Religious Rites of War Beyond the Medieval West 9004683429, 9789004683426

Citation preview

Religious Rites of War beyond the Medieval West Volume 2

Explorations in Medieval Culture General Editor Larissa Tracy (Longwood University) Editorial Board Tina Boyer (Wake Forest University) Emma Campbell (University of Warwick) Kelly DeVries (Loyola Maryland) David F. Johnson (Florida State University) Asa Simon Mittman (csu, Chico) Thea Tomaini (usc, Los Angeles) Wendy Turner (Augusta University) David Wacks (University of Oregon) Renée Ward (University of Lincoln)

Volume 24/2

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

Religious Rites of War beyond the Medieval West Volume 2 Central and Eastern Europe

Edited by

Radosław Kotecki Jacek Maciejewski Gregory Leighton

LEIDEN | BOSTON

Cover illustration: King Solomon of Hungary flees Pozsony Castle, is pursued by Prince Saint Ladislas assisted by an angel with a fiery sword, from the Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle (a.k.a Chronicon pictum / Képes Krónika / Marci de Kalt Chronica de gestis Hungarorum), ca. 1358–1373. With kind permission of the © National Széchényi Library, Budapest, Manuscript Collection, Képes Krónika, Cod. lat. 404, p. 91, “[A]t … .” The Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available online at https://catalog.loc.gov LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2023036478

Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface. issn 2352-0299 isbn 978-90-04-68342-6 (set) isbn 978-90-04-68340-2 (hardback, vol. 1) isbn 978-90-04-68636-6 (e-book, vol. 1) isbn 978-90-04-68341-9 (hardback, vol. 2) isbn 978-90-04-68637-3 (e-book, vol. 2) doi 10.1163/9789004686373 Copyright 2023 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Schöningh, Brill Fink, Brill mentis, Brill Wageningen Academic, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Böhlau and V&R unipress. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. 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 List of Figures and Maps vii Abbreviations ix Notes on Contributors xii Editors’ Note to Volume Two xvi

Central and Eastern Europe 1 Praying Rulers, Elusive Clerics, and the Romano-Byzantine “Just War”: Interaction between Religion and Warfare in Pre-Mongol Rus 3 Yulia Mikhailova 2 Devotion in the Face of Military Struggles in the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle (Chronicle of the Romanovichi) 48 Dariusz Dąbrowski 3 Bohemian Experiences with Military Religion in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries, or How to Secure the Intercession of the Patron Saint 77 Radosław Kotecki 4 Pre-, intra-, and postbellum Rites in High and Late Medieval Bohemia 140 Robert Antonín 5 Religious Rites of War in Medieval Hungary: A Reconnaissance 167 László Veszprémy 6 Religious Warfare at the Eastern Borders of Latin Christendom: The Case of the Kingdom of Hungary in the Later Middle Ages 209 Dušan Zupka 7 Pleading for Victory and Eternal Life: Religious Preparations of the Poles for the Battle of Grunwald 1410 244 Jacek Maciejewski

vi

Contents

Instead of a Conclusion 8 Studying Religious Rites of War on the Eastern and Northern Peripheries of Medieval Latin Europe 289 Radosław Kotecki Index 357

Figures and Maps 1.1

Figures

Drawing of the helmet attributed to Yaroslav (Theodore) Vsevolodovich, late twelfth/early thirteenth century, discovered in 1808 on the place of the Lipitsa battle (1216). The inscription on the rim reads: “Great Archangel Michael, help your servant Theodore.” License: Public Domain 22 2.1 The Novgorod icon of the “Miracle of the Icon of the Mother of God of the Sign,” later fifteenth century, tempera on wood, Tretyakov Gallery. The icon depicts a battle between the Troops of Suzdal and the Novgorod (1169), and the miraculous victory of the Novgorodians thanks to the Icon of the Mother of God displayed on the city walls. License: Public Domain 62 3.1 St. Wenceslas’s helmet (tenth–eleventh century). St. Vitus Cathedral in Prague 82 3.2a–b Present-day view of the southern facade of the church of St. James (ca. 1165) in the village Jakub (Církvice-Jakub) near Kutná Hora, Czech Republic. a) general view; b) Close-up of the sculpture depicting St. Wenceslas 84 3.3 Říp Mountain seen from the South-East, Czech Republic. License: CC BY-SA 4.0 91 3.4 Rotunda of Sts. George and Vojtěch-Adalbert on Říp Mountain, Czech Republic. License: CC BY 2.5 91 3.5 Prince Soběslav I’s denar supposedly minted to commemorate his victory at Chlumec (1126) over Otto the Black and Lothar III 92 3.6 Guardian Angels Chapel (ca. 1270) founded by Přemysl Otakar II, Cistercian monastery in Zlatá Koruna, Czech Republic. License: Public Domain 114 4.1 Present-day view of St. Wenceslas’s Chapel in St. Vitus Cathedral, Prague Castle, Czech Republic. License: CC BY-SA 4.0 143 4.2 Jan Žižka and his troops going to battle behind a priest carrying a sun monstrance. The Antithesis of Christ and Antichrist, the so-called Jena Codex (ca. 1490–ca. 1510). With kind permission of the Library of the National Museum, Prague, Czech Republic, IV B 24, fol. 76r 153 5.1 The miraculous image of the Virgin Mary with a Child (The second image of grace, Schatzkammerbild) from Northern Treasury in Mariazell Basilica, Austria. According to tradition a gift by King Ludwig of Hungary to a monastery in Zell as a votive offering for his victory over the “Turks.” The work created ca. 1360 is attributed to the Sienese painter Andrea Vanni 193 5.2 Detail of the tympanum relief on the Gothic main portal of the Mariazell Basilica (before 1438), Austria. King Louis the Great of Hungary defeats the Turks with Mary’s help and gives Mary a votive offering. License: CC BY-SA 4.0 194

viii

Figures and Maps

6.1 St. Ladislas fighting with the Cuman. Mural painting in the church in Kraskovo, Slovakia 215 6.2 St. Ladislas fighting with the Cuman. Mural painting in the church in Veľká Lomnica, Slovakia. License: CC BY-SA 3.0 215 6.3 St. Ladislas fighting with the Cuman. Mural painting in the church in Žehra, Slovakia 216 6.4 Gothic fresco Siege of Belgrade (1456) in the Church of Immaculate Conception of Virgin Mary in Olomouc, Czech Republic from 1468 (unveiled in 1983–1985). License: CC BY 4.0 234 7.1 Present-day view of Holy Cross Abbey atop Łysa Góra (the Bald Mountain), from the east, Poland. License: CC BY 3.0 248 7.2 Present-day view of Czerwińsk Abbey. View from the South of the late fifteenth-century gate and bell tower (the so-called Gate of the Abbot Kula) and the front of the Romanesque basilica, Poland. License: CC BY-SA 3.0 254 7.3 Present-day view of Czerwińsk Abbey. View of the Romanesque basilica from the monastery garth, Poland. License: CC BY-SA 3.0 255 8.1 Banderia Prutenorum by Jan Długosz (1448). The likeness of the banner of the bishopric of Warmia (Ermland) that was used in the Battle of Grunwald/Tannenberg in 1410. The Lamb of God on a red background. License: Public Domain 305 8.2 Banderia Prutenorum by Jan Długosz (1448). The likeness of the banner of the Livonian Master that was captured by Polish troops at the Battle of Dąbki in 1431. St. Maurice in arms holding a lance and shield with the Teutonic Cross on a white background. License: Public Domain 306 8.3 Church of the Assumption of Our Lady of Victory in Lublin, Poland. The church was built in the years 1412–1426 for the Bridgettine Order as a votive offering of King Władysław Jagiełło for the victory in the battle of Grunwald/Tannenberg (1410). License: CC BY-SA 3.0 308 8.4 Mural painting depicting King Władysław Jagiełło as a second Constantine the Great (before 1418). Chapel of the Holy Trinity at the Lublin castle, Poland. With kind permission of the Muzeum Narodowe w Lublinie 317 8.5 St. Ladislas receives episcopal blessing when departing on a military campaign against the Cumans. Mural painting in the reformed church in Mugeni (Bögöz), Romania 322



Maps

0.1

Map of Central and Eastern Europe depicting major locations appearing in the volume xviii

Abbreviations Titles of series and journals without further explanation Ann. Ott. APH AUWH BCEH BF BLDR Bonfini, Rer. Ung.

CCCM CEMT CGV

ChH CHR Chronica de gestis Cosmas, Chron. Boh. CTT Długosz, Annales

ECEE EMC FKG

Annales Ottakariani, ed. Josef Emler, 303–35. FrB 2 (Prague: Museum království Českého, 1874). Acta Poloniae Historica. Acta Universitatis Wratislaviensis. Historia. Brill’s companions to European history. Beihefte der Francia. Biblioteka literatury Drevnei Rusi. Bonfinis, Antonius de. Rerum Ungaricarum decades, ed. József Fógel et al., 4 vols., Bibliotheca Scriptorum Medii Recentisque Aevorum. Saeculum XV (Leipzig: Teubner, Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1936–1976). Corpus Christianorum. Continuatio Mediaevalis, 301 vols. (Turnhout: Brepols, 1966–). Central European medieval texts. Chronica Galiciano-Voliniana (Chronica Romanoviciana), ed. Dariusz Dąbrowski and Adrian Jusupović, MPH NS 16 (Cracow and Warsaw: Instytut Historii Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 2017). Church History. Catholic Historical Review. Chronica de gestis Hungarorum e codice picto saec. XIV, ed. and trans. János M. Bak and László Veszprémy, CEMT 9 (Budapest and New York: Central European University Press, 2018). Cosmae Pragensis Chronica Bohemorum, ed. János M. Bak and Pavlína Rychterová, trans. Petra Mutlová and Martyn C. Rady, intro. and ann. Jan Hasil and Irene van Renswoude, CEMT 10 (Budapest and New York: Central European University Press, 2020). Crusade texts in translation. Ioannis Dlugossii Annales seu cronicae incliti regni Poloniae, bks. 1–12, ed. Consilium (Cracow: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1964–2005), accessible via National Digital Library Polona, dlugosz.polona.pl/en. East Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 450–1450. Explorations in medieval culture. Forschungen zur Kirchen- und Geistegeschichte.

x FrB FS Gallus, Cronicae HHFD HSJ IR JEH JMH JMIS JRSAI KG KH MCS MEMI MGH MGH SS MGH SS rer. Germ. MGH SS rer. Germ. NS MGH SS rer. Merov. MMAH MMED MPH MPH NS

MTCN OFVK Outremer PH

Abbreviations Fontes rerum Bohemicarum, ed. Josef Emler et al., 8 vols. (Prague: various publishers, 1873–1932). Frühmittelalterliche Studien. Galli Anonymi Cronicae et gesta ducum sive principum Polonorum, ed. Karol Maleczyński, MPH NS 2 (Cracow: Polska Akademia Umiejętności, 1952). Historiae Hungaricae fontes domestici. Scriptores. Haskins Society Journal. Innes Review. Journal of Ecclesiastical History. Journal of Medieval History. Journal of Medieval Iberian Studies. Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland. Krieg in der Geschichte. Kwartalnik Historyczny. Medieval Church studies. The medieval and early modern Iberian world. Monumenta Germaniae Historica. MGH Scriptores (in folio), 39 vols. (Hannover and Leipzig: Hahn and Hiersemann, 1826–2009). MGH Scriptores rerum Germanicarum in usum scholarum separatim editi, 81 vols. (Berlin, Hannover, Leipzig, and Wiesbaden: Hahn, Weidmann, and Harrassowitz, 1846–). MGH Scriptores rerum Germanicarum. Nova Series, 24 vols. (Hannover, Leipzig, and Berlin: Weidmann and Hahn, 1922–). MGH Scriptores rerum Merovingicarum, 7 vols. in 8 pts. (Hannover and Leipzig: Hahn, 1885–1920). Monumenta medii aevi historica res gestas Poloniae illustrantia. The medieval Mediterranean: peoples, economies and cultures, 400–1500. Monumenta Poloniae Historica, 6. vols. (Lviv and Cracow: various publishers, 1864–1893). Monumenta Poloniae Historiaca. Nova series, 16 vols. (Cracow and Warsaw: Polska Akademia Umiejętności and Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1946–). Medieval texts and cultures of Northern Europe. Otto-von-Freising-Vorlesungen der Katholischen Universität Eichstätt. Outremer: Studies in the Crusades and the Latin East. Przegląd Historyczny.

Abbreviations PL

xi

Patrologiae cursus completus. Series Latina, ed. Jacques-Paul Migne, 221 vols. (Paris: Vrayet and Apud Editorem, 1841–1864). PRSL Polnoe sobranie russkikh letopisei, 46 vols. (St. Petersburg and Moscow, 1841–2004). QMAN Quaestiones Medii Aevi Novae. RH Roczniki Historyczne. RHE Revue d’Histoire Ecclésiastique. RSC Rivista di storia del cristianesimo. RSS Religion, State and Society. SBS Sacra bella septentrionalia. SCelH Studies in Celtic history. SCH Studies in Church History. SS SN Studia staropolskie. Series nova. Sermo Sermo: Studies on patristic, medieval, and Reformation sermons and preaching. SHKK Schriften des Historischen Kollegs. Kolloquien. SrH Scriptores rerum Hungaricarum tempore ducum regumque stirpis Arpadianae gestarum, ed. Imre Szentpétery, 2 vols. (Budapest: Academia Litteraria Hungarica, 1937–1938). SrP Scriptores rerum Prussicarum, ed. Theodor Hirsch, Max Töppen, and Ernst Strehlke, 5. vols. (Leipzig: Hirzel, 1861–1874). Tagliacozzo, Victoriae mirabilis divinitus de Turcis habitae, duce vener. beato Patre Vict. mir. Fratre Ioanne de Capistrano, series descripta per Fratrem Ioannem de Tagliacotio, illius socium et comitem, atque beato Iacobo de Marchia directa, ed. Leonhard Lemmens, Acta Ordinis fratrum minorum 25 (1906): 28–31, 62–68, 108–9, 188–90, 228–29, 290–92, 322–25, 352–57, 399–404. Thurocz, Johannes de Thurocz, Chronica Hungarorum. I. Textus, ed. Erzsébet Chron. Hung. Galántai and Gyula Kristó (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1985). TKH OL PAN Teka Komisji Historycznej. Oddział Lubelski PAN. TNW The Northern world. VF Vorträge und Forschungen. VKSM Veröffentlichungen aus dem Kirchenhistorischen Seminar München. ZfO Zeitschrift für Ostmitteleuropa-Forschung. ZH Zapiski Historyczne.

Notes on Contributors Robert Antonín | ORCID: 0000-0002-6902-1382 is Associate professor in medieval history at the Department of History of the Faculty of Arts, the University of Ostrava, where he is also a Dean since 2018. His long-term research interests focus on the issues of political, social, economic, and cultural development of Central Europe during the high Middle Ages and on the topics related to the limits of interpretation of (not only) medieval historiography. He is an author of several monographs, including The Ideal Ruler in Medieval Bohemia, ECEE 44 (Brill, 2017), as well as numerous research articles and chapters on medieval history. He i salso the main editor of the collective monograph Čtvrtý lateránský koncil a české země ve 13. a 14. století [The Fourth Lateran Council and the Czech lands in thirteenth and fourteenth centuries] (Lidové noviny, 2020). Antonín’s most recent works include: “‘Omnis Potestas a Deo est’: The Sacred Aspects of the Legitimacy of the Ruler in the Narrative Sources From Medieval Bohemia,” Bohemia 56 (2016): 62–87; “Bishop Andrew of Prague and Church in Medieval Czech Lands After the Fourth Lateran Council,” ZfO 69.4 (2020): 453–69; “The Rhetoric of the Crusades and Anti-Paganism in the Political Propaganda of Ottokar II Premislas of Bohemia,” in The Expansion of the Faith: Crusading on the Frontiers of Latin Christendom in the High Middle Ages, ed. Paul Srodecki and Norbert Kersken, Outremer 14 (Brepols, 2021), 291–302. Dariusz Dąbrowski | ORCID: 0000-0002-7545-9663 is Full Professor at the Faculty of History Department of the Kazimierz Wielki University in Bydgoszcz, Poland. The main field of research interest is the history of medieval Rus and dynastic genealogy. Author of five monographs, including two volumes of biography of the King of Rus Daniel Romanovich, genealogy of the Romanovichi and Mstislavichi branches (Rodowód Romanowiczów, książąt halicko-wołyńskich [Genealogy of the Romanovichi, Princes of Galich-Volhynia] [Wydawnictwo Historyczne, 2002]; Genealogia Mścisławowiczów. Pierwsze pokolenia (do początku XIV w.) [Genealogy of the Mstislavichi. The First Generations (to the Beginning of the Fourteenth Century)] [Avalon, 2008]; Daniel Romanowicz król Rusi (ok. 1201–1264). Biografia polityczna [Daniel Romanovich King of Ruthenia (ca. 1201–1264). Political Biography] [Avalon, 2012]; Król Rusi Daniel Romanowicz. O ruskiej rodzinie książęcej, społeczeństwie i kulturze w XIII w. [King Daniel Romanovich of Ruthenia. On the Ruthenian Princely Family, Society and Culture in the Thirteenth Century] [Avalon, 2016]), as well as over 100 articles published e.g. in Russian, Ukrainian, German, and

Notes on Contributors

xiii

English. He led the international team that prepared the edition of the Chronica Galiciano-Voliniana (Chronica Romanoviciana), ed. Dariusz Dąbrowski, Adrian Jusupović, with collaboration of Irina Jurieva, Alexandr Majorov, Tatiana Vilkul, MPH NS 16 (Polska Akademia Umiejętności, 2017) along with the translation of this primary source into Polish. Prof. Dąbrowski is the initiator of the publishing series Monografie Pracowni Badań nad Dziejami Rusi Uniwersytetu Kazimierza Wielkiego w Bydgoszczy (volumes appear with the leading Polish publisher Avalon). Radosław Kotecki | ORCID: 0000-0002-6757-9358 is Associate Professor at the Faculty of History, Kazimierz Wielki University in Bydgoszcz, Poland. His current research concerns clerical warfare and military religion in the Middle Ages, especially Poland. He is preparing a monograph on the figure of the clerical “standard-bearer” and battle talismans (signa victricia) in medieval Central and Eastern European historiography against the phenomena of sacralization and ritualization of war. He is co-editor of several books, including Between Sword and Prayer: Warfare and Medieval Clergy in Cultural Perspective, EMC 3 (Brill, 2018) and Christianity and War in Medieval East Central and Northern Europe (ARC Humanities, 2021). His recent works include: “Pious Rulers, Princely Clerics, and Angels of Light: ‘Imperial Holy War’ Imagery in Twelfth-Century Poland and Rus’,” in Christianity and War in Medieval East Central Europe and Scandinavia, ed. Radosław Kotecki, Carsten Selch Jensen and Stephen Bennett (ARC Humanities, 2021), 159–88; “Bishops and the Legitimisation of War in Piast Poland until the Early Thirteenth Century,” PH 111.3 (2020): 437–70; “Public Military Service of Bishops in the Piast Monarchy (Twelfth to Early Thirteenth Centuries),” in Continuation or Change? Borders and Frontiers in Late Antiquity and Medieval Europe, ed. Gregory Leighton, Piotr Pranke, and Łukasz Różycki (Routledge, 2023), 206–37. Since 2023 he is co-editor of the Trivent’s series “Religion and War in the Middle Ages.” Jacek Maciejewski | ORCID: 0000-0003-0505-975X is Full Professor, Head of the Medieval History Department at Kazimierz Wielki University in Bydgoszcz, Poland. His current research primarily concerns two fields, the cultural phenomenon of militant clergy, and episcopal appointments and building dioceses in medieval Poland. He is the author or co-editor of several books, among them: Episkopat polski doby dzielnicowej 1180–1320 [Polish episcopacy of the feudal defragmentation era] (Societas Vistulana, 2003) and “Adventus episcopi.” Pozaliturgiczne aspekty inauguracji władzy biskupiej w Polsce średniowiecznej na tle europejskim [Non-liturgical aspects of episcopal inauguration in medieval Poland on the European background] (UKW,

xiv

Notes on Contributors

2013); “Ecclesia et Violentia”: Violence against the Church and Violence within the Church in the Middle Ages (Cambridge Scholars, 2014); Between Sword and Prayer: Warfare and Medieval Clergy in Cultural Perspective, EMC 3 (Brill, 2018) as well as numerous articles and book chapters, recently in English: “Writing Episcopal Courage in Twelfth-Century Poland: Gallus Anonymous and Master Vincentius,” in Episcopal Power and Personality in Medieval Europe 900–1480, ed. Peter Coss et al., MCS 42 (Brepols, 2020), 35–61 (with Radosław Kotecki); “Premeditation and Determination on the Way to the Polish Episcopacy in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries,” in Bishops’ Identities, Careers, and Networks in Medieval Europe, ed. Sarah E. Thomas, MCS 44 (Brepols, 2020), 93–102; “Memory of Warrior Bishops of Płock in the Writings of Jan Długosz,” in Christianity and War in Medieval East Central Europe and Scandinavia, ed. Radosław Kotecki, Carsten Selch Jensen and Stephen Bennett (ARC Humanities, 2021), 75–95. Since 2023 he is co-editor of the Trivent’s series “Religion and War in the Middle Ages.” Yulia Mikhailova is Associate Professor of history at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology. Her monograph Property, Power, and Authority in Rus and Latin Europe, ca. 1000–1236 (ARC Humanities, 2018) offers a comparative analysis of forms of political and social organizations in the high medieval West and Rus. Comparative medieval history is the main focus of Dr. Mikhailova’s research; her recent and forthcoming works include “Compared to Women? The Life of Abraham of Smolensk in the Context of Medieval Visionary Literature,” Byzantinoslavica, Revue internationale des études byzantines 78.1–2 (2020): 173–202; “Reflection of the Crusading Movement in Rusian Sources: Tantalizing Hints,” in Fruits of Devotion: Essays in Honor of Predrag Matejic, ed. M.A. Johnson and Alice Isabelle Sullivan, Ohio Slavic Papers 11 (The Ohio State University Press, forthc. 2023); “Sviatoslav of Kiev, the Diorama of His Last Battle, and Paradoxes of Competing Nationalisms,” in Picturing Russian Empire, ed. Valerie Kivelson and Joan Neuberger (Oxford University Press, forthc. 2023). László Veszprémy is Head of the Medieval History Department at Pázmány Péter Catholic University in Budapest, formerly Head of the Institute of Military History in Budapest. His research interests are medieval military history, Latin historiography and paleography. He is the author and co-editor of several books, including bilingual editions of medieval chronicles in the series of Central European medieval texts, the last time published with János M. Bak the Chronicle of the Deeds of the Hungarians from the Fourteenth-Century Illuminated Codex (CEU

Notes on Contributors

xv

Pres, 2018). He collaborated in several volumes of the series Latin codex fragments in Hungarian libraries (Akadémiai and Harrassowitz, 1988–1998) and widely published on the Crusades and knightly culture, most recently “The Knightly Culture of the Hungarian Barons of the Angevin Period: Ideals and Practice,” in Formations et cultures des officiers et de l’entourage des princes dans les territoires angevins (milieu XIIIe–fin XVe siècle) (L’École française de Rome, 2019). He is a recurrent lecturer at the International Chronicle Society conferences and is currently on the editorial board of several journals: Hungarian Quarterly of Military History; Századok; Review of Hungarian Historical Society; Z badań nad kisążką i ksiegozbiorami historycznymi. Dušan Zupka | ORCID: 0000-0003-2699-3736 is a senior researcher at the Institute of History, Slovak Academy of Sciences in Bratislava. He has previously worked at the History Faculty of the Oxford University, and held research scholarships at Central European University in Budapest, Hungary, and Utrecht University in the Netherlands. He is author of two monographs, Ritual and Symbolic Communication in Medieval Hungary under the Árpád Dynasty, 1000–1301, ECEE 39 (Brill, 2016) and Meč a kríž. Vojna a náboženstvo v stredovekej strednej Európe 10.–12. storočie [The Sword and the Cross. War and religion in medieval East Central Europe: 10th–12th century] (VEDA, 2020). Zupka recently co-edited an edited volume Rulership in Medieval East Central Europe. Power, Rituals and Legitimacy in Bohemia, Hungary and Poland (Brill, 2021). His research focuses on power, rulership, religious warfare and communication in medieval East Central Europe. Since 2017 he is co-editor of the Brill’s series “East Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 450–1450.”

Editors’ Note to Volume Two Volume two is a direct continuation of volume one of the Religious Rites of War Beyond the Medieval West collection. It addresses Central and Eastern Europe and is comprised of seven chapters. It begins with Yulia Mikhailova’s contribution, which takes us to the east, namely toward Kievan Rus. Mikhailova addresses the important question of how the clergy were represented in the sources, providing a comparative analysis of the ways in which religious rituals were described in Rus chronicles. Her work brings forward an important issue: religious rites do not appear in ecclesiastical sources for Rus, and she argues that this reflects how the responsibility for gaining divine approval fell upon the prince or the military leader. The next chapter, written by Dariusz Dąbrowski, analyzes the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle (also known as the Chronicle of Romanovichi), one of the most important historical monuments of Rus from the thirteenth century. Dąbrowski connects manifestations of divine support that appear in the chronicle’s depictions of war to the idea that war was a product of providence, which ultimately reflects (in part) the reality of the author and the participants in the wars described in the chronicle. As such, he presents us with an important opportunity to compare the representations of religious rites in times of war in this text with contemporary chronicles produced further to the West. Moving from Rus, Radosław Kotecki analyzes military religion in twelfth and thirteenth-century Bohemia, particularly through the lens of St. Wenceslas. Kotecki analyzes the ways in which the people of Bohemia used rituals in times of war to get the aid of specific, regional patron saints, as opposed to more general ones. He does this not only by considering rituals, but the physical objects that accompanied them. Robert Antonín’s chapter continues this focus on Bohemia, taking a broad approach to the present of pre-, intra-, and post-battle rituals from the thirteenth century and into the sixteenth. Antonín’s contribution convincingly highlights that although considerable research has been carried out on these phenomena with respect to the early history of Bohemia, there remains considerable work to be done with respect to the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Continuing this trend of underexplored topics, László Veszprémy outlines the historical evidence for religious rites in times of war in medieval Hungary, spanning nearly five centuries of evidence from the eleventh century to the Battle of Mohács (29 August 1526). As opposed to treating these phenomena in isolation, he draws together the instances of religious processions, battle cries, prayers, foundations, and blessing of banners, highlighting how they

Editors ’ Note to Volume Two

xvii

shaped the medieval history of Hungary from the early days and until the end and providing an eclectic yet unified panorama of the ways in which warfare and religious rites went seemingly hand in hand. The volume’s focus on Hungary ends with Dušan Zupka’s chapter, which offers us a consideration of religious rituals in the context of the Kingdom of Hungary’s borderlands. Building on the findings of Vesprémy, Zupka’s paper explores religious rites in war as a response to threats coming across the eastern borders of medieval Christianitas. Treating the incursions of the Magyars, Cumans, Mongols, and Turks as case studies, he highlights the continuities and changes in terms of how contemporaries used religious rituals in times of war, a suiting analogy to the example quoted in the introduction to this volume. The final paper is that of Jacek Maciejewski. Analyzing the Battle of Grunwald (15 July 1410) and the preparations for battle undertaken by Władysław Jagiełło, his chapter concludes this second volume. As opposed to the image of the Polish king, Maciejewski brings to light how ritual actions performed by the king and his army have a variety of different meanings and readings. Given that this battle took place between Christian powers (the Kingdom of Poland and Grand Duchy of Lithuania against the Teutonic Order), Maciejewski’s paper uses this to explain the highly ideological contexts of rituals as they are described in the chronicle evidence, demonstrating that rites performed before battle were just as powerful and symbolic as those performed in battle. Radosław Kotecki offers an alternative to a “traditional” conclusion in his closing chapter of this publication. This entails a scholarly overview of the historiography and methodology that historians have previously employed with respect to religious rituals, holy war, and warfare in the Middle Ages. Kotecki weaves together a complex narrative that addresses the meanings of religious rites and their specific relationship to warfare in the Middle Ages. More specifically, he provides an overview of the findings of this book and contextualizes them within a broader framework of interdisciplinary medieval studies, highlighting how religious rites performed in times of war were multidimensional, culturally significant, and straddled both worldly and secular spheres of society. Kotecki’s chapter can be seen as a call to scholars to incorporate the regions under investigation in this book into further, comparative research, with the hope that such work will only assist in forming future collaborations of scholars. Pointing out the necessity for research that encompasses not just narrative or literary sources, but also liturgical, legal, and visual materials, Kotecki concludes by demonstrating the seemingly universal nature of religious rites in times of war in the Middle Ages. This makes them an extremely useful lens through which to view contemporary expectations and desires regarding violence and religion.

figure 0.1 Map of Central and Eastern Europe depicting major locations appearing in the volume

Central and Eastern Europe

∵

Chapter 1

Praying Rulers, Elusive Clerics, and the Romano-Byzantine “Just War”: Interaction between Religion and Warfare in Pre-Mongol Rus Yulia Mikhailova Scholars studying the military role of the clergy in Latin Europe usually note the ambiguous attitude of medieval authors towards clerical involvement in warfare in cases when it went beyond praying for victory and providing spiritual care for the troops, activities that were universally accepted as proper for the churchmen. Actual, physical participation in battle on the part of the clergy was praised in chansons de geste and condemned in the writings of strict church reformers, calling for excommunication of “clerics bearing arms and usurers.”1 The views of most Western medieval authors who wrote about fighting clergy fall somewhere between these two extremes. Evaluation of each concrete episode of the clerical involvement in warfare depended on the circumstances. The involvement itself had various gradations, such as donning armor, but not arms, or directing troops on the battlefield, but not wielding arms personally. For the subject of religion and warfare in pre-Mongol Rus, the attitudes that existed on the eastern fringe of Latin Europe are of particular interest. Arguably, the Polish chronicle narratives about the actions of the bishops of Płock at the time of war provide an especially suitable comparative material. Płock was located in Mazovia, a region that bordered Rus and was often involved in warfare with pagan Pomeranians and Prussians. Polish accounts of these encounters belong to the same genre and are devoted to the same subject—Christians fighting pagans—as the Rusian accounts of relations with the steppe. How do representations of the clergy and the religious interpretations of war compare in chronicles produced in the neighboring countries that had close cultural and political ties, but were located on the different sides of the Catholic—Orthodox divide? 1 Lawrence G. Duggan, “The Evolution of Latin Canon Law on the Clergy and Armsbearing to the Thirteenth Century,” in Between Sword and Prayer: Warfare and Medieval Clergy in Cultural Perspective, ed. Radosław Kotecki, Jacek Maciejewski, and John S. Ott, EMC 3 (Leiden and Boston MA: Brill, 2018), 497–516 at 507.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004686373_002

4

Mikhailova

Narratives about the two twelfth-century Płock bishops in the chronicles by Gallus Anonymus (ca. 1115) and Master Vincentius (ca. 1205) display a range of opinions about a prelate’s proper response to a military aggression against his diocese. Gallus’s account of the 1109 Pomeranian raid is most in line with the “canonical requirements against clerical participation in warfare”: Bishop Simon and his clerics stand apart from the fighting troops and pray tearfully.2 Master Vincentius, in relating the same episode, presents the bishop as “a more active figure,” not only praying but also addressing soldiers at the battlefield.3 Jacek Maciejewski argues that in Vincentius’s account, the bishop, “in a sense,  … replaces the secular commander.”4 Finally, Vincentius hints that Simon’s successor, Alexander, may have “utilized a weapon and armor” at some point during Pomeranian and Prussian raids, but he is careful not to state this openly, which, according to Radosław Kotecki, results in an intentionally ambivalent narrative.5 The report of the Cuman raid in the Kievan Chronicle entry for 1172 is very similar to the Polish accounts of the 1109 Pomeranian raid: in both cases, the enemies attacked when the prince was absent, captured booty and prisoners, and were pursued by smaller forces led by the prince’s substitutes (comes and the prince’s younger brother, respectively), who, against all odds, defeated the raiders, recovered the plundered property and freed the captives.6 Both Polish and Rusian narratives contain an extensive religious commentary. In the former, the local prelate contributes to the victory, whether by praying from afar or inspiring soldiers on the battlefield. How do these accounts of the bishop’s action in the Polish chronicles compare to representations of the church hierarchs in the Kievan Chronicle entry for 1172? The raid described in this entry occurred in the vicinity of Kiev, the seat of the metropolitan, and the main target of the raiders were the lands of the famous Holy Theotokos of the Tithe, the first church built in Rus by Vladimir I after his baptism in 998. The forces that pursued the raiding party were from 2 Radosław Kotecki, “Lions and Lambs, Wolves and Pastors of the Flock: Portraying Military Activity of Bishops in Twelfth-Century Poland,” in Between Sword and Prayer, 303–40 at 312. 3 Ibid., 320. 4 Jacek Maciejewski, “Memory of the ‘Warrior Bishops’ of Płock in the Writings of Jan Długosz,” in Christianity and War in Medieval East Central Europe and Scandinavia, ed. Radosław Kotecki, Carsten Selch Jensen, and Stephen Bennett (Leeds: ARC Humanities Press, 2021), 75–95 at 79. 5 Kotecki, “Lions and Lambs,” 328–31. 6 Ipatevskaia letopis, ed. Aleksei A. Shakhmatov, PSRL, 46 vols. (St. Petersburg and Moscow, 1841–2004), here vol. 2 (St. Petersburg: Imperatorskaia Arkheograficheskaia Komissia, 1908), 555–59. The raid reported under 1172 took place in 1169/1170, see Nikolai G. Berezhkov, Khronologiia russkogo letopisaniia (Moscow: Izdatelstvo Akademii Nauk SSSR, 1963), 159.

Interaction between Religion and Warfare in Pre-Mongol Rus

5

the neighboring principality of Pereiaslavl. The chronicler praises devotion and heroism of “our men (nashi),” who “strengthened themselves by the help of God and by the Holy Theotokos,” and he concludes his narrative with an explanation of the religious significance of the victory: And there was assistance from the Venerable Cross and from the Holy Mother of God, great Theotokos of the Tithe, whose lands were invaded, since God will not allow anyone to abuse common people, especially when somebody attempts to abuse them in His Mother’s house. [The victors] arrived in Kiev, having defeated the Cumans, and the Christians were delivered from that slavery. The captives returned to their homes, and the rest of the Christians all praised God and the Holy Theotokos who renders prompt help to the Christian people.7 The chronicler mentions neither the metropolitan, the clergy of the Church of the Tithe, nor the bishop of Pereiaslavl. Did their prayers help bring about the assistance from the Venerable Cross and the Theotokos? Did they bless “our men” departing to defend the property of one of the most important Rusian churches? Did they lead “all the Christians” in praising God and the Theotokos after the victory by offering public thanksgiving prayers, tolling bells, or holding any kind of religious ceremony? Whatever they may have done, the chronicler passes their activities in silence. In this respect, the Kievan Chronicle entry for 1172 represents the rule rather than an exception. The contrast between the Kievan chronicler’s indifference to activities of the churchmen at a time of a pagan attack and the Polish authors’ heightened attention to the local prelate reflects a divergence between Rus and Latin Europe in the attitudes towards the military role of the clergy. Such a divergence would have been taken for granted in the recent past, when scholars viewed Rus either as a society unlike any other, pursuing a “special path” of development, or as part of the Byzantine Commonwealth construed as an entity profoundly separate from Latin Europe. These traditional views have been challenged by historians exploring multifaceted ties and similarities between Rus and Western Europe. Christian Raffensperger rejected the notion of the Byzantine Commonwealth altogether, arguing that Rus and other Slavic Orthodox realms did not have any special ties with Byzantium, which would set them apart from the West, because the Byzantine influence

7 Ipatevskaia letopis, PSRL 2:558–59.

6

Mikhailova

was present throughout Europe.8 Other scholars did not go that far and examined various manifestations of a special bond between Orthodox realms and Byzantium, which did not necessarily preclude the former from being part of the pan-European civilization.9 Arguably, the religious rituals of war, and especially the military role of the clergy in Rus, are a case in point. According to the famous passage in the Primary Chronicle, Rus was located on the “route from the Varangians to the Greeks,” which connected Orthodox Byzantium and Latin Europe, but when it came to relations between war and religion, it was much closer to Byzantium than to the West. Rusian sources provide some interesting examples of Western influences, and in some cases display departures from the Byzantine views, but the overall attitude is much closer to the “Greeks” than to the “Varangians.” Rusian authors display no ambiguity in their attitudes towards fighting clergy, the kind of which is found in Western sources. The anti-Catholic polemic produced in Kiev famously lists “their bishops” going to war among the major differences between “us” and the “Latins.”10 Significantly, this claim is supported by chronicle reports of real-life events. When it comes to clerical participation in warfare, all types of Rusian sources are largely in agreement. References to fighting clergy are absent from pre-Mongol Rusian literature, with one exception found in the entry for 1234 of the Novgorodian First Chronicle describing a Lithuanian raid on the town of Russa (nowadays Staraya Russa). The Lithuanians broke into Russa all the way to the market square, where the locals faced them and drove them out of the town. The fighting continued in a nearby field, where “four Russa men were killed,” including “Peter (Petrilo) the 8

Christian Raffensperger, Reimagining Europe: Kievan Rus’ in the Medieval World, Harvard historical studies 177 (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 2012), 10–46. 9 E.g., Jonathan Shepard, “Crowns from the Basileus, Crowns from Heaven,” in Byzantium, New Peoples, New Powers: The Byzantino-Slav Contact Zone, ed. Miliana Kaimakamova, Maciej Salamon, and Malgorzata Smorąg Różycka, Byzantina et Slavica Cracoviensia 5 (Cracow: Historia Iagellonica, 2007), 139–60; Monica White, Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013). 10 Voproshenie kniazia Iziaslava syna Iaroslavlia vnuka Volodimeria igumena Fedoseia pecherskago manastyria o latynstei vere, in Aleksei V. Barmin, Polemika i skhizma. Istoria greko-latinskikh sporov XI–XII vv. (Moscow: Institut filosofii, teologii i istorii sv. Fomy, 2006), 508; Pouchenia i molitva Feodosia Pecherskogo, ed. Natalia V. Ponyrko, BLDR 20 vols. (St. Petersburg: Nauka, 1997–2020), here 1 (1997), 434–55 at 448. Compare with Tia M. Kolbaba, The Byzantine Lists: Errors of the Latins (Urbana IL: University of Illinois Press, 2000), 49–51. For a review of the differences between the secular functions of the bishops in Western and Eastern Christendom, see Michael C. Paul, “Secular Power and the Archbishops of Novgorod before the Muscovite Conquest,” Kritika 8 (2007): 231–70 at 238–43.

Interaction between Religion and Warfare in Pre-Mongol Rus

7

Priest.”11 Strictly speaking, the chronicler does not report that Peter was bearing arms, he may have been in the field providing spiritual care to the dying; however, the context is more conductive to the interpretation that he did participate in the battle as one of the civilians of Russa who faced the raiders and were fighting them until the prince with his troops arrived from Novgorod. Artem Grachev used this passage to argue for a widespread clerical participation in warfare;12 however, it is more likely that the Russa episode reflects a confluence of unusual circumstances. It took place in the Novgorod Land which, at that time, actively collaborated with Western military orders and other forces involved in the Baltic Crusades.13 The raid on Russa occurred just two years before a contingent from nearby Pskov participated in a crusade of the Livonian Sword Brothers. The Novgorodian chronicler lamented the defeat of the crusaders and their Pskov allies in the Battle of Saule (Germ. Schaulen, Latv. Saules) (1236).14 The clerical participation in warfare was probably more acceptable in a region that had such close relations with the Catholic military orders, and the case of Peter the Priest may thus be more representative of a Western influence than of a practice that existed in Rus. It should also be noted that Peter did not go on a pre-planned military campaign, but was caught in a sudden attack on his town—a situation similar to the cases of clerics using weapons that are reported in the Byzantine sources. Hans-Georg Beck showed that clerics in the Byzantine borderland regions “not infrequently” took up arms against raiders. Normally, they were afterwards punished by the ecclesiastical authorities—suspended, or even deposed.15 We do not know if Peter would have suffered any consequences had he survived; like his Byzantine counterparts, he could have rushed to fight the raiders come what may. Even without information about Peter the Priest’s death on the battlefield, it would be reasonable to assume that Rusian churchmen sometimes took up arms, simply because any prohibition in any society would be violated on occasion, including the prohibition for clerics to fight. The question is whether such violations constituted a widespread practice or remained isolated occurrences. The former was the case in Latin Europe, where canonical rules against 11 Novgorodskaia pervaia letopis starshego i mladshego izvodov, ed. Arseny N. Nasonov (Moscow and Leningrad: Izdatelstvo Akademii Nauk SSSR, 1950), 73. 12 Artem Iu. Grachev, “K voprosu o roli i meste dukhovenstva v voennoi organizatsii Drevnei Rusi,” Pskovskii voenno-istoricheskii vestnik 1 (2015): 43–47 at 45. 13 John Lind, “Russian Echoes of the Crusading Movement 1147–1478—Impulses and Responses,” Middelalderforum 3 (2003): 209–35 at 211–16. 14 Novgorodskaia pervaia letopis, 74. 15 Hans-Georg Beck, Nomos, Kanon und Staatsraison in Byzanz, Sitzungsberichte 384 (Vienna: Verlag der Osterreichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1981), 23, 35–38.

8

Mikhailova

clerical participation in warfare were violated so often that Western medievalists devote special studies to the phenomenon of the “fighting clergy.”16 The official position of the Catholic Church began to change in the later twelfth century; eventually, the canon law legitimized what had previously been practiced unofficially and “accepted that clergy could bear arms for defensive and legitimate purposes.”17 Rusian sources do not attest to a similar phenomenon; rather, they point in the opposite direction. Some of the most explicit evidence is found in the Tale of the Battle on the Lipitsa.18 The battle took place in 1216, when the ruling prince of Suzdalia, Yury Vsevolodovich, was defeated by a coalition supporting a rival claimant to the throne. The Tale, written from the perspective of the victors, gloats over the demise of “all the might of the Suzdalian Land”: everyone was commanded to go and fight on the Lipitsa River (near Yuryev-Polsky), “up to the very last rural man on foot (biashe bo pognano is poselii i do peshtsa).” After they all were killed, taken prisoners, or dropped their weapons and fled, there was no one left to defend the Suzdalian capital city, where “only non-combatants (neprotivnyi narod) remained—priests, monks, women, children.”19 The Tale survived in late fifteenth to early sixteenth-century copies, going back to a hypothetical mid-fifteenth-century exemplar. It follows the general narrative known from the thirteenth-century Novgorodian First Chronicle, but expands it significantly. The passages quoted above are absent from the Novgorodian First.20 They may have come from a lost thirteenth-century source, the existence of which is postulated by some scholars. Alternatively, they could have been created by the fifteenth-century author of the Tale, seeking to underscore the magnanimity of the victors who did not sack the defenseless city.21 In other words, the list of the non-combatants either goes back to a thirteenth-century source, or reflects the fifteenth-century perceptions of the pre-Mongol period, or else represents the fifteenth-century realities. It is not entirely clear to what extent these realities changed during the two centuries 16

17 18 19 20 21

Timothy Reuter, ed., Warriors and Churchmen in the High Middle Ages: Essays Presented to Karl Leyser (London and Rio Grande OH: Hambledon Press, 1992); Lawrence G. Duggan, Armsbearing and the Clergy in the History and Canon Law of Western Christianity (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2013); Kotecki, Maciejewski, Ott, ed., Between Sword and Prayer. Duggan, “The Evolution,” 513. Povest o bitve na Lipitse, ed. Iakov S. Lurie, BLDR 5(1997), 74–87. Ibid., 76, 82. Novgorodskaia pervaia letopis, 55–57. Iakov S. Lurie, “Povest o bitve na Lipitse 1216 g. v letopisanii XIV–XVI vv.,” Trudy otdela drevnerusskoi literatury 34 (1979): 96–138; Andrei A. Kuznetsov, “Bitva na Lipitse 1216 g. Istochnikovedenie i istoria sobytia,” Novgorodskii istoricheskii sbornik 26 (2016): 115–38.

Interaction between Religion and Warfare in Pre-Mongol Rus

9

separating the Battle of Lipitsa from the composition of the extant redaction of the Tale. Studies of arms-bearing clergy in Rus are few, and they cite sources, ranging from the eleventh to the sixteenth centuries, without addressing the question of chronological change. For example, Alexandr E. Musin uses a Muscovite translation of a ruling issued by the 1276 Constantinople council as evidence that Rus had its own militant clergy. The council’s response to the question of whether a priest can serve after he kills a man in battle was: “This is prohibited by the Holy Canons.” Most East Slavonic manuscripts have instead “This is not prohibited.”22 However, all these manuscripts were produced in the sixteenth century.23 By this time, perceptions of the role of the church in the military affairs apparently underwent a significant change, as is indicated by the highly positive late-fifteenth or sixteenth-century representations of monks allegedly participating in the Battle of Kulikovo (1380).24 No fighting monks are mentioned in the earlier accounts of this battle, and a positive—or, for that matter, any—representation of them is inconceivable in pre-Mongol literature, no matter how just the cause. Thus, a detailed account of a Cuman raid on the Kievan Caves Monastery, written by an eyewitness who laments the murder of his fellow monks and destruction of the holy objects, mentions no physical resistance by the monks, and no attempts at self-defense other than fleeing.25 References to the military activities of the clergy cited in scholarly literature are no earlier than the fourteenth century, with the single exception of Peter the Priest discussed above.26 In short, if there was a change in the perception 22 Alexandr E. Musin, “Milites Christi” Drevnei Rusi. Voinskaia kultura russkogo srednevekovia v kontekste religioznogo mentaliteta (St. Petersburg: Peterburgskoe Vostokovedenie, 2005), 60–61. 23 Otvety Konstantinopolskogo patriarshego sobora na voprosy saraiskogo episkopa Theognosta, ed. Aleksei S. Pavlov, in Pamiatniki drevnerusskago kanonicheskago prava. Chast 1 (Pamiatniki XI–XV v.), Russkaia istoricheskaia biblioteka 6 (St. Petersburg: Imperatorskaia Arkheograficheskaia Kommissia, 1908), 129–30, 137–38. 24 Skazanie o Mamaevom poboishche, ed. Vladimir P. Budaragin and Lev A. Dmitriev, BLDR 6 (1997), 138–89 at 150–52, 176–78, 186. On the dating of Skazanie, see Maria A. Salmina, “K voprosu o vremeni i obstoiatelstvakh sozdania ‘Skazania o Mamaevom poboishche,’” Trudy otdela drevnerusskoi literatury 56 (2004): 251–64; Vitaly V. Penskoi, “O datirovke ‘Skazania o Mamaevom poboishche,’” Nauka. Iskusstvo. Kultura 7 (2015): 22–28. 25 Letopis po Lavrentevskomu spisku, ed. Evfimy F. Karskii, PSRL 1, 2nd ed. (Leningrad: Izdatelstvo Akademii Nauk SSSR, 1926–1927), 232–34; The “Povest’ vremennykh let”: An Interlinear Collation and Paradosis, ed. Donald Ostrowski with David Birnbaum and Horace G. Lunt, Harvard library of early Ukrainian literature. Text series 10 (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 2003), 1836–46. 26 See n. 11 above.

10

Mikhailova

of the fighting clerics, it was a change towards more acceptance. It is then all the more remarkable that a fifteenth-century text includes priests among the non-combatants left in the defenseless city. As for the texts undoubtedly produced before the Mongol invasion, they provide clear indications that the non-combatant status of churchmen was taken for granted. A case in point are chronicle entries describing popular enthusiasm for the military campaigns of Prince Iziaslav Mstislavich: Iziaslav requests military support from a community, and the assembly erupts, yelling, “we all, even children, will go and fight”; “everyone who can as much as hold a stick in his hands will go”; “if someone among us refuses to go, hand him over to us and we will punish him ourselves.”27 Such responses look formulaic; in all likelihood, they describe different levels of military mobilization. The Kievan assembly, which was the most frequent addressee of Iziaslav’s appeals, clearly had the capacity to decide the degree of the community participation in the prince’s military endeavors. Thus, when Iziaslav called on the Kievans to fight against Yury Dolgorukii, they responded, “Make peace with him, Prince: we are not going with you.” Iziaslav then asked the assembly to support him with a show of force: “Just accompany me [to the talks with Yury]; it is appropriate for me to make peace with him from the position of power.” The Kievans agreed and raised their militia on the explicit condition that they would not fight, just show up in numbers.28 That references to the “Kievans” in this context signify not just some random citizens, but an organized community militia, is evident from the report of another failed attempt by Iziaslav to rally the assembly, to which the Kievans responded, “Forgive us, Prince, but we cannot raise a hand against [Yury].”29 Iziaslav then called for volunteers and “gathered many soldiers.” “Not raising a hand against” Yury apparently meant that the assembly refused to raise militia, not that Kievans could not fight against Yury if they chose to do so. All this evidence suggests that procedures for mobilizing a militia differed, depending on the occasion. “All, even children” may then signify total mobilization, as opposed to levying a certain number of males from each household, when the families could choose who these males would be. “Children” in this case would refer to teenagers who just reached the age of military obligation. In the cases when not every single eligible male had to join a campaign, older family members would go, leaving their boys at home. By the same token, a reference to those “who can carry a stick” implies that only men who owned 27 Ipatevskaia letopis, PSRL 2:344, 348. 28 Ibid., 378. 29 Ibid., 344.

Interaction between Religion and Warfare in Pre-Mongol Rus

11

weapons and had some military training would be drafted on less urgent occasions; when the Kievans express their readiness to punish shirkers, the assumption is that this was normally done by the prince’s officials. These formulaic expressions for the highest level of the community’s military activity provide a context for the statement made by the Novgorod assembly in response to Iziaslav’s appeal for help against the same Yury Dolgorukii. Unlike the Kievans, the Novgorodians were keen to fight: “We will happily go with you … Every single soul will go, even a deacon who is already tonsured, but not yet ordained. Those who are ordained will pray to God.”30 Presumably, deacons about to be ordained would normally be exempt from military duty and allowed to proceed with their ordination; however, in this case, there could be no exemptions. This is an emphatic way to describe “all” who can possibly be combatants, implying that ordained clerics did not fight even in the most urgent circumstances. The Novgorodians expected them to pray instead, presumably for victory, although this is not stated explicitly. If “for victory,” was, indeed, assumed, this would be one of the two cases of clerics praying for victory reported in pre-Mongol sources. The other one is found in the Novgorodian First Chronicle entry for 1170, which states that the troops besieging Novgorod were defeated “by the power of the Cross and by the Holy Theotokos, and by the prayers of the pious Bishop Elias.”31 For the entire pre-Mongol period, this is the only case when bishop is represented as praying for a military victory.32 Rusian chroniclers, like other medieval authors, do habitually attribute military success to prayers, but these are not prayers of the clergy. Most commonly, victories are won “by the power of the Venerable Cross” and by the prayers of the Holy Theotokos; power and prayers of other saints are also invoked, such as Holy Sophia in Novgorodian sources.33 Chroniclers also often use expressions, 30 Ibid., 370. 31 Novgorodskaia pervaia letopis, 33. 32 Another possible case may be found in the Primary Chronicle entry for 1096, where the account of a victorious campaign by Mstislav Vladimirovich is concluded: “He went [back] to Novgorod, his city, by the prayers (molitvami) of reverend Bishop Nicetas”: Ipatevskaia letopis, PSRL 2:240; Povest’ vremennykh let, 1892. It is unclear what exactly Nicetas prayed for—victory, Mstislav’s safe return to Novgorod, or both. 33 For the power of the Cross, see Letopis po Lavrentevskomu spisku, PSRL 1:172, 316, 324, 360–63, 376, 444, 448; Ipatevskaia letopis, PSRL 2:161–62, 244, 290, 323, 327, 347–48, 362, 376, 390 438, 461, 539, 563, 570, 693; Novgorodskaia pervaia letopis, 33, 284. For prayers and assistance of the Theotokos, see Letopis po Lavrentevskomu spisku, PSRL 1:354, 357, 363, 373, 376, 386, 390, 395, 448; Ipatevskaia letopis, PSRL 2:335, 362, 532, 538, 539, 555–59, 563, 570, 597, 607–8, 631; Novgorodskaia pervaia letopis, 33, 77. For Holy Sophia, see Novgorodskaia pervaia letopis, 77, 78, 256, 284, 294, 296; for Archangels Michael and

12

Mikhailova

such as, “God helped him, and also his father’s prayer,” “by God’s help and by his grandfather’s prayer,” “by God’s protection (zastupleniem) and by his parents’ prayer,” “God helped, and the prayers of his father, grandfather, and great-grandfather,” where “he” is the prince leading the troops.34 Both living and dead progenitors of a prince are represented as praying for his victory and/or deliverance from the imminent threat of death on the battlefield. Thus, the prayer of Andrei Bogoliubsky’s parents helped him in 1152, when his father Yury Dolgorukii was still alive.35 Yury’s prayer was equally effective after his death, when it helped Andrei’s younger brother.36 When Andrei sent his own son Mstislav to take Kiev in 1169, the expedition succeeded thanks to help from “God, and the Holy Theotokos, and otnia i dednia molitva.”37 This oft-used expression—otnia i dednia molitva—literally translates “fatherly and grandfatherly prayer.” East Slavonic is notorious for its ambiguous syntax, and it may be possible that the single “prayer” here stands for plural “prayers.” The phrase then would mean that the father who was alive prayed for victory, as did Mstislav’s dead grandfather(s). Another possible translation for otnia i dednia molitva is “his ancestors’ prayer.” The possessive form otnia (“father’s”) is used with “prayer” only when combined with dednia (“grandfather’s” or “grandfathers’”). When the father is represented as praying alone, or together with relatives other than grandfather, the form is ottsa ego, “of his father.” An interesting example of such usage is found under 1223, when Prince Vasilko of Rostov was protected “by the prayer of his father Konstantin and of his uncle Yury.”38 At that time, the father was dead and the uncle alive. Whether “prayer” here stands in for “prayers,” or whether the living and the dead were imagined to be praying together, it is evident that the dead princes were believed to pray for their living relatives. This belief appears to be somewhat different from the common Christian notion of the saints in heaven interceding for those on earth. As was typical of all medieval Christendom, Rusian authors often referred to prayers of the saints, including those who were princes in their earthly life. The earliest such reference is found in the eulogy for

34 35 36 37 38

Gabriel, see Letopis po Lavrentevskomu spisku, PSRL 1:448; Ipatevskaia letopis, PSRL 2:327. For St. Boris and Gleb, see Letopis po Lavrentevskomu spisku, PSRL 1:363; Ipatevskaia letopis, PSRL 2:563, 576; Novgorodskaia pervaia letopis, 78, 296. For St. Theodore, see Letopis po Lavrentevskomu spisku, PSRL 1:325; Ipatevskaia letopis, PSRL 2:390. Letopis po Lavrentevskomu spisku, PSRL 1:324, 334, 354, 376; Ipatevskaia letopis, PSRL 2:290, 390, 438. Letopis po Lavrentevskomu spisku, PSRL 1:334. The date of Andrei’s mother’s death is unknown. Ibid., 360. Ibid., 354. Ibid., 447: “molitvoiu ottsa svoego Kostiantina i stryia svoego Georgiia.”

Interaction between Religion and Warfare in Pre-Mongol Rus

13

Olga in the Primary Chronicle: “She was the first from Rus to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, and the sons of Rus praise her as their intercessor (pechalnittsu), because she prayed for the Rus Land after her death.”39 When the Kievan chronicler addresses the murdered Prince Andrei Bogoliubsky, asking him to pray “for your kin, and for your relations, and for the Rus Land and for peace to be granted to the world,” this request is part of the narrative casting Andrei’s death as martyrdom and presenting arguments for his veneration as a saint.40 However, most dead princes represented as praying for their descendants were neither saints nor candidates for sainthood. The prayers of the nonsaintly dead are sometimes mentioned in a non-military context;41 however, the overwhelming majority is found in accounts of battles, where they help the living relatives. Unlike prayers of the saints, they never include a greater cause, such as the wellbeing of the Rus Land. Another characteristic feature of these prayers is that they are attributed exclusively to the male ancestors, in contrast with the prayers of the living relatives who can be of either gender.42 Gail Lenhoff apparently referred to this phenomenon when she noted that, in the Primary Chronicle, Yaroslav requests that his dead brothers Boris and Gleb help him against their murderer Sviatopolk at a time when their sainthood was not yet revealed. Lenhoff sees this as an indication of an early “syncretic” veneration of Boris and Gleb, resonating both with Christian and residual pagan sensibilities.43 Whatever survivals of the pre-Christian cult of the dead may have existed in early Rus, the efficacy of the non-saintly dead’s prayers has a Christian rationale in the sources: being in heaven, they can address God more directly.44 The Primary Chronicle clearly differentiates between Yaroslav’s prayer to God and his appeal to Boris and Gleb: Yaroslav stood on the place where Boris had been killed. Hands raised to heaven, he said, “The blood of my brother is crying to You, Lord. Avenge the blood of this righteous one even as you avenged Abel’s blood by inflicting moaning and trembling on Cain, and inflict likewise on [Sviatopolk].” 39 Ibid., 68; Povest’ vremennykh let, 465–66. 40 Ipatevskaia letopis, PSRL 2:585; see also Nadezhda I. Miliutenko, Sviatye kniazia-mucheniki Boris i Gleb (St. Petersburg: Izdatelstvo Olega Abyshko, 2006), 24–26. 41 Letopis po Lavrentevskomu spisku, PSRL 1:409. 42 Ibid., 483. 43 Gail Lenhoff, The Martyred Princes Boris and Gleb: A Social-Cultural Study of the Cult and the Texts, UCLA Slavic studies 19 (Columbus OH: Slavica, 1989), 35–37. 44 Compare with a passage where Gleb learns about the murder of Boris and requests that Boris prays for him, “if you received this power (derznovenie) from God”: Skazanie i strast i pokhvala sviatuiu mucheniku Borisa i Gleba, ed. Nadezhda I. Miliutenko, in Sviatye kniazia-mucheniki, 300.

14

Mikhailova

After having prayed, he said (pomolivsia i rek), “My brothers, even if you departed from this world in the body, but [still] help me with your prayer against this hostile and proud murderer.”45 This passage may be juxtaposed with the account of Prince Yaropolk’s battle against the Cumans, found in three different chronicles. It is reported under 1125, soon after the information about the death of Yaropolk’s father, Vladimir Monomakh. One version states, “Yaropolk, having invoked (prizvav) the name of God, and having mentioned (pomianuv) his own father, advanced bravely together with his men.”46 Another one, found in the Hypatian Codex, probably results from a scribal error: “Yaropolk, having invoked the name of God and his own father.”47 If the Hypatian redaction does not reflect an accidental omission of pomianuv, it means that Yaropolk is represented as invoking first God and then his own dead father before the battle. Even if the father is “mentioned” rather than “invoked,” it is worth noting that the verb pomianuti has religious connotations: its primary meaning is “to mention,” but it also signifies “praying for somebody’s dead soul to rest in peace.”48 It is likely, then, that princes’ prayers before battle were often accompanied by some form of evocation of their dead male ancestors, who were believed to respond by praying to God for their relatives. It is hard to tell if the non-princely dead were also believed to pray for their living kinsmen in distress. On the one hand, princes had a special charisma, and their position in society was divinely sanctioned, as was typical of medieval rulers. Miracle stories suggest a common belief that princes kept their privileged social position as saints in heaven. Thus, in one vision of Sts. Boris and Gleb, the retainer (otrok), who died trying to protect Boris, walks in front of them with a candle, thus continuing to serve his prince.49 This vision is part of miracle stories about the saints helping the poor, the exploited, and the wrongfully imprisoned, which apparently reflect a popular, rather than elite, sensibility.50 The Life of Alexander Nevsky, which is connected with the 45 Letopis po Lavrentevskomu spisku, PSRL 1:144. 46 Ibid., 296: “Iaropolk zhe prizvav imia Bozhie i pomianuv ottsa svoego pochte s druzhinoiu na poganyia”; Moskovskii letopisnyi svod kontsa XV veka, ed. Mikhail N. Tikhomirov, PSRL 25:29. 47 Ipatevskaia letopis, PSRL 2:290. 48 Galina A. Bogatova et al., Slovar Russkogo iazyka XI–XVII vv., vol. 17 (Moscow: Nauka, 1991), 44. 49 Skazanie chudes sviatoiu strastoterptsiu Khristovu Romana i Davyda, in Miliutenko, Sviatye kniazia-mucheniki, 322. 50 Miliutenko, Sviatye kniazia-mucheniki, 31.

Interaction between Religion and Warfare in Pre-Mongol Rus

15

elite milieu (druzhinnaia sreda), reports a vision of Sts. Boris and Gleb in a boat rowed by some mystical figures; Boris tells his younger brother, Gleb, to order the rowers to go faster.51 This “chain of command,” with Gleb passing Boris’s order to the rowers reflects the hierarchy that existed in their earthly life. Thus, a belief that the hierarchical relations between the living continued after death probably existed across the social spectrum and may have led to the notion that prayers of dead princes had a special power. Another possibility is that all the dead in heaven were believed to pray for their living family, but the chroniclers only mention prayers of the dead princes, because they concentrate on princes almost exclusively and rarely discuss non-princes as individuals. The sources that do are lives of saints and accounts of miracles; their authors were not much interested in the relations between the non-saintly dead and the living. To my knowledge, there is no mention of dead ancestors’ prayers in birchbark documents, but this may be due to their fragmentary nature and by accident of survival. We are thus left with the information that the prince who commanded the troops prayed before the battle, that it was commonly believed that his dead male ancestors in heaven prayed to God on his behalf, and the prince probably included them in his pre-battle prayer or evoked them in some way after the prayer. More detailed chronicle narratives sometimes include pre-battle prayers of not only princes, but of the soldiers as well, but they never mention clergy. This does not mean that there were no clergy with the troops going on a campaign. On the contrary, their presence is well attested. Thus, when a prince fighting far away from home sends “his priest” to negotiate with his opponent, it is clear that the priest accompanied the prince and his troops.52 Since princes often conducted talks through their men (muzhi) as well, priests must have accompanied troops not only on the off chance that they may be needed as envoys, but to provide spiritual care, which, in all likelihood, included camp church services, such as the one described in accounts of St. Boris’s martyrdom. According to the Lesson by Nestor of the Kievan Caves, Boris, returning from a military expedition, pitched a camp and spent a night in his tent. In the morning, he “bade his priest sing matins and read the holy Gospel, for it was Sunday.”53 It should be noted that Nestor emphasized the aspects of Boris’s behavior that were atypical of an ordinary, non-saintly prince, such as an unwillingness to marry. While others would marry “out of desire of the flesh,” 51 Zhitie Aleksandra Nevskogo, ed. Valentina I. Okhotnikova, BLDR 5(1997), 358–69 at 360. 52 Ipatevskaia letopis, PSRL 2:619. 53 Nestor, Chtenie o zhitii i pogublenii blazhennuiu strastoterptsiu Borisa i Gleba, ed. Nadezhda I. Miliutenko, in Sviatuye kniazia-mucheniki, 370–72.

16

Mikhailova

Boris had no such desire and only married “for the sake of the law of kings and obedience to his father.”54 Likewise, Boris acts contrary to all expectations when he refuses to fight against Sviatopolk. To explain this unusual decision, Nestor makes Boris deliver a lengthy speech filled with religious rhetoric.55 In contrast, the only explanation for singing matins in Boris’s tent is, “for it was Sunday.” In this case, Boris’s behavior is not presented as something that only a saint would do—clearly, a “normal” prince on a campaign was expected to have matins sung in his tent on Sundays. In the anonymous Tale of Boris and Gleb, Boris’s decision not to resist Sviatopolk looks even more extraordinary than in the Lesson: after he turns down his men’s proposal to fight, they leave him, apparently perceiving such pacifism as not befitting a prince. However, when it comes to the church service, the Tale, similarly to the Lesson, presents Boris’s behavior as typical: “Then evening came, and Boris ordered vespers to be sung. … Rising early, he saw that it was morning. It was Sunday, [and] he said to his priest, ‘Arise and begin matins.’”56 In this respect, Rus was no different from other medieval realms: priests accompanied princes on the march, held tent church services and, presumably, carried with them holy objects necessary for these services; princes regularly prayed in their tents.57 It is likely that these prayers, the presence of the priests, and the services they held inspired troops in the way described in several Byzantine military treatises, which stress the importance of proper Christian worship on a campaign.58 However, pre-Mongol sources do not provide any information on this aspect of Rusian military history. The only military narrative mentioning priests in a capacity other than as princely envoys is an account of the victorious anti-Cuman campaign in the entry for 1111 of the Hypatian redaction of the Primary Chronicle, which reports that Vladimir Monomakh “appointed his priests (pristavi popy svoia)” to ride in front of the troops singing hymns.59 This case is unique. Priests singing hymns in front of the troops are not mentioned in any of the other countless reports of military campaigns, even when the author stresses the religious aspect of fighting non-Christian enemies. An especially relevant example of such a 54 55 56 57

Ibid., 364. Ibid., 370. Skazanie i strast, 292, 294. Compare the evidence discussed by Kotecki (vol. 2, chap. 11), Maciejewski (vol. 2, chap. 15), and Leighton (vol. 1, chap. 3) in this collection, as well as in the final chapter by Kotecki (vol. 2, chap. 16). 58 On these treatises, see White, Military Saints 51–63. 59 Ipatevskaia letopis, PSRL 2:266.

Interaction between Religion and Warfare in Pre-Mongol Rus

17

report is found in the Hypatian entry for 1183, which has many similarities with the entry for 1111. Both narratives describe successful expeditions into the Cuman steppe undertaken by the joint forces of the leading princes; they provide a comparable degree of detail about the movements and actions of the troops, and both include extensive religious commentary. The entry for 1183 states that God’s protection (zastupleniem) saved the Rusian borderland from the raid of “Ishmaelites, godless Cumans” led by the “accursed (okaiannym)” Konchak, and describes the subsequent victorious campaign by the joint Rusian forces. God inspired (vlozhi v serdtse) the two leading princes Sviatoslav and Rurik to go against the Cumans; the Cumans fled before the wrath of God and the Holy Theotokos, while the Rusian forces received help from God. The Lord showed mercy to the Christians and exalted Sviatoslav and Rurik as a reward for their faith. The conclusion reads: God created this victory on the fifth of July, on Monday, on the day of St. John the Soldier, and Great Prince Sviatoslav Vsevolodich and Rurik Rostislavich were granted victory over the pagans by God, and they returned with great glory and honor.60 If Sviatoslav and Rurik had their priests perform some special activity before battle, it is hard to imagine that this would not have been mentioned by the author of the entry for 1183, who apparently paid great attention to the religious aspect of warfare. The most parsimonious explanation for the absence of information about priests riding with the troops and singing hymns in this and similar narratives is that they did not do so. Furthermore, the structure of the entry for 1111 indicates that its report about the priests reflects not a common practice, but Monomakh’s creative initiative for a special occasion. This entry belongs to the part of the Primary Chronicle composed under Monomakh’s sponsorship. The chronicler minimizes the role of Sviatopolk, the Kievan prince of the time, and presents Monomakh as the moral leader of the princely clan and the main driving force for the anti-Cuman military effort. Nonetheless, a close reading of the chronicle text leaves no doubt that the formal, “official” leadership belonged to Sviatopolk.61 Thus, after God inspired Monomakh to fight the Cumans, he did not set out to organize a campaign, apparently because he did not have sufficient authority over other 60 Ibid., 628, 630–34. 61 See also Simon Franklin and Jonathan Shepard, The Emergence of Rus, 750–1200 (London and New York: Longman, 1996), 275–76.

18

Mikhailova

princes. Instead, he “started talking to … Sviatopolk, urging him to go against the pagans.” The “talking” must have been done through envoys, because upon hearing it, Sviatopolk invited Monomakh to a conference, where the latter presented his arguments and convinced Sviatopolk and his men.62 In the conclusion to the narrative of the campaign, the author explains once more that it all happened because “an angel inspired (vlozhi v serdtse) Vladimir [Monomakh] to persuade (poustiti) his brethren [that is, other princes] to fight the aliens,” making it clear that Monomakh had no formal authority over other princes, only the power of persuasion. The account of the main battle mentions Monomakh’s troops and David’s troops, but does not name the commander of the Rusian army as a whole—not explicitly, at any rate. It is easy to surmise, though, that it was Sviatopolk, as was, indeed, appropriate to his position as the Kievan prince. The start of the campaign is described thus: “Sviatopolk [of Kiev] with his son, Yaroslav [of Vladimir-in-Volhynia] and Vladimir [Monomakh of Pereiaslavl] with their sons, and David [of Chernigov] with his son departed, placing their hope in God, and His Most Pure Mother, and His holy angels.” After the main battle, “Sviatopolk, Vladimir, and David praised God, who gave them such a victory.”63 Monomakh may have inspired the campaign, but the list of the participating princes always starts with Sviatopolk, indicating that he was the formal leader. Therefore, it is remarkable that it was only Monomakh’s priests who were riding with the troops and singing. Why did not Sviatopolk and David appoint their priests to do the same? “They,” that is, apparently all the princes, put their troops in battle order (polki izriadisha, plural), but it was only Monomakh who put (pristavi, singular) his priests in front of the troops. The author who stresses Monomakh’s moral and spiritual leadership would have surely mentioned that he was the first to do so, and others followed his example. Again, the most parsimonious explanation is that Monomakh and his priests improvised something very unusual, in which the other princes and their clerics did not participate. This was the day when the Rusian forces entered the Cuman territory and were approaching the town of Sharukan, the first fortified settlement they encountered on their way. There was no battle on that day: the people of Sharukan opened the gates, “bowed down to the Rusian princes and brought fish and wine to them.”64 The scholarly consensus is that the gift of fish and 62 Ipatevskaia letopis, PSRL 2:264–65. 63 Ipatevskaia letopis, PSRL 2:265–66. 64 Ibid., 266.

Interaction between Religion and Warfare in Pre-Mongol Rus

19

wine during Lent had a religious significance, and the givers must have been Christian.65 The population dominated by the Cumans was multi-ethnic and multi-religious; Christian-rite burials and other archaeological evidence from the eleventh and twelfth centuries attest to the presence of Christians in the Cuman steppe. The location of Sharukan is a matter of debate, but crosses found in a Cuman fortified settlement of the type that would have been called a “town (gorod)” in East Slavonic indicate that at least some inhabitants of these towns were Christian.66 Therefore, it is likely that Monomakh and his clerics intended to appeal to the Christian population of Sharukan. Priests singing hymns showed that the approaching forces were fellow Christians, willing to make peace with their co-religionists; soldiers in a battle formation following the priests indicated that they were ready to fight if need be. It is significant that the author of the entry for 1111 does not mention any priests or hymn-signing while describing actual battles. The account of the rest of the campaign needs to be examined in some detail here. After spending the night in Sharukan, the Rusian troops advanced further into the steppe, took the settlement called Sugrov, presumably another fortified town, and “set it on fire.” On the next day, when they saw the approaching Cuman forces, “our princes placed their hope in God and said, ‘Even if we have 65 Svetlana A. Pletneva, Polovtsy (Moscow: Nauka, 1990), 58–59. The Rusian troops approached Sharukan on 21 March, which was Tuesday of the sixth week of Lent, that is, three days before the Feast of the Annunciation and four days before the Palm Sunday. According to the present-day Orthodox rule, fish and wine are allowed on the Palm Sunday and Annunciation, but not during the rest of the week. However, the current dietary requirements are based on a monastic rule, which usually did not apply to laypersons in the early twelfth century, when the fasting practices had many local and situational variations. The common denominator was abstinence from meet, but rules about fish varied, and some rules recommended that laypersons abstained from fish during the Lent, “if they could,” indicating that this was not obligatory. See Ivan D. Mansvetov, O postakh pravoslavnoi vostochnoi tserkvi (Moscow: Tipografiia Volchaninova, 1886), 116, see also at 19, 30, 95, 125. The sixteenth-century household manual Domostroi lists fish among the products consumed during religious fasts, without making any special provisions for Lent: Domostroi, ed. Vladimir V. Kolesov and V.V. Rozhdestvenskaia (St. Petersburg: Nauka, 1994), 115–16, see also at 130. Therefore, it is most likely that the troops ate fish, but not meat, when they reached Sharukan. In the unlikely case that they fasted according to the strictest rules and abstained from fish on that day, they would still eat fish and drink wine three days later. 66 On the debate over the location of Sharukan, see Oleg Bubenok, “Sharukan, Sugrov, Balin—poselenia gorodskogo tipa na polovetsko-russkom pogranichie,” in Vostochnaia Evropa v drevnosti i srednevekovie. Rannie etapy urbanizatsii, ed. Elena Melnikova et al. (Moscow: Institut vseobshchei istorii Rossiiskoi akademii nauk, 2019), 28–32. On the archaeological evidence for the Christian presence in the steppe, see idem, Iasy i brodniki v stepiakh Vostochnoi Evropy (VI–nachalo XIII vv) (Kiev: Logos, 1997), 101–5.

20

Mikhailova

to die here, let us not waver (stanem krepko),’ and they kissed one another, raising their eyes to heaven and calling on God in the Highest.” The Cumans were defeated, but two days later they raised more troops, and the main battle of the campaign took place. Rus won a decisive victory with the help of God’s angels.67 Apparently, if priests had ridden with the troops to these victorious battles, this would have been reported by the author of the entry for 1111, who saturates his narrative with religious rhetoric. It should be noted that his style is rather repetitive: the princes “placed hope in God” when they were departing on the campaign, and they also “placed hope in God” before the first battle; the author states three times that God inspired Monomakh to fight the Cumans; the vision of the fiery pillar is mentioned three times; the explanation that angels invisibly participate in warfare on Cod’s command is repeated four times.68 These repetitions are deliberate, as indicated by the author’s cross-references. For example, he describes the appearance of a fiery pillar in detail, then prefaces the second mentioning of the same event by “as we said earlier, this portent occurred,” and then returns to it once more, starting with, “As we said before, we saw this vision,” and proceeds to describe the vision again. Evidently, the author’s goal is to drive the point home, not to display elegance of style. If priests rode with the troops more than once in the course of the 1111 campaign, he would have surely not hesitated to report all such occasions. Clearly, then, priests did not precede the troops on the battlefield in 1111; they did so only when the Rusian army was approaching Sharukan. This is not to say that their presence was intended for the Sharukan Christians exclusively and may not have had any effect on the soldiers. Arguably, priests riding in front of the troops and singing hymns on the day when the Rusian forces entered the Cuman territory and donned armor for the first time may have signified a special religious character of the campaign. André Vaillant listed the passage about Monomakh’s priests among the features “making one believe that the chronicler relating this campaign was influenced by accounts of the First Crusade.”69 Indeed, the religious aspect of the entry for 1111 has a number of idiosyncratic features setting it apart from other pre-Mongol military-religious narratives and giving it crusading overtones.70 67 Ipatevskaia letopis, PSRL 2:267–68. 68 Ibid., 266, 268; 264, 268; 260–61, 264, 268; 261–64. 69 André Vaillant, “Les citations des années 1110–1111 dans la chronique de Kiev,” Byzantinoslavica 18 (1957): 18–38 at 20: “On croirait que le chroniqueur, en relatant ce campagne, était sous l’influence des récits sur la première Croisade.” 70 For the 1111 campaign as “Monomakh’s crusade,” see, e.g., Valerii B. Perkhavko and Yury V. Sukharev, Voiteli Rusi IX–XIII vv. (Moscow: Veche, 2006), 138. Radosław Kotecki

Interaction between Religion and Warfare in Pre-Mongol Rus

21

The most significant among these features is the report of miraculous help that the Rusian troops received from God’s angels appearing on the battlefield.71 The account of this miracle apparently drew inspiration from diverse traditions. On the one hand, it is connected with the cult of St. Michael as the commander of the angelic heavenly armies, which had deep roots in both Western and Eastern Christianity and was on the rise in Rus in the early twelfth century.72 St. Michael and churches dedicated to him are mentioned in a number of East Slavonic military narratives.73 Archistrategos Michael is also famously depicted on the front-plate of the helmet attributed to Yaroslav Vsevolodovich, father of Alexander Nevsky (fig. 1.1).74 On the other hand, some aspects of the entry for 1111 have no parallels in contemporaneous Rusian sources but are very similar to miracle stories in the accounts of the First Crusade.75 The chronicler claims that the news of the victory over the Cumans reached “as far as Rome, for the glory of God,” a very unusual statement,76 and he also stresses the fact that the campaign took place during Lent, and the decisive battle occurred on Holy Monday; the progress of the troops through the steppe is juxtaposed with the progress of Lent: They departed on the second week of Lent, … and on Sunday when the Cross is kissed [i.e. Sunday of the Veneration of the Holy Cross], they reached the Psel River  … and they stayed and waited for the rest of the army there. … On Wednesday, they kissed the Cross [as part of the Orthodox church service during the third week of Lent known as also discerns pre-crusade overtones typical of the imperial holy war ideology in the account of the expedition. See Radosław Kotecki, “Pious Rulers, Ducal Clerics, and Angels of Light: ‘Imperial Holy War’ Imagery in Twelfth-Century Poland and Rus,’” in Christianity and War in Medieval East Central Europe and Scandinavia, ed. Radosław Kotecki, Carsten Selch Jensen, and Stephen Bennett (Leeds: ARC Humanities Press, 2021), 151–78. 71 Ipatevskaia letopis, PSRL 2:266. 72 Johannes Peter Rohland, Der Erzengel Michael: Arzt und Feldherr. Zwei Aspekte des vorund frühbyzantinischen Michaelskultes (Leiden: Brill, 1977), 105–44; see Kotecki, “Pious Rulers,” 151–52 for a review of literature on the cult of St. Michael and angelic interference in battles. 73 Letopis po Lavrentevskomu spisku, PSRL 1:448; Ipatevskaia letopis, PSRL 2:210, 290, 323, 327, 703. 74 For the helmet, see Musin, “Milites Christi,” 288–93. 75 For the parallels with the narratives of the First Crusade, see Yulia Mikhailova, “Reflection of the Crusading Movement in Rusian Sources: Tantalizing Hints,” in Fruits of Devotion: Essays in Honor of Predrag Matejic, ed. M.A. Johnson and Alice Isabelle Sullivan, Ohio Slavic papers 11 (Columbus OH: The Ohio State University, forthc. 2023). 76 Ipatevskaia letopis, PSRL 2:273.

22

Mikhailova

Figure 1.1 Drawing of the helmet attributed to Yaroslav (Theodore) Vsevolodovich, late twelfth/early thirteenth century, discovered in 1808 on the place of the Lipitsa battle (1216). The inscription on the rim reads: “Great Archangel Michael, help your servant Theodore.” License: Public Domain Reproduced from: w.wiki/5awh

Interaction between Religion and Warfare in Pre-Mongol Rus

23

“Cross-venerating (Krestopoklonnaia)”] and placed all their hope in the Cross, with great tears. And from there, they went and crossed many rivers during the fifth week of Lent, and they marched towards the Don on Tuesday. And they donned armor and put the troops in battle order, and marched to the town of Sharukan, and Prince Vladimir [Monomakh] appointed his priests to ride in front of his troops and to sing troparia and kontakia of the Venerable Cross and the Canon to the Holy Theotokos.77 Since Lent is, of course, a time of penance, the intertwining of military action with Lent worship in this narrative frames the 1111 campaign as a penitential activity. In the West, fighting infidels as a way of doing penance was a key aspect that differentiated crusades from “other contemporaneous forms of righteous war,” so much so that crusading warfare became “incorporated into the Church’s penitential system.”78 This was not the case in pre-Mongol Rus, where Monomakh’s and his chronicler’s experimentation with giving an anti-Cuman campaign a crusading flavor remained an isolated episode. All these considerations indicate that the information about Monomakh’s priests in the entry for 1111 reflects a special arrangement made for the Rusian troops approaching Sharukan. Whether meant as an appeal to the Sharukan Christians, or an inspiration for the troops, or, most likely, both, this arrangement was not representative of a common practice that remained unreported in all the other pre-Mongol military narratives.79 The only other case of religious hymns being sung before a battle is found in the Laurentian Chronicle entry for 1164, which describes a campaign led by Andrei Bogoliubsky of Suzdalia against the Muslim Volga Bulgars: [Andrei’s troops] were standing dismounted on the field with [an icon of] the Holy Theotokos and under the banners. Prince Andrei with Yury [of Murom], and with [Andrei’s son] Iziaslav, and with [Andrew’s brother] Yaroslav, and with all his men (druzhinoiu) came to the Holy Theotokos and to the soldiers, and they prostrated themselves in front of the Holy Theotokos and started kissing the Holy Theotokos with great joy and with 77 Ibid., 266. The river called the Don in this passage may have been the Don’s tributary Malyi Donets, which was mistaken for the Upper Don, because the geography of the steppe was not yet well known in Rus at that time. 78 Jason T. Roche, “The Appropriation and Weaponisation of the Crusades in the Modern Era,” International Journal of Military History and Historiography 41 (2021): 187–207 at 188. See also Jonathan Riley-Smith, What Were the Crusades? 4th ed. (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010), 1–5. 79 Pace Musin, “Milites Christi,” 53.

24

Mikhailova

tears, giving her praise and songs. Then they went and conquered their [Bulgar] renowned city of Briakhimov, … and this was a new miracle of the Holy Theotokos of Vladimir.80 Participation of the clergy in this pre-battle religious ceremony, although cannot be ruled out entirely, is unlikely. The clause “giving her praise and songs (khvaly i pesni vozdavaiushche ei)” refers to Andrei and those who accompanied him. If clerics were among them, it is hard to see why they were not mentioned by the chronicler, who dutifully listed Andrei’s allies and family members and did not fail to report the presence of “all his men.” Such an omission is all the more improbable given the keen interest in the clergy and in ecclesiastical affairs displayed by the author of the Laurentian entries for the 1150s–1170s. This chronicler criticizes the bishop who “robbed the priests,” presumably by increasing some kind of payments they owed, and describes in detail a controversy over fasting rules, in which the Suzdalian ecclesiastics were involved.81 His special attention to the Vladimir Cathedral of Dormition and the icon of the Theotokos kept there led scholars to believe that he was a member of the cathedral clergy.82 All these considerations indicate that it is very improbable that the author of the Laurentian entry for 1164 accidentally omitted information about clerics performing the ceremony that brought about “a new miracle of the Holy Theotokos of Vladimir.” If clerics were there, not mentioning them must have been a deliberate choice for this particular chronicler. This leaves us with two possibilities: either clerical participation in a pre-battle religious rite was so controversial that the chronicler wanted to hush it up, or Prince Andrei and his men “gave praises and songs” to the Theotokos on their own. In this connection, it is worth mentioning an episode in the Slavonic Digenes Akrites, where the warrior brothers, in the absence of any clerics, sing “angelic songs” while preparing for a fight, and then again while riding into battle. Their

80 Letopis po Lavrentevskomu spisku, PSRL 1:352–53. 81 Ibid., 349, 351–52. For an interpretation of the passage about the priests and a review of literature on this subject, see Andrey Vinogradov and Mikhail Zheltov, “Pravovye akty russkoi mitropolii pri Konstantine I (1156–1159 gg.),” in U istokov i istochnikov. Na mezhdu­ narodnykh i mezhdistsiplinarnykh putiakh, ed. Yury A. Petrov (Moscow: Institut rossiiskoi istorii Rossiiskoi akademii nauk, 2019), 35–56 at 48–51. For the fasting controversy and its reflection in the Laurentian Chronicle, see iidem, “‘Pervaia eres na Rusi’. Russkie spory 1160-kh godov ob otmene posta v prazdnichnye dni,” Drevniaia Rus 73 (2018): 118–39. 82 Boris N. Floria, “Predstavlenia ob otnosheniiakh vlasti i obshchestva v Drevnei Rusi (XII–nachalo XIII vv.),” in Vlast i obshchestvo v literaturnykh tekstakh Drevnei Rusi i drugikh slavianskikh stran (XII–XIII vv.), ed. Boris N. Floiria (Moscow: Znak, 2012), 9–95 at 11.

Interaction between Religion and Warfare in Pre-Mongol Rus

25

first song is a psalm, and the second seems to be a personal prayer.83 In the corresponding passage of the Greek Digenes, the brothers pray, but do not sing any “angelic songs.”84 The Slavonic version thus reflects a pre-battle practice of soldiers singing a psalm or other religious hymn, which may be called “angelic” as a reference to angelic forces commanded by St. Michael. It is hard to tell whether this custom was common to all the medieval Slavia Orthodoxa, or existed only in the milieu where the Slavonic Digenes was produced. What is important in the context of the present discussion is that spiritual preparation for fighting in the Slavonic version has similarities with the Laurentian entry for 1164, and that neither the Greek, nor the Slavonic version mentions any clerical involvement. Nor do absolute majority of the military narratives found in the Rusian chronicles. One reason for this absence of the clergy may be a religious diversity, which set Rus apart from Latin Europe. Thus, the majority of the victorious troops fighting the Cumans in the Kievan entry for 1172 were pagan Turkic foederati of Rus.85 The Cumans, on their part, often acted as allies of Rusian princes. According to the Primary Chronicle entry for 1099, when David Igorevich of Dorogobuzh and the Cuman leader Boniak conducted a joint military campaign against the Hungarians, Boniak retreated from the camp at midnight before the battle and started howling like a wolf. He then informed David that he heard wolves howling back at him, which meant that the battle would be 83 Devgenievo deianie, ed. Oleg V. Tvorogov, BLDR 3 (1997), 58–91 at 62, 64. The provenance of the Slavonic version of the poem is debated. East and South Slavic origins have been proposed; “dating oscillates between the XI–XII and XIV–XV centuries”: Alessandro Maria Bruni, “The Language of the Old East Slavic ‘Digenis Akritis’: A Few Preliminary Remarks,” Russica Romana 21 (2014): 9–41 at 12. The extant manuscripts are late, and their East Slavonic features have been variously interpreted as evidence of a Rusian origin, or as a result of alterations of a lost South Slavonic original by East Slavic scribes. See Robert Romanchuk, Lily Shelton, Ravital Goldgof, “The Old Slavic ‘Digenis Akritis’: Free Retelling or Rhetorical Translation?” Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo Universiteta 62 (2017): 299–308; Robert Romanchuk, “The Old Slavic ‘Digenis Akritis’: Its ‘Formulaic Style’ and Problems of Its Edition,” American Contributions to the 16th International Congress of Slavists, Belgrade, 2018, vol. 2: Literature, ed. Judith Deutsch Kornblatt (Bloomington IN: Slavica, 2018), 187–211. 84 Digenes Akrites, ed. John Mavrogordato (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1956), 10–11 (ll. 120–40). 85 Letopis po Lavrentevskomu spisku, PSRL 1:364; Ipatevskaia letopis, PSRL 2:557. On the pagan foederati of Rus princes, see Peter Golden, “The Cernii Klobouci,” Symbolae Turcologicae 6 (1996): 97–107. See also Yulia Mikhailova, “‘Christians and Pagans’ in the Chronicles of Pre-Mongolian Rus: Beyond the Dichotomy of ‘Good Us’ and ‘Bad Them,’” in Geschichte der “Slavia Asiatica.” Quellenkundliche Probleme, ed. Christian Lübke, Ilmira Miftakhova, and Wolfram von Scheliha (Leipzig: Leipziger Universitätsverlag, 2013), 22–51 at 47–48.

26

Mikhailova

victorious.86 This account of what looks like a pagan pre-battle ritual is unique, but it is reasonable to assume that non-Christian allies of Rus kept performing some religious rites before battle. While “our men” “strengthened themselves by the help of God and by the Holy Theotokos,” the Turkic soldiers probably strengthened themselves by their own religious beliefs. In this situation, it would be awkward to have a Christian religious ceremony intended for the whole army. However, not all cases of the exclusion of the clergy from military narratives can be explained by the presence of non-Christian soldiers. Chronicles produced in the northern woodlands, such as Suzdalia or Novgorod, where pagan allies were rarely present, normally do not mention any public pre-battle rituals, only personal prayers. Nor are other sources different in this respect. Saints’ lives and the Kievan Caves Patericon contain numerous accounts of praying clerics and church services, and they also mention military victories—but they do not establish a connection between the two. If anything, clerics play a more prominent role in the narratives about defeats, such as the famous story of Vladimir Monomakh’s younger brother, Rostislav. According to the Patericon, Vladimir and Rostislav were on their way to the Kievan Caves monastery “for the sake of a prayer and a blessing” before going to fight the Cumans. When they were on the Dnieper bank, Rostislav’s men insulted a monk, who admonished them, “O my children, at a time when it befits you, with a tender soul (umilenie imeti), to seek many prayers from everyone, you are doing evil things displeasing to God,” and predicted that they would soon drown. The infuriated Rostislav, who did not realize that the monk was prophesying, ordered him to be drowned and refused to go to the monastery with his brother. In the battle, they were defeated and fled, crossing a river. Vladimir survived “because of the prayers and the blessing of the holy monks,” but Rostislav and all his men drowned.87 86 Letopis po Lavrentevskomu spisku, PSRL 1:270–71; Povest’ vremennykh let, 2056–57. See also Peter Golden, “Wolves, Dogs and Qïpchaq Religion,” Acta Orientalia Hungarica 50 (1997): 87–97. 87 Kievo-Pecherskii Paterik, ed. Lev A. Dmitriev and Lidia A. Olshevskaia, BLDR 4 (1997), 296–489 at 410. See also the account of a failed campaign of Iziaslav Mstislavich against Yury Dolgorukii. Before going against Yury, Iziaslav attended a mass, “and when he was on his way from the church, Bishop Euthymius tearfully implored him, ‘Prince, make peace with [Yury], this will be good for your soul.’” Iziaslav ignored this appeal and was defeated. Ipatevskaia letopis, PSRL 2:380. No words or actions by the bishop are reported in accounts of Iziaslav’s victorious campaigns, although one such report mentions that Iziaslav went to fight, “having received (vzem) a prayer at St. Michael’s from Bishop Euthymius”: Ipatevskaia letopis, PSRL 2:323.

Interaction between Religion and Warfare in Pre-Mongol Rus

27

This story indicates that it was customary for troops to receive pre-battle prayers and blessings from churchmen, but there was no developed “liturgy of war” comparable to that of Latin Europe.88 Rostislav’s soldiers are admonished to seek “prayers from everyone,” including monks, not to attend a special pre-battle religious rite performed in the monastery. Monks’ prayers are beneficial, but they do not have power to bring victory. This attitude is very consistent across all kinds of East Slavonic sources. According to the Patericon, Prince Sviatopolk came to the Kievan Caves to “bow down before the Holy Theotokos, Theodosius’s coffin … and all the holy fathers” when he went to “a war or to a hunt”; according to the Primary Chronicle, he “was accustomed to bow down before Theodosius’s coffin and to receive the prayer of [the Kievan Caves] superior” when he “had a war or another undertaking (koli idiashe na voinu ili inamo).”89 When it comes to religious rites, war is just another undertaking. There is nothing comparable to Charlemagne’s capitularies, which prescribed, for example, that bishops and priests serve three masses, and monks and nuns recite three psalms to help ensure military victory for the Frankish forces.90 A rare example of the military motif in a Church Slavonic liturgical source is found in the Canon of the Elevation of the Cross, a translation of the eighthcentury Greek hymn that refers to the power of the Cross to defeat the barbarians and to give victory to “our faithful prince.”91 Troparia and kontakia of the Venerable Cross that Monomakh’s priests sang during the 1111 campaign were probably part of this hymn. However, there is no evidence that the Canon was customarily sung before battles and not just on the feast day of the Elevation of the Cross. The predominant early Slavic Orthodox liturgical practices during a wartime are reflected in the type of book known as paremeinik. This is a lectionary containing pericopes (paremia) from the Scripture, mostly the Old Testament, in the order they are read during the Divine Liturgy. The readings 88 Michael McCormick, “The Liturgy of War in the Early Middle Ages: Crisis, Litanies, and the Carolingian Monarchy,” Viator 15 (1984): 1–24; idem, Eternal Victory: Triumphal Rulership in Late Antiquity, Byzantium and the Early Medieval West (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), 342–61; idem, “The Liturgy of War from Antiquity to the Crusades,” in The Sword of the Lord: Military Chaplains from the First to the Twenty-First Century, ed. Doris L. Bergen (Notre Dame IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2004), 45–67; David S. Bachrach, Religion and the Conduct of War, c.300–1215 (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2003), 32–43; see also idem, “Military Chaplains and the Religion of War in Ottonian Germany, 919–1024,” RSS 39.1 (2011): 13–31. 89 Kievo-Pecherskii Paterik, 434; Letopis po Lavrentevskomu spisku, PSRL 1:282; Povest’ vremennykh let, 2143. 90 Bachrach, Religion, 33. 91 Sluzhba Vozdvizheniu Kresta Kosmy Maiumskogo, ed. Tatyana V. Tkacheva, BLDR 2 (1999), 480–91 at 480, 482, 490.

28

Mikhailova

organized according to feast days comprise the body of the paremeinik, which may be followed by a supplementary part, containing texts to be read on special occasions. Unfortunately, the last folia of the paremeinik books often go missing, as is typical of heavily used manuscripts. Since the paremeinik started gradually falling out of use in the twelfth–thirteenth centuries, with its readings being incorporated into other liturgical books, there was, apparently, no perceived need to copy worn-out manuscripts and to restore lost leaves.92 It appears, however, that the special occasions listed in the extant supplementary sections of the paremeinik manuscripts are representative of the general practice. Alexander Mikhailov, who studied all the manuscripts available to him in the early 1900s, observed, “In all the copies where supplementary readings are present, there are only found paremia for the consecration of a church, for an enemy attack, and a drought.”93 This uniformity suggests that those were the most common occasions included in the paremeinik books. The earliest surviving paremeinik, a twelfth-century South Slavic manuscript, prescribes readings from Jeremiah 1–2 on the occasion of “a drought and a military invasion (o vedria i o nahozhdenii voistse).”94 Invasion paired with drought and the choice of readings present war as an evil that people suffer as God’s punishment for their sins. The fifteenth-century East Slavic manuscript, representing a later stage of the paremeinik tradition, has a separate rubric for a drought and groups war together with another natural disaster in the section “for an earthquake and an attack of the pagans (ot trakha i napadenia ot poganyikh).”95

92 M.A. Johnson, “Reconstructing Missing Folia in Selected Medieval Slavic Parimejniks: Grigorovičev, Hilandar Slavic No 313, Q.π.l.51, and Sviato-Troickaia Sergieva Lavra No 4,” Scripta & e-Scripta 7 (2009): 107–19 at 107–9. 93 Alexandr V. Mikhailov, “Grecheskie i drevne-slavianskie paremeiniki,” Russkii filologicheskii vestnik 58 (1907): 265–306 at 294. 94 Rossiiskaia Gosudarstvennaia Biblioteka F.87 no. 2, Paremeinik, Sviato-Troitskaia Sergieva Lavra, fol. 103v (101v), bit.ly/3c4w7h3. There are two numbers on this page, 103 and 101. See also the printed edition, Grigorovichev Paremejnik 1. Tekst so kritichki aparat, ed. Zdenka Ribarova and Zoe Hauptova (Skopje: MANU, 1998). 95 Sinai.Slavic.11 (St. Catherine’s Monastery, Mount Sinai), fol. 158, available online: Library of Congress, Collection of Manuscripts in St. Catherine’s Monastery, Mount Sinai, bit.ly/ 3K5xJUf and bit.ly/3cb8jYR. In the Library of Congress catalog, the manuscript is erroneously described as “Parakletike [Oktoikh],” which is a liturgical book containing a collection of hymns. Since this manuscript is a collection of Old Testament readings rather than hymns, it is a paremeinik. The reading for a drought is found on fol. 159v, bit.ly/3dCWkUn.

Interaction between Religion and Warfare in Pre-Mongol Rus

29

This section contains excerpts from Kings, Baruch, and Isaiah rather than Jeremiah, but the main message is similar to the one of the twelfth-century manuscript.96 The readings include Hezekiah’s prayer for help against the Assyrian invasion, but the king prays alone in the temple, not in front of his army, and the resulting delivery occurs not through victory in battle, but because the Assyrian soldiers are massacred by God’s angel (2 Kings 18–19; 4 Kingdoms 18–19 in the Orthodox Bible).97 The rest of the readings in this section are devoted to God’s punishments of sins summarized by the line, “Children, suffer patiently the wrath that is come upon you from God” (Baruch 4:24–25).98 War is once again framed as a disaster rather than a glorious endeavor. Slavic Orthodox churchmen inherited this tradition from Byzantium. Thus, in the earliest Byzantine ordinal, the Typikon of the Great Church, the texts to be read “for a barbarian invasion (έλεύσεως βαρβάρων) and a drought” are listed right after those “for an earthquake.”99 No readings are prescribed for a war other than a defensive one, caused by a foreign invasion of the country. This liturgical practice reflects the Byzantine military ideology, going back to the late Roman Empire and centered on “the integrity of Roman territory and the protection of its inhabitants against foreign attack (indifferently whether the enemy was Christian or infidel).”100 The late East Slavonic paremeinik quoted above departs somewhat from this Byzantine model in describing the invaders in religious terms as “pagans.” Further research is needed to determine whether this use of “pagans” constitutes an isolated occurrence or indicates a change in the religious interpretation of war. The Byzantines usually described their enemies as “barbarians.”101 Following the Roman tradition, this word signified relations to the empire, not religion: “In Byzantine perception, Christian enemies that took the offensive

96 97 98 99 100 101

The header of the section erroneously describes the readings as “from Jeremiah,” which is apparently a scribal mistake. Sinai.Slavic.11, fols. 158r, 158v, bit.ly/3AxUc9i. Sinai.Slavic.11, fol. 159r, bit.ly/3cbQGIm. Le Typicon de la Grande Église, vol. 2, ed. Juan Mateos, Orientalia Christiana analecta 166 (Rome: Pontificium Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, 1963), 190–92. Ioannis Stouraitis, “Jihād and Crusade: Byzantine Positions Towards the Notions of ‛Holy War,’” Byzantina Σymmeikta 21 (2011): 11–63 at 19. Jean-Claude Cheynet, “La guerre sainte à Byzance au Moyen Âge. Un malentendu,” in Regards croisés sur la guerre sainte. Guerre, religion et idéologie dans l’espace méditerranéen latin (XIe–XIIIe siècle), ed. Daniel Baloup and Philippe Josserand (Toulouse: Presses Universitaires du Midi, 2006), 13–32 at 17; Stouraitis, “Jihād and Crusade,” 43.

30

Mikhailova

against the Romans were as barbarian … as any infidel enemy of the Empire.”102 In practice, the Byzantine war ethic could sanctify wars of conquest, because its proclaimed goal was “restoration of justice and imperial rule over territories which the Byzantines claimed as legitimately parts of their empire,” and these may be interpreted as all former Roman territories.103 However, regardless of whether the Byzantines fought a defensive or a de-facto aggressive war, the justification for it was territorial, not religious. This aspect of the Byzantine ideology may have contributed to the development of what Monica White deemed the cult of military saints, that is, saints who were soldiers in their earthly lives and gradually came to be viewed as heavenly patrons of imperial armies, providing comfort and inspiration to soldiers in the absence of official sanctification of war by the church. White’s exhaustive analysis of the sources from the middle Byzantine period (843–1204) showed that they “emphasize the sacred aspects of warfare and the similarities between soldiers and martyrs,” they “hint” or “assume” that the enemies of the empire are the enemies of God, and the empire’s soldiers are fighters for Christ “by extension.”104 However, they never express such ideas explicitly. This constituted a fundamental difference that set the Byzantine militaryreligious ideology apart from both Western Crusades and Muslim jihad, which proclaimed fallen soldiers as martyrs, promised them remission of all sins, and guaranteed entrance to paradise. Most scholars agree that the Byzantine ideology was centered not on a holy war, but on a just war. A minority opinion, most prominently represented by Athina Kolia-Demitzaki, is that the Byzantines had their own concept of a holy war. The controversy, however, appears to be purely terminological. Both KoliaDemitzaki and her opponents agree that the Byzantine soldiers were not promised plenary remission of sins if they died fighting infidels. Such a promise, connected with the view of fallen soldiers as martyrs, is generally considered the defining characteristic of a holy war, but Kolia-Demitzaki finds this approach too narrow. For her, a holy war took place whenever the imperative need of addressing non-Christian enemies  … led rulers to promote war in which the religious diversity of the opponents was emphasized. … Sometimes an assurance was given—by the State and only 102 Yannis Stouraitis, “State War Ethic and Popular Views on Warfare,” in A Companion to the Byzantine Culture of War, ca.300–1204, ed. Yannis Stouraitis, Brill’s companions to the Byzantine world 3 (Leiden and Boston MA: Brill, 2018), 59–91 at 82. 103 Savvas Kyriakidis, Warfare in Late Byzantium, 1204–1453, History of warfare 67 (Leiden and Boston MA: Brill, 2011), 21; Stouraitis, “State War Ethic,” 70–72. 104 White, Military Saints, 33.

Interaction between Religion and Warfare in Pre-Mongol Rus

31

in a few specified cases by representatives of the Church—that those who participated in such a war would gain the salvation of their souls.105 Remarkably, the cases when the Byzantine church provided such an assurance belong to the period after 1204 and may be explained by the Western influence and by the presence of the Catholic mercenaries among the troops of the Byzantine government in exile.106 The position of the church in the middle Byzantine period is best expressed by Patriarch Polyeuctus, who famously rejected the request of Emperor Nicephorus II that all fallen soldiers should be proclaimed martyrs. The closest pre-1204 Byzantine parallel to the Western concept of holy war is found in the account of Emperor Heraclius (r. 610 to 641) encouraging his soldiers to fight the Persians and saying, “May we win the crown of the martyrs.”107 This idea was never supported by religious authorities, presumably because of vehement Byzantine opposition to the Muslim concept of jihad that emerged later in the same century.108 Parallels or associations between soldiers and martyrs were used by some emperors, most notably by Constantine VII, but, again, this was a rhetoric of rulers seeking to inspire their troops, not an official proclamation by church authorities. To quote White’s summary of the subject: The religious trappings of Byzantine military operations did not mean that the conflicts themselves were officially regarded as holy, and the refusal of the Orthodox Church to declare or sanction war is universally acknowledged. In general, the Byzantines regarded war at best as a necessary evil.109 This Byzantine position, reflected in the liturgical books discussed above, best explains the marginal role of the clergy in East Slavonic military narratives. Most such narratives are indeed part of chronicles that generally pay more attention to princes than to churchmen; however, they do consistently 105 Athina Kolia-Dermitzaki, “‘Holy War’ In Byzantium Twenty Years Later: A Question of Term Definition and Interpretation,” in Byzantine War Ideology between Roman Imperial Concept and Christian Religion, ed. Johannes Koder and Ioannis Stouraitis, Veröffentlichungen zur Byzanzforschung 30 (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2012), 121–32 at 122. 106 Cheynet, “La guerre sainte,” 30–31. 107 Theophanes, Theophanis Chronographia, ed. Carl de Boor (Leipzig: Teubner, 1883–1885; repr. Hildesheim: Olms, 1963), 310–11, as quoted in White, Military Saints, 49. 108 Cheynet, “La guerre sainte,” 31. 109 White, Military Saints, 62.

32

Mikhailova

mention clerics when it comes to peace-making. We do not see church hierarchs encouraging soldiers or praying for victory (with the single exception mentioned above), but they appear in the military narratives when they urge princes to make peace, or not to start a war, or when they facilitate and seal peace treaties.110 In short, Nicephorus II, metropolitan of Kiev, accurately described the role of the church in Rus when he said, addressing princes, “God appointed us to restrain you from shedding blood.”111 In pre-Mongol sources, clerics, indeed, are consistently represented as inspiring peace-making, not fighting. Reports of battles and victories often include religious commentaries, but they are either provided by the author or attributed to princes. Chroniclers, as a rule, were, of course, churchmen, and thus their authorial commentaries do constitute clerical voices; however, these commentaries exist only on parchment and are never represented as something that was delivered orally, as part of a public ceremony. In the chronicles, it is princes who address soldiers with pre- and post-battle speeches steeped in religious rhetoric, such as the one reported in the conclusion to an account of a victory over the Cumans: Vladimir [Monomakh] said, “This is the day that the Lord created for us, let us be glad and rejoice on this day, for the Lord delivered us from our enemies, and subjugated our enemies, and destroyed the heads of the serpent and gave nourishment to these people of Rus.”112 Even in the Hypatian entry for 1111, which displays unusual attention to the clergy and religious rites performed during a military campaign, the priests sing hymns on Monomakh’s orders but do not deliver any exhortations of their own. Nor are clergy mentioned after the battle, when princes “Sviatopolk, and Vladimir, and David praised God who gave them such a victory over the pagans.”113 In accordance with the Byzantine model, “the religious diversity of the opponents was emphasized” by secular rulers, not clerics. In the Life of Alexander Nevsky, it is also the prince who inspires the troops by speeches and public prayers, but, astonishingly for a narrative about an 110 Letopis po Lavrentevskomu spisku, PSRL 1:297, 307, 322, 404, 425, 455–56; Ipatevskaia letopis, PSRL 2:291, 299, 302–3, 324, 366, 380, 689, 697. See also Piotr S. Stefanovich, “Krestotselovanie i otnoshenie k nemu tserkvi v Drevnei Rusi,” in Srednevekovaia Rus, vol. 5, ed. Anton A. Gorskii et al. (Moscow: Indrik, 2004), 86–113. 111 Ipatevskaia letopis, PSRL 2:684. 112 Letopis po Lavrentevskomu spisku, PSRL 1:279. 113 Ibid., 268.

Interaction between Religion and Warfare in Pre-Mongol Rus

33

Orthodox leader fighting Catholic crusaders, Alexander does not mention the religious denomination of the opponents at all. The author of the Life calls the Germans “godless” once, but the rest of the text concentrates on a territorial, not religious justification of Alexander’s wars. This aspect is especially pronounced in the account of Alexander’s prayer about the Swedish invasion, apparently inspired by the prayer of the biblical king Hezekiah, but with important modifications. In the biblical story, Hezekiah received a message from the Assyrian king, Sennacherib, demanding surrender, and “went up into the house of the Lord” where he prayed for deliverance. In response, God sent angels who killed Sennacherib’s soldiers and made him retreat from Israel (2 Kings:  18–19). In the Life, Alexander likewise receives a message from the Swedish leader, Birger, goes to the Cathedral of Holy Sophia, and prays. Like Hezekiah, he addresses God, “Thou hast made heaven and earth.” One redaction reports a “marvelous miracle, like in the ancient days of King Hezekiah”: Alexander’s troops were helped by God’s angels, who killed many Swedish soldiers.114 However, the Life also displays significant departures from the biblical narrative. Sennacherib’s message urges Hezekiah not to trust in God, but there is nothing concerning religion in Birger’s message to Alexander: “If you are able to resist me, know that I am already here, conquering your land.” Like Hezekiah, Alexander begins his prayer by praising God’s might; however, Hezekiah then concentrates on impiety of Sennacherib, who dared “to reproach the living God.” In contrast, Alexander concentrates on Birger’s unjust invasion of a territory that does not belong to the Swedes, addressing God, “You appointed boundaries to the peoples, and commanded them to live without transgressing into someone else’s part.” Remarkably, Birger is described as being not “of the Roman faith,” but “of the Roman part (chasti Rimskyia).” Addressing his soldiers after the prayer, Alexander tells them that God supports “not strength, but justice,” and then advances against the Swedes with a small number of troops.115 The substitution of the territorial motif for the religious one in the ruler’s prayer for God’s help against invaders resonates with the Byzantine ideology of the just war, where “the Roman heritage was stronger than Old Testament models.”116 The Life mentions neither clerical prayers, nor church services, and contains only two passages with references to churchmen. One reads, “After [Alexander] finished his prayer, he stood up and bowed to the archbishop. At 114 Zhitie Aleksandra Nevskogo, 360, 362. 115 Ibid., 360. 116 Philippe Buc, “Religions and Warfare: Prolegomena to a Comparative Study,” QMAN 21 (2016): 9–26 at 11.

34

Mikhailova

that time, Spiridon was the archbishop, and he blessed Alexander and otpusti him.”117 Meanings of otpustiti include “to give leave, to let go,” “to send,” and “to give absolution.” This polysemy makes it impossible to determine what, if any, rite Spiridon performed in addition to blessing. In any case, there is no indication that the archbishop acted differently from any other occasion when a prince prayed in his cathedral, whether before a battle or not.118 The other passage mentioning clerics describes Alexander’s entrance to Pskov after the victorious Battle on the Ice at Lake Peipus: Monastery superiors, and priests, and all the people met him with crosses in front of the city, giving praise to God and glory to Lord Prince Alexander, singing, “You, Lord, helped the meek David to defeat foreigners (inoplemmeniky), and helped our prince Alexander with the weapon of the Cross (oruzhiem krestnym), and liberated the city of Pskov from aliens (ot inoiazychnik) through Alexander’s hand.”119 It should be noted that it was customary for clerics and “all the people” to greet a prince entering a city in this way, not necessarily after a battle.120 The reference to the “weapon of the Cross” comes closest to the motif of holy war, but, remarkably, the enemies are, again, described as foreigners, not as members of a “wrong” church. Clerics are represented as part of the crowd singing and carrying crosses, presumably leading the laity in these activities, but they do not perform any specific religious rituals. Most importantly, no churchmen are mentioned in the account of the preparations for the Battle on the Ice. It is, again, the prince praying publicly and making a speech to the soldiers. In short, Rusian ecclesiastics followed the Byzantine practice characterized by “the refusal of the Orthodox Church to declare or sanction war.” In the entire pre-Mongol period, there is only one reported case when a church hierarch encouraged princes to launch a military

117 Zhitie Aleksandra Nevskogo, 360. 118 Compare with Bishop Cyril blessing Alexander before his trip to Batu, ibid., 366. 119 Ibid., 364. 120 See Yulia Mikhailova, Property, Power, and Authority in Rus and Latin Europe, ca.1000–1236 (Leeds: ARC Humanities Press, 2018), 28; compare with Jacek Banaszkiewicz, “Bolesław i Peredsława. Uwagi o uroczystości stanowienia władcy w związku z wejściem Chrobrego do Kijowa,” KH 97.3–4 (1990): 3–35; Jonathan Shepard, “‘Adventus’, Arrivistes and Rites of Rulership in Byzantium and France in the Tenth and Eleventh Century,” in Court Ceremonies and Rituals of Power in Byzantium and the Medieval Mediterranean, ed. Alexander Beihammer, Stavroula Constantinou, and Maria Parani, MMED 98 (Leiden and Boston MA: Brill, 2013), 337–71.

Interaction between Religion and Warfare in Pre-Mongol Rus

35

campaign. This was the same Nicephorus II who, on a different occasion, referred to the mission of the church to restrain princes from bloodshed.121 According to the Kievan Chronicle entry for 1189, Nichephorus addressed Sviatoslav and Rurik, who ruled in Kiev jointly, and urged them to fight the Hungarian occupation of Galich (Pol. Halicz, Ukr. Halych). This was the center of an important principality in south-western Rus, which in the late 1180s was claimed by several rival princes. The Hungarians arrived as allies of one claimant but ended up giving the throne of Galich to the son of the Hungarian king Béla III, at which point, “the metropolitan said to Sviatoslav and Rurik, ‘Behold, foreigners (inoplemennitsi) took over your votchina; therefore, it is befitting for you to show labor.’”122 Several aspects of this short statement need to be discussed at length. One of them is an odd use of the word votchina. Its basic meaning is “patrimony,” something that belonged to one’s father or grandfather. Galich was neither Rurik’s nor Sviatoslav’s votchina in this sense, and none of them ever presented any hereditary claims to it. Characterizing Hungarians in Galich as inoplemennitsi is less anomalous—they were, indeed, foreigners, but it is still very remarkable in the context of this particular narrative. Rurik and Sviatoslav answered the Metropolitan’s call and went to fight the Hungarians but turned back before reaching Galich. The account of these events is concluded with the information about Hungarians desecrating Galich churches.123 Nonetheless, the head of the church in Rus is represented as calling on the ruling princes not to defend the Orthodox faith from Catholics, but to defend their votchina from foreigners. Like most metropolitans of Kiev, Nichephorus was Greek. His unusual appeal to fight for Galich is best explained by the unusual, for Rus, situation that fitted the Byzantine ideology of just war centered on the notion of territorial integrity. It was not unusual for Hungarian and other foreign armies to fight on the territory of Nichephorus’s metropolinate, but previously they had come as allies of Rus princes in internecine wars. They supported one prince against another but did not seek to establish their own rule. Nor did the most troublesome foreign adversaries, the Cumans, who plundered, and then retreated with their booty back to the steppe. The steppe nomads who did remain in Rus recognized the authority of its rulers known as the Rurikids (although not all historians accept this term).124 121 See n. 111 above. 122 Ipatevskaia letopis, PSRL 2:663. 123 Ibid., 665. 124 See Donald Ostrowski, “Systems of Succession in Rus’ and Steppe Societies,” Ruthenica 11 (2012): 29–58 at 30–34.

36

Mikhailova

In scholarly literature, “Rus” is used to signify the polity ruled by the Rurikids. This territory comprised the ecclesiastical district called the Metropolitanate of Rhosia in Greek, but its designation in East Slavonic sources is ambiguous. Originally, “Rus” referred to a region on the Middle Dnieper, much like Francia signified the territory around Paris. This narrow meaning gradually expanded; a careful analysis of the context is necessary to understand what a medieval author means by “Rus” in any given case. This terminological ambiguity reflects the nature of Rus as an emerging polity. Needless to say, it was very different from late Rome, where “warfare was justified in the name of the—now divinely-ordained—pax romana,” with the goal of a just war being “the perpetuation of imperial rule over a—by premodern standards—fairly stable territory.”125 The Rurikids, in contrast, ruled over a territory that was not stable even by the standards of medieval Europe: on several sides, it was adjacent to tribal societies with no central political authority, where the borders were especially fluid. Applying the Byzantine war ethic rooted in pax Romana to Rus was thus no easy task, and yet Nicephorus tackled this challenge when he urged Rurik and Sviatoslav to expel foreigners and to restore the lost part of what he described with the best East Slavonic word for a territory over which a prince had legitimate authority. Apparently, he used votchina to render the notion of patria and to convey the idea of defending the territorial integrity of the fatherland in the language understandable to the Kievan princes. In this respect, Nicephorus built on precedents of creative adaptions of the Byzantine military ideology to the Rus conditions. An especially interesting example is the cult of Boris and Gleb, modeled on the Byzantine military saints. Among “subtle but important” departures from the Byzantine model was the geographic specificity of Boris and Gleb’s powers.126 In one miracle story, they leave for the “Greek Land” for three days, and complete the miracle upon returning to the “Rus Land.”127 In another hagiographic text, they are favorably compared to St. Demetrius, who protects only his native town, while Boris and Gleb “offer care and prayers not for one town and not for two, and not for a district, but for the whole land of Rus.”128 The hagiographer asks them to remember their earthly fatherland (otechestvo), which may be one of the earliest uses of this word. Such texts undoubtedly helped forge the notion of

125 Stouraitis, “State War Ethic,” 59, 62. 126 White, Military Saints, 3, 140. 127 Skazanie chudes, 334, see also at 330. 128 Skazanie i strast, 310.

Interaction between Religion and Warfare in Pre-Mongol Rus

37

the fatherland to be defended in a just war, translating the central tenet of the Byzantine military ideology to a Rus context. Another aspect of this ideology may be seen in a liturgical reading on Boris and Gleb that begins with quotations from the Proverbs, where the verse “A lover of sin rejoices in strife (svarom)” (Proverbs 17:19) is altered. Svarom (plural accusative of svar) signifies a verbal, rather than physical, quarrel. In the reading on Boris and Gleb, however, a lover of sin rejoices “in war and bloodshed” instead of svarom.129 Paradoxically, the reading then proceeds to describe the bloodshed occurring during the war that Yaroslav waged against Sviatopolk to avenge the murder of Boris and Gleb. This is the only war mentioned in the reading, and it is presented in a highly positive way, as fighting for a noble and just cause.130 In this context, the alteration of the biblical verse to condemn “war and bloodshed” instead of “quarrel” appears incomprehensible, unless this is a reference to a widespread Byzantine motif that first emerged as a reaction to the rise of Islam. Byzantine authors, opposing the Roman-Christian war ethic to jihad, argued that Muslims impiously claimed that God rejoiced in war.131 Nicetas Choniates later applied this motif to crusaders, when he expressed his hopes that they would be punished by Christ “who does not rejoice in bloodshed.”132 “Rejoicing in war and bloodshed” thus was associated with a condemnation of holy war and with the view of warfare as a necessary evil. This phrase may have been included in the liturgical reading in order to reinforce the idea that Boris and Gleb helped in just wars, although more research is needed to explain this alteration of Proverbs 17:19 with certainty. Remarkably, the “rejoicing in bloodshed” motif found its way into the political discourse and was used to facilitate peace-making between princes, as reflected in chronicles.133 If this motif goes back to the Byzantine antijihad literature, this would be another example of the Byzantine influence not limited to the religious life of Rus, but impacting the behavior of its secular elite. When it comes to the princes, however, this was not the only influence. The secular elite received inspiration not just from the “Greeks,” but also from the “Varangians,” that is from Latin Europe.

129 Mesiatsa iulia 24, Sviatuiu mucheniku Borisa i Gleba, ot Bytia na vecherne chtenia 3, in Miliutenko, Sviatye kniazia-mucheniki, 346. 130 Ibid., 350–52. 131 Stouraitis, “Jihad,” 15–16. 132 Nicetas Choniates, Annals, in O City of Byzantium: Annals of Niketas Choniatēs, ed. and trans. Harry J. Magoulias (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1984), 362. 133 Ipatevskaia letopis, PSRL 2:301–2, 487; Letopis po Lavrentevskomu spisku, PSRL 1:402.

38

Mikhailova

One of the most prominent examples is the holy war rhetoric that is sometimes present in the most common military rite reported in East Slavonic sources—public prayers and speeches delivered by princes and explaining the religious significance of their wars. In Rus, they could go well beyond stressing the “wrong” faith of the opponents, as was typical of the Byzantine military leaders. According to the eulogy for Mstislav Rostislavich in the Kievan Chronicle entry for 1179/80, this prince was accustomed to tell his soldiers, “If we now die for the Christians, we will be cleansed of all our sins and God will count us among martyrs.”134 These are the key elements of holy war typical of the Western crusading discourse: soldiers fighting infidels are martyrs, they receive a plenary remission of sins, and their salvation is ensured by virtue of their death in battle. As discussed above, the notion of fallen soldiers as martyrs was rejected by the Byzantine church, and Emperor Heraclius’s explicit reference to “the crown of the martyrs” received by those who die fighting the Persians remains an isolated incident. In contrast, the Kievan chronicler presents invocations of the holy war ideology as habitual: Mstislav Rostislavich spoke in this way “whenever he saw Christians captured by pagans.”135 Another prince issued a call for an anti-Cuman campaign, and received an enthusiastic response from “all his brethren,” that is, lesser princes subordinate to him: “May God grant us that we die for the Christians and for the Rus Land and are counted among the martyrs.”136 Coming from “all” the princes addressed by the call, this response suggests a widespread influence of the crusading ideology on the secular elite of Rus in the later twelfth century. This ideology did not supplant the Byzantine ethic of a just war, but the two often intertwined. Thus, the same eulogist, who enthusiastically quoted Mstislav’s holy war rhetoric, claimed that all the wars waged by this prince were defensive. Unembellished chronicle reports show that Mstislav raided the territories adjacent to the Novgorod Land, but the eulogist claims that the pagan tribal population of these territories presented a threat to Novgorod, and the raids were conducted in self-defense.137 In other words, the opponents’ paganism was not in itself a sufficient ideological justification for war, only real or pretended territorial defense was. 134 Ipatevskaia letopis, PSRL 2:611. 135 Ibid. 136 Ibid., 538. This information is found in the early part of entry for 1169/1170, which reports the events taking place in 1167/1168. See Berezhkov, Khronologia, 180. 137 Ipatevskaia letopis, PSRL 2:610: “stvorshemu tolikoiu svobodu Novgorodtsem on poganykh, iakozhe i ded tvoi … svobodil ny biashe ot vsekh obid.”

Interaction between Religion and Warfare in Pre-Mongol Rus

…

39

Religious rites of war performed by the secular elites in Rus and the in the West had significant similarities. Before the battle, Rusian princes publicly prayed and inspired their troops by the speeches that were often saturated with religious rhetoric; they had their priests accompany them on campaigns and hold church services in tents. However, there is no evidence that these services included any special prayers or rituals intended to bring victory, in contrast with wartime “Masses against the Pagans” or a “Mass for the King on the Day of Battle” found in Carolingian sacramentaries.138 In the pre-Mongol Rus sources, there is nothing comparable to the Polish accounts of the Płock bishops playing an important role in the defense of their diocese against pagan raiders. The Novgorod bishop’s prayer for victory remains an isolated episode, and so does Metropolitan Nicephorus’s call on princes to fight for Galich. The former may have resulted from Novgorod’s extensive contacts with Latin Europe, and the latter represented a unique situation when a foreign dynasty sought to take over a territory traditionally ruled by the Rurikids and belonging to the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the metropolitan of Kiev. On this occasion, the metropolitan invoked the Byzantine ideology of just war in defense of the territorial integrity of the fatherland, which went back to the late Roman Empire. The present paper sought to show that this ideology profoundly affected Rus. In practice, it could sanction an aggressive war, casting it as retaliation for past invasions or a preemptive strike against an outside threat. What is important in the context of religious military rites is that the church justified war in territorial, not religious, terms. Religious justification was provided by secular rulers. The notion of holy war, borrowed from the Latin West, was present in the mentality of the secular elite, but never promulgated by the church. The claim by the current Moscow Patriarch that death in battle “absolves all sins” is unprecedented and was swiftly condemned by leaders of other Orthodox churches as heretical.139 The arguments of some scholars that Rus clerics participated in warfare just like their Western counterparts140 are not supported by sources pre-dating the 138 McCormick, Eternal Victory, 351–52. 139 Kirill Aleksandrov, “Neozhidannoe bogoslovie ot Patriarcha Kirilla,” Soiuz Pravoslavnykh Zhurnalistov, https://spzh.news/ru/zashhita-very/90916-neozhidannoje-bogoslovije-ot -patriarkha-kirilla. 140 See n. 12 and n. 22 above.

40

Mikhailova

Mongol invasion. Priests accompanied troops on campaigns and held church services in camps, but they remain largely invisible in the military narratives up until the start of peace talks. By the same token, bishops and monks are not represented as inspiring troops before battle, but instead appear prominently in accounts of peace-making, where they urge princes to stop internecine wars, facilitate peace treaties, and seal them by performing the rite of kissing the Cross. Sources do mention princes attending a church service, making a pilgrimage to a monastery, or receiving a blessing from a churchman before going on a campaign; however, princes did so on other occasions as well, and there is no indication of any special rites or ceremonies that clerics would perform for a prince and his troops before, during, or after battle. In short, Rus had nothing comparable to the Western “liturgy of war.” Liturgical readings prescribed for the time of war were grouped together with those for earthquake and drought, presenting war as God’s punishment for sins. The only liturgical source containing the motif of military victory is the Canon to the Venerable Cross sung on the Feast of the Elevation of the Cross. However, no source mentions clerics singing this hymn before battle, with the possible exception of the Hypatian entry for 1111, where “troparia and kontakia of the Venerable Cross” sung by Monomakh’s priests were, in all likelihood, parts of the Canon. Other military narratives that report religious hymns and psalms sung before battle do not mention clergy. Some chronicle passages, considered in conjunction with the Slavonic Digenes Akrites suggest a custom of soldiers singing psalms while preparing for battle, but it is unclear how widespread this practice was and what, if any, part the clergy played in these rituals. The best attested religious ritual of war in Rus is a public prayer by the prince leading the troops, sometimes followed by an invocation of the prince’s dead male ancestors presumed to be in heaven and believed to pray for their living kin. Prayers, as well as speeches that princes made before and after battles, normally provided justifications for the war being waged, which could include both secular and religious rationales and often drew inspiration from multiple traditions. Common themes found in these prayers and speeches were a “wrong” religion of the enemy, fighting infidels as a path to salvation, and a need for territorial defense. Prayers and speeches during internecine wars addressed legitimacy of the claims to specific princely seats and territories, and often invoked the idea of war as God’s judgment, expressing a belief that God would grant victory to the side fighting for the just cause. Another common theme was the power of the Cross to bring victory and to avenge perjury of those who broke their oaths sealed by the ritual of Cross-kissing.

Interaction between Religion and Warfare in Pre-Mongol Rus

41

In addition to God’s judgment and the power of the Cross, victories were commonly attributed to the prayers of the Theotokos and the saints, especially Sts. Boris and Gleb and St. Michael, as well as to the prayers of the living and dead family of the prince. Warfare was thus closely connected with religion, as was typical of medieval Europe; what separated Rus from Latin Europe was the subdued role of the local church in military matters. The assistance of God, the Theotokos, and the saints in battle was obtained through prayers and acts of piety performed by the prince, his men, and “all the people,” both lay and clerics, as when the monk in the Kievan Caves Patericon story admonished solders to “seek prayers from all.” There is no indication that acts of piety performed before battle differed in nature from those performed before other important undertakings. The paucity of information concerning the religious rites of war and the virtual absence of the clergy from East Slavonic military narratives produced before, or soon after, the Mongol invasion reflect the Byzantine view of war as a secular matter, a necessary evil permissible for the goal of territorial defense, but not for religious reasons. This view, going back to the late Roman Empire, apparently underwent a change in the wake of the Fourth Crusade, when the Byzantines may have become more open to the holy war ideology brought from the West. The ideas of holy war had some influence in pre-Mongol Rus; they apparently gained more strength later, which may have led to the modification of existing, or the emergence of new, religious rites. More research is needed to reconstruct the evolution of the military ideology and religious rites of war among the Orthodox East Slavs over time. This paper has sought to show that, in the pre-Mongol period, the church in Rus, in accordance with the Byzantine tradition, did not declare or sanction war and did not perform any specific rites to bring victory.

Acknowledgments

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Oxford Early Slavonic Seminar. I thank the seminar organizer Alexandra Vukovich and the seminar audience for their helpful feedback. I received invaluable help with this article from Mary Allen “Pasha” Johnson and Adelina Angusheva-Tihanov, and I am very grateful for the opportunities provided by the Hilandar Research Library, The Ohio State University. I also thank Monica White, Andrei Vinogradov, and Annemarie Pearson de Andrés for their helpful consultations and the amazing editors Radosław Kotecki, Jacek Maciejewski, and Gregory Leighton for their help and patience. Needless to say, all errors are mine.

42

Mikhailova

Bibliography

Manuscript Sources



Primary Sources

RGB F.87 no. 2, Paremeinik, Sviato-Troitskaia Sergieva Lavra, available online at https://lib-fond.ru/lib-rgb/87/f-87-2/#image-104. Sinai.Slavic.11 (St. Catherine’s Monastery, Mount Sinai), available online at Library of Congress, Collection of Manuscripts in St. Catherine’s Monastery, Mount Sinai, https://www.loc.gov/item/00279388021-ms/#h.

Devgenievo deianie. Edited by Oleg V. Tvorogov, 58–91. BLDR 3. St. Petersburg: Nauka, 2004. Digenes Akrites. Edited by John Mavrogordato. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1956. Domostroi. Edited by Vladimir V. Kolesov and V.V. Rozhdestvenskaia. St. Petersburg: Nauka, 1994. Grigorovichev Paremejnik 1: Tekst so kritichki aparat. Edited by Zdenka Ribarova and Zoe Hauptova. Skopje: MANU, 1998. Ipatevskaia letopis. Edited by Aleksei A. Shakhmatov, PSRL 2. St. Petersburg: Imperatorskaia Arkheograficheskaia Komissia, 1908. Kievo-Pecherskii Paterik. Edited by Lev A. Dmitriev and Lidia A. Olshevskaia, 296–489. BLDR 4. St. Petersburg: Nauka, 1997. Letopis po Lavrentevskomu spisku. Edited by Evfimy E. Karskii. PSRL 1. 2nd ed. Leningrad: Izdatelstvo AN SSSR, 1926–1927. Le Typicon de la Grande Église. Edited by Juan Mateos. Orientalia Christiana analecta 166. Rome: Pontificium Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, 1963. Mesiatsa iulia 24, Sviatuiu mucheniku Borisa i Gleba, ot Bytia na vecherne chtenia 3. Edited by Nadezhda I. Miliutenko, 346–53. In Sviatye kniazia-mucheniki Boris i Gleb. St. Petersburg: Izdatelstvo Olega Abyshko, 2006. Moskovskii letopisnyi svod kontsa XV veka, ed. Mikhail N. Tikhomirov. PSRL 25. Moscow and Leningrad: Izdatelstvo Akademii Nauk SSSR, 1949. Nestor. Chtenie o zhitii i pogublenii blazhennuiu strastoterptsiu Borisa i Gleba. Edited by Nadezhda I. Miliutenko. In Sviatye kniazia-mucheniki Boris i Gleb. 357–99. St. Petersburg: Izdatelstvo Olega Abyshko, 2006. Nicetas Choniates. Annals. Edited by Harry J. Magoulias. In O City of Byzantium: Annals of Niketas Choniatēs. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1984. Novgorodskaia pervaia letopis starshego i mladshego izvodov. Edited by Arseny N. Nasonov. Moscow and Leningrad: Izdatelstvo Akademii Nauk SSSR, 1950. Otvety Konstantinopolskogo patriarshego sobora na voprosy saraiskogo episkopa Theognosta. Edited by Aleksei S. Pavlov, 129–39. Pamiatniki drevnerusskago kanoni­ cheskago prava: Chast 1 (Pamiatniki XI–XV v). Russkaia istoricheskaia biblioteka 6. St. Petersburg: Imperatorskaia Arkheograficheskaia Kommissia, 1908.

Interaction between Religion and Warfare in Pre-Mongol Rus

43

Povest o bitve na Lipitse. Edited by Iakov S. Lurie, 74–87. BLDR 5. St. Petersburg: Nauka, 1997. Pouchenia i molitva Feodosia Pecherskogo. Edited by Natalia V. Ponyrko, 434–55. BLDR 1. St. Petersburg: Nauka, 1997. Skazanie i strast i pokhvala sviatuiu mucheniku Borisa i Gleba. Edited by Nadezhda I. Miliutenko, 387–18. In Sviatye kniazia-mucheniki Boris i Gleb. St. Petersburg: Izda­ telstvo Olega Abyshko, 2006. Skazanie chudes sviatoiu strastoterptsiu Khristovu Romana i Davyda. Edited by Nadezhda I. Miliutenko, 319–46. In Sviatye kniazia-mucheniki Boris i Gleb. St. Peters­ burg: Izdatelstvo Olega Abyshko, 2006. Skazanie o Mamaevom poboishche. Edited by Vladimir P. Budaragin and Lev V. Dmitriev, 138–89. BLDR 6. St. Petersburg: Nauka, 1999. Sluzhba Vozdvizheniu Kresta Kosmy Maiumskogo. Edited by Tatyana V. Tkacheva, 480–91. BLDR 2. St. Petersburg: Nauka, 1999. The “Povest’ vremennykh let”: An Interlinear Collation and Paradosis. Edited by Donald Ostrowski with David Birnbaum and Horace G. Lunt. Harvard library of early Ukrainian literature. Text series 10. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 2003. Voproshenie kniazia Iziaslava syna Iaroslavlia vnuka Volodimeria igumena Fedoseia pecherskago manastyria o latynstei vere. Edited by Aleksei V. Barmin, 507–17. Polemika i skhizma: Istoria greko-latinskikh sporov XI–XII vv. Moscow: Institut filosofii, teologii i istorii sv. Fomy, 2006. Zhitie Aleksandra Nevskogo. Edited by Valentina I. Okhotnikova, 358–69. BLDR 5. St. Petersburg: Nauka, 1997.



Secondary Sources

Aleksandrov, Kirill. “Neozhidannoe bogoslovie ot Patriarcha Kirilla,” Soiuz Pravoslavnykh Zhurnalistov. https://spzh.news/ru/zashhita-very/90916-neozhidannoje -bogoslovije-ot-patriarkha-kirilla, 29 September 2022. Bachrach, David S. “Military Chaplains and the Religion of War in Ottonian Germany, 919–1024.” RSS 39.1 (2011): 13–31. Bachrach, David S. Religion and the Conduct of War, c.300–1215. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2003. Banaszkiewicz, Jacek. “Bolesław i Peredsława. Uwagi o uroczystości stanowienia władcy w związku z wejściem Chrobrego do Kijowa.” KH 97.3–4 (1990): 3–35. Beck, Hans-Georg. Nomos, Kanon und Staatsraison in Byzanz. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1981. Berezhkov, Nikolai G. Khronologiia russkogo letopisaniia. Moscow: Izdatelstvo Akademii Nauk SSSR, 1963. Bogatova, Galina A., et al., ed. Slovar Russkogo iazyka XI–XVII vv. Moscow: Nauka, 1975–2015.

44

Mikhailova

Bruni, Alessandro Maria. “The Language of the Old East Slavic ‘Digenis Akritis’: A Few Preliminary Remarks.” Russica Romana 21 (2014): 9–41. Bubenok, Oleg. Iasy i brodniki v stepiakh Vostochnoi Evropy (VI–nachalo XIII vv). Kiev: Logos, 1997. Bubenok, Oleg. “Sharukan, Sugrov, Balin—poselenia gorodskogo tipa na polovetskorusskom pogranichie.” In Vostochnaia Evropa v drevnosti i srednevekovie. Rannie etapy urbanizatsii. Edited by Elena Melnikova et al., 28–32. Moscow: Institut vseobshchei istorii Rossiiskoi akademii nauk, 2019. Buc, Philippe. “Religions and Warfare: Prolegomena to a Comparative Study.” QMAN 21 (2016): 9–26. Cheynet, Jean-Claude. “La guerre sainte à Byzance au Moyen Âge. Un malentendu.” In Regards croisés sur la guerre sainte. Guerre, religion et idéologie dans l’espace méditerranéen latin (XIe–XIIIe siècle). Edited by Daniel Baloup and Philippe Josserand, 13–32. Toulouse: Presses universitaires du Midi, 2006. Duggan, Lawrence. Armsbearing and the Clergy in the History and Canon Law of Western Christianity. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2013. Duggan, Lawrence. “The Evolution of Latin Canon Law on the Clergy and Armsbearing to the Thirteenth Century.” In Between Sword and Prayer: Warfare and Medieval Clergy in Cultural Perspective. Edited by Radosław Kotecki, Jacek Maciejewski, and John S. Ott, 497–516. EMC 3. Leiden and Boston MA: Brill, 2018. Floria, Boris N. “Predstavlenia ob otnosheniiakh vlasti i obshchestva v Drevnei Rusi (XII–nachalo XIII vv.).” In Vlast i obshchestvo v literaturnykh tekstakh Drevnei Rusi i drugikh slavianskikh stran (XII–XIII vv.). Edited by Boris N. Floiria, 9–95. Moscow: Znak: 2012. Golden, Peter. “The Cernii Klobouci.” Symbolae Turcologicae 6 (1996): 97–107. Grachev, Artem Iu. “K voprosu o roli i meste dukhovenstva v voennoi organizatsii Drevnei Rusi.” Pskovskii voenno-istoricheskii vestnik 1 (2015): 43–47. Johnson, M.A. “Reconstructing Missing Folia in Selected Medieval Slavic Parimejniks: Grigorovičev, Hilandar Slavic No 313, Q.π.l.51, and Sviato-Troickaia Sergieva Lavra No 4.” Scripta & e-Scripta 7 (2009): 107–19. Kolbaba, Tia M. The Byzantine Lists: Errors of the Latins. Urbana IL: University of Illinois Press, 2000. Kolia-Dermitzaki, Athina. “‘Holy War’ in Byzantium Twenty Years Later: A Question of Term Definition and Interpretation.” In Byzantine War Ideology between Roman Imperial Concept and Christian Religion. Edited by Johannes Koder and Ioannis Stouraitis, 121–32. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2012. Kotecki, Radosław. “Lions and Lambs, Wolves and Pastors of the Flock: Portraying Military Activity of Bishops in Twelfth-Century Poland.” In Between Sword and

Interaction between Religion and Warfare in Pre-Mongol Rus

45

Prayer: Warfare and Medieval Clergy in Cultural Perspective. Edited by Radosław Kotecki, Jacek Maciejewski, and John S. Ott, 303–40. EMC 3. Leiden and Boston MA: Brill, 2018. Kotecki, Radosław. “Pious Rulers, Ducal Clerics, and Angels of Light: ‘Imperial Holy War’ Imagery in Twelfth-Century Poland and Rus’.” In Christianity and War in Medieval East Central Europe and Scandinavia. Edited by Radosław Kotecki, Carsten Selch Jensen, and Stephen Bennett, 151–78. Leeds: ARC Humanities Press, 2021. Kotecki, Radosław, Jacek Maciejewski, John S. Ott, ed. Between Sword and Prayer: Warfare and Medieval Clergy in Cultural Perspective. EMC 3. Leiden and Boston MA: Brill, 2018. Kuznetsov, Andrei A. “Bitva na Lipitse 1216 g. Istochnikovedenie i istoria sobytia.” Novgorodskii istoricheskii sbornik 26 (2016): 115–38. Kyriakidis, Savvas. Warfare in Late Byzantium, 1204–1453. History of warfare 67. Leiden and Boston MA: Brill, 2011. Lenhoff, Gail. The Martyred Princes Boris and Gleb: A Social-Cultural Study of the Cult and the Texts, UCLA Slavic Studies 19. Columbus OH: Slavica, 1989. Lind, John. “Russian Echoes of the Crusading Movement 1147–1478—Impulses and Responses.” Middelalderforum 3 (2003): 209–35. Lurie, Iakov S. “Povest o bitve na Lipitse 1216 g. v letopisanii XIV–XVI vv.” Trudy otdela drevnerusskoi literatury 34 (1979): 96–138. Maciejewski, Jacek “Memory of the ‘Warrior Bishops’ of Płock in the Writings of Jan Długosz.” In Christianity and War in Medieval East Central Europe and Scandinavia. Edited by Radosław Kotecki, Carsten Selch Jensen, and Stephen Bennett, 75–95. Leeds: ARC Humanities Press, 2021. Mansvetov, Ivan D. O postakh pravoslavnoi vostochnoi tserkvi. Moscow: Tipografiia Volchaninova, 1886. McCormick, Michael. Eternal Victory: Triumphal Rulership in Late Antiquity, Byzantium and the Early Medieval West. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986. McCormick, Michael. “The Liturgy of War in the Early Middle Ages: Crisis, Litanies, and the Carolingian Monarchy.” Viator 15 (1984): 1–24. Mikhailov, Alexandr V. “Grecheskie i drevne-slavianskie paremeiniki.” Russkii filologicheskii vestnik 58 (1907): 265–306. Mikhailova, Yulia. “‘Christians and Pagans’ in the Chronicles of Pre-Mongolian Rus: Beyond the Dichotomy of ‘Good Us’ and ‘Bad Them.’” In Geschichte der “Slavia Asiatica.” Quellenkundliche Probleme. Edited by Christian Lübke, Ilmira Miftakhova, and Wolfram von Scheliha, 22–51. Leipzig: Leipziger Universitätsverlag, 2013. Mikhailova, Yulia. Property, Power, and Authority in Rus and Latin Europe, ca.1000–1236. Leeds: ARC Humanities Press, 2018. Mikhailova, Yulia. “Reflection of the Crusading Movement in Rusian Sources: Tantalizing Hints.” In Fruits of Devotion: Essays in Honor of Predrag Matejic. Edited by

46

Mikhailova

M.A. Johnson and Alice Isabelle Sullivan, Ohio Slavic papers 11. Columbus OH: The Ohio State University, forthc. 2023. Miliutenko, Nadezhda I. Sviatye kniazia-mucheniki Boris i Gleb. St. Petersburg: Izda­ telstvo Olega Abyshko, 2006. Musin, Aleksandr E. “Milites Christi” Drevnei Rusi: Voinskaia kultura russkogo srednevekovia v kontekste religioznogo mentaliteta. St. Petersburg: Peterburgskoe Vostokovedenie, 2005. Ostrowski, Donald. “Systems of Succession in Rus’ and Steppe Societies.” Ruthenica 11 (2012): 29–58. Penskoi, Vitaly V. “O datirovke ‘Skazania o Mamaevom poboishche.’” Nauka. Iskusstvo. Kultura 7 (2015): 22–28. Paul, Michael C. “Secular Power and the Archbishops of Novgorod before the Muscovite Conquest.” Kritika 8 (2007): 231–70. Pletneva, Svetlana A. Polovtsy. Moscow: Nauka, 1990. Perkhavko, Valerii B., and Yury V. Sukharev, Voiteli Rusi IX–XIII vv. Moscow: Veche, 2006. Raffensperger, Christian. Reimagining Europe: Kievan Rus’ in the Medieval World. Harvard historical studies 177. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 2012. Reuter, Timothy, ed. Warriors and Churchmen in the High Middle Ages: Essays Presented to Karl Leyser. London: Hambledon Press, 1992. Riley-Smith, Jonathan. What Were the Crusades? 4th ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010. Roche, Jason T. “The Appropriation and Weaponisation of the Crusades in the Modern Era.” International Journal of Military History and Historiography 41 (2021): 187–207. Rohland, Johannes Peter. Der Erzengel Michael: Arzt und Feldherr. Zwei Aspekte des vorund frühbyzantinischen Michaelskultes. Leiden: Brill, 1977. Romanchuk, Robert. “The Old Slavic ‘Digenis Akritis’: Its ‘Formulaic Style’ and Problems of Its Edition.” In American Contributions to the 16th International Congress of Slavists, Belgrade, 2018. Vol. 2: Literature. Edited by Judith Deutsch Kornblatt, 187–211. Bloomington IN: Slavica, 2018. Romanchuk, Robert, Lily Shelton, and Ravital Goldgof. “The Old Slavic ‘Digenis Akritis’: Free Retelling or Rhetorical Translation?” Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo Universiteta 62 (1917): 299–308. Salmina, Maria A. “K voprosu o vremeni i obstoiatelstvakh sozdania ‘Skazania o Mamaevom poboishche.’” Trudy otdela drevnerusskoi literatury 56 (2004): 251–64. Shepard, Jonathan. “‘Adventus’, Arrivistes and Rites of Rulership in Byzantium and France in the Tenth and Eleventh Century.” In Court Ceremonies and Rituals of Power in Byzantium and the Medieval Mediterranean. Edited by Alexander Beihammer, Stavroula Constantinou, and Maria Parani, 337–71. MMED 98. Leiden and Boston MA: Brill, 2013.

Interaction between Religion and Warfare in Pre-Mongol Rus

47

Shepard, Jonathan. “Crowns from the Basileus, Crowns from Heaven.” In Byzantium, New Peoples, New Powers: The Byzantino-Slav Contact Zone. Edited by Miliana Kaimakamova, Maciej Salamon, Małgorzata Smorąg Różycka, 139–60. Byzantina et Slavica Cracoviensia 5. Cracow: Historia Iagellonica, 2007. Stefanovich, Piotr S. “Krestotselovanie i otnoshenie k nemu tserkvi v Drevnei Rusi.” In Srednevekovaia Rus. Vol. 5. Edited by Anton A. Gorskii et al., 86–113. Moscow: Indrik, 2004. Stouraitis, Ioannis. “Jihād and Crusade: Byzantine Positions Towards the Notions of ‘Holy War.’” Byzantina Σymmeikta 21 (2011): 11–63. Stouraitis, Ioannis. “State War Ethic and Popular Views on Warfare.” In A Companion to the Byzantine Culture of War, ca.300–1204. Edited by Yannis Stouraitis, 59–91. Brill’s companions to the Byzantine world 3. Leiden and Boston MA: Brill, 2018. Vaillant, André. “Les citations des années 1110–1111 dans la chronique de Kiev.” Byzantinoslavica 18 (1957): 18–38. Vinogradov, Andrey, and Mikhail Zheltov. “‘Pervaia eres na Rusi’: Russkie spory 1160-kh godov ob otmene posta v prazdnichnye dni.” Drevniaia Rus 73 (2018): 118–39. Vinogradov, Andrey, and Mikhail Zheltov. “Pravovye akty russkoi mitropolii pri Konstantine I (1156–1159 gg.).” In U istokov i istochnikov. Na mezhdunarodnykh i mezhdistsiplinarnykh putiakh. Edited by Yury A. Petrov, 35–56. Moscow: Institut rossiiskoi istorii Rossiiskoi akademii nauk, 2019. White, Monica. Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013.

Chapter 2

Devotion in the Face of Military Struggles in the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle (Chronicle of the Romanovichi) Dariusz Dąbrowski This article is meant as a critical reading of the source text without a predetermined and broad reference to an analogy and comparative material. This provides an opportunity to become acquainted with the ways of understanding and describing “reality” by individual authors working for the needs of specific circles at a particular historical time. In other words, this paper is the result of basic research done on the thus far unexplored topic, that is the issue of religious-martial ritual as described in a distinct Old Rusian source, in our case the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle (the Chronicle of the Romanovichi),1 rather than the overview of examples coming from different historical, social, and cultural contexts.2 In this way, we want to avoid comparing “realities” that 1 The chapter uses the edition based on the Khlebnikov/Ostrogski codex of the GalicianVolhynian Chronicle: Chronica Galiciano-Voliniana (Chronica Romanoviciana), ed. Dariusz Dąbrowski and Adrian Jusupović, MPH NS 16 (Cracow and Warsaw: Polska Akademia Umiejętności and Instytut Historii Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 2017) (hereinafter CGV). The edition, reissued several times, has been in common use for quite a while: Ipatevskaia letopis, ed. Aleksei A. Shakhmatov, PSRL, 46 vols. (St. Petersburg and Moscow, 1841–2004), here vol. 2 (St. Petersburg: Imperatorskaia Arkheograficheskaia Komissia, 1908). All quotations are based on the Polish edition of the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle by Dąbrowski and Jusupović (Kronika halicko-wołyńska (Kronika Romanowiczów), trans. Dariusz Dąbrowski and Adrian Jusupović (Cracow: Avalon, 2017), and have been translated into English by Władysław Bibrowski. Perfecky’s translation of the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle is hereby abandoned due to its deviations from the original text. The Hypatian Codex II: The Galician-Volynian Chronicle, trans. George A. Perfecky, Harvard series in Ukrainian studies 16.2 (Munich: Fink, 1973). 2 It is difficult not to call this unfortunately often used way of practicing historical research, anything other than “writing to prove a pre-assumed idea.” An example of such little contributing works is the article: Irina Moroz, “The Idea of the Holy War in the Orthodox World (On Russian Chronicles from the Twelfth-Sixteenth Century),” QMAN 4 (1999): 45–67. However, a different methodology is represented by Alexandr E. Musin’s book (Milites Christi Drevnej Rusi. Voinskaja kultura russkogo srednevekovja v kontekste religioznogo mentaliteta (St. Petersburg: Izdatelstvo “Peterburgskoe Vostokovedenie,” 2005), much more valuable than Moroz’s article. Nevertheless, the author, adopting a very broad horizon of considerations, did not avoid illustrating the described phenomena with decontextualized examples. Thus, it does

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004686373_003

Devotion in the Face of Military Struggles

49

are difficult to compare without prior detailed and long-term studies, that is, for example, those settled in times of Vsevolod the Big Nest and of Ivan III or the twelfth-century Chernihiv and the fifteenth-century Veliky Novgorod. The alternative approach induces the risk of disregarding possible textual borrowings from various earlier works in the studied accounts as a result of the lack of detailed examination and in-depth understanding of the sources (its provenance, structure, genre, etc.). In any case, the solution adopted in this chapter will involve an analysis of the topic of religious-martial rituals as presented in Galician-Volhynian Chronicle rather than constructing a metanarrative based on analogies. Therefore, we propose in this chapter to follow a typical path successfully used in historical studies—from the details to the general. In this way, an important goal will be achieved, namely the specificity of the phenomenon of wartime rituals for a given environment, time and place will be determined. Only based on such monographic studies of various historical documents, or rather a set of studies, one can think about further research steps and make safe generalizations. Subsequently, this procedure should cover following sources, for example, Povest’ vremennykh let, the Kievian Chronicle, individual Novgorod annals, or those created in Vladimir-Suzdalian Rus. This will provide a holistic vision of the issue that will allow a further narrowed examination of particular types of rituals/practices, their evolution in longer duration or their disappearance, local differences and similarities, etc. Let us begin with presenting our source of interest. The preserved form of the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle was created at the end of the thirteenth century in southwest Rus (the Principality of Galicia-Volhynia, ruled by the Romanovichi dynasty), and its focus covers most of that century in its chronological scope. It is divided into two main parts with the first one composed in the circle of Daniel Romanovich between 1246 and 1258/1259.3 This part covering period from 1205 to 1245, as my research shows, was created on the basis of various sources, including eyewitness accounts. In turn, the second part of the chronicle, probably completed in the form known today at the end of the thirteenth century, consists of accounts written down in the courts of Vasilko Romanovich, Vladimir Vasilkovich, and Mstislav (II) Danilovich.4 The not provide a comprehensive and “objectivized” image of the described phenomena in a specific time and of their possible evolution. 3 For an analysis of the composition of Galician-Volhynian Chronicle, see Dariusz Dąbrowski, Kronika halicko-wołyńska (Kronika Romanowiczów) o sztuce, vol. 1: Architektura (Cracow: Avalon, 2023). 4 The literature on the genesis, composition, authorship and structure of the GalicianVolhynian Chronicle is extensive. The most important works include Мikhailo Hrushevskyj,

50

Dąbrowski

Galician-Volhynian Chronicle is, in any case, an exceptional source when it comes to medieval Rusian historiography. As a whole, it is the only one that meets the required features of a dynastic chronicle as described by Elisabeth van Houts.5 At the same time, however, it is a very complex source in terms of its genre, described aptly by Jitka Komendová as “a genre hybrid.”6 It includes, inter alia, knightly stories, eyewitness accounts of events, separate stories (e.g., the Story of the Battle of Kalka or Story of Batu Khan’s invasion), and details taken from Rusian historiographic sources (certainly from the Povest’ vremennykh let, Kievan Chronicle, or Chronicle of Mstislav Mstislavovich). In addition, one can encounter religious contents (eg. Sermon on Law and Grace by Hilarion), obituaries, fragments of epics, quotations from the Bible, as well as borrowings from ancient and Byzantine sources, including the Jewish War by Josephus Flavius, the chronicles of George Hamartolos and John Malalas, and the Alexander-Romance.7 This is by no means an exhaustive list of all the incorporated works. One other important methodological remark should be made at this point. The Galician-Volhynian Chronicle has been preserved in seven manuscripts, of which this chapter will focus on two. The oldest—the Hypatian Codex—was written in the early 1420s. The second in terms of seniority, the Khlebnikov/ Ostrogski manuscript, which is very important due to its form being closer to that of the protograph, without the annual chronological grid inserted in the Hypatian Codex, was created at the end of the 1550s/early 1560s, with a minor addition from around 1637.8 One important research task involved checking whether the accounts about these two codices did not differ from each other

5 6 7 8

Istorija ukraїnskoї literatury, vol. 3 (Kiev: Lybid, 1993), 132–85; Vladimir T. Pashuto, Ocherki po istorii Galicko-Volynskoj Rusi (Moscow: Izdatelstvo Akademii Nauk SSSR, 1950), 17–133; Anton I. Hensorskyj, Halycko-Volynskyj litopys (proces skladannja, redakciji i rekaktory) (Kiev: Vydavnyctvo Akademiji Nauk Ukrajinskoji RFR, 1958); idem, Halycko-Volynskyj litopys (leksychni, frazeolohichni ta stylistychni osoblyvosti) (Kiev: Vydavnyctvo Akademiji Nauk Ukra­ jinskoji RFR, 1961); Mykola F. Kotljar, Halycko-Volynskyj litopys XIII st. (Kiev: Instytut istoriji Ukrajiny, 1993); Adrian Jusupović, Kronika halicko-wołyńska (Kronika Romanowiczów) w latopisarskiej kolekcji historycznej (Cracow and Warsaw: Avalon, 2019); Halycko-Volynskyj litopys. Tekstolohija, ed. Oleksyi P. Tolochko (Kiev: Akademperiodyka, 2020), 9–53. Elisabeth M.C. van Houts, Local and Regional Chronicles, Typologie des sources du Moyen Âge occidental 74 (Turnhout: Brepols 1995). Jitka Komendová, “Žanr Galicko-Volynskoj letopisi v tipologičeskoj perspektive,” in Pismennost Galicko-Volinskogo knjažestva. Istoriko-filologičeskie issledovanija, ed. Jitka Komendová et al. (Olomouc: Univerzita Palackého v Olomouci, 2016), 79–88 at 85–88. The issue of fragments from external sources in the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle has been covered extensively in the literature. This is discussed in detail in CGV, lxxxiii–xcii. Ibid., xiv–xxx.

Devotion in the Face of Military Struggles

51

in terms of the specific aspects we focused on in our research, as explained below. By tracing this issue, it was possible to make sure that we are dealing with the primary versions of the records, probably as they were in the original manuscript which has not survived. Thus, the chapter aims to present information on the religious ritual used during the war contained in the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle. It will also provide a typology of this information, and discuss the circumstances of its appearance in the source text. As a result, it is hoped that the degree of credibility, and finally, their specific (formal) features, both in individual contexts (details) and in general, can be better understood. Warfare was one of the most important subjects of interest to the authors of all parts of the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle. Over 60 military campaigns appear throughout the text at varying lengths and with a variety of details, primarily based on eyewitness testimonies. While many accounts, even detailed ones, do not contain any mention of a religious ritual, this should not come as a surprise in the case of short, summary reports, containing only information about the participants of the events, locations, and results of the actions taken.9 What is surprising, however, is the evident scarcity of religion-infused content in the more extensive narratives. An excellent example showing this situation is the story about the expedition of Rusian and Polish troops to Opava (Germ. Troppau, Pol. Opawa) in the summer of 1253. It is 110 lines long (plus 4 additional words) and mentions up to 40 individuals.10 The week-long campaign was described day after day with a lot of details albeit not relevant for our purposes. The main part of the study will begin by presenting comments on the information provided by the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle about religious rituals used during military operations by “foreigners,” namely the Lithuanians, Poles, Cumans, and Hungarians. In other words, the first part of this chapter will consider the nations with which the Romanovichi maintained the closest relations, both of a peaceful and military nature. The source notes six such pieces of information. One more section can be added, containing similar accounts, though largely related to diplomatic activities and closely related to the Hungarian-Bohemian war for the legacy of the Babenbergs. It took place 9

10

The information about the Lithuanian expedition to Polish lands in 1220 may serve as an example of such a perfunctory account. It goes as follows: “The Lachs [i.e. Poles] went on with their machinations. And [Daniel] brought Lithuania against them. And they fought against Lachs, and killed many of them”: CGV, 74; also Ipatevskaia letopis, PSRL 2:736). Russian National Library in St. Petersburg, catalogue number F.IV. 230: Khlebnikov manuscript [Российская национальная библиотeка в Санкт-Петербурге, шифр F.IV.230: Хлебниковский список], 342–44.

52

Dąbrowski

in the years 1252–1253, with the participation of Rusian forces, and forces of other interested parties, including the Austrian and Styrian contingents. The first piece of information comes from a fragment of the Cuman epic used in the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle. It mentions that Khan Konchak was wearing11 a “cauldron on his back” during expeditions to the Rus lands located on the Sula River.12 This is undoubtedly a trace of the magical rituals used by the pagan Cumans during military operations, which is confirmed by research into the meaning of the cauldron in their syncretic religious rites. The mentioned object was treated as an attribute of the shaman and the head of the family. The leader, being the feeder of his family and his subjects, was represented by the cauldron. The cauldron, performing a magical and not functional role, symbolized the lineage of the man wearing it, as well as the union of people around the fire, wealth, and the happiness of the family.13 It is worth noting here how the analyzed account found its way to the pages of a Rusian source. There is a credible view in the literature that the story about Konchak is an episode of a Cuman epic interwoven into the apologia of Roman Mstislavovich with which the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle narrative begins.14 This prince, the father of the initiator of the source account, fought effectively against the Polovtsians. The same holds for his famous greatgreat-grandfather, Vladimir Monomakh, with whom he was compared in the Chronicle. However, this does not explain the genesis of the use of the aforementioned epic by the Romanovichi chronicler. It seems that this resulted from the close ties between Daniel Romanovich and the members of the ruling circles, important partners of the steppe Rus people. It is very well known that the first wife of Daniel Romanovich was Anna Mstislavovich. She came from the 11

The commander of a group of Cumans nomadizing at the Sivierskyi Donets River. Famous for numerous successful invasions on the Rusian lands in the 1170s and 1180s, and above all, for the victory over the army of Svyatoslavich in 1185. See Svetlana A. Pletneva, “Konchak,” in Drevnjaja Rus v srednevekovom mire. Enciklopedija, ed. Elena A. Melnikova and Vladimir Ja. Petruchin (Moscow: Ladomir, 2014), 413. 12 CGV, 5; also Ipatevskaia letopis, PSRL 2:716. Sula River is a left-bank tributary of the Dnieper River. 13 See, e.g., Eleonora L. Lvova et al., Tradicionnoe mirovozrenie tjurkov Juzhnoj Sibiri, vol. 65: Prostranstvo i vremja. Veshchnyj mir (Novosibirsk: Nauka, 1988), 139–47; Aneta GolebiovskaTobijash, “Socialnaja differenciacija elitnoj proslojki konnych voinov u polovcev,” Rossica Antiqua 2 (2017): 3–40. 14 On the aforementioned apologia of Roman Mstislavovich and the Cuman epic woven into it, see, e.g., Мikhailo Hrushevskyj, Istorija ukraїnskoї literatury, vol. 2 (Kiev: Lybid, 1993), 216–19; Vasilii A. Parchomenko, “Sledy poloveckogo eposa v letopisjach,” Problemy istočnikovedenija 3 (1940): 391–92; Halycko-Volynskyj litopys, 83–97 (in this work, a list with a summary of views and a selection of relevant literature).

Devotion in the Face of Military Struggles

53

relationship of Mstislav Mstislavovich, known as Udalyi, with a woman of an unknown name, the daughter of Kotian, the khan of the Cumans.15 It is also common knowledge that in Mstislav’s milieu a chronicle was being written which was later used by the Romanovichi chronicler.16 We are also aware that Mstislav kept in close contact with his father-in-law and his people,17 and that Daniel similarly maintained close relations with his father-in-law and his wife’s grandfather.18 Thus, it seems that the episode with the cauldron can be interpreted as a testimony to the knowledge of the Galician-Volhynian chronicler about the magical and religious significance of this object for the Cumans, knowledge related to the cultural tradition brought to the courts of specific members of the Rurik dynasty by the women they married off. While describing the Hungarian expedition to the principality of Galich (Pol. Halicz, Ukr. Halych) in 1227, the Galician-Volhynian chronicler mentioned that King Andrew II, who was at that time at Zvenigorod (Pol. Dźwinogród, Ukr. Zvenyhorod), had not decided to go to Galich in person. The reason for this appears to have been because the fortune-tellers who stayed with him stated that he would not return alive from there, and he believed them.19 This bit of information is quite intriguing. On the one hand, we know about Daniel Romanovich’s very extensive contacts with the Árpáds. After all, the prince and later king of Rus, in whose circle the part of the source containing the analyzed mention was written, stayed for several years at the court of Andrew II. Moreover, they had various contacts with him also later, and the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle sometimes mentions his very good knowledge of 15 On the marriages of Daniel Romanovich and Mstislav Mstislavovich, see Dariusz Dąbrowski, Rodowód Romanowiczów książąt halicko-wołyńskich, Biblioteka genealogi­ czna 6 (Poznań and Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Historyczne, 2002), 67–72; idem, Genealogija Mstislavichej. Pervye pokolenija (do načala XIV v.). Izdanie ispravlennoe i dopolnennoe, trans. and preface Konstantin Erusalimskij and Oksana Ostapchuk (St. Petersburg: Bulanin, 2015), 321–24, 536–37. 16 Recently on this topic, see Jusupović, Kronika, 31–71, also bibliographic references. 17 Information (albeit scattered) on this subject can be found in Anatolij V. Emmausskij, Mstislav Udaloj. Iz istorii Drevnerusskogo gosudarstva nakanune mongolo-tatardkogo zavoevanija (Kirov: KOGUP Kirovskaja oblastnaja tipografija, 1998); Oleksandr Holovko, Knjaz Mstyslav Mstyslavyč “Udatnyj” i joho doba (Kamjanec-Podilskyj: Aksjoma 2017). There is also a monographic article devoted to Mstislav’s relations with the Cumans. See Michał Michalski, “Mścisław Mścisławowicz a Połowcy. Kontakty rodzinne a kształtowanie się relacji politycznych, kulturowych i religijnych,” in Danylo Romanovich I joho chasy, ed. Vitaliy Nagirnyj and Myroslav Voloshchuk, Colloquia Russica, ser. II 3 (Ivano-Frankivsk and Cracow: TzOV Lileja-NV, 2017), 43–58. 18 CGV, 56, 64–71, 77, 81, 85, 106–7, 115–16, 123–24; also Ipatevskaia letopis, PSRL 2:732, 733–35, 737, 739, 746, 752. 19 CGV, 113; also Ipatevskaia letopis, PSRL 2:748.

54

Dąbrowski

Hungarian matters. Therefore, whom did the chronicler have in mind when he wrote vlchv (влъхвaxъ)20 and what was the motivation for this clearly negative entry? It probably did not result from the Orthodox author’s dislike of Catholics, but rather expressed a negative attitude to the act of aggression itself. Andrew II was presented not as a monarch trusting God but as listening to unreliable advice from representatives of the forces, at best—earthly ones. Nevertheless, it seems quite probable that we are dealing with rare evidence confirming that there were probably astrologers in the Hungarian camp during the war and, as such, would have been involved in performing religious rites. The next three references to religious rituals during war concern Poles. The first appears in a description of the Battle of Jaroslav (Pol. Jarosław, Ukr. Yaroslav) (17 August 1245) written soon after the event. The chronicler mentions Polish troops singing a kierelesz (керьлѣшь) “with a strong voice” on their way to the battlefield.21 This mention was sometimes interpreted as the oldest confirmation that the Polish warriors sang the hymn during the battle called Bogurodzica (Mother of God)—a famous Polish anthem. It is more likely, however, that it was a song containing the refrain Kyrie eleison.22 Nevertheless, it is confirmation of the Poles chanting a religious song at the beginning of the battle. Meanwhile, in a very detailed account of the siege of Sandomierz by the Mongolian forces of Boroldai (Burundai), in January/February of 1260, and by the Rusian troops that were forced to support them, there is a description of the preparations for the capitulation of the citadel. It should be treated as very credible as it was undoubtedly written down by eyewitnesses.23 We learn from this text that the igumens, priests, and deacons, having prepared the choir, celebrated a public eucharistic service. People of different classes gathered in the stronghold received Holy Communion in a specific order: the clergy first, followed by “nobles,” and then “others.” Following the receiving of the Eucharist, dressed in ceremonial (“wedding”) garments, they formed a procession, again in a hierarchical order. The children of the mighty were carried in the front by servants. Amid great weeping and sobbing, carrying crosses, candles, and 20

The word vlchv in Old Rusian means “a person dealing with magic, prophecy, witchcraft,” as well as “sage, astrologer.” See Slovar drevnerusskogo jazyka (XI–XIV vv.), vol. 2 (Moscow: Russkij jazyk, 1989), 164–65. 21 CGV, 280; also Ipatevskaia letopis, PSRL 2:803. 22 See, e.g., Andrzej Dąbrówka, Średniowiecze. Korzenie (Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 2007), 153–55. For the hymn Bogurodzica, see the discussion in Jacek Maciejewski’s chapter in this collection (vol. 2, chap. 7) and for the Kyrie eleison as a “battle-song,” see the respective chapters by Radosław Kotecki and László Veszprémy (vol. 2, chaps 3 and 5). 23 This account is a part of the so-called Vasilko Romanovich’s Chronicle written at the court of this prince. Meanwhile, Vasilko personally participated in the siege of Sandomierz.

Devotion in the Face of Military Struggles

55

incense, the people of Sandomierz left the citadel to meet their fate, which turned out to be unfortunate, for they were murdered by the Mongols.24 The last depiction of religious rites referring to the Poles concerns the conclusion of a certain “cross oath”25 during the civil war in Poland in 1289.26 The circumstances of the event were as follows. During the struggle for the Cracow throne between the prince of Wrocław, Henry IV Probus and Bolesław II of Mazovia, who represented the Mazovian Piast line, the latter was probably removed from Cracow in February 1289. Bolesław, together with the forces of his brother Conrad and Władysław the Elbow (Łokietek), organized a retaliatory expedition. Henry, recognizing that he would not be able to defend Cracow, left the city and decided to defend only the Wawel Castle, which had stone fortifications. He left there garrison consisting of Germans. As a means of strengthening their loyalty—as the chronicler recounts—he promised them great gifts and estates. Following this: “[h]e brought them to the cross himself so that they would not surrender the castle to Bolesław. They then kissed the cross, saying, ‘We may lay down our heads for you, but we will 24 CGV, 425–26; also Ipatevskaia letopis, PSRL 2:854. Information in the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle about the capture of Sandomierz, including the procession itself, was interestingly analyzed by Marek Cetwiński, “‘Ubrani w szaty weselne’. Źródło ruskie o zdobyciu Sandomierza przez Tatarów,” in “Scriptura, diploma, sigillum.” Prace ofiarowane profesorowi Kazimierzowi Bobowskiemu, ed. Joachim Zdrenka and Joanna Karczewska (Zielona Góra: Oficyna Wydawnicza Uniwersytetu Zielonogórskiego, 2009), 341–48. I would like to thank Dr. Radosław Kotecki for drawing my attention to this paper. For Sandomierz story in GVC, see also the discussion in Sini Kangas’s chapter to this book (vol. 1, chap. 6). 25 “Cross oath”—in other words—“kissing the cross” or krestoe celovanie was a form of concluding an agreement between parties used in Rus. It could be used on various occasions (for more, see Petr S. Stefanovich, “Krestocelovanie i otnoshenie k nemu cerkvi v Drevnej Rusi,” Srednevekovaja Rus 5 (2004): 86–113; idem, “Kljatva,” in Drevnjaja Rus, 397–98. In English, the problem of kissing the cross was presented by Yulia Mikhailova and David K. Prestel, “Cross Kissing: Keeping One’s Word in Twelfth-Century Rus’,” Slavic Review 70.1 (2011): 1–22. I would like to thank the external reader for drawing attention to this article, and Professor Piotr Tafiłowski for making it available. See also Alexandra Vukovich, The Ritualisation of Political Power in Early Rus’ (10th–12th centuries) (PhD thesis, University of Cambridge, 2015), 80–98. In the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle, in addition to the discussed example, the cross oath is mentioned in other places, e.g., when Mstislav (II) Danilovich made a promise to Vladimir Vasilkovich that he would respect the decisions of the dying prince regarding the donation to his wife and adopted daughter Iziaslava. See CGV, 562–64. 26 On the struggle for the Cracow throne in 1289, see, e.g., Jan Tęgowski, “Zabiegi księcia kujawskiego Władysława Łokietka o tron krakowski w latach 1288–1293,” Zapiski Kujawsko-Dobrzyńskie 6 (1987): 43–67; Agnieszka Teterycz-Puzio, Bolesław II Mazowiecki. Na szlakach ku jedności (ok.1253/58–24 IV 1313) (Cracow: Avalon, 2015, 1st ed. 1982), 66–76; Zbigniew Zielonka, Henryk Prawy (Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznańskie, 2015), 242–60.

56

Dąbrowski

not surrender [the castle].’”27 The episode described here aroused the interest of the Galician-Volhynian chronicler, because Lev Danilovich, as an ally of Bolesław, took part in the battles for Cracow. Accounts about these events probably came from his circle. It can also be assumed with a high degree of probability that the informant received this information from Polish participants who witnessed the unsuccessful siege of Wawel Castle. However, it is impossible to reliably determine whether the author of the relevant account, describing the act of the oath, projected Rusian customs onto the practice of swearing in agreements characteristic of Poles and Germans. In any case, for him, this act undoubtedly had the character of a religious ritual. As mentioned above, we are dealing with a somewhat similar case in the description of the relationship between the king of Hungary Béla IV and Gertrude Babenberg, whom the king supported as heiress to the legacy of the Babenberg dynasty, along with her third husband, Roman, son of Daniel Romanovich.28 As the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle recounts, when the Hungarian ruler swore to God that after conquering Austria and Styria, he would give it back to Roman and his wife, Gertrude did not believe King Béla known for breaking earlier agreements and “made him swear on the cross.”29 The anecdote has its continuation. The then Moravian margrave (and son of the Bohemian king Wenceslas I, as well as his heir to the throne), Přemysl Otakar II of Bohemia, attacked Roman and Gertrude’s estates. Standing in front of the castle occupied by Danilovich and his wife “used a lie” and suggested a truce to the Rusian opponent, consisting of the division of disputed territories. It was then sworn to by witnesses: “the pope and twelve bishops.” Roman, however, was to have replied: “I truly promised my father, the king of Hungary. I cannot listen to you, because I will have shame and sin for not fulfilling my promise.”30 As can be observed, breaking an oath in the face of a military threat was presented with evident religious and moral references, as “shame and a sin,” and as a struggle between truth and falsehood. Of course, it is difficult to determine the credibility of the quoted story that contains such clear symbolic elements. Are we dealing with an embellished transposition of the notions and norms of the Rusian prince and the 27 CGV, 623; also Ipatevskaia letopis, PSRL 2: 934. 28 For a more in-depth discussion, see Dąbrowski, Rodowód, 128–35, where provided revisions of so-far views including those by Hermann Meier, “Gertrud Herzogin von Österreich und Steiermark,” Zeitschrift des Historischen Vereins für Steiermark 23 (1927): 5–38 at 22–24. 29 CGV, 377; also Ipatevskaia letopis, PSRL 2:836. 30 CGV, 377–79; also Ipatevskaia letopis, PSRL 2:836–37.

Devotion in the Face of Military Struggles

57

Galician-Volhynian chronicler, or is there a grain of truth in the story about the negotiations and their religious aspect? We know about the popularity of the rite of swearing an oath on a cross also in the Western tradition.31 Nevertheless, it is worth noting that Roman himself or someone from his circle could have been the informant for the chronicler. Nonetheless, after his unsuccessful short-term reign in Austria, the prince returned to Rus, to his father and his closest relatives.32 The other two accounts concern Lithuanians. While recounting the Romanovichi’s campaign against Vozviahel (also Zviahel or Novohrad-Volynskyi, Pol. Wozwiahl or Nowogród Wołyński), most likely in the spring of 1256,33 the chronicler mentioned the behavior of the Lithuanian troops, which arrived late after the conquest of the town. The pagan Lithuanians, angry that they would not get their spoils, “spit in their own way, saying ‘Yanda’, invoking Andai and Diveriks and all their gods.” Naturally, the chronicler did not fail to comment that the Andai and Diveriks were, in fact, fiends.34 In any case, he recorded the fact that warriors invoked specific deities during wars. When determining the credibility of this story, it should be emphasized that it was recorded on an ongoing basis or soon after the events, and is part of the so-called Daniel Romanovich’s Chronicle that ends with the description of Boroldai’s Mongolian expedition to Lithuania in the winter of 1258/1259. Moreover, the close and multilateral relations of the Romanovichi with their pagan neighbor at the time are very well known. In fact, Daniel’s second wife was the daughter of the Lithuanian kunigas Dausprungas, and therefore the niece of Mindaugas.35 The latter’s daughter was in turn married to Shvarn

31 For an extensive discussion of this rite in the West, see Michalina Duda and Sławomir Jóźwiak, Ze świata średniowiecznej symboliki. Gest i forma przysięgi w chrześcijańskiej Europie (X–XV w.) (Cracow: Universitas, 2014), esp. 23–150, 193–215. 32 On the circumstances of Roman’s departure from Austria and his return to Rus, see, e.g., Norbert Mika, Walka o spadek po Babenbergach 1246–1278 (Racibórz: WAW Grzegorz Wawoczny, 2008), 49–51. 33 Dariusz Dąbrowski, Daniel Romanowicz król Rusi (ok. 1201–1264). Biografia polityczna (Cracow: Avalon, 2012), 397–99. 34 CGV, 385–86; also Ipatevskaia letopis, PSRL 2:839. On the above-mentioned deities, see Baltų religijos ir mitologijos šaltiniai, vol. 1: Nuo seniausių laikų iki XV amžiaus pabaigos, compiled by Norbertas Vėlius (Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla, 1996), 257–58; Rimantas Balsys, Lietuvių ir prūsų dievai, deivės, dvasios. Nuo apeigos iki prietaro (Klaipėda: Klaipėdos universiteto leidykla, 2006), 22–23, 383–84, 405. 35 Dąbrowski, Rodowód, 72, 75–77; idem, Król Rusi Daniel Romanowicz. O ruskiej rodzinie książęcej, społeczeństwie i kulturze w XIII w. (Cracow: Avalon, 2016), 134–36.

58

Dąbrowski

Danilovich,36 while the Lithuanian troops that reached Vozviahel were led by Roman Danilovich, who, after returning from Austria, was settled in the Rus principalities located between Lithuania and the state under the rule of Romanovichi as a result of an agreement between his father and Mindaugas.37 In all probability, the whole story was told by eyewitnesses and correctly interpreted by people familiar with Lithuanian customs. The second information devoted to pagan Lithuanian rituals refers to an expedition organized by the Lithuanian ruler Mindaugas to the Bryansk principality in the autumn of 1263.38 One of its participants, involved in the organization of the conspiracy against Mindaugas, kunigas Daumantas,39 at one instance was to have said, “[t]he omen does not allow me to go with you.” This statement was enough to free him from participating in the expedition. This had tragic consequences for Mindaugas. Daumantas, upon returning to Lithuania, murdered him.40 Nevertheless, it can be seen that the war-related pagan customs of the Lithuanians known to the authors of Galician-Volhynian Chronicle included the practice of fortune-telling. This fact is confirmed by the description of Skomantas of Sudovia, a representative of another group of Baltic people—the Jatvingians, as “an eminent sorcerer and fortune-teller” and as being as “fast as an animal.” The source also mentions that this “evil warrior” was ravaging the Pinsk region on foot. However, he was eventually killed, and his head impaled on a stake.41 In this obvious interjection, which should be associated with the editing by Vasilko Romanovich or more likely his son, Vladimir,42 the chronicler added one of the remarks showing his 36 Dąbrowski, Rodowód, 169–74. 37 CGV, 362, 381. Roman ruled over what can be seen as a condominium of Lithuania and the realm of Romanovichi. It included the principalities of Novogrudok, Slonim, and Vawkavysk. See Dąbrowski, Daniel, 377. 38 On this expedition and its context, see Edvardas Gudavičius, Mindaugas (Vilnius: Žara, 1998), 304–5; Dąbrowski, Daniel, 442–45. 39 As a result of the civil war in Lithuania, he was forced to flee to Rus. He settled in Pskov, where he was baptized, and was finally proclaimed ruler. He died viewed as a saint and was finally elevated to the altars of the Rusian Orthodox Church. See Valentina I. Okhotnikova and Andrej V. Kuzmin, “Dovmont,” in Pravoslavnaja enciklopedija, vol. 15, available online via pravenc.ru/text/178701.html. Several versions of his lives are known. See Valentina I. Okhotnikova, Povest o Dovmonte. Issledovanie i teksty (Leningrad: Nauka, 1985); eadem, Pskovskaja agiografija XIV–XVII vv. Issledovanija i teksty, vol. 1 (St. Petersburg: Bulanin, 2007), 351–70. 40 CGV, 444–45; also Ipatevskaia letopis, PSRL 2:860. 41 CGV, 269–70; also Ipatevskaia letopis, PSRL 2:799–800. 42 Recently on this subject, see Oleksyi Tolochko, Halycko-Volynskyj litopys. Tekstolohija, 394–97, who claims that the quoted fragment was written in the times of Vladimir Vasilkovich.

Devotion in the Face of Military Struggles

59

providential vision of the world. Namely, he stated that, “And at other times by God’s mercy the pagans were killed.”43 It is a fragment of a story about the civil war in Lithuania included in the “Volhynian” part of the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle. It says that the son of Mindaugas, Vaišvilkas, emerged victorious from this conflict. He owed his success, inter alia, to the support of the troops of Vasilko Romanovich and Shvarn Danilovich. In fact, Vaišvilkas was so closely associated with the Romanovichi that it was in the Principality of Galicia-Volhynia that he was baptized in the Orthodox rite, entered a monastery, and even baptized Yuri Lvovich. Moreover, when he desired to return to religious life, he handed power over his state to Shvarn Danilovich.44 As for religious ritual during war present among “one’s people,” the following manifestations can be found in the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle: 1) invocations to God and saints, 2) speeches of a religious nature or containing such elements, 3) processions, including pleading, 4) oaths of a religious nature before military operations, 5) religious ceremonies related to departures for and returns from war.45 Let us now move on to a review of examples that are in line with the listed types of accounts in the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle. When it comes to invocations to God and saints, this is the largest group of information appearing on the pages of the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle. Most often the chronicler uses formulas such as: a “they praised God and St. Dmitri,”46 b “having bowed to God and to holy Simeon,”47 c “he prayed to God: ‘God save them from the hand of the strong,’”48 d “he supplicated himself to St. Nicholas … and they [Daniel’s warriors] said, ‘God will be your helper,’”49 e “[a]nd he put his [Vasilko Romanovich] hope in God and His Most Pure Mother and in the strength of the True Cross,”50 f  “[t]he king [Daniel] jumped 43 CGV, 270; also Ipatevskaia letopis, PSRL 2:800. 44 For Vaišvilkas, see especially David M. Goldfrank, “The Lithuanian Prince-Monk Vojšelk: A Study of Competing Legends,” Harvard Ukrainian Studies 11.1–2 (1987): 44–76; Tatiana Vilkul, “Halycko-Volynskyj litopys pro postryzhennja litovskoho knazja Vojshelka,” Ukra­ jinskyj istorychnyj zhurnal no. 4 (2007): 26–37; Aleksej S. Kibin, “Litovskij knjaz i indijskij carevich, v poiskakh skhodstva (‘Istorija o Vojshelke’),” Peterburgskie slavjanskie i balkanskie issledovanija no. 2 (10) (2011): 11–28. 45 The issue of triumphal and ceremonial entries in tenth-twelfth-century Rus was discussed by Vukovich, The Ritualisation, 136–60. 46 CGV, 69; also Ipatevskaia letopis, PSRL 2:735. 47 CGV, 171; also Ipatevskaia letopis, PSRL 2:767. 48 CGV, 149; also Ipatevskaia letopis, PSRL 2:760. 49 CGV, 359–60. There is a slight difference in the Hypatian Codex. Instead of the term “poruchivsja,” we find “pomolivsja” (Ipatevskaia letopis, PSRL 2:830). 50 CGV, 431; also Ipatevskaia letopis, PSRL 2:856.

60

Dąbrowski

for joy and, raising his hands, giving glory to God, said: ‘Praise you, Lord, this [here] Vasilko defeated Lithuania,’”51 g “[Daniel] prayed to God the Savior, whose icon is … in the town of Mielnik, in the church of the Holy Mother of God.”52 But gestures related to invocations are rarely mentioned, although it is possible to cite two examples. The first indicates the custom of bowing during prayer before battle (b), while the second ( f ), although not directly related to a situation of war, the raising of hands in a gesture of prayer. In addition, the occurrence of proskynesis in a religious ritual related to military operations is also confirmed by stories about departures and returns from military expeditions. To a large extent, although the invocation/prayer formulas themselves probably refer to real situations, such records should be interpreted as schematized narrative constructs. Does this diminish the credibility of the records about them? Not necessarily. Such behaviors were probably so deeply rooted in customs that they were described “automatically.” They constituted cultural topoi. In fact, this observation is perfectly confirmed by analogies from other Rusian sources. As an example, one can refer to the Instruction written by the famous great-great-grandfather of Roman Mstislavovich’s sons, Vladimir Monomakh, addressed to his posteriors. The piece exhorts the princely scions in the following words: “If, while riding a horse, you will have nothing else to do, and you do not know other prayers, then: ‘Lord have mercy’, keep on saying silently without stopping. For this prayer is far better than a nonsensical thought.”53 From these words, one can see the great importance of invoking prayers in the Rurikids’ spiritual practice, as confirmed by the records present in the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle. In any case, it should be emphasized that there are credible, though few, premises to link the selection of saints with the days of the events. This is best shown in example a, as the quoted invocation to St. Demetrius is preceded by the statement that the described events (it is about an episode taking place during the retreat of Daniel Romanovich’s troops from Galich in 1219) took place “on the eve of St. Demetrius,” i.e., 25 October.54 This is in fact the only 51 CGV, 435; also Ipatevskaia letopis, PSRL 2:857. 52 CGV, 406. The Hypatian Codex reads slightly different as: “[Daniel] prayed to God, to our Savior Jesus Christ, whose icon is … in the town of Mielnik, in the church of the Holy Mother of God”: Ipatevskaia letopis, PSRL 2:846–47. For similar formulaic mentions in older Rusian historiography, see discussion in the essay by Yulia Mikhailova in this collection (vol. 2, chap. 1). 53 Lavrentevskaja letopis, PSRL 1 (Moscow: Jazyki Slavjanskoj Kultury, 2001), 245. 54 CGV, 69; also Ipatevskaia letopis, PSRL 2:735. On the Rusian calendar, see. Olga V. Loseva, Russkie mesjaceslovy XI–XIV vekov (Moscow: Pamjatniki istoricheskoj mysli, 2001), 185–86.

Devotion in the Face of Military Struggles

61

situation known in which such a relationship is explicitly stated, although the scholarship interprets the prayer of Daniel to St. Nicholas in the same way (d).55 Meanwhile, some researchers associate example b with the location of the action where the church dedicated to a particular saint was situated.56 In the last case (g), we are even dealing with prayers in front of a specific icon, which was to ensure the success of the ruler and his people during the invasion by Boroldai’s Mongolian army of Lithuania in the winter of 1258/1259. Moreover, the king of Rus undertook to embellish the icon in return for his protection.57 At this point, it is worth mentioning the importance attached to the role of icons during an armed conflict. The Galician-Volhynian Chronicle has recorded one such incident. It refers to the expedition undertaken by Daniel and Vasilko Romanovich in the summer of 1236. The princes ventured to Zvenigorod intending to conquer the stronghold, but were unsuccessful because, says the chronicle, “there was the Holy Mother of God in it, a wonderful icon.”58 To some extent, the quoted entry is, of course, an example of the providential mentality of the chronicler, and probably also that of his princely protectors, but it can also be concluded that the icon in the stronghold was perceived by both the besieged and besieging as a kind of “psychological weapon.” Moreover, its presence made it easy to explain why the expedition failed. Unfortunately, the record lacks details as to how the defenders used the image of the Heavenly Protectress. Did she watch over Zvenigorod from her earthly seat in the church, or did she “come out” on the stronghold embankments in a procession, which would provide an analogy with the later fifteenth-century story about the miracle of the icon of the Mother of God in Novgorod, besieged in 1169 by the Suzdal army (fig. 2.1)?59 Coming back to the selection of the saints whose protection was sought, it is impossible to grasp the possible connection between the heroes of the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle narrative having patron saints and invoking them. The prayer of the bishop of Vladimir, Mitrofan, during the siege of Vladimir Zalessky by the Mongol army, is of a slightly different nature, being a speech of a religious nature. It forms part of a narrative known as the Tales of 55 Litopys ruskyj za Ipatskym spiskom, ed. and trans. Leonid Machnovec (Kiev: Dnipro, 1989), 376 and 389. 56 Ibid., 389. 57 CGV, 406; also Ipatevskaia letopis, PSRL 2:847. 58 CGV, 199; also Ipatevskaia letopis, PSRL 2:776. 59 Novgorodskaja četvertaja letopis, PSRL 4.1 (Moscow: Jazyki Russkoj Kultury, 2000), 163–64. On this source, see, e.g., Jakov S. Lure, Letopis Novgorodskaja IV, in Slovar knizhnikov i knizhnosti Drevnej Rusi, vol. 2.2 (Leningrad: Nauka 1989), 51–52; Alexandr G. Bobrov, Novgorodskie letopisi XV veka (St. Petersburg: Bulanin 2001), 167–217.

62

Dąbrowski

Figure 2.1 The Novgorod icon of the “Miracle of the Icon of the Mother of God of the Sign,” later fifteenth century, tempera on wood, Tretyakov Gallery. The icon depicts a battle between the Troops of Suzdal and the Novgorod (1169), and the miraculous victory of the Novgorodians thanks to the Icon of the Mother of God displayed on the city walls. License: Public Domain Reproduced from: w.wiki/6eWV

Devotion in the Face of Military Struggles

63

Batu Khan’s Invasion of Rus, a text that was written separately and included in the edition of Galician-Volhynian Chronicle that was created at the end of the 1250s.60 According to this version, Bishop Mitrofan was to say to the people sheltering in the Dormition Cathedral in Vladimir the following words, “Children! Let us not be frightened by the perfidy of evil ones. Let us not be bothered that this life is perishable and quickly passing, but let us worry about eternal life, the life with angels. If they destroy our town, conquer it with arms, and give us to death. For I, children, am the guarantor that you will accept eternal wreaths from Christ God.”61 As far as this pathetic speech is concerned, we are probably dealing with an invention of the historiographers. After all, it should be allowed that none of those sheltering in the cathedral church survived the Mongol attack. However, it should be emphasized that these words certainly reflect the spiritual atmosphere accompanying the author/authors of the story about the events that were so tragic for the Rus people. Another of the distinguished categories of religious rituals occurring during military operations is processions. One such example was mentioned above in the discussion of the Mongol invasion of Sandomierz. Regarding the use of this custom by the Rusian people, the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle knows two such episodes. The first is an account included in the Story of the Battle at Kalka River. When, after defeating the Rusian warriors, the Mongols moved towards the Dnieper, they reached the small town of Novgorod Sviatopolchyi. Its inhabitants, not knowing who they were dealing with, most likely hoping to be saved, went with crosses to meet the invaders, and were then killed.62 In fact, we deal with a similar situation in the description of the conflict between the successor of Vladimir Vasilkovich to the throne, Mstislav (II) Danilovich, and some of his new subjects, who temporarily supported Yuri Lvovich. When the latter, under the threat of a Mongol invasion, left the occupied territories, Mstislav came to Brest. The Christians, fearing reprisals for the rebellion, came with crosses to meet the prince.63 These events took place in 1289.64

60 John L.T. Fennell, “The Tale of Baty’s Invasion of North-East Rus’ and Its Reflection in the Chronicles of the Thirteenth-Fifteenth Centuries,” Russia Mediaevalis 3 (1977): 41–78 at 41–42. 61 CGV, 213–14; also Ipatevskaia letopis, PSRL 2:779–780. 62 CGV, 101–2; also Ipatevskaia letopis, PSRL 2:745. 63 CGV, 636; also Ipatevskaia letopis, PSRL 2:931. 64 Mikhailo Hrushevskyj, “Khronolohija podij Halycko-Volynskoj litopysi,” Zapysky naukovoho tovarystva imeni Shevchenka 41.3 (1901): 1–72 at 58–59, 72.

64

Dąbrowski

The Galician-Volhynian Chronicle, in the part known as Daniel’s Chronicle mentions only one piece of information about an instance of using religious ritual in connection with war matters, namely an oath made between the Rusian princes who were facing the threat of an attack by Galician forces supported by the Hungarians in the summer of 1233. The source reads, “Daniel went to Kiev and brought the Cumans and Iziaslav against them. And he joined Iziaslav in the church.65 And with Vladimir they came against Daniel. Iziaslav betrayed him. He ordered to invade Daniel’s land.”66 As can be seen, the manner of taking the oath was not shown in this account directly, but the site where it was made has been specified—a church building situated in an unknown location. A moral assessment of the breach of the agreement was also given, albeit only from the point of view of the injured party. It was simply called treason. One can guess that this refers to the cross oath. To complete the picture, it should be added that forms of swearing-in of a secular nature were also used in Daniel Romanovich’s entourage. During the Jatvingian expedition in the summer or autumn of 1248, the king of Rus promised to spare the Jatvingian captives’ lives in return for showing them the way back as they wandered through forests and swamps. The agreement was confirmed with a handshake.67 The Chronicle also contains reports on departures to and returns from the war, which also refer to certain war-related religious rituals. The first example concerns events that took place in September 1231 and is known from Daniel’s Chronicle, the part of the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle created between 1246 and 1258/1259. Daniel Romanovich, who ruled at that time in Galich, decided to wage war against Alexander Vsevolodovich of Belz (Pol. Bełz). As he embarked on the expedition, he called a rally, during which he asked the people of Galich whether they would remain faithful to him as he fought the enemy. The crowd replied, “[w]e are faithful to God and to you our lord. Go with God’s help.” Sotnik Mikula added a proverb about the need to decisively deal with enemies. It was secular in tone, and according to the chronicler, it

65 CGV, 180; also Ipatevskaia letopis, PSRL 2:770. It is highly probable that this refers to Iziaslav, son of Vladimir Igorevich. On the identification of this member of the Rurik dynasty, see, e.g., Martin Dimnik, “Russian Princes and Their Identities in the First Half of the Thirteenth Century,” Mediaeval Studies 40 (1982): 157–89 at 170–71; Mykola F. Kotljar, “Zahadkovyj Izjaslav z Halycko-Volynskoho litopysu,” Ukrajinskyj Istorychnyj Zhurnal no. 10 (1991): 95–102 at 100. 66 CGV, 180–81; also Ipatevskaia letopis, PSRL 2:770. 67 CGV, 307–8; also Ipatevskaia letopis, PSRL 2:812–13. On the time of the expedition, see Dąbrowski, Daniel, 295.

Devotion in the Face of Military Struggles

65

went as follows: “Sir, without crushing the bees, you will not eat honey.”68 Next, the prince prayed “to God and the Most Holy Mother of God and Michael, the archangel of God.”69 One can guess that these prayers were of a public nature and a clear cross-permeation of secular and religious rituals can be observed in this story. As for the next, it is worth paying attention to the account of Daniel’s departure from Kiev to Horde in the autumn of 1245, written with great detail, almost on an ongoing basis. It is true that it was formally a diplomatic mission, but the similarity of the reported practice to the ritual of the departure for war known from other Rusian sources allows us to consider it here, especially since the danger associated with the journey to Batu Khan’s court can be equated with those of taking part in the military expedition.70 In any case, the source describes how Daniel, arriving at the monastery of St. Archangel Michael in Vydubychi near Kiev, summoned the elderly and monks, and ordered the igumen to pray for the success of the undertaking (“that he would receive grace from God”). He himself “fell” in front of the image of Michael. It was only after these rites had been performed that the prince set out on his journey.71 The Galician-Volhynian Chronicle recorded in more detail only one account about religious rituals associated with the end of a war expedition. It refers to the return from the aforementioned invasion of Opava conducted in the summer of 1253 most likely written based on eyewitness accounts. Daniel arrived at his main residence in Kholm (nowadays Chełm, Poland, Ukr. Xolm) “with reverence and with fame.” According to the source, he “fell” in the “House of the Purest,” that is, the Cathedral of the Mother of God, and then bowed and “praised God for what had happened.” Then he met his brother, and—as the chronicler mentions somewhat enigmatically—“he stayed in the House of St. John  … rejoicing and glorifying God and His Most Pure Mother and St. John Chrysostom.”72 Does this refer to praying in the court church of St. John 68 It is highly interesting that Mikula used that proverb, which seemed to be one of the favorite sayings of Roman Mstislavovich, Daniel’s father. In the Latin version, “melle securius uti apum non posse,” it was written down by Polish chronicler Master Vincentius of Cracow. See Magistri Vincentii dicti Kadłubek Chronica Polonorum, 4.24, ed. Marian Plezia, MPH NS 11 (Cracow: Polska Akademia Umiejętności, 1994), 186. 69 CGV, 158–60; also Ipatevskaia letopis, PSRL 2:763–64. Of course, a certain conventionality of the formulas written by the chronicler can be assumed, but they should be seen as roughly corresponding to reality. 70 Compare with Vukovich, “The Ritualisation,” 168–70. 71 CGV, 288–89; also Ipatevskaia letopis, PSRL 2:806. On the Kievan Vydubichi monastery of St. Michael, see, e.g., I.I. Movchan and T.A. Bobrovskij, “Vydubickij Mikhajlovskij monastyr,” in Drevnjaja Rus, 163–64. 72 CGV, 348–49.

66

Dąbrowski

Chrysostom and feasting together at a nearby residence?73 Quite possibly. Yet again, we can observe a close intertwining of secular and religious elements. It seems that the verb used in the last two cited cases, meaning “to fall” (pasti),74 should be interpreted as a testimony of prayers in the position lying cross-like in front of the iconostasis. One can also see the use of other forms of proskinesis (obeisance). Such a practice (specifically bowing down to the ground during prayers) was recommended earlier, by Vladimir Monomakh in his Instruction to his scions.75 Finally, it is time to comment on the proportion between ritualistic elements of a secular and religious nature found in particularly elaborate, detailed stories about military campaigns. It is appropriate to start the overview with the part of the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle known as the Story of the Battle at Kalka.76 In this extensive narrative, apart from some lexical and phraseological motifs inspired by religious rhetoric, mainly showing the author’s providential worldview,77 there are only two pieces of information regarding religious rituals. The first is a mention of the baptism of the Grand Cuman Duke Basty during the negotiations held in Kiev between the Cuman and the Rurikids on the conclusion of an antiMongol alliance. The second is the aforementioned information about the procession with the crosses of the inhabitants of Novgorod Sviatopolchyi. Apart 73 For the church and residence complex in Kholm, see Średniowieczny zespół rezyden­ cjalny na Górze Katedralnej w Chełmie, ed. Andrzej Buko (Warsaw: Instytut Archeologii i Etnologii Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 2019). 74 Slovar drevnerusskogo jazyka (XI–XIV vv.), vol. 6 (Moscow: Russkij Jazyk, 2000), 353–55. 75 Lavrentevskaja letopis, PSRL 1:245. For some other examples of princely “bowing downs” in connection with military actions, see discussion of earlier Rusian historiography in Yulia Mikhailova’s essay in this collection (vol. 2, chap. 2). 76 CGV, 89–102. There are three primary editions of this story in the Lärentiev, Novgorod I and Hypatian codices. See John L.T. Fennell, “The Tatar Invasion of 1223: Source Problems,” Forschungen zur osteuropäischen Geschichte 27 (1980): 18–31 at 18–19; Dmitrij M. Bulanin, “Povest o bitve na Kalke,” in Slovar knizhnikov i knizhnosti Drevnej Rusi, vol. 1: XI–pervaja polovina XIV v. (Leningrad: Nauka, 1987), 346–48. The Hypatian version most likely comes from the Rostislavovich Chronicle (Mstislav Mstislavovich’s Chronicle) and was re-edited by someone close to Daniel Romanovich. See Jusupović, Kronika, 62–64. 77 This vision consists of 1) the phrase “godless Moabites” referring to the Mongols; 2) the phrase “for our sins Rus regiments were defeated”; 3) characteristics of Daniel Romanovich with reference to the biblical description of Absalom [2 Samuel 14:25; Izaiah 1:6]; 4) the phrase “Tatars defeated Rusian princes for the sins of Christians”; 5) the statement summarizing the whole report: “God expects Christian repentance.” For the source of Daniel’s characteristics, see Aleksandr S. Orlov “K voprosu ob. Ipatevskoj letopisi,” Izvestija otdelenija russkogo jazyka i slovesnosti AN SSSR 31.1 (1926): 93–126 at 102. However, most likely, it was borrowed from an Old Rusian translation of the Hellenic and Roman Chronicle or from a compiled chronography.

Devotion in the Face of Military Struggles

67

from this, the author’s attention was focused exclusively on the description of secular events. One exceptionally detailed passage relevant to this overview is the story of the expedition of the troops of Daniel and Vasilko Romanovichi to help Conrad I of Mazovia to Kalisz in 1228.78 It was written based on an eyewitness account and was eventually included in what is referred to as Daniel’s Chronicle. It is interesting to note that albeit this story is filled with very meticulous information, such as anecdotes from Daniel Romanovich’s visit to Kalisz, there is not a single mention of any rituals of a religious nature. Only in describing the results of the expedition, does the chronicler use the phrase: “God helped them both.” In turn, in an aforementioned story about the Battle of Jaroslav written at that time, the proportion between information about religious and secular rituals was equally imbalanced. The chronicler, when it comes to the former category, only mentioned the kierelesz sung by Polish knights. He also referred Vasilko Romanovich’s call, “Here is your lying word. God is our helper,” which was a response to the insults uttered by Poles preparing to attack (“We will drive them off to great swamps”). The remaining elements of ritual presented in the story are secular: a knightly tournament organized before the battle by an opponent of Romanovichi—Rostislav Mikhailovich, a banner raised above the Rus regiments (“the fight” of eagles with ravens), a pre-battle speech given by the commander of Hungarian troops, Voivode Füle, insults directed at the Rusian warriors by Poles,79 the Romanovichi halting at a mound on the battlefield and taking prisoners there. At this point, I would like to return to the above-mentioned story about the expedition to Opava in the summer of 1253.80 It contains scarcely any religious motifs. In addition to a few biblical references,81 the following words can be read in this narrative: “Daniel, therefore, the prince wanted [to go against the Bohemians], or for the king [as an ally of Béla IV], or for fame, since there was no one before in the Rusian land who fought the Bohemian land. Neither 78 CGV, 130–42. 79 It must have been quite common for people to throw insults at each other before a battle. An excellent example of such an action, which, moreover, included a “religious motive” is the situation before the Battle of Shumsk-Torchev in 1233, when Daniel and Prince Andrew, commanding the Hungarian-Galician forces “told each other some laudatory word that God does not like.” See CGV, 170; also Ipatevskaia letopis, PSRL 2:767). The irony and humor of this statement are still legible today. 80 CGV, 333–47. Similar account is contained in the Hypatian Codex: Ipatevskaia letopis, PSRL 2:821–26. 81 Kronika halicko-wołyńska, 190n1050 and 1054.

68

Dąbrowski

Sviatoslav the Brave nor Vladimir the Saint [did that]. God fulfilled his desire because [Daniel] was in a hurry and eager for war.”82 On the other hand, the story is full of information about secular rituals (Daniel’s speeches, meetings in the invaders’ camp, the standing of a Bohemian commander, Beneš of Cvilín [of Lobenstein] with a banner in front of the Opava gate, placing Daniel’s banner on the ramparts of a conquered stronghold in Nasiedle, the sending of a sword to a Rusian prince by knight Herbort of Fulstein, etc.). So as to show the nature of these records, one can refer to Daniel’s speech to the troops gathered near Opava, discouraged by their earlier defeat. It was recorded in the source in the following form: “Why do you feel sorry? Don’t you know that there is no war without the fallen? Do you not know that you have come against men of arms, and not against women? If a man is killed in a war, what is the surprise? Others die in their homes without fame, and these here died with fame. Strengthen your hearts and take up arms against those who are armed.”83 It is worth noting that the last sentence of the speech has biblical connotations.84 Meanwhile, according to some researchers, the whole of the prince’s speech is a travesty of Titus’s speech to the legionnaires before the storming of Jerusalem, taken from the Old Rusian translation of the Jewish War by Josephus Flavius.85 Upon analyzing the relevant fragment of this text,86 the analogy seems quite distant. Nevertheless, the thread of references to translated literature in the description of war rituals is worth emphasizing, as it has clearer analogies, such as another of Daniel’s pre-battle speech. Before attacking the Hungarian-Galician army near Shumsk-Torchev, he was to say: “As the Scriptures say: ‘A man dithering before a battle has a fearful soul.’”87 This is a reference to the Old Rusian translation of the Alexander Romance.88 Obviously, a basic question arises, to which, unfortunately, there is no fully credible answer. Namely, to what extent are we dealing with a literary convention, and to what with the registration of the words actually spoken? In any case, these testify to the formulas chroniclers used for the description of war rituals. 82 83 84 85

CGV, 335; also Ipatevskaia letopis, PSRL 2:821. CGV, 338; also Ipatevskaia letopis, PSRL 2:822. Psalms 36(35):12; Ezechiel 16:27; Acts 20:7–8. “Istorija Iudejskoj vojny” Iosifa Flavija. Drevnerusskij perevod, vol. 1, ed. Anna A. Pichkhaidze, Irina I. Makeeva, Galina S. Barankova, Andrej A. Utkin (Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskoj kultury, 2004), 9; Kronika halicko-wołyńska (z XIII wieku), trans., preface, and comments Edward Goranin (Oborniki Śląskie: Studio Graphito, 2020), 190n19. 86 “Istorija Iudejskoj vojny” Iosifa Flavija, 451b ll. 3–5 and 19–24. 87 CGV, 171–72; also Ipatevskaia letopis, PSRL 2:767. 88 Vasilii M. Istrin, Aleksandrija russkikh khronografov. Izsliedovanie i tekst (Moscow: Universiteckaja tipografija, 1893), 61 and 174.

Devotion in the Face of Military Struggles

69

The presented proportions of the described elements of the rituals are unambiguous. There is a clear “shortage” of religious rhetoric in the narrative compared to the secular ones. Were it not for the religious phraseology and expressions, which after all serve simply as an element of the narrative style and an illustration of the providentialism of chroniclers, one could claim the almost entirely secular character of the war stories recorded in the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle. At this point, let us linger on the issue of religious imagery used in building stories about wars. One example can serve as an illustration, that is, the description of the Romanovichi’s army’s invasion of the Duchy of Belz, which took place in 1221 or 1222.89 The chronicler, undoubtedly writing quite a long time after the events, presented this military action as follows: “On Saturday night [everything] around Belz and Cherven was looted by Daniel and Vasilko, and all the land was plundered. Boyars plundered each other, smerds looted smerds, town-dwellers stole from town-dwellers, so that not a single village was left unlooted, as the books say: ‘Not a single stone was left unturned’. That [night] is called by Belz people: ‘bad night’. For that night: ‘played them a bad game.’”90 As one can see, this general account, in which the only details are the purpose of the expedition and its timing, is heavily saturated with biblical imagery and phraseology taken from translated literature.91 I mention this issue because one can distinguish the use of symbolicreligious literary means by the author/authors of the individual parts of the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle from providing information about the actual occurrence of elements of a religious ritual during military operations. This is well illustrated by the examples presented above. Finally, a comment on the relationship between the Christian calendar and military operations.92 The problem itself is very interesting, although in the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle there is almost no information about it. However, attention should be paid to a short story infused with religious rhetoric and biblical references, the one dealing with the Romanovichi’s army’s expedition 89 Kronika halicko-wołyńska, 122n297. There, a review of opinions present in the scholarship. 90 CGV, 84–85; also Ipatevskaia letopis, PSRL 2:739. 91 Compare with Mark 13:2 and Matthew 24:1–2, while the aphorism about “bad game played by the night” is considered to be taken from the second book of John Malalas’s chronicle. See Orlov, “K voprosu,” 99, 111; Litopys ruskyj, 379. 92 There is a scholarship on military expeditions and holy time, also dealing with Rusian sources, e.g.: Florent Mouchard, “Deux carêmes de Vladimir Monomaque. Quelques réflexions sur les notions de ‘moment opportun’ et de ‘guerre sacrée’ dans la Rus’ (1100–1115),” in Construire le temps. Études offertes à Jean-Paul Sémon, ed. Serge Aslanoff and Jean Breuillard, Travaux 55 (Paris: Institut d’études slaves, 2008), 373–78.

70

Dąbrowski

to Chortoryisk (Pol. Czartorysk, Rus. Chartoriysk). Daniel and Vasilko reached the stronghold on Easter 1228. They probably left their hometowns on Holy Saturday.93 It seems that the choice of the starting date of the action was pragmatic, and not in any way symbolic. It resulted simply from the fact that on Holy Saturday Demian, an envoy sent by Daniel to Mstislav Mstislavovich, came to the Romanovichi brothers. He brought the prince’s consent to start an action against Chortoryisk.94 Roman Mstislavovich’s sons, most likely wanting to use the element of surprise, moved against their opponents as fast as they could.

Conclusions

Naturally, and not in the least surprisingly, the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle is an example of a medieval source in which providentialism is very clearly palpable. Interventions by heavenly forces during conflicts, divine protection or lack thereof, understanding victories as a result of supernatural intercession and the prayers of leaders and clergy, and defeats as punishments for sins, are the motifs all too often used in descriptions of armed conflict. Some examples of sentences related to such an understanding of reality can be easily provided. Talking about the Battle of Shumsk-Torchev (early spring 1233), the chronicler stated: “[a]nd because God allowed so for sins, Daniel’s troops turned back to flee.”95 The well-known account of the Battle of Jaroslav reads: “God revealed His mercy towards them [Daniel and Vasilko]: ‘For it is not thanks to human help that victory is [achieved], but thanks to God.”96 Moreover, in the sources scattered in various places, we find the following examples of faith in the causative power of God and his hosts: “as it is written in the books: ‘The victory depends not on the strength of the army, but on God,’”97 “With his son Vladimir and with his boyars and servants, Prince Vasilko rode to fight them [the Lithuanians]. And he believed in God and in His Most Pure Mother and in the strength of the True Cross,”98 “God showed His power over [Lev Danilovich] … and so Lev returned with great ignominy;”99 “This is what God sent upon them [the victims of the Mongol invasion of 1287/1288] because of our sins, punishing us so that we would repent for our evil and ungodly deeds. And 93 94 95 96 97 98 99

CGV, 124–25; also Ipatevskaia letopis, PSRL 2:752. CGV, 124. CGV, 177; also Ipatevskaia letopis, PSRL 2:769. CGV, 275; also Ipatevskaia letopis, PSRL 2:801. CGV, 369; also Ipatevskaia letopis, PSRL 2:833. CGV, 433; also Ipatevskaia letopis, PSRL 2:856. CGV, 503; also Ipatevskaia letopis, PSRL 2:882.

Devotion in the Face of Military Struggles

71

finally, His wrath came upon us, and innumerable crowds died in the sieged strongholds,”100 “when winter came,101 God sent his sword upon us, which was to be used by his anger for our multiple sins. Talabuga and Algui went heavily armed and with them the Rusian princes, Lev and Mstislav, Vladimir Vasilkovich and Yuri Lvovich, and numerous other princes. For at that time, all the princes under the power of the Tartars were enslaved by the wrath of God.”102 While the above-mentioned examples are primarily about the subordination of mankind to God’s will, the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle also contains examples of the authors’ conviction about the direct miraculous interventions of the heavenly forces. Thus, from a report written essentially on an ongoing basis about the Mongolian army of Kuremsa (Kurumshi) invasion of the state under the rule of Romanovichi, we learn that during their attack on Lutsk (Pol. Łuck): “God performed a miracle and St. John and St. Nicholas. The wind was such that when the [Mongolian] machines were throwing, the wind turned the stones back onto them. And when they hurled [at the defenders] again, their machine broke thanks to God’s strength.”103 In this story, apart from the conviction about the direct intervention of the heavens, attention is drawn to the selection of holy aides. This was undoubtedly not accidental, as there was a cathedral dedicated to St. John the Evangelist in Lutsk,104 and there are many indications that the military action itself took place at the end of 1256, on or around St. Nicholas Day (6 December).105 Thus, this would be a simultaneous reference to both the patron saint of the town and the popular saint who takes special care of the faithful on a specific day. In some way, a similar direct intervention was described by the chronicler recounting the siege of Galich, defended by the army of Mstislav Mstislavovich in 1221. The Hungarian commander decided to strengthen the local Cathedral of the Mother of God. In fact, the defenders took refuge in it after they were defeated in battle. However, as noted by the Rusian author, the Mother of God “not willing to endure her own desecration, handed it over to Mstislav.”106 The presented examples demonstrate that simply informing about religious rituals related to military operations was not of particular interest to the 100 CGV, 535–36. Likewise Ipatevskaia letopis, PSRL 2:897. 101 Again, this refers to the story of the Mongol invasion of Polish lands in the winter of 1287/1288. 102 CGV, 543–44. 103 CGV, 393–94; also Ipatevskaia letopis, PSRL 2:842. 104 Svjatoslav Terskyj, Luchesk X–XV st. (Lviv: Vydavnyctvo Nacionalnoho universytetu “Lvivska politekhnika,” 2006), passim. 105 Litopys ruskyj, 418n3; Kronika halicko-wołyńska, 203n1212 and 204n1221–22. 106 CGV, 78; also Ipatevskaia letopis, PSRL 2:737.

72

Dąbrowski

authors of individual parts of the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle. Mentions with such content were made in passing, without the attachment of any special significance, when describing various forms of military activities embarked upon by the main figures of individual episodes. Would this then mean the absence of religious rites during the wars described in the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle? Surely not. Such a conclusion would be unfounded. This scarcity of relevant information simply resulted from specific narrative strategies, arguably arising from the commonplace nature of the rituals. It is also worth noting the rituals that characterize the “others,” including, importantly, the pagans. The authors of the individual parts of the source undoubtedly demonstrated their curiosity about the world and proved to be acute observers in this respect. It has been possible to obtain a multifaceted image of the use and descriptions of religious rituals present during military operations in Galician-Volhynian Rus and in the countries maintaining particularly close contact with it in the thirteenth century. This issue has never been carefully considered before, and thanks to research taken a stand has been created that will allow for the use of a comparative method in the future studies on the topic of wartime rituals in the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle. It may be particularly advisable to compare the “reality” of the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle with the “realities” inherent in analogous historiographical works, both from Rus and other countries, and to make comparisons both in a chronological and geographical dimensions. translated by Władysław Bibrowski and Miłka Stępień Bibliography

Manuscript Sources



Primary Sources

Khlebnikov manuscript. Russian National Library in St. Petersburg. F.IV. 230.

Chronica Galiciano-Voliniana (Chronica Romanoviciana). Edited by Dariusz Dąbrowski and Adrian Jusupović, with the assistance of Irina Juriewa, Aleksander Majorow, and Tatiana Wiłkuł. MPH NS 16. Cracow and Warsaw: Polska Akademia Umiejętności, Instytut Historii Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 2017. The Hypatian Codex II: The Galician-Volynian Chronicle. Translated by George A. Perfecky, Harvard series in Ukrainian studies 16.2. Munich: Fink, 1973.

Devotion in the Face of Military Struggles

73

Ipatevskaia letopis. Edited by Aleksei A. Shakhmatov, PSRL 2. St. Petersburg: Imperatorskaia Arkheograficheskaia Komissia, 1908. “Istorija Iudejskoj vojny” Iosifa Flavija. Drevnerusskij perevod. Vol. 1. Edited by Anna A. Pichkhaidze, Irina I. Makeeva, Galina S. Barankova, Andrej A. Utkin. Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskoj kultury, 2004. Kronika halicko-wołyńska. Kronika Romanowiczów. Translated, introduction and comments by Dariusz Dąbrowski and Adrian Jusupović. Cracow: Avalon, 2017. Kronika halicko-wołyńska (z XIII wieku). Translated, introduction and comments by Edward Goranin. Oborniki Śląskie: Studio Graphito, 2020. Lavrentevskaja letopis, PSRL 1. Moscow: Jazyki Slavjanskoj Kultury, 2001. Litopys ruskyj za Ipatskym spiskom. Edited and translated by Leonid Machnovec. Kiev: Dnipro, 1989. Magistri Vincentii dicti Kadłubek Chronica Polonorum. Edited by Marian Plezia. MPH NS 11. Cracow: Polska Akademia Umiejętności, 1994.



Secondary Sources

Balsys, Rimantas. Lietuvių ir prūsų dievai, deivės, dvasios. Nuo apeigos iki prietaro. Klaipėda: Klaipėdos universiteto leidykla, 2006. Baltų religijos ir mitologijos šaltiniai. Volume 1: Nuo seniausių laikų iki XV amžiaus pabaigos. Compiled by Norbertas Vėlius. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla, 1996. Bobrov, Alexandr G. Novgorodskie letopisi XV veka. St. Petersburg: Bulanin 2001. Buko, Andrzej, ed. Średniowieczny zespół rezydencjalny na Górze Katedralnej w Chełmie. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Instytutu Archeologii i Etnologii Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 2019. Bulanin, Dmitrij M. Povest o bitve na Kalke. In Slovar knizhnikov i knizhnosti Drevnej Rusi. Volume 1: XI-pervaja polovina XIV v., 346–48. Leningrad: Nauka, 1987. Cetwiński, Marek. “‘Ubrani w szaty weselne’. Źródło ruskie o zdobyciu Sandomierza przez Tatarów.” In “Scriptura, diploma, sigillum.” Prace ofiarowane profesorowi Kazimierzowi Bobowskiemu. Edited by Joachim Zdrenka and Joanna Karczewska, 341–48. Zielona Góra: Oficyna Wydawnicza Uniwersytetu Zielonogórskiego, 2009. Dąbrowski, Dariusz [Dombrovskij, Dariush]. Genealogija Mstislavichej. Pervye pokolenija (do nachala XIV v.). Izdanie ispravlennoe i dopolnennoe. Translated and preface by Konstantin Erusalimskij and Oksana Ostapchuk. St. Petersburg: Bulanin, 2015. Dąbrowski, Dariusz. Daniel Romanowicz król Rusi (ok. 1201–1264). Biografia polityczna. Cracow: Avalon, 2012. Dąbrowski, Dariusz. Król Rusi Daniel Romanowicz. O ruskiej rodzinie książęcej, społeczeństwie i kulturze w XIII w. Cracow: Avalon, 2016. Dąbrowski, Dariusz. Kronika halicko-wołyńska (Kronika Romanowiczów) o sztuce. Vol. 1: Architektura. Cracow: Avalon, 2023.

74

Dąbrowski

Dąbrowski, Dariusz. Rodowód Romanowiczów książąt halicko-wołyńskich. Poznań and Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Historyczne, 2002. Dąbrówka, Andrzej. Średniowiecze. Korzenie. Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 2007. Dimnik, Martin. “Russian Princes and Their Identities in the First Half of the Thirteenth Century.” Mediaeval Studies 40 (1982): 157–89. Duda, Michalina and Sławomir Jóźwiak. Ze świata średniowiecznej symboliki. Gest i forma przysięgi w chrześcijańskiej Europie (X–XV w.). Cracow: Universitas, 2014. Emmausskij, Anatolij V. Mstislav Udaloj. Iz istorii Drevnerusskogo gosudarstva nakanune mongolo-tatardkogo zavoevanija. Kirov: KOGUP Kirovskaja oblastnaja tipografija, 1998. Fennell, John L.T. “The Tale of Baty’s Invasion of North-East Rus’ and Its Reflexion in the Chronicles of the Thirteenth-Fifteenth Centuries.” Russia Mediaevalis 3 (1977): 41–78. Fennell, John L.T. “The Tatar Invasion of 1223: Source Problems.” Forschungen zur osteuropäischen Geschichte 27 (1980): 18–31. Goldfrank, David M. “The Lithuanian Prince-Monk Vojšelk: A Study of Competing Legends.” Harvard Ukrainian Studies 11.1–2 (1987): 44–76. Golebiovska-Tobijash, Aneta. “Socialnaja differenciacija elitnoj proslojki konnych voinov u polovcev.” Rossica Antiqua no. 2 (2017): 3–40. Gudavičius, Edvardas. Mindaugas. Vilnius: Žara, 1998. Halycko-Volynskyj litopys. Tekstolohija. Edited by Oleksyi P. Tolochko. Kiev: Akademperiodyka, 2020. Hensorskyj, Anton I. Halycko-Volynskyj litopys (leksychni, frazeolohichni ta stylistychni osoblyvosti). Kiev: Vydavnyctvo Akademiji Nauk Ukrajinskoji RFR, 1961. Hensorskyj, Anton I. Halycko-Volynskyj litopys (proces skladannja, redakciji i rekaktory). Kiev: Vydavnyctvo Akademiji Nauk Ukrajinskoji RFR, 1958. Holovko, Oleksandr. Knjaz Mstyslav Mstyslavych ‘Udatnyj’ i joho doba. KamjanecPodilskyj: Aksjoma, 2017. Houts, Elisabeth M.C. van. Local and Regional Chronicles. Typologie des sources du Moyen Âge occidental 74. Turnhout: Brepols, 1995. Hrushevskyj, Мikhajlo. Istorija ukrajinskoї literatury. Vols. 3. Kiev: Lybid, 1993. Hrushevskyj, Мikhajlo. “Khronolohija podij Halycko-Volynskoj litopysi.” Zapysky naukovoho tovarystva imeni Shevchenka 41.3 (1901): 1–72. Istrin, Vasilii M. Aleksandrija russkikh khronografov. Izsliedovanie i tekst. Moscow: Universiteckaja tipografija, 1893. Jusupović, Adrian. Kronika halicko-wołyńska (Kronika Romanowiczów) w latopisarskiej kolekcji historycznej. Cracow and Warsaw: Avalon, 2019. Kibin, Aleksej S. “Litovskij knjaz i indijskij carevich, v poiskakh skhodstva (Istorija o Vojshelke).” Peterburgskie slavjanskie i balkanskie issledovanija no. 2 (10) (2011): 11–28.

Devotion in the Face of Military Struggles

75

Komendová, Jitka. “Žanr Galicko-Volynskoj letopisi v tipologičeskoj perspektive.” In Pismennost Galicko-Volinskogo knjažestva. Istoriko-filologičeskie issledovanija. Edited by Jitka Komendová et al., 79–88. Olomouc: Univerzita Palackého v Olomouci, 2016. Kotljar, Mykola F. Halycko-Volynskyj litopys XIII st. Kiev: Instytut istoriji Ukrajiny, 1993. Kotljar, Mykola F. “Zahadkovyj Izjaslav z Halycko-Volynskoho litopysu.” Ukrajinskyj Istorychnyj Zhurnal no. 10 (1991): 95–102. Loseva, Olga V. Russkie mesjaceslovy XI–XIV vekov. Moscow: Pamjatniki istoricheskoj mysli, 2001. Lure, Jakov S. Letopis Novgorodskaja IV. In Slovar knizhnikov i knizhnosti Drevnej Rusi. Vol. 2.2: 51–52. Leningrad: Nauka, 1989. Lvova, Eleonora L., et al.. Tradicionnoe mirovozrenie tjurkov Južnoj Sibiri. Vol. 65: Prostranstvo i vremja. Veščnyj mir. Novosibirsk: Nauka, 1988. Meier, Hermann. “Gertrud Herzogin von Österreich und Steiermark.” Zeitschrift des Historischen Vereins für Steiermark 23 (1927): 5–38. Michalski, Michał. Kontakty rodzinne a kształtowanie się relacji politycznych, kulturowych i religijnych. In Danylo Romanovich i joho chasy. Edited by Vitaliy Nahirnyj and Myroslav Voloshchuk, 43–58. Ivano-Frankivsk and Cracow: TzOV Lileja-NV, 2017. Mika, Norbert. Walka o spadek po Babenbergach 1246–1278. Racibórz: WAW Grzegorz Wawoczny, 2008. Mikhailova, Yulia, and David Prestel. “Cross Kissing: Keeping One’s Word in TwelfthCentury Rus’.” Slavic Review 70.1 (2011): 1–22. Mouchard, Florent. “Deux carêmes de Vladimir Monomaque. Quelques réflexions sur les notions de ‘moment opportun’ et de ‘guerre sacrée’ dans la Rus’ (1100–1115).” In Construire le temps. Études offertes à Jean-Paul Sémon. Edited by Serge Aslanoff and Jean Breuillard, 373–78. Travaux 55. Paris: Institut d’études slaves, 2008. Moroz, Irina. “The Idea of Holy War in the Orthodox World (On Russian Chronicles from the Twelfth–Sixeenth Century).” QMAN 4 (1999): 45–67. Movchan, I.I., and T.A. Bobrovskij, “Vydubickij Mikhajlovskij monastyr.” In Drevnjaja Rus v srednevekovom mire. Enciklopedija. Edited by Elena A. Melnikova, Vladimir Ja. Petruchin, 163–64. Moscow: Ladomir, 2014. Musin, Alexandr E. “Milites Christi” Drevnej Rusi. Voinskaja kultura russkogo srednevekovja v kontekste religioznogo mentaliteta. St. Petersburg: Izdatelstvo “Peterburgskoe Vostokovedenie,” 2005. Novgorodskaja chetvertaja letopis. PSRL 4.1. Moscow: Jazyki Russkoj Kultury, 2000. Okhotnikova, Valentina I. Povest o Dovmonte. Issledovanie i teksty. Leningrad: Nauka, 1985. Okhotnikova, Valentina I. Pskovskaja agiografija XIV–XVII vv. Issledovanija i teksty. Vol. 1. St. Petersburg: Bulanin, 2007. Okhotnikova, Valentina I., and Andrej V. Kuzmin. “Dovmont.” In Pravoslavnaja enciklopedija. Vol. 15. pravenc.ru/text/178701.html.

76

Dąbrowski

Orlov, Alexandr S. “K voprosu ob. Ipatevskoj letopisi.” Izvestija otdelenija russkogo jazyka i slovesnosti AN SSSR 31.1 (1926): 93–126. Parchomenko, Vasilii A. “Sledy poloveckogo eposa v letopisjach.” Problemy istochnikovedenija 3 (1940): 391–93. Pashuto, Vladimir T. Ocherki po istorii Galicko-Volynskoj Rusi. Moscow: Izdatelstvo Akademii Nauk SSSR, 1950. Pletneva, Svetlana A. “Konchak.” In Drevnjaja Rus v srednevekovom mirem. Encyklopedii. Edited by Elena A. Melnikova and Vladimir Ja. Pietruchin, 413. Moscow: Ladomir, 2014. Slovar drevnerusskogo jazyka (XI–XIV vv.). 12 vols. Edited by Ruben Ivanovič Avanesov et al. Moscow: Russkij jazyk, 1988–. Stefanovich, Petr S. “Kljatva.” In Drevnjaja Rus v srednevekovom mire. Enciklopedija. Edited by Elena A. Melnikova and Vladimir Ja. Petruchin, 397–98. Moscow: Ladomir, 2014. Stefanovich, Petr S. “Krestocelovanie i otnoshenie k nemu cerkvi v Drevnej Rusi.” Srednevekovaja Rus 5 (2004): 86–113. Terskyj, Svjatoslav. Luchesk X–XV st. Lviv: Vydavnyctvo Nacionalnoho universytetu “Lvivska politekhnika,” 2006. Teterycz-Puzio, Agnieszka. Bolesław II Mazowiecki. Na szlakach ku jedności (ok. 1253/ 58–24 IV 1313). Cracow: Avalon, 2015. Tęgowski. “Zabiegi księcia kujawskiego Władysława Łokietka o tron krakowski w latach 1288–1293.” Zapiski Kujawsko-Dobrzyńskie 6 (1987): 43–67. Vilkul, Tatiana. “Halycko-Volynskyj litopys pro postryzhennja litovskoho knazja Vojshelka.” Ukrajinskyj istorychnyj zhurnal no. 4 (2007): 26–37. Vukovich, Alexandra. The Ritualisation of Political Power in Early Rus’ (10th–12th centuries). PhD thesis, University of Cambridge, 2015. Zielonka, Zbigniew. Henryk Prawy. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznańskie, 2015. 1st ed. 1982.

Chapter 3

Bohemian Experiences with Military Religion in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries, or How to Secure the Intercession of the Patron Saint Radosław Kotecki Thanks to the merits of St. Wenceslas, God’s bounty most often granted a glorious victory to the Bohemians going to war, while it condemned their enemies to disgrace and destruction. Ut annuncietur1

∵ This is how the thirteenth- or fourteenth-century author of one of the legends of St. Wenceslas (Václav), Ut annuncietur,2 imagined the connection between the Bohemians’ military successes and the supernatural aid of their patron saint. This view is but one of the many examples testifying to the belief in St. Wenceslas’s involvement in Bohemian warfare, a belief that stemmed from a tradition going back at least to the turn of the eleventh century. It was at that time when Wenceslas began to be viewed as a patron of the nation and the dynasty, a guarantor of the internal order and defender against external threats. The power and persistence of this tradition have been confirmed by numerous

1 “Ad bellum Bohemis proficiscentibus per merita sancti Wenceslai sepissime divina largitas gloriosam Bohemis prestitit victoriam, adverse vero parti confusionis intulit ignominiam vel ruinam”: Vita vel passio sancti Wenczeslai, in Bernardus Guidonis Speculum sanctorum. Pars 3, Moravská Zemská Knihovna, Brno, A 44 (olim IV.Y.b.3), 217r–249r at 220v, bit.ly/3lPBANR. Although the basic, shorter redaction is dated to 1230s, the Brno manuscript was rather produced before the middle of the fourteenth century. There is very similar phrase in a longer redaction of the legend, Ut annuncietur II, from the end of that century: Vita sancti Wenceslai incipiens verbis “Ut annuncietur,” ed. Antonín Podlaha (Prague: Kotrba, 1917), 27–28. 2 About the legend and its variations, see Jaroslav Ludvíkovský, “Václavská legenda 13. století ‘Ut annuncietur’, její poměr k legendě ‘Oriente’ a otázka autorství,” Listy filologické 78.2 (1955): 196–209; Joanna Nastalska-Wiśnicka, “Rex martyr.” Studium źródłoznawcze nad legendą hagiograficzną św. Wacława (X–XIV w.) (Lublin: Werset, 2010), 70–74.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004686373_004

78

Kotecki

studies, which also demonstrate the great role in community-building played by St. Wenceslas’s cult.3 Although the sentence cited above seems to be deeply rooted in a locally based ideological context, it should be noted that it is characterized by a high degree of generalization and exaggeration. Obvious exaggeration can be found already in the assertion that with God’s permission Wenceslas acted for his people “most often” (sepissime). Even more exaggerated is the view that the saint provided his aid even without being asked to do so. It was enough for the Bohemians to set off for the battle to enjoy the glory of victory thanks to the merits (merita) of St. Wenceslas. Here, the exaggeration lies in the fact that the source does not mention the necessary communication between the army heading for the battle and heaven, which ultimately determined the result of any military clash. Is it possible that the Bohemians trusted the power of their patron so much that they did not need to obtain God’s grace in the case of war? The present study will answer this question, demonstrating that the Bohemians were indeed preoccupied with cultivating their relations with heaven in matters of warfare, contrary to the hagiographer’s persuasion. This is suggested by examples of their using a ritualized language in their contact with the supernatural, highly appropriate for such cases. Moreover, although the available sources are not so abundant, it has to be said that they seem to suggest not only the adequacy of that language but also its sublimity and 3 On medieval cult of St. Wenceslas, its military context, and community-building role, see František Graus, “Der Heilige als Schlachtenhelfer—Zur Nationalisierung einer Wundererzählung in der mittelalterlichen Chronistik,” in Festschrift für Helmut Beumann zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. Kurt-Ulrich Jäschke and Reinhard Wenskus (Sigmaringen: Thorbecke, 1977), 330–48; idem, “St. Adalbert und St. Wenzel. Zur Funktion der mittelalterlichen Heiligenverehrung in Böhmen,” in “Europa Slavica, Europa orientalis.” Festschrift für Herbert Ludat zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. Klaus-Detlev Grothusen, Osteuropastudien der Hochschulen des Landes Hessen 100 (Berlin: Duncker und Humblot, 1980), 205–31; Lisa Wolverton, Hastening Toward Prague: Power and Society in the Medieval Czech Lands (Philadelphia PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2001), 147–85; Josef Žemlička, “Svatý Václav jako věčný kníže ‘Čechů,’” in Svatý Václav. Na památku 1100. výročí narození knížete Václava Svatého, ed. Petr Kubín, Historia et historia artium 11 (Prague: Univerzita Karlova, 2010), 211–20; Robert Antonín, The Ideal Ruler in Medieval Bohemia, ECEE 44 (Leiden and Boston MA: Brill, 2017), 109–34. See also important works by Marcin R. Pauk, “Kult św. Stanisława na tle innych kultów politycznych Europy Środkowej w średniowieczu,” in Kult św. Stanisława na Śląsku (1253–2003), ed. Anna Pobóg-Lenartowicz, Z dziejów kultury chrześcijańskiej na Śląsku 28 (Opole: Wydawnictwo Wydziału Teologicznego Uniwersytetu Opolskiego, 2004), 31–48; idem, “Święci patroni a średniowieczne wspólnoty polityczne w Europie Środkowej,” in Sacrum. Obraz i funkcja w społeczeństwie średniowiecznym, ed. Aneta Pieniądz-Skrzypczak and Jerzy Pysiak, Aquila volans 1 (Warsaw: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, 2005), 237–60.

How to Secure the Intercession of the Patron Saint

79

certain sensibility for changes. All these analyzes of Bohemian sources provide an opportunity to enrich scholarship on war religion and its rituals, especially since they have not yet been the subject of special interest in modern research, both Czech and international.4 The source base for this paper is mostly limited to the Prima continuatio Cosmae and the Continuatio Cosmae secunda, specifically those of the so-called Canon of Vyšehrad (prima) and the Annales Ottakariani (secunda). The contents of these accounts have some intriguing features in common, to a degree because of the dependence of the Annales on the first continuation of Cosmas’s chronicle. The most important of the apparent textual similarities in both sources is that in both cases information about religious rites is woven into the narratives of the great victories of the Bohemians at Chlumec (1126) and Kressenbrun (1260), achieved not without considerable support from God and the Bohemian patron saints. It should be kept in mind that placing the information about religious rites in such a context had some influence on their ideological meaning intended to strengthen the feeling of the importance of these victories. At the same time, however, it should be noted that such a strategy is not necessarily a shortcoming, for there is a certain routine to be found in it, characteristic of the early sources from East Central Europe dominated by histories originating from ecclesiastical institutions forging the official “state” ideology. These features enable one to make observations on the role of rites in narrative strategies and provide an insight into how war rites were understood among the church and court elites. The ideological links between religion and war in twelfth- and thirteenthcentury Bohemia were formed largely by the cult of St. Wenceslas. It will, therefore, be reasonable to refer not only to Bohemian historiography but also to the rich hagiography of Bohemia’s patron saint. Although the legends do not mention war-related rites directly, one of their threads is a noteworthy tale of Wenceslas’s miraculous victory in a fight that was a substitute for God’s judgment of war. By grasping the meaning of this account and noticing the references to the relics of St. Wenceslas’s weapons, one can get a better insight 4 Also, in Dušan Zupka’s recent works on religion and war in Central Europe, Bohemian sources have not received much attention: Dušan Zupka, Meč a kríž. Vojna a náboženstvo v stredovekej strednej Európe (10.–12. storočie) (Bratislava: VEDA, 2020); idem, “Náboženské rituály vojny a vytváranie kresťanskej identity v stredovekej strednej Európe 12. storočia,” Historický Časopis 68.4 (2020): 577–90; idem, “Political, Religious and Social Framework of Religious Warfare and Its Influences on Rulership in Medieval East Central Europe,” in Rulership in Medieval East Central Europe: Power, Rituals and Legitimacy in Bohemia, Hungary and Poland, ed. Grischa Vercamer and Dušan Zupka, ECEE 78 (Leiden and Boston MA: Brill, 2021), 135–59.

80

Kotecki

into the meaning of other narrative sources. On the other hand, the historiographical sources allow rejecting the claim of the author of Ut annuncietur that God’s help did not require any efforts from Bohemians to obtain it because of St. Wenceslas’s “merits.” 1

The Kouřim Story and the arma of St. Wenceslas

The authors of the vitae of St. Wenceslas were primarily interested in the pious life and martyrdom of their saintly hero. Consequently, they shied away from stories involving war, both those waged by Wenceslas as a duke, and those of the Bohemians having him as a patron.5 However, that the cited passage of Ut annuncietur refers to Wenceslas’s miraculous triumph over a nameless ruler of Kouřim is not a mere coincidence.6 Like in the older legends, the deed is described in Ut annuncietur as a magnificent, though bloodless, victory of Wenceslas. The lord of Kouřim, about to engage with the future saint in a ritual duel as opposed to a battle, throws down his arms and humbles himself before Wenceslas in a deditio-like gesture of submission. He does so because he saw a shining sign of the cross on his opponent’s forehead, which prevents him from raising his hand against God’s chosen one.7 In a way, the message conveyed here makes it possible to understand the generalization of the quoted passage. What comes to the fore more emphatically 5 Jaroslav Ludvíkovský, “Souboj sv. Václava s vévodou kouřimským v podání václavských legend,” Studie o rukopisech 12 (1973): 89–100 at 90; Nastalska-Wiśnicka, “Rex martyr,” 224–27. 6 For an analysis of the episode in the light of the hagiography, see Ludvíkovský, “Souboj.” According to Dalimil, Wenceslas’s opponent was named Radislav. Éloïse Adde-Vomáčka, La “Chronique de Dalimil.” Les débuts de l’historiographie nationale tchèque en langue vulgaire au XIVe siècle, Textes et documents d’histoire médiévale 12 (Paris: Éditions de la Sorbonne, 2016), 277–78. It was common for hagiographers to portrait St. Wenceslas as shying away from bloodshed and violence. This does not mean that he was portrayed as a weak man. Christian the Monk states, for example, that Wenceslas grabbed the sword of his murderer and brother in one person and said that he could kill him like a small animal, but he did not want to stain his hands with his brother’s blood. Such an approach shifts the emphasis toward Wenceslas’s spiritual power. See Agnieszka Kuźmiuk-Ciekanowska, Święty i historia. Dynastia Przemyślidów i jej bohaterowie w dziele mnicha Krystiana (Cracow: Avalon, 2007), 179–80. 7 Ut annuncietur, 220v: “Placito facto et iuramentis confirmato procedunt soli duces in duellum, ubi dominus Deus honorifice sanctum suum mirificavit. Quoniam cum prefectus Curimensis exemptis armis furiose vellet irruere in sanctum Dei, vidit signum sancte crucis nimio splendora fulgentis in fronte sancti Wenczeslai. Quod ut vidit, intremuit et armis longius a se proiectis ad pedes sancti viri cecidit veniam petens et clara voce protestans, quod nullus hominum posset talem superare, quem Deus vellet tali signaculo armare.”

How to Secure the Intercession of the Patron Saint

81

than in any other legend is the belief that Wenceslas is a figure who could not be defeated by any earthly force or material weapon. Wenceslas is simply invincible, as is evidenced by the shining sign on his forehead, which itself was a harbinger of victorious power and an attribute of saints assisting armies in battle or relics taken to the battlefield with the hope of overcoming the enemy. Although the motif of this mark has not received the recognition it deserves so far, it has, nevertheless, been noted that it may likely refer to St. Wenceslas’s relic that has been preserved to this day: a helmet fitted with an impressive silver-plated nosepiece in the form of a crucifix, known as St. Wenceslas’s helmet (fig. 3.1)8 As has been pointed out, the appearance of this theme for the first time in the Legenda Christiani (dated to the first half of the 990s)9 must have been connected with the popularization of this relic during the reign of Boleslav II the Pious.10 It is known that this ruler and his wife, Emma, strongly supported Wenceslas’s cult. They are, thus, attributed with transforming a simple helmet coming from Wenceslas’s time into a ceremonial object and relic linked to a holy patron and enhanced by the figure of Christ.11 The helmet was undoubtedly known to the hagiographers. It was kept in the Cathedral of Sts. Vitus, Wenceslas, and Vojtěch-Adalbert at Prague Castle (commonly known as St. Vitus’s Cathedral) together with other items believed to have belonged to the saint, that is an armor, a sword, and a spear, only the last of which has not survived.12 It is, therefore, not without significance that in 8

On the helmet, see comprehensive and multidisciplinary analysis by Milena Bravermanová et al., “Nová zjištění o přilbě a zbroji zv. Svatováclavské,” Archeologie ve středních Čechách 23 (2019): 235–310, esp. 297–301. See also Nastalska-Wiśnicka, “Rex martyr,” 227. 9 There was passionate discussion about the author, authenticity, and dating of the legend. See Nastalska-Wiśnicka, “Rex martyr,” 53–65; David Kalhous, “Legenda Christiani” and Modern Historiography, ECEE 34 (Leiden and Boston MA: Brill, 2015). 10 The Kouřim episode does not appear in the older legends, Crescente fide and by Gumpold, both known to the author of the Legenda Christiani. Against the voices seeing this episode as a later interpolation, see the convincing argument in Ludvíkovský, “Souboj sv. Václava,” 89–90. 11 Bravermanová et al., “Nová zjištění,” 299; Nastalska-Wiśnicka, “Rex martyr,” 227. Wrong are those who claim that the figure on the nosepiece has nothing to do with Christianity. This element is of Scandinavian origin and its iconography corresponds closely to how Christ was depicted in Viking art. Compare with Jörn Staecker, “Rex regum et dominus dominorum.” Die wikingerzeitlichen Kreuz- und Kruzifixanhänger als Ausdruck der Mission in Altdänemark und Schweden, Lund studies in medieval archaeology 23 (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1999). 12 The date of the sword is uncertain, but it does not come from the times of St. Wenceslas. The blade, however, has a layer done in a technology of a “pattern-welding” used in the early Middle Ages. See Milena Bravermanová, “Pochází korunovační meč zv. svatováclavský z pokladu po Přemyslovcích a je jeho čepel dokonce památkou po sv. Václavu?” in Od knížat ke králům. Sborník u příležitosti 60. narozenin Josefa Žemličky, ed. Eva Doležalová

82

Kotecki

Figure 3.1 St. Wenceslas’s helmet (tenth–eleventh century). St. Vitus Cathedral in Prague Photo by VPC Photo / Alamy Stock Photo

his version of the Kouřim story, the author of Ut annuncietur decided to refer to the arma ferrea which Wenceslas took with him whenever he set off for the battle, not, interestingly enough, in order to fight, but “only for defense and because of the chivalrous habit.” Such a description of these objects, especially in conjunction with the information about the miraculous sign with which God “armed” Wenceslas, allows one to surmise that the author perceived these weapons not as mere objects but rather as manifestations of sacral power. One may wonder whether such a vision did not originate because of the impact of the beliefs concerning the functions of the saint’s attributes as relics. When mentioning Wenceslas’s weapons, the author of Ut annuncietur says clearly that the arma which the saint took with him to the battlefield “are kept reverently to this day in the treasury of the Prague church, and on some days the clergy and the people venerate them respectfully because of the memory of the blessed martyr.”13 The brief account does not make much room for et al. (Brno: Lidové noviny, 2007), 105–23. On the armor, see Bravermanová et al., “Nová zjištění.” 13 Ut annuncietur, 220v: “Semper tamen, procedens ad bella, ferrea secum portavit arma, sed hiis magis utebatur ad vitae suae defensionem vel militarem consuetudinem quam ad aliquarum adversarioum dampnum sive lesionem. Quae etiam usquem in hodiernum diem in camera Pragensis ecclesiae honeste reservantur et ceteris diebus a clero et populo

How to Secure the Intercession of the Patron Saint

83

interpretation: one cannot fail to notice that legend points here to the unique status of those objects as tokens of remembrance. As Jacek Banaszkiewicz has demonstrated, in traditional societies artifacts like Wenceslas’s arma kept reverently “unto this day” served to transmit into the present fundamental values inherent in their history. They embodied the function of an intermediary and combined it with the role of a guarantor of the invariability of the inherited status quo.14 In this sense, the arma of St. Wenceslas must have appeared not only as a venerable keepsake of the saint but also as a guarantee of the invincibility bestowed by God on his chosen one.15 This must have been an idea strongly ingrained in the minds of the Bohemians because St. Wenceslas is almost always depicted as a Christian knight equipped with full martial apparatus: chainmail, helmet, shield, spear, or sword, as on the southern facade of the church of St. James in Jakub near Kutná Hora, consecrated in 1165 (figs. 3.2a–b) or in St. Wenceslas’s chapel in Prague Cathedral (fig. 4.1 in vol. 2). It is worth pointing in this context to the passage preceding the Kouřim episode in the Legenda Christiani. According to this source, thanks to Wenceslas, God helped those who invoked him in war, just as he often supported Wenceslas through “vivid and clear signs.”16 In the light of these words, grace bestowed on Wenceslas prefigured the grace granted by God to all who invoked him in battle. As a result, if the assistance granted to Wenceslas prefigured the aid thanks to which the Bohemians secured their victories, it would be justified to suspect that this aid was also imagined as manifesting in miraculous omens and “clear signs.” The author of Ut annuncietur, who deliberately included the information about St. Wenceslas’s arma in his work, knew something about this. Unfortunately, like the author of Legenda Christiani he does not explain how the power of the sacred artifacts worked. The answer seems to lie in the information about the reverence they were shown “on some days” by “the clergy ad memoriam beati martiris reverenter salutatur”; similar words in Vita sancti Wenceslai incipiens verbis “Ut annuncietur,” 29–30. 14 Jacek Banaszkiewicz, “‘Usque in hodiernum diem’—średniowieczne znaki pamięci,” PH 72.2 (1981): 229–38, rprt. in idem, Takie sobie średniowieczne bajeczki (Cracow: Avalon, 2012), 101–17 at 112. 15 Compare with the account on the victorious power granted by God to St. Columba, as working during his life and after his death, symbolized by the crozier of the saint, cited below, n. 78. 16 “In bello eciam concertantibus sepe Deus huius sancti supplicacionibus miraculis lauda­ bilibusque factis sustinet, omnes Wenceslaum vocantes adiuvat, sicut ipsum non semel neque bis, dum pereat, vivis et claris signis adiuvarat”: Die Legende Christians, chap. 10, in Josef Pekař, Die Wenzels- und Ludmila-Legenden und die Echtheit Christians (Prague: Wiesner, 1906), 88–125 at 125.

84

Kotecki

Figures 3.2a–b Present-day view of the southern facade of the church of St. James (ca. 1165) in the village Jakub (Církvice-Jakub) near Kutná Hora, Czech Republic. a) general view; b) Close-up of the sculpture depicting St. Wenceslas Photos by Radosław Kotecki

How to Secure the Intercession of the Patron Saint

85

86

Kotecki

and the people.” Once again, however, the laconic account makes it impossible to say whether the days in question were feast days associated with the saint in the liturgical calendar,17 or perhaps days on which the Bohemians set off for war, taking with them, as St. Wenceslas used to do in his earthly life, arma of their patron saint. Trying to find clear information about war-related rituals in St. Wenceslas’s legends is of no use. However, there is no denying that the Koužim episode repeated in them is a story that may have been the basis for the practice of using St. Wenceslas’s arma as war talismans. This view is supported by the fact that the objects were kept in the Prague Cathedral.18 It needs to be remembered that churches performing public functions were notably authorized to serve as storage places for relics of palladial characteristics. This is evidenced by numerous examples which are worth mentioning here, as they enable a better understanding of the role of St. Wenceslas’s arma. Perhaps the best-known example remains that of the Passion relics deposited in the church of the Virgin of the Pharos (part of the imperial palace in Constantinople), some of which emperors took with them when they set off for war.19 During the expeditions the relics were carried in staurothekes by clerics of the imperial chapel.20 Similar customs were also known in the West. 17

The celebration of St. Wenceslas’s natalium on 28 September is well attested. Yet in the eleventh century it became a state holiday which attracted nobles and people from all over Bohemia to Prague. See esp. Ludmila Luňáková, “Sváteční dny v knížecích Čechách aneb K úloze církevních svátků při veřejných událostech” (PhD thesis, Masarykova univerzita v Brně, 2021), 73–100. According to Luňáková (219, 273–74), the practice of military expeditions on a day of St. Wenceslas wasn’t known in Bohemia. 18 The arma are mentioned in several late medieval inventories of the cathedral treasury. The earliest reference is in a charter by Prague bishop, John of Dražice (1333). See Antonín Podlaha and Eduard Šittler, Chrámový poklad u sv. Víta v Praze. Jeho dějiny a popis (Prague: Wiesner, 1903), 13n12. 19 Holger A. Klein, “Sacred Relics and Imperial Ceremonies at the Great Palace of Constantinople,” in Visualisierungen von Herrschaft. Frühmittelalterliche Residenzen Gestalt und Zeremoniell, ed. Franz A. Bauer, Byzas 5 (Istanbul: Yayınları, 2006), 79–99 at 94; Bernard Flusin, “Le culte de la Croix au palais de Constantinople d’après le ‘Livre des cérémonies,’” in The Church of the Holy Cross of Ałt‘amar, ed. Zaroui Pogossian and Edda Vardanyan, Armenian texts and studies 3 (Leiden and Boston MA: Brill, 2019), 100–25, esp. 119–20. 20 Three Treatises on Imperial Military Expeditions, ed. and trans. John F. Haldon, Corpus fontium historiae Byzantinae 28 (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1990), 125. For commentary, see Alexei Lidov, “A Byzantine Jerusalem: The Imperial Pharos Chapel as the Holy Sepulchre,” in Jerusalem as Narrative Space, ed. Annette Hoffmann and Gerhard Wolf, Visualising the Middle Ages 6 (Leiden and Boston MA: Brill, 2012), 63–103 at 69; Athanasios Markopoulos, “The Ideology of War in the Military Harangues of Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos,” in Byzantine War Ideology Between Roman Imperial Concept and Christian Religion, ed. Johannes Koder and Ioannis Stouraitis,

How to Secure the Intercession of the Patron Saint

87

The earliest example is the golden cross containing the particles of the True Cross kept in the Praetorian Church of Sts. Peter and Paul in Toledo, a cathedral which, from the time of Wamba until the fall of the Visigothic Kingdom (711), remained the most important church of the Visigothic urbs regia and the place of royal inauguration ceremony. According to the text of the seventhcentury Liber ordinum with the Mozarabic liturgy, it was in this very church that the profectio bellica ritual took place. During these, the reliquary was presented by the bishop to the king and then to a clergyman who would carry it before the ruler.21 In the Frankish kingdom, a similar function was performed by the cappa of St. Martin kept in the palace chapel and carried by clerics, the cappelani, during expeditions.22 The relic and role of the palladium eventually lost their significance and under Capetians were replaced by the famous Oriflamme kept in the abbey church of Saint-Denis which was the coronation site of the kings of France.23 Another well-known example is the True Cross belonging to the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, the most important church of the Kingdom of Jerusalem where coronations took place (from 1131).24 The object was to remain in the possession of the local canons, except when the king requested that the relic accompany him to the battlefield. On such occasions, it was usually the patriarch himself who took custody of the relic to carry it in battle.25 Veröffentlichungen zur Byzanzforschung 30 (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2012), 47–56 at 54–55. 21 See among others Alexander Pierre Bronisch, Reconquista y guerra santa. La concepción de la guerra en la España cristiana desde los visigodos hasta comienzos del siglo XII, Chronica nova estudios históricos 99 (Granada: Universidad de Granada, 2006), 102–9; Andrew Kurt, “Lay Piety in Visigothic Iberia: Liturgical and Paraliturgical Forms,” JMIS 8.1 (2015): 1–37 at 25–26. 22 Walahfrid Strabo, Libellus de exordiis et incrementis, ed. Alice L. Harting-Correa, Mittellateinische Studien und Texte 19 (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 192. On St. Martin’s cappa, see esp. Albert M. Königer, Die Militärseelsorge der Karolingerzeit. Ihr Recht und ihre Praxis, VKSM 4.7 (Munich: Lentner, 1918), 19–20. 23 See Elodie Leschot, “The Abbey of Saint-Denis and the Coronation of the King of France,” in Royal Divine Coronation Iconography in the Medieval Euro-Mediterranean Area, ed. Mirko Vagnoni (Basel: MDPI, 2020), 87–101. On the banner, Guillaume Guiart following a tradition cultivated at Saint-Denis, wrote that it was made by King Dagobert and entrusted to the monastery, where it was kept reverently in the treasury. See Philippe Contamine, “L’Oriflamme de Saint-Denis aux XIVe et XVe siècles étude de symbolique religieuse et royale,” Annales de l’Est 3 (1973): 179–244 at 190–91. 24 Simon John, “Royal Inauguration and Liturgical Culture in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, 1099–1187,” JMH 43.4 (2017): 485–504, esp. 495–502. 25 See esp. Alan V. Murray, “‘Mighty Against the Enemies of Christ’: The Relic of the True Cross in the Armies of the Kingdom of Jerusalem,” in The Crusades and Their Sources: Essays Presented to Bernard Hamilton, ed. John France and William G. Zajac (Aldershot

88

Kotecki

The information about the place where St. Wenceslas’s arma were kept enhances belief in the palladium-like function of these objects. But the examples cited here are evidence of something else as well. Not only are they evidence of the custom of depositing these artifacts in holy places important for polities and monarchs, but they also confirm their use in combat as war talismans. The former is not confirmed clearly by the hagiography of St. Wenceslas, although it does not exclude this either. In assessing that matter, it should be noted that the Prague Cathedral was located right next to the monarch’s residence and played an important role in royal and ducal ceremonies.26 Moreover, the custom of rulers taking signa victricia from cathedrals and churches can be observed not only in Byzantium and in the monarchies that sprung up from the Carolingian Empire. There was a well-known practice in thirteenth- and fourteenth-century Scotland of rulers setting off for war and taking with them a crucifix called the Black Rood from the church of Holyrood Abbey in Edinburgh, a place of paramount importance to the Scots, where the king had his residence as early as the twelfth century.27 In Norway, the role of the palladium was performed by the weapons of St. Olaf, kept at Nidaros Cathedral, next to the royal residence, where they were also used during royal coronations.28 Also, the Cracow Cathedral, the most important church of the Piast monarchy and part of the royal residence, was a store for at least two victory-bringing relics: the so-called Spear of St. Maurice and the coronation sword known as Szczerbiec (the Jagged Sword), both associated to the first Polish king, Bolesław the Brave. Legend has it that the sword was given to Bolesław by an angel and served as a weapon thanks to which “he defeated all his adversaries with the help of God.” Also, Bolesław’s successors used to take it to the battlefield to easily triumph over their enemies.29 This bears a and Burlington VT: Ashgate, 1998), 217–38. According to William of Tyre, this task sometimes also fell to the custodian of the Holy Sepulcher, see ibid., 222n15. 26 For more about the importance of the cathedral, see Andrzej Pleszczyński, Przestrzeń i polityka. Studium rezydencji władcy wcześniejszego średniowiecza przykład czeskiego Wyszehradu (Lublin: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej, 2000), 17–52. 27 Julianna Grigg, “The Black Rood of Scotland: A Social and Political Life,” Viator 48.3 (2017): 53–78. 28 Especially the axe known as Hel. It is known from the stories on the battle at Lyrskov. See below, n. 44. On the royal right to take the shrine, spear, and axe of St. Olav outside the Nidaros Cathedral, see Lena Rohrbach, “Olavifications: Spatial and Temporal Formations of Trondheim as a Memory Place,” in Myth, Magic, and Memory in Early Scandinavian Narrative Culture, ed. Jürg Glauser and Pernille Hermann, Acta Scandinavica 11 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2021), 255–70 at 265–66. 29 Chronica Poloniae maioris, chap. 11, ed. Brygida Kürbis, MPH NS 8 (Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1970), 17. On the sword, see Marcin Biborski, Janusz Stępiński, and Grzegorz Żabiński, “‘Szczerbiec’ (the Jagged Sword)—the Coronation Sword of the Kings of Poland,” Gladius 31 (2011): 93–148; Mark Lewis, “‘Names of great virtue and power’:

How to Secure the Intercession of the Patron Saint

89

remarkable resemblance to what the author of the Ut annuncietur says about St. Wenceslas’s arma. Like those, the Szczerbiec appears as a testimony to military triumphs from the distant past and, at the same time, the source of their repetitiveness. Moreover, it was also associated with the idea of supernatural patronage, indicated by the reference to its donor.30 There seems to be a trace of a special bond between Polish rulers and the angelic being which supported the Poles in their martial struggles. Interestingly, there are also reasons to link the concept of angelic patronage to the Piast spear, which, too, was kept in the treasury of the Cracow Cathedral, along with the Szczerbiec.31 Master Vincentius may have been referring to it at the turn of the thirteenth century in his account of Bolesław III’s campaign against the Pomeranians (1109), in which a figure described as a primipilarius, a “standard-bearer” leading the Polish troops and identified as monarch’s chaplain, notices a luminous angel coming to help the Poles.32 These examples are not without significance when it comes to assessing the function and nature of St. Wenceslas’s weapons as imagined by the author of Ut annuncietur and other hagiographers. As it will be shown, Bohemian historiographical sources, too, confirm that St. Wenceslas’s arma, especially one of them, played an essential role for the Bohemians as objects able to achieve heavenly grace for them in times of war. In those sources, it is no less possible to uncover striking analogies to the examples cited above so that the significance of Bohemian rituals can be better grasped against the phenomenon of war ritualization. 2

The Battle of Chlumec

The battle fought on 18 February 1126 near Chlumec (Germ. Kulm) in Western Bohemia proved to be a great triumph for Duke Soběslav I. Thanks to the The Sword Szczerbiec and the Christian Magical Tradition,” Waffen- und Kostümkunde, no. 2 (2021): 127–52. 30 Chronica Poloniae maioris, chap. 11, p. 18. On the legend, see Biborski et al., “‘Szczerbiec,’” 95–101. 31 Vita S. Stanislai episcopi Cracoviensis (Vita maior), 1.2 and 2.27, ed. Wojciech Kętrzyński, MPH 4 (Lviv: Gubrynowicz & Schmidt, 1884): 319–438 at 364–65 and 393. On the Piast spear, see Radosław Kotecki, “Pious Rulers, Princely Clerics, and Angels of Light: ‘Imperial Holy War’ Imagery in Twelfth-Century Poland and Rus’,” in Christianity and War in Medieval East Central Europe and Scandinavia, ed. Radosław Kotecki, Carsten Selch Jensen, and Stephen Bennett (Leeds: ARC Humanities Press, 2021), 159–88 at 185–88. 32 Magistri Vincentii dicti Kadłubek Chronica Polonorum, 3.14, ed. Marian Plezia, MPH NS 11 (Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1994), 99–100. For examination of this story, see Kotecki, “Pious Rulers.”

90

Kotecki

fact that his rival, Duke Otto the Black, who was trying to assert his claim to the Prague throne with the help of the German king, was killed in the battle, Soběslav managed to hold on to the power he had gained barely a year before. Lothar III, who supported Otto, having been encouraged to do so by a promise of generous gifts, suffered a bitter defeat. Fortunately for him, Soběslav showed great political astuteness. Instead of handing him to the opposition in the Empire, the duke used the deditio ritual so skillfully that he ensured an honorary way out of a difficult situation for both himself and Lothar.33 A non-confrontational attitude did not prevent the victor from using the triumph to strengthen his authority on ideological grounds. This is best evidenced by the fact that in the same year the duke restored, in gratitude for the victory, the chapel of St. George on Mount Řip. This was a site regarded as the symbolic center of the Bohemian domain, associated particularly with Bohemus, the mythical father of the Bohemians (figs. 3.3–4). The rebuilding of the chapel from its ruins, combined with the restoration of the rights to its former endowment, as well as the addition of a new patron, St. Vojtěch-Adalbert, should be seen as part of a strategy aimed at consolidating the Bohemian community around its new ruler. Similar goals must have been behind the issuing by the duke of a special coin (fig. 3.5). Its obverse features an uncommonly sturdy and armed figure of St. Wenceslas accompanied by two smaller figures greeting him, one with a sword and one with a spear with a small banner. On the reverse, which features Soběslav’s name on the edge, one can see a group of five warriors, probably Bohemians, a St. Wenceslas’s familia, going into battle under the protection of their patron saint.34 33

For the battle, see Dietrich Schäfer, “Lothars III. Heereszug nach Böhmen 1126,” in Historische Aufsätze. Karl Zeumer zum 60. Geburtstag als Festgabe dargebracht von Freunden und Schülern (Weimar: Böhlau, 1910), 61–80; Wojciech Iwańczak, “The Pretended Miracle or the Battle of Chlumec in 1126,” Acta archaeologica Lodziensia 47 (2001): 12–18; Vratislav Vaníček, Soběslav I. Přemyslovci v kontextu evropských dějin v letech 1092–1140, Historická paměť. Velká řada 14 (Prague and Litomyšl: Paseka, 2007), 165–97; Joanna Sobiesiak, “Znaczenie bitwy pod Chlumcem (1126) dla relacji politycznych między władcą niemieckim Lotarem III a czeskim księciem Sobiesławem I,” Res Historica 38 (2015): 43–59. For the reconciliation of Soběslav and Lothar, see esp. Jan Zelenka, “Vazal nebo přítel? Význam rituálu homagia ve vztahu mezi českým knížetem Soběslavem I. a císařem Lotharem III.,” in Drugie Polsko-Czeskie Forum Młodych Mediewistów. Mediewista wobec źródła: teoria i praktyka, ed. Józef Dobosz, Jakub Kujawiński, and Marzena Matla-Kozłowska, Publikacje Instytutu Historii 87 (Poznań: Instytut Historii Uniwersytetu Adama Mickiewicza, 2009), 61–71. 34 Jiří Rác, “K obrazu pěti bojovníků na denáru Soběslava I,” Umění 29.4 (1981): 362–63; Anežka Merhautová, “Výtvarný medailónek bitvy u Chlumce,” in Na předělu věků. Sborník k poctě PhDr. Jaroslava Pešiny, DrSc, ed. Jiří Kropáček (Prague: Karolinum, 1994), 55–58. On St. Wenceslas’s depictions on coins, see Stanisław Suchodolski, “Kult św.

How to Secure the Intercession of the Patron Saint

91

Figure 3.3 Říp Mountain seen from the South-East, Czech Republic. License: CC BY-SA 4.0 Photo by Ben Skála. Reproduced from: w.wiki/5awk

Figure 3.4 Rotunda of Sts. George and Vojtěch-Adalbert on Říp Mountain, Czech Republic. License: CC BY 2.5 Photo by Ondřej Žváček. Reproduced from: w.wiki/7GKd

92

Kotecki

Figure 3.5 Prince Soběslav I’s denar supposedly minted to commemorate his victory at Chlumec (1126) over Otto the Black and Lothar III Drawing by Radosław Kotecki

It is, therefore, not surprising that several Bohemian written sources contain information about the ideological dimension of the battle. Echoes of the victory can be found in a brief note, written perhaps shortly after the battle, and known from the Annals of Hradiště-Opatovice, in which one can read that Soběslav defeated his enemies “with God’s help” and returned with his Bohemians with great honor.35 The accounts by Monk of Sazava (1170s)36 and Dalimil (ca. 1312)37 are more elaborate, but their value is dubious, so they won’t be discussed here. The most detailed narrative depicting the religious aspects of the Bohemians’ actions at Chlumec is a story included in the first continuation of Cosmas’s chronicle by the so-called Canon of Vyšehrad. Without an exaggeration, at least as far as the period in question is concerned, his account is the Wacława i św. Wojciecha przez pryzmat polskich monet z wczesnego średniowiecza,” in Kościół—kultura—społeczeństwo. Studia z dziejów średniowiecza i czasów nowożytnych, ed. Stanisław Bylina (Warsaw: Semper, 2000), 87–102; Wolverton, Hastening, 166–71. 35 Annales Gradicenses-Opatovicenses, ed. Josef Emler, FrB 2 (Prague: Museum království Českého, 1874), 386–400 at 393. The entry should be perhaps attributed to Heny Zdík or someone from his milieu. See Josef Šrámek, “Zamyšlení nad stránkami análů hradišťskoopatovických. Poznámka na okraj jedné středověké památky ve světle současného bádání,” Vlastivědný věstník moravský 63.4 (2011): 305–14. 36 Monachi Sazaviensis Continuatio Cosmae, ed. Josef Emler, FrB 2, 238–69 at 255; for the account, see my forthcoming article “The Prince and the ‘prandium’: The Motif of PreBattle Lunch in the Monk of Sázava’s Account of the Battle of Chlumec (1126),” KH 130. Eng.-Language Edition 7 (2023). 37 La “Chronique de Dalimil,” 338 (ll. 5–24).

How to Secure the Intercession of the Patron Saint

93

most vivid and at the same time the most elaborate description of war-related religious rites, against not only Bohemian sources, but also all sources from all three East Central European polities. It reads as follows: Then Lothar, king of the Saxons, deceived by Otto [the Black] … came with his army against the Bohemians to the stronghold called Chlumec, where on February 18 Duke Soběslav with the help of God and with his retinue defeated—not counting shield-bearers—five hundred of their mighty men, among whom fell the said Duke Otto. … And so Soběslav and the Bohemians returned with great honor and fame untouched. And there was unspeakable joy, both among the clergy and the laity, and among all the family of St. Wenceslas, because neither our fathers, nor our grandfathers, nor our great-grandfathers had ever experienced such fame as God Almighty granted to us by his grace and with his dexter, and with his just judgment overcame them. Amen. But I do not wish to conceal from you, fathers and mothers, what I have heard, I proclaim to you the truth of the help of Almighty God, which was seen from a short distance by both armies: that on that day, before the battle between the Saxons and the Bohemians took place, a flying eagle cawed with its squawk over the Saxons, feeling out through divine inspiration their dead bodies; and a bell was heard tolling. Moreover, when nearly a hundred Bohemian magnates and provosts and chaplains were standing around and guarding the spear of St. Wenceslas, one of them, a chaplain named Vitus, a righteous man of noble birth, who was clad, as is customary, in armor and helmet like Achilles, cried out for joy to his people: “O, comrades and brothers! Persevere! For I see over the top of the sacred spear St. Wenceslas riding a white horse and dressed in a white robe, fighting for us! See ye also!” And they, astonished, looking here and there and, seeing nothing—because not all but the worthy were granted by God the grace to see this miracle—grieved and wept, and sighed to God with all their heart, and raised their eyes and hands to heaven, and cried “Kyrie eleison” for so long, that Almighty God with his mercy and his holy messenger, Wenceslas, our protector, overcame our enemies. Amen. Doing all this, Duke Soběslav sent to the village of Vrbćany his chaplain who knew the matter and who found, on the wall of the church, the banner of St. Adalbert the bishop; and it was hung on the spear of St. Wenceslas the martyr during the battle with the Saxons, where God defeated them. Amen.38 38 Canonici Wissegradensis continuatio Cosmae, ed. Josef Emler, FrB 2, 201–37 at 204: “Hic Luderius, rex Saxonum, seductus ab Ottone, … cum suo exercitu venit contra Bohemos

94

Kotecki

The account originated no later than in 1142 during the lifetime of the duke and those who had taken part in the battle and who remembered it well.39 The person of the chronicler, too, allows one to approach the account with a degree of trust. Lukáš Reitinger has argued against the author’s connection to the Vyšehrad Chapter and convincingly supported the chronicler’s affiliation with the chapter of St. Vitus’s Cathedral.40 He was therefore part of a milieu that was close to the matters of politics41 and involved in the development of the cult of St. Wenceslas. This is important because a key role in the narrative is played by the spear attributed to St. Wenceslas (hasta sancti Wenceslai), presumably one of the very parts of the arma sancti Wenceslai being at the disposal of the canons of St. Vitus’s. iuxta oppidun nomine Chlumecz, ubi Sobieslaus dux cum dei adiutorio et suo comitatu XII Kalendas Martii prostravit quingentos primates illorum, exceptis scutiferis; inter quos ruit Otto dux memoratus. … Et sic dominus Sobieslaus et Bohemi cum magno honore et gloria illaesi redierunt. Factum est autem inenarrabile gaudium tam clericis quam laicis per totam familiam sancti Wenceslai, quia nec patres nostri nec avi nec atavi habuerunt talem honorem, qualem omnipotens deus sua gratia concessit nobis, suaque dextera et iusto iudicio vicit eos, amen. Nolo autem vos latere patres et matres, quod audivi, annuntio vobis veritatem auxilii omnipotentis dei, quae visa est pene ab utroque exercitu, quod aquila volans ea die, antequam bellum fieret inter Saxones et Bohemos, sua voce clamabat super Saxones, praesciens nutu dei cadavera eorum; et campanam sonantem auditum est. Iterum circum astantibus et custodientibus primatibus Bohemiensibus et praepositis et capellanis pene centum hastam sancti Wenceslai, inter quos unus capellanus, probus, nobili genere, nomine Vitus, qui tenebat hastam eiusdem sancti praememorati, ut mos est, indutus lorica et galea, ut Achilles, lacrimans prae gaudio clamavit ad suos: O socii et fratres, constantes estote, video enim sanctum Wenceslaum sedentem in equo albo et indutum candida veste super cacumen sacrae hastae, pugnantem pro nobis; etiam et vos videte. Illi autem stupefacti aspicientes hac et illac nichilque videntes, quia non omnibus, nisi dignis datum est a deo illud miraculum videre, tristantibus et lacrimantibus et ex toto cordo gementibus ad deum, et oculis et manibus expandentibus ad coelum, et tamdiu clamantibus Kyrieeleison, dum deus omnipotens sua misericordia et suo sancto nuntio Wenceslao, nostro protectore, vicit nostros hostes. Amen. Haec duce Sobieslao omnia agente, misit suum capellanum in villam, quae vocatur nomine Wirbcane, cui fuit nota res, qui invenit in pariete ecclesiae vexillum sancti Adalberti pontificis, et suspensum est in hasta sancti Wenceslai martyris in tempore belli contra Saxones, ubi deus vicit eos. Amen.” 39 The chronicler wrote his work around 1126–1130 and then in 1142. See Bláhová, “Pokračovatelé,” 201. 40 Lukáš Reitinger, “Psal tzv. Kanovník vyšehradský opravdu na Vyšehradě? První Kosmův pokračovatel v kontextu dějepisectví přemyslovského věku,” Český časopis historický 113.3 (2015): 635–68. 41 It has been suggested that the author was ducal chaplain. His connections with the court and his favorable attitude to Duke Soběslav are not in doubt. See Bláhová, “Pokračovatelé,” 200–1.

How to Secure the Intercession of the Patron Saint

95

This does not mean that the account raises no doubts. Its first part is a development of an annal entry similar to the one known from the Annals of Hradiště-Opatovice which shows that the story is not merely the record grasping together news spreading shortly after the battle. A closer analysis reveals that it is more of an amalgam welding several separate themes, perhaps of different provenance. These themes can be divided into four sections distinguished in the structure of the account: 1) general information about the battle with the account about the triumphant return of the Bohemians; 2) the story of the omens before the battle; 3) the narrative of the chaplain Vitus, the spear and the miracle; and 4) the account of the finding of the banner of St. Vojtěch-Adalbert and its attachment to the spear. The provenance of the various parts—except for the first—can be determined only based on the meaning of the text itself. What seems puzzling is the second part, which contains information having a nature of imaginative topoi. This is how one should view the references to the appearance of a bird of prey before the battle and the sighting of omens “by both armies.” That last of the topoi may even be considered a classic one in accounts of miracles occurring on the battlefield, with its objective being to convince the reader of the veracity of the miracle.42 What also seems to be another convention is the information about the tolling of a bell. According to Wojciech Iwańczak, the bell sound was to remind the warriors of the nothingness of a man’s worldly existence.43 However, this reference should be rather linked to the information about the appearance of the eagle, a symbol of St. Wenceslas, and hence in the context of the foretelling of the Bohemian triumph. Thus, the tolling bell is here more of a sign heralding the intervention of supernatural forces on the battlefield.44 42

Compare with Elizabeth Lapina, “‘Nec signis nec testibus creditur  …’: The Problem of Eyewitnesses in the Chronicles of the First Crusade,” Viator 38.1 (2007): 117–39 at 128–31. This is by no means typical only for crusading accounts. See, e.g., Hans-Werner Goetz, Gott und die Welt. Religiöse Vorstellungen des frühen und hohen Mittelalters. Teil I, Band 1: Das Gottesbild, Orbis mediaevalis. Vorstellungswelten des Mittelalters 13.1 (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2011), 112–13, the author invokes the Carolingian example. 43 Iwańczak, “The Pretended Miracle,” 17. 44 A similar story can be found in the accounts of the Scandinavian royal sagas of the great Battle of Lyrskov (1043), where the sound of a bell heralds the intervention of St. Olaf on behalf of Norwegian king Magnus. See Snorri Sturluson, Heimskringla, trans. Alison Finlay and Anthony Faulkes, 3 vols. (London: Viking Society for Northern Research, 2011–2015), 3:26; “Morkinskinna”: The Earliest Icelandic Chronicle of the Norwegian Kings (1030–1157), trans. Theodore M. Andersson and Kari E. Gade, Islandica 51 (Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press, 2000), 119–21. On the meaning of the bell sound in military context, see Alan V. Murray, “Music and Cultural Conflict in the Christianization of Livonia, 1190–1290,” in The Clash of Cultures on the Medieval Baltic Frontier, ed. Alan V. Murray (Farnham and Burlington VT: Ashgate, 2009), 293–305 at 296; John H. Arnold and Caroline

96

Kotecki

In contrast to the passage discussed above, parts three and four of the narrative seem—due to a lack of topoi, and because of the high level of detail and palpable emotionality—to provide a witness account, presumably from clergymen present in the army or from the author himself. The meaning of these parts also supports the overriding objective of presenting St. Wenceslas as the defender of his familia; however, the details included in them could not have been made up. For example, the information about where and in what circumstances the vexillum of St. Vojtěch-Adalbert was found is meaningless and must, therefore, have come from participants in the events. This is also the case of the information about the troubles the Bohemians had with noticing the miracle talked about by the chaplain Vitus. Especially given that the matter should be regarded as touchy, as the possibility of seeing the saints whose relics were used was considered proof of the saints’ physical appearance on the battlefield. At the same time, this was the ultimate confirmation of the fact that the warriors were worthy of God’s grace.45 If the author had not felt bound by such information, he would follow Master Vincentius, who in the invoked account of Bolesław III’s campaign against the Pomeranians says that the angel leading the Polish army was admired by all Polish warriors, because “people leading angelic life receive visible help of angels.”46 The negative

Goodson, “Resounding Community: The History and Meaning of Medieval Church Bells,” Viator 43.1 (2012): 99–130; Elisabetta Neri, “Les cloches. Construction, sens, perception d’un son,” Cahiers de Civilisation Médiévale 55.220 (2012): 473–96. 45 In the mid-twelfth century account of Henry II expedition against Slavs, one may read that emperor prayed to Sts. George, Lawrence, and Adrian, as well as he took from Bamberg the sword of the latter. When going to fight, he saw the saints with his own eyes as they advanced the army: “aperti sunt oculi eius, et vidit gloriosos martyres … cum angelo percutiente, exertcitum suum pręcedentes”: Die “Vita sancti Heinrici regis et confessoris” und ihre Bearbeitung durch den Bamberger Diakon Adelbert, chap. 4, ed. Markus Stumpf, MGH SS rer. Germ. 69 (Hannover: Hahn, 1999), 238. In Aelred of Rievaulx’s account of the Battle of the Standard (1138), the author places great emphasis on the physical presence of saints whose relics and banners were carried at the head of the English troops: “divinum auxilium praesto est, cum quibus tota coelestis curia dimicabit. Aderit Michael cum angelis … Petrus cum Apostolis pugnabit pro nobis. … Sancti martyres nostra praecedunt agmina”: Aelred of Rievaulx, Relatio de standardo, in Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II, and Richard I, ed. Richard Howlett, Rolls series 82.3 (London: Longman and Co., 1886), 179–99. 46 Magistri Vincentii dicti Kadłubek Chronica Polonorum, 3.16, p. 101. Compare with Kotecki, “Pious Rulers,” 165–66. The immediate vision of divine by a human was considered possible as a special God’s favor. See Csaba Németh, “‘Videre sine speculo’: The Immediate Vision of God in the Works of Richard of St Victor,” Annual of Medieval Studies at CEU 8 (2002): 123–37.

How to Secure the Intercession of the Patron Saint

97

information about the Bohemians must, therefore, have been part of a reliable account of efforts to convince the warriors that heaven supported them.47 How should these actions be interpreted? Obviously, they reflected the general objectives of battlefield rites. On the one hand, they were to persuade God to help the supplicants, on the other strengthen the knights’ belief in heaven’s favor and raise their fighting spirit. Just as unoriginally, the main medium to produce such effects were sacred objects brought to the battlefield, in this case the spear considered to be the weapon of St. Wenceslas, and the vexillum of St. Vojtěch-Adalbert, for which Duke Soběslav sent one of his chaplains. These objects, combined to form one body bringing together the power of both patrons, should be interpreted as war talismans or signa victricia.48 While the vexillum is an unknown object the origin and form of which cannot, despite attempts, be determined without new data,49 one can at least say about the spear that it most likely was part of the arma sancti Wenceslai.50 In the context 47

For similar opinion, see Marcin R. Pauk, “‘Capella regia’ i struktury Kościoła monarszego w Europie Środkowej X–XII wieku. Ottońsko-salickie wzorce ustrojowe na wschodnich rubieżach łacińskiego chrześcijaństwa,” in Granica wschodnia cywilizacji zachodniej w średniowieczu, ed. Zbigniew Dalewski (Warsaw: Instytut Historii Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 2014), 211–77 at 232. 48 See, e.g., Antonín, The Ideal Ruler, 113; Marie Bláhová, “Vidění kanovníka Víta—zjitřené emoce nebo promyšlená inscenace?” in “Fontes ipsi sitiunt.” Sborník prací k sedmdesátinám archiváře a historika Eduarda Mikuška, ed. Petr Kopička (Litoměřice and Prague: Scriptorium, 2016), 35–41. 49 Petr Charvát, “Der heilige Adalbert von Prag und das böhmisch Staatswesen (‘vexillum sancti Adalberti’),” Civis. Studi e testi 35.103 (2011): 9–18, suggests that the vexillum is one of the liturgical vestments that according to Cosmas (ca. 1125) were given to St. Vojtěch-Adalbert by Emperor Otto II. St. Adalbert was said to have celebrated Easter Mass in these vestments and Cosmas says they were “respectfully kept to this day in the church of Prague.” Cosmae Pragensis Chronica Bohemorum, 1.28, ed. János M. Bak and Pavlína Rychterová, trans. Petra Mutlová and Martyn C. Rady, intro. and ann. Jan Hasil and Irene van Renswoude, CEMT 10 (Budapest and New York: Central European University Press, 2020), 94 (hereafter Cosmas, Chron. Boh.). According to Charvát those paraments were hidden in Vrbčany so that they would not fall into the hands of Bolesław the Brave occupying Prague in 1003–1004. This thesis cannot be taken otherwise than a guess. It is, however, curious that Durham Cathedral had a banner incorporating a square of white cloth, the holy corporal, that was believed to have been used by the St. Cuthbert himself when he said mass. This banner has a rich history of serving as a signum victoriae. See Richard Sharpe, “Banners of the Northern Saints,” in Saints of North-East England, 600–1500, ed. Margaret Coombe, Anne Mouron, and Christiania Whitehead, MCS 39 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2017), 245–303 at 247–58. 50 I ignore of whether or not this object is identical with replica of the imperial Holy Spear captured by the Bohemians on the anti-king Rudolf during the Battle of Flarchheim (1080), as scholarship claims. It is doubtful that the matter could be settled, despite the report by Ekkehard of Aura that the spear was given to Vratislav II by Henry IV for ceremonial use.

98

Kotecki

of discussion in the first part of this study, it is worth noting here that, according to the Canon, the miracle of St. Wenceslas was noticed by chaplain Vitus above the spear he was holding. This information substantiates the view that St. Wenceslas’s arma served as a medium between the earthly domain and the image of the victorious Wenceslas, which could be made real again thanks to his tokens taken to battle. Thus, there is a strong correlation between the words of the Canon and those of the author of Ut annuncietur as well as Christian the Monk, who claims that God gives help to all those asking Wenceslas for help in war, just as he supported the Přemyslid duke through “vivid and clear signs.” The Canon’s account provides an illustration of such a sign, which is revealed to the Bohemians asking for help. Wenceslas becomes visible because of a miracle and is revealed in a white robe and on a white horse. The color white, just like luminosity, is a manifestation of supernatural status and power. It can be concluded here that the chronicler’s account reflects an ideologically-advanced rite based on a relevant myth and corresponding to the cult of St. Wenceslas as the patron saint of Bohemia and defender in war. While such an ideology of the cult of Bohemian patron saint seems to date back to the turn of the eleventh century, a question arises about the origins of the practice and its place in the wider context of the development of medieval war-related rites. Despite the enduring nature of the ideas and practices on which war rites were based in the Middle Ages, one may observe that the Canon’s account seems to bear traces testifying either to an ancient origin of the rite or to “archaic” models. In some way, such a proposal is contrary to the popular belief in the impact of crusading and chivalric ideas on the cult of St. Wenceslas. It is believed in recent scholarship that the influence of these ideas would explain the transformation of St. Wenceslas from a peace-loving monkish ruler into a protector fighting to defend his familia.51 These views—additionally On Bohemian spear, see Wilhelm Wegener, “Die Lanze des heiligen Wenzel. Ein Versuch zur Geschichte der mittelalterlichen Herrschaftszeichen,” Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte. Germanistische Abteilung 72.1 (1955): 56–82; Dušan Třeštík, Kosmova kronika. Studie k počátkům českého dějepisectví a politického myšlení (Prague: Academia, 1968), 204–207; Rostislav Nový, “Symboly české státnosti v 10.-12. století,” Folia Historica Bohemica 12 (1988): 47–63. 51 See, e.g., Gábor Klaniczay, Holy Rulers and Blessed Princesses: Dynastic Cults in Medieval Central Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 163–67; idem, “The Power of Saints (Patronage and Miracles) in Defining Regional Cohesion and Identity,” in The Historical Evolution of Regionalizing Identities in Europe, ed. Nils Holger Petersen et al. (Bern: Peter Lang, 2020), 207–21 at 212; Dušan Třeštík, “Idea státu a národa,” in Přemyslovci. Budování českého státu, ed. Petr Sommer et al. (Prague: Lidové noviny, 2009), 272–77 and 281–86 at 281–82; Robert Antonín, “From Warrior to Knight: The Paths of Chivalric Culture

How to Secure the Intercession of the Patron Saint

99

strengthened by the claim that this transformation is an expression of innovation in defining “state ideology”52 as well as the belief in the rite of carrying banners to the battlefield being rooted in the cultural climate of the twelfth century53—may lead one to the conclusion that the source of the rite used at Chlumec lay in the spirit of the period shaped by the crusades. However, such a view does not consider the antiquity of the concept of a holy patron of a community as well as the rituals associated with it.54 A lack of such awareness leads some scholars to simplified interpretations.55 In this context, it is worth drawing attention to the views of Marcin R. Pauk. While focusing on other issues, he noted on at least two occasions that the rite described by the Canon may have stemmed from more archaic ideas. First, questioning Gábor Klaniczay’s suggestion that the patronal nature of the cult in Central European Space Using the Example of the Bohemian Lands,” Czech and Slovak Journal of Humanities 1 (2014): 8–18 at 15–16. 52 See, e.g., Třeštík, “Idea státu,” 282. 53 Compare with Tomasz Tarczyński, “The King and the Saint against the Scots: The Shaping of English National Identity in the 12th Century Narrative of King Athelstan’s Victory over His Northern Neighbours,” in Imagined Communities: Constructing Collective Identities in Medieval Europe, ed. Andrzej Pleszczyński et al., EMC 8 (Leiden and Boston MA: Brill, 2018), 85–102 at 99. For early use of “holy banners” as war talismans, see Carl Erdmann, “Kaiserliche und päpstliche Fahnen im hohen Mittelalter,” Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken 25 (1933): 1–48; idem, Die Entstehung des Kreuzzugsgedankens, FKG 6 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1935), 38–39; Joaquin Serrano del Pozo, “Relics, Images, and Christian Apotropaic Devices in the Roman-Persian Wars (4th–7th Centuries),” Eikón Imago 11 (2022): 57–69. 54 According to Jones, the transformation of saints from benign figures into martial patrons of communities can be observed in many monarchies at different times. In his view, this phenomenon occurs “during certain stages of a people’s historical development” and “reflects general social and cultural factors at work.” See W.R. Jones, “Saints in Service: The Political and Cultural Implications of Medieval Hagiolatry,” Cithara 10 (1970): 33–44 at 37–38. St. James in Spain experienced two phases of militarization, as shown by Thomas Deswarte, “St. James in Galicia (c.500–1300): Rivalries in Heaven and on Earth,” in Culture and Society in Medieval Galicia: A Cultural Crossroads at the Edge of Europe, ed. James D’Emilio, MEMI 58 (Leiden and Boston MA: Brill, 2015), 477–511 at 483–84, 494–99. For early medieval saints as patrons of political bodies, see Thomas O. Clancy, “Columba, Adomnan and the Cult of Saints in Scotland,” in “Spes Scotorum,” “Hope of Scots”: Saint Columba, Iona and Scotland, ed. Dauvit Broun and Thomas O. Clancy (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999), 3–33; Alan T. Thacker, “‘Pecularius patronus noster’: The Saint as Patron of the State in the Early Middle Ages,” in The Medieval State: Essays Presented to James Campbell, ed. John R. Maddicott and D.M. Palliser (London and Rio Grande OH: Hambledon Press, 2000), 1–24. 55 As in the case of Vratislav Vaníček (Soběslav I., 183–84) claiming that the rite used at Chlumec was an imitation of Louis VI’s actions taken in the face of the German invasion of 1124.

100

Kotecki

of St. Wenceslas emerged under the influence of the crusades, he concluded that the ritualistically reinforced function of a patron saint as an aid in battle was rooted in collective ideas of the body politic concerning the military value of the sacred. Those ideas predated the development of crusade ideology.56 In another study, Pauk noted in turn that clergyman appearing in Soběslav’s entourage, taking care of sacred artifacts and being involved in forging an ideological setting for the battle finds a close analogy in canon two of the famous Concilium Germanicum (742). This forbade clerics to take part in warfare and to bear arms and armor, except for those whose role was to celebrate mass, administer the sacraments, and carry relics (pignora sanctorum).57 While the first issue requires more in-depth discussion, it is fair to confirm that the cited decree consists of a close analogy for the chronicle account. After all, the Canon writes that chaplain Vitus not only held the object being a relic but also that he was—“as is customary”—clad “in armor and helmet as Achilles.” These observations define the directions for further research, with the case of chaplain Vitus coming to the fore as the more obvious one. Without a doubt the clergyman performed a role that was part of the duties of royal chaplains, i.e., having custody over relics taken to war. Obviously, there is no need to derive his functions directly from the decisions of the Carolingian synod, for, like the wearing of armor, the custodia of sacred objects during royal expeditions were quite common until the introduction of ideals separating the clergy from activities considered unworthy and superstitious.58 The chronicler seems to have been unaware of these trends, hence his open description of matters about which other authors prefer to be silent. Not only is he not ashamed to mention that Vitus was armed, but he also states outright that the task of the chaplain was to serve as a “standard-bearer” in the army.59 What is particularly rare, he even mentions openly that the clergyman was responsible for provoking 56 57

Pauk, “Kult św. Stanisława,” 42. Pauk, “‘Capella regia,’” 231–32. The decision of the Concilium Germanicum has been discussed in Albert M. Königer, Die Militärseelsorge, 12–17, 34–36; David S. Bachrach, Religion and the Conduct of War, c.300–1215 (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2003), 39, 43–44, 59. 58 The custom of wearing armor by clerical standard-bearers survived longer in the Holy Land probably because of exemptions from a general ban. For visual material, see Fanny Caroff, “L’affrontement entre chrétiens et musulmans. Le rôle de la vraie Croix dans les images de croisade (XIIIe–XVe siècle),” in Chemins d’outre-mer. Études d’histoire sur la Méditerranée médiévale offertes à Michel Balard, ed. Damien Coulon and Michel Balard, Byzantina Sorbonensia 20 (Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 2004), 99–114. 59 Leopold Auer has rightly compared chaplain Vitus with the clerical signiferi in the Ottonian army mentioned by the Annalista Saxo. See Leopold Auer, “Der Kriegsdienst des Klerus unter den sächsischen Kaisern. Erster Teil,” Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung 79 (1971): 316–407 at 401–2.

How to Secure the Intercession of the Patron Saint

101

religious ecstasy among the troops by assuring them of miraculous omens of the kind criticized by rationally-minded theologians.60 Once again one may see a striking connection between the information from the Bohemian source and Master Vincentius’s account of the primipilarius mentioned above, who loudly informed Polish knights of the appearance of a luminous angel with a golden spear in his hand.61 Vitus, on the other hand, sees a white-clad St. Wenceslas above the relic he is holding and also informs his comrades about this. In this respect, both accounts perfectly correspond to the sparse evidence of chaplains’ special knowledge of wartime epiphanies.62 However, Vitus was not only appropriately knowledgeable but also of exceptional virtuousness (probus). This last quality, combined with virtues like honesty of manners and piety, certainly made him a suitable candidate for the task entrusted to him. Probitas, especially when combined with religious zeal, was a welcome trait among clergymen helping rulers to win the favor of heaven in battle. Such a conclusion can be drawn already from the tale of Constantine the Great, which describes the relationship between the ruler and his “chaplains” in a model form. According to Eusebius of Caesarea, when the emperor set out on a military campaign, he would devote himself to religious practices in his special chapel tent, where the imperial palladium, that is the True Cross, was kept. There he observed “a chaste and pure rule of life,” and was attended by a few clergymen, “whose faith and religious loyalty had been proved in his company.”63 How important the issue of the moral condition of the clergy serving in the royal armies is shown by the information contained in the military manuals written by Constantine’s successors. The most telling is 60 Compare with Wolfgang Speyer, “Die Hilfe und Epiphanie einer Gottheit, eines Heroen und eines Heiligen in der Schlacht,” in “Pietas.” Festschrift fur Bernhard Kotting, ed. Ernst Dassmann and Karl S. Frank, Jahrbuch fur Antike und Christentum 8 (Münster: Aschendorff, 1980), 55–77 at 61. 61 Magistri Vincentii dicti Kadłubek Chronica Polonorum, 3.14, p. 99. It is significant that Vincentius is not entirely clear in his assessment of the luminous youth. See Kotecki, “Pious Rulers,” 165–66. 62 Of exceptional importance is the statement attributed by Robert the Monk to the chaplain of Bohemond of Otranto, explaining how it is possible that the luminous knights assisting the crusaders are visible, ride white horses, and even hold shields and banners, though they are spiritual beings. On this, see James B. MacGregor, “Negotiating Knightly Piety: The Cult of the Warrior-Saints in the West, ca. 1070–ca. 1200,” ChH 73.2 (2004): 317–45 at 330–31; Lapina, “‘Nec signis,’” 129–31; Jay Rubenstein, “Miracles and the Crusading Mind: Monastic Meditations on Jerusalem’s Conquest,” in Prayer and Thought in Monastic Tradition: Essays in Honour of Benedicta Ward, ed. Santha Bhattacharji (London and New York: Bloomsbury, 2014), 197–210. 63 Eusebius, Life of Constantine, 2.12, trans. Averil Cameron and Stuart G. Hall (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999), 99.

102

Kotecki

Taktika of Emperor Leo VI that recommended for chaplain’s tasks such as performing “sacred rites,” blessing banners, and carrying relics, only “pure priests, respected for their life and conduct should be chosen.” This was to be because they “[h]aving been sanctified themselves, they are to bring to perfection and offer up the consummation of their activity to God.”64 Thus, the clerics present in the army were expected to pass to God the request to grant the army victory, presumably with the help of holy patrons and angels. This can be observed, for example, in the fascinating description of the defeat of Christians in the Battle of Fraga against Muslims (1134). The author of Chronica Adefonsi Imperatoris says that God did not send St. Michael to help the Christians because of the sins of the king and those who were with him so in the first place the clergy who looked after royal holy relics and tented chapel and called on God to help them in a critical situation.65 Presumably, in Vitus’s case, his probitas was the deciding factor for which he was entrusted with so an important task.66 To better realize this fact, it is worth recalling some other example showing the value of a morally perfect cleric serving the monarch as chaplain. According to Vita Betharii (early ninth century), King Chlothar II entrusted his pignora sanctorum, “which he took with him [to the wars] as is the custom of kings” to a young man called Betharius. He did so, the source claims because he had heard that Betharius possessed such great qualities of spirit that people began to believe in his 64 The Taktika of Leo VI, Epilogue 68, ed. George T. Dennis, Corpus fontium historiae Byzantinae. Series Washingtonensis 49 (Washington DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 2010), 641. For the role of priests in Byzantine armies and relics taken to wars as talismans, see George T. Dennis, “Religious Services in the Byzantine Army,” in “Eulogēma”: Studies in Honor of Robert Taft, S.J, ed. Ephrem Carr, Studia Anselmiana 110 (Rome: Centro Studi S. Anselmo, 1993), 107–17. 65 See Chronica Adefonsi Imperatoris, 1.52–56, in Chronica Hispana saeculi XII. Pars I, ed. Emma Falque, Juan Gil, and Antonio Maya, CCCM 71 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1990), 109–248 at 174–76. Bronisch has noted this idea in the tenth-century Chronicle of Alfonso III, see Alexander Piere Bronisch, “Cosmovisión e ideología de guerra en época visigoda y asturiana,” in La carisa y la mesa. Causas políticas y militares del origen del Reino de Asturias, ed. Juan I. Ruiz de la Peña and Jorge Camino Mayor (Oviedo: Asociación de Amigos de la Carisa, 2010), 212–33. 66 Signa victoriae were not entrusted to ordinary persons. For example the Imperial Holy Spear could not be touched by laymen. See Percy Schramm, Herrschaftszeichen und Staatssymbolik. Beiträge zu ihrer Geschichte vom 3. bis zum 16. Jahrhundert (Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1955), 502n2. In the famous miniature in the Regensburg Sacramentary depicting Emperor Henry II, to whom the angels hand over the sword and spear, even the angels do not touch the weapon directly but through the veil. See Paweł Figurski, “Das sakramentale Herrscherbild in der politischen Kultur des Frühmittelalters,” FS 50.1 (2016): 129–61 at 145.

How to Secure the Intercession of the Patron Saint

103

holiness.67 Thus, Betharius’s function was identical to that of chaplain Vitus. He was predestined to this role by a sinless life enabling him to obtain the grace of supernatural assistance for the ruler and the army. The story of Betharius emphasizes yet another trait that also seems to be embodied in Vitus’s figure—youth. Indeed, the Canon of Vyšehrad does not mention the chaplain’s age directly, but it is impossible to imagine that, when comparing him to Achilles, he could have had in mind someone of advanced or even middle age. Achilles was of great interest to literate men and the prophecy that he would die young was an immanent part of the hero’s legend.68 This combination of youth and the function of standard-bearer does not appear to have been a coincidence, especially if one refers to the observation of Anthony T. Lucas, who, in studying the social role of relics in Gaelic regions, notes that war talismans were carried by figures usually referred to as “clerics” and frequently as “young clerics.” For Lucas it was obvious they entrusted to young clergymen because of their physical prowess enabling them in case of emergency to make a quick escape from the battlefield along with the priceless artifacts.69 Although it cannot be completely ruled out that such pragmatic factors (similarly to wearing armor) may have played a role, Lucas’s explanation seems, however, only to rationalize a phenomenon based primarily on symbolic meaning. Actually, the point seems to be not the young age of the standard-bearing chaplains, but rather what that age symbolizes: sinlessness and chastity—qualities that fit with the notion of probitas.70 67 Vita Betharii episcopi Carnoteni, chap. 4–5, ed. Bruno Krusch, MGH SS rer. Merov. 3 (Hannover: Hahn, 1896), 612–20 at 615–16: “suum constituit archicapellanum et pignora multa sanctorum, que secum deferebat, ut mos est regum, ditioni illius constituit.” For the liturgical significance of young clerics in the entourage of Frankish kings, see Janet L. Nelson, “The Lord’s Anointed and the People’s Choice: Carolingian Royal Ritual,” in eadem, The Frankish World, 750–900 (London: Bloomsbury, 1992), 99–132 at 123. For the connection between court chaplains the task of keeping relics, see Julia Barrow, The Clergy in the Medieval World: Secular Clerics, Their Families and Careers in North-Western Europe, c.800–c.1200 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015), 238–39; James Lloyd, “The Priests of the King’s Reliquary in Anglo-Saxon England,” JEH 67.2 (2016): 265–87. 68 That is why Achilles was regarded as the epitome of youthfulness—as can be seen, e.g., in Cosmas’s portrayal of Duke Břetislav I—“new Achilles”: Cosmas, Chron. Boh., 2.1, p. 152. Compare with Antonín, The Ideal Ruler, 191–92; for a broader context, see Marjorie C. Woods, Weeping for Dido: The Classics in the Medieval Classroom (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 2019), 49–103. 69 Lucas, “The Social Role,” 20. 70 This is all the more justified given that in his interpretation Lucas omits the reference in Manus O’Donnell’s Life of St. Columba (ca. 1530), which seems to explain this puzzle in the Gaelic lands. The work mentions an ancient rite associated with the psalter of St. Columba serving as a war talisman of the Clann Conaill (O’Donnells), the rulers of Tír

104

Kotecki

In revealing such details, Cosmas’s continuator seems to be well-informed in the matter of chaplain Vitus. One can, therefore, assume that the actions of this cleric, agreed upon with the duke and the Bohemian clergy, were a result of an expertly applied practice rooted in old ritual traditions. The role performed by Vitus must have been entrusted to him because he served as the duke’s chaplain. But what seems to be an even more important factor in his choice is the belief that his high morality predestined him to be a representative of all the familia sancti Wenceslai and to capably submit to God their entreaty for help in battle by sending Bohemian saintly champion as an aide. In this aspect, the account seems to reveal details testifying to the use of archaic models based on magical thinking to a degree at least higher than “standard” battlefield rites not mentioned by the Canon. Not only does the author fail to refer to the celebration of mass, the giving of absolution, and Holy Communion to the knights and the ruler, but he even omits the matter of the pre-battle speech, an indispensable element of narratives about the preparations for combat. This does not mean that all these were missing at Chlumec; however, for the author and his informants’ evidence about the collective piety of the laity and the clergy must have been much more important. The above discussion substantiates Pauk’s view. However focused more on other matters, the cited scholar is quite terse in revealing his premises. Based on his research, it is possible to point to only one coming from Thietmar of Merseburg’s well-known accounts of the pagan Luticians (Lutici) supporting German king Henry II against Poland in 1004 and 1007. This can be inferred from another observation in which the scholar juxtaposes the account of the Bohemian chronicler with that of the bishop of Merseburg, noting that “the images of deities accompanied Lutician warriors on their military expeditions in the early eleventh century just as the attributes of the Bohemians’ patron saints accompanied them in the following century.” From this Pauk concludes that the role of St. Wenceslas assisting warriors in battle should be sought “in the identification, dating back to tribal times, of all free members of the polity with warriors,” for “the communitas terrae of the high Middle Ages, as a community of knights-noblemen, was … a continuation of the early medieval community of free tribesmen.”71

71

Chonaill. According to an author from this very kindred, to make them triumphant, the psalter, was taken three times righthand-wise around the host when they are going into battle, with the privilege resting with a cleric “who, so far as possible, is without mortal sin.” My italics. See The Life of Colum Cille, ed. Brian Lacey (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 1998), 100–1. For more on Cathach of St. Columba, see Jesse Patrick Harrington’s chapter in this collection (vol. 1, chap. 3). Pauk, “Święci patroni,” 256.

How to Secure the Intercession of the Patron Saint

105

However, such a line of reasoning does not seem to be fully convincing. First of all, the Canon’s account suggests that the main role in the rite in question was played by clergymen, while warriors—except for a group of leading men (primates) gathered with the clergy around their war talisman—were passive recipients of the miracle, which they could not even see. Moreover, the nature of the rite is religious, without themes that could be derived from traditional warriors’ customs. Secondly, it is highly unlikely that the Lutician rite would have been regarded as a relic of a common pre-Christian practice. On the contrary, there are more arguments to suggest that Thietmar’s account should be considered a sign of emulation of Christian rituals by the Luticians. These include the ritual of carrying into battle the imperial and Polish spear (of St. Maurice) or banners with images of saints and angels.72 This is probably the only way to explain the emergence among the Luticians of the idea of deities who, like angels or saints, could intervene in the course of military actions. Significantly, according to Thietmar, the vexilla carried by the Luticians represented lower-rank beings. This is evidenced by the fact that when not used they were kept in the Rethra temple, placed around the statue of Svetovit, that in in a way that conveys their subordination to the chief god. Such a situation seems to reflect the Christian model, in which holy patrons provided military support only on God’s permission.73 The example of the Lutician rite cited as an analogy seems to be valuable to the understanding of the Bohemian rite, all the more so, if the practice were to be explained by Christian influences. In accepting such a view, one could argue that the source of the Bohemian practice lies in the mechanisms of identity building around the expectation of receiving support from a protective supernatural being. Thus, one would have to assume that the Bohemian rite may have had its origins at the turn of the eleventh century. It seems no mere coincidence that the last decades of the tenth century, a time when the Luticians were forging their identity, facing the Empire and other Christian realms, is a moment when an intense cult of St. Wenceslas emerged 72 For arguments, see esp. Christian Lübke, “Religion und ethnisches Bewußtsein bei den Lutizen,” Światowit 40 (1995): 70–90 at 84–85. For the imperial banner bearing the image of angel (St. Michael?), see Erdmann, “Kaiserliche und päpstliche Fahnen,” 21. 73 Compare with Graus “Der Heilige,” 334–36. In this respect, but without referring to martial rites, the similarity between the position of Slavic god and Christian God has been pointed out by Stanisław Rosik who, however, explains it by the chroniclers’ perception of the pagan anti-sacrum. See Stanisław Rosik, “Połabskie władztwo ‘księcia demonów’. Teologiczne uwarunkowania opisów pogańskich wierzeń,” in Studia z historii średniowiecza, ed. Mateusz Goliński, AUWH 163 (Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskeigo, 2003), 7–21 at 16.

106

Kotecki

in Bohemia—linked to the Polabian tribes by close political ties—a cult finding its expression in the veneration of the saint’s arma placed in St. Vitus’s Cathedral at that time.74 Such an interpretation is strengthened by Cosmas, who locates the saint’s oldest miracles relating to military aid in the early eleventh century.75 As Stanisław Suchodolski has aptly pointed out, they should be assessed as markers of the consolidation process of the Bohemian community under the patronage of St. Wenceslas.76 However, it must be made clear—Thietmar’s accounts, although telling in the context of the Canon’s narrative, are still too debatable when it comes to determining the nature and origin of the rites used at Chlumec with their help. Staying with the thread of the importance of the collective form of war rituals for the sealing and maintaining one’s own identity to show the interdependence of aspects discussed above and at the same time the connection with the patronal cult, some close Irish example can be recalled. The Fragmentary Annals of Ireland feature the following story of the Scots’ struggle against the pagan Norwegians in 904 and 918: Almost at the same time [918] the men of Fortriu and the Norwegians fought a battle. The men of Alba fought this battle steadfastly, moreover, because Colum Cille [St. Columba] was assisting them, for they had prayed fervently to him, since he was their apostle, and it was through him that they received faith. For on another occasion [904], when Imar Conung was a young lad and he came to plunder Alba with three large troops, the men of Alba, lay and clergy alike, fasted and prayed to God and Colum Cille until morning, and beseeched the Lord, and gave profuse alms of food and clothing to the churches and to the poor, and received the body of the Lord from the hands of their priests, and promised to do every good thing as their clergy would best urge them, and that their battle-standard in the van of every battle would be the crozier of Colum Cille—and it is on that account that it is called the Cathbhuaidh from 74

According to Lübke (“Religion,” 70–71) both among Luticians and Slavic Christians a religion had a great impact on the formation of a new—“national”—sense of community in tenth and eleventh centuries. Recently Figurski has noted the important community building role of liturgy (and war liturgy) in early medieval Poland. See Paweł Figurski, “Liturgiczne początki ‘Polonii’. Lokalna adaptacja chrześcijańskiego kultu a tworzenie ‘polskiej’ tożsamości politycznej w X–XI w.,” in Oryginalność czy wtórność? Studia poświęcone polskiej kulturze politycznej i religijnej (X–XIII wieku), ed. Roman Michałowski and Grzegorz Pac (Warsaw: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, 2020), 725–96. 75 Cosmas, Chron. Boh., 1.36, p. 118; also Graus “Der Heilige,” 330–31, 342. 76 Suchodolski, “Kult św. Wacława,” 92.

How to Secure the Intercession of the Patron Saint

107

then onwards; and the name is fitting for they have often won victory in battle with it, as they did at that time, relying on Colum Cille.77 This narrative and Canon’s account have many features in common. Just as the Bohemians sought the help of St. Wenceslas against Lothar III, so the men of Alba, appealed to the protection of St. Columba, who, like St. Wenceslas, was a figure associated with the beginnings of Christianity among that people. Additionally, just as the Bohemians took with them the spear of St. Wenceslas, so too the Scots carried the staff of St. Columba, or Cathbhuaidh—the “Battle Triumph.” Both accounts thus place the rites in question in the context of the identity of a community as a people belonging to a patron saint. Moreover, even though the Irish source describes a richer set of practices, both sources inform about collective and ardent prayers in a somewhat similar manner.78 In both accounts, one may also read that these practices were the joint effort of the clergy and the laity, with the clergy playing the leading role. There is one more element common to both sources—both minimize the role of the rulers. In the Canon’s account, Duke Soběslav is barely mentioned when he orders one of the chaplains to deliver the vexillum of St. Vojtěch-Adalbert to the battlefield. The Scottish ruler is not mentioned at all, although it is doubtful that Constantine II did not take part in such rites.79 After all, he was a representative of a royal family linked to Columba by a special bond80 that patronized the church in Dunkeld, the very depository of the Cathbhuaidh.81 In both cases 77 Fragmentary Annals of Ireland, ed. Joan N. Radnor (Dublin: Institute for Advanced Studies, 1978), 171–73. 78 Similarly, the ritual of evoking Columba’s battle support seems to be based on older hagiographical accounts portraying the saint as a victory-giver to nations and kings. According to Adomnán, author of the oldest biography of the saint, “he obtained from God that some kings were conquered, and other rulers were conquerors. This special favor was bestowed by God on him, not only in this present life while he continued but also after his departure from the flesh, as on a triumphant and powerful champion”: Adomnan’s Life of Columba, ed. and trans. Alan O. and Marjorie O. Anderson (London: Nelson, 1961), 199; Clancy, “Columba,” 17; Michael J. Enright, “Royal Succession and Abbatial Prerogative in Adomnán’s ‘Vita Columbae,’” Peritia 4 (1985): 83–103 at 100–1. 79 As Clancy (“Columba,” 27) notes, the story is part of a narrative reporting on the Scottish kings’ struggle with the Norwegians, and thus “the account needs to be read in the context of the author’s particular interest in rightful action by kings and people in battle.” 80 Clancy, “Columba,” 30. Between the tenth and twelfth centuries, as many as four MacAlpin rulers used the title “Servant of Columba” (Mael Coluim). 81 The church was erected by Constantin’s grandfather, Cinaed MacAlpin, as a special shrine for the relics of St. Columba brought from Iona. See John Bannerman, “‘Comarba Coluim Chille’ and the Relics of Columba,” IR 44.1 (1993): 14–47; Kenneth Veitch, “The Alliance Between Church and State in Early Medieval Alba,” Albion 30.2 (1998): 193–220 at 195–197.

108

Kotecki

the reduction of the role of the rulers should be explained by the simple fact that those rites did not provide for a distinctive role for them, focusing instead on the joint action by all members of the holy patron’s familiae. Descriptions of war-related rites combining information about the collective devotion of the clergy and people, the use of a sacred war talisman, and hope placed in the intervention of a patron saint are infrequent in the sources. Yet the lack of more examples may simply stem from the fragmentary nature of the source base, especially given that it is known that the early medieval rites were strong factors in building proto-national communities. As Walter Pohl has demonstrated, because their overriding purpose was to ensure protection for the entire community and the ruler representing it, the rites contributed significantly to the integration of realms. Thanks to them the symbolism of ethnicity grew and the special relationship of the people with God became petrified because everyone was called upon to defend the homeland, transferring the struggle with their prayers to the decisive level of God’s judgment.82 This description of the peculiar character of early medieval military rites seems to adequately describe not only the sources used by Pohl but also the account by Canon of Vyšehrad. What seems to be the only noticeable difference is the lack in the Bohemian account of Old Testament references, which, according to Pohl and others, were of key significance to the early medieval war liturgy. This, however, should not be surprising, because the Bohemians’ protector was not an angel—like St. Michael protecting the Jews in the Old Testament—but a saint who was part of their native history. This might explain the reason why such references are also missing from the account describing the Scots’ fight with the help of St. Columba. These coincidences are worth stressing, even though Pohl’s study does not suggest that the rites under his discussion were exactly like the one followed by the Bohemians. Generally, only one element appears as evidently common: the prominent role of the clergy in the supervision of the rituals.83 Yet this is precisely due to the selective nature of source accounts. If attention was given to sufficiently wealthy material and carried out an in-depth analysis, it would turn out that it is possible to point to a broader range of similarities. Such a possibility is for example offered by the Visigothic sources studied by Alexander Pierre Bronisch, who has demonstrated that wartime religion in the Visigothic realm was based on four major elements: the king, the people, the clergy, and the land. Only harmonious cooperation of the first three

82 Walter Pohl, “Liturgie di guerra nei regni altomedievali,” RSC 5.1 (2008): 29–44. 83 Ibid., 30.

How to Secure the Intercession of the Patron Saint

109

elements in the defense of the last one, patria Gothorum, guaranteed the grace of heaven in a military conflict.84 This formula can also be found in the sources dealing with Visigothic warrelated rites, which can be reconstructed from the Liber ordinum and the Historia Wambae about King Wamba’s campaign against the usurper Paul (673). And it is in these accounts that one may find not only a standard-bearing cleric, whose role was to carry the True Cross before the ruler and the army but also information about collective devotion involving the clergy and the laity, with the role of the clergy appearing as crucial in the process of obtaining God’s grace in this case as well. This is substantiated not only by passages from the Liber ordinum describing the ceremonies and intercessory prayers accompanying the rites of profectio, but also by a royal decree threatening clerics with punishment if “not to come with quick fervor to protect the king, the nation and the patria, or the people faithful.”85 The text allows presuming that an appropriate representation of the realm’s clergy must have been regarded as indispensable in warfare. There is no doubt that behind all this was a belief that clergymen were specifically able to effectively communicate with heaven and obtain God’s help. How Wamba imagined this help is not known. However, as one can find out from one of the formulas of the Liber ordinum describing the ceremony of the royal army’s departure from Toledo, the churchmen accompanying the king beseeched God to send an angel that would protect the king and the army and would enable them to win.86 It is striking that according to Julian of Toledo, such a miracle happened during the expedition against Paul: “Divine protection was disclosed by the showing of a visible sign. A foreigner there is said to have seen that the devout king’s army went forth guarded by an escort of angels and that the angels themselves displayed the signs of protection as they flew over the camp of his forces.”87 84 Bronisch, Reconquista, 96–122; idem, “On the Use and Definition of the Term ‘Holy War’: The Visigothic and Asturian-Leonese Examples,” Journal of Religion and Violence 3.1 (2015): 35–72 at 48–56; idem “Cosmovisión.” 85 Liber iudiciorum sive lex Visigothorum, ed. Karl Zeumer, MGH Leges nationum Germanicarum 1 (Hannover and Leipzig: Hahn, 1902), 372–73; English translation after M. Szada, bit.ly/3vwTrtd. 86 Le “Liber ordinum” en usage dans l’eglise Wisigothique et Mozarabe d’Espagne du cinquieme au onzieme siecle, ed. Marius Férotin, Monumenta Ecclesiae Liturgica 5 (Paris: FirminDidot, 1904), 150–51; Kotecki, “Pious Rulers,” 179–80. 87 Hstoria Wambae regis auctore Iuliano episcopo Toletano, chap. 23, ed. Wilhelm Levison, MGH SS rer. Merov. 3, 486–535 at 520; English translation after The Story of Wamba: Julian of Toledo’s “Historia Wambae regis,” trans. Joaquín Martínez Pizarro (Washington DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2005), 211–12. See also Bronisch, Reconquista, 93–95, 103–6; Gerd Kampers, “Anzeichen für eine Sakralisierung des Krieges im spanischen

110

Kotecki

The analogies between Visigothic sources and the Canon’s narrative seem to suggest that the ritual formula used at Chlumec drew in first place on the ancient models of sacralization of war unique to the early medieval body polities forming their identity within the concept of a Christian monarchy. Hence, it is hard to confirm the view that the warriors were responsible for maintaining such rituals and not anyone else. The sources cited above indicate rather that such a role should be attributed to the clergy liable for linking the ethnic identity to the idea of supernatural patronage, be it of an angel or St. Michael—like in the case of the Visigoths, the Lombards, the Franks, the Rusians, and perhaps also the Poles88—or a local saint, as happened with the patrons of the people of Alba and the Bohemians. In the case of the Visigoths, as well as other ethnicities, the introduction of such rites was the responsibility of local groups of clerics functioning under the auspices of a monarch, who saw in these rites the means to forge the identity of his subjects in loyalty to God and his earthly representatives. The Bohemian duke and clergy, too, should be seen as arrangers of the rite described by the Canon of Vyšehrad. Speaking of the clergy, one should not think, however, only about the clerics employed in the ducal chapel as a narrowly defined courtly institution. The substantial representation of the clergy at the Battle of Chlumec suggests that the effort involved broader church circles, above all clerics from the Prague Cathedral chapter, who looked after St. Wenceslas’s arma.89 As Josef Žemlička pointed out that it was thanks to the clergy from the Prague chapter that the figure of Wenceslas was transformed into the central pillar of a coherent concept of the Bohemian “state,” and this was the case at Chlumec.90 This very milieu, despite temporary grudges with the princes, was close to the ruling dynasty, navigating the court and actively entering the political scene. Its representatives included such figures as Henry Zdík who, shortly after the battle, was granted the privilege of dedicating the chapel on Mount Říp, Soběslav’s thanksgiving offering, as well as was promoted to bishop of Olomouc.91 This milieu seems to have been represented also by Wisigotenreich,” in Emotion, Gewalt und Widerstand. Spannungsfelder zwischen geistlichem und weltlichem Leben in Mittelalter und früher Neuzeit, ed. Ansgar Köb and Peter Riedel (Paderborn: Fink, 2007), 61–79. 88 Compare with Kotecki, “Pious Rulers.” 89 Žemlička, “Svatý Václav,” 212–13. 90 Ibid. 91 That Henry Zdík belonged to the Prague clergy at the time is highly probable. He was well known to Cosmas, a dean of the chapter, and Henry’s brother, Magnus, was a member of the chapter as well. On Zdík’s involvement in ideological endeavors surrounding the battle and backing of the Soběslav’s power, see Dalibor Prix, “Jindřich Zdík—stavebník,” in Jindřich Zdík (1126–1150). Olomoucký biskup uprostřed Evropy, ed. Jana Hrbacova and

How to Secure the Intercession of the Patron Saint

111

chaplain Vitus himself, who as one may suspect was the canon of the Prague Cathedral, possibly even the custodian of St. Wenceslas’s chapel.92 Yet among the ducal chaplains the clerics gathered around St. Wenceslas’s spear and offering prayers should be included as well. According to Pauk, these praepositi et capellani came from churches close to the duke.93 This is even more reason not to rule out the possibility that the presence of the clergy on the battlefield was prompted by similar logic to this present in Wamba’s decree. Although rules obliging clerics to take part in military operations are not known in the Bohemian sources, the very logic ordering clerics to participate in the monarch’s warfare remains, however, appeared in the peripheries of Latin Europe until at least the thirteenth century. For example, the involvement of the clergy in the defense of the realm is a phenomenon apparent in Poland, rooted in the rules of a public duty known as defensio terrae.94 As the campaign described by the Canon meets the definition of defensive warfare, it can be assumed that the information provided by the chronicler testifies to the presence of similar patterns in Bohemia. This reaffirms the need to pay attention to the fact that, although not mentioned directly by the Canon, the terra—the patrimony of the Bohemians—seems to have been a motivating factor for the described actions. Such a view is supported not only by placing the rite in the context of a defensive campaign, but also because of traces of such an idea in other twelfth-century Bohemian sources. For example, a Monk of Sazava, when describing Sobĕslav’s religious preparations for the Battle of Chlumec, makes the duke claim that thanks to the mercy of God and the merits (merita as in Ut Marek Perutka (Olomouc: Muzeum umeni Olomouc, 2009), 29–54 at 29; Josef Žemlička, “Jindřich Zdík—biskup, diplomat a organizator,” in ibid., 13–28 at 14. 92 According to a charter ca. 1170 and later diplomas, there was a position of custos sepulcri/capellae S. Wenceslai reserved for the canon of the cathedral chapter. It is worth mentioning that in the Holy Land, the cleric authorized to carry the Holy Cross to royal expeditions was, apart the patriarch, a canon with the title custos S. Sepulchri. 93 Pauk, “‘Capella regia,’” 232–33. I doubt, however, that term praepositi should be applied only to the superiors of collegiate churches, but perhaps also the abbots of some monasteries. 94 Radosław Kotecki, “Public Military Service of Bishops in the Piast Monarchy (Twelfth to Early Thirteenth Centuries),” in Continuation or Change? Borders and Frontiers in Late Antiquity and Medieval Europe: Landscape of Power Network, Military Organisation and Commerce, ed. Gregory Leighton, Piotr Pranke, and Łukasz Różycki (Abingdon and New York: Routledge, 2023), 206–37 at 220–25. In Norway, the so-called Canones Nidrosienses (1160s–1170s) allowed bishops, abbots, and other clerics to accompany expeditions in order to provide spiritual support for the Norwegian king, and obliged them to encourage subjects to fight for the patria against rebels or external attacks. See Bjørn Bandlien, “Civil War as Holy War? Polyphonic Discourses of Warfare during the Internal Struggles in Norway in the Twelfth Century,” in Christianity and War, 227–43 at 231–36.

112

Kotecki

annuncietur) of Sts. Wenceslas and Vojtĕch-Adalbert, “our land (terra nostra) will not be delivered into the hands of foreigners.”95 A similar phrase appears in the Homiliary of Opatovice, a collection of the homilies used in the Prague church. One of its sermons names St. Wenceslas a lord of “this land” (hujus terrae) who together with St. Vojtĕch-Adalbert was assigned by God to “this tiny land” (huius parvulae terrae), that through their intercession it may be freed from visible and invisible enemies.96 The account of the Canon of Vyšehrad showing the ritual efforts to obtain divine help through the intercession of Bohemian patrons seems to be based on the exactly same premise. Ultimately, it means that the chronicler utilized the concept of the community similar to those used by Visigoths, as a composition of four elements: the ruler, clergy, people, and land—all united by the same destiny and watched over by the God of justice. Nor can one fail to see that for early medieval ethnopolitical bodies, land ownership was a condition of freedom—another key stimulus of self-identity and community ties.97 The concept behind the rites performed at Chlumec was an immanent thread in this tense ideological fabric. 3

The Battle of Kressenbrunn

The Battle of Kressenbrunn (nowadays Groißenbrunn) in Lower Austria, fought on 12 July 1260, was a decisive battle in the conflict between Bohemia 95 Monachi Sazaviensis Continuatio Cosmae, 255: “Spero in dei misericordia et in meritis sanctorum martyrum Christi Wencezlai atque Adalberti, quia non tradetur terra nostra in manus alienigenarum.” 96 Das Homiliar des Bischofs von Prag, ed. Ferdinand Hecht, Beiträge zur Geschichte Böhmens. Quellensammlungen 1 (Prague: Mercy, 1863), 58 and 59: “Fratres, iste martyr sanctus Wenceslaus, noster patronus, … nobis ad exemplum a deo datus est; nam cum esset princeps et dominus hujus terrae”; “Idcirco rogemus  … sanctum Wenceslaum et sanctum Adalbertum, quos deus huius parvulae terrae patrono concessit, ut per eorum intercessionem a visibilibus et invisibilibus liberati inimicis.” See also David Kalhous, “Sv. Václav Homiliáře opatovického. K české státnosti 12. věku,” in “Querite primum regnum Dei.” Sborník příspěvků k poctě Jany Nechutové, ed. Helena Krmíčková (Brno: Matice moravská, 2006), 357–65. For an apt commentary on the connection between the Wenceslas’s patronage over the Bohemian terra and patria as an aspect of community building role of that saint, see Aleksander Gieysztor, “Politische Heilige im hochmittelalterlichen Polen und Böhmen,” in Politik und Heiligenverehrung im Hochmittelalter, ed. Jürgen Petersohn, VF 42 (Sigmaringen: Thorbecke, 1994), 325–41 at 339–40. 97 Michał Gniadek-Zieliński, “Wolność jako fundament konstytuujący wspólnotę we wcze­snym średniowieczu,” in “Pro libertate!” Niezależność, suwerenność, niepodległość w dziejach, ed. Michał Gniadek-Zieliński, Studia międzyepokowe 1 (Warsaw: Sub Lupa, 2019), 37–76.

How to Secure the Intercession of the Patron Saint

113

and Hungary for the Duchies of Austria and Stiria that became princeless after the ruling Babenberg dynasty had become extinct in 1246. The victorious party was Přemysl Otakar II of Bohemia, while the main losers were Béla IV of Hungary and his son Stephen, who brought to the battlefield an army composed not only of Hungarians but also of Cumans, Slavs, Sicilians, Wallachians, and other nations.98 Despite the numerical superiority of the Hungarian forces, these forces unexpectedly found themselves in a hazardous position due to their botched attempt at crossing the Morava River to ambush the enemy. The Bohemians took advantage of this and pushed their enemy straight into the river. The result was a massacre of the Hungarian side. According to the Bohemian ruler’s letter to the pope, there were so many bodies of drowned knights and horses in the Morava River that after the battle the Bohemian army was able to cross it to the other side as if on a bridge. The greatness of the victory—as in the case of the Chlumec—strengthened the belief that heaven had sided with the Bohemians in the battle. A material expression of this came with the foundation of a Cistercian monastery in Zlatá Koruna (Germ. Goldenkron) by Přemysl in 1261. Although he had begun his efforts to have it erected already before the battle, this monastery located in southern Bohemia was for a long time regarded as a votive offering and fulfillment of a vow made by the ruler just before the battle. While the tradition referring to a vow seems late and dubious, it cannot be ruled out that the foundation indeed ultimately took on a thanksgiving overtone, as suggested by wordings in the foundation charter. In these terms, one should most probably also consider the donation to the monastery of a valuable relic of the Thorn of the Holy Crown, which was placed in a special chapel. As noted by Pauk, it is not the foundation of the monastery, but of that very chapel may have been regarded as a special thanksgiving offering. The base for this view is an unusual invocation of Guardian Angels, which presumably referred to the supernatural assistance received by the Bohemian army during the battle.99 (fig. 3.6) Information about the Bohemians’ rites and acts of piety during the Battle of Kressenbrunn comes from a single source—the account of the BohemianHungarian war included in a work called Annales Ottakariani. It is quite a detailed piece written down probably around 1280 by an unknown author usually identified as a canon of St. Vitus’s chapter in Prague and, at the same time, 98 Annales Ottakariani, ed. Josef Emler, FrB 2, 303–35 at 316 (hereafter Ann. Ott.). For the basic information about the battle, see Hermann Klima, Die Schlacht bei Groißenbrunn “anno 1260.” Entscheidung im Marchfeld (Vienna: LIT Verlag, 2010). 99 For the foundation of Zlatá Koruna and its ideological background, see Marcin R. Pauk, “Królewski kult relikwii Świętej Korony Cierniowej jako ideowe spoiwo monarchii. Czechy i Austria w dobie Przemysła Otakara II,” RH 67 (2001): 59–78, esp. 65–66.

114

Kotecki

Figure 3.6 Guardian Angels Chapel (ca. 1270) founded by Přemysl Otakar II, Cistercian monastery in Zlatá Koruna, Czech Republic. License: Public Domain Reproduced from w.wiki/5awn

How to Secure the Intercession of the Patron Saint

115

a clergyman connected to the king.100 Evidence of his links to the court is provided above all by the author’s excellent orientation in crusade propaganda developed by Otakar and especially by his knowledge of the letter that the king sent to the Holy See after his victory.101 On the other hand, his connection to the Prague chapter is suggested by his knowledge of the first continuation of Cosmas stored in the cathedral library. That the work of the Canon of Vyšehrad was known to the author is evidenced by the narrative’s dependence on the account of the Battle of Chlumec. Like the Canon, the author of the Annales Ottakariani, too, mentions an eagle above the battlefield, a war talisman associated with St. Wenceslas, and describes a vision of a miracle similar to the one experienced by chaplain Vitus.102 Without denying these links, it is necessary to stress that the younger source shows the Bohemians’ wartime religious practices in a quite different light. The matter seems important because if the author of the account was inspired by the Canon’s narrative but did not decide to take from him the passages dealing with ritual practices, presumably the information he had did not correspond to the content of the older source. This may mean, in turn, that the rite followed at Chlumec was not practiced in the Bohemian army in the second half of the thirteenth century, at least no longer in the same way. The information that sheds light on the Bohemians’ actions at Kressenbrunn appears in several places in the account. The most important is the part describing the transformation of the Bohemian army that occurred after dangerous events leading to a conflict between key figures in Otakar’s army. However, when the dispute was settled, the entire army, following a general decision and opinion, headed for the site where the king of Hungary was reported to have a camp. And thus on Sunday, the octave of the holy apostles Peter and Paul, the numerous army of the faithful … after hearing the morning mass, according to the general order and at the command of their head prince and the other princes, fully armed as was necessary and in an orderly array moved forward, covering mountains and plains, while the famous ruler of the Kingdom 100 Bláhová, “Pokračovatelé Kosmovi [doslov],” 208. 101 For Přemysl Otakar II’s crusading propaganda, see recently Robert Antonín, “The Rhetoric of the Crusades and Anti-Paganism in the Political Propaganda of Ottokar II Premislas of Bohemia,” in The Expansion of the Faith: Crusading on the Frontiers of Latin Christendom in the High Middle Ages, ed. Paul Srodecki and Norbert Kersken, Outremer 14 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2021), 291–302. 102 Reitinger, “Psal tzv. Kanovník vyšehradský,” 662.

116

Kotecki

of Bohemia, under the banner of the most glorious martyr Wenceslas, together with his knights, looked down from the summit of a lofty but flat mountain upon the enemy’s camp. Here the infidels and others who were with them [Hungarian army], as they afterward recounted, would have immediately fled, had they not leaned on the river Morava, which formed a gulf between us and them. And no wonder that fear and trembling fell upon the ungodly when they saw that Mahanaim, that is, God’s camp, was marching against them. Most certainly, however, the piety of the lord of the Bohemian kingdom and some of the princes, which they showed at the time, the pious intentions and promises by which they committed themselves to the Lord to improve their lives and to improve the situation of their countries, in money and other things, further, the transformation in the souls of many lords and knights who, perhaps from fear, fled to confession and the sign of the Holy Cross, and finally the great prayers which the overwhelming part of Christendom as far as the great Cologne and beyond solemnly offered to God on their behalf, all this brought upon them, or rather upon the numerous Christian people, divine and angelic help.103 These events are also referred to in the final part of the account, in which the chronicler quotes information from various individuals: people left to guard the camp, the knight John experiencing a vision of the battle at the time of

103 Ann. Ott., 308–35 at 314–15: “Ex tunc omni controversia cessante, communi concilio et pari voto illuc tendit exercitus uniersus, ubi nunciatur, rex Ungariae sua castra fuisae metatus. Itaque concurrentibus …, cum die dominica infra octvas apostolorum Petri et Pauli, post auditu in aurora missas, ex communi condicto et principie, qui caput erat, et aliorum principum edicto, ad plenum, ut opus erat, armis iustructus, et per ordinatas acies incedens, et montana atque plana operiens, apparuisset hostibus fidelium exercitus copiosus, saepe dicto domino regni Bohemiae sub vexillo gloriosisimi martyris Wenceslai cum sui, de quadam montis declivi in suprema tmen plaui altitudine castra adversario­ rum spectante, biidem infideles et ceteri, qui cum ipsia erant, sicut ipsi postmodum retulerunt, statim tunc in fugam fuissent conversi, nisi in faciente chaos inter nos et se fiuvio dicto Morawa fiduciam habuissent; nec mirum, quia timor et tremor, super impios cecidere, cum Manaym, id est castra dei, contra se viderent venire. Siquidem domini regni Bohemiae et aliquorum principum, quam tunc conceperant devotio et pia propo­ sita et vota, quibus domino se astrinxerant, spoudentes vitam suam et terrarum suarum status suos in monetis et aliie in melius commutare, et plurimorum baronum et militum aliorum ad confessionem et signaculum sanctae crucis confugientium forsitan exorta conversio ex timore; magnae autem a magna parte christianitatis uaque ad Coloniam magnam et ultra orationes pro ipsis sollemniter ad deum fusae ipsis, immo multo populo christiano divina praesidia et angelica meruere.”

How to Secure the Intercession of the Patron Saint

117

the clash, Jaroš the burgrave of the Prague castle participating in the battle, and the Hungarian king’s envoys to Bohemian ruler. The first group apparently claimed that before the battle they saw an eaglelike snow-white bird with a golden head and neck following the banner of St. Wenceslas and with his shadow covering the entire Bohemian army.104 The knight John, “a noble, pious, and trustworthy man,” apparently swore that overcome by weakness, he experienced in his bed a vision in which he saw himself standing amid a small and fearful army. But at the same time, he saw the patrons of Bohemia. First, there was Wenceslas in armor, with a helmet on his head and a sword in a sheath—decorated with gold and precious stones—carrying a banner before him. He was followed by St. Vojtěch-Adalbert, “a posture and strong man, dressed beautifully in priestly robes.” Then John saw St. Procopius as an abbot with a staff, and, finally, the Five Martyred Brethren. It was then that the knight heard St. Wenceslas say to his companions: “Weak is our army, let us now hasten before God.” And at these words, he unfurled the banner “against his enemies,” who immediately fled.105 Then comes a testimony by Jaroš. Taking part in a meeting of the chapter of the Prague Cathedral, the burgrave of the Prague castle reportedly said to the bishop, the provost, the dean, and the canons that his unit, in whose ranks the banner of St. Wenceslas was carried, did not suffer any harm, nor did it lose any horses or men. However, in whichever direction it turned, the enemies reversed their faces and fled. He also claimed that the iron head of the spear on which the martyr’s banner hung was seen by many as it shone “like a bright ray of sunshine.”106 The King of Hungary’s emissaries to the Bohemian ruler revealed that when at the hour of the clash the Bohemians raised a mighty voice to the sky, singing a hymn written by St. Vojtĕch-Adalbert, the horses in the Hungarian army began to flee against the will of the riders.107

104 Ibid., 318. 105 Ibid., 318–19. 106 Ibid., 319: “Jarosius etiam, purcravius Pragensis, vir fide dignus, coram episcopo Pragensi et praeposito et decano et canonicis in capitulo Pragensi retulit viva voce, quod exercitus eius, in cuius medio ferebatur vexillum sancti Wenceslai martyris, nullam laesionem aut iacturam sustinuit in equis et hominibus, sed quovis locorum se divertebat, adversarii a facie eorum terga vertebant fugientes. Ferrum etiam hastilis eius, in quo dependebat praedicti martyris vexillum, visum est a pluribus splendere velut radius solis praelucidus.” 107 Ibid., 319: “Nuntii regis Ungariae, qui missi fuerant ex parte eius ad principem Bohemiae, retulerunt coram eodem principe et baronibus eius, quod hora congressionis exercituum ad invicem, Bohemi valido clamore in coelum exaltato canentes hymnum a sancto Adalberto editum, quod populus singulis diebus dominicis et aliis festivitatibus ad processionem cantat, equi adversariorum invitis sessoribus fugam arripuerunt.”

118

Kotecki

The above passages from the Annales Ottakariani only roughly refer to the account of the Battle of Chlumec by the Canon of Vyšehrad. Even where there is an obvious similarity, there is always some difference. For example, the Bohemian war talisman was presented differently in the Annales. Here it is described as vexillum sancti Wenceslai, and there is no doubt that the author means primarily the banner and not the spear.108 One can, however, be fairly certain that the banner was attached to the spear known from the older account.109 This is suggested by the reference informing that the head of the spear carrying the banner during the battle extraordinarily shone with light. This is a description of palladium-like objects, to name the Holy Spear carried at the head of Otto III’s army or the golden spear of the angel accompanying the army of Bolesław III, a hypostasis of the spear of the primipilarius, or St. Wenceslas’s helmet known from the Bohemian patron saint’s hagiography.110 The emphasis on the role of the banner and not the venerable spear seems to reveal a direction in the evolution of the rite. This becomes even clearer when noting the connection between the banner carried in the unit of the burgrave of the Prague castle and the one seen by the knight John in his vision.111 It is worth noting that the unfurling of the banner by the Bohemian patron corresponds to Přemysl Otakar II’s stopping “under the banner of the most glorious martyr Wenceslas” on the plain towering over the battlefield. Both these acts have an analogous effect—they cause panic among the enemies and provoke their flight. The similarity is so clear that it may even be assumed that the knight John’s vision reflects a real application of the rite of unfurling the banner as a prelude to the advance into combat—a practice known from the chivalric culture of the high and late Middle Ages.112 In this respect, 108 It is difficult to determine whether the banner belonged to the ensemble of the St. Wenceslas arma, as it is not listed in the inventories of the treasury of Prague Cathedral. According to Bravermanová et al. (“Nová zjištění,” 297) this can be explained by the fact that it was not a separate object but was permanently attached to the spear. However, it cannot be excluded that this banner, unlike the spear, was a sign of the monarch and was not in the possession of the Prague Cathedral. However, it is perhaps more likely that the situation was similar to those in Hungary and Spain at the time. There, the royal banners were kept respectively in Fehervar basilica and Toledo Cathedral. 109 Nový, “Symboly,” 54. 110 Compare with Kotecki, “Pious Rulers,” 163n14, 186n110. 111 The source makes no secret of the fact that what John observed in his vision matched the course of the events in reality—“Exterioribus quoque oraculis interior consolatio concordavit”: Ann. Ott., 319. 112 See Malte Pritzel, Kriegführung im Mittelalter. Handlungen, Erinnerungen, Bedeutungen (Paderborn: Schöningh, 2006), 341–49; Robert W. Jones, Bloodied Banners: Martial Display on the Medieval Battlefield (Woodbridge: Boydell Press 2010), 49–53.

How to Secure the Intercession of the Patron Saint

119

the source is quite similar to Jan Długosz’s account of the Polish preparations for the Battle of Grunwald (1410), analyzed by Jacek Maciejewski in this volume. Długosz writes that when the Polish army reached a “wild plain extending far in all directions,” all military standards were unfurled, and among them the great banner of the kingdom bearing an image of a white eagle. Then the Polish king Władysław Jagiełło and the nobles standing nearby began to pray and show great piety, and then the army sang the native hymn Bogurodzica (Mother of God). The stopover of the Bohemian ruler on the plain is also accompanied by great piety, as it takes place immediately after the spiritual transformation of the army. Moreover, according to the source, in the “hour of battle,” the knights sang a special song, undoubtedly Hospodine pomiluj ny (Lord, have mercy on us), which already at that time had the status of a national hymn.113 It is also worth noting that according to the Hungarian envoys, hymn singing had the same effect as the unfurling of the banner by the Bohemian patron in the knight John’s vision: the enemy forces fled in panic. That is why the hymn sung by the Bohemians, too, can be linked to the rite of banner unfurling, like in the case of Grunwald. Other elements typical of war-related customs of the later Middle Ages can be found in Jaroš’s account. Noteworthy is that unlike in the Canon’s story, in the Annales Ottakariani the Bohemian palladium is decidedly more offensive. While in the first continuation of Cosmas of Prague, the spear of St. Wenceslas was not directly involved in the battle, according to the burgrave the banner acted like a weapon, forcing the enemies to turn away their faces and flee. This depiction fits in perfectly with how the Oriflamme banner was imagined from the thirteenth century onwards. As Philippe Contamine has demonstrated, at that time the banner was viewed primarily as a royal sign (signum regale), and interpreted in secular terms, it was transformed from a protective sign into an object of a clearly aggressive nature. Thus, it spread terror among the enemies, broke lines, and forced them to flee. It is, therefore, not surprising that it was taken to war not by clerics but customarily by royal marshals.114 A similar trend 113 On functional correlation between Bogurodzica and Hospodine, see Marzena Matla, “‘Carmen patrium Bogurodzica’—czas powstania, kontekst historyczny i inspiracje,” KH 122.1 (2015): 39–71. 114 Contamine, “L’Oriflamme,” 190–95. Similarly, in Prussian Reisen banners of St. George and St. Mary were maintained by members of the Teutonic Order and crusaders, not by clerics. For evidence, see Werner Paravicini, Die Preussenreisen des europäischen Adels, 2 vols. 2, BF 17.1–2 (Sigmaringen: Thorbecke, 1989–1995), 2:139–51; Gregory Leighton, “‘Reysa in laudem Dei et virginis Marie contra paganos’: The Experience of Crusading in Prussia during the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries,” ZfO 69.1 (2020): 1–25, esp. 14; also Leighton’s chapter in this collection (vol. 1, chap. 8).

120

Kotecki

can be perhaps encountered in Hungary as well, namely in the Simon of Kéza’s description of the Battle of Marchfeld (or Dürnkrut, Czech Moravské pole or Suché Kruty) (1278) between Ladislas IV and Rudolph Habsburg, and Přemysl Otakar II. The chronicler mentions that the Hungarian king ordered to take the bannerium regale from Fehérvár (nowadays Székesfehérvár) to the battlefield, a banner kept at the tomb of the patron saint of the Kingdom of Hungary, King Saint Stephen, in the Fehérvár royal basilica. Here the chronicler highlights the link between this object and supernatural assistance, but at the same time he points to its aggressive characteristic: “[The king] marched forth  … with the royal banner flying like a son of Mars, whom the constellation at his conception and birth ever since endows with boldness and other natural virtues, expecting and trusting in the power of the Almighty and the saintly intercession of his forefathers, the holy kings Stephen, Emeric, and Ladislas.”115 He also confirms that during the battle the banner was by the king’s side, held by a knight and that the king’s entourage was also composed of knights: “Reynold son of Reynold, of the clan of Basztely, firmly and unflinchingly held the royal banner in the host that day, while his brothers  …, and other nobles of the realm … stood by the side of their lord the king.”116 The origins of such ideas, namely the offensive nature of the signa victricia carried into battles, have not been a subject of scholarship. However, a considerable number of accounts presenting the nature of the war talismans in this way are associated with events in the Holy Land and the True Cross used against Muslims.117 The earliest example of the aggressive nature of the relic comes from the Bella Antiochena by Walter the Chancellor (ca. 1122). According to this piece, during the Battle of Sarmin (1115), when the archbishop of Caesarea, who accompanied King Baldwin, realized that the infidels were prevailing, he turned the Lord’s Cross towards them and proclaimed that they be cursed by

115 Simonis de Kéza Gesta Hungarorum, chap. 74, ed. and trans. László Veszprémy and Frank Schaer, CEMT 1 (Budapest and New York: Central European University Press, 1999), 151. Latin text at 150: “Egressus igitur de Albensi civitate velut Martis filius, cuius quidem constellatio conceptionis nativitatisque ei deinde in audacia et caeteris virtutibus naturalibus subministrat, in virtute Altissimi et proavorum suorum, scilicet Stephani, Emirici atque Ladislai regum.” 116 Ibid., 155. Latin text at 154: “In quo quidem exercitu ipso die comes Renoldus filius Renoldi banerium regis tenuit viriliter et potenter de genere Bastech oriundus, adstantes domi­no regi fratres eiusdem  … et alii regni Hungariae nobiles.” On the banner stored in the Fehérvár basilica, see Pauk, “Święci Patroni,” 258; and esp. László Veszprémy’s chapter in this collection (vol. 2, chap. 5). 117 See Caroff, “L’affrontement,” section La Croix offensive.

How to Secure the Intercession of the Patron Saint

121

the holy power of the Cross and be scattered and put to flight.118 It is possible to assume that such ideas grew under the influence emanating from the Holy Land and spread along the crusading and chivalric ideology in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. It is also worth pointing to another early and well-attested example of the attribution of such characteristics to the holy objects used at Las Navas de Tolosa (1212). The sources describing the battle mention two palladial objects which played a role in the victory over the Muslims. One of them was a cross belonging to Archbishop Rodrigo Jiménez de Rada of Toledo, the other was the banner of the commander-in-chief, King Alfonso VIII of Castile. According to the account by the archbishop himself, the cross was carried into battle by a young canon of the Toledo, Domingo Pascual; the canon and the crucifix, both unhurt, miraculously crossed right through the battle lines of the Muslims and remained there until the end of the fight.119 However, a more prominent and more offensive role was played by the other object, the banner “from among the banners of the Kingdom” featuring the patron of the Toledo province and the entire Spain, the Blessed Virgin Mary. It was this very object that ultimately forced the Muslims to flee defeated.120 While the use of the cross as a sign preceding the army seems to refer to an ancient practice described already in the Visigothic Liber Ordinum mentioning a cleric from the Toledo Cathedral carrying the cross before the ruler, the nature of the second talisman seems to draw on the crusading and chivalric ideology. This is suggested not only by the power attributed to it to defeat the enemy but also by the information, appearing a bit earlier in Rodrigo’s account, about the rite of unfurling the banner and the offering of prayers in its presence by 118 Galterii Cancellarii Bella Antiochena, ed. Heinrich Hagenmeyer (Innsbruck: Wagner, 1896), 103–4. Not including, of course, Eusebius’s famous account on labarum in Constantine’s army. See Life of Constantine, 2.7, p. 98. For some late medieval and early modern evidence, see Schreiner, “‘Signa victricia,’” 24, 31, 39, 49–50. 119 Roderici Ximenii de Rada Historia de rebus Hispanie sive Historia Gothica, 8.10, ed. Juan Fernández Valverde, CCCM 72A (Turnhout: Brepols, 1992), 273. On Domingo, later archbishop elect of Toledo, see Ramón Gonzálvez Ruiz, “Domingo Pascual,” in Diccionario Biográfico electrónico, bit.ly/3vC4lxS. See also figs. 2.1 and 2.2 in vol. 1 of this collection. 120 Roderici Ximenii de Rada Historia de rebus Hispanie, 8.10, p. 273: “Erat autem in uexillis regnum imago beate Marie Virginis, que Toletane prouincie et tocius Hispanie semper tutrix extitit et patrona. In cuius aduentu acies illa mirabilis et turba innumerabilis, que actenus satis inmobiles permanebant et rebelles nostris obstiterant, cesa gladiis, fugata lanceis, uicta ictibus, terga dedit.” In a letter to Innocent III written shortly after the engagement, Alfonso VIII says that he went to attack “signo Crucis dominicae preeunte et uexilio nostro, in quo erat imago beate Virginis et Filii sui, in signis nostris superposita”: Christians and Moors in Spain, ed. Colin Smith, 3 vols. (Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1989–1992), 2:14–25 at 20 (Latin) and 21 (English).

122

Kotecki

King Sancho VII of Navarre.121 This interpretation can be also substantiated by the iconographic tradition attributing this sign to a standard-bearing knight rather than to a cleric (see figs. 2.1 and 2.2b in vol. 1 of this book). The striking resemblance of this situation to that recorded in the Annales Ottakariani leads one to believe that the actions of the Bohemians at Kressenbrunn reflected the same ideological tradition and similar ritual custom. Additional light would be provided by the information about who carried the banner during the Battle of Kressenbrunn. Was it a cleric, like at Chlumec, or a layman, like in the case of standard-bearers mentioned above? Unfortunately, the Bohemian source does not provide this information directly. However, it does contain some clues suggesting that this time the role was not performed by a cleric. This is evidenced by the fact that the vision, which in the Canon’s account is experienced by chaplain Vitus, in the account Annales Ottakariani is experienced by a knight, John. This is also supported by the information that it was the burgrave of the Prague castle who informed the Prague bishop and the canons about the role played by the banner and the omens accompanying it as if no one among the clergy was aware of its role during the battle. These details, especially since the author of the source himself should be considered a cathedral canon, seem to indicate that such an important issue for the participants in the Battle of Chlumec—that is, who looked after the sacred spear and for what reasons—was no longer of significance to the thirteenth-century author. Presumably, this means that the custom of carrying the talisman into battle by a cleric—characteristic more in line with early rather than late medieval war customs—was no longer cultivated in Bohemia at the time of the Battle of Kressenbrunn. This would be another trace of the changes brought about by high medieval tendencies which, on the one hand, enhanced the role of chivalric piety, and on the other limited the religious function of the clergy in war to standard pastoral ministry. This ministry comprises confession and celebration of mass in the first place—the very practices that were not mentioned by the Cannon of Vyšehrad but distinctively appear in the Annales.122

121 Roderici Ximenii de Rada Historia de rebus Hispanie, 8.9, p. 271. 122 For the centrality of mass, confession, absolution, and Holy Communion in war rituals of the central and later Middle Ages, see among others David S. Bachrach, “The Friars Go to War: Mendicant Military Chaplains, 1216–c. 1300,” CHR 90.4 (2004): 617–33; idem, “Lay Confession to Priests in Light of Wartime Practice (1097–1180),” RHE 102.1 (2007): 76–99, Michael A. Penman, “Faith in War: The Religious Experience of Scottish Soldiery, c.1100–c.1500,” JMH 37.3 (2011): 295–303; Susanna A. Throop, “Christian Community and the Crusades: Religious and Social Practices in the ‘De expugnatione Lyxbonensi,’” HSJ 24 (2012): 95–126.

How to Secure the Intercession of the Patron Saint

123

An interpretation posed here can be further strengthened by a reference to a charter issued by Bishop John IV of Dražice in 1333. The diploma confirms the bishop’s agreement with an episcopal furrier, Herman, and stipulates that he and his descendants, in return for the property (area) granted to him by the bishop, would be obliged to “carry the arma of St. Wenceslas, namely the iron helmet, armor, and sword, which are kept in the Prague church.”123 Although the charter does not mention the spear, which in all likelihood had been lost by this time,124 there is no doubt that it refers to the old custom of taking St. Wenceslas’s arma to war. That, according to the diploma, they were to be carried not by a cleric but by a layman suggests that the clergy had been barred from performing a function entrusted to chaplain Vitus in 1126. Obviously, the charter does not explain when this could happen, but it is unlikely that Herman was the first layman entrusted with such a duty. Significantly, according to the charter, this function was to be fulfilled by taking possession of one of the two properties granted, formerly in the possession of a certain “swordsman” (sword-cutler?—gladiator), Gallus. This, in turn, suggests a connection between the duty and the possession of this particular property. It can be assumed that previously it was Gallus who had performed such a function. Of course, this matter requires further research, but it is possible to recall a similar phenomenon described recently by Gilbert Márkus in his analysis of the fate of the Scottish national war talisman, the Breacbennach of St. Columba.125 This mysterious relic is known to have been entrusted by King William I the Lion to the monks of the Arbroath Abbey around 1211, together with an estate called Forglen, the possession of which required the monks to carry the Breacbennach to the battlefield on the monarch’s vocation. On the other hand, it is known from a charter issued a century later that the monks gave this very land to some Malcolm of Monymusk. From that time, it was 123 Chrámový poklad u sv. Víta v Praze, 13n12: “Nos Johannes dei gratia Pragensis episcopus notum facimus …, quod … Hermannus pellifex … sibi et haeredibus suis concedimus et donamus duas areas de illis quatuor areis, quae sunt episcopatus nostri, sitae in Pragensi civitate in parochia sti Jacobi, … modis et condicionibus his adiectis: videlicet, ut de prima area, in qua olim Gallus gladiator residebat, ipse Hermannus et sui haeredes debent et tenebuntur mundare arma beati Wencezlai: pilleum videlicet ferreum, loricam et gladium, quae arma in Pragensi ecclesia conservantur.” 124 It is believed that the spear was lost in the Battle of Marchfeld (1278) and was donated to the monastery in Melk. See Nový, “Symboly,” 54–55; Vratislav Vaníček, “Polský královský titul Vratislava II. (tradice, kontinuita a inovace v 11. století),” essay (unpublished version) available via bit.ly/3pMPuyF. 125 Gilbert Márkus, “Dewars and Relics in Scotland: Some Clarifications and Questions,” IR 60.2 (2009): 95–144, esp. 110–12. See also chapter by Robert Bubczyk in this collection (vol. 1, chap. 5).

124

Kotecki

Malcolm and his heirs, like Herman and his descendants, due to do service “in the army of the lord king for the land which belongs to the Breacbennach.” According to Márkus, this may explain why in later Scottish sources the custodians of victory-bringing relics are not clergymen, as it was a custom in the early Middle Ages, but laymen (called deòraidhean or dewars). These men appear to have inherited this function from generation to generation along with the estates that originally belonged to the ecclesiastical institutions. The charter issued by John of Dražice may seem to report something similar. Finally, it should be noted that in the account of the Battle of Kressenbrunn the clergy is pushed into the background by the author of the Annales Ottakariani. There is no doubt that a representative of the clergy must have taken part in the campaign; after all, the source states that mass was celebrated, and confessions were heard at the camp. However, from the perspective of the account, the clergy did not perform any significant religious roles, nor did they oversee the customary rituals in the manner characteristic of collective war-related rites of the early Middle Ages. In any case, the clerics mentioned in the account are not linked to the sphere of religion at all. Philip, once bishopelect of Salzburg, is presented as a mighty lord, representative of the House of the Dukes of Stiria; similarly, Bruno of Schaumburg, bishop of Olomouc is not a shepherd but a mighty nobleman and warrior.126 In this respect the difference in comparison with the description of the Battle of Chlumec is striking. In the Canon of Vyšehrad’s account churchmen play a crucial role, being responsible for obtaining supernatural aid. Yet the thirteenth-century author claims that it was only “the piety of the lord of the Bohemian kingdom and some princes, … the pious intentions and promises with which they pledged to the Lord to improve their lives” that won heaven’s favor and granted to the army the grace of divine and angelic help. This approach diminishes the role of the clergy and, at the same time, enhances the significance of the piety of the lay participants in the battle to such an extent that one may doubt whether the clergy played any role in the spiritual transformation of the lords and the knights described in the account. This is by no means impossible, as both the canon law and established practice gave warriors tools to become reconciled with God in a difficult situation by confessing to their comrades.127 Irrespective of how one 126 Ann. Ott., 313–14. Compare with Jana Nechutová, “Vitae Brunonis,” Časopis Moravského muzea. Vědy společenské 71 (1986): 175–82 at 178. 127 See esp. Xavier Storelli, “Les chevaliers face à la mort soudaine et brutale. L’indispensable secours de l’Église?” in Chevalerie et christianisme aux XIIe et XIIIe siècles, ed. Martin Aurell and Catalina Gîrbea (Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes, 2011), 149–77.

How to Secure the Intercession of the Patron Saint

125

views this matter, one thing is certain: at Kressenbrunn the clergy was no longer seen as a constitutive part of St. Wenceslas’s familia. If the source faithfully reflects the situation, it should not be surprising that the ritual context described differs significantly from the one recorded by the Canon of Vyšehrad and, in doing so, comes closer to the chivalric and crusading models. In the case of the Battle of Kressenbrunn, these models (especially the latter) were undoubtedly consciously followed. It is known well that the ideology promoted by the Bohemian ruler and his advisors was intended to portray the battle as a great crusading clash in defense of Christianity against numerous semi-pagan, schismatic, and heretical peoples. The significance attached to the battle is remarkably similar to that attributed to the Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa half a century earlier. This applies not only to the manner of depicting the enemy. It is also about the emphasis on contact with the papacy (both victors sent letters to the popes describing their triumphs), the securing of the general church’s prayers, the use of the banner in an offensive manner, and especially the indication of the dramatic spiritual transformation of the army from weak and disorganized into united and ready to fight and die in the name of Christianity. The image of the clash with the Hungarians was modeled after the great crusading battles. Therefore, it is not surprising that the rituals performed during the battle were much of a different nature than those used during the Battle of Chlumec when the early medieval idea of ethnoreligious community was a key factor to shape the ritual setting. 4

Conclusions

The most important conclusion to be drawn from these considerations concerns the evolutionary changeability of Bohemian wartime rite intended to win the aid of St. Wenceslas between the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. The process of this transformation is evident in the light of available sources. It cannot be denied that the author of Annales Ottakariani, even if he modeled his narrative on the work by Canon of Vyšehrad, describes a rite growing out of an older tradition. The earlier stage of this tradition, emerging even perhaps from much earlier times, was captured by a chronicler from the first half of the twelfth century. Because of the scarcity of sources it cannot be ruled out that apart from the ideology typical for the high Middle Ages, the rites analyzed here were influenced by other factors that are more difficult to grasp. In particular, it should not be ruled out that the Bohemian ritual presented somewhat differently in the context of the defense of the Bohemian domain than in the conduct of the

126

Kotecki

offensive campaign. After all, it is known that the participation of clerics in defensory warfare usually found stronger legitimacy than their engagement in an onslaught. Therefore, it should not be completely ruled out that even in the thirteenth century the Bohemian clergy still played a more prominent role in the war rituals than it would appear from the account of Annales Ottakariani describing a campaign which was not a typical defensio patriae (as in the case of Chlumec). For example, one may note in this context that the legend Ut annuncietur, close to the time of the Battle of Kressenbrunn, still mentions that the arma of St. Wenceslas was venerated by the clerus et populus. However, the acceptance of such a view can affect the present conclusions only to a small extent. It is clear that while the depiction of the rites by the thirteenth-century chronicler refers to chivalric and crusading ideals, the image presented by the Canon of Višegrad has much in common with religious war-related rites specific to the early medieval ethnopolitical bodies. Moreover, in support of this one may note that the Chlumec ritual corresponds to the much-studied political customs rooted within tribal heredity. Namely, it has common features with the most important political ritual in early medieval Bohemia: the rite of the enthronement of a prince on the stone throne in Prague castle during communal assembly. The representatives of two parts of St. Wenceslas’s familia, the clergy and nobles, also played a major role in this ceremony, while ordinary Bohemians, like the regular warriors from the Canon’s narrative, only be passive observers. What is more, the ceremony, just as at Chlumec, was accompanied by the collective singing of religious hymns, among them the Kyrie eleison.128 With these connections in mind it seems interesting that just as for the Chlumec rite the closest analogies can be found in the Gaelic world of the earlier Middle Ages, the same is true of the rite of enthronement at the stone throne.129 By the time of Přemysl Otakar II, however, the traditional rite of the enthronement of the prince was already a 128 Cosmas, Chron. Boh., 1.23 and 1.42, pp. 84, 86, 144. For the rite of the intronization, see esp. Roderich Schmidt, “Die Einsetzung der böhmischen Herzöge auf den Thron zu Prag,” in Aspekte der Nationenbildung im Mittelalter, ed. Helmut Beumann and Werner Schröder, Nationes 1 (Sigmaringen: Thorbecke, 1978), 442–48; Michał Kulecki, “Ceremoniał intronizacyjny Przemyślidów w X–XIII w.,” PH 75.3 (1984): 441–51; Josef Žemlička, “Pražský kámen a koruna králů v legitimizační symbolice přemyslovské epochy,” in Co můj kostel dnes má, nemůže kníže odníti. Věnováno Petru Sommerovi k životnímu jubileu, ed. Eva Doležalová and Petr Meduna (Prague: Lidové noviny, 2011), 169–80. 129 See, e.g., Elizabeth Fitzpatrick, Royal Inauguration in Gaelic Ireland c.1100–1600: A Cultural Landscape Study, SCelH 22 (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2004); Aliki Pantos and Sarah Semple, ed., Assembly Places and Practices in Medieval Europe (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2004); Annette Kehnel, “Irish Kings and Carinthian Dukes: John Lynch Revisited,” in Princes, Prelates and Poets in Medieval Ireland: Essays in Honour of Katharine Simms,

How to Secure the Intercession of the Patron Saint

127

thing of the past. Although the ideology of St. Wenceslas did not disappear, from the beginning of the thirteenth century a new royal ideology was taking hold in Bohemia, breaking with the old traditions and symbols. It was at this very time that the traditional communal assemblies held on the days of St. Vitus and St. Wenceslas began to disappear, and the Prague throne ceased to play the role of a symbol of princely power and noble’s will.130 At that time, under the influence of reformist tendencies, also a trend towards self-reliance and separation of the clergy become apparent,131 while nobles gradually altered into gentry-šlechta, building their position on independent foundations. As Josef Žemlička notes, “the middle of the thirteenth century was still something of a transition period. … The ‘old’ had not yet disappeared, and the ‘new’ had not yet crystallized.” Soon, however, in the era of Přemysl Otakar II, an ideological shift took place and royal ideology triumphed.132 The differences between the ritual actions taken at Chlumec and Kressenbrunn should perhaps also be seen in this context of ideological transition in Bohemia going hand-in-hand with the reshaping of the early medieval gens-community into a mature medieval monarchy. Ultimately, there can be no doubt that the author of the legend Ut annuncie­ tur in the passage quoted at the beginning of this essay distorted reality when suggesting that the Bohemians don’t need to seek heavenly support in battles because they were guaranteed by the merits of St. Wenceslas. By doing so, the hagiographer simply wanted to present the saint as an efficacious patron of his community. And he was not alone in this strategy because the authors of the works analyzed here also wove the information about the aid of St. Wenceslas (and other saints) only into the stories of Bohemian triumphs. Fortunately, they did not omit details, which allow one to believe that in twelfth- and thirteenth-century Bohemia, seeking the intercession of the patron saint required engaging in ingenious ritual activities. The evidence describing those rituals is not numerous, but if analyzed with attention and comparatively it turns out to be of considerable value, enriching the understanding of hidden mechanisms behind ritual enterprises. In the case of Bohemia, it is clear that these mechanisms were enshrined in a myth, the memory of which was cultivated ed. Seán Duffy and Katharine Simms (Dublin and Portland OR: Four Courts Press, 2013), 196–208. 130 Josef Žemlička, “‘Omnes Bohemi’. Od svatováclavské čeledi ke středověké šlechtě,” Me­ diae­valia Historica Bohemica 3 (1993): 225–42 at 238. 131 However, never truly effective. See Robert Antonín and Dalibor Janiš, Česká a moravská církev v mocenských osách středověké společnosti, in Čtvrtý lateránský koncil a české země ve 13. a 14. století, eds. Robert Antonín et al. (Prague: Lidové noviny, 2020), 24–82. 132 Žemlička, “‘Omnes Bohemi,’” 138.

128

Kotecki

through the relics of St. Wenceslas’s arma (and possibly relics of other saints) preserved as tokens of remembrance and intermediaries between community and the saint. Obtaining the saint’s help in war required special efforts that activated the power of these objects. Despite the general evolution of ritual, this aspect has remained unchanged. Bibliography

Manuscript Sources



Primary Sources

Vita vel passio sancti Wenczeslai. In Bernardus Guidonis Speculum sanctorum. Pars 3, 217r–249r. Moravská Zemská Knihovna, Brno, A 44 (olim IV.Y.b.3). bit.ly/3lPBANR.

Aelred of Rievaulx. Relatio de standardo. In Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II, and Richard I. Edited by Richard Howlett, 179–99. Rolls series 82.3. London: Longman and Co., 1886. Adomnan’s Life of Columba. Edited and translated by Alan O. and Marjorie O. Anderson. London: Nelson, 1961. Annales Gradicenses-Opatovicenses. Edited by Josef Emler, 386–400. FrB 2. Prague: Museum království Českého, 1874. Annales Ottakariani. Edited by Josef Emler, 303–35. FrB 2. Prague: Museum království Českého, 1874. Canonici Wissegradensis continuatio Cosmae. Edited by Josef Emler, 201–37. FrB 2. Prague: Museum království Českého, 1874. Chronica Adefonsi Imperatoris. In Chronica Hispana saeculi XII. Pars I. Edited by Emma Falque, Juan Gil, and Antonio Maya, 109–248. CCCM 71. Turnhout: Brepols, 1990. Chronica Poloniae maioris. Edited by Brygida Kürbis. MPH NS 8. Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1970. Cosmae Pragensis Chronica Bohemorum. Edited by János M. Bak and Pavlína Rychterová. Translated by Petra Mutlová and Martyn C. Rady. Introduction and annotation by Jan Hasil and Irene van Renswoude. CEMT 10. Budapest and New York: Central European University Press, 2020. Das Homiliar des Bischofs von Prag. Edited by Ferdinand Hecht. Beiträge zur Geschichte Böhmens. Quellensammlungen 1. Prague: Mercy, 1863. Die Legende Christians. In Josef Pekař, Die Wenzels- und Ludmila-Legenden und die Echtheit Christians, 88–125. Prague: Wiesner, 1906. Eusebius. Life of Constantine. Translated by Averil Cameron and Stuart G. Hall. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999.

How to Secure the Intercession of the Patron Saint

129

Fragmentary Annals of Ireland. Edited by Joan N. Radnor. Dublin: Institute for Advanced Studies, 1978. Galterii Cancellarii Bella Antiochena. Edited by Heinrich Hagenmeyer. Innsbruck: Wagner, 1896. Hstoria Wambae regis auctore Iuliano episcopo Toletano. Edited by Wilhelm Levison, 486–535. MGH SS rer. Merov. 3, Hannover: Hahn, 1896. Liber iudiciorum sive lex Visigothorum. Edited by Karl Zeumer. MGH Leges nationum Germanicarum 1. Hannover and Leipzig: Hahn, 1902. Le “Liber ordinum” en usage dans l’eglise Wisigothique et Mozarabe d’Espagne du cinquieme au onzieme siecle. Edited by Marius Férotin. Monumenta Ecclesiae Liturgica 5. Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1904. The Life of Colum Cille. Edited by Brian Lacey. Dublin: Four Courts Press, 1998. Magistri Vincentii dicti Kadłubek Chronica Polonorum. Edited by Marian Plezia. MPH NS 11. Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1994. Monachi Sazaviensis Continuatio Cosmae. Edited by Josef Emler, 238–69. FrB 2. Prague: Museum království Českého, 1874. “Morkinskinna”: The Earliest Icelandic Chronicle of the Norwegian Kings (1030–1157). Translated by Theodore M. Andersson and Kari E. Gade. Islandica 51. Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press, 2000. Roderici Ximenii de Rada Historia de rebus Hispanie sive Historia Gothica. Edited by Juan Fernández Valverde. CCCM 72A. Turnhout: Brepols, 1992. Simonis de Kéza Gesta Hungarorum. Edited and translated by László Veszprémy and Frank Schaer. CEMT 1. Budapest and New York: Central European University Press, 1999. Snorri Sturluson. Heimskringla. Translated by Alison Finlay and Anthony Faulkes. 3 vols. London: Viking Society for Northern Research, 2011–2015. The Story of Wamba: Julian of Toledo’s “Historia Wambae regis.” Translated by Joaquín Martínez Pizarro. Washington DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2005. The Taktika of Leo VI. Edited by George T. Dennis. Corpus fontium historiae Byzantinae. Series Washingtonensis 49. Washington DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 2010. Three Treatises on Imperial Military Expeditions. Edited and translated by John F. Haldon, Corpus fontium historiae Byzantinae 28. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1990. Vita Betharii episcopi Carnoteni. Edited by Bruno Krusch, 612–20. MGH SS rer. Merov. 3. Hannover: Hahn, 1896. Vita S. Stanislai episcopi Cracoviensis (Vita maior). Edited by Wojciech Kętrzyński, 319–438. MPH 4. Lviv: Gubrynowicz & Schmidt, 1884. Die “Vita sancti Heinrici regis et confessoris” und ihre Bearbeitung durch den Bamberger Diakon Adelbert. Edited by Markus Stumpf. MGH SS rer. Germ. 69. Hannover: Hahn, 1999.

130

Kotecki

Vita sancti Wenceslai incipiens verbis “Ut annuncietur.” Edited by Antonín Podlaha. Prague: Kotrba, 1917. Walahfrid Strabo. Libellus de exordiis et incrementis. Edited by Alice L. Harting-Correa, Mittellateinische Studien und Texte 19. Leiden: Brill, 1996.



Secondary Sources

Adde-Vomáčka, Éloïse. La “Chronique de Dalimil.” Les débuts de l’historiographie nationale tchèque en langue vulgaire au XIVe siècle. Textes et documents d’histoire médiévale 12. Paris: Éditions de la Sorbonne, 2016. Antonín, Robert. “From Warrior to Knight: The Paths of Chivalric Culture in Central European Space Using the Example of the Bohemian Lands.” Czech and Slovak Journal of Humanities 1 (2014): 8–18. Antonín, Robert. The Ideal Ruler in Medieval Bohemia. ECEE 44. Leiden and Boston MA: Brill, 2017. Antonín, Robert. “The Rhetoric of the Crusades and Anti-Paganism in the Political Propaganda of Ottokar II Premislas of Bohemia.” In The Expansion of the Faith: Crusading on the Frontiers of Latin Christendom in the High Middle Ages. Edited by Paul Srodecki and Norbert Kersken, 291–302. Outremer 14, Turnhout: Brepols, 2021. Antonín, Robert, and Dalibor Janiš. Česká a moravská církev v mocenských osách středověké společnosti. In Čtvrtý lateránský koncil a české země ve 13. a 14. století. Edited by Robert Antonín et al., 24–82. Prague: Lidové noviny, 2020. Arnold, John H., and Caroline Goodson. “Resounding Community: The History and Meaning of Medieval Church Bells.” Viator 43.1 (2012): 99–130. Auer, Leopold. “Der Kriegsdienst des Klerus unter den sächsischen Kaisern. Erster Teil.” Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung 79 (1971): 316–407. Bachrach, David S. “The Friars Go to War: Mendicant Military Chaplains, 1216–c.1300.” CHR 90.4 (2004): 617–33. Bachrach, David S. “Lay Confession to Priests in Light of Wartime Practice (1097–1180).” RHE 102.1 (2007): 76–99. Bachrach, David S. Religion and the Conduct of War, c.300–1215. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2003. Banaszkiewicz, Jacek. “‘Usque in hodiernum diem’—średniowieczne znaki pamięci.” PH 72.2 (1981): 229–38. Rprt. in Takie sobie średniowieczne bajeczki, 101–17. Cracow: Avalon, 2012. Bandlien, Bjørn. “Civil War as Holy War? Polyphonic Discourses of Warfare during the Internal Struggles in Norway in the Twelfth Century.” In Christianity and War in Medieval East Central Europe and Scandinavia. Edited by Radosław Kotecki, Carsten Selch Jensen and Stephen Bennett, 227–43. Leeds: ARC Humanities Press, 2021. Bannerman, John. “‘Comarba Coluim Chille’ and the Relics of Columba.” IR 44.1 (1993): 14–47.

How to Secure the Intercession of the Patron Saint

131

Barrow, Julia. The Clergy in the Medieval World: Secular Clerics, Their Families and Careers in North-Western Europe, c.800–c.1200. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015. Biborski, Marcin, Janusz Stępiński, and Grzegorz Żabiński. “‘Szczerbiec’ (the Jagged Sword)—the Coronation Sword of the Kings of Poland.” Gladius 31 (2011): 93–148. Bláhová, Marie. “Vidění kanovníka Víta—zjitřené emoce nebo promyšlená inscenace?” In “Fontes ipsi sitiunt.” Sborník prací k sedmdesátinám archiváře a historika Eduarda Mikuška. Edited by Petr Kopička, 35–41. Litoměřice and Prague: Scriptorium, 2016. Bravermanová, Milena. “Pochází korunovační meč zv. svatováclavský z pokladu po Přemyslovcích a je jeho čepel dokonce památkou po sv. Václavu?” In Od knížat ke králům. Sborník u příležitosti 60. narozenin Josefa Žemličky. Edited by Eva Doležalová et al., 105–23. Brno: Lidové noviny, 2007. Bravermanová, Milena, Petr Ledvina, Alena Havlínová, and Dušan Perlík. “Nová zjištění o přilbě a zbroji zv. Svatováclavské.” Archeologie ve středních Čechách 23 (2019): 235–310. Bronisch, Alexander Pierre. “Cosmovisión e ideología de guerra en época visigoda y asturiana.” In La carisa y la mesa. Causas políticas y militares del origen del Reino de Asturias. Edited by Juan I. Ruiz de la Peña and Jorge Camino Mayor, 212–33. Oviedo: Asociación de Amigos de la Carisa, 2010. Bronisch, Alexander Pierre. “On the Use and Definition of the Term ‘Holy War’: The Visigothic and Asturian-Leonese Examples.” Journal of Religion and Violence 3.1 (2015): 35–72. Bronisch, Alexander Pierre. Reconquista y guerra santa. La concepción de la guerra en la España cristiana desde los visigodos hasta comienzos del siglo XII. Chronica nova estudios históricos 99. Granada: Universidad de Granada, 2006. Caroff, Fanny. “L’affrontement entre chrétiens et musulmans. Le rôle de la vraie Croix dans les images de croisade (XIIIe–XVe siècle).” In Chemins d’outre-mer. Études d’histoire sur la Méditerranée médiévale offertes à Michel Balard. Edited by Damien Coulon and Michel Balard, 99–114. Byzantina Sorbonensia 20. Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 2004. Charvát, Petr. “Der heilige Adalbert von Prag und das böhmisch Staatswesen (‘vexillum sancti Adalberti’).” Civis. Studi e testi 35.103 (2011): 9–18. Clancy, Thomas O. “Columba, Adomnan and the Cult of Saints in Scotland.” In “Spes Scotorum,” “Hope of Scots”: Saint Columba, Iona and Scotland. Edited by Dauvit Broun and Thomas O. Clancy, 3–33. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999. Contamine, Philippe. “L’Oriflamme de Saint-Denis aux XIVe et XVe siècles étude de symbolique religieuse et royale.” Annales de l’Est 3 (1973): 179–244. Dennis, George T. “Religious Services in the Byzantine Army.” In “Eulogēma”: Studies in Honor of Robert Taft, S.J. Edited by Ephrem Carr, 107–17. Studia Anselmiana 110. Rome: Centro Studi S. Anselmo, 1993.

132

Kotecki

Deswarte, Thomas. “St. James in Galicia (c.500–1300): Rivalries in Heaven and on Earth.” In Culture and Society in Medieval Galicia: A Cultural Crossroads at the Edge of Europe. Edited by James D’Emilio, 477–511. MEMI 58. Leiden and Boston MA: Brill, 2015. Enright, Michael J. “Royal Succession and Abbatial Prerogative in Adomnán’s ‘Vita Columbae.’” Peritia 4 (1985): 83–103. Erdmann, Carl. Die Entstehung des Kreuzzugsgedankens. FKG 6. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1935. Erdmann, Carl. “Kaiserliche und päpstliche Fahnen im hohen Mittelalter.” Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken 25 (1933): 1–48. Figurski, Paweł. “Das sakramentale Herrscherbild in der politischen Kultur des Frühmittelalters.” FS 50.1 (2016): 129–61. Figurski, Paweł. “Liturgiczne początki ‘Polonii’. Lokalna adaptacja chrześcijańskiego kultu a tworzenie ‘polskiej’ tożsamości politycznej w X–XI w.” In Oryginalność czy wtórność? Studia poświęcone polskiej kulturze politycznej i religijnej (X–XIII wieku). Edited by Roman Michałowski and Grzegorz Pac, 725–96. Warsaw: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, 2020. Fitzpatrick, Elizabeth. Royal Inauguration in Gaelic Ireland c.1100–1600: A Cultural Landscape Study. SCelH 22. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2004. Flusin, Bernard. “Le culte de la Croix au palais de Constantinople d’après le ‘Livre des cérémonies.’” In The Church of the Holy Cross of Ałt‘amar. Edited by Zaroui Pogossian and Edda Vardanyan, 100–25. Armenian texts and studies 3. Leiden and Boston MA: Brill, 2019. Gieysztor, Aleksander. “Politische Heilige im hochmittelalterlichen Polen und Böhmen.” In Politik und Heiligenverehrung im Hochmittelalter. Edited by Jürgen Petersohn, 325–41. VF 42. Sigmaringen: Thorbecke, 1994. Gniadek-Zieliński, Michał. “Wolność jako fundament konstytuujący wspólnotę we wcze­snym średniowieczu.” In “Pro libertate!” Niezależność, suwerenność, niepodległość w dziejach. Edited by Michał Gniadek-Zieliński, 37–76. Studia międzyepokowe 1. Warsaw: Sub Lupa, 2019. Goetz, Hans-Werner. Gott und die Welt. Religiöse Vorstellungen des frühen und hohen Mittelalters. Teil I, Band 1: Das Gottesbild. Orbis mediaevalis. Vorstellungswelten des Mittelalters 13.1. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2011. Graus, František. “Der Heilige als Schlachtenhelfer—Zur Nationalisierung einer Wundererzählung in der mittelalterlichen Chronistik.” In Festschrift für Helmut Beumann zum 65. Geburtstag. Edited by Kurt-Ulrich Jäschke and Reinhard Wenskus, 330–48. Sigmaringen: Thorbecke, 1977. Graus, František. “St. Adalbert und St. Wenzel. Zur Funktion der mittelalterlichen Heiligenverehrung in Böhmen.” In “Europa Slavica, Europa orientalis.” Festschrift für Herbert Ludat zum 70. Geburtstag. Edited by Klaus-Detlev Grothusen, 205–31.

How to Secure the Intercession of the Patron Saint

133

Osteuropastudien der Hochschulen des Landes Hessen 100. Berlin: Duncker und Humblot, 1980. Grigg, Julianna. “The Black Rood of Scotland: A Social and Political Life.” Viator 48.3 (2017): 53–78. Iwańczak, Wojciech. “The Pretended Miracle or the Battle of Chlumec in 1126.” Acta archaeologica Lodziensia 47 (2001): 12–18. John, Simon. “Royal Inauguration and Liturgical Culture in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, 1099–1187.” JMH 43.4 (2017): 485–504. Jones, Robert W. Bloodied Banners: Martial Display on the Medieval Battlefield. Woodbridge: Boydell Press 2010. Jones, W.R. “Saints in Service: The Political and Cultural Implications of Medieval Hagiolatry.” Cithara 10 (1970): 33–44. Kalhous, David. “Legenda Christiani” and Modern Historiography. ECEE 34. Leiden and Boston MA: Brill, 2015. Kalhous, David. “Sv. Václav Homiliáře opatovického. K české státnosti 12. věku.” In “Querite primum regnum Dei.” Sborník příspěvků k poctě Jany Nechutové. Edited by Helena Krmíčková, 357–65. Brno: Matice moravská, 2006. Kampers, Gerd. “Anzeichen für eine Sakralisierung des Krieges im spanischen Wisigotenreich.” In Emotion, Gewalt und Widerstand. Spannungsfelder zwischen geistlichem und weltlichem Leben in Mittelalter und früher Neuzeit. Edited by Ansgar Köb and Peter Riedel, 61–79. Paderborn: Fink, 2007. Kehnel, Annette. “Irish Kings and Carinthian Dukes: John Lynch Revisited.” In Princes, Prelates and Poets in Medieval Ireland: Essays in Honour of Katharine Simms. Edited by Seán Duffy and Katharine Simms, 196–208. Dublin and Portland OR: Four Courts Press, 2013. Klaniczay, Gábor. Holy Rulers and Blessed Princesses: Dynastic Cults in Medieval Central Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Klaniczay, Gábor. “The Power of Saints (Patronage and Miracles) in Defining Regional Cohesion and Identity.” In The Historical Evolution of Regionalizing Identities in Europe. Edited by Nils Holger Petersen et al., 207–21. Bern: Peter Lang, 2020. Klein, Holger A. “Sacred Relics and Imperial Ceremonies at the Great Palace of Constantinople.” In Visualisierungen von Herrschaft. Frühmittelalterliche Residenzen Gestalt und Zeremoniell. Edited by Franz A. Bauer, 79–99. Byzas 5. Istanbul: Yayınları, 2006. Klima, Hermann. Die Schlacht bei Groißenbrunn “anno 1260.” Entscheidung im Marchfeld. Vienna: LIT Verlag, 2010. Königer, Albert M. Die Militärseelsorge der Karolingerzeit. Ihr Recht und ihre Praxis. VKSM 4.7. Munich: Lentner, 1918. Kotecki, Radosław. “Pious Rulers, Princely Clerics, and Angels of Light: ‘Imperial Holy War’ Imagery in Twelfth-Century Poland and Rus’.” In Christianity and War in

134

Kotecki

Medieval East Central Europe and Scandinavia. Edited by Radosław Kotecki, Carsten Selch Jensen, and Stephen Bennett, 159–88. Leeds: ARC Humanities Press, 2021. Kotecki, Radosław. “The Prince and the ‘prandium’: The Motif of Pre-Battle Lunch in the Monk of Sázava’s Account of the Battle of Chlumec (1126).” KH 130.Eng.Language Ed. 7 (2023). Kotecki, Radosław. “The Public Military Service of Bishops toward Piast Monarchy (Twelfth to Early Thirteenth Centuries).” In Continuation or Change? Borders and Frontiers in Late Antiquity and Medieval Europe. Power Network, Military Organisation and Commerce. Edited by Piotr Pranke, Łukasz Różycki, and Gregory Leighton, 206–37. Abingdon and New York: Routledge, 2023. Kulecki, Michał. “Ceremoniał intronizacyjny Przemyślidów w X–XIII w.” PH 75.3 (1984): 441–51. Kurt, Andrew. “Lay Piety in Visigothic Iberia: Liturgical and Paraliturgical Forms.” JMIS 8.1 (2015): 1–37. Kuźmiuk-Ciekanowska, Agnieszka. Święty i historia. Dynastia Przemyślidów i jej boha­ terowie w dziele mnicha Krystiana. Cracow: Avalon, 2007. Lapina, Elizabeth. “‘Nec signis nec testibus creditur …’: The Problem of Eyewitnesses in the Chronicles of the First Crusade.” Viator 38.1 (2007): 117–39. Leighton, Gregory. “‘Reysa in laudem Dei et virginis Marie contra paganos’: The Experience of Crusading in Prussia during the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries.” ZfO 69.1 (2020): 1–25. Leschot, Elodie. “The Abbey of Saint-Denis and the Coronation of the King of France.” In Royal Divine Coronation Iconography in the Medieval Euro-Mediterranean Area. Mirko Vagnoni, 87–101. Basel: MDPI, 2020. Lewis, Mark. “‘Names of great virtue and power’: The Sword Szczerbiec and the Christian Magical Tradition.” Waffen- und Kostümkunde, no. 2 (2021): 127–52. Lidov, Alexei. “A Byzantine Jerusalem: The Imperial Pharos Chapel as the Holy Sepulchre.” In Jerusalem as Narrative Space. Edited by Annette Hoffmann and Gerhard Wolf, 63–103. Visualising the Middle Ages 6. Leiden and Boston MA: Brill, 2012. Lloyd, James. “The Priests of the King’s Reliquary in Anglo-Saxon England.” JEH 67.2 (2016): 265–87. Lübke, Christian. “Religion und ethnisches Bewußtsein bei den Lutizen.” Światowit 40 (1995): 70–90. Ludvíkovský, Jaroslav. “Souboj sv. Václava s vévodou kouřimským v podání václavských legend.” Studie o rukopisech 12 (1973): 89–100. Ludvíkovský, Jaroslav. “Václavská legenda 13. století ‘Ut annuncietur’, její poměr k legendě ‘Oriente’ a otázka autorství.” Listy filologické 78.2 (1955): 196–209. Luňáková, Ludmila. “Sváteční dny v knížecích Čechách aneb K úloze církevních svátků při veřejných událostech.” PhD thesis, Masarykova univerzita v Brně, 2021.

How to Secure the Intercession of the Patron Saint

135

MacGregor, James B. “Negotiating Knightly Piety: The Cult of the Warrior-Saints in the West, ca.1070–ca.1200.” ChH 73.2 (2004): 317–45. Markopoulos, Athanasios. “The Ideology of War in the Military Harangues of Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos.” In Byzantine War Ideology Between Roman Imperial Concept and Christian Religion. Edited by Johannes Koder and Ioannis Stouraitis, 47–56. Veröffentlichungen zur Byzanzforschung 30. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2012. Márkus, Gilbert. “Dewars and Relics in Scotland: Some Clarifications and Questions.” IR 60.2 (2009): 95–144. Matla, Marzena. “‘Carmen patrium Bogurodzica’—czas powstania, kontekst history­ czny i inspiracje.” KH 122.1 (2015): 39–71. Merhautová, Anežka. “Výtvarný medailónek bitvy u Chlumce.” In Na předělu věků. Sborník k poctě PhDr. Jaroslava Pešiny, DrSc. Edited by Jiří Kropáček, 55–58. Prague: Karolinum, 1994. Murray, Alan V. “‘Mighty Against the Enemies of Christ’: The Relic of the True Cross in the Armies of the Kingdom of Jerusalem.” In The Crusades and Their Sources: Essays Presented to Bernard Hamilton. Edited by John France and William G. Zajac, 217–38. Aldershot and Burlington VT: Ashgate, 1998. Murray, Alan V. “Music and Cultural Conflict in the Christianization of Livonia, 1190–1290.” In The Clash of Cultures on the Medieval Baltic Frontier. Edited by Alan V. Murray, 293–305. Farnham and Burlington VT: Ashgate, 2009. Nastalska-Wiśnicka, Joanna. “Rex martyr.” Studium źródłoznawcze nad legend hagio­ graficzną św. Wacława (X–XIV w.). Lublin: Werset, 2010. Nechutová, Jana. “Vitae Brunonis.” Časopis Moravského muzea. Vědy společenské 71 (1986): 175–82. Nelson, Janet L. “The Lord’s Anointed and the People’s Choice: Carolingian Royal Ritual.” In Janet L. Nelson. The Frankish World, 750–900, 99–132. London: Bloomsbury, 1992. Németh, Csaba. “‘Videre sine speculo’: The Immediate Vision of God in the Works of Richard of St Victor.” Annual of Medieval Studies at CEU 8 (2002): 123–37. Neri, Elisabetta. “Les cloches. Construction, sens, perception d’un son.” Cahiers de Civilisation Médiévale 55.220 (2012): 473–96. Nový, Rostislav. “Symboly české státnosti v 10.–12. století.” Folia Historica Bohemica 12 (1988): 47–63. Pantos, Aliki, and Sarah Semple, ed. Assembly Places and Practices in Medieval Europe. Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2004. Paravcini, Werner. Die Preußenreisen des europäischen Adels. 2 vols. BF 17.1–2. Sigmaringen: Thorbecke, 1989–1995. Pauk, Marcin R. “‘Capella regia’ i struktury Kościoła monarszego w Europie Środ­ kowej X–XII wieku. Ottońsko-salickie wzorce ustrojowe na wschodnich rubieżach łacińskiego chrześcijaństwa.” In Granica wschodnia cywilizacji zachodniej w

136

Kotecki

średniowieczu. Edited by Zbigniew Dalewski, 211–77. Warsaw: Instytut Historii Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 2014. Pauk, Marcin R. “Królewski kult relikwii Świętej Korony Cierniowej jako ideowe spoiwo monarchii. Czechy i Austria w dobie Przemysła Otakara II.” RH 67 (2001): 59–78. Pauk, Marcin R. “Kult św. Stanisława na tle innych kultów politycznych Europy Środkowej w średniowieczu.” In Kult św. Stanisława na Śląsku (1253–2003). Edited by Anna Pobóg-Lenartowicz, 31–48. Z dziejów kultury chrześcijańskiej na Śląsku 28. Opole: Wydawnictwo Wydziału Teologicznego Uniwersytetu Opolskiego, 2004. Pauk, Marcin R. “Święci patroni a średniowieczne wspólnoty polityczne w Europie Środkowej.” In Sacrum. Obraz i funkcja w społeczeństwie średniowiecznym. Edited by Aneta Pieniądz-Skrzypczak and Jerzy Pysiak, 237–60. Aquila volans 1. Warsaw: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, 2005. Penman, Michael A. “Faith in War: The Religious Experience of Scottish Soldiery, c.1100–c.1500.” JMH 37.3 (2011): 295–303. Pleszczyński, Andrzej. Przestrzeń i polityka. Studium rezydencji władcy wcześniejszego średniowiecza przykład czeskiego Wyszehradu. Lublin: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej, 2000. Podlaha, Antonín, and Eduard Šittler, Chrámový poklad u sv. Víta v Praze. Jeho dějiny a popis. Prague: Wiesner, 1903. Pohl, Walter. “Liturgie di guerra nei regni altomedievali.” RSC 5.1 (2008): 29–44. Pritzel, Malte. Kriegführung im Mittelalter. Handlungen, Erinnerungen, Bedeutungen. Paderborn: Schöningh, 2006. Prix, Dalibor. “Jindřich Zdík—stavebník.” In Jindřich Zdík (1126–1150). Olomoucký biskup uprostřed Evropy. Edited by Jana Hrbacova and Marek Perutka, 29–54. Olomouc: Muzeum umeni Olomouc, 2009. Rác, Jiří. “K obrazu pěti bojovníků na denáru Soběslava I.” Umění 29.4 (1981): 362–63. Reitinger, Lukáš. “Psal tzv. Kanovník vyšehradský opravdu na Vyšehradě? První Kosmův pokračovatel v kontextu dějepisectví přemyslovského věku.” Český časopis historický 113.3 (2015): 635–68. Rohrbach, Lena. “Olavifications: Spatial and Temporal Formations of Trondheim as a Memory Place.” In Myth, Magic, and Memory in Early Scandinavian Narrative Culture. Edited by Jürg Glauser and Pernille Hermann, 255–70. Acta Scandinavica 11. Turnhout: Brepols, 2021. Rosik, Stanisław. “Połabskie władztwo ‘księcia demonów’. Teologiczne uwarunkowania opisów pogańskich wierzeń.” In Studia z historii średniowiecza. Edited by Mateusz Goliński, 7–21. AUWH 163. Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskeigo, 2003. Rubenstein, Jay. “Miracles and the Crusading Mind: Monastic Meditations on Jerusalem’s Conquest.” In Prayer and Thought in Monastic Tradition: Essays in Honour

How to Secure the Intercession of the Patron Saint

137

of Benedicta Ward. Edited by Santha Bhattacharji, 197–210. London and New York: Bloomsbury, 2014. Ruiz, Ramón Gonzálvez. “Domingo Pascual.” In Diccionario Biográfico electrónico, bit.ly/3vC4lxS. Schäfer, Dietrich. “Lothars III. Heereszug nach Böhmen 1126.” In Historische Aufsätze. Karl Zeumer zum 60. Geburtstag als Festgabe dargebracht von Freunden und Schülern, 61–80. Weimar: Böhlau, 1910. Schmidt, Roderich. “Die Einsetzung der böhmischen Herzöge auf den Thron zu Prag.” In Aspekte der Nationenbildung im Mittelalter. Edited by Helmut Beumann and Werner Schröder, 442–48. Nationes 1. Sigmaringen: Thorbecke, 1978. Schramm, Percy. Herrschaftszeichen und Staatssymbolik. Beiträge zu ihrer Geschichte vom 3. bis zum 16. Jahrhundert. Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1955. Serrano del Pozo, Joaquin. “Relics, Images, and Christian Apotropaic Devices in the Roman-Persian Wars (4th–7th Centuries).” Eikón Imago 11 (2022): 57–69. Sharpe, Richard. “Banners of the Northern Saints.” In Saints of North-East England, 600–1500. Edited by Margaret Coombe, Anne Mouron, and Christiania Whitehead. MCS 39, 245–303. Turnhout: Brepols, 2017. Smith, Colin. ed. Christians and Moors in Spain. 3 vols. Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1989–1992. Sobiesiak, Joanna. “Znaczenie bitwy pod Chlumcem (1126) dla relacji politycznych między władcą niemieckim Lotarem III a czeskim księciem Sobiesławem I.” Res Historica 38 (2015): 43–59. Speyer, Wolfgang. “Die Hilfe und Epiphanie einer Gottheit, eines Heroen und eines Heiligen in der Schlacht.” In “Pietas.” Festschrift fur Bernhard Kotting. Edited by Ernst Dassmann and Karl S. Frank, 55–77. Jahrbuch fur Antike und Christentum 8. Münster: Aschendorff, 1980. Šrámek, Josef. “Zamyšlení nad stránkami análů hradišťsko-opatovických. Poznámka na okraj jedné středověké památky ve světle současného bádání.” Vlastivědný věstník moravský 63.4 (2011): 305–14. Staecker, Jörn. “Rex regum et dominus dominorum.” Die wikingerzeitlichen Kreuz- und Kruzifixanhänger als Ausdruck der Mission in Altdänemark und Schweden. Lund studies in medieval archaeology 23. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1999. Storelli, Xavier. “Les chevaliers face à la mort soudaine et brutale. L’indispensable secours de l’Église?” In Chevalerie et christianisme aux XIIe et XIIIe siècles. Edited by Martin Aurell and Catalina Gîrbea, 149–77. Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes, 2011. Suchodolski, Stanisław. “Kult św. Wacława i św. Wojciecha przez pryzmat polskich monet z wczesnego średniowiecza.” In Kościół—kultura—społeczeństwo. Studia z dziejów średniowiecza i czasów nowożytnych. Edited by Stanisław Bylina, 87–102. Warsaw: Semper, 2000.

138

Kotecki

Tarczyński, Tomasz. “The King and the Saint against the Scots: The Shaping of English National Identity in the 12th Century Narrative of King Athelstan’s Victory over His Northern Neighbours.” In Imagined Communities: Constructing Collective Identities in Medieval Europe. Edited by Andrzej Pleszczyński et al., 85–102. EMC 8. Leiden and Boston MA: Brill, 2018. Thacker, Alan T. “‘Pecularius patronus noster’: The Saint as Patron of the State in the Early Middle Ages.” In The Medieval State: Essays Presented to James Campbell. Edited by John R. Maddicott and D.M. Palliser, 1–24. London and Rio Grande OH: Hambledon Press, 2000. Throop, Susanna A. “Christian Community and the Crusades: Religious and Social Practices in the ‘De expugnatione Lyxbonensi.’” HSJ 24 (2012): 95–126. Třeštík, Dušan. “Idea státu a národa.” In Přemyslovci. Budování českého státu. Edited by Petr Sommer et al., 272–77. Prague: Lidové noviny, 2009. Třeštík, Dušan. Kosmova kronika. Studie k počátkům českého dějepisectví a politického myšlení. Prague: Academia, 1968. Vaníček, Vratislav. “Polský královský titul Vratislava II. (tradice, kontinuita a inovace v 11. století).” bit.ly/3pMPuyF. Vaníček, Vratislav. Soběslav I. Přemyslovci v kontextu evropských dějin v letech 1092–1140. Historická paměť. Velká řada 14. Prague and Litomyšl: Paseka, 2007. Veitch, Kenneth. “The Alliance Between Church and State in Early Medieval Alba.” Albion 30.2 (1998): 193–220. Wegener, Wilhelm. “Die Lanze des heiligen Wenzel. Ein Versuch zur Geschichte der mittelalterlichen Herrschaftszeichen.” Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechts­ geschichte. Germanistische Abteilung 72.1 (1955): 56–82. Wolverton, Lisa. Hastening Toward Prague: Power and Society in the Medieval Czech Lands. Philadelphia PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2001. Woods, Marjorie C. Weeping for Dido: The Classics in the Medieval Classroom. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 2019. Zelenka, Jan. “Vazal nebo přítel? Význam rituálu homagia ve vztahu mezi českým knížetem Soběslavem I. a císařem Lotharem III.” In Drugie Polsko-Czeskie Forum Młodych Mediewistów. Mediewista wobec źródła: teoria i praktyka. Edited by Józef Dobosz, Jakub Kujawiński, and Marzena Matla-Kozłowska, 61–71. Publikacje Instytutu Historii 87. Poznań: Instytut Historii Uniwersytetu Adama Mickiewicza, 2009. Zupka, Dušan. Meč a kríž. Vojna a náboženstvo v stredovekej strednej Európe (10.–12. storočie). Bratislava: VEDA, 2020. Zupka, Dušan. “Náboženské rituály vojny a vytváranie kresťanskej identity v stredovekej strednej Európe 12. storočia.” Historický Časopis 68.4 (2020): 577–90. Zupka, Dušan. “Political, Religious and Social Framework of Religious Warfare and Its Influences on Rulership in Medieval East Central Europe.” In Rulership in Medieval

How to Secure the Intercession of the Patron Saint

139

East Central Europe: Power, Rituals and Legitimacy in Bohemia, Hungary and Poland. Edited by Grischa Vercamer and Dušan Zupka, 135–59. ECEE 78. Leiden and Boston MA: Brill, 2021. Žemlička, Josef. “Jindřich Zdík—biskup, diplomat a organizator.” In Jindřich Zdík (1126–1150). Olomoucký biskup uprostřed Evropy. Edited by Jana Hrbacova and Marek Perutka, 13–28. Olomouc: Muzeum umeni Olomouc, 2009. Žemlička, Josef. “‘Omnes Bohemi’. Od svatováclavské čeledi ke středověké šlechtě.” Mediaevalia Historica Bohemica 3 (1993): 225–42. Žemlička, Josef. “Pražský kámen a koruna králů v legitimizační symbolice přemyslovské epochy.” In Co můj kostel dnes má, nemůže kníže odníti. Věnováno Petru Sommerovi k životnímu jubileu. Edited by Eva Doležalová and Petr Meduna, 169–80. Prague: Lidové noviny, 2011. Žemlička, Josef. “Svatý Václav jako věčný kníže ‘Čechů.’” In Svatý Václav. Na památku 1100. výročí narození knížete Václava Svatého. Edited by Petr Kubín, 211–20. Historia et historia artium 11. Prague: Univerzita Karlova, 2010.

Chapter 4

Pre-, intra-, and postbellum Rites in High and Late Medieval Bohemia Robert Antonín Although there has been a significant shift in the last twenty years in the research of rituals and their social role in medieval Bohemia, the issue of ritual acts in the context of military campaigns or battles has not yet received explicit attention in Czech historiography.1 The only exception, in this case, is the research devoted to the role of St. Wenceslas (Václav) as the patron saint of Bohemia and subsequently of the Czech lands and the crown and as an active aid of the Bohemian army in battles, especially in the examples of the battles of Chlumec (Ger. Kulm) (1126) and Kressenbrunn (nowadays Groißenbrunn) (1260). Since the issue of St. Wenceslas’s intervention in these battles is dealt with in this volume in a broad historical, cultural and social context by Radosław Kotecki, I refer the reader to his text.2 In my study, I will focus primarily on the broader context of the devotion shown to the “eternal ruler and protector” of Bohemia in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries in an attempt to reflect this phenomenon over a long time horizon and in different variations of its manifestations.3 Subsequently, I will attempt to answer the question of what types of ritual acts associated with warfare, or with battle itself, were practiced in the Bohemian lands during the medieval period, based on an analysis of (mainly) narrative sources of Bohemian provenance. The present text does not claim to 1 For a general account of the festivities and rituals in late medieval Bohemia, see František Šmahel, “Královské slavnosti ve středověkých Čechách,” in idem, Mezi středověkem a renesancí, Edice Historické Myšlení 16 (Prague: Argo 2002), 107–32; Martin Nodl and František Šmahel, ed., Rituály, ceremonie a festivity ve střední Evropě 14. a 15. století, Colloquia mediaevalia Pragensia 12 (Prague: Filosofia, 2009); Martin Nodl and Andrzej Pleszczyński, ed., Moc a její symbolika ve středověku, Colloquia mediaevalia Pragensia 13 (Prague: Filosofia, 2011); Martin Nodl and František Šmahel, ed., Slavnosti, ceremonie a rituály v pozdním středověku (Prague: Argo, 2014). The latter appeared recently in English translation as František Šmahel, Martin Nodl, and Václav Žůrek, ed., Festivities, Ceremonies, and Rituals in the Lands of the Bohemian Crown in the Late Middle Ages, ECEE 82 (Leiden and Boston MA: Brill, 2022). 2 See Chapter 3 in this volume two. 3 In this respect I draw on my previous research, see Robert Antonín, The Ideal Ruler in Medieval Bohemia, ECEE 44 (Leiden and Boston MA: Brill, 2017), 109–34.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004686373_005

Rites in High and Late Medieval Bohemia

141

be all-encompassing. Due to the nature of the source base, this study is necessarily limited to a reflection on the actions of the upper ranks of medieval society, especially Bohemian rulers and their immediate circle. My ambition, therefore, is mainly to try to capture the information offered by the sources and then interpret them, which I see primarily as an opportunity to open up the topic of ritual conduct in war in high and late medieval Bohemia. 1

St. Wenceslas—Protector of Bohemia and the Bohemians in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries

The veneration of St. Wenceslas had deep ideological roots. In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, it became an integral part of the ideology of the sovereign power of Bohemian rulers, princes and kings, and together with that one of the components of the land identity of the local nobility.4 The St. Wenceslas spear, rightly pointed out by Kotecki in his chapter, was naturally not the only artifact associated with the belief in the power of the eternal protector of Bohemia. When the penultimate legitimate male descendant of the Přemyslid dynasty, Wenceslas II, died at the beginning of the fourteenth century (21 June 1305), according to the Zbraslav Chronicle (or Chronicon Aulae Regiae), his successor Wenceslas III had to take an oath on the skull of St. Wenceslas, which was kept as the most valuable relic in the treasure of the Cathedral of Sts. Vitus, Wenceslas, and Vojtěch-Adalbert at Prague Castle (commonly known as st. Vitus’s Cathedral).5 St. Wenceslas—as dux perpetuus—was not only a guarantee of the fulfillment of the oath of the incoming king but also of the smooth transition of power from father to son. Another symbolic object par excellence documenting the importance of St. Wenceslas in medieval Bohemian thought was naturally the royal crown of the Bohemian Kings, which was newly made by Charles IV. This crown was understood by him as the property of St. Wenceslas and, based on Charles’s wishes, it was to be placed on the head of this saint, i.e. the same skull on which Wenceslas III swore to his dying father in July 1305. According to the new coronation order of the Bohemian kings issued by Charles in 1347, the king only bought this crown 4 The research so far has been summarized by Kotecki in this collection (vol. 2, chap. 3). 5 Petra Žitavského Kronika zbraslavská, ed. Josef Emler, FrB 4 (Prague: Palacký, 1884), 1–337 at 94; on the last days of Wenceslas II, see Josef Žemlička, “‘Král jako ubohý hříšník svých poklesků litoval v pláči’. Václav II., Zbraslav a svatý Ludvík IX,” in “Verba in imaginibus.” Františku Šmahelovi k 70. Narozeninám, ed. Martin Nodl and Petr Sommer (Prague: Argo, 2004), 193–210; Libor Jan, Václav II. Král na stříbrném trůnu, Edice Ecce homo 21 (Prague: Argo, 2015), 370.

142

Antonín

for the coronation ceremony for the sum of 300 gold coins paid to the Prague Metro­politan Chapter.6 Examples of St. Wenceslas’s veneration and at the same time the ideological use of the figure of the eternal prince of Bohemia can be found already during the reign of Charles’s father, John of Luxembourg, who in August 1339 transferred the emblem of the flaming (St. Wenceslas’s) eagle to the Tridentine bishopric with the consent of Charles IV. A few years earlier (1335), Charles’s brother John Henry had obtained Tyrol and St. Wenceslas was to guard this country like the Bohemian lands—the belief in his protection is evidenced by the many St. Wenceslas patronages of churches in the border areas.7 In addition to this, the importance of the cult of the holy prince was also reflected in the building activities of Charles IV, during whose reign Prague castle itself was referred to in the sources as the Castle of St. Wenceslas (castrum sancti Venceslai). In 1367, the Chapel of St. Wenceslas was built and consecrated in the newly built Prague Cathedral (fig. 4.1). The importance of the chapel was matched by its artistic decoration, which is now dominated by the statue of St. Wenceslas. Whether this was already the case in the time of Charles IV is not certain, although we know from the accounts kept during the construction of the cathedral that the stonemason Henry was still (or already) working on this statue in the spring of 1373. However, he was not its only creator—Petr Parléř is defended in the literature as the main one. Unlike the other sculptures in the cathedral, the St. Wenceslas statue is not tied to the overall architectural concept of the space and was therefore portable. This does not diminish the significance of St. Wenceslas Chapel as a place of deep symbolic meaning, the key point of which was above all the saint’s tomb and tombstone, which, according to contemporary testimony, the emperor had made of pure gold and decorated with precious stones and other selected stones as early as 1358. The role of the chapel as a relic site was strengthened in 1367 by the

6 On the donation of the royal crown, which Charles had made at great cost for St. Wenceslas, and the obligation of future kings to be crowned with precisely it is already testified to by the chroniclers of the fourteenth century, see Chronicon Francisci Pragensis, ed. Jana Zachová, FrB. Series nova 1 (Prague: Nadace Patriae, 1998), 200; Cronica ecclesiae Pragensis Benessii Krabice de Weitmile, ed. Josef Emler, FrB 4, 457–548 at 515. See Joachim Prochno, “Terra Bohemiae, Regnum Bohemiae, Corona Bohemiae,” in Corona regni. Studien über die Krone als Symbol des Staates im späteren Mittelalter, ed. Manfred Hellmannn, Wege der Forschung 3 (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1961), 218–224; Zdeňka Hledíková, “Postava svatého Václava ve 14. a 15. století,” in Svatý Václav. Na památku 1100. výročí narození knížete Václava Svatého, ed. Petr Kubín (Prague: Národní knihovna ČR, 2010), 239–50. 7 Ibid., 239–40.

Rites in High and Late Medieval Bohemia

143

Figure 4.1 Present-day view of St. Wenceslas’s Chapel in St. Vitus Cathedral, Prague Castle, Czech Republic. License: CC BY-SA 4.0 Photo by DXR. Reproduced from: w.wiki/5awo

transfer and burial of the alleged relics of Wenceslas’s sister Přibyslava and his faithful servant Podiven to the vicinity of the saint’s tomb.8 Along with this, the fourteenth century saw the development of homiletics for the saint’s feast day. Charles’s deep interest in the figure of the holy prince is revealed by the legend of St. Wenceslas written by the emperor himself. Although he based it on older models, he continued to work with the hagiographic material in the spirit of his ideas about the continuity of the earliest Bohemian history. In contrast to the more elaborate models, Charles presents 8 For reports on the golden tomb and transfer of Přibyslava and Podiven, see Cronica ecclesiae Pragensis Benessii Krabice de Weitmile, 527, 536. Of the extensive literature on the Prague Cathedral of St. Vitus and the chapel of St. Wenceslas, see Josef Krása, Svatováclavská kaple (Prague: Obelisk, 1971); Karel Stejskal, Umění na dvoře Karla IV. (Prague: Artia, 1978), 163–98; Katedrála sv. Víta v Praze. K 650. výročí založení, ed. Klára Benešovská and Anežka Merhautová, 2nd ed. (Prague: Academia, 2004); Jiří Kuthan and Jan Royt, Katedrála sv. Víta, Václava a Vojtěcha. Svatyně českých patronů a králů (Prague: Lidové noviny, 2011), see the summary of the earlier literature here.

144

Antonín

an ethically legible story of the struggle between good and evil with morally distinct actors—St. Wenceslas and his grandmother St. Ludmila on the side of good, Wenceslas’s brother Boleslav and mother Drahomíra on the side of evil. In a similar vein, the chroniclers who, based on Charles’s commission, attempted to create a synthesis of Bohemian history culminating in the reign of Luxembourg incorporated information about the martyr’s life.9 From the point of view of the development of the symbolic role of St. Wenceslas, we thus reach a point where Charles appropriated this saint. The eternal prince—and the fourteenth century already refers to him as a king—continued to be the patron saint of the Bohemians, both the nobility and the common people. At the same time, however, his crown, and therefore his powers, were held by the reigning monarch, who thus in real time and space assumed the place of the patron saint. Charles introduced the nobility, church leaders, and the new elites of the townsmen to his statesmanlike program through a variety of expressive means. These were people who were in contact with the court, or at least within earshot of it, people who perceived the emerging artistic masterpieces—paintings, sculptures and the buildings themselves. The symbolic testimony of the works of art created at the instigation of Charles or those close to him (for example, the archbishops of Prague) was more than eloquent. One of them is a set of 28 scenes from the life of St. Wenceslas decorating the outer wall of the spindle-shaped staircase at the southern wall of the great tower at Karlštejn. These paintings, which probably date from the early 1460s, together with nine scenes from the life of St. Ludmila, form a complex conception of the roots of the Christian tradition associated with the family of the mythical Přemysl the Ploughman as it was fixed in the official memoriam artificially created by Charles, as well as by the intellectuals and artists he surrounded himself with.10 The importance of the cult of the Bohemian patron at Charles’s court is also reflected in the work associated with the activities of Charles’s chaplain 9

10

See Crescente religione Christiana, in Anton Blaschka, Die St. Wenzelslegende Kaiser Karel IV. Einleitung, Texte, Kommentar, Quellen und Forschungen aus dem Gebiete der Geschichte 14 (Prague: n.p.,1934), 61–80; Johannis de Marignola Chronicon, ed. Josef Emler, FrB 3 (Prague: Palacký, 1882), 485–604 at 531; Pribiconis de Radenin dicti Pulkavae Chronicon Bohemiae, ed. Jaroslav Goll, FrB 5 (Prague: Palacký, 1893), 1–326 at 18–22. Another proof of the penetration of St. Wenceslas’s cult in the art surrounding Charles IV’s court and mainly the emperor himself is the depiction of the saint with the cap of a Venetian doge on the left wing of the triptych by Tommaso da Modena in the chapel of the Holy Rood. On that, see Karel Stejskal, “Die Wandzyklen des Kaisers Karls IV. Bemerkungen zu Neudatierungen und Rekonstruktionen der im Auftrag Karls IV. gemalten Wandzyklen,” Umění 46.1–2 (1998): 19–41; Karel Stejskal and Karel Neubert, Umění na dvoře Karla IV. (Prague: Odeon, 1978), 101–34.

Rites in High and Late Medieval Bohemia

145

and advisor (also protonotary and diplomat) Master Velislav, in the so-called Velislav Bible, which contains hundreds of pen-drawn and finely colored pictures, among which we can find some scenes from the lives of Bohemian saints, not excluding St. Wenceslas.11 Jan Očko of Vlašim, the second archbishop of Prague, Charles’s friend and secretary, and also a patron, also maintained a close relationship with the court, and it was at his instigation (in 1371) that a votive plaque was created, originally intended for the chapel in the archbishop’s castle in Roudnice nad Labem, dedicated in 1371 to the Virgin Mary, St. Vitus, St. Wenceslas, St. Vojtěch-Adalbert, and St. Sigismund. The painting depicts in its upper strip the ideological program of the symbolic relationship between Emperor Charles IV and St. Sigismund and the young Bohemian king Wenceslas IV. with St. Wenceslas (both Luxembourgs kneel in front of the enthroned goddess in the central part of the painting), supplemented in the lower strip by the context of other provincial patrons—St. Procopius, St. Vojtěch-Adalbert, St. Vitus, and St. Ludmila, bending over the kneeling Jan Očko—the spiritual administrator and metropolitan of the Bohemian lands.12 It is probable that the above-mentioned examples were more likely to have been active within the monarch’s court. However, the Luxembourg period also knew how St. Wenceslas’s veneration and its connection with the rule of the current rulers were disseminated on a “mass” scale. This was a small coin—a penny minted before 1350 and briefly presenting Charles’s St. Wenceslas program through an iconographic symbol to the lower social classes. In this, Charles was already following the parva of John of Luxembourg (minted probably not long after John’s coronation). While the obverse of the coins in question featured a Bohemian lion with a crown on the reverse, their reverse depicted St. Wenceslas with a spear, banner, and halo.13 The widespread belief in the miraculous power of the Bohemian patron saint among the broader popular strata in the Luxembourg period is evidenced by several miracles associated with the saint’s grave or his remains at this time.14

11 See Karel Stejskal, Velislai Biblia picta, Editio Cimelia Bohemica 12 (Prague: Pragopress, 1970); Antonín Matějček and Jindřich Šámal, Legendy o českých patronech v obrázkové knize ze XIV. století (Prague: Janda, 1940); Josef Krása, České iluminované rukopisy 13.–16. století (Prague: Odeon, 1990), 86–87. 12 Jaroslav Pešina, “Desková malba,” in Dějiny českého výtvarného umění, vol. 1.1, ed. Rudolf Chadraba (Prague: Academia, 1984), 311–27; Stejskal, Umění na dvoře Karla IV, 72–76. 13 For the small coins of the Luxembourg era, see Jarmila Hásková, Pražské groše (1300–1526) (Prague: Tisková, ediční a propagační služba, 1991), 188 (no. 79) and 193 (no. 103). 14 On these miracles, see Cronicon Francisci Pragensis, 199; Cronica ecclesiae Pragensis Benessii Krabice de Weitmile, 490, 514, 520, 534, 537–38.

146

Antonín

Although in the fourteenth century the direct testimonies of chronicles about the interventions of St. Wenceslas in battles on the side of the Bohemian army are diminishing, there can be no doubt about St. Wenceslas’s veneration, not only the official one, i.e. Charles’s, but also the popular, spontaneous one, in the light of the examples given. It is therefore likely that the belief in his role as the protector of the Bohemian armies persisted. In this spirit, the court authors Giovanni de’ Marignolli and Přibík Pulkava repeat in their chronicles the intervention of this saint at Chlumec as well as at Kressenbrunn. They continue to work with the motif and bring it closer to the reality and perception of fourteenth-century man.15 In addition to this, other cases of victories of Bohemian arms associated with either the feast of this saint or his direct interventions on the battlefield appear in the chronicles of the Luxembourg period. For example, in the Zbraslav Chronicle, Wenceslas II defeats his Polish rival Władysław the Elbow (Łokietek) in 1292 in front of Sieradz on the very day on which the martyrdom of the patron saint of the Bohemian lands is commemorated.16 The same chronicler enriched the St. Wenceslas theme with the victory of the Bohemian King John of Luxembourg fighting on the side of Ludwig of Bavaria in the Battle of Mühldorf, which took place on 28 September—again on St. Wenceslas Day—in 1322. We hear that John, when the morning came, … having heard mass and strengthened himself with the sacrament of the altar, manfully with his men began and ended the battle happily, gaining victory. There is no doubt—adds Peter—that St. Wenceslas, the patron saint of Bohemia, on whose feast the prince of his country fought for peace, for life, and his country, was then present with his protection.17

15

On the repetition of the motifs of the battle at Chlumec and Kressenbrunn in the affected works, see Johannis de Marignola Chronikon, 558, 570–71; Pribiconis de Radenin dicti Pulkavae Chronicon Bohemiae, 78, 151–152. 16 Petra Žitavského Kronika zbraslavská, 54: “Consiliis autem pacis ibidem pertractatis diligencius ulterius proficisci disposuit et mox quadrigis adaptatis et equitibus in Zyradiam venit, ubi figens tentoria in die beati Wenceslai martyris potenter ipsum oppidum expu­ gnavit, turbatores quoque pacis, videlicet ducem Loketkonem cum fratre suo captivitatis sue legibus mancipavit. Statu igitur terrarum earundem in melius reformato ad propria rex rediit et palmam victorie adeptus feliciter Dominum in cunctis operibus suis benedixit.” My italics. 17 Ibid., 263: “Mane facto rex Boemie missa audita, munitusque prius sacrosancte eucharistie sacramento, bellum cum suis viriliter inchoat, feliciterque consumat, triumphum reportat. Haut dubium quin sanctus Wencezlaus, Boemorum patronus, cum suo presidio

Rites in High and Late Medieval Bohemia

147

Wenceslas’s help in the war in the fourteenth century was not purely tied to the person of the king, but could paradoxically turn against him if he did not conduct himself as a just king guaranteeing the peace of the land. We encounter this motif in the chronicle of Beneš of Weitmile. The chronicler describes the development of the dispute between the nobility and King John in the years 1315–1318, as well as between the various noble groups. From the tone of the chronicle, there can be no doubt about Beneš’s sympathy for the group of lords forming the opposition to the monarch. In 1318, these lords defeated the armies of King John, which according to the chronicler happened with the help of St. Wenceslas, who appeared to some of them on a white horse.18 However, the protective role of St. Wenceslas also had a wider dimension. For example, when Charles IV set out on his coronation imperial ride to Rome in 1354, he started it on the day of this saint. St. Wenceslas was to provide him with the necessary protection and success for his venture. During his reign, Charles had the remains of St. Wenceslas placed on the altars of this saint in Aachen, in St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome, in Ingelheim as the supposed birthplace of Charlemagne, and in Nuremberg, the site of the imperial councils of Charles IV. At the same time, the veneration of St. Wenceslas spread significantly throughout the Empire.19 The cult of St. Wenceslas, the eternal ruler, protector of the Bohemians, as a political and gradually ethnically, i.e. linguistically, defined nation, survived in the Bohemian lands in the fifteenth century, even at the time of the upheaval of the social order as a result of the Hussite Revolution. Although his figure played a significant role, especially in the anti-Hussite propaganda of the Catholic Party, which gradually appropriated other Bohemian patrons, we should not today succumb to the agitation of the opponents of the chalice at that time, who described themselves as the true heirs of the legacy of the eternal prince and considered the song Svatý Václave (Saint Wenceslas) to be their own. The figure of the holy prince, despite the original opposition of the radical Hussites to saints in general, appeared in Hussite propaganda. Thus, for example, St. Wenceslas appears in the manifesto of the Prague inhabitants from 1420, whose author invokes the help of “St. Wenceslas, our heir” tunc affuerit, in cuius festo princeps sue patrie pro pace, pro vita et pro patria dimicavit.” My italics. 18 Cronica ecclesiae Pragensis Benessii Krabice de Weitmile, 474. František Graus connected this incident only with the defense of Bohemia against the Germans, which is imprecise in the context of the whole event, see František Graus, Lebendige Vergangenheit. Überlieferung im Mittelalter und in den Vorstellungen vom Mittelalter (Cologne and Vienna: Böhlau, 1975), 171. 19 Hledíková, “Postava svatého Václava,” 242–43.

148

Antonín

against the cruel crusaders in addition to God’s help. We also see the Hussite warriors of God praying to the aforementioned saint before the Battle of Ústí nad Labem (Germ. Aussig an der Elbe). The St. Wenceslas chant was sung in 1436 by both Calixtines and Catholics in Jihlava during the lavish reception of Sigismund of Luxembourg. The same song was sung politely by followers of both faiths during the ceremonial procession to the palace after the election of King George of Poděbrady in 1458. The St. Wenceslas Hymn was also sung at the election of Vladislav II. Jagellonian in Kutná Hora and at the same time at the reception of his opponent, King Matthias Corvinus of Bohemia, in Jihlava in 1471, as well as in 1526 at the election of Ferdinand of Habsburg. Similarly to the fourteenth century, the veneration of St. Wenceslas permeated the visual art of the Hussite century.20 2

Before and After the War

2.1 Mass, Prayer, Donation Unfortunately, Bohemian sources offer only a small number of directly documented ritual acts associated with the beginning of wars or battles for the high and late Middle Ages. If we go back to the description of the Battle of Mühldorf in 1322 from the pen of the chronicler Peter of Zittau, it is clear that King John began the actual day of battle by attending mass and receiving the sacrament. Considering the role of the Holy Mass in the Christian liturgy, it is more than likely that attending mass and receiving the sacrament of the altar was (not only) a common ritual practice in Bohemia before going into battle. It was a practice so common that the chroniclers did not need to record it explicitly in their works. Attending mass and receiving the sacrament of the altar had a double dimension for the actors. On a personal level, the individual participating in the liturgy, whether a king or a common warrior, was preparing himself for the possibility of his own death, which was, after all, closer in wartime than in peace. On an ideological level, the ostentatiously displayed piety of the monarch before battle was linked to the symbolism of just war: the monarch was placing himself and his army in the hands of God. The outcome of the coming battle was linked in this narrative scheme to the direct intervention of God, and as such was necessarily just.21 Similar rhetoric was used by an anonymous 20 See Amadeo Molnár, Husitské manifesty, Světová četba 495 (Prague: Odeon, 1980), 66; František Šmahel, Idea národa v husitských Čechách (České Budějovice: Růže, 1971), 48–49; Hledíková, “Postava svatého Václava,” 246–48. 21 See Antonín, Ideal Ruler, 255–69.

Rites in High and Late Medieval Bohemia

149

author recalling the victory of Přemysl Otakar II at Kressenbrunn, which has already been mentioned several times, when he stressed that Přemysl, after the Hungarian side had violated the non-aggression agreement and the Bohemian army was unprepared for battle, had placed himself completely in God’s hands, encouraged his army and won.22 Although attendance at mass, or at least prayer, is not mentioned here, it can be assumed. Closely related to the sphere of ritual action preceding the war event, or ex-post reacting to it, was the donative activity of representatives of the secular elite towards religious institutions. In summary, it can be said that the number of pious donations or the establishment of church institutions (churches and monasteries) by the Bohemian nobility increased significantly from the thirteenth century onwards.23 At the same time, members of the secular nobility usually resorted to these gifts only when circumstances forced them to think of death. In addition to old age, injuries or deaths of loved ones, pious donations came on the agenda precisely in connection with participation in a war expedition. An example is the activity of the representatives of the powerful noble Vítkovci family who had extensive estates in southern Bohemia, upper Austria and Bavaria. The central role here was played around the middle of the thirteenth century by a close associate of Přemysl Otakar II. Vok of Rožmberk, was active in Přemysl’s conflict with the king of Hungary between 1259 and 1260, which culminated in the remembered Battle of Kressenbrunn. It is certainly not a coincidence that it was at this time that Vok began preparations for the foundation of the later family monastery of the Vítkovci family, the Cistercian monastery in Vyšší Brod (Germ. Hohenfurth), to which he gradually bequeathed some properties and rights for the salvation of his soul as well as the souls of his ancestors and descendants—after all, the monarch Přemysl Otakar II also founded the Cistercian Abbey of the Zlatá Koruna (Germ. Goldenkron) after his victory over the king of Hungary.24 Other members of the family joined Vok’s donations and Vok himself remembered the monastery in his will, which he had drawn up after the end of the war in 1262. To illustrate the idea of his motives, I can add that in the same document he set aside thirty talents of silver for whoever would take part in a crusade to pagan Prussia for the salvation of Vok’s soul.25 22 Annales Ottakariani, ed. Josef Emler, FrB 2 (Prague: Museum království Českého, 1874), 303–35 at 317 (hereafter Ann. Ott.). 23 For similar activities in later Middle Ages in Hungary, see the chapter by László Veszprémy in this collection (vol. 2, chap. 5). 24 Compare Radosław Kotecki’s chapter in this collection (vol. 2, chap. 3). 25 Codex diplomaticus et epistolaris regni Bohemiae, ed. Gustav Friedrich et al., 7 vols. (Prague: various publishers, 1904–2013), here vol. 5.1(1974):295–302 (nos. 186–89), 422–28

150

Antonín

For the salvation of their souls and the souls of their ancestors and descendants Vok’s sons, Henry and Vítek of Rožmberk also enlarged the monastic equipment of the abbey in Vyšší Brod in 1274. The next wave of pious gifts of the members of the family towards the monastery can be seen in the unstable years 1276–1278 when they openly opposed King Přemysl Otakar II. In 1277 Vítek endowed the monastery in Vyšší Brod with four more villages, which was confirmed shortly afterwards, on the eve of the Battle of Marchfeld (or Dürnkrut, Czech Moravské pole or Suché Kruty) (1278), by his brother Henry, who not only extended this endowment but at the same time confirmed all the previous endowments the monastery had received from his father. It is not surprising that less than a month later, in the whirlwind of the war events of 1278, Henry further multiplied the monastery’s possessions by a deferred donation of two villages to be acquired by the Cistercians for the salvation of his soul should he die in the war. Should he survive the war, Henry granted the monastery additional economic rights.26 Other Bohemian nobles similarly insured their afterlife and salvation in the event of a protracted threat. The idea of pious endowment as a means of bowing to God did not escape the rulers either. Even the author of the Zbraslav Chronicle, which is one of the most valuable sources of information for understanding developments in Central Europe at the turn of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, admits that King Wenceslas II of Bohemia undertook to found the Zbraslav Abbey in 1288 to curry favor with God and the Virgin Mary in his dispute with his stepfather, Záviš of Falkenštejn. The latter, due to the king’s youth, was the de facto ruler of the Bohemian kingdom for some time. His capture and removal, which Wenceslas undertook in 1288, were associated with the danger of resistance from a significant part of the Bohemian nobility—indeed, Wenceslas’s fears were realized: after Záviš’s capture, a domestic war broke out in Bohemia. Wenceslas managed to stand his ground and humble the opposition. He then founded the Zbraslav Abbey. In 1292, it was, among other things, the place of devotional contemplation of King Wenceslas before his military expedition against Władysław the Elbow, which ended with the conquest of Lesser Poland. This motif is also related to the theme of the ritual expression of personal piety before war or battle. According to the Zbraslav Chronicle, not only did Wenceslas come to the monastery before the actual campaign to Poland in 1292, as a place where he spent (nos. 284–87), 496–99 (no. 335); for more, see Robert Antonín et al., Čtvrtý lateránský koncil a proměna českých zemí ve 13. a 14. století (Prague: Lidové noviny, 2020) 262–73. 26 Codex diplomaticus et epistolaris regni Bohemiae, 5.2(1981):272 (no. 645), 398–99 (no. 737), 563–64 (no. 848), 612–13 (no. 876), 616–17 (no. 879).

Rites in High and Late Medieval Bohemia

151

quite a lot of time, but at the same time, he threw himself on the ground and piously asked for blessings before his war expedition, with his face streaked with tears. It was only after he had obtained them that he stood at the head of the army and won a glorious victory.27 2.2 The Accolade The description of Wenceslas II’s 1292 campaign into Lesser Poland, recorded in the Zbraslav Chronicle, reveals another ritual act that became a common part of symbolic communication in battle in the fourteenth century, even in Bohemia. Wenceslas was knighted during this expedition in a ceremony that was associated with a purely secular celebration. As the Zbraslav Chronicle says: [t]he King is here distributing gifts. Whoever becomes a new knight buys his field. Everyone waves their spears and a great feast is prepared; the cups are filled with wine. … The king rejoices with the whole retinue.28 Although in this case, it was not an accolade bestowed on Wenceslas in direct connection with the battle, its connection with the campaign is more than obvious. At the same time, it is the first explicit evidence of a knighting of a Bohemian king. In contrast, John of Luxembourg and his sons Charles and John Henry were knighted directly in battle—probably at the beginning of the battle and certainly as part of a mass knighting together with other warriors. In the case of John of Luxembourg, this happened on 19 September 1315 at the Battle of the Neckar, in which John joined on behalf of Ludwig of Bavaria against the Habsburgs (some fourteenth-century chroniclers connect this battle with the Battle of Mühldorf and state that John was knighted there, but this is clearly a mistake based on a simplification of the text of the Zbraslav Chronicle by the chronicler František of Prague).29 Similarly, Charles IV received his knight’s spurs during his time in Italy at the Battle of San Felice. As he states in his biography, he was part of a group of two hundred other knights who were knighted in this battle.30 Charles’s younger brother John Henry was knighted later, in 1345, when he and his father John and brother Charles besieged Cracow in the 27 Petra Žitavského Kronika zbraslavská, 31–33, 54–55. 28 Ibid., 55: “munera largitur rex et campus redimitur novo milite. Haste vibrantur, convivia magna parantur, pocula funduntur. … Dum rex cum cetu toto gaudet.” My translation. For the issue, see Wojciech Iwańczak, “Pasowanie rycerskie na ziemiach czeskich—ceremonia symboliczna i instrument polityki,” KH 91.2 (1984): 255–77 at 270. 29 Ibid., 232. 30 Vita Caroli IV., ed. Joseph Emler, FrB 3, 323–418 at 343–44.

152

Antonín

war against King Casimir III the Great of Poland in 1345. Even the knighting of John Henry took place as part of a mass knighting of several hundred warriors.31 2.3 Procession Until the Hussite wars, there is not enough source evidence of other ritual activities associated with the opening of battles in the Bohemian environment. The religious practice of the Hussite armies in the first decades of the fifteenth century extended the spectrum of ritual practices associated with the opening of battle to include the practice of Corpus Christi processions. This was one of the typical features of the festivities of the Hussite period and was performed on every appropriate occasion. In connection with wartime events, processions were held both before and after battles, as thanksgiving for victory. The popularity of processions had deep roots and in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries was linked to the spread of the cult of Corpus Christi. The procession was a typical feature of both moderate and radical proponents of the chalice. The Hussite armies began to go into battle or on military campaigns in the form of processions. It was led by a Hussite priest with a raised host followed by warriors, as depicted in the famous Hussite Jena Codex (fig. 4.2). The procession before the battle was accompanied by the singing of Hussite war songs and the hymn Te deum Laudamus.32 Examples include the procession that greeted the Hussite troops that rushed to the aid of the crusade led by Sigismund of Luxembourg in the spring of 1420. A celebratory procession was organized in Prague the same year after the crusade was repulsed after the Battle of Vítkov. According to the chronicler Lawrence of Březová, the victory of the Hussites in this battle was decided by a detachment of crossbowmen who set out from Prague to help the besieged detachment of Jan Žižka on the Vítkov Hill. According to the chronicle, this detachment was also to proceed in the manner of a procession, led by a priest carrying the sacrament of the body of Christ placed in a monstrance on a long pole. This is why Lawrence attributed the victory at Vítkov to God himself, whose presence on the battlefield in the form of a monstrance is said to have frightened the crusaders and turned them to 31 Cronicon Francisci Pragensis, 137; Cronica ecclesiae Pragensis Benessii Krabice de Weitmile, 512. 32 Petr Čornej, Světla a stíny husitství (události—osobnosti—texty—tradice). Výbor z úvah a studií (Prague: Lidové noviny, 2011), 228. For more on Hussite rituals of war, see Jakub Smrčka, “K náboženské praxi husitského vojska,” in Jan Žižka z Trocnova. A husitské vojenství v evropských dějinách, ed. Miloš Drda, Zdeněk Vybíral, and Jakub Smrčka, Husitský Tábor. Supplementum 3 (Tábor: Husitské Muzeum, 2007), 291–303.

Rites in High and Late Medieval Bohemia

153

Figure 4.2 Jan Žižka and his troops going to battle behind a priest carrying a sun monstrance. The Antithesis of Christ and Antichrist, the so-called Jena Codex (ca. 1490–ca. 1510). With kind permission of the Library of the National Museum, Prague, Czech Republic, IV B 24, fol. 76r

154

Antonín

flight. It is obvious that the outcome of the battle at Vítkov was decided primarily by the military tactics of the Hussite army and the moment of surprise, but the interpretation of the chronicler Lawrence adds deep symbolic meaning to the outcome of the battle—the Hussite success was not decided by weapons, but by God’s judgment. God, Himself thus decided on the correctness of Hussite doctrine. Similarly, the procession after the defeat of Sigismund in the next Battle of Vyšehrad (1420) was arranged, when a Hussite priest carried a monstrance under a canopy that had originally been paradoxically prepared by the Catholic clergy to welcome Sigismund as the new crowned King of Bohemia.33 2.4 The Triumph and Welcoming of the Victor Examples of processions arranged as thanksgiving for victory represent one type of ritual act following a battle or war as such. In high and late medieval Bohemia, this type of ritual act was mainly associated with the ceremonial entry of the (victorious) monarch into (not only residential) towns. These entrances, associated with the celebration of triumph in battle or military campaign, constituted a special category of ceremonial entry of the ruler into the cities (adventus regis).34 The return of the monarch from a victorious military campaign and his reception by the townspeople was the ideal occasion for the public representation of the power with which he had been endowed by divine grace. The spread of triumphal entrances in the late Middle Ages 33 Vavřince z Březové Kronika husitská, ed. Josef Emler, FrB 5, 327–542 at 365, 371, 372, 388, 389, 442; for more in-depth on the role of religion in Žižka’s army, see Andrew K. Deaton, “Divining God’s Favour and Diverting His Wrath: Supernatural Intervention in the Hussite Wars Under Jan Žižka, 1419–1424,” in Miracles, Political Authority and Violence in Medieval and Early Modern History, ed. Matthew Rowley and Natasha Hodgson (Abingdon and New York: Routledge, 2021), 109–22; Petr Čornej, Jan Žižka. Život a doba husitského válečníka (Prague: Argo, 2022), 286–94. 34 On the phenomenon of sovereign advent, see Winfried Dotzauer, “Die Ankunft des Herrschers. Der fürstliche ‘Einzug’ in die Stadt (bis zum Ende des Alten Reichs),” Archiv für Kulturgeschichte 55 (1973): 245–88; Hans Conrad Peyer, “Der Empfang des Königs im mittelalterlichen Zürich,” in Könige, Stadt und Kapital. Aufsätze zur Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte des Mittelalters, ed. Ludwig Schmugge, Roger Sablonier, and Konrad Wanner (Zürich: Verlag Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 1982), 53–68; Klaus Tenfelde, “‘Adventus’. Die fürstliche Einholung als städtisches Fest,” in Stadt und Fest. Zur Geschichte und Gegenwart europäischer Festkultur, ed. Paul Hugger (Stuttgart: Metzler, 1987), 45–60; Gerrit Jasper Schenk, Zeremoniell und Politik. Herrschereinzüge im spätmittelalterlichen Reich (Cologne, Weimar, and Vienna: Böhlau, 2003); for the phenomenon in Czech history, see Robert Antonín and Tomáš Borovský, Panovnické vjezdy na středověké Moravě (Brno: Matice Moravská, 2009). Compare also similar phenomenon in Hungary as discussed by László Veszprémy in this collection (vol. 2, chap. 5).

Rites in High and Late Medieval Bohemia

155

is undoubtedly related to the discovery of the ancient sources of ritual and confirms the thesis that many of the signs and symbols of medieval culture remained the same, but the way they were incorporated into the cultural system and used by those acting changed.35 If we focus on the phenomenon of the ceremonial welcoming of a ruler after his return from a military campaign in the Bohemian environment, it can be traced as far back as Cosmas’s Chronicle of Bohemians. It is Cosmas who gives an account of the elaborate liturgical ceremony associated with the return of Břetislav I from his war campaign in 1039 against Poland, where, in Gniezno—the see of Polish metropolis, the Bohemian prince captured the relics of St. Vojtěch-Adalbert of Prague. Although in this case it was not a classical monarchical entry after a won war, but in essence a transfer of the relics of St. Vojtěch-Adalbert, the whole event had at the same time the dimension of a monarchical triumph. From Cosmas’s chronicle, we learn that at the dawn of the day the returning expedition was met by the clergy and the people, who could hardly squeeze into a wide field. At the head of the procession entering Prague, the prince and the bishop carried the relics of St. Vojtěch-Adalbert. Behind them were the abbots with the relics of the Five Martyred Brethren and the archpriests with the relics of the first Gniezno archbishop Gaudentius, the brother of Vojtěch-Adalbert. Twelve priests then carried a huge golden cross with the Savior. Next came the golden plates from the altar of Gniezno Cathedral, followed by other spoils, including the prisoners.36 Naturally, the relics of the saint were the center of the ceremony, not the person of the monarch. Even from a liturgical point of view, the transfer of relics is a ceremony that differs in meaning and content from the monarch’s 35

See Gerd Althoff, “Die Kultur der Zeichen und Symbole,” in idem, Inszenierte Herrschaft. Geschichtsschreibung und politisches Handeln im Mittelalter (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2003), 274–97 at 293, 295–96; for the triumphal adventus in medieval period, see, e.g., Michael McCormick, Eternal Victory: Triumphal Rulership in Late Antiquity, Byzantium, and the Early Medieval West (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986); Jonathan Shepard, “‘Adventus’, Arrivistes and Rites of Rulership in Byzantium and France in the Tenth and Eleventh Century,” in Court Ceremonies and Rituals of Power in Byzantium and the Medieval Mediterranean: Comparative Perspectives, ed. Alexander D. Beihammer, Stavroula Constantinou, and Maria G. Parani, MMED 98 (Leiden and Boston MA: Brill, 2013), 337–74. 36 Cosmae Pragensis Chronica Bohemorum, 2.5, ed. János M. Bak and Pavlína Rychterová, trans. Petra Mutlová and Martyn C. Rady, intro. and ann. Jan Hasil and Irene van Renswoude, CEMT 10 (Budapest and New York: Central European University Press, 2020), 169–71 (hereafter Cosmas, Chron. Boh.). See also Agnieszka Kuźmiuk-Ciekanowska, “Święty Wojciech wraca do Pragi—relacja Kosmasa o przeniesieniu relikwii świętego biskupa,” Historia Slavorum Occidentis 1(2) (2012): 94–103.

156

Antonín

entry. The rubrics of the Roman ordines provide for the reception of relics as a ceremony in its own right. After all, the ceremonial reception of the procession coming from Gniezno is not the only evidence of welcoming the relics of saints in Bohemia. If we move for a moment to the thirteenth century, precisely to the year 1251, we find that then almost all the people and clergy of Prague came out in procession to welcome the relics sent by the pope to the sister of King Wenceslas I. Agnes of Bohemia and which were subsequently brought to the church of St. Francis.37 But let us return to Cosmas and the adventus of Břetislav. For in this situation one cannot simply speak of a mere translation of the saint’s relics. The ceremony described by Cosmas is indeed a highly religious act, but it is also understood as the triumphal entry of a monarch returning from a military campaign; the spoils and captives, though neglected, are part of the same procession as the relics of the saints. The case of Břetislav’s return from Gniezno is not unique, but at the same time, it is possible that Cosmas’s description of the welcoming procession corresponded more to the reality of the time in which this chronicler was writing, i.e. in the first decades of the twelfth century.38 Simply put, Cosmas described the ritual of welcoming the triumphant monarch and his spoils (including the relics) in a way that a person of his time could understand. From this, we can see that in the twelfth century the welcoming of a ruler returning from battle in Prague is associated with processions, singing and the ringing of bells. Besides Cosmas, this is also evident in his successors. For example, the Anonymus conventionally known as the Canon of Vyšehrad, who in 1130 commemorates the welcoming of Soběslav I, who narrowly escaped the hand of an assassin on a war expedition, has “everyone” welcome the prince with a song on his lips and the sound of bells as he enters Prague. Soběslav’s arrival in Prague was in this respect part of a theatrical production through which the monarch dealt with the opposition. The ritual showed him in the role of restorer of the temporarily disturbed order in the country. Subsequently, Soběslav moved to Vyšehrad, and even there he was solemnly welcomed by the local canons.39 37 Letopisy české 1198–1278, ed. Josef Emler, FrB 2, 282–303 at 287. 38 On Cosmas’s chronicle, see Dušan Třeštík, Kosmova kronika. Studie k počátkům českého politického myšlení (Prague: Academia, 1968); Lisa Wolverton, Cosmas of Prague: Narrative, Classicism, Politics (Washington DC: The Catholic University of America Press 2014); as well as the Introduction by Jan Hasil and Irene van Renswoude in the newest edition: Cosmas, Chron. Boh., xv–lix. 39 Canonici Wissegradensis continuatio Cosmae, ed. Josef Emler, FrB 2, 201–37 at 208–9; see Andrzej Pleszczyński, “‘Sobeslaus—ut Salomon, ut rex Ninivitarum’. Gesta, rituály a inscenace—propagandistické nástroje boje českého knížete v konfliktu s opozicí (1130–1131),” Český časopis historický 101.2 (2003): 237–59. Radosław Kotecki also mentions the Soběslav’s advent after his triumph at Chlumec in 1126, Chapter 3 in this volume two.

Rites in High and Late Medieval Bohemia

157

In a matter-of-fact and less pompous manner, the annalist Vincentius describes in his chronicle the arrival of Vladislav II from the Second Crusade in 1148. Although the return of the Bohemian prince, who had been away from his homeland for a long time, must have been spectacularly prepared, the chronicler is stingy in his description. Thus, we learn only that Vladislav was greeted with great joy by the bishop and the nobility. Similarly, in the same chronicle we learn that Vladislav, already king, was in 1158, after his return from fighting in Italy, solemnly received in Prague by priests, princes, nobles and the general people, and subsequently reigned happily, or that the same Vladislav, together with his lords, on the contrary, welcomed his son Bedřich, returning from Italy in 1163, in front of Prague. Thus, for the second half of the twelfth century, the greatest detail regarding the structure of the procession welcoming the king outside Prague is provided by Vincentius in his description of the return of King Vladislav from Hungary in 1164. At that time, he was said to have been greeted by Bishop Daniel with canons, abbots and priests, as well as knights and countless people.40 Perhaps it was this spectacular reception by the clergy and people in Prague in 1174 that Prince Soběslav II also received, although the chronicler Jarloch is not nearly so forthcoming in this regard.41 The fact that already in the princely period of Přemyslid Bohemia and Moravia the welcoming of the monarch was understood not only as a suitable occasion for celebration but also as a ritual confirmation of his rule in the country is evidenced by the several entrances and welcomes of Prince Bořivoj II in Prague. Bořivoj, however previously enthroned and accepted, suddenly appeared before Prague after the death of Prince Svatopluk and entered the castle on Christmas morning without being prevented by anyone. After securing the castle, Bořivoj also entered the gates of Vyšehrad and after that, he returned to Prague on Christmas Day, where he was greeted by a procession of clergy, attended mass, and returned again to Vyšehrad.42 We are able to detect a clear shift in the welcoming of rulers in Prague from the thirteenth century onwards, i.e. from the period when the last Přemyslid kings ruled in Bohemia and Moravia (and not only there). Probably the most meaningful description of such an event is the welcoming of King Wenceslas I by the Prague townspeople and subsequently by church representatives and 40 Vincentii canonici Pragensis Annales, ed. Josef Emler, FrB 2, 407–60 at 419, 443, 452–53, 458. 41 Annales Gerlaci, ed. Josef Emler, FrB 2, 461–527 at 467. 42 Cosmas, Chron. Boh., 3.28, pp. 356, 358 (Latin), 357, 359 (English). For those and some other early instances of entering Bohemian monarch to the capital city, see Andrzej Pleszczyński, Przestrzeń i polityka. Studium rezydencji władcy wcześniejszego śred­ niowiecza przykład czeskiego Wyszehradu (Lublin: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej, 2000), 231–35.

158

Antonín

representatives of the nobility at Prague Castle in August 1249. The event represented one of the high points of the internal domestic war between Wenceslas and his son Přemysl Otakar (later Přemysl Otakar II). Wenceslas was received not only as a ruler who had defended his position after a series of battles but above all as a victor in a duel with his son. Wenceslas was first welcomed in the city, which was the first to surrender to him. On August 5 of that year, Bishop Nicholas came out to meet him at the head of a procession consisting of Minorites and all the people of Prague. The bishop then led the king into the church of St. Francis to the sound of bells for a common mass. This entry has de facto character of a triumph of Wenceslas not only in his struggle with his son but also towards the city as such, since the people of Prague, led by the bishop, were on the side of Wenceslas’s son in this dispute. After the reception in the city, however, the conquest of Prague castle, occupied by the garrison of Přemysl Otakar II, continued. In the course of it, Wenceslas continued to celebrate his return to power. Not only did he hold a lavish banquet for both clerical and secular potentates on the day after the Feast of the Assumption, but he had the royal crown placed back on his head in the church of St. Francis, dressed in all the royal trappings, at the hands of the bishops of Prague and Olomouc. There can be no doubt that all of Wenceslas’s actions at this time led to the full seizure of royal power and the vindication of the legitimacy of his rule, which justified a just war against Přemysl. It was only after these ritual activities had been carried out that Přemysl surrendered and his garrison cleared out Prague castle. And then, on the 20 August, King Wenceslas entered its gates, where he was welcomed by prelates, distinguished Bohemian lords, and the general folk, whose singing, was drowned out perhaps only by the bells which again rang out over the whole scene.43 A few years later, on 8 April 1256, Otakar II was duly welcomed in Prague by a procession of clergy and common people on his return from a crusade to Prussia and was then led in procession, led by the bishop and the Prague canons, to mass in the church at the castle. This was the second time that Přemysl had been welcomed in this way, the first being in Wrocław, where he celebrated the Feast of the Nativity of the Lord on his Prussian expedition and 43 Ann. Ott., 305–8, for the complicated situation in 1248/1249, see Josef Žemlička, Počátky Čech královských 1198–1253. Proměna společnosti a státu, Česká historie 10 (Prague: Lidové noviny, 2002), 166–85; Vratislav Vaníček, Velké dějiny zemí Koruny české. Sv. II, 1197–1250 (Prague and Litomyšl: Paseka, 2000); Libor Jan, “Domácí šlechtická opozice a přemyslovští králové 13. věku,” in Rituál smíření. Konflikt a jeho řešení ve středověku, ed. Martin Nodl and Martin Wihoda, Země a kultura ve střední Evropě 8 (Brno: Matice Moravská, 2008), 87–94; see Robert Antonín, České země za posledních Přemyslovců I. (1192–1253). Cestou proměny společnosti k vrcholně středověké monarchii (Prague: Libri, 2012), 383–89.

Rites in High and Late Medieval Bohemia

159

where he was received by the local bishop and the Silesian princes. Otakar was also greeted in front of Prague by a procession after the victorious Battle of Kressenbrun in 1260, which Radosław Kotecki discusses in detail in his text. Unfortunately, we do not know the details of the form of the monarch’s welcome in this case.44 Probably the most details were recorded by the chroniclers about the return of Wenceslas II to Prague on 24 May 1283. In this case, the young king was not returning from war, but from forced internment in Brandenburg, where he had been taken after the death of Přemysl Otakar II by the regent in charge in Bohemia, Otto V, Margrave of Brandenburg, this event can be seen as the return of a victorious king from the most difficult battle. At that time, Wenceslas was reportedly met by lords and knights numbering several thousand, as well as all the clergy and a large number of people from the city in a procession led by Bishop Tobias of Bechyně and the Prague canons, followed by monks from the monasteries of Břevnov and Strahov, as well as Dominicans and Minorites, followed by the parish priests of the various Prague churches. All of them then received Wenceslas at the gate of the castle. For the first time in connection with Wenceslas II, the sources record that the Bohemian monarch was sung the hymn Adventisti desiderabilis and the hymn Hospodine pomiluj ny (Lord, have mercy on us) among other songs on his return to the capital. In his work, the author of Zbraslav Chronicle does not forget to emphasize the immeasurable joy and general rejoicing that broke out in Prague at that time in connection with the return of Wenceslas II. The adventus regis is thus associated in the pages of the chronicle of the Zbraslav monks, as in the chronicle of Cosmas and his successors, with the general rejoicing of the people.45 In May 1311, John of Luxembourg was welcomed with similar pomp on his first entry into Moravia, the second country under the rule of the Bohemian kings. The young Luxembourg proceeded from north to south on his first visit to Moravia, and his first stop was Olomouc in early May 1311, from where he set off a few days later for the second of Moravia’s main centers, Brno. His arrival in the country de facto fulfilled the form of a tribute ride to the new ruler, who had won the clash for the Bohemian crown with Henry of Carinthia as 44 Ann. Ott., 297, 309–10. See Kotecki’s chapter in this collection (vol. 2, chap. 3). 45 Letopisy České, 293, 297; O zlých letech po smrti krále Přemysla Otakara II., ed. Josef Emler, FrB 2, 335–76 at 366; Petra Žitavského Kronika Zbraslavská, 20. On the development in the Bohemian lands after the death of Přemysl Otakar II, see Vratislav Vaníček, Velké dějiny zemí koruny české. Sv. III, 1250–1310 (Prague and Litomyšl: Paseka 2002), 376–86; Libor Jan, Vznik zemského soudu a správa středověké Moravy, Paginae historiae mediaevalis. ser. II. Historica 1 (Brno: Matice Moravská, 2000), 209–69; Josef Žemlička, Do tří korun. Poslední rozmach Přemyslovců (1278–1301) (Prague: Lidové noviny, 2017), 43–85.

160

Antonín

well as with the representatives of the Habsburg family. From this perspective, John’s role as victor was matched by the spectacular celebration that took place just outside the gates of Brno. Accompanied by his imperial advisors and many Bohemian and Moravian lords, the newly crowned King John and his wife Elizabeth of Bohemia approached the city walls. Here, according to the Zbraslav chronicler Peter, from whose account we draw our knowledge, he was greeted with pomp not only by all the Christian inhabitants of the city, led by its political representation but also by the Jews of Brno, who came out to meet the king at the city gates in a procession carrying the Ten Commandments with reverence and welcoming the king with Hebrew singing. After this, King John entered the city solemnly and established order and peace, to the joy of all the people outside and inside. John’s arrival in the country is associated in the Zbraslav Chronicle primarily with the return of order, which had been broken and unmaintained in previous years due to the weak rule of Henry of Carinthia, which is consistent with the narrative strategy of Peter of Zittau, who in this part of the text aims to portray the young king according to the general pattern of the medieval monarchical ideal.46 The same chronicler suggests that the triumphal entry of John of Luxembourg was also experienced a few years later by the inhabitants of Prague after the already mentioned victorious Battle of Mühldorf in 1322. Although Peter’s view of John of Luxembourg changed significantly after 1319 and the king was no longer portrayed in his chronicle according to the formula of the monarchical ideal,47 the famous victory in this war, coupled with the king’s glorious return to Bohemia, could not be passed over in silence by the chronicler despite his antipathy towards the monarch. Thanks to this, we learn that on the twentieth day after his glorious victory King John was solemnly welcomed in Prague to the singing of the clergy, the pealing of bells, the general joy of the people and the general rejoicing which overwhelmed the whole city. Considering the fact that one of the defeated Habsburg dukes, Henry, was captured by the Bohemian king after the battle and held prisoner, it is more than likely that John’s triumphal entry into Prague was enhanced by the multitude of prisoners the king brought with him, led by the said Henry of Habsburg. Sources also speak of the festive welcome of John of Luxembourg in Prague in connection with his return from the crusade to Prussia in May 1329. In this case, too, Peter of Zittau found words of appreciation for the war heroism of the Bohemian monarch, whom he otherwise strongly criticized.48 46 Petra Žitavského Kronika zbraslavská, 177–78; see Antonín, Ideal Ruler, 87, 102–3, 241–43. 47 Antonín, Ideal Ruler, 220–22. 48 Petra Žitavského Kronika zbraslavská, 263, 293.

Rites in High and Late Medieval Bohemia

3

161

Conclusions

The above examples of ritual practice associated with warfare demonstrate the high symbolic value of this type of action in Bohemian medieval culture and society. At the same time, however, it should be emphasized that a large part of them was closely related to the public appearance of the ruler and served to visualize his power and just rule exercised following the medieval ideal.49 This fact is of course also influenced by the nature of the source base available to research. It is clear that if knowledge of ritual practice in war is based primarily on narrative sources, and specifically on chronicles written to glorify rulers or directly commissioned by them, the persons of dukes and kings and their immediate circle will necessarily be of central interest to these sources. The analysis has shown that from the perspective of the ruler and the visualization of his social role as a God-given ideal sovereign, the essential ritual acts associated with war or battle included his participation in the mass and the reception of the sacrament of the altar. I have argued that this act had a double meaning: on a personal level, he was preparing himself as an individual for the possibility of his own death; on the level of ruler ideology, the king’s ostentatiously displayed piety before battle was linked to the symbolism of just war: through it, the ruler was delivering himself and his army into the hands of God. The outcome of the coming battle was linked in this narrative scheme to the direct intervention of God, and as such was necessarily just. From the end of the thirteenth century, the ritual practice of war included (the mass) knighting of knights, through which the knighted—in Bohemian sources, again mainly the monarch as part of an anonymous crowd of other knights—assumed the role of the ideal Christian warrior. Along with this, the practice of ceremonial/triumphal entrances into towns was among the rituals associated with the visualization of the monarch’s power. Welcoming the king at their gates not only affirmed his leading social role confirmed by conquest but also insured social stability as such. Previous research has shown that in the Bohemian lands the role of the just rule of the actual princes and kings was closely linked to their relationship to the “eternal ruler of the Bohemians,” St. Wenceslas. He was perceived as the protector of the Bohemians, helping them in battles. For this reason, St. Wenceslas’s veneration continued to play a significant role in Bohemia in the late Middle Ages, despite the upheaval of the social order caused by the Hussite Revolution. The Hussite era brought a new phenomenon of processions accompanied by war and God-glorifying hymns to the ritual practice of 49 Antonín, Ideal ruler, 312–62.

162

Antonín

war. The occurrence of this phenomenon was necessarily related not only to the Hussite ideology of holy struggle in the name of the true faith but also to the absence of sovereign power in the Bohemian lands. The Hussite armies, formed in the shape of a religious procession, were not—figuratively speaking— led by a ruler, but by God present in a monstrance. Bibliography

Primary Sources

Annales Gerlaci. Edited by Josef Emler, 461–527. FrB 2. Prague: Museum království Českého, 1874. Annales Ottakariani. Edited by Josef Emler, 303–35. FrB 2. Prague: Museum království Českého, 1874. Canonici Wissegradensis continuatio Cosmae. Josef Emler, 201–37. FrB 2. Prague: Museum království Českého, 1874. Chronicon Francisci Pragensis. Edited by Jana Zachová. FrB. Series nova 1. Prague: Nadace Patriae, 1998. Codex diplomaticus et epistolaris regni Bohemiae. Edited by Gustav Friedrich et al. 7 vols. Prague: various publishers, 1904–2013. Cosmae Pragensis Chronica Bohemorum. Edited by János M. Bak and Pavlína Rychterová. Translated by Petra Mutlová and Martyn C. Rady. Introduction and annotation by Jan Hasil and Irene van Renswoude. CEMT 10. Budapest and New York: Central European University Press, 2020. Crescente religione Christiana. In Anton Blaschka. Die St. Wenzelslegende Kaiser Karel IV. Einleitung, Texte, Kommentar, 61–80. Quellen und Forschungen aus dem Gebiete der Geschichte 14. Prague: n.p., 1934. Cronica ecclesiae Pragensis Benessii Krabice de Weitmile. Edited by Josef Emler, 457–548. FrB 4. Prague: Palacký, 1884. Johannis de Marignola Chronicon. Edited by Josef Emler, 485–604. FrB 3. Prague: Palacký, 1882. Letopisy české 1198–1278. Edited by Josef Emler, 282–303. FrB 2. Prague: Museum království Českého, 1874. O zlých letech po smrti krále Přemysla Otakara II. Edited by Josef Emler, 335–76. FrB 2. Prague: Museum království Českého, 1874. Petra Žitavského Kronika zbraslavská. Edited by Josef Emler, 1–337. FrB 4. Prague: Palacký, 1884. Pribiconis de Radenin dicti Pulkavae Chronicon Bohemiae. Edited by Jaroslav Goll, 1–326. FrB 5. Prague: Palacký, 1893.

Rites in High and Late Medieval Bohemia

163

Vavřince z Březové Kronika husitská. Edited by Josef Emler, 327–542. FrB 5. Prague: Palacký, 1893. Vincentii canonici Pragensis Annales. Edited by Josef Emler, 407–60. FrB 2. Prague: Museum království Českého, 1874. Vita Caroli IV. Edited by Joseph Emler, 323–418. FrB 3. Prague: Palacký, 1882.



Secondary Sources

Althoff, Gerd. “Die Kultur der Zeichen und Symbole.” In Gerd Althoff. Inszenierte Herrschaft. Geschichtsschreibung und politisches Handeln im Mittelalter, 274–97. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2003. Antonín, Robert. České země za posledních Přemyslovců I. (1192–1253). Cestou proměny společnosti k vrcholně středověké monarchii. Prague: Libri, 2012. Antonín, Robert. The Ideal Ruler in Medieval Bohemia. ECEE 44. Leiden and Boston MA: Brill, 2017. Antonín, Robert, and Tomáš Borovský. Panovnické vjezdy na středověké Moravě. Brno: Matice Moravská, 2009. Antonín, Robert, et al. Čtvrtý lateránský koncil a proměna českých zemí ve 13. a 14. století. Prague: Lidové noviny, 2020. Benešovská, Klára, and Anežka Merhautová, ed. Katedrála sv. Víta v Praze. K 650. výročí založení. 2nd ed. Prague: Academia, 2004. Čornej, Petr. Jan Žižka. Život a doba husitského válečníka. Prague: Argo, 2022. Čornej, Petr. Světla a stíny husitství (události—osobnosti—texty—tradice). Výbor z úvah a studií. Prague: Lidové noviny, 2011. Deaton, Andrew K. “Divining God’s Favour and Diverting His Wrath: Supernatural Intervention in the Hussite Wars Under Jan Žižka, 1419–1424.” In Miracles, Political Authority and Violence in Medieval and Early Modern History. Edited by Matthew Rowley and Natasha Hodgson, 109–22. Abingdon and New York: Routledge, 2021. Dotzauer, Winfried. “Die Ankunft des Herrschers. Der fürstliche ‘Einzug’ in die Stadt (bis zum Ende des Alten Reichs).” Archiv für Kulturgeschichte 55 (1973): 245–88. Graus, František. Lebendige Vergangenheit. Überlieferung im Mittelalter und in den Vorstellungen vom Mittelalter. Cologne and Vienna: Böhlau, 1975. Hásková, Jarmila. Pražské groše (1300–1526). Prague: Tisková, ediční a propagační služba, 1991. Hledíková, Zdeňka. “Postava svatého Václava ve 14. a 15. století.” In Svatý Václav. Na památku 1100. výročí narození knížete Václava Svatého. Edited by Petr Kubín, 239–50. Prague: Národní knihovna ČR, 2010. Iwańczak, Wojciech. “Pasowanie rycerskie na ziemiach czeskich—ceremonia symbo­ liczna i instrument polityki.” KH 91.2 (1984): 255–77.

164

Antonín

Jan, Libor. “Domácí šlechtická opozice a přemyslovští králové 13. věku.” In Rituál smíření. Konflikt a jeho řešení ve středověku. Edited by Martin Nodl and Martin Wihoda, 87–94. Země a kultura ve střední Evropě 8. Brno: Matice Moravská, 2008. Jan, Libor. Václav II. Král na stříbrném trůnu. Edice Ecce homo 21. Prague: Argo, 2015. Jan, Libor. Vznik zemského soudu a správa středověké Moravy. Paginae historiae mediaevalis. Series II. Historica 1. Brno: Matice Moravská, 2000. Krása, Josef. České iluminované rukopisy 13.–16. století. Prague: Odeon, 1990. Krása, Josef. Svatováclavská kaple. Prague: Obelisk, 1971. Kuthan, Jiří, and Jan Royt. Katedrála sv. Víta, Václava a Vojtěcha. Svatyně českých patronů a králů. Prague: Lidové noviny, 2011. Kuźmiuk-Ciekanowska, Agnieszka. “Święty Wojciech wraca do Pragi—relacja Kosmasa o przeniesieniu relikwii świętego biskupa.” Historia Slavorum Occidentis 1(2) (2012): 94–103. Matějček, Antonín, and Jindřich Šámal. Legendy o českých patronech v obrázkové knize ze XIV. století. Prague: Janda, 1940. McCormick, Michael. Eternal Victory: Triumphal Rulership in Late Antiquity, Byzantium, and the Early Medieval West. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986. Molnár, Amadeo. Husitské manifesty. Světová četba 495. Prague: Odeon, 1980. Nodl, Martin, and Andrzej Pleszczyński, ed. Moc a její symbolika ve středověku. Colloquia mediaevalia Pragensia 13. Prague: Filosofia, 2011. Nodl, Martin, and František Šmahel, ed. Rituály, ceremonie a festivity ve střední Evropě 14. a 15. století. Colloquia mediaevalia Pragensia 12. Prague: Filosofia, 2009. Nodl, Martin, and František Šmahel, ed. Slavnosti, ceremonie a rituály v pozdním středověku. Prague: Argo, 2014. Pešina, Jaroslav. “Desková malba.” In Dějiny českého výtvarného umění. Vol. 1.1. Edited by Rudolf Chadraba, 311–27. Prague: Academia, 1984. Peyer, Hans Conrad. “Der Empfang des Königs im mittelalterlichen Zürich.” In Könige, Stadt und Kapital. Aufsätze zur Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte des Mittelalters. Edited by Ludwig Schmugge, Roger Sablonier, and Konrad Wanner, 53–68. Zürich: Verlag Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 1982. Pleszczyński, Andrzej. Przestrzeń i polityka. Studium rezydencji władcy wcześniejszego średniowiecza przykład czeskiego Wyszehradu. Lublin: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej, 2000. Pleszczyński, Andrzej. “‘Sobeslaus—ut Salomon, ut rex Ninivitarum’. Gesta, rituály a inscenace—propagandistické nástroje boje českého knížete v konfliktu s opozicí (1130–1131).” Český časopis historický 101.2 (2003): 237–59. Prochno, Joachim. “Terra Bohemiae, Regnum Bohemiae, Corona Bohemiae.” In “Corona regni.” Studien über die Krone als Symbol des Staates im späteren Mittelalter.

Rites in High and Late Medieval Bohemia

165

Edited by Manfred Hellmannn, 198–224. Wege der Forschung 3. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1961. Schenk, Gerrit Jasper. Zeremoniell und Politik. Herrschereinzüge im spätmittelalterlichen Reich. Cologne, Weimar, and Vienna: Böhlau, 2003. Shepard, Jonathan. “‘Adventus’, Arrivistes and Rites of Rulership in Byzantium and France in the Tenth and Eleventh Century.” In Court Ceremonies and Rituals of Power in Byzantium and the Medieval Mediterranean: Comparative Perspectives. Edited by Alexander D. Beihammer, Stavroula Constantinou, and Maria G. Parani, 337–74. MMED 98. Leiden and Boston MA: Brill, 2013. Šmahel, František. Idea národa v husitských Čechách. České Budějovice: Růže, 1971. Šmahel, František. “Královské slavnosti ve středověkých Čechách.” In František Šmahel. Mezi středověkem a renesancí, 107–32. Edice Historické Myšlení 16. Prague: Argo 2002. Šmahel, František, Martin Nodl, and Václav Žůrek, ed. Festivities, Ceremonies, and Rituals in the Lands of the Bohemian Crown in the Late Middle Ages. ECEE 82. Leiden and Boston MA: Brill, 2022. Smrčka, Jakub. “K náboženské praxi husitského vojska.” In Jan Žižka z Trocnova. A husitské vojenství v evropských dějinách. Edited by Miloš Drda, Zdeněk Vybíral, and Jakub Smrčka, 291–303. Husitský Tábor. Supplementum 3. Tábor: Husitské Muzeum, 2007. Stejskal, Karel. Umění na dvoře Karla IV. Prague: Artia, 1978. Stejskal, Karel. Velislai Biblia picta. Editio Cimelia Bohemica 12. Prague: Pragopress, 1970. Stejskal, Karel. “Die Wandzyklen des Kaisers Karls IV. Bemerkungen zu Neudatierungen und Rekonstruktionen der im Auftrag Karls IV. gemalten Wandzyklen.” Umění 46.1–2 (1998): 19–41. Stejskal, Karel, and Karel Neubert. Umění na dvoře Karla IV. Prague: Odeon, 1978. Tenfelde, Klaus. “‘Adventus’. Die fürstliche Einholung als städtisches Fest.” In Stadt und Fest. Zur Geschichte und Gegenwart europäischer Festkultur. Edited by Paul Hugger, 45–60. Stuttgart: Metzler, 1987. Třeštík, Dušan. Kosmova kronika. Studie k počátkům českého politického myšlení. Prague: Academia, 1968. Vaníček, Vratislav. Velké dějiny zemí Koruny české. Sv. II, 1197–1250. Prague and Litomyšl: Paseka, 2000. Vaníček, Vratislav. Velké dějiny zemí koruny české. Sv. III, 1250–1310. Prague and Litomyšl: Paseka 2002. Wolverton, Lisa. Cosmas of Prague: Narrative, Classicism, Politics. Washington DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2014.

166

Antonín

Žemlička, Josef. Do tří korun. Poslední rozmach Přemyslovců (1278–1301). Prague: Lidové noviny, 2017. Žemlička, Josef. “‘Král jako ubohý hříšník svých poklesků litoval v pláči’. Václav II., Zbraslav a svatý Ludvík IX.” In “Verba in imaginibus.” Františku Šmahelovi k 70. Narozeninám. Edited by Martin Nodl and Petr Sommer, 193–210. Prague: Argo, 2004. Žemlička, Josef. Počátky Čech královských 1198–1253. Proměna společnosti a státu. Česká historie 10. Prague: Lidové noviny, 2002.

Chapter 5

Religious Rites of War in Medieval Hungary: A Reconnaissance László Veszprémy Renewed international interest in the subject of war, religion, and its rituals in recent decades has made it possible to evaluate the Hungarian evidence in a European context. Dušan Zupka, in his pioneering works on this subject, rightly complains that Hungarian sources, especially those concerning the early history of the realm, are scarce.1 The present paper is unable to deny this, but it does attempt to draw a more comprehensive picture by juxtaposing phenomena that have been largely treated in isolation. To achieve this goal, it seems essential to extend the research outlook as far as 1526 and the Battle of Mohács that sealed the history of medieval Hungary. There have also been some—rather tentative—efforts to include non-Hungarian sources. The picture presented below is, therefore, still very sketchy and will no doubt be considerably filled out in the future thanks to methodologically more advanced research. The links between Hungarian church and military affairs started with the foundation of the Kingdom of Hungary as a Christian monarchy in 1000/1001, but relatively little evidence of this survived in the sources.2 It is no surprise that the clergy, including higher clergy, accompanied by the king, were often present at military campaigns: praying, celebrating mass, offering Holy Communion, or—if they were not there in person—beseeching God in their churches for success in times of war.3 Yet the accounts tell about them only 1 Dušan Zupka, Ritual and Symbolic Communication in Medieval Hungary Under the Árpád Dynasty (1000–1301), ECEE 39 (Leiden and Boston MA: Brill, 2016); idem, “Religious Rituals of War in Medieval Hungary Under the Árpád Dynasty,” in Christianity and War in Medieval East Central Europe and Scandinavia, ed. Radosław Kotecki, Carsten Selch Jensen, and Stephen Bennett (Leeds: ARC Humanities Press, 2021), 141–58 at 143; idem, “Political, Religious and Social Framework of Religious Warfare and Its Influences on Rulership in Medieval East Central Europe,” in Rulership in Medieval East Central Europe: Power, Rituals and Legitimacy in Bohemia, Hungary and Poland, ed. Grischa Vercamer and Dušan Zupka, ECEE 78 (Leiden and Boston MA: Brill, 2022), 135–60. 2 Zupka, “Religious Rituals.” 3 For a general overview, see Radosław Kotecki, “With the Sword of Prayer, or How the Medieval Bishop Should Fight,” QMAN 21 (2016): 341–69. For the Dalmatian case, see Judit

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004686373_006

168

Veszprémy

when they die in battle (like two bishops in the army of King Coloman in 1099, in the Fifth crusade in 1217–1218, at Muhi against the Mongols in 1241, at Varna in 1444, and Mohács in 1526 against the Ottomans),4 or if they expressed in verse how badly they felt under arms, as did the famous poet and bishop of Pécs, Janus Pannonius.5 An early unique source testifies that bishops appeared in the Hungarian king’s entourage at the Battle of Ménfő in 1044 against the Germans.6 In 1456, the Franciscan friar Giovanni da Capestrano celebrated Holy Mass in front of the assembled crusading army defending Belgrade, which is understandable, since he was its commander.7 The principal church holidays were also celebrated in the camp. It is known that on 25 December 1463, at the threat of a general assault in Jajce (in Bosnia), the Ottomans sent envoys to demand unconditional peace just as the Hungarian king and his general staff, while preparing for the decisive attack, were celebrating the great feast at a mass in the local Franciscan church.8 The description of the enthronement and knighting of the young King Géza II is a unique source. The event took place in a chapel before the Battle of the Leitha River (Hung. Lajta) in 1146, in the presence of a crowd of clergy,

4 5

6 7

8

Gál, “The Role of the Dalmatian Bishops and Archbishops in Warfare during the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries: A Case Study on the Archbishops of Split,” in Christianity and War, 25–37. Gábor Barabás, “Thirteenth-Century Hungarian Prelates at War,” in Christianity and War, 39–56. Janus Pannonius, Elegiae—Elegien. Lateinisch—Deutsch, ed. Josef Faber (Norderstedt: Books on Demand GmbH, 2009), 202–12. The presence of prelates in the campaigns during the reign of King Matthias may have been more frequent than before. See András Kubinyi, “Az egyház szerepe az országos politikában és a honvédelemben a középkor végén,” in Egyházak a változó világban, ed. István Bárdos and Margit Beke (Tatabánya: Komárom-Esztergom megye Önkormányzata, 1992), 19–27 at 22, rprt. in idem, Főpapok, egyházi intézmények és vallásosság a középkori Magyarországon (Budapest: Magyar Egyháztörténeti Enciklopédia Munkaközösség, 1999), 87–99. Annales Altahenses maiores, ed. Wilhelm Giesebrecht and Edmund von Oefele, MGH SS rer. Germ. 4 (Hannover: Hahn, 1891), 37; see also Zupka, “Religious Rituals,” 147. Victoriae mirabilis divinitus de Turcis habitae, duce vener. beato Patre Fratre Ioanne de Capi­ strano, series descripta per Fratrem Ioannem de Tagliacotio, illius socium et comitem, atque beato Iacobo de Marchia directa, ed. Leonhard Lemmens, Acta Ordinis fratrum minorum 25 (1906): 31, 64 (hereafter Tagliacozzo, Vict. mir.). Lajos Thallóczy, Jajca (bánság, vár és város) története, Magyarország melléktartományainak oklevéltára, Codex diplomaticus partium regno Hungariae adnexarum 4 (Budapest: Horn­ yánszky, 1915), 31 (no. 25). Antonio Bonfini falsely stated that King Matthias returned to Buda by Christmas, see Antonius de Bonfinis, Rerum Ungaricarum decades, ed. József Fógel et al., 4 vols., Bibliotheca Scriptorum Medii Recentisque Aevorum. Saeculum XV (Leipzig and Budapest: Teubner and Akadémiai Kiadó, 1936–1976), 3:246 (hereafter Bonfini, Rer. Ung.).

Religious Rites of War in Medieval Hungary

169

as the king prayed to Christ, the angels, and the Virgin Mary.9 What makes it particularly surprising is that we do not know any other Hungarian royal girding after 1146. Liturgical books such as the Romano-German Pontifical, which was also used in Hungary, contain votive masses in tempore belli and contra paganos, as well as benediction of banners and arms, but the sources have no mention of their use in any of the known campaigns.10 1

Pre-battle Rites

For the period before 1301, research relies mainly on a narrow range of narrative sources—the chronicles and the legends of the canonized Hungarian kings (Stephen and Ladislas) and one of the first bishops, Gerard (Hung. Gellért) of Csanád. The intervention of supernatural forces in worldly struggles is an idea that was already common in pagan lore, and Christians commonly accepted that armed combat can be seen as a form of divine judgment, in which God declares his help on the side fighting for justice. One of the rites aimed at imploring the heavens to provide aid to fighting men was the invocation of the saints. A saint could be invoked in the narrow sense of intervening in the struggle in person or a broader sense—through prayers, vows, the presence of relics, etc.—where the success in the struggle was attributed to saintly intervention without giving details on saint’s appearing on the battlefield. Before battles, generals would naturally ask for help from the heavens, praying to saints who might help them in battle.11 It is a peculiarity of Hungarian royal charters that the letters of donation often tell of the heroic deeds and services that earned the beneficiary royal favor. This was the case with King Stephen I and the first Benedictine abbey 9

Chronica de gestis Hungarorum e codice picto saec. XIV, chap. 164, ed. and trans. János M. Bak and László Veszprémy, CEMT 9 (Budapest and New York: Central European University Press, 2018) (hereafter Chronica de gestis), 307; Ottonis et Rahewini Gesta Friderici I. impe­ ratoris, 1.33, ed. Georg Waitz, MGH SS rer. Germ. 46 (Hannover: Hahn, 1912), 48–51; English translation in The Deeds of Frederick Barbarossa, trans. Charles Christopher Mierow (New York: Columbia University Press, 2004), 68. See also Zupka, Ritual, 50–54; idem, “Religious Rituals,” 148–50. Interestingly there is no reference to an ecclesiastical service at the supposed knighting of King Stephen. See Chronica de gestis, chaps. 41 and 64, pp. 85 and 111–12. 10 Polycarpus Radó, Libri liturgici manuscripti bibliothecarum Hungariae et limitropharum regionum, ed. László Mezey (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1973), 67. For the votive masses celebrated during the siege at Belgrade in 1456, see Tagliacozzo, Vict. mir., 190. 11 For an overview, see David S. Bachrach, Religion and the Conduct of War, c.300–c.1215 (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2003).

170

Veszprémy

of Pannonhalma (Mons S. Martini) founded by his father, Duke Géza. The first surviving charter in Hungary, albeit preserved only in interpolated copies, the Pannonhalma donation charter of 1001/1002, touches on the subject of saintly aid in battle. It states that Stephen, who clashed with his rival in 997, appealed to St. Martin, promising rich donations in return, which he fulfilled after the victory: “I have vowed to St. Martin if by his merits I conquer my internal and external enemies, that what is due from the above county [Somogy] after all its things, possessions, land, vineyards, sowing, tolls, as well as the wine of the guests, which is grown on their estates, shall not belong to the diocesan bishop, but rather I should submit it to the abbot of the same monastery without delay … and when, having made up my mind, I have won the victory, I have endeavored to put into effect by effective action what I have decided in my mind.”12 The same story was retold in the Major Legend of St. Stephen, where St. Georges’s name was added to St. Martin, saying “under the banner of the prelate Martin, beloved by God, and of the holy martyr George.” Probably the late eleventh-century author of the legend missed and added the archetypal warrior saint from the story.13 Anyway, St. George’s early cult sounds credible because the bishopric of Veszprém was very likely the first of the country’s bishoprics, where a chapel was dedicated to him from the beginning. St. George was also mentioned in a similar context in the Major Legend of St. Gerard.14 The emphasis on the veneration of warrior saints in Hungary may be well explained by the Christian conversion and the fight against rebel chieftains in the first decades of the eleventh century. According to Historia Vie Hierosolimitane by Gilo of Paris, in 1096, on his way to Jerusalem, Godfrey of Bouillon visited Pannonhalma, then assumed to be the birthplace of St. Martin. There, he was solemnly received by King Coloman the Learned, who was followed by the bishops of the country with a procession 12 Diplomata Hungariae antiquissima, ed. György Györffy (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1992), 25–41 (no. 5), quotation at 39–40: “Votum vovi sancto Martino, quod si de hostibus interioribus et exterioribus eius meritis victor exsisterem, supranominati comitatus decimationem de omnibus negociis, prediis, terris, vineis, segetibus, vectigalibus, vinumque hospitum, quod in prediis eorum excresceret, ne parrochiano episcopo pertinere vide­ retur, sed magis abbati eiusdem monasterii, … ulla mora subiugarem. Dumque post cogitatum victoria potiter, quod animo revolveram, operis efficatia complere studui.” 13 Legenda sancti Stephani regis, chap. 6, ed. Emma Bartoniek, in SrH 2, ed. Imre Szentpétery, 2 vols. (Budapest: Academia Litteraria Hungarica, 1938, rprt.: Nap Kiadó, 1999), 363–400 at 381. 14 Legenda S. Gerhardi episcopi, chap. 8, ed. Imre Madzsar, in SrH 2:461–506 at 492–92. The Major Legend of St. Gerard survived in a late fourteenth century redaction, though it apparently passes on many eleventh century evidences based on contemporary annalistic records.

Religious Rites of War in Medieval Hungary

171

and relics.15 The appearance of St. Martin in Hungarian sources is no coincidence, as he remained closely connected with the dynasty throughout the Middle Ages. For example, the royal chapel in Buda Castle was dedicated to him in the thirteenth century.16 Later, towards the end of the Middle Ages, the palace chapel, which was re-founded in 1410 by King Sigismund and given a new patron saint, Sigismund, was visited by King Louis II on 20 July 1526 before he set off for the fatal Battle of Mohács. According to a contemporary description by the papal nuncio, Antonio Giovanni da Burgio, “the king was sitting on his richly decorated horse in his fancy golden robes. … When they reached the church of St. Sigismund, the king dismounted from his horse and prayed before the high altar in the church, and then left Buda.”17 And next, a few days later, in Báta, a Holy Blood pilgrimage shrine, the king confessed and received Holy Communion with his entourage.18 Other mentions of the Báta shrine provide a good example of how itineraries may shed light on the relationships existing between religious places and events of war. Báta is known to have been an important junction on the southern military road used by armies marching toward the border. In April 1359, King Louis the Great visited Báta on his way to Serbia and issued a charter aimed to protect the monastery’s estates.19 As King Sigismund was making his 15 The “Historia Vie Hierosolimitane” of Gilo of Paris and a Second Anonymous Author, ed. Christopher Wallace Grocock and J. Elizabeth Siberry (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997), 50; Zupka, Ritual, 165–66. St. Martin was born in Savaria (today Szombathely), but the Abbey of Pannonhalma vindicated this privilege. To make is believable a stream next to the abbey was identified as Savaria. 16 However, almost nothing is known about the military role of the royal chapel. Surely, its patron was deliberately chosen because of his military competence, on which, see Daniel Rupp. “Der heilige Martin als Schlachtenhelfer im Mittelalter,” in Martin von Tours. Krieger—Bischof—Heiliger (Saarbrücken: Universitätsverlag des Saarlandes, 2013), 27–42. Later the church of St. Sigismund was the place where the crusade of 1514 against the Ottomans was solemnly proclaimed. 17 Antonín Kalous, “Elfeledett források a mohácsi csatáról,” Hadtörténelmi Közlemények 120.2 (2007): 603–21 at 614: “e quando fu alla chiesa di sant Sigismondo, smonto, e fece al quanto oratione inante laltare grande, e di puoi usci da Buda”; see also idem, “The Last Medieval King Leaves Buda,” in Medieval Buda in Context, ed. Balázs Nagy et al., BCEH 10 (Leiden and Boston MA: Brill, 2016), 513–25 at 519–20. 18 Georgii Sirmiensis Epistola de perditione regni Hungarorum, ed. Gusztáv Wenzel, Monumenta Hungariae Historica. Scriptores 1 (Pest: Eggenberger, 1858), 118, 404; György Szerémi, Magyarország romlásáról, trans. László Juhász (Budapest: Szépirodalmi Könyvkiadó, 1979), 120, 356; József Sümegi, “Búcsújárás és zarándoklat,” in A pécsi egyházmegye története. 1. A középkor évszázadai, 1009–1543, ed. Tamás Fedeles, Gábor Sarbak, and József Sümegi (Pécs: Fény, 2009), 487–546 at 506. 19 Codex diplomaticus Hungariae ecclesiasticus ac civilis, 11 vols. in 40 pts., ed. Georgius Fejér (Buda: Typographia Regiae Universitatis Ungaricae, 1829–1844), 9.3(1834):97.

172

Veszprémy

way to Bosnia in 1395, he celebrated the Easter holidays there.20 John of Gara may also have visited Báta leading a Hungarian army to Bosnia in 1415. His army was defeated by Hrvoje, grand duke of Bosnia, and a group of prominent aristocrats was captured, but John of Gara successfully escaped. He ascribed it to his vow and donated his chains (durissimas compedes) to the Abbey of Báta, where it was open to public inspection even in Antonio Bonfini’s time in the late fifteenth century.21 The victorious battle at Cikádor near Báta in 1441 led János Hunyadi to make substantial donations to the Abbey of Báta. In 1526 two vestments (dalmatics) are known to have been donated by him.22 In 1463, King Matthias Corvinus must also have stopped in Báta on his way to Bosnia, and celebrated the Feast of the Ascension Day and issued a charter there.23 It is also likely that he stopped at the abbey during his marches in 1464 and 1465.24 András Bátori, the captain of the Danube fleet, stopped at Báta during the 1521 military campaign to “obtain indulgence and wait for the king.”25 The Virgin Mary has a special place among the celestials called upon in battle.26 The earliest references to this appear in the legends of King Stephen, who founded several bishoprics in Hungary in her honor. In 1030, the German 20 21 22 23 24 25

26

Pál Engel and Norbert C. Tóth, Itineraria Regnum et reginarum (1382–1438), Subsidia ad historiam medii aevi Hungariae inquirendam 1 (Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia. Történettudományi Intézete, 2005), 70. Sümegi, “Búcsújárás,” 509, 539; Bonfini, Rer. Ung., 3:61–62. Sümegi, “Búcsújárás,” 506. Ibid., 306; Richárd Horváth, Itineraria regis Matthiae Corvini et reginae Beatricis de Aragonia (1458–[1476]–1490) (Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia. Történettudományi Intézete, 2011), 72–79. Horváth, Itineraria, 138; József Teleki, Hunyadiak kora Magyarországon, 11 vols. (Pest: Emich, 1854), 11:61–62, 140, 143. Sümegi, “Búcsújárás,” 309; József Sümegi, “Báta a középkori és törökkori forrásokban, 895–1686,” in Báta évszázadai. Emlékkönyv a bátai apátság alapításának 900 éves évfordulójára, ed. Mária Kápolnás (Báta: Báta község, 1993), 11–126 at 89–90. György Szerémi recorded Bátori’s words addressed to him: “Sis cum indumentis sacris cum viatico ad iter, quia ego sive missa non possum esse nequaquam” which can be translated as “Be ready with holy vestments and the Holy Sacrament, because I can’t live without a mass at all.” See Szerémi, Magyarország, 103; Georgii Sirmiensis Epistola, 97. Klaus Schreiner, Märtyrer, Schlachtenhelfer, Friedenstifter. Krieg und Frieden im Spiegel mittelalterlicher und frühneuzeitlicher Heiligenverehrung, OFVK 18 (Opladen: Springer, 2000), 75–105; idem, “Siegbringende Marienbilder. Formen und Funktionen bildhafter Kommunikation in militärischen Konflikten des späten Mittelalters und der frühen Neuzeit,” in Literarische und religiöse Kommunikation in Mittelalter und Früher Neuzeit, ed. Peter Strohschneider (Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 2009), 844–903.

Religious Rites of War in Medieval Hungary

173

king Conrad II invaded Hungary with a large army.27 According to the legend, the Hungarian king asked for help from the Virgin Mary, which was granted. In a miraculous and unexpected event, the German army retreated, and the conflict ended in a peace treaty without major fighting.28 Interestingly, the contemporary German chronicler Wipo, in his gesta of Emperor Conrad II (ca. 1047) wrote in a similar vein. In fact, Wipo states that King Stephen “only urgently asked the Lord for protection after he had decreed prayers and fasting throughout his country.”29 This story has prompted some authors to speculate that the Hungarian coronation robe, which bears the date 1031, may have been connected with the vow of Stephen and may have come into the possession of the basilica at Fehérvár (nowadays Székesfehérvár, later the royal coronation and burial place) as a votive gift.30 King Ladislas I (canonized in 1192) became a warrior saint himself and is depicted with an axe as an attribute. His relics were kept in one of the most popular pilgrimage centers of the country, Várad (Nagyvárad, nowadays Oradea, Romania). In 1345, according to Franciscan chronicler known as Anonymus Minorita, he intervened and fought in a battle against the Mongols, as evidenced by the fact that his head reliquary was “sweating” as if he had just returned from battle.31 In 1352, after fighting a war with Lithuania, King Louis the Great went to Várad to give thanks for victory seemingly owed to the 27 Gábor Varga, Ungarn und das Reich vom 10. bis zum 13. Jahrhundert. Das Herrscherhaus der Árpáden zwischen Anlehnung und Emanzipation, Studia Hungarica 49 (Munich: Verlag Ungarisches Institut, 2003), 96–98; Zupka, “Religious Rituals,” 144–46. 28 Legenda S. Stephani regis ab Hartvico episcopo conscripta, chap. 16, ed. Emma Bartoniek, in SrH 2:401–40 at 423–24; English translation in Hartvic, “Life of King Stephen of Hungary,” trans. Nora Berend, in Medieval Hagiography: An Anthology, ed. Thomas Head (Abingdon and New York: Routledge, 2001), 375–98 at 388–89. See also Legenda sancti Stephani regis, chap. 14, pp. 389–90. 29 Wipo, Gesta Chuonradi, chap. 26, ed. Harry Breslau, MGH SS rer. Germ. 61 (Hannover: Hahn, 1915), 44; Herwig Wolfram, Conrad II, 990–1039: Emperor of Three Kingdoms (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2006), 231–37; Zupka, “Religious Rituals,” 144–46. 30 Éva Kovács, “Casula Sancti Stephani Regis,” Acta historiae artium Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 5 (1958): 181–221, rprt. in eadem, “Species modus ordo.” Válogatott tanulmányok (Budapest: Szent István Társulat, 1998); György Györffy, István király és műve (Budapest: Gondolat, 1977), 353–54. 31 Chronicon Dubnicense, chap. 162, ed. Matyás Florián, HHFD 3 (Leipzig: Taizs, 1884), 1–199 at 152: “subcustos eiusdem ecclesiae … reperit ipsum caput in suo loco iacere, ita insudatum, ac si vivus de maximo labore, vel calore aestus aliunde reversus fuisset”; Jolán Balogh, Varadinum—Várad vára, 2 vols., Művészettörténeti füzetek 13 (Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, 1982), 2:35.

174

Veszprémy

saintly predecessor.32 The Hungarian magnates made a successful attempt to link pilgrimages with the wars against the Ottomans when the National Diet petitioned the pope on the occasion of the Holy Year of 1450. They asked for the Hungarians to be granted the Jubilee absolution even if they did not go to Rome but visited the tomb of St. Ladislas in Várad or St. Stephen’s in Fehérvár, and that half of the money for the trip to Rome should be paid as a donation to war finance.33 Surprisingly, there is no evidence of King Stephen’s role as a supernatural aid in the battles, except for a skirmish near the Bavarian town of Bamberg. There, in 1330, he is said to have assisted the provost of the cathedral who, in gratitude, set up a foundation for annual masses in his memory. The battle took place on 20 August, and the provost attributed his success to the saintly king’s aid, even though the feast of St. Bernard of Clairvaux, known for his promotion of the crusading ideals, fell on the same day.34 2

Relics in Battles

It goes without saying that kings also took relics with them into battle. Hungarian rulers, like their German counterparts, seem to have carried into battle the royal lance (lancea deaurata), a replica of the German Holy Lance, which included a Nail of Christ’s Cross.35 Perhaps because of its symbolism, no mention of St. Stephen’s lance survived in medieval Hungarian sources referring to the times before it was lost. This lance was captured from King Samuel Aba in 1044, passed on to Henry III and then found its way to Rome. Its early existence was doubted until the 1960s when a depiction of the lance 32 Chronicon Dubnicense, chap. 170, p. 166: “Inde veniens versus Waradinum … Deo et beato Ladislao gratias egit, qui ipsum de faucibus mortis eripiendo, licet laboriose, tamen reduxerat cum sospitate … et ecclesiae beati Ladislai munifinectia plura contulit.” 33 Enikő Csukovits, “A római Szentlélek-társulat magyar tagjai (1446–1523),” Századok 134 (2000): 211–44 at 213–14. 34 László Veszprémy, “Forrásközlemény Szt. István korai tiszteletéhez Bambergben,” in “Mestereknek gyengyének.” Ünnepi kötet Madas Edit hetvenedik születésnapjára, ed. Fanni Hende, Klára Kisdi, and Ágnes Korondi (Budapest, Országos Széchényi Könyvtár Szent István Társulat, 2020), 507–17. 35 Battle of Ménfő, 1044: “lancea regis deaurata capitur”: Annales Altahenses maiores, 37. The case of the Bohemian duke, Soběslav I, offers a good parallel, when he took the lance of St. Wenceslas with him on the campaign of 1126—the account discussed in Zupka, “Religious Rituals,” 157; Radosław Kotecki, “Pious Rulers, Princely Clerics, and Angels of Light: ‘Imperial Holy War’ Imagery in Twelfth-Century Poland and Rus,” in Christianity and War, 187; as well as in detail in Radosław Kotecki’s chapter to this collection (vol. 2, chap. 3).

Religious Rites of War in Medieval Hungary

175

was found on a denarius of Stephen I.36 Later, a cross that King Géza II had with him during his campaign in Rus in 1152 is also linked to St. Stephen in the Kievan Chronicle: “this is the cross on which Christ our God willingly accepted crucifixion. It was also of God’s own will that it was given to St. Stephen, who kissed it.”37 In the 1260s, the Hungarian King, Béla IV, was personally involved in fighting along the Morava River. According to the chronicle of the so-called Dalimil (ca. 1312), when the victorious Bohemians seized the royal baggage train in the Battle of Kressenbrunn (nowadays Groißenbrunn) (1260), they discovered among the treasures a finger of St. John the Baptist.38 King Béla IV is also known to have tried to obtain a golden cross containing the relics of the True Cross from one of his nobles, Michael of Csák, who had captured it in 1269 in the presence of his son Prince Béla during a campaign against the Serbian king Uroš the Great.39 János Hunyadi, the governor of Hungary, is also known to have worn a golden cross around his neck. The chronicler János Thuróczy; in his work (printed in 1488), writes for the year 1448 that “a golden cross was hanging from the lord governor’s neck; when one of the Turks tried to seize it, immediately a quarrel arose between the two of them and they rushed to fight one another.”40

36 László Kovács, “Die heilige Lanze Ungarns,” in Europas Mitte um 1000. Beiträge zur Geschichte, Kunst und Archäologie, ed. Alfried Wieczorek, Hans-Martin Hinz, 2 vols. (Stuttgart: Theiss, 2000), 2:902–3; Stanisław Suchodolski, “Włócznia świętego Stefana,” KH 112.3 (2005): 91–110; Zupka, Ritual, 89–90. 37 Antal Hodinka, Az Orosz évkönyvek magyar vonatkozásai (Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, 1916), 183–87, 193–95; Márta Font, Magyarok a Kijevi Évkönyvben (Szeged: Szegedi Középkorász Műhely, 1996), 235, 251. Éva Kovács identified the cross with the so called cross of Záviš of Falkenštejn (now in Vyšší Brod Cistercian monastery). Záviš of Falkenštejn supposedly received this cross from the treasure of Hungarian kings by his marriage with Elizabeth, sister of the Hungarian king Ladislas IV. See Kovács, “Species modus ordo,” 165. 38 Staročeská kronika tak řečeného Dalimila, chap. 85, ed. Jiří Daňhelka et al., 2 vols. (Prague: Academia, 1988), 2: 395: “Boreš uherskelio krále vozov doby. / Když ty vozy domov přivede, / svatého lana křstitele, mezi klejnoty prst naleze. / Ktož by chtěl ten svaty prst videti, / v Osece mohl by jej videti”; Éloïse Adde-Vomáčka, La “Chronique de Dalimil.” Les débuts de l’historiographie nationale tchèque en langue vulgaire au XIVe siècle, Textes et documents d’histoire médiévale 12 (Paris: Éditions de la Sorbonne, 2016), 374. 39 Codex Diplomaticus Hungariae ecclesiasticus, 4.3:490: “Idem Michael crucem pretiosam de ligno Domini ad visum Bele ducis recepisset”; Regesta regum stirpis Arpadianae criticodiplomatica, ed. Imre Szentpétery and Iván Borsa, 2 vols. (Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, Akadémiai Kiadó, 1923–1987), 2:no.1605. 40 Johannes de Thurocz, Chronica Hungarorum. I. Textus, chap. 242, ed. Erzsébet Galántai and Gyula Kristó (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1985), 258 (hereafter Thurocz, Chron. Hung.); English translation in János Thuróczy, Chronicle of the Hungarians, trans. Frank

176 3

Veszprémy

Pre-battle Penitence

So far, scholarship has wavered between treating scenes of pre-battle penitence as actual events and assuming that they were later narratively manipulated, shaped for various purposes by the authors of the sources. In Hungarian historiography, for example, Gyula Szekfű believes that the account known from the fourteenth-century chronicle, the so-called Illuminated Chronicle (Chronica de gestis Hungarorum e codice picto saec. XIV), about King Stephen’s “weeping” is a sign of the king’s remorse for blinding his relative, Vazul. Since Vazul’s descendants themselves reigned later in the eleventh century, the “weeping” described in the chronicles could have been an invention.41 In recent decades, however, there has been a spectacular turnaround in the research and interpretation of medieval emotions, including weeping and tearfulness. Thanks, in particular, to the works of Gerd Althoff, a new interpretation of narrative sources seeking to understand rituals and conventions has become increasingly accepted.42 The question of weeping kings and tearful commanders was treated by Hungarian medieval and classical philology long before international research tackled this issue, in the writings of József Balogh, Kálmán Guoth, and István Borzsák. József Balogh touched on the subject on several occasions and rightly drew attention to early Christian and medieval prayer weeping (oratio lacrimarum),43 noting that “weeping was a complement to religious thought throughout the Middle Ages.”44 The survival of the ritual is attested by King Philip II of France when he prepared for his crusade in 1190, with a similar Mantello, Medievalia Hungarica 2 (Bloomington IN: Indiana University, Research Institute for Inner Asian Studies, 1991), 156. 41 Gyula Szekfű, “Szent István a magyar történet századaiban,” in Szent István emlékkönyv, ed. Jusztinián Serédi, 3 vols. (Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, 1938), 3:1–80 at 28. 42 Gerd Althoff, “Der König weint. Rituelle Tränen in öffentlicher Kommunikation,” in “Aufführung” und “Schrift” in Mittelalter und Früher Neuzeit, ed. Jan-Dirk Müller (Stuttgart: Metzler, 1996), 239–52. 43 József Balogh, “Hangos könyörgés—síró fohász. Néhány adalék az ókeresztény ima történetéhez,” Ethnographia 37.4 (1926): 190–92; idem, “Az ‘ájtatos’ és a ‘komor’ Szent István király,” Egyetemes Philologiai Közlöny 52.4–10 (1928): 49–50; István Borzsák, “Temesvári Pelbárt és Laskai Osvát exemplumainak antik vonatkozásai?” Irodalomtörténeti Közle­ mények 78 (1974): 57–65 at 58. 44 Balogh, “Az ‘ájtatos,’” 192. For weeping commanders in Hungarian medieval narratives, see esp. László Veszprémy, “A pityergő Árpádtól a könnyező Szent Lászlóig. A könnyekre faka­dó hadvezér a Névtelen Gesztája 39. és a Krónikaszerkesztés 121., 137. Fejezetében,” Acta Historica (Szeged) 138 (2015): 17–32, rprt. in idem, Történetírás és történetírók az Árpád-kori Magyarországon (XI–XIII. század közepe), Rerum fides 2 (Budapest: Line Design, 2019), 119–28.

Religious Rites of War in Medieval Hungary

177

prayer that involved weeping.45 A similarly convincing parallel is Jan Długosz’s description of Polish king Władysław Jagiełło weeping before the Battle of Grunwald in 1410.46 These examples perhaps suggest that pre-battle weeping is not a figment of the imagination of clerical authors, but may indeed have occurred before certain battles (or, at least, there was such an expectation of rulers to weep). One might suspect that weeping especially accompanied the rulers when fighting in fratricidal warfare, or, in the case of a clash between Christians, between a Christian kingdom and a religious military order (as in the case of the Battle of Grunwald). In two Hungarian narrative sources, the Illuminated Chronicle, which survives as part of the fourteenth-century chronicle composition, such a description occurs ten times. In the Gesta Hungarorum by the Anonymus, Notary of King Béla (fl. ca. 1200), it occurs just once. Such a scene is recorded in a nearly identical way in the Gesta and the Illuminated Chronicle. The similarity between the pre-battle behavior of Duke Árpád, the head of the Hungarians at the turn of the tenth century, and that of the eleventh-century king Ladislas I, then only a duke, is not accidental. There was certainly an early edition of the Hungarian chronicles before the Notary of King Béla, and it may have influenced him in this way. It is reasonable to assume that the authors of this early historiography were aware that public weeping and tearfulness had a place in the literary description of campaigns and battles in historical works, and not merely in hagiographies. In the case of the Notary of King Béla, this can only be fictitious, since there could be no authentic source for the events of several hundred years earlier, but he did not feel that it was anachronistic for the present. According to the Notary of King Béla: “When morning was come, before dawn, both sides prepared for battle. Duke Árpád, whose helper was the Lord of All, dressed for war and with his battleline ordered, besought God tearfully, and said to comfort his warriors: ‘O Scythians, who by the arrogance of the Bulgarians are called Hungarians after the castle of Ung, do not forget your swords for fear of the Greeks and lose your good name.’”47 45 Rigord, Histoire de Philippe Auguste, chap. 76, ed. Élisabeth Carpentier, Georges Pon, and Yves Chauvin, Sources d’histoire médiévale 33 (Paris: Centre national de la recherche scientifique, 2006), p. 272. 46 For a detailed discussion of this account, see Jacek Maciejewski’s chapter in this collection (vol. 2, chap. 7). Also Mirosław Lenart, “Czy Jagiełło płakał pod Grunwaldem?” in Wojny, bitwy i potyczki w kulturze staropolskiej, ed. Wiesław Pawlak, Magdalena Piskała (Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Instytut Badań Literackich Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 2011), 34–45. 47 Anonymi Bele regis notarii Gesta Hungarorum, chap. 39, in Anonymi Bele regis notarii Gesta Hungarorum, ed., trans., and ann. Martyn Rady and László Veszprémy. Magistri Rogerii

178

Veszprémy

In turn, in the Illuminated Chronicle one may read the following about Ladislas preparing for his decisive battle against the legitimate, anointed, and crowned ruler Solomon: “But the dukes at earliest dawn also drew up their lines of battle. Putting on his armor, Ladislas prostrated himself on the earth and besought the mercy of Almighty God, and made a vow to the blessed Martin that if the Lord would grant him the victory, he would build in that place a church in honor of the blessed Martin. And this was done.”48 There are further examples of pre-battle and post-battle weeping and prostration scenes in the story of the Battle of Mogyoród in 1074, led by Ladislas and his brother, Duke Géza (later King Géza I), against King Solomon. In chapter 122, after the victorious battle, the sight of the dead gives Ladislas cause to weep: “Lifted up in the triumph of the God-given victory, the Dukes Géza and Ladislas proclaimed thrice the praises of God over the bodies of the slain. But Duke Ladislas, who was always a man of exceeding piety, was moved to compassion when he saw so many thousands fallen, even though those who were killed had been his enemies; his heart was moved and lacerating his cheeks and tearing his hair, he wept over them bitter tears, like a mother at the grave of her sons.”49 As king, Ladislas led the army against the invading nomads, called Cumans, in 1091. In the account of chapter 137 of the Illuminated Chronicle, he gives a speech and weeps before the battle: “He wept as he spoke these words, and then with his red standard he led the charge against the encampment of the Epistola in miserabile carmen super destructione regni Hungarie per Tartaros facta, trans. and ann. János M. Bak and Martyn Rady, CEMT 5 (Budapest: Central European University Press, 2010), 2–129 at 85. The Latin text at 84: “Dux vero Arpad cuius adiutor erat deus omnium, armis inditus ordinata acie fusis lacrimis deum orans suos confortans milites dicens: ‘O Scithici, qui per superbiam Bulgarorum a castro Hungu vocati estis Hungarii, nolite oblivisci propter timorem Grecorum gladios vestros et amittatis vestrum bonum nomen.’” 48 Chronica de gestis, chap. 121, pp. 222 and 224. The Latin text at 223 and 225: “Sed et duces summo mane suas acies ordinaverunt. Cumque Ladizlaus se armaret, in terram se prostravit et omnipotentis Dei clementiam postulavit, et Beato Martino votum vovit, ut si Dominus ei victoriam concederet, in eodem loco ecclesiam in honore Beati Martini construeret. Quod et factum est.” See also “in oratione prostratus implorabat misericordiam Dei”: Legenda S. Ladislai regis, chap. 6, ed. Emma Bartoniek, in SrH 2:507–28 at 520. For further legendary mentions of prostration, see Legenda S. Gerhardi, chap. 8, p. 491; Legenda maior S. Stephani regis, chap. 12 and 14, ed. Emma Bartoniek, in SrH 2:393–400 at 387 and 390; Legenda S. Stephani regis ab Hartvico episcopo conscripta, chap. 14, p. 421. 49 Chronica de gestis, chap. 122, p. 227. The Latin text at 226: “Duces autem Geysa et Ladizlaus triumpho victorie divinitus sublimati super cadavera interfectorum Deo ter laudes pro­ clamaverunt. Dux autem Ladizlaus, sicut erat semper eximie pietatis, videns tot milia interfectorum, quamvis inimici eius fuissent, qui occisi erant, tamen conmota sunt omnia viscera eius super illos, et flevit eos amare scindens sibi genas et capillos planctu magno, tamquam mater in funere filiorum.” See also Halmágyi, “Sírás és nevetés,” 214–15.

Religious Rites of War in Medieval Hungary

179

Cumans. And the Lord destroyed the Cumans before the face of the Hungarians. King Ladislas called out to his warriors: ‘Let us not kill these men but take them captive, and if they will be converted, they shall live.’”50 The weeping, again according to the text, is related to atonement for the blood sacrifice that is unavoidable in battle. In 1043, one can find an early example in Hungarian history of a post-battle ritual of thanksgiving and penitence, when the German emperor Henry III “prostrated himself in humiliation and devotion” after the victorious Battle of Ménfő, also preserved in the Hungarian chronicle.51 The only kings and dukes mentioned in the surviving text of the early eleventh-century section of the Illuminated Chronicle as weeping in the course of prayer, supplication, and penitence are Stephen I, Ladislas I, and his brother, Duke Géza Generally speaking, the emphasis on emotions such as weeping was only relevant to the stories of the protagonists—kings and dukes. What happened in their private sphere became, as a matter of course, part of the public sphere. A duke, like Ladislas, especially when he took up arms against an anointed and crowned monarch, was perhaps meticulous about detail and took every means to present his actions as legitimate. Pre- and post-battle prayer, fasting, thanksgiving, and penance were characteristic elements of Western religion of war, especially when armies were led by rulers (who were usually accompanied by their clergy). The reason why descriptions of these rituals appeared almost accidentally in the narrative sources may have been that they were regarded as routine acts. Likewise, the content of the very few recorded pre-battle exhortations was not verbatim and was probably intended to reflect the literacy and knowledge of the chroniclers. These fictions, however, do not obscure the fact that exhortatory speeches were indeed made before battle. The pre-battle rituals were closely linked to the harangues that leaders addressed to the soldiers.52 Indeed, the most common occasion for a leader 50 Chronica de gestis, chap. 132, pp. 255. The Latin text at 254: “Hec dicens lacrimabatur et primus vexillo rubeo impetum fecit in castra Cunorum. Contrivitque Dominus Cunos ante faciem Hungarorum.” 51 Ibid., chap. 76, pp. 144 (Latin) and 145 (English). See also Atria A. Larson, “Bestowing Pardon and Favor: Emperor Henry III’s Pardons in Context,” Viator 40 (2009): 41–69 at 60–63. The emperor took with him a fragment of the Holy Cross, or as others assume the Reichskreuz itself. Annales Altahenses maiores, 37; Die Briefe des Abtes Bern von Reichenau, ed. Franz-Josef Schmale, Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für geschichtliche Landeskunde in Baden-Württemberg. Reihe A. Quellen 6 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1961), 54 (no. 24). 52 John R.E. Bliese, “Rhetoric and Morale: A Study of Battle Orations from the Central Middle Ages,” JMH 15.3 (1989): 201–26; idem, “The Courage of the Normans—A Comparative Study of Battle Rhetoric,” Nottingham Medieval Studies 35 (1991): 1–26, for the discussion

180

Veszprémy

to make a speech was just before a battle, to encourage his soldiers to fight and discourage them from fleeing.53 In the logic of events, a speech would only be written down if the battle proved victorious because one delivered before a lost battle would not be worth remembering. A large proportion of these speeches were fictitious. Those actually made on the battlefield could in any case only be heard by the units around the leader, and the later authors describing the events would not know of them. The chroniclers must have drafted them themselves according to the rules and examples of the rhetorical tradition of the time. Classical authors and rhetorical manuals may have been a source of inspiration, just as William of Poitiers’s speech of William the Conqueror before the Battle of Hastings (1066) was based on Sallustius’s Catiline.54 Something similar can be said about many other chroniclers, for example, the Polish Gallus Anonymus.55 Nevertheless, they do have a certain value as sources, as they reflect the self-image of a people, as well as uncover contemporary mobilizing ideas.56 An integral part of the proto-national identity was the emphasis on their military prowess, in a clearly positive context, coupled with the mention of heavenly support. This sets the context for considering some medieval Hungarian battle exhortations, most of which have come down through the chronicle of the Notary of King Béla. This chronicle concerns the migration of the early Hungarians and how they reached and occupied the Carpathian Basin. The Hungarians were pagan during this period, although in the course of their struggles, they inevitably came into conflict with the Eastern Franks, and in their raiding expeditions to the West, they came into conflict with the Christian kingdoms. Despite this, the Notary of King Béla portrays the contemporary Hungarians as God’s scourge, instruments of Providence, and reference to heavenly help of Hungarian sources, see László Veszprémy, “Szónokló hadvezérek. Összehasonlító normann-magyar harctéri retorika,” Magyar Könyvszemle 128 (2012): 159–69; Miklós Halmágyi, Mi és ők. Azonosság és idegenség az első évezred fordulóján (Szeged: Belvedere Meridionale, 2014), 151–54. 53 Maurice’s Strategikon: Handbook of Byzantine Military Strategy, trans. George T. Dennis (Philadelphia PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1984), 66. 54 Xavier Storelli, “Convaincre pour vaincre. Place et fonction des harangues militaires dans l’historiographie anglo-normande (XIe siècle–debut du XIIIe siècle),” in Convaincre et persuader. Communication et propagande aux XIIe et XIIIe siècles, ed. Martin Aurell (Poitiers: Université de Poitiers, 2007), 53–80 at 59;. 55 Kazimierz Liman, “Die Feldherrenreden in der Polnischen Chronik des Anonymus Gallus.” Philologus 133.2 (1989): 284–302 at 299, 301, who also points to Sallustius’s Catiline as a literary model for the exhortations ascribed to Bolesław III the Wrymouth. 56 Eleanor Searle, “Fact and Pattern in Heroic History, Dudo of Saint Quentin,” Viator 15 (1984): 119–38 at 123; Laura Ashe, Fiction and History in England, 1066–1200, Cambridge studies in medieval literature 68 (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 1–27.

Religious Rites of War in Medieval Hungary

181

is a decisive element of the battle speeches it relates. One may observe this ambiguity in the following discourse: “But Duke Álmos, whose help was the Holy Spirit, attired with arms, his battle-line ordered, went mounted on his horse here and there encouraging his warriors and, as the attack commenced, he stood before all his men and said: ‘O, Scythians, my fellow warriors and most brave men, be mindful of the start of your wanderings when you said that such land as you could inhabit you would take by arms and war’ …. Hearing this, the warriors of Duke Álmos were much encouraged.”57 God appears also in the above-cited speech of Duke Árpád.58 Churchmen may have participated in greater numbers in the crusades of 1456 or 1514 in Hungary, reinforcing the importance of the rites during the campaigns. During the crusading expedition that culminated in the Peasants’ War of 1514, large numbers of clergy on both sides of the conflict were drawn into the violence, but this was mainly due to the exceptional situation. They played a role in delivering exhortations to the soldiers as well. It was about attracting prospective participants through the promises of spiritual benefits, and privileges. It is not by accident that Franciscan friar Giovanni da Tagliacozzo gave in his letters a detailed description of Giovanni da Capistrano’s activity during the crusade of 1456. The daily masses held by Giovanni were combined with an exhortation, from the first day of his arrival: “On the day of his arrival he celebrated a holy mass, and afterward addressed the guard, exhorting them to vigilance, courage, and, if necessary, martyrdom.”59 A few days later again: “So on 4 July, he celebrated a holy mass, and after the mass he addressed the garrison, exhorting them to manly resistance and defense.”60 4

War Cries

Accordingly, Hungarian sources record the use of battle cries allegedly occurring as early as the first decades of the eleventh century.61 The Greek phrase Kyrie eleison (Lord, have mercy) used as battle cry is recorded in the Major 57 Anonymi Bele regis notarii Gesta Hungarorum, chap. 8, p. 23. The Latin text at 22: “Dux vero Almus, cuius adiutor erat Sanctus Spiritus, armis indutus ordinata acie super equum suum sedendo ibat huc et illuc confortans suos milites et facto impetu stetit ante omnes suos et dixit eis: ‘O Scithici et conmilitones mei viri fortossimi, memorese estote initium viarum vestrarum, quando dixistis, quod terram, quam incolore possetis, armis et bello quereretis.” 58 See above, n. 47. 59 Tagliacozzo, Vict. mir., 31. 60 Ibid., 64. 61 Miklós Halmágyi, “Középkori csatakiáltások,” Hadtörténelmi Közlemények 120 (2007): 590–601; Halmágyi, Mi és ők, 151–54.

182

Veszprémy

Legend of St. Gerard: when Csanád, marched against the rebel Ajtony at the head of the royal army, they shouted: Kyrie eleison, Christe eleison, Kyrie eleison, Paternoster.62 In the description of the Battle of Kerlés of 1068, a mountain called Kyrieleys turns up as a place name (nowadays Chiraleș, Romania).63 Deriving this name from a battle cry seems most reasonable as such a cry was actually used in the early Middle Ages. For example, in the rite of the blessing of the banners before battles, the Strategikon of the Byzantine emperor, Mauricius, states that on the day of the battle, the priests shouted the Kyrie eleison, and then the commanders replied nobiscum Deus (God is with us) three times.64 It was no different in the early medieval West. Kyrie eleison as a war cry is mentioned by the author of Ludwigslied in the description of the Battle of Saucourt (881). This is also how German warriors cry out, according to Liutprand of Cremona and Thietmar. The Canon of Vyšehrad, in turn, speaks of the singing of Kyrie Eleison by the Bohemians during the Battle of Chlumec (1126), and according to one of the authors of the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle, during the Battle of Jaroslav (Pol. Jarosław, Ukr. Yaroslav) (1245) the Poles called Kierlesz.65 It appears that Hungarian accounts, though late, may inform accurately about the war cry of the Hungarians in the eleventh century. In 1278, at the battle on the Marchfeld (or Dürnkrut, Czech Moravské pole or Suché Kruty), the Germans, the Hungarians, and even the Cumans, who were fighting on the side of Rudolf of Habsburg, called on the name of Christ: “on this day the Cumans and the Christians together often called on him again and again, and all cried out loudly, ‘Christ, Christ.’”66 In 1456, the crusader army gathered to defend Belgrade and was taught by their leader, Giovanni da Capestrano, to cry out the name of Jesus in times of trouble. Another 62 Legenda S. Gerhardi episcopi, chap. 8, p. 491. 63 Chronica de gestis, chap. 102, pp. 194 (Latin) and 195 (English); also in Simonis de Kéza Gesta Hungarorum, chap. 63, ed. and trans. László Veszprémy and Frank Schaer, CEMT 1 (Budapest and New York: Central European University Press, 1999), 138 (Latin) and 139 (English). 64 Maurice’s Strategikon, 33, 65, see also Bachrach, Religion, 16–17. 65 For the use of Kyrie Eleison in the West, see esp. Dennis H. Green, Medieval Listening and Reading: The Primary Reception of German Literature 800–1300 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 66–67; Karl Leyser, “Ritual, Ceremony and Gesture: Ottoman Germany,” in idem, Communications and Power in Medieval Europe: The Carolingian and Ottonian Centuries, ed. Timothy Reuter (London and Rio Grande OH: The Hambledon Press, 1994), 189–213 at 197. For Kyrie Eleison used by Bohemians and Poles, see respectively Dariusz Dąbrowski, Radosław Kotecki’s and Jacek Maciejewski’s chapters in this collection (vol. 2, chaps 2, 3, and 7). 66 Continuatio Vindobonensis, ed. Georg H. Pertz, MGH SS 9 (Hannover: Hahn, 1851), 698–722 at 709.

Religious Rites of War in Medieval Hungary

183

Franciscan, Giovanni da Tagliacozzo, who recorded the events as an eyewitness, mentions this several times. Thus, on 14 July, Giovanni himself waved his cross banner while shouting the name of Jesus.67 Giovanni da Tagliacozzo’s description was confirmed by János Thuróczy in his chronicle.68 János Thuróczy also mentions the cry God, Saint Michael! in his account of an Ottoman invasion to Southern Hungary around 1396. The Ottomans, not understanding the cry, tried to imitate it.69 He also asserts that the cry of God was common among the Hungarians even in Hunnish times.70 The Anonymus Minorita records that in 1355, the soldiers of King Louis the Great cried out, Holy kings, help us! 71 The Holy Kings were Stephen and Ladislas, who were canonized in 1083 and 1192 respectively, although the term also embraces Stephen’s son, Prince Emeric. The Holy King the Hungarians often asked for help from was St. Ladislas. Most likely his name was shouted in the aforementioned battle against the Mongols in 1435, and also in one of the greatest victories against the Ottomans in the fifteenth century.72 An anonymous Saxon account of the Battle of Kenyérmező (Breadfield, nowadays Câmpul Pâinii, Romania) in 1479 says that the battle cry of the Hungarians was In the name of God and Saint Ladislas.73 5

Military Banners

Flags featured prominently at military events, both before and after battles. During battles, although their role was primarily tactical, they also provided a means of intercession for the saints.74 One of the few pieces of evidence that a consecrated royal banner was used in the Hungarian army comes from the 67

68 69 70 71 72 73 74

Tagliacozzo, Vict. mir., 67, 109; Halmágyi, “Középkori csatakiáltások,” 595; Klaus Schreiner, “Kriege im Namen Gottes, Jesu und Mariä. Heilige Abwehrkämpfe gegen die Türken im späten Mittelalter und in der Frühen Neuzeit,” in Heilige Kriege Religiöse Begründungen militärischer Gewaltanwendung. Judentum, Christentum und Islam im Vergleich, ed. Klaus Schreiner, SHKK 78 (Munich: Oldenbourg, 2008), 151–192 at 156–61. Thurocz, Chron. Hung., chap. 270, p. 250: “auxiliumque domini Iesu sepius acclamantes.” Ibid., chap. 213, pp. 226–27, where the author quoted the holy names in the vernecular. See also Halmágyi, “Középkori csatakiáltások,” 595. Thurocz, Chron. Hung., chap. 30, p. 61. Chronicon Dubnicense, chap. 172, p. 167: “Sancti reges adiuuate nos!” See above, n. 32. Ferenc Szakály and Pál Fodor, “A kenyérmezei csata, 1479. október 13.,” Hadtörténelmi Közlemények 111.2 (1998): 1–42 at 40; Halmágyi, “Középkori csatakiáltások,” 598. Malte Prietzel, Kriegführung im Mittelalter. Handlungen, Erinnerungen und Bedeutungen, KG 32 (Paderborn: Schöningh, 2006), 194–229.

184

Veszprémy

Byzantine chronicler, Kinnamos (ca. 1203), who tells about a battle at the confluence of the Sava and Danube rivers in 1167, where the Byzantines defeated the Hungarians: “Then the standard was taken (schemeion), which being very large, was carried by these barbarians [i.e. the Hungarians] in a cart.” Another chronicler, Nicetas Choniates, also refers to the Hungarian banner: “waiving in the wind, was raised on a thick, high-reaching pole on wheels, pulled by four yokes of oxen.”75 These reports strongly suggest that in the battle against the Byzantines in 1167, the Hungarian army, despite the absence of the king, carried a war banner on a chariot, called carroccio in contemporary Italian terms.76 The banner may have been kept in the royal basilica of Fehérvár, founded by King Stephen, the traditional site of royal coronations, and may have depicted the Virgin Mary, the patroness of this very church.77 The growing importance of Fehérvár basilica in the twelfth century is marked by its status as the exclusive burial place of Hungarian kings, acquired at the time of Coloman the Learned and Béla II and retained until the time of Ladislas III. In this context, it is not without significance that the treasury and library of this church preserved the most important objects and documents of the country, like the Holy Crown, the national chronicle, and the legends of the Holy Kings. One may note that also in many other monarchies, the victory-bringing artefacts rested in the most important church of the realm.78 When King Andrew II led a crusading army to the Holy Land in 1217, he certainly stopped at Fehérvár on his way to Zagreb, and his departure may have 75 Fontes Byzantini historiae Hungaricae aevo ducum et regum ex stirpe Árpád descendentium, ed. Gyula Moravcsik (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1984), 245, 289; O City of Byzantium: Annals of Niketas Choniates, trans. Harry J. Magoulias (Detroit MI: Wayne State University Press, 1984), 88; John Kinnamos, Deeds of John and Manuel Comnenus, trans. Charles M. Brand, Records of civilization 95 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1976), 205. 76 Its adaptation may have been in connection with an Italian colony from Milan living in the Srijem/Srem (Hung. Szerémség), as proposed by János B. Szabó, Háborúban Bizánccal—Magyarország és a Balkán a 11–12. században (Budapest: Corvina Kiadó, 2013), 149, though such wagons with banners were widely used in contemporary Europe, Prietzel, Kriegführung, 198–99. 77 The chronicler Istvánffy described the banner of Paul Tomori, the capitain of the army at the Battle of Mohács with the depiction of Virgin Mary. See Bernát L. Kumorovitz, “A magyar zászló és nemzeti színeink múltja,” Hadtörténelmi Közlemények. N.S. 1.3–4 (1954): 18–60 at 31; Istvánffy, A magyarok, 114; Isthvanfi[i], Historiarum, 127. According to a contemporary source, on a flag of King Matthias Corvinus a crucifix was depicted. See Jolán Balogh, A művészet Mátyás király udvarában, 2 vols. (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1966), 1:402–3, 662. 78 Compare the examples provided in Radosław Kotecki’s essay in this collection (vol. 2, chap. 3).

Religious Rites of War in Medieval Hungary

185

been accompanied by church ceremonies.79 Thanks to Thomas, the archdeacon of Split, his route can be traced from Fehérvár to Split. He informs that the king attended the re-consecration of the cathedral in Zagreb, founded by Ladislas I. From there, he marched to Split on the coast, whereas a final stage of ritual of adventus regis he attended mass in the church of St. Domnius, converted from the mausoleum of the Roman emperor, Diocletian.80 He thus echoed an act of his crusading comrade, Duke Leopold VI of Austria, who celebrated his departure with the consecration of an altar at the Cistercian abbey of Lilienfeld, which he had founded.81 Through these acts, both crusading leaders, independently of one another, emphasized the sacral character of their campaign and may have sought to secure heavenly support. Andrew was accompanied by three Hungarian bishops, who followed the crusaders to Egypt after the king went home; two of them were killed in the fighting.82 Upon his return, the king too displayed gratitude for his safe return in a religious fashion. He presented at his court the relics he had acquired during the expedition and distributed some of them among the churches, especially those “whose prelates had gone forth to meet him,” according to the rite of triumphal adventus—Illuminated Chronicle claims.83 There are two records of ceremonial banner-raising from the second half of the thirteenth century, the end of the Árpád period. In 1278, King Ladislas IV, on his march to the Battle of Marchfeld, stopped at Fehérvár and prayed to the Hungarian Holy kings for the success of the campaign.84 From Simon 79

80

81 82 83 84

King Andrew on his way to Split visited the Cathedral of Veszprém and the Abbey of Tihany, from where he took precious items like the crown of the first queen, Gisela, and a calice. Very likely these acts were not a simple robbery, they may have been staged as a part of a solemn ceremony. For the expedition and its course, see László Veszprémy, “The Crusade of Andrew II, King of Hungary, 1217–1218,” Jacobus 13–14 (2002): 87–110. It is worth mentioning, that also the Hungarians who joined earlier the crusading army of Frederick I Barbarossa marched under their own banner. See Historia de expeditione Friderici imperatoris, ed. Anton Chroust, MGH SS rer. Germ. NS 5 (Berlin: Weidmann, 1928), 1–115 at 34. For the ceremonies of departure used by crusading armies, see M. Cecilia Gaposchkin, “From Pilgrimage to Crusade: The Liturgy of Departure, 1095–1300,” Speculum 88.1 (2013): 44–91. Thomae archidiaconi Spalatensis Historia Salonitanorum atque Spalatinorum pontificum, chap. 25, Latin text Olga Perić, ed., trans., and ann. Damir Karbić, Mirjana Matijević-Sokol, and James R. Sweeney, CEMT 4 (Budapest: Central European University Press, 2006), 159–165. Johannes Preiser-Kapeller, “Von Ostarrichi an den Bosporus. Ein Überblick zu den Beziehungen im Mittelalter,” in Pro Oriente Jahrbuch 2010 (Vienna: Pro Oriente, 2011), 66–77. Barabás, “Thirteenth-Century Hungarian Prelates,” 41–43. Chronica de gestis, chap. 175, pp. 322 (Latin) and 323 (English). Simonis de Kéza Gesta Hungarorum, 151. The Latin text at 150: “Egressus igitur de Albensi civitate velut Martis filius, … in virtute Altissimi et proavorum suorum, scilicet Stephani, Emirici atque Ladislai regum et sanctorum votivis praesummens confidensque suffragiis,

186

Veszprémy

of Kéza, a contemporary chronicler of the events, one may learn that the shields and flags captured in the battle were placed in the church at Fehérvár as thanksgiving and a sign of victory.85 Later, in the summer of 1291, King Andrew III of Hungary marched to Fehérvár to raise a banner against Albert, duke of Austria.86 The banner (insigne vexillum) kept at Fehérvár is interestingly referred to by János Thuróczy when describing the coronation of King Charles II (Charles III of Naples) there in 1385 as “the famous flag of King Saint Stephen, which the first day of the kingdom looked to with hope long ago, and which was preserved for so many years with pious reverence for future kings.”87 Similarly, Antonio Bonfini, the Italian author of the most extensive history of Hungary in the fifteenth century, mentions a royal signum in his description of the Battle of Varna in 1444.88 There is also information on a crusaders’ flag at Belgrade in 1456 and a flag presentation after an open field mass for the crusading army in 1514.89 The banners are convincing evidence of the continuous and close link between the secular and the heavenly spheres of warfare, which can be observed from the eleventh century until the end of the period. The consecrated banners gave unquestionable authority to the commanders of the royal or crusading armies, even in the absence of the king. It is not certain, though it is very likely, that the royal army did not always carry the same consecrated royal banner, unlike the French Oriflamme. In the event of a defeat in battle, of which there are many examples, the loss of the banner did not cause any particular resonance. Buda became a royal seat temporarily at the beginning of the fourteenth century and permanently in the fifteenth. As Buda grew in importance, its parish church, dedicated to the Virgin Mary, became the center of court display. This is confirmed by the Polish chronicler Jan Długosz, who records that King erecto banerio regiae maiestatis.” See also Zupka, “Religious Rituals,” 152; as well as Radosław Kotecki’s chapter in this collection (vol. 1, chap. 3). 85 Simonis de Kéza Gesta Hungarorum, 154: “Ut igitur in memoriam redeat regis Ladislai tam gloriosa triumphalisque victoria, in obprobrium sempiternumque dedecus Boemorum, Polonorum Morawanorumque scuta et vexilla in Albensi ecclesia, sede regni ac solio in pariete suspensa in aeternum perseverant.” 86 Regesta regum, no. 3736: “ad venerabilem Albensem ecclesiam nostram pro elevando ve­xillo nostro accessissemus.” 87 Thurocz, Chron. Hung., chap. 193, pp. 200–1: “insigne sancti regis Stephani vexillum, quo prima dies regni dudum freta fuit totque per annos pia religione futuris regibus servatum.” 88 Bonfini, Rer. Ung., 3:149–52. 89 Tagliacozzo, Vict. mir., 30–31: “vexillum quoque figura S. Bernardini prius munitum sive depictum cum cruce optime disposuit.” For the depiction of Sts. Francis, Anthony, and Louis on the banners, see ibid., 108. For the year 1514, see Istvánffy, A magyarok, 52; Isthvanfi[i], Historiarum, 65.

Religious Rites of War in Medieval Hungary

187

Władysław Jagiellon of Poland and Hungary (Hung.: I Ulászló, Pol. Władysław III Warneńczyk) placed the relics of the Ottoman campaign, mainly flags, in Buda in early 1444, after having defeated them in the so-called Long Campaign led by János Hunyadi.90 This is also attested by János Thuróczy: “Later presented to the most glorious Virgin Mary, patroness of the kingdom of Hungary, these were hanging, down to our own time, in a church dedicated to her built in the city of Buda, as a memorial and in praise of the glorious Virgin, and they are proof of so many victories granted by heaven to the lord voivode himself …. They would have been hanging there to this very day, had not dust or age destroyed their soft fabric.”91 In 1463, King Matthias Corvinus held a church service in Buda to commemorate his victory over the Ottomans after the recapture of Jajce in Bosnia. Later, in 1467, after a fierce clash with the Moldavian voivode Stephen III the Great, he carried the captured banners to the church in Buda. His gratitude may also have been justified by the fact that the king himself was seriously wounded during the campaign.92 The banners displayed on the walls of the great church of Buda, however, seem to have included those of the victorious leaders as well as those of the enemy. This is certainly suggested in an epigram by the poet Janus Pannonius about the battle sign (signum) of the archbishop of Esztergom, János Vitéz of Zredna.93 90 Ioannis Dlugossii Annales seu Cronicae incliti Regni Poloniae, bks. 11–12, ed. Consilium (Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1964), here bk. 12, pp. 287–88 (hereafter Długosz, Annales): “Signa ipsa hostium in ecclesia Sancte Marie parochiali in Buda pro memoria sempiterna suorum gestorum reponit. Duodecim insuper Polonie et duodecim Hungarie primorum baronum arma, qui secum in prefata expedicione militaverant, rex depingi et in ecclesia Sancte Marie in Buda collocari … iussit.” For other examples of this rite in Długosz, see Radosław Kotecki’s discussion in his closing essay (vol. 2, chap. 8). 91 Thurocz, Chron. Hung., chap. 235, p. 250: “Hec postmodum gloriosissime virgini Marie regni Hungarie patrone oblata in ecclesia eiusdem civitate in Budensi constructa futura pro memoria proque eiusdem virginis gloriose laude nostrum usque ad evum dependentia tantis victoriis ipsi domino wayuode celitus datis fidem perhibebant. Et, nisi mollem illorum pannum pulvis vetustasve consumpsisset, suspensa dependerent ibidem usque in hunc diem”; English translation after János Thuróczy, Chronicle, 138. 92 Bonfini, Rer. Ung., 3:246; Petrus Ransanus, Epithoma rerum hungararum, ed. Petrus Kulcsár (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1977), 168–69. Janus Pannonius összes munkái, ed. Sándor V. Kovács (Budapest: Tankönyvkiadó, 1987), 232–33: “Rex, tibi, Matthias, haec signa puerpera Virgo / Moldavis forti, nuper adepta, manu.” See also Enikő Spekner, “A középkori boldogasszony-plébániatemplom középkori története,” in A budavári Nagyboldogasszonytemplom évszázadai, 1246–2013, ed. Péter Farbaky et. al. (Budapest, Budapesti Történeti Múzeum. Vármúzeum and Budavári Nagyboldogasszony-templom, 2008), 53–62; Balogh, A művészet, 1:403–4. 93 Janus Pannonius összes, 233.

188

Veszprémy

Campaigns sometimes ended with spectacular triumphal processions.94 Although Bonfini traces the tradition of the triumph back to the early centuries, it could only have been an actual phenomenon in the fifteenth century. One such probable anachronism is an alleged triumph of King Coloman at Fehérvár around 1105, after the conquest of Zadar: “They went to Fehérvár to the monument of the divine kings, where they concluded with an even more magnificent triumph. They held solemnly a prayer of supplication, hung up in the basilica the many enemy banners and spoils, and for three days they gave thanks to the gods.”95 The inadequacy of this description to the realities of the early twelfth century is indicated in particular by the emphasis on the magnificence of the ceremony96 and the mention of hanging the captured banners, a rite that can only be considered typical of the late medieval period. Contemporary sources are much more restrained. What is certain, however, is that King Coloman had a tower erected to commemorate his victory in the monastery of the Virgin Mary in Zadar in 1105, as well as donated some furnishings like a cross hanging above the ciborium of the main altar with an inscription Rex Colomanus M+С+V.97 Similarly, the fifteenth-century practice appears in Bonfini’s description of King Béla II celebrating his victory over a claimant to the throne from Kiev in 1132: “The battle took place on the feast day of the divine Magdalene, a day that was included among the public holidays and dedicated to the common good. The enemy’s banners were hung on church gates everywhere, especially in the churches of Magdalene, with whose help this glorious victory was won.”98 94 A useful survey of the Hungarian triumphal processions, authored by Gábor Horváth, bit.ly/3c9GRuv. 95 Bonfini, Rer. Ung., 2:103: “Ad Albam demum et divorum regum monumenta perventum, ubi longe maiore pompa triumphatum. Supplicationes sollemni more celebrate, multa basilice cum hostium signis affixa spolia et acte triduo divis gratie.” 96 On the magnificence of the late medieval royal triumph, see Richard W. Barber, Magnificence and Princely Splendour in the Middle Ages (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2020), 180–90. 97 Ana Marinković, “‘Construi et erigi iussit rex Colomannus’: The Royal Chapel of King Coloman in the Complex of St. Mary in Zadar,” Annual of Medieval Studies at CEU 8 (2002): 38–47. The earliest laudes regiae related to the Hungarian kings are also connected to this event of taking Zadar by Coloman. See Zupka, Rituals, 46–47; Judit Gál, “Changing Rituals: The Hungarian Royal and Princely Entries into Dalmatian Cities during the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries,” in Reform and Renewal in Medieval East and Central Europe: Politics, Law and Society, ed. Suzana Milijan, Éva B. Halász, and Alexandru Simion, Studies in Russia and East Europe 14 (Cluj-Napoca, Zagreb, and London: Romanian Academy. Center for Transylvanian et al., 2019), 83–101. 98 Bonfini, Rer. Ung., 2:124: “In dive Magdalene sollemnibus prelium hoc gestum, dies inter fastos relatus ac publice saluti dicatus. Hostium exuvie passim templorum postibus

Religious Rites of War in Medieval Hungary

189

King Władysław and János Hunyadi certainly held a victory parade in Buda in 1444. Jan Długosz, Bonfini, and Callimachus wrote at length about it. According to Bonfini: “In front of the king passed a long line of noble prisoners; in front of him they carried the flags they had taken from the enemy and the booty they had brought home. … This whole column, described above, was preceded by a procession of priests, who, in holy vestments, solemnly bearing before them the native spirits and gods, the golden, silver images of the deities; they sang hymns of thanksgiving to the almighty Jesus Christ and the divine Mother, patroness of Pannonia. … King Władysław … dismounted from his horse, walked joyfully into the city, and with the triumphal procession first of all … visited the basilica of the divine Mother. … The king gave thanks to his almighty protector and all the gods, placed the enemy flags and the armory in the church, and hung a tablet below, on which he gave an account of the victory which heavenly grace had given over the Turks.”99 An unknown eyewitness wrote an interesting account of King Matthias’s entry into occupied Vienna in 1485: “at the beginning of the procession, 32 chariots with food passed, as clever propaganda to the hungry population, followed by 2000 selected horsemen. Behind them were 24 camels carrying the royal treasury, followed by 400 foot soldiers. They were followed by 1000 horsemen and 24 bishops, behind them rode the king with a thousand more oxen.”100 affixe et presertim sacris Magdalene edibus, cuius numine freti victoriam clarissimam compararant.” 99 Ibid., 3:137: “Ante regem longus captivorum ordo preibat …; preferebantur signa hostibus adempta et spolia, quecunque advehi potuere  …. Sed universum, quem diximus, ordinem sacerdotum pompa precesserat, qui sacro habitu et sollemni cerimonia incedentes penates et deos patrios, item aurea argenteaque divum simulacra preferebant; sacros pro agendis gratiis hymnos lesu Christo optimo maximo ac dive genitrici Pannonie patrone concinebant …. Wladislaus … de equo desiliit pedibusque ovans urben ingressus dive gene­ tricis basilicam cum triumphali pompa prius invisit …. Rex … gratias egit, hostilia templo cum signa spoliis apposuit tabellamque subtexuit, que victoriam a Turcis divina benignitate relatam plane testaretur”; Długosz, Annales, bks. 11–12 at 11:287–88: “nudis pedibus Budam cum signis hostilibus in preliis captis, omni clero et populo … obviam processio­ na­liter egressis … intravit”; Stanisław Sroka, “I. Ulászló itineráriuma (1440–1444),” Történeti tanulmányok (Debrecen, KLTE) 4 (1996): 21–48 at 38; idem and Wioletta Zawitkowska, Itinerarium króla Władysława III 1434–1444 (Warsaw: Instytut Historii Polskiej Akademii Nauk 2017). See also Filippo Buonaccorsi, Historia de rege Vladislao, ed. Irmina Lichońska, Tadeusz Kowalewski, and Anna Maria Komornicka (Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1961), 152. 100 Notae Altahenses, ed. Philipp Jaffé, MGH SS 17 (Hannover: Hahn, 1861), 421–27 at 424: “Primo premisit triginta duos currus cum alimentis, secundo duo milia equestres electissimos. Tercio viginti quatuor cameli secuti sunt illos equestres por tantes thezaurum regis, quarto secuti sunt quadringenti pedites, quinto viginti quatuor episcopi cum mille equitibus, electis viris, sexto rex Mathias … octavo secuti sunt mille boves in sustentationem

190

Veszprémy

Such parades presumably had written plans that prescribed the order of march, but unfortunately, these have not survived. At the same time, the organizers also sought to make the parade unique and unparalleled. Exactly this happened in 1485 as it was not customary to drive beef cattle in a parade.101 A triumphal march for the capture of Wienerneustadt in 1487 was also recorded by Bonfini, who personally witnessed it.102 Bonfini himself refers explicitly to the propaganda function of the triumph: King Matthias Corvinus urgently invited the archbishop of Esztergom, Ippolito d’Este, who was of Italian origin, so that his Italian escorts could thoroughly assess the significance of the siege and the triumph and bring the news to Italy.103 As the city had surrendered after a long siege, no prisoners or carts carrying booty were paraded before the victorious Hungarian army. Only the banners of the Hungarian king were pinned to the city walls and towers, and the Hungarian troops marched in with banners at their head. The king marched in front, followed by the archbishop and then by the other ecclesiastical dignitaries. Contemporaries also state that the king had a chapel built in the camp.104 The city of Buda’s law book preserves the prescribed ritual for the city’s officials and prelates to receive the arriving king from a campaign or from abroad. On that occasion, when the king approaches the city on his way back, “men and women, young and old, together with the clergy of all the churches and monasteries, richly vested, shall march in procession, with banners and sacraments and burning candles, and all the bells shall toll in all the churches and monasteries during the whole time.”105 The text makes use of a rather widely known scenario from much earlier times in various regions of Europe as inherited from imperial, ancient, and early medieval customs.106 civitatis supradicte.” Walter Koch, “Ein Augenzeugenbericht über den Einzug des Königs Matthias Corvinus in Wien,” Unsere Heimat. Zeitschrift des Vereins für Landeskunde von Niederösterreich und Wien 44.2 (1973): 56–59; István Bitskey, “Tradíció és reprezentáció. Humanista szerzők Mátyás király udvari ünnepségeiről,” Irodalomtörténet 26.2–3 (1995): 326–36 at 332–33. 101 Michail A. Bojcov, “Ephemerität und Permanenz bei Herrschereinzügen im spätmittelalterlichen Deutschland,” Marburger Jahrbuch für Kunstwissenschaft 24 (1997): 87–107 at 88–92. 102 Bonfini, Rer. Ung., 4:152. 103 Ibid., 150: “ut Itali eius comites gravissimam obsidionem triumphumque rite spectarent rem quidem et rege et spectatore dignissimam”; see Hajnalka Kuffart and Tibor Neumann, “‘Olyan szép kísérete lesz, mint kevés úrnak Itáliában’. Az esztergomi érseki udvartartás szervezése 1486/87 folyamán,” Történelmi Szemle 63.3 (2021): 323–82 at 365–66. 104 Balogh, A művészet, 1:663. 105 Buda város jogkönyve, ed. László Blazovich and József Schmidt (Szeged: Szegedi Közép­ korász Műhely 2001), 306–7. 106 For early medieval triumphal entries, see esp. Michael McCormick, Eternal Victory: Triumphal Rulership in Late Antiquity, Byzantium, and the Early Medieval West (Cambridge:

Religious Rites of War in Medieval Hungary

6

191

Church Foundations

Post-battle ceremonies mostly involved the giving of thanks in church and the presentation of spoils taken from the enemy, possibly in a parade. There are few sources on the ritual of thanksgiving in churches, although it may have been the most common. The most spectacular manifestation of victories was to give a part of the spoils to churches as donations, partly founding a house of worship or making a donation to an established ecclesiastical institution.107 In the latter respect, already King Stephen set a good example. He donated some goods to the basilica of Fehérvár after a campaign conducted in alliance with Byzantium against the Bulgars.108 However, foundation legends have usually some fabled and thus dubious elements. The Battle of Cleidion in 1014, fought by the Byzantines against the Bulgars, might have been connected to the endowment of goods to the Fehérvár basilica, but the sources are silent about Hungarian participation in this act. With the same logic founded and donated Csanád, the warlord of King St. Stephen, a monastery at Marosvár (later named after him, Csanád, Rom. Cenad), dedicated to St. George after a victorious battle against a rebel chieftain in the 1020s. Before the battle, like King Stephen, he prayed to St. George for heavenly help. St. George helped him and visited him in the form of a lion in a vision before the battle. He also vowed to build a monastery on the site of the battle if he won, which he did.109 According to the Illuminated Chronicle, after the Battle of Mogyoród in 1074, King Ladislas I fulfilled his vow and founded there a monastic house dedicated to St. Martin.110 Interestingly, however, later sources never refer to this event or the founder. Although Mogyoród was indeed a royal monastery, it was dedicated to St. George and not to St. Martin upon being rebuilt after the Mongol destruction of 1241. The vow of Ladislas before the Battle of Mogyoród may be an echo of King Stephen’s vow to St. Martin in the battle of 997, mentioned above. However, the tradition may have had a basis in fact, as the Moravian duke Otto, who was allied with Ladislas in the battle, founded a monastery in Hradište in Moravia after the battle.111 Cambridge University Press, 1986). For the adventus rite in the later medieval Central Europe, see esp. Robert Antonín and Tomáš Borovský, Panovnické vjezdy na středověké Moravě, Knižnice Matice moravské 25 (Brno: Matice moravská, 2009). 107 For donations to churches after battles, see Prietzel, Kriegführung, 184–90. 108 Chronica de gestis, chap. 66, pp. 116 and 118 (Latin), 117 and 119 (English). 109 Legenda S. Gerhardi, chap. 8, pp. 491–92. 110 See above, n. 48; see also Zupka, Ritual, 82. 111 László Koszta, “A hradištei bencés monostor alapításának magyar vonatkozásai,” in Blazovich László emlékkönyv, ed. Elemér Balogh and Mária Homoki-Nagy (Szeged: Szegedi Tudományegyetem, 2013), 403–25; Beatrix F. Romhányi, Kolostorok és társaskáptalanok a középkori Magyarországon (Budapest: Pytheas, 2000), 44; Levente F. Hervay, “A bencések

192

Veszprémy

King Louis I the Great proved to be one of the most generous supporters of monasteries and churches in Hungary and beyond. He allied with Genoa to fight long wars with Venice, and they ultimately forced their opponents to make a favorable peace treaty in Turin in 1381. One of its points was that the Venetians would hand over to the Hungarians the relics of St. Paul the Hermit, which they had acquired from Constantinople in 1204. It is probably a pious legend that the monks of the Pauline Order had foretold Louis’s victory. But this legend may have been inspired by the fact that the body of the saint really was taken to their Abbey Budaszentlőrinc near Buda in 1384, where it was preserved until the Ottoman conquest.112 The saint was later credited with many miracles related to military events in Hungary.113 The Anonymus Minorita recorded that Louis led numerous campaigns, regularly faced the horrors of war, and was fatally wounded at least twice during his campaigns. The chronicler mentioned that during the siege of Aversa in Italy in 1350 the king made arrangements for his burial after his wounding, and later made a donation for this purpose.114 The church of Mariazell (also Zell, Austria) is by far the most celebrated foundation of King Louis. It can perhaps be linked to a vow he presumably made on the battlefield, but hardly any contemporary sources prove this. Much later, in 1487, Johannes Mannesdorfer records King Louis, praying to the Virgin Mary of Mariazell on the night of a decisive battle. During the prayers, he fell asleep and in a dream, the glorious Virgin herself had appeared to him, placing her image on his breast and, commanding him: “Fight the enemy.” When he woke up and found the image on his breast, he told his soldiers of his dream. Subsequently, they, with the king, were encouraged, also attacked the enemy, and were happily victorious. Then King Louis made a pilgrimage to Mariazell with his army and—as Mannesdorfer asserts—he donated the miraculous image, now decorated with gold and precious stones, to the monastic church. It has been preserved in Zell until our time and is known as the Image of the Treasure (Schatzkammerbild) (fig. 5.1).115 és apátságaik története a középkori Magyarországon,” in “Paradisum plantavit.” Bencés monostorok a középkori Magyarországon, ed. Imre Takács (Pannonhalma: Pannonhalmi Főapátság, 2001), 461–48 at 502–3. 112 Zoltán Bencze and György Szekér, A budaszentlőrinci pálos kolostor. Das Paulinerkloster von Budaszentlőrinc, Monumenta Historica Budapestinensia 8 (Budapest: Budapesti Történeti Múzeum, 1993), 7–11. 113 Mihály Zákonyi, A Buda melletti Szent-Lőrincz pálos kolostor története, Művelődéstörténeti Értekezések 50 (Budapest: Révai, 1911). 114 Chronicon Dubnicense, chap. 165, pp. 158–59. 115 Johann Mannesdorfer, A mariazelli legenda, ed. L. Bernát Kumorovitz, in his “I. Lajos királyunk 1375. évi havasalföldi hadjárata (és ‘török’) háborúja.” Századok 117 (1983): 919–82

Religious Rites of War in Medieval Hungary

193

Figure 5.1 The miraculous image of the Virgin Mary with a Child (The second image of grace, Schatzkammerbild) from Northern Treasury in Mariazell Basilica, Austria. According to tradition a gift by King Ludwig of Hungary to a monastery in Zell as a votive offering for his victory over the “Turks.” The work created ca. 1360 is attributed to the Sienese painter Andrea Vanni Reproduced with kind permission of the author Franz Josef Rupprecht

194

Veszprémy

Figure 5.2 Detail of the tympanum relief on the Gothic main portal of the Mariazell Basilica (before 1438), Austria. King Louis the Great of Hungary defeats the Turks with Mary’s help and gives Mary a votive offering. License: CC BY-SA 4.0 Photo by Uoaei1. Reproduced from: w.wiki/5awt

The tradition, recorded in 1487, probably dates back to a now-lost book of miracles from around 1430. The associated battle scene was already visible on the church’s tympanum from around the same date having the inscription “King Louis of Hungary thanks to the Mother of Mercy won a glorious victory over the Turks” and presenting Louis’s fight against the unbelievers. What is most interesting, in its left half a Mary sits enthroned, and King Louis the Great kneels to her right. As a votive offering, he presents the Mother of God with an image that is identified with the Schatzkammerbild (fig. 5.2).116 The ideological program of the tympanum has parallels to the story given by Johannes Mannesdorfer. The fifteenth-century tradition identifies the Ottomans as the Hungarians’ opponents, but this has long been a problem for researchers. The Hungarian at 947 and 979; and—for the discussion of similar miraculous stories—the remarks by Radosław Kotecki in the concluding chapter to this collection (vol. 2, chap. 8). 116 “Ludovicus rex Hungariae per Matrem Misericordiae victoriam Turcorum gloriose obtinuit.” For more, see Kornél Szovák, “König Ludwig der Große und Mariazell,” in Mariazell und Ungarn. 650 Jahre religiöse Gemeinsamkeit, ed. Walter Brunner et al., Veröffentlich­ ungen des Steiermärkischen Landesarchives 30 (Graz: Steiermärkisches Landesarchiv, 2003), 82–92 at 86. For the image of Schatzkammerbild, see bit.ly/3PxtIcr. Sándor Papp, “Hungary and the Ottoman Empire (From the Beginning to 1540),” in Fight Against the Turk in Central-Europe in the First Half of the 16th Century, ed. István Zombori (Budapest: Magyar Egyháztörténeti Enciklopédia Munkaközösség, 2004), 37–90 at 53.

Religious Rites of War in Medieval Hungary

195

royal army did not directly clash with the Ottomans before 1390. It has been suggested that the event was linked to a military encounter with an Ottoman auxiliary troop. This was most likely to have occurred somewhere in the Balkans, probably in the land of the Bulgars around 1365, where the short-lived district (banatus) of Vidin was created under Hungarian rule.117 The hypothesis of the 1365 donation seems to be supported by the fact that the foundation of the Hungarian Chapel in Aachen also took place around this time, which again may be indirectly connected with a possible vow of the Hungarian king to the Virgin Mary. This may also be linked to the 1375 campaign of the Hungarian army in Wallachia, which entered into the chronicle of Padua as a victory of the Hungarians over a “King Radovan of Bulgaria.” The name Radovan is a variant of the Wallachian voivode Radu I’s name. Bernát Kumorovitz also suggests that the pilgrimage to the Holy Land by the Hungarian king’s warlords, the former Bulgarian captain Benedict Himfi and the Transylvanian voivode Stephen II Lackfi (who founded the Pauline monastery in Čakovec [today Croatia] in 1376), cannot be a coincidence, and may be linked to possible votive foundations and donations.118 It is also possible to attribute some other foundations of further Pauline churches to military events, such as the Abbey of Márianosztra to the 1352 Lithuanian campaign, and the Abbey of Máriavölgy to the 1375 campaign in Wallachia. Terézia Kerny and Szabolcs Serfőző link the petition of Louis I to the pope (1358) in favor of the church of Mariazell to the Treaty of Zadar, which marked the victorious ending of the first war with Venice.119 It was only at Mariazell that the memory of the king’s miraculous victory over the enemies of the faith with victory-bringing objects and signs was intensively cultivated. A beautiful example of this is the scene painted on the Mariazell Miraculous Altarpiece of 1512. King Louis is fighting in the front line of the Hungarian cavalry. Like a shield, he carries an image of Mary on his chest. On the flag with 117 Papp, “Hungary,” 53; Terézia Kerny and Szabolcs Serfőző, “Nagy Lajos ‘törökök’ elleni csatája. Egy legendakonstrukció eredete,” in Mariazell és Magyarország. Egy zarándokhely emlékezete, ed. Péter Farbaky and Szabolcs Serfőző (Budapest: Budapesti Történeti Múzeum, 2004), 47–60; László Veszprémy, “Nagy Lajos keresztes hadjáratai a Balkánon, 1365–1366,” in Vallásháborúk, felekezeti konfliktusok Európában és az Európához közeli térségekben az ókortól napjainki, ed. János Isaszegi, László Pósán, and László Veszprémy, (Budapest: Zrínyi Kiadó, 2020), 169–84. 118 Kumorovitz, “I. Lajos királyunk,” 960–61. 119 Szovák, “König Ludwig,” 89; Kerny and Serfőző, “Nagy Lajos,” 47–48. Terézia Kerny interprets the mural of St. Ladislas in Chornotysiv (Feketeardó, today in Ukraine) in this context. See Terézia Kerny, “Adorációs kép, dedikációs-kép, fogadalmi kép, supplikációs-kép (Kísérlet egy középkori ikonográfiai csoport műfaji szétválasztására),” in Kép, képmás, kultusz, ed. Gábor Barna (Szeged: Szegedi Tudományegyetem. Bölcsészettudományi Kar. Néprajzi és Kulturális Antropológiai Tanszék, 2006), 22–38 at 24–26.

196

Veszprémy

which the Hungarian cavalry goes into battle, Mary looks down on the bloody battle to encourage the fighting horsemen in the conviction that they are being protected by her. According to Antonio Bonfini, János Hunyadi made his victory memorable with churches he built from the treasures he had captured at the Battle of Nagyszeben (nowadays Sibiu, Romania; Germ. Hermannstadt) in 1442. The chronicler claims that the magnate “offered the booty he had taken from the Turks partly to the immortal gods and partly to the soldiers. Finally, he urged the inhabitants of the province to give thanks in their prayers to the good and all-powerful Christ and to celebrate mass at every altar; he later used the booty to build churches in the province.”120 Perhaps one of these was St. Michael’s Cathedral in Gyulafehérvár (nowadays Alba Iulia, Romania), to which János Hunyadi made a large donation in 1442. In his own words, he did so because he hoped that the Archangel Michael would protect him both here on earth and in the holy heavenly principality.121 Bonfini also writes elsewhere about the veneration of St. Michael as a warrior saint. It is said that in the time of King Sigismund in the thick darkness of a night battle, the Hungarian army could only stay together by calling out the names of Christ and St. Michael.122 In 1479, King Matthias’s warlords won a major victory over Ottoman raiders in Transylvania at Kenyérmező, near Gyulafehérvár. The Transylvanian voivode István (Stephen) Bátori, who took part in the battle, had a chapel built on the spot where the fallen Hungarians were buried, and every year he held a sermon and a mass there.123 He also had a monument erected in the Basilica della Casa in Loreto with the inscription: “István Bátori, the ispán [built] in honor of God and his mother Mary, for having delivered me from a very great danger in 1479.”124 The chapel constructed at the battle site refers to the 120 Bonfini, Rer. Ung., 3:110–11: “Turcorum spolia partim diis immortalibus dicavit, partim militibus distribuit. Christo demum optimo maximo ut immortales gratias in supplicationibus agerent et apud omnes aras rem divinam facerent,impensius provinciales admonuit, e manubiis non multo post templa in provincia statuit.” At the same time János Hunyadi tearfully (profusis larimis) expressed his gratitude for the victory. 121 Ágnes Ritoókné Szalay, “Janus Pannonius Hunyadi-epitáfiumai,” in eadem, Kutak. Tanul­ mányok a XV–XVI. századi magyarországi művelődés köréből, Humanizmus és reformáció 33 (Budapest: Balassi and Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, 2012), 101–6 at 101: “Beati Michaelis Archangeli  … cuius patrociniis ne dum in terris, verum etiam in Coelisti Hyerarchia speramus confoveri.” For the military role of St. Michael, see Kotecki, “Pious Rulers.” 122 Bonfini, Rer. Ung., 3:180. 123 Farkas Bethlen, a Transylvanian chronicler witnessed this chapel. See Farkas Bethlen, Historia de rebus Transylvanicis, 1525–1609, in Báthori István emlékezete, ed. László Nagy (Budapest: Zrínyi kiadó, 1994), 80–99 at 82; Szakály and Fodor, “A kenyérmezei csata,” 26. 124 Florio Banfi, Ricordi ungheresi in Italia, Studi e documenti Italo-Ungheresi della R. Accademia d’Ungheria di Roma 4 (Rome: Reale Accademia d’Ungheria, 1942), 84.

Religious Rites of War in Medieval Hungary

197

dignified burial of the fallen after the fight, which may have been customary, but in general, we have few records of such a practice.125 King Matthias was not present at the battle, but on the news of the victory, he held a thanksgiving.126 Historians tried to link the Bátoris’ church foundation in Nyírbátor directly to the victory at Kenyérmező, and the spoils gained there, but the sources do not support this.127 Finally, one may refer to two exceptional royal vows of another nature. In 1241–1242, while fleeing the Mongol devastation, the Hungarian royal couple, Béla IV and his wife took a vow to give their newborn daughter Margaret as a nun, a vow they subsequently fulfilled.128 Much later, King Matthias Corvinus is said that when successfully besieging the Ottomans at Šabac at the turn of 1476, he buried his mercenary captain, František Hag (František z Hajé), who was killed during the siege, in the basilica of Fehérvár, in the royal necropolis.129 The burial of Hag, who had fought as a Hussite mercenary, was an unprecedented tribute to his military merits. 7

Conclusions

The rise of Christianity and the Catholic Church in Hungary fundamentally transformed the ideology and daily practice of warfare. It is reasonable to assume that the ecclesiastical rites associated with warfare were performed as prescriptively as they were in normal daily practice. It would be an oversimplification to limit the relationship between war and the supernatural world simply to the theory of divine judgment, although this is perhaps the most common reference in written narrative sources. However, it was believed that the decision of the heavens before the battles could be influenced by exemplary behavior and a prayerful spirit, by appealing to heavenly intercessors, making vows, or even displaying relics on the battlefield. 125 The first Hungarian reference to the burial of killed in combat can be read in the Major Legend of Gerhard, Legenda S. Gerhardi episcopi, chap. 8, pp. 491–92. For the burial after battles, see Prietzel, Kriegführung, 137–49. 126 Bonfini, Rer. Ung., 4:114. 127 Norbert C. Tóth, “A ferencesek megtelepedése Nyírbátorban,” in Nyolcszáz esztendős a ferences rend. Tanulmányok a rend lelkiségéről, történeti hivatásáról és kulturális-művészeti szerepéről, ed. Norbert Medgyesy, István Ötvös, and Sándor Őze (Budapest: Írott Szó Alapítvány, Magyar Napló, 2013), 153–63 at 158–59. 128 Legenda vetus, acta processus canonizationis et miracula sanctae Margararitae de Hungaria, ed. and ann. Ildikó Csepregi, Gábor Klaniczay, and Bence Péterfi, trans. Ildikó Csepregi, Clifford Flanigan, and Louis Perraud, CEMT 8 (Budapest and New York: Central European University Press, 2018), 44. See also Zupka, “Religious Rituals,” 156. 129 József Teleki, Hunyadiak kora Magyarországon, 11 vols. (Pest: Emich, 1854), 4:444.

198

Veszprémy

The religious rites of war for the eleventh–twelfth centuries were preserved in the Illuminated Chronicle, but unfortunately, by the thirteenth century, the chronicle text has lost its narrative flow. Fortunately, there is in fact quite a bit of sources even for this early period because the sources may be enriched by legends, charters, and the testimony of later chronicles. The role of foreign influences cannot be underestimated before 1301 either, as German clerics helped start of literacy in the court of King Stephen I, and the Pannonhalma donation charter may have been drafted by them. Typically, the Hungarian crusade of 1217/1218 is only reported in detail by Thomas, archdeacon of Split, while the Hungarian chronicles give a very sketchy picture of it. The chronicle of Simon of Kéza served to inform foreign courts, especially Naples, where the sister of King Ladislas IV became queen. The chronicle was intended to convince them of the exemplary piety of the Hungarian king, nicknamed the Cuman and the perfect functioning of his kingdom. In this context, Simon reported on his victory at Marchfeld in 1278, which presented a rich array of religious rites of war. The sources in Hungary multiplied spectacularly after 1301, especially after 1342, under the rule of King Louis the Great. The appearance of new, foreign dynasties on the Hungarian throne (Angevins, Luxembourgs, Jagiellonians) and a radical historiographical shift played a role in this change. This practice was also followed by King Matthias, a scion of a middle-ranking noble family aspiring to international recognition and prestige. After 1301, the entourage of the kings and queens established new customs, and secular royal orders of knights were founded which brought the secular elites even closer to the church and its ceremonies. At the same time, the period between 1342 and 1526 was marked by great wars and campaigns, often fought on the international stage, as against Venice, the pagan Lithuanians, heretics, or the Ottomans in the Balkans and Hungary. It was a time when the rulers placed particular emphasis on the justice of the fighting, and on meeting the expectations of the church. Routine rituals are given a propaganda role never seen before, which non-Hungarian historians (Bonfini, Ransano) or foreign ambassadors did not fail to mention. Even the Hungarian historians, such as János Thuróczy, could not escape their influence, though King Matthias was dissatisfied with his work and invited the mentioned Italian-born humanists to establish Italian-type renaissance historiography. The magnates, depending on their financial means, tried to follow the practice of the kings like the Bátoris. If the royal biography as a genre had become established in Hungary, many more sources would have been available, as is confirmed by the biography of King Louis preserved in the Dubnic Chronicle. As a result, foreign witnesses, like Jan Długosz, are among the most important sources for the political history of contemporary

Religious Rites of War in Medieval Hungary

199

Hungary. The details of the 1456 crusade have been recorded in Bonfini’s chronicle and the letters of Giovanni da Tagliacozzo, as in 1526, the king’s ceremonial departure was preserved in a report from the papal nuncio. The sensitivity to rituals has also touched domestic authors like György Szerémi. But the defeat by the Ottomans in 1526 and the advent of the Reformation brought a decisive change in this respect. These rites listed above offer additional pieces of information on the justification of war by kings and secular elite in different historical situations such as in a war allied with heathen auxiliaries (1278), in fraternal wars (1075, 1440), in wars against the Muslims (fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries), or crusades (1217, 1514). They open up the hidden intentions of the political actors, bridging the gap between their private devotion and their public aspirations and prestige. While the first centuries are exhaustively researched, further research of the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries with extensive unpublished charter evidence is still to be done. Bibliography

Primary Sources

Annales Altahenses maiores. Edited by Edmund Oefele, 1–91. MGH SS rer. Germ. 4. Hannover: Hahn, 1891. The Annals of Jan Długosz. Translated by Michael Maurice. Chichester: IM Publications, 1997. Anonymi Bele regis notarii Gesta Hungarorum. In Anonymi bele regis notarii Gesta Hungarorum. Edited, translated, and annotated by Martyn Rady and László Veszprémy, 2–129. Magistri Rogerii Epistola in miserabile carmen super destructione regni Hungarie per Tartaros facta. Translated and annotated by János M. Bak and Martyn Rady. CEMT 5. Budapest: Central European University Press, 2010. Bonfinis, Antonius de. Rerum Ungaricarum decades. Edited by József Fógel et al. 4 vols. Bibliotheca Scriptorum Medii Recentisque Aevorum. Saeculum XV. Leipzig: Teubner, Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1936–1976. Die Briefe des Abtes Bern von Reichenau. Edited by Franz-Josef Schmale. Veröffentlich­ ungen der Kommission für geschichtliche Landeskunde in Baden-Württemberg. Reihe A. Quellen 6. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1961. Buda város jogkönyve. Edited by László Blazovich and József Schmidt. 2 vols. Szeged: Szegedi Középkorász Műhely, 2001. Buonaccorsi, Filippo. Historia de rege Vladislao. Edited by Irmina Lichońska, Tadeusz Kowalewski, and Anna Maria Komornicka. Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1961.

200

Veszprémy

Choniates, Niketas. O City of Byzantium: Annals. Translated by Harry J. Magoulias. Detroit MI: Wayne State University Press, 1984. Chronica de gestis Hungarorum e codice picto saec. XIV. Edited and translated by János M. Bak and László Veszprémy. CEMT 9. Budapest and New York: Central European University Press, 2018. Chronicon Dubnicense. Edited by Matyás Florián. HHFD 3:1–199. Leipzig: Taizs, 1884. Codex diplomaticus Hungariae ecclesiasticus ac civilis. Edited by Georgius Fejér. 11 vols. in 40 pts. Buda: Typographia Regiae Universitatis Ungaricae, 1829–1844. Continuatio Vindobonensis. Edited by Georg H. Pertz. MGH SS 9, 698–732. Hannover: Hahn, 1851. Diplomata Hungariae antiquissima. Vol. 1. Edited by György Györffy. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1992. Farkas, Bethlen. Historia de rebus Transylvanicis, 1525–1609. In Báthori István emlékezete. Edited by László Nagy, 80–99. Budapest: Zrínyi Kadó, 1994. Fontes Byzantini historiae Hungaricae aevo ducum et regum ex stirpe Árpád descendentium. Edited by Gyula Moravcsik. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1984. Georgius Sirmiensis. Epistola de perditione regni Hungarorum. Edited by Gusztáv Wenzel. Monumenta Hungariae Historica. Scriptores 1. Pest: Eggenberger, 1858. Hartvic. Life of King Stephen of Hungary. Translated by Nora Berend. In Medieval Hagiography: An Anthology. Edited by Thomas Head, 375–98. Abingdon and New York: Routledge, 2001. Historia de expeditione Friderici imperatoris. Edited by Anton Chroust. MGH SS rer, Germ. NS 5. Berlin: Weidmann, 1928. The “Historia Vie Hierosolimitane” of Gilo of Paris and a Second Anonymous Author. Edited by Christopher Wallace Grocock and J. Elizabeth Siberry. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997. Hodinka Antal. Az Orosz évkönyvek magyar vonatkozásai. Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, 1916. Ioannis Dlugossi Annales seu cronicae incliti Regni Poloniae. Bks. 1–12. Edited by Consilium. Cracow: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1964–2005. Accessible via National Digital Library Polona, dlugosz.polona.pl/en. Janus Pannonius összes munkái. Edited by Sándor V. Kovács. Budapest: Tankönyvkiadó, 1987. Janus Pannonius. Elegiae—Elegien. Lateinisch—Deutsch. Edited and translated by Josef Faber. Norderstedt: Books on Demand GmbH, 2009. Johannes de Thurocz. Chronica Hungarorum. Textus. Edited by Erzsébet Galántai and Gyula Kristó. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1985. Kinnamos, John. Deeds of John and Manuel Comnenus. Translated by Charles M. Brand. Records of civilization 95. New York: Columbia University Press, 1976.

Religious Rites of War in Medieval Hungary

201

Legenda maior S. Stephani regis. Edited by Edited by Emma Bartoniek. SrH 2. Edited by Imre Szentpétery, 393–400. Budapest: Academia Litteraria Hungarica, 1938. Rprt.: Nap Kiadó, 1999. Legenda S. Gerhardi episcopi. Edited by Imre Madzsar. In SrH 2. Edited by Imre Szentpétery, 461–506. Budapest: Academia Litteraria Hungarica, 1938. Rprt.: Nap Kiadó, 1999. Legenda S. Ladislai regis. Edited by Emma Bartoniek. In SrH 2. Edited by Imre Szentpétery, 507–28. Budapest: Academia Litteraria Hungarica, 1938. Rprt.: Nap Kiadó, 1999. Legenda S. Stephani Regis ab Hartvico episcopo conscripta. Edited by Emma Bartoniek. In SrH 2. Edited by Imre Szentpétery, 401–40. Budapest: Academia Litteraria Hungarica, 1938. Rprt.: Nap Kiadó, 1999. Legenda vetus, acta processus canonizationis et miracula sanctae Margararitae de Hungaria. Edited and annotated by Ildikó Csepregi, Gábor Klaniczay, and Bence Péterfi. Translated by Ildikó Csepregi, Clifford Flanigan, and Louis Perraud. CEMT 8. Budapest and New York: Central European University Press, 2018. Mannesdorfer, Johann. A mariazelli legenda. Edited by L. Bernát Kumorovitz. In L. Bernát Kumorovitz. “I. Lajos királyunk 1375. évi havasalföldi hadjárata (és ‘török’) háborúja.” Századok 117.5 (1983): 919–82 (edition at 979, translation at 947). Maurice’s Strategikon: Handbook of Byzantine Military Strategy. Translated by George T. Dennis. Philadelphia PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1984. Notae Altahenses. Edited by Philipp Jaffé, 421–27. MGH SS 17. Hannover: Hahn, 1861. Ottonis et Rahewini Gesta Friderici I. imperatoris. Edited by Georg Waitz and Bernhard von Simson. MGH SS rer. Germ. 46. Hannover: Hahn, 1912. Regesta regum stirpis Arpadianae critico-diplomatica. Edited by Imre Szentpétery and Iván Borsa. 2 vols. Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, Akadémiai Kiadó, 1923–1987. Ransanus, Petrus. Epithoma rerum hungararum. Edited by Péter Kulcsár. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1977. Rigord. Histoire de Philippe Auguste. Edited by Élisabeth Carpentier, Georges Pon, and Yves Chauvin. Sources d’histoire médiévale 33. Paris: Centre national de la recherche scientifique, 2006. Staročeská kronika tak řečeného Dalimila. Edited by Jiří Daňhelka et al. 2 vols. Prague: Academia, 1988. Szerémi, György. Magyarország romlásáról. Translated by László Juhász. Budapest: Szépirodalmi Könyvkiadó, 1979. Simonis de Kéza Gesta Hungarorum. Edited and translated by László Veszprémy and Frank Schaer. CEMT 1. Budapest and New York: Central European University Press, 1999.

202

Veszprémy

Thallóczy, Lajos. Jajca (bánság, vár és város) története. Magyarország melléktartományainak oklevéltára. Codex diplomaticus partium regno Hungariae adnexarum 4. Budapest: Hornyánszky Viktor, 1915. Thomae archidiaconi Spalatensis Historia Salonitanorum atque Spalatinorum. Pontificum. Latin text by Olga Perić. Edited, translated and annotated by Damir Karbić, Mirjana Matijević Sokol, and James R. Sweeney. CEMT 4. Budapest and New York: Central European University Press, 2006. Thuróczy, János. Chronicle of the Hungarians. Translated by Frank Mantello. Bloomington IN: Indiana University, Research Institute for Inner Asian Studies, 1991. Victoriae mirabilis divinitus de Turcis habitae, duce vener. beato Patre Fratre Ioanne de Capistrano, series descripta per Fratrem Ioannem de Tagliacotio, illius socium et comi­tem, atque beato Iacobo de Marchia directa. Edited by Leonhard Lemmens. Acta Ordinis fratrum minorum 25 (1906): 28–31, 62–68, 108–9, 188–90, 228–29, 290–92, 322–25, 352–57, 399–404. Wipo. Gesta Chuonradi. Edited by Harry Breslau. MGH SS rer. Germ. 61, Hannover: Hahn, 1915.



Secondary Sources

Adde-Vomáčka, Eloïse, La “Chronique de Dalimil.” Les débuts de l’historiographie nationale tchèque en langue vulgaire au XIVe siècle. Textes et documents d’histoire médiévale 12. Paris: Éditions de la Sorbonne, 2016. Althoff, Gerd. “Der König weint. Rituelle Tränen in öffentlicher Kommunikation.” In “Aufführung” und “Schrift” in Mittelalter und Früher Neuzeit. Edited by Jan-Dirk Müller, 239–52. Stuttgart: Metzler, 1996. Antonín, Robert, and Tomáš Borovský. Panovnické vjezdy na středověké Moravě. Knižnice Matice moravské 25. Brno: Matice moravská, 2009. Ashe, Laura. Fiction and History in England, 1066–1200. Cambridge studies in medieval literature 68. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Bachrach, David S. Religion and the Conduct of War, c.300–c.1215. Woodbridge: Boydell Press. 2003. Balogh, Jolán. A művészet Mátyás király udvarában. 2 vols. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1966. Balogh, Jolán. Varadinum—Várad vára. 2 vols. Művészettörténeti füzetek 13. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1982. Balogh, József. “Az ‘ájtatos’ és a ‘komor’ Szent István király.” Egyetemes Philologiai Közlöny 52.4–10 (1928): 49–50. Balogh, József. “Hangos könyörgés—síró fohász. Néhány adalék az ókeresztény ima történetéhez.” Ethnographia 37.4 (1926): 190–92. Banfi, Florio. Ricordi ungheresi in Italia. Studi e documenti Italo-Ungheresi della R. Accademia d’Ungheria di Roma 4. Rome: Reale Accademia d’Ungheria, 1942.

Religious Rites of War in Medieval Hungary

203

Barabás, Gábor. “Thirteenth–Century Hungarian Prelates at War.” In Christianity and War in Medieval East Central Europe and Scandinavia. Edited by Radosław Kotecki, Carsten Selch Jensen, and Stephen Bennett, 39–56. Leeds: ARC Humanities Press, 2021. Barber, Richard W. Magnificence and Princely Splendour in the Middle Ages. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2020. Bencze, Zoltán, and György Szekér. A budaszentlőrinci pálos kolostor. Das Pauliner­ kloster von Budaszentlőrinc. Monumenta Historica Budapestinensia 8. Budapest: Budapesti Történeti Múzeum, 1993. Bitskey, István. “Tradíció és reprezentáció. Humanista szerzők Mátyás király udvari ünnepségeiről.” Irodalomtörténet 26.2–3 (1995): 326–36. Bliese, John R.E. “The Courage of the Normans—A Comparative Study of Battle Rhetoric.” Nottingham Medieval Studies 35 (1991): 1–26. Bliese, John R.E. “Rhetoric and Morale: A Study of Battle Orations from the Central Middle Ages.” JMH 15.3 (1989): 201–26. Bojcov, Michail A. “Ephemerität und Permanenz bei Herrschereinzügen im spätmittelalterlichen Deutschland.” Marburger Jahrbuch für Kunstwissenschaft 24 (1997): 87–107. Borzsák, István. “Temesvári Pelbárt és Laskai Osvát exemplumainak antik vonatkozásai.” Irodalomtörténeti Közlemények 78 (1974): 57–65. Csukovits, Enikő. “A római Szentlélek-társulat magyar tagjai (1446–1523).” Századok 134 (2000): 211–44. Engel, Pál, and Norbert C. Tóth. Itineraria Regnum et reginarum (1382–1438). Subsidia ad historiam medii aevi Hungariae inquirendam 1. Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia. Történettudományi Intézete, 2005. Font, Márta. Magyarok a Kijevi Évkönyvben. Szeged: Szegedi Középkorász Műhely, 1996. Gál, Judit. “Changing Rituals: The Hungarian Royal and Princely Entries into Dalmatian Cities during the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries.” In Reform and Renewal in Medieval East and Central Europe: Politics, Law and Society. Edited by Suzana Miljan, Éva B. Halász, and Simon Alexandru, 83–101. Studies in Russia and East Europe 14. Cluj-Napoca, Zagreb, and London: Romanian Academy et al., 2019. Gál, Judit. “The Role of the Dalmatian Bishops and Archbishops in Warfare during the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries: A Case Study on the Archbishops of Split.” In Christianity and War in Medieval East Central Europe and Scandinavia. Edited by Radosław Kotecki, Carsten Selch Jensen, and Stephen Bennett, 28–38. Leeds: ARC Humanities Press, 2021. Gaposchkin, M. Cecilia. “From Pilgrimage to Crusade: The Liturgy of Departure, 1095–1300.” Speculum 88.1 (2013): 44–91. Green, Dennis H. Medieval Listening and Reading: The Primary Reception of German Literature 800–1300. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.

204

Veszprémy

Györffy, György. István király és műve. Budapest: Gondolat, 1977. Halmágyi, Miklós. “Középkori csatakiáltások.” Hadtörténelmi Közlemények 120 (2007): 590–601. Halmágyi, Miklós. Mi és ők. Azonosság és idegenség az első évezred fordulóján. Szeged: Belvedere Meridionale, 2014. Hervay, F. Levente. “A bencések és apátságaik története a középkori Magyarországon.” In “Paradisum plantavit.” Bencés monostorok a középkori Magyarországon. Edited by Imre Takács, 461–548. Pannonhalma: Pannonhalmi Főapátság, 2001. Horváth, Richárd. Itineraria regis Matthiae Corvini et reginae Beatricis de Aragonia (1458–[1476]–1490). Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia. Történettudományi Intézete, 2011. Kalous, Antonín. “Elfeledett források a mohácsi csatáról.” Hadtörténelmi Közlemények 120.2 (2007): 603–21. Kalous, Antonín. “The Last Medieval King Leaves Buda.” In Medieval Buda in Context. Edited by Balázs Nagy et al., 513–25. BCEH 10. Leiden and Boston MA: Brill, 2016. Kerny, Terézia. “Adorációs kép, dedikációs-kép, fogadalmi kép, supplikációs-kép (Kísérlet egy középkori ikonográfiai csoport műfaji szétválasztására).” In Kép, képmás, kultusz. Edited by Gábor Barna, 22–38. Szeged: Szegedi Tudományegyetem. Bölcsészettudományi Kar. Néprajzi és Kulturális Antropológiai Tanszék, 2006. Kerny, Terézia, and Szabolcs Serfőző. “Nagy Lajos ‘törökök’ elleni csatája. Egy legendakonstrukció eredete.” In Mariazell és Magyarország. Egy zarándokhely emlékezete. Edited by Péter Farbaky and Szabolcs Serfőző, 47–60. Budapest: Budapesti Történeti Múzeum, 2004. Koch, Walter. “Ein Augenzeugenbericht über den Einzug des Königs Matthias Corvinus in Wien.” Unsere Heimat. Zeitschrift des Vereins für Landeskunde von Niederösterreich und Wien 44.2 (1973): 56–59. Koszta, László. “A hradištei bencés monostor alapításának magyar vonatkozásai.” In Blazovich László emlékkönyv. Edited by Elemér Balogh and Mária Homoki-Nagy, 403–25. Szeged: Szegedi Tudományegyetem, 2013. Kotecki, Radosław. “Pious Rulers, Princely Clerics, and Angels of Light: Imperial Holy War Imagery in Twelfth-Century Poland and Rus’.” In Christianity and War in Medieval East Central Europe and Scandinavia. Edited by Radosław Kotecki, Carsten Selch Jensen, and Stephen Bennett, 159–88. Leeds: ARC Humanities Press, 2021. Kotecki, Radosław. “With the Sword of Prayer, or How the Medieval Bishop Should Fight.” QMAN 21 (2016): 341–69. Kovács, Éva. “Casula Sancti Stephani Regis.” Acta historiae artium Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 5 (1958): 181–221. Rprt. in Éva Kovács. “Species modus ordo.” Válogatott tanulmányok, 15–54. Budapest, Szent István Társulat, 1998. Kovács, László. “Die heilige Lanze Ungarns.” In Europas Mitte um 1000. Beiträge zur Geschichte, Kunst und Archaologie. Vol. 2. Edited by Alfried Wieczorek and HansMartin Hinz, 902–3. Stuttgart: Theiss, 2000.

Religious Rites of War in Medieval Hungary

205

Kubinyi, András. “Az egyház szerepe az országos politikában és a honvédelemben a középkor végén.” In Egyházak a változó világban. Edited by István Bárdos and Margit Beke, 19–27. Tatabánya: Komárom-Esztergom Megye Önkormányzata, 1992. Rprt. in András Kubinyi. Főpapok, egyházi intézmények és vallásosság a középkori Magyarországon, 87–99. Budapest: Magyar Egyháztörténeti Enciklopédia Munkaközösség, 1999. Kuffart, Hajnalka, and Tibor Neumann. “‘Olyan szép kísérete lesz, mint kevés úrnak Itáliába’. Az esztergomi érseki udvartartás szervezése 1486/87 folyamán.” Történelmi Szemle 63.3 (2021): 323–82. Kumorovitz, L. Bernát. “A magyar zászló és nemzeti színeink múltja.” Hadtörténelmi Közlemények N.S. 1.3–4 (1954): 18–60. Kumorovitz, L. Bernát. “I. Lajos királyunk 1375. évi havasalföldi hadjárata (és ‘török’) háborúja.” Századok 117.5 (1983): 919–82. Larson, Atria A. “Bestowing Pardon and Favor: Emperor Henry III’s Pardons in Context.” Viator 40 (2009): 41–69. Lenart, Mirosław. “Czy Jagiełło płakał pod Grunwaldem?” In Wojny, bitwy i potyczki w kulturze staropolskiej. Edited by Wiesław Pawlak and Magdalena Piskała, 34–45. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Instytut Badań Literackich Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 2011. Leyser, Karl. “Ritual, Ceremony and Gesture: Ottoman Germany.” In Karl Leyser. Communications and Power in Medieval Europe: The Carolingian and Ottonian Centuries. Edited by Timothy Reuter, 189–213. London and Rio Grande OH: The Hambledon Press, 1994. Liman, Kazimierz. “Die Feldherrenreden in der Polnischen Chronik des Anonymus Gallus.” Philologus 133.2 (1989): 284–302. Marinković, Ana. “‘Construi et erigi iussit rex Colomannus’: The Royal Chapel of King Coloman in the Complex of St. Mary in Zadar.” Annual of Medieval Studies at CEU 8 (2002): 38–47. McCormick, Michael. Eternal Victory: Triumphal Rulership in Late Antiquity, Byzantium, and the Early Medieval West. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986. Papp, Sándor. “Hungary and the Ottoman Empire (From the Beginning to 1540).” In Fight Against the Turk in Central-Europe in the First Half of the 16th Century. Edited by István Zombori, 37–90. Budapest: Magyar Egyháztörténeti Enciklopédia Munkaközösség, 2004. Preiser-Kapeller, Johannes. “Von Ostarrichi an den Bosporus. Ein Überblick zu den Beziehungen im Mittelalter.” In Pro Oriente Jahrbuch 2010, 66–77. Vienna: Pro Oriente, 2011. Prietzel, Malte. Kriegführung im Mittelalter. Handlungen, Erinnerungen und Bedeutungen, KG 32. Paderborn: Schöningh, 2006. Radó, Polycarpus. Libri liturgici manuscripti bibliothecarum Hungariae et limitropharum regionum. Edited by László Mezey. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1973.

206

Veszprémy

Ritoókné Szalay, Ágnes. “Janus Pannonius Hunyadi-epitáfiumai.” In Ágnes Ritoókné Szalay. Kutak. Tanulmányok a XV–XVI. századi magyarországi művelődés köréből, 101–6. Humanizmus és reformáció 33. Budapest: Balassi Kiadó, 2012. Romhányi, Beatrix F. Kolostorok és társaskáptalanok a középkori Magyarországon. Budapest: Pytheas, 2000. Rupp, Daniel. “Der heilige Martin als Schlachtenhelfer im Mittelalter.” In Martin von Tours. Krieger—Bischof—Heiliger, 27–42. Saarbrücken: Universitätsverlag des Saarlandes, 2013. Schreiner, Klaus. “Kriege im Namen Gottes, Jesu und Mariä. Heilige Abwehrkämpfe gegen die Türken im späten Mittelalter und in der Frühen Neuzeit.” In Heilige Kriege Religiöse Begründungen militärischer Gewaltanwendung. Judentum, Christentum und Islam im Vergleich. Edited by Klaus Schreiner, 151–92. SHKK 78. Munich: Oldenbourg, 2008. Schreiner, Klaus. Märtyrer, Schlachtenhelfer, Friedenstifter. Krieg und Frieden im Spiegel mittelalterlicher und frühneuzeitlicher Heiligenverehrung, 75–105. OFVK 18. Opladen: Springer, 2000. Schreiner, Klaus. “Siegbringende Marienbilder. Formen und Funktionen bildhafter Kommunikationin militärischen Konflikten des späten Mittelalters und der frühen Neuzeit.” In Literarische und religiöse Kommunikation in Mittelalter und Früher Neuzeit. Edited by Peter Strohschneider, 844–903. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 2009. Searle, Eleanor. “Fact and Pattern in Heroic History, Dudo of Saint Quentin.” Viator 15 (1984): 119–38. Spekner, Enikő. “A középkori boldogasszony-plébániatemplom középkori története.” In A budavári Nagyboldogasszony-templom évszázadai, 1246–2013. Edited by Péter Farbaky et al., 53–62. Budapest: Budapesti Történeti Múzeum, 2008. Sroka, Stanisław A. “I. Ulászló itineráriuma (1440–1444).” Történeti tanulmányok (Debrecen, KLTE) 4 (1996): 21–48. Sroka, Stanisław A, and Wioletta Zawitkowska. Itinerarium króla Władyslawa III 1434–1444. Warsaw: Instytut Historii Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 2017. Storelli, Xavier. “Convaincre pour vaincre: place et fonction des harangues militaires dans l’historiographie anglo-normande (XIe siècle–debut du XIIIe siècle).” In Convaincre et persuader. Communication et propagande aux XIIe et XIIIe siècles. Edited by Martin Aurell, 53–80. Poitiers: Université de Poitiers, 2007. Suchodolski, Stanisław. “Włócznia świętego Stefana.” KH 112.3 (2005): 91–110. Sümegi, József. “Báta a középkori és törökkori forrásokban, 895–1686.” In Báta évszázadai. Emlékkönyv a bátai apátság alapításának 900 éves évfordulójára. Edited by Mária Kápolnás, 11–126. Báta: Báta község, 1993. Sümegi, József. “Búcsújárás és zarándoklat.” In A pécsi egyházmegye története. 1. A középkor évszázadai, 1009–1543. Edited by Tamás Fedeles, Gábor Sarbak, and József Sümegi, 487–546. Pécs: Fény, 2009.

Religious Rites of War in Medieval Hungary

207

Szabó, János B. Háborúban Bizánccal—Magyarország és a Balkán a 11–12. században. Budapest: Corvina Kiadó, 2013. Szakály, Ferenc, and Pál Fodor. “A kenyérmezei csata, 1479. október 13.” Hadtörténelmi Közlemények 111.2 (1998): 1–42. Szekfű, Gyula. “Szent István a magyar történet századaiban.” In Szent István emlékkönyv. Vol. 3. Edited by Jusztinián Serédy, 1–80. Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, 1938. Szovák, Kornél. “König Ludwig der Große und Mariazell.” In Mariazell und Ungarn. 650 Jahre religiöse Gemeinsamkeit. Edited by Walter Brunner et al., 82–92. Veröffentlichungen des Steiermärkischen Landesarchivs 30. Graz: Das Steiermärkische Landesarchiv, 2003. Teleki, József: Hunyadiak kora Magyarországon. 11 vols. Pest: Emich, 1852–1855. Tóth, Norbert C. “A ferencesek megtelepedése Nyírbátorban.” In Nyolcszáz esztendős a ferences rend. Tanulmányok a rend lelkiségéről, történeti hivatásáról és kulturálisművészeti szerepéről. Edited by Norbert Medgyesy, István Ötvös, and Sándor Őze, 153–63. Budapest: Írott Szó Alapítvány, Magyar Napló, 2013. Varga, Gábor. Ungarn und das Reich vom 10. bis zum 13. Jahrhundert. Das Herrscherhaus der Árpáden zwischen Anlehnung und Emanzipation. Studia Hungarica 49. Munich, Verlag Ungarisches Institut, 2003. Veszprémy, László. “A pityergő Árpádtól a könnyező Szent Lászlóig. A könnyekre fakadó hadvezér a Névtelen Gesztája 39. és a Krónikaszerkesztés 121., 137. fejezetében.” Acta Historica (Szeged) 138 (2015): 17–32. Rprt. in László Veszprémy. Történetírás és történetírók az Árpád-kori Magyarországon (XI–XIII. század közepe), 119–28. Rerum fides 2. Budapest: Line Design, 2019. Veszprémy, László. “Forrásközlemény Szt. István korai tiszteletéhez Bambergben.” In “Mestereknek gyengyének.” Ünnepi kötet Madas Edit hetvenedik születésnapjára. Edited by Fanni Hende, Klára Kisdi, and Ágnes Korondi, 507–17. Budapest: Országos Széchenyi Könyvtár, Szent István Társulat, 2020. Veszprémy, László. “Nagy Lajos keresztes hadjáratai a Balkánon, 1365–1366.” In Vallásháborúk, felekezeti konfliktusok Európában és az Európához közeli térségekben az ókortól napjainkig. Edited by János Isaszegi, László Pósán, and László Veszprémy, 169–84. Budapest: Zrínyi Kiadó, 2020. Veszprémy, László. “Szónokló hadvezérek. Összehasonlító normann-magyar harctéri retorika.” Magyar Könyvszemle 128 (2012): 159–69. Wolfram, Herwig. Conrad II, 990–1039: Emperor of Three Kingdoms. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2006. Zákonyi, Mihály. A Buda melletti Szent-Lőrincz pálos kolostor története. Művelődés­ történeti Értekezések 50. Budapest: Révai, 1911. Zupka, Dušan. “Political, Religious and Social Framework of Religious Warfare and Its Influences on Rulership in Medieval East Central Europe.” In Rulership in Medieval East Central Europe. Power, Rituals and Legitimacy in Bohemia, Hungary and Poland.

208

Veszprémy

Edited by Grischa Vercamer and Dušan Zupka, 135–60. ECEE 78. Leiden and Boston MA: Brill, 2022. Zupka, Dušan. “Religious Rituals of War in Medieval Hungary under the Árpád Dynasty.” In Christianity and War in Medieval East Central Europe and Scandinavia. Edited by Radosław Kotecki, Carsten Selch Jensen, and Stephen Bennett, 141–57. Leeds: ARC Humanities Press, 2021. Zupka, Dušan. Ritual and Symbolic Communication in Medieval Hungary Under the Árpád Dynasty (1000–1301). ECEE 39. Leiden and Boston MA: Brill, 2016.

Chapter 6

Religious Warfare at the Eastern Borders of Latin Christendom: The Case of the Kingdom of Hungary in the Later Middle Ages Dušan Zupka East Central Europe was formed as a border region at the periphery of Latin Christendom. Throughout the Middle Ages, this geographical determinant shaped its historical development as well as the formation of local political, religious, and military activities.1 One of the most peculiar phenomena related to this is the close connection between religion and war. Since the adoption of Christianity by the emerging realms of East Central Europe (Bohemia, Hungary, and Poland) by the end of the tenth century, Christian rhetoric and religious rituals were present on the battlefields of local rulers. Likewise, and this is especially shown by newer research, pre- and post-battle religious rites were well-known to these rulers, their clergy, and even perhaps to ordinary soldiers.2 One might also suspect that support from heavenly powers was sought before decisive military encounters on a more regular basis. This was done either by celebrating masses, administering the Eucharist, provision of special clerical and episcopal benedictions for the belligerents, or by home-front prayers and 1 The research on this chapter was supported by the Scientific Grant Agency of the Ministry of Education, Science, Research and Sport of the Slovak Republic and Slovak Academy of Sciences (VEGA) in the framework of the project: VEGA 2/0129/18 and by the Slovak Research and Development Agency under the Contract no. APVV-18-0333. For the scholarly debate on historical significance of the region in major western languages, see various introductions and conceptual chapters in Florin Curta, Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages (500–1300), BCEH 19, 2 vols. (Leiden and Boston MA: Brill, 2019), 1:1–14; Gerhard Jaritz and Katalin Szende, ed., Medieval East Central Europe in a Comparative Perspective: From Frontier Zones to Lands in Focus (Abingdon and New York: Routledge, 2016); Dušan Zupka and Grischa Vercamer, ed., Rulership in Medieval East Central Europe (Bohemia, Hungary and Poland), ECEE 78 (Leiden and Boston MA: Brill, 2021); Florin Curta, ed., The Routledge Handbook of East Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 500–1300 (Abingdon and New York: Routledge, 2021). A classic but still relevant study is Jenő Szűcs, “Three Historical Regions of Europe,” Acta Historica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 29 (1983): 131–84. 2 David S. Bachrach, Religion and the Conduct of War, c.300–1215 (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2003), 1–5, 190–94; M. Cecilia Gaposchkin, Invisible Weapons: Liturgy and the Making of Crusade Ideology (Ithaca NY and London: Cornell University Press, 2017), 1–15; Radosław Kotecki, Carsten Selch Jensen, and Stephen Bennett, ed., Christianity and War in Medieval East Central Europe and Scandinavia (Leeds: ARC Humanities Press, 2021). © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004686373_007

210

Zupka

spontaneous requests of aid from God and His saints. Some traces of more advanced and less known rituals are also traceable in the sources, for example, those connected with the ceremony of profectio bellica and the march to war with victory-bringing relics or banners at the forefront. This paper will explore religious warfare as a response of the secular and ecclesiastical leaders of the Kingdom of Hungary to the threats coming across its eastern borders. It draws on rich examples from high and late medieval sources depicting the military conflicts between Christian troops and their non-Christian opponents (Magyars, Cumans, Mongols, and Turks). Religious ceremonies were conducted by rulers and their warriors before the beginning of a conflict, while it was taking place, and after it was finished. Special religious acts were supposed to ensure God’s favor in the course of preparing for an armed encounter. Equally important, however, were the thanksgiving ceremonies and prayers performed directly on the battlefield after a victorious battle or upon returning to camp or the sovereign’s residence.3 The obligation to take part in such ceremonies was not relegated to warriors. Non-combatant members of society also actively participated in them, especially with prayers, fasts, processions, or almsgiving, all to help tilt the victory to the side of their ruler. This so-called domestic front included an equal measure of clerics (priests and monks) as well as the lay part of the population.4 The phenomenon of religious warfare, accompanied by a diversity of rituals of war, is well documented and researched for Western Europe and for Byzantium. This chapter, however, will attempt to trace its roots, meaning, and function within the context of the emerging Christianized monarchies of East Central Europe, focusing specifically on the medieval Kingdom of Hungary.5 3 Michael McCormick, “The Liturgy of War in the Early Middle Ages: Crisis, Litanies, and the Carolingian Monarchy,” Viator 15 (1984): 1–24; Jean Flori, La guerra santa. La formazione dell’idea di crociata nell’Occidente cristiano (Bologna: Il Mulino, 2003); Arnold Angenendt, Toleranz und Gewalt. Das Christentum zwischen Bibel und Schwert (Münster: Aschendorff, 2012). 4 Friedrich Prinz, Klerus und Krieg im früheren Mittelalter. Untersuchungen zur Rolle der Kirche beim Aufbau der Königsherrschaft, Monographien zur Geschichte des Mittelalters 2 (Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1971), 4–34; Walter Pohl, “Liturgie di guerra nei regni altomedievali,” RSC 5.1 (2008): 29–44; David S. Bachrach, “Military Chaplains and the Religion of War in Ottonian Germany, 919–1024,” RSS 39.1 (2011): 13–31; Radosław Kotecki, Jacek Maciejewski and John S. Ott, ed., Between Sword and Prayer: Warfare and Medieval Clergy in Cultural Perspective, EMC 3 (Leiden and Boston MA: Brill, 2018). 5 For the overviews of military history of the medieval Kingdom of Hungary, see esp. Róbert Hermann, ed., Magyarország hadtörténete, vol. 1: A kezdetektől 1526 (Budapest: Zrínyi, 2017); Gyula Kristó, Az Árpád-kor háborúi (Budapest: Zrínyi katonai Kiadó, 1986); Idem, Az Anjou-kor háborúi (Budapest: Zrínyi katonai Kiadó, 1988). A concise overview in English can be found in László Veszprémy and Béla K. Király, ed., A Millennium of Hungarian Military History, War and Society in East Central Europe 37 (New York: Columbia University Press, 2002).

Religious Warfare at the Eastern Borders of Latin Christendom

1

211

Hammer of the Infidels

Some of the earliest references to religious rituals of war in the East Central European context are connected to the Magyar invasions to the periphery and, later, the core of Latin Christendom in the tenth century. The most important battles took place at Birten in 931 and Lechfeld/Augsburg in 955.6 However, the contemporary sources usually only focused on the rites performed by the Ottonian troops or the defenders of the Christian towns, such as Ulrich, Bishop of Augsburg.7 Suffice it to say that these encounters provided the first opportunities for the Hungarians to get acquainted with the ideology and rhetoric of religious warfare, and they later incorporated them to suit their own needs.8 While the pagan Hungarian troops were looting in Bavaria as late as 972, already a year later the envoys of Duke Géza were present at the Imperial Diet in Regensburg. The Hungarian embassy petitioned King Otto to grant them peace and asked for baptism for their duke and his followers. These events started an extraordinary process of Christianization which, in a few decades under the rule of Géza and his son and first king of Hungary, Stephen I, transformed Hungary into a Christian monarchy.9 The Hungarians were labeled in the mid-tenth century as the “scourge of God” ( flagellum Dei) and generally portrayed by the sources as almost inhuman pagan creatures, who partook in brutal assaults on Christian populations.10 Under the rule of King Stephen, things changed dramatically. The Hungarian king appears suddenly as the true soldier of Christ (miles Christi) and servant of God (servus Dei) spreading

6

For the historical context, see David S. Bachrach, Warfare in Tenth Century Germany (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2012), 205–8. 7 Carl Erdmann, Die Entstehung des Kreuzzugsgedankens, FKG 6 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1935), Exkurs I, 327–28; Michael McCormick, Eternal Victory: Triumphal Rulership in Late Antiquity, Byzantium, and the Early Medieval West (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 352. 8 Bernard S. Bachrach, “Magyar-Ottonian Warfare,” Francia 26 (2001): 211–30; Kristó, Az Árpád-kor háborúi, 41–43. Most recently in Magyarország hadtörténete, 71–80. 9 Pál Engel, The Realm of St Stephen: A History of Medieval Hungary, 895–1526 (London and New York: Tauris, 2005), 25–48; Vincent Múcska, “Uhorsko na ceste ku kresťanskej monarchii,” in Proměna středovýchodní Evropy raného a vrcholného středověku. Mocenské souvislosti a paralely, ed. Martin Wihoda and Lukaš Reitinger (Brno: Matice moravská, 2010), 97–116; Ivo Štefan, “Conversion and Christianization: Bohemia, Poland, Hungary, Rus’ (9th to 12th Centuries),” in The Routledge Handbook, 101–20 at 108–10. 10 Liudprandi Antapodosis, 2.3, ed. Joseph Becker, MGH SS rer. Germ. 41 (Hannover and Leipzig: Hahn, 1915), 37; The Complete Works of Liudprand of Cremona, ed. and trans. Paolo Squatriti (Washington DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2007), 75.

212

Zupka

the Christian faith on his people and in his neighborhood.11 The long rule of King Stephen was a mixture of energetic territorial expansion and political unification coupled with a fervent spread of the Christian faith. These politics (complemented by ardent personal devotion) resulted in the fact that Stephen became the first Christian European monarch who became canonized only for his merits, without being forced to accept the martyr’s palm.12 The long-term consequence most germane to this paper is that the King­ dom of Hungary and, especially, its rulers from the Árpádian dynasty onward, found themselves in the role of protectors of the Christian faith from the nonChristian raids coming from the east. This role and its image can be tracked in the contemporary sources of the Árpádian period. However, the lack of contemporary primary sources from this period makes it difficult to discern between the real historical events and the narrative depiction preserved in the few extant sources. Due to the specific nature of Hungarian sources, the first encounters of Christian Árpádian rulers with pagan fighters are recorded mainly in hagiographic sources. The image of the rituals accompanying these battles is heavily influenced by this fact.13 This is true especially for the eleventh century where the references to religious warfare in connection to Hungarian encounters with Cumans and Pechenegs serve more the propagandistic means of glorifying the Árpádian kings as true soldiers of Christ. That is even more evident in the cases of kings Stephen I and Ladislas I, both venerated as saints and canonized by the Catholic Church. To put it in another way, the mentions of the presence of the non-Christian pagan nomadic troops functioned to highlight the piety and religious fervor of the Hungarian monarchs.14 11 Legenda sancti Stephani regis [Legenda maior], ed. Emma Bartoniek, in SrH 2, ed. Imre Szentpétery, 2 vols. (Budapest: Academia Litteraria Hungarica and Societate Historica Hungarica, 1938), 377–92 at 381–83. 12 Dušan Zupka, “Rulers Between Ideal and Reality,” in The Routledge Handbook, 174–90 at 175–78; see also Gábor Klaniczay, Holy Rulers and Blessed Princesses: Dynastic Cults in Medieval Central Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 134–42. 13 Richard Marsina, “Stredoveké uhorské rozprávacie pramene a slovenské dejiny,” Zborník Slovenského národného múzea. História 24 (1984): 167–93; László Veszprémy, Történetírás és történetírók az Árpád-kori Magyarországon (XI–XIII. század közepe) (Budapest: Line Design Kiadó, 2019), 52–104. 14 Kornel Szovák, “The Image of the Ideal King in Twelfth-Century Hungary: Remarks on the ‘Legend of St Ladislas,’” in Kings and Kingship in Medieval Europe, ed. Anne J. Duggan, King’s College London medieval studies 10 (London: King’s College Centre for Late Antique and Medieval Studies, 1993), 241–64; László Veszprémy, “Royal Saints in Hungarian Chronicles, Legends and Liturgy,” in The Making of Christian Myths in the Periphery of Latin Christendom (c.1000–1300), ed. Lars Boje Mortensen (Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 2006), 217–45.

Religious Warfare at the Eastern Borders of Latin Christendom

213

The first example is connected to Stephen I and can be found in his Legenda maior written in the 1080s. The story speaks about the (incoming) secret raid of the Pechenegs to Hungary, which was marred by “miraculous” visions that Stephen had in his dream. Warned in his sleep, the king sent immediately his troops to Gyulafehérvár (nowadays Alba Iulia, Romania), where they saved the local inhabitants and repulsed the pagan attack.15 It is not possible to prove the veracity of this event, as no other source testifies the Pecheneg raid on Hungary during king Stephen’s lifetime. The story probably only adds to the providential powers of the first Christian king of Hungary.16 The first historically attested raid of the nomadic pagan troops to Hungary happened in 1068. Even though contemporary sources (and some modern scholars) identify these warriors as Pechenegs (the original term Cuni in the sources was used to all the nomadic steppe ethnicities), in fact, they were much more probably really Cumans.17 This time the Cuman troops invaded Transylvania and looted the province of Nyír. The ruling king, Salomon, supported by his cousins, dukes Géza and Ladislas, faced the invaders and crushed them in a decisive battle near Kerlés (nowadays Chiraleş, Romania).18 Some more details are preserved on this battle, unfortunately, only in the later fourteenth-century Hungarian Chronicle Composition. According to the chronicler, King Salomon and the dukes arrayed their troops in the early morning and protected themselves by the Holy Eucharist. The great victory given to them by God was then celebrated throughout the kingdom by ceremonial thanksgiving and prayers of the warriors and the ordinary people.19 One detail that points to the importance of this battle is the name of the locality of the encounter. It is believed that Kerlés (recorded as Kyrieleys in the source) is a Hungarian distortion of the original Kyrie eleison—a religious battle cry that gave the name to the hill on which the pagan troops were routed. The name of the locality serves as a reminder to this day of the battle between Christian and pagan warriors in 1068.20 Kerlés penetrated deep into the collective memory of the Hungarian church and population. During this battle, a man-to-man fight was supposed to take 15 Legenda maior sancti Stephani regis, 388–89. For more on the role of ruler’s dreams in narratives describing military actions, see Radosław Kotecki’s discussion in final chapter to this collection (vol. 2, chap. 8). 16 Aleksander Paroń, The Pechenegs: Nomads in the Political and Cultural Landscape of Medieval Europe, ECEE 74 (Leiden and Boston MA: Brill, 2021), 372–73. 17 Ibid., 375–76. 18 Curta, Eastern Europe, 165–67; Engel, The Realm of St Stephen, 31. Both claim the invaders were Pechenegs. 19 Chronica de gestis Hungarorum e codice picto saec. XIV, ed. and trans. János M. Bak and László Veszprémy, CEMT 9 (Budapest: Central European University Press, 2018), 192–96. 20 Kristó, Az Árpád-kor háborúi, 63.

214

Zupka

place between Duke Ladislas and an unknown pagan (Cuman) who tried to abduct a noble maiden. Ladislas supposedly thought that the kidnapped girl was the daughter of the bishop of Várad (Nagyvárad, nowadays Oradea, Romania), and so engaged in a fierce battle, ultimately killing the abductor.21 This story transformed into a widespread tale connected to the life of Duke (later King) Ladislas, and it even became one of the most popular artistic motifs in the whole kingdom. Dozens of churches were painted with the motives of the king’s struggle with the Cuman, like, e.g., in Kraskovo (fig. 6.1), Veľká Lomnica (fig. 6.2), and Žehra (fig. 6.3), in today Slovakia.22 Ladislas quickly became a popular dynastic and military saint in Hungary after his canonization in 1192. The legends and sources depicting his rule portray him as the ideal knightly king, the athleta patriae and even as the “column of the Christian army” (columna militiae christianae).23 The hagiographic rendition presents the image of the pious king, the rex sanctus who, following the tripartite dimension of the medieval monarch, takes care of all the essential needs of his subjects. This is aptly shown in a depiction of the 1068 Cuman raid to Hungary in the early thirteenth-century Legenda sancti Ladislai regis where Ladislas prayed to God for the salvation of his subjects and was given due victory and provisions to save his troops. In this case, he encompassed all three monarchic functions: as military commander, intercessor with the heavenly forces, and provider of supplies.24 21 Chronica de gestis, 196–98. 22 Ivan Gerát, Svätí bojovníci v stredoveku. Úvahy o obrazových legendách sv. Juraja a sv. Ladislava na Slovensku (Bratislava: VEDA, 2011), 90–109; idem, “Pictorial Cycles of St. Ladislas: Some Problems of Interpretation,” in Slovensko a Chorvátsko. Historické paralely a vzta̓ hy, ed. Martin Homza et al. 2 vols. (Bratislava and Zagreb: FF-press, 2013), 1:293–307; Klaniczay, Holy Rulers, 190–94. 23 László Mezey. “‘Athleta patriae’. A korai László-irodalom kialakulása,” in “Athleta patriae.” Tanulmányok Szent László történetéhez, ed. László Mezey (Budapest: Szent István Társulat, 1980), 19–58 at 27: “Erat enim manu fortis et visu desiderabilis et secundum phisionomiam (!) leonis magnas habens extremitates. Statura quippe procerus, ceterisque hominibus a humero supra praeeminens, ita quod exuberante in ipso donorum plenitudine, ipsa quoque corporis species regio dyademate dignum ipsum declararet”; ibid., 32–33: “erat enim copiosus in caritate, longanimis in patientia; pietate rex serenus, gratiarum donis plenus, cultor iustitiae; patronus pudicitiae, consolator afflictorum sublevator oppressorum, miserator orphanorum pius pater pupillorum”; ibid., 43: “O sáncté réx Ládísláe! O columna milítíáe Chrístíánáe!”; ibid., 45: “Regem regum es aggressus, sis defensor indefessus et athleta patriae.” See also Legenda sancti Ladislai regis, chap. 2, ed. Emma Bartoniek, in SrH 2:507–28 at 517; Gerát, Svätí bojovníci, 62; József Török, “Szent László a középkori magyarországi liturgiában,” in “Athleta patriae,” 137–47. 24 Legenda sancti Ladislai regis, chap. 6, pp. 520–21. See also Szovák, “The Image of the Ideal King,” 241–64 at 263. See also Zupka, “Rulers,” 178.

Religious Warfare at the Eastern Borders of Latin Christendom

Figure 6.1 St. Ladislas fighting with the Cuman. Mural painting in the church in Kraskovo, Slovakia Photo by Dávid Doroš, Stredoveká nástenná maľba na Gemeri. Reproduced from: medievalmuralgemer.com

Figure 6.2 St. Ladislas fighting with the Cuman. Mural painting in the church in Veľká Lomnica, Slovakia. License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Photo by Tamas Thaler. Reproduced from: w.wiki/5awv

215

216

Zupka

Figure 6.3 St. Ladislas fighting with the Cuman. Mural painting in the church in Žehra, Slovakia Photo by Radosław Kotecki

The next wave of nomadic raids coming from the eastern steppes endangered Hungary in the first half of the thirteenth century. King Béla IV welcomed the Cumans who were fleeing from the Mongol attack and even made a peace alliance with their king to settle them in the sparsely inhabited regions of Hungary. The reception of the Cumans was supposedly one of the reasons of the threat of military invasion signaled by the Mongols led by Batu Khan. Surprisingly, despite the relative abundance of contemporary sources and even eyewitness accounts preserved from the Mongol invasions of East Central Europe in 1241 and 1242, only very few detailed depictions survive of religious ceremonies accompanying the armed confrontations.25 The decisive battle between the Mongol troops and the forces of King Béla IV took place on 11 April 1241 at Muhi, close to the Sajó River in eastern Hungary. 25 The best collections of sources are to be found in Tatársky vpád, ed. Richard Marsina and Miloš Marek (Budmerice: Rak, 2008); Tatárjárás, ed. Balázs Nagy (Budapest: Osiris Kiadó, 2003); Hystoria Tartarorum C. de Bridia monachi, ed. Alf Önnerfors, Kleine Texte für Vorlesungen und Übungen 186 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1967).

Religious Warfare at the Eastern Borders of Latin Christendom

217

Despite the presence of numerous clerics and prelates in the royal army with two archbishops and five bishops killed in the battle, we have no record of religious rites performed before or after the battle. Roger of Torre Maggiore, one of the contemporary reporters, only mentioned that Béla exhorted and distributed military banners to his leading men on the battlefield. The source does not specify what type of banners these were but, knowing the religious role of banners throughout the Middle Ages, one may suspect that this ceremonial action had, in practice, some religious overtones.26 Other sources at least enable us to reconstruct some of the other religious rites performed by Hungarians or the clergy in other countries. The local priests were supposed to pray and entreat the Mongol invaders to show mercy and spear the lives of the captives—all in vain.27 The king and the remains of his court repeatedly begged and supplicated the Roman Curia and the leaders in the West to organize a military expedition to stop the ravaging Mongols and to help the Hungarian Christians—in vain again.28 The intercessory rites and liturgical processions exercised by Bohemian, English, and German clergy were the only support the Hungarians could expect from their fellow Christian allies.29 The crusade against the Mongols was indeed proclaimed by Pope Gregory IX and later, actually, even started to be organized by Emperor Frederick II and his son, Conrad, in early summer of 1241. In the end, no real support appears to have materialized.30 The expedition of Bohemian king Wenceslas I also stopped at the Moravian-Hungarian borders. Moreover, in the Hungarian environment, 26 “Rex suos interim hortabatur, ut ad pugnam viriliter se heberent, vexilla non pauca manu propria maioribus assignando”: Master Roger, Epistola in miserabile carmen super destructione regni Hungarie per Tartaros facta, chap. 28, in Anonymi Bele regis notarii Gesta Hungarorum, ed., trans., and ann. Martyn C. Rady and László Veszprémy / Master Roger, Epistola in miserabile carmen super destructione regni Hungarie per Tartaros facta, ed., trans., and ann. János M. Bak and Martyn C. Rady, CEMT 5 (Budapest and New York: Central European University Press, 2010), 132–227 at 180. For the religious character of banners used in later medieval warfare, see Radosław Kotecki, Jacek Maciejewski and László Veszprémy’s essays in this collection (vol. 2, chap. 5). See also Erdmann, Die Entstehung, 30–50. 27 Thomae archidiaconi Spalatensis Historia Salonitanorum atque Spalatinorum pontificum, chap. 36, Latin text Olga Perić, ed., trans., and ann. Damir Karbić, Mirjana Matijević-Sokol, and James R. Sweeney, CEMT 4 (Budapest and New York: Central European University Press, 2006), 272. 28 Codex diplomaticus et epistolaris Slovaciae, ed. Richard Marsina, 2 vols. (Bratislava: Slovenská akadémia vied, 1971–1987), 2:65–74 (nos. 99–110). 29 Gaposchkin, Invisible Weapons, 220; Friedrich Böhmer, “Briefe über den Anmarsch der Mongolen gegen Deutschland im Jahr 1241,” Neue Mitteilungen aus dem Gebiete historischantiquarischer Forschungen 4.2 (1839): 105–117 at 111. 30 Peter Jackson, “The Crusade Against the Mongols (1241),” JEH 42.1 (1991): 1–18.

218

Zupka

no reports survive about actual military encounters accompanied by religious rituals of war. What we are left with is a handful of reports about devotional acts that were supposed to appease Christian God and supplicate him to ward off the Mongol invasion. This was the case of the only extant text written according to the liturgy of war style, the Planctus destructionis Hungariam per Tartaros and the act of oblation to the service of God of the child King Béla IV and his wife Maria were expecting.31 The use of holy war rhetoric and contemplating of grandiose crusading plans remained a popular characteristic of the Angevin rule in fourteenth-century Hungary. This was visible, particularly during the reign of King Louis the Great, who styled himself as the champion of Christian warfare against all possible enemies. The geographical position of the kingdom, the expansionist policy of the new Angevin dynasty, and good connections with the Avignon Papacy resulted in numerous crusading plans devised in the second half of the fourteenth century. On several occasions, King Louis presented himself to be ready to fight the enemies of the church within Christianity, the heretics and schismatics, as well as the pagans and Muslims who were threatening Latin Christianity in the east and the south.32 As Norman Housley pointed out previously,33 these efforts brought Louis a formidable reputation at the papal court as he was styled by Pope Urban V in 1364 as an ideal Christian ruler ready to fight “first against the wicked Christian enemies of the church, then against the schismatics and those tainted with the filth of heresy, and on another occasion against the unbelievers and the heathens.” In addition, Gregory XI described Louis in 1373 as the “most Christian prince and heroic hammer of the infidels.”34 As a matter of fact, Louis presented his desire to lead a Christian army against the enemies of the church on several occasions. In 1366 and 1373 he even made a solemn oath promising he would lead the crusade to help Byzantium against the Turks. In 1356, the whole of Christendom was supposed to pray for the success of Louis’ campaign against the Serbs. However, most of the crusading projects remained only in a theoretical dimension. Some of them failed because of the inability (or unwillingness) of the papacy to provide substantial financial aid for the campaigns. Others fell victim to Louis the Great’s personal or dynastic expansionist goals (e.g., Venice, the Balkans, or the Adriatic). In this 31 Planctus destructionis regni Hungariae per Tartaros, ed. Ladislaus Juhász, in SrH 2:589–98. 32 Engel, The Realm of St Stephen, 157–94. 33 Norman Housley, “King Louis the Great of Hungary and the Crusades, 1342–1382,” The Slavonic and East European Review 62.2 (1984): 192–208. 34 Both quotes with sources indicated are from Housley, ibid., 192.

Religious Warfare at the Eastern Borders of Latin Christendom

219

respect, only the first campaigns against the pagan Lithuanians brought some significant achievements and could be styled as proper crusades with religious motifs and goals.35 In two instances local historiographic tradition recorded peculiar “miracles” connected to the wars waged by the Hungarian Angevins. The first case is dated to 1345 and the campaign of Hungarian army backed by the Siculi (Székelys) against the Tatars. According to Louis’s contemporary chronicler, the so-called Anonymous Minorite, during the three-day-long battle, the Hungarians and Siculi defeated the pagan opponents on the feast day of Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary. They took captive the Tatar commander, acquired precious gold and silver, and, last but not least, sized the opponents’ military banners, which they brought back to their homeland.36 Then the Anonymous Minorite narrates the miracle of St. Ladislas’s head, which was supposed to be missing from its depository in the Várad Cathedral during the ongoing battle between the Christians and the Tatars. It was found only the day after the battle and, according to the local church keeper, the reliquary head was hot and sweaty, as if it had just returned from a fierce battle. This story was supplemented by a traditional topos when providing witness accounts of several Tatar fighters who were supposed to see St. Ladislas himself fighting within the Christian troops who invoked his help throughout the battle. In addition, even the Virgin Mary herself, wearing a golden crown, was supposed to help the Hungarians and the Siculi in the battle according to the same witnesses’ account.37 The second example is dated to the early 1360s when King Louis was preparing another campaign against pagan enemies. On the night before the battle, Louis had a dream in which a picture of the Virgin Mary was shown to him lying on his chest. The king arrayed his troops the next morning and ornamented his armor with the said picture of Mary. Fighting under her protection, Louis’ army charged and defeated the numerically much superior heathen forces and gained a glorious victory. As a sign of gratitude to the Holy Virgin, Louis started the reconstruction of the Mariazell (or Zell, Austria) church in Styria. This site later became a pilgrimage site and the place of remembrance of this “miraculous” battle. King Louis himself highly esteemed the help of the Mother of God in this battle. He donated to the church an extraordinary piece of art: a richly decorated altar painting of the Virgin Mary with the baby Jesus, 35 Housley, “King Louis the Great,” 192–208; John V.A. Fine, The Late Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Late Twelfth Century to the Ottoman Conquest (Ann Arbor MI: The University of Michigan Press, 1994), 337–44. 36 Chronicon Dubnicense, chap. 161, ed. Matyás Florián, HHFD 3 (Leipzig: Taizs, 1884), 1–199 at 151–52. 37 Ibid., 152; Klaniczay, Holy Rulers, 189.

220

Zupka

decorated in gold and precious stones, manufactured most probably by the Sienese artist, Andrea Vanni (see fig. 5.1 in vol. 2).38 2

Bulwark of Christendom

The perception of the Kingdom of Hungary as the Bulwark of Christendom is connected especially to the later Middle Ages, culminating in the tragic Battle at Mohács in 1526. The idea itself is much older and can be traced in the Hungarian environment at least since the reign of King Béla IV. It was under his rule that the country suffered tremendously under the raids of the Mongols in 1241 and 1242, and it was in this context that King Béla, advocating the need for help from the pope and the western monarchs, used the designation of Hungary as the Antemurale Christianitatis.39 Indeed, the final period of the medieval Kingdom of Hungary, i.e., from the failed crusade of Nicopolis in 1396 and the death of the last medieval king of Hungary Louis II at Mohács in 1526, was marked by the Ottoman threat and the need for an adequate military response. On several occasions, the Hungarian troops, led by their kings, joined forces with western armies in crusading efforts that were supposed to repulse and halt the Turkish advance to Europe. Religious rituals of war, crusading rhetoric and religious interpretation were used in these encounters repeatedly.40 2.1 1396 The 1396 Nicopolis crusade was planned as a magnificent force show of the Christian knights gathered from various corners of the continent.41 The Hungarian king, Sigismund of Luxembourg, was backed by troops from French, Burgundian, and German lords who listened to the papal exhortations and traveled to the Danube borders to halt the invasion of the Ottomans led by Sultan Bayezid I. Despite numerous eyewitness accounts of the battle, the main reason of the tragic loss of the Christian army remains doubted. The widely accepted 38 Allison Frank, “The Pleasant and the Useful: Pilgrimage and Tourism in Habsburg Mariazell,” Austrian History Yearbook 40 (2009): 157–82 at 162. 39 János M. Bak, “Hungary and Crusading in the Fifteenth Century,” in Crusading in the Fifteenth Century, ed. Norman Housley (Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan, 2004), 116–27 at 118. 40 Tamás Pálosfalvi, From Nicopolis to Mohács: A History of Ottoman-Hungarian Warfare, 1389– 1526, The Ottoman Empire and its heritage 63 (Leiden and Boston MA: Brill, 2018); Norman Housley, Religious Warfare in Europe, 1400–1536 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002). 41 Georgios Theotokis, Twenty Battles that Shaped Medieval Europe (Ramsbury: Robert Hale, 2019), 170–83; David Nicolle, Nicopolis 1396 (Oxford: Osprey, 1999).

Religious Warfare at the Eastern Borders of Latin Christendom

221

interpretation blames the restlessness and vanity of French and Burgundian men-at-arms for the premature charge, which brought the Christian army into a trap and disallowed any efficient maneuvers of the remaining Hungarian forces. Additionally, the surprise attack by the hidden forces of the Serbian prince Stephen Lazarević was supposed to inflict the final blow to the crusaders.42 After the falling on the ground of the Hungarian royal banner, which was presumably guarded by the ban of Croatia, Slavonia and Bosnia, Nicholas II of Gara, the troops started a hasty retreat in the direction of the Danube river and were routed and annihilated by the Ottoman foes as the consequence.43 From the scattered evidence, we can reconstruct a few religious rituals of war connected to the Battle of Nicopolis. We learn that in the skirmishes preceding the decisive battle the French knightly troops charged their enemies with the Our lady! battle cry.44 The combatants and the clergy imitated the behavior of the first crusaders before their assault on Jerusalem in 1099, spending the night in prayers and organizing religious processions to invoke God and his saints to provide help to his soldiers.45 According to the narrative preserved in the chronicle of the Saint-Denis monk (Chronique du Religieux de Saint-Denys), King Sigismund together with the leaders of the knightly western armies made solemn promises for the success of the Christian army. The clergy and the people invoked heavenly aid by taking part in ceremonial processions and fervent prayers. The whole church was participating in these rites by performing prayers and clamors during masses, where priests implored God with their hands raised to the sky. They all prayed for the success of the Christian army, that God saves his loyal followers, and not deliver them to the mercy of those who blasphemed the name of God.46 One of the main heroes of the Nicopolis Campaign was the French marshal, Jean II le Meingre, called Boucicaut. In his chivalric biography, he is portrayed as one of the leaders of the crusader army together with Count Jean of Nevers, 42 43 44 45 46

Magyarország hadtörténete, 229–235; Pálosfalvi, From Nicopolis, 55–65. Pálosfalvi, From Nicopolis, 64, Nicolle, Nicopolis 1396, 64. Nicolle, Nicopolis 1396, 48. Gaposchkin, Invisible Weapons, 127. Chronique du Religieux de Saint-Denys, ed. Bernard Guenée, 6 vols. (Paris: Éditions du Comité des travaux historiques et scientifiques, 1994), 2:496: “Ut ad votum christicolis cuncta possent succedere rex et magnates Francie desideranter optabant, et per regnum viri ecclesiastici, vulgus quoque promiscuum processionibus percelebris et oracionibus devotis divinas aures pulsabant. Fiebant pro ipsis oraciones in celebracione divinorum ab universa Ecclesia, et ex pansis manibus sacerdotes sine intermissione orabant ad Dominum ut parceret populo suo, et ne daret blaphemantibus nomen suum in opprobrium gentes suas.”

222

Zupka

Admiral Jean of Vienne and Philip of Artois, count of Eu. On the day of the battle, 25 September, the count: entrusted the banner of Our Lady—which the French commonly display in battle—to Jean of Vienne, admiral of France, as the most valiant and most experienced of those present; the banner was raised, as was right, in the centre of the host. And all equipment and weapons were deployed as appropriate to the circumstances.47 So, besides the royal banner of King Sigismund, another banner is attested, the one that portrayed the Mother of God. The French knights took this banner and with the battle cry invoking God and Virgin Mary they charged their enemies.48 Admiral Jean of Vienne was one of the bravest fighters, but also one of those who were killed in the battle. According to the sources, he valiantly fought until the last breath and made sure to protect the Virgin’s standard as long as possible. He was said to have raised the banner six times, and each time it fell on the ground under the Ottoman attack.49 All in vain, the crusaders did not receive the heavenly support they were expecting, and the battle ended in tragic defeat.50 Hundreds of crusaders were killed in the battle, several thousands were executed just after the fighting on Bayezid’s order. Only the most important and rich were spared for future ransom. King Sigismund barely escaped alive and had to undergo a painful and lengthy travel on a Venetian boat via Constantinople before he was able to reach Hungary again in early 1397.51 According to the eyewitness account of Johannes Schiltberger who, at age sixteen, was a member of a Bavarian crusader contingent, the captured Christians were perceiving themselves as soldiers of Christ and therefore they expected the highest reward for their fight for the true religion. Schiltberger narrates how a Bavarian nobleman, Hannsen Greiff, exhorted his fellow captives to face death with the courage of the martyrs for 47 The Chivalric Biography of Boucicaut, Jean II Le Meingre, ed. and trans. Craig Taylor and Jane H.M. Taylor (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2016), 65. 48 Chronique du Religieux de Saint-Denys, 2:504–5; Nicolle, Nicopolis 1396, 53. 49 Chronique du Religieux de Saint-Denys, 2:515. 50 Unlike in 1099, the crusaders were not considered to be worthy of divine help because of their unholy behavior and the breaking of oaths and promises. They were supposed to lead unholy life and disregard the true Christian way of life. Chronique du Religieux de Saint-Denys, 2:496: “Quas preces tamen miserator Dominus minime exaudivit, quia forsan pro quibus effundebantur non digni gracia sunt inventi.” The chronicler juxtaposes this behavior to Bayezid’s men who, although enemies of God (from the Christian perspective), acted in manner befitting a holy army. 51 Magyarország hadtörténete, 229–35.

Religious Warfare at the Eastern Borders of Latin Christendom

223

the sake of Christian belief and as true children of God: “Stand firm, he said, when our blood this day is spilt for the Christian faith, and we by God’s help shall become the children of heaven.”52 The carnage then lasted throughout the whole day and almost 10,000 Christian warriors were supposed to have been executed on Bayezid’s order. Other contemporary sources also perceived those who died in the Nicopolis crusade as martyrs of the faith. Boucicaut’s biographer often uses expressions such as “tragic martyrdom,” “companions martyred,” and “place of martyrdom,” to describe the faith of the fallen knights who will surely become saints in paradise.53 The author then ends his narrative with a clear assessment of the deceased crusaders and the religious ceremonies organized for their salvation in their homelands: And all our lords ordered Masses for the dead, and had services said in their chapels for the good lords, knights and squires, and all the Christians, who had perished. The king ordered a solemn Mass at Notre Dame, and he and all his court were present. It inspired pity to hear the bells ring out across all the churches in Paris where Masses were sung and prayers said on behalf of the dead, and all who heard them fell to prayer and to grieving—although it is perhaps we who need the comfort of prayer, rather than those who are, if God wills it, saints in paradise.54 The same religious ceremonies are recorded in the report by the religious of Saint-Denis.55 One last detail connected to the religious remembrance of the Nicopolis battle was added in the late fifteenth century by Hungarian historian János Thuróczy in his Historia Hungarorum (1488). According to this testimony, the coat of arms of the blossom of Hungarian and European knighthood gathered at the gates of Nicopolis was portrayed on pictures that were later hung on the walls of the Abbey of St. Nicholas the Confessor in Buda. They remained there until Thuroczy’s lifetime as a silent memento of the fallen warriors.56 52 Bondage and Travels of Johann Schiltberger: A Native of Bavaria, in Europe, Asia, and Africa, 1396–1427, trans. J. Buchan Telfer, notes Philip Brunn (Farnham and Burlington VT: Ashgate, 2010; 1st ed. London: Hakluyt Society, 1879), 5. 53 The Chivalric Biography of Boucicaut, Jean II Le Meingre, 69–70. 54 Ibid., 72. 55 Chronique du Religieux de Saint-Denys, 2:522–23: “Ut autem eorum anime Domino reco­ mmendarentur devote, edicto regio, nona die januarii, in cunctis ecclesiis Parisiensis civitatis solemnes exequie fuerunt celebrate. Et hujus urbis exemplum alie postmodum sunt sequte, fideliumque animabus debita impenderunt obsequia.” 56 Johannes de Thurocz, Chronica Hungarorum, I. Textus, chap. 203, ed. Elisabeth Gálantai and Julius Kristó (Budapest: Akadémiai kiadó, 1985), 214 (hereafter Thurocz, Chron.

224

Zupka

2.2 1444 The crusade of Varna was the final chapter in a long series of campaigns that preceded it in previous decades. The most important was the so-called long march (1443–1444) which brought some success for the Christian army and secured the southern Hungarian borders from the Muslim conquest. The main military expert and leader was a Hungarian nobleman, János Hunyadi, who acted as the most important figure during the reign of Władysław Jagiellon of Poland and Hungary (Hung.: I Ulászló, Pol. Władysław III Warneńczyk) and the minority of Ladislas V. The traditional views saw the battle as almost won by the crusaders when suddenly they were fooled by a false retreat by the Ottomans, which provoked a reckless and hasty attack by Władysław that ended in a disaster. It is true that according to a letter written by János Hunyadi, the Hungarian army was quite self-confident, and a certain sense of holy temerity (pia temeritas) was present among the troops.57 Alongside János Hunyadi and King Władyslaw, Cardinal Cesarini served as the papal legate who preached the crusade, distributing indulgences and remissions of sins. From the other prelates involved in the Battle of Varna, we can mention Bishop Giovanni of Várad, Simon of Eger (both died in the battle), and Rafael of Bosnia (survived). The battle took place on 10 November in the vicinity of the town of Varna, where the Christian army met with the forces of Sultan Murad II, who had a numerical superiority of three to one.58 The crusaders arrayed their ranks, King Władysław stood in the middle in front of the heavy cavalry next to palatine Stephen Bátori who served as the royal standard-bearer.59 The standard in Báthory’s hands was decorated with the image of St. George, one of the most prominent military saints of the Middle Ages. Just before the battle was about to begin a traditional series of religious rites of war was performed by the leading lay and ecclesiastic figures, including the king and the papal legate. According to the German poet Michael Beheim’s account: The King, the Legate and this Hunadienusch [i.e., János Hunyadi] rode about the army admonishing the people that they should not lose the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that they should prepare themselves Hung.); János Thuróczy, Chronicle of the Hungarians, chap. 203, trans. Frank Mantello (Bloomington IN: Indiana University, Research Institute for Inner Asian Studies, 1991), 56. 57 Pálosfalvi, From Nicopolis, 133–34. 58 John Jefferson, The Holy Wars of King Wladislas and Sultan Murad: The Ottoman-Christian Conflict from 1438–1444, History of warfare 76 (Leiden and Boston MA: Brill, 2012), 465. 59 The Crusade of Varna, 1443–45, ed. and trans. Colin Imber, CTT 14 (Aldershot and Burlington VT: Ashgate, 2006), 172.

Religious Warfare at the Eastern Borders of Latin Christendom

225

for battle. This was quickly done. If anyone had not confessed, the Legate would give him a blessing and absolution as if he had confessed. Their sin was lightened through this campaign and war.60 What we have here is the classic religious preparation for decisive military encounter with non-Christian troops. The crusade, sanctioned by the pope and preached by Cardinal Cesarini, was using the rhetoric of the holy war and treated the crusaders as real soldiers of Christ. Their confessed sins were cleansed and in case they would not have time to confess, the act of fighting for the faith in an ecclesiastically sanctioned crusade was legitimate enough to absolve the warriors. The first part of the Christian army destroyed was the right wing, where only the standard-bearer, Ban Franko Talovac, and Cardinal Cesarini stood the ground and protected the St. Ladislas banner with 200 men at their disposal. They rounded the standard with their lances turned outside and so prevented the enemies from dispersing them. Not even their great numerical superiority allowed the Turks to get possession of the banner of St. Ladislas.61 Then, a sudden retreat of Murad’s men gave the Christian troops some relief. János Hunyadi, due to his considerable experience fighting the Ottomans, expected it to be a traditional rouse and proposed that the crusaders remain in their positions. According to the sources, he was unexpectedly interrupted by Cardinal Cesarini and King Władysław, who opposed this plan and asked for immediate charge on the retreating Ottomans. The papal legate even threatened all those who would not join them in the attack with excommunication, and he ordered a cross to be carried in front of the troops.62 The initial Christian attack seemed to be successful and King Wladyslaw was supposed to almost reach Sultan Murad in person, but then suddenly his horse was killed and he fell on the ground where the enemies slew him and cut off his head right on the spot. The head was put on a pike and shown to the fighting troops to boost the morale of the Muslim army. At the same time, Cardinal Cesarini and István Bátori were killed too. Báthory was said to die with the banner of St. George held tightly in his hand. The Christian army was routed and annihilated.63 60 Ibid., 176. 61 Jefferson, Holy Wars, 463 (quoting Pallatio): “Of these four banners the banner of Saint Ladislas remained erect and intact, although nearly all of the soldiers had fled. The legate [Cesarini] and the Ban Franko [Thalloci] declined to flee and rallied to the banner with hardly 200 knights. Part indeed of the Turks cut down and slew the Hungarians dispersed here and there and some of them overturned the wagons and plundered them. Still others surrounded the banner of St. Ladislas and assaulted it in earnest.” 62 The Crusade of Varna, 132; Pálosfalvi, From Nicopolis, 136–39. 63 Pálosfalvi, From Nicopolis, 139–41; Magyarország hadtörténete, 258–61.

226

Zupka

Similarly to Nicopolis, the Varna disaster was perceived by contemporaries as a just punishment from God because of the sins of the Christian army. The guilt was attributed especially to Cardinal Cesarini and János Hunyadi, as they were said to break the oaths made before the battle. Despite the detailed accounts of the battle and the testimonies about king Wladyslaw’s death, the majority of Hungarian political representation still believed he escaped the battle and would reappear to claim his throne again. That much, at least, can be deduced from the Hungarian diet that met in the spring of 1445 and proclaimed the royal throne to become vacant in case of Władysław not showing up to claim it by the end of May of that year.64 2.3 1456 János Hunyadi survived the Varna catastrophe and continued his extraordinary political and military career. He became the most important figure in Hungary during the minority of the young King Ladislas V Posthumous. His reputation in local historical memory did not diminish, despite the Varna defeat and another setback encountered at the second Battle of Kosovo Polje in 1448.65 His final military enterprise was the only one that earned him success—the legendary siege of Belgrade in 1456.66 The Belgrade campaign is a very good issue for the examination of the use of religious rituals of war. A relatively abundant number of contemporary sources and eyewitness accounts make it possible to reconstruct the pre-battle rituals, post-battle celebrations, and even rituals performed in combat. These include the use of religious military and holy war rhetoric, the application of a specific battle cry, the use of religious banners, active participation of the clergy in the fighting, and a sort of a profectio bellica organized just before the decisive battle took place. This time again Hunyadi played a key role. However, in Belgrade he was overshadowed by another extraordinary figure of contemporary Christian-Muslim warfare, a charismatic Observant Franciscan and an ardent preacher of the crusade, Giovanni da Capistrano. Capistrano spent the last decade or so preaching a general crusade aimed to stop Sultan Mehmed II and his conquest of Southeastern Europe. Acquiring papal approval, reflected in the papal proclamation of a general crusade in 1455, Capistrano and his observant brothers devotedly preached the crusade in Germany, Hungary, Poland, and Bohemia.67 64 65 66 67

Pálosfalvi, From Nicopolis, 142. Magyarország hadtörténete, 261–64. Engel, The Realm of St Stephen, 295–97; Magyarország hadtörténete, 264–71. Liviu Pilat and Ovidiu Cristea, The Ottoman Threat and Crusading on the Eastern Border of Christendom during the 15th Century, ECEE 48 (Leiden and Boston MA: Brill, 2018), 128; Engel, The Realm of St Stephen, 296.

Religious Warfare at the Eastern Borders of Latin Christendom

227

In February of 1456, Capistrano officially received the cross and the papal license to preach the crusade in Hungary from the papal legate Carvajal in Buda. From April to July, despite being already seventy years old, he covered approximately a distance of 600 kilometers on foot during his preaching tour.68 He became the decisive personality of the 1456 crusade as his enthusiasm and charismatic behavior enabled him to marshal a large crusader army composed mainly of peasants, beggars, clerics, friars, students, and servants. This “army of the poor” became a response of the ordinary people fed up with the hesitance and inability of the Hungarian magnates and the young king to organize an essential campaign against the Turkish threat in the border regions in southern Hungary.69 Modern historiography agrees on the role of both Hunaydi and Capistrano, and scholars tend to favor one of the leaders over the other as their hero according to their preferences and the sources they have used. What seems to be reasonable is that Hunaydi’s military training, skills, and experience provided a substantial basis for the success of the whole Belgrade campaign. On the other hand, it was Giovanni da Capistrano, whose lionhearted courage and inextricable devotion to the crusade provided the decisive impetus in three major phases of the siege: 1) in Slankamen when he persuaded Hunyadi to crush the Danube blockade of Mehmed’s fleet on 14 July; 2) on the night of 20/21 July in Belgrade when he opposed Hunyadi’s plan to evacuate the citadel before the Ottoman attack, and 3) during the night attack on Mary Magdalene’s day 21/22 July, when he lead and exhorted the crusader army that crushed the Ottoman troops and ended the siege definitively.70 According to contemporary sources, the crusader camp led by friar Giovanni resembled more a religious gathering than a military unit. Fervent devotional spirit, strict discipline, and extreme loyalty towards Capistrano were the essential features of the military force. When the warriors came to the camp, they all were welcomed by the charismatic preacher and received blessings from him on their knees. The friar celebrated holy masses under the open sky daily as did his companions, brothers Observants. Capistrano delivered fierce speeches

68

Norman Housley, “Giovanni da Capistrano and the Crusade of 1456,” in Crusading in the Fifteenth Century, 94–115 at 96–97. 69 Miriam Hlavačková, “‘Vale, pater optime, et veni’: The Cult of St. John of Capistrano in the Territory of Present-Day Slovakia in the Middle Ages,” Historický Časopis 69.5 (2021): 815–37 at 818. 70 Johannes Hofer, Johannes Kapistran. Ein Leben im Kampf um die Reform der Kirche, Bibliotheca Franciscana 2 (Heidelberg: Kerle, 1965), 406–7.

228

Zupka

against the heathen Turks and distributed the Holy Eucharist to all the combatants, sometimes even to whole regiments.71 The first breakthrough came on 14 July, when the Christian troops decided to lift the Danube blockade provided by Mehmed’s 200 vessels a few kilometers above Belgrade. On the morning of the attack, Capistrano awarded all the warriors a general absolution and asked them to loudly cry out thrice Jesus! He then personally led the marching crusaders from Slankamen on the bank of Danube and appointed a certain noble, Peter, to hold the crusader standard. Around eight in the morning, the present Christian clergy started to chant antiphons, which signaled the beginning of their attack.72 Giovanni then ordered a huge crusader banner to be unfolded, and he took a cross and started to pray loudly to heavens to support the warriors. He called upon crusaders in the name of Jesus and cast diverse curses aimed at the Muslim enemies. The Christian fleet succeeded and crushed the Ottoman fleet, and thus ended a long-lasting blockade of the Danube which was crucial for delivering supplies and reinforcements to Belgrade. The poor crusaders unanimously credited the help of God as the source of their victory and, therefore, after a spontaneous victory celebration, decided to make sure the noble Hungarians who were unwilling to take part in the operation would not get their hand on the booty extracted from the Turks. They decided instead to burn all the booty right on the spot. Only two pieces of precious clothes were spared and delivered to Capistrano. He forwarded these objects to the papal legate, Carvajal, as the insigne of the great crusader victory.73 The most important contemporary sources that depict the atmosphere of the Belgrade siege come from people close to Capistrano and the Franciscan Observant movement.74 Giovanni of Tagliacozzo and Nicolas of Fara provided the most vivid details. In their renditions, the whole crusader camp was literally absorbed by the devotional aspect of the campaign and its salvific nature was stressed repeatedly. Capistrano himself exhorted the warriors—most of them ordinary people and poor clerics and monks with no military experience 71 72 73 74

Ibid., 390–93. Ibid., 387. Ibid., 388–89. Franz Babinger, Der Quellenwert der Berichte über den Entsatz von Belgrad am 21./22. Juli 1456, Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse. Sitzungsberichte 6 (Munich: Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1957) gives the best overview of the sources and provides essential bibliographic references. Recently, an English translation of most important sources appeared in The Crusade of 1456: Texts and Documents in Translation, trans. James D. Mixson (Toronto, Buffalo NY, and London: University of Toronto Press, 2022).

Religious Warfare at the Eastern Borders of Latin Christendom

229

whatsoever. He decided that their lack of military skills must be evened by their religious zeal and persuasion of the just cause for which they fought and, presumably, died. He urged them to remember that the day of salvation was coming, that the gates of heaven will be opened on the day of the battle and that martyrdom and remission of sins will be the prizes to be won.75 The main religious leaders, including Capistrano, were staunch supporters of the Franciscan Observant spirituality and that could be felt in the crusader camp. Several military banners were used, all of them with strong religious connotations. Capistrano’s banner depicted St. Bernard of Siena, the crusaders marched under the standards of St. Francis of Assisi, Anthony of Padova, and Louis of Toulouse. Tagliacozzo stressed in his account that the warriors attempted to seek saintly aid in the upcoming battle. Capistrano exhorted the crusaders to accept the martyrdom and salvation that were waiting for them on the battlefield. According to the sources, many of the crusaders were fully convinced by this rhetoric and therefore immediately after making confession and receiving the Eucharist headed fearlessly into the battle to meet a sudden death. The use of the battle cry was also wisely chosen. Calling loud Jesus! when charging their enemies, the crusaders expressed their belief, unity, and loyalty for the holy cause. In imitation of the biblical models (Galatians 6:14), the friar ordered the decoration with a red cross of all objects from portable altars to sacerdotal vestments.76 The Belgrade siege had in this respect two dominant religious military symbols: the battle cry using the Name of Jesus and the symbol of the cross. These two symbols of religious warfare were mentioned also in the local Hungarian historiography. The Chronica Hungarorum of János Thuróczy (1488) states explicitly that: A very great number of Hungarians assembled, people who were marked with the sign of the cross by the aforementioned friar Giovanni da Capistrano and were ready to fight for the name of Christ … Amongst the Turks their loud battle-cry abounded, and the Hungarians too, with loud voices called upon the lord Jesus for assistance.77

75 Housley, “Giovanni da Capistrano,” 104. 76 Ibid., 104–5, 109. 77 Thurocz, Chron. Hung., 268: “Confluunt Hungarice plurime per dictum fratrem Iohannem de Capistrano cruce signate gentes pro Christi nomine pugnature … Ingens exuberat in Thurcis clamor, et Hungari quoque vocibus altis dominum Iesum pro auxilio invocabant”; János Thuróczy, Chronicle of the Hungarians, 176–77.

230

Zupka

The widespread use of the Name of Jesus battle-cry is attested also by Capistrano himself. In a series of three letters written hastily from the camp right after the end of the battle to Pope Calixtus III, he stressed that the miraculous victory in Belgrade was the outcome of God’s favor and mercy and that the crusaders succeeded because they fought under the protection of Jesus and invoked his holy name.78 The religious preparations for the decisive battle intensified before the attack of 21 July. Capistrano repeatedly exhorted the warriors to put their hope in the Name of Jesus. His heralds walked through the crusader camp and declared that victory can be attained only via the Name of Jesus—and so transformed it into the victorious battle cry. It is believed that Capistrano paid so much attention to the religious encouragement to compensate for the low military skills of his poorly trained rustic fighters (pauperes et rudes), volunteers coming from different ethnic but also religious environments. Therefore, in sharp contrast to his prior rigid orthodox stance, Capistrano declared religious peace during the campaign. Catholics were to be joined by schismatics, heretics and even Jews were welcomed in this great “holy army.” They all were treated as brothers, united in their fight against the common enemy—the Ottoman Turks. The only condition for being allowed to fight in the host was to promise to charge the enemy crying out loud Jesus! 79 When the rumors came to the Christian headquarters that the Ottoman attack is imminent, there was a meeting of the war leaders. János Hunyadi and Mihály Szilágyi advised moving out from the Belgrade citadel. Here a situation reminiscent of Varna occurred. Again, the advice of Hunyadi, the most skilled and trained military leader, was questioned by a religious leader, this time by Capistrano himself. The friar made a vehement intrusion into the debate and refused to leave the citadel, which would result in giving it away to the enemy. He made it clear he was not willing to discuss the matter and therefore Hunyadi conceded (again) and decided that Szilágyi and his men backed by the crusaders should defend the citadel. Fortunately for the Christian army, this time, the advice of the religious leader proved to be a good one and the following Turkish attack on the citadel had been repulsed. Despite the clear order and explicit prohibition of any attempts to chase the retreating Ottoman forces, 78

Michael Bihl, “Duae epistolae S. Johannis a Capistrano altera ad Laodislaum regem, altera de victoria Belgradensi (1453–1456),” Archivum Franciscanum Historicum 19 (1926), 63–75, here epistola altera at 72–75, quotations at 72: “domino nostro Ihesu Christo, sub cuius nominis invocacione hanc gloriosam victoriam suam dignatus est nobis prestare,” 73: “ut me acclamante et nomen sanctissimum invocante, omnes Ihesum altissimis vocibus acclamarent.” 79 Hofer, Johannes Kapistran, 394.

Religious Warfare at the Eastern Borders of Latin Christendom

231

this is precisely what happened on 22 July.80 Boosted by the unexpected success in the citadel the crusaders, exhorted by their fervent preachers, walked out of the citadel and chased the enemies as far as their camp, which they were already gradually evacuating. Both Observant and Hungarian sources depict the key role of Capistrano during the battles of the 21 and 22 July. In the early morning of the first battle the friar delivered an ardent exhortation to the troops, asking them to obey the commandment of Mihály Szilágyi, he sent five preachers to the citadel and he himself returned to the camp. As mentioned by János Thuróczy, the Turks started the attack on the Belgrade citadel by sounding music with drums and trumpets, the Christians responded by chanting, waving banners, and crying out the Name of Jesus. Capistrano and his followers watched the fighting from a nearby post and incessantly prayed for the success of the crusaders. Capistrano, in a divine rage, then mounted an elevated place accompanied by his standard-bearer, holding the cross in his right hand, and alternately prayed to the heavenly powers and exhorted the fighting men. The Hungarian sources stressed the share of the Hungarian military leaders in the combat, but similarly to Fara and Tagliacozzo, admitted the fundamental role of Capistrano and his friars: “As if in a trance, he (Capistrano) and other friars, who with him had prostrated themselves on the ground, were with groans offering prayers, their thoughts and hands raised up for help from on high and their eyes fixed on heaven.”81 János Hunyadi, the military commander and the greatest hero of the Turkish wars in Hungarian and Central European historiography, remained during both decisive battles on 21 and 22 July in an observation post outside Belgrade on the bank of the Danube River.82 His assistance was primarily limited to strategic decisions and tactical maneuvers he prepared and ordered from his provisional headquarters, rather than in active fighting. Despite this, the historical tradition presents Hunyadi as the greatest hero of the Hungarian-Ottoman warfare in the 1440s and 1450s. Disregarding that his command had been undermined by the decision of Cardinal Cesarini and King Władyslaw to attack Murad in Varna in 1444, which lead to the catastrophic defeat of the crusaders, and Hunyadi also suffered a tremendous loss at the Battle of Kosovo Polje in 1448. 80 Pálosfalvi, From Nicopolis, 185. 81 Thurocz, Chron. Hung., 270: “Hic velut in extasi positus et ceteri fratres cum illo humo tenus provoluti levata ad summum auxilium mente manibusque et oculis in celum defixis gemebundi orabant”; János Thuróczy, Chronicle of the Hungarians, 179. 82 See the sketches of the battlefield and the deployment of particular regiments provided in Babinger, Der Quellenwert, 17; and Hofer, Johannes Kapistran, 379. Most recently also in Magyarország hadtörténete, 268.

232

Zupka

In Belgrade, in the summer of 1456, his order to evacuate the citadel was again overcharged by Capistrano’s fervent religious zeal to stand and fight. In contradiction to Varna and Kosovo Polje, the Belgrade siege was the great victory of the Christian army and an unprecedented boost of morale for crusaders after the fall of Constantinople in 1453. This is also shown by the Hungarian chronicler, who inserted another important detail for the overall assessment of the Belgrade crusade. Mehmed II, the proud Sultan who wished to rule the entire world, had been defeated by a rustic band that was better with hoes than weapons.83 Therefore, it might seem a bit surprising that on the very next day following the victory, 23 July, Capistrano performed a religious ceremony of discharging the crusaders. According to Tagliacozzo he gave them his blessing and exhorted them to enjoy the great victory awarded to them by God, and then permitted them to depart.84 The crusader troops started to leave Belgrade immediately and dispersed to their homelands. Historians proposed several interpretations of the reasons behind the abrupt end of the Belgrade crusade. What seems to be the most plausible explanation is the distrust and tensions between the poor crusaders of Capistrano and the troops of the Hungarian nobles. It has been stressed that while Mihály Szilágyi and János Hunyadi’s contributions to the victory cannot be denied, it is true that in the decisive moments of the siege, the crusaders were left on their own.85 The sources claim that after the fighting the crusader leaders sent heralds to publicly announce that the victory was by no means achieved with the help of the Hungarian barons, but only thanks to the Name of Jesus and His Cross, and the prayers and efforts performed by friar Giovanni da Capistrano.86 It is no surprise, therefore, that the tensions and unrest continued between the different parts of the troops. In addition, there was a constant fear of the plague that was ravaging the Ottoman army and that was already present in the crusader camp too. The leaders of the campaign also could not secure enough provisions for the entire army. Given all these circumstances, Capistrano decided to discharge his warriors and asked them to leave the Belgrade camp. Only after this was done, Hunyadi returned from his observation post and entered Belgrade. Capistrano acknowledged the need to halt the ongoing campaign, but he certainly did not give up his plans for future crusades. He spent the following days preaching the need for a new campaign 83 János Thuróczy, Chronicle of the Hungarians, 182. 84 Housley, “Giovanni da Capistrano,” 99. 85 Ibid., 98. For a different perspective, see Pálosfalvi, From Nicopolis, 174–87; Magyarország hadtörténete, 264–71. 86 Hofer, Johannes Kapistran, 409.

Religious Warfare at the Eastern Borders of Latin Christendom

233

and presented his immensely courageous visions: he dreamt about celebrating the next Christmas Mass at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem.87 Indeed, the echo of the 1456 Belgrade victory resonated immensely not only in Hungary and the regions directly threatened by the Ottoman conquest. The successful lifting of the siege was acclaimed throughout Europe. Thomas Gascoine was supposed to deliver a laudatory predication in Oxford, Nicholas of Cusa did the same in Neustift. Pope Calixtus III ordered intercessory celebrations to be performed in all the churches in Christendom before the battle: he ordered prayers, fasting and penance to be devoted to the success of the campaign, while intercessory processions were to be performed every first Sunday of the month. Each mass was supposed to be accompanied by singing of the Missa contra paganos and the priest celebrating the liturgy was expected to pray explicitly for the Christians in their fight against pagans.88 When the news of the miraculous victory reached the pope, he ordered that every church should remember this event by ringing bells precisely at noon (a habit, which persists in many European countries until today). The great upheaval caused by the Belgrade miracle did not materialize in a successive military campaign. The tragic dimension of the whole story was shown when two main protagonists (and rivals) of the campaign died shortly after the siege of Belgrade. János Hunyadi died only few weeks after the end of the siege on 11 August and Capistrano followed on 23 October, both most likely fell victim to the plague that spread around the region.89 The death of Hunyadi and Capistrano prevented any real military campaign to push back the Turks from East Central and Southeastern Europe. Nevertheless, the humiliating defeat by the rustic army left an indelible mark on Mehmed II’s reign and changed his military policy. In fact, the Ottomans gave up any major military invasions to Hungary for more than 65 years.90 The memory of the grandiose victory at Belgrade in the summer of 1456 remained vivid and served as a strong point of reference that success is possible in Christian-Muslim warfare. An extraordinary visual artifact recalls these events. In around 1468 the Franciscan church in Moravian town Olomouc was decorated with a large fresco depicting the siege of Belgrade (fig. 6.4). One finds the Belgrade citadel circled with high walls under attack by the Ottoman army. One of the figures represented is believed to be János Hunyadi, but the central 87

Pálosfalvi, From Nicopolis, 187; Hofer, Johannes Kapistran, 410; Housley, “Giovanni da Capistrano,” 108. 88 Pilat and Cristea, The Ottoman Threat, 129; Housley, “Giovanni da Capistrano,” 111. 89 Engel, The Realm of St Stephen, 296; Hlavačková, “‘Vale, pater optime,’” 836. 90 Magyarország hadtörténete, 271.

234

Zupka

Figure 6.4 Gothic fresco Siege of Belgrade (1456) in the Church of Immaculate Conception of Virgin Mary in Olomouc, Czech Republic from 1468 (unveiled in 1983–1985). License: CC BY 4.0 Photo by Michal Maňas. Reproduced from: w.wiki/5awy

role is given to Giovanni da Capistrano. The Observant friar stands on the city walls holding a book and picture of the Man of Sorrows, praying, and blessing the Christian army in their fight against the Turks. This (most probably the oldest) depiction of the battle actualizes quite reliably the atmosphere of the Belgrade siege based on contemporary accounts.91 Papal politics also reflected the ongoing developments. In his famous oration Cum bellum hodie, Pope Pius II in 1458 actualized the image of Hungary as the bulwark of Christendom which bore the responsibility of defending Christianity from the Ottoman threat. As stated above, this rhetoric was present already since the reign of Béla IV and his struggle with the Mongol invasion in the 1240s. It could also be observed as a widespread political discourse in the post-Nicopolis period (1396–1526), represented in the ideas of defensive crusading and the Antemurale Christianitatis.92 In 1458 in Mantua, Pope Pius II promoted these ideas to a new level: 91 Antonín Kalous and Jan Stejskal, “The Image of John of Capistrano in Bohemia and Moravia,” in The Mission of John Capestrano and the Process of Europe Making in the 15th Century: State of the Art, ed. Letizia Pellegrini (Rome: Viella, forthc. 2023). 92 Bak, “Hungary,” 118.

Religious Warfare at the Eastern Borders of Latin Christendom

235

And do not think it will take long before he comes against you, for the neighboring peoples have been so worn down by war that they will not dare to take up arms unless you come to their assistance. Only the faithful Hungarians persevere, but they cannot hold out long unless they are given help. They have, indeed, been a bulwark for you towards the East, and if that bulwark is destroyed, neither the Germans, nor the Bohemians, nor the Poles will be safe. Neither craggy mountains nor deep rivers will be a barrier. If Hungary is defeated, nothing stands in the way of the Turks in their quest for world empire.93 If the Nicopolis and Varna crusades failed, it was because of the impious behavior of the crusaders. The example to be imitated was made clear in the siege of Belgrade, which was successful not because of arms and a multitude of warriors, but only thanks to the piety, faith and religious rites performed by the humble crusaders. According to the pope, the Belgrade crusade served as a desirable pattern to be followed: Maybe you think that the Turks, having conquered Greece, are stronger today than they were formerly. But the Battle of Taurinum, fought only three years ago, shows how they really are. In olden days, the city lying at the confluence of the rivers Sava and Danube was called Taurinum. In our times, some call it Alba and others Belgrade. Except for its location, it is not an important castle. The Turks tried to conquer it with all their might, and a ferocious battle went on day and night. The Christian soldiers defending the city were a small band of crusaders, neither noble, rich, experienced in war, nor well-armed, but primitive and disorganized farmers. Still, they managed to defeat the Turks, opposing their enemies not with swords, but with faith. They defeated the arrogant Turkish ruler who had until then been considered invincible and called the terror of peoples. They forced him to lift the siege, to abandon camp, and to flee in shame.94 93 Oration “Cum bellum hodie” of Pope Pius II (26 September 1459, Mantua), chap. 18, in Collected Orations of Pope Pius II, ed. and trans. Michael von Cotta-Schönberg, 3rd ed., 9 vols. (Saarbrücken: Scholars’ Press, 2019), 8:56–219, here at 136–37 (Orations 43–51 [1459–1459]): “Neque arbitremini longam moram, priusquam vos adeat. Nam vicinae illae gentes tot bellis attritae, nisi opem fertis, amplius arma capere non audeant. Soli fideles Hungari perseverant, non tamen diu stabunt, nisi adjuti. Et hi quidem muri loco vobis ad orientem remanserunt, quo diruto neque Theutones, neque Bohemi, neque Poloni satis tuti erunt. Non asperi montes, non alta flumina iter impedient. Nihil erit victa Hungaria Turcis invium, nihil insuperabile orbis imperium quaerentibus.” 94 Ibid., chap. 22, pp. 150–51: “Sed arbitramini fortasse meliores hodie Turcos esse victa Graecia quam olim fuerunt? At quales sint, pugna Taurinensis ostendit anno ab hinc

236

Zupka

2.4 1526 Thanks to the interest of the papal curia in Hungary and East Central Europe as the place of confrontation between the Christian and the Muslim world, numerous accounts of the papal legates survive until our days. A report from 20 July 1526 written in Italian most probably by the papal nuncio, Antonio Giovanni da Burgio and preserved in the Vatican Secret Archive recounts the ceremonial departure, sort of late medieval profecio bellica of Louis II King of Hungary and Bohemia from his capital Buda to the Mohács battlefield.95 The whole departure is set in a devotional spirit and offers several important details. To be sure, it seems that the attempts to veil the military preparations for the Turkish campaign into a holy war context seem evident also from several previous sources. The young king was urged by his Hungarian prelates to return to the country and to fulfill the duties of the Holy Kings of Hungary. In 1523 therefore, it seems that Louis actively supported the translation of the relics of Peter the Hermit. These relics were traditionally kept in Hungary but got lost in the course of the turbulent fifteenth century, only to be discovered in Karlštejn in 1523 and later ceremonially brought back to Hungary.96 Louis’s departure to war itself has been veiled into a sacral atmosphere, relying on several religious rituals of war. The royal troops were formed in a ceremonial order, which is depicted in a sketch made by an eyewitness shortly after the event. The king rode in the middle of the cortege vested in gold and tawny color of the lion (leonato). He left the royal palace only to get off his horse in front of St. Sigismund’s church, located between the palace and the town of Buda. He entered the church and prayed at the main altar for the success of the expected battle. This ritual was already a tradition in his lifetime, as the same ceremony was performed by Tamás Bakóc, archbishop of Esztergom, in 1514 who preached the crusade in the same church. In the hot summer of 1526 King Louis prayed to God and asked for the assistance of the heavenly powers tertio gesta. Taurinum vocaverunt prisci oppidum ad confluentes Savum et Danubium situm. Hoc aevo nostro alii Albam, alii Belgradum vocant, praeter situm non magni momenti castellum. Id cunctis viribus suis expugnare Turci adnixi sunt. Pugnatum est interdiu noctuque summa contentione. Erant Christiani milites, qui oppidum tuebantur, pauci cruce signati, non nobiles aut divites, non bellis assueti aut armis tecti, sed rudes et incompositi agrestes. Et hi tamen Turcos vicere, non tam ferrum quam fidem hostibus opponentes. Ab his tumidus ille Turcorum imperator, insuperabilis antea creditus et terror gentium appellatus, in acie victus, ab obsidione dejectus, castris exutus, turpem arripere fugam compulsus est.” 95 The most recent edition is to be found in Antonín Kalous, “Plenitudo potestatis in partibus?” Pápežští legáti a nunciové ve střední Evropě na konci středověku (1450–1526) (Brno: Matice moravská, 2010), 388–90. 96 Antonín Kalous, “The Last Medieval King Leaves Buda,” in Medieval Buda in Context, ed. Balázs Nagy et al., BCEH 10 (Leiden and Boston MA: Brill, 2016), 513–25 at 517.

Religious Warfare at the Eastern Borders of Latin Christendom

237

to help him to become the just and pious ruler invoked by his subjects in the aforementioned letter. The anonymous report then listed all of the important members of the clergy and the lay nobility present in the king’s entourage, giving a schematic disposition of the main units present in the army.97 Ultimately, the religious rituals performed before the departure did not help Louis and his army, which was crushed at Mohács by Sultan Suleyman I, in the decisive Hungarian-Ottoman battle.98 3

Conclusions

The present chapter traced the use of religious rituals of war in the periphery of Latin Christendom examining several chosen examples connected especially to Hungarians and the Kingdom of Hungary. In this respect, one can discern three distinct periods between the mid-tenth and early sixteenth centuries. The first phase covers the repeated invasions and military expeditions led by Magyar pagan hordes that were aimed in many cases on the eastern border of the German kingdom. This phase culminated in 955 with the definitive and crushing defeat of the Magyars by King Otto I of Germany. The second phase started at the verge of the new millennium, when in the decades before and after 1000 AD, Hungary under the leadership of Duke Géza and King Stephen I transformed into a Christianized monarchy, adopted Christian religion and values, and was set to become an integral part of the Latin Christianity. In this period, the Árpádian rulers were themselves protecting their country and the rest of Europe from raiding pagan nomads, such as the Cumans and Pechenegs in the eleventh century, or the Mongols in the thirteenth century.99 The last phase begins with the expansion of the Ottoman Empire and its gradual annexation of parts of Southeastern Europe. The Turkish conquest of the Balkans brought them to the close vicinity of the Kingdom of Hungary, where the Danube River served as the natural borderline for centuries. In this period, the Hungarian rulers and soldiers fought with non-Christian, Muslim conquerors as part of the Pan-European crusading movement side by side with crusaders coming from all parts of Latin Christendom. This long period 97 Kalous, “Plenitudo potestatis,” 388–90. 98 The best work on these matters up to date is János B. Szabó, A mohácsi csata (Budapest: Corvina, 2011). 99 I have examined many of these topics previously in greater detail. See Dušan Zupka, “Religious Rituals of War in Medieval Hungary under the Árpád Dynasty,” in Christianity and War, 141–57; idem, “Political, Religious and Social Framework of Religious Warfare and Its Influences on Rulership in Medieval East Central Europe,” in Rulership in Medieval East Central Europe, 135–59.

238

Zupka

witnessed the gradual creation and spread of holy war and crusade rhetoric in this region and especially in the Kingdom of Hungary, which started to perceive itself as the Bulwark of Christendom (Antemurale Christianitatis) defending Christian Europe from non-Christian military threats.100 The goal of this study was to show the long tradition of the use of religious rites in times of war in the medieval history of the Kingdom of Hungary. Since the invasions of the pagan Magyars in the tenth century, the following waves of Cumans, Pechenegs, Mongols and Turks provided repeated opportunities for (especially) Hungarian rulers and their troops to act as the soldiers of Christ defending the Antemurale Christianitatis. That much, at least, can be deduced from the reconstruction of the data preserved in contemporary sources. The use of religious rituals before the decisive battles, celebrations after the victorious outcome, invocation of military saints, and imploring the aid of heavenly powers, together with the use of relics, banners and specialized rites were present in East Central European warfare since the Battle at Lechfeld/Augsburg in 955 and can be traced leading up to the final confrontation between Christian troops and the conquering Ottomans, which took place on 29 August 1526 at Mohács. This battle symbolically ended the medieval era and opened a new period of Hungarian and East Central European history.101 Bibliography

Primary Sources

Anonymi Bele regis notarii Gesta Hungarorum. In Anonymi bele Regis notarii Gesta Hungarorum. Edited, translated, and annotated by Martyn Rady and László Veszprémy, 2–129. Magistri Rogerii Epistola in miserabile carmen super destructione regni Hungarie per Tartaros facta. Translated and annotated by János M. Bak and Martyn Rady. CEMT 5. Budapest: Central European University Press, 2010. Bondage and Travels of Johann Schiltberger: A Native of Bavaria, in Europe, Asia, and Africa, 1396–1427. Translated by J. Buchan Telfer. Notes by Philip Brunn. Farnham and Burlington VT: Ashgate, 2010. 1st ed. London: Hakluyt Society, 1879. The Chivalric Biography of Boucicaut, Jean II Le Meingre. Edited and translated by Craig Taylor and Jane H.M. Taylor. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2016. 100 See esp. Paul Srodecki, Antemurale Christianitatis. Zur Genese der Bollwerksrhetorik im östlichen Mitteleuropa an der Schwelle vom Mittelalter zur Frühen Neuzeit (Husum: Matthiesen Verlag, 2015). 101 Magyarország hadtörténete, 353–66; Pálosfalvi, From Nicopolis, 424–44; Engel, The Realm of St Stephen, 367–70.

Religious Warfare at the Eastern Borders of Latin Christendom

239

Chronicon Dubnicense. Edited by Matyás Florián. HHFD 3.1:1–199. Leipzig: Taizs, 1884. Chronique du Religieux de Saint-Denys. Edited by Bernard Guenée. 6 vols. Paris: Éditions du Comité des travaux historiques et scientifiques, 1994. Codex diplomaticus et epistolaris Slovaciae. Edited by Richard Marsina. 2 vols. Bratislava: Slovenská akadémia vied, 1971–1987. The Complete Works of Liudprand of Cremona. Edited and translated by Paolo Squatriti. Washington DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2007. The Crusade of 1456: Texts and Documents in Translation. Edited by James D. Mixson. Toronto, Buffalo NY, and London: University of Toronto Press, 2022. The Crusade of Varna, 1443–45. Edited and translated Colin Imber. CTT 14. Aldershot and Burlington VT: Ashgate, 2006. Hystoria Tartarorum C. de Bridia monachi. Edited by Alf Önnerfors Kleine Texte für Vorlesungen und Übungen 186. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1967. Chronica de gestis Hungarorum e codice picto saec. XIV. Edited and translated by János M. Bak and László Veszprémy. CEMT 9. Budapest: Central European University Press, 2018. János Thuróczy. Chronicle of the Hungarians. Translated by Frank Mantello. Bloomington IN: Indiana University, Research Institute for Inner Asian Studies, 1991. Johannes de Thurocz. Chronica Hungarorum. I. Textus. Edited by Elisabeth Gálantai and Julius Kristó. Budapest: Akadémiai kiadó, 1985. Legenda sancti Ladislai regis. Edited by Emma Bartoniek. In SrH 2. Edited by Imre Szentpétery, 507–28. Budapest: Academia Litteraria Hungarica and Societate Historica Hungarica, 1937–1938. Legenda sancti Stephani regis [Legenda maior]. Edited by Emma Bartoniek. In SrH 2. Edited by Imre Szentpétery, 377–92. Budapest: Academia Litteraria Hungarica and Societate Historica Hungarica, 1938. Liudprandi Antapodosis. Edited by Joseph Becker. MGH SS rer. Germ. 41. Hannover and Leipzig: Hahn, 1915. Oration “Cum bellum hodie” of Pope Pius II (26 September 1459, Mantua). In Collected Orations of Pope Pius II. Edited and translated by Michael von Cotta-Schönberg, 56–219. 3rd ed. Saarbrücken: Scholars’ Press, 2019. Planctus destructionis regni Hungariae per Tartaros. Edited by Ladislaus Juhász. In SrH 2. Edited by Imre Szentpétery, 589–98. Budapest: Academia Litteraria Hungarica and Societate Historica Hungarica, 1938. Tatárjárás. Edited by Balázs Nagy. Budapest: Osiris Kiadó, 2003. Tatársky vpád. Edited by Richard Marsina and Miloš Marek. Budmerice: Rak, 2008. Thomae archidiaconi Spalatensis Historia Salonitanorum atque Spalatinorum Pontificum. Latin text Olga Perić. Edited, translated and annotated by Damir Karbić, Mirjana Matijević-Sokol, and James R. Sweeney. CEMT 4. Budapest and New York: Central European University Press, 2006.

240

Zupka

Secondary Sources

Angenendt, Arnold. Toleranz und Gewalt. Das Christentum zwischen Bibel und Schwert. Münster: Aschendorff, 2012. Babinger, Franz. Der Quellenwert der Berichte über den Entsatz von Belgrad am 21./22. Juli 1456. Sitzungsberichte, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse 6. Munich: Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1957. Bachrach, Bernard S. “Magyar-Ottonian Warfare.” Francia 26 (2001): 211–30. Bachrach, David S. “Military Chaplains and the Religion of War in Ottonian Germany, 919–1024.” RSS 39.1 (2011): 13–31. Bachrach, David S. Religion and the Conduct of War, c.300–1215. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2003. Bachrach, David S. Warfare in Tenth-Century Germany. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2012. Bak, János M. “Hungary and Crusading in the Fifteenth Century.” In Crusading in the Fifteenth Century. Edited by Norman Housley, 116–27. Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan, 2004. Bihl, Michael. “Duae epistolae S. Johannis a Capistrano altera ad Laodislaum regem, altera de victoria Belgradensi (1453–1456).” Archivum Franciscanum Historicum 19 (1926): 63–75. Böhmer, Friedrich. “Briefe über den Anmarsch der Mongolen gegen Deutschland im Jahr 1241.” Neue Mitteilungen aus dem Gebiete historisch-antiquarischer Forschungen 4.2 (1839): 105–17. Curta, Florin. Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages (500–1300). BCEH 19. 2 vols. Leiden and Boston MA: Brill, 2019. Curta, Florin, ed. The Routledge Handbook of East Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 500–1300. Abingdon and New York: Routledge, 2021. Engel, Pál. The Realm of St Stephen: A History of Medieval Hungary, 895–1526. London and New York: Tauris, 2005. Erdmann, Carl. Die Entstehung des Kreuzzugsgedankens. FKG 6. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1935. Fine, John V.A. The Late Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Late Twelfth Century to the Ottoman Conquest. Ann Arbor MI: The University of Michigan Press, 1994. Flori, Jean. La guerra santa. La formazione dell’idea di crociata nell’Occidente cristiano. Bologna: Il Mulino, 2003. Frank, Allison. “The Pleasant and the Useful: Pilgrimage and Tourism in Habsburg Mariazell.” Austrian History Yearbook 40 (2009): 157–82. Gaposchkin, M. Cecilia. Invisible Weapons: Liturgy and the Making of Crusade Ideology. Ithaca NY and London: Cornell University Press, 2017. Gerát, Ivan. “Pictorial Cycles of St. Ladislas: Some Problems of Interpretation.” In Slovensko a Chorvátsko. Historické paralely a vzta̓ hy. Edited by Martin Homza et al. 2 vols., 1:293–307. Bratislava and Zagreb: FF-press, 2013.

Religious Warfare at the Eastern Borders of Latin Christendom

241

Gerát, Ivan. Svätí bojovníci v stredoveku. Úvahy o obrazových legendách sv. Juraja a sv. Ladislava na Slovensku. Bratislava: VEDA, 2011. Hermann, Róbert. ed. Magyarország hadtörténete. Vol. 1: A kezdetektől 1526. Budapest: Zrínyi, 2017. Hlavačková, Miriam. “‘Vale, pater optime, et veni’: The Cult of St. John of Capistrano in the Territory of Present-Day Slovakia in the Middle Ages.” Historický Časopis 69.5 (2021): 815–37. Hofer, Johannes. Johannes Kapistran. Ein Leben im Kampf um die Reform der Kirche. Bibliotheca Franciscana 2. Heidelberg: Kerle, 1965. Housley, Norman. “Giovanni da Capistrano and the Crusade of 1456.” In Crusading in the Fifteenth Century. Edited by Norman Housley, 94–115. Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan, 2004. Housley, Norman. “King Louis the Great of Hungary and the Crusades, 1342–1382.” The Slavonic and East European Review 62.2 (1984): 192–208. Housley, Norman. Religious Warfare in Europe, 1400–1536. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Jackson, Peter. “The Crusade Against the Mongols (1241).” JEH 42.1 (1991): 1–18. Jaritz, Gerhard, and Katalin Szende, ed. Medieval East Central Europe in a Comparative Perspective: From Frontier Zones to Lands in Focus. Abingdon and New York: Routledge, 2016. Jefferson, John. The Holy Wars of King Wladislas and Sultan Murad: The OttomanChristian Conflict from 1438–1444. History of warfare 76. Leiden and Boston MA: Brill, 2012. Kalous, Antonín. “The Last Medieval King Leaves Buda.” In Medieval Buda in Context. Edited by Balázs Nagy et al., 513–25. BCEH 10. Leiden and Boston MA: Brill, 2016. Kalous, Antonín. “Plenitudo potestatis in partibus?” Pápežští legáti a nunciové ve střední Evropě na konci středověku (1450–1526). Brno: Matice moravská, 2010. Kalous, Antonín, and Jan Stejskal. “The Image of John of Capistrano in Bohemia and Moravia.” In The Mission of John Capestrano and the Process of Europe Making in the 15th Century: State of the Art. Edited by Letizia Pellegrini. Rome: Viella, forthc. 2023. Klaniczay, Gábor. Holy Rulers and Blessed Princesses: Dynastic Cults in Medieval Central Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Kotecki, Radosław, Carsten Selch Jensen, and Stephen Bennett, ed. Christianity and War in Medieval East Central Europe and Scandinavia. Leeds: ARC Humanities Press, 2021. Kotecki, Radosław, Jacek Maciejewski, and John S. Ott, ed. Between Sword and Prayer: Warfare and Medieval Clergy in Cultural Perspective. EMC 3. Leiden and Boston MA: Brill, 2018. Kristó, Gyula. Az Anjou-kor háborúi. Budapest: Zrínyi katonai Kiadó, 1988. Kristó, Gyula. Az Árpád-kor háborúi. Budapest: Zrínyi katonai Kiadó, 1986. Rprt. 1988.

242

Zupka

Marsina, Richard. “Stredoveké uhorské rozprávacie pramene a slovenské dejiny.” Zborník Slovenského národného múzea. História 24 (1984): 167–93. McCormick, Michael. Eternal Victory: Triumphal Rulership in Late Antiquity, Byzantium, and the Early Medieval West. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. McCormick, Michael. “The Liturgy of War in the Early Middle Ages: Crisis, Litanies, and the Carolingian Monarchy.” Viator 15 (1984): 1–24. Mezey, László. “‘Athleta patriae’. A korai László-irodalom kialakulása.” In “Athleta patriae.” Tanulmányok Szent László történetéhez. Edited by László Mezey, 19–58. Budapest: Szent István Társulat, 1980. Múcska, Vincent. “Uhorsko na ceste ku kresťanskej monarchii.” In Proměna středo­ východní Evropy raného a vrcholného středověku. Mocenské souvislosti a paralely. Edited by Martin Wihoda and Lukaš Reitinger, 97–116. Brno: Matice moravská, 2010. Nicolle, David. Nicopolis 1396. Oxford: Osprey, 1999. Pálosfalvi, Tamás. From Nicopolis to Mohács: A History of Ottoman-Hungarian Warfare, 1389–1526. The Ottoman Empire and its heritage 63. Leiden and Boston MA: Brill, 2018. Paroń, Aleksander. The Pechenegs: Nomads in the Political and Cultural Landscape of Medieval Europe. ECEE 74. Leiden and Boston MA: Brill, 2021. Pilat, Liviu and Ovidiu Cristea. The Ottoman Threat and Crusading on the Eastern Border of Christendom during the 15th Century. ECEE 48. Leiden and Boston MA: Brill, 2018. Pohl, Walter. “Liturgie di guerra nei regni altomedievali.” RSC 5.1 (2008): 29–44. Prinz, Friedrich. Klerus und Krieg im früheren Mittelalter. Untersuchungen zur Rolle der Kirche beim Aufbau der Königsherrschaft. Monographien zur Geschichte des Mittelalters 2. Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1971. Srodecki, Paul. “Antemurale Christianitatis.” Zur Genese der Bollwerksrhetorik im östlichen Mitteleuropa an der Schwelle vom Mittelalter zur Frühen Neuzeit. Husum: Matthiesen Verlag, 2015. Štefan, Ivo. “Conversion and Christianization: Bohemia, Poland, Hungary, Rus’ (9th to 12th Centuries).” In The Routledge Handbook of East Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 500–1300. Edited by Florin Curta, 101–20. Abingdon and New York: Routledge, 2021. Szabó, János B. A mohácsi csata. Budapest: Corvina, 2011. Szovák, Kornel. “The Image of the Ideal King in Twelfth-Century Hungary: Remarks on the ‘Legend of St Ladislas.’” In Kings and Kingship in Medieval Europe. Edited by Anne J. Duggan, 241–64. King’s College London medieval studies 10. London: King’s College Centre for Late Antique and Medieval Studies, 1993. Szűcs, Jenő. “Three Historical Regions of Europe.” Acta Historica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 29 (1983): 131–84.

Religious Warfare at the Eastern Borders of Latin Christendom

243

Theotokis, Georgios. Twenty Battles that Shaped Medieval Europe. Ramsbury: Robert Hale, 2019. Török, József. “Szent László a középkori magyarországi liturgiában.” In “Athleta patriae.” Tanulmányok Szent László történetéhez. Edited by László Mezey, 137–47. Budapest: Szent István Társulat, 1980. Veszprémy, László. “Royal Saints in Hungarian Chronicles, Legends and Liturgy.” In The Making of Christian Myths in the Periphery of Latin Christendom (c.1000–1300). Edited by Lars Boje Mortensen, 217–45. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 2006. Veszprémy, László. Történetírás és történetírók az Árpád-kori Magyarországon (XI–XIII. század közepe). Budapest: Line Design Kiadó, 2019. Veszprémy, László, and Béla K. Király, ed. A Millennium of Hungarian Military History. New York: Columbia University Press, 2002. Zupka, Dušan. “Political, Religious and Social Framework of Religious Warfare and Its Influences on Rulership in Medieval East Central Europe.” In Rulership in Medieval East Central Europe (Power, Ritual and Legitimacy in Bohemia, Hungary and Poland). Edited by Dušan Zupka and Grischa Vercamer, 135–59. ECEE 78. Leiden and Boston MA: Brill, 2021. Zupka, Dušan. “Religious Rituals of War in Medieval Hungary under the Árpád Dynasty.” In Christianity and War in Medieval East Central Europe and Scandinavia. Edited by Radosław Kotecki, Carsten Selch Jensen, and Stephen Bennett, 141–57. Leeds: ARC Humanities Press, 2021. Zupka, Dušan. “Rulers Between Ideal and Reality.” In The Routledge Handbook of East Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 500–1300. Edited by Florin Curta, 174–90. Abingdon and New York: Routledge, 2021. Zupka, Dušan, and Grischa Vercamer, ed. Rulership in Medieval East Central Europe (Power, Ritual and Legitimacy in Bohemia, Hungary and Poland). ECEE 78. Leiden and Boston MA: Brill, 2021.

Chapter 7

Pleading for Victory and Eternal Life: Religious Preparations of the Poles for the Battle of Grunwald 1410 Jacek Maciejewski The Battle of Grunwald (Germ. Tannenberg, Lit. Žalgiris), the culmination of the so-called Great War (or Polish-Lithuanian-Teutonic War) between the Kingdom of Poland, allied with the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and the Teutonic Order in Prussia in 1409–1411 aroused various emotions among the contemporary elites. The battle was fought on the liturgical feast of the Dispersion of the Apostles, 15 July 1410, in a site situated around one hundred kilometers from the main administrative center of the Teutonic Order, Marienburg (Pol. Malbork), where the superior forces of the Polish-Lithuanian army crushed their enemies.1 The peculiar feature of this conflict is that during the summer campaign of 1410 the lands of a Christian military order under special papal protection were invaded by a Christian kingdom, though ruled by a neophyte king, joining forces with the newly-converted Grand Duchy of Lithuania populated mostly by the Orthodox, and benefitting from military assistance of the Muslim Tatars. The importance of this battle and of the Great War as a whole, as well as the delicate situation of the Polish ruler, prompted Poles to use the events associated with the war—during its duration and in the following decades—to forge a vision of the past for the needs of ad hoc politics and the purposes of national 1 For the last fifty years scholars have produced a great number of studies devoted to the war and the battle. A vast majority of them have been published in Polish, for the subject matter has attracted the interest of mostly Polish scholars. Worthy of note in this substantial body of research are primarily broader groundbreaking analyzes or studies summing up the state of research, like Stefan M. Kuczyński, Wielka wojna z Zakonem Krzyżackim w latach 1409–1411 (Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Ministerstwa Obrony Narodowej, 1980); Sven Ekdahl, Die Schlacht bei Tannenberg 1410. Quellenkritische Untersuchungen, vol. 1: Einführung und Quellenlage, Berliner historische Studien 8.1 (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1982), here cited after Polish edition: Grunwald 1410. Studia nad tradycją i źródłami (Cracow: Avalon, 2010); Andrzej Nadolski, Grunwald. Problemy wybrane (Olsztyn: Ośrodek Badań Naukowych im. Wojciecha Kętrzyńskiego, 1990); Sławomir Jóźwiak, Krzysztof Kwiatkowski, Adam Szweda, and Sobiesław Szybkowski, Wojna Polski i Litwy z Zakonem Krzyżackim w latach 1409–1411 (Malbork: Muzeum Zamkowe, 2010).

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004686373_008

Pleading for Victory and Eternal Life

245

historiography. Among the most important sources which can be used to discuss the topics tackled in this chapter, there are two Polish chronicles from the fifteenth century. The older one, Cronica conflictus Wladislai Regis Poloniae cum Cruciferis anno Christi 1410 (The Chronicle of the Battle of King Władysław of Poland with the Teutonic Knights), is quite short.2 The text is believed to have been written shortly after the events in question by a clergyman close to the king, most likely Mikołaj Trąba, who at the time was deputy chancellor of the Polish Crown, or Zbigniew Oleśnicki, secretary to Władysław Jagiełło (Jogaila), king of Poland. Yet even if the latter was the author, he must have worked under the supervision of Mikołaj Trąba, who probably was also the final editor of the text.3 Whatever the case may be, the Polish author of the Cronica conflictus was an eyewitness to most of the events described in this work—both clergymen belonged to the king’s closest circle during the entire Grunwald campaign. The source generally enjoys a good reputation among historians. Like other writings produced by the royal chancellery or people linked to the court at the time, it was also a piece of propaganda aimed at demonstrating that the war against the Teutonic Order was a just war and that the Polish ruler was filled with the ideals of the Christian faith.4 The information given by Cronica conflictus find often confirmation in other contemporary texts. I mean here above all the royal letters drafted almost immediately after the victory by Mikołaj Trąba, only three of which—addressed to Queen Anne, the archbishop of Gniezno and the bishop of Poznań—are of some significance to this chapter.5 There is also a narrative which summed up, in a way, the Polish propaganda 2 Cronica conflictus Wladislai regis Poloniae cum Cruciferis anno Christi 1410, ed. Zygmunt Celichowski (Poznań: Biblioteka Kórnicka, 1911). Marek A. Janicki, “Grunwald w tradycji polskiej od wieku XV do XVII,” in Na znak świetnego zwycięstwa. W sześćsetną rocznicę bitwy pod Grunwaldem (Cracow: Zamek Królewski na Wawelu, 2010), 98 correctly offers a justification for a translation conflictus into battle. See also idem, “‘Cronica conflictus’—zaklęte źródło. Z prolegomenów nowej edycji,” in Monarchia—społeczeństwo—tożsamość. Studia z dziejów średniowiecza, ed. Katarzyna Gołąbek et al. (Warsaw: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, 2020), 143–65 at 149–51. 3 Ekdahl, Grunwald 1410, 148; Janicki, “Grunwald,” 98; idem, “‘Cronica conflictus,’” 154–56, where in all three older works are cited. 4 Ekdahl, Grunwald 1410, 149–50; Stefan Kwiatkowski, “Śpiewy grunwaldzkie. Dlaczego rycer­ stwo Władysława Jagiełły miałoby śpiewać Bogurodzicę podczas kampanii w Prusach w 1410 roku?” Przegląd Zachodniopomorski 21(50).4 (2006): 107–18 at 114–15. 5 Böhmische, schlesische und polnische Berichte [Annex 4 to Johanns von Posilge, Officials von Pomesanien, Chronik des landes Preussen], ed. Ernst Strehelke, SrP 3 (Leipzig: Hirzel, 1866), 423–42 at 425–27; Aus polnisches Annalen [Annex to Die altere Hochmeisterchronik], ed. Ernst Strehlke, ibid., 719–25 at 724–25; Emil Schnippel, “Vom Streitplatz zum Tannenberge,” Prussia 31 (1935): 5–68 at 65–67; Ekdahl, Grunwald 1410, 132–35, where a discussion concerning other charters is provided; Janicki, “Grunwald,” 91–94.

246

Maciejewski

campaign at the time: the speech delivered before (anti)Pope John XXIII in September 1411 by Andrzej Łaskarzyc, who led the royal envoys sent to pledge obedience to the pope.6 According to Sven Ekdahl, who has carried out an insightful analysis of the credibility of the sources referring to the Battle of Grunwald, all these early accounts are valuable not only from the point of view of historiography and history of ideas, but also because they contain a lot of concrete information about facts and, as a result, are very helpful to scholars studying the battle.7 Last but not least is the account of the 1410 summer expedition of the Polish king against the Teutonic Order, much more extensive than that of the Cronica conflictus, included in the most outstanding Polish historiographical work from the Middle Ages, the chronicle by Jan Długosz written from 1455 to 1480.8 Długosz was a long-time trusted collaborator of the bishop of Cracow, Zbigniew Oleśnicki, serving as his notary, secretary, and chancellor.9 This is the same Zbigniew who accompanied the king during the Prussian war (1409–1411), and during the battle bravely defended the monarch against a knight who attacked him.10 It is also worth noting that Długosz’s father fought in the Battle of Grunwald and his uncle, Bartholomew, took part in the expedition as one of the royal chaplains. It could, therefore, be said that in describing the history of the war the chronicler enjoyed a privileged position. Not only did he use numerous written sources, but he certainly had an opportunity to listen to many accounts by eyewitnesses. Thus, one can generally say that the source base for the study of topics relating to the religious preparations of the Polish king and his army for the battle against the Teutonic Order is by no means limited. On the contrary, all the sources reveal to a large extent the religious beliefs and behavior of Polish elites associated with the conduct of war, as well as the program of religious 6

Ekdahl, Grunwald 1410, 172–78 (in-depth analysis of the speech) and Annex at 279–88; Monika Dudka, “Dyplomaci Władysława Jagiełły w Stolicy Apostolskiej,” Nasza Przeszłość 128 (2017): 5–39 at 20–21. 7 Ekhdal, Grunwald 1410, 179. 8 Ioannis Dlugossi Annales seu cronicae incliti Regni Poloniae, bks. 1–12, ed. Consilium (Cracow: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1964–2005) (hereafter Długosz, Annales). 9 Maria Koczerska, Zbigniew Oleśnicki i Kościół krakowski w czasach jego pontyfikatu (Warsaw: DiG, 2004), 47–50 and by index. 10 Długosz, Annales, bks. 10–11, at bk. 11, p. 113. It should be emphasized that by that time Zbigniew had received only minor orders. See Andrzej Radzimiński, “Dispensen ‘super defectu perfectae lenitatis’. Die Konflikte des spätmittelalterlichen Klerus und die Methoden ihrer Bewältigung,” in Konfliktbewältigung und Friedensstiftung im Mittelalter, ed. Roman Czaja, Eduard Mühle, and Andrzej Radzimiński (Toruń: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika, 2012), 277–88 at 280.

Pleading for Victory and Eternal Life

247

preparations undertaken on behalf of the Polish army before the Battle of Grunwald. This is in general quite a favorable circumstance, for we might get the impression that the subject matter ceased to be interesting to chroniclers writing at the end of the Middle Ages. When it comes to the aims of the present essay, it should be emphasized first of all that, unlike previous researchers, this study is not interested in the image of King Władysław (created by his royal chaplains and other clergymen) as alter Judas Maccabeus and King David, which served to emphasize his trust in divine assistance as well as his gentleness and grace as a monarch.11 Instead, the focus will be on ritual actions actually performed by the Polish king and his entourage, including clergy and knights, and sometimes on behalf of the knights, to secure victory and encourage the army to fight against a Christian enemy. Furthermore, the ultimate goal of this analysis is to answer the question of what kind of rites were part of wartime religion in Poland at the early fifteenth century. Chronologically, the reflection will focus on the events associated with the Polish-Teutonic war from the moment the king set out, on 14 June 1410, to meet the troops levied from the Polish Crown, which were to gather in Wolbórz, until noon on the day of the battle, 15 July 1410. 1

Making an Agreement with Heaven

King Władysław Jagiełło began his military expedition against the Teutonic Order on 14 June, setting out from Nowe Miasto Korczyn. From the very beginning, it is possible to observe there was a conscious plan to ensure divine support for king’s cause to win over supernatural forces. The route followed by the royal entourage featured the Benedictine Abbey of Łysa Góra (Łysiec, Święty Krzyż) housing relics of the Holy Cross, which the king decided to visit as a humble pilgrim (fig. 7.1). Władysław set out on foot from a settlement located a few kilometers from the monastery (nowadays Nowa Słupia), and in the holy place “kneeling, he said prayers and distributed alms, entrusting himself and his cause to the protection of God and the Holy Cross.” He also fasted until evening, that is until he returned to where his court was staying.12 11 Janicki, “Grunwald,” 101; Ekhdal, Grunwald 1410, 167. For comparison, on propaganda actions carried out by well-educated royal chaplains in England at the time, see Alison K. McHardy, “Religion, Court Culture and Propaganda: The Chapel Royal in the Reign of Henry V,” in Henry V: The New Interpretations, ed. Gwilym Dodd (Woodbridge: York Medieval Press in association with Boydell Press, 2013), 131–56, esp. 141–43, 154. 12 Długosz, Annales, bks. 10–11, at bk. 11, pp. 60, 62. According to Długosz, the king’s peregrinations and prayers lasted two days. Antoni Gąsiorowski, Itinerarium króla Władysława

248

Maciejewski

Figure 7.1 Present-day view of Holy Cross Abbey atop Łysa Góra (the Bald Mountain), from the east, Poland. License: CC BY 3.0 Photo by Jakub Hałun. Reproduced from: w.wiki/5ax3

The adoration of the relics at the Łysa Góra monastery and the requests made there for divine support for the royal cause were thus linked to a whole range of the ruler’s penitential and prayerful behaviors, ranging from visiting the shrine on foot, making humble prayers and requests on his knees, to acts of fasting, almsgiving and donations to ecclesiastical institutions.13 All these elements are part of the canon of Christian rites associated with preparations for war and were well known throughout Christendom. Visiting places where relics extremely important to the dynasty and the country were kept was also a popular custom. In this context, it is worth mentioning King Louis VI of France and his religious preparations for repelling an expected invasion by Lothar of Supplinburg in 1124. The king made a public visit to the Abbey of Jagiełły 1386–1434 (Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1972), 54 claims that Władysław Jagiełło visited the Holy Cross monastery on 19 June. However, Zbigniew Zyglewski, Monarcha a klasztor w Polsce późnego średniowiecza (Bydgoszcz: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Kazimierza Wielkiego, 2009), 283 seems to be right in dating this visit, after Długosz, to 18–19 June, a likely conjecture in the light of other sources. 13 Many examples of what can be termed financial-prayerful agreements between rulers and ecclesiastical institutions from France and Germany are given by David S. Bachrach, Religion and the Conduct of War, c.300–1215 (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2003), 65–70.

Pleading for Victory and Eternal Life

249

Saint-Denis, where he took part in a series of ceremonies to win the protection and assistance of St. Denis for the army and the kingdom, and after the war he came there to give thanks to the saint and to the monks supporting him with their prayers.14 As shown by Robert Bubczyk in volume one of this collection, the description of highly similar customs can be found in the Chronicle of Lanercost where the chronicler tells that each time king of England, Edward I, marched against Scottish, he sought divine support through the intercession of saints whose sanctuary he devoutly visited along the way. In such stops, he would pray at holy graves, make generous donations to the monasteries and give alms to the poor.15 Veneration shown by rulers to relics of the Holy Cross was by no means a novelty in Poland in Jagiełło’s times. Already in the first half of the twelfth century, the Polish ruler, Bolesław III Wrymouth, was to have, in his collection of precious relics, a big particle of the Holy Cross, but it was donated by his widowed wife, Salomea, to Zwiefalten Abbey around 1140.16 The other holy particles of the Cross found their way into Poland at the turn of the fourteenth century, perhaps thanks to Duke Władysław the Elbow (Łokietek). In any case, it was most likely this ruler who gave the monks at Łysa Góra a reliquary in the first few years of the power struggle in Cracow after returning from his exile (1306–1308).17 However, charters of this monarch and his son, Casimir the Great, contain no traces of requests for prayers for prosperity and protection of the kingdom and the ruler, requests so characteristic of other countries. They were issued simply “because of veneration for the Holy Cross,” although 14 Bachrach, Religion, 181–82. 15 The Chronicle of Lanercost, ed. and trans. Herbert Maxwell (Glasgow: Maclehose and Sons, 1913), 206. 16 Szymon Wieczorek, “Zwiefalten i Polska w pierwszej połowie XII wieku,” KH 103.4 (1996): 23–56 at 32–33. 17 Marek Derwich, Benedyktyński klasztor św. Krzyża na Łysej Górze w średniowieczu (Warsaw and Wrocław: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1992), 243, 543–44; Sławomir Gawlas, “Pobożność Władysława Łokietka,” in “Ecclesia—regnum—fontes.” Studia z dziejów średniowiecza, ed. Sławomir Gawlas et al. (Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, 2014), 191–205 at 199. In the late Middle Ages, there was a legend linking the appearance of these relics in this monastery with the beginnings of Christianity in Poland. It was also believed that these holy particles had protected the monastery on Łysa Góra during the Tatar invasion in 1287, and the kingdom had been defended against an alleged Lithuanian invasion in the times of Casimir the Great. See Maria Starnawska, “Relikwie jako fundament ideowy wspólnoty w tradycji polskich przekazów średniowiecznych (św. św. Wojciech, Florian, Stanisław, Drzewo Krzyża Świętego na Łyścu,” in Sacrum. Obraz i funkcja w społeczeństwie średniowiecznym, ed. Aneta Pieniądz Skrzypczak and Jerzy Pysiak, Aquila Volans 1 (Warsaw: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, 2005) 261–279 at 267–69.

250

Maciejewski

Władysław’s oldest diploma also refers to the ruler’s salvation.18 In addition, Marek Derwich has noted that the significance of this religious center waned somewhat in the second half of the fourteenth century, and that the monastery achieved a completely new position and political significance during the reign of the first Jagiellonian kings.19 Presumably, this was a consequence of the fact that at the Polish court the relics of the Holy Cross were believed to have made a decisive contribution to the victory at Grunwald.20 The king’s humble visit to the Holy Cross shrine was one of the two main elements of a contract, as it were, in which the Polish king sought to make a covenant with the Creator before the battle. In his Annales, Jan Długosz states that before the Battle of Grunwald, King Władysław also vowed to visit the Carmelite monastery in Poznań “to venerate the Blessed Sacrament.”21 The Poznań shrine, associated with a eucharistic miracle, was a royal foundation of Jagiełło himself, established in 1400, and enjoyed considerable monarchical support, as is evidenced by a royal donation privilege of 1406.22 In addition, the monastery very quickly obtained papal indulgences and became a well-known center of eucharistic worship and a pilgrimage destination.23 The vow mentioned by Długosz seems very likely in this context. The monarch indeed visited the Poznań monastery in November 1410 to give thanks for the victory.24 A document issued at the time shows that the granting of malt from the biggest royal mill in Poznań was accompanied by a devotional clause obligating the monks 18 Codex diplomaticus Poloniae Minoris, vol. 1, ed. Franciszek Piekosiński, MMAH 3 (Cracow: Akademia Umiejętności, 1876), 167–68 (no. 138). 19 Derwich, Benedyktyński klasztor, 544–45. 20 However, this inclination of Jagiełło to adore the Holy Cross and belief in its extraordinary power may have had both Eastern and Western roots. After all, the king must have been familiar with Eastern Christianity and the religious traditions of Rus, and even his mother was a Christian in the Orthodox rite. In turn, some scholars claim that with the Abbey of the Holy Cross and with the cult of the relics there Jagiełło was to be particularly associated, perhaps even from the beginning of his reign in Poland, more see Krzysztof Bracha, „Kult relikwii Krzyża Świętego i pielgrzymka Władysława Jagiełły do opactwa łysogórskiego w czerwcu 1410 r.,” in Bitwa grunwaldzka w historii, tradycji i kulturze 1410–2010, ed. Tomasz Ossowski (Kielce: Ostrowieckie Stowarzyszenie Historyczne “Solidarność i Pamięć,” 2010), 7–20, esp. at 13–14, 19–20. 21 Długosz, Annales, bks. 10–11, at bk. 11, p. 168. 22 Codex diplomaticus Maioris Poloniae, vol. 5, ed. Franciszek Piekosiński (Poznań: Fundacja Norberta Bredkrajcza, 1908), 86–88 (no. 91). See also Tadeusz M. Trajdos, “Fundacja klasztoru karmelitów trzewiczkowych p.w. Bożego Ciała w Poznaniu a kult eucharystyczny króla Władysława Jagiełły,” Poznańskie Studia Teologiczne 5 (1984): 316–62 at 335–37. 23 Trajdos, “Fundacja,” 335, 354–56. 24 Długosz, Annales, bks. 10–11, at 11, p. 168; Trajdos, “Fundacja,” 338; Gąsiorowski, Itinera­ rium, 56.

Pleading for Victory and Eternal Life

251

to celebrate morning masses of thanksgiving according to the formula for the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and Corpus Christi.25 Both the Holy Cross relics and the Three Miraculous Hosts kept by the Poznań Carmelites were regarded by the king as an apotropaion (a palladium). That is, the relics were a sign of a covenant with God, a source of power thanks to which the king and the kingdom would be granted miraculous protection and success in war.26 According to Długosz, the king venerated the Holy Cross so much that he would not set out on any military expedition without first humbly visiting the shrine.27 After returning from wars the monarch would again visit Łysa Góra and the Carmelite monastery in Poznań to give generous gifts to both sites as a mark of thanksgiving, although we need to bear in mind that this piece of information concerns the period after the Battle of Grunwald. There is no doubt that because of the significance attributed to divine assistance obtained through the miraculous relics in defeating the enemies in 1410, the king remained faithful to both shrines until his death, showing his generosity many times. Thus, this votive contract did not lose its significance during the reign of subsequent Jagiellonian rulers.28 After the Battle of Grunwald, King Władysław made two more thanksgiving pilgrimages, one in October 1410 and another in November 1411. This may suggest that the role of the kingdom’s palladium was also played by the relics of its most important patrons kept in the Gniezno Cathedral (St. Vojtěch-Adalbert) and Cracow, where the king visited not only cathedral church but also the shrine of St. Stanislaus at Skałka.29 Unfortunately, we have no information about the role these holy particles played in the religious preparations for the 25 Codex diplomaticus Maioris Poloniae, vol. 7, ed. Antoni Gąsiorowski and Ryszard Walczak (Warsaw and Poznań: Poznańskie Towarzystwo Przyjaciół Nauk, 1985), 453 (no. 668): “ita tamen, quod fratres Sanctae Mariae praefati quolibet die per decursum anni duas missas, unam de Assumptione Beatae Mariae et aliam de Corpore Christi, in honorem et laudem Christi et Virginis matris eius decantabunt.” See also Trajdos, “Fundacja,” 357. 26 Tadeusz M. Trajdos, “Benedyktyni na Łyścu za panowania Władysława II Jagiełły (1386– 1434),” RH 48 (1982): 1–46 at 15. 27 Jan Długosz, Liber beneficiorum dioecesis Cracoviensis, vol. 3, ed. Aleksander Przeździecki, in Joannis Długossii Senioris Canonici Cracoviensis Opera Omnia, vol. 9 (Cracow: Czas, 1864), 229: “tam scrupulosa veneratione coluit, ut ad nullam expeditionem transiverit nisi loco prius pedestri itinere visitato.” 28 Trajdos, “Fundacja,” 359; Zyglewski, Monarcha, 282–85. 29 Urszula Borkowska, “Polskie pielgrzymki Jagiellonów,” in “Peregrinationes.” Pielgrzymki w kulturze dawnej Europy, ed. Hanna Manikowska and Hanna Zaremska (Warsaw: Instytut Historii Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 1995), 185–203 at 189; Zyglewski, Monarcha, 283; Wiktor Szymborski, “Pielgrzymki i kontakty dynastii Jagiellonów z sanktuarium paulinów na Skałce,” in Religijność. Wymiar prywatny i publiczny (Cracow: Księgarnia Akademicka, 2007), 153–77 at 160.

252

Maciejewski

war against the Teutonic Order, but we have to assume that these preparations consisted of public prayers organized by the clergy in the aforementioned churches. Nor do we know whether Jagiełło, like other medieval rulers, took any saints’ relics with him to the battlefield. Długosz’s biting remark referring to the Grand Master and the commanders of the Teutonic Order entertaining “vain hopes” that the relics they carried would bring them victory would suggest that the chronicler was not aware of any Polish collection of relics taken to the battlefield.30 The only relics which certainly accompanied the Polish army at Grunwald were those in the altar stone in the royal chapel tent, but nothing is known about them.31 Nor did the national saints appear on the banners of the Polish army, though they must have occupied an important place in the minds of the knights. This is suggested by Jan Długosz’s story about the fact that during the battle some “saw in the air a distinguished man wearing episcopal robes and constantly blessing the Polish troops.” The belief apparently was that this was St. Stanislaus and that it was thanks to his intercession that the Poles were victorious.32 On the other hand, it is significant that both holy bishops were among the patron of a new church foundation which the king intended to erect on the battlefield after the victory at Grunwald.33 This intention would thus have been very much in line with the belief—consolidated at the turn of the fifteenth century in Poland—that these two patron saints gave special protection to the country. In addition, the author of the note concerning the battle against the Teutonic Knights at Płowce in 1331 entered in Traska’s Annals (ca. 1340), and then repeated almost verbatim in Annals of Minor Poland in the fifteenth century, stresses that before the battle the king entrusted himself and his knights to God and the holy patrons, Stanislaus and Vojtěch-Adalbert.34 30 Długosz, Annales, bks. 10–11, at bk 11, p. 75. 31 On relics in medieval portable altars, see Monika Saczyńska, “Msza pod osłoną nieba, czyli kiedy kultura spotyka się z naturą. Sprawowanie eucharystii w czasie podróży w okresie średniowiecza—uwagi wstępne,” in “Mundus hominis.” Cywilizacja, kultura, natura. Wokół interdyscyplinarności badań historycznych, ed. Stanisław Rosik and Przemysław Wiszewski, AUWH 175 (Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego, 2006), 243–55 at 246–47. 32 Długosz, Annales, bks. 10–11, at bk. 11, p. 115. On similar visions in Annales Ottakariani at the Battle of Kressenbrun (1260) but connected also with a representation of vexillum sancti Venceslai, see Radosław Kotecki’s chapter in this collcetion (vol. 2, chap. 3). 33 Tore Nyberg, “Pierwsze dokumenty Władysława Jagiełły dla polskiego klasztoru brygidek,” ZH 39.4 (1974): 69–74 at 72; Waldemar Rozynkowski, “Religijne pokłosie bitwy grunwaldzkiej,” in “Conflictus magnus apud Grunwald” 1410. Między historią a tradycją, ed. Krzysztof Ożóg and Janusz Trupinda (Malbork: Muzeum Zamkowe, 2013), 213–19 at 213–14. 34 Rocznik Traski, ed. August Bielowski, MPH 2 (Lviv: Bielowski, 1872), 826–61 at 856; Rocznik małopolski, ed. August Bielowski, MPH 3 (Cracow: Gubrynowicz & Schmidt, 1878), 135–202 at 194. Janicki, “Grunwald,” 107; Marcin R. Pauk, “Kult św. Stanisława na tle innych

Pleading for Victory and Eternal Life

253

Similarly, according to the entry of the Annals of Cracow Chapter, penned in the first half of the fourteenth century, the Poles owed their victory to both aforementioned saints, but also here we lack any detailed information about how this assistance was imagined.35 2

Religious Preparations of the Polish Army

2.1 Mass and the Preaching on the Just War As early as the beginning of December 1409 during a council held in Brześć, King Władysław and the Grand Duke of Lithuania, Vytautas, planned an invasion of the enemy territory the following summer. By marching towards the Teutonic Order’s capital, Marienburg, they intended to put the Teutonic Knights on the defensive and bring about a decisive battle.36 These aggressive military operations were thus to take place within the territory of a Christian country, and one belonging to an ecclesiastical institution at that, which is why the royal court formulated arguments to justify the expedition.37 They could be used after the battle to create a public image of the victors, though this ideological message was also aimed at those who were to fight the Teutonic Knights. That is why a Holy Mass celebrated after the Polish army crossed the Wisła River near Czerwińsk, Mazovia, was an important part of the religious-ideological preparations for the battle. On 2 July, the feast of the Visitation of the Blessed Virgin Mary was celebrated in the Gniezno church province, hence the king’s decision to have the liturgy take place in the monastery church of the Canons Regular in Czerwińsk. (figs. 7.2, 7.3)38 During the mass, a sermon on a just and

35

36 37 38

kultów politycznych Europy Środkowej w średniowieczu,” in Kult św. Stanisława na Śląsku (1253–2003), ed. Anna Pobóg-Lenartowicz, Z dziejów kultury chrześcijańskiej na Śląsku 28 (Opole: Redakcja Wydawnictw Wydziału Teologicznego Uniwersytetu Opolskiego, 2004), 31–48, esp. 43–45; idem, “Święci patroni a średniowieczne wspólnoty polityczne w Europie Środkowej,” in Sacrum. Obraz i funkcja w społeczeństwie średniowiecznym, ed. Aneta Pieniądz-Skrzypczak and Jerzy Pysiak, Aquila volans 1 (Warsaw: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, 2005), 237–60 at 258–59; Piotr Kołpak, Kult świętych patronów Królestwa Polskiego w czasach Jagiellonów, Monografie Towarzystwa Naukowego Societas Vistulana 4 (Cracow: Societas Vistulana, 2020), 165–86. Annales capituli Cracoviensis, in Annales Cracovienses priores cum kalendario, ed. Zofia Kozłowska-Budkowa, MPH NS 5 (Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1978), 19–105 at 105; Halina Manikowska, “Przeszłość pod ochroną: relikwie,” in Przeszłość w kulturze średniowiecznej Polski, vol. 2, ed. Halina Manikowska (Warsaw: Neriton, 2018), 121–76 at 145. For more on this, see Kuczyński, Wielka wojna, 283, 285–304; Jóźwiak et al., Wojna, 215, 230, 239. Kwiatkowski, “Śpiewy,” 113. Długosz, Annales, bks. 10–11, at bk. 11, p. 65.

254

Maciejewski

Figure 7.2 Present-day view of Czerwińsk Abbey. View from the South of the late fifteenth-century gate and bell tower (the so-called Gate of the Abbot Kula) and the front of the Romanesque basilica, Poland. License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Photo by Ed88. Reproduced from: w.wiki/5ax4

Pleading for Victory and Eternal Life

255

Figure 7.3 Present-day view of Czerwińsk Abbey. View of the Romanesque basilica from the monastery garth, Poland. License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Photo by Ed88. Reproduced from: w.w.wiki/5ax5

unjust war was preached by the bishop of Płock, Jakub of Kurdwanów. The presence of the local bishop in the Czerwińsk monastery is not surprising, all the more so given the fact that the bishops of Płock had an estate there and that the Dukes of Mazovia supported the Polish king’s cause at the time. Nevertheless, his participation in the liturgy and the topic of the sermon must have been agreed upon in advance with the royal court. According to Krzysztof Ożóg, the bishop most probably used a sermon (treatise) written slightly earlier by the then preacher of the Cracow Cathedral, Stanisław of Skarbimierz, a Doctor of Law.39 This view, although plausible, cannot be verified, because we do not know the contents of Bishop Jakub’s preaching. However, one has to agree that the sermon was hugely important to the army from a psychological 39

Krzysztof Ożóg, Uczeni w monarchii Jadwigi Andegaweńskiej i Władysława Jagiełły (1384–1434) (Cracow: Polska Akademia Umiejętności, 2004), 182–83.

256

Maciejewski

perspective because, by demonstrating that the Polish king was waging the war lawfully, the preacher strengthened the morale of the knights who were about to engage in combat.40 In any case, we should not be surprised that the Polish court resorted to such measures, as the medieval elites felt uncomfortable when facing a war against Christians; both the Carolingians and their political (as well as cultural) heirs used a broad range of means to demonstrate and justify their reasons for engaging in such a war.41 Such moral dilemmas can also be discerned in the account of the Battle of Agincourt in 1415 by an anonymous author, who, in summing up the English victory, on the one hand, points to reasons for great joy at the result of the battle, and on the other speaks of sadness caused by the shedding of Christian blood.42 Looking for such a justification had been something which occupied the Polish elites, too, because a similar idea can be seen in Gallus Anonymus’s record of an 1110 expedition against the Bohemians, in which the war was presented as revenge for previous insults done to the Poles by their faithless and treacherous neighbors.43 2.2 The King’s Public Prayer during the Unfurling of Banners On 9 July, the royal army, hitherto stationed within the territory of Siemowit IV’s duchy, crossed the Prussian border. The moment is described in both the Cronica conflictus and Jan Długosz’s Annales. According to the latter, after crossing the border, when the army reached a “wild plain extending far in all directions,” all military standards (signa militaria) were taken out and unfurled. As the great banner (vexillum magnum) with the white eagle was 40 Jóźwiak et al., Wojna, 310–11. 41 Bachrach, Religion, 107. Fighting for a “just cause” was a topic known in the medieval literature and a standard, but not prevalent, motif of the pre-battle speeches of military leaders. See, e.g., John R.E. Bliese, “When Knightly Courage May Fail: Battle Orations in Medieval Europe,” Historian 53.3 (1991): 489–504 at 492, 494; idem, “Fighting Spirit and Literary Genre: A Comparison of Battle Exhortations in the ‘Song of Roland’ and in Chronicles of the Central Middle Ages,” Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 96.4 (1995): 417–36 at 419–20, 424. 42 Gesta Henrici Quinti, ed. Frank Taylor and John Smith Roskell (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975), 59. 43 Galli Anonymi Cronicae et Gesta ducum sive principum Polonorum, 3.23, ed. Karol Maleczyński, MPH NS 2 (Cracow: Polska Akademia Umiejętności, 1952), 150: “cito dies illa gloriosa exardebit, que tradicionem et infidelitatem Bohemorum revelabit et presum­ ptionem et superbiam eorum conculcabit et que nostras et parentum iniurias vindicabit.” Interestingly, we learn on this occasion of sermons being preached by bishops, although their content is unknown. See also Radosław Kotecki, “Bishops and the Legitimisation of War in Piast Poland until the Early Thirteenth Century,” PH 111.3 (2020): 437–70 at 448–49, where remarks on the Polish expedition to Bohemia described by Gallus, presented as a “sacred vengeance” for the invasion of Duke Břetislav I‘s into Poland in 1038/1039.

Pleading for Victory and Eternal Life

257

being unfurled, the king prayed for assistance and protection to the Almighty. According to the chronicler, the king said the prayer “with such piety and so loudly, that the whole host of knights standing around was able to hear it. Most of them shed tears upon hearing it and it was possible to see very many knights sobbing and crying. Similar prayers were also said by the Grand Duke Vytautas, as well as dukes of Mazovia and the Polish lords as they unfurled their banners.”44 When all banners had been unfurled, the knights apparently sang the “national song” (carmen patrium) Bogurodzica (Mother of God). There will be more on this towards the end of the chapter because, according to Długosz, it was sung twice during the expedition. The ritual of raising and unfurling banners within enemy territory or at a field of battle was in line with the norms of chivalric ethics and was well known in the late Middle Ages. The same can also be seen in the Teutonic Order’s lands, Poland, and Lithuania. This was a way for invaders to signal that their actions would henceforth be acts of war and not common crimes. Thus, banners were unfurled to indicate readiness for battle and determination to fight until a victorious end; in addition, they were a symbol of the military authority of the commander (in this case, the Polish monarch).45 In such circumstances, the ritual was not, however, linked to actions that were religious. That is why Długosz’s account of the king’s public prayer on this occasion is so interesting. Obviously, one should agree with the editors that the text of the prayer was made up by the chronicler. But should the whole account be rejected as a result? The matter is debatable, to say the least. On the one hand, we lack an analogy for such a prayer in other accounts of the unfurling of banners within enemy territory. Moreover, the Cronica conflictus, which briefly presents the event, fails to mention the prayer as well. On the other hand, Długosz’s information that the knights heard the prayer spoken loudly by Jagiełło and then sang a religious anthem sounds plausible if we consider the fact that the chronicler got his information from participants in these events. In searching for an analogy to such a combination of the unfurling of banners with liturgical elements (the leader’s oration and a religious anthem), one needs to pay attention to Radosław Kotecki’s contribution to this volume. The author points to parallels between the account of Annales Ottakariani on the unfurling of the military banner by the Bohemian army before the Battle of Kressenbrun (nowadays 44 Długosz, Annales, bks. 10–11, at bk. 11, pp. 70–71. 45 Werner Paravicini, Die Preußenreisen des europäischen Adels, Beiheifte der Francia 17.1–2, 2 vols. (Sigmaringen: Thorbecke, 1989–1995), 2:139–52; Malte Pritzel, Kriegführung im Mittelalter. Handlungen. Erinnerungen. Bedeutungen, KG 32 (Paderborn: Schöningh, 2006), 341–49; Robert W. Jones, Bloodied Banners: Martial Display on the Medieval Battlefield (Woodbridge: Boydel Press, 2010), 49–50; Jóźwiak et al., Wojna, 352.

258

Maciejewski

Groißenbrunn) (1260) and the description of Długosz analyzed here, pointing to similar elements of knightly culture and religious themes. Therefore I share Krzysztof Kwiatkowski’s opinion that Długosz’s account of the king’s prayer is credible and that we are dealing here with an event most likely associated with the general atmosphere of that war. On the other hand, it is difficult to agree with Kwiatkowski when he says that this is about a liturgical rite of the blessing of banners, known from many medieval pontificals, including those used in Poland.46 The contents of these formulas do not match the text of the king’s prayer in question. Nor are the place and circumstances of such a blessing right; in addition, such a rite was reserved for a priest, especially a bishop. However, the army which invaded Prussia on 9 July had no bishop, as the bishop of Poznań, Wojciech Jastrzębiec, had left it on the previous day.47 Presumably, if a special liturgy combined with the blessing of banners had been planned for the following day, Bishop Wojciech would have remained at the king’s side. 2.3 Religious Preparations of the Warriors for Combat It seems that the crossing of the Prussian border with unfurled banners meant that King Władysław and his advisors had already decided on a military confrontation with the Teutonic Order. Yet according to Długosz, the final decision was apparently made only during a council of war on the evening of 12 July. The following day was a Sunday, during which, as Długosz informs, final religious preparations of the army for the upcoming decisive clash were made. These included a solemn Sunday Mass, during which the king again prayed for victory over the enemy. And, what seems even more important, “almost the entire army received the Most Blessed Viaticum, that is the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, convinced that it would clash with the enemy any day.”48 The chronicler clearly mentions the viaticum under both kinds. Długosz must have observed this practice in the Polish army, but this is by no means surprising, for normative sources confirm that the viaticum was still given to the laity in this manner, though rather exceptionally, in the late Middle Ages.49 46 Jóźwiak et al., Wojna, 353. 47 Długosz, Annales, bks. 10–11, at bk. 11, p. 70; Grażyna Lichończak-Nurek, Wojciech herbu Jastrzębiec, arcybiskup i mąż stanu (ok. 1362–1436) (Cracow: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 1996), 34–35; Jacek Maciejewski, “Biskupi polscy na wojnach monarchów w XIII–XIV wieku,” Res Historica 51 (2021): 63–101 at 91. 48 Długosz, Annales, bks. 10–11, at bk. 11, p. 82: “Polonicus exercitus Divinissimo se procurat viatico, Corporis videlicet et Sanguinis Christi Sacramento.” 49 Walenty Wójcik, “Wiatyk w średniowiecznym ustawodawstwie biskupów polskich,” Ruch Biblijny i Liturgiczny 6 (1953): 115–33 at 126; Izabela Skierska, Obowiązek mszalny w

Pleading for Victory and Eternal Life

259

Celebration of Holy Mass for the army before a battle and providing an opportunity to receive the Holy Communion was a common Christian rite of preparing troops for armed combat. Already in the early Middle Ages, numerous synods ordered priests not to let soldiers go into battle without receiving the Eucharist. Moreover, the dying, as well as the wounded, were given the viaticum, under both kinds, if possible. From the eleventh and twelfth century onward, receiving the viaticum clearly became a rite linked with boosting the morale of soldiers about to go into battle, as they would soon find themselves in mortal danger (in extremis). Thus, it was a measure to raise the army’s fighting spirit, thanks to which the knights would go into battle with trust in God’s assistance, with pure hearts and with a promise of salvation.50 Numerous medieval narratives show that such liturgy was often practiced right before the clash, usually on the morning of the battle. These were rites rooted in the tradition of the Late Roman Empire and of the Carolingian and post-Carolingian monarchies, but they were certainly known and used already by Piasts at the turn of the twelfth century at the latest.51 Długosz also linked them to the army led by Duke Henry II the Pious, which in 1241 set out to fight the Tatars at Legnica (Ger. Liegnitz).52 However, for obvious reasons, when large forces were involved such a rite must have been difficult or even impossible to perform due to time constraints, even if some knights had taken care of such spiritual succor before setting off for the battlefield.53 Celebration of the liturgy combined with the giving of Holy Communion—undoubtedly preceded by confession—must have been a serious logistical task in the case of large armies. At this point, it is worth bearing in mind that the crown army alone is usually estimated by historians to have comprised at Grunwald more than 10,000 men, even as many as 18,000 in the cavalry and several thousand średniowiecznej Polsce (Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Instytutu Historii Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 2003), 276–78. 50 Philippe Contamine, War in the Middle Ages (Oxford and Malden MA: Blackwell, 1986), 298–99; Bachrach, Religion, 59, 79–80, 82, 96, 106, 138–39; idem, “Military Chaplains and the Religion of War in Ottonian Germany, 919–1024,” RSS 39.1 (2011): 13–31 at 17. 51 Kotecki, Bishops, 449–50. See also Paweł Figurski, “Liturgiczne początki ‘Polonii’. Lokalna adaptacja chrześcijańskiego kultu a tworzenie ‘polskiej’ tożsamości politycznej w X–XI w.,” in Oryginalność czy wtórność? Studia poświęcone polskiej kulturze politycznej i reli­ gij­nej (X–XIII wiek), ed. Roman Michałowski and Grzegorz Pac (Warsaw: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, 2020), 725–96 at 791–93. 52 Długosz, Annales, bks. 7–8, at bk. 7, p. 19; Jan Ptak, “Zanim wyruszyli na wroga … Religijne przygotowanie do walki zbrojnej w średniowiecznej Polsce,” TKH OL PAN 11 (2014): 20–45 at 33–34. 53 Some interesting examples from thirteenth-century Poland are given by Ptak, “Zanim wyruszyli na wroga,” 32–33.

260

Maciejewski

in the infantry.54 No wonder, therefore, that during this war the Polish knights received the viaticum two days before the battle. 13 July was a Sunday and no decisive clash with the enemy was forecast. Thus, the army had time to take care of the spiritual needs of its warriors by providing them with an opportunity to receive the Eucharist during the solemn Sunday liturgy. Długosz’s account seems to be the most reliable, although it is not confirmed by any other source. Yet there remains the question of how such a large army was prepared spiritually to receive the viaticum. Hearing confessions and granting absolution by priests may not have been a complicated operation, but it did require a lot of time.55 There was certainly not enough time on the Sunday, 13 July, when not only a solemn Sunday Mass was celebrated and the viaticum was dispensed, but also the army traveled about twenty kilometers to a new camp site near the town of Gilgenburg (Pol. Dąbrówno). In the evening, it skirmished with a relief force sent by the Teutonic Knights to defend the town and finally stormed the town, captured it and plundered it.56 Medieval armies dealt with this problem of administering the sacrament in times of battle in a variety of ways. Sometimes public confession was used during military campaigns and was followed by public absolution of sins, evidenced by the events of 1148, when archbishop of Trier, Albero of Montreuil waged war against Count Palatine, Hermann.57 But, as it was said above, Jagiełło’s army was not accompanied by any bishop who could have granted absolution as Archbishop Albero did. It is true that in mortal danger episcopal 54 Nadolski, Grunwald, 72, 106–15, estimates the size of the Polish forces at around 20,000, but his estimates are rather exaggerated. On the sizes of both armies at Grunwald—briefly and rightly pessimistic with regard to the possibility of more accurate calculations—Ekdahl, Grunwald 1410, 79–81 with references to earlier literature. 55 Bachrach, Religion, 46, demonstrates, e.g., that 25 priests would have needed as many as 10 hours to hear the confessions of 5,000 soldiers, if each confession had lasted only three minutes. Whereas Michael A. Penman, “Faith in War: The Religious Experience of Scottish Soldiery, c.1100–c.1500,” JMH 37.3 (2011): 295–303 at 298 guesses rather than estimates, that hearing confession “was a task which presumably required a decent ratio of clerics to soldiers; say 1:40.” 56 More about the events that took place on 13 July and the following night, see Jóźwiak et al., Wojna, 373–82. 57 Gesta Alberonis archiepiscopi auctore Balderico, chap. 25, ed. Georg H. Waitz, MGH SS 8 (Hannover: Hahn, 1848), 234–60 at 256; A Warrior Bishop of the Twelfth Century: The Deeds of Albero of Trier, by Balderich, trans. Brian A. Pavlac (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2008), 67–68: When Albero was informed that the count palatine’s forces were approaching, “holding the archiepiscopal cross in his hands, he began to make an exhortatory oration. … Then when he had accepted the public confession of everyone and granted forgiveness and absolution by making a blessing upon them, he so inspired them all that no sign of fearfulness appeared in anyone.” See also Bachrach, Religion, 166.

Pleading for Victory and Eternal Life

261

and papal prerogatives ceased, yet in this case another, well-known method must have been applied. As early as in Carolingian Francia, all troops were required to be accompanied in wartime by a priest capable of hearing confession and imposing penance.58 These practices were still followed also in later periods. We learn from chroniclers’ accounts of the Battle of Bannockburn (1314) that the king of Scotland encouraged his troops to go to confession, hear a mass and receive the viaticum of the Body of Christ. Abbot Maurice of Inchaffray, the future bishop of Dunblane, is said to have heard the king’s confession, celebrated the Holy Mass and given Communion to the ruler and magnates; this was repeated by priests with regard to their units.59 During the Polish army’s campaign against the Teutonic Order in the summer of 1410, the religious needs of the Polish king and his entourage were met by court chaplains. This included Mikołaj Trąba, the deputy chancellor and then archbishop, first in Lviv (1410–1412) and then in Gniezno (1412–1422), serving as the monarch’s confessor.60 It was definitely not a novelty, but a centuries-old tradition that the monarch’s chaplains took part in his military expeditions and provided pastoral care on campaign, occasionally even taking up arms.61 When it comes to the army heading for Grunwald, each banner unit must have been accompanied by priests. Although in this case we lack no direct source evidence, it should be noted that similar practices were known in Poland already in the time of Bolesław the Wrymouth’s, when bishops and, undoubtedly, priests accompanying them, took care of the spiritual life of their diocesans in times of war.62 Unfortunately, we do not know how many these clergymen there were. It is highly unlikely, however, given Bachrach’s calculations, that there would have been enough time for confession on that Sunday, 13 July, even if the Sunday missa solemnis had been celebrated much earlier than usual, that is around today’s nine o’clock (circa horam teritiam).63

58 David S. Bachrach, “Lay Confession to Priests in Light of Wartime Practice (1097–1180),” RHE 102.1 (2007): 76–99 at 89. 59 John Stuart, Historical Notices of Fillan’s Crozier and of the Devotion of King Robert Bruce to St Fillan (Edinburgh: Neill and Company, 1877), 11–12; and see Robert Bubczyk’s essay in this collection (vol. 1, chap. 5). 60 Jerzy Sójka, “Posługi duszpasterskie przy wojskach polskich w wiekach średnich,” Acta Universitatis Lodzensis. Folia Historica 50 (1994): 93–105 at 102. 61 Ibid., 96–100; Jan Ptak, “Duszpasterstwo rycerstwa polskiego w epoce Piastów i Jagiellonów,” in Historia duszpasterstwa wojskowego na ziemiach polskich, ed. Jan Ziółek (Lublin: Towarzystwo Naukowe Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego, 2004), 83–108 at 87, 98, 105; Maciejewski, “Biskupi,” 87n97. 62 Gallus, Cronicae, 3.23, p. 150; Sójka, “Posługi,” 98–99; Kotecki, “Bishops,” 451–53. 63 For more on this, see Skierska, Obowiązek, 141–43.

262

Maciejewski

In combat, situations may change rapidly, and it is not always possible to predict the precise moment when the army will have to go en masse into battle. That is why the questions of pastoral ministry were sometimes dealt with too late, and they could not be executed fully. For example, before the Battle of Hastings (14 October 1066) the Norman clergy apparently devoted the whole night to hearing confessions and granting absolutions, and yet in view of an insufficient number of priests and, consequently, lack of time, warriors were forced to confess their sins to each other.64 Before the Battle of Agincourt (1415), on the other hand, the English went to confession a day before, but according to an eyewitness, the number of confessors was not sufficient, although there were plans to take around thirty royal chaplains to the expedition, not to mention at least a dozen or so other priests.65 More foresight was shown—although in this case the task was easier—by the commanders of the English army before the Battle of the Standard at Northallerton (22 August 1138), for by the morning of the day of the battle, the sacrament of penance had been administered to all who so desired in order for them to be able to receive “Christi carno et sanguinis”.66 In this context, one would probably have to agree that Długosz’s account of the Holy Mass and the giving of the viaticum to the army on 13 July is good evidence of the last stage of the knights’ religious preparations. By that time the priests must have made sure that knights wanting to confess their sins and receive absolution would have been granted their wish. There was, in any case, a good moment for that, because on 11 July and, above all, the following day the army rested at a camp set up near Soldau (Pol. Działdowo) after a long march of over forty kilometers.67 It seems that this provided enough time for the task to be accomplished by the numerous priests present in the army, especially the royal chaplains who, as Jan Długosz wrote on another occasion, apparently were in charge of the religious formation of the king and his knights.68 2.4 Pre-battle Rites on the Day of the Battle The last chords in the entire cycle of religious preparations for the decisive battle against the Teutonic Order were sounded before noon, on 15 July. As the 64 About acts of confession to laymen in eleventh–twelfth centuries, see Bachrach, “Lay Confession,” 92. 65 McHardy, Religion, 131–34, 136. 66 Bachrach, Religion, 159. 67 Tadeusz Grabarczyk, “W drodze pod Grunwald,” Annales Universitatis Paedagogicae Cracoviensis. Studia Historica 11 (2011): 7–25 at 13. 68 Długosz, Liber beneficiorum dioecesis Cracoviensis, 79; Ptak, “Zanim wyruszyli na wroga,” 31–32.

Pleading for Victory and Eternal Life

263

army was busy marching, setting up camp, organizing the baggage wagons’ stopping place, as well as arranging the battle formation, the religious rites were performed, on behalf of the army, by the monarch with just by his closest entourage at most. Still at the camp site near Gilgenburg before setting out, the king intended to hear, like he routinely did every day, a mass in his tented chapel at dawn, which Jan Długosz calls a “chapel” and which “had a choir loft and a nave like a church.”69 However, this was not possible because of a blustery wind, which made it impossible to put up the tent.70 When the army moved towards the later battle site and the king positioned himself “on a hill” and with his entourage watched the smoke from the fires started by the allied troops, he ordered that the chapel tent be put up to celebrate mass. Perhaps we should agree with those scholars who claim that the stopover was originally prompted solely by the king’s desire to celebrate the delayed mass and that the location was chosen because of its value as a vantage point.71 There is some discrepancy between the Cronica conflictus and the Annales regarding the number of masses celebrated at the time. The former mentions once service, while Długosz speaks of two masses. A closer look at the two accounts allows us to opt for the Annales version. The author of the Cronica conflictus makes a mental shortcut at this point, as a result of which two masses and the events happening between them merged to form one narrative. Particularly characteristic in this source is the motif of the monarch’s prayers being interrupted many times, an occurrence that seems rather unlikely. The credibility of Długosz’s 69 Długosz, Annales, bks. 10–11, at bk. 11, p. 121: “in capella regia, que in se et chorum et corpus ad instar ecclesie habebat.” Jagiełło also had relevant papal permissions to use portable altars, which had become necessary by then. For more on the use of liturgical tents in Poland in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, see Saczyńska, “Msza,” 250–54. For such special tented chapels in later Middle Ages, see Frédérique Lachaud, “Les tentes et l’activité militaire. Les guerres d’Edouard Ier Plantagenet (1272–1307),” Mélanges de l’école française de Rome 111.1 (1999): 443–61 at 450; David Simpkin, “Keeping up Appearances: The English Royal Court on Military Campaigns to Scotland, 1296–1336,” in Medieval and Early Modern Representations of Authority in Scotland and the British Isles, ed. Katherine Buchanan, Lucinda H.S. Dean, and Michael A. Penman (Farnham and Burlington VT: Ashgate, 2016), 37–52. 70 Cronica conflictus, 20; Długosz, Annales, bks. 10–11, at bk. 11, pp. 86–87. Celebrating mass on a portable altar in such weather was forbidden canonically because of fears of a possible profanation of the host; the knowledge of the precept in this part of Europe is confirmed by Bohemian and Polish synodal legislation from the fourteenth-fifteenth centuries, Saczyńska, “Msza,” 250. 71 Jóźwiak et al., Wojna, 400; Marek A. Janicki, “O pewnych dogmatach i kontrowersjach historiografii grunwaldzkiej. Miejsce postoju Władysława Jagiełły przed bitwą pod Grunwaldem a miejsce obozowania po niej w świetle ‘Cronica conflictus’ i ‘Annales’ Jana Długosza,” Średniowiecze Polskie i Powszechne 6(10) (2014): 202–54 at 223–24.

264

Maciejewski

account of two masses is confirmed by the fact that the chronicler informs us who celebrated them: the royal chaplains—Bartholomew, a parish priest from Kłobuck (and the chronicler’s paternal uncle) and the provost of Kalisz, Jarosław. Długosz refers to reconnaissance agents’ reports of the approaching enemy to the period preceding the celebration of both masses—later, the king apparently made sure his prayers would not be interrupted. The chronicler’s version is further confirmed by the king’s letter, written on the day following the battle, in which the ruler informs Poznań bishop Wojciech of the victory and mentions the masses in plural.72 The two accounts do not differ as much as it might first seem. Undoubtedly, the first of these services was simply the postponed daily mass, which the king wanted to hear secundum consuetudinem and which could not be celebrated at dawn because of the strong wind. Thus, it was silent, read missa matutinalis.73 It was most likely only after that mass that the king learned about the arrival of the enemy forces; he issued appropriate orders to the army and took part in yet another liturgy. It must have been during the second liturgy, when he was in no doubt that the battle against the Teutonic Order’s army was near, that the king prayed—as both chronicles inform us—on his knees, entrusting himself and his people to divine providence. Although the chroniclers probably do not give us verbatim accounts of the king’s prayer, presumably they do convey its meaning faithfully, as the liturgy participants certainly included people from the king’s closest circle.74 The accounts suggest that the Polish ruler took part in the liturgy and offered prayers also on behalf of his army, which had long been an established religious rite in Western Christendom.75 These royal prayers, said, according to Długosz, “even more piously than usual,” were not really a religious demonstration on the part of the ruler, who sought to strengthen his soldiers belief that their monarch was an honest Christian.76 Celebrating the mass on the morning of the battle was a typical pre-battle rite of Christian armies. It is usually mentioned in connection with pitched battles featuring larger armies, although in such cases—for logistical reasons, like at Grunwald—only the ruler and his entourage took part in the service. This happened, for example, before the Battle of Mühldorf (28 September 1322) when, according to Zbraslav Chronicle (or Chronicon Aulae Regiae), the king of Bohemia, John of Luxembourg, heard 72 Bömische, schlesische und polnische Berichte, 426: “Heri audientibus nobis missarum sollempnia.” 73 Skierska, Obowiązek, 144. 74 Ptak, “Zanim wyruszyli na wroga,” 36. 75 Bachrach, Religion, 182–83. 76 This is the view of Grabarczyk, “Armia,” 22.

Pleading for Victory and Eternal Life

265

the mass in the morning and strengthened his soul by receiving the Host.77 Similarly, before the Battle of Crécy (26 August 1346) masses were celebrated in both the English and the French camps. When it comes to the English, however, Froissart clearly says that the morning mass featured King Edward III with his son, most of the men from his entourage as we as all the lords.78 On the other hand, standing in prayer in the face of the approaching enemy was also part of the canon of behavior and the canon of constructing the image of rulers waging war. And in this case, we are dealing with old patterns too, as already attested by the biographer of Alfred the Great, king of Wessex.79 A particularly good analogy for the ostentatious piety shown on the morning of July 15 by the Polish king is the account of Zbraslav Chronicle (ca. 1305–1317) about the expedition of Wenceslas II, king of Bohemia and Poland to Hungary in 1304. According to Peter of Zittau, Wenceslas participated in numerous masses celebrated in tents, and when he was informed about the approaching enemy, like Jagiełło, he did not rush to the fight but kept praying.80 In addition, it should be stressed that we know nothing of Jagiełło’s faith being contested in Poland—Jagiełło had been baptized nearly a quarter of a century earlier, so he did not really need to prove his faith to his people. At that point, the king’s task was to behave following the custom and time-honored tradition, most likely with the hope that the news of the king’s praying for divine assistance and salvation for the dead would spread among the troops and strengthen the warriors’ morale. This must have indeed happened if the rumor about the masses celebrated in the face of the approaching enemy spread wide and, in a much distorted form, reached Silesia, where Jagiełło was said to have taken part in nine religious services before the battle.81 77 Cronica Aule Regie, 2.11, ed. Anna Pumprová, Libor Jan, et al., MGH SS 40 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2022), 410–11. 78 The Battle of Crécy: A Casebook, ed. Michael Livingston and Kelly Devries (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2015), 263, 267. 79 The Medieval Life of King Alfred the Great: A Translation and Commentary on the Text Attributed to Asser, trans. Alfred P. Smyth (Basingstoke NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002), 18–19. 80 Cronica Aule Regie, 1.68, p. 138: “quod ipse rex in terminis inimicorum constitutus in proteccione Dei altissimi plus quam in multitudine sui populi confidebat, nullatenus a consuetis oracionibus cessabat et plures missas sub tentoriis audiebat. Cum autem clamor propter insultum hostium aliquando in exercitu factus fuit, magis oracionibus, quam armorum defensionibus confisus nullatenus formidabat, sed in Domino suum fiducialiter cor habebat, nunquam eciam tantus timor in exercitu potuit esse, qui ipsum ab audicione misse alicuius, quam audire inceperat, poterat separare.” 81 Catalogus abbatum Saganensium, ed. Gustav A. Stenzel, Scriptores rerum Silesiacarum 1 (Breslau: Max & Komp., 1835), 173–528 at 256. Here, too, we read that the king heard these masses “elevatis manibus in tentorio orans pro populo suo.” Only one Ruthenian latopis

266

Maciejewski

The second mass was followed by a ceremony that was to raise the spirits of the warriors and make them even more eager to fight. Both the Cronica conflictus and Długosz mention a knighting ceremony. The former informs us that, after finishing his prayers, King Władysław issued relevant orders and went on horseback to see the battlefield, situated between two groves, and make sure the troops were standing in the correct formation. This was when “with his hand he knighted a thousand or more men, getting exhausted in the process.”82 When it comes to the details, the account can hardly be regarded as wholly credible. Mass knighting ceremonies had been known in Europe from at least the turn of the twelfth century; the oldest reference to them has been preserved in the Polish chronicle by Gallus Anonymus and concerns the knighting of young Prince Bolesław the Wrymouth as well as many of his peers.83 The custom of organizing mass ceremonies became popular, and some of these ceremonies were held during military expeditions (both before and after battles). In the case of the former, the ceremony played an integrating role for the army; it encouraged the new knights to show their boldness and made them believe in victory.84 In this context, the use of the ritual before the Battle of Grunwald does not arouse any suspicion, although it is, in fact, the only example of such a pre-battle ceremony in medieval Poland.85 What must be firmly rejected, however, is the number of the newly knighted men. Even assuming a considerable simplification of the usually elaborate religious rites—although they could not have been omitted entirely86—as well as limitation of the ceremony to the handing of the knightly belt, the king’s brief address and joint prayer and oath, the whole ceremony must have been very long. There was also a serious risk of chaos if such a large number of armed men had been taken out of their own banner units and gathered around the king at this point. In mentions Jagiełło taking part in the masses and Grand Duke Vytautas getting irritated because he had to wait for the Poles’ aid as result. See Julia Radziszewska, “Echa bitwy grunwaldzkiej w ruskich latopisach,” Małopolskie Studia Historyczne 3.1–2 (8–9) (1960): 67–80 at 73–74. 82 Cronica conflictus, 22: “tuncque ad mille vel ultra milites cinxit manu sua, quousque a cintura fatigatus fuit.” 83 Gallus, Cronicae, 2.18, p. 86; Joachim Bumke, Courtly Culture: Literature and Society in the High Middle Ages, trans. Thomas Dunlap (Berkeley CA and Oxford: University of California Press, 1991), 244; Zbigniew Dalewski, “The Knighting of Polish Dukes in the Early Middle Ages: Ideological and Political Significance,” APH 80 (1999): 15–43 at 25–26. 84 Dariusz Piwowarczyk, Obyczaj rycerski w Polsce późnośredniowiecznej (XIV–XV wiek) (Warsaw: DiG, 2006), 61–62. 85 Other examples cited by Piwowarczyk refer to ceremonies held after the battle, see the note above. 86 Ptak, “Zanim wyruszyli na wroga,” 26.

Pleading for Victory and Eternal Life

267

any case, even in peacetime, the biggest ceremonies of this kind featured a few hundred men at most.87 In the case of the Cronica conflictus we are certainly dealing with an exaggeration regarding the number of knighted men. This seems to have been intended and linked to the propagandistic nature of the work, the author of which also sought to defend the Polish king against accusation of unchivalrously delaying the battle by demonstrating that the king first had to deal with his duties to God, and then devoted himself to an activity beloved by knights—so much so that he became exhausted in the process. This view is substantiated by Jan Długosz’s account, which refers only to the king knighting many men, pointing to a grove near the hill where the monarch had stood earlier as the venue for the ceremony. The chronicler mentions two elements of the ceremony, that is the handing of the belt and the king’s “brief but powerful” speech to the new knights.88 Even if only a few dozen novices had the honor of being knighted during such a heavily-ritualized ceremony,89 the event must have postponed the order to go into battle for at least an hour, and became an element of the Polish command’s delaying tactics employed because of the Polish troops’ advantageous positioning in the shade. This eventually made the Grand Master so impatient that he sent to the king the two envoys with the famously provocative message and two swords.90 When it comes to the time following the knighting ceremony, the sources inform us of two more religious acts which can be regarded as belonging to the pre-battle rites and which apparently took place shortly before the battle started. According to the Cronica conflictus, King Władysław made a speech to his knights in which he reminded them of the wrongs and crimes inflicted on their fatherland by its enemies and of the fact that justice would be with them in the upcoming battle.91 The chronicler claims that the ruler spoke to 87

88 89

90 91

During the grandest mass knighting ceremony in medieval England in 1306 knight’s belts were given to the king’s son Edward of Caernarfon and 297 tyros, see Bumke, Courtly Culture, 245–46; Nigel Saul, Chivalry in Medieval England (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 2011), 81; Max Lieberman, “Knighting in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries,” Anglo-Norman Studies 43 (2020): 151–76 at 155–56. Długosz, Annales, bks. 10–11, at bk. 11, pp. 99, 107. By comparison, in 1260 King Přemysl Otakar II of Bohemia knighted 118 of his warriors before the Battle of Kressenbrunn, see Bumke, Courtly Culture, 245. We need to remember that at Grunwald, the approximately three hours from the arrival of Polish troops to the start of the battle had to accommodate the setting up of the chapel tent, celebration of two masses, ride to the command spot, knighting ceremony and reception of the Teutonic Knights’ envoys. Ekdahl, Grunwald 1410, 157–58. Cronica conflictus, 23–24.

268

Maciejewski

his knights “weeping and shedding many tears” (“cum fletu nimiaque effusione lacrimarum”), which is said to have made all listeners weep as well in the end. Długosz, on the other hand, writes that before the battle the king prayed fervently for heaven “to turn its wrath against the Teutonic Knights … and give courage to his knights.”92 It seems we are facing a dilemma: whether to give precedence to the information about the ruler’s speech or conclude that this was, in fact, about his prayer. Yet the choice might not be necessary, as the weeping mentioned in the Cronica conflictus was a pious practice and a form of communicating with God in the Middle Ages. In the fifteenth century, it was also used as a formalized and ritualized element of communal piety.93 Thus, the king’s brief speech may have been an introduction to the last public prayer before the battle, witnessed only by the monarch’s closest entourage. However, it is also possible that both accounts were affected by a desire to show a praying king who wanted to keep peace until the very last moment, who begged heaven for help and suffered because a great deal of Christian blood had to be shed.94 On the other hand, a commander delivering an oration to his soldiers before combat was a typical pre-battle ritual which may have been linked to the liturgy or other religious rites in one way or another. Before the Battle of the Standard an oration attributed by some sources to the sheriff of York and by other sources to the bishop of Orkney crowned a series of religious preparations of the English army.95 But, interestingly, László Veszprémy pointed out that in Hungarian sources there is a lot of descriptions of military commanders’ prayers, invocations, and speeches combined with shedding tears and he assumes that such orations may have been a part of battle rituals.96

92 Długosz, Annales, bks. 10–11, at bk. 11, p. 103. 93 See Piroska Nagy, “Religious Weeping as Ritual in the Medieval West,” Social Analysis 48.2 (2004): 119–37 at 122–23, 132; Jessie Gutgsell, “The Gift of Tears: Weeping in the Religious Imagination of Western Medieval Christianity,” Anglican Theological Review 97.2 (2015): 239–53 at 245. 94 For more on this, see Marek Lenart, “Czy Jagiełło płakał pod Grunwaldem?” in Wojny, bitwy i potyczki w kulturze staropolskiej, ed. Wiesław Pawlak and Magdalena Piskała, SS SN 30 (Warsaw: Instytut Badań Literackich Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 2011), 34–41, where the author also points to the Old Testament and early Christian roots of religious weeping. 95 Bachrach, Religion, 157. Detailed analysis of both orations: Jesse Patrick Harrington, “Harangue or Homily? Walter Espec, Deuteronomy, and the Renewal of the Covenant in Aelred of Rievaulx’s ‘Relatio de Standardo,’” HSJ 32 (2020): 163–83. 96 László Veszprémy, “A pityergő Árpádtól a könnyező Szent Lászlóig. A könnyekre fakadó hadvezér a Névtelen ‘Gesztája’ 39. és a ‘Krónikaszerkesztés’ 121., 137. Fejezetében,” Acta Historica (Szeged) 138 (2015): 17–32.

Pleading for Victory and Eternal Life

269

In the Polish tradition, there are first of all the speeches composed by Gallus Anonymus and said to have been delivered by Prince Bolesław the Wrymouth.97 During the 1110 expedition against the Bohemians, such a speech was apparently followed by masses for the various units during which sermons were delivered by bishops.98 The contents of these speeches (namely the reminder of and vengeance for all the wrongs, encouragement to fight, favor of heaven), including Jagiełło’s speech, are based on literary topos. This does not mean that we should doubt their general message or the fact that they were delivered. The descriptions can be rather imprecise, as they obviously depended on the author’s intention and degree of detail of the accounts in question. An example is the speech delivered in 1411 before (anti)Pope John XXIII by the Polish envoy Andrzej Łaskarzyc. The envoy said in it that after the mass the king “prayed to the Lord” for justice and protection for himself and his people.99 In any case, once again we find in these works elements of the old belief—going back at least to the Constantinian times and disseminated in the Carolingian period throughout the lands of Western Christianity—in the religious leadership of monarchs during military campaigns.100 What speaks in favor of the possibility of Jagiełło’s speech being linked to his public prayer is also the fact that his entourage included priests who were apparently needed to provide liturgical support to the monarch and his retinue. They perhaps were assisting him during the knighting ceremony, and then during the king’s public prayer for victory. And after that they could intone the chanting when the army was about to go into battle. A slightly similar situation can be observed in accounts of the Battle of Bouvines (27 July 1214). King Philip II Augustus of France is said to have delivered an address justifying the nature of his cause, promising that for this reason St. Denis and God would support the French side. When the battle commenced, two priests standing by the ruler began to sing psalms.101 Thus, we have arrived at the last of the religious rites—the singing by the Polish army going into battle of a religious anthem. The singing during the Battle of Grunwald is confirmed by several fifteenth-century accounts. The oldest account, in this case, is the Cronica conflictus, according to which when 97

Kazimierz Liman, “Die Feldherrenreden in der Polnischen Chronik des Anonymus Gallus,” Philologus 133 (1989): 284–302. 98 Gallus, Cronicae, 3.23, p. 150. According to Kotecki (“Bishops,” 451–52) these actions were parts of a procedure which had been known in Poland even earlier. 99 Ekdahl, Grunwald 1410, 285. 100 Kotecki, “Bishops,” 449–50. 101 Bachrach, Religion, 186. See also Radosław Kotecki, “With the Sword of Prayer, or How the Medieval Bishop Should Fight,” QMAN 21 (2016): 341–69 at 350–60.

270

Maciejewski

the king had finished his speech to the knights “they all began to weep and sing Bogurodzica and went into battle, shedding tears, which the king himself had drawn from their hearts with his words.”102 When Andrzej Łaskarzyc later delivered his speech at the papal court, he said that the Poles went into battle shaking their spears and singing, in their mother tongue, a hymn about the birth of the Lord, which begins with the words cited by the Cronica conflictus.103 Jan Długosz mentions that the hymn was sung during the Grunwald campaign twice. First, when the banners were unfurled after the crossing of the Prussian border (discussed above), and then—like two other accounts indicate—as the army was about to go into battle at Grunwald. Pertaining to that second occasion, the chronicler tells us that “the entire royal army loudly sang Bogurodzica and then, shaking their lances, threw themselves into battle.”104 The other accounts are of no documentary value regarding the singing of the anthem at Grunwald, but only testify to the fact that in some ecclesiastical circles the anthem was viewed as an important element of the national remembrance of Grunwald.105 Not all historians believe the information from the sources cited above. Stefan Kwiatkowski is the most critical among them—in his opinion the singing of Bogurodzica during the Prussian expedition is an element of literary fiction because the author of the Cronica conflictus and Jan Długosz used the song to shape the ideological image of the war. It is apparently used in these accounts to justify the aggression and cruelty of the Polish army as it captured Gilgenburg and then slashed the entire leadership of the Order during the Battle of Grunwald.106 Admittedly, the argument does not seem very convincing, but one can nevertheless add one more element to it. In his speech, Andrzej Łaskarzyc said that the army sang a song de nativitate domini canticum.107 A mistake on the part of the author of the speech seems highly unlikely, as the delegation headed by Łaskarzyc included Zbigniew Oleśnicki, 102 Cronica conflictus, 24: “omnes unanimiter cum fletu ‘Boga rodzycza’ cantare coeperunt et ad bellum processerunt, lacrimis tamen perfusis, quas ipse rex e pectoribus eorum eduxe­ rat suis exhortationibus.” 103 Ekdahl, Grunwald 1410, 285: “Confortaturus igitur in domino et in potencia virtutis eius suisque militibus animas suas Deo humiliantibus lanceasque vibrantibus simul et laudem Deo cantantibus in vulgari suo Polonico de nativitate domini canticum resonantes, quod incipit: Dei genitrix.” 104 Długosz, Annales, bks. 10–11, at bk. 11, p. 105: “Signis canere incipientibus regius universes exercitus patrium carmen Bogurodzicza sonora voce vociferates est, deinde hastis vibratis in prelium prorupit.” 105 Janicki, “Grunwald,” 116–17, 124. 106 Kwiatkowski, “Śpiewy grunwaldzkie,” esp. 114–18. 107 Ekdahl, Grunwald 1410, 285: “de nativitate domini canticum.”

Pleading for Victory and Eternal Life

271

who as the royal secretary remained by the king’s side throughout the Battle of Grunwald.108 Moreover, from the mid-fifteenth century, the sources confirm the Nativity-related nature of the song very well. On the other hand, it must be strongly emphasized that the understanding of the first verse of Bogurodzica is debatable today, although there is no denying its prayerful and intercessory nature.109 There are many other arguments against Kwiatkowski’s thesis. I do not question the Polish-Lithuanian army’s invasion of Prussia, or the cruelty inflicted by it on the inhabitants of the town Gilgenburg. Nor do I have anything against the view that songs may play an important role in the narratives of medieval chroniclers. However, the acknowledgement of the phenomenon does not have to lead to the challenging of many source accounts regarding the basic facts, all the more so given that Stefan Kwiatkowski unjustifiably links Bogurodzica with the storming of Gilgenburg. After all, the chronicler places it in the context of rites associated with the invasion of the enemy’s territory and not the capture of the town, which took place two days later.110 In addition, Długosz calls this song carmen patrium, and his references to singing it during the war with the Teutonic Knights before the skirmish at Dąbki (1431) or before the Battle of Vilkomir (Lit. Ukmergė/Vilkmergė, Pol. Wiłkomierz) (1435)—where several verses of Bogurodzica were apparently sung “as was the custom of our forefathers”—have nothing to do with covering up the Polish aggression, as in both cases the Teutonic Knights were the aggressors. Instead, they may have something to do with the Polish victories, as was the case with Grunwald. In addition, the oldest fragment of the song, which is of interest here— although when and why it originated continues to the subject of heated debates—was recorded in two manuscripts in two different parts of the country already in the end of the first decade of the fifteenth century. That is why no scholar questions the fact that in Władysław Jagiełło’s time, the hymn was well-known, at least in elite church and court circles. That is also why a vast majority of historians accept that the royal army indeed sang Bogurodzica at

108 Ibid., 151. See also above n. 10. Although Janicki’s assertion, “Grunwald,” 124, that Zbigniew Oleśnicki as a bishop promoted the anthem is only a conjecture. 109 Roman Mazurkiewicz and Zofia Wanicowa, “Dlaczego ‘Bogurodzicę’ śpiewano w liturgicznym okresie Bożego Narodzenia?” Pamiętnik Literacki 96.2 (2005): 25–41, where references to older works. 110 Compare with remarks concerning Kwiatkowski’s claims in Marzena Matla, “‘Carmen patrium Bogurodzica’—czas powstania, kontekst historyczny i inspiracje,” KH, 122.2 (2015): 39–71 at 41n11.

272

Maciejewski

Grunwald.111 The use of a song associated with Marian piety in the Polish king’s military campaign should not be surprising. The association of the Blessed Virgin Mary with warfare can be traced in Latin Europe back to at least the seventh century, when the story of the Virgin Mary defending a city against an invasion emerged in southern Italy, probably under Byzantine influence. By the eleventh century, the Blessed Virgin Mary had become the patron saint of warfare in the Iberian Peninsula.112 A similar context—of the fight against non-Christian enemies—is that of the emergence of the Marian cult supporting Bolesław the Wrymouth’s military expansion in pagan Pomerania. Prince Bolesław is said to have believed in the intercession and protection of Mary, and to have ordered that Office in honor of the Blessed Virgin Mary be celebrated before the storming of Kołobrzeg.113 These traditions were cultivated in a military context. Przemysł I of Greater Poland, one of the most committed devotees of chivalric customs among Polish dukes in the thirteenth century, “whenever possible celebrated the hours of the glorious Lady and held her in the greatest reverence.”114 Additionally, one may look at a seal of one of the Piast princes in Mazovia, Bolesław II. It represents the prince, preparing for military expedition, kneeling in front of St. Mary who is giving him her blessing.115 To support the belief that the Polish army sang a religious anthem at Grunwald, we can point out that religious battle cries and singing had accompanied Christian armies for ages. In August of 881, before the Battle of Saucourt against the Danes, the Frankish troops apparently sang the invocation Kyrie 111 A discussion of the basic issues concerning the chronology as well as the historical context of the emergence and development of the anthem, primarily from the point of view of a historian, can be found in Marzena Matla’s article, “‘Carmen patrium.’” 112 Amy G. Remensnyder, La Conquistadora. The Virgin Mary at War and Peace in the Old and New Worlds (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 15–16, 21, 40–41, 43. For more information on St. Mary as military aide in medieval Christianity, see Klaus Schreiner, Märtyrer, Schlachtenhelfer, Friedenstifter. Krieg und Frieden im Spiegel mittelalterlicher und frühneuzeitlicher Heiligenverehrung, OFVK 18 (Opladen: Springer, 2000), 81–114. 113 Gallus, Cronicae, 2.28, p. 95; Łukasz Żak, “Kult Najświętszej Maryi Panny w Polsce do początku XII wieku,” Salvatoris Mater 10.3 (2008): 180–227 at 205–9; Marek Stawski, “Religijność w Polsce XII wieku. Zarys problematyki,” in Pierwsze wieki chrześcijaństwa w Polsce. Do roku 1200, ed. Jan Tyszkiewicz and Krzysztof Łukawski (Pułtusk: Akademia Humanistyczna im. Aleksandra Gieysztora, 2017), 97–112, esp. 104–8. 114 Chronica Poloniae Maioris, ed. Brygida Kürbis, MPH NS 8 (Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawni­ ctwo Naukowe, 1970), 108. 115 Paweł Figurski, “The ‘Exultet’ of Bolesław II of Mazovia and the Sacralisation of Political Power in the High Middle Ages,” in Premodern Rulership and Contemporary Political Power: The King’s Body Never Dies, ed. Karolina Mroziewicz and Aleksander Sroczyński, Central European medieval studies 1 (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2017), 73–110 at 104.

Pleading for Victory and Eternal Life

273

eleison, perhaps under the influence of Byzantine customs.116 The practice was also popular in the following centuries, for example during crusades, as laymen were familiar with the invocation.117 Its use at the start of a battle by the Polish army (or, more precisely, by the Mazovian army of Duke Conrad I) is confirmed by the account of the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle of the Battle of Jaroslav (Pol. Jarosław, Ukr. Yaroslav) on the San River on 17 August 1245.118 It is also known that as early as in the thirteenth century the Bohemian army sang the anthem Hospodine pomiluj ny, (Lord, have mercy on us) which was sung publicly on important occasions like the welcoming of a ruler or a new bishop, or the royal coronation, but also during battles (Kressenbrun, 1260 and Marchfeld, 1278 [or Dürnkrut, Czech Moravské pole or Suché Kruty]).119 In addition, sources attribute a military character to the German song Christ ist erstanden, which is said to have been sung by the Teutonic Order’s troops both during the Litauenreisen and the Battle of Grunwald.120 Thus the practice of singing such anthems during military expeditions is very well confirmed. We may not know for sure whether the hymn sung at Grunwald was indeed Bogurodzica, but it is hard to disagree that it would naturally complement the king’s prayer to heaven to support his cause. The content of the hymn, in which those singing it (or rather praying) ask Christ, through the Virgin Mary and St. John the Baptist, to hear their prayers and grant them salvation, fits well with the circumstances: Mother of God, Virgin, by God glorified Mary, From your son, our Lord, chosen mother, Mary! Win over for us, send to us. Kyrie eleison.

116 Michael McCormick, Eternal Victory: Triumphal Rulership in Late Antiquity, Byzantium, and the Early Medieval West (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), 354; Bachrach, Religion, 41. 117 M. Cecilia Gaposchkin, Invisible Weapon: Liturgy and the Making of Crusade Ideology (Ithaca NY and London: Cornell University Press, 2017), 108. 118 Chronica Galiciano-Voliniana (Chronica Romanoviciana), ed. Dariusz Dąbrowski and Adrian Jusupović, MPH NS 16 (Cracow and Warsaw: Polska Akademia Umiejętności, 2017), 280. 119 Matla, “‘Carmen patrium,’” 67; Lenart, “Czy Jagiełło płakał,” 43. For Kressenbrunn, see Radosław Kotecki’s chapter in this collection (vol. 2, chap. 3). 120 Krzysztof Kwiatkowski, “‘Christ ist erstanden  …’ and Christian Win! Liturgy and the Sacralization of Armed Fight Against Pagans as Determinants of the Identity of the Members of the Teutonic Order in Prussia,” in Sacred Space in the State of the Teutonic Order in Prussia, ed. Jarosław Wenta and Magdalena Kopczyńska, SBS 2 (Toruń: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika, 2013), 101–27.

274

Maciejewski

Son of God, for the sake of your Baptist, Hear our voices, fulfill man’s intentions. Hearken to the prayer that we offer, And deign to give us what we ask for: On earth, a pious sojourn, After life, heavenly residence. Kyrie eleison.121 Therefore, one should agree with Marek Lenart’s very important conclusions, although expressed conditionally, that if the army did indeed sing this song at Grunwald then it should be treated in this context as an intercessory prayer which was at the same time an ardent act and a battle cry.122 Obviously, the question about the details remains open. At that time, the hymn was known only among the elites and performing it is by no means easy in vocal musical terms.123 In any case, it is hard to imagine that the information about its singing applied to the entire army, which was stretched about three kilometers wide and two to three deep,124 even if only two-thirds of the area was occupied by the Polish forces. Presumably, therefore, the singing was led by priests, before they were sent back to the camp on the king’s orders. It is likely that the troops, gathered farther back, limited themselves to performing the Kyrie eleison refrain. Alternatively, the priests may have led this sung prayer for their respective units, but there is no confirmation for such a thesis. 3

Intercessory Prayers of the Clergy and the People

Before proceeding to the conclusion, It would be reasonable to touch upon an issue on which the sources, unfortunately, do not shed much light in the case of the Battle of Grunwald. There are two matters to be dealt with here, namely support for the army through public prayers, that is the so-called home front, and orations of the clergy during the battle. Information about public prayers for the victory for the army appear in Polish sources much later than in the neighboring Kingdom of Hungary, where 121 Translated by Michał Mikoś, bit.ly/3c9JaOs. The most important edition of the song is Bogurodzica, ed. Jerzy Woronczak, linguistic introduction Ewa Ostrowska, musicological study Hieronim Feicht (Wrocław, Warsaw, and Cracow: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossoliń­ skich, 1962). 122 Lenart, “Czy Jagiełło płakał,” 44. 123 Matla, “‘Carmen patrium,’” 51, 69, where see also works cited in n. 165. 124 Nadolski, Grunwald, 147.

Pleading for Victory and Eternal Life

275

such practices were known already in the eleventh century. We know, for example, that King Stephen the Saint, threatened with an invasion by Emperor Conrad II in 1030, is said to have ordered prayers and fasts across the kingdom, seeking God’s help.125 One may learn more about these matters with regard to Poland only from the privilege of Bolesław the Chaste issued on 13 June 1258 for the bishopric of Cracow, where it reads that the bishop was exempted with his chapter and the entire clergy from participating in expeditions both within the borders of the duchy and outside it. Bishop of Cracow, Prędota, who had distinguished himself in the defense of the interests of the local church, may have wanted to separate the clergy from military matters, allowing priests only to provide religious support to the ruler and his army. As we learn from the analyzed diploma, the bishop and his priests should not go to war in order to be able to focus, when the kingdom was under threat, on divine service and prayer.126 This narrative of the ducal document fits well with the reports of Cracow annalists about the Battle of Wrota in June 1266, where the same Duke Bolesław is said to have defeated Shavarn, son of Daniel of Galicia, not thanks to his valor, but thanks to the church’s prayer and God’s help.127 Such prayers on the home front were also to be a decisive support to the Bohemians at the Battle of Kressenbrunn (nowadays Groißenbrunn) (1260), although the author of Annales Ottakariani does not indicate the involvement of the clergy in this case.128 We nonetheless find in these accounts the common medieval belief that prayer can be effective, even if it is offered in a place distant from military action, and that victory does not depend on the size of the army, but on divine assistance.129 Such public prayers had been said since Carolingian times, whenever a ruler so wished, by the diocesan clergy headed by the local 125 Wiponis Gesta Chuonradi imperatoris, chap. 26, ed. Harry Bresslau, MGH SS rer. Germ. 61 (Hannover and Leipzig: Hahn, 1915), 44. 126 Codex diplomaticus Cathedralis ad S. Venceslaum ecclesiae Cracoviensis, vol. 1, ed. Franciszek Piekosiński, MMAH 1 (Cracow: Akademia Umiejętności, 1874–1883), 75 (no. 59): “Insuper ut Episcopus cum clero suo possit diuinis laudibus liberius insistere et inuigilare presertim hostilitatis tempore oracionibus”; see also Maciejewski, “Biskupi,” 80. 127 Annales capituli Cracoviensis, 92: “non tantum propria virtute, sed oracionibus ecclesie et superno auxilio adiuvante. Nec hec victoria est humanis viribus sed pocius divine potentie asscribenda.” Similarly: Rocznik kujawski, ed. August Bielowski, MPH 3, 204–12 at 206; Catalogi episcoporum Cracoviensium, ed. Józef Szymański, MPH NS 10.2 (Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1974), 99. 128 Annales Ottakariani, ed. Josef Emler, FrB 2 (Prague: Museum království českého, 1874), 308–35 at 315: “magnae autem a magna parte christianitatis uaque ad Coloniam magnam et ultra orationes pro ipsis sollemniter ad deum fusae ipsis, immo multo populo chri­ stiano divina praesidia et angelica meruere.” 129 Bachrach, Religion, 155; Jacek Maciejewski, “Biskup krakowski Pełka a bitwa nad Mozgawą w 1195 roku,” KH 124.3 (2018): 411–38 at 422.

276

Maciejewski

bishop.130 The custom of organizing such prayers was still cultivated in Poland in the fifteenth century, but more precise data on similar prayers offered by the Polish clergy inspired and ordered by bishops during a royal military expedition are available only from the time of the anti-Turkish expedition of 1443. Here, the archbishop of Gniezno and the bishop of Cracow issued special edicts ordering processions, fasts and prayers for the fighting of Władysław Jagiellon of Poland and Hungary (Hung. I. Ulászló, Pol. Władysław III Warn󠄔eńczyk), and the fatherland.131 Similarly, in 1456, during another war against the Teutonic Order, Cracow bishop Tomasz Strzępiński ordered that processions be held throughout the diocese for the victory of the royal army.132 As already mentioned, there is no similar evidence about the 1410 war between Poland and the Teutonic Order. It is known that after Grunwald, however, just as it happened after the successful anti-Turkish campaign of 1443, when the news of the great victory reached Poland, people “sang in praise of God” in all Polish churches, even before the king personally began a long series of thanksgiving celebrations. All this happened, according to Długosz, on the king’s order.133 In addition, it is worth bearing in mind that during the monarch’s absence the Kingdom of Poland was governed by archbishop of Gniezno, Mikołaj Kurowski.134 Therefore, given the already quite long—thus probably well-established—tradition and the cultivation of the custom in question in the period after Grunwald, it may seem very likely that also during the 1410 war public prayers for the king’s good fortune in warfare were offered in Poland, not only in the shrines of Łysa Góra and Poznań, which were close to the monarch’s heart, but also in other Polish churches.

130 Bachrach, Religion, 107, 122–23, 138. For such a home front prayers, see also Nigel, Chivalry, 209–14; Richard Allington, “Crusading Piety and the Development of Crusading Devotions at the Fourth Lateran Council,” in The Fourth Lateran Council and the Crusade Movement, ed. Jessalynn Bird and Damian Smith, Outremer 7 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2018), 13–40. 131 Codex diplomaticus Maioris Poloniae, vol. 10, ed. Antoni Gąsiorowski and Tomasz Jasiński, Wydawnictwa źródłowe Komisji Historycznej 23 (Poznań: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1993), pp. 314–16 (no. 1624); Zbiór dokumentów katedry i diecezji krakowskiej, vol. 2, ed. Stanisław Kuraś, Materiały do dziejów Kościoła w Polsce 4 (Lublin: Towarzystwo Naukowe Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego, 1973), nos. 446, 456; see also Katarzyna Spurgjasz, “Modlitwy o zwycięstwo w kościołach polskich w 1443 roku,” in Wojna a religia w średniowieczu, ed. Monika Zapiór (Cracow: Koło Naukowe Historyków Studentów Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 2009), 105–10. 132 Maria Starnawska, Świętych życie po życiu. Relikwie w kulturze religijnej na ziemiach pol­ skich (Warsaw: DiG, 2008), 403. 133 Długosz, Annales, bks. 10–11, at bk. 11, p. 126. 134 Ibid., bks. 10–11, at bk. 11, p. 59.

Pleading for Victory and Eternal Life

277

With respect to prayers for victory offered by the clergy on the battlefield, they are well attested for the period when Polish monarchs were accompanied by bishops during military expeditions, that is until the beginning of the thirteenth century. What happened later remains debatable for the moment. If there were no church dignitaries during military expeditions, then perhaps we are missing here not so much someone who could have organized prayers, but above all someone to whom such successful prayers could have been attributed, which is why they were simply not mentioned. According to Długosz, before the start of the Battle of Grunwald, the king ordered the Deputy Chancellor of the Crown, Mikołaj Trąba, to “go with all the priests and scribes” to the encampment.135 However, no orations by the clergy in the camp are known. The first suggestion that comes to mind is that the situation may have been like that during the Battle of Agincourt. The English king sent priests back to the place where the army’s supplies and baggage were kept and where they “were to celebrate rites and zealously pray for him and his men.” Yet the account of the author of Gesta Henrici Quinti, who took part in this, suggests not any organized liturgy but individual prayer, although it may not have been quiet if there were cries prompted by fear for the result of the battle.136 Elsewhere in the Annales, it can be read, however, that when Mikołaj Trąba was ordered to leave, he went away “amidst a torrent of tears,” so it seems that he had already started praying, at least individually, although it is known that he was not alone at the time, and crying may suggest prayer as a public ritual.137 4

Conclusions

The conclusions should probably start with some general observations. First of all, that the highly propagandistic nature of most of the sources used here is no obstacle to establishing facts that are cultural in nature. What matters is not only whether specific religious rites were used at a given time and place, 135 Ibid., bks. 10–11, at bk. 11, p. 100. 136 Gesta Henrici Quinti, 50, 51: “At that time, for as long as the conflict of battle lasted, I who write this was sitting on a horse amidst the baggage at the rear of the battle. With the other priests who were present we humbled our souls in the presence of God, and recalled [gap] which the church was reading at that time, and we said in our hearts, ‘Remember us, Lord! Our enemies have congregated together and boast of their strength. Grind down their bravery and destroy them, so that they can know that there is no one else who fights for us except you, Lord.’ We also exclaimed in fear and panic with our eyes raised to heaven that God would take pity on us and the crown of England”; see also Contamine, War, 299. 137 Długosz, Annales, bks. 10–11, at bk. 11, p. 105.

278

Maciejewski

but also the belief that they would be applicable in this case. Finally, it is impossible to escape the conviction that the available sources provide us with a good insight into the ideas of the Polish court and church elites in the early fifteenth century concerning religious preparations of the army for battle. There are no reasons to question the established course of events; in any case, there are no more reasons for questioning them than in other armed conflicts in Christendom. Thus, the available source accounts of the Battle of Grunwald give suitable information to be able to reconstruct the whole set of religious rites used by the king on his own behalf as well as on behalf of the kingdom and the warriors under his command. We can even speak of a rare level of detail in the entire picture, which stems from the fact that the war was against Christians representing a religious institution or being subordinated to it. Consequently, matters that would have been omitted from accounts on other occasions needed to be highlighted for propagandistic reasons. In addition, the war and the battle were unprecedented events in Poland’s history—and happy events at that—which undoubtedly prompted chroniclers to record their story for posterity. Some of the wartime religious rites mentioned here can be regarded as typical of Western Christianity and rooted in the old, even Carolingian traditions, if not older ones. They had also been known in Poland for a long time. They included masses, sermons on the just war, confessions, administration and reception of the viaticum, public and private intercessory prayers of the ruler, prayerful singing of the army going into battle as well as the knighting ceremony, which at that time must have had a religious context as well. When it comes to innovations, in Poland the king’s votive contract with God, based on the thinking in gift and counter gift, was never mentioned before in sources, and it seems to be a novelty implemented by a new dynasty. It was supported by the ruler’s public pilgrimage to the shrine where the relics of the Holy Cross were kept, as well as by the promise to visit another shrine where the cult of the Eucharist had been developing dynamically. The successful outcome of Grunwald prompted King Władysław to resort to this solution later as well. This contract, as it were, may have also had room for the two patron saints of the Kingdom of Poland, St. Vojtěch-Adalbert and St. Stanislaus, whose cathedral shrines were also visited by the king after the victory. A further innovation appears to be the prayer combined with religious singing during the unfurling of banners within enemy territory. It is worth of noting that in this case no simple analogies can be made and we might be dealing here only with chroniclers’ propagandistic attempt to use solemn religious rites as a cover for the invasion of a Christian country. We cannot, however, rule

Pleading for Victory and Eternal Life

279

out that it was precisely for these reasons that the rites were indeed used. The more so because one can see some similarities between Długosz’s and Annales Ottakariani accounts on unfurling of banners. Whether on this occasion, like at the beginning of the battle, the Polish army sang Bogurodzica is a matter of secondary importance, although the research carried out so far seems to be confirming such an opinion. Bibliography

Primary Sources

A Warrior Bishop of the Twelfth Century: The Deeds of Albero of Trier, by Balderich. Translated by Brian A. Pavlac. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2008. Annales capituli Cracoviensis. In Annales Cracovienses priores cum kalendario. Edited by Zofia Kozłowska-Budkowa, 19–105. MPH NS 5. Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1978. Annales Ottakariani. Edited by Josef Emler, 308–35. FrB 2. Prague: Museum království českého, 1874. Bogurodzica. Edited by Jerzy Woronczak. Linguistic introduction by Ewa Ostrowska. Musicological study by Hieronim Feicht. Wrocław, Warsaw, and Cracow: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, 1962. Bogurodzica. Translated by Michał Mikoś. bit.ly/3c9JaOs. Böhmische, schlesische und polnische Berichte [Annex 4 to Johanns von Posilge, Officials von Pomesanien, Chronik des landes Preussen]. Edited by Ernst Strehelke, 423–42. SrP 3. Leipzig: Hirzel, 1866. Catalogi episcoporum Cracoviensium. Edited by Józef Szymański. MPH NS 10.2. Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1974. Catalogus abbatum Saganensium. Edited by Gustav A. Stenzel, 173–528. Scriptores rerum Silesiacarum 1. Breslau: Max & Komp., 1835. The Battle of Crécy: A Casebook. Edited by Michael Livingston and Kelly Devries. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2015. Chronica Galiciano-Voliniana (Chronica Romanoviciana). Edited by Dariusz Dąbrowski and Adrian Jusupović. MPH NS 16. Cracow and Warsaw: Polska Akademia Umiejętności, 2017. Chronica Poloniae Maioris. Edited by Brygida Kürbis, MPH NS 8. Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1970. The Chronicle of Lanercost. Edited and translated by Herbert Maxwell. Glasgow: Maclehose and Sons, 1913. Codex diplomaticus Cathedralis ad S. Venceslaum ecclesiae Cracoviensis. Vol. 1. Edited by Franciszek Piekosiński. MMAH 1. Cracow: Akademia Umiejętności, 1874.

280

Maciejewski

Codex diplomaticus Maioris Poloniae. Vol. 10. Edited by Antoni Gąsiorowski and Tomasz Jasiński. Wydawnictwa źródłowe Komisji Historycznej 23. Poznań: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1993. Codex diplomaticus Maioris Poloniae. Vol. 5. Edited by Franciszek Piekosiński. Poznań: Fundacja Norberta Bredkrajcza, 1908. Codex diplomaticus Maioris Poloniae. Vol. 7. Edited by Antoni Gąsiorowski and Ryszard Walczak. Warsaw and Poznań: Poznańskie Towarzystwo Przyjaciół Nauk, 1985. Codex diplomaticus Poloniae Minoris. Vol. 1. Edited by Franciszek Piekosiński. MMAH 3. Cracow: Akademia Umiejętności, 1876. Cronica Aule Regie. Edited by Anna Pumprová, Libor Jan, et al. MGH SS 40. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2022. Cronica conflictus Wladislai regis Poloniae cum Cruciferis anno Christi 1410. Edited by Zygmunt Celichowski. Poznań: Biblioteka Kórnicka, 1911. Galli Anonymi Cronicae et gesta ducum sive principum Polonorum. Edited by Karol Maleczyński. MPH NS 2. Cracow: Polska Akademia Umiejętności, 1952. Gesta Alberonis archiepiscopi auctore Balderico. Edited by Georg H. Waitz, 234–60. MGH SS 8. Hannover: Hahn, 1848. Gesta Henrici Quinti. Edited by Frank Taylor and John Smith Roskell. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975. Ioannis Dlugossii Annales seu cronicae incliti regni Poloniae. Bks. 1–12. Edited by Consilium (Cracow: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1964–2005). Fully accessible via National Digital Library Polona, dlugosz.polona.pl/en. Jan Długosz. Liber beneficiorum dioecesis Cracoviensis. Vol. 3. In Joannis Długossii Senioris Canonici Cracoviensis Opera omnia. Vol. 9. Edited by Aleksander Przeździecki. Cracow: Czas, 1864. The Medieval Life of King Alfred the Great: A Translation and Commentary on the Text Attributed to Asser. Translated by Alfred P. Smyth. Basingstoke NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002. Rocznik kujawski. Edited by August Bielowski, 204–12. MPH 3. Cracow: Gubrynowicz & Schmidt, 1878. Rocznik małopolski. Edited by August Bielowski, 135–202. MPH 3. Cracow: Gubrynowicz & Schmidt, 1878. Rocznik Traski. Edited by August Bielowski, 826–61. MPH 2. Lviv: Bielowski, 1872. Wiponis Gesta Chuonradi imperatoris. Edited by Harry Bresslau. MGH SS rer. Germ. 61. Hannover and Leipzig: Hahn, 1915. Zbiór dokumentów katedry i diecezji krakowskiej. Vol. 2. Edited by Stanisław Kuraś. Materiały do dziejów Kościoła w Polsce 4. Lublin: Towarzystwo Naukowe Katoli­ ckiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego, 1973.

Pleading for Victory and Eternal Life



Secondary Sources

281

Allington, Richard. “Crusading Piety and the Development of Crusading Devotions at the Fourth Lateran Council.” In The Fourth Lateran Council and the Crusade Movement. Edited by Jessalynn Bird and Damian Smith, 13–40. Outremer 7. Turnhout: Brepols, 2018. Bachrach, David S. “Lay Confession to Priests in Light of Wartime Practice (1097–1180).” RHE 102.1 (2007): 76–99. Bachrach, David S. “Military Chaplains and the Religion of War in Ottonian Germany, 919–1024.” RSS 39.1 (2011): 13–31. Bachrach, David S. Religion and the Conduct of War, c.300–1215. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2003. Bliese, John R.E. “Fighting Spirit and Literary Genre: A Comparison of Battle Exhortations in the ‘Song of Roland’ and in Chronicles of the Central Middle Ages.” Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 96.4 (1995): 417–36. Bliese, John R.E. “When Knightly Courage May Fail: Battle Orations in Medieval Europe.” Historian 53.3 (1991): 489–504. Borkowska, Urszula. “Polskie pielgrzymki Jagiellonów.” In “Peregrinationes.” Pielgrzymki w kulturze dawnej Europy. Edited by Hanna Manikowska and Hanna Zaremska, 185–203. Warsaw: Instytut Historii Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 1995. Bracha, Krzysztof. “Kult relikwii Krzyża Świętego i pielgrzymka Władysława Jagiełły do opactwa łysogórskiego w czerwcu 1410 r.” In Bitwa grunwaldzka w historii, tradycji i kulturze 1410–2010. Edited by Tomasz Ossowski, 7–20. Kielce: Ostrowieckie Stowarzyszenie Historyczne “Solidarność i Pamięć,” 2010. Bumke, Joachim. Courtly Culture: Literature and Society in the High Middle Ages. Translated by Thomas Dunlap. Berkeley CA and Oxford: University of California Press, 1991. Contamine, Philippe. War in the Middle Ages. Oxford and Malden MA: Blackwell, 1986. Dalewski, Zbigniew. “The Knighting of Polish Dukes in the Early Middle Ages: Ideological and Political Significance.” APH 80 (1999): 15–43. Derwich, Marek. Benedyktyński klasztor św. Krzyża na Łysej Górze w średniowieczu. Warsaw and Wrocław: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1992. Dudka, Monika. “Dyplomaci Władysława Jagiełły w Stolicy Apostolskiej.” Nasza Przeszłość 128 (2017): 5–39. Ekdahl, Sven. Grunwald 1410. Studia nad tradycją i źródłami. Cracow: Avalon, 2010. Ekdahl, Sven. Die Schlacht bei Tannenberg 1410. Quellenkritische Untersuchungen. Vol. 1: Einführung und Quellenlage. Berliner historische Studien 8.1. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1982. Figurski, Paweł. “The ‘Exultet’ of Bolesław II of Mazovia and the Sacralisation of Political Power in the High Middle Ages.” In Premodern Rulership and Contemporary

282

Maciejewski

Political Power: The King’s Body Never Dies. Edited by Karolina Mroziewicz and Aleksander Sroczyński, 73–110. Central European medieval studies 1. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2017. Figurski, Paweł. “Liturgiczne początki ‘Polonii’. Lokalna adaptacja chrześcijańskiego kultu a tworzenie ‘polskiej’ tożsamości politycznej w X–XI w.” In Oryginalność czy wtórność? Studia poświęcone polskiej kulturze politycznej i religijnej (X–XIII wiek). Edited by Roman Michałowski and Grzegorz Pac, 725–96. Warsaw: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, 2020. Gaposchkin, M. Cecilia. Invisible Weapon: Liturgy and the Making of Crusade Ideology. Ithaca NY and London: Cornell University Press, 2017. Gąsiorowski, Antoni. Itinerarium króla Władysława Jagiełły 1386–1434. Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1972. Gawlas, Sławomir. “Pobożność Władysława Łokietka.” In “Ecclesia—regnum—fontes.” Studia z dziejów średniowiecza. Edited by Sławomir Gawlas et al., 191–205. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, 2014. Grabarczyk, Tadeusz. “W drodze pod Grunwald.” Annales Universitatis Paedagogicae Cracoviensis. Studia Historica 11 (2011): 7–25. Gutgsell, Jessie. “The Gift of Tears: Weeping in the Religious Imagination of Western Medieval Christianity.” Anglican Theological Review 97.2 (2015): 239–53. Harrington, Jesse Patrick. “Harangue or Homily? Walter Espec, Deuteronomy, and the Renewal of the Covenant in Aelred of Rievaulx’s ‘Relatio de Standardo.’” HSJ 32 (2020): 163–83. Janicki, Marek A. “‘Cronica conflictus’—zaklęte źródło. Z prolegomenów nowej edycji.” In Monarchia—społeczeństwo—tożsamość. Studia z dziejów średniowiecza. Edited by Katarzyna Gołąbek et al., 143–65. Warsaw: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, 2020. Janicki, Marek A. “Grunwald w tradycji polskiej od wieku XV do XVII.” In Na znak świetnego zwycięstwa. W sześćsetną rocznicę bitwy pod Grunwaldem. Studia. Edited by Dariusz Nowacki, 90–154. Cracow: Zamek Królewski na Wawelu, 2010. Janicki, Marek A. “O pewnych dogmatach i kontrowersjach historiografii grunwal­ dzkiej. Miejsce postoju Władysława Jagiełły przed bitwą pod Grunwaldem a miejsce obozowania po niej w świetle ‘Cronica conflictus’ i ‘Annales’ Jana Długosza.” Średniowiecze Polskie i Powszechne 6(10) (2014): 202–54. Jones, Robert W. Bloodied Banners: Martial Display on the Medieval Battlefield. Woodbridge: Boydel Press, 2010. Jóźwiak, Sławomir, Krzysztof Kwiatkowski, Adam Szweda, and Sobiesław Szybkowski, Wojna Polski i Litwy z Zakonem Krzyżackim w latach 1409–1411. Malbork: Muzeum Zamkowe, 2010. Koczerska, Maria. Zbigniew Oleśnicki i Kościół krakowski w czasach jego pontyfikatu. Warsaw: DiG, 2004.

Pleading for Victory and Eternal Life

283

Kołpak, Piotr. Kult świętych patronów Królestwa Polskiego w czasach Jagiellonów. Monografie Towarzystwa Naukowego Societas Vistulana 4. Cracow: Societas Vistulana, 2020. Kotecki, Radosław. “Bishops and the Legitimisation of War in Piast Poland until the Early Thirteenth Century.” PH 111.3 (2020): 437–70. Kotecki, Radosław. “With the Sword of Prayer, or How the Medieval Bishop Should Fight.” QMAN 21 (2016): 341–69. Kuczyński, Stefan M. Wielka wojna z Zakonem Krzyżackim w latach 1409–1411. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Ministerstwa Obrony Narodowej, 1980. Kwiatkowski, Krzysztof. “‘Christ ist erstanden …’ and Christian Win! Liturgy and the Sacralization of Armed Fight Against Pagans as Determinants of the Identity of the Members of the Teutonic Order in Prussia.” In Sacred Space in the State of the Teutonic Order in Prussia. Edited by Jarosław Wenta and Magdalena Kopczyńska, 101–27. SBS 2. Toruń: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika, 2013. Kwiatkowski, Stefan. “Śpiewy grunwaldzkie. Dlaczego rycerstwo Władysława Jagiełły miałoby śpiewać Bogurodzicę podczas kampanii w Prusach w 1410 roku?” Przegląd Zachodniopomorski 21(50).4 (2006): 107–18. Lachaud, Frédérique. “Les tentes et l’activité militaire. Les guerres d’Edouard Ier Plantagenet (1272–1307).” Mélanges de l’école française de Rome 111.1 (1999): 443–61. Lenart, Marek. “Czy Jagiełło płakał pod Grunwaldem?” In Wojny, bitwy i potyczki w kulturze staropolskiej. Edited by Wiesław Pawlak and Magdalena Piskała, 34–41. SS SN 30. Warsaw: Instytut Badań Literackich Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 2011. Lichończak-Nurek, Grażyna. Wojciech herbu Jastrzębiec, arcybiskup i mąż stanu (ok. 1362–1436). Cracow: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 1996. Lieberman, Max. “Knighting in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries.” Anglo-Norman Studies 43 (2020): 151–76. Liman, Kazimierz. “Die Feldherrenreden in der Polnischen Chronik des Anonymus Gallus.” Philologus 133 (1989): 284–302. Maciejewski, Jacek. “Biskup krakowski Pełka a bitwa nad Mozgawą w 1195 roku.” KH 124.3 (2018): 411–38. Maciejewski, Jacek. “Biskupi polscy na wojnach monarchów w XIII–XIV wieku.” Res Historica 51 (2021): 63–101. Manikowska, Halina. “Przeszłość pod ochroną: relikwie.” In Przeszłość w kulturze średniowiecznej Polski II. Edited by Halina Manikowska, 121–76. Warsaw: Neriton, 2018. Matla, Marzena. “‘Carmen patrium Bogurodzica’—czas powstania, kontekst history­ czny i inspiracje.” KH 122.2 (2015): 39–71. Mazurkiewicz, Roman, and Zofia Wanicowa. “Dlaczego ‘Bogurodzicę’ śpiewano w liturgicznym okresie Bożego Narodzenia?” Pamiętnik Literacki 96.2 (2005): 25–41.

284

Maciejewski

McCormick, Michael. Eternal Victory: Triumphal Rulership in Late Antiquity, Byzantium, and the Early Medieval West. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986. McHardy, Alison K. “Religion, Court Culture and Propaganda: The Chapel Royal in the Reign of Henry V.” In Henry V: The New Interpretations. Edited by Gwilym Dodd, 131–56. Woodbridge: York Medieval Press in association with Boydell Press, 2013. Nadolski, Andrzej. Grunwald. Problemy wybrane. Olsztyn: Ośrodek Badań Naukowych im. Wojciecha Kętrzyńskiego, 1990. Nagy, Piroska. “Religious Weeping as Ritual in the Medieval West.” Social Analysis 48.2 (2004): 119–37. Nyberg, Tore. “Pierwsze dokumenty Władysława Jagiełły dla polskiego klasztoru brygidek.” ZH 39.4 (1974): 69–74. Ożóg, Krzysztof. Uczeni w monarchii Jadwigi Andegaweńskiej i Władysława Jagiełły (1384–1434). Cracow: Polska Akademia Umiejętności, 2004. Paravicini, Werner. Die Preußenreisen des europäischen Adels. Beiheifte der Francia 17.1–2, 2 vols. Sigmaringen: Thorbecke, 1989–1995. Pauk, Marcin R. “Kult św. Stanisława na tle innych kultów politycznych Europy Środkowej w średniowieczu.” In Kult św. Stanisława na Śląsku (1253–2003). Edited by Anna Pobóg-Lenartowicz, 31–48. Z dziejów kultury chrześcijańskiej na Śląsku 28. Opole: Redakcja Wydawnictw Wydziału Teologicznego Uniwersytetu Opolskiego, 2004. Pauk, Marcin R. “Święci patroni a średniowieczne wspólnoty polityczne w Europie Środkowej.” In Sacrum. Obraz i funkcja w społeczeństwie średniowiecznym. Edited by Aneta Pieniądz-Skrzypczak and Jerzy Pysiak, 237–60. Aquila volans 1. Warsaw: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, 2005. Penman, Michael A. “Faith in War: The Religious Experience of Scottish Soldiery, c.1100–c.1500.” JMH 37.3 (2011): 295–303. Piwowarczyk, Dariusz. Obyczaj rycerski w Polsce późnośredniowiecznej (XIV–XV wiek). Warsaw: DiG, 2006. Pritzel, Malte. Kriegführung im Mittelalter. Handlungen. Erinnerungen. Bedeutungen. KG 32. Paderborn: Schöningh, 2006. Ptak, Jan. “Duszpasterstwo rycerstwa polskiego w epoce Piastów i Jagiellonów.” In Historia duszpasterstwa wojskowego na ziemiach polskich. Edited by Jan Ziółek, 83–108. Lublin: Towarzystwo Naukowe Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego, 2004. Ptak, Jan. “Zanim wyruszyli na wroga … Religijne przygotowanie do walki zbrojnej w średniowiecznej Polsce.” TKH OL PAN 11 (2014): 20–45. Radzimiński, Andrzej. “Dispensen ‘super defectu perfectae lenitatis’. Die Konflikte des spätmittelalterlichen Klerus und die Methoden ihrer Bewältigung.” In Konflikt­ bewältigung und Friedensstiftung im Mittelalter. Edited by Roman Czaja, Eduard Mühle, and Andrzej Radzimiński, 277–88. Toruń: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika, 2012.

Pleading for Victory and Eternal Life

285

Radziszewska, Julia. “Echa bitwy grunwaldzkiej w ruskich latopisach.” Małopolskie Studia Historyczne 3.1–2 (8–9) (1960): 67–80. Remensnyder, Amy G. La Conquistadora. The Virgin Mary at War and Peace in the Old and New Worlds. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. Rozynkowski, Waldemar. “Religijne pokłosie bitwy grunwaldzkiej.” In “Conflictus magnus apud Grunwald” 1410. Między historią a tradycją. Edited by Krzysztof Ożóg and Janusz Trupinda, 213–19. Malbork: Muzeum Zamkowe, 2013. Saczyńska, Monika. “Msza pod osłoną nieba, czyli kiedy kultura spotyka się z naturą. Sprawowanie eucharystii w czasie podróży w okresie średniowiecza—uwagi wstępne.” In “Mundus hominis.” Cywilizacja, kultura, natura. Wokół interdyscyplinar­ ności badań historycznych. Edited by Stanisław Rosik and Przemysław Wiszewski, 243–55. AUWH 175. Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego, 2006. Saul, Nigel. Chivalry in Medieval England. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 2011. Schnippel, Emil. “Vom Streitplatz zum Tannenberge.” Prussia 31 (1935): 5–68. Schreiner, Klaus. Märtyrer, Schlachtenhelfer, Friedenstifter. Krieg und Frieden im Spiegel mittelalterlicher und frühneuzeitlicher Heiligenverehrung. OFVK 18. Opladen: Springer, 2000. Simpkin, David. “Keeping Up Appearances: The English Royal Court on Military Campaigns to Scotland, 1296–1336.” In Medieval and Early Modern Representations of Authority in Scotland and the British Isles. Edited by Katherine Buchanan, Lucinda H.S. Dean, and Michael A. Penman, 37–52. Farnham and Burlington VT: Ashgate, 2016. Skierska, Izabela. Obowiązek mszalny w średniowiecznej Polsce. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Instytutu Historii Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 2003. Sójka, Jerzy. “Posługi duszpasterskie przy wojskach polskich w wiekach średnich.” Acta Universitatis Lodzensis. Folia Historica 50 (1994): 93–105. Spurgjasz, Katarzyna. “Modlitwy o zwycięstwo w kościołach polskich w 1443 roku.” In Wojna a religia w średniowieczu. Edited by Monika Zapiór, 105–110. Cracow: Koło Naukowe Historyków Studentów Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 2009. Starnawska, Maria. “Relikwie jako fundament ideowy wspólnoty w tradycji polskich przekazów średniowiecznych (św. św. Wojciech, Florian, Stanisław, Drzewo Krzyża Świętego na Łyścu).” In Sacrum. Obraz i funkcja w społeczeństwie średniowiecznym. Edited by Aneta Pieniądz Skrzypczak and Jerzy Pysiak, 261–79. Aquila Volans 1. Warsaw: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, 2005. Starnawska, Maria. Świętych życie po życiu. Relikwie w kulturze religijnej na ziemiach polskich. Warsaw: DiG, 2008. Stawski, Marek. “Religijność w Polsce XII wieku. Zarys problematyki.” In Pierwsze wieki chrześcijaństwa w Polsce. Do roku 1200. Edited by Jan Tyszkiewicz and Krzysztof

286

Maciejewski

Łukawski, 97–112. Pułtusk: Akademia Humanistyczna im. Aleksandra Gieysztora, 2017. Stuart, John. Historical Notices of Fillan’s Crozier and of the Devotion of King Robert Bruce to St Fillan. Edinburgh: Neill and Company, 1877. Szymborski, Wiktor. “Pielgrzymki i kontakty dynastii Jagiellonów z sanktuarium paulinów na Skałce.” In Religijność. Wymiar prywatny i publiczny. Edited by Wiktor Szymborski and Paweł Nowakowski, 153–77. Cracow: Księgarnia Akademicka, 2007. Trajdos, Tadeusz M. “Benedyktyni na Łyścu za panowania Władysława II Jagiełły (1386–1434).” RH 48 (1982): 1–46. Veszprémy, László. “Fundacja klasztoru karmelitów trzewiczkowych p.w. Bożego Ciała w Poznaniu a kult eucharystyczny króla Władysława Jagiełły.” Poznańskie Studia Teologiczne 5 (1984): 316–62. Veszprémy, László. “A pityergő Árpádtól a könnyező Szent Lászlóig. A könnyekre fakadó hadvezér a Névtelen ‘Gesztája’ 39. és a ‘Krónikaszerkesztés’ 121., 137. Fejezetében.” Acta Historica (Szeged) 138 (2015): 17–32. Wieczorek, Szymon. “Zwiefalten i Polska w pierwszej połowie XII wieku.” KH 103.4 (1996): 23–56. Wójcik, Walenty. “Wiatyk w średniowiecznym ustawodawstwie biskupów polskich.” Ruch Biblijny i Liturgiczny 6 (1953): 115–33. Zyglewski, Zbigniew. Monarcha a klasztor w Polsce późnego średniowiecza. Bydgoszcz: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Kazimierza Wielkiego, 2009. Żak, Łukasz. “Kult Najświętszej Maryi Panny w Polsce do początku XII wieku.” Salvatoris Mater 10.3 (2008): 180–227.

Instead of a Conclusion

∵

Chapter 8

Studying Religious Rites of War on the Eastern and Northern Peripheries of Medieval Latin Europe Radosław Kotecki The authors of the papers included in this two-volume collection have taken a look at war-related rites used by communities inhabiting Central, Eastern, and Northern Europe. Irrespective of their specific research problem and basis of analysis in the form of sources, milieu, realm, or moment in history, the contributions demonstrate that war-related religious rites were a widely known and socially significant phenomenon. Mechanisms of war-related rites were known and understood. People knew how to adapt them to specific challenges, mobilized the available resources with their help, and gave a sacred dimension to military ventures, adapting them to ideas that modern scholars term as “God’s war,” “religious war,” or “holy war.”1 The rites in times of war served to integrate communities, even if they were largely passive recipients. During military expeditions the rites were also used to boost the morale of warriors and to convince them that the actions taken were justified. In addition, the rites served to distinguish “us” from “them”, the enemy, who resorted to the “wrong” actions and symbols. They showed that “we” (i.e., the groups performing the “right” rituals) deserved victory in the judgment of God on the battlefield. Moreover, the rites launched mechanisms rooted in the sphere of communal myths or individual ideas concerning links to the sacred for the purpose of obtaining supernatural assistance in combat. Thus, a picture of certain sublimation of the forms and meanings of these practices emerges, which is palpable also in how the rites are presented in the sources, usually biased, but always based on known customs and situational 1 For the problem of definition, see esp. Alexander Pierre Bronisch, “On the Use and Definition of the Term ‘Holy War’: The Visigothic and Asturian-Leonese Examples,” Journal of Religion and Violence 3.1 (2015): 35–72; Hans-Werner Goetz, “‘Glaubenskriege’? Die Kriege der Christen gegen Andersgläubige in der früh- und hochmittelalterlichen Wahrnehmung,” FS 53.1 (2019): 67–114; idem, “‘Holy Wars’? ‘Religious Wars’? The Perception of Religious Motives of Warfare against Non-Christian Enemies in Ninth-Century Chronicles,” in Early Medieval Militarisation, ed. Ellora Bennett et al. (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2021), 211–28.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004686373_009

290

Kotecki

needs. Even the use of information about certain actions as an element of propaganda should be regarded as evidence of the significance of these rites. Sometimes they were practiced also to strengthen one’s position in a conflict occurring in the realm of ideology or diplomacy, as opposed to direct military engagement. Such a multidimensional contextualization of the role of war-related religious rites is the most important achievement of the present collection. As such, it demonstrates that the phenomenon cannot be separated from the complex cultural fabric and reduced to the technical level, in which rites of war served to boost morale and group cohesion (as was the typical view in most historiography on the topic).2 On the contrary, the phenomenon that is the focus of the publication was multidimensional and impacted culture in a myriad of ways. It was linked to the sphere of both the culture of war and the culture of warriors (and, with time, chivalric culture) as well as religious culture. This latter example can be seen in the veneration of patron saints and various eschatological concepts like divine election, God’s fear, judgment, punishment, and reward.3 No less important were its links to the sphere of the ideology of power and the processes of shaping ethnic, social, corporate, or religious identities. Religious rites performed in times of war thus comprise an important segment of the world of medieval culture, which should be 2 For this (albeit also important and useful) approach, see esp. Bernard S. Bachrach, Early Carolingian Warfare: Prelude to Empire (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2001), 247–58; David S. Bachrach, Religion and the Conduct of War, c.300–1215 (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2003); idem, Warfare in Tenth-Century Germany (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2012), 183–91; Bernard S. Bachrach and David S. Bachrach, Warfare in Medieval Europe, c.400–c.1453 (Abingdon and New York: Routledge, 2017), 322–30. In similar vein, e.g., Michael A. Penman, “Faith in War: The Religious Experience of Scottish Soldiery, c.1100–c.1500,” JMH 37.3 (2011): 295–303. 3 For those, very durable, ideas, see esp. Kelly DeVries, “God and Defeat in Medieval Warfare: Some Preliminary Thoughts,” in The Circle of War in the Middle Ages: Essays on Medieval Military and Naval History, ed. Donald J. Kagay and L.J.A. Villalon (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 1999), 87–97; Rudolf Schieffer, “‘Iudicium Dei’. Kriege als Gottesurteile,” in Heilige Kriege. Religiöse Begründungen militärischer Gewaltanwendung. Judentum, Christentum und Islam im Vergleich, ed. Klaus Schreiner and Elisabeth Müller-Luckner, SHKK 78 (Munich: Oldenbourg, 2008), 219–228; Martin Clauss, “Der Krieg als Mittel und Thema der Kommunikation: Die narrative Funktion des Gottesurteils,” in Gottes Werk und Adams Beitrag. Formen der Interaktion zwischen Mensch und Gott im Mittelalter, ed. Thomas Honegger, Gerlinde Huber-Rebenich, and Volker Leppin, Das Mittelalter. Perspektiven mediävistischer Forschung. Beihefte 1 (Berlin and Boston MA: De Gruyter, 2014), 128–41; Robert A.H. Evans, “God’s Judgement in Carolingian Law and History Writing,” SCH 56 (2020): 60–77; Gerd Althoff, Gott belohnt, Gott straft. Religiöse Kategorien der Geschichtsdeutung im Frühen und Hohen Mittelalter (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2022).

Studying Religious Rites of War

291

placed on a par with other—more intensely researched—means of symbolic communication.4 When it comes to its contents, the collection departs from the dominant research perspective so far largely based on the cases of France, Germany, and the Anglo-Norman realm. This is not about creating a separate, geographically defined subdiscipline of study, but rather about showing that within scholarship thus far, a whole horizon of source accounts and research problems have been rashly left out, although they make up a field of study equal to that of the “core” regions of medieval Europe. At the same time, although the present collection makes a significant scholarly contribution in addressing this horizon, it should nevertheless be seen as only a preliminary step towards a satisfying examination of war-related ritual practices in the eastern and northern regions of Europe. This will be achieved only as a result of systematic source and comparative studies encompassing a broader circle of medieval “peripheries” of Latin and Greek Christendom, both in mutual confrontation and in confrontation with the reality of the “centers.” The weight and complexity of the challenge mean that such a prospect seems remote for the moment. This stems from the fact that none of the local Central, Eastern and Northern European historiography—unlike, for example, Spanish historiography—has so far made the culture of war and its religious aspects (except for the concept of crusading) an important research strand.5 However, thanks to an intensification of 4 It is significant that the research on symbolic communication, rituals and ceremonies that has developed in recent years has hardly noticed the subject of war-related rites. Exceptions are provided, though to a limited extent, by Philippe Buc’s studies. See e.g. Philippe Buc, The Dangers of Ritual: Between Early Medieval Texts and Social Scientific Theory (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001), 20; idem, “Political Rituals and Political Imagination in the Medieval West from the Fourth Century to the Eleventh,” in The Medieval World, ed. Peter Linehan and Janet L. Nelson (Abingdon and New York: Routledge, 2003), 189–213 at 190–91. 5 From the vast Spanish language literature, see esp. Alexander Pierre Bronisch, Reconquista y guerra santa. La concepción de la guerra en la España cristiana desde los visigodos hasta comienzos del siglo XII, Monográfica. Biblioteca de humanidades. Chronica nova estudios históricos 99 (Granada: Universidad de Granada, 2006); Luis F. Gallardo, “Guerra santa y cruzada en el ciclo cronístico de Alfonso XI,” En la España Medieval 33 (2010): 43–74, esp. at 61–71; J. Santiago Palacios Ontalva, “Cultura visual e iconografía de la Reconquista. Imágenes de poder y cruzada,” Anales de la Universidad de Alicante. Historia Medieval 17 (2011): 303–62; Francisco de Asís García García, “Dogma, ritual y contienda. Arte y frontera en el Reino de Aragón a finales del siglo XI,” in Fronteras en discusión. La Península Ibérica en el siglo XII, ed. Juan Martos Quesada and Marisa Bueno Sánchez, Colección Laya 39 (Madrid: Almudayna, 2012), 217–50; Raimundo Meneghello, “Los ritos de victoria militar en la cronística leonesa-castellana. Usos y variaciones en el discurso de los cronistas ss. XII–XIII,” in Actas

292

Kotecki

research in this field—for which credit goes to many contributors to the present volume—the situation should improve with time. The present publication may also encourage research in the direction in question, but it will not replace systematic studies that do not shy away from a multifaceted approach. The studies collected in the present volume point, however, to a whole range of topics that should be further explored heuristically and interpretatively as early as possible. It is impossible to comment on all of them here, which is why only several topics will be tackled, as they seem subjectively to deserve urgent exploration. Findings in these areas should provide a basis for more methodologically advanced and more nuanced ways of presenting war-related religious rites, ways abandoning the simple cataloging of source references according to a pre-established pattern.6

de las XVI Jornadas Internacionales de Estudios Medievales y XXVI Curso de Actualización en Historia Medieval, ed. Lidia Amor, Ana Basarte, and Dolores Castro (Buenos Aires: La Sociedad Argentina de Estudios Medievales, 2018.), 148–62; Martín Alvira Cabrer, Las Navas de Tolosa 1212. Idea, liturgía y memoria de la batalla (Madrid: Sílex, 2013), esp. 121–387; idem, “Liturgia, escenificación y simbología de la guerra santa cristiana,” in Reconquista y guerra santa en la España medieval. Ayer y hoy, ed. Carlos Ayala Martínez and J. Santiago Palacios Ontalva (Madrid: La Ergastula, 2021), 55–84. Important exception in English are Manuel Rojas Gabriel, “On the Path of Battle: Divine Invocations and Religious Liturgies before Pitched Battles in Medieval Iberia (c.1212–c.1340): An Introduction,” in Crusading on the Edge: Ideas and Practice of Crusading in Iberia and the Baltic Region, 1100–1500, ed. Torben Kjersgaard Nielsen and Iben Fonnesberg-Schmidt, Outremer 4 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2016), 275–95; Edward L. Holt, “‘Laudes regiae’: Liturgy and Royal Power in Thirteenth-Century CastileLeón,” in The Sword and the Cross: Castile-León in the Era of Fernando III, ed. Edward L. Holt and Teresa Witcombe, The medieval and early modern Iberian world 77 (Leiden and Boston MA: Brill, 2020), 140–64; Alberto Medina de Seiça, “War and Peace Liturgy: Ritual Mediation and Memory Construction. The Battle of Salado (1340) ‘in victoria christianorum’ Liturgical Offices,” in La comunicación social en la Europa medieval, ed. José María de Francisco Olmos and María Encarnación Martín López (Madrid: Dykinson, 2022), 415–44. 6 In particular, it is common among scholars to categorize rites according to the pre-, intra-, and postbellum practices or to discuss only some of these categories. Such an approach has its merits, but it often removes from the sight the more in-depth cultural context and the less easily grasped connections between different practices. See, e.g., Joseph F. O’Callaghan, Reconquest and Crusade in Medieval Spain (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004), 185–99; Alvira Cabrer, “Liturgia,” 61–81. For Eastern and Northern Europe, see, e.g., Jan Manthey, “Średniowieczne duszpasterstwo wojskowe,” Duszpasterz Polski Zagranicą 9.3(36) (1958): 259–77; Jan Ptak, “Duszpasterstwo rycerstwa polskiego w epoce Piastów i Jagiellonów,” in Historia duszpasterstwa wojskowego na ziemiach polskich, ed. Jan Ziółek (Lublin: Towarzystwo Naukowe Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego, 2004), 83–108; idem. “Zanim wyruszyli na wroga … Religijne przygotowanie do walki zbrojnej w średniowiecznej Polsce,” TKH OL PAN 11 (2014): 20–45.

Studying Religious Rites of War

1

293

Old and New

Of fundamental importance to this collection is the question of sources and the process of the reception of Christian ritualization of war in Eastern and Northern Europe. There is a persistent belief in the contemporary historiography of the region that the religious aspects of warfare should be linked above all to the reception of crusading ideas as understood by the ideology crystallized in the aftermath of the success of the First Crusade. This view also maintains that the intense promotion of successive Levantine expeditions reinforced the relationship between religion and warfare. Such opinions have even been strengthened in recent years following a revival of research into the participation of the regions under study in the crusading movement. This is because it is precisely in such studies that the problem of the religious nature of wars is noticed in the first place. The same goes for accounts of religious practices used in the context of warfare. Since the scholars working in the field of crusades are familiar with the question of the liturgization of warfare in the Outremer, as evidenced in the studies by Christoph T. Maier or M. Cecilia Gaposchkin,7 they find it easy to see the information in local sources a result of the impact of the crusading movement and ideology. Examples of such opinions are those of historians studying twelfth-century expeditions of the Danes against the Wends, the Piasts against the Pomeranians and Prussians or Rurikids against Cumans, in which any religious-martial rites are treated as evidence of the crusading nature of these expeditions.8 7 For crusading rituals and war liturgy, see esp. Christoph T. Maier, “Crisis, Liturgy and the Crusade in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries,” JEH 48.4 (1997): 628–57; William C. Jordan, “The Rituals of War: Departure for Crusade in Thirteenth-Century France,” in The Book of Kings: Art, War, and the Morgan Library’s Medieval Picture Bible, ed. WilBliam Noel and Daniel H. Weiss (London: Third Millennium, 2002), 99–105; Susanna A. Throop, “Christian Community and the Crusades: Religious and Social Practices in the ‘De expugnatione Lyxbonensi,’” HSJ 24 (2012): 95–126; eadem, “Rules and Ritual on the Second Crusade Campaign,” in Medieval Christianity in Practice, ed. Miri Rubin (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009), 86–91; M. Cecilia Gaposchkin, Invisible Weapons: Liturgy and the Making of Crusade Ideology (Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press, 2017). Other Gaposchkin’s studies include: “From Pilgrimage to Crusade: The Liturgy of Departure, 1095–1300,” Speculum 88.1 (2013): 44–91; “The Echoes of Victory: Liturgical and Para-Liturgical Commemorations of the Capture of Jerusalem in the West,” JMH 40.3 (2014): 237–59; “Sacralizing the Journey: Liturgies of Travel and Pilgrimage the Crusades,” in Travel, Pilgrimage and Social Interaction from Antiquity to the Middle Ages, ed. Jenni Kuuliala and Jussi Rantala (Abingdon and New York: Routledge, 2020), 205–25. 8 See, e.g., Boris A. Rybakov, Kievan Rus (Moscow: Progress, 1989), 230; Janus Møller Jensen, “Denmark and the Holy War: A Redefinition of a Traditional Pattern of Conflict, 1147–1169,” in

294

Kotecki

The idea is by no means to deny that there emerged a certain ritual model characteristic of the crusades or that it had an impact on the Eastern and Northern European reality (the matter of Rus is debatable). Rather, this is about highlighting the complexity of the reception of military religion with its ritual apparatus. It is easy to realize this by referring to works usually unknown to historians of the crusades, works by authors such as Michael McCormick, Anthony T. Lucas, Janet L. Nelson, Thomas Scharff, or Bernard S. and David S. Bachrachs, which show that early medieval sources contain plenty of information testifying to an advanced ritualization of wars9 and thus intensive Christian “religionization” of warfare—to paraphrase Hans-Werner Goetz.10 That is why McCormick’s assertion that regardless of the innovativeness of the crusaders, the rites they used, including confession and viaticum, were a

Scandinavia and Europe 800–1350: Contact, Conflict, and Coexistence, ed. Jonathan Adams and Katherine Holman, MTCN 4 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2004), 219–36 at 228, 231; Maria Starnawska, Między Jerozolimą a Łukowem. Zakony krzyżowe na ziemiach polskich w średniowieczu (Warsaw: DiG, 1999), 184; Robert Urbański, “Tartarorum gens brutalis.” Trzynastowieczne najazdy mongolskie w literaturze polskiego średniowiecza na porównawczym tle piśmiennictwa łacińskiego antyku i wieków średnich, SS SN 15(71) (Warsaw: Instytut Badań Literackich, 2007), 195; Florian Mouchard, “Deux carêmes de Vladimir Monomaque. Quelques réflexions sur les notions de ‘moment opportun’ et de ‘guerre sacrée’ dans la Rus’ (1100–1115),” in Construire le temps. Études offertes à Jean-Paul Sémon, ed. Serge Aslanoff and Jean Breuillard, Travaux 55 (Paris: Institut d’études slaves, 2008), s. 373–78 at 378; Mikołaj Gładysz, The Forgotten Crusaders: Poland and the Crusader Movement in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries, TNW 56 (Leiden and Boston MA: Brill, 2012), 131; Yulia Mikhailova, “Reflection of the Crusading Movement in Rusian Sources: Tantalizing Hints,” in Fruits of Devotion: Essays in Honor of Predrag Matejic, ed. M.A. Johnson and Alice Isabelle Sullivan, Ohio Slavic papers 11 (Columbus OH: The Ohio State University, forthc. 2023), pre-print: doi:10.34055/osf.io/ts2v5. 9 Albert M. Königer, Die Militärseelsorge der Karolingerzeit. Ihr Recht und ihre Praxis, VKSM 4.7 (Munich: Lentner, 1918); Anthony T. Lucas, “The Social Role of Relics and Reliquaries in Ancient Ireland,” JRSAI 116 (1986): 5–37; Janet L. Nelson, “Violence in the Carolingian World and the Ritualization of Ninth-Century Warfare,” in Violence and Society in the Early Medieval West, ed. Guy Halsall (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 1998), 90–107; Michael McCormick, “Liturgie et guerre des Carolingiens à la première croisade,” in “Militia Christi” e crociata nei secoli XI–XIII, Miscellanea del Centro di studi medioevali 13 (Milano: Vita e pensiero, 1992), 209–40; Thomas Scharff, Die Kämpfe der Herrscher und Heiligen. Krieg und historische Erinnerung in der Karolingerzeit (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2002). For Bachrachs’ works, see n. 2 above. 10 Goetz, “‘Holy Wars’?” 218. Recently, see also Samuel Ottewill-Soulsby, “‘Those same cursed Saracens’: Charlemagne’s Campaigns in the Iberian Peninsula as Religious Warfare,” JMH 42.4 (2016): 405–28; Robert A.H. Evans, “Christian Hermeneutics and Narratives of War in the Carolingian Empire,” Transformation 34.2 (2017): 150–63; Matthew B. Gillis, Religious Horror and Holy War in Viking Age Francia, Renovatio 1 (Budapest: Trivent, 2021).

Studying Religious Rites of War

295

legacy of old—mainly Carolingian—practices is correct.11 Thus presumably in the case of some realms of Central Europe or Scandinavia, which emerged in the tenth–eleventh centuries and which drew on the Carolingian legacy, such rites may have been used long before Christians were summoned to retake Jerusalem from the hands of Muslims. Additionally, we could ask whether in the face of the penuria scriptorum for the early history of most of these realms, accounts of religious-martial rites (which come into greater numbers only in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries) should be treated as cultivation of old traditions, or as the reception of trends emerging alongside crusading ideology and culture of war of the high Middle Ages? Obviously, a generalized answer to such questions is not possible for the entire area of interest. Each source should be treated individually, bearing the local context in mind. What should, however, be stressed and what was barely noticed until recently is the existence of a body of evidence testifying to the acculturation of the Christian war-related rites already during the formation of the foundations of political communities, monarchical power, and local institutional churches. This can be seen in the Gaelic world where devotional and liturgical practices were a permanent element of the culture of war in the region from the early Middle Ages. This can be seen in the works of Lucas and Clancy and, in the present volume, Jesse Harrington.12 When it comes to Central Europe, a similar view has been recently put by Dušan Zupka. In his studies, he claims that the rulers of Poland, Hungary, and Bohemia managed quite early to familiarize themselves with the Christian ideology of war, including its ritual and liturgical practices, and that they used them to legitimize their power, just as other European rulers had practiced since the early Middle Ages.13 11 McCormick, “Liturgie,” esp. 234: “En attendant ce jour sans doute lointain de la perfection, il me semble déjà manifeste que par ses formes, son contenu et ses circonstances, la liturgie militaire de la première croisade s’insère pleinement dans la tradition liturgique de la société occidentale, établie sous les Carolingiens et développée par la suite.” 12 Anthony T. Lucas, “The Social Role”; Thomas O. Clancy, “Columba, Adomnan and the Cult of Saints in Scotland,” in “Spes Scotorum,” Hope of Scots: Saint Columba, Iona and Scotland, ed. Dauvit Broun and Thomas O. Clancy (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999), 3–33. 13 Dušan Zupka, “Religious Rituals of War in Medieval Hungary under the Árpád Dynasty,” in Christianity and War in Medieval East Central Europe and Scandinavia, ed. Radosław Kotecki, Carsten Selch Jensen, and Stephen Bennett (Leeds: ARC Humanities Press, 2021), 141–59; idem, “Political, Religious and Social Framework of Religious Warfare and Its Influences on Rulership in Medieval East Central Europe,” in Rulership in Medieval East Central Europe: Power, Rituals and Legitimacy in Bohemia, Hungary and Poland, ed. Grischa Vercamer and Dušan Zupka, ECEE 78 (Leiden and Boston MA: Brill, 2021), 135–59. Also see Radosław Kotecki, Carsten Selch Jensen, and Stephen Bennett, “Christianity and

296

Kotecki

Somewhat analogous conclusions can be drawn from my recent studies of narrative source accounts of rites used in the times of the Piasts. One of these studies is devoted to Master Vincentius’s (fl. ca. 1200s) unique narrative of Bolesław the Wrymouth’s expedition against the Pomeranians (1109), which features the figure of a “standard-bearer” (primipilarius) leading the Polish troops. It is thanks to this figure that heaven gave the Polish prince and his warriors a luminous angel of victory with a golden spear in hand. Contextualization of this account has made it possible to demonstrate that the tale is based on the early medieval model characteristic of imperial holy wars with an angel epiphany and connected to profectio bellica rite.14 On the other hand, in another study concerning the legitimization of Piast wars by the local episcopate of the Gniezno Province, I argue that the information, found in the oldest local sources, about bishops becoming active in the army as religious authorities responsible for preaching sermons, celebrating masses, and administering viaticum, seems closer to Carolingian models (as opposed to crusading ones). This is how the chronicler’s account of the expedition of Casimir II the Just (Bolesław the Wrymouth’s son) against the Pollexians around 1191 can be interpreted. However, in the scholarship, it is commonly regarded as the Polish contribution to the Third Crusade because of the information about mass and Holy Communion and naming Pollexians as the Saladinistae.15 Such an interpretation can be easily challenged—suffice it to note that an identical set of rites is mentioned already by Gallus Anonymus (fl. ca. 1115) in his description of Bolesław the Wrymouth’s 1110 expedition against the Bohemians, who, after all, had long been Christians.16 At the same time, given the princely considerable authority over the bishops and the local Polish church in the twelfth-century, War in Medieval East Central Europe and Scandinavia: An Introduction,” in Christianity and War, 1–21 at 9–16. 14 Radosław Kotecki, “Pious Rulers, Princely Clerics, and Angels of Light: Imperial Holy War Imagery in Twelfth-Century Poland and Rus’,” in Christianity and War, 159–88. 15 Recently, e.g., Darius von Güttner-Sporzyński, “Constructing Memory: Holy War in the ‘Chronicle of the Poles’ by Bishop Vincentius of Cracow,” JMH 40.3 (2014): 276–91; idem, “Holy War and Proto-Crusading: Twelfth-Century Justifications for the Campaigns against the Pomeranians and Prussians,” in Crusading on the Edge, 225–44; idem, “Communicating God’s War: Accounts of Holy War in Polish Medieval Narrative Sources,” Ordines Militares. Colloquia Torunensia Historica 26 (2021): 43–62. 16 As Goetz notes (“‘Holy Wars?’” 218) in the early Middle Ages “the authors thus do not make any difference between wars against Christians and those against unbelievers as far as their religious allusions and interpretations are concerned, and they could not even have expressed such a distinction terminologically: ‘religious war’ and ‘holy war’ are modern, not medieval classifications, although every war is conducted under religious auspices.”

Studying Religious Rites of War

297

as well as the lack in Vincentius’s work of suggestions concerning the use of typically crusading rites, one may conclude that the account rather depicts a ritual formula in the spirit of older models.17 The fact that mass was celebrated and Communion given by the bishop in accord with the ruler’s order, the time of the sacred rites (at dawn), and even the ideological context of this information, all this closely correspond to the information in ninth-century Andrew of Bergamo’s account of the expedition of Emperor Louis II against the Muslims of the Bari (871).18 Given this example, we may conclude that historians have tended to overestimate the impact of crusading ideology on twelfth-century Poland. The phenomenon is further reinforced by the insufficient awareness of how the idea of holy/religious war functioned in the Carolingian realms and their ideological heirs. One must bear in mind at this point that as early as the tenth century such an understanding of war was carried with the Ottonians to the Rivers Elbe and Oder.19 From there it spread to the courts of Bohemian, 17 Radosław Kotecki, “Bishops and the Legitimisation of War in Piast Poland until the Early Thirteenth Century,” PH 111.3 (2020): 437–70. It is true, that Vincentius uses some crusading rhetoric in this story, but it is questionable whether the ideological context of the expedition can be inferred from this. In the term Saladinistae used by the chronicler, one can see a sort of the rhetorical display. On the influence of crusading ideas on the nomenclature used by medieval authors, see Natalia I. Petrovskaia, “Which ‘Pagans’? The Influence of the Crusades on Battle Narratives in Britain, Ireland and Scandinavia,” in Writing Battles: New Perspectives on Warfare and Memory in Medieval Europe, ed. Rory Naismith, Máire Ní Mhaonaigh, and Elizabeth A. Rowe (London: Bloomsbury, 2020), 147–64. 18 Magistri Vincentii dicti Kadłubek Chronica Polonorum, 4.19, ed. Marian Plezia, MPH NS 11 (Warsaw: Polska Akademia Umiejętności, 1994), 166: “antelucano catholicus princeps omnem exercitum salutaris Hostie ante omnia sacramento confoueri sacri ministro sacrificii uiro reuerendo Plocensium antistite. Decebat enim contra Saldanistas, contra sacre professionis hostes, contra spurcissimos idolatras pugnaturos, plus in armis fidei confidere, quam in martialis armature fiducia. Itaque intrepidi prelium querunt”; Andreae Bergamensis Historia, chap. 18, in Italian Carolingian Historical and Poetic Texts, ed. and trans. Luigi A. Berto (Pisa: Pisa University Press, 2016), 65–98 at 88 and 90 (Latin), 89 and 91 (English): “Hoc consilium domno imperatori nunciatum est. Tunc moniti, ut gallotinni matutinis et summo diluculo episcopis et sacerdotibus missarum sollemnia celebrarent et populus communionem vel benedictionem acciperent, sicuti et fecerunt. Et exierunt querentes Sarracini, et illis querentes Franci iuncti sunt in loco [lacuna]. … Cumque prope se coniungerent, fideles Christi oraverunt, dicentes: ‘Domine Ihesu Christe, tu dixisti: « Qui manducat carnem meam et bibit sanguinem meum, in me manet, et ego in eum »; ergo si tu nobiscum, quid contra nos?’ Statim commissum est prelium. Cumque forti intencione pugnantes, arma celestis confortavit christianos.” 19 For the ideological context of Bari campaign, see Luigi A. Berto, Christians and Muslims in Early Medieval Italy: Perceptions, Encounters, and Clashes (Abingdon and New York: Routledge, 2020), 34–35. See also Eric J. Goldberg, “‘More Devoted to the Equipment of Battle Than the Splendor of Banquets’: Frontier Kingship, Military Ritual, and Early Knighthood at the Court of Louis the German,” Viator 30 (1999): 41–78 at 60–72. For

298

Kotecki

Polish, or Danish rulers, who often set off with German monarchs against their enemies (such as the pagan Wends), as well as to the court of Hungarian kings. In doing so, these rulers sought to shape their majesty and legitimacy, taking as their point of reference the imperial patterns, and to this end, they had to master the ritual language used by their powerful neighbor. As Gerd Althoff recently notes: [by] their active participation in the political activities of the [German] realm the Bohemians and the Polish had accumulated exactly those experiences which were necessary for them to operate successfully among the ruling classes of the [German] realm …. In particular their active role in negotiations about the performance of rituals, as well as their active participation in the rituals themselves, prove that they had all the necessary knowledge and experience and were capable of constructing and participating in rituals without any restriction. The special conditions they sometimes demanded for themselves in rituals, and the ritual acts they avoided, also make it clear that they tried to define their position a little bit differently from the high nobility in the German realm. But this is just further proof that they had a perfect command of the language of rituals.20 Although these assertions do not refer directly to war-related rites, given that they were part of the same set of cultural instruments as the rites that were of

20

the “holy war” under Carolingians, see works cited in n. 10 above. For Germany, see esp. Margret Bünding-Naujoks, “Das ‘Imperium Christianum’ und die deutschen Ostkriege vom zehnten bis zum zwölften Jahrhundert,” in Heidenmission und Kreuzzugsgedanke in der deutschen Ostpolitik des Mittelalters, ed. Helmut Beumann, Wege der Forschung 7 (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1963), 65–120. Gerd Althoff, “Rituals as ‘lingua Franca’? Joint Cultural Practices at the Eastern Borders of the Realm,” in Rules and Rituals in Medieval Power Games: A German Perspective, Medieval law and its practice 29 (Leiden and Boston MA: Brill, 2019), 143–58, quotation at 158. See also Andrzej Pleszczyński, “Gorliwość neofitów. Religijność osobista Przemyślidów i Piastów w X i na początku XI wieku,” in Przemyślidzi i Piastowie—twórcy i gospodarze średniowiecznych monarchii, ed. Józef Dobosz (Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznańskie, 2006), 93–99; idem, “Królewskie gesty słowiańskich dynastów w XI wieku na przykładzie Piastów i Przemyślidów,” in “Persona, gestus habitusque, insygnium.” Zachowania i atrybuty jako wyznaczniki tożsamości społecznej jednostki w średniowieczu, ed. Jacek Banaszkiewicz, Jacek Maciejewski, and Joanna A. Sobiesiak (Lublin: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej, 2009), 35–46. For Christian ritual practices inspired by models from the Empire in early medieval Poland, see, e.g., Zbigniew Dalewski, “The Public Dimension of Religion in the Piast Monarchy during the Christianisation Period,” APH 101 (2010): 37–49.

Studying Religious Rites of War

299

interest to Althoff, there is no doubt that models of ritualized religious-martial practices reached Eastern and Northern European rulers for the most part via the same route. Bearing this in mind, scholars will have to look more carefully at accounts like Master Vincentius’s story or the Heimskringla account of the Battle of Fyrileif (1134), during which—according to Snorri—“King Magnus [Barefoot] had the Holy Cross carried before him.” Instead of automatically interpreting this detail in the context of the Levantine Crusades, one can rather point out, as Max Naderer does in his chapter (volume one), that such a practice stood in a long tradition of bringing sacred objects for war. As I have shown elsewhere, carrying the relics of the cross before the ruler during war was rooted in imperial ideology.21 In any case, the problem is not exclusively about wars waged by monarchs but also, for example, about local warrior associations preceding the arrival of military orders. For example, the “guild of pirate Vedeman,” a nobleman based in Roskilde, known to Saxo Grammaticus for its intense religious practices and rites used before military expeditions against the Wends, does not have to be a product of the crusading ideology.22 What the chronicler writes about it, as well as the links between Vedeman and Absalon, bishop of Roskilde at the time, seem to point to a fraternity operating within the sphere of influence of the cathedral. Scandinavian historians use comparisons to associations known from the Iberian Peninsula (e.g., Belchite) as their argument for the crusading nature of the guild. However, recent research into these groups in the Mediterranean makes it necessary to revise this thesis. As Damien Carraz observes, the fraternities were involved in the development of the defense of 21

Compare Kotecki, “Pious Rulers.” According to some Austrian source, the victoriosissime sancte crucis insignia were carried at the head of Rudolf I’s troop during the campaign that ended with the battle at the Marchfeld. The source says it was done “iuxta morem imperii”. See Annales sancti Rudberti Salisburgenses, ed. Wilhelm Wattenbach, MGH SS 9 (Hannover: Hahn, 1851), 758–810 at 803. Byzantine patterns in particular should not be ignored, due to their lasting influence in the West. Compare esp. Jean Gagé, “‘Σταυρος νικοποιος’. La victoire impériale dans l’empire chrétien,” Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses 13 (1933): 370–400; Holger A. Klein, “Sacred Relics and Imperial Ceremonies at the Great Palace of Constantinople,” in Visualisierungen von Herrschaft. Frühmittelalterliche Residenzen Gestalt und Zeremoniell, ed. Franz A. Bauer. Byzas 5 (Istanbul: Ege Yayınları, 2006), 79–99 at 89, 94–96; idem, “Objektkultur und Kultobjekte im kaiserlich-byzantinischen Prozessionswesen,” in “Palatium sacrum.” Sakralität am Hof des Mittelalters. Orte, Dinge, Rituale, ed. Manfred Luchterhandt and Hedwig Röckelein (Regensburg: Schnell & Steiner, 2021), 77–100. 22 For interpretations in crusading vein, see, e.g., Kurt Villads Jensen, “Denmark and the Second Crusade: The Formation of a Crusader State?” in The Second Crusade: Scope and Consequences, ed. Jonathan Phillips (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2001), 164–79 at 173; Jensen, “Denmark,” 228–32; Jensen, “Religion,” 200.

300

Kotecki

the church ideology, and thus sacralization of warfare, but their roots were in the tradition of milites summoned to defend churches.23 The practicing of religious rites by members of such groups is not surprising, given that they were influenced by prelates promoting specific models of religiosity. In Kievan Rus military ritual was more influenced by Byzantine models than those from the West,24 even if one cannot rule out that the former exerted their influence more widely in Eastern and Northern Europe. Future research should try to trace possible paths of inspiration more precisely, which certainly will not be easy, as Byzantine models also influenced the formation of war liturgy in the West.25 On the other hand, Rus may have also been influenced by Western models, including crusading ones, as Yulia Mikhailova has recently suggested.26 However, the lack of references in the Rusian sources to confession and viaticum given to warriors as well as the emphasis on the information about typically Byzantine personal acts of piety of rulers setting off on military expeditions suggest that the influence was not very strong. The same can be said for the religion-infused speeches to armies, or about the veneration of the True Cross and sacred icons in connection with the campaigns reminiscent of Byzantine customs. Thus, numerous arguments for cautiously defining the sources and contextualizing the reception of the ritualization of war and its stages in the peripheries of Latin Europe emerge. Particularly until the period ca. 1200 and royal expeditions, it should be taken into consideration the possibility of a continuation of older (mainly imperial) models of the sacralization of war utilizing long-entrenched ritual practices. Therefore, it follows that one 23

See esp. Damien Carraz, “Precursors and Imitators of the Military Orders: Religious Societies for Defending the Faith in the Medieval West (11th–13th c.),” Viator 41.2 (2010): 91–111. 24 Irina Moroz, “The Idea of Holy War in the Orthodox World (On Russian Chronicles from the Twelfth–Sixteenth Century),” QMAN 4 (1999): 45–67; Alexandra Vukovich, “The Ritualisation of Political Power in Early Rus’ (10th–12th Centuries)” (PhD thesis, University of Cambridge, 2015). Vukovich announces paper on Rusian war rites addressing Byzantine influence. Alexandra Vukovich, “Victory and Defeat Liturgified: The Symbolic World of Martial Ritual in Early Rus,” in Victors and Vanquished: Cultures of War in the Northern and Mediterranean Worlds. Byzantium and European Cultures of War, ed. Johannes Pahlitzsch (Mainz: Mainz University Press, forthc. 2023). 25 The most telling example is triumphal adventus. See Michael McCormick, Eternal Victory: Triumphal Rulership in Late Antiquity, Byzantium, and the Early Medieval West (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986); Jonathan Shepard, “‘Adventus’, Arrivistes and Rites of Rulership in Byzantium and France in the Tenth and Eleventh Century,” in Court Ceremonies and Rituals of Power in Byzantium and the Medieval Mediterranean: Comparative Perspectives, ed. Alexander D. Beihammer, Stavroula Constantinou, and Maria G. Parani, MMED 98 (Leiden and Boston MA: Brill, 2013), 337–74. 26 Mikhailova, “Reflection.”

Studying Religious Rites of War

301

should remain vigilant to the impact of various cultural trends. For example, some contributions to the present volume succeed in showing that the effects of the adaptation of models typical of the chivalric and crusading culture of the Western European high Middle Ages are evident in thirteenth- and fifteenth-century sources. Rites typical of crusading customs can easily be observed in the southern and eastern Baltic region, where intense crusading activity developed from the turn of the thirteenth century onwards as an outcome of the institutionalization of the crusading movement. This was manifest in, for example, the professionalization of recruitment mechanisms, crusade preaching, as well as crusading ideals of devotion.27 In the thirteenth century, active participants in these processes included military orders and, as Gregory Leighton demonstrates in his study (volume one), the Teutonic Order used a whole range of ideological, ritual, and (para-)liturgical instruments typical of the crusades. These include masses “against pagans,” blessing of soldiers and their weapons, and promoting among the participants of the Reisen the ideal of miles Christi known from crusade preaching manuals.28 One can observe a similarly clear presence of rites typical of the crusades in thirteenth-century Livonia, as shown by Carsten Selch Jensen (volume one). Jensen demonstrates how Henry of Livonia repeatedly mentions the custom of accepting the cross by the knights brought to the region by the local bishops to strengthen the young vineyard of the Lord and forge the realm under the aegis of the Virgin Mary. Particularly interesting is the chronicler’s information about the practice of using Marian banners as emblems of symbolic manifestation of the taking over of control over the captured strongholds and demonstrating that it is the holy patroness and not the false deities of the local people that is now in possession of the fortress. The rite is still little known, but it seems that it should be linked to missionary practices that were part of the crusading ideology and the related idea of “conversion” of the conquered land.29 It is worth noting that something very similar can be found in the Iberian sources mentioning bishops and clerics placing “banners of the cross” (vexilla crucis) on the highest 27 See, e.g., Beverly M. Kienzle, “Preaching the Cross: Liturgy and Crusade Propaganda,” in Preaching and Political Society: From Late Antiquity to the end of the Middle Ages, ed. Franco Morenzoni, Sermo 10 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2013), 11–46; Ane Bysted, The Crusade Indulgence: Spiritual Rewards and the Theology of the Crusades, c.1095–1216, History of warfare 103 (Leiden and Boston MA: Brill, 2014). 28 On those ideals, see recently Miikka Tamminen, Crusade Preaching and the Ideal Crusader, Sermo 14 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2018). 29 There are too many works to cite here. For some recent detailed treatments of the topic, see Gregory Leighton, Ideology and Holy Landscape in the Baltic Crusades: War and Conflict in Premodern Societies (Leeds: ARC Humanities Press, 2022).

302

Kotecki

towers of the mosques in the conquered cities during the Reconquista. Similar to Marian banners perched atop strongholds in Livonia, those objects were to serve as a sign of the takeover of the post but at the same time as a symbol of subjugation to the Christian religion and of chasing away the hostile sacral forces.30 Regardless of the sources of inspiration, in the reality of the Baltic coast, the ideological context of such actions was, however, perhaps also a response to the measures taken by the defenders. As we learn from Saxo’s story of the capture of Arkona by the Danes (1168), the presence on the gate tower of the fortress of military signs, and among them a banner of Svetovit, denoted the readiness of the locals to test the strength of their holy in confrontation with the divine of the attacking side.31 In the high Middle Ages, crusading influences are visible in the picture of wars waged not only against pagans but also against Christians. They are also linked to the reception in the region of chivalric culture and institutionalized form of crusade, with its rules of engaging in propaganda and illustrating one’s own and one’s opponent’s behavior. One of the early vivid examples of this type in the West is the victory of the Christians at Las Navas de Tolosa (1212) appropriately referred to as “the first unambiguous success of the

30 E.g. see Chronica Latina regum Castellae, chap. 73, in Chronica Hispana saeculi XIII, ed. Luis Charlo Brea, Rocío Carande Herrero, and Juan A. Estévez Sola, CCCM 73 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1997), 7–118 at 116–17. On this custom in Reconquista, see O’Callaghan, Reconquest, 204–6; Alvira Cabrer, “Liturgia,” 71–73; Justin E.A. Kroesen, “From Mosques to Cathedrals: Converting Sacred Space during the Spanish Reconquest,” Mediaevistik 21 (2008): 113–37; Marisa Bueno Sánchez, “Rituals of Victory: The Role of Liturgy in the Consecration of Mosques in the Castilian Expansion over Islam from Eleventh to Thirteenth Centuries,” Religions 13.5 (2022), available via mdpi.com/2077-1444/13/5/379. For the situation in the Holy Land regarding converting religious houses retaken from the Muslims, see Tomasz Pełech, “From a House of the Devil to God’s Temple—‘abrenuntiatio diaboli’ and ‘confessio fidei’ in the Narrative about the Foundation of the Bishopric of Albara during the First Crusade in the ‘Gesta Francorum and the Historia de Hierosolymitano Itinere,’” QMAN 26 (2021): 33–53. 31 Saxo Grammaticus, Gesta Danorum, 14.39.15–21, ed. Karsten, Friis-Jensen, trans. Peter Fisher, 2 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2015), 2:1284–91. For interpretation, see Jacek Banaszkiewicz, “Czym była i jak została zniszczona chorągiew Świętowita? (Saxo Grammaticus, ‘Gesta Danorum’, XIV, 39),” in Heraldyka i okolice, ed. Andrzej Rachuba, Sławomir Górzyński, and Halina Manikowska (Warsaw: DiG, 2002), 57–70, rprt. in W stronę rytuałów i Galla Anonima (Cracow: Avalon, 2018), 133–53. Conversely, when the stronghold’s inhabitants wanted to make the crusaders going to attack aware of their Christian obedience, they displayed the symbol of the cross on the ramparts. See Szymon Górski, “Biskupi i krzyże. Tak zwany epizod szczeciński krucjaty połabskiej (1147) w relacji Wincentego z Pragi,” ZH 83.3 (2018): 7–32.

Studying Religious Rites of War

303

mature institutional Crusade.”32 The triumph, together with the swiftly established ideological message, became, thanks to Innocent III and the Fourth Lateran Council among others, a kind of model for the image of the crusades in the following decades.33 It also encompassed a specific set of liturgical means and rites. Sources produced in connection with the battle highlight the following practices: mass confession of knights and reception of Holy Communion, use of the sign of the cross and sacred banners as vessels of offensive divine power, unfurling of banners accompanied by prayers of the commander and senior warriors, collective singing of a religious military hymn (Te Deum), and, after the victory, founding of a church as a votive offering of thanksgiving and a place to cultivate the memory of the fallen and the triumph.34 Obviously, these are largely rites practiced even earlier, yet the significance of this canon is manifested primarily in giving it categorizing and propagandistic powers. In the case of Las Navas it was used in texts compiled immediately post factum and in actions, with King Alfonso VIII referring to it in his special report sent to the pope. In the present volume, the power of the impact of this model can be observed in, for example, Jacek Maciejewski’s analysis referring to accounts originating in connection with the Polish side’s propaganda campaign after the victory over the Teutonic Knights at Grunwald in 1410, although we do not know whether King Władysław Jagiełło sent a letter directly to the pope. After the battle, the king and Polish bishops sent letters to their representatives in the Roman Curia, undoubtedly also to give them arguments to present the actions of the Polish side in the right light.35 As I have demonstrated in my essay to this collection, the same elements had earlier been highlighted in the account of the triumph of Přemysl Otakar II 32

Miguel Gomez, “Archbishop Rodrigo, Honorius III, and the Fifth Crusade in Spain,” in The Fourth Lateran Council and the Crusade Movement, ed. Jessalynn Bird and Damian Smith, Outremer 7 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2018), 193–215 at 215. Albeit see Luis García-Guijarro, “The Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa (1212) in the Context of Ibero-Christian Conquests in al-Andalus: Myths and Models,” in The Expansion of the Faith: Crusading on the Frontiers of Latin Christendom in the High Middle Ages, ed. Paul Srodecki and Norbert Kersken, Outremer 14 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2021), 209–26, where important caveats against the overuse of the crusade concept in interpreting military actions against Muslims conducted even in the thirteenth century. 33 See, e.g., Fernando Arias Guillén, “Castile-Leon: II Late Middle Ages (14th to 15th Centuries),” in The War in the Iberian Peninsula, 700–1600, ed. Francisco García Fitz and João G. Monteiro (Abingdon and New York: Routledge, 2018), 94–123 at 115–16; Rojas Gabriel, “On the Path of Battle.” 34 On religious and ritual aspects of the battle, see esp. Alvira Cabrer, Las Navas de Tolosa 1212. 35 Marek A. Janicki, “Grunwald w tradycji polskiej od XV do XVII wieku,” in Na znak świetnego zwycięstwa. W sześćsetną rocznicę bitwy pod Grunwaldem, ed. Dariusz Nowacki (Cracow: Zamek Królewski na Wawelu, 2010), 89–154 at 91–95.

304

Kotecki

of Bohemia at the Battle of Kressenbrunn (nowadays Groißenbrunn) (1260) against the Hungarians. Like Alfonso VIII in 1212, this ruler, too, sent the pope a letter with a description of the campaign. He attributed the victory not to himself but to God, at the same time stressing his piety, and trust in heaven’s aid, and presenting his opponents as enemies of Christianity and barbarians.36 Moreover, both Jagiełło and Otakar founded churches that were to be votive offerings of thanksgiving for the grace of victory (Lublin, Zlatá Koruna). After crusading victories Spanish rulers would offer their war spoils, especially banners, to important churches. This was the case after the victory of Las Navas, as is evidenced by the Almohad banners kept at Santa María Real de las Huelgas in Burgos. Alfonso VIII also gave the monastery the curtain covering the entrance to the sultan’s captured tent, sending the tent itself to Innocent III.37 The Spanish rulers did the same after triumphing over the Muslims at El Salado (1340). The captured royal banners were carried in a triumphal march to Seville by Muslim prisoners, with the rulers taking part in lavish victory celebrations.38 Jagiełło’s actions were no different. In 1411 he entered Cracow, bringing with him forty-four captured Teutonic banners. The banners, the likenesses of which are known to us thanks to the drawings commissioned by Jan Długosz and included in his Banderia Prutenorum (fig. 8.1), were hung in the Cracow Cathedral above the tomb of St. Stanislaus, patron saint of Poland, in connection with the miraculous protection of the Polish-Lithuanian army attributed to him during the battle. Długosz was driven by a desire to immortalize the memory of great victories. Such was also the role of the flags themselves, hence those captured at Grunwald were joined by others in later years, like the one trophied at Dąbki in 1431 (fig. 8.2).39 36 Similarly, Rudolf Habsburg, after his victory over Přemysl Otakar II at Marchfeld (1278), stated in a letter to Pope Nicholas III that his victory and the death of his opponent came from the “hand of God” (“Dei virtute; non nostrae potentiae fortuitae, sed Dei excelsi dextera”), and that his subordinate forces and the troops of the allied Hungarian king Ladislas IV went into battle having called on God’s help (“aeterni Dei auxilio inuocato”). See Codex diplomaticus Hungariae ecclesiasticus ac civilis, 5.2, ed. György Fejér (Buda: Typographia Regiae Universitatis Ungaricae, 1829), 458–60. 37 On royal triumphal adventus, see O’Callaghan, Reconquest, 206–8; Alvira Cabrer, “Liturgia,” 73–75. 38 Rojas Gabriel, “On the Path of Battle,” 287–88. On spoils of war donated by Spanish monarchs to churches, see O’Callaghan, Reconquest, 207; Alvira Cabrer, “Liturgia,” 75–77. 39 On the return from Grunwald, see Wojciech Fałkowski, “‘Adventus regis’. Powrót Władysława Jagiełły do Krakowa po zwycięstwie grunwaldzkim,” RH 74 (2010): 77–102. On the Teutonic banners taken at Grunwald, see Marek A. Janicki, “Grunwald,” passim; idem, “Liczba chorągwi grunwaldzkich zawieszonych w katedrze wawelskiej. W związku z nową edycją ‘Banderia Prutenorum’ Jana Długosza i notą Klemensa Drzewickiego w ‘Kalendarzu Katedry Krakowskiej,’” Rocznik Biblioteki Narodowej 42 (2011): 115–204. On the ideological meaning of the practice of storing captured banners in churches, see Halina

Studying Religious Rites of War

Figure 8.1 Banderia Prutenorum by Jan Długosz (1448). The likeness of the banner of the bishopric of Warmia (Ermland) that was used in the Battle of Grunwald/Tannenberg in 1410. The Lamb of God on a red background. License: Public Domain Reproduced from: bit.ly/3dEFODk

305

306

Kotecki

Figure 8.2 Banderia Prutenorum by Jan Długosz (1448). The likeness of the banner of the Livonian Master that was captured by Polish troops at the Battle of Dąbki in 1431. St. Maurice in arms holding a lance and shield with the Teutonic Cross on a white background. License: Public Domain Reproduced from: bit.ly/3dEFODk

Studying Religious Rites of War

307

Similar to Las Huelgas in Burgos, Jagiełło erected the monastery in Lublin to commemorate his triumph, dedicated to Our Lady of Victories (fig. 8.3), and established there nuns from the Bridgettine Order, whose founder, St. Bridget of Sweden, was said to have predicted the fall of the Teutonic Order.40 However, after the Grunwald victory, it was the Cracow Cathedral that became the main place of its commemoration. In addition to the captured banners, the sepulcher of St. Stanislaus, as the sacral center of the church and ara patriae, over time accumulated many objects with contents associated with the battle, for example, banners captured in other clashes.41 However, the Grunwald campaign brought not only the Teutonic Knights’ banners as spoils of special symbolic significance. Many precious objects—liturgical vessels and vestments, relics, books, pieces of goldsmithing art—found their way into Polish churches as gifts from the monarch.42 They include the mobile reliquary of Tilo von Lorich, commander of Elbing, known to have been in the possession of the Gniezno Cathedral in the fifteenth century, discussed in his paper by Gregory Leighton (figs. 8.1a–b in vol. 1). As Edward Potkowski rightly points out, these legacies, too, were part of a wide-reaching political campaign of Manikowska, “Przeszłość pod ochroną: relikwie,” in Przeszłość w kulturze średniowiecznej Polski II, ed. Halina Manikowska (Warsaw: Neriton, 2018), 121–76 at 133–34. The function of token of remembrance was also fulfilled by relics and sacred banners taken to wars to achieve victory, like Bohemian lance of St. Wenceslas or Hungarian royal banner stored in Fehérvár basilica. See chapters by Kotecki and Veszprémy in this collection (vol. 2, chap. 5). 40 For Las Huelgas, see Rose Walker, “War Memorials: Remembering and Forgetting at Las Huelgas and Beyond,” Quintana 11 (2012): 28–36; for Lublin, see Anna Sochacka, “Powody lokalizacji w Lublinie grunwaldzkiego wotum Władysława Jagiełły,” Res Historica 31 (2011): 21–36. 41 Janicki, “Grunwald,” 123. Also see Agnieszka Rożnowska-Sadraei (“Pater Patriae”: The Cult of Saint Stanislaus and the Patronage of Polish Kings 1200–1455 [Cracow: UNUM, 2008], 222), who discusses Jan Długosz’s story about King Władysław the Elbow (Łokietek), who is told that after the Battle of Płowce (1331) took captives to Cracow, and offered to the cathedral the captured Teutonic standards at the St. Stanislaus’s altar. For later instances of placing the captured trophies at this shrine, see Michał Rożek, “‘Ara Patriae’. Dzieje grobu św. Stanisława w katedrze na Wawelu,” Analecta Cracoviensia 11 (1979): 433–60 at 454–56; Jan Ptak, Chorągiew w komunikacji społecznej w Polsce piastowskiej i jagiellońskiej (Lublin: Wydawnictwo Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego, 2002), 123–32; Krzysztof J. Czyżewski, “Marsowe echa w krakowskiej katedrze,” in Na znak, 53–88. After the battle of Grunwald, with the banners and spoils captured by the Lithuanian army, Duke Vytautas did the same, placing them in the Vilnius Cathedral. See Stephen C. Rowell, “War and Piety in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the Late Middle Ages,” Rocznik Lituanistyczny 2 (2016): 7–21 at 9. 42 Edward Potkowski, “Monarsze dary książkowe w polskim średniowieczu—pogrunwaldzkie dary Jagiełły,” in Ojczyzna bliższa i dalsza. Studia historyczne ofiarowane Feliksowi Kirykowi w sześćdziesiątą rocznicę urodzin, ed. Jacek Chrobaczyński, Andrzej Jureczko, and Michał Śliwa (Cracow: Secesja, 1993), 359–73.

308

Kotecki

Figure 8.3 Church of the Assumption of Our Lady of Victory in Lublin, Poland. The church was built in the years 1412–1426 for the Bridgettine Order as a votive offering of King Władysław Jagiełło for the victory in the battle of Grunwald/Tannenberg (1410). License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Photo by Krzysztof Kokowicz. Reproduced from w.wiki/5c6X

the Polish king and his court—a propaganda campaign aimed at justifying the Polish actions.43 This is yet another example of the fact that war-related religious acts based on a canon formulated mainly in the thirteenth century served propaganda purposes in the late Middle Ages. Similar propaganda techniques can also be seen in late medieval Hungary and Bohemia, which suggests that this was a very widespread phenomenon in the whole region. 2

The longue durée

The discussion so far suggests that war-related rites should be treated in dynamic terms which highlight the spread, reception, evolution, variability, overlapping of traditions, and awareness to trends. The present publication makes it possible not only to capture the dynamic nature of religious practices in times of war. It also shows that, despite various changes, some forms of rites and their reception remained stable over time. This volume thus provides 43 Ibid., 371.

Studying Religious Rites of War

309

a perspective broader than that usually brought to the threshold of the high Middle Ages. Specific examples can be seen in the rites used by monarchs during combat preparations or already on the battlefield. This concerns, for example, the rite analyzed by László Veszprémy: monarchs’ prayers for victory accompanied by tears and gestures, drawing on the images of Moses and Constantine the Great. Rulers’ personal ardent prayers before a battle seem more characteristic of the early Middle Ages.44 However, in Hungary, this practice is recorded in both early and late medieval sources. According to the contemporary account from the Cronica conflictus and that of Jan Długosz of the campaign against the Teutonic Order, shortly before the clash on the Grunwald battlefield Władysław Jagiełło, too, shed many tears during prayers. As Jacek Maciejewski demonstrates, accounts of this battle combine information about rites typical of chivalric customs (unfurling of banners, knighting ceremony before the battle) with information about older practices. The latter include prayers and the crying accompanying them. However, of similar nature are also the references to the king’s humble (barefoot) visits to sacred shrines before his expedition to win heaven’s favor for his cause. This rite has its origins in Late Antiquity and the account of Emperor Theodosius preparing for a battle fought at Frigidus (394). The same can be said about the accounts of Jagiełło’s use of a special chapel tent as a venue for masses in which the king participated. While the very form of the tent (tabernaculum capelle; capella tentorii) most likely corresponded to the luxurious chapel tents that started to appear at the end of the twelfth century,45 the description of the king’s behavior bears the mark of old accounts of rulers praying in isolation and putting all their trust in God. Zeal and certainty of God’s support demonstrated on the battlefield are emphasized especially by the information that the king did not abandon his 44 See, e.g., Radosław Kotecki, “With the Sword of Prayer, or How the Medieval Bishop Should Fight,” QMAN 21 (2016): 341–69, esp. 368. 45 For the tents used in military expeditions, see esp. Frédérique Lachaud, “Les tentes et l’activité militaire. Les guerres d’Edouard Ier Plantagenet (1272–1307),” Mélanges de l’école française de Rome 111.1 (1999): 443–61. Jan Szymczak, interested in tents in Polish sources, ignores this issue. See Jan Szymczak, “‘Pod namøtem sub diuo,’” in Rycerze, wędrowcy, kacerze. Studia z historii średniowiecznej i wczesnonowożytnej Europy Środkowej, ed. Beata Wojciechowska and Waldemar Kowalski (Kielce: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jana Kochanowskiego, 2013), 101–13 at 107–8. Some good example of using luxurious chapel tent by a ruler from East Central Europe, Přemysl Otakar II in that case, is provided in Annales Ottakariani, ed. Josef Emler, FrB 2 (Prague: Museum Království českého, 1874), 308–35 at 320: “rex Bohemiae in quodam tentorio novo, ad modum ecclesiae praeparato et diversis pannis quasi de lateribus tecto, fecit milites quatuor marchiones et quintum ducem Poloniae, praeter alios comites et nobiles nobiliter decoratos.” My italics.

310

Kotecki

intention to take part in the service even after the scouts informed him that the enemy had arrived and despite the urging of the second in command, Jagiełło’s cousin, Prince Vytautas.46 That we are dealing here with a very old model is best evidenced by the description, present in the Life of King Alfred (893), of the Battle of Ashdown (871) between Alfred and Aethelred, and the Vikings.47 Despite a clear similarity in the contents of the two accounts, it would be risky to claim that the author of Cronica conflictus and Długosz, who had access to eyewitnesses to the events, presented the reality completely in accordance with the literary model. Instead, we should assume that it was Jagiełło, with his clerical entourage, that consciously shaped his image following the appropriate model. The model went even further back in time than Alfred’s war with the Vikings—to the times of Constantine the Great, concerning whom Eusebius of Caesarea and other authors claim that he had ordered the construction of a “prayer tent … in form of the church” in order to establish contact with God in it during military campaigns. The ruler would always pitch the tent at some distance from the camp and there, attended only by clerics whose piety had been proven, spent hours praying and fasting.48 This exclusivism of the ruler is evident in the accounts of the Prussian campaign as well. Jagiełło takes part in religious services only with his closest companions and chaplains, with masses for the knights being celebrated separately.49 Such behavior must have attracted attention and made people believe that the king’s piety 46

See the discussion in the chapter by Jacek Maciejewski. This motive was not understood, already by Enea Piccolomini, who portrayed the king as a cowardly resorting to prayers and Vytautas as a valiant commander. See Sven Ekdahl, “Different Points of View on the Battle of Grunwald/Tannenberg 1410 from Poland and Germany and Their Roots in Handwritten and Printed Traditions,” Z Badań nad Książką i Księgozbiorami Historycznymi 13 (2019): 41–65 at 56. 47 The Medieval Life of King Alfred the Great: A Translation and Commentary on the Text attributed to Asser, trans. Alfred P. Smyth (Basingstoke NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002), 18–19. See also Lucrezia Pezzarossa, “Bibbia, guerra e liturgia. Una nuova prospettiva sulla traduzione alfrediana del ‘Libro dei Salmi,’” in La Bibbia nelle letterature germaniche medievali, ed. Marina Buzzoni, Massimiliano Bampi, and Omar Khalaf, Filologie medievali e moderne Rie occidentale 6 (Venice: Ca’ Foscari, 2015), 37–50 at 40. Pezzarossa notes that Asser seems to suggest that the celebration of mass before a battle was something rather unusual in England at the time. In light of present discussion, there is a little proof for that in the source. See also James Lloyd, “The Priests of the King’s Reliquary in Anglo-Saxon England,” JEH 67.2 (2016): 265–87 at 282. 48 Eusebius of Caesarea, Life of Constantine, chaps. 12, 14, 57, trans. Averil Cameron and Stuart G. Hall (Oxford and New York: Clarendon Press, 1999), 99–100, 100, 175. On Constantine’s prayer tent, see Claudia Rapp, “Imperial Ideology in the Making: Eusebius of Caesarea on Constantine as ‘Bishop,’” Journal of Theological Studies, NS 49.2 (1998): 685–95. 49 Ptak, “Zanim,” 36.

Studying Religious Rites of War

311

was the factor that would determine the fate of the battle. At the same time, however, such a rite provided a strong boost to the ruler’s sacred authority. This must have been the objective of each monarch who decided to take a chapel tent with him to the battlefield and turn such a tent into a vehicle for obtaining God’s grace. As David Simpkin notes, based on his research concerning Plantagenet kings, royal tents and chapels taken to war ensured the preservation of the king’s privacy and were a key prerequisite for the upholding of royal majesty.50 Another example comes from the Bohemian Chronicon Aulae Regiae (ca. 1305–1317) describing the expedition of Wenceslas II, King of Bohemia and Poland, against Hungary in 1304. According to the chronicler, as he crossed the border of the Kingdom of Hungary, Wenceslas did not rely on the size of his army but entrusted himself to the Almighty. He did not avoid prayers; on the contrary, he took part in many masses celebrated under tents (sub tentoriis). When a tumult broke out in the army because of the news of the approaching enemy, Wenceslas, like Aethelred and Jagiełło, did not immediately throw himself into battle but devoted himself to prayers.51 All these rulers followed the advice expressed much earlier, in the ninth century, by Smaragdus of Saint-Mihiel. According to the author of Via regia, a ruler should not trust the strength and weapons of his army but instead should look for succor in prayer. Like David, each monarch is obliged to ask God for help in defending his realm. For God are a rock and a tower that offers protection against enemies to his chosen ones who have absolute trust in his power.52 As we can see, such ideas, expressed in the early ninth century, remained known throughout the Middle Ages. Gregory Leighton demonstrates that the Teutonic Order, too, took over 50 David Simpkin, “Keeping Up Appearances: The English Royal Court on Military Campaigns to Scotland, 1296–1336,” in Medieval and Early Modern Representations of Authority in Scotland and the British Isles, ed. Katherine Buchanan, Lucinda H.S. Dean, and Michael A. Penman (Farnham and Burlington VT: Ashgate, 2016), 37–52 at 23. 51 Petra Žitavského Kronika zbraslavská, chap. 48, ed. Josef Emler, FrB 4 (Prague: Palacký, 1884), 1–337 at 85–86: “Hoc plures quoque, qui cum rege Wenceslao in expedicionibus fuerant, michi sepius retulerunt, quod ipse rex in terminis inimicorum constitutus in proteccione Dei altissimi plus quam in multitudine sui populi confidebat, nullatenus a consuetis oracionibus cessabat et plures missas sub tentoriis audiebat. Cum autem clamor propter insultum hostium aliquando in exercitu factus fuit, magis oracionibus, quam armorum defensionibus confisus nullatenus formidabat, sed in Domino suum fiducialiter cor habebat, nunquam eciam tantus timor in exercitu potuit esse, qui ipsum ab audicione misse alicuius, quam audire inceperat, poterat separare. Merito ergo hunc principem dextera Domini protegebat, qui tantum de eius adiutorio confidebat.” For the image of the Wenceslas II as a pious ruler according to Chronicon Aulae Regiae, see Robert Antonín, The Ideal Ruler in Medieval Bohemia, ECEE 44 (Leiden and Boston MA: Brill, 2017), 255–68. 52 Scharff, Die Kämpfe, 17–19.

312

Kotecki

this idea and turned it into one of the pillars of its concept of sacralization of military ventures in the thirteenth–fifteenth centuries. The sources this collection addresses bring us interesting information about the communicative durability of the role of monarchs’ prayers in the circumstances of war. The topic has not been well explored so far, but there is no doubt that already ancient and early medieval rulers prayed in isolation, with the clergy and the courtiers or close nobles, to contact with heaven in the face of an approaching battle. To this end they would go to churches or chapel tents, and spend nights there, praying and holding vigils, hoping for a prophetic sign. The motif was introduced into Christianity by Constantine or rather Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. 335) and his continuators, who assured their readers that the future emperor experienced a vision in a dream, the words “in hoc signo vinces,” already before the Italian campaign.53 The motif next appeared in a more elaborate form, namely Theodoret of Cyrus’s fourth-century account of the fight between Theodosius and Eugenius. Theodoret claims that when the emperor found a small oratory on the top of the hill where he set up his camp, he spent there the whole night in prayer. “About cock-crow sleep overcame him, and as he lay upon the ground, he thought he saw two men in white raiment riding upon white horses, who bade him be of good cheer, drive away his fear, and at dawn arm and marshal his men for battle. ‘For’, said they, ‘we have been sent to fight for you.’” In reaction to this, the emperor ceased not his supplication but pursued it with still greater eagerness.54 A similar motif is part of the legend of the Polish duke Casimir I the Restorer, written down most likely only in the second half of the fourteenth century.55 Following the failures he had suffered, Casimir began to doubt the success of his mission to recover the patrimony of his ancestors. Praying in the church of the Virgin Mary in Poznań castle, he is said to have already taken 53

For this story, see William Harris, “Constantine’s Dream,” Klio 87.2 (2005): 488–94; idem, “Religion on the Battlefield: From the ‘Saxa Rubra’ to the ‘Frigidus,’” in Vestigia. Miscellanea di studi storico-religiosi in onore di Filippo Coarelli nel suo 80o anniversario, ed. Filippo Coarelli and Valentino Gasparini, Potsdamer altertumswissenschaftliche Beiträge 55 (Stuttgart: Steiner, 2016), 437–50, where pagan source is also discussed. 54 Theodoret of Cyrus, Ecclesiastical History, 5.24, ed. D.P. Curtin, trans. Blomfield Jackson (Dublin: Dalcassian Publishing, 2017), 212. 55 Chronica Polonorum, ed. Ludwik Ćwikliński, MPH 3 (Lviv: Gubrynowicz i Schmidt, 1878), 578–656 at 621–23. The story is known from early fifteenth-century, now lost, Königsberg codex. See Elżbieta Wilamowska, “‘Kronika polsko-śląska’. Zabytek pochodzenia lubiąskiego,” Studia Źródłoznawcze 25 (1980): 79–95 at 82; Tomasz Jurek, “Nad legendą poznańskiego kościoła Najświętszej Marii Panny,” in “Gemma gemmarum.” Studia dedykowane profesor Hannie Kóčce-Krenz, ed. Artur Różański, 2 vols. (Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznańskiego Towarzystwa Przyjaciół Nauk, 2017), 1:93–110.

Studying Religious Rites of War

313

off his knight’s belt and sword, placing them on the altar and thus expressing his desire to withdraw to a monastery. However, as he was praying, he was overcome by sleep. He was awakened by a voice, heard from the altar, telling him three times to rise and attack the enemy. Casimir obeyed and having summoned the barons, he set off against the Mazovians. They were accompanied on the battlefield by a horseman carrying a white banner and calling “go for the enemy! for the enemy!” until they won. According to the prevailing opinion, the message of the story should be interpreted in the context of the atmosphere of the turn of the fourteenth century, when the Kingdom of Poland was being rebuilt after a period of disintegration.56 However, it also concerns crusading ideology—after all, before the battle Casimir and his people marked their garments with the sign of the cross (“signo sancte crucis se signantes”), and their enemies were the Mazovians, who were relapsing into paganism. Brygida Kürbis believes that even the mysterious white horsemen appearing in the story is late motif with its roots in the Western Crusades.57 Yet such views fail to consider the durability of both the motifs present in the story and the ritual practices behind them. This durability makes it very difficult to date the origins of the various legendary themes—for what often seems to contemporary authors a manifestation of later customs turns out to be with a much earlier origin.58 For example, the marking with the sign of the cross before a battle does not have to be an expression of crusading ideas. After all, the same thing was done by Emperor Constantine when he woke up from his prophetic dream and ordered that a symbol of the cross be painted on the shields of warriors going into battle. Similarly, the motif of white horsemen, as demonstrated by Theodoret’s account of the emperor praying before the battle, should be regarded as very old.59 The same goes for Casimir entrusting himself to God’s grace—his contact with heaven and another military attempt to regain power seem to be a 56 Jurek, “Nad legendą,” 101–2. See also Norbert Kersken, “God and the Saints in Medieval Polish Historiography,” in The Making of Christian Myths in the Periphery of Latin Christendom (c.1000–1300), ed. Lars B. Mortensen (Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 2006), 153–94 at 165–66. 57 Brygida Kürbis, “Sacrum i profanum. Dwie wizje władzy w polskim średniowieczu,” Studia Źródłoznawcze 22 (1977): 19–40 at 33. 58 Such a ritual known much earlier is also the laying of the sword on the altar as a sign of withdrawal to the monastery. See Wojciech Fałkowski, “The Humility and Humiliation of the King,” in State, Power, and Violence: Rituals of Power and Consent, ed. Margo Kitts et al., Ritual dynamics and the science of ritual 3 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2010), 163–96 at 183–84. 59 See, e.g., Wolfgang Speyer, “Die Hilfe und Epiphanie einer Gottheit, eines Heroen und eines Heiligen in der Schlacht,” in “Pietas.” Festschrift fur Bernhard Kotting, ed. Ernst Dassmann

314

Kotecki

concept stemming from earlier imperial ideas. For example, it is known that the Byzantine Emperor, Alexius I, unable to choose between two military strategies, described them on separate sheets and placed them on an altar during nighttime prayers preceding the setting off for battle. He hoped that God would point the right strategy to him by directing the priest to pick it up first on entering the building the next morning.60 In the case of Casimir’s legend we cannot rule out that some of its threads are old and are linked to the tradition highlighting the significance to the monarchy of the church in which the duke experienced contact with the supernatural and was “irradiated” with sacred power.61 On the other hand is not a secret that similar legendary themes were circulated in the late Middle Ages, like in the case of the story with Louis the Great praying in Mariazell (or Zell, Austria) discussed by Veszprémy and Zupka in their respective chapters (volume two). Staying in Poland, we can also point to the legend associated with Prince Leszek the Black. According to the so-called Traska’s Annals (before 1370) and then Długosz’s Annales (before 1480), when faced with an invasion by the Jatvingians, in 1282 Leszek was visited by Archangel Michael and urged to fight with a promise of support and victory. As we compare the two accounts, the later one turns out to be more vivid and richer in details, including interesting information about devotional and thanksgiving rites, great joy at the triumph expressed by the duke and his knights singing a religious song, and founding of a church in Lublin dedicated to the Archangel as a thanksgiving offering. No less interesting is the information indicating the important role of the story of St. Michael’s vision experienced by the duke in boosting the belief in victory: “Recounting the vision to all his knights gathered together, even those who were apprehensive and faint-hearted, reluctant to pursue the barbarians, were uplifted. For nothing fortifies the spirit of the knights and the people like news of a miracle.”62 This makes it possible to better understand and Karl S. Frank, Jahrbuch fur Antike und Christentum 8 (Münster: Aschendorff, 1980), 55–77. 60 John F. Haldon, Warfare, State, and Society in the Byzantine World, 565–1204 (London: UCL Press, 1999), 254. The practice of contacting God in a manner resembling divination requires more research and consideration of the biblical stories, e.g., 1 Samuel 30:7, 2 Samuel 2:1. 61 The church is said to be founded by Dubrava, the wife of Mieszko I, the first Christian ruler of Poland, and the archaeological research proofed its tenth century origin. 62 Ioannis Dlugossii Annales seu Cronicae incliti Regni Poloniae, lib. 7, ed. Consilium (Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1975), 217–19 (hereafter Długosz, Annales). On this little-known legend, see Paweł Żmudzki, Studium podzielonego Królestwa. Książę Leszek Czarny (Warsaw: Neriton, 2000), 300–1, 359–61; Wojciech Michalski, “Legenda fundacyjna dawnej lubelskiej fary św. Michała Archanioła,” Bibliotekarz Lubelski 58–59 (2015–2016):

Studying Religious Rites of War

315

the combination of accounts of supernatural signs and various rites in these stories. Both these aspects were part of the same phenomenon—the religionization of war. The information about an angel cheering up the troops and spurring the monarch’s heart to action can be found already in twelfth-century Rusian and Polish writings.63 However, given the Długosz’s account, which was not recorded until the second half of the fifteenth century and which expanded the older annalistic original, it is impossible to reject the view that the actions of Duke Casimir described in the Poznań legend may be a reflection ideas characteristic of the later Middle Ages, by that time already assimilated with the crusading ideology. Together they made up an unorthodox and largely independent world of chivalric religiosity.64 An important role in the creation of such stories seems to have been played by a model in the form of the Constantine the Great legend. Themes relating to Constantine’s victory over Licinius at Milvian Bridge and the ritualistic 75–108; Łukasz Fiuta, “Anioł. Sen Leszka Czarnego—fabularyzacja czy historia prawdziwa? Szkic o poetyce pisarstwa historycznego,” biblioteka.teatrnn.pl/dlibra/publication /31968; Paweł Żmudzki, “Dux fabulosus”. O tradycji historiograficznej osnutej wokół postaci Leszka Czarnego od “Gesta Lestkonis” do dzieł Bartosza Paprockiego (Warsaw: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, 2023), 142–47. Original version: Rocznik Traski, ed. August Bielowski, MPH 2 (Lviv: Gubrynowicz i Schmidt, 1872), 826–71 at 848, where mention also of the religious rituals (confession, Holy Communion received by the prince and barons, invocation of God’s help) used in repelling a later Lithuanian invasion: “Concitati et accincti Dei adiutorio et confidentia magis quam virium et armorum robore, confitentes peccata, dux cum suii baronibus, sumptoque corpore Christi, eos atrocissime seseque mutuo exhortantes insecuti sunt, quod cognicientes pagani in densissimis silvis se receperunt.” For similar legend from Portugal, see Luís F. S. Lima, “Imagens e figuras de um rei sonhador. Representações do milagre de Ourique e do juramento de Afonso Henriques no século XVII,” História (São Paulo) 26 (2007): 311–39; Rodrigo Costa, “A bata­ lha de Ourique e a construção da identidade portuguesa. De Fernão Lopes à Luis de Camões,” Medievalis 3.1 (2014): 1–21. 63 Kotecki, “Pious Rulers.” 64 Compare with Richard W. Kaeuper, Holy Warriors: The Religious Ideology of Chivalry (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2009), esp. 66–93. For the role of angelic apparitions in knightly literature, see Maria Dobozy, “The Theme of the Holy War in German Literature 1152–1190: Symptom of Controversy Between Empire and Papacy?” Euphorion 80 (1986): 341–62 at 346–47, 351; Jean-Claude Vallecalle, “Les formes de la révélation surnaturelle dans les ‘chansons de geste,’” in Littérature et religion au Moyen Age et à la Renaissance, ed. Jean-Claude Vallecalle and Pascale Blum-Cuny (Lyon: Presses universitaires de Lyon, 1997), 65–94; idem, “Sacraliser la guerre. Remarques sur les révélations surnaturelles dans les ‘chansons de geste,’” in Guerres, voyages et quêtes au Moyen Age. Mélanges offerts à Jean-Claude Faucon, ed. Alain Labbé et al., Colloques, congrès et conférences sur le Moyen Age 2 (Paris: Champion, 2000), 429–37.

316

Kotecki

measures to which the former resorted were very durable.65 Hence the comparisons throughout the Middle Ages of various rulers to the first Christian emperor, or modeling their conduct on the ideal of piety embodied by Constantine. Among the late medieval authors taking this model into account, one can point to Rodrigo Sánchez de Arévalo, who in his description of the Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa enriched Rodrigo Jiménez de Rada’s version by adding that before the battle King Alfonso, as an alter Constantinus, put his entire trust in the sign of the Cross and thanks to this experienced a miracle and secured a great victory.66 When his contemporary, Ludolf of Sagan, author of Catalogus abbatum Saganensium, wrote that before the Battle of Grunwald Jagiełło “in his tent, raising his hands in the air, he prayed for his people,” referred, even if not directly, to the image of the emperor’s piety.67 As can be read in the Life of Constantine, the emperor prayed and even ordered the minting of coins portraying him as “standing up, looking up to heaven, his hands extended in a posture of prayer.” Moreover, before battles, he instructed his warriors to “lift up their hands high towards heaven, extend their mental vision yet higher to the heavenly King, and call on him in their prayers as the Giver of victory and Savior, as their Guardian and Helper.”68 Władysław Jagiełło is also depicted as a second Constantine on a mural painting in a Chapel of the Holy Trinity at the Lublin castle (fig. 8.4). In this fresco from the king’s foundation, he rides a white steed like holy warriors assisting troops in countless miraculous stories on war apparitions. However, the element that determines the affinity of this figure with the first Christian emperor is the long spar topped with a cross. It is given to the king by an angel coming from heaven, so it is a sign of victory over evil forces similar to Constantine’s labarum. This fresco was created before 1418, just a few years after the victory over the Teutonic Order at Grunwald, so it is difficult to avoid the conviction that it alluded in its message to this great triumph.69 65 Peter J. Leithart, “Constantine the Pious,” in Constantine: Religious Faith and Imperial Policy, ed. A.E. Siecienski (Abingdon and New York: Routledge, 2017), 129–46; Michael S. Bjornlie, ed., The Life and Legacy of Constantine: Traditions Through the Ages (Abingdon and New York: Routledge, 2017). 66 Roderici Santii episcopi Palentini historiae Hispanicae partes IIII, 3.35, in Rerum Hispanicarum scriptores aliquot, ed. Robert Beale, 2 vols. (Frankfurt: Wechel, 1579–1581), 1:290–436 at 361. 67 Catalogus abbatum Saganensium, ed. Gustav A. Stenzel, Scriptores rerum Silesiacarum 1 (Breslau: Max & Komp., 1835), 173–528 at 256. Here, too, we read that the king heard these masses “elevatis manibus in tentorio orans pro populo suo.” 68 Life of Constantine, 158–59, 160. 69 On this mural painting, see esp. Marek Walczak, “‘Sic enim Constantinus  …’: The Equestrian Portrait of King Ladislaus Jagiełło in the Holy Trinity Chapel at the Castle of

Studying Religious Rites of War

317

Figure 8.4 Mural painting depicting King Władysław Jagiełło as a second Constantine the Great (before 1418). Chapel of the Holy Trinity at the Lublin castle, Poland. With kind permission of the Muzeum Narodowe w Lublinie Photo by: Piotr Maciuk

318

Kotecki

The pattern present in the Constantine story seems to be discernible even in the legend of the Dannebrog—the famous Danish banner which, according to later accounts, appeared to the Danes in the sky shortly before the Battle of Lyndanisse against the Estonians (1219), “when they were all but defeated and were humbly imploring God”—writes Peder Olsen in the sixteenth century, following some older source. Although there is no mention of the ruler’s prayers (these were said by bishops imitating Moses), the story seems to be a variation of the one concerning Constantine.70 In some respects, its structure also resembles the above-mentioned story of Duke Casimir and his victory over the Mazovians with God’s help. Here, too, supernatural power results from fervent prayers, although there is no mention of a horseman brandishing a white banner. Instead, we have a story of a flag with the sign of a white cross (cruce candida consignatum). In addition, there is a miraculous voice, this time telling the Danes that when the Dannebrog was raised high in the air they would certainly win a complete victory over their enemies.71 As Lars Auth Hendrikman argues, the analogies between the Dannebrog miracle and Emperor Constantine’s victory would have been very well understood in Danish courtly circles. This is best evidenced by one of the paintings of Bernard van Orley, commissioned by Christian II and depicting the king as a second Constantine. In the painting, the Dannebrog can be seen behind the monarch’s back and farther in the background we can see the scene of the battle. One of the figures is kneeling and praying. This must be Archbishop Anders Sunesen, who, according to the legend recounted by Olsen, when it seemed that the battle was lost, fell to his knees and begged God for help, with his hands being kept up by two suffragans.72

Lublin (1418),” in Eclecticism in Late Medieval Visual Culture at the Crossroads of the Latin, Greek, and Slavic Traditions, ed. Maria Alessia Rossi and Alice Isabella Sullivan, Sense, matter, and medium 6 (Berlin and Boston MA: De Gruyter, 2022), 259–90. For other efforts aimed at linking King Władysław to Constantine after Grunwald victory, see Fałkowski, “‘Adventus regis.’” 70 For the legend, see esp. John H. Lind, “Dannebrog and the Danish Crusades to Estonia,” in Denmark and Estonia 1219–2019—Selected Studies on Common Relation, ed. Jens E. Olesen, Studien zur Geschichte der Ostseeregion 1 (Greifswald: Universität Greifswald, 2019), 7–40. 71 Cited after Lind, “Dannebrog,” 24. 72 Lars A. Hendrikman, “Christiaan II als Scandinavische Constantijn,” Millennium 15 (2001): 30–57; idem, “Portraits and Politics—Evolution in the Depiction of King Christian II of Denmark,” in Trade, Diplomacy and Cultural Exchange: Continuity and Change in the North Sea Area and the Baltic, c.1350–1750, ed. Hanno Brand, Groninger Hanze studies 1 (Hilversum: Verloren, 2006), 184–208 at 204–7.

Studying Religious Rites of War

319

Obviously, we are dealing here only with late legends, which do not necessarily have a lot in common with actual events. Yet the recurring theme relating to Emperor Constantine or the role of the monarch’s and prelates’ prayer and devotion in winning heaven’s favor for the army testifies to its continued relevance. One can, therefore, assume that throughout the Middle Ages this model influenced rulers and clergymen, especially those employed in the princely/royal chapel. It was also probably the chaplains who were primarily responsible for modeling the image of rulers going into battle and giving the actions they carried out a specially sacred character. This may explain their exceptional knowledge of military hierophanies and their role in “bringing” God’s assistance in the form of saints, angels, and patrons. A unique example of such a clergyman is chaplain Vitus, who served Duke Soběslav I at the Battle of Chlumec (Ger. Kulm) (1126) and experienced the vision of St. Wenceslas, discussed in my essay. It is probably also no coincidence that Jan Długosz cites the testimony of his uncle Bartholomew, who was acting as chaplain to the king during the Grunwald campaign when describing some unnatural omen. According to this account, certain people keeping vigil at night saw a fight between a king and a monk on the moon disc. The monk who was defeated by the king has knocked off the moon and fell. This apparition was talked about in the army the next day, and Bartholomew, who claimed to have seen it with his own eyes, celebrated mass for the king that day. Hector Boece’s account (1527) dealing with Robert the Bruce’s religious preparations for the Battle of Bannockburn (1314) demonstrates the durability of these older models of wartime devotion. According to this late—though based on older sources—account, Robert with some barons was praying in his tent to God and St. Fillan, whose arm he thought he had brought encased in a silver reliquary to grant victory to the Scots. Unexpectedly during the prayer, the reliquary opened, disclosing the arm, and then shut again “as quick as a wink,” although nobody had approached or touched it. Then the priest that was present with the king “saw that the arm was within, he exclaimed that this was a divine miracle. For he confessed his deed to the king: although the king had requested the arm of St. Fillan, he had removed the arm and only brought the empty silver reliquary out of fear lest it be lost in the confusion.” This event, just as the vision dreamed by Emperor Theodosius in Theodoret’s story, only made the ruler more eager toward praying, which he continued until morning celebrations.73

73 Hector Boethius, Scotorum Historia (1575 Version): A Hypertext Critical Edition, 14.36, ed. Dana F. Sutton (2010).

320

Kotecki

The account, although also smacking of a legend, is among the rare accounts depicting a ruler in an intimate scene of nighttime prayers before battle, in the company of trusted men and a chaplain celebrating services in the monarch’s chapel tent and taking care of the altar and the relics. Although the actions of the monarch and his chaplain correspond to the practices initiated by Constantine, the aim, in this case, was not to make the scene conform to the model defined by the accounts relating to the first Christian emperor. This makes it possible to think about the facts described in it as at least appropriate to the situation in which the ruler sought to establish contact with heaven thanks to his prayers and with the help of his chaplains. He also sought to convince his army that supernatural help had been granted to them. This example, like few others, suggests that in such situations the rite served as a basis for allowing the ruler, in collaboration with the chaplains, to procure “miracles” in order to impress the knights. Based on the above-mentioned stories of saints appearing in a dream to rulers going to war, we can suspect that, indeed, the extraordinary signs of success in battle during nighttime were passed on to soldiers in the morning. At that point—as was the case of Bannockburn and many other battles—there followed the main ceremonies featuring the troops, with sermons and speeches being delivered. Thus, there existed a suitable context to disseminate the result of the nighttime attempt to communicate with the Judge of war. The practice of informing the troops on the morning of the battle of prophetic dreams and signs the commander experienced at night goes back to pagan Antiquity, although it does have some justification in the Bible as well.74 It seems, therefore, especially if we are talking about rites in warfare sanctioned by the monarch’s authority, that we can speak of constancy in their use throughout the Middle Ages. Among the studies collected here, this is best evidenced by László Veszprémy’s contribution. In Hungary, but also generally across Europe, the ritual setting of monarchs’ wars did not change in any major way, at best acquiring new means of expression, for example, the display of captured banners in churches. In the late Middle Ages, we can observe at best a tendency to strengthen the splendor of the ritual setting by giving it a more 74 Harris, “Constantine’s Dream”; idem, Dreams and Experience in Classical Antiquity (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 2009), 54, 107, 167. In Eusebius’s words “when day came he [Constantine] arose and recounted the mysterious communication to his friends”: Life of Constantine, 1.30, p. 81. According to 2 Macc. 15 Judas Maccabeaus revealed his dream to his soldiers during the religious preparations before the Battle of Adasa (161 BC). Judas saw in a dream a High Priest Onias III, that prayed for the Israel, as well as “an impressive white-haired man,” prophet Jeremiah. The latter stretched out his right hand and gave Judas a gold sword, saying it is a gift from God that will destroy his enemies.

Studying Religious Rites of War

321

exuberant and florid character which also seems to correspond to the propaganda significance of war-related rites in that period. The trend is by no means surprising if we remember that a similar tendency occurred in other ceremonial practices serving to highlight the monarch’s magnificence, like coronation, adventus regis, or funeral.75 The study of the war rituals in the late Middle Ages seems to be an important need due to the availability of abundant and hitherto unexploited sources, ranging from liturgical to diplomatic. As for the later medieval period, visual sources should not be forgotten either.76 In this collection, Dušan Zupka recalled late medieval church murals depicting the legend of the struggle between Hungarian saintly king Ladislas and the anonymous Cuman. As is well known, most of these fresco cycles include scenes showing the pursuit of the Cuman, then wrestling with him, and beheading.77 It is worth adding that several have survived that also depict the scene of the king’s departure for war with an episcopal blessing. Such scenes are preserved in several churches on the territory of Transylvania in present-day Romania, in Dârjiu (Hung. Székelyderzs), Crăciunel (Hung. Homoródkarácsonyfalva), Ghelința (Hung. Gelencé), Ghidfalău (Hung. Gidófalva), Mihăileni (Hung. Csíkszentmihály), Mugeni (Hung. Bögöz—fig. 8.5), or Ocland (Hung. Homoródoklánd).78 On most of these murals the monarch is depicted as seating on his steed and slightly bowing his crowned head toward the bishop of Várad (Nagyvárad, nowadays Oradea, Romania), giving an expression of his piety. The bishop, in turn, surrounded by a group of kneeling religious women and accompanied by a monk in a Franciscan habit 75 It is no coincidence that in his latest (otherwise excellent) book, Barber only occasionally refers to the times before the fourteenth century and barely ever to the era before the second half of the twelfth century. See Richard W. Barber, Magnificence and Princely Splendour in the Middle Ages (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2020), at p. 305, also about magnificence as a propaganda. 76 Some interesting recent work addressing the problem of war ritual in the light of iconographic material is Fedor Veselov, “Depicting a Prayer Before the Battle: On the Reader’s Marginalia Drawing in the Old Rus’ Manuscript from the British Library,” Scrinium 16.1 (2020): 135–45. 77 A useful overview of the surviving mural paintings can be found at websites szentlaszlo.com and knightking.org. 78 For the most comprehensive survey and interpretation of murals depicting the King Ladislas’s departure into battle and the episcopal blessing, see Mihály Jánó, “A püspök megáldja a hadba vonuló Szent László királyt,” in “Elődeim kezét fogom, az ő munkájukat folytatom.” Emlékkötet László Gyula halálának 20. Évfordulójára, ed. Péter Gróf, Mihály Hoppál, and György Szabados (Budapest: Európai Folklór Intézet, 2021), 193–220. Also see Zsombor Jékely, “Szent László kunok elleni csatájának képciklusai a középkori falfestészetben,” in Szent László emlékkönyv, red. András Bódvai and Zsombor Jékely (Budapest: Bethlen Gábor Alapkezelő Zrt, 2021), 145–71.

322

Kotecki

Figure 8.5 St. Ladislas receives episcopal blessing when departing on a military campaign against the Cumans. Mural painting in the reformed church in Mugeni (Bögöz), Romania Photo reproduced with the kind permission of the author Magyari Hunor

stands before the city gates and rises his hand toward Ladislas in the gesture of benediction—a rare example that gives an idea of the key element of the profectio bellica ceremony.79 3

Forging Community with Religious Rites of War

The examples discussed above point to the durability of rites featuring monarchs, rites that were to reinforce the ruler’s position in the religious sphere as an entity surrounded by sacral charisma and responsible the most for obtaining heaven’s favor in battle. However, the same rites had a communal dimension as well. The grace showered upon the monarch encompassed the entire army under his command. Thus, such rites reinforced the cohesion of the army by the fact that the warriors gathered around the monarch enjoying 79

On blessing performed on monarch or army going to war as part of early medieval departure ceremony, see McCormick, Eternal Victory, 242, 247–49. 309–10, 350. For blessing of a ruler going on military expedition, see also Yulia Mikhailova’s chapter (vol. 2, chap. 1).

Studying Religious Rites of War

323

the favor of God or saints. In this way they contributed to the transformation of the army from a group of individuals, often coming from various regions, into one community united by loyalty to the commander-in-chief, who personified the army’s connection to heaven. What may seem somewhat surprising is the fact that community building through war-related rites has so far been studied only to a limited extent and when the matter was taken up, it was more in the context of the fighting spirit.80 More recently, however, somewhat has been said about this subject concerning Central and Eastern Europe, the conclusion being that war liturgy and rituals may have influenced the unification of political bodies and at the same time served to strengthen Christian identity.81 Dušan Zupka has noted, on the other hand, that not only may war religion have been one of the more important means of Christianization, but the consolidating crusading ideology also contributed to the spread of a specific type of religiosity, serving to integrate young monarchies with Latin Europe.82 The problem is that such inferences are usually too general and too perfunctory to be fully acceptable and require more in-depth research.83 To this end, it is necessary to describe several concrete phenomena and processes occurring in the interaction between war religion and society. It is gratifying to note that the authors of the chapters collected in this publication have managed to demonstrate several hitherto little-known phenomena. For example, Sini Kangas (volume one) has shown that in the high Middle Ages, especially in connection with the reception of the chivalric and crusading ideology, practices consisting of individual communication with God or a patron saint in the face of a threat became more widespread. Although these rites had an individual dimension or were used by small communities, their presence testifies to the consolidation of religious self-awareness also in a broader societal dimension. Before the twelfth century, such practices can rarely be encountered in the sources and if they are, it is only among representatives of a narrowly defined social elite. An important issue related to the previous reflection seems to be the role of rulers in overseeing appropriate behavior in the army going into battle, including the application of appropriate ethical rules (abstinence from 80 81 82 83

This aspect is emphasized especially by David S. Bachrach. See n. 2 above. See Kotecki, Jensen, and Bennett, “Christianity and War,” 1–21. Zupka, “Political, Religious and Social Framework,” 153–58. An important collective work on war and identity has recently been published: Yannis Stouraitis, ed., War and Collective Identities in the Middle Ages: East, West, and Beyond (Leeds: ARC Humanities Press, 2023). For conceptual directives, see especially the chapter by Siniša Malešević, “War and Peoplehood Through Time: A Sociological ‘Longue Durée’ Perspective,” 15–31, on religion, war, and identity at 26–27, 28, 30.

324

Kotecki

entertainment, alcohol, lewdness, or violence against the defenseless, especially churches).84 Such requirements introduced in the army are known from Carolingian sources and are also associated with the pursuit of God’s grace and propitiatory rituals.85 As Thomas Scharff observes, in addition to organizing prayer support, the king had to obligate his army to observe the Christian standards of behavior. If war and battle were viewed as the judgment of God in which victory was a reward for the observance of proper custom, this naturally influenced the behavior of the warriors and served to reinforce social cohesion.86 However, these rules had been known even earlier, as is illustrated by Gregory of Tours’s famous story of Clovis, who struck with his sword a man who had authorized the seizure of the possessions of the poor living on the estates of the Tours Cathedral during an expedition against the Visigoths. He exclaimed, “[i]t is no good expecting to win this fight if we offend St. Martin.”87 Something similar allegedly happened also during the expedition of the Polish and Lithuanian armies against the Teutonic Order in 1410. According to the Cronica conflictus, it was discovered during a stopover that some individuals had dared to steal from churches along the route of the marching troops. As this propaganda source informs us, the misdeeds met with an immediate and severe response. An appropriate decree was issued, ordering the thieves to hang themselves.88 The reference to a decree condemning the perpetrators of the sacrilege to death seems to indicate an existing practice, most likely sanctioned by the monarch’s function as guardian of military morality. This is the recent interpretation of one of the laws of King Ladislas of Hungary (after 84

Timothy Reuter, “Ritual, Ceremony and Gesture: Ottoman Germany,” in Timothy Reuter, Communications and Power in Medieval Europe: The Carolingian and Ottonian Centuries (London and Rio Grande OH: Hambledon Press, 1994), 189–213 at 204–5; Bachrach, Religion, 19, 23, 38–62. 85 See, e.g., McCormick, “Liturgie,” 215; Bachrach, Religion, 34–39. 86 Scharff, Gott, 294–95. 87 Gregorii episcopi Turonensis Libri historiatum X, 2.37, ed. Bruno Krusch and Wilhelm Levison, MGH SS rer. Merov. 1.1 (Hannover: Hahn, 1951), 85. See also Laury Sarti, Perceiving War and the Military in Early Christian Gaul (ca.400–700 A.D.), Brill’s series on the early Middle Ages 22 (Leiden and Boston MA: Brill, 2013), 123, 215, 294–97. Sarti (pp. 296–97) aptly notes that “[t]he idea that God grants victory was most significant for a ruler, as it entailed that every military success could be regarded as unambiguous proof of righteous rulership. Unsurprisingly, kings reportedly sought good relationships with God, the saints, and the representatives of the Church.” 88 Cronica conflictus Wladislai regis Poloniae cum Cruciferis anno Christi 1410, ed. Zygmunt Celichowski (Poznań: Biblioteka Kórnicka, 1911), 18: “In stationibus deprehensi fuere quidam salutis propriae immemores, qui domos dei ausi fuerunt intrare et praedas committere in eisdem; cum omni decreto damnati sunt, quod se ipsos manibus propriis deberent suspendere, quod ipsos facere.”

Studying Religious Rites of War

325

1077) forbidding theft during military campaigns on pain of loss of property and freedom89—according to established Carolingian ideas, warriors robbing their tribesmen was considered a special kind of crime that brought about divine punishment on the army and the people in the form of defeats or even devastating external invasions.90 This is also stated explicitly by the fragment of The Chronicle of Lanercost, quoted by Robert Bubczyk, describing the march of the English army in June 1314 against Scotland and explaining Edward I’s defeat at Bannockburn by the fact that Edward authorized the seizure of property belonging to monasteries. Such a conclusion can also be drawn from the facts not to be found in Cronica conflictus but quoted by Jan Długosz in his version of the story. According to Długosz, the robbers were Lithuanian and the punishment in the form of hanging for their deed was pronounced by Duke Vytautas who, by doing so, instilled great fear in his troops. The robbery also apparently outraged Jagiełło himself, as the king was afraid of losing God’s favor for his actions.91 Leaving aside the credibility of these accounts, we can at least presume on their basis that if such an idea was known to chroniclers, it was also known to military leaders, prompting them to keep their troops under control. Whether they always managed to do that is naturally a different matter. Yet is not hard to see that successful deterrence of iniquity boosted the leader’s authority. A perfect example of this seems to be the military ordinance issued by Jan Žižka, who turned the religion into a binder for the Hussite army and strengthened his position in it, gaining almost absolute power. Among the articles of this regulation, one can also find those that prohibit robbery and other unlawful acts under penalty of death or banishment.92 89 Decreta regni mediaevalis Hungariae, ed. and trans. Janos M. Bak, Gyorgy Bonis, and James Ross Sweeney, The laws of Hungary. 1st ser., 1000–1526 1. 2nd rev. ed. (Budapest and Idyllwild CA: Schlacks, 1999), 19; Zupka, “Religious Rituals,” 150. 90 Gillis, Religious Horror, 7–31. 91 Długosz, Annales, lib. 10 (1975), 72. Długosz did not deny himself a moralizing: “For never, especially when war is threatened, should illicit acts be committed, and should then be punished exceedingly severely, not only the great and blameworthy offenses, but even the smallest, so that the Divine Majesty, appeased by righteous and pious acts, will ensure success and give the desired victory.” 92 The text of Žižkův vojenský řád in the original Czech language is in Staročeské vojenský řády, ed. František Svejkovský (Prague: Orbis, 1952), 23–27. English translation in The Crusade Against Heretics in Bohemia, 1418–1437: Sources and Documents for the Hussite Crusades, trans. Thomas A. Fudge, CTT 9 (Aldershot and Burlington VT: Ashgate, 2002), 167–71. For the role of religion in Žižka’s army, see Andrew K. Deaton, “Divining God’s Favour and Diverting His Wrath: Supernatural Intervention in the Hussite Wars Under Jan Žižka, 1419–1424,” in Miracles, Political Authority and Violence in Medieval and Early Modern History, ed. Matthew Rowley and Natasha Hodgson (Abingdon and New York: Routledge, 2021), 109–22.

326

Kotecki

It is well known from Western and Byzantine sources that a measure particularly often practiced to reinforce the integrity of the army was the imposition of religious practices, including abstinence from meat and alcohol, as well as confession and penitence, which enabled warriors to cleanse themselves of sin before the customary reception of Holy Communion on the morning of the day of battle.93 This ritual procedure seems to have found widespread use in Northern and Eastern Europe (except in the area dominated by Orthodox Christianity) and sources tell about it irrespective of the period. Not all details are always mentioned, which does not mean that such a ritual was not routine. This is evidenced by the fairly frequent references in the sources to the reception of Holy Communion before battles. The reception of the viaticum must have been preceded by appropriate cleansing rites, with a substantial role in them being played by clergymen as well as rulers.94 For example, Master Vincentius in his description of the Casimir the Just’s Pollexian campaign says that the catholicus princeps himself told the bishop of Płock to celebrate mass and administer Communion. The account can be regarded as part of a longer series of accounts suggesting such actions in Poland. For example, Gallus’s chronicle conveys that Communion was regularly administered to Bolesław the Wrymouth’s warriors. The chronicler’s account of the Battle of Trutina (1110) even tells the masses celebrated by bishops, who delivered sermons and gave Holy Communion to their diocesans, preceded the duke’s address to 93 E.g., see, Reuter, “Ritual,” 204–5; Thomas F.X. Noble, “Carolingian Religion,” ChH 84.2 (2015): 287–307 at 304–5. 94 Like in the West, sources from the region of interest to us inform us that Holy Communion was given to knights at dawn on the day of the expected battle. This was followed by the formation of the battle order. A captivating description of this can be found in Barbour’s poem The Bruce: “On Sunday morning when the sun / Had scarce his daily course begun, / They heard the mass and offered prayer / And many of them shriven were. / Who had made up their minds to gain / Freedom or be in battle slain. / To God they earnestly did pray / And all went dinnerless that day / Through John the Baptist’s Eve they fed / Simply on water and on bread … Soon as they saw the morning light. / The Scottish men, when it was day, / Devoutly knelt the mass to say, / And after prayer they took some food / And then in battle order stood, / All in their several troops arrayed / With banners broad above displayed. / According to heraldic rites, / Upon the field of battle, knights / Were dubbed by good King Robert’s sword”: The Bruce of Bannockburn: Being a Translation of the Greater Portion of Barbour’s Bruce, trans. Michael MacMillan (Stirling: MacKay, 1914), 216 and 234. A typical description can be found in Chronica de gestis Hungarorum e codice picto saec. XIV, János M. Bak and László Veszprémy, CEMT 9 (Budapest: Central European University Press, 2018), 195: “Surgentes autem summo diluculo sexta feria omnes eucharistie conmunione se ipsos muniverunt et ordinatis agminibus suis ad confligendum contra paganos perrexerunt.” The problem of the time of a day of this ritual as well as the role of light in the war religion requires research.

Studying Religious Rites of War

327

the knights. The account seems to point to a well-established practice, which must have been accepted by the monarch.95 On the other hand, according to Długosz, before the Battle of Grunwald, it was Jagiełło himself who “purified his army of sins with the Sacrament of the Body of the Lord.”96 Długosz’s use of the word expiat to refer to the giving of the Most Blessed Sacrament is in itself significant, because it suggests that the chronicler saw the action in the context of a penitential rite. This is not surprising in the context of the model known in the Latin West. In this model bishops and the clergy got involved in mobilizing knights for battle, recognizing the monarch’s supremacy in military actions and respecting the needs of their homeland. The idea was to boost the warriors’ fighting spirit, but at the same time to transform the army into a community that collectively underwent purificatory (penitential) rites to be united with God in the Eucharist and to be granted His mercy. Another important piece of evidence of the existence of such customs is a Norwegian collection of ecclesiastical laws from the second half of the twelfth century, Canones Nidrosienses. The document contains provisions allowing the Norwegian bishops and other clerics to provide spiritual assistance to the royal army, but also to encourage the subjects to fight for the homeland against pagans and troublemakers.97 According to the Canones, a ruler should not force clergymen to take part in military expeditions (which is what must have been happening), but on the other hand, clergymen should keep the good of their homeland in mind and support the rightful monarch at moments of military threats. As the ties between the church and the state grew weaker in the late Middle Ages, the scope of the clergy’s religious involvement in warfare seems to have diminished. This certainly happened in thirteenth-century Poland.98 There is no denying that when faced with military challenges, monarchs, as a result of their responsibility before God, sought to strengthen the cohesion 95 Kotecki, “Bishops,” 451–52. Similarly, Boece claims that Robert the Bruce summoned his knights and told them to take part in mass and receive Holy Communion more Christiano. See Scotorum Historia, 14.36: “Postero die, praeparatis omnibus, [rex] ad rem sacram milites convocat, iubetque omnes Christi corpus, quo robustiores spiritu essent, sumere. Erat in exercitu abbas insulae Missarum nomine Mauricius, qui ex editiusculo loco tum rem divinam faciebat, is regi eucharistiam ac nobilibus administrabat, inde a reliquis sacer­dotibus idem factum caeteris militibus. Quibus omnibus ex more Christiano peractis convocatisque deinde ad concionem et solitam exhortationem per praeconem militibus, huiusmodi apud eos verba Robertus habuisse fertur.” 96 Długosz, Annales, lib. 10, p. 81: “exercitum suum Sacramento Corporis Dominici expiat.” 97 Kotecki, “Bishops,” 452–53, 458–59. 98 Radosław Kotecki and Jacek Maciejewski, “Ideals of Episcopal Power, Legal Norms and Military Activity of the Polish Episcopate between the Twelfth- and Fourteenth Centuries,” KH 127.Eng.-Language Edition 4 (2020): 5–46.

328

Kotecki

not only of the troops they led in battle but generally of all their subjects. Such customs are clear in Carolingian, Ottonian, and other sources.99 A particularly important manifestation of this are the requests or orders sent by rulers to prelates to encourage their clergy and people to pray for victory, as well as to engage in other devotional practices, such as fasting, almsgiving, and litanies. Early information of this kind comes from Hungary during the reign of King Stephen I, who, upon hearing about the German invasion, is said to have organized prayers to repel the attack, in line with Carolingian customs known from previous centuries.100 Such practices must have been common in the various polities, although with time they acquired a dimension going beyond the territory of a given realm, which seems to be a result of the “internationalization” of devotional practices during the crusading movement after the Fourth Lateran Council. As Richard Allington notes, Innocent III took efforts to extend the reform throughout Christendom by expanding crusading participation, as “[t]he pope was convinced that crusading success required the concerted effort of all Christians and the purification of Christendom to make its armies worthy of divine assistance.”101 It is due to these tendencies that on the eve of the Mongol invasion (1241), King Wenceslas I of Bohemia, having the support of the papacy, sent letters to all Christians imploring them to seek God’s grace to repel the emissaries of hell. During Přemysl Otakar II’s campaign (1260), presented as a crusade, the Bohemian army apparently enjoyed the prayer support of Christians from “as far as the great Cologne.” However, the trend did not invalidate the older practice. For example, as Nigel Saul has demonstrated, England’s rulers for generations had been ordering bishops to mobilize the prayers of the faithful on their behalf against the nation’s enemies. It was a custom persisting at least to the later stages of the Middle Ages and constantly contributing to the strengthening of the national identity.102 Although in comparison with England, the difference in the scale of the available sources is evident, a similar situation must have taken place in 99 E.g., see, Michael McCormick, “The Liturgy of War in the Early Middle Ages: Crisis, Litanies, and the Carolingian Monarchy,” Viator 15 (1984): 1–24 at 6–16; idem, Eternal Victory, 237–44; idem, “Liturgie,” 221–25; Bachrach, Religion, 18–19, 37, 78–79, 122–23; Renie S. Choy, Intercessory Prayer and the Monastic Ideal in the Time of the Carolingian Reforms (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 71–73, 148, 154–55, 174–75. 100 See discussion by László Veszprémy, in this collection (vol. 1, chap. 5). 101 Richard Allington, “Crusading Piety and the Development of Crusading Devotions at the Fourth Lateran Council,” in The Fourth Lateran Council and the Crusade Movement, ed. Jessalynn Bird and Damian Smith, Outremer 7 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2018), 13–40, here at 19–20. 102 Nigel Saul, Chivalry in Medieval England (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 2011), 209–14.

Studying Religious Rites of War

329

some Central and Northern European realms. In his chapter, Gregory Leighton demonstrates that country-wide prayers were organized by the Teutonic Order, which was the territorial lord in Prussia. We hear about something similar in Poland as well. This is evidenced by the surviving ordinances of the bishops of the Gniezno ecclesiastical province, calling on the clergy and the people to pray, fast, and take part in processions for the success of Władysław Jagiellon of Poland and Hungary (Hung. I. Ulászló, Pol. Władysław III Warn󠄔eńczyk) anti-Turkish crusade (1443). The same ordinances also suggest that during the campaign the country’s cathedrals and churches hosted thanksgiving celebrations, attracting crowds of the faithful, whenever news of triumphs over the infidels reached Poland. The bishop of Cracow celebrated a special mass “in honor and for the glory of the Holy and Infinite Trinity for allowing, in its goodness, His Majesty, the invincible Lord and King Władysław, to triumph over the ruler of the Turks.”103 Presumably, all these religious ventures were not a result of the prelates’ initiative, but a consequence of the rulers’ efforts. Just as the monarch had the right to demand prayers for himself and his army, so too he had the right to demand that in the churches of the realm the clergy thank God for his triumphs.104 Such communal, nationwide acts of piety relating to pleas for or celebrations of victories and involving the entire clergy of the realm and crowds of the faithful, had a long tradition in the late Middle Ages. Although the state of the sources and research carried out to date leaves something to be desired, it seems that in the period up to about the thirteenth century and the separation (though never complete) of the clergy and the church in relation to monarchical power, these traditions may have exerted an even stronger influence. This seems to be manifested in accounts documenting the involvement of sizeable groups of the clergy in warfare up to that moment. This does not mean that in later periods clergymen did not appear on battlefields and in military camps—the tradition lasted, of course, even beyond the Middle Ages. It should be noted, however, that from the thirteenth century onwards the role of the clergy in warfare becomes less noticeable and more limited to “technical” activities: hearing confession, administering sacraments, and celebrating masses on the battlefield. The matter needs to be debated, but it seems 103 Katarzyna Spurgjasz, “Modlitwy o zwycięstwo w kościołach polskich w 1443 roku,” in Wojna a religia w średniowieczu, ed. Maciej Zapiór (Cracow: Koło Naukowe Historyków Studentów UJ, 2009), 105–11, quotation at 110. 104 Returning from the Battle on the Marchfeld (1278), the victorious Ladislas IV ordered that solemn ceremonies be organized across the realm to commemorate the victory over Přemysl Otakar II. Continuatio Vindobonensis, ed. Georg H. Pertz, MGH SS 9 (Hannover: Hahn, 1851), 698–722 at 710.

330

Kotecki

quite symptomatic when we compare the information about twelfth-century war efforts (e.g., Chlumec 1126, Northallerton 1138, Salnitsa 1111, Trutina 1110, Leitha 1146) with information about battles taking place in the thirteenth to fifteenth century, it appears that in the case of the former the clergy serves a more fundamental function, as an immanent part of the army and representative of a segment of the national community. In the later battles, the clergymen limited themselves to “ordinary” chaplaincy service. Such an important role of clergymen in these battles, which was also reflected in their number,105 can be explained by the persistence in these regions until the twelfth century of customs which have so far been seen in sources concerning post-Roman realms, e.g., those of the Visigoths and the Franks. In these realms war (especially in defense of the homeland) was an undertaking of a three-element community: the ruler, the people, and the clergy. For a later period, they have been observed in the British Isles, especially concerning their Gaelic parts, where there seem to have persisted the old traditions of community organization within the whole dominion built around the idea of military assistance of the communities’ patron saints and their earthly relics, taken to battlefields. On the other hand, in the late Middle Ages clergymen cease to be an integral part of the army and no longer play such a role, also when it comes to procuring divine assistance and war-related hierophanies. If clerics are mentioned, it is usually about small groups of chaplains praying in the monarchs’ closest circle, like at Bouvines (1214)106 or Grunwald, and not about “battalions” of clergymen, as the one mentioned at the Battle of Chester (early seventh century) or Battle of Chlumec (1126). Nor is it surprising that, with time, the links between the clergy and objects supposed to bring victory—the war talismans or signa victricia—become reduced as well. Consecrated standards, as opposed to relics, begin to play a more important role, though the sources indicate that in the late Middle Ages they were entrusted more frequently to secular standard-bearers rather than clerics and seen more as royal or territorial 105 The Battle of Fotevig (1134) is worth noting in this context. The Archbishop of Lund, Asser, took part on Erik Emune’s side, and the Knytlinga Saga states: “[a]long with the archbishop there were many members of the clergy.” Large contingents of clergy must also have accompanied Kings Niels and Magnus, since at least five bishops and sixty clergymen were to be killed in battle. Such numbers are recorded in the Annales Magdeburgenses, ed. Georg Waitz, MGH SS 16 (Hannover: Hahn, 1859), 105–96 at 184 and Annalista Saxo, ed. Georg Waitz and P. Kilon, MGH SS 6 (Hannover: Hahn, 1844), 542–777 at 768. Saxo Grammaticus noted instead that “[n]o other war was more prolific in its squandering of bishops’ blood. Peder of Roskilde, the Swedish Bishop Henrik, and all the prelates of Jutland apart from one are reported to have been overthrown during this fight”: Saxo Grammaticus, Gesta Danorum, 13.11.11, 2:968–69. 106 Bachrach, Religion, 186.

Studying Religious Rites of War

331

symbols than sacred ones. What do remain in the clerical capacity are the acts of hearing confession and administering of the viaticum,107 in addition to activities approved in the post-Lateran pastoral practice.108 When studying this, it is worth bearing in mind the observation of Bernard Bachrach, who, when analyzing early Carolingian sources, noted: “that units mustered in various localities were accompanied in expeditio by at least some of their local saints.”109 Obviously, these saints could accompany the troops only with clergymen, who took from churches the relics or saintly banners that were to encourage warriors and strengthen their belief in victory. A similar conclusion in the present collection (volume one) is drawn by Jesse Harrington, who draws on accounts referring to Gaelic customs, which were still marked by a degree of conservatism in the late Middle Ages. On the one hand, these customs seem to be rooted in the military organization and rules of mass levy, on the other, however, they can be to some extent a continuation of old models of social organization, traces of which can be encountered earlier both among the Romans and among the Germanic tribes. Suffice it to recall that the Romans considered their signa to be among the sacra, and could bring along in combat statues of the gods and Tacitus wrote that when going to war the ancient Germans took images and signs from sacred groves.110 It seems right, however, 107 This is another manifestation of the rationalization of medieval religiosity, a process that displaced the importance of saints’ relics in favor of the Blessed Sacrament. On this process, see Godefridus J.C. Snoek, Medieval Piety from Relics to the Eucharist: A Process of Mutual Interaction, Studies in the history of Christian thought 63 (Leiden and New York: Brill, 1995). 108 In addition to David S. Bachrach’s works, see esp. Ptak, “Duszpasterstwo” and Penman, “Faith in War.” See also James Titterton, Deception in Medieval Warfare: Trickery and Cunning in the Central Middle Ages (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2022), 48–49. 109 Bachrach, Early Carolingian Warfare, 150. 110 For Romans, see McCormick, Eternal Victory, 106–7; Buc, “Political Rituals,” 190–91; Ralph W. Mathisen, “Emperors, Priests, and Bishops: Military Chaplains in the Roman Empire,” in The Sword of the Lord: Military Chaplains from the First to the Twenty-First Century, ed. Doris L. Bergen (Notre Dame IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2004), 29–43 at 30. For ancient Germans, see Cornelius Tacitus, De situ, moribus, et populis Germaniae, chap. 7, in The “Germania” and “Agricola” of Tacitus, ed. Percival Frost (London: Whittaker, 1861), 13–86 at 30: “effigiesque et signa quaedam detracta lucis in proelium ferunt”; Cornelii Taciti Historiarum Libri, 4.22, ed. W.A. Spooner (London and New York: Macmillan and Co., 1891), 386: “Hinc veteranarum cohortium signa, inde depromptae silvis lucisque ferarum imagines, ut cuique genti inire praelium mos est.” It is difficult to say whether an analogous custom known among the Wendish tribes should be counted among the barbarian traditions, as Karol Modzelewski proposes in his essay “Laicyzacja przez chrzest,” in Sacrum. Obraz i funkcja w społeczeństwie średniowiecznym, ed. Aneta Pieniądz-Skrzypczak and Jerzy Pysiak, Aquila volans 1 (Warsaw: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, 2005), 99–114 at 103–4. Thietmar’s accounts of the Luticians’ rites contain clues suggesting

332

Kotecki

to argue that the medieval equivalents of these customs should not be treated as relics of local pagan ones, for Christianity developed analogous practices independently, perhaps under the influence of biblical descriptions. These practices got easily assimilated with the local traditions.111 They persisted in various regions of Europe at least until the twelfth century, which is best evidenced by sources from France and England indicating that mass levy units were brought to places of troop concentration by clergymen carrying crosses and relics.112 Similar conclusions seem to emerge even from the rich sources the influence of Christianity. See Christian Lübke, “The Polabian Alternative: Paganism Between Christian Kingdoms,” in Europe Around the Year 1000, ed. Przemysław Urbańczyk (Warsaw: DiG, 2001), 379–89 at 384. 111 Compare the Jewish custom of taking “sacred box” or “ark” (ephod) from temples to wars discussed in William R. Arnold, Ephod and Ark: A Study in the Records and Religion of the Ancient Hebrews (Cambridge: n.p., 1917); Lewis B. Paton, Ephod and Ark, “American Journal of Theology” 33.2 (1919): 220–25. Such boxes were taken by priests and served oracular purposes but perhaps also as battle talismans similarly to the Ark of the Covenant. It is not difficult to find a parallel between these “arks” and the Christian reliquaries or staurothekes taken to wars in the Middle Ages. Both were made of gold and decorated with precious stones certainly because of luminosity of those materials symbolizing the divine presence. The best textual example of golden reliquary serving war purposes can be perhaps find in the description of Battle of Fraga (1134) in Chonica Adefonsi Imperatoris, 1.52, in Chronica Hispana saeculi XII. Pars I, ed. Emma Falque, Juan Gil, and Antonio Maya, CCCM 71 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1990), 109–248 at 174. Another example is provided by Walter the Chancellor in the description of the Battle on the Field of Blood (1119): Galterii Cancellarii Bella Antiochena, ed. Heinrich Hagenmeyer (Innsbruck: Wagner, 1896), 88: “perempto sacerdote eandem crucem manibus deferente, plures etiam perfidorum ambitione auri pretiosorumque lapidum capti, uim uirtutis Dei in cruce latentis ignorantes, ibidem inter se datis crebris ictibus, necis materia effecti, ad inferos, infernorum ignibus concremandi, non redituri elapsi sunt.” Modern translators rightly point out that this passage indicates that the relic of the True Cross was held in decorated reliquary. Walter the Chancellor’s The Antiochene Wars: A Translation and Commentary, trans. Thomas S. Asbridge and Susan Edgington, CTT 4 (Abingdon and New York: Routledge, 2019), 71, 128n96. For medieval people the analogy between Holy Cross serving as a war trophy with the Ark of the Covenant was obvious. See, e.g., Alan V. Murray, “‘Mighty Against the Enemies of Christ’: The Relic of the True Cross in the Armies of the Kingdom of Jerusalem,” in The Crusades and Their Sources: Essays Presented to Bernard Hamilton, ed. John France and William G. Zajac (Aldershot and Burlington VT: Ashgate, 1998), 217–38 at 224–25. See also The Crusade of Frederick Barbarossa: The History of the Expedition of the Emperor Frederick and Related Texts, ed. Graham A. Loud, CTT 19 (Farnham and Burlington VT: Ashgate, 2010), 138; as well as Jesse Harrington’s discussion on battle talismans in this collection (vol. 1, chap. 3). 112 See esp. Richard Sharpe, “King William and the Brecc Bennach in 1211: Reliquary or Holy Banner?” IR 66.2 (2015): 163–90; idem, “Banners of the Northern Saints,” in Saints of North-East England, 600–1500, ed. Margaret Coombe, Anne Mouron, and Christiania Whitehead, MCS 39 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2017), 245–303; Daniel M.G. Gerrard, The Church

Studying Religious Rites of War

333

relating to the Battle of Bannockburn, analyzed in this book by Bubczyk (volume one), which highlight the alliance between the Scottish army and patron saints, while at the same time mentioning relics accompanying the army, and representing the clergy as present in the army. Although traditions of this kind may have endured until the late Middle Ages in some regions, it seems rather significant that in this case there are no sources explicitly confirming forms of rites typical of early medieval reality. A similar situation can be encountered in the account concerning the Battle of Kressenbrunn (1260). The author of the account mentions saints accompanying the army with their material emblems, although the whole matter takes place only in the sphere of the miraculum. The only element mentioned explicitly is the standard of St. Wenceslas carried by the burgrave of the Prague castle; on the other hand, there is no information about the presence of relics of other patrons, the crozier of St. Procopius, episcopal vestments of St. Vojtěch-Adalbert, or the robes of the Five Martyred Brethren. The matter remains unresolved at this point.113 The artifacts taken by clergymen to battlefields were brought back to churches after the end of hostilities. Alongside them were placed spoils of war as offerings of thanksgiving, if the expedition was successful.114 The custom of placing spoils in local churches was recorded in the early thirteenth century chronicle by Henry of Livonia, whose accounts have been analyzed by Carsten Selch Jensen. It would be an interesting example of the use of an ancient custom in a still tribal society only entering the Christianity. Its compatibility with the models of the functioning of traditional communities is evidenced by information about the use of such a custom among the pagan Polabian Slavs. Saxo Grammaticus writes that the Rani/Rugians [i]n adoration of this idol [Svetovit] each male and female offered annually the present of a coin. A third of all spoils and booty was also allotted at War: The Military Activities of Bishops, Abbots, and Other Clergy in England, c.900–1200 (Abingdon and New York: Routledge, 2016), 112–35. 113 Some possibilities are offered in this context by the paradigm of “temple society,” which, however, has so far been treated as par excellence specific to the early Middle Ages. On this concept, see Ian Wood, The Christian Economy of the Early Medieval West: Towards a Temple Society (Binghamton NY: Gracchi Books, 2022), 166–67, where, however, military mobilization practices are said as laying at the heart of temple society in early medieval Kalukyan State (India). 114 In St. George’s church in Genoa, the main church in the Genoese Republic dedicated to the patronal saint, the standard of St. George was kept along with other military insignia and spoils of war. See Carrie E. Beneš, “Civic Identity,” in A Companion to Medieval Genoa, ed. Carrie E. Beneš, BCEH 15 (Leiden and Boston MA: Brill, 2018), 193–17 at 204–5. See also the case of Fehérvár basilica discussed by László Veszprémy in this book.

334

Kotecki

to it, just as though these had been gained and won with its assistance. This deity had three hundred horses assigned to it and the same number of votaries who rode to battle on them; all the profits acquired by these men, either through fighting or by theft, were submitted to the care of the priest; he melted down every weapon handle to make emblems of different kinds and various adornments for the temples, and consigned them to the inside of bolted chests, in which were stored many purple fabrics rotted with age, quite apart from vast sums of money.115 Just as the tax paid annually by the Rani is reminiscent of the custom of paying tithes or Peter’s pence (known in Poland and England), so the donation of a portion of spoils of war to the temple and the deity seems in this case to be an imitation of the Christian practice. An example of a share in the spoils of war being donated in a form determined by a fixed value to the temple and priests is provided by the Bible, for example, Numbers 31:25–54. According to Genesis 14:18–20, Abraham gave Melchizedek, “priest of God Most High,” a tenth of everything he had seized during the war. To this model seems to correspond a custom, probably going even as far back as the eleventh century, of the rulers of Poland and Hungary paying a tithe to the main cathedrals in Gniezno and Esztergom, as Marcin R. Pauk argues, as a votive offering for military victories. According to Povest’ vremennykh let, after erecting the Church of Our Lady, Vladimir the Great endowed it with spoils from Korsun as well as with tithes on his income and income of strongholds, hence the subsequent name of the Church of the Tithes.116 115 Saxo Grammaticus, Gesta Danorum, 14.39.7, 2:1279 and 1281. Latin text at 1278 and 1280: “Nummus ab unoquoque mare uel foemina annuatim in huius simulacri cultum doni nomine pendebatur. Eidem quoque spoliorum ac predarum pars tertia deputabatur, perinde atque eius presidio parta obtentaque fuissent. Hoc quoque numen trecentos equos descriptos totidemque satellites in eis militantes habebat, quorum omne lucrum seu armis seu furto^ quesitum sacerdotis custodie subdebatur. Qui ex earum rerum manubiis diuersi generis insignia ac uaria templorum ornamenta conflabat eaque obseratis arcarum claustris mandabat, in quibus preter abundantem pecuniam multa purpura uetustate exesa congesta fuerat.” On this, see esp. Leszek P. Słupecki, “Temple Fiscality of Pagan Slavs and Scandinavians,” in Economies, Monetisation and Society in the West Slavic Lands 800–1200 AD, ed. Mateusz Bogucki (Szczecin: Wydawnictwo Instytutu Archeologii i Etnologii Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 2013), 109–13. Słupecki believes, however, that placing spoils in Slavic temples is more archaic than paying regular taxes as based on the idea of tithe. 116 Marcin R. Pauk, “‘Plenariae decimationes’ świętego Wojciecha. O ideowych fun­kcjach dziesięciny monarszej w Polsce i na Węgrzech w XI–XII wieku,” in Gnieźnieńskie koronacje królewskie i ich środkowoeuropejskie konteksty, ed. Józef Dobosz, Marzena MatlaKozłowska, and Leszek Wetesko, Colloquia mediaevalia Gnesnensia 2 (Gniezno: Instytut

Studying Religious Rites of War

335

Does the rather pronounced presence in the region of interest of such “archaic” practices stem from its peripheral nature and “backwardness”? It is a very complex question, which must be answered in the future. Its complexity lay in that the answer must take into account not only the impact of the models of the traditional social organization. It must also—as Harrington, for example, observes in his study (volume one)—considers the functioning of unorthodox ideas of war derived from the Old Testament or pagan models transferred to Christianity itself from an ancient culture. What also clearly persisted was the biblical concept of the community as Chosen People over whom God and his angels exercised real military patronage. Indeed, they had a particularly strong impact in the early Middle Ages,117 as well as on the forms of the religious rites of war.118 Their influence by no means disappeared later, Historii Uniwersytetu Adama Mickiewicza, 2011), 187–212. An excellent example, hitherto unnoticed in Eastern European scholarships and to be used comparatively in the future, is the tradition of the so-called Votos de Santiago, i.e., the promise by Ramiro II to pay a special tax to the Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela after his miraculous victory at Clavijo (allegedly in either 834 or 844) thanks to the help of St. James. According to the narratio of the diploma, Ramiro, his wife Urraca, his sons Ordoño and García decided on an annual payment in the form of a measure of grain and wine as well as draft oxen to the Apostle’s basilica. In addition, after each victory over the Saracens, as the saint as the patron of the king and Spain (patronus noster et Hispaniarum protector) wished, he was to receive part of the spoils. Such details appear in a forged diploma from the mid-twelfth century. It is now believed that the forger described in it a tradition dating back at least to the eleventh century. For Votos de Santiago, see esp. Klaus Herbers, “Politik und Heiligenverehrung auf der iberischen Halbinsel. Die Entwicklung des ‘politischen Jakobus,’” in Politik und Heiligenverehrung im Hochmittelalter, ed. Jürgen Petersohn, VF 42 (Sigmaringen: Thorbecke, 1994), 177–275; idem, “Santiago Matamoros. Mito o realidad de la Reconquista,” in El mundo de los conquistadores, ed. Martín Ríos Saloma and Eric Palazzo (Madrid: Sílex, 2015), 307–20. 117 Conor O’Brien, “Chosen Peoples and New Israels in the Early Medieval West,” Speculum 95.4 (2020): 987–1009 at 987: “Such claims to ethnic election came to be seen as high universal amongst the barbarians of the post-Roman West, references to the New Israel becoming a topos in the historiography of the Anglo-Saxons, Visigoths, and Irish, among others, as well as that of the Franks.” 118 See, e.g., Kent G. Hare, “Apparitions and War in Anglo-Saxon England,” in The Circle of War in the Middle Ages: Essays on Medieval Military and Naval History, ed. Donald J. Kagay and L.J.A. Villalon (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 1999), 75–86; Walter Pohl, “Liturgie di guerra nei regni altomedievali,” RSC 5.1 (2008): 29–44; Alexander Pierre Bronisch, “Cosmovisión e ideología de guerra en época visigoda y asturiana,” in La carisa y la mesa. Causas políticas y militares del origen del Reino de Asturias, ed. Juan I. Ruiz de la Peña and Jorge Camino Mayor (Oviedo: Asociación de Amigos de la Carisa, 2010), 212–33; Jesse Patrick Harrington, “Harangue or Homily? Walter Espec, Deuteronomy, and the Renewal of the Covenant in Aelred of Rievaulx’s ‘Relatio de Standardo,’” HSJ 32 (2020): 163–83. For the idea of “chosen people” in the early Middle Ages, see Mary Garrison, “The Franks as the New Israel? Education for an Identity from Pippin to Charlemagne,” in The Uses

336

Kotecki

for also crusaders and even chivalric orders shaping their ideologies based on crusading models referred to these traditions as well.119 But they underwent some standardization. In any case, it is interesting that the pagan and Christian war-related rites, especially those expressed in the communal worship of gods and patron saints, seem at times similar to each other, and are linked to the very foundations of social organization and the beginnings of proto-national identity.120 The problem must have been noticed even by the clergymen to whom we owe the information about the ritual setting of warfare. For example, in the already mentioned tale, Master Vincentius expresses some veiled doubts as to the identity of the luminous angel coming down from the tower of the Kruszwica church, noticed by the standard-bearing chaplain leading the Polish troops in a manner conforming to the profectio bellica rite. He reminded him of gods and goddesses, which in Roman classical literature joined the pagan priests leading the troops against barbarians.121 Perhaps it is these similarities in ideas about war-related rites (and hierophanies) that explain Christian authors’ of the Past in Early Medieval Europe, ed. Yitzhak Hen and Matthew Innes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 114–61; eadem, “Divine Election for Nations—A Difficult Rhetoric for Medieval Scholars?” in The Making of Christian Myths, 275–314; Zbigniew Dalewski, “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, MTCN 26 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2011), 145–66; Walter Pohl and Gerda Heydemann, “The Rhetoric of Election: 1 Peter 2.9 and the Franks,” in Religious Franks: Religion and Power in the Frankish Kingdoms: Studies in Honour of Mayke de Jong, ed. Rob Meens (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2016), 13–31; Patrick S. Marschner, Das neue Volk Gottes in Hispanien. Die Bibel in der christlich-iberischen Historiographie vom 8. bis zum 12. Jahrhundert (Münster, Berlin, Wien, Zürich: LIT Verlag, 2023). 119 See, e.g., Nicholas Morton, “The Defence of the Holy Land and the Memory of the Maccabees,” JMH 36.3 (2010): 275–93; Katherine Allen Smith, The Bible and Crusade Narrative in the Twelfth Century (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2020), 93–154. 120 For war rituals in pre-Christian setting, see, e.g., Leszek Paweł Słupecki, Wyrocznie i wróżby pogańskich Skandynawów. Studium do dziejów idei przeznaczenia u ludów indoeuropejskich (Warszawa: Instytut Archeologii i Etnologii Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 1998); Neil S. Price, The Viking Way: Religion and War in Late Iron Age Scandinavia (Uppsala: Uppsala universitet, 2002); Andrzej Kuczkowski, “Magiczno-religijne elementy sztuki wojennej u Słowian Zachodnich wczesnego średniowiecza,” Acta Militaria Mediaevalia 5 (2009): 7–19; Marek M. Pacholec, “Pruskie obrzędy religijno-magiczne sfery wojny,” Pruthenia 5 (2010): 67–90; Yanina Ryier, “Rituals of Pagan Lithuanians Related to Military Campaigns in the 13th–14th cc.,” Wschodni Rocznik Humanistyczny 19.4 (2022): 21–37; Juan Antonio Alvarez-Pedrosa and Enrique Santos Marinas, Rituals in Slavic Pre-Christian Religion: Festivals, Banqueting, and Divination (Leeds: ARC Humanities Press, 2023), 59–73. 121 Kotecki, “Pious Rulers,” 165n25.

Studying Religious Rites of War

337

predilection for highlighting the differences between the practices of pagan and Christian armies. This problem is well known to scholars interested in crusades to the Holy Land, who have already observed that crusade authors present Muslim practices and behaviors in a distorting mirror, always as the reverse or a caricature of Christian rites.122 Scholars from Eastern and Northern Europe are less aware of these literary strategies when it comes to war rites. As a result, it is all too common to see a naïve trust in accounts attributing unorthodox ritual practices to the enemy, even among Christians, for biased authors attributed such superstitious practices also to Christian enemies in an attempt to discredit them in the eyes of the readers. Attributing the use of divination to the enemy even becomes a topos, as it were.123 However, there are also more complex representations. Deciphering them demands from the scholar much more extensive contextual knowledge, as shown by Max Naderer in his chapter. As some chapters collected here also demonstrate, attributing to enemies the use of unorthodox or outright pagan rituals had to be quite widespread in the region in question. In any future research, this issue should be additionally explored. When confronted with such accounts, it should be remembered that the sharp distinction between pagan and blasphemous rituals is usually related to the establishment of a distinction between sanctity and magic, as well as concern about the orthodoxy of Christian worship.124 Thus, at least 122 See, e.g., Jean Flori, “La caricature de l’Islam dans l’Occident médiéval. Origine et signification de quelques stéréotypes concernant l’Islam,” Aevum 66.2 (1992): 245–56; Svetlana Loutchitskaja, “‘Barbarae nationes’: Les peuples musulmans dans les chroniques de la première croisade,” in Autour de la première Croisade, ed. Michel Balard, Byzantina Sorbonensia 14 (Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 1996), 99–107; eadem, “L’image des musulmans dans les chroniques des croisades,” Le Moyen Age 105 (1999): 717–35, esp. 727–30; eadem, “Les idoles musulmanes. Images et réalités,” in Das europäische Mittelalter im Spannungsbogen des Vergleichs. Zwanzig internationale Beiträge zu Praxis, Problemen und Perspektiven der historischen Komparatistik, ed. Michael Borgolte and Ralf Lusiardi, Europa im Mittelalter 1 (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2001), 283–98; Susan B. Edgington, “‘Pagans’ and ‘Others’ in the ‘Chanson de Jérusalem,’” in Languages of Love and Hate: Conflict, Communication, and Identity in the Medieval Mediterranean, ed. Sarah Lambert and Helen Nicholson, International medieval research 15 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2012), 37–47; Tomasz Pełech, “Death on the Altar: The Rhetoric of ‘Otherness’ in Sources from the Early Period of the Crusades,” Journal of the Australian Early Medieval Association 17 (2021): 67–89. 123 See, e.g., Hans-Christian Lehner, “Prognostication in Latin Historiography (ca.400– 1300 CE),” in Prognostication in the Medieval World: A Handbook, ed. Matthias Heiduk, Klaus Herbers, and Hans-Christian Lehner, 2 vols. (Berlin and Boston MA: De Gruyter, 2020), 2:937–47 at 939–40. 124 Linda Kaljundi, “(Re)Performing the Past: Crusading, History Writing, and Rituals in the Chronicle of Henry of Livonia,” in The Performance of Christian and Pagan Storyworlds, ed.

338

Kotecki

in the ideological dimension, rites were used in the narratives to differentiate ethno-religious-political groups, often through the lens of proper and improper ritual. In practice, this way of thinking must have had considerable community-creating potential as well. 4

Conclusions

There is one major observation from the present reflections and the entire publication. In medieval Central, Eastern and Northern Europe, war-related rites were an important part of the fabric of culture and were associated in a variety of ways with a whole range of factors and phenomena. Therefore, this collection’s theme is not a marginal one that could be assigned to some branch of historical sciences, but a central topic of great importance to the understanding of past societies. Through research into war-related rites and ideas associated with them, scholars can reach areas that still require intense study, thus magnifying the overall value of this book. We can mention here the mechanisms of identity building, the ways of creating loyalty and enforcing hierarchical relations, the creation of ideas of the supernatural world operating “here and now,” of the links between individual or communal existence and the sacred, of the clergy’s and churches’ role in the functioning of the bodies politic and ensuring the legitimization of power. These are all matters of prime importance to contemporary medieval studies. It is, therefore, worth making sure that the topics discussed here get into the mainstream of local historiographies to an extent greater than before. However, the study of these problems should not be limited to regional research circles. On the contrary, we need constant interregional and international communication, not only between medievalists, but also between specialists in medieval literature, liturgy, and even scholars studying rites from outside the Latin or Byzantine and Greco-Roman culture (for example, experts in ancient Middle Eastern religions and Judaism).125 This is because the phenomenon of the links between religion and war had the characteristics of a universal cultural element, going beyond the boundaries of historical Lars B. Mortensen and Tuomas M.S. Lehtonen, Medieval identities: Socio-cultural spaces 3 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2013), 295–338 at 314. 125 Zainab Bahrani, Rituals of War: The Body and Violence in Mesopotamia (New York: Zone Books, 2008); Brad E. Kelle, Frank R. Ames, and Jacob L. Wright, ed., Warfare, Ritual, and Symbol in Biblical and Modern Contexts, Ancient Israel and its literature 18 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2014); Krzysztof Ulanowski, ed., Religious Aspects of War in the Ancient Near East, Ancient warfare 84 (Leiden and Boston MA: Brill, 2016).

Studying Religious Rites of War

339

regions and epochs. The region of Central, Eastern and Northern Europe participated in this phenomenon on an equal footing with the other parts of the continent, which have been studied more intensely thus far. If it proves possible to identify and describe its most universal aspects, it will be easier to see what is specific to a given region and culture. Equal emphasis should be placed on a diachronic analysis of the evolution of the rites, making it possible to determine the rhythm of variation more accurately in these practices over time and to recognize the intertwining trends and traditions against the background of medieval culture as a whole. Finally, in the case of the Middle Ages, we need to be constantly aware of the fact that the images of the phenomenon in question are reconstructed by historians mainly based on narrative sources. These show a reality that was manipulated in a way to satisfy the needs of the authors of the works. It thus seems particularly important to confront the contents of historiographic, hagiographic, and literary accounts with sources of other provenance, namely liturgical, legal, visual, and documentary sources. These remain underexplored, though it does not mean that narrative sources are not valuable sources for understanding war-related rites. On the contrary, narrative texts offer exceptional research possibilities. This is because they contain the direct content of human ideas that cannot be conveyed by any other means but verbal communication. Ideas can leave traces in art, archaeological material, and even in language, but these will always be snapshots. In the case of narrative sources, we have access to a specific intellectual matter from people who sometimes understood this or that practice very well. Even narrative strategies used by the various authors can contain valuable information, as they were partly determined by the understanding of the phenomenon and the ways of its application. By learning how war-related rites were described, we can better understand the expectations medieval societies had for them. Such a conclusion can be drawn from the many papers included in the present collection. Bibliography

Primary Sources

Andreae Bergamensis Historia. In Italian Carolingian Historical and Poetic Texts. Edited and translated by Luigi A. Berto, 65–98. Pisa: Pisa University Press, 2016. Annales Magdeburgenses. Edited by Georg Waitz, 105–96. MGH SS 16. Hannover: Hahn, 1859. Annales Ottakariani. Edited by Josef Emler, 303–35. FrB 2. Prague: Museum království Českého, 1874.

340

Kotecki

Annales sancti Rudberti Salisburgenses. Edited by Wilhelm Wattenbach, 758–810. MGH SS 9. Hannover: Hahn, 1851. Annalista Saxo. Edited by Georg Waitz and P. Kilon, 542–777. MGH SS 6. Hannover: Hahn, 1844. The Bruce of Bannockburn: Being a Translation of the Greater Portion of Barbour’s Bruce. Translated by Michael MacMillan. Stirling: MacKay, 1914. Catalogus abbatum Saganensium. Edited by Gustav A. Stenzel, 173–528. Scriptores rerum Silesiacarum 1. Breslau: Max & Komp., 1835. Chonica Adefonsi Imperatoris. In Chronica Hispana saeculi XII. Pars I. Edited by Emma Falque, Juan Gil, and Antonio Maya, 109–248. CCCM 71. Turnhout: Brepols, 1990. Chronica de gestis Hungarorum e codice picto saec. XIV. Edited and translated by János M. Bak and László Veszprémy. CEMT 9. Budapest: Central European University Press, 2018. Chronica Latina regum Castellae. In Chronica Hispana saeculi XIII. Edited by Luis Charlo Brea, Rocío Carande Herrero, and Juan A. Estévez Sola, 7–118. CCCM 73. Turnhout: Brepols, 1997. Chronica Polonorum. Edited by Ludwik Ćwikliński, 578–656. MPH 3. Lviv: Gubrynowicz i Schmidt, 1878. Codex diplomaticus Hungariae ecclesiasticus ac civilis. Vol. 5.2. Edited by György Fejér. Buda: Typographia Regiae Universitatis Ungaricae, 1829. Continuatio Vindobonensis. Edited by Georg H. Pertz, 698–722. MGH SS 9. Hannover: Hahn, 1851. Cornelii Taciti Historiarum Libri. Edited by W.A. Spooner. London and New York: Macmillan and Co., 1891. Cornelius Tacitus. De situ, moribus, et populis Germaniae. The “Germania” and “Agricola” of Tacitus. Edited by Percival Frost, 13–86. London: Whittaker, 1861. Cronica conflictus Wladislai regis Poloniae cum Cruciferis anno Christi 1410. Edited by Zygmunt Celichowski. Poznań: Biblioteka Kórnicka, 1911. The Crusade Against Heretics in Bohemia, 1418–1437: Sources and Documents for the Hussite Crusades. Translated by Thomas A. Fudge. CTT 9. Aldershot and Burlington VT: Ashgate, 2002. The Crusade of Frederick Barbarossa: The History of the Expedition of the Emperor Frederick and Related Texts. Translated by Graham A. Loud. CTT 19. Farnham and Burlington VT: Ashgate, 2010. Decreta regni mediaevalis Hungariae. Edited and translated by Janos M. Bak, Gyorgy Bonis, and James Ross Sweeney. The laws of Hungary. 1st ser., 1000–1526 1. 2nd rev. ed. Budapest and Idyllwild CA: Schlacks, 1999. Eusebius of Caesarea. Life of Constantine. Translated by Averil Cameron and Stuart G. Hall. Oxford and New York: Clarendon Press, 1999.

Studying Religious Rites of War

341

Galterii Cancellarii Bella Antiochena. Edited by Heinrich Hagenmeyer. Innsbruck: Wagner, 1896. Gregorii episcopi Turonensis Libri historiatum X. Edited by Bruno Krusch and Wilhelm Levison. MGH SS. Rer. Merov. 1.1. Hannover: Hahn, 1951. Hector Boethius [Boece]. Scotorum Historia (1575 Version): A Hypertext Critical Edition. Edited by Dana F. Sutton (2010). philological.cal.bham.ac.uk/boece/. Ioannis Dlugossii Annales seu cronicae incliti regni Poloniae. Bks. 1–12. Edited by Consilium (Cracow: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1964–2005). Fully accessible via National Digital Library Polona, dlugosz.polona.pl/en. Magistri Vincentii dicti Kadłubek Chronica Polonorum. Edited by Marian Plezia, MPH NS 11. Warsaw: Polska Akademia Umiejętności, 1994. The Medieval Life of King Alfred the Great: A Translation and Commentary on the Text attributed to Asser. Translated by Alfred P. Smyth. Basingstoke NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002. Petra Žitavského Kronika zbraslavská. Edited by Josef Emler, 1–337. FrB 4. Prague: Palacký, 1884. Rocznik Traski. Edited by August Bielowski, 826–71. MPH 2. Lviv: Gubrynowicz i Schmidt, 1872. Roderici Santii episcopi Palentini historiae Hispanicae partes IIII. In Rerum Hispanicarum scriptores aliquot. Edited by Robert Beale, 1:290–436. 2 vols. Frankfurt: Wechel, 1579–1581. Saxo Grammaticus. Gesta Danorum. Edited by Karsten, Friis-Jensen. Translated by Peter Fisher. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2015. Staročeské vojenský řády. Edited by František Svejkovský. Prague: Orbis, 1952. Theodoret of Cyrus. Ecclesiastical History. Edited by D.P. Curtin. Translated by Blomfield Jackson. Dublin: Dalcassian Publishing, 2017. Walter the Chancellor’s The Antiochene Wars: A Translation and Commentary. Translated by Thomas S. Asbridge and Susan Edgington. CTT 4. Abingdon and New York: Routledge, 2019.



Secondary Sources

Allington, Richard. “Crusading Piety and the Development of Crusading Devotions at the Fourth Lateran Council.” In The Fourth Lateran Council and the Crusade Movement. Edited by Jessalynn Bird and Damian Smith, 13–40. Outremer 7. Turnhout: Brepols, 2018. Althoff, Gerd. Gott belohnt, Gott straft. Religiöse Kategorien der Geschichtsdeutung im Frühen und Hohen Mittelalter. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2022. Althoff, Gerd. “Rituals as ‘lingua Franca’? Joint Cultural Practices at the Eastern Borders of the Realm.” In Gerd Althoff. Rules and Rituals in Medieval Power Games: A German

342

Kotecki

Perspective, 143–58. Medieval law and its practice 29. Leiden and Boston MA: Brill, 2019. Alvarez-Pedrosa, Juan Aantonio, and Enrique Santos Marinas. Rituals in Slavic PreChristian Religion: Festivals, Banqueting, and Divination. Leeds: ARC Humanities Press, 2023. Alvira Cabrer, Martín. Las Navas de Tolosa 1212. Idea, liturgía y memoria de la batalla. Madrid: Sílex, 2013. Alvira Cabrer, Martín. “Liturgia, escenificación y simbología de la guerra santa Cristiana.” In Reconquista y guerra santa en la España medieval. Ayer y hoy. Edited by Carlos Ayala Martínez and J. Santiago Palacios Ontalva, 55–84. Madrid: La Ergastula, 2021. Antonín, Robert. The Ideal Ruler in Medieval Bohemia. ECEE 44. Leiden and Boston MA: Brill, 2017. Arnold, William R. Ephod and Ark: A Study in the Records and Religion of the Ancient Hebrews. Cambridge: n.p., 1917. Bachrach, Bernard S. Early Carolingian Warfare: Prelude to Empire. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2001. Bachrach, Bernard S., and David S. Bachrach. Warfare in Medieval Europe, c.400–c.1453. Abingdon and New York: Routledge, 2017. Bachrach, David S. Religion and the Conduct of War, c.300–1215. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2003. Bachrach, Bernard S. Warfare in Tenth-Century Germany. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2012. Bahrani, Zainab, ed. Rituals of War: The Body and Violence in Mesopotamia. New York: Zone Books, 2008. Banaszkiewicz, Jacek. “Czym była i jak została zniszczona chorągiew Świętowita? (Saxo Grammaticus, ‘Gesta Danorum’, XIV, 39).” In Heraldyka i okolice. Edited by Andrzej Rachuba, Sławomir Górzyński, and Halina Manikowska, 57–70. Warsaw: DiG, 2002. Rprt. in Jacek Banaszkiewicz. W stronę rytuałów i Galla Anonima, 133–53. Cracow: Avalon, 2018. Barber, Richard W. Magnificence and Princely Splendour in the Middle Ages. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2020. Beneš, Carrie E. “Civic Identity.” In A Companion to Medieval Genoa. Edited by Carrie E. Beneš, 193–17. BCEH 15. Leiden and Boston MA: Brill, 2018. Berto, Luigi A. Christians and Muslims in Early Medieval Italy: Perceptions, Encounters, and Clashes. Abingdon and New York: Routledge, 2020. Bjornlie, Michael S., ed. The Life and Legacy of Constantine: Traditions Through the Ages. Abingdon and New York: Routledge, 2017. Bronisch, Alexander Pierre. “Cosmovisión e ideología de guerra en época visigoda y asturiana.” In La carisa y la mesa. Causas políticas y militares del origen del Reino de

Studying Religious Rites of War

343

Asturias. Edited by Juan I. Ruiz de la Peña and Jorge Camino Mayor, 212–33. Oviedo: Asociación de Amigos de la Carisa, 2010. Bronisch, Alexander Pierre. “On the Use and Definition of the Term ‘Holy War’: The Visigothic and Asturian-Leonese Examples.” Journal of Religion and Violence 3.1 (2015): 35–72. Bronisch, Alexander Pierre. Reconquista y guerra santa. La concepción de la guerra en la España cristiana desde los visigodos hasta comienzos del siglo XII. Monográfica. Biblioteca de humanidades. Chronica nova estudios históricos 99. Granada: Universidad de Granada, 2006. Buc, Philippe. The Dangers of Ritual: Between Early Medieval Texts and Social Scientific Theory. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001. Buc, Philippe. “Political Rituals and Political Imagination in the Medieval West from the Fourth Century to the Eleventh.” In The Medieval World. Edited by Peter Linehan and Janet L. Nelson, 189–213. Abingdon and New York: Routledge, 2003. Bünding-Naujoks, Margret “Das ‘Imperium Christianum’ und die deutschen Ostkriege vom zehnten bis zum zwölften Jahrhundert.” In Heidenmission und Kreuzzugsgedanke in der deutschen Ostpolitik des Mittelalters. Edited by Helmut Beumann, 65–120. Wege der Forschung 7. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1963. Bysted, Ane. The Crusade Indulgence: Spiritual Rewards and the Theology of the Crusades, c.1095–1216. History of warfare 103. Leiden and Boston MA: Brill, 2014. Carraz, Damien. “Precursors and Imitators of the Military Orders: Religious Societies for Defending the Faith in the Medieval West (11th–13th c.).” Viator 41.2 (2010): 91–111. Choy, Renie S. Intercessory Prayer and the Monastic Ideal in the Time of the Carolingian Reforms. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. Clancy, Thomas O. “Columba, Adomnan and the Cult of Saints in Scotland.” In “Spes Scotorum,” Hope of Scots: Saint Columba, Iona and Scotland. Edited by Dauvit Broun and Thomas O. Clancy, 3–33. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999. Clauss, Martin. “Der Krieg als Mittel und Thema der Kommunikation: Die narrative Funktion des Gottesurteils.” In Gottes Werk und Adams Beitrag. Formen der Interaktion zwischen Mensch und Gott im Mittelalter. Edited by Thomas Honegger, Gerlinde Huber-Rebenich, and Volker Leppin, 128–41. Das Mittelalter. Perspektiven mediävistischer Forschung. Beihefte 1. Berlin and Boston MA: De Gruyter, 2014. Costa, Rodrigo. “A batalha de Ourique e a construção da identidade portuguesa. De Fernão Lopes à Luis de Camões.” Medievalis 3.1 (2014): 1–21. Czyżewski, Krzysztof J. “Marsowe echa w krakowskiej katedrze.” In Na znak świetnego zwycięstwa. W sześćsetną rocznicę bitwy pod Grunwaldem. Edited by Dariusz Nowacki, 53–88. Cracow: Zamek Królewski na Wawelu, 2010. 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

344

Kotecki

(c.1070–1200). Edited by Ildar H. Garipzanov, 145–66. MTCN 26. Turnhout: Brepols, 2011. Dalewski, Zbigniew. “The Public Dimension of Religion in the Piast Monarchy during the Christianisation Period.” APH 101 (2010): 37–49. Deaton, Andrew K. “Divining God’s Favour and Diverting His Wrath: Supernatural Intervention in the Hussite Wars Under Jan Žižka, 1419–1424.” In Miracles, Political Authority and Violence in Medieval and Early Modern History. Edited by Matthew Rowley and Natasha Hodgson, 109–22. Abingdon and New York: Routledge, 2021. DeVries, Kelly. “God and Defeat in Medieval Warfare: Some Preliminary Thoughts.” In The Circle of War in the Middle Ages: Essays on Medieval Military and Naval History. Edited by Donald J. Kagay and L.J.A. Villalon, 87–97. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 1999. Dobozy, Maria. “The Theme of the Holy War in German Literature 1152–1190: Symptom of Controversy Between Empire and Papacy?” Euphorion 80 (1986): 341–62. Edgington, Susan B. “‘Pagans’ and ‘Others’ in the ‘Chanson de Jérusalem.’” In Languages of Love and Hate: Conflict, Communication, and Identity in the Medieval Mediterranean. Edited by Sarah Lambert and Helen Nicholson, 37–47. International medieval research 15. Turnhout: Brepols, 2012. Ekdahl, Sven. “Different Points of View on the Battle of Grunwald/Tannenberg 1410 from Poland and Germany and Their Roots in Handwritten and Printed Traditions.” Z Badań nad Książką i Księgozbiorami Historycznymi 13 (2019): 41–65. Evans, Robert A.H. “Christian Hermeneutics and Narratives of War in the Carolingian Empire.” Transformation 34.2 (2017): 150–63. Evans, Robert A.H. “God’s Judgement in Carolingian Law and History Writing.” SCH 56 (2020): 60–77. Fałkowski, Wojciech. “‘Adventus regis’. Powrót Władysława Jagiełły do Krakowa po zwycięstwie grunwaldzkim.” RH 74 (2010): 77–102. Fałkowski, Wojciech. “The Humility and Humiliation of the King.” In State, Power, and Violence: Rituals of Power and Consent. Edited by Margo Kitts et al., 163–96. Ritual dynamics and the science of ritual 3. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2010. Fiuta, Łukasz. “Anioł. Sen Leszka Czarnego—fabularyzacja czy historia prawdziwa? Szkic o poetyce pisarstwa historycznego.” biblioteka.teatrnn.pl/dlibra/publication/31968. Flori, Jean. “La caricature de l’Islam dans l’Occident médiéval. Origine et signification de quelques stéréotypes concernant l’Islam.” Aevum 66.2 (1992): 245–56. Gabriel, Manuel Rojas. “On the Path of Battle: Divine Invocations and Religious Liturgies before Pitched Battles in Medieval Iberia (c.1212–c.1340): An Introduction.” In Crusading on the Edge: Ideas and Practice of Crusading in Iberia and the Baltic Region, 1100–1500. Edited by Torben Kjersgaard Nielsen and Iben Fonnesberg-Schmidt, 275–95. Outremer 4. Turnhout: Brepols, 2016.

Studying Religious Rites of War

345

Gagé, Jean. “‘Σταυρος νικοποιος’. La victoire impériale dans l’empire chrétien’” Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses 13 (1933): 370–400. Gallardo, Luis F. “Guerra santa y cruzada en el ciclo cronístico de Alfonso XI.” En la España Medieval 33 (2010): 43–74. Gaposchkin, M. Cecilia. “The Echoes of Victory: Liturgical and Para-Liturgical Commemorations of the Capture of Jerusalem in the West.” JMH 40.3 (2014): 237–59. Gaposchkin, M. Cecilia. “From Pilgrimage to Crusade: The Liturgy of Departure, 1095–1300.” Speculum 88.1 (2013): 44–91. Gaposchkin, M. Cecilia. Invisible Weapons: Liturgy and the Making of Crusade Ideology. Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press, 2017. Gaposchkin, M. Cecilia. “Sacralizing the Journey: Liturgies of Travel and Pilgrimage before the Crusades.” In Travel, Pilgrimage and Social Interaction from Antiquity to the Middle Ages. Edited by Jenni Kuuliala and Jussi Rantala, 205–25. Abingdon and New York: Routledge, 2020. García García, Francisco de Asís. “Dogma, ritual y contienda. Arte y frontera en el Reino de Aragón a finales del siglo XI.” In Fronteras en discusión. La Península Ibérica en el siglo XII. Edited by Juan Martos Quesada and Marisa Bueno Sánchez, 217–50. Colección Laya 39. Madrid: Almudayna, 2012. García-Guijarro, Luis. “The Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa (1212) in the Context of Ibero-Christian Conquests in al-Andalus: Myths and Models.” In The Expansion of the Faith: Crusading on the Frontiers of Latin Christendom in the High Middle Ages. Edited by Paul Srodecki and Norbert Kersken, 209–26. Outremer 14. Turnhout: Brepols, 2021. Garrison, Mary. “Divine Election for Nations—A Difficult Rhetoric for Medieval Scholars?” In The Making of Christian Myths in the Periphery of Latin Christendom (c.1000–1300). Edited by Lars Boje Mortensen, 275–314. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 2006. Garrison, Mary. “The Franks as the New Israel? Education for an Identity from Pippin to Charlemagne.” In The Uses of the Past in Early Medieval Europe. Edited by Yitzhak Hen and Matthew Innes, 114–61. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Gerrard, Daniel M.G. The Church at War: The Military Activities of Bishops, Abbots, and Other Clergy in England, c.900–1200. Abingdon and New York: Routledge, 2016. Gillis, Matthew B. Religious Horror and Holy War in Viking Age Francia. Renovatio 1. Budapest: Trivent, 2021. Gładysz, Mikołaj. The Forgotten Crusaders: Poland and the Crusader Movement in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries. TNW 56. Leiden and Boston MA: Brill, 2012. Goetz, Hans-Werner. “‘Glaubenskriege’? Die Kriege der Christen gegen Andersgläubige in der früh- und hochmittelalterlichen Wahrnehmung.” FS 53.1 (2019): 67–114. Goetz, Hans-Werner. “‘Holy Wars’? ‘Religious Wars’? The Perception of Religious Motives of Warfare against Non-Christian Enemies in Ninth-Century Chronicles.”

346

Kotecki

In Early Medieval Militarisation. Edited by Ellora Bennett et al., 211–28. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2021. Goldberg, Eric J. “‘More Devoted to the Equipment of Battle Than the Splendor of Banquets’: Frontier Kingship, Military Ritual, and Early Knighthood at the Court of Louis the German.” Viator 30 (1999): 41–78. Gomez, Miguel. “Archbishop Rodrigo, Honorius III, and the Fifth Crusade in Spain.” In The Fourth Lateran Council and the Crusade Movement. Edited by Jessalynn Bird and Damian Smith, 193–215. Outremer 7. Turnhout: Brepols, 2018. Górski, Szymon. “Biskupi i krzyże. Tak zwany epizod szczeciński krucjaty połabskiej (1147) w relacji Wincentego z Pragi.” ZH 83.3 (2018): 7–32. Guillén, Fernando Arias. “Castile-Leon: II Late Middle Ages (14th to 15th Centuries).” In The War in the Iberian Peninsula, 700–1600. Edited by Francisco García Fitz and João G. Monteiro, 94–123. Abingdon and New York: Routledge, 2018. Güttner-Sporzyński, Darius von. “Communicating God’s War: Accounts of Holy War in Polish Medieval Narrative Sources.” Ordines Militares. Colloquia Torunensia Historica 26 (2021): 43–62. Güttner-Sporzyński, Darius von. “Constructing Memory: Holy War in the ‘Chronicle of the Poles’ by Bishop Vincentius of Cracow.” JMH 40.3 (2014): 276–91. Güttner-Sporzyński, Darius von. “Holy War and Proto-Crusading: Twelfth-Century Justifications for the Campaigns against the Pomeranians and Prussians.” In Crusading on the Edge: Ideas and Practice of Crusading in Iberia and the Baltic Region, 1100–1500. Edited by Torben Kjersgaard Nielsen and Iben Fonnesberg-Schmidt, 225–44. Outremer 4. Turnhout: Brepols, 2016. Haldon, John F. Warfare, State, and Society in the Byzantine World, 565–1204. London: UCL Press, 1999. Hare, Kent G. “Apparitions and War in Anglo-Saxon England.” In The Circle of War in the Middle Ages: Essays on Medieval Military and Naval History. Edited by Donald J. Kagay and L.J.A. Villalon, 75–86. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 1999. Harrington, Jesse Patrick. “Harangue or Homily? Walter Espec, Deuteronomy, and the Renewal of the Covenant in Aelred of Rievaulx’s ‘Relatio de Standardo.’” HSJ 32 (2020): 163–83. Harris, William. “Constantine’s Dream.” Klio 87.2 (2005): 488–94. Harris, William. Dreams and Experience in Classical Antiquity. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 2009. Harris, William. “Religion on the Battlefield: From the ‘Saxa Rubra’ to the ‘Frigidus.’” In Vestigia. Miscellanea di studi storico-religiosi in onore di Filippo Coarelli nel suo 80o anniversario. Edited by Filippo Coarelli and Valentino Gasparini, Potsdamer altertumswissenschaftliche Beiträge 55 (Stuttgart: Steiner, 2016), 437–50. Hendrikman, Lars A. “Christiaan II als Scandinavische Constantijn.” Millennium 15 (2001): 30–57.

Studying Religious Rites of War

347

Hendrikman, Lars A. “Portraits and Politics—Evolution in the Depiction of King Christian II of Denmark.” In Trade, Diplomacy and Cultural Exchange: Continuity and Change in the North Sea Area and the Baltic, c.1350–1750. Edited by Hanno Brand, 184–208. Groninger Hanze studies 1. Hilversum: Verloren, 2006. Herbers, Klaus. “Politik und Heiligenverehrung auf der iberischen Halbinsel. Die Entwicklung des ‘politischen Jakobus.’” In Politik und Heiligenverehrung im Hochmittelalter. Edited by Jürgen Petersohn, 177–275. VF 42. Sigmaringen: Thorbecke, 1994. Herbers, Klaus. “Santiago Matamoros. Mito o realidad de la Reconquista.” In El mundo de los conquistadores. Edited by Martín Ríos Saloma and Eric Palazzo, 307–20. Madrid: Sílex, 2015. Holt, Edward L. “‘Laudes regiae’: Liturgy and Royal Power in Thirteenth-century Castile-León.” In The Sword and the Cross: Castile-León in the Era of Fernando III. Edited by Edward L. Holt and Teresa Witcombe, 140–64. The medieval and early modern Iberian world 77. Leiden and Boston MA: Brill, 2020. Janicki, Marek A. “Grunwald w tradycji polskiej od XV do XVII wieku.” In Na znak świetnego zwycięstwa. W sześćsetną rocznicę bitwy pod Grunwaldem. Edited by Dariusz Nowacki, 89–154. Cracow: Zamek Królewski na Wawelu, 2010. Janicki, Marek A. “Liczba chorągwi grunwaldzkich zawieszonych w katedrze wawelskiej. W związku z nową edycją ‘Banderia Prutenorum’ Jana Długosza i notą Klemensa Drzewickiego w ‘Kalendarzu Katedry Krakowskiej.’” Rocznik Biblioteki Narodowej 42 (2011): 115–204. Jánó, Mihály. “A püspök megáldja a hadba vonuló Szent László királyt.” In “Elődeim kezét fogom, az ő munkájukat folytatom.” Emlékkötet László Gyula halálának 20. évfordulójára. Edited by Péter Gróf, Mihály Hoppál, and György Szabados, 193–220. Budapest: Európai Folklór Intézet, 2021. Jékely, Zsombor. “Szent László kunok elleni csatájának képciklusai a középkori falfestészetben.” In Szent László emlékkönyv. Edited by András Bódvai and Zsombor Jékely, 145–71. Budapest: Bethlen Gábor Alapkezelő Zrt, 2021. Jensen, Janus Møller. “Denmark and the Holy War: A Redefinition of a Traditional Pattern of Conflict, 1147–1169.” In Scandinavia and Europe 800–1350: Contact, Conflict, and Coexistence. Edited by Jonathan Adams and Katherine Holman, 219–36. MTCN 4. Turnhout: Brepols, 2004. Jensen, Kurt Villads. “Denmark and the Second Crusade: The Formation of a Crusader State?” In The Second Crusade: Scope and Consequences. Edited by Jonathan Phillips, 164–79. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2001. Jordan, William C. “The Rituals of War: Departure for Crusade in Thirteenth-Century France.” In The Book of Kings: Art, War, and the Morgan Library’s Medieval Picture Bible. Edited by William Noel and Daniel H. Weiss, 99–105. London: Third Millennium, 2002.

348

Kotecki

Jurek, Tomasz. “Nad legendą poznańskiego kościoła Najświętszej Marii Panny.” In “Gemma gemmarum.” Studia dedykowane profesor Hannie Kóčce-Krenz. Edited by Artur Różański, 1:93–110. 2 vols. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznańskiego Towarzystwa Przyjaciół Nauk, 2017. Kaeuper, Richard W. Holy Warriors: The Religious Ideology of Chivalry. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2009. Kaljundi, Linda. “(Re)Performing the Past: Crusading, History Writing, and Rituals in the Chronicle of Henry of Livonia.” In The Performance of Christian and Pagan Storyworlds. Edited by Lars B. Mortensen and Tuomas M.S. Lehtonen, 295–338. Medieval identities: Socio-cultural spaces 3. Turnhout: Brepols, 2013. Kelle, Brad E., Frank R. Ames, and Jacob L. Wright, ed. Warfare, Ritual, and Symbol in Biblical and Modern Contexts. Ancient Israel and its literature 18. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2014. Kersken, Norbert. “God and the Saints in Medieval Polish Historiography.” In The Making of Christian Myths in the Periphery of Latin Christendom (c.1000–1300). Edited by Lars B. Mortensen, 153–94. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 2006. Kienzle, Beverly M. “Preaching the Cross: Liturgy and Crusade Propaganda.” In Preaching and Political Society: From Late Antiquity to the end of the Middle Ages. Edited by Franco Morenzoni, 11–46. Sermo 10. Turnhout: Brepols, 2013. Klein, Holger A. “Objektkultur und Kultobjekte im kaiserlich-byzantinischen Prozessionswesen.” In “Palatium sacrum.” Sakralität am Hof des Mittelalters. Orte, Dinge, Rituale. Edited by Manfred Luchterhandt and Hedwig Röckelein, 77–100. Regensburg: Schnell & Steiner, 2021. Klein, Holger A. “Sacred Relics and Imperial Ceremonies at the Great Palace of Constantinople.” In Visualisierungen von Herrschaft. Frühmittelalterliche Residenzen Gestalt und Zeremoniell. Edited by Franz A. Bauer, 79–99. Byzas 5, Istanbul: Ege Yayınları, 2006. Königer, Albert M. Die Militärseelsorge der Karolingerzeit. Ihr Recht und ihre Praxis. VKSM 4.7. Munich: Lentner, 1918. Kotecki, Radosław. “Bishops and the Legitimisation of War in Piast Poland until the Early Thirteenth Century.” PH 111.3 (2020): 437–70. Kotecki, Radosław. “Pious Rulers, Princely Clerics, and Angels of Light: Imperial Holy War Imagery in Twelfth-Century Poland and Rus’.” In Christianity and War in Medieval East Central Europe and Scandinavia. Edited by Radosław Kotecki, Carsten Selch Jensen, and Stephen Bennett, 159–88. Leeds: ARC Humanities Press, 2021. Kotecki, Radosław. “With the Sword of Prayer, or How the Medieval Bishop Should Fight.” QMAN 21 (2016): 341–69. Kotecki, Radosław, and Jacek Maciejewski. “Ideals of Episcopal Power, Legal Norms and Military Activity of the Polish Episcopate between the Twelfth- and Fourteenth Centuries.” KH 127.Eng.-Language Edition 4 (2020): 5–46.

Studying Religious Rites of War

349

Kotecki, Radosław, Carsten Selch Jensen, and Stephen Bennett. “Christianity and War in Medieval East Central Europe and Scandinavia: An Introduction.” In Christianity and War in Medieval East Central Europe and Scandinavia. Edited by Radosław Kotecki, Carsten Selch Jensen, and Stephen Bennett, 1–21. Leeds: ARC Humanities Press, 2021. Kroesen, Justin E.A. “From Mosques to Cathedrals: Converting Sacred Space during the Spanish Reconquest.” Mediaevistik 21 (2008): 113–37. Kuczkowski, Andrzej. “Magiczno-religijne elementy sztuki wojennej u Słowian Zachodnich wczesnego średniowiecza.” Acta Militaria Mediaevalia 5 (2009): 7–19. Kürbis, Brygida. “Sacrum i profanum. Dwie wizje władzy w polskim średniowieczu.” Studia Źródłoznawcze 22 (1977): 19–40. Lachaud, Frédérique. “Les tentes et l’activité militaire. Les guerres d’Edouard Ier Plantagenet (1272–1307).” Mélanges de l’école française de Rome 111.1 (1999): 443–61. Lehner, Hans-Christian. “Prognostication in Latin Historiography (ca.400–1300 CE).” In Prognostication in the Medieval World: A Handbook. Edited by Matthias Heiduk, Klaus Herbers, and Hans-Christian Lehner, 2:937–47. 2 vols. Berlin and Boston MA: De Gruyter, 2020. Leighton, Gregory. Ideology and Holy Landscape in the Baltic Crusades: War and Conflict in Premodern Societies. Leeds: ARC Humanities Press, 2022. Leithart, Peter J. “Constantine the Pious.” In Constantine: Religious Faith and Imperial Policy, Edited by A.E. Siecienski, 129–46. Abingdon and New York: Routledge, 2017. Lima, Luís F.S. “Imagens e figuras de um rei sonhador. Representações do milagre de Ourique e do juramento de Afonso Henriques no século XVII.” História (São Paulo) 26 (2007): 311–39. Lind, John H. “Dannebrog and the Danish Crusades to Estonia.” In Denmark and Estonia 1219–2019—Selected Studies on Common Relation. Edited by Jens E. Olesen, 7–40. Studien zur Geschichte der Ostseeregion 1. Greifswald: Universität Greifswald, 2019. Lloyd, James. “The Priests of the King’s Reliquary in Anglo-Saxon England.” JEH 67.2 (2016): 265–87. Loutchitskaja, Svetlana. “‘Barbarae nationes’. Les peuples musulmans dans les chroniques de la première croisade.” In Autour de la première Croisade. Edited by Michel Balard, 99–107. Byzantina Sorbonensia 14. Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 1996. Loutchitskaja, Svetlana. “Les idoles musulmanes. Images et réalités.” In Das europäische Mittelalter im Spannungsbogen des Vergleichs. Zwanzig internationale Beiträge zu Praxis, Problemen und Perspektiven der historischen Komparatistik. Edited by Michael Borgolte and Ralf Lusiardi, 283–98. Europa im Mittelalter 1. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2001. Loutchitskaja, Svetlana. “L’image des musulmans dans les chroniques des croisades.” Le Moyen Age 105 (1999): 717–35.

350

Kotecki

Lübke, Christian. “The Polabian Alternative: Paganism Between Christian Kingdoms.” In Europe Around the Year 1000. Edited by Przemysław Urbańczyk, 379–89. Warsaw: DiG, 2001. Lucas, Anthony T. “The Social Role of Relics and Reliquaries in Ancient Ireland.” JRSAI 116 (1986): 5–37. Maier, Christoph T. “Crisis, Liturgy and the Crusade in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries.” JEH 48.4 (1997): 628–57. Malešević, Siniša. “War and Peoplehood Through Time: A Sociological ‘Longue Durée’ Perspective.” In War and Collective Identities in the Middle Ages: East, West, and Beyond. Edited by Yannis Stouraitis, 15–32. Leeds: Arc Humanities Press, 2023. Manikowska, Halina. “Przeszłość pod ochroną: relikwie.” In Przeszłość w kulturze śred­ niowiecznej Polski II. Edited by Halina Manikowska, 121–76. Warsaw: Neriton, 2018. Manthey, Jan. “Średniowieczne duszpasterstwo wojskowe.” Duszpasterz Polski Zagra­ nicą 9.3(36) (1958): 259–77. Marschner, Patrick S. Das neue Volk Gottes in Hispanien. Die Bibel in der christlichiberischen Historiographie vom 8. bis zum 12. Jahrhundert. Münster, Berlin, Vienna, and Zürich: LIT Verlag, 2023. Mathisen, Ralph W. “Emperors, Priests, and Bishops: Military Chaplains in the Roman Empire.” In The Sword of the Lord: Military Chaplains from the First to the TwentyFirst Century. Edited by Doris L. Bergen, 29–43. Notre Dame IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2004. McCormick, Michael. Eternal Victory: Triumphal Rulership in Late Antiquity, Byzantium, and the Early Medieval West. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986. McCormick, Michael. “Liturgie et guerre des Carolingiens à la première croisade.” In “Militia Christi” e crociata nei secoli XI–XIII, 209–40. Miscellanea del Centro di studi medioevali 13. Milano: Vita e pensiero, 1992. McCormick, Michael. “The Liturgy of War in the Early Middle Ages: Crisis, Litanies, and the Carolingian Monarchy.” Viator 15 (1984): 1–24. Medina de Seiça, Alberto. “War and Peace Liturgy: Ritual Mediation and Memory Construction. The Battle of Salado (1340) ‘in victoria christianorum’ Liturgical Offices.” In La comunicación social en la Europa medieval. Edited by José María de Francisco Olmos and María Encarnación Martín López, 415–44. Madrid: Dykinson, 2022. Meneghello, Raimundo. “Los ritos de victoria militar en la cronística leonesa-castellana. Usos y variaciones en el discurso de los cronistas ss. XII–XIII.” In Actas de las XVI Jornadas Internacionales de Estudios Medievales y XXVI Curso de Actualización en Historia Medieval. Edited by Lidia Amor, Ana Basarte, and Dolores Castro, 148–62. Buenos Aires: La Sociedad Argentina de Estudios Medievales, 2018. Michalski, Wojciech. “Legenda fundacyjna dawnej lubelskiej fary św. Michała Archanioła.” Bibliotekarz Lubelski 58–59 (2015–2016): 75–108.

Studying Religious Rites of War

351

Mikhailova, Yulia. “Reflection of the Crusading Movement in Rusian Sources: Tantalizing Hints.” In Fruits of Devotion: Essays in Honor of Predrag Matejic. Edited by M.A. Johnson and Alice Isabelle Sullivan. Ohio Slavic papers 11. Columbus: The Ohio State University Press, forthc. 2023. Pre-print: 10.34055/osf.io/ts2v5. Modzelewski, Karol. “Laicyzacja przez chrzest.” In Sacrum. Obraz i funkcja w społe­ czeństwie średniowiecznym, ed. Aneta Pieniądz-Skrzypczak and Jerzy Pysiak, 99–114. Aquila volans 1. Warsaw: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, 2005. Moroz, Irina. “The Idea of Holy War in the Orthodox World (On Russian Chronicles from the Twelfth–Sixteenth Century).” QMAN 4 (1999): 45–67. Morton, Nicholas. “The Defence of the Holy Land and the Memory of the Maccabees.” JMH 36.3 (2010): 275–93. Mouchard, Florent. “Deux carêmes de Vladimir Monomaque. Quelques réflexions sur les notions de ‘moment opportun’ et de ‘guerre sacrée’ dans la Rus’ (1100–1115).” In Construire le temps. Études offertes à Jean-Paul Sémon. Edited by Serge Aslanoff and Jean Breuillard, 373–78. Travaux 55. Paris: Institut d’études slaves, 2008. Murray, Alan V. “‘Mighty Against the Enemies of Christ’: The Relic of the True Cross in the Armies of the Kingdom of Jerusalem.” In The Crusades and Their Sources: Essays Presented to Bernard Hamilton. Edited by John France and William G. Zajac, 217–38. Aldershot and Burlington VT: Ashgate, 1998. Nelson, Janet L. “Violence in the Carolingian World and the Ritualization of NinthCentury Warfare.” In Violence and Society in the Early Medieval West. Edited by Guy Halsall, 90–107. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 1998. Noble, Thomas F.X. “Carolingian Religion.” ChH 84.2 (2015): 287–307. O’Brien, Conor. “Chosen Peoples and New Israels in the Early Medieval West.” Speculum 95.4 (2020): 987–1009. O’Callaghan, Joseph F. Reconquest and Crusade in Medieval Spain. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004. Ottewill-Soulsby, Samuel. “‘Those same cursed Saracens’: Charlemagne’s Campaigns in the Iberian Peninsula as Religious Warfare.” JMH 42.4 (2016): 405–28. Pacholec, Marek M. “Pruskie obrzędy religijno-magiczne sfery wojny.” Pruthenia 5 (2010): 67–90. Paton, Lewis B. “Ephod and Ark.” American Journal of Theology 33.2 (1919): 220–25. Palacios Ontalva, J. Santiago. “Cultura visual e iconografía de la Reconquista. Imágenes de poder y cruzada.” Anales de la Universidad de Alicante. Historia Medieval 17 (2011): 303–62. Pauk, Marcin R. “‘Plenariae decimationes’ świętego Wojciecha. O ideowych funkcjach dziesięciny monarszej w Polsce i na Węgrzech w XI–XII wieku.” In Gnieźnieńskie koronacje królewskie i ich środkowoeuropejskie konteksty. Edited by Józef Dobosz, Marzena Matla-Kozłowska, and Leszek Wetesko, 187–212. Colloquia mediaevalia Gnesnensia 2. Gniezno: Instytut Historii Uniwersytetu Adama Mickiewicza, 2011.

352

Kotecki

Pełech, Tomasz. “Death on the Altar: The Rhetoric of ‘Otherness’ in Sources from the Early Period of the Crusades.” Journal of the Australian Early Medieval Association 17 (2021): 67–89. Pełech, Tomasz. “From a House of the Devil to God’s Temple—‘abrenuntiatio diaboli’ and ‘confessio fidei’ in the Narrative about the Foundation of the Bishopric of Albara during the First Crusade in the ‘Gesta Francorum and the Historia de Hierosolymitano Itinere.’” QMAN 26 (2021): 33–53. Penman, Michael A. “Faith in War: The Religious Experience of Scottish Soldiery, c.1100–c.1500.” JMH 37.3 (2011): 295–303. Petrovskaia, Natalia I. “Which ‘Pagans’? The Influence of the Crusades on Battle Narratives in Britain, Ireland and Scandinavia.” In Writing Battles: New Perspectives on Warfare and Memory in Medieval Europe. Edited by Rory Naismith, Máire Ní Mhaonaigh, and Elizabeth A. Rowe, 147–64. London: Bloomsbury, 2020. Pezzarossa, Lucrezia. “Bibbia, guerra e liturgia. Una nuova prospettiva sulla traduzione alfrediana del ‘Libro dei Salmi.’” In La Bibbia nelle letterature germaniche medievali. Edited by Marina Buzzoni, Massimiliano Bampi, and Omar Khalaf, 37–50. Filologie medievali e moderne Rie occidentale 6. Venice: Ca’ Foscari, 2015. Pleszczyński, Andrzej. “Gorliwość neofitów. Religijność osobista Przemyślidów i Piastów w X i na początku XI wieku.” In Przemyślidzi i Piastowie—twórcy i gospodarze średniowiecznych monarchii. Edited by Józef Dobosz, 93–99. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznańskie, 2006. Pleszczyński, Andrzej. “Królewskie gesty słowiańskich dynastów w XI wieku na przy­kładzie Piastów i Przemyślidów.” In “Persona, gestus habitusque, insygnium.” Zacho­ wania i atrybuty jako wyznaczniki tożsamości społecznej jednostki w średniowieczu. Edited by Jacek Banaszkiewicz, Jacek Maciejewski, and Joanna A. Sobiesiak, 35–46. Lublin: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej, 2009. Pohl, Walter. “Liturgie di guerra nei regni altomedievali.” RSC 5.1 (2008): 29–44. Pohl, Walter, and Gerda Heydemann. “The Rhetoric of Election:  1 Peter 2.9 and the Franks.” In Religious Franks: Religion and Power in the Frankish Kingdoms: Studies in Honour of Mayke de Jong. Edited by Rob Means, 13–31. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2016. Potkowski, Edward. “Monarsze dary książkowe w polskim średniowieczu— pogrunwaldzkie dary Jagiełły.” In Ojczyzna bliższa i dalsza. Studia historyczne ofiarowane Feliksowi Kirykowi w sześćdziesiątą rocznicę urodzin. Edited by Jacek Chrobaczyński, Andrzej Jureczko, and Michał Śliwa, 359–73. Cracow: Secesja, 1993. Price, Neil S. The Viking Way: Religion and War in Late Iron Age Scandinavia. Uppsala: Uppsala universitet, 2002. Ptak, Jan. Chorągiew w komunikacji społecznej w Polsce piastowskiej i jagiellońskiej. Lublin: Wydawnictwo Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego, 2002.

Studying Religious Rites of War

353

Ptak, Jan. “Duszpasterstwo rycerstwa polskiego w epoce Piastów i Jagiellonów.” In Historia duszpasterstwa wojskowego na ziemiach polskich. Edited by Jan Ziółek, 83–108. Lublin: Towarzystwo Naukowe Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego, 2004. Ptak, Jan. “Zanim wyruszyli na wroga … Religijne przygotowanie do walki zbrojnej w średniowiecznej Polsce.” TKH OL PAN 11 (2014): 20–45. Rapp, Claudia. “Imperial Ideology in the Making: Eusebius of Caesarea on Constantine as ‘Bishop.’” Journal of Theological Studies, NS 49.2 (1998): 685–95. Reuter, Timothy. “Ritual, Ceremony and Gesture: Ottoman Germany.” In Timothy Reuter, Communications and Power in Medieval Europe: The Carolingian and Ottonian Centuries, 189–213. London and Rio Grande OH: Hambledon Press, 1994. Rowell, Stephen C. “War and Piety in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the Late Middle Ages.” Rocznik Lituanistyczny 2 (2016): 7–21. Rożek, Michał. “‘Ara Patriae’. Dzieje grobu św. Stanisława w katedrze na Wawelu.” Analecta Cracoviensia 11 (1979): 433–60. Rożnowska-Sadraei, Agnieszka. “Pater Patriae”: The Cult of Saint Stanislaus and the Patronage of Polish Kings 1200–1455. Cracow: UNUM, 2008. Rybakov, Boris A. Kievan Rus. Moscow: Progress, 1989. Ryier, Yanina. “Rituals of Pagan Lithuanians Related to Military Campaigns in the 13th–14th cc.” Wschodni Rocznik Humanistyczny 19.4 (2022): 21–37. Sánchez, Marisa Bueno. “Rituals of Victory: The Role of Liturgy in the Consecration of Mosques in the Castilian Expansion over Islam from Eleventh to Thirteenth Centuries.” Religions 13.5 (2022): mdpi.com/2077-1444/13/5/379. Sarti, Laury. Perceiving War and the Military in Early Christian Gaul (ca.400–700 A.D.). Brill’s series on the early Middle Ages 22. Leiden and Boston MA: Brill, 2013. Saul, Nigel. Chivalry in Medieval England. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 2011. Scharff, Thomas. Die Kämpfe der Herrscher und Heiligen. Krieg und historische Erinne­ rung in der Karolingerzeit. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2002. Schieffer, Rudolf. “‘Iudicium Dei’. Kriege als Gottesurteile.” In Heilige Kriege. Religiöse Begründungen militärischer Gewaltanwendung. Judentum, Christentum und Islam im Vergleich. Edited by Klaus Schreiner and Elisabeth Müller-Luckner, 219–228. SHKK 78. Munich: Oldenbourg, 2008. Sharpe, Richard. “Banners of the Northern Saints.” In Saints of North-East England, 600–1500. Edited by Margaret Coombe, Anne Mouron, and Christiania Whitehead, 245–303. MCS 39. Turnhout: Brepols, 2017. Sharpe, Richard. “King William and the Brecc Bennach in 1211: Reliquary or Holy Banner?” IR 66.2 (2015): 163–90. Shepard, Jonathan. “‘Adventus’, Arrivistes and Rites of Rulership in Byzantium and France in the Tenth and Eleventh Century.” In Court Ceremonies and Rituals of Power

354

Kotecki

in Byzantium and the Medieval Mediterranean: Comparative Perspectives. Edited by Alexander D. Beihammer, Stavroula Constantinou, and Maria G. Parani, 337–74. MMED 98. Leiden and Boston MA: Brill, 2013. Simpkin, David. “Keeping Up Appearances: The English Royal Court on Military Campaigns to Scotland, 1296–1336.” In Medieval and Early Modern Representations of Authority in Scotland and the British Isles. Edited by Katherine Buchanan, Lucinda H.S. Dean, and Michael A. Penman, 37–52. Farnham and Burlington VT: Ashgate, 2016. Słupecki, Leszek P. Wyrocznie i wróżby pogańskich Skandynawów. Studium do dziejów idei przeznaczenia u ludów indoeuropejskich. Warszawa: Instytut Archeologii i Etnologii Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 1998. Słupecki, Leszek P. “Temple Fiscality of Pagan Slavs and Scandinavians.” In Economies, Monetisation and Society in the West Slavic Lands 800–1200 AD. Edited by Mateusz Bogucki, 109–13. Szczecin: Wydawnictwo Instytutu Aslavircheologii i Etnologii Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 2013. Smith, Katherine Allen. The Bible and Crusade Narrative in the Twelfth Century. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2020. Snoek, Godefridus J.C. Medieval Piety from Relics to the Eucharist: A Process of Mutual Interaction, Studies in the history of Christian thought 63. Leiden and New York: Brill, 1995. Sochacka, Anna. “Powody lokalizacji w Lublinie grunwaldzkiego wotum Władysława Jagiełły.” Res Historica 31 (2011): 21–36. Speyer, Wolfgang. “Die Hilfe und Epiphanie einer Gottheit, eines Heroen und eines Heiligen in der Schlacht” In “Pietas.” Festschrift fur Bernhard Kotting. Edited by Ernst Dassmann and Karl S. Frank, 55–77. Jahrbuch fur Antike und Christentum 8. Münster: Aschendorff, 1980. Spurgjasz, Katarzyna. “Modlitwy o zwycięstwo w kościołach polskich w 1443 roku.” In Wojna a religia w średniowieczu. Edited by Maciej Zapiór, 105–11. Cracow: Koło Naukowe Historyków Studentów UJ, 2009. Starnawska, Maria. Między Jerozolimą a Łukowem. Zakony krzyżowe na ziemiach pol­ skich w średniowieczu. Warsaw: DiG, 1999. Stouraitis, Yannis, ed. War and Collective Identities in the Middle Ages: East, West, and Beyond. Leeds: ARC Humanities Press, 2023. Szymczak, Jan. “‘Pod namøtem sub diuo.’” In Rycerze, wędrowcy, kacerze. Studia z historii średniowiecznej i wczesnonowożytnej Europy Środkowej. Edited by Beata Wojciechowska and Waldemar Kowalski, 101–13. Kielce: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jana Kochanowskiego, 2013. Tamminen, Miikka. Crusade Preaching and the Ideal Crusader. Sermo 14. Turnhout: Brepols, 2018.

Studying Religious Rites of War

355

Throop, Susanna A. “Christian Community and the Crusades: Religious and Social Practices in the ‘De expugnatione Lyxbonensi.’” HSJ 24 (2012): 95–126. Throop, Susanna A. “Rules and Ritual on the Second Crusade Campaign.” In Medieval Christianity in Practice. Edited by Miri Rubin, 86–91. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009. Titterton, James. Deception in Medieval Warfare: Trickery and Cunning in the Central Middle Ages. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2022. Ulanowski, Krzysztof, ed. Religious Aspects of War in the Ancient Near East. Ancient warfare 84. Leiden and Boston MA: Brill, 2016. Urbański, Robert. “Tartarorum gens brutalis.” Trzynastowieczne najazdy mongolskie w literaturze polskiego średniowiecza na porównawczym tle piśmiennictwa łacińskiego antyku i wieków średnich. SS SN 15(71). Warsaw: Instytut Badań Literackich, 2007. Vallecalle, Jean-Claude. “Les formes de la révélation surnaturelle dans les ‘chansons de geste.’” In Littérature et religion au Moyen Age et à la Renaissance. Edited by Jean-Claude Vallecalle and Pascale Blum-Cuny, 65–94. Lyon: Presses universitaires de Lyon, 1997. Vallecalle, Jean-Claude. “Sacraliser la guerre. Remarques sur les révélations surnaturelles dans les ‘chansons de geste.’” In Guerres, voyages et quêtes au Moyen Age. Mélanges offerts à Jean-Claude Faucon. Edited by Alain Labbé et al., 429–37. Colloques, congrès et conférences sur le Moyen Age 2. Paris: Champion, 2000. Veselov, Fedor. “Depicting a Prayer before the Battle: On the Reader’s Marginalia Drawing in the Old Rus’ Manuscript from the British Library.” Scrinium 16.1 (2020): 135–45. Vukovich, Alexandra. “The Ritualisation of Political Power in Early Rus’ (10th–12th Centuries).” PhD thesis, University of Cambridge, 2015. Vukovich, Alexandra. “Victory and Defeat Liturgified: The Symbolic World of Martial Ritual in Early Rus.” In Victors and Vanquished: Cultures of War in the Northern and Mediterranean Worlds. Byzantium and European Cultures of War. Edited by Johannes Pahlitzsch. Mainz: Mainz University Press, forthc. 2023. Walczak, Marek. “‘Sic enim Constantinus …’”: The Equestrian Portrait of King Ladislaus Jagiełło in the Holy Trinity Chapel at the Castle of Lublin (1418).” In Eclecticism in Late Medieval Visual Culture at the Crossroads of the Latin, Greek, and Slavic Traditions. Edited by Maria Alessia Rossi and Alice Isabella Sullivan, 259–90. Sense, matter, and medium 6. Berlin and Boston MA: De Gruyter, 2022. Walker, Rose. “War Memorials: Remembering and Forgetting at Las Huelgas and Beyond.” Quintana 11 (2012): 28–36. Wilamowska, Elżbieta. “‘Kronika polsko-śląska’. Zabytek pochodzenia lubiąskiego.” Studia Źródłoznawcze 25 (1980): 79–95. Wood, Ian. The Christian Economy of the Early Medieval West: Towards a Temple Society. Binghamton NY: Gracchi Books, 2022.

356

Kotecki

Zupka, Dušan. “Political, Religious and Social Framework of Religious Warfare and Its Influences on Rulership in Medieval East Central Europe.” In Rulership in Medieval East Central Europe: Power, Rituals and Legitimacy in Bohemia, Hungary and Poland. Edited by Grischa Vercamer and Dušan Zupka, 135–59. ECEE 78. Leiden and Boston MA: Brill, 2021. Zupka, Dušan. “Religious Rituals of War in Medieval Hungary under the Árpád Dynasty.” In Christianity and War in Medieval East Central Europe and Scandinavia. Edited by Radosław Kotecki, Carsten Selch Jensen, and Stephen Bennett, 141–59. Leeds: ARC Humanities Press, 2021. Żmudzki, Paweł. “Dux fabulosus”. O tradycji historiograficznej osnutej wokół postaci Leszka Czarnego od “Gesta Lestkonis” do dzieł Bartosza Paprockiego. Warsaw: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, 2023. Żmudzki, Paweł. Studium podzielonego Królestwa. Książę Leszek Czarny. Warsaw: Neriton, 2000.

Index Abraham, Hebrew patriarch 334 Absalon, bishop of Roskilde (1158–1192), archbishop of Lund (1178–1201) 299 Achilles, mythical hero 93, 100, 103, 103n68 Adalbert, Saint. See Vojtěch-Adalbert (saint) Adanai, Lithuanian deity 57 Adasa, battle of (161 BC) 320n74 Adrian (saint) 96n45 Adventisti desiderabilis (You have come, O long-awaited one), hymn 159 Aelred, abbot of Rievaulx, writer 96n45 Aethelred I, king of Wessex (865–871) 310, 311 Agincourt, battle of (1415) 256, 262, 276 Agnes of Bohemia, Bohemian princess 156 Ajtony, Hungarian noble 181 Alba. See Scotland (also Alba), Scots, Scottish Albero of Montreuil, archbishop of Trier (1132–1152) 260, 260n57 Albert I of Habsburg / of Germany, prince of Austria and Stiria (1282–1308), king of Germany (1298 –1308) 186 Alexander Nevsky, prince of Novgorod (1236– 1240), grand prince of Kiev (1246–1263), and of Vladimir-Suzdal (1252–1263) 21, 32–34 Alexander of Malonne, bishop of Płock (1129–1156) 4 Alexander Vsevolodovich, prince of Belz (1195–1207, 1214–1232, 1233–1234), and of Vladimir-Volynsky (1208–1209, 1210–1214) 64 Alexander-Romance (anonymous), Old Rusian translation of 50, 68 Alexius I Comnenus, Byzantine emperor (1081–1118) 314 Alfonso VIII, king of Castile (1158–1214) 121, 303–4, 316 Alfred the Great, king of Wessex (871–ca. 886) and of the Anglo-Saxons (886–899) 265, 310 Algui, Mongol commander 71 Allington, Richard 329 Álmos, Árpádian prince (d. 1127) 181 Althoff, Gerd 176, 298–99

Anders Sunesen, archbishop of Lund (1201–1228) 318 András Bátori, count of Szabolcs (1511–1519) 172 Andrea Vanni, painter 220 Andrei Bogoliubsky, grand prince of Vladimir-Suzdal (1157–1174) 12, 13, 23–24 Andrew II, prince of Galich (1188–1189/1190, 1208/1209–1210), king of Hungary and Croatia (1205–1235) 53, 67n79, 184–85, 185n79 Andrew III / the Venetian, king of Hungary and Croatia (1290–1301) 186 Andrew of Bergamo, chronicler 297 Andrzej Łaskarzyc / Laskary, doctor of rights, bishop of Poznań (1414–1426) 246, 269, 270 angel, angels, angelic. See also God’s and saints’ agency in war; standard-bearers (miraculous); holy patrons of polities and peoples; warrior-saints dedication to 113 in the Bible 33, 335 in war rites and liturgy 25, 109 role in war, imagination of 18, 20, 33, 89, 96, 96n45, 101, 102, 116, 118, 124, 169, 196, 296, 314–15, 315n64, 316–17, 336 St. Gabriel, Archangel 12n33 St. Michael, Archangel 11–12n33, 21, 25, 41, 65, 96n45, 102, 105n72, 108, 109, 110, 183, 196, 314 Anglo-Norman realm. See England, English Anna Mstislavovich, Rusian princess 52–53 Anna of Cilli / Celje, queen consort of Poland, wife of Władysław Jagiełło (d. 1416) 245 Annales Ottakariani (anonymous) 79, 113, 115, 118, 119, 122, 124–126, 257–58, 275, 278 Annales seu Cronicae Incliti Regni Poloniae / Annals or Chronicles of the Famous Kingdom of Poland. See Jan Długosz Annalista Saxo, chronicler 100n59 Annals of Cracow Chapter (anonymous) 253

358 Annals of Hradiště-Opatovice (anonymous)  92, 95 Annals of Minor Poland (anonymous) 252 Anonymus, Gallus. See Gallus Anonymus Anonymus, Minorita. See Minorita, Anonymus Anonymus, notary of King Béla III. See Notary of King Béla III, Anonymus Antemurale Christianitatis, idea of 220, 234–35, 238 Antioch, battle of (1098) 65–66 Antonio Bonfini, humanist, poet, and historian 172, 186, 188, 189–90, 196, 198 Antonio Giovanni da Burgio, papal nuncio in Hungary (d. 1538) 171, 236 Apostolic See / Holy See / Roman Curia, papacy, pope, papal 113, 115, 124, 156, 174,  217, 218, 236, 244, 261, 263n69, 303–4, 328 Arbroath Abbey 123 Arkona 302 Árpád, prince of the Hungarians (d. ca. 907) 177, 181 Árpáds (Hungarian dynasty) 53, 185, 212, 237 Ashdown, battle of (871) 310 Asser / Ascer, archbishop of Lund (1103–1137) 330n105 Asser, hagiographer 310, 310n47 Assyrians, Assyrian 29, 33 Auer, Leopold 100n59 Augsburg 211 Aussig an der Elbe, battle of (1426). See Ústí nad Labem Austria, Austrians, Austrian 52, 56–57, 58, 112–13, 149, 299n21 Aversa 192 Babenbergs (Austrian dynasty) 51, 56, 113 Bachrach, Bernard S. 294, 331 Bachrach, David S. 260n55, 261, 294 Bald Mountain. See Łysa Góra Baldwin I / of Boulogne, count of Edessa (1098–1100), king of Jerusalem (1100–1118) 120 Balogh, József 176 Baltic, region 301, 302 Bamberg 174 Banderia Prutenorum by Jan Długosz 304–6

Index banners, military 23, 67, 68, 90, 95, 96, 97, 97n49, 99, 99n53, 105, 107, 116, 117, 118–21, 145, 169, 183–90, 184n76, 184n77, 185–89, 190, 210, 217, 217n26, 219, 221, 222, 224–25, 229, 231, 238, 252, 256–58, 278, 301, 303, 304–7, 307n39, 307n41, 309, 318, 320, 330, 333n114. See also signa victricia (victory-bringing objects, war talismans); rites of war: depositing booty and/or captured banners in churches Bannockburn, battle of (1314) 261, 319, 325, 333 Barber, Richard W. 321n75 Bari 297 Bartholomew, parish priest of Kłobuck, provost of Kalisz, royal chaplain, uncle of Jan Długosz 246, 264, 319 Basty, Cuman khan 66 Báta 171–72 Batu, Mongol khan 34n118, 65, 216 Bavaria, Bavarians, Bavarian 149, 174, 211, 222 Bayezid I / the Thunderbolt, sultan of the Ottoman Empire (1389–1402) 220, 223 Bedřich (Frederick), prince of Bohemia (1172–1173, 1178–1189) 157 Béla II, king of Hungary and Croatia (1131–1141) 184, 188 Béla III, king of Hungary and Croatia (1172–1196) 35 Béla IV, prince of Stiria (1254–1258), king of Hungary and Croatia (1235–1270) 56, 67, 113, 115, 117, 175, 197, 216, 217, 220 Béla, prince of Slavonia (1264–1269), son of Béla IV 175 Belchite, confraternity of 299 Belgrade, battle of (1456) 168, 182, 186, 226–35 Bella Antiochena. See Walter the Chancellor Belz / Bełz 64, 69 Benedictines (Order of Saint Benedict)  169–70, 247 Beneš Krabice of Veitmile, chronicler 147 Beneš of Cvilín/Lobenstein, Bohemian commander 68 Bernard of Clairvaux (saint), theologian and crusade preacher 174

359

Index Betharius (saint), archchaplain of Chlothar II 102–3 Bible, biblical 50, 67, 68, 69, 320, 332, 334, 335 Book of Baruch 29 Book of Genesis 334 Book of Izaiah 66n77 Book of Jeremiah 28 Book of Kingdoms 29 Book of Kings 29, 33 Book of Maccabees, Second 320n74 Book of Numbers 334 Book of Proverbs 37 Book of Psalms 25, 27, 40, 269 Book of Samuel, First 314n60 Book of Samuel, Second 66n77, 314n60 Epistle to the Galatians 229 Gospel of Mark 69n91 Gospel of Matthew 69n91 Old Testament 27, 108, 268, 335 Birger Jarl, Swedish leader (d. 1266) 33 Birten, battle of (931) 211 Bogurodzica (Mother of God), Polish anthem  54, 119, 119n113, 257, 270–74, 272n111, 278. See also rites of war: singing religious songs Bohemia, Bohemians, Bohemian 51, 67, 77–128, 140–62, 174n35, 175, 209, 217, 226, 236, 256, 263n70, 269, 273, 295, 296, 297–98, 311 Bohemond, prince of Otranto (1089–1111) and of Antioch (1098–1101, 1103–1104) 101n62 Bohemus, (mythical) father of the Bohemians 90 Boleslav I, prince of Bohemia (935–967/972) 144 Boleslav II / the Pious, prince of Bohemia (967/972–999) 81 Bolesław I / the Brave (Chrobry), prince and king of Poland (992–1025) 88, 97n49 Bolesław II of Mazovia, prince of Płock (1275–1294), of Cracow (1288, 1289), of Mazovia (1294–1313) 55, 272 Bolesław III / the Wrymouth, prince of Poland (1102–1138) 89, 96, 118, 249, 261, 266, 269, 272, 296, 326 Bolesław V / the Chaste, prince of Sandomierz (1227–1230, 1232–1279) and of Cracow (1243–1279) 275

Boniak, Cuman khan 25–26 Boris and Gleb Vladimirovichi (saints), Rusian princes, martyrs, and patrons of Rus 12n33, 13–14, 13n44, 15, 15–16 (Boris), 36–37, 41 Bořivoj II, prince of Bohemia (1100–1107, 1117–1120) 157 Boroldai / Burundai, Mongol general 54, 57, 61 Borzsák, István 176 Bosnia, Bosnians, Bosnian 168, 172, 187, 221 Bouvines, battle of (1214) 269, 330 Brandenburg 159 Breadfield, battle of (1479). See Kenyérmező Brest 63 Břetislav I, prince of Bohemia (1034–1055)  103n68, 155, 156 Břevnov, monastery 159 Briakhimov 24 Bridget of Sweden (saint) 307 Bridgettines / Birgittines (Order of the Most Holy Savior) 307–8 Brno 159–60 Bronisch, Alexander Pierre 108 Bruno of Schaumburg, bishop of Olomouc (1245–1281) 124 Bryansk 58 Brześć 253 Bubczyk, Robert 325, 333 Buda 186–87, 188, 223, 227, 236 Budaszentlőrinc, monastery 192 Bulgaria, Bulgars, Bulgarian (also Volga Bulgars) 23–24, 177, 191, 195 Burgundia, Burgundians, Burgundian  220–21 Burundai. See Boroldai Byzantium, Byzantines, Byzantine. See Roman Empire (Eastern, Byzantine) Čakovec, monastery 195 Calixtines 148 Calixtus III, pope (1455–1458) 230, 233 Callimachus / Filippo Buonaccorsi, humanist, writer, and diplomat (d.1496) 189 Câmpul Pâinii, battle of (1479). See Kenyérmező Canon of the Elevation of the Cross, Greek hymn 27, 40

360 Canon of Vyšehrad, the so-called, chronicler (Cosmas’s continuator) 79, 92–94,  94n39, 94n41, 98, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 111, 112, 115, 118, 119, 122, 124, 125, 156, 182 Canones Nidrosienses 111n94, 327 Capella regia. See Chapel monarch’s Capetian (French dynasty) 87 Carmelites (Order of the Brothers of the Blessed Virgin Mary of Mount Carmel) 250–51 Carolingians (Frankish dynasty), Carolingian empire 88, 256, 259, 261, 269, 275, 278, 295, 296, 297, 298n19, 324, 325, 328 Carpathian Basin 180 Carraz, Damien 299–300 Carvajal / Juan Carvajal, cardinal of Sant’Angelo in Pescheria (1446–1469), papal legate to Hungary 227, 228 Casimir I / the Restorer, prince of Poland (1034–1058) 312–14, 315, 318 Casimir II / the Just, Polish prince and prince of Cracow (1177–1191), grand prince of Poland (1191–1194) 296, 326 Casimir III / the Great, king of Poland (1333–1370), of Ruthenia (1340–1370) 151, 249, 249n17 Catalogus abbatum Saganensium. See Ludolf, abbot of Sagan Catiline’s Conspiracy / Bellum Catilinae. See Sallustius chapel, monarch’s 86, 89, 110–11, 319–20. See also clergy, clerical order: chaplaincy and spiritual ministry to the army/ruler chaplains. See clergy, clerical order: chaplaincy and spiritual ministry to the army/ruler. See also chapel monarch’s Charlemagne, king of the Franks (768–814), of the Lombards (774–814), emperor (800–814) 27, 147 Charles II/III / the Small, king of Naples (III) (1382–1386), of Hungary and Croatia (II) (1385–1386) 186 Charles IV / of Luxembourg, king of Bohemia and Roman-German king (1346–1378), Holy Roman Emperor (1355–1378) 141–46, 142n6, 144n10, 147, 151–52 Charvát, Petr 97n49 Chernihiv / Chernigov 49

Index Cherven 69 Chester, battle of (early seventh century)  330 Chiraleș, battle of (1068). See Kerlés chivalric culture, ideology, piety, and religiosity 98, 118, 121, 122, 124, 151, 161,  257, 266–67, 266n85, 272, 290, 301, 309, 315, 323 Chlothar II, king of the Franks (584–629)  102–3 Chlumec / Kulm, battle of (1126) 79, 89–112, 113, 115, 118, 122, 124–27, 140, 146, 146n15, 156n39, 174n35, 182, 319, 330 Chortoryisk / Czartorysk / Chartoriysk 70 Christ ist erstanden (Christ is risen), German anthem 273 Christ. See Jesus Christ Christian II, king of Denmark and Norway (1513–1523), of Sweden (1520–1521) 318 Christian the Monk / Strachkvas, Přemyslid prince and hagiographer 81, 81n9, 81n10, 83 Chronica Adefonsi Imperatoris (anonymous)  102 Chronica Boemorum / Chronicle of the Bohemians by Cosmas of Prague. See Cosmas of Prague Chronica de gestis Hungarorum e codice picto saec. XIV / Illuminated Chronicle (anonymous) 176–179, 185, 191, 198, 213 Chronica Polonorum / Chronicle of the Poles by Master Vincentius. See Vincentius of Cracow Chronicle of George Hamartolos. See George Hamartolos Chronicle of John Malalas. See John Malalas Chronicle of Lanercost 249, 325 Chronicle of Mstislav Mstislavovich 50, 66n76 Chronicle of the Battle of King Władysław of Poland with the Teutonic Knights. See Cronica conflictus Wladislai Regis Poloniae cum Cruciferis anno Christi 1410 Chronicle of the Romanovichi. See GalicianVolhynian Chronicle Chronicon Aulae Regiae / Zbraslav Chronicle (multiauthored) 141, 146, 148, 150–51,  159, 160, 264, 265, 311, 311n51. See also František of Prague, chronicler; Peter of Zittau/Žitava, chronicler

Index Chronicon Dubnicense / Dubnic Chronicle (anonymous)  198 Chronique du Religieux de Saint-Denys (Historia Karoli Sexti Francorum regis) (anonymous) 221 Cikádor, battle of (1441) 172 Cinaed / Kenneth MacAlpin, king of Dál Riada (841–850), of the Picts (843–858), of Alba (843–858) 107n81 Cistercians (Order of Cistercians) 113–14, 149, 150, 185 Csanád, Hungarian warlord 182, 191 Csanád, monastery. See Marosvár churches (generally) 21, 35, 60, 64, 86–88, 142, 149, 159, 184, 185, 188, 191–97, 214, 223, 233, 276, 320, 321, 324, 329, 331, 338 in Aachen, Cathedral of St. Mary 147 in Aachen, for Hungarian pilgrims 195 in Báta, Holy Blood’s shrine 171–72 in Buda (St. Mary’s) 186–87 in Buda Castle, Chapel of St. Martin and St. Sigismund 171, 236 in Burgos, Santa María Real de las Huelgas monastery 304, 307, 307n40 in Compostela, Cathedral of Santiago 335n116 in Constantinople, Chapel of the Virgin Mary of the Pharos 86 in Crăciunel / Homoródkarácsonyfalva 321 in Cracow at Skałka (Sts. Michael’s and Stanislaus’s) 251 in Cracow, Cathedral of Sts. Wenceslas and Stanislaus 88, 89, 251, 278, 304, 307 in Czerwińsk (St. Mary’s) monastery 253–55 in Dârjiu / Székelyderzs 321 in Dunkeld 106 in Edinburgh, Holyrood Abbey 88 in Esztergom, Cathedral of Sts. Mary and Vojtěch-Adalbert 334 in Fehérvár, Basilica (royal) of St. Mary 120, 173–74, 184, 185–86, 188, 191, 197, 307n39, 333n114 in Galich, Cathedral of the Mother of God 71 in Genoa (St. George’s) 333n114 in Ghelința / Gelencé 321

361 in Ghidfalău / Gidófalva 321 in Gniezno, Cathedral of Sts. Mary and Vojtěch-Adalbert 155, 251, 307, 334 in Gyulafehérvár, Cathedral of St. Michael 196 in Ingelheim 147 in Jakub (Církvice-Jakub) near Kutná Hora (St. James’s) 83–85 in Jerusalem, Church of the Holy Sepulcher 87, 88n25 in Karlštejn, Chapel of the Holy Rood at Karlštejn castle 144n10 in Kholm (St. John Chrysostom’s) 65–66 in Kholm, Cathedral of the Mother of God 65 in Kiev (unspecified) 64 in Kiev, Caves Monastery / Pechersk Lavra 9, 26, 27 in Kiev, Church of the Tithes / of Our Lady 4–5, 330 in Kraskovo 214, 215 in Kruszwica (St. Vitus’s) 336 in Lilienfeld monastery (of the Holy Cross) 185 in Loreto, Basilica della Casa 196 in Lublin (of Our Lady of Victories) monastery 304, 307–8 in Lublin (of the Holy Trinity) castle 316–17 in Lublin (St. Michael’s) 314 in Lutsk, Cathedral of St. John the Evangelist 71 in Łysa Góra (Holy Trinity’s) monastery, shrine of the Holy Cross 247–51, 249n17, 276 in Mariazell, Basilica of St. Mary 192–94, 195, 219, 314 in Marosvár monastery (St. George’s) 191 in Mielnik (Virgin Mary’s) 60 in Mihăileni / Csíkszentmihály 321 in Mogyoród monastery (St. George’s) 191 in Mugeni / Bögöz 321–22 in Nidaros, Cathedral of the Holy Trinity 88 in Novgorod, Cathedral of the Holy Sophia 33, 34 in Nuremberg, Frauenkirche (“Church of Our Lady”) 147

362 churches (cont.) in Nyírbátor 197 in Ocland / Homoródoklánd 321 in Olomouc (St. Mary’s) Franciscan monastery 233–34 in Paris, Cathedral of Notre Dame 223 in Poznań (of Corpus Christi) 250–51, 276 in Poznań (St. Mary’s) 313–14, 314n61 in Prague (St. Francis’s) 156, 158 in Prague, Cathedral of Sts. Vitus, Wenceslas, and Vojtěch-Adalbert 81, 82, 83, 86, 88, 94, 106, 111, 117, 123, 141–43 in Prague, Chapel of St. Wenceslas of the Prague Cathedral 83, 142–43 in Rome, Basilica of St. Peter 147 in Roudnice nad Labem castle (Sts. Mary’s, Vitus’s, Wenceslas’s, Vojtěch-Adalbert’s, and Sigismund’s), chapel 145 in Saint-Denis (near Paris) abbey 87, 87n23, 221, 223, 248–49 in Split, Cathedral of St. Domnius 185 in Toledo (Sts. Peter and Paul’s), Praetorian Church 87, 109 in Toledo, Cathedral of St. Mary 121 in Tours, Cathedral of St. Martin 324 in Várad, Cathedral of St. Mary 219 in Veľká Lomnica 214, 215 in Vilnius, Cathedral of St. Stanislaus and St. Ladislas 307n41 in Vladimir-Zalessky, Cathedral of Dormition 24, 63 in Vrbćany 93, 96 in Vydubychi (Archangel Michael’s) monastery 65, 65n71 in Zadar monastery (St. Mary’s) 188 in Zagreb, Cathedral of Sts. Mary, Stephen, and Ladislas 185 in Žehra 214, 216 in Zlatá Koruna monastery, Chapel of Guardian Angels 113–14, 113n99, 149, 304 in Zvenigorod 61 on Mount Řip (St. George and St. Vojtěch-Adalbert’s), chapel 90–91, 110 Clavijo, battle of (fictional?) (834 or 844)  335n116

Index Cleidion, battle of (1014) 191 clergy, clerical order armsbearing by (or lack thereof) 3, 7–8, 9, 261 chaplaincy and spiritual ministry to the army/rulers by 7, 15, 26n87, 32, 86–87, 89, 97, 100–2, 102n67m 106–11, 111n94, 122–24, 152–54, 167–68, 189, 190, 209, 228, 246, 253–56, 256n43, 261–62, 269, 274, 276–77, 296, 310, 319–20, 326–27, 330–31, 333, 336. See also tented chapels and portable altars, use in war; Vitus, chaplain of Soběslav I participation / involvement in warfare (or lack thereof) 3, 5, 6–8, 9–10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 19–20, 23, 24–25, 26, 31–32, 34–35, 39–40, 41, 54, 86–87, 96, 100–11, 111n94, 119, 121–24, 125, 152–54, 155, 167–68, 179, 181, 217, 221, 224, 226, 275, 296, 327, 329–30, 330n105, 330–31, 333 role in peace-making / restraining from war of by 13, 19, 26n87, 31–32, 35, 40 Clovis I, king of the Franks (481–511) 324 Cologne 116, 328 Coloman the Learned, king of Hungary and Croatia (1095–1116) 168, 170–71, 184, 188, 188n97 Columba / Colum Cille (saint), abbot and missionary, patron of Scotland 83n15, 106–7, 107n78, 108, 123 Concilium Germanicum (742) 100, 100n57 Conrad I, prince of Mazovia (1194–1247), of Cracow (1241–1243), of Łęczyca-Sieradz (1231–1247) 67, 273 Conrad II of Czersk, prince of Mazovia (1264–1275), of Czersk (1275–1294), of Sandomierz (1289) 55 Conrad II, king of Germany (1024–1039), of Italy (1026–1039), of Burgundy (1032–1039), and emperor (1027–1039)  173, 275 Conrad IV, king of Jerusalem (1228–1254), of Germany and Italy (1237–1254) 217 Constantin II, king of Alba 107 Constantine I / the Great, Roman emperor (306–337) 101, 269, 309, 310, 310n48, 312, 313, 315–20, 320n74 Constantine VII / Porphyrogenitus, Eastern emperor 31

Index Constantinople 86, 192, 222, 232 Contamine, Philippe 119 Cosmas of Prague, chronicler 97n49, 103n68, 106, 110n91, 155, 156, 156n38, 159 Cracow 55–56, 55n26, 88–89, 151, 249, 251, 275, 304 Crécy, battle of (1346) 265 Crescente fide (anonymous life of St. Wenceslas) 81n10 Croatia, Croats, Croatian 221 Cronica conflictus Wladislai Regis Poloniae cum Cruciferis anno Christi 1410 / Chronicle of the Battle of King Władysław of Poland with the Teutonic Knights (anonymous) 245, 246, 252, 256, 257, 260, 263, 266–67, 269–70, 309, 310, 324–25 Cronicae et gesta ducum sive principum Polonorum / Chronicles and Deeds of the Dukes or Princes of the Poles by Gallus Anonymus. See Gallus Anonymus cross, sign of 80–81, 116, 229, 303, 313, 316–17, 318. See also signa victricia (victory-bringing objects, war talismans): Holy Cross, Lord’s Cross, True Cross crusaders 7, 33, 37, 119n114, 148, 152–54, 168, 185, 221, 222, 226–34, 294 crusades. See also war, fighting (also ideology of): crusading ideology/notion of/ propaganda, rhetoric and/or idea of; Holy Land, Outremer against Hussites (1420–1421) 152–54 against Ottomans (1396, 1443/1444, 1456, 1526) 168, 174, 181, 182–83, 185–86, 189, 199, 220–37, 276, 329 First (1096–1099) 20, 21, 221, 293 Second (1145–1149) 157 Third (1189–1192) 296 Fourth (1202–1204) 41 Fifth (1217–1221) 168 institutional/institutionalized and/or international, model of 121, 301, 302–3, 328 of Andrew II, king of Hungary (1217–1218) 184–85, 198, 199 of Frederick II, emperor (1241) 217 of Nicholas V (1455–1456) 226–34

363 of Philip II, king of France (1190)  176–77 to Prussia 7, 149, 158, 160 Cumans, Cuman (Polovtsians) 5, 9, 17–19, 21, 23, 25, 26, 32, 35, 51, 53, 64, 66, 113, 178–179, 182, 210, 212, 213–16, 238, 293, 321–22 Cuthbert (saint), bishop of Hexham and Lindisfarne and patron of England (d. 687) 97n49 Cyril, metropolitan of Kiev (1224–1233)  34n118 Czechs. See Bohemia, Bohemian, Bohemians Czerwińsk, monastery 253–55 Dąbki, battle of (1431) 271, 304, 306 Dagobert I, king of the Franks (623–639)  87n23 Dalimil, the so-called, chronicler 80n6, 91 Daniel I, bishop of Prague (1148–1167) 157 Daniel Romanovich / of Galicia, prince of Galicia (1205–1255), of Peremyshl (1211), and Volodymyr (1212–1231), King of Rus 49, 52, 53, 53n15, 57, 59–60, 60–61, 64, 65, 65n68, 66n76, 66n77, 67–68, 67n79, 69–70, 275 Daniel Romanovich’s Chronicle 57–58, 63, 64, 67 Danube, river 184, 220, 221, 227, 228, 231, 235, 237 Daumantas, Lithuanian kunigas 58 Dausprungas, Lithuanian kunigas 57 David (biblical) / King David, king of the Jews 247, 311 David Igorevich / of Dorogobuzh, prince of Volhynia and of Dorogobuzh (d. 1112) 25 David Sviatoslavich, Rusian prince and prince of Chernigov (d. 1123) 18, 32 De Sancto Ladizlao rege Ungarie / On Saint Ladislaus King of Hungary (anonymous) 214 Demetrius (saint) 36, 60 Demian, envoy of Daniel Romanovich 70 Denis (saint) 249, 269 Denmark, Danes, Danish 272, 293, 297, 302, 318 Derwich, Marek 250 Digenes Akrites (Greek and Slavonic), Byzantine epic poem 24–25, 25n83, 40

364 Diocletian, Roman emperor (284–305 AD)  185 Diveriks, Lithuanian deity 57 Dmitri (saint) 59 Dniepr, river 26, 36, 63 Dominicans (Order of Preachers) 159 Domingo Pascual, canon and archbishop elect of the Toledo 121, 121n119 Don, river 23, 23n77 Drahomíra, duchess consort of Bohemia, wife of Vratislav I (d. 924) 144 Dubnic Chronicle. See Chronicon Dubnicense Dubrava / Dobrawa, princess consort of Poland, wife of Mieszko I (d. 977) 314n61 Dürnkrut, battle of (1278). See Marchfeld East Central Europe / Central Europe 79, 93, 150, 209, 210, 216, 231, 233, 238, 289, 290, 295, 309n45, 323, 329, 338–39 Eastern Europe 3, 289, 291, 293, 294, 299–300, 323, 326, 337, 338, 339 Edinburgh 88 Edward I / Longshanks, king of England (1272–1307) 249, 325 Edward II / of Caernarfon, king of England (1307–1327) 267n87 Edward III, king of England (1327–1377) 265 Egypt, Egyptians, Egyptian 185 Ekdahl, Sven 246 Ekkehard, abbot of Aura abd chronicler  79n50 El Salado, battle of (1340) 304 Elbe, river 297 Elias, bishop of Novgorod 11 Elizabeth of Bohemia, queen consort of Bohemia, wife of John of Luxembourg (d. 1330) 160 Elizabeth of Hungary, queen consort of Serbia, wife of Stephen I Kotromanić (d. ca. 1322) 175n35, 198 Emeric (saint), Hungarian prince (d. 1031)  120, 183, 185 Emma, princess consort of Bohemia, wife of Boleslav II the Pious (d. 1005/1006) 81 Enea Piccolomini. See Pius II England, English 217, 247n11, 249, 267n87, 277n136, 310n47, 328, 332, 334 Erik II / the Emune, king of Denmark (1134–1137) 330n105 Estonia, Estonians, Estonian 318 Esztergom 334

Index Euthymius, bishop of Pereiaslavl (1141–1155)  26n87 Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea and chronicler  101–2, 121n118, 310, 312, 320n74 expeditio, defensio terrae (military obligation, kinds of) 111, 331–32 feasts, religious (in connection with warfare) 19, 19n65, 21–23, 60–61, 69–70, 71, 86, 86n17, 146, 157, 158, 168, 172, 188, 227, 244, 253 Fehérvár / Székesfehérvár 120, 173–74, 184–85, 188, 197, 307n39, 333n114 Ferdinand I Habsburg, king of the Romans (1531–1564), of Hungary, Croatia, and Bohemia (1526–1564), archduke of Austria (1521–1564), Holy Roman Emperor (1556–1564) 148 Field of Blood, battle at (1119) 332n111 Filippo Buonaccorsi. See Callimachus Fillan (saint) 319 Five Martyred Brethren (saints) 117, 155, 333 Flarchheim, battle of (1080) 97n50 Forglen in Banffshire, estate 123 Fortriu, Pictish kingdom 106 Fotevig, battle of (1134) 330n105 Fraga, battle of (1134) 102, 102n65, 332n111 Fragmentary Annals of Ireland (anonymous) 106–7 France, French 220–21, 248n13, 265, 269, 291, 332 Franciscans (Order of Friars Minor) 158, 159, 168, 173, 181, 183, 226, 228–29, 233, 321–22 Frankia, Franks, Frankish 87, 110, 180, 261, 272, 329 Franko Talovac, Croatian nobleman, ban of Severin (1436–1439) (d. 1448) 225 František Hag / of Hajé, mercenary captain  197 František of Prague, chronicler 151. See also Chronicon Aulae Regiae Frederick I Barbarossa, king of Germany (1152–1190), of Burgundy (1152–1190), of Italy (1155–1190), Holy Roman Emperor (1155–1190) 185n79 Frederick II, king of Sicily (1198–1250), of Germany and Italy (1220–1250), of Jerusalem (1225–1228), and Holy Roman Emperor (1220–1250) 217 Frigidus, river, battle of (394) 309

Index Füle, Hungarian voivode 67 Fyrileif, battle of (1134) 299 Gaels, Gaelic 103, 103n70, 126, 295, 330, 331 Galich / Halicz / Halych 35, 53, 60, 64, 71 Galician Rus. See Rus, Rusians, Rusian: Galician-Volhynian Rus Galician-Volhynian Chronicle / Chronicle of the Romanovichi (anonymous) 48–72, 182, 273 Gallus Anonymus, the so-called, chronicler  4, 180, 256, 256n43, 266, 269, 296, 326 Gallus, Prague gladiator 123 Gaposchkin, M. Cecilia 293 Gaudentius, archbishop of Gniezno, brother of St. Vojtěch-Adalbert 155 Genoa, Genoese 192, 333n114 George (saint) 96n45, 191, 224 George Hamartolos, chronicler 50, 66n77 George of Poděbrady, king of Bohemia (1458–1471) 148 Gerard (saint), bishop of Csanád (ca. 1030–1047) 169 Germany, Germans, German (also Germanic) 33, 56, 90, 168, 173, 182, 198, 220, 224, 226, 235, 237, 248n13, 291, 298, 298n19, 328, 331, 331n110. See also Roman Empire (Western, medieval), Holy Roman Empire Gertrude Babenberg / of Mödling, princess of Austria and Styria (d. 1288) 56 Gesta Chuonradi imperatoris by Wipo. See Wipo Gesta Henrici Quinti (anonymous) 276 Gesta Hungarorum. See Notary of King Béla III Géza I, king of Hungary (1074–1077) 178, 179, 213 Géza II, king of Hungary and Croatia (1141–1162) 168–69, 175 Géza, prince of the Hungarians (early 970s–997) 170, 211, 237 Gilgenburg / Dąbrówno 260, 263, 270–71 Gilo of Paris, cardinal-bishop of Tusculum (until 1139), poet, and chronicler 170–71 Giovanni da Capistrano, Franciscan friar, preacher, theologian, and inquisitor (d. 1456) 168, 181, 182, 226–34 Giovanni da Tagliacozzo, monk in the following of Giovanni da Capistrano 181, 183, 199, 228, 231, 232

365 Giovanni de Dominis, bishop of Senj (1432–1440) and of Várad (1440–1444) 224 Giovanni de Marignolli, chronicler 146 Gisela, queen consort of Hungary, wife of Stephen I (d. 1065) 185n79 Giuliano Cesarini the Elder, cardinal-bishop of Frascati, papal legate in Hungary (d. 1444) 224–26, 231 Gleb Vladimirovich (saint). See Boris and Gleb Vladimirovichi Gniezno 155–56, 307, 334 God (Hebrew, Christian) 5, 12, 13, 13n44, 14, 17, 18, 19–20, 21, 23, 26, 30, 32, 33, 34, 37, 59, 60, 64–65, 67, 67n79, 70–71, 77–78, 79, 80, 83n15, 93, 96, 97, 102, 104, 105, 105n73, 106, 108, 112, 116, 117, 124, 148, 150, 152–54, 161, 162, 173, 177, 178, 180–81, 183, 210, 211, 213, 214, 218, 221, 222, 223, 228, 232, 236, 247, 250, 252, 258, 259, 267, 268, 269, 270, 275, 278, 304, 304n36, 309, 310, 311, 313, 314, 314n60, 316, 318, 319, 323, 324n87, 325, 327, 328, 334, 335. See also God’s and saints’ agency in war; Jesus Christ wrath of 17, 28, 40, 70–71, 102. See also God’s and saints’ agency in war: as punishment for believers God’s and saints’ agency in war. See also angel, angels, angelic; holy patrons of polities and peoples; standard-bearers (miraculous); warrior-saints as aid for believers in war 5, 11–15, 17, 18, 19–20, 29, 34, 36, 40–41, 64, 65, 67, 70, 77–78, 82, 88–89, 93, 95, 96n45, 97–98, 109, 112, 113, 116, 120, 124, 127–28, 146–47, 148–49, 154, 161, 169–70, 173–74, 178, 180–81, 187, 188, 191, 197, 219, 223, 228, 249, 251, 259, 265, 268, 269, 272n112, 275, 289, 304, 309, 318, 319, 320 as grace / mercy for believers 17, 59, 65, 70, 78, 83, 89, 93, 96, 103, 109, 124, 154, 178, 189, 221, 230, 237, 247, 304, 311, 313, 322, 324, 328 as punishment for believers 28, 40, 66n77, 70–71, 102, 147, 180–81, 226, 290, 325. See also God (Hebrew, Christian): wrath of in the Bible 29 miraculous, epiphanies, apparitions 20, 21, 24, 29, 33, 71, 80, 83, 93, 95, 98, 109,

366 God’s and saints’ agency in war (cont.) 115, 169, 173, 219, 230, 251, 252, 304, 312–13, 314–15, 315n64, 316–20, 330, 333, 335n116, 336. See also omens, dreams, visions, prophetic signs Godfrey of Bouillon, duke of Lower Lotharingia (1089–1096), ruler of Jerusalem (1099–1100) 170 gods or deities, pagan 57, 105, 302, 331, 333–34, 336. See also pagans, pagan, paganism Goetz, Hans-Werner 294, 296n16 Golden Horde 34n118, 65 Grachev, Artem Iu. 7 Graus, František 147n18 Greece, Greeks, Greek 6, 35, 36, 177 Gregory IX, pope (1227–1241) 217, 218 Gregory of Tours, bishop of Tours and chronicler (d. 593/594) 324 Groißenbrunn, battle of (1260). See Kressenbrunn Grunwald / Tannenberg / Žalgiris, battle of (1410) 119, 176, 244–79, 303, 304n39, 305, 307, 307n41, 309, 316, 319, 327 Guillaume Guiart, chronicler 87n23 Gumpold’s Legend, the so-called (life of St. Wenceslas) 81n10 Guoth, Kálmán 176 György Szerémi / Georgius Sirmiensis, writer 199 Gyulafehérvár / Alba Iulia 196, 213. See also Transylvania Habsburgs (Austrian, German dynasty) 151, 160 Hannsen Greiff, Bavarian noble 222 Harrington, Jesse 295, 331, 335 Hastings, battle of (1066) 180 Hector Boece / Boethius / Boyce, philosopher and historian 319, 327 Heimskringla by Snorri Sturluson. See Snorri Sturluson Hellenic and Roman Chronicle, by George Hamartolos. See George Hamartolos Hendrikman, Lars Auth 318 Henry II / the Pious, prince of Silesia and prince of Cracow (1238–1241) 259 Henry II / the Saint, king of Germany (1002–1024) and emperor (1014–1024)  96n45, 102n66, 104

Index Henry III, king of Germany (1028–1056), of Italy and Burgundy (1039–1056), and emperor (1046–1056) 174, 179, 179n51 Henry IV / Probus, prince of Wrocław (1270–1290), of Cracow (1288–1290), of Ścinawa (1289–1290) 55 Henry IV, king of Germany (1054–1105) and emperor (1084–1105) 97n50 Henry of Austria / the Friendly, son of king Albert I Habsburg (d. 1327) 160 Henry of Carinthia, prince of Carinthia and landgrave of Carniola (1295–1335), landgrave on the Savinja (1295–1308), count of Tyrol (1295–1335), king of Bohemia (1307–1310) 159–60 Henry of Livonia, chronicler 301, 333 Henry of Rožmberk, Bohemian noble 150 Henry Zdík, bishop of Olomouc (1126–1150)  91n35, 110, 110n91 Heraclius, Eastern emperor (610–641) 31 Herbort of Fulstein, Bohemian knight 68 Herman, Prague furrier 123–24 Hermann III of Stahleck, count palatine of the Rhine (1142–1155) 260 Hermannstadt, battle of 1442. See Nagyszeben Hezekiah (biblical), king of Judah 29, 33 Hilarion, metropolitan of Kiev 50 Himfi, Benedict, Hungarian noble and commander 195 Historia Hungarorum by János Thuróczy. See János Thuróczy Historia Vie Hierosolimitane by Gilo of Paris. See Gilo of Paris Historia Wambae / Story of Wamba by Julian of Toledo. See Julian of Toledo Holy Cross, monastery. See Łysa Góra Holy Land, Outremer 100n58, 111n92, 120–21, 195, 293, 302n30, 336. See also crusades holy patrons of polities and peoples 30, 77, 79, 89, 90, 96, 98, 99–100, 99n54, 102, 106–8, 110, 112, 117, 120, 121, 141–48, 161, 187, 252, 272, 290, 301, 323, 330, 331, 333, 336. See also God’s and saints’ agency in war militarization of 98–99, 99n54 Holy Sophia 11, 11n33 holy war. See war, fighting (also ideology of): holy (also religious war and God’s war)

Index Homiliary of Opatovice 112 Hospodine pomiluj ny (Lord, Have Mercy on Us), Bohemian anthem 117, 119, 119n113, 159, 273 Housley, Norman 218 Houts, Elisabeth van 50 Hradište, monastery 191 Hrvoje Vukčić, grand duke of Bosnia (1380–1388, 1392–1416) 172 Hungarian Chronicle Composition. See Chronica de gestis Hungarorum Hungary, Hungarians (Magyars), Hungarian  25, 35, 51, 53–54, 64, 67, 68, 71, 113, 115–16, 117, 119, 120, 124, 149, 157, 167–99, 209, 210–38, 268, 274–75, 295, 298, 304n36, 309, 311, 334 Hussites, Hussite, Hussite Revolution (also anti-Hussite) 147–48, 152–54, 152n32, 161–62, 197, 325 Hypatian Chronicle/Codex 14, 16–20, 32, 40, 50, 59n49, 60n52, 66n76, 67n79. See also Povest’ vremennykh let / Tale of Bygone Years / Primary Chronicle; Laurentian Chronicle Iberian Peninsula, Iberia, Iberian 272, 299, 301–2, 304 Illuminated Chronicle. See Chronica de gestis Hungarorum Innocent III, pope (1198–1216) 303, 304, 329 Instruction of Vladimir Monomakh 60, 66 Ippolito d’Este, archbishop of Esztergom (1494–1497) 190 Israel, Israelites, Israelite, Chosen People (ancient, biblical) 33, 332n111, 335 István (Stephen) III Bátori, Hungarian nobleman and commander, palatine of Hungary (d. 1444) 224 István (Stephen) V Bátori of Ecsed, voivode of Transylvania (1479–1493) 196 Istvánffy, chronicler 184n77 Italy, Italians, Italian 157, 186, 190, 198, 272, 312 Ivan the Great / III Vasilievich, grand prince of Moscow and sovereign of all Russia 49 Iwańczak, Wojciech 95 Iziaslav Andreievich, Rusian prince (d. 1165) 23

367 Iziaslav II Mstislavich, grand prince of Kiev 10, 26n67 Iziaslav IV Vladimirovich, prince of Terebovl (1210), of Novgorod-Seversk (until 1235), grand prince of Kiev (1235–1236) 64 Iziaslava, Rusian princess, adopted daughter of Vladimir Vasilkovich 55n25 Jajce 168, 187 Jakub (Církvice-Jakub) near Kutná Hora  83–85 Jakub of Kurdwanów, bishop of Płock (1396–1425) 255 James the Greater (saint), apostle 99n54, 334n116 Jan Długosz, chronicler 119, 187, 189, 198, 246, 250, 257–58, 262, 263, 264, 266–68, 270, 271, 276, 279, 304–6, 309, 310, 314–15, 319, 325, 325n91, 327 Jan Očko of Vlašim, bishop of Olomouc (1351–1364), archbishop of Prague (1364–1378) 145 Jan Žižka, Bohemian general and leader of the Taborites 152–53, 154n33, 325, 325n92 János Hunyadi, Hungarian commander, voivode of Transylvania (1441–1446), regent of Hungary (1446–1453) 172, 175, 187, 196, 224–34 János Thuróczy, chronicler 175, 183, 187, 198, 223, 229, 231 János Vitéz of Zredna, bishop of Várad (1445–1465), archbishop of Esztergom (1465–1472) 187 Janus Pannonius, bishop of Pécs (1434–1472), diplomat, and poet 168, 187 Jarloch, chronicler 157 Jaroš, burgrave of the Prague castle 117, 118, 119, 122, 333 Jaroslav / Jarosław / Yaroslav, battle of (1245)  54, 67, 70, 182, 273 Jatvingia / Jatvingians / Jatvingian 58, 64, 314 Jean II Le Maingre / Boucicaut, French knight and military leader (d. 1421)  221–22, 223 Jean Froissart, chronicler 265 Jean of Nevers / the Fearless, count of Nevers and prince of Burgundy (1404–1419)  222

368

Index

Jean of Vienne, French knight and admiral (d. 1396) 222 Jena Codex (Hussite) 152 Jensen, Carsten Selch 301, 333 Jeremiah (biblical), Hebrew prophet  320n74 Jerusalem, Holy City 68, 87, 170, 221, 295 Jerusalem, Latin Kingdom of 87 Jesus Christ 30, 63, 81, 81n11, 155, 182–83, 196, 219, 222, 224, 228, 229–32, 258, 273. See also God (Hebrew, Christian) Jewish War. See Josephus Flavius Jews, Jewish (medieval) 160, 230 jihad, idea of 30, 31, 37 Jihlava 148 Jogaila. See Władysław II Jagiełło Johannes Mannesdorfer, chronicler 192–93 Johannes Schiltberger, Bavarian crusader  222 John IV of Dražice, bishop of Prague (1301–1343) 123–24 John XXIII, antipope (1410–1415) 246, 269 John, Bohemian knight 117, 118, 119, 122 John Barbour, poet 326n94 John Henry of Luxembourg, count of Tyrol (1335–1341), margrave of Moravia (1349–1375) 142, 151–52 John Malalas, chronicler 50, 69n91 John of Gara / Garai, Hungarian noble, count of Temes (1402–1403) (d. before 1430) 172 John of Luxembourg / the Blind, king of Bohemia (1310–1335) 142, 145, 146–47, 148, 151, 159–60, 264–65 John the Baptist (saint) 175, 273–74 John the Evangelist (saint) 71 Josephus Flavius, Jewish historian and military leader 50, 68 Judas Maccabeus (biblical), priest and leader of the Jews 247, 320n74 Julian of Toledo (saint), Archbishop of Toledo, theologian and chronicler (d. 690) 109

Kerny, Terézia 196 Khlebnikov/Ostrogski Codex 48n1, 50 Kholm / Chełm / Xolm 65–66, 66n73 kierelesz. See Kyrie eleison Kiev, Kievans 4, 10–11, 35, 64, 65, 66, 188 Kievan Chronicle (anonymous) 4, 25, 35, 38, 49, 50, 175 Kievan Rus. See Rus, Rusians, Rusian: Kievan Rus Kinnamos, chronicler 184 Klaniczay, Gábor 99–100 Kolia-Demitzaki, Athina 30 Kołobrzeg 272 Komendová, Jitka  50 Konchak / Könchek / Končak, Cuman khan 17 Konstantin Vsevolodovich, grand prince of Vladimir-Suzdal (1216–1218) 12 kontakia (hymns) 27, 40. See also rites of war: singing religious songs Korsun / Chersonesus / Cherson 334 Kosovo Polje, battle of (1448) 226, 231–32 Kotecki, Radosław 4, 140, 141, 159, 256n43, 257 Kotian, Cuman khan 53 Kouřim 80, 82, 83, 86 Kovács, Éva 175n37 Kressenbrunn / Groißenbrunn, battle of (1260) 79, 112–125, 126, 127, 146, 146n15, 149, 159, 175, 257–58, 273, 275, 303, 333 Kruszwica 336 Kulikovo, battle of (1380) 9 Kulm, battle of (1126). See Chlumec Kumorovitz, Bernát 195 Kürbis, Brygida 313 Kuremsa, Mongolian temnik 71 Kwiatkowski, Krzysztof 258 Kwiatkowski, Stefan 270–71, 271n110 Kyrie eleison (Lord, have mercy), chant 54, 60, 67, 93, 126, 181–82, 182n65, 213, 272–74. See also rites of war: singing religious songs Kyrieleys. See Kyrie eleison

Kalisz 67, 264 Kalukyan, State (India) 333n113 Karlštejn 144, 236 Kenyérmező / Breadfield / Câmpul Pâinii, battle of (1479) 183, 196, 197 Kerlés / Chiraleș, battle of (1068) 182, 213–14

Ladislas I / the Saint, king of Hungary (1077–1095) and Croatia (1091–1095)  120, 169, 173, 177–78, 179, 183, 185, 191, 212, 213, 214, 219, 321–22, 321n78, 324–25 Ladislas III, king of Hungary and Croatia (1204–1205) 184

Index Ladislas IV / the Cuman, king of Hungary and Croatia (1272–1290) 175n37, 185, 198, 304n36, 329n104 Ladislas V / the Posthumous, prince of Austria (1440–1457), king of Hungary and Croatia (1440–1444) 224, 226 The Lament for the Destruction of Hungary by the Tartars. See Planctus destructionis Hungariam per Tartaros Las Huelgas in Burgos, monastery 304, 307, 307n40 Las Navas de Tolosa, battle of (1212) 121–22, 124, 302–3, 304, 316 Lateran Council, Fourth (1215) 303, 328 laudes regiae, hymn 188n97 Laurentian Chronicle 23–24. See also Povest’ vremennykh let / Tale of Bygone Years / Primary Chronicle; Hypatian Chronicle/ Codex Lawrence (saint) 96n45 Lawrence of Březová, chronicler 152–54 Lechfeld / Augsburg, battle of (955) 211, 238 Legenda Christiani. See Christian the Monk Legenda maior sancti Stephani regis / Major Legend of King Saint Stephen (anonymous) 170, 213 Legenda S. Gerhardi episcopi / Major Legend of St. Gerard (anonymous) 170, 170n14, 181–82 Legnica / Liegnitz, battle of (1241) 259 Leighton, Gregory 301, 311–12, 329 Leitha / Lajta, river, battle of (1146) 168–69, 330 Lenart, Marek 274 Lenhoff, Gail 13 Leo VI / the Wise, Eastern emperor (886–912) 102 Leopold VI, prince of Stiria (1194–1230), of Austria (1198–1230) Lesser Poland, region 150–51 Lesson on the Life and Murder of the Blessed Passion-Sufferers Boris and Gleb by Nestor of the Kievan Caves. See Nestor of the Kievan Caves Leszek II / the Black, prince Sieradz (1261–1288), of Łęczyca (1267–1288), of Inowrocław (1273–1278), of Cracow (1279–1288) 214 Lev Danilovich, prince of Peremyshl (ca.1240–1301), of Belz (1245–1269), of

369 Kholm and Galich (1264–ca.1301) 56, 70, 71 Liber Ordinum, Visigothic 87, 109, 121 Liegnitz, battle of (1241). See Legnica Life of Alexander Nevsky. See Zhitie Aleksandra Nevskogo Life of Constantine by Eusebius. See Eusebius of Caesarea Life of King Alfred by Asser. See Asser Lilienfeld, monastery 185 Lipitsa, river, battle of (near Yuryev-Polsky) (1216) 8–9 Lithuania, Lithuanians, Lithuanian 6, 51, 57–59, 61, 70, 173, 195, 198, 219, 244, 249n17, 253, 257, 271, 304, 315n62, 324–25 liturgy of war. See rites of war: liturgy of war (liturgical prayers) Liutprand of Cremona, diplomat and historian 182 Livonia, Livs, Livonian 301–2 Lombards / Longobards 110 Lord’s Cross. See signa victricia (victorybringing objects, war talismans): Holy Cross, Lord’s Cross, True Cross Lothar III / of Supplinburg, king of Germany and Italy (1125–1137), Holy Roman emperor (1133–1137) 90, 93, 107 Louis I / the Great, king of Hungary and Croatia (1342–1382) and of Poland (1370–1382) 171, 183, 192–93, 198, 218–19, 314 Louis II / the Younger, king of Italy and emperor (844–875) 297 Louis II Jagiellonian, king of Hungary and Croatia, and of Bohemia (1516–1526) 171, 220, 236–37 Louis VI / the Fat, king of France (1108–1137) 248–49 Lübke, Christian 106n74 Lublin 304, 307–8, 314, 316 Lucas, Anthony T. 103, 103n70, 294, 295 Ludmila (saint) 144 Ludolf, abbot of Sagan (1394–1422) and chronicler 316 Ludwig (Louis) the Bavarian, king of the Romans (1314–1347), of Italy (1327–1347), and Holy Roman Emperor (1328–1347)  146, 151 Ludwigslied 182 Luticians / Lutici, Lutician 104, 331n110

370 Lutsk / Łuck 71 Lyndanisse, battle of (1219) 318 Lyrskov, battle of (1043) 88n28, 95n44 Łysa Góra (Bald Mountain) / Łysiec / Święty Krzyż, mount and monastery 247–51, 250n20, 276 MacAlpin (dynasty of Alba) 107n80 Maccabees (biblical), leaders of the Israel  247, 320n47 Maciejewski, Jacek 4, 119, 303, 309 Magdalene (saint) 188 Magistri Vincentii dicti Kadłubek Chronica Polonorum. See Vincentius of Cracow Magnus I / the Strong, king of Götaland, or possibly Sweden (1120s–ca. 1132), co-king of Denmark (1134) 330n105 Magnus III / Olafsson / Barefoot, king of Norway (1093–1103) 299 Magnus, canon of Prague Cathedral chapter, brother of Henry Zdík 110n91 Mahanaim (biblical) 116 Maier, Christoph T. 293 Malcolm of Monymusk, Scottish deòradh/ dewar 123–24 Malyi Donets, river 23n77 Mantua 234 Manus O’Donnell, hagiographer 103n70 Marchfeld / Dürnkrut / Moravské pole / Suché Kruty, battle of (1278) 120,  123n124, 150, 182, 185, 198, 273, 299n21, 304n36, 329n104 Margaret of Hungary (saint) 197, 218 Maria Laskarina, Greek queen consort of Hungary, wife of Béla IV (d. 1270) 218 Márianosztra, monastery 195 Máriavölgy, monastery 195 Mariazell / Zell 192–94, 195, 219, 314 Marienburg / Malbork, seat of the Teutonic Order 244, 253 Márkus, Gilbert 123 Marosvár / Csanád / Cenad, monastery 191 Mars, Greek god 120 Martin (saint) 87, 170–71, 178, 191, 324 Mass against pagans (missa contra paganos) 39, 169, 233, 301 Mass for the king and the army (missa pro rege et exercitu) 39, 169, 329

Index Master Vincentius. See Vincentius of Cracow Matthias Corvinus, king of Hungary and Croatia (1458–1490), of Bohemia (1469–1490), archduke of Austria (1487–1490) 148, 172, 184n77, 187, 189–90, 196–97, 198 Maurice (saint) 306 Maurice, abbot of Inchaffray (1304/1305–1322), bishop of Dunblane (1319/1322–1347) 261 Mauricius, Eastern Roman emperor (582–602) 182 Mazovia, Mazovians, Mazovian 3–4, 55, 253, 255, 257, 272, 273, 313, 318 McCormick, Michael 294–95 Mehmed II, sultan of the Ottoman empire (1451–1481) 226–28, 232 Melchizedek, Hebrew high priest 334 Ménfő, battle of (1044) 168, 174n35, 179 Michael Beheim, poet 224 Michael of Csák, Hungarian noble 175 Michael, Archangel. See angel, angels, angelic: St. Michael, Archangel Mielnik 60 Mieszko I, prince of Poland (ca. 960–992)  314n61 Mihály Szilágyi de Horogszeg, Hungarian general, regent of Hungary (d. 1460)  230–32 Mikhailov, Alexander 28 Mikołaj Kurowski, chancellor of the Kingdom of Poland, bishop of Poznań (1395–1399), of Włocławek (1399–1402), and archbishop of Gniezno (1402–1411) 276 Mikołaj Trąba, deputy chancellor of Poland (1403–1412), bishop of Lviv (1410–1412), archbishop of Gniezno (1412–1422), and primate of Poland (1417–1422) 245, 261, 277 Mikula, sotnik 64–65, 65n68 military saints. See warrior-saints Milvian Bridge, battle of (312 AD) 315 Mindaugas, grand duke (1236–1253) and king of Lithuania (1253–1263) 57, 58, 59 Minorita, Anonymus, chronicler 173, 183, 192, 219 Mitrofan, bishop of Vladimir-Suzdal and Pereslavl-Zalessky (1227–1238) 62–63

Index Modzelewski, Karol 331n110 Mogyoród, battle of (1074) 178, 191 Mohács, battle of (1526) 167, 168, 171, 220, 236–37, 238 Mongols, Mongol 10, 54–55, 57, 61, 63, 66, 66n77, 70–71, 71n101, 168, 173, 183, 191, 197, 210, 214, 216–18, 219, 220, 234, 238, 244, 249n17, 259, 328 Monk of Sazava, the so-called, chronicler  92, 111 Morava, river 113, 116, 175 Moravia, Moravians, Moravian 157, 159, 160, 191, 217 Moravské pole, battle of (1278). See Marchfeld Moroz, Irina 49n2 Moses, prophet and Patriarch of Israel (biblical) 309, 318 Mstislav (II) Danilovich, prince of Lutsk, of Vladimir-Volhynia (d. ca. 1301) 49, 55n25, 63, 71 Mstislav Andreievich, Rusian prince (d. 1172/1173) 12 Mstislav Rostislavich / the Brave (Khrabryi), prince of Smolensk and Novgorod (1179–1180) 38 Mstislav Udalyi (the Lucky) / Mstislavovich, prince of Tripolye (1193–1203), of Toropets (1206–1213), of Novgorod (1209–1215, 1216– 1218), of Galich (1215–1216, 1219–1226), of Torchesk (1203–1207, 1226–1228) 53, 53n15, 70, 71 Muhi, battle of (1241) 168, 216 Mühldorf, battle of (1322) 146, 148, 151, 160, 264–65 Murad II, sultan of the Ottoman Empire (1421–1444, 1446–1451) 224, 225, 231 Musin, Alexandr E. 9, 49–50n2 Muslims, Muslim 30, 31, 37, 120–21, 199, 224, 225, 228, 233, 237, 244, 295, 297, 303n32, 304, 336 Naderer, Max 337 Nadolski, Andrzej 260n54 Nagyszeben / Sibiu / Hermannstadt, battle of (1442) 196 Naples, Kingdom of 198 Nasiedle, stronghold 68 Neckar, battle of (1315) 151

371 Nelson, Janet L. 294 Nestor of the Kievan Caves, monk and writer 15–16 Neustift 233 Nicephorus II Phokas, Eastern emperor (963–969) 31 Nicephorus II, metropolitan of Kiev (1182–1198) 32, 35, 36, 39 Nicetas Choniates, chronicler 37, 184 Nicetas, bishop of Novgorod 11n32 Nicholas (saint) 59, 61, 71 Nicholas II of Gara / Garai, palatine of Hungary (1402–1433), ban of Macsó, Usora, Só, Slavonia, Croatia, and Dalmatia (d. 1433) 221 Nicholas III, pope (1277–1280) 304n36 Nicholas of Cusa, cardinal, philosopher, theologian (d. 1464) 233 Nicholas of Reisenburk, bishop of Prague (1240–1258) 158 Nicolas of Fara, biographer of Giovanni da Capistrano 228, 231 Nicopolis, battle of (1396) 220–23, 226, 234, 235 Nidaros / Trondheim 88 Niels, king of Denmark (1104–1134) 330n105 Northallerton, battle of (1138). See Standard (at Northallerton), battle of the (1138) Northern Europe 298, 291, 293, 295, 298–300, 326, 329, 337, 338, 339 Norway, Norwegians, Norwegian 88, 106, 107n79, 111n94, 327 Notary of King Béla III, Anonymus, chronicler 177, 180–81 Novgorod 7, 11, 11n32, 39, 61, 62 Novgorodian Rus. See Rus, Rusians, Rusian: Novgorodian Rus Novgorod Sviatopolchyi 61, 66 Novgorodian First Chronicle (anonymous)  6–7, 9, 11 Novgorodian Rus. See Rus, Rusian, Rusians Nowa Słupia 247 Nowe Miasto Korczyn 247 Nyír, province in Hungary 213 Oder, river 297 Olaf (saint), king of Norway (d. 1030) 88, 95n44

372 Olga (saint), princess of Kiev (d. 969) 12–13 Olomouc 159 omens, dreams, visions, prophetic signs (in connection with warfare) 18, 67, 83,  93, 95, 95n44, 98, 101, 109, 115, 117, 118, 122, 173, 192, 213, 213n15, 219, 233, 252, 252n32, 312–15, 315n62, 318–20. See also God’s and saints’ agency in war: miraculous, epiphanies, apparitions; rites of war: fortune-telling, divination On Saint Ladislaus King of Hungary. See De Sancto Ladizlao rege Ungarie Onias III (biblical), Hebrew high priest  320n74 Opava / Troppau / Opawa 51, 65, 67–68 Ordoño III, king of León (951–956) 335n116 Orley, Bernard van, painter 318 Otto I / the Fair, prince of Moravia (d. 1087)  191 Otto I / the Great, prince of Saxony and king of East Francia (936–973), king of Italy (961–973), and emperor (962–973) 211, 237 Otto II / the Black, prince of Moravia (1107–1126) 90, 93 Otto II, king of Germany (961–983) and emperor (from 973) 97n49 Otto III, king of Germany (983–1002) and emperor (from 996) 118 Otto V, margrave of Brandenburg, regent in Bohemia (d. 1298) 159 Ottomans, Ottoman (also Turks) 168, 183, 186, 189, 192–95, 196, 197, 198, 199, 220–37 Ottonians (Saxon dynasty) 100n59, 211, 297, 328 Oxford 233 pagans, pagan, paganism (also infidels, barbarians) 3, 5, 17–19, 25n85, 29, 30,  38, 40, 52, 57–58, 72, 120–21, 211, 302, 304, 313, 314, 331–32, 331n107, 333–38. See also Cumans, Cuman; Rani Rugians; Luticians / Lutici, Lutician; Wends, Wendish Pannonhalma, monastery 169–70, 198 papacy. See Apostolic See paremeinik (pericopes from the Scripture)  27–28, 29–30

Index Paris 36, 223 Patericon of the Kievan Caves Monastery (anonymous) 26, 41 patron saints. See holy patrons of polities and peoples Pauk, Marcin R. 99–100, 104, 111, 113, 334 Paul Tomori, commander of the Hungarian army at the Battle of Mohács (1526)  184n77 Paul, dux, Visigothic usurper 109 Pechenegs, Pecheneg 212, 213, 237, 238 Peder Olsen / Petrus Olai, chronicler 318 Peipus, lake, battle of (Battle on the Ice) 34 Penman, Michael A. 260n55 Pereiaslavl 5 Peter (Petrilo), priest in Russa 6–7 Peter of Zittau/Žitava, chronicler 146, 160, 265. See also Chronicon Aulae Regiae Peter the Hermit 236 Peter, Hungarian noble 228 Pezzarossa, Lucrezia 310n47 Philip II / Augustus, king of France 176–77, 269 Philip of Spanheim, archbishop elect of Salzburg (1247–1257), patriarch of Aquileia (1269–1271) 124 Piasts (Polish dynasty) 55, 272, 293, 296 Pietro Ranzano, bishop of Lucera (1476–1492), historian and humanist 198 Pinsk 58 Pius II (Enea Silvio Bartolomeo Piccolomini), pope (1458–1464) 234–35, 310n46 Piwowarczyk, Dariusz 266n85 Planctus destructionis Hungariam per Tartaros / The Lament for the Destruction of Hungary by the Tartars (anonymous) 218 Plantagenet (English dynasty) 311 Płock 3, 4, 39, 326 Płowce, batte of (1331) 252 Podiven, servant of St. Wenceslas 143 Pohl, Walter 108 Poland, Poles, Polish 3, 4, 39, 51, 54–56, 67, 88–89, 104, 110, 111, 119, 150, 155, 209, 226, 235, 244–79, 295, 296, 298, 303, 304, 311, 313, 314, 315, 324, 326, 327, 329, 334 Pollexians, Pollexian 296, 326 Polovtsians. See Cumans

Index Polyeuctus, patriarch of Constantinople (956–970) 31 Pomerania, Pomeranians, Pomeranian 3, 89, 96, 272, 293 portable altars. See tented chapels and portable altars, use in war Potkowski, Edward 307–8 Povest’ vremennykh let / Tale of Bygone Years / Primary Chronicle 6, 11n32, 13–14, 16–20, 25, 27, 49, 50, 334. See also Hypatian Chronicle/Codex; Laurentian Chronicle Poznań 250–51, 276, 315 Prague 86n17, 88, 90, 97n49, 117, 122, 126–27, 141–43, 147, 152, 156, 157–58, 159, 160 prayers (in connection with war) as thanksgiving / praise for victory 18, 24, 32, 59–60, 65–66, 111, 178, 185, 188, 189, 196, 210, 213, 214, 249, 251, 276–77, 329, 329n104 before battle and/or in war 4, 15, 15–16, 19–20, 23, 26n87, 27, 32–34, 38, 40, 59–61, 65, 67, 106–7, 109, 116, 149, 150–51, 167–68, 169, 171, 172, 191, 192, 221, 228, 232, 233, 234, 236–37, 248–49, 256–58, 263, 265–66, 268–69, 274, 278, 303, 309–14, 316, 318, 319–20. See also rites of war: invocations of God/saints by the clergy (or lack thereof) 4, 11, 11n32, 15, 16, 24–25, 26–27, 26n87, 33, 39, 65, 70, 102, 106–7, 109, 111, 167, 181, 189, 217, 221, 228, 232, 234, 249, 260n57, 275, 276–77, 318, 320n74. See also clergy, clerical order: chaplaincy and spiritual ministry to the army/rulers by for mercy, deliverance from the threat of death, protection, or safe return 11n32, 12, 19–20, 33, 60, 61, 65, 178, 217, 221, 313–14 for peace 13 for success in war by rulers’ progenitors/ relatives 11–15, 26n87 for victory 4, 11, 11n32, 12, 19–20, 29, 32–33, 39, 102, 109, 167, 177, 236–37, 269, 316, 328, 329 in the Bible 29, 33 in church/temple 29, 33–34, 171, 188, 192, 236–37, 249, 312–14. See also clergy, clerical order: chaplaincy and spiritual ministry to the army/rulers by

373 in tent 15–16, 38, 101, 102, 263–64, 265– 66, 265n81, 309–11, 310n48, 312, 316, 319–20. See also clergy, clerical order: chaplaincy and spiritual ministry to the army/rulers by; tented chapels and portable altars, use in war personal 25, 278 public, “home front,” on behalf of the ruler/state/crusade 13, 26, 27, 39, 65, 167, 173, 209, 210, 218, 223, 233, 274–77, 278, 328–29 preaching war or crusades 174, 220, 224, 226–27, 232, 236, 253–56, 301. See also rites of war: battle speeches and exhortations Prędota / Prandota, bishop of Cracow (1242–1266) 275 Přemysl Otakar II, king of Bohemia (1253–1278) 56, 113, 115–16, 115n101, 118, 126–27, 149, 150, 158, 159, 303–4, 304n36, 309n45, 328, 329n104 Přemysl the Ploughman (mythical), ancestor of the Přemyslid dynasty 144 Přemyslids (Bohemian dynasty) 98, 141, 157 Přibík Pulkava, chronicler 146 Přibyslava, sister of St. Wenceslas 143 Primary Chronicle. See Povest’ vremennykh let Procopius (saint), abbot of Sázava 117, 333 Prussia, Prussians, Prussian 3, 149, 158, 160, 246, 258, 270, 271, 293, 310, 329 Przemysł I of Greater Poland, prince of Greater Poland (1239–1257) 272 Pskov 7, 34 Radislav, lord of Kouřim 80, 80n6 Radu I / Radovan, voivode of Wallachia (ca. 1377–ca. 1383) 195 Rafael, bishop of Bosnia (1444–1454) 224 Raffensperger, Christian 5 Ramiro II, king of León (931–951) 335n116 Rani / Rugians 333–34 Reconquista 302 Regensburg 211 Reitinger, Lukáš 94 relics (of saints, holy) 81–82, 86–87, 96, 100, 107n81, 113, 123, 141, 147, 155–56, 169, 171, 173, 173–76, 185, 192, 197, 210, 219, 236, 238, 247–51, 252, 278, 299, 307, 307n39, 319, 330–32, 331n107, 332n111, 333. See

374 relics (of saints, holy) (cont.) also signa victricia (victory-bringing objects, war talismans): relics (of saints, holy) Rethra / Redigast, temple of Luticians 105 Reynold Basztely, Hungarian knight 120 rites of war. See also prayers (in connection with war); signa victricia (victory-bringing objects, war talismans) almsgiving 106, 210, 247, 248, 249, 328 “archaic” / “old” models of 98, 104–12, 125–26, 297, 331, 335 battle cries 181–83, 213, 221, 222, 226, 228, 229–31, 272–73, 274 (pre-)battle speeches and exhortations 4, 31, 32–33, 38, 40, 59, 63, 67–68, 104, 179–81, 217, 222–23, 224–25, 227–28, 228–29, 253–56, 256n41, 256n43, 260n57, 267–68, 269, 270, 320, 326–27 blessing the arms/banners 102, 169, 182, 185n79, 186, 258, 301 blessing, clerical, before/during war to rulers/soldiers 5, 26, 34, 34n118, 40, 151, 209, 227, 252, 260n57, 301, 321–22, 321n78 carrying or using: relics, crosses, holy banners/standards, monstrances 100–3, 105, 119, 119n114, 120, 121–24, 152–54, 155, 169, 189–90, 195–96, 210, 224, 231, 234, 252, 260n57, 299, 303, 307n39, 330–32. See also signa victricia (victory-bringing objects, war talismans); clergy, clerical order: chaplaincy and spiritual ministry to the army/ruler celebrating victory, return, adventus/ triumphus 17, 34, 59, 59n45, 94, 95, 154–60, 155n35, 156n39, 161, 185, 188–90, 210, 228, 232, 303–8, 304n37, 304n39, 314, 321. See also triumph, victory, idea of chivalric 118–20, 151, 161, 257, 266–67, 266n85, 272, 301, 309 confession and absolution/indulgence  34, 103, 122, 122n122, 124, 171, 224–25, 228, 259, 260–62, 260n57, 262n64, 278, 294–95, 303, 315n62, 326, 329, 331. See

Index also clergy, clerical order: chaplaincy and spiritual ministry to the army/ ruler construction chapel at the battle site 196–97, 252 crusading (characteristic of the crusades) 20, 122–24, 185n79, 186, 221, 225, 273, 296–97, 299, 300, 301, 303, 313, 323, 329 cursing the enemy 228 depositing booty and/or captured banners in churches 187–89, 191, 196, 304–7, 304n38, 304n39, 307n41, 320, 333–34, 333n114. See also banners, military devotion / worship before and/or in in war (or lack thereof) 15–16, 19–20, 23–24, 93, 104, 108, 113, 116, 119, 146, 148–49, 150–51, 161, 168, 169–74, 178–81, 209, 210, 213, 253–77, 304, 309–12, 318, 319–20 expression of joy 23, 32, 59, 65, 93, 160, 232, 256, 314 fasting 173, 179, 210, 233, 247, 310, 326 fortune-telling, divination 53–54, 58, 314, 314n60, 332n111 See also omens, dreams, visions, prophetic signs (in connection with warfare) gestures (walking barefoot, rising hands, handshake, shaking spears) 20, 54–55, 59–60, 64, 265n81, 270, 309, 316, 318 girding with a sword, knighting, becoming knight 151–52, 161, 168–69, 266–67, 267n87, 269, 278, 309 heading troops by the clergy 18, 155, 189, 190, 336 hoisting a holy banner as a sign of a conquest/subjugation to Christianity 301–2 Holy Communion/Eucharist/viaticum, taking of 54, 104, 122n122, 144, 148, 167, 171, 209, 213, 228, 229, 258–61, 265, 278, 294–95, 296, 297, 300, 303, 315n62, 326–27, 326n94, 327n95, 329, 331, 331n107. See also clergy, clerical order: chaplaincy and spiritual ministry to the army/ruler

Index rites of war (cont.) Holy Mass on the battlefield or on the way to it 100, 104, 122, 122n122, 146, 148–49, 161, 167, 168, 181, 186, 209, 223, 253–56, 258–59, 261, 263, 263n70, 264–66, 265–66n81, 297, 310n47, 311, 326, 329. See also clergy, clerical order: chaplaincy and spiritual ministry to the army/ruler in iconography 193, 213–16, 219–20, 318, 321–22 integrating/community building, role of 39, 90, 99, 104–12, 125, 127–28, 141, 180, 289–90, 322–38 invocations of God/saints 59–61, 67, 169, 182, 196, 210, 222, 238, 268 kissing the Cross / “cross oath” 21, 40, 55–56, 55n25, 175 kissing the icons 23 liturgy of war (liturgical prayers) 27–29, 39, 40, 233, 293n7, 323 morning, time of 15, 16, 106, 115, 146, 155, 177–78, 213, 219, 228, 231, 251, 259, 262–64, 265, 297, 312, 314, 319, 320, 326, 326n94 penitential 23, 38, 176–81, 326–27 pilgrimages to, and/or visits in churches before/after war 40, 170, 171–72, 173–74, 185n79, 189, 247–53, 278, 309 pouring tears, weeping, expression of grief 4, 23, 23–24, 54, 93, 151, 176–81, 175n44, 257, 268, 270, 276, 309 pre-Christian / pagan 25–26, 52, 57–58, 72, 104–5, 302 processions 55n24, 59, 63, 152–54, 158, 161–62, 188, 188n94, 190, 210, 221, 233, 276 profectio bellica (departure and march for war) 20, 59, 60, 65, 87, 109, 171, 184–85, 184–85, 185n79, 199, 209, 226, 236–37, 296, 321–22, 322n79, 336 propagandistic role of 278–79, 289–90, 303, 307–8, 321 prostration / proskynesis / bowing down / kneeling in front of holy icon/person/ relic or just on the ground, before going to war 23–24, 27, 59, 60, 65–66, 66n75, 178, 231, 272, 318

375 raising and/or unfurling banners 118–19, 121, 185–86, 222, 228, 256–58, 278, 303, 309 ringing of bells (or sound of bells) 5, 93, 95, 95n44, 156, 160, 190, 223, 233 singing religious songs 16, 19, 20, 23–24, 24–25, 27, 32, 40, 53, 67, 117, 119, 152, 156, 159, 182, 189, 228, 231, 257, 269–74, 276, 278, 303, 314. See also Kyrie eleison (Lord, have mercy), chant; Adventisti desiderabilis (You have come, O longawaited one), hymn; Bogurodzica (Mother of God), Polish anthem; Canon of the Elevation of the Cross, Greek hymn, Christ ist erstanden (Christ is risen), German anthem; Hospodine pomiluj ny (Lord, have mercy on us), Bohemian anthem; kontakia (hymns; Svatý Václave (Saint Wenceslas), Bohemian anthem; Te deum Laudamus (We praise thee, O God), hymn; troparia (hymns) submission to victors (including deditio) 18, 54–55, 63, 80, 90 taking vows to God/saints, if granted victory 113, 169, 178, 191, 195, 197, 221, 278 thanksgiving for victory 5, 111, 113, 154, 178–79, 185, 186, 188, 192–94, 196, 197, 210, 214, 219–20, 251, 276, 314, 329, 329n104 votive donations and/or foundations 90–91, 110, 113, 149–50, 169–70, 172, 173, 178, 185, 188, 190, 191–97, 219–20, 248, 249, 251, 303–4, 307–8, 314 Rhosia, metropolitanate of 36 Řip, mount 90–91, 110 Robert I / the Bruce, king of the Scots (1306–1329) 318, 327n95 Robert the Monk, chronicler 101n62 Rodrigo Jiménez de Rada, archbishop of Toledo (1208–1247) and chronicler 121, 316 Rodrigo Sánchez de Arévalo, chronicler 316 Roger of Torre Maggiore / Master Roger, archbishop of Split (1249–1266) and writer 217

376 Roman Danilovich, prince of Novogrudok, Slonim, and Vawkavysk (1254–1258)  56–57, 57n32, 58, 58n37 Roman Empire (ancient, Late), Romans 36, 39, 41, 259, 331, 336 Roman Empire (Eastern, Byzantine) 5–6, 7, 29–31, 41, 50, 86, 88, 184, 191, 210, 272, 273, 326. See also Constantinople Roman Empire (Western, medieval), Holy Roman Empire 90, 147, 298n20. See also Germany, Germans, German (also Germanic) Roman II Mstislavovich / Roman the Great, prince of Novgorod (1168–1170), of Volhynia (1170–1189, 1189–1205), of Galich (1189, 1198/99–1205) 52, 60, 65n68, 70 Romano-German Pontifical 169 Romanovichi (Rusian dynasty) 49, 51, 57, 58, 58n37, 59, 67, 70, 71 Rome 21, 174. See also Apostolic See Rosik, Stanisław 105n73 Roskilde 299 Rostislav Mikhailovich, prince of Novgorod (1230), of Galich (1236–1237, 1241–1242), of Lutsk (1240), of Chernigov (1241–1242), Hungarian dignitary 67 Rostislav Vsevolodovich, prince of Pereyaslavl (1078–1093) 26 Roudnice nad Labem (village, caste) 145 Rudolf I of Germany / Habsburg, king of Germany (1273–1291) 182, 299n21, 304n36 Rudolf of Rheinfelden, prince of Swabia and anti-king of Germany (d. 1080) 97n50 Rurik Rostislavich, prince Novgorod (1170–1171), grand prince of Kiev (1173, 1180–1181, 1194–1201, 1203–1204, 1205–1206, 1207–1210) 17, 35, 36 Rurikids (Rusian dynasty) 35, 36, 39, 53, 60, 64n65, 66, 293 Rus, Rusians, Rusian 3–41, 48–72, 110, 250n20, 315 Galician-Volhynian Rus 35, 48–72 Kievan Rus 3–41, 300 Novgorodian Rus 7, 11, 26, 38, 39, 60, 61, 62 Vladimir-Suzdalian Rus 9, 23, 26, 49, 61, 62 “Rus Land”, idea of 36, 38 Russa / Staraya Russa 6–7

Index Šabac 197 Saint-Denis (near Paris) 87, 87n23, 221, 223, 248–49 Sajó, river 216 Sallustius (Gaius Sallustius Crispus), Roman politician and historian (d. 34AD) 180 Salnitsa, river, battle of (1111) 18–21, 330 Salomea of Berg, princess consort of Poland, wife of Bolesław III Wrymouth (d. 1144) 249 Salomon, king of Hungary (1063–1074) 178, 213 Samuel Aba, king of Hungary (1041–1044)  174 San, river 273 San Felice, battle at (1332) 151 Sancho VII / the Strong (el Fuerte), king of Navarre (1194–1234) 121–22 Sandomierz, siege of (1260) 54–55, 54n23, 55n24, 63 Sarmin, battle of (1115) 120 Sarti, Laury 324n87 Saucourt, battle of (881) 182, 272–73 Saul, Nigel 328 Saule / Schaulen / Saules, battle of (1236) 7 Sava, river 184, 235 Saxo Grammaticus, chronicler 299, 302, 330n105 Saxony, Saxons, Saxon 93 Scharff, Thomas 294, 324 Scotland (also Alba), Scots, Scottish 88, 106–7, 107n80, 107n81, 108, 110, 249, 261, 319, 325, 333 Sennacherib (biblical), Assyrian king 33 Serbia, Serbians, Serbian 171, 175, 221 Serfőző, Szabolcs 195 Sermon on Law and Grace by Kievan metropolitan Hilarion 50 Seville 304 Sharukan, stronghold 18–19, 19n65, 19n66, 20, 23 Shumsk-Torchev, battle of (1233) 67n79, 68, 7 Shvarn Danilovich, prince of Galich and Kholm (1264–1269/1270), grand duke of Lithuania (1267–1269/1270) 57–58, 59, 275 Sibiu, battle of 1442. See Nagyszeben Sicilians 113 Sieradz 146

Index Sigismund (saint) 145, 171–72 Sigismund of Luxembourg, king of Hungary and Croatia (1387–1437), of Germany (1410–1437), of Bohemia (1419–1437), Holy Roman Emperor (1433–1437) 148, 152–54, 171, 106, 221–22 signa victricia (victory-bringing objects, war talismans). See also banners, military; rites of war: carrying relics, crosses, holy banners, monstrances; relics (of saints, holy) Ark of the Covenant (biblical) 332n111 Árpádian lance or Saint Stephen’s Lance 174–75 banner depicting angel (St. Michael?), used by Ottonian kings 105n72 banner depicting white eagle (Polish), at the battle of Grunwald (1410)  256–57 banner mounted on a cart (Hungarian) 184 banner of the Danes called Dannebrog 218 banner of the French kings called Oriflamme 87, 87n23, 119, 186 carroccio (Italian) 184, 184n76 cross (Holy Cross) belonging to Magnus Barefoot 299 cross belonging to Géza II 175 cross belonging to János Hunyadi 175 cross belonging to Rodrigo Jiménez de Rada 121 cross belonging to Záviš of Falkenštejn 175n37 cross called the Black Rood (Scottish war talisman) 88 Cross, Imperial (Reichskreuz) 179n51 golden, decorated with gold and/or precious stones 86, 101, 117, 118, 175, 189, 192, 219–20, 296, 320n74, 332n111 Holy Cross, Lord’s Cross, True Cross 5, 11, 11n33, 21–23, 34, 40, 59, 70, 86–87, 101, 109, 120, 175, 179n51, 299, 316–17, 322n111. See also cross, sign of Holy Lance, Imperial Lance 97n50, 102n66, 105, 118 Holy Sacrament placed in a monstrance on a pole 152–54, 162 icons 23–24, 60, 61, 62

377 image of the Virgin Mary with a Child (Schatzkammerbild in Zell Basilica) 192–96 labarum of the Constantine the Great 121n118, 316 Nail of Christ’s Cross (part of imperial Holy Lance) 174 pagan (images, statues of gods) 104–5, 331, 331n110 Passion relics stored in the church of the Virgin of the Pharos 86 Piast lance or the so-called Spear of St. Maurice 88–89, 89n29, 105 Piast sword Szczerbiec (the Jagged Sword) 88–89 relics (of saints, holy) 79, 81–83, 86–87, 96, 100, 123, 173–76, 197, 210, 238, 252, 299, 307n39, 319, 330, 331n107, 332, 332n111, 333. See also tented chapels and portable altars, use in war replica of the imperial Holy Lance made for anti-king Rudolf 97n50 spear in Master Vincentius’s narrative on the campaign against the Pomeranians (1109) 88, 101, 118, 296, 336 St. Adrian’s sword (German) 96n45 St. Anthony of Padova’s banner, at the battle of Belgrad (1456) 229 St. Bernard of Siena’s banner, belonging to Giovanni da Capistrano 229 St. Columba’s crozier Cathbhuaidh  83n15, 106–7 St. Columba’s psalter Cathach 103–4n70 St. Columba’s relics Breacbennach 123 St. Cuthbert’s banner (English) 97n49 St. Francis of Assisi’s, at the battle of Belgrad (1456) 229 St. George’s banner (Genoese) 333n114 St. George’s banner (Hungarian) 170 St. George’s banner (Hungarian), at the battle of Varna (1444) 224 St. George’s banner (Teutonic Knights’) 119n114 St. John the Baptist’s finger belonging to Béla IV 175 St. Ladislas’s axe (Hungarian) 173 St. Ladislas’s banner (Hungarian), at the battle of Varna (1444) 225 St. Louis of Touluse’s, at the battle of Belgrad (1456) 229

378 signa victricia (cont.) St. Martin’s banner (Hungarian) 170 St. Martin’s cappa (Frankish) 87 St. Mary’s banner (Teutonic) 119n114 St. Mary’s banner belonging to Paul Tomori 184n77 St. Mary’s banner in the Nicopolis campaign (Hungarian) (1396) 222 St. Mary’s royal banner (Castilian) 121–22 St. Mary’s royal banner (Hungarian) 120, 184, 304n39 St. Olav’s weapons (banner, battle-axe Hel) 88, 88n28 St. Stephen’s (King Saint Stephen of Hungary) banner 186 St. Vojtěch-Adalbert’s banner (Bohemian) 95, 96, 97, 97n49, 107, 333 St. Wenceslas’s arma (Bohemian, banner, chainmail, helmet, spear, sword) 80–83, 81n8, 81–82n12, 83, 86, 88, 89, 93, 94, 97–98, 98n50, 100–1, 106, 111, 116, 117, 118, 119, 122, 123, 123n124, 127–28, 145, 174n35, 252n32, 307n39, 333 True Cross stored in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem 87 Visigothic golden cross reliquary containing particle of the True Cross 86–87, 109 Silesia, Silesians, Silesian 159, 265 Simeon (saint) 59 Simon II Rozgonyi, bishop of Eger (1440–1444) 224 Simon of Kéza, royal notary and chronicler 120, 185–86, 198 Simon, bishop of Płock (ca. 1107–1129) 4 Simpkin, David 311 Skomantas / Komantas of Sudovia, Jatvingian duke and priest 58 Slankamen 227 Slavia Orthodoxa 25 Slavonia, Slavonians, Slavonian 221 Słupecki, Leszek P. 334n115 Smaragdus of Saint-Mihiel, religious writer  311 Snorri Sturluson, Icelandic historian, poet, and politician 299

Index Soběslav II, prince of Bohemia (1173–1178)  157 Soběslav I, prince of Bohemia (1125–1140)  89–90, 92, 93–94, 94n41, 97, 107, 110, 110n91, 156, 156n39, 174n35, 319 Soldau / Działdowo 262 Somogy, region 170 Spalatensis Historia Salonitanorum atque Spalatinorum Pontificum by Thomas the Archdeacon. See Thomas of Split Spiridon, archbishop of Novgorod (1229–1249) 34 Split / Spalato 185 Standard (at Northallerton), battle of the (1138) 96n45, 262, 268, 330 standard-bearers (miraculous) 109, 313, 333. See also angel, angels, angelic; banners, military; God’s and saints’ agency in war; signa victricia (victory-bringing objects, war talismans); warrior-saints standard-bearers (real, lay/clerical) 86–86, 88n25, 89, 90, 100–1, 100n58, 100n59, 103, 109, 121–22, 152–54, 224, 225, 231, 296, 330, 336. See also banners, military; rites of war: carrying relics, crosses, holy banners, monstrances; signa victricia (victory-bringing objects, war talismans): relics (of saints, holy) standards. See banners, military Stanislaus / Stanisław (saint), bishop of Cracow and martyr 251, 252–52, 304, 307 Stephen I / the Saint / Saint Stephen, king of Hungary and patron 120, 169–70, 172–73, 174–75, 176, 179, 183, 184, 185, 198, 211–13, 237, 275, 328 Stephen II Lackfi, ban of Croatia, palatine of Hungary, voivode of Transylvania (d. 1397) 195 Stephen III / the Great, prince of Moldavia (1457–1504) 187 Stephen Lazarević / the Tall, knez (1389–1402) and despot of Serbia (1402–1427) 221 Stephen Uroš I. See Uroš the Great Steppes, steppe, Cuman steppe 3, 17, 19, 19n66, 21, 23n77, 35 Stiria, Stirians, Stirian 52, 56, 112, 124, 219

Index Strahov, monastery 159 Strategikon. See Mauricius, Eastern Roman emperor Suché Kruty, battle of (1278). See Marchfeld Suchodolski, Stanisław 106 Sugrov, stronghold 19 Sula, river 52 Suleyman I / the Magnificent, sultan of the Ottoman Empire (1520–1566) 237 Suzdal 9, 61 Svatopluk, prince of Olomouc (1091–1109), of Prague (1107–1109) 157 Svatý Václave (Saint Wenceslas), Bohemian anthem 147 Svetovit, Slavic god 105, 105n73, 302, 333 Sviatopolk I Vladimirovich, prince of Turov (988–1015), of Kiev (1015–1019), murderer of Sts. Boris and Gleb 13, 16 Sviatopolk II Iziaslavich, prince of Novgorod (1078–1093), of Turov (1088–1093), grand prince of Kiev (1093–1113) 17–18, 27, 32 Sviatoslav I Igorevich, prince Kiev (945–972) 68 Sviatoslav III Vsevolodovych, Russian prince and grand prince of Kiev (1174, 1177–1180, 1182–1194) 17, 35, 36 Sweden, Swedes, Swedish 33 Sword Brothers (Livonian Brothers of the Militia of Christ) 7 Székelys / Siculi 219 Székesfehérvár. See Fehérvár Szekfű, Gyula 176 Talabuga, khan of the Golden Horde (1287–1291) 71 Tale of Batu Khan’s Invasion of Rus 50, 61–63 Tale of Bygone Years. See Povest’ vremennykh let Tale of the Battle of Kalka 50, 63, 66–67 Tale of the Battle on the Lipitsa (anonymous) 8–9 Tale of the Passion and Praise of the Holy Martyr Boris and Gleb by Nestor 16 Tamás Bakóc, archbishop of Esztergom (1497–1521) 236 Tannenberg, battle of (1410). See Grunwald Tatars. See Mongols

379 Te deum Laudamus (We praise thee, O God), hymn 152, 303 tented chapels and portable altars, use in war 15–16, 101, 102, 110–11, 229, 252,  252n31, 263–64, 263n69, 263n70, 265, 265n81, 267n89, 309–11, 309n45, 312, 316, 319–20. See also clergy, clerical order: chaplaincy and spiritual ministry to the army/rulers by; prayers (in connection with war): in tent Teutonic Knights (Order of Brothers of the German House of Saint Mary in Jerusalem) 119n114, 244, 246, 252, 253,  257, 258, 261, 262, 264, 268, 270, 271, 273, 276, 301, 303, 307, 309, 311–12, 316, 324, 329 Theodore (saint) 12n33 Theodoret, theologian, biblical commentator, and bishop of Cyrus (423–457) 312, 313, 319 Theodosius I / the Great, Roman emperor from (379–395 AD) 309, 319 Theodosius of the Caves/Kiev (saint) 27 Theotokos. See Virgin Mary Thietmar, bishop of Merseburg (1009–1018) and chronicler 104, 106, 182, 331n110 Thomas Gascoigne, vice-chancellor of Oxford University (d.1458) 233 Thomas of Split, called Archdeacon, chronicler 185, 108 Tihany, monastery 185n79 Tilovon Lorich, Teutonic Knight, commander of Elbing 307 Titus, Roman emperor (79–81 AD) 68 Tobias of Bechyně, bishop of Prague (1278–1296) 159 Toledo 87, 121 Tomasz Strzępiński, bishop of Cracow (1455–1460) 276 Tommaso da Modena, painter 144n10 Transylvania, region 213, 321. See also Gyulafehérvár Traska’s Annals 252, 314 triumph, victory, idea of 17, 20, 32, 40, 70, 90, 93, 95, 115, 127, 152, 154–60, 188–89 188n95, 232, 303–4, 316. See also rites of war: celebrating victory, return, adventus/triumphus

380 troparia (hymns) 37, 40. See also rites of war: singing religious songs True Cross. See signa victricia (victorybringing objects, war talismans): Holy Cross, Lord’s Cross, True Cross Trutina, river, battle of (1110) 326, 330 Turin 192 Turks, Turkish 25, 26, 192–95, 196, 210, 237 Typikon of the Great Church, Byzantine ordinal 29 Tyrol, region 142 Ukmergė, battle of (1435). See Vilkomir Ulrich (saint), bishop of Augsburg (923–973) 211 Ulrich von Jungingen, Grand Master of the Teutonic Order (1407–1410) 252, 267 Ung 177 Upper Don, river 23n77 Urban II, pope (1088–1099) 62, 246n9 Urban V, pope (1362–1370) 218 Uroš the Great / Stephen Uroš I, king of Serbia (1243–1276) 175 Urraca, queen consort of León, wife of Ramiro II 335n116 Ústí nad Labem / Aussig an der Elbe, battle of (1426) 148 Ut annuncietur (St. Wenceslas’s legend, anonymous) 77, 77n2, 80, 81–83, 89, 98, 111–12, 125, 127 Ut annuncietur II (St. Wenceslas’s legend, anonymous) 77n1 Vaillant, André 20 Vaišvilkas, grand duke of Lithuania (1264–1267) 59, 59n44 Várad / Nagyvárad / Oradea 173–74, 214, 219, 321 Varangians 6, 37 Varna, battle of (1444) 168, 186, 224–26, 230, 231–32, 235 Vasilko Konstantinovich, prince of Rostov (1219–1238) 12 Vasilko Romanovich, prince of Belz (1207–1269), of Brest (1231–1269), of Volhynia (1231–1269) 49, 54n23, 58, 59, 60, 61, 67, 69–70 Vasilko Romanovich’s Chronicle 54n23, 58 Vazul, Hungarian prince (d. 1030/1031) 176

Index Veliky Novgorod. See Novgorod Velislav Bible 145 Velislav, Master, chaplain and advisor of Charles IV 144–45 Venice, Venetians, Venetian 144n10, 192, 195, 198, 218, 222 Veszprém 170, 185n79 vexilla. See banners, military Via regia by Smaragdus of Saint-Mihiel. See Smaragdus of Saint-Mihiel victory-bringing objects. See signa victricia (victory-bringing objects, war talismans) Vidin, district (banatus) of 195 Vienna  189–90 Vikings, Viking 81n11, 310 Vilkomir / Ukmergė/Vilkmergė / Wiłkomierz, battle of (1435) 271 Vincentius of Cracow / Master Vincentius / Kadłubek, bishop of Cracow and chronicler 4, 65n68, 89, 96, 101, 296–97, 326, 336 Vincentius of Prague, chronicler 157 Virgin Mary (saint), Marian 5, 11, 12, 17, 18, 23–24, 26, 27, 41, 59, 60, 61, 65, 70, 71, 121, 150, 169, 172–73, 184, 186–87, 189, 192–96, 219–20, 221, 222, 251, 272, 272n112, 301 Visigoths, Visigothic 87, 108–10, 112, 324, 329 Vita Betharii (anonymous) 102–3 Vítek of Rožmberk, Bohemian noble 150 Vítkov Hill, battle of (1420) 152–54 Vítkovci, noble Bohemian family 149–50 Vitus (saint) 127 Vitus of Chotel, bishop of Płock (1187–1206)  326 Vitus, chaplain of Soběslav I 93, 95, 96, 98, 100–1, 100n59, 102–3,111, 115, 122, 123, 319 Vladimir I Sviatoslavich (saint) / the Great / the Saint, prince of Kiev (978–1015), of Novgorod (970–ca. 988) 4, 68 Vladimir Monomakh / II Vsevolodich, Rusian prince and grand prince of Kiev (1113–1125) 14, 16–18, 23, 26, 32, 40, 52, 60, 66 Vladimir Vasilkovich, prince of Volhynia (1269–1289) 49, 55n25, 58, 58n42, 63, 70, 71 Vladimir-Suzdalian Rus. See Rus, Rusians, Rusian: Vladimir-Suzdalian Rus

Index Vladimir-Volynsky 18 Vladimir-Zalessky 62–63 Vladislav II Jagiellon, king of Bohemia (1471–1516), king of Hungary and of Croatia (1490–1516) 148 Vladislav II, prince (1140–1158) and king of Bohemia (1158–1172) 157 Vojtěch-Adalbert (saint), bishop of Prague (981–997), missionary and martyr 90, 97n49, 112, 117, 155, 251, 252–53, 278 Vok of Rožmberk, Bohemian noble 149–50 Volhynia. See Rus, Rusian, Rusian: GalicianVolhynian Rus Vozviahel / Wozwiahl (or Zviahel) / Novohrad-Volynsky / Nowogród Wołyński 57–58 Vratislav II, prince (1061–1092) and king of Bohemia (from 1085) 97n50 Vsevolod the Big Nest / III Yuryevich, grand prince of Vladimir-Suzdal (1176–1212) 49 Vyšehrad (near Prague) 156, 157 Vyšehrad, battle of (1420) 154 Vyšší Brod / Hohenfurth, monastery  149–50, 175n37 Vytautas / the great, grand duke of Lithuania (1392 –1430) 253, 257, 266n82, 307n41,  310, 310n46, 325, 307n41, 309, 310n46, 325 Wallachia / Wallachians / Wallachian 113, 195 Walter the Chancellor, chronicler 120, 332n111 Wamba, king of the Visigoths (672–680) 87, 109, 111 war, fighting (also ideology of) against Christian enemies 247, 253, 256, 268, 278 against pagans/unbelievers/ heretics/schismatics/rebels/“bad Christians” 3, 17–20, 25, 30, 32, 38, 59, 120–21, 124, 170, 173–74, 178–79, 193, 212, 218, 219, 220–37, 272, 313, 314, 327, 329 as a holy vengeance 13–14, 256, 269 as a medium of baptism and Christianization / missionary 212 as God’s judgement 40–41, 79, 108, 154, 169, 197, 289, 290, 320, 324

381 as necessary evil 37, 41 Byzantine ideology/notions and/or customs of 6, 29–31, 34, 35, 36–37, 38, 39, 272, 273, 299n21, 300, 300n24 civil, internecine, fratricidal 19, 26n87, 31–32, 35, 37, 40, 58n39, 59, 158, 177, 179, 199 crusading ideology/notion of/ propaganda 20, 23, 30, 38, 98–100, 115, 121, 124, 125, 174, 223, 224, 229, 238, 293, 295, 296–97, 299, 299n22, 313, 315, 329, 336. See also crusades defensory (defence of Christianity/ Church/patria/votchina) 33, 35, 36–37, 38, 39, 108, 111, 111n94, 124–25, 181, 275, 300, 311, 329 holy (also religious war and God’s war), rhetoric and/or idea of 30–31, 38, 39, 41, 210, 218, 236, 238, 289, 296–98, 298n19. See also crusades just, just cause in, righteous, concepts of 23, 30, 33, 36–37, 39, 40, 148, 245, 253–56, 256n41, 267, 269 offensive 29–30, 124–25 sacralization / “religionization” of 30, 185, 225, 289, 294, 300–1, 312, 415 Western ideology/notions and/or customs of 6, 7, 23, 30, 31, 37, 301 war talismans. See signa victricia (victorybringing objects, war talismans) Vedeman, Danish noble and “pirate”, guild of 299 Veszprémy, László 268, 309 Vita Ælfredi regis Angul Saxonum / Life of King Alfred by Asser. See Asser warrior-saints 30–31, 36, 93, 101n62, 170, 224, 238. See also angel, angels, angelic; God’s and saints’ agency in war; holy patrons of polities; standard-bearers (miraculous) Wawel Hill (princely and royal residence in Cracow) 55–56. See also Cracow weapons/armor, spiritual, idea of 34, 61, 71. See also signa victricia (victorybringing objects, war talismans) Wenceslas (saint), Bohemian prince (921–ca. 935) 77–128, 78n3, 80n6, 81n12, 86n17, 90n34, 112n96, 140, 141–48, 142n6, 144n10, 161, 319

382 Wenceslas I, king of Bohemia (1230–1253)  56, 156, 157–58, 217, 328 Wenceslas II, king of Bohemia (1278–1305), of Poland (1300–1305) 141, 146, 150–51, 159, 265, 311, 311n51 Wenceslas III, king of Hungary and Croatia (1301–1305), of Bohemia and Poland (1305–1306) 141 Wenceslas IV, king of Bohemia (1378–1419), of Germany (1376–1400) 145 Wends, Wendish 293, 297, 299, 331n110 Western/Latin Europe and/or Christendom, West 5–6, 7–8, 23, 25, 27, 37, 39, 41,  57n31, 86, 180, 198, 209, 210, 211, 218, 264, 269, 272, 291, 299n21, 300, 301, 302, 323, 325, 326n94, 327 White, Monica 30, 31 Wiłkomierz, battle of (1435). See Vilkomir William I the Lion, king of Scotland (1165–1214) 123 William of Poitiers, chronicler 180 William of Tyre, archbishop of Tyre (1175–1186) and chronicler 88n25 William the Conqueror, prince of Normandy (1035–1087), king of England (1066–1087) 180 Wipo, chronicler 173 Wisła / Vistula 253 Władysław I / the Elbow (Łokietek), Polish prince and king of Poland (1320–1333)  55, 146, 150, 249–50 Władysław II / Jagiełło / Jogaila, grand duke of Lithuania (1377–1381, 1382–1434), king of Poland (1386–1434) 119, 177, 245, 247–48, 250–52, 250n20, 253–58, 260, 263–66, 265n81, 267–72, 274, 277, 278, 303, 304, 307–10, 310n46, 311, 316–17, 316n67, 325, 327 Władysław Jagiellon, king of Poland (III of Varna/Warneńczyk) (1434–1444), of Hungary (I Ulászló) (1440–1444) 187, 189, 224–26, 231, 276, 329 Wojciech Jastrzębiec, bishop of Poznań (1399–1412), of Cracow (1412–1423), archbishop of Gniezno and primate of Poland (1423–1436), politician 258, 264 Wolbórz 247

Index Wrocław 158 Wrota, battle of (1266) 275 Yaropolk II Vladimirovich, prince of Pereiaslavl (1114–1132), grand prince of Kiev (1132–1139) 14 Yaroslav II Vsevolodovich, grand prince of Vladimir-Suzdal (1238–1246) and of Chernigov (1176–1198) 21, 22 Yaroslav Svyatopolkovich, prince of Volhynia (1100–1118) 18 Yaroslav the Wise / I Vladimirovich, prince of Kiev (1019–1054), of Novgorod (1010–1034), of Rostov (978–1010) 13 Yaroslav, battle of (1245). See Jaroslav Yaroslav, Russian prince, brother of Andrei Bogoliubsky (d. 1166) 23 Yuri (I) Lvovich, prince Belz (1264–1301), of Galich (1301–1308) 59, 63, 71 Yury Dolgorukii (George the Long Arm) / I Vladimirovich, prince of Rostov-Suzdal (1157), grand prince of Kiev (1149–1151, 1155–1157) 10, 11, 12, 26n67 Yury II Vsevolodovich, grand prince of Vladimir-Suzdal (1212–1216) 8, 12 Zadar / Zara, Zaratins 188, 188n97 Zagreb 185 Žalgiris, battle of (1410). See Grunwald Záviš of Falkenštejn, Bohemian noble 150, 175n37 Zbigniew Oleśnicki, bishop of Cracow (1423–1455), secretary of Władysław Jagiełło, statesman and diplomat 245,  246, 246n10, 270–71, 271n108 Zbraslav Chronicle. See Chronicon Aulae Regiae. See also František of Prague, chronicler; Petter of Zittau/Žitava, chronicler Zbraslav, monastery 150 Zell. See Mariazell Žemlička, Josef 127 Zlatá Koruna / Goldenkron, monastery 113, 149, 304 Zupka, Dušan 79n4, 167, 295, 321, 323 Zvenigorod / Dźwinogród / Zvenyhorod 53, 61 Zwiefalten, monastery 249