or castellanies, though some may be seen in the witness lists to have held such appointments. However frustrating it may be to speak generally of “Czechs,” “magnates,” or “more prominent men,” these are the very terms—collective and comparative—by which twelfth-century freemen understood themselves.
The Circle at Court
As a consequence of the medieval preference for loose, comparative classifications and the ostensible absence of rigidly defined strata among the free, this study routinely refers broadly, and in a deliberately inspecific way, to “freemen”—as already noted. Before completely resigning ourselves to speaking of the Czechs as an undifferentiated mass, however, we must take a closer look at the individuals who emerge from the sources. The most detailed evidence concerning Czech laymen at any social level comes from the witness lists to charters issued in the second half, and especially the last quarter, of the twelfth century. They are invaluable—and underexploited—records of continuity and of change among the men around the duke. Certain magnates of the highest echelon are also mentioned in the chronicles, as advisors to dukes, leaders of insurrection, or men entrusted with special tasks, such as diplomatic missions. The chroniclers sometimes offer other small indications about the situation of these individuals. The witness lists, on the other hand, provide detailed information about promotion to court offices and castellanies. To these we now turn, in an effort to bring to life those individual Czech freemen who rise out of the largely faceless crowd and the group of men that might be called “the circle at court.”
In the most dramatic events of Czech political life described by the chroniclers, not only dukes and lesser Přemyslids take the stage but their closest associates and counselors. Duke Spitihněv, for instance, entrusted the care of his exiled brother’s wife to Mstiš, son of Boris, in 1055 castellan of Lštění and by 1061 promoted to Bílina.39 Cosmas describes him as “a man of great boldness, greater eloquence, and less prudence.” Mstiš fled into exile when Vratislav replaced him with Kojata, son of Všebor, as castellan of Bílina. Although nothing is known of his connections to other magnates or his landed resources, at the time of his appointment to Bílina, Kojata was “first in the duke’s palace.”40 Seven years later, still described as “palace comes” and standing to the immediate right of Vice-duke Otto, Kojata led the opposition to Duke Vratislav’s episcopal candidate at the colloquium at Dobenina, then again on the battlefield.41 These two men, Mstiš and Kojata, represent two slightly different types of “favorites.” Mstiš earned the castellany of Bílina after performing a delicate task to Spitihněv’s satisfaction, while Kojata was already the preeminent magnate at Vratislav’s court. Both lost office upon losing the duke’s grace, one by outright insurrection and the other, when the occupant of the throne changed, by the very deed that had earned him his duke’s gratitude.
Another type was Zderad, described only as Vratislav’s villicus; he died at the hand of Vratislav’s own son over a petty insult—and was, so Cosmas reports, mourned by no one but the king.42 Whatever his rank vis-à-vis other freemen, this hated “bailiff” had sufficient standing in the king’s presence to publicly mock his son. Another “homo peior pessimo,” as Cosmas says, was Vratislav’s chamberlain a few years earlier, Vitus, son of Želibor; in 1088 he was the only man to accompany the king in a private interview with Beneda, son of Jurata, in which both Vratislav and Beneda were badly wounded.43 Since Cosmas explicitly notes that he was “reinstated” in that post upon Bořivoj’s accession in 1100, Mutina, of the Vršovici, was apparently castellan of Litoměřice at the time of his exile by Břetislav II in 1096, yet the chronicler describes him then as Břetislav’s “side-kick and secretary” (“collateralem et secretarium”).44 These examples demonstrate a clear correspondence between a close relationship to the duke, high office, and others’ acknowledgment—and resentment—of their influence. However, the circumstances of these individuals varied. Below the highest-ranking men, many others undoubtedly fulfilled lesser but equally vital tasks for the duke, whether by virtue of appointment to castellanies, household offices, and other posts, or as specially requested favors.45
In the frantic days of the early twelfth century, the troubled times Cosmas himself observed at close hand, the Chronica Boemorum provides a vivid picture of freemen jockeying for position, forming small factions, and earning the favor of the duke or other Přemyslids. A bewildering array of names appear: men offering counsel, acting as messengers, dying in battle. Similar machinations, with another dizzying array of names, continued from Svatopluk’s assassination in 1109 to Soběslav’s accession in 1125. The magnate who most shamelessly—and effectively—exploited the atmosphere of distrust that prevailed in the early twelfth century, the most prominent individual in the years between 1105 and 1113, was a lowborn man named Vacek.46 Cosmas, the only source for these years, patently despised him, even breaking into the chronology of his narrative to vituperate against him (at the end of Book I of his chronicle).47 When he makes his first appearance in the course of events, in 1105, Vacek is among Svatopluk’s counselors, fighting to depose Bořivoj.48 A few years later, it was he who orchestrated the massacre of the Vršovici, by convincing Duke Svatopluk that Mutina had been suspiciously lackluster in defending Bohemia against an incursion by Bořivoj.49 When Svatopluk was assassinated soon afterwards, Vacek argued for Otto to succeed as duke.50 Several months after Vladislav was enthroned instead, he fought for Otto’s cause; since their forces served to fend off Bořivoj as well, Vacek and Otto may have been able to trade their army for the new duke’s favor.51 When a band of Bořivoj’s supporters were apprehended, John of the Vršovici, the man who arranged Svatopluk’s murder, was blinded at Vacek’s order.52 Although the peace between Vladislav and Otto was tenuous (within six months Otto was in prison53), Vacek seems to have remained in the duke’s inner circle. In 1110, together with Bishop Hermann of Prague, he helped arrange a reconciliation between Vladislav and his youngest brother Soběslav, allowing the latter’s short-lived return from exile.54 In the end though, when a rumor reported that Vacek was advising Duke Vladislav to have him seized, Soběslav arranged Vacek’s murder.55 In the period when the Czech freemen and Přemyslids themselves were most intensely factionalized, he turns up on various sides, always with the duke’s ear and often inciting violence. Although central to the events of the decade, Vacek remains for us an isolated individual whose motives are largely unfathomable.
In the reigns of Vladislav I and Soběslav I things quieted down, except for the attempt by plotters against Soběslav’s life in 1130 (see below). Of these dukes’ inner circles little is known. Cosmas tells of a converted Jew who, after Duke Vladislav himself, was the highest ranking man at court; his enemies, obviously including the chronicler himself, cast aspersion on his adherence to Christianity, and he was imprisoned.56 Although Soběslav’s “right-hand men” remain unnamed, at his death in 1140 a magnate named Načerat stepped forward; the freemen who gathered to determine succession to the throne agreed to abide by his determination.57 Two years later Načerat led the revolt against the duke he helped enthrone, Vladislav II, and was killed.58 The chronicles explicitly indicate that the rebellion was instigated by seniores, prominent men who expected greater privileges from the duke they had selected.59 He might, therefore, be the same man who served as a messenger before the battle at Chlumec in 1126.60 Načerat’s colleague at that time, Smil, also died in the 1142 revolt, together with his sons, though he fought on Vladislav’s behalf.61 The besieged duke was himself a young man, as were most of his supporters. With the death and defeat of freemen like Načerat and Smil, new men must have risen to assume positions of greater influence. One such was Velislav, a friend to Vladislav since boyhood, appointed castellan of Vyšehrad until his death in 1144.62 Whether concerning schemers like Vacek, men of acknowledged prominence such as Načerat, or the ducal favorite Velislav, the stories told by Czech chroniclers help elaborate what it meant to be considered “elder” or “better” among the freemen, while also demonstrating that a variety of paths led to such positions of respect and influence.
The picture of the
