Download PDF | Zbigniew Dalewski - Ritual and Politics_ Writing the History of a Dynastic Conflict in Medieval Poland (East Central and Eastern Europe in the Middl, Brill Academic Publishers, 2008.
229 Pages
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 want to e qual him in a nything, but “would always ob ey him as a knight his lord in every regard”.
Bolesław answered his brother’s humble plea and decided to forgive him the off ences he had committed and hand him over a certain number of strongholds. S oon, however, it became clear that Zbigniew did not intend to keep the agreement with Bolesław and did not 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 indicate clearly that Zbigniew “would not be coming to serve but to rule” 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 resolute action 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. Th ere is no do ubt, however, t hat in t he chronicler’s opinion, it was Zbigniew’s behaviour and his plans to regain the ducal power that drove Bolesław to crush him.
Th e Chronicle do es no t r eveal w hat fate Zb igniew suff ered. Gallus clearly avoids 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 his brother – albeit to a large extent justifi ed – 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 regret.
Next, he des cribes in detail the course of the duke’s penance, emphasizing especially Bolesław’s zeal and humility in performing penitential practices. Th e 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 aft er which Bolesław, by then reconciled with God, appears during the Easter celebrations in full monarchic majesty, and presents the assembled with precious gift s.1 Th ere is no reason to doubt the credibility of Gallus’ account, at least as far as the g eneral course of events is co ncerned. His chronicle was composed almost immediately aft er 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 Płock, 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 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, and that, in all likelihood, he was a monk.4
The f requent and varied attempts to identify him, and to specify the milieu in w hich he may have originated have, thus far, not led to certain fi ndings, and are all merely more or less strongly grounded hypotheses. Th e 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 Hungarian cir cumstances, a nd his presumable knowledge of Hungarian sources, seem to indicate that he 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 Poland 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 confl ict between the Piast dukes. Quite possibly, he arrived in Poland only aft er Bolesław’s fi nal 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 aff ects 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 Th ree 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 refl ects 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 Th e chronicle’s 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 fi nal 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 first years of Bolesław’s independent rule (1107–1113)—the chronicler focused his principal attention on presenting the magnifi cent 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 confl icts between the two Piast dukes, Gallus spares no eff ort to convince the reader of Bolesław’s superiority over his brother.
He expressly points out that Bolesław’s capacity for fulfi lling the obligations of a ruler, and for securing prosperity and security for the country, is far superior to Zbigniew’s. Th us, 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) and 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 aff ected by the current needs of the ducal court, as that court was confronting a dynastic confl ict which threatened the monarchy’s stability, and as i t s ought to justify B olesław Wrymouth’s ac tions against 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 eff ort 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 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 signifi cantly aff ected 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 infl uence 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 onfl ict with Zbigniew. It is diffi cult 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 between the P iast dukes can be interpreted as a n attempt at appropriating the r emembrance of B olesław’s confl ict 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 shift ing the responsibility for Zbigniew’s tra gedy f rom the p erpetrator o nto the vic tim, r efl ects the “offi cial” 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 Th is p eculiar involvement 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 torture of Zbigniew and compelled Bolesław to perform the ceremony of public penance. At the same time, however, Gallus’ explicit support for Bolesław in the confl ict with Zbigniew gives an opportunity to go beyond the purely informative layer of his narrative and try to investigate in mo re det ail his met hods of constructing the v ersion of events corresponding to his ne eds.18 Indeed, it s eems that in order to 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 Th e reality of Gallus’ account consisted of many diverse and overlapping elements.20 Elaborating his story, the chronicler used various representations rooted in diff erent 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 nfl ict between Bolesław and Zbigniew put forward by the supporters of Bolesław, thus confi rming 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 confl ict 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 diff erent 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 onfl ict between Bolesław a nd Zb igniew. I ndeed, all usions t o va rious f orms o f ri tual behaviours are oft en 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. Aft er all, there are not so many descriptions of this kind in the chronicle. Th e 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 justifi cation of its imperious claims and an eff ective tool for the accomplishment of political goals.23 No wonder, therefore, that the recollections of rulership, of its actions and endeavours oft en 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 the most important elements of des cription, and consequently, of shaping political reality.25 Th e 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 oft en 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 confl ict between Bolesław Wrymouth and Zbigniew, of eff acing 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. Th e present work is an attempt at a more detailed investigation of Gallus’ methods of constructing his account of the history of the confl ict 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 signifi cantly 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 confl ict 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. Th e im portance o f G allus’ account far transcends issues related solely to the confl ict 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 refl ection about the role played by activities of a ritual character in the dis course proper to the p olitical c ulture of the earlier and the high Middle Ages. Referring, as a n example, to Ga llus’ tale about the confl ict between the Piast dukes, we would, therefore, like in the present work to look more closely at the modes of using ritual as an eff ective 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 refl ect 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 signifi cance of ritual as a tool for the ordering, and the structuration, of the narrations developed by the medieval authors, and yet, at the same time, it proves how strongly the descriptions 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. Th ereby, 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 that, 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. Th is 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, the authorial invocations contained palpable references to various modes of using ritual, of manipulating its s ense, and of its subjection to 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 Th us, 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. Th is 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 political culture;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. Th us, 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 confl ict between the Piast dukes; and, with reference to comparative material, we will attempt 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 ways in w hich Gallus—as, in his des cription of Zbigniew’s return from 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 ereaft er.
In the next chapter, we will concentrate on the expectations formulated by the chronicler toward Zbigniew’s behaviour aft er Zbigniew’s return to Poland; and refl ect upon the role played in the chronicler’s description of the confl ict 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 confl icted brothers ought to have achieved its ceremonial closure. Th e third chapter will concern Bolesław’s penance. Th ere, we will demonstrate how the richness and complexity of meanings attributed to gestures of p enance in t he Middle Ages enabled Gallus 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 enabled t he t ransformation of 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, and the crime w hich he had committed a gainst Zbigniew. We will attempt to specify more closely the nature of the duke’s transgression, and refl ect 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 curtain hiding Gallus’ text, we hope to discern a bit more closely the rules determining the functioning of the basic me chanisms of political 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.
Link
Press Here
0 التعليقات :
إرسال تعليق