Category Archives: Czechs

Reports of the Slavs From Muslim Lands Part I – Ibrahim ibn Ya’qub’s Account

PublishedJanuary 10, 2015 Post authortorino

Ibrahim ibn Ya’qub al-Israili, was a Jewish merchant from Tortosa (whether he was also a Muslim is debatable). In the year A.D. 965, he traveled from Muslim-occupied Spain (the formerly Vandal, Al-Andalus) to Mainz and then to Magdeburg, the residence of German Emperor (as of 962) Otto I where, interestingly, he claimed to have been received by the Emperor (or was it puffery?). Who was Ibrahim? He was a merchant but beyond that we are not sure. That he was given access to Otto suggests that he may have been an envoy and his account below suggests that either he also may have been a scout or a spy or that he was just naturally curious or, most likely, both. If he was an envoy/spy then he was in the service of the Cordoban caliph Al Hakaman II (ruler between 961-976).

Ibrahim was thrilled to get new orders from the caliph and leave the sleepy Spanish Coast…

It is worthwhile to mention that we have briefly met his father Abd-ar-Rahman III already. The father, also bears mentioning at this point, was a warrior who may have had a special Slavic guard of over thirteen thousand soldiers who helped him conquer portions of Spain and also North Africa (but maybe they were just slaves not Slavs…unclear).

The son, Al Hakhaman was a patron of the arts (his library contained something like 400,000 plus manuscripts) but was not a warrior. What he was, however, was homosexual and was known to have kept a number of (male) harems. Of course, a rich ruler gets bored easily and so his harems need replenishing. Thus, it may well be that while his father kept Slav warrior slaves, the son was sending Ibrahim on a mission to get him some information and some male Slav sex slaves. At the time the slave trade was booming and Slavs were the primary bounty (yes, we will have more on that later). Prague was the center of this trade as of other trade as Ibrahim, himself, describes below. Of course, we do not know Ibrahim’s mission for sure and, likely, will never know leaving the above in realm of speculation.

…for a little nature get away

It was in the service of Abd-ar-Rahman III, the father, by the way, that Hasdai ibn Shaprut performed all his diplomatic miracles as mentioned here. Ibrahim, it is worth noting may well have known Hasdai since the latter did not pass away until the year 970 or so. It is conceivable then that Ibrahim would have brought back to Hasdai the news of the defeat and final collapse (A.D. 965) of the Khazar Kingdom at the hands of the newly emergent Rus.

In any event, it appears that after visiting with Otto I in Magdeburg he went on to Prague (the year was 965 so the princess Dobrava was just heading out to see her new husband, still non-Christian, Mieszko) and also went to see the Obotrites in the North though the order of his travels is uncertain (his visits to the Czech capital and to the Obotrite capital are relatively clear from the distances given and a description of the approaches to those cities (another reason that suggests that he was more than a merchant). As for Poland, the lands of Walitaba (Veleti), the Prussians or the Amazons, it seems that Ibrahim had not ventured to those and that his information comes second-hand from people he met in his travels.

Ibrahim’s original account did not survive but, as already mentioned, some of his writings are replicated in Abu ‘Ubayd al-Bakri’s (11th century) “Book of Roads and Kingdoms.” Since this is a “classic” account containing some of the first mentions of the Bohemian (first mention of Prague), Polish (other than Widukind’s mention of 963, this seems the earliest mention of Polish lands) and West Slavic countries (and of Baltic Prussia – Burus), we transcribe it here in most of the relevant parts (skipping only the German, lengthy Bulgarian and “hearth & home” sections – the last one we will return to in part III of this series).

From Abu ‘Ubayd al-Bakri’s Book of Roads and Kingdoms

“The Saqaliba are descendants of Madhay, son of Yafith (Japheth) and they dwell in the north-west.” says al-Bakri, then switching to Ibrahim’s reporting:

Ibrahim ibn Ya’qub al-Israili says:

‘The country of Saqualiba extends from the eastern Mediterranean to the north Atlantic. The tribes of the north dominate them and now live among them. They are of many different kinds. They were once united under a king named Makha, who was from a group of them called Walitaba.[1] This group was of high status among them, but then their languages diverged, unity was broken and the people divided into factions, each of them ruled by their own king.”

[We note that a similar term appears in other Arabic writings, e.g., Majik of the Walitaba or Walinana – which, presumably, is a reference to the Volinians of Wolin (or Wollin) Island – who are the same as the Veleti or Walitaba – either way from the Veletian Union on Wolin (from Masudi on the Slavs from A.D. 943; of course, the same Masudi speaks of the majus when speaking of, apparently, Viking (but, maybe, Wendish pirates – more on that later when we discuss Britain) raiders hitting the coasts of Al-Andalus); same people aka the Wilzi in some sources]

“At the present time they have four kings: the king of the Bulqars; Boreslav [the Cruel], king of Prague (Faraga) and Cracow (Karaku); Mieszko (Mashaqu), king of the North; and Nakon (Naqun), who rules farthest west.”

On Nakon’s Country

[Duke of the Obodrites]

“The country of Nakon is bordered on the farthest west by the Saxons [Saksun] and some Norsemen [Murman]. His country has low prices and many horses, which are exported to other places. They are well armed, with shields, helmets and swords.”

A museum at Gross Raden

“From Burgh (Fargh [Magdeburg?]) to Mayliyah [?] is ten miles and from [there] to the bridge is fifty miles. It is a wooden bridge, a mile long. From the bridge to the fortress of Nakon is around 40 miles, and it is called Grad, which means a “large fort” Facing Grad jus a fort built in a freshwater lake. This is the kind of place where the Saqaliba build most of their forts, in swampy meadows with thick foliage.”

There be thick foliage

“They trace out a circular or square space the size they want their for to be, and then dig a trench along the perimeter and heap up the earth into a rampart, which they then reinforce with planks and logs, until the walls of the fort are the height they require. They make a gate wherever they want and build a wooden bridge leading to it. From the fort of Grad to the Surrounding Sea is eleven miles. No army can penetrate the lands of Nakon without great difficult, because the country is all marshy, thickly forested and muddy.”

Stargard (Oldenburg in Schleswig-Holstein) reconstruction

[we note here that Nakon died about 965-966, a fact that Ibrahim does not seem to know about suggesting he visited there immediately before those events – maybe a hit commissioned by Otto using a Cordoban “merchant” emissary – let your imagination roam]

On Boreslav’s Country

[Boleslav, Duke of the Czechs]

“As for the country of Boreslav, from the city of Prague to the city of Cracow is a journey of three weeks; its length is comparable to that of the country of the Turks. The city of Prague is built of stone an dime. It is the pinrcipal trading city. The Rus and the Saqaliba go there from Cracow, to trade, and so do Muslim merchants from the lands of the Turks, as well as Turks and Jews, with [mathaquil al-marqatiyya [?] weights [?]]. They carry away slaves, tin and various kinds of furs [?]. Their country is the best in the north the richest in provender. There a man can buy enough flour for a month for a qinshar. In Prague are made saddles and griddles and the leather shields used in their countries.”

Prague, a few hundred years after Ibrahim’s visit but before the tourists ruined it

“In Bohemia are made small lightly-woven kerchiefs like nets, embroidered with crescents, which have no practical use. The value of ten of these kerchiefs is always equivalent to none qinshar. They trade and exchange them, and have receptacles full of them. They constitute wealth, and the most expensive things can be purchased with them, wheat, slaves, horses, gold and silver and everything else. It is surprising that the people of Bohemia have brown or black hair; blonds are rare among them.”

“The road from Madhinburgh [Magdeburg?] to the country of Boleslav [to] and from it to the fort of Qaliwa is ten miles, and from it to Nub Grad is two miles. It is a fort built of stone and lime, and it is on the Saale River [Slawah], into which falls the River Bode. And from Nub Grad to Mallahat al-Yahud [Salzmunde?] which is on the Saale River, is thirty miles. From there to the fort of Burjin, which is on the River Mulde [Muldasah] … and from it to edge of the forest is twenty-five miles; from its beginning to its end is forty miles, through mountains and forests. for,, it to the wooden bridge over the mud is about two miles. From the end of the forest the city of Prague is entered.”

On Mieszko’s Country

[Duke of the Poles]

“As for the country of Mieszko, it is the most extensive of their countries. It abounds in food and meat and honey and cultivated fields.”

Gniezno reconstruction; courtesy: the Museum of the Beginnings of the Polish State

“His taxes are levied in [mathalqil al-margatiyya [according to how much they weigh?]], and they are used to pay the monthly salaries of his men, each of whom receives a fixed number. He has 3,000 shield-bearers. One hundred of his soldiers are equal of 1,000. The men are given clothing and horses and weapons and everything they require. If one of them has a child, he is immediately assigned an allowance, whether it is male or female. When it grows up, if it is male, he provides for its marriage and gives a dowry to the father of the girl. Dowries are very important to the Saqaliba, and their customs concerning them are like those of the Berbers. If a woman has two or three daughters, they are considered a form of wealth. If a man has two sons, it is a cause of poverty.”

On the Prussians

[that is the Baltic Prussians]

“Mieszko is bordered to the east by the Rus and to the north by Prussia. The inhabitants of Prussia live on the shore of the Surrounding Sea. They have their own language, and do not know the languages of their neighbors.”

Old Prussians’ defenses were impregnable – at any temperature above 32 Fahrenheit

“They are famous for their courage. If an army comes against them, not one of them waits until his comrade joins him, but each man charges on his own, striking with his sword until he is killed. The Rus raid them in ships from the west [presumably Vikings from Sweden].”

On the City of Women

“West of the Rus lies the City of Women [Magda/Mazovia?]. They have fields and slaves, and they bear children from their slaves. If a woman has a male child, she kills it. They ride horses and devote themselves to war; they are brave and fierce.”

In telling his Amazon story to Ibrahim, Otto (in the middle) relied heavily on visual aids

“Ibrahim ibn Ya’qub says: ‘The story of this city is true; Otto, the king of the Romans, told me so himself.'”

On the Walitaba Country

[Veleti]

“To the west of this city is a tribe of the Saqaliba called the nation of Walitaba. It is in the scrbuands of the country of Mieszko to the north-west.”

Wollin coast – it was a lot woodier in the olden days

“They have a great city on the Surrounding Ocean [presumably Wolin]. It has twelve gates and a harbor, with a revetment of wooden pilings [?] [wa hum yasta maluna la-hi shuturan harlan]. They make war on Mieszko and are very courageous. They have no king and trade with no one. Their judges are their old men.”

[1] this name Walitaba refers to the Veleti. Also known as Wilzi.

Idols in Oriente iam sole (East of the Sun)

PublishedJanuary 9, 2015 Post authortorino

Prologue – Introducing the Cast of Characters

Saint Vaclav (Wenceslas) is one of the two first saints of Bohemia. He was the son of Vratislav and Drahomira. His father Vratislav was the son of Borivoj I, the first historically attested ruler of the Czechs and of Ludmila (the other early Bohemian saint). His mother was Drahomira, a princess of the Hevellians, a Slavic tribe from the area around Berlin. After Borivoj passed away (about 889), the throne was inherited by Spytihnev, his first son but after Spytihnev died (915), the throne went to his younger brother Vratislav (who was, as we said, married to Drahomira). After Vratislav died (921), his older son Vaclav (born about 907) became duke at the age of thirteen.

It also happened that Vratislav and Drahomira had a second son, Boleslav (the Cruel) (born about 915) who was about six at the time of his brother Vaclav ‘s becoming duke – as well as, possibly, a daughter – Stretislava (who married the famous Slavnik – about whom there will be more in the future).

(BTW It was this Boleslav the Cruel’s daughter – Dobrava – that married the first historically attested Polish duke, Mieszko I).

Exit Ludmila

He was being raised by both his mother Drahomira and his grandmother Ludmila. Ludmila was a Christian while Drahomira was a devoted pagan and the grandmother, apparently, began to assert herself more as the regent.

Surprisingly, this led to some tension in the family which tension percolated to the surface such that shortly after Vaclav took the reigns of dukedom, his mother Drahomira caused Ludmila to ascend to sainthood by having her assassinated via strangulation.

Drahomira checking out what’s left of Ludmila

Thereafter, Drahomira began to reinstitute Slavic beliefs (also, presumably, so as get out from under the political overlordship of the Bavarian Church). Nonetheless, at some point Vaclav sent his mother away as a result (though may later have forgiven her).

Exit Vaclav

In any event, the “good” king Vaclav reigned for many years until, in 935 his brother – Boleslav – decided that it was his turn now and that Vaclav would make an excellent saint.

Boleslav invited Vaclav to a feast, got into a quarrel with him and, apparently, three of Boleslav’s buddies did the dirty deed on the King. Apparently, Boleslav tried to escape and hide in a chapel but the priest would not let him in.

“Sorry, closed for repairs”

(It is not clear whether Boleslav already then carried the moniker, the Cruel, but if he did then Vaclav was a dumbass for accepting Boleslav’s invitation).

Boleslav was seen as “just a regular guy” – quite understandably then Vaclav was surprised by his brother’s treachery

Thus, did the Czechs, being god fearing people, got two saints in record time and Boleslav got to rule for over 30 years. Everyone was happy. (Apparently, too, Drahomira was still alive at that time).

Enter the Literati

Vaclav became a saint almost right away after his passing and a number of Vaclav and Ludmila legends were written already in the X century. The first one may have been in Old Slavonic but soon Latin versions followed suit as the legend of Vaclav grew and expanded to countries outside of Bohemia. One of those Latin versions was Christian’s Vita et passio sancta Wenceslai et Sanctae Ludmile ave emus written about 992-994. It was, it seems, based on that version that a later version of the legend – Oriente iam sole – was based on. It was, in its shorter version, written in the mid-XIII century and in the longer version in the second half of the XIV century.

Oriente iam sole

[east of the Sun]

Our interest in this version of the Vaclav story is, however, rooted in something else and the above was just for context – the mention therein, however scant, once again of Slavic idols (unfortunately, this time with no names).

“[Denique] cum irent omnes ad immolandum ydolis, que colebat mater eius nequissima, hic solus fugiebat consorcia eorum et pergebat occulte ad ecclesias, quas pater eius construxerant… Sed iam dicta cultrix ydolorum, Yezabel immitatrix… cum autem factus esset vir exprobravit incredulitatem illorum et duriciam cordis, dicens ad omnes, qui erant infideles: Servus christi sum, ydolis vestris non serviam, non sub alicuius vestrum amplius redigar potestatem…. Et extunc ceperunt eo iubente [?] ydola minui, christi ecclesie aperiri, et fideles, qui dispersi fuerant, affluere.”

(When all went to sacrifice to the idols that were worshipped by his mother, he alone escaped and went secretly to the churches constructed by his father [i.e., Vratislav]… But the already the aforementioned worshipper of idols, imitating Jezabel [presumably reference to his mother]… But when he became a man he upbraided them for their lack of faith and their hardness of heart saying unto all of them who were unbelievers: “I am a servant of Christ. I will not serve your idols. I will not remain under your power anymore”… And thereafter, at his command, the idols were removed and Christ’s churches reopened and the faithful became bountiful [once more]).

We should say that other version also do have a few mentions of idols, e.g., Oporte nos fratres from the 2nd half of the XI century as well as the aforementioned Christian’s version as set forth in Vita et passio sancta Wenceslai et Sanctae Ludmile ave emus. You can read more about these in Josef Pekar’s 1905 authoritative Wenzels- und Ludmila – Legenden und die Echtheit Christians.

On Bretislav II’s Revitalization of the New Faith in Bohemia

PublishedJanuary 4, 2015 Post authortorino

We have previously written that the Czech records regarding pre-Christian Gods are poor and that much is certainly, and unfortunately, true. However, Czech chroniclers did manage too smuggle a few descriptions of Czech religious practices even if, perhaps, by accident. Thus, we have Cosmas in Book III of his Chronicle of the Czechs writing about the events of the year 1092, when the new duke Bretislav II:

Bretislav II also invented the Pickelhaube

“…burning with great zeal for the Christian religion at the beginning of his rule, he expelled all the magicians, prophets and soothsayers [omnes magos, ariolosos et sortilegos] from the midst of his realm. He also eradicated and consumed with fire trees or holy groves which the base commoners worshipped in many places [in multis locis colebat vulgus ignobile]. So also the superstitious practices which the villagers, still half-pagan, observed on the third or fourth day of Pentecost, offering libations over springs, offering sacrifices, and making offerings (of flour and salt?) to demons [Item et superstitiosas instituciones, quas villani, adhuc semipagani, in Pentecosten tertia sive quarta feria observabant, offerentes libamina super fontes mactabant victimas et dæmonibus immolabant]; the burials they made in forests and fields; the huts/tents/temples [atque scenes – see, e.g., Hajek “stanky“] they built at two or three crossroads [i.e., where two or three roads meet] for the dead according to the pagan rite as if to bring calm to the souls; and the profane games, which they performed over the dead, rousing the shadows of the dead/ghosts, dancing while wearing masks on their faces, and reveling. The good duke exterminated these abominations and other sacrileges [has abhominaciones et alias sacrileges adinventiones], so they might no longer persist among the people of God. Because he always worshipped the only true God with a pure heart and possessed zeal for him, this pleased all the lovers of God.”

Crossroads “stanky” – now under new management

It certainly does not escape notice that all of this was occurring in a country which had been part of the Moravian state whose rulers were baptized in the 880s and whose first saints became saints in the 920s and 930s (admittedly the usual, painful way). Thus, 150-200 years later, pre-Christian beliefs continued to resist the New Age appeal of Christianity. It should therefore, not shock that in the much larger and more sparsely populated Poland similar practices continued into the 15th century (and indeed even till today depending on how broadly one interprets folk customs).

The forest creatures did not speak up against the abuses of Czechs under Bretislav II – when Bretislav came for them, there was no one left to speak for the forest creatures

Note also the similar references to early May, the time of the Pentecost and of the Green Week, much like here, here and here.

On Czech Gods Part II – Neplach

PublishedDecember 23, 2014 Post authortorino

We mentioned before that the Czech sources for most of the Czech Gods are rather behind the times coming mostly (outside of the controversial Mater Verborum glosses) only starting in the 16th century. We also mentioned that that was not entirely correct and that we had some ideas for earlier sources. The time has come:

Here is Abbott Neplach of Opatovice, associated with the court of Charles IV. He was apparently “born in Hoříněves to a poor family, then was sent to the Benedictine monastery in Opatovice in 1328. In 1334 he took the vows of the Benedictine Order, and in 1340 he studied in Bologna. He became abbot of the Opatovice monastery in 1348.” [quoting after Brill]. He wrote a history of the world with a particular reference to that most important part of it, i.e., Bohemia (Summula chronicae tam Romanae quam Bohemicae). It seems that this was at the request of Charles IV and followed an earlier crappier attempt by another writer. Neplach’s effort was also rather lousy and eventually it was left to Pulkava to please the sponsor. However, Neplach does say under the year 894 the following (carryover paragraph):

“A.d. DCCCXCIV incipiunt acta ac gesta ducum et regum Boemie, quorum quidam pagani fuerunt et idcirco, quo tempore vel quibus annis domini regnaverint, non est curandum. Habebat enim quoddam ydolum, quod pro deo ipsorum colebant, nomen autem ydoli vocabatur Zelu. Sed obmissis materiis de illis virginibus, de quibus fit mencio in principio cronice Boemice, de sola Lybossa phitonissa brevissime dicendum est.”

To translate:

“There began the deeds and acts of the dukes and kings of Bohemia, some of whom were pagans and, therefore, at what time or in what years they ruled is of no importance. And they had an idol whom they worshipped as a god and the name of this idol was Zelu. But now let us focus on the matter of those maidens of whom mention was made at the beginning of this chronicle and briefly mention Lybossa [Libuse] the witch…”

Now, the interesting thing is that the German (and, apparently, only the German) translation of the Dalimil Chronicle contains a similar reference (perhaps based on this text above):

Now, Zelu seems to be the same as Zelon sive Dobropan, (interpretatio romana Mercury) from Stredovsky. In fact, perhaps Stredovsky based his Zelon on the above reference of Neplach’s…

Curiously, a similar Godname appears either in Laskowski or in the De diis Samagitarum caeterorumque Sarmatarum et falsorum Christianorumi where, in discussing Baltic Gods, the author, if I recall correctly, mentions Zelus.

Update: Other Neplach entries included by Meyer are the following (from the new compilation by Juan Álvarez-Pedrosa Núñez, with him as well as Julia Mendoza Tuñón and Sandra Romano Martín translating):

Sub Anno 1336

“In the year of our Lord 1336, Phillip, son of the king of Majorca, accompanied by twelve noblemen from the kingdom entered the Order of Friars Minor Capuchin on the eve of the Nativity of Christ; and in Bohemia, close to Kadan, along with a solider in the town of Blov, a pastor named Myslata died. And he, rising from this tomb each night, would wander all of the nearby towns, terrorizing and slitting the throats of the people, and he would speak.When pieced with a stick, he said: ‘Much damage you have done me, since you have given me a cane to defend myself from the dogs;’ and when he was exhumed to burn him, he swelled like an ox and gave a hair-raising roar. When they put him in the fire, soemone took a stck and drive it through him, and he bled without stopping, as if he were a tanakrd. In addition, when they disinterred him and put him in a cart, his legs shrunk as if he were alive, and when he was burned, all of his evil was dispelled, and before being burnt, all those whose names he spoke at night would die within eight days.”

“A.d. MCCCXXXVI Philippus, filius regis Maiorikarum, cum XII nobilibus regni ordinem fratrum Minorum in uigilia Natiuitatis Christi ingreditur et in Boemia circa Cadanum ad milliare unum in villa dicta Blow quidam pastor nomine Myslata moritur. Hic omni nocte surgens circuibat omnes villas in circuitu homines terrendo et iugulando et loquebatur. Et cum fuisset cum palo transfixus dicebat: Multum nocuerunt michi, nam dederunt michi baculum, ut me a canibus defendam; et cum cremandus effoderetur, tumebat sicut bos et terribiliter rugiebat. Et cum poneretur in ignem, quidam arripiens fustem fixit in eum et continuo erupit cruor sicut de vase. Insuper cum fuisset effossus et in currum positus, collegit pedes ad se sicut vivus, et cum fuisset crematus totum malum conquievit, et antequam cremaretur, quemcumque e nomine in nocte vocabat, infra octo dies moriebatur.”

Sub anno 1344

“Year of the Lord 1344. In Levin a woman died and she was buried. Bu then she would come out of her tomb and murder many and then she would attack anyone. And when she was pierced, the blood flowed as if she were a live animal, and she had devoured more than half of her own shroud, which, when taken out of her, was covered in blood. When they went to bur her, they could not get any type of wood to light except for the wood from the roof of the church, according to the testimony of some old women. Although they had pierced her, she continued to rise up; but, when they were able to burn her, all of the evil she had was dispelled.”

“A.d. MCCCXLIV Quedam mulier in Lewin mortua fuit et sepulta. Post sepulturam autem surgebat et multos iugulabat et post quemlibet saltabat. Et cum fuisset transfixa, fluebat sanguis sicud de animali vivo et devoraverat slogerium proprium plus quam medium, et cum extraheretur, totum fuit in sanguine. Et cum deberet cremari, non poterant ligna aliqualiter accendi nisi de tegulis ecclesie ad informacionem aliquarum vetularum. Postguam autem fuisset transfix adhuc semper surgebat; sed cum fuisset cremata, tunc totum malum conquievit.”

On Krak or Krok (or Crocus?)

PublishedDecember 14, 2014 Post authortorino

King Krak is a legendary monarch of Poland. King Krok a legendary ruler of Bohemia.

The Polish Krak (known from the Master Kadlubek Chronicle and from the Greater Poland Chronicles) fought many wars, founded (and gave his name to) the city of Krakow, had to deal with a dragon, was succeeded by a son who killed another one of his son’s and then, when the crime was discovered, by a daughter – Wanda – who was of legendary beauty and who rallied her people against an Alemanic prince (only later called “German” by the name of Rittiger by the Polish Chronicler Jan Dlugosz) so smitten with her that he first tried to invade her country and then just could not bring himself up to an open war with Wanda.

The conflict between Krak and the Dragon was largely due to a case of athlete’s foot combined with the sharing of a soaking tub

The Czech Krok, after whom a castle was named, was also a great man though more in the nature of a wise man. He lacked male offspring but had three daughters: Kazi, Tetka and, most importantly, the magician Libuse. It was Libuse who married the simple ploughman Premysl, the founder of the Premyslid dynasty.

Dalimil’s Krok

And the same in “English” so to speak

BTW in this the Czech Krok legend (known from Cosmas and Dalimil) is different from the Polish one since the former connects Krok to the Czech ruling house whereas the latter does not make such a connection to the Polish House of Piast. The reason for this may be that the Polish version stems out of the (likely) formerly Czech lands of Krakow (Little or New Poland) and does not tie easily (nor has it been expressly tied by any chroniclers) to the legend of Piast known in Gniezno (Great or Old Poland).

But what is the origin of the legend? Where does the name come from? The Polish chroniclers by using the name Graccus suggested a relationship with the ancient Romans by the same name. But perhaps a different source presents itself. Note that in the Polish version, the Poles are associated with Vandals and Wanda, the daughter of Krak, is about fight an Alemannic prince…

The Real Crocus/Chrocus?

History, via the mouth of Gregory of Tours in his History of the Franks (or Decem Libri Historiarum), knows of an Alemannic Crocus (or Chrocus or Croscus) (with the -us suffix being a typical “Latinization” of the name) who raided with his comrades the Roman province of Gaul around the years A.D. 253-258 causing much damage including the destruction of the temple of Vasso Galatae (and causing the martyrdom of Saint Didier the third Bishop of Langres).

This is what Gregory says:

“Valerian and Gallienus receive the Roman imperial power in the twenty-seventh place, and set on foot a cruel perscution of the Christians. At that time Cornelius brought fame to Rome by his happy death and Cyprian to Carthage. In their time also Chrocus the famous king of the Alemanni raised an army and overran the Gauls. This Chrocus is said to have been very arrogant. And when he committed a great many crimes he gathered the tribe of the Alemanni, as we have stated, by the advice, it is said, of his wicked mother, and overran the whole of the Gauls, and destroyed from their foundations all the temples which had been built in ancient times. And coming to Claremont he set on fire, overthrew and destroyed that shrine which they call Vasso Galatae in the Gallic tongue…” (History of the Franks, Book I, 32 (Chrocus and the Shrine in Auvergne))

The Epitome de Caesaribus (41, 3) also speaks of a Crocus as a king of the Alemanni, this time serving the function of a Roman general/warlord in Britain (York) in July of the year A.D. 306. It is not clear whether this was the same or a different Crocus. But either there is a mistake or it is a different Chrocus as over 40 years separate these the events in these two accounts.

This is the text:

“Constantine [the Great], son of imperator Constantius and Helena, ruled thirty years. While a young man being held as a hostage by Galerius in the city of Rome on the pretence of his religion, he took flight and, for the purpose of frustrating his pursuers, wherever his journey had brought him, he destroyed the public transports, and reached his father in Britain; and by chance, in those very days in the same place, ultimate destiny was pressing on his parent, Constantius. With him dead, as all who were present — but especially Crocus, King of the Alamanni, who had accompanied Constantius for the sake of support — were urging him on, he took imperium.” (Translated by Thomas M. Banchich)

Finally, and this is perhaps even more of interest, the Chronicle of Fredegar, which copies portions of the History of Franks, also mentions Crocus… but this time he is a King of the Vandals, leading them along with the Alans and the Suebi across the Rhine in that fateful year A.D. 406 (i.e., 100 years after the Epitome episode) when these tribes crossed into the Roman Empire and made their way to Gaul, Spain and then, now Vandals and Alans only, to Africa. Some believe that Fredegar was mistaken here but we were tempted, given the Vandal connection, to mention this and reproduce the following (from Fredegar):

Fredegar’s Vandalic version of Crocus

So what does the above say?

“Chrocus rex Wandalorum cum Suaevis et Alanis egressus de sedibus, Galleas adpetens, consilium matris neequissimam utens, dum ei dixisset: ‘Se novam rem volueris facere et omen adquirere, quod alli aedifficaverunt cuncta distruae et populum, quem superas, totum interfice; nam nec aedificum meliorem a praecessorebus facere non potes neque plus magnam rem, per qua nomen tuum elevis’. Qui Renum Mogancia ponte ingeniosae transiens, primum ipsamque civitatem et populum vasta vit; deind cunctasque civitatis Germaniae vallans, Mettis pervenit, ubi murus civitatis divino noto per nocte ruens, capta est civetas a Wandalis. Treverici vero in arenam huius civitates, quem munierant, liberati sunt. Post haec cunctas Galleas Chrocus cum Wandalis, Suaevis et Alanis pervagans, alias ubsidione delivit, aliasques ingeniosae rumpens, vastavit. Nec ulla civetasaut caster ab eis in Gallis liberata est. Cumque Arelato obsederint, Chrocos a Mario quaedam militae captus et vinculis constrictus est. Qui ductus ad poenam per universas civitates, quas vastaverat, impia vita digna morte finivit. Cui Trasemundus successit in rignum. Alamanni adversus Wandalos arma commovunt. Uterque consencientes singulare certamen prilliandum, duos miserunt. Sed et ille qui a Wandalis missus est ab Alamannos superator. Victusque Trasemundus et Wandali, secundum placetum cum Wandalis, Suaevis et Alanis de Galllias praetermissis Spanias adpetivit, ibique multos christianorum, pro fide catholica interfecit.”

Essentially, “Chrocus king of the Vandals, left his dominions together with the Suevi and Alans, eager to attack Gaul following his mother’s wicked advice, for she had said to him: ‘if you wish to carry out a new exploit and gain renown destroy all that others have built and kill everyone you conquer; for you cannot build a better building than you forefathers nor carry out a greater deed with which to make a name for yourself.’ Thus, after crossing the Rhine through Mainz, by means of an ingenious bridge, he first devastated this city and decimated its people. After fortifying all the cities of Germania, he arrived in Metz, where the city wall collapsed when a divine wind was unleashed during the night and the city was captured by the Vandals. The inhabitants of Trier, however, were saved by taking refuge in their city amphitheater, which they had fortified. Afterwards, Chrocus, crossing the whole of Gaul with Vandals, Suevi and Alans, destroyed some towns by means of a siege and devastated others by ingeniously busting in. And there was no city or fortress in Gaul that was saved from them. However, when they were besieging Arles, Chrocus was captured and put in chains by a soldier called Marius [perhaps the Emperor usurper]. And led to execution through all the cities he had devastated, his impious life ended with the death he deserved. Thrasamund reigned after him. Then the Alamanni went to war against the Vandals and, as both parties agreed that there should be a single combat, they sent two warriors. But the one sent by the Vandals was defeated by the Alaman. And as Thrasamund and his Vandals were thus vanquished, after leaving Gaul together with Suevi and Alans, as it had been agreed, they attacked Spain and there they slew many Christians for their Catholic faith.”

[the translation is by Agusti Alemany; the same passage is repeated in the Chronicle of Moissac though there we have “Choroscus/Chrocus/Chroscus,” Croscus/Crochus” and “Croscus/Crochus”]

Note that here Vandals lose and move on to Spain. In the version by Gregory of Tours, Vandals lose in Spain with a Suev champion defeating a Vandal one and then move on to Africa. In each case the Vandal king at this point is Thrasamund. This kind of David-Goliath one on one combat to settle affairs is also found in other places, e.g., in the combat between the Slav and Saxon champions (Slav won this one) much later in Germany. Note also that the Alamanni here seem to be distinct from the Suevi. The latter come with Chrocus and his Vandals and Alans into Gaul and also leave with him once the Alemanni defeat the Vandal champion. All in all, it is difficult to establish whether the Gregory or the Fredegar account is correct (or more correct since each has major issues). For example, Gregory has Chrocus’ Alemanni martyr one Vicentius who is known to have met that fate in the early 400s. But Fredegar also varies his timeline widely, e.g., by mentioning that Chrocus was succeeded by Thrasamund, a Vandalic king who ruled in the late 5th and early 6th century (almost 100 years after the Rhine crossing by the Vandals, Suevi and Alans). Of course, Gregory also has Thrasamund be the king. In reality, the trek to Africa was under Geiseric.* Whoever may be closer to the truth, in Fredegar we have Alemanns in one on one combat with Vandals and we have Chrocus…

This Vandalic interpretation was then picked up by Annonius (Aimonius) in his de Gestis Francorum (Book III) in the year 1008.

Could Master Kadlubek (who is known to have perused ancient sources) also perused Fredegar’s Chronicles from 600 years earlier to come up with the story of Krak? Or the slightly more recent Aimonius?

(Note that Krakow could have been named after the crowing of crows not after any Krak – such an etymology is mentioned, in the alternative, by the GPCs).

Kadlubek never connected his Polish Gracchus to the Allemanic or Vandalic Chrocus of the past – just mentioned the connection of Graccus to the city of Cracow. However, another writer then made the connection explicit. Alberic of Trois-Fontaines (Albericus Trium Fontium) a Cistercian monk and chronicler who wrote a chronicle of world events through the year 1241 (written between 1232-1252 (some people think in 1246)) when Cracow was already a well known city and a capital of (then divided) Poland) in which, under the year 413 he describes the invasion of Gall again by the Vandals and the Alans led by Craco/Crosco a duke/king in Cracoviae/Craconie (variations depending, it seems, on the manuscript):

Keeping in mind that Master Kadlubek’s Chronicle would then have already been written (Kadlubek passed away in 1223), could Alberic have had a chance to glance at it or was the connection to Cracow a figment of his own imagination (or not)?

In any event, we think the Alemanic and Vandalic connections are of interest in light of the Krak legend. It is harder, however, to connect (even if ephemerally) this to the Czech version of Krok.

Next time when we touch this subject we will talk about the Norse angle, that of Hrolf Kraki‘s saga.

* Also, Fredegar was, supposedly basing his version of events on the work by Hydatius (Idacius) the bishop of Aquae Flaviae (Chaves or Chiaves) in Gallicia (Spain), from circa 427 to 470 who was an author of a Chronicle (itself one of the continuations of Jerome) and who would have been closer to these events (for example, he discusses the plundering of Spain in 408-410 by the Vandals, Suevi and Alans). Yet the timeline given by Hydatius supposedly is closer to the 250s as specified by Gregory of Tours.

Czech Gods Part I

PublishedDecember 1, 2014 Post authortorino

We’ve been preparing several new posts in November. Here is the first of these (in draft form very much so) published in November (Hawaii time). The others will have to wait till the next month (December):

Czech Gods

When discussing Czech Gods, the situation is slightly different than with Polish Gods. The beginning is very auspicious. Already Cosmas speaks of Father Bohemus (the later Czech) as follows:

Cosmas

“He established their first dwellings and rejoiced in the guardian deities that he carried with him on his shoulders, now erected on the ground.”

More Cosmas

The later Dalimil Chronicle says similarly in Czech rhymes: “I bra se lesem do lesa, dedky sve na pleciu nesa.” What the names of these “dedky” (deos or, maybe, ancestor spirits) was, Dalimil does not tell us; incidentally, the reference is not to “children” – they had to walk.

“dedky sve na pleciu nesa”

However, most likely due to the earlier conversion of the Czech lands to Christianity, the stronger position of the Czech state throughout the early Christian period as well as, perhaps, the relatively smaller size of the Czech lands and hence smaller number of nooks and crannies where pre-Christian beliefs could hide, the record is poorer. Thus, while in describing Polish Gods we were able to use largely unvarnished sources such as sermons and synodal statutes and did not then spend much time on historians or historiographers other than Jan Dlugosz (and then only to help us launch the project), i.e., the writers of the 16th century and later such as Maciej from Miechow, Martin Kromer or Alessandro Guagnini/Stryjkowski (all of whom wrote extensively about Polish Gods and all of whom increased (!) the number of Polish Gods described while also quoting no sources other than Dlugosz thus lending their work an air of confabulation), in describing Czech Gods we, by necessity, have to start later, use sources whose veracity may be questioned (and which rely occasionally on the work of various earlier Polish writers such as Jan Dlugosz and Maciej from Miechow) that and work our way back as best as we can. If that is not too upsetting to the reader, we ask that he continue.

We begin rather late in the game by examining the work of Johannes Georgius Stredowsky namely his Sacra Moraviae Historia published in 1710. Therein Stredowsky lists the following Gods starting with the superior gods of the heavens:

Chasson/sive Jassen (i.e., the Polish Yassa/Jessa/Jesza) with a Latin name Sol, Phoebus;

Ladon (i.e., the Polish Lada) with a Latin name Mars (consistent with Dlugosz);

Zelon sive Dobropan, interpretatio romana Mercury;

Hladolet being Saturn;

Chrworz being Typhon;

Marzena (as in Dlugosz) aka Diana;

Nocena (i.e., night) being Luna;

Ziwena being Ceres;

Pohoda serving the role of Serenitas;

Mokosia, i.e., Pluvia;

Pochwist vel Nehoda, i.e., Interperios (i.e., bad weather, Pochwist, of course, also being present in Dlugosz)

Continuing with the gods of the underworlds:

Merot i.e., Pluto;

Radamass i.e., … Radamass (hmmmm; also Radagaisus as in Radagost of the Polabian Slavs?);

Ninwa (Polish Nia?), i.e., Proserpina;

Cassani seu Dracice with Eumenides being the Latin version;

Sudice, i.e., Parca;

Wyla, i.e., Hecata;

Trzibek, i.e., Lues;

And finally, the terrestrials (earthly spirits):

Lel (Castor);

Polel (Pollux);

Ssetek/vel Skrzitek (Lar, domestic spirit);

Diblik (Vesta).

Attachments follow:

Since 1710 is a bit late in the game, we ought to ask what are Strebowsky’s sources. He lists the following sources (all of which are from the 17th century though one cites a 16th century source):

– M. Pavel Stransky’s Respublica Bojema (i.e., the Bohemian Republic) published in 1643 (chapter 6 n 2);

– Bolelucky’s Rosa Bohemica Life of St (Bohemian Rose, the Life of Saint Woytiechi/Adalbert) published in 1658 (Book I c 8 par 10);

– Krystian Gottfried Hirschmentzel in MS Welehradski’s Vita SS. Cyrilli et Methudii published sometime in 1667 (I. 1 6 (or par?) 2);

– Wencel (Vaclav) Jan Rosa’s Grammatica Linguae Bohemicae (the Grammar of the Bohemian Language) published in 1672 (Book 4 chapter 11);

– Jan Tomas Pessina’s Prodromus Moravographiae published sometime in 1663 1 3 6 (or par) 5;?

I have not been able to locate the specific passage in Hirschmentzel’s book but attach the relevant pages from the other sources listed under the authors’ names. Feel free to trace to see what names came from which sources.

Stransky’s Respublica Bojema

Bolelucky’s Rosa Bohemica

Yikes, the one on the top left is fugly!

Rosa’s Grammatica Linguae Bohemicae

Pessina’s Prodromus Moravographiae

Hirschmentzel’s Vita SS. Cyrilli et Methudii

Hajkova Kronika Ceska

Since Stransky, in turn, lists the famous (or infamous) Hagec i.e., Hajek, i.e., Wenceslaus (Vaclav) Hajek z (from) Liboczan and his Hajkova Kronika Ceska, i.e., the Czech Chronicle published in 1541 we include the relevant page (describing the events occurring in the year 709) (Stransky also lists the Pole, Martin Cromer on p 266 but since Cromer is derivative of Dlugosz (and not Czech) we did not discuss him here);

Mater Verborum

What about earlier sources? Well, we have some ideas… But for now we leave you with the always giving Mater Verborum which, in describing Roman gods, dutifully features Czech glosses. As mentioned before, these have been adjudged to be Hanka’s forged glosses (forged in the 19th century)… probably. In any event, we feel that, with that warning we can include these here so enjoy these nonetheless.

Thus, we have:

Diana (ginana appolinis luna snarii plide pagani aur un suguie dnr) with a gloss stating “Devana letnicina y perunova dei“ or Devanna

Ecate (or Hecate) (trulia Pnocticla (or) vel uoctiula) where the definition includes a gloss of “Morana”

and Venus (dei libidinis) where the corresponding word is “Lada“

Incidentally, to leave this off with Cosmaswith whom we began: who or what is Josa in this gloss right next to “anon domino”? (in year of our Lord … 1087 when Vratislav II entered Sorbia/Meissen; rex something?)

A Cosmic mystery?