Enthronement marked the accession of a duke to power.80 In all the narrative sources, even the most terse, the verb inthronizare or some other reference to the solium is used to describe a duke’s coming to rule.81 Though largely taken for granted by the chroniclers, the link between the throne and the assumption of lordship is occasionally spelled out explicitly by them: “he obtained the throne and the ducatus of Bohemia,” as Cosmas remarks simply, or “solemnly enthroned, he took charge (prefecit dominio) of all of Bohemia,” in Gerlach’s words.82 Vincent, as noted above, reports that the throne was “a certain stone one” located in Prague castle.83 Of Soběslav II, whose succession dispute with Vladislavand his son Frederick was decided at the imperial court, Gerlach says: “Designated for the paternal duchy, Soběslav sought Prague; there, received splendidly by both the clergy and the people, he was solemnly enthroned according to the custom of the country (iuxta morem patriae), and thereafter reigned happily.”84
Two passages from Cosmas are the only extant descriptions of the enthronement ceremony. The fullest depiction comes in his account of Břetislav I’s accession in 1037:
After the funeral rites were completed, [Jaromír] took his nephew Břetislav and led him to the princely seat; and, just as they always do in the election of a duke, they scattered 10,000 coins or more among the people in the chambers of the upper hall, so that they might not crush the duke on his throne but rather chase the scattered coins. Next, when the duke had been placed on the throne and all was silent, Jaromír took the right hand of his nephew and said to the people: “Behold your duke!” And they cried together three times: “Krlešu!” (that is, Kyrie eleison). And again Jaromír spoke to the people: “Approach from the gens Muncia! Approach from the gens Tepca!” and he called by name those who were more powerful in arms, surer in loyalty, stronger in the army, and most prominent in wealth.85
Cosmas’s description indicates that seating the new duke ceremonially on the throne—literal enthronement—was framed by presentation and acclamation, and followed by reception of the most important laymen of the realm. The significance of acclamation was illustrated in the description of the ill-fated choice of Otto as duke after Svatopluk’s assassination, when “Kyrie eleison” was cried in camp three times.86 Although in 1037, Břetislav I was introduced by his uncle, Cosmas describes the new duke’s approach to the throne in 1092 as led by the bishop of Prague: “Together with the clergy and a magnificent procession, Bishop Cosmas took Duke Břetislav the Younger through the gate of the castle before the church of St. Mary and led him to the throne, where he was enthroned by all the comites and satraps according to the rite of this land.”87 Despite the evidence of the bishop’s role as presenter in this description, ecclesiastical participation in enthronement seems to have been minimal. Dukes of Bohemia were not anointed.
It was one thing to be a Přemyslid and quite another to be the duly enthroned dux Boemorum. The duke exercised considerable might based on lordship wielded in his territories, and thus, as ruler, he commanded respect and not a little fear from his subjects. Such reverence was also, in part, earned; once lost, no aura attached to a duke sufficient to protect him from deposition. No ideology served to prop up weak dukes, nor could any special sign endow a measure of the duke’s authority upon his designated successor. Moreover, although dynastic charisma distinguished members of the ruling dynasty from all other Czechs, it could in no way defend dukes against attempts at deposition or bids for succesion made, as they so often were, by their fellow Přemyslids. Within the Přemyslid dynasty, Czech rulers were not, it seems, particularly fussy about their title, although—or perhaps because—there was never any doubt that only one man was indeed the duke of Bohemia. Only by enthronement at Prague could a Přemyslid become duke. The throne at Prague, which only one person could occupy, stood alone as a monumental representation of the duke’s powers.
The Throne
The duke’s lordship over land, access to liquid wealth, control of coinage, and exclusive jurisdiction shaped medieval Czech society and also set him apart, well above all laymen. Some aspects of lordship, especially military service and control of castles, necessarily entailed cooperation from the freemen. But the duke’s dependence upon their support ran deeper than his administrative needs. The story of Otto’s ill-fated “election” as duke, as well as the course of every revolt, emphasize the centrality of the throne, fixed permanently at Prague. For a duke, to lose the throne was to lose everything—no trivial constraint upon his power. The reason is simple: all the duke’s broad rights—to the treasury and mint, and as highest general and judge—pertained to the throne.
That the duke’s vast assets and privileges pertained to his office—to put it in legalistic and admittedly somewhat anachronistic terms—is consistently supported by the sources.88 Since the bulk of the evidence is negative, or comes from offhand comments, we might best begin with an anomaly. Two charters issued to the Hospitallers by Vladislav II in the mid-twelfth century describe land as “ad coronam regni mei pertinentem,” “ad coronam meam pertinentem,” and “coronae mee adiacebant.”89 Such language appears nowhere else. Reference to a “crown” indicates that the documents were issued after Vladislav’s elevation to the rank of king by Barbarossa in 1158.90 Both charters apply to the same ruler and institution; they may reflect the particular influence of the international order or some innovation in political ideology of the king’s. Yet the use of such inherently impersonal words like “pertain” and “adjacent” is not, in fact, unusual. “Adjacent” was employed routinely with regard to village appurtenances, especially forest. “Pertaining,” more tellingly, appears elsewhere to describe land that was not owned by an individual but attached to an office. For instance, two charters recording ducal grants speak of land pertaining to a castle.91 In Henry Zdík’s charter recording the lands of his see, holdings of various size throughout the diocese are listed according to eight subdivisions: those “pertaining” to the church of Olomouc, to the pre-positura of Saint Václav, and to the churches of Přerov, Kroměříž, Spitihněv, Břeclav, Brno, and Znojmo.92 The context of the phrases in the Hospitallers’ charters, where these properties are contrasted with those acquired by other means, indicates that these lands, not purchased, or the proceeds of justice, or relinquished to the duke for some other reason, were essentially inherited. “Pertaining to the crown of my realm,” nonetheless, expresses a conception of the duke’s property that was not patrimonial, but concomitant with lordship.93
Конец ознакомительного фрагмента.
Текст предоставлен ООО «ЛитРес».
Прочитайте эту книгу целиком, купив полную легальную версию на ЛитРес.
Безопасно оплатить книгу можно банковской картой Visa, MasterCard, Maestro, со счета мобильного телефона, с платежного
