Gábor Bethlen’s Diplomats at the Protestant Courts of Europe
This paper addresses the phenomenon that the contacts of Prince Gábor Bethlen with non-neighboring rulers were almost exclusively maintained through diplomats who came originally from a foreign country and had very little to do with the Principality of Transylvania. Through a reconstruction of ten diplomats’ biographies, I identify several categories. The Czech/Palatinate group consists of three people (Ehrenfried von Berbisdorf, Jan Adam Čejkovský z Víckova and Matthias Quadt), the Silesian group of two (Weikhard Schulitz and Heinrich Dreiling), and three of Bethlen’s envoys could be identified as “wandering diplomats,” displaying certain facets of an adventurer’s character (Jacques Roussel, Charles de Talleyrand and Lorenzo Agazza). The remaining two (Zygmunt Zaklika and Hermann Beckmann) seem to be a category unto themselves, one having a Polish background, the other coming with Catherine, the prince’s consort, from Berlin.
The biographies of the diplomats show certain similarities, especially those within the Czech/Palatinate group, who had to leave their original country due to the collapse of the rule of Frederick of the Palatinate after the Battle of the White Mountain, and served several rulers in the years to come. Their loyalties lay primarily with the Protestant or the Palatinate cause and they served the rulers who seemed to be able to support this – sometimes even assuming tasks from several of them during one and the same journey.
The custom to employ foreigners for the Transylvanian diplomacy with non-neighboring lands must have been motivated by the fact that they were expected not so much to negotiate specific issues as to map out possibilities for cooperation and give general information concerning the prince’s intentions. Although the system changed in the later decades of the seventeenth century, this may be the result of the fact that in this period far fewer politically engaged emigrants came to Transylvania than in the 1620s.
Keywords: diplomacy, Protestantism, Transylvania, Thirty Years’ War, cosmopolitans
“For a state which lacked almost every resource for the conduct of sustained hostilities, Transylvania had done surprisingly well from the Thirty Years’ War.”1 This assessment by Geoffrey Parker, one of the leading experts on military history in recent decades, reflects an interest in Transylvania’s participation in the most comprehensive European wars of the seventeenth century; an interest which unfortunately has remained virtually unanswered by Hungarian historiography. In the field of military history new research has been available since the 1960s (although not translated into languages of international circulation), but the summaries on Gábor Bethlen’s (1613–1629) diplomacy, due to the lack of recent primary research, could not go beyond the results of nineteenth-century history writing.2 In the last few years, a number of historians have started to take up the challenge of this hiatus in historiography, and the first very promising analyses about Bethlen’s Ottoman contacts have already been published.3 The present study focuses on another field, the prince’s diplomacy towards the Protestant rulers, which brought the principality to the attention of European rulers in the late 1610s and 1620s and rendered the participation in the armed conflicts on the Holy Roman Empire’s territory possible. Also, I have chosen a method other than classic, event-based diplomatic history: I aim to discuss some specificities of Bethlen’s foreign policy through an analysis of the pool of persons he sent to diplomatic missions in this particular direction. Using the classic sources of diplomatic history, but focusing on the practical part rather than on the content of the negotiations allows me to discuss such phenomena as the selection criteria and the loyalty of the mediators of Bethlen’s contacts with faraway European rulers, who almost all came from a foreign country, and they changed their loyalties at least once during their lives.
Bethlen’s Diplomats: the Two Main Groups
The few historians who devoted any attention at all to the performance of Gábor Bethlen’s diplomatic corps were not very impressed by what they found. In his revisionist biography about the prince, Gyula Szekfű went so far as to label them “substandard,” and Kálmán Benda, who dedicated a short study to their persons in 1981, also reached the conclusion that Gábor Bethlen did not have the necessary number of reliable and educated diplomats at his disposal, who could have efficiently represented his interests at foreign courts or even could have helped his endeavors with their council.4 According to him, the prince thus had to formulate his conception about foreign policy on his own, and in many cases he could not even assume that the skills and erudition of his envoy would at least be enough to follow his instructions without major blunders.
Benda is undoubtedly right in the sense that Gábor Bethlen had no such assistance by his side as Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden (1611–1632) in the person of Axel Oxenstierna, or some German princes, such as Georg Wilhelm of Brandeburg (1619–1640), whose secret counselors not only took part in shaping foreign policy but virtually supervised it themselves, with very limited interference on the part of the elector.5 His conclusions about the diplomats’ skills should nevertheless not be taken for granted: taking into consideration the prince’s different expectation towards various groups of his representatives and the divergent tasks they had to fulfill leads to the conclusion that the overall picture is far from being so dark as Benda painted it. Also, if the number of cases is extended, we get a more realistic image of how many missions failed because of the incompetence of the diplomats, and what the true relevance of these blunders was in Bethlen’s foreign policy.
The example of Márton Boncziday, quoted by both authors, is quite characteristic.6 The postal envoy of the prince, whose activities are documented from the early 1620s on, negotiated with Johannes Nicodemi, an agent of Axel Oxenstierna, in Königsberg in January 1629.7 The report of the Swedish secretary painted a quite sad picture of Boncziday, who provided no new information during the talks, which were in any case seriously hindered by the fact that the Hungarian envoy could not speak Latin. At the same time, Boncziday seemed to have been upset about the small amount of gifts he was sent by Oxenstierna. Nicodemi noted that after the initial problems he started to doubt whether Bethlen, who had been known as a cautious man, would have trusted any important issues on this envoy.8 In all likelihood, Nicodemi’s judgment was right: there is no data that the prince would have given a diplomatic mission to Boncziday, and he did not claim this either. In his first letter to Oxenstierna, he only stated that he came to Königsberg to deliver the letter of Catherine of Brandenburg, the consort of Gábor Bethlen, to her brother, the elector; and as the Swedish chancellor stayed in the nearby Elbing, it seemed to be useful to visit him as well. It is quite likely that the princely credential letter that would have been necessary for his acknowledgment as a diplomat was substituted in this case by a letter of Paul Strassburg, the diplomat of the Swedish king at Bethlen’s court, to the chancellor, which was taken to the Baltic region by Boncziday and which mentioned the postal envoy’s name in the post scriptum.9 The story of the arrogant, greedy and immature diplomat, who could not even speak proper Latin, may be a shock for the reader of Nicodemi’s report, but it probably did not have such a great impact on the image of Bethlen among the exponents of contemporary Protestant politicians as was suggested by Szekfű and Benda. In any case, we find no trace in Axel Oxenstierna’s correspondence that the Transylvanian envoy’s performance would have influenced his attitude towards Gábor Bethlen.10
We also have to take into account that Benda concentrated, apart from the embassy in Constantinople, on the diplomats the prince sent to Western European courts. This is in spite of the fact that the contacts with the neighboring empires and the results that could be achieved there must have played a much more important role for Bethlen than the negotiations with the leading circles in the Netherlands, England or Sweden. Although the structural specificities of the embassy in Constantinople, the only resident representation that the principality maintained, caused some problems and allowed less motivated diplomats to abuse the lack of very strict princely control, in this specific period we find several highly skilled Transylvanian resident envoys and ambassadors who knew the ways of politics at the Sublime Porte very well.11 Experience mattered much more in this diplomatic milieu (the most important for the principality) than the diplomats’ ultimate lack of humanist Latin education or the limits of their outlook, which did not cover all the subtleties of the conflicts in the Western parts of Europe, even if these diplomats maintained some contacts with the English and Dutch governments as well through the diplomats of these powers stationed in the Ottoman capital.12
Similarly, Bethlen had no serious reason to complain about the diplomats sent to negotiate with Emperor Ferdinand II. These people, mostly recruited from among the prince’s supporters in the Kingdom of Hungary, may have also lacked the outlook encompassing the situation in the Western half of Europe, but they did not necessarily need this to fulfill their tasks either. In the peace negotiations closing the successive armed conflicts in Hungary it was much more important to be an expert in Hungarian law, on which the legitimation strategies of the prince’s interventions were built, than to know the legal details of debates conducted in faraway corners of the Holy Roman Empire. The negotiations with the representatives of Ferdinand II were usually centered on concrete questions, and thus local knowledge played a very important part in them. Contrary to this, the main goal of the prince’s diplomatic contacts with Protestant powers in Western Europe and Venice was to recognize their common interests and produce a treaty that would provide the framework for later cooperation; the details of which in any case had to be postponed to later talks. This was all that the constantly changing military situation, and the distance between the power centers allowed – it should not be forgotten that it took months for a letter from the Netherlands to reach the princely capital of Gyulafehérvár (Alba Iulia, Romania).
The problems of cooperating with the Protestant powers are well illustrated by Gábor Bethlen’s attitude to The Hague alliance. Although the prince’s envoy, Matthias Quadt was present in the Netherlands in the late autumn of 1625, when the English, Danish and Dutch representatives concluded their treaty, he had no official credits to negotiate about the details of cooperation. One year later he returned and collected the signature from the rulers of all three countries on the treaty recognizing Bethlen as an ally; however, by the time he returned to Transylvania, the prince had concluded peace with Ferdinand II, and the military situation of the Protestant powers had also turned so critical that any further effective cooperation became impossible.13 Distance excluded the possibility that Bethlen would be able to work out a detailed plan with the leading Protestant powers, and so the main function of the diplomatic missions was to inform each other about the parties’ intentions. The prince learned whether he could count on military activity in the rear of his adversary, the Habsburg ruler; whereas the Protestant powers of Western and Northern Europe were advised to expect a diversion by Bethlen that would keep a part of the emperor’s forces occupied.
On account of the above, two distinct groups can be identified in Bethlen’s diplomatic corps, of whom the prince had markedly different expectations. For the one it was important to know the specific situation very well and work while keeping an eye on precise details; for the other, it was necessary to think in broader terms and be able to support his argumentation with the current political vocabulary of Western Europe. This dual character of Bethlen’s diplomacy is well illustrated by the mission sent by the prince to Brandenburg during the summer of 1625: whereas István Kovacsóczy and Ferenc Mikó, the chancellor and treasurer of Transylvania, were responsible for giving a final form to Bethlen’s marriage contract with Catherine of Brandenburg, it was Matthias Quadt who was entrusted with the negotiations about political cooperation (his journey to the Netherlands was the continuation of this mission).14 For the tasks of the latter group it seemed best to employ people (such as Quadt) who came from the Holy Roman Empire or Western Europe. Apart from Boncziday, the self-appointed envoy, every other diplomat of Bethlen who visited European Protestant courts and rulers was a foreigner in the Principality of Transylvania. Among them, several groups can be identified on the basis of their origin and the way they came to Bethlen’s court.
The Czech/Palatinate Group
The most numerous group among Bethlen’s diplomats is made up of those who after the fall of Frederick V of the Palatinate as king of Bohemia were forced to emigrate either from the territories of the kingdom or the Silesian German principalities that supported the rule of the “Winter King.” After the Battle of the White Mountain, many military as well as political notables came to Bethlen, among them some of the highest rank such as Heinrich Matthias von Thurn, who had played a leading role in the government at Prague and arrived at Bethlen’s camp with the remnants of the Bohemian army in the second half of 1621, accompanied by Margrave Johann Georg of Hohenzollern, Duke of Jägerndorf.15 A great many of these people did not stay long: Thurn himself left for the Sublime Porte in 1622, after the conclusion of the Peace of Nikolsburg, and a year later went over to Venetian service; nevertheless, he continued to maintain his contacts with the prince of Transylvania.16
Unlike him, we know of two emigrant noblemen from the lands of the Bohemian crown who went over to Bethlen’s service and were commissioned to travel to the Netherlands on his behalf. Ehrenfried von Berbisdorf was not unknown to Bethlen, because he had already been one of Johann Georg’s envoys to Bethlen in 1621. He joined the prince in the company of the Margrave of Jägerndorf, and in early February 1623 he was already in The Hague, where he presented Bethlen’s message to the Staten Generaal.17 This Bohemian nobleman, sentenced to death in absentia by the Habsburg government, later entered Danish service. He received his appointment as Generalproviantmeister in June 1625 but could hardly have started his military service when he was entrusted with a mission to Transylvania by King Christian IV (1588–1648) in August of the same year. He received his letter of recredentials from Bethlen in December 1625, and revisited him as a diplomat of the Danish king in the summer of 1627. Between 1629 and 1631 we find him in Swedish service, after which he disappears from the sources.18 One year after Berbisdorf, Bethlen was represented in The Hague by Jan Adam Čejkovksý z Víckova. This Moravian nobleman, earlier the leader of the Vlachs’ uprising in Moravia, later continued his activities for the Protestant cause in Brandenburg until his death in 1628.19
Nevertheless, the best known person from the Czech–Palatinate emigration was undoubtedly the oft-mentioned Matthias Quadt. He had also come to Hungary in the retinue of the Margrave of Jägerndorf, and it is very likely that, unlike Berbisdorf and Víckov, he had been in Johann Georg’s service already before the outbreak of the war. The estates of his family, an old noble kin with more than hundred branches, were in Berg in the Rhineland, and many of his relatives stood traditionally in the service of the Catholic elector of Cologne; however, Matthias’s branch, who used the by-names von Wickrath or von Zoppenbroich, settled in nearby Jülich and served the Protestant elector of Brandenburg instead.20 Matthias’s father had already had a counselor’s rank in Brandenburg, and his brother served in the elector’s army during the 1620s.21 It can be thus assumed that it was before the 1620s that Matthias came into the service of Johann Georg of Jägerndorf, who was the elector’s uncle. It is in any case clear that during the margrave’s stay in Hungary Quadt was already one of his most trusted men.22 He must have offered his services to Bethlen after Johann Georg’s death in Lőcse (Levoča, Slovakia) at Upper Hungary, on March 12, 1624, and, unlike the two Bohemian emigrants, he also stayed in the Transylvanian prince’s employment until his death.23
Although Bethlen always referred to Quadt as the captain of his German infantry, his activities in the field of diplomacy are much better known than his military contributions. He could only have been in the prince’s service for a few months when he was already sent on his first mission to Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden; he was captured and turned back by Polish authorities in the early autumn of 1624.24 In the summer of 1625, he was on the road again: first, as noted above, he went to Brandenburg, and from there to Lower Saxony to meet Christian IV of Denmark in his camp at Nienburg. On November 1 he was already in Bremen, and in the middle of the month he reached The Hague, from where he started the long journey back to Transylvania at the end of December.25
The following year he left the country again: he went to Berlin, and from there to the theater of war in Lower Saxony, where he met Christian IV again.26 This time, after his negotiations with the Danish king, he did not continue his journey towards the United Provinces, but rather returned to Berlin and tried to make contact with Gustavus Adolphus, who had been in Western Pomerania at the moment; however, a personal meeting could not take place.27 In August, Quadt was already in The Hague, from where he went to London in early October in order to collect the signature of King Charles I (1625–1649) on the treaty acknowledging Bethlen as a member of The Hague alliance. After the unexpectedly lengthy, but eventually successful procedure, the envoy left the English capital at the end of December, and by late February 1627 he also managed to get the signatures from the Staten Generaal and the Danish king.28 We do not know exactly when he arrived back to Gábor Bethlen, but as I noted before, he was late: his formal success did not bring any fruits in practice, as by the time the treaty reached him, the prince of Transylvania had already concluded peace with Ferdinand II.29
Originally a soldier, Matthias Quadt seems to have had all the necessary skills for a diplomatic career as well. He not only seems to have been confident moving in the highest circles of European Protestant politics, but his surviving speeches also testify to his rhetorical skills and familiarity with the contemporary political language of Western Europe.30 This is less surprising if we take into account that Ludwig Camerarius, a legal scholar of distinguished erudition, and at that time one of the leaders of the exiled Frederick V’s foreign policy, referred to Quadt as an outstanding person and his friend.31 Nevertheless, we do not have any information indicating that he would have continued his career as a diplomat after his return to Transylvania in the first half of 1627. The reason for this cannot be an illness, otherwise there would not have been so many rumors circulating in Transylvania about poisoning when Quadt eventually died in October 1628 in Gyulafehérvár, after a three-day fever. Both known accounts of his funeral on December 1 of that same year show the high favors he enjoyed at the Transylvanian court: apart from Bethlen and Catherine of Brandenburg, many aristocrats listened to the funeral orations in three languages and watched Quadt’s remaining two battalions shoot a salvo for their deceased commander.32
The Silesian Group
Martin Opitz, one of the most important figures in the history of German Baroque prose, was not unfamiliar with Transylvania: he spent some time in the principality in the mid-1620s as a guest of Gábor Bethlen. In 1630, he recommended two of his fellow countrymen staying at Gyulafehérvár to Martin Schödel, a Hungarian student who was going home after visiting foreign universities: Weikhard Schulitz and Heinrich Dreiling.33 Although geographical factors would not necessarily motivate to separate them from the Czech–Palatinate emigration (as Silesia was also a land of the Bohemian crown and Jägerndorf a part of the province), in their case we cannot be sure whether they also came to Bethlen with the wave of emigrants after White Mountain or on the invitation of the prince, similarly to Opitz. Also, unlike Berbisdorf, Víckov and Quadt, they seem to have been only in the service of Bethlen and no other Protestant ruler during the 1620s.
Heinrich Dreiling, an alumnus of Heidelberg University, started to assume diplomatic commissions in the service of the Transylvanian prince in mid-1626: it was then that he visited Gustavus Adolphus. On the way back, he fell into Habsburg captivity, which motivated the Swedish king (who at that time was not yet a belligerent party) to file an official complaint. Before September 1627, Dreiling was back in the principality again.34 After Bethlen’s death, Dreiling continued to receive diplomatic commissions. Cornelis Haga, the resident ambassador of the Netherlands to the Sublime Porte, recommended him in January 1630 as a representative of Bethlen’s successor, Catherine of Brandenburg (1629–1630), in Constantinople, claiming that there could hardly be a more able and faithful person than him in Transylvania. Dreiling duly received the commission and was in Constantinople already in April of that same year.35 In the early 1630s, he visited the Swedish king again. We do not know when he left Transylvania, but he seems to have made peace with the Habsburgs, the only one of Bethlen’s foreign diplomats to do so, because in the mid-1640s we find him in Vienna.36
We do not know how much influence Dreiling had at the princely court, in contrast to Schulitz, whose political activities are well documented. Although the emigrant, better known in Transylvania under the Latinized form of his name, Scultetus, became really powerful later on, under the rule of Catherine of Brandenburg, he had a hand in the principality’s foreign policy already as a court physician to Gábor Bethlen.37 The young Calvinist nobleman, born in the Silesian town of Trachtenberg, came to Transylvania in the early 1620s.38 The medical activities of this talented doctor are well documented: he received a series of highly important tasks, such as the autopsy of Johann Georg in 1624, but was also asked to cure the illnesses of the prince himself. Although he was thrown into prison in late 1628 and later exiled due to intrigues at the court, Bethlen was forced somewhat later to invite the Silesian doctor back to his country, due to his worsening hydropsy.39 Schulitz had lengthy debates about the right treatment with a Moravian doctor sent to Bethlen by Emperor Ferdinand II, which he later put into writing as an apology for the failure. He could not save the prince’s life, but generally must have been considered a good doctor, because János Kemény notes that among contemporaries he was rumored to have a familiaris spiritus of his own, who gives him counsel.40
Contrary to most of Bethlen’s other diplomats, who represented the prince at various European courts, the Silesian doctor only mediated between Brandenburg and Transylvania; but he managed to cover the distance between the two countries three times in only one year. He set out for the first journey in March 1625 and in April could report the prince’s offer of political cooperation to Elector Georg Wilhelm. He was the first envoy through whom Bethlen raised the idea of the marriage with Catherine of Brandenburg. For reasons unknown, Schulitz was not the only one commissioned with this task. Ferenc Listhius, whose credentials were issued only four days after those of the Silesian doctor, also delivered a message similar to Schulitz’s when he came to Berlin accompanied by Péter Bethlen, the prince’s nephew, who had set out to visit foreign universities. The answer, which was couched as yet in vague terms, was given to both of them and they took it together back to Transylvania.41 The prince’s next letter was delivered during the summer by Schulitz alone, and in August he could report that the proposal for marriage seemed to have good prospects.42 The Silesian doctor returned to Transylvania but in January 1626 was received as envoy at the elector’s seat again. He arrived somewhat later than the solemn embassy to escort Catherine to Transylvania, but he left Berlin together with them.43
It seems that Schulitz’s political activities were interrupted even before his temporary exile, only to come into full bloom after the death of Gábor Bethlen, in the political crisis of 1629–1630, during the conflict between Catherine, who became the ruling princess, and István Bethlen, the governor appointed to assist her.44 Schulitz came to be one of Catherine’s most important counselors, and stayed in contact not only with the princess, but also with the envoys sent to assist her from Brandenburg. One of them, Secret Counselor Levin von dem Knesebeck, noted about him that he was a “faithful and honest man, shows such a loyalty towards the princess that could not be any greater.”45 In light of this, it is quite surprising that the assassination of the Silesian doctor on his way back from the Sublime Porte in December 1630 was organized by people also belonging to the princess’ circle and not to that of István Bethlen. It was István Csáki, the main advisor and most probably the lover of Catherine, who hired the people who captured Schulitz by a bridge near Porumbák in southern Transylvania and threw the bound doctor into the icy River Olt. His body having been fished out of the river, Schulitz was buried in the Franciscan church at Nagyszeben.46
Jacques Roussel and Charles de Talleyrand were the diplomats who elicited the greatest number of ironic comments from analysts of Bethlen’s foreign policy. The two Huguenot emigrants visited the Sublime Porte in 1629 on the prince’s behalf and continued their journey from Constantinople to the Russian tsar. Their ideas about the creation of an anti-Polish front in Eastern Europe met with the spirited approval of Cornelis Haga, the Dutch resident ambassador to the Porte, but their mission remained without success and hardly only for the reason that by the time they reached Moscow, Bethlen had already been dead.47
Gábor Bethlen was neither the first nor the last European ruler for whom Jacques Roussel offered to obtain the Polish throne. The Huguenot lawyer, who had for a while been a teacher of Greek language and librarian of the academy at Sedan, had already made a similar offer to Richelieu, but the cardinal did not believe Roussel when he latter claimed ambitiously that he could make a Polish king of anyone he wanted. According to an anonymous account of his life, which does not show much sympathy for Roussel, he came into contact with Bethlen already before 1629 and the French emigrant, who claimed to have excellent contacts with a number of Polish magnates, was employed as an expert on Polish issues by the prince. For the diplomatic mission best known to the historiography related to Bethlen, he arrived in Transylvania from Venice (from where he also received an annuity) in the company of Talleyrand. The latter, who came from a prominent family of the French Huguenot aristocracy (his full title was the Comte of Grignols, Duke of Chalais, Marquis of Excideuil and Baron of Mareuil and Boisville), left his homeland most probably due to the execution of his brother Henri for his participation in the Chalais conspiracy (which was named after him). Their cooperation later took a rather extraordinary turn: because of an insult against his person, Roussel had the Marquis arrested on the charge of spying in Moscow, and Talleyrand was sent to Siberia. The French aristocrat was only released in the mid-1630s at the intervention of King Louis XIII.48
Gyula Szekfű and others suggested that it must have been Bethlen’s illness, which became preponderant in his last year, that deprived him of his proper judgment so that he gave credit to these adventurers.49 This is not only contradicted by the statement of the anonymous manuscript biography of Roussel (which was not known to Szekfű) that reports an earlier contact between the prince and the Huguenot lawyer. Also, it seems that it was not only the prince and Paul Strassburg (who stayed at his court as the Swedish king’s diplomat) who were impressed by the eloquence, erudition and cosmopolite worldview of the French adventurer.50 From Moscow, Roussel went on to Germany, where, after presenting the letter of the kaymakam (the grand vizier’s deputy) to Gustavus Adolphus, he received a commission from the Swedish king to represent the latter’s interests in Poland and Muscovy as a Swedish royal counselor. During 1631–32, while based in Riga, he maintained an extensive correspondence with the Cossacks and the Polish estates gathering for the diet, thereby causing a huge scandal in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth.51 Later he visited Moscow again, this time in Dutch service, and with the tsar’s letter of recommendation went to Constantinople again. He wanted to continue his journey to Transylvania in 1634, but the new prince, György Rákóczi I (1630–1648), did not grant him entry into the country. It was in the Ottoman capital that he died in plague.52
Roussel’s contacts with Gustavus Adolphus show nevertheless that those rulers who employed the French adventurer as a diplomat did not necessarily trust him fully. In 1630 the king and his chancellor agreed that although Roussel was beyond doubt a very clever man, he also seemed to be a rather strange and inconsistent person, and therefore they could not be sure which of his generous offers could be taken seriously. In any case, the benefits that could be won through him seemed to be larger than the damage he could cause, and this was the reason he received a commission from the otherwise rather skeptical Gustavus Adolphus.53 It can be assumed that if we had direct sources about Gábor Bethlen’s plans in giving accreditation to the two French diplomats, they would show similar motivations. The potential damage Roussel and Talleyrand could cause at the Sublime Porte was prevented by Bethlen’s other representatives there: the French diplomats’ activities were constantly monitored (or, according to their own account, hindered) by one of the prince’s ambassadors, Kelemen Mikes, who was sent there in their company.54 An analogous example can be found in the case of Lorenzo Agazza from Vercelli, Savoy, who was Bethlen’s representative to Venice in 1621. Although we know of no negative description of him similar to those of the French diplomats, we can still assume that it was the earlier, rather adventurous career of this Italian envoy that motivated Bethlen to send his other two men with him to the Serenissima. Thus Gáspár Szunyogh and Illés Vajnay could at the same time keep an eye on Agazza, who had earlier been in the service of the duke of Savoy, the kings of Denmark, Bohemia and various German princes, and who also applied for an office in Venice.55
It is not easy to place Zygmunt Zaklika in the typology described above. He also came to Bethlen from Protestant courts in East Central Europe, but he could also be connected to the “wandering adventurer-diplomats,” if not due to his far-fetched political visions, then at least due to his rather extravagant behavior, which led to his arrest in Brandenburg at the turn of 1626. He came from a Polish Calvinist family and was most probably a relative of the similarly named sixteenth-century politician, who visited Hungary several times and even spent some time in the prison of the Habsburgs for his support of István Báthory’s election as king of Poland.56 It seems that Zaklika had good contacts with the Calvinist elite of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth: he was an envoy of Prince Janusz Radziwiłł to Livonia and Muscovy. As the Lithuanian magnate maintained correspondence with the Protestant rulers of Europe, we can assume that Zaklika came into contact with Bethlen through him.57
According to his own testimony, Zaklika joined Bethlen’s service in 1624 (that is, four years after Radziwiłł’s death). He was commissioned twice by the Transylvanian prince to travel to the Netherlands and visit Frederick V on his behalf. During the spring of 1625 he reached The Hague and negotiated with the exiled king-elector.58 His mission in the autumn of the same year, however, took many unexpected turns. Travelling through Polish territory and Brandenburg, Zaklika reached the camp of Ernst von Mansfeld, and later that of Christian IV in late November.59 From there, the Polish envoy decided not to continue his journey, according to his own testimony because he learned that Matthias Quadt was also on his way with the same assignments, and instead returned to Berlin. The Brandenburg counselors, who had already been suspicious of him because of his earlier awkward behavior, listened to a number of self-contradictory statements about his instructions and intentions, and then decided that he must be a spy and arrested him. He was held in custody for more than three months, until Bethlen’s response to the very detailed description of Zaklika’s blunder arrived, in which the prince identified the Polish nobleman as his agent and apologized for his incomprehensible behavior.60 After he left Berlin, we have no information about him: he may have continued a military career in Bethlen’s service, but (not surprisingly) he received no further diplomatic commissions.
Finally, we can treat Hermann Beckmann as a category of his own: he came to Transylvania as the secretary of Catherine of Brandenburg, but we find him in Berlin again a short time after the wedding, which took place in March 1626: in July he informed the elector there that his sister had been elected princess of Transylvania by the estates of the country with the stipulation that she could only rule after her husband’s death.61 From Brandenburg he went to Wolfenbüttel to meet Christian IV, and probably before going back to Transylvania received a new message from Bethlen ordering him to visit Gustavus Adolphus; in mid-September he was already on his way back from the king’s camp in Prussia.62 After this, he disappears from the sources.
Emigrant Diplomats for the Protestant Cause: Gábor Bethlen’s System of Diplomacy in European Context
Apart from being almost exclusively of foreign origin, there is another striking phenomenon that can be observed about Gábor Bethlen’s diplomats at the Protestant courts of Europe: most of them served more than one ruler during their lifetime. Even if we disregard the extreme cases of Roussel and Agazza, the majority (Berbisdorf, Quadt, Víckov and Zaklika) also changed their professed loyalty at least once during their careers. This makes the example of Schulitz the extraordinary one, and makes one wonder whether it was his profession as physician that provided peculiar circumstances for him, or that we might just miss some information on earlier assignments from a Silesian prince that would fit him into the general picture.
In the seventeenth-century system of diplomatic representation, the employment of foreigners as envoys was a well-established practice. If we take into account that more than half of the diplomats representing Sweden were born outside the territories belonging to the Swedish Crown, Bethlen’s example is far from extraordinary, because the prince never trusted foreigners with diplomatic assignments to the neighboring empires, thus making their ratio among the total number of his envoys less than 30 percent.63 Even their change of loyalties was no exception in contemporary European diplomacy. The example of Ludwig Camerarius, which is much better documented than any of Bethlen’s diplomats, shows that it was no problem for emigrant diplomats whose loyalties were not connected to the dynastic interests of a specific ruler but rather to the Protestant cause, to serve even several such rulers at the same time, if the latter seemed relevant to pursuing their agenda. Thus Camerarius, who was one of the leading politicians of the Palatinate emigration in the mid-1620s, wrote regular reports to the Swedish chancellor, Axel Oxenstierna. What is more, in 1626 he officially entered Swedish service, but nevertheless did not sever his contacts with Frederick V but continued to support him with political advice.64 When Víckov visited the exiled elector in The Hague as Bethlen’s envoy and returned to Transylvania with a detailed description of the opportunities for the two rulers to cooperate, it makes no sense to ask whom he was actually representing. Forced into emigration because of his earlier commitment to Frederick V, he was even personally interested in the issue that the two rulers were negotiating through him, the establishment of a Protestant, anti-Habsburg alliance.65 Similar motivations may have been at work in the case of Berbisdorf and Quadt as well: as long as they were working for the Protestant cause (and thus to put an end to their exile), it could not have mattered to them whether they were fulfilling the assignments of the prince of Transylvania, the king of Denmark or the elector of Brandenburg.
Berbisdorf is an especially illustrative example of this flexibility inside the same camp: he worked for the same task, the mediation between Transylvania and the Protestants of northwestern Europe, before and after 1625, and only the person who signed his credentials changed. One could suggest that this solution was motivated by the lack in Western and Northern European courts of people who would have been familiar with the circumstances at the southeastern borders of Latin Christianity. Examples such as that of Sir James (Jacob) Spens, however, warn against such an interpretation. This Scottish nobleman, after having served as an ambassador of the Swedish Crown in London between 1613 and 1620, and again between 1623 and 1626, was sent to Gustavus Adolphus as the diplomat of Charles I in 1627.66
It is probably the career of Paul Strassburg that offers the best illustration that in the Protestant politics of the 1620s an envoy was not necessarily expected to be loyal to the dynastic interests of the ruler who sent him, which otherwise would have excluded the possibility of him subsequently representing various princes. He visited Gábor Bethlen for the first time in 1625, at the request of Heinrich Matthias von Thurn, but indirectly representing Frederick V. In 1627 he was received in Königsberg as the envoy of Catherine of Brandenburg (at that time not yet as a ruling princess). From there he went to Royal Prussia to meet Gustavus Adolphus, who gave him the title of court counselor and sent him back to Gábor Bethlen’s court to represent him there in 1628.67
With the cases of these diplomats in mind, who changed their loyalties to specific rulers, another phenomenon, found in the career of Quadt, is perhaps less surprising. During the autumn of 1625 it was not only the offers of Gábor Bethlen that were on the table of the Brandenburg Secret Council, but also the question of sending a representative to The Hague conference, where the alliance of Protestant powers was to be concluded. The question was raised whether a Brandenburg diplomat, who could inform Christian IV about the intentions of the elector, should accompany Matthias Quadt on his way to the northwest. As those secret counselors who had any experience in matters of diplomacy were on other missions or lying sick in bed, the decision was made to give this task to Bethlen’s envoy. Apart from negotiating with the Danish king on Bethlen’s behalf, Quadt thus also handed him Georg Wilhelm’s letter; what is more, he gave a summary of some new developments in the elector’s secret diplomacy. Although Quadt was representing two rulers at the same time, Christian IV regarded him unambiguously as the envoy of the Transylvanian prince and avoided referring to him as Georg Wilhelm’s diplomat even in his response to the elector.68 The envoy’s loyalty towards the prince of Transylvania thus was not questioned by anyone due to the fact that during his mission he also took on assignments from another ruler from the Protestant camp.69
It was thus not an extraordinary situation that the diplomats representing the prince of Transylvania at the European Protestant courts were mostly foreigners connected to his person and not to the principality. This trend seems to have changed in the following decades. The rather rare Transylvanian diplomatic missions in the 1630s were still mostly assigned to people of foreign origin: the prince was represented at the courts of Sweden and France by Heinrich Dreiling in 1632, Heinrich Meerbott in 1634 and 1637, and Johann Heinrich Bisterfeld in 1638–1639. However, apart from them it was not only Boncziday who continued his activities, but in 1632 and 1634 other Hungarians, Pál Csontos and Balázs Bálintffy, were also entrusted with diplomatic missions.70 In the 1640s, then, missions to Western and Northern Europe were usually granted to Hungarians, and the same trend can be observed under the rule of György Rákóczi II (1648–1660, with interruption). This change could be interpreted so that in the 1640s there were already widely traveled, well-educated people with experience of peregrination available to the prince, such as János Dániel, who delivered the news of György Rákóczi I’s death to Protestant principalities on behalf of his son and successor.71 At the same time, there was a number of diplomats in the service of György Rákóczi I and II from Hungary and Transylvania who are not known for their eminent backgrounds. Even Ferenc Jármi, who was the prince’s envoy to the peace congress of Westphalia, had no better background than any of those people having politically relevant offices under Gábor Bethlen.72 This renders an alternative interpretation more likely: namely, that the huge migratory wave of politically competent persons in the 1620s was not followed by others later on, and the princes simply ran out of foreigners who could be used as diplomats. The few exceptions to this rule had diverse backgrounds. Constantin Schaum came from the circle of Comenius and used his network during his mission to the Protestant rulers of Europe; thus, he shows similarities with the Czech–Palatinate group in Bethlen’s time. On the other hand, Tymoshka Akudinov, who sought assistance for his aspirations concerning the Russian throne and received the pass of the prince of Transylvania to travel to Sweden as his envoy, belongs in the category of adventurers.73 The fact that they were employed by György Rákóczi II and were exclusively used for long-distance missions and never in relations with neighboring states, suggests that it was not the principal fundaments of the system of foreign policy during Bethlen’s reign that changed in the following decades but only the available personnel.
Archiwum Główne Akt Dawnych (Warsaw) [Central Archives of Historical Records]
Archiwum Koronne Warszawskie [Warsaw Crown Archives]
Metryka Koronna [Crown Registers] Libri Legationum
Arhivele Naţionale ale României Direcţia Judeţeană Braşov [National Archives of Romania, County Directorate Braşov]
Primăria oraşului Braşov, Socotele alodiale [Municipality of the town of Braşov, Domanial Accounts]
Bayerische Staatsbibliothek (Munich)
Bayerisches Hauptstaatsarchiv (Munich)
Geheimes Staatsarchiv Preußischer Kulturbesitz (Berlin-Dahlem)
I. Hauptabteilung Rep. 11., Rep. 21., Rep. 24.
Brandenburgisch–preussisches Hausarchiv Rep. 32., Rep. 33.
Krigsarkivet (Stockholm) [War Archives]
Österreichisches Staatsarchiv, Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv (Vienna)
Ungarische Akten: Allgemeine Akten
Staatenabteilungen: Türkei I.; Polen I.
Rigsarkivet (Copenhagen) [State Archives]
Tyske Kancelli, Udenrigske Afdelning [German Chancellery, Department for Foreign Policy]
Riksarkivet (Stockholm) [State Archives]
Oxenstiernasamlingen [Oxenstierna collection]
Riksregistraturet [State Registers]
Skrivelser till konungen Gustaf II Adolfs tid [Letters to the king: The time of Gustavus Adolphus]
–a –a (the author’s pseudonym). “Brandenburgi Katalin és a diplomáczia” [Catherine of Brandeburg and the Diplomacy]. Történelmi Tár 18 (1895): 209–29, 433–56; 19 (1896): 458–82; 20 (1897): 709–32; 21 (1898): 317–32, 505–31, 670–98; 22 (1899): 89–136.
Ahnlund, Nils. Axel Oxenstierna intill Gustav Adolfs död [Axel Oxenstierna until the Death of Gustav Adolph]. Stockholm: Norstedt, 1940.
Balogh, Judit. “A vargyasi Daniel család karrierjének kezdetei” [The Beginnings of the Career of the Family Daniel of Vargyas]. Történelmi Szemle 51, no. 3 (2009): 333–53.
Benda, Kálmán. “Diplomáciai szervezet és diplomaták Erdélyben Bethlen Gábor korában” [The Institutions of Diplomacy and Diplomats in Transylvania in the Age of Gábor Bethlen]. Századok 125 (1981): 725–30.
Bricka, C. F. and J. A. Fridericia, eds. Kong Christian den Fjerdes egenhændige Breve [The Autograph Letters of King Christian IV]. vol. 2, 1626–1631. Copenhagen: Gad, 1889–91.
Brulin, Herman, ed. Rikskansleren Axel Oxenstiernas skrifter och brefvexling [The Writings and Correspondence of State Chancellor Axel Oxenstierna]. Ser. 1, vol. 5: Bref 1630. Stockholm: Norstedt, 1915.
Brulin, Herman, ed. Rikskansleren Axel Oxenstiernas skrifter och brefvexling [The Writings and Correspondence of State Chancellor Axel Oxenstierna]. Ser. 1, vol. 6: Bref 1631. Stockholm: Norstedt, 1918.
Brulin, Herman, ed. Rikskansleren Axel Oxenstiernas skrifter och brefvexling [The Writings and Correspondence of State Chancellor Axel Oxenstierna]. Ser. 1, vol. 9: Bref 1633 juni–september. Stockholm: Norstedt, 1946.
Cuhn, Ernst Wilhelm, ed. Memoires et negociations secretes de Mr. de Rusdorf conseiller d’etat de S.M. Frederich V. Roi de Boheme, Electeur Palatin, pour servir a l’histoire de la guerre de trente ans. Vols. 1–2. Leipzig: Weygand, 1789.
Csohány, János. “Die politischen Beziehungen von Gábor Bethlen zum reformierten Europa.” Jahrbuch für die Geschichte des Protestantismus in Österreich 101–102 (1994–1995): 87–98.
Cziráki, Zsuzsanna. Autonóm közösség és központi hatalom: Udvar, fejedelem és város viszonya a Bethlen-kori Brassóban [Autonomous Community and Central Power: The Relationship between Court, Prince and Town in Brassó of the Age of Bethlen]. Budapest: ELTE, 2011.
Deák, Éva. “‘Princeps non Principissa’: Catherine of Brandenburg, Elected Prince of Transylvania (1629–1630).” In The Rule of Women in Early Modern Europe, edited by Anne J. Cruz and Mihoko Suzuki, 80–99. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2009.
Droste, Heiko. Im Dienst der Krone: Schwedische Diplomaten im 17. Jahrhundert. Nordische Geschichte, no. 2. Berlin: LIT, 2006.
Forssberg, Anna Maria. “Arguments of War: Norm and Information Systems in Sweden and France during the Thirty Years War.” In Organizing History: Studies in Honour of Jan Glete, edited by Anna Maria Forssberg, Mats Hallenberg, Orsi Husz, and Jonas Nordin, 141–63. Lund: Nordic Academic Press, 2011.
Forster, Leonard. “Opitziana im Brukenthal-Museum Sibiu/Hermannstadt, RSR.” Wolfenbütteler Barock-Nachrichten 3 (1976): 254–56.
Fraknói, Vilmos. “Bethlen Gábor és IV. Keresztély dán király (1625–1628): Közlemények a koppenhágai kir. levéltárból” [Gábor Bethlen and Christian IV, King of Denmark: Notes from the Danish Royal Archives]. Történelmi Tár 4 (1881): 98–113.
Gindely, Anton. “Bethlen Gábor 1580–1629.” In Anton Gindely and Ignác Acsády. Bethlen Gábor és udvara 1580–1629 [Gábor Bethlen and His Court 1581–1629], 1–230. Budapest: Magyar Történelmi Társulat, 1980.
Gindely, Anton, ed. Okmánytár Bethlen Gábor fejedelem uralkodása történetéhez [Documents for the History of Gábor Bethlen’s Rule]. Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, 1890.
Heltai, János. “Martin Opitz und sein intellektuelles Umfeld in Siebenbürgen.” In Martin Opitz 1597–1639: Fremdheit und Gegenwärtigkeit einer geschichtilichen Persönlichkeit, edited by Jörg-Ulrich Fechner and Wolfgang Kessler, 79–103. Herne: Stiftung Martin-Opitz-Bibliothek, 2006.
Hering, Gunnar. Ökumenisches Patriarchat und europäische Politik 1620–1638. Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Europäische Geschichte Mainz, no. 45. Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1968.
Horn, Ildikó. “Sebesi Ferenc – egy erdélyi diplomata” [Ferenc Sebesi, a Transylvanian Diplomat]. In Scripta manent: Ünnepi tanulmányok a 60. életévét betöltött Gerics József professzor tiszteletére, edited by István Draskóczy, 199–205. Budapest: ELTE, 1994.
Hrubý, František, ed. Moravské korespondence a akta z let 1620–1636 [Moravian Correspondence and Documents from the Years 1620–1636]. Vol. 1: 1620–1624. Publikace Zemského archivu v Brnĕ, Nová řada, no. 2. Brno: Nákl. Zemĕ Moravskosl., 1934.
Jönsson, Arne. “Introduction.” In Rikskansleren Axel Oxenstiernas skrifter och brefvexling [The Writings and Correspondence of State Chancellor Axel Oxenstierna]. Ser. 2, vol. 13, edited by Arne Jönsson, 10–20. Stockholm: Norstedt, 2007.
Kármán, Gábor. Erdélyi külpolitika a vesztfáliai béke után [Transylvanian Foreign Policy after the Peace of Westphalia]. Budapest: L’Harmattan, 2011.
Kármán, Gábor. “Külföldi diplomaták Bethlen Gábor szolgálatában” [Foreign Diplomats in the Service of Gábor Bethlen]. In Bethlen Gábor és Európa [Gábor Bethlen and Europe], edited by Gábor Kármán and Kees Teszelszky, 145–82. Budapest: ELTE BTK Középkori és Kora Újkori Magyar Történeti Tanszék–Transylvania Emlékeiért Tudományos Egyesület, 2013.
Kármán, Gábor. “Sovereignty and Representation: Tributary States in the Seventeenth-Century Diplomatic System of the Ottoman Empire.” In The European Tributary States of the Ottoman Empire in the Sixteenth–Seventeenth Centuries, edited by Gábor Kármán and Lovro Kunčević, 155–85. Leiden: Brill, 2013.
Kármán, Gábor. “The Hardship of Being an Ottoman Tributary: Transylvania at the Peace Congress of Westphalia.” In Frieden und Konfliktmanagement in interkulturellen Räumen: Das Osmanische Reich und Europa (16.–18. Jahrhundert), edited by Arno Strohmeyer and Norbert Spannenberger, 163–83. Stuttgart: Steiner, 2013.
Kellner, Anikó. “Strife for a Dream: Sir Thomas Roe’s Case with Gabor Bethlen, Prince of Transylvania.” Studia Universitatis Petru Maior: Series Historia 5 (2005): 41–56.
Kemény, János. “Önéletírása” [Autobiography]. In Kemény János és Bethlen Miklós művei [Works of János Kemény and Miklós Bethlen], edited by Éva V. Windisch, 401–981. Budapest: Szépirodalmi, 1980.
Klein, Karl Kurt. “Weighard Schulitz: Ein Gönner und Freund des Dichters Martin Opitz, Leibarzt und Berater des siebenbürgischen Fürsten Gabriel Bethlen.” Siebenbürgische Vierteljahrschrift 54 (1931): 1–26.
Kober, Ulrich. Eine Karriere im Krieg: Graf Adam von Schwarzenberg und die kurbrandenburgische Politik von 1619 bis 1641. Quellen und Forschungen zur brandenburgischen und preußischen Geschichte, no. 24. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2004.
Kraus, Georg. Siebenbürgische Chronik des schässburger Stadtschreibers Georg Kraus 1608–1665. Vol. 1. Fontes rerum Austriacarum, Abt. 1, Scriptores, no. 3. Vienna: Kaiserlich-Königliche Hof- und Staatsdruckerei, 1862.
Kurucz, György. “Polish–Transylvanian Relations and English Diplomacy from the 16th to the mid-17th Century.” Ungarn-Jahrbuch 36 (2002/2003): 13–31.
Ludovici Camerarii I.C. aliorumque epistolae nuper post pugnam maritinam in Suedica navi capta captae a victore Polono… N.p.: n.p., 1627.
Mörner, Magnus. “Paul Straßburg, ein Diplomat aus der Zeit des Dreißigjährigen Krieges.” Südost-Forschungen 15 (1956): 327–63.
Müller, Georg. Die Türkenherrschaft in Siebenbürgen: Verfassungsrechtliches Verhältnis Siebenbürgens zur Pforte 1541–1688. Hermannstadt: Krafft, 1923.
Murdoch, Steve. “Scottish Ambassadors and British Diplomacy 1618–1635.” In Scotland and the Thirty Years War, edited by Steve Murdoch, 27–50. Leiden: Brill, 2001.
Murdock, Graeme. Calvinism on the Frontier 1600–1660: International Calvinism and the Reformed Church in Hungary and Transylvania. Oxford: Clarendon, 2000.
Nagy, Imre et al., ed. Hazai okmánytár [A Collection of Hungarian Sources]. Vol. 4. Győr: Sauervein, 1867.
Niesiecki, Kasper. Herbarz polski [Polish Heraldry]. Vol. 10. Leipzig: Breitkopf und Härtel, 1845.
Norrman, David. Gustav Adolfs politik mot Ryssland och Polen under tyska kriget (1630–1632) [The Policy of Gustavus Adolphus towards Russia and Poland under the German War 1630–1632]. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1943.
Nyerup, Rasmus, ed. Kong Christian des Fjerdes Dagbøger for Aarene 1618, 1619, 1620, 1625, 1635 [The Diaries of King Christian IV for the Years 1618, 1619, 1620, 1625, 1635]. Copenhagen: Brummer, 1825.
Odložilík, Otakár, ed. Z korespondence pobĕlohorské emigrace z let 1621–1624 [From the Correspondence of the Post-White Mountain Emigration 1621–1624]. Prague: Náklad. Královské České Společnosti Nauk, 1933.
Olofsson, Sven Ingemar. Efter Westfaliska freden: Sveriges yttre politik 1650–1654 [After the Peace of Westphalia: The Foreign Policy of Sweden 1650–1654]. Kungl. Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets Akademiens handlingar. Historiska serien, no. 4. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1957.
Opitz, Martin. Briefwechsel und Lebenszeugnisse: Kritische Edition mit Übersetzung. Vol. 2. Edited by Klaus Conermann. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 2009.
Óváry, Lipót, ed. Oklevéltár Bethlen Gábor diplomácziai összeköttetései történetéhez a velenczei állami levéltárban Mircse János által eszközölt másolatokból [Documents for the History of Gábor Bethlen’s Diplomatic Connections from the Copies Made by János Mircse in the Venetian State Archives]. Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, 1886.
Ötvös, Ágoston. “Brandenburgi Katalin fejedelemsége” [The Rule of Catherine of Brandenburg]. Magyar Akadémiai Értesítő: A Törvény- és Történettudományi Osztályok Közlönye 2, no. 2 (1861): 153–244.
Palm, Hermann, ed. Acta publica: Verhandlungen und Correspondenzen der schlesischen Fürsten und Stände: Jahrgang 1621. Breslau: Max, 1875.
Papp, Sándor. “Bethlen Gábor, a magyar királyság és a Porta (1619–1622)” [Gábor Bethlen, the Royal Title of Hungary and the Porte, 1619–1622]. Századok 145 (2011): 915–74.
Péter, Katalin. “The Golden Age of the Principality.” In The History of Transylvania. Vol. 2: From 1606 to 1830, edited by László Makkai and Zoltán Szász, 1–228. Boulder, Colo.: East European Monographs, 2002.
Piri, Zoltán. “Bethlen Gábor fejedelem útja a hágai szövetségbe” [The Route of Prince Gábor Bethlen to The Hague Alliance]. Történelmi Szemle 41, no. 1–2 (1999): 157–75.
Porshnev, Boris F. Muscovy and Sweden in the Thirty Years’ War. Translated by Brian Pearce. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
Radvánszky, Béla, ed. Udvartartás és számadáskönyvek [Court Life and Account Books]. Vol. 1: Bethlen Gábor fejedelem udvartartása [The Princely Court of Gábor Bethlen]. Budapest: Magyar Történelmi Társulat, 1888.
Roelevink, Joke, ed. Resolutiën der Staten-Generaal: Nieuwe reeks 1610–1670 [The Resolutions of the Staten Generaal: New Series]. Vol. 6: 2 januari 1623 – 30 juni 1624. The Hague: Nĳhoff, 1989.
Schleicher, Herbert M., ed. Ernst von Oidtman und seine genealogisch-heraldische Sammlung in der Universitäts-Bibliothek zu Köln. Vol. 12. Cologne: n.p., 1997.
Schubert, Friedrich Hermann. Ludwig Camerarius 1573–1651: Eine Biographie. Münchener historische Studien: Abteilung Neuere Geschichte, no. 1. Kallmünz: Lassleben, 1955.
Schulz, Hans. Markgraf Johann Georg von Brandenburg-Jägerndorf Generalfeldoberst. Hallesche Abhandlungen zur Neueren Geschichte, no. 37. Halle: Niemeyer, 1899.
Schunka, Alexander. “Böhmen am Bosporus: Migrationserfahrung und diplomatische Kommunikation am Beispiel des Grafen Heinrich Matthias von Thurn.” In Migrationserfahrungen – Migrationsstrukturen. Stuttgarter Beiträge zur historischen Migrationsforschung, no. 7, edited by Alexander Schunka and Eckart Olshausen, 67–85. Stuttgart: Steiner, 2010.
Schybergson, Magnus Gottfrid, ed. Sveriges och Hollands diplomatiska förbindelser 1621–1630 [The Diplomatic Contacts between Sweden and the Netherlands 1621–1630]. Helsingfors: Finska Litteratur Sällskap, 1881.
Schwennicke, Detlev, ed. Europäische Stammtafeln: Neue Folge. Vol. 4: Standesherrliche Häuser. Vol. 1. Marburg: Stargardt, 1981.
Sudár, Balázs. “Iskender and Gábor Bethlen: The Pasha and the Prince.” In Europe and the Ottoman World: Exchanges and Conflicts (Sixteenth–Seventeenth Centuries), edited by Gábor Kármán and Radu G. Păun, 141–69. Istanbul: Isis, 2013.
Supala, János and Kálmán Géresi. “Talleyrand és Roussel követsége az orosz czárhoz” [The Mission of Talleyrand and Roussel to the Russian Tsar]. Történelmi Tár 10 (1887): 53–78.
Szabó, Gyula. “Bethlen Gábor házassága Brandenburgi Katalinnal (A berlini titkos állami levéltárból)” [The Marriage of Gábor Bethlen to Catherine of Brandenburg: From the Secret State Archives of Berlin]. Történelmi Tár 11 (1888): 640–66.
Szekfű, Gyula. Bethlen Gábor: Történelmi tanulmány [Gábor Bethlen: A Historical Study]. Budapest: Magyar Szemle Társaság, 1929.
Szęlagowski, Adam. Śląsk i Polska wobec powstania czeskiego [Silesia and Poland in the Czech Uprising]. Lwów: Połoniecki, 1904.
Szilády, Áron and Sándor Szilágyi, ed. Török–magyarkori állam-okmánytár [State Papers from the Turkish Era in Hungary]. Vol. 2. Pest: Eggenberger, 1868.
Szilágyi, Sándor. “A ‘Collectio Camerariana’-ból” [From the Collectio Camerariana]. Történelmi Tár 6 (1883): 217–61.
Szilágyi, Sándor. Adalékok Bethlen Gábor szövetkezéseinek történetéhez [Contributions to the History of Gábor Bethlen’s Alliances]. Értekezések a történeti tudományok köréből, vol. 2/8. Budapest: Eggenberger, 1873.
Szilágyi, Sándor. “Bethlen Gábor uralkodásának történetéhez” [To the History of Gábor Bethlen’s Rule]. Történelmi Tár 2 (1879): 219–61, 429–65, 742–86.
Sándor Szilágyi. “Gabriel Bethlen und die schwedische Diplomatie.” Ungarische Revue 2 (1882): 457–88.
Szilágyi, Sándor. Georg Rákóczy I. im dreissigjährigen Kriege 1630–1640: Mit Urkunden aus schwedischen und ungarischen Archiven. Budapest: Kilián, 1883.
Szilágyi, Sándor. “Georg Rákóczy I. und die Diplomatie.” Literarische Berichte aus Ungarn 2 (1878): 402–17.
Szilágyi, Sándor. “Levelek és okiratok Bethlen Gábor utolsó évei történetéhez (1627–1629)” [Letters and Documents for the History of Gábor Bethlen’s Last Years 1627–1629]. Történelmi Tár 10 (1887): 1–52.
Szilágyi, Sándor, ed. Okirattár Strassburg Pál 1631–1633-iki követsége és I. Rákóczy György első diplomacziai összeköttetései történetéhez [Documents for the History of the Mission of Paul Strassburg between 1631 and 1633, as well as the First Diplomatic Contacts of György Rákóczi I]. Monumenta Hungariae Historica, Diplomataria, no. 26. Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, 1882.
Szilágyi, Sándor. “Oklevelek Bethlen Gábor és Gusztáv Adolf összeköttetéseinek történetéhez” [Documents for the History of the Contacts between Gábor Bethlen and Gustavus Adolphus]. Történelmi Tár 5 (1882): 235–78.
Szyrocki, Martin. Martin Opitz. 2nd ed. Munich: Beck, 1974.
Tallemant des Réaux, Gédéon. Historiettes. Vol. 2, edited by Antoine Adam. Paris: Gallimard, 1961.
Trausch, Joseph, ed. Chronicon Fuchsio-Lupino-Oltardinum sive Annales Hungarici et Transilvanici… Vol. 1. Coronae: Gött, 1847.
van Gelder, Maartje. Trading Places: The Netherlandish Merchants in Early Modern Venice. Leiden: Brill, 2009.
Vásárhelyi, Judit P. “Johann Joachim Rusdorf válogatott levelei” [Selected Letters of Johann Joachim Rusdorf]. Lymbus: Művelődéstörténeti Tár 3 (1991): 99–171.
Viskolcz, Noémi. Reformációs könyvek: Tervek az evangélikus egyház megújítására [Books on Reformation: Plans for the Renewal of the Lutheran Church]. Budapest: OSZK and Universitas, 2006.
Viskolcz, Noémi. “Johann Heinrich Bisterfeld: Ein Professor als Vermittler zwischen West und Ost an der siebenbürgischen Akademie in Weißenburg, 1630–1655.” In Calvin und Reformiertentum in Ungarn und Siebenbürgen: Helvetisches Bekenntnis, Ethnie und Politik vom 16. Jahrhundert bis 1918, edited by Márta Fata and Anton Schindling, 201–14. Münster: Aschendorff, 2010.
Weszprémi, István. Magyarország és Erdély orvosainak rövid életrajza: Első száz [The Short Biographies of the Doctors of Hungary and Transylvania: First Hundred]. Translated by Aladár Kővári. Budapest: Medicina, 1960.
Wibling, Carl. “Magyarország történetét érdeklő okiratok a svédországi levéltárakból” [Documents Concerning the History of Hungary from Swedish Archives]. Történelmi Tár 15 (1892): 440–73, 592–634.
Wilson, Peter H. Europe’s Tragedy: The History of the Thirty Years War. London: Allen Lane, 2009.
Zwiedeneck-Südenhorst, Hans von. “Graf Heinrich Matthias von Thurn in Diensten der Republik Venedig: Eine Studie nach venetianischen Akten.” Archiv für Österreichische Geschichte 66 (1884): 257–76.
1 Geoffrey Parker, The Thirty Years’ War (London: Routledge, 1984), 176.
2 This is the reason why, in spite of his clear interest in understanding the developments in this easternmost theater of the Thirty Years’ War, Peter H. Wilson, the author of the recent comprehensive synthesis on the conflict, could not avoid certain unfortunate misunderstandings; cf. his Europe’s Tragedy: The History of the Thirty Years War (London: Allen Lane, 2009). The best overview of Bethlen’s activities is Katalin Péter, “The Golden Age of the Principality,” in The History of Transylvania, vol. 2: From 1606 to 1830, ed. László Makkai and Zoltán Szász (Boulder, Colo.: East European Monographs, 2002), 57–98. See also the short summary by János Csohány, “Die politischen Beziehungen von Gábor Bethlen zum reformierten Europa,” Jahrbuch für die Geschichte des Protestantismus in Österreich 101–102 (1994–1995): 87–98.
3 See primarily Sándor Papp, “Bethlen Gábor, a magyar királyság és a Porta (1619–1622),” Századok 145 (2011): 915–74; Balázs Sudár, “ Iskender and Gábor Bethlen: The Pasha and the Prince,” in Europe and the Ottoman World: Exchanges and Conflicts (Sixteenth–Seventeenth Centuries), ed. Gábor Kármán and Radu G. Păun (Istanbul: Isis, 2013), 141–69.
4 Gyula Szekfű, Bethlen Gábor: Történelmi tanulmány (Budapest: Magyar Szemle Társaság, 1929), 270–71; Kálmán Benda, “Diplomáciai szervezet és diplomaták Erdélyben Bethlen Gábor korában,” Századok 115 (1981): 725–30.
5 On the institutions of Brandenburg foreign policy in the first half of the Thirty Years’ War, see Ulrich Kober, Eine Karriere im Krieg: Graf Adam von Schwarzenberg und die kurbrandenburgische Politik von 1619 bis 1641 (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2004), 25–39. The classic monograph about the cooperation between Gustavus Adolphus and Oxenstierna is Nils Ahnlund, Axel Oxenstierna intill Gustav Adolfs död (Stockholm: Norstedt, 1940).
6 Szekfű, Bethlen Gábor, 270–71; Benda, “Diplomáciai szervezet,” 729. For more details on the mission, see Sándor Szilágyi, “Gabriel Bethlen und die schwedische Diplomatie,” Ungarische Revue 2 (1882): 473–77.
7 The first data about Boncziday are from January 1620, when he was travelling back and forth between Transylvania and Moldavia, see Zsuzsanna Cziráki, Autonóm közösség és központi hatalom: Udvar, fejedelem és város viszonya a Bethlen-kori Brassóban (Budapest: ELTE, 2011), 202. In 1624, the prince ordered him to guide his envoy, Matthias Quadt, on his way to Thorn, which suggests that he had been to Poland before. In this case, the prince explicitly refers to him as his “postal envoy;” see his letter to Péter Alvinczi (Gyulafehérvár, October 7, 1624) in Sándor Szilágyi, “Bethlen Gábor uralkodásának történetéhez,” Történelmi Tár 2 (1879): 411. Most of the sources concerning the negotiations in Königsberg were published by Sándor Szilágyi, “Oklevelek Bethlen Gábor és Gusztáv Adolf összeköttetéseinek történetéhez,” Történelmi Tár 5 (1882): 243–53.
8 Johannes Nicodemi’s report to Axel Oxenstierna (Elbing, February 4, 1629) Szilágyi, “Oklevelek,” 249–53.
9 Paul Strassburg’s letter to Axel Oxenstierna (Gyulafehérvár, October 28, 1629), Carl Wibling, “Magyarország történetét érdeklő okiratok a svédországi levéltárakból,” Történelmi Tár 15 (1892): 451.
10 The Swedish chancellor seems not to have considered Boncziday as an envoy of the prince; at least he did not send any letter to Bethlen with him, but only replied Paul Strassburg’s message (Elbing, January 24[/February 3], 1629) Szilágyi, “Oklevelek,” 253–56. Boncziday continued to receive assignments within the framework of Transylvanian foreign policy later on: in 1632 he visited Gustavus Adolphus as a representative of Prince György Rákóczi I; see the envoy’s letter to Axel Oxenstierna (Mainz, June 8, 1632). Riksarkivet (Stockholm, henceforth RA(S)) Oxenstiernasamlingen E 570; as well as the king’s letter to György Rákóczi I (Hersbruck, June 25[/July 5], 1632), Sándor Szilágyi, ed., Okirattár Strassburg Pál 1631–1633-iki követsége és I. Rákóczy György első diplomacziai összeköttetései történetéhez, Monumenta Hungariae Historica, Diplomataria 26 (Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, 1882), 59.
11 The classic study on the Constantinople embassy of Transylvania is Vencel Bíró, Erdély követei a Portán (Kolozsvár: Minerva, 1921). See also the German summary by Georg Müller, Die Türkenherrschaft in Siebenbürgen: Verfassungsrechtliches Verhältnis Siebenbürgens zur Pforte 1541–1688 (Hermannstadt: Krafft, 1923), 74–96; as well as Gábor Kármán, “Sovereignty and Representation: Tributary States in the Seventeenth-Century Diplomatic System of the Ottoman Empire,” in The European Tributary States of the Ottoman Empire in the Sixteenth–Seventeenth Centuries, ed. Gábor Kármán and Lovro Kunčević (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 155–85. On the activities of the embassy during Bethlen’s rule, see Papp, “Bethlen Gábor;” and Sudár, “Iskender.”
12 György Kurucz, “Polish–Transylvanian Relations and English Diplomacy from the 16th to the mid-17th Century,” Ungarn-Jahrbuch 36 (2002/2003): 25–28; Anikó Kellner, “Strife for a Dream: Sir Thomas Roe’s Case with Gabor Bethlen, Prince of Transylvania,” Studia Universitatis Petru Maior: Series Historia 5 (2005): 41–56.
13 On the details, see Anton Gindely, “Bethlen Gábor 1580–1629,” in Anton Gindely and Ignác Acsády, Bethlen Gábor és udvara 1580–1629 (Budapest: Magyar Történelmi Társulat, 1980), 161–65; Zoltán Piri, “Bethlen Gábor fejedelem útja a hágai szövetségbe,” Történelmi Szemle 41, no. 1–2 (1999): 157–75. Bethlen did receive the news about the conference of Protestant powers, and wrote new instructions to Quadt, but it would have reached the envoy halfway home even if the postal envoy, who was supposed to deliver it, had not drowned in the River Tisza. See Bethlen’s letter to Péter Alvinczi (Gyulafehérvár, 12 January 1626) in Szilágyi, “Bethlen Gábor uralkodásának történetéhez,” 415. For an extract of the instruction, dated December 23, 1625, see Geheimes Staatsarchiv Preußischer Kulturbesitz (Berlin-Dahlem, henceforth GStA PK) I. Hauptabteilung (henceforth HA) rep. 11. Auswärtige Beziehungen: Akten Nr. 10175.
14 Gábor Bethlen’s credentials to Ferenc Mikó and Matthias Quadt for Elector Georg Wilhelm (Gyulafehérvár, July 1, 1625) GStA PK Brandenburgisch–preussisches Hausarchiv (henceforth cited as BPH), rep. 33. W, nr. 62, fol. 25r. Under the date 14 July, Quadt also received a separate letter of credence, ibid., fol. 28r. On the presence of Kovacsóczy, see the credentials of Georg Wilhelm (Cölln an der Spree, 26 September[/6 October] 1625) ibid., fol. 76r; and the marriage contract (Cölln an der Spree, 6 October 1625, with the clause of Bethlen) in Gyula Szabó, “Bethlen Gábor házassága Brandenburgi Katalinnal (A berlini titkos állami levéltárból),” Történelmi Tár 11 (1888): 656–63.
15 On the cooperation between the Margrave and Bethlen, see Hans Schulz, Markgraf Johann Georg von Brandenburg-Jägerndorf Generalfeldoberst (Halle: Niemeyer, 1899), 118–34.
16 Hans von Zwiedeneck-Südenhorst, “Graf Heinrich Matthias von Thurn in Diensten der Republik Venedig: Eine Studie nach venetianischen Akten,” Archiv für Österreichische Geschichte 66 (1884): 257–76; Alexander Schunka, “Böhmen am Bosporus: Migrationserfahrung und diplomatische Kommunikation am Beispiel des Grafen Heinrich Matthias von Thurn,” in Migrationserfahrungen – Migrationsstrukturen, ed. Alexander Schunka and Eckart Olshausen (Stuttgart: Steiner, 2010), 67–85.
17 On the mission to The Hague, see the registers of the Staten Generaal in Joke Roelevink, ed., Resolutiën der Staten-Generaal: Nieuwe reeks 1610–1670, vol. 6: 2 januari 1623 – 30 juni 1624 (The Hague: Nĳhoff, 1989), 28–38. (nos. 170, 196, 226, 256A). The envoy was also granted 600 gulden for his travel expenses by the government of the United Provinces. His speech before the Staaten General in 1623 is edited in Otakár Odložilík, ed., Z korespondence pobĕlohorské emigrace z let 1621–1624 (Prague: Náklad. Královské České Společnosti Nauk, 1933), 42–44. For his letters from Transylvania in the later summer of 1622, see ibid., 20–24. On the mission to Bethlen in 1621, see the letters of Miech von Miltiz to Johann Georg, elector of Saxony (s.l., 8[/18] and 14[/24] April 1621), in Hermann Palm, ed., Acta publica: Verhandlungen und Correspondenzen der schlesischen Fürsten und Stände: Jahrgang 1621 (Breslau: Max, 1875), 157n. On his earlier military career, see ibid., 70; as well as his letter to Ernst von Mansfeld (Camp by Striga, March 24, 1621), Bayerisches Hauptstaatsarchiv (Munich) Kasten Schwarz 16744. fol. 136. For further data, see Piri, “Bethlen Gábor,” 161, n. 9.
18 For his Danish service as well as the mission of 1625, see C. F. Bricka and J. A. Fridericia, ed., Kong Christian den Fjerdes egenhændige Breve, vol. 2: 1626–1631 (Copenhagen: Gad, 1889–91), 2, n. 2; as well as the recredentials of Gábor Bethlen to Berbisdorf (Gyulafehérvár, December 24, 1625) Rigsarkivet (Copenhagen, henceforth RA(K)) Tyske Kancelli, Udenrigske Afdelning (henceforth TKUA) Speciel Del (henceforth SD) 82-1 Ungarn og Valakiet, fol. 10. On his 1627 mission, see the resolutio of Gábor Bethlen given to him (Fogaras, July 22, 1627) in Szilágyi, “Bethlen Gábor uralkodásának történetéhez,” 446. His career in Swedish service is documented by his letters to Axel Oxenstierna and an invoice of his from 1629; see RA(S) Oxenstiernasamlingen E 566, respectively Krigsarkivet (Stockholm) Biografica.
19 On his journey to the Netherlands, see Roelevink, Resolutiën, 456–80 (nos. 2820, 2930, 2962); his credentials to Ladislav Velen ze Žerotína (Besztercebánya, January 8, 1624) and the response of the Staten Generaal to Bethlen (The Hague, March 29 [/April 8], 1624) are edited in Odložilík, Z korespondence, 164–65, resp. 169–72. For further biographical details, see František Hrubý, ed., Moravské korespondence a akta z let 1620–1636, vol. 1: 1620–1624 (Brno: Nákl. Zemĕ Moravskosl., 1934), 110, 161; as well as Piri, “Bethlen Gábor,” 165, n. 22.
20 Zoppenbroich, now a suburb of Mönchengladbach, was donated to Wilhelm Quadt, the father of Matthias, see Herbert M. Schleicher, ed., Ernst von Oidtman und seine genealogisch-heraldische Sammlung in der Universitäts-Bibliothek zu Köln, vol. 12 (Cologne: n.p., 1997), 316–17; Detlev Schwennicke, ed., Europäische Stammtafeln: Neue Folge, vol. 4: Standesherrliche Häuser, vol. 1 (Marburg: Stargardt, 1981), Tafel 78. There are examples for the usage of both by-names for Matthias Quadt as well, but most credentials of Bethlen refer to him without any by-name. On his Jülich origins, see the letter of Elector Georg Wilhelm to Christian IV (Cölln an der Spree, October 3[/13], 1625) RA(K) TKUA SD 12-20 Brandenburg.
21 The Brandenburg connections of Matthias Quadt were discussed by Adam von Schwarzenberg at the meeting of the electorate’s secret council on October 1[/11], 1625; see GStA PK I. HA, rep. 21, nr. 127m, vol. 1, fol. 65v. It is almost sure that the title “Raht” attributed to his father by Schwarzenberg does not refer to a secret councilor’s position, but its actual contents remain unclear. The brother of Matthias, also mentioned here, is most probably identical to a certain Johann Friedrich von Quadt, whose appointment as an officer in the elector’s service dates from Königsberg May 11/21, 1620, and was signed by Schwarzenberg, GStA PK I. HA, rep. 24, lit. P, fasc. 2. The letter of Georg Wilhelm, cited in the previous footnote, also noted that Matthias’ brother supervised an infantry, as well as a mounted company in his service. His activities are documented as late as January 15[/25], 1629; see the letter of secret counselors to Georg Wilhelm from this date, GStA PK I. HA rep. 21, nr. 136h, vol. I.
22 He was one of the two guarantors of the Margrave’s loan transaction in Hungary; see the certificate of Johann Georg (Kassa, September 19, 1623) GStA PK BPH, rep. 32. Kurfürst Joachim Friedrich V, nr. 9.
23 On the death of Johann Georg, see the letter of Elisabeth Charlotte, the consort of the elector to Barbara Sophia, duchess of Württemberg (Cölln an der Spree, May 11[/21], 1624), GStA PK BPH, rep. 32, V nr. 19.
24 His credentials and instructions are not known, but the diplomat was granted money for travel expenses on August 19, 1624; Béla Radvánszky, ed., “Bethlen Gábor fejedelem udvartartása,” vol. 1 of Udvartartás és számadáskönyvek (Budapest: Magyar Történelmi Társulat, 1888), 189. On the failure of the mission, see the proposition of Piotr Szyszkowski to Georg Wilhelm (October 3, 1624) GStA PK BPH W nr. 65a fols. 4–6.; and the instructions of Sigismund III, king of Poland to Samuel Targowski (Warsaw, September [day missing], 1624), Sándor Szilágyi, “A ‘Collectio Camerariana’-ból,” Történelmi Tár 6 (1883): 222–23; as well as the account of János Kemény, “Önéletírása,” in Kemény János és Bethlen Miklós művei, ed. Éva V. Windisch (Magyar remekírók) (Budapest: Szépirodalmi, 1980), 51. Bethlen’s instructions survived in a copy at Archiwum Główne Akt Dawnych (Warsaw, henceforth AGAD) Metryka Koronna Libri Legationum, vol. 29, 328–39.
25 On his stay in Brandenburg, see the sources cited in footnote 14. He arrived at Nienburg on October 26, 1625 and continued his journey on the 29th;; see Rasmus Nyerup, ed., Kong Christian des Fjerdes Dagbøger for Aarene 1618, 1619, 1620, 1625, 1635 (Copenhagen: Brummer, 1825), 144; also the letter of Chistian IV to Gábor Bethlen (Nienburg, October 19[/29], 1625) Vilmos Fraknói, “Bethlen Gábor és IV. Keresztély dán király (1625–1628): Közlemények a koppenhágai kir. levéltárból,” Történelmi Tár 4 (1881): 98. Quadt dated his letter to Georg Wilhelm from Bremen on October 21 [November 1], 1625; GStA PK I. HA rep. 24 a, nr. 2, fasc. 32. On his arrival in The Hague, see the letter of Ludwig Camerarius to Axel Oxenstierna (The Hague, November 5/15, 1625), Magnus Gottfrid Schybergson, ed., Sveriges och Hollands diplomatiska förbindelser 1621–1630 (Helsingfors: Finska Litteratur Sällskap, 1881), 331. On January 9, 1626, he was already on his way back when he again travelled through the camp of Christian IV, this time in Rotenburg, in the company of Camerarius, who was heading for Sweden, see Nyerup, Kong Christian des Fjerdes Dagbøger, 150.
26 See the letter of Christian IV to Bethlen (Wolfenbüttel, May 30 [/June 9], 1626), Fraknói, “Bethlen Gábor,” 101–2. On Quadt’s journey to Berlin, see the letter of Bethlen to Adam von Schwarzenberg (Kézdivásárhely, April 19, 1626) and the latter’s reply (Kassa, April 25 [/May 5], 1626), GStA PK BPH rep. 33, W, nr. 65, vol. 4, unnumbered page after fol. 137, resp. ibid, nr. 65a, vol. 5, fol. 200r.
27 See the letter of Matthias Quadt to Gustavus Adolphus (Berlin, June 15[/25], 1626), RA(S) Transylvanica, vol. 1, nr. 5. The Swedish king reproached a Brandenburg secret councilor, Samuel von Winterfeld that his lord would not allow Bethlen’s envoy travel to him, see Winterfeld’s report to Georg Wilhelm (Berlin, July 27 [/August 6]), GStA PK I. HA rep. 11. Auswärtige Beziehungen: Akten nr. 9302.
28 On his arrival at The Hague, see the letter of Ludwig Camerarius to Axel Oxenstierna, and to Johann Joachim Rusdorf (The Hague, August 16/26, 1626) Schybergson, Sveriges och Hollands diplomatiska förbindelser, 430; resp. Bayerische Staatsbibliothek (Munich, henceforth BSB) Clm 10375, fols. 232–33. Quadt’s stay in London can be reconstructed from the letters of Rusdorf to Frederick V and to Axel Oxenstierna, and the reports of Alvise Contarini to the Doge of Venice: Ernst Wilhelm Cuhn, ed., Memoires et negociations secretes de Mr. de Rusdorf conseiller d’etat de S.M. Frederich V. Roi de Boheme, Electeur Palatin, pour servir á l’histoire de la guerre de trente ans, vol. 1 (Leipzig: Weygand, 1789), 748–88; vol. 2, 251–307; resp. Lipót Óváry, ed., Oklevéltár Bethlen Gábor diplomácziai összeköttetései történetéhez a velenczei állami levéltárban Mircse János által eszközölt másolatokból (Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, 1886), 798–804. See also the letters of Rusdorf to Gábor Bethlen and Paul Strassburg (London, 3[/13], resp. December 4[/14], 1626) Judit P. Vásárhelyi, “Johann Joachim Rusdorf válogatott levelei,” Lymbus: Művelődéstörténeti Tár 3 (1991): 127, 168. For the dates of the signatures by the Staten Generaal and Christian IV, see their clauses in the treaty, edited by Sándor Szilágyi, Adalékok Bethlen Gábor szövetkezéseinek történetéhez (Budapest: Eggenberger, 1873), 89–93. See also Piri, “Bethlen Gábor,” 173–75.
29 Gábor Bethlen refers to this late delivery of the treaties in his resolutio given to Christian Wilhelm, Margrave of Brandenburg and Administrator of Magdeburg ([August 1627]), as well as in a letter to unknown (Gyulafehérvár, August 19, 1627) Anton Gindely, ed., Okmánytár Bethlen Gábor fejedelem uralkodása történetéhez (Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, 1890), 472–73; resp. Imre Nagy et al., ed., Hazai okmánytár, vol. 4 (Győr: Sauervein, 1867), 470.
30 See the edition of his proposition in Berlin in September 1625, or his speech in The Hague the same year: Szilágyi, “A ‘Collectio Camerariana’-ból,” 237–43; resp. Ludovici Camerarii I.C. aliorumque epistolae nuper post pugnam maritinam in Suedica navi capta captae a victore Polono… (S. l.: s. n., 1627), 34–48.
31 “… vir optimus and mihi amicus”, see the letter of Camerarius to Axel Oxenstierna (The Hague, December 9/19, 1624) Schybergson, Sveriges och Hollands diplomatiska förbindelser, 119.
32 The anonymous account claims that “[der Fürst hat Quadt] stattlich unndt fast fürstlich begraben laßen”, and Caspar Dornau (Dornavius) had a similar formulation in his letter to Friedrich Pruckmann, chancellor of Brandenburg ([Breslau], December 31, 1628 [/January 10, 1629]): “splendida pompa in crypta depositus;” GStA PK BPH rep. 33. W nr. 70, fol. 32r, resp. ibid. I. HA rep. 21, nr. 136 g, vol. 1. The details of the funeral are described in the anonymous account, which also notes the suspicion concerning poisoning. This is also confirmed by the information of János Kemény, who writes that Quadt’s dissection made sick and eventually killed the doctor commissioned with it, see Kemény, “Önéletírása,” 51–52. The legacy of the German soldier diplomat was sent back to his family by Bethlen, see the letter of Princess Luise Juliana of Orange-Nassau to the prince (Cölln an der Spree, January 4[/14], 1629) Sándor Szilágyi, “Levelek és okiratok Bethlen Gábor utolsó évei történetéhez (1627–1629),” Történelmi Tár 10 (1887): 19.
33 Letter of Martin Opitz to Martin Schödel (Paris, May 14, 1630), Martin Opitz, Briefwechsel und Lebenszeugnisse: Kritische Edition mit Übersetzung, ed. Klaus Conermann, vol. 2 (Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 2009), 800–1 (no. 300514 ep). Strangely enough, the editor left the question of Dreiling’s origins open, citing also the statement of a part of earlier literature, which suggested that he might have been a Transylvanian Saxon; in spite of the fact that both the letter’s text and the June 5, 1615 entry in the Heidelberg university register, quoted also by Conermann (“Heinricus Dreilingius Sagano-Silesius”), unambiguously point to his Silesian birth; cf. ibid., 806, commentary no. 13. On Opitz’s stay in Transylvania, see Martin Szyrocki, Martin Opitz, 2nd ed. (Munich: Beck, 1974), 51–56; János Heltai, “Martin Opitz und sein intellektuelles Umfeld in Siebenbürgen,” in Martin Opitz 1597–1639: Fremdheit und Gegenwärtigkeit einer geschichtlichen Persönlichkeit, ed. Jörg-Ulrich Fechner and Wolfgang Kessler (Herne: Stiftung Martin-Opitz-Bibliothek, 2006), 79–103.
34 See the following letters: Gustavus Adolphus to Gábor Bethlen (Camp near Dirschau, July 14[/24], 1626), RA(S) Riksregistraturet (henceforth RR) vol. 156, fols. 23–25; Ludwig Camerarius to Axel Oxenstierna (The Hague, October 1, 1626), Schybergson, Sveriges och Hollands diplomatiska förbindelser, 449; Gábor Bethlen to Gustavus Adolphus (September [without day], 1627), Szilágyi, “Oklevelek,” 240. The capture of Dreiling was later used by Gustavus Adolphus in his legitimation for entering the war, see Anna Maria Forssberg, “Arguments of War: Norm and Information Systems in Sweden and France during the Thirty Years War,” in Organizing History: Studies in Honour of Jan Glete, ed. Anna Maria Forssberg et al. (Lund: Nordic Academic Press, 2011), 151.
35 In a later dispatch, Cornelis Haga referred to him as to an old friend; see his letters to Weikhard Schulitz (Constantinople, January 22 and May 30, 1630), as well as the letter of Dreiling to Catherine of Brandenburg (Constantinople, April 14, 1630), all published in –a –a (the author’s pseudonym), “Brandenburgi Katalin és a diplomáczia,” Történelmi Tár 18 (1895): 219; Történelmi Tár 21 (1898): 527; resp. Történelmi Tár 2 (1897): 715–17.
36 On his 1632 mission, see the letter of Gustavus Adolphus to György Rákóczi I (Augsburg, May 18[/28], 1632), Szilágyi, Okirattár, 52. His stay in Vienna is documented by the letter of F. Hofmüller to Johann Georg Purcher (Vienna, May 9, 1646), Österreichisches Staarsarchiv, Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv (Vienna, henceforth HHStA) Ungarische Akten: Allgemeine Akten, fasc. 175, fol. 199. Hofmüller explains that they could not find the copy of the agreement between Bethlen and Gustavus Adolphus, which was taken from the prince’s envoy in 1626. Thus, he sent for Dreiling, who brought a copy of the document himself.
37 From among the personalities discussed here, Weikhard Schulitz is the only one who has been dedicated a biographical study, which nevertheless does not even cover all the sources that were available in print at the time of writing; see Karl Kurt Klein, “Weighard Schulitz: Ein Gönner und Freund des Dichters Martin Opitz, Leibarzt und Berater des siebenbürgischen Fürsten Gabriel Bethlen,” Siebenbürgische Vierteljahrschrift 54 (1931): 1–26.
38 The birth year of Schulitz is given as 1599 by the earliest source, the Silesia Togata of Johann Heinrich Cunradi (1706), but we can agree with the doubts expressed by Klein, who suggested 1590, found in a secondary source, as the correct date; cf. Klein, “Weighard Schulitz,” 2–5. Even if we accept the earlier birth year, Schulitz must have had great talent if he managed to attain the prominent position among Bethlen’s physicians at such a young age. His noble origins are attested by the surname “von Schulitz(au)” given to him in German correspondence; see many examples in –a –a, “Brandenburgi Katalin.” The first trace of his presence in Transylvania is a book dedication from Opitz to him on June 8, 1623; see Leonard Forster, “Opitziana im Brukenthal-Museum Sibiu/Hermannstadt, RSR,” Wolfenbütteler Barock-Nachrichten 3 (1976): 254–55.
39 The actual causes of Schulitz’s disgrace are not known. The anonymous account cited in footnote 32 noted three possible reasons: he either revealed political secrets to a Hungarian lady with whom he was on familiar terms; chose the wrong side in a conflict between the Hungarian and German ladies at Catherine of Brandenburg’s court; or he insulted the princely consort. This account, as well as the letter of Caspar Dornau to Friedrich von Pruckmann, cited ibidem, state that he could only avoid a harsher punishment because the Administrator of Brandenburg, who was in Transylvania at that time, intervened on his behalf. On his revocation, see the letters of Dornau to Pruckmann (s. l., April 29 [/May 9],  and Breslau, October 7[/17], 1629), GStA PK I. HA rep. 21, nr. 136 h, vol. 4, resp. VIII.
40 Kemény, “Önéletírása,” 136. On the medical activity of Schulitz as well as his manuscript Discursus de Acidularum et Thermarum usu in Hydrope, see István Weszprémi, Magyarország és Erdély orvosainak rövid életrajza: Első száz, trans. Aladár Kővári (Budapest: Medicina, 1960), 329; Klein, “Weighard Schulitz,” 12–16.
41 The following sources serve as the mission’s documentation: Bethlen’s credentials to Schulitz for Georg Wilhelm, as well as Anna, dowager electrice of Brandenburg (Segesvár, March 4, 1625), Sándor Szilágyi, “Levelek és acták Bethlen Gábor uralkodása történetéhez 1620–1629 között,” Történelmi Tár 9 (1886): 628; resp. GStA PK BPH rep. 33, W nr. 62, fol. 11r; report on the talks with Schulitz (April 1625), as well as the letters of Listhius to Georg Wilhelm ([April 1625]) and his counselors (Frankfurt an der Oder, April 25, 1625), Szabó, “Bethlen Gábor,” 647–53, 641, resp. 642–43.
42 See the letter of Weikhard Schulitz to Gábor Bethlen (Berlin, August 13[/23], 1625) Ágoston Ötvös, “Brandenburgi Katalin fejedelemsége,” Magyar Akadémiai Értesítő: A Törvény- és Történettudományi Osztályok Közlönye 2, no. 2 (1861): 209–10. The credentials given to Schulitz by Bethlen for Georg Wilhelm also survived, as well as the prince’s answer to the elector’s letter (both under the date Gyulafehérvár, June 25, 1625), GStA PK BPH rep. 33, W, nr. 62, fol. 20, resp. 15–17.
43 See the credentials of Gábor Bethlen to Schulitz for Georg Wilhelm (Gyulafehérvár, December 16, 1625), GStA PK BPH, rep. 33, W, nr. 62, fol. 175r. On his arrival, see the minutes of the secret council of Brandenburg (January 12[/22] and 14[/24], 1626), GStA PK I. HA, rep. 21, 127 m, vol. II 6v, resp. 7v–8r. The latter mentions that the preparations for Schulitz’s audience, who came on an issue separate from the marriage, are under way. Unfortunately, we have no source about the audience itself, or the content of Schulitz’s third mission.
44 On the political turmoil under the rule of Catherine of Brandenburg, see Éva Deák, “ ‘Princeps non Principissa’: Catherine of Brandenburg, Elected Prince of Transylvania (1629–1630),” in The Rule of Women in Early Modern Europe, ed. Anne J. Cruz and Mihoko Suzuki (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2009), 80–99.
45 Knesebeck’s note on a letter of Schulitz to Georg Wilhelm (Munkács, June 1, 1630), –a –a, “Brandenburgi Katalin,” Történelmi Tár 21 (1898): 671.
46 It is unclear whether Catherine had any share in the assassination of Schulitz. The best informed source, the autobiography of János Kemény, suggests so; see Kemény, “Önéletírása,” 136. Several other chroniclers nevertheless state that the princess was not even aware that the Silesian doctor had been murdered and was told that he fell out of the boat when crossing the river; see Georg Kraus, Siebenbürgische Chronik des schässburger Stadtschreibers Georg Kraus 1608–1665, vol. 1 (Vienna: Kaiserlich-Königliche Hof- und Staatsdruckerei, 1862), 85; Joseph Trausch, ed., Chronicon Fuchsio-Lupino-Oltardinum sive Annales Hungarici et Transilvanici, vol. 1 (Coronae: Gött, 1847), 312. The chronicles offer contradictory information about the date of the assassination; the terminus post quem is provided by the registries of Brassó, according to which Schulitz was the town’s guest on December 8–9; it was from here that he started his fatal journey; cf. Arhivele Naţionale ale României Direcţia Judeţeană Braşov, Primăria oraşului Braşov, Socotele alodiale V/19, 814. Cornelis Haga, not much after having most probably met Schulitz personally in Constantinople, wrote to Ludwig Camerarius that the princess had alienated her counselor with her growing sympathies towards the Habsburgs (Constantinople, October 26, 1630), BSB Clm 10369, no. 295.
47 On their negotiations in Constantinople, see their letters to Gábor Bethlen (Constantinople, May 15, June 16 and 25, 1629), Áron Szilády and Sándor Szilágyi, ed., Török–magyarkori állam-okmánytár, vol. 2 (Pest: Eggenberger, 1868), 104–8, 116–7, 125; as well as the reports of Sebastiano Vener, the Venetian bailo to the Doge (Vigne di Pera, May 12, May 26, July 25 and August 4, 1629), Óváry, Oklevéltár, 752–66. The documents related to their journey to Moscow, together with a description of their audience are published by János Supala and Kálmán Géresi, “Talleyrand és Roussel követsége az orosz czárhoz,” Történelmi Tár 10 (1887): 53–78. Boris F. Porshnev regards the mission as promising, see his Muscovy and Sweden in the Thirty Years’ War (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 35; for further biographical details on Roussel, see 79–80.
48 The most detailed biography of Roussel, available in published form is in Gédéon Tallemant des Réaux, Historiettes, vol. 2, ed. Antoine Adam (Paris: Gallimard, 1961), 187–89, and 1056–58 (Adam’s notes). Many further details are provided by the manuscript “Kurtzer und einfältiger Bericht deß Jacob Roussels leben, reysen, handel...” BSB Clm 10416, nr. 78–79. Further biographical data about both of them are offered by the letter of Sebastiano Venier to the Doge (Vigne di Pera, August 4, 1629), Óváry, Oklevéltár, 766; as well as by the letter of Johann Rudolf Schmid to Ferdinand II (Constantinople, August 26, 1634) HHStA Türkei I, Kt. 114, F fasc. 85/b, conv. A, fol. 48r. See also Gunnar Hering, Ökumenisches Patriarchat und europäische Politik 1620–1638 (Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1968), 214.
49 Szekfű, Bethlen Gábor, 271.
50 See the captivated description of Roussel in Paul Strassburg’s report to Gustavus Adolphus ([early 1630]), Szilágyi, “Oklevelek,” 274–75.
51 On his Swedish service, see David Norrman, Gustav Adolfs politik mot Ryssland och Polen under tyska kriget (1630–1632) (Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1943), 34–41. Roussel had already written letters from France to the Swedish king in 1627–1628, RA(S) Skrivelser till konungen Gustaf II Adolfs tid vol. 29. See also his letters to Axel Oxenstierna: RA(S) Oxenstiernasamlingen E 700. His letters to the Cossacks (Riga, July 25, 1631) and to the Polish estates (Riga, January 1 and February 20, 1632) are found in HHStA Polen I, kt. 54, konv. 1631, fols. 24–26; konv. 1632 Jänner, fols. 1–5., illetve konv. 1632 März, fols. 8–11; another letter of his to Aleksandr Korwin Gosiewski (Riga, August 7, 1631) at AGAD Archiwum Koronne Warszawskie, Dzieł szwedzkie 8b/28.
52 On the Dutch commission, see the “Kurtzer … Bericht” BSB Clm 10416, fols. 342–44; as well as the letter of Axel Oxenstierna to the State Council (Frankfurt am Main, July 12[/22], 1633), Herman Brulin, ed., Rikskansleren Axel Oxenstiernas skrifter och brefvexling, ser. 1, vol. 9: Bref 1633 juni–september (Stockholm: Norstedt, 1946), 176. On the second journey to Constantinople, see Hering, Ökumenisches Patriarchat, 246, n. 126. On the denial of entry to Transylvania, see the letters of György Rákóczi I to Mihály Tholdalagi and to Cornelis Haga (Gyulafehérvár, March 10, resp. June 10, 1635) Szilády and Szilágyi, Török–magyarkori állam-okmánytár, 232, resp. 236. On his death, see Tallemant des Réaux, Historiettes, 189.
53 On the opinion of Gustavus Adolphus, see Normann, Gustav Adolfs politik, 35–37. The skeptical attitude of Axel Oxenstierna is well illustrated by his letters to the king (Elbing, December 14[/24], 1630 and January 17, 1631), Herman Brulin, ed., Rikskansleren Axel Oxenstiernas skrifter och brefvexling, ser. 1, vol. 5: Bref 1630 (Stockholm: Norstedt, 1915), 730; resp. vol. 6: Bref 1631 (Stockholm: Norstedt, 1918), 53.
54 See the complaints concerning Mikes in the letters of Cornelis Haga to Gábor Bethlen (Constantinople, June 15, 1629), Szilády and Szilágyi, Török–magyarkori állam-okmánytár, 114.
55 On the earlier career of Agazza, see the Venetian council registers from June 28, 1621, Óváry, Oklevéltár, 41. Bethlen sent Italian envoys to Venice also on other occasions, but we know nothing of Alessandro Lucio’s background, only that represented the prince without any fellow diplomats in 1621. Daniel Nĳs, a Flemish merchant, well known art dealer and political mediator also played an important part in representing the prince’s interests in Venice. On his person, see Maartje van Gelder, Trading Places: The Netherlandish Merchants in Early Modern Venice (Leiden: Brill, 2009). On their contact, apart from the data in Óváry, Oklevéltár, see also Bethlen’s letters to János Pálóczi Horváth (Fogaras, March 25, 1629 and Balázsfalva, May 17, 1629), Szilágyi, “Levelek és okiratok,” 21, resp. 26.
56 Kasper Niesiecki, Herbarz polski, vol. 10 (Leipzig: Breitkopf und Härtel, 1845), 31. For this information I am grateful to Dariusz Milewski.
57 Zaklika talked about his contacts with Radziwiłł in the interrogation protocol after his arrest; see GStA PK BPH, rep. 33 W, nr. 63, fols. 80r–v, 113v–114r, 118v. His information was also confirmed by the letters of Fabian von Czemen, the castellan in Danzig (Behnhof, January 9[/19], 1626), as well as of Christoph von Dohna (Carweide(?),January 1[/11], 1626) ibid., fols. 31v, 33r. On the network of Radziwiłł, see Adam Szęlagowski, Śląsk i Polska wobec powstania czeskiego (Lwów: Połoniecki, 1904), 17–23.
58 See the interrogation protocol: GStA PK BPH rep. 33, W, nr. 63, fols. 113r–v; as well as the dispatch of Ludwig Camerarius to Axel Oxenstierna (The Hague, May 6/16, 1625), who wrote that Bethlen sent a “Polonus vir bonus” to Frederick V, see Schybergson, Sveriges och Hollands diplomatiska förbindelser, 219.
59 See the letter of Christian IV to Gábor Bethlen (Nienburg, November 16[/26], 1625) Fraknói, “Bethlen Gábor,” 98; as well as Nyerup, Kong Christian des Fjerdes Dagbøger, 147. On his stay in Brandenburg, see the letters of Adam von Schwarzenberg to Levin von dem Knesebeck (Küstrin, October 26 and 28 [/november 5 and 7], 1625), as well as his later account ([early December 1625], GStA PK BPH rep. 33, W, nr. 63, fols. 14r–16r, 21v; resp. 2r–8r. He had his audience with Georg Wilhelm on November 5, as is clear from the note written on the credentials given to him by Bethlen (Várad, September 16, 1625), ibid., fol. 12.
60 See the letter of Gábor Bethlen to Georg Wilhelm (Várad, January 30, 1626), and the response of Georg Wilhelm about the release of Zaklika (Cölln an der Spree, March 3[/13], 1626), GStA PK BPH rep. 33, W nr. 63, fol. 47, resp. 163. For further details on Zaklika’s arrest, see Gábor Kármán, “Külföldi diplomaták Bethlen Gábor szolgálatában,” in Bethlen Gábor és Európa, ed. Gábor Kármán and Kees Teszelszky (Budapest: ELTE BTK Középkori és Kora Újkori Magyar Történeti Tanszék–Transylvania Emlékeiért Tudományos Egyesület, 2013), 170–81.
61 See Gábor Bethlen’s letter to Georg Wilhelm (Gyulafehérvár, June 25 [/July 5], 1626), Szilágyi, “Levelek és acták,” 658; and the minutes of the Brandenburg Secret Council from July 6[/16], 1626, GStA PK I. HA rep. 21, nr. 127 m, vol. 2, fol. 155r.
62 See the letter of Adam von Schwarzenberg to Friedrich Pruckmann (Jägersburg, September 1[/11], 1626), GStA PK I. HA . 21, nr. 136 f, vol. 4, fol. 31v–32r. Gustavus Adolphus also referred to Beckmann’s mission in his letter to Gábor Bethlen (“Lissoviae”, October 20[/30], 1626), RA(S) RR vol. 156, fol. 193. On the Danish mission, see the letter of Christian IV to Gábor Bethlen (Wolfenbüttel, July 16[/26], 1626), RA(K) TKUA AD 1-10 Latina fol. 172v–173r.
63 On the origins of the diplomats of the Swedish Crown, see Heiko Droste, Im Dienst der Krone: Schwedische Diplomaten im 17. Jahrhundert (Berlin: LIT, 2006), 86.
64 Friedrich Hermann Schubert, Ludwig Camerarius 1573–1651: Eine Biographie, Münchener historische Studien. Abteilung Neuere Geschichte 1 (Kallmünz: Lassleben, 1955), 242–65.
65 See the resolutio given by Frederick V for the mission of Jan Adam z Víckova (The Hague, April 12[/22], 1624), Odložilík, Z korespondence, 173–77.
66 Arne Jönsson, “Introduction,” in Rikskansleren Axel Oxenstiernas skrifter och brefvexling, ser. 2, vol. 13, ed. Arne Jönsson (Stockholm: Norstedt, 2007), 11–14.
67 See the biography of Strassburg by Magnus Mörner, “Paul Straßburg, ein Diplomat aus der Zeit des Dreißigjährigen Krieges,” Südost-Forschungen 15 (1956): 327–63. For the reference on him as a diplomat of Catherine, see the letter of Georg Wilhelm to his counselors (Königsberg, October 20/30, 1627), GStA PK BPH, rep. 33 W, nr. 80, fol. 9r. See also his Bestallung on the occasion of going to Swedish service (Dirschau, July 16[/26], 1628), RA(S) RR vol. 161, fols. 162v–163r.
68 The information that Georg Wilhelm entrusted to Quadt was actually quite important that when a French envoy had visited him some time before, the elector gave him, apart from the official, evasive answer, a resolutio in which he committed himself for the Protestant cooperation against the emperor, see the proposal submitted by Quadt to Christian IV ([October 1625]) RA(K) TKUA SD 12-20 Brandenburg. On the diplomatic task, see also the letter of Christian IV to Georg Wilhelm (Nienburg, October 20[/30], 1625), GStA PK I. HA, rep. 24 a, nr. 2, fasc. 21.; as well as the letters of Matthias Quadt to Georg Wilhelm and Levin von dem Knesebeck (Bremen, October 21 [/November 1], 1625), ibid., fasc. 32. See also the discussion leading to this solution in the minutes of the Secret Council: GStA PK I. HA rep. 21. Nr. 127 m vol. I. fol. 59r–v, resp. 65r–v.
69 In the same period, there are also examples of a somewhat different type of “dual ambassador,” such as that of Sir Robert Arnstruther, who visited Frederick V on behalf of the English and Danish crowns during 1624 and 1625; see Steve Murdoch, “Scottish Ambassadors and British Diplomacy 1618–1635,” in Scotland and the Thirty Years War, ed. Steve Murdoch (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 30.
70 See Sándor Szilágyi, Georg Rákóczy I. im dreissigjährigen Kriege 1630–1640: Mit Urkunden aus schwedischen und ungarischen Archiven (Budapest: Kilián, 1883); as well as idem, “Georg Rákóczy I. und die Diplomatie,” Literarische Berichte aus Ungarn 2 (1878): 402–17. On Dreiling, see footnote 36. On Meerbott, see Noémi Viskolcz, Reformációs könyvek: Tervek az evangélikus egyház megújítására (Budapest: OSZK and Universitas, 2006), 78–80. On Bisterfeld’s diplomatic actitivies, see eadem, “Johann Heinrich Bisterfeld: Ein Professor als Vermittler zwischen West und Ost an der siebenbürgischen Akademie in Weißenburg, 1630–1655,” in Calvin und Reformiertentum in Ungarn und Siebenbürgen: Helvetisches Bekenntnis, Ethnie und Politik vom 16. Jahrhundert bis 1918, ed. Márta Fata and Anton Schindling (Münster: Aschendorff, 2010), 204–6. On Boncziday, see footnote 10. On Csontos, see his oration to Gustavus Adolphus () Wibling, “Magyarország történetét érdeklő okiratok,” 457–58; as well as the list he submitted to the elector of Saxony, RA(S) Transylvanica, vol. 1, nr. 123/1.2. On Balázs Bálintffy, see the letter of György Rákóczi I to Heinrich Meerbott (Gyulafehérvár, June 4, 1634), RA(S) Transsylvanica, vol. 1, nr. 129/1.
71 On Dániel, see Judit Balogh, “A vargyasi Daniel család karrierjének kezdetei,” Történelmi Szemle 51, no. 3 (2009): 351. On his diplomatic activities, see Gábor Kármán, “The Hardship of Being an Ottoman Tributary: Transylvania at the Peace Congress of Westphalia,” in Frieden und Konfliktmanagement in interkulturellen Räumen: Das Osmanische Reich und Europa (16–18. Jahrhundert), ed. Arno Strohmeyer and Norbert Spannenberger (Stuttgart: Steiner, 2013) 163–83.
72 From among the diplomats of the Rákóczis, there is only one, Ferenc Sebesi, whose biography has been written, see Ildikó Horn, “Sebesi Ferenc – egy erdélyi diplomata,” in Scripta manent: Ünnepi tanulmányok a 60. életévét betöltött Gerics József professzor tiszteletére, ed. István Draskóczy (Budapest: ELTE, 1994), 199–205. On the political activities of the others, István Dalmádi, Miklós Jakabfalvi, György Mednyánszky, and István Szentpáli, see Gábor Kármán, Erdélyi külpolitika a vesztfáliai béke után (Budapest: L’Harmattan, 2011), 129–32, 318–26, 181–90, resp. 94–95.
73 On the details of their activity, see Graeme Murdock, Calvinism on the Frontier 1600–1660: International Calvinism and the Reformed Church in Hungary and Transylvania (Oxford: Clarendon, 2000), 279–80; Kármán, Erdélyi külpolitika, 354–64; resp. Sven Ingemar Olofsson, Efter Westfaliska freden: Sveriges yttre politik 1650–1654 (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1957), 214–22; Kármán, Erdélyi külpolitika, 313–14.