose who closed the church gates in front of the sinful emperor, as well as the way they were used in narrative texts to create the appropriate image of the penitent ruler deserving of imitation.45 The penance of Bolesław III Wrymouth described by Gallus, however, seems to considerably differ from this model of royal penance popular in the early and high Middle Ages and founded on the acts of penance

44 Saxonis Gesta Danorum 11.7.1–20, eds. Jørgen Oldrik, Hans Raeder (Copenhagen, 1931), p p. 308–314. S ee: K arol G órski, “O sp rawie św . S tanisława,” Nasza Prze szłość 4 (1948), 61–82; Hermann Kamp, “Tugend, Macht und Ritual. Politisches Verhalten beim Saxo Grammaticus,” in Zeichen – R ituale – Werte. Internationales Kolloqium des Sonderforschungsbereichs 496 a n der Westfälischen Wilhelms-Universität M ünster, e d. Gerd Althoff (Münster, 2004), pp. 186–188. 45 Clear references to David’s model of monarchic penance can be found also in the dialogue between the kin g Henry II of England and abbot of Bonneval, written in the end of the 12th century by Peter of Blois. Angry for being betrayed by his sons and many magnates, the kin g as ks G od t o help him r evenge. The abbot calms his a nger, argues about the need to show humility, and persuades the king to clear himself of sins by doing penance. Under the influence of abbot’s words the king confesses his sins and asks the abbot to impose penance on him: Petri Blesensis, Bathoniensis archidiaconi. Dialogus inter r egem H enricum s ecundum et a bbatem B onaevallensem, PL 207: 975–988. See: C. Stephen Jaeger, The Origins of Courtliness. Civilizing Trends and the Formation of Courtly Ideals, 939–1210 (Philadelphia, 1985), p. 227.

100

ch apter thr ee

of David or Theodosius. It is true that Bolesław’s penance has a p ublic character. References to the rite of public penance are clearly visible in Gallus’ account. Let us recall: the duke is excluded from the community of faithful, wears penitential garments, observes severe fasts, prays, and sings psalms. In the end he embarks on a penitential pilgrimage, demonstrating p ublicly his r epentance a nd r eadiness t o co mpensate f or his sins. However, this public dimension of Bolesław’s penitential acts does not change the fac t that the biblical mo del of royal p enance do es not seem to be the p oint of reference for our chronicler writing about the Polish ruler’s penance. In Gallus’ text we see no attempt at placing this event into the framework of the biblical account of David’s penance. The restraint that Gallus demonstrates in this case clearly contrasts with the liberty he exhibits in using various themes of the Davidic tradition in constructing the story of the origins of the Piast dynasty.46 The motif of the saintly man or bishop who reproaches the ruler for his sins and calls him to do penance, so typical of the model of royal penance based on David o r Theodosius, is a bsent from Ga llus’ des cription o f B olesław’s penance. I n Gallus’ t ext nob ody r eproves the d uke, no t t o sp eak o f excommunicating him. Bolesław himself recognizes the sinful character of his deeds and alone starts to do penance. The bishops appear not in the role of severe judges demanding due expiation of the duke’s sins, but rather act as caring protectors trying to alleviate the severity of Bolesław’s penitential practices. Moreover, one gets the impression that the bishops are not only spectators of the duke’s penance but also, in a certain sense, participants in it. They fast and, together with Bolesław, go on pilgrimage to Hungary, part of the road – as w e may infer from Gallus’ text – walking not only on foot but barefoot, like penitents.47 The rite of public penance was connected with acts of prostration and confession of sins not only by the penitent but also by the bishop celebrating the ri tual. Re cognizing his o wn defects a nd sinf ulness, t he b ishop begged God to forgive him his faults and to show mercy to the remorseful penitent. This way of celebrating the p enitent’s reconciliation ceremony

46 See: Czesław Deptuła, Galla Anonima mit genezy Polski. Studium z historiozofii i hermeneutyki symboli dziejopisarstwa średniowiecznego (Lublin, 1990), pp. 228, 248 ff. 47 Galli Anonimi Cronicae III.25, p. 158: “Singulis quoque diebus ab hospitio tam diu pedibus q uandoque n udis c um ep iscopis et ca pellanis ince debat”; The D eeds o f t he Princes of the Poles III.25, p. 277: “Every day, too, he w ould walk f rom his host el, often barefoot, with the bishops and chaplains”.

penance 101 on the Maundy Thursday was p rescribed in the p enitential ordo known from the Pontificale romano-germanicum.48 This Pontificale, originated in the middle of the 10th century in Mainz, relatively quickly gained big popularity and exerted significant influence on the development of the liturgical tradition, especially in the r egions north of the Alps.49 Nevertheless it did not lead to i ts complete standardization, and many local Churches still used other solutions at various ceremonies, seriously differing from the patterns found in the Pontificale romano-germanicum. Also in th e case o f the public penance ritual we encounter a la rge va riability o f li turgical f ormulae.50 The ordo of t he Maundy Thursday reconciliation ceremony found in the pontifical commissioned b y the Kra kow bishopric a nd o riginated p robably in t he fourth quarter of the 11th century implies that the ritual of public penance in the Polish Church, too, had a different course than the one foreseen in the guidelines of the Pontificale romano-germanicum.51 The Krakow ritual, constituting one of the versions of the so-called north-central family of penitential ordines formed probably in the second half of the 10th century in Lotharingia, substantially differed from the ritual known from the Pontificale romano-germanicum. The diff erences regarded the sequence of the particular ritual practices as well as the manner in which they were to be performed and the character of the accompanying prayers.52 Consequently, in comparison with the ordo of Pontificale romano-germanicum, the formula preserved in the Krakow pontifical puts a stronger emphasis on the role of the bishop celebrating the ritual and his superior rights in respect to the penitent. Whereas in the ordo of Pontificale romano-germanicum the bishop, before readmitting t he p enitent to the C hurch, recognized the sinfulness of his own nature and, together with the penitent, fell to the ground, begging God’s forgiveness, in the Krakow formula the penitent fell at the bishop’s feet

48 Le p ontifical romano-germanique 2.X CIX.226, 2.X CIX.229, p p. 59–60, 61. S ee: Hamilton, The Practice of Penance, pp. 119–120. 49 C. Vogel, “Le pontifical r omano-germanique d u X e siè cle: na ture, d ate et im portance du document,” Cahiers de Civilisation Médiévale 6 (1963), 27–48. 50 M ansfield, The Humiliation of Sinners, p. 192 ff; Hamilton, The Practice of Penance, pp. 136–172. 51 Pontyfikał krakowski z XI wieku (Biblioteka Jagiellońska Cod. Ms. 2057) 389–409, ed. Zdzisław Obertyński (Lublin, 1977), pp. 117–123. 52 See: Jungmann, Die lateinischen Bußriten, p. 98–100; Mansfield, The Humiliation of Sinners, pp. 192–196; Hamilton, The Practice of Penance, pp. 150–166.

102

ch apter thr ee

and begged the bishop for absolution.53 The Krakow formula, making a clear opposition between the bishop who celebrated the ceremony and the humble penitent at his feet, did not expect the bishop – in co ntrast with the ordo of Pontificale romano-germanicum – to perform any ritual acts which would indicate a kind of community of sin linking him, as a mortal man, with the sinner doing penance, and obliging him to beg for God’s mercy in an act of prostration.54 In this context, Gallus’ remarks about the bishops’ particular involvement in Bolesław’s penance gain a sp ecial meaning. His picture of the bishops completing the p enitential practices, along with the duke, was not consistent with the liturgical tradition of the Polish Church. Moreover, it was at sharp variance with it. Thus, under the pen of our chronicler the sharp opposition between the sinful penitent and the bishop granting him absolution – typ ical of the li turgical practice of the P olish Church, as may be inferred from the ritual preserved in the Krakow pontifical - was cancelled and both parties involved in the cer emony of penance were placed almost on the same level. In Gallus’ account the image of the sorrowful penitent, falling at the b ishop’s feet and asking him f or absolution, characteristic of the ritual of public penance, was replaced by the portrait of a h umble r uler w ho, su pported by his b ishops, alo ng wi th them end ures the diffi culties o f p enitential s elf-denial t o ga in G od’s favour. In the story the chronicler tells, the link b etween Bolesław’s penance and the tra gic fa te o f Zb igniew is s omewhat obliterated. Of co urse, Gallus highlights the fact that Bolesław compensates his brother and is reconciled with him, but at the same time he s eems to suggest that the duke’s p enance la rgely sur passed in i ts s everity the s olutions r ecommended in such situations by the ecclesiastical orders. Bolesław’s deed was a sin and Gallus does not conceal it. Nevertheless, its circumstances and the young age o f the duke considerably diminished the gravity of his offence and the severity of the penance imposed in connection with it. Consequently, in Gallus’ interpretation, Bolesław’s penance is shown not only as an act of compensation for the injustice done to Zbigniew, but als o, ma ybe p redominantly, a gr eat ma nifestation o f the d uke’s humility, submission to God, and trust in H is mercy. Bolesław, regardless of his p ower, offers his ducal dignity to God, humbly performs his 53 Le pontifical romano-germanique 2.XCIX.229, p. 61; Pontyfikał krakowski 391–394, pp. 117–118. 54 H amilton, The Practice of Penance, pp. 162–163.

penance 103 penitential practices, and, paying no attention to threats from his neighbours, commits his k ingdom to G od’s care, and, full of humility leaves on a pilgrimage to Hungary. The s ubject o f h umility in Gall us’ acco unt is co nnected wi th v ery important a nd co mplex me anings. I n t he chr onicler’s in terpretation, humility, humilitas, actually seems to determine the foundations of the Piast d ukes’ r ulership a nd co nfirm their rig ht to ex ercise mo narchic power. According to Gallus, the entire career of the ducal dynasty reigning Poland is b ased o n the humility o f i ts f ounder, P iast. In the P iast dynastic legend transmitted by Gallus it is precisely Piast’s humility that opens the way for his descendants to attain ducal power. God rewarded Piast for his humility, committing monarchic rule to his son, “for at times He exalts the poor and the humble” .55 Humility was assig ned an important place als o in the chr onicler’s portrait of Bolesław I the B rave, who in Gall us’ description is the tr ue embodiment of all royal virtues and a model to follow for his namesake and hero of the Chronicle Bolesław III Wrymouth. Bolesław the Brave’s humility allowed him to fulfil all the obligations resting with a Christian ruler. Full of humility, Bolesław showed respect for the Church and its bishops, and reigned justly, attending to the complaints of even the simplest peasant.56 Thanks to his humility, Bolesław could always count on God’s assistance. Bolesław remained humble – a rgues the chronicler – even during military campaigns. In the course of the expedition against Rus’, which the chronicler mentions as an example of the supremacy of humility over pride, Bolesław humbly suffered insults from the Ruthenian ruler. This time again, God rewarded his humble attitude and punished the conceit of the Ruthenians. In the battle Bolesław gained definite victory, w hereas the R uthenians suff ered humiliation, b eing defeated not by the knights but the servants and cooks of the Polish ruler.57 In a sp ecial way the mea nings that Gallus ass ociated with humility found reflection in the account of the negotiations preceding Zbigniew’s return from exile. Let us recall: Zbigniew, thanks to his humility, obtained Bolesław’s permission to return to Poland and a promise to restore him a part of his father’s legacy. In reaction to his brother’s humble requests, 55 Galli Anonymi Cronicae I.2, pp. 10–11: “qui temporaliter pauperum humilitatem aliquociens exaltat”; The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles I.2, p. 21. 56 Galli Anonymi Cronicae I.9, p p. 26–27; The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles I.9, pp. 49, 51. 57 Galli Anonymi Cronicae I.10, pp. 28–29; The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles I.10, p. 53.

104

ch apter thr ee

Bolesław agreed to assign him cer tain strongholds, however, under the condition that he remained humble. At the same time Bolesław promised that “if he co uld see in him t rue humility and true love, he w ould always ad vance him da ily a nd e very da y”.58 Zb igniew’s mo desty, his humility shown in respect to his brother was intended to elevate him and bring him back his share in the ducal power. Yet Zbigniew did not keep the promise of humility and did not shake off his pride. Returning from exile, “his approach [at B olesław] was no t humble but arrogant”, and this brought disaster upon him.59 In Gallus’ description, Zbigniew’s conceit not only directly led to his failure, b ut a lso actually denie d him t he r ight to ex ercise mo narchic power. Pride constituted the opposite of humility which was ne cessary to properly fulfil the monarch’s obligations, deprived him of God’s support, and unavoidably led to the loss of power. In this way one should also understand the meaning of Gallus’ story, mentioned already in the fi rst chapter, about the arrival in Hungary in 1079 of king Bolesław II the B old, expelled from Poland after the murder of bishop Stanislaus. Bolesław was humbly greeted by king Ladislas I of Hungary w ho – as w e r emember – in t oken o f his r espect f or the Polish guest dismounted the horse. However, Bolesław paid no regard to this gesture of his Hungarian host but – as the chronicler put it, referring to a biblical formula – “lifted up his he art in t he bane of boastfulness”. He resolved that it was not suitable that Ladislas I, whom he had placed on t he H ungarian t hrone a few years e arlier, shou ld b e t reated a s an equal, and therefore decided to return his kiss, treating him not as a king but as one of the dukes, and remained on his horse. The pride manifested by the Polish king seriously influenced his future fate. The chronicler suggests that the Hungarians, off ended by the king’s behaviour, could have played a part in his early death.60 Hence, j ust li ke in Zb igniew’s cas e, p ride was the ma in ca use o f Bolesław t he B old’s failure. Ga llus le aves no do ubt about it. The r uler, lacking humility, full of pride, deprives himself of God’s care and brings his own self to ruin. The story of the proud, royal entry of Bolesław the 58 Galli Anonymi Cronicae, III, 25, p. 155: “si veram humilitatem in eo veramque karitatem prospiceret, s emper eum in melius die cottidie promoveret”; The D eeds o f t he Princes of the Poles, III, 25, p. 271. 59 Galli Anonymi Cronicae III.25, p. 155: “non humiliter sed arroganter est ingressus”; The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles III.25, p. 273. 60 Galli Anonymi Cronicae I.28, pp. 53–54; The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles I.28, pp. 99–101.

penance 105 Bold t o Hungary o nce mo re calls o ur attention t o the acco unt o f the penitential pilgrimage of B olesław Wrymouth to Hungary. The elaborate des cription of B olesław the B old’s arrival in H ungary sty led after the fashion of royal adventus contains not only clear references to the monarchic entry of Zbigniew but also allusions to the H ungarian pilgrimage of Bolesław Wrymouth. The chronicler openly contrasts the Hungarian entry of Bolesław the Bold with ceremonies accompanying the later arrival in H ungary of B olesław Wrymouth. On o ne hand we have a king devoid of power and banished from his country who arrives full o f p ride a nd royal s plendour, a nd, o n t he o ther h and, a p owerful duke who, full of humility, barefoot and dressed in penitential garment, goes on a pilgrimage. Bolesław the Bold is punished for his pride, whereas Bolesław Wrymouth who “satis humiliaverit” 61 is duly rewarded. In Gallus’ description, the p ublic humiliation of Bolesław Wrymouth, inscribed in the s equence o f ac tions o f his p redecessors – P iast a nd, fi rst o f all , Bolesław the B rave – was su pposed to gain the d uke God’s favour and strengthen his power. In order to b etter understand t he meaning G allus attributed to t he humility manifested by Bolesław Wrymouth it is worth taking a closer look at the ideas ass ociated with royal humilitas in t he earlier Middle Ages and trying to see Bolesław’s public humiliation described by Gallus in a wider co ntext of the ima ges determining the s cope of duties and obligations resting with a Christian ruler. In the Carolingian period, along with the changing perception of the character and the function of the royal power in the 9th century, humility, humilitas, started to be seen as one of the fundaments of the Christian monarchy. The Carolingian reformers, using the notion of ministerium to express the essence of monarchic power held by God’s will, began to define the royal duties unequivocally within the categories of Christian morality a nd the r esponsibility o f the r uler t owards G od a nd, co nsequently, t owards the Ch urch.62 Onl y the r uler stric tly ob eying G od’s

61 Galli Anonymi Cronicae III.25, p. 157; The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles III.25, p. 275. 62 See: Anton, Fürstenspiegel und Herrscherethos, pp. 404–419; Nikolaus Staubach, Das Herrscherbild Karls des Kahlen. Formen und Funktionen monarchischer Repräsentation im f rüheren M ittelalter, Diss. (M ünster, 1982); J ohannes F ried, “Der ka rolingische Herschaftsverband im 9. Jh. zwischen ‘Kirche’ und ‘Könighaus’,” Historische Zeitschrift 235 (1982), 27 ff; Janet L. Nelson,“Kingship, law and liturgy in the political thought of Hincmar of R heims,” in Politics an d Ritual in M edieval Eur ope (L ondon, 1986), p p. 133–171;

106

ch apter thr ee

commandments was in g rade to me et his r esponsibilities a nd co uld count on his subjects’ loyalty. The king’s surrender to God’s will and his readiness to obey His law was manifested in a special way during the act of humiliation. Referring to the idea of royal humilitas which played a significant role ( especially s ince p ope Gregory t he Great) i n t he e arly medieval co nception o f r oyal p ower,63 the C arolingian clergy emphasized the ne ed of the r uler to persist in h umility, enabling him t o gain God’s favour which was necessary for effective rulership.64 According t o the C arolingian r eformers the r oyal humilitas w as inseparably connected to kingship. In their conceptions of royal power, expressed in political treatises as well as in iconographical representations, r oyal h umility g uaranteed t he m onarch’s e levation, s urrounded him with tr ue royal splendour and s ecured him his o wn share in the glory pertaining to the one in whose name he ruled. In the Carolingian tradition one can see clear analogies between the humiliatio of C hrist leading Him to heavenly glory, and the humility of rulers which allows them to receive their royal power from God. The act of humiliation, the ruler’s recognition of his faults and the limits of his own human nature, constituted a guarantee for a successful reign. It secured God’s care and paved th e way to eternal as w ell as ea rthly g lory for the kin g and his subjects.65 The e vents tha t t ook p lace in Attigny in 822 sho w tha t the idea o f royal humilitas w as n ot o nly a d emand, a t heoretical c onception p reserved in a small circle of ecclesiastics, but it exerted considerable influence on the p olitical reality of the C arolingian monarchy. D uring t he synod in Attigny, in the presence of bishops and lay magnates gathered there, the emperor Louis the Pious confessed his sins, and begged God for forgiveness, the appeasement of anger, and mercy for him and his kingdom.

Karl F erdinand Werner, “Hludovicus Augustus. G ouverner l ’empire chr étien. I dées et réalités,” i n Charlemagne’s Heir. New Perspectives on t he Rei gn of Louis t he Pious, e ds. Peter Godman, Roger Collins (Oxford, 1990), pp. 3–123; Michałowski, “Podstawy religijne monarchii,” p. 20 ff; Sassier, Royauté et idé ologie, p. 131 ff; Erkens, Herrschersakralität, p. 136 ff. 63 See: Anton, Fürstenspiegel und Herrscherethos, p. 364 ff; Marc Reydellet, La royauté dans la l ittérature la tine de S idoine Appolinaire à I sidore de S eville (Rome, 1981), p. 462 ff; Sassier, Royauté et idéologie, p. 9 6 ff. S ee a lso: P.D. K ing, “The barbarian kingdoms,” in The Cambridge History of Medieval Political Thought c. 350–c. 1450, ed. James H. Burns (Cambridge, 1988), p. 135. 64 A nton, Fürstenspiegel und Herrscherethos, p. 427 ff. 65 Deschman, “The Exalted Servant,” pp. 385–417.

penance 107 Louis began to do penance due to the remorse he felt after the death of his nephew king Bernard of Italy, who died from the wounds he had suffered when the emperor had ordered that he be blinded. The meaning of Louis’ p enance, ho wever, l argely e xceeded a mere c ompensation for Bernard’s death. The emperor’s proceedings in Attigny constituted the practical fulfilment of ideas expressed in the introduction written at his order in 818–819 and included in the capitularies issued at his court. It was argued there that the ruler’s humble confession of sins and penance could lead him to attain God’s blessing, thereby securing him a successful reign.66 In Attigny, during the act of public penance, Louis admitted to being guilty not only of his o wn sins but also of all the o ther violations committed in his na me. He then repented, humbled himself and surrendered to God’s mercy. Following Louis’ example, the bishops gathered in Attigny also did public penance. Confessing their neglect in fulfilling the obliga tions co nnected to the ep iscopal ministerium, t hey humbled themselves before God, asking for forgiveness.67 The events of Attigny were radically different from the imperial penance in Soisson 11 years later. There Louis was forced to humble himself before the bishops, ask them to impose penance on him, and surrender to their sentence. In Attigny, solicitous for the benefit of the empire, the bishops t ogether wi th th e em peror p ublicly co nfessed th eir s ins a nd humbled themselves before God hopeful to attain – in r eward for the humility they manifested – His favour and the gift of elevation. The act of public humiliation led directly to Louis’ elevation by God, it helped to strengthen the imperial power, prove its legitimacy, and support it with the s olid fou ndation of G od’s c are, a s wel l a s s ecure wel l-being and prosperity for the monarchy under its authority.68 In the Ottonian epoch and later in the Salian period, the Carolingian idea o f mo narchic humilitas, us ed t o legi timise r oyal asp irations a nd

66 Hludovici Proemium generale ad ca pitularia tam ecclesiastica quam mundana, e d. Alfred Boretius, MGH Capitularia regum Francorum, 1 (Hanover, 1883), pp. 273–275. See also: Michałowski, “Podstawy religijne monarchii,” pp. 22–23. 67 Capitula ab episcopis Attiniaci data, ed. Alfred Boretius, MGH Capitularia regum Francorum, 1 (Hanover, 1883), pp. 357–358. See also: Astronomi Vita Hludovici imperatoris 35, ed. Ernst Tremp, MGH SSrG, 64 (Hanover, 1995), p. 406. 68 De J ong, “Power a nd h umility,” p . 31 ff; d e J ong, “What was pu blic ab out public penance,” p. 888 ff; Thomas F. X. Noble, “Louis the Pious and his piety re-reconsidered,” Revue Belge de Philologie et d’Histoire 58 (1980), 312 ff; Werner, “Hludovicus Augustus,” p. 52.

108

ch apter thr ee

clearly b elonging to the s et o f imag es dir ectly co nnecting the r oyal humiliatio and the subsequent exaltatio with the humiliation and exaltation of Christ, was further developed within the christocentric conceptions of monarchic power elaborated by the German rulers.69 By then, t he a ct of pro stration opened t he c oronation ceremony of the Ottonian and Salian kings. In the g estures of the r uler who was t o undergo the anointing ceremony and “humiliter totus in cruce prostratus iaceat” ,70 o ne ma y s ee c lear r eferences t o the fi gure o f t he c rucified Christ. Just as Christ, obedient to God and accepting death on the cross, attained heavenly glory, so his earthly representative, vicarius, humbling himself before God, achieved royal elevation. According to the authors of the Ottonian coronation formula the act of humiliation preceded and was a r equisite of the ca ndidate to the throne receiving the royal title. Furthermore, once the ruler had been exalted to monarchic rank, he was still expected to demonstrate by his humble attitude that he was worthy of the royal authority.71 The historiography and hagiography of the Ottonian and Salian epoch give many examples of royal humility enabling the rulers to attain God’s favour and guaranteeing them successful reign.72 The royal humility not seldom assume d the f orm o f p enance. The r uler c onfessed h is s ins t o God, repented, and did penance – fasted, distributed alms, went on pilgrimage – thus securing God’s care for himself and his kingdom. In this manner Thietmar of Merseburg describes the reign of Henry I who, each time he had offended God, made a promise to mend his ways and went on foot on a penitential pilgrimage to Rome, the attitude of Otto I who confessed his sins to God before the battle of Lechfeld or the behaviour

69 Lo thar Bornscheuer, Miseriae regum. U ntersuchungen zu m K risen- u nd Todesgedanken in den herrschaftstheologischen Vorstellungen der ottonisch-salischer Zeit (Berlin, 1968). See also: Gerd Althoff, “Humiliatio – Exaltatio. Theorie und Praxis eines herrscherlichen Handlungsmusters,” in Text und Kontext. Fallstudien und theoretische Begründungen einer kulturwissenschaftlich angeleiteten Mediävistik, ed. Jan-Dirk Müller (Munich, 2007), pp. 39–51. 70 Le pontifical romano-germanique 1.LXXII.6, p. 246 ff. 71 B ornscheuer, Miseriae regum, p. 194 ff, 200 ff. See also: Erkens, Herrschersakralität, p. 1579 ff. 72 B ornscheuer, Miseriae regum, p . 6 8 ff, 197 ff; P atrick C orbet, Les sa int o ttoniens. Sainteté royal et sainteté féminine autour de l’an Mil (Sigmaringen, 1986), pp. 174–178, 236–239; Ludger Körntgen, Königsherrschaft und Gottes Gnade. Zu Kontext und Funktion sakraler Vorstellungen in Historiographie und Bildzeugnissen der ottonisch-frühsalischen Zeit (Berlin, 2001), p. 139 ff; Althoff, Die Macht der Rituale, p. 106 ff.

penance 109 of Otto III who sought to expiate his sins by praying, fasting and giving generous a lms.73 The idea o f r oyal humilitas, th e be lief th at th e r uler needed to do penance to beg God’s forgiveness for his faults and the sins of his subjects, was manifested in a special way in the actions undertaken by Henry III. In 1043 in Speyer, during the funeral ceremony of his mother empress Gisela, Henry took off his royal garments and put on penitential clothes. He t hen st arted public p enance and walked b arefoot to t he ch urch where, crying his eyes out, he fell to the floor with his hands spread “in modum cruces”. The sight of the penitent ruler affected everybody and they all started to cry along with him. The author of this story, the abbot of R eichenau, B ern, argues t hat thanks to t his p enance Henry e arned himself God’s mercy.74 Henry III’s penance seems to be rooted in the images of the christomimetic nature of the r oyal power and the pa rticular responsibility of the ruler for the well-being of his subjects, also in the et ernal perspective. S imilarly t o Christ, w ho thr ough his dea th o n the cr oss s ecured God’s mercy for the world, Henry, vicarius Christi, doing penance, gave his subjects the chance to attain it.75 It was not a coincidence that shortly after having demonstrated in Speyer his willingness to humble himself, Henry sought to introduce in his empire the institution of the Peace of God, calling his sub jects to forgive each other’s sins.76 Henry was co nvinced that the road to universal peace led through penance and expiation of s ins. A ye ar l ater, to c elebrate t he d efeat of t he H ungarians a ceremony was o rganized d uring w hich Henry, b arefoot and w earing

Thietmari M erseburgensis ep iscopi Chronicon I.15, II.10, IV .48, e d. Rob ert Holtzmann, MGH SSrG n. s (Berlin, 1935), pp. 22, 48, 186. See also: Bornscheuer, Miseriae regum, p. 112 ff. 74 Die B riefe des Abtes Ber n von Reic henau, 24, e d. F ranz-Josef S chmale (S tuttgart, 1961), p. 54. 75 Carl Erdmann, Forschungen zur politischen Ideenwelt des Frühmittelalters (Berlin, 1950), pp. 112–119; Karl Schnith, “Recht und Friede. Zum Königsgedanken im Umkreis Heinrichs III.,” Historisches Jahrbuch 81 (1962), p. 40 ff; Bornscheuer, Miseriae regum, p. 205 ff; Stefan Weinfurter, “Ordnungskonfigurationen im K onflikt. D as B eispiel Heinrichs III.,” in Mediaevalia Augiensia. Forschungen zur Geschichte des Mittelalters, ed. Jürgen P eterson (S tuttgart, 2001), p . 79 ff. S ee als o: H amilton, The Pr actice of Penance, pp. 177–182. Hamilton interprets Henry’s actions first of all as an act of penance aimed at expiating sins committed by his mother. See also: Klaus Schreiner, “Nudis pedibus. Barfüßigkeit als r eligiöses und p olitisches Ritual,” in Formen und Funktionen öffentlischer Kommunikation im Mittelalter, ed. Gerd Althoff, Vorträge und Forschungen 51 (Stuttgart, 2001), p. 103 ff; Althoff, Die Macht der Rituale, p. 115 ff. 76 Schnith, “Recht und Friede,” pp. 22–57. 73

110

ch apter thr ee

penitential g arments, i n t he m idst o f p rinces a nd s oldiers, f ell t o t he ground before the relics of the True Cross. Then the assembled forgave each other’s sins and made the sign of peace.77 Several weeks later Henry, again dressed in penitential clothes and barefoot, led a ceremonial procession around all the churches in Regensburg, presenting valuable gifts at their altars.78 Even in moments of triumph the king did not forget the need to be humble, do penance and seek God’s favour. Penitential acts also marked the reign of Henry III’s son and successor, Henry IV. Henry IV proved his readiness to humble himself before God a nd b eg H im f or f orgiveness no t o nly d uring the cer emony in Canossa which according to his followers assumed the form of a real “officium humilitatis” .79 As ea rly as in 1074, d uring the ass embly in Nuremberg, he under went public p enance in o rder to f ree himself of sins and be readmitted into the congregation he had been excluded from because o f co ntacts wi th his ex communicated advis ors.80 I n addi tion, after Canossa, Henry more than once manifested his desir e to exp iate sins and gain forgiveness in acts of public humbleness. On Good Friday of 1105, barefoot and wearing penitential garb, he went on pilgrimage to Quedlinburg.81 In December that same year he appeared in front of the papal legates in Ingelheim, to humiliter ask them to impose penance on him, and, finally, in January the following year, again nudis pedibus he set off on a penitential pilgrimage to Aachen.82 The investiture conflict did no t undermine the val ue of humility in the royal ideology, but it even added strength to the role that the royal humilitas played in the actions aimed at legitimising the power, although it was understood somewhat differently by the two sides of the conflict. 77 Annales A ltahenses maiores a. 1044, ed. Edmund von Oefele, MGH SSrG, 4 (H anover, 1883), p . 37. S ee: S chreiner, “Nudis p edibus,” p . 103 ff; Weinfurter, “Ordnungskonfigurationen im Konflikt,” p. 79 ff; Althoff, Die Macht der Rituale, p. 116. 78 Annales A ltahenses maiores a. 1044, p . 3 7; s ee: Althoff, Die M acht der R ituale, p. 116. 79 Liber de u nitate e cclesiae conservanda 6, e d. Wilhelm S chwenkenbecher, M GH Libelli de lite imperatorum et pontificum, 2 (Hanover, 1892), p. 191; see: Zimmermann, Der Canossagang von 1077, p. 195. 80 Z immermann, Der Canossagang von 1077, p. 174. 81 Annales Patherbrunnenses, e d. P aul S cheffer-Boichorst ( Innsbruck, 1 870), p. 1 09; see: Z immermann, Der Ca nossagang vo n 1077 , p . 174; S chreiner, “Nudis p edibus,” p. 102. 82 Die B riefe Heinrichs I V. 37, 39, e d. C arl Er dmann (L eipzig, 1937), p. 46 ff, p . 5 7; Chronicon s. Huberti Andaginensis, eds. Ludwig Bethmann, Wilhelm Wattenbach, MGH SS, 8 ( Hanover, 1 848), p . 6 29; s ee: Z immermann, Der Ca nossagang vo n 1077 , p . 174; Schreiner, “Nudis pedibus,” p. 102.

penance 111 Hence, Henry IV’s s on and his vic torious rival in the str uggle for the crown Henry V did not renounce using the idea of humilitas and public penitential acts in order to attain God’s mercy and legitimise his authority. I n 1105, ha ving de cided t o openly c hallenge his fa ther, he s et o ff barefoot on a p ilgrimage f rom G ernrode t o Que dlinburg, wa nting to manifest t hrough t his a ct of public p enance h is d evotion to G od and ensure His support.83 In this case, too, the humiliatio starting the reign of Henry V was to lead to the royal exaltatio, the defeat of the old king and the attainment of royal power.84 It is in this context that we should also interpret Gallus’ remarks about the penance of Bolesław Wrymouth. In his chronicle’s representation of the public penance of the Polish ruler, actively supported in his penitential practices by the bishops, we find visible references to the images of royal humility underlying the great monarchic penitential ceremonies. In Gallus’ interpretation, too, Bolesław’s public humility was not exactly aimed at the sinful duke’s reconciliation with God, but rather at ensuring salvation for the en tire community of his su bjects. By doing penance – argues the c hronicler – B olesław ma nifested his h umility a nd p roved that he cared for his kingdom. The duke, fulfilling the obliga tions of a Christian ruler, undertook the difficult task of attaining God’s favour for himself and his subjects by means of the act of humility. This i nterpretation o f G allus’ s tory o n t he p enance o f B olesław i s supported additionally by his remarks on masses for the dead that the penitent d uke o rdered to b e celeb rated.85 The c ustom of p enitential practices dedicated to the memo ry of dead r elatives was no t uncommon. Through their own penance and ascetic practices the living members o f the fa mily co mforted the s ouls o f t heir de ad r elatives, g iving them th e c hance o f sal vation.86 D escribing B olesław’s p enance, t he chronicler do es no t s ay p recisely w hose s alvation ca used the d uke’s concern and made him order these masses. However, from the general statement the author makes about the masses for the dead we may presume that he did no t have in mind o nly the mem bers of the p rincely family. In this in terpretation, B olesław’s penance becomes not just an

83 See f or exa mple: Annalista Saxo, e d. G eorg Waitz, M GH SS, 6 (H anover, 1844), p. 709. 84 See: Althoff, Die Macht der Rituale, p. 129. 85 Galli Anonymi Cronicae III.25, p. 158; The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles III.25, p. 277. 86 H amilton, The Practice of Penance, p. 180 ff.

112

ch apter thr ee

act o f exp iation f or his ac tion a gainst Zb igniew b ut rather a kind o f sacrifice, an act of redeeming by the penitent duke of his own faults as well as the sins of all his subjects, alive and dead. The public humility of Bolesław, his ascetic practices, fasts, prayers, and alms, in Gallus’ report seem to serve above all the purpose of gaining God’s mercy not only for the duke, but also his entire monarchy. As a result, the princely humiliatio le d t o the tig htening o f b onds linkin g B olesław wi th G od, a nd strengthening his p ower. Thanks to his h umbleness, Bolesław became an even more powerful ruler than he had been before, who to a greater extent could count on God’s support in his endea vours. It is therefore not a coincidence that Gallus dedicated the chapter following the fragments of the Chronicle concerning the duke’s penance to the description o f B olesław’s r aid a gainst t he P omeranians. The d uke w ho had humbled him self b efore G od a nd r ecognized his fa ults was d uly rewarded. He gained a wonderful victory over his enemy and conquered the st ronghold w hich he had r epeatedly b esieged e arlier wi thout success.87 Gallus, however, did not limit himself to merely link the penance of Bolesław wi th t he s et o f ide as co nnected wi th r oyal h umility. I n his description, Bolesław’s humiliatio was not only related to the ideas of the special responsibility the r uler owed to God for having been entrusted with the kin gdom and his ob ligation to seek God’s favour through the act of humility. In his efforts to add new meanings to Bolesław’s penance and deprive it of any direct connotations with the sin against Zbigniew, Gallus went one step further. Placing Bolesław’s penance in the f ramework of the great ceremonies of public royal humility, he did not refrain from including in his description clear references to the notion of humiliatio o f C hrist. I n the chr onicler’s p resentation, t he humiliatio of t he Polish d uke, simi lar to t he ac ts o f h umility o f r ulers ele cted b y r oyal anointment, had an unequivocally christomimetic character and found its point of reference and justification in the c hristological concepts of royal power. There is no doubt that Gallus understood perfectly well the range of meanings associated with royal authority. In his report he uses the term ‘king’ ex clusively to deno minate thos e P iast r ulers w ho w ere in fac t

87 Galli Anonymi Cronicae III.26, pp. 160–163; The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles III.26, pp. 281–286.

penance 113 crowned and therefore were entitled to the royal designation. He is also fully aware of the hierarchy of power in which princes occupy a position subordinate to kings.88 One ma y presume that our chronicler believed that the supremacy of the kings over other lay rulers with no royal title resulted f rom t he s pecial, s acred n ature o f t he r oyal a nointment p erformed d uring the co ronation cer emony, w hich p laced the kin g – as God’s anointed – beyond the secular order and gave his power a semipriestly character. In this manner one should analyse Gallus’ account of the conflict of king Bolesław the Bold with bishop Stanislaus in 1079, in which the royal anointment was presented on one level with the consecration of a bishop. Writing about Bolesław’s sentencing the bishop to dismemberment, the chronicler declared clearly that “no anointed man must take bodily retribution on another anointed man for any wrong whatever” .89 F or G allus t he a nointed k ing i s a t rue a nointed o f G od, standing above secular order and subject only to God.90 By the time Gallus wrote his chronicle the Piast rulers had ceased to carry the royal title and had not been distinguished by royal anointment. It seems, however, that the chronicler believed the lac k of anointment did not deprive the P iast r ulers of their rig ht to appear in the r ole of monarchs holding their power thanks to God’s investiture, and did not question the sacred foundations of their superior authority. In Gallus’ account there is no doubt that the Piasts enjoy a special heavenly benevolence. Their numerous victories on the battlefield were sufficient proof of God’s care and support. Thanks to God’s favour they were able to efficiently fulfil their obliga tions, ensuring their sub jects safety and prosperity. In Gallus’ presentation the Piasts owed their power to God who had decided to entrust them with the reign of Poland. The dynastic tradition written by the chronicler unequivocally pointed to the contribution

88 Galli Anonymi Cronicae I.28, p . 53; The D eeds o f t he Pr inces o f t he P oles I.28, pp. 99, 201. 89 Galli A nonymi Cronicae I.27, p . 53: “non debuit christus in c hristum p eccatum quodlibet corporaliter vindicare”; The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles I.27, p. 97. 90 Brygida K ürbis, “ ‘Sacrum’ a nd ‘Profanum’ in P olish M ediaeval H istoriography. Views on Social Order,” Quaestiones Medii Aevi 2 (1981), 19–34; Brygida Kürbis, “Zum Herrscherlob in der C hronik des Ga llus Anonymus (Anfang 12. Jahrhundert). ‘Laudes regiae’ am polnischen Hof?” in Patronage und Klientel. Ergebnisse einer deutsch-polnischen Konferenz, e d. H ans-Heinrich N olte, B eihefte zum Archiv f ür K ulturgeschichte 29 (Cologne, 1989), pp. 51–67.

114

ch apter thr ee

of sacred powers in the mo narchic elevation of the P iast kin. 91 In this explanation of the Piast dynasty’s rights to the throne there was no need to refer to the idea o f royal anointment for the legitimisation of their power. In the case of the Piast dynasty – as it is argued in the chronicle – the single act of God’s intervention by appointing to the throne its first representative – Siemowit – was sufficient to determine once and for all the unlimi ted c haracter o f i ts r eign a nd t o endo w the P iast “natural lords” elected by God with rights pertaining to other Christian monarchs who ruled by God’s grace.92 In Gallus’ chr onicle w e enco unter a sp ecific s acralisation o f the princely office held b y the Piasts. Especially the chronicler’s report on raising the fi rst r epresentative o f t he P iast d ynasty S iemowit t o t he throne draws our attention. In our author’s formulation this taking over the princely p ower happened in consequence of God’s appointment. “The King of Kings and Duke of Dukes […] made him duke of Poland” .93 Worth underlining in Gallus’ account is not only the fact of his pointing out God’s intervention in giving the power to the first Piast ruler. No less important seems to be the specific terminology he uses. Describing the handing over of the ducal power to Siemowit, Gallus makes references to biblical notions constituting a constant element of the early medieval images representing Christ as the King of the world and the Ruler of rulers.94 At the same time, however, he mo difies them, attributing new meanings, very important in the co ntext of the events he is p resenting. Thus, in Ga llus’ acco unt, t he b iblical exp ression r eferring to Maiestas Domini under goes a co nsiderable cha nge. Siemo wit was appointed to the thr one no t b y rex re gum e t d ominus d ominantium as o ne w ould expect in accordance with the biblical text, but rex regum et dux ducum. Hence in Gall us’ text Christ is no t only the K ing of kings, but also the Duke of dukes, not only a king but a duke, too. Introducing this princely title beside the royal one into God’s titulature certainly was not a stylistic

91 Galli Anonymi Cronicae I.1–4, pp. 9–14; The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles I.1–4, pp. 17–29. S ee: J acek B anaszkiewicz, Podanie o P iaście i P opielu. Stu dium n ad wczesnośredniowiecznymi t radycjami dynastycznymi (W arsaw, 1986); D eptuła, Galla Anonima m it gen ezy. See a lso: Roman Michałowski, “ ‘Restauratio Poloniae’ dans l’ideologie dynastique de Gallus Anonymus,” Acta Poloniae Historica 52 (1985), 5–43. 92 Kürbis, “ ‘Sacrum’ and ‘Profanum’,” p. 25. 93 Galli Anonymi Cronicae I.3, p. 12: “rex regum et d ux ducum […] P olonie ducem […] ordinavit”; The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles I.3, p. 23. 94 Kürbis, “Zum Herrscherlob in der Chronik des Gallus Anonymus,” p. 54. See also: Kantorowicz, The King’s Two Bodies, pp. 42–86.

penance 115 procedure only. It called into motion an entire set of associations which, by linking the Piast princely authority t o the heavenly “principality”, placed their power within the sacred order. As the ea rthly kings were entitled to partake in the r oyal a uthority o f Chris t, s o, acco rding t o Gallus, the Piast dukes were equally entitled to participate in the heavenly rank of the Duke of dukes who entrusted them with the princely power on earth.95 Repercussions of this strongly emphasized belief in the sacred foundations of the Piast dukes’ superior authority are also clearly seen in the Gallus’ description of the penance of Bolesław Wrymouth. In the story about Bolesław’s humility, once more, Gallus fully consciously refers to his christocentric conception of the royal, in fact, power of the Piasts, in order to use the model of Christ’s humiliatio for creating a suitable, from his p oint o f vie w, ima ge o f his her o. One f ragment of this acco unt deserves a special attention. Describing the generosity of the duke’s alms, the chronicler does not limit this information to the clothing and feeding the poor. In Gallus’ story the duke not only gives food and clothes to the poor, but also washes their feet.96 The chronicler did not develop this theme f urther, limi ting him self to this sin gle, s eemingly acciden tal, remark. It seems, however, that he did not need to add anything in this place. His brief remark about the duke washing the feet of the poor set in motion an entire complexity of ideas placing penitent Bolesław – who repeats Christ’s gesture – on an almost soteriological level. Consequently, Bolesław’s penance, in Gallus’ rendition, assumed the form of a real imitatio C hristi. On o ne ha nd, demo nstrating the s acred c haracter o f Bolesław’s authority deriving from the Duke of dukes, on the other hand it served to ma nifest t he princely humility and ob edience to G od, his readiness to s acrifice and suff er. Hence it announced his ele vation, the attainment of eternal glory as well as the strengthening of his power on the earth and his triumph over the enemies.

95 Zbigniew Dalewski, “Vivat princeps in eternum. Sacrality of ducal power in Poland in the earlier Middle Ages,” in Monotheistic Kingship: The Medieval Variants, eds. Aziz alAzmeh, János M. Bak (Budapest, 2004), pp. 225–226. 96 Galli Anonymi Cronicae III.25, pp. 158–159: “In pedibus etiam pauperum abluendis, in elemosinis faciendis ita devotus et studiosus per totam viam illius peregrinacionis e xistebat, q uod n ullus i ndigens a b e o mis ericordiam q uerens sine mis ericordia recedebat”; The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles III.25, p. 279: “Moreover, during the entire course of the pilgrimage he was so devoted and diligent in washing the feet of the poor and giving alms that no needy person requesting his mercy would leave without receiving it.”

116

ch apter thr ee

The first signs of Bolesław’s exaltatio appear already during the course of his penance. In Hungary the peregrinating duke, dressed in penitential clothes and walking barefoot, was received by ceremonial processions of the ecclesiastics led by bishops, abbots, and occasionally even the Hungarian king.97 Under Gallus’ pen adventus paenitentis changes into adventus regis, or e ven Adventus D omini. B olesław’s p enance and humility seem to be proof of his royal dignity and tight bonds connecting him with the sacrum. The Hungarian exaltatio opened the way to the Gniezno reconciliation which terminated the period of penance. There Bolesław appeared in full monarchic majesty, again, confirming his authority by presenting valuable gifts.98 Bolesław’s penance and humility were thus complemented by his manifestation of princely wealth and power. Confident in God’s assistance Bolesław was aga in able to dra w together the ecclesiastics and the lay magnates and ensure safety and prosperity to his monarchy. The christomimetic interpretation of the penitential practices of Bolesław Wrymouth proposed by Gallus was deeply rooted in the political tradition of the P iast monarchy. In the ideology of power of the P iast dynasty the b elief in s acred, G od-given f oundations o f their su perior authority occupied a very important place. It also determined to a great extent the character of their various actions in which one can clearly see references t o t he c onceptions of roy al ministerium a nd the sp ecial responsibility of the Chistian ruler for the fate of his subjects (in eschatological p erspective, to o).99 The r oyal co ronations o f B olesław I the Brave and Mieszko II in 1025, and B olesław II the B old in 1076 w ere another indisp utable p roof o f the su pernatural o rigin o f the P iast dynasts’ authority and their rights.100 Especially the inclusion of the coronation of Bolesław the Bold in the Christmas celebrations indicates a

97 Galli Anonymi Cronicae III.25, p. 159: “Ad quemcumque locum episcopalem, vel abbaciam, vel preposituram dux septentrionalis veniebat, episcopus ipsius loci, vel abbas, vel prepositus et ipse rex Vngarorum Colummannus aliquociens obviam Bolezlauo cum ordinata processione pro cedebat”; The D eeds o f t he Pr inces of t he Poles III.25, p. 279: “Whichever episcopal see, abbey or priory the duke of the north came to, the bishop of that place, or the abbot or prior, and even Koloman, the king of the Hungarians, on occasion came out to meet Bolesław in a formal procession.” 98 Galli Anonymi Cronicae III.25, p. 160; The Deeds of the Princes III.25, pp. 279, 281. 99 See: Roman Michałowski, Princeps fundator. Studium z dziejów kultury politycznej w Polsce X–XIII wieku (Warsaw, 1989), p. 85 ff. 100 Annales Quedlinburgenses, ed. Georg Heinrich Pertz, MGH SS, 3 (Hanover, 1839), p. 90; Lamperti Hersfeldensis A nnales, e d. O swald H older-Egger, M GH SS rG, 38 (Hanover-Leipzig, 1894), pp. 284–285.

penance 117 very good understanding at the Piast court of the meaning of the ideological contents of the ri te of royal consecration. By incorporating the ceremony during w hich the ne w christus D omini accep ted the r oyal power into the celebration of the feast of Nativity, the close bonds linking the Piast king with Christ could be shown symbolically.101 There is no t much doubt tha t the P iast co urt w hich had c lose a nd strong relations with different circles in Germany was well aware of the importance of the royal humilitas and the role that penitential practices played in t he ide ological p rogrammes de veloped under t he O ttonian and Salian rulers. There are not a few indications that the Piasts not only understood in its entirety the sense of the message contained in the rite of royal humility but they also attributed to penitential practices an important role in their ac tivities aimed at reinforcing the religious and political order of their monarchy. The importance of the rite of penance in the public life of the Piast monarchy is reflected particularly clearly in the actions of Bolesław the Brave. In all p robability it is p ossible to connect the in troduction noted by Thietmar of Merseburg of the custom of observing a longer, nine-weeklong Lent into th e ceremonial practice of th e Polish Church with th e reign of B olesław the B rave.102 In the Ottonian period the question of the duration of Lent aroused a lot of interest and provoked many discussions. The opinion of some of the theologians about the need to extend the Lent from seven to nine weeks met with a lively response from various cir cles, b oth ecclesiastic a nd la y, in t he a tmosphere o f incr easing religious rig our in the 10th a nd the b eginning o f the 11th cen tury. In this period we can observe a growing tendency to introduce harsher regulations concerning fasting in many monastic communities, as well as attempts at including the two weeks preceding Ash Wednesday within the scope of restrictions connected to Lent, at least with regards to the ban on weddings and tribunals. Nevertheless, a nine-week-long Lent as a general rule was not introduced anywhere. Only in the Piast monarchy a longer Lent, starting from dominica in Septuaginta, was officially recognized and included, until the middle of the 13th century, in the liturgical tradition of the P olish Church. However, there was no p recedent for the de cision o f B olesław the B rave t o in troduce the ob ligation o f observing an extended, nine-week-long Lent. The proposal to prolong

101 102

Dalewski, “Vivat princeps in eternum,” p. 216. Thietmari Merseburgensis Chronicon VIII.2, p. 494.

118

ch apter thr ee

Lent, alb eit present in the co ntemporary r eligious deb ates, was ne ver applied in the regulations contained in the co llections of canon law which still prescribed a seven-week-long fast only. Certainly the reasons behind B olesław’s departure f rom this uni versal rule prevailing in the Church must have been very important.103 Obviously, i t is diffi cult t o det ermine exp licitly the mo tives o f the Polish ruler. We may presume, however, that his actions aimed at tightening the regulations of the ca non law stemmed from his b elief in the extraordinary importance of penance in the eschatological order. The conviction that penitential acts accompanying Lent could help the faithful to attain salvation clearly influenced the opinions of those who supported the idea of extending Lent, and, most probably, had an effect on Bolesław’s attitude, too. It seems that his decision to extend the period of Lenten self-denial and ascetic practices for two more weeks can be put in connection with his desire to gain God’s special favour and salvation for himself and his community. The realm in which penitential practices connected to Lent were observed longer than elsewhere and very scrupulously (as shown by Thietmar w ho notes the s evere punishments inflicted on thos e breaking the ba n on consuming meat104) had t o b e particularly dea r t o God a nd ther efore co uld co unt o n His ca re a nd assistance. The way to God’s benevolence and salvation led through penance and self-denial. In particular the ob ligation to do p enance rested with the ruler. His penance, ascetic practices and self-denial served not only his own salvation but also the redemption of all his subjects placed under his authority by God himself. Bolesław the Brave was fully aware of these associations. He not only made sure that his subjects observed the Lenten practices for a longer period than it was the case in other realms, but he himself performed penitential practices with great zeal. There is quite some evidence that the idea of royal penance constituted one of the pillars of public order in his monarchy. In Thietmar’s Chronicle we read that Bolesław the Brave, having committed a sin, had the canons read to him to learn the way he was to

103 Roman Michałowski, “ The N ine-Week L ent in B olesław the B rave’s P oland: a Study of the First Piasts’ Religious Policy”, Acta Poloniae Historica 89 (2004), 5–50. 104 Thietmari Merseburgensis Chronicon VIII.2, p. 494.

penance 119 redress i t, a nd, subs equently, did p enance acco rding to thos e in structions.105 From this short record we do not know the exact course of the duke’s penitential practices. However, from the fact that Thietmar mentions them, we may de duce that to a cer tain extent the y had a p ublic character. It seems, therefore, that Bolesław’s behaviour described by the chronicler ca nnot b e in vestigated o nly in t erms o f the d uke’s p rivate piety and concern for his own salvation. It is presumably connected with more complex me anings. The p enitential practices of the P olish r uler should be evaluated from a larger perspective of the efforts to strengthen the religious order of his monarchy, resulting from a deep conviction of the sp ecial r esponsibility o f the r uler f or the fa te o f the co mmunity entrusted to him by God. By undertaking penitential practices, Bolesław the Brave – after the example of contemporary German rulers, Otto III and Henry I I106 – b y means of p ersonal humility, as ceticism and s elfdenial took on the difficult task of appeasing God and redeeming not only h is o wn s ins, b ut a lso t hose o f t he e ntire c ommunity o f h is subjects. The scant source material does not give many possibilities to ass ess the extent to which the idea of royal penance continued to be present in the activities of the successors to Bolesław the Brave. It seems, however, that the Piast dukes of the end of the 11th and the beginning of the 12th century who had t o give up pretensions to the r oyal title did no t altogether abandon the ideological programmes determining the images of royal p ower w hich left a visib le mark on the p olitical ac tivity of their royal predecessors. The ceremony accompanying the event of the new duke’s assumption of power was included in the framework of a liturgical performance modelled after the rite of royal consecration, probably during the r eign o f the succes sor t o kin g B olesław the B old, d uke Władysław I Herman. Its inclusion indicates that the Piasts, in spite of having lost the cr own, ass ociated their o wn a uthority wi th mea nings

105 Thietmari Merseburgensis Chronicon VI.92, p. 384: “Cum se multum pecasse aut ipse sentit aut aliqua fideli castigacione perpendit, canones coram se poni, qualiterque id debeat emenda ri, ut q ueratur, precipit ac s ecundum hae c s cripta mox s celus peractum purgare contendit”. 106 See for example: B ornscheuer, Miseriae regum, p. 131 ff; Stephan Waldhoff, “Der Kaiser in der Krise? Zum Verständnis von Thietmar IV, 48,” Deutsches Archiv 54, 1998, pp. 23–544; David A. Warner, “Henry II at Magdeburg. Kingship, ritual and the c ult of saints,” Early Medieval Europe 3 (1994), 135–166; S chreiner, “Nudis pedibus,” p. 104 ff; Althoff, Otto III, p. 193 ff; Althoff, Die Macht der Rituale, p. 113 ff.

120

ch apter thr ee

pertaining to royal rank, and still felt entitled to fulfil tasks attributed to God’s anointed crowned kings.107 The changes in the p erception of the character of royal power produced by the Gregorian reform at the turn of the 11th and 12th centuries exerted only limited influence, confined mostly to Germany, on the monarchic rituals which still reflected the beliefs in the sacred foundations of royal authority.108 The Krakow pontifical contains the formula of the consecration of a bishop in which the name of the ruling monarch who a ppointed the new bishop was recalled. This proves that the image of the sacred origin of the Piast dukes’ authority was still existent in the political reality of the early 12th-century Poland.109 Gallus’ use of the model of royal imitatio C hristi in his des cription o f B olesław Wrymouth’s p enance als o demonstrates th at the im ages of the christo mimetic r oyal humiliatio met with a relatively wide response in Poland in the early 12th century. Only this can explain the efforts of the duke’s environment recorded by Gallus w hich a imed a t giving B olesław’s p enance the f orm o f a n act belonging to the c hristological tradition, in w hich the h umility of the Polish ruler led him directly to elevation and an even greater glory. There is no do ubt that Gallus’ story of the d ucal penance has t o be evaluated f rom the p erspective o f the ac tions tha t B olesław’s co urt undertook confronted with a sharp political conflict in the Piast monarchy ar ising after the bloody end of the dispute b etween the duke and Zbigniew. The duke’s confession of his sin and the undertaking of public penance to redeem it leave no doubt that his act was firmly condemned by a considerable part of the public opinion and seriously undermined the foundations of his power. We do not know for sure whether Bolesław was excommunicated. Gallus’ text gives us no hin ts in this respect. The chronicler’s words about the duke being bereft of human company and

107 Zbigniew Dalewski, Władza – przestrzeń – ceremoniał. Miejsce i ceremonia inauguracji władcy w Polsce średniowiecznej do końca XIV w. (Warsaw, 1996), pp. 103–132. 108 See for example: Janet L. Nelson, “Kingship and empire,” in The Cambridge History of Medieval Political Thought c. 350 – c. 1460, ed. James H. Burns (Cambridge, 1988), pp. 241, 246 ff; see also: Geoffrey Koziol, “England, France, and the Problems of Sacrality in Twelfth-Century Ritual,” in Cultures of Power. Lordship, Status and Process in TwelfthCentury Europe, e d. Thomas B isson (Philadelphia, 1995), p p. 124–148; Erk ens, Herrschersakralität, p. 213 ff. 109 Pontyfikał krakowski 494, p . 1 48; s ee: Z dzisław Ob ertyński, “Wzory i a nalogie wybranych formuł w li turgii krakowskiej XI wiek u,” Studia Źródłoznawcze 14 (1969), 36 ff.

penance 121 conversation, w hich h ave b een u sed t o s upport t he hypothesis o f t he excommunication, ca n b e suffi ciently explained wi thin the co ntext of the ritual of public penance without the need to refer to the ceremonies connected with excommunication.110 Notwithstanding the reservations concerning the possible excommunication, it is diffi cult not to believe that Bolesław’s decision to undertake penance was forced by the negative reaction of important political and ecclesiastical groups in regard to his conflict with Zbigniew. In thes e circumstances the d uke’s p enance was supposed to relieve the t ension caused by Zbigniew’s torture and restore trust in the r elations between the r uler and the gr oup of magnates hitherto connected with his brother. Nevertheless this ceremony imposed by the existing conditions, during which Bolesław, deprived of the ma rks o f his d ucal majesty, ba refoot a nd w earing p enitential ga rments, p ublicly co nfessed to ha ving do ne in justice to Zb igniew a nd begged for forgiveness, must have undermined his monarchic authority and offended his rulership. It is not surprising, therefore, that Bolesław’s supporters m ade an effort to obli terate t he c anonical char acter of Bolesław’s penance and reshape it into a gr eat performance of monarchic humiliatio in which the humility of the ruler, who shouldered the difficult task of redeeming the sins of the entire community of his subjects, le d – a fter the exa mple o f the humiliatio o f C hrist w ho h ad appointed him to rule – to his elevation and attainment of God’s benevolence and care. The strength and the eff ectiveness of the ri tual in p ublic life resulted not only from the fact of its completion. It was no less determined by the senses a ttributed t o t he r itual p ractices b y t heir p articipants a nd w itnesses. Depending on the needs and circumstances, they could enhance them with other meanings, using them for their own political interests. The ambiguity of the various forms of ritual behaviour paved the way for debates about the actual sense of their content and often enforced the use of diff erent interpretative procedures. The importance of the ritual acts as in struments f or sha ping the p olitical r eality dep ended no t o nly o n

110 M aleczyński, Bolesław III Krzywousty, p. 76 ff; Jan Adamus, O monarchii Gallowej (Warsaw, 1952), p. 52 ff; Bieniek,“Z dziejów pokuty publicznej,” p. 10; Tadeusz Grudziński, “Podziały d ynastyczne mo narchii p iastowskiej w k ońcu XI i p oczątkach XII wiek u,” Zapiski Historyczne 36 (1971), 28 ff.

122

ch apter thr ee

their performance but also, sometimes predominantly, on the appropriate presentation of their meaning.111 The ritual of penance was no exception. On the contrary, the abundance of meanings associated with the rite of p enance cr eated extrao rdinary p ossibilities f or diff erent interpretations o f i ts co ntents a nd allowed j ustification f or va rious p olitical a nd ideological endeavours to be found in its gestures and attitudes. It is worth recalling in this context the events connected with the penance of king Henry II of England after the murder of the archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Becket by the royal knights on 29 December 1170. In comparison with the single account of the penance of Bolesław Wrymouth wri tten b y Gall us, the la rge n umber o f s ources r elated t o Henry’s penance provides many more possibilities for a closer investigation of the methods of using the rite of royal penance in political games, submitting it to various interpretation procedures and shaping with its help the political reality. Upon hea ring the ne ws o f the dea th o f Thomas, H enry, in a let ter addressed to the pope Alexander III fi rst tried to prove his inno cence and free himself of the acc usations of being responsible for the crime committed in t he cathedral of Canterbury. However, these endeavours of the king were not successful and in the curia there prevailed the opinion of Henry’s adversaries who blamed him for the murder of Thomas. Although the kin g ma naged t o a void ex communication a nd s ave England from interdiction he had to agree to let his case be investigated by the papal legates and to accept the penance they would impose. Until the verdict Henry was prohibited from entering the church.112 The meeting b etween the kin g and the pa pal legates took place in M ay 1172. The negotiations resulted in determining the conditions of the agreement which found its ritual expression in the ceremony of reconciliation between

111 See: Philippe Buc, The Dangers of Ritual. Between Early Medieval Texts and Social Scientific Theory (P rinceton, 2001); P hilippe B uc, “Political Ri tuals a nd P olitical Imagination in the M edieval West f rom the F ourth C entury to the E leventh,” in The Medieval World, eds. Peter Linehan, Janet L. Nelson (London – New York, 2001), pp. 189–213; Philippe B uc, “Rituel p olitique et imag inaire p olitique a u ha ut Moyen Âge,” Revue Historique 620 (2001), 842–883; Philippe Buc, “Warum weniger die Handelnden selbst als eher die Chronisten das politische Ritual erzeugten – und warum es niemandem auf die w ahre G eschichte a nkam,” i n Die M acht de s K önigs. H errschaft i n E uropa v om Frühmittelalter bis in die Neuzeit, ed. Bernhard Jussen (Munich, 2005), pp. 27–37. 112 See: Anne Dug gan, “Diplomacy, S tatus a nd C onscience: Henry II ’s Penance f or Becket’s Murder,” in Forschungen zur Reichs-, Papst- und Landesgeschichte Peter Herde zum 65. G eburtstag vo n F reunden, S chüllern u nd K ollegen da rgebracht, 1, e ds. K arl Borchardt, Enno Bünz (Stuttgart, 1998), pp. 265–272.

penance 123 Henry and the Church and his readmission to the congregation of faithful on 21 May at Avranches. Under oath sworn on the Gospels the king declared tha t he had no t o rdered the a rchbishop t o b e m urdered. He admitted, ho wever, t hat his man ifested e nmity to wards Thomas indirectly contributed to his death, by pushing the knights to commit this crime , a nd exp ressed his r egret f or w hat had ha ppened. H e als o repeated that he was r eady to humbly accept the p enance imposed by the legates. After Henry had sworn to respect the conditions of reconciliation, the legates granted absolution to the king kneeling in front of the cathedral and then led him inside.113 In the des cription o f the cer emony o f H enry II ’s r econciliation a t Avranches one notices the absence of ritual acts which may be viewed in terms of royal humiliatio. The rite of absolution was performed according to the penitentiary liturgical practice – over the king kneeling before the legates. Nevertheless, Henry did not have to wear penitential clothes, nor take off his shoes.114 The reluctance of the king to appear during the ceremony at Avranches dressed in penitential garb clearly indicates his desire to avoid associations connected with the rite of penance. Henry, forced to confess his responsibility for the death of Thomas Becket and undergo the cer emony of r econciliation, ob viously tho ught tha t his wearing penitential clothes would offend his r oyal majesty and undermine his a lready w eakened monarchic a uthority. I n Henry’s o pinion, assuming the role of a repentant sinner and performing the penitential rites with zeal did not do good service to the construction of an appropriate ima ge o f a r uler. H owever, tw o y ears la ter, in J uly 1174 H enry came t o C anterbury t o t he t omb o f S t Thomas barefoot and we aring penitential garments. He publicly confessed his gui lt, fell at the feet of the assembled monks asking them f or forgiveness, and accepted to be flogged by them, after w hich he spent the whole night praying at the grave of the saint.115 Surely the di fference b etween H enry’s a ttitude in Avranches a nd his behaviour in Canterbury for the most part resulted from a dissimilar political situation. In 1172, in spite of the shock caused by Becket’s death,

113 Anne Duggan, “Ne in dubium. The Official Record of Henry II’s Reconciliation at Avranches, 21 May 1172,” English Historical Review 462 (2000), 643–658; Dug gan, “Diplomacy, Status and Conscience,” pp. 272–278. 114 Duggan, “Diplomacy, Status and Conscience,” pp. 277–278. 115 Duggan, “Diplomacy, Status and Conscience,” pp. 278–284.

124

ch apter thr ee

the position of the king was relatively strong: he had just completed a successful military campaign in Ireland. In 1174, in contrast, Henry faced a large revolt involving his three sons and a considerable part of the magnates, as well as an open war with the kings of France and Scotland and the count of Flanders, all supporting the rebels. Although at the moment of the king’s arrival in Canterbury in July 1174 he was likely to win the war, the rebels still disposed of sizeable forces. In this situation Henry must have been anxious to gain the favour of the new saint, already famous for many miracles, and demonstrate in a ceremony of public expiation, in a way beyond a doubt, his repentance for his wrongdoing. For that reason he did no t r efrain f rom under taking ac tions tha t tw o y ears ea rlier in Avranches he had considered an offence to his royal dignity.116 However, it would be a misunderstanding to see in the ceremony at Canterbury only an act of humiliation of the proud king who, in danger, decided to humble himself before his old enemy and recognize his sanctity. On the contrary, the royal humiliatio at the tomb of St Thomas has to be perceived as a great performance used to demonstrate the magnitude of Henry’s royal majesty. The English ruler was w ell aware of the complexity of meanings associated with the ceremony of royal penance. It could serve both the humiliation and the elevation of the king, could undermine his mo narchic authority as w ell as r einforce it.117 Its s ense was determined by the context and the meanings attributed to the penitential ri tes b y their pa rticipants a nd wi tnesses. I n Avranches r oyal humility w ould b e en tirely p laced wi thin the f ramework o f the cer emony of reconciliation celebrated by the papal legates and refer to Henry’s sin a nd the ri te of canonical penance. Whereas in C anterbury the r oyal humiliatio was inco rporated in to a p erformance co ntaining visible c hristological r eferences a dding a n entirely n ew d imension t o Henry’s humility and sufferings. The humiliatio of Henry, who wounded his bare feet against the st ones and suff ered flagellation, became a r eal imitatio Christi, in which the king “sanctus et christus Domini”, as Peter of Blois des cribed him,118 partook in the h umiliation and suff ering of Christ in order to attain, along with Him, the highest glory.

See: Wilfrid L. Warren, Henry II (London, 1973), p. 131 ff. De Jong, “Power and humility,” p. 31. 118 Petri B lesensis E pistola CL Ad clericos a ulae r egiae, P L 207, co l. 440. S ee: M arc Bloch, Les rois thaumaturges. É tude sur le caractère surnaturel attribué à la puissance royale particulièrement en France et Angleterre, 3rd ed. (Paris, 1983). 116 117

penance 125 The sources relating the events of Canterbury dedicate an important place to the subject of the reward Henry received for exhibiting humilitas. The day after the kin g had co mpleted the penitential rituals at the tomb of St Thomas, the troops of his faithful barons defeated and captured king William the Lion of Scotland.119 This victory paved the way for the final defeat of the great rebellion Henry had been struggling with for more than a year.120 The king conquered his enemies, defeated the rebel ba rons a nd was r econciled with his s ons, restoring p eace in the kingdom. Thus Henry’s humiliatio was completed by his exaltatio. In 1130, the Czech duke Soběslav I also made use of the images connected with the idea of royal humiliatio. His actions deserve a little more attention, because they furnish additional arguments demonstrating the role of the rite of royal penance as a political instrument and the various possibilities of its use in political practice. According t o the almos t co ntemporary acco unt o f a n a nonymous Czech chronicler referred to as C anon of Vyšehrad, Soběslav I, having discovered the magnates’ plot against his life, departed for Prague, barefoot and dressed in penitential garments. Greeted solemnly, to the accompaniment of angels’ hymns and the ringing of bells, he prayed in the Prague cathedral, and then went to his residence in Vyšehrad. Two days later at an assembly he convened in Vyšehrad, the magnates accused of plotting were sentenced to death and killed in a cruel way.121 There is some evidence that Soběslav had long known about the plot against his life, and decided to use it only as a pretext to finally defeat the opposition. In the political plans of the duke the ceremony of his spectacular entry to Prague played a v ery important role. The celebrations accompanying Soběslav’s arrival in Prague aimed at creating an atmosphere

119 See for example: Radulfi de Diceto Opera Historica, ed. William Stubbs, 1 (London, 1876), p . 385: “Sic igi tur in a rticulo t emporis, p er in tercessionem s antissimi Thom ae martyris, rex pater, per omnia regni sui confinia potentissimus, vii idus Augusti navem ascendit a pud P orcestre, d ucens s ecum r egem S cottorum, co mitem L eircestrensem, comitem C estrensem, Hugonem de C astello, quos hab eat in v inculis”. S ee a lso: Gesta regis H enrici se cundi Ben edicti Abbatis, e d. William S tubbs, 1 (L ondon, 1867), p . 72; Chronica Magistri Rogeri de Hovedene, ed. William Stubbs, 2 (London, 1869), pp. 61–63; also: Duggan, “Diplomacy, Status and Conscience,” pp. 280, 285–286. 120 Wa rren, Henry II, p. 132 ff. 121 Canonici Wissegradensis con tinuatio C osmae, e d. J osef E mler, F ontes r erum Bohemicarum 2 (Prague, 1874), pp. 207–213.

126

ch apter thr ee

suitable for the fulfilment of his intentions and at enabling him to t ake decisive steps against the hostile magnates.122 It is no t en tirely c lear w hat mea nings S oběslav ass ociated wi th the ceremony of his Prague adv ent. The chronicler mentions that the duke went to Prague causa orationis. We may think, therefore, that the ceremonies he o rganized h ad a chiefl y t hanksgiving char acter. S oběslav, thankful for saving his life, in the act of humility offered his ducal majesty and demonstrated his devotion to God. The duke’s humble gestures would therefore fit into the long tradition of royal humilitas in which the ruler ma nifested his h umbleness thr ough the ri tual o f dis carding the signs of his power and majesty in order to express gratitude to God and gain H is mer cy. The c hronicler’s men tion o f the fi gure o f the b iblical king o f N ineveh in his des cription of S oběslav’s adv ent can sug gest, however, that the Prague ceremony could also have penitential connotations. The Czech duke “proficiscititur in urbem Pragam […] discalciatis pedibus et vestibus mutatis, ut rex Ninivitarum”.123 The king of Nineveh who descended his t hrone, took off his r oyal garments, put on a s ackcloth, and sat in ashes in order to plead God’s forgiveness and save the kingdom from His wrath, constituted an important point of reference for the me dieval ima ges o f r oyal p enance. The fi gure o f the kin g o f Nineveh as a n almost archetypical representation of the penitent ruler was also recalled in the description of the penance of count Robert II of Flanders by the author of the Miracles of St Adalhard written towards the end of the 11th century in the abbey of Corbie. The count, as another king of Nineveh, was to step down from his throne, to do penance, barefoot and humble, to compensate for the seizure of the Flemish estates of the a bbacy.124 H ence i t cannot be ex cluded t hat also t he ac tions o f Soběslav w ere p rimarily a imed a t a verting G od’s wra th a nd ga ining God’s mercy for himself and his subjects. The magnates’ plot against the

122 See: Josef Žemlička, “Vyšehrad 1130: soud, nebo inscenace? (K nek osmovskému pojetí českých dějin),” in Husitsví – r eformace – r enesance. Sborník k 60. narozeninám F. Šmahela, eds. Jaroslav Pánek, Miloslav Polívka, Noemi Rejchrtová, 1 (Prague, 1994), pp. 47–68; Zdenĕk Dragoun, “Konflikt knížete Soběslava z biskupem Menhartem a jeho líčení tzv. Kanovníkem Vyšehradským,” Mediaevalia Historica Bohemica 4 (1995), 71–78; Lisa Wolverton, Hastening Toward Prague. P ower a nd S ociety i n t he M edieval Cze ch Lands (Philadelphia, 2001), pp. 210–212. 123 Canonici Wissegradensis continuatio Cosmae, p. 208. 124 Ex Miraculorum S. Adalhardi Corbeiensium libris II 2.3, ed. Oswald Holder-Egger, MGH SS 15, 2 (Hanover, 1888), p. 864. See: Koziol, Begging Pardon, p. 102.

penance 127 duke’s life was undoubtedly a grave sin. It exposed to God’s punishment not o nly i ts p erpetrators b ut the en tire co mmunity. The Cze ch r ulers perceived their p ower in s acral categories. They ruled B ohemia in t he name and as replacement of the patron saint of the kingdom St Wenceslas who, sitting on the throne next to Christ himself, held the real, eternal power.125 Therefore an attempt on the life of the duke, the earthly substitute of St Wenceslas, meant a violation of the order established by God, and required due compensation to prevent G od’s punishment. In this interpretation, Soběslav by doing penance – out of responsibility for the fate of his subjects – w ould himself assume the t ask of appeasing God for the sin co mmitted b y the p lotters, a nd a verting H is a nger.126 Irrespective of these uncertainties concerning the meaning of Soběslav’s penitential rites, their general intention seems to be clear enough: the way to attaining G od’s favour and partaking in H is g lory le d through humility. The ruler who humbled himself before God, sure of His support, could appear in front of his subjects in full splendour of his royal majesty and demand absolute obedience from the community entrusted to his rule.127 It is worth remembering, however, that the act of humility served not only the purpose of appeasing God and regaining His favour. The gestures of humility, referring directly to the rite of penance, played an important role – as we remember – in the cer emony of submission and reconciliation, discussed in the previous chapter, which was used to settle political disputes, reconcile quarrelling parties and restore public order disturbed by the conflict. The notions of humiliatio, satisfactio, reconciliatio or gratia determining the core of the rite of deditio were rooted in and 125 See f or exa mple: F rantišek G raus, “Kirchlische und heidnis che (ma gische) Komponenten der Stellung der Přemysliden. Přemyslidensage und St. Wenzelsideologie,” in Siedlung und Verfassung Böhmens in der Frühzeit, eds. František Graus, Herbert Ludat (Wiesbaden, 1967) p p. 148–167; F rantišek G raus, “St. Adalbert und S t. Wenzel. Z ur Funktion der mi ttelalterlichen H eiligenverehrung in B öhmen,” in Europa Sla vica – Europa O rientalis. Festschrift f ür H erbert L udat zu m 70. Ge burtstag (B erlin, 1980), pp. 205–231; Dušan Třeštík, Kosmova Kronika. Studie k počátkům českého dějepisectví a politického myšlení (Prague, 1968), p. 183 ff. 126 Andrzej P leszczyński, “Sobiesław I – r ex N inivitarum. Książę czeski w walce z ordynariuszem praskim Meinhardem, biskupem Rzeszy,” in Monarchia w średniowieczu – władza nad ludźmi, władza nad terytorium. Studia ofiarowane Profesorowi Henrykowi Samsonowiczowi, e ds. J erzy P ysiak, Aneta P ieniądz-Skrzypczak, M arcin R . P auk (Warsaw-Krakow, 2002), pp. 125–138. 127 See: Roman Michałowski, “Depozycja ciała św. Wojciecha w roku 1000. Przyczynek do dziej ów zjazdu g nieźnieńskiego,” in Świat pog ranicza, e ds. Mir osław N agielski, Andrzej Rachuba, Sławomir Górzyński (Warsaw, 2003), p. 47 ff.

128

ch apter thr ee

justified by the rite of public penance. As a result, the mea nings associated with the ceremony of penance and the rite of submission started to intermingle, and both orders – the religious and the political one – often overlapped.128 The rite of submission sometimes assumed the form of an act o f p enance in w hich p olitical e vents acq uired r eligious dimen sion whereas the ceremony of public penance began to have the character of the ritual of submission in wh ich the political meanings moving to the foreground obliterated the sacramental sense of the gesture of humility. Clear references to the rite of submission can be seen also in the ceremonies accompanying the humiliation of Henry IV of Germany before the pope Gregory VII in Canossa in 1077. It seems that the royal humiliatio leadin g t o the r econciliation b etween H enry a nd the p ope was rooted not only in the canonical tradition of the rite of penance, but also in the custom of using the ritual of deditio for the settlement of political disputes a nd the r estoration o f p eaceful r elations b etween p revious opponents.129 The author of the Miracles of St Adalhard, mentioned earlier, connected similar meanings with the penance of count Robert II of Flanders. The act of humiliation of the count before the relics o f the saint, aimed at recompensing the damages done to the abbey of Corbie, seems to fit in the tradition of the ceremonial reconciliation of the disputing parties and the r estoration of peace.130 Equally, the e vents that 128 See: Gerd Althoff, “Das P rivileg der de ditio. F ormen gü tlicher K onfliktbeendingung in der mittelalterlichen Adelsgesellschaft,” in Spielregeln der Politik im Mittelalter. Kommunikation i n Frieden u nd F ehde (D armstadt, 1997), p . 116 ff; K arl J . Ley ser, Herrschaft und Konflikt. K önig und Adel im o ttonischen S achsen (G öttingen, 1984), p. 153 ff; Koziol, Begging P ardon, p. 177 ff; d e J ong, “What w as pu blic ab out pu blic penance?,” p. 880 ff; Jean-Marie Moeglin, “Pénitence publique et a mende honorable au Moyen Âge,” Revue Historique 604 (1997), 225–269; Schreiner, “Nudis pedibus,” p. 99 ff; Hamilton, The Practice of Penance, p. 184 ff; Zbigniew Dalewski, “Konflikt i ceremonial w Polše rannego srednevekovja,” in Ruś Kijowska i Polska w średniowieczu (X–XIII w.), ed. Stanisław Bylina (Warsaw, 2003), p. 113 ff; Zbigniew Dalewski, “Ritual im Text. Gallus Anonymus und die dy nastischen K onflikte im P olen des f rüheren Mi ttelalters,” Frühmittelalterliche Studien 38 (2004), 150. 129 Timothy Reuter, “ Unruhestiftung, F ehde, Reb ellion, Widerstand. G ewalt und Frieden in der Politik der Salierzeit,” in Gesellschaftlicher und ideengeschichtlicher Wandel im Reic h der S alier, 3, Die S alier u nd das Reic h, ed. S tefan Weinfurter (Sigmaringen, 1991), p . 323; G erd Althoff, “Demonstration und I nszenierung. S pielregeln der Kommunikation in mi ttelalterlicher Öff entlichkeit,” in Spielregeln der P olitik, p. 240 ff; Monika Suchan, Königsherrschaft im Str eit. K onfliktaustragung i n d er Regierungszeit Heinrichs IV . zw ischen Gewa lt, Ge spräch u nd S chriftlichkeit (S tuttgart, 1997), p . 75; Cowdrey, Pope Gregory VII, p. 160 ff; Werner Goez, “Canossa als deditio?,” in Studien zur Geschichte des Mittelalters. Jürgen Petersohn zum 65. Geburtstag, e d. Matthias Thu mser (Stuttgart, 2000), pp. 92–99; Schreiner, “Nudis pedibus,” p. 101 ff. 130 K oziol, Begging Pardon, p. 102.

penance 129 took place in July 1174 in Canterbury brought together elements alluding to the rite of public penance and practices directly related to the ceremonies accompanying the making of political agreements. Henry II’s humbling himself before the tomb of Thomas Becket no doubt constituted an act of penance. At the same time, however, it can also be evaluated in terms of an act of submission, reconciliation and conclusion of a long-lasting conflict between the king and his old enemy.131 The circumstances in which the reconciliation between the king and his r ebellious s ons to ok p lace shor tly after the cer emony o f H enry’s humiliation before the t omb of St Thomas furnish an additional argument for such twofold understanding of the s ense of Henry’s humiliatio.132 J ust as H enry II r econciled wi th Thomas thr ough the ac t o f humility, s o his s ons, under going t he r ite o f sub mission b efore t heir father, were allowed to reconcile with him and end the dispute that had divided them. As mentioned earlier, first, in September 1174 Richard the Lionheart appeared before Henry, and, f ull of humility, fel l at his fe et, repented for having been disobedient, and begged for forgiveness. Next, in April 1175, H enry II ’s oldest s on H enry the Young K ing h umbled himself before his father.133 The borderline dividing the ac t of penance from the rite of submission was easy to pass, and the sense of the ceremony was determined by its context as well as the needs and expectations associated with it by its participants and witnesses. Similarly, in the case of the penance of Bolesław Wrymouth, it seems that the christomimetic interpretation of the meaning of the duke’s penance p roposed b y Gall us was no t the o nly a ttempt a t exp laining the essence of the duke’s penitential gestures. It is feasible to p resume that Bolesław’s penance – in the same way as the penitential acts of Henry IV of Germany o r Henry II of England – was also related to contents associated with the rite of submission and reconciliation. In Gallus’ exposition an important role falls to the description of the festive celeb rations o f E aster in G niezno, c losing the p eriod o f d ucal penance. The presentation of Bolesław, who during the f estive celebrations appeared in full monarchic majesty, demonstrating his power and wealth by offering magnificent gifts, fitted well the conception of ducal 131 Moeglin, “Pénitence publique et amende honorable,” pp. 236–237; Timothy Reuter, “ ‘Velle sibi fi eri in f orma hac’. Symbolisches Handeln in B ecketstreit,” in Formen u nd Funktionen öffentlicher Kommunikation im Mittelalter, Vorträge u nd Forschungen 5 1, ed. Gerd Althoff (Stuttgart, 2001), pp. 222–223. 132 Moeglin, “Pénitence publique et amende honorable,” pp. 245–255. 133 Gesta regis Henrici secundi 1, pp. 76, 82–83. See: Warren, Henry II, p. 505 ff.

130

ch apter thr ee

penance developed by the chronicler in which the humiliatio of Bolesław in the act of penance had to end with his exaltatio. The reconciliation at the tomb of St Adalbert ended the period of penance and humility of Bolesław, and paved the way to his elevation and the attainment of the highest glory, both in the eternal and – what to the chronicler seemed to be equally important – in the earthly perspective. During the celeb rations in Gniezno, for the fi rst time since he had st arted doing penance the d uke a ppeared i n p ublic n ot d ressed a s a p enitent b ut i n t he f ull splendour due to a monarch. This signified in Gallus’ account the beginning of his earthly exaltatio which was to be complemented soon by the great victory of Bolesław over the Pomeranians. It seems, however, that Gallus’ story of the Gniezno Easter celebrations could convey yet other additional meanings. The listing of the val uable gifts distributed by the duke a mong bishops and magnates served not only the purpose of showing his greatness. The description of the Gniezno Easter festivities celebrated by Bolesław at the tomb of the patron saint of the kingdom, among bishops and magnates, reflected the model of the ideal political order of the Piast monarchy in which the relations between the ruler and his most powerful subjects was regulated by the principles of harmonious cooperation, agreement and mutual understanding. The bishops and magnates assembled in G niezno at the duke’s side demo nstrated by their presence that they were loyal and ready to serve him further. Bolesław, on the other hand, by giving them valuable gifts, showed his appreciation of their role as ducal advisors and associates. In the story of Bolesław’s penance Gallus avoided the subject of the p olitical consequences o f the b loody co nfrontation b etween the d uke a nd Zb igniew. The chronicler makes ambiguous remarks concerning the possibility of an even greater evil resulting from the one committed by Bolesław which cannot b e r eversed, o r a bout t he ne ed to administer him me dicine in order to preserve him in statu dignitatis. Although strongly rooted in the tradition of penitentiary formulae, these remarks seem to suggest that as a co nsequence o f Zb igniew’s t orture ther e emer ged t ensions s eriously threatening the stability of Bolesław’s power.134 134 Galli Anonymi Cronicae III.25, p. 157: “Quapropter, quia quod factum est in altera parte no n p otes in st atum p ristinum r estaurari, o portet pa rtem infi rmam, medicine capacem, in st atu dignitatis vigilanti studio discrecionis conservari”.; The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles III.25, p. 275: “Wherefore, since what has been done to the other cannot be repaired to its pristine state, it is necessary to preserve the part that is sick but capable of treatment in the state of its dignity by vigilant and prudent care”. See: Adamus, O monarchii Gallowej, p. 50.

penance 131 In thes e cir cumstances, ne w in terpretations a rise f rom Gall us’ decision to end the account of the duke’s penance with the description of the Gniezno celebrations in which Bolesław participated along with the bishops and the magnates. In this way the chronicler showed that the duke’s penance not only enabled him t o reconcile himself with God but also allowed a restoration of the appropriate relations in the state between the ruler and his subjects. Hence, Bolesław’s penance served not only the purpose o f ga ining G od’s fa vour f or the d uke a nd his r ealm b ut als o helped to reconcile him with the community affected by his sin. In the public penance of Bolesław we should therefore see, as Gallus seems to indicate, not only an act of penance, but also the rite of submission and reconciliation which, thanks to the duke’s humility, allowed the restoration of peace and public order. One more fragment of Gallus’ account speaks for the possibility of locating Bolesław’s penance within the tradition of ceremonial practices aimed at solving political conflicts and reconciling the quarrelling parties. Describing the duke’s penitential practices, the chronicler does not fail to mention that Bolesław was reconciled with the brother whom he had done wrong. The duke “offered satisfaction to his brother […], and once p ardon was g iven he was r econciled”.135 C ompensation f or the wrong an d re conciliation with the p erson offended was, as i t is mentioned in Gallus, to o, on e of t he pr incipal c onditions of p enance. No wonder then, that Gallus cared to note the fact of Bolesław’s giving satisfaction to Zbigniew and the reconciliation of the quarrelling brothers, leaving no doubt about the sincerity of the duke’s sorrow and his readiness to repent his sins. However, Gallus’ remarks about the satisfaction given to Zbigniew by Bolesław seem to indicate yet other meanings. It is w orth no ting that the p hrase satisfactio appears in his Chronicle, beside the story of Bolesław’s penance, only twice. In both cases Gallus uses it in a description of the ritual of submission and reconciliation. We encounter the notion satisfactio at the fi rst instance in the report of the events of 1100 when – as we remember – comes Wojsław arrived, having been accused of preparing a plot against Bolesław’s life. Wishing to recover the duke’s benevolence, he tried unsuccessfully to gain access to the duke in order to be able to give him satisfaction.136 For the second 135 Galli Anonymi Cronicae III.25, p. 158: “fratri suo satisfaciens, concessa venia concordatur”; The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles III.25, p. 275. 136 Galli Anonymi Cronicae II.16, p. 82; The D eeds o f t he Pr inces o f t he P oles II.16, p. 147.

132

ch apter thr ee

time t he chr onicler men tions satisfactio w hen des cribing the cir cumstances at the end of the first conflict between Bolesław and Zbigniew in 1106. Zbigniew, defeated by Bolesław, “was brought before his brother to proffer s atisfaction and ple dge ob edience”, t hus r egaining t he d uke’s favour co nfirmed b y his co nsent t o let Zb igniew k eep co ntrol o ver Mazovia.137 The notion of satisfactio was certainly associated with a range of various and complex meanings. It was used both in the sp here of religious concepts and on the surface o f p olitical ac tions or judicial practice.138 In our chronicler’s account, however, its basic sense seems to be limited to the ceremony of humiliation, the ac t of submission used to expiate one’s guilt and restore peace. Gallus usually chose his words very carefully. It is therefore difficult to believe that this clearly marked correspondence between the satisfactiones mentioned was only a coincidence. It is more plausible to suppose that using the notion satisfactio in the descriptions of ceremonies of reconciliation between political adversaries as well as in the account of Bolesław’s penance, Gallus deliberately pointed out the possibility of including the ducal penance within the framework of the rite of submission and reconciliation. As a result, Bolesław’s penance, his satisfactio, acquired in the chronicler’s presentation features characteristic o f the ac t o f humbleness, a imed, in acco rdance wi th the g enerally accepted rules of political action, at giving satisfaction for the offence he had committed and reintroducing the principles of harmony and order into the framework of the monarchy’s political system. The role of the ritual as an instrument for shaping political relations was determined – let us repeat it once more – not only by the fact of its use in the p ractice of public life but also, maybe predominantly, by the type o f co ntent i ts pa rticipants a nd wi tnesses ass ociated wi th i t, no t always attributing the same meaning to particular ritual actions. Thu s, depending on the circumstances, the ritual could equally serve to restore order and internal cohesion to the community, as well as cause disorder and conflict. Gallus was not only fully aware of these connections but – as we can s ee – he o ften demonstrated his a bilities to ma nipulate t he

137 Galli Anonymi Cronicae II.38, pp. 108–109: “ante fratrem satisfacturus et obediturus est adductus”; The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles II.38, pp. 189. 138 S ee: Gerd Althoff, “Genugtuung (s atisfactio). Z ur Eig enart gütlicher Konfliktbeleigung im Mittelalter,” inModernes Mittelalter, ed. Joachim Heinzle (Frankfurt am Main, 1994), pp. 247–265.

penance 133 meanings of the rituals he described in order to create an image of reality suitable from his point of view. Nevertheless, by addressing his story of t he c onflict b etween B olesław a nd Zb igniew t o the pa rticipants o f these e vents as w ell, he had t o b e aware that the in terpretation of the duke’s penance he proposed would unavoidably overlap with the meanings they associated with this ritual. The chronicler could not just overlook this fact, but he had to react in some way to the opinions formulated in circles hostile to the hero of his Chronicle. He decided not to discard them completely but, on the contrary, to include them in the framework of his own presentation. Reshaping the penance of Bolesław into a performance of christomimetic royal humiliatio, which led the ruler through self-denial a nd suff erings t o the hig hest g lory, the c hronicler did no t conceal the duke’s sin and did not obliterate the canonical dimension of his penance, nor did he hesitate to connect it with images related to the rite of submission and reconciliation. Elaborating the story of Bolesław’s penance, in a skilful way, he referred to various associations linked with the ri te o f r oyal h umiliation, cr eating wi th their hel p a ma ny-layered picture o f a co mplex r itual in w hich a ll sides in volved in t he co nflict could find reflection of their own expectations and needs. In Gallus’ rendition the ambiguity of the ritual he presented, its openness to various interpretative procedures, paradoxically did no t undermine i ts role of stabilizing the political system, but even strengthened its influence. As a result, by letting the participants of the events described express their own competing interests, the ceremony of Bolesław’s penance presented by the chronicler could lead to the appeasement of the crisis caused by his confrontation with Zbigniew, enforce the authority of the duke and restore the public order based on compromise.

CHAPTER FOUR

OATH Telling the story of Zbigniew’s guilt and pride, and Bolesław’s innocence and humility, Gallus did not consider it necessary to explain the nature of the d uke’s sin o r des cribe in det ail the fa te o f his o lder b rother. We learn from his account only that Bolesław’s act against Zbigniew bore the mark of sin – peccatum, a wrongdoing – facinus, a lamentable crime – crimen la mentabile, a nd a n irreparable e vil – malum ir reparabiliter.1 Certainly, even these quite general and euphemistic designations sufficiently emphasized Bolesław’s sin and left no doubt that that he had to undertake p enance. N evertheless, o ne g ets the im pression tha t the chronicler, although admitting that the duke had co mmitted a sin, did not want to enter into discussions concerning its character, and deliberately avoided expressions that would describe Bolesław’s offence more in detail and indicate explicitly the kind of actions he had taken against Zbigniew. It is not difficult to deduce the causes of Gallus’ behaviour. One may assume t hat s aying explici tly w hat B olesław had do ne w ould ha ve undermined the version of e vents leading to t he conflict of the duke with his o lder b rother tha t o ur c hronicler p roposed, a nd sp oiled his coherent acco unt o f Zb igniew’s wic kedness a nd in gratitude, a nd Bolesław’s y outhful impetuosity r epented thr ough unr elenting p enance and pious deeds. In Gallus’ narrative aimed at preserving the correct, stipulated by the d ucal court, recollection of B olesław’s achievements there was no place for deeds that would undermine the truthfulness and reliability of the ruler’s positive image presented by the chronicler. Describing the hist ory o f the co nflict b etween B olesław a nd Zb igniew, Gall us was obviously demonstrating the guilt of the older son of Władysław Herman.

1 Galli Anonymi Cronicae et gesta ducum sive principum Polonorum III.25, ed. Karol Maleczyński, MPH n. s. 2 (K rakow, 1952), p p. 156–157. F or the En glish tra nslation, see: Gesta principum Polonorum. The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles III.25, trans. Paul W. Knoll and Frank Schaer, Central European Medieval Texts 3, series ed. Frank Schaer, general eds. János M. Bak, Urszula Borkowska, Giles Constable, Gábor Klaniczay (BudapestNew York, 2003), pp. 273–275; hereafter cited as: The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles.

136

ch apter fo ur

Zbigniew alone drew the misfortune on himself and therefore suffered an irreparable damage – dampnum irreparabile, as t he chronicler put it.2 I t was a p unishment tha t the un grateful Zb igniew des erved, f or instead of thanking Bolesław for showing mercy and letting him return to his homeland, he had wanted to recapture the ducal power and had intended to remove his younger brother from the throne. This roughly sketched black and white picture of the b rotherly conflict was no t disturbed e ven by the c hronicler’s remarks about the sin and p enance of B olesław. Gallus, addressing his s tory not only t o the future readers but also to the participants of the events described, could not, and probably did not want to, conceal the fact of the ducal penance. Admitting that Bolesław had committed a sin, Gallus was able to – as we saw earlier – fully incorporate the description of the duke’s penance into the narrative and use it as a n additional justification for his v ersion of the p rincely co nflict. Clea rly, ho wever, his acco unt had no p lace f or details identifying more precisely the na ture of Bolesław’s sin. Instead, we have only generalizations and insinuations. It seems that in this way the chronicler tried to cope with the issue uncomfortable both for him and his hero, and find a solution which on one hand, by obliterating the magnitude of Bolesław’s offence, allowed the full elaboration of the story about his vir tue a nd h umility, a nd o n the o ther ha nd, no t obs curing entirely the sinful nature of the duke’s deed, enabled the author to direct his message not only to the future but also contemporary readers and listeners. The a rt o f e vasion a nd co ncealment, alo ng wi th the s kill o f interpretation, was cer tainly one of the most im portant characteristics of our chronicler’s writing skills. In this cas e, however, Gallus did no t limit himself exclusively to insinuations and concealments. It seems that avoiding to indicate directly the kind of offence committed by Bolesław, Gallus decided at the same time to indirectly launch into a polemic with the acc usations b rought a gainst the d uke a nd t o r educe, o r ra ther, t o render relative the scale of his responsibility. The relevant account of the Chronicle of Cosmas of Prague narrating the last p hase of the co nflict between Bolesław and Zbigniew (described in such detail by our chronicler) p rovides s ome mo re p ossibilities o f exa mining clos ely Ga llus’ method of constructing the historiographical account and – if we may

2 Galli Anonymi Cronicae III.25, p. 156; The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles III.25, p. 275.

oath 137 say so – the means of literary persuasion he used. Cosmas’ report enables us to go beyond Gallus’ text and confront the picture gathered from his story not only with the r eality of another contemporary n arrative account but also the reality that we may call “extra-textual”. It is therefore worth taking a closer look at the account of the Czech chronicler. Cosmas was no t particularly interested in the co urse of the q uarrel between the P iast d ukes. I ndeed, he men tioned the dra matic e vents accompanying the ea rlier st ages of the co nflict b etween B olesław and Zbigniew but he did not give them much space.3 Also the tragic events closing the conflict between Władysław Herman’s sons (which in Gallus’s account were de veloped into an elaborate narrative) C osmas summarized in a short, one-sentence-long remark. Moreover he placed it within a longer story about the conflict of the Czech duke Vladislav I with his cousin, duke Otto II of Olomouc. In July 1110 Ot to t ook pa rt in a n ass embly co nveyed b y Vladislav. After the three-day meeting he went to the court of the Czech duke to bid him g oodbye b efore returning to Moravia. There he was ca ptured and imprisoned. Vladislav, however, contrary to his counsellors’ recommendations who advised him t o blind Otto, decided not to undertake action that would lead to an ultimate solution of his conflict with the Moravian duke. Vladislav declared that he did not like to be constantly at variance with Otto but only wanted him to recognize the rights of the Czech d ukes t o s upremacy o ver M oravia. Thus he co nsidered i t was enough imprison the Moravian duke for a while. Explaining his reasons, Vladislav pointed out that he did not want to act similarly to the Polish duke Bolesław who under oath of fidelity had deceitfully summoned his brother Zbigniew and then, on the third day, had him blinded.4 Cosmas’ account should not raise serious doubts. The Czech chronicler did not show much sympathy for Bolesław and not seldom we may find in his chronicle critical remarks about the Polish ruler. Nevertheless Cosmas’ ill-disposition towards Bolesław cannot in any way undermine the reliability of his inf ormation about the fa te of Zbigniew. He wrote

3 Cosmae Pr agensis Ch ronica Boemo rum III.16, e d. B ertold B retholz, M GH SS rG n. s., 2 (Berlin, 1955), pp. 178–179. 4 Cosmae Pr agensis Ch ronica III.34, p p. 204–205: “Nequaquam, inq uit, assimila bor duci Poloniensi B olezlao, qui fratrem su um Izbigneu sub fidei s acramentis advocavit dolis et cum tercia die privavit oculis”.

138

ch apter fo ur

about events almost co ntemporary which must have been well-known in B ohemia, co nsidering t he clos eness a nd in tensity o f t he r elations, including f amily t ies, c onnecting the co urts o f the P iasts a nd the Přemyslid dynasty. Neither the chronological inaccuracy of placing the conflict with Zbigniew under the year 1110 nor its inclusion in the story about the q uarrel b etween Vladislav I wi th Ot to o f Olo mouc sho uld undermine our trust in Cosmas’ text. Certainly the reference to Bolesław Wrymouth a nd Zbigniew in the co ntext of Vladislav’s ac tions a gainst Otto could, in Cosmas’ intention, b e used in a larger perspective to demonstrate the superiority, also moral, of the Czech duke to the Polish ruler. Indeed Cosmas dedicated quite a lot of space to the later military struggles of the two monarchs, always trying to highlight the manifold advantages of Vladislav over B olesław.5 In Cosmas’ account, Vladislav, depicted as a ruler aiming at compromise and agreement (albeit understood in a ra ther peculiar way), is contrasted with Bolesław who treats his brother with cruelty. Nevertheless, even this particular involvement of Cosmas’ account in the context of the Polish-Czech relations does not change the fact that the information he conveys about the tragic fate of Zbigniew should be treated very seriously. Hence C osmas’ acco unt ena bles us to determine wi th sig nificantly more precision the messages contained in Ga llus’ Chronicle. Thanks to the Czech chronicler, we learn, at last, what happened to Zbigniew and what this irreparable damage that – according to Gallus’ allusive account – the unfortunate brother of B olesław suff ered was. In C osmas’ text the fundamental charge Vladislav brings against Bolesław is, no doubt, the Polish r uler having blinded his o wn brother. L et us r ecall – Vladislav, rejecting the instigations of his ad visers persuading him to blind Ot to, explicitly evokes the action Bolesław took against Zbigniew as an example of behaviour deserving to be condemned. The deed that arouses his indignation is precisely Bolesław’s blinding Zbigniew. We may therefore presume that this fact of Bolesław’s blinding Zbigniew lies also beneath the sin, la mentable crime a nd irr eparable e vil men tioned b y Gall us, which Bolesław had to expiate through the ritual of penance. Blinding as a means of repression used against political adversaries began to be used on a larger s cale in the West during the Carolingian epoch.6 Cosmae Pragensis Chronica III.35–36, pp. 206–209. Geneviève B ührer-Thierry, “ ‘Just Anger’ or ‘Vengeful Anger’? The Punishment of Blinding in the Early Medieval West,” in Anger’s Past. The Social Uses of an Emotion in the Middle Ages, ed. Barbara H. Rosenwein (Ithaca-London, 1998), p. 79 ff. 5 6

oath 139 In the period of the Roman Empire it was employed only sporadically. The blinding was not included in the basic set of punishments placed in the framework of the legal system of the late Empire, although its use as an extra-legal instrument o f repression was not ruled out.7 To a limited extent its application was foreseen in the barbarian law codes.8 Ultimately, in the 7th cen tury in the West a nd the 8th cen tury in Byzantium the p unishment of b linding b egan t o gain the val ue of an important instrument of political action and formation of political relations. Indeed the Visigothic legal r egulations foreseeing the us e of the punishment of blinding – under stood as a n act of mercy subst ituting death penalty – in case of convicts guilty of rebellion against the king go back to the 7th century.9 In the 8th century in Byzantium the punishment of blinding became one of the most popular methods of eliminating p olitical ad versaries – b oth r ebels def eated b y the em perors, a nd rulers removed from the throne.10 By the end o f the 8th cen tury the punishment of blinding was als o included in the f ramework of the political tradition of the Carolingian monarchy. The blinding which in the practice of the political life of the Merovingian kingdom had been used only rarely, exclusively in the role of an extra-legal instrument of violence against political adversaries, in the C arolingian times st arted to f ulfil the f unction of the ma in, in i ts own way institutionalized, means of repression against those guilty of rising u p a gainst the r oyal a uthority. With r eference t o the B yzantine model and maybe to a certain extent also the solutions known from the Visigothic lega l co dices, t he punishment of blinding b egan to b e p erceived in term s o f a r oyal p rerogative, a sp ecific ma nifestation o f the monarchic majesty. The symbolic meanings connected to it were rooted in the images of the royal and imperial power elaborated at the courts of the Carolingian rulers, which placed the mo narchs in a s acred sphere.

7 Ramsay MacMullen, “Judicial Savagery in the Ro man Empire,” in Changes in the Roman Empire. Essays in the Ordinary (Princeton, 1990), pp. 204–217. 8 Meinrad Schaab, Die Blendung als politische Maßnahme im abendländischen Frühund Hochmittelalter, Diss. (Heidelberg, 1955), p. 35 ff; Bührer-Thierry, “ ‘Just Anger’ or ‘Vengeful Anger’?” p. 76. 9 B ührer-Thierry, “ ‘Just Anger’ or ‘Vengeful Anger’?” pp. 78–79. 10 S chaab, Die Blendung als politische Maßnahme, p. 21 ff; Evelyne Patlagean, “Byzance et le blason pénal du corps,” in Du châtiment dans la cité. Supplices corporeles et peine de mort dans le mond antique (Rome, 1984), pp. 405–426.

140

ch apter fo ur

The p unishment of blindin g dep rived thos e gui lty o f dis obedience towards the royal authority of the possibility to participate in the glory and splendour pertaining to the monarchic majesty and pushed them into the world of darkness and obscurity. At the same time, however, it served the manifestation of the monarch’s mercy and willingness to forgive. In C arolingian times the o ld Roman conception of the crime o f lese-majesty was recovered from oblivion and again introduced into the framework of t he p olitical a ctions.11 I n practice, ho wever, t he d eath penalty was often replaced with blinding.12 The ruler in an act of mercy, demonstrating his Christian compassion, agreed to spare the convicted rebels’ lives and limited the punishment to blinding only, thus enabling them to repent their sins and avoid eternal damnation. In this way, in 786, Charlemagne dealt with the guil ty of the p lot in Thur ingia.13 In 792 the magnates involved in the revolt of his son, Pippin the Hunchback, inc urred a similar fa te.14 Also the r eign o f L ouis the Pious is ma rked by numerous acts of blinding the ma gnates rising up against him.15 I n t he f ollowing d ecades o f t he 9 th c entury r elatively often one encounters also cases of the other Carolingian rulers blinding their political adversaries. The punishment of blinding affected equally the Frankish counts, involved in various plots and revolts, and the rulers of neighbouring polities dependent on the Carolingians. In 870 Louis the

Othmar H ageneder, “Das crimen ma iestatis, der P rozess g egen Attentäter P apst Leons III. und die Kaiserkrönung Karls des Großen,” in Aus Kirche und Reich. Studien zu Theologie, Politik und Recht im Mittelalter. Festschrift für Friedrich Kempf, ed. Hubert Mordek (S igmaringen, 1983), pp. 55–79; Jacques Chiff oleau, “Sur le crime de M ajesté médiéval,” in Genèse de l’Etat moderne en Méditerranée. Approches historique et anthropologique des p ratiques et r eprésentations (Ro me, 1993), p p. 183–213; B ührer-Thierry, “ ‘Just Anger’ or ‘Vengeful Anger’?” p. 80. 12 B ührer-Thierry, “ ‘Just Anger’ or ‘Vengeful Anger’?” p. 80. 13 Annales Laureshamenses a. 786, ed. G.H. Pertz, MGH SS, 1 (Hanover, 1826), p. 32; see: Schaab, Die Blendung als politische Maßnahme, p. 64 ff; Karl Brunner, Oppositionelle Gruppen im Karolingerreich (Vienna, 1976), p. 48 ff; Adelheid Krah, Absetzungsverfahren als Spielbild von Königsmacht. Untersuchungen zum Kräfteverhältnis zwischen Königtum und Adel im Karolingerreich und seine Nachfolgestaaten (Aalen, 1987), p. 17 ff; BührerThierry, “ ‘Just Anger’ or ‘Vengeful Anger’?” pp. 80–81. 14 Annales F uldenses s ive a nnales r egni F rancorum o rientales a. 792, ed. Friedrich Kurze, M GH SS rG, 9 (H anover, 1891), p . 12; s ee: S chaab, Die Bl endung al s p olitische Maßnahme, p. 65; Brunner, Oppositionelle Gruppen, p. 62 ff; Bührer-Thierry, “ ‘Just Anger’ or ‘Vengeful Anger’?” p. 81. 15 S chaab, Die Blendung als politische Maßnahme, p. 66 ff.; Krah, Absetzungsverfahren, p. 42 ff; Bührer-Thierry, “ ‘Just Anger’ or ‘Vengeful Anger’?” p. 81 ff. 11

oath 141 German ordered that the Great Moravian ruler Rostislav, turned in by his nephe w Svatopluk, sho uld b e blinde d.16 I n 874 als o Salo mon, the ruler of Brittany situated at the o ther end o f the C arolingian Empire, was punished with blinding.17 The p unishment o f b linding, h owever, w as u sed b y t he C arolingian monarchs not on ly a s an i nstrument of re pression ag ainst reb ellious magnates or disloyal rulers of subject states. Sometimes it was employed in order to settle conflict within the dynasty itself. In 817 Louis the Pious, wanting to secure the right of succession to the throne for his own sons, ordered his nep hew king B ernard of Italy t o b e b linded.18 Charles the Bald did the s ame to his r ebellious son Carloman in 873. 19 The s on of Lothar II, Hugh, who tried to claim his rights to Lotharingia was blinded in 885 b y Charles the F at.20 Finally, in 905 B erengar I o f Friuli, on the mother’s side grandson of Louis the Pious, fighting for the Italian crown, ordered the captured emperor Louis III, also related to the Carolingians, to be blinded.21

Annales Fuldenses a. 870, p. 72; Annales Bertiniani a. 870, ed. Georg Waitz, MGH SSrG, 5 (Hanover, 1883), 114; see: Dušan Třeštík, Vznik Velké Moravy. Moravané, Čehové a střední Evropa v letech 791–871 (Prague, 2002), p. 197ff; Eric J. Goldberg, Struggle for Empire. Kingship and Conflict under Louis the German, 817–876 (Ithaca – London, 2006), p. 299–300. 17 Annales B ertiniani a. 874, p p. 125–126; s ee: S chaab, Die B lendung a ls po litische Maßnahme, p. 70; André Chédeville, Hubert Guillotel, La Bretagne des saints et des rois, Ve-Xe siècle (Rennes, 1989), p. 320. 18 Annales regni Francorum a. 817, ed. Friedrich Kurze, MGH SSrG, 6 (Hanover, 1895), p. 147; s ee: Thomas F . X . N oble, “The re volt of Ki ng B ernard,” Studi M edievali 1 5 (1974), 315–326; Konrad Bund, Thronsturz und Herrscherabsetzung im Frühmittelalter (Bonn, 1979), p. 396 ff.; Jörg Jarnut, “Kaiser Ludwig der Fromme und König Bernhard von Italien. Der Versuch einer Rehabilitierung,” Studi Medievali 30 (1986), 637–648; Philippe Depreux, “Das K önigtum B ernards v on I talien und s ein Verhältnis zum K aisertum,” Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken 72 (1992), 1–24. 19 Annales B ertiniani a . 8 73, p p. 1 21–122; s ee: J anet L . N elson Charles t he Ba ld (London, 1992), pp. 230–231; Brunner, Oppositionelle Gruppen, p. 135 ff. 20 Annales Fuldenses a. 885, p. 103; Reginonis abbatis Prumiensis Chronicon cum continuatione Treverensi, ed. Friedrich Kurze, MGH SSrG, 50 (Hanover, 1890), pp. 123–125; see: Simon MacLean, Kingship and Politics in the Late Ninth Century. Charles the Fat and the End of C arolingian Empire (C ambridge, 2003), p . 150 ff; Brunner, Oppositionelle Gruppen, p. 154. 21 Liudprandi Cremonensis Antapodosis II.41, ed. Paolo Chiesa, Corpus Christianorum. Continuatio M edievalis, 96 (T urnhout, 1997), p . 52; Reginionis a bbatis Pr umiensis Chronicon, p. 150; Panegyricus B erengarii, ed. Paul von Winterfeld, MGH Poetae, 4, 1 (Berlin, 1899), pp. 396–397. See: Philippe Buc, “Noch einmal 918–919. Of the ritualized demise o f kin gs a nd o f p olitical ri tuals in g eneral,” in Zeichen – R ituale – Werte. Internationales K olloquium des S onderforschungsbereichs 4 96 a n de r Westfälischen Wilhelms-Universität Münster, ed. Gerd Althoff (Münster, 2004), p. 165. 16

142

ch apter fo ur

It is doubtful t hat all t hese ac ts of blinding were ac tually rooted in sublime conceptions of Carolingian intellectuals of the turn of the 8th century who attributed special ideological meanings to the punishment of blinding. It is certain, however, that it was an effective and, it seems, generally accepted in the Carolingian circles method of political action and instrument of political struggle. It allowed the ultimate solution of the conflict and a lasting exclusion of the adversary without the need of taking his life. In addition, the particular combination of elements of violence and mercy enabled the rulers who applied it to demonstrate on one hand their power and force, and on the other their readiness to show compassion and mercy for the defeated enemies. In the 10th century the punishment of blinding slowly began to lose its distinguished place in the set of instruments of the monarchic power. It preserved its character of a tool of political repression to a relatively large extent only in the political reality of the post-Carolingian Italy, probably under the influence of the Byzantine tradition.22 In 931 king Hugh of Italy ordered his men to capture and blind his stepbrother, margrave Lambert of Tuscany.23 A few years later he tried to do the same to margrave Berengar of Ivrea.24 Some other North Italian magnates also paid for the conflict with Hugh with the loss of their sight.25 Occasionally, the punishment of blinding was also used by the Ottonian rulers in their struggle f or su premacy o ver I taly.26 As la te as in 998 the a nti-pope Philagatus removed from the throne was sentenced to a punishment of not only cutting his nose and ears but also blinding.27 In the states north of the Alps, along with the changes taking place in the 10th cen tury in the syst em o f p olitical o rganization o f the p ostCarolingian successor mo narchies a nd in t he cha racter o f r elations between the r uler and his most p owerful subjects, the p unishment of blinding ceased to pla y the role of an instrument for shaping political relations. The rulers of the successor monarchies to a lesser extent than the first Carolingians could take the liberty of undertaking firm and

S chaab, Die Blendung als politische Maßnahme, p. 58 ff. Liudprandi Cremonensis Antapodosis III.47, p. 93. 24 Liudprandi Cremonensis Antapodosis V.10, p. 128. 25 Liudprandi Cremonensis Antapodosis III.41, p. 88. 26 S chaab, Die Blendung als politische Maßnahme, p. 61. 27 Gerd Althoff, Otto III (Darmstadt, 1997), p. 101 ff. 22 23

oath 143 radical actions against the rebellious magnates. In settling internal conflicts they were, more often than their Carolingian predecessors, forced to make use of compromise and agreement rather than solutions involving violence.28 Negotiations and agreements started to replace force and violence as tools of settling political disputes. Needless to say, violence still determined the course of political events, probably to an even larger extent than it had b een the cas e in the C arolingian ep och. H owever, unlike in Carolingian t imes, it rarely assumed institutional forms and seldom was regulated by legal procedures or political custom. Usually it took shape of acts of open violence generally condemned and incompatible with the established and accepted norms of political action. In these terms we may assess already the blinding of bishop Theutobold of Langres b y the su pporters o f the West F rankish kin g Cha rles III the Simple in 894,29 the blinding of bishops Einhard of Speyer in 913 30 and Benno of Metz in 928, 31 or the threats of blinding made in 948 against Hugh deposed from t he a rchbishopric o f R eims.32 We ma y ass ociate similar meanings also with the blinding of archbishop Herold of Salzburg by the Bavarian duke Henry I in 955, the archbishop being one of the leaders of the revolt against Henry’s brother king Otto I.33 In spite of this sporadic use of the punishment of blinding aimed at eliminating political adversaries, in the s econd half of the 10th cen tury in the p olitical tradition of monarchies stemming from the Carolingian Empire, blinding was ultimately pushed to the margin of the political practice and lost its earlier importance.34 The punishment of blinding as a means of political repression and instrument for regulating p olitical relations was us ed much longer in st ates

28 Ger d Althoff, “Königherrschaft u nd K onfliktbewältigung im 10. und 11. Jahrhundert,” in Spielregeln der P olitik i m M ittelalter. K ommunikation i n F rieden u nd Fehde (Darmstadt, 1997), p. 37 ff; see also: Hagen Keller,“Zum Charakter der‘Staatlichkeit’ zwischen ka rolingischer Reic hsreform und ho chmittelalterlichem Herrschaftsaufbau,” Frühmittelalterliche Studien 25 (1989), 248–264. 29 Flodoardi Remensis Historia Remensis Ecclesiae IV.3, ed. Martina Stratmann, MGH SS, 36 (Hanover, 1997), p. 377. 30 Reginionis abbatis Prumiensis Chronicon, p. 155. 31 Flodoardi Remensis Annales a. 928, ed. Philippe Laurer (Paris, 1905), p. 43. 32 Flodoardi Remensis Historia IV.32, p. 425. S ee also B ernd Schütte, “Gewalt gegen Bischöfe im früheren und hohen Mittelalter,” Historisches Jahrbuch 123 (2003), 34–36. 33 Thietmari Merseburgensis episcopi Chronicon II.40, ed. Rob ert Holtzmann, MGH SSrG n. s., 9, (Berlin, 1935), p. 88. 34 S chaab, Die Blendung als politische Maßnahme, p. 80 ff.

144

ch apter fo ur

situated beyond or at the borders of the Carolingian world. Quite often we encounter examples of blinding, not seldom in co mbination with castration, in the Scandinavian tradition. It seems that in the earlier Middle Ages in Scandinavia the punishment of blinding constituted a customary method of treating an adversary who for various reasons, usually because of family bonds linking the two sides of the dispute, could not or rather should not have been killed.35 Not uncommonly it served the purpose of settling disputes dividing the mem bers of the r uling dynasties and determined the choice of the succes sor t o the r oyal throne. In 1134 kin g Magnus IV o f Norway was ca ptured a nd dep rived o f p ower by his unc le a nd co-r uler Harald IV, and then b linded and castrated was im prisoned in a mo nastery.36 Around the middle of the 12th century king Valdemar I of Denmark used similar measures against his cousin Magnus, pretender to the crown, son o f the p revious D anish r uler Eric III. 37 C ertainly r ooted in t he Scandinavian political tradition were also the actions taken in 1036 by the Danish kin g o f En gland Harold I w ho o rdered his men t o b lind Alfred Aetheling, pretender to the throne, son of the Anglo-Saxon ruler of England Ethelred II w ho had b een defeated by Harold’s father Canute the G reat.38 Indeed it was probably the memory of the Scandinavian heritage that determined the role the punishment of blinding played in the political practice of states created by the Normans in Western and Southern Europe. In Normandy and subsequently also in the Anglo-Norman state the punishment of blinding can be regarded as one of the most im portant means of repression used by the Norman rulers against rebels rising up against their supremacy.39 Numerous acts of blinding the Anglo-Saxon 35 See: Sverre Bagge, Society and Politics in Snorri Sturluson’s Heimskringla (Berkeley, 1991), p. 112 ff. 36 Snorris Königsbuch, ed. F. Nieder, 3 (Jena, 1923), p. 253. 37 Annales Stadens es a. 1144, e d. J ohannes M. L appenberg, M GH SS, 16 (H anover, 1859), p. 327. 38 The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. A Co llaborative Ed ition, v ol. 5, MS. C, e d. K atherine O’Brien O’Keeffe (C ambridge, 2001), p p. 105–106; The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. A C ollaborative Ed ition, v ol. 6, MS D , e d. G.P. C ubbin (C ambridge, 1996), p p. 65–66; see also: Frank M. Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England (Oxford, 1971), p. 421. 39 See: C. Warren Hollister, “Royal Acts of Mutilation: The Case against Henry I,” in Monarchy, Magnates and Institutions in the Anglo-Norman World (London-Ronceverte, 1986), pp. 291–301; John Gillingham, “Killing and Mutilating Political Enemies in the British Isles from the Late Twelfth to the Early Fourteenth Century. Comparative Study,” in Britain and Ireland. 900–1300. Insular Responses to Medieval European Change, e d. Brendan Smith (Cambridge, 1999), pp. 114–134; Klaus van Eickels, “Gendered Violence: Castration and Blinding as Punishment for Treason in Normandy and Anglo-Norman England” Gender and History 16 (2004), 588–602. S ee als o: Rob ert B artlett, England under the Norman and Angevin Kings, 1075–1225 (Cambridge, 2002), p. 58 ff.

oath 145 magnates revolting against the Normans accompanied the strengthening o f William I the C onqueror’s p ower o ver En gland. H owever, the Norman rulers used the punishment of blinding not only against their Anglo-Saxon subjects. Not seldom the Norman magnates also paid for the conflict with the monarch with the loss o f their sight.40 In this way William II Rufus punished the leader of a revolt against him, William of Eu, in 1095. 41 Also his successor, Henry I, took similar actions against rebellious magnates.42 Even as late as in the early 13th century king John of England was acc used of intending to blind his ri val to the En glish crown, his nephew, count Arthur of Brittany.43 It seems t hat the p unishment of b linding w as y et m ore ma rkedly present in the p olitical lif e o f the N orman s tate in S icily. The overlap between the political norms brought to Sicily and South Italy by the Normans and the models of political behaviour of Byzantine and, to a certain extent, Arab origin they took over on the spot, resulted in the recognition of blinding as one of the most fundamental instruments of political action. The reign of Norman kings in Sicily is also marked by numerous acts o f blindin g r ebellious b arons o r inco mpetent co mmanders.44 The methods of governing, treating dis obedient subjects and dealing with political enemies used by the Normans were fully accepted and adopted by the Hohenstauf dynasty which took over the reign of Sicily and South Italy a t the end o f the 12th cen tury.45 Already the accessio n t o the Sicilian throne of the em peror Henry VI in 1194 was acco mpanied by acts o f b linding dir ected not o nly against the ma gnates w ho w ere in opposition to Hohenstaufs but also against their pretender to the crown,

40 Matthew S trickland, War a nd Ch ivalry. The Conduct and Perception of War i n England and Normandy. 1066–1217 (Cambridge, 1996), p. 241 ff; see also: Emily Zack Tabuteau, “Punishments in Ele venth-Century N ormandy,” in Conflicts in Medieval Europe. C hanging Perspectives on Society an d Culture, e ds. Warren C. B rown, P iotr Górecki (Aldershot, 2003), pp. 131–149. 41 Frank Barlow, William Rufus (New Haven-London, 2000), p. 357. 42 See: Hollister, “Royal Acts of Mutilation,” p. 291 ff. 43 Radulphi de Coggeshall Chronicon Anglicanum, ed. J. Stevenson (London, 1875), pp. 139–141; see: Wilfrid L. Warren, King John (New Haven-London, 1997), p. 81. 44 See: Hubert Houben, Roger II. von Sizilien. Herrscher zwischen Orient und Okzident (Darmstadt, 1997), pp. 77, 120 ff; see also: Theo Broekmann, Rigor iustitiae. Herrschaft, Recht und Terror im normannisch-staufischen Süden (Darmstadt, 2005). 45 See: P eter Cs endes, Heinrich VI . (D armstadt, 1993), p . 152 ff; Broekmann, Rigor iustitiae, p. 244 ff.

146

ch apter fo ur

William III, juvenile descendant of the old Norman ruling dynasty. Also in 1197, ha ving su ppressed a nother r ebellion o f the S icilian ba rons, Henry made us e o f the p unishment of b linding a mong o ther ac tions taken against the defeated rebels.46 Blinding was one of the relatively frequent methods of political action used also in t he mo narchies o f e arlier-medieval C entral E urope. The Chronicle of Cosmas of Prague contains many examples of Czech dukes inflicting this kind of punishment on magnates accused of disobedience and co nspiracy. The f requency a nd a cer tain na turalness wi th w hich Cosmas describes it suggests that in the political reality of earlier-medieval Bohemia the p unishment of blinding, not seldom combined with castration and cutting off the co nvict’s hands and legs, was a widel y used and generally accepted form of repression employed by the ducal authority against its opponents.47 In this way in 1041 duke Břetislav I punished comes Parkoš of Bilina, accused of betrayal during the recent campaign of king Henry III o f Germany against Bohemia.48 In 1109 Vladislav I’s accession to the throne was concluded with a bloody defeat of the supporters of his older brother Bořivoj II many of whom were sentenced to blinding.49 I n 1114 als o comes Rošt ej a nd his s on-in-law Vašek w ere punished with blinding by the Moravian duke Otto II who accused them of trying to set him at variance with the Czech duke Vladislav I.50 The Czech rulers, however, employed the punishment of blinding not only with the a im to dis cipline disobedient magnates. It was s ometimes used also with the a im of settling disputes between the mem bers of the ducal dynasty. Usually the conflicts taking place between the Přemyslids were concluded with the expulsion or imprisonment, often long-term, of the defeated pretender to the d ucal p ower.51 Nevertheless, more radical means wer e a pplied s ometimes. The acco unt o f C osmas a bout the cir cumstances of duke Vladislav I’s capturing Otto of Olomouc, mentioned earlier, leaves no doubt about it. Even though Vladislav eventually decided

46 See f or example: Chronica M agistri Roger i de H ovedene, e d. William S tubbs, 4 (London, 1869), p. 27 ff. 47 Lisa Wolverton, Hastening Toward Prague. Power and Society in the Medieval Czech Lands (Philadelphia, 2001), p. 85 ff. 48 Cosmae Pragensis Chronica II.11, pp. 98–99. 49 Cosmae Pragensis Chronica III.32, pp. 202–203. 50 Cosmae Pragensis Chronica III.40, p. 213. 51 See: Wolverton, Hastening Toward Prague, p. 186 ff.

oath 147 not to blind Otto and limited the punishment to imprisonment only, his counsellors’ proposal of blinding the Moravian duke clearly indicates that in their opinion, or at least in the opinion of Cosmas relating these events, not only Czech magnates but also Czech dukes had to take into account the risk of losing their sight in consequence of political disputes. The tragic fate of duke Jaromir, castrated in 1002 by his older brother B oleslav III Rufus, and then b linded in 1034 b y his y ounger brother Oldřich, proves that this kind of repression was also used against the members of the ducal family.52 In 1130 d uke S oběslav I b linded his nep hew Břetislav, imprisoned a f ew years earlier, because the ma gnates plotting against the d uke had wanted to put him on the throne.53 It all shows that the punishment of blinding was a constant element of the political reality of earlier-medieval Czech lands. In this situation it is not surprising that the son of Soběslav I, Soběslav II, upon hearing in 1 173 that his co usin duke Bedřich wanted him blinded, preferred not to risk c hecking w hether the r umours were true and immediately escaped from Prague.54 The punishment of blinding occupied an important position also in the set of measures used by the Hungarian rulers in the earlier and high Middle Ages in t heir st ruggles aga inst p olitical adv ersaries. The ma gnates who rose up against the mo narch or military commanders who were not successful on the battlefield had t o be aware of the danger of losing, if not their life, then at least their sight.55 Occasionally the punishment of blinding was used in Hungary in order to settle dynastic disputes. In 1038 king Stephen I of Hungary decided to make his nephew Peter Orseolo heir to the throne. The king’s decision met with resistance from his cousin Vasul who claimed his own rights to take over the power. His revolt, however, ended in failure, and Vasul, defeated, was blinded at

Thietmari Merseburgensis Chronicon V.23, p. 247; Cosmae Pragensis Chronica I.36, p. 65; see: Barbara Krzemieńska,“Krize českého státu na přelomu tisícletí,” Československy Časopis Historický 18 (1970), 497–532. 53 Canonici Wissegradensis con tinuatio C osmae, e d. J osef E mler, F ontes r erum Bohemicarum, 2 (Prague, 1874), p. 212. 54 Annales Ger laci M ilovicensis, e d. J osef E mler, F ontes r erum B ohemicarum, 2 (Prague, 1874), p. 465. 55 See for example: Annales Altahenses maiores a. 1041, 1042, ed. Edmund von Oefele, MGH SSrG, 4 (Hanover, 1891), pp. 25, 31; Chronici Hungarici compositio saeculi XIV, 72, ed. Alexander D omanovszky, S criptores r erum H ungaricarum, 1 (B udapest, 1937), p. 325; Annales P osonienses, e d. I mre M adzsar, S criptores re rum H ungaricarum, 1 (Budapest, 1937), p. 127; see also: Schaab, Die Blendung als politische Maßnahme, p. 101. 52

148

ch apter fo ur

Stephen’s order.56 Eventually, the successful rival of Vasul, Peter Orseolo, incurred similar fate six years later. In 1046 he again lost his royal power which he had r ecuperated only tw o y ears b efore with the hel p o f the emperor Henry III, and was captured and blinded by his adversaries.57 Less than 30 years later, in 1074, king Salomon of Hungary intended to win the dispute with his cousin, prince Géza, planning to capture him by deceit and then blind him.58 Next the punishment of blinding was used in Hungary to solve the question of succession to the throne in the early 12th century. Around the year 1115 king Koloman of Hungary, wanting to secure the right of succeeding to the throne for his own son Stephen, blinded his brother Álmos and Álmos’ son Béla.59 The Piast rulers, too, were familiar with the use of the punishment of blinding as instrument of political struggle. According to the account of the Chronicle of Thietmar of Merseburg, after the death of Mieszko I in 992 the realm he had left was divided between his sons. Soon, however, Bolesław the Brave banished his st ep brothers and alone took over the reign of the Piast monarchy. The magnates who supported his brothers – Thietmar men tions the na mes o f O dylen a nd P rzybywoj – B olesław ordered to be blinded.60 Several years later Bolesław again made use of the punishment o f blinding as instrument for shaping political relations and settling political disputes. In 1003 he deposed his cousin duke Boleslav III Rufus from the Czech throne, where he had p laced him only a f ew months before, then blinded him and alone seized power over the Czechs.61 It is unlikely that the measures Bolesław the Brave used against Odylen and Przybywoj or Boleslav Rufus resulted only from his particular predilection for such way of dealing with political enemies. It is more plausible 56 Annales Altahenses a. 1041, p. 24; Chronici Hungarici 69, p. 320; see: Bálint Hóman, Geschichte des ungarischen Mittelalters, 1 (Berlin, 1940), pp. 236–240; Gyula Kristó, Die Arpadendynastie. Die Geschichte Ungarns von 895 bis 1301 (Budapest, 1993), pp. 81–82. 57 Annales Altahenses a. 1046, p. 43; Herimanni Augiensis Chronicon a. 1046, ed. Georg Heinrich Pertz, MGH SS, 5 (Hannover, 1844), p. 126; Chronici Hungarici 85, p. 343; see: Kristó, Die Arpadendynastie, p. 88. 58 Chronici Hungarici 114, p. 380. 59 Chronici Hungarici 150, p . 430; Cosmae Pr agensis Ch ronica III.43, p. 218; see: Kristó, Die A rpadendynastie, p p. 113–115; M arta F ont Koloman t he Le arned, K ing o f Hungary (Szeged, 2001), p. 82. 60 Thietmari Merseburgensis Chronicon IV.58, p. 198. 61 Thietmari Merseburgensis Chronicon V.30, p. 255. We know of an act of blinding a defeated foreign ruler also in the 11th-century Hungary. According to the Hungarian chronicles, in 1060 the H ungarian king Béla I b linded the ca ptured Czech duke, most probably Spytihněv II; Chronici Hungarici 92, p. 357.

oath 149 to think that they were rooted in customary norms of political behaviour. Although the scarce source material does not give many possibilities of verifying this hypothesis, the use of the punishment of blinding as instrument of political repression by the Polish rulers also in the first half of the 12th century seems to provide additional support for the assumption that it constituted a st able element of p olitical practice in the r eality of the earlier-medieval Piast monarchy, too. Indeed not only the older brother of Bolesław Wrymouth suffered blinding b y his o rder. A f ew y ears a fter Zb igniew’s t orture, in 1118, B olesław commanded that his palatine Skarbimir be blinded. The circumstances of the p alatine’s t orture a re u nclear.62 At a ny ra te, the a nnalistic acco unts informing us about this event directly connect the fact of Bolesław’s blinding Skarbimir with the latter’s revolt against the duke. Skarbimir rose up, insurrexit, against Bolesław and was blinded by him.63 The brief annalistic record obviously lacks a more elaborate explanation. Nevertheless it clearly indicates the close links between the revolt against the duke and the punishment of blinding. Skarbimir’s blinding by Bolesław is a logical consequence of his rising up against the duke. It is not the result of the duke’s particular cruelty but a consequence of the generally accepted rules of political game. Also the circumstances of the blinding of yet another palatine of the Polish dukes, Peter Włostowic, support this interpretation of the role of the punishment of blinding in the political reality of the Piast monarchy in the fi rst half of the 12th cen tury. The blinding of Peter took place in 1145 by the order of the son of Bolesław Wrymouth, duke Władysław II. The e vents leadin g t o P eter’s m utilation w ere des cribed in det ail in Carmen Mauri, no longer extant. Its content, however, to s ome degree, was preserved in the accounts of the Chronicle of Poles written in the late 13th century, probably also in the Chronicle of the Greater Poland from the 13–14th century,64 and, especially, in most elaborate and ample form, in the Chronicle of Peter put together in the 16th century.

62 Janusz Bieniak, “Polska elita p olityczna XII wiek u (częś ć II Wróżda i zg oda),” in Społeczeństwo P olski ś redniowiecznej, e d. S tefan K. K uczyński, 2 (W arsaw, 1985), pp. 40–53. 63 Annales Cracovienses priores cum kalendario, ed. Zofia Kozłowska-Budkowa, MPH n. s., 5 (Warsaw, 1978): Rocznik dawny, p. 15: “MCXVIII in eundem Bolezlaum tercium comes suus palatinus insurrexit et ob hoc lumine caruit”; Rocznik kapituły krakowskiej, p. 55: “MCXVII Skarbimir palatinus contra ducem Bolezlaum insurrexit et cecatur”. 64 See: Janusz Bieniak, “Polska elita polityczna XI wieku (część III A. Arbitrzy książąt – krąg r odzinny P iotra Włostowica),” i n Społeczeństwo P olski ś redniowiecznej, e d. S.K. Kuczyński, 4 (Warsaw, 1990), pp. 13–19.

150

ch apter fo ur

The testimony of the Carmen Mauri is of particular importance. The text, wri tten p robably in the s econd half o f the 12th cen tury in the Benedictine a bbey o f S t Vincent in Wrocław f ounded b y P eter Włostowic, was intended to preserve the memory of the glory and the magnitude of the palatine,65 whom Bolesław Wrymouth on his deathbed, having divided the r ealm among his s ons, “pridem magnificum comitem cr eaverat et palatinum, tanquam omnium fidelissimum et bene de toto regno Polonie meritum instituit suorum tutorem filiorum et ad tempus determinatum regni gubernatorem”.66 In t he re ndition of Carmen Mauri the penalty inflicted upon Peter is an unjustified act of violence committed by Władysław II. The palatine is presented as an innocent v ictim o f t he i ntrigues o f Władysław’s w ife Agnes w ho – offended by his jokes on her marital infidelity – persuaded the duke to crush him. Peter did no t in a ny way deserve the destiny the princely couple assigned him.67 It is worth noting, however, that in condemning Władysław’s violence against the palatine, Carmen Mauri disapproves not so much of the kind of measures the duke took, as of the fact that they were directed against Peter. Not the severity and cruelty of the duke’s actions are criticized but their us e a gainst the inno cent pala tine. One g ets the im pression that according to Carmen Mauri, the punishment of blinding itself does not constitute a violation of the accepted rules of political action. Only the unjust us e o f i t a gainst the her o o f the p oem mak es i t b lameworthy.

65 Cronica P etri c omitis P oloniae a ccedunt C arminis M auri f ragmenta, ed. Marian Plezia, MPH n. s., 3 (Krakow, 1951), p. XXXIII-LI. The fi ndings of Marian Plezia who dated Carmen to the second half of the 12th century met with reservations on the part of Ryszard Gansiniec w ho dated the time o f the origin of this text to the end o f the 13th century. S ee: R yszard Ga nsiniec, “Tragedia P etri co mitis,” Pamiętnik Lit eracki 43 (1952), 52–139. F or the da tation p roposed b y M. P lezia a nd his a nswer t o R. Ga nsiniec’s cri ticism s ee: Marian P lezia, “Dokoła t ekstu i da ty p oematu o P iotrze Właście,” Pamiętnik Lit eracki 45 (1954), 452–472. P lezia’s a rgument ga ined a wider acceptance – see for example: Bieniak, “Polska elita polityczna XI wieku (część III A), pp. 13–14; Teresa Mic hałowska, Średniowiecze (Warsaw, 1995), pp. 145–149 – but it remains only a hypothesis, still raising serious doubts, see for example: Marek Cetwiński, Ideologia i poznanie. Społeczne funkcje mediewistyki śląskiej po 1945 roku (Częstochowa, 1993), pp. 74–79; Jarosław Wenta, “Tradycja o Piotrze. Na marginesie jednej z wielkich dyskusji,” in Scriptura cus tos m emoriae. Pr ace h istoryczne, e d. D . Z ydorek (P oznań, 2001), pp. 523–538. 66 Cronica Petri comitis, p. 9. 67 Cronica Petri comitis, p. 10: “Agnes itaque, etsi criminis erat obnoxia, tamen concepto furore contra Petrum ex eo, quod facinus suum viro detexisset, cogitabat die noctuque, qualiter maritum suum posset inducere, ut Petrus vita privaretur”.

oath 151 Clearly, Carmen M auri l eaves n o d oubt t hat Władysław wa s a c ruel ruler, wanting to deprive his younger brothers of the properties they had inherited from their father, and ruthless in dealing with his adversaries.68 At the s ame time, however, one may assume tha t Władysław’s cr uelty and ruthlessness did not exceed the customary norms of political action and did no t diff er significantly f rom the metho ds o f s ettling p olitical conflicts established in the political practice. Carmen Mauri does not imply that Władysław’s decision to torture Peter caused a political upheaval and incited the magnates indignant at the d uke’s cr uelty to r ise u p aga inst him a nd to t ake t he side o f his younger b rothers. Onl y the v ersion p reserved in f ragments in the Chronicle o f P oles m akes a direct connection between the m agnates’ rebellion against Władysław and his cr uel action against Peter.69 In the Chronicle of Peter which makes a larger use of the Carmen Mauri than the Chronicle of Poles this relation is not so obvious. The magnates grieve over Peter’s destiny, but they remain obedient to the duke, albeit – argues the author – the y do s o out of fear. Only the p lot worked out by Peter Włostowic’s faithful servant Roger finally induces them to rise up against Władysław. By spreading rumours that the duke is susp ecting some of the magnates of betrayal and therefore plans to imprison and then blind them, just like Peter, Roger manages to persuade the magnates assembled in Wrocław to challenge the duke and take the side of his younger brothers.70 I n this co ntext, to o, t he p unishment of blindin g do es no t appear as proof of the extraordinary cruelty of Władysław, but rather as a customarily regulated (to a cer tain extent) way of dealing with those guilty of disobedience towards the ducal authority. The role played in Carmen Mauri by the motif of personal hatred of duchess Agnes for Peter, her taking deep offence at his remarks putting in doubt her fidelity in marriage, should not conceal the predominantly

68 Cronica P etri comitis, p . 13: “Demandat igi tur cr udelis p rinceps, u t fratres sui omnino sine aliqua spe redeundi regnum relinquant, eos non fratres censens sed proditores. Mox vasallis et stipendariis suis bona fratrum diripere, vastare et exubere iubet. Exoritur maxima clades et ia m nullis p recibus fi t lo cus ne c racio, s ed vis do minatur, omnia prede dantur, nulli etati parcitur, incestum paciuntur virgines et honeste stuprantur matrone, eclesie diripiuntur, loca sacra prophanantur”. 69 Chronica Polonorum, ed. Ludwik. Ćwikliński, MPH, 3 (Lwów, 1878), p. 632. 70 Cronica Petri comitis, p. 25: “Subordinans itaque aliquos, aliqui de numero magnatum scripserunt Mikore et nepoti suo Georgio principis iram, quomodo timens eorum prodicionem eos capi disponeret et uti Petrum exoculatos in exilium mittere vellet”.

152

ch apter fo ur

political (also in Carmen’s rendition) character of the conflict between Peter and Władysław. Peter resolutely opposes Władysław’s plans to dispossess his younger brothers of the provinces their father had assigned them. He reproaches the duke several times, bids him to maintain peace and obey the law, and accuses him of wanting to shed his brothers’ blood and bringing the kingdom to ruin.71 In this sense Peter’s attitude towards Władysław, his r esisting the d uke’s will a nd b ringing c harges a gainst him, can be perceived as an open demonstration of disobedience threatening the d ucal a uthority a nd un dermining the f undaments o f his power. This is certainly the way the author of Carmen Mauri understood the events he des cribed. His evaluation of the p olitical implications of Peter’s behaviour is r eflected in the w ords he a ttributed to Władysław answering the palatine’s accusations: “Petre […] tu solus prohibes nostros nobis subici fratres, sic nostrum ubique annichilas honorem”.72 Clearly, i n th e r endition o f Carmen Mauri, P eter’s o pposition t o Władysław’s actions is f ully justified. It is Peter whom – as the author of the p oem puts it – under B olesław Wrymouth’s reign “regni tocius f uit comissa tutela”,73 and not the duke, who safeguards the public order and peace. Władysław, not the palatine, breaks the law, betrays the memory of his father and wages a fratricidal war. The right is on the side of Peter who, for the sake of the highest reasons, “pro communi bono”, decides to challenge the duke, regardless of the danger of incurring his anger and suffering a s evere punishment.74 Such presentation of the case, however, does not change the fact that from the point of view of Władysław, Peter’s position bore all the signs of a rebellion which had to be definitely suppressed. The punishment to befall the palatine is a simple consequence of his attitude towards the duke. What is more, it is not the most severe penalty. The author of Carmen Mauri directs his aversion especially against Agnes. The princess plays the role of the real villain in the poem, guilty of all misf ortunes. S eized b y ha tred she b rings P eter t o t orture a nd pushes Władysław to turn against his brothers.75 The fact that Agnes is assigned the role of t he main antagonist of Peter Włostowic do es not

71 72 73 74 75

Cronica Petri comitis, pp. 12, 14–15. Cronica Petri comitis, p. 15. Cronica Petri comitis, p. 12. Cronica Petri comitis, p. 15. Cronica Petri comitis, pp. 10–11.

oath 153 mean, however, that Władysław II is exempt from responsibility for the tragic co urse o f ev ents d escribed i n the poe m. S till, i t seems th at the duke’s actions against Peter are to some extent moderate. It is difficult to see the blinding of the palatine, even in Carmen Mauri, as an act of particular cr uelty o f Władysław. C ertainly, in justice, b ut no t cr uelty a nd violation of the law. Initially, after capturing Peter, the duke intended to do no more than confiscate his estates and send him into exile. However, under the influence of his wife who demanded that the palatine be killed, he began to hesitate. Still, for a long time the duke resisted Agnes pleas, maintaining that “non posse Petrum totaliter vita privari, qui tam excellencia facta fecisset, qui patri suo tam carus et fidelis fuisset”. Eventually, however, he agreed to fulfil, at least partially, the r equests of his wif e eager to shed Peter’s blood. Firmly rejecting the possibility of sentencing the palatine to death, the duke accepted to subject him to the punishment of blinding.76 It seems, therefore, that in the r eality presented in Carmen Mauri, t he punishment o f b linding co nstitutes a legall y valid mea ns o f p olitical repression, a kind of tool to discipline disobedient magnates; in brief: an instrument for putting into effect the prerogatives of the ducal authority. It does not demonstrate the r uthlessness of the d uke but, on the contrary, if perceived as commutation of the death sentence, it can be a particular f orm o f ma nifesting ma gnanimity b y the r uler w ho a grees t o keep in life the rebels deserving death. It i s i n t his c ontext t hat w e s hould als o exa mine the blindin g o f Zbigniew by Bolesław Wrymouth. It seems that this act, too, is fully consistent with the framework of carrying on political activity and settling political conflicts sanctioned by the tradition and practice of the political life of earlier-medieval Piast monarchy. In the political reality of the early 12th-cen tury Poland the p unishment of b linding s eems t o b e a perfectly na tural a nd a ppropriate f orm o f r epression t o us e a gainst Zbigniew accused of preparing a p lot against Bolesław and wanting to seize his ducal power. What is more, similarly to the punishment inflicted on Peter Włostowic by Władysław II, the judgment passed by Bolesław to blind Zbigniew seems to testify in the first place not to his cruelty but rather to his compassion, willingness to show mercy to his brother guilty of the most grave sin. It is not excluded that the blinding of Zbigniew, as

76

Cronica Petri comitis, pp. 20–21.

154

ch apter fo ur

it was o ften t he cas e in o ther simi lar si tuations, was p receded b y his being condemned to death. This sentence was then, through Bolesław’s exceptional mercy, replaced by the punishment of blinding. In t his s ituation, h owever, i t i s d ifficult to u nderstand wh y Gall us describes B olesław’s b ehaviour as sin, e vil, crime a nd o ffence, and Cosmas presents it as an example of action deserving to be condemned and contrasts it with the attitude of the Czech duke Vladislav I. It is not clear why Bolesław’s actions against Zbigniew, deeply rooted, as we saw, in the traditional images of political struggle, met with such harsh judgment not only of C osmas w ho ne ver showed much sympathy for the Polish duke, but also of Gallus, so closely connected with the princely court. What was B olesław’s o ffence t hen? What w as t he d ifference between his decision to blind Zbigniew and the not much later torture of Skarbimir or Władysław II’s dealing with Peter Włostowic? The context in which Cosmas placed his account of blinding Zbigniew suggests that his principal charge against the Polish ruler regarded the fact that he blinded his own brother. At first sight the text of the Czech chronicler seems reliable. It recalls events accompanying the great performance of public p enance, dis cussed in the previous chapter, of t he emperor Louis the Pious, which took place in 822 in Attigny. Among the sins Louis voluntarily chose to redress God in an act of public penance, an im portant p lace f ell t o his b loody co nfrontation wi th his nep hew king Bernard of Italy who, as we remember, had been accused of rising up against the emperor and in 817 blinded by his order.77 The subject of Bernard’s torture returned 11 years later on the occasion of events which in 833 le d to Louis’ overthrow f rom the thr one. The accusation of his cruel dealing with Bernard was one of the most im portant charges the opposition led by his oldest son Lothar brought against the emperor to justify his deposition and force him to once more undertake the rite of penance.78 One may therefore enquire whether also in case of Bolesław’s blinding Zb igniew the p rimary r eason f or co ndemning the d uke’s actions a nd, co nsequently, f or his b eing oblige d to under take p ublic penance was the fac t that he had infl icted this cr uel torture upon his own brother. B olesław’s use of the p unishment of blinding against his close r elative, a me mber o f t he s ame d ynasty, g ave t his a ction a n ew meaning very diff erent from the one applicable to the acts of blinding

77 78

See: footnote 18. See: Chapter Three.

oath 155 rebellious magnates. It meant violation of the rule of kin solidarity and undermined the images of the sacred character of the dynasty. Hence it hit the basis of the public order and damaged the foundations on which the entire edifice of the Piast monarchy rested. Only the duke’s repentance of his guilt in an act of public penance could solve this situation. One shou ld, ho wever, b e ve ry c autious i n looking for ana logies between the actions undertaken by Louis the Pious, after he had blinded Bernard, and the penance of Bolesław Wrymouth. One must remember that Louis’ penance was only indirectly connected with the fact of his blinding Bernard. Through the ritual of penance the emperor wanted to apologize to God not so much for blinding Bernard as f or the death it had caused. It was no t B ernard’s loss o f sig ht b ut his dea th in co nsequence of the torture that required penance and redress.79 None of the other Carolingian rulers felt the necessity to repent the mere blinding of their e ven c losest r elatives. Neither Cha rles the B ald w ho b linded his own s on, nor Charles the F at w ho blinded his nep hew, p erceived this deed as sin and crime. Hence they did not consider it necessary to repent by undertaking the ritual of penance. Cosmas s ays nothing about the fa te of Zbigniew after he had b een blinded b y B olesław. H owever, i t is e vident f rom G allus’ t ext t hat Zbigniew managed to survive the torture. Relating the successive stages of B olesław’s p enance, the c hronicler p oints o ut c learly that the d uke compensated the older brother, received his forgiveness and was reconciled with h im.80 Hence, reading the acco unt of C osmas according to the author’s intentions, one should assume that Bolesław’s crime which he had to repent consisted in blinding his own brother. Such interpretation, ho wever, is no t en tirely co nvincing. As i t was s aid e arlier, the Přemyslids, too, sometimes settled disputes between members of their dynasty by blinding their adversaries. But there is no indication that the

79 Thegani Gesta Hludovici imperatoris 23, ed. Ernst Tremp, MGH SSrG, 64 (Hanover, 1995), p. 212: “Tercio die p ost amissionem luminum B ernhardus obiit. Quo d audiens imperator, ma gno c um do lore fl evit multis temporibus, et co nfessionem de dit co ram omnibus episcopis suis, et iudicio eorum pęnitentiam suscepit propter hoc tantum, quia non prohibuit consiliariis suis hanc debilitatem agere”. 80 Galli Anonymi Cronicae III.25, p. 158: “Et quod maius hiis omnibus et precipuum in penitentia reputatur, auctoritate dominica fratri suo satisfaciens, concessa venia concordatur”; The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles III.25, p. 275: “And what is regarded as greater than all this and most essential in penance, he offered satisfaction to his brother by lordly authority, and once pardon was given he was reconciled”.

156

ch apter fo ur

blinding o f J aromir b y his b rother Oldřich o r S oběslav I ’s blindin g his nephew B řetislav w ould ha ve ca used a ny p olitical u pheaval a nd condemnation of the p erpetrators of thes e tortures. Also in the 12thcentury Hungary or Scandinavia dynastic conflicts between the closest members of the family were solved in a similar way. In such family disputes the p unishment of b linding s eems t o ha ve p layed the r ole o f a very useful tool of eliminating a rival to the throne who at the same time was a c lose r elative. It allowed the ex clusion o f r elatives asp iring t o a share in monarchic power in a more effective way than exile or imprisonment, b ut w ithout t he n ecessity o f u sing m ore r adical a nd m orally reprehensible means. On the other hand, however, this “family” argumentation present in Cosmas’ acco unt ca nnot be entirely dismiss ed. C ertainly, as w e co uld see, e ven in the 12th cen tury, in extrao rdinary si tuations, the Cze ch, Hungarian or Scandinavian rulers did not refrain from using the punishment o f blindin g w hen fi ghting for p ower w ith their brot hers or cousins claiming pretensions to the thr one. These acts, no do ubt, were deeply r ooted in t he r ules o f p olitical s truggle r einforced b y c ustoms and tradition. Nevertheless, it does not mean that the act of blinding relatives p retending to the thr one was a no rm o f p olitical ac tion in the 12th-century Central and North European monarchies. Much more frequently the banishment of the rival to the throne or his imprisonment was preferred. More radical solutions usually took on the form of extralegal actions. The permanent elimination of the rival from the political scene was usually achieved through death on the battlefield or treacherous m urder.81 The o pen us e o f violence, e ven sub ject to p rocedures stemming from political practice, against closest relatives was very rare, limited to exceptional situations. Violence against relatives, albeit legally and politically justified, had always raised serious moral doubts. The story about the blinding of duke Vasilko of Terebovl included in the Russian P rimary C hronicle a nd almost co ntemporary wi th the events described provides one more evidence that the punishment of blinding used as means of repression against relatives could meet with condemnation and lead to political tensions.82

See: Wolverton, Hastening Toward Prague, p. 200 ff. See: Mik hail D. P riselkov, Istorija r usskoga l etopisanija XI-XV v v. ( S. P etersburg, 1996), pp. 283–289. 81 82

oath 157 In 1097, shortly after the assembly in Lyubech where peace was made between the Ruthenian dukes, duke David of Vladimir[Volÿnsk] started to accuse Vasilko of ill intentions before the ruler of Kiev Svyatopolk. Vasilko who had already been charged with sending in 1086 an assassin to kill Svyatopolk’s brother Laropolk, was now rumoured to be preparing in col lusion wi th d uke Vladimir M onomakh of P ereyaslav a n armed attack against Svyatopolk and D avid w ith t he purpose of s eizing t heir capitals – K iev and Vladimir [Volÿnsk]. Svyatopolk b elieved in this – as the author of the story maintains – slander and, availing himself of the opportunity of Vasilko’s visit in Kiev, invited him to a feast (where David was present, too) and then im prisoned. The boyars summoned on the following d ay by Svyatopolk pron ounced t hat should D avid’s a ccusations be true, Vasilko was to be punished. David persuaded Svyatopolk that in this situation Vasilko should be blinded. The torture completed, Svyatopolk handed Vasilko over to David who imprisoned him in one of his strongholds. The blinding of Vasilko caused a big commotion. “Such a crime as this has never been perpetrated in Rus’ in the time of either our grandfathers or our fathers” – was to say Vladimir Monomakh upon hearing the news about Vasilko’s mutilation. “Such a thing never before happened in our family” – e choed the p rinces o f Chernig ov. Ou traged a t S vyatopolk’s conduct, they combined forces and set off to attack Kiev and only the mediation of the archbishop of Kiev and the widow of the former duke of Kiev Vsevolod made it possible to reach agreement. Svyatopolk shifted the blame for blinding Vasilko on to David and promised to organize an expedition against him and to remove him from the principality. In the end, D avid, w ho had als o s ought to dis avow a ny r esponsibility f or Vasilko’s torture and in turn tried to put the blame on Svyatopolk, was forced to renounce his power.83 The story about Vasilko clearly indicates that the act of blinding a relative, a member of the ducal family constituted a stark violation of the rules o f p olitical co ntest valid in the R urik d ynasty. Svyatopolk’s s entence had all the hallmarks of legality. It was pronounced after consultation with the Kiev elders and boyars who gave the duke – in case David’s

83 Povest’ vremennych let, ed. Dmitrij S. Lichačev, 1 (Moscow, 1950), pp. 170–178; For the English translation, see: The Russian Primary Chronicle, trans. and ed. Samuel Hazard Cross, Olgerd P. Sherbowitz-Wetzor (Cambridge Mass., 1953), pp. 187–193.

158

ch apter fo ur

accusations were true – the right to punish Vasilko. Nevertheless, in the Russian Primary Chronicle it is shown as an act of open violence, rare cruelty and violation of all rules determining the character of relations between the Ruthenian dukes. The outrage caused by Vasilko’s blinding resembles the harsh expressions Gallus used when describing Bolesław Wrymouth’s action against Zbigniew. It would imply that in Poland, much the same as in Rus’, the act of blinding a member of the ruling family could be perceived in terms o f c rime, o ffence a nd e vil w hich r equired to b e exp iated. David, acknowledged as the ma in perpetrator of Vasilko’s mutilation, was ask ed t o do p enance b y Vasilko’s b rother d uke Volodar o f Peremÿshl’ [ Przemyśl].84 Thus als o the p enance o f B olesław co uld have been a n attempt at r elieving the t ensions caused b y Zb igniew’s torture, un precedented in the histo ry o f the p ast d ynastic disp utes in the Piast family, and at restoring internal order and peace through their reconciliation. The acco unt o f blindin g Vasilko in the Russian P rimary C hronicle, however, has to b e t reated wi th caution. Its a uthor do es no t hide his sympathies. Admittedly, he does not conceal Vasilko’s misdeeds; he criticizes especially Vasilko’s taking bloody revenge on David’s counsellors guilty o f his blindin g. N evertheless, his a ttitude t oward the e vents he describes does not raise any doubts.85 Vasilko is the inno cent victim of David’s scheming. In his presentation of events Svyatopolk plays only a secondary role in Vasilko’s torture. In fact, Svyatopolk, too, can be seen as a victim of David who by deceit forces him to act against the duke of Terebovl. F or the a uthor o f this st ory the ac t o f b linding Vasilko is a crime unheard-of for which David is duly punished in the end by losing his principality. Vasilko’s torture was in fact the first instance of the use of the punishment of blinding in case of a duke in Rus’ . Clearly, it does not mean that the brotherly or filial love were virtues particularly cultivated among the members of the Rurik dynasty. The relations within the princely family were far from p eaceful and harmonious. In their strife for p ower and territories the Ruthenian princes had no s cruples, not even in case of

84 85

Povest’ vremennych let, 1, pp. 176–177; The Russian Primary Chronicle, pp. 193–194. S ee: Povest’ vremennych let, 2, pp. 458–459.

oath 159 their closest relatives. Banishment or imprisonment, often long-standing, of the defeated dukes by their vic torious rivals was a no rm of political life in 11th- a nd 12th-century Rus’. From time t o time the d ukes lost their lives fighting with their cousins or were killed in an assassination. Vasilko hims elf, as we r emember, was susp ected o f ha ving c ommissioned, in collusion with his brothers, the murder of Svyatopolk’s brother Laropolk.86 In this sense, the blinding of Vasilko, although unprecedented in the earlier dynastic conflicts in Rus’, does not seem essentially different from the methods of political struggle hitherto used by the Rurik family members. Meanwhile, in the Russian Primary Chronicle, it was shown to st and in sha rp co ntradiction t o the r ules o f p olitical ga me b inding the Ruthenian d ukes. I t s eems, ho wever, tha t the tr uth a bout the e vents which took place in 1097 in Kiev was much more complex than it is presented in th is t ext. I n the Chronicle the role of the villain, guilty of Vasilko’s t ragedy, i s p layed b y duke D avid o f Vladimir [ Volÿnsk]. Svyatopolk’s part in this ac t was obs cured and all b lame put on David. Upon hearing the news o f Vasilko’s mutilation, Vladimir M onomakh and the dukes of Chernigov set off an expedition to Kiev but they soon reached a n a greement wi th S vyatopolk a nd co ncluded a p eace tr eaty. David was acknowledged as the ma in perpetrator of Vasilko’s blinding whereas Svyatopolk took on the task of punishing him and before long banished him from Vladimir [Volÿnsk]. Ultimately, at the assembly in 1100 in Uvetichi, Svyatopolk along with Vladimir Monomakh and the Chernigov dukes formally deprived David, as the perpetrator of a crime unprecedented in Rus’, of his p rincipality, agreeing at the same time to hand him over new, albeit much smaller domains.87 One ca n assume , however, that the e valuation of the cir cumstances of b linding Vasilko presented i n t he t ext preserved i n t he Russian P rimary C hronicle was only one of the interpretations of the real meaning of those events. Some traces o f a nother wa y o f lo oking a t them, p lacing the em phasis els ewhere and differently weighing the responsibility of the dukes involved one can see even in the story about the torture of the duke of Terebovl transmitted by the same chronicle.

86 87

Povest’ vremennych let, 1, p. 171; The Russian Primary Chronicle, p. 188. Povest’ vremennych let, 1, p. 181; The Russian Primary Chronicle, p. 198.

160

ch apter fo ur

As we remember, Vasilko’s blinding occurred shortly after the assembly in Lyubech where the Ruthenian dukes signed a pact putting an end to the long-standing civil war.88 The agreement reached there was reinforced by an oath sworn on the cross. According to the custom accepted in R us’, d uring the sw earing-in cer emony, the d ukes ass embled in Lyubech kissed the cross, pledging to rise up jointly against anyone who should try to break the agreement.89 In this context the act of blinding Vasilko committed by Svyatopolk and David who had both been present in Lyubech gains new, additional meanings. Vasilko was ca ptured during a f east at Svyatopolk’s court w here he had been invited by the duke of Kiev. In spite of rumours about a plot being prepared by Svyatopolk and David, Vasilko decided to accept the invitation and appear at the court, trustful of the oath taken only a few months b efore. S oon it turned out, ho wever, t hat Vasilko w as to p ay dearly for his tr ust in the s anctity and inviolability of the r ecent vows. His b eing ca ptured and blinde d ther efore me ant tha t Svyatopolk a nd David had no t o nly vio lated the no rms det ermining the m utual r elations b etween the mem bers o f the R urik fa mily b ut had als o b roken their oath. It was no t only an ac t of unprecedented cr uelty but als o a sacrilege. Moreover, it was not only directed against Vasilko who suffered the t errible torture but also against God who had b een called to witness the oath taken by Vasilko’s torturers. It seems that this is how Vasilko’s closest circle of supporters understood the meaning of events which had occurred in 1097 in Kiev. For Vasilko David and Svyatopolk were equally guilty of his tra gedy. Both were equally responsible not only for blinding the duke of Terebovl but also for breaking the oath. We may assume that it was this act of perjury accompanying t he t orture o f Vasilko t hat made i t into a f ull-fledged crime des erving to b e co ndemned. The co nviction that the crim inal character of David’s and Svyatopolk’s actions was determined to a great extent by the perjury is detectable especially clearly in another account

88 See: Aleksandr E. Presnjakov, Knjažoje pravo v drevnej Rusi. Očerki po istorii X-XII stoletij (Moscow, 1993), p. 51 ff. Petro P. Toločko, “Ljubeckij z’ïzd knjaziv,” in Ljubeckij z’ïzd knjaziv 1097 roku w istoričnij doli Kiïvskoi Rusi. Materiali Miždarodnoj naukovoi konferenciï p risvjačenoï 900-l ittju z ’ïzdu k njaziv K iïvskoi R usi w L jubeči, e d. P etro P. Toločko (Černigiv, 1997), pp. 9–13. 89 Povest’ vremennych let, 1, pp. 170–171; The Russian Primary Chronicle, pp. 187–188; see: Vladimir M. Rička, “Politična etika i kultura mižknjazïvskiv vzaemin na Rusi i vimlivi religijnoï tradicï chrestociluvanija,” in Ljubeckij z’ïzd knjaziv 1097 roku, pp. 35–37.

oath 161 preserved in the Russian Primary Chronicle regarding later struggles of Vasilko with the duke of Kiev. In 1099, S vyatopolk, f ulfilling his p romise g iven to Vladimir Monomakh and the dukes of Chernigov, organized an expedition against his former accomplice in blinding Vasilko, duke David of Vladimir [Volÿnsk]. H owever, ha ving o ccupied Vladimir [Volÿnsk] a nd dri ven away David, the duke of Kiev turned his actions against the victim of his and David’s assault, Vasilko. Upon hearing the news of Svyatopolk’s army advancing,Vasilko and his brother duke Volodar of Peremÿshl’ [Przemyśl] went to meet him, taking along the cross which they had kissed earlier together with the duke of Kiev, swearing peace and friendship. The two armies met o n t he Rozhne pla in. B efore t he b attle, Vasilko ra ised t he cross and spoke to Svyatopolk: “Here is the cross upon which you swore. First you stole the sight of my eyes and now you desire to take my life as well. May this cross be between us.” As the chronicler writes invoking the testimony of eye-witnesses, during the battle, indeed, a cross hung in the sky high above Vasilko’s army. In this situation the outcome of the battle could not raise any doubts. The army of Svyatopolk suffered a devastating defeat and the duke himself had to flee.90 God punished the perjurer and gave victory to Vasilko who fought for a good cause. The role Svyatopolk’s perjury plays in the text written by the author of Vasilko’s st ory dra ws o ur a ttention, a gain, t o the acco unt o f C osmas dedicated t o the cir cumstances o f B olesław Wrymouth’s co nflict with Zbigniew. As w e r emember, in the Cze ch c hronicle i t is wri tten tha t Bolesław deceitfully summoned his b rother under the oa th of fi delity, and then, on the third day had him blinded. According to Cosmas, then, Zbigniew’s tragedy, just like the blinding of Vasilko, had been preceded by an act of perjury. This motif of Bolesław’s deceitful oath in Cosmas’ text is worthy of attention. The information on the Polish ruler’s perjury transmitted by the Prague canon seems to be trustworthy. Its inclusion in the text of the Chronicle was motivated neither by Cosmas’ bias against Bolesław nor by reasons of composition. On the contrary, at first glance it even seems to disturb the coherence of the chronicler’s text. Let us recall: Cosmas places the information on Bolesław’s actions against Zbigniew within the co ntext of his

90

Povest’ vremennych let, 1, pp. 178–179; The Russian Primary Chronicle, pp. 195–196.

162

ch apter fo ur

account of the Czech duke Vladislav I capturing duke Otto II of Olomouc. The conflict between Bolesław and Zbigniew is mentioned by Vladislav as an example of a deplorable act. Saying this, Vladislav rejects his counsellors’ advices to blind Ot to. His indignation at the fac t that Bolesław had blinded his own brother is explained by the story of the conflict between the Cze ch d uke a nd Ot to. The B olesław’s cr uelty i s c ontrasted w ith Vladislav’s restraint. However, Cosmas’ decision to incl ude in Vladislav’s speech also the charge of perjury brought against Bolesław can be surprising. It does not follow from the e vents he des cribes and becomes absolutely incomprehensible when placed in their context, as the imprisonment of Otto by Vladislav was al so caused by an act of perjury - breaking the oath s worn to t he du ke of O lomouc on ly t hree m onths b efore. At t hat time, during an assembly, Vladislav and Otto signed a pact which was to end all their past quarrels. The agreement was reinforced by oaths sworn to e ach ot her b y b oth d ukes.91 M eanwhile, a s s oon a s t hey m et a gain, Vladislav, heedless of the oath binding him, ordered to imprison Otto. It is therefore not clear w hat the p urpose of bringing the c harge of p erjury against Bolesław was, since it could indirectly remind the readers of breaking the oath by Vladislav, as well. All things considered, it seems very plausible that indeed, as Cosmas describes it, Bolesław had in reality sworn an oath of fidelity to Zbigniew before blinding him. Only the expression Cosmas employs to designate the oath Bolesław deceitfully swore to Zbigniew – fidei sacramentum92 – may give rise to some objections, as similar terms appear in his text with reference to oaths tha t Cze ch ma gnates sw ore t o d ukes o r ob ligations the lo cal princes had towards the ruler of Prague.93 It is difficult to imagine that also Bolesław would have sworn to Zbigniew an oath of fidelity understood in terms of his submitting to the command of his older brother and obedience towards him. One should keep in mind, however, that the n otions o f fides or fidelitas w ere u sed f or a v ery w ide r ange o f relations – from blood ties through friendship or vassalage to submission

Cosmae Pragensis Chronica III.33, pp. 203–204. Cosmae Pragensis Chronica III.34, p. 205. 93 S ee: Cosmae Pragensis Chronica II.34, p. 86; II.13, p. 102; II.22, p. 114; II.23, p. 116; III.21, p. 187; III.22, p. 189. 91 92

oath 163 to monarchic power.94 The obligation to remain faithful was a constant element of agreements made to co nclude disputes, restore peace and transform the former enmity between partners into friendship.95 By accepting the ob ligation o f r emaining fa ithful t o o ne a nother, the y manifested their in tention to en sure st ability to the p act the y had signed and willingness to cooperate in the future or at least to refrain from acting to t he detriment of the partner. In this way one can also evaluate the oath sworn to Zbigniew b y Bolesław – as described in Cosmas’ account. It aimed at strengthening their p act, guaranteed its stability a nd f ormed a s olid basis f or r estoring p eaceful a nd tr uly brotherly relations between them. The dep iction o f e vents acco mpanying Zb igniew’s t orture in the account of Cosmas differs fundamentally from the one presented in

94 See f or exa mple: F rantišek G raus, “Über die s ogenannte g ermanische T reue,” Historica 1 (1959), 71–121; G erd Althoff, Verwandte, Freunde und G etreue. Zum politischen S tellenwert der G ruppenbindungen i m f rüheren M ittelalter (D armstadt, 1990); Matthias B echer, Eid u nd H errschaft. U ntersuchungen zu m H errscherethos K arls de s Großen (Sigmaringen, 1993); Heinrich Fichtenau, Lebensordnungen des 10. Jahrhunderts. Studien über Denkart und Existenz im einstigen Karolingerreich (Munich, 1994), p. 209 ff; Stephen D. White, “Politics of Fidelity: Hugh of Lusignan and William of Aquitain,” in Georges D uby. L’écriture de l ’Histoire, e ds. Cla udie Duha mel-Amado, G uy L obrichon (Brussels, 1996), pp. 223–230; Fredric L. Cheyette, Ermengard of Narbonne and the World of Troubadours (Ithaca-London, 2001), p. 187 ff; Fredric L. Cheyette, “Some Refl ections on Violence, Reconciliation, and the ‘Feudal Revolution’,” in Conflicts in Medieval Europe. Changing P erspectives o n S ociety a nd C ulture, eds. Warren C. Brown, Piotr Górecki (Aldershot, 2003), pp. 243–264. 95 See f or exa mple: Walter H einemeyer, “Studien zur Di plomatik mi ttelalterlicher Verträge vornehmlich des 13. Jahrhunderts,” Archiv für Urkundenforschung 14 (1936), 321– 413; Wolfgang Fritze, “Die fränkische Schwurfreundschaft der Merowingerzeit. Ihr Wesen und ihre politische Funktion,” Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte Ger. Abt. 71 (1954), 74–125; Reinhard Schneider, Brüdergemeine u nd S chwurfreundschaft. Der Auflösungsprozeß des Karolingerreiches im Spiegel der Caritas-Terminologie in den Verträgen der k arlingischen Teilkönige de s 9. Jahrhunderts (Lübeck, 1964); Ruth S chmidt-Wiegand, “Eid und Gelöbnis im mittelalterlichen Recht,” in Recht und Schrift im Mittelalter, Vorträge und Forschungen 23, ed. Peter Classen (Sigmaringen, 1977), pp. 15–90; Stephen D. White, “Feuding and Peace-Making in the T ourraine around the Year 1100,” Traditio 42 (1986), 195–265; Ingrid Voss, Herrschertreffen im frühen und hohen Mittelalter. Untersuchungen zu den Begegnungen der ostfränkischen und westfränkischen Herrscher im 9. und 10. Jahrhundert sowie der deutschen und französischen Könige vom 11. bis 13. Jahrhundert (Cologne, 1987), p. 192 ff; Patrick J. Geary, “Living with Conflicts in Stateless France: A Typology of Conflict Management M echanism, 1050–1200,” in Living w ith D ead i n t he M iddle Ages (I thacaLondon, 1994), p. 145 ff; Adam Kosto, Making Agreements in Medieval C atalonia: Power, Order and the Written Word (C ambridge, 2001); K laus va n Eic kels, Von i nszenierten Konsens zum systematisierten Konflikt. Die englisch-französischen Beziehungen und ihre Wahrnehmung an der Wende vom Hoch- zum Spätmittelalter (Stuttgart, 2002), p. 297 ff.

164

ch apter fo ur

Gallus’ chronicle. Gallus argues that Bolesław’s permission for Zbigniew’s return was a sign o f his extrao rdinary g enerosity. I n response t o his brother’s h umble r equests, t he d uke d ecided t o f orgive h im a nd c all him back from exile. Cosmas’ remarks about the oath of fidelity sworn by B olesław t o Zbigniew, o n the o ther ha nd, c learly indica te tha t the return of Zbigniew was not the result of Bolesław’s mercy but the outcome o f nego tiations w hich defi ned t he co nditions o f r econciliation between the quarrelling dukes, and were sworn by Bolesław and certainly by Zbigniew, too. We ma y o nly speculate a bout the r ulings o f the p eace a greement allowing Zbigniew to return home. From Gallus’ text we infer that after the failure of the German king Henry V’s expedition against Poland in 1109 Zbigniew found shelter in B ohemia, staying most probably at the court of duke Vladislav I. His knights together with the Cze chs raided Silesia96 and he himself fought on Vladislav’s side against Bolesław during the latter’s expedition against Bohemia.97 At the same time the pretenders to the Czech throne, Vladislav’s brothers, Bořivoj and Soběslav stayed at the co urt of the Polish duke. In addition, acting in S oběslav’s interests, B olesław under took the a bovementioned exp edition against Bohemia in 1110, demanding from Vladislav a separate principality for Soběslav. It is interesting to no te tha t according to Gal lus’ acco unt o f these events, in response to Bolesław’s demand for Vladislav to receive back Soběslav, the Cze ch duke demanded that also Zbigniew be given Bolesław’s permission to r eturn to Poland.98 This s ort of p arallelism between the fates of Soběslav and Zbigniew, indicated by the chronicler, allows us to evaluate in a similar way the circumstances of the return of the two exiled dukes to their home countries in 1111. According to Cosmas’ account, Vladislav, yielding to the r equests of his mo ther S vatava a nd p ersuasions o f the most p owerful ma gnates, eventually agreed to let his younger brother return to Bohemia and allot

96 Galli Anonymi Cronicae III.19, pp. 144–145; The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles III.19, p. 253. 97 Galli Anonymi Cronicae III.23, p. 153; The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles III.23, p. 269. 98 Galli Anonymi Cronicae III.23, pp. 147–148; The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles III.21, p. 257.

oath 165 him an independent duchy.99 The same events are presented somewhat differently by Gallus who, again, notes the peculiar connection between the stories of Zbigniew and S oběslav. In his version, as w e remember, upon hea ring tha t B olesław had f orced the Cze ch d uke t o r eceive Soběslav a nd gra nt him a sha re o f the pa trimony, Zb igniew h umbly asked his y ounger brother to follow Vladislav’s example and give him, too, some small part of their paternal inheritance.100 Thus from Gallus’ account it follows that S oběslav’s return to B ohemia was the r esult of Bolesław’s pressure on the Czech duke. The two chroniclers differ also in describing the circumstances of Zbigniew’s return to Poland. In Gallus’ text w e r ead a bout a n act o f mer cy o f B olesław t owards his h umble brother, whereas Cosmas writes about Zbigniew having been deceitfully called back by the Polish duke. In any case, from both, on one hand contradictory, o n the o ther ha nd co mplementary acco unts w e ma y inf er that shortly after Bolesław’s campaign against Bohemia in 1110, the two dukes, Polish and Cze ch, entered into negotiations w hich det ermined the f ate of Z bigniew and S oběslav. Presumably t he dukes o bliged one another to recall their brothers from exile and give over separate duchies to them.101 The incursion into Bohemia, in spite of defeating Vladislav’s troops in the ba ttle o f T rutina ri ver a nd t aking val uable b ooty, did no t s olve Bolesław’s problems. His adversary, Vladislav, retained the thr one and Zbigniew still lived at his court. In this situation, Bolesław could have felt compelled to seek agreement with the Cze ch duke and a co mpromise to end the conflict. If Cosmas’ account on Bolesław’s deceitful summoning o f Zb igniew is t o be b elieved, w e lea rn tha t the P olish d uke intended the ag reement with Vladislav obliging b oth r ulers to receive back their exiled brothers to serve also as a solution of his conflict with Zbigniew, allowing him to defi nitively deprive his brother of any future

Cosmae Pragensis Chronica III.37, p. 209. Galli Anonymi Cronicae III.25, pp. 154; The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles III.25, p. 271. Cosmas, on the other hand, connects Bolesław Wrymouth’s requests only with the later decision of Vladislav I to allow Soběslav to again return to the country in 1115 and to grant him o nce more a s eparate principality. See: Cosmae Pragensis Chronica III.41, pp. 213–214. 101 See: Karol Maleczyński, Bolesław III Krzywousty (Wrocław, 1975), p. 71. 99

100

166

ch apter fo ur

pretences to the throne. Indirectly, even Gallus’ text implies an a greement guaranteeing Zbigniew that he would return to his home country not as an exile humbly asking for mercy, but a duke taking possession of his due part of paternal inheritance. This is how we should understand the account of the mo narchic entry of Zbigniew returning from exile. Zbigniew’s advent is a real adventus regis, entry of a duke who comes to assume mo narchic p ower. Rega rdless o f t he interpretative p rocedures Gallus applies in his chronicle to describe the celebrations accompanying Zbigniew’s arrival, it is diffi cult to cast doubt on his adherence to facts. One may assume that Zbigniew indeed returned from his banishment not as a r epentant outcast but as a d uke, with ceremony due to a ruler. However, Zbigniew’s use of the models of ceremonial behaviour characteristic of monarchic advents cannot be explained, as Gallus does, exclusively by his excessive pride and self-righteousness. The monarchic entry of Zbigniew must have had some justification in the agreement he had negotiated earlier with Bolesław which guaranteed him – as we may presume – a sha re in d ucal p ower. The oa th o f fi delity, men tioned in Cosmas’ chronicle, sworn to Zbigniew by Bolesław, certainly served to reinforce this p act. The misf ortune Zb igniew suff ered sho rtly a fter returning to the country thus meant that Bolesław broke the agreement and betrayed the oath he had ceremoniously sworn to his brother. Hence at the roots of Zbigniew’s tragedy there stood an act of perjury committed by Bolesław. Connecting Zbigniew’s blinding with Bolesław’s perjury makes it easier to under stand the c hronicler’s w ords a bout the d uke’s sin, his o ffence and crime. Perjury was considered a grave sin, an offence against the second co mmandment, b ecause oa th had a r eligious, s acred c haracter. Swearing an oath meant summoning God as a witness and guarantor of the obligations and statements it contained.102 The religious dimension of the oath was reflected also in the form of its taking. The oaths were often sworn in churches at the altar. In the Western tradition of the early and high Middle Ages the sacred meaning of the oath was usually manifested in the use of relics or, less frequently, the Gospels. In the area influenced by Eastern Church this role was usually assumed by the cross.103 In the

See: L othar K olmer, Promissorische Eide im M ittelalter (K allmünz, 1989); J ean Gaudement, “Le serment dans le droit canonique médievale,” in Le Serment, 2, Théories et devenir, ed. Raymond Verdier (Paris, 1991), pp. 63–75. 103 K olmer, Promissorische Eide, p. 233 ff. 102

oath 167 earlier Midd le Ages no disti nction was made b etween the p erjury in the true sense of the word, which occurred while taking an oath asserting something (iuramentum a ssertorium) when the assertion was at variance with the will, and the breaking of an oath promising something (iuramentum promissum) when the p erson taking an oath did not fulfil the promise he had made. Both offences were defined jointly as perjury (periurium) and same sanctions were imposed on them.104 Perjury co nsidered a g rave sin, usua lly co mmitted in p ublic a nd therefore fal ling in to the ca tegory o f o ffence described as scandalum, required to be expiated through an act of public penance. From the regulations included in p enitentials and C hurch statutes there emerges a rather homogeneous picture of the penalties imposed on those guilty of perjury. Depending on the circumstances in which they committed the sin, their motives, objects they used to take the false oath, as well as their social status and the rank of persons affected by the perjury, the length of the penance ranged from one to eleven years. Sometimes, in exceptional cases, the guilty of perjury were also excommunicated.105 It is difficult to decide to what extent the solutions proposed in penitentials and synodal recommendations found application in the penitential practice of the earlier Middle Ages. At any case, the Church tradition provided solid grounds for the conviction that it was necessary to expiate the sin of perjury through a ritual of public penance and that it was possible to excommunicate t hose w ho co mmitted i t. I t was a lso r eflected in the tradition developed in relation to the penance of emperor Otto III in 998. We have already dedicated some attention to Otto’s penance in the previous chapter. In this place it is therefore enough to recall the fact that according to the s ources, the p urpose of this p enance was p recisely to atone for the emperor’s sin of perjury.106 Almost two centuries later, Czech duke Soběslav II was co mpelled to undertake similar ac tions. In 1173, shortly after a ssuming du cal p ower, Soběslav captured the castellan Conrad Sturm who earlier, on the orders of the king Vladislav II, had kept him prisoner for many years at the castle

See: Stanisław Bieniek, “Z dziejów pokuty publicznej w Polsce wczesnofeudalnej,” Czasopismo Prawno-Historyczne 18 (1966), 24; Gaudement, “Le serment,” p. 67. 105 K olmer, Promissorische Eide, p. 319 ff; Gaudement, “Le serment,” p. 66 ff. 106 See: Chapter Three. 104

168

ch apter fo ur

of P řimda. C onrad was t aken t o P rague w here his ha nds w ere c ut o ff. In consequence of this cruel torture the castellan died. Soon after that, in order to expiate his deed, Soběslav “publice […] poenituit et nudatus pedes lanei indutus carenam exegit”.107 As far as one can gather from the account of Gerlach of Milevsko describing those events, the public penance of the Czech duke was meant to atone not so much for the bloody confrontation with Conrad Sturm, as in the fi rst place for the act of perjury which had preceded it. Ordering to capture the castellan, Soběslav broke his oath in which he had promised Conrad to show mercy and guarantee him safety. The perjury which allowed the duke to imprison Conrad and take a cruel revenge gave his deed the character of a sin requiring him to undertake public penance. We may ask, therefore, whether the penance of Bolesław Wrymouth – similarly to the cases of Otto III and Soběslav II discussed above – should also be connected with the fact of his committing perjury. The methods of p unishing p erjurers r ecommended b y e arly me dieval p enitential books and synodal decisions were taken over practically unchanged by the authors of canon law collections originating from the 11th century onwards – first b y B urchardt o f Worms a t the b eginning, a nd I vo o f Chartres a nd Anselm o f L ucca t owards the end o f the 11th cen tury, finally by Gratian around the year 1140.108 The pre sence of Tripartita attributed t o I vo o f C hartres in the K rakow and G niezno ca thedral libraries in the ea rly 12th cen tury109 leaves no do ubt that the accepted norms of dealing with those guilty of committing perjury were known also in the P olish C hurch. The circumstances accompanying the p enance of the palatine Peter Włostowic which took place most probably shortly after the year 1122 convince us that the regulations contained in the canon law collections not only were of interest to the Krakow and Gniezno canons, but also exerted considerable influence on the attitude of the contemporary Polish Church towards the sin of perjury and on its penitential practice in this respect.110

Annales Gerlaci Milovicensis, p. 467. K olmer, Promissorische Eide, p. 321 ff; Gaudement, “Le serment,” p. 57. 109 Witold Sawicki, Studia n ad wpływem p raw o bcych w da wnej P olsce ( Warsaw, 1971), pp. 77–127; Adam Vetulani, “Krakowska biblioteka w świetle swego inwentarza z r. 1100,” Slavia Antiqua 4 (1953), 169 ff; Adam Vetulani, Z badań nad kulturą prawniczą w Polsce piastowskiej (Wrocław, 1976), pp. 95 ff; Bieniek, “Z dziejów pokuty publicznej,” p. 12; M arian P lezia, “Księgozbiór ka tedry krak owskiej w edle in wentarza z r . 1100,” Silva rerum n. s. 1 (1981), 16–29. 110 See: Bieniek, “Z dziejów pokuty publicznej,” p. 21 ff. 107 108

oath 169 We fi nd information on Peter’s p enance in a st ory of the Translatio manus sancti Stephani included in the Chronicle of the Swabian monastery of Zwiefalten w ritten b y O rtlieb.111 The reliability o f this acco unt, almost co ntemporary wi th the e vents i t des cribes, a nd co nfirmed in broad outline by a later account of the Chronicle of Poles dated to the end of the 13th-century,112 should not raise serious doubts. The information about Peter found its way to the c hronicle of Zwiefalten Abbey in co nnection with the elaborate story of the visit of a delegation of Zwiefalten monks at the court of princess Salomea, widow of Bolesław Wrymouth. During their stay in P oland, wh ich took place most probably between 1140 and 1141, the y obtained the r elic of the ha nd of St Stephen. The information c oncerning P eter w as p robably r ecorded i n t he c hronicle shortly after t his visi t.113 We ma y ther efore assume tha t i t r eflects the memory of events taking place some twenty years earlier, preserved at the court of the princess. Clearly, it cannot be excluded that the story of Peter’s deeds heard by Zwiefalten monks at the court of Salomea transmitted a tradition already distorted to a certain extent by the flow of time or subjected to the changing interpretation determined by the current political interests of their informers. The image of Peter Włostowic preserved in t he Zwiefalten chronicle leaves no do ubt that the monk who wrote down his story had drawn his knowledge from persons having a very n egative attitude towards th e palatine. Peter i s presented th ere a s “ditissimus Boloniorum princeps”,114 but at the s ame time as a fa ithless traitor greedy for wealth, a villain ready to commit the worst crime only to gain fortune. The depiction of Peter in Translatio manus sancti Stephani was certainly influenced by the prejudices of Salomea’s court against the powerful palatine who, opposing her sons turning against their older step brother d uke Władysław II, a t th at ti me s till d ecidedly s upported th e senior of the dynasty.115 It seems, however, that the conflict between the sons o f B olesław Wrymouth, exacerba ted in the ea rly 1140s, al though

111 Ortliebi de fundatione Monasterii Zwivildensis libri II, ed. Otto Abel, MHG SS, 10 (Hannover, 1852), pp. 90–92. 112 Chronica Polonorum, p. 631. 113 See: Szymo n Wieczorek, “Zwiefalten i P olska w p ierwszej p ołowie XII w .,” Kwartalnik Historyczny 103 (1996), 42 ff. 114 Ortliebi de fundatione Monasterii Zwivildensis libri II , p. 91. 115 See: Janusz Bieniak, “Polska elita polityczna XII wieku (część III B. Arbitrzy książąt – trudne p oczątki),” in Społeczeństwo P olski ś redniowiecznej, e d. S tefan K. K uczyński, 7 (Warsaw, 1996), p. 15 ff.

170

ch apter fo ur

left a visible mark on the text of Translatio, did not seriously distort the story of the deeds of Peter Włostowic conveyed to the Zwiefalten monks. It could have shifted the emphasis in the evaluation of the palatine’s conduct but it is no t very plausible to suppose that it als o distorted the fac tual basis of the narrative. In the acco unt o f t he Z wiefalten mo nks’ delega tion to P oland a n important place is dedicated to the story about the treacherous abduction of the R uthenian d uke Volodar o f P eremÿshl’ [P rzemyśl] b y P eter Włostowic. These events were particularly important for the author of the chronicle because in their consequence the monastery in Zwiefalten got hold of a very precious relic, the hand of the first martyr St Stephen. Peter had to atone for his deed in an act of penance and give away all his wrongly accumulated riches. The palatine, therefore, donated his wealth to provide for widows, orphans, sick and pilgrims, and to found more than 70 churches. In the end, when he ran short of material means needed to continue penance, he gave over the hand relic of St Stephen he possessed to duke Bolesław Wrymouth in ex change for a la rge estate which he then donated to the monastery in Wrocław. Ultimately, princess Salomea gave the valuable relic to the Zwiefalten monks visiting Poland.116 The motif of the treacherous abduction of duke Volodar, crucial for the account of Peter’s penance in the Zwiefalten chronicle, is confirmed also by other sources which are not only free of the prejudices towards the palatine noticeable in the narrative of the monk of Zwiefalten, but even favour him to some extent. We find an elaborate description of the abduction of the Ruthenian d uke b y P eter in the Life o f S t O tto wri tten b y H erbord o f Michaelsberg most probably in the late 1150s that is not much later than the chronicle of Zwiefalten.117 Also the Chronicle of Vincent Kadłubek mentions the treacherous abduction of Volodar.118 All these texts, regardless of some differences in details, in a similar way describe Peter’s working against the duke of Peremÿshl’ [Przemyśl]: the palatine presented himself as an exile fleeing the s everity of Bolesław Wrymouth and thus gained the trust and friendship of Volodar whom he then captured and abducted to Poland.119 Ortliebi de fundatione Monasterii Zwivildensis libri II, pp. 91–92. Herbordi Dialogus de vita s. Ottonis episcopi Babenbergensis II.4, eds. Jan Wikarjak, Kazimierz Liman, MPH n. s. vol. 7, part 3 (Warsaw, 1974), pp. 64–68. 118 Magistri Vincentii d icti Kadłubek Ch ronica Polonorum III.20, ed. Marian Plezia, MPH n. s. 11 (Krakow, 1994), pp. 107–110. 119 See: M arek C etwiński, “Podstępem cz y siłą? ‘Działania sp ecjalne’ i ic h mo ralna ocena w kronikach śląskich,” in Średniowiecze polskie i powszechne, eds. Idzi Panic, Jerzy Sperka, 2 (Katowice, 2002), pp. 138–166. 116 117

oath 171 Unlike the texts of Herbord and Kadłubek which transmit a tradition favourably inclined towards Peter, omitting his penance and presenting his de ed in a n a necdotal wa y, ess entially as a mili tary stra tagem, the chronicle of Zwiefalten, repeating opinions circulating at the court of Salomea, explicitly indicates the meanings connected with Peter’s deceit. Wanting to win Volodar’s confidence, Peter “fidem i usiurandi facerat” and “sein dominium ipsius tradiderat”. The special, personal bonds thus made between the Polish palatine and the duke of Peremÿshl’ [Przemyśl] were further strengthened and deepened by the ceremony of baptism of Volodar’s son in which Peter assumed the role of godfather.120 Presented in this way, the abduction of Volodar is no longer a praiseworthy military stratagem and intelligent trick – as argued by Herbord and K adłubek – b ut a t errible c rime d eserving s evere c ondemnation. Abducting Volodar, Peter committed the sin of perjury, broke the oath of fidelity he had ceremoniously sworn to the Ruthenian duke. What is more, he violated the bonds of spiritual kinship resulting from his presenting the duke’s son for baptism.121 In this way he twice betrayed God whom he called witness first during the false oath and then at the ceremony of baptism. As a matter of fact, Peter had alr eady committed a simila r faithlessness b efore – cl aims t he Zwiefalten Translatio m anus s ancti St ephani. Peter was sent to Rus’ by one of the “nobilissimorum Boloniae tyrannorum” with the task of bringing to Poland the daughter of a R uthenian duke whom this lord was to marry according to a contract signed earlier with her father. Instead, Peter himself took her as his wife and seized her rich dowry. No wonder, then, that “ob huiusmodi igitur et aliorum scelerum execrabiles nequicias a domno papa vel pontificibus terrae illius diu collectas iussus est pro Christo dispergere divicias”.122 Peter had to expiate his sins before God in an act of penance. The tradition regarding the p enance of palatine Peter Włostowic preserved at the court of princess Salomea and written down by the monk of Zwiefalten proves that in the political reality of the Piast monarchy in the

Ortliebi de fundatione Monasterii Zwivildensis libri II, p. 91. See: Joseph H. Lynch, Godparents and Kinship in Early Medieval Europe (Princeton, 1986); Bernhard J ussen, Patenschaft und Adoption im frühen Mittelalter. Künstliche Verwandschaft als soziale Praxis (Göttingen, 1991). 122 Ortliebi de fundatione Monasterii Zwivildensis libri II, p. 91. 120 121

172

ch apter fo ur

first half of the 12th century the act of perjury was perceived as a grave sin which had to be expiated through the rite of public penance, and a damnable offence violating the accepted norms of political conduct. The accounts of Herbord and Vincent Kadłubek show that the conviction of the sinful nature of Peter’s behaviour was not shared by everybody. The assessment of his conduct, no doubt, depended on the political sympathies of the chroniclers and their informers. Nevertheless, the fact that Peter undertook public penance after ha ving a bducted Volodar, as r ecorded in the Z wiefalten chronicle, clearly shows that not only his p olitical opponents had do ubts about the moral aspect of the palatine’s deed. The act of perjury, also in the sphere of political activity, was a serious offence which required the perpetrator to purify himself through the rite of public penance. Perjury, breaking the oath taken before God and the saints embodied in the relics, violated the order based on God’s law and undermined the stability and permanence of the p olitical relations w hich were to a la rge extent determined precisely b y the in violability a nd r eliability o f the oa ths acco mpanying political endeavours. In effect, breaking a solemnly taken oath exposed the perjurer to church sanctions and disturbed the political order. The dramatic events of 1146 which led to the end of the reign of duke Władysław II of Poland and forced him to leave the country seem to reinforce the assumption that perjury could have very serious political consequences. In this context the account o f the Magdeburg Annals describing the course of the last phase of the struggle between Władysław and his younger brothers deserves a special attention.123 We learn from the relation of the Magdeburg annalist that in 1146 Władysław came to the assembly in Kaina to win the support of the German king Conrad III for his plans to disinherit his brothers and seize power in the entire principality. Then he returned to Poland and laid siege to Poznań. His troops, however, we re d efeated by his you nger brot hers’ forc es. “Deinde f ratri colloquentes i ureiurando fi dem et pacem c um eis co nfir mavit”. Nevertheless, Władysław, contrary to the agreement and the oath he had taken, soon rose up against his brothers and did them a lo t of damage. Eventually, however, he was defeated. Banished f rom the country he again went to Conrad, asking for help.124 123 See: Gerard Labuda, “Zabiegi o u trzymanie jedności państwa polskiego w la tach 1138–1146,” Kwartalnik H istoryczny 66 (1959), 1162 ff; M ariusz D worsatschek, Władysław II Wygnaniec (Wrocław, 1998), p. 101 ff. 124 Annales Magdeburgenses a. 1146, ed. Georg Heinrich Pertz, MGH SS, 16 (Hanover, 1859), p. 187.

oath 173 The elaborate record of the Magdeburg annals, most probably contemporary with the events described and very well informed about the Polish affairs, merits a clos er investigation.125 The general sequence of events which led to the fall of Władysław and his flight from Poland is confirmed by other, somewhat later sources, as well. It is especially true of the Poznań campaign. The unsuccessful siege o f Poznań a nd the defeat of Władysław by his younger brothers constitute the turning point in all accounts of the struggle between Bolesław Wrymouth’s sons. After the defeat in Poznań Władysław is no longer able to effectively stand up against his b rothers a nd is e ventually f orced b y them t o lea ve the country.126 The p eace a greement co ncluded b y the fi ghting brot hers after the battle of Poznań is, however, mentioned only in the Magdeburg annals. There is no information about it in the short report written probably in 1160s by Vincent of Prague, in which the defeat in Poznań at once brings about the fall of Władysław and compels him to flee Poland.127 Also the later a nd m uch more e laborate wri ting o f M aster Vincent K adłubek lacks e xplicit r eferences t o t he p eace n egotiations c onducted b y t he feuding brothers after the battle of Poznań. It is worth noting, however, that acco rding t o K adłubek’s acco unt, a fter the def eat in P oznań Władysław had ma naged to garrison his tr oops in s everal strongholds before fleeing to Germany. Hence – in Kadłubek’s relation – the defeat in Poznań did not mean a defi nite loss o f his p ower. His fi nal defeat was sealed only after his younger brothers took control of Krakow defended by Władysław’s wife princess Agnes.128 In this particular description by Master Vincent in which the events leading to Władysław’s f all are divided clearly into two, s eparate phases, we may dis cern traces o f an extant recollection of the peace treaty, mentioned in Magdeburg annals, concluding the fi rst p hase o f the b rotherly co nflict after the ba ttle o f Poznań. Altogether, it seems, that we may assume after the Magdeburg annalist that indeed the battles fought around Poznań led to an agreement between Władysław and his brothers reinforced by oath of peace.

See: Labuda, “Zabiegi o utrzymanie jedności państwa polskiego,” p. 1150 ff. See: L abuda, “Zabiegi o u trzymanie je dności pa ństwa p olskiego,” p . 1161 ff; Dworsatschek, Władysław II, p. 101 ff. 127 Annales Bohemorum Vincentii Pragensis, ed. Josef Emler, Fontes rerum Bohemicarum, 2 (Prague, 1874), p. 419. 128 Magistri Vincentii Chronica III.28, pp. 121–122. 125 126

174

ch apter fo ur

In the acco unt o f the M agdeburg a nnalist i t is w orth no ting no t s o much his men tioning the p eace tr eaty signe d b y Władysław a nd his brothers after the battle of Poznań, as the importance he attributed to this event. His remarks about the oath Władysław swore to his younger brothers not o nly hel ped him t o str ucture the na rrative b ut, mo re im portantly, were used to justify the course of events he described. In the annalist’s account, Władysław’s fall is a natural consequence of the act of perjury he had committed, pledging an oath of fidelity and peace to his brothers in Poznań. Breaking the oath taken before God, Władysław decided to again rise up against his b rothers and even managed – as w e remember – t o cause them a lo t of damage. In the end , however, “favente Deo”, he was defeated and forced to fl ee. In the clash with the perjurer, God took the side of his younger brothers and helped them to achieve victory.129 The account of the Magdeburg annals leaves no doubt as to who was right in the dispute between the Piast dukes. The perjury only complemented Władysław’s conduct, sinful and vile f rom the st art, as he had planned to deprive his younger brothers of their due inheritance, acting against God’s commandments. Defending their rights, the young dukes could therefore count on God’s support. No wonder, then, that in spite of the scant forces they disposed of, they managed to defeat a much stronger enemy. God’s care for the junior dukes and His indignation at Władysław’s behaviour were especially manifest during the ceremony of his swearing an oath of fi delity t o h is b rothers. “Deus, q ui o cculta c ognoscit, i uramenta ei us det exit”. G od did no t allo w Władysław’s sin o f p erjury t o remain hidden. In the place where the duke took his oath the earth – “ut refertur”, adds the a nnalist – sp lit and uncovered an abyss fi lled with a river of blood.130 The annals of Magdeburg contain relatively many records of Polish affairs, esp ecially co ncerning e vents t aking p lace in the 1140s. 131 The interest M agdeburg sho wed in e vents ha ppening in P oland was cer tainly c onnected w ith t he v isible i ncrease o f c ontacts b etween t he younger sons of Bolesław Wrymouth and the Saxon magnates. Already

Annales Magdeburgenses a. 1146, p. 187. Annales Magdeburgenses a. 1146, p. 187: “Deinde fratri colloquentes, iureiurando fidem et pacem c um eis co nfirmavit. S ed Deus, qui occulta cognoscit, iuramenta eius detexit. N am terra in i pso loco i uramenti, u t refertur, disr upta, s anguinei fl uminis patefacit abyssum”. 131 See: Labuda, “Zabiegi o utrzymanie jedności państwa polskiego,” p. 1151. 129 130

oath 175 during their struggle with Władysław the junior dukes could count on the su pport o f im portant cir cles o f Sax on mag nates. D uring C onrad III’s ca mpaign a gainst Poland in August o f 1146, a iming at r estoring Władysław to power, pressures from influential margraves – Albrecht the Bear of Northern March and Conrad of Meissen – forced the king to sign a compromise pact with the Polish dukes and essentially recognize their coup.132 Two years later, in 1148, the leading Saxon magnates with archbishop Frederick of Magdeburg, met with Bolesław Curly and Mieszko the Old a t the ass embly in K ruszwica and concluded “fedus amicicie” with them. The pact of Kruszwica was then further reinforced by th e m arriage o f th e P olish d ukes’ s ister, J udith, wi th Albrecht th e Bear’s son Otto.133 One may therefore assume with great probability that the information in the Magdeburg annals regarding the conflict between Władysław and his younger brothers derived from Polish informers connected with the party of the younger sons of Bolesław Wrymouth. In this sense one may see in them a r eflection of the “official” version of events accompanying the fall of Władysław II, disseminated by the victorious juniors. However, regardless of its openly negative attitude towards Władysław, this account leaves no doubt about the importance attributed to the stability and reliability of oaths, us ed t o construct and strengthen p olitical a greements and treaties, in the 12th-century Piast monarchy. Perjury constituted a grave offence against God’s commandments and undermined the political order based on God’s law. Hence a ruler who had committed perjury deserved to be condemned and in fact lost his right to exercise power. This interpretation of the story of Władysław II’s perjury found in the Magdeburg annals is supported by further evidence. From the Chronicle of the Greater Poland, a dmittedly much l ater, w e l earn t hat during t he siege of Poznań archbishop of Gniezno Jacob of Żnin visited Władysław’s camp. After unsuccessful attempts at persuading the duke to stop persecuting his brothers and shedding Christian blood, the archbishop decided to excommunicate him. Leaving Władysław’s tent, the archbishop who moved in a w heelchair kno cked a gainst the p illar su pporting i t.

Annales Magdeburgenses a. 1146, p. 188; Dworsatschek, Władysław II, p. 122 ff. Annales M agdeburgenses a. 1148, p. 190; s ee: K azimierz Jasiński, Rodowód p ierwszych Pias tów (Warsaw-Wrocław, 1992), p . 255 ff; H ans-Dietrich K ahl, Slawen u nd Deutsche in der branderburgischen Geschichte des zwölften Jahrhunderts (Cologne-Graz, 1964), p. 373 ff; Dworsatschek, Władysław II, p. 129 ff. 132 133

176

ch apter fo ur

Toppled over by the archbishop, the tent almost hurt Władysław, which the chronicler interpreted as “presagium futuri malo Wladislao”.134 The Chronicle’s vivid story, rich in anecdotal details, was most probably bas ed o n the lo cal tradi tion p reserving the r ecollection o f the Gniezno archbishop’s excommunicating the contemptible duke. It does not mean, however, t hat we shou ld f ully b elieve it . S ome u navoidable distortions, emphasis shifting and overlapping of various motifs coming from diff erent s ources could have t aken p lace. In the Chronicle of the Greater Poland the story of the archbishop’s excommunicating the duke was inco rporated in to the na rrative co ncentrating o n the b attle o f Poznań – des cribed according t o the v ersion o f e vents r ecorded b y Kadłubek – which was to seal Władysław’s defeat. In this situation connecting the d uke’s excommunication with the ba ttle of Poznań in the Chronicle is no t surprising. In this presentation, the excommunication by Gniezno a rchbishop p layed a de cisive r ole in the co urse o f e vents leading to the fall of the oldest son of Bolesław Wrymouth. The excommunication caused large numbers of knights to rise up against him and hasten to the relief of the younger dukes besieged in Poznań. As a result, Władysław who had tr usted his mili tary forces and ignored the a rchbishop’s advices a nd ex communication, was def eated b y his b rothers and forced to flee the country.135 It seems, therefore, that although the Chronicle does not say anything about it, the excommunication it mentions can be connected with the information of the Magdeburg annals on Władysław’s p erjury a nd his p unishment b y G od. There is m uch evidence in favour of linking Władysław’s excommunication in 1146 with the act of perjury he had committed by breaking the oath of fidelity sworn to his brothers. In this perspective we should also assess the course of events accompanying the blinding of Zbigniew by Bolesław Wrymouth. It seems that the duke’s sin men tioned by Gallus, his mis deed and crime sho uld be first of all connected with his breaking the oath of fidelity sworn to his older brother. We do not know, whether Bolesław Wrymouth was excommunicated for his p erjury, as i t had b een the cas e with Władysław II. Gallus’ text gives no hin t in this r egard. Regardless of any doubts concerning a possible excommunication, the supposition of direct relations

134 Chronica Po loniae Maioris 32, e d. Brygida Kürbis, MPH n. s., 8 (Warsaw, 1970), p. 51; see: Dworsatschek, Władysław II, p. 108 ff. 135 Chronica Poloniae Maioris 32, pp. 51–52.

oath 177 between Bolesław’s penance and the perjury he had co mmitted, recalling Zb igniew from exile , s eems t o b e f ounded o n sufficiently solid grounds.136 This interpretation explains also Gallus’ reluctance to explicitly name Bolesław’s sin and offence. Bolesław’s breaking the oath sworn to his brother was no do ubt a grave sin, contrary to norms of conduct accepted in the political life, and undermining the political order based on trust in the stability of concluded agreements. In this situation Gallus’ mentioning the p erjury committed by B olesław w ould have dist orted the co herence o f his v ersion o f the co nflict b etween the d uke a nd Zbigniew, and largely undermined its credibility. The information on the duke’s perjury would have seriously weakened Gallus’ argument of the spontaneity of B olesław’s act, his y outhful temper and deep regret for this moment of anger. The perjury would have changed Bolesław’s deed into a premeditated crime for which there was no justification. It wou ld b e u nusual fo r G allus, however, i f he l imited h imself to just concealing Bolesław’s perjury. In a way in his text he sought to refute the accusations brought against his hero. Once more, in the Chronicle, we see the author trying to create his own view of the events described, according to his interests. Once more, Gallus made use of ritual acts which, subjected to suitable interpretation, served the purpose of constructing a coherent vision of political relations in Poland at the turn of the 11th and 12th centuries, in acco rdance wi th the g eneral mess age o f the Chronicle. I n t he account of our chronicler we easily notice that records of oaths play a very important role in the description of the tumultuous events marking the last years of Władysław Herman’s reign and the b eginning of the r ule of his sons. Certainly, the ceremonies of taking solemn oaths occupied a vital place in the political life of the earlier-medieval monarchies. They accompanied virtually all important political endeavours. No political agreement could do wi thout them. They g uaranteed t he s tability o f p eace t reaties, strengthened bonds of friendship as well as relations of vassalage; in short, they formed the foundations on which the entire political order was based. However, Gallus’ particular interest in oaths taken while concluding political a greements did no t result f rom his s ense of c hronicler’s duty. It was

136 It remains an open question, to what extent Bolesław’s appellation Wrymouth – meaning p erjurer – p reserves t he m emory o f t his p erjury; s ee: E lżbieta K owalczyk, “Krzywousty – s kaza fi zyczna czy mo ralna?” Kwartalnik Historyczny 101 (1994), 3–14. Cf: K azimierz J asiński, “Przydomek B olesława K rzywoustego,” Genealogia. S tudia i Materiały Historyczne 6 (1995), 137–146; Jacek Banaszkiewicz, Polskie dzieje ba jeczne Mistrza Wincentego Kadłubka (Wrocław, 1998), pp. 434–435.

178

ch apter fo ur

determined primarily by his endeavours to create such an image of political relations and norms of political conduct which as a p oint of reference would cover up the immo ral character of Bolesław’s deed and make the accusations against him seem pointless. In our chronicler’s relation, the political history of the Piast monarchy at the turn of the 11th and 12th centuries appears as a series of betrayals, perjuries, breaking of pacts and peace agreements. In his presentation, perjury seems to have played the role of one of the basic tools of political practice, a means of achieving political goals. Gallus argues that it was a norm of political practice, a universally used method of playing political games. In 1096, faced with a rebellion of Silesian magnates who stood up for the interests of the d uke’s older son Zbigniew, Władysław Herman and Sieciech turned to king L adislas I of Hungary for help. The Hungarian ally, however, instead of fighting Zbigniew, attempted to capture Sieciech who – Gallus writes – would have been taken away in chains to Hungary by kin g L adislas had he no t fl ed in time . I n this si tuation Władysław Herman decided to make peace with Zbigniew. S oon, however, having won Zbigniew’s Silesian supporters to his side, the duke again took action against his son, regardless of the agreement they had concluded.137 Several years later, during another conflict with his s ons, Władysław Herman committed perjury again. Around the year 1100 Zbigniew and Bolesław – as we remember – decided to join their forces and together rose up against their father and his palatine. During the negotiations, under pressure from his sons and the magnates Władysław promised to dismiss Sieciech. Later, however, he secretly left the camp and went over to the palatine’s side. The young dukes then r esolved to be up in a rms against their father and to seize his strongholds. Eventually the siege of Płock by Bolesław and Zbigniew forced Władysław to enter once more into n egotiations w ith h is s ons t hrough t he m ediation o f a rchbishop Martin of Gniezno. The old duke decided to b e reconciled with them and “affirmed on oath that he would never more retain Sieciech”. The n Bolesław restored to his father the strongholds he had occupied, but the father, again, did no t keep his p romise. Only after further struggle the sons managed to force their father to expel Sieciech.138

Galli Anonymi Cronicae II.4, pp. 68–71; The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles II.4, pp. 122–129. 138 Galli A nonymi Cronicae II.16, p p. 82–84: “iureiurando s e Z etheum r etenturum numquam amplius confir mavit”. The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles II.16, pp. 149–151. 137

oath 179 Perjury left a visib le trace no t o nly in the ac tions o f Władysław Herman. The father of the Chronicle’s main hero was no ex ception in this regard. The emperor Henry V exhibited a similarly pragmatic, if we may say so, attitude towards his commitments taken under oath. In 1109 during his ca mpaign a gainst Poland H enry unexp ectedly cr ossed the river O dra nea r Głog ów a nd a ttacked the ga rrison o f the str onghold surprised by his sudden arrival. After a short battle Henry’s troops took control o f t he s ettlement outside Głogó w, t aking ma ny p risoners a nd capturing pre cious b ooty. I n this s ituation the g arrison proposed t he emperor to make a five-day truce. During this time they were to get permission from B olesław to surrender Głogów. The keeping of this pac t was to b e guaranteed by hostages handed over to Henry by Gło gów’s defenders. The emperor promised under oath to free them regardless of the result of the negotiations with Bolesław. However, from the very beginning he did not intend to keep his word. As we read in Gallus: “The emperor’s reason for receiving hostages under oath was that he thought he could gain possession of the city through them even if it meant perjuring himself ”. After B olesław’s r ejecting the p ossibility o f Głog ów’s surrender, Henry was not bothered by committing a perjury and ordered his men to tie the hostages to siege engines and attack the town.139 In the situation in which the stability of oaths taken by the emperor or by the Polish duke depended exclusively on their political interests and perjury was accepted by them as means of political action, no wonder that the pagan or half-pagan Pomeranian dukes similarly did not attach much weight to keeping the oaths they had taken. Writing about one of them, Swantobor, Gallus notes that “his progeny never remained loyal to their Polish masters”.140 Waging wars against the Pomeranians, Bolesław Wrymouth more than once experienced perjury from the part of the Pomeranian dukes. In 1108 Bolesław laid siege to Czarnków. Seeing the Polish duke’s military advantage t he governor of t he st ronghold de cided to sur render and accept baptism. Bolesław himself took up the role of the pagan commander’s godfather. After the fall of Czarnków the Pomeranian duke, too recognized

139 Galli Anonymi Cronicae III.5–8, pp. 133–136: “ob ho c utique ces ar obsides c um iuramento r ecepit, q uia p er e os ci vitatem, licet c um p eriuvio, co nsequi s e r eputavit”. The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles III.5–8, pp. 232–239. 140 Galli A nonymi Cronicae I I.29, p . 9 7: “nunquam fi delitatem P olonis do minis observavit”. The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles II.29, p. 171.

180

ch apter fo ur

Bolesław’s superiority. Neither of them, however, kept the fa ith sworn to Bolesław.141 A y ear la ter, in 1109, a fter fierce ba ttles B olesław ca ptured a nother Pomeranian stronghold, Nakło. He then handed over the seized town to one o f the P omeranian d ukes, S wantopolk, o n co ndition tha t he w as faithful a nd f ulfilled his obl igations. S wantopolk, ho wever, b etrayed Bolesław’s tr ust a nd “never k ept his sw orn f ealty”. I n 1112, ther efore, Bolesław de cided t o take the fa ithless d uke t o t ask a nd o nce mo re attacked Nakło. The lengthy siege ended with a new peace treaty. However, already in the following year it became clear that Swantopolk was not g oing to keep this oath ei ther as he refused to come to the assembly arranged wi th B olesław. I n th is s ituation th e o nly th ing th e Polish duke could do was to organize a new campaign against him.142 The widespread breaking of pacts and agreements by the participants of events described in Gallus’ chronicle does not mean, however, that he accepted perjury as a legitimate method of political action. In his interpretation, t oo, i t was a gra ve sin a nd thos e guil ty o f co mmitting i t deserved the most severe punishment. Gallus’ conviction of the reprehensible character of perjury is expressed most clearly in his story about the fate of the Czech duke Svatopluk. In 1109 S vatopluk t ook pa rt in the exp edition o f H enry V a gainst Bolesław Wrymouth. The Cze ch d uke, ho wever, no t o nly jo ined the campaign but – Gallus argues – it was him who persuaded the emperor to enter Poland. Rising up against Bolesław, Svatopluk not only showed ingratitude to the Polish ruler who had helped him to the Czech throne, but also “not once but several times” broke the oa ths he had sw orn to Bolesław, p romising t o k eep fa ith a nd f riendship. As a ma tter o f fac t, Svatopluk had already shown much earlier that his words were not to be trusted. But once he obtained power, “he did not keep his word and violated his oa ths”, and refused to hand over to Bolesław the str ongholds along the border as he had promised under oath. However, God did not let the perjurer to profit from his crimes a nd “as an example to others

Galli Anonymi Cronicae II.44, pp. 114–115; The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles II.44, pp. 200–201. 142 Galli Anonymi Cronicae III.26, pp. 160–162: “postea numquam iuratam sibi fidelitatem retinuit”. The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles III.26, pp. 280–287. 141

oath 181 God inflicted a deserved retribution on him for his deeds”, for Svatopluk died after he was stabbed with a hunting spear by one of his knights.143 The perjurer died at the hands of another perjurer who rose up against his own ruler, breaking the oath of fidelity. The chronicler argues that the Czech d uke was rig htly p unished, suff ering a p unishment that every perjurer would in fact deserve. In the gallery of perjurers depicted by Gallus the first place no doubt falls to Zbigniew. His entire career is marked by repeated acts of perjury and betrayal. Around the year 1105 Bolesław and Zbigniew concluded and solemnly swore a pact of friendship. At the same time, “and under the same oath” they fi xed the da te and place w here the y should me et again with their armies. Zbigniew, however, “broke his faith and his oath by not coming”, thus exposing Bolesław to a great danger.144 A year later Zbigniew committed perjury again. Defeated by Bolesław in 1106 he appeared before his younger brother and “gave his oath in the presence of all” that he would always obey his brother and would never oppose him.145 Soon, however, it turned out that, again, he did not intend to keep his oath. He did not pull down one of his strongholds, as promised, did not send reinforcements to Bolesław when asked for help in the ca mpaign against Pomeranians, and proved to be a perjurer in all matters he had sworn to.146 In Gallus’ account a very important place falls to the issue of Zbigniew’s perjury. Among t he acc usations he b rings aga inst t he oldest s on o f Władysław H erman, t he c harges o f p erjury p lay t he m ost i mportant role. The acts of faithlessness committed by Zbigniew to a great extent determined his fate. Probably in 1107 Zb igniew was punished for perjury by losing control over the last part of the paternal inheritance left him by his younger brother – Mazovia, and by being driven out of the country. As we read in the chronicle, “Bolesław, on seeing that his brother had sho wn him self fa ithless in e very p romise a nd e very oa th, […] banished him from the entire realm of Poland”.147 143 Galli Anonymi Cronicae III.16, pp. 142–143; The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles III.16, pp. 248–251. 144 Galli Anonymi Cronicae II.32, pp. 99–100; The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles II.32, pp. 174–175. 145 Galli Anonymi Cronicae II.38, p. 108: “coram omnibus adiuravit”. The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles II.38, pp. 188–191. 146 Galli Anonymi Cronicae II.38, p. 109; The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles II.39, pp. 190–191. 147 Galli Anonymi Cronicae II.41, p. 111:“videns igitur Bolezlauus, quia frater in omnibus e t p romissis e t i uramentis fi dei n ullius exist ebat[…] eum de t oto r egno P olonie profugavit”. The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles II.41, pp. 192–193.

182

ch apter fo ur

However, the meaning Gallus attached to Zbigniew’s faithlessness in his acco unt o f the co nflict b etween the s ons o f Władysław H erman greatly exceeded the intention of explaining the reasons of his banishment. In Gallus’ presentation the perjury in fact disqualified Zbigniew as a ruler and deprived him of his right to exercise ducal power. Zbigniew, who “has p erjured him self no t o nce o r thrice b ut ma ny times ”, a nd “would neither keep his word to his brother nor his oath” was not worthy of holding monarchic power and justly lost the su pport of all – as Gallus put it – “wise men” whose “friendship with Zbigniew turned to hatred”.148 Certainly, then, it is not a coincidence that among the numerous offences Bolesław forgave Zbigniew, giving consent to his return in 1111, Gallus in the first place mentioned the perjuries Zbigniew had frequently committed.149 Recalling once more Zbigniew’s perjury, this time in the context of events preceding his ultimate fall, Gallus again pointed out the immorality of his conduct and shifted onto him the responsibility f or b reaking the oa th sw orn t o his y ounger b rother. I t was no t Bolesław who broke the faith, deceitfully recalling Zbigniew from exile, as C osmas wr ote, b ut Zb igniew once mo re p roved t o b e a p erjurer, intending – c ontrary t o t he o ath o f o bedience h e h ad s worn t o h is brother – to reach for the ducal power. As a result he was duly punished. The faithless Zbigniew, similarly to the disloyal Svatopluk, having committed perjury, in fact deserved the fate he met and rightly suffered – as Gallus put it – an irreparable damage. In this situation, it is not surprising that Gallus mentions the acts of perjury co mmitted b y the fa ther o f his c hronicle’s her o d uke Władysław Herman with some caution. Writing about the oaths Władysław had sworn to his sons, promising to dismiss Sieciech, the chronicler seems to dissociate him self f rom the inf ormation he co nveys. Noting tha t the o ld d uke committed perjury, he adds a short remark: “they say”.150 In this way Gallus declined responsibility for accusing the duke of perjury. At the same time, however, he did not refrain from including Władysław into his depiction of political r eality in w hich p erjury, al though mo rally r eprehensible a nd

148 Galli Anonymi Cronicae II.35, pp. 103–105; The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles II.35, pp. 182–183. 149 Galli Anonymi Cronicae III.25, p. 155; The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles III.25, pp. 270–271. 150 Galli Anonymi Cronicae II.16, p. 82 :“ut aiunt”. The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles II.16, pp. 148–149.

oath 183 contemptible, was a uni versally us ed in strument o f p olitical ac tion. I n Gallus’ interpretation, the art of doing politics is in fact reduced to the ability of swearing and then breaking oaths, of employing perjury as a means of attaining political goals. Let us repeat, however: perjury, no matter how often us ed, remained a sin a nd was in co ntradiction with the p rinciples which should be respected in political practice. The picture of political relations in Poland at the turn of the 11th and 12th centuries shown in Gall us’ Chronicle as fi lled with betrayal and perjury, has many parallels in similar accounts contained in earlier medieval narrative texts. Certainly, to some extent they reflected the actual nature of political relations, in which the universal practice of breaking agreements concluded under oath overlapped with the conviction that oaths played a role in stabilizing the political order whereas perjury endangered the foundations of this p ublic order and deserved to be condemned. One s hould not forget, however, that chronicles served not only as descriptions of the historical reality but also, maybe even in the first place, were used to shape its a ppearance. They often c onstituted a me ans of p olitical st ruggle, an instrument of p olitical i mpact, for pre serving an a ppropriate, f rom t he point of view of the author, image of the events described.151 The ceremonies of taking oaths, and swearing peace and agreement in medieval authors’ accounts were often assigned the role of a tool organizing the narrative, introducing subjects considered important and allowing their unequivocal assessment. They enabled the author to make an appraisal, without explicit judgements, and contrast the appropriate image of political reality called for by the author with forms of political relations he condemned. In this way we may interpret the role that scenes of betrayal and faithlessness played in the work of Richer of Saint-Remi. They include among others the deceitful capturing of the West Frankish king Charles III the Simple by count Herbert of Vermandois in 923, preceded by an oath of allegiance the count had sworn to the king. Another example is the act of perjury leading in 991 t o the imprisonment of the C arolingian pretender to the throne, the Lotharingian duke Charles, by bishop Adalbero of Laon who had earlier sworn on relics that he would support Charles’ efforts to gain the cr own. In Richer’s presentation, the ac ts of p erjury and violence marking the history of Western Franks in the 10th century

151 See: R osamond M cKitterick, History a nd M emory i n t he C arolingian World (Cambridge, 2004), p. 120 ff.

184

ch apter fo ur

were in contradiction with the appropriate political order of the Frankish monarchy he called for, based on consent and agreement. Undermining the trust in agreements concluded under oath, necessary for the preservation of public order, they prevented the development of correct relations b etween the pa rticipants o f p olitical e vents a nd in troduced elements of chaos into the political reality.152 We may connect similar meanings with cases of perjury and betrayal described by Liudprand o f Cr emona. H e co ntrasted the infi delity of North I talian ma gnates w ho did no t r efrain f rom b reaking s olemnly sworn agreements in their struggles for power and wealth, and the perjuries co mmitted b y the “second O dysseus”, the B yzantine em peror Nikephoros II with the political conduct of Ottonian rulers who always kept their oa ths. The O ttonian rulers’ fi delity, their s crupulousness in keeping the given word was one of the arguments Liudprand brought up to legitimise their right to power over Italy.153 In the work of Dudo of Saint-Quentin on the history of the dukes of Normandy a similar place was assigned to the information about acts of betrayal a nd i nfidelity c ommitted b y t he F rankish n eighbours o f t he Normans. In the account of Dudo who made an extensive use of descriptions of rituals in constructing his own image of historical reality,154 the elaborate stories of perjuries committed by the Franks served as proof of the moral fall o f the F rankish world in contrast with the virtues of the Normans. The treacherous murdering of duke William I L ongsword of Normandy by count Arnulf of Flanders, after they had concluded a pact of f riendship a nd Arnulf had r ecognized William’s s overeignty; the deceitful im prisonment o f William’s mino r s on Ric hard b y the West Frankish king Louis IV; or duke Hugh the Great’s breaking the oath in which he had sworn on relics that he would protect Richard – these and many other cases of the Franks infidelity towards the Normans, showing their lack of respect for the norms and rules applied in political life, were

152 G eoffrey Koziol, Begging P ardon a nd F avor. R itual a nd P olitical Or der i n Ea rly Medieval France (Ithaca-London, 1992), p. 115 ff. 153 F ichtenau, Lebensordnungen des 10. Jahrhunderts, p. 535; Philippe Buc, The Dangers of Ritual. Between Early medieval Texts and Social Scientific Theory (Princeton, 2001), p. 24 ff. 154 See: Hermann Kamp, “Die Macht der Zeichen und Gesten. Öffentliches Verhalten bei Dudo v on Saint-Quentin,” in Formen und Funktionen öffentlicher Kommunikation im Mittelalter, Vorträge und F orschungen 51, e d. G erd Althoff (S tuttgart, 2001), pp. 125–155.

oath 185 to demonstrate in a way beyond any doubt the superiority of the Norman dukes for whom faithfulness to oaths they had taken was of the highest value.155 The subject of perjury was given an important place also among arguments brought up by the N ormans to justify the rights of William the Conqueror to r ule o ver En gland. I n the t radition p reserved b y t he Bayeux Tapestry as well as the work of William of Poitiers dedicated to the deeds of William the Conqueror a lot of attention is given to the oath sworn to the duke of Normandy by the future king of England, Harold II. In 1064 or 1065 Harold, who got to William’s hands captured by count Guy of Ponthieu after having suff ered a shi pwreck, swore on relics to support the efforts of the Norman duke to gain the English crown. As a result, in William of Poitiers’ rendition, the expedition of William the Conqueror against England was in fact a battle with a perjurer, in which the N orman d uke co uld co unt o n the s upport o f G od o ffended by Harold’s infidelity.156 Cosmas of Prague often mentions oaths accompanying various political endeavours in his Chronicle, as well. They we re us ed to r einforce agreements concluded between the Czech dukes, pacts with the neighbouring rulers or relation with the magnates. Equally often, however, the chronicler writes about breaking oaths and not keeping sworn pacts. His account seems to imply that oaths were taken only to break them immediately. In Cosmas’ description, the political reality of earlier-medieval Bohemia is also marked with innumerable acts of perjury. However, the scrupulosity w ith w hich h e n oted t he c ases o f i nfidelity o f the Cze ch dukes was no t merely a r esult of his as piration to des cribe as f ully as possible t he i nternal q uarrels a nd c onflicts affecting B ohemia. I t was determined first o f all b y the co ncept o f fi delity f undamental f or the vision of political order presented by Cosmas. Fidelity the Czech magnates owed to their dukes and the rulers themselves were to respect, as well. The mutual allegiance of magnates and dukes and faithfulness to the laws was in Cosmas’ view the foundation on which the political system of the Czech monarchy should rest.157 Just as the magnates’ rising up

K oziol, Begging Pardon, p. 147 ff. Jean-Luc Chassel, “Le serment de Harold dans la tapisserie de Bayeux et dans les sources p ro-normandes de XI e et XII e siè cles,” in Le Se rment, 1 , Signes et F onctions, ed. Raymond Verdier (Paris, 1991), pp. 43–53. 157 Dušan Třeštík, Kosmova Kronika. Studie k počátkům českého dejepisectví a politického myšlení (Prague, 1968), p. 161 ff. 155 156

186

ch apter fo ur

against the r uler, betraying the oath of allegiance they had sw orn him, undermined the basis o f st ability, s o the infi delity o f t he d ukes w ho broke their oaths endangered the public order and damaged the bonds of faith holding the Czech community together. In this context it is easier to understand the w ords C osmas attributed to duke Vladislav I as response to his co unsellors’ suggestions advising him t o blind Otto of Olomouc. In these circumstances C osmas’ recollection of the de ed of Bolesław Wrymouth was not aimed, at least not for the most part, at discrediting the Polish duke, as it may seem at first glance. Telling the story about O tto’s im prisonment by Vladislav, t he chr onicler men tions t he perjury of Bolesław (who under oath of fidelity deceitfully brought his brother back from exile and then blinded) first of all with the intention of co ndemning t he infi delity o f Vladislav him self w ho under o ath of faith invited the duke of Olomouc and then imprisoned him. Vladislav’s perjury, similarly a s o ther acts of infidelity c ommitted b y t he C zech dukes, endangered the stability of the Czech community and damaged the idea of fidelity crucial for its unity, no wonder, therefore, that Cosmas believed it deserved harsh criticism. There is no do ubt tha t Gall us’ des cription o f the p olitical r elations prevailing in the P iast monarchy, in w hich the oa th ritual deprived of sacrum was us ed only as a t ool to accomplish political goals, was als o bent to suit the chronicler’s argument. According to his description, the perjury co nstituted a p ermanent elemen t o f the p olitical r eality o f Poland at the t urn of the 11th a nd 12th cen turies in w hich the lac k of respect for the rules of political game determined the character of its participants’ endeavours. Gallus’ text, however, cannot be read as a praise of political pragmatism. Certainly, perjury often brought notable political b enefits. U ltimately, ho wever, as the tra gic fa te o f the Cze ch d uke Svatopluk, the def eat of Henry V of G ermany or the fall o f Zbigniew show, it brought upon the infidel a punishment he had deserved. Gallus leaves no doubt about it. Correct political relations cannot be built upon betrayal and perjury. In his r endition, the ob ligation to keep the oa ths resulted not only from their religious character. They constituted the foundations on which the en tire political order was bas ed and put the political relations in conformity with the divine order. Mutual trust and keeping o f o aths determine d the cha racter o f the system o f p olitical relations Gallus called for. The ruler who fulfilled his obligations sworn under oath through his actions introduced the necessary order into the political reality and could always count on God’s support guaranteeing success for his endeavours.

oath 187 In our chronicler’s account the only just man in this world that is filled with betrayal and infidelity and in which all principles and rules are broken is, of course, Bolesław Wrymouth. The hero of the Chronicle always keeps his oa th a nd his fa ith, a nd his w ord is al ways r eliable. I n 1105, Bolesław “anxious to keep faith” without delay arrived with his a rmy to the p lace determined in the pac t sworn with Zbigniew.158 A ye ar l ater, Bolesław arranged an assembly with king Koloman of Hungary during which b oth r ulers confirmed perpetual friendship and brotherhood.159 Bolesław and Koloman swore also an oath to attack Bohemia in case the emperor should invade Poland or Hungary. In 1108, therefore, when the emperor Henry V marched into Hungary, Bolesław “kept his word” and immediately mounted a campaign against Bohemia.160 In 1109, this time keeping fa ith wi th the Cze ch d uke B ořivoj II, B olesław hel ped him t o gain the Prague throne,161 just as he had done two years before, bringing Svatopluk to rule over the Cze chs.162 In the chronicler’s description the principle of faith seems to determine the ess ence and give meaning to Bolesław’s p olitical endeavours. Faithfulness to sworn pacts and oaths constitutes one of the most important indicators of his reign.163 To b e sur e, faithfulness was highly placed in the ca talogue of the monarchic v irtues.164 It do es no t s eem, ho wever, t hat the sig nificance Gallus attributed to highlighting this f eature of Bolesław resulted only from his wish to describe all the good points of the hero of the Chronicle and the changes his rule made in the political life of the Piast monarchy.

158 Galli Anonymi Cronicae II.32, p. 99: “fidem servaturus”; The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles II.32, pp. 174–175. 159 Galli Anonymi Cronicae II.29, p. 98; The D eeds o f t he Pr inces o f t he P oles II.29, pp. 172–173. 160 Galli Anonymi Cronicae II.46, p. 116: “fidem servans”; The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles II.46, pp. 202–203. 161 Galli Anonymi Cronicae III.17, pp. 143–144; The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles III.17, pp. 250–251. 162 Galli Anonymi Cronicae III.16, p. 142; The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles III.16, pp. 248–249. 163 Only in 1109, after the surrender of Wieleń, the Pomeranian garrison was murdered by the Polish army in spite of the safety guarantees given them by Bolesław. This event, however – argues Gallus – cannot be assessed as breaking the oath by Bolesław. The massacre of the Pomeranians took place against the duke’s will who – wishing to keep his word – tried to stop his knights. Anyway - Gallus adds - the Pomeranians had fully deserved the fate they suffered. Galli Anonymi Cronicae II.48, p. 118; The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles II.48, pp. 204–207. 164 See: Wilhelm Berges, Die Fürstenspiegel des hohen und späten Mittelalters (Leipzig, 1938), p. 18 ff.

188

ch apter fo ur

The remarks about the d uke’s faithfulness concerned fi rst of all e vents accompanying his co nflict wi th Zb igniew. One ma y s ee in them a n attempt at refuting the accusations of perjury brought against Bolesław, which are reflected in C osmas’ account, and contrast the p icture of an infidel d uke cir culated b y B olesław’s o pponents wi th the ima ge o f a monarch always keeping his oaths. Entering – albeit indirectly – into a dispute against the charges directed against Bolesław, Gallus once more made use of a ritual in order to structure his description of reality. The often mentioned ritual of oath-taking enabled him to create a version of events suiting his needs, in which there was no place for Bolesław’s infidelity and betrayal. The ritual’s role as in strument for shaping political reality did not result only – as we could see more than once – from the fact of its being used in the p olitical practice. It was determined to no lesser extent by meanings it gained on the level of the narrative account in which – subjected to various interpretative procedures – it was used to construct an appropriate, from the point of the author, image of historical reality. Gallus was fully aware of this particular nature of the ritual and was able to accommodate it in his Chronicle, using it to shape the message it contained. Invoking the rite of oath, using ritualised gestures and attitudes f orming t he sp ectacle o f mo narchic adv ent or t he cer emony of submission and reconciliation, recalling behaviours accompanying th e ri tual o f r oyal humiliatio, h e co nstructed wi th th eir h elp a coherent story of the guilt and vile ac ts of Zbigniew, on one hand, and innocence and nobleness o f B olesław, o n the o ther hand. The a rt o f doing politics consisted not only in the capacity of employing rituals in the practice of political endeavours. No less important was the ability to interpret them in a sui table wa y a nd p reserve their a ppropriate memory.

CONCLUSION

And t hus w e h ave r eached t he e nd o f G allus’ t ale a bout t he c onflict between B olesław Wrymouth a nd Zbigniew. It is time t o sum u p o ur conclusions. We began our analysis by noting the importance, in Gall us’ story, of activities of a ritual nature. The focus was not merely on the presence in t he sto ry o f des criptions o f ma ny k inds o f r ites a nd cer emonies. Needless to say, the Chronicle is filled with descriptions, in more or less detail, o f va rious ri tuals; i t suffices t o men tion the des criptions o f Zbigniew’s entrance, or of Bolesław’s penance, on which we have dwelled at length. However, m uch more often, Gall us’ t ext p resents us wi th a fa r less direct, more complicated references to ritual gestures and behaviours. As we have sought to demonstrate in this work, this is how we also should understand the chronicler’s remarks about Zbigniew’s receptiones in his descriptions of the r ebellion by Władysław Herman’s older son against his father—remarks in which we can discern clear references to the rite of adventus regis. Similar associations with the rite of the royal entrance are conjured up by Gallus’ descriptions of Bolesław the Bold’s arrival in Hungary during his exile from Poland; by the entrances of the two victorious Bolesławs, the Brave and the Bold, into Kiev; and even by Bolesław Wrymouth’s penitential pilgrimage to Hungary. Clear references to the rite of the deditio also seem to resonate in Gallus’ words referring to the ultimately unsuccessful reconciliation between Zbigniew and his younger brother; i n h is d escriptions of B olesław Wrymouth’s v ictorious e fforts against the Pomeranians; and even in the fragments of his story that are devoted to Bolesław’s penance. Moreover, while he sketches out the lively panorama of the stormy circumstances in Poland at the turn of the 11th and 12th centuries, Gallus notes ceremonies of oath-taking, by which the conflicted Piast dukes confirmed peace treaties among one another. A c lose r eading o f the Chronicle co nvinces us tha t ri tual—or, rather, references pertaining more or less directly to a variety of ritual behaviours— were among the more important tools in Gallus’ development of his tale. All in all, one gets the impression that our anoymous chronicler’s entire

190 c

oncl usion

account is, to a significant degree, structured around ritual, within which the reality described by Gallus finds its frame of reference, and which enables the placement of that reality within a framework of structured narration, and imparts sense to the events recounted in that narration. However, as we have attempted to demonstrate, in Gallus’ story ritual did no t s erve mer ely to describe the cir cumstances p resented by that narration, and to give order to the story he was developing. Its meanings were even more significant. Ritual was also one of the most important tools for the creation of the correct picture (from Gallus’ perspective) of the events he was describing. Gallus’ development of his narration about Zbigniew’s guilt and blameworthiness, and about Bolesław’s innocence and integrity, found its fullest support and confirmation precisely in the images of ritualised gestures and b ehaviours which he invoked. As he placed in his narrative descriptions of (or more or less direct references to) ritual actions, Gallus subjected those actions to various interpretive schemes, a nd f requently manipulated their mea ning. H e ther eby endowed them with new substance, and used them as material for constructing a coherent tale with no room in it for Bolesław’s sin, or for the accusation against Bolesław of luring his older brother to Poland—and, with the entire responsibility for the tragic course of events which befell Zbigniew, whom Bolesław had blinded. In this way, in Gallus’ hands, Zbigniew’s solemn return—designed in the style of an adventus regis—assumed the f orm of an entrance by a usurper, who thereby demonstrated the desire to acquire by force power that was not licitly his; and, it was juxtaposed against the ceremony of deditio, w hich Zb igniew fa iled to p erform, a nd b y w hich, in Gall us’ view, a genuine reconciliation between the conflicted brothers ought to have been accomplished. Meanwhile, according to Gallus’ presentation, the penance imposed upon B olesław lost i ts connection to the crime the duke had co mmitted, a nd b ecame a demo nstration o f B olesław’s humility—a humility that propelled the duke, in a Christ-like suffering, toward genuine glory, and that ensured a divine blessing for the monarchy subject to the duke’s power. Furthermore, Gallus’ many references to the rite of the oath allowed the chronicler to create a very particular image of political relations in Poland at the turn of the 11th and 12th centuries—an image in whose context an accusation of perjury against Bolesław w ould, ess entially, mak e no s ense. To sum u p, ri tual—subjected to appropriate interpretive activities—served Gallus to efface a remembrance of Bolesław’s ultimate quashing of Zbigniew which was unfavorable to Bolesław; and to consolidate a memory of the deeds of

c oncl usion 191 the d uke (w hom he s o la vishly p raised in his c hronicle) w hich was, from the chronicler’s perspective, appropriate. The “ritual-specific” mode of reading Gallus’ account leads us to several co nclusions, w hich fa r t ranscend ma tters dir ectly r elated to the course of the co nflict between Bolesław Wrymouth and Zbigniew, the nature of the agreement allowing the older brother’s return to the country, the nature of Bolesław’s transgression, or the punishment meted out against Zbigniew. First, the p lace o ccupied by ritual in Gall us’ account une quivocally demonstrates the significance of ritual activities in the p olitical life of earlier-medieval Piast monarchy. To be sure, the anonymous author of the Chronicle was not a Pole. His most likely place of origin was Western Europe, where he was certainly educated. His Deeds of the Princes of the Poles were solidly rooted in the western literary tradition. In his tale, we can discern clear resonances with modes of developing narration and presenting historical events that were common throughout Latin Europe. Gallus’ narrative imagination, and approach to shaping the realities he described, were, in th eir essential contours, formed by the norms and rules specific to the literary culture of the early and high medieval West. As has b ecome clear on s everal o ccasions, bas ed on comparison with works b y o ther m edieval a uthors, t he s ame t hing i s t rue r eagarding Gallus’ uses of ritual—or, rather, his uses of reference to a variety of ritual actions, as tools that gave order and cohesion to the story he was developing. But we must not forge t t hat, i n a ll l ikelihood, G allus’ Chronicle was composed a t B olesław Wrymouth’s co urt, o r a t least wi th the d uke’s inspiration a nd co mmission b y t he d uke. S urely, p articipation b y Bolesław’s most intimate milieu in the makin g of Gallus’ chronicle was not l imited t o f urnishing t he f oreign author, n ewly a rrived i n Poland, with information essential for a work about the history of the rulers of a country wi th w hich he was unfa miliar. One ma y assume, wi th a hig h degree of probability, that that milieu also significantly i mpacted the manner in which that information was presented, and that the images of various ritualised behaviours invoked by Gallus therefore had their basis not merely in a narrative tradition specific to an author of West European origin, but also in the recollections about the events he described—events which were preserved, precisely by means of memory about ritual, by his Polish informers. Moreover, Gal lus’ work was cr eated with Polish recipients in mind, and was directed to them. Its author could expect their comprehension,

192 c

oncl usion

and their appreciation of his effort (including a ma terial appreciation, something o ur c hronicler do es no t sh y a way f rom men tioning) o nly insofar as he sp oke to their o wn conceptions about the r eality he wa s describing; and only insofar as, in his descriptions of the stormy events surrounding the conflicts between the Piast dukes, he spoke to their own views about the norms for conducting and resolving political disputes, and about the mo des for establishing political relationships as ac tually used in pragmatic p olitical life. In this s ense, we may assume—as the other sources we have cited also seem to indicate—that the “ritual” references in Gallus’ text were not only entirely comprehensible to his Polish audience, but that, in addition, they reflected to a significant degree the political reality of the earlier-medieval Piast monarchy, in which ritual— that is to say, patterns of ritualised behaviour, received from the Latin West—marked out one of the more important planes for the conduct of political activity. In Piast Poland—linked as it was by multiple and close ties with various political mi lieux of Western Europe—the norms of public b ehaviour current in the West, including p olitical rituals, comprised a cr ucial f rame o f r eference f or co mprehension b y the P olish political éli tes o f t he p rinciples o f political ac tion. As was the cas e in other me dieval p olities, in P oland, to o, p olitical under takings f ound their external form, and their realization, in activities of a ritual nature; activities which comprised, at the same time, one of the most important modes of demonstrating political intentions and aspirations, and a tool for effectuating those intentions and aspirations. It is therefore not surprising that—as we can see from Gallus’ tale about the co nflict among the Piast dukes—in earlier-medieval Poland, too, memory of political events assumed the form of memory about ritual, by means of which those events achieved their most complete presentation. Second, Gallus’ story does more than merely to prove the importance of ritual in the p olitical life of the P iast monarchy. His narration als o allows us a glimpse of the modes of the use of ritual to accomplish specific political goals; and it demonstrates—to invoke an expression now enjoying much popularity—the “dangers of ritual,” the sense of threat arising f rom the sp ecific and c omplicated n ature of r itual a ction. The picture, emerging from Gallus’ chronicle, of circumstances in the background of the conflict between Bolesław and Zbigniew shows how very vulnerable ritual was to a variety of interpretive actions, which resulted in the assig nment of varied, sometimes diametrically opposed, meanings to particular ritual gestures and behaviours. It convinces us of the slight, a nd e asily e rasable, d ifference b etween t he e ssentially j oyous

c oncl usion 193 adventus regis and a conqueror’s armed entry; and of the ease with which penance, imposed on a sinner guil ty of serious crimes, could be transformed into a great, christomimetic spectacle of remorse and contrition. To sum u p: Gallus’ story proves that ritual’s role as a p olitical tool was principally determined less by the completion of a specified set of ritual gestures, then by the meaning ascribed to those gestures by the participants and observers—who, taking advantage of ritual’s ambiguity, were able to manipulate the sense of these gestures, and to endow them with substantive meaning inaccordance with their own interests. Paradoxically, however, the ambiguity of ritual, and its openness to a variety of interpretive procedures, not only did not undermine its politically-stablizing function, but additionally enhanced its operative force: by creating, for the pa rticipants in p olitical e vents, a n o pportunity f or a n indi vidual reading of a desired substantive content in ritual gestures and behaviours— and thereby for satisfying their own political expectations. Third, Gallus’ tale about Zbigniew’s tragic fa te co nvincingly shows how much our understanding of ritual’s supposed role in the me dieval realities dep ends o n the acco unts p rovided b y a uthors suc h as o ur chronicler—authors f or w hom the des cription o f the n arrated e vents (rituals included) was subordinated to specific political aims, and who, at the same time, described those realities through modes of expression shaped by the structure of narration, and by a political culture specific to themselves. References to various ritual activities encountered in such works are very seldom purely descriptive. They serve above all—as with Gallus’ narration—to construct a picture of historical reality in accordance with their authors’ needs. This is b ecause me dieval authors were fully aware of the a mbiguities of the ma terial expressed by ritual acts, and, by manipulating the meaning of the rituals they invoked, managed to extract from them a desir ed substance, and to us e them in o rder to maintain a memory of the described events which was consistent with their interests. As a r esult, Gallus’ tale about conflict between the P iast dukes convincingly demonstrates the ne ed for a c loser reading of the decriptions of ritual actions conveyed the text; for taking account of the roles pla yed by such des criptions in t heir a uthors’ na rratives; a nd f or maintaining caution in reaching sweeping conclusions about the supposed role and significance of ritual in political practice as it was carried out in that reality which is described with recourse to ritual. The reality revealed to us by narrative accounts is the reality of the text. The references to ritual actions conveyed by these accounts, served, in the fi rst order, to shape that reality—to construct its picture, appropriate from

194 c

oncl usion

the authors’ perspective—and not to provide a simple description of the narrated events. Fourth, however, Gallus’ account also shows how closely and strongly the reality of the text was tied to the extra-textual reality depicted by the text. I t demo nstrates ho w t he chr onicler’s na rration a bout B olesław Wrymouth’s c onflict wi th Zb igniew was o verlaid wi th r ecollections about t hat c onflict w hich w ere held b y the na rration’s r ecipients— recipients who were at the same time participants and witnesses of the events described. It demonstrates how, as he co nstructed his o wn tale about Z bigniew’s t ragic f ate by m eans of r itual ( appropriately i nterpreted), Gallus was endlessl y compelled to confront that tale with the understandings by those recipients of the ritual actions he was in voking; wi th their co nceptions o f the ri tual’s f unctions a nd underl ying assumptions; and with the meanings which they assigned to ritual in political p ractice. Thus, by demonstrating the mutual interaction between the the text and the reality that text described, Gallus’ narrative— concerned with the dramatic events at the Piast court in the early 12th century—shows ho w im portant i t is f or o ur o wn co mprehension o f medieval political culture to co nsider the complex functions of ritual: as a tool shaping political relations both in the realm of practical politics, and o n the le vel o f narrative ma terial b y w hich thos e r elations w ere described.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary sources: Ademari Ca bannensis Ch ronicon. E d. P ascale B ourgain. C orpus C hristianorum. Continuatio Mediaevalis, vol. 129. Turnhout, 1999. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. A Co llaborative Ed ition, vol. 6 . MS D . Ed. G. P. Cubbin. Cambridge, 1996. . A Collaborative Edition, vol. 5. MS C. Ed. Katherine O’Brien O’Keeffe. Cambridge, 2001. Annales Altahenses maiores. Ed. Edmund L. B. von Oefele, MGH SSrG, vol. 4. Hanover, 1891. Annales Bertiniani. Ed. Georg Waitz. MGH SSrG, vol. 5. Hanover, 1883. Annales Bohemorum Vincentii Pragensis. Ed. Josef Emler. Fontes rerum Bohemicarum, vol. 2. Prague, 1874. Annales Cracovienses priores cum kalendario. Ed. Zofia Kozłowska-Budkowa. MPH n. s., vol. 5. Warsaw, 1978. Annales Fuldenses s ive annales regni Francorum o rientales E d. Friedrich Kurze, M GH SSrG, vol. 9. Hanover, 1891. Annales G erlaci M ilovicensis, E d. J osef E mler. F ontes r erum B ohemicarum, v ol. 2 . Prague, 1874. Annales Hildesheimenses. Ed. Georg Waitz. MGH SS, vol. 8. Hanover, 1878. Annales Laureshamenses. Ed. Georg Heinrich Pertz. MGH SS, vol. 1. Hanover, 1826. Annales Magdeburgenses. Ed. Georg Heinrich Pertz. MGH SS, vol. 16. Hanover, 1859. Annales Patherbrunnenses. Ed. Paul Schieffer-Boichorst. Innsbruck, 1870. Annales P osonienses. E d. I mre M adzsar. S criptores re rum H ungaricarum, vol. 1 . Budapest, 1937. Annales Quedlinburgenses. Ed. Georg Heinrich Pertz. MGH SS, vol. 3. Hanover, 1839. Annales regni Francorum. Ed. Friedrich Kurze. MGH SSrG, vol. 6. Hanover, 1895. Annales Stadenses. Ed. Johannes M. Lappenberg. MGH SS, vol. 16. Hanover, 1859. Annales Xantenses. Ed. Georg Waitz. MGH SSrG, vol. 12. Hanover – Leipzig, 1909. Annalista Saxo. Ed. Georg Waitz. MGH SS, vol. 6. Hanover, 1844. Arnoldi C hronica S lavorum. E d. J ohannes M. L appenberg. M GH SS rG, v ol. 14. Hanover, 1868. Astronomi Vita Hludovici imperatoris. Ed. Ernst Tremp. MGH SSrG, vol. 64. Hanover, 1995. Die Briefe des Abtes Bern von Reichenau. Ed. Franz-Josef Schmale. Stuttgart, 1961. Die Briefe Heinrichs IV., Ed. Carl Erdmann. Leipzig, 1937. Canonici Wissegradensis con tinuatio C osmae. E d. J osef E mler. F ontes r erum Bohemicarum, vol. 2. Prague, 1874. Capitula ad episcopis Attiniaci data. E d. Alfred B oretius. M GH C apitularia r egum Francorum, vol. 1. Hanover, 1883. Chronica Magistri Rogeri de Hovedene. Ed. William Stubbs. London, 1869. Chronica Monasterii Casinensis. Ed. Hartmut Hoffmann. MGH SS, vol. 34. Hanover, 1980. Chronica Poloniae Maioris. Ed. Brygida Kürbis. MPH s. n, vol. 8. Warsaw, 1970. Chronica Polonorum. Ed. Ludwik Ćwikliński. MPH, vol. 3. Lwów, 1878. Chronici H ungarici c ompositio se aculi XIV . Ed. Alexander Domanovszky. Scriptores rerum Hungaricarum, vol. 1. Budapest, 1937. Chronicon Montis Sereni. Ed. Ernst Ehrenfeuchter. MGH SS, vol. 23. Hanover, 1874.

196

biblio grap hy

Chronicon s. Huberti Andaginensis. Eds. Ludwig Bethmann, Wilhelm Wattenbach. MGH SS, vol. 8. Hanover, 1848. Constitutio de expeditione Beneventana. E ds. Alfred B oretius, Victor K rause. M GH Capitularia regum Francorum, vol. 2. Hanover, 1890. Cosmae Pragensis Chronica Boemo rum. E d. B ertold Bretholz. MGH SS rG n. s., vol. 2. Berlin, 1955. Cronica Petri comitis Poloniae accedunt Carminis Mauri fragmenta. E d. M arian Plezia. MPH n. s., vol. 3. Krakow, 1951. Dudonis de Sancti Quentini De moribus et actis primorum Normanniae ducum. Ed. Jules Lair. Caen, 1865. Ebonis Vita s . O ttonis e piscopi Babenbergensis. Eds. Jan Wikarjak, Kazimierz Liman. MPH s. n., vol. 7, part 2. Warsaw, 1969. Episcoporum de poenitentia, quam Hludovicus imperator professus est, relatio Compendiensis. Ed s. Alfred Boretius, Victor K rause. M GH Ca pitularia r egum Francorum, vol. 2, Hanover, 1890. Ex Miraculorum S. Adalhardi Corbeiensium libris II. Ed. Oswald Holder-Egger. MGH SS, vol. 15, part 2. Hanover, 1888. Ex Vita sancti Nili. Ed. Georg Heinrich Pertz. MGH SS, vol. 4. Hanover, 1841. Flodoardi Remensis Annales. Ed. Philippe Laurer. Paris, 1905. Flodoardi Remensis Historia Remensis Ecclesiae. E d. M artina S tratmann. M GH SS, vol. 36. Hanover, 1997. Friderici I. D iplomata. E d. Heinrich Appelt. M GH Di plomata r egum et im peratorum Germaniae, vol. 10. Hanover, 1975. Galli Anonymi Cronicae et gesta ducum sive principum Polonorum. Ed. Karol Maleczyński. MPH n. s., vol. 2. Krakow, 1952. Gervasii Cantuariensis Chronica Maior. Ed. William Subbs. London, 1879. Gesta ep iscoporum H alberstadensium. E d. Lu dwig Weiland. M GH S S, v ol. 2 3. Hanover, 1874. The Gesta Normannorum Ducum of William of Jumièges, Orderic Vitalis and Rober of Torigny. Ed. Elisabeth M. C. van Houts. Oxford, 1995. Gesta principum Polonorum. The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles. Trans. Paul W. Knoll and F. Schaer. Central European Medieval Texts 3. Series ed. Frank Schae. General eds. János M. B ak, Urszula B orkowska, G iles C onstable, Gá bor K laniczay. B udapest – New York, 2003. Gesta regis Henrici secundi Benedicti Abbatis. Ed. William Stubbs. London, 1867. Gregorii VII Registrum. E d. E rich Caspar. MG H E pistolae s electae, vol. 2 . B erlin, 1920–1923. Helgaud de Fleur y. Epitoma v itae regis Roberti Pii. Eds. Robert-Henri Bautier, Gillette Labory. Paris, 1965. Helmoldi presbyteri B ozoviensis C hronica S lavorum. E d. B ernhard S chmeidler. M GH SSrG, vol. 32. Hanover, 1937. Herbordi Dialogus de vita s. Ottonis episcopi Babenbergensis. Eds. Jan Wikarjak, Kazimierz Liman. MPH s. n., vol. 7, part 3. Warsaw, 1974. Herimanni Augiensis Chronicon. Ed. Georg Heinrich Pertz. MGH SS, vol. 5. Hanover, 1844. L’Histoire de Guillaume le Maréchal, comte de Striguil et de Pembroke, régent d’Angleterre de 1212 à 1219. Ed. Paul Meyer. Paris, 1894. Historia pontificum et comitum engolismensium. Ed. Jacques Boussard. Paris, 1954. Hludovici Pr ooemium gener ale ad ca pitularia t am ecc lesiastica q uam m undana. E d. Alfred Boretius. MGH Capitularia regum Francorum, vol. 1. Hanover, 1883. Lamperti Hersfeldensis Annales. Ed. Oswald Holder-Egger. MGH SSrG, vol. 38. Hanover – Leipzig, 1894. The letters and poems of Fulbert of Chartres. Ed. Frederick Behrends. Oxford, 1976. Liber de unitate ecclesia conservanda. Ed. Wilhelm Schwenkebecher. MGH Libelli de lite imperatorum et pontificum, vol. 2. Hanover, 1892.

biblio grap hy 197 Liudprandi Cremonensis A ntapodosis. E d. P aolo C hiesa. C orpus C hristianorum. Continuatio Mediaevalis, vol. 96. Turnhout, 1997. Magistri Tolosani C hronicon Faventinum. E d. G iuseppe Rossini. Rer um I talicarum Scriptores, n. e., vol. 28. Bologna, 1939. Magistri Vincentii dicti Kadłubek Chronica Polonorum. Ed. Marian Plezia. MPH n. s., vol. 11. Krakow, 1994. Les miracles de saint Benoît. Ed. Eugène de Certain. Paris, 1858. Ortliebi de fundatione Monasterii Zwivildensis libri II. Ed. Otto Abel. MHG SS, vol. 10. Hannover, 1852. Ottonis de Sancto Blasio Chronica. Ed. Adolf Hofmeister. MGH SSrG., vol. 47. Hanover – Leipzig, 1912. Ottonis e piscopi Frisingensis C hronica siv e Historia d e duabus c ivitatis. Ed. A dolf Hofmeister. MGH SSrG, vol. 46. Hanover – Leipzig, 1912. Ottonis episcopi Frisingensis et Rahewini Gesta Frederici seu rectius Cronica. Ed. Franz-Josef Schmale. Darmstadt, 1965. Petri Bles ensis, B athoniensis archidiaconi, D ialogus inter regem Henricum s ecundum et abbatem Bonaevallensem. Ed. Jacques-Paul Migne. Patrologiae latinae cursus completus, vol. 207. Paris, 1904. Petri Damiani Vita beati Romualdi. Ed. Giovanni Tabacco. Fonti per la Storia d’Italia, vol. 94. Roma, 1957. Le pontifical romano-germanique du dixième siècle, vol. 1–2. Studi e testi 227. Ed. Cyrille Vogel, Reinhard Elze. Città del Vaticano, 1963. Pontyfikał krakowski z XI w ieku ( Biblioteka Jagiellońska Cod. Ms. 2057). E d. Z dzisław Obertyński. Lublin, 1977. Povest’ vremennych let. Ed. Dmitrij S. Lichačev. Moskva, 1950. Radulfi d e Diceto, L undoniensis d ecani, Ymagines H istoriarum. E d. William S tubbs. London, 1876. Radulphi de Coggeshal Chronicon Anglicanum. Ed. Joseph Stevenson. London, 1875. Raoul Galber. Histoires. Ed. Mathieu Arnoux. Turnhout, 1996. Reginionis a bbatis Pr umiensis Ch ronicon cu m c ontinuatione Treverensi. E d. F riedrich Kurze. MGH SSrG, vol. 50. Hanover, 1890. Richeri Historiarum Libri IIII. Ed. Hartmut Hoffmann. MGH SS, vol. 38. Hanover, 2000. The R ussian Pr imary Ch ronicle. T rans. a nd e d. S amuel Hazard C ross, O lgerd P . Sherbowitz-Wetzor. Cambridge Mass., 1953. Saxonis Gesta Danorum. Eds. Jørgen Olrik, Hans Raeder. Copenhagen, 1931. Thangmari Vita Bernwardi episcopi Hildesheimensis. Ed. Georg Heinrich Pertz. MGH SS, vol. 4. Hanover, 1841. Thegani Gesta Hludowici imperatoris. Ed. Ernst Tremp. MGH SSrG, vol. 64. Hanover, 1995. Thietmari Merseburgensis episcopi Chronicon. Ed. Robert Holtzmann. MGH SSrG n. s. vol. 9. Berlin, 1935. Widukindi monachi Corbeiensis rerum gestarum Saxonicarum libri tres. Ed. Paul Hirsch. MGH SSrG, vol. 60. Hanover, 1935. Willelmi Malmesbiriensis monachi de Gestis regum Anglorum libri quinque. Ed. William Stubbs. London, 1899. Wipponis Ge sta Ch uonradi II i mperatoris. E d. H arry B resslau. M GH SS rG, v ol. 61. Hanover – Leipzig, 1915. Secondary Sources: Adamus, Jan. O monarchii Gallowej. Warsaw, 1952. Airlie, Stuart. “Narratives of triumph and rituals of submission. Charlemagne’s mastering of Bavaria.” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 9, ser. 6 (1999), 93–119. Alföldi, A ndreas. Die mona rchische Repr äsentation i m r ömischen K aiserreiche. Darmstadt, 1970.

198

biblio grap hy

Althoff, Gerd. “Das Bett des Königs in Magdeburg. Zu Thietmar II, 28.” In Festschrift für Berent Schwineköper. Eds. Helmut Maurer, Hans Patze. Sigmaringen, 1982. . Verwandte, Freunde und Getreue. Zum politischen Stellenwert der Gruppenbindungen im früheren Mittelalter. Darmstadt, 1990. . Amicitiae und Pacta. Bündnis, Einung, Politik und Gebetsgedenken im beginnenden 10. Jahrhundert. Hanover, 1992. .“Genugtuung (satisfactio). Zur Eigenart gütlicher Konfliktbeilegung im Mittelalter.” In Modernes Mittelalter. Ed. Joachim Heinzle. Frankfurt a. M., 1994. . Spielregeln der P olitik i m M ittelalter. K ommunikation i n F rieden u nd F ehde. Darmstadt, 1997. . Otto III. Darmstadt, 1997. . “Zur B edeutung sym bolischer K ommunikation f ür das Verständnis des Mittelalters.” Frühmittelalterliche Studien 31 (1997), 370–389. . “Magdeburg – Halberstadt – Merseburg. Bischöfliche Rep räsentation und Interessenvertretung im o ttonischen Sac hsen.” I n Herschaftsrepräsentation im ot tonischen Sachsen. Eds. Gerd Althoff, Ernst Schubert. Sigmaringen, 1998. . Die Ottonen. Königsherrschaft ohne Staat. Stuttgart, 2000. . “Die Veränderbarkeit von Ritualen im Mittelalter.” In Formen u nd F unktionen öffentlicher Kommunikation im Mittelalter. Vorträge und Forschungen, 51. Ed. Gerd Althoff. Stuttgart, 2001. . “Die K ultur der Z eichen und S ymbole.” Frühmittelalterliche Studien 36 (2002), 1–17. . “Fußfälle: Realität und Fiktionalität einer rituellen Kommunikationsform.” In Eine Epoche im Umbruch. Volkssprachliche Literalität 1200–1300, eds. Christa BertelsmeierKierst, Christopher Young. Tübingen, 2003. . Die M acht d er R ituale. S ymbolik u nd H errschaft im M ittelalter. D armstadt, 2003. . Heinrich IV. Darmstadt, 2006. .“Humiliatio – Exaltatio. Theorie und Praxis eines herrscherlichen Handlungsmusters.” In Text u nd K ontext. F allstudien u nd t heoretische Be gründungen ei ner k ulturwissenschaftlich angeleiteten Mediävistik. Ed. Jan-Dirk Müller. Munich, 2007. Amann, Étienne. “Pénitence-sacrement: la pénitence privée. Son organisation, premières spéculations à son sujet.” In Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, vol. 12. Paris, 1933. Angenendt, Arnold. Geschichte der Religiosität im Mittelalter. Darmstadt, 2000. Anton, H ans H ubert. Fürstenspiegel und Herrscherethos in d er Karolingerzeit. B onn, 1968. Arnade, Peter. Realms of Ritual. Burgundian Ceremony and Civic Life in Late Medieval Ghent. Ithaca – London, 1996. Aurell, Martin.“Révolte nobiliaire et lutte dynastique dans l’empire Angevin (1154–1224).” Anglo-Norman Studies. Proceedings of the Battle Conference 24 (2001), 25–42. Baaken, Gerhard. “Das sizilische Königtum Kaiser Heinrichs. VI.” Zeitschrift der SavignyStiftung für Rechtsgeschichte Ger. Abt. 112 (1995), 202–244. Bachrach, Bernard. Fulk Nerra, the Neo-Roman Consul, 987–1040. A Political Biography of the Angevin Count. Berkeley, 1993. Bagi, Daniel. Gallus Anonymus és Magyarország. A Geszta magyar adatai, forrásai, mintái, valamint a s zerzö történetszemlélete a latin Kelet-Közép-Európa 12. század eleji latin nyelvü törtenetírásának tükrében. Budapest, 2005. Bagge, Sverre. Society and Politics in Snorri Sturluson’s Heimskringla. Berkeley, 1991. Banaszkiewicz, Jacek. Podanie o Piaście i Popielu. Studium nad wczesnośredniowiecznymi tradycjami dynastycznymi. Warsaw, 1986. . “Bolesław i P eredsława. Uwagi o ur oczystości s tanowienia władc y w związku z wejściem Chrobrego do Kijowa.” Kwartalnik Historyczny 97 (1990), 3–35. . Polskie dzieje bajeczne Mistrza Wincentego Kadłubka. Wrocław, 1998.

biblio grap hy 199 . “Młodzieńcze G esta B olesława K rzywoustego czy li jak zost aje się p rawdziwym rycerzem i władcą.” In Thearum Ceremoniale na dworze królów i książąt polskich. Eds. Mariusz Markiewicz, Ryszard Skowron. Krakow, 1999. . “O no wym łaciń sko-anglojęzycznym w ydaniu Galla i o s amej jeg o kr onice.” Roczniki Historyczne 70 (2004), 205–215. Barlow, Frank. William Rufus. New Haven – London, 2000. Barthelémy, Dominique. L’an mil et la paix de Dieu. La France chrétienne et féodale, 980–1060. Paris, 1999. Bartlett, Robert. England Under the Norman and Angevin Kings, 1075–1025. Oxford, 2002. Becher, M atthias. Eid und Herrschaft. Untersuchungen zu m Herrscherethos Karls des Großen. Sigmaringen, 1993. Berges, Wilhelm. Die Fürstenspiegel des hohen und späten Mittelalters. Leipzig, 1938. Bernhardt, John W. Itinerant Kingship and Royal Monasteries in Early Medieval Germany c. 936–1075. Cambridge, 1993. . “King Henry II of Germany. Royal Self-Representation and Historical Memory.” In Medieval Concepts of the Past. Ritu al, M emory, H istoriography. Ed s. Ger d Althoff, Johannes Fried, Patrick J. Geary. Cambridge, 2002. Bieniak, Janusz. “Polska elita polityczna XII wieku (część I. Tło działalności).” In Społeczeństwo Polski średniowiecznej, vol. 2. Ed. Stefan K. Kuczyński. Warsaw, 1982. . “Polska elita p olityczna XII wieku (część II. Wróżda i zgoda).” In Społeczeństwo Polski średniowiecznej, vol. 3. Ed. Stefan K. Kuczyński. Warsaw, 1985. . “Polska elita polityczna XII w. (część III A. Arbitrzy książąt – krąg rodzinny Piotra Włostowica).” In Społeczeństwo Polski średniowiecznej, vol. 4. Ed. Stefan K. Kuczyński. Warsaw, 1990. . “Polska elita polityczna XII wieku (część III B. Arbitrzy książąt – trudne początki).” In Społeczeństwo P olski ś redniowiecznej, v ol. 7 . E d. S tefan K. K uczyński. Warsaw, 1996. Bieniek, Stanisław. “Z dziejów pokuty publicznej w Polsce wczesnofeudalnej.” Czasopismo Prawno-Historyczne 18 (1966), 9–28. Bisson, Thomas N. “ ‘On not eating Polish bread in vain’. Resonance and Conjuncture in the Deeds of the Polish Princes.” Viator 29 (1998), 279–288. Bloch, Marc. Les rois thaumaturges. Étude sur le c aractère surnaturel attribué à la p uissance royale particulièrement en France et Angleterre. 3rd ed. Paris, 1983. Blöcker, M onica. “Ein Z auberprozess im J ahre 1028. ” Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Geschichte 29 (1979), 535–555. Borawska, Danuta. “Gallus Anonim czy Italus Anonim.” Przegląd Historyczny 56 (1965), 111–119. Bornscheuer, Lothar. Miseriae regum. Untersuchungen zum Krisen- und Todesgedanken in den herrschaftstheologischen Vorstellungen der ottonisch-salischer Zeit. Berlin, 1968. Broekmann, T heo. Rigor i ustitiae. H errschaft, Re cht u nd Terror i m n ormannischstaufischen Süden (1050–1250). Darmstadt, 2005. Brühl, C arlrichard. Fodrum, Gi stum, S ervitium r egis. Stu dien zu d en w irtschaftlichen Grundlagen des Königtums im Frankenreich und in den fränkischen Nachfolgestaaten Deutschland, Frankreich und Italien vom 6. bis zur Mitte des 14. Jahrhunderts. Cologne – Graz, 1968. Brunner, Karl. Oppositionelle Gruppen im Karolingerreich. Vienna, 1976. Bryant, Lawrence M. The King and the City in the Parisian Entry Ceremony. Geneva, 1986. . “La cér émonie de l ’entrée à P aris a u M oyen Age.” Annales ESC 41 (1986), 513–542. Buc, Philippe. “Ritual and interpretation: the early medieval case.” Early Medieval Europe 9 (2000), 183–210. . The Dangers of Ritual. Between Early Medieval Texts and Social Scientific Theory. Princeton, 2001.

200

biblio grap hy

. “Rituel politique et imaginaire politique au haut Moyen Age.” Revue Historique 620 (2001), 843–883. . “Political Rituals and Political Imagination in the Medieval West from the Fourth Century to the Eleventh.” In The Medieval World. Eds. Peter Linehan, Janet L. Nelson. London – New York, 2001. . “Noch einmal 918–919. Of the ritualized demise of kings and of political rituals in g eneral.” I n Zeichen – Rituale – Werte. Internationales Kolloquium des Sonderforschungsbereichs 496 a n der Westfälischen Wilhelms-Universität M ünster. Ed. Gerd Althoff. Münster, 2004. . “Warum w eniger die H andelnden s elbst als eher die C hronisten das politische Ritual erzeugten – und wa rum es niema ndem auf die wahr e Geschichte ankam.” In Die Macht des Königs. Herrschaft in Europa vom Frühmittelalter bis in die Neuzeit. Ed. Bernhard Jussen. Munich, 2005. Bührer-Thierry, G eneviève. “ ‘Just Anger” o r ‘Vengeful Anger’? The Punishmen t o f Blinding in the Early Medieval West.” In Anger’s Past. The Social Uses of an Emotion in the Middle Ages. Ed. Barbara H. Rosenwein. Ithaca – London, 1998. Bulst, Walther. “Susceptucula regum. Zur Kunde deutscher Reichsaltertümer.” In Corona quernea. Festgabe Karl Strecker. Ed. E. E. Stengler. Stuttgart, 1941. Bund, Konrad. Thronsturz und Herrscherabsetzung im Frühmittelalter. Bonn, 1979. Bur, Michele. La formation du comté de Champagne (vers 950 – vers 1150). Nancy, 1977. Carozzi, Cla ude. “La vie d u r oi Ro bert pa r H elgaud de Fleur y hist oriographe et hagiographe.” Annales de Bretagne et Pays de l’Ouest 87 (1980), 219–236. Carré, Yannick. Le baiser sur la bouche au Moyen Age. Rites, symboles, mentalités, à travers les textes et les images, XIe–XIVe siècles. Paris, 1992. Cetwiński, Marek. Ideologia i poznanie. Społeczne funkcje mediewistyki śląskiej po 1945 roku. Częstochowa, 1993. . “Podstępem czy siłą?‘Działania specjalne’ i ich moralna ocena w kronikach śląskich.” In Średniowiecze polskie i powszechne, vol. 2. Eds. I. Panic, J. Sperka. Katowice, 2002. Chassel, Jean-Luc. “Le serment de Harold dans la tapisserie de Bayeux et dans les sources pro-normandes de XIe et XIIe siècles.” In Le S erment, v ol. 1 . Signes et F onctions. Ed. Raymond Verdier. Paris, 1991. Chédeville, André and Hubert Guillotel. La Bretagne des saints et des rois, Ve–Xe siècle. Rennes, 1989. Cheyette, F redric L. Ermengard of N arbonne and t he World of Troubadours. Ithaca – London, 2001. . “Some Reflections o n Violence, Re conciliation, a nd the ‘Feudal Re volution’.” I n Conflicts i n M edieval Europe. Ch anging P erspectives o n S ociety a nd C ulture. E ds. Warren C. Brown, Piotr Górecki. Aldershot, 2003. Chiffoleau, Jacques. “Sur le crime de M ajesté médiéval.” In Genèse de l’Etat moderne en Méditerranée. Approches historique et anthropologique des pratiques et représentations. Rome, 1993. Corbet, Patrick. Les saints ottoniens. Sainteté royale et sainteté fémine autour de l’an Mil. Sigmaringen, 1986. Cowdrey, Herbert E. J. Pope Gregory VII, 1073–1085. Oxford, 1998. Csendes, Peter. Heinrich VI. Darmstadt, 1993. Dagron, Gilbert. Empereur et prêtre. Étude sur le ‘césaropapisme’ byzantin. Paris, 1996. Dalewski, Zbigniew. Władza – przestrzeń – ceremoniał. Miejsce i ceremonia inauguracji władcy w Polsce średniowiecznej do końca XIV w. Warsaw, 1996. . “Między Krzyszkowem a Mediolanem.” In Kościół, kultura, społeczeństwo. Studia z dziejów średniowiecza i czasów nowożytnych. Warsaw, 2000. . “Lictor imperatoris. Kaiser Lothar III., Sobĕslav I. von Böhmen und Bolesław III. von Polen auf dem Hoftag in Merseburg im Jahre 1135.” Zeitschrift für OstmitteleuropaForschung 50 (2001), 317–336. . “Konflikt i ceremonial v Polše rannego srednevekovja.” In Ruś Kijowska i Polska w średniowieczu (X–XIII w.). Ed. Stanisław Bylina. Warsaw, 2003.

biblio grap hy 201 . “Polityka, r ytuał i t ekst.” I n Źródło. Teksty o k ulturze ś redniowiecza o fiarowane Bronisławowi Geremkowi. Ed. Wojciech Brojer. Warsaw, 2003. . “Vivat p rinceps in etern um! Sacrali ty o f d ucal p ower in P oland in the e arlier Middle Ages.” In Monotheistic Kingship: The Medieval Experience. Eds. Aziz al-Azmeh, János M. Bak. Budapest, 2004. . “Ritual im Text. Gallus Anonymus und die dy nastischen Konflikte im Polen des früheren Mittelalters.” Frühmittelalterliche Studien 38 (2004), 135–151. . “The Political Culture of Central Europe in the High Middle Ages: Aggression and Agreement.” In Political Culture in Central Europe (10th – 20th Century), vol. 1. Middle Ages a nd Ea rly M odern P eriod. E ds. H alina M anikowska, J aroslav P anek. P rague, 2005. David, P ierre. Les so urces de l ’histoire de P ologne à l ’époque de s Pias ts 963–1386. Paris, 1934. de Jong, Mayke. “Power and humility in Carolingian society: the public penance of Louis the Pious.” Early Medieval Europe 1 (1992), 29–52. . “What was p ublic about public p enance? Paenitentia publica and justice in the Carolingian world.” In La giustizia nell’alto medioevo (secoli IX–XI), vol. 2. Settimane di studio del Centro italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo, 44. Spoleto, 1997. . “Transformations of penance.” In Rituals of Power: From Late Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages. Eds. Frans Theuws, Janet L. Nelson. Leiden, 2000. Depreux, Phi lippe. “Das K önigtum B ernards v on I talien und s ein Verhältnis zum Kaisertum.” Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken 72 (1992), 1–24. . “Tassilon III et le r oi de F rancs. E xamen d ’une vass alité co ntroversée.” Revue Historique 293 (1995), 23–73. Deptuła, Czesła w. Galla Anonima m it g enezy P olski. Stu dium z h istoriozofii i h ermeneutyki symboli dziejopisarstwa średniowiecznego. Lublin, 1990. Deshman, Rob ert. “Otto III a nd the Warmund Sacra mentary. A S tudy in P olitical Theology.” Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte 34 (1971), 1–20. . “Christus rex and magi reges. Kingship and Christology in Ottonian and AngloSaxon Art.” Frühmittelalterliche Studien 10 (1976), 367–405. . “The Exalted Servant: the Ruler Theology of the Prayerbook of Charles the Bald.” Viator 11 (1980), 387–417. Dhondt, Jan. Une crise du pouvoir capétien, 1032–1034. I n Miscellanea Mediaevalia in memoriam Jan Frederick Niermeyer. Groningen, 1967. Dotzauer, Winfried. “Die Ankunft des Herrschers. Der fürstliche Einzug in die Stadt (bis zum Ende des alten Reichs).” Archiv für Kulturgeschichte 55 (1973), 245–288. Drabek, Anna Maria. Reisen und Reisezeremoniell der r ömisch-deutschen Herrscher im Spätmittelalter. Vienna, 1964. Dragoun, Zdenĕk. “Konflikt knižete Sobĕslava z biskupem Menhartem a jeho líčení tzv. Kanovníkem Vyšehradským.” Mediaevalia Historica Bohemica 4 (1995), 71–78. Duby, Georges. Le chevalier, la fem me et le p rêtre. L e mariage dans la F rance féodale. Paris, 1999. Dufraigne, P ierre. Adventus Augusti, Adventus Ch risti. Re cherche s ur l ’exploitation idéologique et littéraire d’un cérémonial dans l’antiquité tardive. Paris, 1994. Duggan, Anne. “Diplomacy, S tatus a nd C onscience: H enry II ’s P enance f or B ecket’s Murder.” Forschungen zur Reichs-, Papst- und Landesgeschichte Peter Herde zum 65. Geburtstag von F reunden, S chülern u nd K ollegen da rgebracht, v ol. 1 . E ds. K arl Borchardt, Enno Bünz. Stuttgart, 1998. . “Ne in dubium. The Official Record of Henry II’s Reconciliation at Avranches, 21 May 1172.” English Historical Review 462 (2000), 643–658. Dürig, Walter. “Die th eologische Ausgangspunkt der mittelalterlichen liturgischen Auffasung v om H errscher als Vicarius D ei.” Historisches J ahrbuch 77 (1958), 174–187. Dworsatschek, Mariusz. Władysław II Wygnaniec. Wrocław, 1998.

202

biblio grap hy

Eickels, Klaus van. “ ‘Homagium’ and ‘Amicitia’: Rituals of peace and their significance in the Anglo-French negotiations of the twelfth century.” Francia 24/1 (1997), 133–140. . Von inszenierten Konsens zum systematisierten Konflikt. Die english-französischen Beziehungen und ihre Wahrnehmung an der Wende vom Hoch- zum Spätmittelalter. Stuttgart, 2002. . “Gendered Violence: C astration a nd B linding as Punishmen t f or Treason in Normandy a nd Anglo-Norman En gland.” Gender a nd H istory 16 (2004), 588–602. Engels, Odilo. “Zur Entmachtung Heinrichs des L öwen” In Stauferstudien. Beiträge zur Geschichte der Staufer im 12. Jahrhundert. Sigmaringen, 1988. Epp, V erena. Amicitia. Z ur G eschichte personaler, so zialer, po litischer u nd gei stlicher Beziehungen im frühen Mittelalter. Stuttgart, 1999. . “Rituale frühmittelalterlicher ‘amicitia’.” In Formen u nd F unktionen ö ffentlicher Kommunikation i m M ittelalter. E d. G erd Althoff. Vorträge und Forschungen, 51. Stuttgart, 2001. Erdmann, Carl. Forschungen zur politischen Ideenwelt des Frühmittelalters. Berlin, 1950. Erkens, F ranz-Reiner. “…more G recorum conregnantem in stituere vul tis? Z ur Legimation der Reg entschaft H einrichs des Z änkers im Thronstreit v on 984. ” Frühmittelalterliche Studien 27 (1993), 273–289. . “Vicarius Christi – sacratissimus legislator – sacra majestas. Religiöse Herrschaftslegitimierungen im Mi ttelalter.” Zeitschrift der S avigny-Stiftung f ür Re chtsgeschichte Ger. Abt 89 (2003), 1–55. . Herrschersakralität i m M ittelalter. Von d en Anfängen b is z um I nvestiturstreit. Stuttgart, 2006. Ertl, Thomas. “Otto von St. Blasien rekontruiert den triumphalen Einzug Heinrichs VI. in Palermo (1194).” Römische Historische Mitteilungen 43 (2001), 227–256. . “Das Regierungsantritt Heinrichs VI. im Königreich Sizilien (1194). Gedenken zur zeremoniellen Bewältigung der uni r egni ad imperium.” Frühmittelalterliche Studien 37 (2003), 259–289. Fentress, James and Chris Wickham. Social Memory. Oxford, 1992. Fichtenau, Heinrich. Lebensordnungen des 10. Jahrhunderts. Studien über Denkart und Existenz im einstigen Karolingerreich. Munich, 1994. Font, Marta. Koloman the Learned, King of Hungary. Szeged, 2001. Fried, Johannes. “Der karolingische Herschaftsverband im 9. Jh. zwischen ‘Kirche’ und ‘Königshaus’. ”Historische Zeitschrift 235 (1982), 1–43. . “Tugend und H eiligkeit. B eobachtungen und Üb erlegungen zu den Herrscherbildern H einrichs III. in E chternacher H andschriften.” In Mittelalter. Annäherungen am eine Fremde Zeit. Ed. Winfried Hartmann. Regensburg, 1993. . “Die Königserhebung Heinrichs I.: Erinnerung, Mündlichkeit und Traditionsbildung im 10. J ahrhundert.” I n Mittelalterforschung n ach der Wende 1989 . E d. M ichael Borgolte. Historische Zeitschrift, Beihefte, n. s. 20. Munich, 1995. . “Mündlichkeit, Erinnerung und Herrschaft. Zugleich zum Modus ‘De Heinrico’.” In Political Thought and the Realities of Power in the Middle Ages/Politisches Denken und d ie Wirklichkeit d er Macht i m Mittelalter. E ds. J oseph Canning, O tto G erhard Oexle. Göttingen, 1998. . “Gnesen – Aachen – Rom. Otto III. und der Kult des hl. Adalbert. Beobachtungen zum älteren Adalbertsleben.” In Polen und Deutschland. Die Berliner Tagung über den ‘Akt von Gnesen’. Ed. Michael Borgolte. Berlin, 2002. Fritze, Wolfgang. “Die f ränkische S chwurfreundschaft der M erowingerzeit. Ihr Wesen und ihre politische Funktion.” Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte Ger. Abt. 71 (1954), 74–125. Gansiniec, Ryszard. “Tragedia Petri comitis.” Pamiętnik Literacki 45 (1954), 52–139. Gaudement, Jean. “Le serment dans le droit canonique médievale.” In Le Serment, vol. 2. Théories et devenir. Ed. Raymond Verdier. Paris, 1991.

biblio grap hy 203 Geary, P atrick J . “Living wi th C onflicts in S tateless F rance: A T ypology o f C onflict Management Mechanism, 1050–1200.” In Living with Dead in the Middle Ages. Ithaca – London, 1994. . Phantoms of Remembrance. Memory and Oblivion at the End of the First Millenium. Princeton, 1996. Geertz, Clifford. “Centers, Kings, and Charisma. Reflections on the Symbolics of Power.” In Local Knowledge. Further Essays in Interpretative Anthropology. New York, 1983. Giesey, Ralph E. “Modèles de pouvoir dans les rites royaux en France.” Annales ESC 41 (1986), 579–599. Gillingham, John. “Killing and Mutilating Political Enemies in the British Isles from the Late Tw elfth t o the E arly F ourteenth C entury. C omparative S tudy.” I n Britain an d Ireland. 900–1300. I nsular Re sponses t o M edieval European Ch ange. E d. B rendan Smith. Cambridge, 1999. Glenn, Jason. Politics and History in the Tenth Century. The Work and World of Richer of Reims. Cambridge, 2004. Goez, Werner. “Canossa als deditio?” In Studien zur Geschichte des Mittelalters. Jürgen Petersohn zum 65. Geburtstag. Ed. Matthias Thumser. Stuttgart, 2000. Goldberg, Er ic J. Struggle for Empire. K ingship and Conflict u nder Lo uis t he Ger man, 817–876. Ithaca – London, 2006. Görich, K nut. “Eine Wende i m O sten: H einrich I I. u nd B oleslaw C hrobry.” I n Otto III. – Heinrich II. Eine Wende? Eds. Bernd Schneidmüller, Stefan Weinfurter. Sigmaringen, 1997. . Die Ehre Friedrich Barbarossas. Kommunikation, Konflikt und politisches Handeln im 12. Jahrhundert. Darmstadt, 2001. Górski, Karol. “O sprawie św. Stanisława.” Nasza Przeszłość 4 (1948), 61–82. Graboïs, Aryeh. “Un mythe fondamental de l ’histoire de F rance au Moyen Age: Le ‘roi David’, précurseur du ‘roi très chrétien’.” Revue Historique 581 (1992), 11–31. Graus, František. “Über die sogenannte germanische Treue.” Historica 1 (1959), 71–121. .“Kirchlische und heidnische (magische) Komponenten der Stellung der Přemysliden. Přemyslidensage und St. Wenzelsideologie.” In Siedlung und Verfassung Böhmens in der Frühzeit. Eds. František Graus, Herbert Ludat. Wiesbaden, 1967. .“St. Adalbert und St. Wenzel. Zur Funktion der mittelalterlichen Heiligenverehrung in Böhmen.” In Europa Slavica – Europa Orientalis. Festschrift für Herbert Ludat zum 70. Geburtstag. Berlin, 1980. Grawert-May, Gernot von. Das staatsrechtliche Verhältnis Schlesiens zu Polen, Böhmen und dem Reich während des Mittelalters (Anfang des 10. Jahrhunderts bis 1526). Aalen, 1971. Grodecki, Roman. “Zbigniew książę Polski.” In Studia Sta ropolskie. K sięga k u c zci Aleksandra Brücknera. Krakow, 1928. Grudziński, Tadeusz. “Pertraktacje merseburskie z 1135 r oku.” Kwartalnik Historyczny 75 (1968), 273–300. . “Podziały d ynastyczne mo narchii p iastowskiej w k ońcu XI i p oczątkach XII wieku.” Zapiski Historyczne 36 (1971). . Boleslaus the Bold, called also the Bountiful, and Bishop Stanislaus: The Story of a Conflict. Warsaw, 1985. Guenée, B ernard and Françoise Lehoux. Les entrées royales françaises de 1328 à 1515 . Paris, 1968. Hageneder, Othmar. “Das crimen ma iestatis, der P rozess gegen Attentäter Papst Leons III. und die K aiserkrönung Karls des G roßen.” In Aus Kirche und Reich. Studien zu Theologie, Politik und Recht im Mittelalter. Festschrift für Friedrich Kempf. Ed. Hubert Mordek. Sigmaringen, 1983. Hamilton, Sarah. “Otto III’s penance: a case study of unity and diversity in the eleventh century Church.” In Unity and Diversity in the Church. Ed. Robert N. Swanson. Studies in Church History, 32. Oxford, 1996. . “A new model for royal penance? Helgaud of Fleur y’s Life of Robert the Pious.” Early Medieval Europe 6 (1997), 189–200.

204

biblio grap hy

. The Practice of Penance, 900–1050. Woodbridge, 2001. . “Penance in the a ge o f G regorian r eform.” I n Retribution, Repen tance a nd Reconciliation. E ds. K ate C ooper, J eremy G regory. Studies in C hurch H istory, 40. Oxford, 2004. Hartmann, Wilfried. Ludwig der Deutsche. Darmstadt, 2002. Hauziński, Jerzy. “Polska a Królestwo Niemieckie w II p ołowie XII wieku.” In Niemcy – Polska w średniowieczu. Ed. Jerzy Strzelczyk. Poznań, 1986. Heinemeyer, Walter. “Studien zur Diplomatik mittelalterlicher Verträge vornehmlich des 13. Jahrhunderts.” Archiv für Urkundenforschung 14 (1936), 321–413. . “Der Friede von Montebello.” Deutsches Archiv 11 (1954–55), 101–139. Heinzelmann, M artin. Translationsberichte u nd a ndere Quellen des Re liquienkultes. Turnhout, 1979. Hemming, Jessica. “Sellam gestare. Saddle-Bearing Punishments a nd The Case o f Rhiannon.” Viator 28 (1997), 45–64. Hlawitschka, Eduard. “ ‘Merkst du nicht, daß dir das vier te R ad am Wagen fehlt?’ Zur Thronkandidatur Ekkehards von Meißen (1002) nach Thietmar, Chronicon IV, c. 52.” In Geschichtsschreibung und geistiges Leben. Festschrift f ür Heinrich L öwe. E ds. Karl Hauck, Hubert Mordek. Cologne, 1978. Hoffmann, H artmut. “Französische F ürstenweihen des H ochmittelalters.” Deutsches Archiv 18 (1962), 92–119. Hollister, C. Warren. “Royal Acts of Mutilation: The Case against Henry I.” In Monarchy, Magnates and Institutions in the Anglo-Norman World. London – Ronceverte, 1986. Holztmann, Robert. “Über den Polenfeldzug Friedrichs Barbarossas vom Jahr 1157 und die Begründung der schlesischen Herzogtümer.” Zeitschrift des Vereins für Geschichte Schlesiens 56 (1922), 42–55. Hóman, Bálint. Geschichte des ungarischen Mittelalters, vols. 2. Berlin, 1940. Houben, H ubert. Roger II. vo n S izilien. H errscher zw ischen O rient u nd Okziden t. Darmstadt, 1997. Ilski, Kazimierz. Idea jedności politycznej, społecznej i religijnej w świetle pism Ambrożego z Mediolanu. Poznań, 2001. Jaeger, C. S tephen. The Or igins o f Co urtlines. C ivilizing Trends a nd t he F ormation o f Courtly Ideals, 939–1210. Philadelphia, 1985. Jarnut, J örg. “Die Er oberung B ergamos (894). Eine En tscheidungsschlacht zwis chen Kaiser Wido und König Arnulf.” Deutsches Archiv 30 (1974), 208–215. . “Kaiser Ludwig der Fromme und König Bernhard von Italien. Der Versuch einer Rehabilitierung.” Studii Medievali 30 (1986), 637–648. Jäschke, Kurt-Ulrich. Die älteste Halberstädter Bischofschronik. Cologne, 1970. Jasiński, Kazimierz. Rodowód pierwszych Piastów. Warsaw – Wrocław, 1992. . “Przydomek Bolesława Krzywoustego.” Genealogia. Studia i Materiały Historyczne 6 (1995), 137–146. Jasiński, Tomasz. “Czy Gall Anonim to Monachus Littorensis?” Kwartalnik Historyczny 112 (2005), 69–89. Jungmann, Josef Andreas. Die lateinischen Bußriten in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung. Innsbruck, 1932. Jussen, B ernhard. Patenschaft und Adoption im f rühen M ittelalter. K ünstliche Verwandschaft als soziale Praxis. Göttingen, 1991. Kahl, H ans-Dietrich. Slawen u nd D eutsche i n der b randenburgischen Ge schichte de s zwölften Jahrhunderts. Cologne – Graz, 1964. Kamp, Hermann. “Vermittler in den Konflikten des hohen Mittelalters.” In La Giustizia nell’alto m iedioevo (se coli IX–XI), v ol. 2. S ettimane di st udio del C entro i taliano di studi sull’alto medioevo, 44. Spoleto, 1997. . Friedensstifter und Vermittler im Mittelalter. Darmstadt, 2001. . “Die Macht der Zeichen und Gesten. Öffentliches Verhalten bei Dudo von SaintQuentin.” In Formen und Funktionen öffentlicher Kommunikation im Mittelalter. E d. Gerd Althoff. Vorträge und Forschungen, 51. Stuttgart, 2001.

biblio grap hy 205 . “Tugend, M acht und Ri tual. P olitisches Verhalten b eim Sax o G rammaticus.” I n Zeichen – Rituale – Werte. Internationales Kolloquium des Sonderforschungsbereichs 496 an der Westfälischen Wilhelms-Universität Münster. Ed. Gerd Althoff. Münster, 2004. Kantorowicz, Ernst H. “The K ing’s Advent a nd the Enigma tic Panels in the D oors o f Santa Sabina.” The Art Bulletin 26 (1944), 207–231. . The King’s Two Bodies. A Study in Medieval Political Theolog y. Princeton, 1957. Keller, Hagen. “Schwäbische Herzöge als Thronwerber: Hermann II. (1002), Rudolf von Rheinfelden (1077), Friedrich von Staufen (1125). Zur Entwicklung von Reichsidee und Fürstenverantwortung, Wahlverständnis und Wahlverfahren im 11. und 12. Jahrhundert.” Zeitschrift für Geschichte des Oberrheins 131 (1983), 123–162. .“Grundlagen ottonischer Königsherrschaft.”In Reich und Kirche vor dem Investiturstreit. Gerd Tellenbach zum 80. Geburtstag. Ed. Karl Schmid. Sigmaringen, 1985. . “Zum Ch arakter der ‘Staatlichkeit’ zwis chen ka rolingischer Reich sreform und hochmittelalterlichem Herrschaftsaufba u.” Frühmittelalterliche S tudien 25 (1989), 248–264. . “Die Investitur. Ein Beitrag zum Problem der ‘Staatssymbolik’ im Hochmittelalter.” Frühmittelalterliche Studien 27 (1993), 51–86. . “Das B ildnis K aiser H einrichs im Reg ensburger E vangeliar a us M ontecassino (Bibl. Vat., Ot tob. L at. 74). Z ugleich ein B eitrag zu Wipos ‘Tetralogus’.” Frühmittelalterliche Studien 30 (1996), 173–214. . “Ritual, S ymbolik und Visualisierung in der K ultur des o ttonischen Reic hes.” Frühmittelalterliche Studien 36 (2001), 23–59. Kersken, Norbert. Geschichtsschreibung im Europa der ‘nationes’. Nationalgeschichtliche Gesamtdarstellungen im Mittelalter. Cologne, 1995. King P. D . “The b arbarian kingdoms.” I n The C ambridge History o f Medieval Political Thought c. 350–c. 1450. Ed. James H. Burns. Cambridge, 1988. Kipling, G ordon. Enter t he K ing: Theatre, L iturgy, a nd Ritual in the Medieval C ivic Triumph. Oxford, 1998. Kolmer, Lothar. Promissorische Eide im Mittelalter. Kallmünz, 1989. Körntgen, Ludger. Königsherrschaft und Gottes Gnade. Zu Kontext und Funktion sakraler Vorstellungen in Historiographie und Bildzeugnissen der ottonisch-frühsalischen Zeit. Berlin, 2001. Köster, Arnold. Die staatlichen Beziehungen der böhmischen Herzöge und Könige zu den deutschen Kaisern von Otto dem Großen bis Ottokar II. Breslau, 1912. Kosto, Adam. Making Agreements in Medieval Catalonia: Power, Order, and the Written Word. Cambridge, 2001. Kottje, R aymund. “Bußpraxis und B ußritus.” I n Segni e r iti ne lla c hiesa a ltomedievale occidentale. S ettimane di st udio del C entro i taliano di st udi sull’alto me dioevo, 37. Spoleto, 1987. Kowalczyk, Elżbieta.“Krzywousty – skaza fizyczna czy moralna?” Kwartalnik Historyczny 101 (1994), 3–14. Koziol, Geoffr ey. Begging Pardon and Favor. Ritual and Political Order in Early Medieval France. Ithaca – London, 1992. . “England, F rance, a nd t he P roblem o f S acrality i n Twelfth-Century R itual.” I n Cultures of Power. Lordship, Status and Process in Twelfth-Century Europe, Ed. Thomas Bisson. Philadelphia, 1995. . “ The da ngers of p olemic. Is ritual still a n interesting t opic of hist orical study? ” Early Medieval Europe 11 (2002), 367–388. . “ The early history of rites of supplication.” In Suppliques et r equêtes. L e g ouvernement par la grâce en Occident (XIIe–XVe siècle). Ed. Hélène Millet. Rome, 2003. Krah, Adelheid, Absetzungsverfahren als Spielbild von Königsmacht. Untersuchungen zum Kräfteverhältnis zw ischen K önigtum un d Adel im K arolingerreich un d seine Nachfolgestaaten, Aalen 1987. Kristó, G yula. Die Arpadendynastie. Die Ge schichte U ngarns vo n 895 b is 1301 . Budapest, 1993.

206

biblio grap hy

Krzemieńska, Barbara. “Krize českého státu na přelomu tisícletí.” Československy Časopis Historický 18 (1970), 497–532. . Boj knížete Břetislava I. o upevněni českého státu (1039–1041). Prague, 1979. Kuczyński, Stefan M. “Stosunki polsko-ruskie do schyłku wieku XII.” In Studia z dziejów Europy Wschodniej. Warsaw, 1965. Kulecki, Mic hał. “Ceremoniał in tronizacyjny P rzemyślidów.” Przegląd H istoryczny 75 (1984), 441–450. Kürbis, Brygida. “ ‘Sacrum’ and ‘Profanum’ in Polish Mediaeval Historiography. Views on Social Order.” Quaestiones Medii Aevi 2 (1981), 19–34. .“Zum Herrscherlob in der Chronik des Gallus Anonymus (Anfang 12. Jahrhundert). ‘Laudes regiae’ am polnischen Hof?” In Patronage und Klientel. Ergebnisse einer deutschpolnischen K onferenz. E d. H ans-Heinrich N olte, B eihefte zum Archiv f ür Kulturgeschichte 29. Cologne, 1989. Labuda, Gerard. “Zabiegi o utrzymanie jedności państwa polskiego w latach 1138–1146.” Kwartalnik Historyczny 66 (1959), 1147–1167. . “O stosunkach prawnopublicznych mię dzy P olską a N iemcami w p ołowie XII wieku (Merseburg – 1135, Kaina – 1146, Krzyszkowo – 1157).” Czasopismo PrawnoHistoryczne 25 (1973), 25–60. . Mieszko II król Polski (1025–1032). Czasy przełomu w dziejach państwa polskiego. Krakow, 1992. . “Władysław i Zb igniew. U g enezy p odziałów dzielnicowych w P olsce w dr ugiej połowie XI wiek u.” I n Społeczeństwo P olski ś redniowiecznej, v ol. 6 . E d. S tefan K. Kuczyński. Warsaw, 1994. . Święty Stanisław biskup krakowski, patron Polski. Śladami zabójstwa – męczeństwa – kanonizacji. Poznań, 2000. Landes, Richard. Relics, Apocalypse, and the D eceits of History: Ademar of C habannes, 989–1034. Cambridge, Mass. – London, 1995. Laudage, Johannes. “Symbole der Politik – Politik der Symbole. Lothar III. als Herrscherpersönlichkeit.” In Heinrich der Löwe. Herrschaft und Repräsentation der Welfen 1125– 1235, vol. 2. Eds. Jochen Luckhardt, Franz Niehoff. Munich, 1995. Leyser, Karl J. “Ottonian Government.” English Historical Review 96 (1981), 721–753. . Herrschaft und Konflikt. König und Adel im ottonischen Sachsen. Göttingen, 1984. . “Ritual, Zeremonie und Gestik: das ottonische Reich.” Frühmittelalterliche Studien 27 (1993), 1–26. Lynch, Joseph H. Godparents and Kinship in Early Medieval Europe. Princeton, 1986. Łowmiański, H enryk. Początki P olski. P olityczne i s połeczne p rocesy ks ztałtowania s ię narodu do początku wieku XIV, vol. 6. Warsaw, 1985. MacCormack, Sa bine. “Change a nd C ontinuity in L ate Antiquity: The C eremony of Adventus.” Historia 21 (1972), 721–752. . Art and Ceremony in Late Antiquity. Berkeley, 1982. MacLean, Simon. Kingship and Politics in the Late Ninth Century. Charles the Fat and the End of Carolingian Empire. Cambridge, 2003. MacMullen, Ramsay. “Judical Savagery in the Roman Empire.” In Changes in the Roman Empire. Essays in the Ordinary. Princeton, 1990. Maleczyński, Karol. Bolesław III Krzywousty. Wrocław, 1975. Mansfield, M ary C. The Humiliation o f S inners. Pu blic Penance i n Thirteenth-Century France. Ithaca, 1995. McCormick, Michael. Eternal Victory. Triumphal Rulership in Late Antiquity, Byzantium, and the Early Medieval West. Cambridge, 1986. McKitterick, R osamond. The F rankish Ch urch a nd t he Ca rolingian Ref orms, 789–985 . London, 1977. . “Constructing the Past in the E arly Middle Ages: the Case of the Royal Frankish Annals.” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 7 ser. 6 (1997), 101–129. . History and Its Audiences. Cambridge, 2000. . History and Memory in the Carolingian World. Cambridge, 2004.

biblio grap hy 207 McLynn, Neil B. Ambrose of Milan. Church and Court in a Christian Capital. Berkeley – London, 1994. Meens, Rob. “Politics, mirrors of princes and the Bible: sin, kings and the well-being of the realm.” Early Medieval Europe 7 (1998), 345–357. Michałowska, Teresa. Średniowiecze. Warsaw, 1995. Michałowski, Ro man. “ ‘Restauratio P oloniae’ da ns l ’ideologie dynast ique de Ga llus Anonymus.” Acta Poloniae Historica 52 (1985), 5–43. . Princeps fundator. Studium z dziejów kultury politycznej w Polsce X–XIII w ieku. Warsaw, 1989. . “Otto III w obliczu ideowego wyzwania. Monarcha jako wizerunek Chrystusa.” In Człowiek w społeczeństwie średniowiecznym. Ed. Roman Michałowski. Warsaw, 1997. . “Podstawy religijne monarchii we wczesnym średniowieczu zachodnioeuropejskim. Próba typologii.” Kwartalnik Historyczny 105 (1998), 3–34. . “The Nine-Week Lent in B olesław the B rave’s Poland: a Study of the Fir st Piasts’ Religious Policy.” Acta Poloniae Historica 89 (2004), 5–50. . “Depozycja ciała św . Wojciecha w r oku 1000. P rzyczynek do dziejó w Z jazdu Gnieźnieńskiego.” I n Świat pog ranicza. E ds. Mir osław N agielski, Andrzej R achuba, Sławomir Górzyński. Warsaw, 2003. Moeglin, Jean-Marie.“Harmiscara, harmschar, hachée. Le dossier des rituels d’humiliation et de soumission au Moyen Âge.” Archivum Latinitatis Medii Aevi. Bulletin Du Cange 54 (1996), 11–65. . “Pénitence publique et a mende honorable au Moyen Age.” Revue Historique 604 (1997), 225–269. . “Pandolf la cord au cou (Ottoboni Lat. 74, f. 193 v); quelques réflexions au sujet d’un r ituel de su pplication (XI e–XVe siè cle).” I n Suppliques et r equêtes. L e g ouvernement par la grâce en Occident (XIIe–XV e siècle). Ed. H. Millet. Rome, 2003. Nalepa, Jerzy. “Połekszanie (Polexiani) – plemię jaćwieskie u północno-wschodnich granic Polski.” Rocznik Białostocki 7 (1967), 7–33. Nechutová, Jana. Latinská literatura českého středověku do roku 1400. Prague, 2000. Nelson, Janet L. Politics and Ritual in Medieval Europe. London, 1986. . “Kingship and empire.” In The Cambridge History of Medieval Political Thought c. 350-c. 1450. Ed. James H. Burns. Cambridge, 1988. . “The Lord’s Anointed and the people’s choice: Carolingian royal rituals.” In Rituals of Royalty. Power and Ceremonial in Traditional Societes. Eds. David Cannadine, Stuart Price. Oxford, 1988. . Charles the Bald. London, 1992. Noble, Thomas F. X. “The revolt of King Bernard.” Studi Medievali 15 (1974), 315–326. . “Louis t he Pio us a nd his p iety r e-reconsidered.” Revue B elge de Ph ilologie et d’Histoire 58 (1980). Nowacki, Bronisław. “Symbolika prawna w ceremoniale zjazdów monarchów polskich z władca mi niemie ckimi o d X do p ołowy XII wiek u.” Roczniki H istoryczne 4 3 (1977), 1–27. Obertyński, Z dzisław. “Wzory i analogie w ybranych formuł w li turgii krakowskiej XI wieku.” Studia Źródłoznawcze 14 (1969), 35–51. Oikomonidès, N icolas. “Leo VI a nd t he N artex M osaic o f Sa int S ophia.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 30 (1976), 151–172. Patlagean, Evelyne. “Byzance et le b lason pénal du corps.” In Du châtiment dans la cité. Supplices corporeles et peine de mort dans le monde antique. Rome, 1984. Peters, Edward. The Shadow King. Rex Inutilis in Medieval Law and Literature, 751–1327. New Haven, 1970. Petersohn, Jürgen. Der südliche Ostseeraum im kirchlich-politischen Kräftspiel des Reichs, Polens und Dänemarks vom 10. bis 13. Jahrhundert. Mission – Kirchenorganisation – Kultpolitik. Cologne – Vienna, 1979. Peterson, Er ik. “Die Ein holung des K yrios.” Zeitschrift für s ystematische Theologie 7 (1930), 682–702.

208

biblio grap hy

Peyer, Hans Conrad. “Das Reisekönigtum des Mittelalters.” Vierteljahrschrift für Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte 51 (1964), 1–21. Pleszczyński, Andrzej. Przestrzeń i p olityka. S tudium rezydencji wła dcy w cześniejszego średniowiecza. Przykład czeskiego Wyszehradu. Lublin, 2000. . “Sobiesław I – r ex Ninivitarum. Ksiażę czeski w walce z o rdynariuszem praskim Meinhardem, biskupem Rzeszy.” In Monarchia w średniowieczu – władza nad ludźmi, władza nad terytorium. Studia ofiarowane Profesorowi Henrykowi Samsonowiczowi. Eds. Jerzy Pysiak, Anna Pieniądz-Skrzypczak, Marcin R. Pauk. Warsaw – Krakow, 2002. Plezia, Marian. Kronika Galla na tle historiografii XII w., RPAU, wydz. hist.-filozof., ser. II, vol. 46. Krakow, 1947. . “Dokoła tekstu i daty poematu o Piotrze Właście.” Pamiętnik Literacki 45 (1954), 452–472. . “Księgozbiór katedry krakowskiej wedle inwentarza z r. 1100.” Silva rerum n. s. 1 (1981), 16–29. .“Nowe studia nad Gallem Anonimem.” In Mente et litteris. O kulturze i społeczeństwie wieków średnich. Ed. Helena Chłopocka. Poznań, 1984. Poschmann, B ernhard. Die a bendländische K irchenbuße i m f rühem M ittelalter. Breslau, 1930. Presnjakov, Aleksandr E. Knjažoje pravo v d revnej Rusi. Očerki po is torii X–XII s toletij. Moscow, 1993. Priselkov, Michail D. Istorija russkoga letopisanija XI–X vv. S. Petersburg, 1996. Reuter, Timothy. “Unruhestiftung, Fehde, Rebellion, Widerstand. Gewalt und Frieden in der Politik der Sa lierzeit.” I n Die Salier und das Reich, v ol. 3 . Gesellschaftlicher und ideengeschichtlicher Wandel im Reich der Salier. Ed. Stefan Weinfurter. Sigmaringen, 1991. . “Pre-Gregorian Mentalities.” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 45 (1994), 465–474. . “Regemque, quem in Francia pene perdidit, in patria magnifice recepit. Ottonian ruler representation in synchronic and diachronic comparison.” In Herrschaftsrepräsentation im ot tonischen S achsen. Ed s. Ger d Althoff, Ern st S chubert. Vorträge und Forschungen, 46. Sigmaringen, 1998. . “ ‘Velle sibi fi eri in f orma hac’. Symbolisches Handeln in B ecketstreit.” In Formen und Funktionen öffentlicher Kommunikation im Mittelalter. Ed. Gerd Althoff. Vorträge und Forschungen, 51. Stuttgart, 2001. Reydellet, Marc. La royauté dans la l ittérature latine de S idoine Apollinaire à Isidore de Séville. Rome, 1981. Rička, Volodimir M. “Polična etika i k ultura mižknjazïvskiv vzaemin na R usi i vimli vi religijnoï tradicï chrestociluvanija.” In Ljubeckij z’ïzd knjaziv 1097 roku v istoričnij doli Kiïvs’koi R usi. M ateriali M ižnarodnoï n aukovoi k onferenciï p risvjačenoï 900-l ittju z’ïzdu knjaziv Kiïvskoi Rusi v Ljubeči. Ed. Petro P. Toločko. Černigiv, 1997. Sassier, Yves. Royauté et idéologie au Moyen Âge. Bas-Empire, monde franc, France (IV e– XII e siècle). Paris, 2002. Sawicki, Witold. Studia nad wpływem praw obcych w dawnej Polsce.Warsaw, 1971. Schaab, Meinrad. Die Blendung als politische Maßnahme im abendländischen Früh- und Hochmittelalter. Diss. Heidelberg, 1955. Schieffer, Rudolf.“Von Mailand nach Canossa. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der christlichen Herrscherbuße von Theodosius d. Gr. bis zu Heinrich IV.” Deutsches Archiv 28 (1972), 333–370. Schmidt, Roderich. “Die Einsetzung der b öhmischen Herzöge auf den Thron zu Prag.” In Aspekte der Nationenbildung im M ittelalter. E ds. H elmut Beumann, Werner Schröder. Sigmaringen, 1978. Schmidt-Wiegand, R uth. “Eid und G elöbnis im mi ttelalterlichen Re cht.” I n Recht und S chrift im M ittelalter. E d. P eter Class en. Vorträge und F orschungen, 23. Sigmaringen, 1977. Schmink, Andreas. “ ‘Rota tu volubilis’. Kaisermacht und Patriarchenmacht in Mosaiken.” In Cupido leg um. Eds. Ludwig Burgmann, Marie Theres Fögen, Andreas Schminck. Frankfurt, 1985.

biblio grap hy 209 Schmitt, Jean-Claude. La raison des gestes dans l’ Occident médiéval. Paris, 1990. Schneider, Reinhard. Brüdergemeine und Schwurfreundschaft. Der Auflösungsprozeß des Karlingerreiches im Spiegel der Caritas-Terminologie in den Verträgen der karlingischen Teilkönige des 9. Jahrhunderts. Lübeck, 1964. Schneidmüller, Bernd. “Konsensuale Herrschaft. Ein Essay über Formen und Konzepte politischer Ordnung im Mittelalter.” In Reich, Regionen und Europa im Mittelalter und Neuzeit. F estschrift f ür Peter Moraw. E ds. P aul-Joachim H einig, Sig rid J ahn, H ansJoachim S chmidt, R ainer C hristoph S chwinges, Sa bine Wefers. H istorische Forschungen, 67. Berlin, 2000. Schnith, K arl. “Recht und F riede. Z um K önigsgedanken im U mkreis H einrichs. III.” Historisches Jahrbuch 81 (1962). Schramm, P ercy E rnst. Geschichte de s en glischen K önigtums i m L ichte der K rönung. Weimar, 1937. . Der König von Frankreich. Das Wesen der Monarchie vom 9. zum 16. Jahrhundert. Weimar, 1939. Schreiner, Klaus. “ ‘Er küsse mich mit dem Kuß seines Mundes’ (Osculetur me osculo oris sui, Cant. 1,1). Metaphorik, kommunikative und herrschaftliche Funktion einer symbolischen Handlung.” I n Höfische Rep räsentation. D as Zer emoniell u nd d ie Zeichen. Eds. Hedda Ragotzky, Horst Wenzel. Tübingen, 1990. . “ ‘Gerechtigkeit und Frieden haben sich geküßt’(Ps. 84, 11). Friedensstiftung durch symbolisches Handeln.” In Träger und Instrumentarien des Friedens im hohen und späten Mittelalter. Ed. Johannes Fried. Vorträge und Forschungen, 43. Sigmaringen, 1996. . “Nudis pedibus. Barfüßigkeit als religiöses und politisches Ritual.” In Formen und Funktionen öffentlicher Kommunikation im Mittelalter. Ed. Gerd Althoff. Vorträge und Forschungen, 51. Stuttgart, 2001. Schütte, Bernd. “Gewalt gegen Bischöfe im früheren und hohen Mittelalter,” Historisches Jahrbuch 123 (2003), 27–63. Schwenk, B ernd. “Das H undetragen. Ein Re chtsbrauch im Mi ttelalter.” Historisches Jahrbuch 110 (1990), 289–308. Skwierczyński, Krzysztof. Recepcja idei g regoriańskich w Polsce do początku XIII w ieku. Wrocław, 2005. Sochacki, Jarosław. Stosunki publicznoprawne m iędzy pa ństwem po lskim a c esarstwem rzymskim w latach 963–1102. Słupsk – Gdańsk, 2003. Staubach, N ikolaus. Das h errscherbild K arls de s K ahlen. F ormen u nd F unktionen monarchischer Repräsentation im früheren Mittelalter. Diss. Münster, 1982. Steger, H ugo. David r ex et p ropheta. K onig D avid a ls vo rbildliche Verkörperung des Herrschers und Dichters im Mittelalter nach Bilddarstellungen des 8.bis 12. Jahrhunderts. Nürnberg, 1961. Stenton, Frank M. Anglo-Saxon England. Oxford, 1971. Stock, Brian. The Implication of Literacy. Written Language and Models of Interpretation in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries. Princeton, 1983. Strickland, Matthew. War and Chivalry. The Conduct and Perception of War in England and Normandy. 1066–1217. Cambridge, 1996. Suchan, M onika. Königsherrschaft im Str eit. K onfliktaustragung i n der Re gierungszeit Heinrichs IV. zwischen Gewalt, Gespräch und Schriftlichkeit. Stuttgart, 1997. Suntrup, Rudolf. Die Bedeutung der liturgischen Gebärden und Bewegungen in lateinischen und deutschen Auslegungen des 9. bis 13. Jahrhunderts. Munich, 1978. Tabuteau, Emi ly Z ack. “Punishments in E leventh-Century Normandy.” In Conflicts in Medieval Europe. Changing Perspectives on Society and Culture. Eds. Warren C. Brown, Piotr Górecki. Aldershot, 2003. Toločko, Petro P. “Ljubeckij z’ïzd knjaziv.” In Ljubeckij z’ïzd knjaziv 1097 roku v istoričnij doli Kiïvs’koi Rusi. Materiali Mižnarodnoï naukovoi konferenciï prisvjačenoï 900-littju z’ïzdu knjaziv Kiïvskoi Rusi v Ljubeči. Ed. Petro P. Toločko. Černigiv, 1997. Trawkowski, Stanisław. “Pielgrzymka Ottona III do Gniezna.” In Polska w świecie. Szkice z dziejów kultury polskiej. Ed. Jerzy Dowiat. Warsaw, 1972.

210

biblio grap hy

Treitinger, Otto. Die oströmische Kaiser- und Reichsidee nach ihrer Gestaltung im höfischen Zeremoniell. Jena, 1938. Třeštík, Dušan. Kosmova Kronika. Studie k poč átkům českého dĕjepisectví a politického myšlení. Prague, 1968. . Vznik Velké M oravy. M oravané, Če chové a s třední E vropa v le tech 791–871 . Prague, 2002. Třeštík, Dušan and Anežka Merhautová. “Die böhmischen Insignien und der steiner ne Thron.” In Europas Mitte um 1000. Beiträge zur Geschichte, Kunst und Archäologie, vol. 2. Eds. Alfried Wieczorek, Hans-Martin Hinz. Stuttgart, 2000. Turner, Victor. The Forest of Symbols. Aspects of Ndendu Ritual. Ithaca – London, 1967. Tyc, Teodor. Zbygniew i Bolesław. Poznań, 1927. Varga, Gábor. Ungarn und das Reich vom 10. bis zum 13. Jahrhundert. Das Herrscherhaus der Árpaden zwischen Anlehnung und Emanzipation. Munich, 2003. Vetulani, Adam. “Krakowska b iblioteka w świetle sw ego in wentarza z r . 1100.” Slavia Antiqua 4 (1953), 163–192. . Z badań nad kulturą prawniczą w Polsce piastowskiej.Wrocław, 1976. Vogel, Cyrille. “Le pontifical romano-germanique du Xe siècle: nature, date et importance du document.” Cahiers de Civilisation Médiévale 6 (1963), 27–48. . “Les rites de la pénitence publique aux Xe et XIe siècles.” In Mélanges offerts à René Crozet, vol. 1. Eds. Pierre Gallais, Yves-Jean Riou. Paris, 1966. . Le pécheur et la pénitence au Moyen Âge. Paris, 1969. . “Les rituels de la p énitence tariffée.”I n Liturgia opera divina e umana. Studi sulla riforma liturgica offerti a S. E. Mons. Annibale Bugnini in occasione del suo 70 c ompleanno. Ed. Pierre Jounel. Roma, 1983. Voss, I ngrid. Herrschertreffen im frühen und hohen Mittelalter. Untersuchungen zu den Begegnungen der o stfränkischen u nd we stfränkischen H errscher i m 9. u nd 10. Jahrhundert sowie der deutschen und französischen Könige vom 11. bis 13. Jahrhundert. Cologne, 1987. Waldhoff, S tephan. “Der K aiser in der K rise? Z um Verständnis v on Thietmar IV,48.” Deutsches Archiv 54 (1998), 23–54. Warner, David A. “Henry II at Magdeburg. Kingship, ritual and the cult of saints.” Early Medieval Europe 3 (1994), 135–166. . “Thietmar of Merseburg on Rituals of Kingship.” Viator 26 (1995). . “Ritual and Memory in the Ottonian Reich: The Ceremony of Adventus.” Speculum 76 (2001), 255–283. Warren, Wilfrid L. Henry II. London, 1973. . King John. New Haven – London, 1997. Weinfurter, Stefan. “Die Entmachtung Heinrichs des Löwen.” In Heinrich der Löwe und seine Zeit. Herrschaft und Repräsentation der Welfen 1125–1235 , vol. 2 . E ds. Jochen Luckhardt, Franz Niehoff. Munich, 1995. . “Zur ‘Funktion’ des ottonischen und salischen Königtum,” in Mittelalterforschung nach der Wende 1989. Ed. Michael Borgolte. Historische Zeitschrift, Beihefte, n. s. 20. Munich, 1995. . “Ordnungskonfigurationen im Konflikt. Das Beispiel Heinrichs III.” In Mediaevalia Augiensia. Forschungen zur Geschichte des Mittelalters. Ed. Jürgen Petersohn. Stuttgart, 2001. . Heinrich II. Herrscher am Ende der Zeiten. Regensburg, 2002. Wenta, J arosław. “Tradycja o Pio trze. N a ma rginesie j ednej z wiel kich dysk usji.” I n Scriptura custos memoriae. Prace historyczne. Ed. Danuta Zydorek. Poznań, 2001. Werner, Karl Ferdinand. “Hludovicus Augustus. G ouverner l’empire c hrétien. Idées e t réalités.” In Charlemagne’s Heir. New Perspectives on the Reign of Louis the Pious. Eds. Peter Godman, Roger Collins. Oxford, 1990. White, Stephen D. “Feuding and Peace-Making in the Touraine around the Year 1100.” Traditio 42 (1986), 195–265.

biblio grap hy 211 . “Politics of Fidelity: Hugh of Lusignan and William of Aquitain.” In Georges Duby. L’écriture de l’Histoire. Eds. Claudie Duhamel-Amado, Guy Lobrichon. Brussels, 1996. Wieczorek, Szymo n. “Zwiefalten i P olska w p ierwszej p ołowie XII w .” Kwartalnik Historyczny 103 (1996), 23–55. Wihoda, Martin. Zlatá bulla sicilská. Podivuhodný přiběh ve vrstvách paměti. Prague, 2005. Willmes, Peter. Der Herrscher-‘Adventus’ im Kloster des Frühmittelalters. Munich, 1976. Włodarski, Bronisław. Polska i Ruś 1194–1340. Warsaw, 1966. . “Sąsiedztwo polsko-ruskie w czas ach Kazimierza S prawiedliwego.” Kwartalnik Historyczny 76 (1969), 5–19. Wolverton, L isa. Hastening Toward Prague. P ower a nd S ociety i n t he M edieval Czech Lands. Philadelphia, 2001. Žemlička, Josef. “Vyšehrad 1130: soud, nebo inscenace? (K nekosmovskému pojetí českých dějin).” In Husiství – reformace – renesance. Sborník k 60. narozeninám F. Šmahela, vol. 1. Eds. Jaroslav Pánek, Miloslav Polívka, Noemi Rejchrtová. Prague, 1994. . Čechy v dobĕ knížecí (1034–1195). Prague, 1997. Zimmermann, H arald. Der Ca nossagang vo n 1077. Wirkungen u nd Wirklichkeit. Mainz, 1975. Zotz, Thomas. “Präsenz und Rep räsentation. B eobachtungen zur k öniglischen Herrschaftspraxis im ho hen und spä ten Mittelalter.” In Herrschaft als soziale Praxis. Historische und sozial-anthropologische Studien. Ed. Alf Lüdtke. Göttingen, 1991.

INDEX∗

Abbo of Fleury, abbot 97 Adalbero, bishop of Laon 183 Adalbert, archbishop of Magdeburg 17, 31 Ademar of Chabannes, chronicler 24, 25, 33 Agnes, Polish duchess 150–153, 173 Albrecht the Bear, margrave of Northern March 175 Alduin, count of Angoulême 24, 25 Alexander III, pope 122 Alfred Aetheling, pretender to the English throne 144 Álmos, Hungarian duke 70, 71, 148 Ambrose, saint, bishop of Milan 90, 91, 94, 97 Anselm of Lucca, saint, canon law author 168 Ansfrid, saint, sword-man of Otto I, bishop of Utrecht 36 Arnold of Lübeck, chronicler 61 Arnulf of Carinthia, East Frankish king, emperor 37 Arnulf I, count of Flanders 184 Arthur, count of Brittany 145 Astronomer, biographer 38 Baldwin, bishop of Krakow 43, 77 Basil I, Byzantine emperor 91, 92 Bedřich, Czech duke 66, 147 Béla I, king of Hungary 148 Béla, son of Álmos 148 Benno, bishop of Metz 143 Berengar I of Friuli, king of Italy, emperor 37, 141 Berengar, margrave of Ivrea 142 Bern, abbot of Reichenau 64, 109 Bernard, king of Italy 107, 141, 154, 155 Bernhard, bishop of Hildesheim 95 Bernward, bishop of Hildesheim 32 Bezprym, duke of Poland 63 Boleslav III Rufus, Czech duke 147, 148

Bolesław I the Brave, king of Poland 5, 19, 36, 38, 39, 61, 62, 103, 116–119, 148 Bolesław II the Bold, king of Poland 5, 28–30, 39, 104, 105, 113, 116, 117 Bolesław III Wrymouth, duke of Poland 1, 2, 4–7, 9, 12, 13, 16–18, 28, 33–36, 40–43, 72, 74–78, 80–89, 99, 100, 102–105, 111, 112, 115, 116, 120–122, 129–133, 135–138, 149, 150, 153–155, 158, 161–166, 168, 170, 176–182, 186–192, 194 Bolesław IV Curly, duke of Poland 65, 69, 83, 175 Bořivoj II, Czech duke 18, 19, 22, 70, 71, 146, 164, 187 Břetislav I, Czech duke 63, 64, 66, 70, 146 Břetislav II, Czech duke 19 Břetislav, son of Břetislav II 147, 156 Burchardt, bishop of Worms, canon law author 168 Canon of Vyšehrad, chronicler 72, 125, 126, 147 Carloman, son of Charles the Bald 50, 141, 155 Casimir II the Just, duke of Poland 15, 16, 28, 39, 72–74, 82 Charlemagne, Frankish king, emperor 49, 140 Charles II the Bald, West Frankish king, emperor 50, 141, 155 Charles III the Simple, West Frankish king 143, 183 Charles III the Fat, East Frankish king, emperor 141, 155 Charles, duke of Lotharingia 183 Cono, German duke, literary figure 26 Conrad II, German king, emperor 63, 66 Conrad III, German king 60, 66, 70, 172, 175 Conrad II, duke of Znojmo 70, 71

∗The index does not include authors of secondary literature.

214

index

Conrad III Otto, duke of Znojmo and Brno, margrave of Moravia 66, 68, 70 Conrad, margrave of Meissen 175 Conrad Sturm, Czech comes 167, 168 Constance, French queen 54, 55 Constantine I the Great, Roman emperor 91 Cosmas, bishop of Prague 19 Cosmas of Prague, chronicler 19, 34, 38, 70, 71, 136, 137, 138, 146–148, 154–156, 161–166, 182, 185, 186, 188 Daniel, bishop of Prague 27 David, king of Israel 90–92, 94, 95, 97, 98, 100 David, duke of Vladimir [Volÿnsk] 157–161 Dudo of Saint-Quentin, chronicler 26, 36, 184 Eberhard, count 52 Ebo of Michaelsberg, hagiographer 74–77, 82 Einhard, bishop of Speyer 143 Ekkehard I, margrave of Meissen 32 Flodoard of Reims, chronicler 25, 26, 143 Frederick I Barbarossa, German king, emperor 27, 52, 61, 64–69 Frederick, duke of Svabia 60 Frederick, archbishop of Magdeburg 175 Fulbert of Chartres, 33 Fulk Nerra, count of Anjou 52 Gallus Anonymous, chronicler 1–14, 17–24, 28–30, 33–36, 39–43, 72, 77–89, 99, 100, 102–105, 111–116, 120, 122, 129–133, 135–138, 154, 155, 164–166, 176–183, 186–194 Geoffrey, count of Brittany 55 Geoffrey II (“Martel”), count of Anjou 5 2 Geoffrey III, duke of Lotharingia 60 Geoffrey, son of count William of Angoulême 25 Gerlach of Milevsko, chronicler 19, 66, 147, 168 Gervase of Canterbury, chronicler 57 Géza, Hungarian duke 148 Gisela, German queen, empress 109

Gratian, canon law author 168 Gregory I the Great, saint, pope 106 Gregory VII, pope 97, 128 Guy, count of Ponthieu 185 Harald IV, king of Norway 144 Harold I, king of England 144 Harold II, king of England 185 Helgaud of Fleury, hagiographer 97 Helmold of Bosau, chronicler 64 Henry I, German king 58, 108 Henry II, German king, emperor 19, 32, 36, 59–62, 119 Henry III, German king, emperor 60, 63, 64, 67, 109, 110, 146, 148 Henry IV, German king, emperor 60, 76, 97, 98, 110, 111, 128, 129 Henry V, German king, emperor 60, 111, 179, 180, 186, 187 Henry VI, king of Germany and Sicily, emperor 27, 28, 145, 146 Henry I, king of England 145 Henry II, king of England 55–57, 99, 122–125, 129 Henry I, king of France 54, 55 Henry I, duke of Bavaria 58, 59, 143 Henry II the “Quarelsome”, duke of Bavaria 32, 59 Henry the Lion, duke of Bavaria and Saxony 61, 64 Henry the Young King, son of king Henry II of England 55, 56, 129 Henry Zdik, bishop of Olomouc 71 Herbert II, count of Vermandois 183 Herbord of Michaelsberg, hagiographer 75, 170–172 Hermann Billung, duke of Saxony 17, 31 Hermann, palatine of Rhineland 52 Hermann II, duke of Svabia 59 Hermann of Reichenau, chronicler 60, 63, 64, 148 Herold, archbishop of Salzburg 143 Hugh, archbishop of Reims 143 Hugh, count of Chalon 51 Hugh, king of Italy 142 Hugh, son of Lothar II, Carolingian pretender 141, 155 Hugh, son of Robert the Pious 54 Hugh the Great, French duke 184 Iaropolk, Ruthenian duke 157, 159 Iaroslav, Ruthenian duke 43, 77 Iaroslav the Wise, duke of Kiev 38 Ivo of Chartres, canon law author 168

index Jacob of Żnin, archbishop of Gniezno 175, 176 Jaromir, Czech duke 19, 147, 156 John I Tzimiskes, Byzantine emperor 92 John, king of England 56, 145 John Crescentius, Roman patrician 96 John Philagatus, anti-pope 96, 142 Judith, daughter of Bolesław III Wrymouth 175 Koloman, king of Hungary 70, 71, 87, 116, 148, 187 Ladislas I, king of Hungary 29, 30, 104, 178 Lambert, margrave of Tuscany 142 Lampert of Hersfeld, chronicler 76, 116 Leo VI, Byzantine emperor 91, 92 Leo IX, pope 60 Leopold V, margrave of Austria 56 Leszek, duke of Mazovia 73 Leszek the White, duke of Poland 74, 82 Liudolf, son of Otto I 59 Liudprand of Cremona, chronicler 30, 31, 37, 141, 142, 184 Lothar I, emperor 49, 50, 93, 154 Lothar III, German king, emperor 16, 17, 36, 60, 61, 71, 72, 80 Louis I the Pious, emperor 38, 48–51, 93, 106, 107, 140, 141, 154, 155 Louis II, emperor 47 Louis III, emperor 141 Louis II the Stammerer, West Frankish king 50 Louis IV, West Frankish king 25, 26, 36, 184 Louis VII, king of France 55 Louis II the German, East Frankish king 50, 140, 141 Louis the Younger, son of Louis II the German 50 Magnus IV, king of Norway 144 Magnus, comes of Wrocław 20, 21 Magnus, Danish duke 144 Martin, archbishop of Gniezno 2, 34, 42, 43, 80, 178 Mathilda, German queen 59 Maurus, bishop of Krakow 2 Michael, chancelor of Bolesław Wrymouth 5, 6

215 Mieszko II, king of Poland 63, 66, 70, 116 Mieszko III the Old, duke of Poland 15, 73, 175 Mieszko, son of Mieszko the Old 73 Nathan, biblical prophet 90, 97 Nicholas the Mystic, patriarch of Constantinople 9 1 Nicholas, voivode of Krakow 73 Nikephoros II Phokas, Byzantine emperor 92, 184 Nilus, saint 95, 96 Odo II, count of Blois 54, 55 Odylen, Polish magnate 148 Oldřich, Czech duke 147, 156 Ortlieb, chronicler 169–171 Otto I, German king, emperor 31, 36, 52, 58, 59, 95, 108 Otto III, German king, emperor 32, 59, 61, 95, 96, 109, 119, 167, 168 Otto II, duke of Olomouc 71, 137, 138, 146, 147, 162, 186 Otto III, duke of Olomouc 71 Otto, saint, bishop of Bamberg 74–77 Otto, son of Albrecht the Bear 175 Otto of Freising, chronicler 52, 60, 65, 69, 72 Otto of Saint Blasien, chronicler 27 Pandulf IV, duke of Capua 62 Parkoš, comes of Bilina 146 Paul, bishop of Poznań 2 Peter Damiani, saint, hagiographer 95, 96 Peter of Blois 99, 124 Peter Orseolo, king of Hungary 64, 66, 70, 147, 148 Peter Włostowic, Polish palatine 149–154, 168–172 Philip I, king of France 98 Philip II Augustus, king of France 56, 57 Piast, mythical founder of the Piast dynasty 103 Pippin the Hunchback, son of Charlemagne 1 40 Polyeuktos, patriarch of Constantinople 9 2 Przybywoj, Polish magnate 148

216

index

Rahewin, chronicler 52, 65, 69, 72 Ralph de Diceto, chronicler 56, 125 Ralph of Coggeshall, chronicler 145 Raoul Glaber, chronicler 54, 55 Raymond V, count of Toulouse 56 Regino of Prüm, chronicler 59, 89, 141, 143 Richard, son of duke Richard II of Normandy 51 Richard, son of William I Longsword 184 Richard I the Lionheart, king of England 55–57, 129 Richer of Saint-Remi, chronicler 25, 26, 36, 183 Robert I, duke of Normandy 51 Robert II, count of Flanders 33, 126, 128 Robert II the Pious, king of France 54, 97 Robert, son of Robert the Pious 54 Roger, servant of Peter Włostowic 151 Roger of Howden, chronicler 55–57, 125, 129, 146 Roman, duke of Galich 74 Romuald, saint 96 Roštej, Czech comes 146 Rostislav, ruler of Great Moravia 141 Salomea, Polish princess 169–171 Salomon, king of Hungary 148 Salomon, ruler of Brittany 141 Saxo Grammaticus, chronicler 98, 99 Sieciech, Polish palatine 20–22, 78–81, 178, 182 Siemowit, mythical Piast ruler 114 Simon, bishop of Płock 2 Skarbimir, Polish palatine 148, 154 Soběslav I, Czech duke 71, 72, 80, 125–127, 147, 156, 164, 165 Soběslav II, Czech duke 19, 71, 147, 167, 168 Spityhněv II, Czech duke 38, 148 Stanislaus, saint, bishop of Krakow 29, 104, 113 Stephen I, king of Hungary 147, 148 Stephen, son of king Koloman of Hungary 148 Svatava, Czech princess and queen 164 Svatopluk, Czech duke 180–182, 186, 187 Svatopluk, ruler of Great Moravia 141 Sven II Estridsen, king of Denmark 98, 99

Svyatopolk, duke of Kiev 157–161 Swantobor, Pomeranian duke 179 Swantopolk, Pomeranian duke 180 Tassilo III, duke of Bavaria 49 Thangmar, hagiographer 32, 61 Thegan, biographer 155 Theobald II, count of Blois 33 Theodosius I the Great, Roman emperor 90, 91, 94, 97, 100 Theutobold, bishop of Langres 143 Thietmar of Merseburg, chronicler 19, 31, 32, 36, 38, 59, 62, 108, 109, 117–119, 143, 147, 148 Thomas Becket, saint, archbishop of Canterbury 122, 123, 129 Valdemar I, king of Denmark 144 Vašek, Czech magnate 146 Vasilko, duke of Terebovl 156–161 Vasul, Hungarian duke 147, 148 Vincent Kadłubek, chronicler 15, 16, 28, 39, 43, 72–74, 82, 170–173, 176 Vincent of Prague, chronicler 26, 27, 65, 66, 69, 71, 173 Vladimir, duke of Galich 73 Vladimir Monomakh, duke of Pereyaslav 157, 159, 161 Vladislav I, Czech duke 18, 70, 71, 137, 138, 146, 147, 154, 162, 164, 165, 186 Vladislav II, Czech duke and king 26, 27, 70, 71, 167 Volodar, duke of Peremÿshl’ [Przemyśl] 158, 161, 170–172 Vratislav, duke of Brno 71 Wartislaw, duke of Obotrites 64 Wartislaw I, Pomeranian duke 74–77, 82 Wido of Spoleto, king of Italy, emperor 30, 31, 37 Widuking of Corvey, chronicler 52, 58, 59 William I the Conqueror, king of England, duke of Normandy 45, 185 William II Rufus, king of England 145 William III, king of Sicily 145, 146 William IV, count of Angoulême 24, 25 William V, duke of Aquitaine 33 William Longsword, duke of Normandy 26, 36, 184 William the Lion, king of Scotland 125 William, bishop of Roskilde 98, 99

index William of Bellême, count of Alençon 51 William of Eu, Norman magnate 145 William of Jumièges, chronicler 51 William of Malmesbury, chronicler 51 William of Poitiers, chronicler 185 Wipo, chronicler 63 Władysław I Herman, duke of Poland 5, 20–23, 30, 78–81, 119, 177–179, 182

217 Władysław II, duke of Poland 65, 69, 149–154, 169, 172–176 Wojsław, Polish comes 81, 131 Zbigniew, duke of Poland 1, 2, 4–7, 9, 11–14, 17, 18, 20–23, 28, 30, 33–35, 39–43, 72, 77–86, 102–105, 112, 120, 121, 130–133, 135–138, 149, 153–155, 158, 161–166, 176–78, 181, 182, 186–194 Żyrosław, bishop of Wrocław 2