Names of Saints and Dynastic Name-Giving in Hungary in the 10-14Th Centuries in a Central and Eastern European Context1

Names of saints and dynastic name-giving in Hungary in the 10-14th centuries in a central and eastern European context1

Mariann SLÍZ

Introduction: the relevance of investigating dynastic name-giving In this paper, I will survey the fairly complex relationship between medieval cults of saints and name-giving in royal dynasties in the Mid- dle Ages. However, before descending to particulars, I ought to account for the onomastic value of the investigation of this topic and for the use of the term dynastic naming or name-giving by emphasizing two obser- vations. Firstly, there are unambiguous differences between the name stocks of dynasties and the name stocks of the whole population of their countries; and secondly, there are unequivocal similarities in the naming practices of different dynasties. These two facts make name-giving in royal houses a special phenomenon. Although dynastic naming is con- fined only to a narrow stratum of the society, the differences and similarities between the name-giving practises of royal families and of their peoples may deserve the attention of onomasticians. As for the differences between the name stocks of the dynasties and of the populations, we can mention the names Farkas (‘Wolf’), Jakab (‘Jacob’), János (‘John’) and Miklós (‘Nicholas’) from Medi- eval Hungary. While they were amongst the most popular names in the 11-13th century in the whole population (cf. Benkő 1950, p. 23), none of them appeared in the name stock of the House of the Árpáds. The inverse of this phenomenon can also be observed: while the names Charles and Louis were frequent among the Anjous of Naples and of Hungary, Károly (‘Charles’) and Lajos (‘Louis’) were extraor- dinarily rare in the Angevin Age in Hungary (14th century).2

1 This paper was supported by the Bolyai János Research Scholarship of the Hun- garian Academy of Sciences. 2 I managed to find only 9 occurrences of Károly and 2 of Lajos in my corpus, which at present contains about 20,000 personal names collected from 14th century

The differences between the name stocks of a dynasty and of its people can be seen not only in the frequency of a particular name but also in the proportions of the different types or groups of names. For example, the rate of non-Christian names in a dynasty could be relatively high, even if the Church and the dynasty relied upon each other and even if non-Christian names were not popular in the whole population. For instance, at least 40% of male names were non-Christian ones on the family tree of the Árpáds in 11th century (Géza, László [‘Ladislaus’], Veszprém ~ Bezprim, Bonuzló, Levente, Álmos), albeit they embraced Christianity at the end of the 10th century.3 Since we cannot find these names among the frequent ones in 11th century Hun- gary (cf. Benkő 1950, Fehértói 1997, Hajdú 2003, p. 360), this phenomenon cannot be explained by their general popularity, only by some special aims of dynastic name-giving. At the same time, we can observe that some names of saints that were excessively common in the whole population were missing from the name stock of dynasties, while nationwide rare or absent Christian names could occur in a dynasty. For example, György (‘George’) was amongst the 20 most frequent names in Medieval Hungary (see e.g. Benkő 1950; Fehértói 1997; Hajdú 2003; N. Fodor 2010, pp. 126-130; Slíz 2011b, p. 69, 94), due to Saint George’s cult, which began fairly early on in Hun- gary (for more information about his cult in Hungary, see e.g. Moravcsik 1970, p. 109; Magyar 2006). All the same, his name did not occur either in the Árpáds’, or in the Anjous’ family tree, although Saint George was highly respected by the Angevin kings Charles I (1308-1342) and Louis the Great (1342-1382), owing to the fact that he was regarded as the greatest incarnation of chivalric morality at the time. As an inverse of this phenomenon, Lambert or Piroska appeared among the Árpáds in the 11th century, even though Saint Lambert and Saint Prisca did not have significant cults in Hungary and their names were exceedingly rare or absent among the people. The main cause of the difference between the name stock of dynasties and of the common people is that name-giving within royal families was influenced by special factors. Naming a royal child is not deeds. For a name dictionary containing about 14,000 entries (from the period of 1301-1342) see Slíz 2011a. 3 I wrote “at least” because the etymologies of two names (Béla and Kálmán) are still questionable. Names of saints and dynastic name-giving in Hungary … 159 only a family business: it always has a great symbolic value; choosing a certain name could express political or ideological heredities and aims. This can be well corroborated by the name etymologies and explanations of name-giving of dynastic saints. For instance, the “Greater Legend” of Saint Stephen, first king of Hungary emphasized that he was given his name because it means ‘crowned’ in Latin (see Érszegi 1987, p. 25). According to another legend by Bishop Hartvik, the king’s mother was instructed by Saint Stephen, the first martyr of Christianity, to name her child after him (see text in Head 2001, pp. 375-377). The aim in both explanations is obvious: they intended to highlight the fact that Stephen was the first crowned and Christian king of Hungary, the evangelizer monarch of the Hungarians. Simi- larly, the legend of Saint Ladislaus, king of Hungary derived the saint’s name from a Greek word with the meaning ‘Glory, given by God to Peoples’ (cf. Laos + dosis; for the etymology, see Érszegi 1987, p. 95; for the lingustic and historical interpretation of the etymology, see Bollók 1994). According to the explanation of this etymology, he received his name due to sensing that he would become a saint later. In fact, his name comes from the Polish Władysław or the Czhech Vladislav, supposedly with the mediation of ecclesiastical Latin (see Melich 1941). However, the linguistic imperfection of the name etymologies of legends does not matter in our case: the point is that their pure existence signals the symbolic importance of the names of dynastic saints. The name could symbolize the family’s saintliness, the son’s right to the throne by testifying his family connections, the father’s intention to follow one of his ancestors’ politics, or it could serve as a grand gesture towards an ally who helped the father in seizing or keeping the crown. For this reason, the patterns of naming in the different dynasties are quite similar.

The corpus and the aims of the paper Among the many possible causes and goals for choosing one particular name for a royal child, there are several motivations connected to religion, mostly to saints. In the following, I will display the most typical of these reasons. The overview is based mostly on the name stocks and history of two dynasties in Hungary: 58 male and 34 female names from the Hungarian Árpád dynasty (from the end of the 10th century to 1301, the end of the male line), and 7 male and 6 female 160 Mariann Slíz names from the Hungarian branch of the House of Anjou (14th century).4 I will also deal with other Central and Eastern European dynasties of the Middle Ages (the Rurikids of Kievan Rus’;5 the Přemyslids and the House of Luxembourg in Bohemia and in Hungary; the Piasts of Poland and the House of Anjou of Naples) on the basis of secondary literature. In some cases, I will also mention Western parallels, since most of the strategies of name-giving were general features of Euro- pean dynastic naming. Since our sources display the motivation behind the name-giving of a royal child quite sporadically, we do not have an appropriate qual- ity and quantity of data for a statistical survey. For this reason, the main aim of this paper is to provide a possible typology for different kinds of connections between dynastic naming and the cult of saints. I also intend to attract attention to the gender differences in name-giving in connection with cults of saints and to the changes and variations in the relationship between cults of saints and dynastic name-giving.

A typology of motivations for dynastic naming based on the cult of saints Name-giving according to calendar As it is widely known, one of the most common motives of name- giving in the Middle Ages was alignment to the calendar, i.e. giving the baby the name of the saint whose feast it was born on (or whose day was closest to the child’s birthday). To detect this motivation among dynasties could be a hard work or even a mission impossible, since historical sources provide us with the exact days of the birth of royal children rather sporadically. However, we have some data for this kind of name-giving: for example Ivan III of Russia (1462-1505) was born on 22 January 1440 and he must have been given his name after Saint John Chrysostom, who is celebrated inter alia on 27 Janu- ary according to the Eastern Orthodoxy (Uspenskij 2011a, p. 38). Still, due to its randomness, we may suppose that such motivation could not

4 On the name-giving motives of the Árpáds see Slíz 2000, of the Anjou’s of Hun- gary see Slíz 2011b, pp. 141-149. For the family trees of these two royal houses see the two above-mentioned works or their sources directly: Kristó 1998, pp. 304-308 and KMTL 48-49. 5 On the name-giving motives of the Rurikids see e.g. Uspenskij 2011. Names of saints and dynastic name-giving in Hungary … 161 have been highly typical in dynastic name-giving, since giving names in royal families usually expressed some special aims. It can be clearly observed in the case of the eldest son of Ivan III: he got his father’s name (Ivan < Johannes), although according to the calendar he could have been named after Saint Theodore Tyron, whose feast (17 Febru- ary) was closer to his birthday (15 February) then Saint John the Bap- tist’s (24 February) (Uspenskij 2011a, p. 38).

Name-giving in connection with a pious action Dynastic name-giving could have been connected to a pious action, e.g. building a new church dedicated to a saint or acquiring the relics of a saint. For instance, Charles IV of the House of Luxembourg, King of Bohemia (1346-1378) and Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire (1355- 1378) named his youngest son after Saint Sigismund of Burgundy (1368), whose relics he had obtained and brought to Prague some years before, since the emperor regarded him as the patron saint of his family. To mention another example from the 14th century: since King Charles I of the Hungarian House of Anjou founded a Franciscan convent for the veneration of Saint Louis of Toulouse at Lippa (in Hungary) in 1325, it was not a surprise that his son, born in 1326, was named after this saint.

Name-giving motivated by a saint’s life We know several examples for giving a certain name to royal children due to the parallelisms between their lives and saints’ legends, or owing to the sympathy of the parents for a saint because of the saint’s actions, destiny, or misery. We can explain the name Salamon (‘Solomon’), which Béla III, king of Hungary (1172-1196) gave to his third son, only in terms of Béla’s sympathy for his early predecessor, Solomon, king of Hungary (1063-1074). This 11th-century king was remembered as an evil ruler, since he, according to the chronicle tradition, was quarrel- some and envious and finally dethroned by his cousins. Naming a royal child after such a character could have been regarded as a bad omen, therefore the name Salamon had not returned before Béla III’s son.6

6 For a parallel, see the name Péter ‘Peter’, which was one of the most frequent names in Medieval Hungary, and still did not reappear among the Árpáds after King Peter of the House of Orseolo [1038-1041, 1044-1046], who was uncrowned twice. 162 Mariann Slíz

The occurrence of Salamon in the 13th century was due to a non-official legend, which was present by this time in another chronicle-tradition about the king’s life, and which depicted the king as a remorseful hermit after his dethronement (cf. Klaniczay 2008). We can find Western examples as well for name-giving due to the father’s sympathy: for instance, Henry III, king of England (1212-1272) gave his first son Saint Edward the Confessor’s name who he had great respect for, albeit this name did not previously occure in the House of Plantagenet (Bloch 1983, p. 163). As for name-giving motivated by the saint’s life, we may refer to Katalin ‘Katherine’, name of the first daughter of Louis the Great, king of Hungary. He had to wait for the birth of his heir for a long time (until he was 44 years old) and he begged several saints for a child. In consequence, it is understandable that the awaited heir was given her name after Saint Katherine, since she was born under similar circumstances, according to her legend, which was well-known in 14th-century Hungary.

Name-giving after a family saint of the dynasty As the most characteristic motive of religious name-giving in dynasties, royal children usually got their names after a family saint. In the Middle Ages, descending from a saint’s bloodline gave high interna- tional prestige to dynasties due to the idea of the inheritance of saintliness. Consequently, royal families spared no effort and money to obtain the canonization of some of their relatives (see e.g. Klaniczay 2002, 2013). For instance, Ladislaus I, king of Hungary (1077-1095) promoted the canonization of King Stephen I (grand prince: 997-1000, king: 1000-1038) and of his son, Prince Emeric (about 1007-1031) in 1083, because he probably intended to strengthen his reign with this sacral action as well. This was important, as Ladislaus had been ruling for seven years uncrowned, since the legitimate king who had been dethroned by him and his elder brother was still alive (cf. Szovák 1993; Klaniczay 2002, pp. 123-134). Rulers gave the names of the family saints to their children by choice, signalling their holy descendance. The multiple appearances of Václav (‘Wenceslaus’) and Ludmila among the Přemyslids (Bohe- mia), of Boris and Gleb among the Rurikids (Kievan Rus’), of István (‘Stephen’) and László (‘Ladislaus’) among the Árpáds (Hungary) Names of saints and dynastic name-giving in Hungary … 163 may clearly exemplify this phenomenon. The emphasis on saintly lineage was given far more significance in the case of extraneous dynasties, which newly took the throne of another dynasty, since they were in great need to verify their legitimacy. These endeavours can be observed in the case of the Capetian Anjou House of Naples (1266-1435) and of Hungary (1308-1395). Since they descended from the French Capetian dynasty, it is not a surprise that the two most frequent male names among them were Charles and Louis. By giving these names, they also signalled their family connections to Charlemagne (who was canonized by Pascal III in 1165, although it never became accepted) and to Saint Louis (King Louis IX of France). The name Louis also appeared in the Hungarian line of the dynasty due to the family saints. For example, the young Angevin dynasty made great efforts to have their own family saint. Owing to their successful diplomacy, Louis of Toulouse, son of King Charles II of Naples and Sicily, who was given his name after his saintly relative, King Louis IX of France, was canonized in 1317. The nephew of Louis of Toulouse, Charles I, king of Hungary, intended to introduce his veneration in Hungary as well, and, as we could see before, he gave the name Lajos (‘Louis’) to one of his sons after his saintly uncle. As for the family of King Charles I, his sons’ names reflect the king’s double identity. Kálmán (‘Coloman’, meaning baseborn), László (‘Ladislaus’), András (‘Andrew’) and István (‘Stephen’) are the names of great Hungarian kings of the Árpád dynasty, László and István are also the names of the family’s greatest saints. His other two sons’ names, Károly (‘Charles’) and Lajos (‘Louis’) came from the French lineage. The significance of this “name pattern” is the fact that King Charles was regarded as an extraneous pretender in Hungary: since he built upon his claim on his grandmother’s origin in the Árpád dynasty, he had to emphasize his connection with that royal family. Four of his sons’ names served this purpose. At the same time, the other two sons’ names signalled his claim for the throne of Naples, which he never gave up. That this name-giving pattern was deliberate can be corroborated by an oration from 1310 composed for King Charles’s coronation. It further affirmed his right to the throne by the list of his saintly relatives in the Houses of Árpád, Capet and Anjou. Additionally, the king made great efforts to obtain the canonization of his grandmother’s 164 Mariann Slíz aunt of the Árpád dynasty, Princess Margaret of Hungary (Klaniczay 1986). The upswing of the cults of Saint Ladislaus (King Ladislaus I of Hungary) and Saint Emeric (son of King Stephen I) in the 14th century was mostly thanks to his and later his son’s support (on the cult of Saint Emeric, see Barna 2006, p. 99). The recruitment of Saint Ladislaus’s cult can be confirmed inter alia by the increasing popularity of the name László (‘Ladislaus’). While it held ‘only’ the 11th position in the second half of the 13th century, it went up to the 7th position by the 1310’s and became the 5th most frequent name by the mid- 14th century in the upper class (cf. Slíz 2011b, pp. 94-95; 2013). The rapidity of this rising can be judged well if we know that there were few changes among the 20-25 names of highest popularity during the 13-14th centuries. Nevertheless, it could also happen on rare occasions that family saints’ names were not repeated in royal houses. For instance, although Emeric, son of Stephen I, king of Hungary was canonized in 1083 along with his father, his name reappeared only once, in the family of King Béla III. The remarkable shortage of his name may have been due to his life and to his legend, which made him the symbol of vir- ginity. Since he had died before his father without any children, and he and his wife were claimed by his legend to have made a vow of chastity also in their marriage, his name could have meant bad omen for the perpetuation of the dynasty. To sum up, the name-giving of royal children are motivated by several special factors, which do not come into question in the case of common people. These factors could also have jointly influenced the choice of names. For instance, the name of King Louis the Great of the Hungarian House of Anjou was chosen after a family saint, Louis of Toulouse, and the decision was facilitated by the foundation of a convent for his veneration at the time of the prince’s birth.

Gender differences in dynastic name-giving Due to the special factors of name-giving in royal families, nationwide common cults of saints could make a smaller impact on name- giving in the ruling dynasty than among common people. However, it is to be noted that in dynastic name-giving there is a gender difference in the impact of the cults of saints. Boys’ names were more Names of saints and dynastic name-giving in Hungary … 165 important since boys could become monarchs. For this reason, naming a son was always a symbolic political act (mostly of domestic politics).

The naming of princes An example of politically motivated name-giving could be given from the Hungarian Árpád dynasty. When they felt their sons’ claims to the throne were in danger, they usually named the boys István (‘Stephen’) or László (‘Ladislaus’) after the two greatest family saints, who had become the symbols of mighty kings. This was the reason why Bea- trice d’Este, third wife of King Andrew II (1205-1235) gave his son, who was born months after his father’s death, the name István. Since she was accused of adultery by his stepson, she also intended to affirm his son’s legitimacy that way. Moreover, this ‘habit’ outlasted the dis- solution of the dynasty (in 1301). After the extinction of the male line, Wenceslaus II, King of Bohemia, who descended from the Árpáds on the female line, claimed the Hungarian throne for his son, Wenceslaus, who he then crowned under the name László. The aim of this name change must have been to make the extraneous prince more acceptable for the Hungarians by reminding people of the boy’s familial relations to the Árpáds. 140 years later, Elisabeth of Luxembourg, Queen Con- sort of Hungary gave her son, who was also born some months after his father’s death (in 1440), the same name, albeit she had no close relation to the Árpád dynasty and this name was absent in the father’s dynasty. Her husband, Albert II of the House of Habsburg (king of Hungary 1437-1439) passed away without a living heir, therefore his posthumous son’s claim in Hungary was endangered by a new, grown- up nominee, Vladislaus III of Poland. Under these circumstances, giving the name László to the prince was a definite signal of the reserva- tion of his claim. Due to symbolic name-giving, male names were usually repeated in dynasties and they were slightly liable to foreign influences, including the influence of the names of great family saints in the mother’s royal house. Consequently, we may hypothesize the direct impact of a saint’s cult on name-giving only in reference to the first appearance of the saint’s name in a dynasty, while its further appearances may have been influenced by a predecessor, perhaps without any religious allusions. 166 Mariann Slíz

As another consequence of symbolic name-giving among sons, non-Christian names persisted longer among men than among women, owing to their recurrence. Surveying the names of the Árpáds, we can find some non-Christian male names of Hungarian or Old Turkic origin even in the 12th century (two bearers of Géza, one of Álmos and of Árpád, which is 19% of the 12th-century male members of the family), while the first members of the dynasty were Christianized at the end of the 10th century. This phenomenon is even more striking in comparison with the proportion of the Christian names to the non- Christian ones in the whole population during the period in question. Unfortunately, lacking a corpus based on a countrywide database of 12th-century names, we must rely on some estimation made by Loránd Benkő. In his opinion, while non-Christian names were in the majority in the 11th century, Christian names gained ground during the 13th century (Benkő 1950, p. 22). According to my own corpus (see note 2), the process could have been somewhat faster, since about 70% of the 13th-century male names in my database are Christian ones (see Slíz 2011b, p. 97). It means that the proportion of the two types of names within the population could have been roughly equal in the 12th century. Since the Church and the dynasty relied upon each other, the 12th-century rate of non-Christian names in the royal family (19%) seems to be fairly high, especially if we know that about the half of the population bore Christian names during the same period. This phenomenon cannot be explained by other factors than the recurrence of non-Christian male names due to their symbolic value.

The naming of princesses Unlike the case of male names, we cannot find any non-Christian female names of Hungarian or of Old Turkic origin in the family tree of the Árpáds. Royal daughters’ names were less important, since they only had roles in foreign politics by their marriages. In consequence, the stocks of female names in dynasties were more varied and they conformed more to the general name stock of the given country, since they could have been influenced more strongly by actual popular cults. For instance, several female names of saints that were common in the population were also frequent among the members of the Árpád and Anjou dynasties in Hungary, e.g. Erzsébet (‘Elisabeth’), Margit (‘Mar- garet’), Katalin (‘Katherine’), Anna (‘Anne’), Ilona (‘Helen’) (for the Names of saints and dynastic name-giving in Hungary … 167 popularity of female names in the Middle Ages see Berrár 1952; Hajdú 1988; Slíz 2011b, pp. 125-126). In addition, the diversity of female name stocks of dynasties was highly promoted by the fact that female names of saints from maternal lines could enter into the fathers’ lines more easy than male names. Due to the lesser importance of the names of women, mothers presum- ably were given more space in naming their daughters than in choosing names for their sons. What makes the investigation of this phenomenon problematic is the difficulty of discerning name-giving after a family saint from name-giving after a non-saint relative of the mother. For example, let us see the spread of the name Adelaide in Central and Eastern European dynasties (Figure 1).

Figure 1. The occurrence of the name Adelaide in Central and Eastern Euro- pean dynasties. The figure contains only those names that are important for our purposes here. As we can see, the career of Adelaide started in the Elder House of Welf with Adelaide of Italy (931-999), and carried on through the Ottonian dynasty (Holy Roman Empire). Through Matilda, Otto II’s daughter (979-1025), it entered into the Ezzonen dynasty (Lotharin- gia). Owing to Richeza, daughter of Ezzo, Count Palatine of Lothar- ingia (995/1000-1063) it got into the House of Piast (Poland) and finally, through her daughter Gertruda’s Rurikid descendants it 168 Mariann Slíz passed into the Árpád dynasty (Hungary).7 If we saw only the name of Princess Adelaide of the Árpáds (1105/1107-1140), we could eas- ily think that she got her name in honour of Saint Adelaide of Italy. However, knowing the other data as well makes it unequivocal that her name was due to the fact that Adelaide had become a usual name for princesses among Adelaide of Italy’s descendants, spreading mostly on female lines. Naturally, this motivation could have been facilitated by the fact that the Hungarian Adelaide’s distant ancestress had been canonized only a few years before the princess’s birth (1097). Nevertheless, the other appearances of Adelaide on the family tree cannot have been due to the ancestress’s sainthood, since the name-giving took place before her canonization, albeit her veneration in Alsace had started shortly after her death. This assumption is well corroborated by the fact that Saint Adelaide had no significant cult in Hungary and the name did not return among the Árpáds later. After observing these methodological problems, let us give one example for the spreading of the name of a family saint owing to her sainthood. As a well known case, we can mention the name of Saint Elisabeth of Hungary (1207-1231). Since her name was highly popular in Europe, investigation of its spread could have been rather hard, however, the legend of her grand-niece, Saint Elisabeth of Portugal (1277-1336) recorded that the princess was named after her saintly grand-aunt of Hungary.

Changes in name-giving strategies of royal houses The relation between cults of saints and name-giving in dynasties were different in the period of the Christianization of the dynasties’ and after the stabilization of Christianity in the related kingdoms. At the time of their Christianization, it seems to have been rather typical to choose highly symbolic names of evangelizers and great supporters of Christianity, of martyrs, angels or of ideal biblical kings. These names expressed the leaders’ programs of Christianizing their people. In the

7 There was another Adelaide in the Árpád dynasty: she was the niece of Iziaslav I by her sister Anastasia and Andrew I, king of Hungary. We also have to mention another Adelaide in the Piast dynasty: she was the great-granddaughter of Richeza and Mieszko II by their son, Kazimir I. Names of saints and dynastic name-giving in Hungary … 169 second period, naming strategies changed: their typical motif became naming after a family saint, as we will see in the following.

Before the naming traditions of dynasties had emerged Names of angels, evangelizers and martyrs We know several examples of such highly symbolic name-giving acts in Eastern and Southern Europe in the 9-11th centuries. The Hungarian Grand Prince Géza (early 970’s–997) and his son, the first Hungarian king (Stephen I, later St. Stephen) received the name István (‘Ste- phen’) after the first martyr of Christianity. Although they were baptised by Bruno of Sankt Gallen according to the rituals of the Western Church, they got the same Christian name as Gyula, the leader of Transylvania and Grand Prince Géza’s father-in-law, who was Chris- tianized in the Byzantine court (see Moravcsik 1970, pp. 107-112; cf. Kristó 1998, pp. 84-85). Similarly, Géza’s brother and Prince Boris of the first Bulgarian empire (852-889) received the same Christian name Michael after the archangel and leader of God’s armies against Satan’s forces, although the former was Christianized according to Western rituals, while the latter according to Eastern ones. These facts show that the two Christian Churches followed the same strategies in evangelizing the peoples of Eastern and Southern Europe in the 9-11th centuries. Naturally, other factors could have played a role in the name choices of baptised rulers as well. For instance, Prince Boris’s godfa- ther was the Byzantine emperor Michael III. At the same time, the fact that two of Boris’s sons bore the names of apostles (Simeon ‘Simon’ and Yakov ‘Jacob’) and one was named after archangel Gabriel (Gavril), reflects the naming strategies demonstrated before. So does the name Yelena (‘Helen’), which was chosen by Olga (later Saint Olga), the regent of the Kievan Rus’ (945-969), after the reigning Byzantine Empress Helena Lekapena at the time of her baptism. Any- way, her choice must also have been motivated by the parallelism between their lives, since Saint Helena of Constantinople, mother of Emperor Constantine the Great was a Christian symbol of a patron mother and evangelizer, the same way as Olga was the patron and regent of her pagan son and her Christian grandsons, including Vladimir the Great (980-1015), “the evangelizer of the Rus”. 170 Mariann Slíz

One of the latest examples for this type of name choice from the region is the Hungarian King Andrew I (1046-1060). He must have embraced Christianity in Kiev, where he escaped to after his father’s fall. He married Anastasia, the daughter of Yaroslav the Wise, Grand Prince of Kiev (1019-1054). Later he returned to Hungary and managed to ascend to the throne. His name choice could have been motivated by several factors. Firstly, Saint Andrew the Apostle was one of the most venerated saints in the Eastern Church and was regarded as the patron saint of Russia. The myth that Saint Andrew the Apostle evangelized in the region of Kiev could have been formed in the Kievan court, thanks to the “Sermon on Law and Grace” written by Hilarion, metropolitan of Kiev. The myth could have been a perfect argument in the explication of the religious equality of Byzantium and Kiev (Font 2005, pp. 130-131). Secondly, the baptismal name of his wife’s brother Vsevolod was Andrei (‘Andrew’). Thirdly, the Hungar- ian prince could have felt like an evangelizer too, since after returning home, he had to suppress a pagan revolt. Moreover, after stabilizing his power, he founded a Greek monastery dedicated to Saint Andrew the Apostle (Moravcsik 1970, p. 114).

Multi-name systems Among the dynasties of Northern, Eastern and Southern Europe, which embraced Christianity relatively late (in the 9th–10th centuries), there emerged a habit of bearing two (or more) names: a non-Christian name and a Christian one. Uspenskij mentioned several examples for this multi-name system from the Rus’ and Scandinavia (e.g. Vladimir–Basil, Boris–Roman, Gleb–David; Knútr–Lambert) and some other ones among the Hungarians, Bulgarians, Croats, Czechs, etc. (Uspenskij 2011b). As a matter of fact, the situation seems to be fairly complicated in Hungary. We know most of the baptised high-borns from the 9-11th century only by their non-Christian names (e.g. Bulcsú, Ajtony, Kop- pány) or only by their Christian names (e.g. Mihály ‘Michael’, Vazul ‘Basil’, András ‘Andrew’). In some other cases we do not know whether the name was Christian or not since its etymology is unclear (e.g. Béla). At the same time, Grand Prince Géza was mentioned by three different names in the sources (non-Christian: Géza, Christian ones: Magnus, Ste- phen). In general, it seems that they did not use their non-Christian and Christian names together. However, there is one of them (Aba Sámuel), Names of saints and dynastic name-giving in Hungary … 171 whose non-Christian and Christian names are traditionally used together in the secondary literature (Aba: Turkic ‘father’, see Gombocz 1915, pp. 39-40, FNESz. I: 47; he came from the Kabar tribes).

Names of ideal biblical kings Another type of symbolic name-giving in the early history of Christian- ized dynasties in the area in question was naming after ideal kings, usually from the Bible. It expressed the endeavour to stabilize Christian- ity and royal power, to build a strong country, which is equal to its neighbours, etc. The biblical epitomies of great and wise kings had since the Carolingian renaissance been David and Solomon. Charlemagne named himself both David and Solomon and the habit of symbolically eulogizing royal persons by these names had become common in Europe in 9-11th-century texts. Moreover, the names and models of biblical kings entered into ordines of coronations and mirrors for princes (spec- ula principium), and their pictures appeared on crowns etc. (For more information, see e.g. Pajorin 1996, Klaniczay 2008.) However, names of biblical kings appeared in the real name stock of dynasties from the region quite rarely. David was the Christian name of Vladimir the Great’s son, Gleb of the Rurikids (Uspenskij 2011b, p. 115), and we can find both names in the family of Andrew I, king of Hungary. The name choices of the Hungarian king could have been motivated by multiple reasons. Firstly, the two biblical kings had been regarded as role models for kings in Hungary since King Stephen I’s “Admonitions” (a “mirror”for princes) and there were several hints of them in the Hungarian adaptations of Ordo of Egbert (cf. Pajorin 1996, Klaniczay 2008). The second impulse could have come from Andrew’s life. Since he hoped for a son for a long time in vain, he regarded his younger brother Béla, who he invited home from Poland, as his heir. When Andrew nevertheless had a son, he named the boy Salamon and his second son, who was born a few years after Salamon, received the name Dávid. King Andrew may have intended to express to his brother Béla by these choices that his sons would become heirs instead of him. Additionally, he could also have had a third reason for giving exactly these names to his sons. His wife, Anastasia was the niece of Gleb, the Rurikid Prince and as we could see before, Andrew was attached strongly to the Kievan court. The idea of the Kievan influence is also corroborated by the fact that 172 Mariann Slíz

Hilarion, metropolitan of Kiev emphasized in his “Sermon on Law and Grace” that the rulers of newly evangelized peoples did great works similar to David and Solomon’s, which made them equals even to emperors (Font 2005, p. 132). Although the biblical Saul was not the epitome of an ideal king, his name also appears in the House of Árpád. However, this name choice must also have had the function to express the name-bearer’s claim to the throne, since the Hungarian Saul’s uncle on his mother’s line, King Stephen II (1116-1131) had no children or younger brothers. However, Saul did not succeed to take the throne. As we can see, the names of biblical kings did not bring good luck to their royal bearers in Hungary. We may presume that this was why they did not recur any more (except Prince Solomon, son of King Béla III). Additionally, after a few generations the dynasty did not need these names since they had their own ideals of kinghood embo died by King Stephen I and King Ladislaus I.

Influences of other dynasties on name-giving As demonstrated earlier, the influence of dynastic connections on name-giving was more characteristic in the female name stock than in the male. However, this statement needs refining since we have several examples of foreign influence on princes’ names from the 9-11th centuries. As a matter of fact, there is a typical case, when royal sons received names from their mothers’s family. Some newly Chris- tianized kings were compelled to rely on allies, mostly on their Chris- tian wives’ families, in seizing their thrones or in consolidating their power. That is why we should consider the role of the Kievan court in the name choice of Andrew I, king of Hungary. Andrew’s brother, Béla I (1060-1063) married the daughter of Mieszko II, duke of Poland. The Hungarian prince, after fleeing from Hungary, helped the former Polish king in reoccupying the throne of Poland. In return, he could count on his Piast relatives, therefore, it is understandable that he gave his third son his father-in-law’s Christian name, Lambert.

After the naming traditions of dynasties had emerged The motivations of name-giving shown in the previous section were characteristic mostly in those historical periods when newly Christianized Names of saints and dynastic name-giving in Hungary … 173 dynasties yet had no name-giving traditions of their own. After a few generations, the name-giving strategies of royal houses changed due to the fact that by that time they had already an available name stock borne by both male and female ancestors. They did not need the symbols of evangelizers, angels and martyrs any more, since the evangelizing work had finished by their time. Moreover, they had achieved the canonization of their own evangelizers and martyrs (e.g. Saint Olga, Saint Vladimir, Saint Boris and Gleb for the Rurikids, Saint Ludmila and Saint Venceslaus for the Přemyslids). They were not in need of biblical symbols of ideal kings either, since there had already emerged ideal and saintly rulers from their own dynasties (e.g. Saint Stephen I and Saint Ladislaus I for the Hungarian dynasties). They gave their sons the names of non-dynastic saints relatively rarely, since political (mostly domestic political) factors of name-giving worked stronger than religious sympa- thies for a commonly venerated saint.

Reasons for taking over names of family saints from other dynasties The most characteristic motive of name-giving in dynasties after their naming traditions emerged was choosing names of great but not neces- sarily saintly ancestors. Other motives could play a role in the name- giving of third, fourth, etc. sons and that of daughters, since they had less importance in the inheritance of the crown. When a name differed from the traditions of a dynasty, it usually had a political reason. As we could see from the example of Charles I, king of Hungary of the House of Anjou, making reference to saintly ancestors by personal names was used as a device of expressing legitimacy, when an extraneous king intended to seize the throne. But what if a king of a foreign dynasty gained his crown by marrying the last offspring of a dynasty? This was the case when John of Luxembourg managed to take the throne of Bohemia in 1311, after he married the sister of the last male member of the Přemyslids, Wenceslaus III (1306). John, as the son of the holy Roman emperor Henry VII, member of the House of Luxembourg had no close family relations with the Czech dynasty before his marriage, and therefore he could not refer to any saintly Přemyslid ancestors. All the same, he named his first son after Saint Wenceslaus, the family saint of the Přemyslids, although this name had not figured in his family before. His second son received two typical names of the Czech dynasty as well: Přemysl Ottokar. The aim 174 Mariann Slíz of these choices was clearly to express the legitimacy of the king’s reign and to strengthen the claim of his children for the Bohemian throne by signalling their descent from Saint Wenceslaus’ bloodline. On the other hand, John’s third son received two names of his father’s family (John Henry), since he was less important politically than his elder brothers. However, the fourth prince was given the name Václav (‘Wenceslaus’) again. It would be strange (and legally impossible in many countries) nowadays, but the phenomenon that two siblings bore the same name was not unknown in the Middle Ages, especially when the first child had died or his/her name had changed before the second child’s birth. Since the first Wenceslaus’s name had been changed to Charles by the French King Charles IV (1322-1328), whose court the boy was educated in, it was not so strange to give the fourth son the name of Saint Wenceslaus again. On the contrary, that seemed to be a wise choice, since the fourth son’s mother was not the Přemyslid princess but the second wife of the king, Beatrice of Bourbon. It means that this boy was already not the offspring of the previous royal family of Bohemia, unlike his elder brothers. Due to this, his contingent claim for the throne was more fragile than his brothers’, and his name could have been inspired to compensate for the disadvantage. As we can see, after the stabilization of naming traditions, the name of a family saint of another dynasty could enter into a royal family’s name stock when a claimant needed to emphasize his relations to the dynasty in question. For instance, the son of Charles III, king of Naples (1381-1386) received his name after Saint Ladislaus of Hungary (King Ladislaus I of the House of Árpád), albeit he was only a distant relative of his via his great-grandmother, Maria of the House of Árpád, queen consort of Naples. Since this name did not occur among the Anjous of Naples before, we can be certain that it was given to him in honour of the Hungarian saint. However, this choice could have been motivated by political rather than religious reasons. The father, King Charles III lived in the court of Louis the Great, king of Hungary, for some years in his youth, and the Hunga rian king regarded him as his heir. Although the late birth of the daughters of King Louis bereft Charles of his right for the Hungarian throne, he never gave up his claim, as his son’s name reflects. Three years after Louis’s death, in 1385, he dethroned Louis’s daughter, Queen Maria, and ascended to the throne, but he was soon murdered Names of saints and dynastic name-giving in Hungary … 175 in a conspiracy manoeuvred by Louis’s widow. His son, Ladislaus, also tried to seize the Hungarian throne unavailingly a few years later. Another way for the name of a family saint of another dynasty to enter into the name stock of a royal family was through the name- giving of baseborn children. For instance, when Euphemia of Kiev, the second wife of Coloman king of Hungary (1095-1116), was accused of adultery, she returned to her father’s court in Kiev and gave her son the name Boris. This name was unique among the Árpáds but was the name of a family saint among the Rurikids. Unlike her, another queen consort of Hungary who was accused of the same crime, Beatrice d’Este gave her son the name István (‘Stephen’) after the family saint of the Árpáds, as we have seen before. Although Márta Font raised the possibility that the accusation against Euphemia might have been only a fabrication to knock a hole in Boris’ claim for the crown (Font 2005, pp. 137-138, 155), it does not change the fact that the queen was repudiated. While her name choice expresses that she gave up her son’s hope for the Hungarian throne, Beatrice’s decision reflected the fact that she rejected the accusation and maintained her son’s right. Several examples from the Early Middle Ages shows that even in Western Europe an especially strong symbolic role was given to the naming of baseborn sons after ancestors. As Goldberg (2006, p. 265) noted, Carloman of Bavaria gave his illegitimate son the name Arnulf (around 850) because, although it was not a king’s name, it was strongly connected to the Carolingian dynasty, since their ancestor was Bishop Arnulf of Metz. In Goldberg’s opinion, Carlo- man intended to signal his son’s baseborn origins but kept “his options open” to make him his heir. As Abbott Regino of Prüm com- mented on Carloman’s choice in his “Chronicon”, he wanted to strengthen his son’s claim for the throne with this name as well (cf. Szovák 1993). Furthermore, when a prince seceded from his family, new names of saints could also enter the dynasty’s name stock. This was the reason why Prince Géza, younger brother of Béla III, king of Hun- gary gave his son the name Alexios. Saint Alexios was known in Hungary and his name was an existing but relatively rare member of the Hungarian name stock. Nevertheless, it had not appeared among the Árpáds before. Géza’s decision was due to his changed circumstances: after several unsuccessful attempts to concur his brother’s 176 Mariann Slíz throne, he moved to Byzantium and married a Greek princess. Being aware of the fact that no hope remained for him to return, he named his son after Saint Alexios, who had a great veneration in Byzantium, his new home country. Moreover, this name-giving also followed the naming traditions of his new royal relatives, the Byzantine Komnenos dynasty.

Name changes As we could see before, Christianization went hand in hand with name changes. The Christian names chosen by newly baptised rulers had especially great symbolic value in their historical contexts. After the naming traditions of the dynasties had emerged, there were still name changes, but their reasons differed from the previous period. Conse- quently, the strategies of religious name choices also changed: the new names did not belong to evangelizers, martyrs or biblical kings any more but were connected to dynastic saints or, as we will see in the following, saints highly venerated in the Church to which the princes or princesses converted. One characteristic cause of name changes was conversion between the Western and the Eastern Churches. It happened mostly because of marriages between members of Catholic and Byzantine dynasties. For instance, Piroska, the daughter of Ladislaus I, king of Hungary received the name Irene when she married Emperor John II Komnenos in 1104. This was a typical female name in Byzantine dynasties, certainly promoted by the veneration of Irene of Athens, Empress of Byzantium (797-802). Similarly, Margaret, daughter of Béla III, king of Hungary changed her name into Maria when marrying Emperor Isaac Angelos II in 1185. Neither Irene nor Maria was common among the Arpad’s but both names were frequent in the Byz- antine royal families. The frequency of Irene was also promoted by other orthodox saints of the same name (Irene of Thessalonica, Irene of Macedonia, Irene of Cappadocia, Irene of Alexandria and Irene of Gaza), while the popularity of Maria was due to the great veneration of the Blessed Virgin, which had begun in the Byzantine empire in the 4th century. Western European princesses were also renamed when they married a Byzantine ruler, such as Agnes, daughter of Louis VII of France, who received the name Anna as Empress Consort of Alex- ios II Komnenos. Names of saints and dynastic name-giving in Hungary … 177

Political reasons were also behind name changes in this period. For example, the cause of the name change of Charles IV, Holy Roman Emperor, was political. He was, as mentioned before, born under the name Václav (‘Wenceslaus’), as the son of John of Luxembourg, king of Bohemia. The French King Charles the Fair changed his name, insisting on Wenceslaus’s descent from Charlemagne on the father’s line. However, the change was not only due to this fact but rather owing to political planning. The prince’s grandfather, Henry VII was a Holy Roman Emperor, and the role of the grandson’s new name must have been to help him in taking the crown not only of Bohemia but also of the Holy Roman Empire, by reminding of his distant relations to Charlemagne. It suggested that Wenceslaus/Charles descended from the bloodline of saintly rulers on both sides: of Saint Wenceslaus on his mother’s side and of Charlemagne on his father’s. The fact that the French king made an alliance between the prince and his own relative, Blanche of Valois, reflects that this is not a gratuitous assumption (see Klaniczay 2002, p. 327).

Conclusion We may conclude that the relationship between cults of saints and name-giving within dynasties was fairly complex in Medieval Europe. Although my conclusions are based mainly on examples from Central and Eastern Europe, it is probable that the naming strategies of royal houses were similar in the other regions of Europe as well. What I would claim to be the main result of this investigation is that the role of cults of saints in the name-giving of monarchs was in close connection with politics. This could be explained by the great symbolic value of names, which, as we have seen in several examples, was exceedingly important. Consequently, the most characteristic motif of sacral name-giving was beyond doubt giving a name after a holy predecessor or after a family saint. Any other motives could play a part only in special cases. At the same time, if we look into the matter thoroughly, it will be clear that there are differences in dynastic naming depending on gender and on time. On the one hand, cults of non-dynastic saints could play a bigger role in the case of royal daughters. On the other hand, they were also more important in the period of embracing Chris- tianity, before the dynasties’ own naming traditions emerged. 178 Mariann Slíz

Bibliography

Barna, Bálint, 2006: A középkori Szent Imre-kép [The Medieval image of Saint Emeric]. In: Studia Caroliensia 2006/3-4, p. 91-110. Benkő, Loránd, 1950: Árpádkori személyneveink [Personal names in the Age of the Árpáds]. In: Magyar Nyelvőr74, p. 18-23. Berrár, Jolán, 1952: Női neveink 1400-ig [Female Names until 1400]. A Magyar Nyelvtudományi Társaság Kiadványai 80 [Issues of the Hungarian society of linguistics 80]. Budapest. Bloch, Marc, 1983: Les Rois Thaumaturges. Étude sur le caractère surnaturel attribué à la puissance royale particulièrement en France et en Angleterre [The Royal touch: monarchy and mira- cles in France and England]. Paris. Bollók, János, 1994: Ladislaus. (Egy középkori etimológia és tanulsá- gai) [Ladislaus. (A medieval etymology and its edifications]. In: István Draskóczy (ed.), Scripta manent. Ünnepi tanulmányok a 60. életévét betöltött Gerics József professzor tiszteletére [Scripta manent. Festschrift in honour of Professor József Gerics on his 60th birthday], p. 63-73. Budapest. Érszegi, Géza, 1987: Árpád-kori legendák és intelmek [Legends and admonitions from the Age of the Árpáds]. Budapest. Fehértói, Katalin, 1997: Árpád-kori közszói eredetű személyneveinkről [On personal names coming from common nouns from the Age of the Árpáds]. In: Magyar Nyelvőr121, p. 71-75. FNESz. = Kiss, Lajos ed., 1988: Földrajzi nevek etimológiai szótára 1-2 [Etymological dictionary of geographical names 1-2]. Budapest. N. Fodor, János, 2010: Személynevek rendszere a kései ómagyar korban. A Felső-Tisza-vidék személyneveinek nyelvi elemzése (1401- 1526) [The System of Personal Names in Late Old Hungarian. Linguistic Analysis of Personal Names from the Upper Tisza Region (1401-1526)]. Magyar Névtani Értekezések 2. Budapest. Font, Márta, 2005: Árpád-házi királyok és Rurikida fejedelmek [Kings of the House of Árpád and Rurikid Grand Princes]. Szeged. Goldberg, Eric Joseph, 2006: Struggle for empire: kingship and con- flict under Louis the German, 817-876. Ithaca, New York. Gombocz, Zoltán, 1915: Árpád-kori török személyneveink [Turkic personal names from the Age of the Árpáds]. A Magyar Nyelv- tudományi Társaság Kiadványai 16. Budapest. Names of saints and dynastic name-giving in Hungary … 179

Hajdú, Mihály, 1988: Adalék nőneveink korai divatjához [An addition to the early fashion of female names]. In: Studia in honorem P. Fábián, E. Rácz, I. Szathmári oblata a collegis et discipulis [Festschrift in honour of P. Fábián, E. Rácz and I. Szathmári, made by their colleagues and students], p. 61-65. Budapest. Hajdú, Mihály, 2003: Általános és magyar névtan. Személynevek [General and Hungarian Onomastics. Personal names]. Budapest. Head, Thomas (ed.), 2001: Medieval hagiography: an anthology. New York. Klaniczay, Gábor, 1986: Az Anjouk és a szent királyok. Fejezet a középkori szenttisztelet történetéből [The Anjous and the saintly kings. A chapter on the history of medieval veneration of saints]. In: Gábor Tüskés (ed.), „Mert ezt Isten hagyta…” Tanulmányok a népi vallásosság köréből [“Because God let it happen…” Papers on folk religiosity], p. 65-87. Budapest. Klaniczay, Gábor, 2002: Holy rulers and blessed princesses. Dynastic cults in medieval central Europe. Cambridge. Klaniczay, Gábor, 2008: The Ambivalent model of Solomon for royal sainthood and royal wisdom. In: Ivan Biliarsky & Radu G. Păun (eds.), The Biblical models of power and law. Les modèles bib- liques du pouvoir et du droit, p. 75-92. Frankfurt am Main. Klaniczay, Gábor, 2013: Efforts at the canonization of Margaret of Hungary in the Angevin Period. In: Hungarian Historical Review 2, p. 313-340. KMTL. = Kristó, Gyula editor-in-chief, 1994: Korai magyar történeti lexikon (9-14. század). Budapest. Kristó, Gyula, 1998: Magyarország története 895-1301 [History of Hungary 895-1301]. Budapest. Magyar, Zoltán, 2006: Szent György a magyar kultúrtörténetben. A Kárpát-medence Szent György-hagyományainak néprajzi és művelődéstörténeti rétege [Saint George in Hungarian cultural history. The ethnographic and cultural historical layer of the traditions about Saint George in the Carpathian Basin]. Budapest. Melich, János, 1941: László, Ulászló [Ladislas, Vladislas]. In: Mag- yar Nyelv 37, p. 145-154. Moravcsik, Gyula, 1970: Byzantium and the Magyars. Amsterdam. Pajorin, Klára, 1996: Nagy Károly környezetének álneveiről [On the pseudonyms of Charlemagne’s surroundings]. In: Filológiai Közlöny 42, p. 114-120. 180 Mariann Slíz

Slíz, Mariann, 2000: Az Árpád-ház névadása Géza fejedelemtől III. Andrásig [Name-givings in the House of Árpád from Grand Prince Géza to Andrew III]. Magyar Névtani Dolgozatok 168 [Hungarian Onomastic Papers 168]. Budapest. Slíz, Mariann, 2011a: Anjou-kori személynévtár (1301-1342) [Per- sonal name dictionary of the the Angevin Age (1301-1342)]. Budapest. Slíz, Mariann, 2011b: Személynévadás az Anjou-korban [Name-giving in the Angevin Age]. Budapest. Slíz, Mariann, 2013: Cults of saints and naming in medieval Hungary. In: Emese Egedi-Kovács (ed.), Byzance et l’Occident : Rencon- tre de l’Est et de l’Ouest [Byzantium and the West: meeting of east and west], p. 233-241. Budapest. Szovák, Kornél, 1993: The image of the ideal king in twelfth-century Hungary (remarks on the legend of St Ladislas). In: Anne J. Dug- gan (ed.), Kings and kingship in medieval Europe, p. 241-264. London. Uspenskij, Fjodor, 2011a: Родовые имена и небесные покровители в семье московских великих князей [Non-Christian names and heavenly patrons in the family of the Grand Princes of Moscow]. In: С. А. Беляев & И. А. Воротникова (eds.), Московский Кремль XV столетия. Древние святыни и исторические памятники [XV centuries of Moscow Kremlin. Ancient relics and historical monuments], p. 36-41. Москва [Moscow]. Uspenskij, Fjodor, 2011a: The Advent of Christianity and dynastic name-giving in Scandinavia and Rus’. In: I. Garipdzanov & O. Tolochko (eds.), Early Christianity on the way from the Var- angians to the Greeks, p. 108-119. Kiev.

Mariann Slíz ELTE BTK Magyar Nyelvtudományi és Finnugor Intézet Múzeum krt. 4/A Budapest H-1088 Hungary [email protected]. Names of saints and dynastic name-giving in Hungary … 181

Résumé : Les noms des saints et l’attribution dynastique des noms aux Xe-XIVe siècles en Europe centrale et orientale Nous présentons ici quelques caractéristiques de la relation entre les cultes médiévaux des saints et les pratiques nominales dans les dynasties royales. On observe que le stock onomastique des dynasties diffère significativement de celui des populations asservies. La raison principale en est que les pratiques nominatives des dynasties étaient influencées par les pratiques royales qui répondent d’hérédités et d’objectifs politiques ou idéologiques. Le présent travail repose principalement sur les stocks des Maisons d’Árpád et d’Anjou en Hongrie, mais aussi sur des exemples d’autres dynasties d’Europe centrale et orientale à la même période (les Rurikids de la Rus’ de Kiev, les Přemyslids et la Maison de Luxembourg en Bohême et en Hongrie, les Piasts de Pologne et la Maison d’Anjou de Naples). Nous proposons une typologie des motivations de la nomination dynastique liée au culte des saints (d’après le calen- drier ; en référence à un acte pieux ; à la vie d’un saint ; à la présence d’un saint dans la dynastie). Nous insistons sur la différence sexuelle : les noms des garçons étaient plus importants car ils pouvaient devenir monarques ; les filles n’avaient de rôle en politique étrangère que par le mariage. C’est pourquoi les stocks des noms féminins étaient plus variés dans les dynasties et ont montré plus d’accoin- tances avec les noms portés dans les populations locales, parce qu’influencés plus fortement par les cultes populaires ou les liens dynastiques. Nous obser- vons aussi que la relation entre culte des saints et pratiques de nomination différaient dans les périodes de christianisation des dynasties et après la stabilisation de la christianisation dans leur propre pays. Au moment de leur christianisation, le choix s’est typiquement porté sur les noms des évangélisa- teurs, des martyrs, des grands rois de la Bible et des partisans du christianisme. Dans ce cadre, nous prenons aussi en compte les changements rituels de nom depuis que le baptême est lié au choix d’un nom chrétien. D’autre part, les cultes de saints semblent avoir eu un moindre impact sur la nomination dynastique après la stabilisation de la christianisation, tandis que les pratiques nominatives des dynasties se stabilisaient en aboutissant à une haute fréquence de certains noms. Enfin, le but de répéter un nom était de donner aux héritiers un nom royal typique, tout en exprimant une ambition politique et idéologique.

Summary: Names of Saints and Dynastic Name-giving in Hungary in the 10-14th centuries in a Central and Eastern European Context This paper presents certain features of the relationship between medieval cults of saints and name-giving practices in royal dynasties. One can observe that the name stocks of dynasties could significantly differ from the name stock of the whole population of their countries. The main cause of this difference was that name-giving practices within dynasties were influenced by special factors since name-giving in royal families could express political or ideological heredities and aims. This overview is based on mostly the name stocks and 182 Mariann Slíz

history of the Houses of Árpád and Anjou in Hungary, but it also mentions examples from other Central and East European dynasties of the given period (the Rurikids of Kievan Rus’; the Přemyslids and the House of Luxembourg in Bohemia and in Hungary; the Piasts of Poland and the House of Anjou of Naples). The paper crayons out a possible typology of the motivations of dynastic naming reflecting cults of saints (naming according to calendar; with reference to a pious action; motivated by the saint’s life; after a family saint of the dynasty). The study dwells on the gender differences in naming as well: boys’ names were more important since they could become monarchs, while girls had only roles in foreign politics by their marriages. For this reason, stocks of female names in dynasties were more varied and they showed higher conformity with the name stock of the given country’s people since they could have been influenced more strongly by actual popular cults or dynastic ties. The paper also ascertains that the relation between cults of saints and name- giving practices in dynasties were different in the period of the dynasties’ Christianization and after the stabilization of Christianity in their kingdoms. At the time of their Christianization, it seems to have been rather typical to choose the names of evangelizers, martyrs, great biblical kings and supporters of Christianity. In connection with this topic, the study also considers ritual name changes since baptism pertains to choosing a Christian name. Mean- while, cults of saints could have made a less deep impact on dynastic naming after the stabilization of Christianity, since naming habits of dynasties had stabilized by that time and they resulted in a high frequency of certain names. On the one hand, the aim of name repetition was to give the heir a typical royal name, and, on the other hand, to express a political or ideological ambition.

Zusammenfassung: Heiligennamen und dynastische Namengebung in Ungarn vom 10. bis zum 14. Jh. im mittel- und osteuropäischen Kontext Im vorliegenden Aufsatz werden einige Zusammenhänge zwischen mittelalter- lichen Heiligenkulten und Benennungspraktiken in königlichen Dynastien behandelt. Es kann festgestellt werden, dass dynastische Namenbestände bedeutende Unterschiede zu den Namenbeständen der Gesamtbevölkerung der entsprechenden Länder aufweisen konnten. Der wichtigste Grund für diesen Unterschied liegt darin, dass die Namengebung innerhalb von Dynastien von besonderen Faktoren beeinflusst wurde, da die Namenvergabe in Königs häusern politische oder ideologische Botschaften und Ziele zum Ausdruck brin- gen konnte. Die vorliegende Überblicksdarstellung basiert hauptsächlich auf den Namenbeständen und der Geschichte der Häuser von Árpád und Anjou in Ungarn. Weitere Beispiele aus anderen mittel- und osteuropäischen Dynastien der gegebenen Periode (Rurikiden der Kiewer Rus; Přemysliden und das Haus Luxemburg in Böhmen und Ungarn; Piasten in Polen und das Haus Anjou in Neapel) werden ebenfalls herangezogen. Im Aufsatz wird eine Typologie der dynastischen Benennungsmotive als Spiegel von Heiligenkulten herausgearbeitet Names of saints and dynastic name-giving in Hungary … 183

(Benennung nach dem Kalender; mit Bezug auf die frommen Taten; Motiva- tion durch das Leben des Heiligen; Benennung nach dem dynastischen Familienheiligen). Geschlechtsspezifische Unterschiede in der Namengebung werden ebenfalls beleuchtet: Während Jungennamen eine größere Bedeutung hatten, weil deren Träger zu Herrschern werden konnten, wurde den Mädchen lediglich eine Rolle in der Außenpolitik bei deren Heirat zugeschrieben. Aus diesem Grund waren die dynastischen Frauennamen bestände vielfältiger und sie zeigten eine höhere Übereinstimmung mit den Namenbeständen der Bevöl- kerung im entsprechenden Land, weil sie von zeitgenössischen Heiligenkulten oder dynastischen Verbindungen stärker beeinflusst wurden. Es wird ferner aufgezeigt, dass der Zusammenhang zwischen den Heiligenkulten und dynastischen Benennungspraktiken während der Christianisierung der Dynastien und nach der Festigung des Christentums in den entsprechenden Königreichen jeweils unterschiedlich war. Zur Zeit der Christianisierung scheint die Auswahl der Namen von Verkündern des Evangeliums, Märtyrern, biblischen Königen und Förderern des Christentums charakteristisch gewesen zu sein. In diesem Zusammenhang werden darüber hinaus rituelle Namensänderungen berücksich- tigt, weil die Annahme eines christlichen Namens einen Teil der Taufe aus- macht. Nach der Festigung des Christentums wurde der Einfluss die Heiligen- kulte geringer, weil die dynastischen Benennungspraktiken bis dahin gefestigt worden waren und bestimmte Namen eine hohe Frequenz aufwiesen. Einerseits zielte die wiederholte Vergabe eines Namens auf die Benennung mit einem typischen Königsnamen ab, andererseits drückten solche Namen politische oder ideologische Ambitionen aus.