Why should I become a Christian? The “Kristian legend” in the context of byzantine thought

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Why should I become a Christian? The “Kristian legend” in the context of byzantine thought

Vaclav Jezek

Abstract

In this brief account we offer a thematic and comparativist interpretation of the legend of monk Kristian in terms of its Christian ideology and philosophy. Our contextualisation and thematic analysis help also in the long run to assess the date of the legend. We ponder the basic question of “why Christianity”, which in dependance on whether it was significant for monk Kristian or not, reveals to us other historical realities of Bohemia and Moravia of his period. There is an internal dynamic but also contradiction in the legend. Monk Kristian perhaps on political motives sets to show how saints Vaclav and Ludmila are a source of unity and national identity. However, in his task he falls into a contradiction because what was promised was not delivered. And Christianity is anything, but a road to unity, accord, power that he promised at the outset, which he betrays in his historical information. At the same time an internal dynamic shows that the humble attitudes of Vaclav and Ludmila bring about the end goal or fulfil the promises about the worthiness of Christianity and its role, since their miracles and sacrifice unite and harmonise the state and build nationhood. A detailed, in-depth study of the thematic construction of the legend offers material for comparison, especially with for the neighbouring Frankish/German areas. We solve these tasks set in the study by comparing the “Kristian Legend” under research with Byzantine sources.

Key words: Saint Vaclav, Saint Ludmila, Bohemia, Byzantium, sanctity.

Почему я должен стать христианином? «Христианская легенда» в контексте византийской мысли

Вацлав Йежек

Аннотация

christian ideology philosophy legend

В этом кратком исследовании мы предлагаем тематически сравнительную интерпретацию легенды Кристиана, выраженную в понятиях христианской идеологии и философии. Наша контекстуализация и тематический анализ помогают также определить дату возникновения легенды. Мы размышляем над основным вопросом, почему христианство, которое в зависимости от того, было ли оно значимо или нет для Кристиана, иначе раскрывает нам исторические реалии Богемии и Моравии того времени. Имеется внутренняя динамика, а также противоречие этой легенды. Возможно, Кристиан по политическим соображениям готов показать, как святые Вацлав и Людмила выступают источником единства и национального единства. Однако он в решении своей задачи впал в противоречие, потому что то, что было обещано, им не было передано, тогда, как христианство является всем, что угодно, но не дорогой к единству. Как и власть, которую Кристиан обещал осветить вначале, он предал в своей исторической информации. В то же время внутренняя динамика показывает, что уничижительные установки к Вацлаву и Людмиле ведут к конечной цели и выполняют обещания относительно христианства и его роли, тогда как чудеса венценосных правителей и принесенная ими жертва объединяют и гармонизируют государство и созданную национальную символику. Углубленное изучение тематической конструкции легенды предлагает обоснованные материалы для сравнения, в особенности в отношении к соседнему франко-германскому пространству. Поставленные в исследовании задачи мы решаем путем сопоставления изучаемой «Кристиановой легенды» с византийскими источниками.

Ключевые слова: Святой Вацлав, Святая Людмила, Богемия, Византия, святость.

Introduction

The purpose of this contribution is to reflect on the so-called “Kristian legend”, in the context of a fundamental question. This fundamental question is “what were, the reasons for accepting Christianity and propagating Christianity in the area of Bohemia/Moravia in the period of saints Ludmila and Vaclav (For the sake of consistency I will use the Czech versions Ludmila and Vaclav not Wenceslaus)”. While there are numerous studies on the area of Bohemia/ Moravia (roughly contemporary Czech Republic) for the crucial period of the ninth to eleventh centuries, not many of these studies strive to offer a contextual/comparativist, but especially thematic analysis of the legend and the issues at hand. Not many studies offer a thematic exegesis of the events in the legend and use this as a platform for dating the legend itself and for further analysis. Discussions related to Byzantium are usually limited to the context of the Byzantine Christian missionary work itself, without attempting to offer a comparativist contextualisation with Byzantine thought generally and the historical events in Byzantium contemporary with the period of saints Vaclav and Ludmila. We are guilty also of a rather superficial comparison but at least we attempt to reach some conclusions in the small space we have. We will not discuss similar themes in the other sources on Vaclav and Ludmila in any detail, which would be impossible in a small paper such as this (even though they are crucial for a future general conclusion on the subject 2.

An important part of Christian mission is of course education, which is an important aspect of the Christianisation process and education and culture in this context has received attention in scholarship. But generally, we must be careful since education and intellectual pursuits are usually limited to a few people and class of people (rulers usually do not belong to them). There is a long term sub-conscious trend in scholarship to overemphasise the importance of education in the wider population.

We believe that a closer inspection of the dynamics related to paganism and Christianity as portrayed in the legend, will offer new insights into the historical events, but also perhaps to the dating of the legend itself. Comparativist studies are of course complex, and dependent on the criteria used. On a general glance, while Czech or Slovak scholarship has devoted extraordinary attention to this period and the literary works from this period, there are perhaps lacunae which sometimes paradoxically emerge in an over researched topic. For example, the scholar Karbusicky in the sixties of the twentieth century, in his work, had highlighted the necessity for a broader comparativist analysis of the literary works from our context, which according to him was prevented also by a Communist ideological platform. He wrote (in the naive period of the late sixties, where it seemed that the communist hold on society is decreasing-my note): “Not long ago, it was not possible simply to use the rejected comparativist method, which has been characterised as the expression of `bourgeoisie cosmopolitanism', and to show that the `so precious to the nation motives' are actually of Germanic origin and that the entire `old Czech legends' do not originate from any folkish traditions. The presupposed `folkish' aspect ofthe legends is a testimony, to the fact that throughout entire generations we have worked completely anachronistically, mistakenly with contemporary folkish experiences and projecting these on past material” [28, p. 9].

However, comparativist approaches or exegetical thematic analysis are in danger of various generalisations (in our contribution here it is also a problem) or apriori mistaken presumptions. Karbusicky himself, just as other scholars have perhaps gone too far in their overt critique of the sources, rejecting them as fabulations and mythologies just because they appear similar with other sources. Thus, an author such as the Bohemian chronicler Kosmas, is rejected for example by the scholar Turek as a completely unreliable source because his composition (Bohemian Chronicle) resembles themes from classical Greek works [59, p. 39]. Similarly, the German scholarship tradition of Verfassungsgeschichte, which attempted to prove the close alliance of the Bohemian/Moravian context with the Reich, could have easily used a comparativist thematic analysis to point to parallels or common themes between various sources.

Here we have to be careful in not going to another extreme in rejecting a tradition just because “themes are similar” to other events or traditions. Here again, for example, Karbusicky doubts the historicity of the female figure of “Libuse (Libushe)” mentioned by the Chronicler Kosmas because her life as is described by Kosmas remarkably resembles another historical female and the events of her life. He shows that the motive of Kosmas, where Libuse has other two sisters (Kazi and Teta), is found elsewhere 3. And that the life events remarkably resemble another notable woman contemporary with the period of Kosmas, a certain Matilda of Tuscany (1046-1115). Karbusicky then compares and finds a remarkable resemblance between the events and the power of the two women Libuse and Matilda, doubting therefore the authenticity of the former [28, p. 28].

Here we can project this line of thought also to saints Ludmila or the mother of Saint Vaclav Drahomira, and easily find parallels with similar themes elsewhere of holy females and their role in the state. The problem is that “similarity” has to be defined and we cannot simply reject authenticity, just because there is the remarkable resemblance in issues and life events. Therefore, an internal thematic study of the narrative itself has to be combined with comparativist methods to perhaps offer a more balanced interpretation. In the following account, we will not enter the discussion of the dating of the legend of monk Kristian, neither into the sources the legend uses or relates to, but only offer an internal analysis with comparisons with common themes from Byzantium in the overall issue of the emergence of Christianity in the context of Bohemia/Moravia.

Political and religious centralization

It is perhaps important to remind ourselves that there are reasons for writing hagiography and there are reasons for the fact that some hagiographical accounts were popular or preserved while others fell into oblivion or were forgotten and lost. From a theological point of view writing a saint's life is usually the result of Divine inspiration. The saint can mystically “reveal” himself or herself and some author will then write an account of such a saint. Or a particular saint is so popular among the public that a ground movement can stir a desire to provide for such an account. Or there can be a political or missionary desire to produce a saint for political or missionary reasons. Whether we adopt a theological or scientific approach does not really matter, because history itself has unpredictable ways of how a particular writer or hagiographical account is preserved. Often the reason why a hagiographical work and its particular saint is preserved or brought to prominence lies in the fact that a monarch or ecclesiastical authority simply sponsored such a work to be created, paid for its production and for its copies. Similarly, as, for example, the reason why Lenin's works inundated Europe during the period of the cold war was not necessarily because of the merit of Lenin's work, but because the political authorities printed so many of his works that whether one liked or not, Lenin became an important person to be reckoned with. The ecclesiastical context would see even in this occurrence the hand of God.

The legend of monk Kristian 4 begins with a foreword by a certain Christian brother associated with the name “Kristian” and is devoted to the second bishop of the “Prague church” (Dei Pragensis secundo pontifici Adalberto). Here we are speaking of Saint Adalbert of Prague (died on the 23rd of April 997), who is also known as St. Voytech/Voytieh/Vojtech 5. It appears that Voytech/Vojtech was the birth name and Adalbert a name received upon confirmation. Vojtech seems to be of Slavic origin, while Adalbert is a Germanic name possibly related to the meaning “noble shining” (adal - noble, berth - shining or bright). However, Vojtech, Adalbert or another name also linked with this saint-Bela (Hungarian), have also different meanings, and do not necessarily mean the same as the Germanic “noble shining”.

In terms of the Kristian legend, we must keep in mind the central reasons or historical reasons for such a work (and its saint) to be given prominence or preserved, especially, the dynamics of why and how its protagonists were artificially or not constructed. In any event, it is more than obvious that an emphasis on the protagonists in the legend is related to the nascent process of statehood and unification in one way or another, just as it was similar in other European contexts (for example, saint Stephen of Hungary and so on).

In any case the Germanic designation Adalbert linked with the local Vojtech can be taken for a description of the political situation and mood in the area of central Czechia of the period, where Slavic and Germanic elements intermingled. It is also interesting that in works written in Latin there was perhaps little attempt at associating the names Ludmila or Vaclav with existing Latin or Germanic terms/equivalents, instead leaving the Slavic forms more or less as they were (regardless of the date of the composition).

The date of the composition, its sources and authenticity are part of a long standing discussion, which has not ended until recently. The date of the composition has been variously placed from the 10th to the 14th century 6. Interestingly, usually authors from the Enlightenment were more critical to the composition. Some authors have gone so far as to identify the legend as one of the earliest if not earliest testimony to Czech literary tradition 7.

The paradox of the volumes of studies devoted to this theme is that really little has been done in terms of contextualisation 8.

In any event the legend of monk Kristian is an important testimonial to an increasing importance of the “local saints” Vaclav and Ludmila. It is also important to mention that the account of Gumpold, the bishop of Mantovia commissioned by Otto II (written around 980 and describing the life of Vaclav) suggests an external and internal competition for this saint among the local Bohemian and Germanic structures. Here we are not going to discuss the question of the dependence of monk Kristian on this work or Crescente fide.

Otto II (955 - died 7, December, 983), continued a policy of centralisation and monarchic power and interestingly enough married a Byzantine princess Theophano. Here we may note that the centralisation process was perhaps more advanced towards the west than in Bohemia/ Moravia in the tenth century. Otto perhaps realised the importance of saints such as Vaclav for his policy of unification, or at least that it would be good to pretend that he was a “universal saint” (common to all national contexts), especially after Bohemia and Poland submitted to him in 979. Claiming a universalism of a particular saint is good political policy (the same is the case with Adalbert, see below). The difficulties of Adalbert's position in terms of his bishopric in Bohemia are also related to this context. The Kristian legend is addressed to Adalbert, implying something like “here we have saint Vaclav and Ludmila” who are just as unpopular (as presumably you are-Adalbert).

All the more interesting is that monk Kristian (see below), complains that the locals in Bohemia do not value their saints Vaclav and Ludmila as would be the case, if they were from neighbouring regions. Here a context emerges of competition over these saints, but also perhaps betrays something of the date of the composition of the Kristian legend. If indeed, according to monk Kristian, the saints were not “known” or “valued” in Bohemia this would move the legend to earlier periods. There is a growing tendency to emphasise the pagan and morally difficult environment of Bohemia in this period, which would mean that Christianity or the cult of saints for that matter would have a hard time making inroads into the psyche of the area. We may note here that a tendency to centralise or rather “edit” “various accounts” of a particular saint is also related to a given goal or political/ecclesiastical purpose preventing possible dissenting interpretations.

In the prologue itself monk Kristian, does not deny that there were already existing sources that he encountered. We are informed that there are many “contradictory”, “not complete” or “differing” (“diversis composicionibus et non pleniter disertam reperiens”) accounts of the lives of Ludmila 9 and Vaclav 10 and that consequently there was a need to compose a complex account. Here there is a referral to Ludmila as the grandmother “of blessed memory” (“beate memorie Liudmila”) and Saint Vaclav as the “martyred blessed Vaclav” (“Passionem beati Wenceslai”) (Kristianova Legenda. Prol. 1, 1-10 [29, p. 8]) 11. Here the idea of a “complex” account can should offer us hints of the date and purpose of the composition. The emphasis on the Moravian missions at the outset of the legend can testify to a tendency to emphasise the Byzantine connection or Slavic environment, which either can mean an earlier composition or later composition (if there was an attempt to protect the Byzantine Slavic context of Christianity in Bohemia). A prologue emphasising the “need to set the record straight” is an important hagiographical marker. The writer sets a distance between his “objectivising” attempts and various “versions” or misrepresentations. This betrays a later redaction a “rethinking” of the themes according to some paradigm. The tendency to balance the Byzantine mission could also betray ties to the Sazava monastery.

The hagiographic emphasis, especially, the terms “blessed” should lead us to further reflection. While in terms of general world hagiographical tradition the story of Sts. Vaclav and Ludmila appear as rather ordinary 12, we can highlight that the story is from a political point of view interesting at least in its contextual situation. Thus, Vaclav and Ludmila are saints, but also rulers. They are further rulers in a semi-Christianised environment, which is further divided between Eastern, Latin- Germanic-Frankish and south-eastern influences, characterised by competition between local languages, and, finally, in the environment, where the kingdom faces many dangers from its neighbours, and, perhaps, is undergoing various efforts at centralisation. This can limit our scope of hagiographical comparison and analysis.

The striking characteristic of Vaclav and Ludmila is their willingness to accept death without the need to “fight back”. Here a certain saint Emmeramm of Regensburg (7th - 8th centuries), resembles saint Vaclav in his humility and overt acceptance of death [4] 13. The theme of a saint willingly and unjustly subjecting himself to death and torture is an important feature. The legend of Emmeramm also states that he was killed unjustly, (claiming to be the father of a child to protect the lady) and willingly accepted this. Lantpert the killer of Emmeramm also greets peacefully Emmeramm like Vaclav was greeted and then proceeds to kill him and torture him. The saint who, regardless of the injustice, accepts his fate without defending himself or herself is an important theme here. We can also mention another contemporary saint here that is saint Adelaide (born 931). After being imprisoned and tortured by Berenger of Ivrea, who desired her to marry his son, she married Otto of Germany in 951. After the death of Otto, she quarrelled with Otto II (perhaps in the instigation of Theophano), living with her brother in Burgundy. Her life story is remarkably similar to saint Ludmila, both being “interested” in evangelism.

The account has a patriotic tinge to it, referring to the saints Ludmila and Vaclav as “new stars who due to their virtues shined over their home nation Czechia/Bohemia and all its people” (“qui velut nova sidera lumine virtutum sua rumpa triam suam Bohemiam cum omni simul gente irradiant”). These patriotic references have traditionally led some scholars to doubt the authenticity of the Prologue, which then play a role in the dating of the composition itself 14. In any case patriotic references definitely do betray a certain context and ideological background. Here we can mention Coptic ecclesiastical narratives, which in a similar politically and culturally difficult context after the Islamic conquest developed a narrative, emphasising, national continuity, ecclesiastical continuity, martyrdom, and so on, in a context which was set against the new developments 15.

Elsewhere in the Prologue, interestingly enough, the author mentions that if areas of the Carolingians (Carlingorum) or Lothars (Lutheringorum) had witnessed such saints they would have deemed them in great esteem, whereas “We, who have no saints, and who have only these two, ... behave to them without dignity, .. .and even though day to day we see unworthy as we are the miracles they perform, as if in faithlessness remain...” (Kristianova Legenda. Prol. 1, 30-40 [29, p. 10]). The words are a very important statement for determining the purpose and possibly the date of the composition. We have a comparison with the West, and an obvious allusion to the semi pagan context of Bohemia. Why would these “national saints” fall into oblivion? Are we speaking of a period of decreasing local power and increasing foreign pressure? Or perhaps there was a tendency of a local Slavic monk to emphasise these two saints to preserve the local Slavic traditions or liturgical forms? This would place the composition within the orbit of Slavic monasticism in Bohemia or Moravia. Here Sazava as a place congenial to both Slavic and Latin Christianity, with certain independence could have been contextually similar to the mindset of this Kristian 16.

Interestingly the author has no problem in emphasising the Byzantine connection of Christianity in Moravia, and at the same time stating that Moravia accepted Christianity already “in the time of Augustine” (Kristianova Legenda. 1, 1 [29, p. 12]). This would suggest a reconciling attitude, not preferring or ideologically supporting one form of Christianity to the other, or, perhaps, a period of time, when the legend was composed and when Byzantine/Slavic influences were so small or extinct that remembering them did not endanger any official line or policy. A contrast is made with Bohemia, which appears slower in the acceptance of Christianity.

Further, Bulgaria is mentioned, which as is emphasised in the legend also accepted Christianity much earlier. The author of the legend is therefore not embarrassed to speak of Christianity appearing before the Byzantine mission in Moravia. Another possibility is that this could perhaps also imply an author who has no problem either with Latin or Greek forms of Christianity, but rather with a greater problem of the still existing paganism, which was probably not eradicated. What is also important, is that monk Kristian does not mention Methodius, but Cyril, who came to Moravia after Christianity formed in Bulgaria. Here the emphasis only on Cyril is very strange and at the same time important. Could it mean that the legend was sanctioned by those ecclesiastical clerics who simply did not want to mention Methodius and his ecclesiastical role? Obviously, this would imply that the legend was either produced or at least sanctioned in a period when the region of Bohemia was firmly in the control of ecclesiastical structures from the west and any associations with Methodius deemed not important. I am not sure if scholars have sufficiently emphasised this aspect. The mission from Byzantium is described almost as Cyril's one-man affair.

The Byzantine mission happened during a specific period of Byzantine history. It is a subject of discussion to determine what the Byzantines expected or did not expect from foreign areas bordering Byzantium or in some form of relationship. Here it suffices to mention Photios concept developed in his Epanagoge Aucta, where he believes in a kind of duality of power between the Patriarch and the Emperor. Here we read: “Since the constitution, analogous to man, consists of parts and members, the highest and most necessary parts are the emperor and the patriarch. For this reason, the peace and happiness of the subjects in soul and body lie in the agreement and harmony of kingship and priesthood in all respects” (Epanagoge Aucta 2, 8 [17, p. 59-60]; see also [20, p. 137]).

This neat political expression of Photios period is perhaps suited to the Byzantine period of his day. But we may wonder here, whether we can adapt this thinking to the context of Bohemia or Great Moravia, where it seems the power of the Church/Archbishop and the ruler was constantly in the state of flux or undetermined as is implied by the legend of monk Kristian but also other sources. Often in the absence of functional ecclesiastical authorities, the ruler provided for stability or vice versa. The Byzantine church/ state relationship of the period of Photios was undoubtedly dependent on the structures of the state at that period of Photios and Byzantium. It is important to realise that various medieval ideologies of state and church could function in one environment, but not in another, regardless of the desires by the rulers or states involved.

We may speculate that emphasising the sainthood of a ruler such as St. Vaclav or St. Ludmila and supporting their cult would provide an easy solution to the rather confusing ecclesiastical situation in the given area. The ruler would be a saint and ruler at the same time relativising the need for a permanent or solid patriarch-emperor context/relationship, where it was perhaps obviously not possible to produce one. Of course, the models proposed by Saint Photios have various modifications through history. Earlier the emperor Justinian seems to produce the same ideology. In his Novella VI, he writes: “The greatest blessings of mankind are the gifts of God which have been granted us by the mercy on high: the priesthood and the imperial authority”. (“Мєушта sv avBprnnmg ваті 5юра 0Bon пара т^д avrn0Bv 5в5оцвуа 9iXav0prnmag lepmouvn тв каі РаагА^а”) ([11, p. 35.27-29]; see also [43, p. 35]). The intimate relationship between state and church is a theme running throughout the history of southern Europe or the Middle East for that matter. The important issue to comment is the role of pagan religions as a cohesive force in such states as Bohemia or Moravia. It appears likely that pagan religion perfectly supplied the locals' religious needs and perhaps nascent Christianity was simply a politically advantageous religion to formally accept by the various rulers. Generally, an intimate relationship of also pagan religion and political power has a long history going on to the foundations of the Roman republic.

Here an emphasis on the sainthood of a ruler could be a rather cunning way of emphasising the church authority without the existence of a visible or stable ecclesiastical succession or administration and would easily also serve to confirm the legitimacy of the Bohemia dynastic and political structures associated with saint Vaclav. It is not a surprise that shortly after his death Saint Vaclav becomes a national icon, being used both by his enemies and even “killers”, undoubtedly as a way of legitimising their various aspirations or claims. A saint legitimises a dynastic line regardless of its various rulers and their status 17.

Ludmila is followed in popularity quickly just as saint Vaclav. In other words, whatever political “mess” there was at that time, associating oneself with the legacy of Saint Vaclav and Ludmila would be enough to gain consistency. We must remember here that the area was still semi-pagan at that time and that adopting “high” theologies such as stating that Bohemia was a “Godly realm” would be difficult. For example, in the empire of Charlemagne the structures would be perhaps more solidified in this context and it would be much easier to stress a duality of power between the church and state in the tradition of Photios.

Even so, the situation of the Empire of Charlemagne has a remarkable resemblance to the Bohemian context. S. Moesch observes: “There was time for Charlemagne to establish himself, as a powerful sole ruler, before acquiring the imperial title. In the generation of Charles the Bald, by contrast, there were intense rivalries. Rival Carolingians strove to win royal resources, and, throughout his reign, Charles the Bald, coexisted with brothers, and nephews with separate territories. He reigned for thirty seven years and was emperor only in the last two years of his reign. Charles the Bald was in a much less secure position” [36, p. 3].

Other political/religious ideologies can also be mentioned here, which apart from Byzantine notions could have been prevalent. There could be a tendency to emphasise ecclesiastical authority over the secular or vice versa. The Kristian legend mentions that, Moravia converted to Christianity in the period of Saint Augustine (Kristianova Legenda. 1, 1 [29, p. 12]). In an analysis of Augustine's thought, H.-X. Arquilliere argues that in the De Civitate Dei, there is a thought taken over into Merovingian times, which stresses the primacy of the church over kingship 18. In this sense, we can recall the difficulties at mission all protagonists have in Bohemia, which would undoubtedly produce disrespect to the powers of the state or rulers. It must have been more than obvious to people like Saints Cyril and Methodius, Vojtech or anybody else at that time that any Christianity applied by the ruler would be placed on very shaky ground, and perhaps it would be better, if the church kept a safe distance from political structures at least ideologically. An emphasis on the power of the church would seem more logical.

Here it would be desirable to mention the “sudden” popularity of the Czech-Church- Slavonic version of Gregory the Greats (540-604) homilies on the Gospel 19. The appearance and popularity of this work are rather strange in the context of Bohemia. The translation of Gregory's homilies was possibly made in the 11th century, in the above mentioned Benedictine monastery at Sazava. Later this work became popular in the Kievan Rus. While we may state that perhaps the Benedictine monks found it naturally congenial to translate this work of a Benedictine Pope, it is highly likely that part of the reason for this translation also lies in the congeniality with the political ideas of Gregory and his opinion about Church-State relationships, even if the work itself is an exegesis of the Bible. While the homilies were popular in monastic circles as a theological work, we may also state that part of the popularity was also perhaps linked with the political/ecclesiastical theories of Gregory, which were either referred in the exegesis itself or in other works of Gregory, which could have also circulated in the same context. The question remains to be asked, what were the ideas of Gregory on the Church/State relationship?

His political ideas are the source of controversy amongst scholars, with some stressing his alleged emphasis on the spiritual/ ecclesiastical power, while others claiming that he also had respect for temporal/political powers. Interestingly enough Gregory is an authority who advocated strongly the respect needed to be given to the Emperor and ruler. M. dal Santo mentions in this regard a letter, which Gregory wrote to the Emperor Maurice in October 596. Here we read: “Almighty God, who has made Your Majesty the guardian of the peace of our Church, preserves you with the very faith which you preserve in the unity of the priesthood, and when you subject your heart humbly beneath the yoke of heavenly piety, through heavenly grace, it is brought about that you tread on your enemies with the foot of fortitude”. (“Omnipotentus Deus, qui pietatem, uestram, pacis ecclesiasticae fecit esse custodem, ipsa uos fide seruat, quam uos in sacerdotali unitate seruatis, cumque supernae pietatis iugo cor humiliter subditis, caelesti gratia agitur, ut hostes, uestros pede, fortitudinis prematis”) [52, p. 57; 32, p. 459]. Gregory considered that the Empire was a “holy commonwealth” (sancta res publica) [52, p. 58]. According to M. dal Santo, Gregory appreciated the Emperor as “the most pious of princes” (piisimos dominos), whose office was bound up with the purposes of God [52, p. 58].

The rationale for the acceptance of Christianity. In terms of scholarship not much attention has been given to the internal intellectual argumentation of sources related to Christian apologia. We believe that a reassessment of internal apologetic Christian ideology in a legend such as the legend of Kristian can yield new insights into the legend itself and its meaning. The authors handling of Christian themes and theology can betray information regarding the work and its contents or audience. This is especially important to assess in areas where Christianity was not the predominant religion and where the hagiographic aim is to develop a rationale.

The fluid and flexible ecclesiastical situation in Bohemia or Moravia at the time of Vaclav and Lyudmila raises further questions, as to why accept Christianity at all, and risk all sorts of problems both in the realm and outside of it. Was it not simply easier to maintain a pagan framework? Here we come to the obvious conclusion, which was reached by many - Christianity offered culture and education.

Indeed, monk Kristian, speaks of Cyril in the context of Moravia, claiming that the reason why he promulgated the vernacular language, was because they did not know Latin or Greek, otherwise he would have not dared to introduce the vernacular. “But because I saw that the local people have hard napes and that they are uneducated and do not know about Gods ways, I found, only this means, with which the Almighty God inspired my heart and through, which I have gained many followers for Him” (“Si enim quivissem ullomodo subvenire populo illi, ut ceteris nacionibus, lingua Latina vel Greca, omnimodo id non presumpsissem. Sed cernens populum dure cervicis fore et omnino ydiotas et ignaros viarum Dei, solum hoc ingenium Omnipotente cordi meo inspirante comperi, per quod eciam multos illi acquisivi”) (Kristianova Legenda. 1, 34-35 [29, p. 14]). Monk Kristian states that then Svatopluk with his evil designs conditioned the fall of the ruler (without mentioning the name) and permitted the inhabitants of the land to remain half pagan half Christian, a situation Svatopluk supported (Kristianova Legenda. 1, 70 [29, p. 16]). This produced a curse on the land from which “until now” the land has not recovered.

Then the legend of Kristian compares immediately this situation with the Bohemian situation earlier on before the ruler Borivoj (Borivoi), who united the area. Before Borivoj there was a peasant of some kind who was wise called Premysl (Premizl), who began to rule the area after marrying some prophetess, who also foretold that he would become a ruler. The theme of a ruler rising to power from humble peasant origins can be found in many contexts, and traditionally Czech scholarship has thus relativised the historicity of this account. However, this is a mistake, since rising to power from humble origins is a common situation in earlier ages, and does not necessarily mean any kind of historical or literary dependence. For example, it is possible to mention Basil the Macedonian, who coincidentally also lived in the same milieu (811-886), who also rose to power from peasant origins. As John Skylitzes says, there is also an important semipagan woman, who foretells Basil that he will become a ruler emperor and he promises her to appoint her as a mistress of that area if that is fulfilled ([24, p. 123]; see also [26, p. 124]). Basil is further described by Skylitzes as nothing less than a liberator, since the emperor Michael squandered all money on various immoral people, games, and so on, and also on “transvestitites” (катєлш^в 5s каі то ©stov цєта gtap&v каі aasLy&v av5poyuv®v) ([24, p. 131]; see also [26, p. 129]).

As to the legend of Kristian, it continues: “But Czech Slavs, who are settled under the very Arktur and who are devoted to the worshipping of idols, lived as a horse beyond control of a bridle, lawless, without a prince or ruler without a city, move around randomly as dumb animals, only the shear lands they occupied” (“At vero Sclavi Boemi, ipso sub Arcturo positi, cultibus ydolatrie dediti, velut equus infrenis sine lege, sine ullo principe vel rectore vel urbe, uti bruta animalia sparsim vagantes, terram solam incolebant”) (KristianovaLegenda. 2, 1 [29, p. 16]). Here there is a narrative topos. A country living without God is at the same time a country full of ignorant, uneducated barbarians, “without governance”. From the perspective of Christian authors, we may wonder, what would be the advantages, they saw in “accepting Christianity”. Here, perhaps, as elsewhere in other works the advantages would be “order”, “rule”, “governance”. A kind of chain reaction could have appeared: one ruler accepted Christianity, because it was accepted by another neighbouring one, and this in turn legitimise rule.

The Bohemian ruler Borivoj (Borivoi) as monk Kristian recounts was a pagan, who happened to visit Moravia (Svatopluk), and was seated amongst pagans in a humble position as “pagans do” in front of the table on the ground 20. Here we must add that the situation does not mean automatically, that all were Christians at Svatopluk's table (which confirms the other statement, stating that Svatopluk tolerated both Christianity and paganism at his table), but simply that Borivoj sat “traditionally” as the pagans sit. In any event importantly, Methodius notices him, his humbleness, and tells him that he should be ashamed of himself by sitting with pig herders and not with “princes”.

The next dialogue is a fascinating one, setting the scene for the basic question: “Why would I consider to endanger myself in this issue, or in other words what possibly good can there be for me in the Christian religion?” “Methodius the bishop stated, If you renounce idols and evil spirits which dwell in them, you will become a master of your masters and all your enemies will be subjugated to your will and your posteriority will grow each day, will be like a massive river, into which various tributaries flow”. (“At ille: Quid, inquit, ob huiuscemodi rem pericli pacior vel quid boni michi conferet Christianitatis ritus? Si, inquit presul Metudius abrenunciaveris ydolis et inhabitantibus in eis demonibus, dominus dominorum tuorum efficeris, cunctique hostes tui subicientur dicioni tue et progenies tua cottidie augmentabitur velut fluvius maximus, in quo diversorum confluunt fluenta rivulorum”) (KristianovaLegenda. 2, 30-40 [29, p. 18]). Later, after tribulations, the “prophecy” of Methodius comes fulfilled, and the prince gained further power and children (Kristianova Legenda. 3, 10 [29, p. 24]). The acceptance of God or the true religion as a condition for successful rule and fertility is a famous narrative. We may be cynical here, and if this account is historically accurate one would imagine the state of mind of Borivoj, who sees his power dwindling and perhaps seeing the successes in Moravia, but also the possibilities of alliances, all of which perhaps went a long way in convincing him that “believing in the true God” results in success.

Borivoj accepts Christianity and was baptised by Methodius, and monk Kristian makes a point that before leaving Methodius “fully educated Borivoj in the faith of Christ” (KristianovaLegenda. 2, 55 [29, p. 20]). This note on education can be viewed as perhaps a defence against possible existing claims of the raw and uneducated reasons for accepting Christianity. Borivoj accepts being part of a new “political” or noble community “sitting” with a true political commonwealth.

Upon his return Borivoj faces opposition towards Christianity and returns back to Svatopluk to Moravia, and to bishop Methodius (Kristianova Legenda. 2, 65-75 [29, p. 20]). Given the promises of unity and power by Methodius upon the baptism of Borivoj this must have been difficult to understand for a person such as Borivoj, who had to seek refuge. Similarly, we read in the Annales Bertiniani that the king of the Bulgars received holy baptism and faced opposition by his nobles, and “they incited the people against him so they would slay him”. The king prevails, “however, killed fifty-two of the nobles who had especially incited the people against him”. The original text is more elaborated: “Rex Bulgarorum, qui praecedente anno, Deo inspirante et signis at que afflictionibus in populo regni sui monente, christianus fieri meditatus fuerat, sacrum baptismasus cepit. Quod proceres sui moles te ferentes, concitaverunt populum adversuseum, utillum interficerent”) ([2, p. 85]; see also [3, p. 150]). Another similar paradigm can be mentioned here in the form of the conversion of the Lazi. Similarly to Borivoj, there was the story in the period of Justin of a certain Tzath (ruler) of the Lazi, who was a pagan and who ruled the Lazi in Persia, but was subject to a certain (king) Kavad of Persia. As we read in the Chronicle of Malalas, that Tzath ran away from Persia and came to Emperor Justin in Constantinople to beseech him to appoint a ruler over the Lazi, and he would then become a Christian: “Accepted by the emperor, he was instructed and became a Christian and took as wife a Byzantine woman... after being crowned by Justin, the emperor of the Romans” (...каі 5sx0sig пара той РааЛєгад єфюиаВп, каі xpiGTmvog ysvo^svog ^yaysTO ушаїка 'P®^av... oi^0sig пара 'Іооатгго'и, РааЛєгад 'Praprnrav) ([23, p. 413]; see also [55, p. 121-123]) 21.

The Byzantine historian John Skylitzes, mentioning the dramas regarding the conversion of the Bulgarian ruler, in the period of Michael III and Theodora, speaks of “second thoughts” in the mind of the Bulgarian leader, who being initiated into the knowledge of Christian mysteries still speculated. Here Skylitzes account would seem more realistic and true for such situations. Borivoj, “gladly” accepting faith or for that matter any other Bohemian or Moravian ruler is undoubtedly a literary incursion. Skylitzes mentions that after the return of his sister from captivity in Constantinople (where she became a devout Christian) “the Bulgar ruler kept faith with his erroneous beliefs, clinging to his own religion even though he had been instructed in and informed all about the divine mysteries” (а,,' єтг t^v айтой ^OMmsv aпют^аv, гпд оі^ад 0рпа^ад є^пртпцєуод) ([24, p. 90]; see also [26, p. 91]). Skylitzes clearly and perhaps realistically portrays the situation, the Bulgarian ruler for various political reasons (including the imprisonment of his sister) accepted Christianity, and at the first occasion of political expediency simply jettisoned this faith. However, Skylitzes continues that after a famine struck his land the ruler reverted to Christianity 22. He also continues to give another reason for the Bulgarian rulers' desire to convert to his religion. Boris commissioned some monk to paint a terrifying scene of some sort in his palace. He commissioned some monk to paint such a scene expecting a theme linked with hunting which he enjoyed. Instead, the monk painted a terrifying scene of the second coming of Christ. This was also an inspiration for Boris to accept the faith (пара той 0slou єпшкопоо та 0sїа циат'прш агарі Trav vukt&v той 0s^оu цsта,ацPavsr Рапиацатод, тойто 5' syvraKOTsg ої той є0vо'ug aрxоvтsд, каі то коп^ t^v т^д 0рпа^ад цЈтаРо,^г) ([24, p. 91]; see also [26, p. 91]).

In any event, monk Kristian makes the point that Borivoj used this occasion of emigration for furthering his knowledge of Christian faith (perfeccius doctrinam Christi nanciscitur). This emphasis on education is again an interesting feature and testifies to the intention by the author of stressing this aspect from one reason or another (Kristianova Legenda. 2, 75-80 [29, p. 22]).

Interestingly, the legend emphasises that the people rose against Borivoj with one voice and with one mind, since he departed from the faith of the fathers and accepted the “unheard of” law of sanctity related to Christianity. Even if the author here exaggerates this unified opposition to Borivoj, the fact remains that it is an important indication for dating the work and for the situation at hand. Here regardless, of the mission of Saints Cyril and Methodius or even Christian missions before the period of Saints Cyril and Methodius it is obvious that Christianity had a hard time in being adopted in these areas regardless of political pressures either from the West, South-East.

The reference to “unanimous” opposition towards Christianity is also important and the reference to “renewing the ancient battle”. The text reads: “When the perfidious people saw this (the acceptance of Christianity by Borivoj), they renewed the ancient war. In the entire Bohemian nation, they incited a rebellion against the ruler (principis - here the Czech translation always place the term `knize', which is not problematic in itself, but may in fact misrepresent the situation projecting later titles and functions to this period), because he departed from the customs of the father and accepted a new and unheard of Christian law of sanctity. They rose against him in concord and with one mind, attempting to throw him out of the country, even to kill him” (“Que cernens perfidus chelidrus, propriis armis sumptis antiqua bella repetit. Populum cunctum Boemorum in furorem principis accendit, eo quod paternos mores relinqueret et novam atque inauditam sanctitatis legem Christianorum arriperet. Surgunt adversus eum uno animo eademque sentencia suisque eum a finibus perturbare conantur, seu eciam vitam auferre moliuntur”) (Kristianova Legenda. 2, 65-74 [29, p. 20]). The statement speaks political volumes about the character of the area and the pitfalls of introducing Christianity. A remarkably similar statement appears in Skylitzes, who mentioning the conversion of Boris to Christianity also states: “When the rulers of the people and the common folk learned of his change of religion, they rebelled against their leader and sought to kill him” (катє^^атаггє топ apxovxog каі avs^stv sanouSaZov). As far as we can tell this similarity has not been noted by scholars. However, in contrast to Bonvoj, who had to flee, Boris and a few followers manage to repel the rebellious people by “the sign of the cross” (пері awov oMyov ovrav Tpsyagsvog, топ атаирікоп тплоп nponyongsvon) ([24, p. 91]; see also [26, p. 92]). In any event the conversion importantly means “So that is how the whole of Bulgaria converted to the worship of God and the West enjoyed profound peace”. (“'H лааа BonLyар^а gSTsppn0gra9n лрбд 9soasPstav каі "Л Shatg stp^vn? ка9арютатп? an^anas”) ([24, p. 92]; see also [26, p. 92]).

The Kristian Legend then mentions our famous Ludmila, who was the wife of Bonvoj. She is not portrayed as a woman, who suddenly accepted faith, but as a woman, who fervently worshipped pagan idols and then just with the same intensity worshipped Christian Gods. Here existing piety is presumably redirected to new goals. “He had a wife called Ludmila, ... And as she was equal to him in the pagan delusion, sacrificing to idols, so she with just the same fervour imitating him in the faith of the Christians, but even more so, she surpassed the virtues of her husband, becoming truly the servant of Christ”. (“Habuit eciam et uxorum nominee Liudmilam... Que sicut par eifuerat in errore gentilitatis, immolando siumlacris, ita et in religione Christiana imitando, immo precellendo virtutes sui viri, facta est vere Christi famula”) (Kristianova Legenda. 3, 1 [29, p. 24]). The narrative of holy “pairs” of a saintly husband and wife, is a theme appearing in other hagiographic traditions. Perhaps there is a greater emphasis on the piety of Ludmila then on Bonvoj in the legend 23. Pair saints can be seen also in other contexts such as for example in relation to Boris and Gleb 24. Here the hagiographic story of Boris and Gleb and family opposition towards Christianity is related to our context. The two brothers Boris and Gleb are killed by the order of their third brother Svatopluk in 1015, and the story testifies to the authors' knowledge of the legends related to Ludmila and Vaclav 25. A political and hagiographical paradigm emerges, where the leitmotif begins to be propagated, which is the main goal of Christianity “identifying the good and the bad”. Christian rulers are good rulers, non- Christian are bad ones. It must have been obvious to all Christian missionaries that producing a reason for the acceptance of Christianity was pretty much difficult. A pedagogical device emerges for the ordinary folk to understand. Being a Christian means you are a good ruler. Bad rulers are automatically non-believers. The rationale for being Christian emerges on its own through the hagiographical story. Later a development emerges where the good ruler/Christian ruler is therefore the true “national” saint and guarantor of sovereignty.

Pious versus impious women

One of the most effective means of providing for a rationale in terms of legends and hagiography is to provide for a strong contrast between evil and good. Whether one is successful or not in producing arguments for Christianity one can always rely on a typographic example, the Christian rulers are good whereas the non-Christian rulers are bad. Thus, whether one understands Christianity or not, one can simply understand that evil equals paganism and good equals Christianity.

Bonvoj as the legend suggests was succeeded by his son Spythinev (Spitigneu), and then Spythinev by his brother Vratislav (Wratislau). Vratislav has a wife called Drahomira (Dragomir), who was from an area called Stodoran (Ztodor), which was in the orbit of “pagan” Slavs (Sclavorum paganorum), who gave birth to the sons Vaclav and Boleslav (Wenceslau, Boleslau). From a narrative point of view Kristian sets the stage for a duality. Drahomira is a pagan in contrast to the pious Ludmila and a description of her follows. Then another duality appears, Vaclav versus Boleslav, the former pious the latter a murderer (even though his piety is not so much expressed in one way or another).