Slavs in the Middle Ages Between Idea and Reality 9004450254, 9789004450257, 9789004536746, 2022060727, 2022060728

Citation preview

Slavs in the Middle Ages between Idea and Reality

East Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 450–1450 General Editors Florin Curta and Dušan Zupka

volume 89

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/ecee

Slavs in the Middle Ages between Idea and Reality By

Eduard Mühle

LEIDEN | BOSTON

Cover illustration: The Byzantine missionaries Cyril and Method designing the Slavic script and translating the Gospels. Miniature from the Radzwiłł-Chronicle (15th Century). © Erich Lessing / akg-images Originally published as Die Slawen zwischen Idee und Wirklichkeit by Böhlau in 2020. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Mühle, Eduard, author. Title: Slavs in the Middle Ages between idea and reality / by Eduard  Mühle. Other titles: Slawen zwischen Idee und Wirklichkeit. English Description: Leiden ; Boston : Brill, [2023] | Series: East Central and  Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 1872-8103 ; volume 89 | “Originally  published as “Die Slawen zwischen Idee und Wirklichkeit” by Böhlau in  2020.” | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2022060727 (print) | LCCN 2022060728 (ebook) |  ISBN 9789004450257 (hardback) | ISBN 9789004536746 (e-book) Subjects: LCSH: Slavs—History—To 1500. | Slavs—Ethnic identity. |  Slavs—Public opinion. | Civilization, Slavic. Classification: LCC D147 .M8513 2023 (print) | LCC D147 (ebook) |  DDC 909.0491807—dc23/eng/20230103 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022060727 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022060728

Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface. issn 1872-8103 isbn 978-90-04-45025-7 (hardback) isbn 978-90-04-53674-6 (e-book) Copyright 2023 by Eduard Mühle. Produced by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Hotei, Brill Schöningh, Brill Fink, Brill mentis, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Böhlau, V&R unipress and Wageningen Academic. Koninklijke Brill NV reserves the right to protect this publication against unauthorized use. Requests for re-use and/or translations must be addressed to Koninklijke Brill NV via brill.com or copyright.com. This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

Contents Acknowledgements ix Abbreviations xi Maps xiii 1

Prologue: The Making of Slavs in Modern Times 1 1 The Western Discovery of the Slavs between Baroque and Romanticism 2 2 Ideas of Slavic Community and Modern “Nation-Building” 6 3 Slavic Unity and German Anti-slavism 17 4 The Slavic Idea in Eastern Europe between Stalinism and the European Union 25

2

Questions and Methodology 29

3

The Discovery of the Slavs in the Early Middle Ages 34 1 Slavic Warriors and Settlers in Byzantium 35 2 Slavic gentes in the Eyes of Latin Europe 47 3 Slavs in the Distant Oriental View 59

4

Early Slavic Realities 65 1 Archaeology and Early Slavic Culture 65 2 Open Settlements 72 2.1 Dessau-Mosigkau 75 2.2 Březno 76 2.3 Rashkiv 78 3 Living Houses 81 4 Subsistence Economy 84 5 Practices of Cult and Religion 91 6 Local Communities 96 7 Leaders and War-Bands 98 8 Strongholds and Trading Places 104

5

Early Slavic Power Structures (regna) 114 1 The Khanate of the Proto-Bulgars 114 2 Small Principalities in the Western Balkans 124 3 Carinthia 128 4 Old Moravia 134 4.1 The Origins of the Slavic Literary Language 141

vi

Contents

6

The Slavs in the Process of Medieval “State-Formation” and “Nation-Building” 147 1 Bulgaria 149 1.1 The Development of Bulgarian Slavic Literacy 153 1.2 Decline and Fall of the First Bulgarian Empire 160 1.3 Byzantine Rule and Bulgarian Identity 163 2 Bohemia 170 2.1 Beginnings and Formation of the Bohemian Principality 170 2.2 Crisis and Consolidation 180 2.3 Bohemian Self-Awareness 182 2.4 The Medieval Bohemian “Nation” and Slavicity 187 3 Croatia 194 3.1 A Precarious Rule between Foreign Powers 194 3.2 Croatian Self-Awareness and Slavicity 202 4 Kievan Rus’ 210 4.1 Beginnings and Formation of a Scandinavian-East Slavic Rus’ 210 4.2 Church, Dynasty, and the Emergence of a Rus’ian Identity 218 4.3 The Rus’ian Making of a Slavic Community 222 4.4 Provincial Principalities and Regional Identities 229 5 Poland 231 5.1 Beginnings and Formation of Piast Rule 231 5.2 Consolidation, Crisis, and Regional Diversification 238 5.3 Forming a Sense of Community 243 6 Serbia 251 6.1 A Hindered Formation of Rule between East and West 251 6.2 Holy Dynasty and Religious Community 257

7

Incomplete Processes of “State-Formation” and “Nation-Building” 264 1 Polabian Slavs 266 1.1 The Lutician Federation and Pagan Resistance 269 1.2 The Abodrites: Between Christian regnum and Pagan Reaction 274 1.3 The Hevellians 279 1.4 The Polabian Slavs and Their Subjugation 281 1.5 Melioratio terrae and the Emergence of Germania Slavica 284 1.6 Slavs as a Marginal Group in the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation 289

vii

Contents

2 3

Pomerania 291 Slavs in the Balkans 297 3.1 The Principality of Duklja 300 3.2 A Second High Medieval Variant of the Slavic Idea 301 3.3 Bosnia 306

8

Slavs Perceived by Non-Slavs through the Middle Ages 309 1 The Byzantine Perception 309 2 The Oriental Perception 316 3 The Latin-European Perception 323

9

Ideas of Slavic Unity in the Late Middle Ages 340 1 Bohemia 341 2 Poland 358 3 Pomerania and Mecklenburg 370 4 South-Eastern Europe 376 4.1 Bulgaria 376 4.2 Serbia 380 4.3 Bosnia 384 4.4 Croatia 389 5 Kievan Rus’ and Muscovy 392

10

Epilogue: The Making of the Slavs in the Middle Ages 395 Bibliography 403 Index of Personal Names 580 Index of Geographic Names 595 Index of Ethnic and Social Groups 605

Acknowledgements The problems discussed on the pages of this work preoccupied me already when I was a student of history of Eastern Europe and Slavic Studies and a participant in a project funded by the German Research Society (DFG) entitled Glossar zur frühmittelalterlichen Geschichte im östlichen Europa, carried out at that time at the University of Münster. Therefore, I would like to pay honour to the memory of two of my teachers from those years – namely, Frank Kämpfer (1938–2010) and Gerhard Birkfellner (1941–2011). Their lectures and seminars aroused my lasting interest in the subject-matter in question; their tolerant and open-minded attitudes, demanding and obliging at the same time, as part of their care of the doctoral student, laid the foundations for my future work on the topic. I resumed the work more than thirty years afterward, which I owe, in the first place, to Detlef Felken of the C.H. Beck Verlag. A few years ago, it was him who encouraged me to write a popular-scientific essay entitled Die Slawen, which came out in 2017, paving the way for a more considerable effort. The other encouragement came from Michael Borgolte, who in 2015 invited me to deliver a lecture at the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities that would situate the Slavs in the world of the Middle Ages, and then made sure that the outcome be published. Both publications incited, in turn, the Warsaw-based Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe (PWN) publishing house to propose to me to write a larger, textbook-type study in Polish on Slavs in the Middle Ages. Had it not been for those three concrete incentives, I would not have elaborated on the topic in the form finally adopted. While working on this study, I enjoyed support, again, from Kornelia Hubrich-Mühle; her apt criticism and, at times, indispensable encouragement accelerated the writing process. Thanks to generous funding by the Krieble Delmas Foundation, New York, and the hospitality of the Institute for Advanced Study, I was fortunate to write a large portion of this book in the inspiring atmosphere of the IAS in Princeton benefitting from inspiring talks with my peers present there at the time. I should like to express my thanks to all of them but especially to Patrick Geary. I owe special thanks to Anne Kluger (Münster), Sébastien Rossignol (St. John’s), Ludwig Steindorff (Kiel), and Martin Wihoda (Brno), who have read the German manuscript of this study, in whole or in part, and offered expert comments. The same is true for Przemysław Urbańczyk (Warsaw), who commented on the Polish version, making valuable recommendations and corrections. I willingly accepted all their helpful remarks, suggested corrections, and

x

Acknowledgements

arguments (wherever I could agree with them). Special thanks are due to Florin Curta who already read the German manuscript and encouraged me to undertake an English translation and who – together with Dušan Zupka – accepted the outcome for publication in their Brill series East Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 450–1450 (ECEE). I welcomed this opportunity to update the bibliography and to correct some minor errors of the German edition, considering Florin Curta’s and the anonymous peer-reviewers’ valuable suggestions. However, any shortcomings detectable in this book are of course my exclusive responsibility. Ines Ellertmann, Matthias Cichon, Hannah Kemper, and Luca Vazgeć, my student assistants in Münster, helped in adapting the footnotes and bibliography to the series’ format. Luca Vazgeć also completed the indices with the printed pages numbers. Alessandra Giliberto of Brill Publishers is asked to accept my thanks for her seamless preparation of the book for print. Tobias Kniep of the Münster Institute for Comparative Urban Reserach provided the necessary technical support in drawing the maps. Last but not least my sincere thanks extend to Tristan Korecki (Warsaw) for an excellent translation of the text (from its Polish version) into English. This translation was generously funded by the Department of Eastern European and East-Central European History at the Historical Institute of the Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster.

Abbreviations AH AP AR AuF AVČR BHR BZ CDCDS 1

CDCDS 2

ČČH DA DGVE EEQ FOG FRB HUS JbGMOD JfGO KDW 1 KH MBFIÖ MGH AA MGH SS rer. Merov. MGH SS rer. Germ. MIÖG MMFH MPH

Archaeologia Historica Archaeologia Polona Archeologické rozhledy Ausgrabungen und Funde Akademie věd České republiky Bulgarian Historical Review Byzantinische Zeitschrift Codex diplomaticus regni Croatiae, Dalmatiae et Slavoniae. Vol. 1: Diplomata annorum 743–1100 continens, ed. Marko Kostrenić, Zagreb: Jugoslavenska Akademija Znanosti i Umjetnosti, 1967. Codex diplomaticus regni Croatiae, Dalmatiae et Slavoniae. Vol. 2: Diplomata saeculi XII. continens (1101–1200), ed. Tade Smičiklas, Zagreb: Jugoslavenska Akademija Znanosti i Umjetnosti, 1904. Český časopis historický Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters Drevnejšie gosudarstva Vostočnoj Evropy East European Quarterly Forschungen zur osteuropäischen Geschichte Fontes Rerum Bohemicarum Harvard Ukrainian Studies Jahrbuch für die Geschichte Mittel- und Ostdeutschlands Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas Kodeks dyplomatyczny Wielkopolski. Vol. 1, ed. Ignacy Zakrzewski, Poznań: Biblioteka Kórnicka, 1877. Kwartalnik Historyczny Mitteilungen des Bulgarischen Forschungsinstituts in Österreich Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Auctores Antiquissimi Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Scriptores rerum Merovingicarum Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Scriptores rerum Germanicarum in usum scholarum separatim editi Mitteilungen des Instituts für österreichische Geschichtsforschung Magnae Moraviae Fontes Historici Monumenta Poloniae Historica

xii

Abbreviations

Neue Folge NF PA Památky Archeologické PAN Polska Akademia Nauk PAU Polska Akademia Umiejętności PH Przegląd Historyczny PWN Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe QMAN Quaestiones Medii Aevi Novae RAN Rossiiskaia akademia nauk RH Roczniki Historyczne RZHP Radovi Zavoda za hrvatsku povijest SA Slavia Antiqua SN Series Nova SSS Słownik Starożytności Słowiańskich. Encyklopedyczny zarys kultury słowian od czasów najdawniejszych do schyłku wieku XII, 8 vols., Wrocław: Wydawnictwo PAN, 1961–1991. SUB I Schlesisches Urkundenbuch. Volume 1: 971–1230, ed. Heinrich Appelt, Vienna: Böhlau, 1971. SSBP Studia Slavica et Balcanica Petropolitana Studia Źródłoznawcze SŹ WdS Welt der Slaven WSJ Wiener Slavistisches Jahrbuch ZRVI Zbornik Radova Vizantološkog Instituta ZfA Zeitschrift für Archäologie ZfO Zeitschrift für Ost[mitteleuropa]-Forschung ZFslPh Zeitschrift für Slavische Philologie

ZfS

Zeitschrift für Slawistik

Maps

Vi stu l

Dessau

a

1. Drugovites 2. Sagudates 3. Belegezites 4. Baiunites 5. Berzites 6. Strymons

be El O

de

Surbi

Byzantine controlled territory Byzantine imperial border

r

Březno tul Vis

Sclavi Winidi

a

7. Rhynchines 8. Seven Tribes 9. Severeis 10. Milings 11. Ezerites Dnepr

Rashkiv ORUM

D a nube

Tisza

D nie

MARCA VINED

Bu g

S Sirmium

8

a Bulg

LY

Se

R

6 7

Dyrrachium 5

M ACE

4

2 3

DONI

map 1

HELLAS Olympia 10 11

Aegean Sea Corinth

Monemvasia

1 : 12 000 000 200

Patras

A

1

Black

AC

s

Sea

E

Constantinople

Thessaloniki

US IR

EP

Ionian Sea

0

OGLOS

Pliska

r i a n9

T HR

IA

ds

i

Noviodunum

D

I

a

n

bar

Singidunum

IL

ic

La

go

T

o

a v e n

toP r o anube A

at

A

l

M

A

ri

LM

k

s t e A n

400 km

The emergence of the Slavs during the 6th–7th centuries

I

U

DA

d

r

ISTRIA

ste

A v a r s

B

AN YZ

T

A

d

r

i

a

S

0

e

a

100

4

Lim

S

Dr in

200 km

Žiča

in

a

Ohrid

M

Braničevo

G A

Niš

o

Vidin

Iskar

Tărnovo

P e c h e n e g s

Y

Rila

Sofia

Thessaloniki

Athos

s

Pliska

an

Adrianopel

Preslav

be Danu

U L G A R I A B

R

T I U M Strumica A N Z S B Y tr u m a

Skopje

E R Studenica B I A Ras

Ribnica

Devol

Dyrrachion

Bar

5 Kotor

1 : 6 500 000

Dubrovnik

3 Trebinje

Vrhbosna

N

Belgrade

r

Slavic-speaking groups and polities in Southeastern Europe (8th–9th centuries)

c

na eti

Venetian

i

Ston N

2

B

N I A O S

IA

Drav a

U

ta

Narentania Zahumlje Travunia Duklja Konavle

t

va

L A V O N

Ze D

map 2

R

Nin Zadar Zrmanj Knin a Biograd C Skardin Trogir Split 1

Rab

Senj

Sa

C

H

a

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Osor

Krk

C

Sisak

Vrbas

Kupa

Bosna etva

A

I A er

O

T va

S

za Tis ra

m

Cu

KRAIN

xiv maps

xv

maps Oldenburg s

ns

n ria a g Mecklenburg Abodrites

ran ian s Od er

Notec

nia

Brandenburg Sp

ree

Lu sic i

Meissen

Milceni

ale

i n c i a Bautzen ns

P

is s e

Zeitz D a l e m

Ne

s

b

aa

r

Sáz av a

O H E M I A

9th–11th century

ta v Vl

D UCHY OF B AVA R I A Salzburg

Kraków

r

GREAT MORAVIA

a

B

de O

un

Thaya

Pohansko

D a n u be

h Vá

9. century

Mikulčice

Kremsmünster

Nitra

P

C A RANTANIA

Pest

A

8.–9. century

N

Karnburg

I A

Imperial border 10th–11th century 1 : 6 500 000

map 3

10.–11. century

va Sa

Venice

U N G A R Y

N

D ra v a

F RIULI

O

M Lake Balaton ur

Zalavár

0

H

N

Lake Millstatt

100

a tul Vis

ch

Regensburg

Libice Prague

Ma

-/ itz ds ain gn en M Re W

Levý Hradec

O L A N D

10th–11th century

Wrocław

F RANKONIA

B e ro

a

Warta

lde Mu

rb

Vi stu l

Gniezno

Posen

So

N

ns

Hevellians

Magdeburg

Sa

P yr itzia

Uk

Havelberg

D UCH Y OF S AXONY

Red aria ns

s

Glinians a n Elbe ia ns

el av H

ev

Peen rn Wa cip an ian s e Cir

s

Łeba

s i a n a n r m Paor se˛t P o a

Kołobrzeg Wolin

ssi

ow

Dr

i

To ll en si an

Po la b ia n

Ran

Ke

W

C

R

O

A

TI A

D anub e

200 km

Slavic-speaking groups and polities in East Central and Eastern Europa (7th–9th centuries)

xvi

maps 1 : 15 000 000

0

200

400 km White Sea

Lake Onega

DA

n

Dn

Pri p

H

Chernigov

’ et

HA L VO YC H Halych

LH

YN

ka

V GO NI R E

KI

Do n

er iep

C

Ryazan Ok

Smolensk

O L O TSK

Vladimir

Vladimir

a

B

a

SMOLENSK

Polotsk

T UROV P INSK

a tul Vis

Suzdalʼ

Moskow

Daugava

N em

LA

O

Tverʼ

V

P

UZ IR

Pskov

IM

Lake Peipus

Volga

Lake Ilmen

D

al ti c S ea

N

Novgorod

V

O

G

-S

Volkho v

Ladoga

O Beloozero

R

l Pse

PEREYASLAVL

Kiev EV

Pereyaslavl Dne pr

IA

c e r l o v P o on D

g Bu

Dn

te

ie

r

s

nube Da

map 4

a

Lʼ

Lake Ladoga

O

on kh Su

D

Sea of Azov

„Route from the Varangians to the Greeks“

The medieval Slavic-speaking nationes: East Central and Eastern Europe

xvii Reval

Imperial border 1. Duchy of Mecklenburg-Schwerin 2. Duchy of Pomerania-Stettin 3. Duchy of Pomerania-Wolgast

S e a

Novgorod

Riga

400 km

D

Dau

a

O

R

N OV OGOROD

a gav

l t i c

200

Pskov

E R

1 : 13 000 000 0

Volk hov

maps

B

Smolensk Gdańsk

3

2 Szczecin

T

N

I C

an m Ne Dn

I

Poznań

er iep

K

Oder

N

Wrocław

Oleśnica

O

Vis

t

Kraków

Olmouc

O

F

Lwów

P

L

Da

A USTRIA

O

L

S

C

R

O

AT

D

Pest I N G D O M

H

O F

n de e l Go ord H

ies ter

F SM.

O F

M OLDAU

U N G A R Y

a

IA

B OSNIA

P R I N C I PA L I T Y O F W ALLACHIA R

E

A

Split

Belgrade

nube Da

S

Zadar

B

IA

Tărnovo

dr

i

at

N

Dn

K av

A

n u be

Buda

U C H Y

I T H U A N I A

Kiev

Halych Vienna

D

R A N D

M

a

K INGDOM OF B OHEMIA

Prague

G

D

be

G

El

T O E U

ul

1

i c Dubrovnik Se a

B

I A U L G A R

Black Sea Constantinople

s a n m O t t o map 5

The medieval Slavic-speaking nationes: Southeastern Europe

Chapter 1

Prologue: The Making of Slavs in Modern Times In the year 1525, on the Croatian isle of Hvar, then under Venetian rule, Vinko Pribojević, a Dominican monk and theology professor, delivered a commending oration glorifying his hometown and his native land of Dalmatia. As he declared, he addressed his fellow citizens as a Dalmatian (Dalmata), then also an Illyrian (Illyrius) and, lastly, as a Slav (ac demum Slauus). For this reason, he not only wanted to tell them stories about the past of Hvar and Dalmatia but also speak to the Slavs about their fortune (coram Slauis de Slauorum fortunis), the origin and glory of the Slavic people (Slauonici generis). He approached the notion of ‘the nation of the Slavs’ (Slauorum natio) very broadly: not only would it include the inhabitants of almost all the Slavic-speaking regions of northern and south-eastern Europe but also propagate the Goths, ancient Macedonians, Greeks, Thracians, and Illyrians – and, thereby, Alexander the Great, Aristotle, St Hieronymus and several Roman emperors – as Slavs. At the same time, he attributed biblical descent to the Slavs and associated their genealogy with the idea that they lived in the Balkans, as descendants of Tiras, son of Japheth, since the Babylonian mixing up of the languages. Hence, the Balkans were aboriginal Slavic lands. Out of that primordial homeland (Urheimat), the Slavs expanded, via glorious war expeditions and conquests to their present places of residence. Their bravery quelled the arrogance of the Persians, debilitated the strength of the Assyrians and Meds, overthrew the pride of the Egyptians, hobbled the perfection of the Greeks, overbore the cruelty of the Scythes, overcame a great number of the Hindus, defeated the proficiency of the Spaniards, cooled the prowess of the Gauls, and won favour of the haughty Romans. The tribe of Slavs (Slauonicum genus) can therefore boast an impressive strength and greatness, Father Vinko reassured his listeners.1 This laudation, inspired by humanistic rhetoric and learning, created “an image of greatness and the proud past of Slavdom, oversaturated with a sublime pan-Slavic feeling”.2 In parallel, it was a historical-and-political attempt at 1 Oratio fratris Vincentii Priboevii, 56, 59, 60, 75; the text was first published in Venice in 1532. 2 Schmaus 1953, 245.

© Eduard Mühle, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004536746_002

2

Chapter 1

refuting the menacing alien claims and maintaining the right to political and cultural distinctiveness, which in this specific case meant the Slavic-speaking Dalmatians’ efforts to avoid the outside rule – Venetian and Ottoman/Turkish – and to oppose it by means of a ‘Slavic’ alliance. Pribojević, who had spent a few years in Poland, introduced to his listeners the Polish king Sigismund I the Old as the victor over the Turks (and not only), which was probably meant to show that the alliance did not have to be merely an idea but could assume the form of a concrete military alliance targeted against the Turks. Both, the notion of the Slavs as an ideational community and the political instrumentalization of this community were the two aspects that made Vinko Pribojević an inspiration for the modern Slavic Idea.3 1

The Western Discovery of the Slavs between Baroque and Romanticism

Whereas Slavic-speaking humanistic and early Baroque thinkers, such as Vinko Pribojević, created the first modern-era pan-Slavic ideas, albeit with no considerable impact on their contemporaries,4 the modern West began to look at the Slavic world with increasing attention. In the early modern period, due to intensified dynastic/political and economic relationships, the number of descriptions of journeys and voyages increased. At the same time, they could be widely disseminated thanks to the invention of print. They informed the inhabitants of Central and Western Europe on “the customs of the neighbour [Slavic] nations, their great deeds, so-far-unknown, and their real history,”5 as the Austrian diplomat and writer Sigismund von Herberstein put it in 1577. Authors like him usually focused on describing individual Slavic-speaking nations; the only shared element they identified among these nations (if any) was the closeness of their languages.6 3 See Diels 1963, 83; Kurelac 1997; Akimova/Mel’nikov 1997, 13–14; Fine 2006, 223–225; Madunić 2010. 4 In 1595 an Italian translation of Pribojević’s Oratio de origine successibusque Slavorum was published in Venice by the Slavic-speaking sailer Malaspalli, while in 1601 the Benedictine monk Mauro Orbini (1563–1610) presented  – also in Italian  – his “History of the Slavic Kingdom”: Mauro Orbini, Il regno; see Brogi Bercoff 1998. Later the works of the Croatian Catholic missionary Juraj Križanić (1618–1683), mainly his Politika (see Russian Statecraft), gained some importance; on Križanić see Příhoda 2004 and the contributions in Juraj Križanić (1618–1683). 5 Sigismund zu Herberstein, 53. 6 On the perception of Eastern Europe in early modern Western Europe see Szarota 1972; Doronin 2015; Stevens 2016.

Prologue

3

These languages became of greater interest with the Reformation and Counter-Reformation. Rather than learned speculations on a Slavic Urheimat or a common Slavic identity, practical cognition, systematization, and application of the individual Slavic languages had to become the object of the theologians’ work if they wanted to appeal to the faithful. This is how conscious research into the Slavic world started. With all the diversity of incentives and perspectives, the most frequently posed questions concerned the emergence, development, and kinship of Slavic languages. These first learned Slavic studies soon gained momentum. Initially, they primarily manifested themselves in writings on the history of the Church and theology, as well as in linguistic works. New phrasebooks, grammar textbooks and dictionaries proved useful for practical learning of the languages while also contributing to their consolidation and codification. They, moreover, provided conditions for systematic comparisons between the languages, which marked the first step toward the development of modern linguistics. Such studies were intensely pursued in linguistically mixed and borderland areas. In the Baltic Sea region, the Polish language was studied in the first place; the primary object of linguistic interest in Saxony and Lusatia was Serbian-Lusatian, while Bohemian being the focus in north-eastern Bavaria. Concrete languages and their speakers were the actual object of study, rather than ‘Slavs’ as an imagined large-scale community. This is also true for the (still rather few) dissertations compiled at universities in the fields of history, language, and the national culture of Slavs.7 In the 18th century, with the Enlightenment paving the way for reasonable scientific thinking, Slavic studies entered a new era. With the intensifying political and economic links between German territories and the Kingdom of Poland, and with the opening of tsarist Russia toward the West since the time of Peter the Great, the intellectual exchange grew in intensity.8 A lot of Slavic-speaking students would arrive at German universities (including the newly-established ones in Halle and Göttingen), while German intellectuals entered into animated communication with representatives of the Slavic world, who thus inspired developed a new interest in their own language and culture. Personal contacts and extensive correspondence were the basic sources for Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, one of the leading exponents of a new understanding of science, to draw knowledge on Slavic languages, nations, and cultures. His Slavistic interests were related to his desire to write a universal 7 On the early modern beginnings of linguistic research into Slavic languages Zeil 1994, 11–61. 8 For the growing interest in Eastern Europe and its “Slavic” past in France, England and Italy see Wolff 1994, 190, 208–209, 274, 285–320; Wolff 2001, 173–227.

4

Chapter 1

history of nations. Leibniz considered it necessary to explore the history of language, or the relations occurring between individual languages. His classification of Slavic languages, etymological and lexical studies, and his basic considerations in comparative linguistics, contributed to an enormous progress in these areas. For some time, Leibniz devoted special attention to the Draväno-Polabians, a Slavic-speaking population living on the left bank of the lower Elbe in the so-called Wendland. Since the beginning of the 18th century – inspired by the reforms of Peter the Great, with whom he stayed in personal touch  – he took interest in the history and contemporary development of Russia. Russia as such, and Russo-German scholarly exchange, were to become particularly important tasks for the Berlin Academy of Sciences, set up under Leibniz’s patronage in 1700.9 Until the middle of the 18th century, ‘Slavs’ in West European awareness gave way to the increasingly detailed images of Russians, Poles, Sorbs, Bohemians/Czechs, Croats, or Serbs. This is attested by an entry in Johann Heinrich Zedler’s encyclopedia, the Grosses Vollständiges Universal-Lexicon aller Wissenschafften und Künste. Published in 1743, volume 38 of what was probably the most ambitious encyclopedic venture of the early modern era defined and described the ‘Slavs’ primarily as a phenomenon of the past: “Slavs [… was] once the name of a powerful nation that spread through Hungary, Poland, Russia, Prussia, Pomerania, Mecklenburg, Bohemia, Silesia, and many other neighbouring countries”, which only has survived in a part of Hungary, namely in “Dalmatia, Illyria, and the so-called Sclavonia.”10 The Universal-Lexicon’s article presented to the reader only the early medieval Slavic past, from the migration period to the times of Christianization; significantly, half of the chapter described early tribal religious cult/worship practices. The contemporary Habsburgian remnants of the “Slavic nation” only deserved a few unspecific remarks on their industriousness, high fertility, and emotionality. Thereby, the lexicon anticipated late-Enlightenment and Romanticist enchantments with a “Slavic national character”, which soon after made authors such as August Ludwig Schlözer or Johann Gottfried Herder the modern ‘discoverers’ of the Slavs. Schlözer, who was active since 1754 in Göttingen, and in 1761–67 also in Petersburg, was primarily preoccupied with the history of Russia. At the same time, his basic research into the sources and detailed descriptions significantly contributed to making Slavic Studies a scientific discipline.11 A rational 9 Bittner 1931/32; Winter/Grau 1983; Zeil 1994, 47–55; Babin 2000. 10 Zedler 1743, 30–34. 11 Mühlpfordt 1983; Lauer 2012.

Prologue

5

Enlightenment-based approach enabled him to propose, on a reliable scholarly foundation, the first classification of Slavic peoples by geographic criteria and internal connections, while also aptly classifying their languages. “Apart from the Arabs,” he stressed, “there is no other nation in this Earth that would have spread so astonishingly, popularized its language, and expanded its power and colonies.” All the same, the “history of this great nation, so rich both in highly amazing events and credible historical monuments, is presently so little known” that some contemporaries “do not even regard them [i.e. the Slavs] to be native Europeans but consider them as originating from Pontus and Caucasus.”12 Schlözer’s “General Nordic History” (Allgemeine Nordische Geschichte) published in 1771, where this statement was included, was the main source of knowledge for Johann Gottfried Herder when in the mid-1780s he wrote a brief section on the Slavs (Book 16, IV) in his “Outlines of a Philosophy of the History of Man” (Ideen zur Philosophie der Geschichte der Menschheit, 1791). The Weimar-based Superintendent-General was not an expert on the Slavs.13 He had no command of any of the Slavic languages; his homeland of East Prussia, the years he spent studying in Königsberg, and his activities as a teacher in Riga afforded him only a superficial knowledge. His brief outline, limited to the early – ‘stateless’ – history of the Slavs, but ignoring the political situation of contemporary Poland or Russia, were mostly a philosophical and political manifesto rather than a treatise in Slavic Studies. In the ‘Slavic chapter’, Herder sought, using the example of the Slavs, to propagate a partly Enlightenment and partly Romanticist ideal of universal progress of mankind. It implied recognition of a separate identity of each nation. In Herder’s approach, nation was an organic unity subjected to the processes of emergence and passing, like any human individual. A nation’s identity manifested itself, he believed, in its language and in the poetry written in it. Thus, Herder paid special attention to collecting testimonies of folk poetry, as he hoped that popularization of old folk songs was one of the means to propagate his ideal of humankind. Sooner or later, the progress of mankind would lead, in his opinion, to a point where “legislation and politics, instead of a military spirit, must and will more and more promote quiet industry, and peaceful commerce between different states.”14

12 Schlözer 1771, 222–241 (the quote on 221–222). 13 On Herder in general: Leiner 2012; Maurer 2014; Kuhn 2018. 14 Herder 1982, 393–395; this and the following English quotation from Herder 1800, 483; see also Drews 1990, esp. 43–54, 195–197; Püschel 1996.

6

Chapter 1

In view of this vision, Herder idealized the Slavic-speaking peoples as an extremely industrious and peace-loving “nation”, a community that led after its fashion a gay and musical life. They were liberal, hospitable to excess, lovers of pastoral freedom, but submissive and obedient, enemies to spoil and rapine. All this preserved them not from oppression: nay it contributed to their being oppressed. For, as they were never ambitious of sovereignty, had among them no hereditary princes addicted to war, and thought little of paying tribute, so they could but enjoy their lands in peace; many nations, chiefly of german origin, injuriously oppressed them. The topoi of this portrayal can already be found in early medieval Byzantine sources; and in a similar form, they also appear in other contemporary works. However, Herder drew from them a highly influential prophecy. At the end of his chapter on the “Slavian Nations”, he emphatically expressed his hope that: these now deeply sunk, but once industrious and happy people, will at length awake from their long and heavy slumber, shake off the chains of slavery, enjoy the possession of their delightful lands from the Adriatic sea to the Carpathian mountains, from the Don to the Muldaw, and celebrate on them their ancient festivals of peaceful trade and industry.15 2

Ideas of Slavic Community and Modern “Nation-Building”

Herder’s appeal to the Slavic nations to awake was eagerly followed by Slavicspeaking intellectuals.16 Although they did not really need external impulses for their national self-awareness to evolve, they willingly accepted the idea of equal rights of all the nations, the ideal of mankind that referred to Slavic characteristics, and a vision of national emancipation as an authoritative confirmation of their pride. It was on these premises that they built their national and political aspirations. Their claims were targeted against the ancien régime, which was shaken but never defeated by the Great French Revolution and the Napoleonic wars, and 15 16

Herder 1800, 483–484. On the reception of Herder among the Slavic-speaking peoples: Sundhaussen 1973; Johann Gottfried Herder. Zur Herder-Rezeption; Wawrykowa 1978; Rosenbaum 1980; Nisbet 1999; Rothkoegel 1999; Labuda 2002; Moroz-Grzelak 2006; Obšust 2013, 65–69.

Prologue

7

in which Slavic peoples remained subordinated to an alien power. Only the Eastern-Slavic Russians had an independent state in the form of the tsarist empire. Its monarchical autocratic system, however, tended to reinforce restoration and oppression, inward and outward, rather than supported hopes for emancipation of the Slavs. All the other Slavic peoples  – Poles, Czechs, Croats, Serbs, or Bulgarians  – either looked with regret on their historical, long- or recently-lost independence they were eager to regain, or  – in the case of Sorbs, Slovenians, Slovaks and Ukrainians – had only begun shaping their national awareness.17 The Poles, whose state had been divided between Prussia, Russia, and Austria, the Bohemians/Czechs, and the Croats, all being historical nations with an old self-conscious nobility, enjoyed at least certain rights and autonomies. The Serbs, living among the Hungarians in Batchka and Banat (that is, within the Habsburg Empire), had limited confessional privileges. The Slovaks, incorporated into the Kingdom of Hungary and thus being a Habsburgian people; the Slovenians, who also belonged to Austria – more specifically, to the crown countries of Styria, Carinthia, and Krajina; the Sorbs, divided between Prussia and Saxony; the Ukrainians, living within tsarist Russia and the Habsburg Empire; lastly, the Serbs, Bosnians, and Bulgarians, subjected to Ottoman rule, had no rights as ethnic or national groups whatsoever. Usually, they had no nobility or urban (burgher) elites of their own as the upper strata of their societies had assimilated into the tone-setting foreign elites (German, Polish, Hungarian, Italian, or Greek). It was only because of the so-called national revival that they reminded themselves of their national identities as Slavs at all. In the early years of the 19th century, Napoleon’s promises still fanned the bourgeoning national-and-political hopes, but finally deeply disappointed them. After the 1815 Congress of Vienna, the foreign authority was experienced even more painfully. Nonetheless, the idea of a Slavic community, founded upon a shared language and a common early history and culture, and the idea of one Slavic nation that was represented since the 1780s by Josef Dobrovský  – Czech Enlightenment-age Slavist, father of the ‘Slavic science of history’ (Slawische Altertumskunde)  – were originally not meant to serve a political purpose.18 Early (Western-)Slavic exponents of the idea primarily sought to set the direction and support a linguistic and cultural community. 17 On the modern formation of nations in Eastern Europe: Hroch 1968; Hroch 2005; Hroch 2009. 18 Dobrovský 1822; Dobrovský 1806; see Winter 1983; Wirtz 1999; on the beginnings of historical and archeological research into early Slavic history (Slawische Altertumskunde) Brather 2001c, esp. 720–723.

8

Chapter 1

Only in this sense, Jan Kollár summoned the ‘dispersed Slavs’ in 1824 to “unite and cease being fragments only.”19 He had studied in Jena in 1817–19, witnessed the patriotic demonstration of German students at the Wartburg castle (Wartburgfest), became subsequently active as a pastor with the Lutheran Slavic parish in Budapest and, from 1849 onward, served as a professor of Slavic history in Vienna. As part of his conception of “Slavic reciprocity” (Slawische Wechselseitigekeit), created in 1836–37, he described the Slavs as a “nation” that was divided into four tribes speaking four different languages (Russian, Polish, Czech, and Illyrian/Serbo-Croatian), but relativized the political dimension of this invented unity. According to Kollár, it would be implemented not by some political association but only through caring about the development of schools, institutes of Slavic languages, bookstores, periodicals, congresses, travel, and through letters on such topics exchanged between intellectuals.20 The last point was implemented, among others, by Kollár’s compatriot Pavol Jozef Šafárik, who in 1815–17 also studied in Jena and in 1818–33 worked as a teacher at a Serbian Orthodox grammar school in southern Hungarian Novi Sad/Újvidék, and from 1833 on in Prague. He created the scholarly foundation for the conception of Slavic reciprocity, which makes him one of the founders of Slavic Studies – along with Josef Dobrovský and Jernej (Bartholomäus) Kopitar. The latter was a Slovene who was active at the Viennese Court Library (Hofbibliothek), and also served as chief Imperial Censor for Slavic books.21 His “History of the Slavic language and literature according to all its dialects”, published in German in 1826,22 showed the Slavic unity as a sum of linguistic and literary individualities of all the Slavic peoples. In his archaeological, historical, and ethnographic research, particularly in the work “Slavonic Antiquities”, published originally in Czech in 1837, he tried to find a Slavic community primarily through meticulous study of sources related to the early history of the Slavs.23 Despite Kollár’s and Šafárik’s efforts, their Slavic Idea did not contribute to a cultural and mental unity of all the Slavs. Albeit most Slavic intellectuals stuck to the established idea about the Slavs as one people divided into tribes, their descriptions of Slavic history, literature, and language, each of which stressed 19 Kollár 1824; the quotation after Kollár 1868, 183: Slávové, vy národ zlomkovitý! / Sily sjednocené dělaji. 20 Kollár 1929, 39; first edition: Kollár 1836; an enlarged German edition: Kollár 1837; English translation: Kollár 2008; on Kollár see Matula 1978; Várossová 1995; Ján Kollár a slovanská vzájomnosť; Maxwell 2008. 21 Hrozienčik 1978; Strzelczyk 2004. 22 Schaffarik 1826. 23 Šafárik 1837; Schafarik 1843–44.

Prologue

9

individual traits of each of the ‘Slavic tribes’, had a contrary effect, inspiring them to individual national awakening. In the 1830s and 1840s, the younger generation of Slovaks, gathering around the Bratislavan teacher L’udovít Štúr, interpreted the Slavic Idea as a weapon to be used when it came to defending the linguistic, cultural, and political interests of their own nation – if need be, also against other Slavic-speaking nations.24 Thus, the Slovaks defended themselves against the Hungarian Magyarization decrees, resorting instead to their own dialect that was elevated by Štúr to the rank of a literary language, but they deliberately separated themselves from the Czechs. Among the latter, thinkers such as Karel Havlíček rejected pan-Slavic patriotism, although in their younger years they were still fascinated adherents of the idea. The journey Havlíček made to Poland and Russia in 1842–44 was so thoroughly disillusioning to him that, as he wrote in 1846, “the last sparkle of pan-Slavic love” extinguished in him, and he “returned to Prague as a pure unyielding Czech, with a hidden dislike for the concept of ‘Slav’.”25 Also, among Southern Slavs in the early 1840s, the national egoisms clearly squeezed out the Slavic Idea. Among the Slovenes and Croats, and partly among the Serbs, it assumed the peculiar form of Illyrism.26 The notion had its origin in the Balkan Slavs identification with the ancient Illyrians, which at the time had some reference to reality in the form of the Napoleonic “Provinces Illyriennes”, the administrative unit that encompassed the Slovenes and Croats in 1807–09. Inspired to a considerable extent by the Croatian Ljudevit Gaj and Janko Drašković, Illyrism strove for at least a partial, regional, Southern Slavic implementation of the idea of Slavic unity. However, the Croatian and Serbian desires for domination clashed against each other from the very beginning. The Serbs managed to gain a limited autonomy from the Ottomans already in the year 1830; like the Croats, they claimed their rights to the Slavic-speaking population of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The conception of Great Serbia, derived from medieval Serbian history, collided against a similarly justified idea of Great Croatia.27 Both conceptions were contrary to Slavic unity and reciprocity. The Slovenes, in whom the Slovenian poet Valentin Vodnik saw the genuine Illyrians, opposed the Croatian claims, similarly as the Bulgarians opposed the claims of the Serbs. Between the latter two an open (and, temporarily, armed) 24 Ivantyšynová 1994; Žilka 2004. 25 The quotation from Moritsch 1996, 15; see Vlček 2005; Pešina 2010. 26 Pogonowski 1924; Leshchilovskaia 1968; Suppan 1996; Maissen 1998; Novak 2012; Dukić 2016. 27 Behschnitt 1980, 49–51; Obšust 2013, 114–117.

10

Chapter 1

conflict emerged, which included the struggle over the Slavic-speaking people of Macedonia. Both among Slovenes and Serbs, the pioneers of national emancipation – the Slovenian poet France Prešeren and the Serbian philologist Vuk Karadžić – strove to establish a literary language of its own, so that the idea of a common Illyrian linguistic standardization, propagated by Ludevit Gaj, remained a theory.28 The Slavic Idea was differently interpreted by the Poles. For them, the pan-Slavic conception was primarily a force that would help them to regain their independent state.29 Initially, they vested their hopes in Russia, under whose rule large parts of their former territory were integrated into a Kingdom of Poland, established at the Congress of Vienna in 1815. Under the harness of tsarist bondage, however, the hope entertained by Enlightenment activists, such as Stanisław Staszic, that Poles and Russians being regarded as the two most significant Slavic nations, together might introduce mankind into a new epoch, shaped by the Slavs,30 faded out all too soon. After the defeat of the November Insurrection of 1830–31, at the latest, the idea was replaced by Polish Romanticist messianism, a conception whereby Poles had a special mission to fulfill as allegedly the worthiest and thoroughly Christian  – basically, Catholic  – Slavic nation. Polish Romanticists such as Adam Mickiewicz, who taught in Paris in the early 1840s, glorified their nation, considering it to be a suffering Messiah of the Slavic nations, whose sacrifice was to save the Slavs and Europe from Russia, which was perceived as an Antichrist and regarded as a non-Slavic country, rather Asian and despotic.31 In parallel, the Polish democrats, the historian Joachim Lelewel among them, dreamed of a Slavic federation under Polish leadership, which to them essentially meant nothing else than a restoration of the Polish nobility-based res publica.32 The diverse socio-cultural contexts and conflicting political interests of individual Slavic nations continued to preclude one another, until a revolution shook Europe in the spring of 1848. The German and Italian unity movements, accelerated by civic and national disturbances, with the related hopes of the Hungarians for setting up a Magyar nation-state and the Poles who perceived the revolution as a new opportunity to regain independence, caused multiple concerns to representatives of the smaller Slavic countries. The Czechs and 28 Stepanova 2017; Wilson 1970; Kašić 1978; Despalatović 1975; Fofić 1990; Steindorff 2007. 29 Klarnerówna 1926; Kulecka 1997; Kurczak 2000; Wierzbicki 2002; Moroz-Grzelak 2011; Michalski 2013; Ruszczyńska 2015. 30 Matęglewicz 2007. 31 Stefanowska 1968; Kuk 1996; Walicki 2006; Kaźmierczyk 2012. 32 Słoczyński 2016; Mühle 2018a, 98–105.

Prologue

11

the Slovenes had to fear that the German nation-state would absorb them completely; the Slovaks, Croats, Carpathian Ukrainians, and Serbs living in Hungary felt confronted with the menace that once Hungary grew autonomous, they would become its part, with Hungarian superimposed on them as the uniform official language. The unification of Italy and the restoration of Poland’s independence would, moreover, mean not only incorporation of more parts of Slavic-speaking populations into a foreign nation-state, but also the disappearance of the Habsburg Empire from the political map of Europe. It was these opportunities, or rather threats, that caused the leaders of Slavic-speaking national movements within the Habsburg Empire to feel urged to consider in common their perspectives for the future.33 In late March 1848, several delegations arrived in Vienna to submit to Emperor Ferdinand their expectations and political demands. On this occasion, representatives of Slavic-speaking nations within the monarchy met one another and got into contact with the large and vibrant Slavic-speaking colony of Vienna. As one such gathering in early April turned into a national festival attended by three thousand people, the Moravian journalist Ludmil Stájský wrote: Slavic unity and reciprocity […] is now starting to become a reality […]. The danger threatening from all sides is forcing us to overcome outdated jealousies and join hands, since only in this way we will be able to present our own view that will earn us the respect of foreign nations and cause fear on the side of our enemies.34 In the same month, the Croat Ivan Kukuljević-Sakcinski, the Slovak L’udovít Štúr, and the Pole Jędrzej Moraczewski, independently acknowledged the atmosphere in Prague, Zagreb, and Poznań, respectively, and inspired the others to hold a pan-Slavic meeting that would resemble the German gathering at St Paul’s Church in Frankfurt. And indeed, in early June 1848, more than 350 members of the Slavic nations living in the Habsburg monarchy gathered on Sophie’s Island in Prague at the first Slavic Congress.35 The gathering was joined by several non-Austrian representatives of Slavdom – including Karol 33 Die slavische Idee; L’idea dell’unità; Hahn 2008. 34 Ludmil Stájský on 13 April 1848 in the newspaper Týdenník, quoted from the collection of documents Slovanský sjezd, 16–17, esp. 16: Svornost a vzájemnost slovanská […] počíná již býti skutečností […]. Ze všech stran nám hrozící nebezpečí nutká nás, bychom nechavše zastaralých žehravostí vzájemně si ruce podali, nebot‘ jenom tak zaujmeme stanovisko, kteréž nám vážnost u cizích národů a strach u nepřátelů našich vynutitit může. 35 Kolejka 1996; Hannick 2008, The Prague Slav Congress 1848; Der Prager Slavenkongress 1848.

12

Chapter 1

Libelt, a Polish publicist active in Poznań, the Serbo-Lusatian Slavist Jan Pětr Jordan, working at the University of Leipzig and then at the University of Prague, and the Russian anarchist Mikhail Bakunin, then an émigré in Geneva.36 The Congress set three goals for itself: to announce a manifesto to the nations of Europe; to write a petition to the emperor, listing the demands of the individual nations; and, to consider the possibilities of a stricter cooperation between the Habsburg Slavs. The debates  – in which intra-Slavic controversies repeatedly came to the fore – were dominated by fear of a hegemony of the German nation-state and the Russian ‘universal monarchy’. Moreover, the Polish messianism deterred the Congress attendees and caused that they quickly distanced themselves from the pan-Slavic strategy represented by Karol Libelt. Instead, agreement was reached under the lead of the Czech historian František Palacký and a more polished federal/Austrian variant of the Slavic idea was accepted (which only afterward was named “Austro-Slavism”). Palacký had formulated the basic assumptions for this option in his famous refusal letter to the National Assembly in Frankfurt. As a “Czech of Slavic descent”, he rejected the German “desire to incorporate Austria (and the Czech Lands, together with it) […] to Germany” as “a demand to commit suicide.” At the same time, he declared that “preservation, inviolability and reinforcement” of the Austrian Empire were indispensable, for “had it [the Empire] not existed so far, it would have needed to be possibly quickly created, in the interest of Europe, in the interest of the entire mankind”. Obviously, this state, “established by nature and history to be a shield and a bulwark of Europe against Asiatic elements of all sorts,” would have to observe consistently “the rule of complete equality of rights and equal treatment of all the nationalities and confessions united under its sceptre.”37 In this same spirit, the Congress opted at the end of its deliberations for a continuation of the Habsburg monarchy, demanding however that it be transformed into a trialistic ‘federal state’ that would enable not only Germans and Hungarians, but also Slavs, to “take advantage of the dearest good of humankind: the free and independent development of nationality.”38 The manifesto, whose final version was compiled by Palacký, and agreed upon by the assembly but not definitely adopted, summoned to recognize 36

Piotrowski 1964; Zeil 1983; D’iakov 1998; Jena 2000; Udolph 2005; Makowski/Trzeciakowski 2013. 37 Eine Stimme über Österreichs Anschluß an Deutschland. An den Fünfziger-Ausschuß zu Händen des Herren Präsidenten Soiron in Frankfurt a.M., In Palacký 1866, 79–86; on Palacký and his ‚Austroslavic‘ concept Wierer 1957; Kořalka 1986; Kořalka 2007, 269–290. 38 Adresse oder Petition des Slawencongresses in Prag an Seine k. k. Majestät; the quotations from Selbstbild und Fremdbilder, 320, 324.

Prologue

13

liberty, equality, and fraternity of individuals and primarily of every nation.39 The Congress rejected, however, the idea to “form a Slavic state” in its draft petition to the emperor. Neither the manifesto nor the petition was officially adopted, like the Congress’s third document  – the ‘Federal Treaty of the Austrian Slavs’, since after the breakdown of the Prague insurrection on 12 June the assembly was dissolved, on the same day, by the imperial army troops. Thus, the Congress formally produced no result; the plans to institutionalize it and hold annual conventions were never put into practice. However, the discussions did not go unheard. In 1849, the Reichstag at Kroměříž/Kremsier included the idea of federalization of Austria in the draft Constitution, thus formulating a political conception that – though rejected on the spot, together with the Constitution, and suffering defeat upon the conclusion of the 1867 Austrian-Hungarian arrangement, at the latest  – served the Austrian Slavs until World War I as a leading principle, giving them important impulses in the shaping of their identity. At the time, the narrow circle of Russia’s intellectual elite had their own identity discourse, with ‘Slavophilism’ as the leading slogan. Irrespective of what the notion may suggest, the discourse had little in common with the Western- and Southern-Slavic Ideas of Slavic unity and reciprocity. These ideas died away unanswered in tsarist Russia, also because they were unwelcomed by the autocracy. The decomposition of the Habsburg monarchy and incorporation into Russia of the emerging Slavic nations living in its territory (an idea that was perhaps considered by some Russian Slavophiles in 1848) was out of the question for the legitimist-oriented tsar – as was attested by his military intervention undertaken to suppress the Hungarian revolution. It is worth noting that Slavophiles such as Alexei S. Khomiakov, Ivan Kireevsky and Konstantin Aksakov were almost completely uninterested in the history or culture of the other Slavic nations. In their historical, religious, and philosophic discussion with the so-called Russian Westernizers, their only point was Russia’s relationship with Western Europe and a determination of the way Russia had to make in the future owing to its historical mission. The rigorous rejection of Western Enlightenment and a rational way of life, as well as the glorification of Old Russian and Orthodox culture turned Slavophilism, or Slavophilia, infact, into a Russo-philism.40

39 Proclamation der ersten Slavenversammlung in Prag an die Völker Europas; the quotation from Selbstbild und Fremdbilder, 318–319. 40 Walicki 1975; Cimbaev 1986; Slavianofil’stvo i sovremennost’; Grekov 1998; Kola 2004; Engelstein 2009; Horujy 2010.

14

Chapter 1

However, it was not only the Slavophiles who took interest in the other Slavic nations, if ever, only when – like the Orthodox Southern Slavs – they could serve as an instrument in Russia’s external policies. Also, the Russian version of pan-Slavism, activated after Russia’s defeat in the Crimean War of 1856, was essentially simply a pan-Russism, a Great-Russian nationalism that was to absorb the entire Slavdom.41 This variant of the Slavic Idea was primarily propagated by the historian Mikhail P. Pogodin and anthropologist Nikolai Y. Danilevsky, along with writers such as Fyodor I. Tyutchev and Fyodor M. Dostoevsky.42 The Slavic Charity Committee, established in late 1857/early 1858, gave the Slavic Idea in Russia a certain institutional foundation, which in effect enabled the organization of the second Slavic Congress held in Moscow in May 1867.43 The Congress was attended by numerous Czechs, Slovaks, Galician Ukrainians, and Southern Slavs; there were no Poles present, as in 1863 they once again ignited an uprising against the Russians and were, once again, defeated. In the face of the Austrian-Hungarian Compromise of March 1867, which again discriminated the Habsburg Slavs, many Congress attendants, among them the Slovak L’udovit’ Štúr and the Slovene Roman Catholic priest and linguist Matija Majar-Zilijski, expected that assumption of the Russian perspective will have a positive effect on the affairs of the other nations.44 Yet, Russian pan-Slavists strove to establish a great Slavic Orthodox state under Russia’s leadership, in which there would not be too much room for autonomy or independence of Western- or Southern-Slavic nations. The Congress members were not left unaware as to these intentions since the Russian hosts declared that acceptance of Orthodoxy and the Russian language by all the Slavs was the indispensable condition of Slavic unity. No surprise, then, that – given such conditions – the Congress resulted in a failure. While the tsarist government initially did not openly support the pan-Slavic strivings, it soon noticed their potential for legitimization of the tsarist regime. In the context of its Balkan policies, Russian authorities made use of pan-Slavism already in the 1870s but soon afterwards betrayed the idea in the eyes of its followers by giving away, in 1878, half of the Bulgarian lands conquered in the Russo-Turkish war. A revision of the Russian victory over the Turks done at the Congress of Berlin caused that pan-Slavism, which was not 41

Petrovich 1956; Kohn 1956; Milojković-Djurić 1996, 54–95; Obšust 2013, 88–97; Panslawizm wczoraj. 42 Picht 1969; Mühle 2018a, 105–117; Stefaniuk 2006. 43 Nikitin 1960; Tanty 1970; Nenasheva 1992; Zlatar 2006. 44 Szabó 2006; Wiesflecker 2006.

Prologue

15

adopted by the Russian society either, lost in importance as a political and ideological tool. Toward the end of the ‘long 19th century’ Slavic-speaking journalists and deputies at the Parliaments of Vienna and Petersburg again attempted at reconciling the Habsburgian federal and Russian imperial variant of the Slavic Idea. Their neo-Slavism was, for one thing, a concept of defence against the increasingly offensive Wilhelmian imperialism and, for another, a response to Russia’s defeat in the Russo-Japanese War and to the first Russian revolution of 1905.45 The changes taking place in the world brought about the need to determine the inner-Slavic relations anew. Austro-Slavic and pan-Slavic discussions were revived and flamed up again in the late 19th century, particularly in Bohemia. A careful liberalization and partial parlamentarization of Russian society deprived pan-Slavism, to an extent, of its imperial/Great-Russian character.46 The Russian journalist Vsevolod P. Svatkovsky opted in early 1906 for a new ‘Slavic union’ that was to distance itself clearly from Russian domination. Instead of Russian hegemony, Orthodoxy and Russian language, the new Slavic unity was to be characterized by political equality in rights, religious toleration, and autonomy for all Slavic-speaking nations. Keeping his eye on such an objective, Svatkovsky exhorted that mutual visit and exchange schemes be put into practice, congresses held, and economic contacts established; one of his postulates was that of a customs union between Russia and Austria.47 This Russian step toward the Habsburg Slavs was willingly answered by Ivan Hribar, a Slovene; Mykola Hlibovyc’kyj, a Galician Ukrainian; and Karel Kramář, a Czech (among others). Kramář was primarily content with the perspective that the “two largest Slavic states”, namely Russia and Austria, could join their forces in the fight against Germany, their common enemy.48 Hence, at a meeting of the Slavic deputies to the Viennese Council of State in November 1907, this textile manufacturer and leader of the Young Czech Party proposed to his fellow parliamentarians to opt for a new Slavic Idea that would preach “liberty, equality, and fraternity.” He identified the main obstacle as the Polish-Russian conflict, whose solution was sought at the same time (for tactical and political/national reasons) by the Russian Constitutional Democratic

45

Zeil 1975; Ferenczi 1984; Giza 1984; Gantar Godina 1994; Jaworski 1997; Borkowski 2001; Obšust 2013, 216–231. 46 Liszkowski 1974; Zlatar 2004; Zlatar 2013. 47 Svatkosky-Nestor 1906. 48 Lustigová 2004; Winkler 2002.

16

Chapter 1

politician Petr B. Struve, and the Polish National Democrat and deputy to the Russian Duma Roman Dmowski.49 The thus prepared Neo-Slavic Idea reached the climax of its popularity in July 1908, with eighty-three delegates from nearly all the Slavic nations (except for Slovaks, Sorbs, Poles from the Prussian Partition, and Ukrainians from Austrian Galicia) who gathered together at the second Prague Slavic Congress, which was organized in a very short time.50 The Brno newspaper Lidové noviny described its objective as such: “to make the Slavic reciprocity, which so far has been merely a matter of feeling, a strength of economic and cultural and, thereby, political progress of the Slavic nations.”51 It was in this spirit that the possibilities of economic cooperation were discussed (including the establishment of a Slavic Bank and the organization of a Slavic industrial exhibition), the construction of railroad connections between the Slavic capital cities, perspectives of cultural and scientific exchange, and the establishment of common institutions. Moreover, the organization of tourism oriented toward Slavic countries was considered.52 A common declaration at the final session emphasized the “vitality and fertility of the idea of universal Slavic unity” and deemed it “indispensably necessary to put an end to the misunderstandings and discords between the Slavic nations, which is only possible by way of common recognition and application of the principles of equality-of-rights and unrestrained development of every nation, and acceptance of its cultural and national singularity.”53 These pious hopes and great expectations collapsed equally quickly as the ideas shared and plans discussed among the attendees. Three months after the Congress was concluded, Austro-Hungary’s annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (to which most Slavic deputies to the Viennes Parliament did in fact respond positively) brought the neo-Slavs back down to earth. Also the increasing tensions between Serbs and Bulgarians, Poles and Russians, confirmed the opinion of a British diplomatic representative in Vienna, who in 1908 notified London that the Congress had achieved ‘very little’ and was, at the utmost, “a great theatrical exhibition of Slav solidarity.”54 The Second Balkan 49 Macevko 2000. 50 Falkovich 1994; Nenasheva 1994; Nenasheva 1998a; Hadler 2013; Hadler 2014; Kostrikova 2017, 41–50, 71–123. 51 The quotation from Fischel 1919, 524. 52 Nenasheva 1974; Kubů/Novotný/Šouša 2006. 53 The quotation from Feldmann 1917, 383. 54 Public Record Office London, Foreign Office 371/399, The quotation from Vyšný 1977, 120; nevertheless, two years later there was held a follow-up congress in Sofia, see Nenasheva 1998b; on the failing of Neoslavism in general see Nolte 2005.

Prologue

17

War (1913) and World War I, during which hundreds of thousands of Slavs fought against other Slavs in the armies of Bulgaria, Serbia, Prussia, Austria, and Russia; the Paris peace negotiations during which the spokesmen of the Slavic nations only cared about the particular interests of their own states; and, the interwar period in Eastern Europe, abounding in conflicts once the new political order was imposed, gave the Slav solidarity no opportunity to flourish whatsoever. Even if the establishment in 1918 of the Southern-Slavic Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes (since 1929, Yugoslavia) and its collaboration with the first Czechoslovak Republic (the Little Entente) attested that neo-Slavism had a certain, however partial, impact,55 it essentially remained a romantically optimistic, but politically inefficient, project. 3

Slavic Unity and German Anti-slavism

Neo-Slavism, pan-Slavism and Austro-Slavism had, instead, a very concrete impact on Europe’s non-Slavic nations. In their Slavic discourses, pan-Slavism became a slogan that stood for all the possible threats allegedly stemming from Slavdom. In the first place, with use of pan-Slavic construals that were not-quite-transparent to outsiders, the Germans almost became obsessed with a ‘Slavic Danger’.56 They treated pan-Slavism as an attack on their traditional (Austrian and Prussian) supremacy and on their own, young at the time, unification movements. To greater an extent than the Slavs themselves, the Germans constructed their alleged unity and often referred to Slavdom and Slavs when they only targeted their dislike at one concrete nation or several nations, rather than at all the Slavic nations in their entirety. This anti-Slavism, unreflective and unificational alike, blended fear of the unknown and awesome great and mighty Russia with earlier prejudices, such as the stereotypical accusation of dishonesty, which in the Empire was targeted, since the Late Middle Ages, at the Wends (as the Slavs were then called). Already Herder’s Romanticist glorification of the Slavs came across anti-Slavic commentaries. Hegel’s declaration that he does not mention Slavs (“the great Slavic nation”) in his “Lectures on the Philosophy of History” (Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Geschichte, 1822–31), since “this whole mass […] has not yet appeared as an autonomous moment in a series of influences informing the

55 56

Robinson 2011; Newman 2011; Djokić 2003. See Fischel 1919 and Fuhrmann 1975; Wippermann 1999; Garleff 2009; Paddock 2010; Karl/Skordos 2016; Kienemann 2018, 55–232.

18

Chapter 1

reason in the world”,57 was in this context a rather mild and neutral option, similar to the exclusion of Slavs from the Romanic-Germanic picture of history according to Leopold von Ranke (1824). Some others made a clearer point; for instance, Johann Friedrich Reitemeier, a Göttingen lawyer and historian, pointed (in 1801) to an “impurity of the Slavs”, apparently characteristic of them “since the earliest time”,58 while August Wilhelm Schlegel remarked (1803) that “out of the unblended Slavic nation […] it is hard to make something really worthy of attention;” Slavs, he added, are rather “everywhere and under any conditions predestined for bondage.”59 Influenced by such assessments, several German scholars and publicists believed that “the transition of the many Slavic countries to the German custom,” as Moritz Wilhelm Heffter, a Brandenburg grammar school headmaster, put it in 1847, “is the necessary effect of the cultural, historical, spiritual, and moral superiority which those educated always gain over those uneducated.”60 As a result, the history of German-Slavic relations was more and more frequently treated as an inevitable process of expansion in which Germans, for the reason of the alleged right of timeless difference in the levels between the West and the East, were once forced, by their nature, and continue to be forced to superimpose their power over the Slavs. The latter are apparently incapable of getting politically self-organized (except for the Russians), whereas the Germans can offer them culture and civilization. Fascinated since the 1830s with the Polish struggle for independence, the liberal democrats resisted for some time the attitude that was aptly described by their contemporaries as the ‘German push toward the East’ (Drang nach Osten).61 However, during the Spring of Nations also the liberals broke down, and the benevolent voices relented. Poles, Russians, and the other Slavs became the objects of stigmatization as a ‘Slavic Danger’. A “sound national egoism” took the upper hand at St Paul’s Church in Frankfurt. It was in this spirit that the liberal Wilhelm Jordan took oath for the first German national assembly, reproaching those advocating the idea to restore Poland within its 1772 borders for their “stupid sentimentalism” and calling for an open declaration of German cultural prevalence and the resulting right to make conquests.

57 58 59 60 61

Hegel 1980, 442. Reitemeier 1801, 35. Schlegel 2006, 248; see Masiakowska 2003, esp. 173–183. Heffter 1847, 459. Meyer 1996, 47–76.

Prologue

19

Even the radical Left joined this “national egoism.” Friedrich Engels declared in the 15 February 1849 issue of Neue Rheinische Zeitung that every German conquest of Slavic territories was “in the interest of civilization,” for Germans brought progress into the East whereas Slavs – “those small, dwarfish, helpless tiny nations” – merely represented “the barbaric East.”62 This set in motion a way of thinking that was to shape the German perception of the Slavic world until the beginning of the second half of the 20th century. The image of the Slavs having no culture of their own, unable to create a state for themselves, and therefore requiring to be civilized by Germans and subordinated to their political order, appeared in several variations – in multiple press reports and reportages, speeches and political treatises, dissertations and scientific studies, in novels and other fiction texts – and was reinforced and disseminated through them. This image was associated, in a specific manner, with another strongly influential stereotype – namely, anti-Semitism, which was spreading at the same time. Gustav Freytag’s popular 1855 novel Soll und Haben, which became one of the most influential texts for the emerging self-awareness of national-liberal bourgeoisie, blended anti-Slavic and anti-Semitic prejudices while also foreshadowing the later racist national thinking. Schröter, the novel’s character, states that “there is no race that would be as incapable of progress and of use of its property for obtaining education and developing humanity as the Slavic race is.” This weakness is opposed by the German nation’s cultural and civilizational advantage; the conclusion proposed by the Silesian author is that Germans are tasked with promoting culture in the Slavic East.63 In the view of the historian Heinrich von Treitschke, already the Teutonic Order’s policy toward the medieval Prussians and Slavs was part of a “ruthless racial struggle;” he considered the German supremacy to be so immense that the Slavs, those “thoughtless peoples of the East,” enjoyed Germanization as it marked the “magnificent triumphant march of German culture.”64 In as early as the 1840s, these thoughts inspired some (economist Friedrich List and journalist Gustav Höfken, among others) to formulate the conception of German offensive and even aggressive eastward expansion, but these ideas remained for some time without much response from the public opinion.65 62 63 64 65

Friedrich Engels, Der demokratische Panslawismus, in: Marx/Engels 1968, 270–286 (quotation: 277–278); Friedrich Engels, Revolution und Konterrevolution in Deutschland, in: Marx/Engels 1969, 5–108 (quotation: 53). Freytag 1977, 330–331; see Hahn 2005; Joachimsthaler 2015, 21–25. Treitschke 1862, the quotations: 96, 101. Wippermann 1981, 41–44.

20

Chapter 1

The establishment of the German Empire in 1871 temporarily satisfied the national-political claims, while Bismarck’s endeavours for a settlement with Austria and Russia transitionally dispelled the Lesser-German dream of hegemony. Nonetheless, the 1880s saw intensifying demands to take vigorous action against the alleged internal “Slavic threat” and propagations of offensive imperialistic conviction of Germany’s right to impose its culture upon the nations in the East. Within the German Empire, the anti-Slavic discourse was primarily aimed against the Polish-speaking national minority, which numbered 2.2 million people, this being 5.2 percent of the Empire’s population and 10 percent of the whole Prussian population. Compared to it, the (approximately) 200,000 Sorbs living in Lower and Upper Lusatia was a practically insignificant group, all the more that they were almost completely assimilated and, in contrast to the majority of the Poles dwelling in the eastern Prussian provinces, considered themselves citizens of the Empire, Saxon or Prussian. However, Saxon and Prussian officials saw the harmless endeavours of the Serbo-Lusatian teachers and pastors to keep their language and culture tended to be a challenge – to the extent that they denounced it as a plot driven by domestic and foreign “pan-Slavists” and tried to solve the “Wendish question” with use of similarly radical means as those applied for the “Polish question.”66 About the latter, a Prussian envoy to Petersburg whose name was Otto von Bismarck expressed himself rather ruthlessly; as he detailed in a letter to his sister in 1861: “Go lash the Poles, so that they lose hope for life; I compassionate them because of their position; but if we want to survive, we have no other way-out than eradicating them.”67 As Chancellor of the Reich, he not only initiated the strongly anti-Polish Kulturkampf but pursued a Germanization policy aimed at complete denationalization of the Poles living in the Eastern provinces of the Reich. To this end, Polish as the language of instruction was banned in schools in 1873. In 1876, German was made the compulsory language for all the offices and political institutions. From 1886 onward, the Prussian state made systematic efforts to have German peasants settled down in the provinces of Western Prussia and Poznań  – in the lands that earlier on had been owned by Poles and which were expropriated between 1908 and 1912 with no indemnity whatsoever.68

66 67 68

Remes 1993; Tuschling 2003. Otto von Bismarck to his sister Malwine on 26th March 1861: Bismarck 1933, 567–568 (quotation: 568). Volkmann 2016, 75–217.

Prologue

21

These anti-Polish actions were justified by an alleged “Slavic threat”, the unacceptable anarchistic “Polish economic” (Polnische Wirtschaft), and the German primacy in culture and state organization. A new argument was the criminal statistics introduced in 1882 in the whole Empire, which apparently showed that crime rates were higher in the Eastern provinces of Prussia compared to the country at large. The reason was immediately identified as the prevalence there of the Polish people. Among the arguments provided by the criminal policy, racial ideology, and anti-Slavic views, “race and nationality” were regarded  – following the 1893 formula of Hans Kurella, a psychiatrist then active in Brieg – to be “essential biological factors contributing to the committing of crimes.” “The actual reason behind high crime rates in the Eastern provinces,” he continued, can only be traced back to “the degeneration of broad strata of [Polish-speaking] people” who were increasingly “neglected intellectually and morally,” “across generations.”69 The District Court of Breslau considered thefts and violent crimes to be a typical trait of the Slavic character and warned against the “influence of the Slavic element on the local configuration of criminality” around the year 1900.70 Fed with such thinking, daily discrimination was a permanent element in the life of the Polish and Sorbian minorities not only in the late period of the Empire’s existence. In the Weimar Republic, it outright grew stronger in the context of border area struggles and anti-Polish revisionist policies. Openly violent acts occurred more and more often – brawls in which Polish students were driven away (as in 1919 in Breslau) or assaults during which Polish institutions were devastated (e.g. the Polish Consulate in Breslau in July 1920).71 Brutal and systematic persecutions by means of which the National Socialists wanted since 1933 to “solve the Polish and the Wendish questions” came as consequence of these developments. Like German anti-Slavism aimed against the Polish and Sorbian citizens within the Empire turned with time into the Nazi terror, the 19th-century imperial and expansionist hostility toward the Slavs living in neighbouring states, finally led to the German war of aggression. It was probably not the intention of the precursors of Wilhelmian imperialism to bring about a systematic homicide during the extermination war conducted by the Nazis; however, their ideological constructs, historical-political justifications, and objectives – not just the propagated ones but also those temporarily achieved during World War I – doubtlessly prepared the ground for the later Nazi crimes. 69 Kurella 1893, the quotations: 153, 173, 179; see Zimmermann 2006. 70 Frauenstädt 1906, 574. 71 Mühle 2015, 223.

22

Chapter 1

It was already in the second half of the 19th century that scholars such as Paul de Lagarde, an Orientalist from Göttingen, called upon Germans for a ‘common colonization’ to be pursued “not in faraway lands but in the direct neighbourhood.”72 To this end, according to Lagarde, not only the thinly populated areas in East-Central Europe but also the whole of Poland should be annexed, and German colonists should be settled there. The Slavs were to be eradicated for  – as he explained to his readers  – they only were “a burden for Europe: the faster they perish, the better for us, and for them.”73 Also the relevant organizations set up in the 1890s, such as the All-German Association (Alldeutscher Verband) or the German Eastern Marches Society (Ostmarkenverein), persuaded the Germans into an inevitable confrontation with the “Slavic race”, whereas the journalists, commentators and writers such as the Baltic German Richard Bahr roared about a “Slavic flood” blowing up “from the East […] sputtering and raging.”74 No surprise, then, that the impression was reinforced in the German public opinion that the Empire might only be preserved as a power under the condition that it eliminated the “Slavic threat” with force. Emperor Wilhelm II believed that “the fight between the Slavs and the Germanic people” was inevitable – and his view was shared by Helmuth von Moltke, Chief of his General Staff, who in February 1913 assumed that “sooner or later, a European war must come, in which the point will primarily be about a struggle between Germandom and Slavdom.”75 The end of the “struggle decisive for the fortune of the world,” which proved calamitous for the Empire, the fiasco of the objectives sought by the Germans in World War I, and the Treaty of Versailles received as a ‘disgrace’, sobered the Germans up only for a very short time. A considerable proportion of German society almost immediately resumed its earlier patterns of imperial and anti-Slavic thinking, continuously enjoying support from professors and writers. Historians, especially, provided allegedly the most convincing historical and political arguments. In the first place, they reminded about German medieval settlement in the East, which they used to justify their current claims 72 Paul de Lagarde, Über die gegenwärtigen Aufgaben der deutschen Politik. Ein Vortrag gehalten im November 1853, in: Lagarde 1892, 17–36 (quotation: 25). 73 Paul de Lagarde, Über die gegenwärtige Lage des deutschen Reiches, ein Bericht (1875), in: Lagarde 1892, s. 98–167 (quotation: 112). 74 Bahr 1911, 347. 75 Marginal note of Emperor Wilhelm II on a letter of the German ambassador to St Petersburg, Friedrich von Pourtalès, to chancellor Bethmann Hollweg dated 6th May 1913; the quotation from Fischer 1969, 298; Helmuth von Moltke to Franz Conrad von Hötzendorf, 10th July 1913, quoted from Hötzendorf 1922, 144–147 (quotation: 146). On the perception of the Slavs and the European East during world war I see Mühle 2002; Hoeres 2006.

Prologue

23

to large parts of East-Central Europe.76 In the opinion of the medievalist Karl Hampe, it was already during World War I that, by seizing the lands in the East, Germans were to complete what they had once, back in the Middle Ages, discontinued. The attainment of the advisable objective of German eastward expansion was interfered by the “pan-Slavic hatred and desire of annihilation.” The Germans’ withdrawal, forced by these factors and by the ‘enemies of the West’ in the year 1918, “upset the Slavic flood wave again, which has ever since been hitting the eastern border  – shifted now and perforated as it is by the disgraceful Versailles peace settlement.”77 The demand to revise the eastern frontier united the Left and the Right in the Weimar Republic. However, in the right-wing national camp plans of expansion outside the country soon started to be woven in.78 The National Socialist movement gave these plans a completely new dimension. It blended anti-Slavism with its racial ideology and with a new image of the enemy in the form of Bolshevism, thus inseparably combining the exaggerated anti-Slavic ideas with anti-Semitism and anti-Communism.79 Upon this ideological ground, Nazism created a programme of conquest of a “living space in the East” (Lebensraum im Osten), extending far beyond the earlier imperial plans of eastward expansion.80 Although the Slavs were announced to be the major ‘racial enemy’, right after the Jews, the Nazis’ actual attitude toward the Slavic nations was selective and situation-driven. The persecution and extermination policy were primarily targeted against the Russians and the Poles, and, in the second step, the Ukrainians and the Czechs (as well as Sorbs within the Reich), whereas the Croats, Slovaks and Bulgarians, as German allies, remained de facto outside the Nazi image of the Slavic “subhuman” (Untermensch) as an enemy. Already during the September Campaign of 1939 against Poland, this extreme image of the ‘enemy’ contributed to a brutalization of the German method of war waging and the later occupational policy,81 which grew even more destructive after Germany’s attack on the Soviet Union.82 A daily order issued in May 1941 evoked, again, “the Germanic people’s old fight against Slavdom,” and justified the impending war against the Soviet Union in terms of “defence of the European culture against the Muscovite-Asiatic flood” 76 77 78 79 80 81 82

Mühle 2005, 189–210, 499–565. Hampe 1921, 9; on the German perception of the Slavs see also Skordos 2014. Wippermann 1998. Dmitrów 1997; Schaller 2002; Borejsza 2006; Król 2006; Vorein 2010. Heinemann 2003; Wippermann 2017; Dieckmann 2017. Böhler 2006. Wette 1996.

24

Chapter 1

and “pushing back the Jewish bolshevism.” This ‘defensive’ war was meant to “smash the Russia of today,” and hence it had to be waged with “unheardof ruthlessness”: “All the warfare must be propelled, in its assumption and implementation method, by the iron will of pitiless and complete destruction of the enemy.”83 Such guidelines caused that the limits of violence admitted, if not outright expected, in the war against the ‘racial enemy’ were comprehended very broadly. In terms of another order, given to all the soldiers in October 1941, the Wehrmacht soldiers (rather than the SS and police battalion members only) were to become “the executors of the inexorable national idea and […] the avengers for all the bestialities committed on the German nation and the related nations”, now encouraged to “pitilessly eradicate the deceit and cruelty of the alien blood.”84 The indoctrination impacting millions of people had its consequences and influences for some time after the war as well. In any case, the (West-)German image of Slavs from the 1950s/1960s continued to be ambivalent. In the debates on German claims to the lost territories in the East, which were still politically topical at the time, and as part of the internal Western-Eastern German conflict, stylized as a dispute between the free West and despotic Soviet communism, numerous elements of German anti-Slavism continued to (re)appear.85 While in the GDR, the state imposed and cherished, since the very beginning, a positive image of the Slavs as part of the ‘socialist friendship’ propaganda,86 in West Germany only the “new eastern policy” (Neue Ostpolitik) of the late sixties and the seventies initiated a process of redefining the relations with the European East, thereby modifying the ideas or concepts regarding the Slavs.87 The 1989 transition was followed by a pacification and neutralization of the German image of the Slavs, which caused that it largely lost its previous importance. The ‘Slavs’ do not appear prominently any longer in contemporary discourse either in a positive or negative sense, in an institutional context, or in connection with concrete conflicts. In communication and cooperation, in the disputes and confrontations informing the relations between the Slavic-speaking and the non-Slavic-speaking parts of Europe, the category 83 84 85 86 87

Der deutsche Überfall, 251. Der deutsche Überfall, 285–286. Schildt 1999; Mühle 2005, 391–459, 584–620; Wentker 2014. Behrends 2006, 118–135, 149–167. Conze 2009, 417–461.

Prologue

25

‘Slavs’ does not play any political role anymore. Instead, Slavic-speaking nations are perceived as a vivid diversity of separate entities, not to be lumped together – similarly as no-one would approach the English, the Scandinavians, the Dutch, and the Germans as one ‘Germanic people’, or the French, Spaniards, Portuguese, and Italians as the ‘Romanic people’. 4

The Slavic Idea in Eastern Europe between Stalinism and the European Union

Presently, the Slavic Idea plays no important role within the Slavic-speaking world, either. It has no identity-forming impact which otherwise might compete with the idea of nation or with the European idea,88 although after 1990, in the context of new post-socialistic positioning, attempts were made to revive the Slavic Idea once again and use it as a political, social, or mental remedy.89 In our contemporary world, which is struggling with uncertainty caused by globalization and with problems of the post-modernistic search for one’s own identity, endeavours are repeatedly made to stress the particular Slavic mentality, culture, and history.90 However, the more offensive discourses that uncritically propagate the ideas of a Slavic community and the specific Slavic mentality (and partly relating them to anti-Western prejudices) have so far been limited to some marginal, esoteric fractions.91 In the preceding period, the ‘epoch of extremities’, however, referring to a Slavic unity and reciprocity demonstrated once again some temporary influence. Such was the case not only in the context of World War I, in which tsarist Russia resorted from time to time to pan-Slavic arguments, to justify its support for Serbia and mobilise its own people to defend their homeland and incite Slavic-speaking soldiers in the Austro-Hungarian Army to join its ranks. Also, the neo-Slavic slogans used during the interwar period by Czech politicians like Tomáš G. Masaryk and Edvard Beneš, who fought for unity and 88 89

Troebst 2009; Troebst 2014a. Special initiatives aiming at reflecting on “Slavic traditons” were launched during the 1980–90 ties by pope John Paul II, who as the first “Slavic pope” took a special interest in the topic; see Łużny 2008; Współcześni Słowianie (with English and Russian translations of all contributions). 90 Glanc/Voß 2016, 11. 91 Maj 1992; Zinov’ev 2000; Chanysheva 2000; Budyta-Budzyńska 2002; Pehr 2004; Ostrowski 2004; Eberhardt 2004; Zachariasz 2006; Kabzińska 2013, 200–213; Nikiforov 2013; Nikiforov 2014; Pankalla/Kośnik 2018.

26

Chapter 1

independence of their own nation only,92 was not something the other Slavs cared for. The only larger-scale attempt to reach out once again with the Slavic Idea to all the Slavic-speaking nations was made by Joseph Stalin. Via the power and authority instruments available to an autocrat, he propagated a Soviet panSlavism, which – in the specific situation of struggle against Nazi Germany and construction of post-war socialist order – proved successful for some time.93 The renaissance of the Slavic Idea in the Stalinist communist version was prepared through redirecting the Soviet propaganda that replaced the regime’s internationalist self-defining by a clearly nationally imbued description which referred to Russian folk categories, the so-called ‘Soviet patriotism’.94 Thus, for example, the Soviet attack on eastern Poland in September 1939 could be justified as a national and people-oriented deed – in terms of the need to liberate the ‘fraternal nations’ of Ukrainians and Bielorussians from exploitation and oppression by the Poles. Albeit the Soviet instrumentalization of Slavic solidarity was restricted at this point to Eastern Slavs, while the opposition between the Western and Eastern Slavs was exacerbated to the extent that it turned into a war, after the German attack on the USSR on 22 June 1941 it started laying claims to the entire Slavdom.95 The military disaster caused by the German aggression forced Stalin to ignore existing intra-Slavic antagonisms and to make the attempt to win over all the Slavic nations as allies  – as far as possible, also the Bulgarians, Croats, and Slovaks, all of whom still opted for Germany. Therefore, in August 1941, the Soviet radio called for Slavic solidarity and joint struggle against German fascism. At the same time, the Soviet authorities tried to establish an international All-Slavic Committee, for which Milan Gavrilović, a Serb, Oleksandr Y. Korniychuk, a Ukrainian, and Wanda Wasilewska, a Pole, were recruited, among others. On 10 and 11 August, the Committee called upon all the Slavic nations to pursue a ‘holy war’ against Hitler.96 A few days later, Iemelyan M. Iaroslavsky, the main propagator of Soviet pan-Slavism, proposed an extensive justification of a pan-Slavic ‘community of fight’ in his pamphlet “The Struggle of the Slavic Nations with German Fascism.” He ascribed to the Soviet Union the role of the main protector, while the Russian nation was to 92

Schieche 1955; Lemberg 1998; Hauner 1999; Maxwell 2014; Bakuła 2004; Hrodek 2004. On the Slavic Idea during the Second Polish Republic see Lewandowski 1968; Krzoska 2009, esp. 84–89. 93 Goriainov 1994; Fišera 2009. 94 Oberländer 1967, 16–33. 95 Mar’ina 1997; Behrends 2009; Behrends 2014; Behrends 2016; Obšust 2013, 213–244. 96 Pawłowicz 1968; Fertac 1991; Fertacz 2009.

Prologue

27

be a “buttress and the bastion of freedom of all the Slavic nations.” His conclusion that “there is no Slavdom without Russia” left no doubt that also Soviet pan-Slavism sought nothing else than an imperial Russian hegemony.97 This was becoming increasingly clearer as Soviet victory over the Germans was approaching, while the defensive war, for which émigrés living in England and the United States were won over through Slavic congresses and the periodical Slavjane, was gradually replaced by the offensive task of building a new Soviet socialistic order in East-Central Europe. Stalin made use of the Slavic Idea also for the latter purpose; it had to be reinterpreted, however, so that – once a defensive tool providing incentives for common defence – it could turn into an instrument of legitimization of the Soviet socialist expansion. The move proved successful owing to the cooperation with the communist elites of East-Central and South-Eastern European countries revived in 1944–5, most of whose members had been trained in Moscow. In any case, the Polish, the Czechoslovak, the Bulgarian, and the Yugoslavian communist party staffs based themselves on the Slavic Idea in their struggle for a new social order for some time, though they did it in different ways and with diverse intensities. The idea was used in their propagation of friendship between Slavic nations under Soviet leadership. They referred to the “great Slavic wall” which was meant to prevent a future German aggression and create an organizational resource in the form of friendship associations and Slavic Committees to enable mainstreamed agitation.98 Moscow, too, offered support for the “new Slavic movement,” as it was officially named since 1944, by organising committees and congresses. As the war was nearing its end, Stalin moved the seat of the All-Slavic Committee to Belgrade. By means of this decision, he wanted to stress Russia’s traditional interest in the Balkans and to accommodate the Yugoslavian Prime Minister Josip Broz Tito, his still major ally at the time. In December 1946 Stalin allowed Tito to hold a great international Slavic congress in Belgrade, which was attended not only by delegates from the five post-war Slavic countries (USSR, Yugoslavia, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Bulgaria) but also by representatives of Slavic communities from non-Slavic European (e.g. Sorbs from the Soviet occupation zone) and overseas countries.99 As Tito highlighted in his inauguration speech, the Slavs gathered at this four-day Congress 97 Iaroslavskii 1941, 11, 24; on Iaroslavskii: Dahlcke 2010. 98 Syrný 2004; Pręcikowski 2000; Znamierowska-Rakk 2005; Mitewa-Michalkowa 2009; Pirjevec 2013; Gruszczyk 2019. 99 Dostal’ 1994; Dostal’ 1998; Troebst 2014b.

28

Chapter 1

in order to even more strongly reinforce the unity they gained with blood and suffering in the last liberation war […] in order to guarantee that Slavs shall nevermore serve the interests of aliens but only their own […] so that, together, once and forever, the Slavic nations can be sure never to yield to divisions but instead unite in the interest of all the Slavic nations and the whole of progressive mankind.100 Also, these words soon turned into an empty cliché. The Congress did not mark the beginning of a great Slavic union but proved to be a swan song of the Soviet pan-Slavism. The latter became irrelevant when it came to incorporating the non-Slavic countries of the emerging Eastern Bloc: Albania, Romania, Hungary, and what was to become East Germany (GDR). The crisis that followed soon afterwards, in 1948, in the relations between Stalin and Tito (1948), and the Cold War that started in parallel, finally deprived the popular (people-oriented) rhetoric of its rationale. Political communication between the East and the West completely gave way, once again, to the opposites of ideological systems. The Slavic Idea echoed after 1948 in the Eastern Bloc, at best, in a relatively intensive Slavistic and archaeological research as well as in the regularly holding of scholarly “Slavic congresses.”101 100 Josip Broz Tito at the Congress on 8 December 1946, quoted from Tito 1984, 26–27. 101 That the Slavic Idea continues to be of some interest to the scholarly community of Eastern Europe is well demonstrated by an international congress held in September 2017 at Saint Petersburg University addressing the question “What is the Slavic Identity now?”

Chapter 2

Questions and Methodology As the above survey shows, in the 19th and 20th centuries the Slavic nations which strove for political and national emancipation from the rule of the Habsburgs, Hohenzollerns, and Romanovs, willingly referred to a Slavic community or common Slavic past; so did the imperialistic tsarist Russia and its successor, the Soviet Union. The Slavic ideas created to this end were meant to legitimate the interests and purposes of political and intellectual elites who always primarily sought to pursue current strategic alliances and power constellations. None of these attempts to create a Slavic identity and community (propagated in literature and scholarship, in music and other arts1) was ever anything else than a means to achieve particularistic ends. None of the conceptions quoted above ever seriously postulated a unity and community (however defined) of all the people speaking Slavic languages. It was always about parts of ‘Slavdom’ – as a regional, political, or social concept – and never about the Slavic world at large. This sole reason explains why the modern elitist discourse on ‘Slavdom’, and ‘Slavic community’ was thoroughly doomed to failure. Lack of reasonability was also reflected in the fact that the idea about a unity and community of Slavs, even within smaller and coherent Slavic-speaking groups – such as between Czechs and Slovaks, Poles and Ukrainians, or Slovenes, Croats, and Serbs – was in all the periods incapable of overcoming the egoism of nationalist movements. Thus, the Slavic Idea had a periodical and limited impact within the Slavic-speaking world in the 19th and 20th centuries. Its reversal, being a conglomerate of anti-Slavic ideas, created and propagated by European non-Slavs, proved to be far more influential. From the standpoint of the West – primarily, Germany, which was convinced about an alleged Romanic-and-Germanic cultural prevalence  – the idea of a culturally or ethnically or even racially defined distinctiveness of the Slavs was very convenient between mid-19th and mid-20th centuries.

1 With respect to music see the topical issue of MusikTheorie  – Zeitschrift für Musikwissen­ schaft 29 (2014) 97–191 edited by Ivana Rentsch under the title “Panslawismus – Utopie und Wirklichkeit” and Guzy-Pasiak 2016; with respect to painting: Gąsior 2009; Gąsior 2014; Glanc 2016.

© Eduard Mühle, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004536746_003

30

Chapter 2

What then does this self-perception and external perception of Slavicspeaking communities and the depicted political instrumentalization of the ‘Slavs’ mean with respect to writing their medieval history? To what extent does the modern idea of Slavic community inform our interpretation of the medieval reality of the Slavic world? Discerning so clearly the constructivist character of the concept of ‘Slavs’ as it was disseminated in the 18th and 20th centuries, can we still refer to ‘Slavs’ without reservations, when looking to the Middle Ages? Should we not treat the medieval ‘Slavs’ as a construal, or an abstract concept as well? A positive answer to these questions imposes further questions to be solved. To what a degree the construction or idea of medieval Slavs occurred in the contemporary sources and, if this was the case, owing to whose interests and with what historical/political intentions in mind was it done? To what degree do our interpretations of medieval sources on the Slavs remain under the influence of ideas created by modern scholarship since the 18th century? Amidst all these constructions and ideas or concepts of the pre-modern and modern era about the Slavic-speaking world, can a historical reality still be identified – and, if so, what ethnic, social, political and/or cultural phenomena can be reasonably described as ‘Slavs’ or ‘Slavic’? These questions have not been explored in detail so far. Indeed, there are a few publications dealing with selected high and late medieval variants of the Slavic Idea.2 For example, the Balkan Slavs from the period between the 6th and 8th centuries were deconstructed as an alleged invention of the Byzantines.3 But a comprehensive analysis of the phenomenon in toto has yet to be proposed.4 The objective of the present monograph, therefore, is to present the history of the Slavs in the Middle Ages in a new light.5 The study aims to show, on the one hand, how the ‘Slavs’ – ever since they first appeared in 6th-century Byzantine sources – were treated as a cultural construct and as such politically instrumentalized in various contexts. On the other hand, the book describes the real historical structures hidden behind the phenomenon of the ‘Slavs’ in the Middle Ages. 2 Heck 1968a; Mikulka 1980; Akimova/Mel’nikov 1997; Bylina 2002; Mel’nikov 1998; Saczyńska 2013; Janeczek 2013; Zachariasz 2006; Obšust 2013, 20–25; Mesiarkin 2013; Verkholantsev 2014; Homza 2018. 3 Curta 2001a, esp. 349; Curta 2021b, esp. 3. 4 Older syntheses on the history of the Slavs as a rule are confined to putting together individual accounts on the political and cultural developments of the various Slavic-speaking nations while not asking for the reality and/or fiction of “Slavdom” as such; see Brückner 1926; Cross 1948; Dvornik 1962; Diels 1963; Matl 1964; Portal 1965. 5 For preliminary outlines see Mühle 2016; Mühle 2017, 10–81.

Questions and Methodology

31

To this end, chapter 3 first looks at the Slavic-speaking population groups of the 6th to the mid-9th centuries. Their (still quite simple) social structures perhaps came closest to the image of ‘Slavic unity’, and for this reason played a particularly important part in its modern construction. These structures are only known to us from written sources, which represent a non-Slavic (Greek, Latin, or Oriental) perspective and from the finds and results of modern archaeological and linguistic studies. Against this backdrop, the question will be answered to what extent the external perspective from the 6th to 9th centuries was indeed focused on a Slavic unity or described the very diverse groups of people in very different historical contexts – and, to what degree the created images and ideas about the early medieval Slavs served as tools with which to achieve certain (political) goals. The research completed to date has virtually not called into question the unity of the Slavic world, as presented in Chapter 4, primarily based on the finds and results of archaeological research. Only recently, single opinions appeared that critically reflected on the concept.6 In the 9th and 10th centuries, the world in question began to diversify, resulting from efficient transformation of acephalous societies occupying rather small areas into large-area political formations subordinated to one ruler. As is shown in Chapter 5, it was already in the 8th and early 9th centuries that the Proto-Bulgars, Carantanians and Moravians created the first such political formations (regna), while the first small principalities appeared in the Western Balkans. Of these initial forms of ‘statehood’, only the Bulgars/Bulgarians developed a durable monarchy. Under different conditions, also the Czechs, Croats, and the people of Rus’, since the 9th century; the Poles, since the 10th; and the Serbs, since the 11th/ 12th century, began to form Slavic-speaking kingdoms and principalities or duchies. Their emergence, political and social consolidation, as well as Christianization, are dealt with in Chapter 6. The object of our particular interest is how these regna further developed and transformed into medieval nationes, and the question about the importance attributed to ‘Slavdom’ or ‘Slavicity’ in this context. Did the idea of a common Slavic origin, a community of language and culture, play any role in the shaping of the identities of the individual Slavic-speaking nationes? What role was it (if any)? Or maybe ‘Slavdom’ was of no importance whatsoever to the emergence of a natio, since no such concept or idea ever existed among the local elites? It did not fall on the Polabian or Baltic Slavs, Pomeranians, and a part of the Western Balkan Slavs to create their own ‘states’ and become nationes; 6 Brather 2005a; Brather 2011; Klápště 2007b, 168, 172; Klápště 2007a, 230, 236; Dulinicz 2008, 14; Curta 2001a, esp. 227–228, 274–275; Curta 2021b, esp. 35–36.

32

Chapter 2

for some, like the Bosnians, it only happened to a small extent, in the Late Middle Ages. The interrupted processes of state-formation and becoming a natio are shown in Chapter 7, whereas the question is still relevant whether ‘Slavdom’ or any ‘Slavic’ elements played any role in this respect at all. The development consisted of specific assimilation processes, intensified through internal colonization (melioratio terrae/Landesausbau) between the 12th and 14th centuries. These processes finally resulted in communities of Polabian and Baltic Slavs that ceased to exist as separate ethnic and cultural phenomena. Nonetheless, the late medieval Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation was still home to people speaking Slavic languages. They formed a gradually excluded ‘non-German’ minority, which is almost completely absent in the period’s written or material sources. The question accordingly appears whether this minority had, within the Holy Roman Empire, any self-awareness as Polabian Slavs, Baltic Slavs, or Slavs in general. In the face of the emergent self-governed Slavic realms and the formation of nationes, the non-Slavic world modified its idea about the Slavs. The high and late medieval external concepts of the Slavs, dealt with in Chapter 8, described as ‘Slavic’ only those societies that had not formed a separate state and natio in the medieval style but instead continued their customs and religious beliefs until finally getting incorporated into the structures of foreign territorial states. Those members of the medieval Slavic-speaking nationes who managed to establish their own medieval states were only referred to, respectively, as the Poloni, Bohemi, Serbi, Rus(c)i/Rut(h)eni or Bulgari. Unique in this context are the Slavic-speaking people of Croatia, who from the Hungarian, Italian, and Romanic-Dalmatian perspective were usually described as Slavi, similarly as the Polabian and Baltic Slavs from the German perspective. In this case, as well as in the other cases where Slavic-speaking parts of population were still referred to by non-Slavic observers explicitly as Slavs, this was done with the intention to mark a social differentiation or discrimination, so that in the external perspective the notion of Slavs gradually turned into a negative stereotype. The fact that the Polabian and Baltic Slavs within the zone of German-Slavic contact, the so-called Germania Slavica, lost their distinct features (in Bavaria and in the Eastern Alps, a German-Slavic blend occurred in as early as the late 9th/early 10th century, which in Croatia had its counterpart in the specific local Romanic-Magyar-Slavic integration7) on the one hand, and the continuous 7 A particular problem not analyzed here is the development and external perception of the Slavic-speaking population within the Carpathian basin after the Magyar conquest of the

Questions and Methodology

33

political and cultural competition between the independent Slavic nationes, on the other hand, denied the idea of a Slavic unity any foundation already in the High Middle Ages. Moreover, it was in the high and late medieval period that the idea of a common Slavic origin and shared history – which had appeared here and there already in foreign, Latin, and Arabic, early medieval sources – was created. Initially, this happened in the 12th century, when the first vernacular narratives of a Slavic Idea were formulated in Kiev and Duklja/Dioclea. Since the late 13th century, also in Bohemia and Poland explicitly nationalhistorical narratives were complemented by historiographic texts and political manifestos propagating a primeval community and unity of the Slavs. Certain forecasts of the emergence of a Slavic Idea and its instrumentalization are observable also at the courts of the dukes of Mecklenburg and Pomerania in the 14th century. What contexts, political and ideological intentions were hidden behind these projects, and what were their impacts? Chapter 9 offers answers to these questions. In this context, it will also be analysed, whether, and if so in what ways, similar Slavic Ideas developed in late medieval South-Eastern Europe among the Bulgars, Serbs, Croats, or Bosnians, and within the late medieval Rus’. In the light of the acquired information, an answer will be proposed at the end (in Chapter 10) to the question whether – and, if so, in what sense – the medieval Slavs were a construct, and to what extent ‘Slavdom’ was, in parallel, a real phenomenon.

early 10th century, its integration into the Hungarian society completed by the 12th/13th century and the renewed settlement of Slavic-speaking people during the 11th to 13th century; on these issues briefly Font 2013.

Chapter 3

The Discovery of the Slavs in the Early Middle Ages Slavic-speaking groups of people are mentioned in the sources only since the 6th century. Clearly, they did not appear out of nowhere at that time: they did have a history, one that eludes, however, credible scholarly cognition today. Neither history nor linguistics, nor archaeology nor anthropology, have been able to give a generally accepted answer to the question of the origin of Europe’s Slavic-speaking people(s) to date. None of the attempts to identify a potential primordial homeland (Urheimat) of the Slavs1 has led to established results due to lack of evidence, numerous contradictions, and the polemical character of the discussion over findings.2 The question about the ‘cradles’ of individual peoples, their original or starting area and dissemination paths, repeated since Romanticism, can be regarded nowadays as outdated. The recent research has adopted the argument that early medieval gentes were not biological communities of origin, which once left their Urheimat in search for better living conditions and expanded in a geographically ordered manner.3 In the light of recent research, not the ethnogenesis is focal but rather, the question of how and why larger groups of people have formed a certain identity: ethnic, political, social, cultural; what cultural practices, performative acts, and political conditions shaped and determined such identities. Ethnic identity is comprehended today in terms of discourse, according to Foucault’s concept.4 Therefore, the way in which new identity projects repeatedly appeared within a given group is presently of interest, as is the way the other groups in those times perceived their emerging identities, along with the ways in which their own and foreign identity models influenced history. In 1 A recent example for the continued search of the Slavs’ primordial homeland (in this case located in the Steppe region north of the Black Sea) offers Jasiński 2020a and Jasiński 2020b. 2 For overviews on the very diverse theories and contradicting interpretations see Brather 2001a, 31–50; Barford 2001, 35–66; Kokowski 2002; Urbańczyk 2006; Nalepa 2007/2009. With particular respect to historical research Strzelczyk 2012; Hardt 2015a; for archeology: Godłowski 1989; Struve 1991; Parczewski 2005; Parczewski 2010; for linguistics: Mańczak 1981; Birnbaum 1982; Birnbaum 1993b; Trubachev 1991; Schenker 1995, 61–164; Lunt 1997; Holzer 2004; Boryś 2002; Gołąb 2004; Popowska-Taborska 2014; Udolph 2016. With respect to the recently popular attempts to draw on genetics: Piontek 1999; Piontek 2014; Dąbrowski 2006; Seemanova et al. 2016. 3 Wenskus 1961; Geary 1983; Brather 2004; Tabaczyński 2005; Pohl 2008; Pohl 2018b; Homza 2018, 17; Schneidmüller 2019, 81, 84; Meier 2019, 98–112. 4 Pohl 2004a; Pohl 1998; Pohl 2013; Geary 2018.

© Eduard Mühle, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004536746_004

Discovery of the Slavs in the Early Middle Ages

35

this sense, modern scholarship poses the question of the importance of ethnic attributions, own and alien, communicated in numerous early medieval sources. The background behind this question is the awareness that the association between people in the Middle Ages was not defined by unambiguous ethnic affiliation, even if the contemporaries perceived it as an ethnos. What characterized it as an organized group of people obligated to act together was the various situations of joining and disjoining, mixing, forming new associations, and changes in the social stratification. These complicated processes continuously informed the form and character of ethnic groups. Hence the need to comprehend early medieval gentes as quite variable and flexible formations. Their incessant re-establishment, or re-formation, implied indistinctive attribution, own and alien. The descriptions of diverse large Slavic-speaking groups, like other ‘barbaric’ gentes, were originally compiled primarily from external viewpoints. No originally Slavic/Slavonic sources are available that would date to before the late 9th and early 10th centuries, so one can only learn about the ‘Slavs’ from foreign attributions  – recorded in Byzantine, Latin, or Oriental sources  – well until the High Middle Ages. Byzantine chroniclers were the first to write about them from such an external perspective.5 1

Slavic Warriors and Settlers in Byzantium

Around the middle of the 6th century, Byzantine chroniclers observed with horror enemy troops crossing the Danube, the northern border of the Eastern Roman Empire, and penetrating Byzantine territory.6 The new threat appeared to them in the form of a puzzling multiplicity of foreign warriors, whom they initially could not precisely identify by descent or language. Jordanes, the Gothic/Byzantine annalist, decided at that point to use the interpretation models he was familiar with.7 Thus, in his description of Eastern Europe around 551, he used the antique notion of the Scythes. He, however, referred to some of 5 Some scholars continue to maintain that already those ethnonyms by which ancient Greek and Roman texts referred to various peoples of Eastern Europe were meant to name Slavs or Proto-Slavs, e.g. Svod I, 18–96; Tyszkiewicz 1990; Gojda 1991; Dolukhanov 1996; Katičić 1999a, 104–105. Such interpretations, however, are mere speculations, since there is no evidence that such antique ethnonyms can be linked to Slavic-speaking population groups; for what authors of antiquity knew about Eastern Europe see for example the texts collected in Vistula amne discreta (referring to territories of present-day Poland). 6 Briefly on this also Mühle 2016, 3–10; Mühle 2017, 10–14. 7 On Jordanes as a source on the early ‘Slavs’ see Curta 1999; Curta 2021b, 47–51.

36

Chapter 3

the Eastern European people as Venedi/Venethi, thus evoking the ethnonym used centuries earlier by Pliny the Elder, Tacit, and Ptolemy. He knew that this yet-unexplored large group of people (Venetharum natio populosa) consisted of diverse communities and settlement areas (per varias familia et loca), but himself was able to name but two of them and identify their locations: The Sclaveni occupy the area from the town of Noviedunum and the lake called Mursian, to the river Danaster [Dniester] and to the north up to the Wiskla [Vistula] […] while the Antes […] stretch from the Danaster, where the Pontus [Pontic Sea] makes a curve, as far as the Danaper [Dnieper].8 Historians and archaeologists have disputed over how this enigmatic statement ought to be understood.9 The only thing that seems clear is that Jordanes perceived the Sclaveni and Antes as part of a larger, and thus more threatening, neighbour of Byzantium compared to the other peoples of North-Eastern Europe: apart from the Venethi, he mentions the Gepidi who dwelled in Dacia, the Vidivarii located south of the Baltic Sea, as well as the Aesti and Acatziri. Jordanes situates the Sclaveni people at the other side of the Lower Danube, alongside the Carpathians arch. The Antes, plausibly of Iranian origin, never reappearing in the sources after the year 602, reportedly occupied the adjacent area between the Dniester and the Dnieper Rivers.10 It was from that place that both groups started a military campaign against Byzantium; initially, their attacks were perceived as a general phenomenon, with no discernible groups, one that extended to invasions of warriors of Turkic descent inhabiting the steppes north of the Black Sea. Originally, a known ethnonym was used to name them: Huni, Oynnoi, with more precise names coming gradually afterward – namely, the Altziagiri, Saviri and, above all, Bulgari and Avares.11 Thus, the Byzantines initially perceived their new enemies from beyond the Danube as one single group, composed of three components operating together (Oynnoi, Sklavenoi, Antai or Bulgari, Anti, Sclavini). Soon after, however, Slavic-speaking warriors were discerned as invading northern Byzantine 8

[Iordanis] De origine actibusque Getarum, 62–63. On Jordanis and his work see Goffart 1988, 20–111; Salamon 1990; Weißensteiner 1994; Christensen 2002; Doležal 2014. 9 See Skrzhinskaja 1957; Sulimirksi 1973; Sedov 1978; Pritsak 1983, 366–399; Kolendo 1984; Curta 1999. 10 Strumins’kyj 1979/80; Werner 1980; Pritsak 1983, 394–399; Szmoniewski 2010, 35–42. 11 [Iordanis] De origine actibusque Getarum, 63. In [Iordanis] De summa temporum, 52, Jordanes reports already on instantia cottidiana Bulgarorum, Antium et Sclavinorum, while Procopius (see below), writing at the same time, still writes on incursions of Huns, Sklavens and Antes.

Discovery of the Slavs in the Early Middle Ages

37

territories also on their own. That the Byzantines would probably use the names Sclaveni or Sklavenoi12 to describe these Slavic-speaking warriors and their people is attested with some probability by the terms themselves, since the Greek and Latin ethnonyms (as long as we do not perceive them as mere constructs formed by contemporaneous Byzantines)13 are derived from the proto-Slavic word *Slověne.14 The word could be adapted to the Greek phonetics only by adding a -k- (or, -t/θ-) between the phone ‘s’ and the phone ‘l’;15 subsequently, in the form with the letter ‘k’, it might have been taken over by Latin and Arabic. However, the word’s etymology and semantics have been disputed by linguists to this day. Speculations on its meaning appeared already among medieval chroniclers. Although some derived it from the word *slava (fame, glory), others would argue that it actually came from *slovo (word).16 The latter group has contributed to the opinion, hold by some scholars until today, that the name *Slověne stood for ‘people in command of the word’ – that is, for those who understand each other and thus can be discerned from those who used another language and could not be understood; the latter would thus be referred to as ‘the mutes/not able to speak’ (němьci).17 Others still consider such interpretation “naïve and implausible […] since the endings of words -ěne/-jane hint rather to types of terrain and place names, and very often to river names”. In this sense, attempts have been made to trace the word back to an old river name, never used later (*Slovǫta > *Slaventā).18 In line with this version, Slověne would stand for the people dwelling in the area around this river. According to a different interpretation, the proto-Slavic root 12

The Greek Σκλαβηνοι/Σκλαβίνοι can be transliterated differently: Sklabenoi or Sklavenoi / Sklabinoi or Sklavinoi. We will use the form Sklavenoi, since β starting from the 6th century onward already corresponded to the Latin b, but was pronounced like w; see Koder 2002, 336. 13 Curta 2001a, 118, for whom “the name ‘Sclavene’ was a purely Byzantine construct, designed to make sense of a complicated configuration of ethnies on the other side of the northern frontier of the Empire. […] It might be that ‘Sclavene’ was initially the self-designation of a particular ethnic group. In its most strictly defined sense, however, the ‘Sclavene ethnicity’ is a Byzantine invention.” Curta’s interpretation has not remained without critics, see for example Fusek 2004; Biermann 2009; Turlej 2010b; Rejzek 2020. Curta responded to his critics especially in Curta 2009; in a modified and enhanced argumentation: Curta 2021b. 14 Schelesniker 1973, 4; Maher 1974; Schramm 1995, 163–166, 183–188; Popowska-Taborska 2002. 15 Koder 2002, 336–339. 16 See below pp. 337, 351, 353. 17 Eichler 2004; Mesiarkin 2017. 18 Schramm 1995, 165 (here the quotation), 183–184; Galton 1997, 3.

38

Chapter 3

*slov-/*slav- comes from the Indo-European *ḱleṷ/*ḱloṷ (to flow, to swim), and the word Slověne refers to people residing in damp areas, or areas situated by the water.19 Regardless of which of these interpretations is right, it seems that Slověne was a self-description used in the 6th century by a rather small Slavic-speaking group, which was noticed on the Lower Danube by the Byzantines, who took over the name to describe their new unknown neighbour. The Byzantines probably used the Greek term Sklavenoi also to name, soon afterward, the groups that would not have referred to themselves as Slověne. It is hard to find whether, and to what extent, this led other groups of Slavic-speaking people to also take over the name Slověne as their own, in as early as the 6th century. Perhaps, this happened so early, indeed, due to the linguistic closeness and awareness of their mutual understanding as Slověne, or ‘people in command of the word’. However, this awareness of linguistic kinship did not have to give the Slověne a sense of shared identity. As research has shown, use of a common language does not necessarily imply mutual understanding, let alone a common identity.20 Hence, the very fact that Slavic-speaking peoples named themselves Slověne does not suffice to conclude that there was an ethnic or political unity among early medieval Slavs. Byzantine observers initially referred the term Sklavenoi only to small associations of warriors. Procopius of Caesarea wrote in the 550s that they attacked, “Illyria and the whole of Thrace, from the Ionian Gulf to the suburbs of Byzantium, including Hellas and the Chersonese,” since the accession of Justinian I the Great (i.e., ca. 527) nearly every year.21 They were, Procopius goes on to say, “outrageously plundering Roman territory […] doing their deadly work so thoroughly that the whole of that region was left almost uninhabited”; they “razed the cities to the ground”, “took possession of numerous strongholds by besieging”; the way they resided was “awful” and “inhuman.” They inflicted “enormous pain” on the Roman people and treated them with “horrid cruelty.” The crimes they perpetrated were “indescribable”; they tormented and killed their captives and, along with rich spoils, they would take captives those who survived (frequently setting them free after receiving a ransom). Seeing them as “unrelenting and unapproachable enemies” who, full of “insatiable willingness to fight”, attacked without notice and “unceasingly

19 Lehr-Spławiński 1967, 357. 20 Zientara 1997, 35; Goetz 2012, 63; Geary 2013. 21 Procopii Caesariensis Bd. 3, 114–115.

Discovery of the Slavs in the Early Middle Ages

39

waited in their hideouts for travellers”, Procopius perceived the Sklavenoi as ‘barbarians’, or even as a “group of people resembling animals.”22 Other early Byzantine sources, too, described the Slavic enemies in an exaggerated manner, as bloodthirsty pagans. A few years after Jordanes and Procopius, a certain monophysite monk bizarrely portrayed ‘savage’ Sklavenoi by referring to the old myths of the Scythes and Amazons, Getae and Dacians: the Sklavenoi, according to him apparently, willingly eat women’s breasts when they are full of milk; they kill infants like mice on the rocks […] cruel they are, wayward and with no power over themselves: often they would kill their own leader or chieftain with whom they have eaten or travelled together; they live on foxes, least-weasels living in the woods and wild-boars, and they convoke themselves with [a scream resembling] the yelling of wolves.23 Similarily, some homilies contained in the “Miracles of St Demetrius” (Miracula sancti Demetrii), patron saint of Thessaloniki, written down right after the year 610, depicted the Slavic enemies as a savage tribe of barbarians resembling animals, cruel, uncivilized, insidious, and insincere.24 Such a negative perception stemmed from hagiographical stereotypes, and functioned as an instrument of political propaganda. In Procopius’ case for example, the horrible depiction of the cruel attacks from the Sklavenoi was meant also to indirectly charge Emperor Justinian of neglecting the protection of the empire. The negative image of Slavs was not relativized by positive descriptions interwoven here or there, such as Procopius’s ethnographic digression on the ‘Slavic’ way of life. This digression clearly referred to ancient models and to the topoi of which Thucydides and Herodotus had taken advantage when describing the barbaric peoples.25 Thus, Procopius depicts the Sklavenoi as a “democratically” (ἐν δημοκρατία) organized community – which means, living according to no established order – its members being primitive people, but “by no means vile or vicious,” their warriors always setting off for fight lightly

22 Procopii Caesariensis Bd. 3, 114–116, 141–142; Procopii Caesariensis Bd. 2, 353–354, 423, 468–470, 481, 623; Procopii Caesariensis Bd. 4, 103; on Procopius as source see Curta 2001a, 36–39, Curta 2021b, 51–54 and the recent contributions in the collective volume Procopius of Caesarea. 23 The source quoted after Testimonia, 46; see Riedinger 1969, 302; Waldmüller 1976, 13–14; Curta 2001a, 43–44. 24 Les plus anciens recueils, 134–136; on the Miracula see also Curta 2021a, 5–6. 25 See Nippel 1990, 11–29; Prinzing 1998; Brather 2004, 117–138; Gillett 2009.

40

Chapter 3

armed and half-naked.26 But this sort of description – later often repeated by medieval and modern authors – obviously does not really reflect reality: it is, afterall, overly contradictory to all other descriptions of Byzantine authors, which show the Sklavenoi as strong and dangerous opponents, oftentimes with a military advance over the Byzantines. Thus, Procopius’ description owes much to deliberate literary stylization.27 This equally concerns the idyll that the Byzantine historian Theophylact Simocatta weaved in the 620s in his description of the Balkan wars waged by Emperor Maurice. The story is about the capture of three men from the ranks of the Sklavenoi, who were “supplied with no armament or military objects; their only burden was kitharas: they had nothing else with them.” Interrogated by the emperor himself, the captives declared that they had the kitharas with them because they did not practice carrying weapons, for their land knows no iron and ensures them a peaceful and quiet life; they accompany themselves with kitharas since they cannot blow the war horns, and those to whom war is unknown would rightly say that rawer types of music are needless for them.28 In opposition to this topical description stand numerous accounts in Theophylact in which the Sklavenoi – called by him, in the ancient style, Getae (Getai) – appear as well-organized attackers. How dangerous those attackers were, was (quite expectedly) reflected in martial art manuals. An anonymous military advisor emphasized, in the late 6th and early 7th century, the Sklavoi’s29 excellent skill in surprise attacks.30 The so-called Strategikon, a work traditionally attributed to Emperor Maurice, contains a whole chapter discussing the methods of dealing with this malicious enemy. The text, written between the years 592 and 602, probably by an experienced Byzantine officer who had participated in the defensive struggles 26 Procopii Caesariensis Bd. 2, 358–359. 27 See Benedicty 1965; Waldmüller 1976, 22–30; Cesa 1982; Curta 2001a, 36–38, 151–155. 28 Theophylacti Simocattae historiae, 223–224; on the source see Wołoszyn 2014; Whitby 1988, 138–183; Schreiner 1985; Curta 2001a, 55–59; Curta 2021b, 55–56. 29 This shortened form of Sklavenoi is already used by John Malalas († 578) and Agathias († 582); Ioannis Malalae Chronographia, 490; Agathiae Myrinaei, 147; see Koder 2002, 342 who assumes that Sklavoi was not the shortened form derived from Sklavenoi, but the result of “geographically diverse zones of contact and transfer, through which various forms of the Slavs’ name were introduced into Greek”; a similar view in Schramm 1997, 196–197, 206–207. 30 Ein griechisches Fragment, 126.

Discovery of the Slavs in the Early Middle Ages

41

rather than by the emperor himself, comprised ethnographic information on the lifestyle, settlement structures, and economy of the Slavs. Such information only appeared whenever, in the author’s mind, it was of importance to the Byzantine warfare tactics, and in the appropriate quantities; coming to the forefront were indications how best to conquer the Sklavoi in their specific method of fighting. Although the Strategikon did not avoid the ancient image of the gentle and anarchic barbarian – for instance, it emphasized the Sklavoi’s friendly attitude toward foreigners  – its arguments on warfare tactics disproved the topoi of gentleness, peacefulness, and military awkwardness of the Sklavoi, which was used by Procopius and Theophylact. In the end, the Strategikon, too, described them, all in all, as insidious and unforeseeable enemies, who lived “a Robber’s life.”31 Since the 580s, the Byzantines’ Slavic-speaking enemies allied with the Avars. The Avars were a heterogeneous group of Central Asian nomads who after the fall of the East Asian Empire of Yuan-Yuan in 552 withdrew westward, giving way to a new Turkic power.32 In the winter of 558/559, they had their envoys sent to Constantinople for the first time. Emperor Justinian I intensified at that time the defensive actions in the north of the empire and started rebuilding the limes on the Danube River through numerous fortifications.33 By means of gifts and tributes, he induced the Avars to enter an alliance with his empire. The Avars, on their part, had a hold over Byzantium’s opponents north of the Black Sea – the Antes, Utigurs, Cutrigurs, and so on; moreover, they twice invaded the empire of the Franks, in 562 and 566. When Justinian’s successor, Justin II, ceased to pay the tribute, the Avars turned against Byzantium as well. Having allied with the Lombards, they first conquered the Gepids, who were Byzantinum’s allies, and subsequently, once the Lombards withdrew to Italy in 568, they subdued Pannonia and formed a powerful khaganate. While in the years 574–79 they temporarily reentered into the alliance with Byzantium, they would ally at the time with Slavic-speaking peoples they had encountered on the Lower Danube, in the northern and eastern peripheries of the Carpathians – and, possibly, also in the Pannonian Basin – and rendered these peoples dependent on them.34 31 Das Strategikon, 370–386; see also Waldmüller 1976, 23–25; Curta 2001a, 50–52; Gómez 2018; Różycki 2018. 32 For an authorative account on the Avars see Pohl 2018a; see also Göckenjan 1993; Garam 1994, 171–181; on Avar-Byzantine relations: Kardaras 2018. 33 Velkov 1987, 141, 152–153; Curta 2001a, 150–169. 34 Avenarius 1973; Fritze 1979; Živković 1997; Pohl 2000a; Živković 2008, 7–29; Tyszkiewicz 2010.

42

Chapter 3

Ever since then, the Slavic warriors were repeatedly dragged to participate in the Avars’ expeditions against Byzantium. In this way, the Sklavenoi contributed in 582 to the collapse of Sirmium, the old Illyrian capital, and then on, to the conquest of numerous castella along the limes; also, to a permanent increase of the tribute the Byzantines were obligated to pay to the Avars. The tribute amounted to as much as 80,000 solids as of 575, and by the 620s it grew to 200,000 solids.35 Slavic warriors joined the attack on Constantinople in 626, being the Avars’ largest military undertaking ever, along with the Gepids and Bulgars. Their fleet of monoxyla (possibly, dugout canoes) was tasked with leading the decisive attack from the sea. Its failure heavily contributed to the failure of the ten-day-long siege. This devastating defeat marked the end of the Avars’ powerful position and dominance in the Balkans. The Avar horsemen withdrew to the Pannonian Basin; their presence there since the late 6th century is attested by unique archaeological finds.36 In the south, they gave way to the dispersed associations of Slavs, Onogurs, and Bulgars. At the time, the Sklavenoi continued to invade Thracia and Macedonia on their own.37 Menander the Guardsman, who, as a member of the imperial household guard was well-informed about the situation in the northern borderland, wrote that they reached as far as Hellas in the years 577 and 578.38 According to the Miracula Sancti Demetrii, the 580s saw the Sklavenoi beleaguer Thessaloniki for the first time;39 if one 12th-century chronicle is to be trusted, they subdued the lower part of Corinth for some time.40 Until the 7th century, the attacks launched by the Slavs were hold-up robberies. After the plundering and collection of protection money, forced by the threat of setting fire, the Slavic warriors would each time return to their dwelling areas northward, crossing the Danube. No written source or archaeological find may

35 36 37 38

39 40

Pohl 2018a, 403. On the rich excavations confirming the inner-Asian tradition of Avar graves and the nomadic way of Avar life see Awaren in Europa; Bálint 1989, 147–192; Vida 2008; Stadler 2008; Csiky 2016. On the chronology and character of these incursions Bačić 1983, 201–301; Curta 2001a, 74–119. The History of Menander, 192; Iohannis Ephesini Historiae, VI, 25, a church history written in Syrian in 580/581 reports how “the damned people of the Slavs […] invaded all of Hellas, the vicinity of Thessalonike and all of Thrace,” where they “conquered many towns and fortresses, devasted and burnt them, taking many captives and becoming lords of the lands. They settled down without any fear as if they were lords of their own fields.” Les plus anciens recueils, 134; for an alternative dating into the year 597, which is preferred by some scholars, see Evert-Kappesowa 1970; Vyronis 1981. Chronique de Michel, 362.

Discovery of the Slavs in the Early Middle Ages

43

confirm that they would have settled for good in Byzantine lands in as early as the 6th century.41 To confirm the opposite view, the “Chronicle of Monemvasia” has repeatedly been referenced.42 The source, compiled around 900 or in the second half of the 10th century, or even in the beginning of the 11th, was primarily meant to help the bishop metropolitan of Patras in implementing his ecclesiastical policy. It tells, in a rather detailed manner, the story of the Avar and Slavic invaders taking over the Peloponnesus in as early as 586–7 for good and squeezing out the local inhabitants.43 The value of this story for research has recently been called into question, and rightly so.44 The author who wrote it in the 9th/10th/11th century apparently did not have exact information on the events that had taken place three or four centuries earlier. It seems that he would have used the generally known descriptions of invasions of the Avars and the Slavs, and referred them to the Peloponnesus area, in line with the Church’s political interests. In his learned construction, he reduced “a longer process to a single occurrence.”45 In fact, a permanent Slavic settlement in the Balkan and Greek provinces of the Byzantine Empire did not result from some single spectacular events. The underlying developments consisted in long-lasting settlement processes which were hardly recorded by contemporaries, and which resulted from complex reciprocal influences of armed clashes and, alternately, peaceful coexistence; such processes extended over dozens, if not hundreds, of years.46 It was only the disruption caused by Phocas’s rebellion of 602 and the transferral by Heraclius of all the Byzantine troops from the Balkans to the east Persian war front, in 620, that almost stripped the western border of military protection until the administrative unit (thema) Thracia was established in the area (around 680/690), that allowed the Slavic-speaking tribes to gradually discontinue predatory expeditions to the benefit of permanent seizure of lands and settling down in them. Perhaps the warriors who in the beginning of the 7th century besieged Thessaloniki several times, were the first to bring along their wives and children with the intention to settle down in the town, 41

On the early Slavic settlement on Byzantine soil see Charanis 1949; Lemerle 1978; Graebner 1975a, 31–84; Zástěrová 1976; Weithmann 1978; Ditten 1978b; Velkov 1987; Karayannopoulos 1996; Schramm 1997. 42 Charanis 1950; Lemerle 1963; Barišić 1965; Koder 1976; Dujčev 1980; Kislinger 2001. 43 Chronicon dictum Monemvasiae, 2–25. 44 Curta 2001a, 66–69; Turlej 2001; Pohl 2018a, 131–136. 45 Pohl 1988, 109. 46 Already Jireček 1902, 33 expressed the opinion, “that the Slavic settlement on the Balkans was the result of a long process, which lasted hundreds of years.”

44

Chapter 3

once conquered.47 However, the earliest documents confirming permanent settlement in the vicinity of Thessaloniki appear only around the middle, or in the second half, of the 7th century.48 Slavic communities tended to settle also in central and southern Greece; as a result, the Anglo-Saxon missionary Willibald, who in 723 arrived in the port town of Monemvasia, on his way to the Holy Land, perceived them as located in Slawinia terrae.49 The permanent presence of Slavic-speaking people in Greece is somewhat more clearly attested by Slavic toponyms or toponyms showing Slavic influence, as well as Slavic borrowings identifiable in Middle Greek.50 But even the earliest of such names can only be described as having occurred before the mid-9th century. Thus, they do not enable a precise dating, but the geography of their occurrence at least reliably indicate the areas where Slavic settlement primarily took place.51 At the same time, they are evidence that the inflow of people into western Greece (Epirus, Achaia) and into the western and central part of the Peloponnesus must have been considerable. The settlement under discussion left almost no archaeological traces. In any case, there are very few convincing finds potentially identifiable today as testifying to Slavic colonization;52 the most remarkable of them come from Olympia.53 In the burial ground, consisting of thirty-two cremation graves described as ‘Slavic’, mostly handmade clay vessels, glass beadings and metal objects have been found. The earliest horizon is dated between 625 and 650, the latest reached the end of the 8th century. Analysis of these excavations has enabled more precise dating of the few other Peloponnesus ceramics finds regarded as ‘Slavic’. As it has turned out, none of them is datable to the 6th century; most of them came at the earliest, from the first half of the 7th century. Olympia’s cemetery served as a burial place for five or six consecutive generations of a community that used clay artefacts interpreted as ‘Slavic’, and whose settlement has not been found to date. The finds from the early Byzantine/Christian settlement that have been discovered on that spot date only to the beginning of the 7th century. Thus, the Slavic arrivals most probably did not appear as a direct replacement for the local dwellers. They might have perhaps taken over the settlement 47 48 49 50 51 52 53

Les plus anciens recueils, 185–186; see Ditten 1991. Koder 1986, 530–531; Curta 2001a, 113–114. Vita Willibaldi, 93; see Guth 1982. Vasmer 1941; Thavoris 1975; Malingoudis 1981; Malingoudis 1983; Bornträger 1989. A cratographic visualization in Koder 1984, 144; see also Koder 1978; Koder 2020, 87–88. Weithmann 1978, 198–252; Stefanovičová 1997; Curta 2010b, 416–461. Erdélyi 1991; Vyronis 1992; Vida/Völling 2000; Lambropoulou 2009; Katsougiannopoulou 2009.

Discovery of the Slavs in the Early Middle Ages

45

that had been abandoned by the previous residents. This seems to confirm the observations in the geography of settlement according to which a part of the Greek population – decimated by then by the heavy earthquakes of 522, 543, and 552 and by the pestilence epidemic of 542–43  – moved from the country’s inland areas to the coastal area, also in other regions, before the Slavs ever arrived. The opinion that the newcomers circumvented the seaside areas is confirmed by the remarkable absence of Slavic or Slavicized terms from the semantic field of ‘sea’ or ‘seashore/seacoast/seaside’, against the higher density of Slavic toponyms inside the country. The reach and intensity of early medieval Slavic expansion in the Byzantine territory remain mostly unknown. This is true primarily for the Central and Western Balkans, where no reliable testimonies have yet been found that would allow to draw conclusions as to the range and central points of the Slavic settlement in the 7th and 8th centuries.54 What happened with or to the local Illyrian, Thracian, and Dacian people remains uncertain. These peoples were largely Romanized, and probably partly assimilated by the Slavic newcomers. The remainder of them withdrew into the mountain areas, which also were eventually Slavicized, in the 9th century at the earliest.55 Two of the aboriginal groups of people – the Albanians and Valachians – avoided Slavicization; yet they appear in the sources only in the 11th century (in a work of the historian Michael Attalaties, and in the Strategikon of Kekaumenos).56 In the 7th century, Byzantium began adapting its policies to the changing demographic conditions and made attempts to re-conquer its lost territories. Since the reign of Emperor Constans II (641–68), control was successfully regained, to a considerable degree, by way of war expeditions, first over northern Greece, then, in the 8th century, over central Greece; subsequently, in the 9th century, also over the Peloponnesus. As it seems, Byzantine troops won back single outposts also in the Central Balkans. However, due to lack of reliable sources, the situation in these areas remains unclear to us. The regaining of the lost territories was accompanied by decisions in respect to demographic policy, resulting in larger Slavic-speaking groups being resettled from the Balkans to Asia Minor (attested for the years 665, 688, and 762).57 Initially, these were coerced deportations; with time, these resettlements seem to have gradually become voluntary, especially once increasing 54 Ferjančic 1984; Kalić 1985; Birnbaum 1989; Chrysos 2007; Turlej 2010a; Špehar 2015; Bugarski/Radišić 2016. 55 For Onomatic arguments: Schramm 1981, 140–165. 56 Michaelis Attaliatae Historia, 7, 15; Cecaumeni Strategicon, 68–69. 57 Graebner 1975b; Ditten 1976; Ditten 1993, 83–88, 209–237, 254–260; Komatina 2014.

46

Chapter 3

numbers of the Slavs began seeking refuge from the increasingly stronger Bulgars. Not only were these resettled migrants recruited as soldiers for the Persian front, but they were made settled down as colonists who were expected to rebuild the debilitated Byzantine husbandry. They were primarily resettled to the Bithynian themes of Opsikion and Anatolik, usually in consistent communities. This led to their preserving their linguistic identity until the 10th century; at the same time, they soon became loyal citizens of the Byzantine Empire.58 Endeavours among the Slavs to integrate and assimilate in the European part of the empire did not bring such quick results. There, Slavic settlement communities merged into regional political associations which were described in Byzantine sources, since the second half of the 7th century, as Sklaviniai.59 The emperor was forced to grant them autonomy, since the Byzantine administration was mainly based on regained towns and fortresses and hence its power was loose and unstable. Until the 10th century, expeditions against the Sklaviniai were necessary as their communities all too stubbornly endeavoured to sneak out of Byzantine control by evading the payment of taxes, Christianization, and compulsory military service with the Byzantine army. A part of the Slavic-speaking population of central Greece and the Peloponnesus got out of Byzantine control and fled into the distant and inaccessible mountain regions. This is what the Milingoi and Ezeritai from the Taiget Mountains in southern Peloponnesus did (among others), as reported by Constantine Porphyrogenitus in the second half of the 10th century.60 These groups preserved their linguistic identities longer than the people who remained in the plains controlled by the Byzantines. Despite these developments, the empire finally managed to include the autonomous Sklaviniai that had been formed in the Aegean/Macedonian region and in southern Greece into the structures of corresponding administrative units (themes). Resulting from Christianization, legal alignment as Rhomaioi – i.e. Byzantine citizens – and in result of Hellenization, the Slavic-speaking population was finally completely integrated into Byzantine society, though it managed to preserve its language to a remarkable extent.61 58 See Constantine Porphyrogenitus, The Book of Ceremonies, 662. 59 The terminus Sklavinia appears for the first time in the chronicle of Theophanes the Confessor († 818) in an account describing events of the year 658, Theophanis Chronographia, 347, 364; see Popović 1980; Litavrin 1984; Curta 2011a; Gkoutzioukostas 2015. 60 Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De administrando imperio, 232–234. 61 As to the integration and assimilation of the Slavs see Graebner 1975a, 85–193; Graebner 1978; Avenarius 2000; Malingoudis 1994; Vyronis 2003; in the context of Greek history: Curta 2011b.

Discovery of the Slavs in the Early Middle Ages

2

47

Slavic gentes in the Eyes of Latin Europe

Apart from Byzantine contemporary observers, early medieval authors writing in Latin only sporadically mentioned any Sclav(in)i.62 They did so in passing and initially only regarding Slavic-speaking people in the Byzantine territory. Information on them reached Spain around 590, where the Visigoth abbot and later Bishop of Girona, John of Biclaro – for the first time beyond the limits of Byzantium – wrote about the Sclavini desolating numerous Roman towns in Thracia or invading Thracia and Illyria.63 Born in Lusitania, John was educated in Constantinople and, probably, returned from there to Spain, equipped with appropriate information. More or less at the same time, Pope Gregory I received from the Byzantine exarchate in Ravenna the first news about Slavic raids into Dalmatia and Istria.64 Isidore of Seville, on his part, would almost never mention the Sclavi between 610 and the 630s. The oeuvre of this, probably, most important early medieval scholar, contains only one short note on the Sclavi  – rather unclearly mentioning the Slavs’ seizure of Graecia around 615.65 No less enigmatic is an isolated mention of “the Veneti, also called the Slavs” (Veneti, qui et Sclavi dicuntur) in the “Life of St Columba” (Vita Columbani). This hagiographical text, written about 640 in the north Italian locality of Bobbio, recounts the wandering monk resolving one day to go to the Slavs and “enlighten their infatuated hearts with the light of the Gospel, and open for them, who since the beginning were progressing along an erroneous path, the way of the truth.” Once he saw that “this people were still not ready to open

62

For brief overviews on the Byzantine perception of the ‘Slavs’ during the 6th to 9th centuries see Mühle 2016, 24–29; Mühle 2017, 12–15; Panov 2018; Galevski 2018. 63 Johannis abbatis, 214, 216. Of a pure rhetorical character was the usage of the term Sclavus on an epitaph dedicated to Martin of Tours to be found in the cathedral of Braga/Bracara and dated 558–570. Its Author, bishop Martin of Braga, has travelled the Holy Lands in the 550s. On this occasion he also stayed in Constantinople where he probably encountered the Byzantine term Sklavoi. In his epitaph he used the Latin singular form of this name including it into a catalogue of barbarian peoples, whom he each named by the respective ethnonym in its singular from. This catalogue was meant to praise the swift spread of christianity among these peoples which was attributed to the merits of Martin of Tours; Versus Martini dumiensis episcopi; see Šašel 1992; Waldmüller 1976, 317; Curta 2001a, 46; Lotter 2003, 32, 139; Curta 2021b, 56–58. 64 Documented in two papal letters addressed to the exarch of Ravenna Callinicus dated May 599 and July 600; Gregorii I papae, 154, 249. 65 Isidori Iunioris episcopi Hispalensis historia, 337; Isidori Iunioris episcopi Hispalensis Chronica, 479; that Isidore used a wider understanding of Graecia becomes clear in his Etymologies: Isidori Iunioris Hispalensis episcopi Etymologiarium, XIV, 4,7: “Illyricum generaliter omnis Graecia est”; see Charanis 1971; Szádeczky-Kardoss 1986.

48

Chapter 3

to the faith, he nonetheless quit the idea.”66 This story was clearly designed to praise the saint’s missionary zeal. The author has evidently used a story he had read in a Byzantine source, possibly the Gothic story by Jordanes. In any case, it does not seem that he took advantage of his own concrete knowledge about some group of Slavic-speaking people in his Alpine/Pannonian neighbourhood. Also, the mention of Slavs in the “Life of St Amandus” (Vita Amandi) – a Flemish missionary, Bishop of Maastricht, and disciple of Columba’s – written down in the first three decades of the 8th century, was still fully rhetorical. Clearly referring to the “Life of St Columba”, it tells how St Amandus went to encounter the Slavs “deceived by excessive error and kept being violated by the devil’s snares” (nimio errore decepti, a diaboli laqueis tenerentur oppressi), and preached the Gospel to them. However, seeing that his action was to no avail, he eventually returned home.67 The early 8th century author of the “Life of St Amandus” knew no more about what was going on in the Eastern Alps, Pannonia, and more distant regions of Eastern Europe than the northern Italian author of the “Life of St Columba” around 640. In fact, the Slavic-speaking groups of people, who after the withdrawal of Germanic tribal associations and the reinforcement of the Avars’ position began to proliferate in East-Central Europe, initially attracted attention of authors of western Latin sources only selectively and rather accidentally.68 The first such appearance was in the Austrasian Merovingian so-called “Fredegar Chronicle”, completed in 660.69 The work contains two descriptions of Slavic-speaking population groups: the Sclavi and the Winedi,70 whereas it cannot be stated whether these ethnonyms are treated as synonyms or, perhaps, the name Winedi refers to some special association within the Sclavi group. Apart from the Winedi, the other gens of explicitly Slavic origin (ex genere Sclavinorum) mentioned in the chronicle are the Surbi; it thus can be presumed that the annalist had a certain idea about the diversity among the Slavic-speaking members and intended to express it by using appropriate 66 Vitae Columbani, 216. 67 Vita Amandi episcopi I, 439–440; see Wood 2001, 39–42. 68 For example, the so-called Frankish table of peoples (Fränkische Völkertafel), compiled at the end of the 7th or in the early 8th century within the Alemanian language space did not mentioned Slavs at all; Generatio regum, 314; see Borst 1957/59, 461. 69 Chronicarum quae dicuntur Fredegarii, 144–145 (IV, 48), 154–155 (IV, 68), 157–159 (IV, 72 and 75), 165 (IV, 87). For more on this source in general see Collins 2007; Reimitz 2015, 166–239. On the controversial interpretation of what it says on the Slavs see Tyszkiewicz 1990, 118–152; Schütz 1992; Curta 1996; Curta 1997, 144–155; Curta 2021b, 58–60. 70 With the variants Winodi, Winidi, Winiti; for the history of these Germanic namings of the Slavs, which were linked to the antique term Venedi/Venethi see Steinacher 2004.

Discovery of the Slavs in the Early Middle Ages

49

names (though with considerable imprecision as to the terms and spelling). Fredegar’s Slavs were, on the one hand, partners to Frankish merchants and, on the other hand, subjects of the Avars who drew them to serve in the army, exploited and tormented them. When the Slavs began offering armed resistance to the oppression, one of the Frankish merchant warriors, a man named Samo, who happened to stay among them with his people, came to their rescue so eagerly that they finally elected him their own rex.71 Under his reign, they were repeatedly victorious over the Avars, and would not shun clashes with the Merovingians.72 An armed confrontation with the mighty western neighbour occurred when “the Slavs, also called the Winidi” (Sclavi coinomento Winidi), robbed and killed several Franks that had been trading with them. In response, King Dagobert I sent a negotiator to Samo, a man named Sycharius, so that he demanded compensation. But Samo had him turned away; and not before Sycharius dressed himself like a Slav (vestem indutus ad instar Sclavinorum) could he appear before the rex Sclavinorum. Thus, for the Merovingian chronicler, the vestment was an important trait that enabled to discern the Slavs from the other tribes. The Sclavi/Winidi differed from the Franks not only in their appearance but also in terms of their “gentile habit and conceit of evil people” (habit gentiletas et superbia pravorum). The annalist transfers this pejorative description to Samo himself, thus referring to him a negative stereotype related to the Sclavi/Winidi only because the Frank had allied with them. This stereotype then resulted in identification of the Slavs with dogs, and dogs were not worthy of meeting with Christians. In any case, Samo’s proposition to resolve the conflict by an amicable court came across Sycharius’s insult: “it is impossible”, said he, “that Christians and servants of God enter into an alliance with dogs.” In this way, the “Fredegar Chronicle” created a fateful image of ‘Slavic dogs’, which was later caught up by, i.a. the author of the Conversio Bagoariorum et Carantanorum and Thietmar of Merseburg.73 The insult pronounced, Samo threw the envoy away, thus making an armed clash unavoidable.74 The king of the Merovingians ordered that the Austrasian army be prepared to fight. Organized into three troops, it was to set out against Samo and the Winids (contra Samonem et Winidis), supported – probably, mostly in the south – by Alemannic and Lombard troops. While the latter defeated the Sclavi in several different places and had many of them abducted as captives, the 71 72 73 74

Chronicarum quae dicuntur Fredegarii, 144–145 (IV, 48). On Samo see also below 100–101 and Eggers 2001; Polek 2006; Pohl 2018a, 305–311. Conversio, 46; Thietmari, 119 (III. 17), 220 (V, prolog); see also Tyszkiewicz 1994, 14–15. Chronicarum quae dicuntur Fredegarii, 154–155 (IV, 68).

50

Chapter 3

Austrasians’ attack at the castrum Wogastiburc was pushed back. Their defeat enabled the Winids to invade once again Thuringia and the other areas (pagi) of the Franks’ realm, “in order to rob” and “ravage the country.”75 Their successes caused that the Surbi and their leader Dervanus released themselves from the control of the Franks, to whom – according to Fredegar – they had been subjected ‘forever’ and joined the Winids/Sclavi gathered around Samo.76 Based on these descriptions, the area of early settlement of Samo’s Slavs cannot be precisely defined.77 One thing is quite certain, however: it was apparently situated south of the Surbi and east of the Thuringians – that is to say, south of the Upper Saale and Mulde Rivers or the Eger/Ohře River, and east of the Naab and the Danube Rivers. Not far from where the Bavarians lived, the “Fredegar Chronicle” identified yet another group of the Winids, who lived in the marca Vinedorum under the rule of their leader Wallucus. In the late 630s, they lent shelter to an association of Proto-Bulgars, who were led by Alciocus and who have fled the murderers acting on the order of King Dagobert. Thousands of Bulgars, who had escaped the Avars and fled from Pannonia to Bavaria, fell victim to those killers.78 Like in Byzantium, the Franks’ attention was attracted, around the middle of the 7th century, initially only by those Slavic-speaking tribal associations that lived in the direct neighbourhood of the Merovingians’ realm and posed a threat to its frontiers. Unlike Byzantium, however, Fredegar’s testimony remained the sole one for a long time. There is a single mention in an anonymous cosmography from Ravenna – a description of the Earth, probably based on the ancient Tabula Peutingeriana ‘map’. Its dating is doubtful, however, as it was compiled either in the late 8th or even in the early 9th century. Its description of the northern Orient indicates the territory of the Scythes, from whom the lineage of the Sclavini stemmed, along with that of the Itites et Chimabes.79 Since the author was probably familiar with the work of Jordanes and quoted excerpts from it (without, however, mentioning it), those mysterious Itites et Chimabes might actually refer to the Antes and Venethi.80 In any case, however,

75 Chronicarum quae dicuntur Fredegarii, 158 (IV, 75). 76 Chronicarum quae dicuntur Fredegarii, 155 (IV, 68). 77 Note the long controversy on the location of the castrum Wogastisburc; see Labuda 1952; Schwarz 1967; Kunstmann 1979; Jacob 1983; Brachmann 1990. 78 Chronicarum quae dicuntur Fredegarii, 157 (IV, 72). 79 Ravennatis Anonymi, 11: sexta ut hora noctis Scytharum est patria, unde Sclavinorum exorta est prosapia; see Podosinov 1995; Ravennae Anonymus, Cosmographia, 16; Assorati 2011; Strzelczyk 2012, 55. 80 Mappae mundi, 17; Schnetz 1926, 89, 100; Schnetz 1942, 65–66.

Discovery of the Slavs in the Early Middle Ages

51

the reference to Jordanes might explain where the Cosmographia drew its specific information on the descent of the Sclavini. It is only from the second half of the 8th century onwards that Latin sources provide more extensive descriptions of Slavic-speaking groups of people. Such groups appear in these sources partly as settlers dwelling in the Carolingian lands and obligated to pay their tributes, or as autonomous colonists living in their neighbourhood. In the mid-8th century, St Boniface asked in Rome how the Slavs who live in the lands of their Christian lords (de Sclavis christianorum terram inhabitantibus) should be treated. Pope Zachary advised him to demand that such Slavs pay their tributes, “so that they know that these lands do have a lord.”81 Boniface himself, as well as his disciples, did not highly esteem the Slavic neighbours. In an urging letter to King Æthelbald of Mercia, he described the Uuinedi as the “most abhorrent and lamest type of people” ( foedissimum et deterrimum genus hominum).82 The “Life” of his disciple Sturm, in turn, tells about a large group of Sclavi who were met by the founder of the Fulda convent while bathing in the Fulda River: their naked bodies and the odour they gave off made even his horse quiver.83 Since there is no evidence that a Slavic settlement ever existed in the vicinity of Fulda, the mentioned group of Slavs probably consisted of Slavic-speaking men taken captive and led by a Frankish trader to one of the West or South European slave fairs. Secular lords perceived Slavic settlers in the Thuringian and Bavarian lands in a more realistic light than the missionaries did. One of the earliest such mentions is to be found in the founding deed of the Kremsmünster monastery, where Duke Tassilo III supplied the newly founded convent, in the year 777, with a Slavic settlement community (decania), “together with the corvée and the taxes compliant with the law, which they would ordinarily pay to us [i.e. the duke].” Moreover, he afforded to the abbey a group of Slavs who had grubbed out a forest without the duke’s consent and founded buildings on that site.84 Other Bavarian, Thuringian, and Hessian charters suggest or point to similar conferrals. It therefore can be assumed that at some point the Slavic-speaking population groups were peacefully integrated into local communities within eastern parts of the Frankonian realm.85 Apart from the Bavarian Eastern March (Lower and Upper Austria), Slavic settlers within the Carolingian 81 82 83 84 85

Die Briefe des heiligen Bonifatius, 200. Die Briefe des heiligen Bonifatius, 150; see Fritze 1963, 325, 330. Die Vita Sturmi, 139. Die Gründungsurkunde Kremsmünsters, 76; see Wolfram 1980. Urkundenbuch der Erfurter Stifter, no. 1; Urkundenbuch des Klosters Fulda, 201; see Hardt 2004; Losert 1993; Klír 2020.

52

Chapter 3

realm colonized primarily lands on the Upper Main, and on the Regnitz and Naab Rivers. Still at the end of the 8th century, Charlemagne instructed the Bishop of Würzburg that he established parish churches in his diocese, in terra Sclavorum – the Slavs, freshly Christianized, being termed the Moinuvinida et Radanzvuinida.86 Large groups of Slavs beyond the Empire’s limits were spotted only later by Paul the Deacon and the authors of the “Royal Frankish Annals”. The Historia Langobardorum, written down by Paul in the 790s at the Monte Cassino monastery, was exclusively concerned with history, that is the image of the past.87 In a dozen single episodes dated between 591 and 738, it tells about the Sclavi in what is today Austria and Slovenia.88 Only once are these Slavs described as gens in Carantanum, yet the name Carantani is consistently avoided  – though this ethnonym, already present (possibly, in the 8th century) in the “Cosmographia of Ravenna,” was no doubt likewise known to Paul the Deacon.89 Thus, Paul never mentioned the Carantani by their name but described them on the one hand as opponents to the Bavarian and Lombardian dukes who, being “Slavic bandits” (latrunculi Sclavorum), threatened his Friuli homeland as well. On the other hand, Paul presented them as allies who provided armed assistance and paid tribute – and, moreover, offered shelter whenever necessary. This double perception, quite awkward as it was, stemmed from the specific memories of Paul’s noble family. His ancestors in Friuli repeatedly faced the attacks from the Avars and the Slavs, while a positive, though stereotypical, image of the Slavs was communicated among his family at the same time. Paul namely recounted his great-grandfather’s flight from being enslaved by the Avars (of the five brothers, he was the only one to succeed). On his escape, he came across a Slavic settlement (Sclavorum habitatio) where an old Slavic woman received him with compassion and tended to him until he recovered and was able to return to his family home in Italy. As is clear, this story quotes the topoi of gentile and hospitable Slavs, as present in Byzantine sources. This goes hand in hand with the tendency to portray the Slavs as a community that was practically not-yet politically consolidated. Despite the Carantani had been led by a dux long before the 8th century, Paul 86 Die Urkunden der deutschen Karolinger, no. 68; see Eichler 2008; Losert 2009; Losert 2016. 87 Pauli Historia Langobardorum, 146, 150, 156–157, 165, 170, 178, 194–195, 209–210, 222–223, 232–233, 236. 88 Only one mentioning (IV, 4) refers to Slavs of another region, namely Sclavi, who in 641/642 reached the coast of Apulia by ship – probably from Dalmatia. 89 Ravennatis Anonymi, 75–76; on the dating of this source see above 50 and Bertels 1987, 114–117; Bertels/Möhlenkamp 1983a.

Discovery of the Slavs in the Early Middle Ages

53

only refers to a provincia or patria where the gens Sclavorum lived, naming no political leader of theirs whatsoever. He was probably not ready to afford the Carantani a political status, which would have made them equal to the other gentes, including his own, Lombardian gens. As it seems, the Historia Langobardorum communicated stereotypical ideas about the Slavic neighbours, produced near the north-eastern Friuli frontier, in the milieu of the local nobility.90 In connection with the Carolingian operations at the empire’s south-eastern borders, also the “Royal Frankish Annals” (Annales regni Francorum)91 paid attention to the Carantani. These sources, made in the 780s and 790s at Charlemagne’s court, were meant to bestow a particular identity to the Frankish elite and its rulers; for this reason, their position was biased. Their information on the Slavic neighbours were triply distorted – due to the geographical distance, the author’s compositional/narrative plan, and the perspective of those with diverse political functions in borderland regions. The latter persons were doubtlessly the main informers, but they mainly described the events and successes of their campaigns primarily with promotions and military honours in mind.92 Given such determinants, the Annals first recorded the existence of the Carantani and their regio or provincia with respect to the year(s) 819–20.93 Somewhat earlier, this group was mentioned in an 817 capitulary of Louis the Pious, by means of which the emperor bestowed the Duchy of Bavaria to his namesake son. Apart from the Bohemians and Avars, the decree mentioned “the Slavs who live outside the eastern part of Bavaria” (Sclavos qui ab orientali parte Baioariae sunt).94 This description referred to Lower Pannonian and Western Balkanian Slavs, who are mentioned by the Annals since the end of the 8th century. The description regarding the year 796 takes account of the auxiliary troops of the Friulian Margrave Eric, which under the command of Vo(j)nomir, a Slav, fought against the Avars. As of 805, Slavs are mentioned who attacked the khapkhan of the Avars, Theodore, who had been baptized in the meantime. In 811, among the envoys waiting in Aachen for the emperor’s arrival, noblemen and dukes belonging to the Slavs residing on the Danube (primores duces Sclavorum circa Danubium habitantium) were spotted. In 817, we hear about Slavs, whose interests were to be considered in the resolution of the Frankish-Byzantine conflict over Dalmatia. In 827, we learn about Slavs 90 91 92 93 94

Curta 1997, 155–161. On the source see Eggert 2001; Živković 2010; Reimitz 2015, 335–339. Lienard 2006a; Lienard 2006b; Rossignol 2011a, 17. Annales regni Francorum, 151–153; see Bertels 1987, 151–152. Capitularia regum Francorum, 271.

54

Chapter 3

residing in Pannonia (Sclavos in Pannonia sedentes) who were attacked by the Bulgars.95 It is only from 818 onward that the Annals mention the names of individual Slavic groups; thus, the Abodrites (Obodrites) living in Pannonia (qui vulgo Praedenecenti vocantur) are mentioned, along with the Guduscani, Timociani, and the Serbian Sorabi.96 The Bulgari, who were mentioned more frequently (for the first time in 812) were not yet treated as Slavs, apparently rightly so.97 The “Royal Frankish Annals” found those tribal associations, which were in touching distance of the Franks due to Charlemagne’s north-eastward expansion, more interesting than the Balkan Slavs.98 The Slavs on the Elbe are first mentioned, without any detail, in 780; two years later, we can read about the “Slavonic Sorbs who inhabit the plains between the Elbe and the Saale” (Sorabi Sclavi, quo campos inter Albiam et Salam interiacentes incolunt). Since they reportedly entered the neighbouring territories of Saxons and Thuringians to pillage, and by looting and burning had ravaged several places, the king apparently ordered that the “defiant Slavs” be punished and had an armed expedition directed against them.99 In reality, some of the Slavs living between the lower and central Elbe and the Oder Rivers, between the Baltic Sea and the Ore Mountains had already been conquered by Charlemagne. When he marched his troops in 789 against the Slavs led by a leader called Dragawitus and called Wilzi (Sclaviniae, quorum vocabulum est Wilze), members of his army included, also Sorbs (Sclavi quorum vocabula sunt Suurbi) and northern Abodrites, who were under the command of a princeps named Witzan.100 The Franks’ endeavours for expansion of the tribute collection and military control zone into the territory beyond the Elbe, which was done i.a. through the erection of castella along the river, came across the resolute and intransigent resistance from the Slavs.101 As the Annals recount, the “Slavs’ incursions” (Sclavorum incursiones) had to be pushed back several times, with “Slavic strongholds (castella) conquered,” “the affairs of the Slavs marshalled”, their 95 96 97 98

Annales regni Francorum, 98, 120, 135, 145, 173. Annales regni Francorum, 149–151, 158, 159, 161, 165. Annales regni Francorum, 136, 139, 149, 150, 164–168, 170, 173, 174. On the perception of the Slavs in Carolingian times, especially as reflected in Frankish Annals see Mohr 2005, 62–68. 99 Annales regni Francorum, 56, 60; the English quotations from Carolingian Chronicles, 60, 186. 100 Annales regni Francorum, 84–88; see Kossmann 1980; Labuda 1980; Mohr 2005, 146–147, 261, 298–299. 101 On Carolingian politics vis-à-vis the Polabian Slavs Hellmann 1965; Ernst 1976; Kossmann 1980; Leciejewicz 1985; Kempke 1998; Hardt 2014a.

Discovery of the Slavs in the Early Middle Ages

55

“audacity” suppressed, and obedience imposed.102 To this end, the Frankish conquerors would often take advantage of the antagonisms occurring between the Slavs. The Annals report, for instance, about an old enmity between the Wilzi and the Abodrites, which in 808 induced the former to fight against the latter, together with the Danish king Gudfred.103 In this context, the Annals name two more tribal associations of the Polabian Slavs, i.e., the Linones and the Smeldingi, who also joined Gudfred.104 Armed confrontations were at times discontinued to negotiate and enter alliances. Slavic envoys would, for instance, arrive at the Carolingian reunion of the Reich’s lords where they were collectively referred to as “eastern Slavs.”105 Charlemagne’s biographer Einhard († 840) described them as a “barbaric, savage people.” Fifty years later, an anonymous Saxon writer – possibly the so-called Poeta Saxo, who resided at the Corvey convent – developed this stereotype, in an identical context, into his description of the Slavs as a gens perfida.106 Einhard knew that Slavic-speaking nationes inhabiting Germania between the Rhine and the Vistula, the sea and the Danube […] used almost the same language but as to morals and attires were very different from one another. Charlemagne imposed a tribute upon all of them; yet, he had to wage war against the most significant of these peoples – i.e. the Wilzi (named Welatabi by Einhard), Sorabi, Abodriti, and Boemani, whereas the others voluntarily surrendered to him.107 That the power and might of the Frankish king and Roman emperor exerted an enormous impression on the “eastern Slavs” is 102 Annales regni Francorum, 122, 125, 127, 142–143. 103 Annales regni Francorum, 126; on Charlesmagne’s union with the Abodrites, which probably played an important role already in subjugating the Saxons, see Ernst 1976, 138–174; on the Abodrites in more detail Friedmann 1986, 49–179; on the Wilzen Dralle 1981, 42–65, 86–114. 104 For the Linones see Biermann/Gossler 2009; Rossignol 2013. 105 For the years 882 Annales regni Francorum, 158: In quo conventu omnium orientalium Sclaviorum, id est Abodritorum, Soraborum, Wilzorum, Beheimorem, Marvanorum, Prae­ decentorum, et in Pannonia residentium Abarum legationes cum muneribus ad se directas audivit [Karolus]. 106 Poetae Saxonis Annalium, 8. 107 Einhardi Vita Karoli Magni, 18: […] omnes barbaras ac feras nationes, quae inter Rhenum ac Vistulam fluvios oceanumque ac Danubium positae, lingua quidem poene similes, moribus vero atque habitu valde dissimiles, Germaniam incolunt, ita perdomuit, ut eas tributarias efficeret; inter quas fere praecipuae sunt Weletabi, Sorabi, Abodriti, Boemani – cum his namque bello conflixit -; ceteras, quarum multo maior est numerus, in deditionem suscepit.

56

Chapter 3

attested by the fact that it was his name that the Slavic word for ‘king’ has been derived from.108 How much the Frankish-Latin perception of the Sclavi was conditional on the real contacts with them, can be seen from “Annals of St Bertin” (Annales Bertiniani).109 An independent Western Frankish continuation of the “Royal Frankish Annals”, which was compiled from around 830 onward, enumerates – in its earliest layer – the Abodrites, Wilzi, Glinians (Linones), and Sorbs, but since the 860s the naming it uses becomes less clear or precise, and merely refers to “Winids who live in Saxon territories” (Vuinidi, qui in regionibus Saxonum sunt), or, “Winids under the command of various chieftains” (Vuinidi sub diversis principibus). In the case of the Moravians the “Annals of St Bertin” even remained (if we do not have do regard this lacuna an oversight of a later copyist) virtually speechless, since they called them only “Winids who are called …” (Vuinedi, qui appellantur …). With respect to the Moravian regnum, they used only the quite unspecific phrase marca Vuinidorum,110 possibly borrowed from the “Fredegar Chronicle”. Much more information is offered by the “Annals of Fulda”, a continuation of the “Royal Frankish Annals”, written in Mainz, Fulda, and Bavaria from the perspective of the Eastern Frankish court.111 Indeed, this record also tells stories on the eastern neighbours in the sole context of armed clashes and reunions at the royal court. However, these annals report on a larger number of meetings and offer more specific terms describing the different Slavic people. In relation to the territory outside the limits of the eastern Frankish realm inhabited by Slavic-speaking people, the word Sclavi is only used twice: namely, in 840, when Louis the Pious, together with his army, chased his son “via Thuringia, up to the Barbarian frontiers.” As a result, “having been expelled from the lands of the Empire,” “it was with great difficulty” that the son could “return to Bavaria through the land of the Slavs” (per Sclavorum terram). The second instance refers to Charles III’s meeting the Moravian prince Svatopluk in 884, in terminis Noricorum et Sclavorum.112 108 karl (Pomoranian), kral (Czech, Slovak, Bulgarian), kralj (Slovenian, Croatian, Serbian), krol (Sorbian), król (Polish), karol‘ (Ukrainian, Belorussian) und korol‘ (Russian); see Vykypěl 2004. 109 On this source Nelson 1986, 173–194. 110 Annales de Saint Bertin, 4–6, 33, 48, 49, 53, 55, 58, 64, 68, 71–72, 85, 93, 95, 97–98, 113, 123, 127, 131, 157, 164–165, 169–170, 175–176, 182, 185–186, 193–195, 210. As another evidence of the vanishing knowledge Western Frankish sources had with respect to “Slavs” living beyond the Eastern border of the Carolingian realm we may hint to the Chronicon Moissiacense compiled in the early 9th century, see Rossignol 2019b, 52. 111 Corradini 2006. 112 Annales Fuldenses, 31, 101.

Discovery of the Slavs in the Early Middle Ages

57

Moreover, the sources for the years 845 to 889 mention ten times unspecified Slavs (Sclavi). In six of these cases, Slavic envoys arriving at a court reunion are referred to (only one of these instances explicitly mentions their origin de diversis provinciis); in two others, Sclavi refers to Slavic warriors as members of the Eastern Frankonian army troops, and once, to the Slavic population on the Saale River, subjected to the Thuringians. In all these cases, Sclavi mark groups of Slavic-speaking people who from an Eastern Frankian perspective were subject to direct or indirect Frankonian power. Only one of the ten mentionings refer to Slavs drawn by Svatopluk of Moravia in 884 from the entire territory of his realm (ex omni parte) to take part in his expedition against the Eastern Franks, and thus referred to those Moravians who were not ruled by the Franks.113 Starting in 882, that is from the year the Bavarian continuation of the “Annals of Fulda”, previously compiled in Mainz and Fulda, set in, the Moravians are mentioned always under the same name. That this name was fairly young and yet-uncertain then, is attested by its varying spellings (Maravi, Maravani, Marahavi, Marahabitae, Marahenses, Marehenses, and Marabi).114 In the earlier part of the Annals (for the years 846–73) they are only called “Moravian Slavs” (Marahenses/Margenses Sclavi).115 This example shows how the collective and generic term Sclavi gradually gave way to an individual ethnonym, as soon as Franks and Slavs became reciprocally closer and got to know each other somewhat better. Obviously, for those Slavs who lived in a closer neighbourhood with the Franks, this occurred earlier than for those more distant. The direct neighbours, including the Abodrites (Obodriti), Glinians (Linones), Siusli, Dalemincians (Dalmatae/Dalmatii), Sorbs (Sorabi), Bohemians (Boemani/Behemi), Carantanians (Carantani), are all mentioned in the “Annals of Fulda” by their respective names since the very beginning; the older “Royal Frankish Annals” still has added to their names the explanatory word Sclavi. In very few cases, also the “Annals of Fulda” complement the individual ethnonym with the formula Sclavi qui vocantur (in specific: for the year 869, with respect to the Behemi; 877 – for the Linones et Siusli; and 880 – the Dalmatii).116 Irrespectively of this, the word Sclavi began losing its function of a basic description of the Slavic neighbours already in the “Annals of Fulda”. Whenever an individual ethnonym was potentially at hand, the word Sclavi became irrelevant as a naming tool. 113 114 115 116

Annales Fuldenses, 112. Annales Fuldenses, 109–111, 119, 121–122, 125, 130–135. Annales Fuldenses, 36, 45, 49, 56, 73, 75, 76, 78. Annales Fuldenses, 67, 89, 94.

58

Chapter 3

At this point, the name could be turned into a stereotype. And indeed, the word Sclavi appears in this sense already in the “Annals of Fulda”: in 849, the Bohemians (Boemani), who betrayed the Franks, are explicitly described as barbari, and their ‘unfaithful’ (disloyal) behaviour is directly associated with the “laws and customs of the Slavic tribe” (leges et consuetudines Sclavicae gentis), which suggests an equality between Boemani = barbari = Sclavica gens; this is how a powerful stereotype was conceived.117 A similar influence might have been caused by the accusation expressed by the chronicler in 871, whereby the Moravian prince Svatopluk, right after the Eastern Frankish king had let him return to Moravia, “instantly betrayed him, in accordance with the Slavic custom” (Slavisco more).118 Also this instance of disloyalty, mentioned as an allegedly Slavic trait, long contributed to how the Slavs were perceived. More matter-of-factly and pragmatically the Slavic-speaking population groups of Eastern Europe were described in a catalogue of peoples compiled between the middle of the 9th and early 10th centuries by an Anonymous conventionally called the Bavarian Geographer.119 His “Description of strongholds and regions north of the Danube” (Descriptio civitatum et regionum ad septentrionalem plagam Danubii) first names those Slavic tribal associations who lived along the eastern frontier of the Frankish realm, starting with the Abodrites (Nortabtrezi) in the north, followed by the Wilzi (Vuilzi), Glinians (Linones/Linaa), Bethenici, Smeldingon, Morizani, Hevellians (Hehfeldi), Sorbs (Surbi), Dalemicians (Talaminci), Bohemians (Becheimare), up to the Moravians (Marharii) and Bulgarians (Vulgarii) in the south. In its second part, probably added somewhat later, the Descriptio quotes several names of the peoples living further eastward which can be fairly regarded as historical. However, many of the altogether forty-six names enumerated in this second part, with fantastically high numbers of strongholds or defended centres (civitates) ascribed to them, were related to no specific idea, probably often being just a misunderstood piece of information, distorted through the multistage communication, about a distant and unknown world.120 In this context, also the very question about the origins of the Slavicspeaking tribal associations evidently already aroused interest. In any case, 117 Annales Fuldenses, 38. 118 Annales Fuldenses, 74. 119 Descriptio civitatum, 13–14. For the dating of this source see Fritze 1952; Witczak 1993a; Rossignol 2011c; Betti 2013. 120 Graus 1980a, 191 characterizes the information given by the Descriptio as “mere nonsense”, by which “no interpretation whatsoever” can be developed; as to the question whether the source using the term civitas is talking about castle districts (Burgbezirke) see the negative answer of Rossignol 2011b.

Discovery of the Slavs in the Early Middle Ages

59

the Descriptio contains an interesting remark on one of these associations – namely, the Zerivani – saying that their regnum was so large that “all the Slavic tribes” (cuncte gentes sclavorum) have emerged from it and that all Slavs, “as they reassure, have drawn their lineage from it” (originem sicut affirmant ducant).121 It remains unclear from which source the Bavarian Geographer drew this remark and what may have inspired him to speculate on the Slavs’s origins. In any event, along with the “Annals of Fulda”, his Descriptio testifies to the fact that interest in the world of Eastern Europe and its Slavic-speaking population grew within the Eastern Frankish realm already in the late 9th century; the eastward perspective of the Frankish political and ecclesiastical elites started to reach beyond their closest Slavic neighbourhood. 3

Slavs in the Distant Oriental View

Early on the Slavic world of Eastern Europe was somehow known also to the distant Orient – though still with no specific idea as to its geography or population.122 In the 8th century, at the latest, due to direct contacts between Slavic-speaking people and the Abbasid Caliphate, the Greek word Sklav(en)oi was borrowed into Arabic. Already in the 660s after Slavic soldiers following Byzantine-Arab clashes in Asia Minor have left the Byzantine army to join the Arabs, a group of Slavs settled in the Syrian town of Apamea. In the 690s, thousands of the Slavs who had once been resettled by Emperor Justinian II from Macedonia to Asia Minor joined their former opponents as well. The Arabs made available to them lands in northern Syria, in the vicinity of Antioch and Cyrrhus, thus enabling them to set up enclosed Slavic settlements.123 One of these Slavic colonies was probably known to the poet al-Aẖṭal († 710), who stayed at the Umayyad court and whose family owned properties in Syria. In one of his poems, he used the image of a ‘group of fair-haired/fair-skinned Ṣaqāliba as a threat-building stylistic means, thus producing the earliest Arabic evidence of a term referring to the Slavs.124 The word (its singular form is Ṣaqlab or Ṣ(i)qlāb) with help of the epenthesis a/i precisely reflected the Greek Sklavoi.125 The testimony by al-Aẖṭal remained unique for quite a time. It was only in the last quarter of the 8th century that the astronomical breakdown 121 122 123 124

Descriptio civitatum, 14. Briefly on this Mühle 2016, 14–20. Lewicki 1948a; Ditten 1993, 230–231. Diwān al-Ahtal, 18, Vers 5; Polish translation in Źrodła arabskie 1, 6 (Lewicki’s commentary: 6–9); Russian translation with commentary in Svod II, 508–509. 125 On this term see Golden 1995; Nazmi 1998, 74–76.

60

Chapter 3

(Zij) by al-Fazārī, a writer active at the court of Caliph Abū Jaʿfar al-Manṣūr, another brief mention appeared, in which the aṣ-Ṣaqāliba appear along with the Khazars and the Alani, together with the Bulgars and the Byzantines. According to al-Fazārī the area occupied by the Ṣaqāliba (3500 × 700 farsakh) was larger by almost a 6th than the lands of the Byzantine Empire (5000 × 420 farsakh).126 Starting from the early 9th century Ṣaqāliba appear in Arabic sources on a regular basis. In the second half of the 8th century, with the increase of Abbasid power, Arabic science and literature began to flourish  – including geographical and historical writings which primarily concerned the expanding Arab world and tried to systematise it, for administrative purposes as well as out of scholarly curiosity.127 In spite of the Arabs’ presence in South-Western Europe and increasing commercial contacts with Eastern Europe and Central Asia, not much attention, however, was focused on Europe or Asia. Also, in the later period, these regions were marginal to what Arabic society was interested in. All the same, since the 9th century, individual authors of geographical, historical and/or ethnographic works would look northwards from time to time. They built upon the geographic knowledge from the Greek sources and made use of the information obtained during the Arab expeditions against Byzantium and the Khazars from war captives, envoys, merchants, or collected during their own travels.128 The first one to write about Eastern Europe was al-Ḫwārizmī, a Khwaresmian scholar active in Baghdad. His work entitled “A Book of the Image of the World” (Kitāb Ṣūrat al-arḍ), written between 820 and the 840s, is regarded as the most influential Arabic adaptation of Ptolemy’s Geographia, which was probably accessible to al-Ḫwārizmī via its Syro-Aramaic translation. His text, compiled in the form of a tabular commentary to a lost collection of maps, identifies the lands of Ṣaqāliba (arḍin aṣ-Ṣaqāliba) with Germania (Ġārmanijā), in line with the ancient tradition.129 One of the region’s maps, attached to the work in the late 10th or early 11th century and showing a part of Eastern Europe, with the Sea of Azov, was prepared according to the Greek toponymy.130 Before 865, the writer al-Ǧāḥiẓ, a frequent visitor to the caliph’s court at Baghdad, who died in Basra, mentioned the Ṣaqāliba in the context of his 126 The Arabic text with Russian translation in Svod II, 510. 127 Hopkins 1990; Ahmad 1995, 5–17; Gutas 1998, 53–60. 128 Lewis 1987, 137–152; König 2012. A general overview on Arabic authors referring to Eastern Europe and Ṣaqāliba is offered by Lewicki 1949; Lewicki 1958, 61–87; Lewicki 1961b; Kalus 1996; Lewicka-Rajewska 2004, 25–63; Urbańczyk 2012b; Urbańczyk 2013. 129 Das Kitāb, 105; Polish translation in Źródła arabskie 1, 23; see Mžik 1936. 130 Mappae Arabicae, 12–13 (ill. 5); Tibbetts 1992b, 106 and plate 4.

Discovery of the Slavs in the Early Middle Ages

61

apology of the dark skin colour. He might have himself been of East African descent; in his “Book Boasting the Superiority of the Black People over the White People” (Kitāb fi faḥr as-sūdān ʿalā l-baiḍān) he emphasized – probably with an intention of parody – how ugly, outright awful, the fair hair and pale skin of the Ṣaqāliba, Byzantines and Franks was. Elsewhere, he only identified the white Ṣaqāliba and the black Africans from Eastern Africa (az-Zanǧī), which enhances the impression that even he could not yet discern the Slavic inhabitants of (Central) Eastern Europe from non-Slavic Central European residents, and used the term Ṣaqāliba generically, to denote the ‘Central European white ones’.131 In this sense, he separated the white slaves, called Ṣaqāliba, from their black counterparts, describing the former as dull, stupid, and unreliable by nature. Only as a castrated eunuch could an Ṣaqlāb gain in intelligence, diligence, and velocity, in contrast to black eunuchs, for that matter.132 Ibn Qutajba, a Bagdhad teacher and writer who died in the 880s, differentiated in the caliph’s court black and white guards of the palace, naming the latter Ṣaqāliba.133 As members of an armed squad, the caliph’s palace guard, or slaves working at a regular farm-holding, the Ṣaqāliba appear in a history of the Rustamids, written by the Maghrebian chronicler Ibn aṣ-Ṣaġīr in the late 9th century.134 Again, it is not clear whether the term Ṣaqāliba only stands for ‘Slavs’ or generally refers to white slaves or hirelings from East-Central and Central Europe. Solely non-Slavic people – namely, the Turkic-speaking Kama Bulgars – were probably meant by the Iraqi historian al-Balāḏurī, as he referred to Ṣaqāliba in his “Book of the Conquests of Lands” (Kitāb futūḥ al-buldān) compiled during the second half of the 9th century. In his account, an Arab commander encountered them in mid-8th century in the land of the Khazars and took them captive, together with their families.135 The ruler of the Ṣaqāliba (ṣāḥib aṣ-Ṣaqāliba) mentioned by the Baghdadbased Egyptian al-Yaʿqūbī († ca. 900) is identified by some scholars as a prince of the Kama Bulgars.136 In the “Book of Lands” (Kitāb al-Buldān), completed 131 Tri opuscula, 4–5, 81, 104; Polish translation in Źródła arabskie 1, 169, 171; see Guitoo 2015, 28–33. 132 Arabic text and Polish translation in Źródła arabskie 1, 166–169 (Lewicki’s commentary: 173–174). 133 Arabic text and Polish translation in Źródła arabskie 1, 202–203 (Lewicki’s commentary: 238). 134 Arabic text and Polish translation in Źródła arabskie 2,1, 136–141 (Lewicki’s commentary: 146–150). 135 Liber expugnationis, 207–208; Polish translation in Źródła arabskie 1, 225 (Lewicki’s commentary: 238); Ibn Fadlān’s Reisebericht, 307–309. 136 Arabic text and Polish translation in Źrodła arabskie 1, 262–263; Ibn Fadlān’s Reisebericht, 309.

62

Chapter 3

in 889, this geographer and historian says that in 854/5, the Dagestani people of Sanaray (aṣ-Ṣanārīya), attacked by the Abbasid caliph al-Mutawakkil, requested the help of the Ṣaqāliba leader or ruler, as well as the ruler or ‘viceroy’ of the Byzantines (ṣāḥib ar Rūm) and Khazars (ṣāḥib al-Ḥazar). Since al-Yaʿqūbī spent a large part of his life in Armenia, he might have been quite well-versed in what was going on in the Caucasus. It also seems that he knew the Kama Bulgars by their name, so it is more probable that his ṣāḥib aṣ-Ṣaqāliba refers to the leader of a Slavic-speaking tribal association subordinated to the Khazars.137 Living in the Arab-Byzantine borderland, al-Yaʿqūbī was generally better informed on aspects of Byzantium and East-Central Europe. One of his works, a special treatise dealing with Byzantium, which was quoted in earlier Arabic writings, has not survived. His extant works, however, contain numerous references to specified parts of the Byzantine Empire and its cities or towns (to which he also counted Rome). The aṣ-Ṣaqāliba tend to be mentioned, at times, in this context. The name for al-Yaʿqūbī doubtlessly referred to Slavic-speaking groups within, or in direct vicinity of, the Byzantine realm. Speaking of them explicitly as inhabitants of Byzantium, the author includes them, along with the Danube Bulgars, among the descendants of Japheth.138 In Central Europe, apart from Byzantium, the Franks (al-Ifranǧ) were also known to al-Yaʿqūbī.139 That the late 9th century saw the gradual formation of a somewhat more precise image of Europe in the Arabic world, is attested by the work of Ibn Ḫurradaḏbih, a Persian educated in Baghdad, who died in 885 or 911. Holding important offices in the postal service, he had access to good information and made use of it in his “Book of Travel Roads and Kingdoms” (Kitāb al-Masālik wa-’l-mamālik). In line with the Persian tradition, he divided the world into four regions: Europe, Libya, Ethiopia, and Scythia, but added Iraq as the 5th, and to him central, region.140 Europe (Arūfā) would consist of Spain (al-Andalus), Rome/Italia (Rūmīja), the kingdom of the Franks (Firanǧa), Byzantium (ar-Rūm), the lands of the Ṣaqāliba (arḍ aṣ-Ṣaqāliba), and of the Avars (arḍ al-Abar). In a similar way around the year 903 the Persian geographer and 137 See Marquart 1903, 200 and Źródła arabskie 1, 286–288. 138 Describing the various “climates” also the Transoxanian astronomer Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad ibn Kaṭīr al-Farġānī refers to Ṣaqāliba and the Bulgarians on the Danube – besides the Khazars, Turk peoples and Byzantium; Arabic text and Polish translation in Źródła arabskie 1, 192–193; in a very similar way also ibn Rosteh in Źródła arabskie 2,2, 24–25. 139 Arabic text and Polish translation in Źródła arabskie 1, 252–253, 256–259. 140 Kitāb al-Masālik; Polish translation in Źródła arabskie 1, 66–81 (Lewicki’s commentary: 87–138); see also Pauliny 1999, 89–96; Lewicka-Rajewska 2004, 29–31; Montgomery 2005.

Discovery of the Slavs in the Early Middle Ages

63

historian al-Faqīh in his “Book of Lands” (Kitāb al-Buldān) divided Europe into al-Andalus, aṣ-Ṣaqāliba, ar-Rūm, and Firanǧa; in addition, however, he made Ṭanǧa – the ancient town of Tingis (Tanger), which stood for Northern Africa, a part of Europe, too. He discerned two groups among the Ṣaqāliba: those whose complexion and hair was dark and who inhabited seaside areas, and those who had pale complexion and lived inside the land. A not-quite-clear mention, made elsewhere, that the Burgundians (Burǧān), Ṣaqāliba and Avars lived north of Spain may additionally prove that also al-Faqīh did not quite differentiate between non-Slavic-speaking residents of Central Europe – particularly the Eastern Franks – and the Slavs.141 Ibn Ḫurradaḏbih probably did not yet consistently differentiate between the Slavs and the German-speaking Eastern Franks, either. He did differentiate, however – as al-Faqīh did – the Ṣaqāliba slaves from the Greek, Frankish (= Romanesque?), Lombardian, and Andalusian ones, and he was aware that the Ṣaqāliba language (aṣ-Ṣaqlabiyya) was different from Greek, Frankish (= Romanesque?), and Andalusian languages. Yet, he still seems to have perceived the Slavia and Germania as very close to each other. The reason might have been that the point-of-departure for his “Book of Travel Roads and Kingdoms” was the general description of the world according to Ptolemy. On the other hand, Ibn Ḫurradaḏbih (if the interpretation reconstructed by scholars, contrary to the written record, is to be trusted), used the word q.nāḍ/q.nāz, thus rendering the Slavic word kniaz (prince), with respect to the king who ruled the Ṣaqāliba. He also described the Rus’ian traders (ar-Rūs) bringing over their commodities – “beaver and silver-fox leathers, and swords from the farthest corners of the Ṣaqlabīja” across the Black Sea to Byzantium, or across the Volga and the Caspian Sea to Baghdad, where they were helped by Ṣaqlabīja interpreters/translators. The Baghdad geographer probably actually had in mind, primarily, the Slavic-speaking people of Eastern Europe, even if the swords came, as a matter of fact, from the country of the Franks, while the notion of ‘Slavs’  – as is shown by calling the Volga a ‘Ṣaqāliba river’ (nahr aṣ-Ṣaqāliba) – once again did not exclude the Kama Bulgars or Finno-Ugrians. Ibn Ḫurradaḏbih certainly used the name of ‘Ṣaqāliba land/country’ (bilad aṣ-Ṣaqāliba) to describe an area exclusively inhabited by Slavs situated by him west of the Byzantine province of Macedonia. Even if this foreshadowed a more precise use of the term ‘Slavs’, the Arabic perception of the Slavic-speaking world remained vague and obscure until the 141 Compendium libri Kitāb; Arabic text and Polish translation in Źródła arabskie 2,1, 19–23 (Lewicki’s commentary: 56–67).

64

Chapter 3

late 9th/early 10th century. Ibn Faḍlān, who in the years 921–22 arrived, together with the Abbasid envoys, to the Kama Bulgars and attentively observed the Turkic and Scandinavian people there, still called these Bulgars Ṣaqāliba and had nothing specific to say about Slavic-speaking groups.142 The vagueness of the Arabs’ ideas about Eastern Europe did not prevent the emergence of stereotypes, however. On the contrary, regardless of the open-endedness and blurriness of the notion of Ṣaqlabīja they used, al-Ǧāḥiẓ and al-Faqīh described the Ṣaqāliba as stupid, unreliable, or cowardly by nature.143 142 Ibn Faḍlān, Kitāb; English translation in Montgomery 2015; see Lewicka-Rajewska 2004, 36–39; Frye 2005; Guitoo 2015, 20–28. 143 See Guitoo 2015, 33, 56; the still rather vague and variable semantic of the word Ṣaqāliba is also confirmed by al-Faqīh, who gives a very similar description of the routes of long distance trade leading through Eastern Europe as Ibn Ḫurradaḏbih, but who writes instead of “Rus’ traders” of “Ṣaqāliba-traders”, and knows besides the “river Ṣaqāliba” (Volga) also the “Ṣaqāliba-sea” (Baltic); Compendium libri Kitāb; quoted from Źródła arabskie 2,1, 28–29, 40–41 (Lewicki’s commentary: 81–85, 124).

Chapter 4

Early Slavic Realities 1

Archaeology and Early Slavic Culture

Compared to general Arab knowledge, until the end of the 9th century, the acquaintance with the Sklavenoi/Sclavi among the Byzantines and Franks was somewhat more exact only with respect to certain parts of the vast territory of East-Central, South-Eastern, and Eastern Europe. The actual perception of the Slavic-speaking people by Franks and Byzantines was limited (if it ever reached beyond the limits of their own territories) to approximately 200– 400 km of the areas adjacent to their territory. This strip stretched, as a slightly curved arch, from Holstein in the north, along the Elbe, the Saale Rivers, the Bohemian Forest, the Eastern Alps, the Dalmatian coast of the Adriatic Sea, through Macedonia and Thracia, all the way up to the gates of Constantinople in the south-east. The Frankish and Byzantine contemporaries could only make guesses about what was happening east and north of these areas. The historians of today are in quite a similar situation, as the available written sources do not provide information sufficient to describe, in a reasonable amount of detail, the developments and processes of Slavicization that took place in East-Central, South-Eastern, and Eastern Europe between the 6th and 8th centuries.1 In contrast to the scarce written sources, archaeology and linguistics offer more specific insights into the realities of the 6th–8th century period; but even these fields of research cannot grasp the period’s processes of spreading, transfer, and migration as such, let alone explain their reasons and motives. Linguistic testimonies, such as names of people (anthroponyms), localities (toponyms) and waters (hydronyms) as well as borrowings, on the one hand, and archaeological finds and findings, on the other hand, allow in the first place to become familiar with the effects of these processes. As far as linguistics is concerned, it is carried out through examining the condition of the language

1 For recent comprehensive studies on the “early Slavs”, which substitute the influential studies of “Slavic archaeology” from Socialist times (e.g. Hensel 1987; Herrmann 1981b; Váňa 1983; Sedov 1995) see: Barford 2001; Brather 2001a; Curta 2001a; Mühle 2017, 18–33; important for a comparative view on the European context: Geary 2002; Pohl 2008; Heather 2011; Pohl 2018a, 117–162; Meier 2019, 974–994.

© Eduard Mühle, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004536746_005

66

Chapter 4

in the given area and period.2 The dating is done based on phonetic laws, but it is typically not quite precise. The time in which a linguistic change appeared within a given area, which might have been implied by a transfer or migration process, is thus only determinable by giving very inexact termini ad/post quem, which dramatically restricts the chronological value of such information in terms of description of historical processes. Archaeology, in turn, only gives a spot insight into the material culture of a given group of people or region. It primarily allows to obtain information on settlement structures, economic conditions, and the domain of manufacture/ production. The finds and the diversity of artefacts give, moreover, an idea about the social, cultural, and mental spheres of the society under examination, but normally they do not reveal when, why, and how they emerged. So far, archaeologists and linguists have not been able to give unambiguous answers to questions such as: since when exactly, in what way, and why was a third of Europe Slavicized between the 6th and 8th centuries?3 Tempestuous discussions about the moment in which each of the regions became ‘Slavic’, whether (and, if so, in what regions) the Slavic people can be treated as autochthonic people, and, whether and in what ways the Slavs merged, as they spread, with the non-Slavic groups of people they encountered in the areas they seized, have not ended. Recent studies primarily endeavour to find an answer to the question whether the expansion of Slavic-speaking societies, whose range and pace have astonished scholars since long, did take place primarily as the result of acceptance of economic and cultural models, transfer of identity, spreading of the language, or due to migrations of demographic communities. According to linguists, a prevalent majority of East-Central and SouthEastern Europe’s inhabitants was Slavic-lingual in as early as the 6th to 8th centuries. As it seems, it was not only during its spreading but also after the completion of the transfer and migration processes that the Slavic language preserved a noteworthy homogeneity. The fact that the Slavic language spoken in 9th century in the vicinity of Thessaloniki was fairly comprehensible to the population of Moravia is one of several indications of the fact that no clear linguistic differentiation of the Slavic language continuum had taken place at the time and that clearly separated Slavic languages had not yet developed.4 This may serve as a premise to state that the Slavic language in the early Middle 2 For interesting observations on the importance of linguistic research for the history of “early Slavs” see Lübke 2018. 3 Brather 2004, 237–239. 4 On the controversial question for how long the Slavic language functioned (or was regarded) as a “language unity” or “language continuum” see Holzer 1995; Holzer 1997; Lunt 1997; Steinke 1998; Boryś 2002; Štih 2012, 181–182.

Early Slavic Realities

67

Ages may have functioned as a supra-regional lingua franca, while the later individual Slavic languages stemming from it started their existence only later with the formation of medieval nationes.5 A small group out of some three or perhaps four million people dispersed around the vast areas of East-Central, South-Eastern, and Eastern Europe belonged to speakers of Baltic languages inhabiting the continent’s northern part. Apart from them, the north of Russia was inhabited by Finno-Ugrians who had arrived from the east; the Balkans were home to romanized speakers of Dacian and Thracian, whereas the south-eastern steppe zone hosted groups of Turkic-language and Iranian people. What languages were spoken by the dwellers of the strongholds and open settlements excavated, how the owners of the artefacts found communicated, what ethnical, political, social, and cultural identity linked them together  – these questions in fact cannot be answered by archaeology. Hence, considerable scepticism should be applied to attempts (which have been made all the same) at an ethnical interpretation of the complexes of archaeological finds and their identification as belonging to ‘Slavs’, let alone to individual Slavic associations (‘cultural areas’, ‘tribes’ or ‘tribal relationships’). All the same, the conviction prevailed among earlier scholars whereby certain artefacts and archaeological objects, or their joint appearances, could be treated as a proof that a specific early Slavic culture existed6 – one that apparently emerged very early in the Middle Ages as a completely novel phenomenon. It did not connect directly with the higher-developed and precedent cultures of Chernyakhov, Zarubintsy, and Przeworsk, all of which partly referred to the Roman tradition and collapsed by the end of the 4th or early 5th century. To date, archaeologists have proved unable to close the gap between the horizons of the late Roman Empire and the early migration period, on the one hand, and the earliest pieces of evidence of an early Slavic culture, on the other hand. Moreover, the role of the archaeological cultures from the Eastern European forests, dating to between the 2nd and 5th centuries, which in certain respects show similarities to the early Slavic culture (one of them being the so-called Kiev culture), remains unclear. The same is true for the heritage of the Germanic people, who are believed to have withdrawn in the 5th century from East-Central Europe, and the material culture of those Slavs who reportedly arrived in these areas later. No point of direct contact 5 Pritsak 1983, 383–386, 392, 420, 423–424; Lunt 1984/85, 421–422; Curta 2004, 132–133, 147–148; Bradford 2014, 37–39; Pohl 2018a, 123, 273. 6 Frühe Slawen in Mitteleuropa, 123–139 [1979], 157–168 [1983]; Parczewski 1988; Parczewski 2005; Baran 1991.

68

Chapter 4

between a Slavic settlement and its preceding Germanic settlement has yet been found, and even less so with any evidence of an earlier coexistence of the two cultures.7 Even if early Slavic culture since its very beginning was differentiated into local groups and regional types, most archaeologists still assume that it clearly differed from other cultural complexes appearing at that time. Therefore, it ought to be approached as a manifestation of a homogenous structure that was limited in space and time and that is supposed to be interpreted as a legacy of a larger and highly homogeneous community. Even if, as to details, it remains an open question whether this community was only one of language, culture, or communication, adherents of this model agree that the early Slavic material culture represents a community of the early Slavs, if not outright a ‘Slavic ethnic group’. The model has been called into question by recent research only cautiously by pointing to a considerable regional diversity appearing as early as the 6th to 8th centuries and confirmed by archaeological material found between the Elbe and the Dnieper Rivers, the Baltic Sea and the Balkans.8 For the time being, it has to be seen whether, in the future, scholars can examine the said regional diversity more precisely, recognizing it as essential to the extent that the model of a homogeneous early Slavic culture proves irrelevant.9 Among the most important traits of early Slavic culture, earlier studies have mainly pointed to three characteristic elements: (i) simple pottery – in specific, pots not-quite-diversified as to form and function, handmade and almost never ornamented; (ii) square sunken-floored huts with a corner stove or hearth; and (iii) cremation burials, with urn or pit (no-urn) graves. In addition, based on movable and immovable archaeological testimonies, conclusions have been reached as to further features characteristic of the way of life shared presumably by all the early Slavs  – namely, the character of settlement, the building techniques, the method of farming/husbandry, the peculiar standard of living, the stylistics of products, type and range of external contacts, method of waging wars, type of social organization, and beliefs. All these domains have consistently been subject to archaeological research.

7 Brather 2004, 213–216; Michas 2016, 151; Biermann 2016, 20; Biermann 2020. Recently a team of Czech, Austrian, Swiss, and Australian archaeologists in the Czech locality of Lány excavated a bone with a German rune inscription in the elder fuþark. Since the bone by radiocarbon analysis is dated to “around the year 600”, i.e. a period for which a Slavic settlement is attested the scholars assume that Lány was a place of close contacts between Germans and Slavs; Macháček et al. 2021, esp. 2. 8 See Chapter 2, footnote 6. 9 Important contributions into this direction: Curta 2021a and Curta 2021b.

Early Slavic Realities

69

The leading archaeological forms of the early Slavic cultural model (pottery, buildings, urn graves) can be encountered only in the cultures of Prague and Korchak (the Prague-Korchak Culture), whose earliest undisputable testimonies date to the end of the 5th/early 6th centuries.10 In geographical terms, this archaeological culture initially stretched onto the forest-steppe zone between the western Bug River and the Pripet River, the upper Dniester, the Prut and the central Dnieper Rivers, being the areas of modern western Ukraine. Some linguists suppose that these areas were indigenous as far as the Slavic language is concerned; hence, the appearance of traits of this particular archaeological culture in the Carpathians and on the lower Danube River (since the beginning of the 6th century), in Moravia, southern Poland and Bohemia (mid to end 6th c.) and in the region of the middle Elbe and Saale Rivers (since 7th) is also treated as a proof that it was the starting point of the Slavs’ expansion. However, the chronology of the complexes of finds upon which the model of expansion is based proves to be quite uncertain. Since it is usually based on estimated ceramics-related chronologies, it would not give a final answer to the question of since when the Prague-Korchak type was dominant in these regions, or how long its prevalence lasted. In the few cases when absolute dating of find complexes has been possible with use of the dendrochronological method, it appeared that they did not date to any period earlier than the 7th or 8th century. Hence, based only on the geographical distribution of the leading forms of early Slavic culture, the chronologies of individual migration processes cannot be determined in a reliable manner. The so-called Pen’kovka Culture is considered to have been contemporary with, and related to, the Prague-Korchak Culture, thus being interpreted as another material expression of early Slavic culture. The Pen’kovka Culture extended to the forest-steppe and steppe zones in Ukraine and Moldavia, from the upper Donets River, through the central Dnieper, southern Bug, central Dniester, and Prut Rivers, down to the lower Danube River, where it overlapped with relics of the Prague-Korchak Culture. Some researchers have identified the Pen’kovka Culture as the heritage of the Antes while attributing the Prague-Korchak Culture to the Sclaveni, as part of the highly problematic parallelization of written testimonies and results of archaeological research.11

10 Borkovský 1940; Pleinerová 1968; Rusanova 1976; Brachmann 1983; Baran 1988; Gavrituchin 1997; Curta 2001c seriously doubts the thesis that the vessels of the “Prague type” represents an “ethnic identity” of the early Slavs; a similar view is held by Homza 2018, 14; the critic is repudiated i.a. by Profantová 2009b; Profantová/Profantov 2020. 11 Goriunov 1981, 71–82; Prichodniuk 1989; Sedov 1995, 68–94.

70

Chapter 4

Controversy stems from the question of whether the Kolochin Culture, situated between the upper Psel, the Desna, and the upper Dnieper Rivers, as well as the Bancerovo-Tushemlia Culture, neighbouring it in the north-east, can be interpreted as manifestations of early Slavic culture.12 Whereas the former reached inside the Russian zone of mixed forests, whose agriculture was not too productive and whose population, consisting of Baltic and Finno-Ugrian groups, was very sparse, the latter encompassed a region that much later became colonized by Slavic-speaking groups and that for this reason ought to be attributed to Baltic or Finno-Ugrian people. This shows that the eastern limit of the Prague-Korchak Culture cannot be specified in an unquestionable manner. In the south, however, the central and lower Danube formed a clear borderline, which was also politically conditioned. On the west, the Prague-Korchak Culture was adjacent to those of the Franks, Thuringians, and Saxons, which were considerably different from it. Its reach was restricted there to Moravian-Bohemian-Sorbian lands, for remains of a completely different archaeological culture can be encountered across the northern area, between the central and lower Vistula River and the lower Elbe River. This peculiar archaeological culture is called the Sukow-Dziedzice Culture, so named after the two localities where the most important finds related to it have been found (i.e. Sukow in Mecklenburg and Dziedzice in South-Western Pomerania). It reached as far as western Mazovia and differed from the Prague-Korchak Culture with its prevalence of ground-level houses and a different funeral rite (in the form of pit graves, which only sometimes were covered by mounds). The pottery, which appeared between the 7th and 9th centuries, was squatter, shorter and more open compared to the slimmer and taller vessels forms of the Prague-Korchak Culture. This differed only slightly from the latter, however. Since the written sources dating to the end of the 8th and early 9th century, at latest, leave no doubt as to Slavic colonization in these north-eastern parts of Central Europe, the Sukow-Dziedzice Culture is interpreted as the north-western variant of early Slavic culture. It is disputable whether its characteristics, which gradually faded already in the 8th century, should be treated as resulting from a secondary evolution, related to the migration processes, of the typical model of early Slavic culture that had developed in the circle of the Prague-Korchak Culture or as result of an independent local development. Natural and geographical conditions might have decisively influenced

12

Sedov 1982, 34–45.

Early Slavic Realities

71

the differences between the Prague-Korchak Culture and the Sukow-Dziedzice Culture.13 By the end of the 8th century the migrations and conquests of Slavicspeaking population groups had been completed, except for the Baltic and Finno-Ugrian parts of North-Eastern Europe. The combined outcomes of linguistic, archaeological, and historical studies leave no doubt that the vast territories between eastern Ukraine and the Elbe, between the upper Dnieper and the lower Danube, and between the areas south of the Baltic Sea and the Adriatic Sea (except for the Great Hungarian Plain) were populated in the 7th/8th century by Slavic-speaking people, with the early Slavic culture prevailing there. Obviously, Slavs did not occupy the whole of East-Central, South-Eastern and Eastern Europe. Apart from relatively densely populated areas, there were unpopulated zones, vast forest areas, inhospitable marshlands, wetlands, and barren areas. The number and reach of archaeological finds suggest that the most densely populated areas were those of Volhynia, Podolia, and Lesser Poland, the areas located along the Dnieper and the Danube, parts of Bohemia, Moravia and Slovakia, the Carpathian Basin, as well as the regions between the Oder and the Elbe. In fact, a large part of the eastern half of Europe was Slavicized already in the early Slavic period. According to recent research, and contrary to what used to be believed, the process under discussion did not result solely from the demographic expansion of what initially had been a rather small ‘Slavic people’. The astonishingly fast and far-reaching Slavicization of East-Central, South-Eastern and Eastern Europe is now believed to have resulted from complex assimilation and acculturation processes, during which individual regions saw parallel blending of sedentary groups of autochthonic people with the Slavic-speaking immigrant population. It was only a result of this merger and integration of the originally different groups that new ‘Slavic’ societies took shape. In parallel, diverse elements of the ‘Slavic culture’ – be it language or building techniques, ceramic household ware or funeral customs – probably spread by way of cultural transfer as well. There are strong indications that such a fast and extensive expansion of ‘Slavs’ should be associated not with conquests and multiplication of one homogeneous group of people or ethnic group but rather with the impact of a particularly attractive cultural model which “appeared to be very efficient in long-lasting exploitation of diverse geographical environments.”14 The high attractiveness and integrative force of the model was most probably owed

13 Schuldt 1964; Wietrzichowski 1989; Dulinicz 2001. 14 Urbańczyk 2000b, 87.

72

Chapter 4

to its simplicity:15 its characteristics were simple and flexible patterns of settlement, basic forms of subsistence economy and a still not quite diversified social organization of local communities, though the latter tended to be surprisingly open towards outsiders.16 This simplicity, flexibility, and openness enabled a way of life which, evidently, responded most efficiently to the needs of the dwellers of early medieval Eastern Europe, who had never been affected by ancient Roman influence and who, moreover, were indeed capable of measuring up to the contemporary political and economic challenges. 2

Open Settlements

The early medieval demography and geography of Eastern Europe enabled the emergence of only very sparse and loose settlement structures. The enormous areas were thinly populated. Archaeologists estimate that some 1.5 to 3 million people might have lived in the whole of East-Central and Eastern Europe in the middle of the first millennium. By the year 1000, the figure grew to no more than 6.5–7.5 million.17 Given the environmental conditions, people tended to settle where they could, using the measures available to them, gain lands fit for agricultural activity while ensuring their community safe dwelling places. They mostly found adequate natural and geographical conditions close to standing and flowing waters. As a rule, they would set up their settlements on waterside terraces outside floodplains or on high sandy banks of rivers and brooks, low elevations amidst swampy areas or outright on isles. Water was indispensable for drinking as well as economic and farming needs and was of use in transport and conditioned food supplies. The Byzantine Strategikon observed in as early as the 6th and 7th centuries that the Slavs “have their dwelling places in the forests, by the rivers, on marshes and hard to cross swamps.”18 As a handbook of military art and drill, the text contains instructions and pieces of advice on how to resist efficiently the Slavic aggressors. Hence, the conditions in which the Slavs inhabiting the northern part of the lower Danube lived were of interest to the author (who probably was experienced in struggles against them) to the extent they seemed to be of relevance to the military issues. From this standpoint, the Strategikon highlighted the point that Slavic settlements were difficult to access, which was 15 16 17 18

See Pohl 2008, 28–34; Pohl 2018a, 124, 151, 154–162. See Urbańczyk 1998. See Fehring 1987; Samsonowicz 2009, 19–24. Das Strategikon, 372, 382; on the archaeological research see Fiedler 1992, 332–339.

Early Slavic Realities

73

noted somewhat later also by Theophylact Simocatta: in his words, in the face of an advancing Byzantine reconnaissance troop near the Yalomitsa/Ialomița River (north-west of what is Bucharest today) in the summer or autumn of 593 the Slavs withdrew “to the nearby wetlands and a thick forest.”19 The Strategikon further on finds that owing to the perils that oftentimes menace them, they build different exits in their dwellings. They amass the products indispensable for life in hiding, leaving nothing in a visible place.20 The author then explains in what ways Slavic colonization may influence the Byzantine war waging method. For instance, he advises that setting up military camps close to forests should be avoided, since forests provide shelter to those “plotting daring assaults and stealing beasts-of-burden.” Since their villages, situated along the rivers, are interconnected and there are no larger spaces between them, whereas the forests, swamps and areas overgrown with reed cleaving to them; it so happens that during the attacks at them, the entire army stops at the first settlement and does the fighting from it.21 Hence, the Byzantine attackers would have to oppose the force of an entire group of settlements. Not only are such written sources biased but they are also the exception. The outcome of archaeological research, however, bears its specific limitations, too. It allows only for selective insights into past realities. Already the very criteria of defining an archaeological site as a ‘settlement’ (or ‘hamlet’) vary considerably among excavators. Is a specified minimum number of pottery fragments sufficient, or are additional finds typical of settlements (tools/implements, spindle whorls, slag, animal bones) a must as well? Is a settlement identifiable only when movable finds are distributed across a given area and accompanied by immovable objects, such as remains of houses or hearth pits and hollows? The number of early Slavic sites known today in no way translates into the number of once-existing settlements. The importance of the condition of archaeological cartography in this context is demonstrated, for example, by the upper part of the Žitava valley. Within this Slovakian mesoregion, whose 19 Theophylacti Simocattae, 235. 20 Theophylacti Simocattae, 236. 21 Das Strategikon, 378, 382.

74

Chapter 4

size is approximately 20 × 25 km, no more than six sites were known until the 1950s; by 1995, their number grew to 184. Only five among them are dated to the 6th–8th centuries, whereas seventy-two come from the 9th or 10th century.22 Other methodological problems are due to the fact that archaeological sites identified as early Slavic settlements have only to a small extent been investigated archaeologically. Most of the information comes from surface finds or random rescue excavation works. Only for a small number of settlements the information has been gathered from planned excavations, albeit for quite limited areas. The relativity of the possibilities of gaining valid knowledge is best attested by the state of archaeological research in Lower Silesia and Eastern Holstein/Mecklenburg. In the Silesian case, only one23 of the 382 known settlements dated to the 6th–10th centuries has been successfully examined in detail by 1980; in the latter case, a total of 905 sites have been recognized as open settlements (as of 2015). Only for 385 of them, incidental observations during earthworks, surveys carried out by laypersons, or restricted dugouts have enabled insight into structures exceeding the ordinary ground-level research. Pits and hollows were found to appear in 228 cases only, hearths were discovered in a total of thirty-one sites, and relics of households (one or more half-sunken huts, or semi-sunken dwellings) in twenty-seven sites only. Large-scale archaeological excavations could be carried out at only six out of all 385 sites dated to the early- or middle-Slavic period (i.e. 8th–10th cc.); in two cases, ‘large-scale’ meant an excavation area of 200 to 700 sq. m, and in three others, 3,200–5,200; only in one of the cases the area equalled 13,000 sq. m. The settlements investigated as part of these six excavations featured loose developments with sunken floored huts organized either as a hamlet, as a structure of two rows of houses or displaying no ‘orde’ whatsoever. None of the above examples featured any perceptible differentiation between main and less important buildings, nor has it been found that the houses, pits and hollows, wells and hearths formed any groups of households.24 Apart from determining the function and structure of the archaeologically examined sites, their dating continues to be highly problematic. It still depends, in most cases, on the relative chronology offered by a typological and technological comparison of the ceramic material. There are virtually no finds (especially coins) that could help date settlement structures of the early 22 23 24

Ruttkay 1995, 278. The settlement excavated near Żukowice is dated into the 6th–7th centuries and consisted of ten houses arranged in two rows, see Lodowski 1980. Dulinicz 1993; Klammt 2015.

Early Slavic Realities

75

phases of colonization (5th–7th cc.) in absolute terms, nor do we dispose of wood/timber samples subject to dendrochronological dating; only very few are known which date to the later periods. Consequently, the dating of an early medieval archaeological site remains inexact, whereas most of the attempts at further chronological differentiation of data – that is, determination of individual settlement phases or horizons from the period concerned – have led to the formulation of only hypotheses. Determining the size of early Slavic settlements is difficult, if not prevented, by the fact that their remains are usually discovered only in part. Early medieval settlement complexes have been unveiled – incomplete or complete – in very few, rather unique, cases. But even the documentation and publication of the results of the excavation works often leaves much to be desired, which poses yet another problem. Consequently, the drawing of a possibly complete comparative picture of early Slavic settlement structures has not become a feasible exercise yet, as a matter of fact.25 The few completely investigated early Slavic settlements include Dessau-Mosigkau, situated on the central Elbe River, approximately 5 km south-west of the city of Dessau; the Bohemian Březno, located on the central Ohře/Eger River, 4 km west of Louny; and Rashkiv on the central Dniester River in northern Bukovina, approximately 20 km west of Khotyn. 2.1 Dessau-Mosigkau In the forty-nine urn cremation graves of the Prague type discovered at the highest elevation of Zoberberg, a total of twenty-seven adults aged thirty to forty, along with fourteen children aged eight to twelve were buried. The Dessau-Mosigkau settlement, which is most probably attributable to the Sorbian colonization area, was set up on the northern slope of a slight elevation called Zoberberg on the Elbe valley,26 in a place well protected against flooding. It was colonized already in prehistoric times. An early Slavic burial ground was discovered there in the 1930s; in 1961–64, in an area of 7,000 sq. m, the entire settlement related to it was unveiled. This made Dessau-Mosigkau one of the very few early Slavic settlements with the two components, the burial ground, and the settlement, completely investigated. 25

26

The extent literature therefore nearly exclusively deals with local and regional examples; for comprehensive studies on single meso-regions see: Podwińska 1971; Łosiński 1982; Kobyliński 1988; Moździoch 1996; Gojda 1988; Donat 1998; Ruttkay 1999; Kolenda 2001; Nekuda 2004; Dulinicz 2001, 165–181. Voigt 1942; Krüger 1967.

76

Chapter 4

On the burial ground situated at the top of the Zoberberg a total of fortynine graves were discovered; they contained traces of twenty-seven adults aged 30 to 40 and fourteen children aged 8 to 12 years. Within the settlement the archaeologists discovered forty-four square-shaped dugouts and more than 120 hollows or pits. They have been divided into five chronological horizons, which were to cover the whole of the 7th and early 8th centuries. The settlement seemingly consisted, in each phase, of not more than eight to ten sunken-floored huts. No relics of stable buildings, barns or parcel fences have been found. The houses, whose average size was 16 sq. m, were arranged into a semicircle open toward the Elbe and formed a loose hamlet or farmstead. Its total area was not exceeding 2,000 sq. m, the number of dwellers residing in it at a time being estimated at thirty to fifty. No tendency for expansion of the settlement has been detected for any of the five phases under research. No protective barrier such as a moat or palisade has been discovered. Finally, the settlement was desolated and, possibly, removed to a nearby stronghold. 2.2 Březno Situated in the earliest colonization area of Bohemia, Březno was set up at the lowest terrace level of the right bank of the Ohře/Eger River.27 It formed a natural, complete, and self-contained whole whose area was less than 8 ha, enclosed by the river and the nearby hills. The entire area has been investigated archeologically. Relics of the functioning of colonization activities were found in a strip that was 320-metre long and 70 m wide, this forming 1.79 ha of the area adjacent to the terrace’s edge. The forty-one half-dugouts and seventy-six hollows found within the area were assigned to three temporal horizons, which overlapped only in the western and central parts whereas in the eastern part only traces of the earliest horizon, dated at the end of the 8th to the end of the 9th/early 10th century, are visible, which attests to a rather long duration of the settlement. Both earlier horizons seem to represent clearly shorter colonization periods between which, as it were, discontinuation occurred. For the earliest settlement, dated based on the pieces of ceramics of the Prague-Korchak type at the end of the 6th to the middle of the 7th centuries, the remains of eight, mostly square-shaped, half-sunken huts, and eighteen hollows/pits grouped semicircularly around an undeveloped square have been discovered. Equipped with a stone stove in the north-western corner and a great pole in the centre of the southern wall, the houses had a floor area of 10–11 sq. m, their floors dug into the ground down to approximately 90–110 cm; 27 Pleinerová 1975; Pleinerová 2000; for a more cautious dating and functional interpretation see Klápště 2007a.

Early Slavic Realities

77

the floor areas were between 19.3 sq. m. and 7.5 sq. m. The second settlement horizon, with ceramic objects dating to the ‘earlier hillfort’ period, showed a different picture; it seems to have emerged after a pause in the settlement, in the last decades of the 7th century, and existed into the mid-8th century. The eight or nine houses discovered in this horizon did not form a hamlet or circular/ring-shaped village; instead, they spread in an irregular line on the bank of the Ohře/Eger. Also, the sizes and structure of these houses were different: these buildings were less hollow (up to 40–45 cm below the ground), their average floor area equalled 7 sq. m (the sizes of the individual houses being between 4.4 sq. m and 10.8 sq. m). Apart from the houses, twenty-five cavities or pits have been documented, some of which were deep reserve pits (possibly, cereal containers), and some were diversely formed, shallower pits whose function proved undeterminable based on the fills. The development of the third horizon, which took place directly afterward, covered the site’s entire area. It consisted of twenty-three houses from different periods, two indefinite objects and twenty-seven cavities, which can be split into three villages dating to the same time. The houses in the western part were arranged semicircularly around a free space, similarly as in the earliest type of settlement. In the centre of the ground, a deep rectangular hollow was discovered encased with timber, which probably was a well. The researchers carrying out the excavations identify this object as a planned rural complex which included no more than six houses at a time. Traces of a similar complex, initially featuring four and subsequently seven houses, have been discovered in the latest horizon, in the central part of the site. The eight houses discovered in the site’s eastern part, in the latest horizon, were arranged in a terraced manner, partly along the east-west line along the bank of the Ohře/Eger, and partly along the north-south line, along the brook. The sunken floored hut was continuously the prevalent type of house, however its depth and forms of the base were more diversified (apart from square forms, rectangular and strikingly narrow ones appeared), while ovens were no more situated in the north-western corner only. Moreover, apart from sunken floored buildings, three ground-level residential structures have been identified. Corresponding with the higher diversity of construction forms were their diverse sizes, oscillating between 6 and 17 sq. m. A two-segment house appears there for the first time, with an entryway (12 sq. m) separated by a wall from the actual residential area (17 sq. m). Of the twenty-seven hollows discovered in the latest horizon, reserve pits accounted for half. No adjacent burial ground has been discovered, despite large-area excavations carried out within and outside the settlement, which only found two single graves. No traces of any protective structures (such as moats, palisades) were found. Therefore, we are

78

Chapter 4

dealing here with a complex of open villages that existed one after the other and, in the youngest horizon, one beside the other. 2.3 Rashkiv Situated on the right bank of the middle Dniester, the early Slavic settlement complex of Rashkiv, researched in the years 1960–80, was composed of three villages located at 500 to 1,000 m from each other. Two of them, Rashkiv I and Rashkiv III, have been discovered almost completely, whereas Rashkiv II, owing to the forest overgrowing it, was accessible only partly. Rashkiv I was dated at the 7th to 9th centuries and seen by the researchers as a direct follow-up of Rashkiv II and Rashkiv III. The settlement stretched along a strip of land, 15–30 m wide and 250 long, within which a total of eighty residential buildings and eighty-one hollows were located. Relying on pottery fragments and archeomagnetic investigations, three chronological phases or four development horizons have been signed out. Phase A, including 15 residential buildings, functioned in the second half of the 7th century; Phase B, featuring thirty-four houses split into two development horizons, is dated at the first half of the 8th century; lastly, Phase C, with its thirty-one houses, existed in the second half of the 8th and first half of the 9th centuries. Therefore, in its first two phases, the settlement might have consisted of at least ten to twelve residential buildings functioning at the same time; as it seems, the developments grew slightly denser during the third phase. All the residential buildings were dug into the ground at 60–120 cm, most of them being square half-dugouts with sizes of 6 to 19.5 sq. m. The floor-areas of forty-eight buildings were 9 to 15.5 sq. m. The houses were arranged linearly (not in a straight line) along the river, whereas it seems that individual buildings formed a small complex composed of one to three buildings situated one beside the other. Whether the buildings’ arrangement reflected the relations of kinship or social relations – as the excavation team believes – remains doubtful, though.28 As it seems, Rashkiv I had once replaced Rashkiv II and Rashkiv III, dated to the end of the 5th to 7th centuries. Rashkiv III was erected at that site only on the lowest, 8–12 m wide, terrace of the Dniester bank. The settlement stretched 500 m upwards from the estuary of a small river flowing into the Dniester. On the 4,800 sq. m area where the excavations were carried out, a total of ninety-two residential buildings were found, along with two ground-level buildings and fifty-three pits or hollows. Situated in parallel to the river, the residential buildings were rather small as their floor areas ranged from 4.4 28

Detailed documentation of the excavations in Rashkiv I in Baran 2007.

Early Slavic Realities

79

to 12.3 sq. m; all of them were equipped with a stone oven, placed in one of the corners, and had a log-frame structure. More than a half of these houses were dug into the ground at 50–65 cm, the others at 15 cm (one), 30–35 cm (eighteen), or 70–95 cm (nineteen). Four farming-related pits and seventy-nine houses have been attributed, based on pottery samples and archeomagnetic data, to three time-periods: twenty-one houses and two hollows are dated at the end of the 5th/beginning of the 6th century; twenty-three houses and one pit are from the 6th century; another thirty-five houses and one pit, from the 7th century. Considering the fact that not all the buildings ascribed to one horizon actually existed at the same time, even if the objects for which the dates have not been determined are included, it turns out that the settlement could not contain more than ten to twelve houses at a time. The excavation team assume that all the buildings documented for one horizon existed at the same time and most of these twenty-one to thirty-five houses within one horizon formed regular groups of buildings, or homesteads, which obviously remains a conjecture. Likewise, the statement that homesteads consisting of two to three buildings were abodes of seven to nine large patriarchal families, whereas in the three settlement horizons there lived, on average, 84–105 (the first and earliest horizon), 92–115 (second) and 140–175 people (third), is not to be proved based on archaeological finds.29 The picture that emerges from the research carried out on these three completely unveiled settlements has largely been confirmed by numerous settlements that have only partly been examined. The major criteria deciding the choice of the place to live included access to a source of water, type of subsoil, and topography. Sites without access to water were avoided, as were poor-quality soils. Settlers preferred close distance to waters but willingly chose places with gentle slopes, which facilitated the outflow of surface waters. Areas with loess and black-earth soils were appreciated, but there was no single specified type of soil that was decisive as far as the choice of place was concerned. It was access to various soils and, consequently, the opportunity to pursue diverse agricultural or farming activities, that was vital. The chosen place had to open access to the dips near the water, the afforested upland areas and sandy or sandy-and-argillaceous pastures in the valleys. As a result, one could deal in the adjacent areas with flock-tending and fishery, forest management and grazing in the woods, husbandry, and cattle breeding, thus making a full use of the area’s potential. 29

Baran 1986.

80

Chapter 4

The space to develop and manage was won by way of slash-and-burn cultivation; no land improvement work was performed yet. When the potential of the arable land and pastures neared exhaustion, the settlement would be moved to a new place, not far from the previous one, so that new areas of land could be used. Limited durability of the construction materials, fluctuating groundwater levels, and changeable climatic conditions contributed to a lack of stability and mobility of early Slavic settlements. Procopius of Caesarea noted in as early as the mid-6th century that the Slavs living north of the Danube “dwelled in wretched huts, at a considerable distance from one another, each of them oftentimes changing their abode.”30 This observation is tellingly confirmed by the archaeological research of the settlement complex of Dulceanca. Situated 25 km north-west of what is today the Romanian town of Alexandria, close to the Vedea River, which flows into the Danube, the site has unveiled a cluster of hamlets which during the period of a hundred years replaced one another at short intervals. The first of them (Dulceanca I), consisting of fifteen buildings, was deserted in the early 6th century; in the second half of the 6th century, a new hamlet that had replaced Dulceanca I, erected approximately 1 km away of it, was replaced by yet another one, situated more to the south (Dulceanca III), which consisted, according to the research, of nine buildings and which was replaced, in turn, in the 7th century by a fourth hamlet (referred to as Dulceanca IV).31 The areas abandoned because of such removals were soon overgrown with forests, so the real area gained for economic purposes long lasted unexpanded in any significant way. The early Slavic colonization landscape consisted of a mosaic of small clearances on rivers and lakes, separated one from the other by areas where marshes and woods were common. Since several villages formed ‘settlement nests’ embracing a few to a dozen single settlements at a maximum distance of 2 km from one another, it was possible to develop larger settlement enclaves. Such clusters are encountered primarily in Ukraine, southern Poland, Bohemia, and on the Danube. However, it seems that a growth in the population, attested by the density of appearance of archaeological finds (which tends to increase with time), occurred only in the middle of the 8th century. All the same, the area of the cultural landscape per enclave normally did not exceed a few square kilometres. Also, in the places where several settlement enclaves merged into larger open spaces – which was the case primarily with centres with beneficial transport and economic conditions – they still formed rather small isles surrounded by large primeval-forest massifs. 30 Procopii Caesariensis Bd. 2, 357–360. 31 Dolinescu-Ferche 1992; Curta 2001a, 276–277; Curta 2021a, 134.

Early Slavic Realities

81

Lost amidst forests, the Slavic settlements were small and unfortified. The completely unveiled sites and estimate calculations made based on probability samples have shown that most of them had an area of half a hectare maximum, many being merely 0.1–0.2 ha. This does not preclude the existence of larger villages, set up in special conditions – such as those located north of the lower Danube, which were described around the year 600 in the Strategikon.32 Usually, however, villages consisted of a small number (3–10 or 5–15) loosely distributed small residential buildings surrounded by settlement hollows, which were used for diverse purposes. The way in which the houses were arranged, semicircular or terraced, was probably primarily based on the local topography; the narrow river-bank terraces forced a terraced arrangement, with houses built in one or two more or less even rows along the river. However, no development from unordered settlements with dispersed built-up areas in the earliest settlement horizons to organized and planned terraced developments in the younger horizons is clearly identifiable. Although both forms appeared, from time to time, one after the other, they appeared in parallel at the same time as well. Several archaeologists assume that already in the earliest colonization phases several buildings with different functions formed together husbandry units, homesteads or farmhouses, or dwellings. However, there is no certain evidence that it was so in the early Slavic time, since no trace of relevant extraneous buildings (such as stables or barns) or borderlines (fences) between the parcels have been found; neither do we know of any roads linking the complexes.33 3

Living Houses

According to Procopius, around the middle of the 6th century, the Sklavenoi on the lower Danube resided in “wretched huts”; as per the 7th-century Miracula Sancti Demetrii, those from the vicinity of Thessaloniki dwelled in “wattle cottages.” A 10th-century Arabic travel descriptions informed that the Ṣaqāliba in Central and Eastern Europe lived in wooden houses.34 Although these testimonies are quite modest, two interesting conclusions can be drawn based on them. First, non-Slavic contemporaries of the 6th to 10th centuries apparently treated the Slavic construction type as a particular trait differentiating the Slavs from other people; second, there was apparently some diversity in this 32 Das Strategikon, 384. 33 Brather 2001a, 109–110; Curta 2021a, 145–147. 34 Relacja Ibrāhīma, 54; Źródła arabskie 2,2, 27; see Lewicka-Rajewska 2004, 160–163.

82

Chapter 4

construction. Interpretations proposed by modern archaeologists basically follow these two directions. Many archaeologists still see in the early Slavic residential house a material symbol of early Slavic ethnic community. In this sense, particularly the square sunken floored hut with a corner stove or hearth would be “one of the main expression of the awareness of ‘being a Slav’.”35 In parallel, the results of concrete excavations show a diverse typology, which apparently is evidence that there was not one construction method that was binding across the territory of Slavic colonization.36 Apart from the prevalent square sunken floored hut, rectangular, oval-shaped and circular buildings appear among the excavated objects; along with the houses only slightly dug into the ground (10– 30 cm), there are one-metre-deep ones. Ground-level houses can be seen apart from half-dugouts; along with the log-frame structure, with walls erected using tree trunks arranged horizontally one above the other, buildings with post-and-beam structure can be found, with the frame filled with wattle and clay, or with timber. In parallel with very small houses with sizes of 4 to 8 sq. m, houses of 12–16 sq m have been discovered as well. Houses have been found whose two-sloped roofs were founded directly on the hollow’s wall, alongside ones whose roofs were supported against ground-level walls or against one central pole, or two poles placed within the gable walls and supporting the ridge. Houses with clay or stone cupola stoves and open hearths have been found. In most of the houses, ovens were placed in one of the corners, and in some they were fixed in the wall’s centre. The floors were made of sand or compact clay, and were covered with braided mats or, at times, timber planks. These diverse types of buildings mostly appeared at the same time, though the basic methodological problem related to dating obviously makes it difficult to determine the age of early Slavic objects and sites. Based on the differentiating feature ‘sunken floored’ / ‘ground-level’, a geographical division into two zones or two large regions can be identified. In the southern zone, stretching from the Dnieper, through the upper Vistula and Oder valleys, up to the central Elbe or the Saale, or up to the central or lower Danube, sunken floored buildings were certainly prevalent. In the northern zone, which stretched from the upper Daugava/Western Dvina River, through the area of central and upper Vistula and Oder, and Lower Lusatia, up to Mecklenburg and Eastern Holstein, objects mostly appeared with indefinite, mainly oval, outline of the base and reniform or irregular bowl-shaped hollows. Such hollows mostly had a depth 35 36

See Kobyliński 1998, 52. Rappoport 1975; Donat 1980; Dostál 1987; Brather 2001b; Šalkovský 1998; Šalkovský 2001; Cygan 2006.

Early Slavic Realities

83

of 50 cm, size 2 × 3m. No trace of oven has been found in any of them; holes into which the posts were once fixed have been discovered in some. Hence their interpretation as underground parts (small cellars, thermal insulations, or hearths) of ground-level houses, which – since there are no pole traces – should probably be figured out as log-frame structures or light-structure cottages that left no trace, on the ground or elsewhere.37 Already the division into two zones based on two different forms of construction relativizes the argument whereby the early Slavic house was a material expression of identification or membership with an ethnic group. As the establishment and structure of the settlements were determined, in the first place, by topographic conditions, the form and making of the houses, too, primarily depended on natural conditions, including climate, substratum, groundwater level, and other practical aspects. The sunken floored type was the dominant type in the south and southern-east parts of Eastern Europe (where their different variants appeared in the area before the early Slavic period as well), for the stable and dry loess soils enabled to place the households in a hollowed-out ground. What is more, the severer continental climate made this solution more reasonable as the hollow was a better protection against frost in the winter and heat in the summer.38 The damp soils of the plain areas of the north and northern-west parts of East-Central and Eastern Europe would have made them irrelevant due to the milder climate and impractical owing to high groundwater levels. The fact, that in these areas nevertheless from time to time earlier archaeological horizons do also feature relics of the sunken floored huts,39 may be evidence that during the earlier migration phase (6th–7th centuries) the house building tradition derived from the East European forest-steppe territories had indeed spread from the areas on the Dnieper, Dniester and Prut toward the south and west. Apparently, it could not be cultivated under the different natural and topographic conditions prevalent in the north-western part of Central Europe, which shows that practical needs, rather than a desire to express the ethnic or cultural identity, was the factor of primary importance to the form and development of housing construction.40 37 38 39 40

Dulinicz 2001, 123–139. This effect of the hollows is confirmed by an interesting experiment of ‘practical archaeology’ performed in Březno, Pleinerová 1986, 152. Dulinicz 2001, 143–150. As emphasized by Brather 2017, esp. 38–39 half-sunken huts with a corner stove/hearth, which therefore can not be regarded as economic buildings, are met also within Western parts of Central Europe, thus “neither the East nor the West of Europe [appears] as culturally uniform.” It was first of all the function that decided on what type of house was

84

Chapter 4

Whether the houses were erected as log or pole structures depended primarily on the practical aspect of availability of timber as the construction material. The appearance of log structures as a typically ‘Slavic’ form of construction tends to be associated with the fact that straight tree trunks necessary for the construction could be obtained in considerable amounts from East European forests and forest-steppes, whereas elsewhere – among the Polabian Slavs, for instance – timber could be a scarce commodity, and probably this is, why pole structures were preferred. Moreover, no ‘ethnical correlation’ between the Slavs and the log construction is identifiable as the technique was in use also for example in Scandinavia and in the South German foothills. The decisive role of regional conditions can be spotted also in the Western Balkans and Adriatic coastal regions, with their specific natural conditions and perceptible influence of Byzantine culture. Moreover, as the Slavs quite frequently colonized ruined Byzantine castella and deserted late Roman towns, their construction developed there very differently than in Central and Eastern Europe. A hollowed half-dugout, often encountered in northern Bulgaria (alongside the Proto-Bulgar yurt), can only sporadically be met in the areas south of the Danube.41 On the other hand, the Slavs took over regional house building elements such as the use of dried bricks.42 The decisive influence of natural factors is finally indicated also by the smooth transition observable between the zone of predominantly sunken floored structures and the zone of ground-level buildings in the form of regionally differentiated cavity depths and in the settlements where both types of house are encountered. Furthermore, it can not be excluded that in the dry loess grounds in the south and south-east, archaeologists have simply not detected the incomparably less clear traces of ground houses, which might have actually existed there alongside the dominant sunken floored dwellings.43 4

Subsistence Economy

In the beginning of the early Slavic period, the dwellers of the described houses and small settlements pursued a natural and self-sufficient economy, built. “The cultural context did play only a secondary role and thus the early medieval half-sunken hut simply can neither be called “typical Slavic” nor “Germanic.” 41 Văzharova 1965, 12–88; Ziemann 2007b, 173–176. 42 Malingoudis 1987, 65. 43 See Steuer 2013, 106.

Early Slavic Realities

85

oriented toward physical survival and primarily based on land husbandry.44 We do not know much at all about the organization and sizes of the fields belonging to the settlements. In any case, the developed area and arable fields usually formed a small unit with clearly set borders. In the Bohemian locality of Březno, for instance, it extended to a trapezoid-shaped area of 180 ha, within which, adjacent to the houses, 50–60 ha of high-value soil was contained. Similar conditions are observable in other places as well. It may therefore be concluded that the fields were usually situated in direct vicinity of the village’s developed area. Depending on the topographic conditions, their shapes were probably irregular, and their sizes varied. They were probably separated from one another by shrubs, fallow-lands, small brooks, and coppices. It is not clear whether the cultivation was done by individual families, or it was done by all the settlement’s residents, as a collective effort. No three-field system was in use yet; instead, extensive meadow farming was pursued, which consisted in continuous cultivation of the field until the ground was exhausted, after which the whole settlement was moved on. This is attested by a relatively short life of the earliest colonization horizons and a very small number of pieces of agricultural equipment found in such sites. It was only at a later stage, which is hard to date precisely, and which appeared at different times, depending on the region, that meadow farming was replaced by a regulated fallow system, consisting in cultivation of field (and, probably altering the cereals species), until it became showing signs of exhaustion, a few years later. Then, it was left fallow and untilled for the same number of years, or was temporarily used as a meadow or pasture, or for cultivation grain legumes. Cereals were grown in the adjacent field, until left fallow and cereal cultivation resumed in the preceding field. However, it seems that in this system, as soon as the ground became infertile, the settlement would be removed so that, by clearing the forest, completely fresh grounds could be gained. Based on the relics of plants that have been found, impressions of parts of plants on ceramic objects and analysis of pollens, the spectrum of the cultivated cereals can be determined. Initially, spring cereals such as wheat, barley, or millet were most probably prevalent. Instead of monococcum or dicoccum wheat, a demanding variety was used. This was accompanied, perhaps somewhat later, by the growing of rye, which, as a more durable winter cereal, 44

Hensel 1987, 16–166; Beranová 1980, 143–314; Beranová 1984; Donat/Lange 1983; Herrmann 1981a; Herrmann 1985a; Herrmann/Müller 1985; Henning 1987; Barford 2005; Hardt 2008a, 751–755, Hardt 2014b, 570–572; for a recent reflection on the concept of ‘subsistence economy’ see Curta 2021a, 255–261.

86

Chapter 4

ensured safe harvest also in poorer soils. With the spreading of parallel cultivation of spring and winter grains, which is confirmed by the sources from not earlier than the 10th century,45 a better annual distribution of farming activities became possible; thereby, the production of cereals intensified for the first time. These developments are indicated also by farming implements, which in the earliest settlement horizons appeared very rarely, while becoming increasingly numerous in the younger settlement strata. The implements attested by the archaeological material included wooden ploughs (sokhas), hoes, sickles, querns and, in the earlier horizons, ploughshares, and iron coulters. Farming was done with use of a simple wooden plough, with which the ground could merely be incised, crumbled, and scarified, without reversing the ridges. The wooden ploughshare, which wore down quicker, was later (though not everywhere) replaced by its iron counterpart, thus considerably ameliorating the efficiency of the tillage. Cross-ploughing enabled the use of the plough, even if wooden, to plough up the field systematically, efficiently remove the weeds and roots, and easily circumvent the bigger tree trunks and stones. The plough or sokha, drawn by a pair of yoked oxen, was therefore an adequate tool to use on a freshly cleared ground. Procopius of Caesarea was the first to note that the Slavs bred cattle and thus had draught oxen at their disposal.46 With use of wooden harrows or large tree-crowns, the ploughed-up field was smoothened, while at the same time the sowing was done. The cereals were reaped with a sickle, with only the spikes held in the reaper’s hand being cut. The straw left over in the field was burnt; the grain, flailed with wooden flails or rods and hulled, was kept in vessels made of clay, wood, or bark, in clay bathtubs or bags. In dry soiled areas, cereals were stored also in ground pits. Such storage facilities, laid with straw, perhaps additionally isolated with singed walls, and located near the houses initially had hollow bottoms and horizontal walls. Their volumes in the case of the carefully examined objects from the Březno settlement ranged from 200 and 700 litres. In the earliest two phases of the Březno colonization, they were pear-shaped or formed into a sort of bag with a narrowed opening reminding a bottleneck, which could be covered by a large stone or a piece of wood and sealed tightly with use of clay. It seems that cereals could be stored in this way so that they did not lose their germination/sprouting capacity and were protected from pests. The storage volume grew to 300–1200 litres and to 400–1900 l in the second

45 Relacja Ibrāhīma, 52; see Lewicka-Rajewska 2004, 81–86. 46 Procopii Caesariensis Bd. 2, 357–360.

Early Slavic Realities

87

and third horizon,47 respectively, which is indicative of a gradual increase in productivity between the 7th and 9th centuries. As is confirmed by the quern stones, wheat or rye grains were ground in manually operated querns.48 The flour, in its crudely ground and sieved form, was used to bake bread or flatbread (flat cake), normally in the house stove; remains of buildings which might be possibly interpreted as ‘baking houses’ have been encountered sporadically. Mashed millet was primarily used in preparation of groats, the very basic meal, whereas oats was important also as horse fodder. As part of crop rotation, grain legumes were grown along with cereals, such as peas, beans, lentils, and vetch, which moreover made the soil more fecund and productive. Cucumbers, onions, radishes, turnips, and pumpkins were grown in the gardens; of the fruiters, cherry trees, apple trees, pear trees, several varieties of plum trees and peaches were the most popular.49 Of the spices, parsley and garlic were known, along with walnuts and, as domesticated plants, hemp, and linen, from which oil was obtained, as well as yarns and fabrics manufactured. The importance of agriculture and horticulture for the early Slavic society is reflected by the relevant early Slavic terms, diverse as they are, preserved in the numerous borrowings in Middle Greek and other languages.50 Apart from husbandry/agriculture and horticulture, the Slavs dealt with cattle growing, fishing, collecting, and, to a much smaller extent, hunting. Remains of wild animal bones account only for a fraction (of approx. 5% on average; up to 10%, at times) in the spectrum of the animal bones found. However, already the Byzantine Strategikon notes that the Slavs living on the Danube “have animals of all the sorts in abundance.”51 As the bone material encountered in the sediments communicates, it was primarily horned cattle and swine – the animals which were easy to maintain while also ensuring fast and efficient obtaining of food; cattle was, moreover, of use as draught and working animals. Among the bones that have been found, sheep and goats are less frequently represented. Oxen, sheep, and goats were kept not only because of their meat but also for the sake of manufacture of dairies as well as obtaining furs and leathers. Diverse types of poultry, primarily hens, gave eggs; horses were used for riding, whereas dogs and cats functioned as domestic animals. As stables were most probably unknown, the number of cattle was probably 47 48 49 50 51

Pleinerová 2000, 211–221. Krauss/Jeute 1998. Beranová 1972. Malingoudis 1987, 57, 66. Das Strategikon, 372; see Beranová 1966.

88

Chapter 4

reduced for the winter season and the animals were left outside. For some animals, especially swine, forest pastures were used. Forestry encompassed apiculture, pitch-burning and charcoal burning, picking up blueberries and mushrooms, and obtaining raw materials such as firewood and construction timber, horns, and leathers. The waters, which were always accessible nearby, provided fish which were caught with use of fishing poles, hoop nets or fish traps, nets, and weirs. The tools and equipment necessary in the agriculture and farming, in the household and in daily life, as well as in unique situations such as struggle and defence – including vessels, implements, farming tools, means of transport, buildings, and weapons – were initially manufactured for the household’s and farm’s own needs, mostly within the farmstead, as part of autarkic housework. In any case, archaeologists discovered no significant traces of specialized craftsmanship from the 6th to 8th centuries.52 This is not to say that certain technical or technological knowledge and skills were not used in the settlements. As movable finds (incl. spindle whorls, loom weights, tiny appliances, arrowheads, and spears) can tell us, along with immovable objects (housing buildings), the people processed stones, wood/timber, leathers, horns, and bones, produced fabrics and clothes, manufactured weapons, and potted vessels. The implements manufactured for these purposes were no less simple than the artefacts made with their use. The pottery was unornamented; the vessels were potted manually or thrown on a manual potter’s wheel. Horn and bone products were simple; metals were rare, while alien materials from more remote places were virtually unknown. Thus, the diverse domestic manufacturing was easily practiced individually. It might, however, have been done in community as well. For instance, the ceramic vessels, formed manually from pre-prepared clay bands, modelled, and smoothened in individual households, were probably baked in shared furnaces, partly dug into the earth – such as the object found in the outskirts of the Dessau-Mosigkau settlement. Houses were probably built as a teamwork action as well. Also other, more complicated, works were done together by the village dwellers. Theophylact Simocatta53 tells us that the groups of Slavic warriors opposing Byzantine forces in the Balkans would many a time build dugout canoes and rafts jointly. It can therefore be supposed that also in other regions the Slavic communities that inhabited riverbank areas were skilled in production of light boats and, most probably, did it together.

52 Schuldt 1980; Hensel 1987; Donat 1985. 53 Theophylacti Simocattae, 225–226.

Early Slavic Realities

89

More specialized knowledge than the one needed for construction of boats and houses was needed for the processing of iron and other metals. Archaeological sources testify that the relevant know-how was initially not quite common and only developed gradually.54 In the first settlement horizons from the 5th to 7th centuries, almost no iron objects were discovered; those found were very simple indeed – knives, fishing-rod hooks, or nails. The spectrum of local iron processing was apparently very limited. Only the younger early Slavic horizons, from the 8th and 10th centuries, feature increasing numbers of objects made of iron: apart from simple artefacts, more complicated objects, implements, and weapons appeared. The foundry iron necessary for their production was obtained from bog iron or morass ore, which was abundantly accessible in several places. Ore appeared right under the surface, in the strata whose thickness was between 10 cm and 50 cm; hence, it could be easily picked over or dug out. The numerous Slavic toponyms with the element -ruda (‘ore’) are indicative of the ore’s appearance and of the awareness of this fact in the early Middle Ages. Since this raw material, produced through precipitation of iron oxides from ground waters, owing to its mineral composition required a relatively low melting point against a rather high iron content, it could be smelted even in primitive hearths. Special furnaces, usually situated outside the settlements and therefore rarely found by archaeologists, came into use soon afterward. As attested by well-documented examples from Bohemia/Czech Republic, such facilities had a circular tiny (slag) hollow laid with clay, above which a cylindrical clay shaft, approximately 1-metre high. With use of a bellows, the air indispensable for the smelting was delivered through the holes situated right above the ground. Such bloomeries or shaft furnaces were rather small sized until the 9th/10th century. They did not work at very high temperatures yet, but the smelting process run for several hours could produce approx. 2–3 kg of semi-liquid metallic iron. Its quality was heavily dependent on random factors. Conditional upon the content of coal, soft forgeable iron or temperable steel was produced. Intentional production of high-carbon iron alloys became feasible later. Once obtained, the slate containing many bubbles and an excessive amount of slag was purified and subjected to further processing through heating and forging. As it seems, smiths had most probably known earlier how to combine different sorts of crude iron and temper, knife and axe blades. Given the modest dimension of blacksmith activities, the smiths living in the 5th to 7th/ 54

For a recent overview on the archaeological evidence for any sort of crafts and craft specialization in the 6th–7th centuries see Curta 2021a, 262–272.

90

Chapter 4

8th centuries were not specialized artisans who practiced smithery on a commercial basis or as the sole source of subsistence.55 Although their activity was not overly complicated, they no doubt had at their disposal the relevant know-how and adequate implements (tongs, hammer, anvil, bellows, final processing tools); both must have been diligently guarded and passed on to the descendants. Yet, they probably had in their workshops a limited, seasonally produced (as may be guessed), stock of foundry metal, and did not pursue regional trade. They seem to have produced a rather narrow array of objects for a small circle of consumers from their direct vicinity, otherwise making a living on other domains of self-sufficient economy, mainly, agriculture. It was only since the late 8th or early 9th century that iron processing intensified in the emerging strongholds whereas the demand for pig iron grew.56 Processing of coloured metals and production of ornaments in the period between the 5th and 8th centuries is attested by the scarce clay moulds and casting melting pots.57 Since the areas inhabited by the Slavs offered no easily accessible deposits of non-ferrous metals, their residents were dependent on importing the adequate raw materials. Such imports were most probably brought into early Slavic settlements primarily in the form of spoils-of-war or donated gifts. Objects made of bronze and precious metals, very rarely found in such sites, came from the Avar Khaganate, the Byzantine Empire, and the Frankish Kingdom. It was, apparently, only at the end of the 8th/beginning of the 9th century, as interregional exchange of goods and far-reaching trade developed, that silver in the form of Arabic dirhams and other objects made of precious metals became more broadly accessible.58 Neither in the husbandry or farming economy nor in the manufacture of implements and utilitarian objects, early Slavic villages and settlement communities achieved surpluses that might have become the basis for development

55 See Curta 2021a, 101, 107–108, 115–116, 120, 130 (here the following quotation), 210, who maintains with recourse to new archaeological evidence, that in some regions of Eastern Europe specialized “industrial” activities, especially in metalworking, were established already at that time, e.g. in Roztoky near Prague (one of the largest excavated 7th-century settlements of Eastern Europe), which Curta interprets as a “very large ‘service settlement’ […], the intention [of which] was to create an industrial center […] under the control of the Avars.” For the extraordinary, unique and puzzling site of Roztoky see also Kuna et al. 2013, who, however, (59) emphasize that “the site lacks finds that would allow for a clear interpretation in terms of its function.” 56 See Pleiner 1958; Piaskowski 1974; Mamzer 1988; Heindel 1990; Heindel 1993. 57 Schmidt 1994b. 58 Noonan 1980; Łosiński 1988, 103–106; Brather 1995/96; Adamczyk 2014, 31–37.

Early Slavic Realities

91

of regular trading relations.59 Insofar as exchange of commodities outside the limits of individual settlements and colonized areas was ever practiced, it probably usually assumed the form of barter or was done as part of ritual exchange of gifts. Such exchange of natural products and objects was practiced when it came to entering or keeping up kinship relations, entering contacts with the adjacent settlement communities and, at times, hosting foreigners.60 However, non-Slavs would generally not launch deep into the Slavic settlement areas, beyond the zones of Slavic-Byzantine and Slavic-Frankish contacts. Lastly, gifts were offered not only to people but also to imagined embodiments and phenomena of the invisible world. 5

Practices of Cult and Religion

Almost nothing is known about the religious beliefs of the early Slavs and the cults they practiced. Since they did not practise any literacy there are no written sources that would directly concern their worldviews. And apart from one exception, there are also no contemporary testimonies known to us that would describe Slavic cult practices from an external perspective. Hence the researchers’ efforts to reconstruct early Slavic religious ideas is dependent on archaeological evidence and indirect linguistic testimonies, such as names of localities and concepts or terms related to the beliefs. Special care has been focused on interpreting the names of various deities and on constituting a sui generis Slavic pantheon based on them.61 However, the thus reconstructed etymologies have appeared to be mutually preclusive in the details and too vague to achieve on their basis a coherent picture of the worshiped deities and religious practices related to them. Moreover, some scholars have ignored the fact that certain names of the gods might have in fact been invented or coined at a much later date. For example, the name of Daž(d)bogъ, the alleged god of fire, has probably came out of a linguistic misunderstanding: the missionaries considered the Slavic welcome formula daždь Bogъ (‘may God give you happiness’) to have been a pagan theonym.62 The first compiler of the “Tale of the Bygone Years” (Povest’ 59 The modest (archaeological) evidence testifying for “trade and non-commercial exchanges” in the 6th–7th centuries discussed in Curta 2021a, 273–292. 60 See Lübke 2001, 122–126, 158–160. 61 Łowmiański 1979; Rybakov 1981; Gieysztor 1982; Ivanov/Toporov 1982; Váňa 1992; Strzelczyk 1998; Szyjewski 2003; Urbańczyk 2000b, 146–158; Reiter 2009; Klammt/Mayer/Roth 2017; Szczepanik 2018a; Sikorski 2018; Dynda 2020. 62 Moszyński 2005, 99.

92

Chapter 4

vremennych let), the earliest chronicle of Rus’, compiled at the end of the 11th century, used the foreign theonyms: Chorsъ, Stribogъ, and Sěmarglъ, probably of Iranian origin, along with the names of native deities he was familiar with: Perunъ and (the alleged) Dažbogъ.63 The late medieval Polish chronicler Jan Długosz, who was familiar with the Greek and Roman mythologies, tended to replace the ancient names of deities with fictitious Slavic names and invented completely new names such as Pogoda – for the god of weather, or Żywie – for the god of life.64 There are no early medieval testimonies that would provide reliable information on early Slavic mythology. It seems that deities with human facial features who contested with one another were unknown to early Slavs  – in contrast to the Greeks, Romans and Germani. Early scholarly interpretations of this sort seem to have been based on misunderstandings and erroneous assumptions: in any case, there are no reliable philological or historical testimonies, or ethnographic sources, which would confirm the existence of a ‘Slavic’ family of deities and the competencies of individual gods. Gods in a human form are attested for certain only for the Polabian and Eastern Slavs between the 10th and the 12th centuries. Based on linguistic research, all the Slavs seem to have been familiar with a higher being which they would describe as a bogъ. Translatable as ‘giver of good/distributor of riches’, the word bogъ, derived from the Iranian baga or Old Indian bhaga, appears in all the Slavic languages and probably dates to a very early time; Byzantine and Latin missionaries rendered it as deus/Theos. No female form of bogъ, which would have been common to all the Slavs, is known from medieval texts; hence, it must be assumed that the early Slavs knew no female deities. It cannot be determined with certainty whether between the 6th and 9th centuries the supreme being bore a special name that would have been used by all the Slavs, or some different names used, depending on the region. The names of the deities Perunъ and Svarog, seen by some scholars as denoting the supreme god – and known to be used by the Eastern Slavs – are attested only in the 10th century. Procopius, the Byzantine historian, observed that the Slavs who lived around the middle of the 6th century on the Danube, worshiped a supreme god whose name he would not mention. His rather extensive account on the Sklavenoi’s religious practices remained until the 9th century the only written testimony casting some light on this aspect. According to him, the early Slavs believed that “one of the gods, the creator of fire-bolt, is the only ruler of everything, 63 Povest’, 56; Moszyński 1992, 47–48. 64 Ioannis Dlugossii annales 1–2, 107; Moszyński 2005, 95.

Early Slavic Realities

93

and they offer him oxen and all the other oblational animals as a sacrifice.” In the first place, “whenever death is approaching, in illness or in war, they swear that when they avoid it, they will readily make an offering to the god for saving their life.” They would do it, Procopius continues, when they have managed to escape alive “and believe that they have purchased salvation, in exchange.”65 The value of this observation is relative, however, and this for two reasons: first, Procopius only referred to the Slavs living on the lower Danube, so it remains completely unclear what pagan practices were pursued by the other Slavic-speaking groups living elsewhere in Eastern Europe in the 6th century. Second, the Byzantine author’s description, like the entire ‘Slavic Ethnographical Excursus’ of which it is part of, was highly influenced by ancient topoi and Christian ideas. It is these two factors that compose the specific interpretatio graeca, as to which it is uncertain how far it reflects the actual situation of the pagan Slavs, rather than simply the chronicler’s Greek-and-Christian idea about it. On the other hand, Procopius’s observations coincide with the outcomes of linguistic studies. Based on the fact, that the earliest Slavic texts had to render the good powers, i.e. angels, as well as the evil ones, i.e. devils, with use of borrowings (anъğelъ; dijavolъ, sotona), linguists have concluded that the Slavic vocabulary lacked its own terms with which to name such powers of spirits.66 Hence, it may be concluded that the Slavs knew nothing of intermediary beings between man and the supreme being. This, in turn, would correspond with Procopius’s observation whereby the Slavs “know nothing of the destination or believe that it may be of any importance for man.” Instead, apart from the only god, they venerate “rivers, nymphs, and some other deities” and “render sacrifices to all, and while so doing, make divinations”.67 What those offerings were like, it is not known. In one legal text produced by the Diocese of Würzburg, which concerned the Slavs on the Main and Regnitz, the word trěba was used to describe them (idolothita quod trebo dicitur).68 Based on the observation that Constantine/Cyril and Methodius, who created the Slavic liturgical language, used the word in the second half of the 9th century to denote the ‘Christian Eucharistic offering’, the meaning which has survived to date in the Orthodox Church, it is sometimes concluded

65 66 67 68

Procopii Caesariensis 2, 357–360; Slovanské pohanství, 24–25. Moszyński 2005, 98–99. Slovanské pohanství, 24–25. Decreta synodorum, 487; Dove 1864, esp. 172; Kahl 2004; Kahl 2011, 431–464.

94

Chapter 4

that a non-bloody offering or, perhaps, bringing along and subsequent consuming of certain products was meant. Moreover, linguistic research has shown that the Slavic vocabulary initially had no words for gods, temples, or priests.69 These phenomena are described in earlier Slavic texts only with use of borrowings and rather late neologisms, which supports the argument that the early Slavs did not yet venerate anthropomorphic sculptures of deities, nor did they erect any special sites of cult and have ‘priests’ entrusted with custody of them. Instead, as it seems – and following Procopius’s testimony – they cherished various cult forms in the bosom of nature. To this end, they most probably assigned holy sites in remote places such as groves, on hills or mountain peaks, on rivers or springs, and celebrated cult actions there, for which no separate group of priests was needed.70 As may be guessed, in such places – the peak of Łysa Góra (Bald Mountain) or Ślęża/Zobtenberg, for instance – primarily forces of nature were worshipped (water, springs, trees, stones, fire) that represented the elementary phenomena (weather, fertility, health, birth, death) that determined daily life. Only in the 9th/10th century, deliberately shaped places of worship and temples built within or near the settlements, with priests doing their service, began to emerge along with such natural sacred places.71 The earliest archaeological evidence of a temple building is the remains of a wooden rectangular structure excavated in Groß Raden/Mecklenburg.72 Its discoverer initially dated it to the second half of the 9th century, but as critical analysis of the building has shown, it was actually built in the 10th century.73 All the other objects, which have been interpreted by archaeologists as Slavic temples or artificially established places of worship either date to the 11th century (as is the case with the structures in Parchim and Wrocław/Breslau74) or actually cannot be regarded as cult-related structures when a dispassionate critical analysis of the relevant movable and immovable archaeological finds is applied. This is equally true for the alleged cult site in Feldberg, dated 7th to 9th century,75 and the alleged temple in Wolin, dated at the 9th century.76

69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76

Moszyński 2005, 99–100. Słupecki 1997; Słupecki 2000b; Kuczkowski 2007; Kuczkowski 2008. Herrmann 1993; Słupecki 1994b; Słupecki 1994a; Słupecki 2006. Schuldt 1985; Kahl 2011, 167–180. Wesuls 2006, 82–95. Keiling 1984; Keiling 2000; Moździoch 2000, 176–185; Moździoch 2004, 330–334. Herrmann 1968a, 199–200; Herrmann 1971. Filipowiak 1982; Filipowiak 1993b.

Early Slavic Realities

95

Controversial and uncertain is also the interpretation of numerous larger and smaller statues found in the archaeological material in various places as ‘pagan gods’ or ‘pagan idols’. Most probably, not all these wooden statuettes were used as ‘pocket deities’: some might have simply served as talismans, toys, game pawns, or objects of a different character. Almost all these finds come from the younger horizons and cannot be associated with the early Slavic period. This holds true also for objects interpreted as relics of artificially set places of worship and offerings.77 Such objects are known from Peryn/Veliky Novgorod, Kiev, or Trzebawie in Pomerania. Larger idols were probably placed in the centre of every such building. The best-known specimen of a larger stone idol is the Svantovit Stele found in 1848 in the Zbrucz River, 170 south-east of Lviv. This block of limestone, 2.57 m high, with a square base (side length 30 cm), enabling four-sided representation of a male figure in its upper half, is dated to the 10th century. Some scholars, though, doubt the authenticity of the stele, regarding it a skilful forgery of some romantic history lovers from the early 19th century.78 Also, the interpretation of the marble body found after World War II in a cemetery wall of St Martin parish church located in Carinthia, on the Silver Lake, is uncertain. It is a 32 × 21 × 10 cm stone block in which three faces are sculpted. The assumption that it is a Slavic cult-related idea from the pagan period of the Carantanian history has been opposed by interpretations that see this stone as a representation of Roman or Celtic origin, or a Romanesque apse crown from the Christian time.79 Thus, archaeological sources have not confirmed that before the 9th century the Slavs constructed temples, had priests, or worshiped anthropomorphic deities. Fairly extensive information on Slavic gods, their veneration and worship, the priests and temples put at their service, contained in high and late medieval written sources, cannot be approached as testimonies of early Slavic religious practice. They only refer to the Eastern Slavs living in the 10th century and to the Polabian and Baltic Slavs living in the 11th and 12th centuries. Thietmar of Merseburg, Helmold of Bosau, Saxo Grammaticus, or the compilers of the Povest’ vremennych let observed only those newer manifestations of religious practices that developed in response to the challenges of Christianity and the pressures exerted by the Latin and Greek missionaries. Hence, they cannot be projected on the early Slavic period. 77 78 79

Sedov 1980/81; Szczepanik 2018b; for a somewhat different interpretation see Urbańczyk 2014, 146 and ill. 4.3 Cielik 2018; Szymański 2001; Komar/Chamajko 2013. Kahl 2011, 113–135.

96

Chapter 4

As a characteristic phenomenon of the early Slavic period, Slavic cremation graves certainly attest to the funeral rite that might have expressed a belief in a life after death.80 Cremation of corpses was most probably meant to free the souls from the dead body and let them pass into the otherworld. During public ceremonies, cremation ashes were put into small hollows or urn graves, in smaller or larger grave complexes, in flat graves or barrows/burial mounds. Gifts were sometimes put into the grave as part of the ceremony; their more frequent and richer appearance dates only to the 8th/9th century. This may be treated as one more premise supporting the view that 6th to 8th-century Slavic communities were still rather poorly diversified. 6

Local Communities

Not only were the early Slavic communities almost not differentiated socially but their respective hierarchies were quite flat. Family, composed of parents, children, and (possibly) grandparents, was probably the basic unit. Several households/homesteads formed a rural community whose members were free men and free women. It is hard to say whether such a rural community at the same time was also an extended tribal family with a patriarchal hierarchy. Many village dwellers were probably related to one another indeed. Such kinship relations, though, were not restricted to one village but did stretch to a larger area – primarily within the closest vicinity or, to be more specific, within the commonly developed and managed settlement enclave. The villages situated within it were, at the same time, the residential place for an extended group of relatives. At the beginning of the 12th century, the Rus’ian “Tale of Bygone Years” (Povest’ vremennych let) spoke of so-called rody (family clans) and mentioned with respect to the Slavs living in the 9th century that among them “everybody lived together with his family-clan, in his places, and everybody ruled over his clan.”81 Using the term rod, the author of the chronicle emphasized the element of kinship but probably not all the dwellers of the settlement enclave treated one another as a relative, in a strict sense. Hence, the supreme organizational unit, which was described as opole, osada, or zhupa (župa) (the words

80 Zoll-Adamikowa 1997; Paddenberg 2000. 81 Povest’, 12; Polem že živšem osobě i volodějuščem rody svoimi, iže i do see bratě bjachu poljane, i živjachu koždo s svoim rodom i na svoich městěch, vladějušče koždo rodom svoim.

Early Slavic Realities

97

known from later sources but perhaps used also in early Slavic time), was apparently bonded not only by blood ties.82 Apart from kinship, they must have been associated by common interest in the agricultural use of the settlement area, protection against external threats, and colonization that offered the community new and better developmental potential. To determine such shared interests and take adequate common action, the leaders of the involved villages probably met to deliberate on the issues. The village elders most likely elected a leader among themselves, who could preside the gathering and judge on the conflicts appearing within the community – and, if need be, represent the community’s interests outside. As long as the rural communities pursued their autarkic self-dependent economy, gradually and peacefully gaining new settlement areas, the need for internal regulations and external communication  – and, consequently, the need to have a clearly-defined leader  – remained limited. This changed for those regions and at the time when they quit their self-sufficient isolation and started to expand or became neighbouring on hierarchical societies. It was probably only at this moment that the strife for merging with other communities and to create larger territorial units began to develop. Until then, however, the early Slavic world had functioned as a loose set of local or, at best, micro-regional and homogeneous communities inhabiting individual settlement enclaves in an unstructured way and without a leader to whom the whole community would have been subordinated. It was perhaps this simple egalitarian structure that Procopius of Caesarea had in mind – regardless of all the topoi characteristic of his ‘excursus on the Slavs’  – when stating that the Sklavenoi “have long been living in democracy (ἐν δημοκρατία), rather than having been subjected to the power of one man, and therefore they jointly consider matters as well as failures.”83 Contrary to what the 18th- and 19th-century Romanticists might have believed, the Byzantine author whose ideal was an ordered autocratic imperial power and who used the term “democracy” mostly to denote the political confusion of his time, pronounced his statement not to praise a model and ideal Slavic power of the people. On the contrary: his intention was to emphasize the ‘disorder’ prevalent among the Slavs.84 In any case, Procopius, who had eye-witnessed numerous war expeditions and probably questioned Slavic-speaking mercenaries serving in the Byzantine army, did not speak of his figments. 82 Modzelewski 2001; Modzelewski 2004, 334–343. 83 Procopii Caesariensis Bd. 2, 357–360. 84 Majeska 1997/98, 78–79.

98

Chapter 4

This conclusion is supported by the fact that also the Strategikon, which might also have referred to concrete information, seems to communicate the recollection that the early Slavs were subjected to “no supremacy”, which means that they had no authority above them.85 Scholars have tried to conceptualise the thus-described society in terms of ‘war democracy’.86 Recent research has tended to speak of ‘segmentary’ or ‘acephalic’ communities, or ‘societies-without-state’, following the insights of socio-anthropological research carried out in the 20th century, as was the case, for example, in Indonesia. As a matter of fact, the image of settlement groups or extended tribal family groups which, comparably to the segments of a citrus fruit, lived beside one another without a hierarchy or marked differentiation, fits the realities of the early Slavic communities better than a concept of ‘Slavic proto-democracy’ or ‘military democracy’.87 7

Leaders and War-Bands

The world of segmentary communities began to change at the moment when its contemporaries started to perceive it in the context of the clash with the Byzantine Empire. Even if Procopius still emphasized that the Sklavenoi invading Byzantium since the 520s had ‘no headman’ (or chieftain), there is no doubt that these groups of warriors could not operate without a leader. The Slavs crossing the Danube must have had a chieftain or leader at least for their predatory and plunder expeditions. The fact that Byzantine sources mention such headmen by names only from the 580s onwards does not mean that they had not existed earlier. However, owing to a flattened social structure among the Slavic warriors, the Byzantine observers clearly found it difficult to quickly recognize the leaders and adequately determine their status.88 Menander the Guardsman, the author of a work entitled Historiae (now surviving only in fragments), called Daurentios/Dauritas, the first Slavic chieftain known by name, a hegemon. He attributed this same title, however, also to those nameless men with whom Daurentios conferred and with whom he made joint decisions. The demands for a tribute put forth by the khagan of the 85 Das Strategikon, 374. 86 Herrmann 1983, 76; as to the relevance of people’s assemblies (wiece, veče) in this context (also as a specific trait of early Slavic societies) see Boroń 1999; Modzelewski 2004, 356–401. For a critical view on the concept of “military democracy” see Izdebski 2011. 87 Sigrist 1978; Lübke 2001, 1–7, 333–338; Curta 2001a, 325–332; Tymowski 2008. 88 On Slavic leaders or chieftains: Benedicty 1964; Curta 1998; Curta 2001a, 326–334; Živković 2008, 47–51; Hardt 2002; Hardt 2016; Boroń 2010, 19–54; Curta 2021a, 300, 303–304.

Early Slavic Realities

99

Avars, which were the point at issue and which were rejected by Daurentios, were made to the latter as well as to the other Slavic hegemones who, the Byzantine historiographer remarks, led their “peoples” (εδνων).89 Menander does not make it clear if Daurentios was a leader of a larger association and whether his position was supreme to the other hegemones, or whether only he was a primus inter pares within a group of elders equal in rank and spearheading a federation of diverse settlement and warrior groups. Menander uses the word hegemones also with respect to the leaders of other barbaric peoples being Byzantine subjects (Saracens, Utigurs, Alani), as well as to the Frankish king Sigibert and Avar khagan Bajan, which is indicative of a somewhat arbitrary use of the term. In the 620s, Theophylact Simocatta used four terms to describe the Slavic leaders. The nameless leaders of Slavic groups living in an undetermined distance are named by him ethnarchai, whereas the status of Peiragastus, the leader of Slavic raiders who in 594 tried to cross the Danube, he defines as a phylarchos and taxiarchos, the latter being a lower Byzantine officer rank. For another Slavic leader mentioned by name, Ardagastos, Theophylact could not find an adequate title; he stated, though, that Ardagastos had under his command a “large number of Sklaveni” and spoke of “lands subordinate to Ardagast.” The Greek term rex, borrowed from Latin, which Teophylact usually referred to the king of the Lombards, he once used for another Slavic leader, whose name he wrote down as Musokios, who in autumn of 593 engaged against the troops of Alexander, a Byzantine taxiarchos, on the lower Danube.90 As was explained in the Strategikon somewhat later, in generalized terms, the Slavs had “many a king amongst whom discord prevails.” Hence, this manual of military art tactically advised that some of them be recruited, be it by agreement or through gifts, especially those very close to the frontiers; against the others, launch armed expeditions so that the enmity [of the Byzantines] towards everyone does not bring about unanimity and autocracy among them.91 Also, the anonymous author of Book Two of the Miracula Sancti Demetrii used the term rex in relation to the leaders of two Slavic tribal associations which were active in the 670s in the vicinity of Thessaloniki; one of them, a certain Perbundos, is mentioned by his name. The same author refers to Hatzon, the 89 The History of Menander, 195. 90 Theophylacti Simocattae, 232, 236–237, 252–253. 91 Das Strategikon, 380.

100

Chapter 4

leader of the Slavs who tried to conquer the town in the years 614–19, as an excharchos.92 Despite of the terminological instability and uncertainty of the Byzantine assessment of the authority and status of the Slavic leaders or chieftains, one observation is common to all the Byzantine sources: Slavic chieftains or leaders always appeared as war commanders. This was probably due to the specific perspective of these sources, which long perceived the Slavs solely in the context of armed conflicts. However, a no less real phenomenon was hiding behind it: it was primarily during the predatory expeditions against external enemies that individual men could test their abilities and attain the rank of a leader through their successes on the battlefield. By repeatedly winning the battles, they could confirm their right to authority and power, and gain common recognition; their charisma and spoil-sharing enabled them to gather loyal adherents around themselves; luck, shrewdness, and violence finally allowed them to become a ‘king’ of a larger association of people (gens).93 The Byzantines and Avars tried hard to hinder such risings and usurpatory ‘coronations’ in order to nip in the bud the emergence of a Slavic ‘kingdom of war bands’ (Heerkönigtum). As a matter of fact, the leaders/chieftains would hold power for a limited period, mostly in the context of war undertakings and, initially, in a small area only. This mechanism functioned not only in confrontation with Byzantium and was not restricted to indigenously Slavic-speaking men. In some special situations, it could enable also foreign men, i.e. non-Slavs, to gain personal authority over a Slavic-speaking community.94 One example of a particularly powerful, though ephemeral, realm of this sorts was the ‘kingdom’ of Samo, described in what is conventionally entitled the “Fredegar Chronicle” (completed in the 660s).95 Samo, a native of Sens in Burgundy, Soignies (now in Belgium) or Lower Franconia (homo nomen Samo natione Francos de pago Senonago), most probably visited in the 620s the Slavic neighbours of the Merovingians as a slave trader or arms dealer – or, perhaps, as a royal envoy. He also stayed there when the Slavs rebelled against their Avar lords, probably making use of the painful defeat the khaganate suffered in 626 at the gates of 92 Les plus anciens recueils, 179, 208–210; see Leszka 2005. 93 Especially older research works have used the terms “tribe” and “union of tribes” to name larger groups of common descent. Recent research has rather dropped them taking into account their ‘biologistic’ implications; for the recent debate on the issue see Kradin 2015; Popov 2015; Dvornichenko 2015; Gorskij et al. 2016; Shinakov 2016; Fokt 2016. 94 Urbańczyk 2000b, 122–146; Urbańczyk 2002 (seeing in some of the leaders characterized by Byzantine sources as Slavs rather also men of non-Slavic origin). 95 Chronicarum quae dicuntur Fredegarii, 144–145, 154–155.

Early Slavic Realities

101

Constantinople. According to the “Fredegar Chronicle”, Samo, who had diverse material resources at his disposal, accompanied by his warriors, came to their aid in this uprising so efficiently that the Slavs, freed from the Avar yoke, elevated him to be their “king” (rex). Apparently, Samo exhibited peculiar leadership abilities, strategic knowledge and, perhaps, even supplied weaponry. Thus distinguished, he reigned for thirty-five years “among the Slavs, also called Wineds” (in Sclavos coinomento Winedos). It seems that Samo moreover associated himself with the most significant families through marriages; in any case, the “Fredegar Chronicle” knows of twelve Slavic women with whom he reportedly begot twenty-two sons and fifteen daughters altogether. In his relations to the king of the Franks, with whom he initially formed an alliance of friendship (amicitia), as well as to the king of the Lombards and the khagan of the Avars, Samo maintained the position of an independent supraregional ruler. The endeavours of King Dagobert I, who tried to break this concentration of power at the eastern border of the Merovingian realm, led to an ignominious defeat of the Franks in 631/2 near the (unidentified) castrum Wogastiburc. However, Samo’s death (before 660) implied an end of this ‘Slavic’ polity, not yet established in institutional terms, which Fredegar, however, indirectly described (using consistently the term rex when talking of Samo) as a regnum, and which was located somewhere between Upper Palatinate and northern Bohemia, Lower Austria, and Moravia. This regnum, which earlier, nationally motivated studies have coined the “first Slavic state,”96 disappeared without any archaeologically detectable traces. The relatively large area of Samo’s power was apparently a premature phenomenon at the time; the Slavs who were once his subjects probably dispersed into small regional communities again. Elsewhere, political, and hierarchical structures of the early Slavs were confined to local units or small regions for a long time. However, it seems that, beginning with the 7th century, these units consolidated and gradually took a clear shape in the eyes of Frankish and Byzantine observers.97 Apart from the regnum of Samo – whose inhabitants the author of the “Fredegar Chronicle” tried to single out among the other Slavic-speaking groups by using the ethnonym Winidi/Winodi/Wenedi – the very same source was already aware of other Slavic-speaking tribal associations as well. On the one hand, the Sorbs are mentioned (gens Surbiorum, qui ex genere Sclavinorum), who, together with their dux Dervanus, entered an alliance with the polity of Samo; on the other

96 97

Labuda 2009 [1949]. Tyszkiewicz 1996.

102

Chapter 4

hand, there are the Winedi, led by their commander – dux Wallucus and living in a marca Vinedorum, probably situated in the Eastern Alps. In the 7th/8th century, individual political and social associations started to reach beyond the segmentary order of local settlement communities and migrating warrior groups. Book Two of the Miracula Sancti Demetrii, written in the late 7th century, identified the differences between the Slavs living in Macedonia and Thracia (Sclavenon ethnos), who posed a threat to Thessaloniki in the early 7th century, dividing them into regional groups such as the Drugovites/Dragovites, Sagudats, Velegezites, Vayunites, Berzites, and other peoples that united under the leadership of Hatzon in order to pursue conquests together; after a defeat, they most probably split up again. Elsewhere, the Book mentions the Rynchines and Strymons (basically calling the latter ‘Slavs from the Strymon River area’).98 Theophanes the Confessor wrote in the beginning of the 9th century of an association of Seven Tribes (έπτα γενεάς) inhabiting north-eastern Bulgaria, and of an association of the Severeis (Σέβερεις)99 in the areas located more to the south. Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus in his mid-10th-century description of the earlier colonization in the Balkans also spoke of ‘Sclavinia’. As he remarks, it was not “chieftains […] but zhupans and the elders” that headed those Slavic-speaking groups. What he had in mind, in specific, was several regional communities, including the Zachumli (Ζαχλουμοι), Terbouniotes (Τερβουνίωται), Kanalites (Καναλιται), Diocleatians (Διοκλητανοι), and Arentani (Αρεντανοι) in Dalmatia, and the Milingoi (Μηλιγγοι) and Ezeritai (Εζερίται) in the Peloponnese. These communities might have certainly emerged in as early as the 8th century.100 The earliest unambiguous piece of evidence confirming that Slavicspeaking regional communities were under the leadership of a zhupan, however, comes from the Carolingians: it is contained in the founding deed of the Kremsmünster Monastery, issued in the year 777 by the Bavarian duke Tassilo III. It mentions an iopan Physso as the leader of a group of Slavic settlers; his own name is not Slavic, however. In the context of determining the estates taken over by the monastery, Physso could, in the name of a small group of settlers he led, bargain and negotiate with the duke as well as with the abbot.101 98 99 100 101

Les plus anciens recueils, 175, 209, 211. Theophanis Chronographia, 359; on the Seven Tribes see Dujčev 1959; Komatina 2010. Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De administrando imperio, 124, 128, 152, 162, 232–234. Die Gründungsurkunde, 76–77; see Malingoudis 1972/73; Hardt 1990, 162.

Early Slavic Realities

103

The probable derivation of the word zhupan (županъ) from a Turkic-language dignitary title, borrowed from the Avars, comes as a confirmation of the image of an early Slavic society that initially was almost completely non-hierarchical. It also proves the fact that no relevant ‘Proto-Slavic’ terms/equivalents existed. The evidenced late Slavic word denoting a duke (*kъnędz/kъnjaz) was also a borrowing – in this case from the Germanic *kuning.102 Before it became commonplace at the end of the 8th or at the beginning of the 9th century with the establishment of the first stable, larger scale political structures, the social hierarchy of the early Slavs usually ended at the level of the zhupan.103 The zhupa (župa) he ruled merged with other similar groups or territorial units only in the case of war, forming larger but temporary federations which were dissolved once the threat or tough situation was over, the shared objective was fulfilled or quit. A strict correlation of these groups with their natural environment and low importance of political-and-social leadership is additionally attested by the fact that their names usually referred to the geographic conditions rather than the names of individuals. These names reflected the specific natural and spatial conditions of the given settlement area, rather than a personal subordination to, or dependence on, the leader. Since waters were the favourite places where people settled down, the groups of settlers were oftentimes referred to as ‘the people from the river x/lake y area’; names such as ‘dwellers of the forest/field’, and the like, were also formed. For community-building practices to lead to the formation of a common identity, that groups associated it with their own territory and ethnonym, separated from their neighbours, and that a power elite emerged to organize and protect them, stabilized settlement structures and consolidated economic relations were necessary. In the 8th/9th century, at the earliest, a relative intensification of agriculture enabled to gain surpluses sufficient to free some people from pursuing self-sufficient husbandry by themselves and turn them into artisans  – and to be able to feed and sustain the expanding unproductive elite of warriors and rulers. To this end, the leaders collected the food produced by their own community and objects of everyday use as a regular levy or, in the subdued alien communities, as a tribute. The elites’ demand for consumables and luxury goods grew steadily, thus increasing the demand for craft products manufactured in situ and goods imported from distant places thanks to commercial contacts or predatory and plunder expeditions. It was

102 Boroń 2010, 57–60. 103 Pleterskij 2013, 9, 179.

104

Chapter 4

the very interplay of intensification of farming, the emergence of a division of labour and an interregional exchange of commodities, combined with the formation of power and authority structures, that was reflected in the erection of strongholds and the establishment of initial centres of interregional commodity exchange (emporia). 8

Strongholds and Trading Places

The effort put into the construction of strongholds or hillforts must have been intense. Even a small stronghold called for competencies in construction as well as logistical and organizational leadership qualities, and the ability to manage large human and material resources. It is estimated that, depending on the size of the structure, one to ten thousand working days were required, for which an adequate number of people from nearby and more distant areas had to be headhunted; moreover, an enormous number of trees had to be cut and processed.104 Hence, no such construction could have taken place without a certain social differentiation and concentration of power in the hands of individuals. Such Slavic noble, high-ranking, better ones, or superiors (primores, primates, proceres, nobiles, meliores, praestantiores) are mentioned in Frankish sources since the 8th century. In terms of chronology, this strikingly coincides with the appearance of the earliest Slavic strongholds. Earlier research has assumed that the beginnings of Slavic strongholds occurred relatively early and that already during the 6th–7th century a considerable number of strongholds existed.105 This assumption drew on a relative chronology based on pottery and individual finds, all too often interpreted very optimistically. The result was a too early dating of the early Slavic strongholds.106 What is more, also the written sources were overinterpreted. Based on the description of the warfare method applied by groups of Slavic warriors from the lower Danube area, contained in the Strategikon (ca. 600), and the somewhat later description by Theophylact Simocatta, the conclusion has been drawn that the Slavs built fortified bases already in the late 6th century. The mention of Wogastisburc in the “Fredegar Chronicle”, a Slavic locality besieged in 630 by the Franks, has been approached as proof that construction 104 See the calculation made for the Moravian stronghold of Pohansko in Dresler 2011; Kalhous 2012, 45–46; in more detail on the excavations at Pohansko Macháček 2010. 105 See for example Herrmann 1966; Herrmann 1983, 89–97; Sedov 1982, 242–247. 106 That the Feldberg, Menkendorf and Tornow types of ceramics have been dated 100 to 200 years too early shows Biermann 2013b, 167.

Early Slavic Realities

105

of strongholds was commonplace among East-Central European Slavs as early as at the beginning of the 7th century. This has met with deserved criticism.107 Neither are there any mentions of strongholds in early Byzantine sources, nor can we treat the Wogastisburc unanimously as a permanent stronghold; it might have well been a temporary defensive structure built on an ad-hoc basis, or an Avar-style spontaneously built military train. The allegedly clear proof of an early regular construction of strongholds, provided by the “Fredegar Chronicle”, would be a completely isolated piece of evidence. It was only in the late 8th century that robust information appeared in Frankish written sources about Slavic strongholds, which at that time were encountered among Polabian Slavs; for regions further eastward, such mentions appeared even later. Apart from the lack of evidence in written sources, the potential of dendrochronological dating has contributed, to an even larger extent, to a revision of the earlier views. The recently obtained dates for East Germany and Poland, referring to large parts of Western Slavic settlement areas, have demonstrated that here the first strongholds were set up, at the earliest, in the 8th century; many more emerged only in the second half of the 9th and in the 10th centuries.108 For the other Eastern European regions, no dendrological data and no archaeological finds are known, which could otherwise serve as (dating) evidence that Slavic strongholds started to be built before the 8th century. The economic, social, and political conditions in Bohemia and Moravia, on the Danube and in the East European forest-steppes before the emergence of large-area realms were not different from those prevalent among the Slavs living between the Elbe and the Vistula Rivers. Therefore, it cannot be expected that durable strongholds would have been erected there earlier on.109 In sum, contrary to what some scholars assumed earlier, it has to be emphasized that strongholds and hillforts, which between the 8th and 9th centuries were constructed in the whole of East-Central and Eastern Europe did not refer to preceding models that had functioned for several centuries: in fact, they resulted from newer, relatively fast and dynamic processes.

107 Hensel 1987, 410–411; Dulinicz 2001, 182–183; Szymański 2008. 108 Henning/Heußner 1992; Dulinicz 1994; Dulinicz 1997; Henning 1998a; Heubner/Westphal 1998; Krąpiec 1998; Moździoch 1998; Dulinicz 2001, 182–187; Urbańczyk 2008, 117–121; Urbańczyk 2015, 153–155. 109 Goehrke 1992, 109; Kuza 1985, 40–42; for a critical assessment of the attempts of Soviet archaeology at a very early dating of these strongholds see with respect to the example of Kiev Mühle 1987; Mühle 1989b.

106

Chapter 4

At large, this image cannot be changed even by the few fortified structures that can be dated, with quite high certainty, at the 7th to 8th century (in some cases, the 6th century). Less than a dozen such sites are known: Szeligi and Haćki in Poland; Zymne in Ukraine, and Khotamel, Demidovka, Kolochin, Nikadzimava, and Tushemlia in Belarus.110 They are clearly different, in the way they looked and functioned, from the ‘genuine’ strongholds. Their fortification was light and easy to destroy, so their importance was rather nominal. Their main function was to ensure protection of people and property against aggressors. It stands out that they were built in exposed places, elevated above the surroundings; most of them were erected off the beaten track, far from open settlements. As the thin cultural strata and poor internal developments may suggest, such facilities were used seasonally or temporarily, for a short time. The centre of the fortified area usually remained undeveloped. What is more, traces of specific artisan activities have been found – particularly, processing of iron and coloured metals. Another characteristic trait is animal bones found in large amounts and a small amount of single human bones. These finds make us accept that such places were temporary structures where small regional communities would meet during special occasions such as holding assemblies, manufacture and exchange of uncommon artefacts made of metal, as well as participation in cult ceremonies and ritual funerals.111 Those makeshift structures certainly cannot attest to an advanced social differentiation and intensified accumulation of power in the hands of individual persons. It was only in the middle of the 9th century that the open colonizationand-settlement landscape of the early Slavs started to transform extensively into a fortified landscape of strongholds.112 It was only from that point onwards that strongholds became focal points of settlement enclaves and centres of power structures on a small to medium size scale. These processes, which lasted, depending on the region, until the 10th century, were primarily catalysed by internal transition. The strengthening competition on the way to power between the neighbouring leaders, local and regional ones, increasingly frequently led to violent conflicts which, in turn, made the erection of defensive structures necessary. Petty rulers usually tended to imitate one other: if one of them built a stronghold, his neighbour had to do the same – not only to keep pace with him in the military development but also to demonstrate his 110 Szymański 1967; Haćki. Zespół przyrodniczo-archeologiczny; Kobyliński/Szymański 2015; Aulich 1972; Symonovich 1963; Sedin 1995; Curta 2021a, 173–174, 215–216. 111 Szymański 1983; Szymański 2015; Dulinicz 2000; Dulinicz 2011. 112 Brachmann 1996; Kurnatowska 1998; Kurnatowska 2000a.

Early Slavic Realities

107

power and strength to his own people. Already the early Slavic hillforts became symbols power and authority. In addition, from the 9th century onwards, a faster population growth intensified the competition for fertile soils while also rendering available larger human resources. Both factors led to increased hostilities, which in turn were reflected in a larger number of strongholds erected. However, there were more stimulators than internal conflicts. From the late 8th century onwards, Slavic communities living in the Baltic region were endangered by attacks from Scandinavian warriors and, above all, by the eastward expansion of the Carolingian Empire; hence, the increased need to defend themselves and offer resistance at the strongholds. Since there was no long record of stronghold construction among the Slavs, whereas a significant share of the earliest Slavic strongholds is situated in the regions inhabited by Polabian Slavs, the conjecture has been put forth that the beginnings of the Slavic stronghold construction might have been related to the Slavs’ encountering the Saxons. This observation is potentially supported by the similarities in the situation, form, and size between the strongholds of the Polabian Slavs and the Carolingian and Ottonian border-area fortifications.113 Regardless of the possible impact of the adjacent construction models on the appearance of the early Slavic stronghold, the major factors of influence were the local conditions (topography, availability of construction materials) and the functional requirements.114 Upland and lowland strongholds were erected; the advantages of local topography were always exploited. In the areas with a strongly diverse relief, strongholds were erected on conic hills or on headlands at the confluence of two rivers. The steep slopes on two or three sides in themselves ensured good protection, which minimized the effort toward the erection of artificial fortifications. In such cases, only a short embankment would initially be built, which gave protection on the open side. Lowland strongholds were built on floodplains of meandering rivers, in muddy areas, on flat stacks or moraine hills, by the lakes – on peninsulas or isles. The water and marshes provided excellent protection, but apart from the protective embankment proper, there was the need to built platforms with wooden logs, which required much workload, and bridges enabling safe access to the strongholds through swamps and waters. According to the description of the Polabian Slavs’ lowland strongholds penned by the Spanish Jewish traveller Ibrāhīm ibn Yaʿkūb, the Slavs

113 See Schmidt 1994a; Brather 2006. 114 See Kempke 1999; Brather 2001a, 119–140; Buko 2005, 89–100; there is still no modern synthesis on Slavic hillforts or strongholds.

108

Chapter 4

go to meadows abundant in water and trees, trace there a circle or a square, as they like, which marks the shape and the extension of the future fortress. Then they dig a trench around this contour and put the carved earth above. Sometimes they strengthen the walls with boards or wood as the castles are built until the walls become as high as is necessary. Then, in the wall, they male a gate of any shape they like. One can get to this gate by a wooden bridge.115 Albeit this description comes from the 960s, the construction method was similar in the 8th and 9th centuries. Be it upland or lowland, the artificial fortifications were exclusively of an earth and wooden structure consisting of an earthen rampart reinforced inside in a variety of ways. The type of structure chosen was determined by the availability or lack of sufficient amount of the necessary materials. The thicker the arrangement inside the rampart of irregular layers of timber reminding a scaffolding, the more wood was needed. When timber was lacking, ‘walls’ made of wattle were erected to strengthen the earthwall from the inside. When the rampart was strengthened by a wooden chamber-construction a much larger effort was required than in the case of a simple carcass construction. To make it robust, wooden chests were deployed and filled up with earth. The same technique could be applied with use of raw tree trunks; they were arranged into square block elements, which were then filled up with earth. On the outer side of the rampart, whenever allowed by the terrain conditions, a dry moat would be arranged; it had an additional defensive function and provided the earth with which the rampart was heaped up. In regions with enough available stone, wood-and-earth ramparts were additionally reinforced by masonry. In the areas of the Sorbs, in Bohemia, Moravia, and Silesia, an additional wall of quarried stones would be built. Such walls were built ‘dry’, without mortar; one of their functions might have been to reduce the danger of fire moving on to the wooden elements. A dry wall would occasionally be built also on the inner side of the rampart, which would then be composed of two stone fronts connected by beams, filled up and covered with earth. In the flatter northern regions, massive fieldstones were used  – instead of broken-up stones – to reinforce the wood-and-earth rampart, which were piled up in the front, on a pedestal. The use of fieldstones in construction of lowland strongholds was not popular in the long term, however. One of the reasons was that no mortar was in use then yet. The rules of construction 115 Relacja Ibrāhīma, 48–49; English translation from Mishin 1996, 185; see also LewickaRajewska 2004, 165–167.

Early Slavic Realities

109

would often be altered according to each situation. Some ramparts, especially in the larger objects, had diverse structures at different sections. Also, the strongholds’ entry gates appeared in different variants, as attested by the discovered examples, some with well-preserved timber. The platform, usually made of timber, led through a straight gate (probably, a tunnel one) into the stronghold’s interior. Apart from that, complicated variants of towers existed, as indicated by the strong supports encountered in some places. Reconstruction of such above-gate structures is not possible based on the available archaeological material. As for the other structures featured on the rampart, the archaeological finds only allow hypotheses. It is supposed that massive palisades or walls were constructed with longs, behind which the defenders could hide. Perhaps, canopied defensive walkways were also built. In any case, any such reconstruction remains a speculation.116 As it generally seems, the strongholds in the 8th to 10th centuries responded in a flexible way to the actual local condition and specific needs. As long as they remained places, where the authority of local leaders gathered, they were apparently erected as small, one-segment structures. Usually, such sites were circular or oval-shaped, and usually lowland. The width of the rampart’s base spanned between five and fifteen metres, which ensured adequate fortification. With a diameter of thirty to eighty metres, the interior was not too big. The “Royal Frankish Annals” from the end of the 8th and the 9th centuries referred to Slavic strongholds as civitates or castella, thus perceiving them as small munitions, comparable to their native, Frankish border castella.117 Such structures appear in a large number, though unevenly distributed, in the areas once belonging to the Polabian Slavs, in Greater Poland and in central Poland, in Mazovia, Lower Silesia, and Saxony. In Lusatia alone, forty circular hillforts (referred to as the Tornow type) have been found, with fifteen such structures identified in the northern part of Mazovia.118 Weapons, spurs, and pieces of clothing testify to prestige and indicate that the stronghold was inhabited by members of the upper stratum of the given society. As it has been determined, these strongholds had rather tight built-up areas, with ground-level buildings and sunken floored structures, reserve pits and, at times, a few wells. They might have served as the residences of leaders/chieftains or rulers of small territories. Their accumulation in a small area, as has been evidenced for Brandenburg and the western part of Greater

116 Brather 2001a, 137–138. 117 Rossignol 2009. 118 Biermann 2015.

110

Chapter 4

Poland, points to a dense appearance of minor centres of local power.119 This specific structure of rivalling petty political organisms most probably caused that between the mid-9th and mid-10th centuries mostly small lowland strongholds were erected in these areas. When the confines of such small centres became too tight with the increasing accumulation of power, whereas the regional power was replaced by supraregional structures, the requirements with respect to strongholds grew as well. This led to the emergence of new, larger, and more complex strongholds, while the old, much smaller defensive settlements were deserted or incorporated in the new structures as subordinated units. The new, more powerful objects became the centres of larger settlement hubs or supra-regional federations and concentrated the major administrative-and-political as well as worship functions. This may have been the case with certain large upland strongholds such as Feldberg, functioning as centres of political entities emerging since the late 8th century in the Wilzi and Abodrite lands.120 Also, in Bohemia and Lesser Poland, single larger multisegment structures appeared in as early as the 8th and 9th centuries (e.g. Tismice, Dolánky/ Rubin, Divoká Šarka; Naszacowice, Chodlik); they might have been the political-and-administrative centres of larger tribal associations (possibly, for instance, the Vistulans).121 Such centres were potential points-of-departure for the erection of large-area dukedoms, but such a form was their direct continuation in very rare cases. The actual centres of the Moravian, Přemyslid and Piast principalities that emerged in the 9th and 10th centuries were established elsewhere, in the places where new strongholds were erected. Contrary to the opinion of some earlier scholars, early Slavic strongholds usually did not yet function as economic central points. The artefacts and other objects found inside them point to a poorly developed and not-quite-ambitious craftsmen’s activities.122 So, the strongholds were not centres of specialized professional artisanship. Also, the few testimonies related to commodity exchange and commerce do not allow to treat early Slavic strongholds as trade centres or early urban formations in the economic sense. Instead, in the 8th and 9th centuries, the places that can be identified as economic locales were unfortified trade and crafts centres.

119 Biermann/Frey 2001. 120 Brather 1996; Biermann 2006, 63; Biermann 2011. 121 Sláma 1986; Bubeník/Pleinerová/Profantová 1998; Bubeník 1999; Profantová 1999; Poleski 2000; Poleski 2004; Poleski 2011; Profantová 2016, 225–226. 122 Urbańczyk 2008, 117–121; Biermann 2013a, 211.

Early Slavic Realities

111

In the inland, such early economic centres, however, have been almost completely unattested. They appear since the middle of the 8th century primarily as coastal trade centres along the Baltic coast and in rather few spots along the largest Central and Eastern European rivers. Within the Slavic colonization area, these included archaeologically researched places such as Groß Strömkendorf near Wismar (possibly identical with the emporium Reric, mentioned in the “Royal Frankish Annals” and destroyed by the Danish king Gudfred); Dierkow near Rostock, Ralswiek on Rügen; Menzlin on the Peene; Bardy-Świelubie on the Parsęta and Wolin.123 Further eastward, the chain of emporia was continued, in the lands of the Prussians, Balts, and Balto-Finns by Janów Pomorski near Elbląg (possibly identical with Truso, a stage in the voyage of the Anglo-Saxon traveller Wulfstan, attested by the “Orosius Chronicle”, translated by Alfred the Great); Grobin/Grobiņa, and Ladoga.124 Along the west-eastern continuation of this route, in the settlement area of the Eastern Slavs, in the catchments areas of the Volkhov, Velikaia, and Dnieper, during the 9th century there emerged similar trade centres: Izborsk near Pskov, Riurikovo Gorodishche near Veliky Novgorod, Gnezdovo near Smolensk, and Kiev.125 All these places marked ‘ports of call’ on the roads linking Northern and Western Europe via the Baltic Sea, and Eastern European river routes with the Black Sea region and the Mediterranean, and with the Middle East and Central Asia. These links were mainly created by Scandinavian merchant-warriors; but Frisian, Frankish, Saxon, and Jewish merchants made their contributions as well. The populations living in coastal and fluvial trade centres were also ‘multiethnic’. While Slavs arrived in those places and, possibly, lived in some of them, it seems that initially they did not actively participate in the shaping of this new type of interregional exchange of commodities. All the same, cultural, and economic exchange probably evolved at some early point between the trade centres and the interior Slavic territories – as is attested by the fact alone that the ceramic objects found there are mostly Slavic products. Apart from its mixed, multiethnic population and open location (which was, however, most frequently protected by natural conditions), the trade centres had higher-developed craftsmanship activities compared to the nearby Slavic settlements, among other differences. Based on the finds that confirm the smelting of bronze to produce ornaments, the manufacture of antler combs 123 Bogucki 2012; Kleingärtner 2014; Karle 2015. For the various localities see Łosiński 1975; Tummuscheit 2003; Filipowiak 2004; Herrmann 2008; Kleingärtner 2011; Kleingärtner 2013; Stanisławski/Filipowiak 2013/14; Gerds 2015. 124 Mühle 1991, 19–24; Jagodzinski 2010; Virse/Ritums 2012; Sindbaek 2017. 125 Mühle 1991, 281–284.

112

Chapter 4

and beads of colour stones and amber, they were apparently not merely stops on the long east-to-west trade routes but also centres of artisanship. Goods imported into the emporia from faraway regions reached the Slavs at a later date, at least partly; the same is true for luxury goods produced in situ. Among the valuable goods that reached Slavic strongholds and open settlements in this way was silver, appearing there in the form of Arabic coins (dirhams) and ornaments. They were gathered in whole or in minced pieces as a silver scrap, oftentimes buried; at times they were probably offered to gods and, clearly, used as an equivalent in the exchange. The leaders and petty rulers soon discovered that silver could serve as a means to optimize their authority and bind the supporters together. The prospect of gaining the desired metal, as well as some other exotic goods, incited them to look for adequate means of exchange. The use to this end of the natural resources available at hand was quite an obvious step. In Western Europe, in the Mediterranean and the Middle East, there was intense need for slaves, furs, wax, and honey  – all these being commodities relatively easily acquirable from the Slavic settlements and willingly bought by foreign merchant-warriors.126 Consequently, the stimulating impulses from the coastal and fluvial trade centres reached the early Slavic societies and exerted an impact on them. Thereby, single Slavic strongholds gradually started functioning as commercial and craftsmanship places, along with their earlier-developed functions as administrative-and-political and cult-andworship centres.127 A real breakthrough in this respect came, however, not earlier than with the transition of early Slavic segmentary societies into dynastic monarchies. This thorough change also caused the fall of almost all the coastal and fluvial trade centres by the end of the 9th and during the 10th century. Not only the structural changes in transport and communication in the Baltic Sea area but also the emergence of large-area political organisms caused that such places were gradually quitted. Their functions were taken over by new localities, many of which were set up nearby; with time, they turned into medieval towns. Archaeological traces of coastal and fluvial trade centres and early Slavic strongholds appear in the eastern part of Central Europe and in Eastern Europe, that is, in the settlement areas of Western and Eastern Slavs. No comparable centres belonging to the Slavs living between the 6th and 9th centuries in the Balkans and/or south of Danube are known; these Slavs probably built no strongholds or did it very rarely. Instead, when seeking for fortified 126 Bogucki 2010; Adamczyk 2014. 127 On the beginnings of long-distance trade see Hardt 2008a, 741–750.

Early Slavic Realities

113

places, they would occupy deserted or conquered Byzantine towns or forts with old defensive facilities dating to the ancient time. Moreover, influenced by the Avars and Proto-Bulgars, they built defensive settlements reminding great camps.128 A particular example is the enormous Bulgarian town of Pliska, unique also due to its shape. The specificity of the Bulgar/Bulgarian settlement was already noticed by the Bavarian Geographer who at the end of the 9th century noted in his description of strongholds (civitates) and regions north of the Danube: “The Country of the Bulgars is immensely huge while it [only] has five strongholds, since it is not customary for the vast majority [of the locals] to erect them.”129 128 See Rashev 1982. 129 Descriptio civitatum, 13.

Chapter 5

Early Slavic Power Structures (regna) 1

The Khanate of the Proto-Bulgars

Long before the Bavarian Geographer wrote of the Bulgars, they had ceased to be a nomadic and migrant steppe warrior people who originally arrived from the areas north of the Caucasus and the Black Sea basin, so perceived by the Armenian, Latin, and Byzantine sources of the 4th to 6th centuries.1 Between the 6th and 9th centuries, the Bulgars underwent an extensive multistage development.2 At the end of this process, together with Romanized or Hellenized Thracians and Slavic speaking groups who since the 6th century settled south of the Danube – initially, on their own and then, together with the Bulgars  – they all eventually were integrated into one new ethno-social community and a new ‘body politic’. Where the Bulgars originally came from is a controversial topic. They may have come from Iran, from the Altai Mountains or from Central Asia. Their relations to the Cutrigurs, Utigurs, Onogurs and Ogurs, all of them likewise appearing north of the Black Sea, is as unclear as the question of how this people’s name (bulgari, vulgares, Boulgaroi) should be interpreted. Initially, the name only referred to the Turkic-speaking elite of warriors and their families. To distinguish them from the later ‘Bulgarians’, scholars have described members of this group living in the period before the unification with the Thracians and Slavs as ‘Proto-Bulgars’. Moreover, the Proto-Bulgarian founding legend, written down at the beginning of the 9th century by the Byzantine chroniclers Nicephorus and Theophanes, most probably on the basis of a common prototype, arouses controversy.3 According to this story, the first ‘Bulgar state’ (the old, so-called “external Bulgaria”), situated north of the Black Sea, between the Dnieper and the Don Rivers, was established by a man named Kuvrat (Krovatos). Before his death, which took place between 641 and 668, he reportedly handed over his realm to his five sons. They subsequently had an argument, and only the eldest of the sons remained there as a ruler, while the 1 Chronographus, 105; Moses Khorenats’i, History of the Armenians, 135–136, 145; Ioannis Antiocheni Fragmenta, 516; Ennodius, Panegyricus, 208–209. 2 From the rich literature see only: Swoboda 1971; Angelov 1980; Beševliev 1981; Mazer 1992; Ziemann 2007b; Fiedler 2008; Stepanov 2016. 3 Theophanis Chronographia, 356–358; Nicephori archiepiscopi, 33–34; see Ziemann 2007b, 142–159.

© Eduard Mühle, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004536746_006

Early Slavic Power Structures

115

other four set off, together with their families, to seek other territories to rule. This is how the third son, Asparuh (Isperich), was believed to have arrived in the lower Danube area where he settled down together with his people in the delta of the Danube, in the place called Oglos. Whether this story reflects historical events or should be approached as a legend created in later times, is not to be determined with certainty today. Its implicit statement, that since the 670s the Proto-Bulgars commanded by Asparuh encountered Byzantine troops on the lower Danube can be regarded as reliable, however. The union, which was already joined probably also by Slavic-speaking groups, moved subsequently from the Danube delta further southward and occupied the territory of what is today southern Romania and northern Bulgaria, subduing the aboriginal Thracian people, as well as those Slavic-speaking groups, who had migrated into the region before the arrival of Asparuh’s people. Asparuh ordered that the Slavic-speaking group of the so-called Seven Tribes be relocated, in its entirety, toward the western peripheries of the subdued territory in order to ensure protection against the Avars, while he had the so-called Severeis moved to the passes of Eastern Balkans as a defence against the Byzantines.4 The Bulgars repeatedly invaded Thracia and even reached as far as Constantinople, which exerted so strong a pressure on the Byzantines that Emperor Constantine IV felt forced to enter into a peace agreement and pay annual tributes. Probably already in the summer of 681 the Byzantines recognized Asparuh’s power – a fact memorized already by medieval Latin sources as the founding date of the (First) Bulgarian Empire.5 The successes in the war against Byzantium leveraged the prestige of the new polity. Soon afterward, more Slavic-speaking groups surrendered to it and committed themselves to pay tributes and put their warriors at the disposal of Bulgar commanders. In this way, in the eastern part of the Balkan Peninsula, between the Black Sea in the east and the empire of the Avars in the west, the Carpathian Mountains in the north and the Balkans in the south, a political organism emerged which soon turned into a powerful centre of power. Its propelling force was initially the Proto-Bulgar elite, whose fortunes, obviously, varied. Under the rule of Asparuh’s successor Tervel (701–21), a phase of power initially evolved, which enabled the Bulgars to help Emperor Justinian II to regain the throne in 705, as he was deposited ten years earlier. Justinian expressed his gratitude with gifts and with bestowal of lands to the Bulgars, while the khan 4 See Chapter 4, footnote 99; Ditten 1983, 88–92; Ziemann 2007b, 168. 5 In this sense various sources report (with verbal variations): Ab hinc regnum Bulgar(ior)um annotandum est; quotation from Croonenbroeck 1983.

116

Chapter 5

was afforded the honorary title of kaisar.6 This marked, in parallel, an attempt to fit the ruler of the Bulgars into Byzantium’s own image of the world and to preserve at least an illusion of Byzantine supremacy. The Bulgars arrived to aid the Byzantines once again in 717–18, during the siege of Constantinople by the Arabs. After these events, the sources remain silent for some time. Only a brief genealogy of the early Bulgar rulers, the so-called “List of Names of the Bulgarian Khans” (Именник на българските ханове), specify the later Proto-Bulgar rulers; however, this specification causes considerable interpretative difficulties.7 Proto-Bulgars remained a thorn in the Byzantines’ flesh, as they obstructed Constantinople’s efforts to regain the lost territories in the Balkan Peninsula and subdue the local Slavs (Sklavenoi). There was, indeed, a threat that the Bulgar khanate would become a melting pot for all Slavic-speaking groups living in the Balkans. Its internal organization was more efficient than that of the diverse Slavic-speaking associations or unions that earlier on settled down south of the Danube. The emperors tried to counteract the consequent impending peril to Byzantium by organising, from the second half of the 8th century onward, war expeditions to the north. These actions repeatedly posed a threat to the existence of the Bulgar khanate, all the more that they were usually accompanied by internal conflicts which the Byzantines knew how to cleverly incite.8 As early-9th century Byzantine sources reveal, internal disputes over the throne and an upheaval incited a large number of Slavs to leave the khanate and flee to Byzantium.9 Yet, the unwelcome neighbour was not to be removed. On the contrary: in effect, the Bulgars, as a result of all these clashes and struggles, formed a reinforced body politic. Apparently, they did not yet have a defined centre whose conquest and destruction would have caused a decomposition of the whole polity. As a still largely mobile power elite, the Bulgar warrior unions were capable to efficiently avoid the aggressors and elude their opponents effortlessly. The geography of their territory made their defence even easier: the territory was protected from all sides and access to it through mountain 6 On a lead seal, presenting Tervel on the reverse side in armanent, he is named kaisar, which after basileus was the second highest rank of the Byzantine hierarchy; Zacos/Veglery 1972, 1441; Iurkova 1978. 7 Imennik, 11–12; English translation: The Voices, 4–5. The list reaching back into the sixties of the 8th century is preserved only in Russian manuscripts of the 15th/16th centuries; it was originally written in Greek, goes far back into times before the settling down of the Bulgarians at the Danube and registers the ruling years of the Chans according to the Protobulgarian moon-calendar; see Pritsak 1955; Kaimakamova 1990, 59–65; Kaimakamova 2011b, 102–115. 8 On these conflicts in more detail Sophoulis 2012. 9 Nicephori archiepiscopi, 68; Theophanis Chronographia, 432; Ditten 1993, 83–86.

Early Slavic Power Structures

117

passes and river valleys could quickly become a trap for the raiders. Even Emperor Nicephorus I, who in 811 managed to destroy and plunder one of the residences of the Bulgar ruler (so-called aulē), did not achieve much by means of this victory. Soon afterward, Khan Krum (802/3–14) inflicted a devastating defeat on one of the Balkan Mountain passes, killing the emperor himself. The khan had recruited for the purpose not only Avar warriors but, apart from the ProtoBulgar troops, he also drafted Slavic troops (Sklavinias). It remains unclear whether the latter perceived themselves as separate groups, even if they had long been the khan’s subjects, or whether they considered themselves Bulgars already.10 The Byzantine sources clearly still perceived (Proto-)Bulgars and Slavs as two different groups; on the other hand, their common struggle against the Byzantines had an integrating effect. By all indications, Krum endeavoured to reinforce deliberately this effect, including by resorting to rituals or symbols – as when he ordered wine to be served to the Slavic chieftains, invited to a feast to celebrate a victory, in a jorum made of the skull of the killed Emperor Nicephorus.11 The year 809 saw the Bulgars’ ruler and his warriors, who gradually built a Slavic-Bulgar union, conquer the fortress of Serdica (modern Sofia). Thereafter, Krum raided inside the Byzantine territory, into Thracia and Macedonia, where he subordinated to himself the Slavic associations inhabiting these areas. In this way, he initiated an expansion that reached as far as Constantinople in the south-west, while the forays to the north-east were reflected even in Frankish sources. In parallel, the khan solicited peace with Byzantium  – possibly to prevent the huge masses of refugees from the conquered areas from reaching the area of Constantinople. In 812/13, he sent envoys to Emperor Michael with a draft agreement; the team was led by a man whose name, Dargameros, allows the supposition that he was a Slav.12 It seems that this is yet another proof that as early as the 9th century, the Slavs played an essential role at the Proto-Bulgar court, and that ethnic intermingling in the political elite was quite advanced by then. The Byzantines rejected the peace offer and tried to offer an armed response but finally had to surrender to Krum again. His son and successor Omurtag (815–31) managed to enforce lasting peace conditions on the Byzantines; their 10

Ziemann 2007b, 229 maintains that already at the end of the 7th century “Slavic groups within the Bulgarian realm were seen as Bulgarians.” 11 Theophanis Chronographia, 485, 491; Scriptor incertus, 28; Turlej 2007; Sophoulis 2010; Leška 2007. 12 Theophanis Chronographia, 497; Dargaslav appears also in the inscription of a seal dated to the 8th naming him “archon of Hellas”, Oikonomides 1998.

118

Chapter 5

content is partly preserved in an inscription found in the north Bulgarian locality Sečište/Novy Pazar. The agreement defined the borders, provided for an exchange of captives, and contained interesting regulations concerning the Slavs. Among the latter, those “subject to the emperor [were to] remain as they were the moment the war broke out,” which means that they would not move their abodes after the war; whereas those who during the warfare fled to the coastal areas and were not subordinated to the emperor were to be sent back to their Bulgar villages.13 The peace entered with Byzantium redirected the Bulgar expansion entirely: instead of the Byzantine peripheries in the south, the lands in the west and north-west became of interest to the Bulgars. The agreement with Constantinople left the way open for them to continue efficiently the expansion in these directions. In effect, Omurtag moved the state’s western frontier all the way to the area between the Danube and the Tisza, conquered the Slavs who had meanwhile settled there, and subdued them to the power of the rectores.14 As it seems, the khan was fully aware that his actions infringed the interests of the empire of the Franks in this part of Europe. So, in 823/4 he sent his envoys to the court of Louis the Pious. As the “Royal Frankish Annals” say, when the emperor had received them and had read the letters they brought, he was moved by the novelty of this matter to explore more thoroughly the cause of this unprecedented legation which never before had come to Francia. He sent Machelm, a Bavarian, with these envoys to the king of the Bulgars.15 This diplomatic mission obviously did not accomplish much. Later legations, which in 825/6 requested the establishment of a common border, were received by Louis with reluctance and sent away without a binding reply. This led to a confrontation: in 828/9, the Bulgars invaded the Drava valley again and ravished the peripheral areas of Upper Pannonia; the Franks did not let it off.16 The territorial expansion and the peace agreement with Byzantium had a beneficial impact on the internal consolidation of the state of the ProtoBulgars while also reinforcing the influence of the Greek-Byzantine culture and of Christianity – through the presence of numerous captives abducted to Bulgaria during the wars, among other factors. The consolidation and cultural 13 14 15 16

Die protobulgarischen Inschriften, 190–192; see Treadgold 1984; Sophoulis 2009, 126. Annales regni Francorum, 173. Annales regni Francorum, 164; the English quotation from Carolingian Chronicles, 115. Annales regni Francorum, 168–170, 173; Gjuzelev 1966, 33–34; Nikolov 2018.

Early Slavic Power Structures

119

influence were possibly reflected already in the first legal deed from the time of Khan Krum, which determined the measures of counteracting defamation, theft, drunkenness, fraud, and corruption. The document might also have been a further attempt at reinforcing the integration of Proto-Bulgar and Slavic strata of the society based on a uniform law. However, Krum himself is only mentioned by one Byzantine source related to this ‘collection of laws’; the mention is indirect and in the form of an anecdote, clearly influenced by classical topoi, and thus the historical value of the mention is somewhat doubtful.17 In any case, the method of power-wielding pursued by the khans was modified. The forms of its representation and administrative mechanisms were getting increasingly like the Byzantine model and became more and more efficient – as is testified by, inter alia, the so-called Proto-Bulgar inscriptions applied in Omurtag’s time with increasing frequency as a means of the ruler’s representation. Only in single cases they were written in Proto-Bulgarian using Greek letters; most of them were drawn up in Greek, whereas not the Constantinople rhetoric but an “idiom with elements of folk language, derived from the colloquial parlance of the local Greeks” was applied.18 Since Omurtag’s day, the inscriptions contain titles and names of offices (Tarkhan, with various additions) which point to novel administrative structures. The khan is repeatedly mentioned in a way that imitates the Byzantine title (“archon, by the will of God”),19 which might have denoted a new concept of the ruler, based upon his divine legitimation. Iconographic patterns influenced the other areas of the ruler’s self-presentation. Khan Omurtag ordered to be represented, for instance, on a golden medallion, in a folded mantle, with a crown on his head and a cross held in the right hand – thus entirely following Christian-Byzantine iconography.20 Also, with respect to arts and architecture, there was a marked Byzantine influence since Omurtag’s rule. The establishment of new courts and town-like centres such as Pliska, became a material expression of the progressing strengthening of the structures of power. Indeed, many scholars assume that Pliska was established already by Asparuh, initially probably as a wintertime camp of the nomads, and that it was identical with the aulē (αὐλἡ), destroyed in 811 by Emperor Nicephorus; in fact, however, the name of this particular locality is first attested only in an inscription made for Khan Omurtag 17 Suidae Lexicon, 483–484 (Bulgaroi); English translation: The Voices, 23–24; see also: Kazarov 1907; Ionchev 1956; Milkova 1983. 18 Die protobulgarischen Inschriften; quote from Schreiner 1989, 57. 19 Die protobulgarischen Inschriften, 44–46, 99, 157, 166, 261, 277, 287, 292. 20 Iordanov/Slavchev 1979; Ivan Iordanov, Korpus, 36–44 (ill. 37).

120

Chapter 5

in 822, whereas it appears in Byzantine chronicles only in the end of the 10th century.21 Since 1884, scholars have tended to associate Pliska with the extensive remains of the walls located not far from the village of Aboba, near the town of Shumen, which had been known for a long time, and from 1899 onward became repeatedly researched through excavation. A new stage of research, still underway, was initiated in 1997. The Pliska complex is quite peculiar; attempts to date it have so far not gone beyond the early 9th century.22 It was composed of a rectangular outer embankment confining an area of 23.3 sq. km. Within this ‘outer city’, an ‘inner city’ was situated almost centrally, and surrounded by a 2.8 km long stone wall, whose construction is dated at the beginning of the 9th century. Within a roughly square area, remains of numerous palaces, residential houses and crafts workshops have been discovered, along with a structure interpreted as a relic of a pagan temple. Moreover, several younger structures, remains of churches, have been unveiled. Roughly in the centre of the ‘inner town’, a rectangular ‘citadel’ of the area of approximately 1 ha has been discovered. Buttressed with a brick wall, it probably contained the khan’s palace and other dwelling facilities of the reigning family; possibly, one more worship-function building was part of the complex. The dating of the individual structures/facilities is rather uncertain, hence the chronology of the origins of this enormous complex cannot be reliably established.23 Omurtag’s successors, Malamir (831–6/7) and Persyan (837–52) extended the kingdom, which was ruled certainly not from Pliska alone; it was inhabited by Slavs mainly in the south-west, in a part of the Balkan Peninsula. It seems that the rulers, in parallel, intensified the efforts aimed at further integration of different parts of the population living in their country. Malamir’s name might have already been Slavic, so it cannot be precluded that Slavicization of the Proto-Bulgars through marriages began at that point.24 In north-eastern Bulgaria, which was the centre of Proto-Bulgar colonization, Slavic names of places and rivers prevailed in as early as the 8th/9th century. Archaeological

21 Die protobulgarischen Inschriften, 260–261: “Residing in Pliska, [Omurtag] built a palace on the river Tičą”; Leonis Diaconi, 138; Ioannis Scylitzae, 343–344; see Ziemann 2007b, 244–263; Prinzing 2007. 22 For the latest research see the contributions in Post-Roman Towns, 209–382; Ziemann 2007b, 317–332 and Ziemann 2008; Ziemann 2013. 23 Rašev 2007. 24 That this name is of Protobulgarian origin maintain Die protobulgarischen Inschriften, 160, 337 and Kronsteiner 1986, 65; that it is a Slavic name maintain Swoboda 1967; Pohl 2018a, 494.

Early Slavic Power Structures

121

research into the settlements and burial grounds have also pointed to a progressive blending of the Slavic and Proto-Bulgar people.25 Malamir’s successor, whose name was, again, Turkic, probably not only meant his Proto-Bulgar adherents when ordering to be described, in surviving inscription, “the archon, by the will of God, of many a Bulgar” ([Το] νπολῶν Βου[λ]γάρον [ὁ] ἐϰδεοῦ ἄρχον).26 This is an instance of an extended title of the ruler and of an expanded notion of the Bulgars; in any case, it seems that it was used there in terms of a ‘union of people as a whole’, thus possibly embracing also the Slavic-speaking subjects. The reference to God, which also appeared in Omurtag’s inscriptions, once again proves that individual elements of Christian faith were being taken over. The Bulgars’ contact with Christianity progressed since long, as the pagan Proto-Bulgars and the Slavs finally settled down in the areas that mostly underwent Christianization as they were part of the Byzantine Empire. Christian elements probably survived the seizure of these areas by the Proto-Bulgars and Slavs.27 The local Christian people were soon joined by a number of Christian captives who had been abducted from Byzantium to Bulgaria, as well as by Christian dwellers of the conquered parts of Byzantium. Indeed, the Christians living under Bulgar rule had to stand persecution inflicted in phases, carefully documented in Byzantine hagiographic writings, and used as propaganda against the khans, but professing their religion was not banned.28 The everyday neighbour relationships and economic contacts (attested by finds of coins and seals, among others) resulted in a permanent Byzantine-Christian influence. Present in a variety of ways at the ruler’s court, the Byzantines caused that the ruler’s family constantly stayed in touch with Christian concepts and ideas. With time, the court team must have realized that there was a political dimension to Christianity. Above all, in the context of foreign contacts and the renewal of relations with the Eastern Frankish royal court in 845,29 the Proto-Bulgar elites probably realized the potential implied by the assumption of Christianity. It promised a stronger integration and legitimation inside, with a larger authority and recognition outside. The latter factor was demanded in proportion to the Bulgars’ will to reinforce their position as an independent 25 Die protobulgarischen Inschriften, 49; Angelov 1978, 29–31. 26 Die protobulgarischen Inschriften, 164, 166. 27 Schreiner 1987, 57 hints to the architecture of the oldest churches erected shortly after christianization; they represented a type of building, that in Byzantium at the time was already long outdated; thus, the first Bulgarian churches might have continued an indigenous Old-Christian tradition. 28 Nikolov 2000. 29 Annales Fuldenses, 35.

122

Chapter 5

power between the rivalling authorities of Byzantium, the state of the Franks, and the Kingdom of Old Moravia, which had meanwhile gained in importance. The decision of Presyan’s son Boris (852–89) to accept baptism was, therefore, very easy to understand. He was christened in the year 864 or 86530 by Byzantine clergymen sent to Bulgaria, who started to organize church structures there, strictly connected to Constantinople. In a special mirror (set of instructions), Patriarch Photios instructed the khan, who had received his baptismal name from Emperor Michael III, about the primary Christian dogmas and the rules of a Christian ruler’s conduct.31 This instruction demonstrated clearly that Byzantium through building ecclesiastical structures tried to create new (inter)dependencies. Parts of the Bulgarian elite opposed this; also, the khan endeavoured to retain his autonomy. It was probably to this end that he requested the Roman Church and the king of the Eastern Franks, to send over clergymen as well as church books and equipment in 866.32 The mission of the Eastern Franks, however, fell through. Meanwhile, Pope Nicholas I sent his two missionaries, Paolo of Populonia and Formosus of Porto, to the khan’s court and equipped them with an extensive instruction letter comprising his responses to the questions received earlier on from Boris Mikhail (Michael), via his envoys.33 The questions, which regrettably have not survived, concerned no fundamental dogmatic/theological problems; that, they referred to some very specific questions regarding the organization of the Church, practical matters related to faith, and secular matters, including legal issues. It seems that the khan and his officials were primarily concerned with the question of whether, and how, the new religion would contribute to the keeping and optimization of public order. In any case, Christianity was introduced despite open objection from the Bulgar elite.34 The community whose coherence and order had to be ensured was consistently referred to in the papal responsa as ‘Bulgars’; thus, the pope would not differentiate between the Proto-Bulgar and Slavic population. He took no position with respect to the question whether the mission ought to be based on a special Slavic written 30 Gjuzelev 1975; Sullivan 1996; Herbers 2011; Grünbart 2013. 31 Photii patriarchae, ep. 1, 2–39; Stratoudakai White/Berrigan 1982; Gjuzelev 1987; Simeonova 1998, 112–156; Speck 2000 (who doubts the authenticity of the Photios-letter and that the first initiative of converting the Bulgars came from the Byzantines). 32 Annales Fuldenses, 65; Annales de Saint Bertin, 134; Le Liber pontificalis, 164. 33 Nicolaus capitulis; English translation: The Voices, 24–31; see also: Djučev 1965; Leisching 1977; Holmes 1990; Ziemann 2007b, 381–386. 34 Nicolaus capitulis, cap. 17, 577; Ziemann 2007a; Ziemann 2007b, 373–380.

Early Slavic Power Structures

123

language, one like that introduced at the same time in Moravia by the Byzantine missionaries Constantine/Cyril and Methodius. Their mission, commenced in Moravia in the year 863, probably did not pass unnoticed in Bulgaria, but it did not bring about a remarkable increase in the role of the Slavic language at the khan’s court. Offered in a total of 106 chapters, the Pope’s replies also served as an instruction for the papal legates who brought them to Bulgaria and, once there, instructed the neophytes on how to proceed in line with the new faith. The pope’s messengers pursued their mission and baptized the local people so efficiently that Boris requested Rome to send over more priests and, primarily, to nominate Formosus as a Bulgarian archbishop. As the Pope’s instructions stated, Boris sought the possibility of having a patriarchate established in Bulgaria in his first enquiry. A similar request had apparently been rejected by Patriarch Photios in Constantinople, which probably strengthened the incentive to address Rome as a ‘competitive’ factor. This circumstance, along with the political upheaval of 867 in Byzantium, during which Emperor Michael III was murdered, which was soon followed by the deposition of Patriarch Photios, possibly incited Boris to join the Byzantines again. The détente in the church policies that occurred between Rome and Constantinople in the time of Pope Hadrian II (867–72) and Patriarch Ignatius I (867–77) contributed to the decision in March 870, with a contribution from Bulgaria, for the establishment of a Bulgarian archbishopric, subordinate to Constantinople. The pope sent more missionaries to Bulgaria, bishops Dominic of Trevisio and Grimoald of Bomarzo among them and proposed to Boris that he chose one of them as the archbishop and had him sent back to Rome to accept ordination there. However, Boris’s clear demand to make Formosus archbishop was turned down by the pope.35 With the acceptance of Christianity in the 860s, the pagan Proto-Bulgar period in the early medieval history of Bulgaria came to an end, and the Christian Slavic era began. The pagan khan became a Christian ruler and a spiritual son of the Byzantine emperor.36 Thus, Boris Mikhail established himself as a member of the European ‘family of kings’. His ‘state’, named Bulgaria and clearly defined inwardly and outwardly in terms of both territory and concepts/ideas, became a stable power in South-Eastern Europe.

35 Döpmann 1982; Koev 2003. 36 Dölger 1964, 183–196.

124 2

Chapter 5

Small Principalities in the Western Balkans

As opposed to the Bulgars/Bulgarians, their western neighbours had no large ‘state organizations’ established yet in the 9th century.37 The natural and geographic conditions of the western part of the Balkan Peninsula had been beneficial, since the dawn of time, to the emergence of small, enclosed settlement structures and the action of centrifugal forces while posing a serious obstacle to the formation of larger political associations or unions.38 The region along the Adriatic coast, traversed by valleys, and its mountainous part inside the land, were moreover exposed to the pressure of powerful external forces. Given such conditions, the Slavic-speaking groups settling the western parts of the Balkan Peninsula between the 6th and 8th centuries were hardly able to form larger political units. The formation and older history of these groups remain unknown, as do their relations with the local people they encountered. Although written sources contain single mentions of Slavic groups reaching the Adriatic area in the 6th century, they remain completely tacit about what was going on in the 7th and late 8th centuries. The relevant finds and archaeological objects have recently been assessed with higher carefulness and partly dated at a later period.39 Moreover, many researchers still assume that also large parts of the Western Balkans and the Adriatic coast were colonized in as early as the 6th to 7th centuries by Slavic-speaking groups of people. With a ‘second wave’ of migration, the Croats and Serbs are supposed to have settled down there (in the 7th/8th century, at the latest; if not in the 6th), forming their early federations there.40 However, no reliable sources that might confirm this supposition exist; the only basis for such a view is a work written by the Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus in the middle of the 10th century. Known under the title De administrando imperio, this didactic text, dedicated to the emperor’s son and successor, describes the early Slavic history of the region in a biased manner.41 The emperor, namely, wanted to show that 37

Fine 1983, 49–93; Turk Santiago 1984, 9–55; Katičić 1999b; Curta 2006a, 70–179; Schramm 2011; Alimov 2016. 38 Kahl/Schramm 2011. 39 Čremošnik 1972; Čremošnik 1975; Belošević 1980, 146–174; Evans 1989, 86–151; Janković 1995; Katičić 1999a, 164–183; Dzino 2010, 118–174, 212. 40 Ferluga 1976, 245–259; Margetić 1977; Margetić 2001, 217–271 (dates the settlement of the Croats to the late 8th century); Ditten 1978a; Suić 1995; Fine 2000, 211–217; Heyduk 2003; Fokt 2003; Fokt 2010. 41 From the rich literature on the author and his work see e.g. the contributions in Center, Province and Periphery.

Early Slavic Power Structures

125

Dalmatia or Illyria had been subordinate to Byzantium for centuries and that Constantinople had always had the right to treat those territories as a sphere of its political interests. It is in this spirit that Chapter 29 of the work stated that “the whole of Dalmatia and the nations about it, such as Croats, Serbs, Zachumli, Terbouniotes, Kanalites, Diocleatians and Arentani, who are also called Pagani” were subject already to “the reign of Emperor Heraclius.” “Through the sloth and inexperience” of the imperial dynasty preceding the one Constantine Porphyrogenitus himself sprang off these Slavic unions transitionally eluded the Byzantine power, but under the rule of Emperor Basil I of Macedonia (867–86)  – founder of the House of Macedonia, from which Constantine came – they requested to be subordinate to the Byzantines again and be baptized at the same time.42 The following Chapter 30, written between 955 and 973, and possibly inserted into the work somewhat later, explains from a somewhat different perspective, how Dalmatia “was taken by the nations of the Slavs.” At first, reference is made to the Avars, who conquered Solin and the province; next the Croats are mentioned, who originally lived on the other side of the territory inhabited by the Bavarians, “where the Belocroats are now,” but subsequently split themselves: some of them – five brothers and two sisters, to be exact – wandered off “with their folk” to Dalmatia. There they encountered the Avars, whom they eventually conquered after years of fighting; hence, “from that time this land was possessed by the Croats.”43 The message whereby the Croats owed their victory over the Avars to the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius was intended by the third version of the early history of the Croats as recorded in Chapter 31. According to it, the “Croats arrived to claim the protection of the emperor of the Romans Heraclius,” by whose command “these Croats defeated and expelled the Avars from those parts, and by mandate of Heraclius the emperor they settled down in that same country of the Avars, where they now dwell.” There, they were baptized by clergymen brought by the emperor from Rome to Dalmatia. But the country the Croats settled, as Constantine did not miss to emphasize, “was originally under the dominion of the emperor of the Romans (Rhomaioi).”44

42 43 44

Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De administrando imperio, 122–138; the English quotations ibidem 125. Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De administrando imperio, 138–146; the English quotations ibidem 139, 143. Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De administrando imperio, 146–152; the English quotations ibidem 149.

126

Chapter 5

Chapter 32 tells a very similar story, on the origin of the Serbs and how they settled down. As it reads, the Serbs also originally came from a larger union – the one of the so-called ‘white’ Serbs who lived “beyond Turkey [i.e., in Hungary] in a place called by them Boiki, where their neighbour is Francia.” When two brothers could not arrive at an agreement with regard to the succession, one of them apparently fled together “with half of the folk, claimed protection of Heraclius […] and the same emperor Heraclius received him and gave him a place in the province of Thessalonica to settle in, namely Serbia.” Later, the emperor granted them “other land to settle in,” namely “what is now Serbia and Pagania and the so-called country of the Zachumli and Terbounia and the country of the Kanalites,” since these countries “were under the dominion of the emperor of the Romans and […] had been made desolate by the Avars.” Like the “Archon of the Croats”, also the “Archon of the Serbs” “has from the beginning, that is, ever since the reign of Heraclius the emperor, been in servitude and submission to the emperor of the Romans, and was never subject to the prince of Bulgaria.”45 Moreover, the origins and settlement history of the Zachumli/Zahumlian (Chapter 33), Terbouniotes/Travunians and Kanalites (Chap. 34), Diocleatian (Chap. 35), and Arentani/Narentanians (Chap. 36) is presented, in a more concise form. The author keeps on emphasizing that the colonization and settlement of those ‘Slavic’ groups occurred on Byzantine lands and on command of the Byzantines. Scholars have long tried to pick out the historical truth from these partly contradicting pieces of information, and consequently shift the date of the emergence of the Croatian and Serbian political unions and the beginnings of their Christianization to the 7th century.46 Owing to the internal contradictions and recognisable propagandist and legitimizing intentions of these legends of origin and settlement, it seems quite doubtful, though, that they might describe real events.47 The employment of the classical origo gentis motif (its threads including: the brother-motif; the motif of a distant primordial homeland, left by the proto-people split into several branches; the motif of migration) apparently disqualifies such an expectation. These narrative elements might be evidence that the emperor probably did not conceive his historical-and-political project for Byzantium’s policy toward Dalmatia out of the blue, but possibly relied on some oral tradition. But even the oral tradition 45 46 47

Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De administrando imperio, 152–160; the English quotations ibidem 153, 161. Turk Santiago 1984, 10–24; Maksimović 1992; Tomljemović 1997, 46; Komatina 2016, 44–49. For the latest discussion on chapters 29–32 of De administrando imperio see: Alimov 2008; Alimov 2016, 135–182; Ančić 2010; Ančić 2018a; Curta 2010a; Borri 2011; Dzino 2010, 104–117; Dzino 2014; Pohl 2018a, 311–318.

Early Slavic Power Structures

127

of Croatian and Serbian unions, which might have been used by Constantine as a source of information, described no real historical developments from the period between the 6th and 8th centuries. Rather, it represented a younger identity project that the Croatian and Serbian political elites of the 9th and early 10th centuries took advantage of in their attempts to create an image of the origins of their tribal associations, which was meant to establish their position and power. Emperor Constantine doubtlessly made use not only of the reports and news from Dalmatia of his own time, but also of the imperial archives. Hence, it can be accepted that his argument referring to the Western Balkan Slavs, which follows the story on the legendary origins, is more reliable. Albeit the chronologically imprecise explanations do not simply refer to the conditions prevailing in the author’s lifetime, i.e. until the 10th century, they reach the first half of the 9th century, at the most. Not only the Croats and Serbs are mentioned, but several other Slavic-speaking groups are present as well, which must have been organized into small principalities. Their names, only partly Slavic, were mostly based on geographical features (rivers, mountains, settlement areas), which can serve as yet another proof of their regional anchoring. Only the names of the Croats and Serbs pointed to no specific natural/ geographical phenomena; their linguistic interpretation has aroused controversies among linguists. It is certain that at least the name ‘Croats’ is not Slavic: the most probable option is that it was derived from a Turkic term which referred to a particular social stratum or functional elite. Hence the idea that the ‘Croats’ might originally have been a leadership group coming from the empire of the Avars – a group that, similarly as the Proto-Bulgars, eventually integrated different, mostly Slavic-speaking groups, into one union.48 This might have happened not only in the south-western but also in the northern peripheries of the former khaganate. In any case, this would explain the fact that the name ‘Croats’ appears also in the eastern part of Central Europe. The name ‘Serbs’ (and ‘Sorbs’), also repeatedly appearing in different parts of Eastern Europe, is explainable (as long as it is a Slavic word) in terms of etymology: the latter has it that it is derived from the root *srb, which relates in broad terms to kinship/lineage.49 According to Constantine Porphyrogenitus, Western Balkan Slavic groups were initially headed by elders or zhupans and not yet by archontes/duces; these appeared only in the 9th century, and not only with the Croats and 48 49

Pohl 1985; Pohl 1995, 220; Margetić 1995, 40–41; Katičić 1999a, 194–195; see also Kunstmann 1982. Turk Santiago 1984, 49–52; Schuster-Šewc 1985.

128

Chapter 5

Serbs but also with the Zachumli/Zahumlians, Terbouniotes/Travunians, Kanalites, Diocleatians, and the Slavs living in the vicinity of Thessaloniki.50 This is reflected by the “Royal Frankish Annals”, where references are made, in as early as 818–21, to a dux Pannoniae inferioris called Liudevit and to a dux Dalmatinorum/Dalmatiae atque Liburniae called Borna.51 After Charlemagne had put an end to the rule of the Avars, the empire of the Franks expanded toward the northern part of the Adriatic basin and the Balkans. Ever since then, the Frankish margraves endeavoured to secure their newly acquired spheres of influence, similarly as Byzantium was getting involved, in the same spirit, in the southern parts of Dalmatia.52 Both parties made use of the petty regional rulers, winning them over as allies or liegemen, and thereby reinforced their positions in the Slavic-speaking world. As it seems, it was only resulting from these processes that individual elders or zhupans turned into actual archontes and duces;53 then, in this capacity, they could make efforts to free themselves from the rule of the Byzantines and/or the Franks. The successful outcome of these attempts caused that the political, material, and symbolical capital of these rulers increased, which, in turn, helped them strengthen their own power, enlarge the territory and, finally, bring about the formation of a stable ducal authority. However, not all of the small Western Balkan principalities emerging in the 9th century were successful in this respect.54 Finally, of the first attempts made in the 9th century, only the Croats and Serbs developed – in the 9th/10th or, respectively, 11th/12th century – ducal monarchies that enabled to develop a full medieval ‘national’ awareness as well as an absorption of the adjacent regional principalities and their integration, more or less successful, with their own natio. 3

Carinthia

Long before its counterparts in the coastal area and deeper inside the Balkan Peninsula, a Slavic duchy in the Eastern Alps emerged. The area between the upper Rába and the Mura in the east, the Puster Valley (Pustertal) in the west, the High Tauern, and the Enns River – in the north, and the Carnic Alps, the Karawanks, and the Drava River – in the south, had long been a former Roman 50 Constantine Porphyrogennetos, The Book of Ceremonies, 634–635; Ferluga 1982; Koder 1983. 51 Annales regni Francorum, 149, 151, 155. 52 Ferluga 1978, 130–189; Majnarić 2018a; Štih 2018b. 53 Katičić 1985; Ančić 1997; Budak 1997; Alimov 2006; Majnarić 2018b. 54 See below pp. 297–300.

Early Slavic Power Structures

129

province. Until the 6th century, it had been under the influence of late Roman or Romananic administrative and ecclesiastical structures. However, by the 6th century (at the latest), after the arrival in this area of smaller Slavic and Avar groups, these structures faded.55 The last information on three Noric bishoprics – Virunum, Teurnia, and Aguntum – date to the year 591. At that time, first mentions of Slavic-speaking arrivals occurred. They appear in the Historia Langobardorum penned by Paul the Deacon; though Paul acted in the late 8th century, in describing the earlier events he probably used the ‘brief history of the Lombards’ by Secundus of Trent (died 612) as his source.56 The descriptions of the clashes between the Lombards, on the one hand, and the Bavars and Avars, on the other hand, can thus be regarded as rather reliable. In their context, the Historia Langobardorum recounts the Bavarian duke Tassilo I’s invasion of a Sclaborum provinciam and his return from the expedition with rich spoils. Three years later, the Bavars reportedly ventured into the Slavic territory (super Sclavos inruunt) again but were defeated by the khagan of the Avars. Also, in the year 610 an expedition of Garibald II, duke of Bavaria, against the Slavs living on the edge of the Eastern Alps led to the duke’s defeat at Aguntum, whereas the Slavs won rich spoils. But the Bavars took them back very soon and drove the Slavs away. Paul the Deacon describes the Slavic region of Zellia, situated inside the triangle of what is today Carinthia, Slovenia, and Italy, which in 625 had to pay a tribute to the dukes of Friuli.57 Also the marca Vinedorum mentioned in the “Fredegar Chronicle”, in the record on the 630s, which was ruled by dux Wallucus and where several hundred Bulgars fleeing from the Avars and, subsequently, from King Dagobert and the Bavars, found refuge, is usually situated in the Eastern Alps.58 This information points to different Slavic-speaking groups, partly related to the Avars. It remains unclear where exactly they lived, how soon they blended into the local Celtic-Roman people, and how advanced their political organization was. Indeed, their existence was noticeable from the outside since the early 7th century, as is attested by terms such as provincia, regio, and marca, but none of the latter could possibly refer to a larger and integrated principality of the Carantanians. The Slavs from the Eastern Alps were perceived by their neighbours as ‘Carantanians’ only since the beginning of the 8th century,

55 56

Wolfram 1985, 132–139; Szameit 1995/96; Lotter 2003, 68–69, 203–204; Štih 2010, 87–99. Jacobi 1877, 63–84; Bertels 1987, 92; the quotation from: Pauli Historia Langobardorum, 146, 150, 166–167. 57 Štih 2010, 100–7 and 123–35. 58 Chronicarum quae dicuntur Fredegarii, 157.

130

Chapter 5

provided that the writing of the anonymous Ravenna Cosmography, containing the earliest mention of the Carantanians (Carontani), can be dated as ca. 700.59 In 790s, Paul the Deacon would only mention ‘Slavs’ and ‘Slavic brigands’ (Sclavi, latrunculi Sclavorum), rather than ‘Carantanians’; also, he would avoid specifying their territory. The phrase he uses reads, gens Sclavorum in Carnuntum, quod corrupte vocitant Carantanum. This first medieval mention of the name of the Carantanians’ country erroneously derives it from the ancient Carnuntum (situated in what is Lower Austria today), which additionally proves that the Lombard chronicler deliberately shows ignorance, of a sort, with respect to the Carantanian Slavs.60 In any case, most of the scholars agree that in the 8th century most of the Eastern Alps territory was subordinated to the rule of one duke – even though the territorial name of Carinthia – appearing in the form of Karantana provincia, Caranta(nia), or Carentania – is attested in the sources since as late as the first half of the 9th century.61 Likewise, it is only in the last three decades of the 9th century that the treatise Conversio Bagoariorum et Carantanorum was compiled – the only source to which we owe more specific information on the history of the Carantanian duchy in the 8th and early 9th centuries. The text was written in Salzburg as a propagandistic piece, on order of the archbishop (actually, the latter might possibly be the author). It was aimed at giving evidence to Salzburg’s rights to the areas in the Eastern Alps and Pannonia, which makes the message biased. Nonetheless, it is a source of reliable information on the most important contemporary occurrences and processes.62 As we can learn from the Conversio, a part of the Eastern Alpine Slavs, who probably referred to themselves as the Carantani already then, were led around 740 by the chieftain (dux) named Boruth/Boruta. The name Carantani might have been derived from the specific topographical phenomenon  – namely, the mountain Karnberg/Ulrichsberg (Karanta, mons Carentanus), which allows to identify the Carantanians’ home area as the vicinity of modern Klagenfurt.63 When the Carantanians met in conflict with the Avars between 740 and 743, Boruta turned to the Baravian duke Odilo of the Agilolfing dynasty for help. Odilo took the opportunity and not only chased the Avars away but also, on order of the Kingdom of the Franks (servituti regum), subdued ‘the 59 60 61 62 63

See above p. 50 and Wolff 2000. See Curta 1997, 155–166. For the sources see Bertels/Möhlenkamp 1983b. Conversio, 34–59; see Wolfram 1995b and Lošek 1997, 5–53 (90–135 = another Latin-German edition of the source). Kahl 2002; Štih 2010, 111; 169–89.

Early Slavic Power Structures

131

Carantanians and their neighbours’ (Quarantanos […] similiterque confines eorum). The mention of ‘neighbours’ suggests that, apart from the one of Boruta, there were other autonomous unions in the region, led by their own chieftains. Perhaps the request for assistance made to the Bavarian prince was meant to enable Boruta, as part of a joint action taken against the Avars, to be promoted to regional ruler of the adjacent Slavic-speaking associations. The Bavars could support his endeavours as unification of diverse Slavic-speaking associations or unions under his rule could make it easier for them to keep their own hegemony.64 Probably in as early as the summer of 743, the Carantanian warriors came to Odilo’s aid in a dispute with his brothers-in-law Pepin and Carloman (Karlmann). As a token of recognition of the supremacy by the Carantanians, Boruta had hostages sent to the duke’s court, among them his son Cacatius and his nephew Khotimir (Cheitmar). During their stay in Salzburg, both were raised by the Bavarian clergymen into the Christian faith. In parallel, missionaries were sent to the Carantanians, who commenced the Christianization; dux Boruta was christened as well.65 After his death around 750, the Bavars sent Cacatius back to Carinthia, “on order of the Franks” and upon request of the Carantanians (per iussionem Francorum […] petentibus Sclavis), so that he took over power there. After Cacatius’s death three years later, Khotimir established himself as his successor, “again upon consent from King Pepin, the Lord” and on request of the Carantanians, who received him and bestowed upon him the dignity of duke (ducatum dederunt). Together with Khotimir, another group of Bavarian clergymen arrived – among them the episcopal vicar sent by the bishop of Salzburg, who consecrated churches and ordained new clergymen. The missionary activity pursued primarily from Salzburg went on not without protests. Rebellions (carmulae) tended to break out already during Khotimir’s lifetime, repeatedly forcing the missionaries to leave the country, as the Conversio lamented. Such protests certainly did not merely mark an anti-Christian response: they were also a manifestation of the opposition of a part of the Carantanian elite against the new, institutionalized ducal power, subordinate as it was to the Bavars. The resistance was particularly strong after Khotimir’s death (i.e. before 769). After another uprising, “there was no priest anymore for a few years there”, as we can learn from the Conversio. The charter confirming the foundation of the monastery in Innichen, dated 769, contains the phrase “infidel tribe of the Slavs” (incredula generatio Sclauanorum).66 64 Eichert 2014a, 73. 65 On the christianization of the Carantanians: Štih 2018a, 123–35. 66 Die Traditionen des Hochstiftes, 62.

132

Chapter 5

The assistance provided by Tassilo III was decisive in suppressing the uprisings after 772 and establishing Waltunc as the new duke, who resumed the missionary effort. The sources confirm that a pagan cult site still existed on the Lake Millstätt as late as at the end of the 8th century.67 However, a period of stabilization followed at that time, which enabled the state of the Carantanians to grow stronger and, probably, expand its territory. Under the rule of Waltunc and his four successors, who are known by their names: Priwizlauga, Cemicas, Ztoimar, and Etgar, Carinthia remained a Slavic duchy; though associated with Bavaria, it did enjoy some autonomy. Indeed, its dukes owed their power to the Bavarian/Carolingian influence but were probably elected by the politically privileged wealthy ones, and their enthroning was performed according to an adequate ritual. A Roman spolium, known since quite a time as the Ducal Stone (Knežni Kamen), might have been used as the throne. Being a reversed Ionian column base, it is kept today at the Landesmuseum Kärnten in Klagenfurt and is regarded as the oldest symbol of princely power found within present-day Austria.68 It is unknown whether all the abovementioned dukes were members of one dynasty, like Boruta and his successors once were, or came from different wealthy families that alternately stood above the others, reaching the top positions. On the other hand, the relatively short time of their rule – none of them was in power for more than ten years – might suggest that the rulers were replaced not always by way of natural succession. If we assume that between Waltunc and his successors identifiable by names the power was wielded by one or two more unknown dux/duces, it becomes apparent that their ruling periods might have been even shorter.69 Apart from the duke, a role of significance must have been played by the local elites that possessed considerable material resources, as is attested by the churches they founded. The archeologically attested ecclesial buildings featured marble plait-shaped interior finishing.70 None of the residences of these rulers or any stronghold have been yet found or examined to a satisfactory 67

68 69 70

Evidence for this is thought to be found in the so-called “Legend of the holy Domintian of Millstadt.” According to this legend dux quondam Quarantane called Domicianus, when baptizing the Slavs of Millstadt “saw there a not unimportant worship of pagan gods.” The statues of gods, which the legend also linked to the place name (Milstat enim a mille statuis nomen accepit, quas ibidem populus errore delusus antiquo coluit), were then destroyed by Domincianus; quotations from Kahl 1999, 94. Wolfram 1987a, 344–345; Štih 2009. Whether the late-medieval ceremony of inthronizing the princes of Carinthia goes back to an early-medieval ritual remains a question of controversy, see Graber 1919; Kahl 1998; Paulus 2014. Eichert 2014b, 29. Karpf 2000; Karpf 2001; Karpf 2010.

Early Slavic Power Structures

133

degree; no archaeological research at all has been carried out at the settlements. In the localities of Grabelsdorf, Baarsdorf, and Villach Lind, burial grounds (scarce in number) have been discovered. Most of the burials in these necropolises, dated at the 8th century, were made without grave gifts, but within their areas single skeleton graves with gifts have been found; the artefacts included Frankish weapons (sax, spatha, ax, winged spear), Frankish horse-riding equipment (spurs, stirrups) and sets of Avar/Byzantine belts. This depicts a blend of different influences in the material culture of the Carantanian warriors, with the help of which the Carantanian elite developed its own form of burial of outstanding men.71 The autonomy of the Carantanian duchy under the Bavarian supremacy did not change even when Louis the Pious turned the Duchy of Bavaria into a kingdom, in 817, and – together with the Carantanians and other Slavs inhabiting it (Carentanos et Beheimos et Avaros atque Sclavos qui ab orientali parte Baioariae sunt) – passed it over to his son.72 It was not before 828 that the duchy’s independence was cancelled. At that time, the emperor divided the south-eastern part of the Kingdom of the Franks anew, thereby splitting the area of authority of the margrave of Friuli, who had theretofore been responsible for Carinthia, into four counties, Carinthia henceforth becoming one of them. Thus, the gens-based Carantanian system was replaced by Bavarian-Carolingian counties, and the Carantanian dukes by the Bavarian counts. This structural change commenced Carinthia’s lasting integration with the empire of the Franks and triggered a social process which led, sooner or later, to a loss of the political and ethnic awareness among the Carantanians.73 In particular, the imposition of Frankish-Bavarian law began to replace the Slavic common law, leading inter alia to changes in the ownership structures. Since as early as the beginning of the 820s, Bavarian land ownership developed. With the introduction of the system of counties, patrimonies were established that were subordinate not only to indigenous Slavic-speaking nobles but also, and to a growing extent, to new Bavarian lords settling down in Carinthia, who soon started to attract also Bavarian peasant settlers. At the same time, the Carantanian mighty ones became integrated into the circles of the new ruling elite, and with increasing frequency entered kinship relationships with Bavarian noble families, thus – apart from the other factors – gradually losing their linguistic and cultural identity, marked by their name.74 71 72 73 74

Szameit/Stadler 1933; Eichert 2010; Eichert 2011; Eichert 2013. Capitularia regum Francorum, 271. Klebel 1960; Moro 1963; Štih 2014; Štih 2018c. Mitterauer 1960; Karpf 2002.

134

Chapter 5

In 976 (at the latest), when Emperor Otto II turned Carinthia into a Duchy of the empire, the Slavic-Carantanian elite merged with the new, immigrant aristocratic families of the empire. The Duchy of Carinthia’s further political and territorial division into several relatively independent margraviates caused not a trace of awareness of a Slavic-Carantanian community to survive. Out of the Carantanians emerged the Carinthians, the Styrians, the inhabitants of Krajina, each evolving its own self-awareness. Only the simple people in the rural areas remained Slavic-speaking; since the Late Middle Ages, the name Windische or Slovenci came into use to describe them.75 4

Old Moravia

The realm of the Moravians, called Megale Moravia by the Byzantine Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus in mid-10th century,76 did not enjoy a long continuity, either.77 Modern nationally-oriented research willingly tends to interpret the ambiguous Greek adjective as ‘great’, hence the reappearing reference to a ‘Great Moravia’, while what the Byzantine emperor rather meant was an ‘early’/‘old’, or, ‘external’/‘more remote’ Moravia.78 The question of where this Moravia was actually situated has been a topic of tempestuous dispute among scholars for some time. The diverse options, according to which the state was located south, rather than north, of the Danube, in the area of present-day Hungary or Serbia,79 however, have not been met with approval.80 Therefore, the country of the Moravian envoys (Marvanorum legationes), who first appear in the sources in 822 as participants of a court reunion held by Emperor Louis the Pious,81 should be rather identified with the present-day Moravian territory, where its existence is testified through a rich archaeological and material heritage, which has been intensely researched since the middle of the 20th century.82

75 76 77

Grafenauer 1966, 38–39, 59; Spreitzhofer 1996, 264–266. Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De administrando imperio, 176. For general overviews on Old Moravia see Polek 1994a; Jan 2005; Macháček 2009; Třeštík 2009a; Wihoda 2014c and the contributions in the collective volumes: Great Moravia and the Beginnings and Großmähren und seine Nachbarn. 78 Wolfram 1987b, 248. 79 Boba 1971; Bowlus 1995; Eggers 1995. 80 Birnbaum 1993c; Wolfram 1995a; Mühle 1997. 81 Annales regni Francorum, 159. 82 On the historiography and its political instrumentalization: Albrecht 2003; Hadler 1999.

Early Slavic Power Structures

135

The conquest of the khaganate of the Avars by Charlemagne in 791–805 offered the Slavs residing in the valley of the Morava River, from which their name is derived, and which flows into the Danube twelve kilometres west of Bratislava, the opportunity to form their own ‘state’ in the early 9th century. Its first leader, who appears in the sources since the year 830, was Moymir I; his family, which reportedly ruled the Moravians until the very end, is referred to by scholars as the Moymirids.83 The Conversio Bagoariorum et Carantanorum refers to Moymir as a dux and informs that probably in the years 833–36 he drove off from his castle in Nitra a rival named Pribina, who in the valleys of the Váh and the Nitra had established a parallel regional rule.84 In his place Moymir established a relative called Rostislav. This might have taken place on consent of the Eastern Franks, who between 838 and 840 made Pribina their liegeman in Pannonia. Earlier on, Pribina, with his son Kocel and his ducal team fled to Ratbod, the count of the Bavarian Eastern March. Under his custody, as dux of Lower Pannonia, he established a duchy at Mosaburg (Zalavár), on the western bank of Lake Balaton, held in tributary dependence on the State of the Franks.85 The duchy apparently filled up the political and military void that remained after the collapse of the Avar Khaganate; it served the Franks as a buffer in their defence against the Moravians and Bulgars, and made it possible to the Salzburg-based Church to penetrate into central Pannonia. Both Pannonia and Moravia were treated by the Franks as the Empire’s tributary areas. Therefore, also the Bavarian Church, under the Empire’s protection ensuing from its loose supremacy, reached out for the local Slavs. It was, supposedly, already around 827–30 that Adalram, the Archbishop of Salzburg, consecrated a church in Nitra and perhaps Pribina took this opportunity to be baptized in person. Whether also Moymir, as it is described in the Conversio, accepted baptism in the early 830s from Reginhar, Bishop of Passau, and even allowed his whole people to be christened, remains uncertain. Apart from the missionaries from Salzburg, Passau and Regensburg, clergymen from the north of Italy arrived in Moravia until the middle of the 9th century. They were subjected to the jurisdiction of the patriarchate in Aquileia and brought along models of Northern Italian/Adriatic ecclesial buildings. The effects of missionary activities pursued in parallel by diverse entities competing with one another were nonetheless rather modest. Thus, at a church synod held at Mainz in 852, western observers lamented on the rather primitive character of

83 See also Wihoda 2019. 84 Conversio, 50–52. 85 Štih 1994; Szöke 2010.

136

Chapter 5

Christianity of the Moravians (rudis adhuc christianitas gentis Maraensium), who still were in urgent need of further learning.86 Meanwhile, Louis the German, who in 843 received the eastern part of the Empire, spared no efforts to regain his lost control over the eastern peripheral areas.87 To this end, he opposed Moymir I in 846, who briskly responded to the threat of Frankish intervention. The king might have feared that an actual secession (defectio) of the Moravians (Sclavi Margenses) would take place, so in 846 he set out in person with his army against Moymir I and deprived him of power.88 He appointed Rostislav, who ruled at Nitra, as his replacement; however, Rostislav later quite efficiently avoided the Frankish influence. The Eastern Frankish attempts at armed suppression of the strivings for self-reliance ended up in a failure. In 855, they almost proved disastrous to Louis the German when he set off, as a commander, to Moravia and narrowly escaped death. After these events, he withdrew. He never set off to Moravia anymore, and since 856 handed over the endeavours for re-establishing the Frankish supremacy in those areas to his eldest son Carloman, as the new ruler of the eastern part of the Empire. The expedition that Carloman was to take up to this end against Rostislav in 858, however, never took place. The king’s son, whose attitude differed from that of his father, entered an alliance with Rostislav, which gave him freedom of action for a couple of years. Yet, the threat of a Frankish intervention was not obviated. By the early 860s, there were more and more indications of the king’s possible intention to win over the Bulgars as allies. This being the case, Rostislav first requested Pope Nicholas I to send clergymen to him who would marshal the diverse missionary activities and the resulting chaos in the ecclesiastical teaching and practices. In reality, however, he sought to get rid of the Bavarian clergymen as representatives of the Western Frankish kingdom and its claims, and to prepare the conditions for the founding of an independent Church province that would be directly subordinate to Rome.89 When the pope declined the request owing to the Eastern Frankish interests,90 the Moravian duke, in consultation with his mighty men, requested support from the Byzantine Emperor Michael III as the head of the Church in the East.91 86 Canon Hludowici regis, 248–249. 87 Goldberg 2004. 88 This and later events of the Frankish-Moravian conflict are reported, though from a Carolingian perspective, by the Annales Fuldenses (the Latin quotations: 36). 89 Wihoda 2014c, 72. 90 Nicolai I. papae epistolae, 293 (Papal letter addressed to Ludwig the German from the middle of 864). 91 Zhitije Konstantina, 98–99; Vavřínek 2005.

Early Slavic Power Structures

137

By turning to Byzantium, Rostislav counted not only on help in the formation of an independent Moravian church but also on support against the pressure exerted by the Franks and Bulgars at the same time. Indeed, the Byzantines were not actively interested in ecclesial policies in the region at that time (also later, they did not really contribute to the success of the mission of Cyril and Methodius, whose venture – significantly enough – was not reflected in any Byzantine sources). But they used the opportunity of making the Moravians a potential ally in their conflict with the Bulgars. In agreement with the Patriarch, the emperor dispatched to Moravia the brothers Constantine/Cyril and Methodius, who were personally close to him. These sons of a high-ranking Byzantine official, who probably grew up in Thessaloniki, had adequate experience in diplomatic service and administration; they moreover had a profound theological education background.92 The elder brother, Michael, born ca. 815, completed his education in law and initially worked in the political administration; as an archon, he ran a province inhabited by the Slavs in the Thessalonian-Macedonian part of the Empire. Toward the middle of the 9th century, he withdrew from secular life, assumed the name of Methodius and, as a monk, went to the monastery of Polichron on the Mount Olympus in Asia Minor, which was then the centre of Byzantine spiritual life. His younger brother Constantine, born ca. 826/7, arrived in his adolescent years at the imperial court and received thorough education at the court school. After taking the lower priestly orders, he commenced his service with the patriarch as a librarian and secretary. Although he held a major ecclesial office at Hagia Sophia, he soon withdrew to a monastery. Around 850, he returned to the Constantinople Academy to succeed his teacher Photios, who was later promoted to patriarch, and taught philosophy there. As a learned man, he accompanied in 851 the Byzantine envoys on their mission to the caliph in Samara. When riots broke out related to a coup d’état in the capital in 856, Constantine sought refuge in his brother’s monastery. Four years later, the brothers joined a Byzantine legation to the Khazars, ventured, inter alia, to polemicise against the Khazar confessors of Judaism. It seems that it was Constantine who excelled in the theological discussions with the Jewish scholars among the Khazars. On their way back the brothers reportedly found the tomb of the Saint Pope Clement I (88–97) in Kherson and 92

Of the life and work of Constantine and Method we learn first of all from their hagiographic Lifes written very shortly after their death by their disciples, and in the case of Constantine still during the lifetime of his brother Method: Zhitije Konstantina and Zhitije Mefodijya. From the rich literature see only: Löwe 1983; Leśny 1987; Vavřínek 2013 and the contributions in Cyril i Metody apostołowie; Great Moravia and the Beginnings; Kyrillos kai Methodios.

138

Chapter 5

took his relics, which they later brought to Rome and handed them over to Pope Hadrian II. Back in Constantinople, Constantine was summoned by Patriarch Photios to join the reorganized Constantinople Academy to teach philosophy there, whereas his brother went back to the monastery in Asia Minor and was promoted there to ihumen (abbot). Three years later, a new order from the emperor dragged them out of the peaceful monastic life focused on learning and professing the faith, taking them to a faraway unknown country. After their arrival in Moravia in the autumn of 863, Constantine and Methodius instantly started preparing a few men for the priestly ordination, who had been selected for the purpose by Rostislav himself.93 The monks used a Slavic written language they had developed, which they evidently used also in direct communication with the Moravian people. The missionaries from Salzburg became strongly disturbed by the successes of the Byzantine teachers: they perceived their activity as a threat to the ecclesial structures they had established and their related benefices, so they instantly denounced the use of the Slavic language during religious services as a heresy.94 Meanwhile, the Eastern Franks attacked Moravia again. In August 864, Louis the German’s troops besieged Rostislav at the hillfort of Dovin (probably modern Devín at the mouth of the Morava River flowing into the Danube), but the king only obtained Rostislav’s consent to send hostages and renew the loyalty to him. Five years later, he fell out with Carloman who set off, this time, against Rostislav, together with his younger brother, the later Charles III, and attacked him from two sides. The success of this intervention incited Rostislav’s nephew Svatopluk – a lower-ranking Moravian duke at Nitra – to join Carloman and renounce allegiance to his uncle in 870. Rostislav was given up to Carloman and sentenced by the court assembly in Regensburg to death (later pardoned by King Louis and only blinded). On this occasion, also Methodius fell into the hands of the Bavarian Church, which sentenced him to lifelong imprisonment at a monastery. Around 867/8, both Byzantine brothers apparently had considered their mission as completed. Together with a group of disciples, whom they willed to ordain priests so that they could be later sent to an autonomous Moravian diocese, they set out on a journey back to Constantinople. Due to unrest taking place in Bulgaria, they chose a route through the Adriatic, stopped by Lake Balaton at the residence of Pribina’s successor Kocel, and reached as far as Venice. Once there, the local clergy involved them into discussions on the legality of the use of the Slavic language during services and confronted them with 93 On the mission Schelesniker 1988; Richter 1985. 94 Conversio, 56–58.

Early Slavic Power Structures

139

an invitation from the pope to come to Rome. However, the brothers may have originally even intended to go straight ahead toward Rome (though this issue is disputed among scholars). In face of the increasingly tense Roman-Byzantine relations, Pope Nicholas I (858–67) perhaps considered, in the meantime, his support for the Moravian project in terms of an autonomous ecclesial organization that would be loyal to Rome. By the time Constantine and Methodius eventually arrived in Rome, however, Nicholas had died and been replaced by Hadrian II (867–72). The new pope matter-of-factly supported the self-empowerment of the Moravian-Pannonian Church and consented that the Slavic language could be used in the liturgy. At Santa Maria Maggiore Basilica he blessed the books translated by the Byzantine teachers into Slavic and sent Methodius as a papal legate to Kocel at Mosaburg. Meanwhile, Constantine, heavily ill by then, joined a Roman cloister at the end of 868, where he assumed the name of Cyril and died there in February 869. His brother was once again sent by Kocel from Mosaburg to the pope, who consecrated and appointed him Archbishop of Sirmium in spring of 870. The renewal of the ecclesial province of Illyria, which remained vacant since the Slavic-Avar conquest of 582 and was situated within the state of the Bulgars in the 9th century, was but a formal legal basis for the bishopric of Methodius; for the time being, the proper residence of the new bishop was to be Mosaburg in Pannonia. His diocese was meant not only to highlight the authority of the pope with respect to the Franks and the Byzantines but also to withhold efficiently the expansion of the Bavarian Church in the region. At the same time, it was to enable Rome to observe more easily the Byzantine Church’s activity in the Balkans.95 As has been mentioned, the response from the Eastern Franks and Bavarians arrived shortly thereafter. In 873, Methodius, imprisoned at Reichenau or Ellwangen, was released, on the pope’s intervention. He first returned to Pannonia, but after Kocel’s death in 874, he headed for Moravia. There, the Moravian duke Svatopluk I had freshly autonomized himself from the Eastern Franks. As per the peace treaty of Forchheim, 874, he nominally recognized the authority of the king, but retained freedom of action in home and, probably, external policies. During the subsequent two decades, he brought the Moravian ‘state’ to the peak of its external and internal power.96 For Methodius, then the archbishop of Sancta Ecclesia Marabensis, it came as enormous support,

95 96

On the papal missionary politics in Moravia see Betti 2014; on Method’s bishopric see also Birkfellner 1993; Eggers 1996; Kalhous 2009. See Panic 2003, 18–46, 190–192; Chrzanowski 2008.

140

Chapter 5

while again exposing him to criticism and opposition from the FrankishBavarian clergy. Pope John VIII (872–82), who in June 880 once again granted his consent for the use of the Slavic language in the liturgy, dismissed the complaints and accusations of the ‘Latins’ whose influence in Moravia was still remarkable.97 This, however, did not alleviate the situation. Inner Moravian conflicts in the field of ecclesiastical policy did not cease to be dangerous  – even more so that Wiching, an Alaman and ardent opponent of the Slavic language, was appointed Bishop of Nitra. Methodius adamantly defended his work, inter alia by depositing Wiching from his office by way of his archiepiscopal authority in 884. However, he was essentially a lost cause then. Even Svatopluk I and his supporters preferred to take part in Holy Masses held in Latin, whereas the pope as well as the duke of the Moravians – the latter elevated to royalty by the former through the granting of the title rex98 – had long ago yielded to the Eastern Frankish pressure. Right after Methodius’s death in April 885, Pope Stephen V reinstated Wich­ ing as Bishop of Nitra, refused Gorazdus, a Moravian noble and Methodius’s disciple, to be recognized as his successor as archbishop, and banned the use of the Slavic language in the Church once again.99 At the same time, Svatopluk drove all the disciples and followers of Methodius out of the country. They found shelter in Bulgaria, unless they were sold on the Venetian market into slavery, as the Greek “Life of Clement of Ohrid”, written down in Bulgaria in the late 11th or early 12th century, has it.100 Moravia saw an end put to the young tradition of the Byzantine Slavic Church. Until his death in 894, Svatopluk succeeded in resisting the Frankish and Bulgarian opponents and considerably expanded the borders of his realm. The territorial reach of his conquests has triggered controversy; according to the 11th-century chronicle by Thietmar of Merseburg, Svatopluk’s state would reach as far as the Saale, an area where the unions of Lusatian Serbs were bound to pay a tribute to the Moravians.101 The Vita Methodii mentions that also the land of the Vistulans in Lesser Poland might have been subordinate

97

Letters of Pope John VIII. Industriae tue dated June 880 and Pastoralis sollicitudinis dated 23rd March 881, MMFH 3, 199–208, 211–212. 98 See Letter of Pope Stephen V. Quia te zelo from 885, MMFH 3, 217–225, esp. 217: Stephanus […] Zventopolco regi Sclavorum; see also Reginonis abbatis, 143: Zuendobolch rex Marahensium Sclavorum, vir inter suos prudentissimus et ingenio callidissimus. 99 Letter of Pope Stephen V. Quia te zelo from 885 r., MMFH 3, 217–225. 100 Zhitie na Kliment Ochridski, 25 (chap. 34); The Voices, 144. 101 Thietmari, 392 (VI, 99).

Early Slavic Power Structures

141

to the Moravian duke.102 The sources testify less ambiguously to Moravian conquests in Pannonia/western Hungary and the subordination of Bohemia. Finally, Svatopluk I not only obtained confirmation of these gains from the emperor but as his feudatory was probably established by him, in person, as holder of a dignity equal to royalty. His mighty rulership was founded upon a system of fortified settlements, which has been carefully researched by archaeologists since the 1950s. In several strongholds such as Mikulčice and Staré Město on the Morava, Pohansko on the Thaya, Uherské Hradiště, or Nitra, monuments and edifices have been found that attest to complex settlement agglomerations, excelling with their grandeur, powerful fortifications, solid buildings, numerous stone churches and rich material culture.103 Specialized crafts were practiced in these early urban centres and foreign trade was pursued, enabling contacts with faraway contemporary European centres.104 The elite of the ruler’s entourage that dwelled in those strongholds, among them the well-armed mounted warriors, clearly differed from the other people. Its members often maintained private churches and themselves were buried in richly equipped skeleton graves.105 This elite formed a decisive administrative support for the rulers who at the end of the 9th century were exposed to a strong external pressure again. In the century’s last decade, the Eastern Franks attacked the Moravians again, supported this time not only by the Bulgars but also by the Hungarians, who shortly before then appeared in the Pannonian Basin. The fratricidal combat between the sons of Svatopluk I, Moymir II, and Svatopluk II, led to further debilitation of the realm, which soon lost its capacity to resist the unceasing attacks from the Hungarians.106 The Moravian state disappeared from the political map of Europe in the early 10th century. 4.1 The Origins of the Slavic Literary Language The most important legacy of the fallen realm, which had played a decisive role in the later history of the Slavs and ideas of their cultural community, was the Slavic literary language. Its creation was the merit of Constantine and 102 Zhitije Mefodija, 156; see Grzesik 2014, 43–58. 103 Staňa 1985; Galuška 1999; Měřínský 2001; Macháček 2007; Poláček/Velemínský 2013; Studien zum Burgwall von Mikulčice, 11 volumes, Brno 1995–2017 and the collective volumes: Frühmittelalterlicher Burgenbau in Mittel- und Osteuropa; Frühmittelalterliche Machtzentren in Mitteleuropa; Frühgeschichtliche Zentralorte in Mitteleuropa. 104 Poulík 1987; Polek 1994b; Ruttkay 1997; Poláček 2007. 105 See the contributions in Die frühmittelalterliche Elite bei den Völkern des östlichen Mitteleuropas. 106 Kouřil 2019.

142

Chapter 5

Methodius. Apart from political, diplomatic, and ecclesial experience they had to their credit, the brothers had a relevant scientific and philological knowledge, and had a practical command of the Slavic language, as they had grown up in a Greek-Slavic environment in Thessaloniki and its area. Their knowledge of Slavic enabled them to prepare for their new task before setting off for Moravia, so that they may have started to compile first Slavic translations of the major ecclesiastical texts still in Thessaloniki. The Bavarian clergymen, too, had preached to the Moravians in the Slavic language and it was probably for this purpose that they wrote down the basic ecclesiastical texts in Slavic, but in doing this they used the Latin alphabet.107 The crucial innovation proposed by the Byzantine monks consisted in their creation of a special alphabet, for the needs of their translations, which reflected the sound system of the Slavic language much better. Constantine, who was well merited in this field, might have worked on developing a Slavic scripture already somewhat earlier, so that it could be used to speed up the Christianization of Slavic-speaking people within the Byzantine Empire. The Moravian mission caused the design to assume a concrete shape. Although the Greek alphabet was no doubt the point-of-departure, it lacked several letters with which the Slavic sounds could be rendered; hence the need to create a completely new scripture. The Greek letters that the Slavs found unpronounceable or irrelevant were rejected by the brothers. They altered the taken-over letters and invented new signs to render specific Slavic voiced consonants. For the purpose, they referred to Christian symbols such as cross, circle and triangle, as well as to the Oriental scriptures they had acquainted themselves with, such as those used by the Khazars. At last, they developed a graphic system with about thirty-eight letters, which “splendidly merged the knowledge of the Greek alphabet and the knowledge of the Slavic (Old Bulgarian) phonological system.”108 In the modern era, this first-ever Slavic alphabet was named the Glagolitic, in reference to the verb glagolati (‘to speak’), frequent in the Slavic Gospel texts. The contemporary sources referred to the new scripture simply as ‘Slavic’. 107 Evidence of such attempts is believed to be found in the so-called Freising papers (Freisinger Blätter). This prayer text (best edited in Brižinski spomeniki) is preserved in a manuscript dated to approximately 1000 but may well originate from the 9th century thus being the oldest Slavic text written in Latin characters; Brižinski spomeniki /Freisinger Denkmäler, 201–209; Moszyński 1982; Kahl 2008. 108 Velčeva 1988, 703; Eckhardt 1989; Katičić 1996; Schaeken/Birnbaum 1999, 76–82; Tkadlčík 2000; Wójtowicz 2000, 80–96. While some scholars (mainly Bulgarian ones) prefer to name the language created by Constantine and Methodius “Old-Bulgarian”, others use the term “Old-Church-Slavonic”.

Early Slavic Power Structures

143

The papal bulls issued in 870–80 refer to a Sclavinia lingua, littera Sclavinisca, or lingua Sclavorum.109 The Salzburg Conversio Bagoariorum et Carantanorum, written in the same period, contains a mention stating that “Methodius newly invented the Slavonic letters.”110 Such descriptions were based on the contemporary Western Latin perspective, where ‘Slavs’ were referred to in a general fashion; groups of Slavic-speaking people in East-Central Europe only started to be (re)cognized and named. With the new medium, the Glagolitic script, at hand, Constantine and Methodius caused that the Macedonian-Bulgarian variety of the Slavic language evolved its literary form. With its focus on religious/ecclesiastical texts, the said variety differed in several details from the Slavic idioms that were in use in Moravia and Pannonia. Nonetheless, in contrast to the later Church Slavonic language used in modern-time Orthodox liturgy, it was understandable to the Slavs living in the Moravian realm. During the translation work, the new literary language was optimized quite soon, and thus enabled description and articulation of complex theological, philosophical, and legal issues.111 Within two decades, translation of all the essential ecclesiastical texts from Greek into the new literary language was completed. After the Gospel texts, indispensable for the liturgy and the catechism, the Acts of the Apostles, Letters of the Apostles, and Psalms were translated. It was probably in Moravia that a missal was translated from Greek as well – perhaps, the originally Roman “Liturgy of St Peter”, later developed in Byzantium. For Constantine and Methodius, the parallel use of several languages or the use of a local language in the Byzantine-Greek liturgy was an obvious practice, always allowed by the Byzantine ecclesial authorities. In Moravia, which was subordinate to Rome, rather than Constantinople, the brothers were met with reluctance from the Eastern Frankish clergy who maintained that Latin only should be used in the liturgy; they considered a heresy the use in the Church of any other language than Latin, Greek, or Hebrew. The popes, who had their own plans with respect to the Eastern Frankish Church, supported the use of the Slavic language in the liturgy only temporarily and never unconditionally.112 109 Letters of Pope John VIII dated 14th June 879 and June 880; Letters of Pope Stephen V. dated September 885 an autumn/spring 885/886, in: MMFH 3, 193, 207–208; 225, 228. 110 Conversio, 56: Methodius […] noviter inventis Sclavinis litteris. 111 Later scholars like e.g. the Bulgarian George (Grigori) Tsamblak in the 14th century, however, accused the early translators that they were not able to convey the subtleties of the Greek language since they used only a “coarse language”; Pochvalno slovo za Evtimij, 166 (§ 29); The Voices, 364. 112 See the papal letters cited in footnotes 97 and 98; Labuda 1987, 83–98; Clifton-Everest 1996, 260–264; Třeśtík 2005, 336; Betti 2014, 48–49, 67, 104–107.

144

Chapter 5

All those protests, restrictions, and bans did not definitely hinder the development of the new ecclesiastical and liturgical language. Finally, almost all the other books of the Bible, several liturgical texts, and the basic laws of the Greek Catholic Church (Nomokanon) were translated into the new language. Moreover, when still in Moravia, Methodius created the first Church Slavonic collection of laws, the so-called “Law for Judging the People” (Zakon sudnyi liudem), and wrote the first Life of his late brother, in Slavic.113 Thus, Constantine and Methodius created more than merely a graphical system that enabled the rendering of the Slavic language into writing. By their own texts and those of their helpers they created a first basic body of theological-philosophical-legal texts in a Slavic idiom. The brothers thereby laid the foundation upon which an independent Slavic-language and literary culture could develop; this occurred in the late 9th century, first in Bulgaria. It was only in a later period that this culture-forming achievement was styled into an essential element of the Slavic Idea and the notion of an all-Slavic cultural unity and identity.114 For the Solunian Brothers, such an idea was rather alien as they did their work with the idea in mind to acquaint the Moravian and Pannonian population with the Church’s teaching. They certainly did not think in terms of a ‘Slavic nation’ in terms of the entire Slavic-speaking people of East-Central and Eastern Europe. They found the concept of an all-Slavic community no less alien than the expectation that the literary language they developed could at all be understood and used by the Polabian Slavs, Bohemians, Poles, or Slavs on the Volkhov and the Dnieper. In any case, in the texts ascribed to them, there is no premise that would suggest that the brothers would have ever been aware of any ‘all-Slavic identity’ they could have expressed with the use of their newly developed scripture. In his “Life of Constantine” (Vita Constantini), written in Moravia, Methodius never talks of ‘Slavs’ when referring to the people encountered there and communicating in Slavic. Instead, he uses, in quite an obvious way,

113 All translations made as well as all original works written at the time in Moravia got lost. They are known only from later manuscripts of mainly Russian origin. The oldest copy of the “Legal text for the People” is to be found in Russian manuscripts of the 13th century: Zakon Sudnyi ljudem; English translation: The Voices, 48–54. Whether this first Slavic juridical codex in fact has still been compiled in Moravia or only somewhat later in Bulgaria remains a controversial question, see Podskalsy 2000, 94–95; Maksimovich 2004; Biliarsky 2011b, 195–196; Angelini 2015. On the Byzantine influence on the oldest Church-Slavonic literacy see also Mareš 1975; Bibikov 2019. 114 Beham/Rohdewald 2013; Koleva 2014; Grzesik 2014, 17–31.

Early Slavic Power Structures

145

the names they describe themselves with.115 Thus he writes about ‘Moravians dukes’, ‘Moravians’, as well as ‘Pannonia’, to which Constantine travelled from Moravia. Telling the story of Constantine’s meeting with the local duke Kocel, he mentions for the first time a ‘Slavic scripture’, which Kocel liked so much that he learned it for himself. Earlier on, in the fragments where Methodius reports on Constantine being ordered by the Byzantine Emperor Michael III to set out for a mission to Moravia, reference is made in a complete abstract way to a ‘scripture’ which God has revealed to Constantine, so that he could convert the ‘language’ of the Moravians into ‘letters’. The terms ‘Slavic’ (with respect to the language) and ‘Slavs’ (with respect to its speakers) are used only, and exclusively, when directly confronted with the ‘Latins’; significantly enough it is only in one quotation attributed to the Venetian clergymen who are said to have demanded explanation from Constantine of why he “has created a scripture for the Slavs”, that the Vita Constantini speaks one single time of ‘Slavs’. When later in Rome Constantine again had to repulse the attacks on the new scripture, it is only in this particular context that Methodius refers, this one and only time, to a ‘Slavic language’. Constantine’s arguments proved convincing to Pope Nicholas I, so he consecrated the ‘Slavic books’ brought from Moravia and the ‘Slavic disciples’; a “liturgy in the Slavic languages” was sung in a few churches soon after. Obviously, Methodius in his Vita Constantini applied exclusively situative characterizations to denote the new literary language, the disciples who have mastered it, and the liturgy practiced in this language unambiguously as ‘Slavic’. He did not yet use the word, however, as a conscious expression of a “Slavic self-awareness and identity.”116 What he wanted to express, using the adjective ‘Slavic’, was no more than the qualitiative difference, that existed between the clergymen educated by him and his brother in Moravia and Pannonia and those of the Latin-Frankish church. The Church Slavonic literary language, which was imported into the Slavicspeaking world in the wake of the Cyrillic-Methodian mission, was not the result of an evolutionary development of the Slavic idiom. Being an artificial language, created especially for the Slavic-speaking people converted to Christianity, Church Slavonic overlayed existing linguistic patterns. But its artificial homogeneity obscured the actual complexity of the earlier development of the Slavic languages and incited scholars to ignore their diversity, which is 115 “The Life of Constantine” has been preserved in 35 manuscripts written in RussianOld-Slavonic and Serbian-Old-Slavonic versions. The oldest manuscript comes from the 15th century; Podskalsky 2000, 274–275; Ivanova 2013; Ziffer 2015; Diddi 2016. Quotations from Zhitije Konstantina, 102–105, 110–111. 116 As e.g. Borst 1957/59, 533 maintains.

146

Chapter 5

otherwise hard to grasp. The question of how the regional dialects of the Slavic language actually sounded, or what the dialectal development was like in the early Middle Ages – in Moravia, on the Elbe, in the mountains of the Balkans, on the Vistula or the Dnieper  – cannot be answered based only on the surviving Old Church Slavonic texts (which are only preserved in language testimonies of a later date).117 Not earlier than the 12th century, relevant linguistic testimonies, which enable us to trace the development of the regional (East) Slavic dialects in actual fact, appear in Rus’. 117 See Curta 2001a, 344–346; Curta 2004.

Chapter 6

The Slavs in the Process of Medieval “State-Formation” and “Nation-Building” According to the traditional approach, the high-medieval Slavic-speaking nationes were formed by way of division and differentiation within a supposed primary Slavic unity. They are believed to have emerged and taken shape as part of the process of singling-out of an individual ‘national’ awareness out of an all-Slavic identity. The latter, apparently, stemmed not only from the functioning of “almost an identical language for all (ѩзыкъ слoвѣнскъ) and a specific Slavic identity” but also from the belonging to an ethnic and cultural community.1 Resulting from migrations and settlement, so the argument goes, the community in question began to decompose at the turn of the 8th century and its parts developed in different ways, depending on the region; yet, the Slavs, who gradually split into separate gentes and nationes, and dispersing across the eastern part of Europe, all the same, would have preserved an authentic awareness of a common descent, a shared primordial home (Urheimat), and even of a common proto-ruler.2 Was it really so? Did the transition of Slavic-speaking principalities into nationes in the high medieval period result from a process of differentiation in which the primary community disappeared owing to migrations and divisions into smaller groups? Did the cultural memory of individual Slavic-speaking nationes preserve authentic traces of memory of a former community, of an early Slavic culture – such as the one presented in one of the preceding chapters in terms of a construct created by modern archaeological research? If yes, then what ‘Slavic’ statements and cultural symbols are possibly interpretable as testimonies of a discursive (self)ascription to a ‘Slavic community’? Or did the Bulgarians, Bohemians, Croats, Rus’, Poles, and Serbs  – enumerated here and subsequently described in the following sections in the order of their historical appearance as autonomous, large-area regna – develop their high-medieval ‘national identity’ rather without any awareness of a linguistic

1 Quotation from Angelov 1988, 23; see Miśkiewiczowa 1998, 7, 11; Kobyliński 1998, 51. 2 See Labuda 1948, 182, 210; Diels 1963, 83; Gieysztor 1972, 15–16; Schreiner 1980, 143; Floria 1982, 10; Geremek 1985, 10–11; Naumov 1989, 115; Janeczek 2013, 23; Zachariasz 2006, 31–33; Pleshchin’ski 2018, 42.

© Eduard Mühle, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004536746_007

148

Chapter 6

kinship, but solely based upon their own particular understanding of themselves and without knowing anything of any ‘Slavic community’? This chapter seeks to answer this question with regards to the individual nationes. To this end, I will first describe the beginnings and the processes of formation of each of the individual regna. As has been shown in the preceding chapters, before the first half of the 9th century – apart from the Moravians, whose ‘state’ collapsed under the pressure of the Magyars/Hungarians, and the Carantanians, whose principality was absorbed by the Bavarian one – only the Bulgars/Bulgarians had established a stable large-area political body. The other Slavs, including the Polabian and Baltic Slavs, either lived until the 12th century in their small ancestral tribal and cult communities or  – in the case of the Bohemians, Croats, and the Rus’ – only began to outgrow this stage in the second half of the 9th century, forming independent Christian dynastic principalities instead. The Poles joined them with some delay, in the 10th century; in the late 11th and 12th centuries, the Serbs did so as well. Like the Bulgars/Bulgarians earlier on, all of them proved capable of establishing independent large-area regna (‘states’) which, with larger or lesser intensity, influenced the political, economic, and cultural development of medieval Europe. The new kingdoms and principalities/duchies, exposed to external perils and internal crises, were subjected to territorial changes and experienced (in South-Eastern Europe) changes in the ruling dynasties; in certain single cases, the supremacy of their neighbours would (temporarily) put an end to their medieval statehoods. All the same, their respective political elites sooner or later developed their own identities related to their individual ‘states’, and were turning, in a variety of ways, into conscious medieval nationes.3 Our aim at this point is to trace the course of this process and to show how the available sources depict the formation and reach of a ‘national identity’ (in the medieval understanding). Next, it needs to be considered whether, and to what extent, an awareness of a ‘Slavic community’ and affiliation existed, in what ways it was cherished and, possibly, instrumentalized for certain purposes. Regardless of whether any ‘Slavic identity’ is finally discovered, the selfawareness of the Slavic-speaking regna and nationes emerging in the Middle Ages exerted an enormous long-term impact in the region. This could not have been changed even by the fact that only Poland and Bohemia managed to maintain the existence of an independent nation-state between the Middle Ages and the early 17th or late 18th century. The Croats, for a change, 3 On the concept of natio see Graus 1985; Zientara 1997, 13–33, 354–382; Ehlers 1995; Šmahel 2002b; Dmitriev 2008; Schneidmüller 2010b.

Medieval “ State-Formation ” and “ Nation-Building ”

149

were incorporated into the Kingdom of Hungary in the early 12th century and remained part of it until the year 1918. From 1018 onward, the Bulgarians formed part of the Byzantine Empire for 170 years; later, after a short interval of independence, between the late 14th and 19th centuries, like the Serbs, they were included into the Ottoman Empire. The Rus’ in the middle of the 13th century fell under the rule of the Golden Horde for one century and a half, before they developed their new statehood within the confines of the Grand Principality of Moscow. This finally did not significantly affect the longue durée of the structures formed in the High Middle Ages. The geography, political history, and cultural identity of the medieval nationes, as well as the memory of them, have preserved their influential power and still inform, in an astonishing fashion, the European contemporaneity. 1

Bulgaria

The Bulgars were those who formed their regnum (‘state’) the earliest. This work was accomplished by the Turkic-speaking proto-Bulgar elite who initially did not care much about the Slavic and Thracian people, and indeed, subjugated and exploited them. It was only in mid-9th century that accelerated blending and assimilation began, with the result that the Turkic-speaking warrior elite, Slavic settlers, and the vernacular Thracian population, living one beside the other, gradually started to create an integrated political unit; the term ‘Bulgars’/’Bulgarians’ now was no more reserved for the proto-Bulgar elite but, instead, started referring to all the members of the new political association. It was a long-lasting process that came to an end only in the 10th century.4 The assumption of Christianity and the later actual Christian­ ization of the society was of decisive importance. The new religion not only enhanced the external prestige of the ruler and reinforce his position within the state, but it also created a completely new order that called for a common identity. Christian norms and values became binding for all subjects from that point onward. The previous categorization into different – namely Slavic, Thracian, and proto-Bulgar  – pagan cults and systems of values was abolished, which (among other things) removed the obstacles to mixed marriages. 4 According to Bulgarian medievalists the formation of a “Bulgarian nationality” in the sense of a “stable and internally unified community” was accomplished earlier, namely already at the end of the 9th, beginning of the 10th century, Angelov 1987, 17; for more general insights into the problem see Fine 1983, 132–158; Stephenson 2000, 18–61; Curta 2006a, 180–365.

150

Chapter 6

Thus, the religion and the Church became an important engine behind the integration.5 At the moment of conversion, the Slavic-speaking population formed a majority of the inhabitants of the Bulgar realm, as its share in the total population had significantly increased resulting from the earlier territorial conquests. Despite this, the proto-Bulgar ruling stratum was not yet entirely Slavicized in the 9th century; no ‘uniform culture’ or ‘indissoluble whole’ had yet emerged.6 The khans and their dignitaries (and, by then, there were already Slavic-speaking men among them) would communicate with one another, as the proto-Bulgar inscription suggest, either still in Turkic or in Greek, but did not use Slavic as an official language. Greek was also instrumental to the extension of the ecclesiastical structures; the missions were conducted by Greek-Byzantine clergymen, and it was them who assumed the new offices in the Church.7 How poorly integrated the society was, is attested, for instance, by the pagan reaction of 889–90, in which a part of the proto-Bulgar elite, supported by Vladimir Rasate, Boris I’s son and successor, rebelled against the new order. Boris Mikhail, who had just entered a monastery and passed on the throne to his eldest son, had once again to leave his convent cell to take up arms against Vladimir Rasate and help, in 893, his younger son Simeon to retrieve the throne.8 The new ruler, born ca. 864, received theological and philosophical education in Constantinople, probably with the assumption that he would later on (as was quite usual with the younger sons of rulers) be promoted to a high-ranking ecclesiastical office.9 However, he cut his studies at the imperial Academy short – as Liudprand of Cremona, Otto I’s Italian envoy, remarked – in order to take the cowl (sanctae habitum sumpsit).10 Following his father’s wish, however, he returned to Bulgaria and left the monastery, putting on the khan’s attire instead of the monastic habit and initiating an intensive reception of Byzantine Christian cultural elements. For a ‘half-Greek’ (ἡμίαργος), as Simeon was perceived by his contemporaries,11 Byzantium with its political 5 6 7

Koder 2011, 126; Marti 2015, 804. See Vaklimov 1977, 280–281; Loshakova 2009, 33. Litavrin 2002, 151–152; Biliarsky 2011b, 192–193; for a recent overview on the development of the early Bulgarian church see Nikolov 2021. 8 On these events in some detail: Reginonis abbatis chronicon, 96 (ad annum 868); see Nikolov 2016. 9 On Simeon and his rule Bozhilov 1983; Shepard 2011, 1–53; Ziemann 2012; Leszka 2013. 10 Liudprandi Cremonensis Antapodosis, 81. 11 Liudprandi Cremonensis Antapodosis, 81 (III, 29): Simeonem emiargon, id est semi-grecum, esse aiebant.

Medieval “ State-Formation ” and “ Nation-Building ”

151

system and with its religious and secular culture functioned as a measure of everything. Not only religious and liturgical books, the norms of civil and penal law, its political and ideological concepts, and its historiosophical approach were borrowed from Byzantium; also, the fashions, models, and patterns of art and architecture came from the Bosphorus region. Simeon ordered the redevelopment Preslav, a locality situated on the northeastern slope of the Balkan Mountains, 50 km south-west of the then-capital town of Pliska, and, following the Constantinople model, turned it into his new headquarters and main residence. Explored by archaeologists, the city was surrounded with a stone wall, consisted of an inner town and an outer town, and had a complicated water-supply system. It housed representative public and private buildings, numerous multi-storey residential buildings, churches, and workshops.12 The heart of the thus developed area was the palace complex with a cathedral church and a ducal court monastery. Both in terms of architecture and equipment, the complex referred to Byzantine models; it was enormously impressive to the public and visitors. As the delighted Preslav scholar John Ekzarh claimed in his Šestodnev, a collection of texts collected during Simeon’s lifetime, every visitor who approached the royal court gates wondered and was full of admiration; on entering, he could see on both sides the houses adorned with gems and timber, painted in their entirety; walking further on, onto the small yard, and seeing tall palaces and churches, extremely richly embellished with gems and wood and paint, and inside with marble, resin, silver, and gold, he would not know what he ought to compare them to.13 Although Simeon was quite intensely associated with Byzantium in cultural terms, his acute armed conflict with the empire would not come to an end.14 When Emperor Leo VI drastically restricted the trade with Bulgaria, Simeon responded by setting off in the autumn of 894 on his first war expedition against the southern neighbours.15 Trade in slaves and grains was the main source of the Bulgarian ruler’s and his followers’ income, so the forced transition of those particular markets from Constantinople to Thessaloniki and the 12 Ivanova 1964; Ovčarov 1979. 13 Das Hexaemeron, 1–4; for the palaces see Totev 2000; Penkova 2015, 220–224; on the reception of Byzantine jewelry arts in Preslav see Le trésor de Preslav. 14 Leszka 2018. 15 Cankova-Petkova 1968.

152

Chapter 6

high duties imposed at the latter place must have proved very detrimental to the Bulgarian interests. In a series of skirmishes, the Bulgarian ruler managed to defeat the Byzantines and expand the zone of his rule up to the vicinity of Thessaloniki. He also successfully countered occasional attacks of the Rus’ and Magyars peoples. Simeon’s ambition grew with his consecutive victories. In 913, he arrived at the gates of Constantinople, in the intent to take over the imperial throne which suffered from internal disturbances and multiple and brief alterations of rulers, and to form a Bulgarian-Byzantine Empire. As it appeared, however, the emperor’s city was not to seize or capture. And yet, Simeon managed to persuade the patriarch who wielded the regency on behalf of the juvenile Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus to celebrate a peculiar ceremony at the city’s gates. A crown and an acclamation were employed in this ‘act of coronation’, but no more precise description can be found in the sources; hence, the researchers are not unanimous about whether the ceremony meant the elevation of Simeon as Byzantine emperor (basileus) or only as a basileus of the Bulgarians. One thing is certain: Simeon systematically endeavoured to “obtain the title of Byzantine Emperor and, together with it, the ideologically sanctioned right to rule the world” ever since.16 He was not satisfied with using on his official seals with the title of “the lord of the Bulgars/Bulgarians”(ἄρχοντα Βουλγαρίας), but named himself “peace-bringing Emperor” (Ερινοπὀυς βασιλέος), or “Emperor of the Romans” (βασιλέ[υς] Ρομέων).17 This trend culminated in the convening of a synod in Preslav, the announcement of the autocephaly of the Bulgarian Church, and elevation of the Bulgarian archbishop to the status of patriarch in 918–19. It was probably at that point that the Byzantine title of emperor was borrowed into the Slavic language, appearing in the form of the word tsar, derived from the Roman/Latin term caesar.18 However, the language Simeon spoke all his life was Greek,19 and that remained the dominant official language. In any case, there is no evidence that Simeon might have made Bulgarian the official language already at the popular assembly in 893, as Bulgarian scholars tend 16 Dölger 1964, 144, 147; see Bozhilov 1986; Nikolov 2012. 17 Ivan Iordanov, Korpus, 60, 68, 73. 18 The oldest inscription (c[a]rь/ц[a]pь) comes from a stone plate found in 1955 in the ruins of a church in Preslav-Selište dated to the third quarter of the 10th century; edited in: Die protobulgarischen Inschriften, 299; see Schreiner 2013. 19 Of his correspondence on the release of Byzantines prisoners of war, exchanged in 895/896 in Greek, three letters to the Byzantine envoy Leo Choirosphaktesa have survived; edited in: Georges Kolias, Léon Choerosphactès, 77, 79, 81; English translation: The Voices, 47–48.

Medieval “ State-Formation ” and “ Nation-Building ”

153

to assume.20 The inscriptions on the ruler’s seals continued to be indicated in Greek, similarly to the inscription on Simeon’s tomb in Preslav. The numerous other inscriptions prove that Greek was in intense and competent use throughout the 10th century in the court chanclery as well as in the Church administration and in daily religious life.21 In fact, there is considerable evidence to suggest that Slavic was granted the status of official state language in the Second Bulgarian Empire only in the late 12th century.22 1.1 The Development of Bulgarian Slavic Literacy Nevertheless, it was already in the late 11th century that endeavours were made to use the Slavic language in Bulgaria’s young Church and culture. Although Tsar Simeon and his court exclusively followed Byzantine models in the political and cultural matters and dreamed of a Bulgarian continuation of the Eastern Roman Empire, they could not ignore the Slavic majority inhabiting their realm. This population had to be won over for Christianity and for the ambitious idea of a renewed empire. Consequently, Simeon deliberately supported the development of the Bulgarian literary language, with the use of which missions conducted among the Slavic-speaking people could be more efficient. He took advantage of a group of teachers who had contributed to the creation of the Glagolitic alphabet and to the translation of Greek texts into Slavic, in Moravia and Pannonia, accompanying Constantine and Methodius in these efforts; after the latter’s death in 885, they were expelled from those areas. Boris Mikhail had provided shelter to some of them; the others finally arrived from Byzantium some time later, having been bought out in Venice by a Byzantine official from the local slave traders.23 Thus, Simeon could make use of learned men who not only had a perfect command of the Slavic language as well as Greek but also had practical experience in the missionary work among the Slavs. With their help, he set up in Preslav and Ohrid centres of Slavic-language theology and literature, at which a number of secular and ecclesiastical texts were subsequently translated from Greek into Slavic, and the first original works in Old Bulgarian/Old Church Slavonic were written.24 The most eminent representatives of these schools were Clement (of Ohrid), a disciple of Methodius; Constantine (of Preslav); Naum and Angelary; John Ekzarch, the monk; and a clergyman known as Chernorizets Khrabr (‘brave 20 21 22 23 24

See Angelov 1987, 17; Biliarsky 2011b, 390. Popkonstantinov 2015. Wasilewski 1972; Hannick 1998. Zhitie na Kliment Ochridski, 27–28 (Chap. 13–14); Părvo (naj-staro) zhitie na sv. Nauma, 306–307. Podskalsky 2000, 68–70, 104–105, 176–185; see Miltenova 2015.

154

Chapter 6

monk’). All of them, save perhaps for the latter, were Greeks who had received education in Constantinople. It is known that Clement (c.840–916) set off early for a journey with Constantine and Methodius: in late 867/early 868, he accompanied them to Rome and there he was consecrated priest together with Naum.25 Shortly after his escape from Moravia and arrival in Bulgaria, he was sent to the south-west of the country, where Simeon appointed him bishop in 893. His diocese, extending to the part of Macedonia captured by the Bulgarians, reached to Skopje in the north, its heart having been St Panteleimon’s monastery established by Clement in Ohrid. Clement taught the Glagolitic alphabet, organized the education for priests, copied manuscripts, translated Byzantine liturgical texts, and wrote his original works. In his exemplary sermons and instructive writings, meant to be an aid for inexperienced clergymen in the provincial areas, he tried to explain the principles of Christianity, the evangelical norms, the activities of prophets, apostles, saints, and the Fathers of the Church so as to make them “comprehensible even for the most stupid of the Bulgarians”, as Theophylact, the later Bishop of Ohrid, author of “The Life of St Clement”, commended.26 Apart from homiletic writings, Clement penned hagiographic works, including an eulogy of St Cyril and, primarily, the earliest, and the most important, “Life of St Methodius”.27 After his consecration as a bishop, Naum of Preslav also arrived in Ohrid to follow up the teaching activity of Clement. He probably translated and wrote his own texts, but none of his works survived. He died in 910 in a convent he had established on the southern bank of the Ohrid Lake, which after his death was named after him.28 Even less is known about the life of Constantine of Preslav (mid-9th to early 10th centuries).29 An addendum to the Slavic translation of Athanasius’s polemic against the Aryans, compiled by Constantine in 906 on Simeon’s order, suggests that he was a bishop and a disciple of Methodius.30 It seems that after Naum had left Preslav, Constantine initially took charge of the Preslav school before he was consecrated bishop himself. His main work was 25 Zhitie na Kliment Ochridski, 13 (chap. 3); Vtoro zhitie na sv. Nauma; see Obolensky 1988, 8–33; Kliment Ochridski. Sbornik ot statii; Avenarius 2000, 154–158; Podskalsky 2000, 104, 176–185, 276–280, 433–436; Iliev 2010; Popović 2013. 26 Zhitie na Kliment Ochridski, 35 (chap. 22); The Voices, 154. 27 Podskalsky 2000, 276–279; some scholars, however, regard Constantine of Preslav as the author of the Life of St Method, e.g. Petkanova 1988. 28 Kusseff 1950; Trapp 1974. 29 Avenarius 2000, 161–164; Podskalsky 2000, 185–187, 280, 430–433; Kaimakamova 2011a. 30 Discours contre les Ariens, 6.

Medieval “ State-Formation ” and “ Nation-Building ”

155

the so-called “Didactic Gospels” (Učitel’noe evangelie),31 a collection of fifty-one homilies with commentaries for Sundays of the movable liturgical year, surviving in four copies from the 13th to 14th centuries. Each of the sermons consists of an introduction, an exegetic section, and a final admonition. Constantine actually was only the author of the introductions and conclusions, and of the sermon no. 42; the other parts are translations of Greek texts being fragments of patristic commentaries to the Bible, primarily by John Chrysostom. As a sort of prolog, the work contained the so-called “Alphabet Prayer”. By translating fragments of Byzantine chronicles compiling them in the so-called Istorikii, Constantine also wrote the first texts of secular historiography, which stretched the Bulgarian temporal horizon back to Adam and, in terms of space, deep inside Europe and into the Middle and Near East. Apart from a few exceptions, these translations lack, however, original interpolations about the country’s own history; there is only one single remark that Nicephorus was killed “in Bulgaria” (въ Блъгарѣхъ).32 The biography of John Ekzarh (2nd half of the 9th century  – between 900 and 930) is likewise mostly obscure.33 His works tell us that he certainly received a thorough education, was a close associate of Simeon, and lived in a monastery not far from Pliska. His nickname (Ekzarh), which is hard to interpret in the Bulgarian context, most probably characterises him as a superior of an important parent convent. His most extensive work is the Šestodnev, or Hexameron – a collection of descriptions of the first six days of the Creation. Some of them are direct paraphrases from Greek patristic writings, and some were authored by John himself.34 This exegesis of the “Book of Genesis” 1:1–13 was also a peculiar encyclopaedia which described other nations and countries, for the first time in a Slavic language. Later it was popularized in several copies across the Slavic Orthodox world and became the major exegetic work of Old Bulgarian theology. Other sermons and addresses attributable (with a high degree of probability) to John combined elements of translation and compilation, too. In a prologue to John of Damascus’s translation of selected fragments of the Ekthesis (“Decree”), one of the basic dogmatic works in the Byzantine theology, John Ekzarh formulated a theory of translation that was to win considerable acclaim.35 31 Starobălgarskoto učitelno evangelie; see Hannick 2006. 32 Zlatarski 1923, text: 177–182, quotation: 181; Kaimakamova 1990, 65–69; Podskalsky 2000, 473–474. 33 Moser 1987; Podskalsky 2000, 146–147, 187–192, 228–233, 241–243. 34 Das Hexaemeron. 35 Ekthesis akribēs tēs orthodoxu pisteos, 2–28.

156

Chapter 6

The tsar himself also participated in creating a canon of Slavic texts. Based on the works by John Chrysostom, he compiled a Slavic-language collection of sermons, the so-called “Golden Stream” (Zlatostruj). In the prologue to this work, he introduces himself as an outstanding expert in the Old and New Testament.36 Some scholars believe that also Khrabr, who around 900 wrote a treatise “On the Letters” (O pismenekh), was Simeon himself.37 It seems that Simeon appreciated the political and historical benefits offered by historiographic works at an early stage.38 Hence, he purchased for his library Byzantine historical works, including copies of the chronicles by patriarch Nicephoros I, Georgios Hamartolos, Georgios Synkellos, and John Malalas, and ordered that they be translated, in whole or in fragments.39 Together with the respective fragments of the Šestodnev, these texts of a universal history character enabled the Bulgarians to approach Byzantine history, the beginnings of which they situated in biblical times, as their own. In this way, the ambitious Bulgarian strife for superior power was made part not only of the Byzantine political tradition but also of the context of the history of salvation and the history of biblical kings. That Simeon identified himself as a continuator of the history of the Byzantine Empire is also suggested by the Simeonov Sbornik – a collection of theological and secular texts by diverse Byzantine authors, compiled in the years 913–18 on his order, but preserved in the Kiev “Codex of Sviatoslav” (Izbornik of Sviatoslav), dated to the year 1073.40 The development of Old Bulgarian Slavic literacy was much supported by creating a new Slavic alphabet. The Glagolitic alphabet, brought to Bulgaria by Methodius’s disciples, clearly appeared in the Greek-Bulgarian context to be too complex and alien. As a result, a simpler script, the Cyrillic, was created; it was possibly strictly based on the Greek script that had long been known in Bulgaria.41 This facilitated the Bulgarian Slavic students the mastering of a new literary language and, in parallel, the reception and use of Greek and Slavic texts. It remains disputable, whether the invention of the Cyrillic alphabet was the thought-over work of one scholar, or rather, the result of an evolution? Whether this script developed in eastern Bulgaria (Pliska, Preslav), or in the west of the country (Ohrid), is also unclear.42 Being a simpler and 36 37 38 39 40 41 42

Minceva 1983; Podskalsky 2000, 194–195; Miltenov 2017. Kuev 1967, 43; Petkanova 1999; Podskalsky 2000, 237–243. Kaimakamova 2010; Kaimakamova 2011c, 115–144; Nikolov 2011. Dujčev 1960b, 54–55; Kaimakamova 1990, 164–172. Simeonov sbornik; Podskalsky 2000, 145, 151, 195, 474; Bibikov 1996, 36–39. Schreiner 1986; Wójtowicz 2000, 102–111. Velčeva 1986; Velčeva 1988, 705 regards it as a work of Clement of Ohrid (with reference to a passage in the “Life of Clement” written by Demetrios Chomatenos); see also the opposite opinion of Cheshmedzhiev 2015, esp. 382.

Medieval “ State-Formation ” and “ Nation-Building ”

157

easier-to-understand alphabet, the Cyrillic did not squeeze the Glagolitic at once; both varieties were simultaneously in use for some time, which is evidenced not only by inscriptions or graffiti but also by Glagolitic works written in the 10th and 11th centuries such as the Codex Assemanianus, Codex Marianus, Codex Zographensis, the Psalterium Sinaiticum, or the so-called “Rila fragments”.43 The use of the Glagolitic was probably limited to the sphere of prayer and liturgy, whereas the Cyrillic soon proved employable across the fields of life, in addition to religion. Finally, the Cyrillic was adopted as the major script not only in Bulgaria but also in Serbia and in the Kievan Rus’. As it seems, the introduction of the Cyrillic in 10th-century Bulgaria was caused not merely by pragmatic purposes; it might have been a well-conceived compromise. With its evident similarity to the Greek alphabet, and with all the clear differences from it, the Cyrillic came as a response to the cultural expectations of the Bulgarian elite. It expressed the Slavic/Bulgarian identity of that group as well as its affiliation to the Byzantine Greek-language oecumene. In this sense, the Cyrillic might indeed have epitomized “a distinctive but dependent Bulgarian identity”.44 On the other hand, an easier alphabet appeared as yet another integration proposal targeted by the scholars of Preslav and Ohrid at wide groups of Slavic-speaking people. This enabled the increasing inclusion of this population in the emerging concept of the Bulgarian natio.45 The said concept did not assume an exclusive ‘Slavic national entity’. Moreover, it was not based on an idea whereby the subjects of the First Bulgarian Empire formed “one part of the large family of Slav nations”, or cherished an awareness that “the Slav nations form a unity.”46 In the few cases where Old Bulgarian/Old Church Slavonic texts from the late 9th to the early 11th centuries speak of ‘Slavs’ or a ‘Slavic nation’, the terms always denoted only a concrete Slavic-speaking population confined to a limited territory – be it Moravia, Pannonia, or the Bulgarian Empire. The characterization as ‘Slavic’/’Slav’ in these cases never functioned as a differentiation in ethnical and linguistic terms; it did not seek to single out a given population as a ‘nation’. ‘Slavs’ and ‘Slavic nation’ primarily, if not exclusively, denoted in the context of the mentioned texts (which were almost exclusively ecclesiastical and religious texts) those parts of the population (being the majority) that was yet to be successfully, and for good, won over for Christianity with the use of the new Slavic literary language. Only in this meaning and only once 43 44 45 46

Popkonstantinov 1986; Popkonstantinov 1988; Popkonstantinov 1995. Neil 2004, 464. See Litavrin 1989; Katsunov 1998; for the importance of the ‘capital-towns’ for the formation of a natio-consciousness see Dall’Aglio 2011. English quotation: Angelov 1978, 35, 42; Angelov 1980, 127; see Angelov 1987, 17, 20.

158

Chapter 6

the word ‘Slavs’ appears in the otherwise extensive Šestodnev by John Ekzarh. Here, significantly the “pagan Slavs” (погании словѣне), who John would like to see perish in calamity, are referred to on a par with “all the demented and dishonourable Manichaeans […] and [other] heathen peoples.”47 In “The Life of St Methodius” by Clement of Ohrid, the word ‘Slavs’ (словѣни) only refers to newly-converted Moravian Christians who – following the wish of the “Slav prince” Rostislav and with use of a “Slavonic script”, “Slavic Gospel”, and “Slavic disciples” of Methodius – would require to be even stronger reinforced in their young faith. The Life only mentions “other Slav countries” when citing papal bulls; thus, its message represents the Roman/Latin perspective. And these quotations, too, concerned Moravia and Pannonia, to be specific. In any case, Clement draws the reader’s attention to the fact that the Macedonians and Moravians were close to each other as far as language and customs were concerned, since he mentions that the Emperor had once entrusted to Methodius the administration of a “Slavic principality” within the empire, while Methodius got acquainted there with “all the Slavic customs and habits” and thus could prepare himself for the mission in Moravia.48 But there is not a single mention in “The Life of St Methodius” of a Slavic-speaking people in Bulgaria. Also, “The Praise of Cyril”, penned by Clement, whose earliest extant version dates to the 13th century, uses the description of “the Slavic people” (Словѣньскоу ѭзыкоу), immersed in “ignorance and spiritual darkness”, and for whom Constantine/Cyril became a “shepherd and teacher”, only with respect to the Moravians. The commendation, however, at least indirectly links the Moravians and the Bulgarians, when it names Constantine/Cyril a “father and teacher of our people.”49 The phrase “my/our people”, which subsequently reappears several times, however, is not to be understood as a declaration of belonging to a ‘Slavic nation’; it misses, significantly enough, the adjective ‘Slav(ic)’. Instead, what is meant by “people” here, is the ‘people of God’, in the Christian concept. “The Praise of Cyril and Methodius” possibly attributable to Clement, contains similar expressions. The people that have been led by Cyril and Methodius to “the light of cognition of God”, with the use of “new letters” and a “new language”, is not referred to as a ‘Slavic’ but as a “new people.”50 Also Constantine of Preslav mentioned a “new people” (Ѩзыкъ новъ) in his 47 Das Hexaemeron, 121, 123; see Minchev/Skovronek 2014. 48 Zhitije Mefodija, 141, 143–147, 158. 49 Pochvalno slovo na Kirila filosofa ot Klimenta Ochridski; see Rohdewald 2014, 45–46, who refers “nation” to the Slavs in general and interprets the word as an expression for the “Slavic nation as a unity”. 50 Klimint Ochridski, Săbrani săčinenija 1, 468–475, 485–492, 505–510.

Medieval “ State-Formation ” and “ Nation-Building ”

159

Alphabet prayer; the same text uses the phrase “tribe of Slavs” with respect to the same designatum.51 He doubtlessly meant the population of his bishopric in western Bulgaria; it was those same people that he had in mind in the prologue to the “Didactic Gospels” while exhorting, “Harken, all ye Slavs (словѣни вси)”; or, “Harken, all the Slavic people (словѣнскь народь вьсь)” – and listen to the Word of God.52 Constantine certainly did not mean a community of all the Slavic-speaking people, including those beyond the limits of the Bulgarian Empire. This also refers, to the same extent, to the treatise “On the letters” (O pismenekh), in whose opening sentence Khrabr the monk refers to “Slavs” (Словѣне), who in the days of yore “had no books” and were heathens (погани); the work’s last sentence mentions, instead, “Slavs” who have meanwhile “received the reason from God” (разоумъ […] Богъ есть далъ словѣнωмъ). Again, the Slavic-speaking people of Bulgaria are meant, rather than an all-Slavic community. The text, preserved in more than a hundred copies, of which the earliest dates to the 14th century (at the earliest), was not bene an ardent apology of the Slavonic script, which sought to demonstrate, from an expressly Christian perspective, “what benefit can be drawn from the Slavic books.” To this end, the author proposed a brief outline of the history of the Greek alphabet, based on Greek sources, along with considerations on the beginnings of the Slavic alphabet (leaving it unclear, whether he meant the Glagolitic or the Cyrillic one). In any case, he praises the advantages of the Slavic alphabet, in comparison to its Greek peer, and glorifies the translation achievements of Constantine/Cyril. Whether Khrabr intended to defend the Glagolitic against the newly introduced Cyrillic or to defend the Slavonic script in general against those who advocated the use of the Greek alphabet, remains unclear.53 There are just two more Bulgarian sources from the late 9th to early 11th centuries that mention, each just once, a “Slavic people.” In a postscript to the Slavic translation of the Greek “Life of Sts Anthony and Pancras”, dated at the 9th–10th century, the anonymous translator explains that he has embarked on the translation effort “so that the Slavic people” not be excluded

51

The text was rediscovered by Mikhail Pogodin in 1825 and published in his Russian translation of Josef Dobrovský’s study on Cyril/Constantine and Methodius; a modern critical edition using the 38 known manuscripts (the oldest dated to the 12th century) in: Kuev 1974, 170–171. 52 Proglas kăm evangelieto, 339, 340; Jakobson 1963 regards the prolog a work of Constantine/ Cyril and Method. 53 Chernorizets Khrabăr, O pismenekh, 113–143; see Ziffer 1995; Ziffer 2010; Avenarius 2000, 166–169; Lomagistro 2002; Franklin 2002, 190–195.

160

Chapter 6

from cognising the saint life of such miracle-workers.”54 The earliest “Life of St Naum”, written down probably before 969, refers to Mark, Bishop of Devol, as the fourth bishop “amongst the Slavic people” or “the Slavic language” (вь Словенскїи ѥзыкь).55 In both texts, the word ‘Slavs’ is apparently used in the context of the endeavours to christianize the Bulgarian people, rather than to denote the ethnic identity of those people. The developed awareness of forming a natio is expressed, in both cases, with use of the terms “Bulgarians” (въ Бльгары) and “Bulgarian land” (въ Блгарскоу землю). The ethnonym ‘Bulgarians’ and the country’s name ‘Bulgaria’ also appear in other sources of the First Bulgarian Empire  – such as the early medieval Byzantine, Latin, and Old Rus’ian sources.56 The rulers’ seals named Boris Mikhail and Simeon “Lord of Bulgaria,” whereas Peter was described as “Emperor of the Bulgarians” (βασιλέος Βουλγάρων).57 An inscription from 904 points to a “borderline between the Romans and the Bulgarians” and to Simeon as the “Lord of the Bulgarians” (ἄρχοντα Βουλγάρων).58 A note to Constantine of Preslav’s translation of Athanasius’s polemic against the Aryans from the early 10th century remarks that the work has been done “on the order of our Bulgarian prince” (повелѣнием кнѧзѧ нашего Блъгарьска) and that Boris Mikhail, “the pious Bulgarian prince”, has christened “the Bulgarians” (Болгары).59 In an Old Bulgarian description of a miracle worked by St George, dated at the 10th century, an abbot named Peter is described as a member of the “newly-christened Bulgarian nation”, the subjects of Boris being a “savage and implacable Bulgarian tribe.”60 Lastly, a sermon written between 967 and 972 by a presbyter named Kozma against the Bogomils, mentions the “Bulgarian land” (въ земли Болгарьстѣ).61 On the other hand, none of the extant official titles of the rulers of the First Bulgarian Empire features the word ‘Slavs’. 1.2 Decline and Fall of the First Bulgarian Empire The death of Tsar Simeon in 927 and the long-lasting conflict with Byzantium was followed by a period of peaceful balance. Peter I, Simeon’s son, and 54 Iz starata bălgarska, 112–113; The Voices, 117. 55 Părvo (naj-staro) zhitie na sv. Nauma, 307; „Quellen reinen Wassers …“, 115 translates “for the Slavic people”, The Voices, 107 as “in the Slavonic tongue.” 56 See Angelov 1978, 39–44; Angelov 1980, 138–140; Polyvjannyj 2015, esp. 213–214. 57 Ivan Iordanov, Korpus, 46, 50, 60, 86, 90, 110. 58 Die protobulgarischen Inschriften, 216. 59 Discours contre les Ariens, 6–7. 60 Kodov 1969. 61 Text edited in: Begunov 1973, 297–392, quotation: 299, 391; see Podskalsky 2000, 243–246; Angelov 2017.

Medieval “ State-Formation ” and “ Nation-Building ”

161

successor, concluded a long-lasting peace with Constantinople, reinforced by his marriage to Mary Irene, Emperor Romanus I Lekapenos’s granddaughter.62 This arrangement brought him annual tributes from the Byzantines, along with their formal recognition of Peter as the basileus or tsar of the Bulgarians, and a confirmation of the title of patriarch from the archbishop of Bulgaria. Peter gained prestige, appropriate resources, and a potential to consolidate his power inside the country.63 Nevertheless, the first symptoms of a crisis soon became visible. Apart from intra-dynastic conflicts and dissatisfaction from the opposition, a heretic movement came to light in the first half of the 10th century. The so-called Bogomilism, probably initiated by a Macedonian priest called Bogomil, represented a radical spiritualism, rejecting the material world as the kingdom of Satan and opposing any form of authority and power. Patriarch Theophylact, from whom the first piece of information on the movement comes, described those religious ideas in an undated letter to Tsar Peter as a combination of the teachings of the Manichaeans and the Paulicians.64 The Bogomils rejected the Pentateuch and the idea of resurrection of the flesh, the Church as an institution, with its cult, liturgy, and sacraments. They combined consistent asceticism with rejection of any activity meant to ensure subsistence and a fervent polemic against ownership and affluence. This led them to call into question the teachings of the Church as well as the political power and authority. Despite persecutions, the teachings of the Bogomils were spreading widely and gaining considerable influences also outside the limits of Bulgaria. At the end of the 14th century the movement was successfully exterminated, with great effort; before it happened, Bogomilism had strongly influenced the heretic movements in South-Eastern and Western Europe.65 Lack of religious concord and social protests were now accompanied by new external threats posed by incursions of Serbian chieftains in the west, attacks of the Magyars, the Rus’, and Pechenegs in the north, and the intensifying resistance from the Byzantines.66 The central power in the empire was debilitated by separatist moves of the Bulgarian mighty and by the seizure of a part of its land by the Kievan prince Sviatoslav. Hence, the Byzantine Emperor John I Tzimiskes had no problem with capturing Pliska in 971.67 Tsar Boris, who had been in power since 969, was dethroned and eastern Bulgaria was 62 63 64 65 66 67

Shepard 2011, 121–49; Brzozowska 2018; Brzozowska/Leszka/Marinow 2018. Leszka/Marinow 2018c; Nikolov, G. 2018. Dujčev 1964, 89; Mincev 2013. Fine 1977; Fine 1983, 171–179; Angelov 1993, 101–124, 265–274; Podskalsky 2000, 129–141. Leszka/Marinow 2018a; Leszka/Marinow 2018b. Leszka/Marinow 2018d.

162

Chapter 6

incorporated into the empire as a Byzantine province. The country’s western and southern parts were not seized by the emperor; instead, power was taken over in those territories by the four sons of komes Nikola, the regional governor. After Emperor John Tzimiskes’s death in 976, Nikola’s sons David, Aaron, Moses, and Samuel, dwelling on the Prespa and Ohrid Lakes, incited an antiByzantine insurrection and established a separate rulership.68 Among these four Cometopuli (called after their father’s title komes), the youngest, Samuel, born 954, became an autocrat with time.69 He recaptured eastern Bulgarian lands, extended his rule to Thessalia and Old Epirus, invaded the Serbian lands, and subordinated, for some time, the chieftains (zhupans) of Zeta, Raška, Travunia, Zahumlje, as well as the leaders of certain Bosnian clans. In 997, a patriarch nominated by him crowned him tsar. In the meantime, Emperor Basil II managed to conclude the Byzantine civil war and strengthen the empire internally and eternally anew. This fact, along with the truce drawn in 999/1000 with the Egyptian Fatimids enabled Basil to take, from the beginning of the new millennium toward, military actions against Samuel and bring about the final conquest of Bulgaria – or, from the Byzantine standpoint her re-integration into the Byzantine Empire. The acrimonious conflict went on for several years.70 It was only in the summer of 1014 that an initial resolution emerged, when the Byzantines, then in the vicinity of Strumica, in distress, were helped by Samuel’s death. The Byzantine propaganda presented it as the emperor’s great victory and issued the myth whereby this ‘killer of Bulgarians’ (Bulgaroktónos) had ordered 15,000 Bulgarian captives be blinded, at the sight of which the Bulgarian tsar had a stroke. In reality, Samuel was not as tragic a figure as this fictitious statement would like him to be, but a successful military commander right until the end of his days.71 In an inscription found not far from Kleidion, he called himself not only “Tsar” but also, in reference to the Byzantine concept of autokrator, the “autocrat of all the Bulgarians” (crъ i samo[drьže]c v[s]ěm blgarōm).72 His son and successor Gabriel-Radomir was soon murdered by his cousin Ivan Vladislav, who in an inscription dated 1015–16 called himself “autocrat of the Bulgarian

68 69 70 71 72

Tăpkova-Zaimova 2009. Fine 1983, 188–197; Antoljak 1985; Pirivatrić 1997, 199–210. Stephenson 2000, 62–79; Strässle 2006, 72–83, 152–160; Wassiliou-Seibt 2017. Ioannis Skylitzae, 349; Schreiner 2015; Nikolov 2015. For a revisionist view on Samuel, his “state” and its relations with Byzantium and Bulgaria see Panov 2019. Dobrev 2004, 3–24, quotation: 4.

Medieval “ State-Formation ” and “ Nation-Building ”

163

tsardom” (samodrьžъc blъgarsьko[go] crstva).73 Moreover, the inscription clearly describes him as a “native-born Bulgarian” (blъgarinь rodomь), which is unambiguous evidence that the awareness of constituting a natio had by then been fully established among the empire’s political and cultural elite.74 Ivan continued the struggle against Basil II but was killed in February 1018. In the same year, the Byzantines, supported by Hungarian and Rus’ian warriors, succeeded to conquer finally his country. 1.3 Byzantine Rule and Bulgarian Identity The Byzantines put an end to the existence of the First Bulgarian Empire and included its area in the Byzantine territorial structures.75 To this end, a territorial unit called “Bulgaria” was formed, extending to the Central Balkan and Macedonian regions, which was administered by a katepan/dux with his residence in Skopje. The territories between the Balkan Mountain range and the lower Danube were united and the ducatus of Paristrion was established, with the capital town of Silistra; the regions situated along the middle Danube and the lower Sava Rivers formed a ducatus governed from Sirmium. The members of the tsar’s family were taken to Constantinople and kept at the imperial court. Part of the Bulgarian nobility, too, were abducted to Byzantium, arranging marriages for them with Byzantines, making them join the Byzantine army, or resettling them into East Byzantine provinces. The emperor endeavoured to win the other mighty over by entrusting offices or affording stipends to them. Some were allowed to keep their positions, since under the cloak of the Byzantine theme organization the local administrative structures were initially maintained. With time, however, the emperor would appoint more and more Byzantine officials to run the administration completely in line with the Byzantine design. The Bulgarian Church was given certain autonomy. While the archbishop was dismissed as autocephalous patriarch, the newly established Archbishopric of Bulgaria was awarded a separate status within the Byzantine ecclesial hierarchy. Moreover, the emperor elevated a native Bulgarian – Ivan/John of Debar – to the rank of archbishop again;76 yet, his successors, as well as suffragan bishops, were Greeks only. 73 74 75 76

The inscription was found in 1956 in a doorsill of a demolished mosque, it originated from the fortress of Bitola and is published in Bozhilov 1971, 85 and Namentragende Steininschriften, 126; for an English translation see The Voices, 39; Zaimov 1977. See Angelov 1987, 20: “It is scarcely possible to imagine a more categorical and direct confirmation of a sense of nationality.” Stephenson 2000, 63–66, 77–80; Scholz 2005, 338; Popović 2016. Delikari 2015; Prinzing 2012.

164

Chapter 6

The Greek hierarchs initiated a Hellenization in strife to reinstate Greek as the language of liturgy, and to establish the main religious centres as those of Greek learning and culture. To this end, Greek-language Lives of popular Bulgarian saints were written, such as St Clement of Ohrid, Naum, and Ivan/John of Rila. Yet, even the ardent advocates of Hellenization, such as Theophylact († 1120/6), the Greek bishop of Ohrid and author of the Greek “Life of St Clement”, had respect for the tradition stemming from Cyril and Methodius as well as for the Slavic literary output. No ecclesiastical life would have, in fact, been conceivable without it, so the Byzantine clergymen sent to the Bulgarian provinces would never endeavour to supersede the Slavic language from the churches.77 As is shown by several Cyrillic and Glagolitic codices from the 11th and 12th centuries, particularly the monasteries never ceased to cherish the Old Church Slavonic/Bulgarian language and culture. However, discontent was growing among the people. Especially in the elitist circles that had remained in the country, resentment was primarily triggered by the introduction of a money economy, oriented toward economic exploitation and combined with a harsh tax policy. The year 1040 saw members of the Bulgarian elite launch, for the first time, an armed action against the foreign rule. Samuel I’s genuine or conjectured grandson Peter Delyan announced himself tsar in Belgrade and set off from there to reinstate the country’s liberty.78 His insurrection coincided with that led by a soldier called Tihomir, who had also announced himself tsar, and with objection from Alusiyan, one of the sons of the earlier tsar Ivan-Vladislav; the rebels announced Alusiyan tsar as well. The competition between the three leaders of the revolt certainly contributed to its fast suppression by the Byzantines. Only three decades later, in 1072, would the Bulgarians rebel for the second time. Since there was nobody among them who could have been regarded as a rightful member the tsarist family, they announced tsar the son of Constantine Bodin, Grand Zhupan of Duklja. To mark his rightful status as a tsar and strengthen his legitimacy, they named him after the former Bulgarian tsar, Peter.79 Constantine Bodin managed to conquer Skopje, Ohrid, and Devol. Byzantium, however, soon put an end to the rebellion, so Constantine/Peter withdrew to Duklja again.

77

Obolensky 1971, 217–218; Thomson 1989; Obolensky 1988, 34–82; Mullett 1997, 272–273; Podskalsky 2000, 144–152; Polyviannyi 2000, 94–129; Prinzing 2021. 78 Zlatarski 1932; Miltenova 1986; on the resurrection in general Ferluga 1976, 379–399; Ferluga 1985. 79 Ē Synecheia tēs chronografias tou Ioannou Skilitzē, 163–164.

Medieval “ State-Formation ” and “ Nation-Building ”

165

Both aforementioned insurrections stemmed from particular political ambitions of regional clans and were propelled by economic incentives; and both were linked with the interests of the neighbouring non-Byzantine powers. And yet, they also expressed the Bulgarian awareness of a natio, which had been growing sharper since 1018 in confrontation with the Byzantine rule. This is indicated by, inter alia, a clear Bulgarization of ‘Slavic’ aspects in the texts from the Cyrillo-Methodian tradition, in which “the Bulgarian language” was replacing “the Slavonic language”, with “Bulgarian books” coming in place of “Slavic books.”80 Even in his “Life of St Clement”, written down in Greek, Theophylact took up this trend and shifted the story’s balance point to the “country/people of the Bulgarians”, described the conversion of “Slavs or Bulgarians”, and unambiguously associated the invention of the Slavonic script with Bulgaria, calling it “the Bulgarian script.”81 “The Legend of Thessaloniki”, a story of the creation of the Slavonic script, dating to the 11th–12th century, shows the entire Moravian mission as an effort among the Bulgarians.82 In this legend Constantine recounts, as a first-person narrator, the voice that once called him to go “to the Slavs, which means, to the Bulgarians,” in order to “convert them to the faith and give them the law.” The Byzantines are said to have warned him that the Bulgarians were cannibals, and he would be eaten by them as well, which initially made him awe-stricken. But “all the Bulgarian princes” had fought for three years at the gates of Thessaloniki to have him released. Finally, “the Bulgarians received him with great joy,” so that he “had written down for them the thirty-two letters [of the Slavonic/Bulgarian alphabet].” This appropriation of the Cyrillo-Methodian tradition, combined with the idea of a special chosenness of the Bulgarians, is visible also in other texts. The Bulgarian annotations to a 1211 translation of the Byzantine Synodicon commended Cyril for his translation of holy scriptures “from the Greek into the Bulgarian language” (ωд грьчьскаго еӡыка на блъгарскыи) and that he enlightened “the Bulgarian nation” (блъгарскыи рωд).83 The so-called “Short (Prologue) Life of St Cyril” made Constantine-Cyril even a native Bulgar (рωдом Блъгаринь).84 80 E.g. in the second Life of the Holy Naum: Vtoro zhitie na sv. Nauma; see Cheshmedzhiev 2001; Cheshmedzhiev 2007. 81 Zhitie na Kliment Ochridski; for an English translation see Iliev 1995; see also Rohdewald 2011, 210–211; Ivanov 2000. 82 Solunska legenda; The Voices, 142–143; on the source and its dating into a somewhat later period (12th–14th century) see Podskalsky 2000, 173, 284; Kaimakamova 2011c, 234–238. 83 Borilov sinodik, 149–150, 154–156; see Totomanova 2017. 84 Kratkoe zhitie na sv. Kirila, 284.

166

Chapter 6

The developing awareness of forming a natio was also expressed in the specific Bulgarian cult of saints, which was primarily aimed at multiplying the sacral capital of the secular rulers. All the same, intensified veneration of individual saints – such as tsar Peter, who was canonized perhaps in as early as the end of the 10th century, as an intercessor of all the Bulgarians – expressed the strengthened Bulgarian identity. It was not without reason that the leaders of anti-Byzantine insurrections, proclaimed as tsars, referred to his name.85 Also John, the founder of the Rila Monastery, who died in 946, was venerated as a patron of Bulgaria. In a Life, datable approximately to the 11th–12th century, he was contrasted, as a Bulgarian, with Byzantine saints and presented as a man from the common folk.86 Apparently, the cult of saints and a Bulgarized memory of St Constantine began to extend the awareness of a Bulgarian natio to broader circles of people, beyond the political and spiritual elites. It seems that also the memory of the First Bulgarian Empire was not restricted to the elite. It was primarily cherished in the lower circles of the clergy; confronted with the foreign rule, it turned outright into an anti-Byzantine historical awareness,87 which echoed in apocryphal texts, among others. These texts, with visible subtle Bogomilic influence, clearly gained popularity. An outstanding specimen of this pseudo-historical literature is the so-called “Bulgarian Apocryphal Chronicle” (Bŭlgarska apokrifna letopis)  – a rather short text written (according to most scholars) in the second half of the 11th or in the beginning of the 12th century (though it has been preserved only in a 17th-century copy).88 It tells the history of the Bulgars/Bulgarians and their rulers between the 7th and the middle of the 11th centuries. The narrator is Prophet Isaiah, who is ascribed by the anonymous author a decisive role in the beginnings of the history of Bulgaria. Isaiah had namely heard the voice of God, telling him as follows:

85 Biliarsky 2011a; Cheshmedzhiev 2013; Rohdewald 2014, 73, 78–79; Kaimakamova 2018. 86 Zhitija na sv. Ivana Rilski s uvodni belezhki, 28–37; Podskalsky 1999; Podskalsky 2000, 105–108, 288–289; Rohdewald 2014, 73–79. 87 For more details, see Kaimakamova 2007; Kaimakamova 2011c, 157–183. 88 Edited on the basis of a manuscript found in the State Historical Museum of Moscow in the 1990ies in: Tapkova-Zaimova/Miltenova 2011, 280–285; for an English translation see Tapkova-Zaimova/Miltenova 2011, 291–295; on the text in more detail Ivanov 1989; Kaimakamova 1990, 124–132; Kaimakamova 2011b, 116–124; Kaimakamova 2011c, 183–216; see also Biliarsky 2013, 246–247 who does not exclude the possibility that the text has been compiled only during the first half of the 13th century or at the end of the 14th /in the 15th century.

Medieval “ State-Formation ” and “ Nation-Building ”

167

go westwards of the uppermost lands of Rome, separate a third part of the Cumans, named the Bulgars, and inhabit Southern Dobruja that has been deserted by the Romans and the Hellenic people. So, Isaiah, as he himself reports, “drove [the Bulgars] away, showing them the way with his stick,” and colonized “Southern Dobrudža, named the Bulgarian country, with many a people, from the Danube up to the sea.” Here, the reference to the biblical story of Moses, who led the Israelites out to the Promised Land, is no less clear as the attempt to make the history of Bulgaria part of the history of Rome and, thereby, of the universal history. This highlights the main objective behind the text, which is to demonstrate that the Bulgarian Empire was a ‘new Rome’ or a ‘new Israel’, the Bulgarians being a God-chosen people.89 It was to this people that Isaiah himself “enthroned a tsar”; his name was Slav (Слав’). Using this meaningful name, the chronicle did not characterize the mythical founder of the First Bulgarian Empire as a Cuman or as a Proto-Bulgar, but as a Slav. Thus, it recalled the Slavic-speaking people that the Proto-Bulgars came across in the lower Danube area, and afforded those people, in a symbolic form, participation in the formation of the first Bulgarian realm. It is hard to decide whether the mention of ‘Cumans’ aimed to recall the vernacular Thracian and, in the meantime, Valachian people, or rather, to emphasize the Turkic-Asiatic origin of the Proto-Bulgars  – or, perhaps, turn the reader’s attention to the Kipchaks inhabiting the north of Bulgaria in the 11th century, with their increasing importance to the Bulgarian resistance to foreign rule. In any case, the chronicle did not associate the origins of the Bulgarian history solely with the (Proto-)Bulgars, though it subsequently only speaks of “Bulgarians”, the “Bulgarian land”, and the “Bulgarian tsardom”, never suggesting any Slavic aspect of Bulgaria’s history anymore. Following Slav, “the first tsar of the Bulgarian land” and his direct successor Ispor, who scholars unanimously identify as the Proto-Bulgar Asparuh, the chronicle mentions sixteen consecutive tsars; only five historical Bulgarian rulers are among them – namely, Boris, Simeon, Peter, Samuel, and “Odolan”, the leader of the first anti-Byzantine revolt of 1040 Peter Delyan. All the other “tsars” are legendary figures or deformed reflections of Byzantine emperors. Hence, the “Apocryphal Chronicle” presented the Bulgarian history not only in terms of interactions of “Cumans”, (Proto-)Bulgars and Slavs, but also as a merger of Bulgarian and Byzantine rule – thereby complementing the idea of the Bulgarians as a chosen people with the concept of an indissoluble connection between Bulgaria and Byzantium, or with the idea that both countries 89

See Döpmann 2001; Biliarsky 2010, 262–270; Erdeljan 2017, 154–175.

168

Chapter 6

formed a whole.90 This, of course, was not to the liking of the Byzantine occupiers; on the contrary: the story stemmed from the Bulgarian dream, spun since Simeon I’s time, of a great Bulgarian-Byzantine state under Bulgarian leadership. In this spirit, the chronicle stressed that Peter was once “the tsar of the Bulgars and, moreover, of the Greeks alike,” whereas Samuel and Peter Delyan received “the Bulgarian and Greek emperorship.” The legendary Turgiy, mentioned at the last place, is described in the chronicle as the one who took “power in the whole of the Bulgarian and Greek Empire.” The “Bulgarian Apocryphal Chronicle” displayed to its contemporaries, in the late 11th and early 12th centuries, an image of an illustrious past when the strong, peace-loving, and equitable “Bulgarian tsars” cared about the good of the “Bulgarians”, defended the independence of the “Bulgarian land”, and even repeatedly successfully claimed “the dignity of the Greek emperorship.” In parallel, the words of Prophet Isaiah, who, following God’s instruction, announced “what shall happen in the earth entire, in the last days of the humankind”, promised to the Bulgarians a glorious future as the chosen people. For this form of messianism, the fact that the Bulgarians were Slavic, in linguistic terms, was completely irrelevant. Hence, for the purposes of contemporary politics, it was not necessary to further develop the memory of a remote ‘Slavic’ past, which is evoked in the work in question through the symbolic use of the eponym ‘Slav’. The appeal to the awareness of forming a natio, to a Bulgarian identity, was sufficiently strong and could give a hope that an autonomous Bulgarian realm would be rebuilt in the future. In fact, despite the continued pacification and Hellenization actions, the Byzantines could not efficiently cope with the Bulgarian sense of community that connected the regional clan structures and families, which in fact had a broad measure of leeway, nor with the supra-regional sense of a ‘national’ identity. That the said identity was not defined in ethnic terms but, instead, expressed the political and social claims of the regional political elites, is evidenced by the fact that in the year 1072, the Bulgarians had no problem with establishing the son of a foreign ruler, Constantin Bodin from Duklja, as Bulgarian tsar. The brothers Theodor and Asen, two potent men excelling in the third uprising against the Byzantines, which in the 1180s led to the 90

This concept in the 11th century was expressed by an apocryphical interpretation of Daniel’s prophecy (book nine) that predicted that the worldly king ruling before the coming of the anti-Christ, namely the kagan Michael from among the Bulgarian people will be the son of a Bulgarian father and a Greek mother (отьць от бльгарьскога рода а мати грьчскога); Tapkova-Zaimova/Miltenova 2011, 176.

Medieval “ State-Formation ” and “ Nation-Building ”

169

establishment of the Second Bulgarian Empire, too, were of a non-Bulgarian, or at least mixed, descent. They were Valachians (whether completely or partly is a matter of dispute) and thus descendants of the vernacular, semi-Romanized, pastoral local people.91 Besides, they were probably related to the Cumans. Irrespective of these relations, they perceived themselves as Bulgarians, and took the lead in the Bulgarian liberation combats. Theodor crowned himself tsar in the northern Bulgarian city of Tarnovo and assumed the name of Peter; thereby, the Valachian brothers deliberately made themselves part of the continuity and imperial tradition of the First Bulgarian Empire.92 The Byzantine counteraction was inefficient this time, one of the reasons being that at the very same time the Normans of Sicily conquered Thessaloniki and posed a threat to Constantinople. Emperor Isaac II Angelos had no choice but to accept the emergence of a Second Bulgarian Empire. In an agreement with the brothers drawn in 1188, the emperor formally recognized the tsarist authority of Asen I, who in 1187 replaced Theodor/Peter.93 The new, Asen, dynasty was to shape the destiny of the Second Bulgarian Empire up to the 13th century. Its members used the title of “Tsar of the Bulgarians and the Vlachians”, “Lord of Bulgaria and Valachia”, or “Tsar of the Bulgarians and the Greeks”, whereas neither the official titles nor the seals or coins would indicate a peculiar, Slavic character of the empire they ruled.94

91

For the controversial debate (especially between Bulgarian and Romanian historians) as to the ethnic background of the founders of the Asenid dynasty see Daskalov 2015, esp. 289–292, 309–315; Madgearu 2017, 11–28. 92 Kaimakamova 2011c, 217–223. 93 Cankova-Petkova 1978; Angelov 1984; Prinzing 1999/2000; Dobyčina 2012; Ritter 2013. 94 Ivan Iordanov, Korpus, 212–217, 221: seal of Asen I (1187–97), seal of Kalojan/Ioannitsa (1197–1207), seal of Boril (1207–1218) with the circumscription “Tsar of the Bulgarians”, seals of Ivan II Asen (1218–1241) with the circumscription “Tsar of the Bulgarians and Greeks” and of Constantine Tich Asen (1257–1277) with the circumscription “Tsar and Autocrat of the Bulgarians”; Prepiskata na papa Inokentija III s Bălgaritě, 22, 23, 34, 43, 50, 54, 65, 69: correspondence between Kalojan/Ioanitsa and pope Innocent III from the years 1199–1204, in which Kalojan/Ioanitsa is called Dominus/Rex Bulgarorum et Blachorum and Imperator totius Bulgariae et Vlachie; Gramoti na bălgarskite care, 29: charter of Ivan II Asen issued in 1230 for the monastery Vadopedi on Mount Athos using the intitulatio “Tsar of the Bulgarians and Greeks”; Malingoudis 1979, 60: inscription dated to 1231, in which Ivan II Asen is called “by God elevated Tsar of the Bulgarians and Greeks and the other countries”; The Voices, 231: treaty between tsar Mikhail II Asen (1246–1256) and the city of Dubrovnik referring to the tsardom of Ivan II Asen as a rule over “all of the Bulgarian and Greek lands.”

170 2

Chapter 6

Bohemia

2.1 Beginnings and Formation of the Bohemian Principality The Bohemians became of interest to the Franks in the context of Charlemagne’s wars with the Avars.95 In 791, two Carolingian warrior units set off through the lands of the Bohemians/Czechs (per Beehaimos) to militate against the Khaganate. A few years later, in 805, Emperor Charles dispatched his namesake son “into the country of the Slavs who are called Bohemians” (in terram Sclavorum, qui vocantur Beheimi); a year later, the Franks’ troops marched “into the country of Bohemia” (in terram Beeheim) again.96 So, the Franks perceived Bohemian settlement territories and the Slavic-speaking people inhabiting them through the prism of a generic name given from the outside (Bohemia/Boemi), drawn from antiquity – specifically, from the name of the Celtic Boier, who inhabited the region hundreds of years earlier.97 It remains unclear whether the names used by the Bohemian tribes to describe themselves were unknown to the Franks or the latter deliberately avoided using them. They probably could not see differences between them that they would have found essential enough to use differentiating names. Only the “Tilian Annals” (Annales Tiliani) written between 807 and 829, drawing directly or indirectly from the “Royal Frankish Annals” (Annales regni Francorum), captured perhaps a single Slavic ethnonym as its compiler(s) altered a fragment of the sentence reading “[he] sent the army […] into the lands of the Slavs who are called Bohemians” into “the lands of the Slavs who are called Cinu.”98 The author(s) might have had in mind the tribal association of the Czechs (Češi), whose name later on became their own designation for the country (Čechy) and its Slavic-speaking inhabitants.99 Yet, this naming remains uncertain and dubious;100 scholars have been ignoring it for quite a long time now, believing that the forms Česi (Чеси) and čes’sci muži (чешьсци мѫжи) appearing in the first Old Slavic legend of St Wenceslaus, written down

95 96 97 98 99 100

From the reach literature see only Třeštík 1997; Bláhova et al. 1999, 263–343; Sláma 2006; Charvát 2010b; Matla-Kozłowska 2008, 15–91; Kalhous 2012, 11–169; Kalhous 2018, 18–54. Annales regni Francorum, 89, 120, 122; the English quotations from Carolingian Chronicles, 84, 86; see Graus 1980a, 162, 194–195, Ludwig/Möhlenkamp 1983a; Ludwig/Möhlenkamp 1983b. Birkhan et al. 1978. Annales Tiliani, 223. See Erhart 1988. See the convincing argumentation in Třeštík 1997, 52–53.

Medieval “ State-Formation ” and “ Nation-Building ”

171

in the first half of the 10th century, are in reality the earliest preserved forms of the Czech name.101 The Bavarian Geographer in addition to the Beheimare within the area of Bohemia, knew only of the Fraganeo, to whom he ascribed the relatively high number of forty strongholds (civitates). The name Fraganeo perhaps was a synonym for Prague, so it might be just an inaccurate doubling of the Beheimare, all the more so, that it appears in the younger part of the Decriptio civitatum et regionum, which was added at a later date.102 The geographical description of Northern Europe inserted into the Anglo-Saxon translation of Orosius’s “History of the World” during the last quarter of the 9th century along with the Bohemians (Behemas) and Moravians (Maroara) mentions the Croats (Horigti/Horoti), while the scholar Abū al-Ḥasan al-Masʿūdī, active in the Egyptian city of al-Fuṣṭāṭ, in his ethnographic work dated 943–47 wrote about the golden meadows and gem mines of the Dūlāba people: some historians situate both groups in Bohemia.103 Other ethnonyms, which possibly point to 9th-century Bohemian tribal associations, come from much later sources. For example, Cosmas of Prague, in his early 12th-century description of the early history of Bohemia, refers not only to the Boemi but also to a Luczani/Lucensi people dwelling in the vicinity of Žatec.104 In addition the so-called Prague Document, by means of which the German Emperor Henry IV in 1086 confirmed the alleged old borders of the Bishopric of Prague and which is cited by Cosmas further on in his work, specifies toponyms and ethnonyms such as the Liuseni, Dasena, Lutomerici, Lemuzi, Psouane, and Chrowati. These names were certainly already archaic at the time the document was issued, but, since they probably had not been artificially coined, they possibly point to some old regional small-sized tribal associations.105 As a matter of fact, the 9th century was the time when various small political units still distributed among themselves the Bohemian settlement territory.106 This is confirmed not only by the numerous civitates ascribed 101 Vaněček 2004, 975, 977. 102 Descriptio civitatum, 14. 103 Two Voyagers at the Court of King Alfred, 17; Marquart 1903, 102; Havlík 1964, 63–67; Turek 1974, 177, 183; Kalhous 2012, 74–75; Lutovský 2014, 97. 104 Cosmae Pragensis Chronica, 23 (I, 10), 27 (I, 12). 105 Cosmae Pragensis Chronica, 138 (II, 37); except of the Cosmas chronicle the text of this charter has been preserved only in a copy dated to the late 11th century, edited in: Die Urkunden Heinrichs IV., 516–517; see Stasiewski 1933, 118–71; Graus 1980a, 192–202; Wolverton 2011; Kalhous 2012, 81–92. 106 For a cartographic visualization of the allegedly 10–12 tribals-regions, which older research has ‘reconstructed’ on the basis of the written sources, see Turek 1974, after 233; Turek

172

Chapter 6

by the Bavarian Geographer to the Beheimare or Fraganeo, but also by the annotation comprised in the “Annals of Fulda”, concerning the year 845, whereby Louis II of Germany met with fourteen Bohemian dukes who, together with their retinue, wanted to convert to Christianity.107 Their number almost exactly corresponded with the number of the Beheimare-owned civitates in Bavarian Geographer’s description, though the phrase used by the chronicler – XIIII ex ducibus Boemanorum – suggests that also other duces Boemanorum must have been active around 845. Less than three decades later, the same annals enumerate merely six minor Bohemian dukes – namely, the duces Zuentislan, Witislan, Heriman, Spoitimar, Moyslan, and Goriwei (Bořivoj).108 The latter is the first ruler identifiable by name being an offspring of the very family that would produce all the Bohemian dukes and kings up to the year 1306. Only modern historical memory has given this family the name “Přemyslids”, thus referring to the Bohemian founding legend of Přemysl (Primizil), the Ploughman, which was first presented in the so-called Legend of Christian (a version of The Life of St Wenceslaus and St Ludmila) written down in 992–94, probably in the cloister of Břevnov, by a member of the Přemyslid family, the Benedictine monk Strakhkvas/Christian, and then refined by Cosmas of Prague.109 To establish themselves as the leading dynasty, however, the Přemyslids had to struggle hard from the 9th century onward. It was a long-lasting and violent process of squeezing out their rivals and consolidating the country lasting until the second half of the 10th century.110 The reduction of the number of duces listed in the “Annals of Fulda” between 845 and 872 is indicative of the process of eliminating the competing families; this process in the 860s–880s was exacerbated by Bořivoj. In the entry concerning the year 895, the “Annals of Fulda” finally mention by name merely two among the duces Boemanorum arriving from Sclavania – i.e., the Slavic countries adjacent to the empire of the Franks – at a court day convened in Regensburg by King Arnulf. Those were Spytihněv II (Spitignewo), Bořivoj’s eldest son, and Vitislav (Witizla), identified at times with Vratislav I, Spytihněv’s brother; probably, he was actually a member of another family, competitive toward the Přemyslids, or of a still different

107 108 109 110

1957; this so-called ‘Bohemian tribal-theory’ already in the 1980ies has been strongly criticized, e.g. by Třeštík 1988; see Klápště 2007b, 170. Annales Fuldenses, 35; see Třeštík 1995; Wihoda 2018b; Wihoda 2020. Annales Fuldenses, 76. Cosmae Pragensis Chronica, 16 (I, 6); Legenda Christiani, 18, 20. For the long controversy on the authenticity, dating and author of “Christian’s legend” see Pekař 1906; Kølln 1990; Třeštík 1999; Kalhous 2012, 186–193; Kalhous 2015. Graus 1983; Třeštík 2002; Sommer et al. 2007; Matla-Kozłowska 2008, 92–239; Wihoda 2011b; Sobiesiak 2013.

Medieval “ State-Formation ” and “ Nation-Building ”

173

regional political body.111 In any case, the number of Bohemian rulers of relevance from the Frankish standpoint was even further reduced by the end of the 9th century, the most eminent position among them being already held by a representative of the Přemyslids, who, as it seems, recognized at that time the ecclesiastical supremacy of the Bishopric of Regensburg. The native land of the Přemyslids stretched along the lower Vltava River.112 In the area between the estuaries of Berounka and Sázava, both draining into the Vltava, and the estuary of Vltava draining into the Elbe, and especially in the lands north of Prague beneficial geographic and climatic conditions prevailed. The area was also situated at the contact point of important trade routes.113 It was Bořivoj who was probably the first to have appreciated the economic and strategic values of this location and used it as a base and starting point for his expansion. In parallel, he submitted to the hegemony of the Moravian duke Svatopluk, who probably appointed him governor in Bohemia, thus elevating him above the other Bohemian petty rulers. In this connection, as “The Legend of Christian” tells us, Bořivoj submitted to baptism at the Moravian prince’s court.114 The official transition of his people to Christianity provided him with more strategic benefits when confronted with his rivals. With the decomposition of the Moravian state, the processes of displacement and concentration gained in dynamism, and progressed during the 10th century. The written sources detail them only in an indirect manner, but archaeological research has confirmed their appearance. They show that in the second half of the 9th century several older defensive strongholds were destroyed and never renewed; they were deserted for good. This marked the end of central-Bohemian old hillforts such as Klučov, Doubravčice, Hryzely, and Tismice; in the Kutná Hora region: Chlístovice-Sión, Cimburk, and Čáslav: in north-western Bohemia, the hillfort of Rubín; in the south of the country, Bezemín and Nemějice; in the east, Chodowice and Češov. At the same time, new, strongly fortified complexes were erected elsewhere. One of them is Levý Hradec, erected in the 9th century on the northern bank of the Prague Basin. 111 Annales Fuldenses, 126; according to the “Legend of the Holy Vacláv” Vratislav died in 921 in the age of 33, thus he can not have been present in Regensburg in 895. 112 Sláma 2009; Štefan/Boháčková 2018. 113 For an attempt at reconstructing the early medieval landscape see Smetánka 2009, 9–21. 114 Legenda Christiani, 18, 20; the date of the baptism is controversial, historians either assume the year 869/870, 878–880 or 883; see Cosmae Pragensis Chronica, 32 (I, 14)] who begins the list of baptized Bohemian rulers with Bořivoj, dates the baptism, however, to the year 894: Anno dominice incarnationis DCCCLXXXXIIII Borivoy baptizatus est primus dux sancte fidei catholicus. For the recent debate on the christianization process in Bohemia see Wolverton 2015b.

174

Chapter 6

In parallel, a few kilometres away southward, three older strongholds built in the late 8th/early 9th century – namely Šárka, Bohnice, and Butovice – were demolished or deserted.115 Situated on the left bank of the Vltava, nine kilometres north of where the Prague stronghold was later erected, Levý Hradec probably became the first centre of the Přemyslids’ power. It was probably identical with Gradic, in which Bořivoj – as “The Legend of Christian” has it – ordered to erect a St Clement’s Church, Bohemia’s first Christian temple.116 The vicinity of that strongly fortified, two-segment defensive complex built in the late 9th or early 10th century, was rocky and thus the settlement conditions were not quite beneficial there. Just a few kilometres away southwards, the bank of the Vltava was broader and flatter, with much more place for settlement and easy walk across the river; the rock above the ford invited the erection of a stronghold that was well protected because of the natural features. Indeed, the place had been inhabited for a long time; in the 9th century, it was partly fortified, and the year 885 saw the construction of the site’s first church, of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary, built of stone. The Prague castle hill, however, became the unquestionable centre of the Přemyslid rule only in the beginning of the 10th century, after Spytihněv I ordered the erection of an embankment around the hill’s area of approximately six hectares.117 At that time the Přemyslid rule was probably still limited to central Bohemia. To protect those areas and for the sake of their improved management, a system of strongholds was developed, where new complexes (Mělník, Libušín, Stará Boleslav, Tetín, and Lštění) together with already-existing ones (Levý Hradec, Budeč), formed a sort of ring around Prague, the new centre. This enabled to control the routes leading to Prague while also using the strongholds for administering and exploiting the nearby lands.118 Territorial expansion beyond the protected core territory of the Přemyslids continued under Boleslav I the Cruel, a younger son of Vratislav; the latter succeeded the deceased Spytihněv I in 915 and was killed in 921 in a struggle against the Hungarians. Since both of his sons were still underage at that time, Vratislav’s widow Drahomira, daughter of a ruler of the Polabian Hevellians/Stodorans, took the regency. Together with her supporters, she 115 Borkovský 1965; Tomková 2009; Tomková 2011; Profantová 1996; Profantová 1999; Profantová 2009a; Profantová 2016, 232, 235; Profantová/Tomková 2018. 116 Legenda Christiani, 20. 117 The archaeological explorations of the Prague hillfort are extensively documented in the series Castrum Pragense, with 16 volumes published so far (Praha 1988–2016); see also Frolík/Smetánka 1997; Frolík 1999; Frolík 2006; Boháčová 2001; Frolíková-Kaliszová 2009. 118 Sláma 1987; Varadzin 2010; Boháčová 2011; Boháčová 2013.

Medieval “ State-Formation ” and “ Nation-Building ”

175

probably pursued a policy of rapprochement toward the Polabian Slavs, who were still pagan then, and of rejecting the Christian and Bavarian influence. In any case, she ordered her two confidants (of Scandinavian descent, judging by their names) at the Tetín castle to assassinate her mother-in-law, who was faithful to Christianity (and possibly to the Slavic liturgy), as well as to Bavaria, and had the clergy expelled from the country.119 The Bavarian duke Arnulf replied by taking an armed action against Drahomira, forced her to surrender and, in 922, pushed through the taking of power by her eldest son Václav.120 The young duke was initially prone to Bavarian influence, brought the clergymen back to his country, and had the remains of his grandmother Ludmila brought to St Georges’s Church built not much earlier at the Castle of Prague. He thereby contributed to establishing the cult of Ludmila as a saint, soon afterward.121 In parallel, he ordered, that yet another church be built in Prague – a rotund devoted to St Vitus, which helped to lay the ground for the later elevation of Prague to an autonomous ecclesiastical centre.122 The Christianization of the country, pursued by Václav, was met with resistance from some members of his own court. Also, the political rapprochement with the Saxons and their increasingly powerful King Henry I the Fowler was not commonly welcomed, due to a fear of excessive dependence upon the ‘German’ kings. And indeed, Václav had finally to recognize the superiority of King Henry, in the summer of 929.123 The opposition that was emerging in such circumstances was taken advantage of by Boleslav, Drahomira’s youngest son, who opposed his brother and put into practice his own ambition for power. This led to a typical fratricidal struggle between the dukes, whose final resolution came from the younger one, who killed his brother in September 929 or 935. Having seized power, Boleslav instantly started eliminating his competitors who stayed in Bohemia. The struggle for the throne that flared up in the Empire after Henry I’s death (936) initially gave him freedom of action. Consequently, it was already in the 930s/940s that Boleslav removed most of the Bohemian duces who were still independent.124 Those who were not killed in battle or did not escape were incorporated, together with their subordinates, into the structures of the 119 Legenda Christiani, 40, 42. 120 Sláma 2010; Charvát 2010a; Vaníček 2014, 78–135. 121 Legenda Christiani, 48–54; Kubín 2007; Tupec 2009; Pac 2019. 122 On the early Prague sacral buildings see Frolík et al. 2000; Frolík 2010. 123 Widukindi monachi Corbeiensis, 50–51 (I, 35); Regesten II, no. 29. 124 See Widukindi monachi Corbeiensis, 68 (II, 3), who describes how Boleslav in 936 attacked a certain vicinus subregulus, who as a minor chieftain maintained good relations with the Saxons and indeed was helped by Otto I.

176

Chapter 6

Přemyslid rule. Their demolished strongholds (as those in Žatec, Starý Plzenec, Bílina, Mladá Boleslav, Kouřim, Doudleby, Kozárovice, Netolice) were replaced by their Přemyslid counterparts, in which new administrative centres were set up.125 Boleslav thus strengthened his position in the country, but the new ruler of the Eastern Frankish Empire, Otto I, forced him to enter a long-lasting military confrontation with this strong external rival.126 In 950, the Přemyslid duke had finally to surrender to the king and recognized Bohemia’s fief relationship with the Holy Roman Empire. The legal and state-related consequences of this dependence have been (fruitlessly) disputed between German and Czech historians. Today, there is a relative agreement that although the fealty caused Bohemia’s incorporation into the Empire, the country had a special position within its limits, its internal autonomy remaining virtually unaffected.127 Yet, from the very outset, the fealty in question made the Bohemian rulers face a dilemma as the claims of the larger and more powerful neighbour could bring about restrictions to their independent rule, whereas a well-functioning fief relationship at the same time kept their back free enabling them not only to reinforce their power internally but also to expand their authority vis-à-vis their neighbours northward, eastward, and southward. In this spirit, already Boleslav I drew benefits from his association with the German king. He took advantage of the participation in Otto I’s victory over the Hungarians to seize Moravia, the territory previously captured by the Hungarians. How fast and how far Boleslav set off from there to the north-east and to the east, is not to be clearly established based on the available sources.128 The moment he died, in 972, the Přemyslid realm reached as far as Silesia and Lesser Poland. An important Bohemian outpost situated on the Oder River was given the name Vratislavia (Wrocław), probably in honour of Boleslav’s father; the stronghold of Krakow on the upper Vistula became the Bohemian ruler’s second-in-rank commercial hub. Ibrāhīm ibn Yaʿkūb, to whom we owe the information on Krakow, called Boleslav (around 965) “the king of Prague, Bohemia, and Krakow” (F’rāga, Bōj’ma and K’r’kō) and explained that the Bohemian duke’s country extended “from the city of Prague up to the city of Krakow”, “neighbouring along its length with the lands of the Turks [i.e., Hungarians].” Ibrāhīm went on to say that Rus’ian and Slavic merchants would bring a variety of 125 Sláma 1987, 182–184. 126 Ludat 1982. 127 Malý 2006; Moraw 2006; Wolverton 2001, 228–263; Wihoda 2010b; Wihoda 2015a, 94–103. 128 See Třeštík 2001, 95–103; Charvát 2010b, 162–163; Kalhous 2012, 48–75; Matla-Kozłowska 2008, 239; Wihoda 2010a, 102–112, however, maintains that Moravia for some time remained still outside the domain of the Bohemians.

Medieval “ State-Formation ” and “ Nation-Building ”

177

commodity from Krakow to Prague, which “is built of stones and limestone” and “is the richest place in goods.” Also Moslem, Jewish, and Hungarian merchants “from the country of the Turks” arrived in Prague “and bring goods and trade balances” and exchanged them for “slaves, tin, and [all] sorts of furs,” as well as horses and saddles, bridles, and shields.129 It was already in the first half of the 10th century that Prague became one of the major centres of the transcontinental commodity exchange.130 At the century’s beginning, resulting from the Venetian blockades of sea transport in the eastern part of the Mediterranean, and from the Saracen conquests in its western part, a fateful shift of the West-to-East commercial routes occurred. The seizure of Pannonia by the Hungarians closed the route along the Danube to the Black Sea, whereas the Rhodanites, who pursued trade in Byzantium, were affected by severe prosecutions of the Jews. As a result, the merchant caravans began to shift into more northward routes and reactivated the old transcontinental landed route linking the Caliphate of Cordoba and Western Europe, via Central Europe (with the main stopovers at Mainz and Regensburg), Bohemia, Lesser Poland, the Kievan Rus’, and the state of the Khazars, with the Caliphate of Baghdad. This turned Prague and Krakow into important points on the East-West commodity exchange routes. Prague’s role within this network of trade routes was of pivotal importance for the strengthening and expansion of the Přemyslid rule. It was in Prague that the spoils expropriated during war and robbery expeditions were monetized – mainly with the use of a commodity that was the easiest to acquire in the environment that was still pagan to a considerable extent: the slaves. In the Islamic Southern Europe and in the Near/Middle East, the demand for slaves was big; foreign tradesmen would willingly exchange this commodity in Prague and Krakow for enormous amounts of silver, valuable weapons, delicate fabrics, exotic foodstuffs, and other luxury goods. The Přemyslid duke, whose expeditions significantly contributed to the trade in slaves and who probably ruthlessly controlled this exchange, drew enormous profits from it, which additionally grew owing to customs duties and fees for protection; this enabled him to generously defray his soldiers, equip them well, and systematically increase their number. In fact, Boleslav I and Boleslav II – the latter succeeded his father from 972 to 999 – owed the efficient centralization and expansion of their duchy primarily to the blood-covered swords of their warriors and the dirty money of slave dealers.131 129 Relacja Ibrāhīma, 49; see also Mishin 1996, 186. 130 Třeštík 2001, 110–131; Charvát 2000; Charvát 2010b, 154–157. 131 Třeštík 2001, 127.

178

Chapter 6

Prague flourished not only as a commercial hub but also became an administrative and spiritual centre of the country of the Přemyslids. The city on the Vltava even proved impressive to the Jewish traveller Ibrāhīm ibn Yaʿkūb. Around 950 also the West Frankish city of Reims perceived Prague as a “great city” (magnam urbem nomine Proadem).132 Its castle, the adjacent craft settlement outside its walls (suburbium) and a third settlement on the opposite bank of the Vltava must have appeared to visitors as a densely populated agglomeration, and albeit most of the developments were wooden, the churches and palaces of Prague created the impression that it was a city “of stones and limestone.”133 The subsequent sacred buildings, including a first convent, were erected, among other incentives, with respect to the political goal already pursued by Boleslav I, and perhaps also by his brother Václav, of establishing an autonomous ecclesiastical organization in the form of a diocese, if not archdiocese, to be based in Prague. Boleslav I strenuously solicited the emperor and the pope to put this plan into practice, but the main opposition came from the bishop of Regensburg, without whose consent the Archpresbyterate of Prague, which was subordinate to him, could not become a bishopric.134 In order to increase the legitimacy of the plan to set up a bishopric, Boleslav endeavoured, among other things, to have his brother Václav canonized. As the legends of St Václav have it, shortly after his death, the corpse of the assassinated duke was transferred to the Prague Church of St Vitus, and the people soon began worshipping him as a saint. In the context of the endeavours to establish an own bishopric, the importance of this cult grew in the 960s. An indigenous saint from the ruling dynasty was, after all, an immensely important argument in favour of an autonomous Bohemian bishopric. The new cult gave, moreover, a sense of unity and identity, reinforced the position of Prague as an incontrovertible centre of the Přemyslids’ realm and caused considerable increase of the prestige and the right to power of the dynasty that had issued St Václav. The latter ranked among the best-known saints in Europe already at the end of the 10th century.135 Prague was formally elevated to the rank of a diocese subordinate to the Bishopric of Mainz in 973. The investiture of the Prague bishop, the Saxon monk Thietmar/Dětmar, followed only in 976, after the quietening of the last 132 Flodoardi annales, 400. 133 Čiháková/Havrda 2008; Boháčová 2010. 134 On the establishment of the bishopric in more detail: Graus 1969; Hilsch 1972; Kaiser 1973; Třeštík 2004; Kalhous 2004. 135 For the Václav cult see Graus 1973, 159–164; Graus 1980b; Samerski 2009.

Medieval “ State-Formation ” and “ Nation-Building ”

179

acts of resistance from the Regensburg bishop. A few years later, in 982/3, the Prague episcopal office was taken over by a Slav Vojtěch, a Bohemian priest from the family of the Slavníkids.136 Born probably around 965, he assumed the confirmation name of Adalbert, and was educated at the cathedral school in Magdeburg, the centre of the Ottonian Slavic mission.137 The Slavníkids governed the north-eastern part of Bohemia. In Libice nad Cidlinou, they had their potent seat which Cosmas of Prague described as a metropolis,138 and minted their own coins in the 980s.139 Rather than on a long-lived tribal reign, their political position was grounded upon a relatively young governorship that was probably bestowed only by Boleslav I to the man called Slavník. The Saxon missionary Bruno of Querfurt, called him, in his “Life of St Adalbert”, a member of a lateral line of the royal dynasty, and a close relative of King/Duke Henry (leaving it open which ‘Henry’ he meant).140 Vojtěch’s mother Střezislava was, according to Bruno, a high-born lady “from a famous Slavic ancestry”, which has long been interpreted by Czech historians as evidence of her Přemyslid background.141 In the 980s and 990s, her numerous sons posed a dangerous competition to the Přemyslids; hence, nominating Vojtěch bishop tends to be interpreted as Boleslav II’s attempt at a compromise between the Přemyslids and the Slavníkids.142 The proposal was obviously rejected. A follower of the Cluny reform, Vojtěch had his own plans; he endeavoured to keep the secular authorities away from the Church and admonished the rulers and their people to observe the Canon Law. This led to an exacerbation of the conflict with the duke, who believed that the bishop had to be his servant. Vojtěch yielded to the growing resistance and travelled to Rome in 988/9 where, as a monk, he entered the St Alexius and St Boniface monastery on the Aventine Hill, set up in 977 in view of missions to the Greek and Slavic East. There, he met the young Otto III, and the two became friends for life. When in 992 the archbishop of Mainz, in consultation with Boleslav II, called him back to his Prague office, Vojtěch returned to Bohemia, not without first having sought advice from Otto in Aachen. In Prague, the conflict between the Přemyslids and the Slavníkids was further exacerbating, whereas the bishop, 136 For Vojtěch/Adalbert see the contributions in Adalbert von Prag; Tropami św. Wojciecha; Svatý Vojtěch v české a polské literatuře and Urbańczyk 2000b, 202–224. 137 Turek 1982; Sláma 1995; Justová-Princová 1995; Lutovský/Petráň 2005. 138 Cosmae Pragensis Chronica, 49 (I, 27): Huius tam insignis ducis metropolis fuit Libic sita loco. 139 Hásková 1995. 140 S. Adalberti Pragensis episcopi et martyris vita altera, 3, 45. 141 See Nechutová 1999, 58. 142 On the politics of Boleslav: Sláma 2001a; Sobiesiak 2006.

180

Chapter 6

now supported by the imperial Ottonian court, made his appearances with increasing self-confidence, but losing his last Bohemian followers at the same time. The year 994 saw him leave the country and the office again. Shortly later, Boleslav II inflicted, literally, a mortal blow on the Slavníkids: in 995, he ceased to care about Libice and ordered that all the members of the family present there be massacred.143 After this mass murder, Vojtěch’s re-return to Prague became out of the question. Thus, the clergyman finally quit his episcopal consecration and devoted himself to missionary activity among pagans. He set off from Rome to the court of Bolesław I the Brave, the ruler of the Piasts, where his brother Sobeslav/Sobebor had earlier found shelter. In this way, by the end of the 10th century, the mightiest rivals had been eliminated. The Přemyslid rule was reinforced, and the Bohemian duchy established itself as a lasting Central European power. 2.2 Crisis and Consolidation However, a crisis that had been increasing for some time by then finally broke out and the authority of the Přemyslids came across serious problems.144 Around the year 1000, the previously employed extensive methods of power wielding ceased to be practically useful. The parallel development of the adjacent countries – Poland, Hungary, and Kievan Rus’ – put an end to the expansion of Bohemia and, thereby, to its predatory and robbery expeditions. This reduced the inflows of silver, goods, and slaves, which, in turn, posed a threat to the maintenance of the expanding ducal retinue.145 After Boleslav II’s death in 999, the structural crisis was additionally exacerbated by the dispute over the succession among his three sons (Boleslav III, Jaromír, and Oldřich/Udalrik), their conflict with the new bishop of Prague and with the emerging magnates, combined with incessant armed clashes with the neighbours. In the spring/summer of 1002, the Bohemian mighty overthrew Boleslav III and elevated to the throne Vladivoj of the lateral line of the Přemyslids, who earlier stayed in exile in Poland with Bolesław I the Brave. Soon after that, the ruler of Poland replaced him on the throne at Prague, but then soon after (in 1004) had to withdraw and return to Poland. However, first attempts at a durable resolution of the conflict were made only in the time of Oldřich, who took over the

143 Třeštík 2007 regards this conflict not as a quarrel between Přemyslides and Slavníkids but as a conflict between the Slavníkids and the mighty clan of the Vršovci. 144 Krzemieńska 1970; Žemlička 1995, 272–274; Žemlička 1996; Lutovský 2014, 117–120; MatlaKozlowska 2015, 273–275. 145 Graus 1965.

Medieval “ State-Formation ” and “ Nation-Building ”

181

power in 1012, won back Moravia, previously captured by the Piasts, and had his son Břetislav I installed there as a governor.146 Obviously, with territorial conquests alone the crisis could not be managed; further improvement of the administrative structures and more efficient ways to extract resources were necessary. So, Břetislav I, who ascended to the throne in 1035, ordered to reorganize the system of administrative centres and mobilized new resources through an intensified management based upon a regular collection of taxes and tributes, of court fees, and upon the use of systematized services provided by the common people.147 These steps, coupled with an increasingly important money economy (coinage), reinforced the economic foundations of the ducal power and paved the way out of the crisis. Also, a series of ecclesiastical and legal regulations (decreti), ascribed by the chronicler Cosmas to Břetislav, might have contributed to a stabilization in the duchy, whose outward look was increasingly vigorous once more.148 Although before his death in 1055 Břetislav settled the issue of succession, it did not prevent disputes over the throne among his sons and grandsons.149 The regulation provided that the entire regnum would be ruled from Prague always by the eldest of the living Přemyslids, the younger sons to receive respective parts of Moravia. In the concrete case of Břetislav’s five sons, the succession was taken in 1055 by his eldest son Spytihněv II. The younger sons Vratislav, Conrad, and Otto divided between themselves the power over Moravia in Olomouc and Brno, whereas Jaromír was pushed into the office of bishop. Yet, Spytihněv II tried to invalidate the rules established by his father and eliminate his brothers. This is how the shorter or longer phases of stable rule interspersed with years, or even decades, of instability during which fierce struggles were waged on the unresolved affairs of succession and repulsing interventions from the neighbours was a must. All the same, the Přemyslids finally maintained their rights as a dynasty and, in the longer run, reinforced their position again. Already in 1085, Vratislav II – as the first 146 A different view held by Wihoda 2010a, 109, 120–121; Wihoda 2015b, 10, who assumes that Moravia only after 1029/30 has been firmly integrated into the realm of the Přemyslids; see also Matla-Kozłowska 2008, 400–405. 147 Krzemieńska/Třeštík 1965; Sláma 2001b; Žemlička 1997, 149–187; Třeštík/Žemlička 2007; Petráček 2017. The idea of a strongly centralized principality founded on a logically organized system of services has recently been criticized by younger scholars – without, however, offering a convincing alternative model of interpretation; see Rychterová 2007; Kalhous 2012, 11–45; Jan 2007; Jan 2010. 148 Cosmae Pragensis Chronica, 86 (II, 4); in more detail on the ‘foreign politics’ of Břetislav: Krzemieńska 1999, 188–371. 149 Wihoda 2006; Wihoda 2010a, 116–148.

182

Chapter 6

Přemyslid – was crowned king, an honor in which he was succeeded in 1158 also by Vladislav II.150 The dynasty obtained for good the title of king, however, only with the coronation of Přemysl I Otakar in 1198.151 In contrast to Poland and Rus’, in Bohemia the dynastic conflicts of the 11th and 12th centuries did not split the country into separate provinces, though the bestowal of the Moravian lands to the younger Přemyslid sons and the ensuing appearance of the Moravian lateral lines in Olomouc, Brno, and Znojmo potentially provided conditions for such a development.152 2.3 Bohemian Self-Awareness Intra-dynastic conflicts opened for the secular and clerical mighty an increasingly large field for action. The duke was still dependent on the advice and aid of his associates who from the very beginning contributed, in one way or another, to his decisions; in the 11th century, they gradually managed to free themselves from the economic and political dependence upon the court. The redevelopment and extension of strongholds as the administrative centres pursued by Břetislav I and the progress in organising the Church provided the first material conditions for gaining economic autonomy. Generous land bestowals followed soon, more and more frequently coupled with immunities, which ensured their protection against economic and legal intervention from the duke. The agricultural exploitation that became increasingly intense in the 12th century caused landed property finally to start paying back. This decisively increased the economic resources of the mighty and the latter began to perceive themselves as a separate social stratum which appeared versus the ruler with increasing self-assurance. The novel thing in the relations between the ruler, the clergy, and the nobility was the awareness that they together represented the regnum, terra Boemiae, and together form a natio Boemorum. Dynasty and land were the decisive points-of-reference for this political identity. Since the 10th century, Bohemia was an entity perceived in very concrete terms by the Bohemians themselves as well as from the outside. The natural and geographic conditions certainly contributed to the development of a sense of community among the inhabitants of the Bohemian lands; the geographical unity of a territory that was clearly limited by mountains and forests,

150 Wihoda 2015a, 142–152, 173–196; Wihoda 2014a. 151 Vaněček 2004; Žemlička 2006; Žemlička 2011; Wihoda 2015a, 201–205 and the contributions in Vladislav II. 152 On the development in Moravia in more detail: Wihoda 2010a; Wihoda 2015b.

Medieval “ State-Formation ” and “ Nation-Building ”

183

was an obvious everyday reality – as explicitly visible in the introduction to the Chronica Boemorum by Cosmas, Dean of the Prague Cathedral Chapter.153 This earliest Bohemian chronicle was compiled in the years 1117/19–25, at the request of the Bohemian duke or, at least, upon his consent.154 The work describes the history of Bohemia since the Biblical dispersion of the peoples after their attempt to build the Tower of Babel up to the time contemporary to the author, presenting the events from the standpoint of several clerical elites, who were active in the environment of the Prague court and the bishop. Born into an affluent family, the chronicler was educated in Prague and in Leodium (Liège). He sought for the sources not only in the Prague Cathedral Chapter library and in the works of antique and medieval authors, but also drew information from his own contacts with essential actors of Bohemian society. His image of the Bohemian past and of his own time probably largely reflected also concepts and ideas of the political activists of his time. Cosmas’s chronicle describes the community of Bohemians, the land they inhabited, and the dynasty that ruled them. The story of the Boemi and their rulers is preceded by a presentation of the country in a typical praise of the land (situs terrae). Cosmas characterises Bohemia by referring to Biblical and antique topoi, as a territory uninhabited and undeveloped since the Deluge, a “land of milk and honey.” Following the destiny, a chieftain (senior) named “Boemus” once led his kinship group to that Promised Land. It was to his honour that the settlers named the new territory terra Boemia. Cosmas remarks only indirectly that also Boemus’s people owe their name of Boemi to their hero. Until the act of coming into possession of the land, both the land and the people had remained nameless and had had no history; only from the moment both – land and people – met and came together, the Bohemians according to Cosmas narration received their identity and history.155 The legend of the seizure of the land is followed by an equally typical dynastic legend on the appointment of the ruler, which explains how the Boemi and the terra Boemiae received their rightful duke.156 The “people” (populus) – that is, the group of the politically active mighty –once pressed on the prophetess Libuše (Libussa) that a man took power instead of her. The messengers who, following her advice, successfully found Přemysl (Primizil) the Ploughman, reportedly said, 153 Kersken 1995, 645–650; Blahová 1998, 544–546. 154 On the author and his works: Třeštík 1968; Hemmerle 1981; Kersken 1995, 573–582; Nechutová 2007, 76–83; Wihoda 2011a; Bláhová 2012; Bak 2011. 155 Cosmae Pragensis Chronica, 4–7 (I, 1–2). 156 On the legend in more detail: Graus 1967; Karbusicky 1980, 163–180; Třeštík 1968, 166–183; Kersken 1995, 615–619; De Lazero 1999, 139–159; Wolverton 2015a, 215–273.

184

Chapter 6

our lady Libuše and all the common folk demand that you come quickly and take up the realm fated for you and your descendants. Everything ours and we ourselves are in your hand. We elect you duke, you judge, you ruler, you protector, you our only lord.157 According to this story, the ‘people’ apparently subjected themselves voluntarily and irrevocably to a man whose “subsequent progeny – as per Libuše’s words, according to Cosmas – will rule all this land forever and ever.”158 This story, characterized once as the “heart of the chronicle’s entire ideology”,159 showed the work’s contemporary readers that the legitimacy of the Přemyslid authority was founded upon the dispensation of the Providence as well as a free decision of the subjects. In fact, the Chronica Boemorum was (its harsh critiques of certain rulers notwithstanding160) primarily a praise of a strong and undisputed power and authority of the Přemyslids in their undivided rulership. Despite this, its contemporary readers, being powerful clergymen and lay men, could conclude from the legend on the settlement of Bohemia and the appointment of her first ruler, in the version proposed by Cosmas, that a peculiar ancient pact linked them with the ruling dynasty, which gave them far-reaching rights to co-decide, including in their own time. Also elsewhere does Cosmas emphasize an increased influence of the mighty (called maiores, principes, primates, optimates terrae in the Latin original); for example, he let the blinded Jaromír admonish his son Břetislav I on occasion of his enthroning with the following words: I warn you, son, and again and again repeat the warning: worship these men like fathers, love them like brothers, and keep their counsel in all your dealings. To them you commit burgs and the people to be ruled; through them the realm of Bohemia stands, has stood, and will stand forever.161

157 Cosmae Pragensis Chronica, 14–18 (I, 5–8); the English quotation from Cosmas of Prag, 46. 158 Cosmae Pragensis Chronica, 14–18 (I, 5–8); the English quotation from Cosmas of Prag, 45. 159 Třeštík 1968, 182. 160 See Wihoda 2008. 161 Cosmae Pragensis Chronica, 79 (I, 42); the English quotations from Cosmas of Prag, 107; see also Wihoda 2013; Blahová 2013, 378.

Medieval “ State-Formation ” and “ Nation-Building ”

185

In his version of the history of the Bohemians, their land and their sovereigns, Cosmas thus united into an inextricable whole the dynasty, the land, and the political elite, and showed them as a community with its specific identity and a ‘national’ self-awareness.162 This self-awareness grew even sharper when encountered with foreign elements; this is expressed also by the attitude articulated by Cosmas toward foreigners.163 This chronicler ranked among those native scholars who since the middle of the 11th century strove to take key ecclesiastical and secular positions that had earlier been manned mainly by foreigners. In the rivalry for attractive offices and in confrontation with “a stranger and an alien”,164 attachment to the land and sense of community gained additional fodder amongst the Czech-speaking elites whose members were linked by friendship and kinship. The language differences gained in importance with the new influence, in quantity and quality terms, of German-speaking colonists in the 12th century. Those who arrived brought with them new habits also in law, which contributed to a more expressed ‘national’ differentiation. Already the charter issued by Soběslav II in 1176–8 for a group of German immigrants dwelling in Prague differentiated between Theutonici and Boemi based on descent (natio), law (lex), and habit (consuetudo).165 Apart from land, dynasty, language, and law, there was one more phenomenon that made a peculiar community of the Boemi at an early stage – namely, St Václav. The cult of this saint began developing in as early as the 10th century; in the subsequent century, Václav gained a special status that exceeded that of a ‘regular’ saint.166 From the beginning of the 11th to 13th centuries, he was featured on the reverse sides of the ducal coins (denarii) as a martyr and subsequently as a warrior; by the end of the 12th century, his effigy started appearing also on ducal seals. This ensued from the rulers’ strife for employing a cult 162 Prochno 1953; Graus 1966a; Graus 1966b, 22–28; Graus 1980a, 52–63, 89–91; Fritze 1982; Wolverton 2001, 266–275; Třeštík 2009b. 163 For Cosmas’ perception of ‘foreigners’ see Aurast 2019, 192–281. 164 As such (proselitus atque advena) Cosmas of Prague described a Saxon noble at the Prague court, whom Vratislav in 1068 wanted to elevate to bishopric; Cosmas took this opportunity to generally criticize the rulers’ politics of preferring ‘foreigners’ (alienigena); Cosmae Pragensis Chronica, 116 (II, 23); Cosmas of Prag, 142. 165 Codex Diplomaticus, no. 290: Quod sicut iidem Theutonici sint a Boemis nacione diversi, sic eciam a Boemis eorumque lege vel consuetudine sint diversi. 166 Graus 1971a, 198–200; Graus 1973, 165–173; Wolverton 2001, 148–185; Nastalska-Wiśnicka 2010, 244–290; Vaníček 2014, 193–239; Antonín 2017, 62–77, 109–134, 186–191; Kalhous 2018, 94–121 (on the spread of the cult within the empire), 185–194.

186

Chapter 6

deeply rooted in the people’s daily lives to legitimize their rule. By combining on the coins and seals their own effigies with that of the saint in whose access to God the people strongly believed, the dukes strove to sacralise their power, sought to establish a Christian interpretation of their dynastic charism and to strengthen their position as intermediaries between the sacred and the profane, between the subjects and the divine sphere attainable by the heavenly patron. Apart from its usefulness as an authorization of Přemyslid rule, the cult in question soon gained the “importance of a state symbol.”167 St. Václav was soon promoted to a defender of the whole country, a patron of the entire community of the Boemi. Churches dedicated to him were erected across the country. Stories of his miracles soon showed him not only as a liberator of individuals from oppressions or from slavery, but also as a collective helper in the efforts of all Bohemians. In this spirit, Cosmas considered himself “a servant of the servants of God and saint Václav” (Deo tamen et sancto Wencezlao famulatium famulus); his continuator, a canon from Vyšehrad, described in 1140s the whole community of politically active Boemi as the “family of St Václav” ( famila s. Wenceslai).168 That St Václav was ardently venerated “in the whole of the Bohemian country” (tota Boemia), is also reflected in a charter issued in January 1158 by Frederick I to allow Vladislav II to bear the crown on certain feast days.169 The symbols related to St Václav eventually became autonomous, culminating in the idea that the proper custodian of the law and order, and the lord of the Boemi, was Václav, the ‘eternal ruler’. It was him that on a 13th-century citation seal exhorted to judgement (citat ad iudicium) and it was him that the inscription on the seal called the sovereign of the country. Each secular ruler was ever since regarded merely the saint’s temporary governor on the earth. Consequently, St Václav was no more an instrument of the rule of the Přemyslids but a central symbol moulding the community of Bohemian clergy and nobility into one medieval ‘nation’. The latter perceived itself, similarly, as a people chosen by God, as is reflected on the front page of a copy of St Augustine’s work De civitate Dei, produced in 1170 in Prague, which features the Boemenses as dwellers of the City of God.170

167 Graus 1973, 167. 168 Cosmae Pragensis Chronica, 2 (Prefacio); Kanowník Wyšehradský, 203. 169 Friderici I. diplomata, 337. 170 Merhautová/Třeštík 1984, 106–115.

Medieval “ State-Formation ” and “ Nation-Building ”

187

2.4 The Medieval Bohemian “Nation” and Slavicity Slavicity and Slavdom played no role whatsoever in the way the Bohemians perceived themselves in the High Middle Ages. Neither the earliest indigenous sources related to the history of Bohemia, nor the oldest legend of St Václav, written down in Latin, or the first one written in Old Slavonic, refer to the dukes or their subjects, in the 10th century, as Slavs. Instead, they use the terms Poeni or Česi/češ’szi muži, never seeing them as part of a Slavic tradition.171 The remark made in the Old Slavonic text that apart from the Latin script, St Václav had also learned its Slavic counterpart, was an isolated note which, rather than referring to the Cyrillo-Methodian tradition, praised the saint’s thorough education, using a hagiographic topos.172 For the awareness of high medieval Bohemians, this aspect is of equally low significance as the fact that the life of St Václav was known in the 10th and 11th centuries also in the Old Slavonic version. Also the somewhat younger “Legend of Christian” did not show the Bohemians as Slavs but always described them as the Boemi, their lands being Bohemia.173 The word ‘Slavs’ (Sclavi Boemi, Sclavi pagani) is only used there in reference to unbaptized ancestors who made offerings to idols and lived like undomesticated horses, without a law, with no duke or sovereign, without an urban centre; they moved around like some wild animals before they finally asked the wise prophetess for advice, set up the city of Prague, proclaimed Přemysl the Ploughman their ruler, and finally, in the time of his successor Bořivoj, assumed Christianity.174 This clear reference to the pagan Slavic times stemmed from the more general reference to the Cyrillo-Methodian tradition and the ‘Slavic heritage’ of the Old Moravian realm. The Legend starts off with a description of the missionary activities of Cyril/Constantine in Moravia: after the baptism of the Bulgarians, he is seen converting the inhabitants of that “country of the Slavs” (regio Sclavorum) into the true faith. Once the new alphabet was developed, the Greek scholar translated in Moravia the Old and the New Testament as well as other books from Greek or Latin “into the Slavonic language” (slavonicam in linguam). He moreover decided that the mass and the Liturgy of the Hours be celebrated in the vernacular (publica voce), “as is oftentimes the case until present in the areas of the Slavs […], particularly in 171 První česko-církevněslovanská legenda, 975, 977; Život sv. Václava, 183; Jilek 1975; Seibt 1982. 172 Timberlake 2012, 135. 173 Legenda Christiani, 8 (Bohemia cum omni […] gente), 20 (populus Boemorum), 38 (tota provincia Boemorum), 52 (Boemi), 62 (Bohemia). 174 Legenda Christiani, 16, 18, 26.

188

Chapter 6

those of the Bulgarians” (in partibus Sclavorum […], maxime in Bulgariis).175 Further on, we are told about Cyril defending the Slavic liturgy in Rome so efficiently that the pope formally gave his consent to it. At that time, in Moravia, Cyril’s brother Methodius was nominated archbishop by the Moravian ruler. Soon, however, Duke Svatopluk (Zuentepulc) and his people began to scorn Methodius’s sermons, and so the archbishop anathematized the land and its people. A series of misfortunes started occurring afterward, and the country finally fell prey to robbery and conquest. Still before the collapse, the Bohemian prince Bořivoj and his retinue were christened in Moravia by Methodius. Thus, “The Legend of Christian” directly connects Old Moravia and Bohemia, clearly linking the beginnings of Christianity in Bohemia with the Cyrillo-Methodian tradition. This, however, is told only from a perspective of historical retrospection, rather than responding to any contemporary “attacks on the Slavic liturgy […] and the Slavonic language.”176 Such an ‘apology’ indeed was not demanded as no Slavic liturgy was actually practiced in late-10th-century Bohemia.177 This is attested, on the one hand, by the very “Legend of Christian”, which – like Cosmas of Prague later on178 – finds that a Slavic liturgy was applied only in certain “Slavic regions”, particularly in Bulgaria, rather than in Bohemia, the latter not being characterized as ‘Slavic’. On the other hand, there also were no conditions in the Bohemian Church for practicing this liturgy. Indeed, it cannot be precluded that some Moravian priests were accepted in Bohemia after the downfall of the Old Moravian realm and initially practiced the liturgy, in the churches they had become in charge of, in the Slavic form they were familiar with. However, those were, at best, transitorily tolerated exceptions. As part of the Regensburg Diocese and, since 973/6, a separate diocese, the Bohemian Church was strictly bound, by obedience, with Rome. Its clergy received education in the Latin West or, via Western clergymen, in Bohemia; hence, Latin was the only, and unquestionable, language of liturgy and an instrument of Roman/papal strife for unity. 175 Legenda Christiani, 12. 176 See Avenarius 2000, 116–117 (here the quotation). 177 The question whether at all or to what extent there has been a certain continuity of the Old-Church Slavonic literacy and/or of the Slavic liturgy from times of Old Moravia up to early Přemyslide Bohemia has occupied Bohemian historians and contemporary cultural memory since almost two hundred years. The majority of Czech historians today rejects the thesis of such a continuity or have relativized it substantially; see Graus 1966c; Clifton-Everest 1996; Eggers 1996, 109–112; Třeštík 2005; Večerka 2010; Kalhous 2010; Kalhous 2012, 208–237; Konzal 2014. 178 According to Cosmae Pragensis Chronica, 44 (I, 22) Pope John XIII tied his approval to establish a Bohemian bishopric in Prague to the obligation that there would no be introduced the Bulgarian or Russian ritual or “Slavic” liturgy.

Medieval “ State-Formation ” and “ Nation-Building ”

189

The interest in the Cyrillo-Methodian tradition visible in “The Legend of Christian” did not ensue from an endeavour to defend the Slavic literary language as an achievement of essential relevance to various aspects of Bohemian life and liturgical practice: it was ongoing political interest that was the incentive. It was about the plans to create an autonomous structure of the Church in Bohemia, which intensified in the 960s and 970s: apart from the bishopric of Prague, a Moravian bishopric and, probably, a Bohemian archbishopric were to be established.179 As it seems, the historical policy of the Přemyslids developed a particular memory of Bořivoj’s baptism, which situated the beginnings of Bohemian Christianity in Cyrillo-Methodian Moravia. This dynastic tradition shaped and solidified “The Legend of Christian”, whose task was to legitimize the then-current Přemyslids’ claims to Moravia and the plan to create a bishopric of Moravia (and, possibly, a Bohemian archbishopric). To this end, it referred to Methodius, whose once-bishopric of Moravia seemed to provide an important argument from the sphere of ecclesiastical law. However, in the Bohemia of the second half of the 10th century, apparently almost nothing was known of the Moravian mission from the preceding century; neither the first, Old Slavonic, nor the earliest, Latin, legend of St Václav associated the beginnings of Christianity in Bohemia with St Methodius and Moravia. It however seems that Christian took efforts to seek the relevant information elsewhere. There is a lot to indicate that he based his description on a Bulgarian source – namely, on the version of the Lives of Sts Cyril and Methodius written in the early 10th century in Ohrid;180 and it was from this source, rather than a living indigenous memory, that the descriptions of the creation of the Slavonic script and its defence penetrated the Bohemian discourse. This had no significant consequences; except for the legend of St Ludmila written, at the latest, in the last quarter of the 12th century, Diffundente sole, which is an almost literal quotation of “The Legend of Christian”, no Bohemian source adopted the Bulgarian apology of the Slavonic script and liturgy.181 In the 1170s, the Monk of Sázava parenthetically observed that, in the days of yore, St Cyril created a Slavonic script and made it part of the canon.182 The “Annals of Opatovice” from around the mid-12th century, which made mention to this fact only in passing, referred to the script created by the two 179 Görich 1991. 180 Floria 1995b; Třeštík 2005. 181 Život sv. Lidmily, 191–192. 182 Mnich Sázawský, 241: […] sclavonicis litteris a sanctissimo Quirillo episcopo quondam inventiis et statutis canonice.

190

Chapter 6

missionaries not as ‘Slavic’ but, significantly enough, as Bulgarorum littera.183 Other sources, such as the “Bohemian Annals” and the Chronica Boemorum by Cosmas of Prague, merely took up the reference to St Methodius in briefly stating that “Bořivoj, duke of the Bohemians, was baptized by Methodius, Bishop of Moravia;”184 by this formula they hit the very point the “The Legend of Christian” already wanted to make: to demonstrate an alleged continuity between the demanded Moravian bishopric and the one Methodius formerly held.185 The apology of the Slavic liturgy included in “The Legend of Christian” cannot, therefore, be regarded as attesting to the functioning of a Slavic liturgy in Bohemia. All the same, as is evidenced by few Old Slavonic texts, which are dated by linguists to the time of early Přemyslid Bohemia, there must have been some literary and religious communication using the Slavonic script in the 10th and 11th centuries. Only the first, Old Slavonic, “Legend of St Václav” is datable to the 10th century; all the other texts come from the 11th century – including, along with some original texts, prevalently sermons translated from Latin, prayer books, penitential books, and Lives of saints.186 Most of them were probably written or compiled in the Sázava monastery.187 Established in 1032, at the earliest, the Benedictine convent is the only place in Bohemia for which the use of Old Slavonic script is attested in the 11th century. Its founder, St Procopius, canonized in 1204, is said (in his earliest Life) to have been very well versed in the Slavonic letters (Sclavonicis apicibus).188 The Monk of Sázava took over this information almost literally.189 Procopius had apparently not become acquainted with Slavonic literature in Bohemia; neither was he granted his Greek monastic name there. He had, probably, completed the famosum studium Slavonice lingua, as the younger Vita maior puts it,190 in one of the Eastern Slavic or Bulgarian schools; he even might have

183 Cosmae Pragensis Chronica, 22 (I, 10); Annales Gradicenses et Opatovisenses, 644; see also Letopisy hradištsko-opatovické, 386–387. 184 Cosmae Pragensis Chronica, 22 (I, 10); Letopisy České, 380. 185 See also Wihoda 2014d. 186 As fragments of Glagolitic texts originating from Bohemia some scholars regard the so-called “Kievan pages” (according to other scholars they, however, were written in Bulgaria or Moravia in the late 9th century) and the so-called “Prague fragments”. For an overview on the relevant texts see Thomson 1983; An Anthology 1979; Mareš 2000, 283–303; Blahová 1993; Hauptová 1998. 187 On Sázava in more detail Reichertová 1988; E. Bláhová 1988; Sommer 2005; Wihoda 2005. 188 Vita minor, 132. 189 Mnich Sázawský, 241: […] sclavonicis litteris […] admodum imbutus. 190 Vita maior, 247.

Medieval “ State-Formation ” and “ Nation-Building ”

191

been an aboriginal Bulgarian, who after the destruction of the First Bulgarian Empire in 1018 fled to Bohemia.191 As the monastery’s history recounts further on, after Spytihněv II seized power in 1055, the monks of Sázava fell prey to defamation. “The enviers at the court of the duke” wanted to harm them and spread to this end “spiteful fabrications” and “lies”. According to the monks, they were supposed “to join a heathen hypocritical by means of the Slavonic script”, and thus become “godless persons”; hence, chasing them away and replacing them with an abbot and brethren latinae auctoritatis appeared to be the right move.192 Since the chronicler refers to “lies”, these accusations do not have to mean that Sázava was a ‘Slavic convent’ in liturgical terms. And yet the monks were expelled; they found shelter, for a couple of years, at the Hungarian monastery in Visegrád, which had been founded shortly before then by the Hungarian king Andrew I for East Slavic monks from the retinue of his Rus’ian wife Anastasia. There, they could broaden their knowledge on Old Slavonic texts by studying the Cyrillian editions and enter contact with Kievan Rus’.193 It is not surprising, then, that after their return to Sázava, they continued to cherish Old Slavonic literature there, as is confirmed by two contradicting statements of the Sázava monk. In any case, around 1096–97, under Břetislav II, internal disputes within the monastic community apparently led to another dissolution of the monastery. On this occasion “the books in their language” (libri linguae eorum) were to be destroyed, so that they could not be read at that place anymore. This intention notwithstanding, the new Abbot Diethard, who was appointed somewhat later and ordered to reorganize the monastery, after his arrival found only “Slavonic books” (libros sclavonicos) at the place.194 That the Slavic language played an important role in Sázava in the last quarter of the 11th century is confirmed, at last, also by a letter sent to the pope at the end of 1079 by Duke Vratislav II requesting that the Divine Office, i.e. the Liturgy of the Hours (divinum officium) may be celebrated in the Slavonic language.195 As far as it can be guessed, this request, known only from Pope Gregory VII’s answer, was probably initiated by the monks of Sázava. The fact that the pope expressly refused to fulfil their wish proves, once again, that one cannot assume that the Old Slavonic language had a greater role 191 Boba 1981; Eggers 1996, 112 assumes that he was educated in Kievan Rus’; as a Bulgarian he is seen by Sláma 2005, 108; on Prokop also Hanak 1991; Kubín 2005, 109–123; Kubín 2016; Paleczek 2009; Sommer 2014. 192 Mnich Sázawský, 246. 193 Bláhová 2005, 238, 247. 194 Mnich Sázawský, 250, 252. 195 Das Register Gregors VII., Buch V–IX, 474.

192

Chapter 6

in the Bohemian society as a language of the Church. The lack of interest and enmity of the thoroughly Latinized clergy, remaining under Bavarian/German influence, and the obvious employment of Latin in the Western Roman Church caused that the Church Slavonic language finally disappeared also from the niche of Sázava at the end of the 11th century. Thus, the Old Slavonic or Church Slavonic literary language did not arouse any ‘Slavic awareness’ among the high medieval Bohemian elites. Naturally, their members might have appreciated its similarity to their mother tongue which they obviously used also in the ecclesiastical sphere, as is confirmed by the religious song Hospodine, pomiluj ny, known from 14th-century sources but composed in the 12th, if not 10th century.196 They sometimes even called their mother tongue “Slavic” but what they meant by ‘Slavic’ in fact was “Czech”, since they used the expression “Slavic language” only to emphasize their singularity as ‘Bohemians’/‘Czechs’ rendering themselves different from the others, foreign or alien people. They hardly wanted to express by this use an awareness of belonging to a larger ‘Slavic community’ or a ‘Slavic’ identity. Significantly enough the Bohemian elites initially much more strongly emphasized their distinctiveness versus their Polish neighbours than the Germans. In any event, despite of not-quite-clearly developed differences between the Polish and Czech languages at that time, the Bohemians did not perceive the Poles as their ‘Slavic brothers’.197 Cosmas, too, found the equality between the term ‘Slavic’ and ‘Czech’ obvious. The Dean of the Prague Cathedral referred to a Sclavonica lingua when having in mind the Czech language, for example when he praised the linguistic competences of Saxon clergymen.198 He moreover used the terms Sclavi or Sclavonica manus in four instances where he clearly referred to Bohemians (Boemi). Significantly enough, it concerns fragments describing conflictual confrontations with Germans. For instance, he tells the story of young Břetislav I who preferred to take Judith, the daughter of Henry, the margrave of Schweinfurt, as his wife rather by force than by peaceful courting, since “he knew the innate pride of the Germans and knew the haughtiness with which they despise the Slavs and their language.”199 Elsewhere, Cosmas calls the Bohemian envoys arriving in Verona to visit Emperor Otto II, or those who responded to Emperor Henry III’s demands, a “Slavic unit” or “Slavs”.200 He used the latter word also to denote those Bohemians who around the year 196 Mareš 2000, 303–305. 197 Krzemińska 1960; Sláma 1963; Graus 1966b, 20–21; Aurast 2019, 203–213. 198 Cosmae Pragensis Chronica, 44 (I, 23), 56 (I, 31). 199 Cosmae Pragensis Chronica, 73 (I, 40): innatam Teutonicis superbiam et, quod semper tumido fastu habeant despectui Sclavos et eorum linguam. 200 Cosmae Pragensis Chronica, 47 (I, 26), 93 (II, 8).

Medieval “ State-Formation ” and “ Nation-Building ”

193

1040 defeated the emperor’s army.201 When his continuator, the Canon from Vyšehrad, in the 1140s praised the Bohemian victory over Lothar III’s army he proudly reported that five hundred Saxon potent men fell in the battle, with “only three Slavs” being killed among the Bohemians.202 In this particular case, by using the word Sclavi, the Canon expressed first and foremost a social difference, since he obviously used the word Sclavi with a negative connotation, to denote simple infantry soldiers, in order to give an even greater significance to the Bohemian victory. With a similar tendency Cosmas reported that on occasion of the episcopal consecration of Thietmar/Dětmar, as the first bishop of Prague, the Bohemian clergymen intoned the Latin Te Deum, the worldly mighty would sing the Saxon Christus keinado (Christe ginâdô), “while the simple and the uneducated” (simpliciores autem et idote) only sung the Slavicized Krlessu (Kyrie eleison).203 The idea of an all-Slav(ic) unity or a shared Slavic past was completely alien to Cosmas.204 The legend on the foundation of Bohemia does not even mention where the Bohemians originally arrived from, what their primordial homeland (Urheimat) was (if any) and where it was situated. The land they arrived in is described by Cosmas as a part of Germania, rather than of Slavia/Sclavonia. He wrote so probably under the influence of Regino of Prüm or in reference to the earlier “Lives of St Adalbert” and to the Latin/Italian “Lives of St Václav”.205 Also his continuators had no idea of any ‘Slavic identity’ of the Bohemians. The Canon of Vyšehrad referred to ‘Slavs’ in just one fragment (quoted above); the other continuator, the Monk of Sázava, quits the information on the “three Slavs/Bohemians” fallen in the combat against the Saxons and uses the term Sclavi only in reference to the Polabian Slavs, who – as he could learn from the “Annals of Hildesheim” – fought against the Saxons in the 980s.206 The extant charters, too, offer no foothold that would point to a peculiar ‘Slavic identity’ of the Bohemians in the High Middle Ages; the names of persons or places mentioned in them (Slava, Slavecz, Slavata; names ended with -slav, Slavkov, etc.) certainly cannot be treated as an articulation of such an awareness. It was only in the late 13th century and then, primarily, in the 14th century that an ‘early national’ self-awareness of the Bohemians was 201 202 203 204 205

Cosmae Pragensis Chronica, 97 (II, 11). Kanowník Wyšehradský, 203. Cosmae Pragensis Chronica, 45–46 (I, 23). See Heck 1970, 284–287. Cosmae Pragensis Chronica, 5 (I, 1–2); see Passio Sancti Wenzeslai regis, 27: In provincia namque Germania, que […] est locus, quem incolae Sclaboniam cognomine dicunt. 206 Mnich Sázawský, 239–240.

194

Chapter 6

enlarged with new ideological elements that for the first time propagated in the Bohemians lands the idea of a ‘Slavic community’. 3

Croatia

3.1 A Precarious Rule between Foreign Powers In the settlement areas within modern Croatia, the first two regional political units appeared in the beginning of the 9th century.207 Not far from the coast, in the valleys of the Zrmanja, Krka, and Cetina Rivers, as well as between Nin and Zadar in the north and the area south of Split, Borna, a ruler described as dux Guduscanorum or dux Dalmatiae atque Liburniae (died 821), was active. Deeper inside the country, in its northern part, between the Kupa/Sava and Drava Rivers, with the main centre at the stronghold of Sisak, located 60 km south of Zagreb, the dux Pannoniae inferioris called Liudevit reigned since 823.208 The two small states fought each other from time to time, whereas both were subjected to the authority of the Franks. After displacing the Avars, the Franks annexed western Pannonia to Friuli; in 812, pursuant to the treaty of Aachen, they appropriated Istria and the Slavic-speaking provinces of the northern Adriatic coastal area.209 The hegemony of the Byzantines, which stretched further on to Venice and to the rest of Dalmatia, was confined to the towns and islands along the coast. Ljudevit’s repeated attempts at releasing himself from the Frankish rule proved to no avail; one of his successors, Braslav, appears as a Frankish vassal still at the end of the 9th century.210 In the coastal areas, Borna’s successors managed to become gradually independent and create an autonomous Croatian principality around the middle of the 9th century. In ca. 845, a man named Trpimir took power for almost two decades; he initiated expansion beyond the rivers’ valleys, deeper inside the mountainous land, and supported Christianity in those areas.211 Since the beginning of the 9th century, the new religion was spread in that region primarily by Frankish missionaries dispatched from Salzburg or Aquileia, so it was the Latin Christianity. The first churches, such as the Holy Cross Church erected around the year 800 in Nin, appeared on order of minor local chieftains 207 On early medieval Croatia in more detail: Klaić 1971, 165–537; Goldstein 1995; Sokol 1999; Raukar 1999; Dujmović 2015 and the contributions in Nova zraka u europskom svjetlu. 208 Annales regni Francorum, 149, 151–152, 155, 161; see Antoljak 1967; Wolfram 1984. 209 See Ančić 2018b; Jurković 2018; Filipec 2018. 210 Annales Fuldenses, 113. 211 Budak 1993b; on the christianization Budak 1993a; Šanjek 2008; Akimova 2002, 271–274.

Medieval “ State-Formation ” and “ Nation-Building ”

195

and followed the Carolingian and Ravenna models.212 Also the towns on the Dalmatian coast, subjected to Byzantine rule, issued Roman/Latin, rather than Byzantine, impulses.213 Trpimir himself might have been under personal influence of the monk Gottschalk, son of a Saxon count; Gottschalk was educated at the French cloister in Orbais and became one of the major theologians of his time. His teachings aroused opposition, however, from important personages such as Rabanus (Hrabanus) Maurus and Hincmar of Reims; consequently, Gottschalk left his cloister and set off for Italy. When the arm of the ecclesiastical hierarchs reached him at the court of the count of Friuli, he was offered refuge at Trpimir’s court in the Balkans. In 848, he appeared before the episcopal synod in Mainz, which sentenced him to life imprisonment in a monastery. In the writings in his own defence, Gottschalk describes in a few places the observations he had made in the circle of Trpimir, whom he termed, from his Western standpoint, rex Sclavorum. He furthermore portrayed Trpimir’s court as a self-assured milieu where Latin was used as a daily language and close relationships were maintained with the Byzantine cities on the Adriatic.214 It was under such influence that new church buildings were erected; in Rižinice, not far from the ducal court of Klis, north of Split, a first Benedictine monastery was built. A charter dated 4 March 852 informed on the decision made by Trpimir and his zhupans (cum omnibus zuppanis) to set up the monastery; an inscription on the altarware found in the ruins of the monastic church in Rižinice mentioned the founder’s name (pro duce Trepime […]).215 During Trpimir’s lifetime, it was already possible to establish, in Nin, the first bishopric, subordinate to the patriarch of Aquileia (or, perhaps, even directly to the pope at Rome). In this way, the Croatian principality gained a greater autonomy, while remaining fragile internally. Zdeslav, Trpimir’s son, was overthrown, soon after seizing power, by his rival Domagoj, but succeeded to regain power after his death (around 876). He spent his exile in Constantinople and pursued a pro-Byzantine policy after his return. This triggered resistance; Zdeslav had to surrender in 897, and the opportunity was used by another rival of Trpimir’s family, Branimir, to take power. Branimir followed up Domagoj’s policy of rapprochement with the pope. He gained his favour and custody, thus ensuring for himself a larger 212 Strika 2011. 213 For the Byzantine influence see also Goldstein 1992; Goldstein 1997. 214 Œuvres théologiques, 169, 208; Katić 1932; Katičić 1999a, 296–303; Rapanić 2013; Basić 2018a. 215 CDCDS 1, 4–6; Namentragende Steininschriften, 53; Latinski epigrafičeski spomenici, 128.

196

Chapter 6

freedom in the relations with Byzantium and with the state of the Franks.216 His endeavours to subjugate the cities on the Dalmatian coast eventually came to no avail, however. All the same, the Croatian actions disturbed Byzantium to the extent that Emperor Basil I ‘the Macedonian’ ordered his cities in that region to pay an annual tribute “to the Slavs” (των Σκλάβων)  – which primarily meant, the Croatian princes: Split was to pay 200 solidi, Zadar 110, Trogir and the islands of Osor, Rab, and Krk 100 solidi each.217 This did not mean that Croatian right to authority was recognized or that Byzantine claims to the coastal towns were terminated; the tribute only served to calm down the Slavic-speaking neighbour inside the land.218 In the 920s, under the rule of Duke Tomislav, the region grew even more independent. He was Trpimir’s grandchild and took the throne directly after his father Muncimir, around 910–14 or after a few years of continued dispute. If Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus is to be trusted, the ruler had at his disposal “as many as 60 thousand horse and 100 thousand feet, and galleys up to 80 and cutters up to 100.”219 Even if this data is a literary overstatement, Tomislav was evidently sufficiently well prepared not only to defend his territory but also to expand it by incorporating south-western parts of Pannonia, where Slavic-speaking tribal associations dwelling between the Kupa, Sava, and Drava must have asked him for support in defence against the Hungarians. Tomislav used this opportunity at least to diminish the range of Bavarian/Ottonian influence in those areas and to protect them against a Hungarian intervention. To what extent he managed to expand his regnum to the territory of the later Slavonia (Sclavonia), remains disputable. Several researchers assume that before the end of the 11th century, the region had not yielded to the Croatian or Hungarian rule; its power structures were apparently weak, and the regional clans had the decisive say.220 Nevertheless, also in the lands that doubtlessly belonged to the Croatian regnum the ducal power remained weak. Whereas, based on the Byzantine emperor’s observation, it was founded upon eleven zhupanias (Zoupanias), ruled by their respective bans (Boanos) or zhupans.221 However, these territorial 216 217 218 219

Iohannis VIII. papae epistolae, 152; Branimirova Hrvatska, 33–37; Matijević-Sokol 1999a. Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De administrando imperio, 146. See Steindorff 1984, 35. Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De adminstrando imperio, 150; the English quotation ibidem 151; see Živković 2007. 220 Margetić 1999, 211. 221 Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De adminstrando imperio, 144.

Medieval “ State-Formation ” and “ Nation-Building ”

197

units should not be figured out as administrative units of an integrated state. Rather than that, they were lands in which the heads of local lineages, functioning as ducal officials, primarily cared about their own interests and – as demonstrated by the frequent conflicts over succession – sometimes claimed their rights to wield power over the whole of the country. Despite of this, the neighbours perceived Tomislav’s principality as a political body that needed to be treated seriously. The Byzantines entered an alliance with him against Bulgaria, and granted him the honorary title of proconsul, while Pope John X in 925 called the Croatian ruler rex Crovatorum.222 The fact that this rex managed to stand up to the powerful Bulgarian tsar Simeon had meanwhile emphasized his strengthened position.223 Power-strengthening institutional structures were also appearing as the Church’s organization developed. The Church had to cope with a complicated baseline situation. In the early 10th century, the old Dalmatian bishoprics were situated in the areas that were politically subordinate to Byzantium. Whether they thereby fell under the jurisdiction of the Constantinopolitan patriarch (with the metropolis in Zadar or Split for northern Dalmatia, and in Durazzo for southern Dalmatia), remains a disputable issue among researchers.224 In any case, the Roman tradition and the Roman claims competed there with the Byzantine ones. Moreover, there was the Croatian bishopric in Nin, which was directly or indirectly subordinated to the pope, who, in turn, had long been striving to extend the papal jurisdiction to the Dalmatian bishoprics as well. To attain this goal, it was beneficial that Byzantium, having come to an agreement with Rome on the Bulgarian issue, gave way to the pope in Dalmatia, or, in any case, did not oppose Rome’s settling the ecclesiastical affairs in its own way. Beside that, the papal plans were convergent with those of Tomislav, who strove to grab the cities in the coastal area. The eastern Adriatic towns and islands were themselves interested in the Western orientation; in economic, cultural, and linguistic terms, they were Italy-oriented. They were more strictly associated also with their Slavic-speaking neighbours than with distant Byzantium. At the curial synod convened in Split in 925, the Dalmatian bishops were successfully won over for Rome. In the presence of the papal legates and the bishop of Nin, they decided to establish a new ecclesial province under the 222 CDCDS 1, 34. The letter of Pope John X addressed to Tomislav is known only from the enlarged 16th century-version of the Historia Salonitana by Thomas the Archdeacon (Historia Salonitana maior, 96); for this reason, some scholars doubt its authenticity; on the kingdom of Tomislav see Goldstein 1985, 51–53. 223 Mandić 1960. 224 Waldmüller 1987, 28–29; Prozorov 2012; Komatina 2018; Basić 2018b.

198

Chapter 6

papal jurisdiction. For this purpose, the already-existing bishopric in Split was elevated to the rank of archbishopric (or confirmed as such, if it already existed); the Dalmatian urban bishoprics – namely, Krk, Rab, Osor, and Zadar in the north; Ston, Dubrovnik, Kotor, and Duvno in the south – and the Croatian bishopric of Nin were rendered subordinate to it.225 Since the bishop of Nin, who apparently pretended to the office of metropolitan bishop, voiced his objection against the decision, his bishopric was dissolved at the subsequent synod, in 928. Whether it was replaced by the Croatian bishopric of Skradin right away, remains unclear (the Bishopric of Skradin was dissolved in 1058 to the benefit of Biograd, while in 1042 a second Croatian bishopric was set up in Knin, whereas the bishopric in Nin was reinstated in 1074). The decisions of the synods from the years 925 and 928 confirmed the unity of the Croatian regnum with Dalmatia as to ecclesiastical law. This, in effect, reinforced the Roman Catholic character of the Croatian Church and the Latin/Western tradition of the Croatian regnum. Politically, the towns on the coast of Dalmatia and the Dalmatian islands remained outside the authority of the Croatian rulers. After Tomislav’s death in 928, a period of havoc and unrest overwhelmed the country once again. For this reason, not much is known about his direct successors – Trpimir II (928–35), Krešimir I (935–45), and Miroslav (945–6). Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus wrote of a civil war during which one of the bans, Pribounias, overthrew Miroslav.226 This shows that the authority of the Croatian dukes was still dependent on the charisma of the ruler and his ability to endear the mighty ones who enjoyed considerable autonomy in the regions. Almost no trace can be found in the period’s sources related to the reigns of Krešimir II (949–69) and Stephen Držislav (969–97). It seems that there was nothing distinctive about them; in respect of the Hungarians and Venice, these rulers apparently went on the defensive. Stephen Držislav’s sons would argue over power again; this conflict was taken advantage of by the neighbours. The Hungarians launched their expansion into the territory between the Drava and the Sava, whereas Venice strengthened its presence on the eastern coast of the Adriatic. One of the major centres of medieval trade in slaves, Venice, sought to capture eastern Adriatic port towns as potential reloading sites of, mostly Slavic-speaking, slaves brought from Eastern Europe. And so it happened, with the cities from Osor to Split, including the Croatian port of Biograd na Moru 225 On the decisions of the synod and their controversial interpretation Waldmüller 1987, 25–48; Zimmermann 1982; Katičić 1999a, 327–363; Akimova 2002, 274–287; Majnarić 2010. 226 Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De adminstrando imperio, 150.

Medieval “ State-Formation ” and “ Nation-Building ”

199

swearing allegiance to Doge Pietro II Orseolo in the year 1000, resulting from his offensive; Orseolo named himself dux Venetiae et Dalmatiae ever since.227 At the same time, one of the three sons of Stephen Držislav, Krešimir III, managed, with Byzantine aid, to seize power, pushing aside his brothers Svetoslav and Gojslav. After 1042, making use of the internal crisis in Venice, he reinstated the Croatian rule in Biograd. Whether, and to what extent, he regained influence in the cities on the northern shore of Dalmatia, remains unclear. In any case, their status as towns politically and legally separated from the Croatian surroundings remained unchanged. Krešimir III’s successors – his son Stephen I (1030–58) and grandson Peter Krešimir IV (1058–74/5)  – could not change this state of affairs, though the latter was the first Croatian ruler after 1060 to put forth formal claims to Dalmatia in his title, as he described himself rex Croatie Dalmatiaeque, or, rex Chroatorum et Dalmatiarum.228 As it seems, the pope confirmed this title, in exchange for which Peter Krešimir IV swore loyalty to him, supported the Roman reformative movement, and participated in putting into practice the arrangements of the Split council of 1061, which banned the priests to marry, wear long beards, and be consecrated without a satisfactory command of Latin.229 When the rex Chroatiae et Dalmatiae made an attempt to really extend his power to the Dalmatian towns, the latter requested in 1074 the Sicilian Normans for help. The Norman comes Amicus (Amico) II, Count of Giovinazzo, took an action against Peter Krešimir IV and apprehended him. The Croatian ruler died before the year ended; it is unknown whether he was still imprisoned then or had been released. Slavonian ban Zvonimir came to the throne afterward;230 he was active in the north-western regions of Croatia (the zhupanias of Lika, Gacka, and Krbava) and, perhaps, also in the Slavonian interior. Zvonimir was possibly a son of Svetoslav, who fled to Hungary around 1000 and might have been reared at the court there. Otherwise, he might possibly have come from a family settled in western Pannonia  – a family so potent that the Hungarian ruling house expressed their readiness to give the king’s daughter away in marriage to him. In any case, he wed the daughter of Béla I (1060–63). As a governor (ban) – of the Croatian or Hungarian ruler? – he could operate relatively freely between the Kupa/Sava and the Drava; it was from that 227 228 229 230

Steindorff 1984, 42–43. CDCDS 1, 85, 88, 97, 102 and passim. CDCDS 1, 95–96. For Zvonimir and his rule see the contributions in Zvonimir, kralj hrvatski.

200

Chapter 6

position that in 1070, with the help of the Hungarian king Solomon (1063–74), he conquered a part of Istria as well as the islands of Osor and Krk, and, possibly, also the island of Rab. Ever since, he appeared as Croatian co-ruler.231 As it seems, he with Peter Krešimir concluded an agreement that if the latter died heirless, Zvonimir would succeed him – which indeed happened in 1074/5. To reinforce the legitimacy of his authority over the Croatian regnum, Zvonimir entered into an arrangement with Pope Gregory VII, promising to him that he would support the Church’s reform and pay liege homage to the pope. In exchange, Gregory consented to Zvonimir’s coronation as king (constitutus rex) by a papal legate, in 1075, at St Peter’s Basilica in Solin and to the bestowal of investiture to the Chroatorum Dalmatinorumque regnum.232 Specifying the Dalmatians in the royal title was at that moment justified at least in as far as Zvonimir wielded actual power over the Kvarner area islands. The coastal Dalmatian cities, however, remained out of his reach.233 A Glagolitic inscription – preserving the oldest extant testimony of the Slavic variant of the royal title – in relation to Zvonimir rightly used a more appropriate version, namely “Croatian king” (kralъ hrъvatъsky).234 With the support of the pope, Zvonimir endeavoured to strengthen his authority and replaced those secular and clerical mighty who competed with him by men loyal to him. Meanwhile, the Venetian influence had grown in the cities of Dalmatia. Venice was growing to become a leading maritime power in the Mediterranean, gradually superseding Byzantium as a guarantor of order in the Adriatic eastern coastal area. Before the end of the 11th century, the doge added the words Chroatie or Chroatorum to his official title235 – possibly, in response to the ambitions of the Hungarian king, who already at the moment of the death of Zvonimir, his brother-in-law, in 1089–90, tried to capitalise on his family ties with him. When sharp conflicts broke out again among the Croatian potent men, Ladislaus (László) I immediately voiced his claims to the Croatian throne. Yet, it seems that Trpimir’s descendant Stephen III had earlier took power in the Croatian regnum. In response, Ladislaus began to push the Hungarian claims by force of arms. 231 232 233 234 235

CDCDS 1, 129. CDCDS 1, 109, 139–140; see Šanjek 1991. Steindorff 1984, 46. Namentragende Steininschriften, 11. CDCDS 1, 208: in this charter (preserved only in a 16th century copy) the burghers of Split call the Venetian ruler dux Ventie atque Dalmatie sive Chroacie; the title appears in this and similar versions regularly since the 12th century, e.g. in CDCDS 2, 2, 27 (dux Venetiarum, Dalmaticorum atque Crohaticorum).

Medieval “ State-Formation ” and “ Nation-Building ”

201

Armed interventions continued for fifteen years, and the western Pannonian lands were ultimately annexed in 1091. Ladislaus installed there his nephew Álmos as the Pannoniorum rex Chrotie. In 1094, the Hungarian king established a bishopric in Zagreb; the first bishop appointed there was a man called Duch, a Bohemian (Boemicum […] virum nomine Duch).236 Somewhat later, in 1097, Coloman (Kálmán), who ascended the throne in 1095, following Ladislaus, had the last Croat sitting on the royal throne, a mighty named Peter, removed. In 1102, Coloman crowned himself in Biograd king of the Croats; in 1105, he subjected the towns along the northern Dalmatian coast, from Osor up to Split. Finally, the entire territory of Croatia and Dalmatia fell into the hands of the Hungarians. Indeed, Hungarian rule along the coast remained unstable; Osor, Krk, Rab, and Zadar were reconquered by Venice in as early as 1118, while Trogir was taken by the Byzantines in 1165/7–82, and later the whole Dalmatian coast was lost to Venice. Nevertheless, based on a personal union, the regnum Chroatiae et Dalmatiae was ever since (until 1918, as a matter of fact) been united with the Crown of Hungary.237 The territory of Croatia administered by Hungary was split in the second quarter of the 13th century into two administrative provinces (ducatus/banovina). One of them encompassed the eastern part, the lands between the Sava and the Drava Rivers, which had already been fairly strictly associated with Hungary and originally constituted the royal domain without autonomy or the right to self-determination. Those lands, described from the Hungarian perspective as “a country of Slavs” (Sclavonia/Slavonia), enjoyed also in the later period a particular status within the kingdom, reflected in their own mintage, among other aspects. The other part consisted of the indigenous Croatian lands in the west and preserved the name of Croatia. The royal authority remained rather weak until the early 14th century; at the end of the 12th and in the beginning of the 13th century, the office of the Hungarian governor (iuppanus/comes/banus) remained with Croatian magnates for good. This enabled wealthy families – as, for instance, the Šubićs, the lords of Krk (later known as the Frankopans), whose family nest was the Bribir castle, 20 kilometres north of Šibenik  – to form their own territorial domains. Also in Slavonia, where the nobility first gathered for a parliamentary session in 1273, the power was soon seized by magnate families, the Babonićs among them. 236 CDCDS 1, 202. 237 For the transition to Hungarian rule and the Venetian and Byzantine onslaughts of the 12th century see Steindorff 1984, 49–62; Goldstein 1999; Stephenson 1999; Budak 2002; Szenerényi 2007.

202

Chapter 6

These developments no doubt helped the elite preserve their ‘Croatian identity’ while also strengthen them in the communication and confrontation with the Hungarian monarchy. 3.2 Croatian Self-Awareness and Slavicity It is hard to say how refined this identity was when the Croatian regnum ceased to develop as an independent political entity.238 The Croatian testimonies that might offer information about a Croatian medieval ‘national’ identity are quite scarce – we dispose of just a few charters and fragments of inscriptions. As to the self-awareness of the Croati, not much more can be learned from these texts besides the fact that they referred to themselves as Croati and named their land Croatia. Both terms appear in non-Croatian sources, written down from the Byzantine and Latin perspective, only in the second quarter of the 10th century. As a name proper, ‘Croats’ first appear already around the middle of the 9th century, the condition being that the respective testimony – the deed of foundation of the monastery in Sinice, dated 852 but existing only as a 1568 duplicate – is authentic. Trpimir is called in this record dux Chroatorum, his principality being the regnum Chroatorum.239 Gottschalk the monk, who was received at Trpimir’s court for some time, mentioned him at the same time as a rex Sclavorum; also, each of Trpimir’s deputies, Zdeslav and Domagaj, was still referred to, from the papal perspective, as a dux or comes Sclavorum.240 In his letters exchanged with the Croatian duke and clergy in 879, Pope John VIII would never use a precise title of description of his addressees, only referring to them as a “people” or “land” (omni populo […] omnique terre/universo populo/cunctoque populo), and calling Branimir a “son” ( filius), “ruler/duke” (princeps), and “most excellent man” (excellentissimus vir).241 The other two testimonies containing the name of “Croats” come from the end of the 9th century. First, a charter dated 28 September (known only from a 1568 copy) uses the title Croatorum dux with respect to Branimir’s successor, Muncimir.242 Second, an inscription preserved on the remains of the altarware discovered in 1928 in Šopot near Benkovac, calls Branimir dux Cruatoru[m].243 238 Some scholars assume the existence of a Croatian ‘national’ identity already for the late 9th century; most recently Alimov 2016, 328. 239 CDCDS 1, 4–6; on this charter regarded the oldest Croatian document in more detail Klaić 1960b; Stipišić 1999, 8–289. 240 CDCDS 1, 10, 12. 241 CDCDS 1, 13–19; see Ernst/Sowa 1989, 230; Branimirova Hrvatska, 50–76. 242 CDCDS 1, 23–24; see Stipišić 1999, 289–290. 243 Namentragende Steininschriften, 32–33; Latinski epigrafički spomenici, 166–167; see Lienhard 2008. Possibly also two other inscriptions dated to the 9th century mentioned

Medieval “ State-Formation ” and “ Nation-Building ”

203

Another inscription (in stone), probably dating to the same period, originally from St Ambrosius’s Church in Nin (discovered there during the demolition works in 1912), titled him a dux Sclavorum, however.244 Hence, if it can at all be considered certain that the name Croati was in use in the second half of the 9th century, it was certainly not yet commonly adopted then. Neither in the 10th century does the name in question appear very often as a name proper; in fact, it is only featured in a stone inscription dated second half of the 10th century, referring to a dux Hroatorum.245 Beside this specimen, Croati only appears in alien testimonies – those from 925 and 928, the Split synods’ decisions, and the related two papal memos.246 Also those are sources known only from an edition of Thomas the Archdeacon’s Historia Salonitana that was complemented in the 16th century.247 The non-Croatian authors of these texts referred the name Croati primarily to the political elite (rex et proceres Croatorum, Croatorum princeps, episcopus Croatorum), rather than to the people under their rule. In any case, the multiple reference to the S(c)lavinica lingua  – the language used by the simple people (universus populus), and to S(c)lavonia or S(c)lavinorum regna  – the land inhabited by them, the Roman/Dalmatian clergymen convened at the synod seem to have excluded those people from the name of Croati. Also, among the neighbours the word Croati began to function as a description of the Dalmatian/Croatian political organism only later. In Byzantium, Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus used the name “Croatia” (Χρωβατια) for the first time around the middle of the 10th century. In the Latin West, it first appeared at the beginning of the 11th century, in John the Deacon’s Chronicon Venetum.248 In the Dalmatian/Croatian land, the abstract name of the country appears, however, quite late – for the first time, isolated, in two

244

245 246 247 248

the name Croatia: Latinski epigrafički spomenici, 52: [Chro?]atoru(m) et iup[…]; 194: [Chroa]toru(m) f[ecit? …]. Namentragende Steininschriften, 17; Latinski epigrafički spomenici, 207–208; an inscription found in 2002 at the very same place calls Branimir only dux, Jakšić 2012; in another inscription form the Church of St Bartula he his named dux Clavitnoru(m), Latinski epigrafički spomenici, 252. Namentragende Steininschriften, 35. CDCDS 1, 31–32, 34, 37, 38–39. Historia Salonitana maior, 95–102. Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De administrando imperio, 142, 144; Constantine Porphyro­ gennetos, The Book of Ceremonies, 691; Iohannis diaconi chronicon, 23, 29 (Croati Sclavi!), 31. The variants Crouuati/Crauuati used in two charters issued by Otto I in 954 and 961 referred to the Carinthian “Kroatengau” situated north of Klagenfurt and did not denote inhabitants of the Croatian regnum; Die Urkunden Konrads I., Heinrich I. und Otto I., 255, 304.

204

Chapter 6

charters issued by a Bulgarian émigré in the years 994 and 1000, respectively, at the Croatian ruler’s court.249 It was only since the 1060s that the names Croati and Croatia began to be used on a regular basis in the titles of the Croatian rulers and in the dating of charters. In assessing this data, the scarcity of the sources should certainly be taken into consideration: of the thirty-six Croatian ducal charters (all preserved only in later copies), all but two (dated to the 9th century) come from the 1060s/1070s. All the same, the generally quite sporadic use of the name ‘Croats’ and the late introduction of the abstract country name demonstrates that the notions Croati and Croatia, describing the inhabitants of the entire regnum, were not widely used before the 11th century. The term Croati (probably of Turkic-Avar origin) clearly referred, still for quite a time, only to the political elite formed of the ruling family and the potent clergy and lay, whereas the ordinary Slavic-speaking people remained, simply, the Sclavi.250 The above is concordant with the fact that the Romance-speaking residents of the Dalmatians’ towns, mentioning Slavic-speaking neighbours/local people in their documents, never used the name of Croati but referred to “Slavs” (Sclavi, Schiavoni) instead until the 13th or even 14th century.251 Moreover, Thomas the Archdeacon, writing in mid-13th century in his Historia Salonitana about the Slavic-speaking people of the regnum Dalmatiae et Croatiae, tends to name them “Slavs” rather than “Croats”.252 Thomas was archdeacon at the Cathedral Church in Split since 1232, and an involved citizen of his city. In 1227–32, he served as a notary in Split. His studies in the law and theology in Bologna led him to a good acquaintance with the relations prevalent in the Italian urban communes; in 1239, he could partake in the launch of the Italian model of urban authority in Split. In his history of the bishops of Solin and Split, he primarily sought to demonstrate that the Church in Split was a legitimate heir of the metropolitan rights after the Bishopric in Solin, once destroyed by the Avars. For this purpose, he created an image of the glorious past of Split and its Church, while trying to justify his own ecclesial and communal policies, loyal to Rome and pro-reformatory. Some Croatian researchers presumed that Thomas was possibly an aboriginal Croat.253 However, his output leaves no room for doubting that he perceived himself as a member of the Dalmatian urban commune that followed 249 250 251 252

CDCDS 1, 47 (in Croatiam), 51 (in regno Croatiae). Fine 2006, 33–46; Budak 2008; Budak 2018a, 212; Dzino 2010, 216–218. For a plenty of testimonies see CDCDS, vol. 2–14. Thomae Archidiaconi Historia Salonitanorum. For the author and his work see Katičić 2003; Matijević-Sokol 2007; Margetić 1994; Karbić/Matijević Sokol/Ross Sweeney 2006; Steindorff 2020. 253 Klaić 1971, 23; Klaić 1976, 208.

Medieval “ State-Formation ” and “ Nation-Building ”

205

the Romance/Italian models and looked down on the Slavic-speaking dwellers of the town and its vicinity. Thomas viewed in this way the non-Romance people of Dalmatia. When writing of a remote past as well as of his day, he pictured them as a focus of incessant confusion, threatening the peace in Split, or linked them with heretic movements – and therefore usually referred to those people as Sclavi, and to their regnum as Sclavonia.254 From a more remote external perspective, Croats were not quite perceptible, mostly obscured by the Sclavi; in any case, the terms Croati and Croatia are extremely rare in Byzantine and Latin sources of the 11th and 12th centuries (and, later). First, the Venetians and the Hungarians long used the term “Slavs”, rather than “Croats”, wherever referring to the non-Romance inhabitants of Dalmatia and Croatia. Consequently, on the one hand, the existence of a Croatian natio-awareness is evident at least for the narrow circle of the political elite, who referred to themselves as Croati, and to their country as Croatia. On the other hand, a part of the population was still perceived by non-Slavic observers, in general terms, as the “Slavs”. The reason might have been the language differences that separated the Romance-speaking residents of the towns in the Dalmatian coastal area and of the islands from the Slavic-speaking residents of the Croatian coastal and inland areas. The phrase Sclavi vel Latini (as in charters issued by Dalmatian towns) probably reflected also a social and mental distance between the patricians from the urban areas and the agricultural population from the countryside, together with the Slavic-speaking mighty who governed them. It therefore seems that the continuous use of the name Sclavi, instead of Croati, reflects the fact that the Croatian ducal authority was still not strong enough, in as late as the 11th century, to obligatorily name as ‘Croats’ all the inhabitants of the territory to which the duke claimed his authority. A ‘Croatian identity’ was, most evidently, still restricted to the ruler and his followers. Most of the people were still in the process of building their local identities and manifested, at most, a particular loyalty toward the regional mighty, themselves remaining nameless to external observers – and therefore getting generically labelled as “Slavs”. The Slavic language of the countries majority obviously had its impact as was visible in the frequently given names containing the syllable -slav (Slavana, Slavica, Slavitus, Slavogost; Boleslav, Branislav, Dobroslav, Dragoslav).255 In Croatia, a particular manifestation of this impact, furthermore, was the use 254 The Vita Beati Ioannis Episcopi written at the beginning of the 13th century in Trogir (the second most important high medieval Croatian narrative source besides the Historia Salonitana), mentioned the gentes Croatiae only one single time and did not talk of any Croati or Sclavi at all. 255 For a plenty of testimonies see CDCDS vol. 2–14.

206

Chapter 6

of the Glagolitic script.256 The earliest testimonies of Glagolitic texts that can be related to Croatia date to the 11th century; these include three fragments of inscriptions found in the Istrian locality of Plonim, in the island of Krk, and in Valun on the island of Cres (the latter with a mixed Glagolitic and Latin text).257 Another inscription, the so-called Baška tablet, dates to the late 11th /early 12th century; it once embellished the altarware of the church in Krk. Its rather extensive text referred to a donation made to the abbey and the construction of its church. In calling the founder Zvonimir “Croatian king” (kralъ hrъvatъsky) it recorded for the first time (in its adjectival derivation) the Slavic/Croatian form of the country’s name.258 From the period of the 12th to mid-13th century, eight other fragments of Glagolitic inscriptions have survived, along with an alphabet etched as graffiti in a wall of the church in Roč, Istria.259 Dating to the same time is one Cyrillic, one Cyrillic-Latin, and one Greek-Latin inscription.260 Outstanding is the fact that Slavic-language inscriptions mainly appear in Istria and on the Kvarner Gulf islands – that is, mainly outside the Croatianruled area. In the latter regions – as in the Dalmatian towns – Latin inscriptions tend to dominate, while here also all charters were issued in Latin.261 The number of fragments of Glagolitic texts surviving on parchment and relatable to Croatia is rather small, too. From the period of until the end of the 13th century, no more than sixteen to eighteen such fragments are identifiable. Books and manuscripts preserved in their entirety, written in Croatia in the Glagolitic alphabet, date only to the 14th century. In fact, the heyday of Glagolitic literary output in Croatia came only as late as the 14th–16th centuries.262 In this context, the question arises of how widespread it was in the Croatian High Middle Ages, what the role of the related Slavic liturgy was, and since when both became used on a lasting basis in Croatia. The earliest information on the use of the Slavic language in Croatia dates to 925 – provided that the decisions of the Split synod, written down in the 16th century in the Historia Salonitana Maior, and both papal memos related to them, can be deemed authentic. The first of the pope’s letters was addressed to the bishop of Split, whom John X accused of having led the population of 256 Katičić 1999a, 488–492; Simpson 1992; Nazor 2000; Žagar 2009; Damjanović 2015; Budak 2017. 257 Namentragende Steininschriften, 4–5, 7–8, 8; Fučić 1999, 264–265. 258 Namentragende Steininschriften, 10–14; Margetić 1997; Fučić 1999, 266–268 (English translation: 268). 259 Namentragende Steininschriften, 7, 14–15; Fučić 1999, 268–275. 260 Matijević-Sokol 1999. 261 See Steindorff 2005. 262 Hercigonja 1983; Hercigonja 2008.

Medieval “ State-Formation ” and “ Nation-Building ”

207

the bishoprics of Dalmatia and Croatia to follow the teachings of Methodius (Methodii doctrina), which was supposed to be discontinued, according to him. “We thus admonish you”, the pope wrote, “that you take all the effort […] so that in the land of the Slavs (in Sclavinorum terra) the Mass may be celebrated according to the custom of the Holy Roman Church, rather than in a foreign language. None of the sons is supposed to say or know anything beyond what his father had advised to him. And, since the Slavs are the peculiar children of the Holy Roman Church, they therefore have to endure in the teaching of their Mother.”263 John X’s second memo admonished its addressees: Tomislav, Michael, Duke of Zahumlje, the Episcopate of Split, all the secular dignitaries, priests, and the entire people per Slavoniam et Dalmatiam that children be taught Latin from their youngest years and that the Holy Mass need not to be celebrated “in the barbarian Slavonic language” (barbara seu Slavinica lingua).264 The synod in Split, however, only partly obeyed the papal instruction. It decided, indeed, that in the future nobody who uses the Slavonic language would be admitted to priestly orders, and the Holy Mass in Slavonic would no more be allowed in any of the churches. Both these bans were instantly restricted, however, as those clergymen who had already been consecrated were allowed to use Slavonic and, if priests were unavailable, the pastoral ministry could be performed also by Slavic-speaking priests, upon papal consent.265 Providing that the quoted documents are authentic (as most of the researchers maintain), the Slavic liturgy around the year 925 must have enjoyed some support among the Slavic-speaking population of the Dalmatian and Croatian bishoprics. Probably, the Old Church Slavonic language, in its Glagolitic form, reached Croatia at the end of the 9th century, together with some of Methodius’s disciples who had been expelled from Moravia. Perhaps, at that same time or somewhat later, it reached the northern Adriatic coast also from the south, from the western parts of Bulgaria.266 Since there are no attestations of the use of the Slavic language in the Church and liturgy until the second half of the 11th century, it is hard to say what influence the Split decisions might have had, and whether (and to what extent, if so) the Slavic liturgy and the Glagolitic script were ousted. A part of the population evidently cultivated the Glagolitic-Slavonic rite, for, as Thomas the Archdeacon remarked, in 1060 the synod complained again 263 264 265 266

CDCDS 1, 30; see Verkholantsev 2014, 38. CDCDS 1, 34. CDCDS 1, 32; see Waldmüller 1987, 41; Akimova 2002, 274–287. Birnbaum 1996.

208

Chapter 6

about the employment of the “Gothic alphabet” which “a certain heretic called Methodius had devised” (Goticas litteras a quodam Methodico heretico fuisse repertas) – and therefore decreed and established that no one in future should presume to celebrate the divine mysteries in the Slavic tongue, but only in Latin and Greek, and that neither should anyone of that language be elevated to holy orders.267 The otherwise reform-conducive Pope Alexander II corroborated this decision immediately after his election in late September 1061.268 It could also have been an attempt to win over the Dalmatian clergy in their dispute with Pope Honorius II, elected late in October 1061. It seems that Honorius, in turn, announced to the Croatian proponents of the Glagolitic script, who were concentrated in the north-western peripheries of the Split metropolis, in Istria and on the Kvarner islands, that he would tolerate the Slavic liturgy. At least, this is what Thomas the Archdeacon suggests, who scornfully spoke of the supporters of the Slavic liturgy, naming them Aryan heathens, “Goths”, and ironically ridiculing the attempt to retrieve the bishopric of Krk by the false bishop Cededa. In response, Alexander II sent his legate “to rid the region of Slavonia of this wicked hotbed of schism.” According to Thomas the Archdeacon’s description, it was still in 1063 that the synod anathemized the Glagolitic ‘heretics’; Cededa, unwilling to subordinate himself, was executed.269 The Glagolitic inscriptions that appeared in the region somewhat later show that Glagolitic literature and the related Slavic liturgy did not disappear even after the decisions of 1060–61. The Episcopate probably tolerated them for pragmatic reasons, one of them being the consistent loyalty of priests and monks using the Glagolitic script toward Rome, who always used Roman/Latin liturgical formularies and never tried to introduce the Byzantine/Slavic rite together with the Glagolitic script. The fact that Glagolitic activities soon focused only on monastic communities might also have facilitated the tolerant attitude. After the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 softened its stance regarding 267 Thomae Archidiaconi Historia Salonitanorum, 70 (chap. 16, 6); the English quotations from Archdeacon Thomas, 79. See Waldmüller 1987, 56–57; Akimova 2002, 315–316; Verkholantsev 2014, 39. 268 This interdiction, however, was somewhat alleviated and stated: Sclavos, nisi Latinas litteras didicerint, ad sacros ordines promoveri […] prohibemus; CDCDS 1, 96. 269 Thomae Archidiaconi Historia Salonitanorum, 76 (chap. 16, 13); The English quotation from Archdeacon Thomas, 85; see Waldmüller 1987, 69–74; Akimova 2002, 317–318.

Medieval “ State-Formation ” and “ Nation-Building ”

209

the languages employed in the liturgy, Pope Innocent IV finally allowed, in 1248, completely officially, the bishop of the Diocese of Senj (established 1154) to celebrate the Mass using the Glagolitic script wherever there had been such a custom (in illis dumtaxat partibus, ubi de consuetudine observantur) – under the condition that the different form of the letters would not infringe the sense of the Church’s teachings (dummodo sententia ex ipsius varietate littere non ledatur).270 Four years later, the pope granted a corresponding consent to the monasteries in the island of Krk.271 Later scholars have eagerly and often interpreted Croatian ‘Glagolitism’ as evidence of an early existence of a Croatian ‘national’ awareness; some even went so far to regard it also as evidence of the awareness of a supranational Slavic identity.272 The available sources do not, however, allow us to draw such far-fetched conclusions inspired by the modern concept of nation-state. What they suggest is, rather, that for the high medieval Croatian elites neither the use of the Slavic language in their religious and secular lives, nor its particular Glagolitic form, nor the practicing of the Slavic liturgy attested to a special ‘Slavic’ character of their country. Those elites possibly treated the Slavic language in purely linguistic terms – as a natural element of their regnum, apart from Latin, which was dominant in their circles. However, they did not turn the Slavic language of their subjects into a specific aspect of their national awareness; the Glagolitic script was not approached in this way, either. Nor did they derive from both these factors the idea of a universal community encompassing all speakers of Slavic, which would have possibly been linked with their ‘Croatian identity’.

270 CDCDS 4, 343. 271 CDCDS 4, 479. 272 Thus e.g., for Jagić 1913, 9–10 Glagolitical literacy or “Glagolitism” was one of the seldom phenomena, which have contributed to preserve the national Croatian identity (narodnu individualnost) and at the same time lent public life a Slavic character (slovensko obilježje), that has shielded it against the cosmopolitical dominance of the Latin language (od kosmopolitiskog gospodarstva latinštine). For Hamm 1965, 316, “Glagolitism” with its remarkable alphabet and Slavic liturgy was an in integral part of what the masses of ordinary Croats regarded as their “own” and what protected them against the “other” coming from abroad and being associated with the evil. For Kadić 1976, 147 “the Croats […] continued to cherish the vernacular [Slavic-Glagolitic] in liturgy as the symbol of their Slavic identity”, while Matešića 1988, 434 claims, that “Croat glagolitism succeeded in […] preserving the unshakable and integral consciousness, that real Slavdom and defending of the national identity mean in the sense of self-assertion.” And also Hercigonja 1999, 382 still praised Glogolitism as “one of the pivotal phenomena of Croatian cultural history and a symbol of her identity.”

210 4

Chapter 6

Kievan Rus’

4.1 Beginnings and Formation of a Scandinavian-East Slavic Rus’ In the vast landmass of the Eastern European forests, forest-steppes, and steppes the so-called Rus’ people were noticed by the middle of the 10th century.273 They were Scandinavian tradesmen-and-warriors who in the second half of the 8th century intruded into the world of Finno-Ugrian, Baltic, and East Slavic ancestral communities274 – tempted by the riches of the Near East as well as by those of the East European forests.275 In the Caliphate, the Abbasids seized power around 750; they transferred their centre from Damascus to Baghdad, and significantly increased the demand for luxury goods. Primarily furs and slaves were in demand – and the inland Eastern Europe abounded with these goods. They were exchanged for silver, in the first place, which since the 8th century supplied, in large quantities, the far-distance trade in the form of silver coins (dirhams).276 Tempted by the silver, the trader-warriors from the North began to set up emporia, i.e. trade-and-crafts posts, initially along the northern sections of fluvial routes linking the Baltic Sea with the lower Don, the lower Volga, and the Caspian Sea.277 They would supply themselves with furs and other goods, such as honey or wax, from the nearby population, which they delivered to the southern reloading points controlled by the Volga Bulgars and the Khazars. The business was so prosperous that not only the northern emporia could be made permanent but also a continuous extension of the zones of influence and exploitation soon became a promising opportunity.278 Since the beginning of the 9th century, the Rus’ people reached the areas on the upper and lower Dnieper River, establishing their settlements in Gnezdovo, Šestovica/Chernigov, and Kiev, and created a connection with Byzantium through the lower Dnieper and the Black Sea.279 In the 830s, at the latest, groups of Scandinavian trader-warriors started reaching as far as Byzantium, as is confirmed by a note from the West-Frankish Annales Bertiniani related 273 For a general overview see Rüß 1981; Franklin/Shepard 1996; Martin 2007, 1–133; Tolochko 2015. 274 For the controversial debate on the origins of the name “Rus” see i. a. Schramm 2002, 75–112; Danylenko 2004; Hraundal 2014. 275 Schramm 2002, 113–131; Duczko 2006; Androshchuk 2013; Mel’nikova 2019. 276 Noonan 1998; Adamczyk 2014, 27–90. 277 As their first base in the northern part of Eastern Europe the Rus’ established Staraja Ladoga during the second half of the 8th century; see Mühle 1991, 19–24; Kirpičnikov 2014; Sindbaek 2017. 278 Schramm 2002, 255–321; Makarov 2006; Callmer 2017. 279 See Mühle 1987; Mühle 1989a; Mühle 1989b; Eniosova/Pushkina 2016.

Medieval “ State-Formation ” and “ Nation-Building ”

211

to the year 839. It states that together with the envoys sent by Emperor Theophilus to Louis I the Pious at the imperial palace in Ingelheim, a group of men arrived who were named the Rhos and had been sent by their own king (rex, or Chacanus) on a mission to Constantinople. Inquired by Emperor Louis, those Rhos reportedly declared that they belonged to the people of Sueones (i.e., Swedes).280 Not only does this piece of information confirm the Scandinavian descent of the Rus’: it moreover demonstrates that groups of different trader-warriors formed already around 839 a rudimentary political organization. In any case, they were subjected to one ruler to whom they referred to as their kagan, evidently after the Khazar model.281 From the middle of the 9th century onward, the Scandinavian traderwarriors also appear in Byzantine and Arabic sources, which called them Rhōs or ar-Rus. Photios, the patriarch of Constantinople, described the appearance in 860 of a fleet of Rus’ian vessels near the imperial capital, that plundered and desolated its surroundings and sailed away with rich spoils.282 Ibn Ḫurradaḏbih, a Persian geographer active in Baghdad in the 860s and 870s, presented the Rus’ as peaceable tradesmen who reached with their goods as far as the Volga estuary and the northern areas of the Caucasus, and who arrived with their camel caravans in Baghdad.283 The Rus’ group’s contacts with the indigenous Finno-Ugrian, Baltic, and East Slavic peoples were, possibly, similarly ambivalent. To acquire from them the demanded forest products and the people earmarked to be traded as slaves, the Scandinavian trader-warriors doubtlessly exerted considerable pressure. However, excessive violence must have had, in the long run, an adverse effect on the potential of acquiring the demanded commodities. Hence, the conquerors soon started to look for cooperative and peaceful methods of communication. To this end, since the beginning of the 10th century, they were gradually adapting to their new environment  – and began to integrate in their ranks those members of the indigenous population who met their expectations. This led to the turning of the initially ethnically defined, purely Scandinavian group of Rus’ people into a social-cultural or economic-political community that was bound primarily by a common strife for growing materially rich. This strife also underlay the further endeavours of the Rus’ to create a large-area rule along the East European fluvial routes that would politically integrate the network of dispersed emporia. 280 281 282 283

Annales de Saint Bertin, 30–31; Shepard 1995; Schramm 2002, 179–193; Garipzanov 2006. Golden 2003. The homilies, 82, 96, 101; see Shepard 2017; Kepreotes 2014. Źródła arabskie 1, 66–81.

212

Chapter 6

The process of forming this rule, concluded with the emergence of the so-called Kievan Rus’ was connected  – like in the case of Bulgaria  – with a specific process of integration, during which the immigrant Scandinavian trader-warrior elite was entirely absorbed by the part of the autochthonic population that was dominant in terms of size. Since this majority was Slavic-speaking, the assimilation meant Slavicization. However, it was only in the 10th century that also the Slavic-speaking part of the population started moving from the denser-populated southern areas to the northern regions populated primarily by Finno-Ugrian and Baltic tribes.284 Besides, the Slavic-language settlement progressed almost exclusively down the rivers and along the routes usable for transporting boats on the land. In the 10th century, places situated far from waterways were used as settlement areas only where a particularly fertile soil could ensure good economic conditions  – as in the vicinity of Lake Ilmen, or in Vladimir-Suzdalian Rus’. For this reason, a thin network of Slavic settlements existed on the dense Finno-Ugrian and Baltic settlement territories until the 12th century or, in some areas, even longer. All the same, the Slavic-speaking people dominated this territory, whereas the Nordic trader-warriors assimilated themselves not with the Finno-Ugrian or Baltic peoples but with the Slavs. There might have been two main reasons behind it:285 first, the Slavic-speaking groups dwelling in the more densely populated areas had a stronger demographic potential, so their migrations into the northern and north-eastern parts of Eastern Europe might also have been much more intense for quite a time. Second, by the 9th and, certainly, by the 10th century they already had certain regional organizational structures that caused the Slavs to be not completely defenceless against the Rus’ from the North and placed them in a more favourable position compared to the Finno-Ugrian and Baltic groups, about which the sources convey no comparable information. The Bavarian Geographer, at the end of the 9th century, wrote of numerous large groups residing outside the territory inhabited by the West Slavic neighbours who were relatively well known to the Eastern Franks. However, this author had no exact idea of the East European populi, or the East Slavic gentes, their regiones and civitates. A lot of information he conveys about them was probably based on gossip and uncertain stories. And yet the list drawn up by him contains five names that reappear in the other sources, in a similar form.286 Three of them – namely, the Lendizi, Ultini, and Zeriuane – are 284 Udolph 1981. 285 See Goehrke 1992, 35–37. 286 Descriptio civitatum, 14; see Shchavelev 2015.

Medieval “ State-Formation ” and “ Nation-Building ”

213

mentioned in 10th-century sources, the other two – the Busani and Velunzani – appear only in the earliest Rus’ian letopis written in the early 12th century, the so-called “Tale of Bygone Years” (Povest’ vremennych let). The chronicle comprises three ‘catalogues of nations’, not completely corresponding with each other, compiled from a younger perspective and in different contexts, which mention altogether sixteen East Slavic tribes or tribal associations.287 Younger tribes were probably among them, such as the Polianians (Poljane) – situated in the vicinity of Kiev; the Polotians (Poločane), settled on the Polota River or in the vicinity of the northern West Rus’ian trade centre of Polotsk; the Slovenes (Sloveni), who had arrived to the area on Lake Ilmen; the Radimichi (Radimiči) and the Viatichi (Vjatiči), whom the chronicle connects to a separate founding legend featuring the two alleged founding fathers, Radko and Viatko, respectively. A considerable part of the tribes enumerated in the Povest’ appear, however, already in earlier sources as well. Apart from the Buzhans (Busani) and Volhynians (Velunzani) mentioned by the Bavarian Geographer, there are the Severians (Severjane), the Ulichs (Uliči), and the Lakhs (Ljachi), who were also already known to the Bavarian Geographer (as, respectively, the Zerivane, Unlici, and Lendizi), and who are mentioned around 950 also by Constantine Porphyrogenitus (as the Seberioi, Ultinoi, and Lenzaninoi).288 Apart from those, four other East Slavic tribes were known to the Byzantine emperor, of which three also appear in the Pověst’ – namely, the Krivichi (Kribitainoi/Kribitzoi – the Kriviči of the Povest’); the Dregovichi (Drugubitai  – the Dregoviči of the Povest’); the Derevlianins (Derbleninoi  – the Derevljane of the Povest’). The fourth name Berbianoi is attributable to none of the tribes appearing in the Povest’. For the remote Byzantine observer, all those tribes were but barbaric and unbaptized settlement groups whose political and social organization remained unknown. All the same, the above-mentioned sources show that in the 9th and 10th centuries, the Scandinavian Rus’ came across Slavic tribal associations, some of whom along the Volkhov, Volga, and Dnieper disposed already of consolidated regional structures. What those forms of political and social organization were like neither the written nor the archaeological sources reveal; in fact, we know no more than their names. Since the outset of the 10th century, the Slavic tribal associations were gradually integrated into the structures of the emerging Kievan Rus’. The Rus’ people, whom Constantine Porphyrogenitus unambiguously described, around 287 Povest’, 11, 23, 33; see also Lukin 2003. 288 Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De administrando imperio, 46; see Howard-Johnston 2002; Melnikova 2016; Fokt 2007.

214

Chapter 6

the middle of the 10th century, still as Scandinavians, soon absorbed the language of their Slavic surroundings. According to linguistic studies, this is attested by the fact that not more than twenty words were borrowed from Old Norse into Old Russian, with only a dozen words having been borrowed the other way round.289 At the beginning of the 10th century, the most important members of the emerging Kievan ‘state’ descended solely from Scandinavians, as is confirmed by the first Rus’ian-Byzantine commercial treaty, dated to the year 911. The treaty is only preserved in a later Slavic translation within the Povest’, but it was originally written down probably in Greek. It enumerates altogether fifteen Rus’ian witnesses, all of whom had Scandinavian names.290 They acted as envoys of a ruler referred to as a grand prince (velikij knjaz’) and other princes/dukes (knjaz’ja) and magnates (bojare), who jointly represented the Rus’ people. Whether those princes and magnates were autonomous regional rulers who only in Byzantium were represented together with the Grand Prince Oleg, who resided in Kiev, by their envoys, or whether they were governors nominated by him and dependent upon him, or members of the princely family, remains disputable among scholars. The Byzantine “Book of Ceremonies” referred to the archons of Rus’ in plural terms still in the second half of the 10th century.291 Around the same time, in the year 944, twenty-five representatives of the Rus’, mentioned in the second Rus’ian-Byzantine trade agreement, no more had solely Nordic names. Some of them, judging by their names, came rather from the Baltic, Finno-Ugrian, of Slavic environment.292 That the Slavicization was advanced at that time also in the ruling family is attested by the Slavic name of Sviatoslav I, the Kievan prince born in around 940. According to the dynastic legend recorded in the “Tale of Bygone Years” (completed 1115–16), Sviatoslav was the grandson of a man called Riurik. The latter is said to have been summoned by conflicting Slavic and Finno-Ugrian tribal associations from behind the sea – that is, from Scandinavia – so that he established order between them, “rule them and fairly judge them.” So, Riurik settled down with his kin at Novgorod; his brothers Sineus and Truvor settled with their kin in Beloozero and Izborsk. Since both died soon after that, Riurik 289 Strumiński 1996, 229–243; Sitzmann 2003, 53–55, 76–77; Bjørnflaten 2006; Mel’nikova 2014. 290 Povest’, 25–26; I Trattati dell’antica Russia; see also Hellmann 1987; Malingoudi 1994; Mel’nikova 2004; Stefanovich 2016. 291 Constantine Porphyrogennetos, The Book of Ceremonies, 595 (chap. 15). 292 Povest’, 34–35; for the dating of the treaty see Tolochko 2013.

Medieval “ State-Formation ” and “ Nation-Building ”

215

seized full power and cast the diverse strongholds with his men.293 Also in this story, the topoi are easy to recognize: the common motif of three brothers, the motif of electing a ruler or appointing an alien ruler for a quarrelling community. These elements are not to be treated literally; this is true also for the date, 862, which is given by the chronicle in reference to the story or the names of the localities where the three Nordic leaders were to establish their rule. It moreover remains an open issue whether Riurik was a historical or fictitious figure.294 In any case, his Norse name preserves the memory of the original, Scandinavian descent of the Rus’ people. Similarly, to the Přemyslid and Piast founding legends, also the Rus’ian legend primarily supported, in the late 11th/ early 12th century, the legitimization of the ruling dynasty – which nota bene was called “House of the Riurikids” only by the younger tradition. Another memory that may have been preserved by the Rus’ian foundation legend refers to the fact that the earliest Rus’ian centres of power were situated in the north and that only from there the Rus’ spread southward. The Povest’ presents this process by creating an image of the expedition performed in 882 by a warrior named Oleg/Helgi, a close associate of Riurik, and concluded with the conquest of Kiev.295 As a matter of fact the Rus’ian settlements set up at central points of the East European network of fluvial routes between the end of the 9th and the beginning of the 10th centuries gradually grew together thus enabling the emergence of a ‘Kievan state’ along the Dnieper-Volkhov line that was subordinated to one ruler. As a result, the name Rus’, which was originally used only in relation to the Scandinavian group of settlers or rather the Scandinavian-dominated association of trader-warriors, gained a broader meaning. It soon started to denote also the lands seized by the Rus’, so that Latin and Byzantine sources began to use the words Ruscia and Rosia (thus paving the way for the modern name “Russia”) to denote the Kievan realm.296 With the progressing intermingling of languages and cultures between the immigrant Scandinavian people and the native-born population, ‘Rus’’, as the name of a group of people, encompassed the autochthonic people as well. By the late 10th century, the term thus denoted the whole population under the Riurikids’ rule, together with the Balts and Finno-Ugrians. In this meaning, the term Rus’ became the initial form of the modern ethnonym ‘Russian’. 293 294 295 296

Povest’, 18–19; see Stefanovich 2012b; Pchelov 2013. Schramm 1980. Povest’, 20; for the early ‘urban’ development of Kiev see Mühle 1987; Mühle 1989b. Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De administrando imperio, 50, 52, 56; Thietmari, 64, 382, 388–389, 478, 528; see Nazarenko 2001, 11–50.

216

Chapter 6

A crucial factor to the consolidation of power and the ethnic and social integration of Rus’ was Christianization.297 As the country’s official parting with the previously propagated pagan cult, Christianization was brought about relatively late. Byzantium undertook occasional missionary attempts in those lands beginning in the 860s, without any serious consequences, however.298 In reality, Rus’ came across Christian practices through daily contacts with its Byzantine commercial partners, rather than resulting from the encounters with missionaries. Christianity was gradually adapted in the lands on the Dnieper and Volkhov in the 940s/950s. One church is evidenced for that time in the suburbium of Kiev (Podol), whereas in 944, certain representatives of the Rus’ already swore the second Rus’ian-Byzantine trade contract using Christian formulas.299 As is indicated by archaeological finds, in the mid-10th century, members of the elite were sporadically buried in skeleton graves with Christian symbols. Whether such men had been baptized and/or practiced Christian rites only, remains unclear. The personal conversion of Princess Olga, who reigned in Kiev since 945 and received baptism on occasion of her visit to Constantinople between 946 and 959, is attested with certainty, since the Byzantine emperor himself was her godfather.300 However, she returned to Kiev with no missionaries and was hesitant to propagate offensively Christianity among the Kievan elite; her own son Sviatoslav afterall was a resolute proponent of the pagan cult. When Olga finally requested for sending missionaries, she did not seek them in Constantinople but submitted her request to the Western emperor, Otto I. Not only does this fact testify to the Kievan princess’s far-sighted policy and her strife for autonomy, but also to the then-still rather unproblematic relations between the Churches of the East and the West. When Adalbert, a monk from Trier, later to become Archbishop of Magdeburg, arrived in Kiev as a missionary bishop in late 961, Sviatoslav was already in power; the new ruler ostentatiously reinforced the pagan cult. Thus, the mission came to an end before it made a genuine start. Adalbert labouredly managed to return to his country, whereas the Christians in Kiev remained a minority.301 Olga’s grandson Vladimir, who in 978–80 violently took over the Kievan throne from his 297 On the christianization in more detail HUS 12/13 (1988/89) [= Proceedings of the International Congress Commemorating the Millennium of Christianity in Rus’-Ukraine]; Petrukhin 2002. 298 Theophanis Chronographia, 342–344; Photii patriarchae, 50; see Birnbaum 1993a; Majeska 2005. 299 Povest’, 39. 300 Constantine Porphyrogennetos, The Book of Ceremonies, 594–598 (chap. 15); Pritsak 1987; Featherstone 1990; Nazarenko 2001, 219–310; Tinnefeld 2005. 301 Reginonis abbatis, 170–172; see Nazarenko 2001, 311–338; Gordyienko 2008; Poppe 2016.

Medieval “ State-Formation ” and “ Nation-Building ”

217

half-brother Iaropolk, worshipped pagan deities again. As the “Tale of Bygone Years” recounts, shortly after he seized power, he had a new cult site erected close to the Kievan court; the archaeologists believe that they have discovered its stone remains.302 Both, archaeological testimonies as well as written sources containing information on pagan practices among the inhabitants of Rus’ concern, at the earliest, the second half of the 10th century or the years of Vladimir I’s rule. Thus, they offer insight into the younger form of pagan – Nordic, Slavic, and other – cults only, which had probably yielded to Christian influence.303 Wooden idols, which Vladimir probably ordered to display and worship, not only in Kiev, represented anthropomorphized deities, evidently deliberately opposed to the monotheism of Christians, Jews, and Muslims. It was first Perun, the main god, from whom Vladimir and his retinue expected to be vested with power and strength and, thereby, a legitimization of the power they have usurped. Finally, perhaps, the military defeats suffered by Vladimir in the late 980s, during his expeditions beyond the area on the Dnieper and Volkhov, incited the desire for finding a stronger god. If the later parts of the “Tale of Bygone Years”, which no doubt glorify the ruler, are to be trusted, the question of which of the gods it should have been – the God of Jews or Muslims, or perhaps, the one of the Latin or Byzantine/Greek Christians – was systematically studied by Vladimir.304 That the Kievan ruler sought to gain a possibly broad picture, seems to be attested by an 11th-century Persian source, stating that a certain “Vladimir, king of the Rus’”, wanted to convert to Islam together with his people, and to this end, sent his envoys to the court of the Shah of Khorasan.305 Finally, in 987/8, Vladimir chose the Byzantine Church, probably because the political alliance with Emperor Basil II could bring him the largest benefit.306 The emperor was in a tough situation at that moment, due to internal conflicts, the rebellion of Bardas Phokas, and the defeats in the struggles with Samuel, the ruler of Bulgaria. Hence, the emperor requested the Kievan prince for military aid, offering him in exchange his sister Anna as his wife; Vladimir took the opportunity, with alacrity. When the princess arrived in Kiev with a throng of Byzantine priests, laden with liturgical equipment and texts, Vladimir ordered that the pagan cult sites be destroyed.

302 Povest’, 56. On Vladimir in more detail Wolle 1991; Nazarenko 2015; Tolochko 2020. 303 For the pagan cults of the Eastern Slavs see Rybakov 1987, esp. 129–174; Klein 2004; Kostjašov 2004; Kolovrat-Butenko 2016; Petrukhin/Jackson 2018. 304 Povest’, 59–74; see Nazarenko 2001, 391–434. 305 Sharaf al-Zaman Tahir Marvazi, 36. 306 On the ‘official’ baptism of the country in 987/988 in more detail Poppe 1982; Shepard 2007; Shepard 2009; Klimov 2010.

218

Chapter 6

As is vividly recounted by the “Tale of Bygone Years”: he ordered for the idols to be knocked down; some to be cut asunder, others to be thrown into fire. He ordered that Perun be tied to a horse’s tail and dragged down the hill along the Borichev to the Ruchai […] and they threw it into the Dnieper. Then, Vladimir ordered that, as a symbolic act, the people of Kiev be christened in the Dnieper, and had [Orthodox] churches built, placing them where idols had stood. And he built a church of St Basil on the hill where the idol of Perun had been standing, and other idols, where the ruler and people were making their offerings. And so, they began to erect churches in the strongholds, and establish priests, and bring people to christening, in all the strongholds and hamlets.307 4.2 Church, Dynasty, and the Emergence of a Rus’ian Identity The moment Vladimir I died in 1015, Kievan Rus’ was an extended, relatively strong principality, recognized by its neighbours.308 All the same, it cannot be named a homogeneous formation. The society was heterogeneous and ethnically mixed. Consequently, in line with the Rus’ian common law (Pravda Russkaja), codified between the 1020s and 1050s, the weregild (‘blood money’) was of equal amount for all the free men, but the law still differentiated between men of Rus’ian-Scandinavian origin or those from the vicinity of Kiev (русин), and Slavic-speaking men coming from Novgorod and thereabouts (словенин) and men of Finno-Ugrian descent (изъгои).309 In territorial terms, the regional and local communities concentrated along the axis of Volkhov-Dnieper and their tributaries formed a loose and rather symbolic political association. They normally were highly self-reliant and autonomous. The only binding factor that united them into one polity was the dynasty, which operated mostly as a sporadic and ‘spot’ binder, rather than fixed and working across the area. The princes of the Riurikid lineage were uniting regions and their people not only based on their charismatic secular authority but also as the main defenders and guardians of the true Christian faith. Christianity had 307 Both quotations Povest’, 80–81; see Ostrowski 2006; Ostrowski 2011. 308 On princely power during the reign of Vladimir I and Iaroslav I in more detail Hanak 2014. 309 Pravda russkaja, 397 (§ 1); for the meaning of the term „slovenin” (словенин) used in this paragraph and denoting the Slavic speaking Novgorodian see Schmidt 1964, 351–353, 504.

Medieval “ State-Formation ” and “ Nation-Building ”

219

formed the demanded beginning of a discourse as part of which a certain identity could be offered to the population and an attempt made at creating lasting ties. The diversity of pagan cults was replaced by the unity of the new spiritual authority. As a result, the ruler’s prestige and the legitimacy of his authority and power were enhanced. But there was more to it, as the new religion and its gradually forming structures accelerated the cultural and social integration as well. Both these aspects ensured the Rus’ in the 11th century a position in a broader, universal context, while also giving it a singular identity.310 The adoption of Christianity via Constantinople had long-term effects. It brought the Kievan Rus’ closer to Byzantium and bound its population to the Eastern Orthodox Church for good. Both these factors lastingly impacted the politics and culture of the Eastern Slavs. Of enormous importance was the fact that Byzantine Christian texts had been made available in the Church Slavonic language created by Constantine, Methodius, and their disciples. This was primarily brought about by intermediation of South Slavic clergymen who, arriving in the land on the Dnieper under the aegis of the Byzantine Church, brought with them Slavonic manuscripts drawn up in Bulgaria.311 By the end of the 10th century, Slavic became the main language of the political and economic elite of Rus’. The rulers used it in the late 10th and early 11th century in Slavic-language inscriptions on coins, however the princely seals in the 11th and 12th centuries still featured Greek legends.312 The Christianization caused that Old Church Slavonic ultimately became the recognized language of the elites and the Church in Rus’. Given the Greek-speaking Byzantine ecclesiastical hierarchy this was not an obvious thing. In the end, however, there was no realistic basis for a lasting application of Greek in the Rus’ian Church.313 Thus, also on the Dnieper, similar to Bulgaria and Serbia, a specific bilinguality developed, where the artificially created and imported language came into contacts with the natural vernacular language of the broad masses; the latter did understand this literary language, though certainly not in all its theological or philosophical nuances.314 The coexistence of a high and a common popular language contributed to the enrichment and diversification of Old Church Slavonic and enabled communication between the elite and the Slavic-speaking majority of the Rus’ian people; this latter factor served as an integrative function as well. 310 See Franklin 2004, 95, who assumes that Vladimir had the explicit intention to establish “a sense of nation.” 311 Freydank 1983; Thomson 1999. 312 Franklin 2002, 51–52, 121–122, 124; for the seals see Janin 1970, esp. 14–33. 313 Franklin 1992b. 314 Lunt 1985.

220

Chapter 6

The linguistic proximity of the Church to common people doubtlessly contributed to the latter’s identification with the political interests of the ruling dynasty. On the other hand, the ecclesiastical hierarchy was more strictly associated, in both mental and material aspects, with the ruler and the political authority, compared to the Latin Church. The Byzantine/Eastern ecclesial understanding of religiosity and the Church was oriented toward cooperation (symphonia) between the Church and the ruler, compared to the Latin concept. Therefore, the Orthodox hierarchy in Rus’ developed no ambition to co-influence the secular domains of life through its own political structures; instead, the hierarchs limited themselves to thoughtfully accompany the ruler with pious admonitions, advice, and commendations. The clergymen who pursued literary activities, who also in Rus’ held the monopoly on book-based knowledge, thereby largely contributed to the formation of a Rus’ian identity.315 The earliest surviving example is the “Sermon on Law and Grace” (Slovo o zakone i blagodati) by Metropolitan Ilarion,316 written between 1047 and 1050 at the court of Iaroslav, Grand Prince of Kiev, who particularly intensely speeded up the process of determining the cultural and historical identity. Ruling in Kiev since 1036, Iaroslav supported the spread of Greek education; the “Tale of Bygone Years” praised him as he “buckled down to books, and frequently read them in the night and during the day. And, he gathered multiple scribes, and they translated [the books] from the Greeks into the Slavonic script”, so he “sew with the words of books the hearts of faithful people.”317 In parallel, Iaroslav implemented in Kiev a monumental building programme, whose masterpiece was the Cathedral of St Sophia, erected in the centre of the city’s new, sixty-hectare-large area, surrounded with powerful fortifications of timber and earth. The cathedral became the largest stone structure in medieval Rus’. Around it, more stone churches and palaces were built. All were modelled after Constantinopolitan models, since the centre of Rus’ was to become through deliberate similarity to the Byzantine capital a ‘new Constantinople’. In this way, the contemporaries could be shown the superior position of Kiev in Rus’ as well as the Rus’ian capital’s independence from, if not equality to, Byzantium.318 Ilarion’s “Sermon on Law and Grace” had a similar purpose. It was meant to praise Divine Providence for the salvation of people and explain how the 315 See Vediushkina 1995; Vediushkina 2008, 282–293. 316 Philipp 1967; Ickler 1978; Hurwitz 1980; Podskalsky 1982, 84–88; Avenarius 1988/89; Sermons and Rhetoric, XVI–XLIV; Dykstra 2000; Kroczak 2016. 317 Povest’, 102. 318 Philipp 1983; Mühle 1998, 345–346; Sermons and Rhetoric, XVIII, XXV; Simmons 2016.

Medieval “ State-Formation ” and “ Nation-Building ”

221

Christian truth (the New-Testament grace) replaced the Jewish truth (the Old-Testament law). Primarily, however, it was meant to demonstrate how, thanks to Vladimir I’s action, the Christian faith reached Rus’, so that, despite its pagan past and late conversion, the “Rus’ian nation”, and/or the “Rus’ian language” (ѩзыкъ роускъ), finally attained complete participation in the Divine salvation plan. To this end, Ilarion – who in 1051 became the first indigenous, non-Greek, metropolitan of Rus’ – along with praising Vladimir the Christian as a “teacher and preceptor” and emphasizing his similarity to Constantine the Great, would not hide the unbaptized Vladimir. On the contrary: he commended him as the “great kagan of our country.” Ilarion referred also to the time of the pagan rule of Igor and Sviatoslav, who wielded power, “not in a small and unknown country but in Rus’, which was heard of in all the ends of the world.” Vladimir, the descendant of those “famous” and “noble” rulers, “the only ruler of his country” (единдержець земли своеи), subdued all the surrounding lands and, finally – enlightened by God, and impressed by the “faith of the Greek land” – resolved to “convert all his country to Christianity.” In this way, Rus’  – as the listeners were probably to understand it (along with the few readers who might have seen the text in the 11th or 12th century) – was made part of the divine history of salvation as well as of the earthly history of the world. This is how Rus’ found its identity. At the end of the sermon, Ilarion praises Vladimir, son of Iaroslav, for having “preserved the faith and enriched himself with good deeds”, and “impeccably led his people (люди), entrusted to him by God.”319 This elegant, stylistically refined treatise already contained all the essential elements that defined the high medieval identity of Rus’ and were supposed to form the country over the centuries: the concept of constituting an independent part of the Christian order of the world; cherishing the memory of the energetic and militant dynasty; and recognition of the sacral legitimation of the princely power. The space where this power was wielded was Rus’ – and Ilarion contributes nothing new at this point, compared to the Greek and Latin sources. However, by naming it, several times, “our Rus’ian land” or “our land”, he describes the land emphatically – as something ‘own’, as an identity-granting territory. Those who found their identity in that land, thanks to the Church and the dynasty, formed the “Rus’ian people”, or just the “people”, and thus were depicted as a self-assured community, even though the biblical notion of ‘God’s people’ quite clearly reverberates in both terms. Hence, the “Sermon on Law and Grace” forms the first coherent narrative based on which the Rus’ian 319 Pervaja redakcija, quotations: 78, 91–92, 96, 100; see also Die Werke des Metropoliten Ilarion, 22, 41–42, 47, 52–53; Sermons and Rhetoric, 3, 14, 17–19, 23, 26.

222

Chapter 6

elites could position themselves in the world and comprehend themselves as an independent community. In the first period, the strong orientation toward the world of Orthodox Greek spirituality did not contribute to the community’s separation from the rest of Europe, or to its isolation from Western influence. At least until the middle of the 12th century, Kievan Rus’ maintained vivid political, economic, and religious contacts with Central, Western, and Northern Europe. Those strict bonds manifested themselves in numerous dynastic marriages concluded by the Riurikids with representatives of European houses; no special liking for marrying members of Slavic-speaking ruling dynasties is identifiable. The idea of a special bond linking the Slavs evidently had no special role in the Riurikids’ matrimonial policy. It is true that they entered marriages with members of the Piast or Přemyslid houses, clearly preferring, however, the houses ruling in Scandinavia, France, Hungary, or the German Empire. Iaroslav the Wise himself married his three daughters off to the kings of France, Norway, and Hungary, in the middle of the 11th century. Altogether, three-fourths of the fifty-two dynastic marriages entered by the Riurikids between the mid-10th and the mid-12th century were concluded with members of Western ruling houses.320 Such deliberate marriages, contracted on a win-win basis, made the Rus’ part of an extensive network of political connections. They show that the Riurikids not only felt that their realm was a part of the Byzantine Commonwealth, but they also perceived themselves as an obvious part of the Byzantine world – and so they were perceived from the outside. 4.3 The Rus’ian Making of a Slavic Community After the year 1054, the internal unity of the Riurikid realm, which had been put into practice by Iaroslav the Wise, soon decomposed resulting from conflicts between his sons, uncles, and nephews. Indeed, Iaroslav had issued a succession edict meant – as similar decrees issued by Břetislav I in Bohemia (1055) and Bolesław III in Poland (1138) – to prevent such developments. However, the so-called “Iaroslav-Statute” rendered the succession an even more complicated issue. The senior sitting on the Kievan throne was afforded the superior power and authority, the right to take the throne being reserved for the eldest living male Riurikid. In addition, all the other regional centres were hierarchized by order of inheritance.321 As a result, not only the individual members of the dynasty soon made claims for the grand prince’s throne, willing 320 Raffensperger 2012, 47–114; Raffensperger 2016; Dąbrowski 2015. 321 Dimnik 1987; Toločko 2002.

Medieval “ State-Formation ” and “ Nation-Building ”

223

to seize it as soon as practicable; moreover, in case of the death of any of the lower-ranking princes, rotation from one princely throne to another, the subsequent in rank, followed. Such a conduct was destabilizing to the situation in the country, and soon required counteraction. At the same time the small group of clergymen who since the mid-11th century endeavoured to pursue a coherent identity narrative approached the situation as a challenge that intensified their efforts in the field of historical policy. The basic work that reflected these actions was the repeatedly quoted “Tale of Bygone Years”, whose final version was redacted in 1116 by a monk of the Kievan Cave Monastery. The idea behind the project was to merge into one, new and coherent, whole all the written and oral stories told until then with a view of shaping identity and legitimize power and authority, thereby giving a new foundation for the idea of unity of the realm subjected to the rule of the Kievan grand prince. For this purpose, the chronicle was first to tell a story about the first years of the Riurikids’ rule, and to describe the “bygone years regarding the origin of the land of Rus’, the first princes of Kiev, and from what source the land of Rus’ had its beginning.”322 For the chronicle’s earlier version, the so-called Nachal’nyi svod, written down in the 1090s, the question of the origin of the Rus’ was of no relevance yet. If the reconstructed version of Nachal’nyi svod is to be trusted, its anonymous author satisfied himself with a story of the princes and land of Rus’.323 Similar to Ilarion in his “Sermon on Law and Grace” and, later on, also Gallus Anonymus and Cosmas of Prague, he sought the beginnings of his people’s history exclusively in his own country and in the direct, legendary predecessors of the Riurikids  – specifically, the Varangians who had arrived from Scandinavia, and the local brothers called Kii, Shchek, and Khoryv, who are regarded to have been the founders of Kiev. The “Tale of Bygone Years” (Povest’), however, proposed a new, different approach. Albeit it adopted the older stories from Načal’nyj svod, it complemented them by embedding the Rus’ian history in the (biblical) universal

322 Thus reads the title of the chronicle; Povest’, 9. The English quotation form The Russian Primary Chronicle, 51. For the source see from the rich literature only Ostrowski 1981; Podskalsky 1982, 202–215; Tschekova 2002; Rukavishnikov 2003; Danilevsky 2007; Melnikova 2013, 318–330. 323 For the reconstruction of the Nachal’nyi svod on the basis of the First Novgorodian Chronicle see Shakhmatov 1947; Likhachev 1947, 35–41; Tvorogov 1976; Danilevskii 2004, 77–79.

224

Chapter 6

history;324 by referring to the Holy Scripture, it situated the origins of the local history in a broader biblical/universal-historical context. These origins did not reach back to Adam and Eve, however, since the Povest’ begins its narrative only with the Flood and the division of the land amongst Noah’s sons. In doing so, it drew its inspiration from a Byzantine model: “The Chronicle of Georgios Hamartolos”, available at the time in Kiev in a Slavonic translation.325 The description of the lands bestowed to the sons of Noah, taken over from Hamartolos, mostly in its literal wording, comprises an extensive list of names of countries; for a more precise geographical delineation of their respective shares, it adds the names of islands, rivers, parts of seas, and mountains. No ethnonyms are specified for Shem and Ham; the description of Japheth’s share, who “was allotted the northern and western sections”, first gives a long list of geographical names only. This list mentions “the Slavs” (Словѣне), which does not appear in the Byzantine text of Harmatalos,326 in an interesting place – after Arcadia, Epirus, and Illyria, enumerated by Hamartolos, and before the mysterious lands, whose names are also mentioned by the Byzantine chronicler: “Lychnitis and Adriaca, from which the Adriatic Sea is named.”327 Thereby, the Kievan chronicler situated the Slavs in the Balkans, in line with the history of migrations he later quotes. The later part of the description of Japheth’s share (taken over literally from Hamartolos, again) enumerates the islands (from Britannia through to Sicily and various Greek islands) and informs that some of the lands of Japheth reached as far as Asia (extending from Ionia to Tigris). It is only in the subsequent description of Eastern Europe that the Povest’ diverts from its Byzantine original and, using the appropriate names of rivers, describes the European East on its own, starting from the Black Sea and the Caucasus. Now, rather than regions or countries, it names the particular ‘nations’/languages ( jazyci). No “Slavs” appear there at this point. In the first place, the Povest’ mentions the Rus’ people; then, several Finno-Ugrian and Baltic groups: Chud, and all the gentiles: Meria, Muroma, Ves’, Mordva, Chud’ beyond the portages. Perm’, Pechera, Yam’, Ugra, Litva, Zimegola, Kors’, Let’gola, and Livs, as well as the Prussians and Lyakhs. The latter are situated by the

324 Petrukhin 1995, 17–25; Vediushkina 1993; Vediushkina 2003; Danilevskii 2004, 147–149, 233–254; Tolochko 2008, 177–183; Tolochko 2011; Shaikin 2011, 281–286; Filjuškin 2017. 325 See Vilkul 2007b; Vilkul 2014. 326 Knigy vremen’nyia i obraznyia Georgiia Mnicha, 59; Knigi vremennye i obraznye Georgiia Monacha, 106. 327 Povest’, 9–11; this and the following English quotations from The Russian Primary Chronicle, 51–53.

Medieval “ State-Formation ” and “ Nation-Building ”

225

chronicler, along with the Chud and the Prussians, on the Baltic Sea (“on the Varangian Sea”) and probably meant the Poles. The description ends with the remark that on the eastern coast of the Baltic Sea, “as far as the portion of Shem,” and in the west, “as far as the land of the English and the French”, there lived the Varangians; apart from them, Japheth’s lineage included “the Swedes, the Normans, the Gothlanders, the Russes, the English, the Spaniards, the Italians, the Romans, the Germans, the French, the Venetians, the Genoese, and so on.” Although the Scandinavian Rus’ people occupy in this geographical division a rather prominent place in Eastern Europe, “Slavs” are only mentioned in passing. In this way, the chronicler considered the fact – well known to him, as is attested by the legend of the appointment of the Varangians Riurik, Truvor, and Sineus, which he later quotes – that the origins of the Kievan Rus’ were shaped by Scandinavian-Rus’ian trader-warriors. Their presence and activity in Eastern Europe formed the basic source out of which the then-current Riurikids’ rule stemmed. The other, secondary, source was the indigenous Slavic-speaking population with which the Scandinavian Rus’ soon blended, whose language they absorbed, and with which they jointly impersonated the Rus’ of the 11th and early 12th centuries. In this sense, the chronicler was aware that, after the Rus’ people, also the “Slavs” had to be afforded a worthy place in the biblical proto-history. The author is consistent in this respect in the subsequent section of the biblical story, as he clearly mentions “Slavs” at the end of the story of the destruction of Tower of Babel and the confusion of the peoples/tongues. One of the seventy-two jazyci (the word ѩзыкъ could refer to ‘tongue’/’language’ as well as to ‘people’) into which mankind had split was a “Slavic language/people” (ѩзыкъ словѣнескъ) – namely, the Noricans, “who are identical with the Slavs.” Thus, also in this case, the chronicler situates the “Slavs” south of the Danube – this time, in the Roman province of Noricum. They had reportedly settled there in days of yore, “besides the Danube, where the Hungarian and Bulgarian lands now lie.” To integrate the Slavic-speaking people of Rus’ into Rus’ian history as the second element constituting the Riurikids’ rule in the 11th and 12th centuries, the chronicler had to invent a specific history of migrations, which would have given grounds for the transfer from the area on the Danube toward the Dnieper – or, toward Eastern Europe. To this end, he duplicated the biblical model cited in the chronicle, and told a specific Slavic/Eastern European version of the story of the confusion of the people/languages, whereby the “Slavs” were persecuted on the Danube by the mysterious Vlachians (Volochy). Because of that, the “Slavs” left their Pannonian settlement area and

226

Chapter 6

scattered throughout the country and were known by appropriate names, according to the places where they settled. Thus, some came and settled by the river Morava, and were named Moravians, while others were called Czechs. Among these same Slavs are included the White Croats, the Serbs, the Carantanians. As the Povest’ continues, the others made their homes by the Vistula and were then calles Lyakhs. Of these Lyakhs some were called Polyanians, some Lutichians, some Mazovians, and still others Pomorians. Certain Slavs settled also on the Dnieper and were likewise called Polyanians]. Still others were named Derevlians because they lived in the forests. Some also lived between the Pripet’ and the Dvina and were known as Dregovichians. Other tribes resided along the Dvina and were called Polotians on account of a small stream called the Polota, which flows into the Dvina. It was from this same stream that they were calles Polotians. The Slavs also dwelt about Lake Il’men’ and were known there by their characteristic name. They built a city which they called Novgorod. still others had their homes along the Desna, the Sem’, and the Sula, and were called Severians. Thus, the Slavic people/language was divided, and its language was known as Slavic.328 This impressive picture was primarily meant to demonstrate that the Slavicspeaking settlement groups that were called by the chronicler tribes (plemena), fully in line with the biblical understanding of the term, reached the most distant corners of Rus’, where they were intermingled with the Scandinavian Rus’, and with Finno-Ugrian and Baltic groups of people, and soon could form a Slavic-speaking nation. In the chronological part of the Povest’, the story repeats, in an abridged version, when it comes to the year 6406 (i.e., 898): There was at the time but one Slavic people/language including the Slavs who settled along the Danube and were subjected by the Hungarians, as well as the Moravians, the Czechs, the Lyakhs, and the Polyanians, the last of whom are now called Rus’. It was for them, for the Moravians, that the books were at first translated, [books] which have been called the ‘Slavic script’, which is also used in Rus’ and among the Danubian Bulgarians.329 328 English quotation from The Russian Primary Chronicle, 53 (though the term “race” used there has been changed into “people/language”). 329 Povest’, 21; see The Russian Primary Chronicle, 62.

Medieval “ State-Formation ” and “ Nation-Building ”

227

This variant makes more clearly visible the identity- and legitimization-related function of the story: it unambiguously links the Slavonic language/Slavic people ( jazykь slověnecь) with the Rus’, on the one hand, and with the Holy Scripture, on the other hand. The above-quoted excerpts can be even more clearly presented as follows: the Scripture was first translated for the Rus’ people, which was done in Moravia; hence, it is referred to as the ‘Slavonic script’ and it is binding in the Rus’ and among the Danube Bulgarians. Thus, the “Slavonic language” or ‘Slavicicty’ is clearly associated with the CyrilloMethodian tradition. This association is emphasized by the chronicler through the subsequent description of Ss. Cyril/Constantine and Methodius’s missionary and language-formation work. In this way, the chronicler also reveals what sources  – apart from the Bible and the relevant Byzantine sources, such as the Hamartolos chronicle – he had used for this work. Evidently, the Povest’ made use of information that reached Kiev in the 10th and 11th centuries from Bulgaria, i.a. in the form of one or more Lifes dedicated to the Byzantine missionaries which conveyed a fairly good idea about the Cyrillo-Methodian work.330 In the description of the events of the year 898, the Pověst’ enriches the Rus’ people’s associations with the original Pannonian homeland of the “Slavs” with one more significant element. By naming Bishop Methodius the successor of Andronicus, who was a disciple of Apostle Paul, and explaining in addition that apart from Andronicus St Paul had also once reached as far as Illyricum and Moravia in order to teach there. The story shows the Apostles as the teachers of a “Slavic people”, which had originally settled down in Pannonia. The chronicler immediately adds that from there we Rus’ians too are sprung; even so the Apostle Paul is the teacher of us Rus’ians, for he preached the Slavic people, and appointed Andronicus as Bishop and successor to himself among them. But the Slavs and the Rus’ians are one people, for it is because of the Varangians that the latter became known as Rus’, though originally, they were Slavs. While some Slavs were termed Polyanians, their speech was still Slavic, for they were known as Polyanians because they lived in the fields. But they had the same Slavic language.331

330 See Franklin 2002, 199–201, 275. 331 Povest’, 23; English quotation from The Russian Primary Chronicle, 63 (though “Russians” changed into “Rus’ians” and “nation” into “people”).

228

Chapter 6

At this point, the purpose of the whole construction becomes finally clear: it was meant to explain how the two constitutive elements of the Kievan Rus’, the Scandinavian Rus’, and the Slavic-speaking indigenous population, came to be merged into one political community. This, however, did not exhaust the historical and political impact of the proposed construction. The legend of a common biblical descent of the Slavs, of their original native land in Pannonia, and their migration from there to the Eastern European areas where they finally settled down, could have had yet another effect: it would directly link the early-12th-century Rus’ and the Riurikid rule contemporary to the author with the Acts of the Apostles, the history of the Cyrillo-Methodian mission, and the history of the older Christian states – those of the Bulgarians and the Moravians. This allowed demonstrating that the Rus’ian land and its dynasty in power were the primaeval participants of the Christian History of Salvation, and that the then-present country ruled by the Grand Kievan Prince Vladimir II Monomakh (1113–25) was a power equivalent to the other leading European Christian empires. Vladimir indeed succeed in reuniting and reinforcing the Kievan Grand Principality, thus implementing once again the idea of unity – an idea to which he gave rhetoric expression, too, in his so-called Poučenie.332 The construct of a primaeval Slavic community, presented in the initial parts of the Povest’, might have seemed useful in certain other respects as well. Given the vast area concerned – highly diversified regionally, politically, and ethnically – over which the Grand Prince endeavoured to reign and be in control of, the Slavic Idea the chronicle invented could serve as a welcome mental brace that helped to hold together the parts of the country that were striving to separate themselves through fratricidal combats. The story could also help to evoke, once again, an all-Rus’ian identity. That in his attempt to create such a construction, the chronicler would have referred to an orally conveyed memory of the actual migration processes of Slavic-speaking tribal associations,333 seems no less improbable than the assumption that the (hi)story he drew a picture of was meant to express an all-Slavic identity. At the utmost, it was an expression of the awareness of linguistic and cultural ties, anchored in the Cyrillo-Methodian tradition, which had travelled all the way from Bulgaria to the Dnieper and Lake Ilmen. The legend of the origins 332 This impressive testimony of an early East Slavic non-religious literacy has been preserved only by the Povest’, 153–167; on the work in more detail Podskalsky 1982, 216–218; on Vladimir Monomakh in more detail Dimnik 2016, 56–68; Obolensky 1988, 83–114. 333 For the controversial question whether/to what extent the author has relied on oral and/or written sources see Danilevskii 2004, 86–88.

Medieval “ State-Formation ” and “ Nation-Building ”

229

and migration of the Rus’ and the “Slavs”, presented in the Povest’, was probably a learned fiction, inspired by biblical images; after all, numerous biblical variants of such an origo gentis story can be met in several other places.334 The relevant biblical inspiration already had underlain those speculations on an alleged primordial homeland of the Slavs or their primaeval community, which were contained in individual early medieval sources – such as in the work of the Gothic-Byzantine historiographer Jordanes (6th century), the Ravenna Cosmographer (8th c.), the Bavarian Geographer (9th c.), the Arabian scholar al-Masʿūdī, and the Byzantine emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (10th c.). 4.4 Provincial Principalities and Regional Identities In the end, the endeavour of the Povest’ in the realm of historical policy did not attain the intended effect. The intra-dynastic disputes, the disintegration of the Kievan realm caused by them, and the lability of any idea of unity continued to shape the political life. The problems did not diminish when, in response to the rotation in succession, the provincial princes began to solicit the restriction of their right to succession in the area under their rule to their own respective lineages. This led to a gradual formation of independent lordships or principalities, with mutually separate dynastic branches within them. In the early 13th century, they primarily included, apart from Kiev, the Principalities of Novgorod (including the city of Pskov), of Polotsk, of Smolensk, of Vladimir-Suzdal’, the Principalities of Riazan, Chernigov, Pereiaslav, and Halych-and-Volhynia. Yet even those ‘lands’ (zemli) were subject to further divisions implied by the rules of inheritance.335 Administering the Kievan Grand Principality and maintaining its unity was hindered not only by the centrifugal forces of the Riurikid rotations among the rulers and by the provincial fragmentation, but also by the enormous area of the country. The princely rule only covered, with a rather evenly distributed but mostly symbolic range, the communities inhabiting the areas along the main trade routes. At the bottom, hardly anyone, let alone the ruler’s representatives, would reach the remote forest areas and to the far north/north-east; in such regions, the ruler would have, at best, been represented from time to time by tribute collectors. Added to this picture must be the external threats. In as early as the second half of the 11th century, the Rus’ had to face the danger threatening it from the Polovtsy arriving from the Asian steppes. The attacks of 334 See Borst 1957/1959, vol. 1, 317–320; vol. 2, 700–703; Angenendt 1994, 38–43; Plassmann 2006, 11–27. 335 Hellmann 1968, 278–282; Kuchkin 2019.

230

Chapter 6

the nomads caused a long-lasting shift of the balance points of the settlement action and of the political centre from the south toward the north-east. What is more, the invasions of the Mongols that followed in the years 1237–40 brought along the collapse of the Grand Principality of Kiev, whose capital on the central Dnieper lost in importance already in the second half of the 12th century, compared to the new centres of the East Slavic princely authority that began to gradually strengthen and expand in Vladimir-Suzdalian Rus’. The regionalization of the Kievan Rus’ and the “system of solidifying local structures of power”336 typical of the process now only occasionally and transitorily created the space for the idea of the realm’s unity, if such an idea was at all still systematically represented in the later decades of the 12th century in the circles of the Rus’ian elite. The provincial particularism was finally taking the upper hand.337 Moreover, the secular magnates, the boyars, who in the 11th century began to transform from members of the prince’s mobile retinue into a settled nobility equipped with landed property, developed a regional awareness;338 they had their residences primarily in the municipal centres of the respective principalities. The latter, in turn, could not form, in practice, their own urban awareness, which, in its own specific way, could have become the carrier of an all-Rus’ian ‘national’ awareness. The independence of the principality of Novgorod, being an autonomous urban republic with a vast territory of his own and a unique municipal representative body, the veče, remained an isolated case.339 Hence, the medieval awareness of community in Kievan Rus’ remained a regionalized awareness, in spite of the historical policy pursued through the way the Povest’ was constructed, and despite the fact that this construction was used by all the younger, regional follow-ups of the chronicle.340 This awareness was strictly related to individual cities, or to the principalities centered on those cities. The politically aware elites dwelling in them described themselves, respectively, as Novgorodians (Новгородци), Pskovians (Псковичи), Pereiaslavians (Переяславцы), Polotians (Полочане), Smolianians (Смол­ нянe), Chernigovians (Чрниговцы), or Kievians (Киевляне)341 – regarding the residents of other Rus’ian cities and territories as ‘aliens’ or ‘the others’. 336 Rüß 1981, 347. 337 Kollman 1990; Dimnik 2016, 151–170, 196–205, 306–323. 338 Rüß 1994, 95–106; Stefanovich 2012a, 363–552. For the problem of the formation of a ‘national’ self-awareness see also Alexandrowicz 1990. 339 Zernack 1967, 29–174; Vilkul 2007a, 217–313; Marturano 2009; Lukin 2014. 340 Vilkul 2003. 341 Russian chronicles and narrative texts of the 12th–14th century are full of examples of this use of language so that there is no need for itemized proofs here.

Medieval “ State-Formation ” and “ Nation-Building ”

231

Neither the fact that the Riurikid dynasty, whose legitimate authority was never called into doubt, was a brace fastening together all the principalities, nor the fact that the Old Eastern Slavic language was comprehensible to all the inhabitants, encouraged the elites to develop a supra-regional medieval ‘national’ awareness.342 If those elites at times crossed the limits of regional identities and considered themselves to be a part of “the whole of Rus’” and the inhabitants of “the Rus’ian land” (or, such understanding was persuaded to them by the Church elites), this sense of community had no secular-political substrate but rather, an ecclesial-religious one. Apart from the Riurik dynasty, the specific form of the Orthodox faith was the factor that integrated the dwellers of Rus’ in the 12th and 13th centuries, while at the same time separating them from their neighbours.343 Members of this community described themselves as “Slavs” in the purely linguistic sense, at best. It was so obvious for them that, except for the one-off attempt at instrumentalization of the Slavic Idea in the Povest’, no 12th- or 13th-century Rus’ian source refers to the dwellers of Rus’ as “Slavs”, nor does it give any evidence that they might have had a sense of belonging to a community of all the Slavs.344 On the contrary, the interesting observation that some Old Eastern Slavic/Old Church Slavonic manuscripts of the New Testament, dated to the 12th /13th century, in St Paul’s Letter to the Colossians, used the word “Slav” (Словѣниъ) in lieu of the Greek word ‘Scythian’ (Σκύϑης), demonstrates that for the Rus’ian translator the term “Slav” already at that time served as a cipher naming the other, alien, and pagan.345 5

Poland

5.1 Beginnings and Formation of Piast Rule The Poles appear in the sources only in the second half of the 10th century, albeit not named as such yet.346 To the chronicler Widukind of Corvey, they were known, around 970 only as “Slavs called the Licicaviki” (Sclavi qui dicuntur 342 Mühle 1991, 300–304; Franklin 1992a. 343 See Reisman 1987, 1, 88, 103–105, 115, 127–128, 140–146, 157. 344 See Slovar’ russkogo iazyka XI–XVII vv., 94–95 and the texts in Pamjatniki literatury Drevnej Rusi. XII vek; Pamjatniki literatury Drevnej Rusi. XIII vek. 345 Dujčev 1960a; Mareš 1960; Mareš 1984–85. St Paul’s letter to the Colossians (3,11) reads: “Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.” 346 For a general overview on medieval Poland see Wyrozumski 1999; Szczur 2002; Mühle 2011; Jurek/Kizik 2013, 40–274.

232

Chapter 6

Licicaviki). From his Saxon perspective, he included them amongst “the barbarians living somewhat more far away,” for they dwelled outside the territory inhabited by the Polabian Slavs, who had long been well known to the Saxon elites. Saxon margraves had been trying for years to cope with them. Until the mid-960s, they had apparently never met any Slavic-speaking group of people residing east of the Oder River. It was only the Saxon rebel Wichmann the Younger, who in 963 found shelter in the territory of the Redarians, a Polabian Slavic tribe, set off from there to “frequent expeditions” against them. As we can read in Widukind, he twice defeated the chieftain of the Licicaviki, whose name was Misaca. In spite of his defeat, the latter already appears as a ruler disposing of some power (potestas), so that Widukind even named him rex.347 Also Ibrāhīm ibn Yaʿkūb, who somewhat later (ca. 965) stayed at the court of Emperor Otto I in Magdeburg as an envoy of the caliph of Cordoba, described Mieszko (Meško/Mashaqqah) as a potent “king of the North” whose “country […] is the largest one among the countries [of the Ṣaqāliba/Slavs].”348 The appearance of Mieszko and his retinue was preceded in the territory east of the Oder by an accumulation of power, the process that is not clearly recorded in the existing written sources. The circumstances in which Mieszko’s dynasty acquired the ducal dignity (ducatus honor acciderit) seemed mysterious already to the first chronicler of Polish history. This mystery has not been satisfactorily solved by the scholars to this day.349 The anonymous Romance monk who in the 12th century, at Bolesław III’s court, researched into the origins of the Polish ducal house (and who is known since the 16th century as Gallus Anonymus), helped himself by referring to a legend.350 Writing on the duke’s commission, he could not, and was not willing to, present a faithful reconstruction of the beginnings of the Polish realm. What he was interested in was first and foremost a spiritual and ideological justification of the Piasts’ authority and rule. Therefore, he described the origins of the Polish monarchy in terms of a dynastic legend, which was like the one written at the same time by Cosmas of Prague.351 347 Widukindi monachi, 141 (III, 66); see Schröder 1977, 21–32; Pleszczyński 2008, 13–74. 348 Relacja Ibrāhīma, 48, 50; English quotation from Mishin 1996, 184, 187. 349 From the abundant literature dealing with the problem mainly from the perspective of archaeology see e.g., the contributions in Polska na przełomie I i II tysiąclecia and Kurnatowska 2002; Kurnatowska 2003b; Kara 2009; Sikorski 2011; Sikorski 2014; Urbańczyk 2015; Buko 2021. 350 Galli anonymi cronicae, 9–13; for the chronicler and his work see only the recent contributions in the collective volumes Gallus Anonymus and his Chronicle; Stilo et animo; Nobis operique favete and Mühle 2009; Mühle 2012a. 351 See Plassmann 2006, 292–321, 356–358.

Medieval “ State-Formation ” and “ Nation-Building ”

233

Gallus’s story also made use of widespread, particularly, biblical narrative patterns and described in simple and expressive images the loss of power by a duke called Popiel (Popel), an inhospitable man who was therefore deserted by the Divine Providence, and the transfer of power to the descendants of a simple farmer named Piast (Pazt/Past). The hospitability with which Piast received two strangers rejected earlier by Popiel was rewarded not only with a miraculous multiplication of beverages and foods but also with an augury of the future of his son, whom those arrivals  – easily recognisable as God’s messengers – “in presage of the future named Siemowit (Semouith).” Siemowit, Gallus continues, was thereafter predestined by “the King of Kings and Duke of Dukes” to be a “duke of Poland”, whereas “he had rid the kingdom once and for all of Popiel and all his progeny.”352 With Siemowit, the son of Piast and great grandfather of Mieszko, the legitimate and therefore continuous power of the lineage of the Piasts took its beginnings. Already the telling names – Semouith/Siemowit (= ‘lord of the community’), Lestik/Leszek (= ‘the smart, clever one’), and Semimizl/Siemomysł (= ‘the one caring about the community’), point to Mieszko’s predecessors having been typical heroes of a founding myth, rather than historical figures.353 On the other hand, Mieszko, who died as a senex, which suggests that he was probably born between 930 and 945, could not have created his potestas in the 960s out of nothing. Rather than that, he probably referred to his predecessors, whose participation in the formation of a centralized dynastic power at the Piast court certainly was reminded, perhaps, in a schematic fashion. Making Gniezno the site of the legend – a locality whose etymology Gallus derives from the Slavic word gniazdo (= ‘nest’), thereby styling the place as the birthplace of the Piast realm, may reflect historical knowledge. Archaeological research has meanwhile found that the centre of early Piast rule was situated probably in the Gniezno Height.354 The topos of a tragic and cruel end of duke Popiel possibly reflects, in turn, the memory of the violence with which Mieszko and his predecessors established their power. The archaeological finds clearly prove that they did not act peacefully. The first traces of their cruel conduct appear in the central course of the Warta River and along the Obra, where in the early years of the 10th century the smaller strongholds and hillforts of minor rulers, erected in the 8th and 9th centuries, were systematically destroyed. The people living in those areas were probably displaced onto the Gniezno Height, where no intense population and 352 Galli anonymi cronicae, 11–12. The English quotations from The Deeds, 23. 353 Banaszkiewicz 1986; Deptuła 2000 who emphasizes biblical motifs as the main influence. 354 Kurnatowski 1994; Kurnatowska 2000b; Kurnatowska 2003b; Strzelczyk 2008; Buko 2021.

234

Chapter 6

no dense network of strongholds and hillforts have been found to exit earlier. Only the origins of two strongholds, Giecz and Moraczewo, dated to the end of the 9th century. Together with Gniezno, located on the elevation in the centre of the upland and initially functioning probably as an unfortified site of cult, formed a triangle which can probably be regarded as the geographical birthplace of the Piast dynasty. The triangle was fortified between the 920s and 950s through the redevelopment of Giecz and Moraczewo and the transformation of the Gniezno cult site into a powerful stronghold centre. In parallel, the surrounding area saw the erection of new, large, and fortified transport and defence centres (Bnin, Poznań, Ostrów Lednicki, Grzybowo, and Ląd) with timber-and-earth embankments up to 10 metres high and width-of-the-base up to 20 metres.355 The crucial support to the ‘king’ of the Licikaviks was based on his retinue. Its members, the duke’s warriors and ‘friends’ (družynniki), already for some time had been recruited no longer from among the ruler’s relatives alone. Archaeological finds (weapons, pieces of horse-riding equipment, silver jewellery, burials) indicate that foreign warriors were joining the duke’s retinue as well, e.g. Moravians, who set off northwards after their country was decomposed at the beginning of the 10th century, and Scandinavians, who from the 9th century onward had their permanent emporia on the southern coast of the Baltic Sea.356 If Ibrāhīm ibn Yaʿkūb’s description is to be trusted, the disciplined and warlike squad – the duke’s družyna – was an excelling attribute of the “king of the North”.357 In any case, the armored men, well maintained by Mieszko (“three thousand warriors wearing coats of mail, a hundred of them is worth a thousand of other warriors in the battle”), exerted a really strong impression on the Jewish merchant. They would receive from their lord, on a regular basis, “clothes, horses, arms, and everything they need,” and moreover, “every month […] a certain amount of” the taxes they collected from the population. It is possible that those taxes were paid, as Ibrāhīm recounts, “in market weights” or minted coins.358 In fact, with increasing quantities of luxury goods reaching Greater Poland (the cradle of Piast rule) since the 930s/940s also Arabic silver coins (Dirhams) began to circulate in the lands along the Warta.359 355 Kurnatowska 2000a; Kurnatowska 2004; Buko 2012; Kurnatowska/Tuszyński 2009; Urbańczyk 2012a, 311–314; and the contributions in Gród piastowski w Gieczu. 356 Lieciejewicz 1993; Rohrer 2012; Urbańczyk 2012a, 146–148; and the contributions in Scandinavian Culture in Medieval Poland. 357 Skalski 1998; Żmudzki 2009. 358 Relacja Ibrāhīma, 50. The English quotations from Mishin 1996, 187. 359 Warnke 1964; Adamczyk 2014, 190–225; Jankowiak 2015.

Medieval “ State-Formation ” and “ Nation-Building ”

235

Luxury goods imported from faraway countries and exchanged primarily for humans, for whom there was high demand on the slave markets of Southern Europe and the Near East, served the members of the retinue mainly as symbols of status, but not really contributed to their material subsistence. This burden had to be carried by the people ruled, who were encumbered with diverse tributes and the duty to render services. The acquisition of resources, however, under the conditions of a rather weakly developed agricultural economy soon came across limits, while the ruler could count on loyal service of his warriors only as long as he ensured them regular supplies and remuneration. Thus, if he wanted to rule his realm successfully, he had to have at his disposal more than his core-territory and the population living there. Above all, the most lucrative export commodity, that is, humans sold as slaves, could be acquired among the ruler’s own people only to a very limited extent, if at all. Hence, predatory and war expeditions to foreign territories and winning over the resources there was an indispensable instrument to ensure power. It is no surprise, then, that territorial expansion quickly went beyond the indigenous Gniezno area, which had been consolidated by the middle of the 10th century.360 Its rather fast and great success, whose detailed reasons are hard to identify, is astonishing. Archaeological finds indicate that the Gniezno rule initially expanded southwards or south-eastwards, to the lands around Kalisz, Sieradz, and Łęczyca; also, westwards up to the locality of Międzyrzecz, as well as eastwards, to the vicinity of Kruszwica. Moreover, up to Włocławek, toward the lower course of the Vistula. The 970s saw further expansion toward the south-west, to the areas of Lublin, Sandomierz, and Przemyśl – and, perhaps, toward the north, to the Vistula delta. In the west, Mieszko reached the lower Oder, in the 960s at the latest, where he came across pagan Polabian Slavs and Saxon dignitaries who eventually put an end to his westward expansion. As it seems, the Piast duke quickly drew conclusions from the defeats of the year 963, which brought his brother or close relative ( frater) death and caused serious material losses to Mieszko himself. In as soon as 964, he accepted the superiority of Otto I, to whom he thereafter paid a tribute for his control of the Lubusz Land (usque in Vurta fluvium) and beside whom he would stand as a loyal ally.361 In parallel, he entered an alliance with the Bohemians, which was confirmed by his marriage with a daughter of the Přemyslid duke Boleslav I. The new strategy paid back and already in 967, supported by a Bohemian contingent, Mieszko triumphed over Wichmann, who commanded

360 Dulinicz 2003; Buko 2003; Buko 2017; Rymar 2003. 361 Thietmari, 74 (II, 29).

236

Chapter 6

the Polabian Slavs from the North. This enabled Mieszko to set off on an expedition to Western Pomerania.362 The coalition with the Ottonians and the marriage with the Přemyslid princess Doubravka indicated that the hitherto-pagan duke and his retinue would receive baptism. The takeover of the model of faith that was dominant in the world at the time, and whose manifestations must have seriously impressed the Gniezno-based duke, brought intra-political benefits as well. Not only it enhanced the ruler’s prestige, but it also proved  – based on the instructive example of the neighbouring Přemyslids, who had been Christianized for quite a time – to be a more efficient (compared to paganism) instrument of integrating the subdued, ethnically, and culturally diversified, pagan populaces. Apparently, the adoption of Christianity probably resulted from the duke’s deliberate political decision. The more exact circumstances of this ‘baptism’ are obviously only roughly known.363 The entry in the “Krakow Annals” of 966 mentions the very fact that Mieszko, the duke of Poland, was baptized (Mesko dux Polonie baptizatur). Much speaks in favour of the presumption that the decision regarding this historically momentous act was made at the very moment the alliance with the Přemyslids was established. There might have been parallel arrangements with Otto I or his margrave Gero. Probably the baptism was primarily prepared at the court in Prague and was subsequently carried out in Mieszko’s country – in one of the Greater Poland’s strongholds. The christening was performed by Bohemian clergymen who – according to an annalistic entry in the year 965 – arrived at the Piasts’ court together with Doubravka. Whether one of them was Jordan, of whom Thietmar of Merseburg in 1018 writes that he was the episcopus Posnaniensis around 970, and whether this same Jordan christened the Piast duke (perhaps also giving him the name of Dago[bert]), remains unclear.364 Mieszko could undoubtedly esteem it as his political success that his diocese was not incorporated into the Archbishopric of Magdeburg, which was founded in 968 by Otto I with the special assignment of a Slavic mission east of the Elbe and the Saale Rivers. Shortly before his death in 992, Mieszko symbolically donated his entire realm, which had meanwhile expanded to embrace parts of Lesser Poland and 362 Chudziak 2017. 363 Kurnatowska 2003a; Shepard 2005; Urbańczyk/Rosik 2005; Michałowski 2008; Biermann 2013c; Pleszczyński 2013; Moździoch 2014; Pac 2015; Rosik 2015; Buko 2016; Sikorski 2016; Urbańczyk 2019. 364 Thietmari, 64 (II, 22); see also Regesten II, no. 152; Jurek 2015 assumes that the baptism rather took place at the Ottonian court either in Magdeburg or Quedlinburg.

Medieval “ State-Formation ” and “ Nation-Building ”

237

Silesia, to the pope.365 He thus paved the way for the establishment of an independent Polish church organization, which could eventually be implemented by his son and successor, Bolesław I. The later continued his father’s policies and remained a loyal ally to Otto III in the combat with the pagan Polabian Slavs. Bolesław pursued territorial expansion in all directions, energetically and fiercely promoting the country’s Christianization.366 It was a favourable coincidence for his religious and political ambitions that Otto III, who in 994 took independent power, and was crowned emperor in 996, needed a strong ally in the East for the implementation of his idea of renovatio imperii Romanorum. The Ottonian-Polish rapprochement was facilitated by the shared memory of the individual with whom both rulers felt associated – namely, the former Prague bishop Adalbert/Vojtěch, who was killed in the spring of 997 by the pagan Prussians during his missionary expedition. Bolesław bought out his corpse, had it buried in Gniezno and instructed that the message of Adalbert’s martyr’s death be carried to Rome and Aachen. The response from Otto III and his teacher Gerbert of Aurillac (elected Pope Sylvester II in April 999) did not take long to arrive. Adalbert/Vojtěch was canonized in the shortest practicable time, so Bolesław gained his own saint before the turn of the millennium.367 How helpful such a saint proved in the pursuance of politics, was attested in the spring of 1000 when Otto III with a large retinue set off on his spectacular pilgrimage to the tomb of his assassinated friend in Gniezno. Bolesław cleverly took advantage of this unusual visit, turning it into an impressive demonstration of his power, and receiving the emperor with such a splendour that even his most ardent critic, Thietmar of Merseburg, was dumbfounded (dictu incredibile ac ineffabile).368 A hundred years later, Gallus Anonymus praised the “extraordinary miracles” (miracula mirifica), with which the Piast ruler impressed the emperor so much that the latter stated in public: “Such a great man does not deserve to be styled duke or count like any of the princes, but to be raised to a royal throne and adorned with a diadem in glory.” So, he took off “the imperial diadem from his own head and laid it upon the head of Bolesław in pledge of friendship. And as a triumphal banner he gave him as a gift one of the nails from the cross of our Lord with the lance of St Maurice.”369

365 SUB I, 3 (Dagome iudex Regest); Kürbis 2001, 9–87; Stasiewski 1933, 29–117; Labuda 1988; Nowak 2017. 366 Strzelczyk 2003; Weinfurter 2004; Kollinger 2015; Urbańczyk 2017. 367 Fried 2002. 368 Thietmari, 183–184 (IV, 45). 369 Galli anonymi cronicae, 19 (I, 6); the English quotation from The Deeds, 37. See also Althoff 2002; Michałowski 2005a.

238

Chapter 6

Whether this gesture should be interpreted as a coronation as king, albeit an incomplete one, for it was performed by a secular ruler only, or just a symbolic sealing of the special ties of friendship (amicicie fedus), seems a rather secondary question, given the actual effect of the act. Whatever the case, the ‘Gniezno Meeting’, through which the Piast duke was elevated to the rank of a brother and associate of the Empire ( frater et cooperator imperii), meant an enormous political appreciation. Even if not formally crowned king on this occasion,370 Bolesław was elevated by Otto in Gniezno to the position of a ruler equal in rank to king and ranked above the princes of the Empire. Even Thietmar, who personally found it hard to accept that by “making a lord out of a tributary and raising him to the point that, forgetful of his father’s customs, he might dare to gradually drag his superiors into subjection,” had to recognize this fact.371 By proactively and spectacularly joining the emperor’s universal policy, Bolesław achieved the critical goal: his regnum, termed Sclavinia from the Ottonian perspective, became a recognized and equal-in-rights member of the renewed imperium Romanorum – on a par with Roma, Gallia, Germania, and the Hungarian kingdom of Stephen I. A famous miniature from Otto III’s Gospel Book, which however does not feature Hungary, symbolically expresses this idea. The thus-attained political appreciation corresponded with complete independence in Church-related affairs, since the ‘Gniezno Meeting’ implied the establishment of an independent Piast church organization formed by the Archdiocese in Gniezno, with its suffragan dioceses in Kołobrzeg (Pomerania), Wrocław (Silesia), and Krakow (Lesser Poland); the already existing Diocese of Poznań retained its independent status.372 As such, by the year 1000 the process of forming an independent recognized monarchic rule was completed. Within approximately half a century a local power, confined to the Gniezno uplands, was successfully turned into a large-area realm stretching from the Baltic Sea to the Sudeten Mountains, and from the Oder to the Bug. 5.2 Consolidation, Crisis, and Regional Diversification Since the turn of the millennium, the Piast regnum appeared under its own name. Until the end of the 10th century, the area situated between the central Oder and the Warta, Noteć, and central Vistula, was only known as ‘the lands of Mieszko’, civitas Schinesghe, or Sclavania.373 In the year 999/1000 the 370 That Bolesław was crowned king in Gniezno assumes Fried 2001. 371 Thietmari, 232 (V, 10); the English quotation from Ottonian Germany, 212; see Labuda 2000a; Strzelczyk 2000; Wyrozumski 2002, 281–291. 372 Michałowski 2005b. 373 Relacja Ibrāhīma, 50; SUB I, 3 (Dagome iudex Regest); Diplomatum regum et imperatrum Germaniae, 779.

Medieval “ State-Formation ” and “ Nation-Building ”

239

available sources began to speak of Polonia and its inhabitants as of the Poloni. Significantly enough, both names first appeared in texts that owe their existence to the then-young cult of St Adalbert/Vojtěch.374 The earliest testimony of the country’s name can be found in a hymn on St Adalbert dated 1000/1001 and written down in Reichenau, where Polania is glorified for its cherishing of the martyr’s memory.375 Somewhat later, the country’s name, now as Polonia, appeared on a series of Bolesław I’s coins and in the “Annals of Quedlinburg”, and as Polenia in the chronicle of Thietmar of Merseburg.376 The ethnonym, in turn, appears for the first time in the earliest “Life of St Adalbert”, probably written in 999 in Rome or Leodium, in which Bolesław is referred to as dux Palaniorum. Not much later, the ethnonym became known to Bruno of Querfurt (Polani), Thietmar of Merseburg (Poleni), and the “Annals of Hildesheim” (Poliani).377 While these names appeared relatively late, their perception was fairly quick, and they soon became the official names of the country and its residents.378 They reflected the reinforced identity of the Piast regnum, which was headed by a dux, equal to kings and described later on by the chroniclers as “renowned and brave” (gloriosus seu chrabri), and also as “great” (magnus; velikyj).379 Bolesław the Brave displayed a proportionally considerable self-confidence. His understanding of authority and power was based on the assumption that he was not only an equal ally of the emperor, but also the representative of God on the earth within his regnum. He required from his subjects absolute obedience in secular and ecclesial matters, expecting the deserved recognition and respect from the neighbours. In case of need, he emphasized his authority and influence in the internal affairs by severe punishments. His assertiveness and habit of giving commands translated into several impressive political and military actions. The predatory and robbing expeditions pursued by Bolesław affected the Pomeranians as well as Kievan Rus’; his main targets, however, were western and south-western neighbours  – the Marches of Meissen and Lusatia, the Land of the Milzeni, as well as Bohemia and Moravia. 374 See Fried 1998; Urbańczyk 2008, 317–360. 375 Cantica medii aevi, 13: Polania ergo tanti // sepeliens floret // martyrii pignora. 376 Suchodolski 2012; Bogucki 2006; Annales Quedlinburgenes, 522 (ad annum 1004); Thietmari, 247 (ad annum 1002). 377 S. Adalberti Pragensis episcopi et martyris vita prior, 38; Jürgen Hoffmann, Vita Adalberti, 26, 28; Thietmari, 253; Annales Hildesheimenses, 31 (ad annum 1015). 378 While Fried and Urbańczyk (see footnote 374) assume that the names “Pole”/“Poland” were created only around the year 1000 the majority of scholars maintain that – as Graus 1980a, 65 has formulated – the names “already in the 10th century must have been fully accepted”; see also Żmudzki 2017, 166–172. 379 Galli anonymi cronicae, 16, 26; Povest’, 101.

240

Chapter 6

There, the Piast ruler’s strife for power came across no lesser assertiveness, and even a particularly imperious temper, namely that of Henry II, the Empire’s new ruler. The period’s ideas of ranks and honour became the seedbed of conflict between the two rulers, which broke out shortly after Henry’s coronation (in the summer of 1002). The dispute went on for fifteen years, until the peace treaty concluded in Bautzen in late January 1018.380 While we cannot learn from the sources what its provisions were, there is much indication that, finally, Bolesław could consider himself the victor. While he had to quit Meissen (he had had to withdraw from Prague in 1004), Lusatia and the Land of the Milzeni became his property with no fealty obligation whatsoever. Bolesław’s satisfaction is moreover attested by his new, fourth, marriage with Oda, a daughter of Ekkehard I’s, Margrave of Meissen, concluded in 1018.381 Already in 1013, Bolesław arranged to have his younger son Mieszko II wed Richeza, a daughter of the Ezzo of Lotharingia and niece of Otto III; this direct association with the imperial family promoted the Piasts to the first rank of European rulers. Toward the end of his life, once the death of Henry II (in June 1024) permitted it, Bolesław crowned himself eventually king – an obvious consequence of his earlier actions.382 Through this event, the young Piast monarchy was (temporarily) brought to the height of its power. Nonetheless, similar as in Bohemia, the extensive character of the early rule led, in as early as the second quarter of the 11th century, to a severe crisis. In this crisis conflicts over the succession after the deaths of Bolesław I (in 1025) and of his son Mieszko II (1034), the neighbours’ strife to regain territories once lost to Bolesław, as well as internal structural problems came together, resulting in a series of problems. The power wielding method that was only based on tributes, robberies, and spoils, which led to long-lasting armed conflicts with virtually all neighbours and forcing the population to pay ever-higher tributes and service, had exhausted the country’s potential. The economically and mentally overburdened subjects responded with social unrest and pagan resistance; these occurrences were taken advantage of by strong individuals who, dissatisfied with the monarch’s policies, tried their luck in establishing their own regional principalities. The crisis was additionally exacerbated by the expedition of the Bohemian duke Břetislav, who made use of the tenebrous situation and attacked his northern neighbour in 1038 or 1039, carrying away to Prague the remains of St Adalbert – the grandest symbol of Piast ‘statehood’.383 380 Görich 2000; Wiszewski 2010; Urbańczyk 2018; Mühle 2019a. 381 Rupp 1996, 188–189, 201–202. 382 Annales Quedlinburgenses, 578; Pleszczyński 2008, 283–297. 383 Strzelczyk 1984; Labuda 2008, 75–95; Krzemińska 1959; Heck 1966.

Medieval “ State-Formation ” and “ Nation-Building ”

241

The destruction and devastation caused by the internal crisis and the attack from the outside was considerable but limited to the affected areas and, ultimately, not as gnawing as the image of “the collapse of the first Polish state”, moulded by Polish historians, would suggest. Indeed, the only legitimate representative of the Piast rule was expelled for a few years, which ought to be seen as the crucial reason behind the country’s further disintegration; however, the reign of the Piasts did not come to an end; Casimir I managed to restore it without much problem in the 1040s to 1050s decades.384 After the horrors of rebellion and destruction, the subjects again placed their hopes in a strong monarchical authority, and the Piasts’ right to it was not challenged by anybody. They were regarded as the “natural lords” (domini naturales) of the country which they controlled by intermediation of dignitaries within the system of municipal (castle-town) districts, treating it as a specific private property. As a patrimony (patrimonium), after the duke’s death (the title of king could only be obtained by the rulers temporarily in the years 1025–34 and 1076–79), the property was allotted to all the male members of the dynasty, which also in Poland would naturally have led to intra-dynastic conflicts for the succession to the throne. Whether, and to what degree, such conflicts indeed broke out, was a work of biological chance and depended upon the number and temperament of the sons eligible for succession. The violent dispute over the succession between Bolesław III and his brother Zbigniew in the early 12th century385 implied the danger that the numerous male offspring of Bolesław, who finally had pushed through his thirty years’ reign, would unleash even sharper conflicts. The commencement of the succession, fixed by Bolesław III in consultation with the country’s elites before his death in 1138, could not prevent such developments, either.386 It provided that the regnum Poloniae would be divided between the sons so that the eldest, as the senior, be granted the superior authority, together with Lesser Poland and its central city of Krakow, the younger ones to be bestowed with Silesia, Greater Poland, and Mazovia as their own provinces, though with a lesser power. In case of the senior’s death, the next-in-seniority brother was supposed to take his position. Already Bolesław’s sons, who aspired for the superior power free of turn, have diverted from those arrangements. His grandsons did the same, and soon started to threat the provinces inherited after their fathers as their inalienable heritage. This led to the dynasty’s split into regional lateral lines, which in Silesia and Mazovia further ramified resulting from the bequeathal divisions. 384 Dróżdż 2009; Mühle 2018b. 385 Dalewski 2005. 386 See Rosik 2013; Osiński 2014.

242

Chapter 6

By around 1300, twenty provincial principalities had been formed altogether; these units were no more approached as a shared property of the Piasts but as separate patrimonia of individual regional sidelines. Their representatives viewed themselves as sovereign lords in sovereign duchies, and mainly cared about their own particular interests. Hence, there was no room for a countrywide politics, joint outward action, or joint deflection of external threats (such as the Mongolian invasions of the years 1241, 1258/9, and 1278).387 Apart from the dynasty of Piasts, who were entitled to the hereditary right to power across the provinces, only the Church functioned as an administrative, and spiritual, bracket that fastened together the regnum Poloniae in its entirety; it was mostly the Church’s exponents who kept up the memory of the lost unity. This memory lived through several symbols: the function of the ‘capital city’, allotted to Krakow; the coronation insignia dating to the 11th century and kept at the Krakow Cathedral; the renewed cult of St Adalbert; and, above all, the canonization and cult of St Stanisław.388 Stanisław was Bishop of Krakow, who was murdered in 1079 at the altar. He was declared saint in 1253/4. In the second, more extensive “Life of Stanislaus” (Vita maior Sancti Stanislai), written in 1260 by the Dominican monk Vincent of Kielcza, the author drew the first vision of a future reconstruction of the fragmented country, approaching the bishop’s violent death and his later canonization as a parable depicting the country’s lot; as he declared, Just like he [King Bolesław II] chopped the martyr’s body into multiple pieces and them all around, so did the Lord divide his [Bolesław’s] kingdom and dispensed that many a prince reign therein, and, as we can now see because of the guilt of our sins, exposed this kingdom, split as it was within itself, to be stomped and destroyed by the nearby predators. Yet, like the Divine power rendered the bishop’s holy flesh as it had been, without a trace of scars, and revealed his holiness by means of signs and miracles, so in the future, because of his merits, it shall restore the divided kingdom into the former condition, reinforce it with justice and truth, and brighten it with glory and privilege.389 This hope was to come true in the 14th century, when the former regnum Poloniae territory re-emerged, for the most part, as a united kingdom.

387 Grudziński 1974; Powierski/Śliwiński 1995; Biniaś-Szkopek 2007. 388 Drelicharz 2012, 112–199; Piech 1993, 129–152; Plezia 1999; Labuda 2000b; Samerski 2013. 389 Vita sancti Stanislai Cracoviensis episcopi (Vita maior), 391–392.

Medieval “ State-Formation ” and “ Nation-Building ”

243

5.3 Forming a Sense of Community The images and ideas of a future unification of the Piast state, which appeared in the 13th century, had not acquired great influence on the society. They are evidence, however, that at least in a narrow elitist circle the political and territorial fragmentation of the country faced a sense of common belonging or affiliation, for which a united regnum Poloniae was a point-of-reference. The successive bringing of initially small and separated population groups under the shared roof of the monarchy did not cause, however, that the people subjected to it were becoming “Poles.” By this name (Poloni) since the turn of the millennium only the members of the secular and clerical elite associated around the dynasty and involved in forming the regnum to a considerable extent began to be called (from the outside as well as, probably, by themselves). On the other hand, most of the subjects of this same regnum had not yet developed any supra-regional identity, however it might be understood; for quite a time still their sense of community was exclusively restricted to local or, at best, regional affairs. It was the chronicle by Gallus Anonymus that first ascribed to the Poloni a sense of self-reliance, which could have also been shared by ordinary warriors. In the chronicler’s descriptions, the gens Polonorum began to separate themselves from things foreign and constitute themselves as a group, a ‘we’, primarily through reluctance toward their Bohemian rivals, the pagan Pomeranians and Prussians, and the heretical Rus’.390 The group identity was initially, however, strictly correlated with the dynasty. It was only in the later years of the 12th century  – when the ducal dignitaries emancipated themselves to form a self-reliant nobility and clergy  – that an idea of community crossing the dynasty’s limits was getting formed.391 The new awareness of a community was amplified already around the mid-12th century – when, for instance, a mighty man named Zbylut founded a monastery in Łekno, describing himself in the foundation charter as a Polonie cives.392 Around 1200, this awareness is clearly visible in Vincent Kadłubek’s Chronica Polonorum. This earliest surviving presentation of the history by a native Pole was the work of a younger son of a Lesser Poland’s potent family born around the mid-12th century, who only later received the nickname Kadłubek (Cadlubkonis).393 He was probably destined for the clergy at a young 390 For Gallus’ perception of ‘foreigners’ see Aurast 2019, 76–151. 391 On the formation of a ‘national’ consciousness in medieval Poland in more detail Gieysztor 1974; Graus 1980a, 64–73, 116–129; Gawlas 1990; Gawlas 1995; Gawlas 2017. 392 KDW I, no. 18. 393 On Vincent Kadłubek and his work in more detail Mühle 2014b.

244

Chapter 6

age and received thorough education through studies in Bologna and Paris. In the 1180s and 1190s, Vincent was active at Casimir II’s court in Krakow; he might have been the superior of the local conventual school. Then, he appears as a parson of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary’s Collegiate Church in Sandomierz, founded in 1191. In 1208, he was appointed Bishop of Krakow. As a representative of Lesser Poland’s elite that enabled Casimir II to take over the seigniory for Krakow, Vincent presented the Polish history as one of a community in which the mighty participated as well, apart from the dynasty. This marked a difference from Gallus Anonymus, who presented Poland’s history exclusive as a history of the Piast dynasty. Excellently versed in ancient literature, Vincent deliberately used the phrase res publica in describing the regnum Poloniae, whose sources he traced back to antiquity. Thereby he not only ascribed to Polonia the roots linking it with the Romans but also confronted his time, shaken by fratricidal struggles between the Piast dukes, with the ideal of a society driven by virtue and the common good, a community of the Poloni who strove for the ideal of a united regnum. He thus combined the belief of a divine origin of the Piast authority, the idea of a shared history of the Poloni, and the elite’s conviction about the right to co-form a political life and thus created a new political awareness. The latter displayed visible traits of the medieval concept of natio, though Vincent preferred the ancient terms of res publica and patria, rather than clearly referring to a natio.394 As an indication of a greater ‘national’ awareness of the Poloni, Vincent placed a stronger emphasis on the Poles’ enmity toward the German neighbours. In the 13th century, this element became even more intense. The colonization (melioratio terrae) initiated around 1200 by the indigenous dukes implied an inflow into Polish lands of considerable numbers of German- and Romance-speaking peasants and burghers, knights, and monks. They brought and once settled, further developed their own forms of managing the economy, forms of settlement, cultural techniques, and legal habits, whereby they exerted an essential impact on the economic and social, cultural and legal transformations of the Piast/Polish society. This impact met with objection from the Poles, as it was partly a strong linguistic influence that in some places (particularly, in Silesia) brought about downright Germanization. It was also this confrontation that during the 13th century shaped the Polish medieval ‘national’ awareness and partly moulded its final form.395

394 Mühle 2014a. 395 Zientara 1968; Zientara 1973; Menzel 1998; Górecki 2003; Strzelczyk 2007; Mühle 2019b.

Medieval “ State-Formation ” and “ Nation-Building ”

245

Contrary to Gallus Anonymus, whose Piast legend reached back to the 9th century only, Vincent Kadłubek went back in his description of early Polish history to pre-Christian times. An all-Slavic proto-history and proto-community of Slavs, however, was completely alien to him. The forefathers he evokes were Poloni since the very beginning, the community they were the leaders of (res publica) has been the Polonia all along.396 Only in a foreign perspective was the Piast regnum perceived as part of Slavdom (Slavia), its inhabitants as Slavs (Sclavi). However, this is not the basis for concluding that there existed a ‘Slavic’ identity of the Poloni. The inclusion by Ibrāhīm ibn Yaʿkūb in the 960s of Mieszko’s lands in the extremely vast Ṣaqāliba (‘Slavic’) lands; the issuance by Otto III in March 1000, in Gniezno, of a charter in Sclavania; or, Adam of Bremen’s inclusion in the Sclavania, in the 970s, along with Polabian Slavs, of the Bohemians and the Poles, for they “differ from each other neither as to apparition nor as to language”, does not render the way in which the Poles perceived themselves, but only show external categorizations and characteristics. This is true also for Gallus Anonymus, who at the beginning of the 12th century names the Piast realm “the northern part of the Slavic lands” (septemtrionalis pars Sclavoniae and gives a geographical definition of these lands (terra Sclavonica). After all, he was not a Pole, either. He had arrived for a couple of years to the Slavic-speaking realm of the Piasts, carrying the cultural baggage of a Romance clergyman and the perception of a Western scholar, and evidently felt like an alien. Gallus’s ascription of the Piast regnum to the terra Sclavonica clearly stemmed from the tradition of medieval chorography as well as from the attempts at description and categorization made by the chroniclers Regino of Prüm or Adam of Bremen. Characteristic of this approach was, moreover, a clear external, non-Polish, perspective; thus, it cannot be regarded as a testimony of the sense of a Slavic identity among the residents of the Piast realm.397 The same is true for Gallus’ purely linguistic description of Gniezno as a “Slavic” word. It only served him to display, at an appropriate place, his language skills. If he had found in the Poles a ‘Slavic identity’ that would go beyond the language itself, he would have certainly used the opportunity to describe the ‘Slavicity’ of concrete social and cultural phenomena. And yet he 396 Magistri Vincentii dicti Kadłubek Chronica, I, 1 (1); I,2 (5); I, 5 (4). In later chapters [I, 9 (10); I. 10, (1)–(2); IV, 8 (5)] Vincent Kadłubek introduces also the synonyms Lechite/Lechitici and Lechia and calls the Poles (Poloni) also Vandals (Wandali) [I, 7 (5)]. 397 A different view hold by Malinovska 2015, 49: Takáto Sclavania už odráža vedomie spolunáležitosti Slovanov, które začina prerastat’ do spoločnej idey jednotného ‚Slovanstva‘.

246

Chapter 6

referred to the ceremonial hair-cutting of Popiel’s sons, for example, only as a “pagan”, and not as ‘Slavic’ custom. Sclavonia, on the other hand, for Gallus was no more than a geographical notion. He used it – or rather instrumentalized it – to define and visualize the ‘space of action’ of Piast rule, whose glorification and legitimization was his objective.398 The external perspective he represented implied that he defined Sclavonia as an important spatial level that not only partly coincided with Polonia, but also associated her with the adjacent countries. He delineated the extent of Sclavonia with three lines: according to him, the terra Sclavonica stretched along the northern line between the “Sarmatians” (the term was used by Gallus probably in reference to non-East Slavic inhabitants of the Eastern European forests and forest-steppes) in the East, and the countries of Dacia (Denmark) and Saxonia in the West. Along her central axis, Sclavonia stretched between Thracia (i.e., Bulgaria, at the time) in the East, and Bavaria, in the West. And, along the third, southern, line, between Epirus in the South-East and Istria in the Southwest. This stood for an astonishingly precise determination of the limits of the Slavic-language world in the early 12th century. For the geographical situation of Polonia in that world, of special relevance was the northern part of Sclavonia. The chronicler had to precisely determine its relations with Polonia, but he did so in an awkwardly unclear manner. Instead of more precisely defining the relation between Polonia and Sclavonia, or, more precisely differentiating the two areas from each other, Gallus forms an indefinite mixed space where the border between Polonia and the other parts of northern Sclavonia seems to be potentially open and flexible. On the one hand, he states that Polonia is the northern part of Sclavonia; on the other hand, this Slavic north consists of “lands partly separated [from Polonia] or independent” (terra Sclavonica ad aquilonem hiis regionibus suis partialiter divisivis sive constitutivis existens). Apparently, this mixing of Sclavonia and Polonia was deliberate; Gallus did not confine himself to presenting an image of what he considered the geographical and political reality of his time. Through the geographical positioning of Polonia in the world, within the regions neighbouring on one another – particularly within the northern part of Sclavonia – he constructed the spatial relations that formulated a political program of territorial claims. Indeed, he defined the neighbours adjacent to Polonia within the northern Sclavonia and its vicinity very clearly: Rusia in the East, Ungaria in the South-East, Moravia, and Bohemia in the Southwest, Saxonia and Dacia in the West, and Selencia, Pomorania, and Pruzia in the North. On the other 398 See Dalewski 2011; Mühle 2012b.

Medieval “ State-Formation ” and “ Nation-Building ”

247

hand, however, he virtually did not separate Polonia and northern Sclavonia; he showed at least parts of northern Sclavonia as potential parts of Polonia. Thus, the annalist deliberately constructs the space of potential expansion of the Piast rule, extending to the lands of pagan Polabian Slavs (Selencia), Pomeranians (Pomorania), and non-Slavic Prussians (Pruzia). This argument was additionally justified by the need for a Christian mission. Gallus had to express his opinions more carefully with regards to the other, Christian, neighbours. Yet, also in this direction he subtly tried to suggest, through adequately situating Polonia in geographical and political terms, that her frontiers were potentially open and changeable also in relation to those neighbours: Rusia, Moravia, Bohemia, and Saxonia. Hence, the idea of geographical and linguistic unity of Slavs and Gallus’s conception of Sclavonia was just a partial and instrumental aspect of the political project of a space, by means of which the chronicler wanted to determine the framework within which Piast rule was operating, developing, and potentially expanding. All this was not intended to propagate a ‘Slavic’ identity of Polonia. The notion of Sclavonia, used by Gallus, might have been known to him also from the hagiographical tradition. Although in the earliest description of St Adalbert’s life, Sclavonia was merely synonymous to Bohemia and only Bohemian envoys were referred to as a Sclavonica manus, Bolesław the Brave’s subjects being the Palani. Yet, almost simultaneously, Bruno of Querfurt, in his “Life of Five Martyr Brothers”, the eremites assassinated in western Greater Poland in 1003, still used the name Sclavonia to refer to the Piast realm, in the first place. Bruno’s Sclavonia was strictly related to Sclavinia, featured in the Reichenau miniature from the same time and in the mentioned charter issued by Otto III in Sclavania. Otto’s use of the names Sclavania/Sclavinia was of a significance exceeding the purely geographical dimension in that it was always ideologically set in the context of Christian missionary effort. Sclavania in this context was, primarily, an area that still required being Christianized, and it was with this semantic content that the name was passed on to Bruno and Gallus Anonymus. Though in Gallus’ chorography this aspect became secondary, there is a single place in the further part of his chronicle where he uses the word “Slavs” (Sclavi) once again, possibly having in mind a similar semantic content. In a mourning song he summons not only “the rich, the poor, the knights, the priests, and the peasants” (Dives, pauper, miles, clerus, insuper agricole) but also those “of you Latiners and Slavs, who are inhabitants” (Latinorum et Sclavorum quotquot estis incolei) to bewail the death of Bolesław I.399 Since elsewhere 399 Galli anonymi cronica, 39.

248

Chapter 6

Gallus remarks that in Bolesław’s time, Poland “had two metropolitans, together with their subordinate suffragan bishops”, some scholars assumed that in both of these fragments he alluded to the fact that in the Krakow Land, which had once been part of Bohemia, or in the eastern border areas seized from Rus’, the Slavic-liturgy had used to exist along with the Catholic rite.400 Although this cannot be completely excluded, no confirmation can be found anywhere else. Gallus’ opposition of Latini et Sclavi may have been used perhaps, particularly in a piece of verse, just as a poetic stylistic means, expressing the universality of mourning. On the other hand, the said opposition might otherwise have been alluding to the fact that in the 11th and early 12th-century Poland, Christianity was not spread with an even intensity and Catholic Christians (Latini) were confronted with a considerable group of the infidel (Sclavi). It is exactly in this sense that the juxtaposition Poloni and Sclavi appears thirty years after Gallus, in a letter of Matthew, Bishop of Krakow, and Piotr Włostowic, comes palatinus, to Bernard of Clairvaux. Both those illustrious exponents of the clerical and secular elite of the Piast realm invited the famous Cistercian abbot, in the late 1140s, to make a missionary journey to the East. Once there, “in Rus’ […] as well as in Poland and in Bohemia, or, according to the colloquial term, in Sclavonia”, he was expected to “instruct the coarse Slavs by way of morals and principles of life.”401 Regardless of whether the letter expressed more a rhetorical overstatement than a real concern about the condition of Christianity in the regnum Poloniae,402 Matthew and Piotr Włostowic juxtaposed Poloni and Sclavi, presenting the difference between them as an opposition between the right-believing Christians and the heretics. They started from the gens Ruthenica, who “do not observe the principles of the true faith or the provisions of the true religion,” and by means of a heretic perversity, since the beginning of their conversion, they only profess Christ with the name, after all, while completely renouncing Him with deeds. For they are not willing to be in agreement with either the Latin or the Greek Church, but rather, to be separately isolated from both, [which] is communicated by the mentioned nation (gens) with a lacklustre participation in the Sacraments.

400 Galli anonymi cronica, 30; Lanckorońska 1961, 35–37, 151; Cywiński 2001; Korta 2001. 401 SUB I, no. 11: in Ruthenia, quae quasi est alter orbis, verum etiam in Polonia et Boemia vel communi appelatione Sclavonia […] Sclavos incompositos in via morum et vitae rationibus informare; see Kürbis 2001, 224–226. 402 So the argument of Dygo 2008; Dygo 2012.

Medieval “ State-Formation ” and “ Nation-Building ”

249

The letter further on reads that this heretic, or schismatic, phenomenon is not limited to Rus’, which “is like another world” anyway, but is to be met “also in Poland and in Bohemia.” This sounds almost like another hidden piece of information on the existence of the Slavonic-language rite among the West Slavic Bohemians and Poles.403 Let us leave the question open whether this testimony is possibly interpretable in this way; it seems rather improbable. It is of no relevance to us whether we have to do with a rhetorical device or a reflection of a real phenomenon. The crucial thing is that Matthew and Piotr Włostowic refer to the Rus’ as well as to some of the dwellers of Poland and Bohemia as “non-human people” (homines inhumani), “savage and cruel peoples” (gentes efferae et immanes) or describe them as “uncouth Slavs” (Sclavos incompositos), whose heretic life “outside the Catholic Church” makes the regnum Poloniae a “frigid zone”, one of a “uncivilized barbarism.” Emphasizing in this context that Polonia and Bohemia were also colloquially referred to as Sclavonia, Matthew and Piotr did not intend to express a ‘Slavic’ identity common to Poles and Bohemians. On the contrary, both regna appear in their perception as Sclavonia only when inhabited by unorthodox people, crude, and course, precisely “uncouth Slavs.” The right-believing, or orthodox, dwellers of the regnum Poloniae were, for a change, those Poles (Poloni) – the authors of the letter ascertained – who waited longingly for the arrival of the abbot. In his first version of the older “Life of St Stanislaus” (Vita minor), compiled in the mid-13th century, the Dominican monk Vincent of Kielcza wrote of the Sclavi in a manner like Bishop Matthew and Piotr Włostowic. His remark that Stanisław long avoided feasting and carousals, seeing them as a relic of the heathen times, is complemented by Vincent with the following phrase: “until this very day, at the feasts amongst the Slavs, pagan songs can be heard, clapping the hands, and drinking to one another can be heard.”404 The use of the term Sclavi in direct connection with the adjective ‘heathen’/‘pagan’ was meant, once again, to stigmatize those groups of the population who continuously practiced the old pagan customs. Vincent apparently tried in this way to allude to Rome’s endeavours to instrumentalize the planned canonization of Stanisław, bishop-and-martyr, in the context of a mission among “the 403 See also Maćkowiak 2011, 71, who assumes that still Mieszko II († 1034) prayed in his Slavic mother tongue, as the famous letter of Mathilde, Duchess of Lotharingia, addressed to him allegedly proves, thus demonstrating that also the Holy Mass was still celebrated in Latin and Slavic, what Maćkowiak furthermore regards as a manifestation of Polish cultural autonomy. 404 Vita sancti Stanislai episcopi Cracoviensis (Vita minor), 258: […] in conuiuiis Slauorum adhuc cantilene gentilium, plausus manuum mosque salutancium seruantur usque in diem hodiernum.

250

Chapter 6

heathens and the schismatic Rus’ people” (pagani et Rutheni scismatici), who in the east neighboured on the Diocese of Krakow.405 It is significant that after the canonization (which took place in 1253), in a more extensive description of St Stanislaus’s life (Vita maior; ca. 1260), Vincent crossed out the word Slavi in the relevant place, replacing the phrase conuiuiis Slauorum with conviviis Polonorum.406 The letter to Bernard of Clairvaux was not only the first but, until the late 12th century, the only Polish self-testimony that referred to the Sclavi and Sclavonia. The subsequent testimony appears in the form of the term Slavia used in the chronicle by Vincent Kadłubek, in the context of a fantastic genealogy of the first Polish rulers. The author ascribes twenty sons to Leszko III, who “in three battles forced Julius Caesar to flee.” One of them, Pompilius, was made by Leszko, in line with the law of primogeniture king over everybody, so that “not only the Slavic monarchy (Slauie monarchia) but also the adjacent countries” were ruled according to his will.407 In this record, Slavia appears synonymous to a greater unit, extending to all the twenty provinces reigned by Leszko’s sons. However, Kadłubek never explains this term, nor does he use it again. He apparently would not have used a random name such as Slavia as a symbol signifying the primaeval ethnic or cultural community of the Slavs or, in days of yore, a great realm of Slavs; neither option apparently seemed of essence to him in relation to the Polish community of his time. So, he might have used the term just as a stylistic means (personifying the signified entity) to, once again, highlight the primacy that, in his conviction, was vested in the res publica Poloni in the Slavic-speaking world of his time.408 As for Gallus, and for Vincent it was not the Slavs but the Poles who were the central collective character of his story. Until the end of the 13th or the early 14th century, there are no known sources any more that would point to a Slavic identity of the Poles. No Polish 405 See Letter of Pope Innocent IV to Jacob of Velletri dated 26th May 1252, where the Pope instructs his envoy sent to Poland in the cause of the canonization of St Stanisław to “explore moreover, whether the Cracow diocese borders with the pagans and Ruthenian schismatics, so that out of this neighborhood there might be gained some profit for the souls” (Inquiras insuper, utrum Cracouiensis diocesis paganis et Ruthenis scismaticis sit confinis, ut per hoc ex ipsorum confinio lucrum prouenire ualeat animarum); quoted from Heilige Fürstinnen und Kleriker, 42. 406 Vita sancti Stanislai Cracoviensis episcopi (Vita maior), 372. 407 Magistri Vincentii dicti Kadłubek Chronica, 23 [I, 17 (4)]. 408 Already Graus 1980a, 72, wrote of Vincent’s “peculiar Slavic conception”, which however “in no way wanted to substantiate any Slavic community”, but which only served “to show the ‘natural’ dominance of the Poles within the Slavic world (especially as opposed to the Bohemians/Czechs).”

Medieval “ State-Formation ” and “ Nation-Building ”

251

charter, coin or seal legend, or stone inscription, no authentic Polish entry in the surviving annals would feature the term Sclavi/Sclavonia, and there is not a single attempt to evoke with its use (or otherwise) the ‘Slavicity’ of the regnum Poloniae, its rulers, elite, or common population.409 As opposed to Bohemia (except for the external perspective displayed by Gallus), the word “Slavic” is never employed to describe the Polish language: the latter appears in the sources since the beginning of the 13th century as Polonica lingua.410 Obviously, in Books of the Dead (Necrologia), in Lists of Prayer Fraternities and Benefactors, and in the charters, numerous Slavic-language names are recorded, ending with -slaw(a) or reading, simply, Slavenicus, Slavus, Slavnicus, Zlaua, Slauco, or Slauicha.411 It can be precluded, however, that those bearing such names considered themselves to form a big common group, an ‘all-Slavic community’, together with their Bohemian, Polabian, and Rus’ian namesakes. None of the sources would, in any case, tell us about a Slavic community of yore or an idea of brotherhood between the Slavs. On the contrary, we are repeatedly told about bloody conflicts involving Poles and Bohemians, Poles and Pomeranians, Poles, and the Rus’ fighting against one another. In reality, the Poloni  – or, more precisely, individual Polish intellectuals  – discovered themselves as “Slavs” only in the 14th century. 6

Serbia

6.1 A Hindered Formation of Rule between East and West The medieval Serbian kingdom was shaped by the events taking place inside the Balkan Peninsula, in the area of Raška, situated in the western part.412 The first zhupan of the Serbs mentioned by the sources was called Vlastimir,413 who around the middle of the 9th century efficiently repulsed the attacks of 409 Vita sancti Stanislai episcopi Cravoviensis (Vita minor), 268, the shorter and earlier version of the Life of St Stanisław, written in the middle of the 13th century, offers – besides the already quoted fragment (footnote 404) – yet another single instance of using the term, however in a historizing way; it mentions Sclaulos et Ungaros, whose territories have been occupied by Bolesław I; here Sclavos obviously referred to inhabitants of that part of the Hungarian kingdom which starting from the 12th century was called S(c)lavonia. 410 For the first time in a charter issued by Władysław of Kalisz, SUB I, 88; Graus 1980a, 69, 189–190; Maćkowiak 2011, 83–88. 411 KDW I, no. 63, 93, 167, 272; Kodeks dyplomatyczny, no. 31; Liber Mortuorum Monasterii, 35, 36, 89. 412 On the names (“Ras”, “Raška”, “Rascien”) in more detail Kalić 1976. 413 Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De administrando imperio, 154; Živković 2006, 11–20. For general overviews see Turk Santiago 1984, 56–247; Istorija srpskog naroda, 141–433;

252

Chapter 6

the Bulgarians. His three sons, Mutimir, Strojimir, and Gojnik, disputed among themselves who was to take power; their own sons were equally discordant. Byzantium took advantage of those dissensions from the very beginning; depending on the ongoing developments in the Byzantine-Bulgarian conflict, it supported one or the other minor prince pretending to the throne. In reality, the Serbian zhupans acted in the name of the Byzantine emperor, whom they had to recognize as their sovereign. Around 892, power was taken over by Gojnik’s son Peter, who after 918 died in Bulgarian captivity; his country, debilitated by the struggle for succession, fell under Bulgaria’s rule for a few years.414 After 927, Strojimir’s grandson Časlav succeeded in renewing the Serbian principality.415 Časlav was kept hostage at the Bulgarian court of Simeon, from which he fled after the latter’s death. With the help of the Byzantines, he wielded a relatively stable power till the second half of the 10th century, possibly extending to parts of the western neighbours’ territories (apart from this, nothing is known of his rule). After the death of Časlav, who was killed in a battle against the Hungarians, the local principality, situated by Constantine Porphyrogenitus west of the Raška River (modern western Serbia)416 disappears from the sources almost completely for over a hundred years. Toward the end of the 10th or at the beginning of the 11th century, it was probably subordinate to the West Bulgarian Empire, after the decomposition of which Byzantium reinforced its reign, extending to the Sava and the Danube, for the first time since Justinian I’s time, including through the formation of an administrative unit (theme) called Serbia.417On the lot of the latter, even the Byzantine sources are tacit, however. Instead, in the late 10th century the Byzantines’ attention was gradually attracted by a Slavic-speaking coastal principality of Dioclea, called Duklja in Slavic. Some scholars identify it as the second birthplace of the Serbian kingdom. In reality, it was a separate principality whose development was discontinued as the Serbian Grand Zhupan Stephen Nemanja invaded it from Raška in 1186 and conquered it.418 Deeper inside the land, from the beginning of the 12th century onward, Grand Zhupan Vukan and his successors tried to release themselves from

414 415 416 417 418

Ćirković 2004, 15–76; Bubalo 2014, XXV–XXVI (maps), 1–23; still very useful as to factography: Jireček 1911, 210–326. Živković 2006, 31–41. Živković 2006, 49–57. Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De administando imperio, 154. Wasilewski 1964; Cheynet 2008. See below, 300–301.

Medieval “ State-Formation ” and “ Nation-Building ”

253

the Byzantine hegemony.419 They hoped to be helped by the Kingdom of Hungary that neighboured on them in the north and in the meantime fell into a violent conflict with Byzantium over hegemony in the Balkans.420 The Hungarian-Serbian alliance concluded in response to those developments was confirmed in 1129/30 by the marriage of the daughter of Grand Zhupan Uroš I with a member of the Árpád house, the later King Béla II (1131–41). However, in spite of the armed support provided several times by the Serbs, the attempts to get rid of the Byzantine hegemony came to no avail at that time; around 1166, Stephen Nemanja still had to recognize the emperor as his sovereign.421 Instead, he overthrew his brother Tihomir, whom had been established as the Grand Zhupan by the Byzantines, and eliminated his other two brothers who, like himself, ruled the Serbian provinces as zhupans under the Byzantine supremacy. It was only after the death of Emperor Manuel I Komnenos (1180), founder of the Nemanjid dynasty, that the lands united under Stephen’s reign were rendered independent from Byzantium and subsequently, their territorial reach was expanded. In ten years, Stephen Nemanja seized the valleys of the Southern Morava River in the east and of the Great Morava River in the north, the valley of the Drin in the south, and the seaside principalities of Zahumlje, Travunia, and Zeta. In Zahumlje, he had his brother Miroslav installed as a governor; in Travunia and Zeta/Duklja his eldest son Vukan took the counterpart office.422 The Byzantines, whose lives were made difficult not only by the Hungarians but also by the Normans and the Staufs, setting off for their crusades, tried to tame the strengthened Serbian ruler through marriage. Hence, they had Eudoxia, Emperor Isaac II Angelos’s niece, marry Stephen, the second eldest son of Stephen Nemanja.423 When Eudoxia’s father Alexios III Angelos ascended the imperial throne in 1195, his Serbian son-in-law was granted the title of sebastokrator, which tied him to the Byzantine court even stronger. His father Stephen Nemanja quit the crown in 1196 and, as a monk Simeon, entered the monastery of Studenica, which he had founded (around 1183).424 It was perhaps owing to his prominent connections with Byzantium that Stephen Nemanja did not transfer the power to his eldest son Vukan but to the younger one, Stephen. The first-born one opposed the decision. Supported 419 Leśny 1989, 106–155. 420 Makk 1989, 42–62. 421 Ferjančić 2000; Živković 2008, 313–334. 422 Leśny 1989, 156–204; Nemanja, Stefan – 900 godina od rođenja. 423 Pirivatrić 2016, 24–25. 424 Maksimović 1988; Erdeljan 2013; Živković 2016.

254

Chapter 6

by the Hungarian king Emeric, who was disturbed by Stephen Nemanja’s conquests in region of the Northern Morava River, he removed his younger brother from power for a short time in 1202, and subjected the whole of Serbia to the pope, hoping to have his authority recognized and secured in the international arena. However, the pope has accepted the pretences to Serbia that Emeric had meanwhile put forth. (Serbia was ever since, and until the year 1918, part of the official Hungarian royal title). On his part, Stephen Nemanjić solicited the support of the Bulgarians, who had been reinforced by the fall of Constantinople in 1204. As soon as 1205, Stephan regained his esteem as Grand Zhupan and sought afterward support from the Latin West, the pope, and Venice. He turned his back to Byzantium, ostentatiously rejecting his Byzantine wife Eudoxia. Instead, he entered a new political marriage with Anna Dandolo, a great granddaughter of the Venetian Doge Enrico Dandolo. He finally received the royal crown in 1217, directly from the legates of Pope Honorius III.425 Being the First-Crowned (Prvovenčani), he gained widespread respect for his principality, which became in practice independent already upon the fall of Constantinople. Therefore, he regarded himself equal in hierarchy to his neighbours – the king of Hungary, the tsar of Bulgaria, and the Byzantine emperor, and called himself “king crowned by God’s grace and autocrat” ever since.426 Apart from political independence, Stephen Nemanjić pushed through his ecclesial independence; he was aided to this end by his younger brother Rastko, who in 1191/2 assumed his monastic name of Sava at Mount Athos.427 In 1206 Sava was made abbot/archimandrite of the monastery in Studenica; however, he returned to Mount Athos in 1216. Having heard there of the proclamation of Serbia as a kingdom, he apparently began to solicit with the patriarch of Nicaea for elevation of his country in the hierarchy of ecclesiastical structure. And indeed, he managed to convince the patriarch and the East Roman court to grant their consent for the establishment of a Serbian ecclesiastical province that would directly report to the patriarch, which would render it independent – that is, autocephalous.428 Since the beginning of its existence, the Serbian Church, associated with Bulgaria rather than Byzantium, was subordinate to the Bulgarian archbishop of Ohrid. This did not change even after the 1018 fragmentation of the First 425 Thomae Archidiacoin Historia Salonitanorum, 140 (chap. 25, 5); Burian 1933. 426 The quotation from a charter issued between 1217 and 1227; Zbornik srednjovekovnih ćirilskih povelja, 108–109; see Prinzing 1972, 155–162. 427 Komatina 2016, 247–294; on Sava see also Obolensky 1988, 115–72; Rohdewald 2013; Curta 2018. 428 For the beginnings of the Serbian autokephalous church see Pirivatrić 2021.

Medieval “ State-Formation ” and “ Nation-Building ”

255

Bulgarian Empire. Slavic ecclesial texts were still transmitted, and clergymen were arriving, from Ohrid to Raška. In parallel, Roman/Latin influence penetrated deep into Serbia from the Dalmatian dioceses of Bar, Dubrovnik/ Ragusa, and Kotor. These influences made Stephen Nemanja still follow a peculiar religious duality: he was reportedly baptized by the Orthodox bishop of Ras, the main city of Raška, situated close to modern Novi Pazar, as well as by a Latin priest in Ribnica, in Zeta/Duklja.429 At the end of the 12th century, Stephen Nemanja turned, however, toward the Greek Byzantine Church again, enthusiastically engaged himself in endowment activities and, lastly, following the example of his eldest son Rastko/Sava, entered the monastery in Studenica assuming the monastic name of Simeon. From there, he soon set off for Mount Athos, where in 1198, together with Sava, he founded the monastery of Hilandar, where he died shortly afterward. The founding of a Serbian cloister in the Byzantine territory was enabled by two deeds of donation from Emperor Alexios III Angelos, which were a particular token of recognition of the status of the Serbian grand zhupan in the Byzantine sphere.430 In his own founding charter regarding Hilandar monastery, Stephen Nemanja/Simeon expressed an appropriately heightened self-appraisal. Indeed, he accepted, as an obvious fact, the primacy of the empire, founded upon sacral legitimation, but was convinced that his own authority has similarly been bestowed on him by God. In the charter’s preamble, he declared that God has divided humans into peoples/languages (езика) and allocated to them, “according to the custom and law”, different rulers, each of whom is “warding his flock” (пасти стадо). Whereas the Greeks received their emperors, the Hungarians their kings, God has rendered him, Stephen Nemanja, a grand zhupan, so that he “reigned the Serbian land” (ωбладaти сиюв земловь срьбьскoвь).431 In the monastery where the Serbian monks lived and which possessed large landed estates, an intensive translation activity was unfolded, producing translations of numerous works of Byzantine literature into Old Church Slavonic or into its emerging Old Serbian variety. This literary activity and the Eastern ecclesial tradition cherished on Mount Athos as part of the ascetic monasticism practiced there made Hilandar the major centre of medieval Serbian culture and spirituality.432

429 Zhivot svetoga Simeona Nemanje, 173; Serbisches Mittelalter, 1, 60. 430 Maksimović 2000, 181. 431 Spisi sv. Save, 1–4 (= Hilandarska povelja), the quotation: 1; see Trifunović/Bjelogrlić/ Brajjović 1986. 432 Živojinović 1989; Bogdanović 1998.

256

Chapter 6

When in 1219 Sava was made the first Serbian archbishop, medieval Serbia joined the Greek Byzantine Church for good, albeit on the Dalmatian coast the Latin Church was still present, while Serbia was ruled by a king who had originally been crowned by the pope. Since there were no towns inside the land, the archbishop chose as his residence the monastery of Žiča, set up in 1208–15 by Stephen Nemanjić, whose coronation was carried out at the Saviour’s Church.433 To the existing suffragan dioceses within the Ohrid metropolis – those of Ras, Prizren (with its residence at the monastery of Ljeviša), and Lipljan (Gračanica) – Sava added more such dioceses, so the regions of Dabar, Moravica, Toplica, Hvosno, and Budimlja saw Orthodox bishops officiating in the local monasteries. Also, the old Catholic centres such as Ston, Prevlaka, and the Benedictine abbey in Kotor, were included in the new archdiocese as episcopal residences.434 At a synod held in 1221, a Slavic translation, or rather an adaptation to the Serbian realities of the early 13th century of the Byzantine Nomokanon was accepted as the legal foundations of the Serbian Church.435 The efforts put into such translating activities initiated an intense spiritual and cultural creative output, correlated with a unification of the clergy’s education, the ecclesial ceremonies, and the legal practice; another effect was the establishment of the Serbian variety of Old Church Slavonic as the language of the Church and the monarchal court. The organizational and intellectual efforts of the Church were an important instrument in promoting the integration of the individual regions and areas that were successively subjected to the rule of the Nemanjid dynasty. As opposed to Bohemia or Hungary, where natural borders facilitated the formation of unified realms, the geographical conditions were of no great help to the Serbian rulers. Their territories were characterized by regions separated by hard-to-access basins and valleys, accessible only through mountain passes or along the rivers. Under such conditions the penetration of these areas by ecclesial structures decisively contributed to integrating the heterogeneous population into a political community subjected and loyal to the Nemanjid dynasty. Under the reign of Stephen Nemanjić’s successors  – that is, his sons Radoslav (1227–34), Vladislav (1234–42), and Uroš I (1242–76)  – the country grew even more powerful, and its culture blossomed.436 Particularly Stephen 433 Kašanin 1969; Čanak-Medić/Todić 2007, 6–7. 434 Komatina 2016, 282, 299. 435 Zakonopravilo Svetoga Save (English introduction: XXXI–L); see Petrović 1990, 7–39; Burgmann 1995. 436 Ferjančić 1989.

Medieval “ State-Formation ” and “ Nation-Building ”

257

Uroš I, whose mother was Venetian, and who took a Hungarian princess of the Angevin lineage for his wife in 1250, supported the cultural life, and opened his country for diverse literary and artistic influence.437 Both, the cultural and political activities of the Nemanjids, economically drew upon mining, the industry that developed in the second half of the 13th century, or rather was rediscovered at that time, since it had been known in the region already in Roman times. The exploitation of the gold, silver, copper, iron ore, and lead mines in Brskovo (Montenegro), Rudnik (north-western Serbia), Rogozno (Raška), or Novi Brod (Kosovo) was done by foreign experts brought in by the Serbian princes – especially, by German-speaking miners from Upper Hungary and Transylvania.438 These valuable raw materials were launched into the market by Dalmatian merchants who exported the metals, particularly, to Venice, Italy, and Western Europe. They moreover helped the Serbian rulers in minting their own coins.439 All this implied the blooming of intra-Serbian commerce and colonization. The enormous profits not only enriched the foreign merchants (mainly in Dubrovnik and Kotor) but they also formed the crucial material basis upon which the authority of the Serbian rulers was founded. Among other things, they provided the potential for further expansion. Thus, Bosnia and northern Macedonia were gradually incorporated into Serbia; the Macedonian city of Skopje was seized in 1282 and subsequently turned into a regularly visited residence of the Serbian rulers. The incorporation of the Banates of Braničevo and Kučevo and the lands on the lower Drina pushed Serbia’s northern frontier as far as the Danube. All this made the Nemanjid-ruled Serbian monarchy, by the late 13th and early 14th century, a powerful rival of the Second Bulgarian Empire. 6.2 Holy Dynasty and Religious Community Despite their political decoupling from the Byzantine hegemony, the Nemanjid rulers remained strictly associated with the Byzantine model in terms of culture, religion, and ideology. Stephen Nemanja and his successors were deeply rooted in the world of Constantinopolitan ideas and were usually perceived by the Byzantines as members of the Byzantine aristocracy.440 In spite of this, or perhaps owing to the Byzantine models, the Serbs pursued an autonomous

437 McDaniel 1982/83. 438 Ćirković 1981; Takács 1991; Ćirković/Kovačević-Kojić/Ćuk 2002, 21–47. 439 Ivanišević 2013. 440 Stanković 2013, 89; Krsmanović/Maksimović 2016.

258

Chapter 6

‘national’ policy, developed a specific ideology of power, and developed their own identity. The Nemanjids founded their power on a special dynastic cult,441 drawing upon two common patterns of sanctity  – the one of holy ruler and the one of holy monk. The objective behind this approach was to implement the Byzantine ideal of symphonia, that is of a concordant unity between the secular power and the sacred authority. At the same time, it intended the political instrumentalization of the Church, which was supposed to ingrain and legitimate the idea that the Nemanjid dynasty and the Serbian ‘state’ are one, and that the sanctity of the dynasty’s members form the decisive foundation of the Serbian political community. Both patterns were merged and impersonated for the first time in the person of Stephen Nemanja, providing the example to be followed. And indeed, the concept was followed up by his sons Stephen Nemanjić and Sava, who consistently sought to implement it. Around 1206, the brothers ordered that their father’s corpse be transferred from Hilandar to Studenica monastery and saw that he be worshipped as a charismatic secular ruler and as an ascetic monk. To this end, they organized the ministration of an appropriate memoria of their father at the Studenica monastery as well as beyond it and told the story of their father’s holy life in two hagiographic texts (Lives). Written ca. 1208 and before 1216, respectively by Sava and Stephen Nemanjić, the descriptions of Stephen Nemanja’s life gave birth to the unique Old Serbian form of a ruler’s biography.442 Soon afterward, the people worshipped Stephen Nemanja as a saint.443 Also Sava, being the archbishop and member of the ruling dynasty, was canonized soon after his death. His first Life was written in the 1250s by Domentian, a monk on Mount Athos.444 The 13th century was dominated by the two saint founders, Stephen Nemanja/Simeon, and Rastko/Sava. It was only in the subsequent century that the sanctity of the other Nemanjids was officially announced, on diverse 441 Hafner 1964, 19–53; Kämpfer 1973, 9–12; Kämpfer 1994, 429–438; Bojović 1996, 149–172, 309–470; Petrovszky 2013; Rohdewald 2014, 95–129; Popović 2016. 442 Zhivot svetoga Simeona Nemanje; English translation: Medieval Slavic Lives, 257–304; Zhitije Simeona Nemanje; a third Life was written around the year 1264 by Domentian, a monk on Mount Athos; see Alpert 1976; Podskalsky 2000, 356–365; Ćirković 2008 and the contributions in Nemanja, Stefan – Sveti Simeon Mirotočivi. 443 The oldest evidence (svetago Simeona Nemane) comes from an inscription found in the church of the St George monastery near Berane/Ivangrad dated to approximately 1220; Namentragende Steininschriften, 117. 444 Zhitije i zhizn’; see Schmaus 1963; Juchas-Geogievska 2003, 7–102. A second Life was written by Theodosios, another monk on Mount Athos, at the end of the 13th/beginning of the 14th century; see the contributions in Međunarodni naučni skup Sava Nemanjić and Podskalsky 2000, 365–382.

Medieval “ State-Formation ” and “ Nation-Building ”

259

grounds.445 This notwithstanding, local, and personal cults were associated with individual rulers already in the 13th century. The example of Stephen Nemanja induced each of his successors to emphasize the ecclesiastical and religious character of their reign. Almost each of them had a monastery of his own endowed, richly equipped, and assigned as the site of his burial, where the monks were expected to cherish the ruler’s memoria. Similarly, as Stephen Nemanja, many of them  – namely, Stephen Nemanjić, Radoslav, Uroš I, Dragutin (1276–82), possibly also Stephen Milutin (1282–1321) – joined a religious congregation in their late years. Apart from the circumstance that high-ranking Church hierarchs also came from the ruling dynasty, this practice underlined the close bond between sacrum and profanum, between the ecclesiastical and the secular authority. Since the early 13th century, the cult of saints and the collaboration between Church and Kingdom was visually expressed also by monumental frescoes; the impressive images conveyed the legitimization strategies to the simple faithful.446 In a short time the whole country, which had had no urban centres or a central seat of power, due to the monastic foundations was covered with a network of spiritual centres that functioned as prominent locales of the ruler’s representation.447 The individual cults within this network formed altogether one collective cult, sanctifying the dynasty as such. Thereby, the dynasty and the kingdom were merged into one inextricable unity and the “Serbian lands” became the home country for a political-and-religious community whose identity and cohesiveness were founded on the charisma of the holy Nemanjid dynasty. As a matter of fact, the Nemanjids did not use the geographical-political term “Serbia” (Σερβλια) as introduced by Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus and applied in the early 13th century by the papal court in the Latinized form of Servia.448 Instead, they would refer, in different variants, to a “Serbian land” or “Serbian countries.” No standardized concrete term was established 445 Only Stephen Uroš IV Dušan, who in 1335 completed the monastery of Dečani, founded by his father, and in 1348–52 in Prizren himself founded the monastery of St Michael, which he decided to be his funeral place, due to the desintegration of the Serbian kingdom missed his canonization. However, also in his case a canonization obviously has been envisaged, since a collection of hagiographical biographies of the Nemanjid kings, organized by archbishop Danilo II (1324–37), also contained a description of Stephen Dušan’s youth and early years of rule; Serbisches Mittelalter, 2, 259–275. 446 Ɖurić 1976, 33–64; Cvetković 2012; Todić 2016; Pavlović 2016. 447 Heiser 1996. 448 Letter of Pope Innocent III to King Emeric dated 15th September 1204, in: Maritsch 1933, 32.

260

Chapter 6

throughout the 13th century.449 The earliest testimony, a charter dated 1217–27, called Stephen Nemanjić king and lord “of the entire Serbian land and of the lands of Duklja and Dalmatia and Travunia and Zahumlje”, as well as “king and autocrat of the whole Serbian land and of the coastal area.”450 Another charter, from roughly the same period, was signed by him as “king and, with God, Serbian autocrat”; the territory he reigned was described by him merely as the “country of my authority.”451 His successor Stephen Radoslav titled himself, in a 1234 charter, “king of all the lands of Raška and Travunia” and in addition referred to “the entire land liable to my authority” and to the “land Zahumlje” and “Zeta”, the last name referring to Duklja.452 Stephen Vladislav signed his charters as “the Serbian king”, “king of all the Serbian lands and the coastal areas”,453 but also as “king of all the lands of Raška and the coast”, whereas in the charter’s content he named himself “king of all the lands of Raška and Duklja and Dalmatia and Travunia and Zahumlje.”454 Lastly, also Stephen Uroš I titled himself in a charter “the king of the whole of the Serbian land and the coast” and “king of the lands of Raška and of the coast”;455 in another charter he is referred to as “the king of all the Serbian land”, “king and, by the grace of God, autocrat of the Serbian land and the coast”, and “the king of all the Serbian lands and of the coast” – or, simply, “the Serbian king.”456 This open-endedness and flexibility in defining the territory ruled by the Nemanjids is indicative. It proves that it was not yet treated as a uniform and closed entity for quite a while. Even after the official title was stabilized during the 1290s to 1330s, assuming the fixed formula of “king (and autocrat) of the entire Serbian land(s) and of the coastal area(s)”, it still remained fairly open-ended. It only pointed to an indefinite conglomerate of lands or areas that together formed the kingdom. The official title did not delineate the area of authority with use of a clear name, nor did it encompass its inhabitants under a common name. The territory’s unity was indicated, at best, by the adjective ‘Serbian’. At the same time, the proper texts of charters issued before

449 On the terminology see also Hafner 1976; Angelini 2014c, 127–131. 450 Zbornik srednjovekovnih ćirilskih povelja, 108–109 (first quotation); 91–92 (second quotation). 451 Monumenta Serbica, 16; German translation: Arnold 2002, 20. 452 Zbornik srednjovekovnih ćirilskih povelja, 130; German translation: Arnold 2002, 20–22. 453 Zbornik srednjovekovnih ćirilskih povelja, 160; 162–163. 454 Zbornik srednjovekovnih ćirilskih povelja, 138; German translation: Arnold 2002, 22. 455 Zbornik srednjovekovnih ćirilskih povelja, 212–214; German translation: Arnold 2002, 23–25. 456 Zbornik srednjovekovnih ćirilskih povelja, 61–64, 68–73.

Medieval “ State-Formation ” and “ Nation-Building ”

261

the 14th century, wherever the area of rule required being defined, refer only to “my land”, “land under my authority”, or “my reign.”457 Similar phrases appear also in both early Lives of Stephen/Simeon, which occasionally refer to “the entire Serbian land” but kept the territorial dimension of the Nemanjids’ reign rather abstract. They mainly use abstract nouns such as “realm” (владичьство), “reign” (дръжава), and, primarily – in Stephen Nemanjić’s text – “fatherland” (ωтьчьство) without defining them precisely as “Serbian.”458 Also the “Life of St Sava” from the 1250s, written by Domentian, more frequently refer to “land”, “fatherland/patrimonium”, or “reign”, rather than to “Serbian lands.”459 The intention behind this terminology certainly was to reinforce the worldly dimension of the Nemanjids’ secular reign in religious terms, or even to present the Serbian realm as a “new Israel” through references to the Old Testament and through taking over of the relevant Byzantine concept.460 In this sense, the term “fatherland” would not have meant a shared place occupied by the politically aware secular elite but a spiritual port of a religious community. The chosen people of the new Israel were conceptualized as a community of salvation, rather than an ethnic nation. Also, the way in which the hagiographical biographies of the holy rulers portrayed their subjects shows that the Nemanjids were perceived as wards of a religious community, rather than leaders of an ethnic association of people. These texts refer to the subjects not as ‘Serbs’ but as “beloved children”, the “flock” entrusted to the ruler, or “the flock guarded by God”, as “spiritual flock in Christ”, “right-believing Christians”, or, simply, “the people.” Also the other available sources dating to the High Middle Ages almost never mention the name ‘Serbs’ as a name used by the subjects of the Nemanjid monarchy to denote themselves.461 The only Old Serbian charters that in the 13th century applied the name “Serb” (Срьблинь) were issued, significantly enough, in communication with Romance inhabitants of the Dalmatian town of Dubrovnik.462 As it seems, in these cases, the decisive factor was the external perspective of the seashore locality of Dubrovnik, where the subjects of the Nemanjids’ realm had probably been called ‘Serbs’ for some time already – just as the Byzantine and Latin sources did. This was quite understandable as – like 457 458 459 460 461 462

E.g. Arnold 2002, 19 (1215), 20 (1219–1228), 22 (1252), 23–25 (1254). Zhivot svetoga Simeona Nemanje; Zhitije Simeona Nemanje. Zhitije i zhizn’. Erdeljan 2014; Dziadul 2014. See Naumov 1989, 100–101. Arnold 2002, 19 (1215); Zbornik srednjovekovnih ćirilskih povelja, 86–87.

262

Chapter 6

with the towns of northern Dalmatia, which referred to the Slavic-speaking dwellers of the surrounding area, being Croatian subjects, as “Slavs” – the point was to differentiate between the Romance dwellers of the coastal area and the Slavic-speaking subjects of the Nemanjids. That this indeed was the case, is attested by a Latin postscript on the reverse side of the original copy of one of the charters in question, where the juxtaposition “Vlakh” (влах = ‘resident of Dubrovnik’) and “Serb” (Сьрбнинь) is expressed with the phrase Latini et Sclavonicj.463 In the internal communication within the Nemanjids’ realm, however, the term ‘Serb’ was apparently not used until the 14th century. This fact also speaks in favour of the argument that the elite of the Nemanjids’ monarchy – who in the 13th century, by way of sacralization of the monarchy and the cult of the kings – doubtlessly developed a specific identity and a peculiar idea of their own exclusivity, did not comprehend the latter in an ethnic or political sense. Rather than that, they perceived themselves (the sources are tacit about self-perception among the simple folk) primarily as a community of right-believing/orthodox Christians whose political and social identities mainly stemmed from their attachment to the ruling dynasty whose roots were sacralized. ‘Slavicity’ played no role whatsoever for this identity, strongly rooted in the culture of the Byzantine commonwealth.464 The Old Serbian variety of Old Church Slavonic, which used the Cyrillic alphabet, was a characteristic cultural and, thereby, identity-forming means of expression, which moreover facilitated the clerical elite’s communication with the Serbian/Slavic-speaking majority of the population and, as it can be guessed, implied the understanding of the linguistic kinship with other Slavic-speaking communities.465 Yet, neither the ideology of the authorities nor the everyday ideas of the subjects, among whom were also the Vlachians, Albanians, Romans, and later on, after the arrival of German-speaking miners, the Saxons, complemented by the Greeks and Bulgarians, resulting from the southward territorial expansion, were not founded on an idea of a particular Slavic character of the Serbian kingdom.

463 Arnold 2002, 19; see Zbornik srednjovekovnih ćirilskih povelja, 86–87. 464 Stanković 2016. 465 A less convincing interpretation offers Tolstoi 1989a, 118, who regards the use of Slavic literacy as “an important component of Serbian ethnic self-awareness and of the SerbianSlavic culture.”

Medieval “ State-Formation ” and “ Nation-Building ”

263

There was no basis for an all-Slavic idea of collective identity that would have associated the Serbs with the closer and more remote Slavic-speaking countries. Contrary to the sources from the Dalmatian coast, whose Romancespeaking urban dwellers did use the name “Slavs” to differentiate the Slavicspeaking inhabitants of their vicinity from the others, the inland sources never use the terms ‘Slavs’, ‘Slavic’, or ‘Slavic area’. Characteristically, also the names of persons in the high medieval period displayed lesser influence of the Slavic language compared to personal names in, for example, Croatia, Bohemia, or Poland. A strong influence of Byzantium (and Hungary) is visible also in this respect; the rulers of the Nemanjid dynasty mostly bore non-Slavic names.

Chapter 7

Incomplete Processes of “State-Formation” and “Nation-Building” During the High Middle Ages Eastern Europe had become “a landscape of nations and states,” of which only Hungary was not a Slavic-speaking country.1 The Bulgarians, Bohemians, Croats, Rus’, Poles, and Serbs had turned into medieval ‘nations’ insofar as their clerical and secular elites had developed an awareness of their linguistic, cultural, ecclesiastical/religious, and political distinctiveness, which they expressed and defended vis-à-vis the others and aliens as their own. Their territories were ‘states’ insofar as they constituted independent, Christian political units (regna) recognised by their neighbours and governed by dynasties of rulers that in general enjoyed undeniable authority which enabled them to pursue political actions within and outside the country. Thus, between the 10th and 12th centuries, a model of the medieval natio took shape also in Eastern Europe; its impact was so strong that it has never disappeared from the collective memory even in those nations that – as in Bulgaria and Croatia – lost their independence as ‘states’ at an early stage. An astonishingly clear outline of this model has survived till our day. However, it was not everywhere that the early medieval germs gave rise in the High Middle Ages to independent Christian regna and nationes. The principality of the Carantanians was incorporated into Bavarian/German structures at an early stage, which deprived it of its own development path. Resulting from its internal weakness and external pressures, the realm of the Moravians completely disappeared from the political map at the beginning of the 10th century.2 Somewhat later, its lot was shared by other Slavic-speaking political units – namely, the regional dominions of Slavs inhabiting since the 7th/8th century the lands between the Elbe and the Oder, between the Baltic Sea and the Ore Mountains (Erzgebirge), and along the southern Baltic coast between 1 Quotation from Pohl 2008, 33; only in the 13th century two further, non-Slavic realms – the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the German Order – would add to this ‘landscape’ of medieval East-Central European ‘states’. 2 It remains an interesting question whether or to what extent the Moravians preserved an independent self-awareness (Landesbewusstsein) vis-à-vis the Bohemians or developed such an identity somewhat later (12th–13th century); see Wihoda 2010a; Wihoda 2014b; Wihoda 2015b; Wihoda 2018a. Be that as it may, as an integral part of the Bohemian kingdom the Moravians, however, did not develop their own medieval natio.

© Eduard Mühle, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004536746_008

Incomplete Processes of “ State-Formation ” & “ Nation-Building ”

265

the lower Oder and the lower Vistula; also, certain single Slavic-speaking tribal associations in the southern Balkans. Between the 10th and 12th centuries, all of them developed some form of regional principality that could have developed into units like the ‘states’ (described in the preceding chapter) of the Bulgarians, Bohemians, Croats, Rus’, Poles, and Serbs. But this is not what happened. The repeated pattern was that a promising beginning that heralded the formation of an individual reign and the development of a lasting political independence did not stand the confrontation with internal structural weaknesses and with the stronger German, Danish, and Polish, or Hungarian, Croatian, and Serbian neighbours, who finally put an end to the establishment of such independent political bodies. As a result, also no ‘national’ identity, or any self-awareness of forming a medieval natio developed in those cases.3 Despite this or perhaps because of it, those “forgotten nations” have informed the image of ‘the Slavs’ in their time as well as in ours to quite a considerable extent. Already the medieval Latin concept soon referred the notion of ‘Slavs’ almost exclusively to those Slavic-speaking communities – the Polabian and Baltic Slavs among them – that long remained pagan and lived their traditional non-Christian way of life or who – as the Slavic-speaking communities along the eastern Adriatic coast – though being Christianized kept a clear social distance toward the Romance Latin/Italian-speaking population of the Dalmatian towns. Also, the modern image of the Slavs has primarily been formed based on a romantic interpretation of the archaic conditions in which the Slavic-speaking “forgotten nations” existed in the High Middle Ages. It is in their fortunes, cultures, and lifestyles that adherents of the modern idea of an all-Slavic unity have sought for elements that had allegedly constituted an all-Slavic community. What can be said, in this context, of the Slavic-speaking communities that in the high medieval period did not turn into nationes, and whose path to the shaping of a political distinctiveness was cut short? And, in the first place: have those ‘uncompleted’ societies preserved any specific ‘Slavic’ awareness, or has such an awareness been formed by them under specific conditions? These questions are addressed in this chapter – first, in relation to the Polabian and Baltic Slavs, then, to the Pomeranians, and lastly, to those Slavic-speaking West Balkan political bodies that proved able to survive until the 12th century, alongside the Croats and the Serbs.

3 See Graus 1980a, 73–84.

266 1

Chapter 7

Polabian Slavs

The Slavic-speaking inhabitants of the lands situated between the Oder and the Elbe never developed a political or cultural unity,4 nor did they create a political community or a common name. When modern researchers term them Polabian Slavs and/or Baltic Slavs (or North-western Slavs, Slavs between/on the Elbe and the Oder, trans-Elbian Slavs, Slavs in Germany), such a phrase is a notional shortcut similar to the one used in the Middle Ages in the national German language that imprecisely applied the collective name “Wends” (borrowed from the ancient Venedi) with respect to the diverse Slavs living between the Elbe and the Oder.5 The said diversity formed an unstable and changeable mosaic of larger and smaller associations, mighty dominions and units that spanned small territories.6 In the north, the larger organizations that between the 10th and 12th centuries influenced the political fortunes of the Polabian Slavs and often incorporated smaller associations into their structures, in diverse ways, were the Abodrites, the Hevellians, the Luticians, and the Rani. In the south, the sources of the 10th/11th century mention the Dalemincians and Milceni as the most influential Slavic tribal associations. Whether they tended to form larger of smaller units, all of the Polabian Slavs since the 920s had to face and stand up to the aggressive conquest policy pursued by the Saxons. The westernmost tribes, such as the Sorbs who lived between the Saale and the Mulde, were incorporated into the East Frankish Empire already at the end of the 9th century, thus losing their political independence at an early stage. Now, the Ottonian rulers reached further and further eastwards as their realm was getting stronger and more structured. As Thietmar of Merseburg recounts, it was in as early as 905/6 that the later King Henry I set off for an expedition against the Dalemincians, on commission of his father, the Saxonian duke.7 The Dalemincians requested the Magyars for help; the latter took the opportunity to solidify their own position against the Empire. Attempting to prevent the thus facilitated invasions from the Magyars/Hungarians, the ruler, who was crowned king in the year 919, took intensive actions against the Polabian Slavs in the late 920s. In 928/9, he managed to conquer Brandenburg an der Havel, the main stronghold of the 4 For surveys on the Polabian and Baltic Slavs during the 10th to 12th centuries see Herrmann 1968b; Lübke 2002; Kempke/Lübke 2002; Henning 2002; Leciejewicz 2010, 116–321; Klammt 2013. 5 Lübke 1993b. 6 See Biermann 2006, 59–60. 7 Thietmari, 6 (I, 3).

Incomplete Processes of “ State-Formation ” & “ Nation-Building ”

267

Hevellians, who had ever since to pay Henry a tithe on trade (decima) and a mead tax (census).8 From Brandenburg, Henry further advanced against the Dalemincians and demolished their stronghold of Gana.9 In lieu of it, he had his own frontier stronghold erected in Meissen, which since then served him as a lodgement and point-of-departure for further expeditions – now against the Milceni and their capital town of Bautzen (Budissin); the subjugation of the Milceni was completed by 932.10 As Widukind of Corvey reports, also the northern tribes of Abodrites, Wiltzi, and Redarians were forced by Henry to pay him tributes by 931.11 The tributary dependence superimposed by Henry I during his expeditions in parts of the Polabian Slavs was rather loose; its purpose was primarily to ensure preventive protection of the borders and, in the south, to defend his country against the Magyars/Hungarians. The Polabian Slavs managed to defend themselves against some of these invasions. Part of their response was intense construction of strongholds, as a strikingly big number of fortifications or entrenchments shows which archaeologists have discovered and dated to the early 10th century.12 They also proactively campaigned against the Saxons like the Redarians in the North. Others like the Dalemincians in the south in 936 successfully repulsed an invasion commanded by Esik of Merseburg. It was probably on this occasion that the Dalemincians managed, for some time, to unfetter themselves from tributary dependence.13 Henry’s son and successor Otto I took more resolute actions in the third decade of the 10th century. His goal was to make the lands of Polabian Slavs a part of the large-area territory governed by him as a Christian ruler. According to the Saxon ideas, the conquered territory was property of the king, thus becoming subject to his only and absolute power. The king did not feel restricted in his activity by the customary law of the Polabian Slavs, so he delegated the control over the subdued people to Saxon mighty men, allowed them to exploit those people, and entrusted to them the security of the borders – thus, in the longer term, paving for them the way for creating their own territorial dominions. It was already in 936 that Otto I entrusted Hermann Billung, son of unknown parents, with the protection of the frontier in the north on a permanent basis. Thus, he organized a military expedition against the Redarians and soon was acting explicitly as an Ottonian margrave (marchio, comes). Some 8 9 10 11 12 13

Rossignol 2007, 228–230. See Oexle 2004; Rossignol 2018, 146–147; Hardt 2019b, 30–31. Thietmari, 22 (I, 16); for Bautzen see Szech 2003. Widukindi monarchi Corbeiensis, 51 (I, 36). Henning 1992b, 321–322; Henning 1998a; Henning 2002, 135; Richthofen 2003. Schrage 2004, 32.

268

Chapter 7

time afterward, Otto appointed Gero, son of the Merseburg count Thietmar, margrave of the southern lands. His ‘district of office’ comprised the lands situated between the Saale/Elbe and Oder, from the Havel River in the north to the border with Bohemia in the south.14 To facilitate the administration of the marchs, so-called burgwards (burgowarde, burgward[i]um) were established since the end of the 960s.15 The centres of those administrative districts were sometimes established in older Slavic strongholds, which – as archaeological research has indicated – were on this occasion intensely redeveloped; otherwise, and quite often so, the margraves would have had completely new defensive facilities erected. The burgwards enabled to exercise more precise control over the population inhabiting the given district and to systematically collect the tributes, thus facilitating the political subordination of the local people to the Empire. They initiated, in fact, the first stage of colonization and, wherever the process was not interrupted by pagan resistance, ultimately gave the conquered lands a completely new character. The military conquest, political penetration, and economic exploitation of the Polabian Slavs’ lands was accompanied by an attempt at christianizing these territories.16 As the main centres of the Ottonians’ missionary activities two bishoprics were established within Gero’s march in 948, in Brandenburg and Havelberg.17 They initially were subordinate to the Archbishopric of Mainz, but in 968 were included in the newly erected Archbishopric of Magdeburg.18 Moreover, three new bishoprics – those of Merseburg, Meissen, and Zeitz – were allocated to the Magdeburg archbishopric aimed at promoting christianization within the southern Polabian Slavs’ lands. As for the Northern March, in 968 or 972 in Bremen/Hamburg, the decision was taken to establish another bishopric in the Wagrian stronghold of Starigard/Oldenburg. So, it seemed in the early 980s that military and administrative inclusion of the Polabian Slavs into the Empire of the Ottonians, their pacification and Christianization, were on the right lines or even had come to a successful end. In any case, the new ecclesiastical and secular structures were gradually taking root; together with the Saxon and Thuringian mighty, who were arriving as margraves and burgwards, first German-speaking settlers started arriving 14 Lüpke 1937, 5–9; Brademann 2000. 15 Billig 1989, 11–17; Schrage 1999; Frey 2014. 16 On the christianizaton of the Sorbs and Polabian Slavs see Hardt 2013a; Hardt 2013b; Hardt 2015b. 17 See however Bergstedt 1997, who assumes that both bishoprics were established in fact only in 965 in the context of the reorganization of the marches after the death of Gero. 18 See Belitz 2019, 137.

Incomplete Processes of “ State-Formation ” & “ Nation-Building ”

269

beyond the Saale and the Elbe. Around 950, the district of the Neletici, located on the Saale, near the city of Halle, was still called patria Sclavorum, to differentiate it clearly as a Slavic-speaking land from the German-speaking Thuringia. Just a few years later, however, apart from the Slavic-speaking subjects also German-speaking ones (mancipii Teutonici) lived there.19 That the Saxon rule must have been a heavy yoke for a large part of the population is testified by the Chronica Sclavorum written almost two hundred years later by Helmold of Bosau. Assuming a somewhat convoluted chronology, the Bosau parish priest recounts that in the 970s and 980s margrave Dietrich was oppressing the Polabian Slavs in Northern March “with such cruelty that they finally threw off the yoke of servitude and had to take up arms in defense of their freedom.”20 Indeed, the northern associations of Slavs responded to the imposition of new structures and laws and to the Christian Church’s actions by returning to their roots. They referred to pagan values and ideas and began to prepare to resist the invader. The binding factor for this movement was the emergence of a supra-regional association in which the leadership was taken by the Redarians, inhabiting eastern Mecklenburg. In the early 980s, they entered an alliance with the neighbouring tribes of Circipanians, Kessinians, and Tollensians forming the so-called Lutician federation,21 which occupied the territory stretching up to the Oder River, according to Adam of Bremen.22 1.1 The Lutician Federation and Pagan Resistance The name Luticians (Liutizi) first appears in the earliest “Lives of St. Adalbert,” written down in 999–1000 and 1007–08,23 and in the “Annals of Hildesheim” of ca. 1007 (in the retrograde description of the events of the year 991).24 The view is widespread among scholars that this name has deliberately been put in lieu of the older name Wiltzi and that it was meant, being a political term, to epitomized the (re)unification of those Polabian tribes, who once already have been linked within the tribal association of the Wiltzi, and now form a new political federation.25 The name in question cannot, for a change, be regarded as a manifestation of a ‘Lutician nationality’, albeit it did express a new, peculiar sense 19 Die Urkunden Konrads I., Heinrichs I. und Ottos I., I, no. 27, no. 232; Regesten II, 117; see also Lübke 1993a, 65. 20 Helmoldi, 34 (I, 16); the English quotation from The Chronicle of the Slavs, 83. 21 Fritze 1958; Hellmann 1960, 107–110; Brüske 1983; Dralle 1981, 143–155; Sochacki 2006. 22 Adam von Bremen, 79 (II, 22). 23 S. Adalberti Pragensis episcopi et martyris vita prior, 40; S. Adalberti Pragensis episcopi et martyris vita altera, 8. 24 Annales Hildesheimenses, 25. 25 Lübke 1995, 75, 80–81; Lübke 2004, 287; Skonieczny 2011.

270

Chapter 7

of community. The name of the federation is derived from the Slavic root *l’ut-, translatable as ‘savage’ or ‘cruel’. The addition of the suffix -ici, typical of Slavic patronymics, extended the meaning of the term into ‘people of L’ut’, or ‘men of a savage/cruel god’ (L’utyi bog).26 The ‘men of a savage god’ formed a cultural and belligerent community that was bonded, primarily, by the shared experience of oppression and its resulting enmity toward the representatives of the Empire and Christian Church. This enmity extended also to the Polabian allies of the oppressors, such as the baptized Abodrite and Hevellian princes. In this sense, the Lutician federation did not express a Slavic ethnical identity but rather, a political and social resistance. Hence, the Lutician sense of community did not refer to any ‘Slavdom’. Even with no self-testimonies available, which might have provided more detailed information on the Lutician identity, it can be assumed that it did not ensue from an idea or concept of a common Slavic character or a shared Slavic origin and history. As is demonstrated by the descriptions of Saxon and Danish chroniclers, and as Thietmar of Merseburg wrote, the Lutician mentality and lifestyle (libertas more Liuticio), was informed, in the first place, by the peculiar forms of political decision-making, the regional pagan cult, and war expeditions.27 Rather than having been governed by a single ruler or priest, the federation was subjected to a collective leadership exercised by the mighty (proceres) from each of the tribes forming the federation. This elite was based in strongholds and ruled their respective tribes while individual chieftains were either eliminated or integrated into the common leadership. The mighty held deliberations on a sort of popular assembly (placitum) with the other members of their tribes and listened, above all, to the auguries pronounced by their priests. The latter had their main residence in Rethra (Riedegost), the holy town in the land of the Redarians.28 The hitherto-unlocated (and, therefore, archaeologically unexplored) facility was not only the site of the main cult actions but also the place where the federation’s political meetings were held. Due to its double function, the one of supra-regional site of cult and the venue of political rapprochement between the tribes, Rethra had a unique position among the Polabian Slavs’ sites of cult activity. According to Thietmar of Merseburg,

26

See also Urbańczyk 2008, 344 who assumes that the name appeared at the very same time as the name Palani/Poleni/Poloni “on the principle of contrasting the inhabitants of both sides of the Oder River.” 27 Thietmari, 498 (VIII, 5). 28 Schroeder/Hornemann 1972/73; Schmidt 1974; Dralle 1984.

Incomplete Processes of “ State-Formation ” & “ Nation-Building ”

271

compared against the sites related to the individual tribes, Rethra had the principalem monarchiam.29 The unique importance of Rethra manifested itself in worshipping the god Svarožic, common to the entire federation. As per the fabulous story told by Saxon sources, the god’s statue was made of gold and placed on a purple pedestal.30 By creating one common god and establishing the priests to serve him, the federation had evidently responded to the Christian monotheism and patterned itself on the Church structures. Warfare symbols were also kept at the Rethra temple; after each victorious combat, they were deposited there again, together with the votive donations. The wooden temple with its highpriced equipment, embellished with drawings and sculptures of various local deities, was, moreover, the seat of the oracle. In Thietmar’s words, the priests convene there to offer sacrifices to the idols or assuage their anger, these priests sit while everyone else stands. Murmuring together in secret, they tremble and dig in the earth so that, after casting lots, they may acquire certainty in regard to any questionable matter. When this is finished, they cover the lots with green grass and, after placing two spears crosswise on the ground, humbly lead over them a horse which they believe to be the largest of all and venerate as sacred. That which the casting of lots had already revealed to them, should also be foretold by this almost divine beast. If the same omen appears in both cases, it is carried out in fact. Otherwise, the unhappy folk immediately reject it.31 Ritual sacrifices were also made there – human ones at times as well, as it may be assumed. At no time did the central Lutician temple eliminate the diversity of Polabian deities and sites of cult.32 As Thietmar of Merseburg wrote in the 1010s, “each region of this land has a temple and a special idol which is worshipped by these unbelievers.”33 Later on, temples similar to that of Rethra served the Rani at Cape Arkona (on the north-eastern tip of the Baltic Sea Island of Rügen) and the Pomeranians. Helmold of Bosau, Saxo Grammaticus, and 29 Thietmari, 305 (VI, 25). 30 Adam von Bremen, 78 (II, 21). 31 Thietmari, 303–304 (VI, 24); the English quotation from Ottonian Germany, 253; see Slovanské pohanství, 48–49. 32 In more detail on the cult practices of the Polabian Slavs Herrmann 1969; Filipowiak 1993a; Leciejewicz 1998; Müller-Wille 1999, 81–89; Słupecki 2000a. 33 Thietmari, 305 (VI, 25); the English quotation from Ottonian Germany, 254; for a detailed analysis of the negative perception of the Polabian Slavs’ pagan cults by the Saxon chroniclers Thietmar, Adam and Helmold see Rosik 2000; Rosik 2002.

272

Chapter 7

Otto of Bamberg’s biographers described them in no less impressive ways.34 And yet Rethra was a unique cult site, with an unusual clout and impact. It gave the Lutician federation a great ‘sacred’ authority and thereby, as long as the federation was unified around this sacredness, an enormous vigour. The latter exploded in a violent uprising in 983.35 The Polabian Slavs took advantage of the bitter defeat suffered by Otto II in the summer of 982 in southern Italy in a struggle with the Saracens, and of the Danish raids in the north of the Empire. Thirty years later, Thietmar of Merseburg wrote, that Margrave Dietrichs’s arrogance so irritated peoples who had already accepted both Christianity and the status of tribute payer in regard to our kings and emperors, that their members unanimously decided to take up arms. […] The outrage began on 29 July, with the murder of the garrison and destruction of the cathedral at Havelberg. Three days later, at the sounding of prime, the entire band of Slavs attacked the bishopric of Brandenburg, a see established beyond Magdeburg some thirty years previously. Folkmar, the third bishop of that see, had already fled, and his defender, Dietrich, barely escaped with his warriors on the same day as the attack. The clergy who remained were captured. The second bishop, Dodilo, was dragged from his tomb. […] The greedy dogs then plundered him and carelessly threw him back again. They also stole all of the church’s treasures and brutally spilled the blood of many.36 Apparently, the revolt expanded up to the land of the Hevellians. The insurgents’ success caused that large groups of the Hevellian and shortly afterward also of the Abodrite people joined them. Their princely reigns had been temporarily overthrown and tried hard to resist the attacks of the Luticians, making certain concessions. Moreover, the military interventions launched in the last decade of the 10th century by Otto III, did not lead to re-subdual of the Luticians, and the emperor had finally to recognize the status quo. His successor, Henry II, managed to make the Luticians his allies. As Thietmar of Merseburg reported, in the spring of 1003, he received their envoys in Quedlinburg “and, calming these rebels with the sweetness of gifts and the joy of promises, turned them from enemies into friends.”37 34 Helmoldi, 8 (I, 2); Saxo Grammaticus, 358 (XIV, 39); Slovanské pohanství, 68–149, 189–233 – see Banaszkiewicz 2018b; Banaszkiewicz 2018a; Ebonis Vita S. Ottonis, 93–94 (III, 1); S. Ottonis episcopi, 42–43 (II, 11). 35 Fritze 1984a; Lorenz 1988; Lübke 1998; Büker 2008. 36 Thietmari, 119–120 (III, 17); the English quotation from Ottonian Germany, 141. 37 Thietmari, 257 (V, 31); the English quotation from Ottonian Germany, 226.

Incomplete Processes of “ State-Formation ” & “ Nation-Building ”

273

The king, to the dismay of many of his contemporary Christians, used the military assistance of the Luticians in his long war against the Polish duke Bolesław I, the Brave. This alliance strengthened the Luticians’ rule for some time. However, as a united political association, the federation only functioned until the middle of the 11th century. As the federation aimed at resisting the Empire, reflecting the interests of local and regional groupings, and mainly seeking to preserve the archaic, pagan way of life, the association was not capable of acting constructively in the long run. Perhaps, as a peculiar political union, it had the makings of becoming a supra-regional political body, but the identity-shaping processes activated at that time were neither sufficiently strong nor long-lasting enough to lead to the emergence of a natio. Moreover, the repeated expeditions of the Saxons, Poles, and Pomeranians exerted pressure on the federation from the outside. The intensifying internal conflicts – such as the fight that broke out in 1057 between the Kessinians and Circipanians, on the one hand, and the Tollensians and Redarians, on the other hand – speeded up the decomposition. In as early as 1067/8, the bishop of Halberstadt with his army managed to demolish the temple at Rethra, while the western and eastern parts of the Luticians’ lands fell under the reign of the Abodrites and Pomeranians. Having been pushed off into the lands of Redarians and Tollensians, the anti-Christian and anti-ducal association ceased to be active, and completely disappeared from the political scene by the 12th century. Dwelling in the southern lands, the Lusatian Sorbs did not join the 983 revolt or the pagan reaction.38 The southern Slavic-speaking associations had been deprived of their vernacular elites in the early 980s and so strictly included in the Ottonian/Saxon power structures that they were left with virtually no conditions for developing pagan resistance or leading a political fight for independence  – all the more that the Bohemian Přemyslids and the Polish Piasts were always exerting considerable pressure on the Dalemincians, Milceni, and Lusici. On the part of the Abodrites and the Hevellians, their conservative elites only temporarily and partly supported the Lutician federation. Once the hardpressed princes influenced by Christianity regained superiority, the control exercised by margraves on behalf of the Empire grew stronger. Yet, in both cases considerable autonomy in respect of the imperial authority was maintained. The Abodrites formed for some time a large-area political organism with a dynastic power, which might well have been expected to turn into a 38

For the development in these territories in generale see Helbig 1960; Schlesinger 1960; Knebel 1984; Knebel 1987; Richthofen 2007; Pech 2015.

274

Chapter 7

medieval kingdom, whereas the Hevellians maintained to keep hereditary princely rights. Moreover, the Rani, who had mainly settled in the island of Rügen, had their ascertained dominion.39 Adam of Bremen and Helmold of Bosau referred to it as a kingdom, which would have been a unique phenomenon amongst the Polabian and Baltic Slavs.40 However, the sources would not tell us what exactly the difference was between the Rani and the Abodrites or the Hevellians. It was probably about their self-awareness that caused their leaders to be perceived from the outside as kings. In any case, Helmold described the Rani as a gens fortissima, as populi crudeles, who dwelled “in the midst of the sea,” and who were extremely superstitious, but always demanded primacy among all the Slavic peoples. They reportedly had a certain particularly famous sacred site, upon which they founded their precedence. It was from there that they imposed yokes on the others whilst never accepting a yoke themselves, for owing to a well-protected position of their homesteads, they were efficiently protected against attacks. The tribes they conquered militarily were reportedly forced by them to pay tributes to their temple. Their main priest apparently enjoyed greater respect than the prince himself.41 If this description is to be trusted, priestly authority was stronger in Rügen than princely power. It indeed seems that the main cult site of the Rani in Arkona took over the role of Rethra and kept it until its demolition by the Danish in 1168. The temple stronghold above the coastal chalk rocks of the northern coast of Rügen was the actual centre of the Rani’s political power.42 1.2 The Abodrites: Between Christian regnum and Pagan Reaction The history of the Abodrites is traceable further backward in time than that of the Rani. A description concerning the year 789 is the earliest mention of the tribe; the Abodrites had a much bigger territory at that time. Between the 10th and 12th centuries, they formed an association that extended to the lands between Eastern Holstein and central Mecklenburg, thus unifying different smaller associations.43 Between the Bay of Kiel and the Trave River lived the 39 For the Rani in general see Osięgłowski 1967; Reimann/Ruchhöft/Willich 2011; Ganina 2015. 40 Adam von Bremen, 245 (Schol. 121): insula […] Runorum […] qui soli habent regem; Helmoldi, 9 (I, 2): Rugiani, gens fortissima Slavorum, qui soli habent regem. On the kingdom of the Rani see also Gaethke 2000b, 40–59. 41 Helmoldi, 70 (I, 36). 42 Herrmann 1974; Ruchhöft 2017. 43 For the Abodrites in general see Fritze 1960; Friedmann 1986, 180–279; Müller-Wille 1991; Rühberg 1995; Ruchhöft 2007; Strzelczyk 2015.

Incomplete Processes of “ State-Formation ” & “ Nation-Building ”

275

Wagrians, whose main centre was Starigard/Oldenburg in eastern Holstein.44 The land between the Trave and the Elbe was inhabited by the Polabians, with their main stronghold in Ratzeburg. Around the Schwerin Lake dwelled the Abodrites proper or those who were called by Adam of Bremen the Reregi; their main stronghold was Mecklenburg.45 As a federation of tribes, the Abodrites (in the wider sense of the name) perhaps had substituted the older association (confederation) of the Wiltzi, who in the 10th century appeared merely as a single tribe in what is modern Hither Pomerania (Vorpommern, the region west of the island of Usedom), and subsequently as part of the Lutician federation.46 The princes ruling the Wagrians and the Abodrites (in the narrower sense) rivalled against each other for leadership. It remains unclear which of the minor associations “the king of the Abodrites” belonged, who was forced by Henry I in 931 to surrender and accept baptism. During the repeated attempts to free themselves from the Saxon power in 955, two brothers, Nakon and Stoignev, excelled among those Abodrites (in the narrower sense). As we can learn from Thietmar of Merseburg, they initiated a “terrible war” but were defeated and forced to submission by Otto I.47 Yet, Nakon managed to keep his autocratic power, which was possible probably because he converted to Christianity; his brother was killed in combat against the Saxons. It was probably Nakon who, in collaboration with Adaldag, bishop of Bremen and Hamburg, founded the first churches in Oldenburg and Mecklenburg. He altogether wielded a strong reign, based upon strongholds and a considerable number of supporters. Ibrāhīm ibn Yaʿkūb placed him, in the 960s, on a par with the dukes of Bohemia, Poland, and Bulgaria.48 After Nakon’s death (965–67), conflicts between the associations of the Abodrites residing at Mecklenburg and those of Starigard/Oldenburg were renewed. With support from Hermann Billung, Nakon’s son, Mstivoy, defeated Selibur, the Wagrian subregulus.49 He repaid the Billungs by, inter alia, granting his consent for the founding of a bishopric in Oldenburg, which took place in 968 or 972.50 Shortly after that, in 983, the great revolt of the Lutician Slavs shook the whole region. Mstivoy yielded to the pressure from his subjects and 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

Struve 1985; Gabriel 2002. Adam von Bremen, 76–77 (II, 21); Donat 1984. Ruchhöft 2011a, 22–23. Thietmari, 50 (II, 12). Relacja Ibrāhīma, 48. Widukindi monarchi Corbeiensis, 142 (III, 68); see Pellens 1950, 8–11; on the role of the Bilungs Freytag 1951; Goetz 1994. Beumann 1972.

276

Chapter 7

joined the uprising – possibly in the hope that he would thereby strengthen his position as an independent ruler versus the Empire. The dynastic marriage he arranged at that time, as confirmed by a runic stone, between his daughter Tofa and the Danish king Harald Bluetooth Gormsson, would fit this picture.51 Albeit Mstivoy himself remained Christian, as did nearly all the offspring of Nakon (called the Nakonids), the bishop of Oldenburg was expelled, and the archbishop’s residence in Hamburg attacked. But perhaps this happened only around 1018, when, as Adam of Bremen recounts, sixty priests were killed in Oldenburg.52 Archaeologists have discovered at the Oldenburg stronghold a vast horizon of fire, which, according to radiocarbon dating, came from ca. the year 1000. These traces of fire, some in the form of enormous quantities of burnt cereals, might have resulted from the destruction of the episcopal residence, in lieu of which probably a pagan temple was erected.53 In the 1040s, the Danish and the Billungs helped Gottschalk, a christened Abodrite, in seizing power. Gottschalk was brought up in a monastery in Lüneburg and subsequently stayed for a long time at the Danish court and took part in the expedition during which the Danish conquered England. From Mecklenburg, he set off against the Wagrians and the Polabians and conquered them – and, after the decomposition of the Lutician federation, also the Circipanians and the Kessinians. The Glinians (Linones), inhabiting the lands in the south, were subordinated to the Abodrites as well.54 Moreover, Gottschalk probably took first steps toward strengthening his reign through the development of a system of administrative districts and a durable debilitation of the position of the political federations and their leaders.55 Together with the archbishop of Bremen, he reinstated the Wagrian bishopric in Starigard; in the early 1060s, for the Abodrites (‘in the narrower sense’) and the Polabians, he established their own bishoprics, in Mecklenburg and Ratzeburg. Moreover, he founded two monasteries, in Lenzen and Mecklenburg. According to Adam of Bremen, Gottschalk would deliver sermons to common people in person so that they could have the truths of faith conveyed “in a plainer fashion, using the Slavonic speech” (sermonem […] Sclavanicis verbis reddere planiora).56 He had had an opportunity to observe  – in the Empire, 51 52 53 54 55 56

Hoffmann 1984, 121–122. Adam von Bremen, 103 (II, 43). Hoffmann 1986, 13; Gabriel/Kempke 1991, 173–175. Adam von Bremen, 162–163 (III, 20); for the Glinians see Chapter 3, footnote 104. Ruchhöft 2011b, 24–26. Adam von Bremen, 163 (III, 20); for Gottschalk’s attempts at christianizing see Petersohn 1979, 22–28; Seegrün 1982.

Incomplete Processes of “ State-Formation ” & “ Nation-Building ”

277

in Denmark and in England – how much the Christian Church, its hierarchs and cult reinforced the power of princes/dukes and kings. His involvement in the dissemination of Christianity was thus probably motivated by the intention to transform the still largely pagan tribal association of the Abodrites into a Christian regnum – of the type he got acquainted with in Denmark and England, but certainly also in the realms of the Piasts and the Přemyslids. However, the reinforcement of the condominium and cooperation with the Church triggered strong resistance, again, in the circles of the Abodrite elite. Gottschalk finally paid the price of life for his actions: early in June 1066, the pagan rebels assaulted him at the stronghold of Lenzen and killed him. Power was taken over afterwards, for twenty-five years, by the Wagrian leader Kruto, who completely yielded to the pagan reaction. He liquidated all the three Abodrite bishoprics and all the churches and reactivated the pagan cult sites. The benefices, associated earlier on with the Church foundations, were distributed by him among members of the pagan Abodrite elite, by which move he certainly assured for himself their further support. Despite this, not long afterward, in the last decade of the 11th century, Gottschalk’s youngest son, Henry, supported by Danes and Saxons, managed to restore the Christian principality once more. He had Kruto removed and eliminated, by 1093, including those members of the Abodrite elite who were still recalcitrant. Under Henry’s rule, the state of the Abodrites was at the peak of its power;57 for some time, it stretched up to the lands of the Hevellians and the Rani. With the transfer of the main princely residence from Mecklenburg to Old Lübeck, a town founded by his father in place of an older Slavic stronghold, Henry moved the principality’s centre from the Old Abodrite land into Wagrian lands. This decision took into account the economic change taking place at that very time. An important crafts-and-merchant settlement soon emerged outside the new centre.58 In the field of politics, Henry referred to his father’s programme. He endeavoured to establish a reign equal to royal, and probably used the royal title himself (son of a Danish princess, he realised that he was worthy of being a king). Helmold of Bosau, as well as the “Book of the Dead” and the Chronicon of the St. Michaelis monastery in Lüneburg, described him as a rex Slavorum, at any rate.59

57 Gaethke 2000a; Gaethke 2000b, 5–14. 58 Yrwing 1996; Grabowski 2016. 59 Helmoldi, 70 (I, 36), 84 (I, 41), 91 (I, 46); Nekrologium monasterii sancti Michaelis, 22; Chronicon sancti Michaelis Luneburgensis, 396.

278

Chapter 7

However, Henry prudently quit the idea imposing Christianity in an overly offensive fashion.60 Instead, he placed a bet on peaceful coexistence with the pagan elite and was ready to compromise wherever reasonable. This enabled him to establish within thirty years a reign that was on the high road to accept the forms of organization like those successfully developed among his eastern and western neighbours in the 10th century. Henry might even have solicited to provide the Abodrite regnum with a sacral aura of its own saint, through the canonization of his father Gottschalk. How efficiently a dynasty’s reign could be legitimized by a canonized member of the own dynasty, was attested to Henry by the examples of the Norwegian, Bohemian, and Hungarian saints Olaf, Václav, and Stephen.61 Unfortunately, his death in March 1127 put an end to Henry’s plans in this respect as well. Henry’s sons, Zuentipolk and Knut, could not refer to a titular royalty or kingship, nor to any concrete successes of their father. They clashed against each other in fratricidal struggle, had to face the devastating invasion of the Rani, who destroyed Old Lübeck in 1128, and were finally killed. Moreover, the son of Zuentipolk, the only surviving legitimate heir, soon died a violent death. Those assassinations might have come as a response to the attempts made by the dynasty’s members to gradually strengthen the Christian structures, but their background might have been different as well. In any case, they resulted in the end of the main line of the Nakonid dynasty. A period of uncertainty began for the Abodrites, which was additionally exacerbated by intensified strife of some potent men to reinstate paganism. In this situation, in the spring of 1129, King Lothar III bestowed the regnum Obotritorum as a fief to Jarl Knut Lavard, who aspired to the Danish throne.62 However, Lavard was murdered by this Danish rival in 1131. This led Lothar to strengthening his power in the Abodrite lands; he nonetheless transferred the Polabian and Wagrian lands to Pribislav, Henry’s nephew, and the Mecklenburg lands to a man named Niklot. Helped by the count of Holstein, the latter tried to act against his competitor from the West, but this caused a weakening of his position,63 as cooperation with the Saxon count who strove for territorial power opened for the count the path to expand on his own account. This is how Pribislav’s rule came to an end by 1139/40; western lands of the Abodrites became property of the Saxon prince’s liege count Adolf II 60 61

See Petersohn 1979, 49–53. See also the argumentation based on Adam von Bremen, 162–163 (III, 19–20) in Hoffmann 1998, 46–48. 62 On Lavard’s fief kingdom in more detail Gaethke 2000b, 15–40. 63 Rühberg 1996.

Incomplete Processes of “ State-Formation ” & “ Nation-Building ”

279

of Schauenburg, the Count of Holstein and Stormarn (Wagria), and Henry of Badewide, Count of Ratzeburg (Polabia). Also, the eastern lands, under Niklot’s rule, soon fell into a severer dependence on the Saxon prince. In 1160 Niklot was killed in a struggle against the Saxon-Danish coalition; his two sons, Pribislav and Vartislav, ignited a revolt but were defeated in 1163/4. Pribislav, who survived, had to satisfy himself in 1167 by the principality of Mecklenburg donated as a fief by Henry the Lion, Duke of Saxony. He also had to get christened, accept the formation of parochial and diocesan structures, nomination of Saxon stewards (ministerials) at princely castle-centres, and the inflow of foreign settlers.64 Having overthrown Henry the Lion, Emperor Frederick Barbarossa renewed the fief and recognized his Slavic-speaking vassal, Niklot of Rostock, son of Vartislav and grandson of Niklot, as a prince of the Empire (Reichsfürst). At this point the transformation of the Polabian realm of the Abodrites into a German territorial principality was well underway. 1.3 The Hevellians Roughly at that same time, similar transition occurred among the Hevellians, who called themselves Stodorans.65 They were mainly settling along the banks of the rivers and lakes on the Havel River arch, between the localities of Spandau and Rathenau. Their main centre was the stronghold Brandenburg, situated an isle at the confluence of the Havel, Beetzsee Lake, and the Plane. Dendrochronological analysis has shown that fortifications were first erected there in as early as the second half of the 9th century.66 They were situated in a strategically beneficial place, at which the trade route, set from Magdeburg and leading eastwards via Potsdam, Lebus, and Poznań, crossed the Havel, and from which one could fast reach – upstream and downstream, through the tributaries and lakes  – any of the localities within the Hevellian territory and the adjacent minor principalities. The moment Henry I conquered Brandenburg, in 928/9, the stronghold was the seat of a prince whose title was probably hereditary. The princely family excelled at the beginning of the 10th century by entering a marriage that was of essence in terms of dynastic policy: around 907, one of the daughters of Drahomir, prince of the Hevellians, was married off to the Bohemian duke Vratislav I and soon became the mother of the future Přemyslid duke Václav, who was later canonized. Another daughter from the Hevellian house, who in 928/9 together with her brother Tugumir was 64 Pelc 1995; Gaethke 1999, 455–458. 65 Myśliński 1970; Dralle 1981, 127–135; Tateo-Sasse 1987; Wehner 2011; Wehner 2012. 66 Dalitz 2009; see also Ludat 1971; Kirsch 2011; Grebe et al. 2015.

280

Chapter 7

abducted by Henry I the Fowler to the Saxon court as a hostage, entered a relationship with the young Otto I; the future emperor had with her an illegitimate son whose name was Wilhelm and who in 954 was made archbishop of Mainz. Such marriages and relationships demonstrate that the rule of Hevellian princes was woven at an early stage into a network of larger political connections. This was perhaps the reason why the Hevellian dynasty preserved some of its princely rights even after the second Ottonian conquest. Tugumir, who grew up in bondage, returned in 940 to the land on the Havel, conquered Brandenburg, and removed his nephew, who had meanwhile seized power there. According to Widukind, who clearly refers to him as a legitimate ruler and heir to the Hevellian reign, Tugumir acted on order of King Otto I and, misleading his compatriots, subdued Brandenburg to him and caused that the Slavic-speaking tribes up to the Oder River became obligated to pay tribute to him.67 Their actual incorporation into Gero’s march and the establishment of the bishoprics at Brandenburg and Havelberg in 948 resulted in their becoming part of the Ottonian Empire. It all the same seems that Tugumir and his successors wielded at least partly an autonomous regional power, and it was from this position that they later entered marriages with the family of the Northern March count, the counts of Haldensleben, and the Polish Piasts. The coexistence of Christian and pagan structures was characteristic of their internal power. Resulting from the 983 Slavic revolt, also the Hevellian ecclesial and administrative institutions formed before by the Saxons were destroyed,68 but in as early as 991, Brandenburg was regained from the Luticians, with participation of the young Otto III and, after multiple replacements of its owners, it remained in the Hevellians’ hands since the beginning of the 11th century. It seems that the ruling stratum ensured continuity of Christianity while tolerating pagan practices. Yet, written sources from the 11th and early 12th centuries are almost completely tacit about the Hevellians. Only the archaeological finds and research cast some light on the tribe, pointing, for example, to a thorough redevelopment and reconstruction of Brandenburg and an intensified economic development. At the beginning of the 12th century, the Hevellians seemingly fell under the reign of the Abodrites for some time. However, in the second decade of the 12th century, at the latest, they again had a ruler from their own princely dynasty. In any case, in 1127, Pribislav-Henry, a Christian, took power after his

67 Widukindi monachi Corbeiensis, 85 (II, 21). 68 Grebe 1983.

Incomplete Processes of “ State-Formation ” & “ Nation-Building ”

281

assassinated predecessor, Meinfried, who was called comes Slavorum, and was regarded as his legitimate successor ever since.69 Pribislav-Henry used the title of rex, minted his own coins, and endeavoured to have the Hevellians abandon their pagan practices. As he expected that he would die heirless, he appointed Count Albrecht the Bear, an Ascanian, his successor, probably already in 1123–25.70 Thus, upon his death in 1150, the Hevellian principality was taken over by the count House of Ascania, whose members efficiently turned the Polabian heritage into a German territorial dominion – the March (Margraviate) of Brandenburg.71 1.4 The Polabian Slavs and Their Subjugation A breakthrough moment in the process that finally brought an end to the independent political development of the Polabian as well as the Baltic Slavs was the so-called Polabian Crusade (Wendenkreuzzug) of the year 1147.72 This military venture, organized by Saxonian leaders within the broader context of the Western crusades, apparently aimed at carrying out a mission among the heathens. As Otto of Freising wrote, the Saxon mighty opposed King Conrad III, who had summoned them to set off for a crusade to the Holy Land, for they “neighboured on the peoples that cultivated an ignominious idolatry.” In this way, they obtained the king’s consent for an alternative expedition and, “although they accepted the cross as well, it was for the sake of waging a war against those peoples.”73 Also Bernard of Clairvaux supported their expedition, exhorting that “the strength of the Christians may arm itself up against those [Polabian pagans], clothe itself in the sign of salvation, and entirely destroy those tribes or convert them for ever.”74 In reality, the venture was yet another expedition of the Saxons into the lands of the Polabian Slavs, in which its powerful leaders – the Saxon duke Henry the Lion and Albrecht the Bear, margrave of the Northern March – primarily sought to demonstrate, in sort of an “inner-Saxonian text of strength”, their competing claims to power.75 Early in the summer of 1147 they invaded the lands between the Elbe and the Oder from different sides. 69 Gaethke 2000b, 70–111. 70 Henrici de Antwerpe tractatus. 71 For more detailed accounts on the end of the Hevellian principality and the beginnings of the Mark Brandenburg see Kahl 1964; Myśliński 1986; Partenheimer 2007, 115–186. 72 On the Polabian crusades in more detail Kahl 1963; Lotter 1977; Hermann 2011; Kamp 2013. 73 Ottonis et Rahewini Gesta Friderici I., 61 (I, 42). 74 Bernhard von Clairvaux, Sämtliche Werke. Volume 3, letter 457, 890–892; Bull of Pope Eugen III in Pommersches Urkundenbuch, 36–37; see also Unger 1959. 75 Menzel 2015, 28.

282

Chapter 7

The Saxon duke was accompanied by his later father-in-law, Conrad of Zähringen, by the archbishop of Hamburg and Bremen, Adalbert II, and by the Bishop of Verden, Thietmar II. They set off to attack the Abodrites and reached as far as the Dobin stronghold. Albrecht the Bear was accompanied in the expedition into the Luticians’ lands by Conrad of Wettin, Margrave of Meissen, Hermann III of Stahleck, Palatine of the Rhine, Frederick I, Archbishop of Magdeburg, and the bishops of Halberstadt, Merseburg, Havelberg, Brandenburg, Münster, and Olomouc, as well as the Corvey abbot, Wibald of Stablo. They reached as far as the stronghold centres of Demmin and Stettin. That the crusaders did not seek in the first place to convert the pagans is attested by the fact that Albrecht the Bear saved the lands of the Hevellians since his ally Pribislav-Henry had already promised him to bequeath him those very lands. Contemporaries like Vincent of Prague attentively remarked that the Saxons involved their armies in order to seize lands rather than to reinforce the Christian faith.76 Also, Helmold of Bosau criticised the fact that “in the several expeditions which the young man has so far undertaken into Slavia no mention has been made of Christianity, but only of money.”77 His description of the siege of Dobin contains a fictitious but meaningful dialogue of two Saxon mighty men who ponder, is not the land we are devastating our land, and the people we are fighting our people? Why are we, then, found to be our own enemies and the destroyers of our own incomes? Does not this loss fall back on our lords?78 The Saxon duke and the margrave took care so that the crusade would not turn into a devastating war and ended their expedition before autumn began. Therefore, they probably only partly met the expectations of the religious zealots, whereas by means of this expedition they finally paved the way for inclusion of the Polabian lands into their own territorial realms. Henry the Lion and Albrecht the Bear announced that those lands belonged to the Welfs and Ascanians and, step by step, took power over them or gave them as a fief to their trusted partners. At the same time, they began to build ecclesiastical structures, which would enable to convert the subdued peoples for ever. 76 Vincentii Pragensis Annales, 663: Saxones potius pro auferenda eis terra, quam pro fide christiana confirmanda tantam moverant militiam. 77 Helmoldi, 129 (I, 68); the English quotation from The Chronicle of the Slavs, 187–188. 78 Helmoldi, 122 (I, 65); the English quotation from The Chronicle of the Slavs, 180; see also Lotter 1974.

Incomplete Processes of “ State-Formation ” & “ Nation-Building ”

283

Somewhat later, a similar process took place among the Rani in Rügen, under the aegis of the Danes. Dreadful as pirates, the Rani had long been the target of Danish, Saxon, and Polish expansion actions. The 1160s saw intensified pressure from the Danes and Saxons, the former finally appearing the stronger party: the Rani had to surrender to them in 1168. Arkona, their religious center, was destroyed, and consistent Christianization began. The ruler of the Rani, the first one whose name – rex Tetiszlavus79 – is mentioned in sources related to the year 1164, became a Danish tributary.80 In the first half of the 1170s, Tetislav was replaced by his younger brother Jarimar/Jaromar, who reigned until 1217/18, describing himself on the coins as rex Rugianorum.81 For some time, on behalf of the Danish king, he exercised custody of the minor sons of the Pomeranian duke Bogislaw I, intensively supported the Christianization action, and strengthened his power also through colonization, bringing in Danish and Saxon settlers. In the second half of the 12th century, all the once-independent political associations of the Polabian and Baltic Slavs fell under alien rule. Those living in Holstein, on the lower Elbe, and in Brandenburg fell directly under the reign of Saxon (German) dukes; in Mecklenburg, Hither Pomerania, and on the isle of Rügen, other vernacular Slavic princes were still in power, but were at that time entirely subjected to Saxon/German or Danish superiority, so the independent political development was eventually ended also in those areas. None of the conquered associations of the Polabian or Baltic Slavs had a developed ‘national’ identity elaborated at the moment of conquest. A sense of collective identity, which those Slavs undoubtedly shared, was confined to a particular region, and was perceived as such by external observers; for instance, Helmold of Bosau reported on an Abodrite prince referring to the gens nostra and genti nostrae.82 Since no vernacular narrative sources yet existed at that time, such awareness was only expressed in the names of tribes with a limited reach, as well as in the local pagan cults, which within the Lutician federation were successfully merged into supra-local practices – for some time and in a limited scope. No less sporadically and transitorily did the regional communities join their forces to take actions against foreign invaders. Those actions did not contribute to a development of a supra-regional, universal ‘Polabian’ identity, 79 Saxo Grammaticus, 322–324 (XIV, 30, 2); the English quotation from The Chronicle of the Slavs, 180. 80 Hamann 1933, 5–19, 31–41; Osięgłowski 1975, 11–66. 81 Scheil 1962, 7–16; Gaethke 2000b, 56. 82 Helmoldi, 193 (II, 98).

284

Chapter 7

either. Even on the level of larger federations, no name of a ‘country’ was ever made of the names of the tribes such as the Abodrites, Hevellians, or the Rani. Thus, “the territorialization of identity” was stuck at its earliest stage of emergence.83 It seems improbable that individual groups of Polabian and Baltic Slavs derived a supra-regional sense of belonging to a ‘Slavic’ community from the sole fact of linguistic kinship, of which they were certainly aware, or from the fact that all of them cherished the pagan cults, which oftentimes were perceived from the outside as a uniform ‘Slavic’ paganism. They afterall had not only to regard the Danes and the Germans as dangerous aliens but had to defend themselves also against the attacks of the Bohemians, Poles, and Pomeranians, and all too often also clashed against one another in violent conflicts. A ‘Slavic’ identity never prevented them from such conflicts, and in no moment did the Polabian and Baltic Slavs merge into a community. 1.5 Melioratio terrae and the Emergence of Germania Slavica The inclusion of the Slavic-speaking tribal associations residing in the lands between the Elbe and the Oder into the territorial dominions of the Welfs, Ascanians, and Wettins – the latter united the Lusatian marches in the 12th century84 – and the entrustment of their administration to the Saxon and Slavic liege-lords marked the beginning of a new developmental phase in the Polabian and Baltic regions, for which the process described as melioratio or aedificatio terrae was crucial. The term stood for intense inflows of, mainly, German-speaking settlers and, subsequently, assimilation of the newcomers and the local Slavic-speaking people, and eventually the emergence of the new political and socio-cultural units of the Mecklenburgians, Brandenburgians, and (New) Saxons.85 German territorial rulers were not satisfied with the military and administrative safeguarding of their captures, with the setting up of counties, vogtships, tributary and fiscal districts.86 They strove from the very beginning for reinforcement of their power and authority through development of colonization and economy, and therefore took steps aimed at an improvement of the economic, legal, and social structures. They could refer to an inner-colonization already initiated by the Polabian Slavs themselves; in some of the territories, 83

Quotation from Graus 1980a, 82, who (73–82) lists the very few pieces of evidence which possibly indicate the beginnings of a Polabian Slavic ‘national’ identity formation. 84 Schlenker 2011. 85 For more detailed accounts on the so-called melioratio terrae and the processes of acculturation see Higounet 1986, 85–134; Piskorski 1991; Bartlett 1993, 106–166; Gringmuth-Dallmer 1995, Gringmuth-Dallmer 2006; Piskorski 2010; Hardt 2008c; Hardt 2014b, 572–577. 86 See e. g. Ruchhöft 2008, 183–195.

Incomplete Processes of “ State-Formation ” & “ Nation-Building ”

285

the process contributed, since the 11th century, to an increase of developed areas, intensified farming and husbandry, and the emergence of early urban economic centres.87 However, only the modernization actions initiated by the new lords and implemented by the German and Slavic-speaking vassals led to a complete change in the structures, to the formation of new forms of colonization and settlement, economy, legal and social forms. This led not only to an almost complete ousting of the old Polabian way of life, but also thoroughly changed the life of the incoming non-Slavic settlers. Single settlers were invited to those lands already in the early 11th century (e.g., by Margrave Wiprecht of Groitzsch who encouraged newcomers to settle along the Mulde and Elster),88 but they were summoned to arrive systematically and in big numbers only around the middle of the century. Helmold of Bosau describes in his Chronica Slavorum Count Adolf II’s appeals, made around 1143, to Holzatians and Sturmarians, who directly neighboured on Abodrite Wagria, that they “subjugate the lands of the Slavs” (subegistis terram Slavorum), and his practice of dispatching messengers into all parts, namely, to Flanders and Holland, to Utrecht, Westphalia, and Frisia, proclaiming that whoever were in straits for lack of fields should come with their families and receive a very good land, – a spacious land, rich in crops, abounding in fish and flesh and exceeding good pasturage.89 In 1159/60, also Albrecht the Bear sent to Utrecht and to places lying on the Rhine, to those, moreover, who live by the ocean and suffer the violence of the sea – to wit, Hollanders, Zeelanders, Flemimgs – and he brought large numbers of them and had them live in the strongholds and villages of the Slavs.90 The southern lands of Sorbs settlers would mainly arrive from Thuringia and Franconia, as is attested by written sources as well as place names and archaeological finds (forms of homesteads, ceramics).91 87 88 89 90 91

See Christl/Simon 1995; Schulz 2007. Brachmann 1993; Lyon/Wolverton 2017. Helmoldi, 111 (I, 57); the English quotations from The Chronicle of the Slavs, 168. Helmoldi, 174–175 (I, 89); the English quotation from The Chronicle of the Slavs, 235; see also Kuhn 1963, 131–154; Hardt 2017. Schrage 1990; Frey 2007.

286

Chapter 7

The gnawing effects of fast demographic and socio-economic development, and natural disasters, caused people in the West to hope for a new better life in the Slavic-speaking East. Apart from the craving for adventure and their courage, the settlers were incentivised by the extremely beneficial settlement conditions. They were offered land as property that they could unrestrainedly manage, dispose of, and inherit. Usually, each of them would receive one Franconian hide (Fränkische Hufe), being an area of 24 hectares, or one Flemish hide (Flämische Hufe), equalling 16.8 hectares, plus consent for cancellation of unsettled tributes and corvée dues. On top of that, they were offered personal freedom and the right to autonomous self-government  – that is, the terms of settlement under the German law (ius theutonicum).92 The Colonization actions were organized by entrepreneurs called founders (locatores), who acted on order of the ruler and, shortly afterward, also of clerical and secular landed property owners. They had the appropriate logistical and technical knowledge, but above all, they were ready to invest large amounts of money in such foundation projects, which usually paid back with enormous profits.93 The new settlement, which was enabled by the inflow of non-Slavicspeaking people, initially took up the legacy of Slavic settlements and assumed rather modest forms. This is evidence that the arrivals did not bring from the West a ready-to-apply pattern of settlement and economy, which later, in the 13th century, came to existence in the eastern Polabian lands. Instead, they developed it only after the settlement, under the conditions of the newly-colonized land  – with contribution and active participation from the autochtonous Slavic-speaking people. It seems that the latter were forcibly ousted by the immigrants or resettled into less fertile lands only in some exceptional cases.94 The Slavic-speaking society, quite diversified as it was, tended to take over from the western comers, technical innovations (such as the three-field rotation, rotary plough, windmill, and watermill) and new forms of settlement (regular layout of the village and homestead, hide-system, field layouts), actively contributing to their further modifications. Even where the natural conditions prevalent in the earlier-settled places would incite to preserve the older husbandry and colonization methods, certain changes were introduced.95 92 Zientara 1978b; Zientara 1978a. 93 Kötzschke 1894, esp. 24–36 and Koebner 1929; Hardt 2008b. 94 Vogel 1960, 146–150; Piskorski 1989; on the participation of Slavic speaking settlers in the process of meliorato terrae see Schulze 1982; Blaschke 2008. 95 Gringmuth-Dallmer 1995; Gringmuth-Dallmer 2004; Pauk 2008; Hardt 2008b; Hardt 2008c.

Incomplete Processes of “ State-Formation ” & “ Nation-Building ”

287

All in all, maintenance of old forms was exceptional. At the second stage of melioratio terrae, the settlements were extended/redeveloped at their existing locations, while at the same time – also due to the increase of surface and groundwater levels, among other factors – the older, small Slavic settlements, built nearby, were abandoned, and transferred or concentrated in places that better corresponded with the novel husbandry and farming methods. In parallel, forests were grubbed out in a planned fashion and colonization actions carried out based on acquisition of previously unused forest and wilderness areas. In this respect, the rulers relied not only on the involvement of the German and Slavic nobles and landowners, who in the newly founded settlements erected their knightly residences,96 but also took advantage of the new religious orders, the Cistercians and the Norbertines, whose monasteries were becoming an important instrument of the melioratio terrae project.97 Renovated in their old locations or set up in cleared areas, the settlements were formed into laid-out oval- or spindle-type or linear settlements (Straßen­ dörfer); in the southern mountainous areas, forest-villages (Waldhufendörfer) appeared, whose borders or fields were systematically measured out and divided into hides of equal size.98 Not only were the new villages oriented toward the three-field rotation – which, compared to the older, two-field rotation, enabled much larger production of cereals – but they also ensured a more productive and fairer collection of taxes and tributes, based on precisely measured sizes of the cultivated fields. What is more, the villages organized in line with the German Law created their own legal structures that ensured them self-government and patrimonial judiciary. Soon, the new, dense network of villages became, simultaneously, a network of parishes; thus, the melioratio terrae was strictly connected with extension of the ecclesiastical structures and efficient Christianisation of the Slavic-speaking people.99 As a result, Slavic, German, and Dutch/Flemish settlements became undistinguishable based on their settlement form, type of economy, and social-andlegal relations. It is not clear, however, to what a degree and how long they clearly differed from one another in ethnic-and-linguistic terms. The written sources offer almost no clear information in this respect, though they at times expressly refer to “Slavic villages” (villae slavicae/slavicales). Moreover, the names of localities and archaeological finds do not always enable clear 96 97 98 99

See Endres 1995; Reimann 1998a; Baudisch 1998; Schrage 2000. On the role of the monasteries in more detail Brather 1993; Reimann 1998b; Schich 2016. Kuhn 1960; Schlesinger 1975; Hardt 1999; Biermann 2005; Henker/Schöfbeck/Weiß 2008, 33–92; Gringmuth-Dallmer 2017; Hardt 2019a. Waack 2009.

288

Chapter 7

interpretations. Although, for the sake of differing between the numerous settlements neighbouring on one another, the terms ‘German’ or ‘Wendic’ (preceding the locality’s name) were used, such differentiation did not always have to be based on durable ethnic differences. Moreover, in villages where the originally Slavic character seems probable owing to the term ‘Wendic’, German-speaking settlers were settling down, and/or the original Slavic-speaking dwellers soon tended to quit their Slavic identity.100 Given this complex reality, the German-Slavic proximity and coexistence certainly differed by region. In some of the regions, ‘Slavic’ and ‘German’ villages formed mutually distant clusters, whereas elsewhere they were blended in different ways. Not infrequently, the aboriginals and the incomers lived together within one village.101 Some regions – the Hannoverian Wendland, for instance  – were completely bypassed by the migrant people, some others  – e.g., Rügen – saw small numbers of settlers arriving.102 All the same, also on the isle of Rügen the hide-system was adopted, the countryside communities began to emerge, and farmers were settling with hereditary right of leasehold. And, although this occurred on a rather modest scale and in a less pre-planned manner, the very fact in question attests that melioratio terrae was a ‘phenomenon related to German law’, but not a ‘German phenomenon’. The colonization process could well be started also on indigenous initiatives and involve Slavic-speaking people alone. Hence, the high- and late-medieval changes in the Polabian and Baltic landscape resulted from a very specific German-Slavic symbiosis but were not confined to rural areas. In parallel with the modernization of farming and rural colonization, new money- and market-related relations were developed. Thus, previous early urban economic centres were turned into towns with their own markets and municipal rights, while close to villages set up on cleared areas also completely new towns were established under the German law. Along with German-speaking merchants and craftsmen, native Polabian Slavs were settling in them – attracted by the tempting slogan ‘urban air makes you free’.103 In the melting pot of urban life, the ethnic/linguistic differences soon lost in significance, though immigrants of Slavic descent would often take lower social positions or limit themselves to settling in particular villages 100 See Fritze 1990. 101 Fritze 1984b; Herrmann 1985b; Mangelsdorf 1995; Brather 2005b; Biermann 2008; Volkmann 2009. 102 See Reimann 2008. 103 Schich 1980; Schich 1987; Schich 1996; Schich 2017.

Incomplete Processes of “ State-Formation ” & “ Nation-Building ”

289

(Kietze) on the outskirts of towns.104 Also in the rural areas, the legal equalization, common form of husbandry and settlement, and Christianity – the unifying factor for the entire population – accelerated the assimilation. Similarly, as the Slavic-speaking potent integrated with the immigrant German nobility, or, by merging with it, formed a new, East Polabian knightly estate, sooner or later a part of the Slavic-speaking rural population abandoned their language, adapted themselves culturally and mentally to the German-speaking immigrant society and merged with it, forming a new, eastern German peasantry. Thus, until the end of the Middle Ages, the lands of the Polabian and Baltic Slavs finally became a part of Germany for which scholars have coined the apt term Germania Slavica, which reflects the deep mutual Slavic-German penetration.105 Slavs as a Marginal Group in the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation With the absorption of the Polabian and Baltic Slavs and, earlier on, the Carinthian Alpine Slavs by the societies of the German Empire, the Slavicspeaking communities between the Elbe and the Oder, the Baltic Sea, and the Ore Mountains, as well as in the Eastern Alps, disappeared from the Central European history as an autonomous political entity. As a recognizable linguistic and cultural phenomenon, they survived the Late Middle Ages within the limits of the German Empire only in the Hannoverian Wendland enclave (until the 18th century) and in Lusatia, where Sorbian language groups have survived till this day.106 In the late medieval Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, the Slavic-speaking population usually formed a marginal group, which is almost absent in the written and material sources from the period.107 Wherever the German-speaking majority still perceived the Empire’s residents as ‘Slavs’ or, 1.6

104 Ludat 1936; Piskorski 1988. 105 Fritze 1980; Lübke 2009; see also the contributions in Auf dem Weg zum Germania Slavica-Konzept. 106 On the so-called “Hannoverian Wendland” and the “Dravänopolaben” Strzelczyk 1968; Strzelczyk 1976; Strzelczyk 1994; Schröder 2010. On the Sorbs Brankačk/Mětšk 1977; Šołta/Zwahr 1974; Kasper 1976; Pollack 2012a; Pollack 2012b. The Sorbs managed to preserve their linguistic-cultural identity not only during the early modern period but also in the 19th and 20th century struggling against a negative Prussian language policy, the demographic consequences of industrialization, the massive pressure of Germanization under Nazi rule and the ideological instrumentalization by the socialist GDR. They, however, never succeeded in forming an independent modern nation. 107 Weigel 2008.

290

Chapter 7

in the popular language, ‘Wends’, it usually occurred in the context of a discriminatory exclusion and negative stereotypizations, which were increasingly distant from the linguistic and ethnic reality. In the 13th and 14th centuries, the citizens of the Empire’s eastern German cities, recognizable by their names and language as Slavs, still exercised several administrative and economic functions, occupying all the social positions – from journeyman to town councillor. This changed around the middle of the 14th century when the epidemics of pestilence and economic downturn gave rise to the crisis of the Late Middle Ages. If someone in the town still emphasized his Slavicity, had a rather poor command of German, and had not accepted the German laws and customs, then he would become an object of mockery;108 the paths for economic and social advancement, municipal offices and, in certain cities, also the civic rights were made unattainable for him.109 In the first place, the guilds started to exclude Slavic-speaking craftsmen. More and more often they would demand from the candidate not only a testimony of legitimate birth, which was a standard practice, but also a certificate of German, non-Slavic, origin. Interestingly, such demands were initially posed only in the towns situated not far from the then-still relatively enclosed Slavic-speaking settlement areas. The idea was, apparently, to prevent further inflows of people from those areas into the cities, which would have translated into a strengthened economic competition. The first regulations in this respect appeared in Lüneburg (1350), on the western edge of the Hannoverian Wendland, and in Lower Lusatia’s Beeskow (1353). After the stallholders from Lüneburg and shoemakers from Beeskow in the second half of the 14th century, many other guilds began to issue similar regulations – to mention the weavers in Schwerin (1372), located close to the then-still enclosed Slavic-speaking Jabelheide; the shoemakers in Luckau, Lower Lusatia (1384); and the linen-weavers in Salzwedel (1399) and Lübeck (1400). The 15th and 16th centuries saw new cities join the group – on the lower Elbe, in the Archdiocese of Magdeburg, in Brandenburg, Mecklenburg, and Hither Pomerania, along with some individual towns on the south-western coast of the Baltic Sea. Some of those younger preclusive regulations probably had no real connection to actual or recognizable Slavic-speaking inhabitants in towns. They marked an ideological construction of otherness or a negative image of the ‘Slavic’ alien, rather than a response to an actual Polabian-German competition. That the term ‘Slavs’/‘Wends’ was simultaneously used with no underlying 108 Some examples of the pejorative usage of “Wends” in Vogel 1960, 32–33. 109 Vogel 1960, 121–144; Schich 1994; Burlach 2006; Pollack 2015, 142–143.

Incomplete Processes of “ State-Formation ” & “ Nation-Building ”

291

valuation, or even in a positive meaning, is attested by the fact that in the late 13th century the leading Hanseatic cities described themselves as civitates slavicales or wen(d)ische stedte, and so they were called, with all respect, by others. In the 15th century, when Lübeck, Hamburg, Lüneburg, Rostock, Wismar, and Stralsund were called ‘the six Wendish cities’, the description only referred to the fact that those cities were situated in the lands that once had been the Slavic settlement territory. At that time, however, no Slavic-speaking people were living in those towns any longer.110 To a real need of the assimilating Slavic-speaking population corresponded the ousting of the Slavic language as one used in the judiciary practice – a process that progressed since the 14th century. As the relevant regulations of the Saxon Mirror, written down between 1220 and 1230, attest, the legal system at an early stage responded to the German-Polabian intermixture and the problems related to this process with regard to procedural law.111 As part of the homogenization of the legal organization, the German- and Slavic-speaking accusers and accused were equalized in terms of the formal law. The bans imposed later the use of the Slavic language at courts-of-law were not discriminatory: they were devised to protect those actors of the trial who were still perceived as aboriginal ‘Wends’ but, resulting from the acculturation, often had insufficient command of Slavic. Due to the personality-of-law principle, whereby each of the trial actors would be heard in his/her own language, it might have implied the danger that they would have lost the case due to formal linguistic errors.112 Hence, also the law took into account the fact that by the end of the Middle Ages, the Slavic language completely disappeared among the new Brandenburgians, Mecklenburgians, and Saxons (except for the Lusatian Sorbs). 2

Pomerania

At the end of the Middle Ages, also large parts of the Slavic-speaking Pomeranians had transformed into a new community  – the Pommern, who used the German language, were influenced by German culture, and politically integrated into the Holy Roman Empire. Their predecessors, the early medieval Pomeranians inhabited the lands east of the Oder, stretching up to

110 Engel 1993. 111 Matuszewski 1948. 112 Zorn 1952; Schulze 2006.

292

Chapter 7

the Vistula in the east and, southwards, to the Warta and Noteć Rivers.113 They are first mentioned in a chronicle record from the Niederaltaich cloister in Bavaria, concerning the year 1046. It was then that a dux Bomeraniorum named Zemuzil arrived in Merseburg, to visit King Henry III, together with the Přemyslid duke Břetislav and the Piast duke Casimir I.114 On this occasion, Zemuzil appeared as a ruler who had the same rights as the other two dukes who accompanied him, and, just like them, he brought gifts for the king, which seems to attest that he was no more the leader of a small local dominion. However, there is no information from before the middle of the 11th century that would point to a large-area dominion of the Pomeranians, possibly comparable to the kingdom of the Abodrites, the principality of the Hevellians, or the duchy of the Piasts.115 The Bavarian Geographer knew at the end of the 9th century only two local tribal groups  – namely, the Prissani (not mentioned anywhere else), which probably was a small tribal association in the vicinity of what later became the Province of Pyritz/Pyrzyce, and the Velunzani,116 who are usually identified with the Wolinians mentioned by Widukind (as Vuloini) living on the island of Wolin at the estuary of the Oder.117 Probably the Wolinians were also meant under the name of W‘ltāba by Ibrāhīm ibn Yaʿkūb, who wrote of them in the 960s that “they have a big city which stands on the coast of the Surrounding Sea. The city has twelve gates and a haven for which the shore with firm ground is used.” Ibrāhīm further recounted that “they make war on Mashaqqah [Mieszko] and are very powerful. They have no king and do not obey anybody but are governed by their old people.”118 These characteristics well correspond with the Wolinians, who are reported to have appeared, in the second decade of the 11th century, before the missionary Otto of Bamberg as a

113 Historia Pomorza, 287–330, 387–408, 521–80; Spors 1988; Benl 1999; Piskorski 2002. 114 Annales Altahenses maiores, 41. 115 The problems of the genesis of an early Pomeranian ‘state’ (the Duchy of Pomerania), during the 11th to 12th centuries now discussed in detail by Rębkowski 2020. For a recent overview of the region’s political and cultural development during this time see also the contributions of the collective volumes Europe reaches the Baltic and Poland, Pomerania, and Their Neighbours. 116 Descriptio civitatum, 14; see Krysiński 1961. 117 Widukindi monachi Corbeiensis, 143 (II, 59). But see also Urbańczyk 2015, 87–91, who maintains (91) that “one has to jettison any ideas of an invented Wolinian ‘tribe’” and suggests the alternative interpretation that the Velunzani simply are a Pomeranian group of people living in the vicinity of the hillfort Velun (today: Wieleń), mentioned in Galli Anonymi chronicae (II, 48). 118 Relacja Ibrāhīma, 50; the English quotation from Mishin 1996, 189.

Incomplete Processes of “ State-Formation ” & “ Nation-Building ”

293

community led by elders and priests.119 They named themselves after the sea trade centre Wolin (Wulin, Wolin), also known in the sources as Iumne (Adam of Bremen), Iumneta/Vinneta (Helmold of Bosau), Iulinum (Saxo), or Jomsburg (Nordic sagas).120 Archaeological research has shown that the dwellers of Wolin maintained far-reaching commercial and cultural contacts, particularly with Scandinavia.121 It is certain that the lands on the southern shore of the Baltic Sea, overgrown with thick forests, were inhabited by more Slavic-speaking communities, apart from the Prissani/Pyritzans and Wolinians. Whereas the existing sources would not name them, archaeologists have found their traces in a few places (e.g., at the lower course of the Parsęta River).122 It was only in the late 10th/early 11th century that different settlement groups began to be referred to collectively as ‘Pomeranians’. The name literally meant ‘[those] living along the sea’, and the name of the area inhabited by them (Pomerania) denoted – as Herbord the monk first wrote in his “Life of Bishop Otto” – “the land by the sea.”123 Initially, both names were, for certain, given from the outside. The use of a name meaning ‘inhabitants of the seashore’ by the members of Pomeranian settlement communities would have not made much sense, whereas using it by an inland neighbour was justifiable. The neighbour was Poland ruled by the Piasts who in the third quarter of the 10th century first tried to expand to the areas at the mouths of the Oder and the Vistula.124 In the course of the expansion, which resulted in the establishment in the year 1000 of a short-lived Piast bishopric in Kolberg/Kołobrzeg, the need appeared on the Polish side to name the conquered territories and their residents. The term coined for this reason in Greater Poland was probably adopted by groups of Pomeranian people when they began to unite into larger associations to defend themselves jointly against the Piast invasions.125 The term 119 S. Ottonis episcopi, 34–35 (II, 5); Ebonis Vita S. Ottonis, 51–52, 66–67 (II, 1 and 7). 120 Adam von Bremen, 80 (II, 22); Helmoldi, 7–8 (I, 2); Saxo Grammaticus, 626 (X, 2); for Jomsburg according to the Nordic sagas see e. g. Knytlinga saga, 93, 129, 308. For Wolin see Chapter 4, footnote 123 and Filipowiak/Konopka 2008; Wehner 2010; Janowski 2013; Adamczyk 2013. 121 Stanisławski 2013; Duczko 2000. 122 Łosiński 2000; Rębkowski 2006; and the contributions in Pomorze we wczesnym średniowieczu. 123 Herbordi Dialogus, 59 (II, 1): Pomerania provincia ex ipsa nominis etimolgia qualitatem sui situs indicare videtur. Nam pome lingua Sclavorum ‘iuxta’ sonat vel ‘circa’, moriz autem ‘mare’; inde Pomerania quasi Pomerizania, id est ‘iuxta’ vel ‘circa mare sita’. 124 Rosik 2012; Śliwiński 2000. 125 See Renn 1935, 11–14; Stabenow 1995, 131, 138.

294

Chapter 7

Pomerani was preserved as a geographical/territorial category, by means of self-naming. As an ethnonym expressing a shared ethnic identity, the name might have only been perceived from the outside. In any case, the description of the life of Otto of Bamberg, the Pomeranian missionary, is the only source where the Pomerani were referred to as gens.126 Common defence against the Piast raiders might have been, moreover, the decisive impulse that led to the setting up of a supra-regional princely authority. The latter was represented by Zemuzil, who appeared in 1046 in Merseburg, as well as by the Pomeranian dukes Suatobor, Gniewomir, and Suatopolc of the 12th century, about whom Gallus Anonymus wrote, whose genealogical connections, however, remain unknown. Whether one of them was identical with the unnamed dux Pomeranus/Pomeranorum, also mentioned by Gallus, remains unclear as well.127 The said title ought not to be interpreted as if there would have been a ‘dux of the entire Pomerania’, for, in reality, none of the Pomeranian dukes managed to extend his power to all the lands between the Oder and the Vistula, the Baltic Sea and the Noteć/Warta. In the 12th and 13th centuries, in fact separate principalities existed in those areas, whose development took diverse paths. In the western part, between the estuaries of the Oder and the Wzgórza Chełmskie hill range, the House of Griffin ruled since the beginning of the 12th century.128 It is unknown what their background was and whether their headquarters were initially installed in Kołobrzeg, or in Belgard. The lineage’s first representative known by name, Wartislaw I, appears in the third decade of the 12th century as a vassal of the Piast duke Bolesław III, who waged a fierce war with the Pomeranians from 1102 to 1121, and in 1119–21 conquered the western Pomeranian lands of the Griffins.129 Wartislaw had to recognize his superiority, pay a tribute to Poland, support Bolesław I with his troops in the event of a war, and agree to the Christianization of his country.130 With all that, he not only preserved his ducal authority but managed to extend it westwards, 126 S. Ottonis episcopi, 36 (II, 7); Ebonis Vita S. Ottonis, 97 (III, 3); Herbordi Dialogus, 39 (I, 36), 59 (Prohemium). 127 Galli anonymi cronicae, 96 (II, 28); 97 (II, 29); 110 (II, 39), 116 (II, 47), 160 (III, 26); see Spors 1983. 128 Members of this family already by the end of the 12th/beginnings of the 13th century wear a griffin in their arms, but only from the second half of the 15th century started to call themselves “Griffin”; see Kozłowski/Podralski 1985, [5]; Biewer 1993; Schmidt 1999, 3; Rymar 2005. 129 Hertel 1982; Rosik 2013, 163–191. 130 The missions led by Otto of Bamberg are described in his hagiographical lifes: Ebonis Vita S. Ottonis, S. Ottonis episcopi and Herbordi Dialogus; see Petersohn 1979, 213–261; Rębkowski 2007; Rosik 2010, 152–496.

Incomplete Processes of “ State-Formation ” & “ Nation-Building ”

295

to the Lutician lands on the Peene and Tollense.131 The fact that the duchy had its own bishopric, with its seat in Wolin since 1140 (in the 1160s, temporarily at the abbey of Grobe near Usedom and, from 1175 on, in Kamień Pomorski), contributed to the strengthening of his power and authority. The bishopric efficiently resisted the interferences from Magdeburg as well as Gniezno, and since 1188 was directly subordinate to Rome.132 In the third quarter of the 12th century, Wartislaw’s sons Bogislaw I and Casimir I probably jointly ruled the duchy, which was divided into two provinces. However, in 1164, the dukes had to accept Henry the Lion, the Saxon duke, as their sovereign. This came as a consequence of the recognition by Bolesław III, in 1135, of Rügen’s and Western Pomerania’s pledged fealty to the Empire.133 Once Henry the Lion was deposed, Bogislaw (whose brother was killed in a battle in 1180, fighting for Henry), received the duchy as a fief from Frederick I Barbarossa, who elevated him to the rank of dux, directly subordinate to the emperor. In this way, the direct legal relation of dependence on the Empire was first introduced.134 This status proved short-lived, however, as after the severe defeats suffered in 1184 and 1185 in the wars against the Danes, Bogislaw had to surrender to King Knut VI. Denmark maintained tributary superiority over the duchy until 1227, when it lost it to the Empire after the defeat at Bornhöved. In 1231, Emperor Frederick II bestowed the Ducatus Pomeranie as a fief to the margraves of Brandenburg, Johann I and Otto III, the Ascanians, whose importance was steadily growing.135 Thus, the western Pomeranian dukes were turned into vassals of the German dukes within the Reich. Meanwhile, Wartislaw III and Barnim I were splitting the power between themselves; the former ruled the western, coastal part of Pomerania (with the centre at Demmin) until 1264, the latter was the ruler of the areas on the Oder (with the seat in Szczecin/Stettin) till 1278.136 This division was solidified in 1295, and ever since there was a northern principality with its capital in Stettin, existing in parallel with a southern one, with its capital in Wolgast.137 Until the 15th century, the two were separate duchies ruled by two lines of the Griffins. In 1338 and 1348, both duchies became full-fledged principalities of 131 132 133 134

Kossmann 1971, 677–679. Petersohn 1979, 277–283, 309–315; Piętkowski 2015. Kattinger 1995; Rymar 2002. Gaethke 2000b, 61–62; on Bogislav’s political status within the Empire Curschmann 1937; Lucht 1968; Petersohn 1980, 105–106. 135 Pommersches Urkundenbuch, 340–341; Bobowski 1996; Rymar 1996; Rymar 2006. 136 Rymar 2008. 137 Werlich 2012, 263–279.

296

Chapter 7

the Reich.138 In the meantime, melioratio terrae caused the region’s economic, social, and demographic transformation into a German-speaking colonization area whose ‘Slavic’ character was steadily fading. Probably in the eastern part of the western Pomeranian territory, between the Wzgórza Chełmskie hill range and the Łeba, the Ratiborians set up their own regional principality. Their protoplast might have been Ratibor, brother of Wartislaw I; this would mean that they were a sideline of the Griffins. Yet, Ratibor might otherwise have been a descendant of a local princely family. In fact, nothing specific is known about the Ratiborians’ descent, their fortunes and the lot of their duchy, whose main fortified towns were Schlawe/Sławno and Stolp/Słupsk.139 As soon as the last of the Ratiborians died, in 1228, the duchy became the property of the Ascanians and returned to the Duchy of Wolgast and, thereby, to the Griffin dynasty in 1317. East of Łeba, up to the Vistula estuary, in the lands that since the early modern era were called Pommerellen in the German-language territory, the Polish name being Pomorze Wschodnie (Eastern Pomerania), a third Pomeranian principality occurred, with its centre in Gdańsk.140 Also this area was conquered by Bolesław III, in the second decade of the 12th century; subsequently, through the Piast governors and Church structures (the Bishopric of Wrocław) was definitely more strongly connected with the realm of the Piasts than with western Pomerania. Around 1180, Casimir II, as the Krakow senior, installed in Gdańsk a man named Sambor, whose descendants, the Samborids, ruled town and region until 1294.141 Under the leadership of Sambor’s brother, Swantopolk, they managed in the second decade of the 13th century to free themselves from the Piasts’ rule and expand their reign westwards, to the lands around Sławno and Słupsk, for some time. Finally, however, the duchy was fragmented due to internal dynastic conflicts. In the later period, facing the imminent threat from Brandenburg and the Teutonic Order, the Samborids tightened their bonds with Poland again. After the heirless death of the last of the house, Mestwin II in 1294, the rule of Eastern Pomerania was taken over – as agreed in Kępno in 1282  – by the duke of Greater Poland Przemysł II.142 However, the Polish reign did not last long as the Teutonic knights conquered these lands off as soon as 1309.143 138 139 140 141 142 143

Auge 2011. Rymar 1990; Rymar 1995. On the early history of Gdańsk Łosiński 2001; Paner 2004. Rymar 1992; Śliwiński 1997. 700 lat układu kępińskiego; Bieniak 1991. On the political history of Eastern Pomerania during the years 1306–1309 in great detail Śliwiński 2003.

Incomplete Processes of “ State-Formation ” & “ Nation-Building ”

297

Both the western Pomeranian and eastern Pomeranian dukes were called in the 12th and 13th centuries duces Pomoranorum/Pomoraniae, and so they titled themselves. The territorial name of Pomerania was thus related exclusively to either of the two principalities. It remained, in effect, a name denoting the broader landscape, regardless of political divisions, and only to a limited extent did it express territorial identity – similarly as the name ‘Pomeranians’ (Pomorani) remained an open-ended collective term which has never become an ethnonym reserved for the population of one principality/duchy or the community spanning both duchies. Although the individual dukes took advantage of the title dux Pomoranorum/Pomeranie (occasionally, with the word totiae added) to express their claims for power extending their provinces and encompassing the whole of Pomerania, they were not practically capable of enforcing such claims. Owing to the interests of their more powerful neighbours, they all along had limited possibilities of creating a large-area Pomeranian ‘state’. Thus, a principality that would merge all the lands stretching between the Oder and the Vistula never appeared; and no medieval natio was ever formed in that territory. Only the individual duchies served as a point-of-reference for the political self-awareness of the Slavic-speaking Pomeranians – if one can speak at all of the formation of an identity reaching beyond the community of villages or towns. All in all, however, it is hard to say anything specific about the political and/or cultural identity of late medieval Pomeranians, since no Slavic-language self-testimonies are available that would contain information on the Pomeranians’ self-image and self-perception.144 3

Slavs in the Balkans

In the Western Balkan lands, Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus in the middle of the 10th century observed merely several minor regional principalities.145 Apart from the Croats in northern Dalmatia, the Serbs inside the Western Balkans, and the province of Bosnia, he was aware of the Narentanians, 144 But see Rosik 2018, esp. 299 who equates the Western Pomeranian area reached by the missions of Otto of Bamberg with a “uniform ethnic community” and takes the expression gens Pommeranorum used in the Lifes of Otto of Bamberg and also by Ekkehard of Aura as a proof that at least in Western Pomerania the population (i.e. the subjects of the Griffins) already with the christianization during the 1120ies “entered the political stage as one people, one gens […]. Their externally provided identity no longer had its original, purely territorial significance, as it also gained a political and ethnical importance.” 145 Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De administrando imperio, 124, 138, 146, 160–164.

298

Chapter 7

Zahumlians, Travunians, Kanalites, and Diocletians in the south of Dalmatia. These tribal or political associations were described by the emperor as mutually equal and independent local dominions; at the same time, he saw all of them, except for the Diocletians, as part of the Serbian settlement area. Around the middle of the 10th century, when the Serbian ruler Časlav temporarily had conquered the lands of the Zahumlians and Travunians, this Byzantine perception was not entirely wrong. This, however, does not legitimize the conclusion that the regional seaside dominions have been ‘Serbian’ from the very start, and that they had no conditions to develop individually. In fact, also the Narentanians, Zahumlians, Travunians, Kanalites, and Diocletians were led by men, who declared themselves princes or clans who founded their dynasties. Thus, in principle they disposed – as the Croats and Serbs – of opportunities to create an own lasting supra-regional reign.146 Which of the regional dominions, or how many of them, would finally become and remain dominant, was an open question. As well as under the rule of Croatian and Serbian kings, the Western Balkans might have, conditions permitting, turned into a medieval natio (or several nationes) under the leadership of either the Narentanians or the Zahumlians, Travunians, Kanalites, or Diocletians. Yet, in the High Middle Ages, the independent principalities of these peoples or associations sooner or later yielded to the prevalence of stronger neighbours. Similar as with the Polabian and the Baltic Slavs, their independent political existence came to an end at a premature stage, and their nation-formation process, if ever initiated, was cut short. Hence, until the end of the medieval era, only three Slavic-speaking “national nuclei” prevailed in South-Eastern Europe: the Croats, the Serbs, and the Bulgarians.147 Except for the Diocletians, not much is known about the ‘forgotten nations’ of the south-eastern Adriatic coast. The Narentanians (Arentani), who are referred to in the sources also as Paganoi, lived on a narrow coastal strip between the Cetina and Neretva Rivers as well as on the islands of Brač, Hvar, Korčula, and Mljet.148 They were primarily active as sailors, who for a long time controlled the traffic of sea vessels along the eastern shore of the central Adriatic region. They seemingly played an important part in the Venetian slave trade, supplying the commodity from Slavic-speaking provinces and from the Roman towns of Dalmatia, which they raided repeatedly.149 Their pirate expeditions irritated Venice, which developed as a trade power; hence, 146 See Fine 1983, 256–257, 273–276; Budak 1990, 131–132. 147 The expression ‘national nucleus’ (“Nationalitätenkern”) in Grafenauer 1966, 38. 148 Klaić 1971, 212–220, 474–485; Zaninović 2003; Sokol 2011; Ančić 2011. 149 Hoffmann 1968, 166–167; for the 9th century Hoffmann 1969.

Incomplete Processes of “ State-Formation ” & “ Nation-Building ”

299

the Narentanians often fell into conflicts with the city of doges. The Venetian fleet soon forced them to withdraw from the islands into the mainland area of Omiš when they became the target of Croatian and Diocletian raids. It is not clear for how long those raids lasted and what their effects were. Some scholars assume that Narentania was included in as early as the 10th/11th century into the Kingdom of Croatia; others hypothesize that it preserved its independence under the aboriginal dynasty until the 13th century, as it was then that they apparently yielded to the superiority of Venice, Hungary, and the Croatian magnate family of Bribir and ceased to exist as a self-reliant political body.150 South of the Narentanians’ land, from the mouth of the Neretva up to Dubrovnik, the lands of the Zahlumians stretched, called Zahumlje or (increasingly often since the 12th century) Hum. Zahumlje’s main centre was Ston in the Pelješac peninsula, which also functioned as the bishop’s seat; the area stretched deep inside the Bosnian province. In a letter from Pope John X from 925, a dux Chulmorum called Michael is mentioned along with the Croatian rex Tomislav.151 Undated Latin charters confirming donations for the Benedictine monastery set up in 1023 on the island of Lokrum near Dubrovnik (the authenticity of which, however, some scholars have called into question) mention a ruler named Hranko (Chrance cum omnibus suis iupanis Zacholmie).152 Toward the end of the first half of the 11th century, Zahumlje was apparently seized by the Diocletians; in the 1180s, it fell under the reign of the Serbs for good who pursued their expansion from Raška.153 This lot was shared by the Travunians, whose lands were adjacent on the south-east to Zahumlje, and stretched between Dubrovnik the Bay of Kotor. Their main centre was Trebinje, which became the seat of a bishopric in the 10th century. As it seems, in the early 11th century Travunia was politically tied with Zahumlje; around the middle of the century, it was conquered by the Diocletians, and in the late 12th century, it eventually fell under the rule of the Serbian Nemanjids. The coastal strip situated directly before Travunia (Konavlje/Konavli) was occupied by the Kanalites. The Byzantine emperor’s “Book of Ceremonies” attests that an independent prince ruled them around the middle of the 10th century.154 This very small area was soon taken over by the Travunians,

150 Steindorff 1984, 33. 151 CDCDS 1, 34. 152 Vrana 1960, 160–161; Naumov 1982, 112–115. 153 Mišić 1996, 44–51. 154 Constantine Porphyrogenitus, The Book of Ceremonies, II, 48.

300

Chapter 7

and together with them, it fell under the Diocletian rule and was later on annexed to Dubrovnik.155 3.1 The Principality of Duklja The regional dominions of the Travunians, Zahumlians, and Kanalites were integrated into the Principality of Duklja already in the 11th century, which in these cases put an end to the process of forming a medieval natio even before it really had started. On the other hand, the conquests made Duklja so strong that promising conditions started to prevail in it for the emergence of a stable reign and for the development of a specific Diocletian/Duklian ‘national’ identity. The name of the area (roughly corresponding with modern Montenegro), which was later called Zeta, came from that of the ancient city of Dioclea, which was Slavicized as “Duklja”. The land was confined in the north-west by the Bay of Kotor, and in the south-east by the Bojana River and the northern frontier of the Byzantine theme of Dyrrachium [Durazzo/Durrës].156 The last decade of the 10th century saw the appearance of a man called Jovan/Ivan Vladimir as a vassal to the Bulgarian tsar Samuel.157 In 1016, he was killed by his rival; after the collapse of the First Bulgarian Empire in 1018, the principality fell under the dependence on Byzantium again. At the end of the 1030s, a certain Stephen Dobroslav restored Duklja’s full independence and subsequently countered the Byzantine attempts at re-conquering the country and expanded its territory by inclusion of the adjacent lands of the Travunians and Zahumlians, and seized the seaside towns of Kotor and Bar/Antivari.158 His successor Mihajlo, who in the mid-11th century made himself an autocrat as one of the five sons of Dobroslav, continued to strengthen the principality.159 To this end, he sought concord with Byzantium, entered into a peace agreement with Emperor Constantine IX Monomachos, and obtained from him the high-rank title of protospatharius and recognition of independence. Inside the principality, Mihajlo reinforced his authority, installing his sons on the newly conquered territories or areas taken off 155 Komatina 2015. 156 On the early (hardly known) history of Duklja Novakovich 2016. 157 Živković 2006, 67–74. Already at the end of the 11th century there appeared signs (preserved in the chronicle of the Priest of Duklja) of an initial veneration of Jovan/Ivan Vladimir as a saint; his cult, however, did not gain importance during the middle ages; only in 1861 he was canonized by the Serbian-Orthodox church; Ingham 1987; Rohdewald 2014, 92–94; Papageorgiou 2017. 158 Wasilewski 1971; Živković 2006, 75–86; for a detailed account on the early development of the principality see Leśny 1989, 30–96. 159 Živković 2006, 87–93.

Incomplete Processes of “ State-Formation ” & “ Nation-Building ”

301

from his brothers. The alliance with Byzantium was decomposed when in the early 1070s Mihajlo supported the anti-Byzantine rebels in Bulgaria; his son Constantine Bodin was acclaimed by them tsar of Bulgaria in 1072. Given the situation, Mihajlo addressed the pope as a new, strong ally, who promised more than just a protection against the revenge from Byzantium and against attacks of the Sicilian Normans. Whether the envoys of Pope Gregory VII brought a crown for him to be used at his coronation as king, remains disputable. In any case, Gregory VII sent a letter, dated 9 January 1078, ad Michaelem regem Sclavorum, promising him a banner and a pallium, probably for the archbishop.160 The elevation of the bishop of Bar to the status of archbishop and, thereby, the establishment of an independent Church structure was successfully completed by his son and successor Constantine Bodin, who took power in 1081/2.161 The metropolis was recognized by means of a papal bull issued by Antipope Clement III in 1089, which neither the Roman Curia nor the archbishops of Split and Dubrovnik accepted. This led to long-lasting conflicts within church politics, in which the parties fighting for primacy resorted to falsification of documents as well as to narrative texts such as the “Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja”. Through the annexation of parts of neighbouring Bosnian and Serbian regions, Duklja attained under Constantine Bodin’s rule its largest territorial reach. The Byzantines still treated the Duklian ruler – as a recently found seal indicates – as one of their high-ranking dignitaries or officials (protosebastos or eksousiastes), and his territory as an administrative unit of the Byzantine Empire.162 This fact, however, did not diminish Constantine Bodin’s position in the Western Balkans, but in fact strengthened it. After Bodin’s death (after 1096/1101), resulting from internal conflicts and external threats, Duklja went through a gradual decline.163 Finally, Duklja, whose rulers had been called only princes again since quite a while, lost its independence in 1186, as Stephen Nemanja, the Grand Zhupan of Raška, conquered it.164 3.2 A Second High Medieval Variant of the Slavic Idea The endeavours of the Dukljan princely dynasty and elite for preventing their realm’s collapse extended to the domain of history-based politics. It was in this spirit that a specific, high medieval variant of the Slavic Idea – the second 160 Das Register Gregors VII. Teil 2, 365. 161 Živković 2006, 95–103; Leśny 1989, 82–95. 162 Stanković 2013, 83–84. 163 Leśny 1989, 110–126; Živković 2008, 293–307. 164 Leśny 1989, 181–205.

302

Chapter 7

one after the Rus’ian version of the “Tale of Bygone Years” (Povest’ vremennych let) – was elaborated, in the second half of the 12th century, in the Dalmatian town of Bar. It appears in a Latin-language work that, as its anonymous author assures, had merely been translated by him from Slavonic into Latin. The original text, he explains in his introduction, was a Libellum Gothorum, which in Latin he rendered as “Book of the Kingdom of the Slavs” (quod latine ‘Sclavorum’ dicitur ‘regnum’).165 In this “Book”, the chronicler reports, he had found a description of the kingdom as well as the deeds and wars of its rulers, and therefore could minutely reconstruct them. He thus fulfilled a wish of his secular and clerical readers, whom he assured that he added nothing whatsoever to the original text. All we know about the author is that he was a clergyman; hence, the work is often referred to as the “Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja”. Since it specifies no dates and enumerates the rulers in a chronological order, it has also been entitled “The Bar Genealogy”. The text has been preserved in its Latin as well as in a Croatian version; albeit the former only survives in a 17th-century manuscript and the latter, in a manuscript dated to 1546, the Latin version is regarded as the one closer to the original. The circumstances of the compilation, the dating, and actual purpose of the original text are debated among scholars to this date.166 The opinions stretch between the assumption that the 12th-century Latin text was indeed based on an Old Church Slavonic original version written down in the Cyrillic script,167 and the extreme conviction that it is a 16th-century forgery, penned by the Dalmatian Benedictine monk Mauro Orbini.168 There are those who suppose that the Latin original was compiled during the 1160–90s being the work of an unknown priest;169 others tend to believe that it was written between 1177 and 1189 by Archbishop Gregory of Bar,170 or in about 1250171 or in 1295 to 1301 on order of the Croatian magnate Pavao Šubić by Rutger, a Cistercian monk of Bohemian descent, elevated to Archbishop of Bar in 1299.172 The assumption that the text was originally written in Latin between 1149 and 1186, and the Croatian translation was made 165 Ljetopis Popa, 39; the new Serbian edition of the chronicle offers another reading: instead of quod Latine ‚Sclavorum‘ dicitur ‚regnum‘ it has quod Latine Sclavorum dicitur regum; Gesta Regum Sclavorum, 2. 166 For recent overviews on the relevant research see only the introduction into the Russian edition: Letopis’ popa duklianina, 16–45; also Kowalski 2021, esp. 19–42. 167 Radojičić 1960, 88. 168 Bujan 2008; Bujan 2011. 169 Ljetopis Popa Dukjlanina, 26–27; Banašević 1971, 47, 268; Hadžijahić 1983, 15, 20–21, 35–36. 170 Peričić 1991, 170–175, 198–214. 171 Steindorff 2014, 178–179, 188–189. 172 Gesta Regum Sclavorum. Vol. 2, 350–372, 379–384; Papageorgio 2015, 785–786.

Incomplete Processes of “ State-Formation ” & “ Nation-Building ”

303

based on it in the 14th century, still seems the most probable option.173 The Croatian-version story reaches to the beginning of the 12th century, whereas the latest events recounted by the Latin version, which differs from the Croatian one in the introduction and some minor details, dates to the 1140s. The text tells the story of the princes of Duklja and their reign over thirtyeight generations backwards, down to a legendary Gothic-Slavic time. It also narrates the history of the Dalmatian/Diocletian Church. The author’s intention was to demonstrate how long existing and how ancient the existence of the dukes or princes of Duklja as well as that of the Bar metropolis was. For this purpose, the section that offers relatively reliable data regarding the 11th and the 12th centuries were preceded by a legendary section. If one converts the generations enumerated in this section into years, the “Book of the Kingdom of the Slavs” presents a history reaching to the fourth century. Despite hints given by the author – along with the Libellum Gothorum, he points to a liber Sclavorum qui dicitur ‘Methodius’174 – scholars have not been able yet to identify any older direct parallel texts that might have been used by the Priest of Duklja as a source of information. Both the allegedly Slavonic original of the Libellum Gothorum and the clear reference to the Cyrillo-Methodian tradition apparently served the purpose of emphasizing the ‘Slavic’ character of the purportedly primeval principality of Duklja, rather than referring to actual original models. It has, therefore, to be assumed that the history of the “Kingdom of the Slavs” (regnum Sclavorum) is primarily the creation of the author’s imagination, combining fictitious elements with pseudo-scholarly knowledge. The first nine chapters describe the emergence of that “Slavic kingdom.”175 The author starts the story from the Goths and a story of three brothers, the eldest of whom, Ostroyllus, conquered the whole of Dalmatia and the coastal areas (totam Dalmatiam et maritimas regiones). The kingdom he set up there was later taken over by his son Svevladus. The latter’s son Selimirus entered into an agreement with the Slavs who arrived in those lands in big numbers at that time, whereby the Slavs were supposed to pay him a tribute. Already the names of those fictitious Gothic rulers (the subsequent ones appearing in the genealogy being Vladinus and Ratimir) pointed to their affinity with the Slavic-speaking environment. In the chapter on Vladinus, using the formula “Goths, being Slavs” (Gothi, qui et Sclavi), the author suggests that the Gothic conquerors assimilated with the Slavic population indeed. Based on the argument spun in this context on the immigration of Proto-Bulgars and 173 On the Croatian version of the chronicle in more detail Newman 1986. 174 What this liber Sclavorum could have been is discussed by Steindorff 1986; Petrak 2018. 175 Ljetopis Popa Dukljanina, 40–56.

304

Chapter 7

their settlement in the Balkans, one may suppose that the author patterned it after the integration of Proto-Bulgars with the Slavs. In any case, Vladinus is said to have entered into a peace agreement with the Bulgars, and ever since both nations, that is, the Goths, being Slavs, and the Bulgars, for the reason that they shared a common language and because they were heathens [quod ambo populi gentiles essent et una lingua esset omnibus], began to love one another reciprocally.176 The demonstration of a kinship between the Dukljan princes and the Gothic conquerors was meant to add dignity to the genealogical tree of the ruling Slavic-speaking family, whereas the Gothic-Slavic integration story was designed to consider the Romance-Slavic symbiosis of the 12th-century a Dalmatian and Dukljan reality. The Dukljan clergymen apparently sought for ways to historically explain and give grounds for the specific coexistence of non-Slavic-speaking and Slavic-speaking people. The symbiosis was no less well depicted by the story of the foundation of the town of Ragusa/Dubrovnik, told in a further section of the text.177 The essence of his Slavic Idea is discussed by the Priest of Duklja in the 8th and 9th chapters, the preceding two describing the pagan persecutions of Christians perpetrated by Ratimir and his four (unnamed) successors. From their lineage came a certain Svetimirus, who not only put an end to the persecution of Christians but reigned at the time when St Cyril/Constantine grew up in Thessaloniki and later baptized the Khazars and the Bulgars. Svetimirus is reported to have been followed by Svetopelek, during whose reign St. Constantine “created the Slavonic script and translated Christ’s Gospel and the Psalter, and all the sacred books of the Old and New Testament from the Greek language.”178 When, called by the pope to Rome, Constantine was traversing King Svetopelek’s country, the monarch hosted and entertained him with veneration, accepted his teachings, and received baptism together with his entire country. Subsequently, Svetopelek summoned the Latin-speaking Christians who had fled into the mountains to return to the localities where they had dwelled and rebuild the towns and villages destroyed once by the pagans. Thus, the Priest of Duklja portrayed Christianization and the invention of a Slavic script as the decisive factors whereby the regnum Sclavorum finally had been constituted. Another important factor presented by him was a 176 Ljetopis Popa Dukljanina, 46 (chap. 5). 177 Ljetopis Popa Dukljanina, 70–71 (chap. 26). 178 Ljetopis Popa Dukljanina, 48–57 (chap. 9).

Incomplete Processes of “ State-Formation ” & “ Nation-Building ”

305

twelve-day convention at the planities Dalmae, at which Svetopelek gathered all the ‘peoples’ (omnes populos) forming part of the kingdom, Latin- as well as Slavic-speaking.179 Together with the papal legates and envoys of the Byzantine emperor, on this occasion the Church’s teachings were debated over, along with the authority and status of the monarch (de potestate/statu regis) and dignitaries (de ducibis et comitibus et centurionibus). Above all, however, the assembly was supposed to confirm the limits of the regnum Sclavorum and its division into provinces and regions (termini ac fines omnium provinciarum ac regionum regni sui). This was done by a public reading (lecta coram populo) of the papal and imperial documents brought along by the legates, which Svetopelek noted down in his own charters as well. The thus-confirmed ancient territory of the regnum Sclavorum stretched from Istria in the north to Albania in the south, from the Adriatic coast in the west up to the Danube in the east. Its coastal region (Maritima) was divided into the northern province of Croatia Alba, or inferior Dalmatia, and the southern province of Croatia Rubea, alias superior Dalmatia. The mountainous territory inside the land (Surbia/Transmontana) were composed of the provinces of Bosnia (Bosna) and Raška (Rassa). On the last day of the synod in Dalma, the papal legate Honorius is reported to have crowned Svetopelek king, in line with the Roman habit (more Romanorum). This (hi)story served the Priest of Duklja to create a great Slavic kingdom that united, under the rule of Svetopelek and the Dukljan princes’ dynasty, all the Slavic-speaking tribal associations and principalities in the western part of the Balkans and integrated with them the Latin-speaking population of the seashore towns. The name of the legendary ruler Svetopelek obviously referred to Svatopluk I of Moravia, which paved the way for the Dukljan Slavic Idea to encompass an even more extensive territory, including Pannonia, and perhaps also Moravia. That the subsequent chapters include in the Dukljan genealogy also the figures of rulers from the history of Travunia, Croatia, and Serbia, was certainly meant to make the concept of political unification of the ‘Southern Slavs’ under the extensive ‘Slavic’ authority of Duklja even more convincing. From the standpoint of history-based policy, the purpose of the thus-created fictitious great “Kingdom of the Slavs” (regnum Sclavorum) and the idea of a Slavic community incarnated by it was dual. First, they could favour the period’s political and territorial interests of the rulers of Duklja. After the death of Constantine Bodin, whose area of reign extended at the end of the 11th century – apart from Duklja – to Travunia, Bosnia, and Raška, the political position of the Duklian rulers was steadily deteriorating. Between the 1140s 179 For a detailed interpretation of this narrative element see Steindorff 1985.

306

Chapter 7

and 1180s, they resisted the attacks of the Serbian zhupans from Raška with difficulty; finally, in 1186, Stephen Nemanja put an end to their independent rule. In this context, the “Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja” seems to have been the last attempt at counteracting the imminent catastrophe – be it with use of one essential historical-policy argument.180 The fictitious regnum Sclavorum and its territorial structure could have moreover been used in ecclesial policies as well. The description of a fictitious assembly in Dalma is followed by the account of the appointment by the no-less-fictitious King Svetopelek of the archbishops of Salona/Split and Duklja/Bar, which allows the chronicler to demonstrate that the metropolis of Bar was as ancient as the one of Split. By assigning to Bar three of the four provinces of the fictitious regnum Sclavorum, namely, Bosnia, Serbia, and Dalmatia superior as the suffragan dioceses, and in Dalmatia inferior the dioceses of Zahumlje and Travunia, he presented the Archdiocese of Duklja as an even greater, and thus more important, metropolis. In sum, the story told by the Priest of Duklja was an “adroitly composed ideological-political and moral-didactic work,”181 which through the utopia of a great “Kingdom of the Slavs” and appeal to a supposed unity of the Southern Slavs tried to reinforce the sense of identity of the Diocletians/Duklians and ward off the dread spectre of dominance of the Nemanjids. 3.3 Bosnia Bosnia was a region that was exposed to permanent pressure from Duklja and Serbia as well as from Croatia and Hungary in the High Middle Ages.182 The mountainous country was sparsely populated, highly jointed, and hard to access, its population living within narrow local structures. The name comes from the river Bosna, flowing from Sarajevo in a north-western arch into the Sava. If the “Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja” is to be trusted, in the late 9th/early 10th century the region was part of Croatia but then was conquered by the Serbian zhupan of Raška named Tišemir (Tiscemirus).183 Constantine Porphyrogenitus, in the mid-10th century, clearly differed between the area of “baptized Serbia” and the “territory of Bosna” (chorion Bosona).184 His record 180 See Turk Santiago 1984, 100–123; Budak 1990, 133; Živković 2008, 207. 181 Peričić 1991, 242: Kronika nam se […] pokazuje kao vješto komponiran idejno-politički i moralno didaktički spis. 182 For overviews see Ćirković 1964b, 13–80 (Serbian perspective); Klaić 1994, 5–145 (Croatian perspective); Lovrenović 2014 (Bosnian perspective). 183 Ljetopis Popa Dukljanina, 72–73 (chap. 28). 184 Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De administrando imperio, 160 and 161 (English quotation).

Incomplete Processes of “ State-Formation ” & “ Nation-Building ”

307

is the earliest testimony of the country’s name, though most probably this purely geographical name at that time denoted the core lands of later Bosnia only, that is the region between Zenica in the north, Vrhbosna (Sarajevo) in the south, Vareš in the east, and Travnik in the west.185 Despite being hard to access, all neighbours – that is, Diocletians/Duklians, Serbs, Croats, and Hungarians, along with Byzantines and Bulgarians – were always interested in that country. And indeed, over the entire Middle Ages, Bosnia was formally subjected, alternately, to different foreign rulers. In the second half of the 10th century, it was conquered by the Croatian duke Krešimir; in 1018 it was annexed by Byzantium and during the 1080s incorporated into Duklja by Constantine Bodin; after his death, around 1100, a portion of it was probably made part of the Croatian regnum again.186 With the seizure of Croatia by Hungary, the Hungarian king laid his claims to Bosnia. Owing to the resistance offered by the local elites and the country’s geography, he quit the idea of directly conquering it and made the country formally an autonomous kingdom instead. Hence, since 1137/8, the king of Hungary was, in parallel, the king of not only Croatia but also of “Rama”. The latter, fictitious, title was derived from a small tributary to the Neretva, but its meaning was symbolic. The “king of Rama” (rex Ramae) deposited the actual power in the hands of the indigenous governors (bans), whose background was the local potent. The life in Bosnia and the Bosnian everyday realities were shaped by the local mighty and their clans. Although conflicts over land and people repeatedly broke out among them, they quite efficiently defended the autonomy of that region that was eluding their control. As the Byzantine historiographer John Kinnamos found around the middle of the 12th century, “Bosnia […] is a tribe that lives its own life and is ruled by itself.”187 Between 1160 and 1180, Bosnia was temporarily subjected to the Byzantine superiority again, but in the subsequent decade, under the rule of Ban Kulin, it was once again recognized as a Hungarian fief.188 Kulin had to repel Rome’s accusations that his country was overwhelmed by the Bogomilist-Patharene heresy. The papal legate who arrived in Bosnia for this reason in 1203, was assured that the contrary was the case, but the charge was renewed in 1221 and caused that a crusade set off from Hungary to bring the Bosnian Christians, who had been subjected to the Diocese of Dubrovnik, back on track. 185 See Radić 2007, 244. 186 Leśny 1989, 70–75. 187 Ioannes Kinnamos, Deeds of John, 84 (III, 7). 188 Osamsto godina povelje bosanskog bana Kulina.

308

Chapter 7

In the long run, this intervention brought about independence of the Bosnian Church. The process was initiated by the dismissal of the Bosnian bishop by Pope Gregory IX in 1233 and the detachment of the Bosnian bishopric from the Archbishopric in Dubrovnik.189 These developments heavily contributed to the formation, in the Late Middle Ages, of a specific Bosnian identity. However, the assumption whereby the pressure exerted in the 13th century by Hungary, the Papal Curia, and the crusaders strengthened in the Bosnian nation “its centuries-old ideas of a ‘Slavic’ […] community, of a common background, language, shared customs and political traditions,”190 is a preposterous speculation that can by no means be proved. Ban Kulin reigned until 1204 and probably vested his son Stephen with the ‘office’ as a personal hereditary authority. Between 1230 and the middle of the century, a ban named Matija Ninoslav appears on the stage, but how he came to power is unknown – whether as a relative of Kulin or a member of a competing magnate family. The relations between Matija Ninoslav and the Hungarian vassal Prijezda, who in the 1280s officiated as a ban in northern Bosnia, remain unclear, too. Prijezda is regarded as the founder of the house of the Kotromanić, who soon were to take power all over Bosnia and maintain it until the verge of the Ottoman rule. It was only during the rule of this dynasty that Bosnia obtained political independence, which enabled a specific identity to develop. 189 Šidak 1975, 207–208; Lovrenović 2017, 70–71. 190 Naumov 1989, 103.

Chapter 8

Slavs Perceived by Non-Slavs through the Middle Ages It was already in the Early Middle Ages that Byzantine, Arabic, and Latin sources referred to ‘Slavs’ not as a particularly ‘Slavic’ mega-community encompassing the whole of Eastern Europe and defined according to ethnic, social, or political criteria. The word ‘Slavs’ (Sklavenoi, Ṣaqāliba, Sclavi) was used in those sources to denote quite diverse smaller or larger groups and associations, primarily in the direct environment (as by Byzantine and Frankish authors) or in the distant, almost unknown North (as by Arabic authors). It was only with difficulty that they initially identified individual Slavic-speaking groups or differed them from other (East) European groups. Hence, those authors used in reference to all of them the generic collective term, with no differentiation, thus classing them, above all, as alien, ‘barbarian’. As soon as the ‘alien’ lost its otherness and amorphousness through integration into a given society (as in the European parts of Byzantium and in the East March territory of the Frankish realm), or resulting from transformation into a large-area, Christianized principality or kingdom, the group name of Sklavenoi, Ṣaqāliba, or Sclavi was no longer used with respect to the given community. Instead, the individual nationes began to be perceived on an individualized basis and referred to by using their proper names. Whenever the generic name of ‘Slavs’ was still used, it ever since became a negative stereotype that had a strictly determined function in the specific context. 1

The Byzantine Perception

After a rather short phase of intensive dealing with the ‘Slavs’, the Byzantines did not specifically care about them since the 8th/9th century. It even seems that they lost interest as soon as the fear of wanton invasions of the Sklavenoi faded away and the Slavic-speaking tribal associations, domesticated by then in the Empire’s lands, turned into Slavic-speaking neighbours (which was particularly true for the Bulgars, once the First Bulgarian Empire appeared), no more resembling the dreadful ‘barbarian enemies’. Although the Byzantine sources compiled before the end of the 9th century still informed of, in total, 120 events from the 6th/7th century in which the Sklavenoi took part, the sources © Eduard Mühle, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004536746_009

310

Chapter 8

concerning the 8th century (whose number is scarce anyway) mention merely fifteen such events, among which five were Byzantine-Slavic armed clashes. Eleven of them involved different groups of Sklavenoi within the Eastern Roman Empire, whilst Slavs are mentioned thrice as allies of the Bulgars and just once as Arab mercenaries.1 The descriptions of the 9th-century events look similar, with only thirteen extant pieces of information on Sklavenoi/Sklavoi dating to that time. Only four of them relate to Byzantine-Slavic armed conflicts whereas six describe diverse Slavic-speaking groups within the Eastern Roman Empire, five mentioning Slavs as the Bulgars’ allies.2 The Slavic-speaking neighbours were not the only ones to be neglected by Byzantium: between the 8th and 14th centuries, virtually no work can be identified that would testify to the Byzantines’ ethnographical or geographical interest, of whatever extent, in other nations. At best, Middle Byzantine authors incidentally mention the customs or mores of alien nations, rarely analyzing their social and geographic situation. This state-of-affairs did not at all result from lack of knowledge or access to information. Byzantine envoys travelled a great deal between Cordoba and Baghdad, Aachen, and Kiev, doubtlessly collecting a lot of information potentially of use to Constantinople. So, the contemporary geopolitical and ethnic conditions were, apparently, known to the Byzantine elites. The fact that, despite this, their members did not consider their descriptions indispensable or important is usually connected by scholars to the specific mentality and state ideology of the Byzantine Empire.3 To wit, Byzantium saw no need for dialogue or exchange with other cultures; neither did it assume that any other society would be able to offer it anything of relevance. Hence, the Byzantines cultivated their own image of themselves, focusing on themselves and practically not noticing the others. Even the conversions of Slavic-speaking nations to Christianity – the Bulgars and Moravians in the 9th and the Rus’ in the 10th century – were virtually not reflected in the Byzantine sources.4 Besides, the initiative to convert and establish relevant Church structures was never initiated by Byzantium but by the rulers of the neighbouring

1 Das Ethnikon Sklabenoi, 25–124. 2 Das Ethnikon Sklabenoi, 124–143 – with altogether 29 incidents dated to the 9th century and involving Sklavenoi/Sklavoi; however, 16 of these testimonies are to be found in 10th-century and younger sources. 3 See Kaldellis 2013, 34–43; on middle-Byzantine historiography also Treadgold 2013; HowardJohnston 2014, 56–57. 4 For the total ignorance of the Byzantine sources as to the mission of Constantin and Method see Vavřínek 2017.

Slavs Perceived by Non-Slavs through the Middle Ages

311

‘barbarian’ peoples, at whom Byzantines continued to dismiss even once Christianized. Within this context, the Byzantine sources lost sight of the Sklavenoi/Sklavoi in 10th century even more completely.5 In a guide to military art attributed to Emperor Leo VI Sophos († 912), the sections describing the Sklavoi, their customs and traditions, consistently use past tense and reproduce the topoi of the Sklavoi reported by Procopius and Theophylact.6 A similar manual of military tactics, written anonymously at the end of the 10th century, does not even mention a Sklavoi, though the work contains detailed descriptions of Byzantine military actions at the Empire’s northern border, particularly in “the Bulgarian mountains”; instead, the Bulgars, Magyars, the Rus’, and Pechenegs are mentioned.7 Apart from the once nomadic, but by that time Slavicized, Bulgars, who since the beginning of the 9th century had a rather stable state, the Byzantine sources increasingly took notice in the 10th century of Slavic groups other than Sklavenoi/Sklavoi (if they noticed the latter’s existence at all), living far away of the Empire’s frontiers. This is true for the work De administrando imperio, written between 948 and 952, by means of which Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus intended to share with his son Romanus II information on the peoples (or ‘nations’) neighbouring on the Empire, so that he learned “in what each nation has power to advantage the Romans, and in what to hurt, and how and by what other nation each severally may be encountered in arms and subdued.”8 In this sense, apart from Emperor Leo VI’s military art companion, the work became the only 10th century Byzantine description of the European neighbour nations – in political, geographic, and ethnographic terms. The emperor’s work educating about Eastern Europe described, more or less accurately, the situation of the Magyars, who are consistently called ‘Turks’ (Τοϋρκοι), the Rus’ (Ρωσ/οι), Khazars (Χαζαροι), and Pechenegs (Πατζινακιται) – and used the respective names of their countries, i.e., Turkey (Τουρκία), Rus’ (Ρωσία), Khazaria, (Χαζαρία), and Pechenegia (Πατζινακια). Among the Slavicspeaking Eastern European nations, presented as autonomous entities were the Bulgars (Βουλγαροι/Βουλγαρία), Moravians – Christianized in the 9th century by Byzantine missionaries (using the name of the meanwhile-fallen Old/Remote Moravian realm [μεγάλη Μοραβία], instead of an enthonym), 5 Das Ethnikon Sklabenoi, 144–163  – with altogether 26 incidents dated to the 10th and first 25 years of the 11th centuries that involved Sklavenoi/Sklavoi; these 26 testimonies are reported by only 15 different sources. 6 The Taktika of Leo VI., 465, 470–475; see also Koder 2011, 124–125; Kaldellis 2013, 85–87. 7 Anonymon Biblion Taktikon, 246–335. 8 De adminstrando imperio, 44; the English quotation ibidem 45.

312

Chapter 8

Croats (Χρωβατοι/Χρωβατία), and Serbs (Σερβλοι/Σερβλία). None of those ‘nations’ were called ‘Slavic’, however. The Sklavoi remained of interest to the emperor only in two significant contexts: first, in a legend-like retrospect of ancient Slavic-Byzantine conflicts in Dalmatia and Hellas, that referred to old topoi9 and narrated how the then-not-yet-baptized, inimical and stubborn Sklavenoi or Sklaviniai efficiently resisted the Byzantine dominance, and how the Croats and the Serbs shaped up their dominions.10 Second, Constantine mentions the Sklavoi in his description of the exploitation system imposed in the 9th century by the Rus’, whom he still called ‘Scandinavians’, in the lands along the Volkhov-Dnieper axis, that is, the so-called road from the Varangians to the Greeks (путь изъ Варягъ въ Греки).11 Those lands were inhabited by Slavic associations which paid tribute to the Rus’. Those Sklavoi were not yet christianized, either formed no large-area politically structured groups, and were perceived by the distant Byzantine observer as, at best, pagan settlement associations  – of whom Constantine named the Kribitainoi/Kribitzoi, Lenzaninoi, Berbianoi, Drugubitai, Seberioi, Ultinoi, Derbleninoi, and, “the other Sklavoi/Sklaveniai”.12 Those associations were easily comparable with the Sklavenoi/Sklavoi from the Byzantine past, and could be seen on an identical level. That the Byzantine idea of the ‘Slavs’ primarily, if not exclusively, encompassed Slavic-speaking population groups living within and outside the Eastern Roman Empire, with their characteristically low standard of socio-political organization, and therefore were perceived from the Byzantine perspective as ‘barbarians’, aliens, if not enemies, is additionally attested by the lack of mentions of any Sklavenoi/Sklavoi in the later sources. In cases in which the name is still sporadically used after the 10th century  – as, for instance, in the late-11th-century “Synopsis of Byzantine History” (Σύνοψις ίστοριων) by John Skylitzes († after 1105) – it only appears in descriptions of historical events.13 With respect to the period’s (11th to 13th centuries) Slavic-speaking realms/countries or nationes, their inhabitants or members, only their 9

When Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De administrando imperio, 122 narrates how Roman soldiers of emperor Diocletian (284–305) in Dalmatia met “unarmed Slavic peoples” this obviously linked up to the topos of ‘the peace-loving Slavs’ known since Procopios and Theophylact. 10 Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De administrando imperio, 124, 128, 232; see above pp. 125–127. 11 Povest’, 11. 12 Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De administrando imperio, 55, 62, 168; see above p. 213. 13 Ioannis Scylitzae, 146–147, 156; Byzanz wieder ein Weltreich, 182–183, 193; John Skylitzes, A Synopsis of Byzantine History, 142–143, 151; Vasiliki Tsamakda, The Illustrated Chronicle of Ioannes Skylitzes.

Slavs Perceived by Non-Slavs through the Middle Ages

313

individual ethnonyms or names of the respective state/country were used.14 In Kekaumenos’s Strategikon,15 written in the second half of the 11th century, in John Zonaras’s († after 1159) chronicle Epitome istorion from 1145,16 in the historical work Chronike diegesis by Niketas Choniates († 1217),17 written in the early 13th century, or in the collection of documents by the Ohrid archbishop Demetrios Chomatenos,18 compiled 1216–36, the Sklavenoi do not appear at all – the only ones mentioned being the Bulgars, Serbs, and the Rus’. Given the Byzantines’ perception of the outside world, the term Sklavenoi was eventually ousted by individual ethnonyms and names of countries/states formed by the Slavic-speaking nationes, whereas, at the same time, the notion significantly evolved within the empire in terms of meaning. At the beginning of the 12th century, the word Sklavos/Sklavoi (Σκλάβος/Σκλάβοι), which earlier on appeared as an abridged form of Sklavenos/Sklavenoi (Σκλάβηνός/ Σκλάβηνοι), solely denoting Slavic-speaking (groups) of people, appeared in a new meaning – namely, used, in parallel with the previously-existing word doulos/douloi (δουλος/δουλοι), to mean a ‘slave’. At the same time, ‘Sklavia’ (σκλαβιά) became a commonly used term for ‘slavery’. It remains a disputed matter where and when this process of alteration of the meaning began, which is identifiable in a similar form also for the Latin sclavus and the Arabic ṣaqāliba. Its actual background was the fact that most of the people sold in the Middle Ages as slaves were Slavic-speaking.19 This once led to the view that the change in the meaning took place in as early as the 9th century, somewhere in the Balkans, where the Franks, Arabs, and Byzantines entered into contact with one another as conquerors and traders in slaves.20 This met with the opposing opinion that the semantic alteration of ‘Slav’ into ‘slave’ first took place within the Latin language, in the 9th to 10th centuries, in the empire of the Carolingians.21 It has finally been agreed that the change first occurred in Byzantium – to be more specific, in the Byzantine southern Italy, 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

On the Byzantine perception of the Bulgarians, Serbs, and Rus’ Schreiner 1982; Schreiner 1992; Angelov 1994; Blangez-Malamut/Cacouros 1996; Angelov 1999; Nikolić 2007; Schreiner 2008; Komatina 2012; Gerolymatou 2015. Cecaumeni Strategicon. Ioannis Zonarae epitome; Militärs und Höflinge. Nicetae Choniatae Historia; Die Krone der Komnenen; Abenteurer auf dem Kaiserthron; Die Kreuzfahrer erobern Konstantinopel. Demetrii Chomateni Ponemata Diaphora. On medieval slave trade in general Verlinden 1970; Verlinden 1979; McCormick 2001, 244–253, 733–777; Verlinden 2002; Henning 1992a; Haverkamp 2005; Ott 2015 and the contributions in Slavery and the Slave Trade. Kahane/Kahane 1962, 360. Verlinden 1942, 121–125; McCormick 2001, 737; Rösener 2017, 16, 23.

314

Chapter 8

in the 11th century. Thus, the word ‘slave’ was adopted from Greek into medieval Latin (and, further on – as schiavo, esclave, escravos, Sklave, slave, and other related forms – penetrated modern European languages).22 Whatever the case, the documented fact that in the 12th century the word ‘Slav’ in Greek assumed the meaning of ‘slave’ (and was squeezed out as the name of Slavic-speaking groups of people and nationes) demonstrates that also in the Byzantine Empire it had even since assumed the traits of a prevalently negative external ascription. This is, perhaps, why in the 12th century John Zonaras tried to explain the epithet Σκλάβος, given to Patriarch Niketas (776–80) by Theophanes the Confessor, by using the word δουλος, which was a commonly accepted name for ‘a slave’.23 Later on, in the early 14th and 15th centuries, individual Byzantine authors began to enrich their texts, again, with geographical and ethnographical digressions, devoting a little more attention to things alien or foreign.24 They would still call the Slavic-speaking inhabitants of Eastern Europe the Serbs or Bulgars – as in the account of a diplomatic mission of Theodore Metochites (Πρεσβευτικός), or, in an antiquated manner, Pannonians (i.e. Hungarians), Mysians/Moesians (Bulgarians), and Scythes (the Rus’), never perceiving them as ‘Slavs’ or a ‘Slavic community’.25 It was only after the collapse of the Byzantine Empire, in the 1480s, that the historian Laonikos Chalkokondyles, born around 1430 in Athens, who made the Byzantine ethnography visible again, and to an unprecedented extent,26 created the first (post)Byzantine version of a ‘Slavic’ community. He did it in his ten-volume “Proofs of Histories” (Ἀποδείξεις Ἱστοριῶν), which describes the period between 1298 and 1463, the fall of the Byzantine Empire and the rise of the Ottoman Empire. On several occasions in this work, he discussed the question of origin and linguistic affinity of the Slavic-speaking residents of Eastern Europe. Influenced by the ideas of early humanism and inspired by ancient models, he never used the term ‘Slavs’ but rather, the 22 Köpstein 1966, 42–46; Köpstein 1979, 87; on slavery in Byzantium see also Prinzing 2017a; Prinzing 2017b. 23 Quotation from Köpstein 1979, 71. 24 Kaldellis 2013, 140–144. 25 Todora Metohita Poslanica, 34, 36–37, 39, 53; see also Radić 2001; Radić 2002; on the author Beck 1952, 1–25; Bazzani 2006. For the influence of classical ethnographic traditions on the accounts of Byzantine diplomats visiting the Balkans during the 13th and 14th centuries see Wells 2020, who also deals with Metochites. 26 Kaldellis 2013, 142: “Ethnography reappeared vigorously, in fact more so than at any other time in Byzantine history, in Laonikos Chalkokondyles.”

Slavs Perceived by Non-Slavs through the Middle Ages

315

antique ethnonym “Illyrians” (Ιλλυριωνγένος/Ιλλυριοὶ), to whom he counted the Serbs, Bulgarians, and the Russians (calling them in an antique manner, too, “Triballians”/Τριβαλλοί, “Mysians”/Μυσοί, and “Sarmatians”/Σαρμάται respectively). Together with the Bosnians, Croats, Poles, and Dalmatians, they “speak the same language as they do, or an altogether similar one, so that it is not at all difficult for them to understand each other.”27 On this observation Chalkokondyles reached the conclusion that “they are all one and the same people, being of the same race.”28 Resulting from a variety of events, they had apparently migrated to different countries and developed diverse traditions and morals, though they remained “the most ancient and largest among all the peoples in the world”29 and “are mentioned as flourishing in many places.”30 However, he would not be willing to decide which of them is more ancient and which settled in the lands of other people, that is whether the Illyrians crossed beyond Europe and settled in Poland and Sarmatia [Russia], or whether the Sarmatians [Russians] came to this side of the Danube and settled Mysia [Bulgaria] and the lands of the Triballians [Serbs] and of the Illyrians who are by the Adriatic Seas as far as the Venedi [Venice].31 Hence, Chalkokondyles preferred to remain equally balanced and critical as Herodotus, whom he followed as a model. In conclusion he simply stated that “nothing clear is said about them by anyone that we could present as reliable history.”32 In spite of such a reserve, Chalkokondyles was the first Byzantine Greek who formulated a late medieval/early modern version of the Slavic (or Illyrian) Idea, leaving it open, to which contemporary or earlier Central, South, or South-Eastern European discourse he referred in concrete terms.

27 The Histories, I, 38 and X, 16 (here the quotation). The Czechs, which Chalkokondyles refers to at several other places (similarly as to other peoples of Eastern Europe such as Hungarians, Lithuanians and Prussians) [II, 14; II, 17; III, 29; V, 51; VI, 55; VII, 14; VIII, 49], were not regarded as members of the Slavic language family by him. 28 The Histories, I, 38. 29 The Histories, I, 38. 30 The Histories, X, 16. 31 The Histories, III, 31. 32 The Histories, I, 38. For the source see also Ditten 1968, 17–19, 62–64; Markopoulos 2000; Kaldellis 2014, 40–42, 78–84; Martyniuk 2015.

316 2

Chapter 8

The Oriental Perception

At the beginning of the 10th century, the Arab geographers and travellers also started to be more perceptive about the inhabitants of Central and Eastern Europe and learned to differentiate between them. Ibn Rosteh (Ibn Rustah), the Isfahanian encyclopaedist and geographer, knew well in the first decade of the 10th century about the Slavic-speaking population inhabiting the lands in the southern Balkans. What is more, his “Book on Precious Gems” (Kitāb al-Aʿlāq an-nafīsa), presents a fairly diverse picture of the Eastern European people.33 It not only clearly separated the Ṣaqāliba from the Rus’, Khazars, Alani, and Pechenegs, but also from the Hungarians, Burtans, and Volga Bulgars, identifying among the latter as many as three sub-tribes (Barṣūlā, Isġil, and Bilkār). Ibn Rosteh exhaustively reports on the mores, morals, and lifestyle of those groups, specifies the distances between their settlement areas, knows that the Rus’ and the Hungarians were harassing the Ṣaqāliba with tributes and raids, that the way to the latter leads through a steppe, hard-to-overpass wetland areas and thick forests. Basing on an earlier source (referred to by scholars as “Anonymous description”), Ibn Rosteh tells about a ruler of the Ṣaqāliba, whose name was composed of the letters Swjjt m.l.k and who is most frequently identified with the Moravian duke Svatopluk.34 Finally, the author describes the method of setting up settlements and the Ṣaqāliba’s lifestyle so precisely that there is any doubt that he had in mind the Slavic-speaking population of the Eastern European territory. Two to three decades after Ibn Rosteh, the scholar al-Masʿūdī, who was born in Baghdad and lived in the Egyptian town of al-Fuṣṭāṭ, had a broader image of Eastern Europe. Before 941, he travelled to the Caspian Sea area and across Armenia, and probably it was there that he acquired some information about the Khazars, Volga Bulgars, and their neighbours. Further information he owed to oral accounts of merchants. In his historical-ethnographical work entitled “The Meadows of Gold and Mines of Gems” (Kitāb Murūǧ aḏ-ḏahab wa-maʿādin al-ǧawāhīr), whose first and second version were respectively written in 947 and 956, he situated the residences of Ṣaqāliba generally “in the North”, remarking that they stretched “westward.”35 33 Kitāb al-aʿlāq an-nafīsa; Arabian text and Polish translation of the relevant parts in Źródła arabskie 2,2, 27–43 (commentary: 54–143); German translation in Orientalische Berichte, 75–80; see also Pauliny 1999, 97–104; Lewicka-Rajewska 2004, 33–35; Watson 2004. 34 Lewicki 1968; Kmietowicz 1976; Havlík 1990. 35 Mas’ūdī (mort en 345/956), Les prairies d’or, chap. 34, §§ 905–909; the quotations from the German translation in Marquart 1903, 101–103; Russian translation in Kovalevskii

Slavs Perceived by Non-Slavs through the Middle Ages

317

Al-Masʿūdī makes this quite general information more precise, in two ways. First, he situated in the East (“far from the West”) some indeterminate Ṣaqāliba who lived along with the Rus’, “in the country of the Khazars” – or, as he explains elsewhere,36 on the Don (Ṭanāyis) River. He probably used the term Ṣaqāliba in its older meaning, which extended to the Turkic-speaking neighbours. Second, he wrote of Ṣaqāliba residing more to the west, whose living conditions were better known to him and whom he described accurately. He identified several branches of those western Ṣaqāliba, which fought one another, each having its own king, some being Christian and some pagan. Al-Masʿūdī enumerates the names of five kings (or five royal titles) and the names of twelve tribes.37 Most of them can be identified with Western and Southern Slavic groups, the others remaining a mystery. Among them, however, there appear two associations that are non-Slavic: the Germans called Nāmjīn (al-Masʿūdī obviously got to know the Slavic term Niemcy [Germans] from a Slavic-speaking informer) and the Hungarians called Turk. He expressly refers to the Nāmjīn as “the most courageous and the most exquisite riders amongst the Ṣaqāliba,” whilst the Turk appear to be “the most comely, the most numerous, and the bravest of the Ṣaqāliba,” which demonstrates that al-Masʿūdī’s idea of ‘Ṣaqāliba’ was still open with respect to non-Slavic Europeans and in fact did also encompass the eastern Franks and the Hungarians.38 At the same time, this author displays a fairly good knowledge of the Western Slavs. He describes their political conflicts, knows Prague (al-ifraġ) as an excelling trading centre, praises their culture and military power, and describes (in one of the later chapters) their pagan temples, combining (in this respect) fantasy with genuine information.39 At the end, al-Masʿūdī complements his description of the Ṣaqāliba, presenting a sort of legend about their origin.40 Already the early Arabic literature tried to classify the ethnic diversity of the then-known world by referring to 1973b, 70–71; see also Bis zu den Grenzen der Erde, 202–203; Pauliny 1999, 105–114; Lewicka-Rajewska 2004, 43–46; Hermes 2012, 49–52. 36 In his “Book of Notification and Verification” (Kitāb at-tanbīh wa’l-Ishrāi), written between 951 and 956; Marquart 1903, 115. 37 So he names the W.lītābā/W.līnānā with a king Māj.k, the Iṣţ.trāna with a king B.ṣ.qlāb.j, the Dūlābā with a king Wānj.ṣlāb/Wānj.ṣlāf, the Nāmjīn with a king Gh.rāna, the M.nābin/ M.ghānin with a king R.tīr and the S.rbīn, M.rāwa, Kh.r.wātīn, Ṣāṣīn, Kh.shānīn/Kh.shābīn, Brān.jābīn and al-Turk. 38 Also in his Kitāb al-Tanbīh wa’l-Ishrāi al-Masʿūdī calls the Nāmjīn (living along the Danube) explicitly Ṣaqāliba; Marquart 1903, 115; see also Mishin 2001. 39 Mas’ūdī (mort en 345/956), Les prairies d’or, chap. 66; see Kovalevskii 1973a; Strzelczyk 2012, 56–57. 40 Beilis 1993; Banaszkiewicz 1993, 30–32, 41; Banaszkiewicz 1998, 87–47.

318

Chapter 8

the biblical genealogy and the offspring of the sons of Noah – Shem, Cham, and Japheth. The Ṣaqāliba were usually referred to as the descendants of Japheth and, together with “Turks, […] Gog and Magog, [and] other nations unknown to us”,41 seen as part of Europe – as, for instance, in the “History of the Prophets and Kings” (Tarikh al-Rusul wa-l-Muluk), penned by aṭ-Ṭabarī, a Persian historians who died in 923. Classifications of this sort were however nothing else than a simple arrangement of a peculiar ‘mosaic table of nations’. Al-Masʿūdī extended this frugal information by adding an etiological legend, which for the first time reached beyond the common search for the roots of Eastern European and Asiatic nations with the biblical Japheth. According to this author, the Ṣaqāliba were initially united, since one of their branches – the W.lītābā/W.līnānā – “[wielded] power for ages, from the beginning of time.” “It was this particular branch that was once followed by the other Ṣaqāliba tribes, for the power was with them, and the other kings were obedient to it.” Moreover, the W.lītābā/W.līnānā was the Ṣaqāliba tribe of the purest blood, venerated by the other tribes and appealing, if need be, to its old merits. Later, disputes occurred between the tribes, and this shattered their order, the individual tribes formed separate groups and each of them elected a king for themselves.42 The same story can be found in the description of the Jewish merchant Ibrāhīm ibn Yaʿkūb, which only survived in the works of later Arab geographers, especially that of al-Bakhrī, a Moresque resident of Andalusia.43 Ibrāhīm ibn Yaʿkūb travelled in the 960s, on commission of the Caliph of Cordoba, to Otto I’s court at Magdeburg, and then probably reached Prague. Although, according to Ibrāhīm, the lands of the Ṣaqāliba extended from the Mediterranean Sea to 41

Quotation from Borst 1957/59, 334; ibidem 275, 337, 339. Borst lists further examples dated to the 10th century in which the Ṣaqāliba are perceived as offspring of Japheth; see also Lewis 1990, 44–45. 42 See also Widajewicz 1949; Lewicki 1948b; Lewicki 1951; Lewicki 1960; Lewicki 1961a; Shboul 1979, 187: “Certain details of al-Mas‘udis account are evidently derived from current notions about non-Muslim peoples which are already found in earlier Arabic authors – for example lining Saqaliba with Biblical genealogy.” 43 Relacja Ibrāhīma, 11: “[The Slavs form] various peoples. They used to be united under the rule of a king called Makha, he came from a tribe of them, called W.linbaba. This tribe enjoys a great respect among them. Then divergences appeared between them, their order disappeared, they separated from one another, and every tribe came under the power of its own king.” The English quotation from Mishin 1996, 184. On Ibrāhīm ibn Yaʿkūb and his work see also Stasiewski 1933, 1–28; Widajewicz 1946; Warnke 1965; Miquel 1966; Engels 1991; Zaborski 2008; Hermes 2012, 112–119.

Slavs Perceived by Non-Slavs through the Middle Ages

319

the “Ocean in the North”, his fairly detailed descriptions primarily concerned Slavic-speaking residents of the then-leading Western and Southern Slavic countries, i.e., Bulgarians, Bohemians, Poles, Polabian Slavs, and Pomeranians. Ibrāhīm used quite precise information on them. While he used the generalized term Ṣaqāliba, on the one hand, he did diversify the information concerning the individual Slavic-speaking dominions. Albeit he did not yet know the names of their territories, he described and identified them using the names of their rulers, aptly characterizing them as associations of persons. How precise his knowledge on the regional differences was, is attested by the fact that he writes of the Pomeranians that they had no king but were ruled by their elders; indeed, none of the other sources would mention that the 10th-century Pomeranians were organized into a monarchy. With the more elaborate image of Eastern Europe, which emerged around the middle of the 10th century in the works of al-Masʿūdī and Ibrāhīm ibn Yaʿkūb, the broad and imprecise concept of Ṣaqāliba, known from Arabic sources, began do disappear in a similar manner and for similar reasons as the early Sklavenoi concept in the Byzantine sources.44 The vague and open-ended code that had only been used to name, in general and imprecise terms, the mostly-unknown population (whereas the naming indicated a weird distance) was replaced by a more precise and more differentiated perception, reflecting the change that took place in 10th-century Eastern Europe and paving the way for an Arabic perception of individual Slavic-speaking nationes from the medieval period. Nobody, however, used this path; later Arabic authors in fact hardly extended the information provided by al-Masʿūdī and Ibrāhīm ibn Yaʿkūb. Often they simply kept up the old concept of Ṣaqāliba, thus using an image that was frozen at the stage of information written down by Ibn Rosteh and which between the 11th and the 12th century furthermore tended to be gradually simplified – as is demonstrated by the “Book of Roads and Kingdoms” (Kitāb al-Masālik wa-l-mamālik) by the Andalusian geographer al-Bakhrī (completed 1086), by 44 A particular problem is the development of the term Ṣaqāliba within Arabic societies, especially in al-Andalus and in northern Africa. In the context of Oriental slave trade the word already during the 10th century took on the meaning of “white enuch” or “slave” and as such it was not confined to Slavs at all. At the end of the rule of ʿ⁠Abd ar-Raḥmān III (961 r.) there lived nearly 14.000 such Ṣaqāliba in Cordoba alone. In addition in al-Andalus Ṣaqāliba was used also to denote white European officials and members of military units (i.e. also non-Slavic-speaking Europeans); in the 11th century, after the end of the Umayyad rule, individual Ṣaqāliba could even reach higher ranks of political positions; see Bosworth 1995; Guichard/Meouak 1995; Kentaro 2000, 26; Meouak 2004; Collins 2012, 182–185; the view that the word Ṣaqāliba exclusively meant Slavic-speaking slaves is maintained by Ayalon 1979; Mishin 2002, 189–287, 308.

320

Chapter 8

the historical work “The Ornament of Histories” (Zayn al-aḫbār) by the Persian al-Gardīzī (written 1049–52), and by the treatise “On the Natures of Animals” (Ṭabāʾī al-ḥayawān) by the Persian court physician al-Marwazī.45 Part of the simplification that turned into a stereotype were the short descriptions of Ṣaqāliba, disseminated trough guidebooks on slave trade. One of them, written in Baghdad by Ibn Buṭlān, an Iraqi physician, philosopher, and theologian who died ca. 1063 in Antioch, contains the following information: Whoever is willing to have a female slave for the purpose of love pleasures, may he take a Berber woman; for warding and caretaking, a Byzantine woman; for offspring, a Persian woman; for breast-feeding, a Negro woman; and, for singing, a female Mecca dweller. Whoever is looking for slaves for the purpose of protecting individuals and property, may he take the Indians and the Nubians; for hard work and as servants, the black-skinned and Armenians; and, for waging wars and owing to their bravery, the Turks and the Ṣaqāliba. Elsewhere, the compendium explains to the potential merchant who would like to purchase a slave from the Ṣaqāliba group that they have broad breasts, are courageous and massive, which allows them to preserve their body temperature. Their legs are thin, as warmth leaves the limbs. They live long, for their digestion is excellent. Their women are infertile because they do not purify themselves of the menstruation blood. To those interested in “warlike and dauntless men,” Ibn Buṭlān advised that they select “Turks and Ṣaqāliba, owing to their hot hearts.” “One tests them [upon purchase], confronting them by surprise with something horrid, like throwing them into a pit or throwing over them, from a height, something that makes an appalling noise.”46 Also in Andalusia, similar manuals described Turks and Ṣaqāliba stereotypically as good warriors.47 Some later authors, one of them being al-Dimasqī, a 45 The relevant passages of these works in German translation in Orientalische Berichte, 178–180 (al-Gardīzī), 221–234 (al-Bakhrī), 252–253 (al-Marwazī); an English translation of al-Marwazī in Sharaf al-Zamān Ṭāhir Marvazī, 13–60; see also Pauliny 1999, 130–138 (al-Gardīzī), 139–143 (al-Marwazī); Lewicka-Rajewska 2004, 52–56. 46 Abd as-Salam Harun, 352, 372, 388; the quoted passages according to Müller 1980, 50, 64–66, 79. 47 Thus e.g. the inspector of the Malaga Souk, Abū ʿ⁠Abdallāh Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad al-Saqaṭī al-Mālaqī, in his “Book on Good Administration of the Souk” (Kitāb fī ādāb al-ḥisba) written in 1210–1220 (and drawing on Ibn Buṭlān) regarded the Ṣaqāliba (and the

Slavs Perceived by Non-Slavs through the Middle Ages

321

Damascene active in the 14th century, severely deformed the earlier descriptions of Ṣaqāliba. To give an example, the information given by the Arab geographer Ibn Ḥawqal († 977) that the Rus’ killed every alien who arrived in their country, was turned into a fantastic gossip whereby the Ṣaqāliba devoured everybody whoever fell into their hands, for they lived like wild animals in a primeval forest and in the woods by the ocean.48 Such cartographic representations still kept up, for some time, the old concept of Ṣaqāliba.49 The map attached to the “Book of Curiosity of Science and Miracles for the Eyes” (Kitāb Ǧarāʾib al-funūn wa-mulaḥ al-ʿuyūn), compiled between 1020 and 1050, presented the aṣ-Ṣaqāliba on the western edge of a great area on which, apart from a long legend, only the city of Kiev was plotted.50 Also the map of the world in Ibn Ḥawqal’s “Book of the Earth” (Kitāb ṣūrat al-arḍ), a manuscript dated to 1086, filled the space between the Carpathians and the Caspian Sea, the Mediterranean Sea, and the sea in the North with the Ṣaqāliba and the Rus’ only.51 Similar generalizations on the Ṣaqāliba appear in the visualization in the form of a diagram drawn up by al-Bīrūnī, a versatile scholar († after 1048). The inhabited world is divided there into seven regions or, in the Greek manner, climates, shaped into equal-sized circles and arranged around the central circle/region (i.e. the fourth climate or the centre of the caliphate, Iraq and Iran) “according to Kingdoms which differ[ed] from one another for various reasons – different features of their peoples and different codes of morality and customs.”52 The Ṣaqāliba were situated together with Gog and Magog, the Khazars, the Turkic peoples and the Rus’ in the sixth climate, whereas

48 49 50

51 52

Turks) as slaves expecially suited for “war and bravery”; Un manuel hispanique de Ḥisba, the quotation from Müller 1980, 104. Kitāb Nukhbat al-Dahr, 261–262; English translation in Attar 2005, 22; on the stereotypization of the term Ṣaqāliba in the general context of the Arab perception of the Slavs see also Al-Azmeh 1992, 7, 12. An interesting comparison of Christian and Muslim representations of the world on medieval maps offers Borgolte 2014. An Eleventh-Century Egyptian Guide, 183–184, 421–422; the legends reads: “Uninhabited up to the boundaries of Constantinople in this area. In this region there are many nations speaking a different language from that of their race. These nations live very close to each other, despite their differences and disputes. Some of them, nay most of them and the most illustrious among them, are in allegiance to the King of Byzantium. The religious creed of all of them is Christianity”; http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/bookofcuriosities [visited 27.01.2016]. Opus geographicum, maps between pp. 5 and 6; Mappae Arabicae, 14–21; Tibbetts 1992a, 108, 114. Al-Bīrūnī, Kitāb taḥdīd nihāyāt, 135; English translation from The Determination of the Coordinates, 102; the quotation from Karamustafa 1992, 80; on al-Bīrūnī see also Lewicka-Rajewska 2004, 51–52.

322

Chapter 8

Byzantium, Andalusia, and the (western) state of the Franks in the fifth climate; or, they were placed in the fifth climate, together with Byzantium (Asia Minor), whereas Gog and Magog as well as the Turkic peoples were identified with the sixth climate.53 In both cases, the word Ṣaqāliba meant more than just the Slavic-speaking people. The traveller Abū Ḥāmid al-Ġarnāṭī, born ca. 1080 in Granada, who at the beginning of the 1050s made the way from the Volga Bulgars, through Kievan Rus’, to the Hungarians, used the phrase “land of the Slavs” (bilād aṣ Ṣaqāliba) only with reference to the Rus’ian principalities, and the name Ṣaqāliba for the Eastern Slavs living there, while no other Slavic-speaking country/state or community was mentioned, although in Hungary al-Ġarnāṭī certainly had access to relevant information.54 Hence, it is no coincidence that the one Arabic author who created not only the most extensive description of Europe but also the geographically most diverse representation of its eastern part, was a geographer active at the Sicilian court of Roger II in Palermo, outside the actual Arabic environment: al-Idrīsī. The “Book of the Journey for He Who Longs to Penetrate the Horizon[s]” (Kitāb nuzhat al-muštāq fī-ʾḫtirāq al-āfāq) of this Moroccan, who died in 1165, did neither describe the Ṣaqāliba land(s) in some general terms, nor did it describe a ‘Slavic’ way of life and morals in a general fashion, contrary to what one still finds in Ibrahim ibn Yaʿkūb.55 Nor was al-Idrīsī interested in any alleged original unity or background ascribed to the Ṣaqāliba. His geography was meant to serve, in the first place, the practical military purposes of the Sicilian Normans’ ruler. Hence, the author named the countries: Saxony or the Holy Roman Empire, Poland, Bohemia, Hungary, Croatia, Serbia, Bulgaria, and the Rus’,56 giving the major features, the most significant cities of those nationes and the distances 53 Tibbetts 1992b, 94. 54 Kitāb al-Muʿrib: the quotations from the Russian translation in Puteshestvie Abu Chamida, 35–37; see also Widera 1972; Göckenjan 2003, 254–257; Pauliny 1999, 155–173. 55 Idrīsī, La première géographie; Polska i kraje sąsiednie I, 125–144 (Polish translation of section 3 and part of section 4 of the “sixth climate”) 145–176 (Arabian text). The second volume offering a commentary was ready for print also already in 1939 but got temporarily lost during World War II; it was published in 1954: Polska i kraje sąsiednie II. The work of al-Idrīsī was equipped with 70 regional maps, representing the peak of medieval Islamic cartography; the world map included into this set, however, has been probably produced already before al-Idrīsīsī and only added to his work later; Ahmad 1992; Mappae Arabicae, 21–49; see Konovalova 1999; Drecoll 2000; Stojkovski 2009. 56 Polska i kraje sąsiednie I, 125; Idrīsī, La première géographie 386, 405, 436, 442, 450.

Slavs Perceived by Non-Slavs through the Middle Ages

323

between them. When he wrote about the (I)sḳl(a)ṷun(ḭ)ḭa [Ṣqlabunīa],57 neighbouring Hungary, this had nothing to do anymore with the Arabian concept of Ṣaqāliba. Al-Idrīsī thus rendered, quite correctly, the name (formed in the 12th century) of the Croatian S(c)lavonia, being part of the Kingdom of Hungary. So, in the end, as the basic term used by the contemporaries with respect to the Eastern European reality, ‘Ṣaqāliba’ ceased to appear in Arabic sources by the middle of the 12th century, now being used only as a historical quote in copies or plagiaries of older works.58 3

The Latin-European Perception

Processes like those occurring in the Byzantine and Arabic sources are observable in the Latin sources as well. In as late as the last decade of the 9th century, Notker Balbulus († 912), a Benedictine monk and chronicler, wrote at St Gall generally about “the entire folk of the Slavs” (omne Sclavorum genus) and classed it among the intimidating peoples (immanissimae gentes) that barred the way to Byzantium, along with the Avars (Huni) and the Bulgars (Bulgari). Elsewhere, he made a warrior called Eishere, who fought against the Bemani, Wilzi, and Avari in the ranks of Charlemagne’s army, describe the Slavs (Winidi) scornfully as toads (ranunculi) and worms (vermiculi).59 Written down in 903–06, the customs tariff of Raffelstetten differentiated between the Slavic-speaking population residing in Bavaria (Bawari vel Sclavi istius patriae) and Slavic-speaking merchants arriving from Rus’ and Bohemia (Sclavi, qui de Rugis vel de Boemanis mercandi causa exeunt), while still calling both groups the ‘Sclavi’.60 At the same time, the former abbot of the Prüm cloister, Regino († 915), in an ethnographic excursus on “the realms of the Scythes,” meant as an introduction to his chronicle included Moravians and Bohemians in the Sclavi, along with Wilzi, Surbi, Abotridi, and Linones.61 His continuator in the 960s excluded the Boemi – similarly as the Rus’ (Rugi) and the Carantanians  – from the scope of the term ‘Slavs’, narrowing the latter down to those Polabian Slavs (Obodriti; Sclavi, qui Vucrani vocantur; Sclavi, qui 57 Polska i kraje sąsiednie I, 131–132; Idrīsī, La première géographie, 439. 58 Lewicki 1958, 78; Barthold 1934, 506: “neither the reports of Djuwaini nor Rashid al-Dina on the Mongolian campaigns do know the word ‘Slavs’.” 59 Notkeri Balbuli gesta Karoli Magni, 37–38, 75; Mohr 2005, 181–182. 60 Inquisitio de theloneis Raffelstettensis, 251; see Mitterauer 1964. 61 Reginonis abbatis, 32, 53, 57, 59, 61, 64–68, 71, 78, 112, 131–132: de Scythiae situ Scytharumque moribus; 134, 137, 140, 143.

324

Chapter 8

dicuntur Lusizani) whose savageness (Sclavorum sevitiae) the Ottonian rulers tried to tame.62 Moreover, Widukind of Corvey, who not only was familiar with the name of the territory of the long-ago-Christianized Boemi, i.e., Boemia, but also could name their individual dukes and knew the name of their capital city, differentiated between the Boemi and the Sclavi. What he understood by the latter was “all the barbarian peoples up to the Oder River” (omnes barbarae nationes usque in Oderam fluvium) and extended it to the Abodrites (Apodriti/Abdriti), Veleti (Wilti), Redar[ian]s (Redarii), Rugians (Ru[gi]ani), Ukrani (Uchri), Dalemincians (Dalamanci), Hevellians (Heveldi/Hevelli), and Lusatians (Lusiki), as well as the “more remote barbarians” (longius degentes barbaros) such as the Wolinians (Vuloini) and Licicaviki, the latter of whom were ruled by rex Misaca.63 The common thing about all of them was that they formed pagan, politically unshaped tribal associations, which posed unceasing problems to the Saxons through permanent conflicts. It was with them in mind that the Cologne monk Ruotger wrote in the 960s, in his “Life of Bruno”, about a “hundredfold wrath of the barbarian Slavs” (centifida Sclavorum rabies barbarorum).64 Out of those “Slavic barbarians” from the closest neighbourhood, in the perception of the Ottonian Empire, only the rule of the Piasts, baptized in the 970s, emancipated itself by the century’s end. Perhaps, Emperor Otto III, as part of his Renovatio imperii concept, might have claimed the right to it as an integral part of Sclavinia/Sclavania subordinated to the Ottonians – as is suggested by the famous miniature from the Gospel Book of Reichenau as well as by a charter issued late in the year 1000 “in Sclavania in the civitas of Gniezno, where the body of the martyr St Adalbert rests.”65 This thought-related and ideological context also comprises the mentions of Sclauonia that appear in the “Lifes of the Five Martyr Brothers”, killed in Piast Poland, written around 1008 by Bruno of Querfurt.66 Also the French monk and chronicler Adémar de Chabannes († 1034) followed this pattern in

62 Reginonis abbatis, 156, 158–159, 163–164, 170, 172–173, 177. 63 Widukindi monachi Corbeiensis, 27, 49–55, 61, 63, 68–69, 85, 95–96, 101, 108, 125, 134, 140–148, 153. On Widukind’s perception of the Slavs in more detail Schröder 1977, 21–32. 64 Ruotgers Lebensbeschreibung, 4 (III). 65 Denkmale der deutschen Könige und Kaiser, 155–156, 322–323; see also Weizsäcker 1959; Fried 2001, 62–65; Die Urkunden der deutschen Könige und Kaiser, 778–779: […] in Sclavania in civitate Gnesni ubi corpus beati martyris Ad[alberti [… re]quiescit. 66 Vita quinque fratrum, 35–36, 39.

Slavs Perceived by Non-Slavs through the Middle Ages

325

his history of the Franks and Aquitaine when naming Bolesław I the Brave rex Sclavanie.67 However, the vision of Otto III and his followers, expressed by the term Sclavonia, was clearly approached as outdated already in the “Annals of Quedlinburg”, compiled between 1007 and 1030.68 The annals, therefore, already used the name Polonia and only in form of a typically transitory formulation combined it one last time with the name Slavs calling the country Polonia Slavoniae.69 In his chronicle written between 1012 and 1018, bishop Thietmar of Merseburg, a member of the higher Saxon nobility, placed dux Miseco, the noted ruler of Polonia, on a par with Bohemia’s duke Boleslav I, perceiving none of the two as a Sclavus.70 He narrowed down the term Sclavi to the Slavic-speaking population inhabiting the lands between the Elbe and the Oder. The Merseburg bishop, who probably had a command of the language spoken by the Polabian Slavs,71 had a good knowledge of those people for they were the majority population of his own diocese. However, in 983, the Polabian Slavs rebelled against the Saxons’ rule and resumed paganism. It was in this context that Thietmar called them “greedy dogs” (avari canes) and referred, in a generalized manner, to “the cruel Slav” (Sclavus crudelis).72 Although Thietmar’s portrayal of the Empire’s Slavic-speaking neighbours living further eastward and their rulers was in no way more positive, the bishop consistently refers to the subjects of Miseco and of his son Bolizlaus as Poles

67 Ademari Cabannensis Chronicon, 152 (III, 31); to the relatively weak reception of Eastern Europe in French historiography of the 11th century hints Sidorova 2017. 68 Other sources, however, continued to treat Sclavinia and Polonia as equivalent still for some time. Thus e.g. a text written in the 1040s in Saint-Omer meant to praise the English Queen Emma of Normandy let the sons of the Danish king Sven Gabelbart, Harald and Knut, travel into Sclavonia, in order to meet their mother, a daughter of Mieszko I; Cnutonis regis gesta, 515; similarily, in the 1060s the story of the foundation of the Ezzonian family cloister at Brauweiler reported with regard to the marriage of Ezzo’s daughter Richeza with Mieszko II, that by this marriage “were connected the realm of the Slavs with the realm of the Germans” (regnum Sclavorum regno Teutonicorum confoederari); Brunwilarensis monasterii, 133; see also Brunwilarensis monasterii fundatio, 403, where Mieszko II is mentioned “with all the folk of the Slavs” (cum tota Sclavorum gente). 69 Annales Quedlinburgenses, 522, 530; see also Wojtecki 1981, 172–174. 70 Thietmari, 76 (II, 31). On the perception of the Bohemians/Czechs in other German sources of the 10th to 12th century see Kalhous 2018, 55–93. 71 Eichler 2009. 72 Thietmari, 119 (III, 17); 220 (V, prologue); the English quotations from Ottonian Germany, 141, 205. On Thietmar’s perception of the Slavs in more detail Donnert 1964; Weinrich 1988; Guth 1988; Rosik 2000, 43–179; Bührer-Thierry 2004; Fraesdorff 2005, 31, 139–142; Goetz 2015.

326

Chapter 8

(Poleni/Polenii).73 Also the Rus’ (Rutheni, Russi), who were perceived in the meantime as a Slavic-speaking community and their principality (Rus(s)cia),74 were not termed Sclavi by Thietmar nor treated by him as a ‘Slavic’ phenomenon. The same was true for the Bohemians, who had been longer known to the Saxon world.75 All this is not to say that in linguistic terms the realms of the Poles, Bohemians, and Rus’, now called by their own names, were not perceived as ‘Slavic’.76 For instance, Wipo of Burgundy, chaplain and chronicler of the Holy Roman Emperor Conrad II, who spent the last years of his life close to the Bohemian border, called Bolesław I the Brave in the 1040s a “Slavic/Slavic-speaking duke of the Poles” (Sclavigena dux Bolanorum); he also referred to Henry III as i.a. representing the Empire’s interests “in Bohemia and other regions of the Slavs” (in Boemia et ceteris regionibus Sclavorum).77 A few years later, the chronicler and monk Hermann of Reichenau wrote about “Slavs-Poles” (Sclavi Bolani) and “Slavs who were also called Poles” (Sclavi, qui Boloni vocantur).78 Those phrases reflect the influence of the older term Sclavi as well as the knowledge of a linguistic kinship of the Bohemian, Polish, and Polabian/Slavic neighbours. The canon Adam of Bremen (†1081/5) was likewise aware of the language relation between the Slavic-speaking neighbours, and it was only in this sense that he wrote in the 1070s, in his historical account of the Hamburg Church and its mission (Gesta Hammaburgensis Ecclesiae Pontificum), about Sclavania as a geographically broad concept. He actually did it in a separate historical-geographical elaboration entitled Historicum compendium de natura et gentibus Sclavaniae, appended to the said work.79 Referring to Einhard and 73 Thietmari, 194, 253, 255, 258–259, 288–289, 342–343, 418–419, 486, 528. According to Graus 1980a, 67 Thietmar’s descriptions show an attitude of the Saxons toward the Poles that obviously “already went well beyond political antagonism.” On the negative image Thietmar draws with respect to the western neighbours of the Poles see also Pleszczyński 2008; Pleszczyński 2016, 199–201. An all too positive interpretation of Thietmar’s image of the Slavs offers Hengst 2018. 74 On the perception of Rus’ in Western European Latin sources see Von den Brincken 1973b, 142–146; Russen und Rußland, 57–83; Mund 2004. 75 Goetz 2015, 110–111. 76 See Pleshchin’ski 2018, 43 who maintains that the western sources of the High and Late Middle Ages not only referred to the linguistic proximity of the Slavic-speaking peoples, but indeed perceived and depicted all Slavs as one ethnic community; a similar view held e.g. by Grabski 1964, 89. 77 Die Werke Wipos, 31 (chap. 9) and 52 (chap. 33). 78 Herimanni Augiensis chronicon, 118, 121, 122; on the chronicler in more detail Goetz 2016. 79 Adam von Bremen, 75–81 (II, 20–22). On the author and his work Goetz 1993; Rosik 2000, 180–223; Garipzanov 2011; Jarecki 2014, 14–58.

Slavs Perceived by Non-Slavs through the Middle Ages

327

the ancient notion of Germania, Adam describes Sclavania as “the amplest province of Germania” (amplissima Germaniae provintia), tenfold larger than “our Saxony”, especially, as he adds, “if one includes in Sclavania the Bohemians and those residing east of the Oder, the Poles, for they are no different from one another, neither by appearance nor by language”. In this broad concept, extended by the chronicler by mentions of the Pomeranians (Pomorani), Rus’ (Ruzzi), and Moravians (Marahi),80 Sclavania stretched in the East “in an infinite space”, “up to Bavaria, Hungary, and Greece [= Byzantium]” (usque in Beguariam, Ungariam et Greciam). It should be noted that Adam used the broad term of Sclavania only in this context, as a quotation from the sources he used (especially Einhard), rather than as a term of his own; by his formulations in fact, he has rather relativized this term. At any rate, in all the other places where he refers to Sclavi, populi Sclavorum multi, or Sclavorum gentes, he only has in mind the Polabian and Baltic Slavs. Even in his historio-geographical excursus, Adam clearly includes these two groups of Slavs in the populi Sclavorum and, as such, evidently contrasts them against the Bohemians, Moravians, Poles, Pomeranians, and the Rus’. He mentions by name the Wagri, Abodrites, Polabians, Glinians, Warnians, Kessinians, and Circipanians, whose lands were subordinated to the bishopric in Starigard/Oldenburg in Wagria and, therefore, to the archbishopric of Hamburg and Bremen. Apart from that, the chronicler refers to the Tollensians, Redarians, Hevellians (or Stodoranians), Doshans, Lebusans, and Wilinians, all of them living outside the Starigard Bishopric but still between the Elbe and the Oder. In this way, Adam of Bremen juxtaposed a broad and vague notion of Sclavania (used by him only one single time) against a very specific term Sclavania, which he used much more frequently, but whose scope was limited to the lands between the rivers Elbe and Oder. The chronicler focused his particular interest on those Slavic-speaking groups of people which were subjected to the missionary and pastoral activities of the Hamburg-and-Bremen Church, i.e., the bishopric at Starigard. In reference to them, the chronicler used the collective term “Luticians/Veleti”. To a broader extent, the Church of Hamburg-and-Bremen – or the Church of the Holy Roman Empire (i.e., the Archbishopric of Magdeburg) – was, obviously, superior of the other, not-yetChristianized associations of Polabian Slavs, so the entire Sclavania between the Elbe and the Oder called for the Saxon clergymen’s attention. In fact, the Bremen chronicler narrowed down his, still astonishingly positive, concept 80 Adam von Bremen, Scholion 14 (15) and 17 (18).

328

Chapter 8

of Sclavi to those Slavic-speaking associations that in his time were not yet embraced by missionary activity and were not subjected to the Saxon rule.81 It is no coincidence that the term S(c)lavi appears ever since only in Central European sources compiled in direct vicinity and in direct contact with the Polabian Slavs. The same can be found in relation to the Italian, Dalmatian, and Hungarian narrative texts as well as charters, in which the term ‘Slavs’ is, likewise, narrowed to those Slavic-speaking groups that could be come across in the given environment – in the zone of influence of Venice or of the pope, in the Dalmatian province and in the multiethnic kingdom of Hungary – and which the authors wanted to differentiate from the people ranking higher in the social hierarchy, politically privileged, or, simply, speaking a different language.82 This pragmatic narrowing of the notion ‘Slavs’, open-ended and flexible – depending on the perspective and situation, went hand in hand with the increasingly negative connotation of the image of Slavs. Magdeburg archbishop Adelgod encouraged the Saxon mighty, in his famous 1108 call, that in the lands of Polabian Slavs they sought not only the salvation of their own souls (animas vestras salvificare) but also “the best land to inhabit” (optimam terram ad inhabitandum). While the Slavs are not directly mentioned, the archbishop’s addressees were assured that the dwellers of the lands to be conquered and colonized were “cruel heathens, merciless men” (crudelissimi gentiles, viri absque misericordia) who had once been conquered but then they rebelled again and lived indecently. Therefore, all those who would follow the summon will certainly be given by God “the will and the might for those inhuman and pagan neighbours to be conquered” (tribuat vobis voluntatem et potentiam, hos affines et inhumanissimos gentiles subiugare).83 Similar promises and appropriately negative representations of Slavs (barbari, barbaricus furor, Slavicus furor, Slavorum genti crudelitas/ingenita duricia) can be found in the “Chronicle of the Slavs” (so called in the later manuscripts) by the parson Helmold of Bosau.84 Born ca. 1120, this chronicler spent most of 81

See Koczy 1933, 208–222; Pandowska 1993, 83–85; Scior 2002, 98–102; Buchner 1963, 40–42; Nowak 1971, 50–58; Fraesdorff 2005, 85–90. 82 The medieval Italian and Hungarian perception of the Slavs need separate studies as do the images and notions developed by the Dalmatian cities shaped by their particular Italian-Romance character. 83 Urkundenbuch des Erzstifts Magdeburg, 250–251; see Lotter 1974, 399–400; Graus 1980a, 75; Pleszczyński 2016, 191–194; Menzel 2015, 16–18, 22–23 put forward the thesis that the text in fact was not written by archbishop Adelgod († 1119 r.) but a somewhat later forgerie aimed at legitimizing the Wendish Crusade of 1147. 84 Helmoldi, 109 (I, 56), 123 (I, 66), 130 (I, 69). On Helmold’s perception of the Slavs in more detail Opelt 1984; Pandowska 1993, 84–87; Illert 1999; Rosik 2000, 224–324; Fraesdorff

Slavs Perceived by Non-Slavs through the Middle Ages

329

his life in direct contact with Wagria’s Polabian Slavs, i.e., the Abodrites. The moment they demolished the monastery of Segeberg in 1138, he was a student at the local cloister school and thus had, together with the monks, to escape to Neumünster in northern Polabia. This experience might have inspired his further observation that “the disposition of the Slavs [by which he meant the Abodrites, in this case], by nature untrustworthy and prone to evil, had to be guarded against.”85 Helmold continued his education in Brunswick (Braunschweig); in the mid-forties, he returned to Neumünster, where in 1149 he witnessed the renewal of the Diocese of Starigard/Oldenburg and the appointment of his Brunswick teacher Gerold as its bishop. Gerold entrusted to him the office of parish priest in Bosau, and thus the responsibility for the diocese’s only efficient parish, which the bishop himself also elected as his residence  – as he was afraid of residing in Starigard/Oldenburg, the centre of (still) exclusively Slavic-speaking Wagria. The missionary and colonization actions taken from Bosau and, since the sixties, from Lübeck, their beginnings and obstacles to be tackled (not infrequently ensuing from conflicts between the secular and clerical Saxon actors) were the central topic of the “Chronicle of the Slavs”, written in 1163–72. In his description of the events from the late 1160s, Helmold largely relied on Adam’s Gesta Hammaburgensis Ecclesiae Pontificum. He in particular was indebted to this work for the encouragement to write a geographical and historical introduction to his chronicle (hystoricum compedium) about the provinces, the character, and the customs of the Slavs (de Slavorum provinciis, natura, moribus), to see, namely, in how great a web of error they were entangled before their conversion, so that from the seriousness of their plight the efficacy of the divine cure may the more easily be discerned.86 2005, 97–99, 108–109; Scior 2002, 204–218; Rossignol 2014; Bock 2016; Pleszczyński 2016, 194–196; Steindorff 2019. 85 Helmoldi, 28 (I, 14); the English quotation from The Chronicle of the Slavs, 76. Reports on how monasteries in areas of missionary activities were attacked or endangered by Slavs are known also from other regions of the Germania Slavica; see e.g. the story of the foundation of the monastery of Pforta which tried to rationalize the transfer of the monastery, founded originally at Schmölln, to Pforta by depicting the Slavic-speaking neighbours as most cruel, infidel and cunning, thus dramatizing the physical danger that they exerted on the convent at Schmölln; Exordium monasterii Portensis, 7–9; see Michalska 2019, 234–238. 86 Helmoldi, 5–7 (I, 1–2); the English quotation from The Chronicle of the Slavs, 45.

330

Chapter 8

Like in the case of Adam of Bremen, it is only in this introductory part that, apart from the proper term ‘Slavs’, used by Helmold in reference to the Polabian and Baltic Slavs, he uses the name in a broader sense. Here, along with the Polabian and Baltic Slavs, Helmold included among the Slavic populi or nationes also the Rus’ (Ruci), Poles (Poloni), Prussians (Pruzi), Bohemians (Boemi), Moravians (Marahi), Carinthians (Karinthi), and Sorbs (Sorabi). This enumeration was meant, however, only to emphasize the reach of the Slavic language and the otherness of the Slavic neighbours expressed in it. This is clearly visible in the addendum, modelled after Adam, in which Helmold explains: But if one counts Hungary as a part of Slavania (in partem Slavaniae), as some would because it is different neither in customs nor in language, the compass of the Slavic tongue becomes so great that it nearly beggars estimation.87 Apparently, Helmold did not seek to demonstrate that the Slavorum populi/nationes formed an ethnic community. What the Bosau parson focused on amidst the Slavic-speaking groups he identified in his argument was their attitude toward Christianity and, as a secondary aspect, their political attitude toward the Holy Roman Empire. In this sense, he clearly identified the Rus’, Poles, Bohemians, and Carinthians on the one hand, and the Polabian and Baltic Slavs on the other hand. While the former had formed Christianized societies for quite a time by then, the latter were a “humankind” (hominum genus) not yet won over for Christianity. It was probably not coincidental that Helmold wrote of the Rus’, Poles, Bohemians, and Carinthans as nationes, whilst describing the groups belonging to the Polabian and Baltic Slavs as populi.88 He used the term “Wends” (Winithi/Winuli) only in reference to Polabian/Baltic Slavs; whenever Helmold wrote about “Slavi” further on in his chronicle, he only referred to these very “Wends.” The narrowing of the term ‘Slavs’ to Polabian and Baltic Slavs is also observable in abbot Arnold of Lübeck’s (†1211/14) continuation of Helmold’s

87 The Chronicle of the Slavs, 46. 88 Also Rahewin in 1159/1160 saw the Poles as a natio, but depicted them (in the context of Frederick Barbarossas’ campaign against Duke Bolesław IV) in a very negative way as infidel, unfriendly, wild and half-Barbarian; probably in order to underline his negative view he emphasized that Poland was inhabited by Slavs (Polunia, quam modo Sclavi inhabitant); Ottonis et Rahewini Gesta, 167; see Pleszczyński 2016, 203–205.

Slavs Perceived by Non-Slavs through the Middle Ages

331

“Chronicle of the Slavs,”89 and in the Gesta Danorum by the Danish chronicler Saxo Grammaticus, who died around 1220.90 In both works the authors used Sclavia/Sclavi only to refer to Polabian and/or Slavic tribes living along the southern coast of the Baltic Sea.91 A similar confinement of the notion Sclavi(ni)a/Sclavi is observable in surviving charters from the period as well as in the encyclopaedic treatise De natura locorum by Albert the Great.92 Other contemporary authors, including Lampert of Hersfeld (†1081), Ekkehard of Aura (†1125), Honorius of Autun (Augustodunensis; an Irishman residing in Regensburg; † ca. 1150), Otto of Freising (†1158), and Otto of St Blasien († early 13th c.) watched the political and geographical situation of the Poles, Bohemians, and Rus’, as well as of the Croats, Serbs, Hungarians, and Bulgarians (as long as they ever looked eastwards) from a larger distance, namely from the central and southern German perspective.93 These authors mentioned the Sclavi  – if ever, and if their statements referred not only to Polabian Slavs in the nearer neighbourhood – as a rule only while describing earlier historical contexts and quoting or drawing from earlier works.94

89 Arnoldi Chronica Slavorum; see also Pandowska 1993, 90–92; Scior 2002, 287–291; Lübke 2008, 192, 199; on the author and his work in more detail Hucker 1988; Grabkowsky 1993. 90 Saxo Grammaticus; see also Grinder-Hansen 2001; Muceniecks 2017, 7–12, 171–174. The perception of the Slavs as conveyed by Old Nordic sagas needs a separate analysis not possible here; see Ex historiis Islandicis; Islandskie korolevskie sagi; Roslund 2007; Morawiec 2013. 91 As to other Danish sources there are plenty of S(c)lavia-testimonies in Ex rerum Danicarum, 13–14, 32–33, 162, 175, 178, 179, 185, 207, 210, 213–214, 217–220, 224, 225, 228, 231, 242, 245, 248. In this narrow sense from the moment the Danish king became sovereign of the duchies of Mecklenburg and Pomerania the term ‘Slavs’ became part of the kingly title: since Knut VI (1162/1163–1202) the title was Rex Danorum Sclavorumque; Slavorumque in the vernacular language later was changed into Vendernes konung and (in Swedish) Wendes Konung; this form then during the 16th century was relatinized as Rex […] Vandalorumque and in this form functioned as part of the Swedish kingly title until the year 1973; see Steinacher 2016, 348. 92 See e.g. Die Urkunden Heinrichs des Löwen, no. 12, 41, 52, 59, 81–82, 89; Alberti Magni De natura, 563. 93 On the perception of Slavic-speaking nationes on the Balkans by Western European Latin sources in more detail Von den Brincken 1987; Von den Brincken 1973b, 137–142. 94 Lamberti Hersfeldensis Annales, 16, 17, 24, 25, 32, 42, 71, 244; Frutolfi et Ekkehardi chronica, 124, 144, 194, 232, 298, 366 (Boemia, Boemi), 126, 148, 164 (Bulgaria), 252, 298 (Polonia), 150 (Ruscie); Honorii Augustodunesnis Summa, 193, 195; Honorius Augustodunesnis, Imago mundi, 22–24; Ottonis episcopi Frisingensis Chronica, 29, 263, 272, 280, 284; Ottonis et Rahewini Gesta, 1–161 (no mentioning of “Slavs”); Ottonis de Sancto Blasio Chronica, 37 (Sclavi = nobles/princes taking part in the court day held by emperor Frederick Barbarossa in Mainz in 1184); see also Cerwinka 1977; Förster 2009, 18–19, 78, 121–123, 142.

332

Chapter 8

Others, such as the English scholar Gervase of Tilbury († 1235) and his compatriot Roger Bacon († 1292), used the term Sclavonia, but referred it (rightly) only to the respective part of Hungary/Croatia having in mind at best Croatian Slavs  – as in the work entitled Historia de translatione sanctorum magni Nicolai,95 written in 1116 in Venice, in various 13th-century Eastern and Central European historiographic texts96 and in the Descriptio terrarum, compiled in mid-13th century in Rome.97 Otherwise, apart from Sclavonia, while looking at Eastern Europe they wrote about Poland, Bohemia, Russia, and Bulgaria.98 Also the German-language “Chronicle of the World” (Weltchronik) by Rudolph of Ems (1250) used the denomination ‘Slavic’ = ‘Wendish’ (windischú riche or windischer sprache lant) primarily with respect to parts of Hungary (Messia, nidir Pannonia/Ungirn); on a linguistic basis, it included also “Bohemia, Moravia, Poland and the Russian lands, Livonia and Prussia and Carinthia” (Beheim, Merhern, Polan und das lant ze Rúzen,99 Liflant unde Prúzin and Kernden) in the Slavic/Wendish marches/lands (windischer lande marche / windensche lant).100 The mostly precise information about (South) Eastern Europe was compiled in 1307/8 in a “Description of Eastern Europe” (Descriptio Europae Orientalis) by an anonymous (French, Italian, or Dalmatian?) author, who apart from the Byzantine Empire described Albania, Raška/Serbia, Bulgaria, Ruthenia, Hungary, Poland, and Bohemia. The word sclaui, added twice to this list, refers also in this work to the residents of Croatian-Hungarian Slavonia only. Moreover, the author used the ethnomym or the adjective derived from it thrice, to highlight the linguistic kinship between the nations described. He also emphasized that the Albanians had their own language, which was different from that of the Romans, Greeks, and Slavs (a sclauis), and that in boemia et pomerania [the latter recte probably: Moravia] the Slavonic language (linquam slavicam) is spoken, and

95 96 97 98

Historia de translatione, 270. See below pp. 201, 358–359. Opis krajów, 290. Gervase of Tilbury, Otia Imperialia, 242–246, 272, 522; see Strzelczyk 1970; The “Opus Majus”, 374–375; Grabski 1964, 105–106; Gjuzelev 2013, 73. 99 On the perception of the Rus’ in German medieval literature see Russen und Rußland 1985, 84–109. 100 Rudolfs von Ems Weltchronik, 34–36. See Grabski 1964, 101–102; Pleshchinski 2018, 56; on the author and his work Tippelskirch 1979; Duft 2015; Thierry 2017.

Slavs Perceived by Non-Slavs through the Middle Ages

333

that the Ruthenians, Bulgarians, the inhabitants of Raška, the Slavonians, Bohemians, Poles, and Prussians spoke one and the same language, from which it ensued that the Slavonic language is more influential and more disseminated than all the other languages of the world.101 Significantly enough, he wrote down this observation immediately after observing that “all these peoples” – by which he primarily meant the Greek Orthodox Ruthenians, Bulgarians, and Serbs – are dissident and godless, and have one language” (Omens iste nationes sunt scismatice, perfide, lingum eandem habentes). Like Adam of Bremen and Helmold of Bosau, and also as in a letter sent by the Krakow bishop Matthew to Bernard of Clairvaux in the 1140s,102 the term ‘Slavic’ was associated there with ‘schismatic’, if not unfaithful and thus assuming a negative colouring. The linguistic kinship of the Slavic-speaking nationes was emphasized, after Adam and Helmold, also by Bartholomew the Englishman (Bartholomaeus Anglicus, † after 1250), who was appointed in 1231 from Paris to take office at a school set up in Magdeburg. He described Eastern Europe, using blended ancient and contemporary geographic terms. His encyclopaedia De proprietatis rerum, completed in the 1240s, was meant to contribute to a clearer explanation of the Bible. In book XV (De provinciis) of the overall nineteen books of the work, the author described all the countries of the world he knew, in a total of 175 chapters arranged in alphabetic order.103 He named Bohemia a part of Moesia (chap. 30), repeatedly spoke  – clearly referring to Herodotus and Isidore of Seville – of Germania, Pannonia (chap. 116), and Gothia/Scythia (chap. 71). He also wrote about Moravia, Poland (chaps. 30, 102), Carinthia (chap. 84), and Rus’ (chap. 131), emphasizing the linguistic relation between its inhabitants. In the chapter on Sclavia (Book XV, chap. 140), he moreover differentiated between a ‘greater’ and a ‘lesser’ Sclavia, adding that the former is also called Sclavonia and that it encompasses “Dalmatia, Serbia, Carinthia, and many another land.” Its dwellers, he wrote, are living along the shores and 101 Anonymi Descriptio, 29, 59, 41. See also Deér 1931; Naumov 1975; Danova 2005; Kovalev 2015 maintains that the text was written in 1307 in Poitiers by an Italian working at the papal court of Clemens V with regard to the Balkan campaign of Charles I Valois. 102 See above pp. 248–249. 103 The work has not yet been edited critically; it is cited here after Des Bartholomaeus Anglicus Beschreibung, 69–80 (based on a 13th-century manuscript kept at the Hofbiblio­ thek Vienna, Sig. 2312); the longer quotation from chapter 140 De Sclavia, ibidem, 77; see also Barthélemy L’Anglais, Le livre des regions (French translation); Grabski 1964, 95–99; Pandowska 1993, 92; Meyer 2000, 13–14, 22; Pleshchin’ski 2018, 43–45.

334

Chapter 8

in thickly afforested mountains, being a gens inculta, not quite pious, and often live a piratical life; particularly “those of them who reside in the coastal area” pursue pillage and looting in the sea and inside the land. Bartholomew probably made use of the older stories of Balkan pirates, e.g., the Narentanians, and extended the name that was used in his time to denote Croatian-Hungarian Slavonia  – and which he elsewhere (chap. 84) used in the narrower meaning – to the entire area of the Balkans. The ‘lesser’ Sclavia was, according to Bartholomew, the area “that extends from the border with the Saxons to the Prussians, Vandals, and Bohemians, and has a number of neighbours using the same language” and which is limited by the Baltic Sea (mare Paletum). The English Franciscan probably had in mind Polabian Slavs, who around 1240, however, virtually ceased to appear as such. It was probably because of this that the encyclopaedist who was active in Magdeburg close to the (former) Polabian Slavs’ residencies could state that the land of ‘lesser’ Slavia was called Bohemitana. He regarded its inhabitants as “more God-fearing and peacefully disposed toward their neighbours compared to those who live in the greater Sclavia,” and this because, as Herodotus had already maintained, they would blend and live in community with the Germans on a daily basis (hoc est propter mixtionem et societatem, quam quotidie contrahunt cum Germanis, ut dicit Herodotus). Also, the period’s processes of German-Polabian acculturation taking place in the Germania Slavica are shown by Bartholomew as a composition of then-current information and references to ancient authorities. He excluded from the negative stereotype (gens inculta, brigands and pirates greedy for spoils), with which in the other cases he associated the notions of Sclavi and Sclavia, only those residents of the lesser Sclavia who lived in direct neighbourhood of the Germans.104 Appearing in the Latin sources, the term Sclavi evolved since the 10th century like the Byzantine concept of Sklavenoi and the Arabic concept of Ṣaqāliba. While initially only individual, anonymous Sclavi were spotted near the frontier of Byzantinum and, subsequently, also the authors’ own, Frankish, world, with time, differently named pagan tribal associations began to be noticed in the areas covered by the Frankish eastward expansion. Once those acephalic societies turned into large-area, politically stable and Christianized regna, they were excluded from the Sclavi concept or began to appear in parallel with it, under their own respective names. The term Sclavi was now only used in reference to Polabian and Baltic Slavs – also because this group still 104 This conception was included into the “Short Description of the Countries of the Slavs” written by an anonymus author from Wrocław in the 14th century; Brevis descriptio Slavoniae, 588.

Slavs Perceived by Non-Slavs through the Middle Ages

335

cherished the pagan cults and was an object to the Saxon missionary and colonization action.105 These changes were, to an extent, reflected in the period’s cartography  – the so-called “Maps of the World” (mappae mundi).106 Their earliest versions, the 8th-century “Map of Albi”, which illustrated the writings of Orosius and Honorius, or the Spanish and southern French “Beatus Maps”, included in the late-8th-century commentary to the Apocalypse penned by Beatus of Liébana, show merely an empty space east of the Rhine, in the ancient Germania, filled at best, in the newer versions of the maps, with ancient signatures (such as Sarmatia, Tracia ubi Goti, Danubis, Dacia, or Wandali).107 It was only at the end of the 10th century and the beginning of the 11th that the mappae mundi – quite conservative as they were and attached to the ancient naming patterns during almost the entire Middle Ages  – gradually started to show the eastern part of Europe in a more exact fashion. The first map to feature the Sclavi, is an Anglo-Saxon map called Cottoniana,108 painted at the end of the 10th, or perhaps even in the second quarter of the 11th century, in which the Sclavi are placed between the Norwegians (Norweci) and the Bulgarians (Bulgari). In the early 12th century (ca. 1120), the Sclavi also appeared on the map of Europe by Lambert of St Omer († 1125), directly to the east of the Holy Roman Empire’s border, highlighted by a red line.109 The 13th-century map of the world by Matthew of Paris († after 1259) shows no Sclavi and Sclavia any more, but Polonia and Boemia instead;110 the other 12th/13th-century mappae mundi  – the Sawley map attributed to Henry of Mainz († 1153), and the climatic map by John of Wallingford († 1258) among them – have Russia and Ungaria plotted.111

105 See Graus 1980a, 73–74. 106 Von den Brincken 1968; Arentzen 1984; Barber 2006. On the image of Eastern Europe / Eurasia presented by Western European maps of the 8th to 13th centuries see also Von den Brincken 1975; Chekin 2006. 107 Baumgärtner 2008, 83–101; Englisch 2002, 572–629. 108 Die kleinen Weltkarten, 29–37; Englisch 2002, 245–258; Chekin 2006, 129–131. 109 Die kleinen Weltkarten, 43–53; Von den Brincken 1973c, 297–302; Von den Brincken 1992, 73–76; Kugler 2008. 110 Die kleinen Weltkarten, 70–73; Von den Brincken 1992, 106–109. 111 Die kleinen Weltkarten, 21–29; Harvey 1997; Von den Brincken 1973a; Von den Brincken 1992, 70–71, 109–112. The 13th-century so called “London psalter-map” shows Hungary (Hungaria), the Rus’ (Ruscite) and  – further to the east  – Slavenia occidentalis, while its “written version” presented on the backside of the map lists only Bulgaria as a contemporary terminus referring to Eastern Europe; Die kleinen Weltkarten, 37–43; Von den Brincken 1992, 85–89; Reudenbach 1998.

336

Chapter 8

A rather fair idea of Eastern Europe and its regions was given later on, around 1300, by the famous grand maps from Hereford and Ebstorf, which, apart from anachronistic, ancient names feature almost all the then-current geographic names of the east of Europe, i.e. Pomorani, Poloni[a], Pruscia, Saneland, Boemia, [H]Ungari[a], Rusia, Fluvius Fistula [the Vistula], Fluvius Cidera [the Oder], and Braga [Prague]. The Hereford map situated the gentes Sclavorum east of the Elbe, in the area that it called Germania superior, following the ancient tradition; on the other hand, it situated the Sclavi between the Hungarians and the Bulgarians,112 which seems to precisely reflect the double understanding of the term Sclavi, known from the period’s written sources, which referred the name to Polabian and Baltic Slavs as well as to Croatian Slavonia. Moreover, the map from Ebstorf, the largest known medieval map of the world, comprising a total of 2,345 textual and illustrative items, situated the Sclavi in two different places.113 The first entry, inspired perhaps by Isidore of Seville (Tracia Sarmatie, Ebrum fl[uvius], Barbarorum gentes XIIII Slavorum),114 probably referred to the early medieval Sklavenoi from the area of the northern frontier of Byzantium, the second being a legend, borrowed from Adam of Bremen and fragmentarily preserved ([populi Sl]avorum, qui sunt ab oriente […]bo[…] hinc Pommeranos […] Ungaros […]), about the Moravians as neighbours of the Ungari, Boemi, Poloni, and Pomorani.115 Also the Ebstorf map features the high-medieval image of Eastern Europe as a landscape composed of nationes, the term Sclavi being restricted to a narrow – historical, in this case – association of people. Apart from the restricted geographical scope of the notion ‘Slavs’ and its increasingly negative connotation, certain Central European narrative sources offer an anticization, if not mythologization, of the image of the Slavs. Godfrey of Viterbo († 1191/2), court chaplain and notary to Frederick Barbarossa, author of an (unfinished) history of the world, which blended legendary and fantastic elements, identified the late ancient Vandals with the Sclavi/Guinidi.116 Albert 112 The Hereford Map, 137–141, 187–199, 221–227; Die Herefordkarte, 16–17; Von den Brincken 1992, 93–95. 113 Die Ebstorfer Weltkarte, Band 1, 100–105; Die Ebstorfer Weltkarte, Band 2, 190–201, 235–240; Die Ebstorfkarte, 17–18; Von den Brincken 1992, 91–93; Strzelczyk 1991a, 156, 158; Wilke 2001. 114 Isidori Hispalensis, 556: Ebrum fluvium Thracia fundit, qui etiam gentes barbarorum plurimas tangit. 115 Adam von Bremen, 80: Marahi sunt populi Sclavorum, qui sunt ab oriente Behemorum, habentque in circuitu hinc Pomeranos et Polanos, inde Ungros. 116 Gotifredi Viterbiensis opera: Memoria seculorum, 102: Guandali dicuntur Sclavi in Latino, in lingua vero Theotonica vocantur Guinidi; see also Gotifredi Viterbiensis opera: Pantheon, 185; Steinacher 2016, 342.

Slavs Perceived by Non-Slavs through the Middle Ages

337

Behaim († 1260), provost of the Cathedral Chapter of Passau, traced the origins of the Slavs (Zlaveni) down to biblical and Roman times. The work he wrote in 1250, entitled Descriptio gentium et diversarum nationum Europe, combined the early history of European peoples and the description of the origins of the Church in Passau. It was meant to demonstrate that the Bishopric of Passau was an heir to the ancient ‘archbishopric’ of Lauriacum/Lorsch, thereby giving grounds for the appropriate (historical) claims as part of the ecclesiastical policy in the Pannonian/Hungarian territory. Hence, Behaim described Bavaria as a part of ancient Pannonia. According to this author, until the Roman consuls’ time, Pannonia was inhabited by Slavs, whereas Bavaria, immediately after the flood, bore the name of Zlavenia (Hec patria [= Boyaria] statim post diluvium est Zlavenia). Those Slavs, referred to as “laudable” (qui laubabiles appellabantur),117 gave rise also to Spaniards, as it ensues from Behaim’s fantastic story. Finally, “the Slavs, Moravians, Quads, Sorbs, Bavarians, and Norici” (Zlaveni, Maravi, Quadi, Sorabes, Baioarii et Norici) rebelled against the Romans and expelled them to Italy. In offering such a positive account of the early Slavic/Pannonian history, the Passau clergyman apparently intended to shed an appropriate light on the early history of Bavaria, or, on the role of the Passau Church in Bavarian-Slavic-Hungarian relations in the early and High Middle Ages.118 Another Bavarian source designed in an unusual and clever way the legendary origins of the Slavs, reaching back to biblical time, as a strongly negative stereotype. The anonymous author of the Chronicon imperatorum et pontificum Bavaricum, written in 1292–94, maintained that traces of biblical proto-history could still be seen in his time. Today, he wrote, one can still differentiate between Noah’s descendants, divided into three groups, as far as language is concerned (ex consono ydiomatum vel loquele). The “sons of Shem”, being people such as the Chaldeans and Hebrews, use guttural languages; the “sons of Cham”, including Slavs and Ruthenians (Rutheni et Slavi), speak palatal languages, whereas the “sons of Japheth”, nations such as Germans and French (Alemani et Galli), speak frontal languages. The difference found between ‘Slavs’ and ‘Germans’, between the East and the West, was additionally reinforced by the anonymous author by not classing Slavic-speaking peoples, as was otherwise customary, as the descendants 117 This additional remark seems to refer to the etymological derivation of the name “Slavs” from the word slava (fame, glory), which only later became more explicit; see below 351, 353. 118 The work has only recently been reconstructed and is edited (= redaction X) in Englberger 2007, 511–542, the quotations 513, 517, 520; a later continuation with corrections of the older text written by an anonymus author (= redaction Y) edited ibidem, 461–510.

338

Chapter 8

of Japheth, but clearly naming them the descendants of Cham. He moreover declared that all the Slavic-speaking nations stemmed from the African Mauritani (Mauritani, id est omne genus Slavorum). Thereby, he doubly excluded the Slavic-speaking neighbours from the community of European nations. He not only included them, by the power of the authority of the Old-Testament Book of Genesis (9:25–27) among the cursed people but he also made them, metaphorically, ‘black’. Moreover, he described their seizure of the lands in Central and Eastern Europe, which occurred after their expulsion from Pannonia by Emperor Justinian, as an overt ousting of the sons of Japheth (that is, primarily, the Germani), who in line with the biblical allotment were to occupy “in Europe the entire area from the Dnieper up to the Danube and the Vistula,” but could not stand the tyranny of Cham’s sons (tirannidem filiorum Cham sustinere nolentes) and therefore migrated westwards.119 This unusual description of Slavic-speaking peoples as sons of Cham corresponded with the use, common since the 10th century in Jewish/Hebrew texts, of the biblical word kana’an (‫ )כנען‬in relation to Slavic-speaking countries – or, of the name of Cham’s son Canaan, who (according to Genesis, 9:25–27) was condemned to be “the lowest servant of his brothers”. Already the Hebrew version of the works of Joseph Flavius, the Sefer Yosippon or Sefer Josef ben Gorion, written in the first half of the 10th century in southern Italy, noticed that Slavic-speaking peoples (Saqlabi/‫)סקלאבי‬ – among whom the Hebrew text included the Moravians (Morava/‫)מוראוא‬, Croats (Kroati/‫)כרואטי‬, Sorbs/Serbs (Surbin/‫)סורבין‬, Lusatians (Luzanin/‫)לוצנין‬, Lechites/Poles (Liicin/‫)לייכין‬, Krakowians (Kraker/‫)כראכר‬, and Bohemians (Boimin/‫)בוימין‬ – were at times approached as sons of Cham or of his son Canaan.120 This attribution was later adopted by younger Hebrew sources, by Western and Central European commentaries to the Bible and the Talmud, by responses and prayers from the period of the 11th to 13th centuries.121 Given the participation of Jewish merchants in late medieval slave trade, this development certainly was connected to the equalization of the word ‘Slav’ with the word ‘slave’, which took place at the same time in Latin, Greek, and Arabic sources.122 The “Chronicle of the World” written in the first three decades of the 13th century by the English monk Roger of Wendover used the term (esclavi) 119 Chronicon imperatorum, 221, 223; see also Borst 1957/59, 826–828; Oschema 2013, 346–347; Pleszczyński 2016, 205–207; Pleshchin’ski 2018, 47–55. 120 Sefer Yosippon, 8–9 (in Hebrew); Flusser 1947/48; Lewicki 1958, 92, 96; Witczak 1993b; Dönitz 2013, 2–19. 121 Źródła hebrajskie, 128, 199, 214; Lewicki 1958, 93–96. 122 See above pp. 313–314.

Slavs Perceived by Non-Slavs through the Middle Ages

339

solely as synonymous to ‘captive’.123 From the 14th century onward, Eastern and Central European texts originating in Slavic-speaking milieus strongly argued, in a clearly polemic way, against the alleged identification of ‘Slavs’ and ‘slaves’, as well as against an inclusion of the Slavic-speaking peoples into the offspring of Cham.124 123 Rogeri de Wendover Liber, 263, 265. 124 Apart from Marignolla’s Chronica Bohemorum (see below pp.  349–351) one can refer to the depiction by an anonymus Czech who in a work entitled De Theutonicis bonum dictamen not only criticized any favorization of the German language but even reversed the situation by calling the Germans “servants”/“slaves” (Alemani totaliter omagiales); the quotation from Borst 1959, 915–916.

Chapter 9

Ideas of Slavic Unity in the Late Middle Ages Although the non-Slavic world was getting to know Eastern Europe better and better it appropriately modified its geographical and ethnographical terminology. Non-Slavic observers decreasingly perceived their East European neighbours as a homogeneous ‘Slavic’ unity, began to use individual names and to treat the generalizing term ‘Sclavi’ more and more often as a negative stereotype. At that time, the political elites of the Slavic-speaking countries were defining their pre-modern national identities. As has been demonstrated, for the shaping of a medieval natio-awareness among the Bulgarians, Bohemians, Croats, Rus’, Poles, and Serbs, the categories of ‘Slavicity’ and ‘Slavic community’ played no role whatsoever.1 There was no such thing as an all-Slavic identity. The relations between Slavic-speaking nationes were mostly informed by political and military contradictions and conflicts, rather than an interest in a ‘Slavic’ community. The Slavic Idea, that is, the concept of a common origin of all the Slavic-speaking people  – or the idea of a ‘Slavic’ community anchored in a common origin and shared language – began to play a certain role only at a later date. In certain situations, it was discovered as an instrument of history-based politics, employed to legitimize the monarch’s power and authority. Such developments first occurred, as has been shown, in the second decade of the 12th century in Kiev, and between the 1150s and 1180s in the Dalmatian town of Bar.2 Both the Rus’ian “Tale of Bygone Years” and the “Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja” served a concrete, particular purpose. Neither of the two chroniclers pursued the idea of an entire ‘Slavia’ or the ideal of a community of all Slavic-speaking people. Their stories concerned, instead, a limited region within the Slavic-speaking world – that is, respectively, the Riurikids’ realm in the Eastern European lands on the Dnieper and the Volkhov, and the principality of Duklja in the Western Balkans. Both political formations were facing at that time the burning issues of determining their identities and territories, and found themselves in a specific multiethnic situation, confronted with internal and external menaces. This gave rise to an intense need for an additional ideological legitimation. In this context, already the first native stories about

1 See already Graus 1980a, 83. 2 See above pp. 222–228 and 301–306.

© Eduard Mühle, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004536746_010

Ideas of Slavic Unity in the Late Middle Ages

341

a common descent of the people speaking Slavic languages clearly emerged as part of the historical policy. 1

Bohemia

In the Western Slavic lands, the beginnings of a Slavic Idea appeared much later than in the Eastern and Southern Slavic parts.3 They first appeared in the last quarter of the 13th century, in the context of the political confrontation between the Bohemian king Přemysl II Otakar and his German rival Rudolf I Habsburg and the related intensified Bohemian policy toward Poland.4 They ensued from similarly particular and regional interests as the Slavic Idea expressed in the “Tale of Bygone Years” and in the “Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja”. When in 1277 it became increasingly clear that the conflict between Rudolf, elected Roman-German king in 1273, and his Bohemian opponent would need to be resolved by way of military action, the Bohemian king intensified his contacts with the Silesian and Polish Piasts, entering into agreements with them in the summer of 1277; they were fine-tuned in late 1277/early 1278 at a meeting at the Bohemian-Silesian border. It was probably this meeting that gave an opportunity to write a manifesto expressing the thought of a close kinship between the Bohemians and the Poles, which marked the initial seedbed of a particular Bohemian Slavic Idea. The text in question only survived in a collection of formularies arranged by Henry of Isernia, hence it is commonly assumed that Master Henry was the author.5 He was of Italian origin, or at least was educated in grammar and rhetoric in Italy. From 1270/1 onward, he worked (among other assignments) at the royal chancellery in Prague.6 His manifesto summoned the Piast dukes, on behalf of the Bohemian king, to join the Bohemians in their fight against 3 A brief outline already in Graus 1980a, 130–137. On the Slavic Idea during the Late Middle Ages see Heck 1968a, 70–75; Heck 1970, 288–302, Janeczek 2013, 41–55, 63–67; Mesiarkin 2013, 96–99. 4 On the context see Barciak 1982; Hoensch 1989, 240–249; Hoštálek 2004/04; Žemlička 2011, 443–472; Jurek 2011, 181–189 and the contributions in Pocta králi. 5 The text has been occasionally regarded a mere stylistic exercise, e.g. by Pośpiech 1972. But even in the case the manifesto was but an unpublished exercise of an official it reflected, no doubt, ideas and notions circulating at the Prague court; see Graus 1971b, 86–89; Graus 1980a, 130–131 maintained that the manifesto, however, did not reflect views held by Přemysl Otakar but by his wife Kunigunde and her closest surroundings; for the authenticity of the manifesto see also Antonín 2007. 6 On Henry and his work Nechutová 2007, 129–134; Jan 2017.

342

Chapter 9

the German king. To persuade them that a joint action was a must, the author resorted to a twofold argumentation, appealing to a Bohemian-Polish community, and unfolding a vision of danger threatening from the Germans. As it has been found at the Bohemian court – so went the first argument – after a minute investigation of the characteristics of diverse peoples (gentium), the nation of spacious Poland (spaciose Polonie natio) is particularly similar to us, Poland being, of all the provinces of the world, the closest to our land due to a similarity of the traits; since Poland is in agreement with us as far as the sound of the language is concerned (lingue consonacia) [… and] is connected with us both through a unity of blood (unione sanguinis) and the bonds of affinity.7 From such affinity in language and blood resulted logically (racionibus) a particular reciprocal solidarity; in any case, the Bohemians by this affinity would feel prompted to bestow the great dukes of Poland, the barons, warriors, and the simple people […] with goodwill and greater respect, to rejoice in their happiness, grieve in their misfortune, to offer them defence, and solicit to unceasingly multiply their honour and fame. In exchange, the Bohemians expected that Poland would support them and offer help. The Poles ought to feel urged to such support not only because of the Bohemian-Polish kinship but also because of the “insatiableness of the Germans” (insaciabiles Theutonicorum hiatus). Their shameless greed – so went the second argument – would never satisfy itself by a conquest of Bohemia. The Germans shall plunder your properties, torment you with unbearable oppression. Oh, how grave be the pains that your numerous nation (nacionis numerositas), hated by the Germans, would be subjected to them, how heavy the yoke that the free Poland (libera Polonia) would have to bear, what a burden that your entire people (universitas gentis) would have to suffer under.

7 This and the following quotations from Ulanowski 1888, 11–13; see also Codex Diplomaticus, no. 305.

Ideas of Slavic Unity in the Late Middle Ages

343

The very beginnings of the Slavic Idea, emerging in the Western Slavic environment, were thus based on the pointing out to a ‘German threat’. Indeed, invoking the ‘Slavic’ unity and solidarity had always been associated with the strife to jointly resist a mighty opponent – for the Western Slavs, it was Germany, as a rule. Moreover, Přemysl II Otakar hoped that he would successfully frustrate Rudolf’s endeavours to “sow hatred and discord” between the Bohemians and the Poles (inter nos dissidentis tyranie lolium seminare). The fear of the Germans and the emphasis on the Bohemian-Polish affinity of language and blood were meant to persuade the Poles to refuse support to Rudolf and come to aid the Bohemians. It seems that the Piast dukes did not completely ignore the call to solidarity and sent their warriors to stand by the Bohemian king  – though most of those dukes would not join the war, whereas money mattered more for Polish knights than the rather vague arguments for a ‘Slavic’ solidarity.8 However, this did not prevent the defeat of Přemysl II Otakar and the victory of Rudolf still in June of the same year. Whereas the 1278 manifesto created an image of a special Bohemian-Polish affinity, the “Old Czech Rhyme Chronicle” written in 1310–14 by a man called Dalimil, expressed in its description of Bohemian-German relations a fanatic hatred toward the Germans.9 Representing a narrow ‘national’ perspective, it neither expressed any liking toward the Poles; the fact that Václav, the Přemyslid monarch since 1300 was also king of Poland did not affect this attitude. Dalimil described the Přemyslid’s rule in Poland in a brief and tepid manner, seeing in it no premise whatsoever of any ‘Slavic’ solidarity between Poles and Bohemians. The “Zbraslav Chronicle” (Chronicon Aulae regiae), written between 1305 and 1338 at the Cistercian monastery in Zbraslav (Königsaal) near Prague, referred in this issue to the 1278 manifesto. “The greatest, most important, and most mature chronicle of the Bohemian Latin literature”10 was a work of two German-speaking Cistercian monks – Otto († 1314), who came from Thuringia and since 1316 was the abbot at Zbraslav, and Peter of Zittau, who considered himself a Bohemian († 1339).11 They sought, among other purposes, to praise 8 9

Barciak 1975; Kusternig 1998, 202–204. Staročeská kronika; on the anonymous author conventually called Dalimil and his work in more detail Graus 1966b, 26–29; Heck 1968c; Bláhová 1995, 304–323 (German summary); Kersken 1995, 583–587; Nodl 2013, 189–200; Adde-Vomáčka 2016. 10 Nechutová 2007, 154. 11 On the chronicle and its authors see the contributions in the collective volume Chronicon Aulae Regiae and the study of Marani-Moravová 2019, esp. 75–172, 490–499; Pumprová 2020, esp. 347 refers to new insights gained by the work on a new edition of the chronicle for MGH suggesting that it was the sole work of Peter of Zittau.

344

Chapter 9

Václav II, the monastery’s founder, whom they portrayed as a wise, good, and serene king, as a “prince of peace” (princeps pacis). His “good name”, or reputation, finally inclined the elders (maiores natu) of the (Greater) Polish kingdom, or the “Polish people” (Polonica gens), to crown Václav as king. Among the arguments put forth during the discussion on the election of the Přemyslid House member to the throne of Poland was the desire that they join together in the king and under the reign of one ruler all those who do not differ much in the Slavonic language may rejoice. For those who speak the same language usually interweave with stricter bonds of love.12 This vision has aptly been described as a “beautiful Slavic motivation of the idea to merge under the authority of one monarch of Bohemia and Poland.”13 However, the chronicle satisfied itself with this single reference to the Bohemian-Polish ‘Slavic’ community. The instrumental purpose of this sort of historical policy was obvious: it was meant to justify the Přemyslids’ right to the Polish crown. The “Zbraslav Chronicle” was not interested in any other Slavic-speaking neighbour; the Eastern Slavic Ruthenians (Rutheni) are mentioned only once, as the Krakow mighty requested Václav II, the Bohemian, to protect them against Ruthenian raids.14 It was only at the court of King Charles IV that the ‘Slavic motif’ gained a bigger meaning, and the Slavic Idea became more systematically instrumentalized as a legitimization of power. This occurred as part of a broader political concept that sought to achieve multiple goals.15 One purpose was the strife of the Prague-born son of a foreign king (i.e. John of Luxembourg) and a native Přemyslid woman (i.e. Elisabeth), brought up at the French royal court, to present himself to the Bohemian society, particularly to the Czech-speaking

12 Petra Žitavského Kronika, 81: Convenient enim in rege et sub uno gaudebunt principe, qui non multum dissonant in idiomate Slauice lingwe. Nam qui idem lingwagium locuntur, plerumque amoris se arcioris nexibus complectuntur. 13 Heck 1970, 292; contrary to the opinion of Heck 1970, 293, this “Slavic motivation”, however, was not based “on the common origin of both peoples” (na wspólnym pochodzeniu obu ludów), but only on their linguistic proximity, see also Borst 1957/59, 916–917; Heck 1968a, 71; Maćkowiak 2011, 100. 14 Petra Žitavského Kronika, 45. 15 On the political concepts of Charles IV see Seibt 1978, 263–265, 286–311; Fajt 2006; Mel’nikov 2008; Nodl 2013, 188, 212, 218–219.

Ideas of Slavic Unity in the Late Middle Ages

345

nobility, as a worthy heir of the local dynasty and, thereby, to strengthen his power within Bohemia. To achieve this, Charles deliberately stressed that his maternal descent was Bohemian. He did not confine himself to things Bohemian/Czech but profiled the Přemyslid legacy as a ‘Slavic’ one. Second, as king of Bohemia (since 1347), crowned Roman-German king in 1346, and promoted to emperor in 1355, he pursued a universal European policy in which the Kingdom of Bohemia was meant to occupy a prominent place and, by means of its ‘Slavic’ character, open the perspective for even stricter political links with the other Slavic-speaking countries. In this context, the ‘nationally’ motivated, Bohemian-German rivalries, and tensions within Bohemia, additionally incited by Dalimil’s “Old Czech Rhyme Chronicle”, as well as appearing in the relations with the Slavic-speaking neighbours, was not something that would suit Charles. Instead of ‘national’ closure and conflicts, the trait of the unified Holy Roman Empire, whose central hub, Prague, was stylized after a ‘new Rome’ or ‘new Jerusalem’, was to be a coexistence of multiple languages and ethnic groups. To this end, a religious policy was pursued that aimed at a universal Christian integration and, perhaps, to overcome even the West-Eastern division of the Church. For the propagation of these objectives, the methods and media customary at that time were employed, whereas because of the dissemination of a Slavic Idea, three strategies were primarily adopted: first, to support the Roman Glagolitic ecclesiastical rite; second, to cherish the appropriate cults of saints; and third, to relevantly (re)orientate the court historiography. Once Charles IV visited Dalmatia as Margrave of Moravia in 1337, and there, in the Diocese of Senj, heard about the activities of monks using the Glagolitic alphabet, he personally came across the Roman Slavonic ecclesiastical rite. He referred to this experience as he drew the attention of Pope Clement Vi, in 1346, to the fact that in Croatian Slavonia and in certain Slavic-speaking areas adjacent to it (in Sclavonia et a nonnullis aliis partibus de Slavonica lingua existentibus), the holy mass and the Divine Office (misse et alie hore canonice) were celebrated, upon consent of the Apostolic See, in the local Slavic language. The life of monks using the Glagolitic script in the monasteries of Dalmatia was very tough, due to the catastrophic situation in the country.16 Since also

16

This and the following remarks of Charles IV are only indirectly known from a charter by Pope Clement VI addressed to the archbishop of Prague Ernst of Pardubice and issued in Avignon on 9th May 1346; Das vollständige Registrum, 5–8.

346

Chapter 9

close to the borders of the kingdom of Bohemia and in those parts of it where the same [i.e., Slavic] language is spoken on a daily basis, there live a number of schismatics and infidel, who during the reading and explaining of the Holy Scripture in Latin cannot understand it, or convert to Christianity, the monks oppressed in Dalmatia might be, after all, relocated to those territories so that they “preach the Gospel and celebrate masses in agreement with the rite and the tradition of those countries,” Charles recommended to the Pope. Much speculation went on around how serious these motives were and whether there were any other reasons and real causes for such a proposal.17 It seems certain that Charles had discovered the Croatian monks and their Roman Glagolitic tradition as an instrument with which he could profile the ‘Slavic’ character of Bohemia and reach not only for the Czech-speaking population but, potentially, also to other Slavic-speaking groups. The Pope only partly tilted to the proposition, consenting to the establishment of one Glagolitic male religious order whose Slavonic rite was restricted to internal use. The main task of the monastery, set up in Prague’s New Town and manned with some eighty Benedictine monks from Croatia, was to be – according to the founding charter issued by Charles IV on 21 November 1347 – the cherishing of the cult of St Hieronymus.18 This Father of the Church was worshipped in Croatia and Dalmatia as the ‘Apostle of the Slavs’, who invented the Glagolitic script and the Western Slavonic rite. Since he was born around 347 in the Dalmatian town of Stridon, he was regarded a native-born Slav, by projecting contemporary ethnic relations on the late antiquity. The founding charter thus referred to a ‘Slavicized’ tradition of St Hieronymus (unknown outside the Slavic-speaking milieu). By emphasizing that the “glorious confessor” had translated the Scripture from Hebrew into Slavonic, it suggested that it is in the latter that one should seek the sources of the Slavic language used in the kingdom of Bohemia (slauonica nostri regni Boemie ydioma sumpsit exordium primordialiter).19 Charles had a command

17 See Graus 1971a, 184; Rothe 1992, 12–15; Verkholantsev 2014, 65–66. 18 In the contemporary sources the convent was called monasterium sancti Hieronymi Slavorum ordinis Benedicti in nova civitate Pragensi; the names “klášter Na Slovanech” and Emaus Monastery used in modern research did originate only later. On the monastery’s history see also Wörster 1978 and the respective contributions in Emauzy. Benediktinský klášter. 19 Das vollständige Registrum, 10.

Ideas of Slavic Unity in the Late Middle Ages

347

of the Czech language “like any other Czech”, as he remarked in his autobiography.20 Hence, he could discern its affinity with contemporary Croatian and with the Church Slavonic used in Croatia, and even state that there is no difference between the “noble Slavonic language” (nobilis lingwe slauonice) and “our Bohemian language” (Boemice nostre lingwe).21 In this way, he placed the “Czech language” and the “Slavonic language” on equal footing, similar just Cosmas of Prague had done earlier on and in line with Charles’s code of laws (Maiestas Carolina) whose Article XIX provides that nobody in the kingdom could hold the office of judge unless he “understands and speaks the Czech dialect or language, which is also called by us Slavic.”22 In this sense, the Slavica lingwa, whose learning, apart from Latin and Italian, was recommended by Charles also in his 1356 Golden Bull to all Princes of the Holy Roman Empire, was actually identical with the Czech language he had a command of.23 The synonymous use of the words “Bohemian” [in the sense of “Czech”] and “Slavic” can also be seen in the charters by which Charles allotted in the years 1349–56 to the newly-established monastery special revenues meant to promote Slavic literacy, the “copying of legends and songs”, and the improvement of the Czech language, which Charles named the monastery’s major tasks.24 The Croatian monks were soon joined by indigenous men, so that Croatian and Czech ‘Slavs’ indeed began to live together at the monasterium Slavorum. This community, their joint nurturing of the Glagolitic script and Old Czech language, and the monastery’s patron – Hieronymus, the allegedly ‘Apostle of the Slavs’ – may have strengthen the idea of a kinship between the Bohemians and the Croats. Such a kinship has been alluded to earlier on already in the “Old Czech Rhyme Chronicle.”25 Dalimil had replaced the Bohemian 20 Karoli IV imp. Rom, 25: Idioma quoque Boemicum […] loqueremur et intelligeremus ut alter Boemus. 21 Das vollständige Registrum 10; 40. 22 Maiestas Carolina, 78–79: […] qui nesciat intelligere et proferre ydioma seu lingwam boemicam generalem, quam scilicet sclavonicam dicimus. 23 Die Goldene Bulle, 90: […] incipiendo a septimo etatis sue anno in gramatica, Italica ac Slavica lingwis instruantur. 24 Das vollständige Registrum, 21; 40: […] et boemice nostre lingwe decores amplioris claritatis honoribus decorari; 65; on the monastery’s literary activities see also Čermak 2014. 25 At the end of the 14th century the Benedictine monk John of Holešov in a treaty on the prayer Hospodine, pomiluj ny argued that Czechs and Croats are of one kin; as proof he referred to his observation that the analyzed prayer contained numerous Croatian words and so he drew the conclusion that the Czech people and their language were of Croatian origin. This would be demonstrated even to this day – so his further argument – “in Prague by the Slavs” (in Praga aput Slavos), that is by the existence of a Slavic monastery; John’s

348

Chapter 9

progenitor Boemus, who was once introduced by Cosmas, by a new founderfigure named Čech, whose homeland was situated in ‘Serbian Croatia’ (V srbském jazyku jest země, / jiež Charvátci jest jmě). Boemus had to escape from there owing to a murder he had committed, and together with his six brothers, he finally arrived in Bohemia. In this context, the Rhyme Chronicle used for the first time, still in an unclear meaning, the word lech, from which the name of one of Čech’s brothers was later derived.26 Charles IV referred to the affinity between the Bohemians and the Southern Slavs, founded on a common language, also in a letter written on 19 February 1355, in Pisa, to Stephen Dušan.27 He tried to persuade the Serbian tsar to the idea of a union of the Serbian Orthodox Church with Rome. The opportunity to celebrate the liturgy in the national Slavonic language also in the Roman Church (in sublimi et ingenua lingwa communium), which was reinstated by the Slavic monastery in Prague, the reunion with the Western Church (in favorem nostre ecclesie), should have been easy for Serbian clergymen, Charles believed. Albeit this attempt remained inefficient, it does show one of the motives that, at least for some time, was at the foundation of the Slavic Idea represented by the Bohemian king and that induced him to support the ‘Glagolitic monks’ and their Prague monastery. Apart from Hieronymus, the other patrons of the monastery were made Cyril and Methodius as well as Adalbert/Vojtěch and Procopius, thus contributing to the monastery’s inclusion in the ‘Slavic’ tradition, elevating it to the symbol of ‘Slavic’ Christianity, and emphasizing the association between the Bohemian and Slavic-speaking Slavs. Cyril and Methodius, who in the contemporary tradition were already perceived as ‘Slavs’, began to be venerated as saints in Bohemia resulting from the activity of the Prague Slavic monastery.28 Charles personally contributed to the revival of their memoria: he not only granted them an important place at the St Václav chapel within work edited in Nejedlý 1954, 418–419, the quotation: 420. The late medieval chronicler Václav Hájek of Libočan († 1553 r.) on the other hand regarded the monasterium Slavorum a foundation of Charles IV meant to cherish the memory “that the Czechs took their origin from the Slavs and from the Slavonic language” (na památku toho, že jsou Čechové od Slovákův svůj počátek vzali a z jazyku slovanského pošli a ten jazyk že jest v světě byl velmi znamenitý); Václav Hájek z Libočan, 750. 26 Staročeská kronika, 105. 27 The letter in Collectarius perpetuarum formarum, 167–169, the quotation 167: […] consorcium […] nobilis Slavonici ydiomatis participis facit esse commune. On Charles contacts with Stephen Dušan see also Kostić 1927; Hrochová 1981; Verkholantsev 2014, 65–66. 28 Graus 1971a, 167, 180–191; Mel’nikov 1998, 314–315; Doležalová 2014; Kalous 2014, 324–325; Verkholantsev 2014, 74, 93–94.

Ideas of Slavic Unity in the Late Middle Ages

349

the St. Vitus Cathedral but also recalled their activities in his own writings. In a Hystoria nova de Sancto Wenceslao Martyre he stressed that the Moravian ruler Svatopluk was baptized by Cyril, whereas Václav’s grandparents Bořivoj and Ludmila received the sacrament from Methodius. He situated the residence of Methodius’s archbishopric in the Moravian locality of Velehrad, and thus, within the 14th-century Bohemian territory. He thereby made his own kingdom directly part of the Cyrillo-Methodian tradition.29 The monks of the Prague Slavic monastery are at times attributed a fictitious document by means of which Alexander the Great, in return for the loyalty and armed assistance, granted the “illustrious tribe of the Slavs” (illustri prosapie Slaworum) “the entire strip of land from the North up to the southern borders of Italy” (totam plagam terre ab aquilone usque ad fines Italie meridionales).”30 If the text was indeed written in the 14th century, it would have been yet another testimony of the attempt at propagating a Slavic Idea, inspired by Charles IV and his court.31 Apart from the religious and ecclesiastical policy, another instrument that the Bohemian king and Roman-German emperor relied on was the court historiography, being his contemporary output in this field. Charles would commission several chroniclers to simultaneously create appropriate texts, controlled their works, probably made relevant sources and records available to them and dictated the intentions and tendencies they were supposed to be driven by whilst describing the history.32 This is how in 1355–58 the Cronica Boemorum by John (Giovanni) of Marignolli, a Florentine, was produced. This Italian Franciscan monk initially taught at the university in Bologna; on order of the pope, he arrived at the Chinese emperor’s court in 1338, and only in 1353 returned from his long journey across Eastern and Southern Asia. Soon afterward, summoned by Charles IV, he turned up at the court in Prague, where, upon the emperor’s wish, he was assigned to describe the history of Bohemia as part of a larger, universal historic picture. As a result, John of Marignolli 29 Die St. Wenzelslegende, 64; a new edition with English translation in: Autobiography of Emperor Charles IV, 184–209; see Nastalska-Wiśnicka 2010, 77–81; Kalista 1968; Verkholantsev 2014, 82–83. 30 The oldest version of the document preserved in several manuscripts comes from a manuscript dated to 1443 and kept at Brno; the quotation from Vidmanová 2008, 180. 31 Verkholantsev 2014, 78 dates the text according to Vidmanová 1994 into the last decade of Charles’ rule and calls it “a quite remarkable indicator of the emerging Slavic identity in Bohemia”; see also Odložilik 1970; Rothe 1982; Myl’nikov 1996, 46–94; for an alternative dating into the early 16th century see Pfister 1961, 336; according to Strzelczyk 2012, 73 the text “certainly originated in Hussite Bohemia” (zapewnie w husyckich Czechach). 32 Iwańczak 1998; M. Bláhová 1988; Bláhová 2006a, 60–68.

350

Chapter 9

wrote a work in three volumes, whose first part describes the divine authority of the Thearchs (thearci) since the beginning of humanity to the Flood; the second part continues the chronicle with a history of the secular kings (monarchi), from Nimrod to Charles IV (integrating thereby Charles into a splendid genealogy and describing the history of Bohemia from the time of the legendary Čech up until 1283); the third part presents a history of the hierarchs of the Church (ierarci), from Melchizedek to the bishops of Prague. Within the established framework, John of Marignolli presented Bohemia as a centre at which the West and the East come across each other and where Charles, as the ‘last emperor’, would bring about a lasting peace and reign in the ‘new Jerusalem’. His genealogy had to be appropriately long, and no less noble. Consequently, John starts the history of Bohemia, and thereby, the emperor’s maternal ancestors, in biblical time. In line with the genealogy’s “conspicuous Slavic tendency,”33 the Bohemians, together with the Slavs, originate from Japheth. For “Japheth begot Helisa, from whom, as they say, the Slavs originate”; and, elsewhere, “Japheth, our father, is the third son of Noah, and from him the Slavs and the Bohemians have descended.”34 With the deformed name of the biblical Elisa (according to Genesis 10:4, a grandson of Japheth) John linked a convoluted and fantastic etymology. It was meant to present the Slavs, or the Bohemians, and Charles’s mother Elisabeth, in a special light, as God’s chosen ones. Hence, John explained, in the first place, that the name Elisabeth was coined of Helysa and Beth, being, respectively, the name of the protoplast of the Slavic people and the Hebrew word meaning ‘house’. Therefore, Elisabeth meant “the house of Elisa”. Moreover, St Hieronymus had translated Helisabeth as “my duchess”; it thus apparently ensues, again, that Elisabeth received power from God.35 Charles’s father, John I of Luxembourg, entered the “house of Elisa.” John of Marignolli presents John’s genealogy in no less impressive way, naming among his ancestors Charlemagne, Julius Caesar, and the Trojans, thus reaching as far back as antiquity. The conclusions he draws based on these genealogical constructions result in the rhetorical question:

33 Mikulka 1980, 176. 34 Kronika Jana z Marignoly, 507: Japhet genuit Helisa, unde Sclaui dicuntur; 522: Japhet, pater noster, est tercius filius Noe, unde Sclaui et Boemi sumpserunt originem. 35 Kronika Jana z Marignoly, 520: Helysa enim, pater sclauice gentis fuit […]. Beth in hebreo domus interpretatur […] ergo Elisabeth domus Elysa dicitur. […] a beato Jeronimo Helisabeth princeps mea interpretatur, ut ex nomine pateat, quod a deo obtinuit principatum.

Ideas of Slavic Unity in the Late Middle Ages

351

who might have been more glorious at the house of the Slavic people than the famous progeny of the most dignified Elisabeth: Charles, the Roman Emperor, high-minded for time eternal, the heir of the Kingdom of Bohemia?36 Thus, John attributed to his principal, who was perceived by some Bohemians as ‘alien’, not only an ancient ancestry but, above all, a worthy ‘Slavic’ background. John of Marignolli moreover associated the name Helisa/Elysa with the Greek Helios (the Sun) and concluded that the Slavs were also called Helisani/Elysani, and thus they ought to be perceived as “the illustrious” or “fulgent”, “gleaming”. This explanation, moreover, had the underlying idea whereby such a name must have characterized the Slavs/Bohemians as a chosen nation. This incited the chronicler to pursue another etymological speculation, juxtaposing the Slavic word for ‘fame’/‘glory’/‘eminence’ (slava) against the meanwhile-disseminated sclavi (‘slaves’) and finding that Slavs  – and Bohemians, as a part of them – had better be named Slavi, rather than Sclavi.37 This marked an obvious protest against the non-Slavic identification of Sclavi (Slavs) and sclavi (slaves).38 Significantly enough, John associated the resistance to the pejorative meaning of Sclavi/sclavi with an idyllization of early Slavic society, which resembled the very topical description of the Sklavenoi in Procopius of Caesarea, or the description of the Boemi’s colonization of Bohemia given by Cosmas of Prague. According to him, the Slavs/Elysani, or the first Bohemians, were of a noble character and a pleasing figure, were handsome, their hair glistening, themselves strong and tall, peaceful in their mores and reciprocal demeanour, kind, sociable, and liked. […] There was no law amongst them, nor a king or a duke, but they lived in concord together in accordance

36 Kronika Jana z Marignoly, 520: Quis ergo maior gloria domus Sclauice gentis potest esse, quam proles inclita illustrissime Elisabeth Karolus, Romanorum imperator et semper augustus, heres Boemici regni? 37 Kronika Jana z Marignoly, 520: Helysa […] unde Sclaui quasi Helisani vel gloriosi dicuntur; 522: Elysa, a quo Elysani hodie Slaui mutata litera, ut fieri solet; 523: Fuerunt autem primi Boemi genere Sclaui quasi Elysani. Elysa enim Solaris dicitur; 522: Ab Elysa Slaui, qui corrupto vocabulo Sclaui dicuntur, quasi solares vel luminosi vel magis gloriosi dicuntur. Cuius pars est Boemia. 38 See above pp. 313–314.

352

Chapter 9

with the law of nature, and whoever seemed wiser [than the others], he would resolve the questions and disputes in a simple fashion.39 Thus, John of Marignolli outlined a very positive image of the origin and characteristics of the Slavs. By means of this image, he made the Bohemians part of an idealized community of origin, rooted in the Bible, which equipped them with a glorious past and promised a participation in the glorious future allocated for them by God. Such edifying descriptions were, probably, primarily meant to strengthen the self-esteem and self-respect of the Czech part of the Bohemian society of nobles. The Chronica Boemorum did not meet the expectations attached to it, however; one of the reasons might have been that John of Marignolli did not perfectly understand the history of Bohemia, whereas his Latin and literary fantasies might have outgrown the competence of the Bohemian target audience.40 Also, Charles IV did not seem satisfied with the Italian author’s work; the same was true for a few other historical works, such as the chronicles written by Francis of Prague, Neplach of Opatovice, or Beneš Krabice of Weitmühl. He, therefore, commissioned yet another attempt to present the history of Bohemia according to his vision and asked a southern Bohemian nobleman, the arcium liberalium doctor and rector of the school affiliated to St Giles’s Church in Prague, Pulkava of Radenín, to write another ‘History of Bohemia’. Thus, with active participation (or, perhaps, even co-authorship) of the emperor, a chronicle was compiled around 1374, which can be approached as a direct expression of Charles IV’s view of history and of the history-based policy he pursued. It was an important element of the court’s propaganda and, as the most exquisite expert in the Luxembourg court historiography puts it, it was meant to legitimize the new dynasty on the Bohemian throne, justify and validate the ruler’s claims and his position in Bohemia as well as in the entire Empire, and the position of his hereditary countries in the Empire and in the whole of the Christian world.41 39 Kronika Jana z Marignoly, 523. 40 On the chronicle and its treatment of the Slavic Idea see Von den Brincken 1967; Cinke 1975; Ertzdorff 1994; Kersken 1995, 589–594, 597–598; Mel’nikov 1998, 309–311; Engstová 1999; Blahova 2006b; Nechutová 2007, 165–166; Verkholantsev 2014, 80–82, 85. 41 Blahová 2002, 74; on the work, which was without fixed title see also Kersken 1995, 598–603; Nechutová 2007, 166; Blahová 1999, 34–38.

Ideas of Slavic Unity in the Late Middle Ages

353

With this purpose in mind, the chronicle presented the Bohemian history from its legendary beginnings until the year 1330 in the form of a compilation, primarily focusing on the dynastic history of the rulers. In this narrative, the Slavic Idea is better visible than in any other Bohemian sources.42 The story begins with the construction of the Tower of Babel and the mixing up of the languages, which for the chronicler is an opportunity to introduce the Bohemians as speakers of one of the seventy-two languages into which God had divided mankind. Whilst indirectly polemicizing against the identification of the Slavs with slaves (Sclavi = sclavi), too, Pulkava disputes John of Marignolli’s interpretation of the word Sclavi. The Slavonic language, he argues, has been erroneously called ydioma slauonicum, while correctly it must be called ydioma slouanicum; this indirectly implies that John’s statement that the word ‘Slavs’ came from slava (fame, glory) needs to be rejected. In Pulkava’s view the name is rather derived from the Slavic word for ‘word’ (slowo, pl. slowa), and therefore the Slavs “have been called Slouani, after the word, or words, in their language.”43 This is how the very interpretation of the origin of the term ‘Slavs’ was formulated, which is represented by some modern linguists until today.44 Of course, Pulkava’s ethymology was meant to elevate the ‘Slavs’ in a particular way. It did so by alluding to the opening phrases of the Gospel According to St John (“In the beginning was the Word …”), which allowed for a subtler expression of the claim for a particular closeness of ‘Slavs’ to the divine sphere. After the mixing up of the languages, the ‘Slavs’ arrived from the biblical land of Shinar via the country of the Chaldeans and Greece to South-Eastern Europe  – to the countries “which they possess until today, and that is, to Bulgaria, Raška [or, as in other manuscripts: Rus’], Serbia, Dalmatia, Croatia, Bosnia, Carinthia, Istria, and Kraina.”45 In Croatia – at this point Pulkava refers to Dalimil’s Rhyme Chronicle – a man named Čech became guilty of murder of one of the mighty men, and therefore had, together with his brothers and companions, to leave the country and look for a new homeland. Having crossed the Danube, he found it in Bohemia. Pulkava here attaches yet another ethymology to the country’s name (Boemia in latino et in theutonico Bemen), which is 42

Heck 1970, 295–298; Mikulka 1980, 176–178; Akimova/Mel’nikov 1997, 6–9; Mel’nikov 1998, 306–307, 311; Verkholantsev 2014, 84–85. 43 Kronika Pulkavova, 4: Ibi [sc. Babel] eciam unum ydioma slouanicum, quod corrupto vocabulo slauonicum dicitur, sumpsit inicium, de quo gentes eiusdem ydiomatis Slouani sunt vocati. In lingua enim eorum slowo verbum, slowa verba dicitur, et sic a verbo vel verbis dicti ydiomatis vocati sunt Slouani. 44 See above p. 37. 45 This and the following quotations: Kronika Pulkavova, 4.

354

Chapter 9

also meant to emphasize that the ‘Slavs’, or perhaps just the Bohemians, are a chosen people: Boemia namely comes from boh, which in the Slavonic language means God. Therefore, the Bohemians, in this translation, are called by the name of God. In the Slavic language, however, the country of Bohemia bears the name related to its founder, Čech. Whilst the protoplast of Bohemia settled down with his people in the hitherto-uninhabited Bohemian country, one of his brothers, named Lech, wandered further on with his people (suo genere), traversed the Carpathians, and populated Poland (the flatland area/field or pole in Polish), up to the Baltic Sea shore. Thus, the unclear word lech from Dalimil’s chronicle became the name of an alternative progenitor of the Poles.46 Some of his people set out from Poland “toward Rus’ [recte: Rügen?], Pomerania, Kashubia, up to the Kingdom of Denmark and the shores of the North,” whereas the other brothers and companions of Čech came into possession of Moravia, Meissen, Bautzen, Brandenburg, and Lusatia as their future principalities. All those lands were unpopulated upon the arrival of the Slovani, who were the first to settle there. This story stylized Bohemia not only as a point-of-departure, from which the ‘Slavs’ spread across the eastern part of Central Europe, but also as the then-current centre of Eastern/Central European ‘Slavdom’. The lands jointly populated by Čech’s kin significantly coincided with the territories that in the third quarter of the 14th century were subjected to the authority of Charles IV and to which he made geopolitical claims. This quite clearly shows what Pulkava’s work was meant to achieve in terms of historical policy: the highlighted community of ‘Slavs’ of Eastern and Central Europe, descended from the founder of the Bohemian people/natio, was to be an undisputed argument speaking in favour of Charles’s territorial claims. The rank of Bohemia within the community of ‘Slavs’ was moreover emphasized by Pulkava by ascribing an honourable position to the Old Moravian and Cyrillo-Methodian tradition, which according to Pulkava, was taken over in Bohemia on occasion of the crowning of Vratislav II as king by Emperor 46

In Poland the Chronica Polonorum in the 1280s still tried to explain the name Lechi/Lechiti with the help of ethymology: Lechi autem [dicti] fuerunt Poloni eo, quod magis decepcionibus et calliditate in bellis utebantur, quam viribus; Chronica Polonorum, 605. Only since the 14th century in Poland Lechi/Lechiti was derived from a person (heros eponymus) called Lech; see also below pp. 361–362.

Ideas of Slavic Unity in the Late Middle Ages

355

Henry III in 1086, at the latest. It therefore seemed essential that Cyril and Methodius have converted to the true faith not only the Moravians but “also numerous other Slavic regions.” Their merits for the Slavonic language were particularly appreciated as Pulkava added an original story whereby the pope wanted to refuse Cyril’s request to allow him to celebrate the liturgy in the Slavonic language; but a voice from heaven spoke to him, telling him to let all the spirits glorify the Lord and let all the languages profess Him. Consequently, the pope allowed the celebration of the Mass in lingua slovanica for time eternal (in perpetuum). A special blessing was thus bestowed by God to the Slavonic language and to the Slavic community: such is the message behind this story. In terms of politics, too, Pulkava used the Old Moravian tradition to highlight a particular ‘Slavic’ dimension. Thus, he twice emphasized that also Poland, the Rus’, and several other principalities and countries were once subordinated to the Moravian ruler Svatopluk. The argument this statement indirectly made, was that together with the translatio regni from Old Moravia to Přemyslid Bohemia also the territorial rights of the Old Moravian Empire have been transferred to the Bohemian Crown.47 Pulkava’s reference to Moravia shows, once again, that also the Slavic Idea propagated during Charles IV’s reign, ultimately served the ruler’s particular purposes. Albeit in Pulkava’s version it encompassed, for the first time, all his contemporary Slavic-speaking nations and presented them as a community of origin and language, the concept of a ‘Slavic’ liaison primarily referred to those Slavic-speaking regions of East-Central Europe to which Bohemia put forth its (hereditary) territorial claims. The point-of-departure was exclusively the profits for Bohemia, and so the idea stressed the central and privileged position of Bohemia – also as a nation that is chosen in a particular way. This particular Slavic Idea, which in fact was ethno- and theocentric,48 with its legitimizing and identity-forming function was primarily inwardly orientated and targeted at the Czech-speaking society of nobles. Charles IV ordered that the Pulkava chronicle be spread in several copies among the Czech nobles; the author himself translated his work into Czech as well.49 Moreover, the ruler had a magnificent manuscript prepared for his son and recommended him to read it. Thus, Pulkava’s construct of a Slavic community was apt to instill the Bohemian compatriots with the self-awareness of a privileged position Bohemia held within an all-Slavic community in general, and the circle of Western Slavs in particular. It thereby contributed to 47 Kronika Pulkavova, 16–17, 54. 48 Mel’nikov 1998, 318. 49 Kronika Pulkavova, 211–326.

356

Chapter 9

demonstrating and legitimizing Charles’s right to the Bohemian crown as well as to a strengthening of his political position. However, outside the narrow circle of Charles’ court elite and, perhaps, certain circles of the Czech nobility, the Slavic Idea did not significantly resonate in Bohemia.50 Apart from Bohemia, the Slavic-speaking population of Silesia, Lusatia, and Brandenburg, or Poland, or Pomerania, for that matter, probably did not take much notice of it. The Slavic monastery in Prague finally gained no special significance and remained a local phenomenon. Although two branches were set up, one in the Silesian town of Oels/Oleśnica and the other in Lesser Poland’s city of Krakow, it did not contribute to a renewal of the Slavic liturgy outside the limits of Bohemia. At the same time for late medieval Bohemians/Czechs, the Church Slavonic language, which was no more understandable for them, had become a peculiar curiosity, at best. Rather than referring to it, the Hussites developed their own liturgy with use of their contemporary Czech language.51 The reform-oriented Hussite movement brought the Czech medieval national awareness to the climax of its development.52 It stylized the Czechs, with a messianistic zest, as a sacrosancta natio boemica, in whose – from the Catholic point of view heretic  – conduct there was nothing reprehensible. There was no need to refer to a Slavic Idea in this context, since the religious and social-revolutionary programme of the Utraquists could well deal without it. On the other hand, the political goals of the reformist movement during the Hussite wars at the latest necessitated the forming of alliances, so that the question became obvious, what the Hussites attitude toward the neighbouring Slavic-speaking nations was. In fact, the Hussites tried primarily to win over the Poles, Bohemia’s direct neighbours, as allies in the defensive war against the anti-Hussite crusades pursued by the German emperor. This was the only reason, and the impulse behind it quite pragmatic, why the Slavic Idea was somewhat reborn in Bohemia in the first half of the 15th century.53 However, the partially revived idea was no longer expressed through works of historiography, which at that time were confined to regional concerns and the period’s stormy political events.

50 51 52 53

See Bylina 1990, 90–93. Graus 1971a, 184, 194, 205. See Heck 1968b; Graus 1980a, 107–110; Šmahel 2002a, 297–327, 752–787. For the following see Šmahel 1971, 145–153; Šmahel 1999; Mel’nikov 1998, 311–312, 316–317. A bit too optimistic: Heck 1970, 299–302; Heck 1968a, 73–75, who talks of a peak of the Slavic Idea during the 15th century (rozkwit idei wspólnoty słowiańskiej Czechów i Polaków), Heck 1968a, 78; see also Zientara 1997, 365.

Ideas of Slavic Unity in the Late Middle Ages

357

The “Hussite Chronicle” by Laurentius/Vavřinec of Březová bears no trace of activation of a Slavic Idea or any ‘Slavic’ awareness.54 Only a few topical political pamphlets, letters and proclamations occasionally resounded with the idea of a ‘Slavic’ kinship. Such references were meant to give a sense of obligation to offer focused support but were normally confined to highlighting a special Bohemian-Polish community. The Bohemian envoys, who in 1420 proposed the crown of Bohemia to the Polish king, reinforced their argumentation by the appeal to push back jointly the attacks against the Bohemian Hussites, due to a ‘Slavic’ solidarity. According to them, the German opponents strove to eradicate any Slavic language. […] For the defeat of our Slavic language, as we may conclude for a number of reasons, would bring about an annihilation of the Polish language as well, and this in revenge for the favour inherent in our language.55 In a similar manner, merging the ‘national’ and ‘Slavic’ arguments, the Taborite camp attempted in 1437/8 to persuade the Polish court to propose the candidacy of the ten-year-old Casimir Jagiellon (Kazimierz Jagiellończyk) for the Bohemian crown. Again, a vision was unfolded of a threat from Germany, the common enemy; at any rate, the chroniclers’ records expressed the warning in this context that “the Germans are the main foes of the Czech, the Polish, and whatever Slavic language else.”56 Also in Hussite times a negative image of the Germans remained indispensable for the functioning of any Slavic Idea. In fact the Hussite ‘Slavic’ propaganda resonated to a certain extent at the Polish court and within Polish society.57 It came across the Poles’ interest in baffling the endeavours of Sigismund of Luxembourg and Albrecht of Habsburg to take the Bohemian throne and, moreover, with the Polish variant of the Slavic Idea, represented by Jan Długosz, who was otherwise an ardent opponent of the Hussites.58 Similar to this Krakow-based canon and chronicler, a major part of the Polish clerical and secular elite remained loyal to Rome. Regardless of how frequently the Bohemian Hussites appealed to a ‘Slavic’, or Bohemian-Polish affinity and community, their ‘Slavic’ spells finally remained echoless. 54 Laurentii de Brezowa Historia Hussitica. 55 Quotation from Maleczyńska 1959, 403–404. 56 Stařj letopisowé česstj, 106: “że sú Němci uhlawnj nepřietelé gazyka Českéko, Polského i wsseho Slowanského”; see Nikodem 2016b. 57 Saczyńska 2013, 91. 58 See Nikodem 2016a.

358

Chapter 9

On the Bohemian-Hussite side, however, those ‘Slavic’ appeals were merely utilitarian clichés. paying no more than lip service – as is shown, for example, by the fact that although the chancellery of George of Poděbrady repeatedly praised the fraternal sentiments and grandeur of the Polish king, who would never let the common ‘Slavic’ nation to fall, George – Europe’s first non-Catholic king, reigning in Bohemia in 1458–71 – entered all the same into an anti-Polish agreement with Albrecht of Brandenburg.59 In the end, the Hussite appeals to ‘Slavic’ blood bonds and solidarity could not prevent Slavic-speaking mercenaries from joining the Catholic lords; as a result, several Poles, Croats, Slovenes, and even Serbs and Bosnians fought against the Hussites. The fanatic-extremist attitude of numerous Hussites eventually pushed the Bohemians away from the remainder of the Slavic world, instead of inciting in them a sense of ‘Slavic’ community. Moreover, the Polish-Bohemian relations suffered during the Hussite wars, instead of benefiting on a ‘Slavicity’-inspired movement.60 2

Poland

In Poland, the idea of a particular ‘Slavic’ affinity and community took shape only at the end of the 14th century.61 The “Dzierzwa Chronicle”, written in the late 13th century (1289–96) or early in the 14th century (1312–20) by a Krakow Franciscan, did not yet mention any common Slavic past. It let the Poloni derive from an alleged progenitor named Wandalus,62 who was presented as a descendant of Japheth and the Troy myth heroes Anchises and Aeneas, as well as of the legendary Roman Numa Pompilius. Referring to this genealogy (borrowed from the Historia Brittonum penned by the author known as Nennius), Dzierzwa ascribed a biblical as well as Greek/Roman background to the Poles. In his further description of the regiones et regna that Wandalus’s descendants reportedly gained possession of, he mentioned the following countries: Russia, Polonia, Pomorania, Swecia, Cassubia, Sarnia, que nunc Saxonia dicitur, Bohemia, Moravia, Stiria, Carinthia, Carneola, Sclavonia, que nunc Dalmacia dicitur, Chorvatia, Pannonia, Bulgaria. All of them are clearly described as “diverse kingdoms and nations.” The chronicler could have perceived them as a 59 Šmahel 1971, 150–151. 60 As opposed to older views (see Mikulka 1969) nowadays researchers maintain that the impact of hussitism in Poland was limited; see Kras 1998, 311–317; Kras 1999, 187–188. 61 A brief outline in Heck 1968a, 72–78; Mesiarkin 2013, 93–99. 62 Chronica Dzirsvae, 1–3; see Kürbis[ówna] 1951/52, 272–273, 276; Borst 1957/59, 798; Banaszkiewicz 1977; Banaszkiewicz 1979, 32–51, 66–77; Kersken 1995, 527–529.

Ideas of Slavic Unity in the Late Middle Ages

359

unity because, at best, he described Polonia as the “maxima terrarum et mater” in this context, thereby attributing a leadership role to her. But even if this was meant to suggest a political unity under Poland’s leadership, the regiones, regna and naciones of Wandalus’s descendants, among whom Dzierzwa included Swecia and Saxonia as well, constituted no ‘Slavic’ community.63 And thus, the chronicler did not characterize Polonia as a part of a greater Slavic land (Slavia/Sclavonia) but instead named her only “one region in the East” (regio in partibus orientis). In fact, he used the term Sclavonia only in the period’s narrow meaning, that is as denomination of the part of Croatia/Hungary, that from the 12th century onward was called Slavonia.64 The “all-Slavic perspective” that is at times ascribed to this chronicler65 was thus in fact entirely alien to Dzierzwa; he certainly would not have used the term Wandali synonymously to Sclavi or a ‘Slavic unity’. Similarly, there is no Slavic Idea in the “Chronicle of the Dukes of Poland” (Chronica principum Poloniae). Attributed to Peter of Byczyna, Canon of the Collegiate Church in Brieg/Brzeg, it was compiled ca. 1385 in Silesia, then already under Bohemian rule; however, the memory cherished at the Silesian Piasts’ courts remained a Polish memory.66 And so it is a Polish perspective from which the legendary early history is described, similarly as in the chronicles of Vincent Kadłubek and Dzierzwa. The Chronica principum Poloniae praised the greatness and the once-large territorial reach of the Lechites and probably influenced by the Pulkava chronicle, told a story of two brothers, Czech and Lech, who were said to have given rise to the Bohemians and Lechites/Poles. Yet, apart from naming both brothers “Slavs” (duo fratres Slavi), Peter did not write anything that could be seen as a reference to an alleged ‘Slavic’ community.67 It was only the “Greater Poland’s Chronicle” (Chronica Poloniae Maioris) that presented a true and developed Slavic Idea. It is not important here, whether parts of this chronicle have been written already at the end of the 13th century or the whole of the chronicle was written in the 14th century, since the fragments of relevance to our topic were definitely – if indeed parts existed 63 On the Vandals in Polish historiography: Steinacher 2004, 345–348; Steinacher 2016, 343–344. 64 Besides Sclavonia the term Slavia is used by the “Dzierzwa Chronicle” only one single time: within a verbal quotation taken form the Chronica Polonorum of Vincent Kadłubek; it thus can not be regarded an independent articulation of Dzierzwa; Chronica Dzirsvae, 15. 65 Banaszkiewicz 1979, 79. 66 Jurek 1998, 33. 67 Chronica principum Poloniae, the quotation: 430; on the chronicle see also Heck 1980; Kersken 1995, 516–522; Bering 1998; Mrozowicz 2016, 258–262.

360

Chapter 9

already at the end of the 13th century  – added only in the subsequent century. In either case, the author of the argument on the all-Slavic roots of the Lechites/Poles was Jan of Czarnków.68 He was a son of a nobleman who was a bailiff in the town of Czarnków, in northern Greater Poland. Having received the higher priestly ordinations in 1352, he started his career in Mecklenburg as a chancellor to the Schwerin bishop Andrew of Wiślica. In the 1360s, he was canon in Włocławek and Poznań, and from 1368/9 on, archdeacon in Gniezno. Since 1366/7, he moreover held the office of vice-chancellor at the court of King Casimir III the Great, and soon became one of the kingdom’s most influential person. After Louis the Hungarian took power after Casimir’s death, he lost his office and, as an alleged opponent of the Angevin lineage (from which Louis descended) and supporter of the so-called Pomeranian party, which wanted to elevate duke Casimir (IV/V) of Słupsk/Stolp, a maternal grandson of Casimir III, as the latter’s successor, Jan was temporarily expelled from Poland.69 He spent his banishment in Wrocław, Lebus, and Prague. In the summer of 1373, he returned to Poland, retreated to the Archdeaconry of Gniezno, and took to chronicling. He probably planned to write an extensive history of Poland but managed to complete no more than three segments by his death in April 1387; one of them was the Chronica Poloniae Maioris, written or compiled/edited by him.70 The first part of the “Greater Poland’s Chronicle” presented the reader with a narrative covering (Greater) Poland’s history until the year 1273. This attempt at a comprehensive historiographic description of course also called for asking the question about the beginnings of Poland’s history. What Gallus Anonymus and Vincent Kadłubek could say on this topic apparently seemed unsatisfactory to Jan of Czarnków, like it was to Dzierzwa. Therefore, like Dzierzwa, Jan situated the dawn of the history of the Poles in biblical times. Unlike him, however, he used the ‘all-Slavic’ genealogical tree, which had meanwhile been created by the Bohemian chroniclers. Jan probably made himself acquainted with Charles IV’s historical policy during his sojourn in Prague; he must have studied, at least partly, the historiographical works created in the circle of 68 The controversial views on the origins/authors of the “Greater Poland’s Chronicle” are discussed by Drelicharz 2012, 357–368; see also Kersken 1995, 529–532; Skibiński 2009 and Krawiec 2009, who regard the chronicle a text of the 13th century, which later became only partly ammended/supplemented; Krawiec 2009, 215 regards the thesis of Jan of Czarnków’s authorship “not fully convincing” (nie w pełni przekonująca). 69 On the political views of Jan of Czarnków see Wyrozumski 1990. 70 Derwich 1985, 129 maintains that the chronicle was written in the second half of the 14th century by Jan of Czarnków (narodziła się […] jednorazowo w II poł. XIV w., a jej autorem był Janko z Czarnkowa); see also Bieniak 2009.

Ideas of Slavic Unity in the Late Middle Ages

361

King John; as it seems, he primarily adopted the Pulkava chronicle.71 The Bohemian examples might have caused that he paid attention to the potential offered to a historical policy by the idea of a common origin of all Slavs. This might have incited him to present the history of Poland in an all-Slavic context. He did it in the prologue to the Greater Poland’s Chronicle, in a fragment that is described by some scholars as the ‘Slavic interpolation’. The history of the background of the Slavs as created by Pulkava is modified and extended there in a peculiar way.72 Making use of the Polish word pan (‘lord’, ‘master’) and the ancient geographical name of Pannonia, Jan formed the eponym ‘Pan’, as a name of a descendant of Japheth. In Pannonia, described in “the oldest manuscripts” as “the mother and the origin of all the Slavic peoples” (sit mater et origo omnium Slauonicarum nacionum), this Pan begot three sons – Lech, Rus, and Czech.73 Like Pulkava, Jan of Czarnków situated the proto-Slavic community in Pannonia, extended the motif of the brothers (two into three) and altered the sequence of eldership: now, Lech was the eldest, Rus the middle one, and Czech the youngest of the brothers.74 Jan explains upfront what he wanted to achieve: And those three, having begotten the offspring of themselves and of their tribe, possessed three kingdoms: those of the Lechites, Rus’ (Ruthenians) and Bohemians […], they possess them presently, and shall possess them in future, as long as it may please the will of God. Among them, as it appears from the chronicles as well as from the expanse of the frontiers, the Lechites had the prevalence and the dominion and the supremacy in the entire empire.75 So, not the Bohemians with their progenitor Czech were apparently the ‘eldest’ and thus holding the priority within the ‘Slavic’ community, for Jan ascribed the primate amongst the “Slavic nation” (Slawonici nacionis) to the Lechites. He emphasized this position by adding that of the original realms of Pan, Lech, Rus, and Czech, many other realms and dominions (plura alia regna et dominia) subsequently emerged, such as Bulgaria, Raška, Dalmatia, as well as 71 Heck 1974, 145. 72 See Kürbis[ówna] 1952, 115–164; Kürbis[ówna] 1951/52, 267–268, 273–278; Borst 1957/59, 798–799; Strzelczyk 1991b, 145–146; Strzelczyk 2012, 64–67; Maćkowiak 2011, 85–86. 73 Chronica Poloniae Maioris, 4. 74 On the motif of three brothers see Kowalewski 1995/96; Mesiarkin 2014; for the impact of this motif at the beginnings of early modern times see Myl’nikov 1996, 141–203. 75 Chronica Poloniae Maioris, 4.

362

Chapter 9

the countries of the Polabian and Baltic Slavs. Whereas the seniority of the Lechites was only vaguely suggested there, the subsequent fragment clearly remarks that all the Slavic nationes in the eastern part of Central Europe, except for Pannonia, to which the Germans (Theutunici) had been paying a tribute until the time of Casimir I the Restorer († 1058), “were always subjected to the rule of the Lechites.”76 Thus, Jan of Czarnków invented a Slavic community that was resolutely led by the Poles in the time of yore – presenting it not only as a community of origin, with biblical roots, but also as a community of language. He admitted that although individual Slavic nationes spoke different Slavonic languages, but all the same had a shared linguistic source, since all of them came from one father. At this point, Jan introduced another eponym – Slawus, apparently still willingly used by the Slavs as a constituent of their own names. According to Jan, it was Slawus, of whom some would assert that he was an ancestor of Nimrod, who had given rise to the term ‘Slav’ as well.77 Finally, Jan, included the Hungarians among the Slavs.78 Rather than scarce knowledge, the underlying premise for this (linguistically false) classification was, apparently, a deliberate intention based on historical policy. The inclusion of the Hungarians in the imagined ‘Slavic’ community enabled the chronicler to present all the three East-Central European kingdoms known to him, that is Hungary, Bohemia, Poland – and the Rus’, whose western parts, namely Halych and Volhynia (that is Ruthenia proper), had most recently been conquered by Casimir III the Great for the Kingdom of Poland – as a powerful political association whose position was legitimized, in a particular way, by a venerable lineage, common origin, and common language. By the unambiguous attribution to Poland of the primacy in this association, Jan of Czarnków was driven by a historical policy like that followed by the historiographers employed by Emperor Charles IV. As the Bohemian possessions of non-Bohemian dominions called for legitimization, the claims laid by the Kingdom of Poland to the Slavic-speaking lands neighbouring on it in the North-West (Pomerania) and South-East (Halych and Volhynia/Ruthenia) called for a justification. 76 Chronica Poloniae Maioris, 6: His omnibus autem Slaworum nacionibus, Pannonia dumtatxat excepta […] semper Lechitarum imperio subiecti tributa reddebant usque ad tempora regis Kazimiri. 77 Chronica Poloniae Maioris, 5: Sunt autem Slauorum multimoda genera lingwarum se mutuo intelligencia […]. Que tamen ab uno patre Slawo unde et Slaus [in another writing: Slavi] originem habuerunt qui et hucusque isto nomine uti non obmittuntur, videlict Thomislaus, Stanislaus, Janislaus, Vensceslaus etc. Ab isto eciam Slawo Nemroch originem asseritur habuisse. 78 Chronica Poloniae Maioris, 7: Item de Hungaris qui et ipsi sunt Slawi non est obmittendum.

Ideas of Slavic Unity in the Late Middle Ages

363

The Slavic Idea was particularly fit for this purpose, and this is, perhaps, why it was expressed in other forms as well.79 Two monastic foundations are sometimes perceived as its manifestations, since they were expressly made as branches of the Emaus Slavic monastery in Prague.80 In September 1380, Conrad II of Oleśnica, who since 1367 was Charles IV’s vassal, brought Benedictine monks from Prague into the outskirts of the town of Oleśnica, where they began to celebrate the Slavic liturgy.81 The motives and the context of this foundation remain as unclear as their consequences. The founding charter contains no specification of its purpose, merely stating that, entertaining the hope for a reward in eternity (spes retributionis aeternae), the duke transferred the site, for time eternal, to an abbot summoned from Prague a to a congregation of the Slavonic brethren (Abbati et Conuentui Fratrum Slauorum […] vocatis de Praga), and admitted them to celebrate their liturgy on a daily basis, except for the great feast days.82 It is possible that this foundation had been inspired by Charles IV himself; in any case, it seems possible that the decisive impulse came from Prague. John of Neumarkt probably acted as the middleman. This Silesian humanist was active in the years 1347–74 at Charles IV’s chancellery and was Bishop of Olomouc since 1364. From 1376 onward, he competed, with Charles’s support, for the office of Bishop of Wrocław, which he was finally entrusted in 1380. But he never actually took office as he died shortly before his investiture. As a bishop in Moravia, John clearly highly esteemed the Slavonic/Glagolitic tradition and personally admired St Hieronymus;83 this allowed him, possibly on Charles IV’s order, to involve in the popularization of Charles’ IV version of a Slavic Idea in Bohemian Silesia. However, his participation in the founding of the Oleśnica cloister remains a matter of speculation. The official founder, Conrad II, did not do much to ensure prosperity to the ‘Glagolitic monks’; the convent soon fell into financial problems and, after a long time of struggle against them, was finally merged, in 1505, in the 79

80 81 82 83

However, the inscription of the epitaph fabricated in the 1340–50ties for the restorated tomb of Bolesław I in the cathedral of Poznań, certainly can not serve as proof of a circulating Slavic Idea; when it called the first Polish king i.a. ruler of the regnum Slavorum, Gothorum seu Polonorum, this expression was not supposed to evoke a rule over an all-Slavic community but only Bolesław’s expansion into parts of the pagan Polabian Slavs (Sclavi), the Pomeranians and Prussians (Gothi); Kürbis 2001, 268. On the two monasteries see Rybandt 1970; Moszyński 1971, 269–272; Řeháček 1975; Wyrozumski 1982. For the following see Verkholantsev 2014, 117–123. The foundation charter published by Fuchs 1779, 686–691, the quotations: 686, 687. Klapper 1964, 29–33; Bauschke 2008, 258–262.

364

Chapter 9

Augustinians’ monastery that had already existed there.84 Conrad was featured as a founder probably only to do a ‘pious deed’ in order to regain favour from the pope, who in 1378 had him excommunicated owing to a conflict with the Cistercians of Lebus. Thus, the foundation in question was apparently not a deliberate attempt to spread the Slavonic/Glagolitic in Silesia and to propagate, by extension, a Slavic Idea in Poland.85 The foundation of the Slavic convent in Kleparz, a suburban area of Krakow, carried out in 1390 by the Polish king Władysław II Jagiełło and his spouse Jadwiga cannot be regarded as an act of deliberate propagation of the Slavic Idea, either.86 Given the lack of direct sources from the period, one may, once again, merely speculate with respect to the background and motives behind the bringing into there of the monks from the Slavic cloister in Prague. Neither of the two most popular explanations  – i.e., first, the cloister was founded due to the worship for Cyril and Methodius, the Apostles of the Slavs, which was common in Lesser Poland; or, second, the cloister was erected in view of a Catholic mission among the Orthodox Ruthenians – cannot be confirmed based on the sources available. There are no testimonies from before the 15th century that would speak of a living memory of Cyril and Methodius, or a cult of those saints, in (Lesser) Poland whatsoever. It is therefore quite probable that the Krakow convent of the Slavic Benedictines contributed to the spread of this cult, rather than its foundation having been initiated by an already existing and popular cult of these saints. The supposition that Władysław Jagiełło might have been interested in missionary work seems more justifiable due to the newly established union between Poland and not yet Christianized Lithuania, as well as in the contest of the Polish conquests in Rus’/Ruthenia. It therefore cannot be precluded that the Polish-Lithuanian monarch saw in the Roman-Slavic rite practiced in one of the Krakow cloisters a means facilitating the conclusion of a union between Polish Catholics and Rus’ian/Ruthenian Orthodox christians. The courtiers might have strengthened him in this conviction: they either had come from Bohemia or had close connections with Bohemians and therefore they were well acquainted with the Slavic Ideas of Charles IV. One of them was Jan Silván. Born ca. 1368 in Prague, he was a Norbertan monk from the Prague monastery at Strahov and a graduate of the local university. 84 Grüger 1988. 85 Maćkowiak 2011, 87 characterizes the attempt to introduce Benedictine monks to Poland using the Glagolitic alphabet as a “total failure” ( fiask[o] akcji sprowadzenia do Polski benedyktynów używających alfabetu głagolickiego). 86 For the following see Verkholantsev 2014, 128–157.

Ideas of Slavic Unity in the Late Middle Ages

365

Between the 1390s and the early 1410s, he was a chaplain and a father-confessor of the Polish royal couple and a most zealous confessor of St Hieronymus, whose name he assumed on entering an Italian Camaldolese convent in 1413. In his Exemplar salutis, a collection of sermons written in 1407–09, he portrayed St Hieronymus unambiguously as a trueborn Slav (nacione Sclavus). He also described there the life of St Stanisław, St Václav, and St Vojtěch/Adalbert, thus suggesting a historical connection between Bohemia and Poland.87 Whether such allusions were understood and accepted at Władysław’s court in terms of a Slavic Idea, is hard to state. In any case, there is no premise that would attest to such an instrumentalization of the ‘Glagolitic monks’ living in Kleparz; likewise, no available information confirms their mobilization in view of a missionary purpose. The wording of the founding charter dated 28 September 1390, extant only in Jan Długosz, which gives the desire to ensure the salvation of the king’s soul as the incentive behind the foundation (indubitatae salutis nobis compendia procurare),88 should perhaps then be treated seriously. And it cannot be precluded that it was only Jan Długosz who stylized the setting up of the Krakow Slavic convent and its activity as a manifestation of a ‘Slavic’ awareness. As a matter of fact, Jan Długosz was the first to present this act as a conscious expression of a Slavic Idea in the twelve-volume annals, the Annales seu cronicae incliti Regni Poloniae, he wrote between 1455 and 1480. Jan Długosz was born in 1415 in the Land of Sieradz as a son of a noble office holder (starosta). From 1436 onward, he was Canon in Krakow; from 1430 to the 1450s, he worked at the chancellery of the Krakow bishop Zbigniew Oleśnicki. Since the early 1460s he was active with the court where King Casimir IV Jagiellon entrusted him with the rearing of his sons as well as pursuance of diplomatic tasks. Soon, he started a chronicling activity as well. He was one of the most outstanding exponents of the 15th-century Polish elite. In his extensive and learned work, he represented quite individual and independent views on a variety of issues, which however is not to say that his descriptions did not somehow reflect the mentality and views of that elite.89 In his narrative concerning the Krakow Slavic cloister, he justified its foundation by the royal couple’s desire to preserve and spread in Poland the memory of a particular distinction that the “Slavic tribe” (genus Slavonicum) 87 On this collection of sermons (still unpublished) and its author see Hyland 2004, 22, 32–35. 88 Jan Długosz, Liber beneficiorum, 225–227, the quotation 226; see also Trajdos 1988; Moszyński 2004, 309–311. 89 Koczerska 1971; on the author and his work see also Gawlas 1983; Wyrozumski 2017 and the contributions in Długosz, Jan (1415–1480) and Długosz, Jan – 600. lecie urodzin.

366

Chapter 9

had experienced because of God’s grace enabling to celebrate services in the Slavonic language.90 Hence, the royal couple of Władysław Jagiełło and Jadwiga, inspired by the model of Prague (incitati exemplari simili, quod in civitate Pragensi habetur), founded and endowed at Kleparz, outside the walls of Krakow, the cloister of the Holy Cross. They brought to it monks from the Prague monastery of Emaus, so that, under the supervision of their mother monastery in Prague, they may cherish the Glagolitic tradition there. Długosz himself, as he assured, witnessed the liturgy being sung and read, and prayers said, in idiomate Slavonico at the cloister church. For the Krakow canon and chronicler, the sense of existence of the cloister therefore resided in the cherishing of a special ‘Slavic’ tradition and in reminding about the chosenness of the “Slavic tribe”. It cannot be precluded that such ideas already had motivated King Władysław Jagiełło and his spouse Jadwiga. However, the founding charter seems to speak against this interpretation, so that the stylization of the cloister as a site of a ‘Slavic’ memory ought rather to be treated as an invention of Jan Długosz. Afterall the Krakow chronicler also in other contexts devoted much attention to the ‘Slavic’ element. In his twelve volumes of Annales there are fifty fragments where he refers to Slawi, Slawonia, regiones Slavica/Slaworum, genus/gens/natio Slaworum/Slawonica, or lingua/idioma Slawica/Slawonica.91 This is perhaps not much given a work of hundreds of pages, but it is much more than all other Polish historical works written before Długosz have to offer in this respect. The Slavic Idea, as Długosz tried to create it, gained shape primarily in his argument on the beginnings of Polish history. Already the dedication section of the first volume of his Annales points to a kinship between Poles and “all the Slavs.” This appears, on the one hand, beside the information on the shortcomings of the Poles (Polonorum genus), who excel among the other nations in their proneness to jaundice and jealousy. This information is followed by the remark that some believe that Cham, rather than Japheth, was the progenitor of the Poles and all the Slavs.92 At the end of the dedication, however, the author declares that Book One of his history of Poland shall tell a story 90 Ioannis Dlugossii Annales, 10, 1370–1405, 183: […] quo clemencia Redemptoris genus Slavonicum extulit et mirifice honoravit, donando illi graciam specialem, ut omnia sacra officia et res Divine tam nocturne quam diurne, ipsa quoque sacrarum missarum archana idiomate illo possent celebrari (quod nemini alteri linguario, preterquam Greco, Latino et Hebreo videmus contigisse, quorum excellencie etiam bonitas Divina Slavonicum equavit) Wladislaus […] rex cum consorte […] fundant, condunt et donant […]. 91 Saczyńska 2013, 79–80; see also Bylina 2002, 48–51. 92 Ioannis Dlugossii Annales 1–2, 55: […] nonnulli Polonorum et omnium Slaworum parentem Cham affirment.

Ideas of Slavic Unity in the Late Middle Ages

367

about “the lineage of the Slavs” and the Poles descending from it, and about the events related to their kings.93 The first book of the “Annals” begins with Adam, the Flood, and the Tower of Babel. It tells about God having “divided one Hebrew language […] into seventy-two languages” and “the offspring of Noah” having “filled the parts of the world, and namely, Asia, Africa, and Europe.”94 Długosz drew the information used in the descriptions comprised in this part from a variety of sources. He knew the stories of the origins and migrations of different peoples, disseminated since the 14th century in Bohemian and Polish chronicles; apparently, he was also aware of their variants, preserved in Ruthenian and Hungarian sources.95 He blended different elements to construct a unique conception that was to explain the origin of the Poles – in diverse, partly mutually exclusive, ways. On the one hand, in the context of his geographical descriptions, Długosz identified the Poles with the Sarmatians;96 on the other hand, as part of the explanation of their biblical descent, he called them the descendants of Japheth’s grandson, Vandalus. Like Dzierzwa, he called the latter a son of Negno who, together with his two brothers, Isicion and Armenon (unknown to Dzierzwa) and his father Alanus came into possession of Europe. Diverse peoples (gentes diverse), who, being the descendants of Negno, spread in this way across Eastern Europe, were enumerated by Długosz almost literally following Dzierzwa; like the latter, he stated that Polonia was the largest of them (maxima terrarum). Among the many peoples whose names he mentioned, he included some non-Slavic peoples, never referring to a ‘Slavic’ community. It is only upon Długosz’s combination of the Dzierzwa quote, the segments of the biblical lineage by Pulkava, and the description of Negno as “the father of all the Slavs” (omnium Slaworum parens) that his Slavic Idea reveals itself. Whereas in Pulkava, the Slowani left the biblical land of Shinar, in Długosz, it was this particular forefather, together with the sons, relatives, and members of the family (cum filiis, cognacionibus et familiis) who arrived in Pannonia and founded the first, and earliest, residence of the Slavs there (primam et veterem Slaworum sedem). From there, Długosz tells us, the descendants of Alanus or Negno populated Bulgaria, Dalmatia, Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia, Raška, Carinthia, and Illyria, as well as the other lands and islands on the Adriatic, Ionian, and 93 Ioannis Dlugossii Annales 1–2, 64: Continebit autem primus [liber] Slaworum genus et Polonorum ex his descendencium originem et que aput illos sub gentilibus regibus contigerunt. 94 Ioannis Dlugossii Annales 1–2, 65. 95 On the sources of Długosz’s independent narration of origin see Pieradzka 1958. 96 See Ulewicz 1950, 27–32; Bömelburg 2006, 35–36; Paszyński 2016, 69–77.

368

Chapter 9

Aegean Seas. In Pannonia the Slavic tribe was particularly successful, since with this region the most fertile and richest lands came into their hands.97 This is how Divine Providence caused, that great and elevated things had been bestowed upon “the Slavic tribe” (generi Slawonico), and these would have remained with this people (apud nacionem ipsam) had it not sinned against God. In reward, God’s wrath admitted that the Huns, the Turks, and other peoples expelled the Slavs from their original abodes (ex sedibus originariis). At this point, Długosz evidently merged the known biblical motif of punishment imposed on the sinful humanity with the story, known since Dalimil’s time, of a crime that once made Czech leave Croatia. Apart from Slavonia, Serbia, and Bosnia, Croatia becomes in Długosz, in a third variant of his history of the origins of the Poles, the place from which their progenitor Lech voyaged into Poland. By the story of Lech and Czech, Długosz referred also to Pulkava, altering – similar to the “Greater Poland’s Chronicle”  – the sequence of seniority and making Lech the eldest of the brothers (unlike the Chronica Poloniae Maioris Długosz did not mention a third brother named Rus, but only introduced the eponym ‘Rus’ to name a descendant of Lech).98 When hatred and disputes split Japheth’s grandsons in Pannonia, the two brothers Lech and Czech concordantly resolved (concordi voto et deliberatione) that they would look for new abodes. When they left their original land (originarium solum), Lech, the elder one, left Bohemia to Czech, on the latter’s request, and himself moved northwards where he gained possession of Polonia, whose frontiers Długosz described (using a phrase borrowed from Gallus Anonymus) as “the northern part of Slavonia.”99 If we assume that “Slavonia”, the borrowing from Gallus, is to be understood exclusively as a geographical name, as Gallus did in the early 12th century, the ‘Slavic’ community decomposed already in the Pannonian primordial homeland, resulting from discord and quarrels. Instead, only a Polish-Bohemian community remained, in which the Poles (impersonated

97 Ioannis Dlugossii Annales 1–2, 69: In quo et felicitas generis Slawonici, quod tam optimas terras sortitum fuit, notari potest: nulle enim terre orbis preter Indiam, quam he a Slawis primum possesse, aurum, argentum, sal, es, ferrum, cuprum et cetera metalla, que mortales prima ducunt, feracius noscuntur prducere. 98 Ioannis Dlugossii Annales 1–2, 87: Que quidem regio orientalis ab uno nepotum Lech, qui Russz vocabatur […]; Ioannis Dlugossii Annales 1–2, 89. Długosz clearly rejects the view that Rus was a brother of Lech. At best he regarded him an offspring of Lech, thereby expressing his general disdain for the Eastern, “schimatic” Slavs; Borkowska 1983, 171–183. 99 Ioannis Dlugossii Annales 1–2, 73: Ab aquilone Polonia septentrionalis pars est Slawonie; see Galli anonymi cronicae, 7–8.

Ideas of Slavic Unity in the Late Middle Ages

369

by Lech) called the tune, and which was fine-profiled by Długosz in the later fragments.100 Further on in his extensive story, Długosz somewhat ambiguously resumes, from time to time, the thread of Slavic community. He is the least ambiguous in his description of the foundation of the Krakow Slavic convent in 1390. At this point, he doubtlessly refers to the gens Slawonica as a community of all Slavs. It is less obvious whether it equally referred to the gens Slawonica, about which Długosz writes when mentioning the Cyrillo-Methodian mission. Thanks to an initiative of three “Slavic dukes” (Slaworum duces)  – Rostislav, Svatopluk, and Kocel  – the nation was converted, according to Długosz, by Cyril and Methodius, to Christianity. Here, the phrase gens Slawonica  – like the older Pannonian legends – probably only referred to the Pannonian Slavs. On the other hand, Długosz stressed at this point, by way of a specific generalization, that it was at that time that the Slavic tribe was acquainted with the faith for the first time, the Scripture was translated from the Greek into Slavonic, and the permit was obtained to celebrate the liturgy in Slavonic. This can be interpreted as a signal that the chronicler sought to express the idea of an all-Slavic community.101 He might have similarly imagined a ‘Slavic’ community exceeding the bond linking the Bohemians and the Poles, or, the Poles and the Polabian Slavs, as in describing the year-966 events, he named St  Václav the first martyr in nacione Slawonica102 and titling Bolesław I the Brave a ruler elevated above all the other Slavic rulers.103 Moreover, the repeatedly used term lingua/idioma Slawica/Slawonia refers in Długosz, from time to time, to a more broadly understood Slavic community. However, he primarily points to a linguistic affinity between Poles and Bohemians, or, between Poles and Pomeranians/Polabian Slavs, never seeking to identify a similar closeness between Poles and Rus’ians/Ruthenians or Eastern Slavs.104 In sum, the Slavic Idea, as it is presented in the Annales of Jan Długosz, appears to be a not-quite-convincing conception. It seems to have resulted from learned compilations based upon diverse sources that equipped the 100 Ioannis Dlugossii Annales 3–4, 249 (ad annum 1109); Ioannis Dlugossii Annales 5–6, 62 (ad annum 1158); Ioannis Dlugossii Annales 10–11, 42 (ad annum 1409); Ioannis Dlugossii Annales 11–12, 182 (ad annum 1438); Ioannis Dlugossii Annales 12, 171 (ad annum 1466); see also Saczyńska 2013, 90–91. 101 Ioannis Dlugossii Annales 1–2, 167: […] gentem Slawonicam tum primum ad fidem convertunt, Scripturas de Greco in Slawonicum transferunt, […] rem divinam lingua Slawonica agerent […]. 102 Ioannis Dlugossii Annales 1–2, 179. 103 Ioannis Dlugossii Annales 1–2, 233: Boleslaus Polonorum princeps supra omnes generis Slawonici atque lingue duces magnificatus. 104 See Grabski 1970, 256–258; Saczyńska 2013, 92–99.

370

Chapter 9

idea with completely different emphases.105 Długosz presents Slavic-speaking nations clearly as an all-Slavic community only in the context of a legendary proto-history. So, it is not quite probable that the Krakow-based chronicler and the circles of Polish elites on behalf of whom he spoke shared and cherished in the 15th century a sense of an ‘all-Slavic’ community.106 Ultimately, Długosz’s Slavic Idea, rather marginal to his work as a whole, remained one of only two (along the ‘Slavic interpolation’ in the Greater Poland’s Chronicle) attempts at imagining a ‘Slavic’ community in late medieval Poland. Both attempts were but an “unworldly concept” coined within a narrow circle of intellectuals.107 In reality, they constituted no more than learned artificial constructs, which in a concrete political situation were meant to fulfil a clearly defined function: to confirm the right to power and authority and to support the forming of political alliances. In any event, they cannot be interpreted as evidence that the inhabitants of late medieval Poland considered themselves members of a primeval Slavic ethnic or cultural community.108 3

Pomerania and Mecklenburg

In the Late Middle Ages, the areas inhabited by Polabian and Baltic Slavs, which were extensively focused on by the Greater Poland’s Chronicle, were so dramatically changed through the process of melioratio terrae, colonization under the German Law, and acculturation that their originally Polabian character vastly faded away. The once Slavic communities between the Elbe and the Oder turned into new socio-political entities (called ‘new tribes’/Neustämme by the elder German research). Also, the lands of the Pomeranians between the Oder and the Vistula, since the 1230s/1240s were covered by similar acculturation 105 Saczyńska 2013, 102 summarizes: “Długosz’s Slavdom was an all-Slavic community as well as a community of several (not all) Slavic peoples, it was Polishness or Czechness as well as the community of Poles and Czechs, it was the Polabian Slavs as well as the Slavs on the Balkans. All depended on the context.” 106 This is maintained by Saczyńska 2013, 102 who states that Slavdom for Długosz was not just a phenomenon of the past, a myth of origin, but also a matter of his own times in which Slavdom could still be experienced as a community: Zatem Słowiańszczyzna to nie tylko dawna opowieść, mit początku, to także teraźniejszość (a właściwie ówczesność), wspólnota nadal odczuwana w czasach Długosza. 107 The quotation in Strzelczyk 2001, 362 (with reference to the Greater Poland’s Chronicle). 108 See Zientara 1983, 38 who maintains, that even if in medieaval Poland there existed “an awareness of linguistically belonging to a Slavic world” (świadomość językowej przynaleźności do słowiańszczyzny), this awareness, however, according to Zientara was of no ideological and political consequence whatsoever.

Ideas of Slavic Unity in the Late Middle Ages

371

processes.109 Their impact was the weaker the more eastbound the areas under scrutiny. A complete ‘Germanization’, or emergence of the ‘new tribe’ of Pomeranians, only occurred in Western Pomerania, where the House of Griffin ruled. In Eastern Pomerania (Pommerellen/Pomorze Wschodnie), where the process of forming an independent Pomeranian awareness was cut short well before assuming any significance, the Slavic-speaking people, under the pressure resulting from the expansion of the Teutonic Order, increasingly identified themselves with Poland.110 The political competition between the western and eastern parts of Pomerania led, in as early as the 13th century, to attempts made by the dukes of Szczecin/Stettin and Dymin/Demmin and Wołogoszcz/Wolgast to separate themselves from the Ratiborians and Sobeslavids. The latter ones consistently used, since the 1220s, the title duces Pomeraniae/Pomeranorum, whereas the Griffins began to add to the title dux Pomeranie/Pomeranorum, which they used as well, the name of their respective residences (i.e. dux […] de Stetin/Stitinensis, or, dux […] Diminentium).111 Primarily, however, they deliberately resorted, in this context, to the ‘Slavic’ tradition of their lands, and therefore complemented the official titles of their documents (and, sometimes, also the legends of their seals) with the phrase dux […] Sclavorum/Slavie, or completely replaced the Pomoranie/Pomoranorum by Slavie/Sclavorum. They did not thereby refer to any old sense of ‘Slavic’ identity, which would have been present among the Pomeranians. On the contrary, they just took over the foreign designation used by the Saxons and the Danes since those had conquered the Lutician lands in the 12th century. In a similar way the Griffin dukes perhaps resorted to the notion of ‘Slavs’ used in Helmold of Bosau’s chronicle, which also primarily referred to the Lutician lands west of the lower Oder. The term Slavia, which the Griffin dukes applied in their charters an on their seals, in fact denoted rather the area inhabited by the old Luticians than by contemporary Pomeranians. Thus, Slavia in this context by no means served as designation for the entire territory of the Griffins, let alone a larger ‘Slavic’ community that encompassed much more than just the Polabian and Baltic Slavs. This follows, among others, from the fact that Slavia did not prevail as the only attribute of the dukes’ intitulationes, since in addition several other regional names functioned alongside it. This is also true for the addendum 109 On melioratio terrae in Pomerania and the processes of acculturation connected with it in more detail Petersohn 1988, 59–83; Benl 1988; Piskorski 1990; Piskorski 1995; Piskorski 2007. 110 Graus 1980a, 81; Milliman 2013, 65–93. 111 See Czaplewski 1949; Benl 1986, 12–15; Pandowska 1993, 35–59; Rossignol 2019a, 139–187.

372

Chapter 9

et Cassubie (applied since 1295). All the same, the inclusion of the notion Slavia in the representation of the Griffins’ authority in their charters signals an awareness of the specific, Baltic/Slavic past of at least a part, if not the whole, of the territory of their rule. Given this awareness, which was manifested also by a continuous use of Slavic names for the dukes, the historical policy of the Griffins created in the 14th century their own version of a Slavic Idea. It is visible for example in a text that, in 1347 at the latest, was dedicated to Duke Barnim III, penned by a certain Augustinian eremite from Stargard, named Augustine.112 The primary task of this work, known as Protocollum, was to repulse the then-current claims laid by Poland to make the Bishopric of Kamień Pomorski part of the Archdiocese of Gniezno; or, in a broader perspective, to merge the Duchy of Pomerania into the Kingdom of Poland.113 In a further context, it was also about the political position of the Pomeranian dukes within the group of the Princes of the Realm (Reichsfürsten), into which they had freshly been admitted. Both issues had to be based on historical arguments that would have unambiguously demonstrated the independence and equal status of the Pomeranian rulers. To this end, the Protocollum created a history of the origin (origo) of the Pomeranians and the Griffin dynasty, reaching deeply into antiquity. Before the time of the Maccabeans and Alexander the Great, a man named Graccus was elected, as the story had it, the ruler of the people of Lechites or Vandals, formed jointly by the Pomeranians and the Poles. Once Graccus’s female descendant, Wandela, died childless, the Wandalicum regnum seu imperium fell apart. Its more powerful and more principal part (principalior ac potior pars) came to be given, as regnum, to the Pomeranians, under the reign of King Attila who lived contemporaneously with Alexander the Great, himself being the “first king of the Pomeranians” (primus Pomeranorum rex). The less important part fell to the Poles with the status of a ducatus.114 In this narrative, which is partly based on information from the “Silesian Polish Chronicle” (Chronica Polonorum) and the “Chronicle of the Poles” (Chronica Polonorum) of Vincent Kadłubek the Protocollum took up the very core of the younger Piast proto-history, but by necessity also took into account the fact that Pomerania temporarily had been a part of Piast Poland.115 At the same time, the Protocollum rejected both these versions and opposed the Piast-Polish conviction of the Poles’ superiority, presented in the Polish 112 113 114 115

Notula, 104–137. On the text in more detail: Walczak 1991; Scheibe 1999, 88–109; Rymar 2008, 17–34. Notula, 104–105, 109, 123–124. See Marciniak 1973.

Ideas of Slavic Unity in the Late Middle Ages

373

chronicles, by a similar belief in a Pomeranian or Griffin superiority. Against this backdrop, the earlier unity of Pomerania and Poland, too, was not presented as something positive in terms of (or a part of) an alleged ‘Slavic’ proto-community. On the contrary, the Protocollum clearly reminds of the Pomeranians’ age-old dislike toward the populus Polonorum.116 Thus, the work constructs a ‘Slavic’ tradition based not on a Polish-Pomeranian affinity or kinship but only on a combination of the history of the Pomeranians and the Lutician-Abodrite history, drawing information on the latter from Helmold of Bosau. In this way the Protocollum changed the Vandals into Winuli or Winii seu Winiti, who finally renamed themselves as Pomerani.117 At the same time, the text made demands on the rulers of the Abodrites, among whom some were titled “kings” by Helmold, so that they would appear as rulers from the House of the Griffins. Given the dominant position the Abodrites once had among the Polabian Slavs, which additionally was stressed by the image of a ducatus Slavie, incited the author to conclude that such a privileged position amidst the Slavia is vested also in the current Pomeranian dukes. This claim for Pomerania’s primate in the territories situated west of the Oder (which originally had been non-Pomeranian), derived from the tradition of the Slavic-speaking Lutician-Abodrite ducatus, was, according to the Protocollum, justified also by the fact that the Griffins were the only ones to have maintained until the present day the tradition of giving their offspring Slavic names.118 In this way, by reference to history, the Protocollum explained, on a post factum basis, the use of the term Slavia as part of the official title of the Pomeranian dukes. By emphasizing the Slavic background of the ruling dynasty and the people under its rule, it created at least a germ of a Slavic Idea that served to legitimize, represent in a courtly fashion, and reinforce the Griffin dukes’ position. This concept was obviously not rooted in an autochthonous Slavic-Pomeranian tradition: it was a product of a learned construction that made use of foreign, Polish, and Saxon, sources and emerged later, in the German-Pomeranian environment. This was true in a very similar way also for

116 Notula, 111: Dissencio principum ac populorum predictorum [i.e: Pomeranorum et Polonorum] […] ab antiquissimis temporibus radicata et vsque in hodiernum diem continuata. 117 Notula, 108. 118 Notula, 113: Sed principes Winulorum primi et precipui fuerunt et hodie sunt duces Pomeranorum, prout tum per Chronicas Slavorum patuit, et etiam de se patet. […] Quorum etiam regum et ducum propria nomina, puto Zwentopolch, Pribizlaus, Wartizlaus, Mizlaus, Domizlaus, Barnym, Buchzlaus, que in Cronicis communibus multum frequentata sunt, solum apud principes nostros pomeranos remanserunt sub Christianismo, et usque in hodiernum diem.

374

Chapter 9

the Mecklenburgian version of a rudimentary-and-particular Slavic Idea that was elaborated at the court of the Niklotids. Like the Pomeranian Griffins, also the Niklotids of Mecklenburg, having become Reichsfürsten as well, must have felt like outsiders (reichsfürstliche Außenseiter) or “late-coming dukes in the peripheries of the Holy Roman Empire.”119 They were the Reich’s only dukes with a Slavic-speaking background and with a rather recent pagan past. This situation apparently gave rise to a deficit of legitimation which called for elimination by the use of appropriate symbols and historiographical conceptions. Hence, Pomerania was not the only area where attempts were made at a proactive instrumentalization of a ‘Slavic’ tradition. In Mecklenburg, moreover, a historical conception emerged, almost at the same time, which strove to present the double flaw of the dynasty’s Slavic and pagan origin in a positive light. For this purpose, a genealogical table, painted onto a wall of the Niklotids family monastery in Doberan in the 1340s–60s and listing the deceased Mecklenburg dukes up to John II of Werle († 1337), ascribed the dynasty’s founder, the pagan prince Niklot, a kingly rank. It also described the territory of his reign in a way that he appeared as ruler over the entire Polabian area between the Elbe and the Oder.120 This fiction was continued in the 1360s by two genealogical/historiographic texts  – one called the “Doberan Genealogy” and the other, the “Parchim Genealogy.”121 A more elaborate recollection of the history of the Polabian, i.e., the Abodritian ancestors of the Mecklenburg Niklotids occurred in the “Rhyme Chronicle” by Ernst of Kirchberg. The work, composed of 28,000 verses in Middle High German, preserved in a magnificent illuminated manuscript, was written in 1378/9 and is considered “a typical testimony of ducal desire for representation.”122 It is highly probable that the work was inspired by the culture of the Prague court.123 What is known about the not quite clearly identified author is that he was not a native of Mecklenburg but arrived at the Mecklenburg court from a Central German area shortly before the chronicle was written. The work was penned on commission by Albrecht II, who ruled

119 The quotations from Auge 2016, 132. 120 Nekrologium der ältesten Fürsten Meklenburgs, annex (genelogical table): Niclotus wagirorum cirsipanorum polaborum obotritarum kissinorum ac totius sclauie rex; see also Scheibe 1997, 39–43. 121 Lisch 1846, 10; see also Scheibe 1997, 32–39, 44–46. 122 Scheibe 1997, 25. 123 Mohrmann 1978, 389.

Ideas of Slavic Unity in the Late Middle Ages

375

since 1329, received the title of duke from Charles IV in 1347/8, and completed the territorial consolidation of Mecklenburg.124 Based on Helmold of Bosau, Kirchberg’s “Rhyme Chronicle” created a convincing image of the Abodrite royal lineage, whose reign its author pushed back in time to the first half of the tenth century. As the first king of the Abodrites and the founder of the line of the Mecklenburgian dukes, Kirchberg invented the elsewhere unknown figure of Billug.125 Like the Protocollum of the Augustinian monk from Stargard, Kirchberg with respect to the Pomeranians, created a historical association between the Polabian Slavs and the Poles, not deriving from it, however, a clearly ‘Slavic’ kinship. He sought to attribute to the Abodrite kings, as the ancestors of the Mecklenburg dukes, a possibly large scope of authority. Therefore, he not only encouraged his readers to understand that Billug was king of all Polabian Slavs (konig der Wende, Winthi, Czirczipani, / Tolense, Stodorani / dy Warnani vnd von Custin, / von Obotriten, von Kissin, / Polabin, von Wagiren), but also emphasized that his territory stretched from the Vistula to the estuary of the Elbe.126 The Vistula is mentioned once again (chap. 17), as the story absorbs at some point an almost literal translation of the Pomeranian legend of origin, written by the Stargard-based Augustine, not associating, however, the Pomeranians or the Poles directly with the Abodrites/Mecklenburgians.127 Hence, Kirchberg waived to present the latter as even mightier ones by adopting the Pomeranian and Polish prehistory. Regardless of this, the Mecklenburgian historiographer created an image of history that offensively referred to the tradition of the Polabian Slavs, showed a great ‘Slavic realm that allegedly stretched between the Vistula and the Elbe, and thereby evoked, at least indirectly, an original community of all Polabian Slavs. Similar to the Slavic Ideas created at the same time at the Prague court of Charles IV and within the milieu of the Polish king, the Mecklenburgian variant of an instrumentalization of the ‘Slavic’ tradition and community was designed to serve the topical purposes of a historical policy. It therefore ascribed to the dukes of Mecklenburg an ancient royal background and to 124 Huschner 1995. 125 Mecklenburgische Reimchronik, chap. 10: […] alse Magnus Otto hielt daz rich / zu Rome vnd konig Harolt glich / des riches Thenemarken wielt, / der Wende konigrich do hielt / Byllug by den jaren / vnd was da nicht geboren; / in Polenen her geborin waz, / als ich dy croniken ubir laz. 126 Mecklenburgische Reimchronik, 22: Horet synre lande ende: / von der Wysla hatte es gang, / zu Hamburg uf der Elbe strang, / da nam eyn ende es uffinpar. On the chronicle see also Schmidt 1990; Scheibe 1997, 25–32, 46–60. 127 Mecklenburgische Reimchronik, 35–37.

376

Chapter 9

their ancestors, a great ‘Slavic’ realm embracing large parts of the then-current territories of its neighbours, the Brandenburg March, and the Duchy of Pomerania. This made it a tool of symbolic representation, with which one could repel those neighbours’ strivings for expansion, juxtapose them with the Mecklenburgian right to supremacy, whilst also emphasizing an internal unity of the Mecklenburgian principality that was fragmented into minor duchies resulting from succession divisions. 4

South-Eastern Europe

As demonstrated above, in late medieval East-Central Europe various Slavic Ideas were developed and attempts made by the Bohemian and Polish kings, the Pomeranian and Mecklenburgian dukes to instrumentalize a ‘Slavic’ past for their political purposes. Against this backdrop the question arises whether, and to what extent, any Slavic Idea has been deployed also in late medieval South-Eastern Europe, that is among the Bulgarians, Serbs, Croats, and Bosnians. The question seems all the more relevant as already at the end of the 12th century, long before the first attempts at disseminating a Slavic Idea in East-Central Europe, the “Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja” had created an early version of this kind of historical policy. Was this version taken advantage of in late medieval Croatia and Serbia? Did it ever reach Bosnia? What was the actual role of the Cyrillo-Methodian heritage, whose centre at the end of the 9th and in the 10th centuries was Bulgaria? Did this heritage contribute to the development of any Slavic Idea in the Second Bulgarian Empire – or was it, perhaps, completely irrelevant in this context? 4.1 Bulgaria In Bulgaria, Ivan Asen II had taken the Bulgarian throne in 1218. He was the fifth tsar in line out of the Asen dynasty.128 He quit the alliance with Rome, which finally had not met the Bulgarian expectations, and discontinued the attempts at entering into an agreement with the Crusaders. After seizing Constantinople in 1204, the latter considered themselves the descendants of the Byzantine Empire and continued its anti-Bulgarian policy.129 The tsar and his realm again turned to the Byzantine emperor, who after the fall of Constantinople had his

128 On the early Second Bulgarian Empire see Wolff 1976; Polyviannyi 2000, 131–168; Bozhilov 1994, 27–110; Biliarsky 1998; Madgearu 2017. 129 Dancheva-Vasileva 1985, 57–118; Prinzing 1972, 2–92.

Ideas of Slavic Unity in the Late Middle Ages

377

residence first in Epirus and then in Nicaea. This rapprochement was reinforced by a marriage and the return to the Greek Orthodox Church rewarded by the elevation of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church to the status of a patriarchate, which meant bestowal of autocephaly. Individual Bulgarian mighty men (boyars), together with their families, still mainly sought to tend to their own interests, feeling safe and secure in their fortified castles. And yet, Asen II succeeded, during his long reign (1218–41), not only in maintaining the empire’s unity but also in extending its territory, which finally stretched from the Aegean Sea to the Black Sea, as its maximum reach. The launch of an own monetary system, where the first Bulgarian golden and copper coins were minted, and the revitalization of the trans-Balkan trade with the Adriatic towns, particularly Venice and Dubrovnik, strengthened the Bulgarian economy. However, after Asen II’s death, the mutually competing interests of the boyars came to the fore again. In the period of internal disturbance and external threat – between 1241 and 1261, the country was additionally destabilized by the raids of the Mongols – the boyars’ influence on who was to ascend the throne increased. In 1257, they overthrew Tsar Mikhail II Asen and crowned a boyar who reigned as Constantine I Asen Tikh. To confirm his right to the throne, Constantine got married to Ivan II Asen’s granddaughter. The territorial losses resulting from the wars against Emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos, who had returned to Constantinople in 1261; the devastations carried out by the Mongols, and the profound internal economic and social crisis resulted in another revolt, which broke out in 1277. But even the peasant leader Ivajlo, who during the insurrection took the throne in Tarnovo, was dethroned, and murdered shortly afterward (ca. 1280). A period of decomposition followed, during which the separatist movements, with the Byzantines’ support, were strengthened and tendencies grew to create independent territories. Individual regions were splitting from the country, be it under the leadership of local boyars – such as Mikhail III Shishman, who in Vidin declared himself despot of the northern Bulgarian lands – or resulting from dynastic divisions. Around the middle of the 14th century, when the Turks set about conquering the Balkan Peninsula, the country was divided into four provinces: the principality of Tarnovo, the Principality of Vidin, and the local dominions of the rulers of Balik and Dobrotitsa in Scythia minor (Dobrudža). Thus, the Ottoman conquerors came across no strong resistance in Bulgaria. They seized Adrianople quite soon  – in 1362, and conquered Sofia in 1385. In the spring of 1393, after a three months’ siege, they took the capital city of Tarnovo by storm, and finally seized the entire Bulgarian territory by 1396. With the breakdown of independent military and political structures and the reintegration of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church with the Patriarchate of Constantinople, the

378

Chapter 9

Second Bulgarian Empire disappeared from the map of Europe before the end of the 14th century. The last of the tsars at Tarnovo, Ivan Shishman (1371–93), still called himself “Autocrat of all the Bulgars and Romans.” His predecessor, Ivan Alexander (1331–71), described himself in coin inscriptions as “Tsar of the Bulgars and Greeks” (цар блгарωмъ и гръком). Thus, both kept up the conviction, first expressed during Simeon I’s reign and renewed by Ivan Asen II in the 1230s, that the predestination of the Bulgarian Empire was to continue the Byzantine Empire.130 It was exactly in this sense that the tsars and the hierarchs, since Ivan Asen II’s time, sought to profile Tarnovo, the empire’s capital, into a ‘new Constantinople’ or the ‘Third Rome’.131 This purpose was served, on the one hand, by a special cult of saints, for which the Bulgarian capital appropriated Byzantine saints such as St Paraskeva and St Dmitry.132 On the other hand, the Bulgarian literature, which in the 14th century was in bloom again at the schools of the hesychast Theodosius of Tarnovo and his successor Evtimiy/Euthymius (1375–90), was used as a forum for disseminating ideas compliant with the historical policy then pursued.133 New translations of Byzantine texts, original chronicles and apocryphal writings still showed the Bulgarian history in contexts of biblical stories and universal history, in strict combination with the Byzantine tradition.134 The idea of chosenness of the Bulgarians, propagated earlier by older texts, was continuously cherished. Thus for example a popular text (or oracle) called “The Story of Sybil” (Slovo o Sibile), unambiguously discerned “the Slavs, that is, the Bulgarians” (рωдь словѣне рекше бльгаре) among the nine peoples/ nations of the world, giving them primacy before the Iberians, Greeks, Jews, Franks, Syrians, Arcadians, Saracens, and Tatars, and naming them “the first people.”135 The kindness, hospitability, modesty, and openness toward foreigners attributed to this particular people very much reminds the topoi used by early Byzantine sources when describing Slavic-speaking tribal associations 130 131 132 133

See Dölger 1964, 155–157; Schreiner 1978; Djurić 1980; Angelini 2014b. Tapkova-Zaimova 1983. Polyvjannyj 1999; Biliarsky 2007, 98. On Bulgarian culture and literature during the 13th and 14th centuries (being in principle bilingual, since the educated elites used Bulgarian as well as Greek), see Gjuzelev 1984, 85–86; Gjuzelev 1985, 117–118; Gjuzelev 1993; Polyviannyi, 2000, 169–199. 134 Kaimakamova 2006; Bakalova 2007; Kaimakamova 2011b, 124–128; Kaimakamova 2011c, 238–301; Tapkova-Zaimova/Miltenova 2011, 301–548. 135 Edited in Tapkova-Zaimova/Miltenova 2011, 483–495 (two redactions), the list according to the elder redaction: 485; English translation ibidem, 501–503.

Ideas of Slavic Unity in the Late Middle Ages

379

living on the lower Danube. However, the “Story of Sybil” satisfied itself with this image, as well as with the uncommented identification of “the Slavs, that is, the Bulgarians”, thereby probably only referring to the tradition of Cyrillo-Methodian texts. Neither the “Story of Sybil” nor any other late medieval Bulgarian text offered any consideration on a particular ‘Slavic’ character of Bulgarians. The concept of a ‘Slavic’ community, which evolved at the same time in Bohemia and Poland, played no role in the historical policy of the Second Bulgarian Empire. It seems that the Bulgarians of the 13th and 14th centuries were not aware of it at all, since (except for the above-quoted fragment from the “Story of Sybil”) phrases like ‘Slavs’, ‘Slavic land’, or ‘Slavic language’ did not appear in their writings. Instead, wherever they were used in Byzantine chronicles in an early medieval context, the late medieval Bulgarian translations of these Byzantine texts replaced those phrases by the words “Bulgarians” or “Bulgarian land” – as, for instance, in the Bulgarian version of the chronicle by Symeon Logothete.136 By means of their ethnonym and the name of their country, the Bulgarians thus self-consciously separated themselves from the other Slavic-speaking nationes. The catalogue of peoples listed in an apocalyptic text from the 13th/14th century, the apocryphal treatise Razumnik-ukaz, contrasts them with Rus’ians/Ruthenians, Serbs, Bohemians, Poles, Croats (and other nationes).137 Wherever the Bulgarian self-awareness was complemented with the concept of a ‘supra-national’ community, the point was either an integration of the Valachian and Cumanian population (as in the early official titles of the Asenids) or of the religious community of Orthodox Christians, among whom the Razumnik specified the Greeks, Bulgarians, Georgians, Syrians, and Rus’ians. An all-Slavic community was never the point, however.138 On the contrary, it was the idea of a great Bulgarian-Byzantine Empire that was of paramount importance, for the Second Bulgarian Empire, to an even bigger extent than the First, modelled itself after Byzantium and presented itself as a “Byzantine-type state”.139

136 Kaimakamova 1990, 183–186. 137 Edited in Tapkova-Zaimova/Miltenova 2011, 523–529; the catalogue, which connected the individual peoples (ѥзицы) in order to characterize them with particular animals: 528; English translation: 544–545. 138 See also Angelov 1980, 149; Cheshko 1989. 139 Biljarski 2011b, 499.

380

Chapter 9

4.2 Serbia Medieval Serbia posed itself into the Byzantine tradition as well.140 Although Western Latin influences continued to reach the Serbian mainland from the Romanized towns of coastal Dalmatia and from the Saxon German mining centres (visible, for instance, in the architectures and finishing of Serbian monasteries), during the long reign of Stephen Uroš II Milutin (1282–1321), at the latest, the country experienced intensified Byzantinization.141 The conquest of Byzantine lands, commenced by Stephen Milutin with the seizure of Skopje and large parts of northern Macedonia, considerably accelerated the process. The Byzantine administrative structures, met at the seized territory, were preserved, and soon started influencing the Old Serbian areas. Byzantine terms applied in the fields of administration, taxes, offices, dignities, and institutions were adapted; cultural models and political strategies were imitated. As a result, the administrative, legal, and social structures of the Serbian realm, its Church, culture, and arts in the 14th century were more than ever saturated with Byzantine models and patterns. Finally, Stephen Uroš IV Dušan went as far as to take over the Byzantine imperial idea.142 Stephen Dušan spent the years 1314–21, the important period of his childhood and early youth, in Constantinople, thus being largely subjected to Byzantine socialization.143 After the death of his grandfather Stephen Milutin, he finally could return, with his father Stephen Uroš III, to Serbia, where he reigned together with him since 1322 as a co-ruler or the “younger king” (mladi kralj). Stephen Dušan was the actual winner in the armed clash that in June 1330 resolved to the benefit of Serbia the long-term conflict with Bulgaria. The victory over the Bulgarian tsar Mikhail Shishman resulted in Serbian dominance over the Balkans for fifty years. Immediately after his triumph over the Bulgarians, Stephen Dušan turned against his father, had him imprisoned, and himself accepted the royal crown, in September 1331, from a clan of dissatisfied magnates. To express his gratefulness to the latter and to reward his followers, he continued the territorial expansion.144 In the early 1330s, he conquered the northern Macedonian towns of Strumica, Prilep, and Ohrid. The 1340s saw him make use of the Byzantine civil war between John V Palaiologos and John VI Kantakouzenos to seize the remainder of Macedonia. In this way, also the 140 See above, page 256–7, footnotes 436 and 440 and Maksimović 2011; Bojanin/Krsmanović 2016. 141 On Stephen Milutin’s rule see Mavromaitis 1978, 82–132; Mavromaitis 2018; Stanković 2012; on Milutin’s promoting of Byzantine influences: Piltz 2011. 142 Maksimović 2000, 183–187. 143 Steindorff 2004; Ferjančić/Ćirković 2005. 144 Soulis 1984, 6–27.

Ideas of Slavic Unity in the Late Middle Ages

381

Holy Mount of Athos, with its Hilandar monastery, so important to the Serbs, fell into Serbian hands. In 1347/8, Stephen Dušan went in person to Hilandar, accompanied by his wife and son, the Serbian “window to the Byzantine world,”145 and bestowed generous privileges and donations onto the monasteries that immediately recognized his authority.146 Somewhat later, he also seized Epirus, Thessalia, and a part of central Greece. Here, too, he preserved the existing Byzantine institutions, allowed the Byzantines holding diverse offices to continue (now for Serbia) in their capacities, and retained also the social and economic structures intact. These conquests enabled medieval Serbia to achieve the height of its power and the largest territorial reach in all its history. In the north, the country reached up to the Drina and the Danube, to the Dalmatian coast in the west, and in the south to central Greece, covering moreover the whole of Albania. The extensive diplomatic contacts, reaching as far as to the courts of Charles IV and the pope in Avignon, enabled him to secure externally his conquests through peace treaties and alliances. He obviously dismissed the proposal put forward by the Curia and Emperor Charles IV to consider an ecclesiastical union with Rome, nor he took up Charles’s allusion to a ‘Slavic’ affinity. On the other hand, he did not hide his aspirations for the Byzantine imperial crown. Researchers vary in opinions whether Stephen Dušan, similar to the Bulgarian tsars earlier on, thought only of co-ruling in the East Roman Empire along with the existing Byzantine Empire,147 or perhaps wanted to replace the latter, the seizure of Constantinople having apparently been “the daydream of his life, which he could not dismiss”.148 After all, since 1343, he added to the traditional title in his charters (“King and Autocrat of the entire Serbian land and the coast-land”) the formulation “and of the Greek lands” (grčke strane); in 1343/4, he moreover added, “and of the Bulgarians.” A year later, he began – as the first Serbian ruler – to issue charters in Greek. Finally, in 1346, metropolitan bishop Ioannitius II, who in the same year was made Serbian patriarch, crowned him “Emperor and Autocrat of Serbia and Rhomania” (βασιλευς χαί αυτοχρατωρ Σερβίας χαί Ρωμανία), or, in the Serbian version, “Tsar and Autocrat of the Serbs and the Greeks” (царь и самодьржьць Срблѥмь и Гркомь).149 145 Maksimović 2000, 188. 146 Soulis 1954; Jankovic 2012, 87–88. 147 Ćirković 1996, 119. 148 Jireček 1911, 386; Marjanović-Dušanić/Vojvodić 2016, 30: “Dušan […] clearly wanted to conquer Constantinopel and replace the Byzantine Empire.” 149 Srpski gramoti, no. 15, 26, 30–32, 36, 47, 48, 53, 65, 70, 75; with the addition и Бльгарωмь: no. 38, 66 and Monumenta Serbica, no. 112 (p. 128). See also Maksimović 1999, 45; Maksimović 2000, 189; Oikonomides 1996, 124–125.

382

Chapter 9

Whether he thereby wanted to attain more than just a symbolic integration of the de facto conquered Byzantine and Bulgarian lands may be left open at this point. For the question whether there existed a Slavic Idea in late medieval Serbia, it is crucial that the Serbian tsar perceived himself as the autocrat of a ‘multinational’ state, the lord of the Serbs, Greeks, Bulgarians, and (as per a 1348 charter) Albanians, whilst in no way referring to any ‘Slavic’ character of his realm. As a matter of fact, a considerable portion of the country’s population, namely the Albanians and Valachians, represented indigenous nonSlavic settlement patterns and models of life. Despite an advanced Serbian self-awareness, Stephen Dušan’s realm was not a homogeneous Slavic-speaking empire but a multiethnic one (Slavic-Romanic-Albanian-Greek).150 The ruling elite were aware of their country’s heterogeneity and tried to heal it by attempts at harmonization, i.a. of the common law. To this end, on commission of the tsar, in two takes – in 1349 and 1353 – the “Dušan’s Code” (Dušanov zakonik) was compiled, whose unsystematized articles mainly comprised Byzantine norms of public and criminal law.151 Although the Code took over certain elements of Serbian common law, it finally remained merely a testimony of Byzantinization of the Serbian society, in which no ‘Slavic’ awareness was manifested whatsoever. One of the late manuscripts preserving this text comprises a noteworthy testimony of the tsar himself. In an autobiographical note,152 Dušan recounts how he first became the ruler “of the entire father-land” (вьсои земьли ωтчьства), but afterward, by the grace of God, like the biblical Joseph, “the tsar over a multiplicity of peoples” (цар многым ѥзикомь). He was, as he maintains, elevated “from Kingdom to right-believing empire” (ωт кралѥвьства на православьное царьство), became even the “Emperor of all the right-believers” (цар вьвьсакоу православноую вѣроу), whom due to this – as once Constantine the Great – “the regions, countries and coastal areas as well as the great cities of the Greek empire” had been entrusted. This source clearly articulated Dušan’s universal claim for power and authority. The point-of-reference of this claim was the community of the rightbelieving, i.e., Orthodox Christians, and not a ‘Slavic’ community, the notion of which was completely alien to Stephen Dušan, as it was to the Serbian secular and clerical elite. It is not without reason that the imperial idea and 150 See Naumov 1989, 111–114. 151 Zakonik cara Stefana Dušana, knjiga I–II; Zakonik cara Stefana Dušana 1349 i 1353; Burr 1949/50; Angelini 2012; Angelini 2014a. 152 Edited in Zakonik cara Stefana Dušana 1349 i 1353, 83–86, the following quotations on 85; see also Radojčić 1960.

Ideas of Slavic Unity in the Late Middle Ages

383

the concept of sanctity of the Nemanjid dynasty completely ousted in the 14th century the germs of the Serbian cult of the ‘Apostles of Slavs’, Cyril and Methodius, which was otherwise weak anyway.153 The “Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja”, moreover, with its description of the regnum Slavorum, remained without resonance in high and late medieval Serbia, and had no impact whatsoever on the Old Serbian literature.154 Only one, marginal, text dating to the 14th century, an annotation of a monk named Isaias to his own translation of Pseudo-Dionysius into Old Church Slavonic, mentioned individuals (without quoting their names) who “many and many a year ago, in diverse places within our people,” made attempts at translating the holy books from the Greek “into our language” or, “into our Slavonic language.”155 But this was just an isolated, learned recollection of the Bulgarian roots of the Old Serbian literary language. There was simply no demand for a Slavic Idea in Stephen Dušan’s multiethnic empire. This did not change when, after Dušan’s death in 1355,156 during the reign of his successor Stephen Uroš V, the empire began to break down. The vast trophy territories were soon lost, even the autochthonous Serbian land was gradually fragmented into regional territorial dominions, in which power was taken over by individual governors and their families. The disintegration accelerated when in December 1371, with the childless death of Stephen Uroš, the main line of the Nemanjid dynasty came to an end. Among the competing regional rulers and the clans fighting one another, Lazar Hrebeljanović, who earlier on had served at Stephen Dušan’s court, and his family, proved particularly efficient. Lazar namely defeated or pushed away his rivals Nikola Altomanović and Radić Branković-Rastislalić. By means of a wise matrimonial policy, he had the Serbian, Hungarian, and Bulgarian neighbours won as allies; by way of numerous foundations, he also won over the Serbian Church. However, he was not successful in reuniting the fragmented realm. Indeed, he managed to convince the opponent clan of his son-in-law Vuk Branković, and of Tvrtko I Kotromanić, Ban of Bosnia, to push off the attacks from the Ottomans together with him. Ultimately, however, the split Serbian territories were helpless in the face of the Turkish invasion. In the decisive battle against the army of Sultan Murad I at Kosovo Polje on 15 June 1389 Serbia lost its independence, and Lazar Hrebeljanović lost his life. At the end, he virtually represented the Serbian dominion on his own, for which he was 153 Subotin-Golubovic 1999, 43–45; Stankova 2015. 154 Radojičić 1960, 92. 155 Quoted from An Anthology, 159. 156 Pirivatrić 1997.

384

Chapter 9

later declared saint by the Serbian Church. Seventy years later, Serbia was finally incorporated into the Ottoman Empire.157 4.3 Bosnia The internal rivalry in the Serbian empire and its decay was taken advantage of, among others, by the Bosnian ban Tvrtko.158 He indicated his support for Lazar Hrebeljanović dependent on territorial benefits and annexed to his Bosnian dominion the northern and western parts of Serbia. Finally, in 1377, he crowned himself, in Jajce or in the monastery of Mileševa, “King of the Serbs and Bosnia and Primorje” (краль Срьблѥмь и Боснѣ и Приморию), accepting the crown from the Serbian metropolite.159 Ever since, all the rulers of Bosnia, until the country’s conquest by the Ottomans in 1463, no longer called themselves ‘bans’ but, instead, ‘kings’ of Bosnia, Serbia, and Primorje, even if the kingdom was actually limited to the areas of Bosnia and Zahumlje. In this way, a process initiated in the 12th century eventually resulted in another  – this time, Bosnian – attempt at creating in the Balkans one large empire. In the late 13th/early 14th century, the Kotromanić family took power in Bosnia. Its first representative in the office of ban in central Bosnia was, since ca. 1320, Stephen II Kotromanić.160 He was a grandson of Prijezda and son of Stephen Kotroman, who had married a daughter of the Serbian king Stephen Dragutin. The claims put forth by the Serbian royal house based on that marriage after Stephen Kotroman’s death were successfully turned down and the disruption that followed inside the country was suppressed. Stephen Kotromanić managed to repel the competing Bosnian clans and the claims of the Šubićs who expanded southeastward from Croatian Bribir/Šibenik. Pavao Šubić of Bribir, their mightiest representative, was Ban of Croatia since 1278 and from 1305 onwards titled himself, in parallel, “ruler of the entire Bosnia” (dominus Bosne totius).161 The support of the Hungarian king Charles Robert, among other factors, enabled Stephen Kotromanić to reign with virtually no hindrance until his death in 1353. He not only successfully repelled the permanent attacks from Stephen Dušan, but also considerably expanded 157 Mihaljčić 1984. 158 Overviews on the late medieval Bosnian history offer Ćirković 1964b, 81–341 (Serbian perspective); Klaić 1994, 146–266 (Croatian perspective); Fine 1987, 17–21, 143–149, 275–285, 368–370, 392–395, 453–481; Kopič 2008. 159 The title quoted according to Monumenta Serbica, 86–190, the quotation 190; German translation in Arnold 2002, 71–75, the quotation: 75; on the coronation see Dinić 1932; D. Lovrenović 1999; Ćirković 2014; Filipović 2019; on Tvrtko in more detail: Čorković 1925. 160 Kämpfer 1981. 161 See Budak 2018b.

Ideas of Slavic Unity in the Late Middle Ages

385

his territory; its size almost doubled. In the north, he acquired the lands of Soli, Usora and Donji Kraji; in the west, he reached as far as the coastal area, Primorje and Makarska, and to the valley of the Neretva, making large areas of Zahumlje and Travunia part of Bosnia. Obviously, the local noble families continually had the final say in those areas as well, and life there went on as usual; the Bosnian ban took no action to push the central power through. Nothing changed, either, with respect to the majority Orthodox Church of Zahumlje, and to the Catholic Church in Dalmatia, which was subordinated to the Archbishopric in Split. The expanded area of authority, which roughly corresponded with that of modern Bosnia-Herzegovina, was kept unified by the charisma of the ban; no countrywide administrative structures emerged that would have integrated its heterogeneous parts. There was no useful method at hand to bind more strictly the wayward nobility with the ruler, or to associate the landed estate with a compulsory military service. The Bosnian nobility were much more independent of the ruler compared to the noblemen of, say, Serbia or Bulgaria. Stephen Kotromanić at least began to support the Bosnian mining industry and, similarly as in Serbia, exploited, with participation of German Saxon miners and merchants from Dubrovnik, primarily the rich mines of silver and lead in Srebrenica, Olovo, and Fojnica.162 He thereby contributed to an economic development, which, with time, enabled the country to participate with increasing intensity in transregional trade.163 When Stephen Kotromanić, residing in Visoko, died without male heir in 1353, the Hungarian king Louis I, who somewhat earlier had married the ban’s daughter Elisabeth, received another legal title to Bosnia.164 However, Stephen Kotromanić had taken appropriate steps and appointed his fifteen-year-old nephew Tvrtko as his successor. The latter had to face, however, the resistance from the Bosnian nobility as well as the demands from Hungary to give away to them at least the Croatian lands once conquered by his father. Thus, Tvrtko could initially wield power only as a governor of Hungary, his realm only encompassing Bosnia and Usora. It was not before more than ten years that he attained an established position, gained strength and support from most of the Bosnian noblemen, which allowed him to oppose King Louis’s claims and, finally, obtain active support from Hungary, as well as suppress the internal rebellion in Bosnia that enabled his younger brother Vuk to seize power for some time. 162 Gündisch 1996, 120, 131; Kovačević-Kojić 2010, 27–58. 163 See Ančić/Grgas 2005. 164 On Bosnian-Hungarian relations since the second half of the 14th century see Engel 1997.

386

Chapter 9

The 1370s saw Tvrtko I bring medieval Bosnia to the peak of its power and territorial reach. A grandson of the Serbian princess, he claimed in 1371 the Serbian crown and called himself ever since, in his charters, a descendant of the Nemanjids. His collaboration with Lazar Hrebeljanović brought him considerable benefit of the thitherto-Serbian lands along the rivers of Drina and Lim (including the important Serbian monastery of Mileševa) and the coastal strip between Dubrovnik and Kotor. As a result, Bosnia finally stretched between the Adriatic Sea and the rivers Sava and Drina. Yet, the country reigned by Tvrtko remained but a ‘state held together by personal ties’ (Personenverbandsstaat), one whose existence was founded on the charisma, skills, and military successes of its ruler. Albeit its economy, mining industry, and urban areas clearly underwent a development, there still was no central administration in place and no adequate efforts were made to merge the divergent interests of the numerous local clans, or to form a political elite that would have been bound to the ruler other than on a pro tempore basis, and thus forming a Bosnian natio proper. What is more, different religions functioned within the country: Roman Catholicism in the western coastal and in the Hungarian-influenced northern areas; Orthodox Christianity, shaped by Serbia, in the southern and eastern part of the country; and the so-called Bosnian Church (Crkva bosanska) in the central part of the country. The latter was Bosnia’s decisive cultural element; its origin and characteristics are debated among scholars.165 The medieval Roman Church and the political opponents of the Bosnian bans portrayed the “Bosnian Christians” (Krstjani), as they named themselves, mostly as heretics and claimed that they formed a faction of the Bogomils. As a result, it was decided that the community  – which in 13th-century Western Latin sources is moreover referred to as the ecclesia/ordo Sclavoniae, and in 14th-century Dalmatian sources, glexia di Bosna or patareni/manichaei Bosnenses – had to be covered by missionary activity. Since the late 13th century, especially the Franciscans endeavoured for their ‘re-Catholicization’.166 The agitation against the ‘Bosnian heretics’ was meant, in most cases, to justify the necessity of military interventions, which were deemed necessary as crusade wars. Modern Serbian and Croatian historians have suspected the Bosnian Church of a hidden closeness either to Orthodoxy or to Catholicism, 165 Šanjek 1976; Basler 1982; Stoyanov 2005; Ćošković 2005; Fine 2007; Komantina 2016, 228–246, 334–362 and the contributions in Fenomen ‘krstjani’ u srednjovekovnoj Bosni i Humu. 166 On the activities of the Franscians in Bosnia see Džambo 1991; Lalić 2013; Lovrenović 2017, 79–82.

Ideas of Slavic Unity in the Late Middle Ages

387

and by this ascription tried, consciously or unconsciously, to attribute to the Bosnians either a Serbian or a Croatian identity. However, the teachings of the Krstjani might be assessed in theological and dogmatic terms, and whatever might be thought about their specific hierarchy, which was exclusively formed by a monastic clergy, the Bosnian Church was doubtlessly the most important bond, that formed the individualistically inclined Bosnian family clans as a community and held them together. If one can at all speak of a developed Bosnian identity in the Middle Ages, it was nothing of a ‘Slavic’ or an ethnically conditioned identity.167 Apart from the lineage/clan-based identity, Bosnian self-awareness was primarily connected to the independent community of the Bosnian Christians, who in the liturgy and in their daily lives used and spoke the Slavic language. They would usually use the Glagolitic script and then, a special, Western variety of the Cyrillic alphabet, called the Bosnian Cyrillic. Linked to this peculiar literacy also the Bosnian burial culture developed its unique form. It certainly constitutes another element that can be treated as an expression of a separate late medieval Bosnian identity. Characteristic of it were the unique stone sepulchral stelae called stećci (stećak in singular). Dozens of thousands of those tomb monoliths with inscriptions, usually richly ornamented, have survived, being a specific phenomenon in the field of cultural history, whose origins remain mysterious to this day.168 The kingdom of Bosnia was obviously populated also by Christians of the Catholic and Orthodox rites, so the religious practices and identity of the ‘Bosnian Christians’ could not have an exclusive influence on the country’s denominational character. In fact, due to the confessional/ecclesiastical pluralism and “coexistence of ‘micro-Christianities’”,169 as reflected, among other aspects, in the parallel functioning of the Slavonic, Greek, and Latin alphabets, the unifying impact of the Bosnian Church was quite limited. On their part, the Bosnian rulers never strove to homogenize the diverse literate cultures and religious practices existing in their country, or to create one Bosnian literature and one exclusive Bosnian Church. Hence, Bosnia remained a region split into the quarrelling noble clans, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, into local geographic regions. Moreover, despite topographic closure, the country formed a cultural bridge between the Serbian Byzantine East, the Hungarian Catholic North, and the Mediterranean-Latin West. In this 167 On the incomplete formation of a medieval Bosnian natio see Grafenauer 1966, 43, 45; Naumov 1989, 107–108. 168 I. Lovrenović 1999, 60–71; Duraković 2013; Palameta 2011. 169 Lovrenović 2017, 85.

388

Chapter 9

context, the formation of a Bosnian medieval ‘state’ was always a short-lived success, whereas the shaping of a Bosnian ‘national’ awareness never exceeded the initial phase. The realm of Tvrtko I, too, did not survive his death (1391) for long. The individual interests of the Bosnian noble families soon took the upper hand, and the clans again started waging their mortal struggle against one another, to a considerable anguish of the local population. The Ottomans eventually took a real advantage of it: already in 1398, they took the first serious attempt at an invasion, but had to fight against the Hungarian resistance for some time. Tvrtko’s successors on the Bosnian throne could not efficiently oppose the Turkish conquerors, all the more that a considerable part of Bosnian nobility voluntarily switched to Islam, to preserve their possessions and privileges.170 The 1430s saw southern Bosnia and Vrhbosna fall into Turkish hands, at first. Significantly, it is in this very context – in the face of direct Ottoman threat – that the only, direct, testimony appears that heralds the activation of a Slavic Idea by a Bosnian ruler. Filippo Buonaccorsi, also known as Callimachus, the Italian humanist and author, reports in his 1487 biography of the Polish king Władysław III, who was also king of Hungary since 1440, on the envoys dispatched by the Bosnian king (a rege Bossinae legatio) who arrived at Władysław’s court in Buda to try to persuade him to join them in fighting back the Turks. As Callimachus tells us, they referred to the common origins of both nations, to their common ancestors and language, claiming that all this, what connects the Poles with the Bosnians as if by the bond of blood, namely the language and origin, had made their king greatly rejoice at having learned about the praiseworthy distinction bestowed on Władysław. The envoys broadly dwelled on the benefits that both kindred nations, neighbouring on each other, might and indeed have to draw from a reciprocal and unanimous combination of forces in the face of the menacing horrid Turkish tyranny. They persuaded how important an alliance between Bosnia and Hungary should have been, once both parties solemnly undertake to guard and keep it; at last, they requested that such an alliance be entered – or rather renewed – between the kings of both nations.171

170 Živković 1981, 219–229. 171 Philippi Callimachi Historia, 50–51; see also Hadžijahić 1962, 169.

Ideas of Slavic Unity in the Late Middle Ages

389

The fact that the Bosnian envoys paid homage to Władysław III as the Hungarian king and requested that an alliance be concluded between the king of Bosnia and the king of Hungary, seems to somehow relativize the sense of ‘Slavic’ identity they represented. Their argument might have been based only on the awareness of the linguistic kinship between Poles and Bosnians, but the knowledge of a long and convoluted history of political and dynastic links between Hungary and Bosnia came to the fore. Besides, it cannot be precluded that the Italian author staying at the Krakow court embellished the Polish-Bosnian kinship as he sought to justify the aptness of Władysław III’s actions taken in 1444 in the Balkans.172 In any case, the Slavic Idea, if at all expressed in the aforementioned episode, was once again taken advantage of gaining, in the face of the mightier opponent, an additional argument opting for common action and solidaric defence. The intervention of the joint Polish-Hungarian army in 1443/4 did not halt the Ottomans; at the same time, the Kosača family gained in importance in the south-eastern part of Bosnia (Zahumlje/Hum). Its mightiest representative, Stephen Vukčić Kosača, replaced in 1448 the title of ban by that of herzeg, based on which the name of the later state, Herzegovina, was coined.173 In northern Bosnia, Stephen Tomaš Kotromanić resisted the Turks until 1459 and then requested protection from the Hungarian king Matthias Corvinus. The remainder of the Bosnian territory was conquered in 1463; the last Bosnian king, Stephen Tomašević Kotromanić, son of Stephen Tomaš, reigning since 1461, was killed by Sultan Mehmed himself.174 4.4 Croatia Neither the Bulgarian, nor Serbian, nor Bosnian sources of the High and Late Middle Ages used the term ‘Slavs’ or ‘Slavic’ with regards to the Slavic-speaking population of Bulgaria, Serbia, and Bosnia. Instead, they would always refer to “Bulgarians”, “Serbs”, and “Bosnians”; their respective Churches would be named “Bulgarian”, “Serbian”, or “Bosnian.” The word ‘Slavic’ was used in those sources only in unique cases, when the authors referred to the language or, from a historical perspective to the Cyrillo-Methodian tradition. 172 Buonaccorsi (Philippi Callimachi Historia, 50–51) narrates furthermore, that also envoys of the Serbian despot, who was already in exile, in Buda paid homage to the Hungarian king Władysław and on this occasion discussed with him “lengthy on the same topic as the Bosnians before, that is they referred to their common origin with the Poles and the kinship of their languages” (de cognitione originum ac linguae cum Polonis). 173 Ćirković 1964a. 174 For the last king of Bosnia see the contributions in Tomaševic, Stjepan; on the Osmanian conquest see also the contributions in Osmansko osvajanje bosanske kraljevine.

390

Chapter 9

In Croatia, the term ‘Slavs’/‘Slavic’ was preserved in the name of the region of Slavonia, and was used throughout the Middle Ages to denote a part of the native people. The reasons behind it were analogous to those appearing with the lands inhabited earlier on by the Carantanians and the Polabian and Baltic Slavs, where specific German-Slavic zones of entanglement emerged. Sources with respect to them often used “Slavs”/ “Slavic” as well as “Wends”/“Wendic”. In the area of Germania Slavica these terms were used to differentiate between the Slavic-speaking and the German-speaking people living within the same political unit. In Croatia, the situation was similar. In contrast to Bulgaria, Serbia, and Bosnia, Croatia had turned into a peculiar zone of entanglement, where Latin-, Hungarian, and Slavic-speaking people lived together, who in the country’s north-eastern parts were additionally joined by German-speaking settlers. The multilingual and multicultural entanglement that followed this situation coexisted, like in the Germania Slavica, with a specific social antagonism: on the one hand, there were the Romance-speaking citizens living according to the political, cultural, and economic models of Italian urban communes, along with the Croatian nobility that strove for power to be wielded by clans and collaborating to this end with Hungarian rulers; on the other hand, the country was populated by simple, mostly Slavic-speaking, people. So, the sources produced in the Croatian land in the High and Late Middle Ages, primarily the numerous charters of the Dalmatian towns, written down in Italian and Latin, used the terms ‘Slavs’/‘Slavic’ not in order to express the ethnic differences or describe the Croatian Slavic-speaking population as a ‘national’ community, or a part of a larger ‘Slavdom’. Their use was, instead, based on pragmatic and practical purposes, in order to differentiate between the rural/peasant population and the urban one, the Slavic-speaking people from the Romance-, Hungarian-, and German-speaking residents of the country.175 In this sense, the everyday customs and habits, and the customary laws of the Slavic-speaking population was referred to as mos Sclavorum or usanza schiavona.176 This language use was promoted even further by the strong Hungarian and Venetian influences and the impact the papal Curia had on Catholic Croatia, since together with these influences also the traditional external, tendenciously negative perception of the Slavs reached the country.177

175 Numerous proofs in volumes 2–14 of CDCDS; see also Fine 2006, 84–98, 141–143. 176 CDCDS 2, 158; CDCDS 4, 91–92; see Fine 2006, 84, 90, 136. 177 On the Venetian, Italian and Hungarian perception, which could not be analyzed in the volume, in more detail Fine 2006, 83, 103–128, 143–145.

Ideas of Slavic Unity in the Late Middle Ages

391

In this context, the clergymen who celebrated the Holy Mass in Slavonic and used the Glagolitic alphabet, for instance, were called with a negative connotation presbyteri sclavici.178 Both these priests and the faithful whom they served, must have associated a specific sense of identity, ecclesiastical and regional, with the use of the Slavic language. However, the Slavic liturgy, which was limited to a few monasteries and churches, and the local use of the Glagolitic script was not accompanied, as some modern scholars maintain, by a common “collective Slavic identity”179 that would have spread across the entire Slavic-speaking Croatian society. The course of political and cultural life was decided by the elite whose members considered themselves Croats and felt bound, primarily, to the traditions of their own families and lineages.180 Those families continuously entered with one another into alliances targeted against the Hungarian king; since the 14th century, they represented themselves as descendants of “the twelve noble families of Croatia” (XII nobiles sapienciores tribubus Chroacie), which in the year 1102 laid the foundations for their autonomy, making the Hungarian king enter into an agreement (pacta conventa) with them.181 Seeing in this tradition an additional confirmation of their actions and convictions, the Croatian magnates resolved the country’s internal affairs in the areas of administration, judiciary, and merchandise policies, represented their interests in their own parliament, and created their own tax, monetary, and military systems. Moreover, in the area of culture they maintained great independence; as a result, the ‘national’ awareness of that elite, their sense of identity as the Croatian natio, did not have to draw only on the memory of a once-independent kingdom and its ‘national kings’ in the Late Middle Ages.182 The cultural communication and the representation of the elite in question was mainly expressed in Latin and was modelled after the Roman Catholic, Latin-language intellectual life. For them, ‘Slavicity’ did not play a considerable part, even though certain Croatian magnates, facing the common use of the terms ‘Slavs’/‘Slavic’ to describe the Slavic-speaking rural population or due to the geographic name of “Slavonia” occasionally called themselves a Sclavus 178 Verkholantsev 2014, 36. 179 Verkholantsev 2014, 37. 180 On the late medieval Croatian nobility in more detail Karbić 2008; Grgin 2009; Majnarić 2014; Majnarić 2015. 181 The Pacta conventa, written possibly in the second half of the 14th century, edited in: CDCDS 2, 8–9, the quotation: 8; see also Klaić 1960a; Jurćić 1969. 182 On the formation of a late medieval Croatian self-awareness in more detail Tolstoi 1989b; Akimova 1989; Akimova 1995; Fine 2006, 71–170.

392

Chapter 9

or de Sclavonia.183 Individual magnate families, however, much more willingly evoked, from the 15th century onward, their fictitious Roman-Italian genealogies than a ‘Slavic’ background. The lords at Krk assumed the surname of Frankopan, after the Italian Frangipani; the Babonićs referred to the Roman Orsinis; the Gušići followed the Torquata-Manlia lineage.184 In his chronicle of which today only the account from the period 1290–1330 has survived, Miha Madijev derived the origins of the nobility in his native town of Split from the Trojans.185 Irrespective of this, the fact that in the Croatian environment the term ‘Slavs’/’Slavic’ – as opposed to other countries – remained present (be it only as a pragmatic-nominal marker) and that only here in the form of Glagolitism a part of the Western Church cherished the Cyrillo-Methodian legacy, certainly created specific conditions that prompted Croatia to become the very place where early humanism (taking up i.a. the regnum Slavorum of the Priest of Duklja) elaborated the first modern-era variant of a Slavic Idea.186 5

Kievan Rus’ and Muscovy

In the heterogeneous and strongly diversified Rus’, after the caesura of the Mongolian invasion of 1237–40, the focus of political, economic, and social life began to move from the Kievan south to other regions. Kiev, Pereiaslavl, and Chernigov declined and lost in significance as the centres of independent principalities. In their places, the dominance in the “Rus’ian lands” became the object of the endeavours of, primarily, the princes of south-western and north-eastern centres such as Halych/Volhynia and Vladimir/Suzdal; soon, also Tver and Moscow.187 They stuck to the older concept of unity of the realm, which was embodied by the Rurikid dynasty, the Orthodox faith or the metropolis of Kiev, and the name of the country. In fact, it was on this very concept that they based their claims. The name of ‘Rus’’ was used in this context as a term for a fictitious realm as well as to denote the individual principalities. In each case, this was 183 See Fine 2006, 84, 135. 184 Klaić 1976, 343; on the clans see also: Marković 2012; Kekez 2010. 185 Mica Madii de Barbazanis, 375. 186 See above pp. 1–2. It would be interesting to see whether or to what extent the notion of a special kinship of the Croats and Czechs, expressed by the Croatian Dominican Ivan Stojković/John of Ragusa (1395/1396–1448) in the context of the conflict with the Hussites, reflected a certain Slavic Idea; see Fine 2006, 135. 187 Rüß 1981, 339–351; Kuchkin 1984; Klug 1985; Limonov 1987; Gorskij 1996; Pickhan 2009.

Ideas of Slavic Unity in the Late Middle Ages

393

associated with the strife for identifying one’s own principality with the whole of Rus’, or for profiling it as the centre of the latter. This trend intensified in the 14th century, especially in the north-east, where the territorial name Rus’ was increasingly often used with respect to Vladimir-Suzdal; by the end of the 15th century, the name encompassed the Grand Principality of Moscow.188 In parallel, the ethnonym Rus’ was more and more frequently used as the name of the inhabitants of individual principalities. This process was probably accelerated by the inclusion of the western parts of the Eastern Slavic linguistic area into the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Kingdom of Poland; the direct confrontation between Eastern Slavs, on the one hand, and the Lithuanians and Poles, on the other hand, might have had a similar effect.189 Regardless of all this, individual principalities and their residents were differentiated in the late 13th/early 14th centuries primarily by their respective individual or regional names: the names such as, for instance, the “Suzdal Land” and “Suzdalians”, or the “Novgorod Land” and “Novgorodians” were still in use.190 In the Rus’ian principalities, politically and territorially circumscribed as they were, local/regional historiographic works were created from the 12th century onwards, until the later medieval period. Each of them started their description of the history from the second decade of the 12th century, based upon the “Tale of Bygone Years” (Povest’ vremennych let).191 Thereby, also the Rus’ian variant of the Slavic Idea as created in the Tale was taken over into the local/regional historical tradition. All the same, it seems that the knowledge, so transmitted, on an alleged primeval community of the Slavs and their alleged Balkan primordial homeland did not inform the late medieval Rus’ian principalities. It remained a ‘frozen’, mechanically acquired knowledge with no significance for the identity-shaping process in the regional principalities. The mentioned chronicles focused too much on individual regions and their ruling princely families and political elites, so that the Slavic Idea proposed by the “Tale of Bygone Years” could not trigger any interest in the late medieval principalities, let alone to fulfil a function as part of a historical 188 Fennell 1968; Nitsche 1981, 576–614; Choroškevič 2004. 189 On the high and late medieval identity discourse in Rus’ see Floria 1995a; for the further development coined by disintegration of the concept of a united Rus’ and her subsequent transformation into new political, ethnic, confessional and cultural conditions see Erusalimskii 2008 and the contributions in Drevniaia Rus’ posle Drevnei Rusi and Narrativy rusi konca XV – serediny XVIII v. 190 Numerous examples in the texts of Pamiatniki literatury Drevnei Rusi XIII veka and Pamiatniki literatury Drevnei Rusi XIV-seredina XV veka. 191 On the late medieval regional/local historiography see Shakhmatov 1938; Likhachev 1947, 173–288; Limonov 1967; Grabmüller 1975.

394

Chapter 9

policy.192 As a matter of fact, the historiographies of the individual principalities, as well as other relevant sources, primarily manifested a regional identity. Those authors who had broader interests regarded the “Rus’ian lands” as a patrimony of the Rurikid dynasty. Indeed, the subjects of the latter were called “the Rus’”, by those authors, but none of the sources ever showed them as a particular (East) ‘Slavic’ community, nor did they associate them with any other Slavic-speaking community. The ecclesiastical relations maintained in the 14th and 15th centuries with Bulgarian and Serbian hierarchy members and monks (from the Mount Athos, in the first place) changed nothing in this respect.193 The point-of-reference was Orthodox Christianity shaped by the oikumene of the Byzantine Commonwealth, rather than by a concept of a peculiar ‘Slavic’ community, discovered and cherished as part of a Slavic Idea.194 192 Interestingly enough the so-called Zadonshchina, a narration on Grand Prince Dmitrij Ivanovič, written at the end of the 14th century by a cleric from Riazan, referred to the biblical roots of Rus’ as “the parts of Japheth, the son of Noah, from whom the famous Rus came from” (жребия Афетовa, сына Ноева от него же родися Руcь преславная), but did not take up the narration offered by the “Tale of Bygone Years” on the Slavic primordial homeland and the expansion of the original Slavic community over the whole of Eastern Europe; Adrianova-Peretc 1947, 193. 193 Krsmanović 2011; Fennell 2012. 194 On the so-called second “South Slavonic influence” connected to this phenomenon see Meyendorff 2007; on the Bulgarian George (Grigori) Tsamblak, who came to Rus’ from Serbia in 1416 taking over the office of metropolite of Kiev and Lithuania, see Thomson 1998; Stradomski 2008.

Chapter 10

Epilogue: The Making of the Slavs in the Middle Ages The point of departure for the research summarized in this last chapter was the observation that the modern idea or concept of ‘Slavs’ was primarily a function of scholarly generalization made by Cultural Studies and a product of political instrumentalization. The making and staging of a Slavic community, a common Slavic primordial homeland (Urheimat), language, culture, and history, and even biological affinity of all speakers of a Slavic language ultimately led to the emergence of a modern Slavic Idea, as is shown in Chapter 1.1 During the 19th and 20th centuries, the said idea was taken advantage of as a “blurred background for the projections of diverse philosophical theories, nationalistic ideologies, and scientific, geopolitical or geo-poetic arguments.”2 It offered a framework for linguistic and cultural research that already for pragmatic reasons encompassed the Slavic-speaking world in its entirety;3 it provided incentives for fiction writers, composers, and visual artists to create myths but was also a source of political resources in the form of supra-national identity models that could have been activated at any moment.4 In this sense, the modern Slavic Idea was a concept, ‘Slavs’ and ‘Slavdom’ being an imagined community. ‘Imagined community’, thereby, does not mean something deceitfully fabricated, an altogether unreal fantasy; what is meant by using this term is the creation of a real though ideational community. ‘Imagined community’, thus, is far from being untrue; instead, it is part and parcel of real political, social, and cultural discourses – discourses on identity as well as on national and supranational affinities.5 Hence, its related images and ideas were not merely unreal fantasies but constituted as elements of 1 The outline of the prologue draws on Mühle 2017, 89–119. 2 Glanc/Voß 2016, 7. 3 See Diels 1963, 84, who emphasized that for German and French scholars “a broad concept of Slavic philology was self-evident already due to the fact that at German and French universities initially only one single person represented the subject, which therefore had to be covered in its entirety.” Because of this Slavic philology was the very speciality, “that kept the notion of a united Slavic tribe alive most successfully”; in fact Slavic philology by looking at the language unearthed a unity, “that can not be proved by any other scholarly discipline.” 4 See Troebst 2013, 30. 5 Anderson 1996, 12–16.

© Eduard Mühle, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004536746_011

396

Chapter 10

these discourses a social reality that was essential in certain periods to certain parts of the society. What does this knowledge mean  – such was the leading question posed in Chapter 2 – for the understanding of the medieval Slavic-speaking world? Were ‘Slavs’ an ‘imagined community’ also between the 6th and the 15th centuries? Were the Slavic-speaking societies in the pre-modern era still an “ontic unity” (ontyczna jedność),6 collectivity founded upon kinship and affinity, with shared historical and/or biological roots – contrary to what they have been in the modern period? When the name ‘Slavs’ entered the world in the 6th century, in the form of the Greek Sklavenoi, it denoted a rather small group of people who invaded the Byzantine Empire from the northern bank of the Danube River. There is rather convincing evidence that the Byzantine chroniclers did not coin their own term then but took over the name those people used to call themselves. As opposed to the Germani, which since the very beginning was an externally given name, used by the Romans in reference to quite heterogeneous associations of persons but never used by the latter,7 the name ‘Slavs’ was obviously rooted in a group of people who called themselves so (*slov-ěne). Apparently, those first Slavs were not a Byzantine fabrication but some concrete, although geographically limited, historical reality. Subsequently  – as is shown in Chapter 3, based on Byzantine, Latin, and Oriental sources  – between the 6th and 9th centuries, this reality gained extraordinary efficacy. It was then that it became the departure point for an abstract concept8 that has been in use until our day. The process kicked off when the Byzantines started using the name Sklavenoi also to denote other groups appearing in the Balkans, which probably called themselves otherwise, whereas the Latin-language world took over the Byzantine term and applied it with other groups of people from the eastern part of Central Europe. However, also the Latin word Sclaveni/Sclavi(ni) initially meant only the Slavic-speaking groups residing in the Balkans (Sklavenoi). Only since the middle of the 7th century, the name ‘Slavs’ was used in Latin sources also 6 Gajda 2002, 97; see also Filjuškin 1997, 317. 7 Pohl 2018a, 125–126; for the deconstruction of the concept of “Germandom” see Zientara 1997, 36; Jarnut 2004; Pohl 2000b, 45–51; Lund 2001, 29–37; Pohl 2004b; Mohr 2005, 15; Plassmann 2006, 20–21; see also Fehr 2010, 4, 785–788 who emphasizes that neither the concept of “Germans” (Germanen) nor the concept of “Romans” (Romanen) designated “any large self-conscious cultural groups” (sich selbst bewusste kulturelle Großgruppen). 8 The term “abstraction” with regard to the early Middle Ages now used also by Pohl 2018a, 123: “[…] the image of a Slavic people or of a Slavic family of peoples in the early Middle Ages […] is already an abstraction.”

Epilogue

397

with respect to associations of persons operating outside the Byzantine environment. This is how the next stage of the Byzantine abstraction occurred. It was based on the observation that groups of people appearing among the Merovingians, Lombards, and Avars were linguistically very close to the associations described by the Byzantine as Sklavenoi. Thus, the observed reality of linguistic affinity became the concrete foundation for a broader concept, and use of the name ‘Slavs’.9 On the other hand, the Franconian and Lombardian transfer of the name Sclavi to communities neighbouring east of their realms resulted, in parallel, from ignorance and heterostereotypes. Already in the Byzantine perception of the Sklavenoi, the name functioned from its very beginning as a negative stereotype, which could be instrumentalized for the purposes of internal policy. Based on ethnographic models and deeply rooted topoi, early Byzantine authors portrayed the Empire’s enemies as homogenous groups, seeing no plurality or hybridity within them.10 Also this approach and semantic weight of the name ‘Slavs’ got across from Byzantium to the countries of the Merovingians, Lombards, and Carolingians. In the Carolingian sources dating to the late 8th and 9th centuries, Sclavi were, above all, the unfamiliar and therefore horrid neighbours from the East, unbaptized, savage, bloodthirsty, and murderous enemies. The word Sclavi functioned in this perception as synonymous to barbari. This homogenizing term was, therefore, an abstract border that delimited (the authors’) own identity and the alien identity. The underlying foundation of the negative stereotype consisted, however, of almost no real contact or concrete knowledge. It was mostly based on intellectual considerations informed by ancient and biblical topoi. In this way, yet another degree of abstraction was attained. The Arabic name of Slavs, Ṣaqāliba, was initially connected to Byzantine Sklavenoi, too. It referred in this case to Slavic-speaking people who have been forcibly resettled during the Byzantine-Arab conflicts of the 7th century or Byzantine mercenaries who defected to the Abbasids. However, the name, taken over from Byzantium, soon ceased to refer to the Slavic-speaking people 9

See the role of the Arabic language for the semantic change of the term ʿ⁠arab into an ethnonym, Nagel 1981, 23–24: “First the language of the nomads developed into a lingua franca called arabī, which then gave its name to the people ʿ⁠Arab”; similarily also Guitoo 2015, 45. 10 For the application of the concepts of hybridity and transculturality by recent medieval research showing that medieval groups never were closed, coherent entities see the collective volumes Mittelalter im Labor; Hybride Kulturen im mittelalterlichen Europa; Integration und Desintegration der Kulturen im europäischen Mittelalter; Hybrid Identities as well as Zorgati 2012.

398

Chapter 10

settled in Syria only. In the more distant Orient, in time, the word Ṣaqāliba came to denote generally the white- or pale-skinned inhabitants of Central and/or Eastern Europe. With use of this term, whose tint was often negative as well, medieval Arabian scientists created their own variant of the abstract concept in question. It cannot be established if, when, to what extent, and how the groups of people, described in Byzantine, Latin, and Arab/Persian sources as ‘Slavs’ took over between the 6th and 8th/9th centuries the name used by the warrior associations of Sklavenoi residing north of the Danube – that is, whether they started calling themselves ‘Slavs’. Until the end of the 9th century, there are no self-testimonies available to give a positive answer to this question. In parallel, since the late 8th/9th century external sources feature, with increasing frequency, individual names of Slavic-speaking groups, which speaks in favour of the argument that their members perceived themselves rather as Bohemians or Moravians, Abodrites or Hevellians, Carantanians or Croats, etc., than as ‘Slavs’. The fact that since the 9th/10th century individual ethnonyms, functioning as the primary foreign term, ousted with increasing success the collective name of Sclavi or Sklavenoi, ensued from the better and better knowledge of the non-Slavic neighbours inhabitating the eastern part of Europe (the state of this knowledge in the later medieval period is investigated in Chapter 8). This, again, confirms the fact that the name ‘Slavs’ was an abstract concept, with the use of which external observers tried to cover diverse aspects: associations with different traditions, diverse settlement groups, individual cultural associations, as well as varied political and social structures. Those heterogeneous groups, described externally as ‘Slavs’, in reality were bound together only by their linguistic affinity (which, however, was never clearly emphasized in the early medieval sources; at best, it was indirectly noticed in the name) and by the external perception of them as aliens, ‘others’, or barbarians – and nothing else.11 The model of an ‘early Slavic material culture’ elaborated by archaeology, a culture that would have been shared by all the Slavic-speaking population groups, cannot undermine the result of the research conducted in this study. The idea that the world of Slavic-speaking groups of people, described in Chapter 4 in the light of modern research, formed an organic unity or 11 In this sense already Meillet 1921; Baudouin de Courtenay 1925; Trubeckoj 1927, 93: “Slavdom is not a ethnopsychological, anthropological, ethnographical or culturalhistorical term, but a linguistic term. It is the language and only the language that connects the Slavs”; see also Jacobson 1985, 2 and Portal 1971, 5–6, 20.

Epilogue

399

constituted a Slavic identity, owing to several common characteristics, remains a modern scientific construct.12 The finds and results of archaeological investigations may be the source of extensive information on the bygone material culture but cannot give an insight into the awareness of the people who have left behind the artefacts. Instead, the observed similarities in the material culture have to be explained rather in terms of external – climatic, geographic, topographic – conditions, utilitarian aspects, practical necessity, than as a conscious endeavour to express a common Slavic identity of the people inhabiting the enormous territory of Eastern Europe. More recent archaeological research has already provided data confirming that the material heritage of Slavic-speaking groups was not as heterogeneous as the image of the so-called early Slavic culture might suggest.13 This book could merely hint at this issue. A closer consideration of the topic  – with a detailed analysis, based on focused research into the history of the relevant scholarship, of when, why, and how the early Slavic culture was created and formed as a construct of modern science and, thereby, as a specific manifestation of the modern Slavic Idea14 – remains a task for further research.15 The foreign designations and exonyms used by the external/foreign sources must have exerted an influence on those whom they concerned. External definitions and one’s own identity are synthesized in the process of forming a social and cultural identity and the related appropriate concept of community.16 No social group defines itself solely from its own perspective; instead, the consciousness of each group is shaped in confrontation with, and through attempts at separating itself, from the ‘others’, whereas the vision of those ‘others’ also has a certain impact on it. Hence, since the 9th century, Slavic-speaking groups or rather their elites occasionally took over the collective name of ‘Slavs’ used by Latin- and Greek-language others as an attribute of their own identity. However, this only took place sporadically, in concrete situations and, in the first place, in instances of contact and communication 12 Already Zientara 1997, 35 hinted to the important question, whether a community “existed as an independent ethnic formation by its own understanding […], whether it was highlighted and regarded a certain unity only by its neighbours or whether it eventually was only made by archaeologists and linguists of our modern times.” 13 See above Chapter 2, footnote 6. 14 See Urbańczyk 2000a; Urbańczyk 2009; Curta 2001a; Curta 2002; Stamati 2019. 15 A stimulating impulse offers Schneidmüller 2010a, 409, who argues that “history of science […] should not begin only with the national and nationalistic interpretive cartels of the 19th and 20th centuries, but take into account the long deformations of memory over all periods. Then it will discover the shaping force, the Middle Ages have exerted on the cognitive ability and contrasts within the European cultures.” 16 See Goetz 2014.

400

Chapter 10

with non-Slavic others – all in all, with no significant influence on the shaping of the identities concerned. As research into the successful and unsuccessful processes of medieval ‘state-formation’ and ‘nation-building’ among Slavic-speaking peoples has demonstrated (Chapters 5 to 7), in none of the cases did the exonym ‘Slavs’ become the endonym of any of the regna established in East-Central, Eastern, or South-Eastern Europe. None of the Slavic-speaking communities that developed their own medieval understanding of natio tied their sense of self-awareness and identity to the name ‘Slavs’. Rather, all the regna and nationes shaped their own, individual names, for which the term ‘Slavic’ was of no relevance whatsoever – even as an additional auxiliary element describing a given group. In the processes of ‘state-formation’ and ‘nation-building’ seen between the 9th and 12th/13th centuries, which were accompanied by gradual Christianization, individual Slavic-speaking societies produced their own political, social, cultural, and ‘national’ identities. However, rather than ethnic identity and language, it was political and social concepts such as dynasty, regnum, and patria that proved crucial in this process. In addition, these processes were driven to a considerable extent by religious and eschatological ideas. Thus, the spiritual and secular elites, the carriers of ‘national’ identities, assumed that they were led by dynasties duly legitimized by God, that their homeland was defined by a clearly specified territory, and that they were members of a natio, chosen by Godly Providence to pursue a special mission, and thereby as a ‘new Israel’ elevated above all the other nationes. Such concepts served the individual Slavic-speaking regna and nationes to mark their singularity versus the others, not least the other Slavic-speaking realms; that is their natio-awareness or ‘national’ identity/individuality was not driven by what connected (Slavic-speaking) people and was common to them (to all Slavic-speaking people) but emphasized what divided them and was characteristic of one’s own people (political or social group). Even if the external term ‘Slavs’ would have given an impulse for the development of a specific Slavic identity (for which there is no clear evidence, apart from the limited effects of the Cyrillo-Methodian mission), individual natio-forming processes nipped it in the bud everywhere. Given the context of becoming a natio within individual Slavic-speaking communities, there was no striving for forming a Slavic identity, nor was there any such necessity. On the contrary, inspired by the external image of the Slavs, which perforce reflected the negative heterostereotypes prevalent among the non-Slavic neighbours, a Slavic identity would only pose an obstacle to a successful ‘national’ emancipation. The fact that the Polabian Slavs, to whom the Central and Northern European use of the name ‘Slavs’ was restricted since the 11th century, created no nationes, comes as a confirmation of this statement, as does the political

Epilogue

401

overlaying of the Slavic-speaking population in the Western Balkans, designed by the Hungarians and the Venetians – the population that was usually termed in the Venetian/Italian and Hungarian sources also as ‘Slavs’ (Sclavi, Schiavoni). It is not surprising, then, that neither the individual Slavic-speaking communities nor the Slavic-speaking people in general developed during the Middle Ages an awareness of belonging to or affinity with ‘Slavdom’ in terms of a community of all the speakers of a Slavic language. Even the relative linguistic closeness did not cause that they would have experienced a suprapersonal community and did not contribute to the development of an all-Slavic identity. At no moment during the Middle Ages was there any sense of a ‘we’ that would have been shared by all the speakers of a Slavic language.17 What is to be observed instead also during the Middle Ages from time to time, are attempts at creating, a priori, artificial images of a common Urheimat, of shared ancestors, of a common history and culture. The attempts at constituting a Slavic community, as presented in Chapters 5.4., 6.4., 7.3. and 9. were rooted in biblical motifs, early medieval non-Slavic historiographic texts, and indigenous legends created in the period concerned. The first – and, certainly, the most efficient – attempt at creating a clearly delimited Slavic culture and identity based on the Slavic-speaking community took place in the last three decades of the 9th and the first quarter of the 10th centuries. It stemmed from the missionary activities of Constantine/Cyril and Methodius pursued in Moravia and Pannonia. Its goal was to include some of the Slavic-speaking societies into the world of Greek Christianity. To achieve this, an artificial literary language, Old Church Slavonic, was created: it not only obscured the dialects used previously in the region but became itself the basis for a linguistically and culturally independent ecclesiastical/religious life in which a ‘Slav’ was the one who had a command of the new Slavonic alphabet and could read books in Slavic.18 The Slavic liturgy was ousted from Moravia as early as the 880s, whereas in Bulgaria, an Old Church Slavonic literature developed extensively. From those areas, the liturgy and the literary output reached Serbia and subsequently Kievan Rus’, becoming the major manifestation of the (spiritual/religious) Slavic identity, which has been influencing considerable parts of the Slavic-speaking world until today. Like those who created the Slavic script and founded the Old Church Slavonic culture, the creators of other medieval Slavic Ideas were often aliens arriving from the outside into Slavic-speaking societies and, once there, elaborated  – whether on commission of their hosts or on their own initiative  – concrete conceptions of Slavic community. This circumstance 17 18

See Hellmann 1958, 321; Schreiner 1980, 143. Homza 2018, 30–31.

402

Chapter 10

alone indicates that the construction and dissemination of the appropriate image and concepts was not something natural or indigenous but were done on somebody’s command, usually following the wish of the secular ruler. Like the Cyrillo-Methodian mission and its consequences, also the later concepts of a ‘Slavic’ community and a common ‘Slavic’ past were only oriented toward a part of the Slavic-speaking world  – a smaller or larger one; in any case, a limited one. None of them encompassed the speakers of a Slavic language in their entirety. This is a common feature of the medieval Slavic ideas and their modern variants. As is shown by the analysis of the historical contexts, the narrative forms, and the intended effects of the relevant texts written between the 12th and the 15th century, yet another common element linking the medieval Slavic Ideas with their modern counterparts is the fact that also the medieval concepts of Slavic community always served concrete political interests. The motifs behind the fabrication of learned medieval fictions, which as a rule strove to discover the associations with a remote past, were rooted in the historical policies. Those “constructs of the past […] from later yearnings”,19 however, did not reach broader audiences but, instead, were transmitted within the narrow circles of clerical and secular elites. Indeed, as articulations of the political and cultural discourse they “assumed the shape of a social reality anchored in the world”, but they never became a political reality associated with a concrete geographical space.20 Thus, also in the Middle Ages the ‘Slavs’ constituted an ‘imagined community’ that was from time to time, in certain concrete situations, staged and instrumentalized (though perhaps not exclusively) for legitimation-related purposes. The Dalmatian humanist Vinko Pribojević, who in 1525 in Hvar, delivered his oration praising Slavdom, was thus not the first author of a Slavic Idea. In fact, he made himself part of a continuous discourse that reached far back into the Middle Ages.21 The extremely interesting issue of the ways in which the medieval images and concepts of ‘Slavs’, studied in this book, influenced the modern era and the question of how their topoi contributed to the shaping of the modern Slavic Ideas would call for a separate analysis. It would need to begin, again, on the verge of the 16th century, featuring Vinko Pribojević and others, and investigate in detail the modern continuations and variations of the Slavic Idea into the present. 19 Schneidmüller 2010a, 408: Vergangenheitskonstrukte […] aus späteren Sehnsüchten heraus. 20 Quotation from Geelhaar 2015, 14. 21 On the continuity between medieval and modern manifestations of collective identities see e.g. Innes 2012, 541.

Bibliography

Primary Sources

Abd as-Salam Harun in Nawadir al-mahtutat. Vol. 4. al-Qāhira: Laǧnat at-Taʾlīf wa-’t-Tarǧama wa-’n-Našr, 1954. Abenteurer auf dem Kaiserthron. Die Regierungszeit der Kaiser Alexios II, Andronikos und Isaak Angelos (1180–1195) aus dem Geschichtswerk des Niketas Choniates, ed. Franz Grabler. Graz: Styria, 1958. Adam von Bremen, Hamburgische Kirchengeschichte, ed. Bernhard Schmeidler, MGH SS rer. Germ. 2. Hannover: Hahn, 1917. Ademari Cabannensis Chronicon, ed. Pascale Bourgain et al. Turnhout: Brepols, 1999. Agathiae Myrinaei historiarum libri quinque, ed. Rudolf Keydell. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1967. Alberti Magni De natura locorum, In B. Alberti Magni opera omnia. Vol. 9, ed. August Borgnet, pp. 527–584. Paris: Vivès, 1890. Al-Bīrūnī, Kitāb taḥdīd nihāyāt al-amākin li-taṣḩīḩ masāfat al-masākin, eds. Pavel G. Bulgakov and Ibrahim Ahmad. al-Qāhira: Laǧnat at-Ta’līf wa-’t-Tarǧama wa-’n-Našr, 1964. An Anthology of Church Slavonic Texts of Western (Czech) Origin, ed. František V. Mareš. Munich: Fink, 1979. An Eleventh-Century Egyptian Guide to the Universe. The Book of Curiosities, ed. Yossef Rapoport, Emilie Savage-Smith. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Annales Altahenses maiores, ed. Edmund Oefele, MGH SS rer. Germ. 4. Hannover: Hahn, 1891. Annales Cracovienses priores cum kalendario, ed. Zofia Kozłowska-Budkowa, MPH SN 5. Warszawa: PWN, 1978. Annales de Saint Bertin, ed. Félix Grat et al. Paris: C. Klincksieck, 1964. Annales Fuldenses sive Annales regni Francorum orientalis, ed. Georg Heinrich Pertz, Friedrich Kurze, MGH SS rer. Germ. 7. Hannover: Hahn, 1891. Annales Gradicenses et Opatovisenses, ed. Wilhelm Wattenbach, MGH SS 17. Hannover: Hahn, 1861, pp. 643–653. Annales Hildesheimenses, ed. Georg Waitz, MGH SS 8. Hannover: Hahn, 1878. Annales Quedlinburgenses, ed. Martina Giese, MGH SS rer. Germ. 72. Hannover: Hahn, 2004. Annales regni Francorum inde a. 741 usque ad 829, qui dicuntur Annales Laurissenses maiores et Einhardi, ed. Georg Heinrich Pertz, Friedrich Kurze, MGH SS rer. Germ. 6. Hannover: Hahn, 1895.

404

Bibliography

Annales Tiliani, ed. Georg Heinrich Pertz, MGH SS 1. Hannover: Hahn, 1826, pp. 219–224. Anonymi Descriptio Europae Orientalis, ed. Olgierd Górka. Cracow: Gebethner et socii, 1916. Anonymon Biblion Taktikon/Anonymous Book on Tactics. In Three Byzantine Military Treatises, Text, Translation, and Notes, ed. George Dennis. Washington D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1985. Arabische Berichte von Gesandten an germanische Fürstenhöfe aus dem 9. und 10. Jahrhundert, ed. Georg Jacob. Berlin/Leipzig: de Gruyter, 1927. Archdeacon Thomas of Split: History of the Bishops of Salona and Split, translated and ed. Damir Karbić and Mirjana Matijević Sokol, James R. Weeney. Budapest, New York: CEU Press, 2006. Arnoldi Chronica Slavorum, ed. Georg Heinrich Pertz, MGH SS. rer. Germ. 14. Hannover: Hahn, 1868. Augustyn ze Stargardu zwany niegdyś Angelusem, Protokół, ed. Edward Rymar. Stargard, 2008: Muzeum w Stargardzie. Autobiography of Emperor Charles IV and his Legend of St. Wenceslas, ed. Balázs Nagy, Frank Schaer. Budapest: CEU Press, 2001. Barthélemy L’Anglais, Le livre des regions, ed. Brent A. Pitts. London: Anglo-Norman Text Soc., 2006. Bernhard von Clairvaux, Sämtliche Werke. Volume 3, ed. Gerhard B. Winkler. Innsbruck: Tyrolia-Verlag, 1992. Bis zu den Grenzen der Erde. Auszüge aus dem „Buch der Goldwäschen“, ed. Gernot Rotter. Tübingen/Basel: H. Erdmann, 1978. Borilov sinodik. Izdanie i prevod, ed. Ivan Bozhilov et al. Sofia: PAM Păblishing Kămpaniia, 2010. Branimirova Hrvatska u pismima Pape Ivana VIII/Branimir’s Kroatien in den Briefen des Papstes Johannes VIII., ed. Mirjana Matijević-Sokol. Split: Književni krug, 1990. Brevis descriptio Slavoniae, ed. Wojciech Kętrzyński, MPH. Lwów: PAU 1893, pp. 587–588. Brižinski spomeniki/Monumenta Frisingensia. Znanstvenokritična izdaja, ed. Darko Domilnar, Jože Faganel. 3rd ed. Ljubljana: Založba ZRC, ZRC SAZU, 2004. Brunwilarensis monasterii fundatio, ed. Rudolf Köpke, MGH SS 11. Hannover: Hahn, 1854, pp. 394–408. Brunwilarensis monasterii fundatorum actus, ed. Gustav Waitz, MGH SS 14. Hannover: Hahn, 1883, pp. 121–141. Byzanz wieder ein Weltreich. Das Zeitalter der Makedonischen Dynastie. Teil 1: Ende des Bilderstreites und Makedonische Renaissance (Anfang 9. bis Mitte 10. Jahrhundert). Nach dem Geschichtswerk des Johannes Skylitzes, ed. Hans Thurn. Graz: Styria, 1983. Canon Hludowici regis, ed. Wilfried Hartmann, MGH Concilia 3. Hannover: Hahn, 1984, pp. 235–252. Cantica medii aevi Polono-Latini. Tom 1, ed. Henryk Kowalewicz. Warsaw: PWN, 1964.

Bibliography

405

Capitularia regum Francorum. Volume 1, ed. Alfred Boretius, MGH Leges. Hannover: Hahn, 1883. Carolingian Chronicles: Royal Frankish Annals and Nithard’s Histories, ed. Bernhard Walter Scholz and Barbara Rogers. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press 1972. Cecaumeni Strategicon et incerti scriptoris de officiis regiis libellus, ed. Basil Wassilewsky, Victor Carl Jernstedt. St. Petersbourg: Typis Academiae Caesareae Scientiarum, 1896. Chernorizets Khrabăr, O pismenekh. Kritichesko izdanie, ed. Alda Džambeluka-Kossova. Sofia: Iz. na Bălgarskata Akakademiia na Naukite, 1980. Chronica Dzirsvae/Kronika Dzierzwy, ed. Krzysztof Pawłowski, MPH SN 15. Cracow: PAU, 2013. Chronica Poloniae Maioris/Kronika Polska, ed. Brygida Kürbis, MPH SN 8. Warsaw: PWN, 1970. Chronica Polonorum/Kronika polska [polsko-śląska], ed. Ludwik Ćwikliński, MPH 3. Lwów: Księgarnia Gubrynowicza i Schmidta, 1878, pp. 578–656. Chronica principum Poloniae/Kronika xiążąt polskich, ed. Zygmunt Węclewski, MPH 3. Lwów: Księgarnia Gubrynowicza i Schmidta, 1878, pp. 423–578. Chronicarum quae dicuntur Fredegarii scholastici libri IV cum continuationibus, ed. Bruno Krusch, MGH SS rer. Merov. 2. Hannover: Hahn, 1888, pp. 1–193. Chronicon dictum Monemvasiae. Graece et italice notis auctum. In Cronaca di Monemvasia, Introduzione, testo critico e note, ed. Ivan Dujčev. Palermo: Ist. Siciliano di Studi Bizantini e Neoellenici, 1976. Chronicon imperatorum et pontificum Bavaricum, ed. Georg Waitz, MGH SS 24. Hannover: Hahn, 1879, pp. 220–225. Chronicon Moissiacense, ed. Georg Heinrich Pertz, MGH SS 1. Hannover 1826, pp. 280–313. Chronicon sancti Michaelis Luneburgensis, ed. Ludwig Wieland, MGH SS 23. Hannover: Hahn, 1874, pp. 391–399. Chronique de Michel le Syrien, Patriarche Jacobite d’Antioche (1166–1199). Tome II, ed. Jean B. Chabot. Paris: E. Leroux, 1901. Chronographus anni CCCLIIII. Liber generationis, ed. Theodor Mommsen, MGH AA 9. Hannover: Hahn, 1892, pp. 78–140. Cnutonis regis gesta sive Encomium Emmae reginae, ed. Georg Heinrich Pertz, MGH SS 19. Hannover: Hahn, 1866, pp. 509–525. Codex Diplomaticus et epistolaris Regni Bohemiae. Volume 5, Lieferung 1, ed. Jindřich Šebánek, Sása Duškova. Prague: Československá akademie věd, 1974. Collectarius perpetuarum formarum Johannis de Geylnhusen, ed. Hans Kaiser. Innsbruck: Wagner, 1900. Compendium libri Kitāb al-Boldān auctore Ibn-al-Faqīh al Hamadhānī, ed. Michael Jan de Goeje. Leiden: Brill, 1885.

406

Bibliography

Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De administrando imperio. Greek text, ed. Gyula Moravcsik, English translation by Romilly J.H. Jenkins. Washington: Dumbarton Oaks Center for Byzantine Studies, 1967. Constantine Porphyrogenitus, The Book of Ceremonies, trans. Ann Moffatt, Maxeme Tall with the Greek edition of the Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae (Bonn, 1829). Canberra: Australian Association for Byzantine Studies, 2012. Conversio Bagoariorum et Carantanorum. Das Weissbuch der Salzburger Kirche über die erfolgreiche Mission in Karantanien und Pannonien, ed. Herwig Wolfram. Vienna: Böhlau, 1979. Cosmae Pragensis Chronica Boemorum, ed. Berthold Bretholz, MGH SS rer. Germ. N.S. 2. Hannover: Hahn, 1923. Cosmas of Prag: The Chronicle of the Czechs, translated with an introduction by Lisa Wolverton. Washington D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2009. Das Ethnikon Sclavi in den lateinischen Quellen bis zum Jahr 900, eds. Jutta Reisinger and Günter Sowa. Stuttgart: Steiner 1990. Das Ethnikon Sklabenoi, Sklaboi in den griechischen Quellen bis 1025, ed. Günter Weiss. Stuttgart: Steiner, 1988. Das Hexaemeron des Exarchen Johannes, 7 Bde., ed. Rudolf Aitzetmüller. Graz: Akademische Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt, 1958–1975. Das Kitāb ṣūrat al-arḍ des Abū Ǧaʿfar Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Ḫuwārizmī. Arabischer Text, ed. Hans von Mžik. Leipzig: Harrassowitz, 1926. Das Register Gregors VII., Bd. 2, Buch V–IX, ed. Erich Caspar, MGH Epistolae selectae 7/2. Hannover: Hahn, 1955, pp. 472–474. Das Strategikon des Maurikios, ed. George T. Dennis. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1981. Das vollständige Registrum Slavorum, ed. Leander Hemling, Adalbert Horcicka [Die Urkunden des königlichen Stiftes Emaus in Prag 1]. Prag: Verein für Geschichte der Deutschen in Böhmen, 1904. Decreta synodorum bavaricarum, ed. Johannes Merkel, MGH LL 3. Hannover: Hahn, 1863, pp. 486–487. Demetrii Chomateni Ponemata Diaphora, ed. Günter Prinzing. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002. Denkmale der deutschen Könige und Kaiser. Ein Beitrag zur Herrschergeschichte von Karl dem Großen bis Friedrich II. 768–1250, ed. Percy Ernst Schramm and Florentine Mütherich. Munich: Prestel, 1962. Des Bartholomaeus Anglicus Beschreibung Deutschands gegen 1240, ed. August E. Schönach. In MIÖG 27 (1906), pp. 54–90. Descriptio civitatum et regionum ad septentrionalem plagam Danubii sive Geographus Bavarus, ed. Aleksandr V. Nazarenko. In Nemeckie latinoiazychnye istochniki IX–XI vekov. Teksty, perevod, kommentarii, Moscow: Nauka, 1993, 13–14.

Bibliography

407

Descriptio gentium et diversarum nationum Europe. In Johann Englberger, Albert Behaim und die Lorcher Tradition in der Passauer Geschichtsschreibung. Die Descriptio gentium et diversarum nationum Europe, Hannover: Hahn, 2007. Die Briefe des heiligen Bonifatius und Lullus, ed. Michael Tangl, MGH Epp. sel 1. Hannover: Hahn, 1916. Die Chronik der Polen des Magisters Vincentius, ed. Eduard Mühle. Darmstadt: Wissen­ schaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2014. Die Ebstorfer Weltkarte. Kommentierte Neuausgabe in zwei Bänden. Volume 1: Atlas; Volume 2: Untersuchungen und Kommentar, ed. Hartmut Kugler. Berlin: AkademieVerlag, 2007. Die Ebstorfkarte, ed. Konrad Miller. Stuttgart: Eckstein & Stähle, 1896. Die Goldene Bulle Kaiser Karls IV. vom Jahre 1356. Text, ed. Wolfgang D. Fritz. Weimar: Böhlau, 1972. Die Gründungsurkunde Kremsmünsters. In Die Anfänge des Klosters Kremsmünster, ed. Siegfried Haider, pp. 51–82. Linz: Oberösterreichisces Landesarchiv, 1978. Die Herefordkarte, ed. Konrad Miller. Stuttgart: Roth’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1896. Die kleinen Weltkarten, ed. Konrad Miller. Stuttgart: J. Roth, 1895. Die Kreuzfahrer erobern Konstantinopel. Die Regierungszeit der Kaiser Alexios Angelos, Isaak Angelos und Alexios Dukas, die Schicksale der Stadt nach der Einnahme sowie das „Buch von den Bildsäulen“ (1195–1206) aus dem Geschichtswerk des Niketas Choniates, ed. Franz Grabler. 2nd ed. Graz et al.: Styria, 1971. Die Krone der Komnenen. Die Regierungszeit der Kaiser Joannes und Manuel Komnenos (1118–1180) aus dem Geschichtswerk des Niketas Choniates, ed. Franz Grabler. Graz: Styria, 1958. Die Nestorchronik. Die altrussische Chronik, zugeschrieben dem Mönch des Höhlen­ klosters Nestor, in der Redaktion des Abtes Sil‘vestr aus dem Jahre 1116, rekonstruiert nach den Handschriften Lavrent’evskaja, Radzivilovskaja, Akademičeskaja, Troickaja, Ipat’evskaja und Chlrebnikovskaja, ed. Ludolf Müller. Munich: Fink, 2001. Die protobulgarischen Inschriften, ed. Veselin Bešeliev. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1963. Die St. Wenzelslegende Kaiser Karls IV. Einleitung, Texte, Kommentar, ed. Anton Blaschka. Prag: Verl. der Dt. Ges. der Wiss. und Künste für die Tschechoslowakische Republik, 1934. Die Traditionen des Hochstiftes Freising, Volume 1: 744–926, ed. Theodor Bitterauf. Munich: Rieger, 1905. Die Urkunden der deutschen Karolinger. Volume 3: Die Urkunden Arnolfs, ed. Paul Kehr, MGH DD Arn. Hannover: Hahn, 1940. Die Urkunden der deutschen Könige und Kaiser. Die Urkunden Ottos des III, ed. Theodor Sickel, MGH DD 2,2. Hannover: Hahn, 1893. Die Urkunden Heinrichs IV., Teil 2, ed. Dietrich von Gladiss, MGH DD H IV. Hannover: Hahn, (1959).

408

Bibliography

Die Urkunden Heinrichs des Löwen, Herzogs von Sachsen und Bayern, ed. Karl Jordan, MGH DD HL. Hannover: Hahn, 1941. Die Urkunden Konrads I., Heinrich I. und Otto I., ed. Theodor Sickel, MGH Diplomata regum et imperatorum. Hannover: Hahn, 1879–1884. Die Vier Bücher der Chroniken des sogenannten Fredegar, trans. Andreas Kusternig. In Quellen zur Geschichte des 7. und 8. Jahrhunderts. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1982, 3–328. Die Vita Sturmi des Eigil von Fulda. Literarkritische Untersuchung und Edition, ed. Pius Engelbert. Marburg: N.G. Elwert, 1968. Die Werke des Metropoliten Ilarion, ed. Ludolf Müller. Munich: W. Fink, 1971. Die Werke Wipos, ed. Harry Bresslau, MGH SS rer. Germ. 61. Hannover: Hahn, 1915. Diplomatum regum et imperatrum Germaniae. Tomus II: Ottonis II. et III. diplomata, MGH DD. Hannover: Hahn, 1893. Discours contre les Ariens de saint Athanase. Version slave et traduction en français, ed. André Vaillant. Sofia: Académie des sciences de Bulgarie, 1954. Diwān al-Ahtal. Texte Arabe publié pour la première fois d’après le manuscrit de St. Petersbourg, ed. P.A. Salhani. Beyrouth: Imprimerie Catholique, 1891. Ē Synecheia tēs chronografias tou Ioannou Skilitzē (Ioannes Skylitzes Continuatus), ed. Eudoxos Th. Tsolakē. Thessalonikē: Etaireía Makedonikṓn Spoudṓn, 1968. Ebonis Vita S. Ottonis episcopi Babenbergensis, ed. Jan Wikarjak, Kazimierz Liman. Warsaw: PWN, 1969. Ein griechisches Fragment über Kriegswesen. In Festschrift für Ludwig Urlichs zur Feier seines fünfundzwanzigjährigen Wirkens an der Universität Würzburg dargebracht von seinen Schülern, ed. K.K. Müller, pp. 106–138. Würzburg: Stahel’sche Buch- & Kunsthandlung, 1880. Einhardi Vita Karoli Magni, ed. Georg Heinrich Pertz, Georg Waitz, MGH SS rer. Germ. 25. Hannover: Hahn, 1911. Ekthesis akribēs tēs orthodoxu pisteos in der Übersetzung des Exarchen Johannes. Volume 1, ed. Linda Sadnik. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz, 1967. Ennodius, Panegyricus. In Christian Rohr, Der Theoderich-Panegyricus des Ennodius. Hannover: Hahn, 1995, 208–209. Ex historiis Islandicis, ed. Finnur Jónsson, MGH SS 29. Hannover: Hahn, 1892, pp. 269–418. Ex rerum Danicarum scriptoribus saec. XII. et XIII., ed. Georg Waitz, MGH Sriptores 29. Hannover: Hahn, 1892, pp. 1–246. Exordium monasterii Portensis. In ed. Paul Boehme, Urkundenbuch des Klosters Pforta. Erster Halbband (1132 bis 1300). Halle: O. Hendel, 1893, 7–9. Flodoardi annales, ed. Georg Heinrich Pertz, MGH SS 3. Hannover: Hahn, 1839, pp. 363–407.

Bibliography

409

Friderici I. diplomata inde ab a. MCLII. usque ad a. MCLVIII, ed. Heinrich Appelt, MGH DD. Hannover: Hahn, 1975. Frutolfi et Ekkehardi chronica necnon anonymi chronica imperatorum, ed. Franz-Josef Schmale, Irene Schmale-Ott. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1972. Galli anonymi cronicae et gesta ducum sive principum Polonorum, ed. Karol Maleczyński, MPH SN 2. Cracow: PAU, 1952. Generatio regum, ed. Heinrich Georg Pertz, MGH SS 8. Hannover: Hahn, 1848. Georges Kolias, Léon Choerosphactès. Magister, proconsul et partice. Athen: Verl. der Byzantinisch-neugriechischen Jahrbücher, 1939. Gervase of Tilbury, Otia Imperialia/Recreation for an Emperor, ed. Shelagh E. Banks, James W. Binns. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2002. Gesta Regum Sclavorum. Volume 1 and 2, ed. Tibor Živković. Belgrade: Istorijski Institut Manastir Ostrog, 2009. Gotifredi Viterbiensis opera: Memoria seculorum, ed. Georg Heinrich Pertz, MGH SS 22. Hannover: Hahn, 1872, pp. 94–106. Gotifredi Viterbiensis opera: Pantheon, Memoria seculorum, ed. Georg Heinrich Pertz, MGH SS 22. Hannover: Hahn, 1872, pp. 107–307. Gramoti na bălgarskite care. Uvod. Tekstove. Rechnik. Bibliografiia, ed. Angelina Daskalova, Mariia Raikova. Sofia: Marin Drinov, 2005. Gregorii I papae Registrum epistolarum. Tomus II: Libri VIII–XIV, ed. Paul Ewald, Ludwig M. Hartmann, MGH Epistolae 1, 2. Hannover: Hahn, 1899. Heilige Fürstinnen und Kleriker. Lebensbeschreibungen und Wunderbreichte von polnischen Heiligen des 13. und 14. Jahrhunderts, ed. Eduard Mühle. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2021. Helmold von Bosau, Slawenchronik, ed. Heinz Stoob, sixth ed. Darmstadt: Wissen­ schaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2002. Helmoldi presbyteri Bozoviensis chronica Slavorum, ed. Bernhard Schmeidler, MGH SS rer. Germ. 32. Hannover: Hahn, 1937. Henrici de Antwerpe tractatus de captione urbis Brandenburg, ed. Oswald Holder-Egger, MGH SS 25. Hannover: Hahn, 1880, pp. 482–484. Herbordi dialogus de vita s. Ottonis episcopi Babenbergensis, ed. Jan Wikarjak, Kazimierz Liman, MPH SN 7,3. Warsaw: PWN, 1974. Herimanni Augiensis chronicon a. 1–1054, ed. Georg Heinrich Pertz, MGH SS 5. Hannover: Hahn, 1844, pp. 67–133. Historia de translatione sanctorum magni Nicolai, alterius Nicolai Theodorique martyris. In ed. Klaus Herbers et al., Mirakelberichte des frühen und hohen Mittelalters. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2005. Historia Salonitana maior, ed. Nada Klaić. Belgrade: Izdav. ustanova Naučno delo, 1967. Honorii Augustodunesnis Summa totius de omnimoda historia. In Patrologia Latina 172 (1854): 187–196.

410

Bibliography

Honorius Augustodunesnis, Imago mundi, ed. Valerie I.J. Flint. In Archives d’histoire doctrinale et littéraire du Moyen Âge 57 (1982):7–153. Ibn Faḍlān, Kitāb. Na podstawie Rękopisu meszhedzkiego. In Źródła arabskie 3. Ibn Fadlān’s Reisebericht: Riḥlāt Ibn Faḍlān, ed. Ahmed Zeki Velidi Togan. Leipzig 1939: Brockhaus. Idrīsī, La première géographie de l’Occident, ed. Henri Bresc and Annliese Nef. Paris: Flammarion, 1999. Imennik na bălgarskite khanove. Kritichno izdanie s komentar i objasnitelni belezhki, ed. Ivan Bogdanov. Sofia: Iz. na Otechestveniia Front, 1981. Innocentego PP. IV bulla kanonizacyjna świętego Stanisław orai z bulla delegacyjna dla Jakuba z Veletzri, ed. Roman Zawadzki. In Analecta Cracoviensia 11 (1979):23–45. Inquisitio de theloneis Raffelstettensis. In Capitularia regum Francorum 2, ed. Alfred Boretius, Victor Krause, pp. 250–252. Hannover: Hahn, 1897. Ioannes Kinnamos, Deeds of John and Manuel Comnenus, ed. Charles M. Brand. New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 1976. Ioannis Antiocheni Fragmenta ex Historia chronica, ed. Umberto Roberto. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter, 2005. Ioannis Dlugossii Annales seu cronicae inclit regni Poloniae. Liber Primus/Liber secundus, ed. Jan Dąbrowski. Warsaw: PWN, 1964. Ioannis Dlugossii Annales seu cronicae incliti regni Poloniae. Liber Tertius/Liber Quartus, ed. Danuta Turkowska. Warsaw: PWN, 1970. Ioannis Dlugossii Annales seu cronicae incliti regni Poloniae. Liber Quintus/Liber Sextus. Warsaw: PWN, 1973. Ioannis Dlugossii Annales seu cronicae incliti regni Poloniae. Liber Decimus 1370–1405, ed. Danuta Turkowska. Warsaw: PWN, 1985. Ioannis Dlugossii Annales seu cronicae incliti regni Poloniae. Liber Decimus/Liber Undecimus 1406–1412. Warsaw: PWN, 1998. Ioannis Dlugossii Annales seu cronicae incliti regni Poloniae. Liber Undecimus/Liber Duodecimus [1]. Warsaw: PWN, 2001. Ioannis Dlugossii Annales seu cronicae incliti regni Poloniae. Liber Duodecimus [3]. Warsaw: PWN, 2005. Ioannis Malalae Chronographia, ed. Ludwig Dindorf. Bonn: Weber, 1831. Ioannis Scylitzae Synopsis Historiarum, ed. Hans Thurn. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1973. Ioannis Zonarae epitome historiarum libri XIII–XVIII, ed. Theodor Büttner-Wobst. Bonn: Weber, 1897. Iohannis diaconi chronicon Venetum et Gradense, ed. Georg Heinrich Pertz, MGH SS 7. Hannover: Hahn, 1846, pp. 1–47. Iohannis Ephesini Historiae Ecclesiasticae Pars Tertia, ed. Ernest W. Brooks. Paris: Peeters, 1935.

Bibliography

411

Iohannis VIII. papae epistolae, ed. Erich Caspar, MGH Epistolae 7. Hannover: Hahn, 1928, pp. 1–272. [Iordanis], De origine actibusque Getarum, ed. Theodor Mommsen, MGH AA 5,1. Hannover: Hahn, 1882. pp. 53–138. [Iordanis], De summa temporum vel origine actibusque gentis Romanorum, ed. Theodor Mommsen, MGH AA 5,1. Hannover: Hahn, 1882, pp. 1–52. Isidori Hispalensis episcopi Etymologarium sive originum libri XX, ed. Wallace M. Lindsay. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1911. Isidori Iunioris episcopi Hispalensis Chronica Maiora, ed. Theodor Mommsen, MGH AA 11. Hannover: Hahn, 1894, pp. 391–481. Isidori Iunioris episcopi Hispalensis historia Gothorum Wandolorum Sueborum ad a. SCXXIV, ed. Theodor Mommsen, MGH AA 11. Hannover: Hahn, 1894, pp. 243–390. Islandskie korolevskie sagi o Vostochnoj Evrope (s drevnejshikh vremen do 1000 g.). Teksty, perevod, kommentarii, ed. Tatiana N. Dzhakson. Moscow: Nauka, 1993. Ivan Iordanov, Korpus na srednovekovnite bălgarski pechati, ed. Pavel Georgiev. Sofia: Iz. na Bălgarskata Akademiia na Naukite, 2016. Iz starata bălgarska, ruska i srăpska literature 2, ed. Bonju Angelov. Sofia: Iz. na Bălgarskata Akademiia na Naukite, 1967. Jan Długosz, Liber beneficiorum dioecesis Cracoviensis. Tom 3, ed. Aleksander Przezdziecki. Cracow: Kirchmajer, 1864. Johannis abbatis Biclarensis chronica. ed. Theodor Mommsen, MGH AA 11. Hannover: Hahn, 1894, pp. 207–220. John Skylitzes, A Synopsis of Byzantine History, 811–1057. Introduction, Text and Notes, trans. John Wortley. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Jürgen Hoffmann, Vita Adalberti. Früheste Textüberlieferungen der Lebensgeschichte Adalberts von Prag. Essen: Klartext, 2005. Kanowník Wyšehradský, ed. Josef Emler, FRB 2, Prague: Nakladatelství Muzea Království Českého, 1874, pp. 201–237. Karoli IV imp. Rom. Vita ab eo ipso conscripta, ed. Kurt Pfisterer, Walther Bulst. Heidelberg: Winter, 1950. Kitāb al-aʿlāq an-nafīsa VII auctore Abū Alī Ahmed ibn Omar ibn Rosteh, ed. Michael Jan de Goje. 2nd ed. Leiden: Brill, 1967. Kitāb al-Masālik wa-’l-mamālik (Liber viarum et regionorum), ed. Michael Jan de Goeje. Leiden: Brill, 1889. Kitāb al-Muʿrib ʿan baʿḍ ʿaǧāʾib al-Maġrib. In Putešestvie Abu Chamida al-Garnati v vostočnuju i central’nuju Evrope (1131–1153 gg.), ed. Oleg G. Bol’šakov and Aleksandr L. Mongajt. Moscow: Glavnaja Red. Vostočnoj Literatury, 1971. Kitāb Nukhbat al-Dahr fi ʿAja‌ʾib al-Barr wa ’l-Baḥr, ed. M.A.F. Mehren. Leipzig: Harrassowitz, 1923.

412

Bibliography

Klimint Ochridski, Săbrani săchineniia 1, ed. Bonju S. Angelov et al. Sofia: Iz. na Bălgarskata Akademiia na Naukite, 1970–1977. Kliment Ochridski, Sbornik ot statii po sluchaj 1050 godini ot smărta mu, ed. Bonju S. Angelov et al. Sofia: Iz. na Bălgarskata Akademiia na Naukite, 1996. Knigi vremennye i obraznye Georgiia Monacha. V dvukh tomach. Tom 2, chast’ 1: Russkii tekst, ukazatel’, ed. Vera A. Matveenko and Liudmila I. Shchegoleva. Moscow: Nauka, 2011. Knigy vremen’nyia i obraznyia Georgiia Mnicha. Chronika Georgiia Amartola v drevnem slavjano-russkom perevode. Tekst, issledovanie i slovar’. Tom I: Tekst, ed. Vasilii M. Istrin. Petrograd: Rossijsk. Gosud. Akademičesk. Tip., 1920. Knytlinga saga. In Danakonunga sogur, ed. Bjarni Guðnason, pp. 93–321. Reykjavik: Íslenzka Fornritafélag, 1982. Kodeks dyplomatyczny Małopolski, [t. I:] 1178–1386, ed. Franciszek Piekosiński. Cracow: PAU, 1876. Kratkoe zhitie na sv. Kirila. In Bălgarski starini iz Makedonija, ed. Jordan Ivanov, pp. 283–288. 2nd ed. Sofia: Iz. na Bălgarskata Akademiia na Naukite, 1931. Kronika Jana z Marignoly/Cronica Boemorum, ed. Josef Emler, FRB 3, Prague: Nakladatelství Muzea Království Českého, 1882, pp. 492–604. Kronika Pulkavova/Cronica Przibiconis dicti Pulkava, ed. Josef Emler, FRB 5, Prague: Nakladatelství Muzea Království Českého, 1893, pp. 1–326. Lamberti Hersfeldensis Annales, ed. Oswald Holder-Egger, MGH SS Rer. Germ. 38. Hannover: Hahn, 1894. Latinski epigrafički spomenici u ranosrednjovjekovnoj Hrvatskoj, ed. Ante Milošević. Split: Muzej Hrvatskih Arheoloških Spomenika, 1996. Laurentii de Brezowa Historia Hussitica/Vavřince z Březové Kronika Husitská, ed. Jaroslav Goll, FRB 5, Prague: Nakladatelství Muzea Království Českého, 1893, pp. 329–534. Le Liber pontificalis. Volume 2, ed. Louis Duchesne. Paris: E. Thorin, 1892. Legenda Christiani. Vita et passio sancti Wenceslai et sancte Ludmile ave eius, ed. Jaroslav Ludvíkoský. Prague: Vyšehrad, 1978. Leonis Diaconi Caloensis Historiae libri decem et liber de velitatione bellica Nicephori Augusti, ed. Carl Benedict Hase. Bonn: Weber, 1828. Les plus anciens recueils des miracles de Saint Démétrius et la pénétration des Slaves dans les Balkans. Tome 1: Le texte, ed. Paul Lemerle. Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1979. Letopis’ popa duklianina. Perevod i kommentarii, ed. Sergei V. Alekseev. Sankt-Peterburg: Peterburgskoe Vostokovedenie, 2015. Letopisy České, ed. Josef Emler, FRB 2, Prague: Nakladatelství Muzea Království Českého, 1874, pp. 380–382. Letopisy hradištsko-opatovické, ed. Josef Emler, FRB 2, Prague: Nakladatelství Muzea Království Českého, 1874, pp. 386–400.

Bibliography

413

Liber expugnationis regionum auctore Imamo Ahmaed ibn Jahja obn Djábr al-Beládsorí, ed. Michael Jan de Goje. Leiden: Brill, 1886. Liber Mortuorum Monasterii s. Vincenti Wratislaviensis, ed. Karol Maleczyński, MPH SN 9/1. Warsaw: PWN, 1971. Liudprandi Cremonensis Antapodosis, Homelia paschalis, Historia Ottonis, Relatio de legatione Constantinopolitana, ed. Paolo Chiesa. In Corpus Christianorum. Continuatio Mediaevalis, Bd. 156. Turnhout: Brepols, 1998. Ljetopis Popa Dukljanina. Latinski tekst sa hrvatskim prijevodom i ‘Hrvatska kronika’, ed. Vladimir Mošin. Zagreb: Matica Hrvatska, 1950. Magistri Vincentii dicti Kadłubek Chronica Polonorum, ed. Marian Plezia, MPH SN 11. Cracow: PAU, 1994. Maiestas Carolina. Der Kodifikationsentwurf Karls IV. für das Königreich Böhmen von 1355, ed. Bernd-Ulrich Hergemöller. Munich: Oldenbourg, 1995. Mappae Arabicae. Arabische Welt- und Länderkarten des 9.–13. Jahrhunderts in arabischer Urschrift, lateinischer Transkription und Übertragung in neuzeitliche Kartens­ kizzen, Erster Band/Erstes Heft, ed. Konrad Miller. Stuttgart: 1926. Mappae mundi. Die ältesten Weltkarten. VI (Schlussheft): Rekonstruierte Karten, ed. Konrad Miller. Stuttgart: Roth’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1898. Masʿūdī (mort en 345/956), Les prairies d’or, Tome premier, ed. Charles Pellat. Paris: P. Geuthner, 1962. Mauro Orbini, Il regno degli Slavi hoggi corrottamente detti Schiavoni [przedruk wydania Pesaro 1601], ed. Sima Ćirković, Peter Rehder. Munich: Sagner, 1985. Mecklenburgische Reimchronik des Ernst von Kirchberg, ed. Christa Cordshagen, Roderich Schmidt. Cologne: Böhlau, 1997. Medieval Slavic Lives of Saints and Princes, ed. Marvin Kator. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1983. Mica Madii de Barbazanis, Historia de gestis Romanorum Imperatorum et Summorum Pontificum. In ed. Vedran Gligo, Hrvoje Morović, Legende i kronike. Split: Splitski književni Krug, 1977. Michaelis Attaliatae Historia, ed. Eudoxos Th. Tsolakes. Athen: Academia Atheniensis, Institutum Litterarum Graecarum et Latinarum studiis destinatum, 2011. Militärs und Höflinge im Ringen um das Kaisertum. Byzantinische Geschichte von 969–1118 nach der Chronik des Johannes Zonaras, ed. Erich Trapp. Graz: Styria, 1986. Mnich Sázawský, ed. Josef Emler, FRB 2, Prague: Nakladatelství Muzea Království Českého, 1874, pp. 238–269. Monumenta Serbica spectantia historiam Serbiae, Bosnae, Ragusii, ed. Franz Miklosich. Vienna: W. Braumüller, 1858 [Nachdruck: Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlag­ sanstalt, 1964]. Moses Khorenats’i, History of the Armenians, ed. Robert W. Thomson. Cambridge, Mass./London: Harvard University Press, 1978.

414

Bibliography

Namentragende Steininschriften in Jugoslawien vom Ende des 7. bis zur Mitte des 13. Jahrhunderts, ed. Rade Mihaljčić, Ludwig Steindorff. Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1982. Nekrologium der ältesten Fürsten Meklenburgs aus dem Fenster im Kreuzgange des Kloster Doberan (Doberaner Nekrologium), mitgetheilt von Georg Ch. F. Lisch. In Jahrbücher des Vereins für mecklenburgische Geschichte und Altertumskunde 1 (1836):135–135. Nekrologium monasterii sancti Michaelis (Luneburgensis). In Noten zu einigen Geschichtsschreibern des Deutschen Mittelalters. Volume 3, Nr. V, ed. Anton Christian Wedekind, pp. 1–98. Hamburg: Perthes und Besser, 1836. Nicephori archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani opuscula historica, ed. Carl de Boor. Leipzig: B.G. Teubner, 1880, pp. 1–77. Nicetae Choniatae Historia, ed. Jan-Louis van Dieten. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1975. Nicolai I. papae epistolae, ed. Ernst Perels, MGH Epistolae Karolini aevi (IV) 6. Hannover: Hahn, 1925, pp. 257–690. Nicolaus capitulis 106 ad Bulgarorum consulta respondet, ed. Ernst Perels, MGH Epistulae 6. Hannover: Hahn, 1925, pp. 568–600. Notkeri Balbuli gesta Karoli Magni imperatoris, ed. Hans F. Haefele, MGH SS rer. Germ. 12. Hannover: Hahn, 1959. Notula satis notabilis de Pomeranorum, Stetinensium, ac Rugie principatu. Aus einer Handschrift Palthens mitgetheilt von Johann G.L. Kosegarten. In Baltische Studien 17, 1 (1858), pp. 103–140. Œuvres théologiques et grammaticales de Godescalc d’Orbais, ed. Cyrill Lambot. Louvain: Peeters, 1945. Opis krajów (Descriptio terrarum) – nowo odkryte źródło powstałe w związku z pojawieniem się Mongołów. In Spotkanie dwóch światów. Stolica apostolska a świat mongolski w połowie XIII wieku. Relacje powstałe w związku z misją Jana di Piano Carpiniego do Mongołów, ed. Jerzy Strzelczyk, pp. 289–30. Poznań: Abos, 1993. Opus geographicum auctore Ibn Haukal. Secundum textum et imagines codices Constantinopolitani conservati in bibliotheca antiqui palatii N°  3346 cui titulus est ‘Liber imagines terrae’ [Kitāb ṣūrat al-arḍ], ed. Johannes Hendrik Kramers. 3rd ed. Leiden: Brill, 1967. Oratio fratris Vincentii Priboevii sacrae theologiae professoris Ordinis Praedicatorum de origine successibusque Slavorum. In Pribojević, O podrijetlu, 45–104. Orientalische Berichte über die Völker Osteuropas und Zentralasiens im Mittelalter (Ibn Rusta, Gardīzī, Ḥudūd al-ʿAlām, al-Bakrī und al-Marwazī), eds. Hansgerd Göckenjan and István Zimonyi. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz, 2001. Ottonian Germany. The Chronicon of Thietmar of Merseburg, translated and annotated David A. Warner. Manchester, New York: Manchester University Press. Ottonis de Sancto Blasio Chronica, ed. Adolf Hofmeister, MGH SS Rer. Germ. 47. Hannover: Hahn, 1912.

Bibliography

415

Ottonis episcopi Frisingensis Chronica sive Historia de duabus civitatibus, ed. Adolf Hofmeister, MGH SS Rer. Germ. 45. Hannover: Hahn, 1912. Ottonis et Rahewini Gesta Friderici I. Imperatoris, ed. Georg Waitz, MGH SS Rer. Germ. 46. Hannover: Hahn, 1912, pp. 1–161. Pamiatniki literatury Drevnei Rusi. XII vek, ed. Dmitrii S. Likhachev. Moscow: Chudozhestvennaia Literatura, 1980. Pamiatniki literatury Drevnei Rusi XIII veka, ed. Dmitrii S. Likhachev. Moscow: Chudozhestvennaia Literatura, 1981. Pamiatniki literatury Drevnei Rusi XIV–seredina XV veka, ed. Dmitrii S. Likhachev. Moscow: Chudozhestvennaia Literatura, 1981. Părvo (naj-staro) zhitie na sv. Nauma. In Bălgarski starini iz Makedonija, ed. Jordan Ivanov, pp. 306–307. 2nd ed. Sofia: Iz. na Bălgarskata Akademiia na Naukite, 1931. Passio Sancti Wenzeslai regis. In Laurentius monachus Casinensis archiepiscopus Amalfitanus. Opera, ed. Francis Newton, pp. 23–42. Weimar: Böhlau, 1973. Pauli Historia Langobardorum, ed. Gustav Waitz, MGH SS rer. Germ. 48. Hannover: Hahn, 1878. Pervaja redakcija ‚Slovo‘ (spisok C-591). In Aleksandr M. Moldovan, ‚Slovo o zakone i blagodati‘ Ilariona. Kiev: Naukova Dumka, 1984, 78–100. Petra Žitavského Kronika zbraslavská (Chronicon Aulae regiae), ed. Josef Emler, FRB 4, Prague: Nakladatelství Muzea Království Českého, 1884, pp. 1–337. Philippi Callimachi Historia de Rege Vladislao, ed. Irmina Lichońska. Warsaw: PWN, 1961. Photii patriarchae Constantinopolitanae epistulae et amphilochia. Volume 1, ed. Basilius Laourdas, Leendert G. Westerink. Leipzig: B.G. Teubner, 1983. Pochvalno slovo na Kirila filosofa ot Klimenta Ochridski. In Bălgarski starini iz Makedonija, ed. Jordan Ivanov, pp. 328–333. 2nd ed. Sofia: Iz. na Bălgarskata Akademiia na Naukite, 1931. Pochvalno slovo za Evtimii ot Grigorii Camblak, ed. Pen’o Rusev et al. Sofia 1971. Poetae Saxonis Annalium de gestis Caroli Magni imperatoris, ed. Paul von Winterfeld, MGH Poetae 4,1. Hannover: Hahn, 1899, pp. 1–71. Polens Anfänge. Gallus Anonymus: Chronik und Taten der Herzöge und Fürsten von Polen, ed. Josef Bujnoch. Graz: Styria, 1978. Polska i kraje sąsiednie w świetle ‚Księgi Rogera‘ geografa arabskiego z XII w. al-Idrīsī’ego. Część I (uwagi ogólne, tekst arabski, tłumaczenie), ed. Tadeusz Lewicki. Cracow: PWN, 1945. Polska i kraje sąsiednie w świetle ‚Księgi Rogera‘ geografa arabskiego z XII w. al-Idrīsī’ego. Część II, ed. Tadeusz Lewicki. Warsaw: PWN, 1954. Pommersches Urkundenbuch, I. Volume: 786–1253. Teil 1: Urkunden, ed. Klaus Conrad. 2nd ed. Cologne: Böhlau, 1970.

416

Bibliography

Povest’ vremennykh let. Chast’ pervaia: Tekst i perevod, ed. Dmitrii S. Likhachev. Moscow: Akademii Nauk SSSR, 1950. Pravda russkaja v trekh tomakh. Tom 1: Teksty, ed. Boris D. Grekov. Leningrad: Akademii Nauk SSSR, 1940. Prepiskata na papa Inokentija III s Bălgaritě. Uvod, tekst i beležki, ed. Ivan Dujčev. Sofia: Nauka i Izkustvo, 1942. Procopii Caesariensis opera omnia. Volume 2: De bellis libri V–VIII [Istoriai], ed. Jakob Haury, Gerhard Wirth. Leipzig: B.G. Teubner, 1963. Procopii Caesariensis opera omnia. Volume 3: Historia quae dicitur arcana [Anekdota], ed. Jakob Haury, Gerhard Wirth. Leipzig: B.G. Teubner, 1963. Procopii Caesariensis opera omnia. Volume 4: Peri ktismaton libri VI sive de aedificiis, ed. Jakob Haury, Gerhard Wirth. Leipzig: B.G. Teubner, 1964. Proglas kăm evangelieto. In Bălgarski starini iz Makedonija, ed. Jordan Ivanov, pp. 339–342. 2nd ed. Sofia: Iz. na Bălgarskata Akademiia na Naukite, 1931. První česko-církevněslovanská legenda o svatém Václavu. In Svatováslavský Sborník. Na památku 1000. Výročí smrti knížete Václava Svatého. Bd. I.: Kníže Václav Svatý a jeho doba, ed. Miloš Weingart, pp. 973–998. Prague: Státní tiskárna, 1934. Puteshestvie Abu Chamida al-Garnati v vostochnuju i central’nuju Evrope (1131–1153 gg.), ed. Oleg G. Bol’shakov and Aleksandr L. Mongajt, Moscow: Glavnaja Redakciia Vostochnoi Literatury, 1971. „Quellen reinen Wassers …“. Eine Anthologie bulgarischer mittelalterlicher Literatur, ed. Donka Petkanova. Berlin: Neue Wege, 1979. Ravennae Anonymus, Cosmographia. Eine Erdbeschreibung um das Jahr 700, ed. Joseph Schnetz. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1951. Ravennatis Anonymi cosmographia. In Itineraria Romana. Volume 2: Ravennatis Anonymi cosmographia et Guidonos geographica, ed. Joseph Schnetz, pp. 1–110. Leipzig: B.G. Teubner, 1929. Regesten zur Geschichte der Slaven an Elbe und Oder (vom Jahr 900 an). Teil II: Regesten 900–983; Teil III: Regesten 983–1013; Teil IV: Regesten 1013–1057, ed. Christian Lübke. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1985–87. Reginonis abbatis Prumiensis chronicon cum continuatione Treverensi, ed. Friedrich Kurze, MGH SS rer. Germ. 50. Hannover: Hahn, 1890. Relacja Ibrāhīma ibn Ja‘ḳūba z podróży do krajów słowiańskich w przekazie al-Bekrīego, ed. Tadeusz Kowalski, MPH SN 1. Cracow: PAU, 1946. Rogeri de Wendover Liber qui dicitur Flores Historiaum/The Flowers of History by Roger de Wendover. Volume II, ed. Henry G. Hewlett. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1887. Rudolfs von Ems Weltchronik. Aus der Wernigeroder Handschrift, ed. Gustav Ehrismann. Berlin: Weidmann, 1915.

Bibliography

417

Ruotgers Lebensbeschreibung des Erzbischofs Bruno von Köln, ed. Irene Ott, MGH SS rer. Germ. 10. Hannover: Hahn, 1958. S. Adalberti Pragensis episcopi et martyris vita altera auctore Brunone Querfurtensi, ed. Jadwiga Karwasińska, MPH SN 4,2. Warsaw: PWN, 1969. S. Adalberti Pragensis episcopi et martyris vita prior, ed. Jadwiga Karwasińska, MPH SN 4,1. Warsaw: PWN, 1962. S. Ottonis episcopi Babenbergensis Vita Prieflingensis, ed. Jan Wikarjak and Kazimierz Liman, MPH SN 7,1. Warsaw: PWN, 1966. Saxo Grammaticus Gesta Danorum / Danmarkshistorien, ed. Karsten Friis-Jensen and Peter Zeeberg. Kobenhavn: Danske Sprog- og Litteraturselskab & Gads Forl., 2005. Scriptor incertus, ed. Francesca Iadevaia. Messina: Sfameni, 1987. Sefer Yosippon. Volume 1, ed. David Flusser. Jerusalem: Mosad Bi’aliḳ, 1981. Serbisches Mittelalter. Altserbische Herrscherbiographien. Volume 1: Stefan Nemanja nach den Viten des hl. Sava und Stefans des Erstgekrönten, ed. Stanislaus Hafner. Graz: Styria, 1962. Serbisches Mittelalter. Altserbische Herrscherbiographien. Volume 2: Danilo II. und sein Schüler: Die Königsbiographien, ed. Stanislaus Hafner. Graz: Styria, 1976. Sermons and Rhetoric of Kievan Rus’, ed. Simon Franklin. Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1991. Sharaf al-Zamān Ṭāhir Marvazī on China, the Turks and India, ed. Vladimir Minorsky. London: Royal Asiatic Society, 1942. Sigismund zu Herberstein, Reise zu den Moskowitern 1526, ed. Traudel Seifert. Munich: Bruckmann, 1966. Simeonov sbornik (po Svetoslavovija prepic 1073 g.) v 3 toma, ed. Petar Dinekov. Sofia: Iz. na Bălgarskata Akademiia na Naukite, 1991–1993. Slovanské pohanství ve středověkých latinských pramenech, ed. Jiří Dynda. Prague: Scriptorium, 2017. Solunska legenda. In Bălgarski starini iz Makedonija, ed. Jordan Ivanov, pp. 282–283. 2nd ed. Sofia: Iz. na Bălgarskata Akademiia na Naukite, 1931. Spisi sv. Save, ed. Vladimir Ćorović, pp. 151–175. Belgrade/Sr. Karlovci: Srpska kraljevska akademija, 1928. Srpski gramoti od Dushanovo vreme, ed. Lidiia Slaveva, Vladimir Moshin. Prilep: Institut za istrazhuvanie na staroslovenskata kultura, 1988. Stařj letopisowé česstj od roku 1378 do 1527. In Scriptores Rerum Bohemicarum 3, ed. František Palacký. Prag: J.H. Pospíšil, 1829. Starobălgarskoto učitelno evangelie na Konstantin Preslavski, ed. Marija Tichova, Elena Uchanova. Freiburg: Weiher, 2012. Staročeská kronika tak řečného Dalimila. (1) Vydání textu a veškerého textového materiálu, ed. Jiří Daňhelka et al. Prague: Academia, 1988.

418

Bibliography

Suidae Lexicon. Volume I, ed. Ada Adler. Leipzig: B.G. Teubner, 1928. Svod drevneishikh pis’mennykh izvestii o slavianach. Volume I (I–VI vv.), ed. Leonid A. Gindin and Gennadii G. Litavrin. Moscow: Nauka, 1994. Svod drevneishikh pis’mennykh izvestii o slavianach. Volume II (VII–IX vv.), ed. Gennadii G. Litavrin. Moscow: Nauka, 1995. Testimonia najdawniejszych dziejów Słowian. Seria Grecka. Zeszyt 2: Pisarze z V–X wieku, ed. Alina Brzóstkowaka and Wincenty Swoboda, Wrocław et al. 1989. The Chronicle of the Slavs by Helmold, Priest of Bosau, translated with introduction and notes by Francis Joseph Tschan, New York: Columbia University Press, 1935. The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles, translated and ed. Paul W. Knoll and Frank Schaer. Budapest, New York: CEU Press, 2003. The Determination of the Coordinates of Positions for the Correction of Distances between Cities, ed. Jamil Ali. Beirut: National Lebanese Printing Press, 1967. The Hereford Map. A Transcription and Translation of the Legends with Commentary, ed. Scott D. Westrem. Turnhout: Brepols, 2001. The Histories. Loanikos Chalkokondyles. Volume I/Volume II, ed. Anthony Kaldellis. Cambridge Mass./London: Harvard University Press, 2014. The History of Menander the Guardsman. Introductory Essay, Text, Translation and Historical Notes, ed. R.C. Blockley. Liverpool: Cairns, 1985. The homilies of Photius Patriarch of Constantinople, ed. Cyril Mango. Cambridge/Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1958. The ‘Opus Majus’ of Roger Bacon, Volume 1, ed. John H. Bridges. Oxford: Cambridge University Press, 1897. The Russian Primary Chronicle. Laurentian Text, translated and ed. Samuel H. Cross and Olgerd P. Sherbowitz-Wetzor. Cambridge/Mass.: The Medieval Academy of America, 1953. The Taktika of Leo VI. Text, Translation, and Commentary, ed. George Dennis. Washington D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks, 2010. The Voices of Medieval Bulgaria, Seventh-Fifteenth Century. The Records of Bygone Culture, ed. Kiril Petkov. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Theophanis Chronographia. Volume 1: Textum graecum continens, ed. Carl de Boor. Leipzig: B.G. Teubner, 1883. Theophylacti Simocattae historiae, ed. Carl de Boor, Peter Wirth. Stuttgart: B.G. Teubner, 1972. Thietmar von Merseburg, Chronik, ed. Werner Trillmich. 2nd ed. Darmstadt: Wissen­ schaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1966. Thietmari Merseburgensis episcopi chronicon, ed. Robert Holtzmann, MGH SS Rer. Germ NS 9. Hannover: Hahn, 1955. Thomae Archidiaconi Historia Salonitanorum atque Spalatinorum pontificum, eds. Olga Perić and Mirjana Matijević-Sokol. Split: Književni Krug, 2003.

Bibliography

419

Todora Metohita Poslanica o diplomatskom putu u Srbiju povodom zhenidbe kralja Milutina sa Simonidom godine 1298. S grchkoga preveo M. Apostolović. In Letopis Matice Srbske. Knjiga 211. Sveska VI. za godinu 1902. Novi Sad, 1902, 27–58. Tri opuscula auctore Abu Otoman Amr ibn Bahr al-Djahiz Basreni, ed. Gerlof van Vloten. Leiden: Brill, 1903. Two Voyagers at the Court of King Alfred. The Ventures of Othere and Wulfstan together with the Description of Northern Europa from Old English Orosius, ed. Niels Lund, trans. Christine E. Fell. York: W. Sessions, 1984. Un manuel hispanique de Ḥisba. Traité d’Abu ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad as-Sakaṭī de Malaga sur la surveillance des corporations et la répression des fraudes en Espagne musulmane. I. Texte arabe, ed. G.-S. Colin and E. Lévi-Provencal: Leroux, Paris, 1931. Urkundenbuch der Erfurter Stifter und Klöster. Teil 1 (706–1330), ed. Alfred Overmann. Magdeburg: Historische Kommission für die Provinz Sachsen und für Anhalt, 1926. Urkundenbuch des Erzstifts Magdeburg. Teil 1 (937–1192), ed. Friedrich Israel. Magdeburg: Landesgeschichtliche Forschungsstelle für die Provinz Sachsen und für Anhalt, 1937. Urkundenbuch des Klosters Fulda. Volume 1 (Die Zeit der Äbte Sturmi und Baugulf ), ed. Edmund E. Stengel. Marburg: N.G. Elwert, 1958. Václav Hájek z Libočan, Kronika česká, ed. Jan Linka. Prague: Academia, 2013. Vademecum des byzantinischen Aristokraten. Das sogennnte Strategikon des Kekau­ menos, ed. Hans-Georg Beck. Graz: Styria, 1956. Vasiliki Tsamakda, The Illustrated Chronicle of Ioannes Skylitzes in Madrid. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Versus Martini dumiensis episcopi in basilica, ed. Rudolf Peiper, MGH AA 6,2. Hannover: Hahn, 1883, pp. 194–195. Vincentii Pragensis Annales, ed. Wilhelm Wattenbach, MGH SS 17. Hannover: Hahn, 1861, pp. 658–683. Vinko Pribojević, O podrijetlu i slavi Slavena, ed. Grga Novak and Miroslav Kurelac. Zagreb: Golden Marketing, 1997. Vistula amne discreta. Greckie i łacińskie źródła do najdawniejszych dziejów ziem Polski, ed. Jerzy Kolendo and Tomasz Płóciennik. Warsaw: Ośrodek Badań nad Antykiem Europy Południowo-Wschodniej, 2015. Vita Amandi episcopi I, ed. Bruno Krusch, MGH SS re. Merov. 5. Hannover: Hahn, 1910, pp. 428–449. Vita Beati Ioannis Episcopi et Confessoris Traguriensis, ed. Milan Ivanišević. In Legende i Kronike, ed. Vedran Gligo and Hrvoje Morović, pp. 103–121. Split: Splitski književni Krug, 1977. Vita maior. In Středověké legendy prokopské, ed. Václav Chaloupecký and Bohumil Ryba, pp. 239–266. Prague: Československá akademie věd, 1953.

420

Bibliography

Vita minor. In Středověké legendy prokopské, ed. Václav Chaloupecký and Bohumil Ryba, pp. 121–161. Prague: Československá akademie věd, 1953. Vita quinque fratrum eremitarum [seu] Vita uel passio Benedicti et Iohannis sociorumque suorum, ed. Jadwiga Karwasińska, MPH SN 4,3. Warsaw: PWN, 1973. Vita sancti Stanislai Cracoviensis episcopi (Vita maior), ed. Wojciech Kętrzyński, MPH 4. Lwów: Księgarnia Gubrynowicza i Schmidta, 1884, pp. 319–438. Vita sancti Stanislai episcopi Cracoviensis. (Vita minor), ed. Wojciech Kętrzyński, MPH 4. Lwów: Księgarnia Gubrynowicza i Schmidta, 1884, pp. 238–285. Vita Willibaldi episcopi Eichstetensis, ed. Oswald Holder-Egger, MGH SS 15, 1. Hannover: Hahn, 1887. Vitae Columbani abbatis discipulorumque eius libri II, ed. Bruno Krusch, MGH SS rer. Germ. 37. Hannover: Hahn, 1905, pp. 1–294. Vtoro zhitie na sv. Nauma. In Bălgarski starini iz Makedonija, ed. Jordan Ivanov, pp. 312– 313. 2nd ed. Sofia: Iz. na Bălgarskata Akademiia na Naukite, 1931. Werke des Metropoliten Ilarion, ed. Ludolf Müller. Munich: W. Fink, 1971. Widukindi monachi Corbeiensis rerum gestarum Saxonicarum libri tres, ed. Paul Hirsch and Hans-Eberhard Lohmann, MGH SS rer. Germ. 60. Hannover: Hahn, 1935. Zakon Sudnyi ljudem. Kratkoj redakcii, ed. Mikhail N. Tichomirov and Leonid V. Milov. Moscow: Akademiia Nauk SSSR., 1961. Zakonik cara Stefana Dušana 1349 i 1353, ed. Nikola Radojčić. Belgrade: Naučno Delo, 1960. Zakonik cara Stefana Dušana. Knjiga I–II, ed. Mechmed Begović. Belgrade: SANU, 1975, 1981. Zakonopravilo Svetoga Save, ed. Miodrag M. Petrović and Ljubica Štavljanin-Đorđević. Belgrade: Istorijski Institut, 2005. Zbornik srednjovekovnih ćiriliskih povelja i pisama Srbije, Bosne i Dubrovnika. Volume 1: 1186–1321, ed. Vladimir Mošin et al. Belgrade: Istorijski Institut, 2011. Zhitie na Kliment Ochridski, ed. Ilja G. Iliev. In Fontes Graeci Historiae Bulgaricae 9 (1994), pp. 11–41. Zhitija na sv. Ivana Rilski s uvodni belezhki, ed. Jordan Ivanov. In Godishnik na Sofiiskiia universitet. Istoriko-filologicheski fakultet 32/13 (1935/36), pp. 1–108. Zhitije i zhizn‘ prepodobnago ot’ca nashego i bogonos’naago nastav’nika v’seje sr’b‘skyje zemlje i pomor’skyje arhijepiskopa Savy. In Život sv. Simeuna i sv. Save napisao Domentijan, ed. Đuro Daničić, pp. 118–345. Belgrade: Knazhesko srpska knjigopechatnja, 1865. Zhitije Konstantina, ed. Dagmar Bartoňková et al. In MMFH 2 (1967), pp. 57–115. Zhitije Mefodija, ed. Dagmar Bartoňková et al. In MMFH 2 (1967), pp. 134–163. Zhitije Simeona Nemanje od Stevana Prvovenčanoga. In Svetosavski Zbornik. Knjiga 2: Izvori, ed. Vladimir Ćorović, pp. 1–76. Belgrade: Srpska Kraljevska Akademija, 1939.

Bibliography

421

Zhivot svetoga Simeona Nemanje. In Spisi sv. Save, ed. Vladimir Ćorović, pp. 151–175. Belgrade/Sr. Karlovci: Srpska kraljevska akademija, 1928. Život sv. Lidmily [Diffundente sole], ed. Josef Emler, FRB 1, Prague: Nakladatelství Muzea Království Českého, 1873, pp. 191–198. Život sv. Václava [Crescente fide], ed. Josef Emler, FRB 1, Prague: Nakladatelství Muzea Království Českého, 1873, pp. 183–190. Źródła arabskie do dziejów Słowiańszczyzny. Voume 1, ed. Tadeusz Lewicki. Wrocław, Cracow: Zakład im. Ossolińskich Wydawnictwo PAN, 1956. Źródła arabskie do dziejów Słowiańszczyzny. Volume 2,1, ed. Tadeusz Lewicki. Wrocław: Wydawnictwo PAN, Zakład im. Ossolińskich, 1969. Źródła arabskie do dziejów Słowiańszczyzny. Volume 2,2, ed. Tadeusz Lewicki. Wrocław: Wydawnictwo PAN, Zakład im. Ossolińskich, 1977. Źródła arabskie do dziejów Słowiańszczyzny. Volume 3, ed. Anna Kmietowicz et al. Wrocław: Wydawnictwo PAN, Zakład im. Ossolińskich, 1985. Źródła hebrajskie do dziejów Słowian i niektórych innych ludów środkowej i wschodniej Europy, ed. Franciszek Kupfer and Tadeusz Lewicki. Wrocław/Warsaw: Wydawnictwo PAN, Zakład im. Ossolińskich, 1956.



Secondary Literature

Adalbert von Prag. Brückenbauer zwischen dem Osten und dem Westen Europas, ed. Hermann Hans Hendrix, Baden-Baden: Nomos, 1997. Adamczyk, Dariusz. „Wollin und sein Hinterland im kontinentalen und transkontinentalen Beziehungsgeflecht um das Jahr 1000.“ In Geschichte, um zu verstehen. Traditionen, Wahrnehmungsmuster, Gestaltungsperspektiven, eds. Christiane Schröder et al., pp. 299–317, Bielefeld: Verlag für Regionalgeschichte, 2013. Adamczyk, Dariusz. Silber und Macht. Fernhandel, Tribute und die piastische Herr­ schaftsbildung in nordosteuropäischer Perspektive (800–1100). Wiesbaden: Harras­ sowitz, 2014. Adde-Vomáčka, Éloise. La Chronique de Dalimil. Les débuts de l’historiographie nationale tchèque en langue vulgaire au XIVe siècle, Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 2016. Adrianova-Peretc, Varvara P. “Zadonshchina. Tekst i primechaniia.” Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoi literatury 5 (1947), pp. 194–224. Ahmad, Maqbul. “Cartography of al Sharīf al-Idrīsī.” In The History of Cartography. Volume 2, 1: Cartography in the Traditional Islamic and South Asian Societies, eds. John B. Harle and David Woodward, pp. 156–74. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press, 1992. Ahmad, Sayyid Maqbul. A History of Arab-Islamic Geography (9th–16th Century), Amman: AL al-Bayt University, 1995.

422

Bibliography

Akimova, Olga A. “Razvitie ėtnicheskogo samosoznaniia khorvatov v XII–XIV vv.” In Razvitie ėtnicheskogo samosoznaniia slavianskikh narodov v ėpokhu zrelogo feodalizma, eds. Gennaddii G. Litavrin and Viacheslav V. Ivanov, pp. 152–64. Moscow: Nauka, 1989. Akimova, Olga A. Etnicheskoe i kul’turnoe samosaznanie Chorvatov v XV veke, in: Etnicheskoe samosoznanie slavian v XV stoletii, ed. Gennadii G. Litavrin, pp. 138–156, Moskva: Nauka, 1995. Akimova, Olga A. “Christianstvo v dalmatinskikh, khorvatskikh i serbskikh zemliakh v X–XI vv.” In Khristianstvo v stranakh vostochnoi, iugo-vostochnoi i tsentral’noi Evropy na proge vtorogo tysiacheletiia, ed. Boris N. Floria, pp. 267–339. Moscow: Iazyki Slavianskoi Kul’tury, 2002. Akimova, Olga A. and Gennadii P. Mel’nikov. “Ideia slavianskoi obshchnosti v predstavleniiakh chekhov i khorvatov ėpochi srednevekov’ia.” In Slavianskii vopros: vekhi istorii, eds. Elena P. Aksenova et al., pp. 5–19. Moscow: Institut slavianovedeniia i balkanistiki RAN, 1997. Al-Azmeh, Aziz. “Barbarians in Arab eyes.” Past and Present 134 (1992), pp. 3–18. Albrecht, Stefan. Geschichte der Großmährenforschung in den tschechischen Ländern und in der Slowakei, Prague: Slovanský Ústav, 2003. Alexandrowicz, Stanisław. 1990. “Ruska świadomość narodowa w średniowieczu.” In Państwo, naród, stany w świadomości wieków średnich, eds. Gieysztor, Aleksander and Sławomir Gawlas, pp. 111–20. Warsaw: PWN, 1990. Alimov, Denis E. “Borna dux Guduscanorum. K voprosu o charaktere knjazheskoj vlasti v Dalmatinskoj Chorvatii v pervoj chetverti IX v.” Evropa. Mezhdunarodnii al’manakh 6 (2006), pp. 5–21. Alimov, Denis E. “‘Pereselenie’ i ‘kreshchenie’. K probleme formirovaniia khorvatskoj ėtnichnosti v Dalmacii.” SSBP 2 (2008), pp. 94–116. Alimov, Denis E. Ėtnogenez khorvatov: formirovanie khorvatskoj ėtnopoliticheskoi obshchnosti v VII–IX vv. Sankt Peterburg: Nestor-Istoriia, 2016. Alpert, Annette L. “The Life of Stefan Nemanja by St. Sava. A Literary Analysis.” WSJ 22 (1976), pp. 7–14. Althoff, Gerd. “Symbolische Kommunikation zwischen Piasten und Ottonen.” In Polen und Deutschland vor 1000 Jahren. Die Berliner Tagung über den „Akt von Gnesen“, ed. Michael Borgolte, pp. 293–308. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2002. Ančić, Mladen. “From Carolingian Official to Croatian Ruler. The Croats and the Carolingian Empire in the First Half of the Ninth Century.” Hortus Artium Mediaevalium 3 (1997), pp. 7–13. Ančić, Mladen. “Zamišljanje tradicije: Vrijeme i okolnosti postanka 30. Glave djela De Administrando imperio.” Radovi Zavoda za hrvatsku povijest 42 (2010), pp. 133–152. Ančić, Mladen. “Ranosrednjovjekovni ńeretvani ili Humljani. Tragom zabune koju je prouzročilo djelo De administrando imperio.” In Hum i Hercegovina kroz

Bibliography

423

povijest. Zbornik radova s međunarodnoga znanstvenog skupa održanog u Mostaru 5. i 6. studenoga 2009, ed. Ivica Lučić, pp. 217–78. Zagreb: Hrvatski institut za povijest, 2011. Ančić, Mladen [2018a]. “Migration or Transformation: The Roots of the Early Medieval Croatian Polity.” In Migration, Integration and Connectivity on the Southeastern Frontier of the Carolingian Empire, eds. Danijel Dzino et al., pp. 43–62. Leiden: Brill, 2018. Ančić, Mladen. [2018b]. “The Treaty of Aachen: How many empires?” In Imperial Spheres and the Adriatic. Byzantium, the Carolingians and the Treaty of Aachen (812), eds. Mladen Ančić et al., pp. 25–42. London: Routledge, 2018. Ančić, Mladen and Stipe Grgas. “Medieval Bosnia and the Trans-Adriatic Traffic in Images and Goods.” In Representations of the ‘Other/s’ in the Mediterranean World and their Impact on the Region, eds. Medret Kuran-Burçoglu and Susan Gilson Miller, pp. 57–71. Istanbul: Gorgias Press, 2005. Anderson, Benedict. Die Erfindung der Nation. Zur Karriere eines folgenreichen Konzepts, erweiterte Neuausgabe. Frankfurt/M.: Campus-Verlag, 1996. Androshchuk, Fedir. Vikings in the East. Essays on Contacts along the Road to Byzantium (800–1100). Uppsala: Uppsala University, 2013. Angelini, Paolo. “The Code of Dusan 1349–1354.” Tijdschrift voor rechtsgeschiedenis 81 (2012), pp. 77–93. Angelini, Paolo [2014a.] Il Codice di Dusan, 1349–1354. Legeslazione greco-romana e amministrazione dell’imperio serbo-byzantino. Roma: Aracne 2014. Angelini, Paolo [2014b]. “L’utilizzo del titolo imperiale nei documenti dei sovrani slavi (XIII–XIV secolo).” Historia et ius. Rivista di storia giuridica dell’età medievale e moderna 6 (2014), 3, pp. 2–6. Angelini, Paolo [2014c]. “La titolatura della dinastia Nemanja nei documenti serbi del XIII e XIV secolo.” In Il cammino delle idee dal medioevo all’antico regime. Diritto e cultura nell’esperienza europea, eds. Paola Maffei and Gian Maria Varanini, pp. 127–38. Firenze: Firenze University Press, 2014. Angelini, Paolo. “Sur la nature du Zakon Sudnyj Ljudem et l’influence du droit criminel byzantin.” Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte. Kanonistische Abteilung 132 (2015), pp. 484–98. Angelov, Dimităr. Formation of the Bulgarian Nation. Its Development in the Middle Ages (9th–14th c.). Sofia: Sofia-Press, 1978. Angelov, Dimităr. Die Entstehung des bulgarischen Volkes. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1980. Angelov, Dimităr. “Der Aufstand der Asseniden und die Wiedererrichtung des bulgarischen Staates im Mittelalter.” BGR 12 (1984), 4, pp. 31–52. Angelov, Dimităr. “The Origin and Development of the Bulgarian Nationality.” Macedonian Studies 4 (1987), pp. 5–24.

424

Bibliography

Angelov, Dimităr. „Methods und seiner Schüler Wirken in Bulgarien.“ In Symposium Methodianum. Beiträge der Internationalen Tagung in Regensburg (/17. bis 24. April 1985) zum Gedenken an den 1100. Todestag des hl. Method, eds. Klaus Trost et al., pp. 23–31. Neuried: Hieronymus, 1988. Angelov, Dimităr. Bogomilstvoto. Sofia: Bulvest, 1993. Angelov, Dimităr. Prezviter Kozma i besedata mu protiv bogomilite. Sofia: Zacharii Stoianov, 2017. Angelov, Petăr. “The Bulgarians through the Eyes of the Byzantines.” BHR 22 (1994), 4, pp. 18–32. Angelov, Petăr. Bălgariia i bălgarite v predstavite na vizantiicite (VII–XIV vek). Sofia: Lik, 1999. Angenendt, Arnold. “Der eine Adam und die vielen Stämme. Idee und Wirklichkeit der Origo gentis im Mittelalter.” In Herkunft und Ursprung. Historische und mythische Formen der Legitimation, ed. Peter Wunderli, pp. 27–52. Sigmaringen: Thorbecke, 1994. Antoljak, Stjepan. “Da li bi se još nešto moglo reći o hrvatskim knezovima Borni i Ljudevitu Posavskom?” Godišen Zbornik. Filosofski fakultet Skopje 19 (1967), pp. 129–39. Antoljak, Stjepan. Samuel and his State. Skopje: Macedonian Review Editions, 1985. Antonín, Robert. “Moc posledních Přemyslovců v piastovském Polsku na přelomu 13. a 14. století”. In Od knížat ke králům, eds. Doležalová, Eva and Robert Šimůnek, pp. 177–91. Prague: Lidové noviny, 2007. Antonín, Robert. The Ideal Ruler in Medieval Bohemia. Leiden: Brill, 2017. Arentzen, Jörg-Geerd. Imago Mundi Cartographica. Studien zur Bildlichkeit mittelalterlicher Welt- und Ökumenekarten unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Zusammenwirkens von Text und Bild. Münster: Fink, 1984. Arnold, Hubert. Sprache und Struktur altserbischer Privilegienurkunden aus dem 12. bis 16. Jahrhundert. Munich: Sagner, 2002. Attar, Samar. “Conflicting Accounts of the Fear of Strangers. Muslim and Arab Perceptions of Europeans in Medieval Geographical Literature.” Arab Studies Quarterly 27 (2005), pp. 17–29. Assorati, Giovanni. “A Ravennatis anonymi Cosmographia e la cultura intellettuale a Ravenna nel VII secolo.” Studi Romangnoli 62 (2011), pp. 103–30. Auf dem Weg zum Germania Slavica-Konzept. Perspektiven von Geschichtswissenschaft, Archäologie, Onomastik und Kunstgeschichte seit dem 19. Jahrhundert, eds. Sebastian Brather and Christine Kratzke. Leipzig: Leipziger Universitäts-Verlag, 2005. Auge, Oliver. „Zur Geschichte der Herzöge von Pommern-Stettin (1295–1464).“ Baltische Studien NF 97 (2011), pp. 13–27. Auge, Oliver. „Der Beitrag der mittelalterlichen Chronistik zur Legitimation der Herzöge von Pommern und Mecklenburg.“ In Legitimation von Fürstendynastien

Bibliography

425

in Polen und dem Reich. Identitätsbildung im Spiegel schriftlicher Quellen (12.–15. Jahrhundert), eds. Grischa Vercamer and Ewa Wółkiewicz, pp. 131–58. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2016. Aulich, Vitol’d V. Zymivs’ke horodyshche – slovians’ka pamiatka VI–VII st. n.ė. v Zahidnii Volyni. Kyiv: Naukova dumka, 1972. Aurast, Anna. Fremde, Freunde, Feinde. Wahrnehmung und Bewertung von Fremden in den Chroniken des Gallus Anonymus und des Cosmas von Prag. Bochum: Winkler, 2019. Avenarius, Alexander. “Die Awaren und die Slawen in den Miracula Sancti Demetrii.” Vyzantina 5 (1973), pp. 11–27. Avenarius, Alexander. “Metropolitan Ilarion on the Origin of Christianity in Rus’: The Problem of the Transformation of Byzantine Influence.” HUS 12/13 (1988/89), pp. 689–701. Avenarius, Alexander. Die byzantinische Kultur und die Slawen. Zum Problem der Rezeption und Transformation (6.–12. Jahrhundert). Vienna, Munich: Oldenbourg, 2000. Awaren in Europa. Schätze eines asiatischen Reitervolkes 6.–8. Jahrhundert, eds. Walter Meier-Arendt and Gerhard Bott. Frankfurt/M.: Museum für Vor- und Frühgeschichte, 1985. Ayalon, David. “On the Enuchs in Islam.” Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 1 (1979), pp. 92–104. Babin, Malte-Ludolf. “Leibniz und das Dravänopolabische.” Niedersächsisches Jahrbuch für Landesgeschichte 72 (2000), pp. 191–205. Bačić, Jakov. The Emergence of the Sklabenoi (Slavs), their Arrival on the Balkan Peninsula and the Role of the Avars in these Events: Revised Concepts in a New Perspective. Ann Arbor: Columbia University, 1983. Bahr, Richard. „Zwei baltische Kämpfer.“ Der Türmer. Monatsschrift für Gemüt und Geist 13 (1911), no. 2, pp. 347–52. Bak, János M. “Christian Identity in the Chronicle of the Czechs by Cosmas of Prague.” In Historical Narratives and Christian Identity on a European Periphery. Early History Writing in Northern, East-Central and Eastern Europe (c. 1070–1200), ed. Ildar H. Garipzanov, pp. 167–82. Turnhout: Brepols, 2011. Bakalova, Elka. “The Image of the Ideal Ruler in Medieval Bulgarian Literature and Art.” In Les cultes des saints souverains et des saints guerriers et l’idéologie du pouvoir en Europe Centrale et Orientale, eds. Ivan Biliarsky and Radu G. Păun, pp. 34–80. Bucharest: New Europe College, 2007. Bakuła, Bogusław. “Tomáša Garrigue’a Masaryka idea Słowiańszczyzny i Europy w latach 1895–1918.” In Idee wspólnotowe słowiańszczyzny, eds. Aleksander Mikołajczak et al., pp. 93–105. Poznań: Wydawcitwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Adama Mickiewicza, 2004.

426

Bibliography

Bálint, Csanád. Die Archäologie der Steppe. Steppenvölker zwischen Volga und Donau vom 6. bis 10. Jahrhundert. Vienna, Cologne: Böhlau, 1989. Banašević, Nikola. Letopis Popa Dukljanina i narodna predanja. Belgrade: Srpska Književna Zadruga, 1971. Banaszkiewicz, Jacek. “Kronika Dzierzwy – problem wykładu dziejów ojczystych w XIV wieku.” SŹ 22 (1977), pp. 89–95. Banaszkiewicz, Jacek. Kronika Dzierzwy. XIV-wieczne kompendium historii ojczystej. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, 1979. Banaszkiewicz, Jacek. Podanie o Piaście i Popielu. Studium porównawcze nad wczesnośredniowiecznymi tradycjami dynastycznymi. Warsaw: PWN, 1986. Banaszkiewicz, Jacek. “Slawische Sagen ‘De origine gentis’ (al-Masudi, Nestor, Kadlubek, Kosmas). Dioskurische Matrizen der Überlieferung.“ Mediaevalia historica Bohemica 3 (1993), pp. 29–58. Banaszkiewicz, Jacek. “‘Origo et religio’ – wersja słowiańska. (O sposobach budowania tożsamości wspólnotowej w społecznościach wcześniejszego średniowiecza – ‘wzorcotwórcze pamiątki’ i opowieści o nich).” In Kultura piśmienna średniowiecza i czasów nowożytnych. Problemy i konteksty badawcze, eds. Piotr Dymmel and Barbara Trelińska, pp. 37–62. Lublin: Wydaw. UMCS, 1998. Banaszkiewicz, Jacek, ed. W stronę rytuałów i Galla Anonima. Cracow: Avalon, 2018. Banaszkiewicz, Jacek [2018a] “Czym była i jak została zniszczona chorągiew Świętowita (Saxo Grammmaticus, Gesta Danorum, XIV, 39, 14–28).” In Banaszkiewicz, Jacek, ed., 2018, pp. 133–55. Banaszkiewicz, Jacek [2018b]. “Pan Rugii – Rugiewit i jego towarzysze z Gardźca: Porewit i Porenut (Saxo Gramatyk, Gesta Danorum, XIV, 39, 38–41).” In Banaszkiewicz, Jacek ed. 2018, pp. 59–76. Baran, Jaroslav V. Slawische Siedlungsstrukturen. Beiträge zur Kenntnis der slawischen Gesellschaft. Bonn: Habelt, 2007. Baran, Vladimir D. „Die frühslawische Siedlung von Raškov, Ukraine.“ Beiträge zur allgemeinen und vergleichenden Archäologie 8 (1986), pp. 73–175. Baran, Vladimir D. Prazhskaia kul’tura Podnestrov’ja (Po materialam poselenii u s. Rashkov). Kiev: Naukova Dumka, 1988. Baran, Vladimir D. „Entstehung und Ausbreitung der frühslawischen Kultur.“ In Starigard/Oldenburg. Ein slawischer Herrschersitz des frühen Mittelalters in Ostholstein, ed. Micheal Müller-Wille, pp. 29–51. Neumünster: Wachholtz, 1991. Barber, Peter. “Medieval Maps of the World.” In The Hereford World Map. Medieval World Maps and their Context, ed. Paul D. Harvey, pp. 1–44. London: British Library, 2006. Barciak, Antoni. “Polacy w bitwie pod Suchymi Krutami.” Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Śląskiego 72 (1975), pp. 7–26.

Bibliography

427

Barciak, Antoni. Ideologia polityczna monarchii Przemysła Otokara II. Studium z dziejów czeskiej polityki zagranicznej w drugiej połowie XIII w. Katowice: Uniwersytet Śląski, 1982. Barford, Paul M. The Early Slavs. Culture and Society in Early Medieval Eastern Europe, London. New York: British Museum, 2001. Barford, Paul M. “Silent Centuries: The Society and Economy of the Northwestern Slavs.” In East Central and Eastern Europe in the Early Middle Ages, ed. Florin Curta, pp. 60–102. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2005. Barišić, Franjo. “Monemvasijska hronika o doseljavanju Avaro-Slovena na Peleponez 587.” Godišnjak Centra za balkanološka ispitivanja 3 (1965), pp. 95–109. Barthold, Wilhelm. “Slawen.” In Enzyklopädie des Islam. Geographisches, ethnographisches und biographisches Wörterbuch der muhammedanischen Völker: Volume 4, ed. Martin Theodor Houtsma, pp. 505–06. Leiden: Brill, 1934. Bartlett, Robert. The Making of Europe. Conquest, Colonization and Cultural Change 950–1350. London: Princeton University Press, 1993. Basić, Ivan [2018a]. “Imperium and Regnum in Gottschalk’s Description of Dalmatia.” In Migration, Integration and Connectivity on the Southeastern Frontier of the Carolingian Empire, Danijel Dzino et al., eds., pp. 170–209. Leiden: Brill, 2018. Basić, Ivan [2018b]. “New evidence for the re-establishment of the Adriatic dioceses in the late eight century.” Imperial Spheres and the Adriatic. Byzantium, the Carolingians and the Treaty of Aachen (812), eds. Mladen Ančić et al., pp. 261–87. London: Routledge, 2018. Basler, Djuro. „Die Bosnische Kirche im frühen Mittelalter.“ In Vita religiosa morale e sociale ed i concili di Split (Spalato) dei secc. X–XI, ed. Atanazje G. Matanić, pp. 363–72. Padova: Ed. Antenore, 1982. Baudisch, Susanne. „Der Adel Nordwestsachsens im Landesausbau.“ In Struktur und Wandel im Früh- und Hochmittelalter. Eine Bestandsaufnahme aktueller Forschungen zur Germania Slavica, ed. Christian Lübke, pp. 341–53. Stuttgart: Steiner, 1998. Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan I. “Czy istnieje osobna kultura słowiańska?” Przegląd Warszawski 5 (1925), pp. 223–26. Baumgärtner, Ingrid. „Graphische Gestalt und Signifikanz. Europa in den Weltkarten des Beatus von Liébana und des Ranulf Higden.“ In Europa im Weltbild des Mittel­ alters. Kartographische Konzepte, eds. Ingrid Baumgärtner and Hartmut Kugler, pp. 81–132. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 2008. Bauschke, Ricarda. „Johann von Neumarkt. ‚Hieronymus-Briefe‘. Probleme von Epochengrenzen und Epochenschwellen am Beispiel des Prager Frühhumanismus.“ In Humanismus in der deutschen Literatur des Mittelalters und der frühen Neuzeit, eds. Nicola McLelland et al., pp. 257–71. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 2008. Bazzani, Marina. “Theodore Metochites, a Byzantine Humanist.” Byzantion 76 (2006), pp. 32–52.

428

Bibliography

Beck, Hans Georg. Theodoros Metochites. Die Krise des byzantinischen Weltbildes im 14. Jahrhundert. Munich Beck, 1952. Begunov, Jurii K. Kozma Presviter v slavianskikh literaturakh. Sofia: Iz. na Bălgarskata Akademiia na Naukite, 1973. Beham, Markus Peter and Stefan Rohdewald. “Kyrill und Method.” In Religiöse Erinnerungsorte in Ostmitteleuropa. Konstitution und Konkurrenz im nationenund epochenübergreifenden Zugriff, eds. Joachim Bahlcke et al., pp. 473–93. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 2013. Behrends, Jan C. Erfundene Freundschaft. Propaganda für die Sowjetunion in Polen und in der DDR. Cologne: Böhlau, 2006. Behrends, Jan Claas. “Die ‘sowjetische Rus’ und ihre Brüder. Die slawische Idee in Russlands langem 20. Jahrhundert.” In Gemeinsam einsam. Die Slawische Idee nach dem Panslawismus, eds. Agnieszka Gąsior et al., pp. 95–114. Berlin: Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag, 2009. Behrends, Jan Claas. „Stalins slavischer Volkskrieg. Mobilisierung und Propaganda zwischen Weltkrieg und Kaltem Krieg (1941–1949).“ In Post-Panslavismus. Slavizität, slavische Idee und Antislavismus im 20. und 21. Jahrhundert, Geds. Agnieszka Gąsior et al., pp. 79–108. Göttingen: Wallstein, 2014. Behrends, Jan Claas. “Mobilization and Empire Building: Stalin’s Slavic Idea (1939– 1953).” In Konzepte des Slawischen, Tomáš Glanc and Christian Voß, pp. 45–62. Leipzig: Biblion Media, 2016. Behschnitt, Wolf Dietrich. Nationalismus bei Serben und Kroaten 1830–1914. Analyse und Typologie der nationalen Ideologie. Munich: Oldenbourg, 1980. Beilis, Vol‘f M. “Bibleiskaia genealogiia bulgar, rusov i slavian v versii al-Masudi.” In Vostochnaia Evropa v drevnosti i srednevekov’e. Spornye problemy istorii, ed. Anatolij P. Novosel′cev, pp. 4–6 Moskva: Nauka, 1993. Belitz, Michael. „[…] quod sedes proprias non haberent […]. Die Bischöfe von Brandenburg bis zum Jahre 1138.“ In Die Königspfalzenlandschaft Sachsen-Anhalt und der Osten, eds. Stephan Freund et al., pp. 137–61. Regensburg: Schnell & Steiner, 2019. Belošević, Janko. Materijalna kultura Hrvata od VII do IX stoljeća, pp. 146–74. Zagreb: SNL, 1980. Benedicty, Robert. “Die auf die frühslavische Gesellschaft bezügliche byzantinische Terminologie.” In Actes du XIIe Congrès international d’études byzantines. Volume 2, pp. 45–55. Belgrade: Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste România, 1964. Benedicty, Robert. “Procopios’ Berichte über die slawische Vorzeit. Beiträge zur historiographischen Methode Prokopios von Kaisareia.” Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinischen Gesellschaft 14 (1965), pp. 51–78. Benl, Rudolf. “Slawische Stammesnamen in pommerschen Urkunden und die Frage der pommerschen Reichszugehörigkeit.” Baltische Studien NF 72 (1986), pp. 7–23.

Bibliography

429

Benl, Rudolf. “Slawische Voraussetzungen und deutscher Neuansatz. Mittelalterliche Dorfgründungen in Ostdeutschland am Beispiel des hinterpommerschen Malchow.” ZfO 37 (1988), pp. 21–358. Benl, Rudolf. “Pommern bis zur Teilung von 1368/72.” In Deutsche Geschichte im Osten Europas. Pommern, ed. Werner Buchholz, pp. 24–126. Berlin: Siedler, 1999. Beranová, Magdalena. “The Raising of Domestic Animals among Slavs in Early Middle Ages According to Archaeological Sources.” In Vznik a počátky Slovanů. Sborník pro studium slovanských starožitností 6, ed. Jan Filip, pp. 153–96. Prague: Academia, 1966. Beranová, Magdalena. “Der Obst- und Weinbau bei Slawen im frühen Mittelalter nach archäologischen Quellen.” In Vznik a počátky Slovanů. Sborník pro studium slovanských starožitností 7, ed. Josef Poulík, pp. 207–41. Prague: Academia, 1972. Beranová, Magdalena. Zemědělství starých Slovanů. Prague: Academia, 1980. Beranová, Magdalena. “Types of Slavic agricultural production in the 6th–12th centuries A.D.” Ethnologia Slavica 16 (1984), pp. 7–48. Bergstedt, Clemens. „Die Havelberger Stiftungsurkunde und die Datierung der Gründung des Bistums Havelberg. Eine quellenkritsiche Bestandsaufnahme“. In Jahrbuch für Berlin-Brandenburgische Kirchengeschichte 61 (1997), pp. 1–88. Bering, Piotr. “Narration, Rhetorik und Metatext in der ‘Cronica principum Poloniae’.” Symbolae philologorum Posnaniensium Graecae et Latinae 12 (1998), pp. 5–63. Bertels, Klaus. „Carantania. Beobachtungen zur politisch-geographischen Terminologie und zur Geschichte des Landes und seiner Bevölkerung im frühen Mittelalter.“ Carinthia I 177 (1987), pp. 7–196. Bertels, Klaus and Renate Möhlenkamp [1983a]. „Carantani.“ In Glossar zur frühmittelalterlichen Geschichte im östlichen Europa. Seria A: Lateinische Namen bis 900, Bd. 2, ed. Jadran Ferluga et al., pp. 306–16. Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1983. Bertels, Klaus and Renate Möhlenkamp [1983b]. „Carantania.“ In Glossar zur frühmittelalterlichen Geschichte im östlichen Europa. Seria A: Lateinische Namen bis 900, Bd. 2, ed. Jadran Ferluga et al., pp. 319–31. Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1983. Beševliev, Veselin. Die protobulgarische Periode der bulgarischen Geschichte. Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1981. Betti, Maddalena. “La Descriptio civitatum et regionum ad septentrionalem plagam Danubii. Lo spazio oltre il ‘limes’ nel IX secolo.” Mélanges de l’École française de Rome – Moyen Âge 125–1 (2013), 1, http://mefrm.revues.org/1078. Betti, Maddalena. The Making of Christian Moravia (858–882). Papal Power and Political Reality. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Beumann, Helmut. „Die Gründung des Bistums Oldenburg und die Missionspolitik Ottos des Großen.“ In Aus Reichsgeschichte und nordischer Geschichte. Karl Jordan zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. Horst Fuhrmann et al., pp. 54–69. Stuttgart: Klett, 1972. Bibikov, Michail V. Vizantiiskii prototip drevneishei slavianskoi knigi (Izbornik Sviato­ slava 1073 r.). Moscow: Pamiatniki Istoricheskoi Mysli, 1996.

430

Bibliography

Bibikov, Michail V. “‚Zakon sudnyi liudem‘ i vizantiiskaa Ėkloga v svete srednevekovykh pravovykh tradicii.” Rossiiskaja istoriia 4 (2019), pp. 2–91. Bieniak, Janusz. “Postanowienia układu kępińskiego (15 lutego 1282).” PH 82 (1991), pp. 209–232. Bieniak, Janusz. “Jan (Janek) z Czarnkowa. Niedokończona kronika polska z XIV wieku.” SŹ 47 (2009), pp. 109–43. Biermann, Felix. „Das geplante Dorf  – Ortsbefestigungen und Parzellierungen in Dörfern der Ostsiedlungszeit.“ In Die bäuerliche Ostsiedlung des Mittelalters in Nordostdeutschland. Untersuchungen zum Landesausbau des 12. bis 14. Jahrhunderts im ländlichen Raum, eds. Felix Biermann and Günter Mangelsdorf, pp. 91–120. Frankfurt/M.: Lang, 2005. Biermann, Felix. „Siedlung und Landschaft bei den nördlichen Westslawen im späteren 9. und 10. Jahrhundert.“ In Landschaften im Mittelalter, ed. Karl-Heinz Spieß, pp. 45–76. Stuttgart: Steiner, 2006. Biermann, Felix. „Konfrontation zwischen Einheimischen und Zuwanderern bei der deutschen Ostsiedlung des Mittelalters.“ In Bereit zum Konflikt. Strategien und Medien der Konflikterzeugung, eds. Oliver Auge et al., pp. 131–72. Stuttgart: Thorbecke, 2008. Biermann, Felix. “Kommentar zum Aufsatz von Florin Curta: Utváření Slovanů (se zvláštím zřetelem k Čechám a Moravě)  – The Making of the Slavs (with special emphasis on Bohemia and Moravia).” AR 61 (2009), pp. 337–49. Biermann, Felix. “Functions of the large Feldberg type strongholds from the 8th/9th century in Mecklenburg and Pomerania.” Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 63 (2011), pp. 49–174. Biermann, Felix [2013a]. „Handel und Handwerk. Einführung und Diskussion.“ In Slawen an der unteren Mittelelbe. Untersuchungen zur ländlichen Besiedlung, zum Burgenbau, zu Besiedlungsstrukturen und zum Landschaftswandel, eds. KarlHeinz Willroth et al., p. 211. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 2013. Biermann, Felix [2013b]. „Slawische Keramik. Einleitung und Diskussion.“ In Slawen an der unteren Mittelelbe. Untersuchungen zur ländlichen Besiedlung, zum Burgenbau, zu Besiedlungsstrukturen und zum Landschaftswandel, eds. Karl-Heinz Willroth et al., pp. 167–69. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 2013. Biermann, Felix [2013c]. „Überzeugung und Zwang bei der Christianisierung Polens unter den ersten Piasten.“ in: Schwertmission. Gewalt und Christianisierung im Mittelalter, eds. Hermann Kamp and Martin Kroker, pp. 67–9. Paderborn: Schöningh, 2013. Biermann, Felix. “The small Early Medieval lowland ringforts in Northern Masovia and their counterparts in the northern West-Slavic territory.” In Archeologica hereditas. Grody średniowiecznego Mazowsza. Księga poświęcona pamięci Marka Dulinicza.

Bibliography

431

Warsaw, eds. Magdalena Żurek and Małgorzata Krasna-Korycińska, pp. 39–50. Zielona Góra: Wydawnictwo Fundacji Archeologicznej, 2015. Biermann, Felix. „Über das ‘dunkle Jahrhundert’ in der späten Völkerwanderungs- und frühen Slawenzeit im nordostdeutschen Raum.“ In Die frühen Slawen  – von der Expansion zu gentes und nationes. Volume 1: Beiträge zum Schwerpunktthema, eds. Felix Biermann et al., pp. 9–26. Langenweißbach: Beier & Beran, 2016. Biermann, Felix. Transformation vs. migration: Early Slavic settlement in the territory of north-eastern Germany as a case study. In New Perspectives on the Early Slavs and the Rise of Slavic. Contact and Migration, eds. Tomáš Klír et al., pp. 70–90. Heidelberg: Winter, 2020. Biermann, Felix and Katrin Frey. „Ringwall und Macht. Über die Burgen des 9./10. Jahrhunderts am Teltow und im Berliner Raum.“ Przegląd Archeologiczny 49 (2001), pp. 9–83. Biermann, Felix and Norbert Gossler. „Zwischen Freund und Feind  – Die Linonen und ihre Nachbarn im frühen und hohen Mittelalter.“ In Siedlungsstrukturen und Burgen im westslawischen Raum, eds. Biermann, Felix et al., pp. 137–54. Langen­ weissbach: Beier & Beran, 2009. Biewer, Ludwig. “Die Geschichte des pommerschen Greifenwappens.” Baltische Studien NF 79 (1993), pp. 44–57. Biliarsky, Ivan. Instituciite na srednovekovna Bălgariia. Vtoro bălgarsko carstvo (XII– XIV vek). Sofia: Universitet “Sv. Kliment Ochridski”, 1998. Biliarsky, Ivan. “The Cult of Saint Petka and the Constantinopolitan Maria Cult.” In Les cultes des saints souverains et des saints guerriers et l’idéologie du pouvoir en Europe Centrale et Orientale, eds. Ivan Biliarsky and Radu G. Păun, pp. 81–104. Bucharest: New Europe College, 2007. Biliarsky, Ivan. “Old Testament Models and the State in Early Medieval Bulgaria.” In The Old Testament in Byzantium, eds. Paul Magdalino and Robert Nelson, pp. 255–77. Washington: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2010. Biliarsky, Ivan [2011a]. “St. Peter (927–969): Tsar of the Bulgarians.” In State and Church: Studies in Medieval Bulgaria and Byzantium, eds. Vassil Gjuzelev and Kiril Petkov, pp. 173–88. Sofia: American Research Center, 2011. Biliarsky, Ivan [2011b]. Word and Power in Mediaeval Bulgaria. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Biliarsky, Ivan. The Tale of the Prophet Isaiah. The Destiny and Meanings of an Apocryphal Text. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Biliarsky, Ivan and Radu G. Păun, eds. Les cultes des saints souverains et des saints guerriers et l’idéologie du pouvoir en Europe Centrale et Orientale. Bucharest: New Europe College, 2007. Billig, Gerhard. Die Burgwardorganisation im obersächsisch-meißnischen Raum. Archäologisch-archivalisch vergleichende Untersuchungen. Dresden: Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften, 1989.

432

Bibliography

Biniaś-Szkopek, Magdalena. “Konflikty w łonie dynastii piastowskiej a wzrost znaczenia możnowładztwa na przykładzie sporów synów Bolesława Krzywoustego.” In Pierwsze polsko-czeskie forum młodych mediewistów, ed. Józef Dobosz, pp. 159–72. Poznań: Instytut Historii Uniwersytetu Adama Mickiewicza, 2007. Birkfellner, Gerhard. “Methodius Archiepiscopus Superioris (Magnae) Moraviae.” In Slavistische Studien zum XI. Internationalen Slavistenkongreß in Pressburg/ Bratislava, eds. Karl Gutschmid et al., pp. 29–55. Cologne: Böhlau, 1993. Birkhan, Helmut, Horst Callies and Peter Berghaus. „Boier.“ In Reallexikon der Germa­ nischen Altertumskunde. Volume 3, eds. Heinrich Beck et al., pp. 205–07. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter, 1978. Birnbaum, Henrik. “The Slavonic language community as a genetic and typological class.” WdS 27 (1982), pp. 5–43. Birnbaum, Henrik. “Was there a Slavic landtaking of the Balkans and, if so, along what routes did it proceed?” In Migrations in Balkan History, ed. Ivan Ninić, pp. 47–60. Belgrade: Srpska akadamija nauka i umetnosti, 1989. Birnbaum, Henrik [1993a]. “Christianity before Christianization. Christians and Christianity in pre 988–Rus’.” In Christianity and the Eastern Slavs. Volume 1: Slavic Cultures in the Middle Ages, eds. Boris Gasparov and Olga Raevsky-Hughes, pp. 42–62. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993. Birnbaum, Henrik [1993b]. “On the ethnogenesis and protohome of the Slavs: the linguistic evidence.” Journal of Slavic Linguistics 1 (1993), pp. 252–74. Birnbaum, Henrik [1993c]. “Where was the Center of the Moravian State?” In American Contributions to the 11th International Congress of Slavists. Literature. Linguistics. Poetics, ed. Robert A. Maguire, pp. 11–24. Ohio: Slavica, 1993. Birnbaum, Henrik. “How Did Glagolitic Writing Reach the Coastal Regions of Northwestern Croatia?” Croatica 42–44 (1996), pp. 67–79. Bismarck, Otto von. Die gesammelten Werke. Vol. 14, 1: Briefe. Erster Band 1822–1861. Berlin: Stollberg, 1933. Bittner, Konrad. “Slavica bei G.W. Leibniz.” Germanoslavica 1 (1931/32), pp. 3–32, 161–234, 509–57. Bjørnflaten, Jan I. “Chronologies of the Slavicization of Northern Russia Mirrored by Slavic Loanwords in Finnic and Baltic.” Slavica Helsingiensia 27 (2006), pp. 50–77. Bláhová, Emilie. “Staroslověnská literární činnost Sázavského kláštera.” In Sázava. Památník staroslověnské kultury v Čechách, ed. Květa Reichertová, pp. 104–55. Prague: Odeon, 1988. Bláhová, Emilie. “Ke klasifikaci českocírkevněslovanských památek.” Slavia. Časopis pro slovanskou filologii 62 (1993), pp. 427–42. Bláhová, Emilie. „Literarische Beziehungen zwischen dem Sázava-Kloster und der Kiever Rus’.“ In Der heilige Prokop, Böhmen und Mitteleuropa. Internationales

Bibliography

433

Symposium, Benešov – Sázava 24.–26. September 2003., ed. Petr Sommer, pp. 237–53. Prague: Filosofia, 2005. Bláhová, Marie. „Odraz státní ideologie v oficiální historiografii doby předhusické.“ Folia Historica Bohemica 12 (1988), pp. 269–88. Bláhová, Marie. Staročeská kronika tak řečeného Dalimila v kontextu středověké historigrafie latinského kulturního okruhu a její pramenná hodnota. 3: Historický komentař. Prague: Academia, 1995. Bláhová, Marie. „Geographische Vorstellungen und Kenntnisse der böhmischen mittelalterlichen Chronisten.“ In Raum und Raumvorstellungen im Mittelalter, ed. Jan A. Aertsen, pp. 540–56. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1998. Bláhová, Marie. „Die offizielle Geschichtsschreibung in den mittelalterlichen böhmischen Ländern.“ In Die Geschichtsschreibung in Mitteleuropa. Projekte und Forschungsprobleme, ed. Jarosław Wenta, pp. 21–40. Toruń: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika, 1999. Bláhová, Marie. „Die Anfänge des böhmischen Staates in der mittelalterlichen Geschichtsschreibung.“ In Von Sacerdotium und Regnum. Geistliche und weltliche Gewalt im frühen und hohen Mittelalter, eds. Franz-Reiner Erkens and Hartmut Wolff, pp. 67–76. Cologne: Böhlau, 2002. Bláhová, Marie [2006a]. „Die Hofgeschichtsschreibung am böhmischen Herrscherhof im Mittelalter.“ In Die Hofgeschichtsschreibung im mittelalterlichen Europa, eds. Rudolf Schieffer and Jarosław Wenta, pp. 51–73. Toruń: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika, 2006. Bláhová, Marie [2006b]. „Poznámka k recepci České kroniky Jana Marignoly z Florencie ve středověkých Čechách.“ In Querite primum regnum Dei. Sbornik příspěvků k poctě Jany Nechutové, eds. Helena Krmíčková et al., pp. 333–41. Brno: Matice Moravská, 2006. Bláhová, Marie. „O Kosmovi a jeho kronice.“ In Kosmova Kronika česká, eds. Karel Hrdina and Marie Bláhová, pp. 211–45. Prague: Československý spisovatel, 2012. Bláhová, Marie. „Macht und Machtausübung im Licht der böhmischen Geschichts­ schreibung des 12. Jahrhunderts.“ In Macht und Spiegel der Macht. Herrschaft in Europa im 12. und 13. Jahrhundert vor dem Hintergrund der Chronistik, eds. Norbert Kersken and Grischa Vercamer, pp. 359–81. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2013. Bláhová, Marie, Jan Frolík and Nad’a Profantova. Velké dějiny zemí Koruny české. Svazek I: Do roku 1197. Prague: Paseka, 1999. Blangez-Malamut, Elisabeth and Michel Cacouros. „L’image des Serbes dans la rhétorique byzantine de la seconde moitié du XII siècle.“ In Byzantium. Identity, Image, Influence, ed. Karsten Fledelius, pp. 97–122. Copenhagen: Eventus, 1996. Blaschke, Karlheinz. „Kühren und der Anteil der Sorben an der deutschen Ostkolonisation.“ Ostsiedlung und Landesausbau in Sachsen. Die Kührener Urkunde

434

Bibliography

von 1154 und ihr historisches Umfeld, ed. Enno Bünz, pp. 283–92. Leipzig: Leipziger Universität-Verlag, 2008. Boba, Imre. Moravia’s History Reconsidered. A reinterpretation of medieval sources. The Hague: Nijhoff, 1971. Boba, Imre. “The Monastery of Sázava: Methodian Continuity North of the Danube?” Palaeobulgarica 5 (1981), 1, pp. 84–87. Bobowski, Kazimierz. „Das staatsrechtliche Verhältnis Pommerns zu Brandenburg im 13. Jahrhundert.“ In Pommern. Geschichte, Kultur, Wissenschaft. 3. Kolloquium zur Pommerschen Geschichte 13.–14. Oktober 1993. Pommern im Reich und in Europa, eds. Horst Wernicke and Ralf-Gunnar Werlich, pp. 67–78. Greifswald: Steinbecker Verlag Rose, 1996. Bock, Günther. „Das Ende des Abodritenreiches  – Helmold von Bosau kritisch hinterfragt.“ In Die frühen Slawen  – von der Expansion zu gentes und nationes. Volume 1: Beiträge zum Schwerpunktthema, eds. Felix Biermann et al., pp. 287–308. Langenweißbach: Beier & Beran, 2016. Böhler, Jochen. Auftakt zum Vernichtungskrieg. Die Wehrmacht in Polen 1939. Frankfurt/ M.: Fischer, 2006. Bömelburg, Hans-Jürgen. Frühneuzeitliche Nationen im östlichen Europa. Das polnische Geschichtsdenken und die Reichweite einer humanistischen Nationalgeschichte (1500–1700). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2006. Bogdanović, Dimitrije. „800 Jahre Kloster Hilandar. Seine Gründung und Bedeutung für das serbische Mittelalter.“ Hermeneia. Zeitschrift für ostkirchliche Kunst 14 (1998), 1, pp. 34–48. Bogucki, Mateusz. “Nieznana hybryda denara PRINCES POLONIE i nowy typ monety Bolesława Chrobrego.” Wiadomości Numizmatyczne 50 (2006), pp. 181–94. Bogucki, Mateusz. “The beginning of the dirham import to the Baltic Sea zone and the question of the early emporia.” In Worlds apart? Contacts across the Baltic Sea in the Iron Age, eds. Ulla Lund Hansen and Anna Bitner-Wróblewska, pp. 351–64. København: Det Kongelige Nordiske Oldkriftselskab, 2010. Bogucki, Mateusz. “On Wulfstan’s Right Hand – the Viking Age Emporia in West Slav Lands.” In From One Sea to Another. Trading Places in the European and Mediterranean Early Middle Ages, eds. Sauro Gelichi and Richard Hodges, pp. 81–109. Turnhout: Brepols, 2012. Boháčová, Ivana. “Pražský hrad a jeho nejstarší opevňocí systémy.” Mediaevalia archaeologica 5 (2001), pp. 179–301. Boháčová, Ivana. “Te archeology of the dawn of Prague.” In Burg-Vorburg-Suburbium. Zur Problematik der Nebenareale frühmittelalterlicher Zentren, eds. Ivana Boháčová and Lumír Polaček, pp. 103–99. Brno: Archeologický ústav AVČR, 2010. Boháčová, Ivana. “Prag, Budeč und Boleslav. The reflection of state formation in Early Medieval archaeological sources.” In Frühgeschichtliche Zentralorte in Mitteleuropa, eds. Jiří Macháček and Šimon Ungerman, pp. 371–95. Bonn: Habelt, 2011.

Bibliography

435

Boháčová, Ivana. “Počátky budování přemyslovského státu a jeho centra  – synchronizace výpovědi archeologických pramenů a její interpretace.” AH 38 (2013), pp. 7–25. Bojanin, Stanoje and Bojana Krsmanović. “Byzantine Influence in Administration in the Time of the Nemanjić-Dynasty.” In Processes of Byzantinisation and Serbian Archaeology, ed. Vesna Bikić, pp. 45–51. Belgrade: Serbian National Committee of Byzantine Studies, 2016. Bojović, Boško I. L’idéologie monarchique dans les hagio-biographies dynastiques du moyen âge Serbe. Roma: Pontificio Ist. Orientale, 1996. Borejsza, Jerzy. ‘Śmieszne sto milionów Słowian …’ Wokół światopoglądu Adolfa Hitlera. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Neriton, 2006. Borgolte, Michael. „Christliche und muslimische Repräsentationen der Welt. Ein Versuch in transdisziplinärer Mediävistik.“ In Mittelalter in der größeren Welt. Essays zur Geschichtsschreibung und Beiträge zur Forschung, ed. Michael Borgolte, pp. 283–335. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014. Borkovský, Ivan. Staroslovanská keramika ve střední Evropě. Studie k počátkům slovanské kultury. Prague: Selbstverlag Druckerei des Protektorates Böhmen und Mähren, 1940. Borkovský, Ivan. Levý Hradec. Nejstarší sídlo Přemyslovců. Prague: Academia, 1965. Borkowska, Urszula. Treści ideowe w dziełach Jana Długosza. Kościół i świat poza Kościołem. Lublin: Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski, 1983. Borkowski, Andrzej. “Neoslawizm. Próba realizacji koncepcji polskiej ‘rozumnej ugody’ i czeskiej ‘polityki pozytywnej’ w latach 1908–1910.” In Między irredentą a kolaboracją. Polacy w czasach zaborów wobec obcych władz i systemów politycznych, ed. Sławomir Kalembka, pp. 165–75. Olsztyn: Wydawnictwo DiG., 2001. Bornträger, Ekkehard W. „Die slavischen Lehnwörter im Neugriechischen.“ Zeitschrift für Balkanologie 25 (1989), pp. 8–25. Boroń, Piotr. Słowiańskie wiece plemienne. Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego, 1999. Boroń, Piotr. Kniaziowie, królowie, carowie … Tytuły i nazwy władców słowiańskich we wczesnym średniowieczu. Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego, 2010. Borri, Francesco. “White Croatia and the arrival of the Croats: an interpretation of Constantine Porphyrogenitus on the oldest Dalmatian history.” Early Medieval Europe 19 (2011), no. 2, pp. 204–31. Borst, Arno. Der Turmbau von Babel. Geschichte der Meinungen über Ursprung und Vielfalt der Sprachen und Völker. Volume 1: Fundamente und Aufbau. Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1957; Volume 2: Ausbau. Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1959. Boryś, Wiesław. “Rozpad wspólnoty prasłowiańskiej w świetle słownictwa.” In Słowianie, Słowiańszczyzna  – pojęcie i rzeczywistość dawniej i dziś, ed. Kwirina Handke, pp. 25–34. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Instytutu Slawistyki PAN, 2002.

436

Bibliography

Bosworth, Clifford Edmund. Al-Ṣaḳāliba. 2. In the central lands of the caliphate, In The Encyclopaedia of Islam. New Edition. Volume 8, eds. Clifford Edmund Bosworth et al., pp. 878–79. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Bowlus, Charles. Franks, Moravians and Magyars. The Struggle for the Middle Danube (788–907). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1995. Bozhilov, Ivan A. “Bitolskiiat nadpis na car Ivan Vladislav i niakoj văprosi ot srednovekovnata bălgarska istoriia.” Istoricheski pregled 27 (1971), no. 1, pp. 84–100. Bozhilov, Ivan. Car Simeon Veliki (893–927): Zlatniiat vek na Srednovekov na Bălgariia. Sofia: Otechestveni Front, 1983. Bozhilov, Ivan. “L’idéologie politique du Tsar Symeon: Pax Symeonica.” Byzantinobulgarica 8 (1986), pp. 73–88. Bozhilov, Ivan. Familiiata na Asenevci (1186–1460). Genealogiia i prosopografiia. 2nd ed. Sofia: Iz. na Bălgarskata Akademiia na Naukite, 1994. Brachmann, Hansjürgen. “Die Funde der Gruppe des Prager Typs in der DDR und ihre Stellung im Rahmen der frühslawischen Besiedlung dieses Gebietes.” SA 29 (1983), pp. 23–64. Brachmann, Hansjürgen. „Als aber die Austrasier das castrum Wogastisburc belagerten … (Fredegar IV, 69).“ Onomastica Slavogermanica 19 (1990), pp. 7–33. Brachmann, Hansjürgen. “Groitzsch. Zentrum einer frühen Landesherrschaft im sorbischen Siedlungsgebiet östlich der Saale.” In Lokalne ośrodki władzy państwowej w XI–XII wieku w Europie Środkowo-Wschodniej, ed. Sławomir Moździoch, pp. 187–99. Wrocław: Instytut Archeologii i Etnologii, 1993. Brachmann, Hansjürgen.„Westslawische Burgherrschaft im Übergang von der Stammes- zur Staatsgesellschaft.“ Berliner Jahrbuch zur osteuropäischen Geschichte 1 (1996), pp. 5–73. Brademann, Jan. „Defensor Patriae  – Das Leben des Markgrafen Gero.“ In Auf den Spuren der Ottonen. II. Protokoll des Wissenschaftlichen Kolloquiums am 26. Mai 2000 in Wetzendorf/Memleben, eds. Gerlinde Schlenker and Roswitha Jendryschik, pp. 115–30. Halle/S.: Landesheimatbund Sachsen-Anhalt, 2000. Bradford, Paul M. “Modelling Past Language Change and the Archaeology of the Early Slavs.” In Languages in Contact, eds. Piotr. P. Chruszewski et al., pp. 29–44. Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Wyższej Szkoły Filologicznej, 2014. Brankačk, Jan and Frido Mětšk. Geschichte der Sorben. Volume 1: Von den Anfängen bis 1789. Bautzen: Domowina-Verlag, 1977. Brather, Sebastian. „Hochmittelalterliche Siedlungsentwicklung um Kloster Lehnin? Slawen und Deutsche in der Zauche.“ Veröffentlichungen des Brandenburgischen Landesmuseums für Ur- und Frühgeschichte 27 (1993), pp. 128–78. Brather, Sebastian. „Frühmittelalterliche Dirham-Schatzfunde in Europa. Probleme ihrer wirtschaftsgeschichtlichen Interpretation aus archäologischer Perspektive.“ Zeitschrift für Archäologie des Mittelalters 23/24 (1995/96), pp. 73–153.

Bibliography

437

Brather, Sebastian. Feldberger Keramik und frühe Slawen. Studien zur nordwestslawischen Keramik der Karolingerzeit, pp. 189–98. Bonn: Habelt, 1996. Brather, Sebastian [2001a]. Archäologie der westlichen Slawen. Siedlung, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft im früh- und hochmittelalterlichen Ostmitteleuropa. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2001. Brather, Sebastian [2001b]. „Grubenhäuser in Ostmitteleuropa. Frühmittelalterliche ‚Hauslandschaften‘ oder slawische Einwanderung?“ In Instantia est mater doctrinae. Księga pamiątkowa W. Filipowiaka. Tom 2, eds. Eugeniusz Wilgocki et al., 77–91. Szczecin: Stowarzyszenie Naukowe Archeologów Polskich, 2001. Brather, Sebastian [2001c]. “Slawenbilder, ‘Slawische Altertumskunde’ im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert.” AR 53 (2001), pp. 717–51. Brather, Sebastian. Ethnische Interpretationen in der frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie. Geschichte, Grundlagen und Alternativen. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004. Brather, Sebastian [2005a]. „Die Anfänge slawischer Besiedlung westlich von Oder und Neisse.“ In Archeologia o początkach Słowian, Piotr Kaczanowski and Michał Parczewski, pp. 527–40. Cracow: Księgarnia Akademicka, 2005. Brather, Sebastian [2005b]. „Hochmittelalterliche Siedlungsentwicklung und ethnische Identitäten. Slawen und Deutsche östlich der Elbe in archäologischer und siedlungsgeographischer Perspektive.“ In Die bäuerliche Ostsiedlung des Mittelalters in Nordostdeutschland. Untersuchungen zum Landesausbau des 12. bis 14. Jahrhunderts im ländlichen Raum, eds. Felix Biermann and Günter Mangelsdorf, pp. 29–38. Frankfurt/M.: Lang, 2005. Brather, Sebastian. „Zwischen ‚Fluchtburg‘ und ‚Herrensitz‘. Sozialgeschichtliche Interpretationen früh- und hochmittelalterlicher Burgwälle in Ostmitteleuropa.“ Archaeologia Baltica 6 (2006), pp. 40–57. Brather, Sebastian. “The Western Slavs of the Seventh to the Eleventh Century – An Archaeological Perspective.” History Compass 9 (2011), pp. 454–73. Brather, Sebastian. “Grubenhäuser zwischen Ost und West – Kennzeichen, Verbreitung und Funktion.” In Archäologie, Mittelalter, Neuzeit, Zukunft: Festschrift für Ingolf Ericsson, eds. Rainer Atzbach et al., pp. 31–40. Bonn: Habelt, 2017. Brogi Bercoff, Giovanna. “Królestwo Słowian Maura Orbiniego a europejskie dziejopisarstwo XVI wieku.” In Królestwo Słowian. Historiografia Renesansu i Baroku w krajach słowiańskich, ed. Giovanna Brogi Bercoff, pp. 43–77. Izabelin: Świat Literacki, 1998. Brückner, Alexander. Die Slaven. Tübingen: Mohr, 1926. Brüske, Wolfgang. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Lutizenbundes. Deutschwendische Beziehungen des 10.–12. Jahrhunderts. 2nd ed. Cologne: Böhlau, 1983. Brzozowska, Zofia A. “The Byzantine Consort of the Bulgarian Ruler: Maria Lekapene.” In The Bulgarian State in 927–969. The Epoch of Tsar Peter I., eds. Mirosław J. Leszka and Kirił Marinow, pp. 55–90. Łódź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego, 2018.

438

Bibliography

Brzozowska, Zofia A., Mirosław J. Leszka and Kirył Marinow. Piotr I Święty car bułgarski (ok. 912–969). Maria Lekapena caryca bułgarska (ok. 912–?963). Cracow: Avalon, 2018. Bubalo, Ɖorđe. Pragmatic Literacy in Medieval Serbia. Turnhout: Brepols, 2014. Bubeník, Josef. “Poznámky o nejstarších hradištích raného středověku v Čechách.” AR 51 (1999), pp. 631–48. Bubeník, Josef, Ivana Pleinerová and Nad’a Profantová. “Od počátků hradišt’ k počátkům přemyslovského státu.” PA 89 (1998), pp. 101–45. Buchner, Rudolf. „Die politische Vorstellungswelt Adams von Bremen.“ Archiv für Kulturgeschichte 45 (1963), pp. 15–59. Budak, Neven. „Die südslawischen Ethnogenesen an der östlichen Adriaküste im frühen Mittelalter.“ In Typen der Ethnogenese unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Bayern. Volume 1, eds. Herwig Wolfram and Walter Pohl, 129–36. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akadaemie der Wissenschaften, 1990. Budak, Neven [1993a]. “Frühes Christentum in Kroatien.” In Karantanien und der Alpen-Adria-Raum im Frühmittelalter, eds. Günther Hödl and Johannes Grabmayer, 223–34. Vienna: Böhlau, 1993. Budak, Neven [1993b]. „Hrvatska u vrijeme Trpimira.“ Kaštelanski zbornik 3 (1993), pp. 58–63. Budak, Neven. “Croats between Franks and Byzantium.” Hortus Artium Mediaevalium 3 (1997), pp. 15–33. Budak, Neven. „Der ungarische Staat und die Kroaten.“ In Die ungarische Staatsbildung und Ostmitteleuropa, ed. Ferenc Glatz, pp. 221–28. Budapest: Europa Inst., 2002. Budak, Neven. “Identities in Early Medieval Dalmatia (Seventh–Eleventh Centuries).” In Franks, Northmen, and Slavs. Identities and State Formation in Early Medieval Europe, eds. Ildar H. Garipzanov et al., pp. 222–41. Turnhout: Brepols, 2008. Budak, Neven. “Über die Anfänge der slawischen Liturgie und der glagolitischen Schrift in Dalmatien und Kroatien.” In Religionsgeschichtliche Studien zum östlichen Europa. Festschrift für Ludwig Steindorff zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. Martina Thomsen, pp. 15–22. Stuttgart: Steiner, 2017. Budak, Neven [2018a]. “Croatia and Byzantium in the Tenth Century. A Latin Member of the Byzantine Commonwealth.” In Center, Province and Periphery in the Age of Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos. From De Ceremoniis to De Adminstrando Imperio, eds. Niels Gaul et al., pp. 211–22. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2018. Budak, Neven [2018b]. “Paulus de Breberio, Banus Croatorum dominus et Bosne.” In Portraits of Medieval Eastern Europe, 900–1400, eds. Donald Ostrowsky and Christian Raffensperger, pp. 100–8. London, New York: Routledge, 2018. Budyta-Budzyńska, Małgorzata. “Nacjonalizm i tzw. nowa etniczność jako instrumenty modernizacji i selektywnej inkorporacji Słowiańszczyzny do systemu światowego.” In Słowianie, Słowiańszczyzna – pojęcie i rzeczywistość dawniej i dziś, ed. Kwirina Handke, pp. 171–88. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Instytutu Slawistyki PAN, 2002.

Bibliography

439

Bührer-Thierry, Geneviève. “Un évêque d’Empire face aux païens: Thietmar de Mersebourg et les Liutizes.” In Retour aux sources. Textes, études et documents d’histoire médiévale offerts à Michel Parisse, ed. Sylvain Gouguenheim, pp. 591–99. Paris: Picard, 2004. Büker, Dieter. „Slawen und Deutsche. Die Begegnung von Slawen und Deutschen zwischen Elbe und Oder vor etwa 1000 Jahren und der Große Slawenaufstand von 983.“ Neubrandenburger Mosaik 32 (2008), pp. 8–60. Bugarski, Ivan and Milica Radišić. “The Central Balkans in the Early Middle Ages: Archaeological Testimonies to Change.” In Processes of Byzantinisation and Serbian Archaeology, ed. Vesna Bikić, pp. 91–99. Belgrade: Serbian National Committee of Byzantine Studies, 2016. Bujan, Solange. “La Chronique du Prêtre de Dioclée. Un faux document historique.” Revue des Études Byzantins 66 (2008), pp. 5–38. Bujan, Solange. “Orbinijevo izdanje ‚Ljetopisa Popa Duklkanina‘: povijesni falsifikat.” Radovi Zavoda za hrvatsku povijest Filozofskoga fakulteta Sveučilišta u Zagrebu 43 (2011), pp. 65–80. Buko, Andrzej. “Ziemia sandomierska w początkach państwa polskiego.” In Civitas Schinesghe cum pertinentiis, ed. Wojciech Chudziak, pp. 121–50. Toruń: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika, 2003. Buko, Andrzej. Archeologia Polski wczesnośredniowiecznej. Odkrycia – hipotezy – interpretacje. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Trio, 2005. Buko, Andrzej. “Ośrodki centralne a problem najstarszego patrymonium dynastii Piastów.” Archeologia Polski 57 (2012), pp. 133–59. Buko, Andrzej. “1050 – lecie chrześcijaństwa na ziemiach polskich. Państwo Mieszka I i problem wczesnej chrystianizacji Polski w perspektywie badań archeologicznych.” Nauka 2 (2016), pp. 7–38. Buko, Andrzej. “Małopolska i Wielkopolska IX–X wieku w perspektywie badań archeologicznych.” In Spór o początki państwa polskiego. Historiografia, tradycja, mit, propaganda, eds. Wojciech Drelicharz et al., pp. 15–36. Cracow: Towarzystwo Wydawnicze “Historia Iagellonica”, 2017. Buko, Andrzej. Świt państwa polskiego. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Instytutu Archeologii i Etnologii PAN, 2021. Burgmann, Ludwig. „Der Codex Vaticanus graecus 1167 und der serbische Nomokanon.“ ZRVI 34 (1995), pp. 91–106. Burian, Maria Luise. „Die Krönung des Stephan Prvovenčani und die Beziehungen Serbiens zum römischen Stuhl.“ Archiv für Kulturgeschichte 23 (1933), pp. 141–51. Burlach, Doris. „Ausgrenzung, Eingrenzung, Assimilation? Slawen und Deutsche im mittelalterlichen Handwerk des südlichen Ostseeraums und Brandenburgs.“ Hansische Geschichtsblätter 124 (2006), pp. 71–91.

440

Bibliography

Burr, Malcolm. “The Code of Stephan Dušan. Tsar and Autocrat of the Serbs and Greeks.” Slavonic and East European Review 28 (1949/50), pp. 198–217, 516–39. Bylina, Stanisław. “Idee uniwersalne a czeska świadomość narodowa w późnym średniowieczu.” In Państwo, naród, stany w świadomości wieków średnich. Państwo, naród, stany w świadomości wieków średnich. Gieysztor, Aleksander and Sławomir Gawlas, eds., pp. 77–99. Warsaw: PWN, 1990. Bylina, Stanisław. “Motyw jedności słowiańskiej w Polsce późnego średniowiecza.” In Słowianie, Słowiańszczyzna  – pojęcie i rzeczywistość dawniej i dziś, ed. Kwirina Handke, pp. 45–58. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Instytutu Slawistyki PAN, 2002. Callmer, Johan. “The Rise of the Dominion of the ar-Rus’ in the Northern Parts of Eastern Europe, Seventh to Ninth Centuries A.D.: A Case of Cultural Construction.” In Identity formation and diversity in the early medieval Baltic and beyond: communicators and communication, eds. Johan Callmer et al., pp. 136–67. Leiden: Brill, 2017. Čanak-Medić, Milka and Branislav Todić. The Monastery of Žiča. Belgrade: Republički zavod za zaštitu spomenika, 2007. Cankova-Petkova, Genoveva. „Der erste Krieg zwischen Bulgarien und Byzanz unter Simeon und die Wiederaufnahme der Handelsbeziehungen zwischen Bulgarien und Konstantinopel.“ Byzantinische Forschungen 3 (1968), pp. 80–113. Cankova-Petkova, Genoveva. “La libération de la Bulgarie de la domination byzantine.” Byzantinobulgarica 5 (1978), pp. 95–121. Center, Province and Periphery in the Age of Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos. From De Ceremoniis to De Adminstrando Imperio, eds. Niels Gaul et al. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2018. Čermak, Václav. “Church Slavonic Literature of the Slavic Monastery in Prague.” In The Cyril and Methodius Mission and Europe. 1150 Years since the Arrival of the Thessaloniki Brothers in Great Moravia, eds. Pavel Kouřil et al., pp. 304–9. Brno: Archeologický ústav AVČR, 2014. Cerwinka, Günter. „Völkercharakteristiken in historiographischen Quellen der Salierund Stauferzeit.“ In Festschrift Friedrich Hausmann, ed. Herwig Ebner, pp. 59–79. Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlags-Anstalt, 1977. Cesa, Maria. “Etnografia e geografia nella visione storica di Procopio di Cesarea.” Studi Classici e Orientali 32 (1982), pp. 189–215. Chabot, Jean B., ed. Chronique de Michel le Syrien, Patriarche Jacobite d’Antioche (1166–1199). Tome II. Paris: E. Leroux, 1901. Chanysheva, N.O. “Slavianskoe neoiazychestvo: istoricheskie korni ili okkul’tnyi mif?” In Slavianskoe edinstvo. Mezhdunarodnaia nauchnaja konferenciia, posvjashchenaia 2000-letiiu Rozhdestva Khristova. Tezisy dokladov i soobshchenii, ed. L.F. Platonenko, pp. 135–35. Omsk: Omskii Gosudarstvenyi Universitet, 2000. Charanis, Peter. “On the question of the Slavonic settlement in Greece during the Middle Ages.” Byzantinoslavica 10 (1949), pp. 254–58.

Bibliography

441

Charanis, Peter. “The Chronicle of Monemvasia and the Question of the Slavonic Settlements in Greece.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 5 (1950), pp. 141–66. Charanis, Peter. “Graecia in Isidore of Seville.” BZ 64 (1971), pp. 22–25. Charvát, Petr. “Bohemia, Moravia and Long-Distance Trade in the 10th–11th Centuries.” QMAN 5 (2000), pp. 255–66. Charvát, Petr [2010a]. “Svatý Václav a raný český stát.” In Svatý Václav. Na památku 1110. Výročí narození knížete Václava Svatého, ed. Petr Kubín, pp. 65–79. Prague: Togga, 2010. Charvát, Petr [2010b]. The Emergence of the Bohemian State. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Chekin, Leonid S.: Northern Eurasia in Medieval Cartography. Inventory, Text, Transla­ tion, and Commentary. Turnhout: Brepols, 2006. Cheshko, Elena V. “Istoriia bolgarskogo iazyka i ėtnicheskoe samosoznanie bolgar v XII–XIV vv.” In Razvitie ėtnicheskogo samosoznaniia slavianskikh narodov v ėpochu zrelogo feodalizma, eds. Gennadii G. Litavrin and Viacheslav V. Ivanov, pp. 77–93. Moscow: Nauka, 1989. Cheshmedzhiev, Dimo. Kiril i metodii v bălgarskata istoricheska pamet prez srednite vekove. Sofia: Marin Drinov, 2001. Cheshmedzhiev, Dimo. “Kultăt na Kiril i Metodii v bălgarskoto srednevekovie.” Slavic Slovaca 42 (2007), 1, pp. 20–36. Cheshmedzhiev, Dimo. “Bălgarskata dăržavna tradiciia v apokrifite: Car Petăr v bălgarskiia apokrifen letopis ot XI–XII v.” In Bălgarsko srednovekovie: Obshtestvo, vlast, istoriia, eds. Georgi N. Nikolov and Angel Nikolov, pp. 262–71. Sofia: Universitet “Sv. Kliment Ochridski”, 2013. Cheshmedzhiev, Dimo. “Slaviankie azbuki mezhdu Vizantiei i Bolgariei.” In Kyrillos kai Methodios: To Byzantio kai o kosmos tōn Slabōn/Cyril and Methodius: Byzantium and the world of the Slavs. International Scientific Conference, pp. pp. 377–86. Thessaloniki: Ekd. Dēmu Thessalonikēs, 2015. Cheynet, Jean-Claude. “La place de la Serbie dans la diplomatie Byzantine à la fin du XIe siècle.” ZRVI 45 (2008), pp. 89–97. Choroškevič, Anna. „Das Moskauer Fürstentum unter Ivan Kalita (1325–1341) und Dmitrij Donskoj (1359–1389).“ In Die ‚Blüte‘ der Staaten des östlichen Europa im 14. Jahrhundert, ed. Marc Löwener, pp. 77–106. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2004. Christensen, Arne Soby. Cassiodorus Jordanes and the History of the Goths. Studies in a Migration Myth. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 2002. Christl, Andreas and Klaus Simon. „Nutzung und Besiedlung des sächsischen Erzgebirges und des Vogtlandes bis zur deutschen Ostkolonisation.“ Germania 73 (1995), pp. 441–79. Chronicon Aulae regiae – Die Königsaaler Chronik. Eine Bestandaufnahme, ed. Stefan Albrecht. Frankfurt/M.: Lang, 2013.

442

Bibliography

Chrysos, Evangelos. “Settlements of Slavs and Byzantine Sovereignty in the Balkans.” In Byzantina Mediterranea. Festschrift für Johannes Koder zum 65. Geburtstag, eds. Klaus Belke et al., pp. 123–35. Vienna: Böhlau, 2007. Chrzanowski, Witold. Świętopełk i wielki król Wielkomorawski (ok. 844–894). Cracow: Avalon, 2008. Chudziak, Wojciech. “Początki państwowości piastowskiej na Pomorzu Nadwiślańskim – główne problemy w świetle źródeł archeologicznych.” In Spór o początki państwa polskiego. Historiografia, tradycja, mit, propaganda, eds. Wojciech Drelicharz et al., pp. 119–38 Cracow: Towarzystwo Wydawnicze “Historia Iagellonica”, 2017. Cielik, Janusz. “Idole ze Zbrucza. Zabytek z XI wieku?” In Hierofanie, wierzenia, obrzędy … Kultura symboliczna w średniowieczu między pogaństwem a chrześcijaństwem, eds. Stanisław Rosik et al., pp. 69–102. Rzeszów: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Rzeszowskiego, 2018. Čiháková, Jarmila and Jan Havrda. “Malá Strana v raném středověku. Stav výzkumu a rekapitulace poznání.” AR 60 (2008), pp. 187–228. Cimbaev, Nikolaj I. Slavianofil’stvo. Iz istorii russkoi obshchestvenno-politicheskoi mysli XIX veka. Moscow: Gosudarstvennaia Publichnaia Istoricheskaia Biblioteka Rossii, 1986. Cinke, Vladimír. “Slovanské prvky v kronice Marignolově.” In Z tradic slovanské kultury v Čechach. Sázava a Emauzy v dějinách české kultury, eds. Jan Peter et al., pp. 135–36. Prague: Universita Karlova, 1975. Ćirković, Sima [1964a]. Herceg Stefan Vukić-Kosača i njegovo doba. Belgrade: Naučno delo, 1964. Ćirković, Sima [1964b]. Istorija srednjovekovne bosanske države. Belgrade: Srpska Književna Zadruga, 1964. Ćirković, Sima. “The Production of Gold, Silver, and Copper in the Central Parts of the Balkans from the 13th to the 16th Century.” In Precious Metals in the Age of Expansion, ed. Hermann Kellenbenz, pp. 41–69. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 1981. Ćirković, Sima. “Between Kingdom and Empire: Dušan’s State 1346–1355 Reconsidered.” In Byzantium and Serbia in the 14th Century/Byzantio kai Serbia kata ton ID’ aiona, pp. 110–20. Athens: Estia, 1996. Ćirković, Sima. The Serbs. Oxford: Blackwell, 2004. Ćirković, Sima. “Domentijanova prosopografija.” ZRVI 45 (2008), pp. 141–55. Ćirković, Sima. “The Double Wreath. A Contribution to the History of Kingship in Bosnia.” Balcanica 45 (2014), pp. 107–43. Ćirković, Sima, Desanka Kovačević-Kojić and Ruža Ćuk. Staro srpsko rudarstvo. Belgrade, Novi Sad: Vukova Zadužbina, 2002. Clifton-Everest, John M. “Slawisches Schrifttum im 10. und 11. Jahrhundert in Böhmen.” Bohemia 37 (1996), pp. 257–70. Collins, Roger. Die Fredegar-Chroniken. Hannover: Hahn, 2007.

Bibliography

443

Collins, Roger. Caliphs and Kings, Spain, 796–1031. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012. Conze, Eckart. Die Suche nach Sicherheit. Eine Geschichte der Bundesrepublik Deutsch­ land von 1949 bis in die Gegenwart. Munich: Siedler, 2009. Čorković, Vladimir. Kralj Tvrtko I. Kotromanić. Belgrade: Grafički zavod “Makarije”, 1925. Corradini, Richard. „Die Annales Fuldenses – Identitätskonstruktionen im ostfränkischen Raum am Ende der Karolingerzeit.“ In Texts and Identities in the Early Middle Ages, eds. Richard Corradini et al., pp. 121–36. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2006. Ćošković, Pejo. Crkva bosanska u XV stoljeću. Sarajevo: Inst. za Istoriju, 2005. Čremošnik, Irma. „Die ältesten Ansiedlungen und Kultur der Slawen in Bosnien und der Herzegowina im Lichte der Untersuchungen in Muišići und Batkovići.“ Balcanoslavica 1 (1972), pp. 59–64. Čremošnik, Irma. „Die Untersuchungen in Muišići und Žabljak. Über den ersten Fund der ältesten slawischen Siedlung in Bosnien.“ Wissenschaftliche Mitteilungen des bosnisch-herzegowinischen Landesmuseums 5 (1975), pp. 91–175. Croonenbroeck, Josef. “Bulgaria.” In Glossar zur frühmittelalterlichen Geschichte im östlichen Europa. Seria A: Lateinische Namen bis 900, Bd. 2, ed. Jadran Ferluga et al., pp. 241–57. Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1983. Cross, Samuel H. Slavic Civilization through the Ages. Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1948. Csiky, Gergely. Avar-Age Polearms and Edged Weapons. Classification, Typology, Chrono­ logy and Technology. Leiden: Brill, 2016. Curschmann, Fritz. „Die Belehnung Herzog Bogislaws I. von Pommern im Lager vor Lübeck (1181).“ Pommersche Jahrbücher 31 (1937), pp. 5–33. Curta, Florin. “Slavs in Fredegar: Medieval gens or narrative strategy?” Acta Universitatis de Attila József nominatae, Acta Historica 103 (1996), pp. 3–19. Curta, Florin. “Slavs in Fredegar and Paul the Deacon: medieval gens or ‘scourge of God’?” Early Medieval Europe 6 (1997), pp. 141–67. Curta, Florin. “Feasting with ‘Kings’ in an Ancient ‘Democracy’: Early Medieval Slavic Society of the Early Middle Ages (Sixth to Seventh Century A.D.).” Essays in Medieval Studies 15 (1998), pp. 19–34. Curta, Florin. “Hiding behind a piece of tapestry. Jordanes and the Slavic Venethi.” JfGO 47 (1999), pp. 321–40. Curta, Florin [2001a]. The Making of the Slavs. History and Archaeology of the Lower Danube Region, c. 500–700. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Curta, Florin [2001b]. “Pots, Slavs and ‘Imagined Communities’: Slavic Archaeologies and the History of the Early Slavs.” European Journal of Archaeology 4 (2001), pp. 367–84. Curta, Florin [2001c]. “The Prague type: a critical approach to pottery classification.” Archaeologica Bulgarica 5 (2001), pp. 73–106.

444

Bibliography

Curta, Florin. “From Kossinna to Bromley: Ethnogenesis in Slavic Archaeology.” In On barbarian identity. Critical Approaches to Ethnicity in the Early Middle Ages, ed. Andrew Gillett, pp. 201–18. Turnhout: Brepols, 2002. Curta, Florin. “The Slavic Lingua Franca (Linguistic Notes of an Archaeologist Turned Historian).” East Central Europe 31 (2004), pp. 125–48. Curta, Florin [2006a]. Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages 500–1250. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Curta, Florin [2006b] “Tworzenie Słowian. Powrót do słowiańskiej etnogenezy.” In Nie-Słowianie o początkach Słowian, ed. Przemysław Urbańczyk, pp. 27–55. Poznań: Poznańskie Towarzystwo Przyjaciół Nauk, 2006. Curta, Florin. “The early Slavs in Bohemia and Moravia: a response to my critics”, AR 61 (2009), pp. 725–54. Curta, Florin [2010a]. “Emperor Heraclius and the Conversion of the Croats and the Serbs.” In Medieval Christianitas: Different Regions, ‘Faces’, Approaches, eds. Stepanov, Tsvetelin and Georgi Kazakov, pp. 121–38. Sofia: Voenno, 2010. Curta, Florin [2010b]. “Still Waiting for the Barbarians? The Making of the Slavs in ‘Dark-Age’ Greece.” In Neglected Barbarians, ed. Flroin Curta, pp. 403–78. Turnhout: Brepols, 2010. Curta, Florin [2011a]. “Sklaviniai and Ethnic Adjectives: A Clarification.” Byzantion 30 (2011), pp. 85–98. Curta, Florin [2011b]. The Edinburgh History of the Greeks, c. 500 to 1050. The Early Middle Ages. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2011. Curta, Florin. “Angel on Earth and Heavenly Man. St. Sava of Serbia.” In Portraits of Medieval Eastern Europe, 900–1400, eds. Donald Ostrowsky and Christian Raffensperger, pp. 91–99. London, New York: Routledge, 2018. Curta, Florin [2021a]. The Long Sixth Century in Eastern Europe. Leiden: Brill, 2021. Curta, Florin [2021b]. Slavs in the Making. History, Linguistics and Archaeology in Eastern Europe (ca. 500–ca. 700). London, New York: Routledge, 2021. Cvetković, Branislav. “The painted programs in thirteenth-century Serbia: structure, themes, and accents.” In Orient et occident méditerranéens au XIIIe siècle. Les programmes picturaux, eds. Jean Pierre Caillet and Fabienne Joubert, pp. 157–76. Paris: Picard, 2012. Cygan, Sylwia. Wczesnosłowiańskie półziemianki kwadratowe na terenie Polski, Czech, Słowacji, wschodnich Niemiec i Dolnej Austrii. Rzeszów: Mitel, 2006. Cyril i Metody apostołowie i nauczyciele Słowian. Studia i dokumenty. Cz. 1: Studia, eds. Jan Sergiusz Gajek and Leonard Górka Lublin: Wydawnictwo Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego, 1991. Cywiński, Piotr. “Druga metropolia Bolesława Chrobrego a Brunon z Kwerfurtu.” KH 108 (2001), no. 4, pp. 3–15.

Bibliography

445

Czaplewski, Paweł. “Tytulatura książąt pomorskich do początku XIV wieku.” Zapiski Towarzystwa Naukowego w Toruniu 1 (1949), no. 1–2, pp. 9–61. D’iakov, Vladimir A. “Poliaki na Slavianskom s’ezde 1848 g.” In Slavianskoe dvizhenie XIX–XX vekov. S’ezdy, kongressy, soveshchaniia, manifesty, obrashcheniia, eds. Galina A. Bogatova et al., pp. 49–57. Moscow: Rossiiskaia Akademiia Nauk, 1998. Dąbrowski, Dariusz. “Piasten und Rjurikiden vom 11. bis zur Mitte des 13. Jahrhunderts.” In Fernhändler, Dynasten, Kleriker. Die piastische Herrschaft in kontinentalen Beziehungsgeflechten vom 10. bis zum frühen 13. Jahrhundert, eds. Dariusz Adamczyk and Norbert Kersken, pp. 155–89. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2015. Dąbrowski, Robert. “Origin of the Slavs: an anthropological perspective.” AP 44 (2006), pp. 333–38. Dahlcke, Sandra. Individuum und Herrschaft im Stalinismus. Emel’jan Jaroslavskij (1878–1943). Munich: Oldenbourg, 2010. Dalewski, Zbigniew. Rytuał i polityka. Opowieść Galla Anonima o konflikcie Bolesława Krzywoustego ze Zbigniewem. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Instytutu Historii PAN, 2005. Dalewski, Zbigniew. “A New Chosen People? Gallus Anonymus’s Narrative about Poland and its Rulers.” In Historical Narratives and Christian Identity on a European Periphery. Early History Writing in Northern, East-Central and Eastern Europe (c. 1070–1200), ed. Ildar H. Garipzanov, pp. 145–66. Turnhout: Brepols, 2011. Dalitz, Stefan. „Die Brandenburg in der Havel  – Arbeitsstand zu Topographie und Entwicklung der Insel und der Burg.“ In Wie die Mark entstand. 850 Jahre Mark Brandenburg, eds. Joachim Müller et al., pp. 54–78. Wünsdorf: Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologisches Landesmuseum, 2009. Dall’Aglio, Francesco. “Shifting Capitals and Shifting Identities: Pliska, Preslav, Tărnovo and the Self-Perception of a Medieval Nation.” Bulgaria Medievalis 1 (2011), pp. 587–601. Damjanović, Stjepan. “Tisućljetno hrvatsko glagoljaštvo i njegovi ćirilometodski korijeni.” RZHP 47 (2015), 1, pp. 39–59. Dancheva-Vasileva, Ani. Bălgariia i Latinskata imperiia (1204–1261). Sofia: Iz. na Bălgarskata Akademiia na Naukite, 1985. Danilevskii, Igor’ N. Povest’ vremennykh let. Germenevticheskie osnovy istochnikovedeniia letopisnykh tekstov. Moscow: Aspekt-Press, 2004. Danilevsky, Igor. “‘Tale of Bygone Years’: Discourse on Power.” In Bilder der Macht in Mittelalter und Neuzeit. Byzanz – Okzident – Rußland, eds. Otto Gerhard Oexle and Michail A. Bojcov, pp. 37–52. Göttingen: Steiner, 2007. Danova, Penka. “Opisanie na Iztochna Evropa.” Istorichesko bădeshte 1–2 (2005), pp. 164–85. Danylenko, Andrii. “The Name ‘Rus’: In Search of a New Dimension.” JfGO 52 (2004), pp. 1–32.

446

Bibliography

Daskalov, Roumen. “Feud over the Middle Ages: Bulgarian-Romanian Historiographical Debates.” In Entangled Histories of the Balkans. Volume Three: Shared Pasts, Disputed Legacies, eds. Roumen Daskalov and Alexander Vezenkov, pp. 274–354. Leiden: Brill, 2015. De Lazero, Octav Eugen. “The Dynastic Myth of the Přemyslids in the Chronica Boemorum by Cosmas of Prague.” Ollodagos. Actes de la Société Belge d’Études Celtiques 12 (1999), pp. 123–75. Deér, Josef. “Ungarn in der Descriptio Europae Orientalis.” MIÖG 45 (1931), pp. 1–22. Delikari, Angeliki. „Die Situation in Nord-West Makedonien während der Regierung des Basileios II., die sogenannte Kirche des Zaren Samuel und die Gründung des Erzbistums Ochrid.“ In Evropejskiiat jugoiztok prez vtorata polovina na X–nachaloto na XI vek. Istoriia i kultura, eds. Vasil Giuzelev and Georgi N. Nikolov, pp. 236–43. Sofia: Voenno, 2015. Deptuła, Czesław. Galla Anonima mit genezy Polski. Studium z historiozofii i hermeneutyki symboli dziejopisarstwa średniowiecznego. 2nd ed. Lublin: Instytut Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej, 2000. Der deutsche Überfall auf die Sowjetunion‚ ‘Unternehmen Barbarossa’ 1941, eds. Gerd R. Ueberschär and Wolfram Wette. Frankfurt/M.: Fischer, 1991. Der Prager Slavenkongress 1848, ed. Andreas Moritsch. Vienna: Böhlau, 2000. Derwich, Marek. “Janko z Czarnkowa a Kronika Wielkopolska.” Acta Universitatis Wratislaviensis. Historia 50 (1985), pp. 127–62. Despalatović, Elinor Murray. Ljudevit Gaj and the Illyrian Movement. Boulder: Columbia University Press, 1975. Diddi, Christiano. “Towards a Critical Edition of the Vita Constantini: The South Slavic Tradition, the Russian Copies of the Menologium for February and the Russian Miscellanies.” In The Bible in Slavic Tradition, eds. Alexander Kulik et al., pp. 443–62. Leiden: Brill, 2016. Die frühmittelalterliche Elite bei den Völkern des östlichen Mitteleuropas, ed. Pavel Kouřil, Brno: Archeologický ústav AVČR, 2005. Die slavische Idee, ed. Andreas Moritsch. Bratislava: Slovak Acad. Press, 1992. Dieckmann, Christoph. „NS-Lebensraumideologie und deutsche Besatzungsrealität in Polen und der Sowjetunion.“ In Der deutsche Krieg um „Lebensraum im Osten“ 1939–1945. Ereignisse und Erinnerung, eds. Peter Jahn et al., pp. 69–89. Berlin: Metropol, 2017. Diels, Paul. Die slavischen Völker. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1963. Dimnik, Martin. “The ‘Testament’ of Iaroslav ‘The Wise’: A Re-Examination.” Canadian Slavonic Papers 29 (1987), pp. 369–86. Dimnik, Martin. Power politics in Kievan Rus’. Vladimir Monomach and his dynasty, 1054–1246. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2016.

Bibliography

447

Dinić, Mihailo. “O krunisanju Tvrtku za kralja.” Glas Srpske kraljevske akademije 147 (1932), pp. 133–45. Ditten, Hans. Der Russland-Exkurs des Laonikos Chalkokondyles interpretiert und mit Erläuterungen versehen, Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1968. Ditten, Hans. „Slawen im byzantinischen Heer von Justinian I. bis Justinian II.“ In In Studien zum 7. Jahrhundert in Byzanz. Probleme der Herausbildung des Feudalismus, eds. Helga Köpstein and Friedhelm Winkelmann, pp. 77–91. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1976. Ditten, Hans [1978a]. „Bemerkungen zu den ersten Ansätzen zur Staatsbildung bei Kroaten und Serben im 7. Jahrhundert.“ In Beiträge zur byzantinischen Geschichte im 9.–11. Jahrhundert, ed. Vladimír Vavřínek, pp. 441–62. Prague: Československá akademie věd, 1978. Ditten, Hans [1978b]. „Zur Bedeutung der Einwanderung der Slawen.“ In Byzanz im 7. Jahrhundert. Untersuchungen zur Herausbildung des Feudalismus, eds. Friedhelm Winkelmann et al., pp. 73–160. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1978. Ditten, Hans. „Zum Verhältnis zwischen Protobulgaren und Slawen vom Ende des 7. bis zum Anfang des 9. Jahrhunderts.“ In Besonderheiten der byzantinischen Feudalentwicklung. Eine Sammlung von Beiträgen zu den frühen Jahrhunderten, ed. Heinz Köpstein, pp. 85–95. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1983. Ditten, Hans. „Soziale Spannungen in dem von Slawen bedrohten Thessalonike des ausgehenden 6. und des 7. Jh. n. Chr. Zu den Wechselwirkungen zwischen äußerer Bedrohung und inneren Verwicklungen.“ In Volk und Herrschaft im frühen Byzanz. Methodische und quellenkritische Probleme, ed. Friedhelm Winkelmann, pp. 18–32. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1991. Ditten, Hans. Ethnische Verschiebungen zwischen der Balkanhalbinsel und Kleinasien vom Ende des 6. bis zur zweiten Hälfte des 9. Jahrhunderts. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1993. Djokić, Dejan. “(Dis)Integrating Yugoslavia: King Alexander and Interwar Yugoslavism.” In Yugoslavism. Histories of a Failed Idea 1918–1992, ed. Dejan Djokić, pp. 136–56. London: Hurst, 2003. Djučev, Ivan. „Die Responsa Nicolai I. Papae ad Consulta Bulgarorum als Quelle für die bulgarische Geschichte.“ In Djučev, Ivan. Medioevo bizantino-slavo. Volume primo: Saggi di storia politica e culturale, pp. 125–48. Roma: Ed. di Storia e Letteratura, 1965. Djurić, Ivan. “Titles of the Rulers of the Second Bulgarian Empire in the Eyes of the Byzantines.” In Charanis Studies. Studies in Honor of Peter Charanis, ed. Angeliki E. Laiou-Thomadakis, pp. 31–50. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1980. Długosz, Jan (1415–1480). Życie i dzieła, eds. Lidia Korczak et al. Cracow: Towarzystwo Wydawnicze “Historia Iagellonica”, 2016. Długosz, Jan – 600. lecie urodzin. Region – Polska – Europa w jego twórczosci, eds. Jacek Maciejewski et al., Toruń: TNT, 2016.

448

Bibliography

Dmitriev, Michail V. “Problematika issledovatel’skogo proekta ‚Confessiones et nationes‘. Konfessional’nye tradicii i protonacional’nye diskursy v istorii Evropy.” In Religioznye i ėtnicheskie tradicii v formirovanii nacional’nykh identichnostei v Evrope, ed. Michail V. Dmitriev, pp. 15–42. Moscow: Indrik, 2008. Dmitrów, Edmund. Obraz Rosji i Rosjan w propagandzie narodowych socjalistów 1933–1945. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Instytutu Studiów Politycznych PAN, 1997. Dobrev, Ivan. “Novootkritiiat nadpis za car Samuil i săbitiiata v 1014 g.” Palaeobulgarica 28 (2004), 3, pp. 3–24. Dobrovský, Josef. Slavín. Botschaft aus Böhmen an alle slawischen Völker oder Beiträge zur Kenntnis der slavischen Literatur nach allen Mundarten. Prague: Herrlsche Buchhandlung, 1806. Dobrovský, Josef. Institutiones linguae slavicae dialecti veteris. Vienna: Schmid, 1822. Dobyčina, Anastasia. A. “‘Divine Sanction’ on the Revolt: The Cult of St. Demetrius of Thessalonica and the Uprising of Peter and Asen (1185–1186).” Studia Ceranea 2 (2012), pp. 113–26. Dölger, Franz. Byzanz und die europäische Staatenwelt. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1964. Dönitz, Saskia. Überlieferung und Rezeption des Sefer Yosippon. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. Döpmann, Hans-Dieter. „Die Synode von Konstantinopel (869/70) und das Ringen um die Unabhängigkeit der bulgarischen Kirche.“ In Părvi Meždunaroden kongres po bălgaristika. Tom 1, pp. 138–54. Sofia: Iz. na Bălgarskata Akademiia na Naukite, 1982. Döpmann, Hans-Dieter. „‘Gottes auserwähltes Volk‘ im Verständnis der Bulgaren.“ In ‘Gottes auserwählte Völker’. Erwählungsvorstellungen und kollektive Selbstfindung in der Geschichte, ed. Alois Mosser, pp. 273–294. Frankfurt/M.: Lang, 2001. Doležal, Stanislav. “Who was Jordanes.” Byzantion 84 (2014), pp. 145–64. Doležalová, Eva. “The Cyrillo-Methodian Tradition in Bohemia under the Luxemburgs.” In The Cyril and Methodius Mission and Europe. 1150 Years since the Arrival of the Thessaloniki Brothers in Great Moravia, eds. Pavel Kouřil et al., pp. 316–20. Brno: Archeologický ústav AVČR, 2014. Dolinescu-Ferche, Suzana. “Habitats des VI et VII siècles de notre ére a Dulceanca IV.” Dacia. Revue d’archéologie et d’histoire ancienne NS 36 (1992), pp. 125–78. Dolukhanov, Pavel M. The Early Slavs. Eastern Europe from the Initial Settlement to Kievan Rus. London: Longman, 1996. Donat, Peter. Haus, Hof und Dorf in Mitteleuropa vom 7.–12. Jahrhundert. Archäologische Beiträge zur Entwicklung und Struktur der bäuerlichen Siedlung. Berlin: AkademieVerlag, 1980. Donat, Peter. Die Mecklenburg – eine Hauptburg der Obodriten. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1984.

Bibliography

449

Donat, Peter. „Handwerk und Gewerbe.“ In Die Slawen in Deutschland. Geschichte und Kultur der slawischen Stämme westlich von Oder und Neisse vom 6. bis 12. Jahrhundert. Ein Handbuch, ed. Joachim Herrmann, pp. 100–26. 2nd ed. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1985. Donat, Peter. “Aktuelle Fragen der Erforschung westslawischer Dorfsiedlungen.” In Kraje słowiańskie w wiekach średnich. Profanum i sacrum, eds. Hanna KočkaKrenz and Władysław Łosiński, pp. 187–99 Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznańskiego Towarzystwa Przyjaciół Nauk, 1998. Donat, Peter and Elsbeth Lange. „Botanische Quellen und Probleme der Landwirt­ schaftsentwicklung im ersten Jahrtausend.“ ZfA 17 (1983), pp. 223–47. Donnert, Erich. „Die frühmittelalterlich-deutsche Slawenkunde und Thietmar von Merseburg.“ ZfS 9 (1964), pp. 77–90. Doronin, Andrej V. „Das Bild der Russen bzw. Moscoviter auf der historischen und kognitiven Landkarte der deutschen Humanisten 1490–1530.“ Orbis terrarum. Internationale Zeitschrift für historische Geographie der Alten Welt 13 (2015), pp. 83–101. Dostál, Bořivoj. „Stavební kultúra na 6.–9. století na území ČSSR.“ AH 12 (1987), pp. 9–32. Dostal’, Marina Iu. “Slavianskii kongress v Belgrade v 1946 g.” In Slavanskie s’ezdy XIX–XX vv., eds. Elena P. Aksenova et al., pp. 128–42. Moscow, 1994. Dostal’, Marina Iu. “Belgradskii slavianskii kongress pobeditelei fashizma (1946).” In Slavianskoe dvizhenie XIX–XX vekov. S’ezdy, kongressy, soveshchaniia, manifesty, obrashcheniia, eds. Galina A. Bogatova et al., pp. 225–43. Moscow: Rossiiskaia Akademiia Nauk, 1998. Dove, Richard. „Das von mir sg. Sendrecht der Main- und Rednitzwenden.“ Zeitschrift für Kirchenrecht 4 (1864), pp. 157–75. Dralle, Lothar. Slaven an Havel und Spree. Studien zur Geschichte des hevellisch-wilzischen Fürstentums (6.–10. Jh.). Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1981. Dralle, Lothar. „Rethra. Zu Bedeutung und Lage des redarischen Kultortes.“ JbGMOD 33 (1984), pp. 37–61. Drecoll, Carsten. Idrīsī aus Sizilien. Der Einfluss eines Arabischen Wissenschaftlers auf die Entwicklung der europäischen Geographie. Egelsbach: Hänsel-Hohenhausen, 2000. Drelicharz, Wojciech. Idea zjednoczenia królestwa w średniowiecznym dziejopisarstwie polskim. Cracow: Wydawnictwo Towarzystwa Naukowego “Societas Vistulana”, 2012. Dresler, Petr. Opevněni Pohanska u Břeclavi. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2011. Drevniaia Rus’ posle Drevnei Rusi. Diskurs vostochnoslavianskogo (ne)edinstva, ed. Andrej V. Doronin. Moscow: ROSSPĖN, 2017. Drews, Peter. Herder und die Slaven. Materialien zur Wirkungsgeschichte bis zur Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts. Munich: Sagner, 1990.

450

Bibliography

Dróżdż, Klaudia. Kazimierz Odnowiciel. Polska w okresie upadku i odbudowy. Wodzisław Śląski: Wydawnictwo Templum, 2009. Duczko, Władysław. “Obecność skandynawska na Pomorzu i słowiańska w Skandynawii we wczesnym średniowieczu.” In Salsa Cholbergiensis. Kołobrzeg w średniowieczu, eds. Lech Leciejewicz and Marian Rębkowski, pp. 23–44. Kołobrzeg: Le Petit Café, 2000. Duczko, Władysław. Ruś Wikingów. Historia obecności Skandynawów we wczesnośredniowiecznej Europie Wschodniej. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Trio, 2006. Duft, Johannes. „Die ‚Weltchronik‘ des Rudolf von Ems. Ihre Bedeutung und Über­ lieferung im Mittelalter.“ Emser Almanach 32 (2015), pp. 109–15. Dujčev, Ivan. “Les sept tribus slaves de la Mésie.” SA 6 (1959), pp. 100–08. Dujčev, Ivan [1960a]. “Slavjani-skiti.” Slavia 29 (1960), pp. 109–14. Dujčev, Ivan [1960b]. „Übersicht über die bulgarische Geschichtsschreibung.“ In Antike und Mittelalter in Bulgarien, eds. Veselin Beševliev and Johannes Irmscher, pp. 51–69. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1960. Dujčev, Ivan. L’ epistola sui Bogomili del patriarca costantinopolitana Teofilatto. In Mélanges Eugène Tisserant. Volume II: Orient chrétien, ed. Petrus Canisius van Lierde, pp. 63–91. Città del Vaticano: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1964. Dujčev, Ivan. “Some Remarks on the Chronicle of Monemvasia.” In Charanis Studies. Studies in Honor of Peter Charanis, ed. Angeliki E. Laiou-Thomadakis, pp. 51–59. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1980. Dujmović, Danko. “An Overview of Historical and Archaeological Research of Early Medieval Heritage in Croatia.” In Swords, Crowns, Censers and Books  – Francia Media  – Cradles of European Culture, ed. Marina Vicelka-Matijašić, pp. 297–326. Rijeka: Filozofski fakultet, 2015. Dukić, Davor. „Illyrozentrismus. Ein verborgenes Konzept.“ In Konzepte des Slawischen, Tomáš Glanc and Christian Voß, pp. 251–64. Leipzig: Biblion Media, 2016. Dulinicz, Marek. „Die frühslawische Siedlung Küknitz, Hansestadt Lübeck.“ Lübecker Schriften zur Archäologie und Kulturgeschichte 23 (1993), pp. 47–81. Dulinicz, Marek. “Problem datowania grodzisk typu Tornow i grupy Tornow-Klenica.” Archeologia Polski 39 (1994), pp. 31–49. Dulinicz, Marek. “The first dendrochronological dating of the strongholds of northern Mazovia.” In Origins of Central Europe, ed. Przemysław Urbańczyk, pp. 137–41. Warsaw: Scientia, 1997. Dulinicz, Marek. “Miejsca, które rodzą władzę (najstarsze grody słowiańskie na wschód od Wisły).” In Człowiek, sacrum, środowisko. Miejsca kultu we wczesnym średniowieczu, ed. Sławomir Moździoch, pp. 85–98. Wrocław: Werk, 2000. Dulinicz, Marek. Kształtowanie się Słowiańszczyzny Północno-Zachodniej. Studium archeologiczne, Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Instytutu Archeologii i Etnologii PAN, 2001.

Bibliography

451

Dulinicz, Marek. “Mazowsze we wczesnym średniowieczu. Jego związki z ‘państwem gnieźnieńskim’.” In Civitas Schinesghe cum pertinentiis, ed. Wojciech Chudziak, pp. 89–119. Toruń: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika, 2003. Dulinicz, Marek. „Die Slawen  – das zersplitterte Volk.“ In Srednij vek. Arheološke raziskave med Jadranskim morjem in Panonsko nižino, ed. Mitja Guštin, pp. 13–19. Ljubljana: Narodni muzej Slovenije, 2008. Dulinicz, Marek. “Die sogenannten frühslawischen Burgen als Zentralorte.” In Früh­ geschichtliche Zentralorte in Mitteleuropa, eds. Jiří Macháček and Šimon Ungerman, pp. 197–201. Bonn: Habelt, 2011. Duraković, Zlata. Stećci. Mittelalterliche Grabstein-Monolithe und Nekropolen Bosniens. Vienna: Universität Wien, 2013. Ɖurić, Vojislav J. Byzantinische Fresken in Jugoslawien. Munich: Hirmer, 1976. Dvornichenko, Andrej Iu. “Plemennye struktury i slavianskie politogenezy (replika).” SSBP 2/18 (2015), pp. 152–60. Dvornik, Francis. The Slavs in European History and Civilization. New Brunswik: Rutgers University Press, 1962. Dygo, Marian. “Wokół listu biskupa krakowskiego Mateusza do Bernarda, opata z Clairvaux.” In Europa barbarica, Europa christiana. Studia mediaevalia Carolo Modzelewski dedicata, eds. Roman Michałowski et al., pp. 47–58. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo DIG, 2008. Dygo, Marian. “A Letter from Matthew, a Bishop of Cracow, to Bernhard of Clairvaux on the Conversion of Russians (1145)?” In Rome, Constantinople and Newly-Converted Europe. Archaeological and Historical Evidence, eds. Maciej Salamon et al., pp. 203–13. Cracow: Instytut Archeologii i Etnologii PAN, 2012. Dykstra, Tom. “Metropolitan Ilarion of Kiev’s use of scripture in defense of Russian autocephaly.” St. Vladimir’s theological quarterly 44 (2000), pp. 223–62. Dynda, Jiří. „Religion with no voice: Literary construction of Slavic Paganism.” In New Perspectives on the Early Slavs and the Rise of Slavic. Contact and Migration, eds. Tomáš Klír et al., pp. 127–50. Heidelberg: Winter, 2020. Džambo, Jozo. Die Franziskaner im mittelalterlichen Bosnien. Werl: Coelde, 1991. Dziadul, Paweł. “The Idea of the ‘New Israel’ in Medieval Serbia.” WdS 59 (2014), pp. 293–309. Dzino, Danijel. Becoming Slav, Becoming Croat: Identity Transformations in Post-Roman and Early Medieval Dalmatia. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Dzino, Danijel. “Local knowledge and wider contexts: stories of the arrival of the Croats in De Administrando Imperio in the past and present.” In Byzantium, its Neighbours and its Cultures, eds. Danijel Dzino and Kenneth R. Parry, pp. 89–104. Brisbane: Australian Association for Byzantine Studies, 2014. Eberhardt, Adam. “Slovanská idea ve společenském vědomí a zahraniční politice současného Ruska.” In Slovanství ve středoevropském prostoru. Iluze, deziluzje a

452

Bibliography

realita. Pardubická konference (22.–24. dubna 2004), eds. Dominik Hrodek et al., pp. 117–24. Prague: Libri, 2004. Eckhardt, Thorvi. Azbuka. Versuch einer Einführung in das Studium der slavischen Paläographie, pp. 31–38. Vienna, Cologne: Böhlau, 1989. Eggers, Martin. Das ‘Großmährische Reich’ – Realität oder Fiktion? Eine Neuinterpretation der Quellen zur Geschichte des mittleren Donauraumes im 9. Jahrhundert. Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1995. Eggers, Martin. Das Erzbistum des Method. Lage, Wirkung und Nachleben der kyrillomethodianischen Mission. Munich: Sagner, 1996. Eggers, Martin. “Samo  – ‚Der erste König der Slawen‘. Eine kritische Forschungs­ übersicht.” Bohemia 42 (2001), pp. 62–83. Eggert, Wolfgang. „Zu Inhalt, Form und politischer Terminologie der ‚Fränkischen Reichsannalen‘.“ In Karl der Große und das Erbe der Kulturen, ed. Franz-Reiner Erkens, pp. 122–34. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2001. Ehlers, Joachim. „Was sind und wie bilden sich nationes im mittelalterlichen Europa (10.–15. Jahrhundert)? Begriff und allgemeine Konturen.“ In Mittelalterliche nationes – neuzeitliche Nationen. Probleme der Nationenbildung in Europa, eds. Almut Bues and Rex Rexheuser, pp. 7–26. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1995. Eichert, Stefan. Die frühmittelalterlichen Grabfunde Kärntens. Die materielle Kultur Karantaniens anhand der Grabfunde vom Ende der Spätantike bis ins 11. Jahrhundert. Klagenfurt: Geschichtsverein für Kärnten, 2010. Eichert, Stefan. „Karantanische Slawen – slawische Karantanen. Überlegeungen zu ethnischen und sozialen Strukturen im Ostalpenraum des frühen Mittelalters.“ In Der Wandel um 1000. Beiträge der Sektion zur slawischen Frühgeschichte der 18. Tagung des Mittel- und Ostdeutschen Verbandes für Altertumsforschung in Greifswald, 23. bis 27. März 2009, eds. Felix Biermann et al., pp. 433–40. Langenweißbach: Beier & Beran, 2011. Eichert, Stefan. „Archäologische und historische Evidenzen für soziale Strukturen im frühmittelalterlichen Ostalpenraum.“ In Soziale Gruppen und Gesellschaftsstrukturen im westslawischen Raum, eds. Felix Biermann et al., pp. 385–404. Langenweißbach: Beier & Beran, 2013. Eichert, Stefan [2014a]. “‘Great Men’, ‘Big Men’ and ‘Chiefs’ in Karantanien? Ein etwas anderer Blickwinkel auf frühmittelalterliche Herrschafts- und Organisations­ strukturen.“ Carinthia 204 (2014), pp. 61–78. Eichert, Stefan [2014b]. „Zentralisierungsprozesse bei den frühmittelalterlichen Karantanen.“ In Zentralisierungsprozesse und Herrschaftsbildung im frühmittelalterlichen Ostmitteleuropa, ed. Przemysław Sikorski, pp. 13–60. Bonn: Habelt, 2014. Eichler, Ernst. „Zur Genese des Slaven-Begriffs und zur slavischen Ethnonymie.“ In Akkulturation. Probleme einer germanisch-romanischen Kultursynthese in Spätantike

Bibliography

453

und frühem Mittelalter, eds. Dieter Hägermann et al., pp. 61–67. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter, 2004. Eichler, Ernst. „Slavische Siedlungsnamen.“ In Missionierung und Christianisierung im Regnitz- und Obermaingebiet, eds. Rolf Bergmann et al., pp. 229–36. 2nd ed. Bamberg: Historischer Verein Bamberg, 2008. Eichler, Ernst. „Nochmals zu Thietmars Umgang mit slavischen Namen in seiner Chronik.“ In Namen des Frühmittelalters als sprachliche Zeugnisse und als Geschichtsquellen, eds. Albrecht Greule and Matthias Springer, pp. 189–92. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter, 2009. Emauzy. Benediktinský klášter na Slovanech v srdci Prahy, eds. Klara Benešovská and Kateřina Kubínová Prague: Academia, 2007. Endres, Lieselott. „Zur Grundherrschaftsentwicklung im ostdeutschen Kolonisations­ gebiet.“ In Grundherrschaft und bäuerliche Gesellschaft im Hochmittelalter, ed. Werner Rösener, pp. 215–39. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995. Engel, Evamaria. „Aus dem Alltag des Hansehistorikers: Wie viele und warum wendische Städte?“ In Recht und Alltag im Hanseraum. Gerhard Theuerkauf zum 60. Geburtstag, eds. Silke Urbanski et al., pp. 125–45 Lüneburg: Deutsches Salzmuseum, 1993. Engel, Pál. „Zur Frage der bosnisch-ungarischen Beziehungen im 14.–15. Jahrhundert.“ Südost-Forschungen 56 (1997), pp. 27–42. Engelbert, Pius, ed. Die Vita Sturmi des Eigil von Fulda. Literarkritische Untersuchung und Edition. Marburg: N.G. Elwert, 1968. Engels, Peter. „Der Reisebericht des Ibrahim ibn Ya‌ʾqu-b (961/966).“ In Kaiserin Theo­ phanu. Begegnung des Ostens und Westens um die Wende des ersten Jahrtausends. Volume 1, eds. Anton von Euw and Peter Schreiner, pp. 413–22. Cologne: SchnütgenMuseum, 1991. Engelstein, Laura. Slavophile Empire. Imperial Russia’s Illiberal Path. Ithaca, London: Cornell University Press, 2009. Englberger, Johann. Albert Behaim und die Lorcher Tradition in der Passauer Geschichts­ schreibung. Die Descriptio gentium et diversarum nationum Europe, Hannover: Hahn, 2007. Englisch, Brigitte. Ordo orbis terrae. Die Weltsicht in den ‚Mappae mundi‘ des frühen und hohen Mittelalters. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 2002. Engstová, Kateřina. “Marignolova kronika jako obraz představ o moci a postavení českého krále.” Mediaevalia Historica Bohemica 6 (1999), pp. 77–94. Eniosova, Natasha V. and Tamara A. Pushkina. “Gnezdovo kak rannegorodskoi centr ėpokhi formirovaniia Drevnerusskogo gosudarstva i nekotorye voprosy ego interpretacii.” DGVE 2014 (2016), pp. 258–303.

454

Bibliography

Erdeljan, Jelena. “Studenica. A New Perspective?” In Serbia and Byzantium. Proceedings of the International Conference Held on 15 December 2008 at the University of Cologne, eds. Mabi Angar and Claudia Sode, pp. 33–43. Frankfurt/M.: Lang, 2013. Erdeljan, Jelena. “Strategies of Constructing Jerusalem in Medieval Serbia.” In Visual Constructs of Jerusalem, eds. Bianca Kühnel et al., pp. 231–40. Turnhout: Brepols, 2014. Erdeljan, Jelena. Chosen Places. Constructing New Jerusalems in Slavia Orthodoxa. Leiden: Brill, 2017. Erdélyi, István. „Das slawische Urnengräberfeld von Olympia.“ In Ex Oriente Lux. Mélanges offerts en hommage au professeur Jean Blankoff. Volume 1, pp. 119–25. Bruxelles: Centre d’Etude des Pays de l’Est, 1991. Erhart, Adolf. „Odkud máme jméno? K původu etnonyma Čech.“ Slavia 67 (1988), pp. 289–94. Ernst, Raimund. Die Nordwestslaven und das fränkische Reich. Beobachtungen zur Geschichte ihrer Nachbarschaft und zur Elbe als nordöstlicher Reichsgrenze bis in die Zeit Karls des Großen. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1976. Ernst, Raimund and Günter Sowa. “Croati.” In Glossar zur frühmittelalterlichen Geschichte im östlichen Europa. Seria A: Lateinische Namen bis 900, Bd. 2, ed. Jadran Ferluga et al., pp. 224–35. Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1989. Ertzdorff, Xenja von. „‘Et transivi per principaliores mundi provincias’. Johannes Marignoli als weitgereister Erzähler der Böhmenchronik.“ In Literatur im Umkreis des Prager Hofes der Luxemburger, eds. Joachim Heinzle et al., pp. 142–73. Berlin: Schmidt, 1994. Erusalimskii, Konstantin Iu. “Poniatiia ‘narod’, ‘Rosia’, ‘russkaja zemlja’ i social’nye diskursy Moskovskoi Rusi konca XV–XVII v.” In Religioznye i ėtnicheskie tradicii v formirovanii nacional’nykh identichnostei v Evrope, ed. Michail V. Dmitriev, pp. 137–69. Moscow: Indrik, 2008. Europe reaches the Baltic. Poland and Pomerania in the Shaping of European Civilization (10th–12th Centuries), ed. Stanisław Rosik. Wrocław: Uniwersytet Wrocławski, 2020. Evans, Huw M.A. The Early Medieval Archaeology of Croatia A.D. 600–900. Oxford: B.A.R., 1989. Evert-Kappesowa, Halina. “Słowianie pod Tesaloniką.” In Europa – Słowiańszczyzna – Polska. Studia ku uczczeniu profesora Kazimierza Tymienieckiego, ed. Czesław Łuczak, pp. 179–96. Poznań: Uniwersytet Adama Mickiewicza, 1970. Fajt, Jiří. „Karl IV., 1316–1378. Von der Nachahmung zu einem neuen kaiserlichen Stil. Entwicklung und Charakter der herrscherlichen Repräsentationen Karls IV. von Luxemburg.“ In Karl IV., Kaiser von Gottes Gnaden. Kunst und Repräsentation des Hauses Luxemburg 1347–1437, ed. Jiří Fajt, pp. 40–75. Munich: Deutscher Kunst­ verlag, 2006.

Bibliography

455

Falkovich, Svetlana M. “Sotrudnichestvo russkikh i pol’skikh neoslavistov v slavianskie s’ezdy nachala XX v.” In Slavanskie s’ezdy XIX–XX vv., eds. Elena P. Aksenova et al., pp. 113–27. Moscow, 1994. Featherstone, Jeffrey. “Ol’ga’s Visit to Constantinople.” HUS 14 (1990), pp. 293–312. Fehr, Hubert. Germanen und Romanen im Merowingerreich. Frühgeschichtliche Archäologie zwischen Wissenschaft und Zeitgeschehen. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter, 2010. Fehring, Günter P. „Beitragsmöglichkeiten der Archäologie zu Fragen der Bevölkerungs­ entwicklung und ihren Voraussetzungen im Mittelalter.“ In Determinanten der Bevölkerungsentwicklung im Mittelalter, eds. Bernd Herrmann and Rolf Sprandel, pp. 73–90. Weinheim: VCH, 1987. Feldmann, Wilhelm. Geschichte der politischen Ideen in Polen seit dessen Teilungen (1795–1914). Munich, Berlin: Oldenbourg, 1917. Fennell, John L.I. The Emergence of Moscow 1304–1359. Berkeley, Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1968. Fennell, Nicholas. “The Russians on Mount Athos.” In Mount Athos. Microcosm of the Christian East, eds. Graham Speake and Kallistos Ware, pp. 161–74. Bern: Lang, 2012. Fenomen ‘krstjani’ u srednjovekovnoj Bosni i Humu. Zbornik radova, ed. Franjo Šanjek. Sarajevo, Zagreb: Inst. za Istoriju, 2005. Ferenczi, Caspar. Nationalismus und Neoslawismus in Russland vor dem ersten Weltkrieg. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1984. Ferjančic, Božidar. “Invasions et installations des Slaves dans les Balkans.” In Villes et peuplement dans l’Illyricum protobyzantin, ed. École francaise de Rome, pp. 85–108. Rome: EFR, 1984. Ferjančić, Božidar. “Srbija i vizantijski svet u prvoj polovini XIII veka (1204–1261).” ZRVI 27–28 (1989), pp. 104–48. Ferjančić, Božidar. “Stefan Nemanja u vizantijskoj politici druge polovine XII veka.” In Stefan Nemanja – Sveti Simeon Mirotočivi. Istorija i predanje. Međjunarodni Naučni Skup septembar 1996, ed. Jovanka Kalić, pp. 31–45. Belgrade: Srpska akademija nauka i umetnosti, 2000. Ferjančić, Božidar and Sima Ćirković. Stefan Dušan. Kralj i car 1331–1355. Belgrade: Zavod za Udžbenike i Nastavna Sredstva, 2005. Ferluga, Jadran. Byzantium on the Balkans. Studies on the Byzantine Administration and the Southern Slavs from the VIIth to XII Centuries. Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1976. Ferluga, Jadran. L’amministrazione bizantina in Dalmazia. Venezia: Deputazione di storia patria per le Venezie, 1978. Ferluga, Jadran. „Archon. Ein Beitrag zur Untersuchung der südslawischen Herr­ schertitel im 9. und 10. Jahrhundert im Lichte der byzantinischen Quellen.“ In Tradition als historische Kraft, eds. Norbert Kamp and Joachim Wollasch, pp. 254–66. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter, 1982.

456

Bibliography

Ferluga, Jadran. „Aufstände im byzantinischen Reich zwischen den Jahren 1025 und 1081. Versuch einer Typologie.“ Rivista di studi bizantini e slavi 5 (1985), pp. 137–65. Fertacz, Sylwester. Komitet Wszechsłowiański w Moskwie 1941–1947. Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego, 1991. Fertacz, Sylwester. „Von Brüdern und Schwestern. Das Allslawische Komitee in Moskau 1941–1947.“ In Gemeinsam einsam. Die Slawische Idee nach dem Panslawismus, eds. Agnieszka Gąsior et al., pp. 139–52. Berlin: Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag, 2009. Fiedler, Uwe. Studien zu Gräberfeldern des 6. bis 9. Jahrhunderts an der unteren Donau. Bonn: Habelt, 1992. Fiedler, Uwe. “Bulgars in the Lower Danube region. A survey of the archaeological evidence and of the state of current research.” In The Other Europe in the Middle Ages, ed. Florin Curta, pp. 151–236. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Filipec, Krešimir. “The Collapse and Integration into the Empire: Carolingian-Age Lower Pannonia in the Material Record.” In Migration, Integration and Connectivity on the Southeastern Frontier of the Carolingian Empire, eds. Danijel Dzino et al., pp. 153–69. Leiden: Brill, 2018. Filipović, Emir. “‘Creatio Regni’ in the Great Seal of Bosnian King Tvrtko Kotromanic.” In A Companion to Seals in the Middle Ages, ed. Laura J. Whatley, pp. 264–76. Leiden: Brill, 2019. Filipowiak, Władysław. „Der Götzentempel von Wolin. Kult und Magie.“ Beiträge zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte II. Arbeits- und Forschungsgeschichte zur Sächsischen Bodendenkmalpflege. Beiheft 17 (1982), pp. 109–23. Filipowiak, Władysław [1993a]. „Slawische Kultzentren zwischen Odermündung und Rügen.“ In 825 Jahre Christianisierung Rügens: Symposiumbericht, ed. Katharina Coblenz, pp. 19–36. Altenkirchen: Selbstverlag, 1993. Filipowiak, Władysław [1993b]. „Słowiańskie wierzenia pogańskie u ujścia Odry.“ In Wierzenia przedchrześcijańskie na ziemiach polskich, eds. Marian Kwapiński and Henryk Paner, pp. 19–46. Gdańsk: Muzeum Archeologiczne, 1993. Filipowiak, Władysław. “Some aspects of the development of Wolin in the 8th–11th centuries in the light of the results of new research.” In Polish Lands at the Turn of the first and the second Millenia, ed. Przemysław Urbańczyk, pp. 47–74. Warsaw: Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology, Polish Academy of Sciences, 2004. Filipowiak, Władysław and Marek Konopka. “The Identity of a Town. Wolin, Town-State – 9th–12th Centuries.” QMAN 13 (2008), pp. 243–88. Filjuškin, Aleksandr I. “Predstavlenie o slavjanskom ėtnogeneze u vostočnoevropejskich srednevekovykh avtorov.” In Trudy VI Meždunarodnogo Kongressa slavjanskoj archeologii. Tom 3: Ėtnogenez i ėtnokul’turnye kontakty slavjan, ed. Vladimir V. Sedov, pp. 315–24. Moscow: Nauka, 1997. Filjuškin, Aleksandr I. „Das ethnogenetische Konzept der Bibel und die Auffassungen des altrussischen Chronisten von der Entstehung der Rus’.“ In Religionsgeschichtliche

Bibliography

457

Studien zum östlichen Europa. Festschrift für Ludwig Steindorff zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. Martina Thomsen, pp. 87–93. Stuttgart: Steiner, 2017. Fine, John V.A. “The Bulgarian Bogomil Movement.” EEQ 11 (1977), pp. 385–412. Fine, John V.A. The Early Medieval Balkans. A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Later Twelfth Century. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1983. Fine, John V.A. The Late Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Late Twelfth Century to the Ottoman Conquest. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1987. Fine, John V.A. “Croats and Slavs. Theories about the Historical Circumstances of the Croats’ Appearance in the Balkans.” Byzantinische Forschungen 26 (2000), pp. 205–18. Fine, John V.A. When Ethnicity did not Matter in the Balkans. A Study of Identity in Pre-Nationalist Croatia, Dalmatia, and Slavonia in the Medieval and Early-Modern Periods. Ann Arbor: Michigan Press, 2006. Fine, John V.A. The Bosnian Church. Its Place in State and Society from the Thirteenth to the Fifteenth Centuries. A New Interpretation. 2nd ed. London: Saqi, 2007. Fischel, Alfred. Der Panslawismus bis zum Weltkrieg. Stuttgart: Cotta, 1919. Fischer, Fritz. Krieg der Illusionen. Die deutsche Politik von 1911 bis 1914. Düsseldorf: Droste, 1969. Fišera, Vladimir Claude. „Kommunismus und slawische Idee. Von der kommunistischen Balkanföderation zum gesamtslawischen Komitee (1920–1946).“ In Gemeinsam einsam. Die Slawische Idee nach dem Panslawismus, eds. Agnieszka Gąsior et al., pp. 125–37. Berlin: Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag, 2009. Floria, Boris N. “Drevniaia slavianskaia ėtnicheskaia obshchnost’.” In Razvitie etnicheskogo samosoznania slavianskikh narodov v epochu rannego srednevekov’ia, pp. 10–33. Moscow: Nauka, 1982. Floria, Boris N. [1995a]. “Istoricheskie sud’by Rusi i etnicheskoe samosoznanie vostochnykh slavian v XII–XV vekach.” In Etnicheskoe samosoznanie slavian v XV stoletii, ed. Gennadii G. Litavrin, pp. 10–37. Moscow: Nauka, 1995. Floria, Boris N. [1995b]. “Kirillo-mefodievskie tradicii v ‘Legende Kristiana’.” Byzantino­ slavica 56 (1995), pp. 571–77. Flusser, Gustav. “Zpráva o Slovanech v hebrejské kronice z X. století.” ČČH 48–49 (1947/48), pp. 238–41, 611–13. Förster, Thomas. Vergleich und Identität. Selbst- und Fremddeutung im Norden des hochmittelalterlichen Europa. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 2009. Fofić, Heike. Die Genese der kroatischen Standardsprache im 19. Jahrhundert – Ljudevit Gaj und die Illyrer. Hagen: Rottmann, 1990. Fokt, Krzysztof. “Serbowie w najdawniejszym podziale Słowiańszczyzny.” SA 44 (2003), pp. 9–32. Fokt, Krzysztof. “*Lędziane – How far from the Empire?” In Byzantium, New Peoples, New Powers: The Byzantino-Slav Contact Zone, from the nine to the fifteenth century,

458

Bibliography

eds. Milijana Kaimakamova et al., pp. 109–21. Cracow: Towarzystwo Wydawnicze “Historia Iagellonica”, 2007. Fokt, Krzysztof. “Śladami etnicznej stratygrafii, czyli u źródeł zachodniej połowy Słowiańszczyzny.” In Wędrówka i etnogeneza w starożytności i średniowieczu, eds. Maciej Salamon and Jerzy Strzelczyk, pp. 269–89 Cracow: Towarzystwo Wydawnicze “Historia Iagellonica”, 2010. Fokt, Krzysztof. “Slavic Ethnopolities: A Few Remarks on the ‘Tribal Questeion’ as answer to the Questionnaire of ‘Studia Slavica et Balcanica Petropolitana’.” SSBP 1/19 (2016), pp. 32–37. Font, Márta. „Die Slawen im Ungarn der Árpádenzeit.“ In Font, Márta. Völker – Kultur – Beziehungen. Zur Entstehung der Regionen in der Mitte des mittelalterlichen Europa, pp. 29–38. Hamburg: Kovač, 2013. Fraesdorff, David. Der barbarische Norden. Vorstellungen und Fremdheitskategorien bei Rimbert, Thietmar von Merseburg, Adam von Bremen und Helmold von Bosau. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 2005. Franklin, Simon [1992a]. “Borrowed Time: Perceptions of the Past in Twelfth-Century Rus’.” In The Perception of the Past in Twelfth-Century Europe, ed. Paul Magdalino, pp. 157–71. London: Hambledon Press, 1992. Franklin, Simon [1992b]. “Greek in Kievan Rus’.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 46 (1992), pp. 69–81. Franklin, Simon. Writing, Society and Culture in Early Rus, c. 950–1300. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Franklin, Simon. “Identity and Religion.” In National Identity in Russian Culture. An Introduction, eds. Simon Franklin and Emma Widdis, pp. 95–115. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Franklin, Simon and Jonathan Shepard. The Emergence of Rus 750–1200. London, New York: Longman, 1996. Frauenstädt, [NN]. „Die preußischen Ostprovinzen in kriminalgeographischer Beleuchtung.“ Zeitschrift für Sozialwissenschaft 9 (1906), pp. 570–83. Freisinger Denkmäler/Brižinski spomeniki/Monumenta Frisingensia. Literatur  – Geschichte – Sprache – Stilart – Texte – Bibliographie, ed. Jože Pogačnik. Munich: Trofenik, 1968. Frey, Christian. “The Burgward Organisation in the Eastern Marches of the German Realm. Frontier Mentality and Inculturation.” In Château et frontière, ed. Peter Ettel, pp. 193–98. Caen: Presses Universitaires de Caen, 2014. Frey, Katrin. „Slawisch-deutscher Landesausbau in der südlichen Niederlausitz.“ In Siedlung, Kommunikation und Wirtschaft im westslawischen Raum, eds. Felix Biermann and Thomas Kersting, pp. 245–58. Langenweissbach: Beier & Beran, 2007. Freydank, Dietrich. „Byzantinische und bulgarische Traditionen in der altrussischen Literatur.“ In Byzanz in der europäischen Staatenwelt. Eine Aufsatzsammlung, eds. Jürgen Dummer and Johannes Irmscher, pp. 127–32. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1983.

Bibliography

459

Freytag, Gustav. Soll und Haben. Roman in sechs Büchern. Munich: Hanser, 1977. Freytag, Hans-Joachim. Die Herrschaft der Billunger in Sachsen. Göttingen: Vanden­ hoeck & Ruprecht, 1951. Fried, Johannes. “Der Hl. Adalbert und Gnesen.” Archiv für mittelrheinische Kirchen­ geschichte 50 (1998), pp. 41–70. Fried, Johannes. Otto III. und Bolesław Chrobry. Das Widmungsbild des Aachener Evangeliars, der ‚Akt von Gnesen’ und das frühe polnische und ungarische Königtum. 2nd ed. Stuttgart: Steiner, 2001. Fried, Johannes. „Gnesen-Aachen-Rom. Otto III. und der Kult des hl. Adalbert. Beobachtungen zum älteren Adalbertsleben.“ In Polen und Deutschland vor 1000 Jahren. Die Berliner Tagung über den „Akt von Gnesen“, ed. Michael Borgolte, pp. 235–79. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2002. Friedmann, Bernhard. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des abodritischen Fürstentums bis zum Ende des 10. Jahrhunderts. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1986. Fritze, Wolfgang H. „Die Datierung des Geographus Bavarus und die Stammesverfassung der Abodriten.“ ZFslPh 21 (1952), pp. 326–46. Fritze, Wolfgang H. „Beobachtungen zu Entstehung und Wesen des Lutizenbundes.“ JbGMOD 7 (1958), pp. 1–38. Fritze, Wolfgang H. „Probleme der abodritischen Stammes- und Reichsverfassung und ihrer Entwicklung vom Stammesstaat zum Herrschaftsstaat.“ In Siedlung und Verfassung der Slaven zwischen Elbe, Saale und Oder, ed. Herbert Ludat, pp. 141–219. Gießen: Schmitz, 1960. Fritze, Wolfgang H. „Slaven und Avaren im angelsächsischen Missionsprogramm: I. Theologia naturalis und Slavenmission bei Bonifatius.“ ZFslPh 31 (1963), pp. 316–38. Fritze, Wolfgang H. “Zur Bedeutung der Awaren für die slawische Ausdehnungsbewe­ gung im frühen Mittelalter.” ZfO 28 (1979), pp. 498–545. Fritze, Wolfgang H. „Germania Slavica. Zielsetzung und Arbeitsprogramm einer interdisziplinären Arbeitsgruppe.“ In Germania Slavica I, ed. Wolfgang H. Fritze, pp. 11–40. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1980. Fritze, Wolfgang H. „Corona regni Bohemiae. Die Entstehung des böhmischen Königtums im 12. Jahrhundert im Widerspiel von Kaiser, Fürst und Adel.“ In Fritze, Wolfgang H. Frühzeit zwischen Ostsee und Donau, pp. 209–96. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1982. Fritze, Wolfgang H. [1984a]. „Der slawische Aufstand von 983 – eine Schicksalswende in der Geschichte Mitteleuropas.“ In Festschrift der Landesgeschichtlichen Vereinigung für die Mark Brandenburg zu ihrem hundertjährigen Bestehen 1884–1984, eds. Eckart Henning and Werner Vogel, pp. 9–55. Berlin: Landesgeschichtliche Vereinigung für die Mark Brandenburg, 1984. Fritze, Wolfgang H. [1984b]. „Die Begegnung von deutschen und slawischem Ethnikum im Bereich der hochmittelalterlichen deutschen Ostsiedlung.“ Siedlungsforschung 2 (1984), pp. 187–219.

460

Bibliography

Fritze, Wolfgang H. „Villae slavicae in der Mark Brandenburg. Zur Bedeutung eines urkundlichen Terminus des hohen Mittelalters im Bereich der Germania Slavica.“ Jahrbuch für brandenburgische Landesgeschichte 41 (1990), pp. 11–68. Frolík, Jan. “Prague Castle in the Early and High Middle Ages in the Light of Archeology.” QMAN 4 (1999), pp. 177–95. Frolík, Jan. “Pražský hrad v 9. a 10. století.” In České země v raném středověku, ed. Petr Sommer, pp. 175–192. Prague: Nakladatelství Lidové Noviny, 2006. Frolík, Jan. “Rotunda sv. Víta na Pražském hradě ve světle nových poznatků.” In Svatý Václav. Na památku 1110. Výročí narození knížete Václava Svatého, ed. Petr Kubín, pp. 131–47. Prague: Togga, 2010. Frolík, Jan and Zdeněk Smetánka. Archeologie na Pražském hradě. Prague: Paseka, 1997. Frolík, Jan et al. Nejstarší sakrální architektura Pražského hradu. Výpověd’ archeologických pramenů. Prague: Nakladatelství Peres, 2000. Frolíková-Kaliszová, Drahomíra. „Die Anfänge der Prager Burg im Lichte neuer archäologischer Ausgrabungen.“ In Siedlungsstrukturen und Burgen im westslawischen Raum, eds. Biermann, Felix et al., pp. 65–76. Langenweissbach: Beier & Beran, 2009. Frühe Slawen in Mitteleuropa. Schriften von Kazimierz Godłowski, eds. Jan Bemmann and Michał Parczewski. Neumünster: Wachholtz, 2005. Frühgeschichtliche Zentralorte in Mitteleuropa, eds. Jiří Macháček and Šimon Ungerman. Bonn: Habelt, 2011. Frühmittelalterliche Machtzentren in Mitteleuropa, eds. Čeněk Staňa and Lumír Poláček Brno: Archeologický ústav AVČR, 1996. Frühmittelalterlicher Burgenbau in Mittel- und Osteuropa, eds. Joachim Henning and Alexander T. Ruttkay. Bonn: Habelt, 1998. Frye, Richard N. Ibn Fadlan’s Journey to Russia: A Tenth-Century Traveller from Baghdad to the Volga River. Princeton: Wiener Publishers, 2005. Fuchs, Gottlieb. Reformations- und Kirchengeschichte des Fürstenhums Oels. Mit dazu gehörigen Beweisen. Breslau: Korn, 1779. Fučić, Branko. “The Croatian Glagolitic and Cyrillic epigraphs until 1200.” In Croatia in the Early Middle Ages. A Cultural Survey, ed. Ivan Supičić, pp. 259–82. London: Wilson, 1999. Fuhrmann, Rainer. Die Orientalische Frage, das ‚Panslawistisch-Chauvinistische Lager‘ und das Zuwarten auf Krieg und Revolution. Die Osteuropaberichterstattung und -vorstellungen der ‚Deutschen Rundschau‘ 1874–1918. Frankfurt/M.: Lang, 1975. Fusek, Gabriel. “Slawen oder Slawen? Eine polemische Auseinandersetzung über eine wertvolle Monographie. (Curta, F.: The Making of the Slavs. History and archaeology of the Lower Danube Region c. 500–700).” Slovenská archeológia 52 (2004), pp. 161–86. Gabriel, Ingo. „Starigard/Oldenburg: Die große Landesburg der Wagrier.“ In Heiden und Christen. Slawenmission im Mittelalter, eds. Manfred Gläser et al., pp. 29–42. Lübeck: Schmidt-Römhild, 2002.

Bibliography

461

Gabriel, Ingo and Torsten Kempke. „Baubefunde.“ In Starigard/Oldenburg. Ein slawischer Herrschersitz des frühen Mittelalters in Ostholstein, ed. Michael Müller-Wille, pp. 149–79. Neumünster: Wachholtz, 1991. Gaethke, Hans-Otto. Herzog Heinrich der Löwe und die Slaven nordöstlich der unteren Elbe. Frankfurt/M.: Lang, 1999. Gaethke, Hans-Otto [2000a]. „Kämpfe und Herrschaft Heinrichs von (Alt)Lübeck und Lothars von Supplingenburg im Slawenland 1093/1106–1125.“ Zeitschrift der Gesellschaft für Lübeckische Geschichte und Altertumskunde 80 (2000), pp. 63–163. Gaethke, Hans-Otto [2000b]. „Königtum im Slawenland östlich der mittleren und unteren Elbe im 12. Jahrhundert. Eine Untersuchung zur Frage nach der Herkunft des Königtums Pribislaw-Heinrichs von Brandenburg.“ JbGMOD 46 (2000), pp. 1–111. Gajda, Stanisław. “Słowiański świat językowy.” In Słowianie, Słowiańszczyzna – pojęcie i rzeczywistość dawniej i dziś, ed. Kwirina Handke, pp. 97–111. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Instytutu Slawistyki PAN, 2002. Galevski, Dragan. „Pretstavata za slovenite kako voini vo vizantiskite izvori (VI–X vek).” In Vizantija i slovenite: Srednovekovni i moderni percepcii i recepcii, ed. Mitko B. Panov, pp. 59–66. Skopje: Univerzitet “Evro-Balkan”, 2018. Gallus Anonymus and his Chronicle. In the Context of Twelf-Century Historiography from the Perspective of the Latest Research, ed. Krzysztof Stopka. Cracow: PAU, 2010. Galton, Herbert. Der Einfluss des Altaischen auf die Entstehung des Slavischen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1997. Galuška, Luděk. “Archaeological Sources for Christianity in Great Moravia.” In Thessaloniki  – Magna Moravia. Proceedings of the International Conference Thessaloniki 16–19 October 1997, pp. 253–71. Thessaloniki: Hellenic Association for Slavic Studies, 1999. Ganina, Natalija A. “Tainy Riugenskikh slavian.” SSBP 16/2 (2015), pp. 65–81. Gantar Godina, Irena. Neoslavizem in Slovenci. Ljubljana: Znanstveni Inšt. Filoz. Fak, 1994. Garam, Éva. „Die Awaren (Awaren in Siebenbürgen).“ In Siebenbürgen zur Zeit der Römer und der Völkerwanderung, ed. Wolfgang Schuller, pp. 171–81. Cologne: Böhlau, 1994. Garipzanov, Ildar H. “The Annals of St. Bertin (839) and Chacanus of the Rhos.” Ruthenica 5 (2006), pp. 3–8. Garipzanov, Ildar H. “Christianity and Paganism in Adam of Bremen’s Narrative.” In Historical Narratives and Christian Identity on a European Periphery. Early History Writing in Northern, East-Central and Eastern Europe (c. 1070–1200), ed. Ildar H. Garipzanov, pp. 13–29. Turnhout: Brepols, 2011. Garleff, Michael. „Von der Russophobie zum Antislavismus im deutschbaltischen Russlandbild.“ In Deutschlands östliche Nachbarschaften, eds. Edmund Dmitrów and Tobias Weger, pp. 233–65. Frankfurt/M.: Lang, 2009.

462

Bibliography

Gąsior, Agnieszka. “Kunst und Weltfrieden. Alfons Muchas Slawisches Epos.” In Gemeinsam einsam. Die Slawische Idee nach dem Panslawismus, eds. Agnieszka Gąsior et al., pp. 213–25. Berlin: Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag, 2009. Gąsior, Agnieszka. „Slaventum und Staatspropaganda. Zofia Stryjeńskas Kunst in der Repräsentation der Zweiten Polnischen Republik.“ In Post-Panslavismus. Slavizität, slavische Idee und Antislavismus im 20. und 21. Jahrhundert, eds. Agnieszka Gąsior et al., pp. 139–59. Göttingen: Wallstein, 2014. Gavrituchin, Igor’ O. “Khronologiia prazhskoi kultury.” In Ėtnogenez i ėtnokul’turnye kontakty slavian. Trudy VI. Mezhdunarodnogo Kongresa slavianskoi archeologii. Tom 3, ed. Valentin V. Sedov, pp. 39–52. Moscow: Rossiiskaia Akademiia Nauk, 1997. Gawlas, Sławomir. “Świadomość narodowa Jana Długosza.” SŹ 27 (1983), pp. 3–64. Gawlas, Sławomir. “Stan badań nad polską świadomością narodową w średniowieczu.” In Państwo, naród, stany w świadomości wieków średnich, eds. Aleksander Gieysztor and Sławomir Gawlas, pp. 149–94. Warsaw: PWN, 1990. Gawlas, Sławomir. “Die mittelalterliche Nationenbildung am Beispiel Polens.” In Mittel­ alterliche nationes – neuzeitliche Nationen. Probleme der Nationenbildung in Europa, eds. Almut Bues and Rex Rexheuser, pp. 121–43. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1995. Gawlas, Sławomir. “Pytania o tożsamość średniowiecznych Polaków w świetle wspòłczesnych dyskusji humanistyki.” In Symboliczne i realne podstawy tożsamości społecznej w średniowieczu., eds. Sławomir Gawlas and Paweł Żmudzki, pp. 15–82. Warsaw: Wydawnictwu Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, 2017. Geary, Patrick J. “Ethnic Identity as a Situational Construct in the Early Middle Ages.” Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft in Wien 113 (1983), pp. 15–26. Geary, Patrick J. Europäische Völker im frühen Mittelalter. Zur Legende vom Werden der Nationen. Frankfurt/M.: Fischer-Taschenbuch-Verlag, 2002. Geary, Patrick J. Language and Power in the Early Middle Ages. Waltham Mass.: Brandeis University Press, 2013. Geary, Patrick J. “Political Identity, Ethnic Identity, Genetic Identity: The Dangers of Conceptual Confusion.” In Neue Wege der Frühmittelalterforschung  – Bilanz und Perspektiven, eds. Walter Pohl et al., pp. 35–41. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2018. Geelhaar, Tim. Christianitas. Eine Wortgeschichte von der Spätantike bis zum Mittelalter. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015. Gerds, Marcus. Das Gräberfeld des frühmittelalterlichen Seehandelsplatzes von Groß Strömkendorf, Lkr. Nordwestmecklenburg. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 2015. Geremek, Bronisław. “Polska w geografii kulturowej średniowiecznej Europy.” In Kultura Polski średniowiecznej X–XIII w., ed. Jerzy Dowiat, pp. 8–28. Warsaw: Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczny, 1985. Gerolymatou, Maria. “The Rus through the Eyes of the Byzantines: 11th–12th Century.” In Kyrillos kai Methodios: To Byzantio kai o kosmos tōn Slabōn/Cyril and Methodius:

Bibliography

463

Byzantium and the world of the Slavs. International Scientific Conference, pp. 485–98. Thessaloniki: Ekd. Dēmu Thessalonikēs, 2015. Gieysztor, Aleksander. “Więź narodowa i regionalna w polskim średniowieczu.” In Polska dzielnicowa i zjednoczona. Państwo, społeczeństwo, kultura, ed. Aleksander Gieysztor, pp. 9–36. Warsaw: Wiedza Powszechna, 1972. Gieysztor, Aleksander. “Gens Polonica: aux origines d’une conscience nationale.” In Études de civilization médiévale (IXe–XIIe siécles). Mélanges offerts à Edmond-René Labande à l’occasion de son départ à la retraite et du XXe anniversaire du C.É.S.C.M. par ses amis, ses collègues, ses élèves, pp. 351–62, Poitiers: Centre d’ Etudes Supérieures de Civilisation Médiévale, 1974. Gieysztor, Aleksander. Mitologia Słowian. Warsaw: Wydawnictwa Artystyczne i Filmowe, 1982. Gillett, Andrew. “The Mirror of Jordanes. Concepts of the Barbarian, Then and Now.” In A Companion to Late Antiquity, ed. Philip Rousseau, pp. 392–408. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009. Giuzelev, Vasil. “Bălgariia i bălgarite v Opus Majus na Rodzher Beikăn (1220–1292).” In Bălgarsko srednovekovie: obshtestvo, vlast, istoriia, eds. Georgi N. Nikolov and Angel Nikolov, pp. 66–73. Sofia: Universitet “Sv. Kliment Ochridski”, 2013. Giza, Antoni. Neoslawizm a Polacy 1906–1910. Szczecin: Wydawnictwa Naukowe Wyższej Szkoły Pedagogicznej, 1984. Gjuzelev, Vasil. „Bulgarisch-fränkische Beziehungen in der ersten Hälfte des IX. Jhs.“ Byzantinobulgarica 2 (1966), pp. 15–39. Gjuzelev, Vasil. The Adoption of Christianity in Bulgaria. Sofia: Sofia Press, 1975. Gjuzelev, Vasil. „Bildungsstand in Bulgarien während des Hochmittelalters (13.–14. Jh.).“ BHR 12 (1984), no. 3, pp. 72–96. Gjuzelev, Vasil. “Die Kultur des mittelalterlichen Bulgariens im 13. und 14. Jahrhundert.” MBFIÖ 7/2 (1985), pp. 113–23. Gjuzelev, Vasil. “Photius’ Constantinople model of a ruler newly converted to Christianity.” BHR 15/3 (1987), pp. 34–42. Gjuzelev, Vasil. Bulgarien zwischen Orient und Okzident. Die Grundlagen seiner geistigen Kultur vom 13. bis zum 15. Jahrhundert. Vienna: Böhlau, 1993. Gkoutzioukostas, Andreas. “The term Σκλαυινία and the use of adjectives which derive from the ethnic names in the History of Theophylact Simocatta.” In Cyril and Methodius: Byzantium and the World of the Slavs, ed. Antonios-Aimilios Tachiaos, pp. 639–46. Thessalonike: Dēmos, 2015. Glanc, Tomáš. “Alphonse Mucha’s Slavic prōiectum.” In Konzepte des Slawischen, Tomáš Glanc and Christian Voß, pp. 273–96. Leipzig: Biblion Media, 2016. Glanc, Tomáš, and Christina Voß. „Einleitung.“ In Konzepte des Slawischen, Tomáš Glanc and Christian Voß, pp. 7–17. Leipzig: Biblion Media, 2016.

464

Bibliography

Godłowski, Kazimierz. “Ziemie polskie w okresie wędrówek ludów. Problem pierwotnych siedzib Słowian.” Barbaricum 1 (1989), pp. 12–63. Göckenjan, Hansgerd. „Die Landnahme der Awaren aus historischer Sicht.“ In Ausgewählte Probleme europäischer Landnahmen des Früh- und Hochmittelalters. Volume 1, eds. Michael Müller-Wille and Reinhard Schneider, pp. 275–302. Sigmaringen: Thorbecke, 1993. Göckenjan, Hansgerd. „Legende oder Wirklichkeit? Nachrichten über das östliche Europa im Werk des arabischen Reisenden Abu Hamid al Andalusi al-Garnati (1080–1170).“ In Erkundung und Beschreibung der Welt. Zur Poetik der Reise- und Länderberichte, eds. Xenja von Erztdorff and Gerhard Giesemann, pp. 233–65. Amsterdam, New York: Rodopi, 2003. Goehrke, Carsten. Frühzeit des Ostslaventums. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1992. Görich, Knut. „Ein Erzbistum in Prag oder in Gnesen.“ ZfO 40 (1991), pp. 10–27. Görich, Knut. „Eine Wende im Osten: Heinrich II. und Bolesław Chrobry.“ In Otto III.  – Heinrich II. Eine Wende?, eds. Bernd Schneidmüller and Stefan Weinfurter, pp. 95–167. 2nd ed. Stuttgart: Thorbecke, 2000. Goetz, Hans-Werner. „Geschichtsschreibung und Recht. Zur rechtlichen Legitimierung des Bremer Erzbistums in der Chronik Adams von Bremen.“ In Recht und Alltag im Hanseraum. Gerhard Theuerkauf zum 60. Geburtstag, eds. Silke Urbanski et al., pp. 191–205 Lüneburg: Deutsches Salzmuseum, 1993. Goetz, Hans-Werner. „Das Herzogtum der Billunger  – ein sächsischer Sonderweg.“ Niedersächsisches Jahrbuch für Landesgeschichte 66 (1994), pp. 167–97. Goetz, Hans-Werner. „Lingua. Indizien und Grenzen einer Identität durch Sprache im frühen Mittelalter.“ In Sprache und Identität im frühen Mittelalter, ed. Walter Pohl, pp. 61–74. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2012. Goetz, Hans-Werner. „Zur Funktion und Anwendung von Volks-, Reichs- und Nations­ begriffen in der nordalpinen Geschichtsschreibung des 9. bis 11. Jahrhunderts.“ In Nationes, Gentes und die Musik im Mittelalter, eds. Frank Hentschel and Maria Winkelmüller, pp. 1–32. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014. Goetz, Hans-Werner. „Die Slawen in der Wahrnehmung Thietmars von Merseburg zu Beginn des 11. Jahrhunderts.“ Lětopis 62 (2015), 2, pp. 103–18. Goetz, Hans-Werner. „Das Geschichts- und Weltbild der Chronik Hermanns von Reichenau.“ In Hermann der Lahme: Reichenauer Mönch und Universalgelehrter des 11. Jahrhunderts, eds. Felix Heinzer and Thomas Zotz, pp. 87–132. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2016. Goffart, Walter. The Narrators of Barbarian History (A.D. 550–800). Jordanes, Gregory of Tours, Bede, and Paul the Deacon. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988. Gojda, Martin. The development of the Settlement Pattern in the Basin of the Lower Vltava (Central Bohemia) 200–1200 AD. Oxford: BAR, 1988.

Bibliography

465

Gojda, Martin. The Ancient Slavs. Settlement and Society. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1991. Gołąb, Zbigniew. O pochodzeniu Słowian w świetle faktów językowych. Cracow: Universitas, 2004. Goldberg, Eric J. “Ludwig der Deutsche und Mähren. Eine Studie zu karolingischen Grenzkriegen im Osten.” In Ludwig der Deutsche und seine Zeit, ed. Wilfried Hartmann, pp. 67–94. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2004. Golden, Peter B. “al-Ṣaḳāliba.” In The Encyclopaedia of Islam. New Edition. Volume 8, ed. Clifford Edmund Bosworth et al., pp. 872–78. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Golden, Peter B. “The Question of the Rus’ Qaganate.” In Golden, Peter B. 2003. Nomads and their Neighbours in the Russian Steppe, pp. 77–97. Aldershot: Ashgate/Variorum, 2003. Goldstein, Ivo. “O Tomislavu i njegovom vremenu.” RZHP 18 (1985), pp. 23–55. Goldstein, Ivo. Bizant na Jadranu 6.–9. stoljeća. Zagreb: Latina et Graeca, 1992. Goldstein, Ivo. Hrvatski rani srednji vijek. Zagreb: Novi Liber, 1995. Goldstein, Ivo. “Kroatien und Dalmatien zwischen Byzanz und dem Westen.” In Byzanz und das Abendland im 10. und 11. Jahrhundert, ed. Evangelos Kostantinou, pp. 161–81. Cologne: Böhlau, 1997. Goldstein, Ivo. “Byzantine Rule in Dalmatia in the 12th Century.” In Byzanz und Ostmitteleuropa 950–1453, eds. Günter Prinzing and Maciej Salamon, pp. 97–125. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1999. Gómez, Miguel P. Sancho. “Dealing with the Slavs, the Antae and the like. Danubian Byzantine warfare in the Maurice’s Treaty Strategikon.” In Vizantija i slovenite: Srednovekovni i moderni percepcii i recepcii, ed. Mitko B. Panov, pp. 49–59. Skopje: Univerzitet “Evro-Balkan”, 2018. Gordyienko, Dmytro. “The Mission of Kyivan Princess Olga to the King Otto III in the context of Rus’ and Germany foreign policies.” Byzantinoslavica 66 (2008), pp. 107–18. Górecki, Piotr. “Assimilation, Resistance, and Ethnic Group Formation in Medieval Poland. A European Paradigm?” In Das Reich und Polen. Parallelen, Interaktionen und Formen der Akkulturation im hohen und späten Mittelalter, ed. Thomas Wünsch, pp. 447–76. Ostfildern: Thorbecke, 2003. Goriainov, Andrei N. “Traktovka slavianskoj vzaimnosti i slavianovedenii sovestkimi uchenymi (1920–1930-e gody).” In L’idea dell’unità e della reciprocità slava e il suo ruolo nello sviluppo della slavistica, eds. Sergio Bonazza and Giovanna Brogi Bercoff, pp. 81–92. Roma: La Fenice Ed., 1994. Goriunov, Evgenii A. Rannie ėtapy istorii slavian Dneprovskogo levoberezh’ia, pp. 71–82. Leningrad: Nauka, 1981. Gorskij, Anton A. Russkie zemli v XIII–XIV vekakh. Puti politicheskogo razvitiia. Moscow: IRI Rossiskaia Akademiia Nauk, 1996.

466

Bibliography

Gorskij, Anton A., Andrej Pleterskij, Viktor V. Puzanov and Petr V. Šuvalov. “‚Plemja‘ v slavianskom mire v ranee srednevekov’e (forum).” SSBP 19/1 (2016), pp. 3–16. Graber, Georg. Der Einritt des Herzogs von Kärnten am Fürstenstein zu Karnburg: eine Studie zur kärntischen Volkskunde. Vienna: A. Hölder, 1919. Grabkowsky, Anna-Therese. „Abt Arnold von Lübeck.“ In Recht und Alltag im Hanseraum. Gerhard Theuerkauf zum 60. Geburtstag, eds. Silke Urbanski et al., pp. 207–31. Lüneburg: Deutsches Salzmuseum, 1993. Grabmüller, Hans-Jürgen. Die Pskover Chroniken. Untersuchungen zur russischen Regionalchronistik im 13.–15. Jahrhundert. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1975. Grabowski, Mieczysław. “Stara Lubeka w dobie chrystianizacji Słowian połabskich.” In Kościoły w dobie chrystianizacji, ed. Marian Rębkowski, pp. 187–202. Szczecin: Wydawnictwo Instytutu Archeologii i Etnologii PAN, 2016. Grabski, Andrzej F. Polska w opiniach obcych X–XIII w. Warsaw: PWN, 1964. Grabski, Andrzej F. “‘Lingua Slavonica’ w poglądach polskich i zachodnioeuropejskich (XI–XV wiek).” Rozprawy Komisji Językowej Łódzkiego Towarzystwa Naukowego 16 (1970), pp. 253–67. Graebner, Michael [1975a]. The Role of the Slavs within the Byzantine Empire, 500–1018. Ann Arbor: Rutgers University, 1975. Graebner, Michael [1975b]. “The Slavs in Byzantine Population Transfers of the Seventh and Eight Centuries.” Études Balkaniques 11 (1975), no. 1, pp. 40–52. Graebner, Michael. “The Slavs in Byzantine Europe – Absorption, Semi-autonomy and the Limits of Byzantinization.” Byzantinobulgarica 5 (1978), pp. 41–55. Grafenauer, Bogo: Die ethnische Gliederung und geschichtliche Rolle der westlichen Südslawen im Mittelalter. Ljubljana: Izd. in Založila Filozofska Fak. v Ljubljani, 1966. Graus, František. “Raně středověké družiny a jejich význam při vzniku státu ve střední Evropě.” ČČH 13 (1965), pp. 1–18. Graus, František [1966a]. „Adel, Land und Herrscher in Böhmen vom 10.–13. Jahr­ hundert.“ Nachrichten der Giessener Hochschulgesellschaft 35 (1966), pp. 131–53. Graus, František [1966b]. „Die Bildung eines Nationalbewusstseins im mittelalterlichen Böhmen (Die vorhussitische Zeit).“ Historica 13 (1966), pp. 5–49. Graus, František [1966c]. “Slovanská liturgie a písemnictví v přemyslovských Čechách 10. století.” ČČH 14 (1966), pp. 473–95. Graus, František. „Kirchliche und heidnische (magische) Komponenten der Stellung der Přemysliden. Přemyslidensage und St. Wenzelsideologie.“ In Siedlung und Verfassung Böhmens in der Frühzeit, eds. František Graus and Herbert Ludat, pp. 148–61. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1967. Graus, František. „Böhmen zwischen Bayern und Sachsen. Zur böhmischen Kirchen­ geschichte des 10. Jahrhunderts.“ Historica 17 (1969), pp. 5–42. Graus, František [1971a]. „Die Entwicklung der Legenden der sog. Slavenapostel Konstantin und Method in Böhmen.“ JfGO 19 (1971), pp. 161–211.

Bibliography

467

Graus, František [1971b]. “Přemysl Otakar II  – sein Ruhm und sein Nachleben. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte politischer Propaganda und Chronistik.” MIÖG 79 (1971), pp. 57–110. Graus, František. Lebendige Vergangenheit. Überlieferung im Mittelalter und in den Vorstellungen des Mittelalters. Cologne, Vienna: Böhlau, 1973. Graus, František [1980a]. Die Nationenbildung der Westslawen im Mittelalter. Sigmaringen: Thorbecke, 1980. Graus, František [1980b]. „St. Adalbert und St. Wenzel. Zur Funktion der mittelalterlichen Heiligenverehrung in Böhmen.“ In Europa Slavica  – Europa Orientalis. Festschrift für Herbert Ludat zum 70. Geburtstag, eds. Klaus-Detlev Grothusen and Klaus Zernack, pp. 205–31. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1980. Graus, František. “Böhmen im 9. bis 11. Jahrhundert.” In Gli Slavi occidentali e meridionali nell’alto medioevo, ed. Raoul Manselli, pp. 169–96. Spoleto: CISAM, 1983. Graus, František. „Kontinuität und Diskontinuität des Bewußtseins nationaler Eigenständigkeit im Mittelalter.“ In Entstehung von Sprachen und Völkern, ed. P. Sture Ureland, pp. 71–82. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1985. Graus, František. „Die Ausformung mittelalterlicher Nationen im 13. Jahrhundert (Böhmen und Polen im Vergleich).“ JbGMOD 41 (1993), pp. 3–16. Great Moravia and the Beginnings of Christianity ed. Pavel Kouřil. Brno: Archeologický ústav AVČR, 2014. Grebe, Klaus. „Brandenburg, die Heveller und der Lutizenaufstand.“ Das Altertum 29 (1983), pp. 17–25. Grebe, Klaus et al. Die Brandenburg im slawischen Mittelalter. Ergebnisse der Aus­ grabungen zwischen 1961 und 1983. Wünsdorf: Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologisches Landesmuseum, 2015. Grekov, Vladimir N. “‘Slavianskaja samobytnost‘’ i ‘vybor sud’by’ v teorii rannikh slavianofilov (k voprosu o vyiavlenii archetipov).” In Slavianskaja ideia. Istoriia i sovremennost’, ed. Vladimir A. D’iakov, pp. 78–94. Moscow: Institut Slavianovedeniia RAN, 1998. Grgin, Borislav. “The Croatian Nobility and King Matthias Corvinus. Between Cooperation and Confrontation.” Transylvanian Review 18 (2009), no. 3, pp. 52–61. Grinder-Hansen, Paul. „Die Slawen bei Saxo Grammaticus  – Bemerkungen zu den Gesta Danorum.“ In Zwischen Reric und Bornhöved. Die Beziehungen zwischen den Dänen und ihren slawischen Nachbarn vom 9. bis ins 13. Jahrhundert, eds. Ole Harck and Christian Lübke, pp. 179–86. Stuttgart: Steiner, 2001. Gringmuth-Dallmer, Eike. „Siedlungshistorische Voraussetzungen, Verlauf und Ergebnisse des hochmittelalterlichen Landesausbaus im östlichen Deutschland.“ In Grundherrschaft und bäuerliche Gesellschaft im Hochmittelalter, ed. Werner Rösener, pp. 320–58. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995.

468

Bibliography

Gringmuth-Dallmer, Eike. „Innovationen der hochmittelalterlichen Ostsiedlung  – Übertragungen oder Neuentwicklungen?“ In Wędrówki rzeczy i idei w średniowieczu, ed. Sławomir Moździoch, pp. 173–82. Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Instytutu Archeologii i Etnologii PAN, 2004. Gringmuth-Dallmer, Eike. „Die hochmittelalterliche Ostsiedlung in vergleichender Sicht.“ Siedlungsforschung 24 (2006), pp. 99–121. Gringmuth-Dallmer, Eike. „Frühformen in der hochmittelalterlichen Ostsiedlung  – auch bei den Fluren?“ In Archäologie, Mittelalter, Neuzeit, Zukunft: Festschrift für Ingolf Ericsson, eds. Rainer Atzbach et al., 87–95. Bonn: Habelt, 2017. Gród piastowski w Gieczu. Geneza-funkcja-kontekst, eds. Michał Kara et al. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznańskiego Towarzystwa Przyjaciół Nauk, 2016. Großmähren und seine Nachbarn, ed. Stefan Albrecht. Berlin: Lang, 2021. Grudziński, Tadeusz. “The Beginnings of Feudal Disintegration in Poland.” Acta Poloniae Historica 30 (1974), pp. 5–32. Grüger, Heinrich. „Schlesisches Klosterbuch. Oels. Abtei der slawischen Benediktiner.“ Jahrbuch der Schlesischen Friedrich Wilhelms-Universität zu Breslau 29 (1988), pp. 7–13. Grünbart, Michael. „Missionen in Byzanz.“ In Credo. Christianisierung Europas im Mittelalter. Volume 1: Essays, eds. Christoph Stiegemann et al., pp. 350–57. Petersberg: Imhof, 2013. Gündisch, Konrad. „‚Saxones‘ im Bergbau von Siebenbürgen, Bosnien und Serbien.“ In Die Deutschen in Ostmittel- und Südosteuropa. Geschichte, Wirtschaft, Recht, Sprache, Volume 2, eds. Gerhard Grimm and Krista Zach, pp. 119–32. Munich: Verlag Südostdeutsches Kulturwerk, 1996. Gruszczyk, Marcela. Idea w służbie propagandy. Komitet Słowiański w Polsce 1945–1953 na tle ruchu nowosłowiańskiego. Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego, 2019. Grzesik, Ryszard. Hungaria – Slavia – Europa Centralis. Studia z dziejów kultury środkowoeuropejskiej we wczesnym średniowieczu. Warsaw: Slawistyczny Ośrodek Wydawniczy, 2014. Guichard, Pierre and Mohamed Meouak. “al-Ṣaḳāliba. 3. In the Muslim West.” In The Encyclopaedia of Islam. New Edition. Volume 8, eds. Clifford Edmund Bosworth et al., pp. 879–81. Leiden: Brepols, 1995. Guitoo, Arash. Selbst- und Fremdenwahrnehmung im islamischen Mittelalter. Identitätund Alteritätskonstruktion der Abbasidenzeit anhand der Schriften von Ibn Faḍlān und al-Ǧāḥiẓ. Berlin: EB-Verlag, 2015. Gutas, Dimitri. Greek Thought, Arabic Culture. The Graeco-Arabic Translation Movement in Baghdad and Early Abbasid Society (2nd–4th/8th–10th centuries). London, New York: Routledge, 1998.

Bibliography

469

Guth, Klaus. „Die Pilgerfahrt Willibalds ins Heilige Land (723–728/9). Analyse eines frühmittelalterlichen Reiseberichts.“ Sammelblatt des Historischen Vereins Eichstätt 75 (1982), pp. 13–28. Guth, Klaus. „Kulturkontakte zwischen Deutschen und Slawen nach Thietmar von Merseburg.“ In Historiographia mediaevalis. Studien zur Geschichtsschreibung und Quellenkunde des Mittelalters, eds. Dieter Berg and Hans-Werner Goetz, pp. 88–102. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1988. Guzy-Pasiak, Jolanta. “Panslawizm w muzyce: Ludomir Michał Rogowski (1881–1954).” In Panslawizm wczoraj, dziś, jutro, eds. Zofia Chyra-Rolicz and Tomasz Rokosz, pp. 267–77. Siedlce: Pracownia Wydawnicza Wydziału Humanistycznego, 2016. Haćki. Zespół przyrodniczo-archeologiczny na Równinie Bielskiej, eds. Janusz B. Faliński et al. Warsaw: Białowieska Stacja Geobotaniczna Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, 2005. Hadler, Frank. „Der Magna-Moravia-Mythos zwischen Geschichtsschreibung und Politik im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert.“ In Geschichtliche Mythen in den Literaturen und Kulturen Ostmittel- und Südosteuropas, eds. Eva Behring et al., pp. 275–89. Stuttgart: Steiner, 1999. Hadler, Frank. „‘…  nevertheless, a great theatrical exhibition of Slav solidarity.’ Der Prager Slawen-Kongress von 1908 als Hauptaktion des Neoslawismus.“ In Approaches to Slavic Unity. Austro-Slavism, Pan-Slavism, Neo-Slavism, and Solidarity Among the Slavs Today, eds. Krzysztof A. Makowski and Frank Hadler, pp. 131–52. Poznań: Instytut Historii Uniwersytetu Adama Mickiewicza, 2013. Hadler, Frank. „Vernetzungsimpulse aus Fernost – oder wie der 1908 in Prag zelebrierte Neoslawismus mit Rußlands verlorenem Krieg gegen Japan zusammenhing.“ In Vergessene Vielfalt. Territorialisierung und Internationalisierung in Ostmittel­ europa seit der Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts, ed. Steffi Marung, pp. 87–107. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Rupprecht, 2014. Hadžijahić, Muhamed. „Die Anfänge der nationalen Entwicklung in Bosnien und Herzegowina.“ Südost-Forschungen 21 (1962), pp. 168–93. Hadžijahić, Muhamed. „Das Regnum Sclavorum als historische Quelle und als territoriales Substrat.“ Südost-Forschungen 42 (1983), pp. 11–60. Hafner, Stanislaus. Studien zur altserbischen dynastischen Historiographie. Munich: Oldenbourg, 1964. Hafner, Stanislaus. „Zur Terminologie der politischen Ideologie im mittelalterlichen Serbien.“ In Opuscula Slavica et Linguistica. Festschrift für Alexander Issatschenko, eds. Heinz Dieter Pohl and Nikolai Salnikow, pp. 189–200. Klagenfurt: Heyn, 1976. Hahn, Hans Henning. „Der Austroslawismus: Vom kulturellen Identitätsdiskurs zum politischen Konzept.“ In Habsburg und die Slavia, ed. Gun-Brit Kohler, pp. 49–75. Frankfurt/M.: Lang, 2008.

470

Bibliography

Hahn, Hans-Joachim. „Antisemitismus und Antislawismus in Gustav Freytags ‚Soll und Haben‘ (1855). Ein deutscher Erinnerungsort aus Schlesien.“ In Schlesische Erinnerungsorte. Gedächtnis und Identität einer mitteleuropäischen Region, eds. Marek Czapliński et al., 122–37. Görlitz: Neisse-Verlag, 2005. Hamann, Carl. Die Beziehungen Rügens zu Dänemark von 1168 bis zum Aussterben der einheimischen rügischen Dynastie 1325. Greifswald: Universitätsverlag Ratsbuch­ handlung Bamberg, 1933. Hamm, Josip. “Glagolizam i njegovo značenije za Južne Slavene.” Slavia 25 (1965), pp. 313–21. Hampe, Karl. Der Zug nach dem Osten. Die kolonisatorische Großtat des deutschen Volkes im Mittelalter. Leipzig: B.G. Teubner, 1921. Hanak, Walter K. “Saint Procopius, the Sázava monastery, and the Byzantine-Slavonic legacy. Some reconsiderations.” Byzantina et slavica cracoviensia 1 (1991), pp. 71–80. Hanak, Walter K. The Nature and the Image of Princely Power in Kievan Rus’, 980–1054. A Study of Sources. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Hannick, Christian. “Das musikalische Leben in der Frühzeit Bulgariens. Aufgrund literarischer Quellen des frühslavischen Schrifttums.” Byzantinoslavica 49 (1998), pp. 23–37. Hannick, Christian. „Das Učitel’noe evangelie des Konstantin von Preslav in der Geschichte der mittelalterlichen byzantinisch-slavischen Literatur.“ In Studia philologica slavica. Festschrift für Gerhard Birkfellner, ed. Bernhard Symanzik, pp. 165–74. Berlin: LIT, 2006. Hannick, Christian. „Zum Prager Slavenkongress von 1848.“ In Habsburg und die Slavia, ed. Gun-Brit Kohler, pp. 31–48. Frankfurt/M.: Lang, 2008. Hardt, Matthias. „Der Supan. Ein Forschungsbericht.“ ZfO 39 (1990), pp. 161–71. Hardt, Matthias. „Das ‚slavische Dorf‘ und seine kolonisationszeitliche Umformung nach schriftlichen und historisch-geographischen Quellen.“ Siedlungsforschung 17 (1999), pp. 269–91. Hardt, Matthias. „Aspekte der Herrschaftsbildung bei den frühen Slawen.“ In Integration und Herrschaft. Ethnische Identitäten und soziale Organisation im Frühmittelalter, eds. Walter Pohl and Max Diesenberger, pp. 249–55 Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2002. Hardt, Matthias. „Slawen und Deutsche im früh- und hochmittelalterlichen Ober­ franken.“ In Vor 1000 Jahren  – die Schweinfurter Fehde und die Landschaft am Obermain 1003, eds. Erich Schneider and Bernd Schneidmüller, pp. 43–59. Schweinfurt: Städtische Sammlungen, 2004. Hardt, Matthias [2008a]. „Fernhandel und Subsistenzwirtschaft. Überlegungen zur Wirtschaftsgeschichte der frühen Westslawen.“ In Nomen et Fraternitas. Festschrift für Dieter Geuenich zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. Uwe Ludwig, pp. 741–63. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter, 2008.

Bibliography

471

Hardt, Matthias [2008b]. „Formen und Wege der hochmittelalterlichen Siedlungs­ gründung.“ In Ostsiedlung und Landesausbau in Sachsen. Die Kührener Urkunde von 1154 und ihr historisches Umfeld, ed. Enno Bünz, pp. 143–59. Leipzig: Leipziger Universität-Verlag, 2008. Hardt, Matthias [2008c]. „Von der Subsistenzwirtschaft zur marktorientierten Produktion von Getreide: der hochmittelalterliche Wandel der Agrarstruktur in den westslawischen Gebieten.“ In Beiträge zum Göttinger Umwelthistorischen Kolloquium 2007–2008, ed. Bernd Herrmann, pp. 87–116. Göttingen: Universitätsverlag, 2008. Hardt, Matthias [2013a]. „Kirchenorganisation oder Aufstand: Die Christianisierung von Sorben, Elb- und Ostseeslawen in Ottonen- und Salierzeit.“ In Schwertmission. Gewalt und Christianisierung im Mittelalter, eds. Hermann Kamp and Martin Kroker, pp. 53–66. Paderborn: Schöningh, 2013. Hardt, Matthias [2013b]. „Sorbische Gentilreligion und christliche Mission (10. bis 12. Jahrhundert).“ In Das religiöse Leipzig. Stadt und Glauben vom Mittelalter bis zur Gegenwart, eds. Enno Bünz and Armin Kohnle, pp. 15–26. Leipzig: Leipziger Universitäts-Verlag, 2013. Hardt, Matthias [2014a].„Zwischen Bardowick und Erfurt  – Handel und Verkehr an den nördlichen Grenzkontrollorten des Diedenhofener Kapitulars Karls des Großen von 805.“ In Auf dem Wege zur mittelalterlichen Stadt in Thüringen, eds. Hans-Jürgen Beier and Peter Sachenbacher, pp. 71–82. Langenweißbach: Beier & Beran, 2014. Hardt, Matthias [2014b]. „Subsistenzwirtschaft  – Vergetreidung  – Dörfer. Schritte auf dem Weg zur hochmittelalterlichen Kulturlandschaft in Ostmitteleuropa.“ In Tradition – Umgestaltung – Innovation. Transformatinsprozesse im hohen Mittelalter, eds. Eike Grungmuth-Dallmer and Jan Klápště, pp. 569–83. Prag: Karolinum Press, 2014. Hardt, Matthias [2015a]. „Ethnogenesen im frühmittelalterlichen Europa. Zum gegenwärtigen Stand der Forschung.“ In Estnisches Mittelalter. Sprache  – Gesellschaft  – Kirche, eds. Kadri-Rutt Hahn et al., pp. 11–24. Berlin: LIT, 2015. Hardt, Matthias [2015b]. “Gentilreligion und christliche Mission bei den Sorben (10.–12. Jahrhundert).” In Dying Gods – Religious beliefs in northern and eastern Europe in the time of Christianisation, eds. Christine Ruhmann and Vera Brieska, pp. 263–68. Hannover: Theiss, 2015. Hardt, Matthias. „Warlords bei den frühen Slawen?“ In Die frühen Slawen  – von der Expansion zu gentes und nationes. Volume 1: Beiträge zum Schwerpunktthema, eds. Felix Biermann et al., pp. 53–60. Langenweißbach: Beier & Beran, 2016. Hardt, Matthias. „Westliche Zuwanderer im hochmittelalterlichen Landesausbau Ostmitteleuropas.“ In Migration und Integration von der Urgeschichte bis zum Mittelalter, eds. Harald Meller et al., pp. 335–43. Halle/S.: Landesamt für Denkmalp­ flege und Archäologie Sachsen-Anhalt, 2017.

472

Bibliography

Hardt, Matthias [2019a]. „Die Rundlinge des Hannoverschen Wendlandes im Kontext der Anfänge des europäischen Landesausbaus im hohen Mittelalter.“ In Siedlungslandschaft Rundlinge im Wendland: der Weg zum Welterbeantrag, ed. Tobias Wulf, pp. 29–37. Petersberg: Imhof, 2019. Hardt, Matthias [2019b]. „Schriftliche Überlieferung und Archäologie im Widerspruch? Zu einigen Aufenthaltsorten ostfränkischer Könige und kriegerischen Aktionen gegen die Elbslawen.“ In Die Königspfalzenlandschaft Sachsen-Anhalt und der Osten, eds. Stephan Freund et al., pp. 23–34. Regensburg: Schnell & Steiner, 2019. Harvey, Paul D.A. “The Sawley Map and Other World Maps in Twelfth-Century England.” Imago mundi 49 (1997), pp. 33–42. Hásková, Jarmila. “Slavníkovci v historické výpovědi svých mincí.” AR 47 (1995), pp. 225–30. Hauner, Milan. „Von der Verteidigung der ‚kleinen Völker‘ zum neuen Slawismus. Edvard Beneš und der Slawenmythos.“ In Geschichtliche Mythen in den Literaturen und Kulturen Ostmittel- und Südosteuropas, eds. Eva Behring et al., pp. 293–309. Stuttgart: Steiner, 1999. Hauptová, Zoe. “Církevněslovanské písemnictví v přemyslovských Čechách.” In Jazyk a literatura v historické perspektivě, ed. Dobrava Moldanová, pp. 5–41. Ústí/L.: Univerzita Jana Evangelisty Purkyně, 1998. Haverkamp, Alfred. „Die Erneuerung der Sklaverei im Mittelmeerraum während des hohen Mittelalters. Fremdheit, Herkunft und Funktion.“ In Unfreie Arbeitsund Lebensverhältnisse von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart. Eine Einführung, ed. Elisabeth Herrmann-Otto, pp. 130–66. Hildesheim: Olms, 2005. Havlík, Lubomír E. “Slované v anglosaské chorografii Alfreda Velikého.” Vznik a počátky Slovanů 5 (1964), pp. 53–85. Havlík, Lubomír E. “Ibn Rusta o králi Svatoplukovi a jeho sídelním mest.” Jižni Morava 26 (1990), pp. 9–17. Heather, Peter J. Invasion der Barbaren. Die Entstehung Europas im ersten Jahrtausend nach Christus. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 2011. Heck, Roman. “O właściwą interpretację najazdu Brzetysława I na Polskę.” Sobótka 21 (1966), pp. 245–68. Heck, Roman [1968a]. “Poczucie wspólnoty słowiańskiej w czesko-polskich stosunkach politycznych w średniowieczu.” In Z polskich studiów slawistycznych. Seria 3: Historia, eds. Juliusz Bardach and Gerard Labuda, pp. 67–78. Warsaw: PWN, 1968. Heck, Roman [1968b]. “Świadomość narodowa i państwowa w Czechach i w Polsce x XV wieku.” In Pamiętnik X Powszechnego Zjazdu Historyków Polskich w Lublinie. Tom 1, pp. 126–51. Warsaw: Polskie Towarzystwo Historyczne, 1968. Heck, Roman [1968c]. “Z problematyki ideologicznej ‘Kroniki Zbrasławskiej’.” In Studia z dziejów kultury i ideologii, ed. Roman Heck, pp. 121–41. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, 1968.

Bibliography

473

Heck, Roman. “Problem słowiański w średniowiecznej historiografii czeskiej.” In Europa  – Słowiańszczyzna  – Polska. Studia ku uczczeniu profesora Kazimierza Tymienieckiego, ed. Czesław Łuczak, pp. 281–304. Poznań: Uniwersytet Adama Mickiewicza, 1970. Heck, Roman. “Z recepcji kroniki Pulkawy w polskiej historiografii średniowiecznej.” In Słowianie w dziejach Europy, ed. Jerzy Ochmański, pp. 139–48. Poznań: Uniwersytet Adama Mickiewicza, 1974. Heck, Roman. “Kronika książąt polskich – metoda prezentacji dziejów.” In Dawna historiografia Śląska, ed. Krystyna Gajda, pp. 61–81. Opole: Wydawnictwo Instytutu Śląskiego, 1980. Heffter, Moritz W. Der Weltkampf der Deutschen und Slaven seit dem Ende des fünften Jahrhunderts nach christlicher Zeitrechnung, nach seinem Ursprunge, Verlaufe und nach seinen Folgen dargestellt. Hamburg/Gotha: Perthes, 1847. Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. Werke. Vol. 12. Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp, 1980. Heindel, Ingo. „Zur Definition und Typologie einfacher eiserner Handwerkszeuge aus dem westslawischen Siedlungsgebiet.“ ZfA 24 (1990), pp. 243–68. Heindel, Ingo. „Werkzeuge zur Metallverarbeitung des 7./8. bis 12./13. Jahrhunderts zwischen Elbe/Saale und Oder/Neiße.“ ZfA 27 (1993), pp. 337–80. Heinemann, Isabel. ‚Rasse, Siedlung, deutsches Blut‘. Das Rasse- und Siedlungshauptamt der SS und die rassenpolitische Neuordnung Europas. Göttingen: Wallstein, 2003. Heiser, Lothar. „Das serbische Herrscherhaus der Nemanjiden (1166–1371) und seine bedeutendsten Klostergründungen im Spannungsfeld der Kirchen von Rom und Konstantinopel.“ In Ab Oriente et Occidente (Mt 8,11). Kirche aus Ost und West, eds. Michael Schneider and Walter Berschin, pp. 149–98. St. Ottilien: EOS Verlag, 1996. Helbig, Herbert. „Die slawische Siedlung im sorbischen Gebiet.“ In Siedlung und Verfassung der Slaven zwischen Elbe, Saale und Oder, ed. Herbert Ludat, pp. 27–64. Gießen: Schmitz, 1960. Hellmann, Manfred. „Herrschaftliche und genossenschaftliche Elemente in der mittelalterlichen Verfassungsgeschichte der Slawen.“ ZfO 7 (1958), pp. 321–38. Hellmann, Manfred. „Grundzüge der Verfassungsstruktur der Liutizen.“ In Siedlung und Verfassung der Slaven zwischen Elbe, Saale und Oder, ed. Herbert Ludat, pp. 103–13. Gießen: Schmitz, 1960. Hellmann, Manfred. „Karl und die slawische Welt zwischen Ostsee und Böhmerwald.“ In Karl der Große. Volume 1: Persönlichkeit und Geschichte, pp. 708–18. Düsseldorf: Schwann, 1965. Hellmann, Manfred. „Wandlungen im staatlichen Leben Altrußlands und Polens während des 12. Jahrhunderts.“ In Probleme des 12. Jahrhunderts, ed. Theodor Mayer, pp. 273–90. Konstanz: Thorbecke, 1968. Hellmann, Manfred. „Die Handelsverträge des 10. Jahrhunderts zwischen Kiev und Byzanz.“ In Untersuchungen zu Handel und Verkehr der vor- und frühgeschichtlichen

474

Bibliography

Zeit. Volume 4: Der Handel der Karolinger- und Wikingerzeit, eds. Klaus Düwel et al., pp. 643–66. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1987. Hemmerle, Josef. „Cosmas von Prag.“ In Lebensbilder zur Geschichte der böhmischen Länder 4, ed. Ferdinand Seibt, Munich, pp. 23–48. Vienna: Oldenbourg, 1981. Hengst, Karlheinz. “Thietmar und die Slawen.” In Thietmars Welt. Ein Merseburger Bischof schreibt Geschichte, eds. Markus Cottin and Lisa Merkel, pp. 287–305. Petersberg: Imhof, 2018. Henker, Jens, Tilo Schöfbeck and Uwe Weiß. Slawen und Deutsche im Hochmittelalter östlich der Elbe. Archäologisch-historische Studien zur Siedlungsentwicklung. Bonn: Habelt, 2008. Henning, Joachim. Südosteuropa zwischen Antike und Mittelalter. Archäologische Beiträge zur Landwirtschaft des 1. Jahrtausends u. Z. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1987. Henning, Joachim [1992a]. „Gefangenenfesseln im slawischen Siedlungsraum und der europäische Sklavenhandel im 6. bis 12. Jahrhundert. Archäologisches zum Bedeutungswandel von ‚sklābos  – sakāliba  – sclavus‘.“ Germania. Anzeiger der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission 70 (1992), pp. 403–26. Henning, Joachim [1992b]. „Zur Burgengeschichte im 10. Jahrhundert. Neue archäologische und dendrochronologische Daten zur Anlage vom Typ Tornow.“ AuF 37(1992), pp. 314–24. Henning, Joachim [1998a]. „Archäologische Forschungen an Ringwällen in Nieder­ ungslage: die Niederlausitz als Burgenlandschaft des östlichen Mitteleuropa im frühen Mittelalter.“ In Frühmittelalterlicher Burgenbau in Mittel- und Osteuropa, eds. Joachim Henning and Alexander T. Ruttkay, pp. 9–29. Bonn: Habelt, 1998. Henning, Joachim [1998b]. „Neues zum Tornower Typ. Keramische Formen und Formenspektren des Frühmittelalters im Licht dendrochronologischer Daten zum westslawischen Siedlungsraum.“ In Kraje słowiańskie w wiekach średnich. Profanum i sacrum, eds. Hanna Kočka-Krenz and Władysław Łosiński, pp. 392–408. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznańskiego Towarzystwa Przyjaciół Nauk, 1998. Henning, Joachim. „Der slawische Siedlungsraum und die ottonische Expansion östlich der Elbe. Ereignisgeschichte – Archäologie – Dendrochronologie.“ In Europa im 10. Jahrhundert, ed. Joachim Henning, pp. 131–46. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 2002. Henning, Joachim and Karl-Uwe Heußner. „Zur Burgengeschichte im 10. Jahrhunderts. Neue archäologische und dendrochronologische Daten zu Anlagen vom Typ Tornow.“ AuF 37 (1992), pp. 314–24. Hensel, Witold. Słowiańszczyzna wczesnośredniowieczna. Zarys kultury materialnej. Warsaw4: PWN, 1987. Herbers, Klaus. „866  – Bulgarien zwischen Ost- und Westkirche.“ In Schlüsseljahre. Zentrale Konstellationen der mittel- und osteuropäischen Geschichte, eds. by Matthias Stadelmann and Lilia Antipow, pp. 15–25. Stuttgart: Steiner, 2011. Hercigonja, Eduard. Nad iskonom hrvatske knjige. Rasprave o hrvatskoglagoljskom srednjovjekovlju, pp. 161–296. Zagreb: Sveuč. Liber, 1983.

Bibliography

475

Hercigonja, Eduard. “Glagolists and Glagolism.” In Croatia in the Early Middle Ages. A Cultural Survey, ed. Ivan Supičić, pp. 369–98. London: Wilson, 1999. Hercigonja, Eduard. “Glagolism in the High Middle Ages.” In Croatia in the Late Middle Ages and the Renaissance. A Cultural Survey, eds. Ivan Supičić and Eduard Hercigonja, pp. 171–225. London: Wilson, 2008. Herder, Johann Gottfried. Werke. Vol. 4. Berlin/Weimar: Aufbau-Verlag, 1982. Herder, John Godfrey. Outlines of a Philosophy of the History of Man. Translated from the German by T. Churchill. London: Johnson, St. Pauls Church Yard, 1800. Hermann, Jan-Christoph. Der Wendenkreuzzug von 1147, Frankfurt/M.: Lang, 2011. Hermes, Nizar F. The [European] Other in Medieval Arabic Literature and Culture. Ninth–Twelfth Century AD. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012. Herrmann, Joachim. Tornow und Vorberg. Ein Beitrag zur Frühgeschichte der Lausitz. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1966. Herrmann, Joachim [1968a]. „Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen in Feldberg, Kr. Neustrelitz. Ein Beitrag zur Rethra-Frage.“ AuF 13 (1968), pp. 198–204. Herrmann, Joachim [1968b]. Siedlung, Wirtschaft und gesellschaftliche Verhältnisse der slawischen Stämme zwischen Elbe und Oder. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1968. Herrmann, Joachim. „Geistige und kultisch-religiöse Vorstellungen der NordwestSlaven und ihre Widerspiegelung in den archäologischen Quellen.“ In Das heidnische und christliche Slaventum, pp. 60–74. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz, 1969. Herrmann, Joachim. „Einige Bemerkungen zu Tempelstätten und Kultbildern im nordwestslawischen Gebiet.“ Archeologia Polski 16 (1971), pp. 525–40. Herrmann, Joachim. „Arkona auf Rügen. Tempelburg und politisches Zentrum der Ranen vom 9.–12. Jh.“ ZfA 8 (1974), pp. 177–209. Herrmann, Joachim [1981a]. „Probleme der Fruchtwechselwirtschaft im Ackerbau des 8. bis 9. Jh. am Beispiel ausgewählter schriftlicher und archäologischer Quellen.“ ZfA 15 (1981), pp. 1–9. Herrmann, Joachim [1981b]. Zwischen Hradschin und Vineta. Frühe Kulturen der Westslawen. Leipzig et al.3: Urania-Verlag, 1981. Herrmann, Joachim. „Wanderungen und Landnahmen im westslawischen Gebiet.“ In Gli Slavi occidentali e meridionali nell’alto medioevo, ed. Raoul Manselli, pp. 75–101. Spoleto: CISAM, 1983. Herrmann, Joachim [1985a]. „Ackerbau.“ In Die Slawen in Deutschland. Geschichte und Kultur der slawischen Stämme westlich von Oder und Neisse vom 6. bis 12. Jahrhundert. Ein Handbuch, ed. Joachim Herrmann, pp. 68–80. 2nd ed. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1985. Herrmann, Joachim [1985b]. „Der Prozeß der Assimilation und des deutsch-slawischen Zusammenlebens.“ In Die Slawen in Deutschland. Geschichte und Kultur der slawischen Stämme westlich von Oder und Neisse vom 6. bis 12. Jahrhundert. Ein Handbuch, ed. Joachim Herrmann, pp. 443–52. 2nd ed. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1985.

476

Bibliography

Herrmann, Joachim. „Ein Versuch zu Arkona. Tempel und Tempelrekonstruktionen nach schriftlicher Überlieferung und nach Ausgrabungsbefunden in nordwestslawischem Gebiet.“ AuF 38 (1993), pp. 136–43. Herrmann, Joachim. „Ralswiek auf Rügen: Frühmittelalterlicher Seehandelsplatz und Transitstation im westlichen Ostseegebiet.“ Zeitschrift für Archäologie des Mittelalters 36 (2008), pp. 119–54. Herrmann, Joachim and Hanns-Hermann Müller. „Viehwirtschaft, Jagd, Fischfang.“ In Die Slawen in Deutschland. Geschichte und Kultur der slawischen Stämme westlich von Oder und Neisse vom 6. bis 12. Jahrhundert. Ein Handbuch, ed. Joachim Herrmann, pp. 81–98. 2nd ed. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1985. Hertel, Jacek. “Pomorze w myśli politycznej elity intelektualnej wczesnośredniowiecznej Polski (Anonim Gall i Wincenty Kadłubek).” Zapiski Historyczne 47 (1982), pp. 53–80. Heubner, Karl-Uwe and Thorsten Westphal. „Dendrochronologische Untersuchungen an Holzfunden aus frühmittelalterlichen Burgwällen zwischen Elbe und Oder.“ In Frühmittelalterlicher Burgenbau in Mittel- und Osteuropa, eds. Joachim Henning and Alexander T. Ruttkay, pp. 223–34. Bonn: Habelt, 1998. Heyduk, Jędrzej. “Źródła do tzw. etnogenezy Chorwatów dalmatyńskich.” SA 44 (2003), pp. 33–51. Higounet, Charles. Die deutsche Ostsiedlung im Mittelalter. Berlin: Siedler, 1986. Hilsch, Peter. „Der Bischof von Prag und das Reich in sächsicher Zeit.“ DA 28 (1972), pp. 1–41. Historia Pomorza. Tom 1 do roku 1466. Część 1, ed. Gerard Labuda. 2nd ed. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznańskie, 1972. Hoensch, Jörg K. Přemysl Otakar II. von Böhmen. Der goldene König. Graz: Styria, 1989. Hoeres, Peter. „Die Slawen. Perzeptionen des Kriegsgegners bei den Mittelmächten. Selbst- und Feindbild.“ In Die vergessene Front. Der Osten 1914/15, ed. Gerhard P. Groß, pp. 179–200. Paderborn: Schöningh, 2006. Hötzendorf, Franz Conrad von. Aus meiner Dienstzeit 1906–1918. Vol. 3. Vienna: Rikola, 1922. Hoffmann, Erich. „Beiträge zu den Beziehungen zwischen dem deutschen und dem dänischen Reich für die Zeit von 934 bis 1035.“ In 850 Jahre St. Petri-Dom zu Schleswig, eds. Christian Radtke and Walter Körber, pp. 105–32. Schleswig: Schleswiger Drucku. Verlagshaus, 1984. Hoffmann, Erich. „Sachsen, Abodriten und Dänen im westlichen Ostseeraum von der Mitte des 10. bis zur Mitte des 12. Jahrhunderts.“ In Schiffe und Seefahrt in der südlichen Ostsee, ed. Helge bei der Wieden, pp. 1–40. Cologne, Vienna: Böhlau, 1986. Hoffmann, Erich. „Beiträge zur Geschichte der Obodriten zur Zeit der Nakoniden.“ In Zwischen Christianisierung und Europäisierung, eds. Eckhard Hübner et al., pp. 23–49. Stuttgart: Steiner, 1998.

Bibliography

477

Hoffmann, Johannes. „Die östliche Adriaküste als Hauptnachschubbasis für den venezianischen Sklavenhandel bis zum Ausgang des elften Jahrhunderts.“ Viertel­ jahrschrift für Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte 55 (1968), pp. 165–81. Hoffmann, Johannes. „Venedig und die Narentanen.“ Studi Veneziani 11 (1969), pp. 3–41. Holmes, Paul A. “Nicholas I’s Reply to the Bulgarians Revisited.” Ecclesia Orans 7 (1990), pp. 131–43. Holzer, Georg. “Die Einheitlichkeit des Slavischen um 600 n. Chr. und ihr Zerfall.” WSJ 41 (1995), pp. 55–89. Holzer, Georg. “Zum gemeinslavischen Dialektkontinuum.” WSJ 43 (1997), pp. 87–102. Holzer, Georg. “Proto-Slavic: Historical Setting and Linguistic Reconstruction.” East Central Europe 31 (2004), pp. 49–59. Homza, Martin. “A Few Words About the Identity of the Slavs, Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow.” SSBP 23/1 (2018), pp. 3–41. Hopkins, J.F.P. “Geographical and navigational literature.” In Religion, Learning and Science in the Abbasid Period, eds. M.J.L. Young et al., pp. 301–27. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Horujy, Sergey. “Slavophiles, Westernizers, and the Birth of Russian Philosophical Humanism.” In A History of Russian Philosophy 1830–1930. Faith, Reason, and the Defense of Human Dignity, eds. Gary M. Hamburg and Randall A. Poole, pp. 27–52. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Hoštálek, Stanislav. “Přemysl Otakar II. a Rudolf Habsburský.” Heraldická ročenka 2003/04, pp. 151–70. Howard-Johnston, James D. “The ‘De Adminstrando Imperio’: A re-examination of the text and a re-evaluation of its evidence about the Rus.” In Les centres proto-urbains russes entre Scandinavie, Byzance et Orient, ed. Michel Kazanski et al., pp. 301–36. Paris: Lethielleux, 2002. Howard-Johnston, James. Historical Writing in Byzantium. Heidelberg: Verlag Antike, 2014. Hraundal, Thorir Jonsson. “New Perspectives on Eastern Vikings/Rus in Arabic Sources.” Viking and Medieval Scandinavia 10 (2014), pp. 5–97. Hroch, Miroslav. Die Vorkämpfer der nationalen Bewegungen bei den kleinen Völkern Europas. Eine vergleichende Analyse zur gesellschaftlichen Schichtung der patriotischen Gruppen. Prag: Univ. Karlova, 1968. Hroch, Miroslav. Das Europa der Nationen. Die moderne Nationsbildung im europäischen Vergleich. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005. Hroch, Miroslav. Národy nejsou dílem náhody. Příčiny a předpoklady utváření moderních evropských národů. Prague: Sociologické Nakladatelství, 2009. Hrochová, Věra. “Karel IV., jižní Slované a Byzanc.” In Mezinárodní vědecká konference ‚Doba Karla IV. v dějinách národů ČSSR‘, s Michal Svatoš, pp. 192–99. Prague: Univ. Karlova, 1981.

478

Bibliography

Hrodek, Dominik. “Slovanství v myšlenkách české meziválečné pravice. Sonda do myšlení skupiny okolo revue Národní myšlenka.” In Slovanství ve středoevropském prostoru. Iluze, deziluzje a realita. Pardubická konference (22.–24. dubna 2004), eds. Dominik Hrodek et al., pp. 135–44. Prague: Libri, 2004. Hrozienčik, Jozef. “Výzam Šafárikovho diela pre národnú a politickú emancipáciu slovanských národov.” In Štúdie z dejín svetovej slavistiky do polovice 19. storočia, ed. Jozef Hrozienčik, pp. 237–58. Bratislava: Vydavatelstvo Slovenskej Akadémie Vied, 1978. Hucker, Bernd U. „Die Chronik Arnolds von Lübeck als ‚Historia Regum‘.“ DA 44 (1988), pp. 98–119. Hurwitz, Ellen S. “Metropolitan Hilarion’s Sermon on Law and Grace: Historical Consciousness in Kievan Rus’.” Russian History 7 (1980), pp. 322–33. Huschner, Wolfgang. „Albrecht II., Fürst und Herzog von Mecklenburg (1329–1379).“ In Deutsche Fürsten des Mittelalters. Fünfundzwanzig Lebensbilder, eds. Wolfgang Huschner and Eberhard Holtz, pp. 326–45. Leipzig: Edition Leipzig, 1995. Hybrid Identities, ed. Flocel Sabaté Curull. Bern: Lang, 2014. Hybride Kulturen im mittelalterlichen Europa. Vorträge und Workshops einer Frühlings­ schule, eds. Michael Borgolte and Bernd Schneidmüller. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 2009. Hyland, William P. “Abbot John-Jerome of Prague. Preaching and Reform in Early Fifteenth-Century Poland.” Analecta Praemonstratensia 80 (2004), pp. 5–42. I Trattati dell’antica Russia con l’impero romano d’Oriente, eds. Antonio Carile and Andrej N. Sacharov. Roma: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 2011. Iaroslavskii, Emel’ian M. Bor’ba slavianskikh narodov protiv germanskogo fashizma. Moscow: Voenmorizdat, 1941. Ickler, Nancy Louisa. “‘Slovo o zakone i blagodati‘: A Discourse on the Law and Grace.” Comitatus 9 (1978), pp. 19–54. Iliev, Ilia G. “The Long Life of Saint Clement of Ohrid. A Critical Edition.” ByzantinoBulgarica 9 (1995), pp. 62–120. Iliev, Ivan. Sv. Kliment Okhridski – zhivot i delo. Plovdiv: Fondacija Bălgarsko Istorichesko Nasledstvo, 2010. Illert, Martin. „Zum Bild der Slaven in der ‚Slavenchronik‘ des Helmold von Bosau.“ Schriften des Vereins für Schleswig-Holsteinische Kirchengeschichte 49 (1999), pp. 30–35. Ingham, Norman W. “The Martyrdom of St. John Vladimir of Dioclea.” International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 35–36 (1987), pp. 199–216. Innes, Matthew. “Historical Writing, Ethnicity, and National Identity: Medieval Europe and Byzantium in Comparison.” In The Oxford History of Historical Writing. Volume 2: 400–1400, eds. Sarah Foot et al., pp. 539–75. Oxford: University Press, 2012.

Bibliography

479

Integration und Desintegration der Kulturen im europäischen Mittelalter, eds. Michael Borgolte et al. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 2011. Ionchev, Liubomir. „Niakoi văprosi otnosno Krumovoto zakonodatelstvo.“ Izvestiia na Instituta za bălgarska istoriia 6 (1956), pp. 631–56. Iordanov, Ivan and Petăr Slavchev. „Zlatnite medalioni na Chan Omurtag (814–831).“ Archeologiia 21 (1979), no. 2, pp. 25–32. Istorija srpskog naroda. Prva knjiga: Od najstarijih vremena do Maričke bitke (1371), ed. Sima Ćirković, Belgrade: Srpska Književna Zadruga, 1981. Iurkova, Iordanka. “Oloven pechat na Tervel.” Numizmatika 12 (1978), no. 2, pp. 3–8. Ivanišević, Vujadin. “Serbian and Byzantine Coinage.” In Serbia and Byzantium. Pro­ ceedings of the International Conference Held on 15 December 2008 at the University of Cologne, eds. Mabi Angar and Claudia Sode, pp. 45–55. Frankfurt/M.: Lang, 2013. Ivanov, Sergei A. “‚Bolgarskaia apokrificheskaia letopis‘ kak pamiatnik ėtnicheskogo samosoznaniia bolgar.” In Razvitie ėtnicheskogo samosoznaniia slavianskikh narodov v ėpochu zrelogo feodalizma, eds. Gennadii G. Litavrin and Viacheslav V. Ivanov, pp. 70–77. Moscow: Nauka, 1989. Ivanov, Sergei A. “Prostrannoe Zhitie Klimenta Okhridskogo i ego avtor.” In Sud’by kirillo-mefodievskoi tradicii posle Kirilla i Mefodiia, eds. Boris N. Floria et al., pp. 28–65. Sankt-Peterburg: Aleteiia, 2000. Ivanov, Valentin V. and Vladimir N. Toporov. Slavianskaia mifologia. Moscow, 1982. Ivanova, Maia. Tekstologicheski problem v prostrannoto zhitie na Konstantin-Kiril filozof. Sofia: Iz. na Bălgarskata akademiia na naukite, 2013. Ivanova, Vera. „Preslav  – die zweite Hauptstadt des bulgarischen Staates.“ In Kunst­ schätze in bulgarischen Museen und Klöstern, ed. Ingrid von Kamptz, pp. 56–61. Essen: Villa Hügel, 1964. Ivantyšynová, Tatiana. “Idea slovanskej jednoty v diele L. Štúra.” In L’idea dell’unità e della reciprocità slava e il suo ruolo nello sviluppo della slavistica, eds. Sergio Bonazza and Giovanna Brogi Bercoff, pp. 37–51. Roma: La Fenice Ed., 1994. Iwańczak, Wojciech. “L’empereur Charles IV et son attitude face a l’histoire.” In Les princes et l’histoire du XIVe au XVIIIe siécle, ed. Chantal Grell, pp. 141–49. Bonn: Bouvier, 1998. Izdebski, Adam. “The Slavs’ political institutions and the Byzantine policies (ca. 530–650).” Byzantinoslavica 69 (2011). pp. 50–69. Jacob, Hans. „Wogastisburc und das oppidum Berleich. Ein merowingischer Handel­ splatz bei Forscheim/Burk (Ofr.).“ WdS 27 (1983), pp. 171–91. Jacobi, Reinhard Friedrich. Die Quellen der Langobardengeschichte des Paulus Diaconus. Halle: Niemeyer, 1877. Jacobson, Roman. “The Kernel of Comparative Slavic Studies.” In Jacobson, Roman. Selected Writings. Volume 6: Early Slavic Paths and Crossroads. Part 1: Comparative Slavic Studies. The Cyrillo-Methodian Tradition, pp. 1–64. The Hague: Mouton, 1985.

480

Bibliography

Jagić, Vatroslav. “Hrvatska glagolska književnost.” In Vodnik, Branko. Povijest hrvatske književnosti. Knjiga 1: Od humanizma do potkraj XVIII. stoljeća. S uvodom V. Jagića o hrvatskoj glagolskoj književnosti, pp. 9–64. Zagreb: Liber Mladost, 1913. Jagodziński, Marek F. Truso między Weonodlandem a Witlandem. Elbląg: Muzeum Archeologiczno-Historyczne, 2010. Jakobson, Roman. “St. Constantin’s Prologue to the Gospel.” St. Vladimir’s Seminary Quarterly 7 (1963), pp. 14–19. Jakšić, Nikola. “Novi natpis s imenom kneza Branimira.” In Munuscula in honorem Željko Rapanić. Zbornik povodom osamdesetog rođendana, eds. Miljenko Jurković and Ante Milošević, pp. 213–21. Zagreb: Sveučilište u Zagrebu, 2012. Ján Kollár a slovanská vzájomnosť. Genéza nacionalizmu v strednej Európe, ed. Tatiana Ivantyšynová. Bratislava: Stimulus, 2006. Jan, Libor. „Altmähren zwischen Osten und Westen.“ In Der heilige Prokop, Böhmen und Mitteleuropa. Internationales Symposium, Benešov – Sázava 24.–26. September 2003., ed. Petr Sommer, pp. 273–88. Prague: Filosofia, 2005. Jan, Libor. “Skrytý půvab ‚středoevropeského modelu‘.” ČČH 105 (2007), pp. 873–902. Jan, Libor. “Budování monarchie českých Přemyslovců. Postřehy a úvahy.” In Proměna středovýchodní Evropy raného a vrcholného středověku. Mocenské souvislosti a paralely, eds. Martin Wihoda and Lukas Reitinger, pp. 117–36. Brno: Matice Moravská, 2010. Jan, Libor. „Wer war Meister Heinrich der Walch? Ein fiktiver Notar einer realen Königskanzlei.“ DA 73 (2017), pp. 203–14. Janeczek, Andrzej. “Świadomość wspólnoty słowiańskiej w pełnym i późnym średniowieczu.” In Słowianie  – idea i rzeczywistość, eds. Krzysztof A. Makowski and Monika Saczyńska, pp. 19–70. Poznań: Instytut Historii Uniwersytetu Adama Mickiewicza, 2013. Janin, Valentin V. Aktovye pechaty Drevnei Rusi X–XV vv. Tom 1: Pechati X – nachala XIII v. Moscow: Nauka, 1970. Janković, Đorđe. “The Serbs in the Balkans in the light of archaeological findings.” In The Serbian Question in the Balkans, eds. Jovan Ilić et al., pp. 125–46. Belgrade: University of Belgrade, 1995. Jankovic, Vladeta. “The Serbian Tradition on Mount Athos.” In Mount Athos. Microcosm of the Christian East, ed. Graham Speake, pp. 79–93. Frankfurt/M.: Lang, 2012. Jankowiak, Marek. „Wer brachte im 10. Jahrhundert die Dirhems in die polnischen Gebiete und warum?“ In Fernhändler, Dynasten, Kleriker. Die piastische Herrschaft in kontinentalen Beziehungsgeflechten vom 10. bis zum frühen 13. Jahrhundert, eds. Dariusz Adamczyk and Norbert Kersken, pp. 41–54. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2015. Janowski, Andrzej. “Harbours of early medieval Wolin in the light of recent research.” In Economies, monetisation and society in the west Slavic lands 800–1200 AD, eds.

Bibliography

481

Mateusz Bogucki and Marian Rębkowski, pp. 45–58. Szczecin: Instytut Archeologii i Etnologii PAN, 2013. Jarecki, Thies Siebet. Die Vorstellungen vom Bischofsamt bei Adam von Bremen. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlags-Anstalt, 2014. Jarnut, Jörg. „Plädoyer für die Abschaffung eines obsoleten Zentralbegriffs der Frühmittelalterforschung.“ In Die Suche nach den Ursprüngen. Von der Bedeutung des frühen Mittelalters, ed. Walter Pohl, pp. 107–16 Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2004. Jasiński, Tomasz [2020a]. “Rozważania o praojczyźnie Słowian”. Historia Slavorum Occidentis 2/25 (2020), pp. 11–90. Jasiński, Tomasz [2020b]. “Betrachtungen zur Urheimat der Slawen.” Quaestiones Medii Aevi Novae 25 (2020), 5–45. Jaworski, Rudolf. “Die polnische und die tschechische Variante des Neoslawismus.” In Polen und die böhmischen Länder, ed. Peter Heumos, pp. 43–56. Munich: Oldenbourg, 1997. Jena, Detlef. „Michail Bakunin und der Slawenkongreß 1848 in Prag.“ In The Prague Slav Congress 1848. Slavic Identities, ed. Horst Haselsteiner, pp. 81–100. New York: Columbia University Press, 2000. Jilek, Heinrich. „Die Wenzels- und Ludmila-Legenden des 10. und 11. Jahrhunderts.“ ZfO 24 (1975), pp. 79–148. Jireček, Constantin. Die Romanen in den Städten Dalmatiens. Volume 1. Vienna: C. Gerold, 1902. Jireček, Constantin. Geschichte der Serben. Erster Band (bis 1371). Gotha: Perthes, 1911. Joachimsthaler, Jürgen. „Entgrenztes Denken. Zur Poetik der ‚Slawenlüge‘.“ In Schlesien – grenzliterarisch. Studien zu deutsch-polnischen Kulturtransferprozessen, ed. Rafał Biskup, pp. 19–34. Leipzig: Leipziger Universitätsverlag, 2015. Johann Gottfried Herder. Zur Herder-Rezeption in Ost- und Südeuropa, eds. Gerhard Ziegengeist et al. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1978. Juhas-Geogievska, Ljiljana. Život svetog Save od Domentijana. Istorija teksta. Belgrade: Srpska akademija nauka i umetnosti, 2003. Juraj Križanić (1618–1683). Russophile and Ecumenic Visionary. A Symposium, eds. Thomas Eekman Ante Kadić. The Hague, Paris: Mouton, 1976. Jurćić, Hrvoje. “Die sogenannten ‚Pacta conventa‘ in kroatischer Sicht.” Ungarn Jahrbuch 1 (1969), pp. 11–22. Jurek, Tomasz. „Die Entwicklung eines schlesischen Regionalbewußtseins im Mittelalter.“ ZfO 47 (1998), pp. 21–48. Jurek, Tomasz. „Der Einfluss Böhmens auf das geteilte Polen im 13. Jahrhundert.“ In Böhmen und seine Nachbarn in der Přemyslidenzeit, eds. Ivan Hlaváček and Alexander Patschovsky, pp. 161–201. Ostfildern: Thorbecke, 2011.

482

Bibliography

Jurek, Tomasz. “O czasie i okolicznościach chrztu Mieszka.” RH 81 (2015), pp. 35–56. Jurek, Tomasz and Edmund Kizik. Historia Polski do 1572. Warsaw: PWN, 2013. Jurković, Miljenko. “Istria under the Carolingian Rule.” In Migration, Integration and Connectivity on the Southeastern Frontier of the Carolingian Empire, eds. Danijel Dzino et al., pp. 123–52. Leiden: Brill, 2018. Justová-Princová, Jarmila. “Knížecí prostředi na slavníkovské Libice ve světle archeologických objevů”. AR 47 (1995), pp. 252–266. Kabzińska, Iwona. “Rzeczywistość słowiańska – pytania etnologa i propozycja badań.” In Słowianie – idea i rzeczywistość, eds. Krzysztof A. Makowski and Monika Saczyńska, pp. 161–220. Poznań: Instytut Historii Uniwersytetu Adama Mickiewicza, 2013. Kadić, Ante. “Križanić and his Predecessors  – the Slavic Idea among the Croatian Baroque Writers.” In Juraj Križanić (1618–1683). Russophile and Ecumenic Visionary. A Symposium, eds. Thomas Eekman and Ante Kadić, pp. 147–64. The Hague, Paris: Mouton, 1976. Kämpfer, Frank. „Nationalheilige in der Geschichte der Serben.“ FOG 20 (1973), pp. 7–22. Kämpfer, Frank. „Stefan II. Kotromanić.“ In Biographisches Lexikon zur Geschichte Südosteuropas. Volume 4, eds. Mathias Bernath and Karl Nehring, pp. 176–77. Munich: Oldenbourg, 1981. Kämpfer, Frank. „Herrscher, Stifter, Heilige. Politische Heiligenkulte bei den Südslaven.“ In Politik und Heiligenverehrung im Hochmittelalter, ed. Jürgen Petersohn, pp. 423–45. Sigmaringen: Thorbecke, 1994. Kahane, Henry and Renée Kahane. “Notes on the Linguistic History of ‘Sclavus’.” In Studi in onore di ettore Lo Gatto e Giovanni Maver, pp. 345–60. Firenze: G.C. Sansoni, 1962. Kahl, Hans-Dietrich. „Zum Ergebnis des Wendenkreuzzuges von 1147.“ In Heiden­ mission und Kreuzzugsgedanke in der deutschen Ostpolitik des Mittelalters, ed. Helmut Beumann, pp. 275–316. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1963. Kahl, Hans-Dietrich. Slawen und Deutsche in der brandenburgischen Geschichte des zwölften Jahrhunderts. Die letzten Jahrzehnte des Landes Stodor. Volume 1: Darlegungen. Cologne, Graz: Böhlau, 1964. Kahl, Hans-Dietrich. „Solium Ducatus Karinthie. Fragen um Kärntens Fürstenstein und seine Rituale.“ Carinthia I 188 (1998), pp. 185–235. Kahl, Hans-Dietrich. Der Millstätter Domitian. Abklopfen einer problematischen Klosterüberlieferung zur Missionierung der Alpenslawen Oberkärntens. Stuttgart: Thorbecke, 1999. Kahl, Hans-Dietrich. Der Staat der Karantanen. Ljubljana: Narodni Muzej Slovenije, 2002. Kahl, Hans-Dietrich. „Das erloschene Slawentum des Obermaingebietes und sein vorchristlicher Opferbrauch (trebo) im Spiegel eines mutmaßlich würzburgischen

Bibliography

483

Synodalbeschlusses aus dem 10. Jahrhundert.“ Studia Mythologica Slavica 7 (2004), pp. 11–41. Kahl, Hans-Dietrich. „Die ‚Freisinger Denkmäler‘ (Brižinski spomeniki).“ In Kahl, Hans-Dietrich. Streifzüge durch das Mittelalter des Ostalpenraums. Ausgewählte Abhandlungen, pp. 377–90. Ljubljana: Slovenska Akademia Znanosti in Umetnosti, 2008. Kahl, Hans-Dietrich. Heidenfrage und Slawenfrage im deutschen Mittelalter. Ausgewählte Studien 1953–2008. Leiden, Bosten: Brill, 2011. Kahl, Thede and Gottfried Schramm. „Landschaftsformen und ihre Nutzbarkeit.“ In Geschichte Südosteuropas. Vom frühen Mittelalter bis zur Gegenwart, eds. Konrad Clewing and Oliver Jens Schmitt, pp. 21–23. Regensburg: Pustet, 2011. Kaimakamova, Miliiana. Bălgarska srednevekovna istoriopis (ot kraia na VII–do părvata chetvărt na XV v.). Sofia: Nauka i Izkustvo, 1990. Kaimakamova, Milijana. “Turnovo  – New Constantinople: The Third Rome in the Fourteenth-Century Bulgarian Translation of Constantine Manasses’ Synopsis Chronike.” The Medieval Chronicle 4 (2006), pp. 91–104. Kaimakamova, Miliiana. “Vizantiia i razvitie bolgarskoi srednevekovoi istoriografii XI–XII vv.” In Byzantium, New Peoples, New Powers: The Byzantino-Slav Contact Zone, from the nine to the fifteenth century, eds. Milijana Kaimakamova et al., pp. 211–22. Cracow: Towarzystwo Wydawnicze “Historia Iagellonica”, 2007. Kaimakamova, Miliiana. „Svetovnata istoriia v propagandnata politika na car Simeon (893–927) i razvitieto na bălgarskata chronografiia.“ Bulgaria Mediaevalis 1 (2010), pp. 59–93. Kaimakamova, Miliiana [2011a]. „Konstantin Preslavski i bălgarskata istoricheska kultura v kraia na IX–nachaloto na X v.“ Bulgaria Mediaevalis 2 (2011), pp. 423–42. Kaimakamova, Milijana. [2011b]. “The Foundation of the Bulgarian State in Bulgarian Medieval Historiography.” In State and Church: Studies in Medieval Bulgaria and Byzantium, eds. Vassil Gjuzelev and Kiril Petkov, pp. 101–28. Sofia: American Research Center, 2011. Kaimakamova, Miliiana [2011c]. Vlast i istoriia v srednovekovna Bălgariia (VII–XIV vek). Sofia: Paradigma, 2011. Kaimakamova, Milijana. “The Cult of the Bulgarian Tsar Peter (927–969) and the Driving Ideas of the Bulgarian Liberation Uprisings against the Byzantine Rule in the 11th–12th Century.” In The Bulgarian State in 927–969. The Epoch of Tsar Peter I., eds. Mirosław J. Leszka and Kirił Marinow, pp. 457–78. Łódź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego, 2018. Kaiser, Vlado A. [= Jaroslav Kadlec]. „Die Gründung des Bistums Prag.“ Archiv für Kirchengeschichte von Böhmen-Mähren-Schlesien 3 (1973), pp. 9–23. Kaldellis, Anthony. Ethnography after Antiquity. Foreign Lands and Peoples in Byzantine Literature. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013.

484

Bibliography

Kaldellis, Anthony. A New Herodotos. Laonikos Chalkokondyles on the Ottoman Empire, the Fall of Byzantium, and the Emergence of the West. Washington: Dumbarton Oaks, 2014. Kalhous, David. “Záhadné počátky pražského biskupství.” In Evropa a Čechy na konci středověku, eds. Eva Doležalová et al., pp. 195–208. Prague: Centrum Medievistických Studií, 2004. Kalhous, David. “The significance of the Sirmian and apostolic tradition in shaping Moravian episcopal organization.” Early Medieval Europe 17 (2009), pp. 268–85. Kalhous, David. „Slawisches Schrifttum und Liturgie des 10. und 11. Jahrhunderts.“ In Frühmittelalterliche Kirchen als archäologische und historische Quelle, ed. Lumír Poláček, pp. 385–402. Brno: Archeologický ústav AVČR, 2010. Kalhous, David. Anatomy of a Duchy. The Political and Ecclesiastical Structures of Early Přemyslid Bohemia. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Kalhous, David. Legenda Christiani and modern Historiography. Boston, Leiden: Brill, 2015. Kalhous, David. Bohemi. Prozesse der Identitätsbildung in frühpřemyslidischen Ländern (bis 1200). Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2018. Kalić, Jovanka. „Zur Bezeichnung ‚Raška‘ (Rascien) für den serbischen Staat bis zur Mitte des 12. Jahrhunderts.“ Balcanoslavica 5 (1976), pp. 53–61. Kalić, Jovanka. „Neueste Ergebnisse der historischen Forschung zur Landnahme der Slaven auf dem Balkan.“ JfGO 33 (1985), pp. 366–77. Kalista, Zdeněk. „Das cyrillo-methodianische Motiv bei Karl IV.“ In Cyrillo-methodianische Fragen, slavische Philologie und Altertumskunde, ed. Franz Zagiba, pp. 138–58. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1968. Kalous, Antonín. “The Tradition of Saints Cyril and Methodius in the Late Medieval Bohemian Lands.” In The Cyril and Methodius Mission and Europe. 1150 Years since the Arrival of the Thessaloniki Brothers in Great Moravia, eds. Pavel Kouřil et al., pp. 322–28. Brno: Archeologický ústav AVČR, 2014. Kalus, Ludvik. “Sources arabes et persanes pour l’étude de l’historie médiévale du monde slave occidental.” In Ibrahim ibn Ya‌ʾqub at-Tartushi: Christianity, Islam and Judaism meet in East-Central Europe, eds. Peter Charvát and Jiří Prosecký, pp. 126–39. Prague: Orientální ústav AVČR, 1996. Kamp, Hermann. „Der Wendenkreuzzug.“ In Schwertmission. Gewalt und Christianisi­ erung im Mittelalter, eds. Hermann Kamp and Martin Kroker, pp. 115–38. Paderborn: Schöningh, 2013. Kara, Michał. Najstarsze państwo Piastów – rezultat przełomu czy kontynuacji? Studium archeologiczne. Poznań: Instytut Archeologii i Etnologii PAN, 2009. Karamustafa, Ahmet T. “Cosmographical Diagrams.” In The History of Cartography. Volume 2, 1: Cartography in the Traditional Islamic and South Asian Societies, eds. Harley, John B. and David Woodward, pp. 71–89. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press, 1992.

Bibliography

485

Karayannopoulos, Johannes. „Zur Frage der Slavenansiedlung im griechischen Raum.“ In Byzanz und seine Nachbarn, ed. Armin Hohlweg, pp. 177–218. Munich: Südosteuropa-Gesellschaft, 1996. Karbić, Damir. “Odnosi gradskoga plemstva i bribirskih knezova Šubica: Prilog poznavanju medusobnih odnosa hrvatskih velikaša i srednjovjekovnih dalmatinskih komuna.” Povijesni Prilozi 35 (2008), pp. 43–60. Karbić, Damir, Mirjana Matijević-Sokol, and James Ross Sweeney. “Introduction.” In Archdeacon Thomas of Split, History of the Bishops of Salona and Split, eds. Damir Karbić, Mirjana Matijević-Sokol and James Ross Sweeney, pp. XIII–XLIV. Budapest, New York: Central European University Press, 2006. Karbusicky, Vladimir. Anfänge der historischen Überlieferung in Böhmen. Ein Beitrag zum vergleichenden Studium der mittelalterlichen Sängerepen. Cologne, Vienna: Böhlau, 1980. Kardaras, Georgios. Byzantium and the Avars, 6th–9th Century AD. Political, Diplomatic and Cultural Relations. Leiden: Brill, 2018. Karl, Lars and Adamantios Skordos. “Panslawismus und Antislawismus. Das Slawentum als Mobilisierungsressource und Bedrohungsvorstellung im Europa des 19.–21. Jahrhunderts.” In Konzepte des Slawischen, Tomáš Glanc and Christian Voß, pp. 21–44. Leipzig: Biblion Media, 2016. Karle, Martina. “Early medieval emporia and their ports in the south-western Baltic Sea.” In Mensch – Landschaft – Meer, eds. Erwin Strahl et al., pp. 239–55. Rahden: Verlag Marie Leidorf, 2015. Karpf, Kurt. „Repräsentation und Kirchenbau. Zur Ausstattung karantanischer Eigenkirchen im 8./9. Jahrhundert.“ In Slowenien und die Nachbarländer zwischen Antike und Karolingischer Epoche. Anfänge der slowenischen Ethnogenese, Volume 1, ed. Bratož, Rajko, pp. 711–30. Ljubljana: Narodni Muzej Slovenije, 2000. Karpf, Kurt. Frühmittelalterliche Flechtwerksteine in Karantanien. Marmorne Kirch­ enausstattungen aus tassilonisch-karolingischer Zeit. Innsbruck: Wagner, 2001. Karpf, Kurt. „Slawische Fürsten und bairischer Adel. Das frühmittelalterliche Karantanien am Schnittpunkt zweier Kulturen.“ Hortus Artium Mediaevalium 8 (2002), pp. 209–22. Karpf, Kurt. „Kirchen in Karantanien vor und nach Einführung der Grafschaftsver­ fassung (828).“ In Frühmittelalterliche Kirchen als archäologische und historische Quelle, ed. Lumír Poláček, pp. 233–42. Brno: Archeologický ústav AVČR, 2010. Kašanin, Milan. „Manastir Žiča.“ In Žiča. Istorija, architektura, slikarstvo, eds. Milan Kašanin et al., pp. 5–52. Belgrade: Književne novine, 1969. Kašić, Jovan. “Vuk Karadžić i stvaranje književnog jezika kod Srba.” In Štúdie z dejín svetovej slavistiky do polovice 19. storočia, ed. Jozef Hrozienčik, pp. 415–28. Bratislava: Vydavatelstvo Slovenskej Akadémie Vied, 1978. Kasper, Martin. Geschichte der Sorben. Volume 3: Von 1917 bis 1945. Bautzen: DomowinaVerlag, 1976.

486

Bibliography

Katić, Lovre. Saksonac Gottschalk na dvoru kneza Trpimira. Zagreb: Nadbiskupska tiskara, 1932. Katičić, Radoslav. „Die Anfänge des kroatischen Staates.“ In Die Bayern und ihre Nachbarn. Teil 1, eds. Herwig Wolfram and Andreas Schwarz, pp. 299–312. Vienna: Böhlau, 1985. Katičić, Radoslav. “Uz pitanje o postanku i starosti glagoljice.” Croatica 42–44 (1996), pp. 185–99. Katičić, Radoslav [1999a]. Literatur- und Geistesgeschichte des kroatischen Früh­ mittelalters. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1999. Katičić, Radoslav [1999b]. “On the origins of the Croats.” In Croatia in the Early Middle Ages. A Cultural Survey, ed. Ivan Supičić, pp. 149–67. London: Wilson, 1999. Katičić, Radoslav. “Toma Arhiđakon i njegovo djelo.” In Thomae Archidiaconi Historia Salonitanorum atque Spalatinorum pontificum, eds. Olga Perić and Mirjana MatijevićSokol, pp. 329–440. Split: Književni Krug, 2003. Katsougiannopoulou, Christina. “The Slavic Bow Brooches in Greece Revisited. Some Remarks on Ethnicity and Social Status.” In Foreigners in Early Medieval Europa, ed. Dieter Quast, pp. 219–231. Mainz: Verlag des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums, 2009. Katsunov, Valeri. “Aspects of Bulgarian Ethnic Self-Awareness during Byzantine Rule and Some of its Manifestations.” Études Balkaniques 3–4 (1998), pp. 156–77. Kattinger, Detlef. „Heinrich der Löwe, Kasimir I. von Demmin und Bogislaw I. von Stettin. Ein Versuch über das Lehnsverhältnis Heinrichs des Löwen gegenüber den pommerschen Herzögen.“ In Land am Meer. Pommern im Spiegel seiner Geschichte. Roderich Schmidt zum 70. Geburtstag, eds. Werner Bucholz and Günter Mangelsdorf, pp. 63–84. Cologne: Böhlau, 1995. Kazanski, Michel. “The Land of the Antes According to Jordanes and Procopios.” In The Steppe Lands and the World beyond them, eds. Florin Curta and Bogdan Petru Maleon, pp. 35–42. Iaşi: Ed. Univ. “Alexandru Ioan Cuza”, 2013. Kazarov, Gavril. „Die Gesetzgebung des bulgarischen Fürsten Krum.“ BZ 16 (1907), pp. 254–57. Kaźmierczyk, Zbigniew. Słowiańska psychomachia Mickiewicza. Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego, 2012. Keiling, Horst. „Ein jungslawisches Bauwerk aus Spaltbohlen von Parchim.“ AuF 29 (1984), pp. 135–44. Keiling, Horst. „Der Obodritentempel von Parchim und die Kulthalle von Groß Raden.“ In Opferplatz und Heiligtum. Kult der Vorzeit und Norddeutschland, eds. Ralf Busch et al., pp. 247–56. Neumünster: Wachholtz, 2000. Kekez, Hrvoje. “Cistercians and Nobility in Medieval Croatia. The Babonici Family and the Monasteries of Topusko (Toplica) and Kostanjevica (Landstrass) in the Thirteenth and Early Fourteenth Centuries.” Citeaux 61 (2010), pp. 257–77.

Bibliography

487

Kempke, Torsten. „Archäologische Beiträge zur Grenze zwischen Sachsen und Slawen im 8.–9. Jahrhundert.“ In Studien zur Archäologie des Ostseeraumes. Von der Eisenzeit zum Mittelalter. Festschrift für Michael Müller-Wille, ed. Anke Wesse, pp. 373–82. Neumünster: Wachholtz, 1998. Kempke, Torsten. „Slawische Burgen des 7.–10. Jahrhunderts.“ In Burgen in Mitteleuropa. Ein Handbuch, Volume I: Bauformen und Entwicklung, eds. Horst Wolfgang Böhme et al., 45–53. Stuttgart: Theiss, 1999. Kempke, Torsten and Christian Lübke. “Polens Nachbarn im Nordwesten: Das Land zwischen Niederelbe und Oder im 11. Jahrhundert.” In The Neighbours of Poland in the 11th Century, ed. Przemysław Urbańczyk, pp. 61–88. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo DiG, 2002. Kentaro, Sato. “Slave Elites and the Ṣaqāliba in al-Andalus in the Umayyad Period.” In Slave Elites in the Middle East and Africa. A Comparative Study, eds. Toru Miura et al., pp. 25–40. London: Kegan Paul International, 2000. Kepreotes, Dimitri. “Faith as a frontier: The Photian homilies on the invasion of the Rus.” In Byzantium, its Neighbours and its Cultures, eds. Danijel Dzino and Kenneth R. Parry, pp. 169–80. Brisbane: Australian Association for Byzantine Studies, 2014. Kersken, Norbert. Geschichtsschreibung im Europa der ‚nationes’. Nationalgeschichtliche Gesamtdarstellungen im Mittelalter. Cologne: Böhlau, 1995. Kienemann, Christoph. Der koloniale Blick gen Osten. Osteuropa im Diskurs des Deutschen Kaiserreiches von 1871. Paderborn: Schöningh, 2018. Kirpičnikov, Anatolij N. “Early Ladoga during the Viking Age in the Light of International Cultural Transfer.” In Vers l’Orient et vers l’Occident. Regards croisés sur les dynamiques et les transferts culturels des Vikings à la Rous ancienne, eds. Pierre Baudin and Aleksandr E. Musin, pp. 215–30. Caen: Presses Universitaires, 2014. Kirsch, Kerstin. „Brandenburg um 1000.“ In Der Wandel um 1000. Beiträge der Sektion zur slawischen Frühgeschichte der 18. Tagung des Mittel- und Ostdeutschen Verbandes für Altertumsforschung in Greifswald, 23. bis 27. März 2009, eds. Felix Biermann et al., pp. 45–51. Langenweißbach: Beier & Beran, 2011. Kislinger, Ewald. Regionalgeschichte als Quellenproblem. Die Chronik von Monembasia und das sizilianische Demenna. Eine historisch-topographische Studie, pp. 11–109. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2001. Klaić, Nada [1960a]. “Tzv. ‘pacta conventa’ ili tobožnji ugovor izmedju plemstva dvanaestero plemena i kralja Kolomana 1102. godine.” Historijski pregled 6 (1960), pp. 107–20. Klaić, Nada [1960b]. “O Trpimirovoj darovnici kao diplomatičkom i historijskom dokumentu.” Vjesnik za arheologiju i historiju dalmatinsku 62 (1960), pp. 105–55. Klaić, Nada. Povijest Hrvata u ranom srednjem vijeku. Zagreb: Školska Knjiga, 1971. Klaić, Nada. Povijest Hrvata u razvijenom srednjem vijeku. Zagreb: Školska Knjiga, 1976.

488

Bibliography

Klaić, Nada. Srednjovjekovna Bosna. Politički položaj bosanskih vladara do Tvrtkove krunidbe (1377 g.). 2nd ed. Zagreb: Grafički Zavod Hrvatske, 1994. Klammt, Anne. „Soziale Gruppen und Gesellschaftsstrukturen im westslawischen Raum. Überlegungen zum Schwerpunktthema des Treffens.“ In Soziale Gruppen und Gesellschaftsstrukturen im westslawischen Raum, eds. Felix Biermann et al., pp. 7–31. Langenweißbach: Beier & Beran, 2013. Klammt, Anne. Die Standorte unbefestigter Siedlungen der nördlichen Elbslawen. Zwischen Klimaveränderung und politischem Wandel, pp. 50–54. Bonn: Habelt, 2015. Klammt, Anne, Peter Mayer and Mirko Roth. „Herausforderung: Religion als Deutungs­ muster archäologischer Forschung – Fallbeispiel elbslawische Gemeinschaften.“ In Religion und Gesellschaft im nördlichen westslawischen Raum, eds. Felix Biermann et al., pp. 9–29. Langenweissbach: Beier & Beran, 2017. Klapper, Joseph. Johann von Neumarkt, Bischof und Hofkanzler. Religiöse Frührenaissance in Böhmen zur Zeit Kaiser Karls IV. Leipzig: St.-Benno-Verlag, 1964. Klápště, Jan [2007a]. „Das frühmittelalterliche Dorf in Böhmen und Mähren: Glanz und Elend des aktuellen Forschungsstandes.“ In aedificatio terrae. Beiträge zur Umwelt- und Siedlungsarchäologie, eds. Gerson H. Jeute et al., pp. 229–38. Rahden: Leidorf, 2007. Klápště, Jan [2007b]. “Die Archäologie des Mittelalters im Spannungsfeld verschiedener Identitäten: Das Fallbeispiel Böhmen.” In Auf der Suche nach Identitäten: Volk  – Stamm  – Kultur  – Ethnos, eds. Sabine Rieckhoff and Ulrike Sommer, pp. 166–74. Oxford: BAR, 2007. Klarnerówna, Zofia. Słowianofilstwo w literaturze polskiej lat 1800 do 1848. Warsaw: Instytut Popierania Nauki, 1926. Klebel, Ernst. „Der Einbau Karantaniens in das ostfränkische und deutsche Reich.“ Carinthia I 150 (1960), pp. 663–92. Klein, Lev S. Voskreshchenie Peruna. K rekonstrukcii vostochnoslavianskogo iazychestva. Sankt-Peterburg: Evraziia, 2004. Kleingärtner, Sunhild. „Zur see- und binnenwärtigen Infrastruktur des Seehandels­ platzes von Menzlin.“ In Der Wandel um 1000. Beiträge der Sektion zur slawischen Frühgeschichte der 18. Tagung des Mittel- und Ostdeutschen Verbandes für Altertumsforschung in Greifswald, 23. bis 27. März 2009, eds. Felix Biermann et al., pp. 389–96. Langenweißbach: Beier & Beran, 2011. Kleingärtner, Sunhild. „Der Seehandelsplatz von Rostock-Dierkow.“ In Kulturwandel im Spannungsfeld von Tradition und Innovation, eds. Sunhild Kleingärtner et al., pp. 89–106. Neumünster: Wachholtz, 2013. Kleingärtner, Sunhild. Die frühe Phase der Urbanisierung an der südlichen Ostseeküste im ersten Jahrtausend. Neumünster: Wachholtz, 2014. Kliment Ochridski. Sbornik ot statii po sluchaj 1050 godini ot smărta mu, eds. Bonju S. Angelov et al. Sofia: Iz. na Bălgarskata Akademiia na Naukite, 1996.

Bibliography

489

Klimov, Evgenii V. Religioznaia reforma velikogo kievskogo kniazia Vladimira I i khristianizaciia drevnei Rusi. Tver’, 2010. Klír, Tomáš. “Language, material culture and ethnifying on the Carolingian borders: Slavs in Northeast Bavaria”. In New Perspectives on the Early Slavs and the Rise of Slavic. Contact and Migration, eds. Tomáš Klír et al., pp. 193–273. Heidelberg: Winter, 2020. Klug, Ekkehard. Das Fürstentum Tver‘ (1247–1485). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1985. Kmietowicz, Franciszek. “Tytuły władców słowian w tzw. ‘Relacji Anonimowej’, wschodnim źródle z końca IX wieku.” SA 23 (1976), pp. 175–92. Knebel, Jurij. „Bemerkungen zur politischen und sozialökonomischen Stellung der Lusizer und Milzener zur Zeit des Lutizenaufstandes im Jahre 983.“ ZfA 18 (1984), pp. 183–88. Knebel, Jurij. „Die Territorialentwicklung des Milzener-Stammesgebietes vom 9. bis zum 11. Jahrhundert auf der Grundlage des archäologischen Burgwallbildes.“ Letopis 34 (1987), pp. 1–24. Kobyliński, Zbigniew. Struktury osadnicze na ziemiach polskich u schyłku starożytności i w początkach wczesnego średniowiecza, pp. 121–64. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, 1988. Kobyliński, Zbigniew. “Osiedla wczesnosłowiańskie.” In Słowianie w Europie wcześniejszego średniowiecza. Katalog wystawy., ed. Maria Miśkiewiczowa, pp. 51–64. Warsaw: Państwowe Muzeum Archeologiczne, 1998. Kobyliński, Zbigniew and Wojciech Szymański. “Grodziska w Haćkach na Podlasiu.” In Archeologica hereditas. Grody średniowiecznego Mazowsza. Księga poświęcona pamięci Marka Dulinicza. Warsaw, eds. Magdalena Żurek and Małgorzata KrasnaKorycińska, pp. 111–45. Zielona Góra: Wydawnictwo Fundacji Archeologicznej, 2015. Koczerska, Maria. “Mentalność Jana Długosza w świetle jego twórczości.” SŹ 15 (1971), pp. 109–39. Koczy, Leon. “Sklawanja Adama Bremeńskiego.” Slavia Occidentalis 12 (1933), pp. 181–253. Koder, Johannes. „Arethas von Kaisarea und die sog. Chronik von Monembasia.“ Jahrbuch für Österreichische Byzantinistik 25 (1976), pp. 75–81. Koder, Johannes. „Zur Frage der slavischen Siedlungsgebiete im mittelalterlichen Griechenland.“ BZ 71 (1978), pp. 315–31. Koder, Johannes. „Zu den Archonten der Slaven in De administrando imperio 29.“ WSJ 29 (1983), pp. 106–15. Koder, Johannes. Der Lebensraum der Byzantiner. Historisch-geographischer Abriß ihres mittelalterlichen Staates im östlichen Mittelmeerraum. Graz: Styria, 1984. Koder, Johannes. „Anmerkungen zu den Miracula Sancti Demetrii.“ In Byzantium. Aphieroma ston Andrea N. Strato. Volume 2, pp. 523–38. Athen: Stratos, 1986. Koder, Johannes. „Anmerkungen zum Slawen-Namen in byzantinischen Quellen.“ Travaux et mémoires 14 (2002), pp. 333–46.

490

Bibliography

Koder, Johannes. „Bulgarische und byzantinsche Identität in der Zeit vor den Kreuzzügen.“ Thetis. Mannheimer Beiträge zur Klassischen Archäologie und Geschichte Griechenlands und Zyperns 18 (2011), pp. 123–29. Koder, Johannes. “On the Slavic Immigration in the Byzantine Balkans”. In New Perspectives on the Early Slavs and the Rise of Slavic. Contact and Migration, eds. Tomáš Klír et al., pp. 81–100. Heidelberg: Winter, 2020. Kodov, Hristo. Opis na slavjanskite rakopisi v bibliotekata na Balgarskata Akademija na Naukite, pp. 143–44. Sofia: Dăržavno Iz. “Svjat”, 1969. Koebner, Richard. „Locatio. Zur Begriffsgeschichte und Geschichte der deutschen Kolonisation.“ Zeitschrift des Vereins für Geschichte Schlesiens 63 (1929), pp. 1–32. König, Daniel G. „Ausstrahlung – transkulturelle Datenmigration – Dokumentation. Arabisch-islamische Gelehrte und die Herausforderungen der Dokumentation Lateineuropas am Beispiel des Papsttums und des ostfränkisch-deutschen Reiches (7.–15. Jahrhundert).“ In Transkulturelle Verflechtungen im mittelalterlichen Jahrtausend. Europa, Ostasien, Afrika, eds. Michael Borgolte and Matthias M. Tischler, pp. 207–40. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2012. Köpstein, Helga. Sklaverei im ausgehenden Byzanz. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1966. Köpstein, Helga. „Zum Bedeutungswandel von Σκλαβοσ/Sclavus.“ Byzantinische Forschungen 7 (1979), pp. 67–88. Kötzschke, Richard. Das Unternehmertum in der ostdeutschen Kolonisation des Mittelalters. Bautzen: B. Ginzel, 1894. Koev, Totiu. „Konstantinopolskiiat săbor (869–870) i bălgarskiiat cărkoven văpros.“ In Bălgarskata cărkva prez vekovete, ed. Petko Petkov, pp. 10–20. Sofia: Universitet “Sv. Kliment Ochridski”, 2003. Kohn, Hans. Die Slawen und der Westen. Die Geschichte des Panslawismus. Vienna, Munich: Herold, 1956. Kokowski, Andrzej. “Etnogeneza słowian. Rzeczywistość badawcza – emocje – odbiór społeczny.” In Cień Światowita czyli pięć głosów w sprawie etnogenezy Słowian, ed. Andrzej Kokowski, pp. 87–170. Lublin: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii CurieSkłodowskiej, 2002. Kola, Adam F. Słowianofilstwo czeskie i rosyjskie w ujęciu porównawczym. Łódź: Ibidem, 2004. Kolejka, Josef. „Der Slawenkongreß in Prag im Juni 1848. Die slawische Variante einer österreichischen Föderation.“ In 1848/49. Revolutionen in Ostmitteleuropa, ed. Rudolf Jaworski, pp. 129–47. Munich: Oldenbourg, 1996. Kolenda, Justyna. “Osada wczesnośredniowieczna – Die frühmittelalterliche Siedlung.” In Od neolitycznego obozowiska do średniowiecznej wsi. Badania w WrocławiuPartynicach, ed. Lech Leciejewicz, pp. 108–79. Wrocław: PAN Oddział we Wrocławiu, 2001.

Bibliography

491

Kolendo, Jerzy. “Opisy wschodnich Bałkanów w Getica Jordanesa i ich źródło  – Historica gocka Kasjodora.” Balcanica Posnaniensia 1 (1984), pp. 125–32. Koleva, Daniela. “Saints Cyril and Methodius: From Christian sanctity to (trans) national memory.” In Gebrochene Kontinuitäten. Transnationalität in den Erinner­ ungskulturen Ostmitteleuropas im 20. Jahrhundert, eds. Agnieszka Gąsior et al., pp. 75–87. Cologne: Böhlau, 2014. Kollár, Jan. Slávy dcera we třech zpěwych. Budin., 1824. Kollár, Jan. “O literárnej vzájemnosti mezy kmeny a nářečími slavskými.” Hronka 1 (1836), pp. 39–53. Kollár, Jan. Über die literarische Wechselseitigkeit zwischen den verschiedenen Stämmen und Mundarten der slawischen Nation. Pest: Trattner-Karolyi, 1837. Kollár, Jan. Slávy dcera. Lyricko-epická báseň v pětí zpěvích. Z přídavkem básní drobnějších. Prague: Kober, 1868. Kollár, Jan. Rozpravy o Slovanské vzájemnosti. Prague: Slovanský ústav, 1929. Kollár, Jan. Reciprocity Between the Various Tribes and Dialects of the Slavic Nation. Bloomington: Slavica, 2008. Kollinger, Karol. Polityka wschodnia Bolesława Chrobrego (992–1025). Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Chronicon, 2015. Kollman, Nancy S. “Collateral Succession in Kievan Rus’.” HUS 14 (1990), pp. 377–87. Kølln, Herman. Die Wenzelslegende des Mönchs Christian. Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1990. Kolovrat-Butenko, Jurii A. Iazychestvo vostochnykh slavian I–XI vekov (po materialam Verkhnego Podoncov’ja). Moscow, Kharkov: Russkaja pravda, 2016. Komar, Oleksij and Natalia Chamajko. Idol ze Zbrucza: zabytek z epoki romantyzmu? Rzeszów: Mitel, 2013. Komatina, Ivana. Crkva i država u srpskim zemljama od XI do XIII veka. Belgrade: Istorijski institut, 2016. Komatina, Predrag. “The Slavs of the Mid-Danube Basin and the Bulgarian Expansion in the First Half of the 9th Century.” ZRVI 47 (2010), pp. 5–82. Komatina, Predrag. “Srbija i Duklja u delu Jovana Skilice.” ZRVI 49 (2012), pp. 159–86. Komatina, Predrag. “Settlement of the Slavs in Asia Minor during the rule of Justinian II and the Bishopric ton Gordoserbon.” Belgrade Historical Review 5 (2014), pp. 33–42. Komatina, Predrag. “Politički položaj Konavala u IX i X veku.” Inicijal 3 (2015), pp. 1–21. Komatina, Predrag. “Dalmatian bishops at the Council of Nicea in 787 and the status of the Dalmatian church in the eight and ninth centuries.” In Imperial Spheres and the Adriatic. Byzantium, the Carolingians and the Treaty of Aachen (812), eds. Mladen Ančić et al., pp. 253–60. London: Routledge, 2018. Konovalova, Irina G. Vostochnaia Evropa v sochinenii al-Idrisi. Moscow: Vostochnaia Literatura RAN, 1999.

492

Bibliography

Konzal, Václav. “The Continuity of Slavic Liturgy in Přemyslid Bohemia.” In The Cyril and Methodius Mission and Europe. 1150 Years since the Arrival of the Thessaloniki Brothers in Great Moravia, eds. Pavel Kouřil et al., pp. 294–95. Brno: Archeologický ústav AVČR, 2014. Kopič, Robert. Politische Geschichte des mittelalterlichen Banates Bosnien: 1154–1377. Saarbrücken: VDM, 2008. Kořalka, Jiří. „Palacký und Österreich als Vielvölkerstaat.“ Österreichische Osthefte 28 (1986), pp. 22–37. Kořalka, Jiří. František Palacký (1798–1876). Der Historiker der Tschechen im österreichischen Vielvölkerstaat. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2007. Korta, Wacław. “Dwie metropolie kościelne w Polsce za Bolesława Chrobrego. Fakt historyczny czy pomyłka Galla?” In Studia i materiały z dziejów Śląska i Małopolski, pp. 25–47. Wrocław: Arboretum, 2001. Kossmann, Oskar. „Das unbekannte Ostseeland Selenica und die Anfänge Pommerns.“ ZfO 20 (1971), S. 641–84. Kossmann, Oskar. „Der Feldzug Karls des Großen gegen die Wilzen.“ ZfO 29 (1980), pp. 557–600. Kostić, Mita. “Zašto je osvnovan slovenskoglagoljaški manastir Emaus u Pragu?” Glasnik skopskog naučnog društva 2 (1927), pp. 159–65. Kostjašov, Jurij V. “The Christianity and paganism in Northern Rus (10th–13th c.).” In Christianization of the Baltic Region, ed. Jerzy Gąssowski, pp. 161–66. Pułtusk: Wyższa Szkoła Humanistyczna im. Aleksandra Gieysztora, 2004. Kostrikova, Elena G. Geopolitichskie interesy Rossii i slavianskii vopros. Ideinaia bor’ba v rossiiskom obshchestve v nachale XX veka. Moscow: Kuchkovo pole, 2017. Kouřil, Pavel. “The Magyars and Their Contribution to the Collapse and Fall of Great Moravia: Allies, Neighbours, Enemies.” In The Fall of Great Moravia. Who was Buried in Grave H153 at Pohansko near Břeclav, eds. Jiří Macháček and Martin Wihoda, pp. 62–93. Leiden: Brill, 2019. Kovačević-Kojić, Desanka. Srednjovjekovna Srebrenica XIX–XV vijek. Belgrade: Srpska akademija nauka i umetnosti, 2010. Kovalev, A.V. “Portret anonima: Traktat ‘Descriptio Europae Orientalis’ i ego avtor.” In Alba Ruscia: belorusskie zemli na perekrestke kul’tur i civilizacii (X–XVI vv.), ed. Aleksej V. Martyniuk, pp. 39–49. Moscow: Kvadriga, 2015. Kovalevskii, Andrei P. [1973a]. “Al’-Masudi o slavianskikh iazycheskikh khramakh.” In Voprosy istoriografii 1973, pp. 80–86. Kovalevskii, Andrei P. [1973b]. “Slaviane i ikh sosedi v pervoi polovine X v., po dannym al’ Masudi.” In Voprosy istoriografii 1973, pp. 62–79. Kowalewski, Krzysztof. “Początki legendy o braciach eponimach w czeskiej i polskiej tradycji historiograficznej oraz funkcje ideowe.” Pamiętnik Słowiański 45/46 (1995/96), pp. 139–55.

Bibliography

493

Kowalski, Wawrzyniec. The Kings of the Slavs. The Image of a Ruler in the Latin Text of The Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja. Leiden: Brill, 2021. Kozłowski, Kazimierz and Jerzy Podralski. Gryfici. Książęta Pomorza Zachodniego. Szczecin: Krajowa Agencja Wydawnicza, 1985. Kradin, Nikolai N. “Poniatie ‘plemia’ v sovremennoi antropologii.” SSBP 2/ 18 (2015), pp. 4–12. Krąpiec, Marek. “Dendrochronological dating of early medieval fortified settlements in Poland.” In Frühmittelalterlicher Burgenbau in Mittel- und Osteuropa, eds. Joachim Henning and Alexander T. Ruttkay, pp. 257–66. Bonn: Habelt, 1998. Kras, Paweł. Husyci w piętnastowiecznej Polsce. Lublin: Wydawnictwo Towarzystwo Naukowego Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego, 1998. Kras, Paweł. “Hussites in fifteenth century Poland.” In Geist, Gesellschaft, Kirche im 13.–16. Jahrhundert, ed. František Šmahel, pp. 177–89. Prague: Centre for Medieval Studies, 1999. Krauss, Raiko and Gerson H. Jeute. „Traditionelle Getreideverarbeitung in Bulgarien. Ethnoarchäologische Beobachtungen im Vergleich zu Befunden der Slawen im frühen Mittelalter zwischen Elbe und Oder.“ Ethnographisch-archäologische Zeitschrift 39 (1998), pp. 498–528. Krawiec, Adam. “Kilka uwag na temat genezy Kroniki Wielkopolskiej.” In Czechy  – Polska  – Wielkopolska. Studia z dziejów średniowiecza ofiarowane Profesorowi Bronisławowi Nowackiemu, eds. Zbyszko Górczak and Jacek Jaskulski, pp. 199–215. Poznań: Instytut Historii Uniwersytetu Adama Mickiewicza, 2009. Kroczak, Justyna. “The Role of the Bible in the Formation of Philosophical Thought in Kievan Rus’ (as Exemplified by Ilarion of Kiev, Kliment Smolatič and Kirill of Turov).” Studia Ceranea 6 (2016), pp. 61–74. Król, Eugeniusz Cezary. Polska i Polacy w propagandzie narodowego socjalizmu w Niemczech 1919–1945. Warsaw: Oficyna Wydawnicza Rytm, 2006. Kronsteiner, Otto. „Die altbulgarische Reichssprache und ihre Vorgeschichte.“ MBFIÖ 8 (1986), pp. 59–67. Krsmanović, Bojana. “Mount Athos and Political Thought in the Slavic World.” In Proceedings of the 22nd International Congress of Byzantine Studies. Volume 1: Plenary Papers, eds. Vasil Gjuzelev et al., pp. 145–66. Sofia: Bulgarian Historical Heritage Foundation, 2011. Krsmanović, Bojana and Ljubomir Maksimović. “Byzantium in Serbia  – Serbian Authenticity and Byzantine Influence.” In Sacral Art of the Serbian Lands in the Middle Ages, eds. Dragan Vojvodić and Danica Popović, pp. 41–55. Belgrade: Serbian National Committe of Byzantine Studies, 2016. Krüger, Bruno. Dessau-Mosigkau. Ein frühslawischer Siedlungsplatz im mittleren Elbegebiet. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1967. Krysiński, Alfons. “Pomorze plemienne w świetle przekazu tzw. Geografa Bawarskiego.” Materiały zachodniopomorskie 7 (1961), pp. 463–516.

494

Bibliography

Krzemińska, Barbara. “W sprawie chronologii wyprawy Brzetysława I. na Polskę.” Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Łodzkiego. Seria I: Nauki Humanistyczno społeczne 12 (1959), pp. 23–37. Krzemińska, Barbara. “Polska i Polacy w opinii czeskiego kronikarza Kosmasa.” Zeszyty naukowe uniwersytetu Łódzkiego. Seria I: Nauki humanistyczno-społeczne 15 (1960), pp. 75–95. Krzemieńska, Barbara. “Krize českého státu na přelomu tisíciletí.” ČČH 18: (1970), pp. 97–532. Krzemieńska, Barbara. Břetislav I.: Čechy a střední Evropa v prvé polovině XI. století. Prague: Garamond, 1999. Krzemieńska, Barbara and Dušan Třeštík. “Přemyslovska hradiště a služebná organizace přemyslovského státu.” AR 17 (1965), pp. 624–55. Krzoska, Markus. „Historische Mission und Pragmatismus. Die slawische Idee in Polen im 20. Jahrhundert.“ In Gemeinsam einsam. Die Slawische Idee nach dem Panslawismus, eds. Agnieszka Gąsior et al., pp. 77–94. Berlin: Berliner WissenschaftsVerlag, 2009. Kubín, Peter. “Kanonisation des heiligen Prokop im Jahre 1204.” In Der heilige Prokop, Böhmen und Mitteleuropa. Internationales Symposium, Benešov  – Sázava 24.–26. September 2003., ed. Petr Sommer, pp. 109–23. Prague: Filosofia, 2005. Kubín, Peter. „Zur Heiligsprechung der böhmischen Fürstin Ludmila (921). Ein Beitrag zu den böhmisch-bayrischen Beziehungen im Frühmittelalter.“ In Religiöse Bewegungen im Mittelalter, eds. Enno Bünz et al., pp. 631–48. Cologne: Böhlau, 2007. Kubín, Peter. “Saint Procopius of Sázava between Reality and Fiction.” Revue Mabillon 27 (2016), pp. 49–82. Kubů, Eduard, Jiří Novotný and Jiří Šouša. “Slavism in National Czech Enterprises in the First Half of the Twentieth Century.” In History and Culture of Economic Nationalism in East Central Europe, eds. Helga Schultz and Eduard Kubů, pp. 185–206. Berlin: Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag, 2006. Kuchkin, Vladimir A. Formirovanie gosudarstvennoi territorii severo-vostochnoi Rusi v XIV v. Moscow: Nauka, 1984. Kuchkin, Vladimir A. “Rostovskaia zemlia, Suzdal’skoe i Vladimirskoe kniazhestva v XI–pervoi treti XIII v.” Rossiiskaja istoriia 4 (2019), pp. 92–115. Kuczkowski, Andrzej. “Słowiańskie ‘święte’ góry na ziemiach polskich we wczesnym średniowieczu – próba zarysowania problematyki.” SA 48 (2007), pp. 97–123. Kuczkowski, Andrzej. “Ośrodek kultu pogańskiego w krajobrazie Słowiańszczyzny Zachodniej wczesnego średniowiecza.” SA 49 (2008), pp. 99–119. Kürbis, Brygida. “Kształtowanie się pojęć geograficznych o słowiańszczyźnie w polskich kronikach przeddługoszowych.” SA 3 (1951/52), pp. 252–82. Kürbis, Brygida. Studia nad Kroniką wielkopolską. Poznań: Poznańskie Towarzystwo Przyjaciół Nauk, 1952.

Bibliography

495

Kürbis, Brygida. Na progach historii. Tom 2: O świadectwach do dziejów kultury Polski średniowiecznej. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznańskie, 2001. Kuev, Kuio M. Chernorizets Khrabăr. Sofia: Bălgarska Akad. na Naukite, 1967. Kuev, Kuio M. Azbuchnata molitva v slavianskite literaturi. Sofia: Iz. na Bălgarskata Akademiia na Naukite, 1974. Kugler, Hartmut. „Europa pars quarta. Der Teil und das Ganze im ‚Liber floridus‘.“ In Europa im Weltbild des Mittelalters. Kartographische Konzepte, eds. Ingrid Baumgärtner and Hartmut Kugler, pp. 45–61. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 2008. Kuhn, Kristina. Subtexte der Menschheitsgeschichte. Zur Literarisierung von Geschichts­ philosophie bei Immanuel Kant, Johann Gottfried Herder und Christoph Martin Wieland. Bielefeld: Transcript, 2018. Kuhn, Walter. „Flämische und fränkische Hufe als Zeitformen der mittelalterlichen Ostsiedlung.“ Hamburger Mittel- und Ostdeutsche Forschungen 2 (1960), pp. 146–92. Kuhn, Walter. „Die Siedlerzahlen der deutschen Ostsiedlung.“ In studium sociale. Ergebnisse sozialwissenschaftlicher Forschung der Gegenwart, eds. Karl Gustav Specht et al., pp. 131–54. Cologne, Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1963. Kuk, Leszek. Orientacja słowiańska w myśli politycznej Wielkiej Emigracji (do wybuchu wojny krymskiej). Geneza, uwarunkowania, podstawowe koncepcje. Toruń: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika, 1996. Kulecka, Alicja. Między słowianofilstwem a słowianoznawstwem. Idee słowiańskie w życiu intelektualnym Warszawy lat 1832–1856. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Neriton, 1997. Kuna, Martin et al. „Raně středověký areál v Roztokách z pohledu ekofaktů.“ In PA (2013), pp. 9–147. Kunstmann, Heinrich. „Was besagt der Name Samo und wo liegt Wogastisburg?“ WdS (1979), pp. 1–21. Kunstmann, Heinrich. „Über den Namen der Kroaten.“ WdS 27 (1982), pp. 131–36. Kurczak, Justyna. Historiozofia nadziei. Romantyczne słowianofilstwo polskie. Łódź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego, 2000. Kurelac, Miroslav. “Vinko Pribojević i njegovo djelo.” In Kurelac, Miroslav. 1997. Vinko Pribojević, O podrijetlu i slavi Slavena, pp. 9–44. Zagreb: Golden Marketing, 1997. Kurella, Hans. Naturgeschichte des Verbrechens. Grundzüge der criminellen Anthro­ pologie und Criminalpsychologie für Gerichtsärzte, Psychiater, Juristen und Verwaltungsbeamte. Stuttgart: F. Enke, 1893. Kurnatowska, Zofia. „Forschungen zu frühmittelalterlichen Burgen in Großpolen.“ In Frühmittelalterlicher Burgenbau in Mittel- und Osteuropa, eds. Joachim Henning and Alexander T. Ruttkay, pp. 31–36. Bonn: Habelt, 1998. Kurnatowska, Zofia [2000a]. “Wczesnopiastowskie grody centralne. Podobieństwa i różnice.” In Gniezno i Poznań w państwie pierwszych Piastów, ed. Andrzej Wójtowicz, pp. 9–31. Poznań: Ośrodek Wydawnictw Naukowych, 2000.

496

Bibliography

Kurnatowska, Zofia [2000b]. “Wielkopolska w X wieku i formowanie się państwa polskiego.” In Ziemie polskie w X wieku i ich znaczenie w kształtowaniu się nowej mapy Europy. ed. Henryk Samsonowicz, pp. 99–117. Cracow: Towarzystwo Autorów i Wydawców Prac Naukowych “Universitas”, 2000. Kurnatowska, Zofia. Początki Polski. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznańskiego Towarzystwa Przyjaciół Nauk, 2002. Kurnatowska, Zofia [2003a]. “Chrystianizacja w czasach Mieszka i Bolesława Chrobrego.” In Męczennicy z Międzyrzecza 1003–2003. Materiały z sympozjów, ed. Ryszard Tomczak, pp. 7–24. Paradyż, Zielona Góra: Wydawnictwo Diecezji Zielonogórsko-Gorzowskiej, 2003. Kurnatowska, Zofia [2003b]. “Proces formowania się ‘państwa gnieźnieńskiego’.” In Civitas Schinesghe cum pertinentiis, ed. Wojciech Chudziak, pp. 33–49. Toruń: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika, 2003. Kurnatowska, Zofia “Ostrów Lednicki in the Early Middle Ages.” In Polish Lands at the Turn of the first and the second Millenia, ed. Przemysław Urbańczyk, pp. 167–84. Warsaw: Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology, Polish Academy of Sciences, 2004. Kurnatowska, Zofia and Mariusz Tuszyński. “Grzybowo pod Wrześnią. Wczesnopia­ stowski gród na szlaku z Giecza do Gniezna.” In Custodia Memoriae. Muzeum Pierwszych Piastów na Lednicy. XL lat istnienia (1969–2009), ed. Andrzej M. Wyrwa, pp. 141–55. Lednica: Muzeum Pierwszych Piastów na Lednicy, 2009. Kurnatowski, Stanisław. “Przemiany osadnicze w procesie kształtowania Wielkopolski jako regionu historycznego.” SA 35 (1994), pp. 3–45. Kusseff, Methodie. “St. Naum.” Slavonic and East European Review 29 (1950), pp. 139–52. Kusternig, Andreas. „Die Schlacht bei Dürnkrut und Jedenspeigen am 26. August 1278.“ In Böhmisch-österreichische Beziehungen im 13. Jahrhundert, eds. Marie Bláhová and Ivan Hlavaček, pp. 185–215. Prag: Österreichisches Kulturinstitut, 1998. Kuza, Andrei V. “Ukreplenye poseleniia.” In Drevniaia Rus’. Gorod, zamok, selo, ed. Boris A. Kolchin, pp. 39–50. Moscow: Nauka, 1985. Kyrillos kai Methodios: To Byzantio kai o kosmos tōn Slabōn/Cyril and Methodius: Byzantium and the world of the Slavs. International Scientific Conference. Thessaloniki: Ekd. Dēmu Thessalonikēs. Labuda, Gerard. “Okres ‘wspólnoty’ słowiańskiej w świetle źródeł i tradycji historycznej.” SA 1 (1948), pp. 81–227. Labuda, Gerard. Pierwsze państwo słowiańskie. Państwo Samona. 2nd ed. Wodzisław Śląski: Wydawnictwo Templum, 2009 [first edition: Poznań 1949]. Labuda, Gerard. “Wogastisburg.” SA 22 (1952), pp. 241–51. Labuda, Gerard. „Civitas Dragaviti. Zu den fränkisch-slavischen Beziehungen am Ende des 8. Jahrhunderts.“ In Europa Slavica  – Europa Orientalis. Festschrift für Herbert Ludat zum 70. Geburtstag, eds. Klaus-Detlev Grothusen and Klaus Zernack, pp. 87–98. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1980.

Bibliography

497

Labuda, Gerard. “Ze spuścizny kulturowej misji arcybiskupa Metodego na pograniczu słowiańsko-germańskim.” In Etnolingwistyczne i kulturowe związki Słowian z Germanami, ed. Irena Kwilecka, pp. 83–98. Wrocław: Wydawnictwo PAN, 1987. Labuda, Gerard. “Prawne i polityczne aspekty dokumentu Dagome iudex.” In Labuda, Gerard. 1988. Studia nad początkami państwa polskiego. Tom 2, pp. 240–63. Poznań: Księgarnia Akademicka, 1988. Labuda, Gerard [2000a]. “Aspekty polityczne i kościelne tzw. ‘zjazdu gnieźnieńskiego’ w roku 1000.” In Ziemie polskie w X wieku i ich znaczenie w kształtowaniu się nowej mapy Europy. ed. Henryk Samsonowicz, pp. 17–33. Cracow: Towarzystwo Autorów i Wydawców Prac Naukowych “Universitas”, 2000. Labuda, Gerard [2000b]. Święty Stanisław – biskup krakowski, patron Polski. Śladami zabójstwa, męczeństwa, kanonizacji. Poznań: Instytut Historii Uniwersytetu Adama Mickiewicza, 2000. Labuda, Gerard. “Słowianie w wizjach historiografii I. Kanta, J.G. Herdera i G.W.F. Hegla”, In Między wielką polityką a narodowym partykularyzmem, ed. Jadwiga Kiwerska, pp. 49–58. Poznań: Instytut Historii Uniwersytetu Adama Mickiewicza, 2002. Labuda, Gerard. Mieszko II król Polski (1025–1034). Czasy przełomu w dziejach państwa polskiego. Poznań: Wydawnictwo WBP, 2008. Lagarde, Paul de. Deutsche Schriften. Göttingen: Dieterich’sche UniversitätsBuchhandlung Becker & Eidner, 1892. Lalić, Daniel. „Die Franziskaner in Bosnien und Herzegowina.“ In Religiöse Erinnerungsorte in Ostmitteleuropa. Konstitution und Konkurrenz im nationen- und epochenübergreifenden Zugriff, eds. Joachim Bahlcke et al., pp. 626–36. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 2013. Lambropoulou, Anna. “The Presence of Slavs in the Western Peleponnese during the 7th and 8th Centuries. New Archaeological Evidence.” In Foreigners in Early Medieval Europa, ed. Dieter Quast, pp. 197–217. Mainz: Verlag des RömischGermanischen Zentralmuseums, 2009. Lanckorońska, Karolina. Studies on the Roman-Slavonic Rite in Poland. Roma: Pont. Inst. Orientalium Studiorum, 1961. Lauer, Reinhard. „Schlözer und die Slawen.“ In: August Ludwig (von) Schlözer in Europa, eds. Heinz Duchhardt and Martin Espenhorst, pp. 23–40. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012. Le trésor de Preslav. Reflet d’un âge d’or du Moyen Âge bulgare, ed. Jannic Durand. Paris: Somogy Editions, 2018. Leciejewicz, Lech. „Das karolingische Reich und die Westslawen. Zur Entfaltung einer Kulturgrenzzone im 8.–9. Jahrhundert.“ In Die Bayern und ihre Nachbarn. Teil 2, eds. Herwig Friesinger and Falko Daim, pp. 147–55. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1985.

498

Bibliography

Leciejewicz, Lech. „Zur politischen Funktion der heidnischen Kultstätten bei den Westslawen.“ In Studien zur Archäologie des Ostseeraumes. Von der Eisenzeit zum Mittelalter. Festschrift für Michael Müller-Wille, ed. Anke Wesse, pp. 315–20. Neumünster: Wachholtz, 1998. Leciejewicz, Lech. Słowianie zachodni. Z dziejów tworzenia się średniowiecznej Europy. Włodzisław Śląski: Emplum, 2010. Lehr-Spławiński, Tadeusz. “Nazwy ludów i plemion.” In SSS 3 (1967), pp. 357–58. Leiner, Yann Philipp. Schöpferische Geschichte. Geschichtsphilosophie, Ästhetik und Kultur bei Johann Gottfried Herder. Würzburg: Königshausen und Neumann, 2012. Leisching, Peter. „Der Inhalt der Responsa Nicolaus I. ad consulta Bulgarorum im Lichte westkirchlicher Quellen.“ Kanon. Jahrbuch der Gesellschaft für das Recht der Ostkirchen 3 (1977), pp. 240–48. Lemberg, Hans. „Tschechen und Russen. Die Slawische Idee in der Tschechoslowakei 1918–1938.“ In ‚Mit unbestechlichem Blick …‘ Studien von Hans Lemberg zur Geschichte der böhmischen Länder und der Tschechoslowakei, eds. Ferdinand Seibt et al., pp. 133–50. Munich: Oldenbourg, 1998. Lemerle, Paul. “La chronique improprement dite de Monemvasie: le contexte historique et légendaire.” Révue Études Byzantines 21 (1963), pp. 5–49. Lemerle, Paul. “Invasions et migrations dans les Balkans depuis la fin de l’époque Romaine jusqu’au VIIIe siècle.” Revue historiques 78 (1978), pp. 265–308. Leshchilovskaia, Anna I. Illirizm. K istorii khorvatskogo nacional’nogo Vozrozhdeniia. Moscow: Nauka, 1968. Leška, Miroslav J. “Celi pochoda Nikifora I. protiv Bolgar v 811 godu.” In Byzantium, New Peoples, New Powers: The Byzantino-Slav Contact Zone, from the nine to the fifteenth century, eds. Milijana Kaimakamova et al., pp. 55–62. Cracow: Towarzystwo Wydawnicze “Historia Iagellonica”, 2007. Leśny, Jan. Konstantyn i Metody. Apostołowie Słowian. Dzieło i jego losy. Poznań: Księgarnia Świętego Wojciecha, 1987. Leśny, Jan. Studia nad początkami serbskiej monarchii Nemaniczów (połowa XI–koniec XII wieku). Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, 1989. Leszka, Mirosław J. “Kilka uwag na temat śmierci Prebuda, księcia Rynchinów.” SA 46 (2005), pp. 57–62. Leszka, Mirosław J. Symeon I Wielki a Bizancjum. Z dziejów stosunków bułgarskobizantyńskich. Łódź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego, 2013. Leszka, Mirosław J. “Bulgarian-Byzantine Relations during the Reign of Symeon I the Great (893–927).” In The Bulgarian State in 927–969. The Epoch of Tsar Peter I., eds. Mirosław J. Leszka and Kirił Marinow, pp. 35–47. Łódź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego, 2018. Leszka, Mirosław J. and Kirił Marinow [2018a]. “Foreign Policy.” In The Bulgarian State in 927–969. The Epoch of Tsar Peter I., eds. Mirosław J. Leszka and Kirił Marinow, pp. 111–35. Łódź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego, 2018.

Bibliography

499

Leszka, Mirosław J. and Kirił Marinow [2018b]. “Last Years of Peter’s Reign (963–969).” In The Bulgarian State in 927–969. The Epoch of Tsar Peter I., eds. Mirosław J. Leszka and Kirił Marinow, pp. 137–58. Łódź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego, 2018. Leszka, Mirosław J. and Kirił Marinow [2018c]. “The Internal Situation.” In The Bulgarian State in 927–969. The Epoch of Tsar Peter I., eds. Mirosław J. Leszka and Kirił Marinow, pp. 91–109. Łódź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego, 2018. Leszka, Mirosław J. and Kirił Marinow [2018d]. “The Year 971.” In The Bulgarian State in 927–969. The Epoch of Tsar Peter I., eds. Mirosław J. Leszka and Kirił Marinow, pp. 159–70. Łódź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego, 2018. Lewandowski, Józef. “Koncepcje słowiańskie w służbie II Rzeczypospolitej.” In Z polskich studiów slawistycznych. Seria 3: Historia, eds. Juliusz Bardach and Gerard Labuda, pp. 247–56. Warsaw: PWN, 1968. Lewicka-Rajewska, Urszula. Arabskie opisanie Słowian. Źródła do dziejów średniowiecznej kultury. Wrocław: Polskie Towarzystwo Ludoznawcze, 2004. Lewicki, Tadeusz [1948a]. “Osadnictwo słowiańskie w krajach muzułmańskich w świetle opisów średniowiecznych pisarzy arabskich”, Sprawozdanie z posiedzeń Polskiej Akademii Umiejętności 49 (1948), pp. 487–90. Lewicki, Tadeusz [1948b]. “Państwo Wiślan-Chorwatów w opisie al-Mas’udiego.” Sprawozdania z posiedzeń Polskiej Akademii Umiejętności 49 (1948), 1, pp. 24–34. Lewicki, Tadeusz. “Świat słowiański w oczach pisarzy arabskich.” SA 2 (1949), pp. 321–88. Lewicki, Tadeusz. “Jeszcze o Wieletach w opisie słowiańszczyzny arabskiego pisarza z X w. al-Mas’ūd’īego.” Pamiętnik Słowiański 2 (1951), pp. 107–20. Lewicki, Tadeusz. “Osadnictwo słowiańskie i niewolnicy słowiańscy w krajach muzułmańskich według średniowiecznych pisarzy arabskich.” PH 43 (1952), pp. 473–91, 630–31. Lewicki, Tadeusz. “Źródła arabskie i hebrajskie do dziejów Słowian w okresie wczesnego średniowiecza.” SŹ 3 (1958), pp. 61–100. Lewicki, Tadeusz. “Al-Mas’ūdī on the Slavs.” In Al-Mas’ūdī Millenary Commemoration Volume, eds. S. Maqbul Ahmad and Sri A. Rahman, pp. 11–13. Calcutta: Indian Society for the History of Science, 1960. Lewicki, Tadeusz [1961a]. “Słowianie nad Menem w relacji al-Mas’udiego.” Onomastica. Pismo poświęcone nazewnictwu geograficznemu i osobowemu 7 (1961), pp. 317–26. Lewicki, Tadeusz [1961b]. “Znajomość krajów i ludów Europy u pisarzy arabskich IX i X w.” SA 8 (1961), pp. 61–124. Lewicki, Tadeusz. “*S.w.nt-b.lk arabskiej „Relacji anonimowej“ (2 połowa IX w.) i jego ‘zastępca’.” In Liber Iosepho Kostrzewski octogenario a veneratoribus dicatus, ed. Konrad Jażdżewski, pp. 363–76. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, 1968. Lewis, Bernard. Die Welt der Ungläubigen. Wie der Islam Europa entdeckte. Frankfurt/M.: Propyläen, 1987.

500

Bibliography

Lewis, Bernhard. Race and Slavery in the Middle East. An Historical Enquiry. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990. L’idea dell’unità e della reciprocità slava e il suo ruolo nello sviluppo della slavistica, eds. Sergio Bonazza and Giovanna Brogi Bercoff. Roma: La Fenice Ed., 1994. Lieciejewicz, Lech. “Normanowie nad Odrą i Wisłą w IX–XI wieku.” KH 100 (1993), pp. 49–62. Lienard, Thomas [2006a]. “À qui profitent les guerres en Orient ? Quelques observations à propos des conflits entre Slaves et Francs au IXe siècle.” Médiévales 51 (2006), pp. 69–83. Lienard, Thomas [2006b]. “Les combattants francs et slaves face à la paix: crise et nouvelle définition d’une élite dans l’espace oriental carolingien au début du IXe siècle.” In Les élites au haut Moyen Age. Crises et renouvellements, eds. François Bougard et al., pp. 253–66. Turnhout: Brepols, 2006. Lienhard, Thomas. “The Frieze of Branimir (Croatia).” In Rome and the Barbarians. The Birth of a New World, ed. Jean-Jacques Aillagon, pp. 580–81. Milano: Skira, 2008. Likhachev, Dmitrii S. Russkie letopisi i ikh kul’turno-istoricheskoe znachenie. Moscow: Akademija nauk SSSR, 1947. Limonov, Jurii A. Letopisanie Vladimiro-Suzdal’skoi Rusi. Leningrad: Nauka, 1967. Limonov, Jurii A. Vladimiro-Suzdal’skaia Rus’. Ocherki social’no-politicheskoi istorii. Leningrad: Nauka, 1987. Lisch, Georg Ch.F. „Die doberaner Genealogie und die parchimsche Genealogie.“ Jahrbücher des Vereins für mecklenburgische Geschichte und Altertumskunde 11 (1846), pp. 1–26. Liszkowski, Uwe. „Zur Aktualisierung der Stereotype ‚Die deutsche Gefahr‘ im russischen Neoslavismus.“ In Rußland und Deutschland. Festschrift für Georg von Rauch, pp. 278–94. Stuttgart: Klett, 1974. Litavrin, Gennadii G. „Slavinii VII–IX vv.: Social’no-politicheskie organizacii slavian.“ In Ėtnogenez narodov Balkan i severnogo Prichernomorj’a. Lingvistika, istoriia, archeologiia, eds. Samuil B. Bernshtein et al., pp. 103–203. Moscow: Nauka, 1984. Litavrin, Gennadii G. „Osobennosti razvitiia samosoznaniia bolgarskoi narodnosti co vtoroi chetverti X do konca XIV v.“ In Razvitie ėtnicheskogo samosoznaniia slavianskikh narodov v ėpochu zrelogo feodalizma, eds. Gennadii G. Litavrin and Viacheslav V. Ivanov, pp. 36–70. Moscow: Nauka, 1989. Litavrin, Gennadii G. “Khristianstvo v Bolgarii v 927–1081 gg.” In Christianstvo v stranakh vostochnoi, jugo-vostochoi i central’noi Evropy na proge vtorogo tysiacheletiia, ed. Boris N. Floria, pp. 133–89. Moscow: Iazyki Slavianskoi Kul’tury, 2002. Lodowski, Jerzy. Dolny Śląsk na początku średniowiecza (VI–X w.). Podstawy osadnicze i gospodarcze, pp. 21–24. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, 1980. Löwe, Heinz. “Cyrill und Methodius zwischen Rom und Byzanz.” In Gli Slavi occidentali e meridionali nell’alto medioevo, ed. Raoul Manselli, pp. 631–99. Spoleto: CISAM, 1983.

Bibliography

501

Lomagistro, Barbara. “La data di creazione della scrittura slava secondo lo Skazanie ‘O pismenech’ di Chrabr. Una questione controversa di cronologia bizantino-slava.” Bizantinistica. Rivista di Studi Bizantini e Slavi 4 (2002), pp. 47–77. Lorenz, Weinrich. „Der Slawenaufstand von 983 in der Darstellung des Bischofs Thietmar von Merseburg.“ In Historiographia Mediaevalis. Studien zur Geschichts­ schreibung und Quellenkunde des Mittelalters. Festschrift für Franz-Josef Schmale, eds. Dieter Berg and Hans-Werner Goetz, pp. 77–87. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesell­schaft, 1988. Lošek, Fritz. Die Conversio Bagoariorum et Carantanorum und der Brief des Erzbischofs Theotmar von Salzburg. Hannover: Hahn, 1997. Losert, Hans. „Die slawische Besiedlung Nordostbayerns aus archäologischer Sicht.“ In Vorträge des 11. Niederbayerischen Archäologentages, ed. Karl Schmotz, 207–70. Buch am Erlbach: Leidorf, 1993. Losert, Hans. „Moinvinidi, Radanzvinidi und Nabavinidi. Geschichte und Archäologie der Slawen in Bayern.“ In Siedlungsstrukturen und Burgen im westslawischen Raum, eds. Biermann, Felix et al., pp. 219–94. Langenweissbach: Beier & Beran, 2009. Losert, Hans. „Slawen in Franken.“ In Fremde in Franken. Migration und Kulturtransfer, eds. Andrea M. Kluxen et al., pp. 53–104. Würzburg: Ergon, 2016. Loshakova, Olga V. „U istokov sozdaniia srednevekovoi bolgarskoi kultury.“ In Slavianskii mir: obshchnost’ i mnogoobrazie, ed. Viktor P. Gavrikov, pp. 33–41. Tver’: Gosudarstvenyi universitet, 2009. Łosiński, Władysław. „Bardy-Świelubie, ein Siedlungskomplex im unteren Parsęta Flussgebiet.“ AP 16 (1975), pp. 199–220. Łosiński, Władysław. Osadnictwo plemienne Pomorza (VI–X w.). Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, 1982. Łosiński, Władysław. “Chronologia napływu najstarszej monety arabskiej na terytorium Europy.” SA 31 (1988), pp. 3–176. Łosiński, Władysław. “Osadnictwo plemienne w dorzeczu Parsęty we wczesnym średniowieczu.” In Salsa Cholbergiensis. Kołobrzeg w średniowieczu, eds. L. Leciejewicz and M. Rębkowski, pp. 13–22. Kołobrzeg: Wydawnictwo Le Petit Café, 2000. Łosiński, Władysław. “Początki wczesnośredniowiecznego Gdańska  – problem widziany z oddalenia.” SA 42 (2001), pp. 1–62. Lotter, Friedrich. „Bemerkungen zur Christianisierung der Abodriten.“ In Festschrift für Walter Schlesinger. Volume II, ed. Helmut Beumann, pp. 395–442. Cologne, Vienna: Böhlau, 1974. Lotter, Friedrich. Die Konzeption des Wendenkreuzzuges. Ideengeschichtliche, kirchenrechtliche und historisch-politische Voraussetzungen der Missionierung von Elb- und Ostseeslawen um die Mitte des 12. Jahrhunderts. Sigmaringen: Thorbecke, 1977. Lotter, Friedrich. Völkerverschiebungen im Ostalpen-Mitteldonauraum zwischen Antike und Mittelalter (375–600). Berlin, New York: de Gruyter, 2003.

502

Bibliography

Lovrenović, Dubravko. “Porglašenje Bosne kraljevstvom 1377. (Pokušaj revalorizacije).” Forum Bosnae 3–4 (1999), pp. 227–87. Lovrenović, Dubravko. “Formiranje srednjovjekovne bosanske države i ugarskobosanski odnosi u knjizi Srednjovjekovna Bosna Nade Klaić.” In Nada Klaić i njezin znanstveni i nastavni doprinos razvoju historiografije, eds. Tomislav Galović and Damir Agičić, pp. 327–39. Zagreb: FF press, 2014. Lovrenović, Dubravko. „Das mittelalterliche Bosnien. Eine politische Bühne des ‚Mikro­ christentums‘.“ In Religionsgeschichtliche Studien zum östlichen Europa. Festschrift für Ludwig Steindorff zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. Martina Thomsen, pp. 69–86. Stuttgart: Steiner, 2017. Lovrenović, Ivan. Bosnien und Herzegowina. Eine Kulturgeschichte. 2nd ed. Vienna: Folio, 1999. Łowmiański, Henryk. Religia Słowian i jej upadek (w. VI–XII). Warsaw: PWN, 1979. Lucht, Dietmar. „War Bogislaw I. Reichsfürst?“ Baltische Studien NF 54 (1968), pp. 26–30. Ludat, Herbert. Die ostdeutschen Kietze. Bernburg: Kunze, 1936. Ludat, Herbert. „Brandenburg und die Hevellerdynastie.“ In Ludat, Herbert. An Elbe und Oder um das Jahr 1000. Skizzen zur Politik des Ottonenreiches und der slavischen Mächte in Mitteleuropa, pp. 9–17, 93–109. Cologne: Böhlau, 1971. Ludat, Herbert. „Böhmen und die Anfänge Ottos I.“ In Politik, Gesellschaft, Geschichtss­ chreibung. Festgabe für František Graus zum 60. Geburtstag, eds. Herbert Ludat and Rainer Ch. Schwinges, pp. 131–64. Cologne, Vienna: Böhlau, 1982. Ludwig, Dieter and Renate Möhlenkamp [1983a]. “Boemi.” In Glossar zur frühmittelalterlichen Geschichte im östlichen Europa. Seria A: Lateinische Namen bis 900, Bd. 2, ed. Jadran Ferluga et al., pp. 49–77. Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1983. Ludwig, Dieter and Renate Möhlenkamp. [1983b], “Boemia.” In Glossar zur frühmittelalterlichen Geschichte im östlichen Europa. Seria A: Lateinische Namen bis 900, Bd. 2, ed. Jadran Ferluga et al., pp. 77–93. Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1983. Lübke, Christian [1993a]. „Slaven und Deutsche um das Jahr 1000.“ Mediaevalia Historica Bohemica 3 (1993), pp. 9–90. Lübke, Christian [1993b]. „Slaven zwischen Elbe/Saale und Oder. Wenden – Polaben – Elbslaven? Beobachtungen zur Namenwahl.“ JbGMO 41 (1993), pp. 17–43. Lübke, Christian. „Religion und ethnisches Bewusstsein bei den Lutizen.“ In Światowit 40 (1995), pp. 70–90. Lübke, Christian. „Der Aufstand der Elbslaven im Jahr 983 und seine Folgen.“ In Svatý Vojtech, Cechové a Evropa. Mezinárodní sympozium usporádané Ceskou krestanskou akademií a Historickým ústavem Akademie ved CR 19. a 20. listopadu 1997, eds. Dušan Treštík and Josef Žemlicka, pp. 109–21. Prague: Nakladatelství Lidové Noviny, 1998. Lübke, Christian. Fremde im östlichen Europa. Von Gesellschaften ohne Staat zu verstaatlichten Gesellschaften (9.–11. Jahrhundert). Cologne: Böhlau, 2001.

Bibliography

503

Lübke, Christian. „Die Elbslaven  – Polens Nachbarn im Westen.“ In The Neighbours of Poland in the 11th Century, ed. Przemysław Urbańczyk, pp. 61–77. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo DiG, 2002. Lübke, Christian. „‘Qui sint vel unde huc venerint’. Bemerkungen zur Herkunft der Namen von Polen und Lutizen.“ In Die Suche nach den Ursprüngen. Von der Bedeutung des frühen Mittelalters, ed. Walter Pohl, pp. 279–88. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2004. Lübke, Christian. „Arnold von Lübeck und die Slaven.“ In Die Chronik Arnolds von Lübeck. Neue Wege zu ihrem Verständnis, eds. Stephan Freund and Bernd Schütte, pp. 191–202. Frankfurt/M.: Lang, 2008. Lübke, Christian. „Germania Slavica  – Die Entstehung eines historiographischen Konzeptes in der deutschen Geschichtswissenschaft.“ In The Reception of Medieval Europe in the Baltic Sea Region, ed. Jörn Staecker, pp. 381–96. Visby: Gotland University Press, 2009. Lübke, Christian. „Sprache als Quelle historischer Forschung. Überlegungen zur Aneignung des Raumes in der slavischen Frühgeschichte.“ In Neue Wege der Früh­ mittelalterforschung – Bilanz und Perspektiven, eds. Walter Pohl et al., pp. 323–37. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2018. Lüpke, Siegfried. Die Markgrafen der Sächsischen Ostmarken in der Zeit von Gero bis zum Beginn des Investiturstreites (940–1075). Halle/S.: Frommhold & Wendler, 1937. Lukin, Pavl’ V. „Vostochnoslavianskie ‘plemena’ v russkikh letopisiakh: istoricheskaja pamiat’ i realnost’.“ In Obrazy proshlogo i kollektivnaia identichnost’ v Evrope do nachala novogo vremeni, ed. Lorina P. Repina, pp. 257–85. Moscow: Krug’, 2003. Lukin, Pavel. “The Veche and the ‘Council of Lords’ in Medieval Novgorod.” Russian History 41 (2014), pp. 458–503. Lund, Allan A. „Die Erfindung Germaniens und die Entdeckung Skandinaviens in Antike und Mittelalter.“ In Ultima Thule. Bilder des Nordens von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart, eds. Annelore Engel-Braunschmidt et al., pp. 29–46. Frankfurt: Lang, 2001. Lunt, Horace G. “On Common Slavic.” Zbornik Matice sprske za filologiju i lingvistiku 27–28 (1984/85), pp. 17–422. Lunt, Horace G. “Linguistic Problems in Old Rus.” Slavic Review 44 (1985), pp. 707–12. Lunt, Horace G. “Common Slavic, Proto-Slavic, Pan-Slavic: what are we talking about?” International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 41 (1997), pp. 7–67. Lustigová, Martina. “Karel Kramář a jeho slovanská politika.” In Slovanství ve středoevropském prostoru. Iluze, deziluzje a realita. Pardubická konference (22.–24. dubna 2004), eds. Dominik Hrodek et al., pp. 145–55. Prague: Libri, 2004. Lutovský, Michal. „Der Verlauf der Zentralisierungsprozesse im frühmittelalterlichen Böhmen.“ In Zentralisierungsprozesse und Herrschaftsbildung im frühmittelalterlichen Ostmitteleuropa, ed. Przemysław Sikorski, pp. 93–125. Bonn: Habelt, 2014.

504

Bibliography

Lutovský, Michal and Zdeněk Petráň. Slavníkovci. Mýtus českého dějepisectví. Prague: Nakladatelství Libri, 2005. Łużny, Ryszard. Myśl słowiańska Jana Pawła II. Zbiór artykułów. Lublin: Wydawnictwo Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego, 2008. Lyon, Jonathan R. and Lisa Wolverton. “The deeds of Margrave Wiprecht of Groitzsch (d. 1124).” In Noble society. Five lives from twelfth-century Germany, eds. Jonathan R. Lyon, pp. 22–91. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2017. Macevko, Irina. “Pol’ski nacional’ni demokrati i neoslavizm (1907–1910).” Visnyk L’vivs’koho Universytetu. Serija istorychna 35/36 (2000), pp. 221–37. Macháček, Jiri. Pohansko bei Břeclav. Ein frühmittelalterliches Zentrum als sozialwirtschaftliches System. Bonn: Habelt, 2007. Macháček, Jiří. “Disputes over Great Moravia: chiefdom or state? The Morava or the Tisza–River?” Early Medieval Europe 17 (2009), pp. 248–67. Macháček, Jiří. The Rise of Medieval Towns and States in East Central Europe. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Macháček, Jiří et al. “Runes from Lány (Czech Republic)  – The oldest inscription among Slavs. A new standard for multidisciplinary analysis of runic bones”. In Journal of Archaeological Science 127 (2021), 105333. Maćkowiak, Krzysztof. U źródeł polskiej świadomości językowej (X–XV wiek). Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznańskie, 2011. Madgearu, Alexandru. The Asanids. The Political and Military History of the Second Bulgarian Empire (1185–1280). Leiden: Brill, 2017. Madunić, Domagoj. “Strategies of distinction in the work of Vinko Pribojević.” In Whose love of which country? Composite states, national histories and patriotic discourses in early modern East Central Europe, eds. Balázs Trencsényi and Marton Zászkalicky, pp. 177–202. Boston: Brill, 2010. Maher, Peter J. “The Ethnonym of the Slavs – Common Slavic *Slovene.” The Journal of Indo-European Studies 2 (1974), pp. 143–56. Maissen, Anna Pia. Wie ein Blitz schlägt es aus meinem Mund. Der Illyrismus: Die Hauptschriften der kroatischen Nationalbewegung 1830–1844. Bern: Lang, 1998. Maj, Małgorzata. “The Myth of Slavic Unity.” In Search of Paradigm, ed. Anna Zambrzycka-Kunachowicz, pp. 41–52. Cracow: Wydawnictwo Platan, 1992. Majeska, George P. “The Byzantines on the Slavs: On the problem of Ethnic Stereo­ typing.” Acta Byzantina Fennica 9 (1997/98), pp. 70–86. Majeska, George P. “Patriarch Photius and the Conversion of Rus’.” Russian History 32 (2005), pp. 413–18. Majnarić, Ivan. “Papa i svjetoni vladar na izmaku karolinškog doba. Primjer splitskih sinoda dvadesetih godina 10. stoljeća.” Zbornik Odsjeka za povijesne znanosti Zavoda 28 (2010), pp. 5–16.

Bibliography

505

Majnarić, Ivan. “Nobility of the Croatian Kingdom between Zadar and Its Hinterland during the Late 14th and Early 15th Centuries.” In Towns and Cities of the Croatian Middle Ages. Authority and Property, eds. Irena Benyovsky Latin and Zrinka Pešorda Vardić, pp. 209–35. Zagreb: Hrvatski Inst. za Povijest, 2014. Majnarić, Ivan. “Kasnosrednjovjekovna obiteljska struktura hrvatskoga plemstva.” Povijesni prilozi 48 (2015), pp. 7–31. Majnarić, Ivan [2018a]. “Aemulatio imperii and the south-eastern frontier of the Carolingian world.” In Imperial Spheres and the Adriatic. Byzantium, the Carolingians and the Treaty of Aachen (812), eds. Mladen Ančić et al., pp. 43–56. London: Routledge, 2018. Majnarić, Ivan [2018b]. “In the shadows of empires: Early medieval Croatia in the ninth and tenth centuries.” History Compass [16:e12462. https://doi.org/10.1111/hic3.12462: 17.1.2019]. Makarov, Nikolaj A. “Traders in the Forest: The Northern Periphery of Rus’ in the Medieval Trade Network.” In Pre-Modern Russia and Its World, eds. Kathryn L. Reyerson et al., pp. 115–33. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2006. Makk, Ferenc. The Árpáds and the Comneni. Political relations between Hungary and Byzantium in the 12th century. Budapest: Akad. Kiadó, 1989. Makowski, Krzysztof A. and Lech Trzeciakowski. “Two Polish Voices on Pan-Slavism in the mid-19th Century: Karol Libelt and Jan Koźmian.” In Approaches to Slavic Unity. Austro-Slavism, Pan-Slavism, Neo-Slavism, and Solidarity Among the Slavs Today, eds. Krzysztof A. Makowski and Frank Hadler, pp. 47–58. Poznań: Instytut Historii Uniwersytetu Adama Mickiewicza, 2013. Maksimovich, Kiril A. Zakon sudnyi liudem. Istochnikovedcheskie i lingvisticheskie aspekty issledovaniia slavianskogo juridicheskogo pamiatnika. Moscow: Drevlechra­ nilishche, 2004. Maksimović, Ljubomir. “L’idéologie du souverain dans l’État serbe et la construction de Studenica.” In Studenica i vizantijska umetnost oko 1200. Godine. Međunarodni Naučni Skup, ed. Vojislav Kopać, pp. 35–49. Belgrade: Srpska akademija nauka i umetnosti, 1988. Maksimović, Ljubomir. “The Christianization of the Serbs and the Croats.” In The Legacy of Saints Cyril and Methodius to Kiev and Moscow. Proceedings of the International Congress on the Millenium of the Conversion of Rus’ to Christianity, ed. A.E. Tachiaos, pp. 167–84. Thessaloniki: Hellenic Assoc. for Slavic Studies, 1992. Maksimović, Ljubomir. „Das Kanzleiwesen der serbischen Herrscher.“ In Kanzleiwesen und Kanzleisprachen im östlichen Europa, ed. Christian Hannick, pp. 25–53. Cologne: Böhlau, 1999. Maksimović, Ljubomir. „Byzantinische Herrscherideologie und Regierungsmethoden im Falle Serbien. Ein Beitrag zum Verständnis des byzantinischen Commonwealth.“

506

Bibliography

In Polypleuros nus. Miscellanea für Peter Schreiner zu seinem 60. Geburtstag, eds. Cordula Scholz and Georgios Makris, pp. 174–92. Munich, Leipzig: Saur, 2000. Maksimović, Ljubomir. “Serbia’s View of the Byzantine World (1204–1261).” In Identities and Allegiances in the Eastern Mediterranean after 1204, eds. Judith Herrin and Guillaume Saint-Guillain, pp. 121–32. Farnham, Burlington: Ashgate, 2011. Maleczyńska, Ewa. Ruch husycki w Czechach i w Polsce. Warsaw: Książka i Wiedza, 1959. Malingoudi, Jana. Die russisch-byzantinischen Verträge des 10. Jhds. aus diplomatischer Sicht. Thessaloniki: Vanias, 1994. Malingoudis, Phaedon. „Die Institution des Župans als Problem der frühslavischen Geschichte. Einige Bemerkungen.“ Cyrillomethodianum 2 (1972/73), pp. 61–76. Malingoudis, Phaedon. Die mittelalterlichen kyrillischen Inschriften der Hämus-Halbinsel. Teil 1: Die bulgarischen Inschriften. Thessaloniki: Assoc. Hellénique d’Études Slaves, 1979. Malingoudis, Phaedon. Studien zu den slavischen Ortsnamen Griechenlands. Volume 1: Slavische Flurnamen aus der messinischen Mani. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1981. Malingoudis, Phaedon. “Toponymy and History. Observations concerning the Slavonic toponymy of the Peleponnes.” Cyrillomethodianum 7 (1983), pp. 99–111. Malingoudis, Phaedon. „Frühe slawische Elemente im Namengut Griechenlands.“ In Die Völker Südosteuropas im 6. bis 8. Jahrhundert, ed. Bernhard Hänsel, pp. 53–68. Berlin: Südosteuropa-Gesellschaft, 1987. Malingoudis, Phaedon. “Zur sozialen und ethnischen Assimilierung der Slaven in Byzanz: der Fall der Rhemdakioi.” Godišnik na Sofijskija – Centar za slavino-vizantijski proučvanija ‘Ivan Dujčev’ 87 (1994), pp. 13–20. Malinovska, Nora. “Vývoj koncepcie Sclavinia v 12. storoči a jej reflexia v pol’skej kronike Galla Anonyma.” Nové historické rozhľady 5 (2015), 1, pp. 43–53. Malý, Karel. „Der böhmische Staat: Ein Teil des Reiches?“ In Reiche und Territorien in Ostmitteleuropa, eds. Dietmar Willoweit and Hans Lemberg, pp. 163–70. Munich: de Gruyter, 2006. Mamzer, Henryk. Studia nad metalurgią żelaza na terenie północno-wschodniej Bułgarii we wczesnym średniowieczu. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, 1988. Mańczak, Witold. Praojczyzna Słowian. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, 1981. Mandić, Dominik. “Croatian King Tomislav defeated Bulgarian Emperor Symeon the Great on May 27, 927.” Journal of Croatian Studies 1 (1960), pp. 32–43. Mangelsdorf, Günter. „Slawisch-deutsche Beziehungen im Lichte mittelalterarchäologischer Forschung in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern.“ In Slawen und Deutsche im südlichen Ostseeraum vom 11.–16. Jahrhundert, ed. Michael Müller-Wille, pp. 29–42. Neumünster: Wachholtz, 1995. Mar’ina, Valentina V. “Slavianskaia ideia v gody vtoroi mirovoi voiny (k voprosy o politicheskoi funkcii).” In Slavianskii vopros. Vekhi istorii, eds. Elena P. Aksenova et al., pp. 169–81. Moscow: Institut Slavistiki i Balkanistiki, 1997.

Bibliography

507

Marani-Moravová, Běla. Peter von Zittau. Abt, Diplomat und Chronist der Luxemburger. Ostfildern: Thorbecke, 2019. Marciniak, Ryszard. “Zachodniopomorska legenda etnogenetyczna w średniowieczu.” Materiały Zachodniopomorskie 19 (1973), pp. 511–27. Mareš, František V. “Z badań nad staro-cerkievno-słowiańskim tekstem Apostoła.” Zeszyty Uniwersitetu Jagiellońskiego. Prace Językoznawcze 24 (1960), 3, pp. 275–77. Mareš, František V. “Die Anfänge des slavischen Schrifttums und die byzantinischgriechische Literatur.” Cyrillomethodianum 3 (1975), pp. 1–12. Mareš, František V. “Rannee svidetel’stvo teorii o skifskom proischozhdenii slavian na Rusi i na Balkanach.” Cyrillomethodianum 8–9 (1984/85), pp. 37–47. Mareš, František Václav. “Církevněslovanské písemnictví v Čechách.” In Mareš, František Václav. Cyrilometodějská tradice a slavistika, pp. 256–327. Prague: Torst, 2000. Margetić, Lujo. “Konstantin Porfirogenet i vrijeme dolaska Hrvata.” Zbornik historijskog zavoda Jugoslavenske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti 8 (1977), pp. 5–88. Margetić, Lujo. “Historia Salonitana i Historia Salonitana Maior  – neka pitanja.” Historijski zbornik 47 (1994), 1, pp. 1–36. Margetić, Lujo. “Neka pitanja etnogeneze Hrvata.” Radovi Zavoda za hrvatsku povijest 28 (1995), pp. 19–55. Margetić, Lujo. O Bašćanskoj ploči. Krk: Povijesno Društvo Otoka Krka, 1997. Margetić, Lujo. “The Croatian State during the Era of Rulers from the Croatian National Dynasty.” In Croatia in the Early Middle Ages. A Cultural Survey, ed. Ivan Supičić, pp. 197–214. London: Wilson, 1999. Margetić, Lujo. Dolazak Hrvata/Ankunft der Kroaten. Split: Književni Krug, 2001. Maritsch, Dragomir. Papstbriefe an serbische Fürsten im Mittelalter. Kritische Studien. Sremski Karlovci: Serbische Kloster Buchdruckerei, 1933. Marjanović-Dušanić, Smilja and Dragan Vojvodić. “The Model of Empire – The Idea and Image of Authority in Serbia (1299–1371).” In Sacral Art of the Serbian Lands in the Middle Ages, eds. Dragan Vojvodić and Danica Popović, pp. 299–315. Belgrade: Serbian National Committe of Byzantine Studies, 2016. Markopoulos, Athanasios. „Das Bild des Anderen bei Laonikos Chalkokondyles und das Vorbild Herodot.“ Jahrbuch der österreichischen Byzantinistik 50 (2000), pp. 205–16. Marković, Predag. “The Frankopan Counts of Krk and the Reflections of the ‘1400 style’ on the Periphery of the Kingdom.” In Art and Architecture around 1400. Global and Regional Perspectives, eds. Marjeta Ciglenečki and Polona Vidmar, pp. 31–39. Maribor: Faculty of Arts of the University of Maribor, 2012. Marquart, Josef. Osteuropäische und ostasiatische Streifzüge. Ethnologische und historisch-topographische Studien zur Geschichte des 9. und 10. Jahrhunderts. Leipzig: Dieterich, 1903.

508

Bibliography

Marti, Roland. “Uneasy Neighbourhood: Reflexes of Slavo-Byzantine Relations in Slavonic Historiography (with Special Reference to Thessalonike).” In Kyrillos kai Methodios: To Byzantio kai o kosmos tōn Slabōn/Cyril and Methodius: Byzantium and the world of the Slavs. International Scientific Conference, pp. 799–810. Thessaloniki: Ekd. Dēmu Thessalonikēs, 2015. Martin, Janet. Medieval Russia, 980–1584. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Marturano, Aldo C. “La Veche novgorodese dopo la ‘rivoluzione’ del 1136 d. C.” In Mirabilia. Revista Electronica de Historia Antiga e Medieval 8 (2009), pp. 169–81. Martyniuk, Aleksei V. “Vostochnaia Evropa serediny XV veka v sochinenii Laonika Chalkokondila.” In Alba Ruscia: belorusskie zemli na perekrestke kul’tur i civilizacii (X–XVI vv.), ed. Aleksei V. Martyniuk, pp. 122–43. Moscow: Kvadriga, 2015. Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels. Werke. Volume 6. Berlin: Dietz, 1968. Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels. Werke. Volume 8. Berlin: Dietz, 1969. Masiakowska, Dorota. „Die Infamie der Diffamie  – Zur Abwertung der Slawen bei Ernst Moritz Arndt und August Wilhelm Schlegel.“ In Die Kunst der Infamie. Vom Sängerkrieg zum Medienkrieg, ed. Hubertus Fischer, pp. 169–200. Frankfurt/M.: Lang, 2003. Matęglewicz, Tomasz. “Stanisława Staszica myśl słowianofilska w latach 1814–1815.” Slavia Occidentalis 64 (2007), pp. 213–25. Matešića, Josipa. “Das Erbe Kyrills und Methods bei den Kroaten am Beispiel des (kroatischen) Glagolismus.” In Symposium Methodianum. Beiträge der Internationalen Tagung in Regensburg (/17. bis 24. April 1985) zum Gedenken an den 1100. Todestag des hl. Method, eds. Klaus Trost et al., pp. 431–35. Neuried: Hieronymus, 1988. Matijević-Sokol, Mirjana [1999a]. Hrvatska i Nin u doba kneza Branimira. Zagreb: Hrvatski Studiji Sveučilišta, 1999. Matijević-Sokol, Mirjana [1999b]. “Latin Inscriptions.” In Croatia in the Early Middle Ages, ed. Ivan Supičić, pp. 239–56. London: Wilson, 1999. Matijević-Sokol, Mirjana. “Archdeacon Thomas of Split (1200–1268) – a source of early Croatian history.” Review of Croatian History 2 (2007), pp. 251–69. Matl, Josef. Europa und die Slaven. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1964. Matla-Kozłowska, Marzena. Pierwsi Przemyślidzi i ich państwo (od X do połowy XI wieku). Ekspansja terytorialna i jej polityczne uwarunkowania. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznańskie, 2008. Matla-Kozlowska, Marzena. „Eine ‚Wirtschaftskrise‘ und die Staatsbildung der Premys­ liden im 10. und in der ersten Hälfte des 11. Jahrhunderts.“ In Wirtschaftskrisen als Wendepunkte. Ursachen, Folgen und historische Einordnungen vom Mittelalter bis zur Gegenwart, eds. Dariusz Adamczyk and Stephan Lehnstedt, pp. 263–88. Osnabrück: Fibre, 2015.

Bibliography

509

Matula, Vladimír. “Kollárovská a štúrovská koncepcia Slovanstva a slovanskej vzájomnosti.” In Štúdie z dejín svetovej slavistiky do polovice 19. storočia, ed. Jozef Hrozienčik, pp. 259–88. Bratislava: Vydavatelstvo Slovenskej Akadémie Vied, 1978. Matuszewski, Józef. “Artykuły słowiańskie Zwierciadła Saskiego.” Czasopismo PrawnoHistoryczne 1 (1948), pp. 25–74. Maurer, Michael. Johann Gottfried Herder. Leben und Werk. Cologne: Böhlau, 2014. Mavromaitis, Leonidas. La fondation de l‘Empire serbe. Le kralj Milutin. Thessalonica: Kentron Byzantinōn Ereynōn, 1978. Mavromaitis, Leonidas. “King Milutin and His Many Marriages.” In Portraits of Medieval Eastern Europe, 900–1400, eds. Donald Ostrowsky and Christian Raffensperger, pp. 109–20. London, New York: Routledge, 2018. Maxwell, Alexander. “Ján Kollár’s Literary Nationalism.” In Reciprocity Between the Various Tribes of the Slavic Nation, ed. Alexander Maxwell, pp. 1–67. Bloomington: Slavica, 2008. Maxwell, Alexander. “The Legacy of Slavic Reciprocity in the First Czechoslovak Republic.” In Post-Panslavismus. Slavizität, slavische Idee und Antislavismus im 20. und 21. Jahrhundert, Geds. Agnieszka Gąsior et al., pp. 69–78. Göttingen: Wallstein, 2014. Mazer, Henryk. “Z problemów socjogenezy pierwszego państwa bułgarskiego (681–1018).” In Geneza i funkcjonowanie wczesnych form państwowości na tle porównawczym, eds. Michał Tymowski and Mariusz Ziółkowski, pp. 97–116. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, 1992. McCormick, Michael. Origins of the European Economy. Communications and Commerce, A.D. 300–900. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. McDaniel, Gordon L. “On Hungarian-Serbian Relations in the Thirtheenth Century.” Ungarn-Jahrbuch 12 (1982/83), pp. 3–50. Međunarodni naučni skup Sava Nemanjić  – Sveti Sava. Istorija i predanje. Decembar 1976, ed. Vojislav Đurić, pp. Belgrade: Srpska Akademiia Nauka i Umetnosti, 1979. Meier, Mischa. Geschichte der Völkerwanderung. Europa, Asien und Afrika vom 3. bis zum 8. Jahrhundert n.Chr. Munich: C.H. Beck, 2019. Meillet, Antoine. “De l’unité slave.” Revue des études slaves 1 (1921), pp. 7–14. Mel’nikov, Gennadii P. „Ideia slavianskoi obshchnosti v cheskoi mysli srednevekov’ia.“ In Slavianskie literatury kul’tura i fol’klor slavianskikh narodov. XII mezhdunarodnyi s-ezd slavistov (Krakov 1998). Doklady rossiiskoi delegacii, pp. 304–20. Moscow: Nauka, 1998. Mel’nikov, Gennadii P. “Imperskoe i cheskoe v koncepzii vlasti Karla IV.” In Anfologion: Vlast’, obshchestvo, kul’tura v slavianskom mire ve srednie veka, pp. 161–69. Moscow: Indrik, 2008.

510

Bibliography

Mel’nikova, Elena A. “The Lists of Old Norse Personal Names in the Russian-Byzantine Treaties of the Tenth Century.” Tidskrift för nordisk personnamnsforskning 22 (2004), pp. 5–27. Melnikova, Elena A. “Mental Maps of the Old Russian chronicle-writer of the early twelfth century.” In From Goths to Varangians. Communication and Cultural Exchange between the Baltic and the Black Sea, eds. Line Bjerg et al., pp. 317–40. Aarhus: University Press, 2013. Mel’nikova, Elena A. “The Acculturation of Scandinavians in Early Rus’ as Reflected by Language and Literacy.” In Vers l’Orient et vers l’Occident. Regards croisés sur les dynamiques et les transferts culturels des Vikings à la Rous ancienne, eds. Pierre Baudin and Aleksandr E. Musin, pp. 363–76. Caen: Presses Universitaires, 2014. Melnikova, Elena A. “Rhosia and the Rus in Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos’ De administrando imperio.” In Byzantium and the Viking World, eds. Fedir Androshchuk et al., pp. 315–36. Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet, 2016. Mel’nikova, Elena A. “Skandinavy v Vostochnoi Evrope: ot stikhiinogo potoka k gosudarstvennomu regulirovaniiu.” Rossiiskaia istoriia 4 (2019), pp. 66–81. Menzel, Josef Joachim. „Akzeptanz des Fremden in der mittelalterlichen deutschen Ostsiedlung.“ In Toleranz im Mittelalter, eds. Alexander Patschovsky and Harald Zimmermann, pp. 207–19. Sigmaringen: Thorbecke, 1998. Menzel, Michael. “Der Wendenkreuzzug und die sächsischen Fürsten.” Jahrbuch für brandenburgische Landesgeschichte 66 (2015), pp. 9–28. Meouak, Mohamed. Ṣaqāliba, eunuques et esclaves à la conquête du pouvoir. Géographie et histoire des élites politiques ‚marginales‘ dans l’Espagne umayyade. Helsinki: Acad. Scientiarum Fennica, 2004. Merhautová, Anežka and Dušan Třeštík. „Spezifische Züge der böhmischen Kunst im 12. Jahrhundert.“ In Architektur des Mittelalters. Funktion und Gestalt, eds. Friedrich Möbius and Ernst Schubert, pp. 105–40. Weimar: Böhlau, 1984. Měřínský, Zdeněk. „Die Zentren Großmährens.“ In Velká Morava mezi východem a západem/Großmähren zwischen West und Ost, eds. Luděk Galuška et al., pp. 297–304. Brno: Archeologický ústav AVČR, 2001. Mesiarkin, Adam. “Examining the Slavic Identity in the Middle Ages: Perception of Common Sense of Slavic Community in Polish and Bohemian Medieval Chronicles.” Studia Ceranea 3 (2013), pp. 83–100. Mesiarkin, Adam. “Od kiedy Czech, Lech i Rus stali się braćmi?” In Rurykowicze w świecie powiązań dynastycznych: Polityka, obyczajowość, kultura, religia (X–XVI w.), ed. Vitaliy Nagirnyy, pp. 33–37. Cracow: Jagiellonian University, 2014. Mesiarkin, Adam. “The Name of the Slavs: Etymology and Meaning.” SSBP 1/21 (2017), pp. 3–20. Meyendorff, John. “Cultural Ties: Byzantium, the Southern Slavs and Russia.” In The Expansion of Orthodox Europe. Byzantium, the Balkans and Russia, ed. Jonathan Shepard, pp. 447–72. Aldershot: Ashgate Variorum, 2007.

Bibliography

511

Meyer, Heinz. Die Enzyklopädie des Bartholomäus Anglicus. Untersuchungen zur Überlieferungs- und Rezeptionsgeschichte von ‚De proprietatis rerum‘. Munich: Fink, 2000. Meyer, Henry Cord. Drang nach Osten. Fortunes of a Slogan-concept in German Slavic Relations, 1849–1990. Bern: Lang, 1996. Michałowski, Roman [2005a]. “Relacja Galla Anonima o zjeździe Gnieźnieńskim  – problem wiarygodności.” In Tekst źródła. Krytyka, interpretacja, ed. Barbara Trelińska, pp. 57–64. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo DiG, 2005. Michałowski, Roman [2005b]. Zjazd Gnieźnieński. Religijne przesłanki powstania arcybiskupstwa Gnieźnieńskiego. Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego, 2005. Michałowski, Roman. “Chrystianizacja monarchii piastowskiej w X–XI wieku.” In Animarum cultura. Studia nad kulturą religijną na ziemiach polskich w średniowieczu. Tom 1: Struktury kościelno-publiczne, eds. Halina Manikowska and Wojciech Brojer, pp. 11–49. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Instytutu Historii PAN, 2008. Michalska, Monika. “Niecni Słowianie, wyimaginowany fundator, benedyktyni i dzik. Tradycja klasztoru cystersów w Pforcie do końca XV w.” KH 126 (2019), pp. 213–52. Michalski, Maciej. Dawni Słowianie w tradycji polskiej pierwszej połowy XIX wieku. W poszukiwaniu tożsamości współnotowej. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznańskie, 2013. Michas, Uwe. „Die frühslawische Besiedlung des Berliner Raums.“ In Die frühen Slawen – von der Expansion zu gentes und nationes. Volume 1: Beiträge zum Schwerpunktthema, eds. Felix Biermann et al., pp. 145–152. Langenweißbach: Beier & Beran, 2016. Mihaljčić, Rade. Lazar Hrebeljanović. Istorija, kult, predanje. Belgrade: Nolit, 1984. Mikulka, Jaromir. Polské země a herese v době před reformací. Prague: Ústav dějin Východni Evropy ČSAV, 1969. Mikulka, Jaromir. „Zur Frage nach Kaiser Karls IV. ‚Slawentum‘ und zum ‚slawischen‘ Programm seiner Politik.“ Jahrbuch für die Geschichte des Feudalismus 4 (1980), pp. 173–85. Milkova, Fani. „Zakonodatelstvo na Chan Krum.“ In Bălgarija 1300. Institucii u dărzhavna tradiciia. Tom 2, pp. 235–44. Sofia: Bălg. istor. družestvo, 1983. Milliman, Paul. ‘The Slippery Memory of Men’. The Place of Pomerania in the Medieval Kingdom of Poland. Leiden, Bosten: Brill, 2013. Milojković-Djurić, Jelena. Panslavism and National Identity in Russia and in the Balkans 1830–1880. Images of the Self and Others, pp. 54–95. Boulder, New York: Columbia University Press, 1996. Miltenov, Yavor. “A Note on the Adoptation of the Byzantine Models in Medieval Bulgaria (9th–10th Centuries). The Case of the Chrysorrhoas Collection.” Studia Ceranea 7 (2017), pp. 161–67. Miltenova, Anisava L. “The Uprising of Petăr Deljan (1040–1041) in a New Old Bulgarian Source.” Byzantinobulgarica 8 (1986), pp. 227–40.

512

Bibliography

Miltenova, Anisava L. “Vremeto na car Samuil v srednovekovnata bălgarska literatura.” In Evropejskiiat jugoiztok prez vtorata polovina na X–nachaloto na XI vek. Istoriia i kultura, eds. Vasil Giuzelev and Georgi N. Nikolov, pp. 639–64. Sofia: Voenno, 2015. Mincev, Georgi. “Remarks in the Letter of the Patriarch Theophylact to Tsar Peter in the Context of Certain Byzantine and Slavic Anti-heretic Texts.” Studia Ceranea 3 (2013), pp. 113–30. Minceva, Angelina. „Linguistische Aspekte der Übersetzung von Symeons ‚Zlatostruj‘. Präliminarien.“ In Studien zur Literatur und Kultur Osteuropas, eds. Hans-Bernd Harder and Hans Rothe, pp. 171–83. Cologne, Vienna: Böhlau, 1983. Minchev, Georgi and Malgozhata Skovronek. “Svedenia o dualisticheskikh eresiakh i iazycheskikh verovaniiakh v Shestodneve Ioanna Ėkzarcha.” Studia Ceranea 4 (2014). pp. 95–123. Miquel, André. “L’Europe occidentale dans la relation arabe d’Ibrahim b. Ya‌ʾquv (Xe s.).” Annales 21 (1966), pp. 1048–64. Mishin, Dmitrij. “Ibrahim ibn-Ya‌ʾqub at-Turtushi’s Account of the Slavs from the Middle of the Tenth Century.” Annual of Medieval Studies at the CEU 1994–1995 (1996), pp. 184–99. Mishin, Dmitrii E. “Nemcy, saksy i sakaliba u al-Masʾudi.” In Slaviane i ikh sosedi. Vypusk 10: Slaviane i kochevoi mir, pp. 136–43. Moscow: Nauka, 2001. Mishin, Dmitrii E. Sakaliba (slavjane) v islamskom mire v rannee srednevekov’e. Moscow: Kraft+, 2002. Mišić, Siniša. Humska zemlja u srednjem veku. Belgrade: DBR Internat. Publ., 1996. Miśkiewiczowa, Maria. „Słowianie w Europie wcześniejszego średniowiecza. Wprowad­ zenie.“ In Słowianie w Europie wcześniejszego średniowiecza. Katalog wystawy., ed. Maria Miśkiewiczowa, pp. 7–13. Warsaw: Państwowe Muzeum Archeologiczne, 1998. Mitewa-Michalkowa, Rumjana. “Aufstieg und Fall der Slawischen Idee. Das Slawische Komitee in Bulgarien 1944–1951.” In Gemeinsam einsam. Die Slawische Idee nach dem Panslawismus, eds. Agnieszka Gąsior et al., pp. 153–61. Berlin: Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag, 2009. Mittelalter im Labor: Die Mediävistik testet Wege zu einer transkulturellen Europa­ wissenschaft, eds. Michael Borgolte et al., Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 2008. Mitterauer, Michael. „Slawischer und bayerischer Adel am Ausgang der Karolingerzeit.“ Carinthia I 150 (1960), pp. 693–726. Mitterauer, Michael. „Wirtschaft und Verfassung in der Zollordnung von Raffelstetten.“ Mitteilungen des Oberösterreichischen Landesarchivs 8 (1964), pp. 344–73. Modzelewski, Karol. “Czy opole istniało?” PH 92 (2001), 2, pp. 161–85. Modzelewski, Karol. Barbarzyńska Europa, Warsaw: Iskry, 2004. Mohr, Andreas. Das Wissen über die Anderen. Zur Darstellung fremder Völker in den fränkischen Quellen der Karolingerzeit. Münster: Waxmann, 2005.

Bibliography

513

Mohrmann, Wolf-Dieter. „Karl IV. und Herzog Albrecht II. von Mecklenburg.“ In Kaiser Karl IV. 1316–1378. Forschungen über Kaiser und Reich, ed. Hans Patze, pp. 353–89. Neustadt, Aisch: Schmidt, 1978. Montgomery, James E. “Serendipity, Resistance, and Multivalency: Ibn Khurradādhbih and his Kitāb al-Masālik wa-l-mamālik.” In On Fiction and Adab in Medieval Arabic Literatur, ed. Philip F. Kennedy, pp. 177–232. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2005. Montgomery, James E. “Mission to the Volga.” In Two Arabic Travel Books, eds. Tim Macintosh-Smith et al., pp. 190–259. New York: New York University Press, 2015. Moraw, Peter. „Böhmen und das Reich im Mittelalter.“ In Reiche und Territorien in Ostmitteleuropa, eds. Dietmar Willoweit and Hans Lemberg, pp. 171–208. Munich: de Gruyter, 2006. Morawiec, Jakub. “Slavs and their Lands in Old Norse Literature.” In Scandinavian Culture in Medieval Poland, eds. Sławomir Moździoch et al., pp. 53–63. Wrocław: Institute of Archeology and Ethnology of the Polish Academy of Sciences, 2013. Moritsch, Andreas. „Der Austroslawismus  – ein verfrühtes Konzept zur politischen Neugestaltung Mitteleuropas.“ In Der Austroslawismus. Ein verfrühtes Konzept zur politischen Neugestaltung Mitteleuropas, ed. Andreas Moritsch, pp. 11–23. Vienna: Böhlau, 1996. Moro, Gotbert. „Zur politischen Stellung Karantaniens im fränkischen und deutschen Reich.“ Südost-Forschungen 22 (1963), pp. 78–96. Moroz-Grzelak, Lilla. “Herderowska filozofia dziejów w ‘przebudzeniu’ narodów słowiańskich.” Sophia 6 (2006), pp. 15–25. Moroz-Grzelak, Lilla. Bracia Słowianie. Wizje wspólnoty a rzeczywistość, pp. 25–85. Warsaw: Slawistyczny Ośrodek Wydawniczy, 2011. Moser, Charles A. “Words and Beginnings in Bulgarian Culture: John Exarch of Bulgaria.” Macedonian Studies 4 (1987), pp. 3–11. Moszyński, Leszek. “Liturgia słowiańska i głagolskie zabytki w Polsce.” Slovo. Časopis Staroslavenskoga Instituta u Zagrebu 21 (1971), pp. 255–73. Moszyński, Leszek. „Zabytki fryzyńskie.“ In SSS 7 (1982), p. 24. Moszyński, Leszek. Die vorchristliche Religion der Slaven im Lichte der slavischen Sprachwissenschaft. Cologne: Böhlau, 1992. Moszyński, Leszek. “Próba nowego spojrzenia na duchowe dziedzictwo krakowskiego głagolityzmu w średniowiecznej Polsce.” In Glagoljica i hrvatski glagolizam, eds. Marija-Ana Dürrigl et al., pp. 309–18. Zagreb: Staroslavenski institut i Krčka biskupija, 2004. Moszyński, Leszek. „Slawische Religion.“ In Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertums­ kunde, eds. Heinrich Beck et al., pp. 94–102. 2nd ed. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2005. Moździoch, Sławomir. “Das mittelalterliche Dorf in Polen im Lichte der archäologischen Forschung.” Ruralia 1 (1996), pp. 282–95.

514

Bibliography

Moździoch, Sławomir. „Archäologische Forschungen zu frühmittelalterlichen Burgen in Schlesien.“ In Frühmittelalterlicher Burgenbau in Mittel- und Osteuropa, eds. Joachim Henning and Alexander T. Ruttkay, pp. 275–91. Bonn: Habelt, 1998. Moździoch, Sławomir. „Archeologiczne ślady kultu pogańskiego na Śląsku wczesnośredniowiecznym.“ In Człowiek, sacrum, środowisko. Miejsca kultu we wczesnym średniowieczu, ed. Sławomir Moździoch, pp. 155–93. Wrocław: Werk, 2000. Moździoch, Sławomir. “Wrocław-Ostrów Tumski in the Early Middle Ages.” In Polish Lands at the Turn of the first and the second Millenia, ed. Przemysław Urbańczyk, pp. 319–38. Warsaw: Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology, Polish Academy of Sciences, 2004. Moździoch, Sławomir. „Oriens ex alto regnum Poloniae visitavit? Christianisierung Polens unter den ersten Piasten im Lichte archäologischer Quellen.“ In Středověká Evropa v pohybu. K poctě Jana Klápště, ed. Ivana Bohácová, pp. 419–48. Prague: Archeologický Ústav AVČR, 2014. Mrozowicz, Wojciech. „Die Polnische Chronik (Polnisch-schlesische Chronik) und die Chronik der Fürsten Polens (Chronica principum Poloniae) als Mittel zur dynastischen Identitätsstiftung der schlesischen Piasten.“ In Legitimation von Fürstendynastien in Polen und dem Reich. Identitätsbildung im Spiegel schriftlicher Quellen (12.–15. Jahrhundert), eds. Grischa Vercamer and Ewa Wółkiewicz, pp. 249–62. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2016. Muceniecks, André. Saxo Grammaticus. Hierocratical Conceptions and Danish Hege­ mony in the Thirteenth Century. Kalamazoo, Bradford: Arc Humanities Press, 2017. Mühle, Eduard. „Die Anfänge Kievs (bis ca. 980) in archäologischer Sicht.“ JfGO 35 (1987) pp. 80–101. Mühle, Eduard [1989a]. „Gnezdovo – das alte Smolensk? Zur Deutung eines Siedlungs­ komplexes des ausgehenden 9. bis beginnenden 11. Jahrhunderts.“ In Oldenburg – Wolin  – Staraja Ladoga  – Novgorod  – Kiev. Handel und Handelsverbindungen im südlichen und östlichen Ostseeraum während des frühen Mittelalters, ed. Michael Müller-Wille, pp. 358–410. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1989. Mühle, Eduard [1989b]. “K voprosu o nachale Kieva.” Voprosy istorii 4 (1989). pp. 118–127. Mühle, Eduard. Die städtischen Handelszentren der nordwestlichen Rus‘. Anfänge und frühe Entwicklung altrussischer Städte (bis gegen Ende des 12. Jahrhunderts). Stuttgart: Steiner, 1991. Mühle, Eduard. „Altmähren oder Moravia? Neue Beiträge zur geographischen Lage einer frühmittelalterlichen Herrschaftsbildung im östlichen Europa.“ ZfO 46 (1997), pp. 205–23. Mühle, Eduard. „Die ostslawische Stadt im 11. Jahrhundert.“ In Die Frühgeschichte der europäischen Stadt im 11. Jahrhundert, eds. Jörg Jarnut and Peter Johanek, pp. 315–57. Cologne: Böhlau, 1998.

Bibliography

515

Mühle, Eduard. „Weltkriegserlebnis an der galizisch-polnischen Ostfront 1914/15. Zur Wahrnehmung des Ostens in Feldpostbriefen des Ostforschers Hermann Aubin.“ ZfO 51 (2002), pp. 529–75. Mühle, Eduard. Für Volk und Deutschen Osten. Der Historiker Hermann Aubin und die deutsche Ostforschung. Düsseldorf: Droste, 2005. Mühle, Eduard. „Cronicae et gesta ducum sive principum Polonorum. Neue Forschungen zum so genannten Gallus Anonymus.“ DA 65 (2009), pp. 459–96. Mühle, Eduard. Die Piasten. Polen im Mittelalter. Munich: C.H. Beck, 2011. Mühle, Eduard [2012a]. “Exul apud vos et peregrinus. Najnowsze badania nad tzw. Gallem Anonimem.” SZ 50 (2012), pp. 87–96. Mühle, Eduard [2012b]. “Władza i przestrzeń w Polsce wczesnopiastowskiej. O przestrzennym konstruowaniu władzy u Galla Anonima.” In Narodziny Rzeczypospolitej. Studia z dziejów średniowiecza i czasów wczesnonowożytnych, eds. Waldemar Bukowski and Tomasz Jurek, pp. 831–47. Cracow: Wydawnictwo­ Towarzystwa Naukowego “Societas Vistulana”, 2012. Mühle, Eduard [2014a]. “Adaptacja antycznego pojęcia ‘res publica’ w Kronice polskiej mistrza Wincentego.” In Ecclesia Regnum Fontes. Studia z dziejów średniowiecza, eds. Sławomir Gawlas et al., pp. 334–45. Warsaw: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, 2014. Mühle, Eduard [2014b]. “Einleitung.” In Die Chronik der Polen des Magisters Vincentius Kadlubek, ed. Eduard Mühle, pp. 13–72. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2014. Mühle, Eduard. Breslau. Geschichte einer europäischen Metropole. Cologne: Böhlau, 2015. Mühle, Eduard. Die Slaven im Mittelalter. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2016. Mühle, Eduard. Die Slawen. Munich: C.H. Beck, 2017. Mühle, Eduard [2018a]. “Inventing Slavic Unity or the Use of a Romantic Concept. The Case of Mikhail P. Pogodin and Joachim Lelewel.” Historia Slavorum Occidentis 4/19 (2018), pp. 94–118. Mühle, Eduard [2018b]. “Kasimir I., Krakau und die Restauration piastischer Herrschaft in den 1040–50er Jahren.” In Das Sakramentar aus Tyniec. Eine Prachthandschrift des 11. Jahrhunderts und die Beziehungen zwischen Köln und Polen in der Zeit Kasimirs des Erneuerers, eds. Klaus Gereon Beuckers and Andreas Bihrer, pp. 243–60. Cologne: Böhlau, 2018. Mühle, Eduard [2019a]. „Der Friede zu Bautzen, die Piasten und das Reich. Deutschpolnische Verflechtungen im frühen 11. Jahrhundert.“ Letopis 66 (2019), pp. 42–53. Mühle, Eduard [2019b]. “The real and perceived influence of minority groups in Poland in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.” Journal of Medieval History 45 (2019), pp. 389–404.

516

Bibliography

Mühle, Eduard [2019c]. „Zur romantischen Deutung und politischen Instrumental­ isierung altslawischer Geschichte. Das Beispiel Joachim Lelewel.“ In Monarchia, społeczeństwo, tożsamość. Studia z dziejów średniowiecza, eds. Katarzyna Gołąbek et al., pp. 547–61, Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, 2019. Mühle, Eduard. “Na ile słowiańskie było polskie średniewiecze?” In Totius mundi Philohistor. Studia Georgio Strzelczyk octuagenario oblata, eds. Adam Krawiec et al., pp. 481–93. Poznań: Uniwersytet Adama Mickiewicza, 2021. Mühlpfordt, Günter. „August Ludwig Schlözer 1735–1809.“ In Wegbereiter der deutschslawischen Wechselseitigkeit, eds. Eduard Winter and Günther Jarosch, pp. 133–56. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1983. Müller, Hans. Die Kunst des Sklavenkaufs nach arabischen, persischen und türkischen Ratgebern vom 10. bis zum 18. Jahrhundert. Freiburg: Schwarz, 1980. Müller-Wille, Michael. „Abodriten, Polaben und Wagrier im Nordwesten der slawischen Welt.“ In Starigard/Oldenburg. Ein slawischer Herrschersitz des frühen Mittelalters in Ostholstein, ed. Michael Müller-Wille, pp. 53–62. Neumünster: Wachholtz, 1991. Müller-Wille, Michael. Opferkulte der Germanen und Slawen, Darmstadt: Wissen­ schaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1999. Mullett, Margaret F. Theophylact of Ochrid. Reading the Letters of a Byzantine Archbishop. Aldershot: Taylor & Francis, 1997. Mund, Stéphane. “Constitution et diffusion d’un savoir occidental sur le mond ‘russe’ au moyen âge (fin Xe–milieu XVe siècle).” Le Moyen Âge 110 (2004), pp. 275–314. Myl’nikov, Aleksandr S. Kartina slavianskogo mira: vzglad iz Vostochnoj Evropy. Ėtnogeneticheskie legendy, dogadki, protogipotezy XVI–nachala XVIII veka. SanktPeterburg: PV, 1996. Myśliński, Kazimierz. “Zachodniosłowiańskie księstwo Stodoran w XII wieku i jego stosunek do Polski.” In Europa  – Slowiańszczyzna  – Polska. Studia ku uczczeniu profesora Kazimierza Tymienieckiego, ed. Czesław Łuczak, pp. 245–58. Poznań: Uniwersytet Adama Mickiewicza, 1970. Myśliński, Kazimierz. “Geneza Marchii Brandenburskiej w świetle polityki słowiańskiej magrabiego Albrechta Niedźwiedzia.” Studia Historica Slavo-Germanica 15 (1986), pp. 3–29. Mžik, Hans von. „Osteuropa nach der arabischen Bearbeitung der Γεωγραφικἠ �φήγησις des Klaudius Ptolemaios von Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Ḥuwārismī.“ Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 43 (1936), pp. 161–93. Nagel, Tilman. Staat und Glaubensgemeinschaften im Islam. Geschichte der politischen Ordnungsvorstellungen der Muslime. Volume 1: Von den Anfängen bis ins 13. Jahrhundert. Zürich, Munich: Artemis & Winkler, 1981. Nalepa, Jerzy. “O pierwotnych siedzibach Słowian w świetle nowszych badań archeologicznych, lingwistycznych i historycznych.” SA 48 (2007), pp. 1–96; 50 (2009), pp. 23–200.

Bibliography

517

Narrativy rusi konca XV–serediny XVIII v.: v poiskakh svoei istorii, ed. Andrej V. Doronin. Moscow: ROSSPĖN, 2018. Nastalska-Wiśnicka, Joanna. Rex martyr. Studium źródłoznawcze nad legendą hagiograficzną św. Wacława (X–XIV w.). Lublin: Werset, 2010. Naumov, Evgenii P. “Slavianskie strany v zapadnoevropeiskoi publicistike XIV v.” In Slaviane i zapad. Sbornik statei k 70-letiiu I.F. Bėlzy, pp. 215–26. Moscow: Nauka, 1975. Naumov, Evgenij P. „Slawische Aristokratie und Kirche in den byzantischen Provinzen und den frühfeudalen Nachbarstaaten.“ Jahrbuch für Geschichte des Feudalismus 6 (1982), pp. 109–16. Naumov, Evgenii P. „Processy razvitiia ėtnicheskogo samosoznaniia v Serbii i Bosnii v XII–XIV vv.“ In Razvitie ėtnicheskogo samosoznaniia slavianskikh narodov v ėpochu zrelogo feodalizma, eds. Gennadii G. Litavrin and Viacheslav V. Ivanov, pp. 94–117. Moscow: Nauka, 1989. Nazarenko, Aleksandr V. Drevniaia Rus’ na mezhdunarodnykh putiakh. Mezhdis­ ziplinarnye ocherki kul’turnykh, torgovykh, politicheskikh sviazej IX–XII vekov. Moscow: Iazyki Russkoi Kul’tury, 2001. Nazarenko, Aleksandr V. „Vladimir Velikij: krestitel’, stroitel’, nebesnyj ochranitel’ Rusi.“ In Otec Zemli Russkoi. K 1000-letiiu blazhennoi konchiny sviatogo ravnoapostol’nogo kniazia Vladimira, ed. Volodimir Vorob’ev, pp. 6–68. Moscow: Pravoslavnii Sviato-Tikhonovskii gumanitarnii univerzitet, 2015. Nazmi, Ahmad. Commercial Relations between Arabs and Slavs (8th–11th centuries). Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Akademickie Dialog, 1998. Nazor, Anica. “The Glagolitic Script of Croatia.” In Discovering the Glagolitc Script of Croatia, ed. Anica Nazor, pp. 17–30. Zagreb: Erasmus, 2000. Nechutová, Jana. „Von Wenzel bis Adalbert: zwischen den Legenden.“ Bohemia 40 (1999), pp. 54–64. Nechutová, Jana. Die lateinische Literatur des Mittelalters in Böhmen. Cologne: Böhlau, 2007. Neil, Bronwen. “The Introduction of Old Church Slavonic to the First Bulgarian Empire: The Role of SS. Cyrill and Methodius.” In Philomathestatos. Studies in Greek and Byzantine Texts, eds. B. Janssens et al., pp. 455–73. Leuven: Peeters, 2004. Nejedlý, Zdeněk. Dějiny husitského zpěvu. Kniha první: Zpěv předhusitský. 2nd ed. Prague: Paseka, 1954. Nekuda, Vladimir. “Das frühmittelalterliche Dorf in Ostmitteleuropa.” AH 29 (2004), pp. 365–414. Nelson, Janet L. Politics and Ritual in Early Medieval Europe. London: Hambledon, 1986. Nemanja, Stefan – Sveti Simeon Mirotočivi. Istorija i predanje. Međunarodni Naučni Skup septembar 1996, ed. Jovanka Kalić. Belgrade: Srpska Akademia Nauka i Umetnosti, 2000.

518

Bibliography

Nemanja, Stefan – 900 godina od rođenja: 1113 do 2013, ed. Zorica Zlatić Ivković. Gornji Milanovac: Grafoprint, 2014. Nenasheva, Zofia S. “Vopros o slavianskom banke i chudozhestvenno-promyshlennoi vystavke na Prazhskom s-ezde 1908 g.” In Obshchestvenno-politicheskie dvizheniia v Central’noi Evrope v XIX–nachale XX v., pp. 354–63. Moscow: Nauka, 1974. Nenasheva, Zofia S. “Slavianskie obshchestva v Rossi v poslednei chetverti XIX v.” In Rossiiskoe obshchestvo i zarubezhnye slaviane XVIII–nachalo XX veka, ed. Liudmila P. Lapteva, pp. 33–44. Moscow: Inst. lavianovedenija i balkanistiki RAN, 1992. Nenasheva, Zofia S. “Slaviianskie s’ezd 1908 g. v Prage i ego mesto v formirovanii ideologii i programmy neoslavisma.” In Slavanskie s’ezdy XIX–XX vv., eds. Elena P. Aksenova et al., pp. 99–112. Moscow, 1994. Nenasheva, Zofia S. [1998a]. “S’ezd neoslavistov 1908 g. v Prage.” In Slavianskoe dvizhenie XIX–XX vekov. S’ezdy, kongressy, soveshchaniia, manifesty, obrashcheniia, eds. Galina A. Bogatova et al., pp. 171–200. Moscow: Rossiiskaia Akademiia Nauk, 1998. Nenasheva, Zofia S. [1998b]. “Sofiiskii slavianskii s’ezd v 1910 g.” In Slavianskoe dvizhenie XIX–XX vekov. S’ezdy, kongressy, soveshchaniia, manifesty, obrashcheniia, eds. Galina A. Bogatova et al., pp. 200–26. Moscow: Rossiiskaia Akademiia Nauk, 1998. Newman, Anny. Die Chronik des Popen von Duklja – kroatische Fassung. Untersuchung zu Schrift und Sprache. Mannheim: Universität, 1986. Newman, John Paul. “Forging a United Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes: The Legacy of the First World War and the ‘Invalid Question’.” In New Perspectives on Yugoslavia. Key Issues and Controversies, eds. Dejan Djokić and James Ker-Lindsay, pp. 46–61. London, New York: Routledge, 2011. Nikiforov, Konstantin. “The Crisis of the Slavic Idea and Its New Meaning Today.” In Approaches to Slavic Unity. Austro-Slavism, Pan-Slavism, Neo-Slavism, and Solidarity Among the Slavs Today, eds. Krzysztof A. Makowski and Frank Hadler, pp. 163–68. Poznań: Instytut Historii Uniwersytetu Adama Mickiewicza, 2013. Nikiforov, Konstantin. „Russland und die Slavische Idee heute. Moskauer Perspek­ tiven.“ In Post-Panslavismus. Slavizität, slavische Idee und Antislavismus im 20. und 21. Jahrhundert, Geds. Agnieszka Gąsior et al., pp. 127–36. Göttingen: Wallstein, 2014. Nikitin, Sergei A. Slavianskie komitety v Rossii v 1858–1876 godach. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Moskovskogo Universiteta, 1960. Nikodem, Jarosław [2016a]. “Jan Długosz o stosunkach polsko-czeskich w czasach husyckich.” In Jan Długosz (1415–1480). Życie i dzieła, eds. Lidia Korczak et al., pp. 169–82. Cracow: Towarzystwo Wydawnicze “Historia Iagellonica”, 2016. Nikodem, Jarosław [2016b]. “Polskie elity polityczne i problem następstwa tronu w Czechach po śmierci Zygmunta Luksemburgskiego.” In Elity i masy w społeczeństwach Czech i Polski w średniowieczu i wczesnych czasach nowożytnych, eds.

Bibliography

519

Agnieszka Januszek-Sieradzka et al., pp. 217–244. Lublin: Wydawnictwo Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego, 2016. Nikolić, Maja. “The Serbian State in the Work of Byzantine Historian Doucas.” ZRVI 44 (2007), pp. 481–91. Nikolov, Angel. “The Perception of the Bulgarian Past in the Court of Preslav around 900 AD.” In State and Church: Studies in Medieval Bulgaria and Byzantium, eds. Vassil Gjuzelev and Kiril Petkov, pp. 157–71. Sofia: American Research Center, 2011. Nikolov, Angel. “Making a New Basileus. The Case of Symeon of Bulgaria (893–927) Reconsidered.” In Rome, Constantinopel and Newly-Converted Europe. Archaeological and Historical Evidence. Volume 1, eds. Maciej Salamon et al., pp. 101–8. Cracow: Instytut Archeologii i Etnologii PAN, 2012. Nikolov, Angel. “On Basil II’s Cognomen ‘The Bulgar-Slayer’.” In Evropejskiiat jugoiztok prez vtorata polovina na X–nachaloto na XI vek. Istoriia i kultura, eds. Vasil Giuzelev and Georgi N. Nikolov, pp. 6578–84. Sofia: Voenno, 2015. Nikolov, Angel. “Convocatio omni regno: The Council of 893 and its ‘Reflections’ in Contemporary Historiography.” In The Bible in Slavic Tradition, eds. Alexander Kulik et al., pp. 547–60. Leiden: Brill, 2016. Nikolov, Angel. “Franks and Bulgars in the first half of the ninth century.” In Imperial Spheres and the Adriatic. Byzantium, the Carolingians and the Treaty of Aachen (812), eds. Mladen Ančić et al., pp. 84–92. London: Routledge, 2018. Nikolov, Angel. “The Bulgarian Church in the 9th–10th century” In Autocéphalies. L’exercice de l’indépendance dans les Églises slaves orientales: (IXe–XXIe siècle), eds. Marie-Hélène Blanchet et al., pp. 139–47. Rome: Publications de l’École française de Rome, 2021. Nikolov, Georgi N. “State Organisation and Power Hierarchy in the Bulgarian Empire (927–969).” In The Bulgarian State in 927–969. The Epoch of Tsar Peter I., eds. Mirosław J. Leszka and Kirił Marinow, pp. 257–68. Łódź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego, 2018. Nikolov, Stephan. “The pagan Bulgars and Byzantine Christianity in the eight and ninth centuries.” Journal of Historical Sociology 13 (2000), pp. 325–64. Nippel, Wilfried. Griechen, Barbaren und ‚Wilde‘. Alte Geschichte und Sozialanthro­ pologie. Frankfurt/M.: Fischer-Taschenbuch-Verlag, 1990. Nisbet, H. Barry. “Herder’s Conception of Nationhood and its Influence in Eastern Europe.” In The German Lands and Eastern Europe. Essays on the History of ther Social, Cultural and Political Relations, eds. Roger P. Bartlett and Karen Schönwälder, pp. 115–35. Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1999. Nitsche, Peter. „Die Mongolenzeit und der Aufsteig Moskaus (1240–1538).“ In Handbuch der Geschichte Russlands. Volume 1: Von der Kiever Reichsbildung bis zum Moskauer Zartum, ed. Manfred Hellmann, pp. 534–715. Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1981.

520

Bibliography

Nobis operique favete. Studia nad Gallem Anonimem, eds. Andrzej Dąbrówka et al. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Instytutu Badań Literackich PAN, 2017. Nodl, Martin. „Nationalismus und Nationalbewusstsein zu Beginn des 14. Jahrhunderts und Karls Bemühen um ein konfliktfreies Bild des Zusammenlebens von Tschechen und Deutschen in Böhmen.“ In Albrecht, Stefan, ed. 2013, pp. 187–223. Nolte, Claire E. “All For One! One For All! The Federation of Slavic Sokols and the Failure of Neoslavism.” In Constructing Nationalities in East Central Europe, ed. Pieter Judson, pp. 126–40. New York: Berghahn, 2005. Noonan, Thomas S. “When and how Dirhems first reached Russia.” Cahiers du monde russe et soviétique 21 (1980), pp. 401–69. Noonan, Thomas S. The Islamic world, Russia and the Vikings, 750–900. The numismatic evidence. Aldershot: Ashgate, 1998. Nova zraka u europskom svjetlu. Hrvatske zemlje u ranome srednjem vijeku (oko 550–oko 1150), ed. Zrinka Nikolić Jakus. Zagreb: Matica Hrvatska, 2015. Novak, Kristian. Višejezičnost i kolektivni identiteti iliraca. Jezične biografije Dragojle Jarnević, Ljudevita Gaja i Ivana Kukuljevića Sakscinskoga. Zagreb: Srednja Europa, 2012. Novakovich, Bojan. “Sklaviniia Duklia: Ot antichnykh tradicii do vizantiiskikh vliianii.” SSBP 20 (2016), no. 2, pp. 112–35. Nowak, Johannes. Untersuchungen zum Gebrauch der Begriffe populus, gens und natio bei Adam von Bremen und Helmold von Bosau. Münster: Universität, 1971. Nowak, Przemysław. “Regest dokumentu Dagome iudex w świetle najnowszych badań interdyscyplinarnych.” In Spór o początki państwa polskiego. Historiografia, tradycja, mit, propaganda, eds. Wojciech Drelicharz et al., pp. 79–189. Cracow: Towarzystwo Wydawnicze “Historia Iagellonica”, 2017. Oberländer, Erwin. Sowjetpatriotismus und Geschichte. Dokumentation. Cologne: Verlag Wissenschaft und Politik, 1967. Obolensky, Dmitri. The Byzantine Commonwealth. Eastern Europe, 500–1453. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1971. Obolensky, Dmitri. Six Byzantine Portraits. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988. Obšust, Kristijan. Konstrukcija slovenstva u politici i nauci. Stvaranje (sve)slovenskih tradicija, ideološke koncepcije o slovenskom jedinstvu i njihove refleksije. Belgrade: Centar za Alternativno društveno i Kulturno Delovanje, 2013. Odložilik, Otakar. “The privilege of Alexander the Great for the Slavs”. Folia diplomatica 1 (1970), pp. 239–51. Odorico, Paolo. “La lettre de Photius à Boris de Bulgarie.” Byzantinoslavica 54 (1993), pp. 83–88. Oexle, Judith. „Auf der Spur der ‚urbs, qui dicitur Gana‘, der Hauptburg der Daleminzer. Erste archäologische Untersuchungen in der slawischen Befestigung von Hof/ Stauchitz.“ Arbeits- und Forschungsberichte zur sächsischen Bodendenkmalpflege 46 (2004), pp. 253–63.

Bibliography

521

Oikonomides, Nikos. “Emperor of the Romans  – Emperor of the Romania.” In Byzantium and Serbia in the 14th Century/Byzantio kai Serbia kata ton ID’ aiona, pp. 121–28. Athens: Estia, 1996. Oikonomides, Nicolas. „L’archonte de l’Hellade au VIIIe siècle.“ Vizantijskii Vremennik 55 (1998), 2, pp. 111–18. Opelt, Ilona. „Slavenbeschimpfungen in Helmolds Chronik.“ Mittellateinisches Jahr­ buch 19 (1984), pp. 162–69. Osamsto godina povelje bosanskog bana Kulina: 1189–1989, ed. Asim Peco. Sarajevo: Akad. Nauka i Umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine, 1989. Oschema, Klaus. Bilder von Europa im Mittelalter. Ostfildern: Thorbecke, 2013. Osięgłowski, Janisław. “Początki słowiańskiej Rugii do roku 1168 (Zagadnienia etniczne i polityczne).” Materiały Zachodniopomorskie 13 (1967), pp. 239–87. Osięgłowski, Janisław. Polityka zewnętrzna księstwa Rugii (1169–1328). Warsaw, Poznań: PWN, 1975. Osiński, Jacek. Statut Bolesława Krzywoustego. Cracow: Avalon, 2014. Osmansko osvajanje bosanske kraljevine. Zbornik radova, ed. Sedad Bešlija. Sarajevo: Institut za istoriju u Sarajevu, 2014. Ostrowski, Donald. “Textual criticism and the ‘Povest’ vremennykh let‘: some theoretical considerations.” HUS 5 (1981), pp. 11–31. Ostrowski, Donald. “The Account of Volodimir’s Conversion in the Povest’ vremennykh let: A Chiasmus of Stories.” HUS 28 (2006), pp. 567–80. Ostrowski, Donald. “Pagan Past and Christian Identity in the Primary Chronicle.” In Historical Narratives and Christian Identity on a European Periphery. Early History Writing in Northern, East-Central and Eastern Europe (c. 1070–1200), ed. Ildar H. Garipzanov, pp. 13–29. Turnhout: Brepols, 2011. Ostrowski, Łukasz. “Słowiańszczyzna – wspólnota współczesna czy wyłącznie historyczna? Przykład Polski.” In Slovanství ve středoevropském prostoru. Iluze, deziluzje a realita. Pardubická konference (22.–24. dubna 2004), eds. Dominik Hrodek et al., pp. 61–72. Prague: Libri, 2004. Ott, Undine. „Europas Sklavinnen und Sklaven im Mittelalter. Eine Spurensuche im Osten des Kontinents.“ WerkstattGeschichte 66/67 (2015), pp. 31–53. Ovčarov, Dimităr. “Emergence et dévelopment de la ville de Preslav. IXe–Xe siècles (quelques problèmes et aspets).” BHR 7 (1979), 2, pp. 51–61. Pac, Grzegorz. “Chrystianizacja i prawo we wcześniejszym średniowieczu.” KH 122 (2015), pp. 817–23. Pac, Grzegorz. “Wokół wczesnego kultu św. Ludmiły.” Historia Slavorum Occidentis 1/20 (2019), pp. 11–52. Paddenberg, Dietlind. „Studien zu frühslawischen Bestattungsriten in Norddeutsch­ land.“ Offa 57 (2000), pp. 31–345. Paddock, Troy E. Creating the Russian Peril. Education, the Public Sphere, and National Identity in Imperial Germany, 1890–1914. Rochester: Camden House, 2010.

522

Bibliography

Palacký, Franz. Österreichs Staatsidee. Prag: Kober, 1866. Palameta, Miroslav. “Kršćanska likovnost na stećcima.” In Hum i Hercegovina kroz povijest. Zbornik radova s međunarodnoga znanstvenog skupa održanog u Mostaru 5. i 6. studenoga 2009. Lučić, Ivica, ed., pp. 279–330. Zagreb: Hrvatski institut za povijest, 2011. Paleczek, Raimund. “Prokop von Sázava.” In Die Landespatrone der böhmischen Länder. Geschichte  – Verehrung  – Gegenwart, ed. Stefan Samerski, pp. 213–22. Paderborn: Schöningh, 2009. Pandowska, Danuta. Kaszuby wśród nazw Pomorza w XIII w. Studium historyczne. Gdańsk: Wydawnicwo Marpress, 1993. Paner, Henryk. “Nowe źrodła archeologiczne do dziejów wczesnośredniowiecznego Gdańska.” In Archeologia et historia urbana. Pamięci Tadeusza Nawrolskiego, eds. Roman Czaja et al., 165–73. Elbląg: Muzeum w Elblągu, 2004. Panic, Idzi. Ostatnie lata Wielkich Moraw. 2nd ed. Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego, 2003. Pankalla, Andrzej B. and Konrad K. Kośnik. Indygeniczna psychologia Słowian. Wprowadzenie do realnej nauki o duszy. Cracow: Towarzystwo Autorów i Wydawców Prac Naukowych “Universitas”, 2018. Panov, Mitko B. Vizantiskata koncepualna pretstava za sklavinite (7–9 vek). In Vizantija i slovenite: Srednovekovni i moderni percepcii i recepcii, ed. Mitko B. Panov, pp. 16–31. Skopje: Univerzitet “Evro-Balkan”, 2018. Panov, Mitko B. The Blinded State. Historiographic Debates about Samuel Cometopoulos and His State (10th–11th Century). Leiden: Brill, 2019. Panslawizm wczoraj, dziś, jutro, eds. Zofia Chyra-Rolicz and Tomasz Rokosz. Siedlce: Pracownia Wydawnicza Wydziału Humanistycznego, 2016. Papageorgio, Angeliki. “The Wake Behind the Mission of Cyril and Methodius: Byzantine Echoes in the Chronicle of the Priest of Diokleia.” In Kyrillos kai Methodios: To Byzantio kai o kosmos tōn Slabōn/Cyril and Methodius: Byzantium and the world of the Slavs. International Scientific Conference, pp. 785–94. Thessaloniki: Ekd. Dēmu Thessalonikēs, 2015. Papageorgiou, Angeliki. “Byzantines, Bulgarians and Serbs in the Vita of Saint Vladimir in the Gesta Regum Sclavorum.” Scripta & e-scripta 16/17 (2017), pp. 73–82. Parczewski, Michał. Początki kultury wczesnosłowiańskiej w Polsce. Krytyka datowanie źródeł archeologicznych. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, 1988. Parczewski, Michał. “Podstawy lokalizacji pierwotnych siedzib Słowian.” In Archeologia o początkach Słowian, Piotr Kaczanowski and Michał Parczewski, pp. 65–78. Cracow: Księgarnia Akademicka, 2005. Parczewski, Michał. “Współczesne poglądy w sprawie etnogenezy oraz wielkiej wędrówki Słowian.” In Wędrówka i etnogeneza w starożytności i średniowieczu, eds. Maciej Salamon and Jerzy Strzelczyk, pp. 221–30 Cracow: Towarzystwo Wydawnicze “Historia Iagellonica”, 2010.

Bibliography

523

Partenheimer, Lutz. Die Entstehung der Mark Brandenburg. Mit einem lateinischdeutschen Quellenanhang. 2nd ed. Cologne: Böhlau, 2007. Partenheimer, Lutz. Albrecht der Bär. Gründer der Mark Brandenburg und des Fürstentums Anhalt. 2nd ed. Potsdam: K. Becker, 2016. Paszyński, Wojciech. Sarmaci i uczeni. Spór o pochodzenie Polaków. Cracow: Księgarnia Akademicka, 2016. Pauk, Marcin R. “Recepcja nowych form życia społecznego na Słowiańszczyźnie zachodniej w dobie ‘transformacji XIII wieku’.” In Słowiańszczyzna w tworzeniu Europy (X–XIII/XIV w.). Pytania o strategię badań: europeizacja a przełom cywilizacyjny, ed. Stanisław Rosik, pp. 43–72. Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Chronicon, 2008. Pauliny, Ján. Arabské správy o Slovanoch (9.–12. storočie). Bratislava: Veda, 1999. Paulus, Christof. „Ein seltzamme gewonheit … Die Zeremonien an Fürstenstein und Herzogstuhl in der Sicht des Spätmittelalters und der Frühen Neuzeit.“ MIÖG 122 (2014), pp. 22–39. Pavlović, Dragana. “Thematic Programmes of Serbian Monumental Painting.” In Sacral Art of the Serbian Lands in the Middle Ages, eds. Dragan Vojvodić and Danica Popović, pp. 249–59. Belgrade: Serbian National Committe of Byzantine Studies, 2016. Pawłowicz, Jerzy. “Problemtyka i kierunki prac Komitetu Wszechsłowiańskiego w Moskwie w latach II wojny światowej.” In Z polskich studiów slawistycznych. Seria 3: Historia, eds. Juliusz Bardach and Gerard Labuda, pp. 265–75. Warsaw: PWN, 1968. Pchelov, Evgenii V. “Proizchozhdenie drevnerusskikh kniazei ot Riurika: ustnaja tradiciia ili letopisnaia konstrukciia?” In DGVE 2011 (2013), pp. 418–32. Pech, Edmund. „Milzener, Lusizer und Glomaci-Daleminzer. Kontroversen zur frühen Geschichte der Sorben.“ Letopis 62 (2015), 2, pp. 119–32. Pehr, Michal. “Slovanství a třetí republika aneb Slovanství v programech českých poválečných politických stran.” In Slovanství ve středoevropském prostoru. Iluze, deziluzje a realita. Pardubická konference (22.–24. dubna 2004), eds. Dominik Hrodek et al., pp. 166–73. Prague: Libri, 2004. Pekař, Josef. Die Wenzels- und Ludmila-Legenden und die Echtheit Christians. Prag: Wiesner, 1906. Pelc, Ortwin. „Heinrich der Löwe und Mecklenburg.“ In Ein Jahrtausend Mecklenburg und Vorpommern. Biographie einer norddeutschen Region in Einzeldarstellungen, eds. Wolf Karge et al., pp. 36–42. Rostock: Hinstorff, 1995. Pellens, Ingrid. Die Slavenpolitik der Billunger im 10. und 11. Jahrhundert. Kiel, Universität, 1950. Penkova, Bisserka. “Die Paläste der bulgarischen Zaren in Preslav und Tarnovo.” In The Emperor’s House. Palaces from Augustus to the Age of Absolutism, eds. Michael J. Featherstone et al., pp. 219–30. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2015. Peričić, Eduard. Sclavorum regnum Grgura Barskog. Ljetopis popa Dukljanina. Zagreb: Kršćanska Sadašnjost, 1991.

524

Bibliography

Pešina, Jan. “Słowianie południowi w koncepcji wzajemności słowiańskiej Karla Havlička Borovskiego”. In Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetut Jagiellońskiego MCCCII. Prace Historyczne 137 (2010), pp. 89–96. Petersohn, Jürgen. Der südliche Ostseeraum im kirchlich-politischen Kräftespiel des Reiches, Polens und Dänemarks vom 10. bis 13. Jahrhundert. Cologne, Vienna: Böhlau, 1979. Petersohn, Jürgen. „Pommerns staatsrechtliches Verhältnis zu den Nachbarmächten im Mittelalter.“ In Die Rolle Schlesiens und Pommerns in der Geschichte der deutschpolnischen Beziehungen im Mittelalter, ed. Rainer Riemenschneider, pp. 98–115. Braunschweig: Georg-Eckert-Institut für internationale Schulbuchforschung, 1980. Petersohn, Jürgen. „Kolonisation und Neustammbildung – das Beispiel Pommern.“ In Ostdeutsche Geschichts- und Kulturlandschaften. Teil 3: Pommern, ed. Hans Rothe, pp. 59–83. Cologne, Vienna: Böhlau, 1988. Petkanova, Donka. „Zur Frage der Autorenschaft der Vita Methodii.“ In Symposium Methodianum. Beiträge der Internationalen Tagung in Regensburg (/17. bis 24. April 1985) zum Gedenken an den 1100. Todestag des hl. Method, eds. Klaus Trost et al., pp. 485–90. Neuried: Hieronymus, 1988. Petkanova, Donka. Chernorizets Khrabăr. Sofia: Vrema, 1999. Petráček, Tomaš. Power and Exploation in the Czech Lands in the 10th–12th Centuries. A Central European Perspective. Leiden: Brill, 2017. Petrak, Marko. “Liber Methodius between the Byzantium and the West: Traces of the Oldest Slavonic Legal Collection in Medieval Croatia.” In Migration, Integration and Connectivity on the Southeastern Frontier of the Carolingian Empire, eds. Danijel Dzino et al., pp. 213–24. Leiden: Brill, 2018. Petrović, Miodrag M. O Zakonopravilu ili Nomokanonu svetoga Save. Belgrade: Kultura, 1990. Petrovich, Michael B. The Emergence of Russian Pan-Slavism 1856–1870. New York: Columbia University Press, 1956. Petrovszky, Konrad. „Die heiligen Nemanjiden.“ In Religiöse Erinnerungsorte in Ostmitteleuropa. Konstitution und Konkurrenz im nationen- und epochenübergreifenden Zugriff, eds. Joachim Bahlcke et al., pp. 583–91. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 2013. Petrukhin, Vladimir Ja. Nachalo ėtnokul’turnoi istorii Rusi. Smolensk: Rusich, 1995. Petrukhin, Vladimir Ja. “Khristianstvo na Rusi vo vtoroi polovine X–pervoi polovine XI v.” In Christianstvo v stranakh vostochnoi, jugo-vostochoi i central’noi Evropy na proge vtorogo tysiacheletiia, ed. Boris N. Floria, pp. 60–132. Moscow: Iazyki Slavianskoi Kul’tury, 2002. Petrukhin, Vladimir Ja. and Tatjana N. Jackson. “The Reception of Early Nordic Religions and Myths in Old Rus’.” In The Pre-Christian Religions of the North. Research and Reception. Volume 1: From the Middle Ages to c. 1830, ed. Margaret Clunies Ross, pp. 69–79. Turnhout: Brepols, 2018.

Bibliography

525

Pfister, Friedrich. “Das Privilegium Slavicum Alexanders des Großen.” ZfS 6 (1961), pp. 323–45. Philipp, Werner. Ansätze zum geschichtlichen und politischen Denken im Kiewer Russland, pp. 6–24. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1967. Philipp, Werner. „Die religiöse Begründung der altrussischen Hauptstadt.“ FOG 33 (1983), pp. 227–36. Piaskowski, Jerzy. „Untersuchungen der frühmittelalterlichen Eisen- und Stahl­ technologie der Slawen in den Gebieten zwischen Weichsel und Oder.“ AP 15 (1974), pp. 67–96. Picht, Ulrich. M.P. Pogodin und die slavische Frage ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Panslavismus. Stuttgart: Klett, 1969. Pickhan, Gertrud. „Von der Kiever Rus zum Moskauer Reich: Osteuropa.“ In Die Welt 1250–1500, eds. Thomas Ertl and Michael Limberger, pp. 113–37. Vienna: Mandelbaum-Verlag, 2009. Piech, Zenon. Ikonografia pieczęci Piastów. Cracow: Universitas, 1993. Pieradzka, Krystyna. “Genealogia biblijna i rodowód Słowian w pierwszej księdze ‘Annales’ Długosza.” Nasza Przeszłość 8 (1958), pp. 83–116. Piętkowski, Piotr. Biskupstwo pomorskie jako początek biskupstwa kamieńskiego. Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Chronicon, 2015. Piltz, Elizabeth. “King (kralj) Milutin and the Paleologan Tradition.” Byzantinoslavica 69 (2011), pp. 173–88. Piontek, Janusz. “Zastosowanie modelu paleodemograficznego do rekonstrukcji historycznego procesu etnogenezy Słowian.” Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Folia Archeologica 16 (1999), pp. 285–99. Piontek, Janusz. Ludność dorzecza Odry i Wisły od późnej starożytności do średniowiecza. Warunki i stan biologiczny. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Instytutu Antropologii. Uniwersytet Adama Mickiewicza, 2014. Piotrowski, Bernard. “Delegacja wielkopolska na zjeździe słowiańskim w Pradze (1848 rok).” Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza. Historia 6 (1964), pp. 103–23. Pirivatrić, Srđan. Samuilova država. Obim i karakter. Belgrade: Srpska akademija nauka i umetnosti, 1997. Pirivatrić, Srđan. “The Death of Tsar Stefan Dušan: A Contribution to the issue.” In Byzantium, New Peoples, New Powers: The Byzantino-Slav Contact Zone, from the nine to the fifteenth century, eds. Milijana Kaimakamova et al., pp. 285–202. Cracow: Towarzystwo Wydawnicze “Historia Iagellonica”, 2007. Pirivatrić, Srđan. “The Dynamics of Byzantine-Serbian Political Relations.” In Processes of Byzantinisation and Serbian Archaeology, ed. Vesna Bikić, pp. 17–35. Belgrade: Serbian National Committee of Byzantine Studies, 2016.

526

Bibliography

Pirivatrić, Srđan. “The autocephalous Orthodox Archbishopric of Serbia. A short survey of its foundation.” In Autocéphalies. L’exercice de l’indépendance dans les Églises slaves orientales: (IXe–XXIe siècle), eds. Marie-Hélène Blanchet et al., pp. 179–207. Rome: Publications de l’École française de Rome, 2021. Pirjevec, Jože. “Slavic Solidarity in the Balkans since 1945.” In Approaches to Slavic Unity. Austro-Slavism, Pan-Slavism, Neo-Slavism, and Solidarity Among the Slavs Today, eds. Krzysztof A. Makowski and Frank Hadler, pp. 153–62. Poznań: Instytut Historii Uniwersytetu Adama Mickiewicza, 2013. Piskorski, Jan M. “Brandenburskie ‘Kietze’ (chyze): Instytucja pochodzenia słowańskiego czy ‘produkt’ władzy askańskiej?” PH 79 (1988), pp. 301–29. Piskorski, Jan M. “Teorie wyjaśniające zanik Słowian w Brandenburgii i krajach sąsiednich (próba klasyfikacji typologicznej dotychczasowych poglądów historiografii).” In Dzieje Brandenburgii i Prus w historiografii, ed. Bogdan Wachowiak, pp. 185–96. Warsaw, Poznań: PWN, 1989. Piskorski, Jan M. Kolonizacja wiejska Pomorza Zachodniego w XIII i w początkach XIV wieku na tle procesów osadniczych w średniowiecznej Europie. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznańskiego Towarzystwa Przyjaciół Nauk, 1990. Piskorski, Jan M. „Die deutsche Ostsiedlung des Mittelalters in der Entwicklung des östlichen Mitteleuropa. Zum Stand der Forschung aus polnischer Sicht.“ JbGMOD 40 (1991), pp. 27–84. Piskorski, Jan M. „Die slawischen Bauern in Pommern an der Schwelle des hochmittelalterlichen Landesausbaus.“ In Grundherrschaft und bäuerliche Gesellschaft im Hochmittelalter, ed. Werner Rösener, pp. 240–71. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995. Piskorski, Jan M. Pomorze plemienne. Historia – archeologia – językoznawstwo. Poznań: Sorus, 2002. Piskorski, Jan M. „Slawen und Deutsche in Pommern im Mittelalter.“ In Grenzräume und Grenzüberschreitungen im Vergleich. Der Osten und der Westen des mittelalterlichen Lateineuropa, eds. Klaus Herbers and Nikolas Jaspert, pp. 73–91. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2007. Piskorski, Jan M. “Procesy migracyjne, kolonizacyjne i asymilacyjne w średniowiecznej Europie Środkowo-Wschodniej i Wschodniej. Próba bilansu.” In Wędrówka i etnogeneza w starożytności i średniowieczu, eds. Maciej Salamon and Jerzy Strzelczyk, pp. 379–92. Cracow: Towarzystwo Wydawnicze “Historia Iagellonica”, 2010. Plassmann, Alheydis. Origo gentis. Identitäts- und Legitimitätsstiftung in früh- und hochmittelalterlichen Herkunftserzählungen. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 2006. Pleiner, Radomír. Základy slovanského železářského hutnictví v českých zemích. Vývoj přímé výroby železa z rud od doby halštatské do 12. věku, pp. 191–229. Prague: Československá akademie věd, 1958.

Bibliography

527

Pleinerová, Ivana. „Zur relativen Chronologie der Keramik vom Prager Typus auf Grund der Siedlungsgrabung Březno bei Louny.“ AR 20 (1968), pp. 645–73. Pleinerová, Ivana. Březno, vsenice prvních Slovanů v severeozápadních Čechách. Prague: Academia, 1975. Pleinerová, Ivana. “Březno: experiments with building Old Slavic houses and living in them.” PA 77 (1986), pp. 104–76. Pleinerová, Ivana. Die altslawischen Dörfer von Březno bei Louny. Prague: Archeologický ústav AVČR, 2000. Pleshchin’ski, Andzhei. “Slaviane v nemeckoi literature XIII veka: problemy vospriiatiia.” SSBP 1/23 (2018), pp. 42–70. Pleszczyński, Andrzej. Niemcy wobec pierwszej monarchii piastowskiej (963–1034). Narodziny stereotypu. Postrzeganie i cywilizacyjna klasyfikacja władców Polski i ich kraju. Lublin: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej, 2008. Pleszczyński, Andrzej. „Die Taufe Polens – das Jahr 966.“ In Religiöse Erinnerungsorte in Ostmitteleuropa. Konstitution und Konkurrenz im nationen- und epochenübergreifenden Zugriff, eds. Joachim Bahlcke et al., pp. 795–803. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 2013. Pleszczyński, Andrzej. “Slavi genus hominum durum. Stereotypowe opisy Słowian i ich ziemi w średniowieczu.” in: Historia communitatem facit. Struktura narracji tworzących tożsamości grupowe w średniowieczu, eds. Andrzej Pleszczyński et al., pp. 189–207. Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Chronicon, 2016. Pleterskij, Andrej. The invisible Slavs. Župa Bled in the ‘prehistoric’ early middle ages. Ljubljana: Založba ZRC, 2013. Plezia, Marian. Dookoła sprawy świętego Stanisława. Studium źródłoznawcze. 2nd ed. Bydgoszcz: Homini, 1999. Pocta králi. K 730 výročí úmrtí českého krále, rakouského vévody a moravského markraběte Přemysla Otakara II, eds. Libor Jan and Jiří Kacetl. Brno, Znojmo: Matice Moravská, 2010. Podosinov, Aleksandr V. “Kosmografija Ravennskogo Anonima.” In Svod drevnejšikh pis’mennykh izvestii o slavianach. Tom II (VII–IX vv.), ed. Gennadii G. Litavrin, pp. 401–05. Moscow: Nauka, 1995. Podskalsky, Gerhard. Christentum und theologische Literatur in der Kiever Rus’ (988–1237). Munich: C.H. Beck, 1982. Podskalsky, Gerhard. “Die Verehrung des Hl. Johannes (Ioann) von Rila in Bulgarien und in der Slavia Orthodoxa.” In Fonctions sociales et politiques du culte des saints dans les sociétés de rite grec et latin au Moyen âge et à l`époque moderne. Approche comparative, eds. Marek Derwich and Michail Dmitriev, pp. 419–30. Wrocław: Larhcor, 1999. Podskalsky, Gerhard. Theologische Literatur des Mittelalters in Bulgarien und Serbien 865–1459. Munich: C.H. Beck, 2000.

528

Bibliography

Podwińska, Zofia. Zmiany form osadnictwa wiejskiego na ziemiach polskich we wcześniejszym średniowieczu: źreb, wieś, opole. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, 1971. Pogonowski, Jerzy. Iliryzm i Słowiańszczyzna (Studja nad odrodzeniem chorwackiem). Lwów: Księgarnia Naukowa, 1924. Pohl, Walter. „Das Awarenreich und die ‚kroatischen‘ Ethnogenesen.“ In Die Bayern und ihre Nachbarn. Teil 1, eds. Herwig Wolfram and Andreas Schwarz, pp. 293–98. Vienna: Böhlau, 1985. Pohl, Walter. Die Awaren. Ein Steppenvolk in Mitteleuropa 567–822 n. Chr. Munich: C.H. Beck, 1988. Pohl, Walter. „Grundlagen der kroatischen Ethnogenese: Awaren und Slawen.“ In Etnogeneza Hrvata/Ethnogeny of the Croats, ed. Neven Budak, pp. 211–23. Zagreb: Matica Hrvatske, 1995. Pohl, Walter. “Telling the Difference: Signs of Ethnic Identity.” In Strategies of Distinction. The Construction of Ethnic Communities 300–800, eds. Walter Pohl and Helmut Reimitz, pp. 17–69. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Pohl, Walter [2000a]. “Die Awaren und ihre Beziehungen zu den Slawen.” In Slowenien und die Nachbarländer zwischen Antike und Karolingischer Epoche. Anfänge der slowenischen Ethnogenese, Volume 1, ed. Bratož, Rajko, pp. 341–54. Ljubljana: Narodni Muzej Slovenije, 2000. Pohl, Walter [2000b]. Die Germanen. Munich: C.H. Beck, 2000. Pohl, Walter [2004a]. „Identität und Widerspruch. Gedanken zu einer Sinngeschichte des Frühmittelalters.“ In Die Suche nach den Ursprüngen. Von der Bedeutung des frühen Mittelalters, ed. Walter Pohl, pp. 23–35. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2004. Pohl, Walter [2004b]. „Vom Nutzen des Germanenbegriffs zwischen Antike und Mittelalter. Eine forschungsgeschichtliche Perspektive.“ In Akkulturation. Probleme einer germanisch-romanischen Kultursynthese in Spätantike und frühem Mittelalter, eds. Dieter Hägermann et al., pp. 18–34. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter, 2004. Pohl, Walter. Die ethnische Wende des Frühmittelalters und ihre Auswirkungen auf Ostmitteleuropa. Leipzig: Leipziger Universitäts-Verlag, 2008. Pohl, Walter. “Introduction. Strategies of Identification. A Methodological Profile.” In Strategies of Identification. Ethnicity and Religion in Early Medieval Europe, eds. Walter Pohl and Gerda Heydemann, pp. 1–64. Turnhout: Brepols, 2013. Pohl, Walter [2018a]. The Avars. A Steppe Empire in Central Europe, 567–822. Ithaca, London: Combined Academic Publishers, 2018. Pohl, Walter [2018b]. „Von der Ethnogenese zur Identitätsforschung.“ In Neue Wege der Frühmittelalterforschung – Bilanz und Perspektiven, eds. Walter Pohl et al., pp. 9–34. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2018.

Bibliography

529

Poláček, Lumír. “Ninth-century Mikulčice: the ‘market of the Moravians’? The archaeological evidence of trade in Great Moravia.” In Post-Roman Towns, Trade and Settlement in Europe and Byzantium. Volume 2: Byzantium, Pliska, and the Balkans, ed. Joachim Henning, pp. 499–524. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter, 2007. Poláček, Lumír and Petr Velemínský. „Mikulčice und die Problematik der Sozial­ struktur Großmährens – Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Untersuchung.“ In Soziale Gruppen und Gesellschaftsstrukturen im westslawischen Raum, eds. Felix Biermann et al., pp. 405–22. Langenweißbach: Beier & Beran, 2013. Poland, Pomerania, and Their Neighbours. Shaping of Medieval European Civilisation (10th–12th Centuries), ed. Stanisław Rosik. Wrocław: Uniwersytet Wrocławski, 2020. Polek, Krzysztof [1994a]. Państwo wielkomorawskie i jego sąsiedzi. Cracow: Wydawnictwo Naukowe WSP, 1994. Polek, Krzysztof [1994b]. Podstawy gospodarcze Państwa Wielkomorawskiego. Cracow: Secesja, 1994. Polek, Krzysztof. “‘Państwo Samona’ w nowych badaniach archeologicznych i historycznych.” In Cognitioni gestorum. Studia z dziejów średniowiecza dedykowane Profesorowi Jerzemu Strzelczykowi, eds. Dariusz A. Sikorski and Andrzej M. Wyrwa, pp. 41–51. Poznań, Warsaw: Wydawnictwo DiG, 2006. Poleski, Jacek. “Grodzisko wczesnośredniowieczne w Naszacowicach  – problem upadku grodów plemiennych na terenie Małopolski.” In Osadnictwo i architektura ziem polskich w dobie zjazdu gnieźnieńskiego, eds. Andrzej Buko and Zygmunt Świechowski, pp. 285–91. Warsaw: Letter Quality, 2000. Poleski, Jacek. Naszacowice. Ein frühmittelalterlicher Burgwall am Dunajec. Volume 1: Stratigraphie, Chronologie, Architektur. Cracow: PAU, 2004. Poleski, Jacek. Naszacowice. Ein frühmittelalterlicher Burgwall am Dunajec. Volume 2: Fundgegenstände, Funktion, interregionale Beziehungen, Burgenbau in Kleinpolen. Cracow: PAU, 2011. Pollack, Friedrich [2012a]. Die Entdeckung des Fremden. Wahrnehmung und Darstellung der Lausitzer Sorben im gelehrten Schrifttum des 17. und 18. Jahrhunderts. Bautzen: Sorbisches Institut, 2012. Pollack, Friedrich [2012b]. “‚In allen Merkwürdigkeiten der Wenden-Nation.‘ Zur Konstruktion von ethnischer Alterität in der frühmodernen Sorbenkunde.” Lětopis 59 (2012), 1, pp. 3–21. Pollack, Friedrich. „Bürgereid und Wendenpassus – Sorben in der Stadt des Mittelalters und der Frühneuzeit. Neue Perspektiven zu einem alten Forschungsproblem (mit Edition zweier Kamenzer Bürgereide des 18. Jahrhunderts).“ Lětopis 62 (2015), pp. 133–51. Polska na przełomie I i II tysiąclecia, ed. Szczęsny Skibiński. Poznań: Stowarzyszenie Historyków Sztuki, 2000.

530

Bibliography

Polyviannyi, Dmitrii I. Kul’turnoe svoeobrazie srednevekovoi Bolgarii v kontekste vizantiisko-slavianskoi obshchnostoi IX–XV vekov. Ivanovo: Ivanovskii Gosudar­ stvennyi Universitet, 2000. Polyvjannyj, Dmitry I. “The Cults of Saints in the Political Ideology of the Bulgarian Empire.” In Fonctions sociales et politiques du culte des saints dans les sociétés de rite grec et latin au Moyen âge et à l`époque moderne. Approche comparative, eds. Marek Derwich and Michail Dmitriev, pp. 401–17. Wrocław: Larhcor, 1999. Polyvjannyj, Dmitry I. “Territorial Dimensions of Medieval Bulgarian State Identity.” In Evropejskiiat jugoiztok prez vtorata polovina na X–nachaloto na XI vek. Istoriia i kultura, eds. Vasil Giuzelev and Georgi N. Nikolov, pp. 208–16. Sofia: Voenno, 2015. Pomorze we wczesnym średniowieczu w świetle źródeł archeologicznych. Historia, stan aktualny i potrzeby badań, eds. Henryk Paner et al. Gdańsk: Muzeum Archeologiczne, 2014. Popkonstantinov, Kazimir. “Die Verbreitung altbulgarischen Schrifttums im 9.–11. Jahrhundert (nach epigraphischen Daten).” MBFIÖ 8 (1986), 1, pp. 85–90. Popkonstantinov, Kazimir. „Traditionen von Kyrill und Methodius im altbulgarischen Literatur- und Ausbildungszentrum des 9. und 10. Jahrhunderts beim Dorf Ravna, Bezirk Varna (nach epigraphischen Angaben).“ In Symposium Methodianum. Beiträge der Internationalen Tagung in Regensburg (/17. bis 24. April 1985) zum Gedenken an den 1100. Todestag des hl. Method, eds. Klaus Trost et al., pp. 491–511. Neuried: Hieronymus, 1988. Popkonstantinov, Kazimir. „Das altbulgarische Kloster bei Ravna  – das Schrifttumsund Kulturzentrum.“ In La vie quotidienne des moines et chanoines réguliers au Moyen Âge et temps modernes, ed. Marek Derwich, pp. 691–99. Wrocław: Uniwersytet Wrocławski, 1995. Popkonstantinov, Kazimir. “Greek Inscriptions from Ninth-Tenth Century Bulgaria. A Case Study of Byzantine Epigraphy.” In Inscriptions in Byzantium and Beyond. Methods – Projects – Case Studies, ed. Andreas Rhoby, pp. 195–201. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2015. Popov, Vladimir A. “Koncept ‘plemia’, ili ėtnichnost’ i potestarnost’ ‘v odnom flakone’.” SSBP 2/18 (2015), pp. 13–20. Popović, Danica. “A National ‘Pantheon’: Saintly Cults at the Foundation of Serbian Medieval State and Church.” In Sacral Art of the Serbian Lands in the Middle Ages, eds. Dragan Vojvodić and Danica Popović, pp. 119–31. Belgrade: Serbian National Committe of Byzantine Studies, 2016. Popović, Mihailo St. “Kliment von Ohrid.” In Religiöse Erinnerungsorte in Ostmittel­ europa. Konstitution und Konkurrenz im nationen- und epochenübergreifenden Zugriff, eds. Joachim Bahlcke et al., pp. 494–500. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 2013. Popović, Mihailo. „Der Balkan vom Ende des Ersten bulgarischen Reiches bis zum Beginn des Zweiten bulgarischen Reiches. Version:  1.0.“ In Online-Handbuch zur

Bibliography

531

Geschichte Südosteuropas. Volume 1: Herrschaft und Politik in Südosteuropa bis 1800, Regensburg: Institut für Ost- und Südosteuropaforschung [http://www .hgsoe.ios-regensburg.de/themen/herrschaft-politik-und-staatlichkeit.html], 2016. Popović, Vladislav. „Aux origines de la slavisation des Balkans: la constitution des premières sklavinies macédoniennes vers la fin du VIe siècle.“ Comptes Rendus de l’Academie des Inscriptions et Belle-Lettres 8 (1980), pp. 230–57. Popowska-Taborska, Hanna. „Utrwalone w języki ślady etnicznej wspólnoty Słowian.“ In Słowianie, Słowiańszczyzna  – pojęcie i rzeczywistość dawniej i dziś, ed. Kwirina Handke, pp. 19–24. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Instytutu Slawistyki PAN, 2002. Popowska-Taborska, Hanna. Wczesne dzieje Słowian w świetle ich języka, popr. i uzup. Warsaw3: Wydawnictwo Instytutu Slawistyki PAN, 2014. Poppe, Andrzej. The Rise of Christian Russia. London: Variorum Reprints, 1982. Poppe, Andrzej. „Gab es eine ottonische Ostpolitik, die die Kiewer Rus’ im Blickfeld hatte?“ DGVE 2014 (2016), pp. 379–400. Portal, Roger. Les Slaves. Peuples et Nations. Paris: Colin, 1965. Portal, Roger. Die Slawen. Von Völkern zu Nationen. Munich: Kindler, 1971. Pośpiech, Marta. “Problem autentyczności manifestu Przemysła Ottokara II do książąt polskich.” Studia Historyczne 15 (1972), pp. 537–49. Post-Roman Towns, Trade and Settlement in Europe and Byzantium. Volume 2: Byzantium, Pliska, and the Balkans, ed. Joachim Henning. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter, 2007. Poulík, Josef. „Wirtschaftlich-soziale Entwicklung im slawischen Bereich nördlich der mittleren Donau im 6. bis 10. Jahrhundert.“ In Der Heilige Method, Salzburg und die Slawenmission, eds. Theodor Piffl-Perčević and Alfred Stirnemann, pp. 119–81. Innsbruck, Vienna: Tyrolia-Verlag, 1987. Powierski, Jan and Błażej Śliwiński. “Polskie partykularyzmy dzielnicowe.” In Pamiętnik XV Powszechnego Zjazdu Historyków Polskich. Tom 1, Cz. 1, ed. Jacek Staszewski, pp. 203–14. Gdańsk, Toruń: Wydawnictwo Adam Marszałek, 1995. Pręcikowski, Leszek S. “Polska w ‘Nowym ruchu słowiańskim’. Z działalności Komitetu Słowiańskiego w Polsce w latach 1945–1947.” Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Folia Historica 69 (2000), pp. 73–190. Prichodniuk, Olekh M. “Anty i Pen’kovskaia kul’tura.” In Drevnie slaviane i Kievskaia Rus’, ed. Petr P. Tolochko, pp. 58–69. Kiev: Naukova Dumka, 1989. Příhoda, Marek. “Slovanství Juraje Križaniće.” In Slovanství ve středoevropském prostoru. Iluze, deziluzje a realita. Pardubická konference (22.–24. dubna 2004), eds. Dominik Hrodek et al., pp. 192–202. Prague: Libri, 2004. Prinzing, Günter. Die Bedeutung Bulgariens und Serbiens in den Jahren 1204–1219 im Zusammenhang mit der Entstehung und Entwicklung der byzantinischen Teilstaaten nach der Einnahme Konstantinopels infolge des 4. Kreuzzuges. Munich: Institut für Byzantinistik und Neugriechische Philologie, 1972. Prinzing, Günter. Bizantyńczycy wobec obcych. Poznań: Księgarnia Świętego Wojciecha, 1998.

532

Bibliography

Prinzing, Günter. „Demetrios-Kirche und Aseniden-Aufstand. Zur chronologischen Präzisierung der Frühphase des Aseniden-Aufstandes.“ ZRVI 38 (1999/2000), pp. 257–65. Prinzing, Günter. “Pliska in the View of Protobulgaric Inscriptions and Byzantine Literary Sources.” In Post-Roman Towns, Trade and Settlement in Europe and Byzantium. Volume 2: Byzantium, Pliska, and the Balkans, ed. Joachim Henning, pp. 241–51. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter, 2007. Prinzing, Günter. “The Autocephalous Byzantine Ecclesiastical Province of Bulgaria/ Ohrid. How independent were its Archbishops?” Bulgaria Mediaevalis 3 (2012), pp. 355–83. Prinzing, Günter [2017a]. „Byzanz“. In Handwörterbuch der antiken Sklaverei (HAS). Volume 1, ed. Heinz Heinen, pp. 468–86. Stuttgart: Steiner, 2017. Prinzing, Günter [2017b]. „Sklaventerminologie. III. Rezeption.“ In Handwörterbuch der antiken Sklaverei (HAS). Volume 3, ed. Heinz Heinen, pp. 2707–11. Stuttgart: Steiner, 2017. Prinzing, Günter. „La jurisprudence ecclésiastique dans l’archevêché autocéphale de Bulgarie/Ohrid (1020–ca. 1400).“ In Autocéphalies. L’exercice de l’indépendance dans les Églises slaves orientales: (IXe–XXIe siècle), eds. Marie-Hélène Blanchet et al., pp. 159–77. Rome: Publications de l’École française de Rome, 2021. Pritsak, Omlejan. Die bulgarische Fürstenliste und die Sprache der Protobulgaren. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1955. Pritsak, Omeljan. “The Slavs and the Avars.” In Gli Slavi occidentali e meridionali nell’alto medioevo, ed. Raoul Manselli, pp. 353–432. Spoleto: CISAM, 1983. Pritsak, Omeljan. When and Where was Ol’ga Baptized. Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Ukrainian Studies Fund, 1987. Prochno, Joachim. “Terra Bohemiae, regnum Bohemicae, corona Bohemiae.” In Prager Festgabe für Theodor Mayer, ed. Rudolf Schreiber, pp. 91–111. Salzburg: O. Müller, 1953. Procopius of Caesarea. Literary and Historical Interpretations, eds. Christopher Lillington-Martin and Elodie Turquois. London: Routledge, 2018. Profantová, Nad’a. “Slovanské osídlení hradišzě Bohnicie-Zámka. Na základe výzkumů N. Maška.” Archeologica Pragensia 12 (1996), pp. 65–140. Profantová, Nad’a. “Zum gegenwärtigen Erkenntnisstand der frühmittelalterlichen Besiedlung des Burgwalls Šárka (Gem. Dolní Liboc, Prag 6).” PA 90 (1999), pp. 65–106, 217–24. Profantová, Nad’a [2009a]. “Archeology and written sources on eight- to tenth-century Bohemia.” Early Medieval Europe 17 (2009), pp. 286–310. Profantová, Nad’a [2009b]. “Kultura s keramikou pražského typu a problém šíření slavinity so střední Evropy. K článku Florina Curty.” AR 61 (2009), pp. 303–30.

Bibliography

533

Profantová, Nad’a. „Errichtung und Zerstörung der ersten frühmittelalterlichen Burgwälle in Böhmen (8./9. Jahrhundert).“ In Die frühen Slawen  – von der Expansion zu gentes und nationes. Volume 1: Beiträge zum Schwerpunktthema, eds. Felix Biermann et al., pp. 223–39. Langenweißbach: Beier & Beran, 2016. Profantová, Nad’a and Kateřina Tomková. “Strongholds and Material Culture of the Bohemian Elite in the Early Přemyslid Period.” In Moravian and Silesian Strongholds of the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries in the Context of Central Europe, eds. Pavel Kouřil and Rudolf Procházka, pp. 261–82. Brno: Archeologický ústav AVČR, 2018. Profantová, Nad’a and Martin Profantov. “Ethnicity and the Culture with ceramics of the Prague type (Prague-Korchak)”. In New Perspectives on the Early Slavs and the Rise of Slavic. Contact and Migration, eds. Tomáš Klír et al., pp. 301–40. Heidelberg: Winter, 2020. Prozorov, Vadim. “When He Is, Thither Will the Eagles Be Gathered Together: The Metropolitan Status of the Bishop of Spalato from the Decline of Salona until the Councils of Spalato in 925 and 928.” In Saintly Bishops and Bishops’ Saints, eds. John S. Ott and Trpimir Vedriš, pp. 103–22. Zagreb: Hagiotheca, 2012. Püschel, Ulrich. „‚Die Slawischen Völker nehmen auf der Erde einen größeren Raum ein, als in der Geschichte‘ – zu Herders ‚Slawen-Kapitel‘.“ Germanoslavica. Zeitschrift für germano-slawische Studien 3/8 (1996), pp. 95–105. Pumprová, Anna. „Die Suche nach dem Weltbild Peters von Zittau. Zum neuen Buch von Běla Marani-Moravová.“ In MIÖG 128 (2020), pp. 342–49. Radić, Radivoj. “Some Observations of Theodore Metochites on King Milutin’s Reign and the Serbian Court at the End of the 13th Century.” Zeitschrift für Balkanologie 37 (2001), pp. 47–56. Radić, Radivoj. “Theodore Metochites on one Serbian and one Bulgarian Envoy.” In Polychronia. Sbornik v čest na prof. Ivan Božilov, ed. Ilija G. Iliev, pp. 236–44. Sofia: Iz. Kăshcha Anubis, 2002. Radić, Radivoj. “Bosnia in Byzantine Sources.” In Byzantium, New Peoples, New Powers: The Byzantino-Slav Contact Zone, from the nine to the fifteenth century, eds. Milijana Kaimakamova et al., pp. 243–48. Cracow: Towarzystwo Wydawnicze “Historia Iagellonica”, 2007. Radojčić, Nikola. “Reč cara Stefana Dušana uz njegov Zakonik.” In Zakonik cara Stefana Dušana 1349 i 1353, ed. Nikola Radojčić, pp. 147–62. Belgrade: Naučno Delo, 1960. Radojičić, Djordje Sp. „Die politischen Bestrebungen in der serbischen mittelalterlichen Geschichtsschreibung.“ Südost-Forschungen 19 (1960), pp. 87–102. Raffensperger, Christian A. Reimagining Europe. Kievan Rus’ in the medieval World. Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2012. Raffensperger, Christian A. Ties of Kinship. Genealogy and Dynastic Marriage in Kyivan Rus’. Cambridge Mass.: The Ukrainian Research Institute, 2016.

534

Bibliography

Rapanić, Željko. “Kralj Tripimir, Venecijanci i Dalmatinci u traktatu teologa Gottschalka iz Orbaisa.” Povijesni prilozi 44 (2013), pp. 27–80. Rappoport, Pavl’ A. Drevnerusskoe zhilishche. Leningrad: Nauka, 1975. Rašev, Rašo S. „Der Beginn von Pliska und der bulgarischen Landnahme.“ In Post-Roman Towns, Trade and Settlement in Europe and Byzantium. Volume 2: Byzantium, Pliska, and the Balkans, ed. Joachim Henning, pp. 449–62. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter, 2007. Rashev, Rasho S. Starobălgarski ukrepleniia na Doliniia Dunav (VII–XI v.). Varna: Iz. G. Bakalov, 1982. Raukar, Tomislav. “Land and Society.” In Croatia in the Early Middle Ages. A Cultural Survey, ed. Ivan Supičić, pp. 181–95. London: Wilson, 1999. Rębkowski, Marian. “Pomorze Zachodnie. Osiągnięcia ostatniego piętnastolecia, potrzeby i perspektywy badań.” In Stan i potrzeby badań nad wczesnym średniowieczem w Polsce – 15 lat później, eds. Wojciech Chudziak and Sławomir Moździoch, pp. 311–27. Toruń: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika, 2006. Rębkowski, Marian. Chrystianizacja Pomorza Zachodniego. Studium archeologiczne. Szczecin: Wydawnictwo Instytutu Archeologii i Etnologii PAN, 2007. Rębkowski, Marian. Jak powstało Pomorze? Studium tworzenia państwowości we wczesnym średniowieczu. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Instytutu Archeologii i Etnologii PAN, 2020. Řeháček, Luboš. “Emauzský klášter a Polsko. K založení a víznamu filiálních klášterů Emauz v dolnoslezské Olešnici a v Klepařich u Krakova.” In Z tradic slovanské kultury v Čechach. Sázava a Emauzy v dějinách české kultury, eds. Jan Peter et al., pp. 203–21. Prague: Universita Karlova, 1975. Reichertová, Květa. “Slovanský klášter na Sázavě.” In Sázava. Památník staroslověnské kultury v Čechách, pp. 70–103. Prague: Odeon, 1988. Reimann, Heike [1998a]. „Der niedere Adel im Umfeld mecklenburgischer und pommerscher Fürsten zur Zeit beginnender deutschrechtlicher Veränderungen der Siedlungsstruktur in Mecklenburg und Westpommern (Ende 12.–1. Hälfte 13. Jahrhundert).“ ZfO 47 (1998), pp. 502–19. Reimann, Heike [1998b]. “Zur Rolle des Klosters Dargun im Landesausbau in der ersten Hälfte des 13. Jahrhunderts.” In Struktur und Wandel im Früh- und Hochmittelalter. Eine Bestandsaufnahme aktueller Forschungen zur Germania Slavica, ed. Christian Lübke, pp. 273–78. Stuttgart: Steiner, 1998. Reimann, Heike. „Die Insel Rügen  – ein ‚slawisches Rückzugsgebiet am Rande der Kolonisation‘?“ In Zentrum und Peripherie in der Germania Slavica, eds. Doris Bulach and Matthias Hardt, pp. 215–33. Stuttgart: Steiner, 2008. Reimann, Heike, Fred Ruchhöft and Cornelia Willich. Rügen im Mittelalter. Eine interdisziplinäre Studie zur mittelalterlichen Besiedlung auf Rügen, pp. 42–67. Stuttgart: Steiner, 2011.

Bibliography

535

Reimitz, Helmut. History, Frankish Identity and the Framing of Western Ethnicity, 550–850. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015. Reisman, Edward S. Determinants of Collective Identity in Rus’, 988–1505, PhD. Diss. Chicago: UMI Diss. Services, 1987. Reitemeier, Johann Friedrich. Geschichte der Preußischen Staaten vor und nach ihrer Vereinigung in eine Monarchie. Erster Theil: Geschichte der Preußischen Länder an der Oder und Weichsel bis zum Jahre 1320. Frankfurt/O.: Akademische Buchhandlung, 1801. Reiter, Norbert. Das Glaubensgut der Slawen im europäischen Verbund. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz, 2009. Rejzek, Jiří. “Linguistic comments on Curta’s making of the Slavs”, In New Perspectives on the Early Slavs and the Rise of Slavic. Contact and Migration, eds. Tomáš Klír et al., pp. 341–49. Heidelberg: Winter, 2020. Remes, Friedrich W. Die Sorbenfrage 1918/19. Untersuchung einer gescheiterten Autonomiebewegung. Bautzen: Domowina-Verlag, 1993. Renn, Gerhard. Die Bedeutung des Namens ‚Pommern‘ und die Bezeichnungen für das heutige Pommern in der Geschichte, Greifswald: Bamberg, 1935. Reudenbach, Bruno. „Die Londoner Psalterkarte und ihre Rückseite. Ökumenekarten als Psalterillustration.“ Frühmittelalterliche Studien 32 (1998), pp. 164–81. Ribbe, Wolfgang, ed. Das Havelland im Mittelalter. Untersuchungen zur Struktur­ geschichte einer ostelbischen Landschaft in slawischer und deutscher Zeit. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1987. Richter, Michael. „Die politische Orientierung Mährens zur Zeit von Konstantin und Methodius.“ In Die Bayern und ihre Nachbarn. Teil 1, eds. Herwig Wolfram and Andreas Schwarz, pp. 281–92. Vienna: Böhlau, 1985. Richthofen, Jasper von. „Die Landeskrone bei Görlitz. Eine bedeutende slawische Befestigung in der östlichen Oberlausitz.“ Arbeits- und Forschungsberichte für Sächsische Bodendenkmalpflege 45 (2003), pp. 274–80. Richthofen, Jasper von. „Besunzane  – Milzener  – Sorben. Die slawische Besiedlung in der deutschen und polnischen Oberlausitz beiderseits der Neisse.“ In Siedlung, Kommunikation und Wirtschaft im westslawischen Raum, eds. Felix Biermann and Thomas Kersting. pp. 229–44. Langenweissbach: Beier & Beran, 2007. Riedinger, Rudolf. Pseudo-Kaisarios. Überlieferungsfrage und Verfasserfrage. Munich: C.H. Beck, 1969. Ritter, Max. “Die vlacho-bulgarische Rebellion und die Versuche ihrer Niederschlagung durch Kaiser Isaakios III. (1185–1195).” Byzantinoslavica 71 (2013), pp. 162–210. Robinson, Connie. “Yugoslavism in the Early Twentieth Century: The Politics of the Yugoslav Committee.” In New Perspectives on Yugoslavia. Key Issues and Contro­ versies, eds. Dejan Djokić and James Ker-Lindsay, pp. 10–26. London, New York: Routledge, 2011.

536

Bibliography

Rösener, Werner. „Neue Forschungen zur Sklaverei im mittelalterlichen Europa.“ Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte: Germanistische Abteilung 134 (2017), pp. 1–40. Rohdewald, Stefan. „Kyrill und Method, Kliment und Heilige in der neuen ‚Zarenstadt‘ Tărnovo: (Trans)Kulturelle Praktiken der Heiligenverehrung im Wandel von der slawisch-byzantinischen zur slawisch-osmanischen Kontaktzone.“ QMAN 16 (2011), pp. 201–34. Rohdewald, Stefan. „Sava.“ In Religiöse Erinnerungsorte in Ostmitteleuropa. Konstitution und Konkurrenz im nationen- und epochenübergreifenden Zugriff, eds. Joachim Bahlcke et al., pp. 592–98. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 2013. Rohdewald, Stefan. Götter der Nationen. Religiöse Erinnerungsfiguren in Serbien, Bulgarien und Makedonien bis 1944. Cologne: Böhlau, 2014. Rohrer, Wiebke. Wikinger oder Slawen? Die ethnische Interpretation frühpiastischer Bestattungen mit Waffenbeigabe in der deutschen und polnischen Archäologie. Marburg: Herder-Institut, 2012. Rosenbaum, Karol. „Osudy Herderovej kapitoly o Slovanoch v českom a slovenskom národnom obrození.“ Slavia. Časopis pro slovanskou filologii 49 (1980), pp. 48–56. Rosik, Stanisław. Interpretacja chrześcijańska religii pogańskich Słowian w świetle kronik niemieckich XI–XII wieku (Thietmar, Adam z Bremy, Helmold). Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego, 2000. Rosik, Stanisław. “Rudes in fide gentilium populi … Fortwirken des Heidentums zur Zeit der Christianisierung der Slawen im Lichte der deutschen narrativen Quellen des 11. und 12. Jahrhunderts.” QMAN 7 (2002), pp. 45–76. Rosik, Stanisław. Conversio gentis Pomeranorum. Studium świadectwa o wydarzeniu (XII wiek). Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Chronicon, 2010. Rosik, Stanisław. “Pomerania and Poland in the 10th to 12th Centuries. The expansion of the Piasts and shaping political, social and state relations in the seaside Slav Communities.” In The Expansion of Central Europe in the Middle Ages, ed. Nora Berend, pp. 451–89. Farnham: Ashgate, 2012. Rosik, Stanisław. Bolesław Krzywousty. Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Chronicon, 2013. Rosik, Stanisław. “Chrzest Mieszka I i Polaków, ale czy Polski? Postrzeganie konwersji władcy i społeczeństwa w świetle najdawniejszych przekazów (Thietmar z Merseburga, Gall Anonim).” Kwartalnik Historyczny 122 (2015), pp. 833–40. Rosik, Stanisław. “The Shaping of Post-barbarian Identity: The Example of Pomerania in the 11th–12th Century.” In Imagined Communities: Constructing Collective Identities in Medieval Europe, eds. Andrzej Pleszczyński et al., pp. 293–303. Leiden: Brill, 2018. Roslund, Mats. Guest in the House. Cultural Transmission between Slavs and Scandinavians 900 to 1300 AD. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Rossignol, Sébastien. „Dominatio regionis. Die Politik der Ottonen gegenüber den Slawen an der Elbe und Ostsee in komparatistischer Sicht. Ein Beitrag zum Projekt

Bibliography

537

‚Slawen an der unteren Mittelelbe‘.“ Ethnographisch-Archäologische Zeitschrift 48 (2007), pp. 225–60. Rossignol, Sébastien. „Die Burgen der Slawen in den lateinischen Quellen des 9. bis 11. Jahrhunderts.“ In Siedlungsstrukturen und Burgen im westslawischen Raum, eds. Felix Biermann et al., pp. 31–38. Langenweissbach: Beier & Beran, 2009. Rossignol, Sébastien [2011a]. „Aufstieg und Fall der Linonen. Misslungene Ethnogenese an der unteren Mittelelbe.“ In Slawen an der Elbe, eds. Karl-Heinz Willroth and Jens Schneeweiß, pp. 15–38. Neumünster: Wachholtz, 2011. Rossignol, Sébastien [2011b]. “Civitas in Early Medieval Central Europe – Stronghold or District?” The Medieval History Journal 14 (2011), pp. 71–99. Rossignol, Sébastien [2011c]. “Überlegungen zur Datierung des Traktates des sog. Bayerischen Geographen anhand paläographischer und kodikologischer Beobachtungen.” In Der Wandel um 1000. Beiträge der Sektion zur slawischen Frühgeschichte der 18. Tagung des Mittel- und Ostdeutschen Verbandes für Altertums­ forschung in Greifswald, 23. bis 27. März 2009, eds. Felix Biermann et al., pp. 305–16. Langenweißbach: Beier & Beran, 2011. Rossignol, Sébastien. „Die Linonen zwischen Wort und Tat.“ In Slawen an der unteren Mittelelbe. Untersuchungen zur ländlichen Besiedlung, zum Burgenbau, zu Besiedlungsstrukturen und zum Landschaftswandel, eds. Karl-Heinz Willroth et al., pp. 135–50. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 2013. Rossignol, Sébastien. “Bilingualism in Medieval Europe: Germans and Slavs in Helmold of Bosaus’s Chronicle.” Central European History 47 (2014), pp. 523–43. Rossignol, Sebastien. “Les Daleminciens face aux Francs. Conflits, tribut et structures sociales (Ixe–Xie siècle).” In Pillages, tributs, captifs. Prédation et sociétés de l’antiquté tardive au haut Moyen Âge, eds. Rodolphe Keller and Laury Sarti, pp. 139–60. Paris: Editions de la Sorbonne, 2018. Rossignol, Sebastién [2019a]. Maiestas principum. Herzogsurkunden als Medien der Herrschaftsrepräsentation in Schlesien, Pommern und Pommerellen (1200–1325). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2019. Rossignol, Sébastien [2019b]. “The Entry of Early Medieval Slavs into World History: The Chronicle of Moissac.” In The Medieval Networks in East Central Europe. Commerce, Contacts, Communication, eds. Balázs Nagy et al., pp. 43–57. London, New York: Routledge, 2019. Rothe, Hans. “Nochmals zum Privilegium Slavicum Alexanders des Grossen.” In Festschrift für Wilhelm Lettenbauer zum 75. Geburtstag, eds. Antonín Měšťan and Eckhard Weiher, pp. 209–21. Freiburg: Weiher, 1982. Rothe, Hans. „Das Slavenkloster in der Prager Neustadt bis zum Jahr 1419. Darstellung und Erläuterung der Quellen. Teil 1.“ JfGO 40 (1992), pp. 1–26. Rothkoegel, Anna. „Johann Gottfried Herder und die panslavistischen Ideen bei den Westslaven.“ In Europavisionen im 19. Jahrhundert. Vorstellungen von Europa in

538

Bibliography

Literatur und Kunst, Geschichte und Philosophie, ed. Wulf Segebrecht, pp. 101–11. Würzburg: Ergon-Verlag, 1999. Różycki, Łukasz. “Extraordinary adventures of Tatimer and military tactics of the Slavs in times of emperor Maurice”, in: Vizantija i slovenite: Srednovekovni i moderni percepcii i recepcii, ed. Mitko B. Panov, pp. 32–41. Skopje: Univerzitet “Evro-Balkan”, 2018. Ruchhöft, Fred. „Die Grenze zwischen Obodriten und Wilzen/Lutizen im Mittelalter.“ In Siedlung, Kommunikation und Wirtschaft im westslawischen Raum, eds. Felix Biermann and Thomas Kersting. pp. 145–59. Langenweissbach: Beier & Beran, 2007. Ruchhöft, Fred. Vom slawischen Stammesgebiet zur deutschen Vogtei. Die Entwicklung der Territorien in Ostholstein, Lauenburg, Mecklenburg und Vorpommern im Mittelalter, pp. 183–95. Rahden: Leidorf, 2008. Ruchhöft, Fred [2011a]. „Der Peeneraum im hohen Mittelalter.“ In Der Peeneraum zwischen Frühgeschichte und Mittelalter, ed. Felix Biermann, pp. 21–30. Bonn: Habelt, 2011. Ruchhöft, Fred [2011b]. „Der Wandel der Burgenlandschaft im 10. Jahrhundert bei den Obodriten und Wilzen.“ Der Peeneraum zwischen Frühgeschichte und Mittelalter, ed. Felix Biermann, pp. 23–33. Bonn: Habelt, 2011. Ruchhöft, Fred. „Arkona – die Suche nach dem Heiligtum.“ In Religion und Gesellschaft im nördlichen westslawischen Raum, eds. Felix Biermann et al., pp. 159–67. Langen­ weissbach: Beier & Beran, 2017. Rühberg, Nils. „Obodritische Samtherrscher und sächsische Reichsgewalt von der Mitte des 10. Jahrhunderts bis zur Erhebung des Fürstentums Mecklenburg 1167.“ Mecklenburgische Jahrbücher 110 (1995), pp. 21–50. Rühberg, Nils. „Niklot und der obodritische Unabhängigkeitskampf gegen das sächsische Herzogtum.“ Mecklenburgische Jahrbücher 111 (1996), pp. 5–20. Rühberg, Nils. „Zwischen Kieler Förde und Wismarbucht: Archäologie der Obodriten vom späten 7. bis zur Mitte des 12. Jahrhunderts.“ Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission 83 (2002), pp. 243–65. Rüß, Hartmut. „Das Reich von Kiev.“ In Handbuch der Geschichte Russlands. Volume 1: Von der Kiever Reichsbildung bis zum Moskauer Zartum, ed. Manfred Hellmann, pp. 199–424. Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1981. Rüß, Hartmut. Herren und Diener. Die soziale und politische Mentalität des russischen Adels 9.–17. Jahrhundert. Cologne: Böhlau, 1994. Rukavishnikov, Alexander. “Tale of Bygone Years: the Russian Primary Chronicle as a family chronicle.” Early Medieval Europe 12 (2003), pp. 53–74. Rupp, Gabriele. Die Ekkehardiner, Markgrafen von Meissen, und ihre Beziehungen zum Reich und zu den Piasten. Frankfurt/M.: Lang, 1996.

Bibliography

539

Rusanova, Irina P. Slavianskie drevnosti VI–VII vv. Kul’tura prazhskogo tipa. Moscow: Nauka, 1976. Russen und Rußland aus deutscher Sicht 9.–17. Jahrhundert, ed. Keller, Mechthild. Munich: W. Fink, 1985. Russian Statecraft. The Politika of Iurii Krizhanich. An analysis and translation of Iurii Krizhanich’s Politika, ed. John M. Letiche and Basil Dmytryshyn. Oxford, New York: Basil Blackwell, 1985. Ruszczyńska, Marta. Słowianie i słowianofile. O słowiańofilskich dyskursach w literaturze polskiego romantyzmu. Cracow: Collegium Columbinum, 2015. Ruttkay, Alexander. „Großmähren, Anmerkungen zum gegenwärtigen Forschungs­ stand über die Siedlungs- und sozialökonomischen Strukturen.“ In Origins of Central Europe, ed. Przemysław Urbańczyk, pp. 143–70. Warsaw: Scientia, 1997. Ruttkay, Matej. “Western Slovakia Settlement Evolution in the 6th–12th Centuries.” Ruralia 1 (1995), pp. 277–81. Ruttkay, Matej. “Výskum stredovekých dedinských sídlisk na Slovensku (stav a perspektívy).” Archaeologica historica 24 (1999), pp. 7–40. Rybakov, Boris A. Iazychestvo drevnikh slavian. Moscow: Nauka, 1981. Rybakov, Boris A. Iazychestvo drevnei Rusi. Moscow: Nauka, 1987. Rybandt, Stanisław. “O pobycie benedyktynów słowiańskich w Oleśnicy.” Sobótka 25 (1970), pp. 665–80. Rychterová, Pavlína. “Aufstieg und Fall des Přemyslidenreiches. Erforschung des böhmischen Früh- und Hochmittelalters in der gegenwärtigen tschechischen Mediävistik.” Zeitschrift für Historische Forschung 34 (2007), pp. 629–47. Rymar, Edward. “Czy istnieli władcy sławieńscy Racibór i jego syn Bogusław?” Studia i materiały do dziejów Wielkopolski i Pomorza 18 (1990), 1, pp. 5–29. Rymar, Edward. “Jeszcze raz w sprawie terminu śmierci księcia gdańskiego Sobiesława i ustanoViennaia jego syna Sambora I.” Rocznik Gdański 52 (1992), pp. 221–30. Rymar, Edward. “W sprawie genezy tzw. Dynastii sławieńskiej.” In Pomorze słowiańskie i jego sąsiedzi X–XV w., ed. Jerzy Hauziński, pp. 159–64. Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo Marpress, 1995. Rymar, Edward. “Wielkie Pomorze obszarem lennym magrabiów brandenburskich z dynastii askańskiej.” RH 62 (1996), pp. 21–47. Rymar, Edward. “Bolesław Krzywousty, trybutariusz i lennik niemiecki z Pomorza i roztocza odrzańskiego (1135).” In Historia lux veritatis. Księga pamiątkowa dedykowana Profesorowi Zdzisławowi Chmieleskiemu, eds. Radosław Gażiński et al., pp. 243–67. Szczecin: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Szczecińskiego, 2002. Rymar, Edward. “Terytorium usque ad Vurta fluvium, czyli Pomorze obszarem trybutalnym Niemiec za Mieszka I.” In Biskupi, lennicy, żeglarze, ed. Błażej Śliwiński, pp. 189–228. Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego, 2003.

540

Bibliography

Rymar, Edward. Rodowód książąt pomorskich. 2nd ed. Szczecin: Książnica Pomorska, 2005. Rymar, Edward. “O prawach Królestwa Niemieckiego i Marchii Brandenburskiej do zwierzchnictwa nad całym Pomorzem.” Zapiski Historyczne 72 (2006), pp. 7–51. Rymar, Edward. “Itinerarium książąt pomorskich Barnima I (1220/1221–1278) i War­ cisława III (1219/1220–1264).” Przegląd zachodniopomorski 52 (2008), 4, pp. 5–27. Saczyńska, Monika. “Czy istnieli Słowianie w późnym średniowieczu? Uwagi na podstawie lektury Roczników Jana Długosza.” In Słowianie  – idea i rzeczywistość, eds. Krzysztof A. Makowski and Monika Saczyńska, pp. 71–105. Poznań: Instytut Historii Uniwersytetu Adama Mickiewicza, 2013. Šafárik, Pavol Jozef. Slovanské starožitnosti. Prague: Matica česka, 1837. Salamon, Maciej. „Jordanes w środowisku Konstantynopola połowy VI wieku. Uwagi wstępne.“ Balcanica Posnaniensia 5 (1990), pp. 405–15. Šalkovský, Peter. „Zur Problematik zweier Zonen frühslawischer Hausbaukultur.“ In Studien zur Archäologie des Ostseeraumes. Von der Eisenzeit zum Mittelalter. Festschrift für Michael Müller-Wille, ed. Anke Wesse, pp. 205–12. Neumünster: Wachholtz, 1998. Šalkovský, Peter. Häuser in der frühmittelalterlichen slawischen Welt. Nitra: Archeo­ logický Ústav Slovenskej Akadémie věd, 2001. Samerski, Stefan. „Wenzel.“ In Die Landespatrone der böhmischen Länder. Geschichte – Verehrung  – Gegenwart, ed. Stefan Samerski, pp. 243–62. Paderborn: Schöningh, 2009. Samerski, Stefan. “Stanislaus von Krakau.” In Religiöse Erinnerungsorte in Ostmittel­ europa. Konstitution und Konkurrenz im nationen- und epochenübergreifenden Zugriff, eds. Joachim Bahlcke et al., pp. 554–60. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 2013. Samsonowicz, Henryk. Das lange 10. Jahrhundert. Über die Entstehung Europas. Osnabrück: Fibre, 2009. Šanjek, Franjo. Les chrétiens bosniaque et le movement cathare, XIIe–XVe siècles. Brussels, Paris: Vander-Oyez, 1976. Šanjek, Franjo. „La réforme grégorienne en Croatie sous le règne de Demetrius Zvonimir (1075–1089).“ Studi Gregoriani 14 (1991), pp. 245–251. Šanjek, Franjo. “Church and Christianity.” In Croatia in the Early Middle Ages. A Cultural Survey, ed. Ivan Supičić, pp. 217–36. London: Wilson, 1999. Šašel, Jaroslav. “Divinus nutibus actus. Due Postille per San Martino di Bracara.” In Opera selecta, eds. Rajko Bratož and Marjeta Šašel-Kos, pp. 740–45. Ljubljana: Narodni muzej, 1992. Scandinavian Culture in Medieval Poland, eds. Sławomir Moździoch et al. Wrocław: Institute of Archeology and Ethnology of the Polish Academy of Sciences, 2013. Schaeken, Jos and Henrik Birnbaum. Die altkirchenslavische Schriftkultur. Geschichte – Laute und Schriftzeichen – Sprachdenkmäler. Munich: Sagner, 1999.

Bibliography

541

Schafarik, Paul Joseph. Slawische Alterthümer. Deutsch von Mosig von Aehrendfeld, ed. Heinrich Wuttke. Leipzig: Engel, 1843–44. Schaffarik, Paul Joseph. Geschichte der slawischen Sprache und Literatur nach allen Mundarten. Ofen: Königlich-Ungarische Universitäts-Schriften, 1826. Schaller, Helmut W. Der Nationalsozialismus und die slawische Welt. Regensburg: Pustet, 2002. Scheibe, Michaela. „Dynastisch orientiertes Geschichtsbild und genealogische Fiktion in der Mecklenburgischen Reimchronik des Ernst von Kirchberg.“ In Schriftkultur und Landesgeschichte. Studien zum südlichen Ostseeraum vom 12. bis zum 16. Jahrhundert, ed. Matthias Thumser, pp. 23–61. Cologne: Böhlau, 1997. Scheibe, Michaela. “Formen pommerschen Geschichtsbewußtseins im 14. Jahr­ hundert.” In Tausend Jahre pommersche Geschichte, ed. Roderich Schmidt, pp. 85–124. Cologne: Böhlau, 1999. Scheil, Ursula. Zur Genealogie der einheimischen Fürsten von Rügen. Cologne, Graz: Böhlau, 1962. Schelesniker, Herbert. Der Name der Slawen. Herkunft, Bildungsweise und Bedeutung. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft, 1973. Schelesniker, Herbert. „Die historischen und politischen Hintergründe der kyrillomethodianischen Mission.“ In Symposium Methodianum. Beiträge der Inter­ nationalen Tagung in Regensburg (/17. bis 24. April 1985) zum Gedenken an den 1100. Todestag des hl. Method, eds. Klaus Trost et al., pp. 269–79. Neuried: Hieronymus, 1988. Schenker, Alexander M. The Dawn of Slavic. An Introduction to Slavic Philology. New Haven, London: Yale University Press, 1995. Schich, Winfried. „Stadtwerdung im Raum zwischen Elbe und Oder im Übergang von der slawischen zur deutschen Periode. Beobachtungen zum Verhältnis von Recht, Wirtschaft und Topographie am Beispiel von Städten in der Mark Brandenburg.“ In Germania Slavica I, ed. Wolfgang H. Fritze, pp. 191–238. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1980. Schich, Winfried. „Die Herausbildung der mittelalterlichen Stadt in der Mark Brandenburg. Der Wandel der Topographie, Wirtschaft und Verfassung im 12./13. Jahrhundert.“ In Stadtkernforschung, ed. Helmut Jäger, pp. 213–43. Cologne, Vienna: Böhlau, 1987. Schich, Winfried. „Zum Ausschluß der Wenden aus den Zünften nord- und ostdeutscher Städte im späten Mittelalter.“ In Nationale, ethnische Minderheiten und regionale Identitäten in Mittelalter und Neuzeit, ed. Antoni Czachorowski, pp. 31–51. Toruń: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika, 1994. Schich, Winfried. „Die Gründung von deutschrechtlichen Marktorten und Städten östlich der Elbe im 12. und 13. Jahrhundert.“ In Hausbau und Raumstruktur früher Städte in Ostmitteleuropa, ed. Hansjürgen Brachmann, 7–16. Prague: Institute of Archaeology, 1996.

542

Bibliography

Schich, Winfried. „Zisterzienserklöster in der Germania Slavica und ihr Beitrag zur Gestaltung der Kulturlandschaft und zur Entwicklung der Wirtschaft im 12. und 13. Jahrhundert.“ In Monastische Kultur als transkonfessionelles Phänomen: Beiträge einer deutsch-russischen interdisziplinären Tagung in Vladimir und Suzdal’, eds. Oliver Auge and Ludwig Steindorff, pp. 353–66. Berlin: de Gruyter Oldenbourg, 2016. Schich, Winfried. „Die Entstehung von mittelalterlichen Doppelstädten in der Mark Brandenburg.“ In Enge Nachbarn: Doppel- und Mehrfachburgen in der Bronzezeit und im Mittelalter, mittelalterliche Doppelstädte, eds. Ines Beilke-Voigt and Oliver Nakoinz, pp. 309–31. Berlin: Edition Topo, 2017. Schieche, Emil. “Edvard Beneš und die slawischen Ideen.” ZfO 4 (1955), pp. 194–220. Schildt, Axel. Zwischen Abendland und Amerika. Studien zur westdeutschen Ideenland­ schaft der 50er Jahre. Munich: Oldenbourg, 1999. Schlegel, August Wilhelm. Vorlesungen zur Enzyklopädie. In August Wilhelm Schlegel, Kritische Ausgabe der Vorlesungen. Volume 3, ed. Frank Jolles, Edith Höltenschmidt. Paderborn: Schöningh, 2006. Schlenker, Gerlinde. „Transformationen  – Die Wettiner und ihr Herrschafts- und Kulturraum zwischen dem 10. und dem frühen 13. Jahrhundert.“ In Peripherien sächsischer Geschichte: Mitteldeutschland, Seeburg und Landsberg als Herrschafts- und Kulturräume der Ekkehardiner und Wettiner 743–1347, eds. Stefan Auert-Watzig and Henning Mertens, pp. 91–120. Halle: Druck-Zuck, 2011. Schlesinger, Walter. „Die Verfassung der Sorben.“ In Siedlung und Verfassung der Slaven zwischen Elbe, Saale und Oder, ed. Herbert Ludat, pp. 75–102. Gießen: Schmitz, 1960. Schlesinger, Walter. „Flemmingen und Kühren. Zur Siedlungsform niederländischer Siedlungen des 12. Jahrhunderts im mitteldeutschen Osten.“ In Die deutsche Ostsiedlung des Mittelalters als Problem der europäischen Geschichte, ed. Walter Schlesinger, pp. 263–309. Sigmaringen, 1975: Thorbecke. Schlözer, August Ludwig. Allgemeine Nordische Geschichte. Halle: Gebauer, 1771. Schmaus, Alois. „Vincentius Priboevius, ein Vorläufer des Panslawismus.“ JfGO 1 (1953), pp. 243–54. Schmaus, Alois. „Die literaturhistorische Problematik von Domentijans Sava-Vita.“ In Slawistische Studien zum II. Slawistenkongress in Sofia 1963, eds. Maximilian Braun and Erwin Koschmieder, pp. 121–42. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963. Schmidt, Knud Rahbek. Soziale Terminologie in russischen Texten des frühen Mittelalters (bis zum Jahre 1240). Kopenhagen: Munksgaard, 1964. Schmidt, Roderich. „Rethra. Das Heiligtum der Lutizen als Heiden-Metropole.“ In Festschrift für Walter Schlesinger. Volume II, ed. Helmut Beumann, pp. 366–94. Cologne, Vienna: Böhlau, 1974. Schmidt, Roderich. “Zur Mecklenburgischen Reimchronik des Ernst von Kirchberg.” In Gedenkschrift für Reinhold Olesch, eds. Hans Rothe et al., pp. 71–101. Cologne: Böhlau, 1990.

Bibliography

543

Schmidt, Roderich. “Die Anfänge der pommerschen Geschichte im Spiegel schriftlicher Überlieferung.” In Tausend Jahre pommersche Geschichte, ed. Roderich Schmidt, pp. 1–17. Cologne: Böhlau, 1999. Schmidt, Volker [1994a]. „Die Befestigungsanlagen im Siedlungsgebiet der Wilzen/ Lutizen.“ In Zur slawischen Besiedlung zwischen Elbe und Oder, ed. Werner Budesheim, pp. 73–83. Neumünster: Wachholtz, 1994. Schmidt, Volker [1994b]. „Die Gußtechnik im Schmuckhandwerk bei den Westslawen.“ ZfA 28 (1994), pp. 107–21. Schneidmüller, Bernd [2010a]. „Erinnerte gentes. Geschichtsgedächtnis für das spätere Mittelalter.“ In Völker, Reiche und Namen im frühen Mittelalter, eds. Matthias Becher and Stefanie Dick, pp. 395–409. Munich: Fink, 2010. Schneidmüller, Bernd [2010b]. „Mittelalterliche Nationenbildung als Innovation? Reiche und Identitäten im mittelalterlichen Europa.“ In Aufbruch im Mittelalter. Innovationen in Gesellschaften der Vormoderne, eds. Christian Hesse and Klaus Oschema, pp. 269–93. Ostfildern: Thorbecke, 2010. Schneidmüller, Bernd. “Medieval concepts of migration and transculturality.” In Engaging Transculturality. Concepts, Key Terms, Case Studies, eds. Laila Abu-Er-Rab et al., pp. 79–94. London, New York: Routledge, 2019. Schnetz, Joseph. „Jordanis beim Geographen von Ravenna.“ Philologus. Zeitschrift für klassische Altertumskunde 81 (1926), pp. 86–100. Schnetz, Joseph. Untersuchungen über die Quellen der Kosmographie des anonymen Geographen von Ravenna. Munich: Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1942. Scholz, Cordula. „Probleme bei der Erforschung der Integration Bulgariens in das Byzantinische Reich, 1018–1186.“ In Zwischen Polis, Provinz und Peripherie. Beiträge zur byzantinischen Geschichte und Kultur, ed. Anuscha Monchizadeh, pp. 337–48. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2005. Schrage, Gertraud Eva. Slaven und Deutsche in der Niederlausitz. Untersuchungen zur Siedlungsgeschichte im Mittelalter. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1990. Schrage, Gertraud Eva. „Zur Siedlungspolitik der Ottonen. Untersuchungen zur Integration der Gebiete östlich der Saale im 10. Jahrhundert.“ Blätter für deutsche Landesgeschichte 135 (1999), pp. 189–268. Schrage, Gertraud Eva. „Zur Herkunft des Adels im Umfeld des Zisterzienserklosters Altzella. Ein Beitrag zur Assimilation der slawischen Oberschicht in der südlichen Germania Slavica in der Zeit um 1200.“ ZfO 49 (2000), pp. 1–18. Schrage, Gertraud Eva. „Bautzen und das Land Milsza in der Zeit um 1000.“ In Besunzane – Milzener. Sorben. Die slawische Oberlausitz zwischen Polen, Deutschen und Tschechen, ed. Jasper von Richthofen, pp. 32–41. Görlitz: Oettel, 2004. Schramm, Gottfried. „Die erste Generation der altrussischen Fürstendynastie. Philo­ logische Argumente für die Historizität von Rjurik und seinen Brüdern.“ JfGO 28 (1980), pp. 321–33.

544

Bibliography

Schramm, Gottfried. Eroberer und Eingesessene. Geographische Lehnnamen als Zeugen der Geschichte Südosteuropas im ersten Jahrtausend n. Chr. Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1981. Schramm, Gottfried. „Venedi, Antes, Sclaveni, Sclavi. Frühe Sammelbezeichnungen für slawische Stämme und ihr geschichtlicher Hintergrund.“ JfGO 43 (1995), pp. 161–200. Schramm, Gottfried. Ein Damm bricht. Die römische Donaugrenze und die Invasionen des 5.–7. Jahrhunderts im Lichte von Namen und Wörtern, pp. 125–241. Munich: Oldenbourg, 1997. Schramm, Gottfried. Altrusslands Anfang. Historische Schlüsse aus Namen, Wörtern und Texten zum 9 und 10. Jahrhundert. Freiburg: Rombach, 2002. Schramm, Gottfried. „Um 500 bis 900 auf geräumtem römischen Reichsboden: politisch-militärische Verbände von Eroberern und die zweite Christianisierung.“ In Geschichte Südosteuropas. Vom frühen Mittelalter bis zur Gegenwart, eds. Konrad Clewing and Oliver Jens Schmitt, pp. 24–54. Regensburg: Pustet, 2011. Schreiner, Peter. „Probleme der Gräzisierung des Bulgarischen Reiches im 13. und 14. Jahrhundert.“ Études Balkaniques 14 (1978), 4, pp. 104–14. Schreiner, Peter. “Die slawische Welt zwischen Byzanz und dem Westen.” MBFIÖ 3 (1980), pp. 141–48. Schreiner, Peter. „Das Bulgarenbild im europäischen Mittelalter.“ Études Balkaniques 18 (1982), 2, pp. 58–68. Schreiner, Peter. „Einleitung.“ In Theophylaktos Simokates, Geschichte, ed. Peter Schreiner, pp. 1–25. Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1985. Schreiner, Peter. „Überlegungen zur Verbreitung der griechischen Sprache und der Entstehung der kyrillischen Schrift im bulgarischen Raum.“ MBFIÖ 8 (1986), 1, pp. 51–58. Schreiner, Peter. „Das Christentum in Bulgarien vor 864.“ In Das Christentum in Bulgarien und auf der übrigen Balkanhalbinsel in der Spätantike und im frühen Mittelalter, eds. Vasil Gjuzelev and Renate Pillinger, pp. 51–61. Vienna: Verein “Freunde d. Hauses Wittgenstein”, 1987. Schreiner, Peter. „Die Byzantinisierung der bulgarischen Kultur.“ In Kulturelle Traditionen in Bulgarien, eds. Reinhard Lauer and Peter Schreiner, pp. 47–60. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989. Schreiner, Peter. “Zum Bild der Russen in der byzantinischen Literatur.” In The Legacy of Cyril and Methodius to Kiev and Moscow, ed. Anthony-Aimilios N. Tachiaos, pp. 417–25. Thessalonike: Hellenic Association for Slavic Studies, 1992. Schreiner, Peter. „Das mittelalterliche Bulgarien zwischen Byzanz und dem Westen.“ In Bulgarien zwischen Byzanz und dem Westen. Beiträge zu Kultur, Geschichte und Sprache, ed. Angelika Lauhus, pp. 43–50. 2nd ed. Nümbrecht: Kirsch-Verlag, 2008.

Bibliography

545

Schreiner, Peter. „Die Entstehung des Namens ‘Car’ im Balkanraum aus historischer Sicht.“ In Schreiner, Peter. Orbis Byzantinus. Byzanz und seine Nachbarn. Gesammelte Aufsätze 1970–2011, pp. 257–60. București: Ed. Acad. Române, 2013. Schreiner, Peter. „Die vermeintliche Blendung. Zu den Ereignissen von Kleidion im Jahr 1014.“ In Evropejskiiat jugoiztok prez vtorata polovina na X–nachaloto na XI vek. Istoriia i kultura, eds. Vasil Giuzelev and Georgi N. Nikolov, pp. 170–90. Sofia: Voenno, 2015. Schröder, Franz Josef. Völker und Herrscher des östlichen Europa im Weltbild Widukinds von Korvei und Thietmars von Merseburg. Münster: Universität, 1977. Schröder, Henning. Slawen und Deutsche im Hannoverschen Wendland. Wahrneh­ mungsgeschichtliche Aspekte in der Frühen Neuzeit. Bielefeld: Verlag für Regional­ geschichte, 2010. Schroeder, Horst-Dieter and Wolfgang Hornemann. „Die Sitze der Redarier und die Lage Rethras.“ Greifswald-Stralsunder Jahrbuch 19 (1972/73), pp. 35–72. Schütz, Joseph. „Fredegar: Über Wenden und Slawen (Chronicon lib. IV. cap. 48 et 68).“ Jahrbuch für Fränkische Landesforschung 52 (1992), pp. 45–59. Schuldt, Ewald. „Die slawische Keramik von Sukow und das Problem der Feldberger Gruppe.“ Bodendenkmalpflege in Mecklenburg. Jahrbuch 1963 (1964), pp. 239–61. Schuldt, Ewald. Handwerk und Gewerbe des 8. bis 12. Jahrhunderts in Mecklenburg. Schwerin: Museum für Ur- und Frühgeschichte Schwerin, 1980. Schuldt, Ewald. Groß Raden. Ein slawischer Tempelort des 9./10. Jahrhunderts in Mecklenburg. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1985. Schulz, Matthias. „Slawischer Landesausbau im Raum Prenzlau.“ In aedificatio terrae. Beiträge zur Umwelt- und Siedlungsarchäologie, eds. Gerson H. Jeute et al., pp. 339–46. Rahden: Leidorf, 2007. Schulze, Hans K. „Der Anteil der Slawen an der mittelalterlichen Siedlung nach deutschem Recht in Ostdeutschland.“ ZfO 31 (1982), pp. 321–36. Schulze, Hans K. „Slavica lingua penitus intermissa. Zum Verbot des Wendischen als Gerichtssprache.“ In Schulze, Hans K. Siedlung, Wirtschaft und Verfassung im Mittelalter, pp. 39–52. Cologne: Böhlau, 2006. Schuster-Šewc, Heinz. „Zur Geschichte und Etymologie des ethnischen Namens Sorb / Serb / Sarb / Srb.“ ZfS 30 (1985), pp. 851–56. Schwarz, Ernst. „Mainwenden und Wogastisburg.“ ZfO 16 (1967), pp. 1–17. Scior, Volker. Das Eigene und das Fremde. Identität und Fremdheit in den Chroniken Adams von Bremen, Helmolds von Bosau und Arnolds von Lübeck. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2002. Sedin, Anatolii A. “Gorodishche Nikodimovo (Nikadzimava).” SA 36 (1995), pp. 159–64. Sedov, Valentin V. „Ėtnogeografiia vostochnoi Evropy serediny I tyciacheletiia n.ė. po dannym arkheologii i Iordana.“ In Vostochnaia Evropa v drevnosti i srednevekov’e, ed. Mikhail A. Korostovcev, pp. 9–15. Moscow: Nauka, 1978.

546

Bibliography

Sedov, Valentin V. “Pagan sanctuaries and idols of the eastern Slavs.” Slavica Gandensia 7–8 (1980/81), pp. 69–85. Sedov, Valentin V. Vostochnye slaviane v VI–XIII vv. Moscow: Nauka, 1982. Sedov, Valentin V. Slaviane v rannem srednevekov’e. Moscow: NPBO “Fond Arkheologii”, 1995. Seegrün, Wolfgang. „Erzbischof Adalbert von Hamburg-Bremen und Gottschalk, Großfürst der Abodriten (1043–1066/72).“ In Beiträge zur mecklenburgischen Kirchengeschichte, ed. Bernhart Jähnig, pp. 1–14. Cologne: Böhlau, 1982. Seemanova, Eva. et al. “The Slavic NBN Founder Mutation: A Role for Reproductive Fitness?” PLoS ONE 11 (12). e0167984, 2016 [http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article? id=10.1371/journal.pone.0167984]. Seibt, Ferdinand. Karl IV. Ein Kaiser in Europa 1346 bis 1378. Munich: Süddeutscher Verlag, 1978. Seibt, Ferdinand. „Wenzelslegenden.“ Bohemia 23 (1982), pp. 249–76. Selbstbild und Fremdbilder der Völker des europäischen Ostens, eds. Karl Kaser and Martin Prochazka. Klagenfurt: Wieser, 2006. Shaikin, Aleksandr A. Povest’ vremennykh let. Istoriia i poėtika. Moscow: Russkaia Panorama, 2011. Shakhmatov, Aleksei A. Obozrenie russkikh letopisnykh svodov XIV–XVI vv. Moscow, Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR, 1938. Shakhmatov, Aleksei A. “Kievskii nachal’nyi svod 1095 g.” In A.A. Shachmatov  – Sbornik statei i materialov, ed. Sergej P. Obnorskii, pp. 253–93. Moscow, Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR, 1947. Shboul, Ahmad M.H. Al-Masʾūdī and his World. A Muslim Humanist and his Interest in non-Muslims, pp. 178–88. London: Ithaca Press, 1979. Shchavelev, Aleksej S. “Slavianskie ‘plemena’ vostochnoi Evropy X–pervoi poloviny XI veka: autenifikaciia, lokalizaciia i khronologiia.” SSBP 2/18 (2015), pp. 99–133. Shepard, Jonathan. “The Rhos Guests of Louis the Pious: Whence and Wherefore?” Early Medieval Europe 4 (1995), pp. 41–60. Shepard, Jonathan. “Conversions and Regimes Compared: The Rus’ and the Poles, ca. 1000.” In East Central and Eastern Europe in the Early Middle Ages, ed. Florin Curta, pp. 254–82. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2005. Shepard, Jonathan. “Rus’.” In Christianization and the Rise of Christian Monarchy. Scandinavia, Central Europa and Rus’ c. 900–1200, eds. Nora Berend and Sverre Bagge, pp. 367–416. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Shepard, Jonathan. “The Coming of Christianity to Rus: Authorized and Unauthorized Versions.” In Conversion to Christianity from Late Antiquity to the Modern Age. Considering the Process in Europe, Asia, and the Americas, eds. Calvin B. Kendall et al., pp. 185–222. Minneapolis: Cemh Publications, 2009.

Bibliography

547

Shepard, Jonathan. Emergent Elites and Byzantium in the Balkans and East-Central Europe. Burlington: Ashgate Variorum, 2011. Shepard, Jonathan. “Photios’ sermons on the Rus attack of 860: The question of his origins, and of the route of the Rus’.” In Prosopon Rhomaikon. Ergänzende Studien zur Prosopographie der mittelbyzantinischen Zeit, eds. Alexander Daniel Beihammer et al., pp. 111–28. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2017. Shinakov, Evgenii A. “Chto est‘ ‚slavianskoe plemia‘? Otvety na voprosy redakcii zhurnala.” SSBP 19/1 (2016), pp. 17–31. Šidak, Jaroslav. “‚Ecclesia Sclavoniae‘ i misija dominikanaca u Bosni.” In Šidak, Jaroslav. Studije o ‚Crkvi bosanskoj‘ i bogumilstvu, pp. 177–99. Zagreb: Liber, 1975. Sidorova, Vasilina. “The Slavic World in French Historical Writings of the Eleventh Century.” In Slovakia and Croatia. Historical Parallels and Connections (until 1780), eds. Željko Holjevac et al., pp. 97–101. Bratislava: FF-press, 2017. Sigrist, Christian. „Gesellschaften ohne Staat und die Entdeckung der social anthropology.“ In Gesellschaften ohne Staat. Gleichheit und Gegenseitigkeit, eds. Fritz Kramer and Christian Sigrist, pp. 28–46. Frankfurt/M.: EVA, 1978. Sikorski, Dariusz A. “Powstanie państwa Piastów w świetle najnowszych badań archeologii średniowiecznej.” RH 77 (2011), pp. 205–28. Sikorski, Dariusz Andrzej. “Chrzest Polski i początki Kościoła w Polsce (do pierwszej połowy XI wieku).” In Chrzest  – św. Wojciech  – Polska. Dziedzictwo średniowiecznego Gniezna, Katalog wystawy, ed. Tomasz Janiak, pp. 25–38. Gniezno: Muzeum Początków Państwa Polskiego, 2016. Sikorski, Dariusz A. Religie dawnych Słowian. Przewodnik dla zdezorientowanych. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznańskie, 2018. Sikorski, Przemysław. “Die Anfänge der Zentralisierungsprozesse im frühen Mittelalter in Polen.” In Zentralisierungsprozesse und Herrschaftsbildung im frühmittelalterlichen Ostmitteleuropa, ed. Przemysław Sikorski, pp. 127–56. Bonn: Habelt, 2014. Simeonova, Liliana. Diplomacy of the Letter and the Cross. Photios, Bulgaria and the Papacy, 860s–880s. Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1998. Simmons, Sarah C. “Rus’ dynastic ideology in the frescoes of the south chapels in St. Sophia, Kiev.” In From Constantinople to the frontier: the city and the cities, eds. Nicholas Matheou, Theofil Kampianaki and Lorenzo Bondioli, pp. 207–25. Leiden: Brill, 2016. Simpson, Catherine. “The Croats and the Glagolitic Alphabet.” Medieval World 7 (1992), pp. 17–23. Sindbaek, Søren Michael. “A Site of Intersection: Staraya Ladoga, Eastern Silver, and Long-Distance Communication Networks in Early Medieval Europe.” In Identity formation and diversity in the early medieval Baltic and beyond: communicators and communication, eds. Johan Callmer et al., pp. 76–90. Leiden: Brill, 2017.

548

Bibliography

Sitzmann, Alexander. Nordgermanisch-ostslavische Sprachkontakte in der Kiever Rus’ bis zum Tode Jaroslavs des Weisen. Vienna: Ed. Praesens, 2003. Skalski, Kazimierz. “Drużyna przyboczna władców zachodniosłowiańskich.” In Z dziejów średniowiecznej Europy Środkowowschodniej, ed. Jan Tyszkiewicz, pp. 17–34. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo DiG, 1998. Skibiński, Edward. “Problem pochodzenia Kroniki Wielkopolskiej.” In Czechy – Polska – Wielkopolska. Studia z dziejów średniowiecza ofiarowane Profesorowi Bronisławowi Nowackiemu, eds. Zbyszko Górczak and Jacek Jaskulski, pp. 189–98. Poznań: Instytut Historii Uniwersytetu Adama Mickiewicza, 2009. Skonieczny, Tomasz. “Od Wieletów do Luciców. W sprawie zmiany tożsamości plemion wieleckich u schyłku X wieku.” In Populi terrae marisque. Prace poświęcone pamięci Profesora Lecha Leciejewicza, ed. Marian Rębkowski, pp. 83–91. Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Chronicon, 2011. Skordos, Adamantios. „Vom ‚grossrussischen Panslavismus‘ zum ‚sowjetischen Slavokommunismus‘. Das Slaventum als Feindbild bei Deutschen, Österreichern, Italienern und Griechen.“ In Post-Panslavismus. Slavizität, slavische Idee und Antislavismus im 20. und 21. Jahrhundert, Geds. Agnieszka Gąsior et al., pp. 388–426. Göttingen: Wallstein, 2014. Skrzhinskaja, Elena Ch. “O Slavenach i Antach, o Mursianskom ozere i gorode Novietune. (Iz komentariia k Iordanu).” Vizantiiskii Vremennik 12 (1957), pp. 3–30. Sláma, Jiří. “K česko-polským stykům v 10. a 11. stol.” Vznik a počátky Slovanů 4 (1963), pp. 221–69. Sláma, Jiří. Střední Čechy v raném středověku. II: Hradiště, příspěvky k jejich dějinám a významu. Prague: Univ. Karlova, 1986. Sláma, Jiří. “K počátkům hradské organizace v Čechách.” In Typologie raně feudálních slovanských útvarů, ed. Josef Žemlička, pp. 175–90. Prague: Ústav československých a světových dějin ČSAV, 1987. Sláma, Jiří. “Slavníkovci – významná či okrajová záležitost českých dějin 10. století?” AR 47 (1995), pp. 182–224. Sláma, Jiří [2001a]. “Der böhmische Fürst Boleslav II.” In Boleslav II. Der tschechische Staat um das Jahr 1000, ed. Petr Sommer, pp. 15–42. Prague: Filosofia, 2001. Sláma, Jiří [2001b]. “Der ökonomische Wandel im Přemyslidenstaat unter der Herrschaft der Nachfolger Fürst Boleslavs II.” In Boleslav II. Der tschechische Staat um das Jahr 1000, ed. Petr Sommer, pp. 139–49. Prague: Filosofia, 2001. Sláma, Jiří. “Der heilige Prokop. Sein Leben in Legende und Wirklichkeit.” In Der heilige Prokop, Böhmen und Mitteleuropa. Internationales Symposium, Benešov  – Sázava 24.–26. September 2003., ed. Petr Sommer, pp. 103–8. Prague: Filosofia, 2005. Sláma, Jiří. “Počátky přemyslovského státu.” In České země v raném středověku, ed. Petr Sommer, pp. 30–52. Prague: Nakladatelství Lidové Noviny, 2006.

Bibliography

549

Sláma, Jiří. “Přemyslovská doména na počátku 10. století.” In Přemyslovci. Budování českého státu, eds. Petr Sommer et al., pp. 74–93. Prague: Nakladatelství Lidové Noviny, 2009. Sláma, Jiří. “Kníže svatý Václav.” In Svatý Václav. Na památku 1110. Výročí narození knížete Václava Svatého, ed. Petr Kubín, pp. 31–50. Prague: Togga, 2010. Slavery and the Slave Trade in the Eastern Mediterranean (c. 1000–1500 ce), eds. Reuven Amitai and Christoph Cluse. Turnhout: Brepols, 2017. Slavianofil’stvo i sovremennost’. Sbornik statei, eds. Boris F. Egorov et al. Moscow: Nauka, 1994. Śliwiński, Błażej. Poczet książąt gdańskich. Dynastia Sobiesławiców XII–XIII wieku. Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo Marpress, 1997. Śliwiński, Błażej. “Pomorze w polityce i strukturze państwa wczesnopiastowskiego (X–XII w.).” KH 107 (2000), 2, pp. 3–40. Śliwiński, Błażej. Pomorze Wschodnie w okresie rządów księcia polskiego Władysława Łokietka w latach 1306–1309. Gdańsk: Muzeum Archeologiczne, 2003. Słoczyński, Henryk. “Joachima Lelewela wizja dziejowej roli Słowian.” In Panslawizm wczoraj, dziś, jutro, eds. Zofia Chyra-Rolicz and Tomasz Rokosz, pp. 55–66. Siedlce: Pracownia Wydawnicza Wydziału Humanistycznego, 2016. Slovanský sjezd v Praze roku 1848. Sbírka dokumentů, eds. Václav Žáček and Zdeněk Tobolka. Praha: Československá akademie věd, 1958. Slovar’ russkogo iazyka XI–XVII vv. Vypusk 25 (Skoryn’ia-Snulyi), ed. Galina A. Bogatova. Moscow: Nauka, 2000. Słupecki, Leszek P. [1994a]. “Problem słowiańskich świątyń.” SA 35 (1994), pp. 47–67. Słupecki, Leszek P. [1994b]. Slavonic pagan sanctuaries. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Instytutu Archeologii i Etnologii PAN, 1994. Słupecki, Leszek P. “Sacred Space in the Cultural Landscape of Slavic Peoples in the Pre-Christian Period.” In Landscapes in Flux. Central and Eastern Europe in Antiquity, eds. John Chapman and Pavel Dolukhanov, pp. 59–76. Oxford: Oxbow, 1997. Słupecki, Leszek P. [2000a]. „Heidnische Religion westlicher Slawen.“ In Europas Mitte um 1000. Beiträge zur Geschichte, Kunst und Archäologie, Volume 1, eds. Alfried Wieczorek and Hans Hinz, pp. 239–51. Stuttgart: Theiss, 2000. Słupecki, Leszek P. [2000b]. “Sanktuaria w świecie natury u Słowian i Germanów. Święte gaje i ich bogowie.” In Człowiek, sacrum, środowisko. Miejsca kultu we wczesnym średniowieczu, ed. Sławomir Moździoch, pp. 39–47. Wrocław: Werk, 2000. Słupecki, Leszek P. “Miejsca kultu pogańskiego w Polsce na tle badań nad wierzenami Słowian.” In Stan i potrzeby badań nad wczesnym średniowieczem w Polsce – 15 lat później, eds. Wojciech Chudziak and Sławomir Moździoch, pp. 63–82. Toruń: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika, 2006. Šmahel, František. Idea národa v husitských Čechách. České Budějovice: Nakladatelství Růže, 1971.

550

Bibliography

Šmahel, František. “Husyckie pojęcie wzajemności słowiańskiej i czesko-polskiej.” In Polskie echa husytyzmu, eds. Stanisław Bylina and Ryszard Gładkiewicz, pp. 9–19. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Instytutu Historii PAN, 1999. Šmahel, František [2002a]. Die hussitische Revolution. Hannover: Hahn, 2002. Šmahel, František [2002b]. „Die nationes im Mittelalter.“ In Die Präsenz des Nationalen im (ost)mitteleuropäischen Geschichtsdiskurs, ed. Robert Maier, pp. 35–44. Hannover: Hahn, 2002. Smetánka, Zdeněk. Die Geschichte vom Bauern Ostoj. Alltag im mittelalterlichen Böhmen. Rahden: Leidorf, 2009. Sobiesiak, Joanna A. Bolesław II Przemyślida († 999). Dynasta i jego państwo. Cracow: Avalon, 2006. Sobiesiak, Joanna A. “Jak Przemyślidzi zdobyli panowanie nad ‘plemieniem Czechów’. Historia i archeologia o powstaniu czeskiego państwa (IX–X w.).” In Instytucja ‘wczesnego państwa’ w perspektywie wielości i różnorodności kultur, eds. Jacek Banaszkiewicz et al., pp. 249–72. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Instytutu Archeologii i Etnologii PAN, 2013. Sochacki, Jarosław. “Związek Lucicki – między Polską a cesarstwem do 1002 r.” SA 47 (2006), pp. 17–48. Sokol, Vladimir. “The Archaeological Heritage of the Early Croats.” In Croatia in the Early Middle Ages. A Cultural Survey, ed. Ivan Supičić, pp. 117–46. London: Wilson, 1999. Sokol, Vladimir. “Gdje se nalazila Porfirogenetova Paganija i granica sa Zahumljem.” In Hum i Hercegovina kroz povijest. Zbornik radova s međunarodnoga znanstvenog skupa održanog u Mostaru 5. i 6. studenoga 2009, ed. Ivica Lučić, pp. 197–216. Zagreb: Hrvatski institut za povijest, 2011. Šołta, Jan and Hartmut Zwahr. Geschichte der Sorben. Volume 2: Von 1789 bis 1917. Bautzen: Domowina-Verlag, 1974. Sommer, Petr. „Sázava und böhmische Klöster des 11. Jahrhunderts.“ In Der heilige Prokop, Böhmen und Mitteleuropa. Internationales Symposium, Benešov  – Sázava 24.–26. September 2003., ed. Petr Sommer, pp. 157–71. Prague: Filosofia, 2005. Sommer, Petr. “Saint Prokopius and Sázava Monastery.” In The Cyril and Methodius Mission and Europe. 1150 Years since the Arrival of the Thessaloniki Brothers in Great Moravia, eds. Pavel Kouřil et al., pp. 296–99. Brno: Archeologický ústav AVČR, 2014. Sommer, Petr, Dušan Třeštík and Josef Žemlička. “Bohemia and Moravia.” In Christianization and the Rise of Christian Monarchy. Scandinavia, Central Europa and Rus’ c. 900–1200, eds. Nora Berend and Sverre Bagge, pp. 214–62. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Sophoulis, Pananos. “New Remarks on the History of Byzantine-Bulgar Relations in the Late Eighth and Early Ninth Centuries.” Byzantinoslavica 67 (2009), pp. 19–138.

Bibliography

551

Sophoulis, Pananos. “The Chronicle of 811, the Scriptor incertus and the ByzantineBulgar wars of the early ninth century.” Bulgaria Mediaevalis 1 (2010), pp. 381–88. Sophoulis, Pananos. Byzantium and Bulgaria, 775–831. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Soulis, Gerorge C. “Tsar Stephen Dušan and Mount Athos.” Harvard Slavic Studies 2 (1954), pp. 125–39. Soulis, Gerorge C. The Serbs and Byzantium during the Reign of Tsar Stephen Dušan (1331–1355) and his Successors. Washington: Dumbarton Oaks Library and Collection, 1984. Southeastern Frontier of the Carolingian Empire, eds. Danijel Dzino et al., pp. 103–22. Leiden: Brill, 2018. Speck, Paul. “Die griechischen Quellen zur Bekehrung der Bulgaren und die zwei ersten Briefe des Photius.“ In Polypleuros nus. Miscellanea für Peter Schreiner zu seinem 60. Geburtstag, eds. Cordula Scholz and Georgios Makris, pp. 342–59. Munich: Saur, 2000. Špehar, Perica. „Remarks to Christianisation and realms in the central Balkans in the light of archaeological finds (7th–11th c.).” In Castellum, civitas, urbs. Zentren und Eliten im frühmittelalterlichen Ostmitteleuropa, eds. Orsolya Heinrich-Tamáska et al., pp. 71–93. Budapest: Leidrof, 2015. Spors, Józef. “Pochodzenie dynastii książęcych na Pomorzu w XI i XII wieku – w szeczególności Świętobora i Świętopełka z Kroniki Anonima Galla.” RH 49 (1983), pp. 1–46. Spors, Józef. Studia nad wczesnośredniowiecznymi dziejami Pomorza Zachodniego. XII–pierwsza połowa XIII w. Słupsk: Wyższa Szkoła Pedagogiczna, 1988. Spors, Józef. Studia nad wczesnośredniowiecznymi dziejami Pomorza Zachodniego. XII–pierwsza połowa XIII w. Słupsk: WSP, 1988. Spreitzhofer, Karl. „Die Ausbildung der ethnischen Verhältnisse in der Steiermark bis zum Hochmittelalter.“ In Migrationen und Ethnogenese im pannonischen Raum bis zum Ende des 12. Jahrhunderts, pp. 259–66. Graz: Amt der Steiermärkischen Landesregierung, 1996. Stabenow, Ulf. „Die Entstehung der Pomoranen.“ In Slawen und Deutsche im südlichen Ostseeraum vom 11.–16. Jahrhundert, ed. Michael Müller-Wille, pp. 127–48. Neumünster: Wachholtz, 1995. Stadler, Peter. “Avar Chronology revisited, and the question of ethnicity in the Avar qaganate.” In The Other Europe in the Middle Ages, ed. Florin Curta, pp. 47–82. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Stamati, Iurie. The Slavic Dossier. Medieval Archaeology in the Soviet Republic of Moldova: Between State Propaganda and Scholarly Endeavor. Leiden: Brill, 2019. Staňa, Čenĕk. „Mährische Burgwälle im 9. Jahrhundert.“ In Die Bayern und ihre Nachbarn. Teil 2, eds. Herwig Friesinger and Falko Daim, pp. 157–200. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1985.

552

Bibliography

Stanisławski, Błażej. “Norse culture in Wolin-Jómsborg.” In Scandinavian Culture in Medieval Poland, eds. Sławomir Moździoch et al., pp. 193–246. Wrocław: Institute of Archeology and Ethnology of the Polish Academy of Sciences, 2013. Stanisławski, Błażej and Władysław Filipowiak. Wolin wczesnośredniowieczny. Część 1–2. Warsaw: Fundacja na Rzecz Nauki Polskiej, 2013/14. Stankova, Radoslava. “Kirillo-mefodievskie tradicii v Serbii v XIII–XIV vv.” In Kyrillos kai Methodios: To Byzantio kai o kosmos tōn Slabōn/Cyril and Methodius: Byzantium and the world of the Slavs. International Scientific Conference, pp. 411–19. Thessaloniki: Ekd. Dēmu Thessalonikēs, 2015. Stanković, Vlada. Kralj Milutin (1282–1321). Belgrade: Freska, 2012. Stanković, Vlada. “The Character and Nature of Byzantine Influence in Serbia. Policy – Reality  – Ideology (11th–end of the 13th Century).” In Serbia and Byzantium. Proceedings of the International Conference Held on 15 December 2008 at the Univer­ sity of Cologne, eds. Mabi Angar and Claudia Sode, pp. 75–93. Frankfurt/M.: Lang, 2013. Stanković, Vlada. “Rethinking the Position of Serbia within Byzantine Oikoumene in the Thirteenth Century.” In The Balkans and Byzantine World before and after the Captures of Constantinople, 1204 and 1453, ed. Vlada Stanković, pp. 91–102. Latham: Lexington Books, 2016. Stasiewski, Bernhard. Untersuchungen über drei Quellen zur ältesten Geschichte und Kirchengeschichte Polens. Breslau: Müller & Seiffert, 1933. Štefan, Ivo and Ivana Boháčková. “Fortified Centres in Central Bohemia. Key Issues.” In Moravian and Silesian Strongholds of the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries in the Context of Central Europe, eds. Pavel Kouřil and Rudolf Procházka, pp. 247–60. Brno: Archeologický ústav AVČR, 2018. Stefaniuk, Tomasz. Danilewski. Panslawizm i wielość cywilizacji. Lublin: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej, 2006. Stefanovich, Petr S. [2012a]. Bojare, otroki, druzhiny. Voenno-politicheskaja ėlita Rusi v X–XI vekakh. Moscow: Indrik, 2012. Stefanovich, Petr S. [2012b]. “Skazanie o prizvanii variagov ili Origo gentis russorum?” DGVE 2010 (2012), pp. 514–83. Stefanovich, Petr S. “The Political Organization of Rus’ in the 10th Century.” JfGO 64 (2016), pp. 529–44. Stefanovičová, Tatiana. “Slavic settlement of Greece in the light of archaeological sources.” In Ėtnogenez i ėtnokul’turnye kontakty slavjan, ed. Valentin V. Sedov, 352–61. Moscow: Rossijskaja Akademija Nauk, 1997. Stefanowska, Zofia. “Legenda słowiańska w prelekcjach paryskich Mickiewicza.” Pamiętnik Literacki 59 (1968), 2, pp. 41–55. Steinacher, Roland. „Wenden, Slawen, Vandalen. Eine frühmittelalterliche pseudologische Gleichsetzung und ihre Nachwirkung.“ In Die Suche nach den Ursprüngen. Von

Bibliography

553

der Bedeutung des frühen Mittelalters, ed. Walter Pohl, pp. 329–53. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2004. Steinacher, Roland. Die Vandalen. Aufstieg und Fall eines Barbarenreichs. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 2016. Steindorff, Ludwig. Die dalmatinischen Städte im 12. Jahrhundert. Studien zu ihrer politischen Stellung und gesellschaftlichen Entwicklung. Cologne: Böhlau, 1984. Steindorff, Ludwig. „Die Synode auf der Planities Dalmae. Reichseinteilung und Kirchenorganisation im Bild der Chronik des Priesters von Dioclea.“ MIÖG 93 (1985), pp. 279–324. Steindorff, Ludwig. „‚Liber Methodius‘. Überlegungen zur kyrillomethodianischen Tradition beim Priester von Dioclea.“ MBFIÖ 8 (1986), 1, pp. 157–71. Steindorff, Ludwig. “Zar Stefan Dusan von Serbien.” In Die ‚Blüte‘ der Staaten des östlichen Europa im 14. Jahrhundert, ed. Marc Löwener, pp. 183–203. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2004. Steindorff, Ludwig. „Das mittelalterliche epigraphische Erbe Kroatiens.“ In Kroatien. Kultur – Sprache – Literatur, ed. Reinhard Lauer, pp. 15–30. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005. Steindorff, Ludwig. Kroatien. Vom Mittelalter bis zur Gegenwart. 2nd ed. Regensburg: Pustet, 2007. Steindorff, Ludwig. „Jedno od gradilišta Nade Klaić: Ljetopis popa Dukljanina.“ In Nada Klaić i njezin znanstveni i nastavni doprinos razvoju historiografije, eds. Tomislav Galović and Damir Agičić, pp. 171–89. Zagreb: FF press, 2014. Steindorff, Ludwig. „Die Slawen bei Helmold von Bosau. Vorwissen, Vorurteil und eigene Erfahrung.“ In Der Limes Saxoniae. Fiktion oder Realität?, eds. Oliver Auge and Jens Boye Volquartz, pp. 113–22. Berlin: Lang, 2019. Steindorff, Ludwig. “Der Chronist Thomas archidiaconus von Split  – Akteur in einer Konfliktgemeinschaft.” In Liber Romani. Studia ofiarowane Romanowi Michałowskiemu u siedemdziesiątą rocznicę urodzin, eds. Grzegorz Pac and Krzsztof Skwierczyński, pp. 313–24. Warsaw: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, 2020. Steinke, Klaus. “Das Urslavische: Fiktion und/oder Realität?” ZFslPh 57 (1998), pp. 371–78. Stepanov, Zvetelin. Bolgarskie gosudarstvennye obrazovaniia IV–IX vv.: Ot vozhdestva k rannemu gosudarstvu, DGVE 2014 (2016), pp. 193–212. Stepanova, Elena V. France Prešern. Žizn i tvorčestvo. Sankt Peterburg: Aletejja, 2017. Stephenson, Paul. “Political Authority in Dalmatia during the Reign of Manuel I Comnenus (1143–1180).” In Byzanz und Ostmitteleuropa 950–1453, eds. Günter Prinzing and Maciej Salamon, pp. 127–50. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1999. Stephenson, Paul. Byzantium’s Balkan Frontier. A Political Study of the Northern Balkans, 900–1204. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

554

Bibliography

Steuer, Heiko. „Besiedlungsstrukturen und Raumnutzung in der mittleren Elberegion. Einleitung und Diskussion.“ In Slawen an der unteren Mittelelbe. Untersuchungen zur ländlichen Besiedlung, zum Burgenbau, zu Besiedlungsstrukturen und zum Landschaftswandel, eds. Karl-Heinz Willroth et al., pp. 105–8. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 2013. Stevens, George R. German Perceptions of Poland and Russia in the Early Modern Period. Clemson: Tiger Prints, 2016. Štih, Peter. „Priwina: slawischer Fürst oder fränkischer Graf?“ In Ethnogenese und Überlieferung. Angewandte Methoden der Frühmittelalterforschung, eds. Karl Brunner and Brigitte Merta, pp. 209–22. Vienna: Oldenbourg, 1994. Štih, Peter. „Suche nach der Geschichte oder Wie der karantanische Fürstenstein das Nationalsymbol der Slowenen wurde.“ In Vergangenheit und Vergegenwärtigung. Frühes Mittelalter und europäische Erinnerungskultur, eds. Helmut Reimitz and Bernhard Zeller, pp. 229–40. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2009. Štih, Peter. The Middle Ages between the Eastern Alps and the Northern Adriatic. Select Papers on Slovene Historiography and Medieval History. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Štih, Peter. “Slowenisch, Alpenslawisch oder Slawisch zwischen Donau und Adria im Frühmittelalter.” In Sprache und Identität im frühen Mittelalter, ed. Walter Pohl, pp. 171–83. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2012. Štih, Peter. „Die Integration der Karantanen und anderer Alpenslawen in das fränkisch-ottonische Reich.“ Carinthia I 204 (2014), pp. 43–59. Štih, Peter [2018a]. „Als die Kirche Slawisch zu sprechen begann. Zu den Hinter­ gründen der Christianisierung in Karantanien und Pannonien.“ In Neue Wege der Frühmittelalterforschung  – Bilanz und Perspektiven, eds. Walter Pohl et al., pp. 339–56. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2018. Štih, Peter [2018b]. “Imperial politics and its regional consequences. Istria between Byzantium and the Franks 788–812.” In Imperial Spheres and the Adriatic. Byzantium, the Carolingians and the Treaty of Aachen (812), eds. Mladen Ančić et al., pp. 57–72. London: Routledge, 2018. Štih, Peter [2018c]. “Integration on the Fringes of the Frankish Empire: The Case of the Carantanians and their Neighbours.” In Migration, Integration and Connectivity on the Stilo et animo. Prace ofiarowane Profesorowi Tomaszowi Jasińskiemu w 65. rocznicę urodzin, Maciej Dorna et al. Poznań: Instytut Historii Uniwersytetu Adama Mickiewicza, 2016. Stipišić, Jakov. “Croatia in diplomatic sources up to the end of the 11th century.” In Croatia in the Early Middle Ages. A Cultural Survey, ed. Ivan Supičić, pp. 285–318. London: Wilson, 1999. Stojkovski, Boris. “Arabski geograf Idrisi o Južnoj Ugarskoj i Srbiji.” Zbornik Matice srpske za istoriju 79–80 (2009), pp. 59–69.

Bibliography

555

Stoyanov, Yuri. “Between Heresiology and Political Theology. The Rise of the Paradigm of the Medieval Heretical ‘Bosnian Church’.” In Teologie politiche. Modelli a confronto, ed. Giovanni Filorami, pp. 163–80. Brescia: Morcelliana, 2005. Stradomski, Jan. “Literacka, polityczna i cerkiewna działalność prawosławnego metropolity kijowskiego Grzegorza Camblaka w świetle współczesnych mu źródeł.” In Z religijnych zagadnień średniowiecza, ed. Jan Drabina, pp. 167–82. Cracow: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 2008. Strässle, Paul M. Krieg und Kriegführung in Byzanz. Die Kriege Kaiser Basileios’ II. gegen die Bulgaren (976–1019). Cologne: Böhlau, 2006. Stratoudakai White, Despina and Joseph R. Berrigan. The Patriarch and the Prince. The Letter of Patriarch Photios of Constantinople to Khan Boris of Bulgaria. Brookline/ Mass.: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1982. Strika, Zvjezdan. “Početci i razvoj ninske Crkve do dolaska franačkih misionara u hrvatske krajeve.” Radovi Zavoda za povijesne znanosti HAZU u Zadru 53 (2011), pp. 1–47. Strumins’kyj, Bohdan. “Were the Antes Eastern Slavs?” HUS 3–4 (1979/80), pp. 786–96. Strumiński, Bohdan. Linguistic Interrelations in Early Rus’. Northmen, Finns, and East Slavs (Ninth to Eleventh Centuries). Roma: Fenice, 1996. Struve, Karl W. „Geschichte und archäologische Erforschung der slawischen Fürstenburg in Wagrien.“ In 750 Jahre Stadtrecht Oldenburg in Holstein, ed. Klaus Ehlers, pp. 73–206. Oldenburg/Holstein: Stadt Oldenburg, 1985. Struve, Karl W. “Die Ethnogenese der Slawen aus der Sicht der Vor- und Frühgeschichte.” In Starigard/Oldenburg. Ein slawischer Herrschersitz des frühen Mittelalters in Ostholstein, ed. Michael Müller-Wille, pp. 9–28. Neumünster: Wachholtz, 1991. Strzelczyk, Jerzy. “Drzewianie połabscy.” SA 15 (1968), pp. 61–216. Strzelczyk, Jerzy. Gerwazy z Tilbury: Studium z dziejów uczoności geograficznej w średniowieczu. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, 1970. Strzelczyk, Jerzy. “Z nowszych badań nad dziejami Drzewian połabskich i Hanowerskiego Wendlandu.” Studia Historica Slavo-Germanica 5 (1976), pp. 137–74. Strzelczyk, Jerzy. „Der Volksaufstand der Polen in den 30er Jahren des 11. Jahrhunderts und seine Rolle während der Krise des frühpiastischen Staates.“ ZfA 18 (1984), pp. 129–40. Strzelczyk, Jerzy [1991a]. „Der Prozess der Aktualisierung Polens und Osteuropas im Verständnis der gelehrten Kreise des 13. Jahrhunderts (mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Otia imperialia des Gervasius von Tilbury und der Ebstorfer Weltkarte).“ In Ein Weltbild vor Columbus. Die Ebstorfer Weltkarte. Interdisziplinäres Colloquium 1988, ed. Hartmut Kugler, pp. 146–66. Weinheim: VCH, Acta Humaniora, 1991. Strzelczyk, Jerzy [1991b]. “Westslawische Reminiszenzen der Großpolnischen Chronik.” In Beiträge zur Archäologie und Geschichte Nordostniedersachsens. Berndt Wachter zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. Wolfgang Jürries, pp. 145–54. Lüchow: Heimatkundlicher Arbeitskreis, 1991.

556

Bibliography

Strzelczyk, Jerzy. „Die slawische Minderheit in Deutschland im Spätmittelalter und früher Neuzeit am Beispiel der Nachkommen von Dravänopolaben im Hannoverschen Wendland.“ In Nationale, ethnische Minderheiten und regionale Identitäten in Mittelalter und Neuzeit, ed. Antoni Czachorowski, pp. 69–94. Toruń: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika, 1994. Strzelczyk, Jerzy. Mity, podania i wierzenia dawnych Słowian. Poznań: Rebis, 1998. Strzelczyk, Jerzy. “Zjazd gnieźnieński 1000 roku.” In Gniezno i Poznań w państwie pierwszych Piastów, ed. Andrzej Wójtowicz, pp. 77–108. Poznań: Ośrodek Wydawnictw Naukowych, 2000. Strzelczyk, Jerzy. „Auf der Suche nach der nationalen Identität im Mittelalter. Der Fall Polen.“ In Das europäische Mittelalter im Spannungsbogen des Vergleichs, ed. Michael Borgolte, pp. 359–69. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2001. Strzelczyk, Jerzy. Bolesław Chrobry. 2nd ed. Poznań: Wydawnictwo WBPiCAK, 2003. Strzelczyk, Jerzy. “Paweł Józef Szafarzyk (1795–1861) a kwestia jedności słowiańskiej.” In Idee wspólnotowe słowiańszczyzny, eds. Aleksander Mikołajczak et al., pp. 71–90. Poznań: Wydawcitwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Adama Mickiewicza, 2004. Strzelczyk, Jerzy. „Die Deutschen in Polen im Mittelalter.“ In Identitäten und Alteritäten der Deutschen in Polen in historisch-komparatistischer Perspektive, eds. Markus Krzoska and Isabel Röskau-Rydel, pp. 29–47. Munich: Meidenbauer, 2007. Strzelczyk, Jerzy. “Die Umstrukturierung des Gnesener Raumes als Folge der Machtentfaltung der Piasten und der Christianisierung des Polanenstaates.” In Zentrum und Peripherie in der Germania Slavica, eds. Doris Bulach and Matthias Hardt, pp. 279–93. Stuttgart: Steiner, 2008. Strzelczyk, Jerzy. “Początki refleksji nad pochodzeniem i językiem Słowian.” In Strzelczyk, Jerzy. W świecie średniowiecznych myśli i emocji. Wybór prac, pp. 45–76. Poznań: Instytut Historii Uniwersytetu Adama Mickiewicza, 2012. Strzelczyk, Jerzy. Obodrzyci, In Strzelczyk, Zapomniane Narody Europy, 291–339. 2nd ed. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznańskie, 2015. Subotin-Golubovic, Tatjana. “Reflection of the Cult of Saint Konstantine and Methodios in Medieval Serbian Culture.” In Thessaloniki – Magna Moravia. Proceedings of the International Conference Thessaloniki 16–19 October 1997, pp. 37–52. Thessaloniki: Hellenic Association for Slavic Studies, 1999. Suchodolski, Stanisław. “Orzeł czy paw? Jeszcze o denarze Bolesława Chrobrego z napisem PRINCES POLONIE.” In Suchodolski, Stanisław. 2012. Numizmatyka średniowieczna. Moneta źródłem archeologicznym, historycznym i ikonograficznym, pp. 287–305. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Trio, 2012. Suić, Mate. “Pristupna razmatranja uz problem etnogeneze Hrvata.” In Etnogeneza Hrvata/Ethnogeny of the Croats, ed. Neven Budak, pp. 13–27, 195–198. Zagreb: Matica Hrvatske, 1995.

Bibliography

557

Sulimirksi, Tadeusz. “Die Veneti-Venedae und deren Verhältnis zu den Slawen.” In Berichte über den II. Internationalen Kongress für slawische Archäologie. Volume 2, ed. Joachim Hermann, pp. 381–87. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1973. Sullivan, Denis F. “Khan Boris and the Conversion of Bulgaria. A Case Study of the Impact of Christianity on a Barbarian Society.” Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History 3 (1996), pp. 53–139. Sundhaussen, Holm. Der Einfluss der Herderschen Ideen auf die Nationsbildung bei den Völkern der Habsburger Monarchie. Munich: Oldenbourg, 1973. Suppan, Arnold. „Der Illyrismus zwischen Vienna und Ofen-Pest. Die illyrischen Zeitungen im Spannungsfeld der Zensurpolitik (1835–1843).“ In Der Austroslawismus. Ein verfrühtes Konzept zur politischen Neugestaltung Mitteleuropas, ed. Andreas Moritsch, pp. 102–24. Vienna: Böhlau, 1996. Svatkosky-Nestor, Vsevolod. “L’Union Slave.” La Revue Slave 1 (1906), pp. 4–10. Svatý Vojtěch v české a polské literatuře a v umení, ed. Libor Pavera. Opava: Slezská Universita, 1999. Swoboda, Wincenty. „Malamir.“ SSS 3 (1967), pp. 156–57. Swoboda, Wincenty. “O charakterze państwa bułgarskiego do połowy IX w. w świetle jego stosunków z sąsiednimi plemionami słowiańskimi.” SA 18 (1971), pp. 83–103. Symonovich, Ėrast A. “Gorodishche Kolochin I na Gomel’shchine.” Materialy i issledovaniia po arkheologii SSSR 108 (1963), pp. 97–137. Syrný, Marek. “Idea slovanstva na povojnovom Slovensku v rokoch 1945–1948.” In Slovanství ve středoevropském prostoru. Iluze, deziluzje a realita. Pardubická konference (22.–24. dubna 2004), eds. Dominik Hrodek et al., pp. 174–91. Prague: Libri, 2004. Szabó, Miloslav. „Der Mythos von Orient und Okzident. Zur ‚Depotenzierung‘ der geschichtlichen Vernunft in L‘udovít Štúrs ‚Das Slawenthum und die Welt der Zukunft‘.“ In Politische Mythen im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert in Mittel- und Osteuropa, ed. Heidi Hein-Kircher, pp. 243–54. Marburg: Herder-Institut, 2006. Szádeczky-Kardoss, Samuel. „Die Nachricht des Isidorus Hispalensis und des spanischen Fortsetzers seiner ‚Historia‘ über einen Slaweneinfall in Griechenland.“ In Szlávok-Protobolgárok-Bizánc, eds Nino Nikolov et al., pp. 51–61. Szeged: JATE soksorosító üzeme, 1986. Szameit, Erik. „Frühmittelalterliche Siedlungstätigkeit im Ostalpenraum und der Nachweis von Slawen im Lichte archäologischer Quellen. Bemerkungen zu einem Modell der archäologischen Fundsituation des 6.–9. Jhs. in Österreich.“ Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft Vienna 125/126 (1995/96), pp. 291–311. Szameit, Erik and Harald Stadler. „Das frühmittelalterliche Grab von Grabelsdorf bei St. Kanzian am Klopeinersee, Kärnten. Ein Beitrag zur Datierung und Deutung awarischer Bronzen im Ostalpenraum.“ Archaelogia Austriaca 77 (1933), pp. 213–42. Szarota, Elida Maria. Die gelehrte Welt des 17. Jahrhunderts über Polen. Zeitgenössische Texte. Vienna: Europaverlag, 1972.

558

Bibliography

Szczepanik, Paweł [2018a]. Słowiańskie zaświaty. Wierzenia, wizje i mity. Szczecin: Wydawnictwo “Triglav”, 2018. Szczepanik, Paweł [2018b]. “Wczesnośredniowieczne miniaturowe figurki antropomorficzne z terenów Słowiańszczyzny Pólnocno-Zachodniej. Próba interpretacji.” In Hierofanie, wierzenia, obrzędy  … Kultura symboliczna w średniowieczu między pogaństwem a chrześcijaństwem, eds. Stanisław Rosik et al., pp. 43–67. Rzeszów: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Rzeszowskiego, 2018. Szczur, Stanisław. Historia Polski. Średniowiecze. Cracow: Wydawnictwo Literackie, 2002. Szech, Karin. „Archäologische Untersuchungen zu Bautzen und der Oberlausitz in slawischer Zeit.“ In Berichte und Beiträge des Geisteswissenschaftlichen Zentrum Geschichte und Kultur Ostmitteleuropas, pp. 49–64. Leipzig: Geisteswissenschaft­ liches Zentrum Geschichte und Kultur Ostmitteleuropas, 2003. Szenerényi, Gábor. “Remarks on Government of Dalmatia in the Twelfth Century. A Typological Analysis.” Specimina Nova. Sectio mediaevalis 4 (2007), pp. 35–49. Szmoniewski, Bartłomiej Szymon. “The Antes: Eastern ‘Brothers’ of the Sclavenes?” In Neglected Barbarians, ed. Flroin Curta, pp. 53–82. Turnhout: Brepols, 2010. Szöke, Béla Miklós. „Mosaburg/Zalavár und Pannonien in der Karolingerzeit.“ Antaeus 31/32 (2010), pp. 9–52. Szyjewski, Andrzej. Religia Słowian. Cracow: Wydawnictwo WAM, 2003. Szymański, Wojciech. Szeligi pod Płockiem na początku wczesnego średniowiecza. Zespół osadniczy z VI–VII w. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, 1967. Szymański, Wojciech. “Beiträge zum Problem der Entstehung von Burgen bei den Slawen.” AP 21/22 (1983), pp. 9–104. Szymański, Wojciech. “Aktualny stan wiedzy o posągu ze Zbrucza i rejonie jego odkrycia.” In Z archeologii Ukrainy i Jury Ojcowskiej, ed. Jacek Lech and Józef Partyka, pp. 265–300. Ojców: Ojcowski Park Narodowy, 2001. Szymański, Wojciech. “Pierwociny słowiańskiej sztuki fortyfikacynej według źródeł bizantyjskich z VI–VII w.” Archeologia Polski 53 (2008), pp. 89–96. Szymański, Wojciech. “Refleksje na temat początków grodów u Słowian.” In Archeologica hereditas. Grody średniowiecznego Mazowsza. Księga poświęcona pamięci Marka Dulinicza. Warsaw, eds. Magdalena Żurek and Małgorzata Krasna-Korycińska, pp. 31–38. Zielona Góra: Wydawnictwo Fundacji Archeologicznej, 2015. Tabaczyński, Stanislaw. “Procesy etnogenetyczne jako problem badawczy archeologii.” In Archeologia o początkach Słowian, Piotr Kaczanowski and Michał Parczewski, pp. 37–50. Cracow: Księgarnia Akademicka, 2005. Takács, Miklós. „Sächsische Bergleute im mittelalterlichen Serbien und die sächsische Kirche von Novo Brdo.“ Südost-Forschungen 50 (1991), pp. 31–60. Tanty, Mieczysław. Panslawizm, carat, Polacy. Zjazd Słowiański w Moskwie 1867 roku. Warsaw: PWN, 1970.

Bibliography

559

Tapkova-Zaimova, Vassilka. “Les idées de Rome et de la Seconde Rome chez les Bulgares.” In Roma, Constantinopoli, Mosca, ed. Paolo Siniscalco, pp. 387–97. Napoli: Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane, 1983. Tăpkova-Zaimova, Vasilka. ‘Bălgari rodom  …’. Komitopulite v letopisnata i istoriografskata tradiciia. Veliko Tărnova: Iz. “Sv. Sv. Kiril i Metodii”, 2009. Tapkova-Zaimova, Vassilka and Anissava Miltenova. Historical and Apocalyptic Litera­ ture in Byzantium and Medieval Bulgaria. Sofia: Iztok-Zapad, 2011. Tateo-Sasse, Barbara. „Die spätslawische und frühdeutsche Zeit. Der archäologische Befund.“ In Ribbe, Wolfgang, ed. 1987, pp. 77–175. Thavoris, Antonios. “The Slavs and the Slav Toponyms and Their Endings in Greece.” Cyrillomethodianum 3 (1975), pp. 190–218. The Prague Slav Congress 1848. Slavic Identities, ed. Horst Haselsteiner. New York: Columbia University Press, 2000. Thierry, Christophe. “Écrire l’histoire universelle à la cour de Konrad IV de Hohenstaufen: la Weltchronik de Rudolf von Ems (milieu XIIIe siècle).” In Universal Chronicles in the High Middle Ages, eds. Michele Campopiano and Henry Bainton, pp. 141–78. Woodbridge: York Medieval Press, 2017. Thomson, Francis J. “A Survey of the Vitae Allegedly Translated from Latin into Slavonic in Bohemia in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries.” In Atti dell 8° Congresso Internazionale die Studi sull‘ Alto Medioevo, pp. 331–48. Spoleto: Presso la sede del Centro studi, 1983. Thomson, Francis J. “Continuity in the development of Bulgarian culture during the period of Byzantine hegemony and the Slavonic translations of works by three Capadocian fathers.” In Meždunaroden simpozium 1100 godini ot blaženata končina na sv. Metodii 2, eds. Nikolai St. Shivarov et al., pp. 140–53. Skopje: Iz. Sinodalno, 1989. Thomson, Francis J. “Gregory Tsamblak. The Man and The Myths.” Slavica Gandensia 25 (1998), 2, pp. 5–149. Thomson, Francis J. “The Bulgarian Contribution of the Reception of Byzantine Culture in Kievan Rus’: the Myths and the Enigma.” In Thomson, Francis J. 1999. The Reception of Byzantine Culture in Medieval Russia, pp. 214–61. Aldershot: Routledge, 1999. Tibbetts, Gerald R. [1992a]. “The Balkhī School of Geographers.” In The History of Cartography. Volume 2, 1: Cartography in the Traditional Islamic and South Asian Societies, eds. Harley, John B. and David Woodward, pp. 108–36. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press, 1992. Tibbetts, Gerald R. [1992b]. “The Beginnings of a Cartographic Traditon.” In The History of Cartography. Volume 2, 1: Cartography in the Traditional Islamic and South Asian Societies, eds. Harley, John B. and David Woodward, pp. 90–107. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press, 1992.

560

Bibliography

Timberlake, Alan. “Language and the First (Slavic) Life of Wenceslaus.” In Schnittpunkt Slavistik. Ost und West im wissenschaftlichen Dialog. Festgabe für Helmut Keipert zum 70. Geburtstag. Teil 2: Einflussforschung, ed. Irina Podtergera, pp. 123–38. Bonn: V&R-Unipress, 2012. Tinnefeld, Franz H. „Zum Stand der Olga-Diskussion.“ In Zwischen Polis, Provinz und Peripherie. Beiträge zur byzantinischen Geschichte und Kultur, ed. Lars Martin Hoffmann, pp. 531–67. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2005. Tippelskirch, Ingrid von. Die Weltchronik des Rudolf von Ems. Studien zur Geschichts­ auffassung und politischen Intention. Göppingen: Kümmerle, 1979. Tito, Josip Broz. Ausgewählte Schriften und Reden 1928–1979. Volume 3/2: Außenpolitik, ed. Pero Damjanović, Klaus-Detlev Grothusen. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 1984. Tkadlčík, Vojtěch. „Über den Ursprung der Glagolica.“ In Glagolitica. Zum Ursprung der slavischen Schriftkultur, ed. Heinz Miklas, pp. 9–32. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2000. Todić, Branislav. “Serbian Monumental Art of the 13th Century.” In Sacral Art of the Serbian Lands in the Middle Ages, eds. Dragan Vojvodić and Danica Popović, pp. 213–31. Belgrade: Serbian National Committe of Byzantine Studies, 2016. Tolochko, Oleksiy P. “The Primary Chronicle’s ‘Ethnography’ Revisited: Slavs and Varangians in the Middle Dniepr Region and the Origin of the Rus’ State.” In Franks, Northmen, and Slavs. Identities and State Formation in Early Medieval Europe, eds. Ildar H. Garipzanov et al., pp. 169–88. Turnhout: Brepols, 2008. Tolochko, Oleksiy P. “Christian Chronology, Universal History, and the Origin of Chronicle Writing in Rus’.” In Historical Narratives and Christian Identity on a European Periphery. Early History Writing in Northern, East-Central and Eastern Europe (c. 1070–1200), ed. Ildar H. Garipzanov, pp. 205–27. Turnhout: Brepols, 2011. Tolochko, Oleksiy P. “Church of St. Elijah, ‘Baptized Ruses’ and the Date of the Second Ruso-Byzantine Treaty.” Byzantinoslavica 71 (2013), pp. 111–28. Tolochko, Aleksei. Ocherki nachal’noi Rusi. Kiev, Sankt-Peterburg: Laurus, 2015. Tolochko, Oleksiy. “Christian and pagans in Kiev during the 10th c.” In The Dawnings of Christianity in Poland and across Central and Eastern Europe. History and the Politics of Memory, eds. Igor Kąkolewski et al., pp. 11–32. Berlin: Lang, 2020. Toločko, Oleksiy P. “All the Happy Families … The Rurikids in the Eleventh Century.” In The Neighbours of Poland in the 11th Century, ed. Przemysław Urbańczyk, pp. 155–68. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo DiG, 2002. Tolstoi, Nikita I. [1989a]. “Ėtnicheskoe i kul’turnoe samosoznanie Serbov v sviazi s razvitiem pis’mennosti (literatury) i literaturnogo iazyka v XII–XIV vv.” In Razvitie ėtnicheskogo samosoznaniia slavianskikh narodov v ėpochu zrelogo feodalizma, eds. Gennadii G. Litavrin and Viacheslav V. Ivanov, pp. 117–29. Moscow: Nauka, 1989. Tolstoi, N.I. [1989b]. “Ėtničeskoe i kul’turnoe samosoznaniia Khorvatov v sviazi s razvitiem pis’mennosti (literatury) i literaturnogo iazyka v XII–XIV vv.” In Razvitie

Bibliography

561

ėtnicheskogo samosoznaniia slavianskikh narodov v ėpochu zrelogo feodalizma, eds. Gennadii G. Litavrin and Viacheslav V. Ivanov, pp. 130–51. Moscow: Nauka, 1989. Tomaševic, Stjepan. (1461–1463). Slom srednjovjekovnoga Bosanskog Kraljevstva. Zbornik radova, ed. Ante Birin. Sarajevo: Hrvatski Institut za Povijest, 2013. Tomková, Kateřina. “Neuere Grabungen auf dem slawischen Burgwall Levý Hradec.” In Siedlungsstrukturen und Burgen im westslawischen Raum, eds. Biermann, Felix et al., pp. 77–82. Langenweissbach: Beier & Beran, 2009. Tomková, Kateřina. Levý Hradec v zrcadle archeologických výzkumů. Prague: Archeologický ústav AVČR, 2011. Tomljemović, Ivica. „Wann begegneten die Kroaten dem Christentum?“ In Early Christianity in Central and Eastern Europe, ed. Przemysław Urbańczyk, pp. 43–46. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Semper, 1997. Totev, Totju. Preslavskata kultura i izkustvo prez IX–X v. Sofia: Marin Drinov, 2000. Totomanova, Anna-Maria. “The Synodikon of Orthodoxy in Medieval Bulgaria.” Studia Ceranea 7 (2017), pp. 169–227. Trajdos, Tadeusz M. “Fundacja klasztoru benedyktynów słowiańskich na Kleparzu w Krakowie.” Rocznik Krakowski 54 (1988), pp. 73–89. Trapp, Erich. “Die Viten des hl. Naum von Ochrid.” Byzantinoslavica 35 (1974), pp. 161–85. Treadgold, Warren. “The Bulgars’ Treaty with the Byzantines in 816.” Rivista di Studi Bizantini e Slavi 4 (1984), pp. 213–20. Treadgold, Warren. The Middle Byzantine Historians. Basingstoke, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013. Treitschke, Heinrich von. „Das deutsche Ordensland Preußen.“ Preußische Jahrbücher 10 (1862), pp. 95–151. Třeštík, Dušan. Kosmova kronika. Studie k počátkům českého dějepisectví a politického myšlení. Prague: Academia, 1968. Třeštík, Dušan. “České kmeny. Historie a skutečnost jedné koncepce.” Studia mediaevalia Pragensia 1 (1988), pp. 129–43. Třeštík, Dušan. “The Baptism of the Czech Princes in 845 and the Christianisation of the Slavs.” Historica NS 2 (1995), pp. 7–59. Třeštík, Dušan. Počátky Přemyslovců. Vstup Čechů do dějin (530–935). Prague: Nakladatelství Lidové Noviny, 1997. Třeštík, Dušan. “Přemyslovec Kristián.” AR 51 (1999), pp. 602–12. Třeštík, Dušan. „‚Eine große Stadt der Slawen namens Prag‘ (Staaten und Sklaven in Mitteleuropa im 10. Jahrhundert).“ In Boleslav II. Der tschechische Staat um das Jahr 1000, ed. Petr Sommer, pp. 93–138. Prague: Filosofia, 2001. Třeštík, Dušan. “Von Svatopluk zu Bolesław Chrobry. Die Entstehung Mitteleuropas aus der Kraft des Tatsächlichen und aus einer Idee.” In The Neighbours of Poland

562

Bibliography

in the 11th Century, ed. Przemysław Urbańczyk, pp. 111–45. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo DiG, 2002. Třeštík, Dušan. „K založení pražského biskupství v letech 968–976: pražská a řezenska tradice.“ In Vlast a rodný kraj v díle historika, ed. Jaroslav Pánek, pp. 179–96. Prague: Historický ústav AVČR, 2004. Třeštík, Dušan. „Slawische Liturgie und Schrifttum im Böhmen des 10. Jahrhunderts: Vorstellungen und Wirklichkeit.“ In Der heilige Prokop, Böhmen und Mitteleuropa. Internationales Symposium, Benešov  – Sázava 24.–26. September 2003., ed. Petr Sommer, pp. 205–36. Prague: Filosofia, 2005. Třeštík, Dušan. “Proč byli vyvražděni Slavníkovci?” In Slavníkovci v českých dějinách, ed. Vojtěch Vaněk, pp. 13–19. Prague: Státní Oblastní Archiv, 2007. Třeštík, Dušan [2009a]. Powstanie Wielkich Moraw. Morawianie, Czesi i Europa Środkowa w latach 791–871. Warsaw: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, 2009. Třeštík, Dušan [2009b]. “Idea státu a národa.” In Přemyslovci. Budování českého státu, eds. Petr Sommer et al., pp. 272–86. Prague: Nakladatelství Lidové Noviny, 2009. Třeštík, Dušan and Josef Žemlička. “O modelach vývoje přemyslovského státu.” ČČH 105 (2007), pp. 122–64. Trifunović, Đorđe, Vesna Bjelogrlić and Irena Brajjović. “Hilandarska osnivačka povelja svetoga Simeona i svetoga Save.” In Osam vekova Studenice. Zbornik radova, pp. 49–60. Belgrade: Sveti Arhijerejski Sinod Srpske Pravoslavne Crkve, 1986. Troebst, Stefan. „Slavizität. Identitätsmuster, Analyserahmen, Mythos.“ In Gemeinsam einsam. Die Slawische Idee nach dem Panslawismus, eds. Agnieszka Gąsior et al., pp. 309–16. Berlin: Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag, 2009. Troebst, Stefan. „Slavizität. Identitätsmuster, Analyserahmen, Mythos.“ In Troebst, Stefan. 2013. Erinnerungskultur  – Kulturgeschichte  – Geschichtsregion. Ostmittel­ europa in Europa, pp. 29–41. Stuttgart: Steiner, 2013. Troebst, Stefan [2014a]. “Post-Panslavism? Political Connotations of Slavicness in 21th Century Europe.” In Post-Panslavismus. Slavizität, slavische Idee und Antislavismus im 20. und 21. Jahrhundert, Geds. Agnieszka Gąsior et al., pp. 17–21. Göttingen: Wallstein, 2014. Troebst, Stefan [2014b]. “Schwanengesang gesamtslawischer ‘Einheit und Brüderlich­ keit’. Der Slawenkongress in Belgrad 1946.” In Post-Panslavismus. Slavizität, slavische Idee und Antislavismus im 20. und 21. Jahrhundert, Geds. Agnieszka Gąsior et al., pp. 43–68. Göttingen: Wallstein, 2014. Tropami św. Wojciecha, ed. Zofia Kurnatowska. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznańskiego Towarzystwa Przyjaciół Nauk, 1999. Trubachev, Oleg N. Ėtnogenez i kul’tura drevneishikh slavian. Lingvisticheskie issledovaniia. Moscow: Nauka, 1991.

Bibliography

563

Trubeckoj, Nikolai S. “Obshcheslavianskoj ėlement v russkoi kul’ture.” In Trubeckoj, Nikolai S. 1927. K probleme russkogo samopoznaniia. Sobranie statei, pp. 54–94. Paris: Evraz. Knigoizdat., 1927. Tschekova, Ilina. „Genese und kommunikative Funktion der altrussischen Nestor­ chronik.“ The Medieval Chronicle 2 (2002), pp. 250–67. Tummuscheit, Astrid. “Groß Strömkendorf: A market site of the eighth century on the Baltic Sea coast.” In Markets in early medieval Europe. Trading and ‘productive’ sites, 650–850, eds. Tim Pestell and Katharina U. Ulmschneider, pp. 208–20. Macclesfield: Windgather, 2003. Tupec, Michael. „Ludmilla.“ In Die Landespatrone der böhmischen Länder. Geschichte – Verehrung  – Gegenwart, ed. Stefan Samerski, pp. 167–73. Paderborn: Schöningh, 2009. Turek, Rudolf. Die frühmittelalterlichen Stämmegebiete in Böhmen. Prague: Československá společnost archeologická při Československé akademie věd, 1957. Turek, Rudolf. Böhmen im Morgengrauen der Geschichte. Von den Anfängen der slawischen Besiedlung bis zum Eintritt in die europäische Kulturgemeinschaft (6. bis Ende des 10. Jahrunderts). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1974. Turek, Rudolf. Slavníkovci a jejich panství. Hradec Králové: Kruh, 1982. Turk Santiago, Edita. Probleme der Herrschaftsbildung im mittelalterlichen Serbien (bis zum ausgehenden 12. Jahrhundert). Frankfurt/M.: Universität, 1984. Turlej, Stanisław. The Chronicle of Monemvasia. The migration of the Slavs and church conflicts in the Byzantine source from the beginning of the 9th century, pp. 125–38. Cracow: Towarzystwo Wydawnictwo “Historia Iagellonica”, 2001. Turlej, Stanisław. “The Collapse of the Avar Khaganate and the Situation in the Southern Balkans. Byzantine and Bulgarian Relations in the Early 9th Century. The Birth of Krum’s Power and its Foundations.” In Byzantium, New Peoples, New Powers: The Byzantino-Slav Contact Zone, from the nine to the fifteenth century, eds. Milijana Kaimakamova et al., pp. 31–54. Cracow: Towarzystwo Wydawnicze “Historia Iagellonica”, 2007. Turlej, Stanisław [2010a]. “Trwanie i zmiany. Stosunki etniczne na Bałkanach w okresie VI–X w.” In Wędrówka i etnogeneza w starożytności i średniowieczu, eds. Maciej Salamon and Jerzy Strzelczyk, pp. 251–68. Cracow: Towarzystwo Wydawnicze “Historia Iagellonica”, 2010. Turlej, Stanisław [2010b]. “Justynian i początki słowian. Uwagi na temat teorii Florina Curty”, Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego 137 (2010), pp. 11–19. Tuschling, Steffen. “‘Trinksucht, Unzucht und Geiz’. Antislawische Stereotypen als Hintergrund der Sorbenpolitik der Evangelischen Landeskirche (Alt-)Preußens im Deutschen Kaiserreich.” In Zwischen Zwang und Beistand. Deutsche Politik gegenüber

564

Bibliography

den Sorben vom Wiener Kongress bis zur Gegenwart, eds. Edmund Pech and Dietrich Scholze, pp. 287–99. Bautzen: Domowina-Verlag, 2003. Tvorogov, Oleg V. “Povest’ vremennykh let i Nachal’nyi svod (tekstologicheskii kommentarii).” Trudy otdela drevenrusskoi literatury AN SSSR 30 (1976), pp. 3–26. Tymowski, Michał. “Organizacje plemienne na obszarze Polski w IX–X w. w świetle antropologicznych systemu segmentarnego i wodzostwo (chiefdom).” In Europa barbarica, Europa christiana. Studia mediaevalia Carolo Modzelewski dedicata, eds. Roman Michałowski et al., pp. 263–83. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo DiG, 2008. Tyszkiewicz, Lech. Słowianie w historiografii antycznej do połowy VI wieku. Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego, 1990. Tyszkiewicz, Lech. “Powstanie stereotypu Słowian w historiografii wczesnego średniowieczu.” In Monastycyzm. Słowiańszczyzna i państwo polskie. Warsztat badawczy historyka, ed. Kazimierz Bobowski, pp. 9–25. Wrocław: Instytut Historyczny Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego, 1994. Tyszkiewicz, Lech. “Plemiona słowiańskie we wczesnym średniowieczu.” In Słowiań­ szczyzna w Europie średniowiecznej. Tom 1: Plemiona i wczesne państwa, ed. Zofia Kurnatowska, pp. 45–52. Wrocław: Werk, 1996. Tyszkiewicz, Lech. “Koczownicy turecko-mongolscy (ałtajscy) a migracje Słowian w Europie od IV do VII wieku.” In Wędrówka i etnogeneza w starożytności i średniowieczu, eds. Maciej Salamon and Jerzy Strzelczyk, pp. 205–220. Cracow: Towarzystwo Wydawnicze “Historia Iagellonica”, 2010. Udolph, Jürgen. „Die Landnahme der Ostslaven im Lichte der Namenforschung.“ JfGO 29 (1981), pp. 321–36. Udolph, Jürgen. „Heimat und Ausbreitung slawischer Stämme aus namenkundlicher Sicht.“ In Die frühen Slawen  – von der Expansion zu gentes und nationes. Volume 1: Beiträge zum Schwerpunktthema, eds. Felix Biermann et al., pp. 27–51. Langenweißbach: Beier & Beran, 2016. Udolph, Ludger. „Jan Pětr Jordans Panslavismus-Konzeption. Ein Beitrag zum ‚slavischen Diskurs‘ im Vormärz.“ In Prozesse kultureller Integration und Desintegration. Deutsche, Tschechen, Böhmen im 19. Jahrhundert, eds. Steffen Höhne and Andreas Ohme, pp. 231–47. Munich: Oldenbourg, 2005. Ulanowski, Bolesław. “Przyczynki źródłowe do ostatnich lat panowania Ottokara II.” Archiwum Komisji Historycznej 4 [= Scriptores rerum Polonicarum. Tom 12] (1888), pp. 1–41. Ulewicz, Tadeusz. Sarmacja. Studium z problematyki słowiańskiej XV i XVI w. Cracow: Wydawnictwo Studium Słowiańskiego Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 1950. Unger, Manfred. „Bernhard von Clairvaux und der Slawenkreuzzug 1147.“ Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft 7 (1959), pp. 80–90. Urbańczyk, Przemysław. “Obcy wśród Słowian.” In Słowianie w Europie wcześniejszego średniowiecza. Katalog wystawy, ed. Maria Miśkiewicz, pp. 65–77. Warsaw: Państwowe Muzeum Archeologiczne, 1998.

Bibliography

565

Urbańczyk, Przemysław [2000a]. “Political circumstances reflected in post-war Polish archaeology.” Public Archeology 1 (2000), pp. 40–56. Urbańczyk, Przemysław [2000b]. Władza i polityka we wczesnym średniowieczu. Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego, 2000. Urbańczyk, Przemysław. “Foreign Leaders in Early Slavic Societies.” In Integration und Herrschaft. Ethnische Identitäten und soziale Organisation im Frühmittelalter, eds. Walter Pohl and Max Diesenberger, pp. 257–67. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2002. Urbańczyk, Przemysław. “Polski węzeł słowiański.” In Nie-Słowianie o początkach Słowian, ed. Przemysław Urbańczyk, pp. 133–53, 172–75. Poznań: Poznańskie Towarzystwo Przyjaciół Nauk, 2006. Urbańczyk, Przemysław. Trudne początki Polski. Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego, 2008. Urbańczyk, Przemysław. “Medieval archaeology in Polish Historical Discourse.” In Politik und Wissenschaft in der prähistorischen Archäologie. Perspektiven aus Sachsen, Böhmen und Schlesien, eds. Judith Schachtmann et al., pp. 237–49. Göttingen: V&R unipress, 2009. Urbańczyk, Przemysław [2012a]. Mieszko pierwszy tajemniczy. Toruń: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika, 2012. Urbańczyk, Przemysław [2012b]. “Identities of Saqāliba and the Rūsiyya in Early Arabic Sources.” In Visions of Community in the Post-Roman World. The West, Byzantium and the Islamic World, 300–1100, eds. Walter Pohl et al., pp. 459–73. Farnham: Ashgate, 2012. Urbańczyk, Przemysław. “Saqāliba ta Rūsiyya. Identyčnosti v rannich arabs’kych dżerelach.” Ruthenica 21 (2013), pp. 7–21. Urbańczyk, Przemysław. Bliskie spotkania wikingów. Wodzisław Śląski: Wydawnictwo Templum, 2014. Urbańczyk, Przemysław. Zanim Polska została Polską. Toruń: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika, 2015. Urbańczyk, Przemysław. Bolesław Chrobry  – lew ryczący. Toruń: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika, 2017. Urbańczyk, Przemysław. Co się stało w 1018 roku?. Poznań: Zysk i S-ka Wydawnictwo, 2018. Urbańczyk, Przemysław. “The Pace of the Early Christianisation of the Piast Lands.” In Studies on the Christianisation of Europa, ed. Józef Dobosz, 105–17. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Adama Mickiewicza, 2019. Urbańczyk, Przemysław and Stanisław Rosik. “Poland.” In Christianization and the Rise of Christian Monarchy. Scandinavia, Central Europa and Rus’ c. 900–1200, eds. Nora Berend and Sverre Bagge, pp. 263–318. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

566

Bibliography

Vaklimov, Stancho. Formirane na starobălgarskata kultura VI–XI vek. Sofia: Nauka i Izkustvo, 1977. Váňa, Zdeněk. Svět dávných Slovanů. Prague: Artia, 1983. Váňa, Zdeněk. Mythologie und Götterwelt der slawischen Völker. Die geistigen Impulse Ost-Europas. Stuttgart: Urachhaus, 1992. Vaněček, Václav. Vratislav II. (I.). Prvni český král. Čechý v dobe evropského kulturního obratu v 11. století. Prague: Vyšehrad, 2004. Vaníček, Vratislav. Svatý Václav. Panovník a světec v raném středověku. Prague, Litomyšl: Paseka, 2014. Varadzin, Ladislav. “K vývoji hradíšt’ v jádru Čech se zřetelem k přemyslovské doméně.” AR 62 (2010), pp. 535–54. Várossová, Elena. „Herders Einfluß in der Slowakei. Kollars Idee der slawischen Wechselseitigkeit als Beförderung der Humanität zwischen den Nationen.“ In Verdrängter Humanismus – verzögerte Aufklärung, Volume 3: Bildung und Einbildung. Vom verfehlten Bürgerlichen zum Liberalismus. Philosophie in Österreich (1820–1880), eds. Michael Benedikt et al., pp. 329–41. Klausen, Leopoldsdorf: Turia & Kant, 1995. Vasmer, Max. Die Slaven in Griechenland. Berlin: Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1941. Vavřínek, Vladimír. „Der Brief des mährischen Fürsten Rastislav an den Kaiser Michael III. und die Umstände der Einladung der byzantinschen Mission nach Grossmähren.“ In Methodios und Kyrillos in ihrer europäischen Dimension, ed. Evangelos Konstantinou, 329–43. Frankfurt/M.: Lang, 2005. Vavřínek, Vladimír. Cyril a Metoděj mezi Konstantinopolí a Římem. Prague: Vyšehrad, 2013. Vavřínek, Vladimir. “The Puzzle of the Cyrillo-Methodian Mission.” Byzantinoslavica 75 (2017), pp. 70–98. Văzharova, Zhivka. Slavianski i slavianobălgarski selishta v bălgarskite zemi ot kraia VI do XI v. Sofia: Iz. na Bălgarskata Akademiia na Naukite, 1965. Večerka, Radoslav. Staroslověnská etapa českého pisemnictví. Prague: Nakladatelství Lidové noviny, 2010. Vediushkina, Irina V. “Ėtnograficheskoe vvedenie ‘Povesti vremennykh let’: osobennosti kompozicii.” In Vostochnaia Evropa v drevnosti i srednevekov’e. Spornye problemy istorii, ed. Anatolii P. Novosel’cev, pp. 12–14. Moscow: Institut Vseobshchennoi Istorii RAN, 1993. Vediushkina, Irina V. “‘Rus’’ i ‘Russkaia zemlia’ v Povesti vremennykh let i letopisnykh stat’iakh vtoroi treti XII–pervoi treti XIII v.” DGVE 1992–1993 (1995), pp. 101–16. Vediushkina, Irina V. “Formy proiavleniia kollektivnoi identichnosti v Povesti vremennykh let.” In Obrazy proshlogo i kollektivnaia identichnost’ v Evrope do nachala novogo vremeni, ed. Lorina P. Repina, pp. 286–310. Moscow: Krug’, 2003. Vediushkina, Irina V. “O nekotorykh osobennostiakh drevnerusskogo samosoznaniia.” In Religioznye i ėtnicheskie tradicii v formirovanii nacional’nykh identichnostei v Evrope, ed. Michail V. Dmitriev, pp. 282–93. Moscow: Indrik, 2008.

Bibliography

567

Velčeva, Borjana. “Die bulgarischen Alphabete.” MBFIÖ 8 (1986), 1, pp. 69–75. Velčeva, Borjana. „Glagolica, Kyrillica, Orthographie und Sprache.“ In Symposium Methodianum. Beiträge der Internationalen Tagung in Regensburg (/17. bis 24. April 1985) zum Gedenken an den 1100. Todestag des hl. Method, eds. Klaus Trost et al., pp. 703–708. Neuried: Hieronymus, 1988. Velkov, Velizar. “Der Donaulimes in Bulgarien und das Vordringen der Slawen.” In Die Völker Südosteuropas im 6. bis 8. Jahrhundert, ed. Bernhard Hänsel, pp. 141–69. Berlin: Südosteuropa-Gesellschaft, 1987. Verkholantsev, Julia. The Slavic Letters of St. Jerome. The History of the Legend and its Legacy, or, How the Translator of the Vulgate Became an Apostle of the Slavs. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 2014. Verlinden, Charles. „L’origine de sclavus = esclave.“ Archivum latinitatis medii aevi 17 (1942), pp. 97–128. Verlinden, Charles. Wo, wann und warum gab es einen Großhandel mit Sklaven während des Mittelalters?. Cologne: Forschungsinstitut für Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte, 1970. Verlinden, Charles. „Ist mittelalterliche Sklaverei ein bedeutsamer demographischer Faktor gewesen?“ Vierteljahrschrift für Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte 66 (1979), pp. 153–73. Verlinden, Charles. „Verkehrswege, Handel und Sklaven zwischen Europa und dem Nahen Osten um 900: Von der Geschichtsschreibung zur Archäologie?“ In Europa im 10. Jahrhundert. Archäologie einer Aufbruchszeit, ed. Joachim Henning, pp. 171–80. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 2002. Vida, Tivadar. “Conflict and coexistence: the local population of the Carpathian Basin under Avar rule (sixth to seventh century).” In The Other Europe in the Middle Ages, ed. Florin Curta, pp. 13–46. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Vida, Tivadar and Thomas Völling. Das slawische Brandgräberfeld von Olympia. Rahden: Leidorf, 2000. Vidmanová, Anežka. “K Privilegiu Alexandra Velikého Slovanům.” In Husitství  – reformace – renesance. Sborník k 60. narozeninám Františka Šmahela, eds. Jaroslav Pánek et al., pp. 105–15. Prague: Historický Ústav AVČR, 1994. Vidmanová, Anežka. “Ještě jednou k privilegiu Alexandra Velikého pro Slovany.” In Pulchritudo et Sapientia. Ad honorem Pavel Spunar, eds. Zuzana Silagiová et al., pp. 179–87. Prague: Kabinet pro Klasická Studia, 2008. Vilkul, Tat’ina L. “O proiavleniiakh mestnogo patriotizma (‘nashi’ v letopisanii XI–XIII vv.).” In Obrazy proshlogo i kollektivnaia identichnost’ v Evrope do nachala novogo vremeni, ed. Lorina P. Repina, pp. 311–20. Moscow: Krug’, 2003. Vilkul, Tat’iana L. [2007a]. ‚Liud’e i kniaz’ v konstrukciiakh letopiscev XI–XIII vv. Kyïv: Nacional’na Akademiia Nauk Ukraïny, 2007. Vilkul, Tat’iana L. [2007b]. “Povest’ vremennykh let i Khronograf.” Palaeoslavica 15 (2007), 2, pp. 56–116.

568

Bibliography

Vilkul, Tat’iana L. “Drevneslavianskii perevod khroniki Georgiia Amartola v Povesti vremennykh let i Novgorodskoi pervoi letopisi mladshego izvoda.” Drevniaia Rus’ 56 (2014), pp. 11–20. Virse, Ingrida Liga and Ritvars Ritums. “The Grobina Complex of Dwelling Locations and Burial Sites, and Related Questions.” Archaeologia Baltica 17/18 (2012), pp. 34–45. Vladislav II. druhý král Přemyslova rodu. K 850. výrocí jeho korunovace, eds. Michal Mašek et al. Prague: Nakladatelství Lidové Noviny, 2009. Vlček, Radomír. “Slovanství, panslavismus a rusofilství při formování moderního českého národa.” Slovanské historické studie 30 (2005), pp. 59–109. Vogel, Werner. Der Verbleib der wendischen Bevölkerung in der Mark Brandenburg. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1960. Voigt, Theodor. „Neue frühsorbische Brandgräber und Siedlungsreste aus dem Elbe-Saale-Gebiet.“ Nachrichten für deutsche Vorzeit 18 (1942), pp. 24–27. Volkmann, Armin. „Untersuchungen zur slawischen und deutschen Bevölkerung im hohen und späten Mittelalter in der provincia trans Oderam.“ In Siedlungsstrukturen und Burgen im westslawischen Raum, eds. Biermann, Felix et al., pp. 381–96. Langenweissbach: Beier & Beran, 2009. Volkmann, Hans-Erich. Die Polenpolitik des Kaiserreichs. Prolog zum Zeitalter der Weltkriege. Paderborn: Schöningh, 2016. Von den Brincken, Anna-Dorothee. “Die universalhistorischen Vorstellungen des Johann von Marignola. OFM. Der einzige mittelalterliche Weltchronist mit Fernostkenntnis.” Archiv für Kulturgeschichte 49 (1967), pp. 297–339. Von den Brincken, Anna-Dorothee. „Mappa mundi und Chronographia. Studien zur imago mundi des abendländischen Mittelalters.“ DA 24 (1968), pp. 118–86. Von den Brincken, Anna-Dorothee [1973a]. „Die Klimatenkarte in der Chronik des Johann von Wallingford – ein Werk des Matthaeus Parisiensis?“ Westfalen 51 (1973), pp. 47–56. Von den Brincken, Anna-Dorothee [1973b]. Die ‚Nationes christianorum orientalium‘ im Verständnis der lateinischen Historiographie von der Mitte des 12. bis in die zweite Hälfte des 14. Jahrhunderts. Cologne: Böhlau, 1973. Von den Brincken, Anna-Dorothee [1973c]. „Europa in der Kartographie des Mittelalters.“ Archiv für Kulturgeschichte 55 (1973), pp. 289–304. Von den Brincken, Anna-Dorothee. „Ost- und Südosteuropa in der abendländischen Kartographie des Spätmittelalters.“ Revue des Études Sud-Est-Européennes 13 (1975), pp. 253–60. Von den Brincken, Anna-Dorothee. „Bulgarien im allgemeinen Geschichtsbewußtsein des Abendlandes im Mittelalter.“ MBFIÖ 9 (1987), 1, pp. 87–104. Von den Brincken, Anna-Dorothee. Fines Terrae. Die Enden der Erde und der vierte Kontinent auf mittelalterlichen Weltkarten. Hannover: Hahn, 1992.

Bibliography

569

Vorein, Christian. „Von ‘nordischen Herren’ und ‘slawischen Untertanen’. Textstrategien zur Etablierung von Freund- und Feindbildern in Geschichtslehrbüchern der NS-Zeit.“ In Freund- und Feindbilder in Schulbüchern, eds. Arsen Djurović and Eva Metthes, pp. 43–54. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt, 2010. Vrana, Josip. „Isprave zahumskih vladara iz XI. i XII. st. o Babinu Polju na otoku Mljetu.“ Historijski Zbornik 13 (1960), pp. 155–66. Vykypěl, Bohumil. Studie k šlechtickým titulům v germánských, slovanských a baltských jazycích. Brno: Nakladatelství Lidové Noviny, 2004. Vyronis, Speros. “The Evolution of Slavic Society and the Slavic Invasions in Greece. The First Major Attack on Thessaloniki, A.D. 597.” Hesperia 50 (1981), pp. 378–90. Vyronis, Speros. “The Slavic Pottery (Jars) from Olympia, Greece.” In Byzantine Studies. Essays on the Slavic World and the Eleventh Century, ed. Speros Vyronis, pp. 15–42. New Rochelle, New York: Caratzas, 1992. Vyronis, Speros. “Byzantium, its Slavic Elements and Their Culture (Sixth to Ninth Centuries).” Symmeikta 28 (2003), pp. 63–85. Vyšný, Paul. Neo-Slavism and the Czechs 1898–1914. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977. Waack, Ulrich. „Dorfkirchenbau und slawische Siedlung auf dem Barnim vor und während des Landesausbaus im 13. Jahrhundert.“ In Siedlungsstrukturen und Burgen im westslawischen Raum, eds. Felix Biermann et al., pp. 363–71. Langenweissbach: Beier & Beran, 2009. Walczak, Ryszard. ‚Protocollum‘ augustina-eremity zwanego Angelusem ze Stargardu. O polsko-pomorskich związkach historycznych w średniowieczu. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznańskiego Towarzystwa Przyjaciół Nauk, 1991. Waldmüller, Lothar. Die ersten Begegnungen der Slawen mit dem Christentum und den christlichen Völkern vom VI. bis VIII. Jahrhundert. Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1976. Waldmüller, Lothar. Die Synoden in Dalmatien, Kroatien und Ungarn. Von der Völker­ wanderung bis zum Ende der Arpaden (1311). Paderborn: Schöningh, 1987. Walicki, Andrzej. The Slavophile Controversy. History of a Conservative Utopia in Nineteenth Century Russian Thought. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975. Walicki, Andrzej. Mesjanizm Adama Mickiewicza w perspektywie porównawczej. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Instytutu Badań Literackich PAN, 2006. Warnke, Charlotte. Die Anfänge des Fernhandels in Polen. Würzburg: Holzner-Verlag, 1964. Warnke, Charlotte. „Bemerkungen zur Reise Ibrahim ihn Jakubs durch die Slawenländer im 10. Jahrhundert.“ Gießener Abhandlungen zur Agrar- und Wirtschafts­ forschung des europäischen Ostens 32 (1965), pp. 393–415. Wasilewski, Tadeusz. “Le thème byzantin des Sirmium-Serbie au XIe et XIIe siècle.” ZRVI 8 (1964), pp. 465–82.

570

Bibliography

Wasilewski, Tadeusz. “Stefan Vojislav de Zahumje, Stefan Dobroslav de Zeta et Byzance au milieu du Xie siècle.” ZRVI 13 (1971), pp. 109–26. Wasilewski, Tadeusz. Bizancjum i Słowianie w IX wieku. Studia z dziejów stosunków politycznych i kulturalnych. Warsaw: PWN, 1972. Wassiliou-Seibt, Alexandra-Kyriaki. „Das byzantinische Verteidigungssystem an der Balkangrenze (Ende 10.–Ende 11. Jh.). Neue Erkenntnisse aus der systematischen Nachlese der narrativen Quellen und dem Siegelbefund.“ Byzantinoslavica 75 (2017), pp. 164–90. Watson, William E. “Ibn Rustah’s Book of Precious Things. A Reexamination and Translation of an Early Source on the Rus.” Canadian American Slavic Studies 38 (2004), pp. 289–99. Wawrykowa, Maria. „Johann Gottfried Herder und die polnische Geschichtsphiloso­ phie der ersten Hälfte des 19. Jahrhunderts.“ ZfS 23 (1978), pp. 835–43. Wehner, Donat. „Zur Entwicklung von Herrschaft am Seehandelsplatz Wolin.“ In Potestas et communitas. Interdisziplinäre Beiträge zu Wesen und Darstellung von Herrschaftsverhältnissen im Mittelalter östlich der Elbe, eds. Aleksander Paron et al., pp. 345–56. Wrocław, Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Instytutu Archeologii i Etnologii PAN, 2010. Wehner, Donat. „Zwischen Brennaburg und Poztupimi  – der Wandel der Burgen­ landschaft um 1000.“ In Der Wandel um 1000. Beiträge der Sektion zur slawischen Frühgeschichte der 18. Tagung des Mittel- und Ostdeutschen Verbandes für Altertumsforschung in Greifswald, 23. bis 27. März 2009, eds. Felix Biermann et al., pp. 53–62. Langenweißbach: Beier & Beran, 2011. Wehner, Donat. Das Land Stodor. Eine Studie zu Struktur und Wandel der slawenzeitlichen Siedlungsräume im Havelland und in der nördlichen Zauche. Rahden: Leidorf, 2012. Weigel, Petra. „Slawen und Deutsche. Ethnische Wahrnehmungen und Deutungs­ muster in der hoch- und spätmittelalterlichen Germania Slavica.“ In Ostsiedlung und Landesausbau in Sachsen. Die Kührener Urkunde von 1154 und ihr historisches Umfeld, ed. Enno Bünz, pp. 47–94. Leipzig: Leipziger Universität-Verlag, 2008. Weinfurter, Stefan. “Kaiser Heinrich II. und Bolesław Chrobry: Herrscher mit ähnlichen Konzepten.” QMAN 9 (2004), pp. 5–25. Weinrich, Lorenz. „Der Slawenaufstand von 983 in der Darstellung des Bischofs Thietmar von Merseburg.“ In Historiographia mediaevalis. Studien zur Geschichts­ schreibung und Quellenkunde des Mittelalters, eds. Dieter Berg and Hans-Werner Goetz, pp. 77–87. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1988. Weißensteiner, Johann. „Cassiodor/Jordanes als Geschichtsschreiber.“ In Historiogra­ phie im frühen Mittelalter, eds. Anton Scharer and Georg Scheibelreiter, pp. 308–25. Munich: Oldenbourg, 1994.

Bibliography

571

Weithmann, Michael W. Die slavische Bevölkerung auf der griechischen Halbinsel. Ein Beitrag zur historischen Ethnographie Südosteuropas. Munich: Trofenik, 1978. Weizsäcker, Wilhelm. „Imperator und huldigende Frauen.“ In Festschrift für Karl Gottfried Hugelmann zum 80. Geburtstag am 26. September 1959, ed. Wilhelm Wegener, pp. 815–31. Aalen: Scientia, 1959. Wells, Thompson. “‘In a Desolate and Foreign Land:’ Byzantine Cross-Cultural Attitudes on the Road to Nemanjić Serbia (Thirteenth–Fourteenth Centuries)”. Byzantinoslavica 78 (2020), pp. 93–116. Wenskus, Reinhart. Stammesbildung und Verfassung. Das Werden der frühmittelalterlichen gentes. Cologne, Graz: Böhlau, 1961. Wentker, Hermann. „Antikommunismus in der frühen Bonner Republik. Dimensionen eines zentralen Elements politischer Kultur im Ost-West-Konflikt.“ In ‚Geistige Gefahr‘ und ‚Immunisierung der Gesellschaft‘. Antikommunismus und politische Kultur in der frühen Bundesrepublik, eds. Stefan Creutzberger and Dierk Hoffmann, pp. 335–70. Munich: Oldenbourg, 2014. Werlich, Ralf-Gunnar. „Herrschaftszentren und Residenzen der Greifen.“ In Die Herzöge von Pommern. Zeugnisse der Herrschaft des Greifenhauses, eds. Norbert Buske et al., pp. 255–310. Vienna: Böhlau, 2012. Werner, Robert. „Zur Herkunft der Anten. Ein ethnisches und soziales Problem der Spätantike.“ In Studien zur antiken Sozialgeschichte. Festschrift Friedrich Vittinghoff, eds. Werner Eck et al., pp. 573–95. Cologne, Vienna: Böhlau, 1980. Wesuls, Maik. Repräsentative Bauwerke im westslawischen Gebiet vom 8.–13. Jahrhundert n. Chr. Tempel, umzäunte Kultplätze, Kulthallen, Fürstenhallen, Paläste. Bonn: Habelt, 2006. Wette, Wolfram. „‘Rassenfeind’. Antisemitismus und Antislawismus in der Wehrmacht­ propaganda.“ In Die Wehrmacht im Rassenkrieg. Der Vernichtungskrieg hinter der Front, ed. Walter Manosch, pp. 55–73. Vienna: Picus, 1996. Whitby, Michael. The Emperor Maurice and his Historian: Theophylact Simocatta on Persian and Balkan Warfare. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988. Wierer, Rudolf F. „Palackýs staatspolitisches Programm.“ ZfO 6 (1957), pp. 246–58. Wierzbicki, Andrzej. “Mit czy rzeczywistość? ‘Słowiańszczyzna’ w myśli historycznej polskiego romantyzmu.” In Słowianie, Słowiańszczyzna  – pojęcie i rzeczywistość dawniej i dziś, ed. Kwirina Handke, pp. 59–76. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Instytutu Slawistyki PAN, 2002. Wiesflecker, Peter. „Die ungewöhnliche Reise des Landpfarrers Matthias/Matija Majar-Ziljski. Die Russlandreise des Slawisten und Geistlichen im Spiegel der Korrespondenz mit seinen Vorgesetzten.“ Carinthia I 196 (2006), pp. 453–62. Wietrzichowski, Frank. „Zur Verbreitung und Entwicklung der Sukower Gruppe in Mecklenburg.“ Bodendenkmalpflege in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern 39 (1989), pp. 37–102.

572

Bibliography

Widajewicz, Józef. Studia nad relacją o Słowianach Ibrahima ibn Jakuba. Cracow: PAU, 1946. Widajewicz, Józef. “Mas’udi o Wieletach.” Pamiętnik Słowiański 1 (1949), pp. 55–82. Widera, Bruno. “Reisebericht des Abu Hamid zur Geschichte Ost- und Mitteleuropas im 12. Jahrhundert.” Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft 20 (1972), pp. 75–79. Wihoda, Martin. „Das Sázava-Kloster in ideologischen Koordinaten der böhmischen Geschichte des 11. Jahrhunderts.“ In Der heilige Prokop, Böhmen und Mitteleuropa. Internationales Symposium, Benešov  – Sázava 24.–26. September 2003., ed. Petr Sommer, pp. 257–71. Prague: Filosofia, 2005. Wihoda, Martin. “Testament knížete Břetislava.” In Saga moravských Přemyslovců. Život na Morave od XI. do počatku XIV. století, ed. Renata Fifkova, pp. 33–50. Olomouc: Vlastivědné Muzeum, 2006. Wihoda, Martin. „Die Herrschaftslegitimation im böhmischen Fürstentum des 11. Jahrhunderts. Kontinuität und Wandlungen.“ In Das Charisma. Funktionen und symbolische Repräsentationen, eds. Pavlína Rýchterová et al., pp. 385–404. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 2008. Wihoda, Martin [2010a]. Morava v době knížeci, 906–1197. Prague: Nakladatelství Lidové Noviny, 2010. Wihoda, Martin [2010b]. “Nostra terra tua est camera. České země v historických počátcích středovýchodní Evropy.” In Proměna středovýchodní Evropy raného a vrcholného středověku. Mocenské souvislosti a paralely, eds. Martin Wihoda and Lukas Reitinger, pp. 11–33. Brno: Matice Moravská, 2010. Wihoda, Martin [2011a]. „Kosmova kronika a počátky českého historického myšlení.“ In Kosmas, Kronika Čechů, eds. Karel Hrdina et al., pp. 5–20. Prague: Argo, 2011. Wihoda, Martin [2011b]. “Sněmy Čechů.” In Šlechta v proměnách věků, eds. Tomáš Knoz and Jan Dvořák, pp. 17–37. Brno: Matice Moravská, 2011. Wihoda, Martin. „Macht und Struktur der Herrschaft im Herzogtum Böhmen. Grundlagen, Legitimierung und zeitgenössische Vorstellungen.“ In Macht und Spiegel der Macht. Herrschaft in Europa im 12. und 13. Jahrhundert vor dem Hinter­ grund der Chronistik, eds. Norbert Kersken and Grischa Vercamer, pp. 341–358. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2013. Wihoda, Martin [2014a]. “Das ‘Krönungsrelief’ am Turm der ehemaligen Judithbrücke in Prag.” In Barbarossabilder. Entstehungskontexte, Erwartungshorizonte, Verwend­ ungszusammenhänge, eds. Knut Görich and Romedio Schmitz-Esser, pp. 261–67. Regensburg: Schnell & Steine, 2014. Wihoda, Martin [2014b]. “From the Moravians to Great Moravia and back again.” In Great Moravia and the Beginnings of Christianity, ed. Pavel Kouřil, pp. 49–53. Brno: Archeologický ústav AVČR, 2014. Wihoda, Martin [2014c]. „Großmähren und seine Stellung in der Geschichte.“ In Zentralisierungsprozesse und Herrschaftsbildung im frühmittelalterlichen Ostmitteleuropa, ed. Przemysław Sikorski, pp. 61–91. Bonn: Habelt, 2014.

Bibliography

573

Wihoda, Martin [2014d]. “The Tradition of Saints Cyril and Methodius in the Memory of the Přemyslid Era.” In The Cyril and Methodius Mission and Europe. 1150 Years since the Arrival of the Thessaloniki Brothers in Great Moravia, eds. Pavel Kouřil et al., pp. 310–14. Brno: Archeologický ústav AVČR, 2014. Wihoda, Martin [2015a]. První česká království. Prague: Nakladatelství Lidové noviny, 2015. Wihoda, Martin [2015b]. Vladislaus Henry. The Formation of Moravian Identity. Leiden: Brill, 2015. Wihoda, Martin [2018a]. „Adel und die Anfänge der Landwerdung in der Mark­ grafschaft Mähren.“ In Adel und Verfassung im hoch- und spätmittelalterlichen Reich, eds. Christine Mochty-Weltin and Roman Zehetmayer, pp. 56–70. St. Pölten: Niederösterreichisches Institut für Landeskunde, 2018. Wihoda, Martin [2018b]. “Od křtu českých knížat k christianizaci Čechů.” In Kostel Panny Marie na Pražském hradě. Dialog na počátky křest’anství v Čechách, eds. Ivo Štefan and Martin Wihoda, pp. 131–45. Prague: Nakladatelství Lidové noviny, 2018. Wihoda, Martin. “The Second Life of Moymirid Dukes.” In The Fall of Great Moravia. Who was Buried in Grave H153 at Pohansko near Břeclav, eds. Jiří Macháček and Martin Wihoda, pp. 94–109. Leiden: Brill, 2019. Wihoda, Martin “The beginnings of Christianity in Bohemia.” In The Dawning of Christianity in Poland and across Central and Eastern Europe. History and the Politics of Memory, eds. Igor Kąkolewski et al., pp. 33–42. Berlin: Lang, 2020. Wilke, Jürgen. Die Ebstorfer Weltkarte. 1: Textband. Bielefeld: Verlag für Regional­ geschichte, 2001. Wilson, Duncan. The Life and Times of Vuk Stefanović Karadzić. Literacy, Literature, and National Independence in Serbia. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970. Winkler, Martina. Karel Kramář (1860–1937). Selbstbild, Fremdwahrnehmung und Modernisierungsverständnis eines tschechischen Politikers. Munich: Oldenbourg, 2002. Winter, Eduard, „Dobrovský, Josef.“ In Wegbereiter der deutsch-slawischen Wech­ selseitigkeit, eds. Eduard Winter and Günther Jarosch, pp. 175–84. Berlin: AkademieVerlag, 1983. Winter, Eduard and Conrad Grau. “Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz 1646–1716.” In Weg­ bereiter der deutsch-slawischen Wechselseitigkeit, eds. Eduard Winter and Günther Jarosch, pp. 25–37. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1983. Wippermann, Wolfgang. Der ‚deutsche Drang nach Osten‘. Ideologie und Wirklichkeit eines politischen Schlagwortes. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1981. Wippermann, Wolfgang. „Die konservative Revolution und der Osten. Zur Geo­ politisierung des nationalen Diskurses in der Weimarer Republik.“ In Nationalismus und Nationalbewegung in Europa 1914–1945, ed. Heiner Timmermann, pp. 355–69. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1998.

574

Bibliography

Wippermann, Wolfgang. „Antislavismus.“ In Handbuch der ‚Völkischen Bewegung‘ 1871–1918, eds. Uwe Puschner et al., pp. 512–24. 2nd ed. Munich: Saur, 1999. Wippermann, Wolfgang. „‚Lebensraum im Osten‘. Bedeutung – Erfindung – Planung.“ In Der deutsche Krieg um „Lebensraum im Osten“ 1939–1945. Ereignisse und Erinnerung, eds. Peter Jahn et al., pp. 47–67. Berlin: Metropol, 2017. Wirtz, Markus. Josef Dobrovský und die Literatur. Frühe bohemistische Forschung zwischen Wissenschaft und nationalem Auftrag. Dresden, Munich: Dresden University Press, 1999. Wiszewski, Przemysław. “Spór o honor pierwszych Piastów i ich miejsce wśród arystokracji Rzeszy. Przekaz Thietmara z Merseburga.” In Spory o čest ve středověku a raném novověku, eds. Tomáš Borovský et al., pp. 11–45. Brno: Matice Moravská, 2010. Witczak, Krzysztof T. [1993a]. “Dwa studia nad Geografem Bawarskim.” RH 59 (1993), pp. 5–17. Witczak, Krzysztof T. [1993b]. “Ludy i państwa słowiańskie w tzw. Księdze Josippon.” SA 34 (1993), pp. 77–86. Wörster, Peter. “Monasterium sancti Hieronymi Slavorum ordinis sancti Benedicti.” In Kaiser Karl IV. 1316–1378. Forschungen über Kaiser und Reich, ed. Hans Patze, pp. 721–32. Neustadt, Aisch: Schmidt, 1978. Wojtecki, Dieter. “Slavica beim Annalisten von Quedlinburg.” ZfO 30 (1981), pp. 161–94. Wójtowicz, Marian. Początki pisma słowiańskiego. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Adama Mickiewicza, 2000. Wolff, Hartmut. „Die Frage der Besiedlung des heutigen Slowenien im Lichte des Anonymus von Ravenna.“ In Slowenien und die Nachbarländer zwischen Antike und Karolingischer Epoche. Anfänge der slowenischen Ethnogenese, Volume 1, ed. Bratož, Rajko, pp. 97–105. Ljubljana: Narodni Muzej Slovenije, 2000. Wolff, Larry. Inventing Eastern Europe. The Map of Civilization on the Mind of the Enlightenment. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1994. Wolff, Larry. Venice and the Slavs. The Discovery of Dalmatia in the Age of Enlightenment. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2001. Wolff, Robert L. “The ‘Second Bulgarian Empire’. Its Origin and History to 1204.” In Wolff, Robert L. Studies in the Latin Empire of Constantinople, pp. 167–203. London: Variorum Reprints, 1976. Wolfram, Herwig. „Überlegungen zur politischen Situation der Slawen im heutigen Oberösterreich (8.–10. Jahrhundert).“ In Baiern und Slawen in Oberösterreich. Probleme der Landnahme und Besiedlung, ed. Kurt Holter, pp. 17–24. Linz: Oberöster­ reichisches Landesarchiv, 1980. Wolfram, Herwig. „Liudewit und Pribina (ein institutioneller Vergleich).“ In Inter­ aktionen der mitteleuropäischen Slawen und anderer Ethnika im 6.–10. Jahrhundert,

Bibliography

575

ed. Peter Šalkovský, pp. 291–96. Nitra: Archäologisches Institut der Slowakischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1984. Wolfram, Herwig. „Ethnogenesen im frühmittelalterlichen Donau- und Ostalpenraum (6.–10. Jahrhundert).“ In Frühmittelalterliche Ethnogenese im Alpenraum, eds. Helmut Beumann and Werner Schröder, pp. 97–151. Sigmaringen: Thorbecke, 1985. Wolfram, Herwig [1987a]. Die Geburt Mitteleuropas. Geschichte Österreichs vor seiner Entstehung 378–907. Berlin: Siedler, 1987. Wolfram, Herwig [1987b]. „Slawische Herrschaftsbildungen im pannonischen Raum als Voraussetzung für die Slawenmission.“ In Der Heilige Method, Salzburg und die Slawenmission, ed. Theodor Piffl-Perčević and Alfred Stirnemann, pp. 245–53. Innsbruck, Vienna: Tyrolia-Verlag, 1987. Wolfram, Herwig [1995a]. “Historické pramene a poloha (Vel’kej) Moravy.” Historický Časopis 43 (1995), pp. 3–15. Wolfram, Herwig [1995b]. Salzburg, Bayern, Österreich. Die Conversio Bagoariorum et Carantanorum und die Quellen ihrer Zeit. Vienna, Munich: Oldenbourg, 1995. Wolle, Stefan. Wladimir der Heilige. Russlands erster christlicher Fürst. Berlin: VerlagsAnstalt Union, 1991. Wołoszyn, Marcin. Theophylaktos Simokates und die Slawen am Ende des westlichen Ozeans. Die erste Erwähnung der Ostseeslawen? Zum Bild der Slawen in der frühbyzantinischen Literatur. Eine. Cracow: Instytut Archeologii i Etnologii PAN, 2014. Wolverton, Lisa. Hastening toward Prague. Power and Society in the Medieval Czech Lands. Philadelphia: Hastening toward Prague. Power and Society, 2001. Wolverton, Lisa. “Manipulating Historical Memory: Cosmas on the Sees of Prague and Olomouc.” Haskins Society Journal 23 (2011), pp. 71–86. Wolverton, Lisa [2015a]. Cosmas of Prague. Narrative, Classicism, Politics, Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 2015. Wolverton, Lisa [2015b]. “The Christianization of Bohemia. Revising the Narratives.” In Christianity and Culture in the Middle Ages, eds. David Charles Mengel and Lisa Wolvertion, pp. 25–57. Norte Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2015. Wood, Ian. The Missionary Life: Saints and the Evangelisation of Europe 400–1050, London: Longman, 2001. Współcześni Słowianie wobec własnych tradycji i mitów. Sympozjum w Castel Gandolfo 19–20 sierpnia 1996, eds. Maria Bobrownicka et al. Cracow: Towarzystwo Autorów i Wydawców Prac Naukowych “Universitas”, 1997. Wyrozumski, Jerzy. “Benedyktyni słowiańscy w Oleśnicy i Krakowie.” Zeszyty Naukowe Wydziału Humanistycznego Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego. Slawistyka 3 (1982), pp. 113–24. Wyrozumski, Jerzy. “Horyzont polityczny Janka z Czarnkowa.” SŹ 32/33 (1990), pp. 57–65. Wyrozumski, Jerzy. Dzieje Polski piastowskiej (VIII wiek – 1370). Cracow: Fogra, 1999.

576

Bibliography

Wyrozumski, Jerzy. “Der Akt von Gnesen und seine Bedeutung für die polnische Geschichte.” In Polen und Deutschland vor 1000 Jahren. Die Berliner Tagung über den „Akt von Gnesen“, ed. Michael Borgolte, pp. 281–91. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2002. Wyrozumski, Jerzy. “Jan Długosz. Życie i dzieło.” In Recepcja i odrzucenie. Kontakty międzykulturowe w średniowieczu. Z serii Materiały V Kongresu Mediewistów Polskich. Tom 1, eds. Leszek Słupecki et al., pp. 199–212. Rzeszów: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Rzeszowskiego, 2017. Yrwing, Hugo. “Alt-Lübeck, en fjärrhandelshamn i Östersjöområdet enligt Kattinger.” In Vetenskapssocieteten i Lund, pp. 76–104. Årsbok: Lund University Press, 1996. Zaborski, Andrzej. “Bilans i przyszłość badań nad tekstem Ibrahima Ibn Jakuba.” In Ibrahim ibn Jakub i Tadeusz Kowalski w szećśdziesiątą rocznicę edycji, ed. Andrzej Zaborski, pp. 25–73. Cracow: Księgarnia Akademicka, 2008. Zachariasz, Andrzej L. “Słowiańszczyzna. Mit czy rzeczywistość?” Sofia 6 (2006), pp. 27–44. Zacos, Georges and Alexander Veglery. Byzantine Lead Seals. Volume I/3. Bern: Benteli, 1972. Žagar, Mateo. “Glagoljica u hrvatskoj srednjovjekovnoj kulturi.” In Povijest hrvatskoga jezika 1: Srednji vijek, ed. Stjepan Damjanović, pp. 146–87. Zagreb: Croatica, 2009. Zaimov, Jordan. „Eindeutige und umstrittene Stellen in der Bitolja-Inschrift des bulgarischen Selbstherrschers Ivan Vladislav (11. Jh.).“ Zeitschrift für Balkanologie 13 (1977), pp. 194–204. Zaninović, Marin. “Područje Neretve i srednjojadransko otočje.” In Arheološka istraživanja u Naroni i Dolini Neretve: znanstveni skup, ed. Emilio Marín, pp. 277–88. Zagreb: Hrvatsko arheološko društvo, 2003. Zástěrová, Bohumila. “Zu einigen Fragen aus der Geschichte der slawischen Kolonisation auf dem Balkan.” In Studien zum 7. Jahrhundert in Byzanz. Probleme der Herausbildung des Feudalismus, eds. Helga Köpstein and Friedhelm Winkelmann, pp. 59–72. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1976. Zedler, Johann Heinrich. Grosses vollständiges Universal-Lexicon aller Wissenschafften und Künste, Volume 38. Leipzig/Halle: Zedler, 1743. Zeil, Wilhelm. “Der Neoslawismus.” Jahrbuch für Geschichte der sozialistischen Länder Europas 19 (1975), pp. 9–56. Zeil, Wilhelm. “Jan Pětr Jordan 1818–1891.” In Wegbereiter der deutsch-slawischen Wechselseitigkeit, eds. Eduard Winter and Günther Jarosch, pp. 273–81. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1983. Zeil, Wilhelm. Slawistik in Deutschland. Forschung und Informationen über die Spra­ chen, Literaturen und Volkskulturen slawischer Völker bis 1945. Cologne: Böhlau, 1994. Žemlička, Josef. “Das ‚Reich‘ des böhmischen Boleslavs und die Krise an der Jahrtausendwende. Zur Charakteristik der frühen Staaten in Mitteleuropa.” In AR 47 (1995), pp. 267–78.

Bibliography

577

Žemlička, Josef. “Expanze, krize a obnova Čech v letech 935–1055 (K systémovým proměnám raných států ve střední Evroległypě).” ČČH 93 (1996), pp. 205–27. Žemlička, Josef. Čechy v době knížecí (1034–1198). Prague: Nakladatelství Lidové Noviny, 1997. Žemlička, Josef. “‚Polska koruna‘ Vratislava II, aneb cim ho nemohl obdarit Jindřich IV. Glosy ke středověké korunovacní symbolice.” ČČH 104 (2006), pp. 1–46. Žemlička, Josef. Přemysl Otakar II. Král na rozhrani veku. Prague: Nakladatelství Lidové Noviny, 2011. Zernack, Klaus. Die burgstädtischen Volksversammlungen bei den Ost- und West­ slaven. Studien zur verfassungsgeschichtlichen Bedeutung des Veče. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1967. Ziemann, Daniel [2007a]. “The rebellion of the nobles against the baptism of Khan Boris (865–866).” In Post-Roman Towns, Trade and Settlement in Europe and Byzantium. Volume 2: Byzantium, Pliska, and the Balkans, ed. Joachim Henning, pp. 613–24. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter, 2007. Ziemann, Daniel [2007b]. Vom Wandervolk zur Großmacht. Die Entstehung Bulgariens im frühen Mittelalter (7.–9. Jahrhundert). Cologne: Böhlau, 2007. Ziemann, Daniel. „Pliska und die bulgarische Ethnogenese im Frühmittelalter.“ In Bulgarien zwischen Byzanz und dem Westen. Beiträge zu Kultur, Geschichte und Sprache, ed. Angelika Lauhus, pp. 9–42. 2nd ed. Nümbrecht: Kirsch-Verlag, 2008. Ziemann, Daniel. „Byzanz als Referenz- und Konfliktpunkt. Bulgarien zur Zeit Symeons des Großen.“ In Knotenpunkt Byzanz. Wissensformen und kulturelle Wechselbeziehungen, eds. Andreas Speer and Philipp Steinkrüger, pp. 559–73. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012. Ziemann, Daniel. “Pliska and Preslav: Bulgarian Capitals between Relocation and Invention.” In Bălgarsko srednovekovie: Obštestvo, vlast, istorija, eds. Georgi N. Nikolov and Angel Nikolov, pp. 170–185. Sofia: Universitet “Sv. Kliment Ochridski”, 2013. Zientara, Benedykt. “Konflikty narodowościowe na pograniczu niemieckosłowiańskim w XIII–XIV w. i ich zasięg społeczny.” PH 59 (1968), pp. 197–213. Zientara, Benedykt. “Cudzoziemcy w Polsce X–XV wieku. Ich rola w zwierciadle polskiej opinii średniowiecznej.” In Swojskość i cudzoziemszczyzna w dziejach kultury polskiej, ed. Zofia Stefanowska, pp. 9–37. Warsaw: PWN, 1973. Zientara, Benedykt [1978a]. „Der Ursprung des ‚deutschen Rechts’ (ius Teutonicum) auf dem Hintergrund der Siedlungsbewegung in West- und Mitteleuropa während des 11. und 12. Jahrhunderts.“ Jahrbuch für die Geschichte des Feudalismus 2 (1978), pp. 119–48. Zientara, Benedykt [1978b]. “Źródla i geneza ‘prawa niemieckiego’ (ius Teutonicum) na tle ruchu osadniczego w Europie zachodniej i šrodkowej w XI–XII w.” PH 69 (1978), pp. 47–74.

578

Bibliography

Zientara, Benedykt. „Die Gestaltung einer mittelalterlichen Nation in Polen und in Deutschland.“ In Nationalgeschichte als Problem der deutschen und der polnischen Geschichtsschreibung, ed. Wolfgang Jacobmeyer, pp. 36–45. Braunschweig: Deutsch-Polnische Schulbuchkonferenz der Historiker, 1983. Zientara, Benedykt. Frühzeit der europäischen Nationen. Die Entstehung von National­ bewußtsein im nachkarolingischen Europa. Osnabrück: Fibre, 1997. Ziffer, Giorgio. “Zur Komposition des Traktats ‘Über die Buchstaben’ des Mönchs Chrabr.” WdS 40 (1995), pp. 57–75. Ziffer, Giorgio. “Chrabr Monaci e le origini della civiltà scrittoria slava.” Slavica Ambrosiana 1 (2010), pp. 77–86. Ziffer, Giorgio. “The Vita Constantini: Transmission and Scholarship.” In Kyrillos kai Methodios: To Byzantio kai o kosmos tōn Slabōn/Cyril and Methodius: Byzantium and the world of the Slavs. International Scientific Conference, pp. 105–12. Thessaloniki: Ekd. Dēmu Thessalonikēs, 2015. Žilka, Tibor. “Štúrova predstava slovanskej vzájomnosti.” In Idee wspólnotowe słowiańszczyzny, eds. Aleksander Mikołajczak et al., pp. 283–92. Poznań: Wydawcitwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Adama Mickiewicza, 2004. Zimmermann, Harald. „Die ersten Konzilien von Split im Rahmen der Geschichte ihrer Zeit.“ In Vita religiosa morale e sociale ed i concili di Split (Spalato) dei secc. X–XI, ed. Atanazje G. Matanić, pp. 3–20. Padova: Ed. Antenore, 1982. Zimmermann, Volker. „Der ‚Einfluß des slavischen Elements‘. Zeitgenössische Erklärungen für die Kriminalität im Osten des Deutschen Kaiserreiches.“ In Die Deutschen und das östliche Europa. Aspekte einer vielfältigen Beziehungsgeschichte, ed. Dietmar Neutatz, pp. 131–47. Essen: Klartext, 2006. Zinov’ev, Vasilii P. “Slavianskoe edinstvo i sud’ba SNG.” In Slavianskoe edinstvo. Mezhdunarodnaia nauchnaja konferenciia, posvjashchenaia 2000-letiiu Rozhdestva Khristova. Tezisy dokladov i soobshchenii, ed. L.F. Platonenko, pp. 25–29. Omsk: Omskii Gosudarstvenyi Universitet, 2000. Živković, Miloš. “Studenica: The Funery Church of the Dynastic Founder  – the Cornerstone of Church and State Independence.” In Sacral Art of the Serbian Lands in the Middle Ages, eds. Dragan Vojvodić and Danica Popović, pp. 193–209. Belgrade: Serbian National Committe of Byzantine Studies, 2016. Živković, Pavo. Tvrtko II Tvrtković. Bosna u prvoj polovini XV stoljeća. Sarajevo: Institut za istoriju u Sarajevu, 1981. Živković, Tibor. “Relations between the Avars and Danube Basin Slavs 579–626.” Zbornik Matice srpske za istoriju 56 (1997), pp. 17–29. Živković, Tibor. Portreti srpskih vladara (IX–XII vek). Belgrade: Zavod za Udžbenike i Nastavna Sredstva, 2006. Živković, Tibor. “Contribution to the New Reading about the Constantine Porphyro­ genitus’ statement on the Numbers of Croat Horsemen, Foot Soldiers and Sailors in Early 10 Century.” Byznatinoslavica 65 (2007), pp. 143–52.

Bibliography

579

Živković, Tibor. Forging Unity. The South Slavs between East and West: 550–1150. Belgrade: Čigoja, 2008. Živković, Tibor. “The ‘Original’ and the ‘Revised’ Annales regni Francorum.” Istorijski časopis 59 (2010), pp. 9–58. Živojinović, Mirjana B. “Hilandar in the Middle Ages (origins and an outline of its history).” Hilandarskij zbornik 7 (1989) pp. 7–25. Zlatar, Zdenko. “‘For the Sake of Slavdom’: St. Petersburg Slavic Benevolent Society. A Collective Portrait of 1913.” EEQ 38 (2004), pp. 261–98. Zlatar, Zdenko. “‘For the Sake of Slavdom’ II. M.P. Pogodin and the Moscow Slavic Benevolent Committee: A Collective Portrait of 1870.” EEQ 40 (2006), pp. 255–91. Zlatar, Zdenko. “The Structure and Extent of the Pan-Slav Network in Imperial Russia 1910–1915: A Preliminary Survey.” In Approaches to Slavic Unity. AustroSlavism, Pan-Slavism, Neo-Slavism, and Solidarity Among the Slavs Today, eds. Krzysztof A. Makowski and Frank Hadler, pp. 91–116. Poznań: Instytut Historii Uniwersytetu Adama Mickiewicza, 2013. Zlatarski, Vasil N. “Naj-starijat istoricheski trud v starobălgarskata knizhnina.” Spisanie na Bălgarskata Akademiia na Naukite 27 (1923), pp. 132–82. Zlatarski, W[asil] N. “Wer war Peter Déljan?” Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae. Ser. B 27 (1932), pp. 354–63. Żmudzki, Paweł. Władca i wojownicy. Narracje o wodzach, drużynie i wojnach w najdawniejszej historiografii Polski i Rusi. Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego, 2009. Żmudzki, Paweł. “Kulturowy kontekst nazw ‚Polanie‘. ‚Polacy‘. ‚Polska‘ w średnowiecznej historigrafii polskiej i ruskiej.” In Symboliczne i realne podstawy tożsamości społecznej w średniowieczu., eds. Sławomir Gawlas and Paweł Żmudzki, pp. 165–219. Warsaw: Wydawnictwu Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, 2017. Znamierowska-Rakk, Elżbieta. Federacja Słowian południowych w polityce Bułgarii po II wojnie światowej. Korzenie  – Próby realizacji  – upadek. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Neriton, 2005. Zoll-Adamikowa, Helena. “Stan badań nad obrzędowością pogrzebową Słowian.” SA 38 (1997), pp. 65–80. Zorgati, Ragnhild Johnsrud. Pluralism in the Middle Ages. Hybrid Identities, Conversion, and Mixed Marriages in Medieval Iberia. New York: Routledge, 2012. Zorn, Wolfgang. „Deutsche und Undeutsche in der städtischen Rechtsordnug des Mittelalters in Ost-Mitteleuropa.“ ZfO 1 (1952), pp. 182–94. Zvonimir, kralj hrvatski. Zbornik radova, ed. Ivo Goldstein. Zagreb: Hrvatska Akademia Znanosti i Umjetnosti, 1997. 700 lat układu kępińskiego. Materiały na sesję naukową, Maria Kowalewska. Gdańsk: Zrzeszenie Kaszubsko-Pomorskie, 1982.

Index of Personal Names Aaethelbald of Mercia, Anglo-Saxon king († 757) 51 Aaron, Bulgarian noble (10th century) 162 Abd ar-Raḥmān III, caliph of Cordoba (889–961) 319 Adalbert-Vojtěch, St., bishop of Prague (c. 956–997) 179, 180, 193, 237, 239, 240, 242, 247, 269, 324, 348, 365 Adalbert, archbishop of Magdeburg († 981)  216 Adalbert II, archbishop of Bremen and Hamburg († 1148) 282 Adaldag, archbishop of Hamburg-Bremen (c. 900–988) 275 Adalram, archbishop of Salzburg († 836)  135 Adam, Biblical figure 155, 224, 367 Adam of Bremen, Saxon chronicler († before 1085) 245, 269, 271, 274, 275, 276, 278, 293, 326, 327, 329, 330, 333, 336 Adelgod, archbishop of Magdeburg († 1119)  328 Adémar de Chabannes, French chronicler (c. 988–1034) 324 Adolf II, count of Schauenburg (1128–1164)  278, 279, 285 Aeneas, legendary figure 358 Agathias, Byzantine historian (531/32–582)  40 Aksakov, Konstantin S., Russian author (1817–1860) 13 al-Aẖṭal (c. 640–710), Arab poet 59 al-Bakhrī, Andalusian geographer (11th century) 318, 319 al-Balāḏurī, Arab historian († around 892)  61 al-Bīrūnī, Persian universal scholar († 1048)  321 al-Dimasqī, Arab geographer (13th/14th century) al-Dina, Rashid (1247–1318) 323 al-Faqīh, Persian historian (10th century)  63, 64 al-Fazārī, Muslim philosopher († early 9th century) 60 al-Ǧāḥiẓ, Arab writer (c. 776–869) 60, 64

al-Gardīzī, Persian historian and geographer (11th century) 320 al-Ġarnaṭī, Abū Ḥāmid, Arab geographer († 1170) 322 al-Farġānī, Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad ibn Kaṭīr (8th–9th century), Transoxanian astronomer 62 al-Hwārizmī, Khwaresmian scholar (c. 780– after 847) 60 al-Idrīsī, Abū ʿAbdallāh, Arab geographer (1100–1166) 322, 323 al-Manṣūr, Abū Ja’far, caliph of Cordoba (938–1002) 60 al-Marwazī, Sharaf al-Zamān Ṭāhir, Persian court physician (11th/12th century)  320 al-Masʿūdī, Abu al-Ḥasan, Arab geographer (c. 895–957) 171, 229, 316, 317, 318, 319 al-Mutawakkil ibn al-Mu‘taṣim, Abbasid caliph (822–861) 62 al-Saqaṭī, Abū ‘Abdallāh, market inspector in Malaga (12th–13th century) 320 al-Ya’qūbī, Arab historian († late 9th century) 61, 62 Alanus, legendary figure 367 Albert Behaim, Bavarian chronicler († 1260)  336, 337 Albert the Great, bishop, German scholar (c. 1200–1280) 331 Albrecht the Bear, margrave of Brandenburg (c. 1100–1170) 281, 282, 285 Albrecht II of Habsburg, German king (1397–1439) 357, 374 Albrecht III, margrave of Brandenburg (1414–1486) 358 Alciocus, Proto-Bulgarian leader (7th century) 50 Alexander the Great, king of Macedonia (356 BC–323 BC) 1, 349, 372 Alexander, Byzantine military commander (6th–7th century) 99 Alexander II, pope († 1073) 208 Alexios III Angelos, Byzantine emperor (before 1155–1210) 253, 255 Alfred the Great, Anglo-Saxon king (848–899) 111 Álmos, Hungarian prince (1070–1127) 201

Index of Personal Names Alusiyan, Bulgarian prince (first half of 11th century) 164 Amandus, missionary († 676/684) 49 Amicus II of Giovinazzo, Norman noble (1063–1090) 199 Anastasia, wife of king Andrew I (1021–1096)  191 Anchises, legendary figure 358 Andrew I, king of Hungary (before 1020–1061) 191 Andrew of Wiślica, bishop of Schwerin († 1356) 360 Andronicus, Biblical figure 227 Angelary, Byzantine missionary (9th century)  153 Angelus, Pomeranian Augustinian eremite (14th century) Anna Dandolo, queen of Serbia († c. 1285)  254 Anna Porphyrogenita, wife of Vladimir of Kiev (963–1011/12) 217 Anthony the Great, Egyptian monk († 356)  159 Ardagastos, Slavic leader (late 6th century)  99 Aristotle, Greek philosopher (348 BC–322 BC) 1 Armenon, legendary figure 367 Arnold of Lübeck, German chronicler († 1211/14) 330 Arnulf, king of the Eastern Franks (c. 850–899) 172 Arnulf, duke of Bavaria († 937) 175 Asen I, Bulgarian tsar († 1190) 168, 169 Asparuh, Proto-Bulgarian khan (c. 641–701) 114, 115, 119, 167 aṭ-Ṭabarī, abū Ǧaʾfar Muḥammad, Persian historian (839–923) 318 Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria (295–373)  154, 160 Attila, legendary king of the Pomeranians 372 Augustine, St., bishop and church father (354–430) 186 Bahr, Richard, Baltic German publicist (1867–1936) 22 Bajan, Avar khagan (second half of 6th century) 99 Bakunin, Mikhail, Russian arnachist (1814–1876) 12

581 Bardas Phokas, Byzantine general († c. 989)  217 Barnim I, duke of Pomerania (c. 1217/18–1278) 295 Barnim III, duke of Pomerania-Stettin († 1368) 372 Bartholomew the Englishman, encyclopedist († after 1250) 333, 334 Basil I of Macedonia, Byzantine emperor (c. 812–886) 125, 196 Basil II, Byzantine emperor (958–1025) 162, 217 Bavarian Geographer (9th century) 58, 59, 113, 114, 171, 172, 212, 213, 229, 292 Beatus of Liébana, monk and author († after 798) 335 Bethmann Hollweg, Theobald of, German politician (1856–1921) 22 Béla I, king of Hungary (c. 1020–1063) 199 Béla II, king of Hungary (1106/08–1141)  253 Beneš, Edvard, Czech statesman (1884–1948) 25 Beneš Krabice of Weitmühl, Bohemian chronicler († 1375) 352 Bernard of Clairvaux, abbot, Cistercian (1090–1153) 248, 250, 281, 333 Billug, legendary figure 375 Bismarck, Malwine of, sister of Otto of Bismarck (1827–1908) Bismarck, Otto of, German statesman (1815–1898) 20 Boemus, legendary ancestor of the Bohemians 183, 348 Bogislaw I, duke of Pomerania (c. 1130–1187)  283, 295 Bogomil, Macedonian priest (10th century)  161 Boleslav I the Cruel, duke of Bohemia (c. 915–967/973) 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 235, 325 Boleslav II the Pious, duke of Bohemia († 999) 177, 179, 180 Boleslav III the Red, duke of Bohemia († 1037) 180 Bolesław I the Brave, duke/king of Poland (965/967–1025) 180, 237, 238, 239, 240, 247, 248, 251, 273, 325, 326, 363, 369 Bolesław II, duke of Poland (1041/42–1082)  241, 242

582 Bolesław III, duke of Poland (1085–1138)  222, 232, 241, 294, 295, 296 Bolesław IV, duke of Poland (1121/22–1173)  330 Boniface, missionary and bishop, saint (around 673–754/55) 51 Boril, Bulgarian tsar († after 1218) 169 Boris I Mikhail, Bulgarian khan (852–907)  122, 123, 150, 153, 160, 167 Boris II, Bulgarian tsar (c. 930–978/9) 161 Bořivoj (Goriwei), duke of Bohemia († c. 894) 172, 173, 174, 187, 188, 189, 190, 349 Borna, Croatian prince († 821) 128, 194 Boruth, duke of the Carantanians († c. 750) 130, 131, 132 Branimir, Croatian prince († c. 892) 195, 202, 203 Braslav, Croatian prince († 897) 194 Břetislav I, duke of Bohemia (c. 1005/12–1055)  181, 182, 184, 192, 222, 240, 292 Břetislav II, duke of Bohemia († 1100) 191 Bruno, archbishop of Cologne (925–965)  324 Bruno of Querfurt, Saxon missionary (c. 974–1009) 179, 239, 247 Cacatius, duke of the Carantanians († c. 755) 131 Callimachus. See Filippo Buonaccorsi Callinicus, exarch of Ravenna (late 6th–7th century) 47 Canaan, Biblical figure 338 Canon from Vyšehrad, Bohemian chronicler (12th century) 193 Carloman, Frankish mayor of the place († 754) 131, 136, 138 Casimir I the Restorer, duke of Poland (1016–1058) 241, 292, 362 Casimir II, duke of Poland (1138–1194) 244, 296 Casimir III the Great, king of Poland (1310–1370) 360, 362 Casimir IV Jagiellon, king of Poland (1427–1492) 357, 365 Casimir I, duke of Pomerania (after 1130–1180) 295 Casimir IV (V), duke of Słupsk (1345–1377)  360

Index of Personal Names Časlav, Serbian prince († c. 950) 252, 298 Cededa, bishop of Krk (11th century) 208 Cemicas, duke of the Carantanians (early 9th century) 132 Cham, Biblical figure 318, 337, 338, 339, 366 Charlemagne, emperor, king of the Franks (747/748–814) 52, 53, 54, 55, 128, 135, 170, 323, 350 Charles (I) Robert, king of Hungary (1288–1342) 384 Charles III, emperor, king of the Franks (839–888) 56, 138, 170 Charles IV, Roman-German emperor, king of Bohemia (1316–1378) 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349, 350, 351, 352, 354, 355, 356, 360, 362, 363, 364, 375, 381 Charles I Valois (1270–1325) 333 Clement I, pope (c. 50–97/101) 137 Clement III (Wibert), antipope (between 1020/30–1100) 301 Clement V, po‑pe (1250/65–1314) 333 Clement VI, pope (1290–1352) 345, 346 Clement, of Ohrid, bishop and hagiographer (c. 840–916) 140, 153, 154, 156, 158, 164, 165 Coloman, king of Hungary (before 1074–1116)  201 Columba, Irish missionary (543–615) 47, 48 Conrad II, emperor, German king (c. 990–1039) 326 Conrad III, German king (1093/94–1152) 281 Conrad I of Brno, duke of Moravia († 1092)  181 Conrad I of Wettin, margrave of Meissen (c. 1100–1157) 282 Conrad I of Zähringen, duke of Zähringen († 1152) 282 Conrad II the Gray, duke of Oleśnica (1338/40–1403) 363, 364 Constans II, Byzantine emperor (630–668)  45 Constantine the Great, Roman emperor (c. 280–337) 221, 382 Constantine IV, Byzantine emperor (c. 650–685) 115 Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, Byzantine emperor (905–959) 46, 102, 124, 125, 127, 134, 152, 196, 198, 203, 213, 229, 252, 259, 306, 311, 312

Index of Personal Names Constantine IX Monomachus, Byzantine emperor (after 1000–1055) 300 Constantine Bodin, prince of Duklja († around 1102) 164, 168, 301, 305, 307 Constantine I Asen Tikh, Bulgarian tsar († 1277) 169, 377 Constantine/Cyril, Byzantine scholar, missionary (826/27–869) 93, 123, 137, 138, 139, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 153, 154, 158, 159, 164, 165, 166, 187, 188, 189, 219, 227, 228, 303, 304, 310, 348, 349, 354, 355, 364, 369, 376, 379, 383, 389, 392, 400, 401, 402 Constantine of Preslav, Bulgarian missionary (9th/10th century) 153, 154, 155, 158, 159, 160 Cosmas of Prague, Bohemian chronicler (c. 1045–1125) 171, 172, 179, 181, 183, 184, 185, 186, 188, 190, 192, 193, 223, 232, 347, 348, 350 Czech, legendary ancestor of the Bohemians  348, 350, 353, 354, 359, 361, 368 Dagobert I, King of the Franks (c. 608/610–639) 49, 50, 101, 129 Dalimil, so-called, Bohemian chronicler (14th century) 343, 345, 347, 353, 354, 368 Daniel, Biblical figure 168 Danilevsky, Nikolai Y., Russian historian (1822–1885) 14 Danilo II, Serbian archbishop (c. 1270–1337)  259 Daurentios/Dauritas, Slavic chieftain (6th century) 98, 99 David, Bulgarian noble (10th century) 162 Demetrios Chomatenos, archbishop of Bulgaria/Ohrid (first half of 13th century) 156, 313 Demetrius of Thessaloniki, saint († 306) 39, 42, 81, 99, 102, 378 Dervanus, Slavic leader (early 7th century)  50, 101 Diethard, abbot of Sázava (11th/12th century)  191 Dietrich of Haldesleben, Saxon margrave († 985) 269, 272 Diocletian, Roman emperor (236/45–312)  312

583 Długosz, Jan, Polish chronicler (1415–1480)  92, 357, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370 Dmowski, Roman, Polish politician (1864–1939) 16 Dmitrij Ivanovič, grand prince (1350–1389)  394 Dobrotitsa, Bulgarian local ruler († c. 1385)  377 Dobrovský, Josef, Czech Enlightenment-age Slavist (1753–1829) 7, 8, 159 Dodilo, bishop of Brandenburg († 983) 272 Domagoj, Croatian duke († 876) 195, 202 Domentian, monk (13th century) 258, 261 Dominic of Trevisio, papal legate (9th century) 123 Domintian of Millstadt, saint (747/48–814) 132 Dostoevsky, Fyodor, Russian author (1821–1881) 14 Doubravka of Bohemia, wife of Mieszko I  236 Dragawitus, Polabian leader (8th–9th century) 54 Dragomir (Dargameros), Bulgarian noble (early 9th century) 117 Drahomir, Hellevian prince (10th century)  279 Drahomira, Bohemian princess (c. 890/877– 934/36) 174, 175 Drašković, Janko, Croatian politician (1770–1856) 9 Duch, bishop of Zagreb (11th-12th century) 201 Dzierzwa, Polish chronicler (first half of 14th century) 358, 359, 360, 367 Einhard, Frankish chronicler (c. 770–840)  55, 326, 327 Eishere, legendary warrior 323 Ekkehard I, margrave of Meissen (c. 960–1002) 240 Ekkehard of Aura, German chronicler (12th/13th century) 297, 331 Elisa, Biblical figure 350, 351 Elisabeth, wife of John of Luxembourg (1292–1330) 344, 350, 351 Elisabeth, wife of king Louis of Hungary (1340–1387)

584 Emeric, king of Hungary (c. 1174–1204) 254, 259 Emma of Normandy, queen of England (987–1052) 325 Engels, Friedrich, German philosopher (1820–1895) 19 Enrico Dandolo, Venetian doge (1107–1205) 254 Eric, Friulian margrave († 799) 53 Ernst of Kirchberg, Pomeranian chronicler (14th century) 374, 375 Ernst of Pardubica, bishop/archbishop of Prague (1300-–1364) 345 Esik, margrave of Merseburg (10th century)  267 Etgar, duke of the Carantanians (9th century)  132 Eudoxia, Byzantine princess and empress (12th/13th century) 253, 254 Euthymius/Evtimij of Tărnovo, Bulgarian patriarch (1325/30–1401/12) 378 Eve, Biblical figure 224 Ezzo of Lotharingia (c. 995–1034) 325 Ferdinand I, the Benign, emperor of Austria (1793–1875) 11 Filippo Buonaccorsi (Callimachus), humanist (1437–1496) 388, 389 Flavius Josephus, Roman-Jewish historian († after 100) 338 Folkmar, bishop of Brandenburg (10th century) 272 Formosus of Porto, papal legate (815–896)  122, 123 Foucault, Michel, French philosopher (1926–1984) 34 Francis of Prague, Bohemian chronicler († after 1355) 352 Fredegar, Frankish chronicler (7th century)  48, 49, 50, 56, 100, 101, 104, 105, 129 Frederick I Barbarossa, emperor, German king (after 1122–1190) 186, 279, 295, 330, 331, 336 Frederick II, emperor, German king (1194–1250) 295 Frederick I, archbishop of Magdeburg († 1152) 282 Freytag, Gustav, German author (1816–1895) 19

Index of Personal Names Gabriel Radomir, Bulgarian ruler (960–1015) 162 Gaj, Ljudevit, Croatian scholar (1809–1872)  9, 10 Gallus Anonymus, chronicler in Poland († after 1116) 223, 232, 233, 237, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 250, 251, 294, 360, 368 Garibald II, duke of Bavaria (7th century)  129 Gavrilović, Milan, Serbian politician (1882–1972) 26 Georg, saint († c. 303) 160 Gerbert of Aurillac/Sylvester II, pope (c. 950–1003) 237 George of Poděbrady, king of Bohemia (1420–1471) 358 Georgios Hamartolos (Monachos), Byzantine chronicler (9th century) 156, 224, 227 Georgios Synkellos, Byzantine chronicler (8th/9th century) 156 Gero, Saxon margrave († 965) 236, 268, 280 Gerold, bishop of Oldenburg († 1163) 329 Gervase of Tilbury, English scholar (c. 1152– after 1220) 332 Gniewomir, Pomeranian prince (12th century) 294 Godfrey of Viterbo, court chaplain, chronicler († 1191/92) 336 Gojnik, Serbian prince (sec. half of 9th century) 252 Gojslav, king of Croatia († 1020) 199 Gorazdus, Moravian noble (9th century) 140 Gottschalk of Orbais, monk (806/08–866/70)  195, 202 Gottschalk, prince of the Abodrites († 1066)  276, 277, 278 Graccus, legendary ruler of the Lechites 372 Gregory I, pope (c. 540–604) 47 Gregory VII, pope (c. 1020–1085) 191, 200, 301 Gregory IX, pope (c. 1170–1241) 308 Gregory, archbishop of Bar (sec. half of 12th century) 302 Grimoald of Bomarzo, papal legate (9th century) 123 Gudfred, Danish king (early 9th century)  55, 111

Index of Personal Names Hadrian II, pope (792–872) 123, 138, 139 Ham, Biblical figure 224 Hampe, Karl, German historian (1859–1936)  23 Harald ‘Bluetooth’ Gormsson, king of Denmark († 987) 276 Harald II, king of Denmark (c. 996/98−c. 1018) 325 Hatzon, Slavic leader (early 7th century) 99, 102 Havlíček Borovský, Karel, Czech author (1821–1856) 9 Heffter, Moritz W., German historian (1792–1873) 18 Hegel, Georg W. F., German philosopher (1770–1831) 17 Helisa, legendary ancestor of the Slavs 350, 351 Helmold of Bosau, German chronicler (c. 1120–after 1177) 95, 269, 271, 274, 277, 282, 283, 285, 293, 328, 329, 330, 333, 371, 373, 375 Henry, prince of the Abodrites († 1127) 277, 278 Henry I the Fowler, king of the Eastern Franks (c. 876–936) 175, 266, 267, 275, 279, 280 Henry II, emperor, German king (973/978–1024) 240, 272 Henry III, emperor, German king (1017–1056) 192, 292, 326, 355 Henry IV, emperor, German king (1050–1106)  171 Henry I, archbishop of Mainz (c. 1090–1153)  335 Henry, margrave of Schweinfurth (before 980–1017) 192 Henry the Lion, duke of Saxony (c. 1129/30–1195) 279, 281, 282, 295 Henry of Badewide, count of Ratzeburg († c. 1164) 279 Henry of Isernia, notary (13th century) 341 Heraclius, Byzantine emperor (575–641) 43, 125, 126 Herberstein, Sigismund of, imperial diplomat (1586–1566) 2 Herbord, monk and hagiographer († 1168)  293

585 Herder, Johann Gottfried, German philosopher (1744–1803) 4, 5, 6, 17 Heriman, Bohemian duke (9th century) 172 Hermann Billung, Saxon noble († 973) 267, 275 Hermann of Reichenau, German chronicler (1013–1054) 326 Hermann III of Stahleck, palatine of the Rhine († 1156) 282 Herodotus, Greek historian († c. 430/420BC) 39, 315, 333, 334 Hieronymus, Church father, saint (347/48BC– 419/20BC) 1, 346, 347, 348, 350, 363, 365 Hincmar of Reims, bishop, Frankish chronicler (c. 800/810–882) 195 Hitler, Adolf (1889–1945) 26 Hlibovyc’kyj, Mykola, Ukrainian politician (1876–1918) 15 Höfken, Gustav, German economist (1811–1889) 19 Honorius, legendary papal legate 305 Honorius II, antipope († 1072) 208 Honorius III, pope (before 1160–1227) 254 Honorius of Autun (Augustodunensis), scholar († c. 1150) 331 Hötzendorf, Franz Conrad of, German military (1852–1925) 22 Hranko, ruler on Lokrum (11th century) 299 Hribar, Ivan, Slovenian politician (1851–1941) 15 Iaropolk, prince of Kiev (c. 942–972) 217 Iaroslav the Wise, grand prince of Kiev (978–1054) 218, 220, 221, 222 Iaroslavsky, Iemelyan M., Russian politician (1878–1943) 26, 27 Ibn al-Ṣaġīr, Arab chronicler (9th/10th century) 61 Ibn Buṭlān, Arab scholar († c. 1065) 320 Ibn Faḍlān, Aḥmad, Arab traveller (9th/10th century) 64 Ibn Ḥawqal, Arab geographer († after 978)  321 Ibn Ḫurradaḏbih, Arab geographer († 911)  62, 63, 64, 211 Ibn Qutajba, Arab scholar (c. 828–889) 61 Ibn Rosteh/Ibn Rustah, Aḥmad, Persian geographer (10th century) 316, 319

586 Ibrāhīm ibn Ya’kūb, Jewish traveller (10th century) 107, 108, 176, 178, 232, 234, 245, 275, 292, 318, 319, 322 Ignatius I, patriarch of Constantinople (c. 798–877) 123 Igor, prince of Kiev († 945/946) 221 Ilarion, metropolitan of Kiev (11th century)  220, 221, 223 Innocent III, pope (1161–1216) 169, 259 Innocent IV, pope (c. 1195–1254) 209, 250 Ioannitius II, Serbian patriarch († 1354) 381 Isaac II Angelos, Byzantine emperor (1155/56–1204) 169, 253 Isaiah, Biblical figure 166, 167, 168 Isaias, Serbian monk (14th century) 383 Isicion, legendary figure 367 Isidore of Seville, bishop (c. 560–636) 47, 333, 336 Ispor. See Asparuh Ivajlo, Bulgarian noble, tsar († 1280) 377 Ivan Alexander, tsar of Bulgaria († 1371) 378 Ivan Asen II, tsar of Bulgaria († 1241) 169, 376, 377, 378 Ivan/John of Debar, archbishop of Ohrid († 1037) 163 Ivan/John of Rila, Bulgarian monk (876–946)  164, 166 Ivan Shishman, Bulgarian tsar († c. 1395)  378 Ivan Vladislav, Bulgarian tsar († 1018) 162, 163, 164 Jacob of Velletri, papal envoy (13th century)  250 Jadwiga, queen of Poland († 1399) 364, 366 Jan of Czarnków, Polish chronicler (c. 1320–1387) 360, 361, 362 Jan Silván, Premonstratensian (born 1368)  364 Japheth, Biblical figure 1, 62, 224, 225, 318, 337, 338, 350, 358, 361, 366, 367, 368, 394 Jarimar/Jaromar, duke of the Rani († 1217/1218) 283 Jaromír, duke of Bohemia († 1035) 180, 181, 184 Jesaja, Biblical figure John Chrysostom, bishop of Constantinople (345/49–407) 155, 156

Index of Personal Names John Ekzarh, Bulgarian scholar (9th/10th century) 151, 153, 155, 158 John Malalas, Byzantine chronicler (c. 490– after 570) 40, 156 John of Biclaro, bishop (c. 540–620) 47 John of Damascus, church father (c. 650–754) 155 John VIII, pope († 882) 140, 143, 202 John X, pope (860–929) 197, 206, 299 John XIII, pope († 972) 188 John I Tzimiskes, Byzantine emperor (924–976) 161, 162 John the Deacon, Venetian chronicler († after 1018) 203 John Skylitzes, Byzantine chronicler († after 1105) 312 John Zonaras, Byzantine chronicler († after 1159) 313, 314 John Kinnamos, Byzantine chronicler (shortly after 1143–1185) 307 John I, margrave of Brandenburg (c. 1213– 1266) 295, 332 John of Wallingford, English chronicler († 1258) 335 John I of Luxembourg, king of Bohemia (1296–1346) 344, 361 John II of Werle, Pomeranian duke († 1337) 374 John V Palaiologos, Byzantine emperor (1332–1391) 380 John VI Kantakouzenos, Byzantine emperor (c. 1295–1383) 380 John (Giovanni) of Marignolli, chronicler († 1358/59) 339, 349, 350, 351, 352, 353 John of Neumarkt, humanist, bishop of Olomouc († 1380) 363 John of Holešov, Bohemian Benedictine (c. 1366–1436) 347 John of Ragusa (Ivan Stojković), Croatian Dominican (1395/96–1448) 392 John Paul II, pope (1920–2005) 25 Jordan, missionary bishop in Poland (10th century) 236 Jordan, Jan Pětr, Sorbian politician (1818–1891) 12 Jordan, Wilhelm, German politician (1819–1904) 18 Jordanes, Byzantine chronicler († 552) 35, 36, 39, 48, 50, 51, 229

Index of Personal Names Joseph, Biblical figure 382 Jovan Vladimir, St., prince of Duklja/Dioclea, († 1016) 300 Judith, wife of Břetislav I († 1058) 192 Julius Caesar, Roman statesman (100–44 BC)  250, 350 Justin II, Byzantine emperor (520–578) 41 Justinian I, the Great, Byzantine emperor (c. 482–565) 38, 39, 41, 252 Justinian II, Byzantine emperor (668–711)  59, 115 Kalojan/Ioanitsa, Bulgarian tsar († 1207) 169 Karadžić, Vuk Stefanović, Serbian philologist (1787–1864) 10 Kekaumenos, Byzantine military (11th century) 45, 313 Khomiakov, Alexei S., Russian slavophile (1804–1860) 13 Khoryv, legendary founder of Kiev 223 Khotimir (Cheitmar), duke of the Carantanians (8th century) 131 Khrabr, Bulgarian monk (late 9th/10th century) 153, 156, 159 Kii, legendary founder of Kiev 223 Kireevsky, Ivan V., Russian author (1806–1856) 13 Knut II the Great, king of Denmark (c. 995–1035) 325 Knut VI, king of Denmark (1162/63–1202)  295, 331 Knut Lavard, Danish duke († 1131) 278 Knut, prince of the Abodrites (12th century)  278 Kocel, prince of Pannonia († c. 875) 135, 138, 139, 145, 369 Kollár, Jan, Slovak scholar (1793–1852) 8 Kopitar, Jernej, Slovenian scholar (1780–1844)  8 Korniychuk, Oleksandr Y., Soviet politician (1905–1972) 26 Kozma, Bulgarian ecclesiastical author (sec. half of 10th century) 160 Kramář, Karel, Czech politician (1860–1937)  15 Krešimir I, king of Croatia († 945) 198 Krešimir II, king of Croatia († 969) 198 Krešimir III, king of Croatia († 1030) 199, 307

587 Križanić, Juraj, Croatian theologist (1618–1683) 2 Krum, Proto-Bulgarian khan († 814) 117, 118 Kruto, prince of the Abodrites (11th century) 277 Kukuljević-Sakcinski, Ivan, Croatian politician (1816–1889) 11 Kulin, ban of Bosnia († after 1204) 307, 308 Kunigunde, wife of Premysl Otakar II (1202–48) 341 Kurella, Hans Georg, German psychiatrist (1858–1916) 21 Kuvrat/Krovatos, Proto-Bulgarian khan (7th century) 114 Ladislaus I, king of Hungary (1042/46–1095)  200, 201 Lagarde, Paul de, German scientist (1827–1891) 22 Lambert of St Omer, monk, encyclopedist († 1125) 335 Lampert of Hersfeld, German chronicler (before 1028–1081) 331 Laonikos Chalkokondyles, Greek historian (c. 1423/30–1490) 314, 315 Laurentius/Vavřinec of Březová, Bohemian chronicler (1371–after 1437) 357 Lazar Hrebeljanović, Serbian prince (c. 1329–89) 383, 384, 386 Lech, legendary ancestor of the Poles 348, 354, 359, 361, 368, 369 Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm, German scholar (1646–1716) 3, 4 Lelewel, Joachim, Polish historian (1786–1861) 10 Leo VI Sophos, the Wise, Byzantine emperor, (866–912) 151, 311 Leo Choirosphaktesa, Byzantine envoy (9th century) 152 Leszek (Lestik), legendary duke of Poland  233 Leszko III, legendary ruler of Poland 250 Libelt, Karol, Polish publicist (1807–1875)  11, 12 Libuše (Libussa), legendary duchess of the Bohemians 183, 184 List, Friedrich, German economic theorist (1789–1846) 19

588

Index of Personal Names

Meḥmed II the Conqueror, Ottoman sultan (1432–1481) 389 Meinfried, prince of the Hevellians († 1127) 315 Melchizedek, Biblical figure 350 Menander the Guardsman, Byzantine chronicler († after 582) 42, 98, 99 Mestwin II, prince of Eastern Pomerania (before 1220–1294) 296 Methodius (Michael), St., Byzantine scholar, archbishop of Moravia (815–885) 93, 123, 137, 138, 139, 140, 142, 143, 144, 145, 153, 154, 156, 158, 164, 165, 187, 188, 189, 190, 207, 208, 219, 227, 228, 303, 310, 348, 349, 354, 355, 364, 369, 376, 379, 383, 389, 392, 400, 401, 402 Machelm, East Frankish noble (early 9th Michael I, Byzantine emperor century) 118 (c. 770–844) 117 Majar-Ziljski, Matija, Slovenian linguist Michael III, Byzantine emperor (840–867)  (1809–1892) 14 122, 123, 136, 145 Malamir, Proto-Bulgarian khan Michael VIII Palaiologos, Byzantine emperor († 836/37) 120, 121 (1224/25–1282) 377 Malaspalli, ? Publisher in Venice (16th-17th c.)  Michael, duke of Zahumlje (first half of 10th 2 century) 207, 299 Manuel I Komnenos, Byzantine emperor Michael, mystical figure 168 (1118–1180) 253 Michael Attalaties, Byzantine chronicler Mark of Devol, Bulgarian bishop (10th (1020/30–after 1079) 45 century) 160 Mickiewicz, Adam, Polish poet Martin of Braga, archbishop of Braga (1798–1855) 10 (c. 520–580) 47 Mieszko I, duke of Poland (c. 945–992) 232, Martin of Tours, bishop of Tours 233, 234, 235, 236, 238, 245, 292, 325 (316/336–397) 47 Mieszko II, duke/king of Poland (990–1034)  Mary Irene Lekapene, wife of Peter I 240, 249, 325 († c. 966) 161 Mihajlo, prince of Duklja (11th century)  Masaryk, Tomáš G., Czech statesman 300, 301 (1850–1937) 25 Miha Madijev, Dalmatian chronicler Mathilde of Lotharingia (988/89–1032) 249 (13th/14th century) 392 Matija Ninoslav, Bosnian ban († 1250) 308 Mikhail II Asen, Bulgarian tsar († 1256) 169, Matthew, bishop of Krakow († 1166) 248, 377 249, 333 Mikhail III Shishman, Bulgarian tsar (before Matthew of Paris, English chronicler († 1259)  1292–1328/31) 377, 380 335 Milutin. See Stephen Uroš II Milutin Matthias (I) Corvinus, king of Hungary Miroslav, king of Croatia († 945/46) 198 (1443–1490) 389 Miroslav, Serbian prince (12th century)  Maurice, Byzantine emperor (539–602) 40 253 Maurice, St., martyr († late 3rd century) 237 Misaca (= Mieszko I) 324 Mauro Orbini, Dalmatian monk Moltke, Helmuth of, Prussian general (1563–1614) 2, 302 (1848–1916) 22 Liudevit, Slavic prince (early 9th century)  128, 194 Liudprand of Cremona, bishop, chronicler (920–976) 150 Lothar III, emperor, German king (1075–1137)  193, 278 Louis I, the Pious, East Franconian king, emperor (814–840) 53, 56, 118, 133, 134, 211 Louis II, of Germany, East Franconian king (c. 806–875) 53, 136, 138, 172 Louis I, king of Hungary (1326–1382) 360, 385 Ludmila, Bohemian saint (860–921) 172, 175, 189, 349

Index of Personal Names Monk of Sázava, Bohemian chronicler (12th century) 189, 190, 191, 193 Moraczewski, Jędrzej, Polish historian (1802–1855) 11 Moses, Biblical figure 167 Moses, Bulgarian noble (10th century) 162 Moymir I, prince of Moravia († 846) 135, 136 Moymir II, prince of Moravia (after 871–902)  141 Moyslan, Bohemian duke (9th century) 172 Mstivoy, prince of the Abodrites (sec. half of 10th century) 275, 276 Muncimir, duke of the Croats (9th/10th century) 196, 202 Murad I, sultan (1319/26–1389) 383 Musokios, Slavic leader (late 6th century) 99 Mutimir, Serbian prince (sec. half of 9th century) 252 Nakon, prince of the Abodrites († 965/67)  275, 276 Napoleon Bonaparte, Emperor of the French (1769–1821) 6, 7, 9 Naum, Bulgarian missionary (c. 830–910)  153, 154, 160, 164, 165 Negno, legendary figure 367 Neplach of Opatovice, Bohemian chronicler (1322–1371) 352 Nicephorus I, Byzantine emperor (760–811)  117, 119, 155 Nicephorus, patriarch of Constantinople (c. 758–828) 114, 156 Nicholas I, pope (820–867) 122, 123, 136, 139, 145 Niketas I, patriarch of Constantinople († 780) 314 Niketas Choniates, Byzantine chronicler († 1217) 313 Niklot, prince of the Abodrites († 1160) 278, 279, 374 Niklot of Rostock, lord of Mecklenburg (12th century) 279 Nikola, Bulgarian noble (10th century) 162 Nikola Altomanović, Serbian zhupan (14th century) 383 Nimrod, Biblical figure 350, 362

589 Noah, Biblical figure 224, 318, 337, 350, 367, 394 Notker I, the Stammerer of St Gall, chronicler († 912) 323 Numa Pompilius, legendary king of Rome  358 Oda, wife of Bolesław I († 1018) 240 Odilo, Bavarian duke (before 700–748) 130 Olaf Haraldsson, St., king of Norway (c. 995–1030) 278 Oldřich/Udalrik, duke of Bohemia († 1034) 180 Oleg/Helgi of Novgorod, Varangian prince († 912/913) 214, 215 Oleśnicki, Zbigniew, bishop of Krakow (1389–1455) 365 Olga, princess of Kiev († 969) 216 Omurtag, Proto-Bulgarian khan († 831) 117, 118, 119, 120, 121 Orosius, late antique historian (380/85– around 418) 171, 335 Ostroyllus, legendary East Gothic ruler of Dalmatia 303 Otto I, emperor, German king (912–973)  150, 175, 176, 203, 216, 232, 235, 236, 267, 268, 275, 280, 318, 375 Otto II, emperor, German king (955–983)  134, 192, 272 Otto III, emperor, German king (980–1002)  179, 237, 238, 240, 245, 247, 272, 280, 324, 325 Otto III, margrave of Brandenburg (c. 1215–1267) 295 Otto I, duke of Olomouc († 1087) 181 Otto of Bamberg, St., bishop (c. 1065–1139)  272, 292, 294, 297 Otto of Freising, bishop, German chronicler (c. 1112–1158) 281 Otto of St Blasien, German chronicler († early 13th century) 331 Otto, Bohemian chronicler († 1314) 343 Palacký, František, Czech historian (1798–1876) 12 Pan, legendary ancestor of the Slavs 361 Pancras, saint († c. 40) 159 Panteleimon, saint († 305) 154

590 Paolo, bishop of Populonia (9th century)  122 Paraskeva of the Balkans, Byzantine saint († before 305) 378 Paul, Apostle (1st century) 227, 231 Paul the Deacon, Langobard chronicler (720/30–799) 52, 53, 129, 130 Pavao I Šubić of Bribir, Croatian magnate (c. 1245–1312) 302, 384 Pavol Jozef Šafárik, Slovak scholar (1795–1861) 8 Peiragastus, Slavic leader (7th century) 99 Pepin III, king of the Franks (714/15–768)  131 Perbundos, Slavic leader (7th century) 99 Peter, Bulgarian abbot (9th century) 160 Peter I, tsar of Bulgaria (903–969/70) 160, 161, 164, 166, 167, 168 Peter, Serbian ruler (9th/10th century) 252 Peter I, the Great, tsar of Russia (1672–1725)  3, 4 Peter II Delyan, Bulgarian noble, tsar († 1041) 164, 167, 168 Peter Krešimir IV, king of Croatia († 1074/75) 199, 200 Peter of Zittau, Bohemian chronicler (1260/70–1339) 343 Peter of Byczyna, canon in Brzeg (14th century) 359 Phocas, Byzantine emperor (547–610) 43 Photius, patriarch of Constantinople (c. 810–893/94) 122, 123, 137, 138, 211u Physso, Slavic leader (8th century) 102 Piast, legendary duke of Poland 233 Pietro II Orseolo, Venetian doge (961–1009)  199 Piotr Włostowic († c. 1153) 248, 249 Pliny the Elder, Roman scholar (23–79) 36 Poeta Saxo, Saxon chronicler (9th century)  55 Pogodin, Mikhail P., Russian historian (1800–1875) 14, 159 Pompilius, legendary Polish ruler 250 Popiel, legendary Polish ruler 233, 246 Pourtalès, Friedrich of, German diplomat (1853–1928) 22 Praskeva, saint (10th c.) 378

Index of Personal Names Přemysl (Primizil) the Ploughman, legendary ancestor of the Přemyslids 172, 183, 184, 187 Přemysl I Otakar, king of Bohemia (1155–1230) 182 Přemysl II Otakar, king of Bohemia (1233–1278) 341, 343 Prešeren, France, Slovenian poet (1800–1849) 10 Presyan, Proto-Bulgarian khan († 852) 120, 122 Pribina, prince of Pannonia († 860) 135, 138 Pribislav, prince of the Abodrites and Wagrians (12th century) 278 Pribislav, prince of the Abodrites, son of Niklot (12th century) 279 Pribislav-Henry, prince of the Hevellians (c. 1080–1150) 280, 281, 282 Pribounias, Croatian noble (9th century)  198 Priest of Duklja, chronicler (12th century)  302, 303, 304, 305, 306 Prijezda, ban of Bosnia (13th century) 308, 384 Priwizlauga, duke of the Carantanians (9th century) 132 Procopius, St., abbot of Sázava († 1053) 190 Procopius of Caesarea, Byzantine chronicler (c. 500–562) 36, 38, 39, 40, 41, 80, 81, 86, 92, 93, 94, 97, 98, 311, 312, 351 Przemysł II, duke of Greater Poland, king of Poland (1257–1296) 296 Pseudo-Dionysius, theologian (6th century)  383 Ptolemy, Claudius, Greek scholar (c. 100–c. after 160) 36, 60, 63 Pulkava of Radenín, Přibík, Bohemian chronicler († 1378/80) 352, 353, 354, 355, 361, 367, 368 Rabanus Maurus, archbishop of Mainz (c. 780–856) 195 Radić Branković-Rastislalić, Serbian magnate (14th century) 383 Radko, legendary ancestor of the Radimichi 213 Radoslav. See Stephen Radoslav

Index of Personal Names Rahewin, German chronicler († before 1177)  330 Ranke, Leopold of, German historian (1795–1886) 18 Rastko (Sava), archbishop of Serbia, saint (c. 1175–1236) 254, 255, 256, 258, 261 Ratbod, Bavarian margrave (9th century)  135 Ratibor, prince of Pomerania († 1156) 296 Ratimir, legendary East Gothic ruler of Dalmatia 303, 304 Reginhar, bishop of Passau († 838) 135 Regino of Prüm, Saxon chronicler (c. 840–915) 193, 245, 323 Reitemeier, Johann Friedrich, German lawyer (1755–1839) 18 Richeza, wife of Mieszko II (c. 995–1063)  240, 325 Riurik, legendary prince of the Varangians  214, 215, 225 Roger II, king of Sicily (1095–1154) 322 Roger Bacon, English scholar (c. 1219–1292)  332 Roger of Wendover, English chronicler († 1236) 338 Romanus I, Byzantine emperor (c. 870–948)  161 Romanus II, Byzantine emperor (937–963)  311 Rostislav, Old Moravian prince († after 870)  135, 136, 137, 138, 158, 369 Rudolf I of Habsburg, German king (c. 1218–1291) 341, 343 Rudolph of Ems, German poet (c. 1200–1254) 332 Ruotger of Cologne, monk (10th century)  324 Rus, legendary ancestor of the Eastern Slavs 361, 368 Rutger, archbishop of Bar (13th-14th century)  302 Sambor I, prince of East Pomerania (c. 1150–1207) 296 Samo, Frankish merchant, King of the Slavs († around 660) 49, 50, 100, 101 Samuel I, tsar of Bulgaria (954–1014) 162, 164, 167, 168, 217, 300 Sava. See Rastko

591 Saxo Grammaticus, Danish chronicler (1160–1208) 95, 271, 293, 331 Schlegel, August Wilhelm, German philosopher (1767–1845) 18 Schlözer, August Ludwig, German historian (1735–1809) 4, 5 Schröter, Traugott, character in a novel 19 Secundus of Trent, abbot, chronicler († 612)  129 Selibur, prince of the Wagrians (sec. half of 10th century) 275 Selimirus, legendary East Gothic ruler of Dalmatia 303 Shchek, legendary founder of Kiev 223 Shem, Biblical figure 224, 225, 318, 337 Siemomysł (Semimizl), legendary duke of Poland 233 Siemowit (Semouith), legendary duke of Poland 233 Sigibert, Frankish king (6th century) 99 Sigismund I, king of Poland (1467–1548) 1 Sigismund of Luxembourg, Roman-German king (1368–1437) 357 Simeon I, tsar of Bulgaria (864–927) 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 160, 167, 168, 197, 252, 378 Sineus, legendary prince of the Varangians 214, 225 Slav, legendary figure 167, 168 Slavník, Bohemian noble († 981) 179 Slawus, legendary ancestor of the Slavs 362 Soběslav/Sobebor, Bohemian noble († 1004)  180 Soběslav II, duke of Bohemia († 1180) 185 Solomon, king of Hungary (1053–c. 1087)  200 Spoitimar, Bohemian duke (9th century)  172 Spytihněv I, Bohemian prince (c. 875–915)  174 Spytihněv II, duke of Bohemia (c. 1030–1061)  172, 181, 191 Stájský, Ludmil, Czech-Moravian journalist (19th century) 11 Stalin, Josef, Soviet statesman (1878–1953)  25, 26, 27, 28 Stanisław, St., bishop of Krakow (c. 1030–1079) 242, 249, 250, 365

592 Staszic, Stanisław, Polish Englightenment-age intellectual (1755–1826) 10 Stephen I, king of Hungary (c. 970–1038)  238, 278 Stephen V, pope († 891) 140, 143 Stephen Dobroslav, ruler in Duklja (c. 986–1046) 300 Stephen Držislav, king of Croatia († 997) 198, 199 Stephen I, king of Croatia († 1058) 199 Stephen III, king of Croatia (11th century)  200 Stephen I Nemanja (Simeon), Serbian grand zhupan, saint (1113–1199) 252, 253, 254, 255, 257, 258, 259, 261, 301, 306 Stephen Dragutin, king of Serbia (c. 1252–1316) 259, 384 Stephen Nemanjić, king of Serbia (c. 1160–1227) 253, 256, 258, 259, 260, 261 Stephen Radoslav, king of Serbia (c. 1192–1235) 256, 259, 260 Stephen Uroš I, king of Serbia (c. 1220–1277) 256, 257, 260 Stephen Uroš II Milutin, king of Serbia (c. 1254–1321) 259, 380 Stephen Uroš III Decanski, king of Serbia (c. 1275–1321) 380 Stephen Uroš IV Dušan, king/tsar of Serbia (c. 1308–1355) 259, 348, 380, 381, 382, 383, 384 Stephen Uroš V, Serbian tsar (1333–1371) 383 Stephen Vladislav, king of Serbia (c. 1195–1264) 256, 260 Stephen Kulinić, Bosnian ban († 1236) 308 Stephen (I) Kotroman, ban of Bosnia († after 1310) 384 Stephen II Kotromanić, ban of Bosnia (1292–1353) 384, 385 Stephen Tomaš, king of Bosnia († 1461) 389 Stephen Tomašević, despot of Serbia, king of Bosnia (1438–1463) 389 Stephen Vukčić Kosača, territorial ruler in Bosnia (1404–1466) 389 Stoignev, prince of the Abodrites (10th century) 275 Strakhvas/Christian, Bohemian hagiographer (10th–11th century) 172, 173, 174, 187, 188, 189, 190

Index of Personal Names Střezislava, Bohemian noble († 987) 179 Strojimir, Serbian prince (sec. half of 9th century) 252 Struve, Petr B., Russian politician (1870–1944)  16 Štúr, Ľudovít, Bratislavan teacher and politician (1815–1856) 9, 11, 14 Sturm, Bavarian missionary, abbot († 779)  51 Suatobor, duke of Pomerania (11th/12th century) 294 Suatopolc, duke of Pomerania (12th century) 294 Svatkovsky (-Nestor), Vsevolod P., Russian journalist (1862–1937) 15 Svatopluk I, Moravian prince († 894) 56, 57, 58, 138, 139, 140, 141, 173, 188, 305, 316, 349, 355, 369 Svatopluk II, Moravian prince (c. 884–after 899) 141 Sven GabelbarT, king of the Danes († 1014) 325 Svetimirus, legendary Dalmatian ruler 304 Svetopelek, legendary Dalmatian ruler 304, 305, 306 Svetoslav, king of Croatia (10th/11th century) 199 Svevladus, legendary East Gothic ruler of Dalmatia 303 Sviatoslav I, prince of Kiev (c. 940–972) 161, 214, 216, 221 Sviatoslav II, prince of Kiev (1027/28–1076) 156 Swantopolk II, duke of East Pomerania (1195–1266) 296 Sybil, legendary figure 378, 379 Sycharius, Frankish noble (7th century) 49 Symeon Logothete, Byzantine chronicler († before 1025) 379 Tacit, Roman historian (56–117) 36 Tassilo I, Bavarian duke (560–619) 129 Tassilo III, Bavarian duke (741–after 794) 51, 102, 132 Tervel, Proto-Bulgarian khan († 721) 115, 116 Tetislav, duke of the Rani (12th century) 283 Theodor/Peter, tsar of Bulgaria (sec. half of 12th century) 168, 169

Index of Personal Names Theodore, Avarian capcan († 805) 53 Theodore Metochites, Byzantine politician (1270–1332) 314 Theodosius of Tarnovo, St., Bulgarian hesychast († 1363) 378 Theodosius, monk (13th/14th century) 258 Theophanes the Confessor, Byzantine chronicler (c. 760–817/18) 46, 102, 114, 314 Theophilus, Byzantine emperor (812/13–842)  211 Theophylact Simocatta, Byzantine chronicler (580/90–after 628) 40, 41, 73, 88, 99, 104 Theophylact, patriarch of Constantinople (917–956) 161 Theophylact, archbishop of Ohrid (c. 1055– 1120/26) 154, 164, 165 Thietmar/Dětmar, bishop of Prague († 982) 178, 193 Thietmar of Merseburg, bishop, Saxon chronicler (975–1018) 49, 95, 140, 236, 237, 238, 239, 266, 268, 270, 271, 272, 275, 325, 326 Thietmar II, bishop of Verden (12th century) 282 Thomas the Archdeacon, Dalmatian chronicler (c. 1201–1268) 197, 203, 204, 205, 207, 208 Thucydides, Greek historian (454BC–399BC)  39 Tihomir, Bulgarian noble (11th century) 164 Tihomir, Serbian grand zhupan (12th century) 253 Tiras, Biblical figure 1 Tišemir, legendary prince of Bosnia 306 Tito/Josip Broz, Yugoslavian statesman (1892–1980) 27, 28 Tomislav, duke/king of the Croats († 928) 196, 197, 198, 207, 299 Tofa, daughter of prince Mstivoy (10th–11th c.) 276 Treitschke, Heinrich von, German historian (1834–1896) 19 Trpimir I, duke of Croatia († 864) 194, 195, 196, 200, 202 Trpimir II, duke of Croatia (10th century)  198 Truvor, legendary prince of the Varangians 214, 225

593 Tsamblak, George (Grigori), Bulgarian cleric, metropolitan of Kiev (1365–1420)  143, 394 Tugumir, duke of the Hevellians (10th century) 279, 280 Turgiy, legendary Bulgarian ruler 168 Tvrtko I Kotromanić, ban/king of Bosnia (c. 1338–1391) 383, 384, 385, 386, 388 Tyutchev, Fyodor, Russian poet (1803–1873) 14 Uroš I, Serbian grand zhupan (first half of 12th century) 253, 256, 259 Václav, St., duke of Bohemia (c. 907–929/935)  170, 172, 173, 175, 178, 185, 186, 187, 189, 190, 193, 278, 279, 348, 349, 365, 369 Václav II, king of Bohemia (1271–1305) 343, 344 Václav Hájek of Libočan, Bohemian chronicler († 1553) 347 Vandalus, legendary great-grandson of Japheth 367 Vartislav, prince of the Abodrites (12th century) 279 Viatko, legendary ancestor of the Viatichi 213 Vincent Kadłubek, bishop of Krakow, Polish chronicler (c. 1150–1223) 243, 244, 245, 250, 359, 360, 372 Vincent of Kielcza, Polish hagiographer (13th century) 242, 249, 250 Vincent of Prague, Bohemian chronicler († after 1170) 282 Vinko Pribojević, Dalmatian Dominican monk (14th/15th century) 1, 2, 402 Vitus, St., Christian martyr († c. 304) 175, 178 Vladimir I Sviatoslavich, St., prince of Kiev (c. 960–1015) 216, 217, 218, 219, 221 Vladimir II Monomakh, grand prince of Kiev (1053–1125) 228 Vladimir Rasate, duke of Bulgaria (9th century) 150 Vladinus, legendary East Gothic ruler of Dalmatia 303, 304 Vladislav. See Stephen Vladislav Vladislav II, duke and king of Bohemia († 1174) 182, 186

594 Vladivoj, duke of Bohemia (c. 970–1003) 180 Vlastimir, Serbian archon (9th century) 251 Vodnik, Valentin, Slovenian poet (1758–1819) 9 Vo(j)nomir, Slavic noble (end of 8th century) 53 Vojtěch. See Adalbert Vratislav I, duke of Bohemia (888–921) 172, 173, 174, 279 Vratislav II, duke and king of Bohemia (after 1031–1092) 181, 185, 191, 354 Vuk Branković, Serbian prince († 1397) 383 Vuk (Kotromanić), ban of Bosnia († after 1378) 385 Vukan, Serbian grand zhupan (11th/12th century) 252, 253 Wallucus, Slavic leader (7th century) 50, 102, 129 Waltunc, duke of the Carantanians (sec. half of 8th century) 132 Wandalus, legendary ancestor of the Poles  358, 359 Wartislaw I, prince in Pomerania (1100–1134/36) 294, 295, 296 Wartislaw III, prince in Pomerania (c. 1210–1264) 295 Wasilewska, Wanda, Polish author (1905–1964) 26 Wencelaus. See Václav Wibald of Stablo, imperial diplomat (1098–1158) 282 Wiching, bishop of Nitra († 900/912) 140 Wichmann the Younger, Saxon duke († 967) 232, 235 Widukind of Corvey, Saxon chronicler († after 973) 231, 232, 267, 280, 292, 324

Index of Personal Names Wilhelm, archbishop of Mainz (929–968)  280 Wilhelm II, Emperor of Germany, King of Prussia (1859–1941) 15, 21, 22 Willibald, Anglo-Saxon missionary, bishop (700–787/88) 44 Wipo of Burgundy, Saxon chronicler († after 1046) 326 Wiprecht of Groitzsch, Saxon margrave († 1124) 285 Witislan, Bohemian duke (9th century) 172 Witzan, prince of the Abodrites († 795) 54 Władysław II Jagiełło, king of Poland († 1434) 364, 365, 366 Władysław III of Varna, king of Poland and Hungary (1424–1444) 388, 389 Władysław of Kalisz (c. 1190–1239) 251 Wulfstan, Anglo-Saxon traveller (late 9th century) 111 Zachary, pope († 752) 51 Zbigniew, duke of Poland (c. 1073–1111/12)  241 Zbylut, Polish noble (12th century) 243 Zdeslav, Croatian ruler (9th century) 195, 202 Zedler, Johann Heinrich, German publisher (1706–1751) 4 Zemuzil, duke of Pomerania (11th century) 292, 294 Ztoimar, duke of the Carantanians (9th century) 132 Zuentipolk, prince of the Abodrites (12th century) 278 Zuentislan, Bohemian duke (9th century) 172 Zvonimir, king of Croatia († 1089) 199, 200, 206

Index of Geographic Names Aachen 53, 179, 194, 237, 310 Aboba 120 Achaia 44 Adria/Adriatic Sea 6, 65, 71, 84, 124, 128, 138, 194, 195, 197, 198, 200, 207, 224, 265, 298, 305, 315, 367, 377, 386 Adriaca 224 Adrianople 377 Aegean Sea 368, 377 Africa 61, 63, 319, 338, 367 Aguntum 129 Albania 28, 305, 332, 381 Albi 335 Alexandria 80 Alps 32, 48 Altai Mountains 114 al-Andalus 319 al-Fuṣṭāṭ 171, 316 Anatolik 46 Andalusia 318, 320, 321 Antioch 59, 320 Antivari. See Bar Apamea 59 Apulia 52 Aquileia 135, 194, 195 Aquitaine 325 Arcadia 224 Arkona 271, 274, 283 Armenia 62, 316 ar-Rūm. See Byzantium Asia 10, 23, 42, 60, 224, 229, 349, 367 Asia Minor 45, 59, 137, 138, 322 Athens 314 Athos (Mount) 169, 254, 255, 258, 381, 394 Austria 7, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 20, 51, 52, 132 Austria Hungary (Habsburg) 7, 11, 12, 13, 16, 25 Aventine Hill 179 Avignon 345, 381 Azov Sea 60 Baarsdorf 133 Babel 1, 183, 225, 353, 367 Baghdad 60, 61, 62, 63, 177, 210, 211, 310, 316, 320 Balika 377 Balkan mountain range 117, 151, 163

Balkans, Balkan Peninsula 1, 9, 14, 16, 27, 31, 40, 42, 43, 45, 53, 67, 68, 84, 88, 102, 112, 115, 116, 120, 124, 127, 128, 139, 146, 163, 195, 224, 251, 253, 265, 297, 298, 301, 304, 305, 313, 314, 316, 331, 333, 334, 340, 370, 377, 380, 384, 389, 393, 396, 401 Baltic Sea 3, 36, 54, 55, 64, 68, 71, 111, 112, 210, 225, 234, 238, 264, 271, 284, 289, 290, 293, 294, 331, 334, 354 Banat 7 Bar 255, 300, 301, 302, 303, 306, 340 Bardy-Świelubie 111 Basra 60 Batchka 7 Bautzen 240, 267, 354 Bavaria 3, 32, 50, 51, 53, 56, 129, 131, 133, 135, 175, 246, 292, 323, 327, 337 Beeskow 290 Beetzsee Lake 279 Belarus 106 Belgard 294 Belgium 100 Belgrade 27, 164 Beloozero 214 Benkovac 202 Berane/Ivangrad 258 Berlin 4, 14 Berounka 173 Bezemín 173 Bílina 176 Biograd 198, 199, 201 Bitola 163 Bityhynia 46 Black Sea 34, 36, 41, 63, 111, 114, 115, 177, 210, 224, 377 Bnin 234 Bobbio 47 Bohemia 4, 12, 15, 33, 69, 70, 71, 76, 80, 89, 101, 105, 108, 110, 141, 148, 170, 171, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 179, 180, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 193, 222, 239, 240, 246, 247, 248, 249, 251, 256, 263, 268, 275, 322, 323, 325, 326, 332, 333, 341, 342, 344, 345, 346, 348, 349, 350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 362, 365, 368, 379

596 Bohemian Forest 65 Bohnice 174 Boiki 126 Bojana 300 Bologna 204, 244 Borichev 218 Bornhöved 295 Bosau 269, 329, 330 Bosna 306 Bosnia 9, 16, 257, 297, 305, 306, 307, 308, 353, 367, 368, 376, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389, 390 Bosphorus 151 Brač 298 Braga/Bracara 47 Brandenburg 109, 279, 280, 281, 283, 290, 295, 296, 354, 356 Brandenburg an der Havel 18, 266, 267, 268, 272, 282 Brandenburg March 376 Braničevo 257 Bratislava 9, 135 Brauweiler 325 Bremen 268, 275, 276, 282, 327 Breslau 21, 94, 176, 238, 296, 334, 360, 363 Břevnov 172 Březno 75, 76, 77, 78, 83, 85, 86 Bribir 201, 299, 384 Brieg/Brzeg 21, 359 Britannia 224 Brno 16, 181, 182, 349 Brskovo 257 Brunswick/Braunschweig 329 Bucharest 73 Buda 388, 389 Budapest 8 Budeč 174 Budimlja 256 Bug 69, 238 Bukovina 75 Bulgaria 14, 17, 27, 84, 102, 113, 114, 115, 118, 120, 121, 122, 123, 126, 138, 140, 144, 149, 150, 151, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 188, 190, 191, 197, 207, 212, 217, 219, 227, 228, 246, 252, 254, 264, 275, 301, 315, 322, 331, 332, 335, 353, 358, 361, 367, 376, 377, 378, 380, 385, 389, 390, 401 Burgundy 100

Index of Geographic Names Butovice 174 Byzantium 35, 36, 37, 38, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 50, 60, 62, 63, 90, 98, 100, 115, 116, 117, 118, 121, 122, 123, 125, 126, 128, 137, 142, 143, 149, 150, 151, 153, 156, 160, 162, 163, 167, 177, 196, 197, 200, 203, 210, 214, 216, 219, 220, 222, 252, 253, 254, 263, 300, 301, 307, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 321, 322, 323, 327, 332, 334, 336, 376, 378, 379, 381, 394, 396, 397 Carinthia 7, 52, 95, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 332, 333, 353, 358, 367 Carneola 358 Carnic Alps 128 Carnutum 130 Carpathian Basin 32, 71 Carpathian Mountains 6, 69, 115 Čáslav 173 Caspian Sea 63, 210, 316, 321 Caucasus 5, 62, 114, 211, 224 Central Asia 41, 60, 111, 114 Central Europe 1, 61, 62, 63, 70, 81, 83, 84, 112, 127, 177, 222, 289, 315, 316, 328, 332, 336, 338, 339, 354, 362, 396, 398 Češov 173 Cetina 194, 298 Chernigov 210, 229, 392 Chersonese 38 Chlístovice-Sión 173 Chodlik 110 Chodowice 173 Cimburk 173 Cluny 179 Cologne 324 Constantinople 41, 42, 47, 65, 101, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 122, 123, 125, 137, 138, 143, 150, 151, 152, 154, 161, 163, 169, 195, 197, 211, 216, 219, 220, 254, 257, 310, 321, 376, 377, 378, 380, 381 Cordoba 177, 232, 310, 318, 319 Corinth 42 Corvey 55, 282 Cres 206 Croatia 1, 9,32, 194, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 263, 264, 299, 305, 306, 307, 322, 332, 346, 347, 348, 353, 358, 359, 367, 368, 376, 384, 389, 390, 391, 392

Index of Geographic Names Cyrrhus 59 Czarnków 360 Czechoslovakia 17, 27 Czech Lands. See Bohemia Czech Republic 89 Dabar 256 Dalma 305, 306 Dalmatia 1, 4, 47, 52, 53, 65, 102, 125, 126, 127, 128, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 204, 205, 206, 207, 255, 256, 260, 262, 263, 265, 297, 298, 303, 305, 306, 312, 328, 333, 340, 345, 346, 353, 358, 361, 367, 380, 381, 385, 390 Damascus 210 Danube 35, 36, 37, 41, 42, 50, 53, 55, 58, 62, 69, 70, 71, 72, 80, 81, 82, 84, 87, 92, 93, 98, 99, 104, 105, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 118, 134, 135, 138, 163, 167, 177, 225, 226, 252, 257, 305, 315, 317, 338, 353, 379, 381, 396, 398 Daugava 82 Debar 163 Dečani 259 Demidovka 106 Demmin/Dymin 282, 295, 371 Denmark (Dacia) 36, 246, 277, 295, 335, 354 Desna 70, 226 Dessau 75 Dessau-Mosigkau 75, 76, 88 Devín 138 Devol 160, 164 Dierkow 111 Dioclea 33, 162, 164, 168, 252, 253, 255, 260, 300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 340, 341, 376, 383, 392 Divoká Šárka 110 Dnieper 36, 68, 69, 70, 71, 82, 83, 111, 114, 144, 146, 210, 213, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 225, 226, 228, 230, 312, 338, 340 Dniester 36, 69, 75, 78, 83 Doberan 374 Dobin 282 Dobrudža 167, 377 Dolánky/Rubin 110 Don 6, 114, 210, 317 Donets 69 Donji Kraji 385

597 Doubravčice 173 Doudleby 176 Dovin 138 Drava 118, 128, 194, 196, 198, 199, 201 Drin 253 Drina 257, 381, 386 Dubrovnik 169, 198, 255, 257, 261, 262, 299, 300, 301, 304, 307, 308, 377, 385, 386 Duklja. See Dioclea Dulceanca 80 Durrës/Durazzo/Dyrrachium 197, 300 Duvno 198 Dvina 226 Dziedzice 70, 71 East-Central Europe 22, 23, 27, 48, 61, 62, 65, 66, 67, 71, 72, 83, 105, 127, 143, 144, 264, 355, 362, 376, 400 East Germany 28, 105 East Prussia 5, 20 Eastern Alps 32, 48, 65, 102, 128, 129, 130, 289 Eastern Europe 3, 7, 17, 22, 24, 25, 28, 35, 36, 48, 58, 59, 60, 61, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 71, 72, 81, 83, 84, 90, 93, 105, 111, 112, 127, 144, 198, 210, 211, 212, 215, 224, 225, 228, 246, 264, 309, 311, 314, 315, 316, 319, 323, 325, 332, 333, 335, 336, 338, 339, 340, 354, 367, 394, 398, 399, 400 Eastern Holstein 74, 82, 274, 275 Eastern Pomerania (Pomerellen) 296, 371 Eastern Roman Empire. See Byzantium Ebstorf 336 Eger 50, 75, 76, 77 Egypt 162 Elbe 4, 54, 65, 68, 69, 70, 71, 75, 76, 82, 105, 146, 173, 236, 264, 265, 268, 269, 275, 281, 283, 284, 289, 290, 325, 327, 336, 370, 374, 375 Elbląg 111 Ellwangen 139 Elster 285 England 3, 27, 276, 277 Enns 128 Epirus 44, 162, 224, 246, 377, 381 Ethiopia 62 Eurasia 335

598 Europe 1, 10, 11, 12, 17, 22, 23, 24, 25, 34, 47, 60, 62, 63, 71, 111, 118, 141, 147, 148, 155, 178, 222, 315, 318, 322, 335, 336, 337, 338, 358, 367, 378, 398 Feldberg 94, 104, 110 Firanǧa. See France Flanders 285 Fojnica 385 Forchheim 139 Fraganeo. See Prague France 3, 62, 63, 222 Francia/Empire of the Franks/Kingdom of the Franks 41, 50, 51, 55, 56, 58, 59, 62, 63, 90, 107, 118, 122, 126, 128, 130, 133, 135, 136, 172, 176, 196, 266, 309, 322, 334 Frankfurt 11, 12, 18 Franconia 285 Freising 142 Frisia 285 Friuli 52, 53, 129, 133, 194, 195 Fulda 51, 56, 57, 58, 59, 172 Gacka 199 Galicia 16 Gallia 238 Gana 267 Gdańsk 296 GDR 24, 28, 289 Geneva 12 German Empire 20, 21, 22, 23, 222, 289, 325 Germania 55, 60, 63, 193, 238, 327, 333, 335, 336 Germania Slavica 32, 284, 289, 329, 334, 390 Germany 3, 12, 15, 20, 23, 26, 28, 29, 105, 172, 266, 289, 343, 357 Giecz 234 Girona 47 Gnezdovo 111, 210 Gniezno 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 245, 295, 324, 360, 372 Gothia 333 Göttingen 3, 4, 18, 22 Grabelsdorf 133 Gračanica 256 Granada 322 Great Croatia 9 Great Hungarian Plain 71 Great Morava 253, 254

Index of Geographic Names Great Serbia 9 Greater Poland 109, 110, 234, 236, 241, 247, 293, 296, 359, 360, 361, 368, 371 Greece 43,44, 45, 46, 47, 327, 353, 381 Grobe 295 Grobin/Grobiņa 111 Groß Raden 94 Groß Strömkendorf 111 Grzybowo 234 Haćki 106 Halberstadt 273, 282 Haldensleben 280 Halle 3, 269 Halych-Volhynia 362, 392 Hamburg 268, 275, 276, 282, 291, 326, 327, 329 Hannoverian Wendland 288, 289, 290 Havel 268, 279, 280 Havelberg 268, 272, 280, 282 Hellas 38, 42, 117, 312 Hereford 336 Herzegovina 9, 16, 385, 389 High Tauern 128 Hilandar (monastery, Mount Athos) 255, 258, 381 Hildesheim 193, 239, 269 Hither Pomerania 275, 283, 290 Holland 285 Holstein 65, 278, 279, 283 Holy Land 44, 47, 281 Holy Roman Empire 32, 176, 240, 289, 291, 322, 327, 330, 335, 345, 347, 352, 374 Hryzely 173 Hum. See Zahumlje Hungary 4, 7, 11, 28, 126, 134, 141, 149, 180, 199, 201, 222, 238, 246, 251, 253, 254, 256, 257, 263, 264, 299, 306, 307, 308, 322, 323, 327, 328, 330, 332, 335, 337, 359, 362, 385, 388, 389 Hvar 1, 298, 402 Hvosno 256 Illyria 4, 9, 38, 42, 47, 125, 139, 224, 227, 367 Indonesia 98 Ingelheim 211 Ionia 224 Ionian Gulf 38 Ionian Sea 367

Index of Geographic Names Innichen 131 Iran 114, 321 Iraq 62, 321 Israel 167, 261, 400 Istria 47, 194, 200, 206, 208, 246, 305, 353 Italy 3, 11, 41, 49, 52, 62, 129, 135, 195, 197, 257, 272, 313, 337, 338, 341, 349 Izborsk 111, 214 Jabelheide 290 Jajce 384 Janów Pomorski 111 Jena 8 Jerusalem 345, 350 Kärnten 132 Kalisz 235 Kamień Pomorski 295, 372 Karawanks 128 Karnberg 130 Kashubia (Cassubia) 354, 358, 372 Kępno 296 Khazaria 311 Kherson 137 Khorasan 217 Khotamel 106 Khotyn 75 Kiel 274 Kiev 33, 67, 95, 105, 111, 156, 210, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 220, 223, 224, 227, 228, 229, 230, 310, 321, 340, 392, 394 Kievan Rusʼ 31, 33, 92, 146, 157, 177, 180, 182, 191, 210, 212, 213, 215, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 225, 226, 227, 228, 230, 231, 239, 248, 249, 311, 322, 323, 333, 335, 353, 354, 355, 362, 364, 392, 401 Klagenfurt 130, 132, 203 Kleidion 162 Kleparz 364, 365, 366 Klis 195 Klučov 173 Knin 198 Kołobrzeg/Kolberg 238, 293, 294 Kolochin 70, 106 Konavlje (Konavli) 299 Königsberg 5 Korchak 69, 70, 71, 76 Korčula 298 Kosovo 257, 383

599 Kotor 198, 255, 256, 257, 299, 300, 386 Kouřim 176 Kozárovice 176 Kraina 353 Krajina 7, 134 Krakow 176, 177, 236, 238, 241, 242, 244, 248, 250, 296, 333, 344, 356, 357, 358, 364, 365, 366, 369, 370, 389 Krbava 199 Kremsier. See Kroměříž Kremsmünster 51, 102 Krk 196, 198, 200, 201, 206, 208, 209, 392 Krka 194 Kroměříž 13 Kruszwica 235 Kučevo 257 Kupa 194, 196, 199 Kutná Hora 173 Kvarner Gulf 200, 206, 208 Ląd 234 Ladoga 111 Lake Balaton 135, 138 Lake Ilmen 212, 213, 226, 228 Lake Millstatt 132 Land of the Milzeni 239, 240 Lány 68 Łeba 296 Lebus 279, 360, 364 Lechia 245 Łęczyca 235 Leipzig 12 Łekno 243 Lenzen 276, 277 Lesser Poland 71, 110, 140, 176, 177, 236, 238, 241, 243, 244, 356, 364 Levý Hradec 173, 174 Libice nad Cidlinou 179, 180 Liburnia 128, 194 Libušín 174 Libya 62 Liège/Leodium 183, 239 Lika 199 Lim 386 Lipljan 256 Lithuania 264, 364, 393, 394 Livonia 332 Ljeviša 256 Lokrum 299

600 London 16 Lorsch/Lauriacum 337 Lotharingia 240 Louny 75 Lower Austria 51, 101, 130 Lower Franconia 100 Lower Silesia 74, 109 Lower Lusatia 20, 82, 290 Lštění 174 Lublin 235 Lubusz Land 235 Lübeck 277, 278, 290, 291, 329 Luckau 290 Lüneburg 276, 277, 290, 291 Lusatia 3, 20, 20, 70, 82, 109, 239, 240, 289, 290, 354, 356 Lusitania 47 Luxembourg 352 Lviv 95 Lychnitis 224 Łysa Góra 94 Maastricht 48 Macedonia 10, 42, 46, 59, 63, 65, 102, 117, 125, 154, 257, 380 Magdeburg 179, 216, 232, 236, 268, 272, 279, 282, 290, 295, 318, 327, 328, 333, 334 Main 52, 93 Mainz 56, 57, 136, 177, 178, 179, 195, 268, 280, 331 Makarska 385 Malaga 320 Marca Vinedorum 50, 102, 129 Mazovia 70, 109, 241 Mecca 320 Mecklenburg 4, 33, 70, 74, 82, 94, 269, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 283, 290, 331, 360, 370, 374, 375 Mediterranean Sea 111, 112, 177, 200, 318, 321 Meissen 239, 240, 267, 268, 282, 354 Mělník 174 Menkendorf 104 Menzlin 111 Merseburg 268, 282, 292, 294, 325 Middle East 111, 112, 155, 177 Międzyrzecz 235 Mikulčice 141 Mileševa 384, 386 Millstadt 132 Mladá Boleslav 176

Index of Geographic Names Mljet 298 Moesia 333 Moldavia 69 Monemvasia 43, 44 Monte Cassino 52 Montenegro 257, 300 Moraczewo 234 Morava 135, 138, 141, 226 Moravia (Old Moravia) 57, 58, 66, 69, 70, 71, 101, 105, 108, 122, 123, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 153, 154, 157, 158, 173, 176, 181, 182, 187, 188, 189, 190, 207, 227, 239, 246, 247, 305, 311, 332, 333, 345, 354, 355, 358, 363, 401 Moravica 256 Mosaburg 139 Moscow 14, 27, 149, 166, 392, 393 Mount Olympus 137 Muldaw. See Vltava Mulde 50, 266, 285 Münster 282 Mura 128 Mursian 36 Muscovite Rus’ Muscovy 392 Mysia 315 Naab 50, 52 Narentania 299 Naszacowice 110 Near East 155, 177, 210, 235 Nemějice 173 Neretva 298, 299, 307, 385 Netolice 176 Neumünster 329 Nicaea 254, 377 Niederaltaich 292 Nikadzimava 106 Nin 194, 197, 198, 203 Nitra 135, 136, 138, 140, 141 Noricum 225 Northern Europe 1, 36, 111, 171, 222, 400 Northern March 268, 269, 280, 281 Norway 222 Noteć 238, 292, 294 Novgorod 95, 111, 214, 218, 226, 229, 230 Novgorod Land 393 Novi Pazar 255 Novi Sad 8 Noviedunum 36

601

Index of Geographic Names Novi Brod 257 Novy Pazar 118 Obra 233 Oder 54, 71, 82, 176, 232, 235, 238, 264, 265, 266, 268, 269, 270, 280, 281, 284, 289, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 297, 324, 325, 327, 336, 370, 371, 373, 374 Oglos 115 Ohrid 153, 154, 156, 157, 164, 189, 254, 255, 256, 313, 380 Ohrid Lake 154, 162 Oldenburg 268, 275, 276, 327, 329 Oleśnica/Oels 356, 363 Olomouc 181, 182, 282, 363 Olovo 385 Olympia 44 Omiš 299 Opatovice 189 Opsikion 46 Orbais 195 Ore Mountains 54, 264, 289 Orient 50, 59, 398 Osor 196, 198, 200, 201 Ostrów Lednicki 234 Pagania 126 Palermo 322 Pannonia 41, 48, 50, 53, 54, 118, 128, 130, 135, 139, 141, 143, 145, 153, 157, 158, 177, 194, 196, 199, 201, 225, 227, 228, 305, 332, 333, 337, 338, 358, 361, 362, 367, 368, 401 Parchim 94, 374 Paris 10, 17, 244, 333 Paristrion 163 Parsęta 111, 293 Passau 135, 337 Patras 43 Pechenegia 311 Peene 111, 295 Pelješac 299 Peloponnesus 43, 44, 45, 46, 10 Pereiaslavl 229, 392 Persia 43, 46, 62 Peryn 95 Pforta 329 Pisa 348 Plane 279 Pliska 113, 119, 120, 151, 155, 156, 161 Plonim 206

Podolia 71 Poitiers 333 Pohansko 104, 141 Polabia 279, 329 Poland 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 18, 22, 23, 26, 27, 33, 35, 69, 80, 105, 106, 109, 148, 180, 182, 222, 231, 233, 236, 239, 241, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 263, 275, 293, 294, 296, 315, 322, 324, 325, 330, 332, 333, 341, 342, 343, 344, 354, 355, 356, 358, 359, 360, 361, 362, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 370, 371, 372, 373, 379, 393 Polota 213, 226 Polotsk 213, 229 Polychron 137 Pomerania 4, 33, 70, 95, 236, 238, 246, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 331, 332, 354, 356, 358, 362, 370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375 Pomorze Wschodnie. See Eastern Pomerania Pontus (Pontic Sea) 5, 36 Potsdam 279 Poznań 11, 12, 20, 234, 238, 279, 360, 363 Prague 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 16, 69, 70, 71, 75, 76, 90, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 180, 181, 183, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 192, 193, 236, 237, 240, 317, 318, 336, 341, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349, 350, 351, 356, 360, 363, 364, 366, 374, 375 Preslav 151, 152, 153, 154, 156, 157 Prespa Lake 162 Prevlaka 256 Prilep 380 Primorje 384, 385 Pripet 69, 226 Prizren 256, 259 Prüm 323 Prussia 4, 7, 16, 17, 20, 21, 246, 332 Prut 69, 83 Pruzia 247 Przemyśl 235 Przeworsk 67 Psel 70 Pskov 111, 229 Puster Valley 128 Pyrzyce/Pyritz 292 Quedlinburg 236, 239, 272, 325

602 Rab 196, 198, 200, 201 Rába 128 Raffelstetten 323 Ragusa. See Dubrovnik Ralswiek 111 Rama 307 Ras 251, 255, 256 Rashkiv 75, 78, 79, 80, 81 Raška (region) 162, 251, 252, 255, 257, 260, 299, 301, 305, 306, 332, 333, 353, 361, 367 Raška (river) 252 Rathenau 279 Ratzeburg 275, 276, 279 Ravenna 47, 50, 52, 130, 195, 229 Regensburg 135, 138, 172, 173, 177, 178, 179, 188, 331 Regnitz 52, 93 Reichenau 139, 239, 247, 324 Reims 178 Reric 111 Rethra/Riedegost 270, 271, 272, 273, 274 Rhine 55, 282, 285, 335 Rhomania 381 Ribnica 255 Riga 5 Rila 157, 166 Riurikovo Gorodishche 111 Rižinice 195 Roč 206 Rogozno 257 Romania 28, 80, 115, 138, 139, 143, 145, 154, 167, 179, 180, 188, 195, 197 Rome 51, 62, 123, 125, 136, 204, 208, 237, 238, 239, 249, 295, 304, 307, 332, 345, 348, 357, 375, 376, 378, 381 Rostock 111, 291 Roztoky 90 Rubín 173 Ruchai 218 Rudnik 257 Rügen 111, 271, 274, 283, 288, 295, 354 Rus’. See Kievan Rus’ Russia 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 17, 20, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 67, 215, 246, 247, 332, 335, 358 Ruthenia 332, 362, 364 Riazan 229, 394

Index of Geographic Names Saale 50, 54, 57, 65, 69, 82, 140, 236, 266, 268, 269 Saint Gall 323 Saint-Omer 325 Salona 306 Salzburg 130, 131, 135, 138, 143, 194 Salzwedel 290 Samara 137 Sanaray 62 Sandomierz 235, 244 Sarajevo 306, 307 Šárka 174 Sarmatia 315, 335 Sarnia 358 Sava 163, 194, 196, 198, 199, 201, 252, 306, 386 Saxony 3, 7, 109, 246, 247, 279, 322, 327, 358, 359 Sázava 173, 190, 191, 192 Scandinavia 84, 214, 222, 223, 293 Schmölln 329 Schweinfurt 192 Schwerin 290, 360 Schwerin Lake 275 Scythia 62, 333, 377 Sečište 118 Segeberg 329 Selencia 246 Sem’ 226 Senj 209, 345 Sens 100 Serbia 17, 25, 126, 134, 157, 219, 251, 252, 254, 255, 256, 257, 259, 305, 306, 322, 332, 333, 353, 367, 368, 376, 380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 389, 390, 394, 401 Serdica 117 Šestovica 210 Shinar 353, 367 Shumen 120 Šibenik 201, 384 Sicily 169, 224 Sieradz 235, 365 Silesia 4, 108, 176, 237, 238, 241, 244, 356, 359, 364 Silistra 163 Silver Lake 95 Sinice 202 Sirmium 42, 139, 163 Sisak 194

603

Index of Geographic Names Skopje 154, 163, 164, 257, 380 Skradin 198 Slavic territory 56, 63, 65, 90, 129, 187, 201, 207, 263, 269, 322, 332, 379 Sclavania 172, 238, 245, 247, 324, 325, 326, 327 Sclavia 331, 333, 334, 335 Sclavinia 102, 238, 247, 324, 325, 331 Sclavonia 4, 193, 196, 201, 203, 205, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 323, 325, 332, 333, 345, 358, 359, 386, 392 Sklavinia 46 Slavania 330 Slavenia 335 Slavia 63, 193, 245, 250, 282, 331, 340, 359, 371, 372, 373 Slawinia 44 Slawonia 366 terra Sclavonica 245, 246 Zlavenia 337 Slavonia 196, 201, 207, 208, 323, 332, 334, 336, 345, 359, 368, 390, 391 Sławno/Schlawe 296 Ślęża 94 Slovakia 71, 73 Slovenia 52, 129 Słupsk/Stolp 296, 360 Smolensk 111, 229 Sofia 16, 117, 377 Soignies 100 Soli 385 Solin 125, 200, 204 Šopot 202 South-Eastern Europe 1, 27, 33, 65, 66, 67, 71, 123, 148, 161, 298, 315, 332, 353, 376, 400 Southern Europe 177, 235, 315 Southern Morava 253 Soviet Union 23, 26, 27, 28, 29 Spain 47, 62, 63 Spandau 279 Split 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 301, 306, 385, 392 Srebrenica 385 St. Petersburg 4, 15, 20, 22, 28 Stará Boleslav 174 Staraja Ladoga 210 Staré Město 141 Stargard 372, 375

Starigard. See Oldenburg Starý Plzenec 176 Ston 198, 256, 299 Storman 279 Strahov 364 Stralsund 291 Stridon 346 Strumica 162, 380 Strymon 102 Studenica 253, 254, 255, 258 Styria 7, 358 Sudeten 238 Sukow 70, 71 Sula 226 Suzdal Land 393 Syria 59, 398 Szczecin/Stettin 282, 295, 371 Szeligi 106 Taiget Mountains 46 Tarnovo 169, 377, 378 Tetín 174, 175 Teurnia 129 Thaya 141 Thessalia 162, 381 Thessaloniki 39, 42, 43, 44, 66, 81, 99, 102, 126, 128, 137, 142, 144, 151, 152, 165, 169, 304 Thrace/Thracia 38, 42, 43, 47, 65, 102, 115, 117, 246, 336 Thuringia 50, 51, 56, 269, 285, 343 Tigris 224 Tingis (Ṭanǧa) 63 Tismice 110, 173 Tisza 118, 120 Tollense 295 Toplica 256 Tornow 104, 109 Transylvania 257 Trave 274, 275 Travnik 307 Travunia 162, 253, 260, 299, 305, 306, 385 Trebinje 299 Trier 216 Trogir 196, 201, 205 Truso 111 Trzebawie 95 Turkey 126, 311 Tushemlia 70, 106 Tver’ 392

604 Uherské Hradiště 141 Újvidék. See Novi Sad Ukraine 69, 71, 80, 106 Ulrichsberg 130 United States 27 Upper Austria 51 Upper Lusatia 20 Upper Palatinate 101 Usedom 275, 295 Usora 385 Utrecht 285 Váh 135 Valachia 169 Valun 206 Vareš 307 Vedea 80 Velehrad 349 Velikaia 11 Venice 1, 2, 138, 153, 194, 198, 199, 200, 201, 254, 257, 298, 299, 328, 332, 377 Verden 282 Verona 192 Versailles 22, 23 Vidin 377 Vienna 7, 8, 10, 11, 15, 16, 333 Villach Lind 133 Virunum 129 Visegrád 191 Visoko 385 Vistula 36, 55, 70, 82, 105, 146, 176, 226, 235, 238, 265, 292, 293, 294, 296, 297, 336, 338, 370, 375 Viterbo 377 Vladimir-Suzdal 212, 229, 392, 393 Vltava 6, 173, 174, 178 Volga 63, 64, 210, 211, 213 Volhynia 71 Volkhov 111, 144, 213, 215, 216, 217, 218, 312, 340 Vrhbosna 307, 388 Vuloini 292, 324 Vyšehrad 186 Wagria 279, 285, 327, 329 Warta 233, 234, 238, 292, 294 Wartburg castle 8

Index of Geographic Names Weimar 5 Weitmühl 352 Wendland 4 West Germany 24 West Prussia 20 Western Dvina. See Daugava Western Europe 2, 3, 4, 13, 83, 111, 112, 161, 177, 222, 257, 326, 331, 335, 338 Westphalia 285 Wieleń/Velun 292 Wiślica 360 Wismar 111, 291 Włocławek 235, 360 Wogastisburc 50, 101, 104, 105 Wolgast/Wołogoszcz 295, 296 Wolin 94, 111, 292, 293, 295 Wrocław/Breslau 21, 94, 176, 238, 296, 334, 360, 363 Würzburg 52, 93 Wzgórza Chełmskie 294, 296 Yalomitsa/Ialomiţa 73 Yuan-Yuan 41 Yugoslavia 17, 27 Zadar 194, 196, 197, 198, 201 Zagreb 11, 194, 201 Zahumlje 162, 207, 253, 260, 299, 306, 384, 385, 389 Zalavár 135 Zarubintsy 67 Žatec 171, 176 Zbraslav/Königsaal 343, 344 Zbrucz 95 Zeitz 268 Zellia 129 Zenica 307 Zeta. See Duklja Žiča 256 Žitava 73 Znojmo 182 Zoberberg 75, 76 Zobtenberg 94 Zrmanja 194 Żukowice 74 Zymne 106

Index of Ethnic and Social Groups Abbasids 59, 60, 64, 210, 397 Abodrites 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 110, 266, 267, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 282, 284, 292, 323, 324, 327, 329, 373, 375, 398 Acatziri 36 Aesti 36 Agiolfings 130 Alani 60, 99, 316 Albanians 45, 262, 332, 382 Alemanians 49 Alpine Slavs 289 Altziagiri 36 Amazons 39 Anglo-Saxons 44 Antes/Antai 36, 41, 50, 69 Arabs 5, 59, 60, 64, 116, 310, 313 Arcadians 378 Arentani 102, 125, 126, 297, 298, 299, 334 Armenians 320 Aryans 154, 160, 208 Ascanians 281, 282, 284, 295, 296 Asenids 169, 376 Assyrians 1 Austrian Slavs 13 Austrasians 48, 49 Avars 36, 41, 42, 43, 48, 49, 50, 52, 53, 62, 63, 90, 99, 100, 101, 103, 113, 115, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 135, 170, 194, 204, 323, 397 Babonićs 201, 392 Balkan Slavs 9, 30, 31, 54, 127 Baltic Slavs 31, 32, 95, 148, 265, 266, 274, 281, 283, 289, 298, 327, 330, 334, 336, 362, 370, 371, 390 Balto-Finns 111 Balts 111, 215 Bavarians 50, 52, 102, 125, 129, 131, 133, 139, 140, 337 Berbianoi 213, 312 Berzites 102 Bethenici 58 Bielorussians 26

Billungs 275, 276 Boemi 171, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 190, 192, 323, 324, 331, 349, 350, 351, 352 Bogomils 160, 161, 386 Bohemians 3, 4, 7, 53, 55, 57, 58, 133, 144, 147, 148, 170, 171, 172, 176, 182, 183, 185, 186, 187, 190, 192, 193, 194, 201, 235, 245, 249, 250, 251, 264, 265, 284, 319, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 330, 331, 333, 334, 338, 340, 341, 342, 343, 347, 348, 350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 356, 358, 359, 361, 364, 369, 379, 398 Boier 170 Bosnians 4, 32, 33, 315, 358, 376, 387, 388, 389 Brandenburgians 284, 291 Bulgarians 7, 9, 16, 23, 26, 31, 33, 36, 42, 46, 50, 54, 58, 60, 62, 64, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 121, 122, 124, 129, 135, 136, 137, 139, 141, 142, 147, 148, 149, 152, 154, 156, 158, 160, 161, 162, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 187, 188, 190, 191, 228, 252, 254, 262, 264, 265, 298, 304, 307, 309, 310, 311, 313, 314, 315, 319, 323, 331, 333, 335, 336, 340, 376, 378, 379, 380, 381, 382, 389 Bulgars. See Bulgarians Burgundians 63 Burtans 316 Busani 213 Byzantines (Rhomaioi) 30, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 41, 42, 44, 46, 60, 61, 62, 65, 73, 92, 97. 98. 99, 100, 115, 116, 117, 121, 122, 123, 125, 126, 128, 137, 139, 152, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 168, 194, 197, 201, 227, 252, 253, 257, 301, 307, 309, 310, 311, 313, 377, 381, 396, 397 Carantanians (Carantani) 31, 52, 53, 57, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 148, 226, 264, 323, 390, 398 Carinthians 134, 330, 333 Carolingians 55, 102, 313, 397 Carpathians 36, 41, 321 Central Eastern Europeans 61

606 Central Europeans 2, 61 Chaldeans 337, 353 Chernigovians 230 Chimabes 50 Chrowati 171 Chud 224, 225 Circipanians 269, 273, 276, 327 Cistercians 287 Colossians 231 Croats 4, 7, 9, 11, 17, 23, 26, 29, 31, 33, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 147, 148, 171, 197, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 209, 262, 264, 265, 297, 298, 307, 312, 315, 331, 338, 340, 347, 358, 376, 379, 391, 392, 398 Cumans 167, 169 Cutrigurs 41, 114 Czechs 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 23, 25, 29, 31, 170, 192, 226, 250, 315, 325, 339, 347, 348, 356, 370, 392 Dacians 39, 45 Dagestanis 62 Dalemincians 57, 58, 266, 267, 273, 324 Dalmatians 1, 2, 128, 199, 200, 257, 315 Danish/Danes 55, 265, 274, 276, 277, 283, 284, 295, 331, 371 Danube Bulgars 62, 226, 227 Dasena 171 Derevlianins/Derbleninoi 213, 226, 312 Diocletians. See Duklians Doshans 327 Draväno-Polabians 4, 289 Dregovichi 213, 226 Drugovites/Dragovites 102 Drugubitai 213, 312 Duklians 102, 125, 126, 128, 298, 299, 306, 307 Dutch 25 East Africans 61 Eastern Franks 56, 57, 63, 122, 135, 138, 139, 141, 212, 317 Eastern Slavs 7, 26, 55, 92, 95, 111, 112, 217, 219, 322, 368, 369, 393 Egyptians 1 English 25, 225 Europeans 5, 317, 319 Ezeritai 46, 102 Ezzonians 325

Index of Ethnic and Social Groups Fatimids 162 Finno-Ugrians 63, 67, 70, 71, 215, 218, 224, 226 Flandrians/Flemimgs 285 Frangipani 392 Frankopans 201, 392 Franks 41, 48, 49, 50, 51, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 61, 62, 63, 65, 70, 92, 99, 101, 104, 118, 128, 131, 135, 137, 139, 170, 194, 313, 325, 378 French 6, 25, 225, 337 Gauls 1 Genoese 225 Georgians 379 Gepidi (Gepids) 36, 41, 42 Germanians/Germani 48, 92 Germans 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 68, 185, 192, 225, 242, 265, 284, 317, 325, 334, 337, 339, 342, 343, 357, 362, 396 Getae (Getai) 39, 40 Glinians 56, 57, 58, 276, 327 Gog and Magog 318, 321, 322 Goths 1, 35, 208, 225, 303, 304 Greeks 1, 7, 45, 63, 92, 119, 154, 163, 168, 169, 220, 255, 262, 312, 332, 378, 379, 381, 382 Griffins 294, 295, 296, 297, 371, 372, 373, 374 Guduscani 54, 194 Gušići 392 Habsburgs 4, 7, 13, 15, 29 Hebrews 337 Hevellians (Stodorans/Stodoranians) 58, 174, 266, 267, 272, 274, 277, 279, 280, 281, 282, 284, 292, 324, 327, 398 Hindus 1 Hohenzollerns 29 Hollanders 285 Holzatians 285 Hungarians 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 32, 141, 148, 174, 176, 177, 196, 198, 201, 205, 226, 252, 253, 255, 257, 265, 266, 267, 307, 314, 315, 316, 317, 322, 331, 336, 362, 401 Huns/Huni 36, 323, 368 Hussites 356, 357, 358, 392 Iberians 378 Illyrians 1, 8, 9, 45

607

Index of Ethnic and Social Groups Indians 320 Iranians 36, 67 Israelites 167 Italians 7, 10, 25, 32, 225, 333 Itites 50 Jews 23, 24, 107, 178, 177, 217, 378 Kama Bulgars 61, 62, 63, 64 Kanalites 102, 125, 126, 128, 298, 299, 300 Kessinians 269, 273, 276, 327 Khazars 60, 61, 62, 137, 142, 177, 210, 304, 311, 316, 317, 321 Kievians 230 Kipchaks 167 Kors’ 224 Kosača 389 Kotromanići 308, 384 Krakovians 338 Kribitainoi/Kribitzoi 213, 312 Krivichi 213 Lakhs (Ljachi) 213 Latins 140, 145, 262 Lebusans 327 Lechites/Lechitici 245, 338, 354, 359, 360, 361, 362, 372 Lemuzi 171 Lendizi 212, 213 Lenzaninoi 213, 312 Let’gola 224 Licikaviks/Licicaviki 231, 232, 234, 324 Linones 55, 56, 57, 58, 276, 323 Lithuanians 315, 393 Litva 224 Liuseni 171 Livs 224 Lombards 41, 49, 52, 53, 63, 99, 101, 129, 397 Luczani/Lucensi 171 Lusatians 3, 324, 338 Luticians (Lutici/Lusici) 226, 266, 269, 272, 273, 280, 282, 327, 371 Lutomerici 171 Lyakhs 224, 226 Maccabeans 372 Macedonians 1, 158 Maghrebian 61

Magyars 32, 148, 152, 161, 266, 267, 311 Manichaeans 158, 161 Mauritani 338 Mazovians 226 Mecklenburgians 284, 291, 375 Meds 1 Meria 224 Merovingians 48, 49, 50, 100, 397 Milceni 266, 267, 273 Milings/Milingoi 46, 102 Moinuvinida 52 Mongols 230, 242, 377 Moravians 11, 31, 56, 57, 58, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 140, 141, 142, 145, 148, 158, 171, 226, 228, 234, 264, 310, 311, 323, 327, 330, 336, 337, 338, 355, 398 Mordva 224 Morizani 58 Moymirids 135 Muroma 224 Muslims 217 Mysians/Moesians 314, 315 Nakonids 276, 278 Narentanians. See Arentani Neletici 269 Nemanjids 253, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 299, 306, 383, 386 (New) Saxons 284 Niklotids 374 Norbertines 287 Noricans/Norici 56, 225, 337 Normans 169, 199, 225, 253, 301, 322 Norwegians 335 Novgorodians 230, 393 Nubians 320 Obotrites. See Abodrites Ogurs 114 Onogurs 42, 114 Orsinis 392 Ottomans 1, 7, 9, 383, 384, 388, 389 Ottonians 236, 268, 324 Oynnoi 36 Pagani. See Arentani Paulicians 161 Pannonians 41, 42, 314

608 Pechenegs 161, 311, 316 Pechera 224 Pereiaslavians 230 Perm’ 224 Persians 1, 62 Piasts 110, 180, 181, 222, 232, 236, 240, 241, 242, 245, 273, 277, 280, 292, 293, 296, 324, 341, 359 Polabian Slavs 31, 32, 54, 55, 84, 92, 95, 105, 107, 109, 144, 148, 175, 193, 232, 234, 235, 236, 237, 245, 247, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 271, 272, 274, 281, 283, 284, 288, 289, 298, 319, 323, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 331, 334, 336, 362, 363, 369, 370, 371, 373, 375, 390, 400 Polabians 275, 276, 327 Poles 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 23, 26, 29, 31, 144, 147, 148, 192, 225, 231, 239, 243, 244, 245, 248, 249, 250, 251, 264, 265, 270, 273, 284, 315, 319, 325, 326, 327, 330, 331, 333, 338, 340, 341, 342, 343, 354, 356, 357, 358, 359, 360, 362, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370, 372, 375, 379, 388, 389, 393 Polianians 213, 226, 227 Polotians 213, 226, 230 Polovtsy 229 Polyanians. See Polianians Pomeranians 31, 226, 239, 243, 247, 251, 265, 271, 273, 284, 291, 292, 293, 294, 297, 319, 327, 363, 369, 370, 371, 372, 373, 375 Portuguese 25 Přemyslids 110, 172, 173, 174, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 184, 186, 189, 222, 236, 273, 277, 343, 344 Prissani/Pyritzans 292, 293 Proto-Bulgars 31, 50, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 120, 121, 127, 167, 303, 304 Prussians 19, 20, 111, 224, 225, 237, 243, 247, 315, 330, 333, 334, 363 Pskovians 230 Psouane 171 Quads 337 Radanzvuinida 52 Radimichi 213 Rani 266, 271, 274, 277, 278, 283, 284

Index of Ethnic and Social Groups Ratiborians 296, 371 Redarians 232, 267, 269, 270, 273, 324, 327 Reregi 275 Rhodanites 177 Rhynchines 102 Riurikids 215, 218, 222, 223, 229, 340, 392, 394 Romanians 169 Romanovs 29 Romans 1, 38, 92, 125, 126, 152, 160, 167, 225, 244, 262, 311, 332, 337, 378, 396 Rugians 324 Rus’ 63, 147, 148, 149, 152, 161, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 219, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 229, 230, 243, 249, 250, 251, 264, 265, 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 316, 317, 321, 323, 326, 327, 330, 331, 332, 340, 361, 369, 379, 393, 394 Russians 4, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 23, 215 Russes 225 Rustamids 61 Ruthenians 248, 250, 333, 337, 344, 361, 364, 369, 379 Sagudats 102 Samborids 296 Saracens 99, 272, 378 Sarmatians 246, 315, 367 Saviri 36 Saxons 20, 54, 55, 56, 70, 107, 175, 185, 193, 262, 266, 267, 273, 275, 277, 280, 281, 282, 283, 291, 324, 325, 326, 334, 371 Scandinavians 25, 64, 214, 234, 312 Scythes 1, 35, 39, 50, 314, 323 Seberioi 213, 312 Serbia-Lusatian. See Sorbs Serbs 4, 7, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 26, 29, 31, 33, 54, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 147, 148, 149, 226, 251, 253, 257, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 297, 298, 299, 307, 312, 313, 314, 315, 331, 333, 338, 340, 358, 376, 379, 381, 382, 384, 389 Seven Tribes 102, 115 Severeis 102, 115 Severians (Severjane) 213, 226 Silesians 19 Siusli 57 Slavonians 333

Index of Ethnic and Social Groups

609

Slavnikids 179, 180 Slavs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 61, 63, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 71, 72, 73, 80, 81, 82, 84, 86, 87, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 111, 112, 114, 116, 117, 118, 120, 121, 125, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 135, 137, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 147, 148, 153, 157, 158, 159, 160, 165, 167, 168, 170, 187, 192, 193, 196, 201, 204, 205, 207, 212, 222, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 231, 232, 245, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 269, 272, 275, 283, 285, 289, 290, 297, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 309, 310, 312, 313, 314, 318, 319, 321, 322, 323, 324, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 331, 332, 334, 336, 337, 339, 346, 347, 348, 349, 350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 359, 361, 362, 364, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370, 371, 378, 379, 383, 389, 390, 391, 392, 393, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 401, 402 Guinidi 336 Ṣaqāliba 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 81, 232, 245, 309, 313, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320, 321, 322, 323, 334, 397, 398 Saqlabi 63, 338 Schiavoni 204, 390, 401 Sclabi 129 Sclauani 131 Sclavanici 276 Sclaveni 36, 37, 69, 396 Sclavi 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 57, 58, 65, 129, 130, 131, 133, 136, 143, 170, 187, 188, 192, 193, 195, 202, 203, 204, 205, 208, 245, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 269, 293, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 309, 313, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 330, 331, 332, 334, 335, 336, 340, 350, 351, 353, 359, 363, 371, 390, 396, 397, 398, 401 Sclavini 36, 47, 49, 50, 51, 54, 101, 143, 207, 396 Sclavonici 189, 191, 192, 262 Sklavenoi 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 59, 65, 81, 92, 97, 98, 99, 102, 116, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 319, 334, 336, 351, 396, 397, 398

Sklavenos 313 Sklaviniai 312 Sklavoi 40, 41, 47, 59, 310, 311, 312, 313 Sklavos 313 Slavi 1, 32, 250, 277, 281, 285, 328, 329, 330, 336, 338, 346, 347, 351, 359, 362 Slawi 349, 362, 366, 367, 369 Slovani 354 Slovenci 134 Slověne 37, 38 Slowani 367 Vinedi 50, 102, 129 Wends 17, 20, 266, 290, 291, 330, 390 Wenedi 101 Windische 134 Winedi/Uuinedi 48, 102 Winidi/Winids 48, 49, 50, 56, 101, 323 Winii 373 Winithi 330 Winiti 48, 373 Winodi 49, 101 Winuli 330, 373 Zlaveni 337 Slovaks 7, 9, 10, 11, 14, 16, 23, 26, 29 Slovenes/Slovenians 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 29, 358 Smeldingi/Smeldingon 55, 58 Smolianians 230 Sobeslavids 371 Sorabi 54, 55, 57 Sorbs 4, 7, 12, 16, 20, 21, 23, 27, 54, 56, 57, 58, 75, 101, 108, 127, 140, 266, 268, 273, 285, 289, 291, 330, 337, 338 Southern Slavs 9, 13, 14, 17, 305, 306, 317, 348 Spaniards 1, 25, 107, 225, 337 Staufs 253 Strymons 102 Sturmarians 285 Styrians 134 Šubićs 201, 384 Surbi 48, 50, 58, 323 Suzdalians 393 Swedes 211, 225 Syrians 378, 379 Tatars 378 Terbouniotes 102, 125, 126, 128 Thracians 1, 45, 114, 115, 149, 167 Thuringians 50, 54, 57, 70

610 Timociani 54 Tollensians 269, 273, 327 Torquata-Manlia 392 Travunians 298, 299, 300 Triballians 315 Trojans 350, 392 Turks 1, 14, 36, 62, 64, 176, 177, 311, 317, 318, 320, 321, 368, 377, 388, 389 Ugra 224 Ukrainians 7, 11, 14, 15, 16, 23, 26, 29 Ukrani/Uchri 324 Ulichs (Ulici) 213 Ultini/Ultinoi 212, 213, 312 Umayyads 59, 319 Utigurs 41, 99, 114 Valachians 45, 167, 169, 382 Vandals 245, 334, 336, 359, 372, 373 Varangians 223, 225, 227, 312 Vayunites 102 Velegezites 102 Velunzani 213, 292 Venedi/Venet(h)i 36, 47, 48, 50, 266, 315 Venetians 1, 2, 145, 205, 225, 257, 401 Ves’ 224 Viatichi 213 Vidivarii 36

Index of Ethnic and Social Groups Visigoths 47 Vistulans 110, 140 Vlakhians 169, 225, 262 Vlakhs 262 Volga Bulgars 210, 316, 322 Vršovci 180 Wagrians/Wagri 275, 276, 327 Warnians 327 Welatabi. See Wiltzi Welfs 282, 284 Western Europeans 2 Western Slavs 7, 13, 14, 26, 112, 317, 343, 355 Wettins 284 White Croats/Belocroats 125, 226 Wilinians 327 Wiltzi/Veleti 54, 55, 56, 58, 110, 267, 269, 275, 323, 324, 327 Wolinians 292, 293, 324 Yam‘ 224 Zachumli/Zahumlians 102, 125, 126, 128, 298, 299, 300 Zeelanders 285 Zeriuane 212, 213 Zerivani 59 Zimegola 224