Chronicles in the times of Charles IV ****************************************************************************************** * ****************************************************************************************** By Jan Malý Narratives are among the most important sources in medieval studies. They also often are o of information that enables us to reconstruct the world of medieval people, and events tha their everyday lives. A chronicle is a specific kind of source. While documents, letters o findings, providing more or less real picture of an event (unless they are a fake), chroni biased and inaccurate, or downright fabricated, for various reasons. Even then, it can be of interesting and important information. Chronicles were made in many different ways. Usually their authors were monks spending the monastery scriptoriums, or people from the royal court; however, the authors were almost e representatives. In some medieval kingdoms, numerous narrative sources were created, provi official version of the local history. For example, this is the case of the “Grandes Chron or Great Chronicles of France, written since the mid 13th century in St. Denis’s Monastery Charles IV, too, expressed his wish to create official historiographical works to present the Kingdom of Bohemia and Luxembourgian dynasty in a suitable way. It was no easy task, a out later, not really feasible. There had been a long and rich chronicle making tradition in the Kingdom of Bohemia, datin Přemyslid era. In addition to the famous Chronicle of the Czechs by Cosmas from the early its sequels, the best narrative sources created in Bohemia included the Zbraslav Chronicle information on the early years of Luxembourgian reign in the Czech lands. The chronicle, w Zbraslav Monastery founded by Wenceslas II as the Přemyslid necropolis, owns is quality pr second author, Peter of Zittau, who finished his narrative in 1338. He’s nevertheless rath the reign of King John of Luxembourg, so the chronicle didn’t really suit the intentions o put the Luxembourgian age in the Czech lands in a good light. The first chronicler who tried to fulfill the young Luxembourg’s wish was the confessor of Prague Bishop John IV of Dražice, Francis of Prague. He started writing his chronicle befo coronation, and his first edition was dedicated on John IV. In 1350s, he finished the seco time dedicated directly to Charles IV. Since Francis had used the Zbraslav Chronicles as a his work was unlikely to fully meet Charles’s expectations. The next chronicler was the It and Charles’s chaplain, Franciscan John Marignola. He was commissioned to put the Czech hi broader global chronicle. However, this text also failed to satisfy the Emperor’s expectat quality. Yet another chronicle was started in the beginning of 1360s; again, it should put the Czec into the broader historical context. The Brief Compendium of the Roman and Czech Chronicle describes the Roman history from the birth of Christ; the Czech history begins in 894. Wit gaps, the chronicle then describes the Czech history right to the detailed account of the Neplach made frequent errors in dates; the whole chronicles rather resemble chronological don’t give many details on the described events except the final chapters. Of the chronicles written upon Charles’s commission, the most advanced was the Chronicle o Church by Beneš Krabice of Weitmile, a canon and director of construction of the St. Vitus at the Prague Castle. His work consists of four books, yet three of them are mere compilat Beneš’s predecessors, and adapted narrative of Francis of Prague. The fourth book is, howe describing events until 1374. Also included are the biographies of Charles IV and the firs archbishop Ernest of Pardubice, written by Wilhelm of Lestkov. Despite the sheer volume an of the last book, covering the events the author could have witnessed, this chronicle isn’ in literary terms either, and isn’t up to par with the Zbraslav Chronicles. The most popular narrative source of Charles’s era was the chronicle written by the manage school, Master of Arts Přibík Pulkava of Radenín. The emperor took the initiative here, an intervened in the overall concept and contents of the chronicle. There were several editio topical one covering the events until 1330 – the year Charles’s mother Elisabeth of Bohemi especially enjoyed the emphasized continuity with Great Moravia, and also the incorporatio of St. Wenceslas. Of course, even Přibík wasn’t immune to mistakes, whether in dates or in example, he mistook Tartars for Cumans). However, this chronicle suited Charles’s idea the translated to Czech and German in no time. Those days, Přibík’s chronicle was the most pop kind. And then there’s a specific work that might be, to some extent, considered historical, eve not a chronicle: the autobiography of Charles IV, Vita Caroli. The emperor wrote it as a m descendants, and as a parallel narrative to the aforementioned chronicles. Basically it co parts. The first fourteen chapters, written in first person, cover the period until 1340. six chapters are written in third person and the emperor is not the author (he didn’t dict personally). These chapters, a bit inferior to the previous text in quality, cover the lat 1346. It’s not clear who the author of this second part was, and the date of origin is als varying significantly between 1346 and 1373. The text above plainly shows that the production of historiographic works during the reign was quite large, and basically followed a clear goal initiated by the king; however, despi effort, this goal wasn’t fully achieved. Yet these works are still worthy documents of the to some extent, of Charles’s political concept and of the way he struggled to present the dynasty. Bibliography: BLÁHOVÁ, Marie. Kroniky doby Karla IV. Praha: Svoboda, 1987. BOBKOVÁ, Lenka – BARTLOVÁ, Milena. Velké dějiny zemí koruny české IVb. Praha: Paseka, 2003 SPĚVÁČEK, Jiří. Karel IV. Praha: Svoboda, 1979.