Vladislaus Henry East Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 450–1450

General Editor

Florin Curta

VOLUME 33

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/ecee Vladislaus Henry

The Formation of Moravian Identity

Martin Wihoda

Translated by

Kateřina Millerová

LEIDEN | BOSTON Cover illustration: Between 1213 and 1222, Vladislaus Henry used a single type of equestrian seal. Although he entered the public life as a margrave of Moravia, his shield bore the sign of a lion, which also appeared in the coat of arms of his brother, King of Bohemia Přemysl Otakar I. Photography by MZA (Moravian Land Archives) Brno. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Wihoda, Martin, 1967- Vladislaus Henry : the formation of Moravian identity / by Martin Wihoda ; translated by Katerina Millerova. pages cm. — (East Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 450–1450, ISSN 1872-8103; volume 33) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-90-04-25049-9 (hardback : acid-free paper) — ISBN 978-90-04-30383-6 (e-book) 1. Vladislav Jindrich, Margrave of Moravia, approximately 1167–1222. 2. Moravia (Czech Republic)—Kings and rulers—Biography. 3. Moravia (Czech Republic)—Politics and government. 4. Premysl Otakar I, King of Bohemia, approximately 1165–1230 5. Group identity—Czech Republic—Moravia—History—To 1500. 6. Community life—Czech Republic—Moravia—History—To 1500. 7. Land tenure—Political aspects— Czech Republic—Moravia—History—To 1500. 8. Social change—Czech Republic—Moravia—History— To 1500. 9. Moravia (Czech Republic)—History—To 1526. 10. Bohemia (Czech Republic)—History—To 1526. I. Title. DB2091.V52W44 2015 943.72’0223092—dc23 [B] 2015027400

This publication has been typeset in the multilingual ‘Brill’ typeface. With over 5,100 characters covering Latin, ipa, Greek, and Cyrillic, this typeface is especially suitable for use in the humanities. For more information, please see www.brill.com/brill-typeface. issn 1872-8103 isbn 978-90-04-25049-9 (hardback) isbn 978-90-04-30383-6 (e-book) Copyright 2015 by Koninklijke Brill nv, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi and Hotei Publishing. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill nv provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, ma 01923, usa. Fees are subject to change. This book is printed on acid-free paper. Contents

Acknowledgements vii List of Illustrations ix Abbreviations xxi Map xxiv

1 A Remote Mirror 1

2 An Heir 12 1 The Years of Fame and False Hopes 16 2 A Witness to a Dying Time 27 3 The First Man in the Duchy 45

3 The Margrave 61 1 The Epilogue of the Ducal Age 66 2 The Nuremberg Mission 80 3 Two Moravias 100 4 The December Agreement 112 5 From Hedwig to Heilwidis 134

4 The Land 141 1 The Ruler 145 2 The Governor 157 3 The Manager 168 4 The Founder 181 5 The Patron 205

5 Memory 223 1 Gerlach and the Others 227 2 The Gracious Duke 234 3 It Happened One Night 246

6 Legacy 254 1 From Margraves to a Margraviate 257 2 Transformation on the Periphery 277 3 The Making of Central Europe 284 vi contents

Appendices 1 The Margraves of Moravia of the Přemyslid Period 297 2 Vladislaus’ Lineage 298 Bibliography 300 1 Sources 300 2 Literature 306 Index 337 Acknowledgements

The remote beginnings of the treatise that was published in 2007 under the title Vladislav Jindřich [Vladislaus Henry] go back to the early 1990s, when my Brno professors Jaroslav Mezník and Josef Válka persuaded me to make my so far indiscriminate interest in the transformation of ducal Moravia into a margraviate the subject of my next research. By a twist of fate and because of some other urgent obligations, it took another ten years for me to organise variously scattered reflections into fixed coordinates. Then it turned out that the community of the Moravians had begun to take shape in the first two decades of the 13th century, hence at the time when the land was governed by Margrave Vladislaus Henry († 1222). The manuscript was then published by Matice moravská [Moravian Foundation].1 Hardly anyone anticipated that the book with the rather non- catchy title would become an ‘event’. Yet it was out of print within three months, and the subsequent discussion showed that some passages could be further elaborated or specified with new evidence. I gladly accepted the offer of Florin Curta (University of North Florida) and, with the generous support of the Brill Academic Publishers, began to make the changes that impressed its present form on the Czech original. The first words of thanks then go not only to Florin Curta but also to Brill’s Julian Deahl and Marcella Mulder. I am also indebted to Kateřina Millerová for having undertaken the translation with remarkable willingness and to Demeter Malat’ák for the time that he spent on proofreading the text. I am glad to mention here that the work presented emerged within the project of the Czech Science Foundation P 405/12/0358 ‘The First Czech Kingdoms’ and was finalized with the support of the Faculty of Arts of the Masaryk University within the project ROZV/24/FF/HU1/2014. Equally sincere thanks are due to the reviewers of the Czech version. I especially appreciate the comments of Přemysl Bar, Karel Hruza, Dalibor Janiš, Wojciech Mischke and Martin Nodl. With respect and pleasure, I remember here my mentors and teachers, Jaroslav Bakala, Jaroslav Mezník, Dušan Třeštík and Josef Válka; it is a pity that I can share the joy of knowledge with only the last of them now. Jan Klápště deserves a symbolic prize for the patience with which he listened to my speculations. Dalibor Havel and Dalibor Prix have always been more than erudite counsellors for me. Both of them have become my kind and top-ranking guides to the places of memory of the Přemyslid Age.

1 Martin Wihoda, Vladislav Jindřich, Brno 2007 (Knižnice Matice moravské 21), ISBN 978-80-86488-00-4. viii acknowledgements

I am grateful to Zdeněk Neústupný for making the maps. Last but not least, I thank my students and colleagues for providing me with an isle of creative freedom and liberalism at the Department of History of the Faculty of Arts of Masaryk University in Brno. I owe thanks particularly to Libor Jan, to whom I am grateful for colourful discussions in Akademická kavárna, which became an involuntary and fortunately also silent witness to our contemplations.

Maloměřice, St Stephen’s day, 2014 List of Illustrations

1 Mariazell became an important pilgrimage site already in 1399, when Pope Boniface IX granted the church plenary indulgences. The real heyday of the monastery, however, did not occur until the Baroque; this may be a reason that the monastic records mention only the legendary memories of 1157 and the monk Magnus, who built a hermitage where the Virgin Mary had allegedly appeared to him. Subsequently, the humble dwelling was purportedly rebuilt by some margrave of Moravia, whose health was restored through fervent prayers and the intercession of St Wenceslas. Although his work disappeared under the generously laid-out church of King of Hungary Louis, the Benedictines did not forget their first munificent benefactor, who has been identified as Vladislaus Henry, and in 1757 they asked the famous sculptor Balthasar Ferdinand Moll to cast statues of the king of Hungary and the margrave of Moravia. The latter was welcoming pilgrims on the right side before the main entrance. 5 2 Vladislaus Henry gave the Louka monastery the field at Loděnice which was connected with the memory of the clash of the Bohemians and Moravians in 1185 (campus iuxta Lodinic, in quo bellum habitum est inter Bohemos et Morauos). He himself supposedly emphasised that he was doing so to save his soul (pro remedio anime sue). In the past, the explanatory gloss was mistakenly presented as proof that the margrave had fought at Loděnice. 13 3 Vladislaus II constantly repeated, with pride that was hard to conceal, that he was the king of the Bohemians (rex Bohemorum). Nevertheless, the imperial privilege of 18 January 1158, worded by the imperial chancellor Rainald of Dassel, considered his title to be conditional. Not only did the recipient remain a duke (dux); instead of the crown (diadema, corona), he was acknowledged the much more modest right to wear the coronet (circulus) on selected days. 22 4 Despite all the restrictive conditions, Vladislaus II sincerely appreciated the title bestowed on him, which is implied by his ‘coronation’ denars. The first of them was minted after his return from Regensburg in the first weeks of 1158 and depicted the symbolic acceptance of the crown from the hands of Emperor Frederick I Barbarossa. 25

* Unless stated otherwise in the caption, the images are owned by the author himself. x list of illustrations

5 At the bleak castle Přimda, extending towards the Bavarian border, the unfortunate duke Sobeslaus spent twelve long years (1161–1172) before Barbarossa’s threats returned his freedom to him and he, after the intercession of his brother Oldřich and with the blessing of the emperor and his counsellors, assumed the government in Prague in 1173. Depictions from the 1840s. 26 6 The abbot Gerlach was not only a well-informed commentator on contemporary events but also a competent abbot, under whose long administration (he was inaugurated in 1187 and still held the post in 1221) Milevsko became an influential and most likely also rich community, which could proceed to the generously laid-out construction of the monastic complex. There was even a place for a scriptorium, within whose walls the Milevsko chronicle was written between 1214 and 1222. 32 7 Although Conrad Otto was raised to the head of the land by the agreement that he had concluded with Duke Frederick in Knín in the spring of 1186, the seal that he attached to the foundation charter of the Louka canonry on 25 October 1190 invoked the favour of St Wenceslas and the inscription around the perimeter (+ PAX OTTOИIS. IИ MAИV S VЄИCЄSLAI) said that Conrad Otto ruled the land, according to the law, with the consent of the Bohemians and the blessing of the heavenly patron. 37 8 After his accession to the ducal throne, Přemysl Otakar I had a seal made. He used it in 1192 to confirm the donation by which Drslaus’ son Oldřich had multiplied the endowment of the monastery in Plasy. From the beginning, he tried to act as a confident ruler. He was the very first duke of Bohemia to use a seal whose field was covered by a depiction of a rider with a banner in his right hand and a shield with an eagle in his left hand. The simple inscription around the perimeter announced that Přemysl was a duke (+ DVX. PREMISL). 45 9 What the margravial residences in Moravia around the turn of the 13th century probably looked like is indicated by the church of SS Peter and Paul in Řeznovice, in the vicinity of which there was a ducal curtis. 48 10 Henry Bretislaus seems to have celebrated the beginning of his rule as a duke with a special coinage, which was to remind all the Czechs in the late summer of 1193 who the lord of the land was. The reverse of the denars was thus dominated by the figure of the duke-bishop in his majesty; the obverse probably referred to the defeat and expulsion of the duke Přemysl Otakar. 50 list of illustrations xi

11 Vladislaus Henry ruled in Prague for fewer than six months; yet as a properly elected and installed duke, he had a seal, with which he confirmed the donation of the lord Zdislaus for the Benedictines from Kladruby. It is evident from the fragment preserved that he, like Přemysl, owned an equestrian seal. 52 12 On the eve of the coronation ride, to which King of the Romans and of Germany Henry VI had invited also Conrad Otto, a diet was convened in Prague. At the end of October 1190, it decided that in the duke’s absence, the land would be governed by the oldest of the Přemyslids, Wenceslas. In the same place, Conrad Otto had the foundation charter of the Louka monastery written with a rather strange postscript that he did so as the duke of Bohemia and the former margrave of Moravia (dei gratia Boemorum dux, quondam marchio Morauie). 63 13 Although the south of Moravia was initially administered from Hradisko of St Hippolytus, Duke Luitpold selected as his residence in 1101 the opposite, more defensible promontory above the river Thaya. He had a castle built there, which was considered to be impregnable for the entire 12th century. From the former ducal residence, however, only the rotunda of the Virgin Mary and St Catherine has survived the adversity of time; the rest of the promontory is covered by castle buildings and the already closed town brewery. 67 14 Perhaps only the ground floor of the chapel of St Barbara cautiously suggests what the ducal castle in Olomouc may have looked like as its appearance and ground-plan layout were, already before the end of the Middle Ages, altered by numerous reconstructions of the neighbouring episcopal residence and St Vitus chapter, where the last of the Olomouc Přemyslids, Sifrid, had dwelt. 75 15 Přemysl Otakar acted like his father Vladislaus II in at least one thing. With his denars, he reminded the Bohemians that from 1198 he had ruled as king and with the blessing of the land’s patron St Wenceslas. 90 16 The abbot of Milevsko Gerlach emphasised that the future of the Přemyslid possessions had been determined on 6 December 1197, when the two brothers allegedly agreed on joint government—Přemysl Otakar was to rule in Bohemia and Vladislaus Henry in Moravia. In reality, however, Přemysl Otakar I kept the Olomouc region, which he ceded to his brother as late as sometime after 1209. It was definitely before the end of 1213, because in the privilege for the Knights Hospitaller of St John from 31 December 1213, Vladislaus Henry solemnly confirmed the Order’s property all over Moravia (in tota Moravia). 102 xii list of illustrations

17 It is not known what exactly Frederick II of Sicily had in mind when on 26 September 1212 he bestowed on Vladislaus Henry the possession of ‘Mocran et Mocran’ with all the rights and appurtenances and with the proviso that obligations towards the court be preserved. Yet it is not excluded that his notary misunderstood the original and in good faith corrected ‘entrust and confirm Moravia and Moravia’ (concedimus et confirmamus Moraviam et Moraviam), which announced the unification of both parts of Moravia under the margrave’s sceptre, to the obscure ‘Mocran et Mocran’. 104 18 The literally groundbreaking interpretation of the privilege Mocran et Mocran was presented by Bertold Bretholz (1862–1936), a talented and favourite student of Theodor von Sickel; it is a pity that he gradually became involved with German nationalism. 106 19 The two Moravias of the margrave Vladislaus Henry. A: The state borders of the Czech Republic; B: Land borders around 1212; C: Water courses; D: The borderline between Vladislaus’ and Přemysl’s parts of Moravia; E: Administrative centres (1 – Bíteš; 2 – Bítov; 3 – Brno; 4 – Bruntál; 5 – Břeclav; 6 – Hlubčice/Głubczyce; 7 – Měnín; 8 – Olomouc; 9 – Přerov; 10 – Uničov; 11 – Vranov; 12 – Znojmo); F: Bishopric (8 – Olomouc); G: Monasteries and important commande ries of military orders (13 – Doubravník; 14 – Hradisko; 15 – Grobniki; 16 – Kounice; 17 – Louka; 18 – Nová Říše; 19 – Olomouc – St Peter’s; 20 – Opava; 21 – Rajhrad; 22 – Slavkov; 23 – Třebíč; 24 – Velehrad; 25 – Zábrdovice). 111 20 ‘Mocran et Mocran’, a section from the privilege. 112 21 The monastic tradition claims that the first Cistercians came to the place called Velehrad on 11 November 1205 and that they could rely on the help and protection of the margrave Vladislaus Henry and Bishop of Olomouc Robert from the very beginning. Other and more reliable sources prove that the first years were not exactly easy; nevertheless already before the middle of the 13th century, an impressive monastery grew below the ridges of the Chřiby Hills. Its original Romanesque appearance and layout are still perceptible even after extensive Baroque modifications. 117 22 That Vladislaus Henry significantly affected the succession order and decided with his vote that the new king of Bohemia would be his nephew Wenceslas, in whose favour he voluntarily ceded succession rights, is implied by the privilege, which was sealed by King of the Romans Frederick II of Sicily before Ulm on 26 July 1216. 119 list of illustrations xiii

23 This is how Přemysl Otakar I and his second wife Constance were immortalised in the psalter of Hermann of Thuringia, whose creation is usually placed between 1211 and 1213. 122 24 Frederick I. Barbarossa had the magnificent residence in Cheb built on the site of an earlier Vohburg castle. For its position, however, it soon became a popular place for various meetings, sessions and Hoftage. In 1179, the dispute over the Weitra region was discussed here before the emperor. In the spring of 1204, the imperial palace was a witness to the oath of fealty made by Duke Theobald to Philip of Swabia. In Cheb, Frederick II of Sicily dated the famous bull, by which he assured Pope Innocent III in July 1213 that the Holy See would not be deprived of its rights; the issue of the charter was watched by Přemysl Otakar I; and it was in Cheb one year later that the king of Bohemia was informed about the campaign of Emperor Otto IV against King of France Philip Augustus. In March 1215, also Margrave Vladislaus Henry headed to Cheb. Depictions from the 1840s. 128 25 The royal seal used by Přemysl Otakar between 1201 and 1223 openly radiated the confidence of the ruler of Bohemia, who had himself depicted in majesty with the royal insignia. Nevertheless, the attached inscription (+ PAX. REGIS. OTACARI. IN MANV. SCI. WENCEZLAI) still emphasised that Přemysl Otakar ruled with the blessing of St Wenceslas and hence in accordance with the law and will of the aristocratic land community. 131 26 The last ride of Margrave Vladislaus Henry. A: The state borders of the Czech Republic; B: Land borders around 1212; C: Water courses; D: The places visited by the margrave (1 – Kyjov; 2 – Velehrad (?); 3 – Olomouc; 4 – Opava; 5 – Hlubčice/Głubczyce (?); 6 – Zlaté Hory (?); 7 – Bruntál (?); 8 – Brno; 9 – Louka; 10 – Velehrad). 133 27 Vladislaus Henry was married, but his wife rather stayed in seclusion; therefore, her name is known from the only seal preserved, with which she, on 27 April 1218, confirmed the validity of her husband’s donation for Stephen of Medlov. It is evident from the slightly worn-down impression that her name was Heilwigis or Heilwidis (+ HЄIŁWIGĪ . MARCHIOИISSA . mORAUIЄ). 135 28 The generous endowment of the venerable lady Heilwidis (nobilis matrona domina Heilwidis de Znoym) and mainly the direct protection of the royal court transformed Oslavany into a rich and privileged community which settled in an impressive monastic complex. In 1526, it was transferred into secular hands and reconstructed into a chateau, but its original appearance is still implied by the Romanesque termination of the former monastic church. 138 xiv list of illustrations

29 Vladislaus Henry did not have a residence that would be comparable to Prague Castle, but it seems that he came to like the old ducal castle in Znojmo already during his first margraviate in 1192–1194. It could have looked like this around the middle of the 13th century, at least in the material reconstruction. 147 30 Between 1213 and 1222, Vladislaus Henry used a single type of equestrian seal. Although he entered the public life as a margrave of Moravia, his shield bore the sign of a lion, which also appeared in the coat of arms of his brother, King of Bohemia Přemysl Otakar I. 149 31 Prokop Zaoral concluded that a trace to another, perhaps earlier seal matrix could be the seal impression on Vladislaus’ modified charter, which claims to be from 1208. On the shield, it is possible, with some difficulties, to identify a double-tailed lion. Yet it is not certain whether the forger modified the seal of Margrave Vladislaus Henry or of some of his successors. 150 32 Vladislaus Henry seems to have concluded his reign in Louka near Znojmo, when he, in the late summer of 1222, confirmed the Premonstratensian rights to the village of Mramotice, which had been bequeathed to the monastery by a Moravian nobleman (nobilis terre mee) Wenceslas. 153 33 The margravial chancery evidently did not excel in the number of documents issued, which might imply that Vladislaus Henry often made do with a verbal approval. Soon after his death, charters thus began to appear that were to prove that the endowed, mainly monasteries, managed the property according to the law. It was the same at Velehrad, where they, around the middle of the 13th century, wrote a privilege which guaranteed the Cistercians, allegedly already from 12 June 1221, the possession of the village of Žalkovice along with half of the adjacent forest Rašín. 155 34 One of the most comely charters left the margravial chancery on 27 April 1218, when Vladislaus Henry appreciated the faithful services of Stephen of Medlov and endowed him with hereditary right (perpetuo et herditario iure) to the village of Bohdanovy in the Holasice province. 156 35 Moravian provinces during the reign of Margrave Vladislaus Henry. A: The state borders of the Czech Republic; B: Land borders; C: The borders of former ducal districts; D: The borders of provinces; E: Ducal seats (1 – Olomouc, 2 – Brno, 3 – Znojmo); F: Provincial centres (4 – Opava, 5 – Přerov, 6 – Břeclav, 7 – Bítov); G: Water courses. 160 list of illustrations xv

36 The dating formulas of the royal and margravial charters imply that the public life in Přemyslid possessions around the turn of the 13th century was not limited to important castles and provincial seats but that its significant part took place at curtes in the countryside. One of them grew in Telč on the Bohemian-Moravian border on a low promontory protected by a swampy confluence. In the next century, a subject town spread here and the former curtis was reconstructed into the church of the Holy Spirit. 161 37 What the Přemyslid curtes may have looked like at the beginning of the 13th century is implied by the Romanesque chapel of the Mother of God at Veveří, surrounded by a low wall, from which the adjacent hunting forest was probably managed. 165 38 Moravian denars of the pfennig type, which began to be minted by Vladislaus Henry, were of a rather stable weight and purity. As the coins did not contain any inscription though, it is not entirely clear now what types can be reliably dated to the second decade of the 13th century. 172 39 The church of St John the Baptist, fortified in the late Middle Ages, still dominates the landscape around ‘Henry’s town’ (Heynrichs) Velká Bíteš. Can it be Vladislaus’ foundation work? 174 40 A significant part of the silver that enabled the minting of the new coin came from the Nízký Jeseník Mountains, mainly from the surroundings of (Starý) Bruntál, whose mining character is evidenced by the earliest known seal impression from 1287. 175 41 The rule of Margrave Vladislaus Henry is connected not only with the birth of the first urban municipalities in the Czech lands but also with the right to settle estates according to the ‘German Law’ (ius Theutonicorum). This is the wording of a privilege for the Order of St John, which probably began to be written in 1218 but was not finished during the margrave’s life, so that it left the office as late as sometime after 1222. Then it was provided with a forged seal. 179 42 Although the ground plan of the town of Bruntál was long considered as ‘ancient’ and the pattern of the plots from 1836 was to have preserved the impression of the site from 1213, it seems that the regularly laid-out settlement with a large central square was not created until the second half of the 13th century at the earliest, maybe even towards its end. 183 43. The extensive Late Baroque reconstruction completely altered the original appearance of the Romanesque church of the Virgin Mary in xvi list of illustrations

Staré Město, whose actual age had long been indicated only by the entrance portal. The original layout was thus revealed only by the archaeological research in 2002–2003 and 2011, which proved that the Romanesque, perhaps even three-aisled structure (?) had surpassed its Baroque successor with its size. 184 44 The circular complex of the parish church of the Virgin Mary in Staré Město, originally probably surrounded by a shallow ditch (?), clearly does not match the later system of hides. This further supports the considerations of the possible translation of Bruntál of 1213 to its present location. The pattern of the plots from 1836 shows reeve hides (R) and the ruler’s curtis (D). 185 45 The town law in Moravia in the first half of the 13th century. A: Water courses; B: The state borders of the Czech Republic; C: Land borders; D: Important settlements (1 – Olomouc, 2 – Brno, 3 – Znojmo, 4 – Jihlava); E: Urban locations with a possible connection to Vladislaus Henry (5 – Hlubčice/Głubczyce, 6 – Bruntál, 7 – Opava, 8 – Uničov, 9 – Měnín, 10 – Velká Bíteš, 11 – Slavkov), F: The approximate scope of the Hlubčice/Głubczyce and Měnín laws (Hlubčice law: 12 – Horní Benešov, 13 – Libavá, 14 – Budišov, 15 – Vítkov, 16 – Hranice, 17 – Odry, 18 – Fulnek, 19 – Bílovec, 20 – Klímkovice, 21 – Příbor, 22 – Krzanowice, 23 – Nový Jičín, 24 – Příbor, 25 – Valašské Meziříčí, 26 – Uherský Brod; Měnín law: 27 – Ivančice, 28 – Pohořelice, 29 – Hustopeče, 30 – Klobouky, 31 – Rousínov). 187 46 The customs house in Hlubčice/Głubczyce, close to the Piast borders, was so important that its significance could also have been noticed by Vladislaus Henry. Does it mean, however, that he granted the locals urban rights as well? 190 47 The modest layout of Měnín captured by a cadastral plan from 1830 does not imply at all that one of the most influential towns in Moravia emerged here before the middle of the 13th century, perhaps already during the rule of Margrave Vladislaus. 192 48 With its location, size and after all also its importance, the church of St John the Baptist, standing outside of the ground plan of Velká Bíteš, indicates that it could have been built roughly at the same time as the church of the Virgin Mary in Staré Město (Bruntál). Can it provide guidelines to a more sensitive interpretation of the beginnings of ‘Henry’s town’ Velká Bíteš? 193 49 The privileges of Uničov from 1223, confirmed by Přemysl, not only commemorate the foundation work of Margrave Vladislaus Henry but also, for the very first time in hereditary Přemyslid possessions, prove list of illustrations xvii

the knowledge of the Magdeburg Law, by which the Bruntál burghers had allegedly been governed from 1213. 195 50 The first towns usually did not make their mark in land events. An exception was Opava, whose importance exceeded provincial boundaries already before the middle of the 13th century. As proved by the ground-plan layout from 1836, it had a system of interconnected squares from the beginning. The royal privilege of 1224 proves that the settlement was connected to long-distance trade. 198 51 The area surrounded by the perimeter walls of Znojmo included blooming settlements, probably even protected by partial rights, whose connection to the Austrian Danube Basin raised the barely founded settlement among the most influential towns of Moravia. Rich revenues facilitated the generous reconstruction of the parish church of St Nicholas, which eclipsed even the former Přemyslid castle with the rotunda of the Virgin Mary and St Catherine. The church of St Michael grew on the opposite side of the large bailey. Its district initially overlapped into the territory of the parish of St Nicholas. 203 52 The foundation work of Vladislaus Henry. A: The state borders of the Czech Republic; B: Land borders; C: Urban locations with a direct connection to the margrave (1 – Bruntál, 2 – Uničov, 3 – Opava); D: Urban locations with a possible connection to the margrave (4 – Hlubčice/Głubczyce, 5 – Měnín, 6 – Velká Bíteš, 7 – Slavkov); E: Legally advanced prelocation settlements (8 – Znojmo, 9 – Brno); F: Silver/Gold-ore deposits. 205 53 The division of the now deserted village of Olejovice into plots captured for 1830 implies that Abraham’s hermitage, around which the canonry of the Virgin Mary and St George began to form, has completely disappeared in the abyss of time. Only accidental findings have shown that the monastery was located in the southern part of the municipal cadastre. 215 54 With their technical and artistic quality, the group of fragments of fired floor tiles obtained through surveys in 1938 and complemented by surface collections in 2006 (1,2,4,5,6 – interwar surveys, 3 – surface collections in 2006) cannot match finds from margravial residences in Moravia. Nevertheless, it proves that Abraham founded the new Premonstratensian monastery in Střelná with absolutely serious intentions. 218 55 Monasteries in Moravia in the first quarter of the 13th century. A: The state borders of the Czech Republic; B: Land borders; C: Bishopric of Olomouc (1); D: Monasteries (2 – Hradisko, 3 – Třebíč, 4 – Rajhrad, xviii list of illustrations

5 – Dolní Kounice, 6 – Louka, 7 – Nová Říše, 14 – Zábrdovice, 15 – St Peter in Olomouc, 16 – Doubravník); E: Monasteries directly related to Vladislaus Henry or Heilwidis (8 – Velehrad, 9 – Střelná, 13 – Oslavany); F: Commanderies with a direct or possible connection to Vladislaus Henry (10 – Opava, 11 – Grobniki, 12 – Slavkov), G: Water courses. 220 56 Under the personal supervision of the abbot Gerlach, the scriptorium of the Milevsko monastery tried to summarise the fate of the hereditary Přemyslid possessions from the beginning of the rule of Duke Vladislaus II. Although the text ended with 1198 and the manuscript thus remained unfinished, it is a unique source for the second half of the 12th century now. Inadvertently, it has preserved a valuable testimony of the beginning of the rule of Margrave Vladislaus Henry. 230 57 By 1438, the main entrance to the Mariazell basilica was decorated by a tympanum that showed pilgrims the story of the miraculous recovery of the margrave of Moravia and the victory of King Louis of Hungary over the Turks. The Moravian part of the legend is represented by three figures, more precisely a married couple in imploring prayer and the figure of the duke, St Wenceslas, with a banner in his hand. 235 58 In 1539, Vladislaus Henry was remembered by Martin Kuthen. Two short records informing the readers that he had become a duke and that during his rule Daniel was appointed to the Prague episcopal see, however, reveal that he did not know how to deal with the margrave’s legacy. 238 59 The discovery of the recess in the buried quadrangular cloister of the Velehrad abbey initiated an impassioned exchange of opinions on the place where Vladislaus’ remains could have rested. Yet it seems that the margrave’s tomb will have to be sought somewhere else and that the half-damaged inscription most likely mentions the merits of one of smaller donors. 244 60 The December agreement was first visually rendered in 1788, when the famous reconciliation inspired Ludwig Kohl (1746–1821). Unfortunately, he paid only cursory attention to the Milevsko model and without scruples he added a royal crown. 249 61 The brotherly reconciliation has been monumentally depicted by Joseph Matthias Trenkwald (1824–1897). His concept was not historically precise, because Trenkwald, like Ludwig Kohl, had not resisted the lure of a royal crown. He was not even well received by the Prague, Czech and German audience. Nevertheless, he managed to influence entire generations of followers. 250 list of illustrations xix

62 At the beginning of the 20th century, the December agreement was returned to by Oldřich Cihelka, who had the brothers stand in front of finely-arrayed cavalry. 251 63 Without the unnecessary pathos and perhaps therefore very impressively, the brotherly reconciliation was interpreted by Jan Goth, whose illustrations perfectly complemented Palacký’s text of The History of the Czech Nation in Bohemia and Moravia in the anniversary edition of 1939. 252 64 Charles IV followed the legacy of his predecessors with a collection of charters by which he on 7 April 1348 confirmed, specified and expanded the content of earlier privileges. Nevertheless, he newly had to alter the status of Moravia, represented by a confident community of the land. Therefore, he declared the Margraviate of Moravia to be the direct and inalienable fief of the kings and of the Crown of the Kingdom of Bohemia (directum dominium regum et corone regni Boemie). 255 65 Although the land’s distinctive identity began to find expression during the reign of margrave Vladislaus Henry (1197–1222), a fundamental shift seems not to have come until margrave Přemysl, mainly after 1233, when the margravial coat of arms was modified. As proved by the impression of Přemysl’s seal, it already showed the well-known Moravian eagle. 261 66 For many years, Přemysl’s chancery was managed by Master Hilarius, whose sophisticated style was rather unparalleled in its time. In 1236, he created a privilege for the Cistercian nuns in Oslavany. At the end, he mentioned that the negotiations were watched by both the nobles and the courtiers (nobiles et curiales). It is not excluded that the nobles here were the aristocratic community defined by land values. 265 67 Bítov Castle was built on a rocky promontory above the meandering river Thaya already during the reign of the Přemyslid dukes and was considered to be impregnable all the time. In the summer of 1233, however, it was captured by Duke of Austria Frederick, which Austrian annals rightly considered to be a great success. Yet the fall of Bítov could also have had other, more fundamental consequences. It is possible that the unstable situation on the border with Austria convinced King Wenceslas I to grant his younger brother the sovereign rights that had been denied to him until then. 267 68 The Moravian chequered eagle was adopted by the towns of Znojmo and Olomouc into their emblems (the picture shows the seal impression of the town of Znojmo from 1272). Is this an echo of the tradition of two old ducal castles, which became the residences of the margraves xx list of illustrations

of Moravia Vladislaus Henry and Přemysl in the first decades of the 13th century? 269 69 When the town scribe and notary John of Gelnhausen worked on the Jihlava book of law at the turn of the 15th century, he inserted into his work copies of privileges, whose importance was enhanced by special miniatures, which were to represent the respective publishers. The illuminator thus depicted Přemysl Otakar II. in margravial majesty and with the Moravian banner in his hand. 271 70 A real equestrian seal is likely to have been the model for the illuminator who made the picture of King Wenceslas I (1230–1253) for the Jihlava book of law. He decorated the horse caparison with both the royal arms on the one hand and the flaming eagle of the estates and the silver-red chequered eagle of the margraviate of Moravia on the other. He evidently followed the practices applied around 1400, because the simultaneous use of the Bohemian royal and Moravian coat of arms before 1253 is not proved. 276 71 The Opava province in the 13th century. 1: The state borders of the Czech Republic; 2: The borders of the Opava province; 3: Walled towns; 4: Unwalled settlements, 5: Margravial castles; 6: Trade routes; 7: Connecting routes between provinces; Customs station: A – Bruntál, B – Drakov, C – Hradec, D – Hlubčice/Głubczyce, E – Zawiszyce, F – Nowa Cerekwia, G – Opavice; Castles and fortified manors: a – Freudenstein, b – Fürstenwalde, c – Weissenstein (Rabenstein), d – Quingburg, e – Drakov, f – Koberstein. 280 72 The peaceful neighbourly relations between the Romanesque curtis (Fig. 37) and the large Gothic castle at Veveří near Brno can be perceived as a symbol of the ‘big change’, which in the long 13th century interconnected the domestic prerequisites with the innovations of the European West and thus created a new face of Bohemian and Moravian society. 295 Abbreviations

AČ Archiv český ACRB Archivum Coronae regni Bohemiae AfD Archiv für Diplomatik, Schriftgeschichte, Siegel- und Wappenkunde AH Archaeologia historica AHM Acta historica et museologica Universitatis Silesianae Opaviensis AÖG Archiv für österreichische Geschichte AR Archeologické rozhledy AUC Acta Universitatis Carolinae AUPO Acta Universitatis Palackianae Olomucensis BMD Brno v minulosti a dnes BUB Urkundenbuch zur Geschichte der Babenberger in Österreich CDB Codex diplomaticus et epistolaris regni Bohemiae CDM Codex diplomaticus et epistolaris Moraviae CDOT Codex diplomaticus Ordinis sanctae Mariae Theutonicorum CDS Codex diplomaticus Silesiae CDSl Codex diplomaticus et epistolaris Slovaciae ČČH Český časopis historický ČMM Časopis Matice moravské (SbMM) ČMorMuz Časopis Moravského (zemského) muzea ČNM Časopis Národního muzea ČsČH Československý časopis historický ČSlM Časopis Slezského muzea (ČSZM) ČSPS (Č) Časopis Společnosti přátel starožitností (českých) ČSZM Časopis Slezského zemského muzea (ČSlM) DA Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters DFS Dudík, Forschungen in Schweden für Mährens Geschichte FDG Forschungen zur deutschen Geschichte FHB Folia Historica Bohemica FRB Fontes rerum Bohemicarum HZ Historische Zeitschrift JM Jižní Morava JSH Jihočeský sborník historický JSFWBU Jahrbuch der Schlesischen Friedrich-Wilhelms Universität zu Breslau LexMa Lexikon des Mittelalters MB Monumenta Boica xxii abbreviations

MF Mitteldeutsche Forschungen MGH Monumenta Germaniae historica Cap Capitularia regum Francorum Const Constitutiones et acta publica imperatorum et regum DD Diplomata regum et imperatorum Germaniae EE Epistolae FIG Fontes iuris Germanici antiqui SRG Scriptores rerum Germanicarum in usum scholarum separatim editi SRG NS Scriptores rerum Germanicarum Nova series SRL Scriptores rerum Langobardicarum et Italicarum SS Scriptores MHB Mediaevalia Historica Bohemica MIÖG Mitteilungen des Instituts für österreichische Geschichtsforschung MMFH Magnae Moraviae fontes historici MPH NS Monumenta Poloniae Historica Nova series MVGDB Mitteilungen des Vereins für Geschichte der Deutschen in Böhmen NA Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft für ältere deutsche Geschichtskunde NL Numismatické listy Numismatické společnosti československé NM Numismatica Moravica PA Památky archeologické PHS Právněhistorické studie PL Migne, Patrologia Latina PV Přehled výzkumů RBM Regesta diplomatica nec non epistolaria Bohemiae et Moraviae RI Regesta imperii RNI Regestum domni Innocentii tertii pape super negotio Romani imperii SAP Sborník archivních prací SbMM Sborník Matice moravské (ČMM) SH Sborník historický SHK Sborník historického kroužku SlSb Slezský sborník SPFFBU Sborník prací filozofické fakulty brněnské univerzity StR Studie o Rukopisech SUB Schlesisches Urkundenbuch VKČSN Věstník Královské české společnosti nauk abbreviations xxiii

VSWG Vierteljahrschrift für Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte VuF Vorträge und Forschungen VVM Vlastivědný věstník moravský ZfG Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft ZGKS Zeitschrift für Geschichte und Kulturgeschichte Schlesiens ZRG GA Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechstgeschichte Germanistische Abteilung ZVGMS Zeitschrift des deutschen Vereins für Geschichte Mährens und Schlesiens ZVGS Zeitschrift des Vereins für Geschichte Schlesiens Map The Czech lands under King Přemysl Otakar and Margrave Vladislaus Henry and Margrave Otakar lands under King Přemysl The Czech centres; D: Administrative courses; Water C: 1222; possessions around Přemyslid of B: Hereditary borders The state Republic; A: the Czech F: Monasteries. E: Bishoprics; map xxv

1 – Bautzen Monasteries in Bohemia: 2 – Čáslav 32 – Břevnov 3 – Hradec Králové 33 – Hradiště nad Jizerou 4 – Chrudim 34 – Chotěšov 5 – Jindřichův Hradec 35 – Kladruby 6 – Kłodzko 36 – Litomyšl 7 – Kouřim 37 – Louňovice pod Blaníkem 8 – Litoměřice 38 – Milevsko 9 – Loket 39 – Pomuk 10 – Mělník 40 – Opatovice 11 – Plzenec 41 – Osek 12 – Prague 42 – Ostrov 13 – Prácheň 43 – Plasy 14 – Stará Boleslav 44 – Podlažice 15 – Tachov 45 – Postoloprty 16 – Görlitz 46 – Sázava 17 – Žatec 47 – Sedlec 18 – Zittau 48 – Strahov 19 – Bíteš 49 – Svaté Pole 20 – Bítov 50 – Teplá 21 – Brno 51 – Teplice 22 – Bruntál 52 – Vilémov 23 – Břeclav 53 – Zderaz 24 – Hlubčice/Głubczyce 54 – Želiv 25 – Měnín 26 – Olomouc Monasteries in Moravia: 27 – Opava 55 – Hradisko 28 – Přerov 56 – Kounice 29 – Uničov 57 – Louka 30 – Vranov 58 – Rajhrad 31 – Znojmo 59 – Třebíč 60 – Velehrad

CHAPTER 1 A Remote Mirror

We should admit straight away that Vladislaus Henry became famous mainly as a brother of the third king of Bohemia, Přemysl Otakar I, which is after all too little to fill an entire book. But not only that. The modest collection of period accounts has been dominated for centuries by a remark of Abbot of Milevsko (Mühlhausen) Gerlach, who in his annals mentioned for 6 December 1197 that Vladislaus Henry, despite general support, left the ducal throne ‘for the sake of peace and out of brotherly love’ (propter bonum pacis, inde propter affectum germanitatis) to his older brother Přemysl, under the condition that they would rule simultaneously, one in Bohemia and the other in Moravia, and that the two of them would have ‘one will and one principality’ (ille in Morauia, iste in Boemia principarentur et esset ambobus, sicut unus spiritus, ita et unus principatus).1 The record, already legendary now, was made during the life of both Přemyslids involved, and although it evidently captured well the arrangement of hereditary Přemyslid possessions in the early 13th century, more attention has been paid to the document from 26 July 1216, in which Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II took into account that the Czech leaders had chosen Přemysl’s son Wenceslas as the new king.2 And since the gathered people were led by no one less than Vladislaus Henry, the margrave received the reputation of an understanding sibling, who always yielded in everything to the interests of the older Přemysl. This is how Vladislaus Henry was dealt with immediately by two influential historians who essentially influenced the interpretation of earlier Czech history. First, the father of Czech historiography, František Palacký, referred to the margrave with magnificent phrases when he acknowledged not only the ‘beauty of his soul’ and the perfect loyalty to his brother and ‘his lord’ but also Vladislaus’ ‘love for the land’ and common political sense;3 similar ideas were found in the work of Václav Novotný, who reached the conclusion that the margrave willingly yielded to the ‘mental superiority’ of his older brother.4 It is thus no wonder that the already slightly moth-eaten idea of Vladislaus’

1 Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 514–515. 2 Wihoda 2012, 217–227. 3 Palacký 1894, 277. 4 Novotný 1928, 278.

understanding relationship to Přemysl has been firmly anchored in more recent literature, in particular on the pages of Žemlička’s work.5 The fact that Vladislaus’ share in the administration of public affairs might have had a different, much more self-confident dimension is implied by the tympanum above the entrance to the basilica of the Mariazell monastery in Styria, whose decoration reveals important chapters in the life of the Benedictine community there. The unknown master who undertook the commission shortly before 1438 selected from the monastery’s past the legend of a margrave of Moravia, troubled by the gout, and his wife, who, having been advised to do so by Saint Wenceslas, sought help from the brethren in the monastery.6 Unfortunately, the complementary inscription does not mention who that wretched ruler was supposed to be, but the late medieval tradition connects the miraculous cure with the construction of the church around 1200, which would mean that the pious donor was precisely Vladislaus Henry.7 The story, unknown from anywhere else, entirely avoided medieval scriptoria. There is hardly anything certain about it—only that it was passed on around Mariazell before the middle of the 15th century8 and that the Benedictines commemorated their generous supporter not only by the portal but also by the statue that was made and placed in front of the façade of the church by Balthasar Moll in 1757.9 At that time, however, the margrave was only a feeble memory from the mythical origins of the famous pilgrimage site, which enjoyed the noble title Magna Mater Austriae. The abyss of time hence buried both the name of the first great supporter and his real relationship to Mariazell. Nevertheless, we should not reproach the local fraternity for negligence. Even if they had attempted to consult chronicles and annals, they would not have found more than variously scattered marginal notes and glosses. It might have been of some assistance if Gerlach’s annals known today had not ended in 119810 and if the chroniclers of the 13th century had expressed a more sincere interest in Vladislaus’ life. Regrettably, this did not happen. The Second Continuation of Cosmas11 and the simultaneous records by Henry

5 Žemlička 1990, 71–72; Žemlička 2007, 377. 6 Andorfer 1927, 80–88; Eberhart 2003, 30–40. 7 Rodler 1907, 14–15; Wonisch 1960, 25–34. 8 Wonisch 1947. 9 Wonisch 1957, 13; Fell 2003, 54–60. 10 The interpretation accepted today supposes that Gerlach made his records in 1214–1222, but his notes seem not to have gone beyond 1200. For more information, see Bláhová 1993, 35–48; Kernbach 2010, 30–45. 11 Bláhová 1974, 5–39. A Remote Mirror 3 of Heimburg are limited to the almost ‘obligatory’ mention that Margrave Vladislaus Henry died in 1222.12 Likewise the author of the compilation written within the walls of the Chapter at St Wenceslas’ in Olomouc was sparing with praise, although the margrave had given the canons a golden cross inlaid with gems and pearls (crucem auream, lapidibus pretiossimis et gemmis diversis intextam).13 A similar memory was offered to readers by the official catalogue of the bishops of Olomouc14 with the necrology.15 Vladislaus and his demise on 12 August 1222 were commemorated in Bohemian monasteries as well. The third margrave of Moravia was mentioned in Doksany,16 Podlažice17 and in a Bohemian-Silesian necrology of unclear origin.18 Surprisingly enough, the list does not include the Velehrad abbey, founded by Vladislaus, where also his remains were deposited, but the local scriptorium suffered irretrievable losses during the Hussite Wars in the early 15th century. Vladislaus Henry has further become generally known as a recipient of the mysterious privilege ‘Mocran et Mocran’, which belongs to the collection of the golden bulls sealed by Frederick II in Basel on 26 September 1212.19 And despite no agreement having been reached as to what he actually gained,20 the simple fact that he was among the donees elevated him to the company of the Princes of the Holy Roman Empire. Nevertheless, the main power was in the hands of Přemysl, whereas Vladislaus Henry was slowly retreating from the public life. It may have been his increasing lack of interest in power events, whose origin might be sought in his poor health, that led to there being only seven identified documents claiming the margrave as their issuer, which surprised both Gustav Friedrich21 and, much later, Prokop Zaoral.22 Some of this lack can be attributed to the proverbial ravages of time, but not even the anticipated losses explain everything. For instance, the Olomouc records along with the Doksany necrology capture donations of unusual, one might add almost fairy-tale, size, and since serious reflections are inspired also by the remarkable mentions in charters, the one talking to us across the gulf of time does not

12 Annalium Pragensium I, FRB II, 284; Annales Heinrici Heimburgensis, FRB III, 312. 13 Fragmentum chronici ecclesiae cathedralis Olomucensis, StR 12/1973, 200. 14 Granum catalogi praesulum Moraviae AÖG 78/1892, 79. 15 Necrologium Olomucense. AÖG 65/1884, 555. 16 Necrologium Doxanense, VKČSN 1885, 121. 17 Necrologium Podlažicense, DFS, 418. 18 Necrologium Bohemo-Silesiacarum, ZVGS 5/1863, 113. See also Jasiński 1994, 39–71. 19 MGH DF II (XIV.2), 5–7, No. 172. 20 Wihoda 2005, 65–79; Wihoda 2012, 158–216. 21 Friedrich 1897, 1–43. 22 Zaoral 1967, 219–230. 4 CHAPTER 1 seem to be Přemysl’s brother reconciled with everything but a proud ruler who initiated the establishment of the first towns in the Czech lands, supported the penetration of modern legal norms into the rural milieu, became famous as a pious benefactor and founder and gathered at his court a circle of nobles, which gave rise to the land representation in the next decades. The story of Margrave Vladislaus Henry reminds us that history takes place not only in time but also in space; that beyond the ‘great history’ of states and nations, it is possible to ruminate about the past within land coordinates, where the model and example may be found in German or Austrian historiography. A ‘promised’ place became a town which had been tested by historical transformations and had learnt from them—Vienna, where from the end of the 19th century works were permeated with land values. What is a land and where to seek the roots of land awareness were the questions asked by Alfons Dopsch, who provided guidance to his younger colleague Otto Brunner, the most distinctive and probably the most controversial personality of the land- focused historiography.23 Otto Brunner obtained the degree of associate professor in Vienna in 1929, although he did not publish his main ideas until ten years later, in a comprehensive treatise on medieval constitutional-legal transformations of the German southeast (Austria),24 to which, even before 1939, he added a short journal extract.25 He knew already then that his ideas would be considered with great seriousness, but he hardly could have imagined that his Land and Lordship (Land und Herrschaft) would be issued repeatedly and would be declared one of the decisive works of German-language medieval studies of the 20th century.26 The usual, here moreover slightly disturbing, question is: why? Brunner’s Land and Lordship was first issued at the end of the 1930s, and all three war editions (1939, 1942, 1943) necessarily differ from the fourth (1959), when ‘Southeastern Germany’ became Austria again. Controversial passages with quotations from unsuitable authorities were shortened, the politically loaded vocabulary was replaced by neutral phrases and the praise of the Germanic (racial) continuity at the end disappeared without replacement. Nevertheless, the first version to be considered as classic was the fifth one from 1965, which is now used as the model for all reprints. The version that has been revised five times offers an exceptional comparative example, revealing that Otto Brunner was close to Austrofascism and that National Socialism was not

23 Buchner 2008, 155–190. 24 Brunner 1939a. 25 Brunner 1939b, 513–528. 26 Blickle 1983, 779. A Remote Mirror 5

FIGURE 1 Mariazell became an important pilgrimage site already in 1399, when Pope Boniface IX granted the church plenary indulgences. The real heyday of the monastery, however, did not occur until the Baroque; this may be a reason that the monastic records mention only the legendary memories of 1157 and the monk Magnus, who built a hermitage where the Virgin Mary had allegedly appeared to him. Subsequently, the humble dwelling was purportedly rebuilt by some margrave of Moravia, whose health was restored through fervent prayers and the intercession of St Wenceslas. Although his work disappeared under the generously laid-out church of King of Hungary Louis, the Benedictines did not forget their first munificent benefactor, who has been identified as Vladislaus Henry, and in 1757 they asked the famous sculptor Balthasar Ferdinand Moll to cast statues of the king of Hungary and the margrave of Moravia. The latter was welcoming pilgrims on the right side before the main entrance. 6 CHAPTER 1 alien to him either. After all, he was dismissed from his services to the Austrian Republic for his opinions in 1945 and nine years after the war was appointed to another professorship, as a successor of Hermann Aubin in Hamburg. It hence comes as no surprise that the remarkable influence of Brunner’s legacy on the one hand and the long shadows of the war years on the other brought the German-speaking historical community to the modest conclusion that the ‘temporally and politically determined’ scientific interests may under certain conditions provide new theoretical and methodological views.27 The image of the Middle Ages created by Brunner may be compared to a colourful mosaic of particular systems, whose pace was set by dynastic ties as well as the ownership structure of the ruler’s, aristocratic and urban possessions. Brunner’s model addressed only the land—people relationship and entirely avoided the traditional categories of economic, ecclesiastical and cultural history, because, according to him, land systems had been formed through public repetitions of legal acts. He paid considerable attention to social networks, which he reduced, however, to the basic patterns of behaviour in order to be able to derive general conclusions from them. He understood the ‘land’ (Land) as a value determined by relationships between the ruler and the land, which are reveled in oaths of allegiance and homages or, conversely, feuds and subsequent reconciliation.28 Brunner’s ‘land’ was not a mere space but a body of ‘land-controlling’ and ‘land-cultivating’ people whose internal order, structure and relationship to foreign entities were defined by the land law. The cornerstone of the social culture of the European Middle Ages was to be the power of the lord over the land (Herrschaft), which determined his relationship to things and people (Grundherrschaft). The landlord undertook to protect his subjects, who swore allegiance within the ‘natural law’ which governs mortals. For Otto Brunner, the ‘land’ was not a word but a constitutional term, and since medieval (Latin) Europe knew nothing like absolute control over soil and people, he suggested that the ‘land’ was superior to the ‘state’.29 Otto Brunner focused on the internal genesis of political units in the central Elbe Basin, and since he preferred the ‘period’ terms, he had to rely on the sources of the later Middle Ages, which of course reduced the validity of his observations for earlier periods. The terminology itself was to respect (if possible) the contemporary situation, on which, however, Brunner’s personal friend of similar opinions, Walter Schlesinger, remarked that the diction of resources

27 Bünz 2005, 58–60. 28 Oexle 1984, 305–341. 29 Brunner 1975, 440. A Remote Mirror 7 might not always be understandable and that the necessary explanatory commentary simply could not manage without vocabulary that would have been incomprehensible for a medieval person.30 Brunner’s search for precise set phrases has become proverbial, but one critical reservation spitefully mentioned that a strict proclamation was in absolute disagreement with the content of the main work, in which few pages were enough to cover the historical development and semantic changes of the central term (Land). Nevertheless, the noticeable deficit called for discussion, and when Walter Schlesinger proved that Brunner’s methodological procedures could be applied also for the early Middle Ages, the land and its institutions became an integral part of medieval studies literature. From there, it is also known that the early and High Middle Ages considered the ‘land’ (terra, fines, regio, dominium, provincia, pars) to be a home, a political community as well as a geographically defined unit, that the given meaning was often determined not by legal quality but by the context, the writer’s education and taste, and that it was not until the end of the 12th century that the undefined land began to shift towards an institutionally perceived value and a legal category.31 Critical medieval studies currently proceed in two basic directions. On the one hand, they have realised that political and social structures may not be separated and that the transformations and development of (land) institutions may provide new insight into social history; on the other hand, they have had to admit that the Middle Ages did not know the ‘state’ in today’s sense (‘status’ and other words derived from it did not enrich the vocabulary until the early Middle Ages) and began to seek more suitable terms.32 And it was precisely here that Otto Brunner entered the discussion when he, by calling for adequate lexis, denied that ‘medieval political wholes’ would have stood at the beginning of the development that gradually necessitated the emergence of modern bureaucracy and state, constitutional and power sovereignty.33 Otto Brunner did not deny in any way that, moving against the flow of time, we would, sooner or later, encounter the reception of Roman law, sophisticated theological concepts or the judiciary independent of the executive power. According to him, however, not even this means that the beginnings of the modern state lie in the Late Roman Empire. After all, new constitutional historiography, which he himself advocated, claimed that ‘the emergence of a state’ could be derived not from Roman law and legal norms but from personal

30 Schlesinger 1941, 1–15. 31 Köbler 1969, 1–40. 32 Boldt 1987, 39–61. 33 Hintze 1970, 470–496. 8 CHAPTER 1 relationships whose form was allegedly captured by old Germanic codes—not the Roman ‘res publica’ but the Germanic ‘hertuom’; not a public-law state but a personal union (Personenverbandsstaat) and a tool of the ruling elite. Theodor Mayer even demanded that history abandon its outdated liberal view of society and in future work exclusively with a retinue, tribute, protection, honour and oath of allegiance.34 With Brunner’s help, the new constitutional historiography was able to abandon the modern constitutional-law terminology, quite inadequate for the early and High Middle Ages, but the value of the main propositions was reduced by vague expressions. First of all, it was not clear to what that ‘people’ in which German medieval studies saw an authentic picture of the tribal structure of early Germanic peoples referred.35 The idea that barbaric codes of law provide reliable testimony on the natural characteristics of a nation was not accepted without reservation because, as proved by Reinhard Wenskus, in the Middle Ages it was the other way around, i.e., it was the law that determined appurtenance to a tribe or a people (gens). Neither has it been confirmed that the legal architecture of modern states rests on the foundations laid by the Germanic elite.36 Also, the ostensibly correct return to such terms as tribute, oath and promise of allegiance ended in a blind alley. All of them were the essentials of medieval law, which was not without consequences for their historical interpretation, because by their connection to the Middle Ages they transcended the borders between the symbolic dimension of power and social behaviour. The new constitutional historiography began to be lost in the formal descriptions of state- formation structures, without its leading to the identification of their actual meaning, and historians themselves proved that the seemingly authentic terminology was affected by the author’s view and that its connection to the actual events was often only indirect and partly also confusing.37 It would certainly be possible to replace the ‘states’ of the early Middle Ages with a more suitable (?) term, regnum, to use leges instead of the ‘legal (constitutional) orders’ and to change a ‘political community’ into a gens. How to avoid, however, the inappropriate invasion of Roman usage (given by Latin) into the Germanic or Slavic milieux? By a precise definition, which is clearly impossible? Or by reconsidering the new constitutional historiography? Moreover, the medieval ‘state structures’ were not limited to the retinues of

34 Mayer 1939, 457–487. 35 Geary 2002. 36 Wenskus 1977. 37 Graus 1986, 529–589; Schneidmüller 2005, 485–500. A Remote Mirror 9 the loyal, tributes or common law. Politically acting communities cannot be imagined without Church administration, which became a keystone between the Late Antique Roman civilisation and the successor ‘states’.38 After all, it is enough to think of Poland to realise that more permanent foundations of state life have been laid by the Church and not by the royal courts.39 Nonetheless, it is not so important whether the early medieval power units are referred to as ‘states’,40 because the fundamental questions are different: namely, how tribes were transformed into political communities and where (and in what) to search for the origins of collective consciousness. We should not forget Otto Brunner, however, who proved that in the Middle Ages the ‘land’ (terra) was a much more stable unit than the ‘state’ (regnum). That ‘land’ comprised more than a geographically defined area. It was a personal union, a political community which was governed by the land law and had its own symbolism as well as rituals.41 All of this was true in the 13th century, but the long beginnings of land awareness turned the attention of historians to East-Central Europe during the reigns of the Hohenstaufen and even Salian emperors and kings. And despite the fact that Czech medieval studies refused Brunner’s approach as wrong and methodologically clueless in its trusting adherence to the ideological concep- tions that feudalism had of itself,42 Ferdinand Seibt, with reference to Walter Schlesinger, brought to notice that Přemyslid Ducal Bohemia had fulfilled Brunner’s attributes of ‘land’ even before most imperial duchies. He referred to the situation when Bohemian dukes shared their power with the elite, because public matters—ranging from tributes, oaths of allegiance and formulation of law, through land-border defence, all the way to ducal elections—were subject to the consent of Bohemians, which could only be given at a diet (commune colloquium), i.e., a joint meeting of the duke and the ‘great men of the land’ (maiores terrae).43 The political dualism may be observed in Bohemia deep into the 9th century, but it was entirely different in Moravia, which had long been coping with the tragic collapse of the domain ‘shining with gold’, built in the lower Morava Basin by Mojmírid dukes. After 906, political life moved away from the centre, especially to the rather well-protected Olomouc region, where the surviving

38 Fried 1982, 1–43. 39 Michałowski 2005. 40 Pohl 2006, 9–38. 41 Hageneder 1987, 153–178. 42 Hroch-Třeštík 1960, 716. 43 Seibt 1965, 284–315. 10 CHAPTER 1 noble families restored some order at least on a local scale and where also the church organisation was retained. The Moravians, however, had to come to terms with the protection by the Hungarians. Soon after 955, they came under the supervision of the Bohemians and at the beginning of the millennium let the troops of Bolesław I the Brave enter the land. Sometime after the Peace of Bautzen, around 1029 at the latest, Polish garrisons were forced out by Duke Oldřich, and a substantial part of the land became part of hereditary Přemyslid possessions for good. Yet the Moravians, at that point already a community of Czechs from Moravia, were given the right to vote, and as participants in land diets with this right to vote they were politically included in the community of the Czechs. No change was brought until the 13th century, chiefly its first half, which takes us back, after a short diversion, to Vladislaus Henry. It is indisputable that Vladislaus’ legacy went significantly beyond that single gesture of statesmanship with which he abdicated his throne in Prague in December 1197. This was noticed already by Bertold Bretholz,44 but since his speculations were bluntly rejected45 and Czech literature assumed a condescendingly dismissive attitude towards the margrave, all interest was exhausted in the attempts to determine where he had been buried. The fairly reliable Olomouc tradition connects the deposition of Vladislaus’ remains with Velehrad; during renovations in 1936–1938, a noteworthy niche was found there that, when read in a certain way, implied a relationship to Vladislaus Henry.46 As was brightly yet timidly pointed out by Jan Bistřický,47 however, it was in fact only wishful thinking that had prevailed over reason and the rules of historical criticism. Vladislaus’ foundation work makes the first decades of the 13th century a remarkable space in which it is possible to observe not only the complicated beginning of a large innovative transformation but also the political frame- work of reforms and their relationship to the values of the ducal age. The unique character of the period studied is also determined by the method of the execution of the ruling power, because the margrave was somehow involved in everything but did not leave deep traces behind. Although our expedition against the flow of time is slightly complicated by a lack of resources, their imaginative interpretation in a carefully defined period context may connect

44 Bretholz 1901, 305–320. 45 Koss 1927. 46 Polách 1938a, 48–52; Polách 1938b, 57–62; Pojsl 1968/1969, 86–96; Pojsl 1985, 423–431; Pojsl 1990, 45–47; Pojsl 2002, 37–46; Pojsl 2006, 144–150, No. 40. 47 Bistřický 1991, 211–213. A Remote Mirror 11 the considerations on state formation by Lisa Wolverton48 with the general observations formulated by Robert Bartlett49 and developed for the everyday life in the Czech milieu by Jan Klápště.50 The long 13th century may be perceived as the ‘second beginning’ of Central Europe, the contribution of whose values may be compared without fear with Carolingian intervention and Christianisation. These integrated the world of Western Slavs into the Occidental civilisation.51 The complex dialogue between domestic precondi- tions and the innovations of the European West then gave rise to confident land communities, governed by special laws and having their own rituals and practices. It was precisely the land identity that returned Moravians to the map of Central Europe; the first lines of their happier story began to be written in the years when the land was administered by Vladislaus Henry. Was the proverbial ‘chance’ involved, or did the emancipated margraviate of Moravia, which however retained an exclusive tie to the Bohemian Crown, arise from a prudent management of public affairs?

48 Wolverton 2001. 49 Bartlett 1993. 50 Klápště 2012. 51 Wolfram 1987; McKitterick 2008. CHAPTER 2 An Heir

At the beginning of May 1187, a selected company gathered in the chambers of the Prague ducal palace. Duke of Bohemia Frederick was visited by his half- brothers Přemysl and Vladislaus in order for them to hear together what the bishop of Prague and their cousin Henry Bretislaus wanted to impart to them. At the seemingly innocent meeting, which is evidenced for us by the list of witnesses in the confirmation charter for the Vyšehrad Chapter from 2 May,1 they discussed a situation which was unprecedented in the Czech lands. It had occurred in March, when Emperor Frederick Barbarossa had raised the bishopric of Prague to an imperial principality and had had an appropriate privilege written and sealed in Regensburg. Years later, Gerlach said about it with obvious regret, when referring to the contemporary orders, that it had had a golden bull attached to it and that it had enjoyed due respect in the days of that bishop.2 The imperial privilege seems to have left Frederick only little room for further negotiations. Nevertheless, he attempted them and most likely at the beginning of May offered the bishop reconciliation. He did so in the presence and hence with the knowledge of both half-brothers; although the content of the settlement has remained secret, there is no need to doubt that the new power situation called for absolute unity among all of Vladislaus’ sons. And it was precisely then that the youngest son of the second king of Bohemia, Vladislaus Henry, first stepped out of anonymity. There would have been nothing exceptional about that. Frederick had never resisted family cooperation and had entrusted mainly Přemysl with delicate tasks. In 1179, he sent him off to Moravia, where as a margrave Přemysl took over the province of Olomouc and attracted to himself the forces and attention of Duke of Znojmo Conrad Otto. That Přemysl coped with the precarious mission with honour is proven by the events of 1185, when Bohemian forces under his direct command plundered South Moravia and fought a bloody battle with the Znojmo army at Loděnice in November.3 Whereas Přemysl had already been gathering his first ruling experience from 1179, Vladislaus actually waited for his chance until 1187, which brought earlier literature to the question of whether Frederick had marginalised his youngest

1 CDB I, 288–290, No. 317. 2 Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 480. 3 Wihoda 2010a, 224–232.

FIGURE 2 Vladislaus Henry gave the Louka monastery the field at Loděnice which was connected with the memory of the clash of the Bohemians and Moravians in 1185 (campus iuxta Lodinic, in quo bellum habitum est inter Bohemos et Morauos). He himself supposedly emphasised that he was doing so to save his soul (pro remedio anime sue). In the past, the explanatory gloss was mistakenly presented as proof that the margrave had fought at Loděnice. Photography by MZA (Moravian Land Archives) Brno. brother or Vladislaus Henry himself had voluntarily moved away from public events. In an attempt to take his story further to the past, historians reached the conclusion that Vladislaus Henry had broken the silence of the sources in 1183, when he allegedly met in Zbečno with Frederick, Přemysl and Theobald and along with other leaders was a witness in a charter for the monastery in Plasy. The list of witnesses, however, reveals that the mentioned ‘Wazlaus’ is not Vladislaus but Wenceslas II, a son of Sobeslaus and, for a short time (1191–1192), also Duke of Bohemia.4 Further evidence from before 1187 is sometimes seen in an additional note to the foundation charter of the monastery in Louka, which says that Vladislaus Henry gave the Premonstratensians the field at Loděnice, where the Bohemians and Moravians had clashed (campus iuxta Lodinic, in quo bellum habitum est inter Bohemos et Morauos). The explanatory gloss that he had done so to save his soul (pro remedio anime sue)5 was considered proof

4 CDB I, 269–270, No. 300. 5 CDB I, 301. 14 CHAPTER 2 that he had fought at Loděnice.6 Nevertheless, it appears that the writer had something else in mind: namely, to draw attention to the piety of the margrave, who had thus honoured the fallen on both sides. Serious reservations about Vladislaus’ alleged presence at the Loděnice battlefield, which are further amplified by the first reliable mention from 1187, lead to the question of when he was born. Domestic scriptoria fell silent without exception; in the neighbourhood, quill was put to paper only in the Thuringian monastery of Reinhardsbrunn, where it was said that Vladislaus Henry, like the more famous Přemysl Otakar, had been born in the bed of the second king of Bohemia, Vladislaus, and his second wife, Judith.7 The Thuringian chronicler, however, wrote about the situation in the Czech lands on the margin of another history and cannot be blamed for not having anchored the narration in time. He helped at least by moving the beginning of our story beyond 1153, when Vladislaus’ mother Judith had accepted the hand of the king of Bohemia in marriage.8 The first milestone, i.e., the year 1153, may be complemented by the year 1174, when Vladislaus’ father died. Yet the twenty years represent more than one- third of Vladislaus’ life known today, which hence, in and of themselves, invite reflection. Unfortunately, no special information is provided by the combination of the names Vladislaus and Henry. The first merely declared a membership in the Vladislaus lineage of the ruling Přemyslid family, whereas the second was preferred by the imperial office.9 The only thing remarkable is probably the continuous combination of different variants. Whereas a fragment of the ducal seal implies that Henry was still unknown in his homeland in 1197,10 at the end of 1213 the Knights Hospitaller of St John received their privileges from the hands of Henry Vladislaus (Heinricvs qui et Wladizlaus).11 However, the pendant seal mentioned Henry,12 and also the charters issued in the next years

6 Kroupa 1997, 16. 7 Cronica Reinhardsbrunnensis, MGH SS XXX/1, 532. The wording of the note added in the Historia brevis principum Thuringiae, MGH SS XXIV, 822, is similar; nonetheless, since the respective note was written by another hand on the margin of the folio, it is likely to have only quoted the Reinhardsbrunn chronicle. 8 Vincentii canonici Pragensis Annales, FRB II, 420; Novotný 1913, 849–851. 9 Zatschek 1939, 1–11; Hertel 1980, 173–174; Barciak 1995, 419–425. 10 CDB I, 330–331, No. 363. 11 CDB II, 103–104, No. 109. 12 CDB II, 113–114, No. 125. An Heir 15 alternately and probably randomly (?) referred to Vladislaus (Watiszlaus),13 Vladislaus Henry14 or Henry Vladislaus (Heinricus qui et Wladizlau).15 An unwarranted clue may be sought in the sibling succession. Undoubtedly, Vladislaus Henry was not Judith’s first child. He was younger than Přemysl Otakar, whose birth is usually placed between 1165 and 1167,16 yet it is hard to imagine that Duke of Bohemia Frederick would have had no other choice in 1179 but to entrust the administration of Moravian issues to a boy who could have been only twelve years old. But not only that. How would such a small boy have managed to charm Adelheid of Meissen, beside whom he, as he himself conceded in 1199, spent more than twenty years?17 All of this indicates that Přemysl must have been born earlier, most likely already before 1160.18 Likewise the sister of Vladislaus Henry, Richeza, was older than he was, because she was given away in marriage into Austria in 1177.19 The future margrave of Moravia could have been Judith’s third child, which would have cut roughly three years from the two decades. A careful conclusion, therefore, is that Vladislaus Henry came into the world perhaps not long after (?) 1160. It if was so and our story truly began to unfold sometime between 1160 and 1165 (?), Vladislaus Henry grew up at a time when the complicated personal relationship of his father, the second king of Bohemia, to the emperor was leading to a tragic denouement. Despite Vladislaus’ long and faithful service, Frederick Barbarossa had never forgiven him for what he had done in 1152 with the personal invitation to the Hoftag (Court Diet) in Merseburg. Blinded by his own importance, he had not even tried to hide the real reasons for his absence, and since he supposedly did not want to bow his head before some hobbledehoy, he sent Bishop of Prague Daniel to the diet instead.20 The arrogance of the ruler of Bohemia caused a public outrage, and in the

13 CDB II, 432–433, No. 385. 14 CDB II, 151–152, No. 162. 15 CDB II, 181–182, No. 196. 16 Žemlička, 1990, 33. 17 CDB II, 8–9, No. 9. In another letter, Pope Innocent III modified the original calculation to ‘eighteen and more’ (CDB II, 48–50, No. 55), which would mean that the wedding must have taken place around 1180. For more information, see Černá 1923, 11–12. 18 Přemysl’s birth has been dated to 1155 by Hertel 1980, 173. 19 Continuatio Zwetlensis altera, MGH SS IX, 541–542; Auctarium Sancrucense, MGH SS IX, 732. 20 Vincentii canonici Pragensis Annales, FRB II, 421. For more, see Opll 1978, 165–166; Kejř 1992, 248. 16 CHAPTER 2

Reinhardsbrunn monastery, it was even selected as a subject of two stylistic exercises.21 Although later the emperor could have hardly found a more devoted ally, the clumsy policy of the aging king in the question of succession might have revived the buried memories in Barbarossa, who, after Vladislaus’ ill-considered abdication in 1172, sharply intervened and harshly instructed the Přemyslids as to who was their feudal lord. How were those times perceived by Vladislaus Henry, however, who had barely grown out of his boy’s clothes? Did he understand at all the extent of the disaster that had swept away his father’s life’s work? And what could have stuck in his memory when he had known or at least suspected from an early age that he was the last, apparently the fifth, of the sons and direct heirs of King Vladislaus and that his succession rights were thus only formal?

1 The Years of Fame and False Hopes

What Vladislaus Henry might have heard as a boy and how he was raised is implied by the chronicle, which was, on the eve of the fall of the second kingdom of Bohemia, continued by Vincentius, canon of the St Vitus Chapter in Prague and notary public of Bishop of Prague Daniel. He dedicated the text precisely to King Vladislaus and his wife Judith, because he had resolved to prevent the noble deeds (gesta regalia) and the famous work (opera gloriosa) of the royal couple from being forgotten. The lofty dedication also determined the rhythm of the account, which naturally began with the year of 1140, specifically with Vladislaus’ accession to the ducal throne in Prague. Vincentius ordered other plots chronologically with subjective commentaries close to memoir literature. As he wrote himself, he recorded what he had seen and learnt, but between 1154 and 1164 he lagged behind the events with a one-to- two-year delay; he continued his reflections until 1167. The narration ending suddenly, in the middle of a sentence, along with roughly outlined passages further prove that he stopped writing his records before the final proofreading, most likely after Vladislaus’ abdication in 1172, when it no longer made sense to celebrate the most august, glorious and ‘always victorious’ (semper uictoris) duke and king.22

21 Collectio Reinhardsbrunnensis, MGH EE V, 64–65, No. 76; 66, No. 78; Simosfeld 1908, 87–88. 22 Bláhová 1992, 149–172; Kernbach 2010, 11–30. An Heir 17

The value coordinates in which Vincentius recounted Vladislaus’ merito- rious deed may best be studied in the lines describing the bloody rebellion of 1142, when iniquity allegedly came from more noble, law-making Czechs (equitas oriri debuit, egressa est iniquitas). The leaders and elders of the land then refused obedience to the duke although he, despite his age, had managed public affairs prudently and in compliance with the authority conferred upon him by God (secundum potestatem a deo sibi collatam). Nevertheless, some of the lords did not want to settle for the offices bestowed upon them; since they demanded that everything be determined by their decisions, in their secret meetings they accused the unsuspecting Vladislaus of not being able to rule. Driven by an abominable plan (ad hoc ipsum scelus), they chose Conrad, duke of Znojmo, for their lord, although God had decided otherwise (deo aliter dis- ponente). Vladislaus, however, did not want to punish the traitors by force. Instead, he sent to Moravia those who were loyal to him, who had a fear of God before their eyes (timorem dei pre oculis habentes), with a message to the rebels that they should hold the lands entrusted to them in peace and that they should remember their oath of allegiance (terras, quas ab eo habent, fidei ei sub iuramento promisse memores, in pace teneant).23 The arrogance of the noblemen peaked in the battle at Vysoká, where the duke on a day of mourning and misery (dies luctus et miserie dies) and in a war worse than a civil war (plus quam civile bellum) sifted those faithful to him like wheat (cribravit sibi fideles sicut triticum). Fighting for their ‘country’, a handful of the loyal shed blood while others made the ultimate sacrifice (alii morte, alii autem sanguinis effusione pugnando pro patria); nonetheless, the betrayal took a heavy toll. Vladislaus had to leave the battlefield, and he found refuge within the walls of Prague Castle. From there he set out to Meissen to gather an army; meanwhile, the castle and the stone ducal throne (pro tuenda civitate et principali throno quodam saxo) were to be protected by his brother Theobald, who then fought for the ‘country’ as bravely as Cato (more Catonis pugnando pro patria). Yet he was not able to avert the destruction of the Chapter and St George’s Monastery, which fell victim to a scoundrel (quidam nefarius), for whom it would have been better had he never been born (cui reuera melius erat, si natus non fuisset), because he, at Conrad’s behest, had kept attacking the castle with flaming arrows until he caused a big fire. The smoke rising from the ashes, however, heralded that it was time for just retribution. Conrad, having been informed that the real duke was coming with reinforcements, commanded his men to retreat. Also the rebels from Bohemia sought refuge in

23 Vincentii canonici Pragensis Annales, FRB II, 410–413; Kernbach 2009, 28–39. 18 CHAPTER 2 flight, thus losing the chance to receive the desired reward (desiderati honoris nichil invenerunt in manibus suis).24 History, full of drama, was based on stereotypical opposites. In spite of his age, the prudent duke resisted the intrigues of his enemies; although treachery deprived him of a triumph on a battlefield, God’s favour inevitably made him the winner. The rebels, in contrast, were labelled the worst perjurers who had defied the natural (divine) order (patria), which they had inflicted on themselves not only by having breached the code of honour and their oath of allegiance but also by their arrogant attack on the places of worship containing the graves of their ancestors and holy relics. The firm strokes of Vincentius’ quill thus produced an ideal ruler, whose merits were appreciated by the emperor when he bestowed a crown upon Vladislaus and acknowledged the honourable contribution of this valiant knight (strenuus miles) and now even king (rex christianus) in the building and defence of the Empire (honor imperii). We can imagine with what feelings Vincentius was walking away from the sketched portrayal of the virtuous king; nevertheless, a sudden change and uncertainty are perceptible also in compilations made after Vladislaus’ abdication. The emperor’s arbitration verdict which removed Vladislaus from his throne in Prague was incorporated by one of the Benedictines at Sázava in his writings. However, he placed the actual events in 1126, before the battle of Chlumec, and hallmarked them as God’s judgement.25 In his version, the position of the imperial court was defended by the Roman-German king Lothar III. The Benedictine put in Lothar’s mouth a vainglorious speech, according to which the duke of Bohemia had been subordinate to the emperor from time immemorial and no one had ever been allowed to elect or elevate a ruler of the Bohemians without the emperor’s knowledge.26 Ancestors were referred to (ab antecessoribus nostris accepimus) also by Sobeslaus, duke of Bohemia, who objected that the choice depended not on the emperor but on the free will of Czech leaders, with the postscript that the emperor only had the supreme right to confirm the election (in tua vero potestate electionis sola confirmatio).27

24 Vincentii canonici Pragensis Annales, FRB II, 411–412. See also Canonici Wissegradensis continuatio Cosmae, FRB II, 235; Monachi Sazawiensis continuatio Cosmae, FRB II, 261; Annales Gradicenses et Opatowicenses, MGH SS XVII, 651. 25 Wegener 1959b, 787–813 concluded that the Benedictine from the monastery at Sázava wrote about Vladislaus’ promotion in 1158, but a more convincing explanation with a connection to 1172 was provided by Novotný 1903b, 552–579. 26 Monachi Sazawiensis continuatio Cosmae, FRB II, 254. 27 Monachi Sazawiensis continuatio Cosmae, FRB II, 255. An Heir 19

Yet another perception of the year 1172 was offered by Abbot of Milevsko (Mühlhausen) Gerlach. Almost five decades later, he explained the fall of the second kingdom of Bohemia by the sordid intrigues coming from the banished son of Duke Sobeslaus I, Ulrich. He supposedly informed the emperor of the king’s illness, his abdication and the accession of Duke Frederick. Barbarossa then purportedly assured the exile that, if it was the case that the sick king had resigned in favour of his son without asking for permission first, he would find a way to defend his rights.28 An unflattering story was added by a contemporary of the events, Vincentius. At the Diet of Merseburg in 1152, Ulrich allegedly wanted Barbarossa to give him the ducal throne and, according to the chronicler, promised to him such a financial reward that he received a positive response.29 So much for our rapporteur, who, however, like Gerlach later, actually recorded only how the duke had been perceived by the Prague court. Many calumnies may have stemmed from a guilty conscience and probably also from concerns, because the mercilessly expelled descendents of Duke Sobeslaus enjoyed the favour of the emperor and his advisors.30 Barbarossa commissioned no one less than Ulrich (princeps noster) to take an important ally oath in Pisa,31 upon which the reporter there commented with an appreciative remark about a very powerful man (potentissimum utique virum).32 Some information is provided also by lists of witnesses in various documents, in which the duke appears as a figure close to the emperor;33 further, that the noble exile found his way to the highest levels of the imperial political scene is implied by two quite advantageous marriages. Through the first one, he married into the family of the landgrave of Thuringia;34 in the second one, he won the hand of Sofie of Meissen and the support of the influential House of Wettin.35

28 Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 463. 29 Vincentii canonici Pragensis Annales, FRB II, 421. See also Novotný 1913, 847–848. 30 Annalium Pragensium, FRB II, 272. See also Plassmann 1998, 66–69. 31 MGH DF I (X/2), 389–392, No. 477. 32 Annales Pisani, MGH SS XIX, 252. 33 See also MGH DF I (X/2), 185–186, No. 347; 193–195, No. 353; 198–203, No. 356; 205–206, No. 358; 208–210, No. 360; 237–239, No. 374; 312–314, No. 424; 408–409, No. 489; 412–414, No. 491; 420–421, No. 495; 473–475, No. 531; MGH DF I (X/3), 3–7, No. 546; 30–32, No. 563; 73–75, No. 594. 34 Cronica Reinhardsbrunnensis, MGH SS XXX/1, 532; Historia brevis principum Thuringiae, MGH SS XXIV, 822. 35 Genealogia Wettinensis, MGH SS XXIII, 229; Teige 1884, cols 315–318. 20 CHAPTER 2

Ulrich’s position among Barbarossa’s advisors should not be belittled, but he does not seem to have been responsible for the fall of the second kingdom of Bohemia. That was unwittingly caused by Vladislaus himself, when he, at the beginning of 1156, entered into a secret agreement (nullis Boemorum scienti- bus) with the emperor, in which he undertook (iuramento confirmat) to bring the Czech corps to the Italian battlefield in exchange for Bautzen and the royal crown. Thanks to a minor indiscretion on the part of Vincentius, who had learnt about the meeting from the mouth of Bishop of Prague Daniel and included it in his narrative,36 the confidential conversation may be easily inserted in the mosaic of events. Barbarossa’s position is quite clear. He wanted to conquer the towns of Lombardy and therefore sought allies in all parts of the Empire as well as beyond its borders.37 A much more sophisticated and dangerous game was opened by the duke of Bohemia. Vincentius claims (and there is no reason not to believe him) that Vladislaus concluded the agreement only in his name and on his behalf and thus bypassed the leaders. At the same time, however, he had to anticipate that, without their support, he would bring only a fragment of the expected forces to Lombardy. These fears began to come true after the general diet was convoked at the beginning of 1158. When Vladislaus called for participation in the Italian ride, mainly senior Czech noblemen (nobiles de senioribus Boemie) claimed that this was not right (non bene hoc esse factum), because he had made the decision without their advice (sine eorum consilio).38 In Vincentius’ account, it seems as if the diet discussed only the dange rous expedition beyond the ridges of the Alps the whole time. The assembled lords, however, were more incensed by the idea that they would risk their lives and shed blood only to win for their lord a crown to which they had neither any relation nor rights. The outrage of those present was not tempered until Vladislaus suggested covering all the costs.39 Without realising it, he thus confirmed that he saw the second kingdom of Bohemia mainly as a private ‘honour’ that he would once bequeath to his family.40 The ill-concealed aversion of Czech leaders to novelties forced Vladislaus to a narrow, sometimes even servile cooperation with the imperial court; at the beginning though, it might have seemed to be the right choice. Without exaggeration, Vladislaus’ return to imperial politics was spectacular. In September 1156, he announced the decision of the court of conciliation, which finally

36 Vincentii canonici Pragensis Annales, FRB II, 424. 37 Vincentii canonici Pragensis Annales, FRB II, 425–426. 38 Vincentii canonici Pragensis Annales, FRB II, 424. 39 Vincentii canonici Pragensis Annales, FRB II, 427–428. 40 Fritze 1982, 209–296. An Heir 21 concluded the protracted dispute over the Duchy of Bavaria and brought the Duchy of Austria to the Central European scene.41 Vladislaus seized the diplomatic sceptre also two years later in front of Milan,42 but he had already drawn attention to himself during Barbarossa’s campaign in Poland 1157, when he prenegotiated the surrender of Bolesłaus IV the Curly, High Duke of Poland.43 The real turning point and the place of memory was, however, the Hoftag in Regensburg, where the emperor appreciated the services of the duke of Bohemia and, in front of the eyes of the dukes, adorned him with a royal crown, thus making the duke the king (regio ornat diademate et de duce regem faciens).44 It was 11 January 1158 . . . The heartfelt commentary from the quill of such a supreme authority on Vladislaus’ coronation as Daniel’s chaplain and notary public Vincentius was long accepted without reservation. Nonetheless, slight concerns were aroused by the imperial privilege that had been issued in the same place one week later and by which Barbarossa had specified the conditions under which the ruler of Bohemia was allowed to wear the diadem. The emperor’s chancellor referred to it as ‘circulus’, i.e., ‘coronet’, and not, as would probably have been proper, ‘crown’. He consistently called the beneficiary of the charter ‘duke’ and passed over his promotion on 11 January in silence.45 Possible explanations were sought in Vincentius’ chronicle. The first idea was provided by Wilhelm Wegener. According to him, the actual coronation took place later, in front of Milan in September 1158, which was duly immortalised by Vincentius;46 Wegener considered all that happened in Regensburg to be a public oath and a kind of preliminary stage of the future promotion.47 Percy Ernst Schramm,48 Heinrich Appelt49 and Karolína Adamová50 took a similar path, but their creative solution is contradicted by the charter that was certified by the imperial office already before the fall of Milan and the second coronation, in which

41 MGH DF I (X/1), 255–260, No. 151. See also Fichtenau 1965; Appelt 1973. 42 MGH DF I (X/2), 7–10, No. 224; Vincentii canonici Pragensis Annales, FRB II, 440; Burchardi praepositi Urspergensis Chronicon, MGH SRG [16.], 30. 43 Ottonis et Rahewini Gesta Friderici I. imperatoris III.3–5, MGH SRG [46.], 168–170; Vincentii canonici Pragensis Annales, FRB II, 424–425; Braune 1906, 43–63. 44 Vincentii canonici Pragensis Annales, FRB II, 427. 45 MGH DF I (X/1), 335–337, No. 201. 46 Vincentii canonici Pragensis Annales, FRB II, 442. 47 Wegener 1959a, 109. 48 Schramm 1968, 356–362. 49 Appelt 1972, 161–181. 50 Adamová 1981, 13–17. 22 CHAPTER 2

FIGURE 3 Vladislaus II constantly repeated, with pride that was hard to conceal, that he was the king of the Bohemians (rex Bohemorum). Nevertheless, the imperial privilege of 18 January 1158, worded by the imperial chancellor Rainald of Dassel, considered his title to be conditional. Not only did the recipient remain a duke (dux); instead of the crown (diadema, corona), he was acknowledged the much more modest right to wear the coronet (circulus) on selected days. Photography by NA (National Archives) Prague. An Heir 23

Vladislaus, despite all that has been said, was endowed with a royal title.51 After all, Vladislaus conducted negotiations with the representatives of Milan as the king of Bohemia, and likewise the surrender agreement only mentions him with a royal title.52 Therefore, Jiří Kejř concluded that the beginning of the second kingdom of Bohemia must be dated to 11 January 1158 and that the ‘coronet’ (circulus) actually has the same as meaning the ‘crown’ (diadema).53 It might seem that, after Kejř’s brilliant argument, there is nothing important to be added concerning Vladislaus’ coronation.54 Unfortunately, that is far from the case. Paradoxically, the most serious objection was presented before Jiří Kejř’s explication and was formulated by Michael Skopal. Having analysed the dating formula of a privilege for the Knights Hospitaller from 1169,55 Skopal reached the conclusion that in Prague they had counted the years of Vladislaus’ kingship not from January but, rather, from the spring of 1158, which Skopal considered to be proof that the events in Regensburg had been a mere prologue to the official coronation, which involved anointing with Holy Oil.56 In the Czech lands, however, writers were not bothered by such dubious issues. Apart from Vincentius, the Regensburg coronation was mentioned under different dates in the St Vitus Chapter,57 Sázava monastery58 and Opatovice monastery.59 Without hesitation, Regensburg and Vladislaus’ royal title were connected by the judicious continuator of Otto of Freising and by Rahewin,60 and other imperial compilations did not doubt the direct relationship between the January diet and the second kingdom of Bohemia.61 Slightly later, it was even claimed that Vladislaus had already been given the royal title at the Hoftag in Würzburg in 1156.62

51 MGH DF I (X/2), 2–3, No. 221. 52 MGH DF I (X/2), 7–10, No. 224. 53 Kejř 1990a, 645–652. 54 Žemlička 2007, 237–239; 492–493. 55 CDB I, 216–218, No. 246. 56 Skopal 1987, 31–39. 57 Annales Pragenses, FRB II, 378; Annales Bohemiae, FRB II, 382; Annalium Pragensium, FRB II, 275. 58 Monachi Sazawiensis continuatio Cosmae, FRB II, 265. 59 Annales Gradicenses et Opatowicenses, MGH SS XVII, 653. 60 Ottonis et Rahewini Gesta Friderici I. imperatoris III.14, MGH SRG [46.], 183. 61 Hermanni Altahensis Annales, MGH SS XVII, 383; Chronicon Montis Sereni, MGH SS XXIII, 151; Ottonis de Sancto Blasio Chronica, MGH SRG [47.], 41; Guntheri Parisiensis Ligurinus, PL 212, col. 414. 62 Annales Mellicenses, MGH SS IX, 504; Annales Herbipolenses, MGH SS XVI, 9; Annales Seligenstadenses, MGH SS XVII, 32; Annales Halesbrunnenses Maiores, MGH SS XXIV, 44; 24 CHAPTER 2

In the numerous attempts to date Vladislaus’ promotion precisely, it somehow receded to the background that what was important was not when Vladislaus received the crown but what the second kingdom of Bohemia and its relation to the Hohenstaufen Empire were like. The measured diction of the coronation privilege from 18 January 1158, which had been formulated by Rainald of Dassel, allowed for a limited use of the royal coronet, whose subordination to the imperial crown was expressed by the pair of words circulus— diadema.63 For that reason, the chancellor Rainald entitled Vladislaus II as a duke and emphasised that the exclusive maker of the kingdom of Bohemia was Frederick I Barbarossa.64 Vladislaus never respected the clearly defined conditions, and, especially on domestic soil, he took every opportunity to demonstrate his promotion. The second kingdom had thus transformed into a symbol of the ruler’s independence from the aristocratic land community, which had an electoral vote and with it also the right to intervene in the succession issue.65 This was to change now. The influential leaders must have felt cheated and most likely perceived the crown as a direct threat to the ancient roots of Czech statehood. They did not accept Vladislaus’ kingdom as their own, which brought the holder of the royal title ever closer to the imperial court.66 It probably did not escape the attention of Barbarossa and his advisors that Vladislaus used the bestowed title beyond the scope of the coronation privilege, but any objections were amply offset by his support in the battlefield in Northern Italy. In the public opinion, Vladislaus was a king, although the aging monarch knew well that he only had a few options to pass the crown to his son Frederick. He did not want to, and actually could not, seek support from the Czech nobility; when, after the death of Bishop Daniel in 1167, he became clumsily involved in imperial politics, also the until-then-benevolent attitude of Emperor Frederick changed. As later pointedly noted by Gerlach, the abbot of Milevsko, Vladislaus then had an idea that seemed to be good, only to become an even bigger problem soon. Probably at the end of 1172, he passed the ducal throne to his first-born son Frederick and placed him in charge of the entire realm. For himself, he reserved a curtis (manor) in Budyně with

Annales Burghausenses, MGH SS XXIV, 62; Burchardi praepositi Urspergensis Chronicon, MGH SRG [16.], 26. 63 MGH DF I (X/1), 335–337, No. 201. 64 Hirsch 1940, 191–208. 65 Schmidt 1978, 439–463. 66 Fiala 1970, 167–192; Fiala 1975, 152–153; Begert 2003, 83–89. An Heir 25

FIGURE 4 Despite all the restrictive conditions, Vladislaus II sincerely appreciated the title bestowed on him, which is implied by his ‘coronation’ denars. The first of them was minted after his return from Regensburg in the first weeks of 1158 and depicted the symbolic acceptance of the crown from the hands of Emperor Frederick I Barbarossa. all the furnishings necessary and also a house at Strahov, where he wanted to dwell alone and wait for the end of his days.67 On this issue the Milevsko reporter was quite wry, but the aging king had really made a serious mistake. On domestic soil, he had offended Czech lords; by the ill-conceived abdication, however, he had also called into question the universal nature of the the Hohenstaufen Empire, and Barbarossa simply could not condone anything like that. Vladislaus had presumably relied on the inheritance of the royal title, which had been guaranteed by the coronation privilege from 1158; nevertheless, the ambiguously formulated conditions did not state explicitly whether the word of the king of Bohemia sufficed for the ascension to the throne. In the last weeks of 1172, Barbarossa decided that it did

67 Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 464. 26 CHAPTER 2

FIGURE 5 At the bleak castle Přimda, extending towards the Bavarian border, the unfortunate duke Sobeslaus spent twelve long years (1161–1172) before Barbarossa’s threats returned his freedom to him and he, after the intercession of his brother Oldřich and with the blessing of the emperor and his counsellors, assumed the government in Prague in 1173. Depictions from the 1840s. After F. A. Heber and P. Röhrich.

not, but the universally understood dimension of the Imperial Majesty in fact did not even allow for any other interpretation.68 The further course of events was already completely out of the control of the Prague court. Vladislaus was invited to the Hoftag in Nuremberg, where he was to explain in public not only his resignation but also the long internment of Ulrich’s brother Sobeslaus. The emperor, however, refused to receive the envoy and, having reproached Vladislaus, made him reconcile with Sobeslaus. Frustrated and exhausted, Vladislaus asked for the emperor’s audience already at the end of the summer of 1173. There, however, he was only further sharply rebuked for having passed the throne to his son Frederick without the lea ders’ consent and having thus broken old traditions. Prostrate and humiliated, Vladislaus then resorted to Meerane, to the curtis of his wife Judith, while his

68 Appelt 1967, 3–32; Koch 1968, 596–614; Töpfer 1968, 1348–1358. Attention to the fact that Barbarossa was also scrupulously mindful of the consensual exercise of sovereign power has recently been drawn by Görich 2011, 145–220. An Heir 27 former prisoner Sobeslaus II, now a new duke of Bohemia, was being enthu siastically welcomed at the gates of Prague Castle.69 The cruel end of the otherwise successful reign of the second king of Bohemia was chronicled in the Czech lands only by Gerlach; otherwise, we can only find some short comments scattered from the Austrian Danube Basin all the way to Thuringia.70 The fates of his immediate family, mainly the young, perhaps only ten-year-old (?) prince Vladislaus Henry, however, were not of interest to anyone. It is hence not clear what stance the prince took towards the impending disaster—whether he felt his father’s defeat, which did not lack the features of an ancient tragedy, or was looking forward to Thuringia without realising what the fate of an exile entails. Neither is it excluded, however, that the bitter summer of lost hopes imprinted in his mind a memory which enabled him to lead the Přemyslid realm out of a serious dynastic crisis in 1197.

2 A Witness to a Dying Time

Gerlach, abbot of Milevsko, needed only a few lines for the last conversation between Emperor Barbarossa and Vladislaus. This was far from enough to express the feelings of a ruler who helplessly watched his work crumble. How much bitterness there was in the awareness that the Prague throne would now be taken over by the offspring of Duke Sobeslaus, although he had had one of them (Sobeslaus) tormented by long imprisonment at Přimda and had sentenced the other (Ulrich) to exile at the imperial court! With understandable scepticism, he refused to return to Bohemia, although the winners had offered him a decent background, and chose instead to stay at his wife’s curtis in Meerane.71 The records from the Abbey of St James in Pegau connect the fall of the second kingdom of Bohemia with the place called Ermindorf, and, since Gerlach wrote something similar (Erndorff ),72 Czech historiography has accepted the idea that a Hoftag took place in Hermsdorf, Thuringia, sometime at the end of

69 Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 466; Continuatio Claustroneoburgensis tertia, MGH SS IX, 630. 70 Auctarium Lambacense, MGH SS IX, 555; Continuatio Admuntensis, MGH SS IX, 584; Annales sancti Rudberti Salisburgenses, MGH SS IX, 777; Annalium Salisburgensium additamentum, MGH SS XIII, 238; Annales Pegavienses, MGH SS XVI, 260; Monumenta Erphesfurtensia, MGH SRG [42.], 60. 71 Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 466. 72 Annales Pegavienses, MGH SS XVI, 260; Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 466. 28 CHAPTER 2 the summer of 1173.73 Nevertheless, Barbarossa’s itinerary excludes such a possibility. In the middle of the year, the emperor had a meeting in Nuremberg, whence he went to the Main Basin; it was not until December that he departed for Erfurt to ease the tension between Louis III, Landgrave of Thuringia, and the margraves from the House of Ascania. The known sojourns of the imperial retinue in the summer months of 1173 imply that the meeting, and not the diet, could have taken place in Erbendorf, which was within the circle of the settlements administered by Hohenstaufen ministeriales around the imperial palace in Cheb (Kaiserpfalz Eger).74 Nevertheless, the end of Vladislaus’ kingdom was a well-known story. Gerlach, for instance, did not doubt at all, even fifty years later, that the second king of Bohemia had never left Thuringia and that he also died there on 18 January 1174.75 The chronicler from Milevsko knew even that Vladislaus had spent his last months in the company of his wife Judith and daughter-in-law Elisabeth, whereas his first-born son Frederick had sought help at the court of the king of Hungary and later had tried to ingratiate himself into the emperor’s favour.76 Gerlach, however, forgot to mention Přemysl Otakar and Vladislaus Henry, and again it is not clear why: he stood at the scribe’s desk at a time when the public life in the Czech lands was controlled by their common will,77 and still he did not save any line, any comment for them. Is it the case that he could not, did not want to or that he really did not know anything? Where the Milevsko abbot put his quill away, the other information sources of the time became quiet as well, which indicates that both siblings spent their days rather in seclusion. If they did not stay in Bohemia, which is what was later claimed by Henry of Heimburg in his chronicle,78 they followed their father to his meeting with the emperor and then settled in Meerane, when they could ask their mother’s nephew, Louis III of Thuringia, for help.79 Surprisingly enough, however, clearer traces lead to Meissen, to Margrave Otto the Rich. It was in the Meissen cathedral that the remains of King Vladislaus were laid to

73 Novotný 1913, 1003–1004. 74 Opll 1978, 58–59. 75 Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 466; 467. Similarly Necrologium Olomucense, AÖG 65/1884, 520; Necrologium Podlažicense, DFS, 405; Necrologium Bohemo-Silesiacarum, ZVGS 5/1863, 110; Necrologium Windbergense. MB XIV, 91. 76 Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 466. 77 Bláhová 1993, 35–48. 78 Annales Heinrici Heimburgensis. FRB III, 311. 79 Patze 1962, 209–249; Patze 1974, 24–35. An Heir 29 rest80 and Přemysl Otakar courted Otto’s daughter Adelheid.81 It is no wonder, though. The court of the House of Wettin controlled the silver mines around Freiberg and was strongly involved in imperial questions. Přemysl apparently realised that the margrave’s words could have considerable weight also in Czech issues.82 Nevertheless, Barbarossa’s sentence was soon overshadowed by other events. The proud Lombard League still refused to submit to the will of the imperial court; therefore, Frederick I decided (probably already in the summer of 1173) to attack the main camp of the insurgents, which became the symbol of defiance and as such was named Alessandria after Barbarossa’s obstinate opponent, Pope Alexander III.83 That it was a good choice and that it hit a very sensitive spot is implied by the dating formulas of imperial charters from the time of the siege. They were all, without exception, issued ‘in the siege camp before the town called Roboretum’ (in obsidione Roboreti),84 and already the first of them proves that Czech forces were not lacking in the Italian battlefield this time either.85 Something like that seems to have been required by the oath of fealty taken by the new duke of Bohemia directly in Erbendorf,86 and Frederick also could be satisfied with the fact that Sobeslaus’ brother Ulrich brought an auxiliary corps before Alessandria.87 The cautious hope that his arrival would break the resistance of the rebels was soon replaced by despon- dency. The mocked ‘thatched’ town changed into an ‘iron’ town, and in the autumn sleet a mutinous mood began to spread through the camp.88 The duke himself realised that his words were not taken seriously enough among the Czechs. Not only had he not been able to prevent the unscrupulous plundering in Bavaria and Swabia, losing almost two hundred men during bloody skirmishes in Ulm,89 but on the day before Christmas he had been quietly left by a group of leaders. The rest of the men-at-arms persevered until the next spring, when at least a truce was concluded; nevertheless, apart from the emperor’s

80 Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 466. 81 Černá 1923, 9–44. 82 Pätzold 1997, 31–84. 83 Romoaldi Annales, MGH SS XIX, 440; Laudage 1997. 84 MGH DF I (X/3), 128–129, No. 633; 130–132, No. 635; 134–135, No. 637. 85 MGH DF I (X/3), 128–129, No. 633. 86 Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 466. 87 On the eve of the departure, Duke Ulrich gave a donation to the Chapter of Olomouc. See also CDB I, 238–239, No. 270. 88 Romoaldi Annales, MGH SS XIX, 440: . . . in contemptum et ironiam, Palearum civitas est appellata, que postmodum in conflictu bellico ferrea est inventa . . . 89 Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 468–469. 30 CHAPTER 2 gratitude, they were taking home only debts, weakened health and a handful of remarkable memories.90 The emperor passed the serious failure on the part of the Czech reinforcements in the battlefield in Northern Italy in silence, but the silence was almost threatening. After Sobeslaus II removed Jerome, the provost of Mělník, who had claimed that he was a relative of Barbarossa, from his post, the duke received a letter in which Frederick quite bluntly called for rectification and demanded more warriors and a promise that if there were deserters, they would not be allowed to come home.91 However, curt questions and instructions written in the first weeks of 1175 imply that the imperial court had begun to consider the change on the Bohemian throne already slightly earlier, maybe still before Alessandria.92 The initial hesitation of the imperial court changed into aversion, and Sobeslaus II was considered literally troublesome. The biggest issue was probably that the duke of Bohemia acted on his own initiative. Without prior con- sultation with Barbarossa, he had extradited Prince Géza to Hungary, although the prince had approached Sobeslaus hoping to be able to reach the emperor and gain the crown with his support.93 Sobeslaus’ regular absence from court diets did not improve his bad reputation,94 but he aroused even more indignation when he plundered the Babenberg holdings on the northern bank of the Danube in an unprecedented way at the end of the summer and then in the winter of 1176. If the real culprit had been sought at that time, Henry II Jasomirgott, duke of Austria, would have been brought to trial before Princes of the Holy Roman Empire, as he had not wanted to surrender newly settled parts of the deep boundary forest around Weitra. Moreover, the war erupted after Henry offended and expelled Czech envoys who had reminded him that he had violated the land borders. It was not until then that Sobeslaus allied with Conrad Otto, duke of Znojmo and at harvest time terribly devastated the Austrian countryside. This was followed by a Babenberg raid into South Moravia and a one-day, most likely symbolic, siege of Znojmo Castle. The winter campaign of the Czech militia was facilitated by the death of the duke of Austria, who broke his leg so badly in a fall from a horse that he succumbed to his injury several days later, but the Roman See had already intervened in

90 Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 469–470. 91 MGH DF I (X/3), 133, No. 636. 92 Görich 2011, 373–380. 93 Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 472; Georgi 1990, 54–59; 95–112. 94 Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 472; Fiala 1961, 31–42. An Heir 31 the otherwise local dispute. Sobeslaus was excommunicated, and soon also Barbarossa lost his patience.95 For two decades, the power horizon of the Hohenstaufen court was dominated by the Lombardian issue, but after the Battle of Legnano on 29 May 1176 and the spectacular reconciliation in Venice one year later, the emperor had enough time and space for a decisive action against the Welf opposition as well as the resolution of other less important problems. Among them, Frederick included the situation in Bohemia, where another small coup d’état had happened in the meantime. Probably sometime in the spring of 1177, Sobeslaus got rid of his brother, Duke of Olomouc Ulrich.96 The latter was imprisoned, and, unless the necrology of the Olomouc metropolitan chapter is wrong, he died in prison on 18 September.97 Brief records leave too much space for various speculations; unfortunately, the tragic turn between the siblings was not recorded even by Abbot Gerlach—he only briefly noted that in 1178, during the invasion of Austrian troops, Olomouc was defended by Sobeslaus’ brother Wenceslas.98 Within the bounds of possibility, we should hence mention at least that Ulrich could have thus paid for the rather flattering reputation of Barbarossa’s loyal courtier and that he was (or could have been) removed precisely because he had warned his brother about a conflict with the emperor, which in the end (and against his will?) occurred in the spring of 1177.99 The abbot of Milevsko covered the essence of the emperor’s retribution with several succinct remarks. According to him, the pardoned Frederick was first called to Barbarossa to contrive intrigues against Sobeslaus (contra eum in curia laborauit); after some time, he received feudal banners (uexillis de manu cesaris) as a sign that the emperor no longer objected to his return to Bohemia.100 Unfortunately, Gerlach did not bother with dating. He only dryly noted at the end that a long time must have elapsed before this issue came to an end, by which he actually did not say anything. Likewise the offer of the imperial office is rather poor, merely confirming that ‘Duke of Bohemia’ Frederick met

95 Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 470–472; Annales Mellicenses, MGH SS IX, 505; Continuatio Zwetlensis altera, MGH SS IX, 541; Continuatio Cremifanensis, MGH SS IX, 546; Continuatio Claustroneoburgensis secunda, MGH SS IX, 616; Continuatio Claustroneoburgensis tertia, MGH SS IX, 630–631; Annales Sancti Rudberti Salisburgenses, MGH SS IX, 777; Annales et Chronica Magni presbyteri Reicherspergenses, MGH SS XVII, 501; Novotný 1913, 1033–1037. 96 CDB I, 238–239, No. 270; 244–246, No. 279. 97 Annales Pragenses, FRB II, 379; Annalium Pragensium, FRB II, 279; Necrologium Olomucense, AÖG 65/ 1884, 582. 98 Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 472. 99 Wihoda 2010a, 222–223. 100 Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 472. 32 CHAPTER 2

FIGURE 6 The abbot Gerlach was not only a well-informed commentator on contemporary events but also a competent abbot, under whose long administration (he was inaugurated in 1187 and still held the post in 1221) Milevsko became an influential and most likely also rich community, which could proceed to the generously laid-out construction of the monastic complex. There was even a place for a scriptorium, within whose walls the Milevsko chronicle was written between 1214 and 1222. Photography by a. Flídr. An Heir 33

Barbarossa in Turin on 14 June 1178.101 Is it possible that he renewed his promise of fealty precisely there? Václav Novotný shifted Frederick’s sojourn in Turin to a constitutional level.102 Frederick’s oath of fealty is placed into Italy also by the Second Continuation of the Annals of Zwettl;103 what is remarkable, however, is the manner in which the emperor stepped in the Czech situation. His interventions never exceeded the conciliation proclamation, because he simply left the rest of the worries to the Přemyslids themselves.104 Around the middle of 1178, he hence promoted Frederick to a duke without a duchy; the reinstalled ruler would have probably remained in this unrewarding role for many years had he not been helped on domestic soil by Duke of Znojmo Conrad Otto. In the spirit of family tradition, he kept aloof from the protracted rivalry between the Vladislaus and Sobeslaus lines, but at the end of the 12th century he could already pride himself on a respectable influence.105 After a short hesitation, he supported Sobeslaus’ campaign in the Austrian Danube Basin and, as compensation for the damage suffered, he gained control over the province of Brno.106 Nevertheless, the oaths of the allies were short-lived. Gerlach claims that evil slander was then given credence, but the course of events implies that Conrad Otto most likely demanded also the Olomouc part of Moravia and failed. The position in Olomouc was given to Sobeslaus’ brother Wenceslas, while the Prague ducal court rejected Conrad’s claims in the Brno area. This was followed by a brief confrontation during which Conrad Otto repelled the Bohemian invasion into the Znojmo area and, with the aid of the Babenberg troops, plundered the surroundings of Olomouc.107 The hot summer of 1177 only foreshadowed the course of the things to come. After Sobeslaus’ hasty retreat from Moravia, rumours began to circulate in the Prague suburbium about Frederick’s imminent return, which made the duke summon the armed forces, with which he headed for the land gate in July (?)

101 MGH DF I (X/3), 272–277, No. 732. 102 Novotný 1913, 1045–1046. 103 Continuatio Zwetlensis altera, MGH SS IX, 541. This situation is approached imprecisely and obscurely by Czech compilations, mainly Annalium Pragensium, FRB II, 279; Annales Pragenses, FRB II, 379. 104 Hechberger 1996; Richter 1999; Mikulla 2003. 105 Wihoda 2010a, 226–227. 106 Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 471. 107 Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 472; Continuatio Claustroneoburgensis tertia, MGH SS IX, 631– 632; Continuatio Zwetlensis altera, MGH SS IX, 541. 34 CHAPTER 2

1178. The expected invasion, however, did not take place, and Sobeslaus gradually had to send the individuals home, hoping that they would return.108 The opportunity offered was immediately taken advantage of by the excellently informed Frederick, who, at the head of the imperial reinforcements and with the support of high-born Czechs, quickly penetrated the Vltava Basin. Sobeslaus withdrew to Skála Castle, but, after two bloody battles around Prague at the beginning of 1179, he had to admit to himself that the days of his ducal reign belonged to the past. Then he left the land to seek more help beyond the borders.109 The Přemyslid lands were involuntarily left also by the overthrown duke’s brother Wenceslas, who had been in charge of the Olomouc region. It is likely to have been at that time that Duke of Znojmo Conrad Otto requested an audience with Frederick to ask for a well-earned reward in the form of the vacated province of Moravia. In 1177 and 1178, he had drawn a substantial part of Sobeslaus’ forces to himself, and, in the battle under Vyšehrad on 27 January 1179, he had averted the impending defeat.110 In spite of that, he was not given the audience. The Prague court resolutely refused a further weakening of its authority and therefore subjected the rest of Moravia to its direct control. It was certainly by no chance that the ducal charters contained a noteworthy phrase stating that Frederick governed both Bohemia and Moravia (dux Boemie quam Morauie existens);111 at the same time, Frederick’s half-brother Přemysl Otakar became his co-ruler. Many years must have passed since Vladislaus’ thoughtless abdication when his son was noticed by chroniclers. Nevertheless, it should be added that he was impossible not to notice from the very first moment. In the middle of the summer of 1179, he accompanied his brother to Cheb, where the unfortunate dispute over the Weitra region had been settled before Emperor Barbarossa. Přemysl became Margrave of Moravia (margravius de Morauia)112—this rank, until then unknown in Bohemia, clearly expressed a direct subordination to Duke Frederick. Nevertheless, it is documented that the entire South-West Moravia, i.e., the Znojmo and Brno areas, had come under the control of Conrad Otto before 1176; Přemysl’s ‘Margraviate’ was thus connected exclusively with the Olomouc region. In this manner, Frederick resolved several problems at

108 Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 472–473. 109 Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 473–475; Continuatio Claustroneoburgensis tertia, MGH SS IX, 631–632; Continuatio Zwetlensis altera, MGH SS IX, 541. 110 Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 474–475. 111 CDB I, 260–261, No. 292. 112 MGH DF I (X/3), 341–343, No. 782. An Heir 35 the same time. He satisfied his ambitious brother while eliminating his powerful but no longer desirable Moravian ally.113 The meeting in Cheb probably calmed the Czech political scene; after the oaths of allegiance and the kiss of peace, Conrad Otto withdrew to Znojmo, whereas Frederick could confidently claim that he ruled not only in Bohemia but also in Moravia (dux Fridericus tam Boemie quam Morauie ducatum obtinuit).114 The title of Margrave is also likely to have been postponed, because in 1181 Přemysl acted only as the duke’s brother (frater ducis). A list of witnesses likewise includes Conrad Otto (dominus Otto princes Morauie),115 which might prove that the Cheb agreement was taken with all seriousness on both sides. It might have been the long truce that released the garrison kept by Frederick in Olomouc, which subsequently, led by Přemysl (?), moved the northern border of the Přemyslid domains deep into the northern foreland of the Moravian Gate.116 Good relations between the Přemyslid dukes were not disrupted until a revolt of Czech elders (maiores natu), whose vote brought Conrad Otto to the head of the land. After a long blockade, probably in the summer of 1182, Prague Castle suffered defeat as well, and when the duke had coped with the former Duke of Olomouc Wenceslas, who sought the favour of the Czechs living in Hungarian exile,117 he could start preparing for a proper takeover. The Elector Palatine and Conrad’s father-in-law Otto, however, arrived even earlier with an invitation to a Hoftag in Regensburg, where also the humiliated Frederick headed, accompanied by the emperor. Barbarossa’s stay in Regensburg is documented between 26 and 29 September 1182, when the famous scene, immortalised by the quill of Abbot Gerlach, is likely to have occurred. The emperor received only the noble, whom he had brought to a hall decorated with executioner’s axes.118 The undisguised threat did not fall flat, and the Czech envoys promised on the spot that they would accept Frederick as their lord and duke (again). Even Barbarossa could be satisfied, as he had intervened in Přemyslid disputes in a manner corre- sponding to the Roman tradition.119 Therefore, the Second Continuation of the Annals of Zwettl only briefly mentioned that Conrad Otto vacated the centre

113 Kejř 1978, 234–238; Wihoda 1999, 454–456. 114 CDB I, 262–263, No. 294. 115 CDB I, 263–265, No. 295. 116 Wihoda, 1997/1998, 19–31. 117 Continuatio Zwetlensis altera, MGH SS IX, 542. 118 Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 481. 119 Althoff 2003, 139–169. 36 CHAPTER 2 of the land and left for Moravia.120 Thirty years later, the year 1182 was covered also by Abbot Gerlach. He crowned his narration with a celebration of a wise emperor, who prudently suppressed a conspiracy and returned the duchy to Frederick, leaving Conrad to satisfy himself with Moravia (Sic sapiens imperator sapienter repressit et isti quidem Boemiam reddedit, illum vero Morauia contentum esse precepit).121 The conciliation finding imposed by the emperor could end personal aversion with dignity, but, as shown by another account by Gerlach, Frederick did not forget the former treason. In the summer of 1185, he sent his brother Přemysl to the south of Moravia to take revenge on the duke of Znojmo for severe injustice and for the alienation of Moravia (pro alienatione Moraviae), which Conrad Otto wanted to retain by the grace of the emperor and not by the will of the duke (quam non ab eo, sed de manu imperatoris tenere gestiebat). Taken by surprise, the Moravians failed to mount a resistance, so the Bohemian forces plundered the surroundings of Znojmo and Bítov and a visit was supposedly paid even to the monastery in Dolní Kounice. The easy success encouraged Frederick, who, still in the autumn (maybe after 23 November) entrusted the leadership of the second campaign to Přemysl. This effort, however, did not go unnoticed, and Conrad Otto surprised Přemysl near Loděnice. After a bloody battle, the Bohemian corps gained control over the battlefield and cleared its way to Bohemia, but Conrad Otto had attained his goal, because he had protected the Znojmo region from more looting.122 Around 1185, the already chiefly private dispute between the two dukes unduly burdened the domestic situation, and the painful losses among the leaders of both sides led the feuding Přemyslids to reconcile with each other. The next summer, after mutual guarantees and promises, Conrad and Frederick met in Knín and through good people (mediantibus bonis viris) entered into a friendship.123 The fact that the former rivals became closer so quickly leaves ample space for speculation. Nevertheless, further development reveals that the internal unity of the Czech lands was restored and that Conrad recognised Frederick’s primacy in exchange for succession rights in Prague.124 The Knín agreement was sealed by Conrad’s title—the duke of Znojmo publicly accepted the title margrave, thus (like Přemysl in 1179) expressing his

120 Continuatio Zwetlensis altera, MGH SS IX, 542. 121 Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 481. 122 Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 506–507; Měřínský 1980, 36–46. 123 Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 507. 124 Kejř 1992, 269–270. An Heir 37

FIGURE 7 Although Conrad Otto was raised to the head of the land by the agreement that he had concluded with Duke Frederick in Knín in the spring of 1186, the seal that he attached to the foundation charter of the Louka canonry on 25 October 1190 invoked the favour of St Wenceslas and the inscription around the perimeter (+ PAX OTTOИIS. IИ MAИV S VЄИCЄSLAI) said that Conrad Otto ruled the land, according to the law, with the consent of the Bohemians and the blessing of the heavenly patron.

relationship to Frederick. Conrad had himself addressed as Margrave from Moravia during his stay at the imperial court in the autumn of 1186 (in pres- encia et testimonio . . . Ottonis marchionis de Merheren)125 and in March 1187 (marchio Morauie).126 Conrad likewise remembered the difficult years in the foundation charter of the Louka canonry from 25 October 1190, in which he

125 MGH DF I (X/4), 223–225, No. 953. 126 MGH DF I (X/4), 228–230, No. 956. 38 CHAPTER 2

(this time already as duke of Bohemia) emphasised that he also had been a margrave (Otto, dei gratia Boemorum dux, quondam marchio Morauie) and the first heir to the ducal throne in Prague.127 Frederick, for his part, could rightly mention that he was the first among the dukes; probably for that reason, he used a respectable statement in the charter for the Vyšehrad Chapter of 2 May 1187 about the power vested exclusively in the ‘duke of dukes’ (soli duci principali).128 It seems that in Knín, old grievances were successfully obliterated. Frederick, however, could not shed the reputation of a ‘clumsy coachman’,129 whereas Conrad Otto was lauded for fairness,130 and in the St Vitus scriptorium, they composed a tercet in memory of the great duke of Moravia (Moravie laudabi- lis dux).131 The enlightened and educated ruler (princeps illustris et probus et sapiens et satis litteratus) was remembered also by the Hennegau chronicler Gislebert,132 and positive comments appeared in numerous annals of the time as well. These were the main sources of historical literature, in particular for Jaroslav Demel, who considered Conrad Otto to be an exemplary sovereign, embellished with the love and devotion of his subjects.133 At the end of the summer of 1186, Přemysl could have felt cheated. He had lost both his title of Margrave and control over the province of Olomouc, and still he does not seem to have parted with his brother on bad terms. He had definitely never revolted against Frederick, which was not so insignificant in those uncertain times. He remained faithful to Frederick not only during the Moravian crisis but also during the rebellion of Sobeslaus’ youngest son Wenceslas in 1184.134 Neither did Přemysl abandon Frederick three years later, when Henry Bretislaus, bishop of Prague, had quarrelled with the duke’s officials, and, since Frederick had not lent an ear to him, he approached the emperor.135 The growing animosity between Frederick and Henry Bretislaus is proved by ducal charters, from which the bishop’s name almost disappeared after 1185.136

127 CDB I, 299–301, No. 326. 128 CDB I, 288–290, No. 317; Kejř 1978, 241–247. 129 Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 464. 130 Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 471. 131 Annales Pragenses, FRB II, 379. 132 Gisleberti Chronicon Hanoniense, MGH SRG [29.], 230. 133 Demel 1894, 38–48; 136–146; 215–225; 298–318; Wihoda 2010a, 228–232. 134 Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 506. 135 Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 479. 136 Hilsch 1969, 180. See also CDB I, 277, No. 307; 279–280, No. 309; 280–283, No. 310; 283–284, No. 311; 284–285, No. 312. An Heir 39

Gerlach, the abbot of Milevsko, further says that Henry Bretislaus waited for a conciliation statement for half a year; this claim is supported by official documents. The lists of the witnesses in Barbarossa’s privileges include the bishop already in November 1186, but the diet in Regensburg, where the decisive negotiations took place, was convened as late as the beginning of March.137 The competing Přemyslids were accommodated in Regensburg several days before the meeting and are quite sure to have come face-to-face.138 Nevertheless, it is not certain whether they attempted to reach an agreement outside of the agenda of the Hoftag; if anyone made a conciliation offer at all, the other party resolutely refused it, because the speech placed in the mouth of Margrave Dedo was dated to 8 March. The margrave represented the bishop, and when he presented the indictment, Frederick expressed through his barrister that the bishop of Prague was his chaplain just like all of his predecessors and that he should thus not complain about his lord while he himself did not have to confess to his chaplain.139 The Milevsko chronicler used the word ‘allegedly’ at the beginning of the debate, thus weakening the message of his account. He probably realised that the spokesman of the duke of Bohemia could not utter such an arrogant defence, which factually made sense, however. The defence tried to draw attention to the procedural aspects, and Frederick actually asked the dukes assembled for advice on whether he was obliged to respond to the bishop in front of the imperial throne. In a way, he also succeeded, because the opinion prevailed among those present that a prelate should be, like imperial bishops (more Tevtonicorum episcoporum), freed from the power of the dukes of Bohemia and subordinated to the emperor, because he was a duke in his empire and received the sceptre and investiture from him (cuius imperii est princeps, cuius visitas curias, and quo suscipit sceptrum et investituram). This was reflected in the wording of the final finding, whose permanent validity was to be ensured by an imperial privilege, sealed with a golden bull. Immediately, in two different places of his work, the Milevsko abbot Gerlach mentioned that the bishop of Prague had been declared a Prince of the Holy Roman Empire.140 He could not have known, though, that he would provide Czech historiography with an interesting theme for reflection on the ‘infamous character’ of Henry Bretislaus, who put personal gain above the ‘welfare of the state’. This Přemyslid was resourcefully criticised by the otherwise

137 Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 479–480; MGH DF I (X/4), 223–225, No. 953. 138 MGH DF I (X/4), 228–230, No. 956; Annalium Pragensium, FRB II, 280; Novotný 1913, 1092. 139 Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 480. 140 Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 480; 513–514. 40 CHAPTER 2 prudent Václav Novotný;141 and in contrast, he was approached with sympathy by German medieval studies, mainly by Wilhelm Wegener142 and Peter Hilsch.143 Under their influence, Jiří Kejř returned to the events in Regensburg; he proved that Henry Bretislaus strived for his promotion but that the Prague bishopric did not have the essential prerequisites for its transformation into an imperial principality. From the beginning, it lacked a compact property base, land awareness and a circle of subordinate officials who were dependent exclusively on the bishop, because the entire judicial system and all the administrative acts were, like in the past, controlled by ducal vilici (overseers).144 Barbarossa’s bull, and in fact the actual course of the public hearing, must have been perceived by Frederick as a personal defeat. Full of uncertainty, he asked the rebellious cousin for a meeting at the beginning of May 1187. Unfortunately, the content of their conversation is unknown; if it had not been for the donation charter for the Vyšehrad Chapter, no one would know now that two influential actors on the stage of Czech events met on 2 May. That Frederick invited also his half-brothers Přemysl and Vladislaus to the discussions would have fallen into oblivion as well.145 The first of them had provided many a valuable service to the duke; the other one was, thirteen years after his father’s death, introduced by the duke to public affairs. Eight hundred years later, we can only speculate how the Regensburg sentence was reflected in Vladislaus’ career. One more question—where the youngest son of the second king of Bohemia crossed the boundaries of adult- hood—remains without a decent answer. Was it at the Prague court or still during his exile in Thuringia or, rather, in Meissen? The sources are silent, although some understanding about Přemysl’s relationship to Frederick and later to Vladislaus implies that the future margrave of Moravia returned to Bohemia alongside his brothers already in 1178, with only his young age (?) preventing him from entering political life. Vladislaus Henry thus most likely experienced the siege of Prague Castle by Duke of Znojmo Conrad Otto in 1182, the unsuccessful rebellion of Wenceslas II two years later, battles for Moravia and finally the Knín reconciliation in 1185. It is hard to decide whether he remained in dis- creet seclusion the whole time or he let himself be involved in the rapid course of stirring events. He was definitely not considered a dangerous rival, and it seems that he did not even have to flee to safety during Conrad’s uprising. In

141 Novotný 1913, 1125; 1136; 1138; 1143; 1144; 1148; 1151. 142 Wegener 1959a, 219–223. 143 Hilsch 1969, 168–216. 144 Kejř 1991, 481–491; Kejř 1992, 277–282. 145 CDB I, 288–290, No. 317. An Heir 41 the end, the hard struggle for the ducal throne conducted without rules did not lack the human dimension: Sobeslaus II had the remains of King Vladislaus deposited in the Strahov monastery; andafter he himself died in exile, he was buried at Vyšehrad with Frederick’s consent.146 The situation in the Czech lands in the last quarter of the 12th century may be perceived from a number of perspectives. It should be mentioned that the Přemyslid lands had undergone a severe dynastic crisis which weakened their influence on the imperial scene; nevertheless, we should add a substantial postscript here: namely, that the fatal rivalry between the two family clans proceeded from the idea that the right to rule belonged to the oldest member of the dynasty (semper maior natu). This rule, well known to the aristocratic land community, had allegedly been uttered by Duke Bretislaus I; since he had done so, according to Cosmas, on his deathbed,147 this law was considered irrevocable.148 Cosmas and his stories, however, do not have to be taken literally. The dean of the St Vitus Chapter often modified what he had seen, heard and read and, in the interest of his truth, frequently improved the history of the Czechs. We should remember that he placed particular emphasis on the legitimacy of the ruling dynasty, whose rights had been defined not only by the posthumous legacy of Duke Bretislaus I but also especially by the agreement concluded at the charismatic beginning of Czech history between the free Czechs and the legendary ancestor of dukes of Bohemia, Přemysl the Ploughman. This agreement was then renewed by a ritual election process, which had to be undergone by every new duke, otherwise also a legitimate heir of Přemysl the Ploughman. Any other procedure could threaten the foundations of Czech statehood, which the venerable author of the ‘Chronicle of the Bohemians’ could not allow to happen. Therefore, he corrected what was ‘erroneous’ and praised what was ‘true’.149 Cosmas’ skilful narration of the Přemyslid tale and the mythical origin of the Přemyslid rule inspires due respect even centuries later. Nonetheless, the eloquence of our reporter would not have likely drawn the attention of anyone except a narrow circle of intellectuals if the original agreement had not ensured a significant share of the noble in public affairs. This did not only concern the ritual enthronement of the new ruler. The diet of the lords had

146 Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 466; 475–476. 147 Cosmae Pragensis Chronica Boemorum II.13, MGH SRG NS II, 102; III.13, 176. 148 Wihoda 2010a, 251–255. 149 Cosmae Pragensis Chronica Boemorum I.5–8, MGH SRG NS II, 14–18; Třeštík 1965, 305– 314; Třeštík 2003, 101–167. 42 CHAPTER 2 retained considerable authority and had frequently made decisions together with the duke on state and public issues. Bretislaus’ testament, however, limi ted these ancient rights, because it determined in advance how the leaders should vote, which did not really contribute to stabilising the order of succession, complicated enough as it was.150 Cosmas contemplated at the scribe’s desk in a period when the power system of ducal Bohemia was being shaken to its very foundations. It was probably for that reason that he tried to imagine the succession to the ducal throne as indisputable, hence as a charismatic contract between Přemysl the Ploughman and the free Czechs, to which the dying Bretislaus attached an irrevocable adden- dum n his last will. The succession order explicitly assumed the unity of the dynasty, but it is not known whether its author truly hoped for unity among his own offspring. Cosmas tried to convince the reader that it had indeed been the case, because he knew that Bretislaus’ lofty plans had been shattered.151 Already the first-born son, Spytihněv, had actually failed, and the last will of Duke Bretislaus was not followed by his homonymous grandson either, when he, in the spring of 1099, asked Emperor Henry for feudal banners for his brother Bořivoj to show to the Czechs who should become the duke after his death.152 It was not Bretislaus’ testament that prevailed but weapons raised to the throne the duke of Olomouc, Svatopluk, who had seized Prague in 1107.153 Likewise, inconsistently with the law, the ducal throne was ascended by Sobeslaus I, who then had to defend himself against Otto of Olomouc at the battle of Chlumec in 1126.154 For the sake of completeness, it should be added that Vladislaus Henry’s father, King Vladislaus, was not the oldest either when he ascended to power in 1140.155 The erroneous solution of the succession issue in 1172 destroyed the second kingdom of Bohemia. The lords’ opposition meant the end also for Duke Bretislaus II, whose political will from 1100 and the transfer of succession rights to his brother and infant son never became more than a mere formal proclamation.156 Already at the very beginning, the plan of Duke Sobeslaus I,

150 Loserth 1882, 1–78; Krzemieńska 1985. 151 Třeštík 1968. 152 Cosmae Pragensis Chronica Boemorum III.8. MGH SRG NS II, 169. 153 Cosmae Pragensis Chronica Boemorum III.19, MGH SRG NS II, 183–185. 154 Monachi Sazawiensis continuatio Cosmae, FRB II, 253–257; Canonici Wissegradensis continuatio Cosmae, FRB II, 203–204. 155 Vincentii canonici Pragensis Annales, FRB II, 410. 156 Cosmae Pragensis Chronica Boemorum III.13, MGH SRG NS II, 174; Charvát 2000, 167–169. An Heir 43 secured by an oath by the lords, proved to be a failure.157 It is no wonder that the Přemyslids, predestined to rule, attempted to seek help wherever they could find it. The public opinion insisted on the observance of ancient rules.158 Particular emphasis was placed on the electoral vote of the aristocratic land community, which could be counterbalanced only by the ruler of the Holy Roman Empire. Amidst the confusion and uncertainty, at a time when the future governor of the stone throne was determined by the loyalty of the leaders, the emperor thus became a kind of guarantor of the order and a source of law, from which the duke of Bohemia began, basically out of distress, to derive the legitimacy of his reign.159 The dual nature of the ruling power in the Czech lands, however, only symbolised the growing and essentially already intractable conflict between rigid traditions and a rapidly changing society. In the second half of the 12th century, society was launched on a course which was against common legal practice, and no one had any idea how to resolve the situation that had arisen. The innovative efforts of King Vladislaus failed miserably in 1173; Duke Sobeslaus II was not successful either; and Frederick, who—not always through a fault of his own—found himself at the mercy of events, was regarded as a weak ruler without a vision and, when only five years old, had to deal with the rebellion of Conrad Otto, an attack by Duke Wenceslas II and a complaint by the bishop Henry Bretislaus. In 1187, the rebels were joined by the otherwise reliable cousin Theobald, who, according to the St Vitus annals, was saved from imprisonment only by a quick escape abroad.160 Conrad Otto acted more competently. When he, after Frederick’s death, ascended the Prague throne in the spirit of the Knín agreement and made an oath of fealty to the emperor in May 1189,161 he quickly coped with the demands of the widow Elisabeth and at a public diet in Sadská won the favour of influential leaders. He gained the support of the Czechs by declaring that he would not question the origin of property that the nobility claimed to be hereditary.162 In imperial matters, he

157 Canonici Wissegradensis continuatio Cosmae, FRB II, 229. 158 Kulecki 1984, 441–450. 159 Schmidt 1978, 439–463; Wolverton 2001, 42–78. 160 Annalium Pragensium, FRB II, 280; Dejmek 1991, 102–103. 161 Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 508. 162 CDB II, 222–225, No. 234: . . . Omnes hereditates, quas viri nobiles tam minores, quam maiores tempore ducis Conradi sine querela iuste et pacifice huc usque possederunt, in bona tran- quilitate pacis amodo possideant . . . Similarly CDB II, 329–332, No. 325; CDB III/1, 202–205, No. 164; Vaněček 1941, 117–118; Horák 1961, 267–280; Bakala 1993, 9–15. 44 CHAPTER 2 was particular about perfect cooperation with the Hohenstaufen dynasty;163 in domestic affairs, he tried to reconcile with all of his relatives. Theobald and Wenceslas were allowed to return from exile,164 and the government of North- East Moravia was assumed by the half-forgotten sons of Duke of Olomouc Otto III Dětleb, Vladimír and Bretislaus.165 Conrad Otto deliberately invoked the past, and likewise his exercise of ruling power may be compared to a kind of return to the good old days. The Přemyslids were again governed by the oldest member of the family; the other family members received various pensions in the Czech lands; and also the regulation from 1190 was in compliance with the ideas of the long-deceased Duke Bretislaus. Before his campaign in Italy, where he headed as a member of the coronation ride to Rome of the future Emperor Henry VI, he had entrusted the government of the Czech lands to the second man in the succession order—a son of Sobeslaus, now Duke Wenceslas II.166 The whereabouts of Přemysl and Vladislaus after Frederick’s death are not known. Of course, they could have returned to Meissen, although they did not have a single reason to leave the land this time. Conrad Otto scrupulously respected the rights of his relatives, the traditions as well as the agreements concluded; and that is likely why he was considered to be a virtuous and praise- worthy ruler.167 He earned a great deal of favour among the period’s chroniclers by skilful interventions into the disorderly situation without anyone noticing that the consolidation of the ruling power was paid for by the abandonment of necessary political reforms. Vladislaus Henry could have known or suspected at least some of it. Nevertheless, it must have made him consider his future and the future of his family.

163 Annales Pegavienses, MGH SS XVI, 266–267; Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 508; Magistri Vincentii dicti Kadłubek Chronica Polonorum IV.16, MPH NS IX, 161–162; Toeche 1867, 115–192. 164 Annalium Pragensium, FRB II, 280; Annales Pragenses, FRB II, 379; CDB I, 295–296, No. 322. 165 Wihoda 2002b, 195–196; Wihoda 2010, 232–236. 166 Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 509; Annalium Pragensium, FRB II, 281; Annales Pragenses, FRB II, 379; Novotný 1913, 1119; 1124. 167 Gisleberti Chronicon Hanoniense, MGH SRG [29.], 230; Arnoldi Chronica Slavorum V.6, MGH SRG [14.], 152; Annales Stederburgenses, MGH SS XVI, 224; Annales Aquenses, MGH SS XVI, 687; Continuatio Claustroneoburgensis secunda, MGH SS IX, 618; Continuatio Claustroneoburgensis tertia, MGH SS IX, 633; Annales Marbacenses, MGH SRG [9.], 62; Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 509; Annalium Pragensium, FRB II, 281; Annales Pragenses, FRB II, 379. An Heir 45

FIGURE 8 After his accession to the ducal throne, Přemysl Otakar I had a seal made. He used it in 1192 to confirm the donation by which Drslaus’ son Oldřich had multiplied the endowment of the monastery in Plasy. From the beginning, he tried to act as a confident ruler. He was the very first duke of Bohemia to use a seal whose field was covered by a depiction of a rider with a banner in his right hand and a shield with an eagle in his left hand. The simple inscription around the perimeter announced that Přemysl was a duke (+ DVX. PREMISL). Photography by NA (National Archives) Prague.

3 The First Man in the Duchy

The exceptionality of the respect shown to Conrad Otto by the public as well as by other Přemyslids is proved not only by the panegyric included in the annals by one of the canons of St Vitus but also by the short note in which its author informed the reader that the ducal sceptre had been assumed 46 CHAPTER 2 by Duke Wenceslas.168 Unfortunately, our reporter expressed himself quite generally, yet the enthronement of the new ruler of the Czechs evidently did not need an additional commentary, because no one then dared to challenge the orders announced by Conrad Otto before his campaign in Italy. It was Conrad Otto himself who had transferred the execution of the sovereign rights onto Wenceslas and probably appointed him, in the spirit of agnatic seniority, publically as his possible successor. Conrad Otto anticipated a lot, but he definitely could not have had any idea that his coronation ride to Rome would develop into large-scale riots among the Princes of the Holy Roman Empire. The febrile epidemic that took the lives of the duke of Bohemia and the archbishop of Cologne under the walls of besieged Naples severely affected even Emperor Henry VI himself. He escaped death by a proverbial whisker and, still not entirely healthy, had to rush to his homeland and refute the extremely dangerous rumours of his demise, fuelled by the House of Welf.169 The situation in the Empire escalated further after the schismatic election of the bishop of Liège. Henry quite ruthlessly took advantage of his rights, and at the Hoftag at Worms in January 1192 he placed on the empty throne Lothar of Hochstaden, whose loyalty he did not doubt in the least. A rapid investiture procedure was ensured by a bribe in the amount of 3000 marks of silver, but the bluntness with which Henry ignored the demands of the Roman curia caused a public outrage, and the holders of patronage rights, Duke of Brabant Henry and Count of Hainaut Baldwin, did not hide their embarrassment. Soon afterwards, they both stood up for the excommunicated Duke of Saxony Henry, and, with the support of the Chapter of Liège, the Welf dynasty and in the end also Pope Celestine III, they installed the duly elected archdeacon Albert of Brabant in the office.170 The ever stronger opposition loudly considered refusing obedience, yet the emperor was not going to surrender without a fight. Almost without allies and especially without money, he tried to negotiate with everyone and, probably in the spring of 1192, established contact with the bishop of Prague, Henry Bretislaus. It was about nothing less than an oath of fealty of the duke of Bohemia; but it was to be taken not by Wenceslas II, selected by Conrad Otto, but by Přemysl Otakar. The well- informed Abbot Gerlach claims that Henry Bretislaus counterbalanced the emperor’s consent with the prospect of 6000 marks of silver.171

168 Annalium Pragensium, FRB II, 281; Annales Pragenses, FRB II, 379. 169 Csendes 1993, 106–112. 170 Heinrich 1956, 189–227. 171 Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 509. An Heir 47

Nevertheless, the bishop’s journey to the imperial court was preceded by dramatic events in Bohemia. Probably still at the end of 1191, Přemysl Otakar took advantage of the duke’s absence and gained control of Prague Castle, where he opposed Wenceslas’ blockage for the next three months.172 It was most likely at that time that Henry Bretislaus decided to side with Přemysl in the until-then-inconclusive battle, and with this in mind he asked for the emperor’s audience. He returned to Prague with the mandate of Henry’s envoy and actually compelled the two adversaries to make concessions.173 It did not take long, though, before it became evident that there was no longer any place for Wenceslas in Bohemia. The duke, tried by fate, headed for Meissen, where he fell into the hands of Albert, margrave of Meissen and Přemysl’s brother-in- law, in whose jail he soon died.174 The truce established by Henry Bretislaus did not lack a political dimension. The new arrangement of the hereditary domain was briefly described by the abbot Gerlach, who remarked in reference to the bishop that he had negotiated the duchies of Bohemia and Moravia for his relatives Přemysl and Vladislaus (illi ducatum Boemie, alteri vero Morauiam obtinuit).175 In the spring of 1192, however, Henry VI did not have the necessary authority, and his influence on the situation in Bohemia was, in fact, rather marginal. The short comment by Gerlach hence, more than anything else, refers in a vague and to a certain degree misleading manner to the legendary division of power between Přemysl and Vladislaus thirty years earlier, on 6 December 1197, with which the emperor had had nothing to do. With the same quill, Gerlach after all recounted the equally famous compromise that had been reached under Barbarossa’s patronage at the diet in Regensburg in 1182.176 The abbot of Milevsko might have shifted the context of the events and perhaps even unintentionally connected unrelated plots, but he certainly did not make up Vladislaus’ title of Margrave. Vladislaus was welcomed as a margrave of Moravia in the spring of 1192 in Frankfurt, where he, with his testimony of 13 May, left a small trace in an imperial charter for the local reeve Wolfram.177

172 CDB I, 443–444, No. 410; Novotný 1913, 1127–1128. 173 Annalium Pragensium, FRB II, 281; Annales Pragenses, FRB II, 379; Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 512. 174 Annalium Pragensium, FRB II, 281. Probably the same event was described at the beginning of the 14th century by the so-called Dalimil (Staročeská kronika tak řečeného Dalimila [The Old Czech Chronicle of the So-Called Dalimil] 2.71, 247). 175 Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 509. 176 Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 481. 177 RI IV/3, 89, No. 216. 48 CHAPTER 2

FIGURE 9 What the margravial residences in Moravia around the turn of the 13th century probably looked like is indicated by the church of SS Peter and Paul in Řeznovice, in the vicinity of which there was a ducal curtis.

Only a few weeks later, an audience with the emperor was requested by Přemysl, who accompanied Bishop of Prague Henry Bretislaus to the Hoftag at Gelnhausen; it may be surmised that he made an oath of fealty there to Henry VI.178 The spring months of 1192 were characterised by the legal stabilisation of ducal government, but what did they mean for Vladislaus Henry? His May trip to the Main Basin could be considered as a proof that the margrave had penetrated into the society of Princes of the Holy Roman Empire and in this sense

178 RI IV/3, 91, No. 221; Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 512. An Heir 49 had slightly weakened the until-then-exclusive position of the ruler of Bohemia at the imperial court. Could it be a repercussion of the succession agreements prepared by the bishop of Prague? Unfortunately, this is not known. In the respective places, the sources of the time were either entirely silent or they made do with a vague statement that Vladislaus Henry had stayed close to the emperor. In other words, it cannot be determined why the margrave had gone to Frankfurt and what motives had induced him to come to Mühlhausen on the first days of November.179 Likewise the situation in Moravia was at least unclear. Although Vladislaus Henry used the title of Margrave, that title did not necessarily mean much more than the administration of only one Moravian province, because the Olomouc region had been controlled by the sons of Otto III Dětleb, Vladimír and Bretislaus, since the time of Duke Conrad Otto. Their influence on public life evidently did not go beyond the borders of the domains entrusted, but a modest yet continuous series of mentions implies that they had survived the regency government of Duke Wenceslas II as well as Přemysl’s revolt and the coup d’état in 1192 without serious harm.180 Only the former domain of Duke of Znojmo Conrad Otto was thus left for Vladislaus Henry. We should remember again the events of 1179 and the Knín agreement of 1186, when the title of Margrave reflected not a legal relationship to Moravia but a direct subordination to the duke of Bohemia. If that was the case, Vladislaus Henry did not have to negotiate with the emperor as his vassal but did so as an envoy of the ruler of Bohemia. There are many indications that Vladislaus Henry really enjoyed his brother’s full confidence and also that he was entrusted with delicate tasks. After all, the balance of forces on the imperial political scene in the last months of 1192 placed extraordinary demands on all actors, and Vladislaus Henry’s November journey to Mühlhausen is likely to have been exceptional as well. The emperor was then on his way back from an unsuccessful campaign against Hermann of Thuringia, who openly played with the support of the Welf opposition in Saxony. Perhaps precisely in Mühlhausen, Henry VI received more bad news: namely, that his ally Valdemar had lost in Denmark. After the death of Bishop of Magdeburg Wichmann, the emperor could bid farewell to the important position in the north of the Empire, but soon he had to face an even more serious threat. On 24 November, Bishop of Liège Albert, a well-known opponent of the emperor, was murdered in front of the gates of Reims. In public opinion, Henry VI was to blame for Albert’s death. The princes of the Rhine Palatinate

179 RI IV/3, 105, No. 258. 180 Wihoda 2002c, 67–72. 50 CHAPTER 2

FIGURE 10 Henry Bretislaus seems to have celebrated the beginning of his rule as a duke with a special coinage, which was to remind all the Czechs in the late summer of 1193 who the lord of the land was. The reverse of the denars was thus dominated by the figure of the duke-bishop in his majesty; the obverse probably referred to the defeat and expulsion of the duke Přemysl Otakar.

even called for the election of a new king.181 Was there, however, any connection with developments in Bohemia? It seems so. Less than two weeks after Vladislaus Henry, Bishop of Prague Henry Bretislaus appeared at the king’s court. He was given the first audience in Altenburg on 17 November,182 but not long afterwards, at the beginning of December, Duke Přemysl and both of his brothers-in-law, the margraves of Meissen Albert and Theodoric, stayed in the Kaiserpfalz (imperial palace).183 Whereas the feuding Wettins had been brought to Altenburg in the hope of finally settling succession issues, the emperor hoped to renew alliance agreements with influential dukes in Central Germany. There is much to imply that he was at least partially successful, because he had also welcomed Landgrave of Thuringia Hermann at his court already in December.184 Although complex negotiations reached a conclusion that the emperor could consider encouraging, it was soon shown that most of his guests listened instead to the voices of rebellious Saxony and Rhineland-Palatinate. For the court of the

181 Schmandt 1967, 639–660; Freytag 1969, 471–530; Engels 1996, 177–199. 182 RI IV/3, 106, No. 260; 106, No. 261. 183 RI IV/3, 107–108, No. 265; 108, No. 266; 108, No. 266a. 184 Kirmse 1909, 328–330. An Heir 51

Hohenstaufen, the attitude of the Metropolitan of Mainz Conrad was particularly bitter; in the last weeks of 1192, Conrad became closer to the uncrowned yet recognised leader of the opposition, Duke of Brabant Henry, and he persuaded the hesitant landgrave Hermann as well as the margrave of Meissen Albert.185 The Wettin example also inspired Přemysl, who had kept an eye on the squabbles with unusual interest from the beginning of his reign. In August, he became involved in the disputes in Bavaria.186 It is not known when precisely, but definitely no later than in 1192, be began to support, first secretly and then publicly, the Welf rebels.187 That the duke of Bohemia had found his way to the imperial opposition before the end of 1192 is indicated by an episode that both excited and upset almost all European courts at the time. On 22 December, Richard, King of England, fell into the hands of Leopold V, Duke of Austria. What was the glorious crusader doing in a common tavern near Vienna? It is certain that he was returning to his homeland, but why had he released most of his companions already on Corfu and why had he headed with only a few servants via Dubrovnik and Zara to Venice? The period sources agree that he travelled in disguise; the unusual direction of travel was mostly explained by the recklessness of the king of England and his desire for adventure. Later tradition even added a tem- pest and a shipwreck, but something like that was not necessary. Nonetheless, there are many indications that the king of England headed for the Danube Basin after due consideration. The advanced time of the year had made a voyage around Gibraltar impossible, and the insulted king Philip II Augustus had blocked the main routes through France. Hence Richard was left with only one more option—to transport himself to one of the ports in Northern Germany belonging to the House of Welf. The shortest way led through Venice to Austria and from there to the Přemyslid domains and Meissen to Saxony.188 Was the king planning anything like that? The exceptionally well-informed Benedictines in Admont, Styria, recorded without hesitation that the king of England headed towards Bohemian borders (per Austriam fines Boemie intrare vellet),189 which would make sense only if Richard knew that he would be safe

185 Annales Marbacenses, MGH SRG [9.], 64; Gisleberti Chronicon Hanoniense, MGH SRG [29.], 248; Toeche 1867, 552–557. 186 De advocatis Altahensibus, MGH SS XVII, 373–374; Hermanni Altahensis Annales, MGH SS XVII, 385; Chronica collecta a Magno presbytero, MGH SS XVII, 519. 187 Cronica Reinhardsbrunnensis, MGH SS XXX/1, 552; Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 509. 188 Toeche 1869, 558–569; Fichtenau 1975, 239–258. 189 Continuatio Admuntensis, MGH SS IX, 587. 52 CHAPTER 2

FIGURE 11 Vladislaus Henry ruled in Prague for fewer than six months; yet as a properly elected and installed duke, he had a seal, with which he confirmed the donation of the lord Zdislaus for the Benedictines from Kladruby. It is evident from the fragment preserved that he, like Přemysl, owned an equestrian seal.

in Moravia. He thus must have had some guarantees that the duke of Bohemia and perhaps also his brother, margrave of Moravia, supported the side of the House of Welf. Nevertheless, this is something that he must have been certain about before his disembarkation in Venice, when Přemysl conducted negotiations with Emperor Henry VI (or was preparing for them) in Altenburg. Přemysl’s daring steps on the imperial scene naturally could not have escaped the attention of the bishop of Prague, who was also a kind of guarantor of the domestic order. Only one year earlier he had personally vouched for Přemysl and even promised the emperor 6000 marks of silver. He must have felt betrayed, maybe even threatened, but if he believed that he would bring his protégé into line in Altenburg, he must have been bitterly disappointed and, having reprimanded him in vain (?), was left with no other option than to inform the emperor about the actual state of affairs.190 The Abbot of Milevsko

190 Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 510. An Heir 53

Gerlach made do with a quite general statement that this had happened Anno Domini 1193, only to mention in the following commentary that the bishop had spent at the emperor’s court not only part of 1193 but also half of the previous year, because he had faced defamation at home.191 It was allegedly at that time that Přemysl succumbed to the lure of the malcontents. Gerlach’s scenario is quite transparent. He attempted to protect the memory of the bishop, whom he held in high esteem; nevertheless, as he worked on his annals in the second decade of the 13th century, in the middle of Přemysl’s reign, he relinquished direct criticism and laid the blame for the dissension and the subsequent crisis rather toothlessly on intriguing advisors. A different story was passed on in the St Vitus Chapter. According to this version, Přemysl fell into the emperor’s disfavour already after Přemysl’s intervention in Bavaria, hence in the autumn of 1192, when the bishop set out on a pilgrimage to the tomb of James the Apostle but was detained at the imperial court for ‘outstand- ing obligations’. After some time, without having reached his goal, he returned to Prague,192 which he left in March of the next year.193 Václav Novotný concluded that the St Vitus annals were wrong when claiming that the bishop of Prague had spent a number of weeks at the imperial court and that he did not come back to Bohemia until 1193.194 This is contradicted, however, by the collection of Altenburg privileges, from which it is clear that the bishop stayed close to the emperor only in the second half of November. The arrival of the duke of Bohemia further implies that the discussions might have revolved around that questionable tribute of 6000 marks of silver. The imperial coffers were then on the verge of collapse, and Henry VI desperately needed money. He reminded debtors that they should pay him back; according to Gerlach, these included both Přemysl and his brother Vladislaus Henry.195 The latter met the emperor at the beginning of November; three weeks later, Přemysl negotiated with Henry VI too. Although the subject of the conversation is not known, Gerlach noted in another context that the duke simply pretended that he did not know anything about the bishop’s promises.196 Also this must have burdened their already complicated relationship, which was quickly heading for a tragic climax.

191 Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 509. 192 Annalium Pragensium, FRB II, 281; Hermanni Altahensis Annales, MGH SS XVII, 385. 193 Annalium Pragensium, FRB II, 281. 194 Novotný 1913, 1130–1131. 195 Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 509. 196 Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 509. 54 CHAPTER 2

The St Vitus compiler did not doubt that the episcopal see had been deserted at the beginning of March, and since he worked in an institution closely tied to the ducal court, he could rely on authentic testimonies.197 The timing to March perfectly fits in the sequence of events, which affected most of the Princes of the Holy Roman Empire. In May, King of England Richard was taken to Speyer, where numerous rebels speedily congregated; their camp was pitched almost overnight. This may be the reason that the Marbach annalist admiringly noted that Henry had done away with the rebels with remarkable speed.198 It was most likely then that the bishop decided to denounce Přemysl. The last act of the small Czech drama took place in the last week of June in Worms, on the edge of another, much better-known story. The attention of those gathered was drawn by King Richard of England, when he agreed to an unprecedented ransom;199 nevertheless, at the same place and at the same time, the emperor accused Přemysl of insulting both the majesty and his person (tanquam lesae maiestatis et ledendae personae), he immediately divested him of the government and, as was the custom in such cases, he sent the bishop to Bohemia with banners (cum uexillis, sicuti mos est) and investiture while forgiving him the entire debt.200 Přemysl’s fall was captured by a number of reporters of the time; their interest was attracted by, among other things, the intransigence with which the emperor punished the duke of Bohemia.201 Only the abbot of Milevsko, however, pointed out that the Worms act contradicted domestic practices. Emperor Henry VI circumvented the voice of the aristocratic land community, which inevitably reduced, if not directly called into question, the weight of a promise of fealty. The first pieces of news hence provoked indignation among Czech leaders, who demonstratively expressed their support of Přemysl and even, to prove their loyalty to him, offered their sons as hostages.202 The experienced bishop, familiar with the moods of the powerful, was therefore in no hurry to return to his homeland. On the eve of the second expedition to Southern Italy, the emperor considered the Bohemian issue to be resolved, and now, when it was clear that Přemysl would not surrender the ducal throne without a fight, Henry Bretislaus had to rely on the exiles and the discontent

197 Annalium Pragensium, FRB II, 281; Annales Pragenses, FRB II, 379–380. 198 Annales Marbacenses, MGH SRG [9.], 64. 199 MGH Const I, 504–505, No. 355; Ogris 1995, 89–100. 200 Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 510. 201 Annales Pragenses, FRB II, 379–380; Continuatio Admuntensis, MGH SS IX, 587; Hermanni Altahensis Annales, MGH SS XVII, 385; Cronica Reinhardsbrunnensis, MGH SS XXX/1, 552. 202 Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 510. An Heir 55 among Czech leaders. The latter were most likely bothered by Přemysl’s self- confidence, almost disdain, and his lack of respect for customary law. Although the period sources do not claim anything like that explicitly, the way in which Přemysl was betrayed before Zdice does not allow any other interpretation. The fate of Přemysl’s first government was sealed in the late summer of 1193. Sometime in August, the bishop, side by side with the banished and until-then unknown-Přemyslid duke Spytihněv, crossed the border and quickly headed for the centre of the land.203 The land militia gathered near Zdice, but before they could pit their strength on the battlefield, the leaders and elders of the land, one after the other, went over to the bishop’s side. With only a handful of the faithful, Přemysl retreated behind the walls of Prague Castle, where he stood firm for four months; nevertheless, shortly before Christmas, he ceased to resist, quietly left the land and apparently sought refuge in Meissen under the protection of his Wettin brothers-in-law.204 The coup d’état in 1193 is one of the better-described plots of Czech history, which of course does not mean that it did not lack obscure moments. An entirely mysterious role was played by Margrave of Moravia Vladislaus Henry. In the spring or perhaps still in the summer, he could believe that his brother would be able to manage by himself; no later than in August, however, he had to think about his own future. In spite of that, he withdrew into seclusion and did not help Přemysl, who was desperately fighting back, in any way. Nevertheless, it was the same the other way round, because the overpowered duke sought refuge not in Southern Moravia but in Meissen. The unclear status of the margrave in the new system was resolved in the spring of 1194. After the necessary preparations, the duke-bishop went to Moravia to subjugate that land as well as all of its castles (terram illam siue castra terrae suo dominio subiugauit).205 Fortunately, the rather short note further expands on and specifies the bishop’s privilege for the Louka monastery, from which it is evident that the attack was directed at the southwest. On 30 May, Henry Bretislaus was a guest in the Louka monastery; one week later, he seized Bítov Castle.206 Through a well-thought- out onslaught, the duke-bishop gained respect within the land aristocratic community but also among the remaining Přemyslids. Whereas Vladimír and

203 Annalium Pragensium, FRB II, 281; Annales Pragenses, FRB II, 379–380. In the 14th century, the plot was taken over but unfortunately also twisted by Przibiconis de Radenin dicti Pulkavae Chronicon Bohemiae, FRB V, 116B. 204 Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 510. 205 Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 511. 206 CDB I, 444–446, No. 411; Novotný 1914, 353–360. 56 CHAPTER 2

Bretislaus had kept the Olomouc part of Moravia, Vladislaus Henry was taken to Prague, and his powers were assumed by the returning Spytihněv and the otherwise unknown Svatopluk. Nevertheless, Henry Bretislaus continued to be the decisive authority, holding the reins of power.207 The influential Czech historian Václav Novotný did not have a word of com- passion for the duke-bishop and with due gusto portrayed him as a learned yet vindictive man, swayed by ambition and avarice, lacking the insight and talent requisite for a ruler.208 The period sources, however, provide a slightly different testimony, and it must be admitted that the way in which Henry Bretislaus seized power was truly impossible not to notice. Already on 6 January 1194, hence shortly after the seizure of Prague, he resolved a dispute over tithes with the Knights Hospitaller of St John;209 he spent the end of the month in Würzburg as a guest of Emperor Henry VI;210 one week later, he officiated in Prague again211 only to go to see the emperor for unknown reasons again before the middle of March, this time in Nuremberg.212 It is not ruled out that Henry Bretislaus’ visit was motivated by the preparation of the second imperial campaign for the crown of Sicily. In 1194, King Tancred unexpectedly died, and, after the diet at Worms and after the English ransom was paid, the emperor finally had the necessary financial resources available. In this sense, he most likely began to negotiate with his vassals, and he appears to have been successful, because the presence of Czechs in Southern Italy was explicitly confirmed by Peter of Eboli. He could have been wrong and confused the famous campaign of 1194 with the equally memorable siege of Naples.213 Whatever the case, the duke-bishop did not accompany the emperor; instead, he tried to bring order to the situation in Moravia. Probably at the end of May, he deprived Vladislaus Henry of the Znojmo region and the title of Margrave and took him to Prague, where he gave him an honourable but entirely insignificant position at his court. A little later, he also fulfilled the emperor’s command and attacked the domain of Margrave of Meissen Albert. According to

207 Novotný 1914, 353–360; Horna 1929, 9–10; Charouz 1987, 59–61; Wihoda 2010a, 239–240. 208 Novotný 1913, 1136: . . . při všem nevšedním vzdělání a učenosti svém mohl se vykázati jen nezřízenou ctižádostí, pomstychtivostí a lakotou, nikoliv však schopnostmi vladařskými . . . [despite all of his exceptional education and erudition, he was full of inordinate ambition, vindictiveness and avarice yet lacked the capabilities of a ruler]. 209 CDB I, 314–316, No. 349. 210 RI IV/3, 135, No. 331; 135, No. 332. 211 CDB I, 314–316, No. 349. 212 RI IV/3, 138, No. 340. 213 Liber ad honorem Augusti XXXVI, 177, v. 1138; XLII, 201, v. 1362. An Heir 57 the Milevsko abbot Gerlach, the armed forces of both lands, that is Bohemia and Moravia (cum copiis utriusque terrae),214 were involved in the plundering, but Vladislaus Henry obviously had not been consulted by anyone. In the spring of 1194, Vladislaus Henry became one of secondary actors of domestic events; nevertheless, the status of Theobald’s sons was just as low then;215 therefore, the duke-bishop does not seem to have taken revenge for some injustice that he had allegedly experienced during Přemysl’s reign. He rather endeavoured to have the public space—in which he, after all, had left a certain position for his relatives—thoroughly under his control. Hence even Vladislaus Henry somehow stayed on the historical horizon when he appeared among the witnesses in the donation charter of 30 September 1194 for the Cistercians from Plasy. The chancellor Florian, however, placed his name in a simple form (Wadizlaus dux) all the way below the list of religious figures before the chamberlain Hrabiš, thus elegantly implying where the influence of the former margrave began and at the same time ended.216 Vladislaus Henry did not participate in the confirmation procedure, by which the duke-bishop protected the real estates of the Waldsassen Cistercians.217 He did not break the silence of the sources until the beginning of 1197, when he supported the lord Hroznata in his plan to found a Premonstratensian canonry in Teplá. He then kept Henry Bretislaus company, and with his position he surpassed not only the bishop of Olomouc but also Duke of Brno Spytihněv and Duke of Olomouc Vladimír.218 The first weeks, perhaps even months, of 1197 brought cautious (yet, as it turned out, at that point only vain) hope into Vladislaus Henry’ miserable existence. Sometime in the spring, Přemysl heard in exile that the duke-bishop was plagued by poor health. This might have been the reason (?) for his return to Bohemia in May and his subsequent attempt to capture Prague Castle. Nevertheless, the bold assault foundered on the opposition of the leaders, who remained loyal to the bishop and in some kind of a bloody skirmish put those loyal to Přemysl to flight.219 The Benedictine annals kept in Altaich, Bavaria, imply that the exiles were supported by Albert of Bogen,220 and the canons of

214 Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 511. 215 CDB I, 314–316, No. 349. 216 CDB I, 312–313, No. 348. 217 CDB I, 319–320, No. 355; 321–323, No. 356. 218 CDB I, 323–324, No. 357. 219 Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 512. 220 Hermanni Altahensis Annales, MGH SS XVII, 385. 58 CHAPTER 2

St Vitus even knew that the attackers had been repelled by the bishop’s confidant, Duke Spytihněv.221 However, a complete victory was a short step away. The instigator of the invasion, Přemysl, had escaped his pursuers; therefore, Henry Bretislaus had at least Vladislaus Henry imprisoned.222 Gerlach’s record is, unfortunately, the only testimony of another sudden reversal in the fate of the Přemyslid whose life story could have reminded his contemporaries of a madly spinning wheel of Fortune. At the beginning of 1197, Vladislaus Henry appeared in the immediate vicinity of the duke-bishop; after several months however, he was, without bringing it about, locked in a dungeon, from where he was set free only by Henry Bretislaus’ death. It is hard to decide now whether Vladislaus Henry had been punished for his brother’s boldness, as was mentioned in passing by our reporter from Milevsko (domnus Wladizlaus captus ab episcopo in infirmitate sua propter germanum ipsius Primizl) or had simply fallen into the disfavour of the ailing, or rather dying bishop, whose concerns could not be dissipated even by Přemysl’s defeat. The oppressive atmosphere at the ducal court was eloquently documented by the remark made by the abbot of Milevsko that Henry Bretislaus had himself taken to Cheb, where he hoped to find more peace. There, most likely within the walls of the imperial palace, he died on 15 June 1197.223 Gerlach’s record testifies mainly to the authors’ sincere admiration as well as the emotions that he could not resist even twenty years later. The second half of June, and actually the rest of the year 1197, however, were filled with events so dramatic that the once-feared Henry Bretislaus soon became a distant memory. Only one week after the bishop’s death, the leaders raised Vladislaus Henry, who had just been released, to the throne of the Přemyslid dukes. The decision was made on 22 June and was interesting especially because the elders of the land (maiores natu) had thus disregarded both the Olomouc Přemyslids Vladimír and Bretislaus and the allies of the late duke-bishop, Spytihněv and Svatopluk. Přemysl’s claim, however, was entirely indisputable and undeni- able. Even Czech noblemen realised it, but, as immediately emphasised by Abbot of Milevsko Gerlach, they voted for the younger Vladislaus Henry for two reasons: firstly, they had betrayed Přemysl at some point and then they even fought against him; secondly, Přemysl had fallen into disgrace with the

221 Annalium Pragensium I, FRB II, 282. 222 Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 513. 223 Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 512–513; Hilsch 1969, 168–216; Kejř 1991, 481–491; Kejř 1992, 277–282. An Heir 59 emperor (duabus de causis, quarum prima fuit, quia contra eum pugnauerant, secunda, quia gratiam imperatoris non habebat).224 Vladislaus Henry must have known that his brother had never reconciled himself with his bitter fate of an exile and that the June election would pave the way for fratricidal struggles. Nonetheless, he accepted the precarious honour and in the next months (Gerlach dated his government between the octave of St Vitus and St Nicholas, hence between 22 June and 6 December)225 he surprised the nobles with a remarkable amount of courage: On 1 November, regardless of the opinion of the clergy convened (designauit in episcopum, negata omni electione clero), he entrusted the throne to his chaplain Milík, called Daniel. Then, to Gerlach’s great sorrow, Daniel swore an oath of allegiance to the duke, thus deliberately disrespecting and literally trivialising the imperial privilege and along with it the imperial status of the Prague bishopric.226 Daniel’s scandalous investiture was still ventilated many years later, during a controversy between the bishop and the canon of St Vitus Arnold.227 The orders established by the duke, however, continued to be in force, which even the Roman Curia had to admit in the end.228 Vladislaus’ short government of public affairs left a trace also in the monastery in Kladruby, whose possession of the village of Bdeněves had been confirmed by the duke;229 the mark that he made in the history of the sorely tried land, however, was more significant and fatal. In the first days of December, the basically expected news that Přemysl had crossed the borders with a small retinue of loyal followers spread across Prague. His way was barred by the forces led by Duke Vladislaus, who, despite having a strong army and the favour of the clergy as well as of the leaders, asked his brother for a meeting. On 6 December, he retreated for the sake of peace and out of brotherly love (propter bonum pacis, inde propter affectum germanitatis) and reconciled with his brother under the condition that they would rule together, one in Moravia and the other in Bohemia and that the two of them would both have one will and one rule (ille in Morauia,

224 Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 513. See also Continuatio Admuntensis, MGH SS IX, 588; Hermanni Altahensis Annales, MGH SS XVII, 385. 225 Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 514. 226 Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 513; Wihoda 2012, 129–133. 227 CDB II, 1, No. 1; 9–10, No. 12; 10, No. 13; 10, No. 14; 20–22, No. 23; Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 514. 228 CDB II, 28–30, No. 31. 229 CDB I, 330–331, No. 363. 60 CHAPTER 2 iste in Boemia principarentur et esse ambobus, sicut unus spiritus, ita et unus principatus).230 The noble gesture, which was so unusual in the reality of ducal Bohemia, rang down the curtain on the rule of Vladislaus Henry, but also, without anyone realising it, on the political legacy of Duke Bretislaus I and his already somewhat obsolete succession order. What might the reinstalled duke have been thinking, and what were his feelings as he assumed the rule over Moravia when the matrix of his ducal seal implies that he did not consider his enthronement as a temporary issue?231 Did he trust his brother and believe the promise of a joint government? Could a mere six months have erased the memories of the months helplessly spent under the supervision of the duke-bishop and the harsh prison of Prague Castle? Unfortunately, contemporary sources fell silent, but one thing seems to be certain. At the age of thirty (perhaps a little more), Vladislaus Henry could rely on experience that he had paid for by his lot of a prince, exile, prisoner and in the end also duke of Bohemia. And this was not minor on the eve of major reforms.

230 Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 514–515. Similarly Continuatio Admuntensis, MGH SS IX, 588–589. 231 CDB I, 330–331, No. 363. CHAPTER 3 The Margrave

Although Vladislaus Henry and Přemysl Otakar had agreed on joint govern ment as well as on the new arrangement of the domestic situation, the trans formation of ducal Moravia into a margraviate was not simple and certainly not predictable, because the shaky and frequently interrupted tradition of the title of Margrave did not go further back than to 1 July 1179. On that day, Duke of Bohemia Frederick appeared at the gate of the imperial palace in Cheb in order to settle, with the advice and help of Emperor Barbarossa, a protracted dispute with the duke of Austria. To everyone’s relief, it was possible to find an acceptable compromise, the conditions of which were recorded in an imperial charter. The document says that Frederick was surrounded by a large retinue and that also his brother Přemysl arrived in Cheb as a margrave of Moravia (Primezla margravius de Morauia).1 Barbarossa’s privilege has only been pre served in copies made between the end of the 13th century and the middle of the next century. The sloppy notaries offered different versions of Přemysl’s title.2 In addition, the imperial office did not seal the charter immediately, only several days later in Magdeburg.3 Therefore, it is possible that not even the actual autograph reflected reality. Nevertheless, it became widely accepted that Přemysl really was in Cheb and that he used a title unknown in the Czech lands.4 It seems that the ‘margrave’ gained some insight into the world of the Přemyslid dukes in the middle of 1178, when Frederick took control of Prague Castle and, in order to secure influence in Moravia, placed a strong garrison led by his brother Přemysl in Olomouc. He was probably granted special powers, whose extent as well as exclusive subordination to the duke of Bohemia were determined by the new title, which made it possible for Frederick to refer to himself as the ruler of Bohemia and Moravia and thus reminded Duke of Znojmo Conrad Otto who held the most power in hereditary Přemyslid pos sessions. Although it is not known for how long Přemysl’s ‘margraviate’ lasted, the year 1179 and the meeting in Cheb ask for a careful reading of two notes by

1 MGH DF I (X/3), 341–343, No. 782. 2 MGH DF I, (X/3), 341–342, the copy ‘D’, made sometime after 1333, does not even mention ‘margravius’ but includes the name ‘Marquardus’ in the respective place. 3 Opll 1978, 74. 4 Kejř 1978, 237–238; Kejř 1992, 267.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��5 | doi ��.��63/9789004303836_004 62 CHAPTER 3 the abbot of Milevsko Gerlach, to which particular importance was attached in the past. The first of them ends with a commentary on the rebellion among Czech leaders in 1182, who had been ordered by the emperor at a Hoftag in Regensburg to accept the banished Frederick as their lord, whereas Conrad Otto, whom they had selected as their new lord in the meantime, was to satisfy himself with Moravia (illum vero Morauia contentum esse precepit).5 The sec ond note comments on the invasion of the Bohemian forces into the Znojmo region three years later (1185), to which Frederick had been forced by the alie nation of Moravia (alienatio Moraviae), because Conrad Otto had allegedly acted as if he had held the land by the grace of the emperor and not the Prague court (quam non ab eo, sed de manu imperatoris tenere gestiebat).6 The abbot of Milevsko certainly could not have had any idea that his cel ebration of the wise emperor and the innocent postscript in the form of ‘the alienation of Moravia’ would at some point be discussed in terms of the state law and that the emperor Barbarossa would be blamed for the malicious sepa ration of the Czech ‘state’ into two parts, for the elevation of Moravia to a mar graviate and its subordination directly to the Empire. Nevertheless, Gerlach did not write anything like that, nor was the mythical transformation of Moravia into an imperial fief captured by any contemporary scriptorium. Moreover, the year 1179 proves that the objections raised do not fit chronologically, because the title of Margrave seems to have been placed in the domestic coordinates not by Emperor Frederick Barbarossa but by Duke of Bohemia Frederick. Nevertheless, more careful considerations are provoked by the protocol of the foundation charter of the Louka monastery from 25 October 1190, in which Conrad Otto mentioned that before he had assumed the ducal sceptre, he had been endowed with the title of Margrave (dei gratia Boemorum dux, quondam marchio Morauie).7 How should Conrad’s margraviate be dated, though? The end of the 12th century does not abound in reliable information; however, local tradition draws attention to the fact that Conrad Otto laid claims to the sover eign rights over all Moravia. After the death of Bishop of Olomouc Pilgrim in March 1184, he appointed his own candidate to the vacated throne, although the right of investiture belonged to the duke of Bohemia. Frederick therefore blocked further proceedings and did not yield until the summer of 1186, when he approved the candidacy of the Strahov monk Kaim.8 Could this be the trace that might shed light on the character of the margravial title?

5 Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 481. 6 Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 506. 7 CDB I, 299–301, No. 326. 8 Granum catalogi praesulum Moraviae, AÖG 78/1892, 75–76. The Margrave 63

FIGURE 12 On the eve of the coronation ride, to which King of the Romans and of Germany Henry VI had invited also Conrad Otto, a diet was convened in Prague. At the end of October 1190, it decided that in the duke’s absence, the land would be governed by the oldest of the Přemyslids, Wenceslas. In the same place, Conrad Otto had the foundation charter of the Louka monastery written with a rather strange postscript that he did so as the duke of Bohemia and the former margrave of Moravia (dei gratia Boemorum dux, quondam marchio Morauie). Photography by MZA (Moravian Land Archives) Brno. 64 CHAPTER 3

Perhaps. Protracted scrambles imply that the direct influence of the Prague court ended after 1182 at the Bohemian-Moravian border and that Conrad Otto acted as the ruler and governor of all Moravia, which, however, does not mean that he would also bear the title of Margrave. The exact opposite is claimed by the list of the bishops of Olomouc, but, since its final redaction was not written until the late Middle Ages, the scriptorium may have used the con temporary vocabulary, in which the word ‘margrave’ had its unique position. The informative value of the comment by Gerlach, the abbot of Milevsko, on Bishop Pilgrim’s friendly relationship with the ‘margrave of Moravia’ Conrad Otto is also limited.9 The first valuable and fully defensible piece of informa tion hence comes from 11 November 1186, when Conrad Otto appeared in the imperial privilege for Eußerthal Cistercians and Barbarossa’s scribe referred to him as the margrave from Moravia (marchio de Merheren).10 At the beginning of 1187, Conrad Otto announced his arrival at the Hoftag in Regensburg as the margrave of Moravia (marchio Morauie);11 at the same place two years later, after Frederick’s death, he replaced the title of Margrave with the title of Duke of Bohemia.12 The imperial office places Conrad’s ‘margraviate’ between the autumn of 1186 and the spring of 1189, more precisely after the bloody battle at Loděnice and the meeting in Knín, Central Bohemia, where Conrad Otto and Frederick renewed their former friendship.13 In other words, Conrad’s ‘mar graviate’ was preceded by mutual concessions: Conrad Otto publicly acknow ledged the authority of the Prague duke so that he himself could receive the succession guarantees whose content was externally embodied by the title of Margrave. The margravial title was not forgotten even at the end of the 12th century. Conrad’s death before Naples at the end of the summer of 1191 brought Duke Wenceslas II to the head of the land; however, after the intrigues of Bishop of Prague Henry Bretislaus, who had bribed Emperor Henry VI, the Prague throne was ascended by Přemysl Otakar, and his younger brother Vladislaus Henry was left with Moravia.14 In the spring of 1192, the latter also appeared before the emperor as the margrave of Moravia (Heinricus marchio Moravie).15 The abbot of Milevsko emphasised the role of the bishop Henry Bretislaus,

9 Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 497. 10 MGH DF I (X/4), 223–225, No. 953. 11 MGH DF I (X/4), 228–230, No. 956. 12 MGH DF I (X/4), 295–296, No. 1002. 13 Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 507. 14 Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 509. 15 RI IV/3, 89, No. 216. The Margrave 65 who had allegedly promised the emperor a large amount of money as a reward for the bestowal of feudal banners upon Přemysl and Vladislaus Henry; the emperor then recognised Vladislaus Henry as the governor of Moravia holding the title of Margrave. We are thus returning in a roundabout way to the ques tion whether Moravia was an imperial fief. This is hard to decide, because the controversial entry was formulated in a more relaxed way. If we accept as a model the renowned Knín agreement, then the status of margrave would again express dependence on the duke of Bohemia, with the possibility of succes sion to the ducal throne. Therefore, Gerlach could enlarge upon the bishop who had negotiated for his relatives the government in Přemyslid domains, one in Bohemia, the other in Moravia, although Vladislaus Henry probably did not receive the entire land. If Olomouc was held by Vladimir and Bretislaus, the margrave was left only with the former domain of Duke of Olomouc Conrad Otto.16 The orders established through bribes and promises hardly survived for one year. In the spring of 1193, the relationship between Henry Bretislaus and his protégés became so critical that the bishop left for the imperial court. At the end of June in Worms, Henry VI removed Přemysl from the ducal throne and passed the vacated fief on to the bishop of Prague.17 The scriptoria did not mention the margrave; nevertheless, when Bretislaus seized Prague, Přemysl did not seek help from his brother but went to his brother-in-law in Meissen.18 Likewise Vladislaus Henry withdrew into seclusion; in May 1194, after the military campaign of the duke-bishop to the Znojmo region, he lost both the entrusted provinces and the title of Margrave and travelled to Prague as a sim ple courtier in the services of his former benefactor.19 Henry Bretislaus might have been inspired by the testament of the duke Bretislaus, because he handed the south of the land over to Spytihněv and Svatopluk, probably the sons of the duke Svatopluk, whereas Vladimir and Bretislaus lived the rest of their days in Olomouc. The decisive word was retained by the Prague court, however, which seems to have lasted until 6 December 1197, when Vladislaus Henry, who received the ducal sceptre after the death of the duke-bishop, yielded to Přemysl with the proviso that they rule simultaneously, one in Bohemia and the other in Moravia, and that the two of them have one will and one principality. Gerlach’s accompanying com mentary is interesting mainly because it was written during the lives of both

16 Janiš 2003, 273–288. 17 Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 510; Continuatio Admuntensis, MGH SS IX, 587. 18 Annales Pragenses, FRB II, 379–380. 19 Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 511. 66 CHAPTER 3 actors, and it gave a true picture of the power-sharing arrangement before 1222. Nevertheless, in December 1197, Vladislaus Henry must have anticipated that the margravial title was not connected with the government of Moravia— the first margrave, and it was none other than his brother Přemysl, settled in Olomouc around 1179, whereas the Knín agreement from 1186 regulated the relationship between Conrad Otto and the duke of Prague, and Vladislaus him self controlled only the Znojmo and Brno regions in 1192–1194. What was the role of a margrave then? Was it the case that the agreement primarily resolved the succession to the ducal throne and only then considered the margrave’s relationship to Moravia, which was perceived only as a temporary seat for the pretender to the Bohemian throne?

1 The Epilogue of the Ducal Age

Gerlach concluded his contemplation of Přemysl Otakar’s reconciliation with Vladislaus Henry with the note that the brothers were to rule simultaneously, one in Moravia and the other in Bohemia,20 but the point of the agreement raises some questions after all. First of all, the agreement could not have been in force from the very beginning, because at the end of 1197 all Moravian pro vinces were divided among other Přemyslids, which Vladislaus Henry must have known. In fact, he thus exchanged Prague Castle for a vague promise of future joint government and basically the empty title of Margrave of Moravia. Therefore, he could not have considered returning to Moravia until one of the ducal seats, in Olomouc or in Znojmo, was vacated. The course of events reveals, though, that he had a special fondness for Znojmo, which had been controlled by the duke Spytihněv from 1194. The St Vitus annals claim that Spytihněv was made blind. Nevertheless, the brief comment lacks information on the year, because it is only loosely con nected to another piece of information: namely, that in 1197 the same Spytihněv repelled the invasion of the duke Přemysl.21 Even though the December con cordat urged a radical change already in the last days of 1197, the way in which Vladislaus Henry counted the years of his margraviate implies that Spytihněv might have made some resistance. In the dating formula of the privilege for the Knights Hospitaller of St John from 31 December 1213, the margrave mentioned

20 Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 514: . . . et confederatus est germano suo sub tali forma compositio- nis, ut ambo pariter, ille in Morauia, iste in Boemia principarentur . . . 21 Annalium Pragensium I, FRB II, 282. The Margrave 67

FIGURE 13 Although the south of Moravia was initially administered from Hradisko of St Hippolytus, Duke Luitpold selected as his residence in 1101 the opposite, more defensible promontory above the river Thaya. He had a castle built there, which was considered to be impregnable for the entire 12th century. From the former ducal residence, however, only the rotunda of the Virgin Mary and St Catherine has survived the adversity of time; the rest of the promontory is covered by castle buildings and the already closed town brewery.

that it was the fifteenth year of his rule.22 That would mean that he returned to Moravia sometime at the end of 1198. Although Gustav Friedrich, otherwise a renowned expert on the documents of the ducal age, concluded that the margravial prothonotary was simply wrong,23 Jan Bistřický later reached the conclusion that the seemingly erroneous calculation may be related to the fact that Vladislaus Henry took over the Znojmo province later.24 No matter if the margravial prothonotary, Master Apollinaris, was wrong or if Spytihněv turned out to be a skilful opponent who was able to resist the pres sure and pitfalls of the fraternal duo, Vladislaus Henry gained control over the Znojmo region already before the end of the 12th century and thus concluded a remarkable and probably even more mysterious chapter in Moravian history.

22 CDB II, 103–104, No. 109. 23 CDB II, 104. 24 Bistřický 1991, 211–213. 68 CHAPTER 3

Apart from the unclear origin of the duke Spytihněv, one should mention the utterly neglectful approach of the contemporary reporters to his brother (?) Svatopluk. He broke the silence of the sources only once, when he, alongside the better-known Spytihněv, was a witness in the later unfortunately forged charter for the Louka Premonstratensians.25 It was most likely then, in May 1194, during the campaign of Henry Bretislaus to South Moravia, that Svatopluk received the title of Duke of Brno. A similar honour was conferred upon Spytihněv, which historians have interpreted as evidence that both Přemyslids came from the line of the dukes of Brno and that they were hence sons of the duke Vratislaus, who allegedly died around 1156.26 Despite the fact that Václav Novotný pointed out that Spytihněv was considered as a heir of Vratislaus of Brno exclusively because he became the duke of Brno in 1194,27 his objection disappeared into oblivion, and the constant repetition changed the disputable ‘kinship’ into a certainty that was not to be questioned. Why should one return to it then? One of the reasons may be the fate of the Brno duke Vratislaus. The tradi tionally accepted information that he died at the end of the summer of 1156 comes from the Baroque compilation by Thomas Pešina of Čechorod,28 who referred to otherwise unknown Třebíč annals, with which the literature in the past connected hopes for a more comprehensive understanding of the history of ducal Moravia.29 As has been shown by recent research, however,30 it was an imprecise collection of information of controversial nature put together pro bably at the end of the Middle Ages. The year 1156 may be considered to be of a similar character, that is, unverifiable, which moves the last reliable date by an entire decade.31 Our knowledge goes back only to 25 May 1146, when the Roman curia commissioned the bishop of Olomouc, Henry Zdík, to grant a pardon to the seriously sick duke Vratislaus.32 The conciliatory diction of the letter of indulgence indicates that Vratislaus’ health condition was quite seri ous, and it cannot even be excluded that he soon died.33

25 CDB I, 444–446, No. 411; Novotný 1914, 353–360; Charouz 1987, 59–61. 26 Palacký 1894, 407; Dudík 1864, 301; Novotný 1913, 873. 27 Novotný 1913, 874. 28 Pešina 1677, 316. 29 Hosák 1955, 82–86. 30 Wihoda 2010a, 212. 31 Wihoda 2010a, 212–213. 32 CDB I, 147–148, No. 145. 33 Necrologium Podlažicense, DFS, 421 places the death of some Vratislaus on 21 September of an unknown year; nevertheless, as has been pointed out by Žemlička 2005, 47, it is not certain that this was precisely Vratislaus of Brno. The Margrave 69

If that was the case, the question is when both of his supposed sons, Spytihněv and Svatopluk, were born and why the first of them did not assert himself until later, alongside the duke Wenceslas II in 1192? The Canon of Vyšehrad dates Vratislaus’ marriage to 1132. He wrote about Vratislaus’ wife, originally from Rus’, that in beauty she surpassed Helen of Troy and that the reddish reflection of gold gave her pale complexion a tinge of pink spots.34 Regrettably, he so exhausted himself in the description of the remarkable beauty of the Brno duchess that he forgot to mention her name; neither is it known whether she bore any children for her husband.35 Of course, these could have been Spytihněv and Svatopluk, which would move their entry into dynastic coordinates between 1132 and 1146. In that case, they would be older contemporaries of the dukes of Olomouc, Vladimir and Bretislaus, with whom they had in common, apart from their age, also the late acceptance of family heritage. Nevertheless, these are the only similarities between them. The Olomouc Přemyslids were remembered by Conrad Otto, who wanted to renew agnatic seniority. Then it is not clear though why he did not lend an ear to the purported heirs of Vratislaus of Brno, who were not offered help until later, by the duke-bishop Henry Bretislaus. Unfortunately, the outlined considerations are not far from aimless wan dering in a vicious circle whose axis rotates around the finding that written sources do not offer compelling evidence that Spytihněv and Svatopluk were Vratislaus’ sons. Our trio was linked only by Brno, a fact that was, after all, aptly noted by Václav Novotný years ago. Nonetheless, if one rejects this unsub stantiated trace, where else can one search for the origin of Bohemian dukes? Leaving aside the obfuscated writing of Přibík Pulkava, the court chroni cler of Emperor Charles IV, who referred to Spytihněv as a son of the duke Wenceslas II,36 some impression of the former events might be found in the first names. These do not deviate from the dynastic tradition, but they were not very popular among the Brno Přemyslids. The same holds true for the Znojmo branch of the family, with a single exception for Olomouc; and it was no dif ferent in Prague. Spytihněv disappeared from the Přemyslid calendar in 1061, and Svatopluk became one of the elect only in the family of King Vladislaus. Around the middle of the 12th century, the second-born Svatopluk was already an adult and, according to Vincentius’ annals, was being trained in the mili tary and government.37 At the peak of his father’s rule, most likely in 1164, he

34 Canonici Wissegradensis continuatio Cosmae, FRB II, 215. 35 Florovskij 1935, 60–62. 36 Przibiconis de Radenin dicti Pulkavae Chronicon Bohemiae, FRB V, 116B. 37 Vincentii canonici Pragensis Annales, FRB II, 420. 70 CHAPTER 3

married a daughter of Géza II, king of Hungary;38 a note in the Doksany necrol ogy implies that he governed a part of Moravia for some time.39 Nevertheless, he felt disregarded. He might have been bothered by the primacy of his brother Frederick or might have been unable to become closer to his stepmother Judith; it is certain, though, that in the queen’s presence he attacked and killed the chamberlain Vojslaus and had to flee to Hungary to escape his father’s wrath.40 After four decades, also Abbot Gerlach returned to the unfortunate event; however, he could only retell what was rumoured around Svatopluk. Even years later, he had no doubt that Svatopluk had been overcome with jea lousy and that he had been waiting for the right opportunity. In Milevsko, they even knew that Svatopluk had managed to reconcile with his father, gained his land and, after the fall of Vladislaus’ kingdom, died somewhere in Germany.41 Two necrologia agreed that it had happened on 15 October,42 but the pages of contemporary chronicles did not have space for more information. Variously scattered fragments from the life of the neglected duke confirm that Svatopluk constantly fought for a place in the limelight. Latent frustration could easily transform into bitterness, which probably marked his relationship with his father, the favoured brother, the stepmother and her sons Přemysl Otakar and Vladislaus Henry. Certain embitterment may have also been taken over and shared by his (?) sons, Spytihněv and Svatopluk; although it is not certain whether one or the other came from the bed of Duke Svatopluk, this could explain their antagonistic relation to their uncles (?). Not only did Spytihněv support Duke Wenceslas II43 but he also later became an advisor and the only close ally of the duke-bishop Henry Bretislaus. In 1193, he led an attack on Prague and after several months won the ducal sceptre for his bread winner.44 The following spring, he seized Znojmo and, along with his brother (?) Svatopluk, assumed direct control over South Moravia.45 He was still able to repel Přemysl’s invasion into Bohemia, but he was cruelly punished for his ‘merits’. In 1198, he was captured, blinded (coecatus est) and soon (?) died.46 In

38 Vincentii canonici Pragensis Annales, FRB II, 454; Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 464; Novotný 1913, 938; Georgi 1990, 96–98. 39 Necrologium Doxanense, VKČSN 1884, 132. 40 Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 463–464. 41 Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 464. 42 Necrologium Bohemo-Silesiacarum, ZVGS 5/1863, 114; Necrologium Doxanense, VKČSN 1884, 132. 43 Annalium Pragensium, FRB II, s. 281. 44 Annalium Pragensium, FRB II, 281; Annales Pragenses, FRB II, 379–380. 45 Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 511; CDB I, 444–446, No. 411; Novotný 1914, 353–360. 46 Annalium Pragensium I, FRB II, 282. The Margrave 71 the same (?) year, on 5 June, he was followed by his likewise almost ‘nameless’ brother, Svatopluk.47 The brutal reprisal, which was preceded by seven years of rivalry and adver sity, erased the memory of the two unfortunates, who were ruthlessly swept away by the new order. After that, the winners’ attention turned to Olomouc. Although it is not known that the last Přemyslids would have ever threatened the power primacy of the sons of King Vladislaus, the fact that Vladimir and Bretislaus died in quick succession around 1200 and that Sifrid, the last off shoot of this ducal line, renounced the worldly life, calls for reflection. Strictly speaking, Přemysl Otakar did not have to take into consideration ‘some’ dis tant Olomouc relatives, because they had actually left the public space already during the life of the duke Otto III Dětleb. Unlike the Přemyslids in Brno and Znojmo, he succeeded in protecting North Moravia from war and pillage in 1146 and still around 1150 was involved in the complex transformation of the Hradisko monastery into a regular canonry.48 But he gradually lost the favour of the Prague court and, after the death of Bishop of Olomouc John III in February 1157, Vladislaus II took advantage of the first opportunity to show Otto who was in charge of the Czech lands. He sent Bishop of Prague Daniel to the memorial service. Through him, he curtly announced to the chapter and the duke that the orphaned diocese would be taken over by his chaplain Drahoň. Caught unawares, the canons took the order into account, but then they defied Daniel and did not place John’s remains along the axis of the church, as the bishop of Prague had wished, but instead placed them under the white stone in front of the choir benches.49 The petty skirmish probably warned Drahoň that he could not expect any help from Olomouc; therefore, he voluntarily resigned several days later.50 At that point, the duke Otto intervened in the conflict, asking, on behalf of the Olomouc church (ex parte totius Olomucensis ecclesiae), for John IV, a Litomyšl monk whom he had personally known from the time when he had endowed his canonry with three villages.51 After a brief hesitation, the request was granted by the duke of Bohemia, who let John undergo the election pro cedure at the end of September.52 Nonetheless, Vladislaus II perceived the

47 Necrologium Podlažicense, DFS, 414. 48 Novotný 1926, 155–170. 49 Granum catalogi praesulum Moraviae, AÖG 78/1892, 73. 50 Vincentii canonici Pragensis Annales, FRB II, 426. 51 CDB I, 411–415, No. 399. 52 Vincentii canonici Pragensis Annales, FRB II, 426; Fragmentum chronici ecclesiae cathe dralis Olomucensis, StR 12/1973, 196. 72 CHAPTER 3 unexpected obstruction as an insult, and, although Otto Dětleb participated in the military expedition to Poland and in the middle of the summer of 1157 captured the bridgehead on the Oder alongside the duke of Bohemia,53 the painful memory was revived by the news of the great, sincere joy with which the already consecrated bishop John IV was welcomed in Olomouc.54 This may have been a reason for the merciless revenge that even brought him to prison, from where he was released several months later (?) at the intercession of the bishop of Olomouc ( Joanne episcopo mediante Otto dux a carcere solutus est).55 Otto returned to Moravia, probably in 1159, only to be humiliated there again. The broken duke had to surrender Olomouc, whose government was assumed by the ruler of Bohemia himself, and had to withdraw with his family into seclusion. Nothing about that was changed by the privilege for Hradisko from 16 June 1160, by which Vladislaus confirmed Premonstratensian property and briefly mentioned the endowment of the duke Otto.56 Vladislaus’ direct control over the Olomouc region was approaching the end of the second year when Sobeslaus II suddenly emerged at the gates of the Olomouc castle. The son of the homonymous duke surprised the garri son and, one April night in 1161, with a handful of friends, captured the most important fortress in Moravia. Contemporary annals agree that he foolishly hoped to receive some domain in Bohemia, which Vladislaus, who had rushed to Olomouc to negotiate, willingly promised but never fulfilled.57 The negoti ated truce averted the threat of siege and brought the former governor to the fore for the last time. One of the mediators between the feuding cousins was Otto III Dětleb, who negotiated conciliation conditions with Duke of Znojmo Conrad and the leaders (per Conradum et Ottonem principes et per alios pri- mates gratiam domni regis querit).58 Once again, Otto thus received the king’s trust and along with it the Olomouc part of Moravia.59 Nevertheless, the happy times did not last long, only perhaps for two years, maybe a single summer, because the ill-fated duke died in the middle of May

53 Vincentii canonici Pragensis Annales, FRB II, 424–425; Braune 1906, 43–63; Dworsatschek 2009, 186–195. 54 Vincentii canonici Pragensis Annales, FRB II, 426. 55 Fragmentum chronici ecclesiae cathedralis Olomucensis, StR 12/1973, 196. 56 CDB I, 194–197, No. 208; Švábenský 1973, 203. 57 Monachi Sazawiensis continuatio Cosmae, FRB II, 268; Vincentii canonici Pragensis Annales, FRB II, 452; Fragmentum chronici ecclesiae cathedralis Olomucensis, StR 12/1973, 196. 58 Vincentii canonici Pragensis Annales, FRB II, 452; Wihoda 2010a, 216–218. 59 Fragmentum chronici ecclesiae cathedralis Olomucensis, StR 12/1973, 196. The Margrave 73

1162 (?)60 and, in spite of the fact that he left behind an adult heir, Vladimir, born in 1145,61 it was the king’s favoured son Frederick who headed to North Moravia. The forceful intervention in Moravian affairs, however, was not the first of its kind. Virtually, Vladislaus II was only acting like King Vratislaus I, who in 1087 had installed Prince Boleslaus in Olomouc and had a common currency, denars, minted, by which he wanted to indicate with whom he con nected the future of the first kingdom of Bohemia.62 Also the duke Sobeslaus I surrendered the Olomouc region to his son, when in 1137 he decided that his son and predetermined heir to the ducal throne, Vladislaus, might gain the necessary ruling experience there.63 Otto’s sons were now rudely left out and remained on the brink of nothingness for nearly a quarter of the 12th century. Frederick most likely governed North Moravia until 1169, but the scope of the rights conferred does not seem to have been very large. Unless the Rajhrad tradition is wrong, the young prince was accompanied by his advisor Voliš, on whom Vladislaus II had bestowed the title of Chancellor of Olomouc. Nonetheless, Frederick did not issue any charter, and the only known dona tion, by which he multiplied the possessions of the Rajhrad Benedictines with the Hranice circuitus, made do with an oral promise followed by a commemo rative entry, so that the proper privilege was not created until years later in the Břevnov scriptorium.64 Then he was recalled to Prague. The Doksany necrology claims that the king entrusted Olomouc to Svatopluk (Swatopluk, filius regis et dux Morauie).65 North Moravia hence became a direct part of the royal domain, which further damaged the already bad relations between the royal family on the one hand and the sidelines of the Přemyslid family on the other. Whereas Vladislaus hoped that the Czech lands would be ruled by his two heirs, the rest of the land was evidently looking forward to the restoration of the old order. The special status of the Olomouc province as well as its exclusive subordi nation to the Prague court were further consolidated by the coup d’état in 1173, when Emperor Barbarossa first took the ducal title away from Frederick to pass, after the verdict was announced, five banners to Sobeslaus’ son Ulrich, who out of good will immediately handed them over to his elder brother Sobeslaus.66

60 Necrologium Podlažicense, DFS, 412; Necrologium Olomucense, AÖG 59/1880, 538. 61 Annales Gradicenses et Opatowicenses, MGH SS XVII, 652. 62 Cach 1972, No. 355; Šmerda 1996, 101, No. 341. 63 Annales Gradicenses et Opatowicenses, MGH SS XVII, 650; Monachi Sazawiensis continu atio Cosmae, FRB II, 260. 64 CDB I, 218–219, No. 247; Šebánek–Dušková 1953, 264–265. 65 Necrologium Doxanense, VKČSN 1884, 132. 66 Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 466. 74 CHAPTER 3

This happened in September at a meeting in Erbendorf; changes on domestic soil followed immediately afterwards. After Sobeslaus, who was indebted to his brother Ulrich, returned to Bohemia, he decided to leave Olomouc to his younger sibling. He might have acted under pressure and for the lack of pro perty ignored the inheritance rights of the sons of the duke Otto Dětleb. It is also possible, however, that he did not remember his Olomouc relatives kindly and that this was retaliation for their breach of oaths in 1161. One way or the other, probably still in the late summer of 1173, Sobeslaus installed his brother Ulrich in Moravia. Ulrich’s purview also moved the situation in Moravia beyond its usual provincial horizon. For instance, in 1174, as the duke of the Moravians (dei gratia Morauorum dux), he endowed the bishopric of Olomouc and secured his donation with a properly sealed charter prepared in accordance with all the rules.67 In so doing, he disrupted the tradi tion of commemorative records. In spite of the fact that these records retained considerable importance until the end of the 12th century,68 the system of property rights began to converge with the Western concept of donation or exchange. In the same year, also the first provincial officials documented in writing appeared in Olomouc: the chamberlain Slavibor, the judges Mladota and Peter and the castle warden Čstata.69 Ulrich’s reign lasted just four years; in the summer of 1177 he fell into disfa vour with his brother Sobeslaus and died in gaol on 18 October.70 In Olomouc, he was replaced by his brother Wenceslas, who one year later successfully defended the Olomouc castle against Austrian and Znojmo troops. The first years of the reign of Duke Frederick were marked by arrogance as well. In the autumn of 1178, with the tacit support of the emperor, he took control of Prague and in the spirit of the ‘family tradition’ sent his brother Přemysl to North Moravia. Three years later, however, after another rebellion of Czech lords, he must have realised that his power rested on fragile foundations and that he would have been just another tolerated exile if it had not been for the emperor’s support. Moreover, the uncertain favour of Czech leaders warned him that he should rely on more skilfully interlinked alliances and that Conrad Otto was not his only relative. After that, he probably remembered the margin alised descendents of the duke of Olomouc; when the Order of St John asked him to confirm the monastic property, he, in a paragraph devoted to the north of Moravia, unexpectedly requested the approval of Duke Vladimir ( factum est

67 CDB I, 238–239, No. 270. 68 Kristen 1962, 183–191; Wihoda 2009, 120–135. 69 CDB I, 238–239, No. 270. 70 Necrologium Olomucense, AÖG 65/1880, 572. The Margrave 75

FIGURE 14 Perhaps only the ground floor of the chapel of St Barbara cautiously suggests what the ducal castle in Olomouc may have looked like as its appearance and ground-plan layout were, already before the end of the Middle Ages, altered by numerous reconstructions of the neighbouring episcopal residence and St Vitus chapter, where the last of the Olomouc Přemyslids, Sifrid, had dwelt. Photography by A. Flídr. fratris mei Wladimiri assensu accedente), whom he then had included among the witnesses. He bestowed on Vladimir the title of Duke of Olomouc and also mentioned the presence of his brother Bretislaus (Wladimir dux de Holomuc cum fratre suo Brecizlao).71 The original structure cannot be recovered in the modified transcription from the middle of the 13th century, but the new document preserved the part with the dating formula, which refers to 1183.72 The essential information is different though. Frederick placed the Olomouc Přemyslids between Conrad Otto and the ducal throne, so that he stayed away from any family conflicts. With a similar intention, he supported his cousin Theobald and Sobeslaus’ brother Wenceslas.73 The Prague court let the Olomouc relatives play only a minor role. Neither of the dukes appeared at the battle of Loděnice in 1185, and the subsequent

71 CDB I, 417–421, No. 402. 72 Hrubý 1936, 121–127. 73 CDB I, 269–270, No. 300; 273–274, No. 304; 280–283, No. 310. 76 CHAPTER 3

meeting in Knín managed without them as well. An unexpected turn of events came with Conrad Otto, who assumed the rule in Bohemia after Frederick’s death in the spring of 1189. The new duke enjoyed the favour of the Bohemians, and in May, also without any objections, he took an oath of fealty in Regensburg.74 Already before that, however, he had to deal with the widow Elisabeth, who had surrendered Prague Castle under the promise that she would thus receive Olomouc (receptis ab eo sacramentis pro Olomutzensi), by which she unwittingly drew attention to the fact that the main fortress in Moravia could not remain without a governor. Conrad Otto lived in a child less marriage, and since he considered Elisabeth’s claims to be impudent, he acted like his predecessor and left Olomouc to the descendents of the duke Otto Dětleb. By an ironic twist of fate, he thus returned to agnatic seniority, which he personally considered as desperately obsolete. A coincidence raised the long-overlooked Přemyslids to the threshold of happier days, although their negligible share in public events reveals that they had become resigned to their nothingness and that they rarely left the Olomouc castle. In October 1190, they (Wladimirus et Brecizlaus frater eius, duces Morauie) appeared at the Prague court (in curia nostra), where Conrad Otto regulated the domestic situation before his journey to Italy, where he was to accompany King Henry VI on the coronation ride.75 Their insignifi cance seems to have helped them to survive the battles for the ducal throne between 1191 and 1193. Neither do they appear to have been bothered during the rule of the duke-bishop Henry Bretislaus. Unless the forged charter for the Louka Premonstratensians is wrong, at the turn of June 1194 they joined the Bohemian troops that seized the south of Moraviaa (Wladimirus cum fratre suo Bracizlao, principes Olomucenses),76 and they had occasionally been included in the lists of witnesses.77 Nevertheless, they managed only two, maybe three, sovereign acts in ten years. All three acts were religious donations aimed at supporting the old family foundation, Klášterní Hradisko.78 The first donation is connected with Vladimir, who allegedly on 26 December 1195 enriched Premonstratensian property with Bojanovice in the Kroměříž region. He did so with the consent of his brother Bretislaus. As additional witnesses he had asked his sister Euphemia, Bishop of

74 Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 508. 75 CDB I, 299–301, No. 326. 76 CDB I, 444–446, No. 411. 77 CDB I, 323–325, No. 357. 78 Elbel 2002, 39–56. The Margrave 77

Olomouc Engelbert, Dean of Olomouc Baldwin and several servants.79 There would not have been anything strange about that if the same company had not met about the charter of the duke of Olomouc Bretislaus, who gave the monks the village of Žirákovice two weeks later, i.e., on 13 January 1196. Furthermore, it is impossible not to notice stylistic borrowings, so that the second docu ment, with a few exceptions, borrowed the diction of Vladimir’s privilege of 26 December. The two dukes only exchanged their roles, surrounded them selves with slightly different witnesses and announced another place of issue. The first was supposedly written in Opava, the other in Kunovice near Uherské Hradiště.80 The content of the two almost identical documents that were cre ated within several days in the remote ends of the land calls for a new interpre tation. Moravian dukes administered the entrusted provinces quite simply and did not need an office for their government. The first charter in the usual sense of the word was issued by Duke of Olomouc Ulrich in 1174, whom Vladimir and Bretislaus, however, could not match. Until the end of the 12th century, the Moravian donations made do with memorial records made on the part of the beneficiaries. In our case, this would mean that both ducal donations were not immortalised in writing until by the Premonstratensian scriptorium in Klášterní Hradisko.81 The monastic scriptorium as the ‘scene’ could actually be a clue for the correct reading of both records. If we attribute a certain weight to the Pre monstratensian tradition, then Vladimir and Bretislaus thought of the mate rial equipment of the old family foundation, and sometime before 1201, when the royal notary wrote about both dukes in the past tense,82 they donated two villages to Hradisko. The monks then made a simple record,83 which was reworked into a ‘charter’ in the second third of the 13th century, provided with approximate dating and inserted into the monastic chartulary.84 It was pre served only in an incomplete late medieval copy. Its incompleteness lies in the fact that it does not mention Oldřišov, although the provost there admi nistered monastic property in the entire province of Opava. Than again, the Baroque tradition claims that Oldřišov was given to the Premonstratensians by Duke of Olomouc Bretislaus,85 which is not contradicted by the comment

79 CDB I, 317–318, No. 353. 80 CDB I, 318–319, No. 354. 81 Hlaváček 1990, 69. 82 CDB II, 17–18, No. 21. 83 Bistřický 1990, 46–47. 84 Wihoda 2002c, 67–72. 85 Teige 1894, 35; Neumann 1922, 32–33. 78 CHAPTER 3 of Bishop of Olomouc Robert from 1234 that the demesne (circuitus) was given to the monastery a long time before that.86 Again, it is possible that the Pre monstratensians made a memorial record, the content of which was preserved by Antonín Boček when he, on the basis of an old original, made one of his famous forgeries.87 Surprisingly enough, he admitted himself that a part of the text had originated in his workshop. He marked these lines in italics.88 In addition, he moved the donation to 1198. It is not known why he ascribed it to Vladimir in spite of the fact that the monastic tradition, which we may prefer, refers to 1185 and mentions Duke Bretislaus as well as the mandatory approval of Duke of Bohemia Frederick. The two, perhaps three, donations definitely do not change anything about the picture of the unstoppable decline of the once influential Přemyslid line. The politely meant postscript from 1201 that both dukes had been freed from worldly ties sounds quite bitter.89 One cannot help but think of the con siderable limits of their reign and the fact that they had not won the keys to the Olomouc castle on their own but by means of a decision made by oth ers. Moreover, after the death of the duke Conrad Otto in 1191, they lost the only relative who could still have appreciated the tradition of Moravian ducal courts. Despite their impotence, however, they enjoyed, basically until the end of their days, the condescending confidence of their Prague relatives, includ ing the otherwise callous Přemysl Otakar I. It is possible, however, that the Czech lands had other problems, that they saw the new times where Bretislaus agnatic seniority quickly changed into a distant memory. Nonetheless, ducal Moravia was symbolically concluded by Sifrid, son of Duke of Olomouc Bretislaus, who grew up in the shadow of St Wenceslas Cathedral and the Hradisko monastery, great monuments of the past that were very remote from the sad present. He could have opted for an ecclesiastical career, although Přemysl Otakar might have interfered in his plans after 1197. Sifrid’s choice also could have been influenced by his father’s, and perhaps also uncle’s, death, which accelerated his acceptance among the canons. Suspected motives changed into certainty in 1207, when Přemysl Otakar announced the right of the Chapter of St Wenceslas to a free election of the bishop and the proclamation was watched by the canon Sifrid.90 His last but one position in the list of the witnesses implies that he was not an influential figure in the

86 CDB III/1, 69–71, No. 66. 87 CDM I, 350, No. 373. 88 Šebánek 1936, 40–41. 89 CDB II, 17–18, No. 21. 90 CDB II, 52–55, No. 59. The Margrave 79 events in the land. This impression is further enhanced by two other docu ments from the subsequent years.91 Sometime around 1210, Sifrid disappeared from the public life. He might have spent his time studying, because the curial office adorned him with the Master’s degree in 1227.92 He definitely was not involved in the sensitive issue when Přemysl Otakar and Vladislaus Henry eliminated all of their relatives and in 1216 ensured both the crown and the throne for Wenceslas.93 He changed his restrained attitude in August 1220, when he appeared in the bishop’s privi lege for the Velehrad monastery.94 Roughly at the same time, he obtained the prebend of the royal chaplain and sold the Velehrad Cistercians the village of Jarošov, which he had inherited from his father Bretislaus (a progenitore suo, illustri duce Bretizlao).95 In 1226, he was elected the dean of the chapter. The bishop Robert apparently did not want to accept that and asked the canons to reconsider the result of the voting. Sifrid turned to the king, and when he was not given a proper audience, he requested protection from the Roman curia. The rather ridiculous dispute was hence taken to Pope Gregory IX, who had to appoint a commission to investigate the complaints of the quarrelling parties. On 31 March 1227, a protocol was written in which Robert accused Sifrid of clandestine elections, non-canonical life, of trivialising the bishop’s authority and counterfeiting the seal. He further claimed that it was Sifrid’s fault that Přemysl had learnt a certain secret of the bishop’s. In defence, Sifrid pointed out Robert’s sinful weakness for the Premonstratensian nuns from the Rosa Coeli convent in Dolní Kounice,96 by which he cleverly indicated the true causes of the conflict. He concluded his defence with the assurance that he had never wanted to become a dean, that he had not told the king anything and that he wanted to protect the bishop.97 The curial office did not object to a thorough investigation, but it seems that the arbitration award was never announced, because Sifrid died on 5 February (probably?) in 1228.98 It is not known whether anyone missed him and what they thought in Olomouc of his petty dispute with the bishop Robert. Probably nothing flattering. Except for an ordinary entry in the chapter necrology,

91 CDB II, 73–74, No. 78; 88–89, No. 92. 92 CDB II, 293–294, No. 294. 93 Wihoda 2012, 217–227. 94 CDB II, 179–181, No. 195. 95 CDB II, 184–185, No. 199. 96 CDB II, 158, No. 170. 97 CDB II, 293–294, No. 294. 98 Necrologium Olomucense, AÖG 65/1884, 524. 80 CHAPTER 3 it does not seem to have occurred to anyone that they could remember Sifrid’s origin99 or that the very last lines of the story of ducal Moravia were written in 1228.

2 The Nuremberg Mission

The very fact that the December agreement became conditionally effective two, maybe three, years later implies that the domestic situation required the focused attention of the two brothers. Nevertheless, it might have also been otherwise, and the withering lines of minor dukes not ruling in Prague could have simply been left to their fate, because the interest of the Prague court was drawn to the events in the Empire, which revolved around 29 September 1197 and the death of Emperor Henry VI.100 In the next weeks, the imperial garri sons drowned in the wave of unrest that swept across Italy, from the Kingdom of Sicily, through the dominion of Saint Peter, to imperial Tuscany and Lombardy.101 Alarming and even more confusing news soon crossed the nort hern slopes of the Alps. In the midst of uncertainty, which was after all taken advantage of even by Přemysl Otakar in December 1197, the Hohenstaufen camp lost connection with Palermo. According to ‘reliable’ reports, the young heir to the Sicilian and imperial crown, Henry’s son Frederick, had lost his life, so that around Christmas it was ‘known’ only that Adolph, the metropolitan of Cologne, invited Duke of Saxony Bernhard to compete for the votes of the Princes of the Holy Roman Empire. The duke pleaded his advanced age and poor health, but Adolph did not surrender. As acting Imperial Chancellor, he convened a diet in Cologne at the beginning of March 1198 in order to discuss the candidature of Berthold of Zähringen, who, however, lacked both author ity and good reputation. Notes taken in Marbach claim that the result was decided in advance by a bribe.102 Although Berthold, under the pressure of public opinion, reluctantly withdrew his preliminary consent,103 the course of events could not be stopped. Sacral oaths were forgotten, and at ducal courts they wondered to whom the orphaned throne would be entrusted.

99 Wihoda 2002b, 193–202. 100 Stürner 1992, 57–66; Csendes 1993, 189–196; Rader 2010, 35–59. 101 Burchardi praepositi Urspergensis Chronicon, MGH SRG [16.], 75–76; Annales Marba censes, MGH SRG [9.], 71; Hugonis et Honorii Chronicorum Continuationes Weingar tenses, MGH SS XXI, 479. 102 Annales Marbacenses, MGH SRG [9.], 72. 103 Chronica regia Coloniensis I, MGH SRG [18.], 162–163. The Margrave 81

Dynastic continuity was embodied by Philip, Duke of Swabia, who could seek the favour of the powerful not only as Henry’s brother but also as regent for his minor nephew Frederick (of Sicily), who was a properly elected king of the Romans and of Germany, although he was not to undergo a corona tion ceremony until the end of 1197.104 The well-thought-out scenario actu ally came to naught already on 28 September, but Philip, although he led the Hohenstaufen coalition, insisted on Frederick’s claims and refused the crown offered to him. At that point, the archbishop of Cologne returned to the game. With the help of the English, he opened a game with the goal of overthrowing the Hohenstaufen dynasty. This, however, could be decided only by the vote of the Princes of the Holy Roman Empire. The election procedure for the king of the Romans and of Germany was so different from the French and insular practices that Roger of Hoveden, the court chronicler of the kings of England, interrupted the flow of the narra tive only to explain to the readers that the enthronement in Aachen was then preceded by two rounds of voting by the Princes of the Holy Roman Empire, who first selected twelve and later four spokesmen with the right to vote.105 It is probably not so surprising that Roger, defending Plantagenet policy, nomi nated the metropolitans of Cologne and Mainz and two members of the house of Welf, the duke of Saxony and the prince of the Rhine Palatinate,106 but Gislebert of Mons also mentioned a four-member electoral body when he described the accession of Frederick Barbarossa.107 It is not certain whether Philip feared the intricately delegated powers; nevertheless, he could no longer hesitate after the intervention of Richard, king of England, who provided financial support for the fading hopes of the archbishop of Cologne. In the last weeks of the winter of 1198, he moved to Thuringia, where he concluded alliance agreements with a number of influ ential princes and accepted the royal diadem in the relatively insignificant village of Ichterhausen on 6 March.108 Two days later, Philip underwent elec tion on the sacred Frankish soil at Mühlhausen. He thus erased from histori cal memory the year 1135, when his great-uncle and later king of the Romans and of Germany, Conrad III, capitulated at the same place before Lothar of Supplinburg.109 Burchard, provost of Ursberg, claims that Philip of Swabia

104 Ottonis de Sancto Blasio Chronica 45, MGH SRG [47.], 71. 105 Ex Rogeri de Hoveden Chronica, MGH SS XXVII, 177; Corner 1995, col. 943. 106 Erkens 2002, 62–63; Begert 2003, 28–29. 107 Gisleberti Chronicon Hanoniense, MGH SRG [29.], 89. 108 Monumenta Erphesfurtensia, MGH SRG [42.], 199. 109 Schütte 2002, 346–347. 82 CHAPTER 3 was supported from the beginning also by the Czechs,110 but other sources reject, apparently justly, the possibility of Přemysl’s or Vladislaus’ presence in Mühlhausen.111 The Přemyslids are likely to have entered the imperial stage after the Thuringian proclamation. The well-informed Abbot Gerlach men tions that Philip established a friendship with Přemysl and the Czechs (ami- ticiae cum rege nostro Primizl tunc duce, nec non et cum Boemis suis) as late as before the Mainz coronation of 8 September 1198.112 The Prague court hopelessly missed the first round of the dispute; in the next years, however, no major negotiations could do without Přemysl Otakar or Vladislaus Henry. Their influence and merits were apparently so evident that Eike of Repgow placed a note in the redaction of the Sachsenspiegel (Saxon Mirror) that was frequently used later in which he tried to explain that the king of Bohemia should not have a vote (De scenke des rikes, de koning van Behemen, de ne hevet nenen kore, umme dat he nicht dudisch n’is).113 At the end of the 12th century, though, no one expressed himself in this sense. In Mühlhausen, Philip of Swabia received the votes of Adalbert, the archbishop of Salzburg (who could have acted on behalf of his Přemyslid brothers), Archbishop of Magdeburg Ludolf, Bishop of Worms Lupold, Bishop of Merseburg Eberhard, Bishop of Bamberg Thiemo, Bishop of Eichstätt Hartwig, Abbot of Fulda Henry, Louis the Bavarian, Bernhard of Saxony, Margrave of Meissen Theodoric and Count Henry of Orlamünde.114 In the next months, Philip was supported by Duke of Austria Leopold, at that point already openly by Duke of Bohemia Přemysl Otakar and Margrave of Moravia Vladislaus Henry, by Landgrave of Thuringia Hermann, and in the end even by Philip’s rival Berthold of Zähringen, favoured by the metropolitan of Cologne.115 The group of grumblers was much more modest. Especially the Archbishop of Cologne Adolph remained in stark opposition. In an attempt to prevent the voting, he sent Bishop of Münster Herrmann to Thuringia.116 Nevertheless, the bishop was late, and Philip, albeit uncrowned, began to use publicly the royal title already during the Easter holi days of 1198, which he spent in Worms.117

110 Burchardi praepositi Urspergensis Chronicon, MGH SRG [16.], 80. 111 Ottonis de Sancto Blasio Chronica 46, MGH SRG [47.], 74; Wihoda 2010b, 227–244. 112 Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 516. 113 Sachsenspiegel III.57.2, MGH FIG NS I/1, 243; Sachsenspiegel 4.2, MGH FIG NS I/2, 23; Thomas 1992, 347–372. 114 Monumenta Erphesfurtensia, MGH SRG [42.], 199; Csendes 2003, 69–71. 115 Winkelmann 1873, 500–502. 116 Chronica regia Coloniensis I, MGH SRG [18.], 162. 117 Chronica regia Coloniensis I, MGH SRG [18.], 164. The Margrave 83

Philip’s stay in the Rhine Basin was not accidental. Only from here could he persuade malcontents and break Adolph’s resistance. He promised the arch bishop of Trier 2000 marks,118 but this was nothing compared to the resources of King Richard. With the help of English silver, Richard blunted the tip of Philip’s campaign and went into a counterattack. He approached Berthold of Zähringen again and began to negotiate with the papal curia. Philip’s advisors therefore relied on clever propaganda, which was close to slander. At the elec toral assembly, which was to produce an anti-king, Berthold was accused of having accepted a bribe and the title of Count of Swabia. In the ensuing confu sion, the deliberations were interrupted and soon cancelled without a result.119 Despite some smaller achievements, Philip still was not in control of Aachen. After the intervention of King Richard, a new, this time more than equal, rival appeared. It was Otto of Poitou, son of Henry the Lion, who was originally a candidate for the Scottish throne. In the spring of 1198, however, he headed for Cologne. In the saddlebags of fifty pack animals, he carried 150,000 marks of silver, as noted by Arnold of Lübeck.120 The fabulously rich equipment, however, is strikingly reminiscent of the former ransom for King Richard. It is therefore quite likely that the abbot of Lübeck confused two different events.121 Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the king of England acted as an exem plary knight and patron and helped his nephew also indirectly when he gave the merchants of Cologne trading privileges.122 Not even the grand entry into the town, however, could efface the embarrassing impression from the rather small number of allies. Apart from the archbishop, only two bishops and three abbots participated in Otto’s election.123 Gibes of the contemporary commen tators were aimed at Adolph of Cologne, who voted on behalf of not only him self but also the absent metropolitan of Mainz and the archbishop of Trier, whose vote he had simply bought. All of this took place on 9 June 1198. One month later, on 12 July, Otto received the crown in Aachen.124 Yet the voice

118 Burchardi praepositi Urspergensis Chronicon, MGH SRG [16.], 79. 119 Burchardi praepositi Urspergensis Chronicon, MGH SRG [16.], 77; Chronica regia Coloniensis I, MGH SRG [18.], 163; Annales Marbacenses, MGH SRG [9.], 72–73. 120 Arnoldi Chronica Slavorum VII.15, MGH SRG [14.], 287. 121 Hucker 1990, 23–24. 122 Stehkämpfer 1971, 213–244; Hucker 1990, 25–32. 123 RNI I, 19–21, No. 10 (MGH Const II, 24–25, No. 19). 124 Ottonis de Sancto Blasio Chronica 46, MGH SRG [47.], 74; Annales Marbacenses, MGH SRG [9.], 73; Burchardi praepositi Urspergensis Chronicon, MGH SRG [16.], 79; Chronica regia Coloniensis I, MGH SRG [18.], 164; MGH Const II, 20–21, No. 16; 23–24, No. 18. 84 CHAPTER 3 of public opinion was different. Its diction was captured by Walter von der Vogelweide when he referred to the Welf with the mocking title of Papal King.125 The coronation ceremony was held in its proper place, but the royal insig nia were in the hands of Philip,126 and the Hohenstaufen camp was superior also on the battlefield. Nevertheless, the elected Welf could rely on the faith fulness of the Cologners and hope for the favour of the archbishop, who had had the territorial gains from 1180 confirmed, by which he made Otto IV codify the judgement over Henry the Lion, Otto’s own father.127 The curial correspon dence reveals that the anti-king was supported also by the dukes of Lorraine128 and Baldwin, count of Flanders.129 Otto’s election was welcomed by both the king of England and the mayor of Milan (Podestà di Milano), Giovanni Rusca,130 but the rest either refused to express themselves or supported Philip of Swabia. The Hohenstaufen troops, however, did not manage to seize Aachen. After 12 July, it was clear to Philip’s supporters that the coronation could not be postponed any longer. Moreover, the resolute and in its way impertinent interference of the king of England into the imperial affairs provoked the French side to retaliation. Philip II August offered his namesake help, and on 29 June the Hohenstaufen-Capetian alliance was renewed.131 Probably at the same time, the decision was made that the only coronation town whose significance could approach that of Aachen was Mainz. The Marbach annalist dates the Mainz diet, Philip’s second election and the coronation to 15 August,132 but other sources mention the beginning of September,133 and 8 September is preferred by recent research.134 Nevertheless, the precise dating is not important, and Philip’s advisors had to cope with more serious problems as well. It was not certain yet who would take charge of the coronation. The Archbishop of Mainz Conrad had not returned from the Holy Land at that point, and Bishop of Havelberg Helmbert as his deputy in

125 Walther von der Vogelweide IX.14 (L 25,11), 258, v. 14; Csendes 2003, 76–77. 126 Ottonis de Sancto Blasio Chronica 46, MGH SRG [47.], 74; MGH Const II, 10–13, No. 10. 127 MGH Const II, 21–23, No. 17. 128 RNI I, 17–18, No. 7 (MGH Const II, 26, No. 21). 129 RNI I, 18, No. 8 (MGH Const II, 26–27, No. 22). 130 RNI I, 14–16, No. 4; 16, No. 5; 17, No. 6. 131 Chronica Albrici monachi Trium fontium, MGH SS XXIII, 874–876; Ex Rigordi Gestis Philippi II. Augusti, MGH SS XXVI, 294; Ex Chronico universali Anonymi Laudunensis, MGH SS XXVI, 453; MGH Const II, 1–2, No. 1; Cartellieri 1932, 111–123; Jordan 1974, 136–151. 132 Annales Marbacenses, MGH SRG [9.], 73. 133 Braunschweigische Reimchronik 49, MGH Deutsche Chroniken II, 522, vv. 5024–5031; Monumenta Erphesfurtensia, MGH SRG [42.], 199. 134 Schütte 2002, 336–338; Csendes 2003, 81. The Margrave 85 religious matters lacked authority. The actions necessary could be performed by the Archbishop of Trier John, but Philip did no not trust him, because he had expressed his preference for Otto and did not want to draw unnecessary attention to himself. In the end, the precarious situation was resolved by the metropolitan of Burgundy, Aimo of Tarentaise, who was sharply reproached for it by the Roman curia even years later.135 In spite of all the objections, Philip’s coronation in Mainz after all helped him to catch up with Otto, and he could consider himself a legitimately enthroned king of the Romans and of Germany.136 The general awareness was to be strengthened by a ceremonial procession. It was allegedly led by Duke of Bohemia Přemysl, who was likely promised the royal title then.137 Sometime later in Boppard, Philip kept his word,138 but other participants also awaited their well-deserved reward. The royal generosity was soon ‘promoted’ to a common part of political rituals; this practice was fully applied in both competing camps. In small concessions and generous gifts, the untouchable crown domain slowly dissolved, and the direct exercise of royal power on the local level ever more clearly made concessions to the will of the Princes of the Holy Roman Empire. Přemysl received the royal title and privileges, but Hermann, for instance, landgrave of Thuringia, was bribed with three wealthy towns.139 At the end of the summer of 1198, Přemysl could be satisfied, but his joy from the coronation probably did not last long. Perhaps already in Boppard, he had to think of the domestic situation and the aversion of the Czechs to the royal crown. He had painful memories of the events few days earlier, when the Czech army had rebelled near Würzburg and he had thus brought Philip only a fragment of the expected forces.140 In addition, he had to remember that he had received the crown from the hands of the excommunicated sovereign and that he remained a ‘mere’ duke for the Roman curia, as well as for most of the nobles in the Empire.141 It was probably in this connection that Walter von der Vogelweide wrote verses at his expense, although the prickly criticism of the proud dukes and crowned vassals could have been aimed not only at the king

135 RNI I, 114–115, No. 74. 136 Arnoldi Chronica Slavorum VI.2, MGH SRG [14.], 219; MGH Const II, 2–3, No. 2; RNI I, 9–11, No. 1; 36–39, No. 21; Schütte 2002, 336–337. 137 Arnoldi Chronica Slavorum VI.2, MGH SRG [14.], 219. 138 Chronica regia Coloniensis I, MGH SRG [18.], 164; Annales Marbacenses, MGH SRG [9.], 74. 139 Monumenta Erphesfurtensia, MGH SRG [42.], 200. 140 Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 516. 141 CDB II, 37–38, No. 41. 86 CHAPTER 3 of Bohemia but also at Otto of Brunswick (die cirkel sint zu hêre, die armen künige dringen dich).142 The deteriorating position of Otto IV of Brunswick, who had failed to break the blockade in the central Rhine basin and in April, after the death of King Richard, had lost the generous support of the English court, forced the Roman curia to intervene. Already in May 1199, Philip’s supporters met in Speyer to warn the pope against his untimely interest in imperial affairs. In a special let ter of 28 May, they then emphasised that Philip had been elected in accordance with the law and announced his upcoming ride to Rome for the coronation.143 Rome, however, took a different stance on the Hohenstaufen candidature. The opinion of the curia was briefly summarised by John Codagnellus, when he said of Philip that he had been elected and crowned against the pope’s wish and without his consent.144 Also the excommunication decree of 1197, in which Pope Celestine III appreciated Philip’s endeavours in Central Italy, remained in force.145 The diet in Speyer, or rather the content of the protest letter dated there,146 deserves attention after all. The sharply formulated complaint was supported by almost three dozen princes of spiritual and secular estates, including the king of Bohemia, Přemysl Otakar, and the margrave of Moravia, Vladislaus Henry. In another place, the signatories declared that they had met at the diet after the death of Emperor Henry VI in order to raise Philip of Swabia legally and solemnly to the imperial throne. Nevertheless, he was not generally recognised, because of obstructions on the part of a handful of malcontents. Therefore, he consulted his supporters in Nuremberg, whom he also autho rised to prepare a written note for the Roman curia. If the Speyer protest had been in perfect agreement with reality in all its points, it would have meant that both Přemyslids had stood alongside Philip in Mühlhausen. Something like that is excluded by the period sources, though. On the contrary, the sojourn of the two dukes in Speyer and probably also in Nuremberg may be considered as proven, because their names are not listed among those absent. However, it is likewise indisputable that at the end of the 12th century, the margrave of Moravia became one of the elite and basically doubled the weight of the Czech vote in imperial affairs.147

142 Walther von der Vogelweide I.2 (L 8,28), 74, v. 22–25. 143 MGH Const II, 3–4, No. 3. 144 Iohannis Codagnelli Annales Placentini, MGH SRG [23.], 32. 145 RNI I, 36–39, No. 21; Baethgen, 1913, 209–217. 146 Wolf 1998, 15–16. 147 MGH Const II, 3–4, No. 3 (RNI I, 24–26, No. 14); Csendes 2003, 91–93. The Margrave 87

The May proclamation was written in such a way as to make it clear for everyone around the pope that Philip had the support of most of the princes. Innocent III, however, did not publish the stance of the Holy See until the end of 1200, when he openly admitted before the congregation of cardinals that the Empire knows no fewer than three elected kings but that it is not in the interests of the curia to support the first of them, the minor Frederick, who is, moreover, the king of Sicily. The pope rejected Philip, because his ancestors had persecuted the Church and he himself had failed as the imperial governor of Tuscany and Campania. A small group of princes was on Otto’s side; accord ing to Innocent III, however, he was trustworthy to the pope because the Welf family, to which he himself belonged, had always excelled in piety and respect to the legacy of St Peter.148 One and a half years later, Innocent III emphasised in a letter to Berthold of Zähringen that the Empire was transferred from the Greeks to the Franks under Charlemagne thanks to the curia, which entitled the pope to intervene in succession disputes and crown the emperor.149 It was not mere rhetoric. As soon as Otto IV confirmed the boundaries of St Peter’s domain and recognised the right of the curia to former imperial territories in Ravenna, Pentapolis, Mark Ancona, Spoleto and the lands of Margravine Matilda,150 Cardinal Legate Guido of Praeneste set out for Cologne to proclaim Otto IV as king of the Romans and of Germany on behalf of the pope and on the basis of his bulls of 1 March 1201.151 He was also to find a suitable candidate for the archbishopric of Mainz and reverse the balance of forces, which was unfavourable for Otto.152 The secret intrigues of the curial legates did not find an appropriate response among the princes, although Guido threatened all of Otto’s rivals with strict excommunication.153 After a nasty scuffle, the legates managed to acquire a part of the Mainz Chapter for Siegfried of Eppstein, who, despite the protests of Philip of Swabia, received the pallium.154 Yet that was the last success. Thanks to the king of Bohemia, the landgrave of Thuringia Hermann came under the

148 RNI I, 43–51, No. 29. 149 RNI I, 92–96, No. 62; Castorph 1978. 150 MGH Const II, 27–28, No. 23 (RNI I, 116–117, No. 77; 122, No. 2). 151 RNI I, 55–57, No. 32; 57–62, No. 33; 62–63, No. 34; 63, No. 35; 64, No. 36; 65, No. 37; 65, No. 38; 65–66, No. 39; 66, No. 40; 67, No. 41; 67, No. 42; 68, No. 43; 68–69, No. 44; 69–70, No. 45; Kempf 1954. 152 Hucker 2003, 70–81. 153 Chronica regia Coloniensis III, MGH SRG [18.], 198. 154 Monumenta Erphesfurtensia, MGH SRG [42.], 201; Chronica regia Coloniensis III, MGH SRG [18.], 198. 88 CHAPTER 3

Hohenstaufen banners,155 and Philip himself convened a diet in Bamberg at the end of the summer of 1201 in order to open the issue of his and his sup porters’ excommunication before the assembled princes (the Přemyslid side was represented here by the margrave of Moravia).156 According to the Erfurt chronicle, which was written at St Peter’s parish, his expectations were fulfilled, because the majority of those present immediately and with due enthusiasm swore him allegiance.157 Still in the first days of 1202, the Hohenstaufen camp demonstrated absolute unity by the massive participation of its delegates at the diet in Halle, where the second letter of protest from the imperial nobility was written.158 Nevertheless, not even the skilfully coiled twists of Philip’s propaganda could conceal seri ous conflicts. For instance, it is disputable whether any of the Přemyslids came to Halle, because the manifest dated there claimed, perhaps maliciously, the opposite. The king of Bohemia made a step towards a direct rift in the autumn, when he personally heard a curial legate in Prague, which was later appreci ated even by Pope Innocent III.159 He seems to have followed a plan agreed in advance, because he had invited his brother Vladislaus Henry to the confiden tial hearing,160 and the same attention was given to the envoys at the court of Landgrave of Thuringia Hermann.161 Flexible stances of the Princes of the Holy Roman Empire, however, became the norm with which both of the elects sim ply had to come to terms. Without exaggeration, the policy of the Holy See was cynical. The Roman curia asked Philip to make concessions only to try to con vince selected princes behind the scenes to support Welf interests. Such a situ ation occurred in May 1203, when papal legates discussed peace with Philip162 although Otto IV had initiated a blockade of Hohenstaufen towns and castles.163 The intrigues of the curia adumbrated Philip’s attack against Hermann of Thuringia. A large cavalry flooded the landscape, and the landgrave, taken by surprise, had to ask for a truce of eight days.164 Even this, however, was enough

155 Monumenta Erphesfurtensia, MGH SRG [42.], 200; Cronica Reinhardsbrunnensis, MGH SS XXX/1, 562; Kirmse 1909, 317–348; 1911, 1–42. 156 MB XXIX/1, 504–506, No. 571. 157 Monumenta Erphesfurtensia, MGH SRG [42.], 201; Csendes 2003, 119–120. 158 MGH Const II, 5–6, No. 2; Kempf 1985, 63–91. 159 CDB II, 33, No. 36. 160 Gesta episcoporum Halberstadensium, MGH SS XXIII, 116. 161 Kirmse 1911, 1–42. 162 MGH Const II, 8–9, No. 8. 163 Csendes 2003, 137–150. 164 Arnoldi Chronica Slavorum VI.5, MGH SRG [14.], 224–225; Chronica regia Coloniensis III, MGH SRG [18.], 201; Monumenta Erphesfurtensia, MGH SRG [42.], 201–202; Cronica The Margrave 89 for Welf reinforcements to appear on the battlefield. Henry, prince of the Rhine Palatinate, helped with five hundred horsemen, but an army worthy of a king was brought to Thuringia by the king of Bohemia.165 Philip retreated to Erfurt and could thank sheer luck for his successful escape under the cloak of night to Theodoric in Meissen.166 From there, he helplessly watched Czech warriors plundering, under the joint command of the king of Bohemia and margrave of Moravia, the domains of his faithful ones.167 In his personal message to the pope, Otto emphasised the Czech share in the victory in Thuringia. Out of grati tude, Otto did not mention that, except for the successful defence of Welf posi tions in central Germany, he had not been able to seize a single town or castle.168 In the same spirit, the curial office issued a letter for Otto’s allies in Lombardy. Pope Innocent III passed over in silence the fact that, before Merseburg on the feast of St Bartholomew, Otto had honoured the king of Bohemia.169 Přemysl’s awarding ceremony in the field camp before Merseburg on 24 August 1203, which was personally attended also by the margrave Vladislaus Henry, calls for a more detailed explanation. Although contemporary Czech scriptoria did not consider this event to be worth mentioning, it did not escape the attention of imperial rapporteurs and was written down not only in the abbey of Reinhardsbrunn in Thuringia170 but also in the more distant towns of Brunswick171 or Cologne.172 All accounts agree that the commendation was to strengthen the ties to the Welf coalition and that the king of Bohemia renewed his oath of allegiance.173 The dating formulas of Přemysl’s charters, however, count the years of his reign from 1198,174 as if Přemysl had thus tried to imply that the Merseburg promotion was actually pointless. In fact, it was the other way round, because the Mainz ceremony in 1198 lacked legitimacy. The royal title was bestowed on Přemysl by Philip, who had been properly elected but excommunicated by the papal curia. A certain puzzlement was also aroused

Reinhardsbrunnensis, MGH SS XXX/1, 566; Braunschweigische Reimchronik 53, MGH Deutsche Chroniken II, 531, v. 5730–5774. 165 Braunschweigische Reimchronik 53, MGH Deutsche Chroniken II, 531, v. 5740–5746. 166 Cronica Reinhardsbrunnensis, MGH SS XXX/1, 566. 167 Chronica regia Coloniensis III, MGH SRG [18.], 201. 168 CDB II, 34, No. 37. 169 CDB II, 32–33, No. 35. 170 Cronica Reinhardsbrunnensis, MGH SS XXX/1, 566. 171 Braunschweigische Reimchronik 53, MGH Deutsche Chroniken II, 531–532, v. 5805–5814. 172 Chronica regia Coloniensis III, MGH SRG [18.], 201–202. 173 Braunschweigische Reimchronik 53, MGH Deutsche Chroniken II, 532, v. 5814–5818; Chronica regia Coloniensis III, MGH SRG [18.], 202. 174 CDB II, 104–106, No. 110. 90 CHAPTER 3

FIGURE 15 Přemysl Otakar acted like his father Vladislaus II in at least one thing. With his denars, he reminded the Bohemians that from 1198 he had ruled as king and with the blessing of the land’s patron St Wenceslas.

by the absence of the metropolitan of Mainz, who had the right to crown and anoint the king of Bohemia.175 The direct participation of the papal legate Guido in the Merseburg cere mony removed a considerable portion of doubt, but the position of the curia remained the same. It was not until the next April that Pope Innocent III took into account that Přemysl had received some liberties, lands and castles (liberalitates quam terras et castra) from the hands of King Otto176 and prompted the king of the Bohemians to an immediate coronation.177 The sudden shift in the opinions of the Holy See may easily be linked with develop ments in Thuringia and Saxony. In March 1204, Philip of Swabia unexpectedly moved north, where he managed to break the blockade around Goslar. The next campaign, to Brunswick, was stopped by the Welf troops near Burgdorf, but before the decisive confrontation Prince Henry asked his brother, King Otto, for a compensation for the Rhine Palatinate. He saw a decent remuneration in Brunswick, and when he failed, he left the camp and hence forced Otto IV to a chaotic retreat.178 In the middle of 1204, Otto IV could rightly lament the fickleness of fortune, yet a gloomy atmosphere pervaded even the chambers of Prague Castle. Not only did Přemysl observe the development in central Germany with growing concern; he was also troubled by the memories of a one-year-old quarrel with

175 Wihoda 2010b, 235–236. 176 CDB II, 35–36, No. 39. 177 CDB II, 37–38, No. 41. 178 Cronica Reinhardsbrunnensis, MGH SS XXX/1, 567; Arnoldi Chronica Slavorum VI.6, MGH SRG [14.], 226–227. The Margrave 91 his cousin Theobald, who then decided to leave Bohemia and, after the interces sion of Theodoric of Meissen, became close to Philip of Swabia.179 Apparently, this happened at the moment when Přemysl Otakar and Vladislaus Henry were negotiating with the Welf coalition, which Philip could only understand as vil lainy and treachery; probably during his stay in the imperial palace in Cheb in April 1203, he gave the kingdom of Bohemia to Theobald in fief.180 Matters would soon become worse. Encouraged by success, Philip attacked the unpro tected Thuringia. At the beginning of July, he built a camp before Hermann’s main fortress Weissensee. He could already count on the auxiliary corps of the metropolitan of Magdeburg, Duke of Saxony Bernhard and Theodoric of Meissen.181 It turned out before long that a rescue party was considered only by the king of Bohemia, who crossed the land border at the end of the summer of 1204. Philip’s army was too large, though. Přemysl Otakar did not even try to penetrate closer to Hermann and ignominiously returned to Prague without a fight.182 The landgrave of Thuringia capitulated on 17 September, and only the boundary forest prevented Philip from his military expedition to Bohemia.183 After several weeks of careful negotiations, in which Duke of Bavaria Louis worked as a mediator,184 Přemysl headed for the Hohenstaufen. In addition to the obligatory oath of allegiance, he had to release the hostages and pay 7000 marks in silver.185 In November, Duke of Brabant Henry defected to Philip’s banners. Nevertheless, the harshest blow was inflicted on Otto by the Metropolitan of Cologne Adolph, who around 11 November 1204 surrendered

179 Arnoldi Chronica Slavorum VI.5, MGH SRG [14.], 223; Cronica Reinhardsbrunnensis, MGH SS XXX/1, 566. Theobald’s exile was first brought into Czech awareness by Przibiconis de Radenin dicti Pulkavae Chronicon Bohemiae. FRB V, 120A. 180 Arnoldi Chronica Slavorum VI.5, MGH SRG [14.], 223; Cronica Reinhardsbrunnensis, MGH SS XXX/1, 566; Dejmek 1991, 105–106. 181 Braunschweigische Reimchronik 54, MGH Deutsche Chroniken II, 533, v. 5895–5904; Arnoldi Chronica Slavorum VI.7, MGH SRG [14.], 227–228. 182 CDB II, 46, No. 51 (RI V, 33, No. 109); Arnoldi Chronica Slavorum VI.8, MGH SRG [14.], 228– 229; Monumenta Erphesfurtensia, MGH SRG [42.], 202–203; Cronica Reinhardsbrunnensis, MGH SS XXX/1, 568. 183 Monumenta Erphesfurtensia, MGH SRG [42.], 203; Sächsische Weltchronik 345, MGH Deutsche Chroniken II, 237. 184 Hermanni Altahensis Annales, MGH SS XVII, 386. 185 Continuatio Admuntensis, MGH SS IX, 590; Annalium Pragensium I, FRB II, 282. The remark of Arnold of Lübeck that Přemysl had to give one-half of Bohemia to Theobald (Arnoldi Chronica Slavorum VI.8, MGH SRG [14.], 229) is apparently confused. 92 CHAPTER 3 to Philip of Swabia and took an oath of fealty.186 Yet the rapid disintegration of the Welf coalition cannot be connected only with the Hohenstaufen predomi nance on the battlefield. No less merit was attributable to Philip’s diplomats. Information on them is very rare, however. The tools that have been used to sculpt our story over the abyss of time are too coarse, but no others are avail able. The only exception to the rule are the travel accounts of Bishop of Passau Wolfger of Erla.187 The short list of expenses incurred by the bishop of Passau during his personal visitations to Austrian parishes in the last third of 1203 reveals that between 22 September and the beginning of January 1204 Wolfger received an envoy of the king of Bohemia at least three times188 and twice negotiated with the messengers of the margrave of Moravia,189 with whom he apparently met in Znojmo already at the beginning of October.190 The subject of the dis cussions is not known, but one item, by which the bishop paid the debt for the cloth used for coating the saddle of the queen of Bohemia, implies191 that they were dealing with Přemysl’s divorce and probably also Theobald’s oath of fealty as well as the possible return of the Czechs among Philip’s supporters. Twelve months had passed, and everything was different. Whereas period commentators connected the sweeping change in 1204 with the moods of the fickle fortune, critical historiography has not agreed on a single interpretation. Philip of Swabia truly needed good helpings of luck and courage when he set out for Goslar in the spring. Nevertheless, the events of the next weeks were determined by more general reasons. While Otto IV insisted on the direct con trol of the family possessions around Brunswick and was evidently inspired by the English conception of the royal power, Philip relied on concessions and, with the exception of Hermann, landgrave of Thuringia, and Přemysl, king of Bohemia, who had to be punished for treason, he rewarded his loyal sup porters as well as defectors. Henry, duke of Brabant, received Maastricht and Duisburk; Henry, prince of the Rhine Palatinate, was given imperial Vogtei in Goslar; 5000 marks of silver were added to the leaky treasury of the archbishop of Cologne; first of all, however, the influence of the Hohenstaufen ministe-

186 Chronica regia Coloniensis III, MGH SRG [18.], 219; Schütte 2002, 418–419. 187 Heger 1970; Novotný 1928, 258–259. 188 Heger 1970, 79; 82; 83; 84. 189 Heger 1970, 84; 89; 90. 190 Heger 1970, 80: . . . [Apud] Znoim cuidam nuncio . xij . den. Joculatori cuidam . xij . den . . . 191 Heger 1970, 82. The Margrave 93 riales increased.192 Philip crowned the excellent year at the diet in Aachen. According to the royal chronicle, he relinquished the royal title as well as the crown jewels on 6 January. He was immediately elected by the princes pre sent, anointed at the right place and, along with his wife Irene, ceremonially crowned by the archbishop of Cologne Adolph.193 This removed the last formal and procedural objections to Philip’s election, and a cautious hope that peace would finally be restored spread throughout the Empire.194 The unrecognised Otto withdrew to Brunswick but retained some influence even there. A generous loan from King of England John filled the coffers. Otto retained the favour also of the members of the Cologne patriciate, who appre ciated the privileges conferred upon them. Philip’s main assault was therefore directed against the Rhine Basin. Already in the autumn of 1205, Cologne faced the first problems. In five days, the burghers repelled a number of attacks by Philip and his forces. In the skirmishes before Cologne, also Otto IV was wounded, having been challenged by the famous warrior Henry of Kalden.195 Significant losses and the ring of fortifications, which was insurmountable at that time, made Philip retreat, which both camps perceived as a failure. It was certain that the Hohenstaufen coalition would return to Cologne.196 Careful preparations took almost one year and included also a diplomatic mission to the papal curia.197 As late as the beginning of June 1206, Philip moved to Cologne and had the surrounding areas devastated. In anticipation of a direct confrontation of forces, he summoned the core of his army to the field camp Wassenberg, though. His wish came true on 27 July. After Otto’s procession was dispersed by Henry of Kalden, the rest of the army began a confused retreat, which grew into panic.198 After the bloody victory at Wassenberg, it was only a matter of time when the gates of Cologne would open before the triumphant Philip. In the eventful summer of 1206, he remained loyal to the shaken and probably even injured Otto; nevertheless, after the two men had a personal conversation, there were

192 Schütte 2002, 416–559. 193 Chronica regia Coloniensis III, MGH SRG [18.], 219–220; Braunschweigische Reimchronik 54, MGH Deutsche Chroniken II, 534, v. 5995–6003. 194 Continuatio Claustroneoburgensis secunda, MGH SS IX, 621. 195 Chronica regia Coloniensis II, MGH SRG [18.], 177–178; Braunschweigische Reimchronik 55, MGH Deutsche Chroniken II, 535, v. 6108–6114. 196 Chronica regia Coloniensis II, MGH SRG [18.], 178; Annales Mellicenses, MGH SS IX, 506; Reineri Annales, MGH SS XVI, 659. 197 MGH Const II, 10–14, No. 10. 198 Chronica regia Coloniensis II, MGH SRG [18.], 179–180. 94 CHAPTER 3 voices fearing that they might reach agreement at the expense of the urban community. The two coevals, kings and rivals, stood face to face before the walls of Cologne already soon after the battle; unless the third redaction of the Cologne chronicle was wrong, it was a friendly meeting.199 Peace was not concluded, however. The Hohenstaufen troops left the devastated Rhine Basin at the beginning of October. Soon, envoys of the Cologne patriciate asked for Philip’s audience. After several deferrals, a truce was finally concluded at the January congress in Sinzig, and the conditions under which Cologne could change sides were defined.200 The careful rapprochement culminated in the middle of April 1207, when Philip solemnly entered the city and spent a full fortnight there.201 At the end of April, he then sealed a number of privileges and customs freedoms for the Cologners.202 In the middle of 1207, even Pope Innocent admitted to himself what the true state of affairs was. Therefore, he sent a delegation across the Alps and carefully tried to persuade Otto IV to make concessions. At the August diet in Speyer, he addressed Philip through his envoys and himself opened the issue of Philip’s excommunication. Contemporary sources imply that the legates were accommodating and that the curia began to revaluate the until-then- cold relationship with the Swabian elect.203 Philip’s increasing self-esteem was demonstrated in numerous actions worthy of a ruler, by which he continued the imperial heritage of his ancestors. In quick succession, he negotiated with the princes and the Roman curia, convened diets and, within the bounds of possibility, tried to restore the royal power. Much had been hopelessly lost. Nevertheless, Philip had won considerable respect, and in the summer of 1208 he could muster an expedition to Quedlinburg, which was to take control of the core of Welf domains.204 He undoubtedly counted on Czech troops, whose loyalty he ensured in December 1207, when he ceremonially announced before the princes assembled at the diet in Augsburg, including Margrave Vladislaus Henry,205 the engagement of his daughter Kunigunde with Přemysl’s two-year-

199 Chronica regia Coloniensis III, MGH SRG [18.], 224; Chronica regia Coloniensis II, MGH SRG [18.], 180. 200 Chronica regia Coloniensis II, MGH SRG [18.], 181. 201 Chronica regia Coloniensis II, MGH SRG [18.], 181; Chronica regia Coloniensis III, MGH SRG [18.], 224. 202 RI V/1, 42, No. 143b; 42, No. 143c; 42, No. 144. 203 Burchardi praepositi Urspergensis Chronicon, MGH SRG [16.], 89; Ottonis de Sancto Blasio Chronica 48, MGH SRG [47.], 80; Annales Marbacenses, MGH SRG [9.], 77; Arnoldi Chronica Slavorum VII.6, MGH SRG [14.], 263. 204 Braunschweigische Reimchronik 56, MGH Deutsche Chroniken II, 537, v. 6279–6285. 205 CDB II, 65, No. 73; RI V/1, 48, No. 169; 48, No. 171. The Margrave 95 old son Wenceslas.206 Of course, the public promise did not mean that it would be fulfilled, but for the Czech side, it had a significant meaning, because Philip, despite the objections of Theodoric, margrave of Meissen, labelled Wenceslas as the only heir to the royal throne.207 As soon as the ducal courts had stopped discussing the Augsburg engage ment, they began to debate the summer campaign, which was supposed to end the protracted struggle for the royal crown. The eagerly awaited change, however, occurred not occur in Saxony but in Bamberg. On 21 June, approxi mately at 3 p.m., when Philip had had phlebotomy performed and was taking rest, Otto of Wittelsbach, count palatine of the Bavarian duchy, knocked on the door of his chamber in the bishop’s palace. In the room, he saw Philip of Swabia and two of his councillors. Shouting ‘This isn’t going to be a game!’, he drew his sword and inflicted a bloody wound on the king. After taking several steps, the king fell dead. In the confusion, Otto and his faithful left the palace.208 The Erfurt chronicle described it as something unheard of with the Germans, by which the commentator perfectly expressed the sincere consternation of the contemporaries.209 Most chroniclers quickly wrote that the events in Bamberg were acts of personal vengeance by Count Palatine Otto.210 Private motives were attributed to the count palatine also by Abbot of Lübeck Arnold,211 but the proscriptive document of Otto of Brunswick from 1209 reveals that seri ous suspicion fell on Bishop of Bamberg Ekbert and Margrave of Istria Henry, who shared their Andechs-Meran origin.212 Burchard of Ursberg directly says that the count palatine was supported by the bishop of Bamberg and Henry of Andechs.213 That was also the reason why Bernd Ulrich Hucker concluded that the Bamberg incident had been carefully planned and that Otto was only the

206 Annalium Pragensium I, FRB II, 283; Annales Heinrici Heimburgensis, FRB III, 311; Bur chardi praepositi Urspergensis Chronicon, MGH SRG [16.], 86; Hermanni Altahensis Annales, MGH SS XVII, 386. 207 RI V/1, 47–48, No. 168b; 48, No. 169; 48, No. 170; 48, No. 171; 48, No. 172; 48, No. 173. 208 Winkelmann 1873, 462–4 65; 536–541; Csendes 2003, 189–190. 209 Monumenta Erphesfurtensia, MGH SRG [42.], 205. 210 Chronica regia Coloniensis III, MGH SRG [18.], 225–226; Burchardi praepositi Urspergensis Chronicon, MGH SRG [16.], 89–90; Ottonis de Sancto Blasio Chronica 48, MGH SRG [47.], 82–83; Annales Marbacenses, MGH SRG [9.], 78; Monumenta Erphesfurtensia, MGH SRG [42.], 205. 211 Arnoldi Chronica Slavorum VII.12, MGH SRG [14.], 281–283. 212 Hucker 1990, 676–687, No. 4 Hucker 1998b, 309–310, No. 3.7. 213 Burchardi praepositi Urspergensis Chronicon, MGH SRG [16.], 90. 96 CHAPTER 3 last visible member of the conspiracy, whose traces seem to have led to France and Duke of Brabant Henry.214 It is hard to unravel now the true intentions of the conspirators when the opinion then satisfied itself with a single culprit. Whereas both Andechs sought asylum in Hungary, Otto, blamed by all, hid at the castle Wittelsbach. After it was conquered, he retreated to the Danube Basin. In early March, he was killed by Henry of Kalden in a granary at the Danube near Regensburg.215 At that time, however, Philip had already become a memory. Ruthless loo ting of monastic estates and imperial goods reminded the princes that order could only be restored by the king. After brief negotiations, the Brabant candidature was rejected. At the end of the summer of 1208, an influential ministerialis, Imperial Marshal (Reichsmarschall) Henry of Kalden, defected to Otto’s side.216 Otto was further encouraged at the Würzburg diet on 8 September, when he received support from Meissen, Thuringia and the ‘east ern lands’.217 Two months later, Otto opened the discussions of the Frankfurt diet, where he received the royal insignia and, along with them, the primacy in imperial affairs.218 Not only did Wittelsbach’s sword end Philip’s life but its single stroke also severed all of the carefully spun threads of Přemyslid plans, which no longer considered the return under Welf banners. Přemysl Otakar and Vladislaus Henry were neither welcomed nor expected by Otto IV. They could only hope for the winner’s generosity. Nevertheless, the awareness that Přemysl’s per sonal enemy Theodoric of Meissen stayed close to the king banished even the most careful thoughts of a possible restoration of friendly relations. The Prague courts kept postponing a meeting with Otto. Although Arnold of Lübeck claims the opposite, it is not certain whether any of the Přemyslids accepted the invitation to the diet in Altenburg in May 1209.219 They are quite certain, however, to have come to the meeting in Würzburg two weeks later, where Otto IV announced the ride to Rome.220 Yet the reserved attitude of the

214 Hucker 1998, 111–127. 215 Chronica regia Coloniensis III, MGH SRG [18.], 228; Annales Marbacenses, MGH SRG [9.], 78. 216 Pfister 1937. 217 MGH Const II, 32–33, No. 27. 218 Burchardi praepositi Urspergensis Chronicon, MGH SRG [16.], 96–97; Chronica regia Col oniensis III, MGH SRG [18.], 227–228; Monumenta Erphesfurtensia, MGH SRG [42.], 206. 219 Arnoldi Chronica Slavorum VII.16, MGH SRG [14.], 287–288. 220 Arnoldi Chronica Slavorum VII.17, MGH SRG [14.], 289; RI V/1, 88–89, No. 280b. It should be mentioned, however, that one of the Zábrdovice forgeries mentioned Vladislaus’ The Margrave 97

Welf court remained the same, and it seems that Otto did not count on Czech participation at all. At the beginning of 1209, he began to exchange letters with towns in Lombardy.221 At the diet in Speyer on 23 March, he renewed impe rial commitments to the Roman curia and sealed them with a golden bull. He solemnly recognized the borders of St Peter’s domain; he relinquished his right to the spolium in ecclesiastical possessions, the tithe; and he promised not to interfere with the investiture of imperial bishops.222 Under these conditions, the pope invited Otto IV to assume the imperial crown. The coronation ride to Rome was planned for the summer of 1209. Its participants were to meet on the Lech on the feast of St James, hence on 25 July. Before that, however, Otto IV organised a highly attended Hoftag in Würzburg, where he announced his engagement to Philip’s daughter Beatrix and his intention to undertake a crusade.223 Already at the beginning of October, he pitched a camp in Monte Mario, whence he could see the whole of Rome as well as the holiest point of the coronation, St Peter’s Basilica. After two days of waiting, he guaranteed safety to the pope, all the cardinals and the town as well as the people of Rome, and he could finally enter the town.224 It was 4 October, and after ten years of fighting, Otto wondered what to do next.225 Much was implied during the winter months. The imperial retinue moved to Tuscany, where Otto, despite his promises, began to restore the imperial administration. In February 1210, he promoted the former Hohenstaufen ministerialis Theobald of Schweinspoint to duke of Spoleto;226 in June, he forged an alliance with Pisa and began to prepare for the struggle for the throne of Sicily.227 This, how ever, came as a surprise for Pope Innocent III, who all along had been trying to prevent the connection of Sicily and the imperial crown. He probably felt cheated; he even referred to Otto’s attitude as unprecedented ingratitude; in this balance of powers, however, he was almost helpless. He asked the king of France for advice, but the imperial army had already crossed the borders of the kingdom of Sicily and had, by the end of October, occupied all major castles

return from some expedition (CDB II, 391–393, No. 363: . . . quod dux Vladizlaus de expe- ditione rediens . . . ), which Hurt 1969, 6 interpreted as his return from Italy. That is impos sible though. The text most likely referred to the Würzburg diet in the spring of 1209. 221 MGH Const II, 33, No. 28; 34–35, No. 29. 222 MGH Const II, 36–37, No. 31. 223 Arnoldi Chronica Slavorum VII.17, MGH SRG [14.], 289–291. 224 MGH Const II, 43, No. 34. 225 Hilpert 1982, 123–140; Hucker 1990, 183–196. 226 Hucker 1990, 503–505. 227 MGH Const II, 44–47, No. 37. 98 CHAPTER 3 and cities in southern Italy. This was followed by the issuance of the excommu nication bull of 18 November 1210, and an urgent call for the election of a new king travelled across the Alps.228 The malcontents were led by Siegfried, archbishop of Mainz, who had gathe red a varied company around himself. Besides the former supporters of Philip of Swabia, the metropolitan of Magdeburg and the king of Bohemia, the pleas of the curia were heard by Landgrave of Thuringia Hermann. This group first came together at a secret meeting in Naumburg in April 1211. An invitation had been received also by Margrave of Meissen Theodoric, who had refused, how ever, thus accelerating and actually also simplifying further decisions. In the summer there was a meeting in Bamberg, but the decisive diet was convened in Nuremberg at the beginning of September. The metropolitan of Mainz first published the papal interdict of 18 November, after which the present princes, the king of Bohemia, the duke of Austria, the duke of Bavaria and the landgrave of Thuringia elected Frederick, king of Sicily, Emperor (regem Sicilie elegerunt in imperatorem coronandum).229 Until recently, the unusual course of the election producing the emperor was overestimated. For instance, the legal historian Heinrich Mitteis concluded that it was a project of an empire that was to break free from its subjection to the Roman curia.230 In 1211, however, no one thought of anything like that. The imperial election only claimed that Frederick, as the elected, i.e., future, emperor (imperator electus), could compete for the votes of the princes.231 This is likely to have been the message brought to Italy by Anselm of Justingen and Henry of Neuffen. Unless our main reporter Burchard, provost of Ursberg, is wrong, they were equipped with a sum of 1500 marks of silver for the journey.232 The further course of events is well known. The emperor interrupted the military operations in the kingdom of Sicily and, after his rapid return, con vened a large diet in Frankfurt for March 1212. Přemysl Otakar, as ‘the first’233 of the supporters of the young Hohenstaufen, could not count on the generos

228 Haidacher 1958/1960, 132–185; Haidacher 1960/1961, 26–36. 229 Burchardi praepositi Urspergensis Chronicon, MGH SRG [16.], 99; Chronica regia Col oniensis III, MGH SRG [18.], 232; Monumenta Erphesfurtensia, MGH SRG [42.], 208–209; Cronica Reinhardsbrunnensis, MGH SS XXX/1, 578; Magdeburger Schöppenchronik, 135– 136; Winkelmann 1878, 500–501; Bretholz 1897, 293–298; Tillmann 1964, 34–85. 230 Mitteis 1987, 120. 231 Wihoda 2012, 95–106. 232 Burchardi praepositi Urspergensis Chronicon, MGH SRG [16.], 99. 233 MGH DF II (XIV/2), 1–5, No. 171 . . . et quod illustris rex eorum Ottacharus a primo inter alios principes specialiter pre ceteris in imperatorem nos elegit et nostre electionis perseverantie diligenter et utiliter astiterit . . . The Margrave 99 ity of the imperial court, whose influential figure was Theodoric of Meissen, who had plans to install on the Prague throne his nephew and Přemysl’s son from his first marriage, Vratislaus;234 therefore he did not come at all. Notwithstanding, numerous other electors of Frederick sent delegates to the diet. The laboriously cemented coalition suffered serious losses, but it was not left at that. The emperor was not going to be satisfied with a partial triumph. Already in Frankfurt, he concluded an alliance agreement with Margrave of Meissen Theodoric, in which he undertook, among other things, to grant the kingdom of Bohemia in fief to Theodoric’s nephew Vratislaus. He actually kept his word.235 At Pentecost, that is, on 13 May, he presented the entire issue to the assembled princes in Nuremberg and, in the presence of the Czech leaders and many noblemen (presentibus supanis et pluribus nobilibus terrae), he decorated Přemysl’s son Vratislaus with six banners (cum 6 vexillis assignat).236 Although it is not certain who else watched the ceremonial promotion, even the general mention of the presence of the Czech elites suggests that there was a group of exiles around Vratislaus that could guarantee the legitimacy of the election procedure. The prince might have been supported even by Přemysl’s former chamberlain Černín.237 The seriousness of the situation was realised in Prague, which is indicated by the visit of Vladislaus Henry, who stayed in Nuremberg only three days before the verdict was announced.238 The margrave of Moravia undoubtedly met Emperor Otto, but the reason for the audience is not entirely clear. The balanced cooperation between the two Přemyslids before and after 1212 implies that Vladislaus Henry probably asked about the conditions under which it would be possible to renew the truce.239 It seems that the margrave was not heard. Probably before the middle of May, he returned to the Czech lands empty-handed. Přemysl must have realised then that he was in a difficult situation. He could subject himself to Otto and hope, like others, for Otto’s generosity or go to the extreme and begin a war which he could not win, as he was aware. After Nuremberg, it was also clear that the emperor would lend an ear mainly to the Wettin proposals and that

234 CDB II, 74, No. 79. 235 MGH Const II, 48–49, No. 39. 236 Chronica regia Coloniensis III, MGH SRG [18], 232–233. 237 Annalium Pragensium I, FRB II, 283; Kalista 1928, 49–61. 238 CDOT, 11–12, No. 12 (CDB II, 91–92, No. 95). 239 The opposite reason–that Vladislaus Henry had stayed in Nuremberg because he had not agreed with Přemysl’s policy–was given by Dvořák 1899/1900, 109. Certain extortion on the part of the margrave of Moravia was supposed also by Bistřický 1988b, 25; Bistřický 1991, 213. 100 CHAPTER 3

Přemysl might not be saved even by an unconditional surrender. In the spring of 1212, moreover, he did not have many allies, and the number of those the basically lonely ruler could trust was even lower. One of the chosen appears to have been the margrave of Moravia, who was linked with Přemysl not only by kinship but also by a common past. Beginning with the truce of December 1197, through the campaign in Thuringia in 1203 to the diet at Würzburg six years later, the two brothers always acted in perfect harmony, which substan tially increased the Czech influence on the imperial political scene. Vladislaus Henry probably had not taken part in Přemysl’s coronation in Boppard, but already the next year he accompanied his brother to the diet in Nuremberg (or Speyer?) and had himself entered among the supporters and electors of Philip of Swabia. Three years later, he covered for his brother’s move to the Welf camp; during the fights in Thuringia, he brought Moravian troops to Erfurt and witnessed Přemysl’s awarding ceremony before Merseburg. At his brother’s side, he weathered the crisis of 1204 and the return to the Hohenstaufen camp; in Augsburg, he witnessed the engagement of his nephew Wenceslas; and he spent the Pentecost of 1209 beside Přemysl in the Main Basin. It is not clear whether he pronounced himself also for the candidature of the king of Sicily Frederick or let his brother represent him. Nevertheless, the Nuremberg mission in May 1212 implies that the margrave was not a direct participant in the designation election. His presence at the Bamberg diet in 1201 and his contacts with Wolfger, the bishop of Passau, in the autumn of 1203 reveal that he had preserved some independence. His liberty of action combined with his respect for the interests of the Prague court made the margrave a trustworthy partner who gained respect both at home and abroad in the first decade of the 13th century. Among the Princes of the Holy Roman Empire, Vladislaus Henry stepped out of his brother’s shadow, by which he denied the original sense of the title of Margrave, symbolising subordination to the ruler of Bohemia within hereditary Přemyslid posses sions. It is likely to have been precisely this experience that began to write the first lines of the story of the self-confident, emancipated land of Moravia.

3 Two Moravias

It is indisputable that Vladislaus Henry was regularly invited to Hoftage and that the princes of the Empire considered him as their equal. However, there is some uncertainty in the Bohemian-Moravian context, because he had agreed with his brother on joint government but at the beginning had managed only meagre possessions in southern Moravia. Not much changed after the death The Margrave 101 of the dukes of Olomouc Vladimir and Bretislaus, because their possessions were immediately incorporated into the system of royal estates controlled by Přemysl. In addition, Moravian provinces were apparently considered as part of the royal domain and, as such, underwent an extensive reform.240 Probably already in 1201, Přemysl Otakar began with the reconstruction of the Olomouc castle. The newly built fortification wall around the St Wenceslas Cathedral made it so difficult to perform religious services that the bishop Robert approached Innocent III with the request to move the centre of the Moravian bishopric to St Peter’s in the bailey.241 For unclear reasons, the pope did not make a decision until 5 April 1207, when he entrusted the abbots of Hradisko and Velehrad with further negotiations. The result of the investigation is unknown, but it seems that a mutually acceptable agreement was reached, because St Wenceslas Cathedral remained the heart of the Olomouc bishop ric and, moreover, Robert received a privilege in which Přemysl Otakar I con firmed old liberties to the bishopric.242 Unfortunately, the royal charter has not been provided with a date, but the respective confirmation left the papal office on 8 January 1207,243 which is still before the appointment of the con ciliation committee. This might indicate that the construction modifications began with the bishop’s consent and that some discrepancies appeared later, during construction work. Přemysl derived the legitimacy of his rule over Moravia not from the title of King of Bohemia but from the simultaneous title of Duke. Precisely for this rea son, as the third king of the Bohemians and the duke of the Olomoucers (rex Boemorum tercius et dux Olomucensium), he left the tithe levied on the Holasice province to the bishopric in July 1201.244 Before the middle of 1207, he multiplied the income of the Augustinian nuns at St Peter’s in Olomouc as the king of the Bohemians and duke of the Moravians (rex Boemorum et dux Morauorum).245 Přemysl’s direct relation to the Olomouc region is also proved by the privilege for the Chapter of St Wenceslas from 1209.246 Nevertheless, the system was entirely different here on 31 December 1213, when Vladislaus Henry excluded the prop erty of the Knights Hospitaller of St John all over Moravia (in tota Moravia) from the authority of the margrave’s officials, gave the knights immunity following

240 Horna 1929, 12–15; Jan 2000, 17–32. 241 CDB II, 61–62, No. 66; Bistřický 1986, 111; Michna–Pojsl, 110–111. 242 CDB II, 52–55, No. 59. 243 CDB II, 57–58, No. 62. 244 CDB II, 18–20, No. 22. 245 CDB II, 56, No. 60. 246 CDB II, 79–80, No. 86. 102 CHAPTER 3

FIGURE 16 The abbot of Milevsko Gerlach emphasised that the future of the Přemyslid possessions had been determined on 6 December 1197, when the two brothers allegedly agreed on joint government—Přemysl Otakar was to rule in Bohemia and Vladislaus Henry in Moravia. In reality, however, Přemysl Otakar I kept the Olomouc region, which he ceded to his brother as late as sometime after 1209. It was definitely before the end of 1213, because in the privilege for the Knights Hospitaller of St John from 31 December 1213, Vladislaus Henry solemnly confirmed the Order’s property all over Moravia (in tota Moravia). Photography by NA (National Archives) Prague.

the Velehrad model and freed the possessions of the order of land burdens, spe cifically the obligation to supply cattle for the duke and his retinue (nářez), the obligation to accommodate and feed the duke (nocleh) and the obligation to accompany the duke on his travels and show him the way (povoz).247

247 CDB II, 103–104, No. 109. The Margrave 103

The self-confidence of the margrave, who entrusted the notary to mention in the charter that the privileges had earlier been granted to the knights on his behalf by the king of Bohemia, is simply impossible not to notice. Surprisingly enough, Přemysl did not protest. On the contrary, he approved the content of the privilege in the same place and at the same time while adding himself that ‘all over Moravia’ meant the Olomouc, Znojmo, Brno and Holasice regions (in tota Moravia, scilicet in Olomucensi, in Znoemensi, in Brenensi, in Golessicensi provinciis).248 Gerlach’s legendary statement about one will and one principal ity of the two brothers then came true. Did the abbot of Milevsko, however, refer precisely to this moment? Maybe, although when Přemysl’s privileges for the Chapter of Olomouc of 1209 are taken into account, Moravia did not have to be unified under the margrave’s sceptre on the last day of 1213, although it could have been slightly earlier, sometime between 1209 and 1213. Unfortunately, Gerlach’s annals end with the year 1198, and the St Vitus scriptorium, which kept records close to the royal court, passed the events in Moravia in silence. It evidently gave priority to developments on the imperial scene, so it captured Přemysl’s inclination to the Welf side as well as his return to the Hohenstaufen, the defeat of the archbishop of Cologne, the murder of Philip of Swabia, Otto’s Roman coronation ride, the imperial coronation and finally the election of Frederick II of Sicily.249 There was, however, not a single word of Vladislaus Henry and the margraviate. What is left are only questions. One exception is the charter Mocran et Mocran. The famous privilege refers to 26 September 1212. It claims to have been issued in Basel, and, since it was validated by a majestic seal of the royal office of Sicily made in gold, it belongs to the set of decrees known under the name ‘the Golden Bull of Sicily’.250 The essential information interesting for us is hid den in the mysterious passage in which the designated king of the Romans and of Germany (imperator electus), Frederick II, entrusted and confirmed Mocran et Mocran to the margrave and his heirs with all the rights and appurtenances as well as obligations to the imperial court (eidem marchioni et heredibus suis de nostra liberalitatis munificentia concedimus et confirmamus Mocran et Mocran cum omni iure et pertinentiis suis, salvo servitio, quod inde curie nostre debetur).251 What does it say about Moravia, though?

248 CDB II, 104–106, No. 110. 249 Annalium Pragensium I, FRB II, 282–283. 250 Wihoda 2012. 251 MGH DF II (XIV/2) 5–7, No. 172. 104 CHAPTER 3

FIGURE 17 It is not known what exactly Frederick II of Sicily had in mind when on 26 September 1212 he bestowed on Vladislaus Henry the possession of ‘Mocran et Mocran’ with all the rights and appurtenances and with the proviso that obligations towards the court be preserved. Yet it is not excluded that his notary misunderstood the original and in good faith corrected ‘entrust and confirm Moravia and Moravia’ (concedimus et confirmamus Moraviam et Moraviam), which announced the unification of both parts of Moravia under the margrave’s sceptre, to the obscure ‘Mocran et Mocran’. Photography by NA (National Archives) Prague. The Margrave 105

A straightforward answer can obviously be found in the mysterious phrase ‘Mocran et Mocran’. Its meaning was the subject of a series of fierce contro versies in the past. The first symbolic shot was fired in 1901, when Bertold Bretholz offered a daring but definitely imaginative solution, based on the list of Moravian land privileges and an analysis of the handwriting: he proved that the scribe misunderstood the source and replaced the original phrase ‘we entrust and confirm the Margraviate of Moravia’ with his own figment, some estate ‘Mocran et Mocran’.252 Bretholz was not trying to quibble about trivialities. His reading accommodated the ideas that the margraviate was an imperial fief, which found a positive response among land patriots as well as nationalists supporting the idea of Greater Germany. Also Czech historiogra phy temporarily yielded to the arguments provided, although its bitter affir mation and ill-concealed aversion to anything German prepared ground for the return to František Palacký, who had seen an imperial fief of an unknown location ‘in both Mokřanys’ before Bretholz.253 Rudolf Koss, the senior lecturer of the Prague German Faculty of Arts and councillor of the archives of the land, subsequently entered these waters. When studying the Crown Archives, he realised that Ulrich Vincent, who under Rudolph II had managed the col lection of privileges and had made an inventory of it, connected ‘Mocran et Mocran’ of 1212 with the acquisition of the county of Lindau and the small town of Möckern in Brandenburg in 1370 (actually 1373). Therefore, he rejected the possibility that the office staff in Basel would have made a mistake and con cluded that Vladislaus Henry had been given not Moravia but, just like Přemysl Otakar, selected estates in Germany, by which he refuted not only Bretholz but also the imperial status of the margraviate of Moravia.254 Rudolf Koss evidently relied on meticulous research and believed that he had managed to refute Bretholz’s theses. Nevertheless, he chose a more cau tious style and expressed his ideas in an almost timid diction. Unfortunately, none of this applied to his epigones. The obscure Brandenburg ‘nest’ Möckern ‘miraculously’ transformed into an important land fortress. Despite the fact that Josef Pekař brought to readers’ attention in an otherwise appreciative review that the whole speculation was based on a record by a registrar from the beginning of the 17th century,255 the feeling that ‘it simply must have been so’

252 Bretholz 1901, 305–320. 253 Palacký 1894, 285. 254 Koss 1928, 3–28. 255 Pekař 1926, 604: . . . jde tu do velké míry jen o dohad, jenž je op?en na zápisu registrátora z poč. (sic!) 16. století, který může býti také pouze dohadem . . . [to a great extent, it is only a 106 CHAPTER 3

FIGURE 18 The literally groundbreaking interpretation of the privilege Mocran et Mocran was presented by Bertold Bretholz (1862–1936), a talented and favourite student of Theodor von Sickel; it is a pity that he gradually became involved with German nationalism. Photography by AMB (Brno City Archives). predominated in the Czech literature for many years.256 An analysis of the pro vincial situation has shown, however, that Möckern was not, and could not be, an important imperial castle. From the end of the 12th century, it had belonged to the counts of Arnstein. This was also the situation in 1373, when Emperor Charles IV expressed his interest in this estate. In other words, the Rudolphine inventory does not prove at all that Vladislaus Henry would have received precisely the castle Möckern. In the best case, it only shows the opinion of the author, namely Ulrich Vincent, and that is something entirely different. After all, why should they, during the reign of Rudolph II at the turn of the 17th cen tury, know better than anyone before what Frederick’s notary had had in mind when he wrote the phrase ‘Mocran et Mocran’ on the parchment in Basel on 26 September 1212?257

speculation based on the records of a registrar from the beginning (sic!) of the 16th cen tury, which could also be a mere conjecture . . . ] 256 Hlaváček 1996, 45–51; Žemlička 2002c, 103–111. 257 Wihoda 2012, 158–165. The Margrave 107

Rudolf Koss made the same mistake as Bertold Bretholz. He succumbed to the seductive idea that his predecessors might have drawn on excellent sources and information, although he, as a great connoisseur of the Crown Archives, must have known that Ulrich Vincent had worked with roughly the same collection of documents as he did. Bertold Bretholz relied on the tradi tion of the 17th century, while Rudolf Koss trusted the period of Rudolph II. Coincidentally, they both demonstrated that laborious research, many years of experience and actually even brilliant knowledge do not necessarily have to lead to the desired ‘breaking of the code’ of the Mocran et Mocran bull. This and efforts to save the ‘indivisibility of the Czech state’ may have been the reasons why even more recent literature could contain a purely speculative interpreta tion which strongly rejected the possibility that they would not have known what to do with the source in Basel. Something like that was declared incom patible with the content of the documents, because those allegedly respected the indivisible power of the king of Bohemia. A clue for the interpretation and indisputable evidence that Frederick II of Sicily referred only and solely to an imperial fief was found in a specifying postscript, in which he reserved the right to the services that were to be provided by the estate ‘Mocran et Mocran’ to the royal court (salvo servitio, quod inde curie nostre debetur). Where was that place to be sought? A suitable property was discovered by Josef Žemlička, specifically in the settlement Mockern. It had belonged to Altenburg from historically known beginnings and had been used by the local ministeriales, but its position on the way to Merseburg, its feudal status and naturally the place name perfectly agreed with the features of the mysterious fief donated in Basel. No serious discrepancy was found in the double gift (Mocran et Mocran). Supposedly because the Middle Ages knew topographic pairs and used them in the form upper–lower, big–small or old–new, and because the surroundings of Altenburg were allegedly being innovated around 1212, this transformation could have assumed the form of two settlements called ‘Mocran et Mocran’ and could have changed in the next years into a single settlement called Mocren, Mokrene, Muckern and Mukrena. It is also possible to consider the nearby settlement Klein-Mückern. Then the Basel privilege would have mentioned two settlements lying next to each other.258 Unfortunately, the indicated interpretation is accompanied by a number of weaknesses and questionable places. Before Josef Žemlička worked his way up to Mockern near Altenburg, he had to reject the idea that Vladislaus Henry and Přemysl ruled in parallel, although the period sources more or less clearly claim the opposite; he questioned Vladislaus’ influence on the imperial soil,

258 Žemlička 2006, 733–781; Žemlička 2007b, 305–348; Žemlička 2007c, 251–289. 108 CHAPTER 3 which also contradicts the testimony of the reporters then; he further denied the possibility that Vladislaus Henry could have asked Frederick for Moravia without his brother knowing about it. At the same time, he also admitted that Vladislaus Henry could have become the emperor’s vassal. He created a sys tem of settlements (unknown from anywhere else and therefore unique) in which the king of Bohemia had allegedly spent the night with his retinue on his way to imperial diets. He gave the margrave the fief of Mockern, which was to complement Czech possessions along the path to Merseburg, although no such base had been necessary for the visits to the much more important Bamberg or Nuremberg, without explaining how the rights of other entities were treated in Mockern, especially when the settlement cadastre was under going an innovative transformation, which was to be reflected in the double name. In the end, he had to solve why these claims had not been captured by any document or a chronicler’s quill. This makes us ask whether there might be another more natural solution. Of course, one may accept the conclusion that it is an imperial fief of an ‘unknown location’ and continue to seek other places called Mocran on the map. Nevertheless, the search can also be done in power relations. This was the path taken by Bertold Bretholz, who noticed a rounded miniscule ‘r’ in the charter of the margrave of Moravia Přemysl for the Louka monastery of 12 July 1234.259 On two examples, he demonstrated that the placement of the rounded ‘r’ close to the preceding ‘o’ tempts one to read ‘ocr’ instead of the correct ‘or’. Therefore, he recommended that ‘Mocran et Mocran’ be corrected to ‘marchionatum Moraviae’,260 which is. However. impossible. Even though the Czech lands knew the title of Margrave, it was understood around 1212 not territorially but personally, as a particular relation to the king of Bohemia. Nevertheless, the possibility of a possible scribal error should not be rejected, in particular because in the early 13th century, Vladislaus Henry controlled only the southeastern part of Moravia; the rest of the land was governed by Přemysl Otakar I. This did not change until sometime before 31 December 1213. Why did Přemysl Otakar voluntarily surrender the rest of Moravia after more than ten years? The personal level of the generous concession will probably remain hidden in the abyss of time, but the unusual accommodating gesture might be connected with the bold diplomacy of the Prague court. The unstable coalition of the Princes of the Holy Roman Empire required the absolute unity

259 CDB III/1, 80–81, No. 74. 260 Bretholz 1901, 310–312. The Margrave 109 of the Přemyslid dynasty, but precisely that was threatened by Theobald’s kin and Margrave of Meissen Theodoric, who personally interceded for his ruth lessly banished and dishonoured sister Adelheid and her children, including Přemysl’s already adult son Vratislaus. The Meissen Wettins also supported Duke Theobald and, after the murder of Philip of Swabia in the summer of 1208, visibly disrupted the relationship between the king of Bohemia and the triumphant Otto of Brunswick. The spring months of 1212 were particularly tragic for Přemysl Otakar. If he was looking for a motif for some concessions, he could not have chosen a bet ter moment. The unexpected decline of the Hohenstaufen camp exposed the conspirators’ core and began to threaten the actual foundations of Přemysl’s power. The considerably long series of failures was further augmented by the Nuremberg mission of the margrave of Moravia, and Přemysl began to antici pate that possible domestic dissensions might seal his fate. A safe and peaceful base could be ensured by at least two agreements. The first of them transferred the strategically situated Pilsen region under the administration of Theobald’s family,261 and probably at the same time, definitely before 31 December 1213, Vladislaus Henry united in his hands all Moravian provinces. The new situ ation in Moravia could fairly well be reflected in the text of Frederick’s bull Mocran et Mocran. The mysterious phrase may be perceived as a scribal error that might be corrected to ‘Moravia and Moravia’ (Moraviam et Moraviam), with the ‘first’ Moravia being formed by the margraviate until 1212, that is, the Znojmo and Brno regions, and the ‘second’ by the Olomouc region gained by Vladislaus Henry. It is enough to admit the reasonable possibility that the set of the Basel bulls was adapted into the final form by office staff ignorant of the Czech situation.262 Could the elected King of the Romans and of Germany (imperator electus) Frederick, however, interfere into the internal organisation of the Přemyslid possessions, moreover in a manner that could be perceived as the feudal sub ordination of the margraviate of Moravia to the Empire? Jiří Kejř refused such a notion and linked his conclusions with a well-forged chain of eloquent evi dence.263 Nevertheless, it should be mentioned that Frederick II of Sicily at the end of the summer of 1212 had no idea where Moravia lay and who ruled it. He thus had to rely on well-informed advisors, but what could he have possibly

261 CDB II, 433–435, No. 386; 399–401, No. 367; Dejmek 1991, 107–110. 262 Wihoda 2012, 72–94. 263 Kejř 1978, 233–285. 110 CHAPTER 3 learnt? That Vladislaus Henry regularly attended imperial diets and that he voted for his uncle Philip of Swabia? And if he had heard something like that, is it possible that it strengthened his opinion that the margrave of Moravia was one of his allies and imperial vassals? The margraviate of Moravia really was not an imperial fief, but before 1222 a story was told in Bohemia and Moravia about Conrad, duke of Znojmo, who wished to govern Moravia by the grace of the emperor (de manu imperatoris tenere gestiebat).264 Something like that could have happened also at the beginning of Přemysl’s rule as a king, when the rapid course of events escapted from rigid legal practices. Otherwise, Abbot of Milevsko Gerlach could not have written about the December agreement and the joint government of the two brothers. Therefore, Vladislaus Henry could ask Frederick to issue the respec tive charter without calling into question the primacy of his older brother in both domestic and foreign politics. Hence, it may not have been an impe rial fief of an unknown location that was to be given only because allegedly even a modest estate on the German soil could ensure the margrave a posi tion among the imperial elite,265 but two Moravias. And why two Moravias? Simply because there were two. Otherwise, Charles IV would not have renewed the Moravian registers of landed property (tabulae terrae) in two series, Brno and Olomouc, and his reforms in 1348 would not have referred to old tradi tions, reaching deep into the past, apparently all the way back to the system of ducal courts.266 These speak to us from the privilege of Margrave of Moravia Přemysl, who in 1235 granted the canonry in Zábrdovice freedoms following the Velehrad model and had the witnesses present recorded based on the for mer ducal residences in Znojmo/Brno and Olomouc.267 More should be said about the bull Mocran et Mocran. Such an idea that the margrave of Moravia would have claimed the right to the rule over Moravia and another Moravia with all of its rights and appurtenances truly did not make sense to Frederick and his notaries. Since there was no one informed enough to give advice available, the respective draft was improved to the form known today. In addition, the mysterious phrase is not ‘Mocran et Mocran’ but ‘Mocran et Mocrā’, and if Bretholz’s comment on the placement of the minis cule ‘r’ closely to the preceding ‘o’ is correct, then Frederick’s notary essentially respected the original. Only instead of the original ‘Morā et Morā’ (?), he read

264 Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 506. 265 Žemlička 2002c, 110. 266 Jan 2000, 135–154; Janiš 2003, 273–288. 267 CDB III/1, 129–133, No. 107. The Margrave 111

FIGURE 19 The two Moravias of the margrave Vladislaus Henry. A: The state borders of the Czech Republic; B: Land borders around 1212; C: Water courses; D: The borderline between Vladislaus’ and Přemysl’s parts of Moravia; E: Administrative centres (1 – Bíteš; 2 – Bítov; 3 – Brno; 4 – Bruntál; 5 – Břeclav; 6 – Hlubčice/Głubczyce; 7 – Měnín; 8 – Olomouc; 9 – Přerov; 10 – Uničov; 11 – Vranov; 12 – Znojmo); F: Bishopric (8 – Olomouc); G: Monasteries and important commanderies of military orders (13 – Doubravník; 14 – Hradisko; 15 – Grobniki; 16 – Kounice; 17 – Louka; 18 – Nová Říše; 19 – Olomouc – St Peter’s; 20 – Opava; 21 – Rajhrad; 22 – Slavkov; 23 – Třebíč; 24 – Velehrad; 25 – Zábrdovice). Drawing by Z. Neústupný.

‘Mocran et Mocrā’, to which he added the expression ‘salvo servitio, quod inde curie nostre debetur’, which was used in southern Italy to define feudal tenure. In good faith, he thus ‘specified’ a place that had not been clear to him without having an idea that he had created a puzzle that would torment entire genera tions of historians. 112 CHAPTER 3

FIGURE 20 ‘Mocran et Mocran’, a section from the privilege. Photography by NA (National Archives) Prague.

The interpretation of the Basel bull Mocran et Mocran will probably never be clear. Currently known connections, however, prove that it was precisely around 1212 that Moravia was united under the sceptre of the margrave Vladislaus Henry. Why should one not then discover in the charter a reflection of the story of the complex transformation of ducal Moravia into margravial Moravia, comprised of two parts?

4 The December Agreement

The following speculations arise from the already well-known commentary by Abbot Gerlach, who recorded that at the end of Vladislaus’ life, in December 1197, he had reconciled with his older brother Přemysl in the sense that they were to rule together, one in Moravia and the other in Bohemia, and that they really had one will and one principality.268 What, however, guided our reporter’s quill? The balance of forces on the domestic scene or a refined sense of literary hyperbole? It is hard to say, because he soon, actually on the verge of the events of 1198, fell silent and thus owes us an appropriate answer. Nevertheless, a distant attitude to domestic events was assumed also by the well-informed canons of St Vitus, who remembered Vladislaus Henry only twice: first when he had surrendered the ducal throne, and second when they briefly mentioned his death in their continuously kept records.269 Echoes of the old stories can thus be found only in the charters, but their testimony can not be simply dismissed. That something fundamental had changed is implied by the privilege for the Hradisko monastery of July 1201, by which Přemysl confirmed and augmented Premonstratensian possessions in agreement with his brother (unâque pro germani fratris mei Wladizlay, marchionis Morauiensis), although the endowed

268 Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 514–515: . . . et confederatus est germano suo sub tali forma com- positionis, ut ambo pariter, ille in Morauia, iste in Boemia principarentur et esset ambobus, sicut unus spiritus, ita et unus principatus; quod usque hodie inter eos illibatum manet . . . 269 Annalium Pragensium I, FRB II, 282; 284. The Margrave 113 community lay near Olomouc, that is, beyond the horizon of Vladislaus’ possessions. The accompanying comments developed into a kind of public manifesto, because the notary then mentioned the memory of the last dukes of Olomouc, Vladimir and Bretislaus, to whom Přemysl Otakar had referred as his predecessors, and incorporated in the charter also a protective prayer for Přemysl’s second wife Constance and newborn (?) son Vratislaus, thus expres sing the position of the Prague court on the divorce proceedings that were taking place. The usual consent of the Bohemian and Moravian lords followed only after that.270 The equable cooperation of the two brothers is documented also by the curial letter of 15 April 1204. Pope Innocent III recognised the right of the mas ter and brethren of the Prague hospital of the Virgin Mary to unspecified prop erty in Opava, which had been given to the order by the margrave of Moravia and the king of Bohemia.271 The commandery in Opava, however, belonged to the Olomouc part of Moravia, governed by Přemysl, and attention should be paid also to the laudatory insertion by the curial notary, who referred to Vladislaus Henry as the founder (domus vestre fundator), meaning not Opava but the very first monastic house in the Czech lands, that is, the hospital at the church of St Peter in the German settlement Na Poříčí in Prague.272 Yet Prague was not the only place. Three years later, the pope took under his protection further monastic settlements in Bohemia, adding that they also came from the joint donations of the king of Bohemia and the margrave of Moravia.273 Přemysl Otakar requested his brother’s consent even when he gave a tavern to the Benedictines from Kladruby, West Bohemia. Again, Vladislaus Henry was contacted before the group of noble Czechs (cum consensu Wladizlai fratris mei et consilio Boemorum donasse).274 That was sometime before 1207. Unless the later-sealed charter of Bishop of Olomouc Robert is wrong, it was probably then that the king of Bohemia, the margrave of Moravia and the nobility of both lands sanctified the exchange of villages, as a result of which Doubravník in the Brno province passed into the hands of Stephen of Medlov.275 Still before the end of the decade, the brothers expressed themselves on the Zábrdovice foundation of the Brno valet Leo of Klobouky. They both supported the new canonry. Přemysl Otakar had a passage included in the charter in which he specified that the monastery lay in his kingdom, but in his brother’s domain

270 CDB II, 17–18, No. 21. 271 CDB II, 36–37, No. 40. 272 Wihoda 2001b, 337–347. 273 CDB II, 62–63, No. 67. 274 CDB II, 51–52, No. 58. 275 CDB II, 73–74, No. 78; Dušková 1956, 59; Doležel 1999, 321–340. 114 CHAPTER 3

(in regno nostro et in principatu fratris nostri Wladizlay, principis Morauie), that it was not, however, outside his power and that they both agreed (cum nostro et fratris nostri consensu) with its creation.276 Not even the year 1212 brought much excitement into the system estab lished. This is proved by the bishop’s protection for the monastery of St Peter in Olomouc, which was granted by the will of the king of Bohemia and with the margrave’s consent (de licentia domini incliti regis Boemie Otthacari et de consensu illustris marchionis Morauie Wladizsslai).277 Although it is not clear when the privilege was sealed, all the actors, hence both Přemyslids and Bishop of Olomouc Robert, met in Prague at the beginning of February 1213, before their departure for Regensburg (euntibus Ratisponam ad colloquium), where they were to appear for the very first time before Frederick II, the new, now prop erly elected and crowned king of the Romans and of Germany. This is at least indicated by the royal charter for the Premonstratensian nuns in Chotěšov, to which also Vladislaus Henry attached his seal at his brother’s request.278 Similarly, the margrave confirmed the royal prerogative for the Cistercians in Plasy of 8 June 1216.279 At the same time, the roles were reversed in Prostějov, for instance, when on 31 December 1213 Přemysl Otakar I granted his brother’s pleas and literally approved the margrave’s privilege for the Knights Hospitaller of St John.280 A uniform sovereign approach characterises also the gift through which the king of Bohemia and the margrave of Moravia appreciated the faithful ser vice of Conrad of Hardegg, and both issued their consent in 1220 to Conrad’s passing the estates acquired in this way to the monastery in Velehrad.281 Two years later, Dluhomil, the abbot of Břevnov, approached the margrave and had the possession of the Hranice demesne confirmed, because it was situated in his land (in cuius potestate praedictus circuitus est). In spite of the corrobora tion, however, the seal was attached to the charter only by the royal notary.282 It hence seems that the privilege was created after a preliminary agreement in the Břevnov monastery and that Vladislaus Henry did not have to be pre sent. Nevertheless, the two brothers undoubtedly met in Brno at the end of

276 CDB II, 391–393, No. 363; 393–397, No. 364. 277 CDB II, 100–101, No. 106. 278 CDB II, 433–435, No. 386. 279 CDB II, 113–114, No. 125. 280 CDB II, 104–106, No. 110. 281 CDB II, 182–183, No. 197. 282 CDB II, 213–214, No. 228. The Margrave 115

June 1222, when they issued a privilege for Hartleb of Znojmo together.283 The charter through which Vladislaus Henry, with his brother’s consent (cum consensu fratris mei domini Odachari), rewarded the valet of his wife, Wernhard, appears to have arisen from a similar practice.284 A single will is manifest also in the donation for the Cistercians in Plasy, which was dated by the royal office in Prague to the end of 1219, although the notary emphasised that its content had already been discussed earlier in the presence of the king of Bohemia and his brother, margrave of Moravia.285 Mutual helpfulness and trust may be observed even where the charters do not seem to mention anything important concerning shared sovereign rights. This is probably how one should perceive Vladislaus’ presence among the wit nesses or his membership in conciliation councils, because even these minor references testify to the sincere respect that he enjoyed on the domestic politi cal scene. Vladislaus Henry was involved in the endowment of the Milevsko monastery in 1218 and 1219;286 the next year in Hodonín, he was present at Přemysl’s donation for the Velehrad monastery,287 which he continued to sup port in Brno;288 and in Svitavy in 1221, he increased the authority of the royal confirmation for the Austrian monastery in Zwettl.289 The large set of documents provides real evidence of the equable coopera tion between the two brothers in the sense described by the abbot of Milevsko, Gerlach. After all, St Peter’s hospital in Prague was the work of the margrave alone, and Vladislaus Henry could boast numerous independent sovereign acts directly in Moravia. Sometime after 1201, he approved the donation of the knight Rudger in favour of the Louka canonry,290 and later, without his broth er’s knowledge, he confirmed291 and augmented its properties.292 The usual consent of the Prague court does not even appear in the charter for the Knights Hospitaller of St John from around 1218, through which the order obtained the right to colonise its possessions according to German Law. Vladislaus Henry, however, emphasised that the freedoms conferred applied only in his

283 CDB II, 220–221, No. 232. 284 CDM II, 129–130, No. 125. 285 CDB II, 172–174, No. 187. 286 CDB II, 142–144, No. 153; 174–175, No. 188. 287 CDB II, 181–182, No. 196. 288 CDB II, 184–185, No. 199. 289 CDB II, 205–206, No. 218. 290 CDB II, 25–26, No. 28. 291 CDB II, 220–222, No. 233. 292 CDB I, 301; CDB II, 191, No. 206; Šebánek 1956, 79–101. 116 CHAPTER 3

principality (in principatu nostro).293 In 1222, he gave Velehrad two hides near Opava and did so again in a manner that allows no doubts about the extent and character of Vladislaus’ power. The subject of the donation was owned by Ekehard, an Opava burgher, who passed the land on to the margrave of Moravia (in manus nostras resignavit). Upon Ekehard’s request, the margrave as the ruler of the land entrusted the respective property to the Cistercians.294 The margrave’s sincere interest in the Velehrad foundation is clarified by the confirmation privilege of the bishop Robert of 1222, in which Vladislaus Henry was referred to as the founder (qui fuit fundator monasterii prefati).295 That the bishop of Olomouc did not conjecture anything is confirmed not only by the Olomouc tradition296 but also by the forgery of the foundation charter, which was made in the monastic scriptorium around 1257 in connec tion with the foundation of the town of Uherské Hradiště.297 Also, Přemysl Otakar recalled his brother’s merits when in 1228 he renewed the validity of earlier privileges for the Cistercians,298 by which he meant the privilege that had left the notary’s desk shortly after 1209.299 Nevertheless, the arrival of the Cistercians in Moravia began to be discussed in 1204. If they in Velehrad com memorated Bishop of Olomouc Robert and the margrave Vladislaus Henry, it means that the abbey had been established with the margrave’s support but outside his domain at the time and without Přemysl Otakar’s direct participa tion as the ruler of the land.300 Of course, the idea that Vladislaus Henry would have dared to found a monastery in his brother’s part of Moravia without his knowledge is unrea sonable. This may also be the reason that the forger, aware of the singula rity of the Velehrad foundation, improved the document with the postscript that the deeds of the rulers of Moravia could not be valid without the consent of the king of Bohemia (principes Morauie nichil possunt conferre), because only he had the right to rule over the entire land (summus est in regno Boemie et illius terre tenet principatum).301 That was in 1257, however, and Moravia

293 CDB II, 432–433, No. 385. 294 CDB II, 207–208, No. 222. 295 CDB II, 226–227, No. 236. 296 Granum catalogi praesulum Moraviae, AÖG 78/1892, 79. 297 CDB II, 370–372, No. 355; Šebánek 1947, 263–279. 298 CDB II, 319–321, No. 321. 299 Zatschek 1931, 63–67. 300 Čechura 1981, 127–141. 301 CDB II, 370–372, No. 355. The Margrave 117

FIGURE 21 The monastic tradition claims that the first Cistercians came to the place called Velehrad on 11 November 1205 and that they could rely on the help and protection of the margrave Vladislaus Henry and Bishop of Olomouc Robert from the very beginning. Other and more reliable sources prove that the first years were not exactly easy; nevertheless already before the middle of the 13th century, an impressive monastery grew below the ridges of the Chřiby Hills. Its original Romanesque appearance and layout are still perceptible even after extensive Baroque modifications. had experienced two rebellions, through which the margraves, first Přemysl and then his nephew Přemysl Otakar II, had expressed their disagreement with the interventions of the king of Bohemia into Moravian, that is, ‘their’ affairs. The dual, most likely bitter experience could have thus erased the memories of the years when a mere ‘handshake’ was apparently enough. Undoubtedly, Vladislaus Henry and his more powerful brother must have negotiated, even if only orally, and the Velehrad case certainly was not the only one. Přemysl Otakar missed the foundation of the first towns in Moravia, whose presence, probably except for Hlubčice,302 he did not take into account until after his brother’s death. In 1223, he renewed the freedoms of Uničov burghers; the next year, he did so for those from Opava,303 which he probably would not have done unless he had had enough reliable information from the begin ning. A valuable testimony on the management of public affairs is provided

302 One can thus interpret the protocol of the charter of Přemysl Otakar II from 1275, in which the notary mentioned some common document of Přemysl’s predecessors (CDB V/2, 458–460, No. 790: . . . pre senio maceratum eis a nostris concessum predecessoribus, renovari fecimus . . . ). 303 CDB II, 237–239, No. 246; 256–257, No. 265. 118 CHAPTER 3 by the margravial privilege for Stephen of Medlov, who at the end of April 1218 received the village of Bohdanovy in the Holasice province in hereditary pos session. The actual endowment managed without royal assistance, but the notary wrote in the dating formula that the donation came into force before Bishop of Olomouc Robert in the fifteenth year of Přemysl’s reign in Bohemia and that the ruler of Bohemia approved his intention not only by virtue of his royal power but also according to the practice of the land law (non solum potestate regia, verum eciam consuetudinaria tocius Bohemie iusticia confirmavit).304 Vladislaus’ other traces lead to Rajhrad, Olomouc and Hradisko, then also to Velká Střelná and Zlaté Hory, which was allegedly occupied by the margrave without the knowledge of the king of Bohemia.305 The Premonstratensian nuns from Doksany as well as the canons at St Wenceslas in Olomouc turned to him in prayer, as if all of our reporters had before their eyes the Milevsko chronicle, more precisely Gerlach’s apt phrase about one will and one princi pality. This was doubly true in the summer of 1216, when the general diet of the Czechs met in Prague (in communi colloquio Boemorum Prage habito) to decide on Přemysl’s successor.306 The course of the deliberations and their outcome are captured in the privi lege which was sealed by the king of the Romans and of Germany Frederick II before Ulm on 26 June. The charter said that Henry, the margrave of Moravia, and all the leaders and lords of Bohemia had elected Wenceslas through their common will and with the consent of His Serene Highness, King of the Bohemians Otakar (Henricus marchio Morauie et universitas magnatum et nobilium Boemie, quod communi voluntate et assensu dilecti nostri Odacrii, illustris regis Boemie, elegerunt in regem eorum Vencezlaum), and now, through Benedict, the archdeacon of Bílina, they asked Frederick for the necessary approval. The king of the Romans and of Germany promptly complied and sent a message to Prague that he did not have any objections. At the request of the petitioners, he then had a document drawn and authenticated with a golden bull, in which he officially confirmed that Wenceslas became a full heir to the entire kingdom with all the rights belonging to it, as the kingdom had been held and owned by his father and his other predecessors, both dukes and kings.307

304 CDB II, 151–152, No. 161. 305 CDB II, 244–245, No. 254. 306 CDB II, 113–114, No. 125. 307 MGH DF II (XIV/2), 410–413, No. 377. The Margrave 119

FIGURE 22 That Vladislaus Henry significantly affected the succession order and decided with his vote that the new king of Bohemia would be his nephew Wenceslas, in whose favour he voluntarily ceded succession rights, is implied by the privilege, which was sealed by King of the Romans Frederick II of Sicily before Ulm on 26 July 1216. Photography by NA (National Archives) Prague. 120 CHAPTER 3

Frederick’s charter, which became known as the Golden Bull of Ulm, could have rightly been included among the most valuable achievements of the Přemyslid diplomacy if it had not been ‘redundant’—redundant because Frederick II had already once before explicitly undertaken to accept uncondi tionally as the ruler of Bohemia whoever is proclaimed king in Bohemia and pass the symbols of power onto him.308 He had done so in Basel through the Golden Bull of Sicily, and since he could have hardly remembered all that he had promised on 26 September 1212 (he probably expected someone to bring it to his mind), he had a document written without hesitation that disintegrated and discredited the most important part of the privilege.309 Frederick II had no idea about that, but even if it had not been so, he would not have had any reason for obstructions. The Ulm mission was the work of the Prague court, which also determined the future of the freedoms granted. In the middle of the summer of 1216, it evidently did not occur to anyone to justify the elec tion by the Golden Bull of Sicily. Was this a coincidence, a consequence of bad memory, or was Ulm the scene of the last act of the drama which was beyond the interest of Frederick II of Sicily? The key to our history might be Meissen, the place of sojourn of Přemysl’s son from his first marriage, Vratislaus, based on his age and the customs a legitimate heir to the Bohemian throne. Nevertheless, the Bull of Ulm claims something else. It sees the firstborn in Wenceslas; the diction of the privi lege reveals that this is how the utterance was worded by Benedict, the arch deacon of Bílina, who in turn had adopted the official opinion of the Prague court. For Přemysl Otakar and his wife Constance, Vratislaus was an outcast without noble origin and title, born out of wedlock. The ill-concealed uneasi ness in the royal family, however, implies that he was much more and by no means only a faded memory. The critical relations were a result of the botched divorce, in which Přemysl rid himself of Adelheid of Meissen. The necessary formalities had been promptly arranged to the king’s satisfaction by Bishop of Prague Daniel, when he had annulled the marriage for the fourth, according to canonical principles unacceptable, degree of consanguinity, but the humilia ting investigation, especially the ruthless expulsion of all the descendants, propelled Adelheid into desperate protests. She had found a safe refuge and support with Theodoric of Meissen, but she sought justice for her children at the papal curia.310

308 MGH DF II (XIV/2), 1–5, No. 171. 309 Wihoda 2012, 217–227. 310 CDB II, 6–8, No. 8; Černá 1923, 9–44. The Margrave 121

The Wettin petition was unexpectedly aided by a complaint of Canon of St Vitus Arnold, who questioned the mandate of the bishop Daniel, and the papal office immediately suspended the validity of all legal acts. That lasted until May 1202, when the conciliation committee dismissed the allegations raised by Arnold, and Daniel finally retained the entrusted office.311 At the same time, however, the Roman curia conducted its own investigation, and Cardinal Peter, authorised by the pope, wrote the first testimonies.312 Nevertheless, Pope Innocent III hesitated. The imperial situation prevented him from hasty judge ments, and the protracted divorce strengthened the influence of the curia in East-Central Europe. Private issues of the king of Bohemia were discussed in 1202, when he sided with the Welfs; the same topic appeared in Lateran in 1204, after Přemysl’s return to Philip of Swabia. At that time, Přemysl Otakar prom ised to make amends for his mistake, and, as was later written in a letter to Pope Innocent III, he had allegedly said that he had deserved to suffer, because he had repudiated his wife and children for no good reason.313 The spectacularly taken oaths had no value, though. Constance did not leave Prague and already the next year bore a son, Wenceslas, for Přemysl. The Bull of Ulm later designated Wenceslaus as the firstborn son. Interrogations of witnesses did not help; they only led to hostile silence between the Wettin and Přemyslid courts. The papal notary issued the last subpoena on 13 April 1210.314 According to it, the main hearing was to take place on the feast of St Martin’s, but before the final sentence could be published, Adelheid died. Her marriage, however, was not dissolved, so Vratislaus, as Přemysl’s legitimate son and heir, could apply for the Bohemian throne and was evidently aware of his rights. Alongside his uncle Theodoric, he was involved in public events and, at the Frankfurt diet in March 1212, was promised the kingdom of Bohemia by Emperor Otto IV (regnum Bohemie concedet nepoti marchionis Wratizlao).315 Two months later, the princes present in Nuremberg agreed (per sententiam principum) that Přemysl had committed treason; on the spot, Bohemia was taken away from him and given to the present Vratislaus.316 There was, how ever, no triumphant return to the homeland; for all his hopes, Vratislaus was left with only a distant dream about the crown of the kings of Bohemia.

311 CDB II, 28–30, No. 31. See also CDB II, 9–10, No. 12; 10, No. 13; 10, No. 14; Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 514. 312 CDB II, 14–16, No. 20. 313 CDB II, 48–50, No. 55. 314 CDB II, 81–85, No. 88. 315 MGH Const II, 48–49, No. 39. 316 Chronica regia Coloniensis, MGH SRG [18.], 232–233. 122 CHAPTER 3

FIGURE 23 This is how Přemysl Otakar I and his second wife Constance were immortalised in the psalter of Hermann of Thuringia, whose creation is usually placed between 1211 and 1213. Photography by Württembergische Landesbibliothek Stuttgart.

Nonetheless, he did not withdraw into seclusion and, as a prince chased by fate who was proud of his origin ( filius regis Bohemie),317 he was welcomed at the courts of the Princes of the Holy Roman Empire. In Prague, they could not pre vent this, and so they at least blurred the memories. It was probably no acci dent that the name of Přemysl and Constance’s firstborn son was Vratislaus,

317 CDB II, 274, No. 280; 63, No. 68; 74, No. 79; 88, No. 91; 111, No. 122. The Margrave 123 after whose sudden death the name of the first king of Bohemia (as well as of two of Přemysl’s descendants) fell into deep disgrace.318 Přemysl did not underestimate the opposition supported by the margrave of Meissen. Before 1216, he had enough compelling reasons to try to erase his son’s memory. In Ulm, he could secure himself against his succession claims. Is that all, though? Did he think exclusively of Vratislaus or did he seize the oppor tunity offered and, under the pretext of minor adjustments to the succession rights, shatter the ancient succession order? This is not impossible. The privi lege of 1216 emphasises the primogeniture of Prince Wenceslas, but it entirely ignores the fact that the reins of the government should be in the hands of not the firstborn son of the currently reigning sovereign but the oldest mem ber of the dynasty.319 The rule known to the Czech elites was allegedly stated in 1055 by the dying Duke Bretislaus. Although it might seem that the repea tedly trampled rule lost its sense at the beginning of the 13th century, Přemysl Otakar must have known that it was not the case. The memory of December 1197 was vivid in his mind, and that his return from exile did not end in a disas ter was thanks to not only his brother’s helpfulness but also his age, which shifted the otherwise private agreement to an official constitutional status. In 1216, Přemysl might have worried about the fact that it had never been pos sible to push through a direct succession in a single line. Unless he wanted to inflame public opinion, he had to respect the established rules, specifically the electoral vote of Czech lords,320 and prepare everything in such a way that the only candidate left would be his son Wenceslas. The practice at the time and the balance of forces on the domestic politi cal scene truly required that the conditions be delicately selected, because the young prince was surpassed in age by several Přemyslids. Beyond the banished Vratislaus, the crown could be claimed by Margrave Vladislaus Henry, who in 1197 prevented bloodshed and was his older brother’s support, advisor and faithful ally for many years. The popular and probably also respected ruler, however, perhaps because he lived in a childless marriage, fully supported Přemysl’s plan, which was also emphasised in the Golden Bull of Ulm. It was certainly not by chance that it mentioned that all lords and leaders voted with the margrave and that the king of Bohemia, except for his passive consent, refrained from any interference. That is exaggerated indeed. Přemysl Otakar had diets under strict control, but how was it with the alleged proclamation

318 Žemlička 1990, 93; CDB II, 17–18, No. 21; 18–20, No. 22; 20–22, No. 23; 28–30, No. 31; 79–80, No. 86. 319 Loserth 1882, 1–78; Wihoda 2010a, 115–116. 320 Schmidt 1978, 439–463; Kulecki 1984, 441–450. 124 CHAPTER 3 of Czech nobility? Unless this is a mere stylistic exercise, it is possible that the Prague court ensured a unified vote through a careful selection of those invited, and if the election took place in the first week of June at Prague Castle, the duke of Čáslav and governor of Pilsen, Theobald III, and the canon of Olomouc, Sifrid, were not among the assembled.321 Přemysl, in spite of his bitter experience with Bishop of Prague Henry Bretislaus, did not consider Sifrid to be a serious rival. Although everything was possible before 1216, this Moravian Přemyslid never belonged among influ ential figures on the domestic political scene, and no one could take his aspira tions seriously.322 Theobald, however, was in an entirely different situation in terms of power.323 He was able to defy Přemysl and obtain interesting conces sions. It should be mentioned again that in 1202, he remained loyal to Philip of Swabia and, with Wettin intercession, received the kingdom of Bohemia in fief.324 After Přemysl’s return to the Hohenstaufen camp, Theobald stipu lated the restitution of family holdings in East Bohemia325 and, probably in the autumn of 1211, he assumed the government of the Pilsen province.326 Not even that was enough for him, though. In December 1215, he negotiated with Theodoric of Meissen in Groitzsch.327 It is likely to have been then that he was approached by (or he himself approached?) the royal court of the dreaded exile Vratislaus.328 All of this happened on the eve of the carefully prepared election. Přemysl must have perceived Theobald’s attitudes as blackmail. It may have been then that the future of Theobald’s lineage was decided. Their existence began to be overlooked by the Prague court. Whereas at the end of the first decade of the 13th century, all of them were present at the ceremonial consecration of the monastery in Zábrdovice329 and Theobald’s son Boleslaus spent the end of 1213 in the company of the king of Bohemia and the margrave of Moravia,330 in June 1216 they were missing from the diet, and over the next years, they slowly began to disappear from public life. The last lines of their story began to be

321 CDB II, 113–114, No. 125. 322 Wihoda 2002b, 193–202. 323 Dejmek 1991, 89–139. 324 Cronica Reinhardsbrunnensis, MGH SS XXX/1, 566; Arnoldi Chronica Slavorum VI.5, MGH SRG [14.], 223. 325 Arnoldi Chronica Slavorum VI.8, MGH SRG [14.], 229. 326 CDB II, 433–435, No. 386; 399–401, No. 367; Dejmek 1991, 107–110. 327 CDB II, 111, No. 121. 328 CDB II, 111, No. 122. 329 CDB II, 391–393, No. 363; 393–397, No. 364. 330 CDB II, 103–104, No. 109; 104–106, No. 110. The Margrave 125 written in 1222.331 The domestic tradition connected the fall of Theobald’s dynasty with some uprising, in which the head of the family had lost his life and his offspring sought refuge in Wrocław with Duke Henry the Bearded.332 In this connection, Polish scriptoria wrote about the banished margravine of Moravia, which might imply that Theobald’s dynasty, perhaps in the spirit of the December agreement (?), claimed the title of Margrave and their inheri tance from Vladislaus Henry.333 It is useful to go back to the second decade of the 13th century. A single month in the summer of 1216 perfectly erased the last vestiges of ducal Bohemia from the memory of the powerful. The Golden Bull of Ulm laid the foundation for the political system in which the principle of primogeniture was valued more than grey hair and the vote of Czech leaders. Přemysl Otakar could be satisfied, but without the direct help of Vladislaus Henry, he would not have ‘surrendered’ the family heritage with such elegance. This certainly gave the abbot of Milevsko Gerlach another rewarding theme to think about: the ‘one will and one principality’ of the two siblings, particularly when the admirable unity of the brothers bore fruit on the imperial scene, where the Přemyslid diplomacy no longer had to resolve the recurrent question ‘with whom and against whom?’. Being too cautious, the Prague court did not attend the excellent December diet in Frankfurt, where Frederick II of Sicily asked for the votes of the princes present before the legates of the Roman curia and representatives of the king of France. Four days later (on 9 December) in Mainz, he, already as the king of the Romans and of Germany, received the crown from the hands of Archbishop Siegfried and finally put aside his title ‘imperator electus’.334 The Frankfurt election was captured by numerous compilations, not only in Germany but also beyond the southern ridges of the Alps. Only in the Reinhardsbrunn scriptorium, however, was the main account complemented by a comment that the king of Bohemia had considered attending,335 which Václav Novotný understood as the chronicler’s excuse for Přemysl’s absence.336 Franz-Reiner Erkens thought differently. Without further explanation, he included the Bohemian ruler among the participants as well.337 He may have

331 Dejmek 1991, 111–115; Jasiński 1981, 59–67. 332 Staročeská kronika tak řečeného Dalimila 2.74, Praha 1988, 277. 333 Novotný 1928, 555; 1002–1004. 334 MGH Const II, 621–622, No. 451. 335 Cronica Reinhardsbrunnensis, MGH SS XXX/1, 581. 336 Novotný 1928, 309–310. 337 Erkens 2002, 106–107. 126 CHAPTER 3 adopted the diction of the Erfurt parish chronicle, which, under the influence of the Reinhardsbrunn redaction, expanded on the joint arrival of the king of Bohemia and the landgrave of Thuringia and the wonderful reception of the latter.338 Nevertheless, he evidently did not know Přemysl’s charter for the Kladruby monastery, in which the king of Bohemia admitted that he had run into debt when he had, in February 1213, hurried to Regensburg to see Frederick, who had just returned from Apulia (pergens Ratisponam in occur- sum Friderici, Romanorum regis, de Appulia venientis).339 He probably could not have stated anything like that if he had already met the king of the Romans and of Germany in Frankfurt. One way or the other, in the middle of February 1213, any misgivings had been forgotten, and there was perfect harmony among the Hohenstaufen supporters. A large retinue set out from Bohemia to Regensburg. That both Přemysl Otakar and Vladislaus Henry were aware of the importance of the upcoming meeting is implied by a debt of 50 marks with the merchants of Kladruby. Another privilege for Chotěšov reveals that, in addition to Bohemian and Moravian lords, also Robert, the bishop of Olomouc, travelled to the Danube Basin.340 Vladislaus Henry stood before Frederick no later than on 15 February 1213, when he had himself included, alongside Přemysl, among the witnesses of the Berchtesgaden charter341 and the great Cremona privilege.342 On the next day, he thus confirmed the privileges for the Scottish Benedictine monastery of St James in Regensburg;343 after that, he withdrew into seclu sion, but still on the same day, on 16 February, the king of Bohemia witnessed the issue of a mandate for imperial vassals in Italy.344 Přemysl’s presence was noticed also by Sicard, the bishop of Cremona,345 whose notes were later used by Salimbene of Palma, a Friar Minor.346 No one specified, however, why both rulers had undertaken a journey to the Danube Basin in the inclement weather of February. According to Wolfgang Stürner, the king of Bohemia had made an oath of fealty. Just as well, they could have planned a war raid into Meissen and Saxony.347

338 Monumenta Erphesfurtensia, MGH SRG [42.], 212. 339 CDB II, 398–399, No. 366. 340 CDB II, 433–435, No. 386. 341 MGH DF II (XIV/2), 44–47, No. 190. 342 MGH DF II (XIV/2), 39–41, No. 188. 343 MGH DF II (XIV/2), 47–50, No. 191. 344 MGH DF II (XIV/2), 50–52, No. 192. 345 Sicardi episcopi Cremonensis Cronica, MGH SS XXXI, 180. 346 Cronica fratris Salimbene de Adam, MGH SS XXXII, 28. 347 Stürner 1992, 158–159. The Margrave 127

Přemysl Otakar already visited the young Hohenstaufen in Cheb in the mid dle of the summer of 1213 and was present at the issue of the famous Golden Bull of Cheb, which defined the relationship between the king of the Romans and of Germany and the Holy See.348 This document significantly affected the situation in the Empire; nevertheless, in the middle of July, the attention of the powerful was instead fixed on the Welf possessions. Emperor Otto IV gathered his faithful in the Rhine basin, between Cologne and Aachen, and thus blocked the main access routes to Saxony. Yet Frederick II of Sicily did not expect a greater resistance and convened a diet in Merseburg in September, by which he carelessly revealed the main direction of the attack. Otto IV did not hesitate to place a strong garrison in Quedlinburg, which maintained a strong blockade until October sleet melted the war enthusiasm of the Hohenstaufen coalition.349 Strong corps were brought before the wall of Quedlinburg by both Přemyslids, whose presence is mentioned by Frederick’s charter for the Order of the Teutonic Knights of 19 October.350 As was mentioned by compilations of the time, however, the Czech corps became famous for cruel depredations of the surrounding area.351 There were had sad memories of the Bohemians and Moravians also in Chemnitz, Saxony.352 Nevertheless, the ruthless tac tics served their purpose, because Margrave of Meissen Theodoric renounced Emperor Otto IV and asked Frederick for peace. At the same time, the margrave was already on his way back to Moravia, which he probably did not leave for the entire year 1214. He thus excused himself from the June meeting in Cheb, where, at the same time, the king of Bohemia headed.353 Although we can only speculate as to the point of this meeting, one of the topics discussed was undoubtedly the distant dissension between the kings of England and France, in which Emperor Otto IV had become involved.354 Allied commitments to the English Crown brought the Emperor all the way to the plains of Flanders, to the bridge near Bouvines,

348 MGH DF II (XIV/2), 74–77, No. 204; 77–80, No. 205. 349 Hucker 1990, 298–303; Hucker 2003, 363–368. 350 MGH DF II (XIV/2), 93–95, No. 212. 351 Annales Stadenses, MGH SS XVI, 355; Reineri Annales, MGH SS XVI, 666; Cronica Reinhardsbrunnensis. MGH SS XXX/1, 584; Monumenta Erphesfurtensia, MGH SRG [42.], 212; Sächsische Weltchronik 352, MGH Deutsche Chroniken II, 240; Magdeburger Schöppenchronik, 140. 352 CDB II, 119–120, No. 128. 353 MGH DF II (XIV/2), 129–131, No. 230. The same information can be found in the forged or modified documents: MGH DF II (XIV/2), 131–132, No. 231; 133–134, No. 232; 135–136, No. 233. 354 Holzapfel 1991. 128 CHAPTER 3

FIGURE 24 Frederick I. Barbarossa had the magnificent residence in Cheb built on the site of an earlier Vohburg castle. For its position, however, it soon became a popular place for various meetings, sessions and Hoftage. In 1179, the dispute over the Weitra region was discussed here before the emperor. In the spring of 1204, the imperial palace was a witness to the oath of fealty made by Duke Theobald to Philip of Swabia. In Cheb, Frederick II of Sicily dated the famous bull, by which he assured Pope Innocent III in July 1213 that the Holy See would not be deprived of its rights; the issue of the charter was watched by Přemysl Otakar I; and it was in Cheb one year later that the king of Bohemia was informed about the campaign of Emperor Otto IV against King of France Philip Augustus. In March 1215, also Margrave Vladislaus Henry headed to Cheb. Depictions from the 1840s. Photography by a. Flídr. where on 27 July 1214 he lost a battle and, as it immediately turned out, also respect among the remaining supporters in the Empire.355 The French took an amazing booty, including the imperial standard which Philip II August had given to the young Hohenstaufen. Still in the second half of 1214, Frederick moved to the Rhine, where he won the favour of the duke of Lorraine and the patriciate of Cologne. He spent the Christmas holidays in Metz. Based on the conciliation agreement dated there, the king of Bohemia, Přemysl Otakar, also

355 Cartellieri 1914; Duby 1973. The Margrave 129 was staying at the court.356 Unfortunately, this interesting construction does not find support in other sources, because a careful reading of the charter has shown that selected places of the Metz privilege had been discussed earlier, maybe in Cheb at the beginning of June 1214.357 Přemysl Otakar I met Frederick as late as in the winter of 1215, when he received an invitation to a Hoftag, which was convened to Cheb again. Likewise Vladislaus Henry came to the imperial palace. On 2 March, the names of the siblings appeared in the charter by which the king of the Romans and of Germany took the Pegau monastery under his protection.358 Those present, however, were much more interested in hearing news of the planned corona tion in Aachen. There was only one more thing to do:convince the burghers to open the city gates for Frederick. That was accomplished at the beginning of the summer, so that on 25 July Frederick finally ascended the legendary throne of Charlemagne.359 The triumphal ride through the Rhine Basin probably already went beyond the horizon of the margrave, who withdrew to Moravia and devoted himself to the government of the entrusted provinces. Vladislaus Henry was absent from Aachen and sent his brother to represent him at the diets in Würzburg in 1218360 and in Nuremberg one year later.361 In the middle of 1220, however, he could no longer refuse the invitation and hence set out for Augsburg alongside Přemysl to greet Frederick on the Lechfeld and say good bye to him before his coronation ride to Rome. He had no idea that this was the last time he would see the former greenhorn from Apulia. In this sense, the meeting was slightly symbolic.362 After his return from Augsburg at the end of August 1220, Vladislaus Henry had only two years of life left. As far as is known, he stayed only within the borders of Přemyslid possessions. He made regular visits to the royal court and was welcomed at episcopal residences in Olomouc and Prague. Suffice it to mention that he was a co-founder (along with Robert, the bishop of Olomouc) of the Velehrad monastery and that he could remember the legendary end of 1197 with Daniel, the bishop of Prague. Peaceful co-existence was not disrupted

356 MGH DF II (XIV/2), 201–204, No. 271. 357 RI V/1, 194, No. 773. 358 Chroust 1891, 146–148, No. 2; MGH DF II (XIV/2), 231–232, No. 285. 359 Reineri Annales, MGH SS XVI, 672–673; Annales Marbacenses, MGH SRG [9.], 84; Chronica regia Coloniensis II, MGH SRG [18.], 193–194; Monumenta Erphesfurtensia, MGH SRG [42.], 213–214; Stürner 1992, 168–173; Rader 2010, 106–110. 360 MGH DF II (XIV/3), 40–42, No. 443. 361 MGH DF II (XIV/3), 299–301, No. 575; 301–303, No. 576. 362 MGH DF II (XIV/3), 436–437, No. 649; 443–445, No. 654; Rader 2010, 110–115. 130 CHAPTER 3 until the election of Daniel’s successor Andrew, who had received the ordi nation from the hands of Pope Innocent III and began to act as an enthusi astic advocate of religious freedoms after his return from the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. He found an influential ally in the new pope, Honorius III. It was most likely still before the end of 1216 that he inferred that the king of Bohemia was not listening to his demands, complaints and laments with suf ficient seriousness. Offended, he left the land, over which he then declared an interdict from a safe haven.363 With his uncompromising attitude, however, he surprised not only Přemysl Otakar but also Přemysl’s protectors. The royal court proceeded differently. It evidently relied on dialogue. Czech envoys came to Rome with a letter describing both the practices in the land (secundum regni nostri consuetudines) and the position of the royal court. The issues raised included tithes, salaries, taxes and burdens exacted by the secular power in the Czech lands from the clergy, celibacy and the issue of the investiture of married priests, as well as the violation of the canon law (contra canones).364 In spite of that, the complicated dispute dragged on until January 1219, when Bishop of Regensburg Conrad, authorised by the pope, met the representa tives of the king of Bohemia within the walls of the Kladruby monastery;365 the next, decisive, agreement was concluded in the first days of 1221.366 From there, a direct path already led to the Schatzberg, where the interdict was withdrawn in exchange for the confirmation of all freedoms (omnem libertatem) of the Prague church.367 The fateful struggle of Bishop of Prague Andrew could not have escaped the margrave of Moravia, who also appeared on the Schatzberg, where he had certainly been brought by neither chance nor curiosity, for he had literally watched the controversy from the first row. And not only had he watched it. Probably in the spring of 1218, he sent a letter of intercession to Prémontré, in which he warned the abbot general, Gervasius, that Bishop Andrew was taking revenge on Adam, the abbot of Strahov, only because he refused to renounce the king of Bohemia.368 In January 1221, the Holy See stipulated that the mar grave and Prince Wenceslas should swear to oversee a redress of grievances within a set deadline.369 It was understandable after the election of 1216 that

363 Annalium Pragensium I, FRB II, 283; CDB II, 128–130, No. 139. 364 CDB II, 150–152, No. 160. 365 CDB II, 160–161, No. 172. 366 CDB II, 193–195, No. 209; 195–196, No. 210. 367 CDB II, 203–205, No. 217; Novotný 1928, 452–530; Žemlička 1981, 704–730. 368 Circaria Bohemiae, 237–238, No. 9; 235–237, No. 8; 238–239, No. 10. 369 CDB II, 195–196, No. 210. The Margrave 131

FIGURE 25 The royal seal used by Přemysl Otakar between 1201 and 1223 openly radiated the confidence of the ruler of Bohemia, who had himself depicted in majesty with the royal insignia. Nevertheless, the attached inscription (+ PAX. REGIS. OTACARI. IN MANV. SCI. WENCEZLAI) still emphasised that Přemysl Otakar ruled with the blessing of St Wenceslas and hence in accordance with the law and will of the aristocratic land community. Photography by NA (National Archives) Prague. the curia was interested in Prince Wenceslas, but why did it request the mar grave’s consent? Is it possible that they knew and respected the ‘one will and one principality’ of the December agreement even in Rome? It is not necessary and actually even possible to doubt that the king of Bohemia continued to have the decisive word in the Přemyslid possessions as well as at Hoftage. Nevertheless, there are also many indications that Vladislaus 132 CHAPTER 3

Henry, as the margrave of Moravia ruling in parallel with his brother, could enter public life. And, as is proved by dozens of both separate and joint sove reign acts despite the abyss of time, he did so frequently and without obstruc tions. Přemysl Otakar evidently trusted his brother and gave him a free hand, which Vladislaus Henry requited by interconnecting his own world with the power interests of the Prague court. Were there any agreements that are not known, charisma that was not captured by the quill of his contemporaries, or did the king rely on the brother’s childless marriage? This is hard to decide, because the only certain point in the region of uncertainty and speculation is, unfortunately, Vladislaus’ death on 12 August 1222.370 Before that, maybe anticipating the end of his days, he took a ride across Moravian provinces. He spent the Christmas holidays and most likely also the beginning of 1222 in Velehrad, from where he headed to Kyjov;371 in Hradisko near Olomouc, he approved the agreement of the Premonstratensians with the abbot of Břevnov Dluhomil;372 in Opava, he rewarded his wife’s administrator Wernhard,373 and it is not excluded that he issued an order there to seize the gold-bearing pro perty (in quibus aurifodine consistunt) of the bishop of Wrocław, which seizure was denounced by Pope Honorius III in January 1224.374 On his way back, on 24 June in Brno, Vladislus Henry met his brother Přemysl and his nephews Wenceslas and Vladislaus;375 he probably ended his travels with a stay in the Louka canonry.376 Vladislaus’ very last journey, however, led to Velehrad, because his remains were laid to rest in the crypt there.377 Not for long though. The storms of the Hussite period ruined not only the Cistercian community but also the scriptorium and library; it seems that not even the margrave’s tomb escaped destruc tion.378 His legacy as a statesman, however, speaks to us to this day. It grew out of the December agreement and the joint management of public affairs and thus subtly gave rise to the independent Moravian identity. Finishing with

370 Necrologium Doxanense, VKČSN 8/1884, 121; Necrologium Podlažicense, DFS, 418; Necrologium Olomucense, AÖG 65/1884, 555; Necrologium Bohemo-Silesiacarum, ZVGS 5/1863, 113. 371 CDB II, 207–208, No. 222. 372 CDB II, 213–214, No. 228. 373 CDM II, 129–130, No. 125. 374 CDB II, 244–245, No. 254. 375 CDB II, 220–221, No. 232. 376 CDB II, 221–222, No. 233. 377 Granum catalogi praesulum Moraviae, AÖG 78/1892, 79; Przibiconis de Radenin dicti Pulkavae Chronicon Bohemiae, FRB V, 132A. 378 Pojsl 1968/1969, 86–96; Pojsl 2002, 37–46; Bistřický 1991, 211–213. The Margrave 133

FIGURE 26 The last ride of Margrave Vladislaus Henry. A: The state borders of the Czech Republic; B: Land borders around 1212; C: Water courses; D: The places visited by the margrave (1 – Kyjov; 2 – Velehrad (?); 3 – Olomouc; 4 – Opava; 5 – Hlubčice/ Głubczyce (?); 6 – Zlaté Hory (?); 7 – Bruntál (?); 8 – Brno; 9 – Louka; 10 – Velehrad). Drawing by Z. Neústupný. the words of one of the Zábrdovice forgeries, the Brno judge and valet Leo of Klobouky founded a monastery in the realm of King of Bohemia Přemysl Otakar as well as of Margrave of Moravia Vladislaus Henry, and all of that with their knowledge and consent (in regno nostro et in principatu fratris nostri Wladizlay, principis Morauie, cum nostro et fratris nostri consensu).379

379 CDB II, 391–393, No. 363; 393–397, No. 364. 134 CHAPTER 3

5 From Hedwig to Heilwidis

Already in the second half of the 19th century, during the life of the learned Rajhrad Benedictine Beda Dudík, critical historiography agreed on the opi nion that Vladislaus Henry had been married,380 but the name of his wife had long remained a subject of debate. Just a little would have been enough—to scrutinise the seal that the margravine had attached to the otherwise well- known charter that had been issued by Vladislaus for Stephen of Medlov on 27 April 1218.381 A reversal did not come until Gustav Friedrich, when prepa ring the second volume of the Codex diplomaticus et epistolaris regni Bohemiae, inspected the privilege and concluded his study with a careful comment that the unclear transcription may be read as ‘Heidwigis, Margravine of Moravia’.382 Later, Prokop Zaoral documented that the name of her valet was Wernhard,383 but the sources do not provide more information. The luckily ‘found’ Hedwig was hence immediately promoted to one of the most mysterious figures of the Přemyslid Middle Ages. The not entirely certain reading of the slightly worn-down seal preserved in a single impression has been accepted with hesitation, as expressed by Václav Novotný.384 Six years later, the seal was studied again by Jiří Čarek,385 who did not share the doubts of his predecessors. It was thanks to him that the idea became established in the literature that the name of Vladislaus’ wife was Hedwig. Apart from conjectures and unconditionally adopted conclusions, however, there is still the seal impression, which calls for re-inspection. And the result? With its layout and quality, the field of the seal resembles the first seal matrix of Queen Constance, which was used between 1201 and 1219.386 The margravine had a seal made as well. It was a pointed oval seal of a size of 70×55 mm, whose space was filled by an enthroned figure in a pleated garment, with a sceptre in his right hand and with his left hand holding (?) a cross or an apple (?) on his chest. In fact, the transcription is only partially legible, and unfortu nately, the damaged passage overlaps with the name of the margravine. The

380 Dudík 1870, 152–153. 381 CDB II, 151–152, No. 161. 382 CDB II, 152: . . . Circumscriptio cuius nonnullae litterae iam laesae sunt, haec est: +HЄIDWIGIS MARChIOИISSA . mORAUIE . . .; Friedrich 1897b, 22–23. 383 Zaoral 1967, 226–228. 384 Novotný 1928, 554. 385 Čarek 1934, 23. 386 Čarek 1934, 21. The Margrave 135

FIGURE 27 Vladislaus Henry was married, but his wife rather stayed in seclusion; therefore, her name is known from the only seal preserved, with which she, on 27 April 1218, confirmed the validity of her husband’s donation for Stephen of Medlov. It is evident from the slightly worn-down impression that her name was Heilwigis or Heilwidis (+ HЄIŁWIGĪ. MARCHIOИISSA. mORAUIЄ). letter contours, however, exclude the possibility that the initial letters ‘H’ and ‘Є’ and the disputable ‘I’ would be followed by ‘D’. With some difficulties, it is possible to recognise here the letter ‘L’, which means, however,that the name of the wife of the margrave of Moravia was not He(i)dwigis but Heilwigis. Moravian accounts at the time mention some Heilwigis, or more precisely Heilwidis, unlike Hedwig. Moreover, she must have been a respected figure during her life, because she managed to found the Oslavany monastery and 136 CHAPTER 3 persuaded the king of Bohemia to take the new Cistercian abbey and simulta neously the first convent for women in Moravia under his direct protection. This happened on 26 January 1225; the royal notary then endowed Heilwidis with a noteworthy title of Noble Lady of Znojmo (nobilis matrona domina Heilwidis de Znoym).387 The unusual title led Vácslav František Peřinka to the specula tion that Heilwidis had come from an urban background;388 nevertheless, Josef Vítězslav Šimák,389 and in his footsteps also Ladislav Hosák, concluded that she had been related to the family of three water-lily leaves, which had come from Austrian Thürnau.390 The Oslavany foundation was preceded by a quite com plicated exchange of various real estates, which had to be approved by Hartleb, who the charters of 1225 identically declare to be a relative (nepos) of the noble lady Heilwidis.391 The set phrase ‘nepos eius’ could have meant anything—not only a nephew or a grandson but also basically any degree of kinship, which led historians to wild speculations on Heilwidis’ marriage. Apart from diverse, mostly unknown men from among the lords of Thürnau, the suitors comprised also the knight Rudger, only because the property of the Oslavany monastery included also Hnánice, whose vineyards Rudger improved under German law.392 Nevertheless, could any of them have accumulated enough property for the venerable lady Heilwidis to establish a rich royal monastery? That the original Oslavany endowment was more than generous is proved by the charter from 1245, through which King Wenceslas I gave the village of Potěh to the Cistercian nuns and thus received an altar panel, a gold chalice with gemstones and two crystal ampoules for his sister Agnes and her community.393 Although it is not certain whether all the items from this exchange came exclu sively from Heilwidis’ legacy, the grandiosity of Heilwidis’ foundation work is implied by the contract from 1225 in which the abbot of Třebíč Luke admitted that he had not wanted to surrender the Oslavany valley, although Heilwidis had offered him Horka and two other settlements in the Znojmo province, but that he followed the advice and intercession of Bishop of Olomouc Robert and the curial legate Conrad in the end.394 Another three years later, the Oslavany convent already administered eight entire villages, vineyards in the Znojmo

387 CDB II, 266–267, No. 272; Borovský 2005, 34; 75–78. 388 Peřinka 1908, 167. 389 Šimák 1924, 335. 390 Hosák 1936, 136. 391 CDB II, 264–266, No. 271; 266–267, No. 272; 268–269, No. 273. 392 CDB II, 25–26, No. 28. 393 CDB IV/1, 159–161, No. 71; Kuthan 1988, 127. 394 CDB II, 264–266, No. 271. The Margrave 137 suburbium and two parishes,395 including the patronage of the church of St James in Brno.396 It may be presumptuous to connect the material resources of the Cistercian nuns in Oslavany only with Heilwidis. After all, the right of St James’ patro nage was given to the monastery by the king of Bohemia Přemysl Otakar, who specified, however, that he had done so upon the founder’s request (ad petitio- nem matrone nostre nomine Heilwidis de Znoym). It may have been Heilwidis’ intercession that helped the new abbey gain Velehrad immunity, and its subjects were, at least during the construction of the monastery, freed from customs duties.397 From the beginning, Oslavany also had the support of the Holy See, which was expressed through the mouth of the legate Conrad;398 and in 1230, protective privileges were issued for the Cistercians by Pope Gregory IX.399 Heilwidis’ plans were supported by the bishop Robert as well;400 at least with some understanding, they were approached by provincial noblemen, who by no means were only the lords of the coat of arms of three water-lily leaves. The property transaction of 1225 was confirmed by the royal prosecutor Theodoric from the Hrut family, Leo of Klobouky and Vojslaus. The consecration of the monastic church, which in 1228 was done by Bishop of Olomouc Robert and changed Oslavany into the Valley of the Virgin Mary (cuius nomen transmutatum est in Vallem sancte Marie),401 was witnessed by probably everyone who then meant something in Moravia. What, however, does it say of the founder herself? The influential role of the Prague court in the foundation of Oslavany con fused Charles’ court chronicler Přibík Pulkava so much that in the second half of the 14th century he connected Oslavany with the foundation of the Tišnov monastery and attributed both foundations to Přemysl’s wife Constance.402 The noble lady Heilwidis, however, resembled the queen. Ambrosius and Heso, two chaplains in her services (capellani domine Helwidis) make it pos sible to consider the existence of a chancery,403 but can the Oslavany founda tion and the high social status of the founder be understood as a trace leading

395 CDB II, 315–319, No. 320; 346–349, No. 339. 396 CDB II, 324, No. 322. 397 CDB II, 266–267, No. 272; 315–319, No. 320. 398 CDB II, 268–269, No. 273. 399 CDB II, 345–346, No. 338; 346–349, No. 339. 400 CDB II, 264–266, No. 271; 315–319, No. 320; 324, No. 322. 401 CDB II, 315–319, No. 320. 402 Przibiconis de Radenin dicti Pulkavae Chronicon Bohemiae, FRB V, 137–138B. 403 CDB II, 242–244, No. 253. 138 CHAPTER 3

FIGURE 28 The generous endowment of the venerable lady Heilwidis (nobilis matrona domina Heilwidis de Znoym) and mainly the direct protection of the royal court transformed Oslavany into a rich and privileged community which settled in an impressive monastic complex. In 1526, it was transferred into secular hands and reconstructed into a chateau, but its original appearance is still implied by the Romanesque termination of the former monastic church. Photography by a. Flídr. The Margrave 139 to Vladislaus Henry’s Heilwidis? If it is so that there was only one Heilwidis in Znojmo in the first quarter of the 13th century and that the margravine then and later ‘only’ the noble lady Heilwidis was really the one responsible for the foundation of Oslavany, it would prove that she came from the family of three water-lily leaves. It may have been her word that brought to Moravia Wernhard of Thürnau, who became Heilwidis’ valet,404 and Ekhard along with Hartleb, who in turn proved themselves in provincial services and assumed influential posts in the administration of the Znojmo castle.405 Neither the chronological nor the factual context excludes at all that Heilwidis could have been a margravine of Moravia, but the set of Oslavany privileges from 1225 and 1228 rather agrees that there was some aloofness between the Prague court and the founder of the monastery. Despite having multiple opportunities, the king of Bohemia only addressed Heilwidis as ‘the noble lady of Znojmo’ (nobilis matrona domina Heilwidis de Znoym), and he never mentioned, or even hinted at, any connection to his brother in this con text. Does it then mean that the donator had nothing to do with the Přemyslid dynasty and that she lost her privileged position after her husband’s death on 12 August 1222? Heilwidis’ past as a ruler’s wife is ostensibly denied by the foundation of the cloister in Tišnov, which was given legal status by Queen Constance; although the second convent for women did not appear in Moravia until after Přemysl’s death, the donor continued to be the queen in the four charters of 6 February 1233.406 Can one, however, compare the possibilities of the queen-widow, who alongside her son and Přemysl’s successor Wenceslas I repeatedly entered the public space,407 with the influence of a lady, the former margravine (?) Heilwidis of Znojmo? That is hardly possible. It should also be added that no one has questioned Heilwidis’ social prerequisites for the foundation of the Cistercian house and that it would be rather strange if there were two women of the same name and comparable importance in the same area in Moravia at the same time, actually even the only two known Heilwidises of the Moravian Middle Ages. Was Heilwidis then Vladislaus Henry’s wife and a margravine? Maybe, because only this can naturally explain the beginning of the Oslavany

404 CDB II, 103–104, No. 109; CDM II, 129–130, No. 125; Hosák 1936, 139–140; Plaček 1997, 79–91. 405 CDB II, 229–232, No. 239. See also CDB II, 151–152, No. 161; 220–221, No. 232; 221–222, No. 233. 406 CDB III/1, 28–29, No. 30; 29–31, No. 31; 31–32, No. 32; 32–33, No. 33; Joachimová 1968, 495–501. 407 CDB III/1, 27–28, No. 29. 140 CHAPTER 3 monastery and the surprisingly influential position of the family of three water-lily leaves in the Moravian events in the first quarter of the 13th century. What could a careful conclusion be? It seems that Vladislaus Henry married Heilwidis (according to the late Mariazell legend, it happened before 1200), who came from Austrian Thürnau. The marriage, however, remained childless; after 1222, the widow settled in Znojmo, from where she, without objections of the royal court, managed the dowry. It may have been these incomes that formed the material base of the Oslavany convent, whose foundation between 1225 and 1228 Heilwidis considered as her own epitaph, adequately dignified to her husband’s memory. CHAPTER 4 The Land

In the autumn of 1228, Přemysl Otakar I was approached by Abbot of Velehrad Albert with a request that he confirm earlier freedoms. On 27 November, the royal office actually sealed the appropriate privilege. In one line, the notary wrote that the Cistercian estates reached to the stone called the ‘King’s Table’ (lapis, qui dicitur kralow stol).1 Inadvertently, he thus drew attention to a place that was referred to as the king’s at the time when Moravia was slowly becoming accustomed to a margrave. What was then the legacy of the ducal age when the local tradition rather turned to a kind of mythical heritage of the ‘kings of Moravia’? If we lend an ear to Cosmas and his Chronicle of the Bohemians, ducal Moravia originated from the last will of Duke Bretislaus.2 At the end of his days, he allegedly expressed his wish that the supreme power and the throne (summum ius et solium) be always held by the oldest of his descendants and that all of the ducal family and blood be subordinated to him. In order for our reporter to emphasise the seriousness of the moment, he brought the land leaders to the death-bed and made them swear a sacred oath, which became inviolable through Bretislaus’ death on 10 January 1055.3 The succession order did not lack quite a substantial Moravian import, because the younger, and hence not ruling, Přemyslids were to wait for their opportunity in Brno or Olomouc. Unfortunately, patience was never among the family virtues. That the ruler constantly had to remind his relatives of who had the primacy of power is implied by the captivity of Otto of Olomouc in 1110, which prompted Cosmas to reflect on the relationship between the senior and the younger members of the family. Therefore, he put a moralising speech in the mouth of Duke Vladislaus, saying that the land of Moravia (terra Moravia) and its rules (eius dominatores) have been and always will be subjected to the authority of the Prague court (semper Boemorum principis sint sub potestate), because that was the wish of Duke Bretislaus I, of blessed memory.4 In another place, Cosmas also described the division of Moravia among Bretislaus’ heirs. He explained to the readers that Vratislaus had settled in Olomouc and that Brno

1 CDB II, 319–324, No. 321. 2 Wihoda 2010a, 115–116. 3 Cosmae Pragensis Chronica Boemorum II.13, MGH SRG NS II, 101–102. 4 Cosmae Pragensis Chronica Boemorum III.34, MGH SRG NS II, 205.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��5 | doi ��.��63/9789004303836_005 142 CHAPTER 4 had fallen to Conrad and Otto. In 1061, when the sceptre was, according to the will, assumed by Vratislaus, his domains were inherited by Otto; the province entrusted to him was suitable for hunting and was rich in fish. At the same time, since Conrad allegedly spoke German, he was given the flatter part of Moravia which neighboured Germany and was fertile in grain.5 Cosmas’ notes are separated from Bretislaus’ death by more than seven decades. One can therefore only speculate on where reliable memories end and what belongs to the chronicler’s present, that is, the first quarter of the 12th century. Furthermore, it is hard not to notice slight discrepancies. The account of the years 1055 and 1061 emphasises that the provinces in Moravia were assigned by the duke of Bohemia; in another place, however, the author wrote without hesitation that Conrad governed a territory that fell to him by lot and through the line of inheritance (sorte ac funiculo hereditatis).6 An interesting commentary has been left by the Prague canon Vincentius as well. In 1142 the Bohemians who were of more noble origin allegedly committed injustice when they fled Moravia and asked Duke of Znojmo Conrad to set out on a campaign to Bohemia. This was followed by the warning of the ducal court that the malcontents should adhere to their oaths of allegiance and that the rebellious Přemyslids should rule exclusively in the lands entrusted to them by the duke.7 What was then decisive in Moravia? The will of the Prague duke or silently shared inheritance rights? Both seem to be the case. From time to time, the ruling duke (senior) was able to enforce perfect obedience, from which it was only a small step to the idea to exclude the pretenders from the succession. This necessarily affected the lives of the Moravian governors, because both presumed and real injustice began to shape the special relationship of the Přemyslid dukes with Brno (Znojmo) or Olomouc. That Moravia slowly became the home of younger dukes is proved by the foundation of two rich monasteries, which were established with the intention of building a family vault in them. The foundations of the older of the two were laid by Duke of Olomouc Otto with the support of his wife Euphemia in 1077, when he brought a colony of Benedictines to Hradisko near Olomouc. The beginnings of the second institution reach to 1101, when Ulrich and Luitpold agreed jointly to build a monastery in Třebíč, on the border between Brno and Znojmo Moravia, whose construction they entrusted to Bishop of Prague Hermann three years later.

5 Cosmae Pragensis Chronica Boemorum II.18, MGH SRG NS II, 110–111. 6 Cosmae Pragensis Chronica Boemorum II.43, MGH SRG NS II, 149. 7 Vincentii canonici Pragensis Annales, FRB II, 410–411; Kernbach 2010, 94–118. The Land 143

A great deal is implied by the fact that the fates of the dukes of Moravia were determined by two conflicting standards: to a certain degree imposed inheritance rights to the allocated parts of Moravia, and the still-valid agnatic seniority of Duke Bretislaus I. The bilingual position of the Moravian Přemyslids, however, posed an unpleasant social puzzle. The established title of Duke (dux/ princeps) by far did not cover the power differences. This might have been the reason that the foundation charter of Klášterní Hradisko from 1078 contained the mysterious phrase, probably taken from its model, which made Otto of Olomouc the one who is what he is by the grace of God (dei gracia id quod est).8 The situation in the Czech lands was monitored with apparent concerns by imperial scriptoria. The notary of Emperor Henry V called the duke of Brno, Ulrich, a noble man from Moravia (vir nobilis de Maerheren);9 Otto of Freising before the middle of the 12th century used the title of Count (Maraviensis comes);10 and the same rule was followed in the office of Frederick Barbarossa11 or at the court of Henry II Jasomirgott, duke of Austria.12 The complicated periphrasis ‘the Moravians, who are subjected to the duke of the Bohemians’ (Morauienses enim, qui sunt sub duce Boemico) was chosen by Cardinal Legate Guido;13 domestic workshops, in contrast, satisfied themselves with dukes of Moravia, which certainly did not mean that the public was not aware of their personal dependence on Prague. The firm strokes of Cosmas’ quill could thus produce the ‘diarch’ Conrad and make his son Ulrich a ‘tetrarch’, by which Cosmas tried to express briefly not that one ruled a half and the other a quarter of Moravia but that they were both subordinated to the Prague senior agnate.14 A much more dignified position was given to the dukes of Moravia on the pages of the annals written at Klášterní Hradisko shortly before 1150. Not only did the Benedictines not pay much attention to Prague but they even elevated Moravia, more precisely Olomouc, to the home and fatherland (patria) of the sons of Duke Otto, accompanied by the Moravians, entering the public space independently, or as the Bohemians’ equal allies.15 This is corroborated by denars, whose symbolism praised the just governors, endowed with Christian virtues. The dukes of Moravia valued the coin image so much that the minting

8 CDB I, 82–85, No. 79. 9 MB XXIX/1, 242–243, No. 446; Novotný 1913, 409–410. 10 Ottonis episcopi Frisingensis Chronica VII.26, MGH SRG [45.], 351. 11 MGH DF I (X/3), 341–343, No. 782. 12 BUB I, 32–34, No. 24. 13 Cosmae Pragensis Chronica Boemorum II.35, 131; III.51, 224. 14 Horna 1926. 15 Wihoda 2010a, 71–75. 144 CHAPTER 4 did not always follow the needs of the ducal chamber but instead reflected the interests of the period. This is how the duke Svatopluk addressed the public when he contested the Prague throne, and a wide range of topics also deals with the life of his brother, Otto the Black.16 It is generally true that Moravian denars combined three iconographic areas. The most numerous group of coins promoted the legitimacy of the sovereign power. This was the origin of the popular motif of the ruler in majesty, where one may include standing (half-) figures in a simple tunic, rarely covered by a cloak, holding a spear and a banner, a sword, a shield or a cross in his hands. In an extremely simplified form, the engraver satisfied himself with the bust, or only with the ruler’s head, which he depicted either frontally or in profile, sometimes with headgear (a hat?, a mitre?), other times with a band; in most cases, however, he engraved bareheaded portraits. The banner was to evoke the oath of allegiance, the sword represented the execution of judicial power and the shield symbolised the protection of the weak. The symbol of the cross then referred to an ensemble of various related ideas, by which the dukes of Moravia drew attention to the fact that they ruled the lands entrusted to them accor ding to divine laws. The presence of a higher order, the heavenly Jerusalem, was announced by sacral architecture, and that Moravia was governed by dukes chosen by God and anointed was shown by christological motifs (fish, the Lamb of God, vine-covered cross), a blessing hand, the names of the saints in the inscriptions, an arm protruding from a chapel, holding a spear or a banner, a sword or a cross.17 A modest part of the coins commented on events topical at the time. Unfortunately, the stylised images allow for various interpretations, and it is not always possible to determine correctly the plot depicted. Nevertheless, the motif of three rods, which appeared on the denars of Otto II of Olomouc, might refer to the great reconciliation of the Přemyslid dukes in 1113. Another historically interesting phenomenon is the decreasing share of silver, which in the second half of the 12th century made Moravian coins an almost worth- less currency. It appears to have been at that time that mints interrupted or at least limited their activities. This may be the reason that the denars of Conrad of Znojmo from 1142–1146, when he defied Duke Vladislaus II, are not known or are impossible to identify. Neither has it been determined what coins left Znojmo castle at the end of the 12th century, rich in dramatic events. What is then known?

16 Cach 1972; Šmerda 1996. 17 Krejčík 1986, 369–377; Krejčík 1990, 113–121. The Land 145

The dukes governing Moravia had the right to mint coins, could summon the provincial forces, and they also retained some independence during war campaigns, as implied by occasional comments on Mailberg (1082), Lucko (1116) or on the battles in the Piast Oder Basin. The ducal courts in Olomouc and Brno, from 1101 also in Znojmo, could exercise jurisdiction and dispose of property, which made it possible to establish the monasteries at Hradisko and in Třebíč. Nonetheless, the Moravian Přemyslids could not rival the Prague agnatic seniors, which was noticed by the Polish chronicler Gallus Anonymus when he noted in reference to Svatopluk of Olomouc that the duke had a small land and meagre wealth in 1105.18 After all, just two monastic foundations, which in 1190 were joined by the canonry in Louka (founded by Conrad Otto, but as the duke of the Bohemians),19 rather testify to the modest possibilities of Moravian governors, and it was not different with their role in the structure of hereditary Přemyslid possessions. Moravian dukes emerged from the breach of Bretislaus’ will and had to satisfy themselves with the shaky position of tolerated administrators of the provinces entrusted. Life in the Moravian periphery thus passed on the boun dary between oblivion and fame. The vision of the Prague throne on the one hand and the impertinent interference of the ruling dukes on the other made Moravia an unstable place, to which the Přemyslids could form only a free relationship. It is hardly surprising that the dukes of Moravia, perhaps with the exception of Ulrich’s short rule in the Olomouc region in 1173–1177, did not build a functional sovereign court. There was actually no reason for it, because everything important was decided in Prague anyway. No significant change was brought until December 1197 and the subsequent reform of the margrave Vladislaus Henry. And the result?

1 The Ruler

The December agreement recognised not only Vladislaus Henry’s title of Margrave but also his status as Přemysl’s co-ruler, which involved joint government. Something like that, however, was unthinkable without a retinue and the circle of officials, which required a full-fledged court in Moravia. Since Olomouc was taken by Přemysl Otakar after the death of the last dukes, the margrave was left the old residential castle of the dukes of Znojmo. Nevertheless, he does not seem to have felt excluded. The Babenberg possessions, to which

18 Galli Anonymi Cronicae III.16, MPH NS II, 142–143. 19 Charouz 1992, 99–107. 146 CHAPTER 4

Vladislaus Henry was connected through personal relationships, were a gate to the world of the Princes of the Holy Roman Empire. In addition, the nearby border actually offered itself as a place suitable for negotiations, which yielded unexpected fruit in the spiteful feuds between the Welfs and the Hohenstaufen. In the middle of October 1203, the margrave, without undue attention, welcomed an envoy of Philip of Swabia, Bishop of Passau Wolfger of Erla.20 Confidential discussions could have been conducted in the Louka monastery or at the Znojmo castle. And what would have awaited Wolfger if he had travelled to Vladislaus’ residence? The bishop of Passau would have had to climb up the promontory and gone through a granite-stone wall, the face of which was protected by a massive octagonal tower. Then he would have certainly passed the tor with the rotunda of the Virgin Mary. Finally in the western part, protected by a ditch, he could have entered the palace, whose appearance and layout were unfortunately absolutely erased by the Baroque reconstruction. It should be added, however, that it is not at all certain whether Wolfger could have admired the tower at the first gate. It may have been built later, perhaps even as late as around 1226,21 because Vladislaus Henry could have satisfied himself with the chambers in which Conrad Otto had resided and, instead of construction work, could have focused on the offices around which ‘his’ margraviate shaped. The execution of sovereign power was impossible without an office; in the first years, however, Vladislaus Henry was evidently not particularly active. Undoubtedly, he ensured the issue of the charter for Velehrad, whose diction has been preserved by a forged foundation privilege;22 Jindřich Šebánek quite convincingly proved that the original document had been formulated by the notary 05,23 who he already much more carefully connected with Bishop of Olomouc Robert.24 Similar, or even the same, phrases are also used by the unfinished privilege for the Knights Hospitaller of St John, which was probably created soon after 1208,25 but that is not the end of our list.26 The mere two documents, moreover both with a significant contribution of Bishop of Olomouc Robert, do not indicate exactly fervent interest in public affairs. Real changes thus did not occur until around 1212, when Master

20 Heger 1970, 80. 21 Prokop 1904, 52–54. 22 CDB II, 370–372, No. 355. 23 Šebánek 1947, 263–279. 24 Šebánek 1959, 3–39. 25 CDB II, 432–433, No. 385; Šebánek 1952, 11–13; Šebánek 1959, 12–13. 26 Zaoral 1967, 219–230. The Land 147

Figure 29 Vladislaus Henry did not have a residence that would be comparable to Prague Castle, but it seems that he came to like the old ducal castle in Znojmo already during his first margraviate in 1192–1194. It could have looked like this around the middle of the 13th century, at least in the material reconstruction. Reconstruction of the appearance by M. Plaček and P. Šimeček.

Appolinaris entered the margrave’s services. As a prothonotary, he dated privileges conferred upon the Order of St John (per manus Apollinaris curie mee prothonotarii) on the last day of 1213.27 At the end of January 1222, he was in the congregation of Vladislaus’ chaplains,28 but the chaplain’s benefice and the prothonotaryship complemented each other, so in Opava he participated in the issue of Vladislaus’ document for Wernhard of Thürnau29 and, after his return to Znojmo, certified the margrave’s donation for the Louka monastery.30 Master Appolinaris was signed under the lost privilege for Hradisko near

27 CDB II, 103–104, No. 109. 28 CDB II, 207–208, No. 222. 29 CDM II, 129–130, No. 125. 30 CDB II, 221–222, No. 233. 148 CHAPTER 4

Olomouc as well, because his name appeared even with the notarial title (per manus magistri Appollinaris, notarii aule nostre) in the collection of forgeries by which the monastery tried to defend its claims to the forest Střelná.31 He likewise stayed close to the margrave in April 1218, when the office confirmed the donation for Stephen of Medlov. Appolinaris is listed among the witnesses, but in addition to him this document mentions the name of Hilarius, the author of both the handwriting and the wording.32 On 24 June 1222 in Brno, he was granted the status of the prothonotary (per manus Hylarii notarii),33 which might imply that Hilarius and Appolinaris led Vladislaus’ office and that they took care of the seal of the margrave and his wife. The matrix of the margravine Heilwidis is known from a single impression from 1218, whereas the oldest margravial seal was attached to a charter from 31 December 1213.34 The same version was used until 1222. With its artistic treatment, it belongs to the group of equestrian seals. The circular field of a diameter of 75 mm is dominated by a galloping rider in armour, who is holding a decorated fluttering flag in his right hand while the shield in his left hand with a depiction of a rampant lion closely covers the chest. The decorative circle, interrupted by the horse’s hooves and the banner, is divided by the inscription with the traditional title + HЄIŊRICUS DЄI GRATIA MARCHIO MORAVIЄ. Unfortunately, the inclination of the shield makes it impossible to read the margravial coat of arms precisely. It is therefore not certain whether Vladislaus used a double-tailed lion. That lion appeared on the forged seal, which, according to Prokop Zaoral, might be a trace to the first matrix of the margrave of Moravia, which was (or was to be?) used before 1213.35 Despite all the uncer- tainties, however, it is indisputable that the margrave of Moravia travelled to Hoftage as well as to inspect the Přemyslid possessions under the sign of the lion, that is, under the same coat of arms as his brother, King of Bohemia Přemysl Otakar. Was it the case also with the heraldic colours, though? Did a red banner flutter above the margrave’s retinue or did Vladislaus Henry select the later well-known Moravian blue? No matter whether Vladislaus Henry travelled under red or blue banners, he was always accompanied by his courtiers, comprising not only Master Appolinaris, Hilarius and the chaplains Henry and Thomas but also the marshal (marschalcus) Peter and another Peter, who served as the cupbearer

31 CDB II, 362–364, No. 351; 364–368, No. 352; 372–375, No. 356. 32 CDB II, 151–152, No. 161; Friedrich 1897a, 20. 33 CDB II, 220–221, No. 232. 34 Čarek 1934, 19–20; 23; Zaoral 1967, 228–229. 35 Zaoral 1967, 229–230. The Land 149

Figure 30 Between 1213 and 1222, Vladislaus Henry used a single type of equestrian seal. Although he entered the public life as a margrave of Moravia, his shield bore the sign of a lion, which also appeared in the coat of arms of his brother, King of Bohemia Přemysl Otakar I. Photography by MZA (MORAVIAN LAND ARCHIVES) BRNO.

(pincerna).36 Three years later (in 1222), the cupbearer Peter was joined by the minor butler (subdapifer) Pilgrim and the high cupbearer William. Through the quill of Master Appolinaris, the margrave emphasised that he was a knight of his court (milites curie mee).37 These probably included the butler Sulislaus too. At the end of in 1213, he fulfilled his duties in Prostějov, although he might have been drawn to Haná by his services to the king of Bohemia,38 which would also be corroborated by Přemysl’s charter from 1222.39 Nevertheless, it is not necessary to attach too much significance to the last mention. The royal confirmation for the Order of the Teutonic Knights was written in the

36 CDB II, 151–152, No. 161. 37 CDB II, 221–222, No. 233. 38 CDB II, 103–104, No. 109; 104–106, No. 110. 39 CDB II, 229–232, No. 239. 150 CHAPTER 4

Figure 31 Prokop Zaoral concluded that a trace to another, perhaps earlier seal matrix could be the seal impression on Vladislaus’ modified charter, which claims to be from 1208. On the shield, it is possible, with some difficulties, to identify a double-tailed lion. Yet it is not certain whether the forger modified the seal of Margrave Vladislaus Henry or of some of his successors. Photography by NA (National Archives) Prague.

presence of the Moravian representation several days after Vladislaus’ death. Its diction testifies mainly to Přemysl’s efforts to assume the government of the orphaned land. At the same time, the forgery from 1203 moves Sulislaus to the margrave,40 and he continued to be a dapifer in the margrave’s services also under Vladislaus’ homonymous successor.41 The lists of witnesses of the small group of charters issued by the margrave now offer only random pieces of the events of the time. It is therefore no wonder that there is no information on the nobility of Vladislaus’ courtiers. Neither

40 CDB II, 372–375, No. 356. 41 CDB II, 262–263, No. 269. The Land 151 should it be surprising that the pious ruler travelled accompanied by several chaplains (capellani curie mee). Apart from the already mentioned Henry and Thomas, Vladislaus Henry listened also to Sidon, John, Burkhard, Sud and Sudek,42 to the last of whom the charter from Doubravník referred, without further specification, as a provost.43 This occurred in Prostějov at the end of 1213. In the first half of 1222, Burkhard and Thomas together with Benedict, Conrad and Gregory, travelled with the margrave to Opava. The ruler’s safety was ensured by (milites curie) Bertold, Burkhard, Chvalata, Andrew, Svojše’s Peter, Pilgrim and Chval.44 The subdapifer Peter is mentioned by Vladislaus’ charter from 1203, in fact a forgery of Premonstratensian provenance from Hradisko near Olomouc, which was, however, created following a genuine original. Provided that the scriptorium preserved the original list of witnesses, the margrave employed in his services not only the butler Sulislaus but also Peter’s father (?), subdapifer Svojše,45 who appeared in 1221 in another privilege, this time modified by the Velehrad Cistercians.46 The document lists pincerna Peter again while first including the marshal Andrew.47 The Zábrdovice forgeries in 1210 mention the dapifer Stephen.48 The group of courtiers comprised also Wernhard of Thürnau as a relative of Heilwidis’ and the manager of her property. Nevertheless, his proper place was among the land aristocrats, who considered service of a personal nature to be socially inappropriate. The modest yet telling set of mentions indicates that the margravial court met the contemporary requirements, because the comfort and the material needs of the ruler were ensured by the cupbearer, butler and marshal while spiritual services were offered by a congregation of chaplains. It is not known whether Vladislaus Henry had a sword-bearer (ensifer) like his older brother. Nonetheless, a wandering minstrel occasionally came to Znojmo, and in October 1203, the margrave could enjoy (?) the art of the famous poet Walter von der Vogelweide, who accompanied Wolfger of Erla,49 perhaps also a jokester, whom he paid 12 denars precisely ‘before’ Znojmo.50

42 CDB II, 103–104, No. 109; 104–106, No. 110. 43 CDB II, 73–74, No. 78. 44 CDM II, 129–130, No. 125; CDB II, 220–221, No. 232. 45 CDB II, 372–375, No. 356. 46 Dušková, 1947, 301–307. 47 CDB II, 198, No. 213. 48 CDB II, 391–393, No. 363; 393–397, No. 364. 49 Heger 1970, 81. 50 Heger 1970, 80. 152 CHAPTER 4

Wolfger’s mission allowed the margrave to escape from the cycle of everyday life, which included also frequent visits by Bishop of Olomouc Robert. The former prior of the Pomuk monastery was known as an ally of the royal court. He defended Přemysl’s divorce before the papal legate.51 In the awkward dispute with the bishop Andrew, he asked the rebellious clergy of the Prague diocese to maintain order. Despite the interdict, he officiated in St Vitus Cathedral, for which he was reprimanded by Pope Honorius III on 29 March 1218.52 Soon he faced legal action by the abbot of Želiv, who accused Robert of double murder, sinful intercourse with one virgin, married women and nuns of the Kounice monastery.53 That Přemysl Otakar held his confidant in high esteem is proved by numerous privileges. In July 1201, he left the bishopric of Olomouc a tithe from the Holasice province;54 six years later, he sealed a great immunity privilege without any objections;55 and in 1209, he gave the Chapter of Olomouc a village, whose possession he insured by special freedoms.56 The extraordinary relationship between the king and the bishop did not change even after the unification of Moravia in 1212.57 And what was the reaction of Vladislaus Henry? It should be mentioned again that the first margravial documents were formulated by none other than Bishop Robert and that Vladislaus’ office considered his wording (if he was the mysterious notary 05) as the norm.58 And then there is the arrival of the Cistercians in Moravia and the foundation of the Velehrad abbey as the joint work of the bishop and the margrave,59 which indicates that Vladislaus Henry and Robert shared mutual respect and understan ding. This trust hence brought together two exceptional personalities, from whose alliance Moravia evidently benefited. It was certainly by no accident that the bishop of Olomouc joined the retinue of Bohemians and Moravians, who set out in Regensburg in February 1213 for the first meeting with Frederick, king of Germany.60 Yet his excellent hour struck after Vladislaus’ death in the late summer of 1222, when he was appointed governor of the land.61 Unfortunately,

51 CDB II, 6–8, No. 8; Černá 1923, 22. 52 CDB II, 149–150, No. 159. 53 CDB II, 158, No. 170; Novotný 1928, 475–483. 54 CDB II, 18–21, No. 22. 55 CDB II, 52–55, No. 59. 56 CDB II, 79–80, No. 86. 57 Šebánek 1959, 29–32. 58 Zaoral 1967, 220–228. 59 Čechura 1981, 127–141. 60 CDB II, 433–435, No. 386. 61 CDB II, 242–244, No. 253. The Land 153

Figure 32 Vladislaus Henry seems to have concluded his reign in Louka near Znojmo, when he, in the late summer of 1222, confirmed the Premonstratensian rights to the village of Mramotice, which had been bequeathed to the monastery by a Moravian nobleman (nobilis terre mee) Wenceslas. Photography by MZA (Moravian Land Archives) Brno.

it is not clear now whether Robert’s appointment applied generally or once. The bearer himself spoke about it in the past tense, but at the end of the summer of 1222, the king of Bohemia must have been convinced that he simply did not have a better governor. 154 CHAPTER 4

Why would the pragmatically acting king, however, have put the bishop in charge of the execution of sovereign rights? Is it possible that Přemysl Otakar followed the voice of Moravian noblemen, who began to meddle in the land affairs precisely during Vladislaus’ life. An interesting company met in Olomouc on 26 August 1222. The line of witnesses of the confirmation privilege for the Order of the Teutonic Knights, by which the king restored the privileges conferred by his brother, recorded the presence of the abbots of Hradisko near Olomouc and Velehrad, as well as Stephen of Medlov and his son Emmeram, Oneš from the Blud family, Záviš and then Ekhard and his brother Hartleb, the lords of the coat of arms of three water-lily leaves.62 Influential lords of those years certainly included also Leo of Klobouky, Semislaus of Morkovice, Wernhard of Thürnau and naturally the branched Hrut family, whose names were regularly listed in the last lines of Vladislaus’ charters.63 Oddly enough, the ruler’s privileges never mentioned the abbot of Louka, although the margrave’s relation to Louka was very friendly. Probably in the spring of 1202, he was present at the consecration of the monastery church; in the next years, he augmented Premonstratensian possessions, and likewise the large congregation of the chaplains implies where Vladislaus Henry might have sought spiritual comfort. Třebíč, in contrast, seems to have lost its exclusivity. Although the margrave considered himself to be an heir of the Moravian Přemyslids, he acted rather with restraint towards the Benedictines. The three abbots of Hradisko near Olomouc, Louka and Velehrad enjoyed considerable respect, and it appears that the words of Leo of Klobouky, Stephen of Medlov, Wernhard of Thürnau, Bavor, Záviš, Semislaus and Theodoric were similarly authoritative. In spite of that, the ‘Moravians’ could not measure up to the noblemen in Bohemia. They did not have the electoral right, because the margrave had been selected through the December agreement. Nevertheless, the twenty years of Vladislaus’ peaceful reign made its mark in the history of the land more than the Prague court had imagined. If the rebukes by Pope Honorius III from 1224 are reliable, the margrave, without the consent of the Prague court, seized the gold-bearing possessions of the bishop of Wrocław.64 The foray apparently did not require a particular concentration of forces and means and also Přemysl Otakar might only have pretended not to know about it, but it was probably the margrave’s banner that was erected above the conquest, which after all indicates a growing self-confidence of the land.

62 CDB II, 229–232, No. 239. 63 CDB II, 103–104, No. 109. 64 CDB II, 244–245, No. 254. The Land 155

Figure 33 The margravial chancery evidently did not excel in the number of documents issued, which might imply that Vladislaus Henry often made do with a verbal approval. Soon after his death, charters thus began to appear that were to prove that the endowed, mainly monasteries, managed the property according to the law. It was the same at Velehrad, where they, around the middle of the 13th century, wrote a privilege which guaranteed the Cistercians, allegedly already from 12 June 1221, the possession of the village of Žalkovice along with half of the adjacent forest Rašín. Photography by MZA (Moravian Land Archives) Brno. 156 CHAPTER 4

Figure 34 One of the most comely charters left the margravial chancery on 27 April 1218, when Vladislaus Henry appreciated the faithful services of Stephen of Medlov and endowed him with hereditary right (perpetuo et herditario iure) to the village of Bohdanovy in the Holasice province. Photography by AMB (Brno City Archives). The Land 157

The rule of the margrave Vladislaus Henry covers an entire quarter of a century in Moravian history, but he never became the ruler of the land in the full sense of the word. The title of Margrave was, both positively and nega- tively, connected with 1197, and, mainly in the first decade of the 13th century, it expressed the relation to the king of Bohemia. Between1212 and 1222, worries of everyday life prevailed and naturally necessitated the establishment of another power centre, but the alliance of hereditary Přemyslid possessions was not disturbed. The special duality of the situation in Moravia, which was aptly expressed in one of the Zábrdovice documents by a comment on the land of the king of Bohemia and the principality of the margrave (in regno nostro et in principatu fratris nostri),65 undoubtedly burdened the management of public affairs. Nonetheless, it did not disappear; on the contrary, with the passing of the years, it became stronger until it grew into a distinctive union of two communities of the land, Bohemian and Moravian. It became a place of memory which combined the legacy of the margrave Vladislaus Henry with the slow transformation of ducal Bohemia and ducal Moravia into royal Bohemia and margravial Moravia.

2 The Governor

The Zábrdovice forger acknowledged Vladislaus Henry’s rule over the principality ‘principatus’ without trying to specify what his powers entailed. A great deal is implied by the charter from the end of 1213 by which the margrave gave the Order of St John privileges which he proudly declared to be valid all over the land (in tota Morauia).66 According to the notary who wrote the royal confirmation on the spot, he thus referred to four provinces, namely those of Olomouc, Znojmo, Brno and Holasice.67 Almost eight hundred years later, this postscript was noticed by Beda Dudík, who liked the transformation of ducal districts into proper provinces and the creation of a new administrative unit on the site of the former Piast castellany.68 Ducal tradition was recognised in the privilege also by Richard Horna,69 but Ladislav Hosák concluded that there must have been more castle districts in Moravia and that both documents

65 CDB II, 391–393, No. 363. 66 CDB II, 103–104, No. 109. 67 CDB II, 104–106, No. 110. 68 Dudík 1878a, 49–50. 69 Horna 1929, 7. 158 CHAPTER 4 from 1213 mention only those provinces in which the Order of St John had some possessions.70 The objection raised cannot be accepted with all seriousness, because the privilege mentioned possessions which the Order of St John obtained later, and, above all, the list of the estates of the Order at the end of 1213 could not have included the Brno province.71 Nevertheless, one should recall that Ladislav Hosák connected the land administration system with the six arch- deaconries of the bishop Henry Zdík, which in 1141 included Olomouc, Brno, Znojmo, Přerov, Břeclav and Spytihněv.72 Although the 13th century brought minor modifications, the core of the provincial network was to remain intact, and seven, a maximum of eight, seats sufficed to control Moravia completely. Hosák’s speculations, however, contradict the note by the royal notary that Moravia was understood as four provinces. Nonetheless, contemporary resources actually mention castle districts in Bítov, Přerov, Břeclav or Úsobrno. Is it possible that the land underwent an extensive administrative reform which after 1213 added the residences of the dukes of Moravia in Olomouc, Znojmo and Brno with three, maybe four, administrative districts and the newly founded Holasice region? An attempt to reconcile age-old ideas and the diction of written sources was made by Rudolf Procházka, who realised that it was not possible to compare provincial centres and Přemyslid castles and therefore divided castle residences into three groups, with the first two covering Hosák’s list.73 Libor Jan went even further when he reached the conclusion that ducal centres imitated the Prague court and that they retained their influence even after the emergence of the Margraviate. Vladislaus Henry headed for Znojmo; Olomouc was tied with the bishopric and continued to manage North Moravia; and finally, the third old- new district was Brno, whose renaissance began precisely in the first quarter of the 13th century. The seven regions of Moravia known from the High Middle Ages were formed by the annexation of the Holasice area, the partial emancipation of lower administrative districts in Přerov and Břeclav, which separated themselves from the Olomouc region, and the division of the Znojmo province into an old settlement chamber around Znojmo and the newly colonised Bítov region.74 That seven administrative districts meant nothing more than the Holasice region and three former ducal districts is proved by the statutes of

70 Hosák 1959, 142. 71 Jan 2000, 22–24. 72 CDB I, 116–123, No. 115. 73 Procházka 1993, 109–141. 74 Jan 2000, 17–32. The Land 159

Duke Conrad Otto, which were renewed by Otakar I in the third decade of the 13th century. Among other things, he explicitly emphasised that his confirmation, despite its having been issued in front of the noblemen of the Znojmo province, was valid for the Bítov area as well.75 The situation in Moravia hence began to resemble the internal organisation of Bohemia. Large units were divided while small ones were unified; and although the varied lexis of contemporary sources makes it difficult to study general phenomena, it seems that there was a tendency towards certain clarity.76 The main provinces in Moravia—that is, those of Znojmo, Brno and Olomouc—appear in a forged privilege for the Louka monastery, which claims to be from 1195;77 nevertheless, not even the three-stage division of the administrative organisation of Moravia explains absolutely everything. Apart from important land centres and castle districts of the second and third orders, public life sometimes shifted to the vicinity of curtes. The margravial freedoms for the Order of St John were displayed in Prostějov;78 the donation for the Velehrad Cistercians left the desk of Vladislaus’ notary in Kyjov;79 from later, it is possible to mention Přemysl’s confirmation for the town of Opava, sealed in Hulín.80 Another palatial residence could be found in Řeznovice; although it had not been part of Vladislaus’ itinerary, the margrave simply could not have passed it unnoticed on his journeys between Znojmo and Brno. The basic needs could be satisfied also by the curtis before the castle Veveří or Telč, closer to the Czech border.81 At the same time, it was too daring an attempt to move the beginnings of the castles Lukov and Brumov, which were to protect the mountain passes on the Moravian-Hungarian border, to the first quarter of the 13th century. The curtis in Řeznovice undoubtedly came from the period of the dukes of Znojmo, but the margrave does not seem to have taken a cold or negative stance towards this heritage. Direct reform interventions were thus limi ted to the Olomouc region, governed by the king of Bohemia from 1201. He evidently did not miss the old days—already in the first years of the 13th century, he began to modify the castle complex, which was accelerated by the fire

75 CDB II, 222–225, No. 234. 76 Žemlička 2007a, 179–180. 77 CDB I, 444–446, No. 411. 78 CDB II, 103–104, No. 109; 104–106, No. 110. 79 CDB II, 207–208, No. 222. 80 CDB II, 256–257, No. 265. 81 Bláha – Konečný 1985, 129–160; Procházka – Doležel, 2000, 35–36. 160 CHAPTER 4

Figure 35 Moravian provinces during the reign of Margrave Vladislaus Henry. A: The state borders of the Czech Republic; B: Land borders; C: The borders of former ducal districts; D: The borders of provinces; E: Ducal seats (1 – Olomouc, 2 – Brno, 3 – Znojmo); F: Provincial centres (4 – Opava, 5 – Přerov, 6 – Břeclav, 7 – Bítov); G: Water courses. Drawing by Z. Neústupný. in 1204.82 Not even Bishop Robert was able to dissuade the king from executing his generous plans. Therefore, the bishop turned to the pope. On 5 April 1207, a commission was appointed regarding the disagreement between the bishop and the king. The curial notary then summarised the causes of the controversy.

82 Granum catalogi praesulum Moraviae, AÖG 78/1892, 78; Necrologium Olomucense, AÖG 65/1884, 540. The Land 161

Figure 36 The dating formulas of the royal and margravial charters imply that the public life in Přemyslid possessions around the turn of the 13th century was not limited to important castles and provincial seats but that its significant part took place at curtes in the countryside. One of them grew in Telč on the Bohemian-Moravian border on a low promontory protected by a swampy confluence. In the next century, a subject town spread here and the former curtis was reconstructed into the church of the Holy Spirit. Photography by A. Flídr. 162 CHAPTER 4

Among other things, he explained that the old episcopal church at St Peter’s had suffered from poor air quality and therefore Robert’s predecessor had moved the seat of the diocese to a hillock inside the walls, where he had consecrated the church of St Wenceslas. Nevertheless, some time later, the ruler of the land had built a fortification there, surrounding the episcopal district (municionem quandam in monticulum ipso construxit et eandem ecclesiam muri ambitu circumclusit).83 It is not important for our story at all that the canons did not have free access to the church and that Bishop Robert asked for his seat to be moved back to St Peter’s. What is slightly amazing is the inconsideration of the ruler of Bohemia, who by the ruthless construction jeopardised his otherwise entirely good relations with Bishop Robert. In the end, the bishop kept the church of St Wenceslas, which implies that the serious dispute was successfully settled after all. And the new royal curtis? Until 1212, it hosted Přemysl Otakar and his retinue regularly, after that only occasionally. Its importance gradually decreased, and the property allotted disappeared with it. The residence that was called ‘Nový Hrádek’ (New Castle) in 121384 lost its income from Drozdovice in 1233,85 the estates in Moravská Huzová and Tověř in 123986 and four hides in Odrlice in 1251.87 A document from 1239 distinguishes between the material resources of the Olomouc castle and Hrádek.88 Moreover, the line of witnesses mentions a Hradec vilicus (overseer), John, and the subjects Male and Puten.89 Furthermore, the joint donation by Margrave Přemysl and Queen Constance was personally approved by the lord Vojtěch, who held (?) Hrádek with its facilities,90 by which he only confirmed that the Olomouc curtishad its own administration.91 The king of Bohemia paid considerable attention to his seat in Moravia, but he monitored the reform of provincial organs with similar care. Most likely in 1201, he established a new Holasice province with its centre in Hradec near Opava.92 In 1207, after discussions with the bishop Robert, he instituted a chancery, to which he granted a tithe from Uhřičice, and he connected the well-

83 CDB II, 61–62, No. 66. 84 CDB II, 100–101, No. 106. 85 CDB III/1, 27–28, No. 29. 86 CDB III/2, 280–283, No. 214. 87 CDB IV/1, 374–376, No. 211. 88 CDB III/2, 280–283, No. 214. 89 CDB III/2, 280–283, No. 214. 90 CDB III/1, 27–28, No. 29. 91 Richter 1959, 87–93; Nešpor 1968, 77–81; Bistřický 1979a, 109–115; Bistřický 1986, 111–116. 92 Bakala 1969, 9–23. The Land 163 funded office with the provostry of the Chapter of Olomouc.93 He thus actually brought memories back to the last years of the second kingdom of Bohemia, when Prince Frederick governed the Olomouc part of Moravia with the assistance of a special chancellor, after 1179 probably the bishop of Prague (?), Valentine.94 Přemysl’s chancery, however, evidently did not exceed the bounds of his well-meant intentions, although one royal and two papal confirmations claim the opposite.95 The Moravian chancellor is mentioned neither in lines of witnesses nor in dating formulas, which makes sense only if one admits that Vladislaus Henry made do with the services of Appolinaris and Hilarius.96 That may be the reason that Jindřich Šebánek suggested that Přemysl Otakar had been preparing the chancellery for the bishop Robert.97 Was it then found to be pointless after the unification of Moravia around 1212? It is possible. What did Vladislaus Henry, however, think of the structure of provincial authorities introduced by his brother? Conrad’s statutes in the wording from 1222 name four officials: a chamberlain, a castellan, a judge and a vilicus.98 Libor Jan proved that the chamberlain was in charge of the ruler’s income, that is, of his chamber, and the castellan or burgrave oversaw the castle hinterland. The judge and the vilicus embodied the law—the first of them usually dealt with disputes among the privileged and presided over the land court while the second, being the ruler’s deputy, decided controversies among the subjects within the given district of the ruler’s estates as a provincial reeve.99 The four powerful officials met in Olomouc at the beginning of the 13th century. Around 1201, chamberlain Bohuslaus worked here in royal services;100 sometime before 1207, this office was assumed by Ernest;101 and in the second decade of the 13th century, Bavor moved to North Bohemia.102 The castellany of Olomouc was held by Medlo

93 CDB II, 52–55, No. 59. 94 CDB I, 218–219, No. 247; Novotný 1913, 1058–1059. 95 CDB II, 57–58, No. 62; CDB V/1, 481, No. 322; 153–158, No. 84. 96 Bistřický 2006, 34–41. 97 Šebánek 1959, 30. 98 CDB II, 222–225, No. 234. 99 Jan 2000, 33–72. 100 CDB II, 17–18, No. 21; 18–20, No. 22. 101 CDB II, 52–55, No. 59. 102 CDB II, 73–74, No. 78; 100–101, No. 106 (1213); 103–104, No. 109 (1213); 104–106, No. 110 (1213); 228–229, No. 238 (1222); 229–232, No. 239 (1222); 236–237, No. 245 (1223); 237–238, No. 246 (1223); 256–257, No. 265 (1225). 164 CHAPTER 4 in 1207,103 followed by Záviš until 1222.104 Judicial affairs were first resolved by Henry,105 in 1213 by Doben106 and from 1222 by Veliš,107 whereas the proceedings under the competence of the vilicus were managed by Radoslav.108 The continuous list of names and years resembles a treatise on Přemysl’s foundation work. Before that, however, one should recall the lines of witnesses in the charter of Ulrich, Duke of Moravia, which in 1174 recorded the chamberlain Slavibor, the Olomouc castellan Čstata and the judges Mladota and Peter.109 This implies that the king of Bohemia at the beginning of 13th century did not create but to a certain degree ‘only’ restored the system established earlier. That would not have been complete without the Přerov province, where the castellan Jaroš settled under Duke Ulrich, Blud during Vladislaus’ margraviate in 1213110 and Ctibor in 1222.111 The other castle centres of the Olomouc part of Moravia did not penetrate into the written sources of the first quarter of the 13th century, although it is not excluded that the king, or the margrave, then decided to move the administrative authorities of South-East Moravia from the declining Spytihněv112 and Hodonín to Břeclav.113 Ulrich’s privilege from 1174 mentions also the castellan Mojec, which takes one to the soil of Vladislaus’ margravial domain. The most powerful official in the Brno province was Leo of Klobouky. In 1213, he acted as a judge,114 and in 1222, already after the margrave’s death, he became the chamberlain there115 while Ratibor of Deblín assumed his position as a judge.116 Vilication rights were overseen by Theodoric,117 who was mostly interested in the Znojmo region, however, where his family estates lay and where he himself made decisions as

103 CDB II, 52–55, No. 59. 104 CDB II, 73–74, No. 78; 103–104, No. 109 (1213); 104–106, No. 110 (1213); 229–232, No. 239 (1222). 105 CDB II, 52–55, No. 59. 106 CDB II, 73–74, No. 78; 103–104, No. 109 (1213); 104–106, No. 110 (1213). 107 CDB II, 229–232, No. 239 (1222); 237–238, No. 246 (1223); 262–263, No. 269. 108 CDB II, 73–74, No. 78. 109 CDB I, 238–239, No. 270. 110 CDB II, 103–104, No. 109; 104–106, No. 110. 111 CDB II, 229–232, No. 239. 112 Měřínský 1997, 19–36. 113 CDB I, 238–239, No. 270; Jan 2000, 85–91. 114 CDB II, 103–104, No. 109; 104–106, No. 110. 115 CDB II, 222–225, No. 234; 228–229, No. 238; Janiš – Kohoutek 2003, 363–364. 116 CDB II, 222–225, No. 234; 228–229, No. 238. 117 CDB II, 228–229, No. 238; 242–244, No. 253. The Land 165

Figure 37 What the Přemyslid curtes may have looked like at the beginning of the 13th century is implied by the Romanesque chapel of the Mother of God at Veveří, surrounded by a low wall, from which the adjacent hunting forest was probably managed. Photography by a. Flídr.

a judge118 and vilicus.119 For some time, the judicial court in Znojmo was managed also by Henry,120 who had married a daughter of the knight Radoslaus;121 the margrave’s confidence in the role of a castellan was won and retained by Emmeram of Medlov;122 and the influential Hradčan family, albeit with an uncertain relation to Emmeram’s burgravial post, included the margravine’s relatives, the brothers Ekhard and Hartleb.123 The brief wandering around the castle districts of the margraviate of Moravia is approaching its end. Has it revealed anything important? It seems

118 CDB II, 226–227, No. 236. 119 CDB II, 242–244, No. 253; 287–289, No. 288; 315–319, No. 320. 120 CDB II, 25–26, No. 28. 121 CDB II, 370–372, No. 355. 122 CDB II, 25–26, No. 28; 103–104, No. 109; 104–106, No. 110; 207–208, No. 222; 220–221, No. 232; 221–222, No. 233; 222–225, No. 234; 242–244, No. 253; 260–261, No. 268. 123 CDB II, 151–152, No. 161; 220–221, No. 232; 221–222, No. 233, 229–232, No. 239. 166 CHAPTER 4 so—at least the shakiness of the idea that every province had its vilicus, judge, castellan and chamberlain. All of these officials appear in Moravia, and likewise their activities covered the entire land, but none of them ever considered changing their residence, which at the beginning of the 13th century meant Olomouc or Znojmo. It was not until a few years later that the Brno agglome ration was, at the expense of Znojmo, naturally rehabilitated. The particular situation, which in the middle of the 14th century resulted in two series of the registers of landed property (tabulae terrae, land tablets), may justly be perceived as the legacy of the ducal age, when there were two, for a short period of time as many as three, ducal courts in Moravia next to each other, because not even the Moravian Přemyslids could manage without provincial officials. These were accountable to the dukes in Olomouc or Brno/Znojmo and could decide perhaps only the local and less serious disputes without the direct involve- ment of the ruler of the land. Hradec near Opava, however, had an exceptional status—until probably 1201, it was subjected to the Přerov castellan.124 After the creation of the Holasice province, the burgrave of Hradec assumed the exercise of some sovereign rights, which included inter alia the protection of the Jewish community in Opava.125 On a regional scale, the Hradec castellan enjoyed considerable respect. He had to delegate a part of his powers entrusted to him to the chaser, who took control of the unsettled land and vast forests along the paths to Přerov and Olomouc. Before 1224, Prosimír held his office there,126 which brings one to the question of what the situation was in the rest of Moravia. A traditionally courtly office did not appear in margravial documents, which does not have to mean anything considering the proverbial incompleteness of the source base. After all, the forgery that was created in Hradisko near Olomouc based on Vladislaus’ real (?) privilege claims that the forested foothills of the Nízký Jeseník mountains were managed by the master chaser Slavata and the high chaser Blud with his retinue of low-born servants.127 The privilege itself claims to be from 1203, but its content could have referred to a later situation, because the master chaser, the chaser of the Brno province, and the chaser of the margravial court are mentioned in the documents of Vladislaus’ nephew Přemysl from the third decade of the 13th century.128 The land and castle administration needed not only castellans, vilici, judges, chamberlains and chasers. The probably least

124 Wihoda 1989, 77–88. 125 Kouřil – Prix – Wihoda 2000, 423–424. 126 CDB II, 256–257, No. 265. 127 CDB II, 372–375, No. 356. 128 CDB III/1, 94–99, No. 87; CDB III/2, 261–263, No. 204; 280–283, No. 214; Jan 2000, 192–208. The Land 167 prominent office was that of the provincial scribe; although explicit mentions are missing, Libor Jan proved that the roots of this institution reach back to 1200.129 It should be added that the first known scribe was Vladislaus’ chaplain Conrad, who was in charge of land debts in the Brno region.130 That is how bureaucracy became part of the life of Moravian provinces, even if the land was controlled as an absolute matter of course by the land aristocracy alongside with Vladislaus Henry. The transformation of ducal Moravia into margravial Moravia offered a unique space for reforms, but these actually did not take place. The dualism of land administration was preserved: with the exception of the Holasice region, neither the number of provinces nor the structure of the offices changed; after the unification of the land around 1212, Vladislaus Henry took over along with the Olomouc region also the chamberlains, judges, vilici and castellans appointed by the king. Therefore, the first quarter of the 13th century is not a turning point. It is, rather, a significant long-term chapter, whose lines were written by Vladislaus Henry and Moravian lords with the same quill. The Olomouc region became the place of residence of the Blud family, which drew attention to itself in the Přerov castellany and later as chasers in the margravial forest around Úsov. Bavor, Záviš and Doben proved their worth first in royal and then in margravial services. They returned to Bohemia, however, and did not leave deep traces in Haná. In contrast, Semislaus received the large circuitus on the border of the Olomouc and Opava provinces for his services. The Brno judge and chamberlain Leo of Klobouky continued to be generously rewarded. He, however, donated the rapidly growing family possessions to the Zábrdovice canonry.131 In the Znojmo region, an excellent position was won by the family of three water-lily leaves, which could refer to its kinship with the margravine Heilwidis.132 Wernhard of Thürnau was promoted to Heilwidis’ chamberlain; Hartleb and Ekhard made their mark in castle administration, where the castellan was Jimram, along with Stephen of Medlov the founder of the coat of arms of the bison head, the later famous Pernsteins.133 Also Conrad of Hardegg, perhaps even the knight Rudger, came from Austria, but their stay seems to have been temporary, because they gradually gave their small pensions to ecclesiastical institutions.134

129 Jan 2000, 72–75. 130 CDB II, 226–227, No. 236. 131 Klápště 2012, 76–80. 132 Plaček 1997, 79–91. 133 Plaček 1995, 117–134. 134 CDB II, 25–26, No. 28; 182–183, No. 197. 168 CHAPTER 4

Under the rule of the margrave Vladislaus Henry, Moravian noblemen did not form a uniform community, and as if they wanted to prove that, despite events of the year 1212, the margraviate remained divided into two parts and they still had their names written in the lists of witnesses divided according to their relationship to Brno (Znojmo) or Olomouc. Moreover, the aristocracy domesticated in the south was rarely interested in the possessions in the north, and it was the same in the Olomouc region. The will for reforms succumbed to the power of tradition, and the established system predominated over the experience of the Babenberg Danube Basin. Did Vladislaus Henry attempt a real unification of the land? He probably did not. With his sceptre, he only impressed on Moravia a seal of generous dichotomy, under which the legacy of the ducal age could survive, without the margraviate surrendering the possibi lity of receiving stimuli from near and far.

3 The Manager

At the end of the reign of Charles IV, the Strahov Premonstratensian Albert answered the plea of the venerable sister Hedwig, who conducted the affairs of the Doksany canonry, and compiled a martyrologium, into which He incorporated brief excerpts from an old monastic necrology. Along with them, he took over an entry for 22 August, when Doksany commemorated Margrave of Moravia Vladislaus Henry, who gave the Premonstratensian nuns 100 marks of silver and a painting (?) of the Virgin Mary (preciosam ymaginem sancte Marie) in a value of another 50 marks.135 In and of itself, the generous donation would not be anything exceptional. Some attention might have been aroused by Vladislaus’ close relation to a canonry in Bohemia, but not even such a tie was beyond contemporary practices, particularly when the institution was founded by the second king of Bohemia, Vladislaus, and the margrave honoured his father’s memory by the generous endowment. Other motives, apparently including the ruler’s self-presentation, augmented the treasures of the Olomouc cathedral of St Wenceslas with a golden cross decorated with pearls and gemstones (magna crux aurea cum margaritis et diversis lapidibus preciosis bene ornata),136 which was evaluated by the catalogue of the bishops of Moravia at 12 marks of gold.137 Thirdly, according to a royal confirmation,

135 Necrologium Doxanense, VKČSN 8/1884, 121. 136 Visitacio rerum ecclesie cathedralis Olomucensis, Method 15/1889, 117; Fragmentum chronici ecclesiae cathedralis Olomucensis, StR 12/1973, 200. 137 Granum catalogi praesulum Moraviae, AÖG 78/1892, 79. The Land 169 the margrave purchased estates for nearly 130 marks of silver and donated them to the Velehrad monastery, by which he perfectly fulfilled the obligations of a generous and pious founder.138 The accounts quoted may certainly be wrong, for instance because they were all written long after Vladislaus’ death. The Olomouc inventory was made in 1413, the Doksany necrology shortly before 1378 and the royal charter, despite showing the year 1202, did not leave the desk of the Velehrad forger until around 1257.139 Nevertheless, it is unquestionable that the margrave of Moravia complemented the equipment of ecclesiastical institutions, although it is not certain when this happened. The basic endowment of the comman dery of the Order of the Teutonic Knights in Opava, however, implies140 that Vladislaus Henry had rather modest means in the first years of his reign, which would move some of his donations to later, maybe between 1212 and 1222. How should one read the dispositio of the Velehrad forgery from 1202 then? Apparently, the Velehrad forger combined two stories remote in time. First, he described the complex history of the plot that was at the birth of the first Cistercian house in Moravia. This property was given to the Premonstratensians in Litomyšl by Duke of Olomouc Bretislaus. Since he had done so without the knowledge of the Prague court, however, Přemysl Otakar did not confirm the donation, nor did he want to approve the terms under which the margrave slightly later purchased the land and gave it to Abbot Thizelin. The second part of the history briefly states from whom and for how much Vladislaus Henry acquired another three villages, as if to imply that the monastery had ori ginally owned only a few landed estates with the deserted church of St John (ecclesia sancti Johannis, sed tunc temporis vacua et deserta) and that it had not extricated itself from the poverty until sometime before 1220. Nothing is said about generous purchases mentioned in the forgery from 1202; only 10 marks are mentioned, for which the margrave received hardly 200 morgens of land.141 The rest of the property appears in the charter of Robert, bishop of Olomouc, from 1220,142 and eight years later in Přemysl’s confirmation, which unfortunately does not say when and how the estates concerned became part of the Cistercian possessions.143 Could this have happened already at the beginning of the 13th century? It is possible, but where would Vladislaus Henry, after his

138 CDB II, 370–372, No. 355. 139 Šebánek 1947, 263–279. 140 CDB II, 36–37, No. 40. 141 CDB II, 370–372, No. 355. 142 CDB II, 179–181, No. 195. 143 CDB II, 319–323, No. 321. 170 CHAPTER 4 return to Znojmo and most likely also to an empty treasury, would have raised ‘unnecessary’ 50 marks to redeem the village of Boršice from the hands of the lord Přibyslaus, to give another 30 to Doben for Zlechov and be able to offer 28 to Smil for Hustěnovice when the margravial chamber depended only on South Moravia? And what might have the unification of Moravia around 1212 brought? Could the numerous donations have been ensured by a simple mul- tiplication of the ruler’s income, or did Vladislaus Henry deliberately intervene into its structure as well? That the margrave oversaw the whole of Moravia and assumed full control over all pay and pensions is proved by a charter from 31 December in 1213. At that time, Vladislaus Henry freed the possessions of the Order of St John from the burdens called nářez, nocleh and povoz, which entailed the obligations to provide services for the ruler and his officials and which with their unclear extent gave a hard time both to the subjects and the lords. Furthermore, none of them was to worry about a rather common fee of 14 denars;144 the margrave remitted the tithe of the execution of the criminal law, namely from summons and capital punishment, and the monastic estates were no longer to be burdened by the repairs or the construction of castles and bridges.145 Nevertheless, the land belonging to the Order of St John covered only an insignificant part of Moravia, and nothing about that was changed by the postscript stating that the freedoms granted counted on future profits. The collection of the privileges by which Vladislaus Henry, in agreement with his brother, endowed the Velehrad Cistercians probably around 1208, however, headed in the same direction.146 The actual privilege soon became a popular model and as such was loaned to the Order of St John in 1213.147 In 1225 and 1228, it was requested by the venerable Heilwidis for Oslavany;148 finally, in 1235, the ‘Velehrad immunity’ secured the status of the Zábrdovice canonry.149 The discussion should return to before 1222. If one can trust the rulers’ charters, then the king and the margrave without hesitation gave up old pay and taxes and the rights for accommodation and food; they relieved the villagers of the workload including the construction and repairs of castles; and they transferred the collection of fines and the lower jurisdiction onto selected ecclesiastical institutions. Přemysl’s privilege for the bishopric of Olomouc from

144 CDB II, 222–225, No. 234. 145 CDB II, 103–104, No. 109. 146 CDB II, 319–323, No. 321; Hurt 1934, 46; Borovský 2005, 30. 147 CDB II, 103–104, No. 109; 104–106, No. 110. 148 CDB II, 266–267, No. 272; 315–319, No. 320. 149 CDB III/1, 129–133, No. 107. The Land 171

1207 is more general yet written in the same spirit.150 To a certain degree, it restored previously granted freedoms, but it approached the traditional part of the ducal chamber with just as much negligence as the slightly later Velehrad immunity. Is it possible that the margrave no longer cared about old income? It really seems that Vladislaus Henry turned his attention somewhere else. Remembering the years that he had spent in Meissen and Thuringia, he might have left the complicated and cumbersome system of burdens and obligations to its fate and focused on the collection of precisely defined and hence well- controllable income. Nevertheless, he first had to renew coil minting. At the turn of the 13th century, not only the story of the Moravian Přemyslids but also the denar period ended. The political decline of the ducal house in Olomouc and the unrest in the Znojmo region were reflected in the repeated depreciation of the denar currency, which was not able to prevent the inflow of Austrian pfennigs.151 The fading faith in domestic coinage affected the activities of ducal mints as well. Jiří Sejbal even concluded that not a single one was in operation around 1200.152 The massive influx of the pfennig coin to Moravia did not stop until the return of Vladislaus Henry, during whose rule in 1198–1222 the land gradually extricated itself from the influence of Babenberg mintage and became a space where denars of the pfennig type circulated. The decent and especially stable weight (around 0.5 g) of the new coins,153 which were minted in two face values until 1253 and first imitated Austrian pfennigs,154 calmed the domestic currency situation and brought order into tax collection. Nevertheless, one cannot help but ask about the source of silver, without which the monetary reform would not have been possible. The margrave could have requested technical support from Babenberg mints in Vienna, Enns or Krems. The silver, however, must have come from Moravia. First, we cannot rule out the surroundings of Zlaté Hory, not only because gold was mined there but also because Vladislaus Henry took hold of the gold-bearing veins at the time when the new coinage already efficiently resisted Austrian pfennigs.155 Slightly further south, prospectors came across scattered weathered-ore deposits, which contained also silver. Interesting ore yields brought such a number of people into the otherwise quite inhospitable

150 CDB II, 52–55, No. 59. 151 Sejbal 1966, 78–84; Koch 1986, 280–284. 152 Sejbal 1976, 55–64. 153 Cach 1974, 46–47, No. 875–880; No. 882–884; No. 886–887; No. 881; No. 885; Sejbal 1976, 60–61. 154 Turnwald 1976, 157–162; Koch 1976, 172–179. 155 CDB II, 244–245, No. 254. 172 CHAPTER 4

Figure 38 Moravian denars of the pfennig type, which began to be minted by Vladislaus Henry, were of a rather stable weight and purity. As the coins did not contain any inscription though, it is not entirely clear now what types can be reliably dated to the second decade of the 13th century.

landscape that no later than in 1213 a village was founded in the broad valley of the Černý Potok, in the place called Bruntál, which the margrave gave permission to use Magdeburg law.156 Also the beginnings of Uničov reach back to 1213.157 Although it was established on the outer edge of the old settlement chamber, the privilege of Margrave Přemysl from 1234 indicates that with its material base it supported mining activities in the extensive area between the Bohemian land border in the west, the river Moravice in the north and the Bystřice in the east.158 Moreover, the burghers achieved the closure of taverns and took control of food distribution, but the privileges, or rather their unpre cedented scope, raise some questions. First of all, it is not certain whether they ever came into force and whether the actual document might mainly testify to dashed hopes and the rapid decline of originally probably promising deposits.159 If that was the case, the origin of Uničov is related to the discovery of ore veins, whose character and composition strikingly resemble the conditions in the upper basin of the river Svratka. Literature, however, dates the local mining works, mainly the unique Havírna near Štěpánov, to the middle of the 13th century.160 Mining around Deblín or Jasenice is dated roughly

156 Kouřil – Prix – Wihoda 2000, 419–420. 157 CDB II, 237–239, No. 246. 158 CDB III/1, 82–83, No. 76. 159 Klápště 2012, 406–410. 160 Doležel – Sadílek 2004, 43–119. The Land 173 to the same time.161 Is the indicated conclusion valid without exception, though? Probably not. Analyses of Brno graphite pottery from the turn of the 13th century have proved that the raw material came precisely from the Upper Svratka,162 so that the local deposits were well known already during the life of Margrave Vladislaus Henry. Another issue should be mentioned too. The royal charter for the Tišnov monastery from 7 December 1240, through which the abbey received the patronage for the church of St Peter in Brno as well as the parishes in Moravské Budějovice and Velká Bíteš,163 proves that Bíteš, one medieval mile away from the ore deposits on the Upper Svratka, belonged to the margrave. Remarkable space for speculations is offered by the postscript that Bíteš was called Jindřichov (Bytes, quod eciam Heynrichs dicitur).164 Can it be Vladislaus’ foundation work, and was Bíteš established as a gate and the key to mining works in Southwest Moravia? Why not—the governor of the margravial residence in Znojmo, Emmeram of Medlov, settled on the northern side of the mile circuit. Neither can one pass in silence the appearance of the Bíteš church of St John the Baptist. With its size and age, it is reminiscent of a similar building in Staré Město near Bruntál, which until the middle of the 14th century fulfilled the function of the symbolic and administrative centre of the Jeseníky district.165 One way or another, the path from the find of the ore veins to Moravian denars of the pfennig type was so complicated that the margrave relinquished personal supervision and probably interfered into the mining business only indirectly, for instance when he agreed to the use of the Magdeburg Law. He filled his chamber with the profit from coin minting and with urbura, the mining tax, which was probably between one-eighth and one-quarter of the mining costs.166 Direct and undisputed evidence is missing, however. That is probably why existing opinions favour the middle of the 13th century. Why not? The finest hour of Jihlava, Smilův Brod, Humpolec and Krucemburk truly came as late as around 1250,167 but the presence of new coins already in the first decades of the 13th century simply cannot be overlooked. The fairly well-founded assumption that Vladislaus Henry was able to ensure the continuous supply of silver ore forms only one part of the equation.

161 Krejčíř – Štrejn 1962, 195–199; Vermouzek 1969, 16–34. 162 Gregerová – Procházka 1998, 275–278. 163 CDB III/2, 351–353, No. 259. 164 Doležel 1995, 212; Doležel 1997, 157; Doležel 2000b, 177. 165 Prix 1991, 110–132; Prix 1999, 3–17. 166 Holub 2005, 573–580. 167 Nový 1974, 366–422; Jan 2004, 393–397. 174 CHAPTER 4

Figure 39 The church of St John the Baptist, fortified in the late Middle Ages, still dominates the landscape around ‘Henry’s town’ (Heynrichs) Velká Bíteš. Can it be Vladislaus’ foundation work? Photography by a. Flídr.

Where was the rock fired and cleaned, where was the coinage metal made and where were the coins actually minted?168 At the end of the reign of Wenceslas I, mints were close to ore deposits, so tenants worked in Humpolec, Smilův Brod and Jihlava.169 The system of Vladislaus Henry was evidently different, because coins were never minted in Bruntál, Uničov or Bíteš. It thus seems (and there were excellent natural conditions for it) that only coarse impurities were removed on the spot and that the intermediate product thus obtained went to designated places. Where? Jiří Sejbal supposed that the minting of new denars was supported by the decentralisation of Moravian mints,170 but contemporary sources do not indicate anything like that. At the same time, more attention should be paid to the possibility that Vladislaus Henry renewed the activities of Přemyslid ducal

168 Leminger 1912, 1–47. 169 Jan 2006, 92–109. 170 Sejbal 1966, 79. The Land 175

Figure 40 A significant part of the silver that enabled the minting of the new coin came from the Nízký Jeseník Mountains, mainly from the surroundings of (Starý) Bruntál, whose mining character is evidenced by the earliest known seal impression from 1287. After P. Kouřil, D. Prix and M. Wihoda. workshops, first probably in Znojmo and Brno; after the unification of Moravia in Olomouc and with the find of silver ores near Bruntál, he probably established a minting workshop (šmitna) in Opava.171 It should be emphasised, however, that one moves in a very fragile area of speculation here and that not a single mention can be dated to the first quarter of the 13th century. The earliest of them reach back to the 1230s and prove the activities of the Brno workshop;172 the Opava master of the mint Hening is mentioned in 1269,173 the mintmaster of Olomouc Frederick even later, in 1281;174 and Znojmo is included among mints only in a collection of formularies by Zdeněk of Třebíč.175 The fan of questions is further opened by the privilege of 23 May 1258, in which King of Bohemia Přemysl Otakar II expressed his wish that Uherské Hradiště should keep the minting stamp ( ferrum monete).176 The beginnings of the Moravian mark are similarly unclear. Ivo Pánek connected it with a record by the St Vitus annalist saying that in 1268 the king of Bohemia had measures and weights renewed and labelled with his sign (renovari pondera et mensuras et insigniri

171 Pošvář 1970; Pošvář 1976, 44–52. 172 Pošvář 1959, 41–52; Doležel 2000a, 13–28. 173 CDB V/2, 182–184, No. 592. 174 CDM IV, 249–250, No. 183. 175 Pošvář 1970, 119–120. 176 CDB V/1, 245–248, No. 156. 176 CHAPTER 4 signo suo).177 He then wrote that the domestic situation required a common taxing unit178 while immediately adding that Moravia normally used for coun ting the marks of Opava, Olomouc and Brno weights,179 whose origin he saw in the heavy Viennese mark. Such a system, however, made sense at the time when the currency was denars of the pfennig type. Therefore, the question is whether the Moravian mark could have simply been a by-product of Vladislaus’ monetary reform. The innovative character of the first two decades of the 13th century is indicated also by the late document by the king Přemysl Otakar I, known only in its Czech transcription, which makes it quite suspicious. It was issued for a parochial priest in Přibyslavice,180 who, as the scribe of the land, had the right to collect a tax in the area, from which he was entitled to a tithe. The scribe’s explicit relation to the tax reveals that proper taxation and the income of the margravial chamber in general were supervised by a provincial scribe. It should be added that this system had already stabilised at the beginning of the 13th century and that the first known official was Vladislaus’ chaplain Conrad, who took care of the margrave’s income in the Brno region.181 The provincial scribe levied and collected not only the taxes, rents and shares of the proceeds from urbura, which had been prescribed by the margrave, but also apparently oversaw the collection of the tithe to be paid by merchants from long-distance trade.182 Although Moravian centres could not compare with Vienna or Prague Týn,183 the brisk traffic on the south– west Baltic – Adriatic highway left a distinctive imprint on the Olomouc and Znojmo suburbia,184 accelerated the genesis of Opava185 and necessitated the construction of two churches in pre-location Brno, the church of St James for the Germans and St Nicholas for the Walloons (Gallici).186 Vladislaus Henry must have considered the limited number of places where merchant caravans camped to be favourable. It was enough to maintain control over the old ducal

177 Annalium Pragensium I, FRB II, 300. 178 Pánek 1966, 91–94. 179 CDB V/1, 577–580, No. 390; 589–591, No. 396; 453–455, No. 779; 503–504, No. 812; Pánek 1966, 92–93. 180 Šebánek 1933, 1–58; Jan 2006, 88–89. 181 CDB II, 226–227, No. 236; Jan 2000, 72–75. 182 Kejř 1987, 9–41. 183 Šimeček 1976, 20–28. 184 CDB II, 279–280, No. 285; 287–289, No. 288; Konečný 1989, 109–110; Bistřický 1979a, 115–121; Bistřický 1979b, 225–230. 185 Bakala 1974a, 3–24; Bakala 1977, 101–102. 186 CDB III/1, 12–13, No. 14; Procházka 2000, 7–158. The Land 177 castles of Znojmo, Brno and Olomouc and further over Opava for the margravial chamber to begin to fill with the income from long-distance trade. These revenues were the subject of the Opava privilege of 1224, through which the king of Bohemia permitted duty-free export of wine to Poland.187 Rich deposits of lead ingots from Uherský Brod and its surroundings imply that the Jeseníky or Polish (?) lead travelled in the opposite direction, mainly to Hungary.188 No matter what the travel bags contained though, the collectors of the margrave of Moravia knew that they did not have to worry about various immunities, including the most important one, of Velehrad, because the merchants were to pay properly according to the law (mercatores vero solvant quod sui iuris est).189 The stable monetary system also had a beneficial effect on the third source of income of the margravial chamber. After 1213, the first urban municipalities appeared in Moravia. Their freedom was counterbalanced by regular fees. It is not certain how much they paid in the flourishing town of Opava, but it is evident from the confirmation charter for Uničov that one year after Vladislaus’ death the burghers paid on St Martin’s day 6 denars each on their plots, no matter if large or small, and every acre of arable land was burdened by a quarter of a silver mark and three measures of grain (one of wheat, rye and oats).190 And what was the system before 1222? This is hard to determine, but Přemysl’s privilege probably only renewed the validity of the agreement concluded between the deceased margrave and the first reeve of Uničov, Theodoric.191 The division of the land around Uničov into hides implies that the changes did not stop at the town gates and that a new chapter began to be written by the Moravian countryside as well. The first lines were filled with its diffident strokes covering the end of the 12th century—on 25 October 1190, the founder of the Louka canonry, Conrad Otto, demarcated a part of the endowment by means of hides.192 The hinterland of the monastery was complemented in a similar way by the Znojmo castellan Emmeram.193 In 1222, the burgher Ekkehard gave Velehrad two hides near Opava.194 The small yet lexically remarkably close collection of accounts from different parts of the land proves that hide became quickly established in Moravia and that it penetrated into

187 CDB II, 256–257, No. 265. 188 CDB V/2, 275–276, No. 647; Bakala 1972, 161–179; Pavelčík 1979, 20–21; Pavelčík 1982, 191–194. 189 CDB II, 319–323, No. 321. 190 CDB II, 237–239, No. 246. 191 Weizsäcker 1913, 513–525. 192 CDB I, 299–301, No. 326. 193 CDB II, 190, No. 205; Šebánek 1956, 89–90. 194 CDB II, 207–208, No. 222. 178 CHAPTER 4 everyday life still under Vladislaus Henry. At that time, also the first reeve’s offices appeared. They were indirectly mentioned by the bishop Robert in the summer of 1222,195 when he had the Bořetice reeve Wido and eccentric reeve Gottfried included among witnesses. The imaginary keystone of the long and slow improvement of the land without which Gottfried would not have become the odd reeve were the legal norms that were imprecisely called ‘ius Teutonicum’, German Law. According to German customs (more teutonico), the vine tithe was to be collected near Hnánice. The lord Rudger had given it to the Louka monastery. Before 1220, he received the approval of both the margrave and the bishop for his pious intention.196 That Vladislaus Henry had an idea what the ‘German customs’ entailed is proved by the undated and unfinished privilege for the Order of St John, by which he, beyond common prerogatives, gave the Order the permission to settle the landed estates peacefully and without harassment according to ‘German law’ (locare quos voluerint, ita ut vocati iure Theutonicorum quiete et sine vexatione utantur).197 The margrave of Moravia evidently did not resist the adoption of foreign standards, which, however, does not mean that he was an enlightened ruler. It rather seems that he reacted to the amount of the income flowing into his chamber and adjusted the payment structure in an attempt to increase them. He stopped collecting or limited awkward and complicated taxes and tried to create an organised structure of tithes, where a hide (mansus) became the basic tax unit. In addition to the ancient plough tax, a rent agreed in advance began to be collected,198 and Vladislaus’ privilege, probably by no coincidence, emphasised the stability and durability of the new system.199 Stability and durability were two values prized by people in the Middle Ages above others. Modern interpretations of the changes in the 13th century, however, were rather based on the ideas of Johann Gottfried Herder on the difference between Slavic and Germanic peoples. On the German side, in clear connection with Prussia’s rise to power, the predominant opinion considered colonisation to be a ‘masterpiece’ of the German nation that brought civilisation into the Slavic space full of vices. In the Czech lands and even more in Poland, the entirely opposite view naturally prevailed. Medieval colonisation

195 CDB II, 227–228, No. 237. 196 CDB II, 25–26, No. 28; Šebánek 1959, 11–12. 197 CDB II, 432–433, No. 385; Šebánek 1959, 12–13; Kötzschke 1941, 25–30; Žemlička 2002c, 217–218. 198 Petráček 2002. 199 CDB II, 432–433, No. 385. The Land 179

Figure 41 The rule of Margrave Vladislaus Henry is connected not only with the birth of the first urban municipalities in the Czech lands but also with the right to settle estates according to the ‘German Law’ (ius Theutonicorum). This is the wording of a privilege for the Order of St John, which probably began to be written in 1218 but was not finished during the margrave’s life, so that it left the office as late as sometime after 1222. Then it was provided with a forged seal. Photography by NA (National Archives) Prague. 180 CHAPTER 4 was perceived as a particularly dangerous threat to the state, national and cultural identity. In this situation, neither party resisted cheap projections of purely modern Czech-German disputes deep into the past.200 The last remnants of the common Czech-German cultural space were destroyed in the spring of 1945. What was left was only the jointly cultivated landscape,201 which was covered by a dense network of settlements from the 13th century. Most of them were directly formed or were modernised in the German fashion, that is, ‘more teutonico’, which the domestic historiography linked with the arrival of thousands of German settlers. In fact, it was simply a successful adoption of new technological procedures and legal norms, mainly by the domestic population. Nevertheless, this seems to have been forgotten by the critical historiography of the last decades.202 No wonder that the ethnic dimension of medieval colonisation has continued to haunt the walls of Czech medieval studies for entire generations. The national standards gave rise to a kind of ‘internal’ colonisation, which was attributed earth-shattering importance.203 In vain. A mere completion of the landscape settlement, moreover evidently overrated, has nothing in common with the essence of a big change,204 because ‘medieval colonisation’ is basically a concise description and refers to the improvement of the land through a complicated dialogue between domestic prerequisites and novelties conducted at a varied pace, which did not preclude the coexistence of entirely different worlds.205 Melioratio terrae and long duration were placed by Adrianne Körmendy in the heading of her work.206 In her footsteps, we may ignore the fateful tur ning point in national history. And the fact that the margraviate at the beginning of the 13th century was consumed in a whirlwind of innovation? Despite all ambiguities and white spots, it seems that Moravia benefited from the Austrian experience, unforced unity and the orders introduced by Vladislaus Henry, in which the old and the new complemented and intermingled with each other. The past was hence reflected in two power centres, one in Znojmo and the other in Olomouc, the present in a new coin, the Jeseníky silver or the

200 Graus 1975, 31–75; Žemlička 1999a, 235–272; Žemlička 1999b, 101–111. 201 Klápště 1994a. 202 Žemlička 2002a, 7–38; Žemlička 2002b, 107–143; Žemlička 2003, 33–46. 203 Žemlička 1978, 58–79; Žemlička 1979, 109–129. 204 Klápště 1994b, 9–59. 205 Bartlett 1994; Klápště 2012. 206 Körmendy 1995. The Land 181 hide tithe, and this possibly only because the margravial chamber was, sometime around 1200, on the verge of bankruptcy.

4 The Founder

The last day of 1913 was awaited with genuine interest in Bruntál. The small, sleepy town was preparing for the celebrations of a significant anniversary— on 30 December, exactly seven hundred years would have elapsed from the moment that King of Bohemia Přemysl Otakar I bestowed the Magdeburg Law on the town. As it had been the first time ever in the Czech lands, the pride of the town hall was immeasurable. The enthusiasm of the patriots was not shaken even by the vain objections of historians that the charter had been written not on the desk of the royal notary but shortly before 1839, in the forger’s workshop of Antonín Boček.207 The respectable burghers simply wanted to retain ‘their’ anniversary. Nevertheless, the past is quite ironic, because the ridiculed year of 1213 cannot be rejected so easily—Antonín Boček realised that another charter by Přemysl, from 1223, mentions the period of ten years that allegedly passed from the foundation of Uničov, whose inhabitants were governed by the Magdeburg Law following the model of the town of Bruntál (ius Meidburgense et easdem consuetudines iuris, quas habent cives nostri de Froudental).208 He then logically and entirely correctly interpreted the respective passage as evidence that they had known the Magdeburg norms in Bruntál already in 1213. Only the foundation charter was actually missing, which Boček resolved by a handmade chartulary of the Tišnov monastery, where he subsequently luckily ‘discovered’ the relevant document.209 Antonín Boček’s admirable ingenuity moved the foundation of Bruntál to a slightly mysterious position, but the editor only reacted to the period call for the names of the fathers-founders. He did not have to go very far to seek an example. All he had to do was modify slightly the content of the Uničov privilege from 1223, which really proves—by quoting the Magdeburg Law and by the privilege of free forest grubbing for thirty years, of which one-third had allegedly passed—that the status of the town entered into the hereditary Přemyslid possessions around 1213.210 In addition to the year, it is also possible

207 CDM II, 68–69, No. 60. 208 CDB II, 237–239, No. 246. 209 Friedrich 1897a, 366–367; Šebánek 1936, 45–46. 210 Kejř 1975, 439–470; Kejř 1998. 182 CHAPTER 4 to add that the town establishment first penetrated into Moravia and that it happened with the knowledge and support of Vladislaus Henry, who tried to improve the structure of the income of the margravial chamber in the second decade of the 13th century. Nevertheless, it turned out later that the Bruntál seat was not a dignified place for the interpretation of Magdeburg norms, which were frequently disputed even by experienced experts from Wrocław in Lower Silesia or Magdeburg in Saxony. After all, the natural development and needs of the Moravian municipalities of this legal orientation necessitated the shift of arbitration activities to Olomouc.211 It is not known that they would have led a more extensive agenda in Bruntál although they retained the title of Seat of Law until 1352.212 Yet the modest evidence of written sources is typical of the first century of Bruntál history. If one leaves aside the Uničov charter, whose content has nothing in common with Bruntál except for a general mention of the Magdeburg Law, then the further fates of the settlement can be followed as late as at the end of 13th century. From there, it is only a small step to the question of where to look for Bruntál from 1213, when the present town is four kilometres away from the hide settlement, which has been called Staré Město (Aldinstat) since the Middle Ages.213 The mere name would offer only a weak support without the late Romanesque church of the Virgin Mary, standing in Staré Město. Moreover, the boldly laid out, originally perhaps even three-aisled, structure dated by the entrance portal to the middle of the 13th century surpassed with its size the Bruntál parish, which however began to be built shortly before 1300 and was completed as many as fifty years later.214 Where were thus the Uničov burghers to turn in 1223? To Staré Město or Bruntál? The search for the correct address may be perceived as an invitation to reflect on the character and appearance of the first urban municipalities, because the constantly growing archaeological evidence implies that the bestowal of urban rights was usually not perceived as an impetus for the rapid urbanisation of the settlement. This seems to have been the case also with Starý Bruntál, where the Magdeburg Law protected digging miners or those that were looking for deposits and where the character of the ore deposits, at least initially, did not require and maybe even precluded the formation of an urban settlement. After all, the earliest finds do not come directly from Bruntál, but from Morávka, Stará and Suchá Rudná and from the hill Hláska above Ludvíkov, which might

211 Weizsäcker 1937, 95–109; Weizsäcker 1938, 25–53; Spáčil – Spáčilová 2010. 212 Prasek 1900, 65–66. 213 CDS VI, 197–200, No. XV; CDS II, 48–50, No. 49. 214 Prix 1991, 110–132; Prix 1999, 3–17. The Land 183

Figure 42 Although the ground plan of the town of Bruntál was long considered as ‘ancient’ and the pattern of the plots from 1836 was to have preserved the impression of the site from 1213, it seems that the regularly laid-out settlement with a large central square was not created until the second half of the 13th century at the earliest, maybe even towards its end. After P. Kouřil, D. Prix and M. Wihoda. 184 CHAPTER 4

Figure 43 The extensive Late Baroque reconstruction completely altered the original appearance of the Romanesque church of the Virgin Mary in Staré Město, whose actual age had long been indicated only by the entrance portal. The original layout was thus revealed only by the archaeological research in 2002–2003 and 2011, which proved that the Romanesque, perhaps even three-aisled structure (?) had surpassed its Baroque successor with its size. Photography by T. Ott, NPÚ (The National Monuments Institute) Ostrava.

prove that the margrave satisfied himself with a share of the proceeds, whereas the inhabitants of Bruntál were protected by a special law within the boundaries of one medieval mile with the imaginary centre at the church of the Virgin Mary in Staré Město.215 The foundation of Bruntál, or rather the demarcation of the mile law around Staré Město, secured the interests of the Přemyslids in the promising ore- bearing area of the Nízký Jeseník Mountains. Nevertheless, this thwarted the plans of the bishopric of Wrocław, namely its penetration into the mountain valleys. The bishop suffered the second blow in 1222, when Vladislaus Henry had the gold-bearing area around Zlatá Hora seized. The Holy See also intervened in the dispute, and in January 1224, Pope Honorius III warned Přemysl Otakar I that the property must be immediately returned to the bishop.216 Nevertheless,

215 Kohoutek 2003, 3–16; Kohoutek 2004, 493–504. 216 CDB II, 244–245, No. 254; Pfitzner 1927, 19–20; Zuber 1972, 29. The Land 185

Figure 44 The circular complex of the parish church of the Virgin Mary in Staré Město, originally probably surrounded by a shallow ditch (?), clearly does not match the later system of hides. This further supports the considerations of the possible translation of Bruntál of 1213 to its present location. The pattern of the plots from 1836 shows reeve hides (R) and the ruler’s curtis (D). After D. Prix.

the royal court ignored his appeal and the Wrocław demonstrated the same intransigence. In 1263, the bishop Thomas intentionally increased the income of the Vogtei in Hlucholazy by a title from the mountains between Biskupská kupa, where gold was extracted, and Bruntál (in montibus contra Cucmantel et Vrudental).217 Although the economic importance of Bruntál eventually did not exceed provincial boundaries, the settlement itself found an interesting source of income in the land path connecting the Danube Basin with Silesia.218 The town levied a customs duty219 and had stable revenue from the market monopoly in a forested, scarcely populated landscape, whose character is indicated by the depiction of a miner on the earliest known impression of the town seal

217 SUB III, 296–297, No. 449; Menzel 1977, 391–392. 218 Kouřil – Prix – Wihoda 1998 111–131. 219 CDM V, 57–58, No. 58. 186 CHAPTER 4 from 1287.220 The development of Bruntál, however, was inhibited by mining activities, because a significant, maybe decisive part of the profit belonged to Opava, and the town council was not even able to gain control over the hereditary reeve’s office. At the same time, the high self-confidence of the reeves of Bruntál is implied by colonisation, which they organised themselves.221 Even though the confirmation of urban liberties from 1306 and then from 1325 makes it a margravial town,222 Bruntál is remembered only for its appellation primacy. It is no wonder that it did not attract the interest of reporters then and that before the middle of the 13th century the silence of the sources was broken only by the reeve (?) Albert (Albertus de Vreudendal), who appeared among the witnesses in the charter of Margrave Přemysl for the Premonstratensian canonry in Hradisko near Olomouc on 30 March 1238.223 Another influential figure was Berthold, but that was much later, when Vladislaus Henry had turned into a distant memory. Anyway, Berthold still managed municipal affairs in 1287, when he confirmed papal privileges for the Order of St John. The unusual list proves that the interpretation of the Magdeburg Law on the provincial level was determined by the reeve of Bruntál. He was not the only authority, though. He was accompanied by the reeve of Hlubčice, Reeve Thilo, who represented the area of the Hlubčice law, partially independent of the Magdeburg tradition.224 The beginnings of Hlubčice and their position in the urbanisation of North Moravia are not clear. Nevertheless, unless the scribe of Krnov who made copies of various documents in the middle of the 16th century was wrong, two town reeves, Sifrid from Krnov and Theodoric from Hlubčice, came to see the vice-chamberlain Beneš of Cvilín on 11 April 1253. They were to express themselves on the foundation of (Horní) Benešov, for which its locators, Erwig and Quido, had selected Hlubčice norms.225 The Hlubčice customs likewise appealed to the butler of Bishop of Olomouc Herbort of Fulštejn, when he raised Křanovice to a town in 1265 and requested the approval of King Přemysl Otakar II for this plan.226 Interesting claims of Opava and Hlubčice in Hungary in 1272 also made the burghers of the relatively distant town of Uherský Brod temporarily adopt the Hlubčice law.227 The Hlubčice seat began to be

220 Latzke 1938, 74–75; Krejčíková 1993, 1, 3. 221 SUB IV, 14–15, No. 13; Latzke 1924/1925, 74–76; Bakala 1976, 77–86; Bakala 1979, 231–237. 222 CDM V, 209–210, No. 198; CDM VII, 830, No. 231. 223 CDB III/1, 222–223, No. 179. 224 Wihoda 2003, 289–294. 225 CDB IV/1, 458–460, No. 467; Latzke 1930/1933, 34–37; Bakala 1972, 161–179. 226 CDB V/1, 640–642, No. 432. 227 CDB V/2, 494–496, No. 805. The Land 187

Figure 45 The town law in Moravia in the first half of the 13th century. A: Water courses; B: The state borders of the Czech Republic; C: Land borders; D: Important settlements (1 – Olomouc, 2 – Brno, 3 – Znojmo, 4 – Jihlava); E: Urban locations with a possible connection to Vladislaus Henry (5 – Hlubčice/Głubczyce, 6 – Bruntál, 7 – Opava, 8 – Uničov, 9 – Měnín, 10 – Velká Bíteš, 11 – Slavkov), F: The approximate scope of the Hlubčice/Głubczyce and Měnín laws (Hlubčice law: 12 – Horní Benešov, 13 – Libavá, 14 – Budišov, 15 – Vítkov, 16 – Hranice, 17 – Odry, 18 – Fulnek, 19 – Bílovec, 20 – Klímkovice, 21 – Příbor, 22 – Krzanowice, 23 – Nový Jičín, 24 – Příbor, 25 – Valašské Meziříčí, 26 – Uherský Brod; Měnín law: 27 – Ivančice, 28 – Pohořelice, 29 – Hustopeče, 30 – Klobouky, 31 – Rousínov). Drawing by D. Prix.

approached by Hranice, Příbor and Fulnek before the end of the 13th century,228 but not even that offers a correct answer to the question of how to date the beginnings of the Hlubčice urban municipality and the local law.229 Without problems, the establishment of Hlubčice may be moved to before 1253, when the town customs became the model for the legal location of

228 Wihoda 2001a, 51–69. 229 Roth – Honemann 2005, 509–521; Roth 2006, 1–27. 188 CHAPTER 4

(Horní) Benešov. Unfortunately, the somewhat vague dating ‘sometime’ before 1253 is not specified by the famous confirmation of Opava freedoms from 1224, which only mentions the levying of customs duties in Hlubčice (teloneum in Lubschiz).230 The only interesting trace thus continues to be the list of privileges of 1 September 1275, in which King of Bohemia Přemysl Otakar II stated that he granted the request of the Hlubčice burghers and renewed some old, dilapidated document written by his predecessors (privilegeum et iam pre senio maceratum, eis and nostris concessum predecessoribus, renovari fecimus).231 Attention to Přemysl’s privilege (or, rather, his protocol) was already drawn by a professor in the Hlubčice grammar school, Ferdinand Minsberg, who in 1828 wrote the history of the town and prepared an edition of selected documents in the Hlubčice archives.232 Slightly later, Heinrich Kleiber no longer doubted that the mysterious predecessors of the king of Bohemia from 1275 were no one other than the two brothers ruling at the beginning of 13th century: namely, Přemysl Otakar I and Vladislaus Henry.233 A significant shift of opinion was brought by the 1930s, when Wilhelm Weizsäcker opened the issue of the origin of the Hlubčice law;234 at the same time, Theodor Goerlitz suggested that it might have been derived from the Frankish law.235 Nevertheless, the purely professional exchange of opinions did not meet with such a response as the articles of Ernst Bednara, which were imbued with the pathos of the Greater German Reich. They were the main reason that Hlubčice and its surroundings began to be associated with the ‘first German location’ in Silesia in 1187. It was again Ernst Bednara who connected the granting of urban rights with Duke of Bohemia Frederick and Duke of Olomouc Vladimír.236 Ernst Bednara argued for German primacy so bluntly that the editors of the journal Schlesische Geschichtsblätter distanced themselves from his mis- chief. All speculations about the genesis of the town of Hlubčice at the end of the 12th century were likewise ignored by the topography of Silesia edited by Hugo Weczerka;237 Bednara’s diatribes were rejected also by Walter Latzke, who instead considered the first two decades of the 13th century,238 and this

230 CDB II, 256–257, No. 265. 231 CDB V/2, 467–471, No. 790. 232 Minsberg 1828. 233 Kleiber 1864. 234 Weizsäcker 1937, 95–109. 235 Goerlitz 1937a, 380–389; Goerlitz 1937b, 138–181. 236 Bednara 1931, 59–163; Bednara 1938/1939, 262–265; Bednara 1939a, 68–72; Bednara 1939b, 799–803. 237 Weczerka 1977, 275–276. 238 Latzke 1938, 61–62. The Land 189 opinion predominated in historical studies.239 It should be mentioned that the concurrent use, spread and blending of various legal traditions simply belong to the beginning of the 13th century and that the former customs cannot be assessed using present-day benchmarks. Yet it cannot be overlooked that the not-entirely-comprehensible reference to the king’s unspecified predecessors perfectly corresponds to the internal organisation of hereditary Přemyslid possessions under the joint government of Přemysl Otakar I and Vladislaus Henry. Without hesitation, it is possible to place archaic legal and administrative- organisation norms in the second decade of the 13th century, but it is impossible to say more about the Hlubčice location, perhaps only that the northern foreland of the Moravian Gate drew the attention of the Přemyslid dynasty. It was here that the Orders of St John and of the Teutonic Knights were introduced; Osoblaha fell to the bishopric of Olomouc; and a customs chamber was established where the trade route crossed the land borders (the town of Hlubčice grew around it probably still during the life of the margrave Vladislaus Henry). The beginning of the distinctive Měnín Law can undoubtedly be dated back before the middle of the 13th century. Its authority survived in South Moravia deep into the Luxemburg period.240 The Měnín Law circle was not cancelled until Margrave of Moravia John Henry in 1350 transferred Měnín and the subordinated villages to Brno Law, because the infamous inhabitants of Měnín (opidani) had turned in unclear judicial matters to foreign lands (by which he meant the Austrian Danube Basin) and thus ‘dishonoured’ the whole of Moravia.241 The appurtenance of Měnín customs to the broad family of laws of South Germany seems to be unquestionable, but does Měnín belong to the first line of urban locations? Maybe. The legal superiority242 and location of Měnín on the long-distance route to Austria and Hungary, mentioned by King John of Bohemia in 1333,243 made sense at a time when the not-too-distant centre of the province did not have an urban status. Already at the end of the second decade of the 13th century, however, Brno renewed its former influence, and in January 1243, the burghers of Brno succeeded in acquiring two important privileges from King Wenceslas I.244 Any location in the vicinity with higher legal ambitions was, hence, essentially pointless. Moreover, one

239 Bakala 1977, 102–104. 240 Štarha 1966, 183–184; Štarha 1983, 159–160; Hoffmann 1983, 167, 172. 241 CDM VIII, 29–30, No. 60; RBM II, 775–776, No. 1804. 242 Doležel 2000b, 178–180. 243 CDM VI, 355–356, No. 465; CDM X, 215, No. 193; 226–227, No. 208; Vermouzek 1974b, 143–149. 244 CDB IV/1, 79–87, No. 17; Flodr 1993. 190 CHAPTER 4

Figure 46 The customs house in Hlubčice/Głubczyce, close to the Piast borders, was so important that its significance could also have been noticed by Vladislaus Henry. Does it mean, however, that he granted the locals urban rights as well? After D. Prix.

of Brno quarters and gates was called Měnínská (ad portam, que Menesensium nuncupatur),245 and since it was not on the way to Měnín,246 a tempting speculation that people from Měnín might have settled in the flourishing town of Brno penetrated into literature.247 Finally, the indicated connections are not contradicted by the shift of the market from Měnín ( forum rerum venalium,

245 CDM IV, 405–409, No. 320. 246 Vermouzek 1974a, 351–356. 247 Hosák 1973, 143–147; Procházka 1985, 137. The Land 191 quod est in Meneis) to the neighbouring village of Žatčany on 11 December in 1248.248 The examples may be misleading, but why were two independent legal districts formed on Moravian soil before 1253, to a certain degree defying established legal practices? Again, one should remember the beginning of the 13th century, when the first urban municipalities were often founded in rustic conditions and without the necessary experience. In their appearance and ground- plan layout, they did not differ much from village settlements, because their only attribute of ‘urbanness’ was the law. Nevertheless, since the Měnín collection of laws has not been preserved, its content changed into an inventory of diverse conjectures long ago. The same analogy, however, may be applied without hesitation for the creation of the town establishment in Bíteš. This is expanded upon in the book of law of the City of Brno from the second half of the 14th century.249 Nonetheless, Čeněk of Lipá called Bíteš a townlet as late as 1363.250 It is therefore not excluded that the legal status of the settlement developed gradually and that it was not completed until in 1408, when Lacek of Kravaře ceded escheat to the ‘town’ of Bíteš.251 Yet the privilege from 1240 by which King of Bohemia Wenceslas I enriched the property of the Tišnov monastery with the patronage for the church of St John the Baptist in Bíteš heads over the horizon of a feudal townlet from the end of the 14th century and the beginning of the 15th century. Nevertheless, if the ruler held the patronage rights, he is most likely to have governed also the entire settlement, whose other name was ‘Jindřichovo’ (Bytes, quod eciam Heynrichs dicitur),252 that is, Henry’s settlement (town?). The not-so-distant deposits of silver-bearing ores then allow for the possibility that the raising of Bíteš might have been in the interest of Margrave of Moravia Vladislaus Henry.253 In the first third of the 13th century, Slavkov also went through an innovative transformation, when it, as the town (!) of Nové Sedlice (Nouozedeliz civitas), became part of the property of the Order of the Teutonic Knights. This is claimed by the royal privilege from 1237,254 but another charter from 1288

248 CDB IV/1, 252–253, No. 152; CDM VI, 355–356, No. 465; CDM X, 215, No. 193; 226–227, No. 208; Doležel 2000b, 178–181. 249 Právní kniha města Brna [The City of Brno Book of Law], 156, No. 25; 337, No. 555; 346, No. 585; CDM VII, 461–463, No. 633; 465–466, No. 637; 466–467, No. 638. 250 RBM VII/5, 873–874, No. 1446. 251 CDM XIV, 36–37, No. 29; 139, No. 148. 252 CDB III/2, 351–353, No. 259. 253 Doležel 1995, 212; Doležel 1997, 157; Doležel 2000b, 177. 254 CDB III/1, 199–200, No. 162. 192 CHAPTER 4

Figure 47 The modest layout of Měnín captured by a cadastral plan from 1830 does not imply at all that one of the most influential towns in Moravia emerged here before the middle of the 13th century, perhaps already during the rule of Margrave Vladislaus. The Land 193

Figure 48 With its location, size and after all also its importance, the church of St John the Baptist, standing outside of the ground plan of Velká Bíteš, indicates that it could have been built roughly at the same time as the church of the Virgin Mary in Staré Město (Bruntál). Can it provide guidelines to a more sensitive interpretation of the beginnings of ‘Henry’s town’ Velká Bíteš?

grants the settlement only the market right ( foro Nouosedlicz).255 Either the notary of King Wenceslas I made a mistake when he granted Slavkov urban rights or the settlement underwent ‘only’ a colonisation transformation and was elevated to a market village for the wreath of neighbouring estates. It could have received the name ‘Nové Sídliště’ (New Settlement) then, and, strictly

255 CDM V, 2–3, No. 2. 194 CHAPTER 4 speaking, this could have been before 1222, hence during the life of Margrave Vladislaus Henry; nevertheless, reliable evidence comes from later, from the time when the Přemyslid lands were governed by King Wenceslas I and his brother, Margrave of Moravia Přemysl.256 Also Uničov was referred to as a new settlement (Nová osada) in 1223 (Vnisov, que est nova villa). It immediately received two major privileges. The foundation and the first years of the settlement are captured in the charter of King of Bohemia Přemysl Otakar I, who in 1233 confirmed for Uničov free grubbing of the nearby forest for thirty years, with the postscript that ten years of the period had already passed (silvam, quam acceperunt exstirpandam ad XXX annos, de quibus iam decem preterierunt). Provided that the royal notary worked with correct data, the town was established in 1213. From the content of the document, it is evident that it all happened with the consent of Margrave Vladislaus Henry, who gave the settlers agricultural land, granted permission for its measurement into hides, determined the amount to be paid for arable land and urban plots and decided that the tithe would always be collected on the feast of St Martin. Finally, he approved the lower judicial system as well as the Magdeburg Law and the legal practices that were then used in Bruntál. The royal confirmation further reveals that the location was controlled by the reeve Theodoric, who owned a hereditary reeve’s office in Uničov ten years later.257 Přemysl’s charter from 1223 captured an early phase of the urban establishment, but the settlement soon stabilised, so that at the end of the first third of the 13th century, Uničov was a relatively developed institution. The higher level of urbanisation was appreciated by the margrave Přemysl, who on 15 August 1234 confirmed earlier privileges to the reeve and the burghers and strengthened the authority of the urban municipality by new freedoms. In addition to the protection of the urban property from the despotism of the castle appara- tus, in particular chasers and judges, the margrave demarcated the mile law.258 With great care, he listed the conditions under which ore was to be sought and mined in the vicinity of the town. First he stipulated that the minors should not dare to live or spend the night in the surrounding villages, namely, between the borders with Bohemia and the rivers Moravice and Bystřice; then he added that all types of metals within the borders are to belong to Uničov unless sovereign rights are violated.259 Although the privilege transformed Southwestern Moravia into one mining work, the grandiose plan never exceeded the level

256 Jan 1988, 265–278; Procházka – Doležel 2000, 37. 257 CDB II, 237–239, No. 246; Klápště 2012, 406–410. 258 Küchler 1964; Bakala 1973, 114–133. 259 CDB III/1, 82–83, No. 76. The Land 195

Figure 49 The privileges of Uničov from 1223, confirmed by Přemysl, not only commemorate the foundation work of Margrave Vladislaus Henry but also, for the very first time in hereditary Přemyslid possessions, prove the knowledge of the Magdeburg Law, by which the Bruntál burghers had allegedly been governed from 1213. PHOTOGRAPHY BY SOKA (STATE DISTRICT ARCHIVES) OLOMOUC. of a formal proclamation. It was hindered not only by the impossible demand that the miners stay the night in Uničov but especially by the limited yield of ore deposits.260 That could not compete with the Vysočina region, where most prospectors still headed before the middle of the 13th century. The privileges

260 Hrubý 1947, 160–162. 196 CHAPTER 4 from 1234 themselves thus at least foreshadowed the diction of the famous Jihlava mining law.261 The story of Opava was filled with success. The town built on a settlement containing a tavern owned by the Premonstratensians from Hradisko near Olomouc.262 Taverns often assumed the role of a common space where merchants, money-changers, usurers, artisans and farmers and people of noble birth, as well as those ‘marginalised’, freely met. Therefore, it had to be bought out so that it could become successfully involved in the nascent urban economy.263 If one takes into account also the privilege from 1224 in which Přemysl Otakar I confirmed the urban rights for Opava without even hinting at the merits of his deceased brother Vladislaus Henry, it is possible that this entire exchange took place shortly after 1201 and that it was connected with the generously planned reforms of the Olomouc province, whose first phase occurred between 1201 and 1212. Was it a prelude to the establishment of the town, though? Perhaps. Until the beginning of the 1180s, the northern bank of the river Opava was subjected to the Piast dukes in Opole and Racibórz. Afterwards, it came under the control of the Přemyslids, and, still before 1200, merchants and artisans began to gather there. It was not a town, maybe a better village, but the popularity of the right-bank terrace grew quickly and uncontrollably. Opava assumed the central role in local affairs already before 1220, when the earlier Holasice region was replaced by a new name, the Opava province;264 no later than in 1224, the flourishing seat of the booming province was protected by a defensive ditch.265 The year 1224 has traditionally been attached considerable importance in the history of Opava—and, in a way, deservedly so. King of Bohemia Přemysl Otakar I in that year confirmed the freedoms of the Opava burghers, by which they ensured superiority in the vicinity and component privileges on the level of the land. The mile law banned the establishment of taverns within reach of town walls (infra unum miliare tabernae nullae prorsus fiant), but the relief was not related to Church property, and it appears that its impact on the revenues of the town was actually limited. The main privileges were directed at reinforc- ing the importance of Opava on long-distance routes. The cancelled customs duty in Hlubčice freed exports into Piast estates. The most demanded and specifically excluded item was wine (non solvat, cum vinum ducit in Poloniam

261 Šebánek 1952, 14–15. 262 CDB II, 17–18, No. 21. 263 Žemlička 1997, 157–166; Žemlička 1998b, 502–530. 264 CDB II, 179–181, No. 195; Bakala 1969, 9–22. 265 CDB II, 256–257, No. 265. The Land 197 ad vendendum).266 In addition, the financial situation of the burghers was improved by the possibility of free sale of immovable property, and that was most likely the reason that Opava assumed an influential position in both the local affairs and the matters of the whole land.267 The royal privilege from 1224 cannot be overestimated, though. The diction of the document is turned to the past. It contains confirmation: Přemysl Otakar I recognised the state that had existed for some time. The transformation of a village settlement into a town was bordered by several milestones. In 1204, the Order of the Teutonic Knights had the local estates on which the parish church of the Virgin Mary had grown confirmed at the papal curia.268 In 1220, the area began to be referred to as the Opava province. Therefore, it must have been legally raised before that year. Nevertheless, the fact that the seat of the Magdeburg Law in North Moravia was not Opava but Bruntál means that Opava received urban rights between 1213 and 1220.269 Yet Opava still had one primacy: its urbanness. Bruntál, slightly older, was a location merely in a legal sense. The only attribute of its urban character was the ‘invisible’ law that protected personal freedom and the business plans of the burghers. With its appearance, Bruntál, perhaps with the exception of the monumental parish of the Virgin Mary, thus did not differ much from village settlements for many years. In contrast, Opava was surrounded by a ditch, secured by the mile law and able to gain control over profitable estates within the urban complex including the tavern of the Hradisko Premonstratensians. The only remnants of the past are two curtes and three mills (tria molendina), which were owned by the Velehrad Cistercians there in 1228.270 There is only one more thing to do—try to add people into the story of Opava. Yet the silence of the sources was not broken until Ekkehard, on 25 Jan- uary 1222, gave the Velehrad Cistercians two hides near Opava in exchange for their right to their lifelong use for himself and his son James.271 The first known public appearance of the town council (?) is even dated to as late as 30 March 1238. On that day, discussions were held in Prague on the questionable Premonstratensian property; the Opava delegation, consisting of the burghers Winand, Steven, Herold and Marold, was brought before the margrave Přemysl by the provincial scribe Burkhard accompanied by the reeve (?) of

266 Bakala 1974b, 20–37. 267 Bakala 1975, 106–118. 268 CDB II, 36–37, No. 40. 269 Bakala 1974a, 3–24; Bakala 1977, 101–102. 270 CDB II, 319–323, No. 321; 354–356, No. 346. 271 CDB II, 207–208, No. 222. 198 CHAPTER 4

Figure 50 The first towns usually did not make their mark in land events. An exception was Opava, whose importance exceeded provincial boundaries already before the middle of the 13th century. As proved by the ground-plan layout from 1836, it had a system of interconnected squares from the beginning. The royal privilege of 1224 proves that the settlement was connected to long-distance trade. The Land 199

Bruntál, Albert.272 The names in and of themselves do not reveal what made their bearers Opava representatives and relatively rich and influential figures in the provincial context. Some information for further considerations may be provided by the pious legacy of the burgher Ekkehard from 1222. Although he did not specify the origin of his property, when King Přemysl Otakar II confirmed possessions in the Opava region for Velehrad on 16 February 1270, the notary listed also two villages, Jakartovice and Malé (Pusté) Jakartovice, the name of which refers to some Jakart, that is Ekhard.273 The size of the donated property corresponds to the area of a reeve hide, which was a usual reward for a locator. The explanation may be that Ekhard colonised a part of the monastic estates. Likewise Herrmann Lohen, who in 1269 argued with the Velehrad monastery about some real estate in Malé and Velké Hoštice, might have become rich in this way.274 Could Opava have been a town of locators? Probably not entirely. From the beginning, it was a town of merchants, who are indirectly mentioned in the privilege from 1224, when it freed the export of goods (mainly wine) through Hlubčice to Poland, and the role of merchants in the life of the town seems to have been rather growing. In 1271, they received royal support during the export of lead from Poland (?) through Uherský Brod into Hungary,275 whence they apparently imported wine. In 1296, King Wences- las II granted Opava the right of a three-day forced storage of lead, cloth, wine and salt (plumbi, vini, pannorum, salis et aliarum omnium mercium, quarum ibidem generalem transitum statuimus, deposito, quod niderlage vulgariter dicitur, per triduum).276 That Opava played a significant role in economic issues is proved by the system of measures and weights which not only became popular in the pro vince but was also used in the vicinity, in the Piast Opole and Racibórz regions. In 1275, it was referred to by Bishop of Olomouc Bruno (marcas argenti Oppauiensis ponderis et monete).277 In 1296, it was used to calculate monetary tithes in favour of the monastery in Rudy and the income of the hereditary reeve’s office in the village of Maciowakrze near Kozle.278 Opava marks were

272 CDB III/1, 222–223, No. 179. 273 CDB V/2, 204–206, No. 606. 274 CDB V/2, 182–184, No. 592. 275 CDB V/2, 275–276, No. 647. 276 SUB VI, 225–226, No. 281. 277 CDB V/2, 453–454, No. 779. 278 SUB VI, 216–217, No. 269; 222, No. 276. 200 CHAPTER 4 undoubtedly connected with minting. One can only add that the mint office in 1269 was held by the Opava burgher Henning (Henningus magister monete).279 The export of lead to Hungary, the Opava system of measures and scales and finally coin minting indicate the main tenant of the provincial urbura. The activities of Opava around Horní Benešov are explicitly mentioned in Přemysl’s privilege from 1271, but the interest of the burghers in the Jeseníky silver pro bably dated further back and could have been related to the mention of the reeve of Bruntál (?) Albert, who set out for Prague with the Opava denizens in 1238. From indirect indications, it is hence possible to infer that the rapid rise of Opava before 1300 was enabled by the varied activities of the burghers, who participated in the colonisation of the province, the mining of precious metals as well as long-distance trade. Precisely that made Opava a settlement which in the course of the 13th century managed to join Znojmo, Brno or Olomouc, that is, early seats of the ducal age. Despite numerous speculations and uncer- tainties, it has been shown that the first towns in Moravia followed three legal models: the Magdeburg Law and the Hlubčice Law derived from it in the north and the Měnín legal customs, adopted probably from Vienna or Enns, in the south. Nevertheless, it remains a secret how the adopted norms were enforced, or how Bruntál and Měnín fulfilled the roles of appellate seats. The fortu- itously preserved privilege for the Order of St John of 9 August 1287 implies that controversial matters in the area of the Magdeburg Law were resolved by the reeve of Bruntál. Where did he settle down, and where did he deposit the collection of urban rights, though? Could it have been in the altar of the Old Town church of the Virgin Mary, or did he select an ‘anonymous’ settlement in the surroundings? That is hard to determine. The location contract has not been preserved, but it is not excluded that it was not even sealed. Many an enterprise was negotiated orally and confirmed by a handshake in front of reliable witnesses. After all, the terms of the Uničov location were described by the royal notary ten years later; Opava procured the first confirmation as late as in 1224; and Bruntál did not need any privilege for a long time. At worst, it could refer to the authority of a seat of law. It appears that Vladislaus Henry watched the emergence of towns with understanding and that he agreed to the establishment of Bruntál, Uničov and Opava, perhaps Hlubčice, maybe Bíteš, Slavkov and Měnín. The short list may be complemented by a brief reference to the slow genesis of the urban establishment in Ivančice, Podivín and Pohořelice, exceeding the horizon of the first quarter of the 13th century.280 Yet ducal residences are missing in the list.

279 CDB V/2, 182–184, No. 592. 280 Doležel 1995, 203–204; Doležel 2000b, 175–176. The Land 201

Was it a coincidence, an intention or a consequence of unfavourable time and circumstances? Already during the margrave’s life, the Znojmo suburbium found itself within reach of urban privileges, because the conciliatory document from 24 July 1226, which delimited the relation of the parish of St Nicholas to the church of St Michael, carefully distinguishes between the castle (castrum) and the town (civitas) and also mentions a ditch (infra ambi- tum fossati) and the eastern gate (ad portam orientalem).281 So what prevented the adoption of urban rights? An interesting yet not perfect answer is offered by the privilege of 19 September 1226, in which Přemysl Otakar I admitted that it had turned out during the location that the margravial land was not enough, and therefore he added to Znojmo the homestead Kulchov, including its toll, belonging to the Louka canonry. He compensated the damaged institution with a tithe from the town’s vineyards, the church in Prosimeřice and fields in Sadovany; moreover, he gave the monastery the settlement Újezdec near the church of St Nicholas and several curtes.282 It should be added that the church of St Nicholas had belonged to the Louka monastery already from 1190283 and that the loss of Kulchov was not the only hole in the Premonstratensian income. The new situation necessitated the adjustment of the church admi nistration, and since the priest Adam from the church of St Michael did damage to the parish of St Nicholas, the abbot of Louka explicitly stipulated that ‘big’ holidays would be celebrated at St Nicholas, to which tithes belonged, and that the priest from the church of St Michael could baptise and bury only in Bala, a settlement formerly called Hungarian, and in the surrounding, precisely enumerated curtes.284 Two privileges of similar content from 1226 used the word vicus, which was rather rare in Moravian scriptoria. Uncompromising arguments were conducted over its meaning.285 Perhaps the most sensitive commentary is provided by Jiří Kejř based on the privilege by which Duke Sobeslaus II endowed Prague Germans. Although he rejects the ‘urbanness’ of the freedoms bestowed, he allows for the possibility that the German community, otherwise a personal union, enjoyed protection, and he labels vicus itself as a settlement district of an ‘ethnically’ and legally unified community.286 Is it possible, though, that three settlements with special protection were established before the Znojmo

281 CDB II, 279–280, No. 285; Chaloupka 1968/1969, 118–125. 282 CDB II, 287–289, No. 288; Tomas 1987, 225–230. 283 CDB I, 299–301, No. 326. 284 CDB II, 279–280, No. 285; Jan 1997, 39–51. 285 Procházka – Doležel 2000, 28–29. 286 Kejř 1969, 116–142. 202 CHAPTER 4 castle? Indeed. The Babenberg possessions in the vicinity and the power rise of the Znojmo province at the turn of the 13th century do not rule out such a possibility, and if that really was the case, the locator had to deal with their rights. The foundation plans also posed a threat for two dozen private curtes. Last but not least, immunity-protected possessions and the revenues of the Louka canonry interfered with the ground plan of the future settlement. It is thus no wonder that Vladislaus Henry hesitated and that the work was not concluded until Přemysl Otakar I. Similar problems hindered the elevation of Brno, which was legally stabilised shortly before 1230.287 This has to be borne in mind when one reads the privilege of Bishop Robert from 1231, through which he confirmed for the parish of St James its right to baptism, funeral and other sacraments and subordinated the church of St Nicholas to it within the bounds that applied under the margrave Vladislaus Henry (limites, que tempore . . . Wladizlay consueverat habere). Subsequently, the bishop of Olomouc specified that the people living at St Nicholas included a Romance language-speaking community, and, since they understood the speech of neither the Moravians nor the Germans, he installed a priest of their language in the church.288 Robert’s charter ranked the church of St James as a ‘burgus’ and granted the Romance people of St Nicholas the status of burghers (cives). Yet if the comment by Jiří Kejř that burgus and vicus might have labelled settlement units of the same legal quality is correct,289 it is not excluded that merchant and craft colonies with a certain level of autonomy appeared not only in Znojmo but also in Brno. The Germans settled at St James, the Walloons took the vicinity of St Nicholas and (as revealed by a document from 1293) the properties and plots of the domestic population lay under the church of St Peter, which was older than St James.290 The Brno community is explicitly mentioned (ad peticionem civium de Brvnna) in a charter from 1238 by the bishop Robert for the hospital in Staré Brno.291 Nevertheless, the town council did not achieve full recognition until January 1243, when King Wenceslas I ceremonially issued a large and a small privilege.292 Does this mean, however, that Jindřich Tomas was wrong and that his speculations about the legal unity of the settlement already in the second decade

287 Procházka 2000, 134; Procházka – Doležel 2000, 34. 288 CDB III/1, 12–13, No. 14; Švábenský 1993, 257. 289 Kejř 1972, 210–233; Kejř 1998, 78–81. 290 CDM IV, 405–409, No. 320. 291 CDB III/2, s. 252–255, No. 197; Vodička 1959, 161–204; Kejř 1976b, 51–63; Švábenský 1993 259. 292 See also CDB IV/1, 79–87, No. 17; Weizsäcker 1953, 125–158. The Land 203

Figure 51 The area surrounded by the perimeter walls of Znojmo included blooming settlements, probably even protected by partial rights, whose connection to the Austrian Danube Basin raised the barely founded settlement among the most influential towns of Moravia. Rich revenues facilitated the generous reconstruction of the parish church of St Nicholas, which eclipsed even the former Přemyslid castle with the rotunda of the Virgin Mary and St Catherine. The church of St Michael grew on the opposite side of the large bailey. Its district initially overlapped into the territory of the parish of St Nicholas.

of the 13th century are not substantiated?293 Probably not. The long and slow journey of the Brno settlement to urban rights was in line with the multifarious dialogue in which the new intermingled with old traditions for many years.294 It remains to mention Olomouc, which differed from Brno and Znojmo by the strong influence of religious institutions, which were dominated by the bishopric of Olomouc. The institution—privileged from the second third of the 12th century, or more precisely from the episcopate of bishop Henry Zdík, and firmly anchored in Moravian history—affected life in the Olomouc castle and the adjacent villages to such an extent that its influence was respected also by Přemysl Otakar I. Sometime after 1201, he relinquished the seat of the dukes of Moravia and began to build Nový Hrádek, which was to become the seat of his governors. The innumerable immunities, legal practices and valid as well as time-barred claims took a toll, but the flourishing settlements and private curtes in the Olomouc suburbium could manage without uniform rules. It definitely does not seem that the absence of urban rights was particularly bother- some. This may be the reason that the liveliest settlement in Moravia did not

293 Tomas 1987, 229. 294 Cejnková – Měřínský – Sulitková 1984, 250–268. 204 CHAPTER 4 receive urban rights until shortly before the middle of the 13th century.295 The complicated situation before the act of the location of the town is indicated by the contract between King Wenceslas I and Bishop Bruno from 1248 on the exchange of the customs duty in Vyškov for some episcopal estates in the town of Olomouc.296 The brief mention apparently refers to an already stabilised municipality, and it is not excluded that the decisive step towards privileges could have been taken at the end of the 1230s, perhaps under the rule of the margrave Přemysl, because the Dominicans settled in Olomouc at that time.297 Although it is indisputable that the first urban municipalities appeared in Moravia in the second decade of the 13th century, the old seats of the land in Znojmo and Olomouc retained their importance. The local craft and merchant communities relied rather on special protection from the ruler. The new legal practices thus drew attention where time-tested means were no longer so effective or even failed. Probably in the interest of stable income from the mining of metals, Vladislaus Henry permitted the use of the Magdeburg Law, first in Bruntál, then in Uničov and maybe in Opava. The customs tithe and the support of long-distance trade could have facilitated the location of Měnín, Slavkov and Hlubčice; the status of Bíteš was not clear. Let us admit, though, that the settlements supported by the margrave were not very successful. Bruntál and Uničov stood out only in the local context, whereas Slavkov and Bíteš lost their status of margravial municipality already before 1250, and Měnín languished next to the Brno settlement. Hlubčice was at least guaranteed some renown as a legal seat. Hence only Opava joined the old ducal centres in Olomouc, Brno and Znojmo. Primacy in the penetration of the town law into the Czech lands belongs to Moravia.298 Precisely that may be why the earliest group of Moravian towns has rather strange, in a way archaic, features. Mainly a lack of experience could have facilitated the creation of the Hlubčice and Měnín appellation seats. Since laws were adopted with the ruler’s awareness, one can consider now the margrave’s endeavours to cultivate the possessions entrusted. He did not always succeed, but his work took Moravia to the gates of a new age.

295 Bistřický 1979b, 225–230. 296 CDB IV/1, 251–252, No. 151; Kejř 1969, 103. 297 CDB V/1, 83–84, No. 40; Šebánek – Dušková 1952, 175–176; Bistřický 1988a, 368–369. 298 Kejř 1969, 127–160; Kejř 1976a, 377–399; Kejř 1979, 226–251; Kejř 1990b, 270–282; Žemlička 1992, 549–558. The Land 205

Figure 52 The foundation work of Vladislaus Henry. A: The state borders of the Czech Republic; B: Land borders; C: Urban locations with a direct connection to the margrave (1 – Bruntál, 2 – Uničov, 3 – Opava); D: Urban locations with a possible connection to the margrave (4 – Hlubčice/Głubczyce), 5 – Měnín, 6 – Velká Bíteš, 7 – Slavkov); E: Legally advanced prelocation settlements (8 – Znojmo, 9 – Brno); F: Silver/Gold-ore deposits. Drawing by Z. Neústupný.

5 The Patron

Although Vladislaus Henry crossed the threshold of eternity in the summer of 1222, the Premonstratensian nuns from Doksany still remembered him in the second half of the 14th century as a founder of monasteries and protector of widows and orphans ( fundator cenobiorum et omnium spiritualium, viduarum et pupillorum defensor pius) under Charles IV. The reverent image apparently 206 CHAPTER 4 developed the ideal of a wise and just ruler, which naturally involved piety and protection of the weak. The question is, though, whether the nuns had something specific in mind or they tried to increase the merits of the benefactor who endowed the monastery with silver and a painting of the Virgin Mary worth 50 marks.299 Memories and a legend were also mixed in Mariazell in Styria. At the end of the Middle Ages, a story was narrated there of the margrave tormented by gout, to whom St Wenceslas appeared and recommended that he take a trip to Mariazell. Within the walls of the Benedictine monastery, his pains really abated and, out of gratitude, the margrave had the small wooden church rebuilt into a basilica.300 That is what the legends say. And the reality? Based on the impartial testimony of documents, Vladislaus Henry remained in seclusion for many years. Before the December reconciliation, he managed to authenticate only the legacy of Lord Zdislaus for the Benedictines from Kladruby.301 A reversal did not come until his return to Znojmo, but already his first work had nothing to do with Moravia. In the middle of April 1204, the curial notary wrote a bull through which he, on behalf of Pope Innocent III, confirmed some possessions in Opava for the Master and brothers of the Prague hospital of the Virgin Mary, with the postscript that the property had been donated to the order by the king of Bohemia and the margrave of Moravia, who was simultaneously referred to as the founder.302 The unmistakable discrepancy between the brothers’ joint gift and the phrase ‘the founder of your house’ (domus vestre fundator) begins to make sense in connection with the church of St Peter Na Poříčí in Prague, where the first commandery of the Order of the Teutonic Knights in the Czech lands was created.303 It thus seems that the hospital fraternity of the Virgin Mary was invited to the Přemyslid possessions by the margrave of Moravia and that he did so no later than in the spring of 1204.304 In the next years, he persuaded his brother to surrender the plots in Opava and at least five villages in Bohemia;305 then he himself appears to have given the Order Slavkov, which temporarily became Nové Sedlice after the colonisation.306

299 Necrologium Doxanense, VKČSN 8/1884, 121. 300 Wonisch 1960, 25–34. 301 CDB I, 330–331, No. 363. 302 CDB II, 36–37, No. 40. 303 Joachimová 1968, 495–501. 304 Wihoda 2001, 337–347. 305 CDB II, 62–63, No. 67; Kalistová 1968, 23–29. 306 Jan 1988, 265–266. The Land 207

The fraternity of the Virgin Mary was negotiating with the margrave at the same time as his advisors were specifying the conditions under which the Cistercians could settle in Moravia. Vladislaus Henry hence supported Bishop of Olomouc Robert, who in 1204 approached the general chapter and asked for permission. The visitation of the place was done by the abbots of Ebrach and Pomuk;307 at the same time, however, Robert visited Plasy, where a new colony began to gather;308 according to tradition, the colony arrived at the place commanded on 11 November in 1205.309 The first Cistercians were brought below the Chřiby ridges by Thizelin. He was given 200 morgens of land worth 10 marks of silver and the abandoned church of St John (ecclesia sancti Johannis, sed tunc temporis vacua et deserta, vix CC iugerum, pro decem marcis argenti, quod et claustro contulit).310 The modest facilities made the life of the monks miserable even three years later, because the papal protective bull requested by Velehrad with the knowledge of the general chapter311 did not mention any property.312 The dismal state of income affected the internal life of the community, whose problems were repeatedly discussed at diets in Cîteaux.313 In 1208, the abbot of Velehrad did not attend a meeting of the chapter;314 in 1213, the diet resolved a capital crime committed against a secular person, of which a servant of the abbot had been accused; despite mild punishments, the reputation of Velehrad thus suffered another blow.315 Cautious hope for the Cistercians actually was not brought until the end of the 1220s. Still in 1216, the abbot of Zwettl had to account for a cancelled visitation,316 and only a little later, Pope Honorius III asked the metropolitan of Mainz to protect the monastery from pests.317 Yet already in May 1219, the abbot of Velehrad alongside the provost and dean of Olomouc resolved a tithe dispute between the bishop of Prague and the Premonstratensian canonry in Teplá,318 which implies that the necessary peace returned to the banks of the river Salaška. It is no wonder. In August 1220, the Cistercian property included

307 Statuta Capitulorum generalium I, 305, No. 44. 308 CDB II, 43–44, No. 48; Hurt 1934, 47. 309 Šebánek 1947, 279; Čechura 1981, 128–133. 310 CDB II, 370–372, No. 355. 311 Statuta Capitulorum generalium I, 344, No. 57. 312 CDB II, 68–72, No. 76. 313 Čechura 1981, 133. 314 Statuta Capitulorum generalium I, 350, No. 21. 315 Statuta Capitulorum generalium I, 409, No. 25. 316 Statuta Capitulorum generalium I, 451, No. 9. 317 CDB II, 127–128, No. 138. 318 CDB II, 165–166, No. 179. 208 CHAPTER 4 approximately two dozen settlements,319 and the favour of the mighty was retained at the beginning of the third decade as well. Conrad of Hardegg gave Velehrad Schořice,320 the canon Sifrid sold Jarošov,321 and the burgher Ekkehard relinquished two hides near Opava.322 The rapidly growing monastic estates, whose size was captured by the royal privilege from 1228,323 was unparalleled in Moravia, but the contribution of the margrave himself was probably only negligible. Apart from the plots at the church of St John, Vladislaus Henry purchased three settlements;324 around 1221, he donated Žalkovice and half of the forest called Rašín to the Cistercians;325 shortly before his death, he ceded Fryšava to the monastery. In spite of that, he was remembered with a reverence that was due only to the founder. A contemporary of his, the bishop Robert, expressed himself in this spirit when he emphasised that he had written the document concerned upon the request of the renowned margrave of Moravia, Vladislaus, otherwise the founder of the monastery (ad peticionem incliti marchionis Morauie Wadizlai nomine, qui fuit fundator monasterii prefati).326 That was in 1222, but in subsequent years, Vladislaus’ merits were appreciated by his brother Přemysl Otakar I327 and after him by the Velehrad scriptorium, within whose walls the ‘foundation’ privilege was written around 1257.328 One generation later, documents began to highlight a contribution of the king of Bohemia.329 This later led to considerations of the possible share of Přemysl Otakar I. In reality, however, his sons, the king Wenceslas and the margrave Přemysl, mentioned the universal support given to the Cistercians by their uncle and, of course, father. Factual accuracy can also be found in the late medieval catalogue of the bishops of Olomouc, which referred to Velehrad as a joint foundation by Vladislaus Henry and the bishop Robert.330 That they followed a rather reliable tradition in Olomouc is revealed by the cathedral necrology as well,331 but only the list of the bishops states that Vladislaus’

319 CDB II, 179–181, No. 195. 320 CDB II, 181–182, No. 196; 182–183, No. 197. 321 CDB II, 184–185, No. 199. 322 CDB II, 207–208, No. 222. 323 CDB II, 319–323, No. 321. 324 CDB II, 370–372, No. 355. 325 CDB II, 198, No. 213; Dušková 1947, 291–307. 326 CDB II, 226–227, No. 236. 327 CDB II, 266–267, No. 272; 315–319, No. 320; 319–323, No. 321. 328 CDB II, 370–371, No. 355. 329 CDB III/1, 14–15, No. 15; 179–180, No. 144; CDB III/2, 246–248, No. 194; 261–263, No. 204. 330 Granum catalogi praesulum Moraviae, AÖG 78/1892, 79. 331 Necrologium Olomucense, AÖG 65/1884, 555. The Land 209 remains were laid to rest on the grounds of the Velehrad monastery (in dicto monasterio Welegrad munifice est sepultus).332 Unfortunately at the end of the Middle Ages, during the unrest of the Reformation age, the margrave’s tomb was damaged by looting. The ruins, desolate after the Hussite Wars and abandoned for many years, were later covered by a Baroque reconstruction.333 Yet this does not change anything about the fact that the abbey was to become the final resting place of the margraves of Moravia and that Vladislaus Henry thus followed the ideal of a pious ruler when he, at the end of his days, renounced worldly honours and symbolically joined the religious community.334 Vladislaus Henry remembered also other orders and monasteries. The closest canonry for him was that in Louka, spreading below the castle of Znojmo in a slight bend of the river Thaya. The community, privileged and materially secured from 25 October 1190, was established under the protection of Duke of Bohemia Conrad Otto and his mother Mary,335 but the Premonstratensians retained the rulers’ favour throughout the first quarter of the 13th century. Most likely in 1202, Vladislaus Henry watched the consecration of the monastic church and confirmed Louka’s tithes from Hnánice vineyards,336 he personally donated the battlefield near Loděnice to the Premonstratensians,337 he affirmed the patronage rights of the Přímětice parish, which had been relinquished in favour of the canonry by the Znojmo castellan Emmeram,338 and in 1222 he sealed the purchase of the village of Mramotice.339 The relatively high amount that was then paid by the abbot Florian does not rule out the possibility that Vladislaus Henry supported the Premonstratensians with cash as well.340 After all, where else could he have found more competent chaplains, priests and confessors and probably also notaries for his office? The relationship between the margrave and the Premonstratensians from Hradisko near Olomouc were slightly more complicated. Vladislaus’ name appeared already at the beginning of the summer of 1201 in the charter through which Přemysl Otakar I confirmed for the monastery the possession of its estates and newly also a tithe in Štěpánov, which was connected with extensive

332 Granum catalogi praesulum Moraviae, AÖG 78/1892, 79. 333 Pojsl 1990. 334 Bistřický 1991, 211–213; Pojsl 2006, 144–150, No. 40. 335 CDB I, 299–301, No. 326; Charouz 1992, 99–107. 336 CDB II, 25–26, No. 28; Krmíčová 1997, 54–56. 337 CDB I, 301; Kristen 1962, 191–192. 338 CDB II, 191, No. 206; Šebánek 1956, 79–101; Charouz 1992, 100–101. 339 CDB II, 221–222, No. 233; 242–244, No. 253; Charouz 1992, 101; Borovský 2004, 21–35. 340 Borovský 2004, 22. 210 CHAPTER 4 freedoms. Nevertheless, unrest was growing among the Premonstratensians, and many a monk was probably plagued by doubts as to whether the royal privilege would balance the personal relationship to Hradisko that had been developed by four generations of the dukes of Olomouc.341 A certain distrust among the recipients was probably sensed also by the Prague court. That may have been why the king had a pious remembrance of his Moravian relatives included in the document and had the donation itself insured by a collection of various immunities. Tradition and commitments were likewise honoured by Přemysl’s sons—first by the younger one, the margrave of Moravia,342 and between 1249 and 1250 the monastery was remembered by King Wenceslas I.343 Hradisko was able to win the favour of Přemysl Otakar II as well, so that on 21 August 1270, the ruler’s office renewed the validity of earlier freedoms, including the foundation charter from 1078.344 The continuous series of documents may be presented as a proof that the trusting relationship between the Premonstratensians and the sovereign had been preserved and that the canonry was experiencing happy years of long- term prosperity. Yet this was not the case. Although Hradisko had excellent and repeatedly confirmed immunities of a general character, it inexcusably neglected the protection of the property rights of its estates, mainly the part including the forested, almost uninhabited yet promising area in the north of the Olomouc province, which had derived its name from the rivulet or, rather, brook Střelná.345 This forest, forming the land border until the annexation of the Holasice region around 1179, did not actually draw the attention of the powerful until one hundred years later, when poor but for its time interesting ore-bearing deposits were discovered there. They were the main subject of the dispute that brought Zdeslaus of Šternberk, his son Albert and the abbot Budiš before a conciliation commission, because Abbot Budiš had blamed the two noblemen for the occupation of the monastic forests in the basin of the river Bystřice. Přemysl Otakar II tried to settle the serious dispute. In 1269, he had the borders measured again and decided that the mined metals should belong to Hradisko, which was moreover to be recompensed with two ore mills on the Bystřice.346

341 CDB I, 17–18, No. 21. 342 CDB III/1, 125–129, No. 106. 343 CDB IV/1, 277–282, No. 171; 341–347, No. 188. 344 CDB V/2, 217–218, No. 615; 218–219, No. 616; 220, No. 617; 221–222, No. 618; 222–223, No. 619. 345 Berger 1915, 125–174; Hrubý 1947, 10–16; 19–28. 346 CDB V/2, 193–195, No. 599. The Land 211

The rather clear finding that was announced under the authority of the royal seal managed to calm the local situation. However, already after the Battle on the Marchfeld, where Přemysl Otakar II died on 26 August 1278, it turned out that good neighbourly relations remained only an illusion. The subsequent ‘evil years’ confirmed that the Sternbergs had not compromised their claims at all. Shortly before 1283, they took control of Roudný, which the king had given to the Order of the Teutonic Knights,347 and just as impertinently they penetrated into Premonstratensian estates. By their example, they inspired the branched Beneš family. In the summer of 1282, the abbot Budiš appealed to the provincial diet in Opava and, with the support of Bishop of Olomouc Theodoric, forced the Beneš family to make concessions.348 Nevertheless, much more modest results were brought by tedious negotiations with the Sternbergs, whose confidence was not shaken even by the excellent forgery that had left the desk of a Premonstratensian scribe sometime at the beginning of 14th century, although it claimed to be from 1220. The content of this document resolved some dispute between Hradisko and the margravine’s subjects, in which the last word was to belong to Vladislaus Henry. Of course, he expressed his support of the canonry and did so in public, allegedly in front of his barons at the diet in Znojmo (curiam nostram sive colloquium nobis cum baronibus in Znoim).349 The cursory mention of Znojmo and the negotiations there truly reflects the nature of the management of public affairs in the first two decades of the 13th century and could thus refer to Vladislaus’ privilege. Yet what did the monastic archives look like, and how many documents proved that the ownership rights to the forest Střelná belonged to Hradisko near Olomouc? At some point, the same question was asked by Josef Teige, whose interpretation can still stand the test of very strict criteria,350 but one century later, it is possible to add several specifying notes. First of all, one must mention that interest in Střelná was demonstrated by Bishop of Olomouc Bruno and that Hradisko had to relinquish, probably not quite voluntarily, the southern part of the forest in favour of the bishopric and chapter on 17 December 1274. The property was then divided into Velká (monastic) and Malá (chapter) Střelná, and the boun daries of the individual parts were modified accordingly.351 Also the privilege of King Wenceslas I from 1250 expanded on Střelná. The mention of villages

347 SUB V, 43–44, No. 50; 44–45, No. 51. 348 SUB V, 27–28, No. 30. 349 CDB II, 412–415, No. 376. 350 Teige 1894, 35–58. 351 CDB V/2, 426–427, No. 760; CDM IV, 291–292, No. 222. 212 CHAPTER 4 that had been established shortly before that or were planned to be founded suggests that the Premonstratensians seriously considered the cultivation of the estates in their possession.352 Nevertheless, the wording of the royal charter was quite general. This very lack of precise data had, from the beginning, threatened the property-right positions of the monastery and caused it to turn to the ruler. When he did not help, the monastic scriptorium became involved. Thanks to it, Hradisko could defend itself using a respectable set of forged privileges. Two of these documents were tied to Střelná. The privilege by which Vladislaus Henry bequeathed the canonry a clearly delimited part of the forest was dated 22 February 1203.353 The Premonstratensians shifted the respective confirmation by Přemysl Otakar I to the summer of 1203.354 Both privileges, despite having been written as late as at the end of the 13th century, fit perfectly into the power arrangement of the Czech lands before 1222, which again leads one to speculate that Hradisko might have owned the margrave’s authentic document, which became the model for forgeries from the end of the 13th century and the beginning of the 14th century. What was, however, in force during the life of Margrave Vladislaus Henry? One can probably exclude boundary markers and borders in general, because those were the subject of the disputes with the Sternbergs and the bishopric of Olomouc.355 Attention should be paid to the section in which the notary mentioned as if in passing that the milestone at the brook Bunov stood on the site where Brother Abraham settled in the days of abbot Hermann, hence before 1216, built a chapel there and, after the foundation of Velehrad, asked the margrave for permission to found a house of the Holy Trinity, of the Virgin Mary and St George (oratorii, quem struxerat ibidem in honorem sanctae et individue trinitatis, specialiter vero sub titulo beatae Mariae virginis et sancti Georgii, coenobium fundari). Since the Premonstratensians lacked the necessary means, though, Abraham turned to his brothers Esau, Isaac and Blaise and with their help, yet in the name of the abbot Hermann, gathered those who were interested. These were soon supported also by the margrave, when he temporarily let Abraham have the income from the entire forest of Střelná.356 Abraham’s personal relationship to Střelná was confirmed by Esau, who said on his deathbed that he and his brother had used the forest and all its appurtenances for at least thirty years and that Abraham had lived in that forest as a

352 CDB IV/1, 341–347, No. 188. 353 CDB II, 372–375, No. 356. 354 CDB II, 378–379, No. 358. 355 Elbel 2002, 39–44. 356 CDB II, 372–375, No. 356. The Land 213 recluse for the same time.357 Even though not a single word was said about the new monastery of the Virgin Mary and St George, the apparent discrepancy is explained by the monastic tradition, which was captured at the beginning of the 17th century by Johann Tetzel.358 At the time, the rumour at Hradisko was that the abbey was then run by Peter, but as he did not manage his tasks well, he was withdrawn from the post, and the congregation of canons approached Brother Abraham. He accepted their choice, yet three years later, supposedly in 1232, he handed his crosier to Gerlach and he returned to Střelná, where he died and was buried.359 Josef Teige concluded that Peter’s fall and Abraham’s subsequent investiture had some connection with the surprisingly successful, basically competitive project of the monastery of St George.360 There are thus many implications that the creation of a new canonry in the third decade of the 13th century could have only been prevented by an irresistible offer: namely, the superior post in the maternal monastery. Three years later, Abraham had lost his illusions and renounced the deceptive honour, but it appears that the community in Střelná had already suffered irretrievable losses and most likely had lost a significant part of its endowment. After all, this is stated in the forged charter from 1203, in which Vladislaus Henry allegedly claimed that Abraham had been given Střelná only in temporary possession.361 Moreover, the specifying postscript imparts a new meaning on the whole history, because it was impossible to suppress in Olomouc the memories of the monastery of the Virgin Mary and St George, which were still vivid, and therefore the Premonstratensians at least modified them in such a way that they would prove their indisputable rights to Střelná. The almost epic story of the pious hermit Abraham would have probably remained an interesting tale if the foundations of a building and a burial site had not been uncovered in the area of former Olejovice. First amateur research by the local farmer Alois Zinke and subsequently professional surveys conducted by Karl Schirmeisen in the summer of 1938 led to the discovery of a square structure with oriented graves, close to which a ceramic furnace with

357 CDB IV/1, 424–425, No. 247. 358 Moravian Provincial Archives (MZA) in Brno, Cerroniho sbírka [Cerroni’s Collection] II, shelf mark 385 (Historia de fundatoribus progressis monasterii Gradicensis prope Olomutium siti cum eiusdem monasterii dominorum abbatum catalogo, authore F. Iohanne Tetzelio Migliucensi); Neumann 1922, 20–42, 106–114. 359 Neumann 1922, 34–35. 360 Teige 1894, 41–42. 361 CDB II, 372–375, No. 356. 214 CHAPTER 4 floor-tile fragments was found.362 What was then excavated on the slight elevation above the confluence of the Bunov and Střelná? Debris of Abraham’s work or remnants of an unknown settlement? Thirty years of Abraham’s life as a hermit could not have left significant traces in the landscape. Nonetheless, what if the monastic tradition is right and a canonry of Premonstratensians lived above Střelná for some time? Furthermore, what if the remote origins of this idea date back before the year 1200? This would be possible, because this inhospitable spot of the Olomouc province had its hermit already during the reign of King Vladislaus I. At that time, seclusion in the forest was sought by Yurik, who persuaded the Prince and Duke of Olomouc Frederick in 1169 to leave his hermitage and a part of North Moravia to the Rajhrad Benedictines. Frederick’s donation mentions several places but puts Hranice in the first place. Consequently, excavations sought Yurik’s dwelling on the banks of the Bečva, where the settlement Špičky, forming the other half of the basic endowment, was situated. In addition to fields and fruit gardens in the Moravian Gate, the Rajhrad monastery received also the forested area all the way to the Oder, which the Benedictines used as they needed. The western boundary of the circuitus was not delimited in any way.363 Rajhrad could then claim also the Střelná river basin, where the recluse Abraham settled at the beginning of 13th century. Was it a coincidence, or did the Premonstratensians follow the legacy of the monk Yurik? Yurik’s memory was commemorated deep into the Modern period, when his portraits decorated the summer refectory and corridor of the monastic convent;364 nevertheless, not even this proves that his maternal house would have been Rajhrad. Interest in Yurik’s inheritance was also expressed by the monastery at Hradisko. In 1222, they persuaded the abbot of Břevnov, who was superior to the Rajhrad monastery, to surrender the Hranice enclave in exchange for 24 silver marks in Prague weight. The seller, that is, the abbot Dluhomil, further pointed out that the Benedictines had gained the possession through the favour of Margrave of Moravia Vladislaus Henry and his predecessors, which could have been a reference to Frederick.365 The monks at Hradisko interpreted this transaction somewhat differently. Sometime in the first quarter of the 14th century, they had a document prepared in which they

362 Schirmeisen 1939, 45–54; Kouřil 2011, 145–152. 363 CDB I, 218–219, No. 247. 364 Bartovský 1909, 117–118. 365 CDB II, 228–229, No. 228. The Land 215

Figure 53 The division of the now deserted village of Olejovice into plots captured for 1830 implies that Abraham’s hermitage, around which the canonry of the Virgin Mary and St George began to form, has completely disappeared in the abyss of time. Only accidental findings have shown that the monastery was located in the southern part of the municipal cadastre. 216 CHAPTER 4 dated their rights to 1201 and identified Margrave of Moravia Vladislaus Henry as the donor.366 The late forgery only improved the shortcomings of earlier privileges, which either were too general or whose documents simply departed from reality. At the beginning of 14th century, the list of real estates from 1251, sealed for Hradisko by Margrave of Moravia Přemysl, seemed to a large degree unusable.367 Neither could the canonry refer to the privileges of King Wenceslas I from 1250, except for the fact that the privilege placed Hranice and Střelná beside each other,368 which means that they formed two different property units in the middle of the 13th century. And what was the situation in the days of the monk Yurik? This is hard to determine, but one could at least consider the fact that Hradisko belonged to the Benedictines until 1149369 and that the local community followed strict rules, quite resembling a life in seclusion, not even objecting to the monks being walled up in cells.370 Did Yurik come from Hradisko then? Perhaps. He might have left the monastery already before the order changed and, when he remembered his former confreres in 1169, he could have given ‘his’ forest to the closest Benedictine institution, that is the provostry. Nevertheless, a certain number of the former Benedictines remained at Hradisko. Thanks to them, Yurik’s legacy could be followed also by Premonstratensians, who gradually managed to take control not only over the forest Střelná but also over the entire Hranice circuitus. The monastic tradition and medieval forgeries may be, with the caution necessary, retold in a story whose beginning dates back before the middle of the 12th century, when the Benedictine Yurik sought seclusion in the 9 in the northern part of the Olomouc province. Originally probably a monk from Hradisko, he persuaded Duke Frederick to donate the unsettled piece of land to the Rajhrad provostry, which attracted the attention of the Premonstratensians, who had replaced the original order at Hradisko. This led to a dispute, during which the canon Abraham settled at the rivulet Střelná and, most likely in the second decade of the 13th century, asked the margrave Vladislaus Henry to raise the hermitage into the monastery of the Virgin Mary and St George. He actually received the necessary approval; in the meantime, however, the opinion had prevailed at Hradisko that Střelná threatened the power interests of the canonry. Nevertheless, Abraham, supported by his brothers Esau,

366 CDB II, 364–368, No. 352; Neumann 1922, 34. 367 CDB IV/1, 376–377, No. 212. 368 CDB IV/1, 341–347, No. 188. 369 Novotný 1926, 155–170. 370 Wihoda 2002a, 36–37. The Land 217

Isaac and Blaise, gathered a congregation of monks. At the same time, however, the abbot Peter was revoked under not entirely clear circumstances, and the vacated post was offered to Abraham. He accepted the choice, but three years later (according to the monastic tradition in 1232) he handed the office to Gerlach and headed for Střelná again. Yet the temporarily orphaned work had suffered such damage that the barely founded monastery became desolate and quickly fell into oblivion.371 Unfortunately, it is not certain now to what extent this story overlaps with the actual lives of our protagonists, whose fates sometimes intersect, other times running in parallel or even ending in uncertainty. And traces, half erased, lead to the monastery, which was dreamt of by the monk Abraham in his hermitage above Bunov. Who was he, actually, and where did this admirable man and his brothers Esau, Isaac and Blaise come from?372 Another question is the extent of the patronage of Margrave of Moravia Vladislaus Henry, who became the patron of the monastery of St George and whose memory was still commemorated at Hradisko in the 14th century. The deceased supporter was summoned to testify not only in the dispute over Střelná but also at the moment when Arkleb and Ulrich of Boskovice had questioned Premonstratensian possessions on the Svitávka.373 This was followed by the writing of the privilege by which the margrave ‘confirmed’ for Hradisko its ancient rights to the market village of Knínice including patronage and three subordinated villages, which had dated back to the time of the first duke of Olomouc, Otto.374 Hradisko near Olomouc was not the only North Moravian recipient of protective prerogatives in North Moravia, though. In the second decade of the 13th century, the margrave became closer to the Order of St John. On the last day of 1213, he freed the monastic estates all over Moravia from margravial burdens and payments;375 around 1218, he permitted the settlement of the estates of the Order of St John according to German law376 and endowed the newly emerging commandery in Hrobníky near Hlubčice.377 The basic chronological connections are revealed by a forgery from the middle of 13th century, which claims to have been written by the duke Frederick in 1183, when the Order of St John allegedly received a deserted homestead in Modlejovice, of a size of

371 Wihoda 2011, 138–144. 372 Zemek 1949, 133, No. 23; 134, No. 30. 373 CDM XV, 20, No. 22; 20–21, No. 23. 374 CDB II, 362–364, No. 351; Elbel 2002, 42–43. 375 CDB II, 103–104, No. 109; 104–106, No. 110; CDB III/1, 107–108, No. 91. 376 CDB II, 432–433, No. 385. 377 Jan 1992, 199–205. 218 CHAPTER 4

Figure 54 With their technical and artistic quality, the group of fragments of fired floor tiles obtained through surveys in 1938 and complemented by surface collections in 2006 (1,2,4,5,6 – interwar surveys, 3 – surface collections in 2006) cannot match finds from margravial residences in Moravia. Nevertheless, it proves that Abraham founded the new Premonstratensian monastery in Střelná with absolutely serious intentions.

one ploughland, subordinated to Hradec in the Přerov province. Moreover, the duke supposedly donated Hrobníky above the river Pština with its appurtenances, on one side neighboured by Hlubčice all the way to Bohuchvalovy, on the other side bordering the wicker bridge Bezstrejova hať (Bezstrej’s Fascines), a path towards Kozí Důl and the river Milíč.378 The aforementioned passage is evidently based on two different originals. The introductory sentence briefly comments on the origin and location of the estates of the Order of St John in Modlejovice-Kobeřice, whereas the other half of the paragraph describes the size and position of the Hrobníky circuitus with remarkable care. Formal inconsistencies are further enhanced by the factual aspect. The forger placed Kobeřice in the Přerov province, although he must have known around 1250

378 CDB I, 417–421, No. 402; CDB III/1, 176, No. 141; Hrubý 1936, 121–127. The Land 219 that the settlement lay in the Opava region. Nevertheless, the obvious mistake probably was not a result of the scribe’s confusion but, rather, implies that he saw a real charter by the duke Frederick, from which he took data from the end of the 12th century, and then a donation by the margrave Vladislaus Henry. It was most likely the privilege that was mentioned by King of Bohemia Wenceslas I in 1243 when he gave the order permission to build a fortified residence in Hrobníky and specified that the property had been donated to the Order of St John by his uncle Vladislaus Henry.379 Twenty years later, the privilege was renewed by Přemysl Otakar II,380 but the Hrobníky Komtur (Commander) and the administrator of the Order’s estates in the Opava province must have known that the commandery had been established under Margrave Vladislaus Henry.381 The trace that Vladislaus Henry left among the Benedictines was rather negligible, almost as if the Třebíč monastery had not existed in his world.382 Hence only Rajhrad remembered the ruler who gave the provostry a tithe from the vineyards around Miroslav.383 Not much changed in the episcopal cathedral either. It received a precious golden cross, but the chapter’s property was complemented only by the village of Nedvězí.384 Something might be explained by the limited number of charters preserved; nevertheless, the Olomouc tradition does not mention any other donations, and, perhaps with the exception of cash, it is unlikely that they would have overlooked something or would have forgotten the margrave in the scriptorium.385 Vladislaus Henry also monitored private foundations. If the Zábrdovice forger did not fabricate too much information, Vladislaus Henry not only authorised the pious intention of Leo of Klobouky but also enriched the basic endowment with a curtis in Svitavy, which included real estates within two hides, an ox cart, the right to fish, the forests called Skalice, Ochoz and Seč and the village of Maloměřice.386 Vladislaus Henry further confirmed the income of the monastery of St Peter in Olomouc, which was a joint enterprise of the bishop Robert and the provost Stephen,387 and opened the way

379 CDB IV/1, 104–106, No. 27; Šebánek, 1951, 1–16. 380 CDB V/1, 583–584, No. 392; 584–585, No. 392*. 381 Prasek 1887, 3–30. 382 Fišer 2004, 40–41. 383 CDB II, 228–229, No. 238. 384 CDB III/1, 100–104, No. 89. 385 Fragmentum chronici ecclesiae cathedralis Olomucensis, StR 12/1973, 200; Granum catalogi praesulum Moraviae, AÖG 78/1892, 79; CDB III/3, 366–375, No. 265. 386 CDB II, 393–397, No. 364; 391–393, No. 363; Hurt 1969, 2–6. 387 CDB II, 100–101, No. 106; 236–237, No. 245; Charouz 1999, 62–68. 220 CHAPTER 4

Figure 55 Monasteries in Moravia in the first quarter of the 13th century. A: The state borders of the Czech Republic; B: Land borders; C: Bishopric of Olomouc (1); D: Monasteries (2 – Hradisko, 3 – Třebíč, 4 – Rajhrad, 5 – Dolní Kounice, 6 – Louka, 7 – Nová Říše, 14 – Zábrdovice, 15 – St Peter in Olomouc, 16 – Doubravník); E: Monasteries directly related to Vladislaus Henry or Heilwidis (8 – Velehrad, 9 – Střelná, 13 – Oslavany); F: Commanderies with a direct or possible connection to Vladislaus Henry (10 – Opava, 11 – Grobniki, 12 – Slavkov), G: Water courses. Drawing by Z. Neústupný.

for the establishment of the monastery in Doubravník.388 In contrast, the margrave’s approach to the canonries in Nová Říše and Kounice is entirely unknown. Vladislaus’ patronage assumed numerous forms, but it was never limited by land boundaries. Apart from the commandery of St Peter Na

388 CDB II, 73–74, No. 78; Doležel 1999, 321–340. The Land 221

Poříčí and the Doksany canonry, Vladislaus Henry was likewise interested in the Benedictines in Kladruby, where his grandfather, Duke Vladislaus I had been buried;389 in 1213, he sealed a donation for the Premonstratensian nuns in Chotěšov;390 slightly later, he supported a property transfer through which Ann, a widow of Kuna of Potvorov, improved the income of the Plasy monastery;391 and on 15 January 1218, he testified that the abbot of Milevsko had paid 60 marks and thus obtained the royal village of Bojenice, which he held as security for a debt in the amount of another 50 marks.392 At a meeting with his brother, nephews and the bishop Robert in Svitavy in 1221, he approved the restoration of the rights of the Zwettl Cistercians over the homestead ‘Sahar’.393 Although one might object that his mere presence does not prove anything, the good reputation of the margrave of Moravia beyond the land borders is evidenced by Vladislaus’ name in forgeries of Ostrov or Osek provenance.394 Furthermore, the material equipment and freedoms of the monasteries in Teplá and Chotěšov were supposedly confirmed by the king of Bohemia at the express request of the lord Hroznata, Bishop of Olomouc Robert and Margrave Vladislaus Henry.395 What to say in conclusion? The Doksany necrology referred to the margrave as a generous supporter of monastic communities. Even though it did so using the expressions of the time and rather unwittingly, Vladislaus’ pious endow- ments became quite respectable. Intercessory prayers were directed at him in the commandery of the Teutonic Knights at St Peter Na Poříčí or in the house of the Order of St John in Hrobníky. The Premonstratensians in Louka and at Hradisko near Olomouc prospered under his margravial sceptre; Abraham received approval for the foundation of the monastery of St George in the forest Střelná, but Vladislaus’ greatest work was the Velehrad monastery. Therefore, one should not be surprised by the appreciative words of the Doksany necrology, which are corroborated by a similar record in the Olomouc necrology. The catalogue of bishops adds that as long as the margrave had lived, law, justice and respect for the Church had prevailed in the land (Hic quamdiu vixit, pacem terre et iusticiam ecclesie illibatam semper conservavit).396

389 CDB II, 51–52, No. 58. 390 CDB II, 433–434, No. 386. 391 CDB II, 107–109, No. 113; 172–174, No. 187. 392 CDB II, 142–144, No. 153; 174–175, No. 188. 393 CDB II, 205–206, No. 218. 394 CDB II, 375–378, No. 357; 379–383, No. 359. 395 CDB II, 401–403, No. 368. 396 Granum catalogi praesulum Moraviae, AÖG 78/1892, 79. 222 CHAPTER 4

The golden cross decorated the cathedral of St Wenceslas already in the pre- Hussite period, but Vladislaus Henry neglected other institutions, which damaged mainly Třebíč, protected by ducal patronage. Did the monastery pay for its ‘inappropriate’ ties to the heritage of the ducal age? This is hard to decide, because the Rajhrad provostry did not have any problems and it even received a wine tithe in Miroslav from the income of the margravial chamber. After all, although the Třebíč abbey could have fallen into the disfavour of the margravial court, the local influence of the Benedictines remained undisturbed, and the monastery continued to belong to influential communities in the land of the margrave Vladislaus Henry. Nevertheless, the Cistercians of Velehrad had the predominant role. Still in the second decade of the 13th century, new legal practices and systems began to spread from the banks of the Salaška. Innovative transformations affected also the possessions of the Premonstratensians and the Order of the Teutonic Knights; Vladislaus Henry even bestowed the right to settle estates according to German Law on the Order of St John. His patronage thus assumed an unexpected dimension. It changed into an inseparable part of a long, slow, but entirely successful ‘improvement’ of the land. CHAPTER 5 Memory

Although intercessory prayers for Vladislaus Henry rose to heaven in nume rous monasteries in Bohemia and Moravia, he himself seems to have regarded Velehrad the most highly. Nevertheless, the fate of the monastery was dramat ically affected by the storms of the Hussite age, which swept away not only the community of the Cistercians but also the memory cultivated by them. One can therefore only guess how they remembered their founder. Yet it can not be excluded that the memory of his generous supported quickly receded into the shadows to make way for another story, which was captured at the beginning of the 14th century by a verse writer later called Dalimil. According to him, Methodius, the archbishop of Moravia, settled in Velehrad in ‘the old days’ in order to serve Slavonic religious services from there.1 Similar informa tion was provided by Přibík Pulkava of Radenín in the services of the emperor Charles IV, when he mentioned in his chronicle that Velehrad was an ecclesias tical metropolis and the seat of King of Moravia Svatopluk (caput regni Moravie civitas Welegradensis), who also ruled the Bohemians, Poles and Rusyns.2 However, as Pulkava puts it, the kingdom of Moravia ceased to exist, because Svatopluk’s homonymous son and successor had alienated Methodius, he was placed under a strict interdict, his land was divided among the Hungarians, Austrians and Poles and the castle of Velehrad was ruined to the ground (civitas Welegradensis diruta funditus).3 The motif of Velehrad appealed also to an unknown author who, probably at the same time, hence in the second half of the 14th century, worked on the legend Quemadmodum ex historiis.4 It was at Velehrad that King of Moravia Svatopluk was allegedly baptised and the archbishopric was established, headed by Cyril and after him Methodius. Both of them had seven suffragans in Moravia, Poland and Hungary, and since Methodius baptised Bořivoj, he made the duke of Bohemia and his descendents Svatopluk’s exclusive heirs.5 Ecclesiastical primacy was not denied to Velehrad even in episcopal Olomouc,

1 Staročeská kronika tak řečeného Dalimila [The Old Czech Chronicle of the So-Called Dalimil] 1.25, 308. 2 Przibiconis de Radenin dicti Pulkavae Chronicon Bohemie, FRB V, 15–16. 3 Przibiconis de Radenin dicti Pulkavae Chronicon Bohemie, FRB V, 17. 4 Ludvíkovský 1973/1974, 275–276. 5 Quemadmodum ex historiis, MMFH II, 289–296.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��5 | doi ��.��63/9789004303836_006 224 CHAPTER 5 where at the end of the Middle Ages they modified the list of the bishops of Moravia so that Velehrad was presented as the seat of Archbishop of Moravia Cyril. His residence would survive even the demise of the Mojmirid empire, because Methodius’ successor and the first bishop of Moravia, John, headed precisely here in 916.6 The final redaction of the catalogue of the bishops of Moravia is separated from Dalimil’s verses by more than one and a half centuries. A lucky coinci dence makes it possible to work with a remarkable tradition which referred to Velehrad and claimed to date back to the Mojmirid times. Nevertheless, one cannot ignore the facts that neither account extends beyond the cultural hori zon of the Luxemburg period and that all of the reporters, both temporally and spatially remote, developed a single plot, to which they gradually added mostly fictitious details. So where should one seek the beginning of the story that managed to push the memories of Vladislaus Henry away and bestow on Velehrad the reputation of the first Moravian ecclesiastical metropolis?7 A fixed point in the fog-shrouded landscape of conjectures is the arrival of Cistercians, who came to the place called Velehrad at the end of 1205.8 The basic endowment then included the derelict church of St John, which has been identified as a sacral Great Moravian building in Modrá.9 The foundation privilege10 further states that monastic estates stretched to the ‘rampart of the old town’ (ad vallum antique civitatis),11 and it thus would have been natural for the Cistercians to cultivate memories of Great Moravia. Yet they preferred another tradition. The Cyrillo-Methodian past was not remembered when the monastery’s patron saints were being selected and the Mojmirid heritage was also forgotten when the parish in Staré Město was being founded. When Charles IV was writing the legend of St Wenceslas, he thus placed the baptism of Bořivoj, duke of Bohemia, in the church of St Vitus (in civitate metropolitana Moravie Wellegradensi in ecclesia beati Viti), by which he built on the Bohemian and not Moravian historical concept, because St Vitus, whose relics had been brought to Bohemia by the duke Wenceslas, was the main patron saint of the cathedral at Prague Castle.12

6 Granum catalogi praesulum Moraviae, AÖG 78/1892, 63–65. 7 Pojsl 1985b, 305–313. 8 Čechura 1981, 127–141; Pojsl 2001, 305–312. 9 CDB II, 370–372, No. 355. 10 Šebánek 1947, 263–279. 11 CDB II, 370–372, No. 355. 12 Vita sancti Wenceslai auctore Carolo IV., MMFH II, 298. Memory 225

The indifferent relationship of the Velehrad Cistercians to the Mojmirid tra dition is rather puzzling, but the Cyrillo-Methodian cult is missing in Přemyslid Olomouc as well, although the bishopric was restored there on Great Moravian foundations and its governors emphasised its relationship to Moravia until the second quarter of the 12th century. The half-hearted relationship of the Olomouc seat to Old Moravia is evidenced by the catalogue of bishops, which managed with a general mention that Methodius’ successor at Velehrad, once the metropolitan seat at the church of St Peter, was the first bishop of Moravia, John (Johannes episcopus Moraviensis primus beato Metudio in episcabbotum successit et apud Welegrad quondam sedem metropolitanam in ecclesia sancti Petri).13 What was written at Hradisko near Olomouc was in perfect agreement. There they believed that Cyril and Methodius had discovered the Bulgarian alphabet.14 The question again is when and who declared Velehrad to be an ecclesiastical metropolis. The interest of scholars in the Great Moravian heritage began to grow before 1300, when the Moravian legend mentioning Svatopluk as well as Cyril and Methodius was created.15 The Moravian tradition is also provided by the legend of the blessed Cyril, which mentions the relationship of Moravian Christianity to the Byzantine Empire but ignores the Slavonic liturgy,16 which is, in contrast, referred to by the legend Diffundente sole.17 Nevertheless, not even the deliberate return to Moravia under the last Přemyslids explains how Velehrad became the ecclesiastical metropolis of the Mojmirid Empire. A clue may be found in the Old Legend of St Procopius, more precisely in its Olomouc transcription from the third quarter of the 13th century, where one can read that the abbot of the Sázava monastery, Procopius, was excel lently educated in the script of St Cyril, the bishop of Velehrad.18 Precisely this comment reveals that the role of Velehrad as an ecclesiastical metropolis was decided no later than during the reign of Přemysl Otakar II. This is the context in which one can read the correspondence between the Prague court and the Roman curia on the eve of a crusade to Prussia. In 1267, the advisors of the King of Bohemia came up with the proposal that a costly campaign might strengthen Přemysl’s position. The glory of the kingdom of Bohemia was to be spread not only by weapons or skilful diplomacy but also by the archbishopric

13 Granum catalogi praesulum Moraviae, AÖG 78/1892, 65. 14 Annales Gradicenses et Abbotowicenses, MGH SS XVII, 644. 15 Tempore Michaelis imperatoris, MMFH II, 255–268. 16 Beatus Cyrillus, MMFH II, 299–303. 17 Diffundente sole, MMFH II, 276–283. 18 Vita antiqua 1, 112. 226 CHAPTER 5 based in Olomouc, because Moravia used to have a metropolis.19 These did not remain empty proclamations. Already before his departure, Přemysl Otakar II sent a delegation to Rome, providing it with safe-conducts and money as well as evidence, which might have included the legends of Cyril and Methodius.20 The Prague court prudently suppressed the role of the Slavonic liturgy, which was now replaced by a suitable reference to the foundation work of the first archbishops, Cyril and Methodius. Furthermore, Methodius was trans formed into a Rusyn, and King of Moravia Svatopluk had allegedly gained con trol over not only Moravia and Bohemia but also Poland and mainly Rus’ for Bořivoj’s descendants, that is, Přemysl Otakar II, to be able to claim Prussia as a wider legacy from Great Moravia. Why Velehrad? It seems that when Bishop of Olomouc Bruno was considering the foundation of a royal town, the future Uherské Hradiště, he might have noticed the old fortification walls and the name Velehrad during the arbitration in 1257, and, since Velehrad under Přemysl Otakar equalled the Cistercian monastery, the monastic influence increased the chances that the Roman curia would decide in favour of the king of Bohemia.21 Přemysl’s plan eventually foundered on the pragmatism of Pope Clement IV, who did not want to irritate unnecessarily the archbishop of Mainz, the met ropolitan of Gniezno and actually the Order of the Teutonic Knights.22 On 20 January 1268, the pope drew the attention of the king of Bohemia to the fact that he himself could not have been unaware of the fact that the bishop of Olomouc was subordinated to Mainz, by which he put the entire issue in its place, although he sweetened the negative response with the promise that if certain lands were conquered, he would personally ensure the announce ment of the metropolis.23 On the same day, he then assured Přemysl Otakar II that he did not object to the restoration of the Christian kingdom in Lithuania, with the proviso that no injustice would be done to the Order of the Teutonic Knights and that he would leave the throne to a person loyal to the Roman Church.24 The pope expressed himself somewhat differently on 26 January, when he granted the king free tenure of the lands conquered in future but reminded the Prague court that the rights of the brethren of the hospital of the

19 CDB V/2, 98–99, No. 539. 20 Bláhová, 1999, 135–148. 21 Goll, 1891, 102–109. 22 Novotný 1937, 155–162. 23 CDB V/2, 99–99, No. 539. 24 CDB V/2, 96–98, No. 538. Memory 227

Virgin Mary must not be violated.25 Already one day earlier, he had informed Bishop of Olomouc Bruno that he could govern Prussian provinces in spiri tual matters,26 and, even though Přemysl Otakar II tried to negotiate with the Order of the Teutonic Knights,27 it did not change the result in any way. The spatially and temporarily contingent endeavours of the king of Bohemia at least entered historical memory. They met with sympathy under Charles IV, who evidently liked the idea of ‘translatio imperii’ and Velehrad as the seat of the kings of Moravia, and Methodius’ archbishopric became a motif and back drop of a story whose point was the transfer of the statehood of Moravia to Bohemia. In the end, Velehrad thus complemented the collection of places with which the tradition associated both alleged and real memories of Methodius and Great Moravia. Around 1267, Velehrad was to facilitate the transformation of Olomouc into an archbishopric, but after a short time, Přemysl Otakar II concluded that the pope would not support his plan, and Methodius’ fictional metropolis at Velehrad quickly disappeared from domestic affairs.28 One may certainly wonder at the stubbornness of the royal court, which from the middle of the 13th century tried to persuade the Roman curia that it had a natural right to the archbishop. The foundation work of Margrave Vladislaus Henry was sacrificed to higher interests, and he was remembered at Velehrad rather unwittingly, on the margin of other, ‘history-making’ events. Does this apply to the entire legacy, however? What impression did Vladislaus Henry actually leave in the memory of the Czech lands?

1 Gerlach and the Others

Although Vladislaus Henry operated at the highest level of both domestic and imperial scenes for many years, he did not have his own court chronicler, which is understandable considering the poor standard of the domestic his toriography. Therefore, his story was not recorded by any chronicle, and like wise monastic scriptoria looked rather askance at the margrave. An exception could have been Velehrad, but the local literature disappeared without a trace in the turbulent decades of the 15th century. Consequently, the highest num ber of variously scattered memories has been preserved by Abbot of Milevsko Gerlach, who, however, never forgave Vladislaus Henry for having denied, as

25 CDB V/2, 100–101, No. 541. 26 CDB V/2, 99–100, No. 540. 27 CDB V/2, 60–61, No. 514; 102–103, No. 542. 28 Wihoda 2008b, 129–136. 228 CHAPTER 5

Duke of Bohemia, the clergy the right to free election and entrusted the Prague diocese to his chaplain Milík.29 What they thought of the margrave and his actions in Milevsko is implied by the commentary on the postponed investiture of Bishop of Prague Gotpold, when Gerlach mentions, as if in passing, that after the death of the bishop Daniel in 1167, the office remained vacant until the next summer, because it had been decided so by King of Bohemia Vladislaus and his advisors, which allegedly later pleased his sons Frederick and Vladislaus Henry.30 Gerlach does not reach the fate of the margrave until in 1192, when he emphasises that it was none other than Bishop of Prague Henry Bretislaus who guaranteed Vladislaus the government in Moravia, whereas the older Přemysl Otakar assumed power in Bohemia (cognatis suis Premizlao et Wadizlao, illi ducatum Boemie, alteri vero Morauiam obtinuit).31 Gerlach retells the same story once more in order to explain and excuse the actions of the bishop in the spring of 1193, when Emperor Henry VI heard from the bishop’s mouth about Přemysl’s betrayal and defection to the camp of the imperial opposition. Our commentator then populates the subsequent paragraphs with quite different figures and also passes over in silence the margrave’s stance on Přemysl’s fall; his name is miss ing even in the events of 1194. According to Gerlach, the duke-bishop then headed for Moravia to subdue that land (terram illam siue castra terrae suo dominio subiugauit).32 Nevertheless, that the destination of the campaign was Znojmo, where he found Vladislaus Henry and took him to Prague, is revealed only by the donation charter written in Louka and later forged.33 This takes one closer to the central plot, divided by the abbot of Milevsko into three acts. First he mentions that the seriously sick Henry Břetislaus had the former margrave imprisoned and that the detention was related to Přemysl’s attempt to return (Wladizlaus captus ab episcopo in infirmitate sua propter germanum ipsius Primizl), which was thwarted before Prague by Czech leaders. After the death of the duke-bishop, however, Czech elders (Boemi maiores natu) brought Vladislaus Henry out of prison and immediately pro claimed him duke, to which Gerlach adds by way of explanation that they had not dared to vote for Přemysl Otakar because he had fallen from the emperor’s favour and because they had raised their weapons against him (duabus de

29 Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 513–514. 30 Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 463. 31 Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 509. 32 Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 511. 33 Novotný 1914, 353–360. Memory 229 causis, quarum prima fuit, quia contra eum pugnauerant, secunda, gratiam imperatoris non habebat).34 The abbot of Milevsko makes no secret of the fact that the election procla mation was not without a flaw and hence brings the readers to the question of whether Vladislaus Henry ruled in accordance with the law, by which he creates a suitable space for his interpretation of events with which he deeply disagrees: For the first day of November, the duke convoked the clergy and the people, abbots, provosts and canons with the intention of discussing the elec tion of a new bishop of Prague. At the meeting, however, he surprised those present with the statement that he would follow his friends’ advice and would not appoint a bishop who could or wanted to defy him. Gerlach, who is still indignant twenty years later, then bitterly complains that Vladislaus Henry ignored clerics, whom he, allegedly out of the hatred for the deceased bishop, did not like much, and bestowed the investiture on his confidant ‘hardly known’ to the public, the chaplain Milík, called Daniel. The barely appointed elect then knelt to the sincere consternation of those gathered and swore an oath of fealty into the duke’s hands, by which the duke, according to the chron icler, disgraced both the imperial freedoms and the ‘ancient’ imperial status of the Prague bishopric.35 The abbot of Milevsko considers Milík’s episcopate to be scandalous, and he gladly mentions the protests and charge of the canon of St Vitus and the provost of Sadská Arnold. He sees the only bright moment of Vladislaus’ short rule in 6 December 1197, with which he concludes the third part of his account. First, however, he writes that Emperor Henry VI died on 28 September and that the news of Přemysl’s invasion of Bohemia spread through Prague like wildfire soon after that. The land armed forces, led by the duke, the bishop of Prague and abbots blocked the main access routes, and on the feast of St Nicholas, a company of rebels approached the camp. Despite having the upper hand, Vladislaus Henry then decided to retreat both for the sake of peace and out of brotherly love (propter bonum pacis, inde propter affectum germanitatis), and he reconciled with his brother with the proviso (confederatus est germano suo sub tali forma composittionis) that they would rule simul taneously, one in Moravia and the other in Bohemia (ut ambo pariter, ille in Morauia, iste in Boemia principarentur), and that the two of them would have one will and one government (et esset ambobus, sicut unus spiritus, ita et unus principatus).36

34 Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 513. 35 Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 513–514. 36 Annales Gerlaci, FRB II, 514–515. 230 CHAPTER 5

FIGURE 56 Under the personal supervision of the abbot Gerlach, the scriptorium of the Milevsko monastery tried to summarise the fate of the hereditary Přemyslid possessions from the beginning of the rule of Duke Vladislaus II. Although the text ended with 1198 and the manuscript thus remained unfinished, it is a unique source for the second half of the 12th century now. Inadvertently, it has preserved a valuable testimony of the beginning of the rule of Margrave Vladislaus Henry. Photography by A. Flídr

That is the information provided by Gerlach, whose sentences, despite their incompleteness, are not a random collection of comments and notes—they express a clear opinion and judgement of an eyewitness who knew Vladislaus Henry in person. It should be added that he worked on his document during the margrave’s life, apparently between 1214 and 1222,37 and that his thoughts constantly returned to the fateful, for Gerlach virtually tragic, November and the investiture of the chaplain Milík. Nevertheless, he left for us, more uninten tionally than deliberately, a portrait of the valiant and virtuous ruler. Which interpretation was preferred by the scriptoria and workshops of the late Middle Ages, though?

37 Kernbach 2010, 30–45. Memory 231

The deceased margrave was first noticed by the royal office. At the end of August 1222, Přemysl Otakar I referred to the brother of ‘blessed memory’ (frater noster bone memorie Wladizlaus).38 The royal privileges of the subse quent years were written in the same spirit (frater noster Waizlaus pie memorie, quondam marchio Morauie).39 Vladislaus Henry was called ‘illustrious’ or ‘good’ by Bishop of Olomouc Robert40 and the office of Pope Honorius III (clare memorie).41 It should be mentioned, however, that all without exception used conventional phrases, which were further developed only by those char ters which quoted Velehrad freedoms, be they for Cistercians themselves or for other ecclesiastical institutions (insuper preclari patrui nostri),42 and that, apart from Velehrad, the margrave was held in some respect at Hradisko near Olomouc, where he was called the very first margrave of Moravia (privilegium domini Wladislai, primi marchionis Morauie).43 After 1230, however, memories of Vladislaus Henry slowly began to fade, although both the margrave Přemysl44 or his brother, King of Bohemia Wenceslas I,45 and Přemysl Otakar II occasio nally returned to the uncle’s legacy.46 At the same time, the margrave received entirely negligible attention from the chronicler Henry of Heimburg, whose interest was exhausted by a brief entry for 1222 saying that Vladislaus, mar grave of Moravia and a brother of King Otakar, died.47 Likewise the last redac tion of the St Vitus annals, an informal chronicle of the royal court, contained only two comments.48 Even though the local scriptorium rightly assumed that Vladislaus Henry had left his nearest and dearest in 1222,49 the canons mistake nly supposed that he had ruled in Prague until 1199.50

38 CDB II, 228–229, No. 238; 229–232, No. 239. 39 CDB II, 236–237, No. 245; 237–239, No. 246; 266–267, No. 272. 40 CDB II, 242–244, No. 253; CDB III/1, 12–13, No. 14. 41 CDB II, 244–245, No. 254. 42 CDB II, 266–267, No. 272; 315–319, No. 320; 370–372, No. 355; CDB III/1, 14–15, No. 15; 104–106, No. 90; 179–182, No. 144; CDB III/2, 246–248, No. 194; 261–263, No. 204; CDB IV/1, 335–337, No. 184. 43 CDB V/1, 103–105, No. 50; CDB II, 362–364, No. 351; 364–368, No. 352; 368–370, No. 354; 372–375, No. 356; 378–379, No. 358; 412–415, No. 376. 44 CDB III/1, 100–104, No. 89; 104–106, No. 90; 107–108, No. 91; 179–182, No. 144; CDB III/2, 246–248, No. 194. 45 CDB III/1, 171–172, No. 137; CDB III/2, 261–263, No. 204; 276–278, No. 212. 46 CDB IV/1, 288–290, No. 176; 335–337, No. 184. 47 Annales Heinrici Heimburgensis, FRB III, 312. 48 Annalium Pragensium IV, FRB II, 370. 49 Annalium Pragensium I, FRB II, 284. 50 Annalium Pragensium I, FRB II, 282. 232 CHAPTER 5

The approach to Vladislaus’ story is completely confusing in the rhymed Chronicle of the So-Called Dalimil. Its author believes that Vladislaus Henry still held the ducal sceptre in 1204, that he agreed to the investiture of Bishop of Prague Andrew, with whom he quarrelled, however, like he fell out with the Holy See, and that he listened to the advice of the leaders, which allegedly later upset his son and heir (!), Přemysl.51 The fate of the margrave of Moravia did not draw the interest of the court historiography under the emperor Charles IV. Marignola’s compilation does not mention Vladislaus Henry at all.52 Likewise the attitude of the abbot Neplach verges on disrespect—he selected for men tion from the St Vitus annals not the margrave’s death but the appearance of a very bright star.53 The second life of the margrave of Moravia thus actually did not begin until the chronicle of Přibík Pulkava of Radenín, which did not escape attention in the notes of the Milevsko chronicle and the Golden Bull of Ulm from 1216. Without substantial interventions and modifications, Přibík took over Gerlach’s commentary for 1193 and Vladislaus’ first margraviate,54 he did not specify the content of the expedition of the duke-bishop to Moravia in 1194 in any manner55 and he literally quoted even the events of the mem orable year 1197.56 From imperial sources, Přibík borrowed the plunder of Thuringia by Bohemian and Moravian troops;57 with the help of the necro logy of Olomouc, he dated his death;58 and the Golden Bull of Ulm shed light on Vladislaus’ role in the election of Přemysl’s successor Wenceslas.59 Before 1378, Vladislaus Henry was remembered in Doksany as well,60 but the major authority continued to be Přibík Pulkava, whose records provided information for the capable narrator and author of the popular Bohemian chronicle, Václav Hájek of Libočany, in the middle of the 16th century as well. Thanks to him, Vladislaus Henry settled in the historical memory of the Czech lands, unfor tunately including errors, because Václav Hájek not only fabricated numer ous conversations of the main characters but also considerably modified

51 Staročeská kronika tak řečeného Dalimila 2.72–73, 259, 263. 52 Johannis de Marignola Chronicon, FRB III, 487–604. 53 Johannis Neplachonis abbatis Abbotovicensis Chronicon, FRB III, 472. 54 Przibiconis de Radenin dicti Pulkavae Chronicon Bohemiae, FRB V, 116A, B. 55 Przibiconis de Radenin dicti Pulkavae Chronicon Bohemiae, FRB V, 117A. 56 Przibiconis de Radenin dicti Pulkavae Chronicon Bohemiae, FRB V, 118A, B. 57 Przibiconis de Radenin dicti Pulkavae Chronicon Bohemiae, FRB V, 120A. 58 Przibiconis de Radenin dicti Pulkavae Chronicon Bohemiae, FRB V, 131A; 132A; 134B. 59 Przibiconis de Radenin dicti Pulkavae Chronicon Bohemiae, FRB V, 133A; 134B. 60 Necrologium Doxanense,VKČSN 8/1884, 121. Memory 233 the sequence of events: for instance, he moved the promotion of Prince Wenceslas I to 1226.61 We should return to the late Middle Ages, however, which include also the Olomouc tradition. Although it remained trapped within the provincial coor dinates, it was able in a modest way to preserve information on Vladislaus Henry and his relationship to the Moravian clergy that is not known from elsewhere, which makes it fairly valuable. This concerns the list of the bishops of Olomouc,62 the cathedral necrology63 and the short work which Mojmír Švábenský called the Moravian Chronicle.64 The Olomouc scriptorium turned to the memory of the margrave of Moravia for many years, and the attention given to Vladislaus Henry in the catalogue of the bishops of Olomouc exceeds the usual standards both by its extent and diction.65 The unknown canon was generous with praise and, apart from men tioning common gifts and support of the Church, referred to the margrave as a righteous protector of the clergy, widows and orphans; he also lauded the mar grave’s just and wise governance of public affairs (verus zelator ecclesiarum, pater clericorum, consolator lugencium, refugium viduarum pupillorumque et orbatorum fidelissimus protector extitit).66 That the margrave really was among honoured figures in public life is also proven by the fact that his name became popular in the royal family, so that Vladislaus Henry in the first years of the 13th century superseded Vratislaus, preferred until then. Vratislaus appeared immediately twice among Přemysl’s children, first in his marriage with Adelheid of Meissen and then in order to erase the memory of the banished yet still legitimate heir;67 nevertheless, the son born in 1207 was already christened after his uncle, who could have been his godfather as well.68 It is uncertain whether anyone then anticipated that Vladislaus Henry II would one day take over the provinces of Moravia. After 1222, however, such an option presented itself, which was the reason that Přemysl Otakar I, after some hesitation, renewed the margravial office

61 Václava Hájka z Libočan Kronika česká III [Chronicle of the Bohemians by Václav Hájek of Libočany], 318–331; 396–398. 62 Granum catalogi praesulum Moraviae, AÖG 78/1892, 79. 63 Necrologium Olomucense. AÖG 65/1884, 555. 64 Fragmentum chronici ecclesiae cathedralis Olomucensis, StR 12/1973, 200. 65 Necrologium Podlažicense, DFS, 418. 66 Granum catalogi praesulum Moraviae, AÖG 78/1892, 79. 67 Wihoda 2012, 217–227. 68 Przibiconis de Radenin dicti Pulkavae Chronicon Bohemiae, FRB V, 121A. 234 CHAPTER 5 probably in 1224.69 It was certainly by no accident that the heir of King Wenceslas I was also given the name of Vladislaus Henry.70 In the end, Vladislaus Henry III did not fulfil the hopes placed in him, and his premature death in 1247 already overlapped with the fading memories of the two brothers and the internal organisation of the hereditary Přemyslid pos sessions before 1222. An entire century had to pass before Přemysl’s co-ruler was noticed by Přibík Pulkava, whose text was subsequently reworked and ‘improved’ by Václav Hájek of Libočany. Other memories, unknown in Prague and independent of Milevsko, survived in Olomouc and, until the beginning of the 15th century, probably also at Velehrad. Thanks to Přibík Pulkava and Václav Hájek, however, the decisive influence on public opinion was gained by Gerlach’s chronicle, because it began to read as a component of later com pilations. There is one more thing to say: although both chroniclers might be labelled as epigones of the abbot of Milevsko, they were both interested mainly in events and simply omitted a significant part of Gerlach’s invectives or evaluative judgements. Without their realising it, their approach to their source prepared the ground for the degradation of Vladislaus Henry as a man who, on one autumn evening, voluntarily abdicated the ducal throne.

2 The Gracious Duke

Shortly after his return from the Council of Basel, Henry Moyker, the abbot of the Benedictine monastery of St Lambrecht, decided to complement the decoration of the main portal of the basilica in the already-famous pilgri mage site of Mariazell. He thus summoned masons, who prepared sandstone and marble blocks. Whereas they hewed the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ into the sandstone, they used marble for the depiction of the miraculous recov ery of the margrave of Moravia and the victory of King Louis of Hungary over the Turks. In order to make it absolutely clear what the individual scenes showed, they added inscriptions. The alliance coats of arms of Duke Albrecht of Austria and Elisabeth of Hungary reveal that the order was completed not long before 1438.71 The Benedictines could be satisfied, but the Moravian part of the Mariazell tympanum raises some questions now. The master then depicted three figures. Behind the married couple in imploring prayer,

69 Novotný 1928, 577–578. 70 Novotný 1928, 778–779. 71 Andorfer 1927, 80–88; Schultes 2000, 396. Memory 235

FIGURE 57 By 1438, the main entrance to the Mariazell basilica was decorated by a tympanum that showed pilgrims the story of the miraculous recovery of the margrave of Moravia and the victory of King Louis of Hungary over the Turks. The Moravian part of the legend is represented by three figures, more precisely a married couple in imploring prayer and the figure of the duke, St Wenceslas, with a banner in his hand.

he placed the figure of the duke with a banner with the Bohemian double- tailed lion. The respective part of the inscription announced that the interces sion of St Wenceslas had rid the margrave and his wife of a protracted illness (S(an)ctus.wenzeslaus.marchione(m).morauie.eiusq(u)e.uxore(m)//a.pa(ra) lisi.eg(r)i(t)udi(n)e.diu.fatigatos.indicat.liberandos).72 Nothing else. In 1487, however, the chronicler Hans Menesdorfer, referring to some booklet of mir acles and an equally mysterious old monastic manuscript, specified that the margrave’s name was Henry and that he underwent medical treatment here in 1286.73 At the end of the 17th century, it was even known that he had been accompanied by his wife Agnes, called Kunigunde.74

72 Andorfer 1927, 82. 73 Pangerl 1864, 103–111. 74 Wonisch 1960, 30–31. 236 CHAPTER 5

Unfortunately, the appealing history, continuously improved throughout the centuries, cannot be anchored in time, primarily because Moravia in the second half of the 13th century was a margraviate without a margrave, and the sources simply do not mention any margravine Agnes or Kunigunde. Nevertheless, it does not seem that the Benedictines would have invented the entire plot. Moyker’s order was fulfilled at the time when the public discussed the results of the Council of Basel and everything Bohemian was considered heretical. The relief above the main portal was necessarily linked with another tradition, which was independent of the experience at the time. Why then in Mariazell at the end of the Middle Ages did they connect King Louis of Hungary with some anonymous margrave of Moravia? Was it suffi cient that both had received the miraculous help of the Virgin Mary and that both had expressed their gratitude through donations and the reconstruc tion of the church? If it was so, can one accept the information hewn in the tympanum that the foundations of the church were laid in 1200?75 Regardless, the legend of the foundation claims that the first wooden chapel was estab lished by the Benedictine Magnus in 1157. After all, it was for a sexcentenary that Balthasar Moll cast the statues of the king of Hungary and the margrave of Moravia and placed them in front of the western façade,76 but no statue was erected in honour of Magnus. Is it possible that Moyker would not have thought of the first Benedictines and the chapel consecrated to the Virgin but directly of the stone church which was admired by the crowds of pilgrims in the middle of the 15th century? King Louis of Hungary subsidised the extensive Gothic reconstruction, but who was that margrave of Moravia? One can prob ably exclude rulers of Luxemburg origin, because John Henry, Procopius and Jobst lived at the time when the basilica was in the care of the king of Hungary. That leaves the Přemyslids, more precisely the three Vladislaus Henrys and two Přemysls. The youngest of them, the sons of King Wenceslas I, Vladislaus Henry III and Přemysl Otakar II, married the heiresses of the Babenberg pos sessions Gertrude and Margaret, and it is unlikely that they would not have known something like that in Styria. Vladislaus Henry II died unmarried, his brother Přemysl wedded Margaret and, moreover, was a famous figure in the Babenberg Danube Basin, which takes us in a circle to a brother of King of Bohemia Přemysl Otakar I, whose wife Heilwidis came from Austria but was not of noble (ducal) origin; her name could have easily fallen into oblivion. The beginning of the 13th century, however, is indicated by a single year on the Mariazell tympanum. That is probably all that can be added on the

75 Andorfer 1927, 84. 76 Rodler 1907; Wonisch 1947; Wonisch 1957, 13, 18–22. Memory 237

margrave of Moravia and the legend, which was chiselled by a master stone mason based on the ideas of the abbot Henry Moyker, except for the fact that in nearby Admont they captured the content of the agreement between the brothers in 1197 with astonishing precision.77 What made it so attractive for them? Could they have known Vladislaus Henry from his visits to Mariazell? This is hard to determine, just like the appearance of the Romanesque basi lica as it long ago disappeared under the work of the king of Hungary, which, in turn, was covered by the Baroque church of Domenico Sciassia. All that remained was a vague memory, unknown to the Přemyslid possessions, with which the Czech lands were not acquainted until Bohuslav Balbín.78 It must be added that this met with little response, because the chronicle of the abbot of Milevsko Gerlach, improved by Přibík and Hájek, ruled with a firm hand in Bohemia. Neither should one forget Martin Kuthen, who complemented his excerpts with portraits of dukes and kings of Bohemia, including Vladislaus Henry.79 Especially Hájek’s text became a support and confidential counsellor for Pavel Stránský, who appreciated Vladislaus Henry’s December abdication and openness to the voices of the land diet.80 The same work was regularly consulted by Bohuslav Balbín as well; although he was able to identify some apparent mistakes and noticed also the golden bull Mocran et Mocran of 1212, he devoted only short notes to the margrave.81 Unfortunately, Balbín’s rather precise observations were not used by his friend Thomas Pešina of Čechorod. Trying to connect unrelated comments into one whole, Pešina introduced a fictional duke of Brno, Otto IV, into the history of Moravia and infested the first decades of the 13th century with stories unknown from elsewhere.82 Pešina’s feeble attempt to write the margrave’s biography failed and thus inadvertently determined the future approach of critical historiography to Vladislaus Henry. This concerns chiefly the rather short and not very inventive dissertation by Brother Athanasius from the Order of Discalced Augustinians, which com bined the legend of Mariazell retold by Balbín with the testimony of various chronicles. Apart from the Annals of Admont, these included the work of Abbot of Milevsko Gerlach along with the remarks and opinions of Přibík Pulkava, Martin Kuthen and Václav Hájek of Libočany. Nevertheless, the highly diverse

77 Continuatio Admuntensis, MGH SS IX, 588–589. 78 Balbín 1681, 164. 79 Kuthen 1539, 32–33. 80 Stránský 1634, 345. 81 Balbín 1677, 247, 254. 82 Pešina 1677, 328–332. 238 CHAPTER 5

FIGURE 58 In 1539, Vladislaus Henry was remembered by Martin Kuthen. Two short records informing the readers that he had become a duke and that during his rule Daniel was appointed to the Prague episcopal see, however, reveal that he did not know how to deal with the margrave’s legacy.

company led the writer to the conclusion that Přemysl’s brother, the margrave Vladislaus Henry, indeed underwent medical treatment in Mariazell.83 The Jesuit and historiographer of the land of Bohemia Francis Pubička had much higher ambitions. He succeeded in gathering a respectable collec tion of various stories. However, the fate of the margrave of Moravia almost disappeared from the sweeping text, and Vladislaus Henry assumed a minor role in the chronologically ordered sequence of events. Yet the careful and precise evaluation of period accounts and Pubička’s interest in documentary materials deserve words of praise. He complemented the well-known years of

83 Athanasius 1764. Memory 239

1192 or 1197 by 1200 and the miracle in Mariazell;84 he dated the foundation of Velehrad to 120285 and skilfully placed the alleged court diet in Basel and the issue of the Golden Bull of Sicily including the Mocran et Mocran privi lege in 1212.86 Pubička aptly mentioned Vladislaus’ merits in the election of Přemysl’s successor, Wenceslas, in 1216, by which he finally corrected Hájek’s timeworn fabrication;87 and, building on the Doksany necrology, he expanded on Vladislaus’ death on 12 August 1222.88 Francis Pubička was occasionally wrong, but one cannot help bit sincerely admire his work. His conscious attempt to read various models impartially is able to withstand very strict criteria, and his commentaries on Vladislaus’ mar graviate of 1192–119489 and on the year 1197, rich in dramatic events, appears to be almost flawless.90 Not only did he surpass Francis Martin Pelcl with the scope of his considerations91 but also Joseph Vratislav Monse made Pubička’s exposition the factual basis of his own work on the history of the margraviate of Moravia. Like Pubička, Monse himself often sought information in char ters, primarily the collection of forgeries used by the monastery at Hradisko near Olomouc to defend its claims to the forest Střelná, based upon which he erroneously concluded that Vladislaus Henry had ruled the margraviate of Olomouc and that he had been close to the Premonstratensian Order.92 It is indisputable that the domestic historiography of the end of the 18th century was trying to, and with few exceptions also managed to, escape from the vicious circle of Hájek’s fairy tales. This is greatly attributable to Gelasius Dobner, whose commentaries frequently develop into separate scientific treatises, like his remarks on the years 1192–119793 or a thorough discussion of the establishment of the margraviate of Moravia.94 Nevertheless, the learned Piarist evaluated the year 1197 and the personality of the margrave Vladislaus Henry similarly to his contemporaries, hence as a happy prologue to a new period; the same conclusion was reached by František Palacký forty years later. A new phenomenon was an unusual emphasis on the interests of the

84 Pubitschka 1781, 13, 16–20. 85 Pubitschka 1781, 25–26. 86 Pubitschka 1781, 57–61. 87 Pubitschka 1781, 68–70. 88 Pubitschka 1781, 104–105. 89 Pubitschka 1778, 13, 470–484. 90 Pubitschka 1781, 1–6. 91 Pelzel 1779, 112–120. 92 Monse 1788, 33–57. 93 Dobner 1782, 602–647. 94 Dobner 1781, 75–93. 240 CHAPTER 5

‘nation’, upon which Palacký had already expatiated in the German edition. Palacký considered the December agreement to be not merely a manifestation of brotherly love but also a far-sighted political act, by which Vladislaus Henry showed that the future of Bohemia in the ‘national’ and state sense may only be guaranteed by the ‘sovereign’ royal power.95 In another place, he adorned the margrave with later well-known phrases about a wise, generous and self less ruler.96 Palacký’s history of the Czech lands perceives the events of 1197 as a direct fight for the restoration of state and national unity; consequently, it avoids excessive praise of the year 1212 and the unification of Moravia under Vladislaus’ sceptre and instead appreciates the constitutional importance of Wenceslas’ election in 1216.97 It was precisely in this context that František Palacký placed his reworked national history, which follows the German original for 1197–1230 both in terms of ideas and content. It also resourcefully praises Vladislaus’ sense of the common good and the ‘beauty of his soul’, because he maintained exemplary loyalty to his brother until his own death.98 Palacký likewise used only words of appreciation in the brief overview of the history of the Czech nation that he prepared for Rieger’s dictionary. The ‘wise and noble’ Vladislaus Henry helped to restore and increase the power of the dukes of Bohemia when he voluntarily surrendered the Prague throne and satisfied himself with the title of Margrave of Moravia.99 In contrast, the December agreement was men tioned without emotion and in only a few sentences by Palacký’s successor Václav Vladivoj Tomek, who paid particular attention to the position of the Czech lands on the imperial political scene.100 The margrave was not given more space until Beda Dudík. He saved almost150 pages for Vladislaus Henry in his history of Moravia, and he also emphasised his calm and conciliatory nature, which enabled both Přemyslid lands, Bohemia and Moravia, to flourish. Among other things, he mentioned that Vladislaus Henry had been a legitimate duke and that he had been well aware of that. He had allegedly left ‘magnanimously’ the management of foreign affairs to his brother Přemysl Otakar while insisting on the ‘sovereignty’ of the margraviate, which unfortunately did not make clear sense. In the end,

95 Palacký 1847, 57. 96 Palacký 1847, 55. 97 Palacký 1847, 76. 98 Palacký 1894, 277. 99 Palacký 1862, 378. 100 Tomek 1843, 90–91. Memory 241 he himself considered Vladislaus’ arrival at the Hoftag in Nuremberg in 1212 as an expression of his disagreement with the imperial policy of the Prague court and an attempt to save the margraviate.101 In spite of his extensive and erudite comments, Dudík did not think of wri ting a biography of Vladislaus alone, and when he touched on his story, it was only in the context of the ‘big’ history of the land. Neither can one discount his absolute trust in medieval and unfortunately also Boček’s modern forger ies. Nevertheless, Dudík summarised and evaluated all that was known, and since he made sure that the history of Moravia was published in both land languages, he became a source of information for Moravian Germans as well. Yet he does not seem to have influenced Adolf Bachmann, who at the end of the 19th century tried to formulate a German view of the past of the Czech lands. As once emphasised by Václav Novotný, the outcome should be taken as a serious contribution to the discussion.102 That he definitely did not mean it as a compliment is revealed by the immediately following lines of a com prehensive review, in which he reproached Bachmann for his lack of know ledge of the local context and for his bias.103 He was referring to Bachmann’s comments on the behaviour of Přemysl Otakar I, but Vladislaus Henry did not escape his criticism and reservations either. Bachmann considered the selec tion of Bishop of Prague Milík as well as the end of the alleged feudal bond between Moravia and the Empire as inappropriate. He saw the December reconciliation as a purely private agreement.104 Bertold Bretholz showed more sympathy for the margrave and the internal state of the Czech lands at the turn of the 13th century, but the brevity of his remarks precluded clear evaluative judgements.105 At that point, however, the second volume of Novotný’s monu mental České dějiny [Czech History] was just about to be published. Václav Novotný concluded the second volume of his history with the year 1197 and embellished his contemplations with the exaltation of Vladislaus’ skills as a statesman. Not only did he praise Vladislaus’ dignified performance of sovereign rights but he also included Vladislaus Henry among the unique figures of his time. He called the December agreement a ‘beautiful moment’ and a ‘sign of a noble mind’ and concluded his book almost lyrically when he noted that ‘the dawn of more beautiful times’ rises from the brotherly

101 Dudík 1870, 3–156; Dudík 1878a, 2–116. 102 Novotný 1903a, 26. 103 Novotný 1903a, 26–46, 164–178; 262–300, 373–397. 104 Bachmann 1899, 380–388. 105 Bretholz 1912, 285–301. 242 CHAPTER 5 reconciliation.106 He finished the history fifteen years later. He aptly sum marised his opinion in a short necrology, in which he wrote that Vladislaus Henry had died in friendship and in full concord with his brother, to whom he had once, in a ‘generous commitment’, ceded the throne and to whose ‘intel lectual superiority’ he had always submitted, so that his margraviate had not been much more than titular, because the real power had been transferred to Přemysl Otakar I.107 Without realising it, he thus outlined the positions in which three entire generations of Czech historians were buried. The generational consensus, however, only meant mindless and uncritical adoption of earlier statements. Moreover, the life and work of the margrave of Moravia were considered to be so insignificant that Vladislaus Henry was not even mentioned in a proverbial footnote. He remained on the verge of oblivion until 1986, when Žemlička’s work on the century of the last Přemyslids appeared on bookshop shelves, but even that made do with a free paraphrase of Václav Novotný. Vladislaus Henry was again elevated to a kind and gener ous ruler with noble human qualities, who understood the needs of the land, yielded to his older, bellicose and moreover irascible brother with extraordi nary discretion and prudence in December 1197 and satisfied himself with the title of Margrave, towards which Josef Žemlička adopted a rather hesitant atti tude. Any serious decision that the margrave made required the consent of the ruler of Bohemia; in the same place, however, it is written that Vladislaus Henry between 1208 and 1213 assumed ‘full control’ over the entire Moravia.108 Josef Žemlička improved the respective places in the monograph on Přemysl Otakar I with similar or even the same expressions. In addition to his sensi tive approach to the needs of the land, his talent of ruling and his high moral values, Vladislaus Henry was this time able to suppress the selfish desires of a noble individual, sacrificed his inherited craving for power to the needs of the land and ‘understandingly obeyed his older brother until the end of his own life’.109 Familiar and already rather stale attributes are not missing in Bohemia of the ducal period either.110 A slight shift of opinion is indicated by Počátky Čech královských [The Beginnings of Royal Bohemia], where Žemlička admit ted that the margrave was not Přemysl’s passive partner after all.111 What was he trying to suggest?

106 Novotný 1913, 1152–1155. 107 Novotný 1928, 554. 108 Žemlička 1998, 36–39. 109 Žemlička 1990, 68–72. 110 Žemlička 2007a, 374–377. 111 Žemlička 2002c, 134. Memory 243

It appears that he reserved the chapter called The Margraviate of Moravia for a detailed answer. Nevertheless, since he was not able to abandon the tra ditional obsession of domestic historiography with all that was connected with the relationship of the Přemyslid possessions to the Empire, he became lost in his own maze of contradictory statements. He allowed for the division of power between Přemysl and Vladislaus, the active share of the margrave in the building of the Czech statehood as well as his position as the ‘second’ man of the kingdom and recognised the fact that the title of Margrave had been a key to the community of the Princes of the Holy Roman Empire, yet he strictly rejected diarchy, because this term supposedly requires at least a rough balance in the division of powers. Josef Žemlička further concluded that if the margrave acted in line with the Princes of the Empire, it was a sign not of the independence of Moravia but the success of Vladislaus’ abilities and of the coordinated endeavours of the two brothers to affect the imperial poli tics much more strongly, even with twice as much power, and he crowned his speculations with the comment that the margrave did not rule even the land of Moravia ‘equally’.112 Unfortunately, he did not explain anywhere what he meant by unequal rule, what his idea of Moravian autonomy was and how the margrave could have become one of the Princes of the Empire without their consent. Josef Žemlička essentially repeats the old idea that the Czech lands were controlled from a single centre. The special status of Moravia in the first quarter of the 13th century had already been considered by Wilhelm Wegener,113 who was, however, often guided by the dubious opinions of Alfred Fischel; not even his treatment of sources may be accepted without reservation.114 Nevertheless, it should be added that Wilhelm Wegener did not see himself as an expert on Moravia and that he, from the very beginning, focused on a dispute over noth ing less than the subordination of the margraviate of Moravia to the Empire. That brought him into close proximity to Vladislaus Henry, to whom he attri buted the role of a mere passive agent. A harsh approach to the margrave actually pervades the entire discussion on the events of 1212, the Golden Bull of Sicily and the Mocran et Mocran privilege.115 The only exchange of opinions was thus conducted on the mysterious inscription in the quadrangular cloister of the Velehrad monastery.

112 Žemlička 2002c, 580–591. 113 Wegener 1959, 191–192. 114 Fischel 1906, 1–135. 115 Wihoda 2012. 244 CHAPTER 5

FIGURE 59 The discovery of the recess in the buried quadrangular cloister of the Velehrad abbey initiated an impassioned exchange of opinions on the place where Vladislaus’ remains could have rested. Yet it seems that the margrave’s tomb will have to be sought somewhere else and that the half-damaged inscription most likely mentions the merits of one of smaller donors. AFTER M. POJSL

In the spring of 1937, a recess with a damaged inscription was uncovered in the buried cloister. The local enthusiast and self-proclaimed archaeologist Antoš Horsák identified in it the tomb of the abbot John, who was burnt by the Hussites from a camp near Nedakonice in January 1421.116 The suggested reading and interpretation were brusquely rejected by Ota Polách, who presented for consideration that it might be the second tomb of the margrave Vladislaus Henry with the inscription ‘Here lies Vladislaus, whose present glorious ashes were deposited here by the abbot of the monastery on 1 November 1252’ (+Hic iacet W(ladislaus) c(ui) prae(sente)m cin(ere)m Gl(oriosu)m contvlit a(bbas) m(onasterii) primo nowem(bris) 1252).117 Over time, the public opinion began to favour Polách’s arguments, but three decades later, Miloslav Pojsl expressed himself on the inscription, proving, based on indirect evidence, that the small tomb had really contained the remains of the margrave. Among other things, he drew attention to the fact that the recess was located near the entrance

116 Horsák 1938, 52–57. 117 Polách 1938a, 48–52. Memory 245 from the cloister to the monastic church, hence in a place of honour that was regularly passed by processions of monks on the way to collective prayers. In this sense, he corrected Polách’s reading to ‘Here lies Vladislaus, who once donated his remains, reburied forever’ (+Hic iacet W(ladislaus) q(ui) p(raedi) a ol(im) (con)tulit neo(sepultus) iz(in aeternum)?).118 Pojsl’s contribution truly moved Polách’s interpretation to an acceptable position, but Jan Bistřický after some time expressed his surprise that the inscription lacked any titles, which is at least unusual in the case of the monastery’s founder, and that the recon struction of the end does not seem credible. Therefore, he considered a dona tion and indicated that it could have been Nedakonice, which was given to the Cistercians by a certain nobleman ‘W’ (Vítek?) from the Vítek family.119 This was followed by a reaction by Miloslav Pojsl, who strictly rejected Bistřický’s proposal based on an analysis of ashlar walls in the surroundings, stonemason marks, Cistercian rules and with reference to the transfer of the remains of Boček of Pernek.120 Despite my slight partiality for the wit of Jan Bistřický, I have a feeling that the mystery of the small recess in the cloister of the Velehrad monastery will remain a secret even in the third millennium, but it is no wonder when the remains of the margrave of Moravia probably turned to dust already at the end of the Middle Ages. What do we have then? The certainty that the Velehrad Cistercians took care of the grave of their supporter all the way until the tragic days of January 1421 and, after the restoration of the monastery, tried to revive buried memories. And what about historical memory? The way of Vladislaus Henry back to the interpretation of the history of the 13th century was slow and difficult. He actually paid the price for his abdication, which was not common in the Czech lands of that time, as well as for the premature end of the Milevsko chronicle. The coincidence, fatal for the margrave, was further enhanced by the rapid transformation of ducal Bohemia into a hereditary kingdom, so that the year 1197 literally offered itself as a natural turning point between the ducal and royal periods. Gelasius Dobner and Francis Pubička realised this; the year 1197 was respected by Václav Novotný; more recently, its significance has been confirmed by the works of Josef Žemlička. The December agreement became a kind of symbolic epilogue to the old age and a gate to the new times, and Vladislaus’ concession provided a per fect backdrop for the evaluative discourse of diverse content. An opportunity and action are only a step away, which was made by František Palacký and

118 Pojsl 1968/1969, 86–96; Pojsl 1985a, 423–431; Pojsl 1990, 45–47. 119 Bistřický 1991, 211–213. 120 Pojsl 2002, 37–46; Pojsl 2006, 144–150, No. 40. 246 CHAPTER 5

Václav Novotný as well as Josef Žemlička. No wonder that the margrave gradu ally became labelled with phrases full of magnanimousness and generosity along with a statesman’s sense of the needs of the land, without anyone being bothered by the fact that the margrave’s story had been washed away in mean ingless rhetoric, leaving only a pitiful ‘gracious’ duke. He, however, never had anything in common with Vladislaus Henry.

3 It Happened One Night

At the end of November 1838, the highest burgrave of Prague Castle, Count Karel Chotek, was given another nice responsibility. After long negotiations with the artillery headquarters, he became the manager of the dilapidated building of the Royal Summer Palace and could proceed with its transforma tion into a national pantheon. The next year, the highest burgrave authorised the creation of a gallery and, another two years later, the emperor Ferdinand V signed a preliminary budget for reconstruction. At the same time, Karel Chotek asked the Society of Patriotic Friends of the Arts to take charge of the decoration of the main hall.121 The proposal met with understanding, and, at the beginning of April 1843, the committee decided to accept the offer and to pay for the cycle of thirteen frescoes depicting the past of the Czech lands designed by the director of the Academy of Fine Arts, Christian Ruben. Born in the Rhineland, he did not know much about the past of the Czech lands. Therefore, he approached František Palacký, whose concept of the fresco cycle was that the selected scenes should show not only famous moments. The cho sen themes were to respect the rules of monumental historical painting, which required not only a precise description of the events but also a clear under standing of their historical significance. It is not clear to what extent Christian Ruben listened to Palacký’s advice; nevertheless, in 1847 he considered twelve motifs, surprisingly not includ ing the Přemyslid mythology, with more than half of the concepts return ing to the Hussite movement and the Reformation, between 1403 and 1627, which would probably have been impossible without the ‘advice’ of František Palacký.122 The list then passed through the committee of the Society of Patriotic Friends of the Arts, and, through the office of the high est Hofmeister, it was delivered to Vienna. The decisive words were uttered on 14 March 1849, when the programme was unconditionally approved by

121 Svoboda 1978, 204–215. 122 Štaif 1991, 161–182. Memory 247

Emperor Franz Joseph himself.123 The relatively rapid progress of the whole procedure and even more its successful result were quite surprising, because the concept emphasised values that were rather alien to the imperial court: in addition to the neutral memories of the baptism of the Czechs during the reign of Duke Bořivoj, the translation of the relics of St Adalbert, Přemysl Otakar II departing from Prague, judging Charles IV and Rudolph II as an art patron and expert, Christian Ruben, assisted by František Palacký, was prepar ing the Battle of Chlumec, Hus before the Council of Constance, the Battle of Domažlice, the signature of the Compactata, George of Poděbrady at the diet of 1465, the St Wenceslas Agreement of 1517 and the expulsion of Utraquists in 1627. The Viennese circles might have been pleased by the fact that the thirteenth fresco was to depict an as-yet-unspecified scene from the life of Emperor Franz Joseph, but it could not have escaped the cautious bureaucrats that the cycle cultivated the awareness of political, national and religious iden tity of the Czech lands.124 The March mandate was valid, though, and not even Christian Ruben was idle. Before the end of 1849, he completed the sketches for three paintings, and the next summer, he sent the architect Bernhard Grueber and two of his students, Joseph Matthias Trenkwald and Karel Svoboda, to Berlin for them to become familiar with the new technique of mural painting.125 Ruben received another positive piece of news in March 1851, when Franz Joseph agreed to a special subsidy of 4600 Gulden, but everything changed on 3 October. The imperial office announced that, with immediate effect, it prohibits six scenes, namely Přemysl Otakar before his departure for Marchfeld, John Hus in Constance, The Battle of Domažlice, The Signature of the Compactata, The St Wenceslas Agreement and The Expulsion of the Utraquists, by which it expressed a clear opinion on the current character of the fresco style.126 The censorial voice caught Ruben in the middle of work, and the extant correspon dence implies that he was aware of the threat posed by a biased interpreta tion of selected topics.127 Also the aversion of the authorities to motifs of the Reformation period is understandable, and the historical context, in particular the experience of the revolutionary year of 1848, may be perceived without any difficulties. But what was the problem with Přemysl Otakar II?

123 Svoboda 1978, 212. 124 Huig 1999, 31–41. 125 Svoboda 1978, 212. 126 Huig 1993/1994, 63, No. 6. 127 Huig 1993/1994, 63–64, No. 7. 248 CHAPTER 5

The tragic battle between the king of Bohemia and Rudolf of Habsburg was probably among popular themes of Romantic historicising paintings, which found a hero going to death in Přemysl. After all, Austrian art at that time fre quently returned to the moment when the victorious Habsburg was standing over the fallen body of his adversary; that is a scene with obvious imperial sym bolism.128 The Viennese censors, however, realised that the Bohemian tradition perceived Marchfeld as a shameful defeat, and the final verdict could have also been influenced by the extremely critical attitude of the Czech public to Franz Grillparzer’s historical tragedy ‘King Otakar’s Fortune and End’ (König Ottokars Glück und Ende), which portrayed Přemysl as an adventurer and the Czechs as a nation of barbarians.129 The year 1278 really did not fit in the summer palace, whose fresco decoration was to declare the loyalty of the community of estates to the Habsburg throne, and Christian Ruben, not to lose the favour and support of the Viennese court, presented new proposals at the end of 1851. He replaced the departing King Přemysl Otakar II with the brotherly reconcili ation of December 1197, with an explanatory postscript that Vladislaus Henry had saved the land from unrest and a civil war (Diese Abtretung geschah um das Land vor innerer Zerrüttung und Bürgerkrieg zu bewahren).130 In January 1852, the modified programme reached Vienna in the usual way, and on 30 May, Emperor Franz Joseph studied the first sketch.131 He appears to have been sat isfied, because Ruben’s student Joseph Matthias Trenkwald immediately began to work on the painting. The December agreement was not entirely unknown to the domestic arts. Vladislaus’ abdication appears among the etchings of Ludwig Kohl from 1788,132 but Trenkwald’s composition evidently built on František Palacký’s history of the Czech lands, written in German, and depicted the immediate feelings of those present. Wherever František Palacký made do with words of praise,133 Joseph Matthias Trenkwald developed the motif of general relief. In the centre of the monumental scene, he placed the two brothers, whose calm majesty was complemented by a sword-bearer (ensifer) with a dignified, moved expres sion and by the kneeling bishop Milík, who, watched by the serious abbots from behind, was offering Přemysl the crown. At the same time, the sudden

128 Huig 1996b, 288–296. 129 Pospíšil 1996, 90–97. 130 Huig 1993/1994, 63–64, No. 7. 131 Svoboda 1978, 212. 132 Pánková 1984, 70, Fig. 154. 133 Palacký 1847, 56–57. Memory 249

FIGURE 60 The December agreement was first visually rendered in 1788, when the famous reconciliation inspired Ludwig Kohl (1746–1821). Unfortunately, he paid only cursory attention to the Milevsko model and without scruples he added a royal crown. Photography by NG (National Gallery) Prague.

peace was rejoiced over by an anonymous pair in a friendly hug and armigers, above whom numerous banners floated on a melancholic early evening.134 Joseph Matthias Trenkwald treated Palacký’s text quite liberally and sub ordinated the actual situation to artistic licence, because he placed the royal crown in Milík’s hands rather prematurely, by which he inadvertently (?) imi tated an earlier depiction by Ludwig Kohl, dated to 1788. Trenkwald completed the painting in 1854 and immediately, yet having discussed it with Christian Ruben, announced the preparation of the eighth painting, which was to commemorate the establishment of Charles University. Meanwhile, other themes were worked on by Karel Svoboda; ten years later, in 1864, the sum mer palace could thus be visited by Ruben’s former professor Peter Cornelius to express his opinion on the spot.135 The renowned master of monumental paintings, however, did not please Christian Ruben and criticised both the

134 Vlnas 1996b, 57–58. 135 Vlnas 1996a, 27–28. 250 CHAPTER 5

FIGURE 61 The brotherly reconciliation has been monumentally depicted by Joseph Matthias Trenkwald (1824–1897). His concept was not historically precise, because Trenkwald, like Ludwig Kohl, had not resisted the lure of a royal crown. He was not even well received by the Prague, Czech and German audience. Nevertheless, he managed to influence entire generations of followers. Photography by NG (National Gallery) Prague. uninteresting topics and their implementation. And he was not alone. Critical voices in artistic circles drew attention to the dry style and idly standing life less figures, Czech society considered the value content of the fresco decora tion to be incomprehensible, and the historical programme was not accepted by Czech Germans either. The national pantheon in the The Royal Summer Palace hence transformed into a petrified illusion of a bygone era, which no longer had anything to say about the present.136 Ruben’s project slowly fell into oblivion, and in 1897, the Society of Patriotic Friends of the Arts requested that the frescoes be covered, with the intention of hanging the fourteen cardboards of Mikoláš Aleš’s Homeland cycle in their places. Yet the December agreement was not forgotten: apart from Trenkwald,

136 Huig 1996a, 13–24. Memory 251

FIGURE 62 At the beginning of the 20th century, the December agreement was returned to by Oldřich Cihelka, who had the brothers stand in front of finely-arrayed cavalry. 252 CHAPTER 5

FIGURE 63 Without the unnecessary pathos and perhaps therefore very impressively, the brotherly reconciliation was interpreted by Jan Goth, whose illustrations perfectly complemented Palacký’s text of The History of the Czech Nation in Bohemia and Moravia in the anniversary edition of 1939.

whose work was used by the popular pictorial history of the Czech nation,137 the agreement provided inspiration for Oldřich Cihelka, who enlivened Šimák’s Chronicle of Czechoslovakia by a fraternal handshake in front of finely arrayed cavalry.138 The readers’ imagination was also teased by Jan Goth, when he decorated an anniversary edition of Palacký’s national history with the memorable scene, and it should be added that he did so with an exceptional flair. A simple handshake of welcome, when the brothers stood face to face and could search their conscience without witnesses, is touching and at the same time convincing. Jan Goth relied on the intimacy of the fateful moment, and, by abandoning the unnecessary pathos and the improper crown, he bestowed a nicely humane dimension on the former reconciliation. Moreover, he tried to follow Palacký’s text,139 because he placed the two figures into night sce nery. Through the selected topic, however, he further strengthened the idea that Vladislaus Henry had remained a man of a single moment.

137 Rezek–Dolenský–Kosina 1893. 138 Šimák 1921, 195. 139 Palacký 1894, 277. Memory 253

The December agreement, however, was not the only motif from Vladislaus’ life. Already in the Baroque period, the margrave was remembered at Velehrad, and the local Cistercian Christian Hirschmentzel adorned the painting of the panorama of the restored monastery with portraits of Vladislaus Henry and Přemysl Otakar I. At the end of the 18th century, Ignatius Raab covered the ceiling of the refectory with a foundation motif and again reserved an hono rary position for the margrave of Moravia.140 The local esteem, however, did not find a greater response, and the public space was thus completely domi nated by the memory of the end of 1197, i.e., by four artistic renderings that codified the abdication captured by Gerlach and appreciated by František Palacký. The word and the image were merged into one story about the duke who voluntarily relinquished the Bohemian throne on 6 December 1197.

140 Hurt 1938. CHAPTER 6 Legacy

During the first spring weeks of 1348, Charles IV’s notary Nicholas Sortes definitely could not complain about the lack of work. Under the direct supervision of his lord, King of the Romans and King of Bohemia Charles IV, he was reading through the documents of the Crown Archives and with the directive to improve their hidden and apparent weaknesses. He finished his efforts on 7 April, when he presented privileges that would become the constitutional basis for the union of the lands of the Bohemian Crown.1 One of them defined the not entirely clear relationship between Moravia and Bohemia. It stated that the bishopric of Olomouc, the margraviate of Moravia and the duchy of Opava had been, from time immemorial (longo iam et antiquo temporis), held and owned by the dukes and kings of Bohemia and that all bishops, margraves and dukes had respected the Bohemian rulers based on their vassalage (in sus- ceptione feudorum). Furthermore, Nicholas considered it worth mentioning that in the past the two lands were connected by very close ties and that the margraves of Moravia should regard the king of Bohemia as their true, proper, hereditary and natural lord (verum, ordinarium, hereditarium et naturalem dominum).2 Charles’ charter emphasises the direct subordination of Moravia to the Bohemian Crown, which was repeatedly expressed by the constitutionally conceived phrase ‘the direct dominion of the kings and of the Crown of the Kingdom of Bohemia’ (directum dominium regum et corone regni Boemie). An even stronger message can be found in the charter by which Charles IV left the margraviate to his brother John Henry. He did so at the Hoftag in Prague on 26 December 1349. Not only did he greatly limit the power of the future margrave but also he made John Henry pledge that he would rule Moravia exclusively as a direct and indivisible fief of the Bohemian Crown, and he stipulated that should a margravial dynasty not be founded, the land would be considered as an escheat. If, however, the king of Bohemia died before the margrave, the margrave was to subject himself to a feudal ritual and thus renew his oath of allegiance before the new king. Directly on Moravian soil, the margrave could collect revenue and taxes and could consider himself to be the lord of all free

1 Spěváček 1980, 262–275. 2 ACRB II, 59–62, No. 60.

FIGURE 64 Charles IV followed the legacy of his predecessors with a collection of charters by which he on 7 April 1348 confirmed, specified and expanded the content of earlier privileges. Nevertheless, he newly had to alter the status of Moravia, represented by a confident community of the land. Therefore, he declared the Margraviate of Moravia to be the direct and inalienable fief of the kings and of the Crown of the Kingdom of Bohemia (directum dominium regum et corone regni Boemie). Photography by NA (National Archives) Prague.

people and serfs of the margraviate, but the mining rights and coin minting were retained by the royal court.3 Charles’ conception tried to circumvent the voice of the Moravians, because the relationship of Moravia to the Bohemian Crown was to be determined in future by obligations of feudal and dynastic character. Something like that might have been thinkable before 1300, but around the middle of the 14th century, the Moravians could refer to three charters issued by John of Bohemia,

3 ACRB II, 142–148/154, No. 124; Válka 1980, 43–53; Janiš 2003, 273–288. 256 CHAPTER 6 in which the king promised not to entrust the land offices to anyone except for a true Moravian, to preserve the rights of the nobility and clergy and to collect the land tax, not to exceed a quarter of a pound of silver per hide, only in prescribed and properly announced cases.4 It is thus no wonder that John’s privileges were respected by the community of the land of Moravia and were ultimately incorporated in the collection of the Moravian Land Code by Ctibor Tovačovský of Cimburk in 1481. The Tovačovský Book was written at the time when the Moravians were governed by the land law, when they accepted the authority of the land diet without objections and turned to the land court, keeping the registers of landed property (tabulae terrae).5 By 1481, Moravia had had experience with rather successful administration by a governor and had also experience a significant loosening of feudal ties to the Bohemian Crown. The growing self-confidence of the community of the land of Moravia enhanced the sense of being Moravian, which had already existed before and had been shared mainly by elite aristocratic families and which now began to depart from the values on which the Bohemian Crown built. This was one of the reasons that in 1453, during the coronation of Ladislaus the Posthumous, Aleš Holický of Sternberg accused the representatives of Moravia of having ‘officiously’ accepted Ladislaus as the king, although they should have waited for the opinion of the Bohemians, because Moravia was a mere limb of the kingdom, whereas Bohemia was its head. The Moravians defended themselves through the mouth of the land governor Vaněk of Boskovice. Although he admitted that the Moravians were subjected to the king, he resolutely refused unconditional subordination. In the end, the impending dissension was settled by a conciliatory decision in which the Moravians were declared to be nice brothers, relatives and friends who were equal to the Bohemians by their nobility.6 The equality of the two crown lands, Bohemia and Moravia, was also acknowledged by George of Poděbrady when at the meeting of the land diet in Olomouc on 13 January 1464 he solemnly recognised the indivisibility of the union of the margraviate of Moravia and the kingdom of Bohemia, and in the next lines he mentioned that Moravia had always been part of the Crown (insignis marchionatus Moravie olim inclito regno nostro incorpora- tus et annexus extiterat), which brought welfare and piece. Thus the king, at the request of the Moravians and of his power, united the margraviate and the

4 CDM VI, 37–38, No. 49; 175, No. 234; 250–251, No. 323; Mezník 1999, 16–18. 5 Válka 1986, 73–80. 6 Válka 1984b, 65–98. Legacy 257 kingdom again into one equal union, which, under any pretext, could not and must not be sullied or even disrupted.7 The diversely praised unity of the Bohemians and Moravians reveals that the union of the lands joined by the Crown was nowhere near as strong as its creator, Charles IV, wanted it to be. One hundred years later, the distinctive fee ling ‘we, Moravians’ became such an integral part of public space that it literally prevented the Moravians from merging with the Bohemians.8 Nevertheless, the awareness of the common past had been preserved, as if it justified the land-defined Moravian identity. It is hard not to remember Vladislaus Henry. His contribution was hopelessly forgotten at the end of the Middle Ages, yet in hindsight it is indisputable that the distant beginnings of the shared sense of being Moravian reach back to the first decades of the 13th century. And how did the divided land transform into a politically active and publicly acting community of the Moravians?

1 From Margraves to a Margraviate

The following considerations may begin with December 1197, when Vladislaus Henry ceded the rule in Prague to his brother in order to gain share in joint government and, as a margrave, a material base in Moravia as well. Initially, the tithes granted did not involve more than the yield from the margravial estates in the Znojmo and most likely also Brno regions; around 1212, however, Přemysl Otakar I yielded the Olomouc region, which he had governed directly until then, and Vladislaus’ margraviate thus, at last, assumed its final form. That the unification of the land under the margrave’s spectre was more than merely symbolic is implied by the protocol of Vladislaus’ charters, claiming that this was done by the will of the margrave of Moravia, who ruled by the Grace of God (dei gracia marchio Morauie).9 Vladislaus’ margraviate built on earlier provincial structures; likewise the division of Moravia between Znojmo and Olomouc remained unaffected. Not even the relationship to the Prague court had been disrupted, because the title of Margrave declared especially direct succession rights. This applied to the margraviate of Frederick’s brother Přemysl, who governed the Olomouc region between 1179 and 1182. Conrad Otto became margrave in 1186, promising obe dience to Frederick in exchange for the future rule in Bohemia. The same promises

7 AČ X, 274–275, No. 28; Válka 1989, 89–100. 8 Válka 1984a, 145–154; Šmahel 2000, 61–64. 9 CDB II, 103–104, No. 109; 151–152, No. 161; 432–433, No. 385; 207–208, No. 222; 221–222, No. 233. 258 CHAPTER 6 were probably made in December 1197. Nevertheless, it should be added that by June 1216, when Vladislaus Henry supported the candidature of his nephew Wenceslas and thus deliberately renounced the succession, the connection of the title of Margrave to the affairs of the land of Moravia prevailed.10 Another issue to be considered is 24 June 1222, when Vladislaus Henry welcomed in Brno his brother and two nephews, the future king Wenceslas and his namesake, who was still unprovided for. The motives for the visit remain rather unclear, but it cannot be excluded that the younger of the princes might have been introduced to his uncle and perhaps also to the present Moravians as the future margrave.11 This may be one of the reasons why Vladislaus Henry II came to Znojmo in August 1222 to bid farewell to the deceased uncle.12 Probably due to his young age, it remained a mere designation at first, because direct supervision over the land was assumed by Přemysl Otakar I, who even dusted off the half-forgotten title of Duke of Moravia (tercius rex Bohemie et dux Morauie).13 Vladislaus Henry II was not invited to rule jointly until two years later; the royal charter for the Benedictines in Břevnov of 24 June 1224 approved both his margravial title and the seal.14 The seal has not been preserved, and it is not even certain now how much he was really involved in the administration of the affairs of the land—firstly, he had only three years of life left; secondly, which was also the main reason, his name was associated with five charters, only two of which concerned Moravia. The rest was the work of the royal chancery, for which it sufficed that the margrave appeared in the list of witnesses. Beyond the privileges for Břevnov, Vladislaus Henry II oversaw the sealing of his father’s charter for St George’s Monastery at Prague Castle on 11 October 1224,15 and in 1226 he had himself mentioned in the confirmation for the Premonstratensian nuns from Doksany.16 He himself entered the public space in Kralice on 11 May 1225, when he, as the margrave of Moravia by Divine Grace (divina gratia marchio Morauie), endowed the monastery of St Peter in Olomouc17 and, roughly at the same time, confirmed his father’s privilege, by which Hradisko near Olomouc ensured a tavern in Přerov for itself.18

10 Wihoda 2012, 217–227. 11 CDB II, 220–221, No. 232. 12 CDB II, 222–225, No. 234. 13 CDB II, 236–237, No. 245. 14 CDB II, 248–251, No. 259. 15 CDB II, 254–256, No. 264. 16 CDB II, 280–286, No. 286. 17 CDB II, 262–263, No. 269. 18 CDB II, 273, No. 279. Legacy 259

Strictly speaking, Vladislaus’ chancery produced in a full three years one single document, moreover dictated by the notary 05, namely, Bishop of Olomouc Robert, which rather implies the fading importance of the margravial office. In this regard, it comes as no surprise that it is not clear where Vladislaus’ seat was situated. It could have been Znojmo, though, where the margravine, from 1222 ‘only’ the noble lady Heilwidis, would spend the rest of her life. The May donation to the monastery of St Peter, however, drew attention to Olomouc and its Nový Hrádek. In addition, the above-mentioned charter from Kralice reveals that the margrave surrounded himself with the Olomouc chamberlain Henry, the Olomouc castellan Holas and the Olomouc judge Veliš, that is, high provincial officials.19 The stay in Kralice was made more enjoyable for the margrave by the butler Sulislaus and the marshal Andrew, and unless it is a mere coincidence of names, both of them had already proved themselves in his uncle’s and father’s services. Sulislaus was a butler in Prostějov in 1213 and during the king’s stay in Olomouc in 1222;20 the marshal Andrew appeared in the falsified charter for Velehrad, allegedly issued by Vladislaus Henry.21 It is possible that the margravial court partially overlapped with the group of people whose career at the court began in the second decade of the 13th century. Did Vladislaus Henry II perchance inherit the courtiers from his uncle, or was he provided with reliable advisors by his father? Maybe. After all, it is possible that the margrave was only preparing for his rule and thus reconciled himself to the limited execution of the power entrusted to him.22 Nevertheless, he unexpectedly died amid preparations on 18 February 1227.23 Vladislaus’ death brought the youngest of the princes, Přemysl, to Moravia. As soon after Vladislaus’ death, on 8 November 1228, his father entrusted him with the protection of the newly founded monastery in Oslavany.24 From the beginning, however, he had to cope with divided powers and the supervision of his brother Wenceslas. This may be why he did not manage to issue his first charters until the autumn of 1232, although he had already proudly claimed the office entrusted to him (dei gracia marchio Morauie) and surrounded himself with courtiers and confidants, including the minor butler Crha, the minor

19 CDB II, 262–263, No. 269. 20 CDB II, 103–104, No. 109; 104–106, No. 110; 229–232, No. 239. 21 CDB II, 198, No. 213. 22 Wihoda 2008a, 66–67. 23 Necrologium Podlažicense, DFS, 407; Necrologium Olomucense, AÖG 65/1884, 527; Novotný 1928, 577–578. 24 CDB II, 315–319, No. 320. 260 CHAPTER 6 cupbearer Giles, the marshal Beneda and two chasers from the Olomouc region, Slavata and Spytata.25 In the spring of 1233, Master Hilarius entered Přemysl’s service; before 1222, he had worked in the chancery of the margrave Vladislaus Henry. Hilarius’ refined style speaks to us from the charters for the Louka canonry, Langheim monastery and the Premonstratensians in Litomyšl.26 In the spring of 1234, he accompanied the margrave to Velehrad;27 for the rest of the year, as a notary or prothonotary, he dictated at least seven documents for different recipients28 and worded a multitude of papers in 1235. Hilarius’ desk produced the confirmation of freedoms for Zábrdovice29 and donations for Doubravník30 and the Olomouc monastery of St Peter.31 Hilarius issued his last privilege in 1236 for the Cistercian nuns in Oslavany,32 but he remained close to Přemysl. At the beginning of 1238, he had himself included among the witnesses in a charter for the Doubravník monastery, and on 29 June 1239, he was present during the issue of the privilege for the Louka Premonstratensians.33 Master Hilarius managed the margravial chancery for many years, which certainly does not mean that other chaplains of the margravial court could not be involved in its operation. Occasional help was offered by William, who dated Přemysl’s donation for the Cistercian nuns in Tišnov on 6 June 1235.34 The office of margrave’s notary was reinforced by Elias. In the service of the margravine Margaret and in cooperation with Hilarius, he formulated a privilege for the monastery of St Peter in Olomouc.35 In January 1237, he referred to himself as the margrave’s notary.36 One year earlier, Přemysl’s chaplain Markvart validated a charter for the Order of St John.37 In 1238, the chaplains and at the same time notaries Victor and Louis worked for the chancery.38

25 CDB III/1, 23–24, No. 25. 26 CDB III/1, 36–37, No. 38; 50–51, No. 50; 53–54, No. 53. 27 CDB III/1, 69–71, No. 66. 28 CDB III/1, 80–81, No. 74; 82–83, No. 76; 84, No. 77; 94–96, No. 87; 97–100, No. 88; 104–106, No. 90; 107–108, No. 91. 29 CDB III/1, 129–133, No. 107. 30 CDB III/1, 147–149, No. 119. 31 CDB III/1, 157, No. 126. 32 CDB III/1, 174–175, No. 140. 33 CDB III/1, 215–216, No. 174; 276–278, No. 212. 34 CDB III/1, 139–140, No. 113. 35 CDB III/1, 157, No. 126. 36 CDB III/1, 179–182, No. 144. 37 CDB III/1, 176, No. 141. 38 CDB III/1, 215–216, No. 174; 222–223, No. 179; CDB III/2, 246–248, No. 194; Šebánek–Dušková 1961, 72–79. Legacy 261

FIGURE 65 Although the land’s distinctive identity began to find expression during the reign of margrave Vladislaus Henry (1197–1222), a fundamental shift seems not to have come until margrave Přemysl, mainly after 1233, when the margravial coat of arms was modified. As proved by the impression of Přemysl’s seal, it already showed the well-known Moravian eagle.

Přemysl’s chancery issued charters under the authority of the margravial seal; the first type has been preserved in a damaged fragment from 21 January 1233. The almost illegible field of the shield-shaped seal allegedly showed a lion rampant,39 by which Přemysl would have continued the tradition dating back to his uncle Vladislaus Henry. A clearer idea is provided by the seal that was attached to the charter for the Louka monastery on 2 April 1234 and was used by the margrave until his death on 16 October 1239. It is evident from numerous seal impressions that the round signet with a diameter of 78 mm featured a horseman with a banner who is galloping right and whose shield shows the symbol of an eagle. Between the inner triple circle, interrupted by the helmet and hooves, and the astragal outer circle, there is the inscription +PRЄMIZL: DЄI:GRACIA:MARCHIO:MORAVIЄ.40

39 Vojtíšek 1931, 52; Čarek 1934, 20. 40 CDB III/1, 36–37, No. 38; Čarek 1934, 20. 262 CHAPTER 6

And who took care of the margravial seal? Přemysl’s chancery was linked with a group of chaplains (capellani curie nostre). Hopefully, it will thus not be wrong to consider the seal as part of the margravial chapel. After all, it was precisely the chapel that became a regular haven for the notaries and protho- notaries Bartholomew, Hilarius, William, Elias, Markvart, Victor and Louis. In the spring of 1233, the congregation of chaplains included Timothy, Simon, Thomas, Peter, Gregory and Nicholas.41 In the next month, Přemysl could confess to Henry, Miloš, Všeslaus and Zdislaus;42 in the spring of 1234, he listened to Markvart, Wenceslas, William, Conrad, Hilarius, Gregory and Miloš;43 he spent October in the company of Budek, Mrakota, Vipert, Bartholomew, Frederick, Markvart, Miloš and Simon;44 then he turned to Bartholomew, Markvart, Gregory and Simon.45 Chaplains with knowledge of the medical craft gained a special position at the court. In 1233 and 1234, Přemysl’s fragile health was looked after by William (Wilhalmus fisicus);46 in 1238, his condition was watched over by Louis (Ludiwicus visicus).47 Other, this time more pleasant, requisites were fulfilled by the master of the kitchen (magister cocorum) Držikraj.48 Turbulent times brought also men-at-arms (milites curie) into the margrave’s service; their presence was recorded in the list of witnesses in a charter of 25 September 1233.49 Yet the majority of mentions concern the three most influential court officials, namely the butler, cupbearer and marshal. Already in the autumn of 1228, the royal notary included in a charter for Velehrad the butler Crh and his brother Častolov, another butler Hojer, the cupbearer Miroslaus and the minor marshal Vojtěch, without specifying, however, which of them served Přemysl and which the king.50 It is known for certain that the margrave used the service of Crh, whose work as a butler is proved by charters from 1232 and 1234;51 although he systematically acted close to the court,52

41 CDB III/1, 36–37, No. 38. 42 CDB III/1, 50–51, No. 50; 53–54, No. 53. 43 CDB III/1, 69–71, No. 66. 44 CDB III/1, 94–97, No. 87. 45 CDB III/1, 104–106, No. 90; 107–108, No. 91. 46 CDB III/1, 36–37, No. 38; 53–54, No. 53; 69–71, No. 66; 80–81, No. 74. 47 CDB III/1, 215–216, No. 174. 48 CDB III/1, 82–83, No. 76. 49 CDB III/1, 50–51, No. 50. 50 CDB II, 319–323, No. 321. 51 CDB III/1, 23–24, No. 25; 50–51, No. 50; 80–81, No. 74; 90–93, No. 85. 52 CDB III/1, 94–97, No. 87; 129–133, No. 107. Legacy 263

Markvart and Svojslaus,53 Hartleb and Protiven,54 Milíč and Blud55 alternated, both gradually and simultaneously, in the office between 1233 and 1238. It was similar with the succession of cupbearers. The mysterious Miroslaus from 1228 was followed in the service at the court by Giles, who had himself written in margravial charters as a minor butler in 1232–1234;56 at the same time and even in the same place, however, Přemysl had the butlers Lupold and Sezema available.57 In 1235, the margrave’s notary mentioned the butler Wofram and his son Lupold;58 in 1238, a witness in Přemysl’s confirmation for Hradisko was the minor butler John.59 The margrave’s stables were managed by Beneda, who was in the office in 1232–1234.60 He was last included among witnesses as a groom on 2 October 1234;61 nevertheless already in the summer, the groom was Markvart,62 who alternated with Boček and Věroslaus, and it remained so until the end of Přemysl’s reign in 1239.63 Yet Beneda did not leave the margrave; he only became a chaser,64 whose relationship to the court was, by nature of the office entrusted, more relaxed.65 Admittedly, as the keepers of the forests around Buchlov and Úsov, they enjoyed the sovereign’s favour and, from time to time, became involved in public life. At the end of 1233, the master chaser (magister venatorum) Bohuslaus greeted Přemysl in Olomouc;66 in October of the next year, the master chasers Ranožíř and Wezen and the chaser Rim appeared in Znojmo;67 in 1238, Mutina’s son, the master chaser Zdislaus, participated in the discussions at Velehrad;68 and before the middle of October 1239, a large group of chasers from the Olomouc region met in Prague. Apart from the chaser Beneda, the high chaser Vrš and the court chaser Spytata,

53 CDB III/1, 36–37, No. 38; 104–106, No. 90. 54 CDB III/1, 53–54, No. 53; 82–83, No. 76; 176, No. 141. 55 CDB III/1, 222–223, No. 179. 56 CDB III/1, 23–24, No. 25; 50–51, No. 50; 69–71, No. 66; 104–106, No. 90. 57 CDB III/1, 36–37, No. 38; 50–51, No. 50; 53–54, No. 53; 80–81, No. 74; 90–93, No. 85; 94–97, No. 87; 97–100, No. 88; 104–106, No. 90. 58 CDB III/1, 147–149, No. 119. 59 CDB III/1, 222–223, No. 179. 60 CDB III/1, 36–37, No. 38; 50–51, No. 51; 69–71, No. 66; 80–81, No. 74. 61 CDB III/1, 90–93, No. 85. 62 CDB III/1, 82–83, No. 76; 176, No. 141; 222–223, No. 179. 63 CDB III/1, 112–113, No. 97; 129–133, No. 107; 179–182, No. 144. 64 CDB III/1, 222–223, No. 179. 65 Jan 2000, 192–208. 66 CDB III/1, 50–51, No. 50; 53–54, No. 53. 67 CDB III/1, 94–97, No. 87. 68 CDB III/2, 246–248, No. 194. 264 CHAPTER 6 the donation for Blud’s son Victor was confirmed by the gamekeepers Myslík, Květoň, Drahoň, Otrok, Budík and Smil and the Hradec vilicus John.69 The rather confusing system of chaser titles takes us back to the main offices. Why did Přemysl keep a cupbearer and a minor cupbearer, a butler and a minor butler when there was no significant difference between them? Are the unexpected ‘rises and falls’ of the margrave’s courtiers attributable to the moods of the office, or is it a reflection of the exceptional situation in Moravia, which lacked a single land centre? It should be mentioned that until the end of 1234, most margravial documents were dated in Znojmo; the next year, Přemysl took a liking to Brno, without disregarding Olomouc, where he would affix his seals continuously throughout his reign. The flourishing town of Brno thus seems to have complemented the traditional pair of the main land seats in Znojmo and Olomouc, so that the ‘dualism’ of the Moravian situation was preserved. In other words, the margrave had to build two courts, one in the Olomouc region and the other in the Znojmo/Brno region. In this sense, the ‘Znojmo cupbearer’ (pincerna Znoymensis) Lupold from 123370 will probably have to be understood with the postscript that not all positions had to be occupied, not to mention the free movement of the courtiers between individual land centres.71 Master Hilarius concluded one list of witnesses with the phrase ‘et alii quam plures nobiles et curiales curie nostre’.72 He thus clearly separated the world of the nobles from court society, but the lists of witnesses in other margravial charters offer slightly different testimony. Přemysl’s court became a place that determined interesting or influential posts in provincial administration, which evidently attracted the attention of aristocratic families. Moreover, the performance of a court office could be embedded in family memory. The story of the family with the honorary title ‘Pincerna’, whose members drew attention to themselves (already as the Šenks) in the middle of the 13th century, most likely goes all the way back to the butler William, who entered the service at the end of the life of the margrave Vladislaus Henry.73 The varied notes, unprecedentedly detailed in the Moravian context, agree on one more thing. The beginning of Přemysl’s rule was characterised by the stability of the court; between 1234 and 1239, however, different people quickly superseded each other in the offices. As of 1234, also physicians and healers began to appear around the

69 CDB III/2, 280–283, No. 214. 70 CDB III/1, 50–51, No. 50. 71 Wihoda 2008a, 67–74. 72 CDB III/1, 174–175, No. 140. 73 CDB III/2, 276–278, No. 212. Legacy 265

FIGURE 66 For many years, Přemysl’s chancery was managed by Master Hilarius, whose sophisticated style was rather unparalleled in its time. In 1236, he created a privilege for the Cistercian nuns in Oslavany. At the end, he mentioned that the negotiations were watched by both the nobles and the courtiers (nobiles et curiales). It is not excluded that the nobles here were the aristocratic community defined by land values. Photography by MZA (Moravian Land Archives) Brno. margrave, which would imply that Přemysl was slowly being consumed by some kind of disease. The striking difference between the first and second parts of Přemysl’s margraviate takes us to July 1233, when Frederick II, duke of Austria, crossed the river Thaya and conquered Bítov Castle. With the benefit of hindsight, Přibík Pulkava writes that the margrave declared himself to be an ally of the duke of Austria (confederatus contra ipsum regem), that the defence of the land had to be assumed by his brother, King of Bohemia Wenceslas and that many of the faithful (multi, qui cum eo fuerat) were closer to Přemysl, under whose banners they supposedly stood (in exercitu suo habentes pariter et amicos).74

74 Przibiconis de Radenin dicti Pulkavae Chronicon Bohemiae, FRB V, 135–136A. 266 CHAPTER 6

A more neutral tone was used by scriptoria in the Babenberg lands,75 but some controversy between the king of Bohemia and the margrave of Moravia was mentioned even by the distant and impartial Saxon World Chronicle, which knew about the devastation of Moravia and the conquest of Brno.76 Austrian annals place Frederick’s invasion at the beginning of July; on 25 August, King Wenceslas I was staying in Kladruby, West Bohemia;77 therefore, the fraternal discord could not last long, a few weeks at the most. Undoubtedly, their mother, Constance, helped with her kind intercession, because a kind of epitaph that was to promote dynastic unity was the cloister in Tišnov, founded by the queen and generously endowed by her sons.78 Yet why did Přemysl refuse obedience, and why was he offered a reconciliation, the conditions of which were more than benevolent for the margrave sullied by treachery? Wenceslas recompensed the Order of the Teutonic Knights as well as the Velehrad Cistercians from his income and admitted himself that his army in Moravia (in Moravia ab exercitu nostro) had caused certain damage to the recipients.79 It should also be mentioned that Přemysl issued an impressive set of documents in the next months, by which he confirmed, renewed and expanded the freedoms and possessions of Moravian and Bohemian monasteries.80 How to understand the events of 1233, then? Did the bitterness of the margrave, who could not obtain the promised sovereign rights, com- bine with the dissatisfaction of the Moravians, to whom Wenceslas had denied land freedoms? This is not known, although the way in which Přibík Pulkava described the war of 1233, the wording of the subsequently sealed margravial privileges and, last but not least, also the change of the margravial coat of arms, in which the Moravian eagle was superseded (?) by the Bohemian lion all imply that the ‘Moravians’ became an independently acting political community defined by land values. Wenceslas appears to have accepted Přemysl as his co-ruler under pressure, but he still left him plenty of leeway in the next few years. In the second half of 1235, however, the margrave was allegedly implicated in negotiations with the

75 Annales Melicenses, MGH SS IX, 508; Continuatio Lambacensis, MGH SS IX, 558; Continuatio Garstensis, MGH SS IX, 596; Continuatio Sancrucensis prima, MGH SS IX, 628; Continuatio Claustroneoburgensis tertia, MGH SS IX, 637; Continuatio Sancrucensis secunda, MGH SS IX, 637; Continuatio Praedicatorum Vindobonensium, MGH SS IX, 727; Annales Sancti Rudberti Salisburgensis, MGH SS IX, 785. 76 Sächsische Weltchronik 377, MGH Deutsche Chroniken II, 249. 77 CDB III/1, 43–44, No. 43. 78 Joachimová 1968, 495–502. 79 CDB III/1, 54–55, No. 54; 162–164, No. 129. 80 Bárta 2005, 27–55. Legacy 267

FIGURE 67 Bítov Castle was built on a rocky promontory above the meandering river Thaya already during the reign of the Přemyslid dukes and was considered to be impregnable all the time. In the summer of 1233, however, it was captured by Duke of Austria Frederick, which Austrian annals rightly considered to be a great success. Yet the fall of Bítov could also have had other, more fundamental consequences. It is possible that the unstable situation on the border with Austria convinced King Wenceslas I to grant his younger brother the sovereign rights that had been denied to him until then. Photography by a. Flídr.

duke of Austria, who supposedly said that he would pay 4000 marks of silver for help on the battlefield should the need arise. The margrave is said to have assured his brother-in-law of his friendship, but he later heeded the advice of his counsellors, who had purportedly warned him of dangerous promises.81 Nevertheless, the scaremongering and probably also denigration took their price, because two years later Přemysl had to resort to the protection of Béla IV, king of Hungary. According to Přibík Pulkava, he was able to return after some time and with Hungarian intercession, but his chamber ‘essential for life’ (pro vite necessitatibus) was formed only by the Opava and Olomouc regions, whereas Břeclav was given to Wenceslas’ nephew Ulrich, duke of

81 Eine österreichische Breifsammlung, 72, No. 32–34. 268 CHAPTER 6

Carinthia, and Brno and Znojmo came under the direct supervision of royal officials.82 Damages, which had been suffered this time by the church of St Peter in Brno, were compensated again,83 and the faithful of those sad times were remembered even by Přemysl himself, when shortly before his death he rewarded Blud’s son Victor for having donated to him in his hour of need two chargers (duos dextrarios) worth 30 marks.84 Přemysl, suffering from a chronic disease, died on 16 October 1239.85 Since he did not leave behind any heir, King Wenceslas I took over Moravia Perhaps due to bad experience, he was in no hurry to occupy the margravial throne. He decided to do so only in 1246, when he formally (?) entrusted Moravia to his son Vladislaus Henry III. When Vladislaus Henry II died suddenly in the first days of 1247, he passed the land to his brother Přemysl Otakar II. He had no choice, because his demise had made Přemysl the only heir to the Bohemian throne.86 The clear prospects for the royal crown determined the character of Přemysl’s margraviate, which revived memories of the end of the 12th century when the title of Margrave primarily expressed succession rights and only after that the relationship to Moravia. Therefore, Přemysl Otakar II constantly brought attention to the fact that he was, by the Grace of God, not only a margrave but also a son of Wenceslas, the fourth king of the Bohemians (dei gracia marchio Morauie, Wencezlai, quarti regis Boehmorum filius).87 From the beginning, therefore, his margraviate was nothing more than an obligatory stop on the way to legacy, and it is quite possible that Přemysl Otakar II did not even demand a clear mandate. The numerous duties of the heir to the crown and throne were incompatible with the planned development of the land. Nonetheless, the group of notaries implies that the keystone of margravial administration continued to be the chancery. Initially, Přemysl Otakar II turned to Přísnobor,88 who was replaced before the end of 1249 by Master William,89 beside whom the notary Gottschalk

82 Przibiconis de Radenin dicti Pulkavae Chronicon Bohemiae, FRB V, 137A. 83 CDB III/1, 205–207, No. 165. 84 CDB III/2, 280–283, No. 214. 85 Necrologium Bohemo-Silesiacarum, ZVGS 5/1863, 114; Necrologium Olomucense, AÖG 65/1884, 570. 86 Necrologium Bohemo-Silesiacarum, ZVGS 5/1863, 110; Necrologium Doxanense, VKČSN 8/1884, 87. 87 CDB IV/1, 198–199, No. 105. 88 CDB IV/1, 198–199, No. 105; 201–203, No. 108; 222–223, No. 127; 282–283, No. 172; 288–290, No. 176. 89 CDB IV/1, 258–259, No. 157; 285–286, No. 174; 329–330, No. 179; 335–337, No. 184; 356–357, No. 195; 363–364, No. 202; 364–366, No. 203; 371–372, No. 208; 441–444, No. 260; 476, No. 283; 479–480, No. 286; 480–481, No. 287. Legacy 269

FIGURE 68 The Moravian chequered eagle was adopted by the towns of Znojmo and Olomouc into their emblems (the picture shows the seal impression of the town of Znojmo from 1272). Is this an echo of the tradition of two old ducal castles, which became the residences of the margraves of Moravia Vladislaus Henry and Přemysl in the first decades of the 13th century? appeared in the autumn of 1251.90 Yet Přísnobor did not leave Přemysl, which is proved by his contribution to the writing of the charter for the Herburga monastery of Dominican nuns in Brno from 1252.91 The next summer, the operation of the chancery was ensured by the (protho)notary William and the scribes Siegfried and Gottfried;92 Gottfried belonged to the chapel, which in the spring of 1250 included also Gaudencius, Vojslaus and Henry. One year later, Přemysl Otakar confessed to Jacob, Lambert, Voislaus and Gaudencius.93 The protracted dispute over the Austrian succession increased the authority of the margrave’s men-at-arms (milites curie), who included John, Emmeram, Ladislaus, Denis, Hroznata, Vojslaus, Florian and Rudger in 1250.94 Among

90 CDB IV/1, 390–391, No. 225. 91 CDB IV/1, 441–444, No. 260. 92 CDB IV/1, 480–481, No. 287. 93 CDB IV/1, 335–337, No. 184; 371–372, No. 208; 390–391, No. 225. 94 CDB IV/1, 335–337, No. 184; 363–364, No. 202; 479–480, No. 286. 270 CHAPTER 6 other servants, only Theodorick (Detricus servus) stepped out of anonymity.95 Like under the margrave Přemysl, the hunting forests were managed by the master chaser Beneda,96 but the highest court offices were reserved for others. The first days of 1251 were made more pleasant for Přemysl Otakar by the minor butler Čáslaus and the minor cupbearer Frederick, who took care of the dining hall in Znojmo.97 Several weeks later, the margrave set out for Prague, where he brought the marshal Emmeram, the minor marshal Nehlas, the minor butler Soběslaus and the cupbearer Bavor;98 in Hradec Králové, he had himself attended to by the minor cupbearer Ulrich, whose service stretched until the summer of 1252.99 At that time, the court was joined by the butler Zdeslaus and the marshal Zdislaus, later also the butler Ratibor,100 which lasted so basically until the end of Přemysl’s margraviate in the autumn of 1253.101 The relatively stable chancery and the usual structure of court offices indicate that Přemysl Otakar II did not neglect the administration of Moravian provinces. It is known that he quite conscientiously fulfilled his responsibili- ties as early as 27 March 1247, when as the margrave of Moravia and a son of the king of Bohemia (dei gracia marchio Morauie, Wencezlai quarti regis Bohemorum filius) he first interfered in the land issues and settled the dispute between the monastery of St Peter in Olomouc and the heirs of Semislaus of Morkovice.102 In the spring (on 3 May), he bestowed on the Opava burghers the privilege of the annual market in compensation for the damage suffered during the Mongol invasion,103 and before the end of the year, at the intercession of the chaplain Albert, he gave the church of St Michael in Brno three hides with a mill and the right to fish in the river Svitava.104 That he executed his office with all seriousness is implied by his seal. Whereas King Wenceslas I, upon his succession to the royal throne in 1230, simply had his father’s last seal matrix re-engraved, Přemysl used his own seal, whose coat of arms showed a double-tailed lion from the very beginning.105

95 CDB IV/1, 363–364, No. 202. 96 CDB IV/1, 374–376, No. 211; 479–480, No. 286; 480–481, No. 287. 97 CDB IV/1, 363–364, No. 202. 98 CDB IV/1, 364–366, No. 203. 99 CDB IV/1, 372–373, No. 209; 417–421, No. 244. 100 CDB IV/1, 417–421, No. 244; 479–480, No. 286; 480–481, No. 287. 101 Wihoda 2008a, 74–76. 102 CDB IV/1, 198–199, No. 105. 103 CDB IV/1, 201–203, No. 108. 104 CDB IV/1, 222–223, No. 127. 105 CDB IV/2, 10, No. 3; Čarek 1934, 14. Legacy 271

FIGURE 69 When the town scribe and notary John of Gelnhausen worked on the Jihlava book of law at the turn of the 15th century, he inserted into his work copies of privileges, whose importance was enhanced by special miniatures, which were to represent the respective publishers. The illuminator thus depicted Přemysl Otakar II. in margravial majesty and with the Moravian banner in his hand. Photography by SOkA (State District Archives) Jihlava. 272 CHAPTER 6

The usual rhythm of the everyday life and feasts was disrupted by a serious family dispute. At the end of February 1248, former Bishop of Olomouc Conrad referred to the margrave as the ‘younger king of Bohemia’ (inclitus iunior Bohemorum rex),106 which might mean that Přemysl Otakar refused obedience to his father. Soon thereafter, the controversies extended beyond the land borders, because on 5 May, Pope Innocent IV commissioned the bis hops in Regensburg and Meissen to excommunicate Bohemian lords (barones et nobiles) if they did not remain loyal to King of Bohemia Wenceslas I and if they refused, inconsistently with their obligations, to participate in the crusade against Emperor Frederick II.107 The fateful turn, however, came on 31 July, when the nobles and elders of the land (nobiles terrae Bohemiae et natu maiores) proclaimed Přemysl Otakar their lord and king (sibi in ducem vel regem acceperunt).108 It appears that the nobility acted under the pressure of events, and, in order to protect Czech interests on the imperial soil even before the papal curia, they replaced the listless king, living in seclusion, with the young margrave. A part of the plan was also Wenceslas’ abdication; he was to keep the title of King of Bohemians along with the castles Zvíkov, Loket and Most. Astonished, Wenceslas accepted the humiliating dictation after some reluctance, but he retained the favour of several influential lords, mainly Boresch of Riesenburg and Gallus of Lämberg, and he could continue to rely on his supporters in Zittau, Meissen and Saxony. Family relationships were further exacerbated by the death of Wenceslas’ wife and Přemysl’s mother Kunigunde on 13 September 1248.109 Přemysl Otakar II might have attempted reconciliation, because at the beginning of November he charged the notary Přísnobor with having a mandate for officials in Čáslav, Kouřim, Chrudim and Hradec Králové issued in the name of King Wenceslas I.110 Přemysl’s gesture remained without an adequate reaction. On the contrary, the allies of the old king Boresch of Riesenburg and Gallus of Lämberg routed the encampment of the young king in front of Most, and, already before the end of the year 1248, Wenceslas I initiated a counterattack. In Brno, he won over the bishop Bruno. With his help, he gathered allies from Moravia. With reinforcements from Meissen, Saxony and Austria, he seized Vyšehrad at the beginning of February 1249. At the end of April, Pope Innocent IV expressed himself on the

106 CDB IV/1, 229, No. 133. 107 CDB IV/1, 232–233, No. 137. 108 Annalium Pragensium II, FRB II, 304. 109 Annalium Pragensium I, FRB II, 286. 110 CDB IV/1, 243–244, No. 145; 244, No. 146; Jan 2008, 89. Legacy 273 dispute, when he, through Bishop of Meissen Conrad, threatened Přemysl and all rebels with a new anathema and ordered the bishop of Meissen in another letter to absolve the king of Bohemia of the oath in which he ceded his reign to his son, because it had allegedly been enforced by violence. In the meantime, a truce was made. Wenceslas I used it to convoke a diet in Litoměřice, where he had it announced that he would set out for Moravia and then against Hungary. In reality, he headed to the (Old) Town of Prague, whose gates he entered on 5 August 1249. This was followed by a siege of Prague Castle until the feast of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary (15 August), when both parties agreed to a ceasefire. On the next day, Wenceslas I accepted the crown from the hands of his bishops in the church of St Francis, and after the mass, served by Bishop of Olomouc, he sent for his son and those loyal to him. Peace was concluded within the walls of the monastery; in the early morning of 20 August, the king ceremonially entered Prague Castle. Přemysl Otakar II, confirmed as margrave, withdrew to the Olomouc region, and former feuds seemed to have been forgotten. Before the end of September, however, Wenceslas had his son captured and briefly imprisoned; although Přemysl could return to Moravia, his rule was supervised now by the king’s confidants, led by Gallus of Lämberg.111 The almost two-year struggle for the royal throne necessarily affected the administration of the land, which is also reflected in the complete absence of Přemysl’s charters for Moravian recipients. It is possible that the documents issued in the name of the ‘younger king’ were later authenticated and codified by the margravial, or after 1253 royal, chancery; nevertheless, one cannot miss the fact that the only known privilege originated at the end of the rebellion in Olomouc.112 A continuous series of sovereign acts actually begins as late as 17 November 1249, when Přemysl, again as margrave and a son of the king of Bohemia, confirmed for Henry of Liechtenstein the tenure of Mikulov and its foundation based on German law.113 At the beginning of February 1250, he gave the church of St Peter in Brno the parish of Kuřim;114 in the spring, he renewed the privileges of the Velehrad monastery;115 and in December, he authorised the transfer of Brumovice with all its rights into the hands of Bishop of Olomouc Bruno.116 Přemysl spent the first days of 1251 in Znojmo, where on

111 Jan 2008, 87–93; Bárta 2008, 101–108. 112 CDB IV/1, 282–283, No. 172. 113 CDB IV/1, 285–286, No. 174. 114 CDB IV/1, 329–330, No. 179. 115 CDB IV/1, 335–337, No. 184. 116 CDB IV/1, 356–357, No. 195. 274 CHAPTER 6

6 January he donated a tavern to the hospital of St Anthony in Staré Brno;117 in March, he ensured a tithe of the Rajhrad Benedictines from the customs duties and market in Uherský Brod and Kunovice;118 in the middle of May, he confirmed a donation by his predecessor, the margrave Přemysl, for the bishopric of Olomouc.119 With the passage of time, Wenceslas I appears to have taken mercy of his son, after all, and agreed to the gradual transfer of power in Bohemia. Therefore, at the end of January 1251, Přemysl Otakar II sealed the privileges bestowed on the abbey of Plasy by his father;120 in April and September, he had two charters dated for the Order of the Teutonic Knights.121 At the same time, further fates of Babenberg possessions were discussed in Prague without unwanted attention, and Přemyslid diplomats managed to revive memories of the spring of 1245, when Vladislaus Henry III won the hand of one of the heiresses. Careful negotiations, initiated by Count Otto of Hardegg already in March 1249, culminated in the autumn of 1251, when the Austrian representatives offered Wenceslas I the orphaned duchy and the king, to the considerable indignation of the Hungarian side and the Bavarian Wittelsbachs, sent Přemysl Otakar II to the Danube area.122 The old-new union of the Přemyslid and Babenberg lands was sealed by a political marriage with Margaret on 11 February 1252, whereas the former wife of Přemysl’s brother Vladislaus Henry III, Gertrude of Babenberg, was eliminated from the game. Nevertheless, it soon became known that she married Roman of Galicia, a close ally of King of Hungary Béla IV, and the Prague court began to anticipate a war.123 The first attack was directed at Moravia, whose borderland was plundered by the Cuman light cavalry in June 1252. Defence of the land was assumed by the nobility, because Přemysl Otakar II was trying to occupy Styria at that time. There he won the favour of the scribe Wittig, whose office represented the continuity of land administration, and he came to Leoben in May 1253. Not even then, however, did he have power over the entire duchy, because the eastern part was controlled by the supporters of King of Hungary Béla IV. Béla managed to form a strong and dangerous coalition, reaching from Lower Bavaria through the Opole region of Silesia and Lesser Poland all the way to

117 CDB IV/1, 363–364, No. 202. 118 CDB IV/1, 371–372, No. 208. 119 CDB IV/1, 374–376, No. 211. 120 CDB IV/1, 364–366, No. 203. 121 CDB IV/1, 372–373, No. 209; 388–389, No. 223. 122 CDB IV/1, 390–391, No. 225. 123 Dopsch–Brunner–Weltin 1999, 203–207; 442–446. Legacy 275

Galicia and Hungary; in addition, he persuaded his allies to follow a uniform plan. The main battlefield was again Moravia; while the regiments of the dukes of Poland and Russia invaded the Opava region, the main army corps headed towards Olomouc. Only the brave defence of the town of Opava, led by Andrew from the Beneš family, thwarted the tactically flawless plan. After a bloody skirmish and victory before Olomouc, the disappointed King Béla IV withdrew to the east, and his peaceful retreat across the river Moravia was watched by the Austrian-Moravian forces led by Přemysl.124 The Hungarian attack devastated significant parts of Moravia, but the renewal of the land had to be postponed because of other duties, connected with the death of King Wenceslas on 22 September 1253.125 The margraviate then became one of many Přemyslid possessions, albeit important. After all, the Austrian Danube Basin already interfered in the internal affairs of the margravial chancery, which was complemented by an expert on the Babenberg formulations, the notary Gottschalk, in the autumn of 1251.126 Furthermore, although Přemysl Otakar II continued to pay adequate attention to Moravia, his interest was focused on royal Bohemia and the Babenberg heritage. Nevertheless, something quite substantial had changed. Not even as the king of Bohemia did Přemysl Otakar II relinquish the title of Margrave, which complemented the main title for the very first time (dei gracia dominus regni Bohemie, dux Austrie et Styrie et marchio Moravie).127 That this was not by any accident or mistake is proved by a charter of Richard of Cornwall, king of the Romans and of Germany, which confirmed Přemysl’s rule in two principalities (duobus principatibus), the kingdom of Bohemia and the margraviate of Moravia with all their fiefs.128 Richard’s charter was sealed on 9 August 1262; when Rudolf I, king of the Romans and Germany, asked Přemysl ten years later to return the stolen imperial fiefs, he was referring to Alpine lands, not to Bohemia and Moravia. These were the instructions for the delegation negotiating peace in Vienna, which guaranteed the king of Bohemia undisturbed rights to Bohemia and Moravia.129 This was stated in the privilege of 25 November 1276 through which King Rudolph granted Přemysl the kingdom of Bohemia and the margraviate of Moravia, with the postscript that this was done properly and according to the feudal law (de regno Boemie

124 Hosák 1960, 279–285; Kouřil–Prix–Wihoda 2000, 426–427. 125 Novotný 1928, 851–852. 126 CDB IV/1, 390–391, No. 225. 127 CDB V/1, 30–32, No. 2. 128 CDB V/1, 513–514, No. 345. 129 CDB V/2, 518–521, No. 822. 276 CHAPTER 6

FIGURE 70 A real equestrian seal is likely to have been the model for the illuminator who made the picture of King Wenceslas I (1230–1253) for the Jihlava book of law. He decorated the horse caparison with both the royal arms on the one hand and the flaming eagle of the estates and the silver-red chequered eagle of the margraviate of Moravia on the other. He evidently followed the practices applied around 1400, because the simultaneous use of the Bohemian royal and Moravian coat of arms before 1253 is not proved. PHOTOGRAPHY BY SOKA (STATE DISTRICT ARCHIVES) JIHLAVA Legacy 277 suisque attinenciis necnon de marchionatu Morawie ceterisque omnibus, que and nobis et imperio in feudum obtinere de iure dinoscitur).130 The dual dimension of Czech statehood that under Přemysl Otakar II in 1253–1278 penetrated even into imperial structures symbolically ended the transformation of Moravia into an independent political unit.131 It should be added, however, that Přemysl Otakar II only completed the foundation work of his predecessors, mainly his great-uncle Vladislaus Henry and uncle Přemysl. These had managed to unite all Moravian provinces under the Moravian sceptre, to rule as margraves by the grace of God (dei gracia marchio Morauie), and, when Vladislaus Henry had ceded his succession rights in Prague to his nephew Wenceslas (1216), to replace the direct succession with the sovereign relationship to the land and its values. A significant step was made by Margrave Přemysl, when in July 1233 he claimed some leeway from King Wenceslas I and was supported even by the ‘Moravians’. In summary, before Přemysl Otakar II was granted the title of Margrave, an emancipated community had been formed in Moravia that was able to defend the interests of the land at the royal court even against their Polish, Hungarian and Austrian neighbours without needing special intercession or protection on the part of the sovereign.132

2 Transformation on the Periphery

The transformation of ducal Moravia into a margraviate interconnected with the institution of the land of Moravia occurred amidst great modernisation, which might give an impression of enlightened management of public affairs. An unbiased analysis of the historical context, however, reveals that no reforms were actually deliberately executed. The Olomouc-Znojmo/Brno dualism had been preserved; the first margraves took over the system of provincial offices as well; and, when it was possible, they did not interfere much into the customs of the land. If they did, it was somehow related to the complicated collection of various taxes. After all, the poor situation of the margravial chamber seems to have made Vladislaus Henry (or rather forced him to) change the laborious system of payments and duties into a stable rent and turned his attention to ore-bearing areas around Bruntál, Uničov and Velká Bíteš. His inconspicu- ous renovation and foundation work could then be continued by Margrave

130 CDB V/2, 523, No. 824. 131 Janiš 2003, 273–288. 132 Wihoda 2010c, 47–53. 278 CHAPTER 6

Přemysl, when in 1234 he granted Uničov mining rights all over North-West Moravia.133 The consequences of the modest reforms of the first decades of the 13th century are tellingly demonstrated by the remote Opava region, whose transformation literally calls for the study of the changes in the ‘long’ 13th century.134 The Opava province was established on the ruins of the Piast (Holasice) castellany, which came under Bohemian administration quite late, probably around 1179, when Margrave Přemysl overran the northern foreland of the Moravian Gate. The extensive occupation lacked natural boundaries, and unless the Přemyslids wanted to withdraw, they had to enforce new orders there. Surprisingly enough, the territorial-administrative changes were limi ted to the simple addition of provincial offices in Hradec and later in Opava, and likewise the struggle over religious rights was not decided until 1201, when Přemysl Otakar I transferred an ecclesiastical tithe onto the bishopric of Olomouc.135 In spite of that, the Order of St John settled in the Holasice region under Duke Frederick, hence before 1189.136 The Premonstratensians from Hradisko near Olomouc followed in the Order’s footsteps.137 From 1220, the pope investigated the complaint of Bishop of Wrocław Lawrence, but the appurtenance of the Holasice region to Přemyslid possessions was no longer questioned.138 The estates of the Order of St John were initially situated around Modlejovice; later, the Order received an interesting enclave near Hlubčice— the donor (none other than Vladislaus Henry) multiplied the Order’s possessions with the undisguised intention of legally stabilising the land borders. Hide tithes were introduced on the donated property, and a fortified residence grew in its centre.139 Sometime around 1203, the Order of the Teutonic Knights came to the Holasice region. It was again after an intervention by the margrave Vladislaus Henry, who, in agreement with his brother Přemysl Otakar, supported the foundation of the monastic house in Opava.140 This seems not to have been the only endowment, because the charter of King Wenceslas I from 1237 reveals that the provincial estates included the parish in Opava with all

133 CDB III/1, 82–83, No. 76. 134 Bakala 2002. 135 CDB II, 18–21, No. 22. 136 CDB I, 417–421, No. 402. 137 Wihoda 2002c, 67–72. 138 CDB II, 332–334, No. 327. 139 CDB IV/1, 104–106, No. 27; Šebánek 1951, 1–16. 140 CDB II, 36–37, No. 40. Legacy 279 its rights and six settlements near Hlubčice. The place names ‘Crucerdorf ’ and ‘Smidesdorf ’ further indicate that that emphyteutic lease was not unknown even for the Order of the Teutonic Knights.141 The Opava province was modernised mainly thanks to the Velehrad Cistercians. In the summer of 1220, Bishop of Olomouc Robert confirmed their tenure of Stěbořice with all its appurtenances (cum omnibus suis pertinentiis),142 which included the partially populated circuitus that stretched roughly in the north-south direction from the mountainous, sparsely forested area along the river Moravice all the way to the town of Opava.143 Already before the middle of the 13th century, at least four other settlements emerged there;144 as of 1270, the monastic domain already comprised more than twenty villages.145 The Cistercians found decent competition in the Premonstratensians from Hradisko near Olomouc. In addition to a profitable tavern in Opava, mentioned in 1201,146 the monastery owned the extensive forest Střelná on the boundary between the Opava and Olomouc regions and, most likely from the end of the 12th century, Oldřišov a seat of the provost responsible for the Premonstratensian possessions in the entire province.147 In 1238, the village of Polom with appurtenances was given to Hradisko as compensation for the damage suffered by the Premonstratensians during the rebellion of Margrave Přemysl.148 Although Hradisko and Velehrad interfered in provincial affairs quite sub- stantially, both monasteries were surpassed by the bishopric of Olomouc. It could rely not only on the income from the settlements around Ketř and a tithe from the gradually populated Jaktař circuitus, which neighboured the estates of the Velehrad Cistercians, but mainly on the Osoblaha area, on whose past the bishop Bruno expressed himself in 1267. It arises from a charter sealed on the eve of the second expedition of King Přemysl Otakar II to Prussia that Osoblaha became the property of the bishopric under Robert’s episcopate, perhaps shortly before 1240. In 1247, however, Přemysl Otakar II gave the chaser Andrew permission to deal with Osoblaha at his discretion. This led to a dispute in which the chaser wrested an indemnity of 120 marks

141 CDB III/1, 199–200, No. 162. 142 CDB II, 179–181, No. 195. 143 CDB II, 425–428, No. 380. 144 CDB IV/1, 355–356, No. 194. 145 CDB V/2, 204–206, No. 606. 146 CDB II, 17–18, No. 21. 147 CDB III/1, 69–71, No. 66. 148 CDB III/1, 222–223, No. 179. 280 CHAPTER 6

FIGURE 71 The Opava province in the 13th century. 1: The state borders of the Czech Republic; 2: The borders of the Opava province; 3: Walled towns; 4: Unwalled settlements, 5: Margravial castles; 6: Trade routes; 7: Connecting routes between provinces; Customs station: A – Bruntál, B – Drakov, C – Hradec, D – Hlubčice/Głubczyce, E – Zawiszyce, F – Nowa Cerekwia, G – Opavice; Castles and fortified manors: a – Freudenstein, b – Fürstenwalde, c – Weissenstein (Rabenstein), d – Quingburg, e – Drakov, f – Koberstein. Drawing by D. Prix.

of silver for himself.149 This was as late as in 1253, and the bishop Bruno could finally embark on a generously laid-out colonisation, which was partly tied to earlier settlements. Osoblaha was surrounded by the villages of Vysoká, Horní and Dolní Povelice, Sádek, Dívčí Hrad and Menší Hlinka, whereas the charter states that the bishop Bruno decided to establish nine additional hamlets.

149 CDB V/2, 75–82, No. 526. Legacy 281

The list may not be complete, though. Osobaha is missing among both the old and new settlements, perhaps because it had been raised to the status of a town; likewise the mention of Menší Hlinka is against the rules of systematic enumeration, because also Větší Hlinka is likely to have been in the vicinity, not to mention half of Dolní Povelice (Paulowiz Maius dimidium). Bruno might have referred here to directly managed property, which would mean that the missing part belonged to episcopal fiefs. The unprecedentedly sophisticated system of fiefs made the bishop of Olomouc an influential agent in domestic events. In addition, the knights bound to serve the bishop participated in the settlement or legal (emphyteuti- cal) cultivation of the estates entrusted to them. Around 1250, the episcopal marshal Helembert de Turri came to the Osoblaha area in order to supervise in Bruno’s service the division of Liptáň and Třemešná into hides.150 In 1274, Achilles of Hemmelhausen was sent to the north,151 but remarkable respect was enjoyed by the lords of Fulstein. The first of them, Herbort, stood by Bruno’s side during the rebellion of Margrave Přemysl Otakar II in February 1249. The bishop of Olomouc remained loyal to King Wenceslas, and his retinue, which then included Achilles of Hemmelhausen, Louis of Medlice and Albert Stange, joined the royal army in the north of Bohemia.152 How exceptional Herbort’s position was among the feoffees is implied by his lifelong position of butler and then the family residence, the castle Fulstein (castrum Wlmensten) near Osoblaha, whose status was defined by the bishop Bruno. With the consent of the Chapter of Olomouc, he bestowed on Herbort selected estates according to the law of the ministeriales of the church of Magdeburg (iure ministeria- lium Magdeburgensis ecclesie), and on 6 November 1255, he charged him with the protection of the bishopric (pro defensione ecclesie nostre).153 Herbort of Fulstein certainly was not the bishop’s only vassal to build his own residence, but most of his fellows satisfied themselves with a considerably more modest rural curtis. Such a place became the home of Louis of Medlice, who received a small fief in the hilly landscape on the river Moravice. Later, perhaps at the beginning of the 14th century, an episcopal castle grew there, but Louis’ descendents had already moved to Horní Životice; over time, they were rele gated to lower nobility.154

150 CDB V/1, 146–148, No. 80. 151 CDB V/2, 395–396, No. 734. 152 CDB IV/1, 264–265, No. 161. 153 CDB V/1, 112–114, No. 56. 154 Kouřil – Prix – Wihoda 2000, 278–283. 282 CHAPTER 6

The dozens of settlements that were newly founded in monastic and ecclesiastical estates, staked out into hides and taxed altered the appearance of the province, but the arrival of new times was heralded mainly by towns. The beginnings of the town establishment in the Opava region, which has imaginary primacy within hereditary Přemyslid possessions, are dated to the Uničov privilege of 1223, which mentions that the Magdeburg Law had been known and used in Bruntál (ius Meidburgense et easdem consuetudines iuris, quas habent cives nostri de Froudental) already ten years earlier.155 Opava gained more influential positions, however, and it became the seat of provincial authorities around 1220.156 In 1224, King of Bohemia Přemysl Otakar I confirmed earlier privileges to the town council.157 The royal notary mentioned toll (teloneum) collection in Hlubčice, by which a third settlement became indirectly involved in provincial affairs. The first reliable evidence comes from 1253, when the king’s vice-chamberlain Beneš of Cvilín founded the town of Horní Benešov on the Hlubčice Law (ius Lubzense),158 but the charter from 1275 by which King Přemysl Otakar II restored Hlubčice privileges refers to some old or age-rotted original (pre senio maceratum) created by his predecessors (nostris predecessoribus), probably Přemysl Otakar I and Vladislaus Henry.159 The origin of Krnov dates back perhaps to the middle of the 13th century. In the spring of 1240, it was described by a charter of King Wenceslas I as a centre of a circuitus (circuitum quendam in districtu Holaszcensi, Kyrnow vulgariter nuncupatum);160 the Benešov privilege of 1253 already mentions the Krnov, evidently town, reeve (advocatus de Jegerdorf) Siegfried.161 Already during the reign of King Přemysl Otakar II (1253–1278), also Hlučín, and perhaps even Klimkovice, worked its way into the status of town,162 but the influence of the latter never extended beyond purely provincial coordinates.163 The 13th century has been described as a ‘long’ period in Central European history. This is fully applicable to the situation in the Opava province, which underwent a rather thorough modernisation. The land was covered by a network of margravial towns; Bruntál and Hlubčice had the status of seats of

155 CDB II, 237–239, No. 246. 156 CDB II, 179–181, No. 195. 157 CDB II, 256–257, No. 265. 158 CDB IV/1, 458–460, No. 467. 159 CDB V/2, 467–471, No. 790. 160 CDB III/2, 305–306, No. 227. 161 CDB IV/1 458–460, No. 267. 162 CDM VII, 783–784, No. 159. 163 Bakala 1977, 97–122. Legacy 283 appeal, while Opava was considered to be one of the most important municipalities of the margraviate of Moravia. The rhythm of life in old settlement areas along the river Opava as well as in the mountain plains was now determined by stable rents; the local markets and the villages—staked out into hides on ecclesiastical, margravial and from the middle of the 13th century also aristocratic lands—secured the mining of precious metals around Bruntál, Horní Benešov and Zlaté Hory; the borders and the land routes were guarded by a dozen stone castles. The Opava region hastily entered the new times; although it has been possible to determine or at least guess perhaps all major connections, the fates and names of actual protagonists remain, with a few exceptions, unknown. It arises from the character of the social transformation that they must have been experienced experts on law and organisers who managed to negotiate conditions under which it made sense to establish rural and urban settlements. Locators, merchants, miners and artisans played an essential role and brought advanced legal practices and technological processes to the Opava region. These were followed by farmers, whose number probably was not very high; there are many indications that an honourable role in the transformations of the 13th century was played by the domestic population, more precisely by its ability to adopt actively new methods, work and legal procedures and findings.164 Success or failure was thus determined not by the number of the arrivals but by their horizons, skills and expertise. This may be why, with the exception of the famous legend of the Pied Piper of Hamelin, who disappeared with children in a hill somewhere in the East, it has not been possible to find traces of extensive migration.165 Nevertheless, the discussion should return to Vladislaus Henry, whose name and rule may be connected with the beginnings of two monastic houses, the Order of St John in Hrobníky and the Order of Teutonic Knights in Opava. With the margrave’s approval, the benefits of the Magdeburg Law were experienced in Bruntál, Opava and perhaps also in Hlubčice, where, however, the Magdeburg practices applied only partially;166 tithes from the hides according to emphyteutic law began to spread on the estates of the Velehrad monastery and the bishopric of Olomouc, and the bishop Robert began to negotiate the further fates of the fertile Osoblaha region. The ore-bearing veins around Staré Město and later also the gold-bearing deposits near Zlaté Hory finally filled the margravial chamber. Vladislaus Henry could thus send for mint masters from Vienna and Enns and, with their help, put denars of the pfennig type into

164 Klápště 2012, 463–467. 165 Erlen 1992. 166 Roth 2006. 284 CHAPTER 6 circulation. Above all, however, he brought the Opava region as well as the whole of Moravia to a natural dialogue between novelties and domestic prerequisites, which gave Central Europe a new appearance.

3 The Making of Central Europe

Although the modern conception of the term Europeanism regularly and loudly invokes the common past, it is no secret that the occidental civilisation developed in successive waves. This is the main reason that it has forged values that form a whole yet do not imply unity. Whereas the south of the Old Continent has basically never stepped out of the shadow of the late ancient heritage, the centre was not ‘Europeanised’ until the adoption of Christianity during the 9th and 10th centuries and then the big change that is usually associated with the 13th century. First, let us ponder about Christianisation, whose importance was noticed by Herwig Wolfram years ago when he linked the fate of the Central Danube Basin before 907 with the birth of Central Europe (Die Geburt Mitteleuropas).167 Why not? One can actually recall what was narrated in ducal Bohemia at the beginning of the 12th century. According to the dean of the St Vitus Chapter Cosmas, Henry III, king of the Romans and of Germany, allegedly asked Duke Bretislaus I for a share of the Polish spoils. Duke Bretislaus refused, with the postscript that, from the time of Charlemagne, the Bohemians only had one duty: namely, to deliver 120 oxen and 500 marks of silver.168 The story, known from hearsay, might raise reasonable doubts had the tribute not been known to Charles’ contemporary Einhard.169 Moreover, the same information is provided by the privilege of Otto III, king of the Romans and of Germany, who, on 1 May 991, granted the cathedral of St Maurice in Magdeburg one-third of the income from Bohemia (tertiam partem nostri census qui nostro regio fisco per singulos annos persolvi debet de tota Bohemia). Although he does not mention the amount donated,170 it is indisputable that the foundations of the politically acting community of the Bohemians were really laid by Charlemagne. The Vltava Basin was situated beyond the boundaries of the Frankish Empire, but Charlemagne had recognised its strategic importance already in

167 Wolfram 1987. 168 Cosmae Pragensis Chronica Boemorum II.8, MGH SRG NS II, 93–94. 169 Einhardi Vita Caroli Magni 15, MGH SRG [25.], 18. 170 MGH DO III (II/2), 478–479, No. 71. Legacy 285

791, when Frankish troops were returning through it from Panonia.171 In order to complete the missing link in the chain of dependent peoples on the eastern border of his empire, he decided for a campaign to Bohemia in 805 and entrusted the entire issue to the hands of his son Charles.172 The first attack was directed at the Ohře Basin, where the duke called ‘Lech’ was defeated173 and the surroundings of the ‘Cannburg’ fortress were burnt to the ground.174 The next summer, Bohemia was invaded by forces from Bavaria, which were purportedly supported by Alamannic and Burgundian reinforcements, and precisely their return to the devastated landscape brought the Bohemians to the negotiating table.175 Yet The History of the Lombards by Paul the Deacon claims that the ‘Beowinidis’ were not subjugated by Charles but by Pipin.176 An explanation may be that the Bohemian campaign was brought to a victo rious conclusion by the king of Italy, to whom Charles in his testament from 6 February 806 granted the northern part of Italy along with Bavaria, Alamannia and Raetia all the way to the Danube, including the obligation to protect the imperial borders against all foreigners.177 Slightly later, Pepin made the dukes of Bohemia pay a tribute. The payment then travelled to Bavaria, which hence became for the Bohemians a symbol of the new order. The specific character of Bavarian-Bohemian relations was manifested in 890. Arnulf, king of East Francia, reconciled with Duke of Moravia Svatopluk and sealed the friendship with a special gift. He granted (concessit) Svatopluk the Bohemians, who allegedly had rulers of their own blood and were loyal to the Franks (Francorumque regibus fidelitatem promissam inviolato foe- dere conserverant).178 Five years later, however, the Bohemians revolted and, through the mounts of Dukes Spytihněv and Vitislaus, claimed allegiance to the Bavarian nation again.179 Arnulf had no objections and entrusted Bohemian issues into the hands of Count Liutpold, who then had himself entitled Duke of the Bohemians (dux Boemanorum). Apparently the honorary title showed

171 Annales regni Francorum, MGH SRG [6.], 89. 172 Einhardi Vita Caroli Magni 13, MGH SRG [25.], 16–17; Třeštík 2001, 71–85. 173 Annales regni Francorum, MGH SRG [6.], 120. 174 Ex Chronico Moissiacensi, MGH SS II, 258; Annales Mettenses priores, MGH SRG [10.], 93–94. 175 Annales regni Francorum, MGH SRG [6.], 122. 176 Historia Langobardorum codicis Gothani 9, MGH SRL, 8, 11; Třeštík 1997, 69–73. 177 Divisio regnorum, MGH Cap I, 126–130, No. 45.2. 178 Reginonis abbatis Prumensis Chronicon, MGH SRG [50.], 134. 179 Annales Fuldenses, MGH SRG [7.], 126. 286 CHAPTER 6 that the count had become an intercessor on behalf of the Bohemians at the court of the East Frankish Carolingians.180 The influence of Bavaria over its Bohemian neighbours persisted even after the demise of East Francia, although in 918, Duke Arnulf had to submit to Henry, king of Saxony. The Saxon-Bavarian struggle affected the fates of the ruling Přemyslids as well. Whereas Duke Wenceslas fulfilled the allied commitments to Saxony, younger Boleslaus was closer to Bavaria, and in 936, when he usurped the government in Prague, he attacked some ruler who supposedly obeyed the king of Saxony.181 The resulting hostility continued for years. It was not until 950, before the castle ‘Nova’ somewhere in Bohemia,182 that Boleslaus asked Otto I for a truce and took an oath of allegiance by standing before the courtiers and responding to the king until he was pardoned (sub signisque stans et regem audiens responsaque reddens, veniam tandem promeruit).183 Five years later, Boleslaus sent an auxiliary corps to the river Lech, and the regular tribute still filled the chamber of Ottonian emperors at the end of the 10th century. The only unclear point of the agreement thus remains whether Otto I managed Bohemian issues on his own or, in the spirit of the Carolingian tradition, passed them onto his brother, Duke of Bavaria Henry.184 Dukes of Bohemia were not entirely dependent on the world of Saxon kings, because the Prague court, already during the life of Duke Boleslaus I, requested that the papal curia elevate Prague to an episcopal see. At the same time, it probably asked for restoration of the bishopric in Moravia.185 The pope did not directly object to something like that. According to Cosmas, though, he stipulated that it should not to be a see of Old Church Slavonic perform- ing the practices of a sect of the Bulgarian or Russian nation (non secundum ritus aut sectam Bulgarie gentis vel Ruzie, aut Sclavonice lingue).186 The condition seems rather preposterous, because the duke of Bohemia did not adhere to Old Church Slavonic liturgy in any way. It thus appears that the Holy See quoted the decree of Pope Stephen V, who banned the Slavonic liturgy after Methodius’ death in 885.187 Why did the papal curia return to the ancient story of the Moravian-Pannonian diocese? Did Boleslaus directly demand a

180 Wihoda 2013, 54–55. 181 Widukindi rerum gestarum Saxonicarum libri II.3, MGH SRG [60.], 38–39. 182 MGH DO I (I), 207–208, No. 126. 183 Widukindi rerum gestarum Saxonicarum libri II.8, MGH SRG [60.], 62. 184 Thietmari Merseburgensis episcopi Chronicon II.2, MGH SRG NS IX, 19. 185 Třeštík 2004, 179–196. 186 Cosmae Pragensis Chronica Boemorum I.22, MGH SRG NS II, 44. 187 CDB I, 22–26, No. 26; 26–28, No. 27. Legacy 287 metropolis? If so, the only suitable see was truly the one in Moravia. Therefore, Bohemian envoys could and had to substantiate their claims by referring to the legacy of Mojmírid Moravia, about which they probably knew very little though. In Rome, it was then easy for them to trace that the ‘archbishop of Pannonia’ Methodius had been summoned to the curia in 879, where he was found ‘orthodox’ and was granted the right to use the Slavonic script and liturgy provided that the first reading of the Gospel was done in Latin. Pope John VIII further took into account that Duke of Moravia Svatopluk, by Divine inspiration, deviated from other princes of this world and, along with the leaders and all the people of his land (cum nobilibus viris fidelibus tuis et cum omni populo terre), selected Blessed Peter and his successors as his patron, helper and protector (beatum Petrum apostolici ordinis principem vicariumque illius habere patronum et in omnibus auditorem ac defensorem).188 Direct protection was also confirmed by Pope Stephen V when he, after Methodius’ death, banned the Slavonic liturgy and immediately assured the Moravians of his favour and protection.189 The pope’s protection was not forgotten even after the fall of the Mojmírid Empire and, thanks to Přemysl, it returned into Central Europe.190 Efforts to fulfil the grandiose plans of Duke Boleslaus I were made by his homonymous son, with the cooperation of the second bishop of Prague, Adalbert, who received episcopal ordination in 982. Since he had established confidential relationships with numerous prominent figures around the emperor and his court during his previous studies in Magdeburg, it seemed that the Czech requirements would be accepted with understanding. Under obscure circumstances, perhaps after the death of the bishop of Moravia, Adalbert united the Prague and Moravian dioceses into one whole, and the extensive missionary duties in Hungary, Lesser Poland and Silesia brought him closer to Géza, Grand Prince of the Hungarians, and mainly Mieszko I of Poland. It might have been from Adalbert’s mouth that they both heard of Methodius’ archbishopric. What is certain is that Hungary soon received an archbishop and that Mieszko ceded his seat with all its appurtenances (civitas Schinesghe cum pertinentiis) to St Peter.191 Skilful diplomacy embellished the Piast court also during the reign of Mieszko’s successor, Bolesław I the Brave, who welcomed Emperor Otto III in Gniezno in 1000. At the grave of Bishop Adalbert, Bolesław was ceremonially

188 CDB I, 18–21, No. 24. 189 CDB I, 22–26, No. 26. 190 Třeštík 2000, 73–79. 191 Warnke 1980, 127–177. 288 CHAPTER 6 appointed a partner, and the relics of the saint gave rise to the first ecclesiastical metropolis of the Slavic world.192 It should be noted that the Bohemian rulers did not succeed in 1000. Only the Annals of Hildesheim mentioned that Otto III appointed Adalbert’s brother Radim archbishop in the metropolis of Slavs, Prague.193 It is hard to determine whether this is a reflection of the former efforts of Bohemian Boleslauses or the author was simply wrong. One way or the other, there were two ‘constitutional’ models in Central Europe from the beginning of the 11th century. Whereas Poland and Hungary, for instance, paid the so-called denarius of St Peter and enjoyed the protection of the papal curia, the dukes of Bohemia sought help from imperial powers. The decisive step in this direction was taken by Vladivoi, when he set out to Regensburg at the end of 1002, where he pledged allegiance to King Henry II and acquired Bohemia in fief (cum humili subiectione et fideli promissione hunc in dominum elegit et, postulavit ab eo, in beneficium acquisivit).194 Nevertheless, the bold plans of Bohemian Boleslauses were not entirely forgotten. In 1039, Duke Bretislaus I organised a campaign to Gniezno, where he raised Adalbert’s relics, which had been of substantial benefit to the Poles, and had them moved to Prague on the shoulders of the Bohemians in order to ensure the prosperity of Přemyslid possessions.195 Under the impression of the great victory, it might have seemed that the cheering crowds celebrated not the return of the saint but, more specifically, the transfer of the archiepiscopal see. After all, it had been promised to the Bohemians by Adalbert; in public opinion, Bretislaus I was thus a hero who had only taken what rightfully belonged to him. This was also the case of the transfer of the remains of the first metropolitan of Gniezno, Radim Gaudentius,196 who had ascended a ‘wrong’ see; his elected place had always been Prague, where he returned in 1039. The high self-confidence of the main agents is also implied by the stay of the Bohemian envoys in Rome, where they sought the approval of Pope Benedict IX.197 They were, however, preceded by a complaint made by some ‘wicked informer’, probably Archbishop of Mainz Bardo, who accused Duke Bretislaus of various crimes and Severus, bishop of Prague, of having requested the pallium from the pope, which was against all the rules (pallium autem aput apostolicum contra

192 Michałowski 2005. 193 Annales Hildesheimenses, MGH SRG [8.], 28. 194 Thietmari Merseburgensis episcopi Chronicon V.23, MGH SRG NS IX, 120. 195 Cosmae Pragensis Chronica Boemorum II.3–4, MGH SRG NS II, 84–90. 196 Cosmae Pragensis Chronica Boemorum II.4, MGH SRG NS II, 89. 197 Cosmae Pragensis Chronica Boemorum II.7, MGH SRG NS II, 91–93. Legacy 289 ius et fas sibi usurpare vellet).198 The pope had the last word, and, although the Bohemians were kindly heard out,199 Bretislaus I never reversed to the elevation of Prague to an ecclesiastical metropolis. One of the reasons could have been the war that broke out after the return of Bohemian troops from Gniezno. Scriptoria at that time emphasised that Henry III, king of the Romans and of Germany, had wanted the Polish booty, but the real motive of the hostility may have been the relaxed ties of the Prague court to the Empire. After all, this follows from the conciliatory ritual to which Bretislaus I was subjected in Regensburg in the autumn of 1041. The duke of Bohemia stood barefoot before Henry III and humbly asked for forgiveness. Then Henry listened to the advice of the noblemen, after which Bretislaus was pardoned. This was followed by an oath of allegiance, in which Bretislaus ‘quam miles seniori esse deberet’ promised Henry to be a friend of his friends and an enemy of his enemies.200 Strictly speaking, the year 1041 was not marked by anything special, because the peace concluded essentially only confirmed the validity of the existing situation. The external status of Přemyslid possessions was determined by feudal law, whereas the Piast and Árpádian dukes sought and found allies at the papal curia. Even though Gallus Anonymus rebuked the Bohemians at the beginning of the 12th century for having, unlike the Poles, surrendered the old freedoms, we may admit now that both approaches have left a significant mark in the history of Central Europe. Papal protection secured the borders of the archbishoprics of Gniezno and Esztergom and hence indirectly provided Piast and Árpádian possessions with external stability at the time when a strong ruling power had become a vague memory. At the same time, feudal obligations initiated the Přemyslids into courtly society, which made Prague a gate to the world of the Princes of the Holy Roman Empire.201 The ground plan of Central Europe, constricted by the legendary year 1000, was not disrupted even by the pagan storms in Poland and Hungary or the sad fates of the first Piast and Přemyslid kings. The continuous flow of events was not very much disturbed by the investiture controversy either; nevertheless, new power relationships and practices began to take shape in its long shadow. The tentative beginnings of the second wave of major changes may be observed in Babenberg possessions, which were literally pulled into the struggle for the crown of the king of the Romans and of Germany by the

198 Cosmae Pragensis Chronica Boemorum II.7, MGH SRG NS II, 91–92; Annalista Saxo, MGH SS XXXVII, 385. 199 Cosmae Pragensis Chronica Boemorum II.7, MGH SRG NS II, 91–93. 200 Annales Altahenses maiores, MGH SRG [4.], 27–28. 201 Wihoda 2013, 51–65. 290 CHAPTER 6 election of 1138. The vote of the Princes of the Holy Roman Empire brought to the throne Conrad of Hohenstaufen, who was refused obedience by Henry the Proud, duke of Saxony and Bavaria, and with him the rest of the House of Welf. The oppressed elect thus had to seek help at the papal curia as well as among his relatives. Conrad’s half-brother, Margrave of Austria Leopold IV, then interfered in imperial affairs. In the spring of 1139, Henry the Proud was deprived of the duchy of Bavaria, whose government was taken over by the margrave of Austria. A minor war soon broke out. Although the new duke managed to seize Regensburg, the rest of Bavaria instead obeyed the House of Welf. The divided and devastated land called for peace. When Leopold died two years later, a number of contemporaries could not help but mention God’s punish ment. Nevertheless, Leopold’s work was unscrupulously continued by his brother Henry II Jasomirgott, who tried to conclude a political marriage and hence blunt the hostility. The coveted peace was to be brought by Gertrude, the widow of Henry the Proud, yet the promising game was thwarted by her sudden death. Literally at the eleventh hour, Jasomirgott listened to Bernard of Clairvaux, and, at the diet in Regensburg, he and Conrad III joined pilgrims to the Holy Land.202 The first Crusader hordes crossed the Bavarian borders in the spring of 1147; after Easter celebration, they moved to Hungary and entered Byzantine soil near Belgrade. To their surprise, they were not given a kind welcome. The pilgrims from the West were met by indifference and contempt. In Anatolia, any remaining illusions were shattered. Those who were more affluent were transported to the Holy Land on board ships; the poorer had to take insecure land routes along the coast, and only a few of them reached at least northern Syria. In September 1148, the disillusioned Crusaders set out for the journey back. The imperial corps led by Welf VI moved to Sicily, and Conrad III and Jasomirgott headed for Constantinople, where they were accorded a hospi- table reception by Emperor Manuel. The kinder face of the Byzantine court was certainly related to the shameful defeat, because the uninvited and unwel- come guests from the West could no longer jeopardise the local situation. The renewed friendship was sealed by an engagement which joined the niece of Emperor Manuel Theodora with Henry II Jasomirgott.203 The two-year truce mostly benefited Conrad, who, after his return to the Empire, gained some superiority. Yet he died in the middle of February 1152, before he could convoke a conciliatory diet. His place was taken by his nephew Frederick, of whom Otto of Freising noted that no one could ask for more,

202 Ziegler 2008, 392–405; 444–452. 203 Dopsch–Brunner–Weltin 1999, 130–132. Legacy 291 because he was a Welf on his mother Judith’s side and a Hohenstauf on his father Frederick’s side. And the young king evidently knew that what was expected from him was nothing less than a just peace.204 Therefore, he invited the feuding parties to the negotiating table and pledged to respect the opinion of the Princes of the Holy Roman Empire. Those spoke in favour of Henry the Lion, the son and heir of Henry the Proud, who was accepted by the Bavarian nobility in 1155. Henry Jasomirgott withdrew to Austria, from where he resisted for the whole year before he publicly renounced the dukedom. At the diet in Regensburg, he delivered seven banners into the hands of the emperor, who ceded them to Henry the Lion. Henry the Lion, in turn, immediately returned two of them to the emperor, by which he relinquished the Austrian mark and all the counties belonging to it. Through the decision of the princes (iudicio principum), Frederick Barbarossa then raised the mark to a duchy (ducatum fecit) and gave it, according to the feudal law, to Henry Jasomirgott and his wife Theodora.205 The informed commentary from the quill of Otto of Freising is concluded by a remark that Emperor Frederick had everything written and sealed by a privilege, the content of which substantiates the information provided by our reporter and eyewitness. The document, dated 17 September 1156, states that the unfortunate dispute over Bavaria was settled, but, since Henry Jasomirgott might suffer some harm, the Austrian mark with all its rights and fiefs (cum omni iure suo et cum omnibus beneficiis) was declared a duchy. In addition, Henry became the hereditary lord of the possessions entrusted to him, in both the male and female lines; should he die without descendants, he could freely choose his successor (libertatem habeant eundem ducatum affectandi). Moreover, the emperor granted him the status of the Chief Justice (iusticiam presumat) and reduced his obligations to the court (servicium) to his atten- dance at diets provided that they were held in Bavaria. Henry also continued to have the duties to defend the land and imperial borders and participate in campaigns to neighbouring lands.206 As usual, however, some articles either never came into force or were quoted only exceptionally. Others were considered little dignified, so that in 1358 (1359) Duke Rudolf IV of Habsburg had minor privileges developed into a more extensive form, which entered history under the name ‘Privilegium maius’ (The Major Privilege), whereas the real model,

204 Görich 2011, 127–134. 205 Ottonis et Rahewini Gesta Friderici I. imperatoris II.54–55, MGH SRG [46.], 160. 206 MGH DF I (X/1), 255–260, No. 151; Appelt 1973. 292 CHAPTER 6 destroyed upon Rudolf’s command, began to be referred to as ‘Privilegium minus’, that is the Minor Privilege.207 Although the Privilegium minus passed a significant part of the imperial prerogatives (regalia) into the hands of the duke of Austria, more perceptive observers could not fail to notice that the freedoms applied only in remote parts of the imperial possessions. All the power of the dukes of Austria ended at the river Enns, which Duke of Bavaria Henry the Lion emphasised in March 1176, when he, before the eyes of those present, entered a bridge and waited for the arrival of the Austrian delegation above the middle of the riverbed. The influence of the charter on domestic affairs was just as limited, if not controversial. The mining right with coin mintage, the construction of castles and bridges and the protection of the Jews—all this fell to the emperor. Moreover, the Babenbergs lacked a stable family background. Although they held nume rous interesting prebends all over Bavaria, they only controlled negligible pro perty in Austria. Nevertheless, the year 1156 became a guideline for dealing with the endless disputes between the dukes and the imperial court.208 Margrave of Styria Otakar III followed in the Babenberg footsteps and managed to assume patronage over major monasteries. Having learnt from the example of the dukes of Austria, he began to buy free estates, and he gradually established a system of fiefs subordinated to him. Nevertheless, he did not complete the work that he began so promisingly. On the last day of 1164, he died on the way to the Holy Land, and his possessions were passed onto his homonymous son. As he was still a minor, the rule was exercised by a council of regents headed by his mother, Kunigunde of Vohburg, so Otakar IV could not build on his father’s efforts until 1175. Another five years later, Frederick I Barbarossa invited him to the second division of Bavaria, when he bestowed on Otakar the ducal title, whereas the rest of the land was to be governed by Otto of Wittelsbach. Nevertheless, it soon turned out that the duke of Styria suffered from some kind of a terrible disease, maybe leprosy or elephantiasis. Aware of his inevitable end, Otakar IV became close to Leopold V of Austria. After careful negotiations, a succession agreement was concluded in Georgenberg above Enns, which was first sealed by a ceremonial handshake and then, on 17 August, confirmed by two charters. The longer of them declared that Otakar’s heirs were Duke of Austria Leopold V and his son Frederick, who pledged to observe the laws of the land (ius provincie).209

207 Lhotsky 1957. 208 Lechner 1996, 171–192. 209 Spreitzhofer 1986. Legacy 293

The Georgenberg Pact came into force on 8 May 1192. Already before the end of the spring, the duke of Austria and now also Styria Leopold V received the requisite approval of Emperor Henry VI. Nevertheless, he still had to take into account the interests of the influential Styrian ministeriales, who were joined by the clergy, in particular abbots of major monasteries, and in the course of the 13th century also by market settlements and towns, which were rapidly growing rich. All without exception, they stuck to the traditions of the land, in which they saw a guarantee that Styria would not merge with Austria, so that the Babenberg possessions at the end of the 12th century began to be reminiscent of a special personal union equipped with peculiar rights.210 Yet the gradual power emancipation of the Central Danube Basin does not seem to have astonished anyone, because developments in the near and distant neighbourhood followed the same direction. It suffices to remember that the Přemyslids could pride themselves on the royal crown and that Philip of Swabia in 1198 (?) bestowed on them privileges whose content greatly resembled the Privilegium Minus. It is clear from the confirmation issued by Frederick II of Sicily on 26 September 1212 that the legitimacy of Bohemian rulers was to be ensured by free domestic elections and subsequently by the proper acceptance of the symbols of the royal power from the hands of the rulers of the Holy Roman Empire (regalia debito modo recepturus). The land borders were proclaimed to be inviolable. The kings of Bohemia had the right to inaugurate bishops of their lands, whereas their only duties were to attend the Hoftageconvened in Bamberg, Nuremberg and Merseburg and to send three hundred horsemen to the Roman ride or pay a compensation of 300 marks.211 The self-confidence of the Princes of the Holy Roman Empire significantly increased in the first two decades of the 13th century, when Philip of Swabia and Otto of Brunswick competed for their favour, from 1211 joined by Frederick II of Sicily. The latter could consider himself the winner, but it was he who inflicted a decisive blow on the withering authority of the kings of the Romans and of Germany. Not only was he not very interested in alienated regalia; after he received such support for his son Henry [VII] in the spring of 1220 that he could be elected as his successor, he rewarded the clergy with extensive freedoms. An agreement dated 26 April (Confoederatio cum principibus ecclesiasticis) guaranteed to ecclesiastical Princes that their prebends and estates would be exempted from the right of escheat, that they would not be bothe red by new customs duties and that their subjects would not be taken over by imperial towns. In addition, Frederick II undertook not to question the status

210 Dopsch – Brunner – Weltin 1999, 298–302. 211 MGH DF II (XIV/2), 1–5, No. 171; Wihoda 2012. 294 CHAPTER 6 of ecclesiastical fiefs; he promised that castles and towns would not emerge on ecclesiastical land without their consent; he also pledged to place under the imperial anathema those excommunicated and not acquitted within six weeks. Should ecclesiastical estates host a Hoftag, the authority of the royal officials was limited to a precise number of days.212 Eleven years later, similar promises were given also to secular dukes when they brought Henry [VII] into line after his attempts to restore the former glory of the royal power and to seek allies among imperial ministeriales and in towns. At two diets in Worms, he had to assure the Princes that new castles, towns, mints and customs duties would not disturb the established orders of the individual lands, that old markets would not be damaged by new ones and that the one-mile ban of royal towns would not interfere with the rights of the sovereigns. These included the rights of the Princes to build castles, to establish towns and to mint coins. New laws were to be adopted at the level of the individual lands only if agreed so by the Estates of the land.213 In the spring of 1232, Frederick II of Sicily confirmed his son’s ‘statutes in favour of the Princes’ (Statutum in favorem principum);214 in the past, this had earned him sharp criticism for having carelessly paved the way to German particularism, to which the ‘national state’ had allegedly been sacrificed.215 To a certain degree, the brusque condemnation is understandable, because Frederick II had an entirely different approach to his possessions in Sicily, which he, at the same time, quickly enforced due respect with harsh means. That he firmly stuck to his principles is revealed by the course of the famous diet (curia generalis) in Mainz, where in August 1235 he discussed new constitutional orders, which were to be followed by both his successors and the Princes of the Holy Roman Empire.216 In so doing, he essentially called for the joint management of public affairs while simultaneously building a strictly centralised monarchy in the south of Italy.217 It cannot be excluded that Frederick II considered himself to be a Sicilan rather than an inheritor of the Hohenstaufen fame and that he never created a personal relationship to the ‘German’ possessions beyond the Alps. Is it possible that he was taken aback by local customs and that, when he realized after the first meetings that the return to the sovereign royal power was not feasible,

212 MGH DF II (XIV/3), 383–391, No. 620. 213 MGH Const II, 418–420, No. 304. 214 MGH Const II, 211–213, No. 171. 215 Klingelhöfer 1955. 216 MGH Const II, 241–247, No. 196; 248–263, No. 196a. 217 Rader 2010, 176–182. Legacy 295

FIGURE 72 The peaceful neighbourly relations between the Romanesque curtis (Fig. 37) and the large Gothic castle at Veveří near Brno can be perceived as a symbol of the ‘big change’, which in the long 13th century interconnected the domestic prerequisites with the innovations of the European West and thus created a new face of Bohemian and Moravian society. Photography by a. Flídr. he simply confirmed previously granted privileges? This is not known. It is certain that he had mastered new constitutional and legal terms such as the land (terra), lord of the land (dominus terre) or representatives of the land (meliores et maiores terre) and that he began to turn to princes and the powerful (principes et magnates). Yet the development in England proceeded in the same direction, because even there John Lackland listened to barons; nevertheless, whereas the Magna Carta in 1215 granted influence to a single parliament, the power in the Empire was transferred onto ducal courts.218 The Princes of the Holy Roman Empire seized the public space without much hesitation, but different interests on the one hand and limited possibilities on the other led to the provincialisation of public life. The historical horizon of the powerful usually ended with the nearest neighbours, which meant that the Empire was divided into distinctive microworlds, each with its own

218 Fried 2008, 269–271; 291–301. 296 CHAPTER 6 rules and memory. One of them had been formed in the east, where the private as well as public dislike among the Přemyslids, Babenbergs, from 1273 the Habsburgs, Wettins and Wittelsbachs played a decisive role. Under these circumstances, Central Europe was born. Its appearance was further emphasised by innovations of the 13th century. The improvement of the land (melioratio terre),219 which assumed the form of towns, villages staked out into hides or mining colonisation,220 connected the broad area between the Danube and the Oder into one remarkable whole. One can only speculate now on why such a commonwealth drew the attention of the Silesian Piasts, whose relationship to the Empire had been rather symbolic. Was it because the stream of innovations coming from Saxony connected the Oder Basin with the Meissen region and the Czech lands, or were the dukes in Wrocław, Opole and Racibórz attracted by the land freedoms that were inviolable within the Empire? What actually determined the appearance of Central Europe? The internal transformation of the Holy Roman Empire into a loose union of dukes—in fact, however, aristocratic land communities, or the shared values that arose in the long 13th century? And what was the role of the rulers? Did they assume the place of active actors in and makers of contemporary events, or did they try not to interfere in events which they did not understand and whose importance they could not estimate? The story of Margrave of Moravia Vladislaus Henry implies that just a little was sometimes enough; that the emancipated community of the land of Moravia represented by the diet and offices of the Estates could be born from modest beginnings and that it could do quite well without the ruler’s intervention. It seems to have been the same with the whole of Central Europe. Although it had been endowed with important privileges, not even Central Europe had originated from a sudden idea of the powerful; instead, it was shaped in a slow dialogue of causes and effects, which connected the old customs and traditions reaching back to the 10th century with the novelties of the European West. This was, hence, not only a Central Europe of nations and states involved in hereditary feuds but also a Central Europe of self-confident, and perhaps also for that reason naturally cooperating, communities of individual lands.

219 Körmendy 1995. 220 Mitterauer 2004. Appendix 1

The Margraves of Moravia of the Přemyslid Period

Přemysl Otakar I 1179–1182 (?) Conrad Otto 1186–1189 Vladislaus Henry I 1192–1194 1197–1222 Vladislaus Henry II 1224–1227 Přemysl 1227–1239 Vladislaus Henry III 1246–1247 Přemysl Otakar II 1247–1253

Vladislaus’ Lineage1 2

Vladislaus I * ? † 1125 Duke of Bohemia 1109–1117 1120–1125 ∞ Richeza of Berg

Vladislaus II Theobald I Henry * ? * ? * ? † 1174 † 1167 † post 1169 Duke of Bohemia ∞ Gertrude ∞ Margaret 1140–1158 King of Bohemia Theobald’s lineage2 Henry Bretislaus 1158–1173 Bishop of Prague ∞ 1. Gertrude of Babenberg 1182–1197 ∞ 2. Judith of Thuringia Duke of Bohemia 1193–1197 Frederick Svatopluk Adalbert * ? * ? * ? Přemysl Otakar I Vladislaus Henry I † 1189 † post 1173 † 1200 * ? * ? Duke of Bohemia Duke of Olomouc † 1230 † 1222 1172–1173 1172–1173 (?) Margrave of Moravia Margrave of Moravia 1178–1189 1179–1182 (?) 1192–1194 Duke of Bohemia 1197–1222 1192–1193 Duke of Bohemia 1197–1198 1197 King of Bohemia ∞ Heilwidis 1198–1230

1 The family tree includes only the persons who participated in the transformation of hereditary Přemyslid possessions into a union of two land communities, of Bohemia and Moravia. The names set in bold mark the Moravian governors with the title of margrave. 2 The marriage between Duke Theobald I and his wife Gertrude, a daughter of Albert the Bear, produced at least two children, Theobald II and Hedwig. Whereas Hedwig († 1210) was married off to the margrave of Meissen, Theobald II († 1190) married a woman of an unknown name, with whom he had at least three sons, Theobald III, Sobeslaus and Boleslaus. The most important of them, Theobald III, entered the public arena in 1194. In the spring of 1203, Philip of Swabia gave him the kingdom of Bohemia in fief; soon, however, Theobald reconciled with Přemysl Otakar I and was to govern East Bohemia and, in 1212, also the Pilsen region. After the death of Margrave Vladislaus Henry († 1222), he wanted to rule Moravia, but he seems to have been rejected, perhaps defeated or even killed († 1223?) in some skirmish, and his sons had to withdraw to Wrocław and seek protection from Duke Henry the Bearded.

Přemysl Otakar I ∞ 1. Adelheid of Meissen ∞ 2. Constance of Hungary Vratislaus Margaret * ? * ? † post 1235 † 1213 promise of fealty Queen of Denmark 1212 1205–1213

Vratislaus Wenceslas I Vladislaus Henry II Přemysl * 1200 (?) * 1205 * 1207 * 1209 † 1201 (?) † 1253 † 1227 † 1239 King of Bohemia Margrave of Moravia Margrave of Moravia 1228–1253 1224–1227 1227–1239 ∞ Kunigunde of Hohenstaufen ∞ Margaret of Merano

Vladislaus Henry III Přemysl Otakar II * ? * 1233 † 1247 † 1278 Margrave of Moravia Margrave of Moravia 1246–1247 1247–1253 ∞ Gertrude of Babenberg ∞ Gertrude of Babenberg King of Bohemia 1253–1278 ∞ 1. Margaret of Babenberg ∞ 2. Kunigunde of Hungary Bibliography

1 Sources

Annales Altahenses maiores, ed. E. von Oefele, MGH SRG [4.], Hannover 1891. Annales Aquenses, ed. G.H. Pertz, MGH SS XVI, Hannover 1859, 684–687. Annales Bohemiae, ed. J. Emler, FRB II, Pragae 1875, 380–382. Annales Burghausenses, ed. G. Waitz, MGH SS XXIV, Hannover 1879, 61–62. Annales et Chronica Magni presbyteri Reicherspergenses, ed. W. Wattenbach, MGH SS XVII, Hannover 1861, 439–534. Annales Fuldenses, ed. F. Kurze, MGH SRG [7.], Hannover 1891. Annales Gradicenses et Opatowicenses, ed. W. Wattenbach, MGH SS XVII, Hannover 1861, 643–652. Annales Halesbrunnenses Maiores, ed. G. Waitz, MGH SS XXIV, Hannover 1879, 42–48. Annales Heinrici Heimburgensis, ed. J. Emler, FRB III, Pragae 1882, 305–321. Annales Herbipolenses, ed. G.H. Pertz, MGH SS XVI, Hannover 1859, 1–12. Annales Hildesheimenses, ed. G. Waitz, MGH SRG [8.], Hannover 1878. Annales Marbacenses qui dicuntur, ed. H. Bloch, MGH SRG [9.], Hannover 1907. Annales Mellicenses, ed. W. Wattenbach, MGH SS IX, Hannover 1851, 479–501. Annales Mettenses priores, ed. B. von Simson, MGH SRG [10.], Hannover 1905. Annales Pegavienses et Bosovienses, ed. G.H. Pertz, MGH SS XVI, Hannover 1859, 232–270. Annales Pragenses, ed. J. Emler, FRB II, Pragae 1875, 375–380. Annales regni Francorum, ed. F. Kurze, MGH SRG [6.], Hannover 1895. Annales Sancti Rudberti Salisburgenses, ed. W. Wattenbach, MGH SS IX, Hannover 1851, 758–810. Annales Seligenstadenses, ed. L. Bethmann, MGH SS XVII, Hannover 1861, 31–32. Annales Stadenses, ed. J.M. Lappenberg, MGH SS XVI, Hannover 1859, 271–379. Annales Stederburgenses auctore Gerhardo praeposito, ed. G.H. Pertz, MGH SS XVI, Hannover 1859, 197–231. Annalista Saxo, ed. K. Nass, MGH SS XXXVII, Hannover 2006. Annalium Pragensium (III. Wýpisky z Vincentia, Gerlacha a jiných starších letopisců českých) [Excerpts from Vincentius, Gerlach and Other Earlier Czech Chroniclers], ed. J. Emler, FRB II, Praha 1875, 270–281. Annalium Pragensium I (IV. Letopisy české od roku 1196 do roku 1278) [Czech Annals from 1196 until 1278], ed. J. Emler, FRB II, Praha 1874, 282–303. Annalium Pragensium II (V. Příběhy krále Wácslawa I.) [Stories of King Wenceslas I], ed. J. Emler, FRB II, Praha 1874, 303–308. Bibliography 301

Annalium Salisburgensium addidamentum, ed. G.H. Pertz, MGH SS III, Hannover 1839, 121–123. Archiv český. Staré písemné památky české i moravské, sebrané z archivů domácích i cizích X [Czech Archives. Early Bohemian and Moravian Written Documents Collected in Both Domestic and Foreign Archives], ed. J. Kalousek, Praha 1890. Archivum Coronae regni Bohemiae II. Inde ab a. MCCCXLVI. usque ad a. MCCCLV, ed. V. Hrubý, Pragae 1928. Arnoldi Chronica Slavorum, ed. J.M. Lappenberg, MGH SRG [14.], Hannover 1868. Auctarium Sancrucense, ed. W. Wattenbach, MGH SS IX, Hannover 1859, 732. Beatus Cyrillus, ed. L. Havlík, MMFH II, Brno 1967, 299–303. Bernardi Maragonis Annales Pisani, ed. C. Pertz, MGH SS XIX, Hannover 1866, 236–266. Braunschweigische Reimchronik, ed. L. Weiland, MGH Deutsche Chroniken II, Hannover 1877, 430–574. Burchardi praepositi Urspergensis Chronicon, eds. O. Holder-Egger & B. von Simson, MGH SRG [16.], Hannover 1916. Canonici Wissegradensis continuatio Cosmae, ed. J. Emler, FRB II, Praha 1874, 201–237. Capitularia regum Francorum, ed. A. Boretius, MGH Cap I, Hannover 1883. Chronica Albrici monachi Trium fontium, ed. P. Scheffer-Boichorst, MGH SS XXIII, Hannover 1874, 631–950. Chronica collecta a Magno presbytero, ed. W. Wattenbach, MGH SS XVII, Hannover 1861, 439–534. Chronica regia Coloniensis, ed. G. Waitz, MGH SRG [18.], Hannover 1880. Chronicon Montis Sereni, ed. E. Ehrenfeuchter, MGH SS XXIII, Hannover 1874, 130–226. Circaria Bohemiae, abbas Praemonstratensis et capitulum generale 1142–1541, ed. K. Dolista, Analecta Praemonstratensia 63/1987, 221–258. Codex diplomaticus et epistolaris Moraviae II (1200–1240), ed. A. Boček, Olomouc 1839. Codex diplomaticus et epistolaris Moraviae IV (1268–1293), ed. A. Boček, Olomouc 1845. Codex diplomaticus et epistolaris Moraviae V (1294–1306), ed. A. Boček – J. Chytil, Brno 1850. Codex diplomaticus et epistolaris Moraviae VI (1307–1333), eds. P. Ritter von Chlumecky & J. Chytil, Brno 1854. Codex diplomaticus et epistolaris Moraviae VII (1334–1349), eds. P. Ritter von Chlumecky & J. Chytil & V. Brandl, Brno 1858. Codex diplomaticus et epistolaris Moraviae VIII (1350–1355), ed. V. Brandl, Brno 1874. Codex diplomaticus et epistolaris Moraviae X (1367–1375), ed. V. Brandl. Brno 1878. Codex diplomaticus et epistolaris Moraviae XIV (1408–1411), ed. B. Bretholz, Brno 1903. Codex diplomaticus et epistolaris regni Bohemiae I (805–1197), ed. G. Friedrich, Pragae 1904–1907. 302 Bibliography

Codex diplomaticus et epistolaris regni Bohemiae II (1198–1230), ed. G. Friedrich, Pragae 1912. Codex diplomaticus et epistolaris regni Bohemiae III/1 (1231–1238), ed. G. Friedrich, Pragae 1943. Codex diplomaticus et epistolaris regni Bohemiae III/2 (1238–1240), ed. Z. Kristen, Pragae 1962. Codex diplomaticus et epistolaris regni Bohemiae IV/1 (1241–1253), eds. J. Šebánek & S. Dušková, Pragae 1962. Codex diplomaticus et epistolaris regni Bohemiae V/1 (1253–1266), eds. J. Šebánek & S. Dušková, Pragae 1974. Codex diplomaticus et epistolaris regni Bohemiae V/2 (1267–1273), eds. J. Šebánek & S. Dušková, Pragae 1981. Codex diplomaticus Ordinis sanctae Mariae Theutonicorum, ed. J.H. Hennes, Mainz 1845. Codex diplomaticus Silesiae II. Urkunden der Klöster Rauden und Himmlewitz und der Dominicanerinnen in der Stadt Ratibor, ed. W. Wattenbach, Breslau 1859. Codex diplomaticus Silesiae VI. Registrum St. Wenceslai. Urkunden vorzüglich zur Geschichte Oberschlesiens nach einem Copialbuch Herzog Johanns von Oppeln und Ratibor in Auszügen mitgetheilt, eds. W. Wattenbach & C. Grünhagen, Breslau 1865. Collectio Reinhardsbrunnensis, ed. F. Peeck, MGH EE V, Weimar 1952. Conradi I., Heinrici I. et Ottonis I. Diplomata, ed. T. von Sickel, MGH DD I, Hannover 1879–1884. Constitutiones et acta publica imperatorum et regum inde ab a. DCCCCXI usque ad a. MCXCVII (911–1197), ed. L. Weiland, MGH Const I, Hannover 1893. Constitutiones et acta publica imperatorum et regum inde ab a. MCXCVIII usque ad a. MCCLXXII (1198–1272), ed. L. Weiland, MGH Const II, Hannover 1896. Continuatio Admuntensis, eds. G.H. Pertz & W. Wattenbach, MGH SS IX, Hannover 1851, 579–593. Continuatio Claustroneoburgensis secunda, ed. W. Wattenbach, MGH SS IX, Hannover 1851, 613–624. Continuatio Claustroneoburgensis tertia, ed. W. Wattenbach, MGH SS IX, Hannover 1851, 628–637. Continuatio Cremifanensis, ed. W. Wattenbach, MGH SS IX, Hannover 1851, 544–549. Continuatio Garstensis, ed. W. Wattenbach, MGH SS IX, Hannover 1851, 593–600. Continuatio Lambacensis, ed. W. Wattenbach, MGH SS IX, Hannover 1851, 556–561. Continuatio Praedicatorum Vindobonensium, ed. W. Wattenbach, MGH SS IX, Hannover 1851, 724–732. Continuatio Sancrucensis prima, ed. W. Wattenbach, MGH SS IX, Hannover 1851, 626–628. Bibliography 303

Continuatio Sancrucensis secunda, ed. W. Wattenbach, MGH SS IX, Hannover 1851, 637–646. Continuatio Zwetlensis altera, eds. G.H. Pertz & W. Wattenbach, MGH SS IX, Hannover 1851, 541–544. Cosmae Pragensis Chronica Boemorum, eds. B. Bretholz & W. Weinberger, MGH SRG NS II, Berlin 1923. Cronica fratris Salimbene de Adam ordinis Minorum, ed. O. Holder-Egger, MGH SS XXXII, Hannover 1905/1913, 1–652. Cronica Reinhardsbrunnensis, ed. O. Holder-Egger, MGH SS XXX/1, Hannover 1896, 490–656. Das Lebenszeugnis Walthers von der Vogelweide. Die Reiserechnung des Passauer Bischofs Wolfger von Erla, ed. H. Heger. Wien 1970, 79–114. Das “Leobschützer Rechtsbuch”, ed. G. Roth, Quellen zur Geschichte und Landeskunde Ostmitteleuropas 5, Marburg 2006. De advocatis Altahensibus, ed. P. Jaffé, MGH SS XVII, Hannover 1861, 373–376. Die Korrespondenz zu den Belvedere-Fresken in Prag, 1842–1866. Zweiter Teil 1849–1860, ed. M. Huig, Bulletin of the National Gallery in Prague 3/4, 1993/1994, 63–71. Diffundente sole, ed. L. Havlík, MMFH II, Brno 1967, 276–283. Eine österreichische Briefsammlung aus der Zeit Friedrichs des Streitbaren, ed. L. Auer, MIÖG 77/1969, 43–77. Einhardi Vita Caroli Magni, ed. O. Holder-Egger, MGH SRG [25.], Hannover, 1911. Ex Chronico Moissiacensi, ed. G.H. Pertz, MGH SS II, Hannover 1829, 257–259. Ex Chronico universali Anonymi Laudunensis, ed. G. Waitz, MGH SS XXVI, Hannover 1882, 442–457. Ex Rigordi Gestis Philippi II. Augusti, ed. A. Molinier, MGH SS XXVI, Hannover 1882, 288–294. Ex Rogeri de Hoveden Chronica, eds. F. Liebermann & R. Pauli, MGH SS XXVII, Hannover 1885, 133–183. Fragmentum chronici ecclesiae cathedralis Olomucensis, ed. M. Švábenský, StR 12/1973, 191–204. Friderici I. Diplomata inde ab anno MCLII. usque ad annum MCLVIII, ed. H. Appelt, MGH DD X/1, Hannover 1975. Friderici I. Diplomata inde ab anno MCLVIII. usque ad annum MCLXVII, ed. H. Appelt, MGH DD X/2, Hannover 1979. Friderici I. Diplomata inde ab anno MCLXVIII. usque ad annum MCLXXX, ed. H. Appelt, MGH DD X/3, Hannover 1985. Friderici I. Diplomata inde ab anno MCLXXXI. usque ad annum MCXC, ed. H. Appelt, MGH DD X/4, Hannover 1990. Friderici II. Diplomata inde ab anno MCCXII. usque ad annum MCCXVII, ed. W. Koch, MGH DD XIV/2, Hannover 2007. 304 Bibliography

Friderici II. Diplomata inde ab anno MCCXIII. usque ad annum MCCXX, ed. W. Koch, MGH DD XIV/3, Hannover 2010. Galli Anonymi Cronicae et Gesta ducum sive principum Polonorum, ed. K. Maleczyński, MPH NS II, Kraków 1952. Genealogia Wettinensis, ed. E. Ehrenfeuchter, MGH SS XXIII, Hannover 1874, 226–230. Gerlaci abbatis Milovicensis Annales, ed. J. Emler, FRB II, Praha 1875, 461–516. Gesta episcoporum Halberstadensium, ed. L. Weiland, MGH SS XXIII, Hannover 1874, 73–123. Gisleberti Chronicon Hanoniense, ed. W. Arndt, MGH SRG [29.], Hannover 1869. Granum catalogi praesulum Moraviae, ed. J. Loserth, AÖG 78/1892, 41–97. Guntheri Parisiensis Ligurinus, ed. J.P. Migne, PL 212, Paris 1854, Col. 327–476. Hermanni abbatis Altahensis Annales, ed. P. Jaffé, MGH SS XVII, Hannover 1861, 381–407. Historia brevis principum Thuringiae, ed. G. Waitz, MGH SS XXIV, Hannover 1879, 819–822. Historia Langobardorum codicis Gothani, ed. G. Waitz, MGH SRL, Hannover 1878, 7–11. Hugonis et Honorii Chronicorum Continuationes Weingartenses, ed. L. Weiland, MGH SS XXI, Hannover 1869, 473–480. Iohannis Codagnelli Annales Placentini, ed. O. Holder-Egger, MGH SRG [23.], Hannover 1901. Iura originalia civitatis Brunensis. Privilegium českého krále Václava I. z ledna roku 1243 pro město Brno [The Privilege of King of Bohemia Wenceslas I of January 1243 for the City of Brno], ed. M. Flodr, Brno 1993. Johannis de Marignola Chronicon, ed. J. Emler, FRB III, Pragae 1882, 487–604. Johannis Neplachonis abbatis Opatovicensis Chronicon, ed. J. Emler, FRB III, Pragae 1882, 445–484. Magdeburger Schöppenchronik, ed. K. Janicke, Die Chroniken der deutschen Städte VII/1, Leipzig 1869. Magistri Vincentii dicti Kadłubek Chronica Polonorum, ed. M. Plezia, MPH NS IX, Kraków 1994. Míšeňská právní kniha. Historický kontext, jazykový rozbor, edice [Meissen Book of Law. Historical Context, Language Analysis, Editions], eds. V. Spáčil & L. Spáčilová, Olomouc 2010. Monachi Sazawiensis continuatio Cosmae, ed. J. Emler, FRB II, Pragae 1874, 238–269. Monumenta Boica. Volumen XXIX edidit Academia scientiarum Boica, Monachii 1831. Monumenta Erphesfurtensia, ed. O. Holder-Egger, MGH SRG [42.], Hannover 1899. Necrologium Bohemo-Silesiacarum, ed. W. Wattenbach, ZVGS 5/1863, 107–115. Necrologium Doxanense, ed. J. Emler, VKČSN 8/1884, 83–144. Necrologium Olomucense, ed. B. Dudík, AÖG 59/1884, 641–657. Necrologium Podlažicense, ed. B. Dudík, DFS, Brünn 1852, 403–427. Bibliography 305

Necrologium Windebergense, MB XIV, Monachium 1784, 90–110. Ottonis III. Diplomata, ed. T. Sickel, MGH DD II/2, Hannover 1893. Ottonis de Sancto Blasio Chronica, ed. A. Hofmeister, MGH SRG [47.], Hannover 1912. Ottonis episcopi Frisingensis Chronica sive Historia de duabus civitatibus, ed. A. Hofmeister, MGH SRG [45.], Hannover 1912. Ottonis et Rahewini Gesta Friderici I. imperatoris, eds. G. Waitz & B. von Simson, MGH SRG [46.], Hannover 1912. Petrus de Ebulo Liber ad honorem Augusti sive de rebus Siculis. Codex 120 II der Bürgerbibliothek Bern. Eine Bilderchronik der Stauferzeit, eds. T. Kölzer & M. Stähli. Textrevision und Übersetzung von G. Becht-Jördens, Sigmaringen 1994. Przibiconis de Radenin dicti Pulkavae Chronicon Bohemiae, eds. J. Emler & J. Gebauer, FRB V, Pragae 1893, 1–207; 209–326. Quemadmodum ex historiis, ed. L. Havlík, MMFH II, Brno 1967, 289–296. Regesta diplomatica nec non epistolaria Bohemiae et Moraviae II 1253–1310, ed. J. Emler, Pragae 1882. Regesta diplomatica nec non epistolaria Bohemiae et Moraviae VII 1358–1363, eds. B. Mendl & M. Linhartová, Pragae 1955–1963. Regesta imperii IV/3. Die Regesten des Kaiserreiches unter Heinrich Heinrich VI. 1165 (1190)–1197. Nach Johann Friedrich Böhmer neubearbeitet von Gerhard Baaken, ed. G. Baaken, Köln/Wien 1972. Regesta imperii V/1. Die Regesten des Kaiserreiches unter Philipp, Otto IV., Heinrich (VII.), Conrad IV., Heinrich Raspe, Wilhelm und Richard 1198–1272. Kaiser und Könige, eds. J.F. Böhmer & J. Ficker, Innsbruck 1881/1901. Regestum domni Innocentii tertii pape super negotio Romani imperii, ed. W. Holtzmann, Bonn 1947. Reginonis abbatis Prumiensis Chronicon, ed. F. Kurze, MGH SRG [50.], Hannover 1890. Reineri Annales, ed. G.H. Pertz, MGH SS XVI, Hannover 1859, 651–680. Romoaldi II. archiepiscopi Salernitani Annales, ed. W. Arndt, MGH SS XIX, Hannover 1866, 387–461. Sachsenspiegel. Landrecht, ed. K.A. Eckhardt, MGH FIG NS I/1,2. Göttingen/Berlin/ Frankfurt 1955/19562. Sächsische Weltchronik, ed. L. Weiland, MGH Deutsche Chroniken II, Hannover 1877, 1–258. Schlesisches Urkundebuch III (1251–1266), ed. W. Irgang, Köln/Wien 1984. Schlesisches Urkundebuch IV (1267–1281), ed. W. Irgang, Köln/Wien 1988. Schlesisches Urkundebuch V (1282–1290), ed. W. Irgang. Köln/Weimar/Wien 1993. Schlesisches Urkundebuch VI (1291–1300), ed. W. Irgang, Köln 1998. Sicardi episcopi Cremonensis Cronica, ed. O. Holder-Egger, MGH SS XXXI, Hannover 1903, 22–181. 306 Bibliography

Staročeská kronika tak řečeného Dalimila 1–2. Vydání textu a veškerého textového materiálu [The Old Czech Chronicle of the So-Called Dalimil 1–2. Edition of the Text and All Textual Material], eds. J. Daňhelka & K. Hádek & B. Havránek & N. Kvítková, Praha 1988. Statuta Capitulorum Generalium Ordinis Cisterciensis I. Ab anno 1116 ad annum 1220, ed. J.M. Canivez, Louvain 1933. Tempore Michaelis imperatoris (Legenda Moravica), ed. L. Havlík, MMFH II, Brno 1967, 255–268. Thietmari Merseburgensis episcopi Chronicon, ed. R. Holtzmann, MGH SRG NS IX., Hannover 1935. Über Nekrologe der olmützer Domkirche, ed. B. Dudík, AÖG 65/1884, 516–589. Urkundenbuch zur Geschichte der Babenberger in Österreich I, eds. H. Fichtenau & E. Zöllner, Wien 1950. Vincentii canonici Pragensis Annales, ed. J. Emler, FRB II, Pragae 1875, 401–460. Visitacio rerum ecclesie cathedralis Olomucensis, ed. V. Brandl, Method 15/1889, 115–117; 127–129. Vita antiqua (Vita sancti Prokopii antiqua), in: V. Chaloupecký ed., Středověké legendy prokopské. Jejich historický rozbor a texty. Vydání textů dokončil, z dalších rukopisů rozmnožil a kritickým aparátem opatřil Bohumil Ryba [Medieval Legends of St Procopius. Their Historical Analysis and Texts. The edition of the texts has been completed, augmented from other manuscripts and annotated by Bohumil Ryba], Praha 1953, 111–120. Vita sancti Wenceslai auctore Carolo IV., ed. L. Havlík, MMFH II, Brno 1967, 297–298. Walther von der Vogelweide. Werke. 1. Spruchlyrik, ed. G. Schweikle, Stuttgart 1994. Widukindi monachi Corbeiensis Rerum gestarum Saxonicarum libri III, eds. P. Hirsch & H.-E. Lohmann, MGH SRG [60.], Hannover 1935.

Non-Printed Sources Historia de fundatoribus progressis monasterii Gradicensis prope Olomutium siti cum eusdem monasterii dominorum abbatum catalogo authore F. Ioanne Tetzelio Miglicensi, Moravský zemský archiv Brno (Cerroniho sbírka II, sign. 385, fols 19r– 36v) [Moravian Provincial Archives in Brno (Cerroni’s Collection II, shelf mark 385, fols 19r–36v)].

2 Literature

Adamová, K. 1981, ‘K otázce královské hodnosti a panovnické ideologie českého krále Vladislava I’. [On the Issues of the Royalty and Royal Ideology of King of Bohemia Vladislaus I], PHS 24 5–17. Bibliography 307

Althoff, G. 2003, Die Macht der Rituale. Symbolik und Herrschaft im Mittelalter, Darmstadt. Andorfer, E. 1927, ‘Das Mariazeller Tympanonrelief’, Zeitschrift des historischen Vereins für Steiermark 23, 80–88. Appelt, H. 1967, ‘Die Kaiseridee Friedrich Barbarossas’, in: Sitzungsberichte der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse 252, 4. Abhandlung, Wien, 3–32. ———. 1972, ‘Böhmische Königswürde und staufisches Kaisertum’, in: Aus Reichs geschichte und Nordischer Geschichte. K. Jordan zu 65. Geburtstag (Kieler Historische Studien 16), 161–181. ———. 1973, Privilegium minus. Das staufische Kaisertum und die Babenberger in Österreich, Wien/Köln/Graz. Athanasius. 1764, F. Athanasii a S. Josepho Ord. ff. eremit. disc. s. p. Augustini Dissertatio Historico-chronologico genealogica de Henrico marchione Moraviae qui cum sua coniuge ope beatissimae virginis Mariae Cellensis in Styria sanitati restitutus fuit, et ibidem in ejus honorem templum lapideum erexit, Pragae. Bachmann, A. 1899, Geschichte Böhmens. Erster Band. Bis 1400, Gotha (Geschichte der europäischen Staaten 31/1). Baethgen, F. 1913, ‘Die Exkommunikation Philipps von Schwaben’, MIÖG 34, 209–217. Bakala, J. 1969, ‘Holasická provincie a formování opavského vévodství’ [The Holasice Province and the Shaping of the Duchy of Opava], ČSlM B18, 9–23. ———. 1972, ‘Počátky těžby kovů v Nízkém Jeseníku a vznik Horního Benešova’ [The Beginnings of the Mining of Metals in the Nízký Jeseník Mountains and the Foundation of Horní Benešov], ČSlM B21, 161–179. ———. 1973, ‘Monopolizace tržních vztahů a mílové právo ve městech severní Moravy a Opavska do počátku 15. století’ [The Monopolisation of Market Relations and the One-Mile Ban in Towns of North Moravia and the Opava Region before the 15th Century], ČSlM B22, 114–133. ———. 1974a, ‘Počátky města Opavy’ [The Beginnings of the Town of Opava], ČSlM 23 (Zvláštní číslo k 750. výročí města Opavy), 3–24. ———. 1974b, ‘Příspěvek o vývoji měšťanského patriciátu v Opavě. (Opavské domy s právem k výčepu vína)’ [A Contribution to the Development of Urban Patricians in Opava], ČSlM B23, 20–37. ———. 1975, ‘Venkovské statky měst a měšťanů na severní Moravě v předhusitské době’ [Rural Estates of Towns and Burghers in North Moravia in the Pre-Hussite Period], ČSlM B24, 106–118. ———. 1976, ‘Urkundenzeugnisse von der Weichbildverfassung in den mährischen Städten des Magdeburger und Leobschützer Rechtes’, Folia diplomatica 2, 77–86. ———. 1977, ‘Zrod městského zřízení na středověkém Opavsku’ [The Birth of the Urban Establishment in the Medieval Opava Region], ČSlM B26, 97–122. 308 Bibliography

———. 1979, ‘K úloze městského fojta a lokačních listin’ [On the Role of the Town Reeve and Location Documents], FHB 1, 231–237. ———. 1993, ‘K výkladu prvního ustanovení Statut Konráda Oty’ [On the Interpretation of the First Provision of the Statutes of Conrad Otto], in: I. Fuxová ed., Český stát na přelomu 12. a 13. století, Opava, 9–15. ———. 2002, Moravskoslezské pomezí v proměnách 13. věku. Výbor z článků a studií [The Moravian-Silesian Border in the Transformations of the 13th Century. A Selection of Articles and Essays], Brno. Balbín, B. 1677, Epitome Historica rerum Bohemicarum, quam ob venerationem christianae antiquitatis, et primae in Bohemiae collegialis ecclesiae honorem Boleslaviensem historiam placuit appelare authore Bohuslao Balbino e Societate Jesu, Pragae. ———. 1681, Miscellanea Historica regni Bohemiae. Decadis I. Pars II. Miscellaneorum historicorum regni Bohemiae Topographicus et chorographicus, fines et terminos totius Bohemiae. Tum ipsorum distructuum figuras, arces, oppida et urbes authore Bohuslao Balbino e Societate Jesu, Pragae. Barciak, A. 1995, ‘Prezmysł czy Otokar? Z problematyki funkcjonowania dwóch imion władców czeskich w XIII wieku (Przemysł Otokar I)’, in: W. Bukowski, ed., Cracowia – Polonia – Europa, Kraków, 419–425. Bárta, S. 2005, ‘Intinerář moravského markraběte Přemysla (1209–1239)’ [The Itinerary of Margrave of Moravia Přemysl (1209–1239)], SPFFBU C52, 27–55. ———. 2008, ‘Smíření otce se synem. Uzavření sporu krále Václava I. s markrabětem Přemyslem roku 1249’ [The Reconciliation of the Father and Son. The End of the Dispute between King Wenceslas I and Margrave Přemysl in 1249], in: M. Nodl – M. Wihoda, eds, Rituál smíření. Konflikt a jeho řešení ve středověku. Sborník příspěvků z konference konané ve dnech 31. května – 1. června 2007 v Brně, Brno (Edice Země a kultura ve střední Evropě 8), 101–108. Bartlett, R. 1994, The Making of Europe. Conquest, Colonization and Cultural Change 950–1350, Penguin Books London. Bartovský, V. 1909, Vlastivěda moravská II. Místopis Moravy. 3. Jičínský kraj. 20. Hranický okres [The History and Geography of Moravia II. The Topography of Moravia. 3. The Jičín Region. 20. The Hranice District], Brno. Bednara, E. 1931, ‘Aus der frühgeschichte der deutschen Stadt Leobschütz. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Ostens’, in: Beiträge zur Heimatgeschichte Oberschlesiens. Festgabe der Heimatkundlichen Arbeitergemeinschaft des Oberschlesischen Philo logenverbandes zum zehnten Gedenkjahr der Abstimmung in Oberschlesien, Leobschütz, 59–163. ———. 1938/1939, ‘Leobschütz als älteste deutsche Stadtgründung Schlesiens’, Schlesien. Volk und Raum, 262–265. ———. 1939a, ‘Leobschütz und Jägerndorf’, Schlesische Geschichtsblätter, 68–72. Bibliography 309

———. 1939b, ‘Leobschütz’, in: E. Keyser et. al., Deutsches Städtebuch. Handbuch der städtischer Geschichte I. Nordostdeutschland, Stuttgart/Berlin, 799–803. Begert, A. 2003, Böhmen, die böhmische Kur und das Reich vom Hochmittelalter bis zum Ende des Alten Reiches. Studien zur Kurwürde und zur staatsrechtlichen Stellung Böhmens, Hussum (Historische Studien 475). Berger, K. 1915, ‘Der große Střelnawald. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte Nordmährens und ihrer Quellenkunde’, ZVGMS 19, 125–174. Bistřický, J. 1979a, ‘Dva příspěvky k dějinám Olomouce ve 13. století’ [Two Contributions to the History of Olomouc in the 13th Century], Sborník památkové péče v Severomoravském kraji 4, 109–125. ———. 1979b, ‘Ke genezi města v Olomouci’ [On the Genesis of the Town in Olomouc], FHB 1, 225–230. ———. 1986, ‘Na okraji glos k olomouckým otázkám’ [On the Margin of the Commentaries on Olomouc Issues], AH 11, 111–116. ———. 1988, ‘Historický obzor přemyslovského hradu v Olomouci v raném středověku’ [The Historical Horizon of the Přemyslid Castle in Olomouc in the Early Middle Ages], in: J. Bistřický et al., Národní kulturní památka Přemyslovský palác v Olomouci, Olomouc. ———. 1988a, ‘Kdy přišli do Olomouce dominikáni’ [When Did the Dominicans Come to Olomouc?], VVM 40, 368–369. ———. 1990, ‘Listinná tvorba v Olomouci ve 12. století’ [The Charters Issued in Olomouc in the 12th Century], Historická Olomouc a její současné problémy 8, 45–56. ———. 1991, ‘Nápis v ambitu velehradského kláštera’ [The Inscription in the Quadrangular Cloister of the Velehrad Monastery], VVM 43, 211–213. ———. 2006, ‘K tzv. moravskému kancléřství z roku 1207’ [On the So-Called Moravian Chancellery of 1207], VVM 58, 34–41. Bláha, J. – Konečný, L. 1985, ‘K nejstarší historii města Telče’ [On the Earliest History of the Town of Telč], in: J. Sedlá, Uměleckohistorický sborník, Brno, 129–160. Bláhová, M. 1974, ‘Druhé pokračování Kosmovo’ [The Second Continuation of Cosmas], SH 21, 5–39. ———. 1992, ‘Das Werk des Prages Domherrn Vincentius als Quelle für die Italienzüge Friedrich Barbarossas’. Civis studi et testi 16, 149–172. ———. 1993, ‘Letopis milevského opata Jarlocha a jeho pramenná hodnota’ [The Chronicle of Abbot of Milevsko Gerlach and Its Value as a Source], in: I. Fuxová ed., Český stát na přelomu 12. a 13. století, Opava, 35–48. ———. 1999, ‘Cyrilometodějská tradice v českých zemích ve středověku’ [The Cyrillo- Methodian Tradition in the Czech Lands in the Middle Ages], in: A. Barciak, ed., Środkowoeuropejskie dziedzictwo Cyrylo-Metodiańskie, Katowice, 135–148. Blickle, P. 1983, ‘Otto Brunner (1898–1982)’, HZ 236, 779–781. 310 Bibliography

Boldt, H. 1987, ‘Otto Brunner. Zur Teorie der Verfassungsgeschichte’, Annali dell’Istituto storico italo-germanico in Trento 13, 39–61. Borovský, T. 2004, ‘Majetkový vývoj kláštera v Louce do konce 15. století’ [The Property Development of the Monastery in Louka until the End of the 15th Century], JM 43, 21–35. ———. 2005, Kláštery, panovník a zakladatelé na středověké Moravě [The Monasteries, the Ruler and Founders in Medieval Moravia], Brno (Knižnice Matice moravské 16). Bretholz, B. 1897, ‘Ein päpstliches Schreiben gegen Kaiser Otto IV. von 1210 October 30, Lateran’, NA 22, 293–298. ———. 1901, ‘Mocran et Mocran. Zur Kritik der goldenen Bulle König Friedrichs II. für Mähren vom Jahre 1212’, ZVGMS 5, 305–320. ———. 1912, Geschichte Böhmens und Mährens bis zum Aussterben der Přemysliden (1306), München/Leipzig. Brunner, O. 1939a, Land und Herrschaft. Grundfragen der territorialen Verfassungs geschichte Südostdeutschlands im Mittelalter. Wien (Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Geschichtsforschung und Archivwissenschaft in Wien 1). ———. 1939b, ‘Moderner Verfassungsbegriff und mittelalterliche Verfassungs geschichte’, MIÖG Ergänzungsband 14, 513–528. ———. 1973, Land und Herrschaft. Grundfragen der territorialen Verfassungsgeschichte Österreichs im Mittelalter, Darmstadt5. Buchner, T. 2008, ‘Alfons Dopsch (1868–1953). Die “Mannigfaltigkeit der Verhältnisse”’, in: K. Hruza ed., Österreichische Historiker 1900–1945. Lebensläufe und Karrieren in Österreich, Deutschland und der Tschechoslowakei in wissenschaftsgeschichtlichen Porträts, Wien/Köln/Weimar, 677–792. Bünz, E. 2005, ‘Das Land als Bezugsrahmen von Herrschaft, Rechtsordnung und Identitätsbildung. Überlegungen zum spätmitetlalterlichen Landesbegriff’, in: M. Werner ed., Spätmittelalterliches Landesbewusstsein in Deutschland (VuF 61), 53–92. Cach, F. 1972, Nejstarší české mince II. České a moravské mince od mincovní reformy Břetislava I. do doby brakteátové [The Earliest Czech Coins II. Bohemian and Moravian Coins from the Coinage Reform of Bretislaus I until the Bracteate Period], Praha. ———. 1974, Nejstarší české mince III. České a moravské mince doby brakteátové [The Earliest Czech Coins III. Bohemian and Moravian Coins of the Bracteate Period], Praha. Čarek, J. 1934, O pečetech českých knížat a králů z rodu Přemyslova [On the Seals of the Dukes and Kings of Bohemia of Přemysl’s Family], Praha. Cartellieri, A. 1914, Die Schlacht bei Bouvines (27. Juli 1214) im Rahmen der europäischen Politik, Leipzig. Bibliography 311

———. 1932, ‘Das deutsch-französische Bündnis von 1187 und seine Wandlungen’, Historische Vierteljahrschrift 27, 111–123. Čechura, J. 1981, ‘Příspěvek k dějinám velehradského kláštera v éře přemyslovské’ [A Contribution to the History of the Velehrad Monastery in the Přemyslid Period], ČMM 100, 127–141. Cejnková, D. – Měřínský, Z. – Sulitková, L. 1984, ‘K problematice počátků města Brna’ [On the Beginnings of the City of Brno], ČsČH 32, 250–268. Černá, M.L. 1923, ‘Rozvod Přemysla I. s Adélou Míšeňskou’ [The Divorce of Přemysl I and Adelheid of Meissen], ČSPSČ 31, 9–44. Chaloupka, G. 1968/1969, ‘Znojmo do počátku 14. století’ [Znojmo before the Beginning of the 14th Century], ČMorMuz 53/54, 89–137. Charouz, Z. 1987, ‘Macerat gladiator a jeho donace loucké kanonii’ [Macerat Gladiator and His Donation to the Louka Monastery], Ročenka Okresního archivu ve Znojmě 1986, Znojmo, 59–61. ———. 1992, ‘Canonia Lucensis. Počátky a prvních sto let života’ [Canonia Lucensis. The Beginnings and the First Hundred Years of Its Existence], Ročenka Okresního archivu ve Znojmě 1990, Znojmo, 99–107. ———. 1999, ‘Olomoucký klášter u sv. Jakuba’ [The Monastery of St James in Olomouc], in: M. Macková – J. Oppeltová, eds, Slavme chvíli . . . Sborník k 70. narozen- inám Jana Bistřického, Ústí nad Orlicí, 62–68. Charvát, P. 2000, ‘“Dejte mému synáčkovi loveckou trubku mou a kopí”. Co vlastně odkázal umírající Břetislav II. svému dědici’ [‘Give My Little Son My Hunting Horn and Spear’. What the Dying Bretislaus II Actually Bequeathed to His Heir], AHM 5, 167–169. Chroust, A. 1891, ‘Unedierte Königs- und Papst-Urkunden’, NA 16, 135–168. Corner, D.J. 1995, ‘Roger of Howden’, LexMa VII, col. 943. Csendes, P. 1993, Heinrich VI., Darrmstadt. ———. 2003, Philipp von Schwaben. Ein Staufer im Kampf um die Macht, Darmstadt. Dejmek, J. 1991, ‘Děpoltici. K mocenskému postavení a osudům jedné vedlejší větve Přemyslovců’ [The Děpolt Family. The Power Status and Fates of a Side Branch of the Přemyslids], MHB 1, 89–139. Demel, J. 1894, ‘Konrád Ota, první markrabě moravský’ [Conrad Otto, the First Margrave of Moravia], ČMM 18, 38–48; 136–146; 215–225; 298–318. Dobner, G. 1781, Kritische Untersuchung, wann das Land Mähren ein Markgrafthum geworden, und wer dessen ersten Markgraf gewesen sey. Olmütz. ———. 1782, Annalium Hagecianorum. Animadversionibus historico-chronologico-crit- icis emendatorum nec non diplomatibus, re genealogica, numaria, varii que generis antiquis aeri incisis monumentis auctorum pars VI. Studio et opera P. Gelasii Dobner a s. Catharina scholarum piarum sacerdotis profesi, que Bohemiae historiam ab anno Christi MXCIV. usque ad annum MCXCVIII. complecitur. Pragae. 312 Bibliography

Doležel, J. 1995, ‘Ke vzniku a vývoji několika měst střední a severozápadní Moravy (Blansko, Ivančice, Tišnov, Velká Bíteš, Vyškov)’ [On the Origin and Development of Several Towns of Central and North-West Moravia], AH 20, 201–216. ———. 1997, ‘Několik poznámek k dějinám Velké Bíteše ve 13. a 14. století. Městská vrchnost a městský status, duchovní správa’ [A Few Notes on the History of Velká Bíteš in the 13th and 14th Centuries. Municipal Authorities and the Urban Status, Church Administration], in: P. Michna – V. Melida, Z pravěku do středověku. Sborník k 70. narozeninám Vladimíra Nekudy, Brno, 156–163. ———. 1999, ‘Ante aream monasterii sancte Crucis. Klášter v Doubravníku ve světle dosavadních výzkumů’ [Ante aream monasterii sancte Crucis. The Monastery in Doubravník in Light of Recent Research], Pravěk NŘ 8, 321–340. ———. 2000a, ‘Cruciburgensis monetae magister a jeho místo v brněnských dějinách 13. věku’ [Cruciburgensis Monetae Magister and His Place in Brno History in the 13th Century], BMD 15, 13–28. ———. 2000b, ‘K městskému zřízení na středověkém Brněnsku’ [On the Urban Establishment in the Medieval Brno Region], in: Akademie ved Ceske republiky – Archeologicky ustav, Brno a jeho region, Praha/Brno (Mediaevalia archeologica 2), 159–259. Doležel, J. – Sadílek, J. 2004, ‘Středověký důlní komplex v trati Havírna u Štěpánova nad Svratkou. Příspěvek k dějinám těžby stříbra v oblasti severozápadní Moravy ve 13. a 14. století’ [The Medieval Mining Complex at Havírna near Štěpánov nad Svratkou. A Contribution to the History of Silver Mining in the Area of North-West Moravia in the 13th and 14th Centuries], in: K. Nováček ed., Těžba a zpracování drahých kovů: sídelní a technologické aspekty, Praha/Brno/Plzeň (Mediaevalia archeologica 6), 43–119. Dopsch, H. – Brunner, K. – Weltin, M. 1999, Österreichsiche Geschichte 1122–1278. Die Länder und das Reich. Der Ostalpenraum im Hochmitteltater, Wien. Duby, G. 1973, Le dimanche de Bouvines 27. Julliet 1214, Paris. Dudík, B. 1864, Mährens allgemeine Geschichte. III. Vom Jahre 1125 bis zum Jahre 1173, Brünn. ———. 1870, Mährens allgemeine Geschichte V. Vom Jahre 1197 bis zum Schlusse des Jahres 1261, Brünn. ———. 1878a, Dějiny Moravy. V. Od roku 1197 až do roku 1261 [The History of Moravia. V. From 1197 until 1261], Praha. ———. 1878b, Mährens allgemeine Geschichte. VIII. Mährens Kulturstände vom Jahre 1197 bis 1306. Land und Volk, Brünn. Dušková, S. 1947, ‘Velehradský falzátor z pol. 13. století’ [The Velehrad Forger from the Middle of the 13th Century], ČMM 67, 291–307. ———. 1956, ‘Naše listiny doby přemyslovské pro nižší světské feudály a otázka šlechtických archivů’ [Our Charters from the Přemyslid Period for Lower Secular Feudal Lords and the Issue of Aristocratic Archives], SPFFBU C3, 56–77. Bibliography 313

Dvořák, R. 1899/1900, Dějiny Moravy od nejstarších dob až do r. 1848 [The History of Moravia from the Earliest Times until 1848], Brno (Vlastivěda moravská I. Země a lid). Eberhart, H. 2003, ‘Geschichte und Bedeutung Mariazells als Wallfahrtsort’, in: Mariazell und Ungarn. 650 Jahre religiöse Gemeinsamkeit. Referate der internationalen Konferenz “Magna Mater Austriae et Magna Domina Hungarorum” in Esztergom (6.–9. Mai 2002) und Mariazell (3.–6. Juni 2002), Graz/Esztergom, 30–40. Elbel, P. 2002, ‘Hospodářské zázemí kláštera Hradiště u Olomouce v 11. a 12. století’ [The Economic Hinterland of the Monastery Hradiště near Olomouc in the 11th and 12th Centuries], in: L. Jan – P. Obšusta, eds, Ve stopách svatého Benedikta. Sborník příspěvků z konference Středověké kláštery v zemích Koruny české konané ve dnech 24.–25. května 2001 v Třebíči, Brno (Disputationes Moravicae 3), 39–56. Engels, O. 1996, ‘Der Niederrhein und das Reich im 12. Jahrhundert’, in: O. Engels, Stauferstudien. Beiträge zur Geschichte der Staufer im 12. Jahrhundert, Sigmaringen2, 177–199. Erkens, F.-R. 2002, Kurfürsten und Königswahl. Zur neuen Theorien über den Königswahl paragraphen im Sachsenspiegel und die Entstehung des Kurfürstenkollegiums, Hannover (MGH Studien und Texte 30). Erlen, P. 1992, Europäischer Landesausbau und mittelalterliche deutsche Ostsiedlung. Ein struktureller Vergleich zwischen Südwestfrankreich, den Niederlanden und dem Ordensland Preussen, Marburg/Lahn (Historische und landeskundliche Ostmitteleuropa-Studien 9). Fell, H. 2003, ‘Die Wallfahrtskirche Unserer lieben Frau in Mariazell. Ein kurzer Überblick über die Bau- und Ausstattungsgeschichte’, in: Mariazell und Ungarn. 650 Jahre religiöse Gemeinsamkeit. Referate der internationalen Konferenz „Magna Mater Austriae et Magna Domina Hungarorum“ in Esztergom (6.–9. Mai 2002) und Mariazell (3.–6. Juni 2002), Graz/Esztergom, 54–60. Fiala, Z. 1961, ‘Princeps rusticorum’, Zápisky z katedry československých dějin a archivního studia 5, 31–42. ———. 1970, ‘Die Urkunde Kaiser Friedrichs I. für den böhmischen Fürsten Vladislav II. vom 18. I. 1158 und das “Privilegium minus” für Österreich’, MIÖG 78, 167–192. ———. 1975, Přemyslovské Čechy. Panovník, stát a společnost v letech 995–1310 [Přemyslid Bohemia. The Ruler, the State and Society in 995–1310], Praha. Fichtenau, H. 1975, ‘Akkon, Zyppern und das Lösegeld für Richard Löwenherz’, in: H. Fichtenau, Beiträge zur Mediävistik. Ausgewählte Aufsätze. Erster Band: Allgemeine Geschichte, Stuttgart 239–258. ———. 1965, Von der Mark zum Herzogtum. Grundlagen und Sinn des „Privilegium minus“ für Österreich, Wien2. Fischel, A. 1906, Mährens staatsrechtliches Verhältnis zum Deutschen Reiche und zu Böhmen im Mittelalter, Wien (Studien zur Österreichischen Reichsgeschichte). 314 Bibliography

Fišer, R. 2004, Třebíč. Z historie benediktinského opatství [Třebíč. From the History of the Benedictine Abbey], Třebíč. Florovskij, A.V. 1935, Čechi i vostočnyje Slavjane. Očerki po istorii češsko-russkich otnošenij (X–XVIII vv.), Praha (Práce Slovanského ústavu v Praze 13). Freytag, H.-J. 1969, ‘Der Nordosten des Reiches nach dem Sturz Heinrichs des Löwen. Bischof Waldemar von Schleswig und das Ezbistum Bremen (1192/93)’, DA 25, 471–530. Fried, J. 1982, ‘Der karolingische Herrschaftsverband im 9. Jahrhundert zwischen “Kirche” und “Königshaus”’, HZ 235, 1–43. ———. 2008, Das Mittelalter. Geschichte und Kultur, München. Friedrich, G. 1897a, ‘Kodex Tišnovský. Příspěvek k poznání novověkých padělků v moravském diplomatáři’ [The Tišnov Codex. A Contribution to the Identification of Modern Forgeries in the Codex Diplomaticus et Epistolaris Moraviae], ČČH 3, 359–372. ———. 1897b, ‘O kanceláři a listinách markrabí moravských Vladislava a Přemysla (1198–1239). Příspěvek k české diplomatice’ [On the Chancery and Charters of Margraves of Moravia Vladislaus and Přemysl (1198–1239). A Contribution to Czech Diplomatics], VKČSN, třída filosoficko-historicko-jazyková IX, 1896, Praha 1–43. Fritze, W.H. 1982, ‘Corona regni Bohemiae. Die Entstehung des böhmischen Königtums im 12. Jahrhundert im Widerspiel vom Kaiser, Fürst und Adel’, in: W. Fritze – L. Kuchenbuch, Frühzeit zwischen Ostsee und Donau. Ausgewählte Beiträge zum geschichtlichen Werden in östlichen Mitteleuropa vom 6. bis zum 13. Jahrhundert, Berlin (Germania Slavica III/6), 209–296. Geary, P., J. 2002, Europäische Völker im frühen Mittelalter. Zur Legende vom Werden der Nationen, Frankfurt. Georgi, W. 1990, Friedrich Barbarossa und die auswärtigen Mächte. Studien zur Außenpolitik 1159–1180, Peter Lang Verlag 1990 (Europäische Hochschulschriften III/442). Goerlitz, T. 1937a, ‘Das Leobschützer Recht’, Der Oberschlesier 19, 380–389. ———. 1937b, ‘Das flämische und das fränkische Recht in Schlesien und ihr Widerstand gegen das sächsische Recht’, ZRG GA 57, 138–181. Goll, J. 1891, ‘Přemysla Otakara II. druhá výprava křížová a plán povýšiti biskupství Olomoucké na arcibiskupství’ [The Second Crusade of Přemysl Otakar II and the Plan to Raise the Bishopric of Olomouc to an Archbishopric], ČMM 15, 102–109. Görich, K. 2011, Friedrich Barbarossa. Eine Biographie, München. Graus, F. 1975, ‘Die Problematik der deutschen Ostsiedlung aus tschechischer Sicht’, in: W. Schlesinger ed., Die deutsche Ostsiedlung des Mittelalters als Problem der europäischen Geschichte, Sigmaringen (VuF 18), 31–75. ———. 1986, ‘Verfassungsgeschichte des Mittelalters’, HZ 243, 529–589. Bibliography 315

Gregerová, M. – Procházka, R. 1998, ‘Erste Ergebnisse naturwissenschaftlicher Untersuchungen an Graphittonkeramik aus Brno (Brünn)’, in: L. Poláček ed., Frühmittelalterliche Graphittonkeramik in Mitteleuropa. Naturwissenschaftliche Keramikuntersuchungen, Brno, 275–278. Hageneder, O. 1987, ‘Der Landesbegriff bei Otto Brunner’, Annali dell´Istituto storico italo-germanico in Trento 13, 153–178. Haidacher, A. 1958/1960, ‘Über den Zeitpunkt der Exkommunikation Ottos IV. durch Papst Innozenz III.’, Römische Historische Mitteilungen 3, 132–185. ———. 1960/1961, ‘Zur Exkommunikation Ottos IV. durch Papst Innozenz III.’, Römische Historische Mitteilungen 4, 26–36. Hechberger, W. 1996, Staufer und Welfen 1125–1190. Zur Verwendung von Theorien in der Geschichtswissenschaft, Köln/Weimar/Wien (Passauer historische Forschungen 10). Heger, H. 1970, Das Lebenszeugnis Walthers von der Vogelweide. Die Reiserechnungen des Passauer Bischofs Wolfger von Erla, Wien. Heinrich, J. 1956, ‘Kaiser Heinrich VI. und die Besetzung der deutschen Bistümer von seiner Kaiserkrönung bis zur Eroberung Siziliens’, Römische Quartalschrift 51, 189–227. Hertel, J. 1980, Imiennictwo dynastii piastowskiej we wcześniejszym średniowieczu [The Names of the Piast Dynasty in the Early Middle Ages], Warszawa/Poznań/ Toruń. Hilpert, H.-E. 1982, ‘Zwei Briefe Kaiser Ottos IV. an Johann Ohneland’, DA 38, 123–140. Hilsch, P. 1969, Die Bischöfe von Prag in der frühen Stauferzeit. Ihre Stellung zwischen Reichs- und Landesgewalt von Daniel I. (1148–1167) bis Heinrich (1182–1197). München. Hintze, O. 1970, ‘Wesen und Wandlung des moderen Staates’, in: O. Hintze, Staat und Verfassung. Gesammelte Abhandlungen zur moderen Verfassungsgeschichte, Göttingen3, 470–496. Hirsch, H. 1940, ‘Das Recht der Königserhebung durch Kaiser und Papst im hohen Mittelalter’, in: Festschrift Ernst Heymann. Mit Unterstützung der Rechts- und Staatswissenschaftlichen Fakultät der Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität zu Berlin und der Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften zum 70. Geburtstag am 6. April 1940, Weimar, 191–208. Hlaváček, I. 1990, ‘Olomouc jako místo vydání a olomoučtí vydavatelé a příjemci v našich listinách do r. 1253’ [Olomouc as the Place of Issue and the Olomouc Publishers and Recipients in Our Charters before 1253], Historická Olomouc a její současné problémy 8, 65–72. ———. 1996, ‘Ještě jednou – a ani to možná ne naposledy – Mocran et Mocran’ [Once Again – And Perhaps Still Not for the Last Time – Mocran et Mocran], in: M. Polívka – F. Šmahel, eds, In memoriam Josefa Macka (1922–1991), Praha, 45–51. Hoffmann, F. 1983, ‘Brněnské městské právo’ [Brno Town Law], in: F. Zřdkavesely – V. Pesa, Brno mezi městy střední Evropy, Brno, 166–180. 316 Bibliography

Holub, M. 2005, ‘Nakolik mohly chudé, stříbro obsahující rudy zajímat prospektory v polovině 13. století?’ [To What Extent Could the Poor, Silver-Containing Ores Be of Interest to Prospectors in the Middle of the 13th Century?], AR 57, 573–580. Holzapfel, T. 1991, Papst Innozenz III., Philipp II. August, König von Frankreich und die englisch-welfische Verbindung 1198–1216, Peter Lang Verlag (Europäische Hoch schulschriften III/460). Horák, P. 1961, ‘K statutům Konráda Oty’ [On the Statutes of Conrad Otto], SbMM (ČMM) 80, 267–280. Horna, R. 1926, Několik kapitol z dějin údělných knížat na Moravě. Příspěvek k ústavním dějinám moravským do konce XII. století [Several Chapters from the History of Appanage Dukes in Moravia. A Contribution to the Constitutional History of Moravia before the End of the 12th Century], Bratislava (Knihovna Právnické fakulty University Komenského v Bratislavě 14). ———. 1929, K dějinám centralisace Moravy na počátku XIII. století [On the History of the Centralisation of Moravia at the Beginning of the 13th Century], Bratislava (Sborník Právnické fakulty University Komenského v Bratislavě 14). Horsák, A. 1938, ‘Záhadný nápis náhrobku na Velehradě’ [The Mysterious Inscription on the Tomb in Velehrad], in: B. Bocek, Podzemní Velehrad, Velehrad, 52–57. Hosák, L. 1936, ‘Příspěvky k starému rodopisu moravskému. II. Erb tří leknových lupenů’ [Contributions to the Old Moravian Genealogy. II. The Coat of Arms of Three Water-Lily Leaves], ČSPSČ 44, 136–140. ———. 1955, ‘Kritické poznámky k moravské středověké analistice’ [Critical Notes on the Moravian Medieval Production of Annals], Sborník VŠP v Olomouci Historie 2, 77–89. ———. 1959, ‘Územní rozsah hradských obvodů moravských v 11. až 13. století’ [The Territorial Extent of Moravian Castle Districts in the 11th–13th Century], in: J. Hrabák – J. Polišenský, Pocta Zdeňku Nejedlému, Olomouc, 141–151. ———. 1960, ‘Uhersko-kumánský vpád na Moravu r. 1253’ [The Hungarian-Cuman Invasion of Moravia in 1253], AUPO Historica 1, 279–285. ———. 1973, ‘Středověká mezinárodní obchodní cesta jižní Moravou’ [The Medieval International Trade Route through South Moravia], JM 9, 143–147. Hroch, M. – Třeštík, D. 1960, ‘Feudalismus v pojetí O. Brunnera’ [Feudalism in the Conception of O. Brunner], ČsČH 8, 710–717. Hrubý, F. 1947, Severní Morava v dějinách [North Moravia in History], Brno. Hrubý, V. 1936, Tři studie k české diplomatice. Z rukopisu připravil k tisku J. Šebánek [Three Essays on Czech Diplomatics. Prepared by J. Šebánek from the manuscript for printing], Brno (Spisy Filosofické fakulty Masarykovy university v Brně 42). Hucker, B.U. 1990, Kaiser Otto IV., Hannover (MGH Schriften 34). ———. 1998a, ‘Der Königsmord von 1208 – Privatrache oder Staatsstreich?’ in: U. Vorwerk – E. Schurr, Die Andechs-Meranier in Franken. Europäisches Fürstentum im Hochmittelalter, Mainz, 111–127. Bibliography 317

———. 1998b, ‘Die Proskriptionsliste Ottos IV. von 1209’, in: U. Vorwerk – E. Schurr, Die Andechs-Meranier in Franken. Europäisches Fürstentum im Hochmittelalter, Mainz, 309–310, No. 3.7. ———. 2003, Otto IV. Der wiederentdeckte Kaiser, Frankfurt am Main/Leipzig. Huig, M. 1996a, ‘Cyklus maleb v Královském letohrádku aneb neúspěšné počátky mon- umentálního malířství v Čechách’ [The Cycle of Paintings in the Royal Summer Palace or the Unsuccessful Beginnings of Monumental Painting in Bohemia], in: V. Vlnas, et. al., Historická malba v Čechách. Škola Christiana Rubena, Praha, 13–24. ———. 1996b, ‘Der österreichische Statt und die böhmische Historienmalerei, 1810– 1848’, in: Z. Hojda – R. Prahl, eds, Český lev a rakouský orel v 19. století. Sborník příspěvků ze stejnojmenného sympozia, pořádaného ve dnech 10.–12. března 1994 ve Státní vědecké knihovně v Plzni Národní galerií v Praze ve spolupráci s Rakouským kulturním institutem v Praze a Rakouským ústavem pro střední a jihovýchodní Evropu, odbočka v Brně, Praha, 288–296. ———. 1999, ‘Palackého návrh historického freskového cyklu, 1847’ [Palacký’s Proposal for a Cycle of Historical Frescoes, 1847], in: F. Šmahel – E. Doležalová, eds, František Palacký 1798/1998. Dějiny a dnešek. Sborník z jubilejní konference, Praha 1999, 31–41. Hurt, R. 1934, Dějiny cisterciáckého kláštera na Velehradě I. 1205–1650 [The History of the Cistercian Monastery at Velehrad I. 1205–1650], Olomouc. ———. 1938, Dějiny cisterciáckého kláštera na Velehradě II. 1650–1784 [The History of the Cistercian Monastery at Velehrad II. 1650–1784], Olomouc. ———. 1969, Kostel Nanebevzetí Panny Marie v Brně-Zábrdovicích [The Church of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary in Brno-Zábrdovice], Brno (VVM 21, Příloha 1. čísla). Jan, L. 1988, ‘Slavkov u Brna a vznik komendy řádu německých rytířů’ [Slavkov u Brna and the Foundation of the Commandery of the Order of the Teutonic Knights], ČMM 107, 265–278. ———. 1992, ‘Ivanovice na Hané, Orlovice a johanitský řád’ [Ivanovice na Hané, Orlovice and the Order of St John], ČMM 111, 199–225. ———. 1997, ‘Několik poznámek k nejstarší církevní organizaci na Znojemsku’ [Several Notes on the Earliest Church Organisation in the Znojmo Region], ČMM 116, 39–51. ———. 2000, Vznik zemského soudu a správa středověké Moravy [The Establishment of the Provincial Court and the Administration of Medieval Moravia], Brno (Knižnice Matice moravské 6). ———. 2003, ‘Počátky moravského křesťanství a církevní správa do doby husitské’ [The Beginnings of Moravian Christianity and Church Administration in the Hussite Period], XXVII. Mikulovské sympozium 2002, Brno (Vývoj církevní správy na Moravě 9.–10. října 2002), 7–20. ———. 2004, ‘Causa Cruciburgensis monetae magister rediviva’, AR 56, 393–400. 318 Bibliography

———. 2006, Václav II. a struktury panovnické moci [Wenceslas II and the Structures of Royal Power], Brno (Knižnice Matice moravské 18). ———. 2008, ‘Domácí šlechtická opozice a přemyslovští králové 13. věku’ [Domestic Aristocratic Opposition and the Přemyslid Kings of the 13th Century], in: M. Nodl – M. Wihoda, eds, Rituál smíření. Konflikt a jeho řešení ve středověku. Sborník příspěvků z konference konané ve dnech 31. května – 1. června 2007 v Brně, Brno (Edice Země a kultura ve střední Evropě 8), 85–100. Janiš, D. 2003, ‘Marchionatum Moravie in feudum donamus. Morava v lenních vztazích ve 13. a 14. století’ [Marchionatum Moravie in Feudum Donamus. Moravia in Feudal Relations in the 13th and 14th Centuries], in: T. Borovský – L. Jan – M. Wihoda, eds, Ad vitam et honorem. Profesoru Jaroslavu Mezníkovi přátelé a žáci k pětasedmdesátým narozeninám, Brno, 273–288. Jasiński, K. 1981, ‘Studia nad genealogią czeskich Dypoldowiczów’ [Essays on the Genealogy of the Bohemian Děpolt Family], Śląski kwartalnik historyczny Sobótka 36, 59–67. Joachimová, J. 1968, ‘Fundace královny Konstancie a pražské statky řádu německých rytířů. K 30. výročí úmrtí Josefa Pekaře’ [The Foundations by Queen Constance and the Prague Estates of the Order of the Teutonic Knights. On the 30th anniversary of the death of Josef Pekař], Umění 16, 495–501. Jordan, K. 1974, ‘Staufer und Kapetinger im 12. Jahrhundert’, Francia 2, 136–151. Kalistová, J. 1968, ‘Majetkové poměry řádu německých rytířů v českých zemích v 1. polovině 13. století’ [The Property Situation of the Order of the Teutonic Knights in the Czech Lands in the First Half of the 13th Century], in: L. Hosák, Sborník prací k sedmdesátinám universitního profesora PhDr. Ladislava Hosáka, Olomouc, 23–29. Kejř, J. 1969, ‘Zwei Studien über die Anfänge der Städteverfassung in den böhmischen Ländern’, Historica 16, 81–142. ———. 1972, ‘Burgus und burgensis in den böhmischen Ländern’, in: E. Ennen – W. Besch, Die Stadt in der europäischen Geschichte. Festschrift Edith Ennen, Bonn, 210–233. ———. 1975, ‘Die Anfänge der Stadtverfassung und des Stadtrechts in den Böhmischen Ländern’, in: W. Schlesinger ed., Die deutsche Ostsiedlung des Mittelalters als Problem der europäischen Geschichte, Sigmaringen (VuF 18), 439–470. ———. 1976a, ‘Nad počátky našich měst’ [On the Origins of Our Towns], ČsČH 24, 377–399. ———. 1976b, ‘Päpstliche Urkunden und Anfänge des Städtewesens in Böhmen und Mähren’, Folia diplomatica 2, 51–63. ———. 1978, ‘O tzv. bezprostřední podřízenosti Moravy říši’ [On the So-Called Immediate Subordination of Moravia to the Empire], SAP 28, 233–285. ———. 1979, ‘Městské zřízení v českém státě ve 13. století’ [The Urban Establishment in the Czech State in the 13th Century], ČsČH 27, 226–251. Bibliography 319

———. 1987, ‘Trhy a trhové vsi v Čechách a na Moravě’ [Markets and Market Villages in Bohemia and Moravia], PHS 28, 9–41. ———. 1990a, ‘Korunovace krále Vladislava II’. [The Coronation of King Vladislaus II], ČČH 88, 641–659. ———. 1990b, ‘Ursprung und Entwicklung von Stadt- und Marktrecht in Böhmen und Mähren’, Bohemia 31, 270–282. ———. 1991, ‘O říšském knížectví pražského biskupa’ [On the Imperial Principality of the Bishop of Prague], ČČH 89, 481–491. ———. 1992, ‘Böhmen und das Reich unter Friedrich I’. in: A. Haverkampf, ed., Friedrich Barbarossa. Handlungsspielräume und Wirkungsweisen des staufischen Kaisers, Sigmaringen (VuF 40), 241–289. ———. 1994, ‘Böhmen zur Zeit Friedrich Barbarossas’, in: E. Engel – B. Töpfer, eds, Kaiser Friedrich Barbarossa. Landesausbau – Aspekte seiner Politik – Wirkung, Weimar, 101–113. ———. 1998, Vznik městského zřízení v českých zemích [The Origin of the Urban Establishment in the Czech Lands], Praha. Kempf, F. 1954, Papsttum und Kaisertum bei Innocenz III. Die geistigen und rechtlichen Grundlagen seiner Thronstreitpolitik, Rom (Miscellanea Historiae Pontificiae 19). ———. 1985, ‘Innocenz und der deutsche Thronstreit’, Archivum Historiae Pontificiae 23, 63–91. Kernbach, A. 2009, ‘Vladislav II. a odboj v roce 1142 očima pražského kanovníka Vincencia’ [Vladislav II and the Revolt of 1142 as Perceived by the Canon of Prague Vincentius], in: M. Mašek – P. Sommer – J. Žemlička, eds, Vladislav II., druhý král z Přemyslova rodu. K 850. výročí jeho korunovace, Praha, 28–39. ———. 2010, Vincenciova a Jarlochova kronika v kontextu svého vzniku. K dějepisectví přemyslovského období [Vladislav II and the Revolt of 1142 as Perceived by the Canon of Prague Vincentius], Brno (Knižnice Matice moravské 28). Kirmse, E. 1909, ‘Die Reichspolitik Hermanns I., Landgrafen von Thüringen und Pfalzgrafen von Sachsen (1190–1217)’, Zeitschrift des Vereins für Thüringische Geschichte und Altertumskunde NF 19, 317–348. ———. 1911, ‘Die Reichspolitik Hermanns I., Landgrafen von Thüringen und Pfalzgrafen von Sachsen (1190–1217)’, Zeitschrift des Vereins für Thüringische Geschichte und Altertumskunde NF 20, 1–42. Klápště, J. 1994a, Paměť krajiny středověkého Mostecka [The Memory of the Landscape of the Medieval Most Region], Most. ———. 1994b, ‘Změna. Středověká transformace a její předpoklady, Mediaevalia’ [A Change. Medieval Transformation and Its Prerequisites, Mediaevalia], PA Supplementum 2, Praha (Archeologica Bohemica 1993), 9–59. ———. 2012, The Czech Lands in Medieval Transformation, Leiden/Boston (East Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 450–1450 17). 320 Bibliography

Kleiber, H. 1864, Geschichte der Stadt Leobschütz. I. Leobschütz unter den Herrschern des böhmisch-mährischen Reiches bis zum Tode Otakar´s II. Leobschütz (Jahres bericht zu der öffentlichen Prüfung aller Klassen des Königlichen Gymnasiums zu Leobschütz). Klingelhöfer, E. 1955, Die Reichsgesetze von 1220, 1231/1232 und 1235. Ihr Werden und ihre Wirkung im deutschen Staat Friedrichs II. Weimar (Quellen und Studien zur Verfassungsgeschichte des Deutschen Reiches in Mittelater und Neuzeit 8/2). Köbler, G. 1969, ‘Land und Herrschaft im Frühmittelalter’, ZRG GA 86, 1–40. Koch, B. 1968, ‘Sacrum Imperium. Bemerkungen zur Herausbildung der staufischen Herrschaftsideologie’, ZfG 16, 596–614. ———. 1976, ‘Bedeutung und Funktion des Wiener Pfennings in Mähren im 13. Jahrhundert’, in: Jiř Sejbal – Numismatické Symposium, Sborník II. numismatického symposia 1969. K problematice moravského mincovnictví 13. století, Brno (NM V), 172–179. ———. 1986, ‘Das österreichische Münzewesen des 12. Jahrhunderts und seine Beziehung zu Mähren’, in: Jiř Sejbal – Numismatické Symposium, Denárová měna na Moravě. Sborník III. numismatického symposia 1979. Ekonomicko-peněžní situace na Moravě v období vzniku a rozvoje feudalismu (8.–12. století), Brno (NM VI), 280–284. Kohoutek, J. 2003, ‘Předběžná zpráva o zjišťovacím archeologickém výzkumu v presbytáři kostela Neposkvrněného početí Panny Marie ve Starém městě u Bruntálu v roce 2002’ [A Preliminary Report on the Archaeological Survey in the Presbytery of the Church of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary in Staré Město near Bruntál in 2002], Sborník bruntálského muzea, 3–16. ———. 2004, ‘Výzkum v presbytáři kostela Neposkvrněného početí Panny Marie ve Starém Městě u Bruntálu v roce 2002’ [Reasearch in the Presbytery of the Church of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary in Staré Město near Bruntál in 2002], AH 29, 493–504. Konečný, L. 1989, ‘Znojemský karner’ [The Znojmo Ossuary], JM 28, 103–114. Körmendy, A. 1995, Melioratio terrae. Vergleichende Untersuchung über die Siedlungsbewegung im östlichen Mitteleuropa im 13.–14. Jahrhundert, Poznań. Koss, R. 1927, ‘Mocran et Mocran’, Zvláštní otisk ze Zpráv českého zemského archivu VII, Praha. ———. 1928, Archiv Koruny české I/2. Katalog listin z let 1158–1346 [The Archives of the Bohemian Crown I/2. A Catalogue of Charters from 1158–1346], Praha. Kötzschke, R. 1941, Die Anfänge des deutschen Rechtes in der Siedlungsgeschichte des Ostens. Ius teutonicum, Leipzig (Berichte über die Verhandlungen des Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig. Philologisch-historische Klasse 93/1941). Kouřil, P. 2011, Soubor terakotových reliéfně zdobených dlaždic z kláštera Panny Marie a sv. Jiří ve Střelné [A Set of Relief-Decorated Terracotta Floor Tiles from the Bibliography 321

Monastery of the Virgin Mary and St George in Střelná], in: E. Dolezalova – P. Meduna, Co můj kostel dnes má, nemůže kníže odníti. Věnováno Petru Sommerovi k životnímu jubileu, Praha, 145–152. Kouřil, P. – Prix, D. – Wihoda, M. 1998, ‘Středověké fortifikace a “Jesenická stezka” v údolí Černé Opavy’ [Medieval Fortifications and the ‘Jeseníky Path’ in the Valley of the Černá Opava], AH 23, 111–131. ———, Hrady českého Slezska [The Castles of Czech Silesia], Brno/Opava. Krejčík, T. 1986, ‘Ikonografie moravských denárů’ [The Iconography of Moravian Denars], in: J. Sejbal – Numismatické Symposium, Denárová měna na Moravě. Sborník prací z III. numismatického symposia 1979. Ekonomicko-peněžní situace na Moravě v období vzniku a rozvoje feudalismu (8.–12. století), Brno (NM VI), 369–377. ———. 1990, ‘Obrazy olomouckých denárů 11. a 12. století’ [The Depictions on the Olomouc Denars of the 11th and 12th Centuries], Historická Olomouc a její současné problémy 8 (Tématický sborník příspěvků zaměřených na problematiku kultury v Olomouci 10.–13. století s přihlédnutím k širším vývojovým a územním souvislo- stem), 113–121. Krejčíková, J. 1995, ‘Nejstarší městská pečeť’ [The Earliest Town Seal], Náš domov 4, No 11, 1, 3. Krejčíř, M. – Štrejn, Z. 1962, ‘K historii dolování stříbra u Deblína’ [On the History of Silver Mining near Deblín], BMD 4, 195–199. Kristen, Z. 1962, ‘Pamětní záznamy kostela olomouckého a kláštera louckého. Příspěvek k diplomatice česko-moravských aktů’ [Memorial Records of the Olomouc Church and the Louka Monastery. A Contribution to the Diplomatics of the Bohemian- Moravian Acts], AUPO Historica 3, 183–192. Krmíčková, H. 1997, ‘K posloupnosti louckých opatů ve 13. století’ [On the Succession of Louka Abbots in the 13th Century], ČMM 116, 53–65. Kroupa, P. 1997, ‘Premonstráti v Louce – dějiny kláštera’ [The Premonstratensians at Louka – The History of the Monastery], in: P. Kroupa, Premonstrátský klášter v Louce. Dějiny – umělecká výzdoba – ikonologie, Znojmo. Krzemieńska, B. 1985, Moravští Přemyslovci ve znojemské rotundě [The Moravian Přemyslids in the Znojmo Rotunda], Ostrava. Küchler, W. 1964, Das Bannmeilrecht. Ein Beitrag der mittelalterlichen Ostsiedlung zur wirtschaftlichen und rechtlichen Verschränkungen von Stadt und Land, Würzburg (Marburger Ostforschung 24). Kulecki, M. 1984, ‘Ceremoniał intronizacyjny Przemyslidów w X–XIII wieku’ [The Enthronement Ceremony of the Přemyslids in the 10th–13th Centuries], Przegląd Historyczny 75, 441–450. Kuthan, J. 1988, ‘Poklady cisterciáckých klášterů v Čechách a na Moravě’ [The Treasures of Cistercian Monasteries in Bohemia and Moravia], Umění 36, 127–141. 322 Bibliography

Kuthen, M. 1539, Kronika o založenij Zemie Cžeske, prwnich obywatelijch gegich, tudijž o Knijžatech a Kralych y gich činech a přijbězých welmi kratce z mnohých Kronykářúw sebraná [The Chronicle of the Foundation of the Land of Bohemia, of Its First Inhabitants, Hence of the Dukes and Kings and Their Deeds and Stories Very Briefly Collected from Various Chronicles], W Starém Miestě Pražském w Patek Den Swatého Antonina Léta Páně [In the Old Prague City, on Friday, Day of Saint Anthony, AD]. Latzke, W. 1924/1925, ‘Drei Lichtenwerdener Urkunden aus dem XIII. und XIV. Jahrhundert’, ZGKS 18, 74–76. ———. 1930/1933, ‘Die Anfänge der Stadt Bennisch’, ZGKS 20, 34–37. ———. 1938, ‘Die Besiedlung des Oppalandes im 12. und 13. Jahrhundert’, ZVGS 72, 44–135. Laudage, J. 1997, Alexander III. und Friedrich Barbarossa, Köln/Weimar/Wien (Forschungen zur Kaiser- und Papstgeschichte des Mittelalters. Beihefte zu J.F. Böhmer, Regesta Imperii 16). Lechner, K. 1996, Die Babenberger. Markgrafen und Herzoge von Österreich 976–1246, Wien/Köln/Weimar6. Leminger, E. 1912, Královská mincovna v Kutné Hoře [The Royal Mint in Kutná Hora], Praha. Lhotsky, A. 1957, Privilegium Maius. Die Geschichte einer Urkunde, Wien. Loserth, J. 1882, ‘Das angebliche Senioratsgesetz des Herzogs Břetislaw I. und die böh- mische Succession in der Zeit des nationalen Herzogthums. Ein Beitrag zur altböh- mischen Rechtsgeschichte’, AÖG 64, 1–78. Ludvíkovský, J. 1973/1974, ‘Latinské legendy českého středověku’ [Latin Legends of the Czech Middle Ages], SPFFBU E18/19, 267–302. Mayer, T. 1939, ‘Die Ausbildung der Grundlagen des moderen Staates im hohen Mittelalter’, HZ 159, 457–487. McKitterick, R. 2008, Charlemagne. The Formation of a European Identity, Cambridge. Menzel, J.J. 1977, Die schlesische Lokationsurkunden des 13. Jahrhundert. Studien zum Urkundenwesen, zur Siedlungs-, Rechts- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte einer ostdeutschen Landschaft im Mittelalter, Würzburg. Měřínský, Z. 1980, ‘Středověké zbraně z okolí Loděnic, okres Znojmo’ [Medieval Weapons from around Loděnice, the Znojmo District], AR 32, 36–46. Mezník, J. 1999, Lucemburská Morava 1310–1423 [Luxemburg Moravia in 1310–1423], Praha. Michałowski, R. 2005, Zjazd gnieźnieński. Religijne przesłanki powstania arcybiskupstwa gnieźnieńskiego [The Congress in Gniezno. The Religious Conditions Giving Rise to the Archbishopric of Gniezno], Wrocław. Michna, P. – Pojsl, M. 1988, Románský palác na Olomouckém hradě [The Romanesque Palace at the Olomouc Castle]. Brno. Bibliography 323

Mikulla, L. 2003, Fürstenopposition gegen die Reichsgewalt im 12. Jahrhundert, Marburg (Diplomatica 12). Minsberg, F. 1828, Geschichte der Stadt Leobschütz. Beitrag zur Kunde oberschlesischer Städte. Neisse. Mitteis, H. 1987, Die deutsche Königswahl. Ihre Rechtsgrundlagen bis zur Goldenen Bulle, Darmstadt [a reprint of the second edition from 1944]. Mitterauer, M. 2004, Warum Europa? Mittelalterliche Grundlagen eines Sonderwegs, München4. Monse, J.W. 1788, Versuch einer kurzegefaßten politischen Landesgeschichte des Markgrafthums Mähren. Zweiter Band. Vom Jahre 1182 bis 1306, Olmütz. Nešpor, V. 1968, ‘Kde byl v Olomouci Nový hrádek’ [Where Nový Hrádek Was in Olomouc], Střední Morava 2, 77–81. Neumann, A. 1922, ‘Ztracené středověké kroniky moravské’ [Lost Medieval Chronicles of Moravia], SHK 23, 20–42; 106–114. Novotný, V. 1903a, ‘Adolfa Bachmanna Geschichte Böhmens’ [Adolf Bachmann’s Geschichte Böhmens], ČČH 9, 26–46; 164–178; 262–300; 373–397. ———. 1903b, ‘Studien zur Quellenkunde Böhmens. II. Der Mönch von Sazawa’, MIÖG 24, 552–579. ———. 1913, České dějiny I/2. Od Břetislava do Přemysla I. [Czech History I/2. From Bretislaus until Přemysl], Praha. ———. 1914, ‘Kníže-biskup Jindřich Břetislav na Moravě. Zároveň příspěvek k chronologii v zemích českých’ [Duke-Bishop Henry Bretislaus in Moravia. Also a Contribution to Chronology in the Czech Lands], ČMM 38, 353–360. ———. 1926, ‘Uvedení Premonstrátů do kláštera Hradišťského na Moravě’ [The Introduction of the Premonstratensians to the Hradisko Monastery in Moravia], ČMM 50, 155–170. ———. 1928, České dějiny I/3. Čechy královské za Přemysla I. a Václava I. (1197–1253) [Czech History I/3. Royal Bohemia under Přemysl I and Wenceslas I (1197–1253)], Praha. ———. 1937, České dějiny I/4. Rozmach české moci za Přemysla II. Otakara (1253–1271) [Czech History I/4. The Expansion of Czech Power under Přemysl II Otakar (1253– 1271)], Praha. Nový, R. 1974, ‘Organizace a vývoj českého mincovnictví v 13. století do měnové reformy Václava II’. [The Organisation and Development of Czech Coinage in the 13th Century until the Monetary Reform of Wenceslas II], SAP 24, 366–422. Oexle, O.G. 1984, ‘Sozialgeschichte – Begriffsgeschichte – Wissenschaftsgeschichte. Anmerkungen zum Werk Otto Brunners’, VSWG 71, 305–341. Ogris, W. 1995, ‘Der Würzburger Vertrag zwischen Herzog Leopold V. und Kaiser Heinrich VI. Über die Auslieferung König Richards vom 14. Februar 1193’, in: 324 Bibliography

K. Maly – L. Soukup, Pocta prof. Judr. Karlu Malému, DrSc. k 65. narozeninám, Praha, 89–100. Opll, F. 1978, Das Itinerar Kaiser Friedrich Barbarossas (1152–1190), Wien/Köln/Graz (Forschungen zur Kaiser- und Papstgeschichte des Mittelalters. Beihefte zu J.F. Böhmer Regesta Imperii 1). Palacký, F. 1847, Geschichte von Böhmen. Gröstentheils nach Urkunden und Handschriften. II/1. Böhmen als erbliches Königreich unter den Přemysliden. Vom Jahre 1197 bis 1306, Prag2. ———. 1862, ‘Stručný přehled dějin Českých doby starší. Až po r. 1526’ [A Brief Overview of Earlier Czech History. Until 1526], in: F.L. Rieger, ed., Slovník naučný II. C-Ezzelino, Praha. ———. 1894, Dějiny národu českého v Čechách a v Moravě. Dle původních pramenův. I. Od prvověkosti až do roku 1253 [History of the Czech Nation in Bohemia and Moravia. Based on the Original Sources. I. From the Primeval Times until 1253]. Praha4. Pánek, I. 1966, ‘K otázce moravské hřivny’ [On the Moravian Mark], in: Jiř Sejbal – Numismatické Symposium, Sborník I. numistmatického symposia 1964, Brno (NM II), 91–94. Pangerl, M. 1864, ‘Über Johann Manesdorfer, Chronisten des Klosters St. Lambrecht’, Beiträge zur Kunde steiermärkischer Geschichtsquellen 1, 103–111. Pánková, M. 1984, Ludvík Kohl 1746–1821, Praha (Národní galerie v Praze). Patze, H. 1962, Die Entstehung der Landesherrschaft in Thüringen, Köln/Wien (MF 22). ———. 1974, ‘Politische Geschichte im hohen und späten Mittelalters’, in: H. Patze – W. Schlesinger, eds, Geschichte Thürigens II/1. Hohes und spätes Mittelalter, Köln/ Wien (MF 48/II/1) 24–35. Pätzold, S. 1997, Die frühen Wettiner. Adelsfamilie und Hausüberlieferung bis 1221, Köln/ Weimar/Wien. Pavelčík, J. 1979, ‘Středověké hřivny’ [Medieval Marks], Malovaný kraj 15, No 5, 20–21. ———. 1982, ‘Depot olověných předmětů z Rudimova, okr. Gottwaldov’ [A Hoard of Lead Objects from Rudimov, the Gottwaldov District], VVM 34, 191–194. Pekař, J. 1926, ‘Recenze: Rudof Koss, Mocran et Mocran. Zvl. otisk ze Zpráv čes. zem- ského archivu, sv. VII. Praha 1927. Stran 28’ [A Review: Rudof Koss, Mocran et Mocran. A Special Copy from the Reports of the Czechoslovak Land Archives, Vol. VII. Prague 1927. 28 p.], ČČH 32, 1926, 601–606. Pelzel, F.M. 1779, Geschichte der Böhmen von der ältesten bis auf die neuesten Zeiten. Aus den besten Geschichtsschreibern, alten Kroniken, und glaubwürdigen Handschriften zusammen getragen. Erste Abtheilung, Prag2. Peřinka, F.V. 1908, ‘Klášter “Vallis Mariae” v Oslavanech“ [The Monastery ‘Vallis Mariae’ in Oslavany], SHK 9, 161–175. Pešina, T. 1677, Mars Moravicus. Sive Bella horrida et cruenta, seditiones, tumultus, prae- lia, turbae: et ex iis enatae crebrae et funestae rerum mutationes, dirae calamitates Bibliography 325

incendia clades, agrorum depopulationes, urbium vastitates, aedium sacrarum et pro- phanarum ruinae, arcium et oppidorum eversiones, pagorum cineres, populorum excidia, et alia id genus mala, quae Moravia hactenus passa fuit: Descripta a Thoma Joanne Pessina de Czechorod, Pragae. Petráček, T. 2002, Fenomén darovaných lidí v českých zemích 11.–12. století. K poznání hospodářských a sociálních dějin českých zemí doby knížecí [The Phenomenon of Donated People in the Czech Lands in the 11th–12th Centuries: On the Knowledge of Economic and Social History of the Czech Lands at the Time of Dukes], Praha. Pfister, K. 1937, Heinrich von Kalden. Reichsmarschall der Stauferzeit, Heidelberg. Pfitzner, J. 1927, Geschichte der Bergstadt Zuckmantel in Schlesien bis 1742, Zuckmantel. Plaček, M. 1995, ‘Rod erbu zubří hlavy do počátku 15. století. Pokus o genealogii moravského rodu’ [The Family of the Coat of Arms of the Bison Head until the Beginning of the 15th Century. An Attempt for a Genealogy of a Moravian Family], ČMM 114, 117–134. ———. 1997, ‘Rakouský rod pánů z Trnavy (Thürnau) a jejich vztahy k Moravě’ [The Austrian Family of the Lords of Trnava (Thürnau) and Their Relations to Moravia], ČMM 116, 79–91. Plassmann, A. 1998, Die Struktur des Hofes unter Friedrich I. Barbarossa nach den deutschen Zeugen seiner Urkunden, Hannover (MGH Studien und Texte 20). Pohl, W. 2006, ‘Staat und Herrschaft im Frühmittelalter: Überlegungen zum Forschungsstand’, in: S. Arlie – W. Pohl – H. Reimitz, eds, Staat im frühen Mittelalter, Wien (Forschungen zur Geschichte des Mittelalters 11), 9–38. Pojsl, M. 1968/1969, ‘Hrobka markraběte Vladislava Jindřicha na Velehradě’ [The Tomb of Margrave Vladislaus Henry at Velehrad], Slovácko 10/11, 86–96. ———. 1985a, ‘Středověké sepulkrální památky bývalého cisterciáckého kláštera na Velehradě’ [Medieval Sepulchral Monuments of the Former Cistercian Monastery at Velehrad], AH 10, 423–431. ———. 1985b, ‘Tradice velkomoravského ústředí ve středověku’ [The Tradition of the Great Moravian Centre in the Middle Ages], VVM 37, 305–313. ———. 1990, Velehrad. Stavební památky bývalého cisterciáckého kláštera [Velehrad. Architectural Monuments of the Former Cistercian Monastery], Brno. ———. 2001, ‘Proměna Veligradu ve Staré Město’ [The Transformation of Veligrad into Staré Město], in: L. Galuška – P. Kouřil – Z. Měřínský, eds, Velká Morava mezi Východem a Západem. Sborník příspěvků z mezinárodní vědecké konference, Brno (Spisy Archeologického ústavu AV ČR 17), 305–312. ———. 2002, ‘Výklenková hrobka na Velehradě’ [The Recess Tomb at Velehrad], AUPO Historica 31, 37–46. ———. 2006, Sepulkrální památky na Moravě a ve Slezsku do roku 1420 [Sepulchral Monuments in Moravia and Silesia before 1420], Olomouc (Monumenta Moraviae et Silesiae sepulcralia I.). 326 Bibliography

Polách, O. 1938a, ‘Hrobka Vladislava Přemyslovce’ [The Tomb of Vladislaus, a Přemyslid], in: B. Boček, Podzemní Velehrad, Velehrad, 48–52. ———. 1938b, ‘Velehradský náhrobek záhady zbavený’ [The Velehrad Tombstone Devoid of Mystery], in: B. Bocek, Podzemní Velehrad, Velehrad, 57–62. Pospíšil, M. 1996, ‘Habsburk a Přemyslovec očima Franze Grillparzera’ [A Habsburg and a Přemyslid as Perceived by Franz Grillparzer], in: Z. Hojda – R. Prahl, eds, Český lev a rakouský orel v 19. století. Sborník příspěvků ze stejnojmenného sympozia, pořádaného ve dnech 10.–12. března 1994 ve Státní vědecké knihovně v Plzni Národní galerií v Praze ve spolupráci s Rakouským kulturním institutem v Praze a Rakouským ústavem pro střední a jihovýchodní Evropu, odbočka v Brně, Praha, 90–97. Pošvář, J. 1959, ‘Brněnští mincmistři’ [Brno Mintmasters], BMD 1, 41–52. ———. 1970, Moravské mincovny [Moravian Mints], Brno (NM III). ———. 1976, ‘Moravské mincovny ve 13. století a jejich organizace’ [Moravian Mints in the 13th Century and Their Organisation], in: Jiř Sejbal – Numismatické Symposium, Sborník II. numismatického symposia 1969. K problematice moravského mincovnictví 13. století, Brno (NM V), 44–52. Prasek, V. 1887, ‘Křížovníci zákona Matky Boží na Opavsku’ [The Order of the Teutonic Knights in the Opava Region], Program českého nižšího gymnasia v Opavě 4, 3–30. ———. 1900, Organisace práv magdeburských na severní Moravě a v rakouském Slezsku [The Organisation of Magdeburg Law in North Moravia and Austrian Silesia], Olomouc. Prix, D. 1991, ‘Stavební vývoj kostelů Nanebevzetí Panny Marie (dříve sv. Václava) v Bruntále a Zvěstování Panny Marie ve Starém Městě u Bruntálu ve středověku’ [The Building Development of the Churches of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary (Formerly St Wenceslas) in Bruntál and the Annunciation of the Virgin Mary in Staré Město near Bruntál in the Middle Ages], ČSZM B40, 110–132. ———. 1999, ‘Gotická přestavba kostela Panny Marie ve Starém Městě u Bruntálu’ [The Gothic Reconstruction of the church of the Virgin Mary in Staré Město near Bruntál], Umění 47, 3–17. Procházka, R. 1985, ‘Archeologie k počátkům jihomoravských měst’ [Archaeology on the Beginnings of Towns in South Moravia], AH 11, 133–141. ———. 1993, ‘K vývoji a funkčnímu rozvrstvení hradů 11.–12. století na Moravě’ [On the Development and the Functional Stratification of Castles of the 11th–12th Centuries in Moravia], in: S. Moździoch, Lokalne ośrodki władzy państwowej w XI–XII wieku w Europie Środkowo-Wschodniej, Wrocław (Spotkania Bytomskie 1), 109–141. ———. 2000, ‘Zrod středověkého města na příkladu Brna. K otázce odrazu společenské změny v archeologických pramenech’ [The Birth of a Medieval Town on the Example of Brno. On the Reflection of a Social Change in Archaeological Sources], in: Akademie ved Ceske republiky – Archeologicky ustav, Brno a jeho region, Praha/ Brno (Mediaevalia archeologica 2), 7–158. Bibliography 327

Procházka, R. – Doležel, J. 2000, ‘Současný stav poznání počátků jihomoravských měst’ [The Contemporary State of the Knowledge of the Beginnings of South Moravian Towns], PV 42, 25–71. Prokop, A. 1904, Die Markgrafschaft Mähren in kunstgeschichtlicher Beziehung. Grundzüge einer Kunstgeschichte dieses Landes mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Baukunst, Wien. Pubitschka, F. 1778, Chronologische Geschichte Böhmens IV/1. Vom Wratislaws Krönung bis auf Ottokarn den Iten, Prag. ———. 1781, Chronologische Geschichte Böhmens IV/2. Vom König Pržemisl Ottokar bis zur Erlöschung des Pržemislischen Stamms, Prag. Rader, O. 2010, Friedrich II. Der Sizilianer auf dem Kaiserthron. Eine Biographie, München. Rezek, A. – Dolenský, J. – Kosina, J. 1893, Obrázkové dějiny národa českého [A Pictorial History of the Czech Nation], Praha. Richter, K. 1999, Friedrich Barbarossa hält Gericht. Zur Konfliktbewältigung im 12. Jahrhundert. Konflikt, Verbrechen und Sanktion in der Gesellschaft Alteuropas, Köln/ Weimar/Wien (Fallstudien 2). Richter, V. 1959, Raněstředověká Olomouc [Early Medieval Olomouc], Praha/Brno (Spisy university v Brně 63). Rodler, G. 1907, Geschichte und Beschreibung der Gnadenkirche Mariazell in Steiermark, Mariazell. Roth, G. – Honemann, V. 2005, ‘K stáří a původu hlubčického městského práva’ [On the Age and Origin of the Hlubčice Town Law], ČMM 124, 509–521. Schirmeisen, K. 1939, ‘Reste der mittelalterlichen Strelna-Siedlung’, ZVGMS 41, 45–54. Schlesinger, W. 1941, Die Entstehung der Landesherrschaft. Untersuchungen vorwiegend nach mittelalterlichen Quellen. Dresden (Sächsische Forschungen zur Geschichte 1). Schmandt, R.H. 1967, ‘The Election and Assassination of Albert of Louvain, Bishop of Liège, 1191–92’, Speculum 42, 639–660. Schmidt, R. 1978, ‘Die Einsetzung der böhmischen Herzöge auf den Thron zu Prag’, in: H. Beumann – W. Schröder, eds, Nationes I. Aspekte der Nationenbildung im Mittelalter, Sigmaringen, 439–463. Schneidmüller, B. 2005, ‘Von der deutschen Verfassungsgeschichte zur Geschichte politischer Ordnungen und Identitäten im europäischen Mittelalter’, ZfG 53, 485–500. Schramm, P.E. 1968, ‘Böhmen und das Regnum. Die Verleihung der Königswürde an die Herzöge von Böhmen (1085/86, 1158, 1198/1203)’, in: K. Schmid – J. Fleckenstein, Adel und Kirche. G. Tellenbach zum 65. Geburtstag, Freiburg/Basel/Wien, 346–364. Schultes, L. 2000, ‘Kreuzigung Christi und Wunder von Mariazell’, in: G. Brucher, ed., Geschichte der bildenden Kunst in Österreich. 2. Gotik, München/London/New York 2000, 396. 328 Bibliography

Schütte, B. 2002, König Philipp von Schwaben. Itinerar – Urkundenvergabe – Hof, Hannover (MGH Schriften 51). Šebánek, J. 1933, ‘Listiny přibyslavické’ [Přibyslavice Charters], ČMM 57, 1–58. ———. 1936, ‘Moderní padělky v moravském diplomatáři Bočkově do r. 1306. K stému výročí vydání 1. sv. moravského kodexu’ [Modern Forgeries in Boček’s Moravian Codex Diplomaticus before 1306. On the Hundredth Anniversary of the Publication of the First Volume of the Moravian Codex], ČMM 60, 27–103. ———. 1947, ‘Notář Otakarus 5 a nejstarší listiny oslavanské a velehradské’ [The Notary Otakarus 5 and the Earliest Oslavany and Velehrad Charters], ČMM 67, 222–290. ———. 1951, ‘Z problémů slezského kodexu. Neznámá listina pro hrobnické johanity’ [From the Problems of the Silesian Codex. An Unknown Charter for the Order of St John in Hrobníky], SlSb 49, 1–16. ———. 1952, ‘Uničovská listina z r. 1223’ [The Uničov Charter of 1223], ČSPS 60, 1–15. ———. 1956, ‘Listiny přímětické a jiné naše listiny na patronátní práva z doby přemyslovské’ [Přímětice Charters and Other Bohemian Charters on the Rights of Patronage from the Přemyslid Period], SPFFBU C3, 79–101. ———. 1959, ‘Kdo byl notář Otakarus 5’ [Who the Notary Otakarus 5 Was], in: J. Šebánek – J. Pražák – S. Dušková, Studie k české diplomatice doby přemyslovské, Praha (Rozpravy ČSAV, řada společenských věd 69.9), 3–39. Šebánek, J. – Dušková, S. 1952, Kritický komentář k moravskému diplomatáři [A Critical Commentary on the Moravian Codex Diplomaticus], Praha. ———. 1953, ‘Studie k českému diplomatáři. 1. Listiny kladrubské’ [Essays on the Bohemian Codex Diplomaticus. 1. Kladruby Charters], SPFFBU 2, Nos 2–4, 285–303. ———. 1961, Panovnická a biskupská listina v českém státě doby Václava I. [Royal and Episcopal Charters in the Czech State under Wenceslas I], Praha (Rozpravy ČSAV, řada společenských věd 71.4). Seibt, F. 1965, ‘Land und Herrschaft in Böhmen’, HZ 200, 284–315. Sejbal, J. 1966, ‘K chronologii moravských ražeb 13. století’ [On the Chronology of Moravian Coins in the 13th Century], in: Jiř Sejbal – Numismatické Symposium, Sborník I. numismatického symposia 1964, Brno (NM II), 78–84. ———. 1976, ‘K základním otázkám vzniku moravských ražeb 13. století’ [On the Essential Issues Concerning the Origin of Moravian Coins in the 13th Century], in: Jiř Sejbal – Numismatické Symposium, Sborník II. numismatického symposia 1969. K problematice moravského mincovnictví 13. století, Brno (NM V), 55–64. Šimák, J.V. 1921, Kronika československá I/1 [Czechoslovak Chronicle I/1], Praha. ———. 1924, Kronika československá I/2 [Czechoslovak Chronicle I/2], Praha. Šimeček, Z. 1976, ‘Obchod na Moravě ve 13. století’ [Trade in Moravia in the 13th Century], in: Jiř Sejbal – Numismatické Symposium, Sborník II. numismatického symposia 1969. K problematice moravského mincovnictví 13. století, Brno (NM V), 20–28. Bibliography 329

Simosfeld, H. 1908, Jahrbücher des Deutschen Reiches unter Friedrich I. Erster Band: 1152 bis 1158, Leipzig (Jahrbücher der Deutschen Geschichte). Skopal, M. 1987, ‘K otázce řezenské korunovace Vladislava II’. [On the Coronation of Vladislaus II in Regensburg], AUC Philosophica et historica 31, 31–39. Šmahel, F. 2000, Idea národa v husitských Čechách [The Idea of a Nation in Hussite Bohemia], Praha2. Šmerda, J. 1996, Denáry české a moravské. Katalog mincí českého státu od X. do počátku XIII. století [Bohemian and Moravian Denars. A Catalogue of Coins of the Czech State from the 10th Century until the Beginning of the 13th Century], Brno. Spáčil, V. – Spáčilová, L. 2010, Míšeňská právní kniha. Historický kontext, jazykový rozbor, edice [The Meissen Book of Law. Historical Context, Language Analysis, Editions], Olomouc. Spěváček, J. 1980, Karel IV. Život a dílo (1316–1378) [Charles IV. Life and Work (1316– 1378)], Praha. Spreitzhofer, K. 1986, Georgenberger Handfeste. Entstehung und Folgen der ersten Verfassungsurkunde der Steiermark, Graz/Wien/Köln (Steiermärkisches Lande sarchiv Styriaca Neue Reihe 3). Štaif, J. 1991, ‘Konceptualizace českých dějin Františka Palackého’ [The Conceptu alisation of the Czech History by František Palacký], ČČH 89, 161–182. Štarha, I. 1966, ‘Okruh brněnského městského práva v době předbělohorské’ [The Circle of the Brno Town Law in the Period after the Battle of White Mountain], BMD 8, 172–188. ———. 1983, ‘Okruh brněnského městského práva’ [The Circle of the Brno Town Law], in: F. Zřdkavesely – V. Pesa, Brno mezi městy střední Evropy, Brno, 158–164. Stehkämpfer, H. 1971, ‘England und die Stadt Köln als Wahlmacher König Ottos IV. (1198)’, Mitteilungen aus dem Stadtarchiv von Köln 60, 213–244. Stránský, M. 1634, Respublica Bohemiae a M. Paulo Stranski descripta, Lugduni Batavorum. Stürner, W. 1992, Friedrich II. Teil 1. Die Königsherrschaft in Sizilien und Deutschland 1194–1220, Darmstadt. Švábenský, M. 1973, ‘Tzv. Moravská kronika’ [The So-Called Moravian Chronicle], StR 12, 191–204. ———. 1993, ‘Vývoj Brna do r. 1243’ [The Development of Brno until 1243], BMD 11, 254–261. Svoboda, J. 1978, ‘Královský letohrádek. III. část: Adaptace letohrádku na museum a další osudy stavby až do zániku Rakousko-Uherska’ [The Royal Summer Palace. III. The Adaption of the Summer Palace into a Museum and the Further Fate of the Building until the Dissolution of Austria-Hungary], Památky a příroda 3, 204–215. Teige, J. 1884, ‘O novém členu královského rodu Přemyslovcův’ [On a New Member of the Royal Přemyslid Family], PA 12, cols 315–318. 330 Bibliography

———. 1894, ‘Zpráva o pramenech dějin kláštera Hradišťského u Olomouce (až do roku 1300)’ [A Report on the Sources of the History of the Monastery Hradisko near Olomouc (until 1300)], VKČSN, třída filosoficko-historicko-filologická 12/1893, Praha, 1–80. Thomas, H. 1992, ‘König Wenzel I., Reinmar von Zweter und der Ursprung des Kurfürstentums im Jahre 1239’, in: H. Mordek, ed., Aus Archiven und Bibliotheken. Festschrift für Raymund Kottje zum 65. Geburtstag, Frankfurt am Main/Bern/New York/Paris (Freiburger Beiträge zur mittelalterlichen Geschichte 3), 347–372. Tillmann, H. 1964, ‘Datierungsfragen zur Geschichte des Kampfes zwischen Papst Innocenz III. und Kaiser Otto IV.’, Historisches Jahrbuch 84, 34–85. Toeche, T. 1867, Kaiser Heinrich VI., Leipzig (Jahrbücher der Deutschen Geschichte). Tomas, J. 1987, ‘Poznámky ke vzniku Znojma a Brna’ [Notes on the Origins of Znojmo and Brno], in: E. Kordiovsky, XVI. Mikulovské sympozium 1986, Praha, 225–230. Tomek, W.W. 1843. Děje země české [Events in the Land of Bohemia], Praha. Töpfer, B. 1968, ‘Reges Provinciales. Ein Beitrag zur staufischen Reichsideologie unter Kaiser Friedrich I.’, ZfG 16, 1348–1358. Třeštík, D. 1965, ‘Kosmovo pojetí přemyslovské pověsti’ [Cosmas’ Conception of the Tale of Přemysl], Český lid 52, 305–314. ———. 1968, Kosmova kronika. Studie k počátkům dějepisectví a politického myšlení [Cosmas’ Chronicle. An Essay on the Beginnings of Historiography and Political Thought], Praha. ———. 1997, Počátky Přemyslovců. Vstup Čechů do dějin (530–935) [The Beginnings of the Přemyslids. The Entry of the Czechs into History (530–935)], Praha. ———. 2000, ‘Velká Morava v dějinách Evropy’ [Great Moravia in the History of Europe], in: L. Jan, ed., Dějiny Moravy a Matice moravská. Problémy a perspektivy. Sborník příspěvků z vědecké konference konané ve dnech 24.–25. listopadu 1999 v Brně, Brno (Disputationes Moravicae 1), 73–79. ———. 2001, Vznik Velké Moravy. Moravané, Čechové a střední Evropa v letech 791–871 [The Formation of Great Moravia. The Moravians, Bohemians and Central Europe in 791–871], Praha. ———. 2003, Mýty kmene Čechů (7.–10. století). Tři studie ke “starým pověstem českým” [Myths on the Tribe of the Bohemians (7th–10th Centuries). Three Essays on the ‘Ancient Bohemian Legends’], Praha. ———. 2004, ‘K založení pražského biskupství v letech 968–976: pražská a řezenská tradice’ [On the Foundation of the Bishopric of Prague in 968–976: Prague and Regensburg Traditions], in: J. Pánek, ed., Vlast a rodný kraj v díle historika. Sborník prací J. Petráňovi, Praha, 179–196. Turnwald, K. 1976, ‘Vztah moravského mincovnictví 13. století k mincovnictví okolních zemí’ [The Relation between Moravian Coinage in the 13th Century and the Coinage of the Surrounding Lands], in: Jiř Sejbal – Numismatické Symposium, Sborník II. Bibliography 331

numismatického symposia 1969. K problematice moravského mincovnictví 13. století, Brno (NM V), 157–162. Václava Hájka z Libočan Kronika Česká. Podle originálu z r. 1541. III. Čechy vévodské 1101– 1253 [Bohemian Chronicle by Václav Hájek of Libočany. Based on the Original from 1541. III. Ducal Bohemia in 1101–1253], ed. V. Flajšhans, Praha 1929 (Staročeská knihovna IV). Válka, J. 1980, ‘Karlova integrace Moravy do českého státu’ [Charles’ Integration of Moravia into the Czech State], JM 16, 43–53. ———. 1984a, ‘“Moravanství” v 15. století. Komplikace ve vývoji české nacionality’ [The Sense of Being Moravian in the 15th Century. Complications in the Development of Czech Nationality], SPFFBU C31, 145–154. ———. 1984b, ‘Stavovství a krize českého státu ve druhé polovině 15. století’ [The Estates and the Crisis of the Czech State in the Second Half of the 15th Century], FHB 6, 65–98. ———. 1986, ‘Zrod moravské stavovské obce’ [The Birth of the Moravian Aristocratic Land Community], JM 22 (25), 73–80. ———. 1989, ‘Moravský státoprávní epilog husitské revoluce’ [The Moravian Constitutional Epilogue to the Hussite Revolution], JM 25 (28), 89–100. Vaněček, V. 1941, ‘Glossy k t. zv. Statutům Konrádovým’ [Notes on the Statutes of Conrad Otto], Sborník věd právních a státních 41, 105–159. Vermouzek, R. 1969, ‘Dolování u Deblína’ [Mining near Deblín], ČMM 88, 16–34. ———. 1974a, ‘Brněnské brány’ [Brno Gates], ČMM 93, 341–360. ———. 1974b, ‘Měnínská cesta’ [The Měnín Route], JM 10, 143–149. Vlnas, V. 1996a, ‘Nástěnné malby Rubenovy školy v Královském letohrádku. Chronologický přehled’ [The Mural Paintings of Ruben’s School in the Royal Summer Palace. A Chronological Overview], in: V. Vlnas et. al., Historická malba v Čechách. Škola Christiana Rubena, Praha, 27–28. ———. 1996b, ‘Katalog. V. Vladislav se vzdává české koruny ve prospěch svého bratra Přemysla I. Otakara roku 1197’ [A Catalogue. V. Vladislaus Surrenders the Bohemian Crown to His Younger Brother Přemysl I. Otakar in 1197], in: V. Vlinas et. al., Historická malba v Čechách. Škola Christiana Rubena, Praha, 36–37, 57–58. Vodička, J. 1959, ‘Počátky špitálu sv. Ducha na Starém Brně. Období předjohanitské 1238–1243’ [The Beginnings of the Hospital of the Holy Spirit in Staré Brno. The Period before the Order of St John in 1238–1243], SbMM 78, 161–204. Vojtíšek, V. 1931, ‘K otázce erbu českého krále’ [On the Coat of Arms of the King of Bohemia], ČNM 104, 48–62. Warnke, Ch. 1980, ‘Ursachen und Voraussetzungen der Schenkung Polens an den heili- gen Petrus’, in: K.-D. Grothausen – K. Zernack, eds, Europa Slavica – Europa Orientalis. Festschrift für H. Ludat zum 70. Geburtstag, Berlin, 127–177. 332 Bibliography

Wegener, W. 1959a, Böhmen, Mähren und das Reich im Hochmittelater. Untersuchungen zur staatsrechtlichen Stellung Böhmens und Mährens im Deutschen Reich des Mittelaters 919–1253, Köln/Graz. ———. 1959b, ‘Böhmen und das Reich im Bericht des sogen. Mönchs von Sazawa zum Jahre 1126. Mit einigen Hinweisen auf die Quellen zu Adalbert Stifters “Witiko”’, in: W. Wegener, ed., Festschrift für Karl Gottfried Hugelmann zum 80. Geburstag am 26. September 1959, Aalen, 787–813. Weizsäcker, W. 1913, ‘Das Recht der bäuerlichen Kolonisten Böhmens und Mährens im XIII. und XIV. Jahrhunderte’, MVGDB 51, 476–542. ———. 1937, ‘Eindringen und Verbreitung der deutschen Stadtrechte in Böhmen und Mähren’, Deutsches Archiv für Landes und Volksforschung 1, 95–109. ———. 1938, ‘Breslau als Oberhof der mährischen Städte’, ZVGS 72, 25–53. ———. 1953, ‘Wien und Brünn in der Stadtrechtsgeschichte’, ZRG GA 70, 125–158. Wenskus, R. 1977, Stammesbildung und Verfassung. Das Werden der frühmittelalterli- chen gentes, Köln/Wien2. Wihoda, M. 1989, ‘Ekonomické zázemí Hradce nad Moravicí na střední Moravě ve 13. století’ [The Economic Hinterland of Hradec nad Moravicí in Central Moravia in the 13th Century], ČMM 108, 77–88. ———. 1997/1998, ‘Decimam episcopo dari in provincia Golassizch’, JSFWBU 38/39, 19–31. ———. 1999, ‘Vznik moravského markrabství’ [The Establishment of the Margraviate of Moravia], ČČH 97, 453–473. ———. 2001a, ‘Hlubčice. Přemyslovský klíč k branám piastovského Slezska?’ [Hlubčice. The Key of the Přemyslids to the Gates of Piast Silesia?], in: J. Jurok, ed., Královská a poddanská města od své geneze k protoindustrializaci a industrializaci. Sborník příspěvků z mezinárodního odborného sympozia uspořádaného ve dnech 5.–6. října 2001 v Příboře, Ostrava/Nový Jičín/Příbor, 51–69. ———. 2001b, ‘The Přemyslid Dynasty and the Beginnings of the Teutonic Order’, in: Z. Hunyadi – J. Laszlovszky, eds, The Crusades and the Military Orders. Expanding the Frontiers of Medieval Latin Christianity. In Memoriam Sir Steven Runciman (1903– 2000), Budapest, 337–347. ———. 2002a, ‘Benediktinská kapitola v dějinách kláštera Hradisko u Olomouce’ [The Benedictine Chapter in the History of the Monastery Hradisko near Olomouc], in: L. Jan – P. Obšusta, eds, Ve stopách svatého Benedikta. Sborník příspěvků z konference Středověké kláštery v zemích Koruny české konané ve dnech 24.–25. května 2001 v Třebíči, Brno (Disputationes Moravicae 3), 29–38. ———. 2002b, ‘Patnáct minut slávy olomouckého kanovníka Sifrida’ [Fifteen Minutes of Fame of the Canon of Olomouc, Sifrid], in: J. Hrdina – E. Doležalová – J. Kahuda, eds, Pater familias. Sborník příspěvků k životnímu jubileu prof. dr. Ivana Hlaváčka, Praha, 193–202. Bibliography 333

———. 2002c, ‘Poslední donace olomouckých údělníků’ [The Last Donations of the Olomouc Appanage Dukes], in: B. Chocholáč – J. Malíř, eds, Pocta Janu Janákovi. Předsedovi Matice moravské, profesoru Masarykovy univerzity věnují k sedm- desátinám jeho přátelé a žáci, Brno, 67–72. ———. 2003, ‘“. . . in Terra nostra Oppauiensis sed in iure Lubshicensi situatam . . .” Městské právo jako projev vědomí etnického nebo regionálního?’ [“. . . in Terra nostra Oppauiensis sed in iure Lubshicensi situatam . . .” Town Law as an Expression of Ethnic or Regional Consciousness?], in: T. Dvořák – R. Vlček – L. Vykoupil, eds, Milý Bore. . . Profesoru Ctiboru Nečasovi k jeho sedmdesátým narozeninám věnují přátelé, kolegové a žáci, Brno, 289–294. ———. 2005, ‘Der dornige Weg zur “Goldenen Bulle” von 1212 für Markgraf Vladislav Henrich von Mähren’, in: K. Hruza – P. Herold, eds, Wege zur Urkunde – Wege der Urkunde – Wege der Forschung. Beiträge zur europäischen Diplomatik des Mittelalters, Wien/Köln/Weimar (Forschungen zur Kaiser- und Papstgeschichte des Mittelalters. Beihefte zu J.F. Böhmer Regesta Imperii 24), 65–79. ———. 2008a, ‘Dvory prvních moravských markrabat’ [Courts of the First Margraves of Moravia], in: D. Dvořáčková – J. Zelenka, eds, Dvory a rezidence ve středověku II. Skladba a kultura dvorské společnosti, Praha (MHB Supplementum 2), 53–80. ———. 2008b, ‘Velehradská tradice’ [The Velehrad Tradition], in: L. Galuška – P. Kouřil – J. Mitáček, eds, Východní Morava v 10. až 14. století, Brno, 129–136. ———. 2009, ‘Skromné příběhy. Moravští Přemyslovci v paměti klášterních skriptorií’ [Modest Stories. The Moravian Přemyslids in the Memories of Monastic Scriptoria], in: Campana, Codex, Civitas. Miroslao Flodr octogenario, Brno, 120–135. ———. 2010a, Morava v době knížecí 906–1197 [Moravia in the Ducal Period (906–1197)], Praha (Edice Česká historie 21). ———. 2010b, Ein schwieriges Bündnis. Philipp von Schwaben, die Přemysliden und die Veränderungen im Osten des Reiches, in: A. Rzihacek – R. Spreitzer, eds, Philipp von Schwaben. Beiträge der internationalen Tagung anlässlich seines 800. Todestages, Wien, 29. bis 30. Mai 2008, Wien 2010 (Forschungen zur Geschichte des Mittelalters 19), 227–244. ———. 2010c, ‘Přemyslova moravská léta. Mezi královskou korunou a babenberským dědictvím’ [Přemysl’s Moravian Years. Between the Royal Crown and the Babenberg Heritage], in: L. Jan – J. Kacetl, eds, Pocta králi. K 730. výročí smrti českého krále, rak- ouského vévody a moravského markraběte Přemysla Otakara II., Brno/Znojmo, 47–53. ———. 2011, ‘Klášter Panny Marie a svatého Jiří ve Střelné. Pokus o návrat k jednou již spatřenému’ [The Monastery of the Virgin Mary and St George in Střelná. An Attempt to Return to What Has Already Been Researched], in: E. Dolezalova – P. Meduna, Co můj kostel dnes má, nemůže kníže odníti. Věnováno Petru Sommerovi k životnímu jubileu, Praha, 138–144. 334 Bibliography

———. 2012, Die Sizilischen Goldenen Bullen von 1212. Kaiser Friedrichs II. Privilegien für die Přemysliden im Erinnerungsdiskurs, Wien/Köln/Weimar (Forschungen zur Kaiser- und Papstgeschichte des Mittelalters. Beihefte zu J.F. Böhmer Regesta Imperii 33). ———. 2013, ‘The Long Beginnings of Central Eastern Europe’, in: P. Wiszewski, ed., Violence or Consensus? Forms of National Bonds in Medieval Europe, Wrocław 15.–17. 09. 2010, Wrocław, 51–65. Winkelmann, E. 1873, Philipp von Schwaben und Otto IV. von Braunschweig. I. König Philipp von Schwaben 1197–1208, Leipzig (Jahrbücher der Deutschen Geschichte). ———. 1878, Philipp von Schwaben und Otto IV. von Braunschweig. II. Kaiser Otto IV. von Braunschweig 1208–1218, Leipzig (Jahrbücher der Deutschen Geschichte). Wolf, A. 1998, Die Entstehung des Kurfürstenkollegs 1198–1298. Zur 700-jährigen Wiederkehr der ersten Vereinigung der sieben Kurfürsten, Idstein. Wolfram, H. 1987, Die Geburt Mitteleuropas. Geschichte Österreichs vor seiner Entstehung, Wien. Wolverton, L. 2001, Hastening toward Prague. Power and Society in the Medieval Czech Lands, Philadelphia. Wonisch, O. 1947, Geschichte von Mariazell, Mariazell (Mariazeller Wallfahrtsbücher 1). ———. 1957, Mariazell, München. ———. 1960, Die vorbarocke Kunstentwicklung der Mariazeller Gnadekirche. Dargestellt im Lichte der Geschichte, der Legenden und Mirakel, Graz. Zaoral, P. 1967, ‘O listinách a kanceláři markraběte moravského Vladislava Jindřicha’ [On the Charters and Chancery of Margrave of Moravia Vladislaus Henry], SbMM 86, 219–230. Zatschek, H. 1931, Beiträge zur Diplomatik der mährischen Immunitätsurkunden, Prag. ———. 1939, ‘Namensänderungen und Doppelnamen in Böhmen und Mähren im hohen Mittelalter’, Zeitschrift für sudetendeutsche Geschichte 3, 1–11. Zemek, M. 1949, ‘Posloupnost kanovníků metropolitní kapituly u sv. Václava v Olomouci’ [The Sequence of the Canons of the Metropolitan Chapter at St Wenceslas in Olomouc], VVM 4, 121–136, 167–182. Žemlička, J. 1978, ‘K charakteristice středověké kolonizace v Čechách’ [On the Characteristics of Medieval Colonisation in Bohemia], ČsČH 26, 58–79. ———. 1979, ‘Ekonomika českých zemí v období přechodu od raného k vrcholnému feudalismu’ [The Economy of the Czech Lands in the Period of the Transition from Early to High Feudalism], FHB 1, 109–129. ———. 1981, ‘Spor Přemysla Otakara I. s pražským biskupem Ondřejem’ [The Dispute between Přemysl Otakar I and Bishop of Prague Andrew], ČsČH 29, 704–729. ———. 1990, Přemysl Otakar I. Panovník, stát a česká společnost na prahu vrcholného feudalismu [Přemysl Otakar I. The Ruler, the State and Society on the Threshold of High Feudalism], Praha. Bibliography 335

———. 1992, ‘Úvahy nad vznikem českých a moravských měst’ [Reflections on the Emergence of Bohemian and Moravian Towns], in: M. Polívka – M. Svatoš, eds, Historia docet. Sborník prací k poctě šedesátých narozenin prof. PhDr. Ivana Hlaváčka, Csc, Praha, 549–558. ———. 1997, ‘Zwangstausch als Instrument der königlichen Städtegründungspolitik in Böhmen und Mähren’, in: U. John – J. Mazerath, eds, Landesgeschichte als Herausforderung und Programm. Karlheinz Blaschke zum 70. Geburtstag, Stuttgart 1997, 157–166. ———. 1998a, Století posledních Přemyslovců [The Century of the Last Přemyslids], Praha2. ———. 1998b, ‘“Právo nucené směny” při zakládání středověkých měst’ [The ‘Right of Forced Exchange’ in the Foundation of Medieval Towns], ČČH 96, 502–530. ———. 1999a, ‘Markomané, Němci a středověká kolonizace. K historiografii jednoho problému české medievistiky’ [The Marcomanni, Germans and Medieval Colonisation. On the Historiography of One Problem of Czech Medieval Studies], ČČH 97, 235–272. ———. 1999b, ‘Středověká kolonizace v pojetí Františka Palackého a současný stav výzkumu’ [Medieval Colonisation in the Conception of František Palacký and the State of the Art of Research], in: F. Šmahel – E. Doležalová, eds, František Palacký 1798–1998, dějiny a dnešek, Praha, 101–111. ———. 2002a, ‘K ujímání a formám německého práva v českých zemích’ [On the Adoption and Forms of German Law in the Czech Lands], Marginalia historica 6, 7–38. ———. 2002b, ‘Die Deutschen und die deutschrechtliche Kolonisation Böhmens und Mährens im Mittelalter’, in: J. Piskorski, ed., Historiographical Approaches to Medieval Colonization of East Europe, New York, 107–143. ———. 2002c, Počátky Čech královských 1198–1253. Proměna státu a společnosti [The Beginnings of Royal Bohemia in 1198–1253. The Transformation of the State and Society], Praha. ———. 2003, ‘Němci, německé právo a transformační změny 13. století. Několik úvah a jeden závěr’ [The Germans, German Law and Transformational Changes in the 13th Century. Several Reflections and One Conclusion], AH 28, 33–46. ———. 2005, Přemyslovci. Jak žili, vládli a umírali [The Přemyslids. How They Lived, Ruled and Died], Praha. ———. 2006, ‘Mocran et Mocran. Třetí basilejská listina v kontextu Zlaté buly sicilské’ [Mocran et Mocran. The Third Charter of Basel in the Context of the Golden Bull of Sicily], ČČH 104, 733–781. ———. 2007a, Čechy v době knížecí (1034–1198) [Bohemia in the Ducal Period (1034– 1198)], Praha2. 336 Bibliography

———. 2007b, ‘Mocren, Mogkran, Muckern. Kde hledat říšský majetek Mocran et Mocran?’ [Mocren, Mogkran, Muckern. Where to Seek the Imperial Property Mocran et Mocran?], ČČH 105, 305–348. ———. 2007c, ‘Die dritte Basler Urkunde Friedrichs II. für die Přemysliden (26. September 1212). Zur Interpretation des Begriffs Mocran et Mocran’, AfD 53, 251–289. Ziegler, W. 2008, König Konrad III. (1138–1152). Hof, Urkunden, Politik, Wien/Köln/ Weimar (Forschungen zur Kaiser- und Papstgeschichte des Mittelalters. Beihefte zu J.F. Böhmer Regesta Imperii 26). Zuber, R. 1972, Osídlení Jesenicka do počátku 15. století [The Settlement of the Jeseníky Area before the Beginning of the 15th Century], Opava. Index

Aachen, Germany 81, 83, 84, 93, 129 Altaich monastery, Germany (Bavaria) 57 Abraham, canon, abbot of Klášterní Hradisko Altenburg, Germany (Saxony) 50, 52, 53, 96, and Střelná († after 1232) 212–217, see 107 Střelná Ambrosius, margrave chaplain 137 Achilles of Hemmelhausen, ministerial 281 Ancona, Italy 87 Adalbert, archbishop of Salzburg (1168–1177, Andrew II, bishop of Prague (1214–1224) 1183–1200) 82, 298 130, 152, 207, 232 Adalbert, bishop of Prague (982–994) 287 Andrew, margrave chaser (1247) 279 Adam, abbot of Strahov (1218–1219) 130 Andrew, margrave marshal (1221, 1225) 151, Adam, priest from the church of St Michael 259 (Znojmo) 201 Annales Gerlaci, see Gerlach, abbot of Adamová, Karolína, law-historian 21 Milevsko Adelheid of Meissen, princess and queen of Annales Hildesheimenses 288 Bohemia († after 1210) 15, 29, 109, 120, Annales Marbacenses 54, 80 121, 233, 299 Anselm of Justingen, imperial message Admont monastery, Austria (Styria) 51, 237 (1211) 98 Adolph of Altena, archbishop of Cologne Apolinaris Master, margrave prothonotary (1193–1205) 80, 81, 82, 83, 91, 92, 93, (1213) 67, 147, 149, 163 103 Appelt, Heinrich (1910–1998), historian 21 Agnes (or Kunigunde), see Heilwidis of Arkleb of Boskovice 217 Thürnau Arnold, canon of St Vitus, provost of Sadská Agnes of Bohemia († 1282) 136 (1198) 59, 121, 229 Aimo of Tarantaise, archbishop of Burgundy Arnold of Lübeck, chronicler († 1211/1214) (1179–1210) 85 83, 95, 96 Albert, abbot of Velehrad (1228–1232) 141 Arnulf, duke of Bavaria (907–937) 286 Albert, bishop of Liège (1191–1192) 49 Arnulf of Cainthia, king of East Francia (since Albert, canon of Strahov 168 887) and Holy Roman Emperor Albert count of Bogen (1197) 57 (896–899) 285 Albert, margrave chaplain 270 Aubin, Hermann (1885–1960), historian 6 Albert I the Proud, margrave of Meissen Augsburg, Germany (Swabia) 94, 100, 129 (1190–1195) 47, 50, 51, 56 (see Lechfeld) Albert, reeve (?) of Bruntál (1238) 186, 199, Augustinians, see Doubravník 200, see Bruntál Albert of Šternberk (1269) 210 Bachmann, Adolf (1849–1914), historian 241 Albert Stange, ministerial 281 Balbín, Bohuslav (1621–1688), historian 237 Albrecht II, archduke of Austria (since 1404), Baldwin, count of Hainaut (1195–1205) 46, 84 king of the Romans and Germany Baldwin, dean of Olomouc (1195–1202) 77 (1438–1439) 234 Bamberg, Germany (Franconia) 95, 98, 100, Aleš, Mikoláš (1852–1913), painter 250 108, 293 Aleš Holický of Šternberk 256 Bardo, archbishop of Mainz (1031–1051) 288 Allesandria, Italy 29, 30 Bartholomew, margrave prothonotary 262 Alexander III, pope (1159–1181) 29 Bartlett, Robert, historian 11

* Place names are supplemented by references to the Places Index (p. XXV). 338 Index

Basel, Switzerland (Swabia) 3, 103, 106, 107, Bojanovice, Moravia 76 109, 120, 239 Boleslaus I, duke of Bohemia (935–972) Bautzen, Germany (Lusatia) (1) 10, 20 286, 287 Bavor, chamberlain of Olomouc 163, 167 Boleslaus, son of Theobald III († 1241) 124 Bavor, margrave cupbearer 270 Boleslaus, vice-duke of Olomouc († 1091) 73 Beatrix, imperatrix († 1212) 97 Bolesław I the Brave, duke of Poland Bednara, Ernst (1881–1956), historian 188 (992–1025) 10, 287 Béla IV, king of Hungary (1235–1270) 267, Bolesław I the Curly, high duke of Poland 274, 275 (1146–1173) 21 Beneda, margrave master chaser 260, 263, Boppard, Germany 85 270 Boresch of Riesenburg 272 Benedict, archdeacon of Bílina (1216) 118, 120 Bořivoj, duke of Bohemia († 890?) 223, 224 Benedict, margrave chaplain 151 Bořivoj II, duke of Bohemia (1100–1107, Benedict IX, pope (1032–1045, 1047–1048, 1117–1121) 42 1055–1056) 288 Boršice, Moravia 170 Benedictines, see Kladruby, Klášterní Bouvines, battlefield (1214), France 127 Hradisko (until 1150), Ostrov, Opatovice Břeclav, Moravia (23) 158, 164, 267 nad Labem, Podlažice, Prague Břevnov Bretholz, Bertold (1862–1936), historian 10, Abbey, Prague St George´s Abbey, Rajhrad, 105, 107, 108, 241 Sázava, Třebíč, Želiv (until 1148) Bretislaus I, duke of Bohemia (1034–1055) Beneš of Cvilín 186, 282 41, 42, 44, 60, 123, 141, 143, 145, 284, 288, Berchtesgaden monastery, Germany 289 (Bavaria) 126 Bretislaus II, duke of Bohemia (1092–1100) Bernard of Clairvaux († 1153) 290 42 Bernhard, duke of Saxony (1180–1212) 82, 91 Bretislaus, vice-duke of Olomouc (1189–1201) Berthold, reeve of Bruntál (1287) 186, see 44, 49, 56, 58, 65, 69, 71, 75, 76, 77, 78, Bruntál 79, 101, 113, 169 Berthold of Zähringen (1186–1218) 80, 82, Břevnov monastery, Bohemia (32) 73, 114, 83, 87 214, 258 Bertold, margrave knight 151 Brno, Moravia (21) Bdeněves, Bohemia 59 Archdeaconry 158 Bistřický, Jan (1930–2008), historian 10, 67, Castle Staré Brno 71, 110, 141–142, 166, 177 245 Church of St James 136–137 Bíteš, see Velká Bíteš Church of St Michael 270 Bítov, Moravia (20) 36, 55, 158, 159, 265 Church of St Peter 173, 273 Blaise, canon of Klášterní Hradisko 212, 217 Ducal courts 145 Blud, castellan of Přerov (1213) 154, 164 Hospital of St Anthony (Staré Brno) 274 Blud, margrave chaser (1233–1238) 166, 263 Law 189, 191 Boček, Anotnín (1802–1847), historian 78, Mint 174–175 181 Monastery of Dominican 269 Boček, margrave butler 263 Province (or part of Moravia) 33, 34, 66, Boček of Pernek (Pernegg) 245 103, 109, 157, 159, 164, 168, 176, 257, 268, Bohdanovy, Poland (Silesia) 118 277 Bohemian Crown, see Crown Town 115, 190, 191, 200, 202–203, 258, 264, Bohuslaus, chamberlain of Olomouc (around 266, 272 1201) 163 Brumov, Moravia 159 Bohuslaus, margrave master chaser Brumovice, Moravia 273 (1233) 263 Brunswick, Germany (Saxony) 89, 90 Index 339

Bruntál, Czech Silesia (22) Chotek Karel (1783–1868), count 246 Church of the Virgin Mary in Staré Chotěšov monastery, Bohemia (34) 114, 126, Město 184 221 Law 173, 181, 182, 197, 204, 282 Chronica Bohemorum, see Cosmas of Reeve 186 Prague Staré Město 172, 173, 184, 185 Chrudim, Bohemia (4) 272 Town 181, 182, 277, 283 Chval, margrave knight 151 Brunner, Otto (1898–1982), historian 4, 6, 7, Cihelka, Oldřich (1881–1958), painter 252 8, 9 Cistercians, see Oslavany, Plasy, Pomuk, Bruno of Schauenburg, bishop of Olomouc Tišnov, Velehrad (1245–1281) 204, 211, 226, 227, Cîteaux, France 207 272–274, 280, 281 Clement IV, pope (1265–1268) 226 Buchlov, Moravia 263 Cologne, Germany 83, 89, 93, 94 Budek, margrave chaplain 262 Compostela, Spain 53 Budík, margrave gamekeeper 264 Confoederatio cum principibus ecclesiasticis Budiš, abbot of Klášterní Hradisko (1220) 293 (1269–1290) 210, 211 Conrad, bishop of Meissen (1240–1258) 273 Budyně, Bohemia 24 Conrad IV, bishop of Regensburg Burchard of Ursberg, chronicler († 1230/1231) (1204–1226) 130 81, 95, 98 Conrad, curial-legate (1225) 136, 137 Burgdorf, Germany 90 Conrad III, king of the Romans and Germany Burgus, see vicus (1138–1152) 81, 290 Burkhard, margrave chaplain 151 Conrad, margrave chaplain 151, 176, 262 Burkhard, provincial scribe 197 Conrad, vice-duke of Brno (1061–1091), duke Burkhard, margrave knight 151 of Bohemia (1092) 142 Bystřice, river (see Střelná) 194, 210 Conrad, vice-duke of Znojmo (1123–1128, 1134–1170?) 17, 72, 142, 144 Cannburg, Bohemia 285 Conrad of Friedeberg, former bishop of Čarek, Jiří (1908–1985), historian 134 Olomouc (1241–1245) 272 Čáslaus, margrave minor butler 270 Conrad of Hardegg 114, 167, 208 Čáslav, Bohemia (2) 272 Conrad of Mainz, archbishop (1183–1200) Častolov, margrave knight 262 51, 84 Celestine III, pope (1191–1198) 46, 86 Conrad Otto, vice-duke of Znojmo (since Čeněk of Lipá 191 1170?), duke of Bohemia (1189–1191) Černín, king´s chamberlain (1212) 99 12, 30, 33–38, 40, 43–46, 49, 61, 62, Charlemagne, king of the Franks (since 768), 64–66, 69, 75, 76, 78, 110, 145, 146, 159, Emperor (800–814) 284 177, 209, 257, 297 Charles IV, king of Bohemia (1346–1378), king Constance of Hungary, queen of Bohemia of the Romans and Germany (since 1346) († 1241) 113, 120, 121, 122, 134, 139, 162, and Holy Roman Emperor (1355–1378) 266, 299 69, 106, 110, 205, 223, 224, 227, 232, 254, Continuatio Cosmae secunda 2 257 Continuatio Zwettlensis altera 33, 35 Charles the Younger, king of the Franks Corfu, Greece 51 (772–811) 285 Cornelius (von), Peter (1783–1867), Cheb, Bohemia 28, 34, 35, 58, 61, 91, 127, painter 249 129 Cosmas of Prague († 1125), chronicler 41, 42, Chemnitz, Germany (Saxony) 127 141, 143, 284, 286 Chlumec, battlefield (1126), Bohemia 18 Crh, butler 259, 262 340 Index

Crown 23 Eike of Repgow († after 1230) 82 Bohemian Crown 254, 256, 257 Einhard, chronicler († 840) 284 Crown archives 254 Ekbert of Andechs-Merano, bishop of Cremona, Italy 126 Bamberg (1203–1237) 95 Cstata, castellan of Olomouc (1174) 74, 164 Ekhard of Thürnau 139, 154, 165, 167 Ctibor, castellan of Přerov (1222) 164 Ekkehard, burgher of Opava (1222) 116, 177, Ctibor Tovačovský of Cimburk 256 197, 199, 208, see Opava Cyril (Constantin), archbishop († 869) 223, Elias, margrave (protho)notary 260, 262 224, 225, 226 Elisabeth of Hungary, princess of Bohemia (1178–1189) 43, 76 Dalimil, So called, chronicler 223, 224, 232 Elisabeth of Hungary (Luxembourg), queen Daniel I, bishop of Prague (1148–1167) 15, 20, consort of the Romans, Hungary and 21, 24, 71, 228 Bohemia († 1442) 234 Daniel II (Milík), bishop of Prague Emmeram, margrave marshal 269, 270 (1197–1214) 59, 120, 121, 129, 229, 230, Emmeram of Medlov 154, 165, 173, 177, 209 241 Engelbert, bishop of Olomouc Deblín, Moravia 172 (1194–1199) 77 Dedo, margrave of Lusatia (1185–1190) 39 Enns, Austria 171, 283, see monetary reform Demel, Jaroslav (1869–1926), historian 38 Erbendorf, Germany 28, 29, 74 Denar, see monetary reform Erfurt, Germany (Thuringia) 28, 100, 126 Denis, margrave knight 269 Erkens, Franz-Reiner, historian 125 Diffundente sole 225 Ernest, chamberlain of Olomouc 163 Dívčí Hrad, Moravia 280 Esau, canon of Klášterní Hradisko 212, 217 Dluhomil, abbot of Břevnov (1217–1236) 114, Esztergom, Hungary 289 132 Euphemia, princess of Olomouc (1195) 76 Doben, judge of Olomouc 164, 167, 170 Euphemia of Hungary, princess of Olomouc Dobner, Gelasius (1719–1790), historian 239, († 1111) 142 245 Eußerthal monastery, Germany 64 Dolní Kounice monastery, Moravia (56) 36, 79, 152, 220 Ferdinand V, (1835–1848), Emperor of Doksany monastery, Bohemia 3, 70, 118, 168, Austria 246 205, 221, 258 Fischel, Alfred (1853–1926), historian 243 Dominicans, see Brno, Olomouc Florian, abbot of Louka (1220–1234/1238) Dopsch, Alfons (1868–1953), historian 4 209 Doubravník monastery, Moravia 151, 220, 260 Florian, chancellor 57 Drahon, chaplain of king Vladislaus (1157) Florian, margrave knight 269 71 Frankfurt/Main, Germany 47, 49, 98, 99, 121, Drahon, margrave gamekeeper 264 125, 126 Drozdovice, Moravia 162 Franz Joseph (1848–1916), Emperor of Držikraj, margrave master of the Austria 247 kitchen 262 Frederick I, duke of Austria (1194–1198) 292 Dudík, Beda (1819–1890), historian 134, 157, Frederick II, duke of Austria (1230–1246) 240, 241 265, 266, 267 Duisburg, Germany 92 Frederick (Bedřich), duke of Bohemia (1172–1173, 1178–1189) 12, 13, 15, 19, 24, Eberhard, bishop of Merseburg (1171–1201) 26, 28–31, 34–39, 41, 43, 44, 61, 62, 64, 82 70, 73–76, 78, 163, 188, 214, 216, 217, 219, Ebrach monastery, Germany 207 228, 257, 278, 298 Index 341

Frederick I Barbarossa, king of the Romans Gniezno, Poland 226, 287, 288, 289 and Germany (since 1152) and Holy Golden Bull of Sicily (1212) 103, 120, 239, 243, Roman Emperor (1155–1190) 12, 15, 19–21, 293, see Mocran et Mocran 24, 25, 27–31, 33, 34, 39, 47, 61, 62, 64, 73, Golden Bull of Ulm (1216) 123, 125, 232 74, 81, 143 Goerlitz, Theodor (1885–1949), historian 188 Frederick II of Sicily, king of the Romans and Görlitz, Germany (Lusatia) (16) Germany (since 1212) and Holy Roman Goslar, Germany (Saxony) 90, 92 Emperor (1220–1250) 1, 3, 80, 81, 87, Goth, Jan (1889–19??), painter 252 98–100, 103, 106–110, 114, 118, 120, Gotpold, elect of Prague (1168) 228 125–129, 152, 272, 290–294 Gottfried, margrave scribe 269 Frederick, margrave chaplain 262 Gottfried, reeve of Podivín 178 Frederick, margrave minor cupbearer 270 Gottschalk, margrave notary 268 Frederick, mintmaster of Olomouc 175 Gregory IX, pope (1227–1241) 137 Friedrich, Gustav (1871–1943), historian 3, Gregory, margrave chaplain 151, 262 67, 134 Grillparzer, Franz (1791–1872), writer 248 Fryšava, Morava 208 Grobniki, see Hrobníky Fulnek, Moravia 187 Groitzsch, Germany (Saxony) 124 Fulstein, Moravia 281 Guido, cardinal-legate (1142–1143) 143 Guido of Praeneste, cardinal-legate Gallus Anonymus, chronicler († after 1117) (1203–1204) 87, 89, 90 145, 289 Gallus of Lämberg 272, 273 Hájek of Libočany, Václav († 1553), chronicler Gaudencius, see Radim 232, 234, 237 Gaudencius, margrave chaplain 269 Halle, Germany (Thuringia) 88 Gelnhausen, Germany (Saxony) 48 Hamburg, Germany 6 George of Poděbrady (1458–1471), king of Hans Menesdorfer, chronicler 235 Bohemia 256 Hartleb, margrave knight 263 Georgenberger Handfeste (1186) 292, 293 Hartleb of Thürnau 115, 136, 139, 154, 165, 167 Gerlach, abbot of Klášterní Hradisko Hartwig, bishop of Eichstätt (1195–1223) 82 (1232–1240/1243) 217 Havírna near Štěpánov, Moravia 172 Gerlach, abbot of Milevsko, chronicler Hedwig, see Heilwidis (1187–1228?) 1, 2, 19, 24, 27, 28, 31, 36, Hedwig, sister of the Doksan canonry 168 39, 46, 47, 52–54, 57–59, 62, 64–66, 70, Heilwidis of Thürnau, margravine of Moravia 82, 103, 110, 112, 115, 125, 227–230, 234, (1197–1222) 134–140, 148, 151, 167, 170, 237, 253 235, 236, 259, 298 German law, see Law Helembert de Turri, ministerial 281 Gertrude of Austria († 1288) 236, 274, 299 Helmbert, bishop of Havelberg Gervasius, abbot general 130 (1191–1206) 84 Géza, grand prince of the Hungarians Henning, mintmaster of Opava 175, 200 († 997) 287 Henry I, duke of Bavaria (948–955) 286 Géza, prince of Hungary (1174) 30 Henry I, the Flower, king of Saxony/of the Géza II, king of Hungary (1141–1162) 70 Romans and Germany (919–936) 286 Giles, margrave cupbearer 263 Henry II, king of the Romans and Germany Giovanni Rusca, mayor of Milan (1198) 84 (since 1002) and Holy Roman Emperor Gislebert (or Gislebert) of Mons, chronicler (1014–1024) 288 († 1224) 38, 81 Henry III, king of the Romans and Germany Głubczyce, see Hlubčice (since 1039) and Holy Roman Emperor Głuchołazy, see Hlucholazy (1046–1056) 284, 289 342 Index

Henry IV, king of the Romans and Germany Henry Zdík, bishop of Olomouc (1126–1150) (since 1056) and Holy Roman Emperor 68, 158, 203 (1084–1105) 42 Herbort of Fulštejn, ministerial 186, 281 Henry V, king of the Romans and Germany Herde, Johann Gottfried (1744–1803), (since 1106) and Holy Roman Emperor philosopher 178 (1111–1125) 143 Hermann, abbot of Klášterní Hradisko Henry VI, king of the Romans and Germany (1201–1216) 212 (since 1190) and Holy Roman Emperor Hermann, bishop of Prague (1099–1122) 142 (1191–1197) 46–49, 52–54, 56, 64, 65, Hermann, landgrave of Thuringia (1190–1216) 76, 80, 228, 229, 293 49, 50, 51, 82, 85, 87, 88, 91, 92, 98, 126 Henry [VII], king of the Romans and Hermann Lohen, burgher of Opava 199, see Germany (1220–1235) 293, 294 Opava Henry III of Kronberg, abbot of Fulda Hermsdorf 27 (1192–1216) 82 Herold, burgher of Opava 197, see Opava Henry, chamberlain of Olomouc 259 Holas, castellan of Olomouc 259 Henry, count of Orlamünde (1198) 82 Horsák, Antoš (1891–1971), historian 244 Henry, duke of Brabant (1190–1235) 46, 91, Herrschaft (Grundherrschaft) 6 92, 96 Heso, chaplain 137 Henry, judge of Olomouc 164 Hide 178, 180 Henry, judge of Znojmo 165 Hilarius, margrave (protho)notary 148, 163, Henry, margrave chaplain 148, 151, 262, 269 260, 262, 264 Henry, prince of the Rhine Palatinate Hilsch, Peter, historian 40 (1195–1211) 89, 90, 92 Hlinka (Větší/Menší), Moravia 280, 281 Henry Bretislaus, bishop of Prague (since Hlubčice (Głubczyce), Poland (Silesia) (24) 1182), duke of Bohemia (1193–1197) 12, Law 186, 283 38, 39, 40, 43, 46–48, 50, 52, 54–58, 64, Town 117, 187–189, 196, 199, 204, 218, 279, 65, 68–70, 76, 124, 228, 298 282 Henry II Jasomirgott, margrave of Austria Hlucholazy (Głuchołazy), Poland (since 1141), duke of Austria (1156–1176) (Silesia) 185 30, 143, 290, 291 Hlučín, Czech Silesia 282 Henry Moyker, abbot of St Lambrecht Hnánice, Moravia 136, 178, 209 (1419–1445) 234, 236, 237 Hodonín, Moravia 115, 164 Henry of Andechs, margrave of Istria Hoftag (court diet) 15, 21, 23, 26, 27, 39, 46, (1204–1228) 95 48, 62, 64, 97, 100, 129, 131, 148, 241, 254, Henry of Heimburg, chronicler († after 294 1300?) 3, 28, 231 Hojer, margrave butler 262 Henry of Kalden, imperial marshal († after Holasice province, Czech Silesia 103, 118, 1214) 93, 96 152, 157, 158, 162, 166, 196, 210, 278, Henry of Liechtenstein 273 see Opava Henry of Neuffen, imperial message Honorius III, pope (1216–1227) 130, 132, 152, (1211) 98 154, 184, 207, 231 Henry I the Bearded, duke of Poland Horka, Moravia 136 (1201–1238) 125 Horna, Richard (1892–1953), law-historian Henry XII the Lion, duke of Bavaria 157 (1156–1180) and Saxony (1142–1180) Horní Benešov, Czech Silesia 186, 188, 200, 83, 84, 291, 292 282, 283 Henry X the Proud, duke of Saxony Hosák, Ladislav (1899–1972), historian 136, (1137–1139) and Bavaria (1126–1139) 157, 158 290, 291 Hoštice (Malé, Velké), Czech Silesia 199 Index 343

Hradec (near Opava), Czech Silesia 162, 166, John Marignola, chronicler († before 1362?) 218, 278 232 Hradec Králové, Bohemia (3) 270, 272 Judith of Thuringia, queen of Bohemia Hradisko, see Klášterní Hradisko (1158–1172) 14, 15, 16, 26, 28, 70 Hranice, Moravia 73, 187 Hrobníky (Grobniki), Poland (Silesia) 217, Kaim, bishop of Olomouc (1186–1194) 62 218, 219 Kejř, Jiří (1921–2015), historian 23, 40, 109, Hroznata, margrave knight 269 201, 202 Hroznata of Teplá († 1217) 57, 221 Kladruby monastery, Bohemia (35) 59, 113, Hucker, Bernd, Ulrich, historian 95 126, 130, 206, 221, 266 Hulín, Moravia 159 Klápště, Jan, archaeologist 11 Humpolec, Bohemia 173, 174 Klášterní Hradisko, moanstery, Moravia Hustěnovice, Moravia 170 (55) 72, 76–78, 101, 112, 118, 132, 142, 143, 147, 154, 166, 186, 196, 197, 209–214, Innocent III, pope (1198–1216) 87, 88, 89, 90, 216, 217, 221, 225, 231, 239, 258, 263, 278, 94, 97, 113, 121, 130, 206 279 Innocent IV, pope (1243–1254) 272, 274 Kleiber, Heinrich (1828–1890), historian 188 Isaac, canon of Klášterní Hradisko 212, 217 Klein Mückern, Germany (Saxony) 107, see Ivančice, Moravia 200 Mocran et Mocran Klimkovice, Czech Silesia 282 Jacob, margrave chaplain 269 Knín, Bohemia 36, 38, 40, 43, 49, 64, 65, 66, Jakartovice (Malé, Pusté), Czech Silesia 199 76 Jaktař, Moravia 279 Kobeřice, Czech Silesia 217, 218 Jan, Libor, historian 158, 163 Kohl, Ludwig (1746–1821), painter 248, 249 Jaroš, castellan of Přerov 164 Körmendy, Adrianne, historian 180 Jarošov, Moravia 79, 208 Koss, Rudolf (1884–1929), historian 105, 107 Jasenice, Moravia 172 Kounice, see Dolní Kounice Jerome, provost of Mělník (1174) 30 Kouřim, Bohemia (7) 272 Jihlava, Moravia 173, 174, 196 Kralice, Moravia 258 John II, abbot of Velehrad (1407–1421) 244 Kralow stol (King´s Table), Moravia 141 John, archbishop of Trier (1190–1212) 85 Křanovice (Krzanowice), Poland John, bishop of Moravia († 916) 224 (Silesia) 186 John III, bishop of Olomouc (1150–1157) 71 Krems, Austria 171 John IV, bishop of Olomouc (1157–1172) 71, Krnov, Czech Silesia 186, 282 72 Krucemburk, Bohemia 173 John VIII, pope (872–882) 287 Kulchov, Moravia, see Znojmo John Lackland, king of England (1199–1216) Kuna of Potvorov 221 93, 295 Kunigunde (Agnes), see Heilwidis of John of Luxembourg (Bohemia), king of Thürnau Bohemia (1310–1346) 189, 255 Kunigunde of Swabia (Hohenstaufen), queen John, margrave butler 263 of Bohemia († 1248) 94, 272, 299, 299 John, margrave chaplain 151 Kunovice, Moravia 77, 274 John, margrave knight 269 Kuřim, Moravia 273 John, overseer of Nový Hrádek 162, 263, see Kuthen, Martin († 1564), chronicler 237 Olomouc Květoň, margrave gamekeeper 264 John Codagnellus, chronicler († after 1230) Kyjov, Moravia 132, 159 86 John Henry, margrave of Moravia (1350–1375) Lacek of Kravaře 191 189, 236, 254 Ladislaus, margrave knight 269 344 Index

Ladislav the Posthumous (1453–1457), king of Louis of Medlice (1249) 281 Bohemia 256 Louka monastery, Moravia (57) 13, 37, 55, Lambert, margrave chaplain 269 62, 68, 76, 115, 132, 147, 154, 177, 178, 201, Land 6, 7, 9 209, 221, 228, 260, 261, see Znojmo Land und Herrschaft 4 Lucko, Moravia 145 Langheim monastery, Germany Ludolf, archbishop of Magdeburg (Bavaria) 260 (1192–1205) 82 Latzke, Walter (1904–1991), historian 188 Ludvíkov, Czech Silesia 182 Law Luke, abbot of Třebíč (1225) 136 German law 115, 136, 178, 217, 222, 273 Lukov, Moravia 159 Law of the ministeriales of the church of Lupold, bishop of Worms (1196–1217) 82 Magdeburg 281 Lupold, margrave butler, cupbearer 263, Magdeburg Law 172, 173, 181, 182, 186, 194, 264 197, 200, 204, 283 Roman Law 7 Maastricht, Netherland 92 Lawrence, bishop of Wrocław Magdeburg, Germany (Saxony) 61, 284 (1207–1232) 278 Magdeburg Law, see Law Lechfeld, Germany (Swabia) 97, 129, see Magna Carta (1215) 295 Augsburg Magnus, monk 236, see Mariazell Legnano, battlefield (1176), Italy 31 Mailberg, battlefield (1082), Austria 145 Leo of Klobouky 113, 133, 137, 154, 164, 167, Mainz, Germany (Franconia) 84, 89, 125, 219 294 Leoben monastery, Austria 274 Maiores terre 9 Leopold IV, duke of Austria (since 1136) and Maloměřice, Moravia 219 Bavaria (1139–1141) 290 Manuel I Komnenos, Byzantine Emperor Leopold V, duke of Austria (1177–1194) 51, 61, (1143–1180) 290 82, 292, 293 Marchfeld, battlefield (1278), Austria 211 Liptáň, Moravia 281 Mariazell monastery, Austria (Styria) 2, 140, Litoměřice, Bohemia (8) 273 206, 234, 235, 236, 238, 239 Litomyšl, Bohemia (36) 71, 169, 260 Margaret of Austria († 1266) 236, 299 Litpold, count of Bavaria († 907) 285 Margaret of Merano, margravine of Moravia Liutpold, vice-duke of Znojmo († 1261/1271) 260, 299 (1101–1112) 142 Mark (Moravian weighs) 176, see monetary Loděnice, battlefield (1185), Moravia 12, 13, reform 14, 36, 64, 75, 209 Markvart, margrave chaplain and Loket, Bohemia (9) 272 prothonotary 260, 262 Lothar of Hochstaden, bishop of Liége Markvart, margrave knight 263 (1192–1193) 46 Marold, burgher of Opava 197, see Opava Lothar III of Supplinburg, king of the Mayer, Theodor (1883–1972), historian 8 Romans and Germany (since 1125) and Medlo, castellan of Olomouc 163 Holy Roman Emperor (1133–1138) 18, 81 Meerane, Germany (Thuringia) 26, 27, 28 Louis I, duke of Bavaria (1183–1231) 82, 91, Meissen, Germany 17, 28, 44, 47, 55, 65, 120 98 Melioratio terrae 180 Louis, king of Hungary (1342–1382) 234, 236 Měnín, Moravia (25) Louis III, landgrave of Thuringia (1172–1190) Law 189, 191, 200 28 Town 190, 200, 204 Louis, margrave (protho)notary and Merseburg, Germany (Saxony) 15, 19, 89, 90, physician 260, 262 100, 107, 108, 293 Index 345

Methodius, archbishop of Moravia Neplach, abbot of Opatovice, chronicler († 885) 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 286 († 1371) 232 Mieszko, duke of Poland († 992) 287 Nicholas, margrave chaplain 262 Mikulov, Moravia 273 Nicholas Sortes, notary 254 Milan, Italy 21, 23 Nocleh (duke) 102, 170 Milevsko monastery, Bohemia (38) 115, see Nova, Bohemia 286 Gerlach, abbot of Milevsko Nová Říše monastery, Moravia 220 Milíč, margrave knight 263 Nové Sedlice, see Slavkov Miloš, margrave chaplain 262 Novotný, Václav (1869–1932), historian 1, 33, Minsberg, Ferdinand (1781–1855), 40, 53, 56, 68, 69, 125, 134, 241, 242, 245, historian 188 246 Miroslaus, margrave cupbearer 262, 263 Nový Hrádek (New Castle), see Olomouc Miroslav, Moravia 219, 222 Nuremberg, Germany (Franconia) 26, 28, Mitteis, Heinrich (1882–1952), historian 98 86, 98, 99, 100, 108, 109, 121, 129, 241, Mladota, judge of Olomouc (1174) 74, 164 293 Möckern, Germany 105, 106, see Mocran et Mocran) Ochoz, Moravia 219 Mocran et Mocran 3, 103, 105–107, 109–112, Odrlice, Moravia 162 237, 239, 243, see Golden Bull of Sicily Oldřich, duke of Bohemia (1012–1034) 10 Modlejovice, see Kobeřice Oldřišov, Czech Silesia 77, 279 Modrá, Moravia 224 Olejovice, Moravia 213 Mojmírids, Great Moravian dynasty 9, 224, Olomouc, Moravia (26) 225, 287 Castle 35, 61, 65, 66, 71, 72, 74, 75, 76, 78, Moll, Balthasar (1717–1785), sculptor 2, 236 79, 113, 118, 129, 141–143, 145, 166, 177, Monetary reform 170–176 180, 225, 259, 275 Denar 144 Chapter of St Wenceslas 3, 118 Pfennig 171 Church of St Peter 101, 114, 219, 258, 260, Šmitna (minting workshop) 175 270 Monse, Joseph Vratislav (1733–1793), Church of St Wenceslas 101 historian 239 Dominicans 204 Moravian Chronicle 233 Mint 175, 176 Moravian Land Code 256 Nový Hrádek 162, 203, 259 Moravice, river 194, 279, 281, see Střelná Province (or part of Moravia) 9, 12, 33, Moravská Huzová, Moravia 162 34, 38, 49, 103, 110, 157–159, 167, 168, 257, Moravské Budějovice, Moravia 173 267, 273, 277 Most, Bohemia 272 Town 182, 200, 203, 204, 226, 264, 275 Mrakota, margrave chaplain 262 Oneš, son of Blud 164 Mramotice, Moravia 209 Opatovice monastery, Bohemia (40) 23 Mühlhausen, Germany (Franconia) 49, 81, Opava, Czech Silesia (27) 82 Burgher 199, 200, 270 Myslík, margrave gamekeeper 264 Church of the Virgin Mary 113, 206, 283 Law 204 Naples, Italy 46, 56, 64 Mint 175, 176 Nářez (retinue) 102, 170 Town 117, 132, 147, 151, 159, 177, 186, 188, Naumburg, Germany (Saxony) 98 197, 208, 211, 270, 275, 279, 283 Nedakonice, Moravia 244, 245 Province 196, 197, 267, 275, 278, 282, 284, Nedvězí, Moravia 219 see Holasice Nehlas, margrave minor marshal 270 Settlement 77, 116 346 Index

Order of St John 14, 56, 66, 74, 101, 114, 115, Peřinka, Vácslav František (1878–1949), 146, 147, 157–159, 170, 178, 186, 189, 200, historian 136 217, 218, 221, 222, 260, 278, 283 Personenverbandsstaat 8 Order of the Teutonic Knights 113, 127, 149, Pešina of Čechorod, Thomas (1629–1680), 154, 169, 189, 197, 206, 211, 221, 222, 226, historian 68, 237 266, 274, 278, 279, 283 Peter, abbot of Klášterní Hradisko Osek, Bohemia (41) 221 (1225–1229) 217 Oslavany monastery, Moravia 135–137, 139, Peter, cardinal-legate (1202) 121 140, 170, 259, 260 Peter, judge of Olomouc (1174) 74, 164 Osoblaha, Moravia 189, 279–281, 283 Peter, margrave chaplain 262 Ostrov monastery, Bohemia (42) 221 Peter, margrave cupbearer 149 Otakar III, margrave of Styria (1129–1164) Peter, margrave knight 148, 151 292 Peter, margrave marshal 148 Otakar IV, margrave (since 1164) and duke of Peter of Eboli, chronicler († before 1220) 56 Styria (1180–1192) 292 Pfennig, see monetary reform Otrok, margrave gamekeeper 264 Philip II August, King of France (1180–1223) Otto I, king of the Romans and Germany 51, 84, 125, 128 (since 936) and Holy Roman Emperor Philip of Swabia, king of the Romans and (962–973) 286 Germany (1198–1208) 81–90, 92, 94–96, Otto III, king of the Romans and Germany 98, 100, 103, 109, 110, 121, 124, 125, 146, 293 (since 983) and Holy Roman Emperor Pilgrim, bishop of Olomouc (1181–1184) 62, (996–1002) 284, 287, 288 64 Otto IV of Brunswick, king of the Romans Pilgrim (Pelhřim), margrave minor butler and Germany (since 1198) and Holy 149, 151 Roman Emperor (1209–1218) 83–92, Pilsen, Bohemia 109 94–97, 99, 103, 109, 121, 127, 128, 293 Pepin of Italy, king of the Lombards Otto I, vice-duke of Olomouc (1061–1087) (781–810) 285 142, 143, 217 Pisa, Italy 19, 97 Otto II , vice-duke of Olomouc (1107–1110, Plasy monastery , Bohemia (43) 13, 57, 114, 1113–1125) 42, 141, 144 115, 207, 221, 274 Otto III, vice-duke of Olomouc (1140–1158, Podivín, Moravia 200 1161–1162) 71, 72, 74, 76 Podlažice monastery, Bohemia (44) 3 Otto IV, vice-duke (fictional) of Brno 237 Pohořelice, Moravia 200 Otto, abbot of Freising, chronicler (1138–1158) Pojsl, Miloslav, historian 244, 245 23, 143, 290, 291 Polách, Ota (1908–1969), historian 244, 245 Otto of Hardegg 274 Polom, Czech Silesia 279 Otto of Wittelsbach, count palatine Pomuk monastery , Bohemia (39) 152, 207 (1189–1209) 95 Potěh, Moravia 136 Otto the Rich, margrave of Meissen Povelice (Horní/Dolní) 280, 281 (1156–1190) 28 Povoz (way) 102, 170 Prague, Bohemia (12) Palacký, František (1798–1876), historian 1, Castle 10, 12, 16, 17, 18, 23, 27, 33, 55–57, 105, 239, 240, 245–248, 253 60, 61, 70, 76, 88, 99, 114, 115, 118, 122, 129, Pánek, Ivo, historian 175 197, 200, 224, 246, 254, 258, 270 Paul the Deacon, chronicler († 799?) 285 Na Poříčí (St Peter Church) 113, 220–221 Pegau monastery, Germany (Saxony) 27, 129 Royal Summer Palace 246–248 Pekař, Josef (1870–1937), historian 105 St Vitus chapter 23, 38, 41 Pelcl, Francis Martin (1734–1801), St George monastery 17 historian 239 Strahov monastery, Bohemia (48) 25, 41 Index 347

Town 273 Quedlinburg, Germany (Saxony) 94, 127 Týn 176 Quemadmodum ex historiis 223 Vyšehrad 34 (battle under Vyšehrad 1179) 41, 272 Radim (Gaudencius), archbishop of Gniezno Vyšehrad (St Peter) Chapter 12, 38, 40 († after 1006) 288 Premonstratensians, see Chotěšov, Dolní Radoslav, overseer of Olomouc 164 Kounice, Doksany, Klášterní Hradisko Rahewin, chronicler († before 1177) 23 (since 1150, Louka, Milevsko, Nová Říše, Rainald of Dassel, imperial chancellor Prague Strahov, Střelná, Zábrdovice, Želiv († 1167) 24 (since 1149) Rajhrad provostry, Moravia (58) 73, 118, 214, Přemysl, margrave of Moravia (1227–1239) 216, 219, 222, 274 108, 117, 162, 166, 172, 186, 194, 197, 204, Ranožíř, margrave master chaser 263 231, 236, 259, 260–270, 277, 278, 297, Rašín forest, Moravia 208 299 Ratibor, margrave butler 270 Přemysl the Ploughman 41, 42 Ratibor of Deblín, judge of Brno 164 Přemysl Otakar I, duke of Bohemia (1192–1193, Regensburg, Germany (Bavaria) 21, 23, 35, 39, since 1197), king of Bohemia (1198–1230) 40, 47, 62, 64, 76, 96, 114, 126, 152, 288 1, 3, 12–15, 28, 29, 34–36, 38, 44, 46–50, Regnum 8, 9 52–55, 57–59, 61, 64–66, 70, 71, 74, Reinhardsbrunn monastery, Germany 78–80, 82, 85–91, 96, 98–101, 103, 108, (Thuringia) 14, 16 109, 112–117, 120–130, 132, 133, 137, 139, Řeznovice, Moravia 159 141, 145, 148, 149, 152–154, 159, 162, 169, Richard I, king of England (1189–1199) 51, 170, 176, 177, 181, 184, 188, 189, 194, 196, 54, 81, 83, 84 197, 201–203, 208, 209, 212, 228, 231, 233, Richard of Cornwall, king of the Romans and 236, 240–242, 253, 257, 258, 260, 278, Germany (1257–1272) 275 279, 282, 297, 298 Richeza, duchess of Austria († 1182) 15 Přemysl Otakar II, margrave of Moravia Robert, bishop of Olomouc (1201–1240) 78, (since 1247), king of Bohemia (1253–1278) 79, 101, 113, 114, 116, 118, 126, 129, 136, 137, 117, 175, 186, 188, 199, 210, 211, 216, 219, 146, 152, 153, 160, 162, 169, 178, 202, 207, 225–227, 231, 236, 268, 270, 272–275, 208, 219, 221, 231, 259, 279, 283 277, 279, 281, 282, 297, 299 Roger of Hoveden, chronicler († 1201) 81 Přerov, Moravia (28) 158, 167, 258 Roman Law, see Law Příbor, Moravia 187 Rome, Italy 96, 97, 129, 288 Přibyslavice, Bohemia 176 Roudný, Czech Silesia 211 Přimda, Bohemia 27 Ruben, Christian (1805–1875), painter Přísnobor, margrave notary 268, 269, 272 246–249 Privilegium maius 291 Rudger, knight (1201) 115, 136, 167, 178 Privilegium minus 291–292, 293 Rudger, margrave knight 269 Procházka, Rudolf, archaeologist 158 Rudolph II, king of Bohemia (1575–1611) and Procopius, abbot of Sázava († 1053) 225 Holy Roman Emperor (1576–1612) 105, Prosiměřice, Moravia 20 107 Prosimír, castellan of Hradec 166 Rudolph IV of Habsburg, duke of Austria Prostějov, Moravia 114, 149, 151, 159, 259 (1339–1365) 291 Protiven, margrave knight 263 Rudolph I of Habsburg, king of the Romans Pubička, Francis (1722–1807), historian 238, and Germany (1273–1291) 275 239, 245 Rudy monastery, Poland (Silesia) 199 Pulkava of Radenín, Přibík, chronicler († 1380) 69, 137, 223, 232, 234, 237, Sachsenspiegel 82 265, 267 Sádek, Moravia 280 348 Index

Sadovany, Moravia 201 Sobeslaus I, duke of Bohemia (1125–1140) 18, Sadská, Bohemia 43 42, 73 Salaška, rivulet 207, 222 Sobeslaus II, duke of Bohemia (1173–1178) Sázava monastery, Bohemia (46) 18, 23, 225 26, 27, 29–31, 34, 41, 43, 72, 74, 201 Schatzberg, Moravia (1221) 130 Sobeslaus, margrave minor butler 270 Schirmeisen, Karl (1868–1958), archaeologist Soffie of Meissen, vice-duchess of Olomouc 213 (1173–1177) 19 Schlesinger, Walter (1908–1984), historian 6, Speyer, Germany 86, 94, 97 7, 9 Spytata, margrave chaser 260, 263 Schlesische Geschichtsblätter 188 Spytihněv, Moravia 158, 164 Schořice, Moravia 208 Spytihněv I, duke of Bohemia (895–905/915) Schramm, Percy Ernst (1894–1970), 285 historian 21 Spytihněv II, duke of Bohemia (1055–1061) Sciassia, Domenico (1599/1603–1679), 42 architect 237 Spytihněv, vice-duke of Brno (1194–1197) 55, Šebánek, Jindřich (1900–1977), historian 57, 58, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 146, 163 Stará Boleslav, Bohemia (14) Seč, Moravia 219 Stará Rudná, Czech Silesia 182 Seibt, Ferdinand (1927–2003), historian 9 Staré Město (see Bruntál) Sejbal, Jiří (1929–2004), historian 171, 174 Staré Město (Uherské Hradiště), Moravia Semislaus of Morkovice 154, 167, 270 224 Severus, bishop of Prague (1030–1067) 288 Statutum in favorem principum (1232) 294 Sezema, margrave butler 263 Stěbořice, Czech Silesia 279 Sicard of Cremona, chronicler († 1215) 126 Štěpánov, Moravia 172, 209 Sidon, margrave chaplain 151 Stephen V, pope (885–891) 286, 287 Siegfried, margrave scribe 269 Stephen, provost of Doubravník 219 Siegfried, reeve of Krnov 282 Stephen of Medlov 113, 118, 134, 148, 154, 167 Siegfried of Eppstein, archbishop of Mainz Steven, burgher of Opava 197, see Opava (1200–1230) 87, 98, 125 Stránský, Pavel (1583–1657), chronicler 237 Sifrid, canon of Olomouc († 1228) 78–80, Střelná (Malá, Velká) forest and river, 124, 208 Moravia 118, 210, 211, 214, 216, 239 Sifrid, reeve of Krnov 186 Střelná monastery, Moravia 212, 213, 221 Šimák, Josef Vítězslav (1870–1941), Stürner, Wolfang, historian 126 historian 136 Suchá Rudná, Czech Silesia 182 Simon, margrave chaplain 262 Sud, margrave chaplain 151 Sinzig, Germany 94 Sudek, margrave chaplain, provost 151 Skála, Bohemia 34 Sulislaus, margrave butler 149, 150, 259 Skalice, Moravia 219 Švábenský, Mojmír (1924–2002), historian Skopal, Michael, historian 23 233 Slavata, master chaser 166, 260 Svatopluk, duke of Bohemia (1107–1109) 42, Slavibor, chamberlain of Olomouc (1174) 74, 144, 145 164 Svatopluk, duke of Moravia (871–894) 223, Slavkov (Nové Sedlice) Moravia 191, 193, 225, 226, 285, 287 200, 204, 206 Svatopluk, vice-duke of Brno (1194–1197) 56, Smil, margrave gamekeeper 264 58, 65, 68, 69, 70, 71 Smilův Brod, Bohemia 173, 174 Svatopluk, vice-duke of Olomouc (1169–1173) Šmitna, see monetary reform 69, 70, 73, 298 Index 349

Svitávka, Moravia 217 Uherský Brod, Moravia 177, 186, 199, 274 Svitavy, Moravia 115, 219, 221 Uherské Hradiště, Moravia 116, 175, 226 Svoboda, Karel (1824–1870), painter 247 Uhřičice, Moravia 162 Svojše (Svojslaus), margrave knight 151, 263 Ulm, Germany (Swabia) 29, 118, 120 Ulrich, margrave cupbearer 270 Tabulae terrae (land tables) 166, 256 Ulrich (Oldřich), vice-duke of Brno Tancred, King of Sicily (1189–1194) 56 (1092–1113?) 142, 143 Teige, Josef (1862–1921), historian 211, 213 Ulrich (Oldřich), vice-duke of Olomouc Telč, Bohemia 159 (1173–1177) 19, 20, 26, 27, 29, 31, 73, 74, Teplá, Bohemia (50) 57, 207, 221 77, 145, 164 Theobald I (Děpolt), vice-duke of Bohemia Ulrich of Boskovice 217 († 1167) 17, 298 Ulrich, duke of Carinthia, duke of Břeclav Theobald II (Děpolt), vice-duke of Bohemia (1237–1238) 267 († 1190) 13, 43, 44, 75 Uničov, Moravia (29) 117, 172, 174, 177, 181, Theobald III (Děpolt), duke of Čáslav, 182, 194, 195, 200, 204, 277 governor of Pilsen († 1213?) 91, 92, 109, Úsobrno, Moravia 158 124 Úsov, Moravia 167, 263 Theobald of Schweinspoint, duke of Spoleto († after 1221) 97 Valdemar II, duke of Schleswig (1183–1216) Theodoric, bishop of Olomouc (1281–1302) King of Denmark (1202–1241) 49 211 Valentine, chancellor of Olomouc Theodoric, judge of Znojmo 164 (1169?) 163 Theodoric, margrave of Meissen (1195–1221) Vaněk of Boskovice 256 50, 82, 89, 91, 95, 96, 98, 99, 109, 120, 121, Velehrad monastery, Moravia (60) 3, 10, 79, 123, 124, 127 101, 102, 110, 114–117, 129, 132, 146, 151, 152, Theodoric, margrave servant 270 154, 159, 169, 171, 177, 197, 199, 207–209, Theodoric, reeve of Uničov 177, 194 212, 221–227, 231, 239, 243–245, 260, 262, Theodoric, royal prosecutor (1225) 137 263, 266, 273, 283 Thiemo, bishop of Bamberg (1196–1201) 82 Velíz, judge of Olomouc 164, 259 Thilo, reeve of Hlubčice 186 Velká Bíteš, Moravia (19) 173, 174, 191, 200, Thizelin, abbot of Velehrad (1205–1209) 169, 204, 277 207 Velká Střelná, see Střelná Thomas II, bishop of Wrocław (1270–1292) Věroslaus, margrave butler 263 185 Veveří, Moravia 159 Thomas, margrave chaplain 148, 151, 262 Victor, margrave (protho)notary 260, 262 Thürnau, Austria 136, 140 Victor of Bludov 264, 268 Timothy, margrave chaplain 262 Vicus (settlement district) 201–202 Tišnov monastery, Moravia 137, 139, 173, 191, Vienna, Austria 4, 51, 171, 176, 275, 283 260, 266 Vincent, Ulrich, imperial archivist 105, 106, 107 Tomas, Jindřich (1917–2000), historian 202 Vincentius of Prague, chronicler († after Tověř, Moravia 162 1167) 16–21, 23, 69, 142 Třebíč monastery, Moravia (59) 136, 142, 145, Vipert, margave chaplain 262 154, 219, 222 Vitislaus, duke of Bohemia (895) 285 Třemešná, Moravia 281 Vladimir, vice-duke of Olomouc (1189–1200) Trenkwald, Joseph Matthias (1824–1897), 44, 49, 55, 57, 58, 65, 69, 71, 73–78, 101, painter 247–250 188 350 Index

Vladislaus I, duke of Bohemia (1109–1117, Weczerka, Hugo, historian 188 1121–1125) 141, 221, 298 Wegener, Wilhelm (1911–2004), historian 21, Vladislaus II, duke of Bohemia (since 1140), 40, 243 king of Bohemia (1158–1172) 14–18, 20, 21, Weissensee, Germany (Thuringia) 91 23–28, 41–43, 69, 71–73, 144, 214, 228, 298 Weitra, Austria 30, 34 Vladislaus Henry I, margrave of Moravia Weizsäcker, Wilhelm (1886–1961), (1192–1194, 1197–1222) 1–4, 10–16, 27, historian 188 28, 40, 44, 47–50, 53, 55–61, 64–67, 70, Wenceslas, margrave chaplain 262 79, 82, 86, 88, 89, 91, 92, 94, 96, 99–101, Wenceslas, Saint, duke of Bohemia 103, 105–108, 110, 112–118, 123, 125, 126, (921–935) 2, 224, 235, 286 129–134, 139, 140, 145–148, 150–152, 154, Wenceslas II, duke of Bohemia (1191–1192) 157, 158, 163, 166–171, 173, 174, 176, 178, 13, 31, 33, 35, 38, 43, 44, 46, 47, 49, 64, 180, 184, 188, 189, 191, 194, 196, 200, 202, 69, 70, 74, 75, 79 204–209, 211–214, 216, 217, 219, 221–224, Wenceslas I, king of Bohemia (1230–1253) 1, 227–233, 235–246, 253, 257, 258–261, 95, 118, 120, 121, 123, 130–132, 136, 139, 174, 264, 277, 278, 282, 283, 296–298 189, 191, 193, 194, 202, 204, 210, 211, 216, Vladislaus Henry II, margrave of Moravia 219, 231–234, 236, 239, 240, 158, 259, 262, (1224–1227) 132, 233, 236, 258, 259, 265–268, 270, 272–275, 277, 278, 281, 268, 297, 299 282, 299 Vladislaus Henry III, margrave of Moravia Wenceslas II, king of Bohemia (1283–1305) (1246–1247) 234, 236, 268, 274, 297, 199 299 Wenskus, Reinhard (1916–2002), historian 8 Vladivoi, duke of Bohemia (1002–1003) 288 Wernhard of Thürnau 115, 132, 134, 139, 147, Vojslaus, chamberlain († 1170) 70 151, 154, 167 Vojslaus, margrave chaplain 269 Wezen, margrave master chaser 263 Vojslaus, nobleman (1225) 137 Wichmann of Magdeburg, archbishop Vojtěch, margrave marshal 262 (1152/4–1192) 49 Voliš, chancellor of Olomouc Wido, reeve of Bořetice 178 (1162–1169?) 73 William, margrave high cupbearer 149, 264 Vratislaus II, duke of Bohemia (since 1061), William, margrave (protho)notary and king of Bohemia (1085/6–1092) 73, 141, physician 260, 262, 268, 269 142 Winand, burgher of Opava 197, see Opava Vratislaus, prince of Bohemia († after 1235) Wittig, land scribe of Styria 274 99, 109, 120–124, 299 Wolfger of Erla, bishop of Passau Vratislaus, prince of Bohemia († 1201?) 113, (1191–1204) 92, 100, 146, 151, 152 299 Wolfram, margrave butler 263 Vratislaus, vice-duke of Brno (1125–1129, Wolfram, reeve of Frankfurt (1192) 47 1130–1146?) 68, 69 Wolfram, Herwig, historian 284 Vrš, margrave high chaser 263 Wolverton, Lisa, historian 11 Všeslaus, margrave chaplain 262 Worms, Germany 46, 56, 65, 82, 294 Vyškov, Moravia 204 Würzburg, Germany (Franconia) 23, 56, 85, Vysoká, battlefield (1142), Bohemia 17 96, 97, 129 Vysoká, Moravia 280 Yurik, monk 214, 216 Waldsassen monastery, Germany (Bavaria) 57 Zábrdovice monastery, Moravia 110, 113, 124, Walther von der Vogelweide († 1230?) 84, 133, 151, 157, 167, 170, 219, 260 85, 151 Žalkovice, Moravia 208 Index 351

Zaoral, Prokop (1923–2003), historian 3, 134, Zlaté Hory, Czech Silesia 118, 171, 184, 283 148 Zlechov, Moravia 170 Žatčany, Moravia 191 Znojmo, Moravia (31) Záviš, castellan of Olomouc 154, 164, 167 Castle 30, 66, 70, 71, 92, 139, 140, 142, Zbečno, Bohemia 13 144–147, 166, 168, 170, 173, 177, 180, 204, Zdeslaus, margrave marshal 270 206, 209, 211, 257–259, 263, 264, 270, 274 Zdeslaus of Štrenberk 210 Church (parish) of St Michael 201 Zdice, Bohemia 55 Church (parish) of St Nicholas 201 Zdislaus, margrave chaplain 262 Kulchov 201 Zdislaus, margrave butler 270 Mint 175 Zdislaus, margrave master chaser 263 Province (part of Moravia) 33, 34, 56, 62, Želiv monastery, Bohemia (54) 152 65–67, 109, 157, 158, 277 Žemlička, Josef, historian 2, 107, 242–246 Suburbium 176, 201 Zinke, Alois, farmer from Olejovice 213 Town 200, 202–204, 273 Žirákovice, Moravia 77 Zvíkov, Bohemia 272 Životice (Horní), Moravia 281 Zwettl monastery, Austria 115, 207, 221