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

Ludmila is described as a pious/religious woman. “Igitur religiosa matrona Liudmila” (Kristianova Legenda. 3, 30 [29, p. 26]). There follows a list of all her virtues, including sponsorship of Churches. She was “Pia atque mansueta in cunctis, omnibusque benevolencie fructibus repleta, in elemosinis larga, in vigiliis pernox, in oracione devota, in caritate perfecta, in humilitate profusa, in obsequiis servorum Dei succincta tantum” (KristianovaLegenda. 3, 48-50 [29, p. 28]). That is, she “was pious and mild in all things and full of the fruits of kindness, ready to give alms, keeping constant vigils, fervent in prayer, in love perfect, profuse in humility, ready to help the servants of God”. This emphasis on kindness and humility and love of this female reminds us of the importance of mothers and women in Byzantium. One can mention the high Byzantine author Michael Psellos, who elaborates on the femininity combined with “piousness” of the women he discusses especially in his funeral orations. Little research of the degree of convergence between being holy and feminine has been done. Even at first glance reading the legend seems to go out of its way to emphasise this piousness and there is an implication that Drahomira is almost like a male principle (in terms of her cold bloodedness) [37].

Saint Ludmila in some thematic respects resembles the fate of the Byzantine Theodora. Theodora faces a conspiracy of her brother and son, and we are told by Skylitzes, “Finding her reproaches intolerable (and Bardas not deviating in the least from his goal), they decided to rid themselves of her too, so that in the future they could do whatever without let or hindrance. This she perceived (for she was able to observe and to conjecture), but she did not think, she should take any counter measures, because she had a horror of killing and bloodshed” ^ovou; êà³ %uasr; ai^axov ºêôºèóîèàà) ([24, p. 96]; see also [26, p. 96]).

Further: “The empress Theodora was in the habit of going to the sacred church of the Mother of God at Blachernae both to worship and to bathe with her daughters”. On one occasion when the emperor and Bardas, his nephew, knew that she was visiting there, they sent Petronas (who as the narrative mentioned above, was her brother) to subject her and her daughters, to monastic tonsure. For the time being they banished them to the palace known as Ta Karianou (êà³ ev òî¿; êàòà òà Kaprnvou Ôàêòîðè; òºþ; nsprop^ouarv), confiscated all the wealth they possessed and stipulating that henceforth they were to live as private citizens, not in imperial style. But Theodora departed this life not long after that: the emperor Basil subsequently her body and her daughters to remain in the Mamme monastery, which was renamed Gastria ([24, p. 97]; see also [26, p. 98]).

We are told by monk Kristian that Vaclav is given an education by Vratislav, in the “laws of God” and “writing” on the castle in Budec (in lege divina litteris imbuendum tradiderat in civitatem, que Budecz) (Kristianova Legenda. 3, 70 [29, p. 28]). Vaclav according to the legend is given over for further instruction to Ludmila (because he was not yet an adult). As it was said, Michael Psellos is here, perhaps, the most poignant author, who would emphasise the role of the mother in education [35, p. 59.5b]. The role of the mother, grandmother or any other female in terms of education is undoubtedly related to Byzantine thought. The implication in any event is that “you do not become a Christian out of nowhere”26, being good means being educated, in the Byzantine context instructed by a mother, grandmother or any other female.

Perhaps an intention of manufacturing an evil opposition to Ludmila, is confirmed by how the account speaks of the envy of Drahomira (Dragomir) the mother of Vaclav against Ludmila, and her fear of intrigues by the latter against her. This is rather strange, since we can imagine that automatically the succession would go through the sons of Drahomira, and it would be unlikely that Drahomira would fear intrigues from Ludmila. Perhaps, the story betrays a deeper problem related to faith, where the division was not in terms of dynastic problems, but related to the Christian fraction (represented by Ludmila) against pagan traditions promulgated by Drahomira. In any case the duality is emphasised by the stress on Kain and Abel, and evil women such as Jezebel. The role of Drahomira is also negative in the Second Slavic legend of St. Vaclav [21].

Vaclav has a dream which he himself interprets and sees the death of Ludmila through conspiracy. Importantly, he interprets his dream also to mean that “the priesthood given to our protection will be sorrowfully chased out of the country, and that it will without reason lose its possessions by the actions of his mother, who hates the living faith” (cleri nostro inclusi tutamine miserabilem prefingit e regno expulsionem tociousque substancie non debitam amissionem. Enim vero execrabilis memorie genitrix mea secte vitali) (KristianovaLegenda. 3, 155 [29, p. 34]).

The account specifies that he had wonderful interpretative abilities combined with prophetic abilities. “In his clever prediction/premonition his spirit knowledge able of the truth was not mistaken, but in complete accord with his interpretations, of the destruction of the said matrona, about the cruel expulsion of the priesthood, which has from various close areas gladly accepted his rule or rather his great generosity”. (“Hac denique sagacis coniectura predivinacionis mens veri conscia minime frustratur, sed ut interpretations congrua sonuerunt indicia erga iam scripte perempcionem matrone clerique longo adiacencium ambitu regionum in eius subieccionem”) (Kristianova Legenda. 3, 166 [29, p. 34]).

Interestingly enough the account betrays that those priests expelled were from “neighbouring areas”. These could have included various missionaries from Byzantium (and other close areas) or anyone from a neighbouring region. It is also possible that since they were from neighbouring areas, their expulsion was not the result of an ideological battle, but simply from the fact that they were somehow uncomfortably set with some ruler or the new ruler. Perhaps, these aligned themselves too closely with the ruler and were expelled on account of this. They were attracted by his “generosity” and not because of some other ideological reason. The emphasis on the expulsion of clerics is also very interesting. In terms of expulsions of this type, we can state that the Bohemian/Moravian context is unique 27. In any event, it is possible to speak of various phases of expulsions, from Bohemia, from Moravia and so on.

Needless to say, the kind of fluid and conflicting period of competing Christianity and paganism resembles other contexts such as for example, the Bulgarian one. Here a similar situation arises with Christianity being used or utilised in political calculations such as was the case in the period of Khan Boris (852-889).

The situation politically was similar, since just as in the southern context so in the Bohemian/Moravian context, there were strong and powerful neighbours (Bulgaria - Byzantium, Frankish Empire), a process of centralisation and unification of various ethnic groups (in Bulgaria the Slavs and Bulgarians). T. Notari offers the reasons for the acceptance of Christianity in the Bulgarian context “through, the clergy loyal to the prince he would be able to influence the population, and the centralised ecclesiastical organisation could be instrumental in driving back the Bulgarians; secondly, Christian religion seemed to provide a channel for merging the Slavs and the Bulgarians; thirdly, the Christian rulers wide power made known to Boris both in Byzantium and the Frankish Empire seemed undoubtedly tempting to the khan” [41, p. 446].

If we accept that pagan religion had its priesthood in one form or another, that there were possibly ethnic and national pagan religions, further a priesthood aligned with the local rulers, accepting Christianity in place of paganism would not make much sense. Paganism could have easily played a role as a unifying religion, a religion supporting the power of the ruler, a religion which unified various ethnic or rational groups, and as a unifying force in opposition to the pressures of neighbouring powers. These reasons therefore cannot explain the rapid or successful emergence of Christianity. Boris I was not in a similar position as Rastislav, since his neighbour was Byzantium itself, and thus we can understand that Boris I speculated at first and decided to accept Christianity from the Franks and not the Byzantines. Meeting Louis the German, the Eastern Frankish ruler in 862 in Tulln, he promised support of Bulgarian troops against the Moravians and expected Frankish missionaries in Bulgaria to begin work ([2]; cit. by [15, p. 119]).

We do not have the space to deal with the Bulgarian context, but we may mention that in the interaction between the Bulgarians and the Byzantines and the Latins, some ideas as to the role of Christianity for the Bulgarians emerged [42, p. 51]. For example, the letter of Patriarch Photios to Boris does mention that cooperation between state and Church is agreeable and can produce harmony (homonoia) 28.

Whether this would be convincing or not is a difficult question. Does the state need religion as a partner? Perhaps we can argue that, for example, in pagan Rome, there was no need to form partnerships between state and church because religion was more or less conflated with the state: state officials were at the same time priests and so on, the population preserved piety (pietas) as a precondition for success in the state. Instead of partnerships there was the relationship between God and Rome and not between Rome and the Church. Of one urbs aeterna taking and unifying all supported by Jove. The Roman ideas of unity seemed to avoid an overt emphasis on religion as a unifying force [6, esp. p. 434].

In relation to the troubles the Bulgarian ruler faced against him Pope Nicholas had no doubt that these were “on account of the Christian religion” (propter Christianum religionem) ([38, p. 593]; see also [49]). The Bulgarian ruler prevailed and in contrast to the Bohemian context the “Christian king” firmly established his rule. B.A. Todorov rightly states the importance of the emphasis on conversion of the entire Bulgarian people not only the king here 29. In the Bohemian context, it would seem to be difficult to find a similar reference.

The prophetic voice of the ruler and his interpretative abilities, serve here to enhance the idea of the willingly suffering servant, “who knows” that he or she will suffer or die, predicts this and yet does nothing about it. It is possible to suggest that this willingness and full acceptance of one's fate is typical for literary compositions of our context. Saint Vaclav's willingness to die and to the last moment be passive about his fate is remarkable and needs to be stressed. Foreknowledge and prophetic interpretation in the political context of Byzantium do appear often in this regard. The historical works of, for example, Michael Psellos (especially the Chronographia) [34], Skylitzes or other authors betray an interplay of miraculous occurrences, God's will, and divine interventions in the political careers of various Byzantine rulers. In the Bohemian/Moravian context prophetic elements in relation to political rule, combined with a kind of semi pagan/ Christian context appear also in such later works as Kosma's Chronicle. Kosmas has no problem associating even pagan prophecies or traditions with later good Christian rule.

A similar combination of pagan and Christian elements could be successfully combined in terms of providence, good fortune or prophetic contexts in relation to rule or military requirements as is also shown in, for example, a military manual from Byzantium, from the tenth century 30, written during the reign of Constantine VII (945-959), based on a lost work by a certain Leo Katakylas, a high ranking official under Leo VI Constantine's father. The work recommends what kind of books the ruler should take on his campaign to Anatolia. These include a book on Liturgy (p àêî^î^à òðä âêê^ðÛàä), and an oneirocritical book (PrpMov tov ovsipoKpvrnv) 31. Undoubtedly both in the pagan and Christian contexts, dreams, prophecies were important factors. Here there is perhaps a difference since, in the Bohemian context, foreknowledge does not result in changing the course of one's behaviour but a “pious” acceptance of one's fate.

On the other hand, in another text of a military nature from the 10th century also, called Constituciones Tacticae, by Leo VI, we read: “Nothing about dreams seems reliable to me. But, in time, of war, it is useful and even necessary, to fabricate (them) and to persuade the soldiers to believe your dreams that promise victory”. And father: “For, thinking that the dream that you narrate is a portent from God, they will attack the enemy courageously, and steadily, and their bravery will be doubled by their eagerness” ([30, col. 1061A]; see also [33, p. 426]). This latter realism would perfectly sit with the realpolitik of the Bohemian/Moravian areas.

In the next chapter of the Kristian legend, the “servant of Christ” Ludmila also foretells the future and called the priest Paul to serve a liturgical service (literally: Prescia vero Christi, memorata famula futurorum). As we have stated above, the paradigms here are interesting in themselves, since the Christian “good rulers” presumably know, how to predict future, they know something bad is going to happen “yet they submit to the will of God” so to speak. She “expects” fully what is to come and is “fully reconciled”. The Holy woman attended a service with the said priest, confessed and partook of the blood and the body of Christ (“se corporis et sanguinis”). This sufficiently unexplored remark (in the sense of liturgical context) by scholars betrays a clear idea of the type of Liturgical service conducted on that occasion and the liturgical situation of that period (KristianovaLegenda. 4, 15 [29, p. 36]). Ludmila is killed, fully accepting her fate by the hands of the killers. We may remark that the emphasis on the humility of Ludmila and saint Vaclav can betray a later date of the legend, since an idea of a too succumbing ruler who gladly accepts his Christian duty to die is perhaps a theme developed later or at least emphasised in contexts, where Christianity was already strongly present, and it was only necessary to “fine tune” the idea of self-sacrifice.

After the death of Ludmila 32, the account states that the perpetrators of the crime, after a brief period of joy, fell into disaccord. Discord is thus portrayed as the consequence of evil (“discordiarum”). The devil is the prince of discord (“principe disordiarum dyabolo”) (Kristianova Legenda. 4, 75 [29, p. 39]). Later a miracle happens at the site of the tomb of Ludmila, where a scent (suavissimi odoris) arose from her tomb, and this was seen by the “woman ruler who murdered her”. The murdered woman built a basilica over the tomb and the house of Ludmila dedicated to the Archangel Michael, so that the miracle would be attributed to the relics of the saints held in that church and not to Ludmila.

Saint Vaclav: power of powerlessness. Apart from contrasting or offering dualities, a possible avenue of any hagiographical apology is to show that accepting one's fate can lead to liberation. A defeat is actually a victory. In a sense this does resonate with pagan mentalities, since the idea of “sacrifice” is present in pagan thought. However, in the Christian context it is radically transformed.

Vaclav is juxtaposed with the humble Ludmila, his election was sanctioned by God. “In that time this was happening, the blessed Vaclav, who was elected through Christs inspiration as a ruler... Deep in his memory he held that which he was taught by his teacher of writing, was eager to fulfil in deed what he learned by hearing”. (Hi is ita gestis annuente Christo olim electus dux beatus Wenceslaus... cunctaque, que a pedagogo apicum sibi tradita fuerant, alta memoria revolvens, animo estuanti opere implere cupiebat, quod aure perceperat). The passage is interesting since it links education with conduct. Education leads to proper and virtuous conduct. A mention of the “election” of Vaclav is also very interesting, since it betrays the manner how he received power. It is rather strange that the election is mentioned here, when there is a discussion of the youth of Vaclav and presumably his unpreparedness to rule due to age 33.

Did this election happen before he reached maturity or was this reference a note from the writer mentioned a later event? In an event, the testimony regardless of the date of the legend would confirm to the general perception of the period as a period of fluid governance, with no clear strong central control. A situation of various semi-independent rulers fighting for control and loose political structures, with elements of elections must have been a problem for the effective defence of the regions involved. The centralised monarchic structures, which were forming in the West at that time, posed a great challenge and danger for such areas. The theme of “disunity” or “mutual disagreements” is unsurprisingly prominent also in relation to the hagiographic sources elsewhere.

The political instabilities and other issues that we would expect to lie behind the problems are hidden by a simple Christian dialectic of evil versus Christian values and rulership. The real problem is not politics here, but simply the monkish aspirations of Saint Vaclav as we are told by the legend.

Thus, the account continues stating, that his mother counselled with some other people: “What will we do, to what shall we turn! Because our ruler, who was raised by us to the throne, was corrupted by priests and became almost a monk, does not permit us to continue with our steep and habitual road of foul ways”. (“Heu, quid agimus, quove nosmet vertemus? Princeps siquidem noster, qui a nobis in regni fastigio sublimatus est, perversus a clericis et ceu monachusfactus, per abruptam et avetam viciorum nostrorum semitam nos gradi non sinit”) (Kristianova Legenda. 5, 10 [29, p. 43]) 34.

The account describes how the various monks and priests of Vaclav were persecuted and how they were subsequently restricted from reaching him. “Since these godless people attempted to kill his priests and some monks, through whose education he was strengthened”. (“Si quidem et clericos eius et quosdam religiosos, quorum doctrina pise pascebatur, insidiis assiduis impii appetentes”). Interestingly the word “some” (“quosdam”) appears here in the connection with the monks. The context could suggest that we are not speaking here of an opposition against Christianity as such or towards Christian clerics, but to “some” clerics/monks. This could mean that either there was a conflict between various Christian groups or beliefs, or there was a political reason, where there was opposition to some Christian figures, who were on the wrong side of the barricade. As we have implied perhaps monk Kristian is interpolating an all too simplistic situation here of Christianity versus paganism or evil, whereas the reality could have been more complex. It is more likely that there was a conflict between strands of Christian culture and Vaclav belonged to one strand whereas his mother and others belonged to another, not speaking of the possibilities of political issues involved. Further, we are told that Vaclav was forced to hide his little book, “Codicellulumque” (Kristianova Legenda. 5, 30 [29, p. 44]). One is tempted to speculate that this little book, perhaps, contained Slavic letters.

Monk Kristian uses the perceived piety of Vaclav to argue that his beliefs resulted in him rejecting the powers of his Mother and others. Vaclav is on a conflict path “because of his beliefs”. As the account continues, this situation evolved into Vaclav called for his mother and rulers and told them that he would no longer listen to them or be subjected to the irregency . The kind of conflict in terms of regency reminds us here of the Empress Irene and Constantine VI. A conflict emerges between the protagonists, between the various sides, and Vaclav decides to send away his mother until things settle down.

Importantly, monk Kristian writes: “There was a great discord among them for this matter (Vaclav's desire to serve God), but also for other things, among those who remained at the side of the pious ruler and the others, who supported the evil side of the godless female ruler. The counsellors and important men of the country were divided among themselves and the thorns of discord had grown forth till blood was shed. But the side of the just, even though very small, had prevailed above the side of the unjust, as always not unified”. (“Orta est postmodum pro eiusdem rei causa variisque rebus aliis dissidio pergrandis viros inter Ipsos primarios, qui later ducis religios inherebant, et inter reliquos, qui partes nequissimas domine impie iuvabant. Divisique sunt consiliarii in invicem et primates terre, discordiarumque inter eos spine pullulaverunt ad sanguinis usque effusionem. Verum pars iustorum, licet minima foret, prevaluit tamen adversus partem multimodam, ut semper, iniquorum”) (KristianovaLegenda. 5, 47-54 [29, p. 44-46]).

Here in this very important paragraph, we see the main argument of monk Kristian. Being against God, being godless automatically results in being in discord and disharmony. Monk Kristian betrays himself in the first line, because he states that the great discord which emerged among them was also because of “other things” and therefore could not have been solely the result of issues of religion (if religion played any role at all for that matter). Possibly, we are simply speaking of a common conflict among rulers or about pressures from succession battles. Monk Kristian, however, sets all solely in the context of a battle between Godlessness and piety. There can be no doubt for those thinking about the role of Christianity, Christianity is here to offer harmony and accord and unity. The smaller side will prevail, Christianity will give the power to prevail, just as it did for Constantine the Great or any other ruler, who will put the cross on his banner.

The result is the exile of the mother of Vaclav. This perhaps highly political context is garbed by monk Kristian into theological language, claiming that the exile of his mother was an inspiration by the Holy Spirit, which came to Vaclav: “all this was going on with the help of God”, and his mother was exiled with the most utter embarrassment from the country for her role in the killing of Ludmila. The same theological reasons then lead (the commandment to respect one's parents) Vaclav to recall her back from exile, without however restoring her to the former power.

She was exiled to settle issues down and to restore Christian unity and peace. “Since, the mentioned ruler Vaclav, being conscious of the necessity to establish peace, was inspired by the Holy Spirit, and decided feeling the necessity, to exile his mother, who was the cause of all the anger, so that this exile of hers, and also her godless supporters would serve to calm down the excessive strife/wickedness and to establish peace in the church of Christ, so that all would achieve in knowing the one and the same Master, and possess and learn the true teaching of Christ, and once all was established and would be perceived to be congenial to the peace in all the princedom, and if after the exile and expulsion of the sons of discord, peace would be strengthened, he would again send for his mother with respect” (“Nam semper memoratus dux Wenceslaus, sollicitus de nanciscenda pace, Spiritus ibi sancto in spirante, corde consilium captavit, quo genitricem suam, que causa tocius nequicie inerat, perturbaret e patria, quatinus ea propulsa cunctisque consentaneis eius viris impiis invicem furor discordiarum sopiretur paxque ecclesie regni accresceret, unum eundemque Dominum cuncti possidentes veram Christi doctrinam perfectissime addiscerent, dispositisque cunctis, que ad pacem regni pertinere cernebantur, proturbatis et expulsis filiis discordie, composita quiete, matrem rursus cum honore ad propria revocaret”) (Kristianova Legenda. 5, 55-70 [29, p. 46]).

This statement appears as a political cry for unity under the banner of one religion. In any event, the sentence “so that all would achieve in knowing the one and the same Master, and possess and learn the true teaching of Christ” (“unum eundemque Dominum cuncti possidentes veram Christi doctrinam perfectissime addiscerent”) is strange, suggesting various areas, which were loosely united to each other with no common denominator or unifying, here, religious principle. As if there was no knowledge of the others among the independent or semi-independent regions and their rulers, knowledge would otherwise logically emanate from a unity of faith. Unity of faith means peace. The statement is a strong confirmation that Christ gives a common goal, a common denominator for all otherwise loosely united fractions. The mother of Vaclav was exiled with all her godless supporters. Therefore, there is a tendency to promote a unified religion and principle and perhaps also unity in the Church itself. Prosperity means one Church, one true Orthodoxy, the destruction of heretics (although here in the context of Bohemia all were somehow unknowledgeable of Christ and therefore the discourse was not Orthodox versus heretics as much as simply Godless versus God followers).

Here, perhaps, lies the prime motivation for the acceptance of Christianity, which in contrast to varying pagan traditions of various tribes and so on, was more useful for any unification process. This, however, meant the unification of Christianity itself. The situation is analogous to Constantine the Greats situation, where his enthusiasm for Christianity was met with the reality of internal discord in Christianity itself, which must have been a blow for Constantine who expected a unified religion for a unified empire.

The legend continues with the story of the killing of saint Vaclav, his piousness is emphasised. Monk Kristian goes out of his way to show the remarkable Christian behaviour of Vaclav, who even repents, if by chance he drank too much during a feast. Monk Kristian writes: “You read this story, graceful bishop, and you are in extreme wonder, how one man being from the laity, who was also at the same time at the helm of his nation, a nation being held due to its characteristic as especially fierce, had accomplished most dutifully that which even as you are aware of people 35 established from the grace of the Most highest God of the church would accomplish in great difficulty”. (Legis hec, pontifex alme, et que vix ipsos summi in ecclesia gracia Dei viros (vix) implere potuisse noveras, layci ordinis virum et eundem ducem et prepositum unius gentis, que et gencium ferox ipsa natura habetur, adimplesse tenuissime miraris”) (Kristianova Legenda. 7, 64-69 [29, p. 68]). The ruler here subsumes the church, he embodies it. The church is not alienated from the state or ruler, but the ruler literally embodies it, much more so than its own clergy. A contrast appears with a nation being especially fierce. Vaclav becomes the sacrificial Christ. We may wonder, whether this theology is not indicative of a later mediaeval topos, since it betrays a sophisticated theology of sacrifice linked to a pious ruler, who does not defend himself. We may argue that given the other contexts mentioned (Bulgarian and others), this kind of reasoning could have been indicative of later theological hagiography, but this remains an open question dependent on hagiographical comparisons.

The murder by his brother Boleslav is placed into a context of a feast, where Vaclav is invited by his brother, after which Vaclav was to be killed. During the feast, Vaclav is warned by a person that he should escape, but Vaclav remains. The feast functions as a kind image of the Last Supper, where Christ somehow knows about his forthcoming fate, yet remains not escaping anywhere. Boleslav kills his brother, who more or less accepts his fate (very sophisticated Christian reaction on behalf of Vaclav, a sophisticated theology for its period indeed).

Here we may state there is a little problem, since there is no climactic happy ending on the political front. For Kristian there is a problem here. He emphasised that belief in God leads to unity, harmony, victory of truth, but with Vaclav the results are tragic. The ruler has been killed just as Ludmila before and we wonder what following Christ is worth. Monk Kristian answers this by implying that regardless of this death, Vaclav prevails and becomes a national hero and saint, which in the end truly unites and harmonises people, who bad or good flock around him, perhaps also uniting and confirming the dynastic power. There is an indication that even his brother just as Drahomira before regarding Ludmila realises his mistake/sin or at least sees the wonders, associated with the saint.

Education and Christianity

One of the most important points of comparisons between Byzantine sources and other contexts lies in education. The overall import of all Cyrilo-Methodian culture for central Europe has traditionally in scholarship and popular culture often been associated with “education” and enlightenment in the context of central Europe. Cyril and Methodius brought culture and illumination to central Europe. As we have implied above, however, we have to also take into account that comparisons between contexts related to education must take into consideration the state of education in a given area. Here we may ask, was Byzantium in the period of saints Vaclav and Ludmila marked by an emphasis on education? If so, did this educational policy promote itself also in the regions of saint Vaclav? Or we may postulate that the legend of Kristian in its comments related to education in fact does not draw from the Byzantine context as much as from a western scholastic tendency as seen in the Germanic area.

As we have mentioned one of the main arguments for Christianity, as shown by many writers, is the fact that it is related to education and civilised life. Christianity supports education and vice versa. Of course, for a context such as Bohemia or Moravia, an argument had to be presented as to why education is so important. In the case of Vaclav we may have the feeling that the others simply did not understand his desire to “learn” here intimately associated with Liturgical reading and life. Explaining to a “barbarian” the necessity to learn (here always associated with liturgical life) is another task. It is not sufficient merely to state that education/Christianity is good for you.

As we know the Byzantines stressed education and some rulers stressed their own education. In the context of Anna Comnene, we read: “I, Anna, the daughter of two royal personages, Alexius and Irene born and bread in the purple. I was not ignorant of letters, for I carried my study of Greek, to the highest pitch, and was not unpractised in rhetoric; I perused the works of Aristotle, and the dialogues of Plato, carefully, and enriched my mind by the “quaternion” of learning. (I must let this out, and itis not bragging, to state what nature, and my zeal for learning have given me, and the gifts, which God, apportioned me at birth, and time has contributed”. (“Tania 5s SrsyvmKura syrn 'Avva, Buyarpp pev irnv Paorksrnv Aks£,fon êà³ Åãððãðä, ëîðôïðàä uBpvnpa òå êà³ yewppa, on ypappaTov îïê àðî³ðîä, àêêà êà³ òî ekkpv^siv eg aKpov £îëîï5àêè¿à, êà³ ððòîð³êðä îïê àðåêåòðòþä åõîïîà êà³ òàä Àðøòîòåêãêàä TS%vag sn avaks2,apevn êà³ òîïä nkaravog 5øêîóîïä, êà³ ò6v vonv àëî òðä òåòðàêòïîä rav pa0npaòþv ëïêéîàîà, (5sr yap £ôðõåø0àã òàïòà êà³ on ëspønòokoy^a òî ëðàóðà, îîà ð ôïàãä êà³ ð ë^ð³ òàä ¸ëøòððàä îëîï5ð 5e5rnKs, êà³ î 0s6g avrnBsv £nsPpaPsnos êà³ î êà¿ðîä onvsiopvsyKs”) ([1, p. 4]; see also [12, p. 25]). Even if a ruler from Bohemia or Moravia received such a high education as Anna, emphasising this amongst his compatriots would probably not make much sense in the 10th century. The Kristian legend also mentions education in the Prologue. Monk Kristian exclaims that he has no education. “Even though my insufficiency and inability are enormous and even though my education, if compared with the education of educated people, ceases to be education...” (“Sed quia in epcie nostre simul et pigricie maximesunt, studia que nostra, studiis scholarsticorum comparata, studia esses desistunt, non desperans de venia ob enormitatem criminum, prout vires suffecerint”). (Kristianova Legenda. Prol. 1, 25 [29, p. 8]). He does not boast of education as Anna does.

However, Annas aspirations are also unique in a sense. It is interesting enough that, regardless of the importance of education, Skylitzes mentions the terrible state of “secular education” (“òà ëîê³ò³êà”) in the period of Bardas coinciding with the period of our context, and notes that a positive move on the behalf of Bardas was to reorganise and renew secular education. “Bardas was, however, also a devotee of secular learning, the pursuit of which had, over a period of many years, become seriously dilapidated, shrinking away almost to nothing: `thanks to the boorishness and ignorance of those in power' (`xfl r&v Kpaxpaavxrav aypoma êà³ àöà0ø'). He assigned a location for each discipline - whatever was available for most subjects, but for philosophy (this being superior to all other disciplines) a place was designated within the palace itself at the Magnaura” ([24, p. 101]; see also [26, p. 102]).

In Byzantium it seems the support of learning was strongly dependent on Imperial patronage. Without support from the Emperor learning existed, but most probably, could not develop in a more institutional way. In this context N. Gaul observes that the networks of education were before the year 900 closely associated with imperial ideology, sometimes propaganda, and patronage. According to the historian, “this is not to say that litterae and paideia were not available in spaces outside court, such as monasteries in the West or lay schools as well as monasteries in the East”36. However, N. Gaul stresses that learning was mainly accumulated in the Imperial centre and among an educational elite within this Imperial centre. In the opinion of N. Gaul, the initiatives in this sphere are associated with, e.g., Charlemagne (r. 768/800-814) (see [7, esp. p. 28-33]), Theophilos (r. 829-842) and his brother-in-law, the Kaisar Bardas (f 866), Konstantinos VII Porphyrogennetos (r. 913/945959), ?or caliphs from al-Man§ur (r. 754-775) to al-Mamun (r. 813-833). There the learning was commonly marked by individual arrangements, personal patronage, and was distinguished by a lack of institutionalisation. Thus N. Gaul implied that “the portrayal of an institutionalised”, “court academy” and “palace school” was “an illusion”, as G. Brown wrote about Charlemagnes scola palatii [19, esp. 239]. In his turn P. Speck concluded about the school of Bardas: “[E]s besteht kein AnlaB hier von der Grundungeiner Institution zusprechen, die unabhangig von der Person des Stifters oder von den vier geforderten Gelehrten (auch nach deren Tod) fortbestehen sollte” [53, S. 8]. N. Gaul correctly implies that regardless of imperial patronage, or higher patronage, this does not necessarily mean that a school was truly “institutionalised” and functioning as a true institution. Even schools with patronage did not necessarily have order or compactness.

These observations relate to our context also, since just as with Byzantium it is not so easy to reconstruct the exact dynamics of education in the court of Vaclav, Borivoj, Svatopluk. The stories of proper education, of reading, of teachers of Christian instruction in the Bohemian or Moravian contexts have to be studied through a prism of other contemporary contexts in order to assess their historical value.

Conclusion

In our short analysis, we have drawn attention to the Kristian legend in the context of its Christian ideology associated with the nascent development of the Bohemian/Moravian context or state. As we have demonstrated greater in depth thematic and comparativist study of the legend in the future will surely yield more information on the date of the composition.

The context of the stories related to Kristian can be seen elsewhere in Europe at that time. The legend describes the situation of growing centralisation and unity in Europe, of national or political dynastic construction. Of course, the movement to unity and empire building in Europe is nothing new in the historical context of the world. The process was going on elsewhere for centuries with similar paradigms of infighting political rivalries and so on. Here we may state that there is sometimes a flaw in historical reconstruction in the sense of denying the historical validity of a fact, just because it similarly appears elsewhere or in other contexts. For example, some motifs are remarkably similar between the Bohemian/ Moravian contexts and the Bulgarian events, or Frankish/German events. This however does not immediately entail dependence or interdependence but simply can be the result of “paradigms” and “archetypes” common to all. This can be of help to a historian, because it can help to assume or reconstruct at least some elements in an otherwise incomplete narrative. Similar hagiographic elements appear elsewhere suggesting a nascent paradigm of sacrifice emerging. But this is hardly convincing for a general reader. The task of the legend author is to show how the Christian ruler is necessarily good.

What is interesting about the European context is the role of Christianity in this process of unity and kingdom building. As we have seen monk Kristian has multiple themes and perhaps goals. But perhaps he is just simply interested in offering a hagiographic story of an interesting saint. Whatever the case, he must in one way or another show why Christianity is a true religion or useful in an area of Bohemia and Moravia. He must have been from a context where there necessarily was no opposition between Eastern or Western traditions of Christianity, since he does not appear to stress any particular tradition.

As we have seen, the “primary offer” for pagan rulers or pagans generally was that Christianity brings education/civilisation/ governance and not least political alliances. But more concretely Christianity offers the ruler way to unity, harmony, legitimisation of one's dynastic aspirations and rule, posteriority, power. However, the paradox is that Kristian just as any other author struggles with his main offer. As we have seen being Christian - Vaclav, Ludmila, in the end brings suffering but also disunity. Being a Christian does not guarantee that one prevails and all is well. There is an internal tension in Kristian's legend, because in contrast to the other legends of Vaclav this one, perhaps even more so has an agenda to demonstrate how Christianity can go hand in hand with governance and in fact must do so. Besides, this story is actually telling us that being a Christian ruler or Christian means being killed, dethroned, banished, and exiled.

If Kristian wants to promise us that all will go well in the state if Christianity is promulgated, he is not really successful at his goal. Further, historically speaking scholars often demonstrate that Christianity, indeed, offered unity, political stability and so on, but it is often forgotten that paganism offered this also, and further that the church is not necessarily important in all this. As we have seen by comparisons with the Byzantine concepts, it was almost impossible to adapt the Byzantine political models to s situation such as was happening Bohemia and Moravia. The legend betrays a situation of internal disunity, of loose tribes of loose morals and other problems making adoption of high Byzantine models and contexts almost impossible, without significant adaptation.

Monk Kristian resolves his internal “schizophrenia” where he denies in the end what he proposes or offers in a functional way. In a way we may argue that his hagiographical theology would be more suitable for a much later date of a kind of medieval feudal sacrificing chivalry, especially if this is contrasted with the brutal realism of areas such as Bulgaria, where there are no qualms about how the ruler should enhance Christianity (no self-sacrificing Vaclav there). The Kristian legend demonstrates in the end that Christianity does in fact offer unity and harmony, because even though Vaclav is killed, or Ludmila, these become a source of unity and harmony, become a referential point of people uniting behind their miracles, of dynastic legitimisation. Paradoxically self-sacrifice humbleness means victory. The sainthood of Vaclav and Ludmila become a source of new unities and ideological references.

Notes

1. Scientific editor is Yu.Ya. Vin.

2. There is no reason to repeat the well-known process of discovery and long term scholarship on the subject of the sources, related to our period. Apart from the controversial legend of Kristian there are other important sources on our topic, which include also important western sources. Here suffice it to mention the Crescentefide, written in Latin describing the life of Vaclav (possibly end of the 10th century), perhaps from the area of Regensburg (Bavaria), the very important work of Gumpold the bishop of Mantovia (flourished at the end of the 10th century), who importantly received an “order” by Oto II (Otto II, emperator of the Holy Roman Empire) to write a life of Vaclav. In terms of the Slavic context of Vaclav and Ludmila A.Ch. Vostokov stimulated research by his find in 1827 of one of the oldest paleo-slavic sources of Czech origin, the so-called “First Slavic Legend of St. Vaclav” (literary “Ubienie svjatago Vjaceslava, knjazjaces'ka”, i.d. “The Killing of Saint Vaclav, the knize of Czechia”), contained in the so-called Torzhestvenik (a work gathering liturgical feasts, with saints' lives and homilies on various feasts), itself being from the 15th century. Vostokov further, in his later list of manuscripts of the Rumyantsev museum [9, p. 454-456], brought attention to shorter legends of Sts. Vaclav and Ludmila, which are testified in the Prologues to the 16th and 28th of September (feast days of Sts. Ludmila and Vaclav) and to the Prologue legend of the translatio of the relics of St. Vaclav located in the Prologue to the 4th of March (feast of the relics of St. Vaclav). These Prologues related to Sts. Vaclav and Ludmila had circulated in Rus for some time, since they were part of a widely distributed Prologue (they were also being incorporated into liturgical prints (the Minea of Metropolitan Makarios). Further I.I. Sreznevskiy and I. Kupriyanov brought attention in the 19th century to the canon of St. Vaclav (manuscripts of the 12th and 13th centuries). N.K. Nikol'skiy discovered the so- called Second Slavic legend of St. Vaclav (a modified translation of the Latin legend of the mantovian bishop Gumpold) [40]. Later Czech scholarship began an important discussion on the possibility of the existence and form of some kind of official “Vita et passio St. Wenceslai” from the 10th century serving as a basis for other works, but also of St. Ludmila.

3. V. Karbusicky writes: “First of all Kosmas utilises literary characteristics (Kosmas compares: Lubosais `ut Chumea Sibilla', Kazi `ut Colchis Medea', Tetka `utAeneae Circens'), while he designates them with the terms `phitonissa' (prophetess), `venefica' (sorceress), `malefica' (evil sorceress), and through the distinction of functions he goes into further detail: Kazi was responsible for fate, herbs and oracles - therefore the content of the ecclesiastical `magia'. Tetka rejected myths and taught the pagan cult - ecclesiastical `idoloatria', Lubosa prophesised and foretold future - ecclesiastical `divinatio', their substance and classification were in harmony with theological distinctions of pagan sinful infidelity, since they distinguish between sorcery, idolatry, and the foretelling of future: magia (Kazi), idolatria (Teta), divinatio (Libuse)” ([28, p. 16]; see also [8, p. 11-12]).

4. All references to the Kristian legend will be from the edition Legenda Christiani [29]. The rediscovery of the legend is associated with the famous Bohuslav Balbm, who in 1664 found the manuscript in the Augustinian cloister of Trebon. Perhaps the work had been, however, already discovered by Jan Tanner in 1659 (in a different manuscript, so-called Drazicky, G 5 manuscript, a fact, which was already noticed by Dobrovsky. As noted by R. Urbanek, the work was especially important in the anti-reformational era of the Baroque. Balbin calls the legend “pretiossissimum istud primumque historiae patriae monumentum” and its author was called “primus, quadsciamus, in Bohemia scriptof' [63, p. 7].

5. J. Ludvikovsky automatically translated the Latin Adalberto into Vojtech in his translation, at the beginning of the legend, which is, perhaps, a little problematic.

6. As R. Urbanek writes: “The positive result of the discussions led to the question, whether in Bohemia of the 10th century, there existed some kind of official `Vita et passio St. Wenceslai', which Gumpold at the end of the 10th century and Kosmas still at the beginning of the 12th century knew as being the most important source for the history of St. Vaclav, and which was known not only in its own manuscript tradition, but also found access to Breviaries and in this way found wider circulation in clerical circles, in fact so much so, and was known to such an extent that Kosmas disregarded the necessity of repeating its contents” [63, p. 7].

7. The most famous advocate of the early date of the composition is the well-known scholar J. Pekar. He calls people like Dobrovsky, who criticised the legend as being hypocritical and “erasing centuries of history” (J. Pekar uses a formulation, adopted by V.A. Svoboda in a different context - Jahrhunderte entvolkern) by their over critical approach. J. Pekar goes on to say in this work that the legend is not only not a falsum, but a work from the 10th century [45]. J. Pekar did not deny that monk Kristian utilised older sources (such as, for example, the very important bishop Gumpold, Crescente fide, the Latin legend “Fuit in provincia Bohemorum”), but stated that he originally compiled his work using such sources [29, p. 121] as the Latin legend “Fuit” see Note 23.

8. The discussion of the date of the composition is strongly dependent on how we understand the Prologue of the work. The prologue, and first two chapters describe the Byzantine missions, Slavic liturgy, the baptism of Borivoj at the court of Svatopluk, became the controversial points regarding the legend. As Ludvikovsky summarises: “It is trully difficult to harmonise Kristian's message about them oravian beginnings of Czech Christianity, with the Fuldanals, which state that Ludvig the German in the year 845 baptised fourteen Czech rulers (XIIII ex ducibus Boemanorum) upon the irrequest with their people (perhaps in Regensburg), that is around twenty years before the coming of the mission from Moravia” [29, p. 119]. This again could be, on the contrary, understood as a testimony to the ancient provenance of the legend. The baptism of the fourteen Czech rulers did not necessarily have any serious or practical consequence for Bohemia. F. Stejskal importantly emphasises the quick canonisation process of the saint in his valuable study of the cult of the saint. Stejskal reminds us that the canonisation process was not yet the prerogative of the Roman Pope, (up to Alexander III, 1159-1181), and that local bishops could have decided about this [56].

9. R. Urbanek has already realised the need for comparisons of theme and content. He wrote some decades ago: “If it will best ill necessary to compare carefully the exact formal and narrative relationship between the slavic legends of Sts. Vaclav and Ludmila, with similar Byzantine ones - we can at first glance state that there is a great simplicity in the slavic ones, which is related to the developmental stages of the church slovanic culture of the period in Bohemia and its linguistic means - a similar task, will be related to the Latin legends and the legends of neighbouring Germany, especially in the Bavarian orbit” [63, p. 7, 33].

10. Liudmila (Latin), or the term in the Bodecensky manuscript - Luitmila, Liutmila (Latin).

11. V^ceslav^ Venceslaus (Latin), Wenzel (German).

12. V^ceslav^ Venceslaus (Latin), Wenzel (German). `Beatus' is translated as `Blahosloveny' into Czech-Slavic; and the Greek term `öàêàðþ^' is, perhaps, the closest equivalent, although we believe that some Slavic terms began a “life of their own”. For the sake of consistency, I will utilise the Czech terms and names Ludmila and Vaclav.

13. A study, regarding the passion aspect of the Sts. Vaclav and Ludmila, is recently published by Å.

14. H. Saggau [51].

15. Here we can note a fact, not noticed by scholars, that strangely enough Emmeramm (Emmerammus) was also the name of the son of Prokop the abbot of the Sazava monastery. Whether this was a coincidence or not or betrays a reliance on tradition remains a mystery and not noticed so far.

16. For example, V. Chaloupecky believes that the patriotic tone of the prologue means, that the prologue was rewritten with patriotic references around the 11th to 12th centuries [60, p. 271, note to 103-104]. However, as Ludv^kovsky notes that patriotic tinges can be also found elsewhere in the work, for instance, in its description of Strojimir, who was disregarded by his supporters, because he forgot to speak Czech, when living abroad [29, p. 133].