9
Piotr Oliński
We can analyse monastic foundations from different perspectives and look for different contexts of these foundations. The founders attached fundamental significance to efforts for salvation from an exclusively religious perspective. The foundation of a monastery was a religious act that was aimed at salvation, and at the same time, the monasteries were places in which prayers were offered for their founders and benefactors. The source texts that testify to the fulfilment of such functions by monks are referred to as commemorative source texts, such as books of the dead, obituaries, and various libri memoriales. The aim of this chapter is to present the evolution that occurred in the relationships between the Piast rulers and monasteries with regard to prayers in the period from the end of the 10th to the 14th century. I will also try to take a closer look at selected commemorative references dedicated to selected Piast rulers and to define their liturgical context.1
The relationship between the first Polish rulers and monasteries is presented in the sources quite scarcely. The first monastic foundations are subject to highly hypothetical research, which is the result of a rather scarce source text base, archaeological achievements, and applied methodological assumptions and concepts within which historians attempt to narrate the origins of monasteries on Polish soil and their first founders. The monastery in Międzyrzecze might have been one of the first. Thietmar mentions it in his chronicle (“ad abbaciam, quae Mezerici dicitur”).2 It was also mentioned as a monastery, not a hermitage, in “Vita quinque fratrum”.3 It was founded in about 1002–1003, and the founder must have been Bolesław Chrobry (Bolesław the Brave). Bolesław the Brave became a confrater of the monastery in Międzyrzecz, and he probably had earlier stayed in a religious relationship with the monastery in Pereum.4 He was also a confrater of Magdeburg canons.5 This ruler is also considered to be the founder of a monastery in Łęczyca at the beginning of the 11th century and a nunnery in Kraków at the turn of the 10th century.6 These monasteries have not survived the test of time, and there are no commemorative source texts from these monasteries that are of particular interest to us. According to the concept of Roman Michałowski, Chrobry, drawing on the Aachen example, might also have initiated, if not fully implemented, the construction of several churches in Kraków – St. Adalbert’s Church, St. Nicholas’ Church, the Blessed Virgin Mary’s Church, or Salvator’s Church.7 It is easy to imagine that the clergy gathered around such foundations offered their prayers for the salvation of the soul of their founder. Besides, one can only guess that the first monks accompanied Bishop Jordan, Bishop Unger, and Archbishop Radim Gaudentius and probably also centred around churches in Gniezno and Poznań in monastic communities. However, to look for any direct evidence that would testify to it would be in vain. The scale of the problem can still be demonstrated on the basis of the example of one of the oldest Polish monasteries in Tyniec, which still exists today. Bolesław Chrobry was generally considered to be its founder, but other scholars thought otherwise and leant towards Kazimierz Odnowiciel (Casimir I the Restorer) or Bolesław Szczodry (Bolesław the Generous) as the founder. The latter has recently been supported by R. Michałowski, who considered the foundation of the Benedictine monastery in Tyniec to be an element of the ruler’s propaganda after the coronation of 1076. There are no commemorative sources in the case of this monastery that would testify to the monks’ concern for the memory of the ruler-founder. It could be assumed that the lack of memory of the founder in this monastery could be attributed to the catastrophe of this ruler and his banishment in 1079. The decisive factor, however, is the lack of sources from this monastery.
This does not mean, however, that the commemorative notes that were used to pray for the salvation of these rulers were not preserved. Mieszko I is assumed to have died on 25 May 992.8 He might have been buried in the Poznań Cathedral or, less likely, in Gniezno Cathedral.9 The yearly date can be read in the chronicle of Thietmar (the day date in this chronicle is added later10), and later it was reiterated by Annalista Saxo.11 It is difficult to say which tradition Thietmar used. He was born in 975, so he would have remembered the yearly date of Mieszko’s death. However, he may have made use of some records from Merseburg or other sources that were at his disposal. It is difficult to go beyond conjecture in this case. However, it is worth noting the sources that give the year date of Mieszko’s death. These are the obituary “Annals of Fulda” (MGH SS vol. 1312) and the “Annals of Hildesheim”.13 Records from the annals could also form the basis for the memory kept in the liturgy.14 The obituary annals from the monastery in Fulda are part of a very extensive commemorative manuscript legacy, which became the subject of reference research on commemorative sources in the 1970s. The discovery of the obituary note about Mieszko in this particular monastery was explained in various ways.15 The memory about Mieszko that survived in the monastery in Fulda did not result from the selected burial place. It had to have a different basis – not only religious but also genealogical, political, and economic. Additionally, it can be remarked that, according to some suppositions, Mieszko I may be noted in the memory book of the chapter in Augsburg because of his healing after being wounded; he gave as a “votum” the silver shoulder (arm?) to St. Ulrich of Augsburg.16
In the case of Bolesław Chrobry, the year date is given by numerous sources.17 The “Annals of Kraków Chapter” are the primary source text here.18 The day of death – 17 June – was found in the Lüneburg obituary, where Bolesław was recorded as a dux (Bolzlauus),19 and later in Cosmas’s Chronicle of the Czechs.20 Poznań Cathedral was most probably Chrobry’s burial place.21 Responsibility for the memory of the ruler was, therefore, on St. Michael’s monastery in Lüneburg, which probably was established in the 10th century by Hermann Billung as a canonical community and passed on to the Benedictines in the time of Duke Bernard (d. 1011).22 Thus, the death of Bolesław Chrobry was recorded by the Benedictines who operated there.
The manuscript of the Lüneburg obituary burned down during World War II. We know it from earlier descriptions. The majority of the book, which also contained the obituary, was written in the 13th century. It consisted of the Martyrology of Usuard, written in the first half of the 13th century, the Rule of St. Benedict, then the obituary (written in the second decade of the 13th century), five Tituli Luneburgenses, epitaphs dedicated to the House of Billung, remarks about the relics and “Nomina episcoporum Verdensium” (written by three different hands from the 13th and 14th centuries), a list of persons from ducal families (in one hand from the 13th century), and a diptychon dedicated to the House of Billung and the first abbots of St. Michael’s.23 The obituary was undoubtedly rewritten from an older copy.
The memory of Chrobry, maintained in the context of his relationship with the House of Billung,24 continued in the 13th century. The commitment to maintain the memory of the Polish ruler, as well as many others entered into this obituary before the 13th century, by the next generation of monks played its role. It is difficult to think that this note had any relevance in the 13th century. This entry was interpreted in different ways. Without rejecting these various ingenious concepts, one can guess that this entry may have been followed by some kind of charitable act, probably a gift from Bolesław Chrobry to the monastery in Lüneburg.
The day of death of yet another of the Piast rulers, Mieszko II, was recorded in the Merseburg obituary on 10 May25 and in the obituary of St. Michael’s monastery in Bamberg on 11 May.26 St. Michael’s monastery in Bamberg was the home monastery of the Bishop of Bamberg. The note on Mieszko was found under the sixth ides of May as the third item in the calendar. The first to be mentioned was “Chynradus presbyter et monachus n. c. MCXLI” [Michelsberg], then “Heinricus episcopus Ratisponensis et monachus s. Emmerammi plenus frater” 8 “MCLV” [Regensburg], followed by “Huius causa Gotefridus abbas instituit nobis oblationem carratam vini”. The second set of names under this day includes “Franco monachus s. Petri Castellansis” [Kastl] and “Meginwardus presbyter s. Stephani” [Bamberg S. Stephan], followed by “Misico dux Poloniorum frater noster. Hic dedit nobis pallium unum et VI cappas puerorum et plurimum peccunię, unde factę sunt XXIIII statuę, quę circa chorum sunt locatę. III candelę”. And later we can see the addition of a “Wichoch laicus”.27 The note attached to the word “peccunię” was written by a first hand, and then amended by another hand.
Eberhard, the first Bishop of Bamberg, is considered to be the founder of the monastery, although the monks also considered Emperor Henry II to be the founder.28 According to the latest findings, the obituary was established after the Concordat of Worms, with the first hand dating back to 1122–1123.29 This was at a time when a new monastery church was being built after the 1117 earthquake. The new church was consecrated on 1 October 1121 by Bishop Otto of Bamberg. This means that an entry dedicated to Mieszko II was present in an earlier obituary. Thus, we do not know in what context Mieszko II was originally mentioned in the monastery. However, at the beginning of the 12th century it was decided that his name should be removed. Mieszko himself could be associated with the rulers supporting the reformers in the 11th century.30 It is known that this new obituary is not complete as far as the previous entries are concerned. It has been noted that many monks living in the 11th century in this monastery are missing, as can be seen when the obituary is compared with the notes in the obituaries of St. Emmeram and Tegernsee.31 The obituary of St. Michael was linked to the Rule of St. Benedict and the lectionary, and then it was linked to another code containing an introduction to the Martyrology of Bede and other martyrologies, but different.32 One cannot be certain whether the book for the Chapter Office could have been written by scriptor Adelhard [perhaps on the 28th of April (1131) in the obituary].33 In any case, at the time when this book was being written, about 100 years after the king’s death, the affiliation of Mieszko II with the monastery was remembered, and so were the gifts that the monastery received from him. In this case, a permanent commitment by the monks to pray for this ruler may be considered as the most significant.
From among other notes devoted to the Piast rulers, let us name but a few: Mieszko II’s son Kazimierz Odnowiciel was mentioned in St. Emmeram’s monastery in Regensburg on 19 March.34 However, his name also appears in Polish sources, but quite late though – either on 24 October or on 28 November.35 It is difficult to verify these dates. After his death, Bolesław Szczodry was recorded in the obituary of Regensburg on 2 April,36 in the Czech obituary of Ostrów on 4 April, and in the Kraków calendar on 3 April.37 His brother Władysław Herman (d. in 1102), who took over after him, was mentioned on 4 June on the basis of the notes in the Kraków calendar38 and in the obituary of Bamberg.39 At this point, it is worth mentioning Kazimierz Odnowiciel’s other sons: Mieszko, who was recorded in the obituary of Regensburg on 28 January (1065),40 and Otto, who was recorded in the Kraków calendar on 15 May (1047 or 1048).41 Bolesław Szczodry’s son Mieszko could be mentioned on 7 January (1089) in the obituary of the abbey of the Virgin Mary in Lubiń.42 Bolesław Krzywousty (Bolesław III Wrymouth), who died in 1138, was recorded on 27 October in the obituary of St. Gilles’ Abbey43 the obituary of St. Vincent’s Abbey in Wrocław,44 and on 28 October in the calendar of the Gertrude Code, the obituary of Zwiefalten,45 the obituary of St. Vincent’s Abbey in Bamberg,46 and the obituary of St. Blaise’s Abbey in Schwarzwald.47 Moreover, this is the date that the “Annals of the Kraków Chapter” and Ortlieb of Zwiefalten recorded his death in their chronicles. In the Kraków calendar, Bolesław Krzywousty could be recorded under 30 October, but others believe the date is related to Bolesław, son of Bolesław Kędzierzawy (d. 1173).48
The eldest son of Bolesław Krzywousty, Władysław II, later known as Wygnaniec (the Exile), according to most researchers died in 1159, while according to others it was after 1162, that is, probably in 1163. There is a note dedicated to him on 30 May49 in the obituary of the monastery in Klosterneuburg and one in “Epytaphia ducum Slezie” on 2 June.50 Władysław might have been buried in Altenburg, his place of stay after his exile,51 or the town of Pegau in Saxony, as noted in the “Kronika Polska” (“The Polish Chronicle”).52 In Altenburg, however, there is no trace of this ruler’s memory being cultivated.53 It should be noted that the monastery of St. Lambert in Altenburg was a young monastery, founded in 1144 by the von Poigen family.54 Władysław could have been buried in this monastery even before the founder’s family died out and before it was taken over by the Austrian Babenbergs.
There is no place to analyse all of these notes in the monastic sources. The memory of the Piast rulers of the Middle Ages during the Polish early Middle Ages was preserved in several important monastic centres, especially in the German Reich. These centres included Fulda, Lüneburg, Regensburg, Zwiefalten, Bamberg, and several others, that is, St. Gilles in Provence. In some cases, it is possible to point to the personal relationship of the rulers with the monasteries, where the memories of these rulers were later kept. It seems that in other cases, too, this may have been essential. The memories cultivated in Polish areas are published later, and one can point to Kraków, St. Vincent’s Abbey in Wrocław, and the monastery in Lubiń. Certainly, the number of centres in which the Piasts were prayed for must have been higher, but relevant sources in such monasteries, as for example Tyniec, were not preserved. On the other hand, obituary notes of the last Piast rulers, Władysław Łokietek (Władysław “Elbow-high”) and Kazimierz Wielki (Casimir the Great), were only found in obituaries, calendars, and books of the dead in domestic monasteries. Władysław Łokietek, who died on 2 March 1333, was recorded in the obituaries of the Benedictine monastery in Lubiń55 and the Cistercian monastery in Pelplin,56 as well as in other sources such as the “Traska Annals”57 and the calendar of the Kraków Cathedral (also in the “Kraków Cathedral Chronicle”).58 In several other monastic sources, he was recorded under different day dates: on 10 March in the obituary of the Cistercians in Oliwa,59 on 23 February in the obituary of the Cistercian monastery in Ląd,60 and on 1 March in the obituary of the Norbertines in Strzelno.61
Kazimierz Wielki, who died on 5 November 1370, was mentioned in the Cistercian monastery in Jęrzejów (3 November), the Norbertine obituary in Strzelno (4 November), the Cistercian monastery in Ląd (4 November), in Jemielnica (5 November), in the obituary of Lubiń on 11 September, and in many other sources.62 However, the Kraków Cathedral, in which they were both buried, became the most important place of commemoration for these rulers, and so did the chapter community by this cathedral, as confirmed by the local calendar and obituary.
One can thus observe a fundamental difference between the places of prayers erected for the first Piast rulers and for the last. The memory of the Piast rulers of the Middle Ages during the Polish early Middle Ages was preserved not only in Polish churches and monasteries but also in several major monastic centres in the German Reich mentioned previously. The memory cultivated in Polish areas is more clearly visible in later years and can be observed in such centres as Kraków, St. Vincent’s Abbey in Wrocław, and the monastery in Lubiń. Certainly, the number of centres in which the Piasts were prayed for must have been higher, but relevant sources in such monasteries were not preserved. While it can be assumed that the lack of preserved sources from monasteries in the Polish lands in the 11th century (apart from the Brotherly Book of Lubiń since the time of Bolesław Szczodry) distorts this image, it should be noted that, in the 14th century, there are no prayers in monasteries outside Poland dedicated to Władysław Łokietek and Kazimierz Wielki. Apparently, at some point in time the relationships of the Piast rulers with monasteries outside their kingdom disappeared. This must have been related to the growing number of monastic foundations in Poland and the conviction that the offer of their own foundations was attractive enough for the Piast rulers. The comparison of commemorative notes devoted to the representatives of the Piast dynasty indicates that such a change took place at the turn of the 12th century, during the period of the fragmentation of Poland, and it does not result from the arbitrariness of preserving the sources. As it is stressed increasingly often, it was a period of fundamental changes in the Polish lands. Monasteries, which can be referred to as local, home monasteries (German: Eigenkloster, Hauskloster), began to play an increasingly important role. During the fragmentation of Poland, the Piast rulers built their local authorities with local necropolises. Monasteries from other countries and even from other districts disappeared from their field of interest. Thus, we can speak of a growing regionalism of dynastic memory as a consequence of fragmentation.
The period of unifying the districts from the end of the 13th century can be considered as the next stage of shaping the liturgical memory maintained in monasteries. Such rulers as Władysław Łokietek or Kazimierz Wielki were mentioned in the obituaries of monasteries from different districts. In the case of these rulers, it is often difficult to prove that the recorded obituary note was due to the special, personal relationship between the ruler and the monastery. The monks often felt obliged to pray for the king of the kingdom in which they operated. One could therefore distinguish between those monasteries whose prayers the rulers solicited in a special way and those monasteries that undertook such prayers on their own initiative.
Notes
· 1 I treat commemorative notes chiefly as religious fact; comp. Grzegorz Pac, “Memoria a badanie tożsamości we wcześniejszym średniowieczu – kilka uwag o pożytkach, ale też ograniczeniach w zastosowaniu metody,” in Symboliczne i realne podstawy tożsamości społecznej w średniowieczu, eds. Sławomir Gawlas and Paweł Żmudzki (Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, 2017), 121–37.
· 2 Thietmari Merseburgensis episcopi chronicon, ed. Robert Holtzmann, MGH, Ss rer. Germ. N.S. no. 9 (1935), lib. VI, c. 27 (20), p. 306 (hereafter Thietmar). Tadeusz Wojciechowski, “Eremici reguły św. Romualda, czyli benedyktyni włoscy w Polsce jedenastego wieku,” in T. Wojciechowski, Szkice historyczne jedenastego wieku (Warszawa: Instytut Wydawniczy “Bibljoteka Polska”, 1925), 5–7 (1–52).
· 3 “Huius rei gratia fratres ex heremo, qui essent ferventes spiritu in Slavonicam dirigere gloriosus cesar cogitavit, ut ubi pulchra silva secretum daret, in christiana terra iuxta terminum paganorum monasterium construerent.” Brunonis vita quinque fratrum, ed. Reinhard Kade, MGH Ss, no. 15 (1888), 2, 179.
· 4 Andrzej Pleszczyński, “Bolesław Chrobry konfratrem eremitów św. Romualda w Międzyrzeczu,” Kwartalnik Historyczny 103, no. 1 (1996): 3–22.
· 5 Thietmar, lib. VI, c. 33–34, 314–15. Marek Derwich, “Kanonicy świeccy, Bolesław Chrobry i Magdeburg. Ze studiów nad ‘zapomnianą’ instytucją kościelną,” Acta Universitatis Wratislaviensis 152, no. 2306 (2001): 233–41; Roman Michałowski, “Bolesław Chrobry bratem kanoników magdeburskich. Próba nowego spojrzenia,” Kwartalnik Historyczny 112, no. 3 (2005): 55–68; Przemysław Wiszewski, “Domus Bolezlai”. W poszukiwaniu tradycji dynastycznej Piastów (do około 1138 roku) (Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego, 2008), 492–95.
· 6 Eduard Mühle, “Sakralstiftungen von Herzögen und Grossen im piastischen Polen: Forschungsgeschichtliche Kontexte und mittelalterliche Zusammenhänge,” in Monarchische und adlige Sakralstiftungen im mittelalterlichen Polen, ed. Eduard Mühle (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2013), 29.
· 7 Roman Michałowski, Princeps fundator. Studium z dziejów kultury politycznej w Polsce X–XIII wieku (Warszawa: Ośrodek Wydawniczy Zamku Królewskiego w Warszawie, 1993); Roman Michałowski, “Princeps fundator: Monarchische Stiftungen und politische Kultur im piastischen Polen (10.–13. Jahrhudnert),” in Monarchische und adlige Sakralstiftungen im mittelalterlichen Polen (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2013), passim.
· 8 Oswald Balzer, Genealogia Piastów (Kraków: PAU Skład główny w Księgarni Spółki Wydawniczej Polskiej, 1895), 19–21; Kazimierz Jasiński, Rodowód pierwszych Piastów (Warszawa and Wrocław: Wydawnictwo PTPN, 1993), 60.
· 9 Ibid., 61, 68 (footnote 65); Elżbieta Dąbrowska, “Groby członków dynastii piastowskiej we wczesnym średniowieczu. Stan badań,” in Groby, relikwie i insygnia. Studia z dziejów mentalności średniowiecznej, ed. Elżbieta Dąbrowska (Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Archeologii i Etnologii PAN, 2008), 145–60, here 147 (first edition: Roczniki Historyczne 70 (2004): 165–82). Grzegorz Pac, “Problem świętości władców we wczesnym średniowieczu: przypadek Polski na tle europejskim,” Historia Slavorum Occidentis 2, no. 11 (2016): 97–98.
· 10 Balzer, Genealogia Piastów, 21.
· 11 Thietmar, lib. VI, c. 58, pp. 196–97.
· 12 As “Misicho marchio”, the entry indicates the fourth ides of May (ob. Gebraht pr. mon. abba); and besides as “Ob. Misicho com. et Scl.”; Karl Schmid, “Grundlegung und Edition der Fuldischen Gedenküberlieferung,” in Die Klostergemeinschaft von Fulda im frühen Mittelalter, ed. Karl Schmid, 8.1 (München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag, 1978), 346.
· 13 Annales Hildesheimenses, Quedlinburgenses, Weissemburgenses et Lamberti pars priori, ed. Georg Henricus Pertz, MGH, Ss, 3 (1839): 69.
· 14 Ekkehard Freise, “Kalendarische und annalistische Grundformen der Memoria,” in Memoria: der geschichtliche Zeugniswert des liturgischen Gedenkens im Mittelalter, eds. Karl Schmid and Joachim Wollasch (München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag, 1984), 441–577.
· 15 Recently, Jarosław Wenta, “Dlaczego Bamberg, dlaczego Nordgau?” in Świat średniowiecza: Studia ofiarowane Profesorowi Henrykowi Samsonowiczowi, eds. Agnieszka Bartoszewicz, Grzegorz Myśliwski, Jerzy Pysiak, and Paweł Żmudzki (Warsaw: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, 2010), 483–91; Jarosław Wenta, “Bamberg, Regensburg, Zwiefalten, Saint-Gilles; początki i finał piastowskiej obecności,” in Historia narrat: studia mediewistyczne ofiarowane profesorowi Jackowi Banaszkiewiczowi, eds. Andrzej Pleszczyński, Joanna Sobiesiak, and Michał Tomaszek (Lublin: Wydawnictwo UMCS, 2012), 320, 317–28.
· 16 “Gerhardi vita sancti Oudalrici episcopi,” in Annales, chronica et historiae aevi Carolini et Saxonici, ed. Georg Waitz, MGH Ss 4 (1841): 423; Teresa Dunin-Wąsowicz, “Kulty świętych w Polsce w X w.,” in Polska w świecie. Szkice z dziejów kultury polskiej, ed. Jerzy Dowiat (Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1972), 62–67; Andrzej Pleszczyński, “Bolesław Chrobry konfratrem eremitów św. Romualda w Międzyrzeczu,” Kwartalnik Historyczny 103, no. 1 (1996): 9.
· 17 The annals in the sources include Rocznik dawny, Rocznik kapituły krakowskiej, roczniki, kamieniecki, poznański i inne; Balzer, Genealogia Piastów, 36n.; Jasiński, Rodowód pierwszych Piastów, 83.
· 18 Ibid.
· 19 Die Totenbücher von Merseburg, Magdeburg und Lüneburg, eds. Gerd Althoff and J. Wollasch, MGH Libri memorials et necrologica N.S., 2 (1983): 37; “Nekrologium Monasterii S. Michaelis,” in Noten zu einigen Geschichtsschreibern des Deutschen Mittelalters, ed. Anton Ch. Wedekind, 3 (Braunschweig and Hamburg, 1833, 1836), 44.
· 20 Cosmae Pragensis Cronica Boemorvm, ed. Berthold Bretholz. MGH SrG, N.S. 2 (Berlin: Weidmann, 1923), 76 (hereafter Cosmae Pragensis Cronica Boemorvm).
· 21 Jasiński, Rodowód pierwszych Piastów, 47, but this is not entirely certain. Cf. recently Pac, “Problem świętości władców,” 97–98.
· 22 Such was the entry in the monastic obituary on 27 March; Nekrologium des Klosters S. Michaelis in Lüneburg, 23. For a summary of the history of the monastery, see DI 24, Lüneburg: St. Michaeliskloster, Kloster Lüne, Einleitung, 1. Zur Geschichte des St. Michaelisklosters und des Klosters Lüne (Eckhard Michael), [in] inschriften.net, urn:nbn:de:0238-di024g002e005.
· 23 Gerd Althoff, “Beobachtungen zu den Necrolog-Handschriften, ihrer Anlage und zu den eingetragenen Personen,” in Die Totenbücher von Merseburg, Magdeburg und Lüneburg, XXXIV–XXXV.
· 24 Pleszczyński, “Bolesław Chrobry konfratrem eremitów św. Romualda w Międzyrzeczu,” 10–11.
· 25 Die Totenbücher von Merseburg, Magdeburg und Lüneburg, 37 (Misico mentioned as dux).
· 26 Das Necrolog des Klosters Michelsberg in Bamberg, ed. Johannes Nospickel, MGH Libri memoriales et Necrologia, NS, 6 (2004), 229 (hereafter Das Necrolog des Klosters Michelsberg).
· 27 Das Necrolog des Klosters Michelsberg, 229, 469.
· 28 Ibid., 8.
· 29 Ibid., 4.
· 30 On German 11th-century rulers in this obituary, see Das Necrolog des Klosters Michelsberg, 17.
· 31 Das Necrolog des Klosters Michelsberg, 13.
· 32 Ibid., 3; Karin Dengler-Schreiber, “Scriptorium und Bibliothek des Klosters Michelsberg in Bamberg,” Studien zur Bibiothekgeschichte 2 (1979), 30n.
· 33 Wollasch, Totengedenken und Traditionsbildung, 3.
· 34 Das Martyrolog-Necrolog von St. Emmeram zu Regensburg, eds. Eckhard Freise, Dieter Geuenich and Joachim Wollasch, MGH, Libri Memoriales et Necrologia, Ns 3 (1986): 205 (hereafter Das Martyrolog-Necrolog von St. Emmeram zu Regensburg).
· 35 Balzer, Genealogia Piastów, 85–87; Jasiński, Rodowód pierwszych Piastów, 130–31.
· 36 Das Martyrolog-Necrolog von St. Emmeram zu Regensburg, 205.
· 37 “Kalendarz katedry krakowskiej,” in Najdawniejsze roczniki krakowskie i kalendarz katedry krakowskiej, ed. Zofia Kozłowska-Budkowa, MPH, ser. 2, 5 (1978): 137.
· 38 Ibid., 150.
· 39 Das Necrolog des Klosters Michelsberg in Bamberg, 236 (Grimhardus laicus?); Jasiński, Rodowód pierwszych Piastów, 187–91.
· 40 Das Martyrolog-Necrolog von St. Emmeram zu Regensburg, 215.
· 41 “Kalendarz katedry krakowskiej,” 146.
· 42 Nekrolog opactwa Panny Marii w Lubiniu, in Księga bracka i nekrolog opactwa Panny Marii w Lubiniu, ed. Zbigniew Perzanowski, MPH, ser. 2, 9.2 (1976): 19.
· 43 Ulrich Winzer, “S. Gilles. Studien zum Rechtstatus und Beziehungsnetz einer Abtei im Spiegel ihrer Memorialüberlieferung,” Münstersche Mittelalterschriften 59 (1988): 432.
· 44 Nekrolog opactwa św. Wincentego we Wrocławiu, eds. Karol Maleczyński, Brygida Kürbis and Ryszard Walczak, MPH, ser. 2, 9.1 (1971): 81.
· 45 “Necrologium Zwifaltense”, in ed. V. Franz L. Baumann, MGH, Necrologia Germaniae, Diocesis Augustensis, Constantiensis, Curiensis, Beroloni 1 (1888): 263.
· 46 Das Necrolog des Klosters Michelsberg in Bamberg, 277, 469.
· 47 Hubert Houben, “Das Fragment des Necrologs von St. Blasien,” Frühmittelalterliche Studien 14 (1980): 282.
· 48 “Kalendarz katedry krakowskiej,” 181.
· 49 Berthold O. Černik, “Das älteste Nekrologium des Stiftes Klosterneuburg,” Jahrbuch des Stiftes Klosterneuburg 5 (1913): 182 (Litizlawo dux Bolonie); MGH Necr., vol. 5, p. 748; Kazimierz Jasiński, Rodowód Piastów śląskich (Kraków: Wydawnictwo Avalon, 2007), 57; Balzer, Genealogia Piastów, 127.
· 50 Epytaphia ducum Slezie, MPH, vol. 3, p. 711.
· 51 This is a conjecture formulated by A. Przeździecki and carefully supported by Kazimierz Jasiński; Aleksander N. Przeździecki, “Altenburg, jako miejsce wygnania i śmierci księcia Władysława, starszego syna Bolesława Krzywoustego,” Tygodnik Ilustrowany 7 (1863): 160–62; Jasiński, Rodowód Piastów śląskich, 58. It could have been the castle church or St. Bartholomew’s Church.
· 52 Kronika polska, MPH, vol. 3, pp. 633, 644; Jasiński, Rodowód Piastów śląskich, 60. This Silesian Chronica Polonorum mentions that some people indicted Płock in addition to Pegau as a burial place, which is impossible; Ibid., 60, note 18.
· 53 Przeździecki, “Altenburg, jako miejsce wygnania i śmierci księcia Władysława, starszego syna Bolesława Krzywoustego,” 161.
· 54 Honorius Burger, Geschichtliche Darstellung der Gründung und Schicksale des Benediktinerstiftes S. Lambert zu Altenburg in Nieder-Oesterreich, dessen Pfarrer und Besitzungen und mehrerer hiesige Gegend betreffender Ereignisse (Wien: Carl Gerold’s Sohn, 1862), 1nn.; Hanna Egger, “Altenburg,” in Die Benediktinischen Mönchs- und Nonnenklöster in Österreich und Südtirol, eds. Ulrich Faust and Waltraud Krassnig (Germania Benedictina) 3.1 (St. Ottilien: EOS-Verlag, 2000), 213–14.
· 55 “Nekrolog opactwa Panny Marii w Lubiniu”, MPH, ser. 2, 9.2, pp. 36–38.
· 56 Liber mortuorum monasterii Pelplinensis ordinis cisterciensis, ed. Wojciech Kętrzyński, MPH, 4 (1884): 74.
· 57 Rocznik Traski, ed. August Bielowski, MPH 2 (1872): 854.
· 58 Kalendarz katedry krakowskiej, 128; Kazimierz Jasiński, Rodowód Piastów małopolskich i kujawskich (Poznań: Wydawnictwo Historyczne, 2001), 119.
· 59 Liber mortuorum monasterii beatae Mariae de Oliva, ed. Wojciech Kętrzyński, MPH 5 (1888): 510.
· 60 Liber mortuorum monasterii Landensis ordinis cisterciensis, ed. Wojciech Kętrzyński, MPH, 5 (1888): 476.
· 61 Liber mortuorum monasterii Strzelnensis ordinis Praemonstratensis, ed. Wojciech Kętrzyński, MPH, 5 (1888): 728.
· 62 Balzer, Genealogia Piastów, 380–81.