The pots at the duke Popiel’s banquet were diminishing as the pots in the poor Piast hut were being filled. According to the Anonymous monk, writing at the court of Boleslaw the Brave, this story expressed transfer of power from the mean duke Popiel (who did not invite mysterious pilgrims for the feast of cutting hair of his sons), to Piast, (who welcomed the pilgrims abundantly, although he had few resources to celebrate cutting hair of his only son Siemowit). According to Anonymous, "translatio alimenti" is equal to "translatio imperii".

 

Jacek Banaszkiewicz elaborated origins of Piast’s power as described in the "Chronicle of Anonymous". Although the story was written by the monk at the Christian court of Bolesław the Wrymouth in the second decade of the twelfth century, the narrative entails the pre-Christian dynastic tradition. Piast, thus, is a figure of a leader who provides alimentation to the people, which is one of the requirements for the ideal ruler in the typology created by the prominent scholar of the mythical heritages, Georges Dumezil. Three descendants of Piast: Siemowit, Lestek and Siemomysł, fulfilled another condition demanded of the ideal ruler – the military aspect. All these members of the Piast dynasty, including the first confirmed historic figure, Mieszko, enjoyed positive relations with the supernatural world, experiencing miracles, which fulfills the third necessary aspect of the ideal ruler in the tripartite typology of G. Dumezil: quasi sacerdotal role of the king.

 

It seems, therefore, that the Piast dynasty, in the pre-Christian times, already shared a characteristic of sacral kingship, in which a slightly Christianized fashion was transmitted by the Anonymous. The rulers were perceived not only as prolific governors of arable lands and great warriors, but also as chosen people, who enjoyed special relations with heavenly powers. The sacred and political, as in most pre-Christian communities, overlapped in the office of the chief, who would soon convert to Christianity. 

 

Christianization of the Piast’s realm opened new ways of elevating political power. The Ottonian dynasty, as imitated by the Piasts, developed various means to transform Christian civil power into sacral kingship. Royal anointing with special ordo coronationis stressed the episcopal role of the rulers, activity during councils and the administration of ecclesiastical offices, as well as many rhetorical acknowledgments of king’s quasi sacerdotal position. These were the features of sacral kingship of the Ottonians. However, it was the liturgy, that truly impacted sacral kingship. Therefore, in regard to Ottonian-Salian culture, Ernst Kantorowicz in his seminal work “The King’s Two Bodies” formulated the concept of "liturgical kingship” - a kingship defined and related to the "God-man, the Son lying on the Altar”, and Henry Mayr-Harting used the term "age of liturgy” to describe this period. Sacral kingship was defined, represented and brought to mind in the extraordinary texts of prayers, fine miniatures and ivories which ornamented liturgical manuscripts. Therefore, the question is raised as to whether the royal and ducal power of the Piasts, who generally followed the ideology of the Ottonians after Christianization, had also adopted the notion of sacral kingship centered on the liturgy. 

 

My paper analyzes the possible impact of liturgical books on the elevation of political power of the Piasts into the supernatural order. I discuss some of the most important manuscripts connected with the kings and dukes during the first and the second monarchy, namely: Codex Mathildis, Sacramentarium Tinecense, and Codex Aureus Pultoviensis.

 

The first book, so-called Codex Mathildis, is preserved now in Duesseldorf, but before 1970s it was regarded as lost. The manuscript can be dated to the beginning of the reign of Mieszko II, 1025-1027. The manuscript was produced after the royal coronation and anointing of the first Polish kings, as a present from the Swabian princess Matilda.

 

The book, meant to be sent to Mieszko II, contains a letter praising the Polish king as well as a fine miniature depicting the transmission of the gift to Mieszko. Both parts of the manuscript confirmed the Christian character of Piast’s royal power. They acknowledged the royal anointing of Mieszko II and Bolesław the Brave and their position among Christian rulers. These two elements of the manuscript have been examined many times, therefore I will like to focus on the less elaborated, but in fact main part of the manuscript: the liturgical treatise, so-called Liber officiorum. Of the 83 folios of this manuscript, all but three are committed to this treatise. 

Liber officiorum offered commentary on the liturgical year and various issues linked with celebrating the Eucharist. Thus, Matilda meant to send Mieszko II an Ottonian exposition of the liturgy. Why did she present the king such a gift?

 

Within Christian monarchy, as developed by Carolingian rulers, the king played the primary role in organizing the life of the Church, including the liturgy. Charles the Great actively took part in shaping the form of the worship in his Empire by ordering new types of liturgical books, which were brought from Rome. The Carolingian Renaissance was aimed at improving the purity of the liturgy. Similarly, Ottonian and Salian rulers, until the so-called Investiture Contest, were striving for the proper liturgy in their kingdoms. They were concerned about the liturgical year, such as when Advent should begin and how long Lent should be observed.

 

Matilda showed her approval of the royal coronation and anointing of Mieszko II through her gift of Liber officiorum. Thus, Mieszko II was equated with the German kings. This attitude was not new among the Ottonian political elite. Emperor Otto III previously named Bolesław the Brave, the father of Mieszko II, "cooperator of the Empire". Roman Michałowski argued, that this title was an encouragement for Bolesław to cooperate with the apostolic mission of Otto, who strived to bring Christianity to the pagan lands, similarly as his role-model, Saint Paul, did in the ancient times. In addition, Bolesław felt responsible for the organization of the liturgical year, and presumably it was he, who ordered longer Lent in his realm. The Ottonian tradition of the civil rulers dominating liturgy was thus already known in the Piast kingdom and Matilda approved it once again in regard to the son of Bolesław the Brave. 

 

In addition to its external approval of Piast domination over liturgy, Liber officiorum presented an interesting view on political theology. Truly remarkable is the passage about Holy Thursday. The anonymous author of the treatise wrote: "Hodie chrisma conficitur vel consecratur. Unde Christus, id est, unctus, a chrismate appellatur. Unguentum istud Moyses primum in Exodo jubente Domino composuit, quo primi Aaron et filii ejus in testimonium sacerdotii et sanctitatis peruncti sunt. Deinde quoque reges eodem chrismate sacrabantur. Unde et Christi nuncupantur, ut illud: Nolite tangere [Col.1205B] Christos meos (Psal. CIV, 15). Eratque eo tempore tantum in regibus et sacerdotibus mystica unctio. Sed postquam Dominus noster verus rex et sacerdos aeternus a Deo Patre coelesti hoc mystico est delibutus unguento, jam non soli reges et pontifices, sed omnis Ecclesia unctione chrismatis consecratur, pro eo quod membrum est aeterni regis et sacerdotis. Conficitur enim ex oleo mundissimo et optimo balsamo. Quia genus regale et sacerdotale sumus, ideo post lavacrum ungimur, ut Christi nomine censeamur.

 

The author of the exposition writes on the nature of anointing with chrism. He reflects, that in the times of Old Covenant, the chrism was used exclusively to anoint priests and kings, but from the time of Incarnation, it is used for each member of the Church, because each faithful is a part of Body of Christ, who joined in himself the eternal kingship and priesthood. Thus, each Christian participates in the royal and sacerdotal dignity. 

 

This account here faithfully repeats the work of Isidor of Sevilla, De ecclesiasticis officis. Both comments however reflect on the first letter of Saint Peter, who wrote: vos autem genus electum regale sacerdotium gens sancta populus adquisitionis ut virtutes adnuntietis eius qui de tenebris vos vocavit in admirabile lumen suum. Theologically it was held that each Christian participates in the royal priesthood of Christ, but there were no practical consequences of this account until the Second Vatican Council. What we now call universal priesthood of every believer was not widely recognized in the Ottonian and Salian period, and was thus subject to debate. One of the illustrations of this dispute is the Life of Brun of Cologne, written by Ruotger under the archbishop Volkmar in the late 960s. A speech, attributed to Otto I, addressing the archbishop of Cologne, the brother of the emperor, states: 

 

in acerbis meis rebus me maxime consolatur, cum video per Dei omnipotentis gratiam nostro imperio regale sacerdotium accessisse. In te namque et sacerdotalis religio et regia pollet fortitudo.

 

It is only in Bruno of Cologne that both the dignities of kingship and priesthood were joined, not in Otto I. Thus, it is the archbishop of Cologne, who is like Christ, king and priest, not the emperor. This was the view from Cologne, developed in the entourage of mighty archbishops of the ancient see. 

 

In the face of these facts, stressing in the Codex Mathildis universal priesthood of Christians, among whom king is a special member, as he is anointed twice—once during baptism and another time during royal anointing—could have raised the consciousness of Mieszko II as a not only Christian, but also sacral king, more specifically quasi-sacerdotal.

 

The Codex Mathildis was meant to be sent to Mieszko II, but we have no proof that it reached the Piast ruler. Thus, we are not able to assess, whether the manuscript did influence the ideology of Piast power. Rather, it should be seen as proof of the perception of the Piast monarchy among Ottonian nobility, but not as an effective tool in sacralizing civil power of Mieszko II. 

 

Similarly, we should exclude another famous manuscript, used in the hitherto debate about sacral kingship of Piast, the Sacramentary from Tyniec. Surprisingly enough, this is a manuscript not connected with the first or second Piast monarchy. It is striking, that many prominent scholars overlooked the clear evidence against the link between this manuscript and the Piasts. Let look into detail. 

 

On page 351 we have, on the same quire as the main text from the eleventh century, additional text added to the manuscript, written by a late eleventh or early twelfth century hand. This is the preface before the Roman Canon of the Mass, which is continued on the next page. 

 

In a text of the Roman Canon a prayer for "our bishop John" might be encountered. What does it mean?

 

Neither in Cologne, where the manuscript was produced in the second half of the eleventh century, neither in Tyniec, when the manuscript was believed to be kept since its production, nor in the nearby bishopric in Cracow, to which jurisdiction monastery in Tyniec belonged, there was no bishop John. Not sooner than in the middle of the thirteenth century John Prandota became a bishop of Cracow, but this text of the prayer could not be written with such a script in the thirteenth century. It is necessary to remind, that the Roman Canon of the Mass we are dealing with, was written on the same quire of the manuscript, as the main text from the eleventh century. It could not have been added to the codex during seventeenth century binding. Thus, sacramentary of Tyniec is anyhow regarded with the early medieval Piast history and should be excluded from the debate on sacral kingship of Piast. 

 

The last example I would like to touch on, is the Codex Aureus Pultoviensis. This is a manuscript that is believed to mark the royal coronation of Bolesław the Generous in 1076. The manuscript was written only with gold majuscule script and had to be linked with a king, as the codices aurei were in the early Middle Ages symbols of royal power. The Gospel Book was produced presumably in Bayern in the second half of the eleventh century, together with other manuscripts preserved in nowadays Czech Republic or Poland. It is quite probable that they were produced in order to mark the coronations of the Bohemian ruler Wratysław, and Polish monarch Bolesław the Generous. 

 

The iconography embedded in the manuscript is striking. If we take into account the illuminations which ornament the text of the Gospel Book, we realize, that in each of them there is a topic of royal power. Thus, the approach toward kingship is ambivalent. On one hand, there is a depiction of the birth of Jesus, stressed as a king, son of David as well as homage paid by Magi to the newly born Lord of the earth. On the other hand there is an exceptional number of the scenes with Herod. First we encounter him during a conversation with Magi, then on the throne ordering the massacre of the innocents, which was also depicted beneath. I explain this two-fold approach toward kingship through the historical context of the coronation of Bolesław the Generous, who was anointed and crowned on December, 25, 1076. In medieval ideology the royal or imperial coronation was very often linked with Christmas. Thus, the birth of a new earthly king should take place, when the King of Kings and Lord of the Lords was born. Bolesław the Generous was no exception. It seems, therefore, that the ambivalent imagery of kingship, could have been an admonition for the newly elected ruler, presenting him the role-models for his office as the Magi and Christ, and anti-model: Herod. This hypothesis needs further argumentation, as the liturgical readings for Christmas were taken from the Gospel of Luke, rather than Matthew. If we treat this lavishly precious Gospel Book as a royal manuscript though, it cannot be excluded from our discussion, that the king read the scenes and asked for their explanations. Then the ambivalent approach toward kingship could have been expressed by the ecclesiastical entourage of the ruler. 

 

It is time to sum up. All three manuscripts considered here, Codex Mathildis, Sacramentarium Tinecense, Codex Aureus Pultoviensis were taken into account in the debate about sacral kingship of Piasts, although they did not sacralize political power during the first and the second monarchy. The manuscript meant to be sent by Mathilda was a sign of recognition of the supernatural position of Mieszko II, but there is no proof, that it influenced Piast political culture. Sacramentarium Tinecense should be excluded from the debate about sacral kingship of Piast, as it was not connected with the dynasty in the early and high Middle Ages. Codex Aureus Pultoviensis although presumably produced to mark royal coronation of Bolesław the Generous, embodies the ambivalent attitude toward kingship. The sacral kingship of Piasts, as perceived through the aforementioned liturgical books, seems vague, just as the empty cups during duke’s Popiel banquet.