14.03.26, Kalhous, The Anatomy of a Duchy

Main Article Content

Paweł Kras

The Medieval Review 14.03.26

Kalhous, David. The Anatomy of a Duchy: The Political and Ecclesiastical Structures of Early Přemyslid Bohemia. East Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages. Leiden:Brill, 2012. Pp. xvi, 317. ISBN: 9789004229808.

Reviewed by:

Paweł Kras
John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin

The recent book by Czech scholar David Kalhous is an important contribution to the international scholarship focused on the origins and development of the early medieval state of Bohemia as well as other neighboring countries located at the Eastern peripheries of Latin Christendom. Almost each English publication on the medieval history of Bohemia or East Central Europe should be warmly welcome as it provides an international readership with a valuable examination or reexamination of problems which mostly remain outside the mainstream of medieval studies. That is one of the key objectives of the whole series of "East Central Europe and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages" published by Brill, and the book by Kalhous perfectly fits into the series format. David Kalhous himself belongs to a young generation of Czech historians who already has a high scholarly reputation in the domain of medieval studies. His research and publications on the history of Přemyslid Bohemia mostly in Czech, but also in German and English, have made him a top expert in that field of studies. His critical approach to available written and archeological sources combined with an extensive knowledge of international medieval literature has already enabled him to analyze social and economic developments of the early Bohemian state from an interdisciplinary and comparative perspective. It suffices here to mention his well-known and inspiring studies on various controversial written sources for the study of Přemyslid Bohemia, in particular his recent reexamination of Legenda Christiani, a vita of St Wenceslas, Granum catalogi praesulum Moraviae, or the chronicle by Cosmas of Prague. The book Anatomy of a Duchy: The Political and Ecclesiastical Structures of Early Přemyslid Bohemia looks to be an opus maius of Kalhous' earlier studies; however, it is not a simple collection to his texts published elsewhere. The book is well-structured and offers a synthetic overview of the most significant developments which led to the formation of the Bohemian duchy in the late ninth and tenth centuries. The author carefully reexamines all available sources--written and material--originating in Bohemia or produced elsewhere and that shed the light on the long-term construction of early Přemyslid Bohemia. The book is supplied with a set of maps which present political and organizational processes discussed in its various sections. They are valuable and helpful tools to get a better orientation in the geographical location of historical territories and places in early Přemyslid Bohemia and in the neighboring countries as well.

The purpose of the book is clearly presented in the Introduction, where David Kalhous discusses crucial problems of his study and provides a critical overview of earlier Czech and international research. He stresses that "the Přemyslids...are hardly part of English and American discourse" and argues that with a single exception of a recent book by Lisa Wolverton, [1] "the last monograph in English about East Central Europe in the tenth and ninth centuries was written by a Byzantinist Francis (František) Dvornik" (1). [2] Generally, it is hard not to accept that harsh opinion, in particular as far as it refers to studies on early Přemyslid Bohemia in English. Nevertheless, it is worth stressing that in the last decade a serious effort has been undertaken by a group of medieval historians from various countries to work together on early medieval history of East Central Europe treated as a whole, and to fill the gap in the international scholarship. In the latest edition of the Cambridge Medieval History good overviews of early medieval history of Bohemia, Hungary and Poland are presented in separate chapters by top experts, mostly coming from those countries. There have been a number of team projects and international conferences focused on the early medieval history of East Central Europe, which were later published as collections of conference proceedings or monographs. One of the best examples of that intensive and successful cooperation is the collection of studies on the Christianization of Eastern and Northern Europe edited by Nora Berend and published in 2007 with Cambridge University Press. [3] Some other important publications might be mentioned here as well, such as studies by Jerzy Kłoczowski on East Central Europe in the Middle Ages, and in particular his contributions to the French multivolume series Histoire du christianisme, [4] or Latin-English editions of medieval sources from East Central Europe published by Central European University Press, with extensive introductions and critical apparatus. Despite those initiatives and publications, there is of course much to be done, and the book by Kalhous provides a good example to be followed by other researchers.

In the Introduction Kalhous offers an outline of the early medieval history of Bohemia which is the focus of his study and which he later analyzes in detail (2-9). He presents here the most important sources for a study on early Přemyslid Bohemia, emphasizing that they are relatively scanty and provide ambivalent information: "Although, there are some interesting sources written in different parts of 10th and 11th century Europe, their reliability is still a matter of discussions" (1). The most important part of his introduction is a challenge to the prevailing narrative or "historiographical discourse," which describes the rise of a Bohemian duchy under Boleslav I (935-972) in terms of the military success and territorial expansion. In such a research model the early Přemyslid duchy is presented as a strong political and military entity ruled by dukes who efficiently controlled all elements of their state. Discussing a number of methodological approaches Kalhous questions that historiographical concept and suggests that various elements of that early medieval state model should be carefully reexamined. Among the most controversial issues to be studied he lists such key problems as the origins of landed aristocracy, position of a duke in early medieval state, structure and organization of standing military force, collection and distribution of revenues and the property of lands. Each mentioned-above problem is closely related to the general debate on the origins of states, kingship, aristocracy, labor organization all across early medieval Europe, and as such has already attracted much attention from international scholarship. Kalhous is right arguing that any study on the emergence of the Přemyslid state should be embedded in the advanced research on the early medieval history of Europe, which in recent decades has been so fruitful. Furthermore, he discusses classical and recent research models and findings related to the Carolingian empire or Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, and tries to find out how they might be applied to the study on early medieval Bohemia. Concluding his overview, Kalhous argues that "the general discursive framework indicates that historiography had begun to move away from the concept of the 'central/princely institutions' as the necessary frame of reference for public action, while also accommodating the self-organizing mechanisms featured by communities lacking such broadly applicable power monopolies" (8). However, due to a peculiar linguistic discourse the above-quoted opinion may look a bit confusing, Kalhous' argument is clear. No central organization of society and power relations should be treated as necessary for the construction of a medieval state, as it has been taken for granted in most earlier studies on the early Přemyslid duchy.

The book is divided into two separate sections. The first and larger is entitled "Weak" Bohemia: A Non-State Retinue-Based Polity in Central Europe?," and comprises five chapters (11-170). Kalhous discusses here the political, social and economic developments which provided the background for the rise of a Přemyslid duchy in the late ninth and tenth centuries. His interest is mostly focused on the state-building processes which transformed a loose federation of Western Slavonic tribes settled in the Czech Basin into a "centralized" duchy ruled by the Přemyslids. He starts with the presentation of some traditional concepts which constitute a mainstream of the postwar Czechoslovak and Czech historiography, and can be found in a number of analytical studies and textbooks. Of course, Kalhous, who has examined all important publications on the rise of the early Přemyslid state, realizes that there is no single concept explaining all elements of those developments, and exponents of the centralized state model--see, for example, Dušan Třešik and Josef Žemlička [5]--vary, sometimes significantly, in their interpretations of detailed problems. A great value of that section rests upon a careful presentation of source materials and critical overviews of historiographical concepts. One could find here a bulk of substantial information on the territorial expansion of the early Přemyslids' domain south and north of the Carpathian mountains, growth and density of population, settlement trends and a network of strongholds, organization of army and military operations, relations with neighboring states, foundations of monasteries and chapters and the emergence of ecclesiastical structures, and many more. For any historian, or just a reader, that section is a real mine of precious and updated information, which is collected from primary sources and secondary literature, reexamined and reevaluated. It is not my intention here to present in detail all source data analyzed in the books. The general impression is that the author has done his best to reach and widely use international literature, which was not an easy task if one takes into consideration a variety of problems under discussion and a broad comparative approach he adopts for his research model. But, on the one hand some important studies for his analysis are missing [6], and, on the other, sometimes it is hard to guess why he prefers to present rather minor texts ignoring much more elaborate studies by the same author. [7]

The mainline of Kalhous' arguments serves to challenge the dominant historiographical concept, which presents the formation of a strong and centralized state of early Přemyslid Bohemia. In the first chapter of his book Kalhous critically analyzes the elements of that concept which originated in 1960s with the seminal studies of František Graus, and was later, with some modifications, developed by his followers: Dušan Třeštik, Josef Žemlička, Jiří Sláma and Lubomír F. Havlík. Graus was the first to present a four-stage process of state building of Přemyslid Bohemia, in which the key role was played by dukes and their retinues. [8] In his interpretation the political consolidation of the early Bohemian duchy and its successful territorial expansion in the tenth century are closely associated with the development of the military force, which was transformed from "a small private troop" into "a feudalized state retinue, numbering thousands of warriors" (11). František Graus and his followers argue that the centralized Přemyslid state was formed by the development of retinue, which together with a duke became a key state-building factor. David Kalhous presents in detail the most important elements of that concept such as the number and character of the early Přemyslid retinue, the structure of landed property, the network of strongholds, or the rise and transformation of the Bohemian aristocracy. In his critical reexamination of all available sources he rejects that model. He argues that actually the size of ducal retinue was too small to effectively control all territories conquered by the Přemyslids. To demonstrate a small number of mounted warriors, who took a central position in the retinue of early Přemyslids, Kalhous collects and examines available data, which present the recruitment potential of tenth century Bohemia and the composition of standing armies in the other European countries (18-44).

In contrast to the widely-accepted historiographical model to treat the early Bohemian state as "a big village" fully controlled by Přemyslid dukes, he proposes to look at that early duchy as a weak country, where the central control of rulers was not fully implemented all across Bohemian territories for a pretty long time. Kalhous does not accept a simple model explaining the early medieval origins of Central European states, which has been recently proposed by Dušan Třeštik and applied to the formation of the Bohemian duchy. Challenging that concept he asks a couple of important questions: "how was it possible to rule effectively with such limited ducal apparatus over such a considerable population? How was it possible, from a purely military perspective, to conquer neighbors with similar capabilities or keeping large armies? And above all, how was it possible to control them in the long-term?" (32). To answer those questions Kalhous discusses the social structure of the early Přemyslid duchy and its military organization. He argues, rather convincingly, that the power of early Přemyslid dukes was subjected to the control of aristocracy, which was much more influential and wealthier that it has been assessed in earlier studies. If so, the real position of Bohemian aristocrats was much stronger and in a way independent from dukes who needed their cooperation and military support. A subtle analysis of the role of aristocracy in tenth century Bohemia is a starting point of his reexamination of military organization under early Přemyslid dukes. Kalhous disagrees with the widespread opinion that until the thirteenth century the Přemyslid rulers owned all landed property in Bohemia, and consequently the welfare of aristocrats and warriors was fully dependent on their favor. In contrast to that Kalhous argues that both written and archeological sources testify to a high material rank of the Bohemian aristocracy--e.g., rich graves (Fürstengräber) from the ninth century, which were found in various parts of Bohemia (108-110)--and their possession of landed property. His examination of written sources such as the first Bohemian chronicle by Prague cathedral canon Cosmas and a number of charters, offers him strong evidence to support his interpretation. Discussing the rise of monasteries and chapters in early Přemyslid Bohemia, David Kalhous analyzes foundation processes and income of ecclesiastical institutions based on landed property. He draws attention to border delimitations of new church foundations which had to respect interests of local proprietors. The cause celèbre for his argument is a short note in Cosmas' chronicle on comes Mztis of Bilina, who was deprived of his castellan office by Duke Vratislav II (1061-1092), but at the same time claimed his rights to the property of his church, which he regarded as independent from the ducal power (129-130). A careful analysis of foundation charters and Cosmas' chronicle enables him to demonstrate that before the thirteenth century some aristocrats had their own land estates and disposed them at their will. If so, Kalhous argues that that the formation of the early Bohemian duchy resulted from a close cooperation between the members of the Přemyslid dynasty and aristocratic clans, which played an important role in the state-building process. Kalhous tries to identify some of those clans with families which later found themselves in conflict with the ruling dynasty and, like Slavnikovci at the end of the tenth century, were brutally destroyed by the Přemyslids. His reassessment of the rise of Bohemian aristocracy offers an alternative interpretation of the socio-political transformations which were behind the construction of the Přemyslid duchy. In Kalhous' opinion, the early Přemyslid dukes should be treated rather as lords than rulers. They were just members of the political and social elite who played a leading role in the formation of the Bohemian state in the tenth century. Furthermore, he argues that it is hard to speak of tenth and eleventh century Bohemia as an integrated polity with fully developed administration apparatus. However, the position of the Přemyslid dynasty was secured by the standing retinue and the continuous support of aristocracy, the construction of a central and strong duchy was in the tenth century still under way.

In the fourth chapter of the book Kalhous makes a critical overview of the origins of the ecclesiastical organization in early Přemyslid Bohemia (143-169). He starts his reexamination with the following comments: "Naturally, we cannot say that the church and the realm were identical in the early Middle Ages. However, the boundaries between these two powers were hardly as strict as they came to be in modern times. Also the role of church organization was indisputable in the processes that led to the strengthening of the central power" (143). The whole chapter is focused on the foundation of various ecclesiastical institutions from the dioceses of Prague and Olomouc down to castle churches all across Bohemia and Moravia. David Kalhous is not so much interested in the dissemination of Christian doctrine and religious practice in early Bohemian state, but rather in the construction of a unified church structure, which was subjugated to Přemyslid rulers. In particular, he reexamines the role of Duke Boleslav (935-972) and his son Boleslav II (972-999) in the foundation of two bishoprics for Bohemia in Prague and for Moravia in Olomouc, which coincided with the establishment of new dioceses in neighboring Piast Poland and Arpad Hungary. He presents those processes against the wide background of political negotiations and cultural transfers which made new East Central European states parts of Latin Christendom. Of particular interest are Kalhous' study on the financial revenues of church institutions in early Přemyslid Bohemia and the introduction of tithe system. Some attention is drawn to the foundations of chapters and Benedictine monasteries which were promoted almost exclusively by Přemyslid rulers. Kalhous carefully analyzes available foundation charters, among which there is a number of forgeries, but his main intention is to discuss their endowments and financial revenues. It is a pity that in his study he gives so little place to the (re)examination of political and cultural role played by church institutions within the early Přemyslid state. The ecclesiastical structures with bishoprics, chapters, monasteries and castle churches complimented and strengthened the consolidation and centralization of early medieval states all across Latin Christendom. Of course, David Kalhous is well-aware that the Christianization of Bohemia which started with the baptism of Duke Bořivoj in 883/4 accompanied the state-building process of early Přemyslid Bohemia. In the conclusions, Kalhous rightly comments that "with the help of new monasteries and chapters Přemyslid princes not only founded strong centers of power, but also gave elites opportunity to develop their relationship with the ruler through the support of princely monasteries" (264). In his study, however, the functioning of ecclesiastical institutions in the early medieval Bohemia does not receive a complex treatment, even if the oldest monasteries and chapters are presented as important centers of intellectual culture and book production both in Latin and Old-Church-Slavonic. [9]

The presentation of the early medieval ecclesiastical organization in Bohemia is a good starting point for the second section of Kalhous' book, which discusses the emergence and promotion of the common Bohemian identity in the early Přemyslid period. One of the significant achievements of that part is the treatment of the Přemyslid dynastical and state ideology, which was invented in the late tenth century and provided Bohemia with a corpus of distinct ideas and symbols. David Kalhous draws attention to the change in the image of Přemyslids and that if the Bohemian duchy which can be seen in the tenth century sources. He is capable to trace back the process by which Přemyslids started to be presented as legitimate Christian rulers and partners to emperors. The important role in the process, which Kalhous terms "forging common identity," was played by a construction of the past. In the tenth century Latin and Old-Church-Slavonic sources produced in Bohemia, much effort was made to produce a coherent vision of the history of Bohemia. The origins of the Bohemian state was closely related to the rise of the Přemyslid dynasty which was set in the legendary past. In his subtle reconstruction of that complex historiographical tradition, Kalhous presents both common and separate elements of the Přemyslid ideology, which are recorded in various written sources. The central place in that ideology was given to St Wenceslas, an ideal ruler, prefect Christian and courageous warrior, who became patron saint of the Bohemian state and the Přemyslid dynasty. In his opinion the best source to analyze that program is Legenda Christiani, the vita of St Wenceslas, which was produced at the end of the tenth century. David Kalhous makes Legenda Christiani a focus of his study in the second part of his book and that is hardly surprising. He reexamines controversial circumstances which accompanied the production of Legenda Christiani, and has already attracted a vigorous debate among Czech historians. Kalhous gives an overview of those historiographical discussions, which look to be uncompromised, but at the same time offers a fresh interpretation of that important source. First of all, he identifies key elements of the Přemyslid ideology, which served to explain the origins of the Bohemian state and the privileged position of the ruling dynasty. Furthermore, Kalhous demonstrates that in the Legenda Christiani the legendary story of Přemysl, a founder of the Přemyslid state, was tightly interwoven with the Christianization of Bohemia by St Methodius and the reign of Duke Wenceslas (921-935), holy ruler and martyr. All those traditions became integral parts of the Přemyslid ideological program which served to forge natio Bohemica with its own territory, dynasty, ecclesiastical organization and holy protectors.

There is no place here to present here all arguments and conclusions of Kalhous' study, which raises so many important problems related to the political, social, economic, religious and cultural developments of early medieval Bohemia. His book is a formidable peace of scholarly research in which all concepts and findings are based on a thorough reexamination of primary and secondary literature. David Kalhous is a knowledgeable person and an experienced scholar, but sometimes his polemical temper and whole-hearted intention to challenge a number of historiographical theories make an impact on his narrative. His polemical remarks are usually presented in footnotes, but sometimes they constitute extensive parts of his arguments. Of course, it would be irrational to expect from a scholarly text to avoid polemic, and Kalhous' strong polemical discourse cannot be treated as a setback of his book. Nevertheless, sometimes a detailed treatment of different research approaches followed by his own interpretation interrupts or blurs his main arguments. On the other hand however, Kalhous' book is a perfect guidebook to controversial interpretations of primary sources, which are central to any study on early medieval history of Bohemia.

Some confusion is caused by unequal linguistic quality of Kalhous' book. For a non-native speaker like David Kalhous or myself, the translation of an academic text into a foreign language is always a challenge. The key question remains how faithfully to make a translation using not only correct syntax but also a scholarly discourse and technical vocabulary. I do not feel myself in a position to comment on the quality of the English translation; however, some fragments of Kalhous' book look odd and need some second thoughts. The general impression is that the book was translated into English by a non-native speaker and reflects an original Czech discourse. Even if it does not affect comprehensiveness of the whole text, it does affect clarity of some arguments. In addition, Kalhous' use of technical terms is sometimes confusing, in particular when he applies various English terms to describe the same or similar historical phenomena. For example, discussing the network of castra in the early Přemyslid duchy, he operates a number of terms such as "strongholds," "hill-forts," "castles," "fortified settlements" or just "centers of power," and it looks that he usually refers to the same type of settlement. A similar confusion may result from the way he uses technical terms to discuss the origins and status of political elite in the early Přemyslid state (106-123). Here, Kalhous introduces a variety of terms in Latin, Czech, Old-Church-Slavonic, extensively quoting primary sources and discussing different definitions of "elite," "aristocracy," "nobles," and "lords." But doing so he still uses various English terms which are loosely related to written sources and some working definitions he offers. Kalhous is aware of the methodological problem in matching modern sociological or anthropological definitions to early medieval sources, but that does not discourage him to produce a set of categories for his analysis. The results are sometimes ambiguous which is well-reflected by his definitions of "elite" and "aristocracy" (106-108). On the one hand, these two categories look to be presented as separate and even juxtaposed to each other. But on the other they share most features provided in their definitions. E.g., David Kalhous argues that: "Aristocracy, on the other hand (as opposed to "elite"--PK) may be defined as the highest stratum of society whose members have inherited their positions. The aristocracy is likewise perceived as covering this group's generally recognized--and more or less exclusive--right to occupy positions of power or hold office. The two disparate principles of social organization with respect to elites and aristocracy are not necessarily contradictory: in some societies--in accordance with the above definition--aristocracy represents an almost exclusive reservoir for the selection of elites" (108). After such a short theoretical discussion the question remains whether in his treatment of early Přemyslid Bohemia "aristocracy" should/will be treated as an element of or within "elite," or those two categories are equal.

With few exceptions, David Kalhous regularly speaks of "Russia" while referring to various states populated by Eastern Slavs and located outside Latin Christendom. Once again, it is hard to assess why throughout his book Kalhous decides to use the term "Russia" which in the historical discourse is reserved for a centralized state formed by the Duchy of Moscow in the sixteenth century, rather than to speak of Rus' or Ruthenia. The same remark applies to his translation of Ruskaja Pravda as Russian Truth (111).

To conclude, the book Anatomy of a Duchy: The Political and Ecclesiastical Structures of Early Přemyslid Bohemia is a significant and original contribution to the international studies on the origins and evolution of early medieval states. David Kalhous has attempted to identify and explain all important developments which gave rise to early Přemyslid Bohemia and stimulated its later growth within Latin Christendom. Being critical towards earlier historical findings and source interpretations he has managed to draw a coherent picture of political, social and economic transformations which formed the early Bohemian state under the Přemyslid dynasty. Kalhous' book is a piece of high standard academic work, which does not only provides a critical overview of Czech and international research, but first of all offers a fresh and patch-breaking reexamination of the early medieval history of Bohemian state and other neighboring countries. At the moment it is the only so comprehensive and updated study in English on the early Přemyslid duchy. [10] It looks a lucky coincidence that Kalhous' book was published just a year after the English edition of an important study on medieval transformations of Czech lands by Jan Klápště. [11] Those two books complement each other in many ways and offer a good starting point for any new research on socio-economic developments of medieval Bohemia, and in general on early medieval European states.



1. Lisa Wolverton, Hastening toward Prague. Power and Society in the Medieval Czech Lands (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2001).

2. František Dvornik, The Making of Central and Eastern Europe (London: Polish Research Centre, 1948).

3. Nora Berend (ed.), Christianization and the Rise of Christian Monarchy: Scandinavia, Central Europe and Rus' (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007). It is also worth mentioning here an earlier collection of studies edited by Przemysław Urbańczyk, Early Christianity of Central and East Europe (Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Semper, 1997).

4. Jerzy Kłoczowski, "La nouvelle chrètientè du monde occidental: La christianismo des Scandinaves et des Hongrie entre le IXe et le XIe siècle," in J. M. Mayer et al. (eds.), Histoire du christianisme, des origines à nos jours (Paris: Desclée, 1990), 4.869-908, idem, "La 'nouvelle chrétienté' au XIIe siècle: De la Scandinavie aux Balkans," in J. M. Mayer et al. (eds.), Histoire du christianisme: Des origines à nos jours (Paris: Desclée, 1993), 5.309-328. The best overview of medieval history of East Central Europe by the same is available only in Polish: Młodsza Europa. Młodsza Europa. Europa Środkowo-Wschodnia w kręgu cywilizacji chrześcijańskiej średniowiecza [Younger Europe. East Central Europe within the Medieval Civiliation of Christendom] (Warszawa: Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy, 1998-2003).

5. Dušan Třešik and Josef Žemlička, "O modelech vývoje přemslovského státu," Český časopis historický 105 (2007): 122-164. A systematic and detailed examination of the early Přemyslid state is offered in the two Czech textbooks published in 1997 by Dušan Třešik (Počátký Přemyslovců) and Josef Žemlička (Čechy v době kniřecí).

6. Taking into account that Piast Poland is for his comparative analysis usually a natural point of reference, it looks a bit odd that makes no use of such classical collections of studies on early Piast Poland like Jerzy Dowiat (ed.), Kultura Polski średniowiecznej X-XIII w. [Culture of Medieval Poland from the Tenth to the Thirteenth Century] (Warszawa: Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy, 1985); and more recent Henryk Samsonowicz, Ziemie polskie w X wieku i ich znaczenie w kształtowaniu się nowej mapy Europy [Polish Lands in the Tenth Century and their Role in Shaping the New Map of Europe] (Kraków: Universitas, 2000). In addition the author Kalhous completely ignores the collection of studies on Šlechta, moc a reprezentace ve středovèku [Nobility, Power and Representation in the Middle Ages], edited by Martin Nodl and Martin Wihoda, and published in 2007 by Center for Medieval Studies in Prague, with important contributions of Martin Wihoda, Libor Jan, Zbigniew Dalewski, or in particular an extensive study on the rise of Polish nobility by Tomasz Jurek, which so closely related to many problems discussed in his book.

7. Discussing the organization of ducal domain and the structure of strongholds in early Přemyslid Bohemia and Piast Poland he rather stragely refers to two 1973 articles by Karol Modzelewski, ignoring two more comprehensive studies by the same author Organizacja gospodarcza państwa piastowskiego X-XIII wiek [Economic Organization of the Piast State in 900-1300], 2nd edition (Poznań: Poznańskie Towarzystwo Przyjaciół Nauk, 2000); and Chłopi w monarchii wczesnopiastowskiej [Peasant in Early Piast Monarchy] (Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, 1987). The same comment may apply to his reference to other Polish scholars and their studies. Only one minor and rather secondary article by Przemysław Urbańczyk is recorded in the bibliography, however in the recent decade Urbańczyk extensively published his studies on the rise of early medieval states in East Central Europe and the origins of their organization of early Piast Poland and other European states, f.e. Władza i polityka we wczesnym średniowieczu [Power and Politics in early Middle Ages] (Wrocław: Fundacja na Rzecz Nauki Polskiej, 2000).

8. The best overview of František Graus' studies is offered by his article "Die Enstehung der mittelalterlichen Staaten in Mittelauropea," Historica 10 (1965): 5-65.

9. David Kalhous ignores a systematic study on the ecclesiastical foundations by Czech landlords in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, which offers a good overview of methodological and research problems. Marcin Rafał Pauk, Działalność fundacyjna możnowładztwa czeskiego i jej uwarunkowania społeczne (XI-XIII wiek) (Warszawa-Kraków: Societas Vistulana, 2000).

10. It is worth noting that in the recent decade a number of new analytical monographs and collections of studies on the early Přemyslid state were published in Czech and Polish, f.e. Petr Sommer (ed.), Česke země v raném středověku [The Czech Lands in the Early Middle Ages] (Praha: Lidové Noviny, 2006); Petr Sommer, Dušan Třešik and Josef Žemlička (eds), Přemyslovci. Budování českého státu [Přemyslids. Constructing the Czech State] (Praha: Lidové Noviny, 2009); Marzena Matla-Kozłowska, Pierwsi Przemyślidzi i ich państwo od połowy IX do połowy XI wieku. Ekspansja terytorialna i jej polityczne uwarunkowania (Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznańskie, 2008).

11. Jan Klápště, The Czech Lands in Medieval Transformation (Leiden: Brill, 2011).

Article Details

Author Biography

Paweł Kras

John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin