Download PDF | Roman Michałowski - The Gniezno Summit_ The Religious Premises of the Founding of the Archbishopric of Gniezno-Brill (2016).
407 Pages
Introduction
The year 1000 or, to be more precise, the era which it symbolizes,! has proved to be a constant source of fascination for French historians for nearly 200 years. Initially, the source of their fascination lay in les terreurs de (an Mil, the fear of the end of the world, which people allegedly felt at the turn of the millennium.
Theologians living in late Antiquity and the early Middle Ages, guided by a rather vague passage from the Book of the Revelation (20:1—-10), were inclined to believe that the second coming of Christ would happen one thousand years after his Birth (or Death and Resurrection),” Bearing this in mind, in the 19th century and later some historians closely studied sources from the 10th and uth centuries, trying to find any traces of an apocalyptic mood. There were even medievalists claiming that people living at the turn of the millennium were convinced that doomsday was near and, as a result, became almost hysterical.?
Unlike their 19th-century predecessors, modern French historians usually reject such views, leaving the fascination with the “terrors of the year 1000” to their American and German colleagues. Nevertheless, the year 1000 has remained an important topic for French medievalists for more fundamental reasons than before. The discussion is now focused on the nature and speed of changes leading from the institutions of the Carolingian era to the institutions of the High Middle Ages.
According to one view, which was universally accepted until recently, around 1000 there came a profound breakthrough, which some even describe as a revolution: old, that is, Carolingian, socio-political institutions, based on the public authority of counts acting on behalf of the king, disintegrated completely and were replaced by feudal relations, that is, ties governed by private law.
However, today this concept is firmly rejected by some scholars. They believe that there was no radical breakthrough at the time; at most we can speak of a slow evolution. In addition, it is doubtful whether changes were indeed as profound as some researchers believe. Carolingian institutions might have been only slightly modified. The stakes in this dispute are high. Its results will determine whether one can talk of feudalism (in the classical meaning of the word) at all in the history of Europe.
Historians dealing with the history of Poland face no less important, albeit completely different questions. The 10th century was a period when tribal structures in the regions of the rivers Oder and Vistula River were becoming a thing of the past and were being replaced by a new type of political association. These processes led to the emergence of the Polish state. Socio-political transformations accompanied religious and cultural changes associated with the Christianization of the country. It is thus fully understandable that for Polish medievalists the year 1000 is a symbol of processes and events of the highest importance.
We can even say that it is more than a symbol, given the fact that this was the year of the Summit of Gniezno, which represented a genuine closure of the first stage of the transformations. That is why the rich and varied literature dealing with the beginnings of the Piast state is full of articles and monographs devoted to the reconstruction and interpretation of the events in Gniezno. Their number has considerably increased in recent years, a phenomenon associated to a large extent with the celebrations of the anniversary of St. Adalbert’s death (997) and the 1000th anniversary of the Congress.> The celebrations were all the more solemn given the fact that their significance was also political. The events from ten centuries back were seen as anticipating the contemporary unification of Europe—a process particularly important for statesmen and intellectual elites.
Until recently, the year 1000 meant relatively little for German historians. It is true that the 10th century, during which the Saxon dynasty came to power, has been a favourite subject of German researchers from times immemorial. The reasons are obvious. The century in question was marked by the emergence of the rudiments of German statehood and the emergence of conditions in which the German nation could evolve in a very slow process lasting several centuries. However, scholars used to focus on the reigns of Henry 1 and Otto 1, when new relations emerged for the first time. The reign of Otto 111, when viewed from such a perspective, did not really matter. Moreover, medievalists analysing the past from a national(ist) point of view disliked this emperor.
They did not understand the principles guiding his actions, even claiming that Otto 111’s rule, had it lasted longer, would have caused considerable damage to the German raison d état. The scholars were perplexed by the monarch’s ascetic practices and regarded his Roman policy as dangerous, because it had not been based on a real balance of power. They were particularly irritated by his Polish policy, believing that it had broken with the principles set by Otto 1, the only principles in keeping with the interests of the state and the nation. Such views were repeatedly voiced in the 19th century and in the first half of the 20th century, though similar opinions have also been expressed more recently.
The first successful attempt to abandon this way of thinking was made by Percy Ernst Schramm.’ He tried to assess Otto 111’s rule not from the point of view of the German national interests, but by taking as his point of reference one of the great ideas that animated the Middle Ages—the cult of Antiquity. Interpreted from this perspective, the reign, given the programme of a revival of the Roman Empire carried out at the time, not only made more sense but also acquired marks of greatness. Attempts to vindicate the monarch were also made with regard to classical political history, by scholars who referred to the balance of power in the late 10th century. Bolestaw Chrobry’s growing stature meant that the Empire faced an alternative: either—as Otto 111 decided—to offer Poland’s ruler very favourable conditions of cooperation or to opt for along and ruinous war which, as Henry’s example shows, could not bring any satisfying results.8
Although thanks to Percy Ernst Schramm’s book the issues associated with the figure of Otto 111 became more attractive, and many more valuable studies were published after his,® the reign of this monarch was not put at the centre of German medievalists’ attention until slightly more than two decades ago.!° This is partly thanks to a monograph by Knut Gérich," who defied the entire historiographical tradition. He rejected both Schramm’s view and traditional interpretations, claiming that the monarch had been no different from other kings from the house of Liudolfing. His monograph provoked a number of reviews and polemical responses, presented in various kinds of publications. There emerged a need for more thorough studies that would be more measured than GGrich’s in presenting the personality and reign of Otto 111, but would also take into account the correct and valuable elements of the German scholar’s work.!2
What contributed to an increase in the interest in Otto 111’s reign was the anniversary atmosphere. The passage from the second to the third millennium, universally celebrated, encouraged scholars to go back in time to the previous turn of the millennium. On the other hand, in Germany, too, the grand anniversary of such events as the Summit of Gniezno was interpreted in the light of current political developments associated with European integration. The jubilee atmosphere prompted scholars from other countries as well to devote more attention to figures from those days. For obvious reasons, for French and Italian historians the main protagonist of the period was Sylvester 11—le pape de an Mil.!8
The present book is another contribution to the debate about the year 1000. It focuses on one particular issue: the foundation of the Archbishopric of Gniezno. However, its objective is not to reconstruct the course of events; these have been described in the literature in a satisfactory manner, obviously as far as the sources allow. I will be interested instead in the religious context of the establishment of the Polish church province. For this reason I will delve more deeply into the discussion about the year 1000 than might at first seem necessary.
When writing about the religious background, I have to take into account not only the situation in Poland, but also—primarily even—in Western Europe, because those who decided the founding of the Archbishopric of Gniezno were mostly not of Polish origin, and were active in ecclesiastical and aristocratic circles outside Poland. The most important figure among them was Otto 111, without whose goodwill the Holy See could not have taken such an important step. That is why the emperor, more so than Bolestaw Chrobry, is the protagonist of the present study.
When concluding the present book I realized that not all issues that should have been raised had indeed been examined in it. The most important shortcoming is undoubtedly the omission of the Hungarian analogy. An archbishopric was established in Esztergom more or less at the same time as the Gniezno see, and St. Stephen enjoyed the same favour with Otto 111 as Bolestaw Chrobry.!* It would thus be proper to write in the same breath about the emergence of the Polish and the Hungarian Church provinces. However I am not prepared for such a task. In order for a comparison between Gniezno and Esztergom to make sense, both cases would have to be examined by means of the same research questionnaire and at the same level of detail. Such a challenge could be taken on only by a scholar who specializes in the history of Poland and is an expert on the history of Hungary at the same time. I do not possess such competences.
The matters discussed in the present book have been touched upon in some of my other publications. These have mostly been scattered remarks. I tried to provide a comprehensive outline of the subject in a paper published in 2000. Later, as I was writing the present book, my insight into many issues grew; I also deemed it necessary to expand the scope of the work to include some additional fields. The results of my studies, corresponding more or less to my present position and concerning some of the detailed issues, were presented in two short articles. Both these articles—in one case with minor cuts and in the other in an expanded version—are included in the present book.'®
As the text is ready to go to press, I express my profound gratitude to the late Professor Aleksander Gieysztor, an outstanding scholar and eminent expert on the period in which Poland emerged as a state and entered the Christian world. In the 1969/70 academic year I began to attend Professor Gieysztor’s seminar devoted to Poland and Europe in the year 1000. It was then that for the first time I had encountered the writings by Rudolf Glaber, Bruno of Querfurt and other authors—sources on which the present book is based. First of all, however, I had an opportunity—at that time and over the many years of working under Professor Gieysztor’s guidance—to learn that when studying the history of medieval Poland, we should look at it from a European perspective, and that this was a very effective research method. I have tried to remain faithful to this principle to this day.
I would also like to thank cordially Professor Henryk Samsonowicz, who for thirty years has been a patron of my research and university work, as well as two successive directors of the Institute of History, University of Warsaw: Professors Bronistaw Nowak and Michat Tymowski. Notwithstanding the modest possibilities available in Warsaw, they sought to ensure good conditions for my research work. Michat Tymowski was also the first reader of the book. When working on the final version, I used his valuable remarks.
I should also mention at this point the pleasant and academically valuable conversations I had with Professor Marian Dygo over several decades, as well as the generous bibliographic assistance which Doctor Krzysztof Skwierczynski was always ready to provide. I was able to borrow some rare books from his private collection. My thanks also go to Richard John Butterwick-Pawlikowski for checking the English and to Dr Shami Ghosh for translating the Latin quotes.
At the end, let me also express my gratitude to the Foundation for Polish Science, which funded the translation of this work.!”
Link
Press Here
0 التعليقات :
إرسال تعليق