The funeral of Ladislaus the Posthumous: Between the profane and the sacred

Abstract

The present study is devoted to both sacred and profane elements of late medieval royal funerals in the Bohemian kingdom, using the funeral of Bohemian and Hungarian King Ladislaus the Posthumous as an example. The ceremony took place in Prague on 25 November 1457, two days after his unexpected death. Like royal coronations, the funeral of a monarch was one of the most important rituals of monarchical power, though unlike coronations, no normative source on the proceedings-an Ordo exsequiarum-was ever written in the Kingdom of Bohemia or anywhere else in Christian Europe. This study emphasizes the elements of a profane nature, manifested in the breaking and destruction of emblems of monarchical power (the crown, sceptre, imperial apple, seal, flags and banners). An analysis of the sources preserved in relation to this funeral, as well as the funerals of other Czech kings of the 14 th and 15 th centuries, reveals that the funeral of Ladislaus the Posthumous was not exclusively a sacral affair; secular elements played a significant role and in some aspects, even dominated over the sacred elements.
L ike coronation ceremonies, the funeral of a sovereign was one of the most significant rituals of monarchic power in the 15 th century. Though contrary to coronations, no normative source (Ordo exsequiarum) existed that laid out the details and obligations of a royal funeral like the coronation order (Ordo ad coronandum) did. 1 This was the case not just in the Kingdom of Bohemia, but also in the wider Empire 2 and also in neighbouring Hungary and Poland, 3 1 The legal order for burials was recorded during the funeral of Polish King Sigismund I the Old in 1548 after the canons of the Kraków cathedral attempted to find an older funereal order but were unsuccessful. From Polish research, cf. especially: SNIEŻYŃSKA-STOLOT, Ewa. Dworski ceremoniał pogrzebowy królów polskich w XIV wieku. In SKUBISZEWSKI, Piotr which were dynastically interconnected in the late medieval period. Each royal funeral was a singular ritual act where sacred and profane elements were combined. Examples of secular elements include the breaking and destruction of the symbols of sovereign power (the crown, sceptre, imperial orb, seal, and standard). Some of these elements, such as the breaking of the sword, the sacrifice of horses and the sacrifice of a knight symbolizing the king could have been based on pre-Christian customs, without the 14 th and 15 th century participants ever being aware of the pagan origin or seeing the custom as pagan.
Present day knowledge of the details of Ladislaus the Posthumous's funeral is exceptional to a certain respect thanks to a document called the "Order for Burying King Ladislaus. " Almost nothing is known about the funerals of most Czech kings despite an excellent study authored by František Šmahel, whose research into funeral rituals in the Czech environment and interpretations form the basis of the ideas presented here. 4 This scarcity of knowledge is also true for the funerals of This study aims to show the blending of the sacred and profane using the funeral of Czech and Hungarian King Ladislaus the Posthumous which took place in Prague on 25 November 1457, just two days after his death puzzled contemporaries and gave rise to various legends. 7 Because of the suddenness and the series of doubts associated with Ladislaus's death, most chronicles debate whether he died of natural causes or was poisoned by his "protector" and administrator of the kingdom, George of Poděbrady. Unfortunately, contemporary sources say little about the funeral itself with a few exceptions. Such silence is nothing unusual, as complete omission or a simple statement of facts accompanies almost all royal funerals in the Kingdom of Bohemia in the late Middle Ages. The most significant exception is a short chapter from the Old Czech Annals, the Wrocław manuscript, which includes the "Order for Burying King Ladislaus. " However, the word "order" here has been exaggerated. In reality, the chronicler did not record an order ordo of the events, but only a simple-and unfortunately rather brief-description of Ladislaus's funeral.
Charles's intention to make St. Vitus Cathedral the representative and grandiose necropolis of Czech kings ended after his death. His son, Czech and German King Wenceslas IV rejected the idea, possibly because he refused to be buried in the same place as his father or his first wife, Joanna of Bavaria. Wenceslas was buried without spectacle in the Zbraslav Monastery after his death in 1419, during a time of revolutionary chaos. His last request to lie in the Cistercian monastery was fulfilled only briefly, as five years later his body was ceremonially transferred to St. Vitus 8 where he was laid alongside his brother John of Görlitz. Relocating Wenceslas's body was part of an attempt to legitimise the power of Sigismund Korybut, who as "the requested king" desired recognition for his quasi-royal authority. 9 The absence of a binding funereal rite for Czech kings was hindered by another fact besides the lack of a single necropolis: no royal funeral took place in Bohemia between the death of Wenceslas II in 1305 and the death of Charles IV. After Charles's death in 1378, it would be another 50 years before his son was buried, and another 40 years passed before the funeral of our hero, Although no general rite for burying Czech kings existed, elements that were common to the funerals that something is known about can be observed, though these aspects may not be of Czech origin. Often, such components are ritual and ceremonial acts that were used generally throughout Christian Europe, like lying in state, a procession with the body, destruction of the funeral insignias, the breaking of swords, sacrificing horses, a symbolic burial without the sovereign's body, etc. Surviving sources do not testify to the general traditions and differing actions in specific cases altered under influence from the times, innovations from abroad (Poland, Hungary), or attempts to introduce new elements into the ritual that would underline the singularity of the specific ruler.
Today's knowledge of Ladislaus the Posthumous's funeral is based on the description in the Old Czech Annals. Independent of that, Peter Eschenloer briefly described the funeral in the Latin and German versions of his Wrocław chronicle. 11 A short mention can also be found in the works of Enea Silvio Piccolomini 12 and in a contemporary song about King Ladislaus's death. 13 Some details have come from archaeology; the burial clothes and the contents of the grave, which create problems for and relativize the fragmented records in the chronicles.
Five specific aspects of Ladislaus's funeral where the sacred and irreverent become intertwined will be addressed, five aspects of this supremely religious act which transform it into something solely secular. The Christian aspect of these deeds are either strongly supressed or not present at all. The funeral of Ladislaus the Posthumous is not exceptional in any way, meaning these features were not outside the norms of the time. In this respect, the funeral is fundamentally different from a coronation in the fact that secular elements specific to a single environment can be found in all coronation rituals in the Central European space (Bohemia, Poland, Hungary).

The Breaking of Insignia
In the 13 th century, kings were placed in the royal crypt with royal insignia that were made of precious metals, mostly gilded silver as seen in the grave of Ottokar II of Bohemia, Wenceslas II and Rudolf I of Germany. 14 A change came in the 14 th century when the insignia were made of gilded wood, as is the case of Charles IV. Why did the material used in the funeral insignia change? We know of gilded insignia made of wood and silver from the Holy Roman Empire during the 13 th and 14 th centuries. František Šmahel presented a hypothesis that the gilded wooden insignia were a sufficient representation of royal majesty for the contemporaries of the time. 15 It is also possible the shift to wooden insignia was associated with the ritual of breaking them at the end of the funeral, which is also described in the funerals of Polish kings in the 15 th and 16 th centuries. 16 On the contrary, insignia were not broken during the funerals of German kings. In Bohemia, the breaking of insignia is documented for the first (and last) time during the funeral of Ladislaus the Posthumous and during the symbolic funeral of Vladislaus II of Hungary. Meanwhile, there is no mention of the practise during the funeral of Charles IV, which is in line with imperial traditions.
Unfortunately, the description of Ladislaus the Posthumous's funeral in the Old Czech Annals is rather terse: And after all the masses, they broke the royal seal and majesty. The sharp sword carried before the dead king pointed downwards, and it took a long time to break. They also broke, destroyed, and despoiled the imperial orb, sceptre, and spear. The banner with the Czech coat of arms was taken by the administrator and walked around the grave three times before it was thrown on the ground and town apart. He then tore apart the banner of other royal lands with their coats of arms, stomping them down with his feet. 17 The chronicler added only that the Germans who watched these events were saddened and cried.
The text of the Old Czech Annals names the individual that tore apart and destroyed the banners as George of Poděbrady. As its administrator, he was the actual head of the kingdom and performed the ritual act that symbolised the end of the former king's reign. Whether George specifically broke the sword, sceptre, orb, seal or other items is unknown. There are two interesting points to note about the chronicler's description. Primarily, no one mentions the crown or its destruction, which could have a simple explanation; the chronicler could have simply forgotten about it in his description. 18 The second is 14 BRAVERMANOVÁ -LUTOVSKÝ 2001, pp. 176, 182-183. 15 ŠMAHEL 2014, p. 127. 16 BORKOWSKA 1986BORKOWSKA 2011, pp. 239-240;CZUPRYNIAK 2011, pp. 40, 50. 17 Staré letopisy české, p. 225; Staří letopisové čeští, p. 152, no. 514. 18 A German song from the time said Ladislaus had a golden crown on his head during the proces-the sword. It evidently wasn't made of wood as it was not broken. This begs the question of what among the insignia was an imitation made of wood and what was real and original? The answer is not simple. The remains of wooden insignia survived in the grave of Ladislaus the Posthumous and the same is true of the graves of Charles IV, Wenceslas IV and George of Poděbrady. However, the surviving sources only speak to the breaking and destruction of insignia during the funeral of Ladislaus the Posthumous, and the representative funeral of Vladislaus II of Hungary was organized by Prague's cities. In these cases, however, the royal sword was made of wood, 19 possibly to avoid issues with it breaking as happened during the funeral of Ladislaus. 20 It should also be noted that the sword in Vladislaus of Hungary's funeral was broken by the Old Town's burgomaster as the representative of royal power in the city.
As the royal sword was not carried by a knight dressed in black-meant to represent the dead king-during the funeral of Ladislaus the Posthumous, it is unknown who finally broke the sword at the grave. The Old Czech Annals only mentions that the sword was carried before the king's body during the procession. However, Wrocław chronicler Peter Eschenloer claimed the insignia, crown, imperial orb, sceptre, seal and sword were carried by Czech lords. 21 Eschenloer also mentions 10 youths that rode 10 black-clad horses. 22 Both reports show that the sword did not maintain any special importance during Ladislaus's funeral nor did it matter who carried it, as was the case in Poland. Like the funeral of Charles IV, 23 the rider(s) represented the king 24 and the sword was meant to symbolise royal power and the king's chivalry. However, the sword lost its privileged position in Prague by 1457 and fell to the level of other insignia.
In the case of funerals of Ladislaus the Posthumous and Vladislaus of Hungary, the Old Czech Annals speak of breaking the insignia, which was also the case in the 14 th and 15 th century Polish environment. However, there is a disagreement with testimony from archaeology. When the graves of Ladislaus the Posthumous and George of Poděbrady were opened in 1743, those who recorded the event wrote that Ladislaus's grave included a complete wooden crown covered in gold and George's had an intact imperial orb; 25 an unbroken orb and an unbroken crown. This begs the question of whether there were more symbolic wooded insignia. Were some broken in front of the public while others were placed in the grave? It is known from the funeral of Charles IV that an unbroken wooden insignia was placed in his grave. 26 That was part of the imperial tradition, and there was no older precedent in the Czech tradition. There are also reports that three genuine crowns were carried during Charles's funeral: the Czech, Holy Roman, and Langobard, which were not imitations that were then broken. The question is when these crowns were exchanged for wooden insignia that, in the end, were placed unbroken into the grave. The same is true of the insignia positioned in the graves of Ladislaus the Posthumous and George of Poděbrady. There is no clear answer to this question except if the author of the Old Czech Annals was correct in leaving out the crown in his report. The truth is the Ordo pompe funebris serenessimi Sigismundi regis Poloniae also does not mention a crown and only speaks of a spear, shield, sword and helmet. 27

Banners
Although banners were not included among the royal insignia, they did carry a special significance in the world of feudal relations. The transfer of banners from lord to vassal was a tangible symbol of feudal relations in Bohemia, Hungary and Poland, such as when the Czech king gave the Silesian princedoms to his vassals where the presentation of banners was a ritual act that testified to the transfer of power. 28 The same was true for the Holy Roman Emperor presenting a fief to the Czech king. 29 The role of the banner in funerals was not always the same. In the case of the funeral of Charles IV, 26 knights carried 26 banners and were sacrificed together at the main alter of St. Vitus Cathedral. The symbol of the state was also sacrificed with the banners. On the contrary, banners were not sacrificed during the funeral of Ladislaus the Posthumous but instead were broken, torn apart and trampled at the grave. George of Poděbrady also took similar action with the coats of arms of individual territories. It is worthy to mention a note in the Old Czech Annals that George of Poděbrady circled the body lying in state with the banner three times before it was destroyed, in the spirit of medieval Christian symbolism. 30  funeral of Casimir III the Great 31 in the presence of Louis I of Hungary, the successor to the throne. Chronicler Jan of Czarnków wrote that this was the tradition "ut moris est in talibus observari, " 32 and if he is to be believed, the first funeral took place without any ritual acts (sacrificing horses, knights as a symbolic a representative of the king, etc.) The funeral of Ladislaus the Posthumous is known for one fundamental discrepancy. If you believe one layer of the Old Czech Annals manuscript, 33 how do we interpret the comment that up to the day the account was written (in the 16 th century), the banners of Ladislaus's territories hung over his grave in St. Vitus Cathedral, without any mention whether the banners were torn. They certainly symbolized the sovereign's rule and their destruction could have evoked his death. The question is: were visitors to the cathedral in the 16 th century aware of this, and did they see the damaged banners as the defamation of majesty? Were the banners exchanged for new ones to represent the territories Ladislaus the Posthumous now ruled? 34 Were the banners treated like the crowns, with one set being torn and trampled and the undamaged collection hung over his grave? If this was the case, when did the exchange take place, immediately after the funeral of after several years or even decades? Just as in the case of breaking the insignia, it is not known. One case of hanging banners around the sovereign's grave can be found from the 15 th century. Banners were not destroyed during the funeral of Friedrich III in Vienna but only sacrificed, similar to the funeral of Charles IV. According to contemporary testimony, the banners were hung within St. Stephan's Cathedral, and they can be seen on a contemporary wood carving with banner bearers beside the bier with the heads of horses appearing behind them. 35

Body and Heart
The heart and body were separated for some royal funerals due to symbolic reasons, though it is not known exactly whether the body and heart of Ladislaus the Posthumous were interred in one place. The daughter of Ottokar II of Bohemia, Agnes, was buried in Zbraslav but her heart was interred in the  37 In this case, the double burial of the body and heart was probably an expression of the Bohemian kingdom's dual confessions. As a king of two peoples, both had the right to the dead ruler's body. Incidentally, George's body did lie in state in both churches during his funeral.
Ladislaus the Posthumous's kingdom had two religions, but the young Ladislaus did not show any liking for the Utraquists so there was no reason to bury the body and heart separately. The choice of a single location was also likely because of the poor state of the body (as is now known, the sovereign died of leukaemia). 38 For this reason and out of a fear of an epidemic (contemporary testimonies say it was the reason for Ladislaus's death), the king's body was not put on display in Old Town or New Town churches, and thus the duel confessional nature of the city could not be expressed properly. 39

The Successor
In the case of Ladislaus the Posthumous's funeral, the "designated" successor, the kingdom's administrator George of Poděbrady, participated. As administrator, George was the highest-ranking person in the kingdom until the election of the new king and his role during the funeral was significant. Little is known about the cases of other kings in the Czech environment that left behind children. Wenceslas III and Wenceslas IV demonstrably took part in the funerals of their fathers, but they are only listed as participants in the funeral during the church portion, and it cannot be said whether they walked behind the casket during the procession of the body through Prague (this ceremonial act is known in detail from the case of Charles IV). 40 Detailed accounts of Charles's funeral seem to testify that the king's oldest son, the crowned Czech King Wenceslas IV, appeared only for the last phase, during the requiem.
If that was the case, the participation of sons in the funeral was highly symbolic. They were invisible and not present during the funeral processions because the pompa funebris was only meant for the dead king. He was the one being carried on the bier through the city and was put on display in individual churches so his subjects could see the king was dead. The successor did not have any role in this spectacle, only making an appearance at the last moment when the soul of the diseased leader was presented to God and his body put into the ground. Only at this moment was the king dead and a new, living king appeared.
The chronicle's account on the funeral of Ladislaus the Posthumous is too brief to determine whether administrator George of Poděbrady took part in the most ostentatious part: the procession. Although it was much less grand and pompous in comparison to that of Charles IV for various reasons-including the threat of plague-the dead king was shown to the people in the city's streets with his face displayed so everyone could see him. George of Poděbrady, however, did not appear as the next king but only as the territory's administrator. That is why it can be said, with a certain amount of reservation, that he took part in the procession that carried the king's body from the Old Town to Malá Strana and then to the Castle. A mention in the Old Czech Annals is important regarding the procession. The author writes that the king's body was carried by burghers under a baldachin (like the funeral of Charles IV), while members of the lordly class walked next to the bier. Wrocław chronicler Peter Eschenloer claimed Czech lords carried the royal insignia. However, George of Poděbrady walked behind them according to his account. 41 The answer to this question thus seems simple.
One detail that could suggest George of Poděbrady did not take part in the procession with the king's body should give us pause. The author of the Old Czech Annals spoke generally of the lords that walked beside the bier. If we assume they carried the insignia, George of Poděbrady certainly would not have wanted to be just one of many holding insignias. That would demote him from administrator to the level of a regular member of the nobility. The truth is the chronicler does not mention that George of Poděbrady had an exclusive position, like John Rokycana who walked alone in the procession behind tradesmen, university masters and Prague's clerics. 42 Rokycana was at the back of the section of the procession of those who pray. In front of him were the black-clad knights, who with the lords surrounding the bier, represented the ruling class. In this respect, the funeral of Ladislaus the Posthumous was ordered in the spirit of three orders or three estates: those who work-represented by tradespeople; those who pray-represented by the clergy; and university masters and those who rule, i.e. the lords and knights. 43 But there was no room in this order for the administrator. It is possible he only joined during the last act in the cathedral, destroying the banners and breaking the royal insignia. Eschenloer also could have reported inaccurate information as 41 ESCHENLOER,Geschichten der Stadt Breslau 1,p. 198 he was not at the funeral himself and his account lacks any mention of insignia or banners being destroyed or horses being sacrificed.

Sacrificing Horses
Horses played a specific role in the funeral of Charles IV. 44 Regarding the funeral of Ladislaus the Posthumous, the most important question is the sacrificing of horses during the requiem. Ten black-clad horses walked behind the masters and students in the funeral procession led by armour-bearers dressed in black. The author of the Old Czech Annals did not explain why there were 10, nor why the horses were led among the students and Prague's clerics-among those who pray. Many more horses rode in the procession with Charles IV's body-26 in total were sacrificed. 45 Horses also followed the clerics during the funeral of Günther of Schwarzburg organized in Mainz by Charles IV in 1349, where there is evidence that five horses were sacrificed. 46 In the funeral of Charles IV, horses were led to the alter and sacrificed. The same is true for the Polish environment in the 14 th and 15 th centuries. 47 The 10 horses covered in black caused a commotion during the funeral of Ladislaus the Posthumous. According to the author of the Old Czech Annals, it was the miserly canons of St. Vitus that decided the horses would be brought to the alter. The Czech lords were against it because they considered bringing animals into a church as a desecration of the sacrament, and thus of Christ himself. However, no one seems to remember the fact that horses were brought into the church and sacrificed during the funeral of Charles IV. The lords claimed it was unheard of to bring horses into a house of God, but the canons won out. The chronicler does not mention whether the horses were sacrificed, unfortunately, probably because he simply was not familiar with this ancient tradition that was practiced for centuries and is testified to throughout Christian Europe, apart from France. 48 He thought bringing horses into the church was a whim of the St. Vitus canons. On the other hand, the resistance to the presence of horses in the church was interpreted as Utraquist fears of desecrating Christ, unfortunately, who was present in the sacrament and who should be the sole recipient of respect. The sacrifice of the horses was considered "unseemly" and "unheard of " by the chronicler, specifically by the nobility, though he did not label it as pagan. For rigid Utraquists, it was simply something unacceptable and unchristian.
There was one aspect where the funeral of Ladislaus the Posthumous significantly differed from Charles IV and the Polish kings of the 14 th and 15 th centuries. A single knight dressed in black rode behind the horses to be sacrificed, carrying a sword turned upside down. This knight with the sword turned downwards represented the dead ruler whose earthly life had come 44 ŠMAHEL 2014, pp. 153-154. 45 ŠMAHEL 2014, p. 153. 46 MEYER 2000, pp. 88-99. 47 BORKOWSKA 1986, pp. 147-148. 48 ŠMAHEL 2014 to an end. 49 Both the knight and his horse were symbolically sacrificed in the church as well. In the funeral ceremonies of Polish kings, such as Casimir III the Great and Casimir IV, this knight fell from his horse in the church (the fall from the horse is documented in the Ordo pompe funebris serenessimi Sigismundi regis Poloniae), which symbolised the death of the king and his leaving this world. In the case of Ladislau the Posthumous's funeral, the chronicler does not mention the knight nor his sacrifice. It is difficult to say why this symbolic act was not performed in Utraquist Prague. The representative death of a sacrificed knight either disappeared from the collective memory and that of the St. Vitus canons, or it was considered complete and pure blasphemy in the Utraquist environment. Sacrificing a person, even symbolically, was sacrilegious in Utraquist eyes. The only sacrifices were to be to God, but not human sacrifices, which were only attributed to pagans in the late Middle Ages. It is noteworthy that we have no reports of sacrificing a knight in place of the dead king from the symbolic funeral of Vladislaus II of Hungary. However, as this was only a representative funeral held by the city, it should not be considered significant.

Conclusion
The funeral of a sovereign was in the Middle Ages was conducted as a ritual with sacred aspects. The last act took place in a church, a sacred place and space, with the participation of many clerics and was associated with an obituary and a funeral sermon. In the case of Ladislaus the Posthumous, the sermon was given by elected Archbishop and Utraquist John Rokycana, to the displeasure of the St. Vitus canons. 50 The placing of the body into the grave was also accompanied by a number of religious acts and prayers, but that was the end of everything sacred in the funeral.
Other ritual acts as part of the funeral ceremony were exclusively profane in nature and performed exclusively by secular individuals. The clergy could only look on, but they did not sacralise the actions of secular authorities. The badges of secular power-the insignia and sword-were carried by representatives of the kingdom-nobility and burghers. The bier with the king's body was carried by secular individuals and the symbols of secular power, of the king's earthly reign, were destroyed by secular authorities and not the clergy. The destruction of the symbols of royal power, including banners and other territorial symbols, certainly had an archaic and possibly pre-Christian origin with the profane character of this act reflecting a situation where sovereign power had not yet been sacralised by the active participation of the clergy. Placing the royal insignia into the grave was also a reflection of the secular world, regardless of whether they were broken or not. As we know from the Czech environment, specifically from the grave of Ladislaus the Posthumous, 49 On the knight representing the king, see: cf. BRÜCKNER, Wolfgang. Roß und Reiter im Leichenzeremoniell. Deutungsversuch eines historischen Rechtsbrauches. In Rheinisches Jahrbuch für Volkskunde, 1964Volkskunde, -1965. 50 On Rokycana's sermon and the ending of the funeral sermon by St. Vitus's canons, see: cf. UR-BÁNEK 1924, p. 140, footnote 4. unbroken wooden insignia were probably placed into the grave. A riding shield and imperial military banner were put into the grave of Charles IV along with the insignia. 51 Placing the insignia recalled marshal power and the physical rule of the sovereign. The king remained the king after death, and he had a special place in the afterlife corresponding to his position on Earth. Nevertheless, these acts had nothing to do with Christianity, although contemporary observers probably didn't equate them to the ancient grave treasuries of pagan warriors.
The sacrifice of horses also held a symbolic character. Modern researchers are of the opinion that such sacrifice documented from the 13 th century was a continuation of the German tradition of burying horses with a warrior's body. 52 In reality, it was an expression of Christian chivalric behaviour and a knight's military service, which was part of the image of an ideal ruler and sovereign. 53 The horses were also a symbol of secular power, but their sacrifice in the church upset the religious feelings of the Czech Utraquist nobility, which considered animals in the church as something entirely inappropriate.
In comparison with the coronation rituals practiced in the Czech kingdom, none of the purely secular elements of royal funerals in the late Middle Ages evoked images of the pagan origins of sovereign power in contemporary observers. This is probably because no original, ancient pagan items were associated with the funeral, as was the case with the Přemyslid's pouch and slippers. However, the people of the 15 th century knew just as little of the funerals of Czech princes, both pagan and Christian. Despite that, it is impossible to ignore the significantly profane character of the secular elements of the funeral ceremony that competed with the sacred. What is known of the funeral of Ladislaus the Posthumous clearly shows a royal funeral from the 15 th century was certainly not a wholly sacred phenomenon and but secular elements played a very significant role, and even dominated over the sacred in some respects. 51 ŠMAHEL 2014, p. 127. 52 Cf. BRÜCKNER 1964-1965, who proved the sacrifice of horses did not have a Germanic origin. 53 ANTONÍN, Robert. Ideální panovník českého středověku. Praha : NLN, 2013.