[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
of this tendency to paint Bruno as pro-Polish have been claims that he was, in fact, the second Polish metropolitan-bishop mentioned so enigmatically by Gallus Anonymus.99 A more balanced view, portraying Bruno of Querfurt as a missionary bishop with no jurisdictional at- tachment to any ecclesiastical province, is probably nearer the truth.100 It is an indisputable fact that Bruno received his pallium from Archbishop Tagino of Magdeburg in 1004, with Henry II s approval, and this would seem to show Bruno s respect for the missionary claims of this Saxon metropolitan.101 Indeed, Korpela has recently suggested that Bruno s activities were so pro-German and pro-Rus as to make him Henry II s agent, intent on striking an anti- Boleslawian alliance with the Rus ruler Vladimir the Great:102 he goes so far as to implicate the Poles in Bruno s death, the murder only later being pinned on pagan scapegoats.103 Although no evidence can be found in our near-contemporary sources to support Korpela s interpretation, making his final conclusions untenable, it does show how widely varied views of Bruno can be. We should be cautious about associating St Bruno too closely with any of the lay rulers whom he encountered: his positive remarks about Otto III and Henry II are counterbalanced by criticism of them both when they fell short of his high expectations. Although we have insufficient evidence to make similar observations about Boleslaw or Vladimir, it is safe to assume that Bruno was no more subservient to these rulers than he was to his German overlords. Bruno seems to have been someone who managed to keep a relatively free hand, even in the most complicated situations. Although his room for manoeuvre was sometimes limited, he appears to have kept his freedom of action when- ever he could. Bruno was driven by the overriding belief in the importance of mission work among the pagans;104 in wearing his pallium, Bruno was primarily acting as the servant of St Peter. 95 See Otto III. d Heinrich II.: Eine Wende?, ed. B. Schneidmüller and S. Weinfurter (Sigmaringen, 1997), 23e5. 96 MPH, vol. 1, 224e8. 97 Wenskus, Studien, 186e93. See also R. Wenskus, Brun von Querfurt und die Stiftung des Erzbistums Gnesen , Zeitschrift für Ostforschung, 5:4 (1956), 526e30. 98 For example Stanis1aw Zakrzewski was of the opinion that Bruno was a faithful exponent of Boleslaw s political ideas and was the first to open up Polish missionary activities within eastern Europe (S. Zakrzewski, BolesÅ‚aw Chrobry Wielki (Lwów, 1925), 226. 99 MPH, vol. 2; Galli Anonymi Cronicae et Gesta ducum seu principum Polonorum, ed. K. MaleczyÅ„ski (Cracow, 1952), 30. For an overview of the arguments, see P.M.A. CywiÅ„ski, Druga metropolia Boles1awa Chrobrego a Brunon z Kwerfurtu , Kwartalnik Historyczny, 4 (2001), 3e5, 14. CywiÅ„ski is inclined to regard Bruno as the second Polish metropolitan and to see those bishops who were consecrated by him for the Pechenegs and the Swedes as his suffragans. 100 Strzelczyk, ApostoÅ‚owie Europy, 227e8. Strzelczyk, BolesÅ‚aw Chrobry, 224e5. 101 Wenskus, Brun von Querfurt , 529e30. 102 Korpela, Ein Bischof , 122e3. 103 Korpela, Ein Bischof , 124e5. 104 See K. Görich, Otto III. Romanus, Saxonicus et Italicus. Kaiserliche Rompolitik und sächsische Historiographie (Historische Forschungen 18, Sigmaringen, 1993), 20. Downloaded by [Uniwersytet Warszawski] at 05:09 22 January 2014 16 D. Baronas / Journal of Medieval History 34 (2008) 1e22 With the exception of the Irish missionaries, differences can be seen in the conduct of Chris- tian missions from the early middle ages onwards. Missions initiated by the pope should be distinguished from those launched by a ruler.105 The latter were often motivated by the desire to submit neophyte peoples to their own Christian rule for political reasons, and the Carolingians provide a good example of this. Papacy-inspired missions, on the other hand, could result in the emergence of an ecclesiastical province directly subjected to Rome, a devel- opment which usually fitted in well with the political aspirations of newly-baptised rulers.106 However, the pope was generally involved with all types of missionary organisation, and his relations with lay rulers were characterised by mutual dependence, common interests and even rivalry.107 This distinction between papal and royal missions should be borne in mind when considering Bruno s missionary activities, although this has not generally been ap- preciated to date. St Bruno took pains to understand the characteristics of a region due to be evangelised, the better to implement Christ s injunction to preach the faith to all the peoples on earth (Matt. 28:19e20).108 A champion of the peaceful evangelisation of pagans untouched by the Word, Bruno openly condemned the violent measures taken against the Black Magyars .109 However, if peaceful missionary efforts failed, he was ready to call for a missionary war to be waged against any pagan elite obstinate enough to block the spread of the Word. For example, Bruno advo- cated military action against the Liutizi, without any regard for their potential as allies of German king Henry II during the war between this ruler and Boleslaw. Given that Bruno s mis- sionary approach was very much determined by the particular situation he faced, how did he act on his last mission? Both Damian and Wibert tell us that Bruno s last mission was initially quite successful. The pagan ruler and his followers were receptive to the Word, heeded Bruno s preaching and d after a miraculous trial by fire d received baptism,110 obviating the need for force. This may have devalued Bruno s last mission in Boleslaw eyes if, as a number of Polish historians have sug- gested, the Polish ruler had territorial expectations and interests invested in it.111 This would [ Pobierz caÅ‚ość w formacie PDF ] |