Bruno of Querfurt and his world: Epistola ad Henricum II imperatorem
Bruno of Querfurt’s letter to king Henry II is a unique historical document that has yet to be fully explored. Written by archbishop Bruno on his final mission to the Prussians in 1009, this remarkable source provides invaluable insight into his life and times. Although the letter has been published several times, most notably by Augustus Bełowski and Jadwiga Karwasińska, Bruno’s personal narrative undoubtedly warrants a new and enhanced edition and research. The letter is preserved in a single manuscript, dated to the eleventh century (Kassel, Landesbibliothek, Philol. 4). It is located at the end of the manuscript occupying fols. 142v–144v. Surprisingly little is known about the circumstances under which this letter was preserved, who decided to keep it, and for what purpose. It is clear, however, that the Kassel manuscript contains a copy of the letter, not the original. This is evident from the abbreviation of Bruno’s (Boniface’s) name in the letter’s opening formula. It is possible that this copy was made shortly after Bruno’s death (1009) in the land of the pagans.
Bruno’s last known contact with Henry II ended abruptly with the failure of the archbishop’s final mission and his subsequent death. In his letter, Bruno outlines the true missionary programme that would lead to his martyrdom. According to Bruno, the argument was straightforward: the conversion of the last pagans in Eastern Europe would be facilitated by the consent of Christian rulers – Henry II, Bolesław the Brave, and Volodymyr the Great. Bruno’s almost hagiographic attention to time provides an additional opportunity to clarify the mission’s chronology. The choice of Bruno’s chant at the »gates« of prince Volodymyr’s state of Rus’ was not accidental. Bruno suggested that the timing of the chant Petre amas me? Pasce oves meas! coincided with the feast of St. Peter (Cathedra s. Petri). Given the appeal of the hypothesis that Bruno’s antiphon was associated with a specific feast of St. Peter, it is worth testing this theory against other commemorations of St. Peter that occurred in the winter and summer of 1008.
Since it is impossible to date the letter before the end of 1008, the Pechenegs’ mission, including their stay in Rus’, must have lasted at least six months. While Bruno mentions that he spent five months among the Pechenegs (V menses in eo populo stetimus), he does not specify how long he remained in Rus’ after his return from the steppe. Similarly, the beginning of the Pechenegs’ mission in the letter is marked by a strong sense of temporality, as the ruler of Rus’ accompanied Bruno with his army for two days to the furthest reaches of his state.
Bruno first notes Volodymyr’s fear of the vision. Clearly, Bruno is referring to Volodymyr’s dream as a vision, suggesting that it may have been prophetic. In this case, the dream is linked to a miracle: through divine intervention, Bruno survived. Having consciously chosen the path of martyrdom, Bruno interprets this vision as a sign of his imminent access to God. Although Volodymyr had foreseen Bruno’s demise in his vision in Kyiv, the circumstances – and, most crucially, the timing – were only revealed to Bruno after they had reached the »gates« of the territory under the Rus’ prince’s control. Upon crossing the borders of the Christian world and confronting his own demise, Bruno begs the Lord to open the gates of paradise for Volodymyr.
This dialogue before the farewell, imbued with a sense of faith and humility, has sometimes been considered too »realistic«. Nevertheless, the construction of the narrative, specifically Volodymyr’s repeated attempts to prevent Bruno’s martyrdom, can be seen as an allusion to the example of St. Peter, which Bruno followed. Moreover, the additional journey along the way of the cross that Bruno experiences, as depicted in Volodymyr’s dream, is accompanied by the singing of a choir on the hills outside the »gate«. The text also imitates the Gospel narrative, in which Bruno, the »servant of St. Peter«, carries the cross to his death.
In his letter, Bruno writes: »I am now going to the Prussians« (Ego autem nunc flecto ad Pruzos). The letter was written in haste, on the way to the Prussians. But where exactly did Bruno write his letter? The location where the letter was written has traditionally been interpreted clearly: Bruno wrote it after his return from Rus’ to Poland. In other words, it has been believed that Bruno wrote the letter, if not at the court of Bolesław the Brave, then certainly in Poland.
The assumption that Bruno’s mission to the Prussians began in Poland suggests that the fact that all the sources we have listed are silent about Poland, while two of them mention Rus’, has been overlooked. It is noteworthy that the central plot of this traditional account of Bruno’s final mission is subject to the same traditional interpretation, namely, Bruno’s return to Poland and Bolesław the Brave’s assistance in organizing his preaching among the Prussians. Yet, if Bruno explicitly states that Bolesław the Brave was no longer able to help organize preaching among the Prussians, who financed this last mission? It is paradoxical that neither the letter nor other sources record Bruno’s return to Poland in late 1008 or even early 1009. Despite his usual attentiveness to his movements and to time in general, Bruno remains silent about his return from Rus’ to Poland. According to him, there is no evidence to suggest that he actually left Rus’ and went to the court of Bolesław the Brave and from there to the Prussians.
Moreover, after the letter, Bruno records several distinct stages of his stay at the edge of the Christian world: the completion of his mission to the Pechenegs, his return to Rus’, and finally, his journey to the Prussians. It does not appear that Bruno left Rus’ between the last two stages. On the contrary, Bruno did not mention anything about returning from Rus’, because, at the time of preparing his mission to the Prussians, he had not left the territory of prince Volodymyr the Great. According to his letter, it was from Rus’ that he ultimately set out on his final mission.
Since Bruno died on the border between Rus’ and Lithuania, it seems likely that he wrote the letter in Rus’, not in Poland. This probably occurred after he had left Kyiv and was on his way to the Prussians. The bitterness of Bruno’s letter to king Henry II sheds some light on the uncertainty surrounding the preparation and organization of this last mission. Bruno did not believe that the protracted conflict between Henry II and Bolesław the Brave would end quickly. His farewell words to the king, filled with simplicity and majesty, reveal how deeply he was committed to St. Adalbert’s martyrdom.
It is difficult to trace exactly how and when the letter reached Henry II. Bruno could have used various means to get it to him. For instance, he might have entrusted it to one of his men or to a group of individuals who had accompanied him on the Pechenegs’ mission. Alternatively, the close communication between Henry II and Volodymyr suggests that the letter could have been delivered to the king by the prince’s envoys. The origin of the only surviving manuscript of the letter further supports the likelihood that Bruno’s farewell message did indeed reach the king.
OpenEdition schlägt Ihnen vor, diesen Beitrag wie folgt zu zitieren:
Oleksandr Fylypchuk (6. Juni 2025). Bruno of Querfurt and his world: Epistola ad Henricum II imperatorem. Dialog und Austausch. Abgerufen am 21. Juni 2025 von https://doi.org/10.58079/142lt