Download PDF | David Kalhous - Anatomy of a Duchy_ The Political and Ecclesiastical Structures of Early Přemyslid Bohemia-Brill 2012.
335 Pages
PREFACE
I would like to express my gratitude to many people for their friendly support. First of all to Martin Wihoda who supervised my PhD. thesis on the Legenda Christiani. With his support (and thanks to the magnanimity of Jiti Malii, head of the Department of History) I also found a friendly “refuge” at the Department of History of the Faculty of Arts of Masaryk University in Brno, where I met many inspiring people including Robert Antonin, PYemysl Bar, Stanislav Barta, Anna Bujnochova-Pumprova, Petr Elbel, Jiti Knap, Martin Marek, Michaela Malanikova, Demeter Malatak, Lukas Reitinger and Anna Smékalova-Kernbach.
I am also greatly indebted to my archeologist friends—Michaela Balasova, Petr Dresler, Jana KrejsovaMazackova, Jan Jilek, Jiti Machaéek, Jan Majik, Pavel Kracik and Markéta and Michal B. Soukupovi—who patiently introduced me to the world of archeological imagination. I can hardly express how much I learned from Pavlina Rychterova (Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Vienna), who enabled me to spend a wonderful semester in Konstanz and carefully read and sharply criticized my manuscript. With nearly the same sharpness, the first version of my manuscript was read by an anonymous reviewer whose comments helped me remove many redundant parts of the text.
I must also appreciate the unexpected help of three American medieval historians—Lisa Wolverton, David S. Bachrach and Jonathan Lyon—for giving up their time to read and comment on my text. Last but not least I am also grateful to the people who helped me transform the Czech thesis manuscript into an English monograph: Demeter Malatak and David Koneény with the help of Michaela BalaSova and Petr Charvat translated most of this text, subsequently cautiously proofread by Florin Curta (University of Florida) and by his students—Janel Fontaine and especially Matthew Koval (University of Florida).
Florin and Matthew also added some very useful comments to the content and it was Florin, who gave me such a great opportunity to publish my thesis in his series East Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 450-1450. Furthermore, I have always found friendly and fully professional support with Marcella Mulder, Editor at Brill Publishing House, and would like to thank her as well.
This book I dedicate to my parents and to my Zuzka.
David Kalhous 3 January 2012
INTRODUCTION
The Piemyslids were one of the middle European dynasties that ruled Bohemia and Moravia for more than 400 years (880s—1306). They are hardly part of English and American historical discourse—at the moment only one monograph written by Lisa Wolwerton exists that focuses on PYemyslid interaction with 12th century aristocracy in Bohemia and Moravia.’ The last monograph in English about East Central Europe in the tenth and eleventh centuries was written by Byzantinist Francis (FrantiSek) Dvornik.
However, analysis of the beginning of early medieval realms in Middle Europe offers an opportunity to compare the Premyslids with the situation in rest of Europe- or at least enables historians who do not read in Slavonic languages to familiarize themselves with today’s state of research and its problematic points.’
Literally expressed, the beginning of Premyslid rule in Bohemia lies in the shadows. The marginal note in one of the gth-century-manuscripts of the Annals of Fulda mentions Duke “Borziwoy” as one of the princes from Bohemia. However, only later tenth century tradition describes him as the husband of St Ludmila (+921), baptized in Great Moravia by St. Methodius (+885), archbishop of Moravians. The 12th-century chronicler and dean of Prague’s cathedral church, Cosmas, (1125) sees the members of the Premyslid dynasty as natural heirs of all Bohemia and rulers of the Bohemian populus. The Premyslids rose to power in the century-wide gap between the emergence of the dukes who ruled the region around the Prague castle and the later princes of Bohemians. Although there are some interesting sources written in different parts of 10th- and uthcentury Europe, their reliability is still a matter of discussions.
Prevailing historiographical discourse describes the 10th century in terms of the military success of Boleslav I (935-972), who organised a great cavalry army that gave him victories over the weakly organised tribes in today’s Silesia and Lesser Poland (southern regions of Poland)—as was done previously by Charles the Martell or Moravian Prince Svatopluk I (7894), or later Piast duke of Polonians Mieszko I (g60s—gg2). Boleslav’s retinue was paid by means of the slaves sold to Arabian and Jewish merchants, travelers, and envoys coming from western caliphate in the Iberian Peninsula. His successor Boleslav II (972-999) lost his father’s “empire” because his neighbors also equipped great retinues—which in turn conquered most of his realm. Subsequently, after a short period of crisis the PY¥emyslids transformed their domain in Bohemia (and after 1020 in Moravia as well), creating a strong centralized state—that was weakened during the 12th and 13th century by the the new, land-owning aristocracy.‘
The above portrayal of the Piemyslid rise is not above doubt. We know nearly nothing about 10th century society in Bohemia and Moravia. No archeological sources evidence a strong cavalry army of the PYemyslid princes. Neither do tenth century chroniclers and annalists mention the powerful retinues of PYemyslid (and Piast) princes. Only Arabian and Jewish travelers and merchants discuss it; however, we are not able to confirm their witnesses through the sources written in Bohemia, Moravia or Polonia.
Another paradox is the fact that the bureaucratic apparatus of the later uth- and 12th century Piemyslid “state” produced only 15 charters before 1120. Naturally, not all 1th and 12th century diplomas survived to the 21st century. However, the growing numbers of privileges after 140 clearly demonstrates structural changes in 12th century Bohemian and Moravian society. Also, remarks that accord with the conventional portrayal mentioned above might need reevaluation due to confusion over the nature of early medieval statehood—which is often imagined in terms of a modern state rather than according to early medieval reality.
The emphasis on strong ducal power in the paradigmatical articles and monographs (1960s—2000s) has a long prehistory. The discourse of that time concerning the Carolingians (as well as Ptemyslids) was based on a notion from Waitz’s time, when the German or Bohemian intellectuals dreamed about “rebirth” of assumed strong medieval state with separate “public” and “private” spheres. They shared this idea with French historians who—following their medieval predecessors—also emphasized the importance of a strong central authority that was believed to be the only power capable of protecting the “nation” against its enemies, Slavs, Germans, Frenchmen, or Englishmen. This “centralized state” is, in 19th century historiography, generally understood to be positive when compared to the brutal anarchy of the “feudal” period, when the power of “nation” and “state” declined. The idea of continuity between the Roman Empire and the Merovingian kingdom was of great importance, especially in French medieval hagiography. Thanks to this concept, the role of Teutonic invaders (and their supposed German heirs) in the transformation of the Roman world into the Carolingian Frankish empire and medieval kingdom of France may have been minimized. Also, the most influential Czech historian, Frantisek Palacky (1798-1876), contrasted the Teutonic tendency to dominate and the liberalism of old Bohemians. Both tendencies confirm that the etatism and nationalism were in 19th and 2oth century historiography closely related.
The discussion regarding the discontinuity of power is closely related to the debate on the continuity of Carolingian elites and their biological relationship to eleventh and twelfth century aristocracy.’ The conservative-liberal concept was also drawn on by left-wing French historians, recently e.g. Marc Bloch.’ The notion is petrified in particular in Georges Duby’s monograph on the county of Macon; pointing out the usurpation of royal power by the counts, Duby even uses the term decomposition de lEtat franc (p. 98). Evidence of this may be found both in an attempt at seizing jurisdiction over freemen as well as in the gradual transformation of appointed offices into hereditary ones.* Georges Duby claims that in the next stage the public judicial forum for freemen known as the malus publicum—which replaced the judicial ban on Castellans and the immunized areas of the church—disappeared, with Macon and indeed all of France essentially disintegrating into individual castellanies.°
German historiography developed along somewhat different lines. As early as the turn of the 2oth century, suggestions appeared redirecting the search for the origin of aristocracy into the “pre-state” period, early medieval aristocracy was understood as autonomous, i.e. defined not only by the relationship to the king, but by a common ethos and the possession of large estates. Moreover, value judgments behind the liberal concept also underwent a substantial shift. In effect, “feudal chaos” ceased to be understood as an entirely negative phenomenon.” The notion of the “medieval state”, overly evocative of modern conditions, was replaced by the concept of competition (as well as cooperation) of kings and nobles Herrschaften within a “country” defined by provincial law.”
For Czech medieval historiography, life in the communist totalitarian regime, which believed in and promoted its omnipotence and omnipresence, certainly left its mark in the works of generations of Bohemian historians.” Experience with totalitarian regimes in 1940s and 1950s prompted discussion about the strength of the state, which on one side problematized its power, while one the other asked if the State’s power should be identified with the omnipotence of its central institutions. The terminology used by “PYemyslid medievalists” is problematic too.
The selection of terms is determined rather by the need to appeal to a lay readership through easily understandable texts, than by the need to clearly define the employed terms. Most significant is in this case the term “state”, where the discussion about the character of early medieval “state” remains unmentioned, although this term is of key importance for the concept of “strong Premyslid state” and for the definition of its alleged strength." (Inspiring attempts to reflect on the concept of “chiefdom” are still marginal.) It is a paradox that Czech historians of the Middle Ages mention inefficiency of the Early Medieval “realm”, but in accordance with Marcel Bloch or Georges Duby and many historians of 1gth century, they also emphasize the strength of this “realm”. This might was broken with the realm’s “privatization” by aristocracy, which in turn weakened the power of the king and undermined the freedom of freemen.
As examples of this type of organisation, Dusan Trestik mentions the Roman Empire in Late Antiquity and the Carolingian Empire." Subsequently, he compares these two establishments to the Piemyslid realm of the eleventh and twelfth centuries.” A problematic feature of his reflections is, however, the excessive dependency on an extreme Romanizing research tendency regarding the transformation of the Roman Empire, which was considered a binding paradigm. Indeed, this point places question marks over the employment of “Western” analogies in the process of strengthening the concept of a “centralized” early Premyslid monarchy. These objections do not make it possible to completely reject the concept of a state of the “Central European type”, but they certainly question the search for allegedly indubitable Carolingian parallels. They imply that, despite the existence of certain explication models, a uniform “Carolingian model” hardly existed. Therefore, it can be used to support one’s own hypotheses only with difficulty.
The generation gap might be another source of ambiguity which feeds today’s fierce discussion in Czech Medieval historiography. There is, on the one hand, reluctance of older historians to repeat previously proposed reasoning and, on the other hand, an unwillingness of younger historians to study the results of the older generation in detail. One may be surprised, but a more thorough consideration of the reasons for these circumstances provides a certain clue.
The cause may be found in several facts: Premyslid medievalists developed, particularly in the 70s and 80s, in considerable isolation and within a very limited group of persons. It is evident that this situation resulted in the formation of a specific language with which “everybody” was familiar. Beyond this small circle of scholars, however, the original function of this language, i.e. the need to facilitate communication within the group and not the endeavour to communicate outside its framework, prevents its comprehension. In connection with that, initially functional terms lost their meaning and became misleading metaphors. It holds true largely under the circumstances when the terms which are concerned are “wrapped” in a wealth of meanings."
Telling the story of the Bohemian and Moravian early middle Ages as a part of a great and well-known narrative is also problematic because of the last debate concerning the relevance of classical models of feudalization as well as the value of judgments on which it is based. Many French, English and American historians point out a number of weaknesses and disparities: in source evidence as well as its “anecdotal” nature,” in the efforts to model the course of events throughout Europe on developments of the Isle de France, in our contentious tendency to link social order with the existence of a state, and in the resulting sentiments regarding the legality and legitimacy of certain actions.”
For example Timothy Reuter agrees with the idea concerning the transformation of society at that time. However, he accepts Duby’s position that, unlike in the Carolingian period, tenth and eleventh century France lacked the ability to distinguish between rulers who prescribed standards and those who did not, claiming that “all of them now, at least theoretically, were miniature kings”. He simultaneously stresses that it is necessary—instead of merely lamenting the brutality of the barons—to consider how the social order of the times had been maintained. In particular, he points out the importance of collective action, ie. mass oaths and synods as well as the interconnectedness of violence and the lodging of legal claims and the resulting need for legitimacy.”
In similar terms, Chris Wickham emphasizes the transformation of the social frame of reference between 800 and 100, noting the gradual disappearance of public forums for the settling of legal disputes known as placitum. In other words: while nobles in Carolingian times were interested in gaining control over the entire state, nobles several centuries later were no longer drawn by this superior power, having become autonomous agents instead. Simultaneously, barriers between various social groups were steadily growing and gradually beginning to take on a formal guise. Actual power, supported by force of habit and certain behavioral norms, traceable to as early as the Carolingian period, eventually became law.” Society in the year 800 vis-a-vis society in the year noo therefore differed in significant respects; however, according to Wickham, the transformation was a gradual one with no revolution taking place.“
Although the defensibility of some of the theses expressed here may be disputed, the general discursive framework indicates that historiography had begun to move away from the concept of the “central/princely institutions” as the necessary frame of reference for public action while also accommodating the self-organizing mechanisms featured in communities lacking such broadly applicable power monopolies. In other words, not only strongly centralized realms were acknowledged as organised communities (ie. communities that did not lack norms and rules, and were able to enforce their observation).”
In the first part of this book, the current discourse about the early PYemyslid realm (tenth—eleventh centuries) will be re-examined. First we investigate its beginning in the tenth century. The limits of the concept of numerous “state retinues” will be examined in terms of the efficacy of cavalry armies in Middle Ages and in light of the source of its evidence. Then descriptions of the borders of the early Piemyslid and Piast “empires” will be analysed.
In the second part, we will focus on the “strength” of uth century P¥emyslid monarchy. There are two key problems to be solved. First, we have to decipher the relationship between Premyslids and elites in Bohemia and Moravia and, the importance of these elites to the rule of the Czech lands. Second, the analysis of the beginning of Prague bishopric and the rest of the Benedictine abbeys and canonries in 10th and uth century makes it possible to follow the importance of the church for the Pyemyslid princes and their growing power.
Although there was no strong state in early medieval Bohemia and Moravia, there is evidence for a strong Piemyslid program formulated at the end of 10th century—with important consequences for elites. In order to recognize this program’s importance in the formulation of the common identity of Bohemian elites, we need to analyze the image of “barbarians” in 10th century chronicles and annals. From this we are allowed to understand the situation these “barbarians” were forced to withstand. Naturally, the creation of the “Others”, e.g. “Bohemians”, in imperial chronicles and annals had been not only one of the sources of their own (Saxon, Bavarian or Imperial) identity, but also formed the identity of “barbarian’ elites, because this image was communicated to “barbarians” in different ways.
The idea of the Piemyslid program is based on two assumptions. First, Legenda Christiani was written at the end of 10th century. Second, it was intended as the reaction to many other different traditions about St. Methodius and St. Cyril, St. Ludmila and St. Wenceslas.
However, the Legenda Christiani, the source for this program, has been a topic of historiographical discussions for three centuries. Therefore, not only will earlier arguments for its authenticity be summed up, but it will also be necessary to formulate new ones to strengthen the hypothesis about the authenticity of this text and about the identity of its author.
Proof of authenticity opens the way to the comparative analysis of the cyrilomethodian tradition from the gth to the 12th century in Great Moravia, Bohemia, Kievan Russia and Bulgaria that plays such an important role in Legenda Christiani. Only the comparison of one tradition fixed in different periods and regions will make its specifics in Legenda Christiani distinguishable. For the same reason the image of St. Wenceslas in the earliest legends has to be studied in next chapter.
The synthesis of our results enables us to recognize where the strengths and weaknesses of early medieval Premyslid “realm” lay. It also contributes to the discussion about the beginning of complex societies in early medieval Europe from the perspective of the Central Europe.
Link
Press Here
0 التعليقات :
إرسال تعليق