Login

Published by: Institute of History, Research Centre for the Humanities, Hungarian Academy of Sciences

The History of the Macsó and Barancs Territories until 1316pdf

Bálint Ternovácz

Budapest City Archives

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. 

Hungarian Historical Review Volume 14 Issue 1 (2025): 127-146 DOI 10.38145/2025.1.127

In the early thirteenth century, the Kingdom of Hungary took control of the northern Balkan territories situated between the Drina, Sava, and Danube Rivers. This region was known as Trans-Syrmia or Sirmia Ulterior, though Southern Slavic sources commonly referred to it simply as Syrmia. At the time, this name referred to all the land south of Hungary’s borders and east of the Drina, without clearly defined boundaries. Apart from a brief period in the 1270s when forming banates was attempted, these lands were controlled by the women of the Árpád dynasty and their husbands until 1319. In 1284, the former King of Serbia, Dragutin was granted Macsó, along with Bosnia, Belgrade, and Barancs-Kucsó, and attempted to establish a vassal state of Hungary. After his death in 1316, his son Vladislav lost control, allowing King Milutin of Serbia to seize Macsó. In response, King Charles I of Hungary launched a military campaign, reclaiming the territory by 1319 and reinstating the banate and the title of ban was then given to Hungarian noble families as an honor. This study examines the history and administration of the territories known in secondary literature as the Banate of Macsó and Barancs, covering the period up to 1319 and the military campaigns of King Charles I of Hungary.

Keywords: Syrmia, Macsó, Kingdom of Hungary, Serbia, Angevin dynasty

The interest of the Kingdom of Hungary in the territory of the northern Balkans, bordered by the Drina, Sava, and Danube Rivers, reached the point of military expansion at the end of the twelfth century, as the Hungarian crown was able to take advantage of Byzantine internal struggles following the death of Byzantine Emperor Manuel Komnenos (1143–1180). These territories, known as the Trans-Syrmia or Macsó (Mačva in Serbian) and Barancs (Braničevo in Serbian), began to come into closer contact with the Kingdom of Hungary in the early thirteenth century. With the exception of the 1270s (when an attempt was made to turn the territories south of the Sava-Danube line into a so-called banate, i.e. a frontier province governed by a governor or “ban”), the women of the Árpád dynasty and their husbands held these lands until 1319.

Research into the history of the area is complicated by the fact that there is no known surviving archival source base in the archives in Serbia and Bulgaria. We can reconstruct the events of the more than one hundred years covered in this paper mainly on the basis of Hungarian source material. Narrative sources, such as the Chronicle of Antivari or the work of Serbian Archbishop Danilo II,1 make only passing mention of the areas under study. In the discussion below, I reconstruct the history of the administration of the territories referred to in the secondary literature as the Banate of Macsó and Barancs from the beginning until 1319, until the military campaigns of King Charles I of Hungary (1310–1342).

The Banate of Macsó in Hungarian and South Slavic Historiography

The history and archontology of the banate and bans of Macsó were first dealt with by Frigyes Pesty in his study published in 1875.2 The first monograph that dealt with the subject was an introductory study to the source publication compiled by Lajos Thallóczy and Antal Áldásy on the connections between Hungary and Serbia, published in 1907.3 In this study, however, the Macsó region was mentioned more as a place of diplomacy or warfare between the Hungarian kings and the Serbian rulers, without no discussion whatsoever of the process by which the territories south of the Sava River, surrounded by the Kolubara and the Drina Rivers, were organized into a Hungarian dependent territory in the thirteenth century. Thallóczy attempted to describe the topography of the Macsó province, and regarding this I would like to emphasize two main issues. In his opinion, the Macsó region extended across the Drina River, and he also included parts of Inner Syrmia and Szávaszentdemeter (today Sremska Mitrovica, Serbia). Another noteworthy detail concerning Thallóczy’s map is the location of the castle of Macsó, which he placed on the site of the present-day settlement of Valjevo.4 Alongside the introductory study to this source publication, the work of Lajos Faragó, published in 1911 in the Kaposvár State High School’s newsletter, also merits mention.5 The most recent comprehensive article on the history of Macsó in Hungarian was the encyclopedic glossary of the archaeological background of Macsó, written by Péter Rokay and Miklós Takács,6 which, being a glossary, does not contain the findings of independent research but rather offers a summary of the accepted conclusions of the existing secondary literature, mainly from the South Slavic territories. Other Hungarian researchers have touched on the thirteenth-century history of Macsó, of course, but not a single monograph has been written on the subject in the last hundred years. South Slavic (mainly Serbian) historians have shown much greater interest in the medieval history of the Macsó region. This increased interest is understandable, as the former Macsó region was and still is the province of Mačva, which was liberated from Ottoman occupation and is part of present day Serbia. I would like to highlight the work of two historians from among the writings by many South Slavic researchers. In doing so, I summarize the findings of South Slavic historians on Macsó.

Chronologically, the first work on which I focus was written by Mihajlo Dinić about the areas inhabited by Serbs in the Middle Ages.7 Although he dealt with the history of the name of Trans-Syrmia, which was used as the name of the territories south of the Sava River before the name Macsó appeared and was used from the mid-thirteenth century onwards, Dinić mainly focused on the reign of Dragutin in Syrmia (Srijem in Serbian).8 According to him, the Hungarians named the region Macsó, either because they already had a county called Syrmia (which was organically linked to the kingdom, as the county structure had already been formed) or because they wanted to name the newly acquired territory after its center.9 According to Dinić, Belgrade was part of Banate of Macsó when it was organized in the 1270s.10 He also described how the Serbian king Stephen Dragutin received the territory of Macsó after losing his throne,11 along with Usora, Soli, and Bosnia, from the Hungarian king Ladislas IV after June 11, 1284.12 Along with Macsó, Belgrade also fell into the hands of Dragutin, who then established his residence there.13 The territories ruled by Dragutin were called “the Syrmia territories” by his Serbian contemporaries, and Dragutin himself was called Stephen of Syrmia.14 Before the 1970s, the view that Dragutin had also ruled the inner parts of Syrmia was accepted in the Serbian secondary literature, but this notion was refuted in 1978 by Mihajlo Dinić.

Another noteworthy historical work on thirteenth-century Macsó in the South Slavic historiography is Sima Ćirković’s study published in 2008.15 According to Ćirković, present-day northern Serbia came into Hungarian hands in the late twelfth century.16 The province of Macsó as an institution had no Byzantine antecedents.17 The Byzantine administrative arrangement, with imperial offices and ecclesiastical centers in the larger cities, may have been preserved; the largest settlement may have been Sirmium around 1020. Referring to Byzantine sources, Ćirković claims that in the twelfth century not only Zimony (today Zemun in Serbia, north of the Sava River) but also Bács (today Bač in Serbia) on the left bank of the Danube was included in the territory of Syrmia.18 According to him, the names Inner-Syrmia19 and Trans-Syrmia,20 which referred to the area between the Danube River and the Sava River, and the area between the Drina, Sava, and Kolubara Rivers, may have been created at this time, around the eleventh and twelfth centuries, and clearly represented a Hungarian perspective.21 Among the Serbs, in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, the name Syrmia was used to refer to the area south of the Sava River, while among Hungarians, the name Syrmia was used only to refer to the Syrmia County between the Danube River and the Sava River. The Byzantine tradition, according to Ćirković, was established in Hungarian circles after the foundation of the bishopric of Syrmia in 1229, according to which the name Syrmia was used to refer to territories on both banks of the Sava River.22 The castle of Macsó could have stood there, hence the name of the area,23 but it is not possible to identify the precise location of the castle on the basis of archaeological or archival sources. Ćirković refutes Thallóczy’s view that the castle of Macsó would have been on the site of the present-day settlement of Valjevo. He does not attempt to pinpoint its exact location, but he explains that the castle could have been closer to Szávaszentdemeter than to Debrc, the center of Dragutin.24

According to him, the name Macsó was only used by the Hungarians. It does not appear in Serbian or Byzantine sources, and neither does Belgrade. The Orthodox Church sources mentioned only Sirmium as the suffragan bishopric of the Archbishop of Ohrid.25 He contends that in the early thirteenth century the region south of the Sava River was granted to Margaret, daughter of King Béla III, who was mentioned as the lady of Macsó. This territory had no defined borders. It extended as far as the Serbian territory of the Nemanjić dynasty.26 After the Mongol invasion, the province was given to Anna, daughter of King Béla IV of Hungary, and her husband Rostislav Mihailovich (who was then Duke of Macsó), and after Rostislav’s death in 1263, their sons Michael and Béla were given the title of Dukes of Macsó. Duke Béla was murdered in 1272, after which the bans of Macsó and Bosnia and the bans of Barancs and Kucsó appeared in the charters, while between 1280 and 1284 Queen Elizabeth was recorded as the duchess of Macsó and Bosnia.27 Ćirković did not analyze the reign of Dragutin in detail.

The most recent study of the medieval territorial extent of Macsó and the collection of medieval settlements in the territory of the banate of Macsó was carried out by Ana Vukadinović Šakanović, who focused her study on the late medieval conditions due to the more favorable availability of sources.28 Attila Pfeiffer wrote a summary study on the location of the Macsó castle.29 Đura Hardi studied the history of the lords of Macsó,30 and Márta Font wrote a thorough study on Rostislav Mihajlovich, who was a prominent lord of the province in the thirteenth century.31

In the Crossfire between Byzantium and the Kingdom of Hungary:
Trans-Syrmia at the End of the Twelfth Century

In the area bordered by the Danube, Drina, and Kolubara Rivers, which was called the Macsó territory from the thirteenth century onwards, Slavs probably settled at the encouragement of the Avars, but their presence is only indicated by place names, and archaeological finds do not support this theory. At the beginning of the ninth century, the area was captured by the Bulgarian Empire, and after this empire fell, from 1018, the area belonged to Byzantium.32

The name Syrmia, which also refers to the area south of the Sava River, first appeared in the twelfth century in the Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja. In the relevant part of the work, also known as the Chronicle of Antivari,33 in the description of the battle between Ban Beloš, who retreated after the death of King Béla II, and the Hungarians who attacked him, the name Syrmia in the chronicle referred to the territory south of the Sava River as well, since the Chronicle mentioned the town of Belyén (Bellina),34 which was south of the Sava River, as part of Syrmia (partes Sremi).35 That the presbyter meant the territory on the right bank of the Sava River as Beloš’ Syrmian parts is clear from the fact that when he wrote about the treaty after the battle lost by the Hungarians, he said that Beloš prohibited his opponents from crossing the Sava River from its beginning to the mouth of the Danube River, i.e. until Belgrade.36 The extent to which the presbyter had precise topographical knowledge of the southern borders of the Kingdom of Hungary is not known, but the southern Slavic literature accepts the description of the extent of Syrmia in the Chronicle.37 In my opinion, Ćirković’s view, according to which the distinction between the inner parts and Trans-Syrmia would have been established as early as the turn of the eleventh and twelfth centuries, is not correct. Even if we accept the presbyter’s account, we can place the origin of the name in the mid-twelfth century at the earliest, but it is more likely that the author was mistaken in his use of the geographical name. In documentary sources, the name Inner and Trans-Syrmia first appears much later, in 1229, in the bull of Pope Gregory IX, dated March 3.38

After the death of Byzantine Emperor Manuel I Komnenos in 1180, Byzantine-­­Hungarian relations were characterized by a particular dichotomy. On the one hand, King Béla III of Hungary acted as a defender of Byzantine interests, while on other occasions, he sought to acquire territories that belonged to Byzantium. Regarding Byzantine-Hungarian relations, Ferenc Makk pointed out that the Kingdom of Hungary was always the active party, taking advantage of Byzantine political infighting, while Byzantium was the passive, defensive partner.39 In 1180–1182, King Béla III first reconquered the Croatian, Dalmatian, and Bosnian territories and also Syrmia, which were annexed by Emperor Manuel in 1167. In the second phase of the Hungarian expansion against Byzantium’s Balkan territories, between 1183 and 1185, as an ally of the Serbian Grand Duke Stephen Nemanja, who was fighting for independence from Constantinople, Béla III conquered the vast territory between Belgrade and Sofia. As a result of the Hungarian conquest in the Balkans, the Bulgarians also launched their own struggle for independence.40 Relations in the territories south of the Danube-Sava line changed completely. In 1185, the Kingdom of Hungary and Byzantium made peace, which King Béla III wanted to confirm with a dynastic marriage. His daughter Margaret was married to Emperor Isaac II (1185–1195), and Margaret received the Balkan territories between Belgrade and Sofia, which had been occupied by the Hungarians, as a dowry.41

Trans-Syrmia or Macsó in the Thirteenth Century

In 1204, during the Fourth Crusade, Byzantium was dissolved, but on its ashes a number of new states were born. The Serbs and Bulgarians, who had long fought for their independence, took advantage of the power vacuum to create their own states, with the territories south of the Danube River falling into Bulgarian hands. King Emeric of Hungary tried to arrange a crown for the Bulgarian Kolojan with the pope, who, recognizing the Hungarian king’s ambitions in the Balkans, bypassed Emeric and sent a crown directly to Kolojan. By accepting the papal crown, the Bulgarian Church was forced to join the Catholic Church. The (now united) Bulgarian Archbishop of Veliko Tarnovo was also given the title of Archbishop of all Bulgarians and Vlachs, bringing the orthodox bishoprics of Belgrade and Barancs under the jurisdiction of Veliko Tarnovo and thus into ecclesiastical union with Rome.42

After 1210 and by 1218 at the latest, King Andrew II of Hungary had recaptured the castles of Belgrade and Barancs, which had fallen into Bulgarian hands.43 After burying her third husband, King Béla III’s daughter Empress Margaret returned to Hungary in 1222,44 accompanied by her two sons, John (Kolojan),45 born to Emperor Isaac, and Gyletus47 (William), born to Margaret’s third husband, Nicholas Sentomna of Salona.46 In a charter issued by Pope Honorius III in 1227, Margaret was listed as a noblewoman and Empress of Constantinople, while John/Kolojan was only listed as a nobleman.47 Péter Gyetvai believes that John was listed as Prince of Syrmia in several charters of King Béla IV between 1240 and 1241,48 but I have found no evidence of this in the charters. The title of Prince of Syrmia did not exist at the time. He was first listed as lord of Syrmia (and count of Bács) in the spring of 1240.49 In his aforementioned bull of March 3, 1229, Pope Gregory IX wrote that the population of Trans-Syrmia ruled by Margaret was Greek-ritual regarding their religion, and they were mostly Greek and Slavic,50 and that the Latin bishopric of Syrmia, established in 1229, was intended to convert them to Rome.51 Although the diocese of Syrmia had its designated center at the time of its foundation, Kő (also known as Bánmonostor, today Banoštor in Serbia) or Kőér, at the northern foot of Fruška Gora, in Inner Syrmia, its jurisdiction extended mainly to the region of Trans-Syrmia.52

In 1232, after the Bulgarians had briefly gotten their hands on it, the territory of Belgrade and Barancs passed permanently into Hungarian hands.53 Pope Gregory IX, in his bull of March 21, 1232, asked the bishop of Csanád to investigate the Bulgarian bishops of Belgrade and Barancs, who had previously united with the Latin Church and who wished to remove themselves from the jurisdiction of Rome, and if they did not return to the allegiance of the Latin Church, to annex the two bishoprics to the Latin bishopric of Syrmia.54 This leads us to the conclusion that the territory of the Trans-Syrmia was not geographically defined. The term simply referred to the areas south of the Sava River and the Danube River that were under Hungarian rule, and in the years after 1220–1232, Belgrade and Barancs may have belonged to this territory. It is not known whether the two dioceses, which had moved away from Rome, were then incorporated into the bishopric of Syrmia. Around 1228, the Bulgarian Tsar John Asen II (1218–1241) broke the ecclesiastical union with Rome and established an autocephalous archbishopric in Veliko Tarnovo.55 In my view, the bishopric of Syrmia, based in Kő, could have exercised conversion and spiritual jurisdiction in the areas surrounded by the Drina, Sava, and Kolubara Rivers, later called the banate of Macsó. The orthodox bishoprics of Barancs and Belgrade (which belonged to the archbishopric of Ohrid before the rise of Veliko Tarnovo) were ecclesiastically attached to the Orthodox archbishop of Veliko Tarnovo and were secularly dependent on Hungary.

After the Mongol invasion, Béla IV gave the territories south of Sava River to his daughter Anna and her husband Rostislav Mihailovich, probably as early as 124756 but no later than 1254.57 The name Macsó first appeared in a charter in 1254. The use of the name Syrmia-Macsó for the territories south of the Sava River was not yet clear at that time. In his charter of December 17, 1256, King Béla IV issued a grant regarding land that was “in the district of Macsó, in the county of Syrmia, beyond the Sava.”58 At that time, it is clear that the name “Macsó” was used to refer to the area surrounded by the Drina, Sava, and Kolubara Rivers,59 as the area east of the Morava River was not yet under Hungarian rule.

The year 1247 was also a milestone in the history of the church in southern Hungary. It was then that the pope moved the seat of the bishopric of Syrmia from Kő, which was in the Inner Syrmia territories (which had been ravaged by the Mongols), to Szenternye (today Mačvanska Mitrovica in Serbia) in Trans-Syrmia.60 By this time, the Latin-rite ecclesiastical presence in the Macsó territories must have strengthened to such an extent that the bishop’s seat and the cathedral chapter could be moved there.

During his reign, Rostislav united the territories on the southern borders of the Kingdom of Hungary, from Bosnia to Barancs. He tried to keep good relations with the Bulgarian Tsar Michael I Asen (1246–1256) who married Rostislav’s daughter. In 1256, Tsar Michael was killed in a boyar revolt led by his cousin, Asen Kaliman.61 He seized power under the name Asen Kaliman II and married the widowed wife of Michael I Asen, but he died a few days later (with the widow’s help). In order to protect his daughter, Rostislav invaded Bulgaria, pushed all the way to Veliko Tarnovo, and laid siege to the city. He did not take Veliko Tarnovo, but retreated to Vidin, where he took the title of Tsar of Bulgaria in 1257.62 He managed to retain Vidin and the title of tsar, despite Bulgarian invasions, as well as Bosnia, Macsó, and the Barancs province until his death.63 The title of Duke of Macsó (like the earlier Trans-Syrmia) included the Barancs lands, in addition to the Macsó district defined above.64

Rostislav is referred to in the sources as the Duke of Macsó.65 Anna was men­tioned as Duchess of Macsó and Bosnia in a document dating from 1254–126466 and as Duchess of Galicia, Bosnia, and Macsó after her husband’s death in 1262.67

In the charter issued on December 17, 1256, King Béla IV defines the region of Trans-Syrmia in the following way when granting land: in county of Szerém, in the Macsó district located beyond the Sava.68

After the death of Rostislav, the title of Duke of Macsó and Bosnia was also held by the king’s youngest son, Béla.69 Duke Béla was surrounded by the power struggle between his uncle, the future King Stephen V, and his grandfather (in which he supported King Béla IV), and he was also attacked from the south by King Uroš I of Serbia.70 In this Serbian attack, Michael, son of Peter, of the Csák clan, later the count of Veszprém, came to the aid of Duke Béla and captured King Uroš’s son-in-law and son of the Serbian king’s master of treasury, for which he received a generous ransom.71 During the war, King Uroš I himself was taken prisoner by the Hungarians.72 Although Duke Béla was last mentioned in a charter in 1271,73 he died almost a year later, when he was murdered by Henrik Kőszegi in November 1272.74

The Banates of Macsó, Barancs and Kucsó

After the assassination of Duke Béla, Macsó was briefly organized as a banate. In 1272, the first documentary evidence of the new banates formed on the territories that were the vassals of the king of Hungary appeared: the bans of Macsó, Usora, Bosnia, Barancs, and Kucsó.75 The first known ban of Macsó was Roland of the Rátót clan (son of Domokos), who also held the office of the palatine of Hungary.76 It is interesting to note that in the year 1273 three persons were mentioned in the documents as bans of Macsó,77 and then between 1272 and 1279 five such officials were mentioned in the documents,78 all of whom held the title of ban of Bosnia apart from John, who seems to have been the exception, and Ákos of the Albert clan, who appeared only in a false document.79 From 1280, Queen Elizabeth’s titles included the title of Duchess of Macsó.80

After the death of Rostislav Mikhailovich in 1262, who had successfully retained and secured the Barancs province from the south with his Bulgarian conquests, his sons, Béla and Michael, shared the Barancs territories, and after Michael’s death in 1266, Béla remained the leader of Barancs, on the right bank of the Pek River, along with Bosnia and Macsó. In my opinion, the Barancs area at that time meant the area to the east of the border river of the banate of Macsó, Kolubara, bordered by the Danube River, including Belgrade. After the aforementioned murder of Béla in 1272, a ban was appointed to the head of the Barancs territories: Gregory the son of Mark of the Péc clan, who is mentioned in the documents as the ban of Kucsó and Barancs between 1272 and 1273.81

Kucsó was also situated on the right bank of the Pek River south of Barancs, and there are no significant sources from its earlier history. It probably shared the fate of Barancs, which was situated less than 40 km to the northwest. It was previously neither a religious nor a major administrative center. Like Barancs, Kucsó was ruled by Rostislav Mihailovich and his sons until the death of Duke Béla. It is possible that in 1272, when the new banates were formed, there were no separate banates of Barancs and Kucsó, but a single one made of the two territories. The case of Barancs-Kucsó was probably different from the case of Macsó and Bosnia,82 when the same person was appointed head of two provinces, which were historically and geographically separate but neighboring, sharing the fate of serving as a “buffer state.” Gregory the son of Mark of the Péc clan may have been ban of Kucsó-Barancs rather than the ban of Kucsó and the ban of Barancs. This question will probably never be answered with sufficient certainty, due to the extremely limited number of surviving sources. The name of Tekes’ son Stephen is mentioned in a source from 1279. Stephen only held the title of the ban of Kucsó.83 After this date, the title of ban of Barancs-Kucsó no longer appears in the sources, and neither Barancs nor Kucsó played a major role in the further history of medieval southern Hungary.

The Kingdom of Stephen Dragutin in Syrmia

As mentioned above, from 1280 to 1284, Queen Elizabeth, widow of King Stephen V of Hungary, held the title of Duchess of Macsó. Dragutin, the former Serbian king who had lost his throne in 1282 and had married Catherine of the Árpád dynasty (the daughter of Stephen V), received the territory of Macsó from his brother-in-law King Ladislas IV after June 11, 1284,84 as well as Usora, Soli, and Bosnia.85 Along with Macsó, Belgrade also passed into the hands of Dragutin, who could then create his residence there.86 The territories ruled by Dragutin were called “the Syrmian territories” by Serbian contemporaries, and Dragutin himself was called Stephen of Syrmia,87 the king of Syrmia. 88

Dragutin’s main ambition was to create a new Serbian state under his rule by unifying the kingdoms he had received from Ladislas IV. Presumably to prevent this, in 1291, Dorman and Kudelin, lords from Barancs, called in the Mongols (according to Ćirković, the Cumans),89 whom Ugrin of the Csák clan defeated at a port on the Sava River.90 By this time, Dragutin’s center had become Debrc, where he set up his court.91 One might ask why he did not make Belgrade his seat. In my view, Belgrade must have been a key fortress for the Hungarian king, and the Hungarian leadership could not have allowed Dragutin to establish the seat of his “Syrmian kingdom” in this strategically important settlement. Whether Belgrade was in the possession of Dragutin or the Hungarian king in the 1290s is not known for certain. According to a charter issued in 1298, the Mongols destroyed Macsó and then prepared to attack Hungary.92 A royal charter from March 20, 1310 states that the Serbian king Milutin, together with John of the Smaragd clan, son of Ajnárd, attacked Hungary and led devastating raids in the counties of Syrmia and Valkó.93 Dragutin died in 1316, and his son Vladislav inherited Macsó, but he was driven out from the territory by his uncle, King Milutin of Serbia in 1316.94

Between 1317 and 1319, there was a war between Hungary and Serbia for the Macsó territories occupied by King Milutin, and two campaigns were led by the Hungarians to retake the region. During the first campaign, in January 1317, the Hungarian army crossed the frozen Sava River to recapture Macsó, which had been occupied by the Serbs.95 In the cold winter weather, the port to cross the river was marked out by the count of Sopron, Nicholas, the son of Amádé from the Gutkeled clan, while on the other bank of the river, the Serbian army was waiting for them.96 Hungarians were also found in the Serbian army who previously had confronted King Charles of Hungary, namely Andrew, Lotár, and Dezső of the Gutkeled clan, the sons of Dénes, who was the son of Lotár.97 King Charles I of Hungary personally took part in the campaign, and he also captured the castle of Macsó that year98 and the castle of Kolobar (Kolubara).99 According to the contemporary documents, Paul Nagymartoni,100 Nicholas, the son of Amadé of the Gutkeled kindred who was the count of Sopron,101 Alexander Köcski,102 sons of Doroszló,103 Mark of Rady,104 the sons of Bereck of Bathur (of the Gutkeled clan) all fought in the war.105 After King Charles I recaptured the rest of the Serbian-occupied parts of the Macsó district, in early 1319,106 during the second campaign in Macsó, he restored the whole banate of Macsó. The office of ban was granted to Hungarian noble families, the Drugets, Ostfis, Garais, Horvatis, etc.107 On September 16, 1319, King Charles issued a charter in Macsó.108

Summary

The northern Balkan territories bordered by the Drina, Sava, and Danube Rivers came under the jurisdiction of the Kingdom of Hungary in the early thirteenth century. This region was called Trans Syrmia(s), Sirmia Ulterior, but Southern Slavic sources often referred to the area simply as Syrmia. At the time, this was understood to mean all the territory lying south of the borders of Hungary, east of the Drina, without any actual designated borders. Between 1230 and 1240, King Béla III’s daughter Margaret and her son John ruled the province of Trans-Syrmia as lady and lord of Syrmia. It was at this time that the Hungarian-ruled district of Macsó began to be permanently separated from the territories of Belgrade and Barancs, which were often harassed by Bulgarian military campaigns.

The territories of Trans-Syrmia (including Bosnia) were given to Rostislav Mihailovich between 1247 and 1254, who held the title of Duke of Bosnia and Macsó (Barancs and Belgrade were not among his titles, nor were they among the titles of his wife Anna). By taking Veliko Tarnovo, Rostislav gained the title of Bulgarian Tsar, securing Barancs and Belgrade from the southeast. After his death in 1262, the title of Lady of Macsó was held by his wife. He was succeeded as Duke of Macsó by his son Béla, who also shared the Barancs territories with his brother Michael. After the murder of Béla in 1272, the territory of Macsó became a banate for seven years (the title of ban of Macsó was mostly held by the same person as the ban of Bosnia). In 1284, the Serbian king Dragutin, who had lost his throne, was given Macsó, together with Bosnia (including Usora and Soli) and the territories of Belgrade and Barancs-Kucsó. According to Serbian sources, Dragutin attempted to establish a new kingdom as a Hungarian vassal state as King of Syrmia, but after his death in 1316, his son Vladislav failed to hold on to power. His uncle, King Milutin, conquered the Macsó territories (Belgrade may have remained in Hungarian hands, but the fate of Barancs is unknown). In the winter of 1317, King Charles I of Hungary personally led a campaign against Milutin, and by 1319, he had recaptured the Macsó territories, where he restored the institution of the banate of Macsó, and the title of ban was then conferred on Hungarian noble families as an honor.

Already in the thirteenth century, the areas between the Drina and Kolubara Rivers were referred to as the banate of Macsó in both historical literature and popular thought. It is clear from the above that this is incorrect: the name Macsó was first used for the region only in 1254, and the title of ban of Macsó appeared in the documents of the period under study between 1272 and 1279. It was only in the Angevin period, after 1319, that the institution of the Macsó banate took root.

Archival Sources

Magyar Nemzeti Levéltár Országos Levéltára [Hungarian State Archives] (MNL OL)

Diplomatikai Fényképgyűjtemény (DF)

Diplomatikai Levéltár (DL)

Bibliography

Printed sources

Anjou oklt. = Anjou-kori oklevéltár I–XV., XVII–XXXVIII., XL., XLII., XLVI–XLIX., L. [Charters of the Angevine era]. Edited by Gyula Kristó et al. Szeged–Budapest: Szegedi Középkorász Műhely, 1990–2023.

Az Árpád-házi hercegek, hercegnők és királynék okleveleinek kritikai jegyzéke. Regesta ducum, ducissarum stirpis Arpadianae necnon reginarum Hungariae critico-diplomatica. Edited by Imre Szentpétery, and Attila Zsoldos. Budapest: Magyar Országos Levéltár–MTA Történettudományi Intézete, 2008.

Az Árpád-házi királyok okleveleinek kritikai jegyzéke. Regesta regum stirpis Arpadianae critico-diplomatica I–II. Edited by Imre Szentpétery, and Iván Borsa. Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, 1923–1987.

Codex diplomaticus Hungariae ecclesiasticus ac civilis. Vols. I–XI. Edited by Georgius Fejér. Budae: Typis Typogr. Regiae Universitatis Ungaricae, 1829–1844.

Codex diplomaticus regni Croatiae, Dalmatiae et Slavoniae. Vols. I–XVII. Edited by Tadeus Smičiklas. Zagrab: Academia Scientiarum et Artium Slavorum Meridionalium, 1904–1984.

Danilo II, Arhiepiskop. Životi kraljeva i arhiepiskopa srpskih [The life of the kings and archbishops of Serbia]. Beograd: Srpska književna zadruga, 1935.

Hazai okmánytár. Codex diplomaticus patrius, vol. I–VIII. Edited by Arnold Ipolyi, Imre Nagy, Iván Páur, Károly Ráth, and Dezső Véghely. Győr–Budapest, 1865–1891.

Mošin, Vladimir. Ljetopis popa Dukljanina: Latinski tekst sa hrvatskim prijevodom i “Hrvatska kronika” [Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja: Latin text with Croatian translation and the “Croatian Chronicle”]. Zagreb: Matica Hrvatska, 1950.

Mužić, Ivan: Hrvatska kronika u Ljetopisu popa Dukljanina [The Croatian Chronicle in the Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja]. Split: Muzej hrvatskih arheoloških spomenika, 2011.

Anjou-kori okmánytár = Nagy, Imre, and Gyula Tasnádi Nagy. Anjou-kori okmánytár [Collection of documents of the Angevin era]. Vols. I–VII. Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, 1878–1920.

Šišić, Ferdo. Ljetopis Popa Dukljanina [Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja]. Beograd–Zagreb: Srpska Kraljevska Akademija, 1928.

Thallóczy, Lajos, and Antal Áldásy. Magyarország melléktartományainak oklevéltára. Vol. II, A Magyarország és Szerbia közti összeköttetések oklevéltára 1198–1526 [Collection of charters of the attached provinces of Hungary. Collection of charters of the relationship between Hungary and Serbia 1198–1526]. Budapest: Magyar Tudo­mányos Akadémia, 1907.

Vetera monumenta historica Hungatiam sacram illustrantia. Vols. I–II. Edited by Augustinus Theiner. Rome: Typis Vaticanis, 1859–1860.

Wenzel, Gusztáv. Árpádkori új okmánytár [The new collection of charters of the Árpád era]. Vols. I–XII. Pest–Budapest: MTA, 1860–1874.

Secondary literature

Bárány, Attila. “II. András balkáni külpolitikája” [The foreign policy of King Andrew II]. In II. András és Székesfehérvár, edited by Terézia Kerny, and András Smohay, 129–73. Székesfehérvár: Székesfehérvári Egyházi Múzeum, 2012.

Ćirković, Sima M. “Zemlja Mačva i grad Mačva” [The territory and city of Mačva]. Prilozi za književnost, jezik, istoriju i folklor 74 (2008): 3–20.

Dinić, Mihajlo. Srpske zemlje u srednjem veku [Serbian lands in the Middle Ages]. Beograd: Srpska književna zadruga, 1978.

Engel, Pál. “Az ország újraegyesítése: I. Károly küzdelmei az oligarchák ellen (1310–1323)” [The reunification of the country: King Charles I’s struggles against the oligarchs]. Századok 122 (1988): 89–146.

Faragó, Lajos. “A macsói bánság története az Árpádok korában” [The history of the Banate of Macsó in the Árpádian era]. In A kaposvári állami főgimnázium értesítője az 1910–1911. iskolai évről, 3–41. Kaposvár: Hagelman Károly könyvnyomdája, 1911.

Fine, John. The Late Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelfth Century. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1994.

Font, Márta. “Rosztyiszlav herceg IV. Béla udvarában” [Duke Rostislav at the royal court of King Béla IV]. In Hercegek és hercegségek a középkori Magyarországon, edited by Attila Zsoldos, 59–79. Székesfehérvár: Városi Levéltár és Kutatóintézet, 2016.

Gál, Judit. “IV. Béla és I. Uroš szerb uralkodó kapcsolata” [Relations between King Béla IV and King Uroš I of Serbia]. Századok 147 (2013): 471–99.

Gyetvai, Péter: Egyházi szervezés főleg az egykori déli magyar területeken és bácskai Tisza mentén [Church organisation particularly in the former southern Hungarian areas and around the Tisza in Bácska]. Munich: Görres Gesellschaft, 1987.

Hardi, Đura. “Gospodari i banovi onostranog Srema i Mačve u XIII. veku” [Lords and bans of of the other side of Srem and Mačva in the thirteenth century]. Spomeni Istoričkog Arhiva “Srem“ 8 (2009): 65–80.

Hardi, Đura. Itinerarij Rostislava Mihailoviča [The itinerary of Rostislav Mihailovič]. Sremska Mitrovica–Novi Sad: Istorijski arhiv SREM, 2019.

Makk, Ferenc. Magyar külpolitika 896–1196 [Hungarian foreign policy 896–1196]. Szeged: Szegedi Középkorász Műhely, 1996.

Pesti, Frigyes. “A macsói bánok” [The bans of Macsó]. Századok 9 (1875): 361–81, 450–67.

Petrovics, István. “Béla magyar herceg” [Duke Béla of Hungary]. In Korai Magyar Történeti Lexikon, edited by Gyula Kristó, 93. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1994.

Pfeiffer, Attila. “A Macsói bánság és a macsói vár lokalizációjának kérdése a magyar és a szerb történetírásban” [The question of the localisation of the banate of Macsó and the castle of Macsó in Hungarian and Serbian historiography]. Világtörténet 39 (2017): 125–38.

Rokai, Petar. “Gyletus dux Sirmii.” Zbornik za istoriju 27 (1983): 124–27.

Rokay, Péter, and Miklós Takács. “Macsó.” In Korai Magyar Történeti Lexikon, edited by Gyula Kristó, 421–22. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1994.

Szeberényi, Gábor. “A Balkán, 800 k. – 1389” [The Balkans, ca. 800–1389]. In “Kelet-Európa” és a “Balkán,” 1000–1800: Intellektuális-történeti konstrukciók vagy valós történeti régiók? [“Eastern Europe” and the “Balkans,” 1000–1800: Intellectual-historical constructions or real historical regions?], edited by Endre Sashalmi, 279–300. Pécs: PTE Kelet-Európa és a Balkán Története és Kultúrája Kutatási Központ, 2007.

Ternovácz, Bálint. “A szerémi latin püspökség alapításának és korai történetének vitás kérdései” [Disputed questions concerning the foundation and early history of the Latin bishopric of Szerém]. Századok 147 (2013): 457–70.

Ternovácz, Bálint. “A macsói és barancsi területek története 1316-ig” [The territories of Macsó and Barancs until 1319]. In Micae Mediaevales VI. Fiatal történészek dolgozatai a középkori Magyarországról és Európáról, edited by Laura Fábián, Dorottya Uhrin, Csaba Farkas, and András Ribi. 227–40. Budapest: ELTE BTK Történelemtudományok Doktori Iskola, 2017.

Vukadinović Šakanović, Ana. “Teritorija i naselja zemlje Mačve u srednjem veku” [Territories and settlements of the land of Mačva in the Middle Ages]. Studije 56 (2018): 159–77.

Wertner, Mór. “Margit császárné és fiai” [Empress Margaret and her sons]. Századok 37 (1903): 593–611.

Wertner, Mór. “Az Árpádkori bánok: Meghatározások és helyreigazítások” [The bans in the Árpád era: Definitions and corrections]. Századok 43 (1909): 480–81.

Zsoldos, Attila. Magyarország világi archontológiája 1000–1301 [The secular archontology of Hungary 1000–1301]. Budapest: História–MTA Történettudományi Intézete, 2011.

  1. 1 Danilo II, Životi kraljeve.

  2. 2 Pesti, “A macsói bánok.” The thirteenth century archontology of the bans of Macsó was also compiled by Mór Wertner, see Wertner, “Az Árpádkori bánok.”

  3. 3 Thallóczy and Áldásy, Oklevéltár, 5–124.

  4. 4 Ibid., 482–83.

  5. 5 Faragó, “A macsói bánság.”

  6. 6 Rokay and Takács, “Macsó,” 421.

  7. 7 Dinić, Srpske zemlje, 140.

  8. 8 Ibid., 44, 273.

  9. 9 Ibid., 285.

  10. 10 Ibid., 337.

  11. 11 Ibid., 127. In fact, on June 11, 1284, Queen Elizabeth still bore the title of Princess of Macsó. Ibid., 132.

  12. 12 After the dethronement of Dragutin, until 1284, when he received the Macsó-Bosnian territories from his brother-in-law, he was able to retain some areas between Raška and Trebinje. (See Dinić, Srpske zemlje, 124–26), and he still held part of Raška after 1284 (see Dinić, Srpske zemlje, 144, 281). The towns of Rudnik and Arilje also remained in Dragutin’s hands. In the latter he built a monastery where he was buried (Dinić, Srpske zemlje, 140–42, 144). Both during Dragutin’s reign in Serbia and after his abdication, Trebinje remained in the hands of the Serbian queen mother Queen Jelena (Dinić, Srpske zemlje, 145).

  13. 13 Ibid., 337.

  14. 14 Ibid., 281.

  15. 15 Ćirković, “Zemlja Mačva.”

  16. 16 Ibid., 3.

  17. 17 Ibid., 4.

  18. 18 Ibid., 7.

  19. 19 In Latin Sirmia Citerior, in Serbian Ovostrani Srem.

  20. 20 In Latin Sirmia Ulterior, in Serbian Onostrani Srem.

  21. 21 For more on the topic see Ćirković, “Zemlja Mačva,” 7; Dinić, Srpske zemlje, 140.

  22. 22 Ibid., 7.

  23. 23 Ibid., 4.

  24. 24 Ibid., 3–4.

  25. 25 Ibid., 8.

  26. 26 Ibid., 4.

  27. 27 Ibid., 6.

  28. 28 Vukadinović Šakanović, “Teritorija.”

  29. 29 Pfeiffer, “Macsói Bánság.”

  30. 30 Hardi, “Gospodari”; Hardi, Itinerarij.

  31. 31 Font, “Rosztyiszlav.”

  32. 32 Rokay and Takács, “Macsó,” 421.

  33. 33 The Chronicle also known as Regnum Sclavorum. See Šišić, Ljetopis; Mošin, Ljetopis; Mužić, Ljetopis, 255–98.

  34. 34 “Et non multum longe ab eadem ecclesia in uno monticulo construxit rex castellum, vocavitque illud suo nomine Bello. […] Post haec caepit rex [Beloš] preambulare per terram et per regnum suum. Quodam itaque tempore, dum esset rex in partibus Sremi, Sremani congregantes se cum Ungaris commiserunt praelium cum rege. In quo loco ceciderunt Sremani cum Ungaris, et facta est eis contritio magna. Ab illo ergo die dicta est planities illa, in qua factum (est) praelium, Bellina, nomine regis ob victoriam, quam habuit ibi rex, usque hodie. Post haec Ungari ad regem miserunt quaerendo pacem.” Mužić, Ljetopis, 273.

  35. 35 On the location of Belyén (today Beljin, Serbia) see Ternovácz, “A szerémi püspökség,” 463, foot­note no. 49.

  36. 36 “Rex praeterea fecit pactum cum eis hoc modo: ut ab illo die in antea non auderent transire flumen Sava, et a loco unde surgit, et sicut currit usque quo intrat in magno flumine Donavi, neque homines regis transirent in illam partem, neque illi in istam.” Mužić, Ljetopis, 273.

  37. 37 Dinić, Srpske zemlje, 273, Šišić, Ljetopis, 321.

  38. 38 Smičiklas, Codex diplomaticus, vol. 3, 305–6.

  39. 39 Makk, Magyar külpolitika, 212.

  40. 40 Ibid., 213.

  41. 41 Ibid., 213–14. See also Hardi, “Gospodari,” 67–68.

  42. 42 Bárány, “II. András balkáni külpolitikája,” 134. In the case of the Orthodox Church of Serbia, the union between the Roman and Greek Church quickly failed, as in 1219–1220 the Autocephalous Serbian Orthodox Church was founded, headed by Saint Sava, the first Serbian archbishop. See ibid., 143.

  43. 43 Fine, The Late Medieval, 102; see also Gyetvai, Egyházi szervezés, 55; according to Attila Bárány, Barancs and Belgrade were in Hungarian hands probably in 1210, but certainly in 1217: Bárány, “II. András balkáni külpolitikája,” 139.

  44. 44 Gyetvai, Egyházi szervezés, 55–56.

  45. 45 In a charter of 1233 he is listed as Calo-Iohannes (filius quondam Iursac Imperatoris Constan­ti­napolitani), with a Greek name. Fejér, Codex diplomaticus, vol. 3/2, 351; see also Wertner, “Margit császárné,” 597; he is also mentioned as Colo-Johannes and as a count of “Kewe” in a charter of King Béla IV of 1235. Fejér, Codex diplomaticus, vol. 4/1, 27.

  46. 46 On Gyletus, see Rokai, “Gyletus,” 124–27.

  47. 47 Smičiklas, Codex Diplomaticus, vol. 3, 264, Theiner, Vetera monumenta, vol. 1, 72.

  48. 48 Gyetvai, Egyházi szervezés, 56.

  49. 49 “Johannes dominus Syrmie et comite Bachensi.” 21 March 1240 (between the palatine and the judge royal) Fejér, Codex diplomaticus, vol. 4/3, 552; 23 September 1241 (between the Transylvanian voivode and the ban of Slavonia) Smičiklas, Codex Diplomaticus, vol. 4, 135; 14 August 1242 (here already in a more prominent place, between the archbishop of Esztergom and the palatine), Smičiklas, Codex Diplomaticus, vol. 4, 158; 16 November 1242 in the name of Johannes Angelus (again in a more prominent position between the archbishop of Esztergom and the palatine), Smičiklas, Codex Diplomaticus, vol. 4, 175. See also Ćirković, “Zemlja Mačva,” 3, 5.

  50. 50 Smičiklas, Codex Diplomaticus, vol. 3, 305–6.

  51. 51 For more on the earliest history of the diocese of Syrmia, see Ternovácz, “A szerémi püspökség,” 457–59; according to Mihajlo Dinić, the Catholic Church was not present in any form in the Trans-Syrmian region before 1229. Dinić, Srpske zemlje, 278–79.

  52. 52 Ternovácz, “A szerémi püspökség,” 463–66.

  53. 53 Fine, The Late Medieval, 129. Between 1235 and 1237, the two castles were briefly occupied by the Bulgarian Tsar John Asen II. See ibid.

  54. 54 Theiner, Vetera monumenta, vol. 1, 103–4; See also Gyetvai, Egyházi szervezés, 60.

  55. 55 Bárány, “II. András balkáni külpolitikája,” 150, 154–55.

  56. 56 Rokay and Takács, “Macsó,” 421; Hardi, “Gospodari,” 71–72, Font, “Rosztyiszlav,” 71. The charter of King Béla IV of June 2, 1247 refers to him only as “Rostislav prince of Galicia and ban of Slavonia,” with no reference to a title of Syrmia or Macsó: Szentpétery and Borsa, Árpád-házi királyok okleveleinek, no. 853.

  57. 57 “Rostislav prince of Galicia and lord of Macsó, the son-in-law of the king” (in the list of dignities of the charter, he is listed after ecclesiastical dignitaries, before the palatine): Szentpétery and Borsa, Árpád-házi királyok okleveleinek, no. 1011; see also Zsoldos, Archontológia, 50.

  58. 58 “In comitatibus infrascriptis, scilicet […] Syrimiensi in districtu de Mako vltra Zawa.” Wenzel, Árpádkori új okmánytár, vol. 7, 429–31.

  59. 59 This is important to point out, because Belgrade was later also included in the Macsó territory.

  60. 60 They wanted to replace the ruined Kő with a well-defended seat. The pope suggested Szávaszentdemeter or Szentgergely, north of the Sava River, but the committee of Hungarian ecclesiastical dignitaries chose Szenternye opposite Szávaszentdemeter, which was already in the Trans-Syrmian territory. For more information see Ternovácz, “A szerémi püspökség,” 466–68.

  61. 61 Szeberényi, “A Balkán,” 326.

  62. 62 Fine, The Late Medieval, 171–72; Szeberényi, “A Balkán,” 326.

  63. 63 For more information see Fine, The Late Medieval, 174–75.

  64. 64 On relations between the Kingdom of Hungary and neighboring Serbia in the mid-thirteenth century see Gál, “Béla és Uroš.”

  65. 65 Dux de Machou. Rokay and Takács, “Macsó,” 421.

  66. 66 Szentpétery and Zsoldos, Hercegek, hercegnők és királynék, 61.

  67. 67 “Ducissa Galitiae ac de Bosna et de Mazo.” Theiner, Vetera monumenta, vol. 1, 273. This papal bull calls the princess Agnes instead of Anne. Mihajlo Dinić used the term vojvodkinja for Anna, which means “the wife of the voivode” or maybe “princess.” For further literature, see also Ćirković, “Zemlja Mačva,” 5. Ćirković erroneously dated the death of Rostislav to 1263. Ibid., 6.

  68. 68 “In comitatibus infrascriptis, scilicet Chanadiensi, Thimisiensi, Syrmiensi, in Districtu de Mako, ultra Zawa.” Wenzel, Árpádkori új okmánytár, vol. 7, 431.

  69. 69 “Bela Dux de Machow et de Bozna.” Wenzel, Árpádkori új okmánytár, vol. 8, 255; Fine, The Late Medieval, 175.

  70. 70 Ćirković, “Zemlja Mačva,” 6. Duke Béla’s title regarding Macsó and Bosnia was last mentioned in the sources in 1271. See ibid.

  71. 71 Fejér, Codex diplomaticus, vol. 4/3, 490.

  72. 72 Fejér, Codex diplomaticus, vol. 5/1, 238–40; See also Fejér Codex diplomaticus, vol. 4/3, 490.

  73. 73 Theiner, Vetera monumenta, vol. 1, 299; Wenzel, Árpádkori új okmánytár, vol. 3, 247; Ćirković, “Zemlja Mačva,” 6.

  74. 74 Petrovics, “Béla herceg,” 93.

  75. 75 Ćirković, “Zemlja Mačva,” 6. The banate of Barancs and Kucsó gradually disappeared from the sources during the fourteenth century.

  76. 76 Zsoldos, Archontológia, 51.

  77. 77 Beside Roland of the Rátót clan (March 30, 1273) Egyed of the Monoszló clan (son of Gregory) Egyed (May 1273), John (May 1273), the abovementioned Egyed again (June 2, 1273) appeared as bans. Zsoldos, Archontológia, 51.

  78. 78 Albert “The Great” of the Ákos clan (son of Erdő) appeared only in a forged charter. Zsoldos, Archontológia, 51.

  79. 79 Zsoldos, Archontológia, 51.

  80. 80 “Ducissa de Machu.” Elizabeth’s title of Princess of Macsó first appears in a charter dated before August 19, 1280. See Szentpétery and Zsoldos, Hercegek, hercegnők és királynék, 127.

  81. 81 “Banus de Kucho et Boronch” (MNL OL DL 104891, Szentpétery and Borsa, Árpád-házi oklevelek, no. 2329), “banus de Boronch et de Kuchou” (MNL OL DF 248637, Szentpétery and Borsa, Árpád-házi oklevelek, no. 2363). The sources mention him between November 27, 1272 and May 14, 1273. See. Zsoldos, Archontológia, 51.

  82. 82 Zsoldos, Archontológia, 51–52. The person of the ban was also the same in the case of the banates of Usora and Soli (both Henrik of the Héder kindred [son of Henrik], and Ernye of the Ákos clan [son of Erdő] bore the title of ban of both territories, see Zsoldos, Archontológia, 53), but Usora and Soli are mentioned as two separate territories by earlier sources (for example, see Smičiklas, Codex diplomaticus, vol. 4, 237.)

  83. 83 Zsoldos, Archontológia, 52; Szentpétery and Borsa, Árpád-házi oklevelek, no. 3019; “Stephanus banus de Kulchou” (MNL OL, DL 85215).

  84. 84 Dinić, Srpske zemlje, 127. On June 11, 1284, Queen Elizabeth still bore the title of princess of Macsó. Ibid., 132.

  85. 85 For more details, see ibid., footnote 12.

  86. 86 Ibid., 337.

  87. 87 Ibid., 281.

  88. 88 Ćirković, “Zemlja Mačva,” 7.

  89. 89 Rokay and Takács, “Macsó,” 421; Cf. Ćirković, “Zemlja Mačva,” 3.

  90. 90 Rokay and Takács, “Macsó,” 421.

  91. 91 Ćirković, “Zemlja Mačva,” 3.

  92. 92 In a charter issued by King Andrew III in 1298, he donated the village of Pabar to Matthew, Paul, Michael of the Csák clan (sons of count Orbán), because they had gained merit against the Mongols, who had destroyed the Macsó region and were about to attack Hungary. Wenzel, Árpádkori új okmánytár, vol. 12, 617.

  93. 93 “Cum Iohones filius Erardi concepto spirito malicie, Stephano Regi Seruie nostro emulo dampuabiliter adhesisset, et contra spectabilem virum magistrum Ugrinum […] ac partes regni nostri, de Sirmia, et de Wolko, collectis suis conplicibus, nequiter dimicaret, et seviret.” Anjou-kori okmánytár, vol. 1, 197.

  94. 94 Rokay and Takács, “Macsó,” 421.

  95. 95 The questions surrounding the dating of the campaign were clarified by Pál Engel, who placed the date of the campaign between January 6 and February 20, 1317. See Engel, “Újraegyesítés,” 115, footnote 123. Cf. Ćirković, “Zemlja Mačva,” 13.

  96. 96 “Demum cum ad expugnanda castra de Machou et subiiciendum ipsum regnum nostro regimini ac reprimendam vesanam insolenciam sclavorum scismaticorum ipsius regni, per quos nobis et regno nostro grande scandalum oriri videbatur et fuerat iam exortum, exercitum validum movissemus et difficilis transitus iluvii Zave per algorem hiemalis temporis opposito ac resistente nobis exercitu dictorum sclayorum gentis scilicet regis Urosii adversarii nostri in littore seu portu transitus processum nostrum retardaret, ipse magister Nicolaus tanquam yir strennuus fortune se submittens contra predictos scisrnaticos ante omnes alios cum suis transeuudo exercitui uostro transitum seu vadum securum preparavit.” Smičiklas, Codex diplomaticus, vol. 9, 117–19; Anjou-kori okmánytár, vol. 2, 69–70; for a summary, see Anjou oklt., vol. 7, no. 86.

  97. 97 Anjou-okmánytár, vol. 2, 127–30; for a summary, see Anjou oklt., vol. 8, no. 203.

  98. 98 Engel, “Újraegyesítés,” 115, footnote 123.

  99. 99 Anjou-kori okmánytár, vol. 2, 91–93. For a summary, see Anjou oklt., vol. 7, no. 534; Fejér, Codex diplomaticus, vol. 8/5, 156–64; for a summary, see Anjou oklt., vol. 10, no. 194.

  100. 100 Fejér, Codex diplomaticus, vol. 8/2, 200.

  101. 101 Anjou oklt., vol. 2, 69–70.

  102. 102 During the siege, he was pelted with stones from the castle, for which the king later compensated him. Hazai Okmánytár, vol. 1, 124. Anjou-kori oklevéltár, vol. 7, no. 290.

  103. 103 Anjou-kori okmánytár, vol. 2, 91–93, Anjou oklt., vol. 7, no. 534.

  104. 104 MNL OL, DL 86970. For a summary, see Anjou oklt., vol. 9, no. 65.

  105. 105 Fejér, Codex diplomaticus, vol. 8/5, 161–62. For a summary, see Anjou oklt., vol. 10, no. 142. See also ibid., no. 194.

  106. 106 Engel, “Újraegyesítés,” 115, footnote 123.

  107. 107 Rokay and Takács, “Macsó,” 421.

  108. 108 MNL OL, DL 50671.

Marriages of Convenience, Forced Betrothals: pdf
Dynastic Agreements in the Angevin-era Hungary

Renáta Skorka

HUN-REN Research Centre for the Humanities, Institute of History

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Hungarian Historical Review Volume 14 Issue 1 (2025): 96-126 DOI 10.38145/2025.1.96

The study deals with the dynastic marriages of the Angevin dynasty in Hungary during the fourteenth century. The dynastic marriages under analysis were made according to written and unwritten rules: the former was realized through the marriage contracts, and the latter covered customary elements regarding, for example, the consummation of marriage or the inspection of the bride. The marriage contracts regulated the logistics of a marriage, including, for instance, the delivery of the bride, the right of refusal of the marriage, the time of the nuptials, and details concerning property laws, with special emphasis on the financial conditions of the marriage, as well as the revenues and lands on which these rested. In this period, the king of Hungary provided a morning-gift of equal value to all the spouses of his sons and brothers and a dowry of equal size for the royal daughters and sisters. The dowry and morning gift of women who married into the Hungarian royal family were secured through the estates and revenues of the queens of Hungary. By the end of the Angevin period, the dynastic marriages were supported on a broader social scale, including the members of the ecclesiastical and secular elites and the towns. This support, furthermore, was confirmed through oaths.

Keywords: dynastic marriages, Hungary, Angevin dynasty, Central Europe, dynastic policy

In medieval Europe, feuding rulers sought to seal peace treaties and alliances between their countries by strengthening family ties when the opportunity arose, as it often did. Marriages negotiated at the negotiating table, depending on diplomatic interests and political games, sometimes involved unborn offspring, often children who were already related to each other, usually under the legal age. The situation of the betrothed couples could be further complicated if they were related to each other within four generations, in which case the fate of the agreement had to be sealed by and depended on the goodwill and will of the Holy See at the time. In addition, foreign policy and diplomatic interests could change and possibly reverse more quickly than the marriage between the parties concerned, and thus children were often forced to move from one matrimony to another after the severance of the already strictly regulated ties. This situation was naturally helped by the fact that the two betrothed had little opportunity to develop a more intimate relationship with each other. In addition to political and dynastic interests, legal and economic considerations also played an important role in the conclusion of marriage contracts in this period. Without exception, medieval marriage contracts were accompanied by the transfer of predetermined income or rights of property. In the following, I examine not the history of dynastic marriages in the Angevin era but the political, legal, and economic factors that played a role in the establishment of dynastic relations, which became compulsory elements and institutions of the engagements and marriages between the Angevins and neighboring dynasties.

Contracted for Marriage

In May 1318, Charles I, the first Angevin ruler of Hungary, who was seeking to consolidate his power and reunify the country, sent a three-man delegation to the court of the Luxembourg dynasty in Prague, hoping and planning to ally with the Czech king. Charles I wished to strengthen this collaboration by marrying one of King John’s sisters. On hearing the offer, the Czech monarch did not hesitate to take his sisters from Luxembourg to Königsaal, where the Hungarian king’s envoys, Thomas of Szécsényi, his cousin Simon of the Kacsics kindred and an interpreter named Stephen, were given the task of choosing Charles’ second wife, the next queen of the Kingdom of Hungary. Abbot Peter of Königsaal was also present to inspect the girls, and from him we learn that Beatrix of Luxembourg and her sister Mary were not yet 14 years old. The monk was candid about the main aspects of the inspection, as it turns out that the Hungarian ambassadors looked at the facial features, bodies, and gaits of the two countesses and decided in favor of the younger one. Beatrix was then betrothed (desponsatur) to the envoy of the departing Hungarian king, before the altar of the Blessed Virgin, amidst the tolling of bells.1 During the negotiations in Bohemia, the ambassadors probably also signed a marriage contract, which usually touched on the question of the transfer of the bride and detailed the dowry and the amount of the morning gift she was due. However, in the case of Beatrix, the sources reveal nothing about these issues. We do, however, have an account of the inspection, which was indispensable before the dynastic marriage, during which the physical aptitude and health of the future bride were examined, strictly with a view to the question of her suitability as a bride who would produce offspring. The health of the bride, as will be discussed later, was the responsibility of the parental court until the marriage, to the extent that if it could be shown to have suffered some impairment or cause for concern, the other party could be legally released from his oath of marriage. However, Beatrix’s physical health was not harmed, as revealed by the fact the transfer took place very soon after the contract was signed, at the Moravian-Hungarian border, according to the sources.2

The marriage of Charles I and Beatrix was expected to take place in November of that year.3 Their marriage could not be said to have been long-lived, as the queen died in November 1319, and Charles did not hesitate to look for another wife, at least according to an entry in the account book of the Counts of Tyrol, which states that in 1319, an envoy from Hungary was welcomed at the court of the prince of Carinthia to arrange a marriage. Considering the overwhelming burdens of succession, Charles probably did not choose one of the daughters (one born in 1317, the other in 1318) of Henry VI, prince of Carinthia and count of Tyrol, who, for a short period (in 1306 and 1307–1310) ruled as king of Bohemia. Rather, Charles sought a much more mature princess as his bride, according to the source, Elizabeth, princess of Carinthia,4 who was probably Henry’s niece.

In the end, Princess Elizabeth of Carinthia gave heirs to King Peter of Sicily instead of Charles after 1322, but the King of Hungary did not go without a male heir. His third wife, also named Elizabeth and daughter of the Polish king Vladislas I, gave birth to his first son, Ladislas, in 1324. The boy was barely three years old when he became involved in his father’s foreign policy plans. Charles, seeing the growing rapprochement between the Habsburg and Bavarian Wittelsbach dukes between 1325 and 1326, took the necessary precautions to forge closer alliances with his northern neighbor. On February 13, 1327, fearing a Habsburg attack, he entered into a defensive alliance with the aforementioned Czech king John of Luxembourg at Nagyszombat (today Trnava, Slovakia). The two rulers mutually agreed that if one of them were to be attacked by the Habsburgs, they could count on the support of the other, but that if one of them attacked the Austrian provinces, the other would remain neutral.5 This bilateral commitment was reinforced by a contract for the future marriage of Ladislas and King John’s eight-year-old daughter Anna, the details of which are no doubt explained more prominently in the contract than the elements of political cooperation. This contract stipulated that both parties would send envoys to Avignon as soon as possible to obtain the necessary permission from the Holy See for the marriage, which was necessary because both children were the great grandchildren of Rudolf I of Germany.6 The plan was that, within six months of having obtained papal permission, the two children would be formally married at a place of their choosing. The parties also expected that the decision of the Holy See would be delayed and that Pope John XXII would not grant the permission immediately, so the two kings postponed the marriage for three weeks but vowed to continue to apply to the Holy See for permission. After having successfully obtained permission, they would wait until Anna reached the age of twelve, the legal age of consent in that time, before handing her over,7 and then King John would send his daughter to the borders of the Kingdom of Hungary for her husband, Duke Ladislas. The letter contains no details concerning the actual transfer of the bride to the Hungarian side, but the example of Beatrix of Luxembourg shows that it may have taken place on the border of the two countries.

As was stipulated in the contract signed in Nagyszombat, Charles sent his envoy George, a citizen of Buda,8 to Avignon with a letter requesting exemption from the obstacle of consanguinity. In December of that year, Pope John XXII assured the king of Hungary that permission would be granted.9 Presumably, the Czech king did exactly what King Charles had done, and the decree of permission was issued on September 8, 1328, more than a year and a half after the agreement at Nagyszombat,10 which, in its content, offers convincing evidence that the role of the Holy See in such petitions was not a mere formality in those days. The decree suggests, rather, that the Holy See had significant influence in the European diplomacy. In addition to expressing his joy at the alliance between the Czech and Hungarian monarchs, the pope also supported the marriage of the two children because the marriage of Anna and Ladislas offered the prospect of reconciliation between the Czech and Polish kings, since Ladislas, as mentioned above, was the grandchild of the Polish king Vladislas I on his mother’s side.

The marriage contract of 1327 at Nagyszombat also contained other provisions concerning the dowry and morning gift, which are not mentioned in the marriage contract between Beatrix and Charles. The former refers to the assets and possessions of the daughter received from her father to cover the expenses of married life, which during the marriage were taken out of the hands of the bride’s ascendants and relatives. The latter was the property and assets pledged by the husband to his wife at the time of the marriage to strengthen her financial position and to support and secure her in the event of his death.11 In the agreement between the Czech and Hungarian kings at Nagyszombat, it was stated that after the handover of Anna her father had one year to transfer 10,000 marks in Czech groschen (calculated at 56 groschen per mark) at Magyarbród (today Uherský Brod, Czechia) in Moravia in the form of a dowry.12 In view of the amount involved, the marriage contract was also very careful to emphasize that, after the Hungarian party had received the sum, the Czech king would still have to guarantee the safe transport of the persons carrying the money to the castle of Trencsén (today Trenčín, Slovakia). In return, Charles also secured 15,000 marks of silver for his son’s morning gift.13 These 25,000 marks were intended to ensure the financial security of Anna in the marriage. It was clear from the fact that, in return for the sum of 25,000 marks, the Hungarian king had pledged estates in areas which had been in the hands of the queens in the Kingdom of Hungary since the previous century, which probably means that they were in the possession of Queen Elizabeth Piast of Hungary at the time of the contract of Nagyszombat. The 10,000 marks brought by Anna were, according to the wording of the charter, spent in the towns and villages of the queen.

The list of settlements includes a large number of market towns and villages that were part of the queen’s estate, mainly belonging to the Segesd comitatus14 in Somogy County: Segesd, Lábod, (Kálmán) Tschechi, (Alsó) Aranyos, Szabás, Nagyatád and Kisatád, Bolhás, Ötvös, Darány, (Erdő) Csokonya, Újlak and finally Verőce (today Virovitica, Croatia), and Szentambrus in Verőce County. For 15,000 marks, the entire county of Pozsega was secured for Anna, with all its castles, towns, villages, and market towns,15 which in the thirteenth century were also part of the queen’s royal estates. Given the dynastic interests of the time, a successful marriage was considered one that proved fruitful from the perspective of offspring and, hopefully, produced male heirs. These considerations were addressed in the Nagyszombat contract, which stipulated that in the event of the death of Ladislas, if he had one or more male heirs, they would inherit the Kingdom of Hungary and the lands reserved for Anna would also become their property. If they had only daughters, these daughters would inherit according to the customs of the Kingdom of Hungary. If, however, the marriage proved unsuccessful in the medieval sense (i.e., if there were no offspring), the widow Anna would enjoy the estates in the counties of Somogy, Verőce, and Pozsega for the rest of her life, and when she died, they would have to return the 10,000 marks she had brought to her father or to his heirs at that time. Until such time as this repayment was made, the estates in Somogy and Verőce, which were secured with that 10,000 marks, would be used by King John and his successors. The marriage contract also stipulated that the Hungarian king had to repay the sum in question in Trencsén in case of the events, guaranteeing its safe transport to the Moravian border. The charter makes no specific mention of this, but according to the medieval property laws and the medieval matrimonial property laws, it was also granted that, in the case of Anna’s death, the morning gift would be returned to the husband or her husband’s family so that whoever was ruling as queen at the time could take possession of it. In the event of the failure of a dynastic marriage, both families would thus get back what they had invested in the marriage when it was contracted. This phenomenon, together with the obligation to give the wife property in exchange for the marriage morning gift, was a common practice, and not only among the ruling families of the period.

However, the wedding, the details of which had been so carefully regulated by the contract in Nagyszombat in February 1327, could not be held within the time stipulated in the agreement, i.e. within six months after the granting of permission by the pope, and neither could Anna be handed over to the Hungarian court in her twelfth year, since Ladislas, who was barely four years old, died in February 1329. The marriage treaties of the period also dealt with such cases. King John and King Charles both stated that the possible failure of the plan for a marriage between their children should not cause discord between the dynasties, nor should it undermine the intention to further political cooperation. Moreover, they took the precaution of putting it in writing in their contract that, should one of the kings pass away, the children of the king that had passed away, including their rights and property, would be protected by the other king. Under these circumstances, it is not surprising that, following the failed marriage of Anna and Ladislas, on March 1, 1338, the Luxembourg dynasty and the Hungarian Angevins made a further attempt to strengthen their alliance,16 which had existed since November 1332. Charles I and his wife and King John and his son Charles, Margrave of Moravia, again acted with the same caution as before. They betrothed the then twelve-year-old heir to the Hungarian throne, Louis, and the margrave’s only child at the time, Margaret. Under the terms of the agreement concluded at Visegrád, the Czech party undertook to hand over the daughter, who was not even considered of legal age in 1342, to the Hungarian envoys in Brno on September 29, 1339, provided that she had not suffered any bodily injury during the year and a half that would have elapsed in the meantime.

The issue of dowry and morning gift was also emphasized in 1338, when the margrave, who also appeared at the Brno transfer, presented the Hungarian commissioners with a document promising 10,000 marks in Prague groschen, this time at 64 groschen per mark, with his daughter.17 For this amount, he either had to give appropriate pledges or provide guarantors, and he had one year from the date of delivery to pay them, and if he paid only half of the amount within the time stipulated, he was obliged to continue to pledge the other half. The Moravian Margrave’s daughter thus received a somewhat more substantial dowry than Anna in 1327, but the payment was not made immediately and not in one sum, and the difference can be explained in part by the drop in the value of the money. As had been the case in the treaty of Nagyszombat, the Hungarian side promised 15,000 marks as the morning gift of the Angevine prince,18 and, as we have already seen, in exchange for these 25,000 marks, they pledged the castles of Szeged and Hasznos, also known as Becse, with their various accessories.19 Although the document does not mention that the estates in question belonged to the queen, since the estates of Szeged and Becse can still be traced back to 1382 as the estates of the queen,20we can conclude that the Angevin court had pledged, as the morning gifts and dowry for the daughters marrying into the family, estates and revenues which otherwise belonged to the estates of the queen. It was also stipulated that Margaret would be entitled to the above properties in accordance with Czech marriage law, which could not have meant anything other than the legal order detailed in 1327 for Anna.

The points of the treaty of Visegrád were set out in a separate charter on March 22 by Margrave Charles I and his wife, who acknowledged that they were bound by them. We do not know exactly when the transfer of Margaret took place, but it certainly took place during the lifetime of Charles I, as is revealed by the charter issued in August 1342 by Louis, who by then was ruling as king of Hungary. In this document, he promised to marry Margaret, who had not yet reached the legal age, within the next four years, and he also promised to uphold the documents previously drawn up regarding the marriage. Among these documents, the king mentioned the one that was issued at the time when Margaret was taken to his parents’ court to learn Hungarian customs and the Hungarian language.21 While in 1327 the marriage was planned to take place before Anna had reached the legal age and the handover would have been delayed until she was twelve years old, in 1338, the handover of Margaret took place before the she had reached the legal age, and the marriage was planned to take place after she had turned twelve. The marriage of Louis and Margaret can be dated to February 1344,22 but the marriage did not last long, nor was it successful from the perspective of the expectations of the time. In September 1349, the queen died of plague without leaving any descendants, and her dowry probably reverted to her family. The marriage treaties of 1327 and 1338 cannot be considered isolated cases. Similar treaties were probably drawn up to regulate and specify the terms of all marital dynastic relationships. As can be seen, a very important element of these agreements was the need to settle the question of matrimonial property law, especially since there was no consistency in the designations of the legal title to the various dower rights in the Kingdom of Hungary, nor was there any uniformity to the legal systems of the countries and provinces concerned. Differences in interpretation of the less detailed agreements could, over time, give rise to disputes, as happened in the case of the salary of Princess Margaret of Bavaria.

The widowed King Louis, who for the time being was not considering remarrying, regarded it as it one of his duties, in agreement with his mother, to tend to the marriage of his younger brother, Prince Stephen.23 The youngest descendant of Charles I married Margaret, daughter of the late Louis IV of the Holy Roman Empire, around 1350.24 The plan for the marriage was conceived during the emperor’s lifetime, in 1345, as the Hungarian king hoped to gain the support of Louis IV in his quest for the throne of Naples. However, Pope Clement VI rejected the idea, as the alliance was also directed against the Holy See, and he himself did not recognize the emperor’s power.25 Winning the hand of Princess Margaret after her father’s death was undoubtedly not as politically advantageous as it would have been during the emperor’s lifetime, but it did strengthen the family ties and the hereditary ties with Bavaria. Margaret of Bavaria had given her husband two children, and after his death in 1354, she began to demand that the king of Hungary pay her dowry. In January 1356, she asked Prince Albert II of Austria, in agreement with the Hungarian king, to settle the dispute and help her determine the amount to be paid to Margaret.26 Prince Albert gave her until Easter of that year to present her documents relating to the case. In the meantime, Louis was to deposit 30,000 forints with the duke in Vienna, while he had to give Nagyszombat to Margaret, and if it should prove that the amount claimed was higher than 30,000 forints, the necessary difference was to be made up with payments of 3,000 forints a year from Nagyszombat. In April 1356, Margaret showed the documents showing that she was due 60,000 forints because of Nagyszombat.27 We know that she was correct, as revealed by a document issued in 1358 in which King Louis I acknowledged that he had promised Margaret 60,000 forints on behalf of Prince Stephen and this sum could be legally regarded as a morning gift,28 as was confirmed by the fact that the sum of 60,000 forints was in fact equal to the sum of 15,000 marks, which was given in the case of Stephen’s brothers (Ladislas and Louis).29

The king also mentioned Margaret’s dowry,30 which was 40,000 forints. It is not known exactly what estates were turned over to her in return for these sums, but it seems that Nagyszombat was one of them, which may be linked to the office of the thirtieth customs-duty, which had been in operation in the town since the beginning of the Angevin era. These revenues were considered royal revenues,31 so in this respect, following his father’s custom, Louis could have taken the benefits of the princess who was getting married at the expense of the queen’s income. As is known, Margaret had already appeared in 1358 at the side of her new husband, Gerlach von Hohenlohe,32 with whom the Hungarian monarch had agreed on the amount she was due. The document does not specify this amount, so we cannot be sure whether the 20,000 forints that Louis sent to Margaret and her second husband in 1359 through the Austrian princes as a morning gift of the late Prince Stephen33 covered the whole or only part of the amount. The reason behind our lack of knowledge is that, in the document issued about this payment, Margaret only assured the deliverer Archduke Rudolf IV of Austria that he had transferred the sum to them in full.

As clear from the discussion above, marriage contracts drawn up in the framework of political alliances were not always implemented, despite the best intentions of the parties. The preceding cases clearly show that much depended on the good will of the Holy See, but the premature death of one member of the betrothed couple was also a factor. Sometimes, however, it was the changing political and dynastic interests that prevented an engagement from becoming a marriage, like in case of King Louis I’s niece, Elizabeth.

The Destiny of the Bride

The daughter of Margaret of Bavaria and Prince Stephen of the Angevin dynasty, mentioned above, was engaged to four different European dynasties in the course of a decade, and a fifth was also mentioned. In order better to understand the role of Elizabeth of the Angevine dynasty, we must consider her uncle’s difficult case of succession. King Louis had no children by his first marriage to Margaret of Luxembourg, and his second wife, Elizabeth Kotromanić, did not provide the monarch with an heir for many decades. Therefore, after the death of his younger brother Prince Stephen in 1354, Louis chose Stephen’s son John as his successor. When the need arose, he gave John’s sister, Elizabeth, a role in making political alliances. The first sign of this could be seen in 1356, when Louis and his father-in-law, Charles IV, who by then had been crowned king of Germany and Bohemia and who had once held the title of Margrave of Moravia, betrothed Elizabeth to Jodok,34 also known as Jobst, the eldest son of John Henry, Margrave of Moravia, who was born in 1351, to strengthen their alliance, which had been established three years earlier.35 Jodok was the nephew of Charles IV, and his importance and role in this period can be explained by the fact that Charles IV’s only living child at the time, Catherine, had already been married to Rudolf IV, duke of Austria, in 1353.36 In 1356, therefore, Jodok and Elizabeth were not the primary heirs of the Luxembourg and Angevin dynasties.

By the autumn of 1360, however, the tables had turned, and with the death of Prince John, Elizabeth became King Louis’ sole heir to the Hungarian and possibly Polish thrones, and her status was apparently enhanced. On February 2, 1361, the earlier intention to marry was confirmed, with Louis promising that as soon as Elizabeth reached the age of twelve, she would be given to Jodok, who would receive a dowry of 10,000 marks. Louis had offered the same amount for his niece as had been offered for the Czech princesses in the earlier contracts of 1327 and 1338.37 It should be stressed that Charles IV still had no son on February 2, 1361, but 24 days later, the situation changed with the birth of Wenceslas at Nuremberg, which further strengthened the position of the emperor and the European prospects of the Luxembourg dynasty.38

The news of Wenceslas’ birth prompted Prince Rudolf IV of Austria, who had regarded himself essentially as his father-in-law’s successor as a German king,39 to urge those who were concerned about Charles IV’s growing power to unite. This led to an alliance between Rudolf and his brothers, together with Prince Meinhard of Upper Bavaria, count of Tyrol, King Louis I of Hungary, and King Casimir III of Poland in Pozsony (today Bratislava, Slovakia) on December 31, 1361.40 The agreement, which implicitly was against Charles IV, was followed by arming in 136241 over the Tyrolean inheritance.42 The events of the war in 1362 are documented in the scholarship of Hungarian historian Antal Pór,43 and the agreements between Rudolf IV, Duke of Austria, and King Louis I of Hungary, who had several meetings during the year, can be reconstructed on the basis of the surviving sources.44 There is not a single document among them which states that at one of these meetings Rudolf’s brother, Prince Albert III of Austria, was engaged to Louis’ niece Elizabeth. Only later sources report the engagement as a fact. The future marriage of Elizabeth and Albert was most probably decided in Vienna on January 7, 1362, when the Austrian princes entered into an alliance with King Louis I of Hungary against Charles IV and John Henry, Margrave of Moravia.45 The Hungarian king unilaterally broke the engagement agreement between Jodok and Elizabeth by marrying Elizabeth to someone else. The warlike atmosphere of 1362 was brought to an end on January 13, 1363 with the death of the Duke of Upper Bavaria and the transfer of Tyrol to Habsburg control,46 but a formal peace was not concluded until February 10, 1364.47

On the same day as the peace treaty was signed, the Luxembourg-Habsburg mutual succession treaty was concluded, which stipulated that, in the event of the death of Charles IV, his son, and brother without succession, their lands would be divided between Rudolf IV and his brothers Albert III and Leopold III. The treaty also declared that, were King Louis I of Hungary, his mother Queen Elizabeth, and Princess Elizabeth, the daughter of the late Prince Stephen, to die without heirs, their property would be given to the Luxembourgs.48 The Hungarian Angevins were probably included in the latter clause because of the 1362 betrothal between Elizabeth and Albert III. It should be remembered that, at the time of the treaty of succession of Brno, neither Rudolf IV nor his brothers had any heir, but Albert was the only one of them who even had a fiancé, Elizabeth of Anjou, the potential heiress of the Kingdom of Hungary, and therefore the inclusion of the Hungarian monarch and his family members in the treaty of Brno was not only justifiable but almost expected. This also meant that, in the event of the death of the Habsburg dukes without succession, the primary heirs of their territories would be the Angevins of Hungary, a possibility that was not at all desirable for the Luxembourgs. Thus, Charles IV’s main aim may have been to prevent the marriage between Elizabeth and Albert III by any means possible and then to rewrite the Brno treaty, now without the relevant rights of the Hungarian party.

The time was all the more pressing for the Luxembourgs, because in July 1365, Rudolf IV died without an heir, and he was succeeded by Albert III and Leopold III. The research by aforementioned Hungarian historian Pór details how the emperor appealed to Pope Urban V, accusing Albert of having become Elizabeth’s fiancé in 1362 by failing to break his earlier engagement to Charles’ niece Catherine.49 The accusation was probably true, since Louis had done the same with Elizabeth and Jodok. On February 24, the pope refused to authorize the marriage between Prince Albert III of Austria and the niece of King Louis I of Hungary, Elizabeth, and he even revoked the permission issued by his predecessors, Clement VI and Innocent VI, for cases in which the marriage had not yet taken place.50 King Louis, who was clearly concerned to maintain the agreement between the Habsburgs and the Hungarian Angevins, sent first Johann von Bredenscheid, a doctor of Roman Law, and then Simon, Magister General of the Dominican Order, as ambassadors to Avignon to try to persuade Pope Urban V to come to a more favorable conclusion. The pope’s relentlessness in the matter is illustrated by his letters issued on May 23 to Louis I and to Queen Elizabeth, in which further aspects of the Holy See’s role in dynastic marriages are also revealed. The pope pointed out that, although the Hungarian king had sworn an oath regarding the marriage of his niece and the Austrian prince, he could break, his oath because the Holy See had not given its permission for the marriage. If the Hungarian king insisted on the wedding without permission, he would face severe consequences, as those who knowingly entered into a marriage without permission would be excommunicated and their country would be subject to ecclesiastical interdict.51 During the summer, the pope sought to intervene even more forcefully in the dynastic policy of Hungary, and he took the initiative to marry Princess Elizabeth to the brother of the king of France, Prince Philip of Burgundy, recently released from the English captivity. According to the pope, with the interests of the Valois dynasty in his mind, there was no more fitting or honorable marriage for a girl who was already approaching the age of marriage.52

In the light of all this, it is clear that the Habsburg-Hungarian alliance of 1362 was difficult and constituted an obstacle to the dynastic plans of several European dynasties, and its dissolution would probably have occurred regardless of the death of Prince Rudolf IV of Austria. Rudolf’s passing and the emergence of the Duke of Burgundy, however, undoubtedly prompted Emperor Charles IV to make some moves. The Emperor was in Buda in November 1365, negotiating with the king of Hungary the betrothal of his only son, Wenceslas, to Elizabeth. On December 5, Louis had already abandoned his plans for a marriage with the Habsburgs,53 and on December 20, he authorized Prince Ladislas of Opole to conclude negotiations on the engagement of his niece to Wenceslas.54 Albert III was also not without a future wife, thanks to the emperor’s success in diplomacy. In February 1366, Pope Urban V, who had so strongly opposed the marriage of Elizabeth and Albert, gave permission for a marriage between Albert and Charles IV’s eight-year-old daughter, Elizabeth.55 For this, it was necessary for the king of Hungary to release the Austrian prince from all the oaths he had sworn to him, which he did on February 25,56 and two days later, together with his mother and the royal council, he confirmed that his late brother’s daughter should be married to Wenceslas.57 According to a papal charter from 1369, Elizabeth was then a minor, and the marriage was postponed until she was of legal age.58

In March 1366, Albert III and his brother Leopold III travelled to Prague, as did Prince Otto V of the Wittelsbach family of Upper Bavaria, who had succeeded his deceased brother Louis as the Archduke of Brandenburg since 1365. A double wedding took place in Prague, with the emperor marrying off two of his daughters. Otto married Catherine of Luxembourg, the widow of Rudolf IV, while Elizabeth of Luxembourg was married to Prince Albert III of Austria. By marrying off the daughters, their father sought to build up considerable and lasting political capital. Otto essentially resigned from the Duchy of Brandenburg for six years after the wedding and transferred the government to his father-in-law.59 The Habsburg dukes renewed the mutual succession treaty previously signed in Brno in 1364, whereby the participating parties would leave to each other all their estates, both existing and future, in the event of their death without succession. The Hungarian party, which was no longer bound to the Habsburgs by any betrothal, was excluded from the treaty, and it was therefore emphasized that the person to whom the king of Hungary would leave his kingdom as his heir would be accepted as the rightful heir of the Kingdom of Hungary.60 This clause in the renewed succession treaty is extremely important in two respects. First, if there had been a Habsburg-Hungarian succession treaty in 1362, it was certainly invalidated by this document. Second, the case illustrates the Hungarian monarch’s ability and authority to assert his interests, as he managed to get his country excluded from the text of the Habsburg-Luxembourg succession treaty, despite the fact that his only heir was about to marry the only male heir of the Luxembourg dynasty. Charles IV may well have regarded Louis’ caution as unnecessary pomposity, and the emperor could not have been concerned about who would inherit Louis’ estate, as his letter of May 11, 1366 to his Italian governors, the Gonzagas, attests. According to this letter, his son Wenceslas would marry the Hungarian king’s niece within four weeks of the date of the letter and would then consummate the marriage, and Hungary would pass to their successors.61

The presumptuous statement relied on another important element of dynastic marriages, the consummation of the marriage. How the five-year-old Wenceslas and Elizabeth (who was a few years older than he) could have married in this way can only be reconstructed on the basis of a later case. An example survives from 1452 from the court of Naples, which was retold by an eyewitness, Aeneas Silvius Piccolomini, the future Pope Pius II. In March of that year, King Frederick III, a member of the Habsburg family, was crowned emperor, and before the event, the monarch met his future wife, Eleanora of Portugal, in Siena. They were coronated together in Rome. The young couple received an invitation from the uncle of Eleonora, King Alfonso of Aragon, to stay in Naples, and during the last days of their stay, rumors began to circulate that the young Habsburg, who had shown great restraint in the area of physical pleasure, had not yet wished to know his young wife intimately and that he wanted to wait until they returned to the empire before doing so. The court of the Neapolitan monarch and Eleanor’s entourage were united in their efforts to persuade him to comply with his duties. They were allegedly successful. Frederick ordered the bed to be made according to German custom, and when this was done, the still reluctant husband of thirty-seven years laid down completely dressed in the presence of the court and allowed his eighteen-year-old wife, who was also wearing her clothes, to be put in his arms. Then, in the presence of King Alfonso and a number of nobles, they were covered. Nothing more was done, but he kissed his wife, and they both rose immediately afterwards. Piccolomini added as an explanation that this was a German custom at least at the marriage of princes. The Spanish woman present were astonished by this custom, as they firmly believed that the act was being done in earnest. A great uproar allegedly arose among them as soon as they saw the cushion covering the imperial couple. Everyone looked at King Alfonso, waiting for him to intervene, but he acknowledged the foreign custom with a pleasant smile on his face. 62

Although this type of consummation, which was native to the German territories, provoked astonishment in the Mediterranean world, we can be sure that in 1366 Charles IV did not think of any other form of consummation for Wenceslas and Elizabeth. The marriage of the two children, announced by Charles IV for June 1366, was probably not consummated, although Pór comes to the conclusion that it definitely was.63 The following question arises, however: on the basis of what did the emperor make his statement on May 11 that the marriage would take place within four weeks. He may have based this statement on the fact that Elizabeth, who, as we have seen, was not of legal age at the time of her betrothal at the end of February 1366, had reached the age of twelve.64 On June 15, 1366, the emperor wrote a letter from Vienna to Augsburg informing the town that he was going to the city of Pozsony to negotiate with the Hungarian queen, but he made no mention of a marriage. At the end of June, King Louis was also in the city, so it cannot be ruled out that he also took part in the negotiations.65 We can speculate that Elizabeth, who had reached the legal age, was for the time being discouraged by the court of Hungary from marrying Wenceslas (perhaps because of the boy’s age), because the Hungarian side was seriously concerned about Charles’ power politics.

In opposition to the Upper Bavarian-Luxembourg-Habsburg alliance under the emperor’s influence, Louis moved closer to the other branches of the extended Wittelsbach family, who strongly opposed the transfer of the Duchy of Brandenburg to the Luxembourg dynasty. In October 1367, the Hungarian monarch entrusted his chancellor, Bishop William of Pécs, with the task of negotiating with the Bavarian princes.66 Then, on November 2, he entered into an alliance in Buda with the Wittelsbachs’ Landshut branch, namely Prince Stephen of Bavaria and his sons, Stephen, who became the first prince of the later Bavarian-Ingolstadt branch of the family, Frederick, the future heir of the Landshut branch, and Albert, representing the Straubing-Holland branch.67 At the same time, the Hungarian king also signed a treaty with the Wittelsbach branch, which held the electorate Palatinate of the Rhineland, and made a pact  with Rupert I and his nephew, the future Rupert II, and the latter’s son.68 The Hungarian king was joined in the coalition by his Italian great-uncles, Prince Philip II of Taranto, Emperor Emeritus of Constantinople, and Prince Charles II of Durazzo. The alliance was aimed at the territories of the Austrian dukes, since the agreement was that in the event of joint military action, the provinces conquered from the Habsburg dukes would be divided between the Hungarian king and the Wittelsbachs along the Enns.69 Charles IV was hardly aware of the threat in 1368. He was distracted by other events. One of them was that he had to accompany his fourth wife to Rome to be crowned empress. At the end of August, the archbishop of Trier was informed from Modena that the emperor hoped that the relationship between him and the Hungarian king would lead to a mutual double bond. In addition to the betrothal of Wenceslas and Elizabeth, the emperor had also envisaged the formation of another family relationship, namely the marriage of the duke of Durazzo to a future, not yet born duchess of Luxembourg.70 However, there was not much chance of this happening, since a few months earlier, in February 1368, Empress Elizabeth of Pomerania had given birth to a son, named Sigismund in honor of the king of Burgundy, who had been martyred in the sixth century.71

However, Louis remained opposed to the emperor. In 1369, he met in Buda with King Casimir III of Poland, and they confirmed their alliance against Charles IV. Pope Urban V did not take a favorable view of the strained relations between Louis and Charles, and he sent envoys to try to reconcile them, but his initiative proved fruitless, because by the end of the year the Hungarian court had petitioned the Holy See for a dissolution of the engagement between Elizabeth and Wenceslas. The primary reason for this was the opposition of the people of the country to the engagement, which only the royal family and some of the ecclesiastical and secular nobles supported. Reference was also made to the princess’ reluctance to marry Wenceslas, since Elizabeth, who was already an adult, did not want the marriage and refused to enter into it.72 The above arguments give the impression that the kings who contracted the marriage, as well as the Holy See, paid special attention to the broad support of the subjects for the marriage to be contracted, a factor that should be examined with greater emphasis in future records. On the other hand, it seems that the independent will of a woman in her sixteenth year,73 that is to say, a woman who had reached adulthood, was considered an argument in favor of the person chosen for her, at least if it coincided with the will of the monarch, something which had hardly ever been the case before. Elizabeth’s coming of age and the fact that a marriage between ruling dynasties was by no means regarded as a purely family affair is well attested by the fact that the Angevin princess herself issued a charter in Buda in March 1370 releasing Charles and his son, Wenceslas, as well as all the ecclesiastical and secular princes, barons, and nobles of the Kingdom of Bohemia, from the oath they had sworn to Louis I and Queen Elizabeth in the matter of the marriage74

In the first third of 1370, events around Elizabeth accelerated. A month after Pope Urban V had granted a decree of annulment to the betrothal of Wenceslas and Elizabeth, he gave a permission on January 8, 1370 for Elizabeth to marry Prince Philip II of Taranto, then aged 41, one of Louis’ allies from 1367.75 After a decade of engagement, Elizabeth ended up with a prince who not only played a decisive role in European power politics but who also had only slim chances of succeeding to the throne of Naples. Thus, the marriage of the niece of the Hungarian king and the titular Emperor of Constantinople could be regarded as an event without any major dynastic stakes. This can only be explained by the fact that Elizabeth’s place in the succession order of the Kingdom of Hungary was shaken, as the hitherto childless marriage of the Hungarian monarch to Elizabeth of Kotromanić entered a new phase. By the summer of 1370, King Louis’ wife had given birth to a daughter,76 which meant that in December 1369, the Hungarian court initiated the annulment of the engagement of Elizabeth and Wenceslas at the Holy See, knowing that the queen was carrying a child.

Philip was one of the Angevin princes imprisoned by the Hungarian king in Visegrád between 1347 and 1352 because of the death of Andrew,77 and since his stay in Hungary preceded the birth of Elizabeth, it is likely that his first meeting with the Hungarian princess was in 1367, when he allied himself with the Bavarian dukes at Buda, on the side of Louis, as mentioned in the discussion above. Philip was a widower, having lost his first wife, Mary, sister of Queen Joan of Naples, in May 1366.78 There could have been no obstacle to the marriage of Philip and Elizabeth in 1370, which presumably took place in Zadar, where the duke of Taranto’s nephew Charles II was also holding court.79 Elizabeth’s misadventures in the political maze of engagement thus came to an end, but it is worth noting that there is no sign that she might have left the Angevin court to live at the court of her soon to be husband, nor have we seen any example of her chosen future husband moving to the court of Louis for either a longer or a shorter period of time. In this respect, however, there was a change in the marriage policy of the Hungarian Angevins in the case of King Louis’ daughters.

Your Place or Mine?

With the death of Casimir III in November 1370, the Wittelsbach-Hungarian alliance lost one of its supporters, but in April 1371, it gained a new member in the person of Archbishop Pilgrim of Salzburg.80 Military conflict became inevitable by July, and King Louis sent an army led by the Palatine Ladislas of Opole and Ban Peter Cudar of Slavonia to the Kingdom of Bohemia to fight against Emperor Charles IV, who had taken the Duchy of Brandenburg with his army.81 The war, which had lasted just over two months, ended with the armistice of October 16, 1373, which lasted until June 5, 1373.82 The emperor took advantage of the period to reestablish closer ties with the Hungarian king, who now also held the Polish throne, without renouncing Brandenburg. The fact that Louis had only daughters no doubt fueled Charles IV’s dynastic intentions. The second-born royal princess, Mary, had not even reached her first birthday when, in February 1372, her father, accepting the renewed rapprochement of the Luxembourg and sealing the truce of October 1371, trusted his palatine Ladislas and Archbishop Thomas Telegdi of Esztergom to conduct negotiations with the emperor over a marriage.83

During the negotiations in Buda in May of that year, a very vague plan was outlined. The king of Hungary promised the younger daughter to Charles’ second son, Sigismund,84 unless a male offspring was born in the future, in which case the first-born daughter or, in the event of her death, the second-born daughter would be given to Sigismund.85 There can be no doubt that the phrase “younger daughter” meant Mary, since at the time in question, she was considered the younger daughter of the king, alongside the slightly older Catherine. However, it is surprising to note the mention of a possible new offspring and a son in the confirmation of the king in 1372, who had been childless for many decades. This prompts one to suspect that the queen may have been pregnant at the time of the negotiations, perhaps with her third child, Hedwig.86 In any case, it is certain that one of the important cornerstones of the 1372 Hungarian Angevin-Luxembourg rapprochement was that King Louis and his wife had to take a special oath to maintain the marriage bond between their daughter and Sigismund. This also took place in May 1372, not in Buda, but in Visegrád, which means that the queen did not leave the Angevin seat87 and did not personally participate in the negotiations in Buda, which would also suggest that she may well have been pregnant.88

The instructions given to the Duke of Teschen, the emperor’s envoy to Buda, provide other details about the engagement. According to these instructions, Charles’ original idea was that the Hungarian king would take his daughter to his court in Bohemia and they would bring her up according to Charles’ will.89 In addition, the amount of the dowry to be given with the daughter was also discussed, which, according to Louis’ intention, would have been 200,000 gold florins,90 approximately five times the 10,000 marks promised to Jodok with Elizabeth.91 About a year after the meeting at Buda, in June 1373, the question of the marriage of the two children was important again at the end of the truce. By this time, the Hungarian king’s marriage plans had become clearer, which may also mean that his third daughter had been born in the meantime, which did not radically alter the situation in any way with respect to the original plans. According to a receipt issued by Louis on June 21, 1373, in which his daughter Mary is mentioned by name, the earlier commitment to the marriage contract had not changed in the months since.92 This was why, in August, Otto Wittelsbach of Brandenburg had waited in vain for military assistance from Louis I and, after Charles IV had occupied several castles and towns in the territory of the margraviate, had been forced to surrender himself. This in turn meant that the Wittelsbachs had finally relinquished the Margraviate of Brandenburg in favor of the Luxembourgs.93 At the end of 1374, the Hungarian king could take comfort in the fact that his daughters’ futures had been satisfactorily settled. Catherine was betrothed on August 10 to Louis, the second-born son of King Charles V of France.94 The Hungarian king promised the Duke of Valois the Kingdom of Sicily, which at the time was in the hands of Queen Joan of Naples, with the familiar clause according to which the territories would be inherited by the heirs of Catherine and Louis but if the princess died prematurely, childless, the dowry would revert to the Hungarian king. 95

In December 1374, as a further development in Mary’s case, Pope Gregory XI assured the Hungarian-Luxembourg alliance of his support, granted permission for the marriage of the children,96 who were the great-grandchildren and great-great-grandchildren of King Vladislas I of Poland on the maternal side.97 On April 15, 1375, Charles IV arranged for secular and ecclesiastical dignitaries from both kingdoms of Louis to swear an oath to the future marriage of Mary and Sigismund, who by then had risen to the rank of margrave of Brandenburg. In Brno, in the presence of the entire Luxembourg dynasty, Archbishop Thomas Telegdi of Esztergom, Bishop Demeter of Transylvania, Prince Ladislas of Opole, Voyvode Stephen Lackfi of Transylvania, Count James of Szepes, the royal judge of Hungary, and the captains of Poland and Kuyavia promised to support their marriage during the lifetime of the Hungarian king and beyond, that as soon as the king’s daughter had reached the legal age stipulated in the treaty she would be married to Sigismund. They also promised that they would urge Louis to have 80 other Polish and Hungarian prelates and barons take a similar vow by August15 and have it recorded in a document bearing their seal.98 These seven persons also declared that neither war nor any other comparable circumstances would prevent the marriage contract from being fulfilled, which suggests that by 1375, dynastic interests had prevailed over political considerations.

We do not know how a possible new war would have affected the above agreement, but events did not fully confirm Charles IV’s preliminary expectations. There is no evidence that the Hungarian and Polish elites were so strongly in favor of the case, but the need to express their agreement and support may remind us of what we observed earlier in the case of Wenceslas and Elizabeth, when the Czech orders certainly swore an oath in favor of the marriage. The vows of the Hungarian and Polish lords in Brno, mentioned above, similarly reinforce our assumption that the establishment of dynastic relations was not a personal matter but had to be based on wider social acceptance. As we have seen, the idea that the betrothed princess had to be brought up in his court had already been implied by the emperor in 1372, which may remind us of the example of King Louis’ first wife. There is no evidence that Mary moved to the royal court of Charles IV until 1378, the year in which the emperor died, and certainly not that she moved to the Czech court after that, since her sister Catherine also died in 1378, and Mary’s value became too great to allow her to leave the Kingdom of Hungary. The betrothed couple did, however, move in together in December 1379, when twelve-year-old Sigismund was sent to the court of King Louis to be brought up with his future wife, Mary.

1374 also proved to be a year of considerable importance in the life of King Louis’ other daughter, Hedvig. Like her sister Mary, she must have been about a year old when the first decision concerning her fate as a bride was made. The future husband of Hedvig was also decided around the truce of October 16, 1371, signed by King Louis with Charles IV, and the latter’s allies, the Austrian princes Albert III and Leopold III. Eight months before the expiry of the armistice agreement, on 16 October 1372, a peace was concluded with the Habsburg dukes.99 King Louis I’s haste was understandable, as the Hungarian king was looking for a partner to implement his plans on the Adriatic. The alliance against Venice was forged in Vienna on March 9, 1373. It was joined not only by the two Austrian princes and the Hungarian monarch but also by the governor of Padua, Francesco Carrara.100 Hedvig’s betrothal in 1374 can be seen as a confirmation of this partnership, since the engagement was made between Hedvig and the son of the Austrian Prince Leopold III in 1374. In the charter issued on August 18, 1374, Leopold promised the Habsburg duke’s first-born son, William, to marry King Louis’ younger daughter, Hedvig.101 The customary morning gift that was typical in the case of sons and brothers of Austrian princes was also offered, though the precise amount is not known. It is stated that, in the event of the death of Leo, Louis would protect William and the other heirs of Leopold, and in return for this, in the event of the death of Louis, Leo also promised protection to Hedvig and her sisters. The reply of the opposing side was not long in coming. In Buda on March 4, 1375, Louis also acknowledged that he promised his younger daughter Hedwig to William, and he too emphasized the details of mutual support and the morning gift. The latter is defined in a similar way as the dowry in Leopold’s charter. It would be made according to the customs for the daughters and sisters of Hungarian kings.102

According to these two documents, by the 1370s, there was an established custom regarding the amount of dowry and morning gift to be given, in the case of both the Habsburg princes and the Hungarian princesses, but this was apparently not the case for the children of the king’s siblings. With Catherine, the Hungarian king gave the inheritance of Naples, the value of which cannot be estimated.103 With Mary, the future husband received 200,000 gold florins and a document dated June 15, 1378 in Hainburg offered testimony to and details concerning the dowry of Hedvig, too. King Louis offered Leopold a discount, asking him to give the same amount as a morning gift as he had given as a dowry with his daughter, so instead of the 300,000 florins, he had to give 200,000 florins.104 We should not forget that the morning gift offered with the Angevin princes was also equal to 15,000 marks. So the 1374 charter seems to have been accurate in its statement according to which the daughters and sisters of the Angevin monarchs received the same dowry and also in its statement that the morning gift was the same for the sons and brothers of the Angevin monarchs, and the same custom can be observed in the Habsburg and Luxembourg dynasties in the period.

The charter issued in Hainburg is connected with another event as well, as we learn from King Louis’ account of 1380. In the town of Hainburg, Demeter, who at that time did not yet hold the dignity of cardinal but was only archbishop of Esztergom, married Hedvig and William in the local parish church with due solemnity, and they were laid in the same bed and united in the same night.105 The two children certainly underwent the institution of the German consummation custom described above. The event probably took place at the same time as the aforementioned reduction of the tribute, so in mid-June 1378.106 However, the royal narrative of 1380 also reveals something else, namely that the king had his daughter transferred to the court of the Austrian prince Leo, who was only called frater.107 According to the Austrian chronicle108 compiled in 1406 by the contemporary Matthäus, also known as Gregor Hagen, Hedvig was taken to Vienna, where she was educated for a few years.109 It may be a source of uncertainty about Hedvig’s years of upbringing in Vienna that we know that the treaty of Neuberg of September 25, 1379 transferred the seat of Prince Leopold to Styria, while Lower Austria remained the property of Albert III.110 However, Hedwig’s upbringing in the court of Leopold was well attested to by a charter issued in Graz on February 25, 1380, in which Prince Leopold canceled the debts of his daughter, the chief court mistress of the young Hungarian queen.111 The duties of court mistresses, chosen from the wives or widows of noblemen offices in the court, included the supervision and management of the persons in the service of their lady and the management of the court mistresses.112 Hedwig, who was about seven years old, was the mistress of the court of Elizabeth von Reutenberg, the widow of Leopold von Reutenberg, a native of Krajna, who had previously served in the same capacity for Prince Leopold’s wife, Viridis Visconti.113 William and Hedvig must have visited the Kingdom of Hungary during their years together, at least according to a letter from after June 1381, in which the people of Pozsony report that, at the king’s command, they were to share the expenses of the locals that occurred during the stay of the Austrian prince and the daughter of the Hungarian king in Óvár.114 It is also possible that the young couple stopped at Óvár on their way to King Louis’ court, since Hagen also recalls that when the king sensed the end was near, he summoned Hedvig, whom William had accompanied to Hungary.115

It is not known whether Prince Leopold himself, like Charles IV, had re­quested that a large number of prelates, barons, and other lords of the Kingdom of Hungary, in addition to the ruling family, should support the marriage of Hedwig and William. In any case, it is certain that on February 12, 1380, King Louis swore an oath in Zólyom, with the two archbishops and seven bishops present, as well as with 29 members of the secular elite, to support the agreement between himself and the Austrian prince in the name of themselves and their successors, and to promote and uphold the consummation of the marriage between the two children.116 A little over a year later, other subjects who had not previously had a part to play on such an occasion pledged themselves to the cause as well. On March 20, 1381, the judges and jurors of nine towns in Hungary appeared in Wiener Neustadt to issue a document in Latin and German to promise, in their and their successors’ names, the observance of all the terms and promises of the marriage contract.117 The charter, bearing the city seals of Buda, Visegrád, Fehérvár, Sopron, Kassa (today Košice, Slovakia), Trencsén, Zagreb, Nagyszombat, and Pozsony, was written in two languages and was composed in Styria, primarily with the Austrian party’s reassurance in mind.

In the study above, I examined the political, legal, and economic characteristics of fourteenth-century engagements and marriages in the dynastic treaties of the Angevin rulers of Hungary and the neighboring countries. There is no doubt that the marriage contracts presented here faithfully reflect the changes and turning points in the Kingdom of Hungary’s foreign policy relations and dynastic ambitions from time to time. These political factors may have changed the identity of the actual actors, but for the most part they did not affect the scenario of the engagements. Marriage as a pledge of alliance was based on written and unwritten rules, the former being the marriage contracts concluded between the parties, the latter being elements rooted in customary law, such as the inspection of the bride-to-be or the different ways of consummating the marriage. Several examples have shown that the marriage contracts that sealed the political cooperation were as careful as possible in regulating the duties, obligations, and legal institutions of the parties, whether they concerned the conditions for obtaining papal permission, the place and time of the transfer, the right to renounce the marriage, the time of the marriage, or the property aspects of a successful marriage. In the marriage contract, particular emphasis was placed on the fixing of the amount of the marriage dowry and morning gift, the method of transfer, and the list of the income and property to be pledged in exchange for it, and their fate in the event of a successful or unsuccessful marriage. My observations show that, in the fourteenth century, the Hungarian kings granted their sons and brothers the same sums as a morning gift and their daughters and sisters the same sums as dowries, similar to the monarchs of other neighboring countries. In return for their dowry and morning gift, the daughters who married into the queen’s household were apparently entitled to the estates and perquisites of the queen. By the end of the era, dynastic marriages had to be based on broader social support. While earlier the support of a narrow advisory body was sufficient for an agreement between the monarchs, by the second half of the century, members of the ecclesiastical and secular elite and then representatives of the cities took oaths and signed commitments to abide by the contracts.

Archival Sources

Bayerisches Hauptstaatsarchiv

Auswärtige Staaten

Magyar Nemzeti Levéltár Országos Levéltára [Hungarian State Archives] (MNL OL)

Diplomatikai Fényképgyűjtemény (DF)

Bibliography

Printed sources

ADE = Magyar diplomácziai emlékek az Anjou-korból. Acta extra Andegavensia I–III [Hungarian diplomatic records from the Angevin era]. Edited by Gusztáv Wenzel. Budapest: MTA, 1874–1876.

Aeneae Silvii, episcopi Senensis postea Pii papae II. Historia rerum Friderici tertii imperatoris. Edited by Johannis Henrici Boecleri. Argentorati: Typ. Josiae Staedelii, 1685.

Anjou oklt. = Anjou-kori oklevéltár I–XV., XVII–XXXVIII., XL., XLII., XLVI–XLIX., L. [Charters of the Angevine era]. Edited by Gyula Kristó et al. Szeged–Budapest: Szegedi Középkorász Műhely, 1990–2020.

CDH = Codex diplomaticus Hungariae ecclesiasticus ac civilis I–XI. Edited by Georgii Fejér. Budae: Typogr. Reg. Univ. Ungaricae, 1829–1844.

CDM = Codex diplomaticus et epistolaris Moraviae. Urkundensammlung zur Geschichte Mährens I–XV. Edited by Berthold Bretholz et al. Brünn: Ex typographia Aloysii Skarnitzl, 1836–1903.

Commentarii = Commentarii pro historia Alberti II. ducis Austriae cognomento Sapientis. Edited by Antonius Steyerer. Lipsiae: Fritsch, 1725.

Die königsaaler Geschichtsquellen = Die königsaaler Geschichtsquellen mit den Zusätzen und der Fortsetzung des Domherrn Franz von Prag. Edited by Johann Loserth. Wien: Gerold in Comm., 1875.

Források a Magyar Királyság kereskedelemtörténetéhez. II. Külkereskedelem (1259–1437) [Sources for the history of trade in the Kingdom of Hungary. II. Foreign trade (1259–1437)]. Edited by Boglárka Weisz. Budapest: Bölcsészettudományi Kutatóközpont, TTI, 2020.

Hageni Chronicon = “Matthaei cujusdam, vel Gregorii Hageni Germanicum Austriae Chronicon.” In Scriptores rerum Austriacarum veteres ac genuini I. Edited by Hieronimus Pez, Lipsiae: Gleditsch, 1721.

Hármaskönyv = Magyar Törvénytár 1000–1895. Werbőczy István Hármaskönyve – Corpus Juris Hungarici. Millenniumi emlékkiadás 2 [Hungarian law collection 1000–1895. István Werbőczy’s Tripartitum – Corpus Juris Hungarici. Millennial memorial edition 2]. Edited by Dezső Márkus. Budapest: Franklin Társulat, 1897.

Historia Trevirensis = Johannes Nikolaus ab Hontheim. Historia Trevirensis diplomatica et pragmatica. Tomus II. Augustae Vindelicorum: Veith, 1750.

Monumenta historica Boemiae II. Edited by P. Gelasius Dobner. Pragae: Clauser, 1768.

Reg. Habs. = Regesta Habsburgica. Regesten der Grafen von Habsburg und der Herzoge von Österreich aus dem Hause Habsburg. Abteilung V. Die Regesten der Herzoge von Österreich (1365–1395). Teilband 1. (1365–1370), Teilband 2. (1371–1375), Teilband (1376 –1380). Edited by Christian Lackner and Claudia Feller. Wien–München: Böhlau Verlag, 2007–2019.

Regesten der Pfalzgrafen am Rhein 1214–1508. I. Edited by Adolf Koch, and Eduard Winkelmann. Innsbruck: Wagner, 1894.

Rerum Boicarum = Rerum Boicarum scriptores. Nusquam antehac editi quibus vicinarum quoque gentium nec non Germaniae universae historiae ex monumentis genuinis historicis et diplomaticis plurimum illustrantur. Tomus II. Edited by Andreas Felix Oefelius. Augustae Vindelicorum: Veith, 1763.

Vet. Mon. = Vetera monumenta historica Hungariam sacram illustrantia. Vols. 1–2. Edited by Augustinus Theiner. Romae: Typis Vaticanis, 1859–1860.

Secondary literature

B. Halász, Éva. “Anjou István herceg (1332–1354)” [Duke Stephen of Anjou, 1332–1354)]. In Hercegek és hercegségek a középkori Magyarországon, edited by Attila Zsoldos, 81–93. Székesfehérvár: Városi Levéltár és Kutatóintézet, 2014.

B. Halász, Éva. “Bajor Margit hercegnő (1325–1374) magyarországi tevékenysége” [The affairs of Princess Margaret of Bavaria, 1325–1374 in Hungary]. Turul (2005): 109–16.

C. Tóth, Norbert: “Szilágy Erzsébet ‘udvara’” [The court of Elizabeth Szilágyi]. In Márvány, tárház, adomány: Gazdaságtörténeti tanulmányok a magyar középkorról, edited by István Kádas, Renáta Skorka, and Boglárka Weisz, 51–114. Budapest: MTA BTK TTI, 2019.

Csukovits, Enikő. Az Anjouk Magyarországon. Vol. 2, I. (Nagy) Lajos és Mária uralma (1342–1395) [The Angevins in Hungary. Vol. 2, The reign of King Louis I the Great and Queen Mary, 1342–1395]. Budapest: Bölcsészettudományi Kutatóközpont, TTI, 2019.

Csukovits, Enikő. Az Anjouk Magyarországon: I. Károly és uralkodása (1301–1342) [The Angevins in Hungary: King Charles I and his reign, 1301–1342]. Budapest: MTA BTK TTI, 2012.

Eckhart, Ferenc. Magyar alkotmány- és jogtörténet [Hungarian constitutional and legal history]. Budapest: Politzer, 1946.

Engel, Pál. “A 14. századi magyar pénztörténet néhány kérdése” [A few questions concerning the history of Hungarian coinage in the 14th century]. Századok 124 (1990): 25–93.

Engel, Pál. Magyarország világi archontológiája 1301–145 [The secular archontology of Hungary]. Vols. 1–2. Budapest: MTA TTI, 1996.

Holzfurtner, Ludwig. Die Wittelsbacher: Staat und Dynastie in acht Jahrhunderten. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2005.

Hóman, Bálint. A Magyar Királyság pénzügyei és gazdaságpolitikája Károly Róbert korában [The finances and economic policy of the Kingdom of Hungary in the era of Charles Robert]. Budapest: Budavári tudományos társaság, 1921.

Hönsch, Jörg K.. Kaiser Sigismund: Herrscher an der Schwelle zur Neuzeit. 1368–1437. Munich: Beck, 1996.

Illés, József. A magyar házassági vagyonjog az Árpádok korában [Hungarian matrimonial property law in the Árpád era]. Budapest: Grill, 1900.

Károlyi, Árpád. “Adalék Mária és Zsigmond eljegyzésének történetéhez” [Addition to the history of the engagement of Sigismund and Mary]. Századok 11 (1877): 18–26.

Kertész, Balázs. Székesfehérvár oklevelei és levelei 1249–1526 [The charters and letters of Székesfehérvár 1249–1526]. Székesfehérvár: Városi Levéltár és Kutatóintézet, 2019.

Krieger, Karl-Friedrich. Die Habsburger im Mittelalter von Rudolf I. bis Friedrich III. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2004.

Lackner, Christian. Hof und Herrschaft: Rat, Kanzlei und Regierung der österreichischen. Vienna: Böhlau Verlag, 2002.

Lichnowsky, Eduard Marie. Geschichte des Hauses Habsburg IV. Vienna: Schaumburg, 1839.

Maléth, Ágnes. A Magyar Királyság és a Szentszék kapcsolata I. Károly korában (1301–1342) [Relations between the Kingdom of Hungary and the Holy See during the reign of Charles I, 1301–1342]. Pécs: PTE BTK TTI, 2020.

Mayer, Franz Martin. Untersuchungen über die österreichische Chronik des Matthäus oder Gregor Hagen. Vienna: Gerold, 1880.

Mészáros, Orsolya. “Az elit és az udvar” [The elite and the court]. In Az Anjou-kor hatalmi elitje, edited by Enikő Csukovits, 189–209. Budapest: Bölcsészettudományi Kutatóközpont, TTI, 2020.

Niederstätter, Alois. Die Herrschaft Österreich. Fürst und Land im Spätmittelalter. Vienna: Ueberreuter, 2004.

Pór, Antal. “István úr árvája” [Lord Stephen’s orphan]. Századok 35 (1901): 193–208.

Pór, Antal. “Pecséttani újabb apróságok” [Some new small matters regarding sigillography]. Turul 15 (1897): 10–19.

Pór, Antal. Nagy Lajos király 1326–1382 [King Louis the Great 1326–1382]. Budapest: Magyar Történelmi Társulat, 1892.

Rudolf, Veronika. “Megjegyzések I. Károly első és második házasságkötéséhez” [Notes on the first and second marriages of Charles I]. Turul 96 (2023): 64–72.

Skorka, Renáta. “A csökkentett vámtarifájú út kialakulása I. Károly uralkodása alatt” [The emergence of the trading route of reduced tariff during the reign of Charles I]. Történelmi Szemle 55 (2013): 451–70.

Skorka, Renáta. “A Habsburgok és a magyar Anjouk kapcsolatainak kronológiája IV. (Luxemburgi) Károly uralkodása alatt” [Chronology of the relationship between the Habsburgs and the Hungarian Angevins during the reign of Charles IV of Luxembourg]. Világtörténet 36 (2014): 631–59.

Skorka, Renáta. “Az alapító, a copfos és a harmadik: A Regesta Habsburgica újabb kötetének margójára” [The founder, the pony-tailed and the third: On the margin of the new volume of the Regesta Habsburgica]. Századok 147 (2013): 523–28.

Skorka, Renáta. “Luxemburgtól Váradig: Beatrix magyar királyné története” [From Luxembourg to Várad: The story of Queen Beatrix of Hungary]. In Nagyvárad és Bihar az Árpád-kor végén, edited by Attila Zsoldos, 175–90. Tanulmányok Bihar ország történetéről 3. Nagyvárad: Varadinum, 2016.

Stolz, Otto. Der geschichtliche Inhalt der Tiroler Landesfürsten von 1288–1355. Innsbruck: Wagner, 1957.

Szende, László. “Piast Erzsébet, a hitves, az anya, a mecénás” [Elizabeth Piast, the wife, the mother and the patron]. In Károly Róbert és Székesfehérvár, edited by Terézia Kerny, and András Smohay, 79–91. Székesfehérvár: Székesfehérvári Egyházmegyei Múzeum, 2011.

Weisz, Boglárka. “Árpád-házi királynéi jövedelmek: Gertrúd királyné udvartartásának pénzügyi hátteréről” [The income of the queens of the Árpád dynasty: The financial background of Queen Gertrude’s court]. In Egy történelmi gyilkosság margójára. Merániai Gertrúd emlékezete 1213–2013, edited by Judit Majorossy, 51–59. Szentendre: Ferenczy Múzeum, 2014.

Weisz, Boglárka. “Az Anjou-kori királynéi udvar két legfőbb méltósága” [The two most main dignities of the Angevine-era reginal court]. In Királynék a középkori Magyarországon és Európában, edited by Kornél Szovák, and Attila Zsoldos, 92–97. Székesfehérvár: Városi Levéltár és Kutatóintézet, 2019.

Wenzel, Gusztáv. A magyar magánjog rendszere [The system of Hungarian private law]. Vol. 1. Budapest: Magyar királyi Egyetemi könyvnyomda, 1885.

Wolfinger, Lukas. Die Herrschaftsinszenierung Rudolfs IV. von Österreich: Strategien, Publikum, Rezeption. Cologne: Böhlau Verlag, 2018.

Zsoldos, Attila. Az Árpádok és asszonyaik: A királynéi intézmény az Árpádok korában [The Árpáds and their wives: Queenship in early medieval Hungary 1000–1301]. Budapest: MTA BTK TTI, 2005.

Vones, Johannes. Urban V. (1362–1370). Kirchenreform zwischen Kardinalkollegium, Kurie und Klientel. Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1998.

  1. 1 Die königsaaler Geschichtsquellen, 400; on the history of the marriage of Charles and Beatrix of Luxemburg, see Skorka, “Luxemburgtól,” 175–90; on the marriages of Charles, see Csukovits, I. Károly, 109–13; Rudolf, “Megjegyzések.”

  2. 2 “Nec longo post per nuntios solempnes regis Karoli haec tenella puella in metis Moraviae et Ungariae reverenter suscipitur.” Die königsaaler Geschichtsquellen, 400.

  3. 3 Skorka, “Luxemburgtól,” 193.

  4. 4 “Nuntio de Ungaria missa pro matrimonia domine Elizabete ducisse Karinthiae.” Bayerisches Hauptstaatsarchiv, Auswärtige Staaten, Literalien Tirol 11, fol. 110r. See also Stolz, Der geschichtliche, 35–36.

  5. 5 On the antecedents to the Nagyszombat alliance, see Skorka, “A csökkentett vámtarifájú út,” 452–56.

  6. 6 Anna was the granddaughter of Jutta, also known as Guta, daughter of Rudolf Habsburg, so the mother of King Charles I of Hungary. Clementia and Jutta were sisters.

  7. 7 Wenzel, Magánjog, 152.

  8. 8 On the embassy of George, citizen of Buda, see Maléth, A Magyar Királyság, 283.

  9. 9 Vet. Mon., vol. 1, no. 800.

  10. 10 Vet. Mon., vol. 1, no. 798. The document is dated 1327, but since the document is dated September 8 in the twelfth year of John XXII’s pontificate, and since the election of the head of the Church took place in August 1316 and his investiture on the following September 5, the year of issue of the document is correctly 1328.

  11. 11 Eckhart, Jogtörténet, 371; Illés, A magyar házassági vagyonjog, 9, 42.

  12. 12 The Czech mark of 56 groschen was considered to be equivalent to one Buda mark of common silver, and in the first half of the fourteenth century, 56 groschen were equal to 3.5 gold florins. Engel, “Pénztörténet,” 34.

  13. 13 In both cases, the source uses the term dotalicium, which in the case of Anna is understood as a dowry because the amount brought by the royal princess of Bohemia reverts to her family in the event of childlessness. In the case of Ladislas, the term dotalicium is interpreted as a dos, as defined by Werbőczy. Cf. Hármaskönyv, 172.

  14. 14 Zsoldos, Az Árpádok, 43.

  15. 15 Ibid., 171.

  16. 16 Skorka, “A csökkentett vámtarifájú út,” 460, 469.

  17. 17 A Czech mark of 64 groschen was considered equivalent to a fine silver mark of Buda, and in the first half of the fourteenth century 64 groschen were equal to 4 gold florins. Engel, “Pénztörténet,” 34.

  18. 18 Interpreted as a morning gift: dos est donatio propter nuptias uxori a marito facta. Illés, A magyar házassági vagyonjog, 16, note no. 1.

  19. 19 CDM, vol. 7, 136–37; Anjou oklt., vol. 22, no. 67–68.

  20. 20 Zsoldos, Árpádok, 180. The castles of Becse and Szeged can be traced back as the queens’ property even after the death of King Sigismund of Hungary. Cf. C. Tóth, “Szilágy Erzsébet,” 55.

  21. 21 “Quo dicta filia sua in aulam eorundem parentum nostrorum, pro informandis moribus et idiomate Hungarico, traducta extitit.” CDM, vol. 7, 313; Anjou oklt., vol. 26, no. 293–94.

  22. 22 Anjou oklt., vol. 28, no. 118.

  23. 23 On the order of the date of birth of the children of Charles I and Queen Elizabeth see Szende, “Piast Erzsébet,” 79–91.

  24. 24 For more recent scholarship on Margaret’s coming to Hungary and her marriage, see B. Halász, “Bajor Margit,” 88.

  25. 25 B. Halász, “Anjou István,” 88–89.

  26. 26 Commentarii, 187.

  27. 27 CDH, vol. 9/2, 500.

  28. 28 For an interpretation of it as a morning gift, as in the case of Prince Ladislas, see dos est donatio propter nuptias uxori a marito facta. Illés, A magyar házassági vagyonjog, 16, note no. 1.

  29. 29 From the 1340s, one mark was worth four gold florins. Engel, “Pénztörténet,” 75.

  30. 30 On the use of morning gift in the original Roman legal sense of dowry see Illés, A magyar házassági vagyonjog, 16, note no. 2.

  31. 31 For its origin, see Weisz, “Gertrúd királyné,” 52, 55.

  32. 32 MNL OL, DF 258248; Anjou oklt., vol. 42, no. 887.

  33. 33 For the issue of the charter, see Pór, “Pecséttani,” 14–15.

  34. 34 Pór, “István úr,” 101.

  35. 35 On the alliance of 1353, see Skorka, “A Habsburgok,” 641.

  36. 36 Krieger, Die Habsburger, 131.

  37. 37 Pór, “István úr,” 102.

  38. 38 Hönsch, Kaiser Sigismund, 16.

  39. 39 Wolfinger, Rudolf IV, 70.

  40. 40 Commentarii, 333–34.

  41. 41 As the cause of the war, the research points to the Emperor’s disparagingly mocking outburst against Queen Elizabeth. Pór, Nagy Lajos, 434.

  42. 42 Skorka, “Az alapító,” 526.

  43. 43 Pór, Nagy Lajos, 432–36.

  44. 44 Cf. Skorka, “A Habsburgok,” 646.

  45. 45 CDM, vol. 9, 198.

  46. 46 Skorka, “Az alapító,” 527.

  47. 47 On the peace of Brno, see ibid., 527.

  48. 48 CDM, vol. 9, 257–59.

  49. 49 Pór, “István úr,” 106–7.

  50. 50 ADE, vol. 2, 630–32, Anjou oklt., vol. 49, no. 115.

  51. 51 Vet. Mon., vol. 2, no. 128, 129, 130; Anjou oklt., vol. 49, no. 266, 267.

  52. 52 ADE, vol. 2, 638–39; Anjou oklt., vol. 49, no. 283.

  53. 53 Anjou oklt., vol. 49, no. 594.

  54. 54 CDH, vol. 9/3, 536–37; Anjou oklt., vol 49, no. 618.

  55. 55 Lichnowsky, Geschichte, no. 715.

  56. 56 MNL OL, DF 257 990, Anjou oklt., vol. 50, no. 73, 115.

  57. 57 CDH, vol. 9/3, 537; Anjou oklt., vol. 50, no. 123.

  58. 58 Vet. Mon., vol. 2, no. 172.

  59. 59 Holzfurtner, Die Wittelsbacher, 91–96; Niederstätter, Die Herrschaft, 172–73.

  60. 60 Reg. Habs., vol. 6/1, no. 109.

  61. 61 Anjou oklt., vol. 50, no. 317.

  62. 62 Aeneae Silvii, 84–85.

  63. 63 Pór, “István úr,” 114–15. The source cited by Pór is wrongly dated to 1355 in the edition, since German research has confirmed that it was addressed by the emperor from Modena to the archbishop of Trier on August 28, 1368. Vones, Urban V, 236. For the publication of the source with the wrong date, see Historia Trevirensis, 186–88.

  64. 64 If our hypothesis is correct, we can place Elizabeth’s birth between February and June 1354, for the date of birth, around 1353, as concluded by Antal Pór, has been used so far. On the basis of the Luxembourg family tree in Joseph Palacky’s Geschichte von Böhmen, Pór has concluded that Elizabeth was eight years “older” than Wenceslas of Luxembourg, who was born in February 1361. Pór, “István úr,” 99.

  65. 65 Letter from the emperor: Anjou oklt., vol. 50, no. 226.; Louis’s stay in Pozsony: Skorka, “A Habsbur­gok,” 650.

  66. 66 CDH, vol. 9/4, 58.

  67. 67 On February 4, 1368, cooperation was confirmed in Mainz. Rerum Boicarum, 187–88, 192.

  68. 68 This was confirmed on September 13, 1369 in Pozsony. Regesten der Pfalzgrafen, vol. 1, no. 3744, no. 3745, no. 3845.

  69. 69 Of territories conquered together, the one on the inner side of the Enns would have been Hungary’s, and the one on the other side, or in Carinthia or Tyrol, would have been the Bavarian. Cf. Rerum Boicarum, 188.

  70. 70 Historia Trevirensis, 188.

  71. 71 Hönsch, Kaiser Sigismund, 35.

  72. 72 Vet. Mon., vol. 2, no. 172.

  73. 73 The fact that Elizabeth was in her sixteenth year in December 1369 does not contradict our earlier assumption that she was born between February and June 1354. For the full age of majority of the daughters, see Hármaskönyv, 194.

  74. 74 CDH, vol. 9/4, 244–46.

  75. 75 Philip II’s grandfather was King Charles II of Naples, who was also Elizabeth’s great-grandfather.

  76. 76 Pór drew attention to the fact that Pope Urban V, in a letter dated July 18, 1370, first considered Elizabeth Kotromanić a “political factor,” from which Pór concluded that “Queen Elizabeth the Younger was in a pregnant state.” Pór, “István úr,”, 205. and note 3. It is more likely, however, that the Queen’s increase in political power was due more to the birth of her offspring, which means that Catherine was born in July 1370 and the news reached Avignon.

  77. 77 For the details of the campaigns in Naples in retaliation for the death of Prince Andrew, see most recently Csukovits, Lajos, 27–48

  78. 78 Vones, Urban V, 215.

  79. 79 For the wedding, the city of Pozsony sent oats and wine to Zadar. Cf. Források a Magyar Királyság, 129–30. On the court of the Charles II of Durazzo, see Pór, “István úr,” 205.

  80. 80 Skorka, “A Habsburgok,” 652.

  81. 81 Pór, Nagy Lajos, 455.

  82. 82 Skorka, “A Habsburgok,” 653.

  83. 83 CDH, vol. 9/4, 390; Skorka, “A Habsburgok,” 653.

  84. 84 Sigismund was originally the third in the line of Charles IV’s sons, since Wenceslas, born of the emperor’s second marriage, died as a baby. Hönsch, Kaiser Sigismund, 32.

  85. 85 Károlyi, “Adalék,” 19. and note no. 5.

  86. 86 If our assumption is correct, Hedvig could not have been born later than the very beginning of 1373.

  87. 87 On the role of Visegrád and Buda during the reign of King Louis see Mészáros, “Az elit”; Weisz, “Királynéi udvar.”

  88. 88 Skorka, “A Habsburgok,” 654.

  89. 89 Monumenta historica Boemiae, vol. 2, 383–84.

  90. 90 “Intentio regis est, dictae filiae suae nomine dotis dare ducenta millia florenorum.” Ibid.

  91. 91 From the 1340s, a mark was worth four gold florins. Engel, “Pénztörténet,” 75.

  92. 92 MNL OL, DF 287480.

  93. 93 Skorka, “A Habsburgok,” 654–55.

  94. 94 On this, see most recently Csukovits, Lajos, 125.

  95. 95 Pór, Nagy Lajos, 531–32.

  96. 96 Vet. Mon., vol. 2, no. 305.

  97. 97 The grandfather of Sigismund’s mother, Elizabeth of Pomerania, was King Casimir I of Poland (1333–1370), who was the half-brother of Louis I’s mother, Elizabeth of Piast, and their father was King Vladislas I of Poland (1320–1333).

  98. 98 MNL OL, DF 287481.

  99. 99 Skorka, “A Habsburgok,” 654.

  100. 100 Ibid.; On the war against Venice in 1373, see Pór, Nagy Lajos, 473–83.

  101. 101 ADE, vol. 3, 85–86.

  102. 102 ADE, vol. 3, 103–4.

  103. 103 As a comparison, Bálint Hóman estimated the amount of money that Elizabeth Piast took with her in 1343 to acquire the Kingdom of Sicily at approximately 1,500,000 gold florins. Hóman, Károly Róbert, 136.

  104. 104 MNL OL, DF 258366

  105. 105 CDH, vol. 9/5, 377.

  106. 106 If they were indeed married on June 15, Bishop Demeter of Zagreb must have been the elected archbishop of Esztergom by that date: Engel, Világi archontológia, vol. 1, 64.; Demeter became cardinal on September 18, 1378. Ibid.

  107. 107 CDH, vol. 9/5, 377.

  108. 108 Mayer, Untersuchungen, 325.

  109. 109 “Hageni Chronicon,” 1147.

  110. 110 Krieger, Die Habsburger, 147–48.

  111. 111 Reg. Habs., vol. 5/3., no. 1940.

  112. 112 Lackner, Hof, 52.

  113. 113 Elizabeth von Reutenberg became once again the Duchess of Visconti’s chief mistress of the court after Hedvig. Lackner, Hof, 52.

  114. 114 MNL OL, DF 239 215. The document can be dated according to the Pozsony magistrate and the office of Mihály Szegi, the castellan of Óvár.

  115. 115 “Hageni Chronicon,” 1147.

  116. 116 CDH, vol. 9/5, 378–80.

  117. 117 For the publication of the two charters, see Kertész, “Székesfehérvár,” 77–79.

Croatian-Dalmatian Roles in the Organization of the Wedding pdf
of King Vladislaus II and Queen Anne*

Tomislav Matić

Croatian Institute of History, Zagreb

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Hungarian Historical Review Volume 14 Issue 1 (2025): 65-95 DOI 10.38145/2025.1.65

This paper examines three aspects of the possible participation of Croats and Dalmatians in the organization of the wedding of King Vladislaus II and Anne of Foix-Kendal, which took place in 1502. The first is the possible participation of Felix Petančić of Dubrovnik, who, according to older historiography, produced a portrait of Anne and her cousin Germaine for King Vladislaus. The second is the epithalamium of Matthew Andreis of Trogir, probably composed on the occasion of Anne’s passage through Italy. The third is the participation of Croatian nobles in Anne’s arrival in Croatian lands and her journey from Senj to Zagreb. The paper shows that there is no proof of Petančić’s involvement in the wedding. As for Andreis, he was apparently familiar even with the more obscure details of the organization. The third aspect demonstrates the remarkable cooperation among Croatian magnates in Anne’s passage, even those who were previously enemies of Vladislaus.

Keywords: Renaissance, Kingdom of Hungary-Croatia, ceremonies, history of diplomacy, literary history, social history

Introduction

In 1502, a great wedding ceremony took place in the Kingdom of Hungary-Croatia. King Vladislaus II Jagiellon (1490–1516), son of the Polish king Casimir IV (1447–1492) and ruler of the composite kingdom of Bohemia, Hungary, Croatia and their dependencies, then already a man well past his prime, took a young wife, a French lady distantly related to Louis XII, king of France (1498–1515). This lady was Anne, daughter of Gaston II of Foix-Kendal, a French count and (titular) English earl, known in French as the count of Candale.1 At the time of her wedding, Anne was about 18 years old and had until then been tutored by her cousin, Duchess Anne of Brittany, queen consort of France. This marriage was intended as a means to facilitate a large anti-Ottoman alliance in preparation for a multi-national crusade (which, however, never took place).2

Before examining the roles played by Croats and Dalmatians in the organization of this wedding, it is worth briefly considering the image of Anne of Foix-Kendal in the older Croatian historiography. As Croatia was one of the new queen’s realms, her marriage to King Vladislaus concerns Croatian history as well as its Hungarian and Bohemian counterparts. Unfortunately, no studies were devoted to Anne’s part in the history of Croatia. Croatian historians, especially in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, took some interest in her marriage to Vladislaus, but none of them devoted more than cursory attention to the relevant sources. In short, they viewed this marriage extremely unfavorably. They thought it was frivolous, that it caused the king to ignore the business of ruling his kingdoms, especially their defense from the increasingly ominous threat of defeat at the hands of the Ottoman Empire (because he was allegedly “swimming in marital bliss,” as one Croatian historian put it), and that he drove the country into enormous debt so that he could shower his young bride with gifts.3

Nineteenth-century and early twentieth-century Croatian historians were not the only ones to have taken a dim view of Queen Anne and her influence on the king. Some of the royal couple’s contemporaries were even more unkind. Namely, one fifteenth–sixteenth-century chronicler, the controversial George of Syrmia, whom one nineteenth-century Croatian historian dubbed the “mad priest,”4 outright accused the queen of poisoning the children of the illegitimate son of the late king Mattthias Corvinus, John Corvinus, duke of Slavonia. According to George, the queen saw his children, Elizabeth and Christopher, as potential rivals to her own children for the throne of Hungary-Croatia.5 He described the queen’s alleged scheme in great detail and claimed that he had witnessed the events personally. His account is noticeably anachronistic, his Latin atrocious, and it is very likely that some of the more controversial claims in it are merely recorded gossip that was circulating when it was written. Despite its defects, it was too alluring for Croatian historians to disregard. This was because the victims of the queen’s alleged poisoning really did die at a very young age, but also because they were children of Beatrice Frankapan, wife of John Corvinus, and therefore descendants of the enormously wealthy and powerful Croatian Frankapan family. Their alleged murder was therefore seen primarily as a crime against Croatia by early Croatian historians, especially because they treated John Corvinus, by virtue of being duke of Slavonia and ban of Croatia and Dalmatia, as a champion of Croatian interests, and both he and Beatrice’s father Bernardine were seen as two of the most stalwart defenders of Croatia from Ottoman encroachments.6

Her alleged participation in this probably fictional murder cast Anne as a negative character in nineteenth-century Croatian historiography, as most historians kept George of Syrmia’s story about the poisoning of John Corvinus’ children in circulation, either by tersely dismissing it as a fabrication7 or by re­veling in its luridness.8 This circulation was helped by the fact that George of Syrmia’s text was one of the few published sources on late medieval Croatian history when these early Croatian historians’ were writing their works. It was printed in 1857 by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, which made it readily available to contemporary researchers. George’s story about the alleged poisoning even filtered into Croatian historical fiction, such as the books by a locally very famous twentieth-century author Marija Jurić Zagorka. In her novel Gordana, Anne is depicted as a haughty and evil woman, and her list of crimes is expanded to (unsuccessfully) poisoning John Corvinus himself, together with his children.9 The fictional Anne in this novel gave birth to a disfigured son as punishment for the murders she committed.10

Such harsh treatment was undeserved by the young queen. Her real story was an unhappy one. If we consider her marriage to Vladislaus in the context of her life and the world in which she lived, it becomes apparent that there is no reason to blame her for her husband’s alleged failings. She was forced to marry Vladislaus, a man twice her age whom she had never previously met,11 despite already being in love with François d’Orléans, Count of Dunois.12 Without being given much choice in the matter, she was uprooted and forced to move to a country she did not know, where she died less than four years after her wedding.13 It is also groundless to assume that she was an enemy of the Croatian nobles, at least within the timeframe on which this paper focuses. The sources clearly reveal that she was well-received in Croatia during her wedding procession, and that several Croats and Dalmatians contributed to the spectacular event, primarily the aforementioned Frankapan family and Duke John Corvinus.

This paper presents the roles played by Croats and Dalmatians in the organization of Vladislaus II and Anne’s wedding. Several prominent Croatian and Dalmatian figures actively participated in the wedding and made substantial contributions to the grand event. The first chapter will focus on Felix Petančić from Dubrovnik, a painter and diplomat who perhaps painted Anne’s engagement portrait. The subject of the second chapter will be the literary work of Matthew Andronicus Andreis from Trogir, who composed a celebratory poem (an epithalamium) for the royal couple. Finally, the third chapter will study the roles of Bernardine Frankapan and his allies, who welcomed Anne to Croatia and escorted her and her entourage to the destination of her wedding and coronation.

Several caveats must be listed to clarify the scope and limits of this study.
Felix Petančić has long been a subject of research, although not widely publicized, both in Croatia and in Hungary. The possibility that he was the painter commissioned to make the portraits of Anne of Foix-Kendal and her cousin Germaine has long been a subject of conjecture, although much of the literature, predominantly older, treated it as a fact. Here, we will attempt to clarify this matter, as in some cases it is just as important to prove that something is not the case as it might have seemed to suggest that it is the case, especially when decades of repetition have allowed historiographical assumptions to harden into facts. The life and work of Matthew Andreis and, more narrowly, his epithalamium composed for the wedding of Vladislaus and Anne have been made the subject of study less frequently, yet this epithalamium offers insights into the ways in which contemporaries understood the processes behind the wedding. It is also a brilliant and sometimes puzzling piece of humanistic Latin poetry. Here, we consider not its artistic merits or influences, but only its relation to the wedding for which it was composed.

As for the last part of this paper, concerning Anne’s procession through Croatia and the participants in it, it will be limited to the roles of the Croatian participants in the ceremonies, primarily the counts of the Frankapan family. Many other Croatian figures took part, but they fall out of the scope of this study. The borders of late medieval Dalmatia, Croatia, and Slavonia also will not be discussed,14 but I have decided not to include participants from medieval Slavonia, such as the Bishop of Zagreb. Lawrence of Ilok, who was neither a Slavonian nor a Croatian lord, is mentioned because the prominence of his role could not be disregarded, and John Corvinus is included because of his ties to the Frankapan family and the fact that he was ban of Croatia and Dalmatia at the time. The terms “Croatian” and “Dalmatian” are used in a purely territorial sense in this discussion, and not in an ethnic or national one. In other words, they indicate whether the given person originated from the Kingdom of Croatia or Dalmatia. It should also be noted that the persons studied in this paper will be considered only in the context of their roles in Vladislaus and Anne’s wedding, and only the relevant parts of their biographies will be mentioned.

Felix Petančić and the Royal Portrait

Of the Croats and Dalmatians who participated in the organization of the wedding of Vladislaus II and Anne of Foix, we first consider Felix Petančić, a native of Dubrovnik, the city also known as Ragusa. As we shall see, his role in this wedding is mostly a historiographical construct, built on assumptions based on other, older assumptions. Here, we consider the possibility that he painted the portrait of the future queen Anne, which allegedly induced King Vladislaus to choose her as his wife. Although there is virtually no evidence of this, this contention frequently appears in biographies of Petančić. As it concerns the subject of this paper, it behooves us to shed some light on the matter, particularly how this theory came to be and the sources on which it relied.

Petančić entered the public life of the Kingdom of Hungary-Croatia in the 1490s. It was probably his godfather Christopher Stojković, Bishop of Modruš, who introduced him to the royal court in Buda. His life is still shrouded in mystery, and a modern comprehensive biography of Petančić has not yet been written, though it would clearly be of interest. As for his older biographies, it is possible that several persons were conflated into one by twentieth-century researchers. It is possible that Petančić was a skilled illuminator or that another person named Felix was. The only potential indication that Petančić was an artist depends on the interpretation of a passage from the book Hungaria by Nicholas Olah, archbishop of Esztergom. Olah wrote that at the time of his youth, a wise old illuminator named Felix Ragusinus (after Ragusa, the Latin name for Dubrovnik), who knew several languages, including Arabic, worked at the royal scriptorium in Buda.15 Other than this (and one could hardly call this evidence), there is no confirmation that Petančić ever painted anything. It is also difficult to determine precisely when Olah’s “youth” was, and we have no way of knowing how old Petančić would have been at the time. Nevertheless, this paragraph mentioning Felix Ragusinus was the cornerstone of the theories according to which Petančić was a painter.

This does not mean that there are no other, more reliable sources regarding Petančić. We know that he had other skills and that he used these skills to serve King Vladislaus II. Namely, he was an administrator and a diplomat in the service of the king, and a writer as well. Vladislaus II appointed him chancellor of the royal city of Senj in 1496 and entrusted him with several important diplomatic missions in the early 1500s.16 While he was in royal service, Petančić presented to King Vladislaus a treatise usually called the Genealogy of the Turkish Emperors (Genealogia Turcorum Imperatorum), and possibly some other writings as well.17

This closeness to Vladislaus, the diplomatic missions entrusted to him, and his putative artistic skills led to an intriguing theory about Petančić’s role in the wedding of Vladislaus II. Namely, the king was not certain whether he should marry Anne of Foix-Kendal or her cousin, Germaine of Foix-Navarra (granddaughter of Gaston IV of Foix-Béarn). As he had never seen either of the women, in order to decide which one to marry, he would have needed to dispatch an artist capable of painting their portraits. Some historians have argued that the artist he chose to send was none other than Felix Petančić.18

This theory depends exclusively on the assumption that Petančić was a painter as well as a diplomat. Although there is no conclusive evidence in support of this notion, earlier researchers examined the manuscripts containing the texts he wrote and assumed that Petančić must have illuminated them himself. This led them to the conclusion that he was skilled in painting miniature portraits, and consequently some of the most magnificent products of the Buda court scriptorium were ascribed to him. Further conclusions regarding Petančić’s supposed artistic achievements were based on similarities among illuminations in manuscripts originating from the royal court in Buda.19 This opened the way to further assumptions, such as the notion Petančić was the best portraitist at the disposal of the Hungarian king. This assumption could easily have been tethered to the fact that Vladislaus II sent Petančić on several diplomatic missions, culminating with the mission to Constantinople in 1513, which then prompted the very questionable conclusion that he was also tasked with painting the portraits of King Vladislaus’ prospective brides.

It is worth noting that Petančić’s supposed mission to the king of France is not explicitly mentioned in any of the contemporary sources, or, rather, that he is not mentioned by any of the sources dealing with the embassies tasked with arranging Vladislaus II’s marriage. The earliest work usually cited by modern studies that mention Petančić in this context is the Annales regum Hungariae by George Pray.20 To get to the root of the matter, we must therefore study Pray’s sources. According to him, Petančić’s supposed mission to France took place immediately after his mission to the Knights Hospitaller on Rhodes and before he presented the work Quibus itineribus Turci sint aggrediendi to Vladislaus II. Pray was familiar with this work and quoted extensively from it.21 However, he did not name any of his sources on which his contentions concerning Petančić’s French mission are based, and the only source he did name in that place was Regni Hungarici historia by Nicholas Istvánffi, but only in the context of Queen Anne’s heritage. Istvánffy himself did not mention Petančić at all.22

Fortunately, Petar Matković studied the older literature on Petančić in the nineteenth century and made it much easier to trace the transmission of statements.23 His work leads us to one of Pray’s contemporaries, Stephen Katona, who shed more light on the matter. He was more conscientious than Pray about stating his sources, and in his Historia critica regum Hungariae, he cited Pray when recounting Petančić’s mission to France, but he also cited and quoted Pray’s source. He did not accept this source as reliable in its entirety, as he thought it unlikely that the mission to France had taken place immediately after the mission to Rhodes, because it would not fit in the timeline of events.24 The source in question was Epitome chronologica rerum Hungaricarum et Transilvanicarum by Samuel Timon. In the relevant passage, Timon stated that he thought it likely that after the mission to Rhodes Petančić proceeded to France to select a wife for King Vladislaus II (Credibile est Petancium Cancellarium Segniensem, in Gallias usque profectum fuisse, ad deligendam sponsam Vladislao Regi).25

This sentence by Timon is the foundation on which centuries of histo­rio­graphical constructs rest. It is also the beginning of the thread we have been tracing in reverse. Timon did not list any source for his statement because he did not have any. He was simply stating an opinion. Indeed, if we look at the contemporary sources, there are none that would place Petančić in any of Vladislaus II’s embassies to France. The closest thing to evidence of his participation in such a mission which later (largely unwitting) proponents of Timon’s theory had to offer is a note made by the contemporary Venetian chronicler, Marino Sanudo. Sanudo wrote on August 14, 1500 that the Hungarian king had sent to France a painter, some Italian, to portray the women that the king was considering marrying. Sanudo himself, together with Antonio Venier, made an official visit with this painter while he was in transit in Venice, but he did not record the name of this painter in his diary.26 Historians later concluded that this painter might have been Petančić.27 This required a corollary assumption, namely that Sanudo mistook the Ragusan Petančić for an Italian, which is dubious, considering that he met him in person and conversed with him.

Due to scholarship that had piled up over the course of the centuries after Timon and Pray, the task of disproving the theory according to which Petančić was Vladislaus II’s envoy to France, and an envoy sent as a painter to boot, is not a simple matter. We will therefore list both its flaws and possible advantages. The main flaw is that the line of thinking which resulted in its formulation is not particularly convincing. First and foremost, the lack of written evidence is glaring. There is no evidence of Petančić’s involvement in any of the activities surrounding Vladislaus’ wedding. As for the portraits of Anne and Germaine, the sources confirm that they really did exist and were painted for the purpose identified above, but Petančić’s involvement with them is purely conjectural. This becomes apparent if we consider the sources that mention these portraits. One of them is the contemporary French chronicler Jean d’Auton, who stated that he had heard that King Vladislaus had dispatched an envoy, one George de Versepel (in Czech, Jiří z Běšin), a subject of the Kingdom of Bohemia, to negotiate his prospective wedding with the king of France. He was also supposed to inspect the potential brides in person and to have their portraits made from life. Said portraits were then made, and Vladislaus was, at least according to d’Auton, very satisfied with them.28 What d’Auton does not mention is any involvement on Petančić’s part. As we have seen, the only envoy he mentioned was George of Běšin. To salvage the theory according to which the portraits were painted by Petančić, we would be forced to assume either that he was dispatched separately from this envoy or that Jean d’Auton did not deem it necessary to mention him, possibly because Petančić, as a mere artisan, was not important enough to be recorded.

The other source which will be considered here, the diary of Marino Sanudo, affirms the flaws of the aforementioned theory, but it also complicates the matter. Namely, it should be admitted that it contains conflicting reports regarding King Vladislaus’ embassy to France.29 Sanudo had recorded, as mentioned in the discussion above, that King Vladislaus’ envoy tasked with seeing the Foix cousins was in Venice, alone, on August 14, 1500. However, this is not the only piece of information he gives regarding the king’s embassy to France. A few months later, he recorded that a dispatch from the Venetian envoy to King Louis XII, dated September 29, 1500, said that the ambassador of the king of Hungary, with the task identical to the one Sanudo earlier ascribed to the Italian painter, arrived at the French king’s court in Blois together with the French ambassadors who had returned from Hungary.30 This might mean that Vladislaus really had sent two envoys, one traveling with the returning French ambassadors and the other traveling separately.

Also, contrary to Jean d’Auton, the Venetian ambassador in the Kingdom of Hungary-Croatia, Sebastiano Giustiniani, reported to his government in Venice that King Vladislaus’ envoy has returned from France on December 10, but that he had not seen the Foix cousins at all, because they were both, as he was told, in distant lands (which probably meant Brittany).31 This report was probably dispatched before Giustiniani found out everything he could about the embassy, as one of his later reports contained more information on it. About a month after dispatching the first report, he sent another one, saying that the king’s envoy, George of Běšin the Bohemian, had brought portraits of the two women with him, but that the king had not liked either of them.32 This also differs from d’Auton’s version, but let us examine how it relates to the theory with which we are dealing. If George had not seen the women but had brought back portraits of them, it is possible that another envoy had seen them, had made their portraits, and had given them to George, who subsequently presented them to the king. It is also possible that this hypothetical second envoy returned separately from George, as the Venetian ambassador reported on the portraits only several weeks after George’s return.

Another of Sanudo’s records makes this issue even more difficult to understand. On November 28, he wrote that he received news that an envoy of King Vladislaus returned to Hungary with the portraits of the two women.33 Considering this, it seems strange that the Venetian ambassador reported that the envoy returned on December 10, when he should have already been there for two weeks, and that he learned of the portraits even later, despite the said envoy allegedly having brought them with him. Due to this, we may consider the possibility that there really were two envoys traveling separately. This might mean that the second envoy might have been Petančić, and he may very well have made the portraits. However, this only provides the space for an assumption that there was a second envoy dispatched to France by King Vladislaus, and it would take many more assumptions, all of them unsubstantiated, to link Petančić to the portraits of Anne of Foix and her cousin Germaine. It is therefore clear that the sources offer no solid foundation for the theory according to which he made those portraits, although it cannot be rejected entirely.

Matthew Andreis and the Wedding Poem

As we have seen, Felix Petančić’s involvement in the making of the portrait of Anne of Foix cannot be proven. However, that does not mean that the Croats and the Dalmatians made no contributions to the artistic production prompted by her wedding to Vladislaus II. This production took many forms, both within and beyond the borders of Anne’s future kingdoms. For example, the future queen’s passage through Italy spawned a series of theatrical welcoming ceremonies, marked by allegorical displays and references to Classical mythology.34 This, in turn, sparked literary production, such as Angelo Gabriel’s description of Anne’s welcoming ceremony in Venice.35 In this atmosphere of spectacle, Matthew Andronicus Andreis composed an epithalamium in the honor of the forthcoming wedding36 titled Epithalamium in nuptias Vladislai Pannoniarum ac Boemiae regis et Annae Candaliae reginae. He published it in Venice on the occasion of the future queen’s arrival. This poem and its author, therefore, deserve to be considered in this paper. This chapter offers a brief description of Andreis’ background and then focuses on the context in which his epithalamium was composed, with a particular focus on Andreis’ knowledge of the events that preceded the royal wedding.

Matthew Andreis was a member of a very distinguished and noble family of the coastal city of Trogir in Dalmatia, which was ruled at the time by the Republic of Venice. The Andreis family’s lineage can be traced to the early thirteenth century. Its members were heavily involved in the turbulent history of Trogir, occasionally suffering penalties such as exile.37 They owned several houses and a palace in the city and perhaps even a tower by the city walls. Remains of their palace can still be seen today.38 The family name was old and venerable, but some of its bearers (those more inclined towards contemporary humanistic trends) started using the fashionably all’antica appellation “Andronicus” during the Renaissance, even as late as the seventeenth century.39 Matthew was apparently one of them.

Matthew Andronicus Andreis was born around 1480 and studied in Padua. Judging by his literary production, he received a good humanistic education, but the epithalamium we mentioned earlier is his only piece of poetry known to us. 40 It was not an obscure work in the period immediately after it was written, considering that it was known to and read by contemporary Dalmatian humanistic authors, such as Marko Marulić, and it even influenced them to some degree.41 Andreis combined motives taken from the works of various Roman poets, such as Statius and Claudian, displaying the breadth of his education and his mastery of Classical Latin.

Andreis was obviously well-read and took every opportunity to inform the reader of his vast knowledge of Classical mythology and literature. However, he compared the events surrounding the wedding not only with Classical mythology, as was customary for Renaissance epithalamia, but also with episodes from ancient history.42 He also hints towards contemporary history through the clever use of references to Antiquity. For example, he gives a subtle reference to the Italian Wars, mentioning how the Gauls under Brennus pillaged Rome,43 similarly to how the French (who are also called Gauls in his text) brought destruction to Italy. To counterbalance that, he describes the joy that followed Anne during her journey through the same country, caused by the fact that she had brought peace, not war.44 Some of Andreis’ references to contemporary politics are more convoluted and require careful reading, and one must always bear in mind that none of his parallels are coincidental. For example, his decision to draw a parallel between Vladislaus II and Peleus, the father of Achilles, who brought doom to Troy, the empire of the east, could be interpreted as a prophetic suggestion by Andreis that Vladislaus or his progeny would defeat the empire of the East of his day, the Ottoman Empire.45

Given some of the details of the poem, it is possible that Andreis was present in Padua, on the territory belonging to the Republic of Venice, for the meeting of the future queen with the honor guard sent by King Vladislaus. This was not merely a military detachment, but also a splendid selection of men from among the Kingdom of Hungary-Croatia’s potentates, led by Lawrence of Ilok and tasked with escorting Anne and her entourage to Hungary.46 The fact that the wedding song in Andreis’ epithalamium is sung by soldiers might be the result of an adaptation of the setting in the epithalamium composed by the late Antique poet Claudian, but it also might have been a conscious choice prompted by Andreis’ first-hand experience of the encounter.47 As noted earlier, all of the details in the poem were carefully selected and arranged, so it is not likely that Claudian’s setting was used simply as an imitation.

Another detail which gives us reason to think that Andreis was present at the meeting of the future queen and her honor guard is that in a passage earlier in the poem he gave a detailed description of King Vladislaus’ troops and their equipment.48 This is a very long description, and it goes into great detail about the types of armor worn by the troops, their weapons and mounts, and even the color of their hair. Perhaps we might assume that he did not invent this description out of whole cloth but instead drew on his memories of the splendid attires and parade armors worn by Hungarian dignitaries and their escort for the occasion of meeting the queen’s procession in Padua. That would mean that he, like his contemporary Gabriel, was impressed by the spectacles accompanying Anne’s passage, which prompted him to write a fanciful but inspired account of what he had witnessed.

It is also surprising that Andreis was apparently relatively familiar with the queen’s lineage, or at least wanted to appear as if he were. He placed the origin of Anne’s family name in Britain and praised her Celtic ancestry.49 In another passage, he places the ancestors of the “Candalii,” Anne’s family, among the ancient and honorable “Gallic” dignitaries.50 This could mean that he knew of the ties Anne’s forefathers had to England and perhaps even that her family name, Candale, came from the French rendition of the name of the earldom of Kendal. Unfortunately, we do not know where he would have acquired that knowledge, but he certainly did succeed in appearing to be very well informed. Perhaps the person to whom Andreis dedicated the poem, Nicholas Csáky, bishop of Cenad, provided some of the information, as the dedication indicates that Andreis was familiar with the bishop’s doings. Namely, he mentions, as part of his praise for the addressee’s achievements, that the bishop negotiated the future queen’s passage with the Venetian Senate.51 It is possible that Andreis conversed with him on that occasion.

In addition to drawing parallels with current politics, Andreis also borrowed from fully classical tales. For example, he described how Venus had ordered Cupid to fly to Pannonia and make the king, who had until then thought little of the matters of the heart, fall in love.52 However, even there he did not digress dramatically from the events that really took place. This required some, to put it mildly, creative writing, as obviously neither Vladislaus nor Anne were pagans and thus could not acknowledge Venus’ assistance or even her existence. This makes the way in which he mixed the ancient and the medieval in his verses all the more interesting. For example, when describing how the king dispatched a bishop to France to negotiate the marriage, he describes the envoy as more eloquent than Nestor and Ulysses and decorated with episcopal honors for his virtues.53 This pleases Venus, who flies to France to facilitate the wooing secretly.

It was apparently not contradictory for Andreis that a pagan goddess should help a Christian bishop (or that the two could coexist), but his decision to place the pagan deities in the background of events enabled him to stay as true to reality as possible, as King Vladislaus II indeed did send a bishop to finalize the wedding agreement. We do not know whether this was the bishop Andreis had in his mind, but Nicholas Bacskai, Bishop of Nitra, was an ambassador sent to France with this task. In reality, he was only one member of a larger embassy, which visited England as well as France.54

Andreis’ epithalamium was, unlike Petančić’s supposed portrait, a real ad­dition to Vladislaus and Anne’s wedding. Its author was inventive, well-informed, and capable of mixing current politics of his day, Classical mythology, and his own literary preferences. It also demonstrates that contemporary educated Dalmatians were familiar with what was fashionable at the time and capable of producing suitable literary pieces when the occasion for them presented itself. As a digression, it is worth noting that this epithalamium was not a unique phenomenon, as it was not the only such piece of poetry produced by a Dalmatian author in the early sixteenth century. Another such work was composed by Michael Vrančić a few decades later, in 1539, for the wedding of another Hungarian king, John of Zapolje.55

Great Lords and Enemies of Old

So far, we have only considered artistic contributions, real or alleged, to the organization of Vladislaus and Anne’s wedding. However, Croats and Dalmatians provided more than just services of this kind. Some of them provided genuine political and military support, which was both crucial for the successful execution of the ceremony and a demonstration of King Vladislaus’ ability to secure their support. In the discussion below, we consider the role of the magnates who enabled Anne’s passage through Croatia on the way to Székesfehérvár in Hungary proper, where her wedding took place.

It is fortunate that we have a first-hand account of Anne’s arrival to and passage through Croatia. For this, we have Anne of Brittany to thank. It so happened that the French queen and Breton duchess liked her cousin and protégé, not least because Anne of Foix-Kendal had no claim to her own titles and therefore presented no danger to her.56 In any case, Anne of Brittany did not let her travel to distant lands unattended. She sent, among others, her own herald, Pierre Choque, to accompany her, with the express order that he write a report on everything that transpired.57 To fulfill this order, he made sure to write a thorough record of the journey and the subsequent ceremonies.58

Choque’s report was preserved in manuscript form, in two redactions, of which the most complete is the one preserved in Paris (Bibliothèque nationale de France, Ms. fr. 90). Another one, truncated, is preserved in London (British Library, MS Stowe 584). A transcript of the latter redaction exists in Paris (Bibliothèque nationale de France, Ms. fr. 22330).59 This means that it was sought after and transcribed and that it circulated among the Western European nobility.

This report was written, naturally, from the perspective of one of Anne’s attendants, and it therefore focuses on her and her interactions with the persons she encountered. It, therefore, does not delve into the background politics that precipitated her arrival to Croatia. Nevertheless, it lists enough examples to enable us to surmise that Count Bernardine Frankapan, at that time arguably the greatest Croatian lord, was essential for securing the future queen’s passage through Croatian lands.

The Frankapans, Count Bernardine’s family, were by the beginning of the sixteenth century a thoroughly westernized family. They were originally lords of the island of Krk, but by then, their domain had shifted to the Northeastern Adriatic coast and further inland. Each branch of the family, and there were quite a few, controlled its share of the vast family holdings, and Count Bernardine’s share was centered on Modruš, a great castle and town in the mountainous area at the border of medieval Croatia and Slavonia.60 Over the course of the late Middle Ages, the Frankapans developed a network of dynastic marriages with Italy and the Holy Roman Empire,61 and they often served as liaisons between the Kingdom of Hungary-Croatia and Italy.62 Bernardine himself was half Italian, as his mother was Isolde, the illegitimate daughter of Niccolò III d’Este, margrave of Ferrara.63 He went on to marry Louise Marzano, a niece of the Neapolitan king Ferdinand I.64 One of their children was Beatrice, wife of John Corvinus, who was mentioned in the discussion above.65

Count Bernardine’s relations with King Vladislaus II had not always been cordial. He had rebelled against him as recently as 1493. It seems that the whole Frankapan family acted in concert, and that its goal was to regain the then royal city of Senj, which had belonged to the Frankapans. That was when Bernardine’s cousin, Count John Angel Frankapan of Brinje (in Croatian historiography known as Anž), allied with the Ottomans and unsuccessfully besieged Senj.66 Bernardine also had his reasons for not being friendly towards Louis XII of France. The latter had deposed Bernardine’s relative-in-law, King Frederick of Naples (1496–1501). The Croatian count had not forgotten his marriage alliance with the Neapolitan dynasty. Indeed, his troops participated in the Italian Wars and fought against the French, as Bernardine sent several hundred cavalrymen to aid Naples when it was invaded by King Charles VIII.67

Despite all this, it seems that neither Count Bernardine nor his family tried to impede the royal marriage. The fact that King Vladislaus secured the cooperation of the Frankapans was a significant feat, but it was not his only political success connected with his wedding. In fact, another of the Hungarian king’s former enemies, Lord Lawrence of Ilok, played a prominent role in the queen’s wedding procession, being at the head of the honor guard that greeted her in Padua and escorted her to Vladislaus’ territory. Seven years earlier, Lawrence had been a bitter enemy of the king, who had openly mocked royal authority. He had apparently enjoyed comparing Vladislaus to an ox. The campaign against Lawrence was one of the only times the king personally took to the field. The royal army utterly defeated the insolent lord and conquered his ancestral see of Ilok after a brutal siege.68

Given the key roles these persons had in Anne of Foix-Kendal’s arrival to the Kingdom of Hungary-Croatia, it almost seems as if King Vladislaus purposely imposed services related with his wedding on the enemies he had defeated, perhaps both as an honor and as a test of faith. Even John Corvinus, Duke of Slavonia and ban of Croatia and Dalmatia, had once been his enemy, perhaps the most dangerous of them, as he had been Vladislaus’ competitor for the throne of Hungary-Croatia. Corvinus was a serious contender for the throne after his father’s death in 1490, and he renounced his claim only after a compromise with Vladislaus.69 Nevertheless, it was never forgotten that he was the son of King Matthias, and there were apparently those who were willing to offer him their support well into Vladislaus’ reign. As recently as 1496, there were reports of John Corvinus gathering malcontents and preparing an uprising against the king.70 It seems that he did not fully reconcile with Vladislaus until 1498, and even then, he was still bitter about the mistreatment to which he had been subjected and the promises the king had broken.71

The wedding ceremonies and processions of 1502 show nothing of these previous disagreements. If the participants harbored any ill will toward the king, they did not show it. In his report of Anne’s journey, Pierre Choque recorded that Count Bernardine was among those who greeted Anne upon her arrival in Senj and that his son-in-law, Duke John Corvinus of Slavonia, led an enormous escort for the future queen’s journey from Senj to Zagreb.72 This journey is a remarkable testimony to the cooperation between the previously recalcitrant Frankapans and King Vladislaus. The very first stop, the city of Senj (which impressed Choque with the size of its port), had recently been a point of contention between them. In 1502, it was a royal possession, but it had previously been violently taken from the Frankapan family in 1469 by Vladislaus’ predecessor and Duke John’s father, King Matthias Corvinus.73 The Frankapans had not forgotten that, and they had tried to regain the city (as noted in the discussion above) as recently as 1493.

According to Choque’s report, the future queen had taken the fastest route, by ship from Venice to Senj, while her train (including Choque himself), had taken the longer, overland route through the territory of the Holy Roman Empire.74 This is probably why King Vladislaus had arranged safe conduct with Emperor Maximilian I.75 Among the stops Anne and her escort made on the route between Senj and Zagreb, Choque mentioned only Modruš, Count Bernardine’s family seat.76 However, as the route was difficult and led through mountainous terrain, there must have been more stops. We can assume that Anne had taken the same route as King Louis XII’s emissaries on a journey just two years previously, in 1500, which is described in detail by Jean d’Auton.77 This route led from Senj to Brinje, the seat of Count John Angel Frankapan (Comte Angèle in d’Auton’s telling). From there, it went to Modruš, then to Zagreb, and then to Rakovac, Križevci, Koprivnica and over the Drava River into Hungary proper.78 The stop between Modruš and Zagreb named by d’Auton as “Lyre en Esclavonie” is probably Lipa on the River Dobra, which was a prosperous town at the beginning of the sixteenth century and also connected to the Frankapan family.79

One should notice that before the entourage arrived in Zagreb, two Frankapan castles were most likely used as stops, Modruš certainly and Brinje probably. Of these, Brinje and its master did not have a history of being well-disposed towards royal authorities. The castle had been temporarily occupied by the troops of King Matthias Corvinus some twenty years before Anne’s visit, when its owner, Count John Angel, ever a troublemaker, had been declared a rebel and an outlaw.80 In 1493, John Angel went as far as allying with the Ottomans against Vladislaus II (as was previously mentioned), and a royal army had been sent to subdue him. The Frankapans could not resist this army, and it besieged Brinje’s castle. Only the accidental arrival of a large Ottoman army prevented its fall.81

Of the rest of the stops on the way to the Drava River, Rakovec was a possession of Duke John Corvinus, but his ownership of it was heavily contested and had a troublesome past. It was one of the castles that had been given to him by his father, King Matthias. After his death and John’s unsuccessful bid for the crown, he was allowed to retain it, but he was burdened with a court case involving its previous owners, who continuously asserted their claims.82

As we have seen, not only had the persons who enabled Anne’s passage through Croatia been enemies of King Vladislaus until very recently, but the very places at which Anne stayed were former battlefields on which their forces had clashed. Nothing of this is mentioned in Choque’s report. In it, the people in question are presented as loyal subjects of the king and friendly hosts of his future bride. This was probably beneficial for the international standing of everyone involved. While describing Anne’s journey, Choque introduced Croatia and some of its aristocracy to the Western audience, primarily to Anne of Brittany, to whom he had dedicated his account. His report probably increased the Frankapans’ prestige, as it presented them as great and magnanimous lords. Choque reported that the future queen was received well in the great castle of Modruš. Also, as an aside, he noted that in that area the liturgy was performed in the Slavonic language. 83 This could mean that he, and presumably Anne herself, attended Glagolitic masses.84 This is not surprising, considering that the Frankapans were great patrons of the Slavonic liturgy. The area of Senj and Modruš was strongly Glagolitic, and at the time of Choque’s writing, there was an active printing house in Senj that produced religious books in the Glagolitic script.85

Although details such as this one sound interesting and exotic, Choque mentions only a few of them and only in passing. The most prominent part of his description of Croatia is the devastation wrought by the Ottoman armies.86 He noted that Anne’s train was safe from the Ottomans only after crossing the Drava River, and that the enormous escort, led by John Corvinus, was necessary for their protection.87 Although Choque mentions Modruš only in the context of the future queen’s reception, it should be noted that this once prosperous city had been sacked and put to the torch by the Ottomans less than ten years earlier, in 1493, with only the castle left intact. The Croatian countryside was regularly ravaged by Ottoman raids, which left many of the villages belonging to Count Bernardine completely abandoned. A census from 1486 lists more than a quarter of the villages belonging to the lordship of Modruš as deserted. Only a decade after Choque’s visit, the city itself lay abandoned.88 The count held a famous speech at the Reichstag in Nuremberg in 1522, begging for help in the fight against the Ottomans.89 From this viewpoint, Choque’s report was also beneficial for the persons included in it, as it presented them as victims of Ottoman depredations and also as valiant warriors. Choque stated that Hungary and its adjoined countries were the nation the Ottomans feared the most, for its men were hardy, experienced in warfare, and accustomed to hardships.90

As he was himself a herald, it is understandable that Choque expressed interest in local coats of arms. Upon crossing the Drava River, Anne was given a carriage to take her to Székesfehérvár, and Choque described the multifaceted coat of arms of King Vladislaus II that was blazoned on it. His description is unique in two ways. First, he described one of the Hungarian coats of arms, the one bearing the two-barred cross, as belonging to Dalmatia, and second, he ascribed the coat of arms bearing three crowned leopards’ heads or on a field azure to Croatia.91 In reality, even though both the Kingdom of Croatia and the Kingdom of Dalmatia were listed separately in the Hungarian-Croatian kings’ list of titles, a distinct coat of arms of the Kingdom of Croatia came into use only at the end of the fifteenth century.92 Until then, the two kingdoms had been jointly represented by a single coat of arms, the one with the three leopards’ heads.93 Hungary, on the other hand, was represented by two coats of arms, one of which was the two-barred cross, so Choque’s mistake is understandable.94 Nevertheless, it is strange that no one corrected this misconception, particularly as Choque apparently conversed with local nobles about coats of arms.

While conversing with the local nobles in Hungary, Choque was in a position not only to receive information but also to provide it. During Anne’s wedding and coronation, coats of arms of both France and England were carried before her, which surprised some of the magnates assembled. It was then explained to them that the earldom of Kendal was in England, and that Anne was therefore connected to both countries.95

We have followed Choque’s report of the future queen’s journey through Croatian lands and provided the context for his statements regarding this journey. While doing so, we tried to present his understanding of the lands he passed through, including their immediate past and their customs. It seems that the impression they made on him was overall favorable, or at least that is how he tried to present it. It is an impression of harmony between the king and his subjects, of a well-organized reception for the king’s bride, and of a nation persevering heroically against hardships. This image may have not reflected reality, but the fact that it was possible to create it offers testimony to King Vladislaus’ ability as a ruler.

Conclusion

The inquiry into the subject of the participation of Croats and Dalmatians in the wedding of King Vladislaus II and Anne of Kendal produced mixed results. When examining the role Felix Petančić might have played in it, the analysis of the sources and the secondary literature on the subject indicated that there is no evidence of Petančić’s involvement in the matter. However, it must be admitted that the reports on King Vladislaus’ embassy to France tasked with seeing and producing portraits of Anne and her cousin Germaine are unclear as to whether there was one or two envoys, and they are similarly unclear as to who produced said portraits. According to Marino Sanudo’s account, an Italian painter was sent, but other sources name only George of Běšin as the king’s ambassador. Despite this, the theory that this painter was Petančić depends on too many assumptions to be accepted without reservations, and even the assumption that he was a painter at all remains just that, an assumption. This theory should therefore be discarded unless evidence supporting it is discovered.

The epithalamium written by Matthew Andreis is, unlike Petančić’s portrait of Anne and Germaine, an existing work of art produced in relation to King Vladislaus’ and Anne’s wedding. An analysis of this epithalamium shows that Andreis was aware of many of the happenings connected with the wedding and of its background. Namely, he likely knew of Anne’s connection to England, as he places the origin of Anne’s family name (Candale) in Britain. This is more than many of the contemporaries in Hungary knew, at least according to Pierre Choque’s report. Also, Andreis knew that a bishop was sent to conclude a wedding contract with the king of France, and there are indications that he personally witnessed the meeting of Anne and her entourage with Lawrence of Ilok and the rest of the Hungarian guard of honor sent to escort the future queen to Hungary. In his text, he frequently mixes Christian images with images from Classical mythology, which sometimes produces bizarre results, such as Venus assisting a Christian bishop in his task of wooing Anne.

The future queen’s journey through Croatia and the Croatian participants in the ceremonies attached to it are described primarily based on the report written by Pierre Choque, a Breton herald in Anne’s retinue. When put into context, his report shows that Count Bernardine Frankapan played a prominent role in Anne’s passage through Croatia, as did his son-in-law, Duke John Corvinus. Choque explicitly mentions Anne’s stay at Count Bernardine’s family see, Modruš. However, other Frankapan lords probably participated in the ceremonies as well. If we look at the itinerary of French ambassadors sent to Hungary two years earlier, which is provided by Jean d’Auton, it may be assumed that Anne stopped in Brinje as well, which was a castle belonging to John Angel Frankapan. As this family was arguably the most powerful Croatian noble family at the time of the wedding, their role in the ceremony and the accompanying events seems logical, even more so considering their extensive ties with Italian noble houses. However, it is also notable that almost all of the Croatian lords mentioned had been enemies of King Vladislaus not long before his wedding, and their contribution to it was a remarkable show of cooperation on their part. Choque’s report also contains interesting observations about Croatia, such as its status as a border country adjacent to the Ottoman Empire.

In the end, we can conclude that the wedding of Anne of Foix and King Vladislaus brought together French and Croatian cultures and introduced the Croatian nobility and landscape to the French audience, while a Dalmatian humanist added a humanistic air to the accompanying ceremonies. Also, it is precisely this wedding that provided an opportunity for French observers to experience Croatia directly, making it less, or perhaps more exotic to the Western audience.

Bibliography

Printed sources

Andronicus Tragurinus, Matthaeus. Epithalamium in nuptias Vladislai Pannoniarum ac Boemiae regis et Annae Candaliae reginae. Edited by László Juhász. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1933.

D’Auton, Jean. Chroniques. Edited by Paul L. Jacob. 4 vols. Paris, 1834–1835.

Gabriel, Angelo. Libellus hospitalis munificentiae Venetorum in excipienda Anna regina Hungariae. Venice, 1502.

Katona, Stephanus. Historia critica regum Hungariae. 42 vols. Budapest, 1779–1817.

Le Roux de Lincy, Antoine Jean Victor. Vie de la reine Anne de Bretagne femme des rois de France Charles VIII et Louis XII. 4 vols. Paris: 1860–1861.

Pray, Georgius. Annales regum Hungariae: ab anno Christi CMXCVII ad annum MDLXIV. 5 vols. Vienna, 1763–1770.

Sanudo, Marino. I Diarii. 58 vols. Edited by Rinaldo Fulin et al. Venezia, 1879–1903.

Sirmiensis, Georgius. Epistola de perdicione regni Hungarorum: Monumenta Hungariae historica – Scriptores I. Edited by Gusztáv Wenzel. Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, 1857.

Szamota, István. Régi utazások Magyarországon és a Balkán-félszigeten 1054–1717 [Ancient travels in Hungary and the Balkan Peninsula 1054–1717]. Budapest: Franklin-Társulat, 1891.

Šišić, Ferdo. “Rukovet spomenika o hercegu Ivanišu Korvinu i o borbama Hrvata s Turcima (1473–1496) (continuation)” [A handful of documents on Duke John Corvinus and the battles between the Croats and the Turks]. Starine 38 (1937): 1–180.

Timon, Samuel. Epitome chronologica rerum Hungaricarum et Transilvanicarum. Cluj, 1764.

Zagorka, Marija Jurić. Gordana. 8 vols. Zagreb: Stvarnost, 1966.

Secondary literature

Andreis, Mladen. Trogirsko plemstvo do kraja prve austrijske uprave u Dalmaciji (1805.) [The nobility of Trogir until the end of the first Austrian administration in Dalmatia, 1805]. Trogir: Muzej grada Trogira, 2006.

Banfi, Florio. “Felice Petanzio da Ragusa, oratore dei re d’Ungheria Mattia Corvino e Vladislao, miniatore e bibliotecario della Corviniana di Buda.” Archivio storico per la Dalmazia 24 (1938): 1–23.

Benyovsky Latin, Irena. Srednjovjekovni Trogir: Prostor i društvo [Medieval Trogir: Space and society]. Zagreb: Hrvatski institut za povijest, 2009.

Berkovits, Ilona. “Felice Petanzio Ragusino, capo della bottega di miniatori di Mattia Corvino.” Corvina 3 (1940): 53–84.

Božić Mate, and Stjepan Čosić. Hrvatski grbovi: Geneza – simbolika – povijest [Croatian coats of arms: Genesis, symbolism, history]. Zagreb: Hrvatska sveučilišna naknada – Filozofski fakultet sveučilišta u Zagrebu – Institut društvenih znanosti “Ivo Pilar,” 2021.

Brown, Cynthia J. The Queen’s Library: Image-Making at the Court of Anne of Brittany, 1477–1514. Philadelphia–Oxford: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011.

Cornette, Joël. Anne de Bretagne. Paris: Gallimard, 2021.

Courteault, Henri. Gaston IX, comte de Foix, vicomte souverain de Béarn, prince de Navarre, 1423–1472. Toulouse: Imprimerie et librairie Édouard Privat, 1895.

Dal Borgo, Michela. “Gabriel, Angelo.” Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, vol. 51 (1998). Accessed on April 8, 2023. https://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/angelo-gabriel_%28Dizionario-Biografico%29/.

Dávid, Géza, and Bálint Lakatos, Bálint. “Felix Petancius és a török szultánokról készített első európai családfa” [Felix Petancius (Feliks Petančić) and the first European genealogy of the Ottoman dynasty]. Keletkutatás. A Kőrösi Csoma Társaság folyóirata, no. 1 (2020): 47–88.

Engel, Pál. The Realm of St. Stephen: A History of Medieval Hungary, 895–1526. Translated by Tamás Pálosfalvi. Edited by Andrew Ayton. London: I. B. Tauris, 2001.

Farbaky, Péter. “The Heir: The Role of John Corvinus in the Political Representation of Matthias Corvinus, and as Patron of the Arts.” In Bonum ut pulchrum: Essays in Art History in Honour of Ernő Marosi on His Seventieth Birthday. Edited by Livia Varga, Lászlá Beke, Anna Jávor, Pal Lővei, Imre Takács, 413–32. Budapest: Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Art, 2010.

Fedeles, Tamás. “Opsada Iloka 1494” [The siege of Ilok in 1494]. Scrinia Slavonica 12 (2012): 7–20.

Frankapan Modruški, Bernardin. Oratio pro Croatia / Govor za Hrvatsku (1522.). Transcription, translation and background study by Ivan Jurković and Violeta Moretti. Modruš: Katedra Čakavskog sabora Modruše, 2010.

Grgin, Borislav. Počeci rasapa. Kralj Matijaš Korvin i srednjovjekovna Hrvatska [The beginnings of the end: King Matthias Corvinus and medieval Croatia]. Zagreb: Ibis Grafika, 2002.

Györkös, Attila. “Pierre Choque Magyarországról szóló francia útleírásának (1502) kéziratai és képi ábrázolásai” [Manuscripts and pictorial representations of Pierre Choque’s French travelogue about Hungary, 1502]. In Arcana tabularii. Tanulmányok Solymosi László tiszteletére, vol. 2, edited by Attila Bárány, Gábor Dreska, and Kornél Szovák, 543–50. Budapest–Debrecen: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia–Debreceni Egyetem–Eötvös Loránd Tudományegyetem/Bölcsészettudományi Kar–Pázmány Péter Katolikus Egyetem, 2014.

Györkös, Attila. Reneszánsz utazás: Anna királyné 1502-es fogadtatásának ünnepségei Észak-Itáliában és Magyarországon [A Renaissance journey: The ceremonial receptions of Queen Anne in 1502 in northern Italy and Hungary]. Máriabesnyő: Attraktor, 2016.

Hoffmann, Edith. “Der künstleriche Schmuck der Corvin-Codices.” Belvedere 8 (1925): 130–55.

Horvat, Rudolf. Ivan Korvin, ban hrvatski [John Corvinus, Croatian ban]. Zagreb: Dionička tiskara, 1896.

Horvat, Zorislav. Srednjovjekovne katedralne crkve Krbavsko-modruške biskupije [Medieval cathedral churches of the Diocese of Krbava–Modruš]. Zagreb–Gospić: Hrvatski institut za povijest–Državni arhiv u Gospiću, 2003.

Hye, Franz-Heinz. “Zur Geschichte des Staatswappens von Kroatien und zu dessen ältester Darstellung in Innsbruck.” Arhivski vjesnik 36 (1993): 131–47.

Istvánffy, Nicolaus. Regni Hungarici historia. Cologne, 1724.

Jembrih, Alojz. “Feliks Petančić i njegovo djelo” [Felix Petančić and his work]. Gazophylacium 2, no. 1–2 (1995): 114–46.

Jovanović, Neven. “Epithalamium Mateja Andreisa: Žanrovski okvir i struktura djela” [Matthew Andreis’ Epithalamium. The genre framework and structure of the opus]. Umjetnost riječi 38, no. 1 (1994): 57–64.

Jovanović, Neven. “Jedan rani humanistički epitalamij” [One early Humanistic epithalamium]. Forum – Mjesečnik Razreda za književnost Hrvatske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti 33, no. 9–10 (1994): 717–27.

Jovanović, Neven. “Moja muza, Mnemozina: Iz komparativne konkordancije Davidijade, Otmice Kerbera i Epitalamija” [My muse Mnemosyne: From the comparative concordancy of the Davidiad, Rapture of Cerberus and Epithalamium]. Colloquia Maruliana 7 (1998): 75–92.

Jurković, Ivan. “Family Ties and Written Multilingual Heritage of the Frankapani at the Dawn of the Early Modern Period.” Tabula 17 (2020): 205–36.

Jurković, Ivan. “Turska opasnost i hrvatski velikaši: knez Bernardin Frankopan i njegovo doba” [The Ottoman threat and Croatian nobility: Count Bernardin Frankopan and his era]. Zbornik Odsjeka za povijesne znanosti Zavoda za povijesne i društvene znanosti Hrvatske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti 17 (1999): 61–83.

Kekez, Hrvoje. “Bernardin Frankapan i Krbavska bitka: je li spasio sebe i malobrojne ili je pobjegao iz boja?” [Bernardine Frankapan and the Battle of Krbava: Did he save himself and a few others or run away from battle?]. Modruški zbornik 3 (2009): 65–101.

Klaić, Nada. Medvedgrad i njegovi gospodari [Medvedgrad and its masters]. Zagreb: Globus, 1987.

Klaić, Vjekoslav. Krčki knezovi Frankapani [The Frankapan counts of Krk]. Zagreb: Matica hrvatska, 1901.

Klaić, Vjekoslav. Povijest Hrvata: Od najstarijih vremena do svršetka XIX stoljeća [History of the Croats: From the earliest times to the end of the nineteenth century]. 5 vols. Edited by Trpimir Macan. Zagreb: Nakladni zavod Matice hrvatske, 1988.

Kniewald, Dragutin. “Dubrovčanin Feliks Petančić o ratovanju s Turcima 1502” [Felix Petančić of Dubrovnik on warfare against the Turks]. Vesnik. Vojni muzej Jugoslovenske narodne armije 3 (1956): 80–106.

Kniewald, Dragutin. Feliks Petančić i njegova djela [Felix Petančić and his works]. Beograd: Naučno delo, 1961.

Kniewald, Dragutin. “Sitnoslikar Feliks Petančić” [The Miniaturist Felix Petančić]. In Tkalčićev zbornik: Zbornik radova posvećenih sedamdesetogodišnjici Vladimira Tkalčića [Tkalčić’s compendium: A collection of papers on the occasion of seventy years of Vladimir Tkalčić], vol. 2, edited by Ivan Bach, 55–92. Zagreb: Muzej za umjetnost i obrt, 1958.

Kolendić, Petar. “Feliks Petančić pre definitivnog odlaska u Ugarsku” [Felix Petančić before his final departure for Hungary]. Glas Srpske akademije nauka 236 – Odelenje literature i jezika, no. 4 (1959): 1–22.

Kosior, Katarzyna. Becoming a Queen in Early Modern Europe: East and West. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2019.

Krmpotić, Branko. “Dubrovčanin Feliks Petančić – kancelar senjski” [Felix Petančić of Dubrovnik – chancellor of Senj]. Senjski zbornik 6 (1975): 297–304.

Kruhek, Milan. “Bernardin Frankopan krčki, senjski i modruški knez — posljednji modruški Europejac hrvatskoga srednjovjekovlja, 1453.–1529.” [Bernardine Frankopan, Count of Krk, Senj and Modruš – The Last European from Modruš of the Croatian Middle Ages]. Modruški zbornik 3 (2009): 187-235.

Kruhek, Milan. Srednjovjekovni Modruš: Grad knezova Krčkih-Frankopana i biskupa Krbavsko-modruške biskupije [Medieval Modruš: City of the Frankapan counts of Krk and the bishops of the Diocese of Krbava–Modruš]. Ogulin: Matica hrvatska, Ogranak Ogulin, 2008.

Kukuljević Sakcinski, Ivan. Beatrica Frankapan i njezin rod [Beatrice Frankapan and her kin]. Zagreb: Dionička tiskara, 1885.

Kurelić, Robert. “Alfonso V. i ugarsko-hrvatsko prijestolje” [Alfonso V and the Hungarian–Croatian throne]. Radovi - Zavod za hrvatsku povijest 52, no. 3 (2020): 17–35.

Lakatos, Bálint. “A király diplomatái: Követek és követségek a Jagelló-korban (1490–1526). II. rész, Adattár” [The diplomats of the Hungarian–Bohemian king: Royal envoys and missions in the Jagiellonian period, 1490–1526. Part II, Database]. Történelmi Szemle 62, no. 2 (2020): 281–362.

Le Roux de Lincy, Antoine Jean Victor. “Discours des cérémonies du mariage d’Anne de Foix, de la maison de France, avec Ladislas VI, roi de Bohême, précédé du discours du voyage de cette reine dans la seigneurie de Venise, le tout mis en écrit du commandant d’Anne, reine de France, duchesse de Bretagne, par Pierre Choque, dit Bretagne, l’un de ses rois d’armes. Mai 1502.” Bibliothèque de l’école des chartes 22 (1861): 156–85 and 422–39.

Lopašić, Radoslav. Oko Kupe i Korane – mjestopisne i povjestne crtice [By the Kupa and Korana Rivers – geographical and historical notes]. Edited by Emilij Laszowski. Zagreb: Matica hrvatska, 1895.

Marczali, Henrik. “Közlemények a párisi nemzeti könyvtárból” [News from the National Library in Paris]. Magyar Történelmi Tár 23 (1877): 97–113.

Matković, Petar. Putovanja po Balkanskom poluotoku XVI. veka: Felix Petančić i njegov opis puteva u Tursku [Journeys though the Balkans in the sixteenth century: Felix Petančić and his description of pathways into Turkey]. Zagreb, 1879.

Mesić, Matija. Hrvati na izmaku srednjega vijeka – izabrane rasprave [Croats at the end of the Middle Ages – Selected treatises]. Slavonski Brod: Hrvatski institut za povijest – Odjel za povijest Slavonije, Srijema i Baranje – Matica Hrvatska-Ogranak Slavonski brod – Povijesni arhiv Slavonski Brod, 1996.

Miličić, Irena. “Književnost ili povijest? Knjižica o opisu putova u Tursku: Feliks Petančić i njegov renesansni bestseler” [Literature or history? The itineribus in Turciam libellus: Feliks Petančić and his Renaissance bestseller]. Povijesni prilozi 32, no. 44 (2013): 155–68.

Mlinar, Janez. “Tipologija prekograničnih odnosa u kasnom srednjem vijeku: Primjer knezova Frankapana” [Typology of cross-border relations in the late Middle Ages: The example of the Frankopan counts]. Historijski zbornik 62 (2009): 29–45.

Palotás, György. “‘The Scythian–Sarmatian Wedding’ and the epithalamion of Michael Verancius (1539).” Colloquia Maruliana 23 (2014): 99–118.

Pastrnak, Patrik. “The Bridal Journey of Bona Sforza.” Annual of Medieval Studies at CEU 24 (2018): 145–56.

Petešić, Ćiril. “Glagoljski prvotisci i pavlini” [Glagolitic first editions and the Paulines]. Croatica Christiana periodica 13, no. 24 (1989): 27–44.

Plosnić Škaričić, Ana. “Blok Andreis u Trogiru: Prilog poznavanju romaničke stambene arhitekture” [The Andreis Block in Trogir: A contribution to the study of Romanesque residential architecture]. Radovi Instituta za povijest umjetnosti 31 (2007): 9–28.

Rakova, Snezhana. “The Last Crusaders: Felix Petančić and the Unfulfilled Crusade of 1502.” In Au Nord et au Sud du Danube: Dynamiques politiques, sociales et religieuses dans le pasée, edited by Snezhana Rakova, and Gheorghe Lazăr, 49–73. Braila: Editura Istros, 2019.

Runje, Petar. “Senjski kulturni krug i senjska tiskara” [The cultural circle and the printing house of Senj]. Senjski zbornik 35 (2008): 91–114.

Santrot, Jacques. Les doubles Funérailles d’Anne de Bretagne. Le corps et le cœur (janvier-mars 1514). Genève: Droz, 2017.

Smičiklas, Tadija. Poviest hrvatska. Dio prvi: Od najstarijih vremena do godine 1526 [History of Croatia. Part one, from the earliest times to the year 1526]. Zagreb: Matica hrvatska, 1882.

Szeberényi, Gábor. “’Granice’ Slavonije u 13.-14. stoljeću: napomene za prosudbu granične uloge Drave i Gvozda” [The boundaries of Slavonia in the 13th–14th centuries: Remarks on the border roles of the River Drava and Mount Gvozd]. Scrinia Slavonica 17 (2017): 419–34.

Šercer, Marija. “Žene Frankopanke” [The Frankapan women]. Modruški zbornik 4–5 (2011): 21–81.

Špoljarić, Luka. “Feliks Petančić.” In Christian-Muslim Relations: A Bibliographical History, vol. 7, Central and Eastern Europe, Asia, Africa and South America (1500–1600), edited by David Thomas, and John Chesworth, 50–57. Leiden: Brill, 2015.

Špoljarić, Luka. “Zov partenopejskih princeza: Kosače i Frankapani u bračnim pregovorima s napuljskim kraljem Ferranteom” [The call of Parthenopean princesses: The Kosače and the Frankapani in marriage negotiations with Ferrante king of Naples]. Radovi - Zavod za hrvatsku povijest 52, no. 3 (2020): 121–88.

Woodacre, Elena. “Cousins and Queens: Familial Ties, Political Ambition and Epistolary Diplomacy in Renaissance Europe.” In Women, Diplomacy and International Politics since 1500, edited by Glenda Sluga, and Carolyn James, 30–45. London–New York: Routledge, 2016.

  1. 1* I would like to thank the Fulbright Program and the University of California, Los Angeles for supporting the research required for the completion of this text.

    Gaston’s grandfather, Gaston I de Grailly, whose family had been English subjects for generations, refused to become a vassal of the king of France when Guyenne was conquered by the French in 1451. He chose to emigrate to England together with his son John, Earl of Kendal, and he sold his French titles and holdings to his relatives. John’s son, the three-year-old Gaston II, was left in the care of his cousin Gaston IV of Foix-Béarn as a hostage. This situation lasted until John de Grailly returned to France in 1462 and rendered homage to King Louis XI, regaining most of his ancestral holdings. See Courteault, Gaston IX, 154 and 249.

  2. 2 Cornette, Anne de Bretagne, 235–36; Santrot, Les doubles Funérailles d’Anne de Bretagne, 545; Brown, The Queen’s Library, 27. Regarding the family ties of Anne of Brittany, Anne of Foix-Kendal and Germaine of Foix, see Woodacre, “Cousins and Queens.” Regarding the planned anti-Ottoman crusade, see Rakova, “The Last Crusaders,” although note that some of the opinions regarding Petančić were refuted by other authors, and also in the discussion here.

  3. 3 The quote above comes from Smičiklas, Poviest hrvatska, 682; see also Mesić, Hrvati na izmaku, 48–49 and Klaić, Povijest Hrvata, vol. 4, 264. The latter two historians, while disparaging Vladislaus II, admit that Anne was an “energetic woman” who acted as a positive influence on him.

  4. 4 Kukuljević Sakcinski, Beatrica Frankapan, 40.

  5. 5 Sirmiensis, Epistola de perdicione regni Hungarorum, 39–44.

  6. 6 Despite his parentage having nothing to do with Croatia, early Croatian historians saw John Corvinus primarily as a “Croatian” magnate; see, for example, Horvat, Ivan Korvin, ban hrvatski.

  7. 7 Ivan Kukuljević Sakcinski was very critical of George of Syrmia’s text, and the story about the alleged poisoning prompted him dismissively to call George a “mad priest,” as was mentioned above. Kukuljević Sakcinski, Beatrica Frankapan, 40. Matija Mesić also thought that the story could be disregarded as untrue. See Mesić, Hrvati na izmaku, 46, no. 1.

  8. 8 For example, Smičiklas, Poviest hrvatska, 683. Rudolf Horvat claimed that George’s story was most likely not true, but that George did not make it up. According to him, George had simply recorded rumors that were circulating at the time. See Horvat, Ivan Korvin, 58–61. The story is also mentioned in passing in Klaić, Povijest Hrvata, vol. 4, 266, and the author refrained from assessing its veracity.

  9. 9 Zagorka, Gordana, vol. 5, 182–95.

  10. 10 Ibid., 204–5.

  11. 11 Kosior, Becoming a Queen, 28.

  12. 12 Ibid., 47.

  13. 13 Brown, The Queen’s Library, 32.

  14. 14 A good and relatively recent discussion of a part of this problem can be found in Szeberényi, “‘Granice’ Slavonije u 13.-14. stoljeću.”

  15. 15 Kniewald, Feliks Petančić i njegova djela, 11.

  16. 16 Banfi, “Felice Petanzio da Ragusa”; Kniewald, “Sitnoslikar,” 55–58. Regarding Petančić’s supposed career in Dubrovnik and his entry into Vladislaus II’s service, see Kolendić, “Feliks Petančić pre definitivnog odlaska u Ugarsku.” For a short and relatively recent biography and description of his treatises, see Špoljarić, “Feliks Petančić.” All these works presume that Felix the illuminator (the one from Nicholas Olah’s report) and Felix Petančić are the same person. This assumption is challenged in Géza Dávid and Lakatos, “Felix Petancius,” 47–54. Regarding Petančić’s diplomatic missions in King Vladislaus’ service, see Lakatos, “A király diplomatái,” 304, no. 52, 312, no. 69, 324–25, no. 121 and 327–28, no. 125.

  17. 17 Kniewald, “Dubrovčanin Feliks Petančić,” 80–81 and 104; Kniewald, “Sitnoslikar,” 58–59; Špoljarić, Feliks Petančić, 53–57. These authors claimed that this work was presented to Vladislaus in 1502, upon Petančić’s return from a mission to the Knights Hospitaller on Rhodes; Dávid and Lakatos propose a different date of origin, perhaps as early as 1498. See Dávid and Lakatos, “Felix Petancius,” 68–69.

  18. 18 Dragutin Kniewald treated this assumption as a fact and also summed up older historian’s opinions on this matter; see Kniewald, Feliks Petančić, 20–23.

  19. 19 As Ilona Berkovits put it, “è naturale, anzi, più che naturale, che sia stato Felice Petanzio Ragusino pittore a miniare e decorare l’opera di Felice Petanzio Ragusino scrittore.” Berkovits, “Felice Petanzio Ragusino,” 55. Kniewald agreed with her and added his own opinions on the matter. His argumentation is an excellent example of the extent to which the theory depended on the premise that Petančić was a skilled artist and “must have” illuminated his own texts. See Kniewald, Feliks Petančić, 84. Going even further, when describing in detail the miniatures of Ottoman sultans and officials in Petančić’s Genealogia Turcorum imperatorum. Kniewald concluded that they were painted by a skilled miniaturist, who had an affinity for painting portraits. See Kniewald, “Sitnoslikar,” 84. Note that Edith Hoffmann, one of the earliest researchers of illuminated manuscripts later attributed to Petančić, did not attribute the relevant illuminations to him, though she did speculate on the possibility that they were the work of a “Felix Ragusanus,” an illuminator in the royal scriptorium mentioned by, as explained earlier, Nicholas Olah. See Hoffmann, “Der künstleriche Schmuck der Corvin-Codices,” 148 and 151. Much earlier, Petar Matković claimed that Olah’s Felix was one and the same person as Felix Petančić, because they were both from Dubrovnik and bore the same first name, lived at about the same time and engaged in diplomatic activities. See Matković, Putovanja po Balkanskom poluotoku XVI. veka. Felix Petančić i njegov opis puteva u Tursku, 6–7 and 10.

  20. 20 Pray, Annales, vol. 4, 296–97.

  21. 21 Ibid., 299–303.

  22. 22 Istvánffy, Regni Hungarici historia, 31.

  23. 23 Matković, Putovanja, 6–17; regarding the alleged French mission, see 11–12.

  24. 24 Katona, Historia critica regum Hungariae, vol. 11, ser. 18, 323–24.

  25. 25 Timon, Epitome chronologica rerum Hungaricarum et Transilvanicarum, 106.

  26. 26 “È ytaliano et, come intisi, era pytor, andava a veder le done per il maritar dil re.” Sanudo, I Diarii, vol. 3, 630.

  27. 27 Kniewald, “Sitnoslikar,” 84–85. Some authors were so certain that it was Petančić who traveled to France on King Vladislaus’ behalf that they referred to Petančić’s mission as a fact, not a possibility; for example, Berkovits, “Felice Petanzio,” 54; Krmpotić, “Dubrovčanin Feliks Petančić,” 300; Jembrih, “Feliks Petančić i njegovo djelo,” 116; Miličić, “Književnost ili povijest?” 157.

  28. 28 D’Auton, Chroniques, vol. 2, 80–81. See also Kosior, Becoming a Queen, 29, and Györkös, Reneszánsz utazás, 28–29, where the possibility that the portraits were painted by Petančić is also discussed.

  29. 29 Lakatos, “A király diplomatái,” 301–302, no. 44. Lakatos considers the possibility that there might have indeed been two embassies.

  30. 30 Sanudo, I Diarii, vol. 3, 890.

  31. 31 Ibid., 1245. Interestingly, George of Běšin carried a letter of recommendation from King Vladislaus II addressed to Anne of Brittany. This letter shows that the king knew the women were in her care. See Le Roux de Lincy, Vie de la reine Anne, vol. 4, 75–76, no. 1.

  32. 32 Sanudo, I Diarii, vol. 3, 1267.

  33. 33 Ibid., 1111.

  34. 34 Brown, The Queen’s Library, 33–38; Kniewald, Feliks Petančić, 21–22.

  35. 35 Angelo Gabriel, Libellus hospitalis munificentiae Venetorum in excipienda Anna regina Hungariae (Venice, 1502). See also dal Borgo, “Gabriel, Angelo,” Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, vol. 51 (1998), accessed on April 8, 2023, https://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/angelo-gabriel_%28Dizionario-Biografico%29/.

  36. 36 Classical-inspired epithalamia were a fashionable addition to the wedding festivities at the time; see Kosior, Becoming a Queen, 116–17.

  37. 37 For an outline of the family’s involvement in politics in Trogir, see Benyovsky Latin, Srednjovjekovni Trogir, 11–40. For a list of members of the family and an outline of its own history, see Andreis, Trogirsko plemstvo, 118–28.

  38. 38 Benyovsky Latin, Srednjovjekovni Trogir, 161–62. For a more thorough analysis of the Andreis palace and tower, see Plosnić Škaričić, “Blok Andreis u Trogiru.”

  39. 39 Andreis, Trogirsko plemstvo, 95.

  40. 40 Jovanović, “Jedan rani humanistički epitalamij,” 717.

  41. 41 Jovanović, “Moja muza, Mnemozina.”

  42. 42 Jovanović, “Jedan rani,” 725–26.

  43. 43 Andronicus Tragurinus, Epithalamium in nuptias Vladislai Pannoniarum ac Boemiae regis et Annae Candaliae reginae, 11, lines 250–260; Jovanović, “Jedan rani,” 719.

  44. 44 “…saevi non horrida classica Martis

    Triste minaxque fremunt, sed tota haec pompa triumphi,

    Virgo, tui…“; Andronicus Tragurinus, Epithalamium, 14, lines 390–392.

  45. 45 Jovanović, “Epithalamium,” 62.

  46. 46 Györkös, Reneszánsz utazás, 42–43; Lakatos, “A király diplomatái,” 305–6, no. 56.

  47. 47 Jovanović, “Epithalamium Mateja Andreisa. Žanrovski okvir i struktura djela,” 63; Jovanović, “Jedan rani,” 723.

  48. 48 Andronicus Tragurinus, Epithalamium, 8–9, lines 117–138.

  49. 49 “Nomen ab extremis ductum regale Britannis

    Supremos hominum Morinos et Belgica regna

    Quod rexit longumque reget…

    …

    …horum sit Celtica testis

    terra, Calidonii sint, ultima regna, profundi.“ Andronicus Tragurinus, Epithalamium, 11, lines 230–233 and 236–237.

  50. 50 “Hos inter titulos antiqua ab origine patres

    Candalii apparent et honorae stemmata gentis.” Andronicus Tragurinus, Epithalamium, 11, lines 263–264.

  51. 51 Andronicus Tragurinus, Epithalamium, 5, dedication. See also Lakatos, “A király diplomatái,” 305. There are indications that Csáky was a member of the delegation sent by Vladislaus to Venice, or at least that he was supposed to be.

  52. 52 Andronicus Tragurinus, Epithalamium, 8, lines 101–106

  53. 53 “Seligit e numero procerum, cui plurimus extat

    Eloquii splendor, Pyliae cui mella senectae

    Dulichiique oris torrentia flumina cedunt.

    Cuius saepe fides in summis cognita rebus,

    Orantem magnae stupuit quem curia Romae,

    Cuius honorato praefulget vertice clarae

    Pontificalis honos, pretium virtutis…” Andronicus Tragurinus, Epithalamium, 10, lines 191–197.

    Andreis liked presenting his readers with riddles. Here, Nestor and Ulysses are hidden behind the names of their domains, Pylos and, because Ithaca would have been too obvious, Dulichium. For other examples of such wordplay, see Jovanović, “Jedan rani,” 725–26.

  54. 54 See Györkös, Reneszánsz utazás, 30–31 and Lakatos, “A király diplomatái,” 303–304, no. 50, and 305, no. 54.

  55. 55 See Palotás, “‘The Scythian-Sarmatian Wedding’ and the epithalamion of Michael Verancius (1539).”

  56. 56 Woodacre, “Cousins and Queens,” 39. The letters sent by King Vladislaus to Anne of Brittany regarding her cousin’s and his wedding demonstrate her importance in the negotiations concerning the marriage; see Le Roux de Lincy, Vie de la reine Anne, 75–80.

  57. 57 Brown, The Queen’s Library, 30.

  58. 58 For a brief description of Choque’s report and the context in which it originated, see Brown, The Queen’s Library, 27–38.

  59. 59 For descriptions of these manuscripts and an explanation of the text’s transmission, see Györkös, Reneszánsz utazás, 12–16 or Györkös, “Pierre Choque Magyarországról,” vol. 2, 545–50. Attila Györkös transcribed both the (complete) Paris redaction and the London redaction in Györkös, Reneszánsz utazás, 129–51, in parallel columns, and added a translation into Hungarian. However, it should be noted that Choque’s text only began to be studied by Hungarian historians in the nineteenth century. Its Paris redaction was first published in France by Antoine Jean Victor Le Roux de Lincy, the author of a monumental biography of Anne of Brittany: “Discours des cérémonies du mariage d’Anne de Foix, de la maison de France, avec Ladislas VI, roi de Bohême, précédé du discours du voyage de cette reine dans la seigneurie de Venise, le tout mis en écrit du commandant d’Anne, reine de France, duchesse de Bretagne, par Pierre Choque, dit Bretagne, l’un de ses rois d’armes. Mai 1502,” Bibliothèque de l’école des chartes 22 (1861): 156–85 and 422–39. A transcript of the same text appeared in Hungarian in 1877: Marczali, “Közlemények a párisi nemzeti könyvtárból.” A Hungarian translation of this text was published in 1891: Szamota, Régi utazások Magyarországon és a Balkán-félszigeten, 131–46.

  60. 60 Györkös, Reneszánsz utazás, 54–55. For a biography of Bernardine Frankapan, see Kruhek, “Bernardin Frankopan.” The latter article is mostly a summation of 19th and early twentieth century literature. The most complete history of the Frankapan family is still Klaić, Krčki knezovi Frankapani, and it covers only the period until the year 1480, as the second intended volume was never produced. Also, much information can be gathered from Grgin, Počeci rasapa. Kralj Matijaš Korvin i srednjovjekovna Hrvatska, which is a newer work. It ends with the death of King Matthias Corvinus in 1490.

  61. 61 Regarding the latter, see Mlinar, “Tipologija prekograničnih odnosa u kasnom srednjem vijeku.”

  62. 62 For example, Bernardine’s father Stephen maintained contacts with King Alfonso of Naples and Aragon (l. 1396–1458); see Kurelić, “Alfonso V. i ugarsko-hrvatsko prijestolje.”

  63. 63 Klaić, Krčki knezovi, 230; Ivan Jurković, “Family Ties,” 207–8.

  64. 64 The politics behind their marriage, which needed a papal dispensation, as the prospective spouses were related, is explained in admirable detail in Špoljarić, “Zov partenopejskih princeza,” 146–56.

  65. 65 Her life and marriage to John is briefly recounted in Šercer, “Žene Frankopanke,” 46–50.

  66. 66 Jurković, “Turska opasnost 77–79; Kekez, “Bernardin Frankapan.”

  67. 67 Špoljarić, “Zov partenopejskih princeza,” 155–56.

  68. 68 Fedeles, “Opsada Iloka 1494.”

  69. 69 Engel, The Realm of St. Stephen, 345–46. Regarding John Corvinus’ life and legacy, see also Farbaky, “The Heir,” 413–32.

  70. 70 Šišić, “Rukovet spomenika,” 96–98, no. 92–196.

  71. 71 Ibid., 109–18, no. 201–202.

  72. 72 Györkös, Reneszánsz utazás, 130–31. A fictional account of this journey was written by the afore­mentioned Marija Jurić Zagorka in her novel; despite some deliberate distortions, her description closely follows Choque’s report. Zagorka, Gordana, vol. 5, 163–67.

  73. 73 Grgin, Počeci rasapa, 104–5.

  74. 74 Györkös, Reneszánsz utazás, 131. Similar compromises between haste and pomp had to be made for the bridal journey of Bona Sforza; see Pastrnak, “The Bridal Journey of Bona Sforza,” 148–49.

  75. 75 Györkös, Reneszánsz utazás, 32.

  76. 76 Ibid., 133.

  77. 77 This was proposed by Györkös, Reneszánsz utazás, 55–56.

  78. 78 D’Auton, Chroniques, vol. 2, 79. In this edition, “Bergue” is obviously misread; the only logical reading would be “Bergne,” a French rendition of Brinje.

  79. 79 Regarding Lipa, see Lopašić, Oko Kupe i Korane, 171–80.

  80. 80 Grgin, Počeci rasapa, 109.

  81. 81 Kekez, “Bernardin Frankapan,” 73–74.

  82. 82 Klaić, Medvedgrad i njegovi gospodari, 168–80.

  83. 83 Györkös, Reneszánsz utazás, 132.

  84. 84 Although none of the local churches is mentioned in the report, there were plenty that would have been worthy of a royal visit at that time; today most of them lie in ruins. See Horvat, Srednjovjekovne katedralne.

  85. 85 Petešić, “Glagoljski prvotisci i pavlini”; Runje, “Senjski kulturni krug i senjska tiskara.” The whole issue of the latter journal was devoted to the Glagolitic printing house in Senj.

  86. 86 “Celluy pays d’Esclavoye est destruit pour les courses et pillaiges que font les Turcqs.” Györkös, Reneszánsz utazás, 132.

  87. 87 “Partit pour venir passer une riviere nommée la Drave affin d’estre hors des dangiers des Turcqs. Laquelle riviere fait la separation de la principauté de Crevasie et du royaume de Hongrie.” Györkös, Reneszánsz utazás, 132.

  88. 88 Kruhek, Srednjovjekovni Modruš, 55–59.

  89. 89 See Frankapan Modruški, Oratio pro Croatia / Govor za Hrvatsku (1522.).

  90. 90 “C’est la nation que les Turcqs craignent le plus, car ilz sont bon combatans et hardiz; et sont accoustumez de coucher troys-quatre moys hors, sans lict…” Györkös, Reneszánsz utazás, 148.

  91. 91 Györkös, Reneszánsz utazás, 134.

  92. 92 See Hye, “Zur Geschichte des Staatswappens von Kroatien und zu dessen ältester Darstellung in Innsbruck”; Božić and Čosić, Hrvatski grbovi, 66–86.

  93. 93 Regarding this, see Božić and Čosić, Hrvatski grbovi, 30–49.

  94. 94 Regarding this, see also Györkös, Reneszánsz utazás, 15–16.

  95. 95 Györkös, Reneszánsz utazás, 140; see also the editor’s comment in the accompanying study in ibid, 61.

The Administrative Elite of King Louis I in Croatia-Dalmatia  pdf

Judit Gál

HUN-REN Research Centre for the Humanities, Institute of History

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Hungarian Historical Review Volume 14 Issue 1 (2025): 30-64 DOI 10.38145/2025.1.30 

This study examines the administrative elite that governed Croatia-Dalmatia under King Louis I of Hungary (1342–1382), focusing on the royal officials, urban leadership, and the mechanisms through which the king exercised authority in the region. Follow­ing the war between Hungary and Venice (1356–1358), King Louis I asserted control over Dalmatian cities, significantly altering governance structures by reducing urban autonomy and introducing new royal institutions. The study explores the composition of his administrative network, including the bans of Croatia-Dalmatia, royal admirals, municipal leaders, and royal knights drawn from local noble and patrician families. It also considers the fluidity of officeholding, the interplay between local and foreign administrators, and the integration of Italian and Hungarian officials into the region’s political framework. This paper provides insights into the strategies employed by King Louis I to consolidate power, the socio-political mobility within his realm, and the broader implications of Angevin rule in Dalmatia. The findings contribute to our understanding of medieval governance and territorial administration in Central and Southeastern Europe.

Keywords: medieval administration, King Louis I, Croatia-Dalmatia, Kingdom of Hungary, urban governance

During the reign of King Louis I (1342–1382), Hungary was in many respects in its golden era, having expanded its territories to an unprecedented extent. The king of Hungary, also referred to as the knight-king, led almost annual military campaigns, one of the most significant of which was the Hungarian-Venetian war of 1356–1358, which was fought for control of the Adriatic Sea and the possession of Dalmatia. Reclaiming the territories that had fallen into Hungarian hands in the early twelfth century and then had come under the rule of Venice in the first third of the fourteenth century had been one of Louis’ main objectives from the beginning of his reign, but his intrigues and campaigns for the throne in Naples prevented him from being able to take serious action in the 1340s. Between 1356 and 1358, the cities that had been in Hungarian hands in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, during the Árpád era, again were brought under the Hungarian king’s control.1 When King Louis I of Hungary defeated Venice in 1358 and the peace treaty was concluded in Zadar on February 18 of that year, the Kingdom of Hungary not only regained control of the Dalmatian territories previously under Hungarian control, but was also able to expand its territory (compared to the territories held in the Árpád era) to southern Dalmatia.

In the territories occupied by the king of Hungary, the settlement of the relationship between the royal power and the cities, which was sometimes not without conflict, began after the end of the war.2 The main source of tension in the settlement of power relations was the fact that, while in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries the Hungarian royal presence in the region was less noticeable and the cities enjoyed a high degree of autonomy, during the reign of Louis I, the Hungarian king intervened directly in the life and governance of local com­munities, significantly reducing urban autonomy.3 Louis introduced new royal institutions, hitherto known only in the narrowly defined Hungarian territories, and the presence of the royal power became much more visible, due in part to the officers delegated by the king, including the local, municipal leadership, which he appointed. Whereas in the Árpád era royal power had been represented in the region by practically a single royal official, the ban of Slavonia, and the archbishop of Split and the local prelates had been the most influential representatives of the monarch,4 in the second half of the fourteenth century a new stratum of leadership was formed, which ensured direct control of the region. After 1358, the newly established Hungarian financial administration, the leaders of the Hungarian naval fleet, and the municipal leaders appointed by the Hungarian king were added to the ban in the leadership structure, which ensured the sovereign’s power. Moreover, in the prime of the era of knightly culture, King Louis conferred knighthoods on a number of persons from Croatia and Dalmatia, making them directly part of the his household, the closest circle of the monarch. This paper will examine who constituted this layer of officials, or royal knights, through whom the king governed Croatia-Dalmatia and secured his power. It will focus on the urban communities and consider the overlaps among the various offices and the various forms of mobility between this region and the other territories ruled by the king of Hungary.

Composition of the Croatian-Dalmatian Administrative Leadership of King Louis I

The most important member of king Louis’ Croatian-Dalmatian administrative leadership was the ban of Croatia-Dalmatia, who traditionally governed the territory on behalf of the kings of Hungary from the beginning of their rule in in the region.5 Until the last third of the twelfth century, the power of the bans extended only to the territory of Croatia and Dalmatia, but by the end of the century, almost all of Slavonia was included in the Banate,6 so essentially with a few exceptions the territories beyond the Drava River under the rule of the kings of Hungary belonged to the governance of the bans. While the territory of the bans of Slavonia covered the area beyond the Drava River, for practical reasons, they occasionally appointed deputies who were solely responsible for Croatia-Dalmatia. These deputies were the bans of the Maritime Region.7 The ban’s power had already been divided between Slavonia and Croatia-Dalmatia during the Árpád era,8 and in the mid-fourteenth century, the Trans-Dravanian territory was divided into two banates (Slavonia, Croatia-Dalmatia).9 The bans of Croatia-Dalmatia governed the province in the name of the king, they were in charge of jurisdiction, financial administration, judiciary, military affairs, and they could appoint the local, royal officials. . The title of ban of Croatia-Dalmatia was one of the most important offices in the Kingdom of Hungary, and its holders were mostly Hungarian barons.10 In the period under study, the bans were John Csúz (1357–1358), Nicholas Szécsi, who held the office three times after 1358 (1358–66, 1374–1375, 1376–1380), and Charles of Durazzo, Duke of Slavonia, who also held the office of the ban twice (1372–74, 1376). Kónya Szécsényi (1366–67), Emeric Lackfi (1368), Simon Meggyesi (1369–71), Stephen Lackfi (1371), and Emeric Bebek (1380–83) also held the office at one time during this period.11 The bans of Croatia-Dalmatia, as will be shown in the following analysis, not only held national office in the period under study but also governed certain cities.

Alongside the bans, new royal officers also appeared in the region due to the establishment of royal institutions after 1358. Immediately after the end of the Hungarian-Venetian war, the Hungarian king assumed the monopoly of the salt trade and introduced a new tax, the tricesima or thirtieth, in Croatia and Dalmatia. The Treaty of Zadar also brought about the establishment of the Dalmatian-Croatian Salt and Thirtieth Tax Chamber. The exact timing of this occurrence remains uncertain due to the lack of sources, but it must have taken place shortly after Hungary took control of the region, since a charter from Trogir dated August 5, 1359 makes clear reference to the payment of the thirtieth and the ways in which salt was traded. The chamber continued to function until the beginning of the fifteenth century, ceasing to operate only with the capture of the city of Zadar by Venice in 1409. It is likely that the chief administrator of the Zadar Chamber was also the chief administrator of the entire Dalmatian-Croatian Salt and Thirtieth Chamber.12 Unfortunately, due to a lack of sources, very little information has survived on its functioning. The royal officials who were the heads of the chambers in the Dalmatian towns often leased out the chambers. The first known chief administrator (exactor) of the chamber was Baldasar de Sorba,13 who held the title in 1366, while also holding another royal office, that of admiral, also created in 1358.14 He was followed by Frison de Protto, the vicar of Senj, in 1367 who served until 1369 when Archdeacon Stephen of

Krk followed him. By 1372, the chamber was headed by George de Zadulino, a patrician from Zadar. However, by the mid-1370s, control of the chambers, particularly the chamber of Zadar had shifted to Florentine merchants,15 who, gradually overtook the positions of the Zadar merchants. They were heavily involved in trade in Dalmatia, particularly in the trade of salt.16

During the war against Venice between 1356 and 1358, the king of Hungary had probably already organized his naval fleet in 1357, and on February 10, 1358, the title of admiral was used for the first time to describe the leader of the king’s naval fleet. The first admiral was Jacob Cesamis, who held the title from 1358 until his death, and he was followed during the reign of Louis by Baldasar de Sorba (1366–1370). Baldasar served King Louis until around 1370, when probably he left the royal court to join King Louis’ ally, Prince Philip II of Taranto17 to serve as his bailli of the Principality of Achaea.18 While he returned to Croatia-Dalmatia after the death of Philip in 1373, but he didn’t become admiral again. In the admiral office, a fellow Genoese, Simon Doria (1373–1384) and Nicolaus Petracha (1373), who was from Split followed him.19 The admirals of the navy also held the title of comes of two islands, Hvar and Brač, from the beginning of the institution, and only later was the title of comes of the island of Korčula added to the offices that went with the title of admiral, presumably because Louis only occupied that island later, during the Hungarian-Venetian War.20

In addition to the aforementioned officers, there was also a completely new layer of high-ranking royal officials compared to the Árpád era through whom King Louis governed the region. After 1358, the heads of the Dalmatian cities, the comes, were formally elected by the cities, but in practice, the king decided the fate of the titles, except in the case of the city of Dubrovnik.21 How did this situation arise in regard to the autonomy of the cities? In the Árpád era, the autonomy of Hungarian cities was guaranteed by royal privileges. In Dalmatia, the Hungarian royal privileges of Trogir and Split were the basis for urban privileges and liberties for the cities in the region. These privileges guaranteed the cities the free election of a secular leader, who was the comes, and, if there was one, of an archbishop or bishop of the city.22 Except for a brief period during the reign of King Béla IV, there is no evidence of any direct interference by kings in the decisions of the cities.23 How did this landscape change during the reign of Louis I? In the course of the Hungarian-Venetian War between 1356 and 1358, the king recaptured a number of Dalmatian cities and cities which had previously been under Hungarian rule and confirmed their privileges at the request of the local cities and cities during the war. In August 1357, after Trogir and Split had come under Hungarian rule, Louis confirmed the former privileges of both cities. In the case of both cities, the confirmation of the privileges was done in a similar way: the representatives of the two cities presented their existing privileges, which the king confirmed without any changes. The privilege of Split was a charter issued on August 8, 1357, requested by a delegation from Split upon the formal submission of the city to the Hungarian king.24 The privilege of Trogir, dated August 30, 1357, can be described in a similar way to the charter of Split.25 The two charters were both clearly issued during the war. It was in the interests of the cities to confirm their privileges, and they sent envoys to King Louis, whose primary aim was to subjugate the cities, and he confirmed their charters without any reservations or qualifications. In 1357, king confirmed the privileges of Šibenik, which differed slightly from those of the two cities mentioned above.26 First, the charter, which was dated December 14, 1357, was issued to the city not by the king but on his behalf by the ban of Croatia-Dalmatia, John Csúz, after an envoy had been sent to the official in Nin. The privilege included confirmation of the privileges already enjoyed by the city, as well as details not seen in the previous Hungarian privileges of Šibenik, which reflected the contemporary needs of the city and included new obligations towards the monarch, such as the obligation to provide accommodation for the king. As the war drew to a close, a royal privilege was granted to Zadar by King Louis I of Hungary on February 10, 1358 guaranteeing, among other things, the preservation of the privileges of the city.27

Although the abovementioned privileges included the right of the cities to freely elect their authorities, in practice, the fate of the comes of the cities, who were the secular leaders of the urban communities, depended on the decisions made by the king, as his approval was required for the elected persons to take office.28 Approval meant that the king had his own candidate for the office, and he refused to support candidates proposed by anyone else. An example of this is the case of Split, where in 1367 the ban of Croatia-Dalmatia was to be elected comes, but the king refused to accept this and instructed the city to make the knight of the court, John de Grisogonis of Zadar, the comes.29 The heads of the cities can therefore be considered local officials of the monarch and can be included in the king’s local leadership layer.

In addition to the royal officers and the leaders of the cities appointed by the king, a special group of Croatian nobles and selected citizens of the cities were formed, who had been granted knighthoods by Louis in the second half of the fourteenth century. The number of knights increased dramatically during Louis’ reign in Hungary, and this was particularly true in Croatia and Dalmatia, where a remarkably large number of Zadar citizens were awarded this distinction.30 The knights were part of the king’s inner circle, and they often accompanied him on military campaigns, having been assigned military or diplomatic duties or serving as ambassadors and liaisons between the Croatian-Dalmatian territories and the royal court. Many of them were citizens of Zadar who, in addition to their ad hoc duties, also held leadership positions in certain Dalmatian cities or other royal offices.

Royal Officials in Charge of Local Administration

The most significant change from the previous Hungarian royal policy, apart from the introduction of new institutions, was the acquisition of direct control over the cities during the reign of Louis I. The king’s influence and will was directly exercised through his officials in the cities of Dalmatia. In Croatia, the Hungarian system of counties had not been established, so the discussion of local administration will focus on the management of the royal castles. In the case of the cities, the analysis will focus on those settlements where adequate sources are available to identify the holders of the title of comes in the period. Those settlements are Zadar, Nin, Šibenik, Trogir, Split, Omiš, Hvar, Brač and Korčula, Rab, and the castles for which we have some information from the period and which were owned by the king.31 Excluded from the study are cities or islands that belonged to another landlord, such as settlements in the hands of the Counts of Krk, such as Senj,32 and the islands of Krk or Pag, which belonged to the city of Zadar, as well as Lastovo, where the election of the comes was the right of Dubrovnik, according to the decision of Louis I. Likewise, I have not considered the settlements, administrative units, or royal castles for which we do not have adequate data from the period. Of the castles, I have examined the royal castles and castles that were under the jurisdiction of the bans for which we have considerable data from the period. These included Klis, Knin, Novigrad, Obrovac, Omiš, two castles in the Croatian-Dalmatian area similarly called Ostrovica, Počitelj, Rmanj, Skradin, Sokol, Srb, Stog, Unac, and Zvonigrad.33

Among the cities, Zadar was the political center of the Dalmatian territories under Hungarian control during the reign of Louis, and already in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, when the territory was under Hungarian rule, the royal court considered this city its primary center.34 During the reign of Louis, Zadar became the economic and commercial center of the Kingdom of Hungary in Dalmatia. After 1358, Zadar became the center of the Dalmatian-Croatian Royal Salt and Thirtieth Tax Chamber, the Hungarian economic institution that was established in Croatia-Dalmatia that was mentioned earlier in this study.35 Then, Louis sought to boost trade between the Dalmatian territories and Hungary by offering privileges and concessions, such as exemptions from customs duties to merchants from Pozsony (Bratislava, Slovakia), Buda, Szeben (Sibiu, Romania), and Brassó (Brasov, Romania) to participate in Dalmatian trade based in Zadar.36 The political centrality of Zadar is attested to not only by the ties between the Hungarian administration and the local administrations but also by the fact that when Charles of Durazzo was granted the title of Duke of Slavonia in 1371, he held his court in Zadar, where his son was born, the future claimant to the Hungarian throne, Ladislas. During the Árpád era, when the city was briefly in Hungarian hands, the local comeses occasionally received the title of ban of the Maritime Region37 and, with it, command of the Hungarian army. After King Louis I took the city, this situation was reversed, and the ban of Croatia-Dalmatia acquired the title of comes of Zadar. As a look at the names of the comes of the period at the beginning make clear, the ban of the given year was at the head of the city. The list of the comeses of Zadar under King Louis begins at the end of November 135838 with Ban Nicholas Szécsi,39 who presumably received both offices at the same time. He was last mentioned as ban of Croatia-Dalmatia on August 9, 1366,40 but he was still listed as comes in the notarial records of Zadar at the end of November 1366.41

He was followed by Kónya Szécsényi, who was first mentioned in the sources as a ban on November 20, 1366,42 and one sources suggests that in December, 1366 he was the comes of Zadar.43 The last time his name appears in the sources in the office of the ban was on November 4, 1367,44 and the last time he appears as a comes of Zadar was in April 1368.45 While Emeric Lackfi was mentioned in the documents as a ban as early as January 30, 1368,46 the first mention of him as a comes of the city occurred only at the beginning of April 1368.47 He held the title of comes until the end of February 1369,48 but he probably left his office as ban of Croatia-Dalmatia at the end of October 1368.49 He was succeeded in both offices by Simon Meggyesi,50 who held the office of ban until around March 1371, when he was probably succeeded by Stephen Lackfi.51 However, Ban Simon was not succeeded as comes of Zadar by Lackfi but rather by Pietro Bellante in April 1371,52 who from 1367 was lord of two royal castles in Croatia, Ostrovica, Počitelj, and later was the lord of Obrovac.53 He became the first comes in Zadar after 1358 not to hold the title of ban. It cannot be ruled out that Stephen Lackfi’s and Pietro Bellante’s connections may have contributed to the granting of the office, since according to the contemporary chronicle of Domenico da Gravina, in the Neapolitan Wars54 Pietro was among the advisers of the commander of the Hungarian army, Voivode Stephen Lackfi of Transylvania, and he probably received the title of comes of Zadar around the same time of Lackfi’s tenure of office as ban of Croatia-Dalmatia in 1371.55

The year of 1371 can be considered a landmark in the history of the territories beyond the Drava River in the era of Louis, as it was then that Charles of Durazzo received the title of Duke of Slavonia (Croatia-Dalmatia) from the Hungarian king, what he held until 1376, and he established his own court in Zadar.56 From that moment on, the intertwining of the office of comes of Zadar and the office of the ban was loosened. During the dukedom of Charles, he himself bore the title of the ban of Croatia-Dalmatia on two occasions as well, and he was the first known ban of the region after the end of Stephen Lackfi’s tenure in 1371. For the first occasion, he was mentioned as the ban of Croatia-Dalmatia between October 1, 1372 and December 21, 1373,57 and he held the title of ban for the second time around between January and May 1376.58 Duke Charles did not hold the office of comes of Zadar during this period, nor was the connection between the office of ban and the title of comes evident in the case of other bans during his dukedom until the end of Louis’ reign. Pietro Bellante, who held the office of comes of Zadar in 1371, was mentioned in the sources as comes until March 1372, and he was not replaced by the ban of Croatia-Dalmatia after the end of his tenure.59

In addition to Charles of Durazzo, who did not hold the title of comes of Zadar during any of his terms of office until the end of his dukedom in Croatia-Dalmatia in 1376, there was one more known ban appointed in the period of his dukedom. Between November 1374 and February 1375, Nicholas Szécsi was mentioned as ban of Croatia-Dalmatia again, when he held the title for the second time, and later between May 1376 and December 1380, he was known to served once again as ban of Croatia-Dalmatia, for the third time (after 1358).60 He was followed by Emeric Bebek, who concluded the list of bans of Croatia-Dalmatia under the reign of Louis I.61 Bebek held the title after the death of the king until June 1383. Of the two, only Bebek held the office of the comes of Zadar during his entire tenure as ban,62 while Nicholas Szécsi was only mentioned as the comes of Zadar after the end of the dukedom of Charles of Durazzo between June 1378 and December 1380.63

After the end of Pietro Bellante’s tenure in office, which came to a close in 1372, for at least six years the bans were not elected as the comes of Zadar. After Bellante, it was not Charles of Durazzo or Nicholas Szécsi who took over the administration of the city but two brothers from Piacenza, Bishop John de Surdis of Vác (1372)64 and Rafael de Surdis (1372–1378).65 With their arrival in Croatia-Dalmatia from Hungary in 1372, a special legal situation arose for a short time in the region, as Charles of Durazzo was the duke Slavonia and the ban of Croatia-Dalmatia, and from 1372 to 1373, there was also a vicarius generalis (governor) authority in Croatia-Dalmatia, due to a mandate issued by the two de Surdis brothers. Shortly after Charles was given the title of Duke of Slavonia, in 1372, Bishop John de Surdis of Vác became vicarius generalis to the duke in the territories beyond the Drava River.66 In the spring of 1373, he was succeeded in this office by his brother Raphael,67 who is listed in the sources in this role until May 7, 1373.68 The vicarius generalis acted as governor of the province, as the ban of Croatia-Dalmatia had before. In the 1350s and 1360s, in (the Banate of) Slavonia, the vicarius generalis sometimes governed the province, but in these periods, there was no bans of Slavonia.69 The situation was different in Dalmatia and Croatia, where after 1372 there was a ban who served alongside the vicarius generalis, but this ban was none other than Charles of Durazzo, so the apparent contradiction between the coexistence of the two governing offices can be resolved, as the vicarious generalis was the deputy of Charles. This could also explain why the de Surdis brothers held the title of the comes of Zadar during their time in office as vicarius generalis. Since the title of comes of Zadar had previously been held by the ban, as primary deputy of the king, during the dukedom of Charles, the office of comes was held by the vicarius generalis, as primary deputy of the duke who governed the region. However, the presence of the office of vicarius generalis ended in the spring of 1373, and from 1374 until 1378, with a short term interruption when Duke Charles held the office of ban in 1376, there was again a ban of Croatia-Dalmatia at the head of the region. Despite the changes, the titleholder of comes of Zadar did not change in 1373, and the office was continuously held by Raphael de Surdis until 1378,70 probably by royal decree.

The city of Nin is located just 15 kilometers to the north of Zadar, and after Louis I took power in 1358, the first comes of the city was a royal knight from Zadar, John de Grisogonis, who held the post between 1359 and 1369.71 After 1369, the Croatian nobleman and royal knight Novak Disislavić of the Mogorović clan, who served the king in several campaigns and gained offices in Croatia, Dalmatia, and Hungary,72 had been given the title of comes of Nin three times by 1382 (1370–1371, 1373, 1381).73 In addition to Novak, John Rosetti (1373),74 John de Surdis (1373),75 and Rafael de Surdis (1375)76 were at the helm of Nin during the reign of Louis I, of whom the latter two both served as comes of Zadar during their tenure in office.

Moving southwards, in the city of Šibenik, like Zadar, the bans of Croatia-Dalmatia also held the title of comes, parallel to their country office after King Louis took over the territory. In the months following the Treaty of Zadar in February 1358, until the first half of 1359, no comes were elected in the city. The sources reveal only the names of the rectors, who were elected from among the local population and rotated on a monthly basis. The first comes during the reign of King Louis was Ban Nicholas Szécsi, who appeared in the sources as the comes of Šibenik between 1359 and 1362.77 He may have held this title throughout his entire term in office, but due to the lack of sources, we cannot confirm this. We have scattered data on other officials of the period, but it is certain that Kónya Szécsényi held the title in 136778 and Simon Meggyesi in 1370,79 both during their tenures in office as bans. Although we do not have such a richly detailed data set as in the case of Zadar, in my opinion, the developments in the case of Šibenik suggest that before 1371 the office of comes in this city also “belonged” to the holder of the office of the ban, as was true in the case of the title of comes in Zadar. This system also disappeared when Charles of Durazzo assumed the position as duke. The first known comes of the city from this period was Galeaz de Surdis from 1375,80 a relative of Raphael de Surdis and John de Surdis, who arrived to Dalmatia with John and Raphael, and was also the judge of the royal court of appeal in the Dalmatian cities in 1373.81 After him, no other is mentioned in the sources on the city until the death of Louis I.

In Trogir, the situation was quite different. After 1358, there was no presence of the bans of Croatia-Dalmatia among the leaders of the city. An almost unprecedented length of tenure in the Dalmatian cities was granted to the citizen and royal knight Francis de Georgiis of Zadar.82 The knight from Zadar was first mentioned in November 1358 as holding the latter office, which he held (with the exception of a one-year hiatus) until his death in 1377.83 When he had to leave office for a short period between 1373 and 1374, the title of comes remained in the family. King Louis had ordered Francis to Zadar because of the war with Venice,84 and in his place, the king appointed Francis’ son Paul, who was also a royal knight.85 After the death of Francis, the office of comes was given to another citizen of Zadar, Jacob de Raduchis, who was close to the royal court and had obtained a doctorate in law in Padua.86 He distinguished himself before the king in the 1370s and was, among other things, Louis I’s envoy at the negotiations concerning the Treaty of Turin in 1381.87 Between 1379 and 1382, the title was held by Baldasar de Sorba of Genoa, who was former admiral of the Hungarian fleet.88

Split was perhaps the most varied in terms of choice of comes compared to the previous cities. After February 1358, there was a transitional period following the Hungarian takeover. A podesta was appointed head of the city first, then from 1359 until 1363, as in Zadar and Šibenik, the office of comes was given to Nicholas Szécsi, the ban of Croatia-Dalmatia,89 who was succeeded by a royal knight from Zadar, John de Grisogonis, who was at the head of Split until from 1363 until 1369.90 He was succeeded in the city office by Raphael de Sorba, a royal knight, citizen of Zadar and son of the former admiral Baldasar. Raphael de Sorba held this position until 1372.91 After the Genoese comes, the title was held for two years by Giberto Cornuto, who is believed to have been related to the priors Peter and Bandon Cornuto of Vrana. 92 In 1374, another royal knight of Zadar, Maffeus Matafaris, became the head of the city,93 followed in 1379 by the then Croatian-Dalmatian ban Nicholas Szécsi for a short period,94 who probably received this title in connection with the war with Venice. In 1382, he was followed in the office by Jacob Szerecsen (Saracenus),95 who was sent as a royal visitor to Dalmatia and Croatia in 1370 and a year later received the islands of Cres and Osor as a royal gift.96

For Rab, we do not as many or as detailed sources from the period after 1358 as we do for the larger cities above.97 The first comes we know of from the reign of Louis is Gregory Banich, who is first mentioned as a comes of Rab in 1363,98 but presumably he could have been given this title as early as 1358.99 Gregory was the youngest son of the former Ban of Croatia, Paul Šubić,100 and he probably held the title until his death in 1374.101 After his death in 1374, Gregory was succeeded by Ban Nicholas Szécsi102 and then, around 1376, by the royal knight John Besenyő of Nezde,103 who from the 1370s onwards was shown to have been given more and more offices in Croatia and Dalmatia.104 He was succeeded that same year by Paul de Georgiis, who held the position until 1378.105 In 1381 and 1382, Count Stephen of Krk held the office.106

The fates of the leadership of the islands of Brač, Hvar, and Korčula were closely linked during the reign of King Louis. It is assumed that at the time of the establishment of the office of admiral or after the two islands had fallen into Hungarian hands the title of comes of Hvar and Brač was attached to the office of the head of the Hungarian fleet. During the reign of Louis, the admirals were systematically at the head of the two islands.107 The destiny of Korčula in the period under study was quite similar to that of the two islands above, with a few differences. After the island fell into Hungarian hands, the title of comes did not immediately pass to the admirals but was held by the royal knight Stephen de Nosdrogna at least in 1358.108 From 1361, the title was held by Jacob Cesamis, royal knight and admiral, recorded until 1364, probably until his death.109 He was succeeded in office by Admiral Baldasar de Sorba from 1366, who held the title until his retirement as admiral in 1370.110 He was briefly succeeded in 1372 by John de Surdis, vicarius generalis,111 and then by Admiral Nicolo de Petracha of Split (1373)112 and, after him, by Admiral Simon Doria of Genoa, who was comes of Korčula until 1384, when he was succeeded in his office as admiral and comes by Matheus de Petracha of Split.113

Less information is available about the leaders of Omiš. Only three comes are known from the reign of Louis I. In 1358, a royal knight from Zadar, Stephen de Nosdrogna,114 became the first to hold this position, followed by two royal admirals, Nicola de Petrache of Split (1373)115 and Baldasar de Sorba from Genoa (1369–1370), who held the office of comes, in addition to similar titles in Korčula, Hvar, and Brač.116 After them, no records of a comes of Omiš are known until the early fifteenth century. In the absence of sources, we can only speculate, but it is striking that two admirals were also comes of Omiš during their tenure, and we cannot rule out the possibility that this was also the case for the other admirals. The assumption of a connection between the office of admiral and the title of comes of Omiš is strengthened by the fact that, as in the case of Korčula, which later became the admirals’ estate, the first known comes of Omiš during the period of Louis’ reign was the royal knight Stephen de Nosdrogna (1358-1360). The connection of the office of admiral with the islands of Korčula, Hvar, and Brač and the city of Omiš is mainly due to the strategic location of this region for transport and trade on the Adriatic Sea, and it is no coincidence that it was the center of piracy on the Adriatic Sea for many centuries. As the area was crucial for safe navigation in the Adriatic, the evidence suggests that the granting of the titles of comes to admirals was a means of ensuring control of the sea.

After the analysis of the cities, we should briefly touch upon the question of the royal estates in Croatia, examining who were the heads of the royal castles. In Croatia, during the reign of Louis I, the royal castles were Knin, Klis, Unac, Srb and Počitelj, Ostrovica (Luka), Ostravica (Bužan), Omiš Castle, and Skradin Castle, Novigrad (after 1358), Zvonigrad (between 1363 and 1377), Amanj, Sokol, Peć (after 1368), and Obrovac (after 1379).117 These castles be­longed to the honor of the bans of Croatia-Dalmatia and were therefore mostly headed by the ban’s men and familiars, making this layer less relevant for the study of the local elite of the ruler, since their relationship with the monarch was indirect. However, some names are worth highlighting, namely two individuals who established a strong foothold in Croatia-Dalmatia: Pietro Bellante and John Besenyő of Nezde. Both Bellante and Nezde had impressive careers in the region independent of the bans. They held leading offices in the cities as well as on the royal estates. John Besenyő, who was a royal knight, had an impressive career, though he did not gain influence beyond the Drava River until the late 1360s, after which he held important posts in the Dalmatian cities and Croatian territories. In 1374, for the preparation for Charles of Durazzo’s travel, the king sent Besenyő to Zadar.118 He was castellan of Obrovac in 1379 and comes of Bužan in 1380, but he may have held offices in the region earlier, as he is recorded as comes of Rab already in 1376, but given the lack of sources, we cannot arrive at a more complete picture of his career in Croatia-Dalmatia.119 John Besenyő of Nezde found his place in the region very well, as is indicated by the fact that later, after the death of Louis I, Queen Elizabeth sent him to Zadar and the Dalmatian cities to calm the troubled local society.120 Pietro Bellante was decorated in King Louis’ Neapolitan wars and in other conflicts in which he took part on the side of the king.121 As noted in the discussion above, the first records of Bellante’s presence in Croatia and Dalmatia date from the late 1360s, when he was counts of Bužan and Počitelj between 1367 and 1371, before becoming comes of Zadar. He had a flourishing career in Croatia-Dalmatia and in other parts of the Kingdom of Hungary.

The situation for the deputy heads of cities was similar to that for the heads of royal castles regarding their relevance to the royal administrative elite in Croatia-Dalmatia. The relationship between these deputies and the ruler was most of the time indirect with a few exceptions, since they were not appointed by the king or the duke of Slavonia, and their appointment and the office they held were usually determined by the comes, local political conditions, and practical considerations, and sometimes the comes even leased the office they held.122 Instead of a more detailed examination, it is worth noting a few trends that can be observed in the period between 1358 and 1382 in relation to the deputies regarding how the families of the royal officials were involved in the royal administration on a lower level. In the case of Zadar, the first deputy we know was Nicholas Debrői, a familiar of the Croatian-Dalmatian ban Nicholas Szécsi, whose name is mentioned in the sources in 1359.123 After the beginning of the dukedom of Charles of Durazzo, the records multiplied, and among the vicars, we find Nicolo Aldemarisco,124 who probably came from Naples with Duke Charles in 1371, and Galeazzo de Surdis, a relative of the then comes of Zadar, Raphael de Surdis,125 who took office in 1373, who had settled in Zadar and held other offices in Dalmatia, and Raymundus de Confalonieri, also of Rafael’s circle, who was of Piacenza origin and who was deputy between 1373 and 1375.126 In Split, we also find examples of the deputy role of the relatives of the comes, as Andrew de Grisogonis held this position between 1366 and 1367,127 when John de Grisogonis was the comes of the city. The phenomenon of deputies from among the relatives of the comeses can be traced in almost all the cities. For several years, Francis de Georgiis, who held the office of comes in Trogir for nearly two decades, had his son Paul,128 who himself briefly became the head of the city in 1373, as his deputy. We find examples of similar situations in the case of the royal admirals, with two of Baldasar de Sorba’s relatives replacing him as deputy in the office of the comes of Hvar and Brač, which was administered by the admiral: Raphael Rouere (de Sorba)129 in 1366130 and Nicolo de Sorba in 1367.131 Admiral Simon Doria’s deputy was Thomas Doria on the island of Korčula in 1375–1376,132 and Augustinus Doria was his deputy on Hvar in 1374133 and 1375,134 and the latter held the deputy post on Brač in 1381.135

Royal Knights from Dalmatia and Croatia as Officials of the King

During the reign of Louis, the king’s circle of local leadership was reinforced by a particular group, a narrow circle of people. They were the citizens and nobles from Croatia and Dalmatia who had been knighted by Louis during his reign. The reign of Louis was the heyday of chivalric culture in Hungary,136 and the number of royal knights increased dramatically, even more spectacularly than the national increase in Croatia and especially in Dalmatia, due to the large number of citizens mostly from Zadar who received this honorable title.137 Two members of the de Georgiis family from the city of Zadar were among the knights of the court. The name Francis is mentioned in sources from 1345 as a member of the Zadar delegation that sought military assistance against Venice,138 and his son Paul is first referred to by this title in the sources from 1377.139 Jacob Cesamis’ family was among the first to be given this title by Louis I. He was first mentioned in the sources as a knight of the court in 1358, before the Peace of Zadar, when, together with Daniel de Varicasso and George de Georgio, he came before Louis I as a delegate from Zadar to ask the king to confirm the old privileges the city had enjoyed. 140 Stephen de Nosdrogna is mentioned as royal knight in a source from 1358.141 John de Grisogono was a member of the Zadar delegation that sought out King Louis in 1357 and asked him to put the city under his protection.142 One can plausibly assume that he was granted the title in connection with the role he played as part of this delegation. Paul de Grubogna first appeared before the king as a figure of some influence in 1345, when, together with Francis de Georgio, he too went as part of the aforementioned delegation to the Hungarian king’s court. Unlike his predecessors, Mafej de Matafaris did not catch the attention of the king in the 1340s and 1350s, as he was too young to have done so. He was first mentioned in the sources as a knight in 1376.143 Jacob de Varicasso is first mentioned in the sources from 1357, when he appeared before the king as a member of the aforementioned delegation from Zadar, and presumably, like John de Grisogono, he was knighted at the time, though in the sources, he was only referred to by this title in 1363.144

In addition to the citizens of Zadar, other royal knights from the region are also known. Among them, one of the major players among the royal officials was Novak from Lika, a member of the Mogorović clan.145 While his fellow knights of Zadar served mainly locally, Novak’s name is also found in Hungary in the king’s entourage. He took part in the royal hunt at Zólyom (present day Zvolen) in 1353, where, according to the chronicle of the Anonymus Minorite, his intrigues prevented John Besenyő, who had actually rescued the king, from receiving a reward.146 He is also known for his literary activities. He received titles both in Hungary, as castellan of Salgó,147 and in Croatia-Dalmatia, including the count of Nin multiple times. Novak was rewarded by the Emperor with the title of Royal Knight by 1351 at the latest, and in 1352, he and his two brothers, John and Gregory, were granted land near Počitelj.148 The charter mentioned that his father had fought and fallen on the king’s side against the Venetians, probably in the siege of Zadar in 1345, where Novak himself was seriously wounded, but he was also wounded in the king’s campaign in Naples, and he even marched on the king’s side against the Lithuanians to take the castle of Belz, which was probably the direct reason for the grant.149

To be awarded a knighthood, those who received this honor had to distinguish themselves personally before the king. Most of their achievements were either diplomatic missions or military deeds, therefore it can be assumed that most of the citizens of Zadar were awarded the title for their actions during the siege of Zadar in 1345–1346 and the Hungarian-Venetian war from 1356 to 1358. In 1345, Francis de Georgiis and Paulus Grubogna were members of the Zadar envoy delegation that asked King Louis for help against Venice. Jacob Varicassis and John de Grisogonis were also ambassadors to the royal court in 1357. Jacob Cesamis commanded ships against Venice during the siege of Zadar, and was later imprisoned for a long time. The royal knights, who were drawn from the local burghers and nobles, were also supported the monarch in the management of the local administration and served as a link between the region and the court. In addition to his offices in Hungary, Novak served as comes of Nin three times, John de Grisogonis was comes of Nin (1359–1369) and Split (1363–1369), the latter city being also governed by Mafej de Matafaris (1374–1379), Stephen de Nosdrogna was in charge of Omiš (1358) and Korčula (1358), Francis de Georgiis family was in charge of Trogir (1358–1373, 1374–1377), his son Paul was also comes of Rab (1376–1378) and Trogir (1373), and, as can be seen, their family members and relatives were deputies in the administration of the Dalmatian cities alongside them or alongside other comeses. Examples of this are the cases of Andrew de Grisogonis in Split (1366–1369) and Paul de Georgiis in Trogir (1363–1370). Royal knights were often found as envoys of the king, in times of war and peace. In 1359–1360, Jacob Cesamis and John de Grisogonis acted as ambassadors alongside Nicholas Szécsi in negotiations with Venice.150 In 1368, Stephanus de Nosdrogna was ambassador to Pope Orban V on behalf of the king,151 and Mafej Matafaris and Paulus de Georgio were involved in the conclusion of the war with Venice and the peace of Turin in 1381, as was Jacob Raduchis, who did not hold the title of knight but enjoyed the king’s favor.152 The knights played a liaison role between the region and the court, as exemplified by the request of the rector, councilors, and magistrates of Dubrovnik to Francis de Georgiis to inform the city through their envoys of the details of the king’s visit to Dalmatia and to signal the city when the monarch was on his way to Zadar.153

Mobility between Various Parts of the Country

During the reign of Louis I, the Dalmatian-Croatian the king’s local, adminis­t­­rative leadership consisted basically of two groups: local Croatian nobles and Dalmatian burghers, who were chosen by the king, and others from Hungary and Italy who came from outside Croatia-Dalmatia. The question is the degree of mobility between Croatia-Dalmatia and the rest of the Kingdom of Hungary. In the case of the burghers who belonged to the elite of Louis, the main characteristic we have seen in their careers is that they often played leading roles in the local administration and they were involved in political affairs affecting the region, provided a link between Croatia-Dalmatia and the royal court, but they did not participate in national politics and did not hold country-level offices. There are a number of explanations for this. First, the ruler needed a certain stratum of people who were familiar with local and regional social and political circumstances to govern the newly acquired territories. The nucleus of the king’s local, administrative elite was formed in the 1340s and 1350s, during the siege of Zadar and the Hungarian-Venetian war.154 It consisted of the royal knights of Zadar who, either through their military actions or otherwise, had distinguished themselves personally before the king. Louis’s Croatian-Dalmatian administration was based on the use of reliable, small numbers of local royal knights in the management of the region. The members of this local elite were completed by royal officials coming from Hungary or Italian towns with similar roles compared to the local knights, thus forming the king’s local administrative leadership, among whom were also several royal knights, such as Baldasar and Raphael de Sorba of Genoa, or John Besenyő of Nezde.

This system was not unprecedented. In the Kingdom of Naples in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, almost exclusively knights were employed as district judges (giustiziariato), often sent to the peripheries of the kingdom. The choice of these officers who governed these border areas was made deliberately and combined local members with those from other parts of the country, particularly Provence. These individuals were responsible for representing the king’s interests in the territory and for keeping the peace, and they were also given military, judicial or even financial tasks. The people chosen to govern these areas were expected to be loyal rather than to have special knowledge, and could hold a variety of offices during their term of duty. The royal officers sent to the peripheries were also assigned to various types of duties beyond the country’s borders, mainly military or diplomatic.155 A fundamentally similar phenomenon can be observed during the Angevin rule of the England in the thirteenth century, where royal local royal were trusted with judicial role.156

The officers of local origin of King Louis, whether they were royal knights or other patricians who had not received such recognition, do not appear to have been involved in affairs in other parts of the Kingdom of Hungary, but only in foreign policy matters affecting the region. Only those royal knights who belonged to the local nobility and who were able to support the royal campaigns with soldiers were able to achieve national recognition and were rewarded with offices. Novak was a member of the king’s retinue, and he took part in his wars and campaigns, thereby acquiring his own privileges in Hungary. During the reign of Louis I, there was probably no royal will to bestow offices and privileges on the urban knights in Hungary, and only the period of political turmoil and throne struggles in the later decades gave the opportunity for descendants of former royal knights from Dalmatian cities (and some members of their families) to gain a foothold in Hungary. Among the royal knights of Zadar who had won this title during the reign of Louis, one family managed to gain a foothold among the Hungarian nobility later. The Zubor family of Földvár and Pataj were descendants of the Nassis and Cesamis families from Zadar.157 Jacob Cesamis was the grandson of Admiral Jacob Cesamis and son of the royal knight and admiral Matthew Cesamis. He used the name Jacob Zubor Pataji instead of Cesamis, presumably because of the estate of Pataj (now Dunapataj), which he received as a royal grant.158 Zoilo and John Nassis, who were related to Jacob Zubor of Pataj on their mother’s side, had even more spectacular careers. They established themselves among the Hungarian national elite, but much later, during the reign of King Sigismund.

From Hungary and other provinces of Louis’s kingdom the entrance to Dalmatia and Croatia was open. There were two main groups of people who arrived in the region, those coming directly from Italy and those coming from Hungary. The latter included persons of Hungarian and Italian origin the vast majority of whom belonged to the Italian group, who could easily integrate into an environment, economic structures, and society that was not unfamiliar to them. Among those from Hungary, the Croatian-Dalmatian bans, vicarius generalis, and their familiars were temporary “guests” in the region, since their role in local institutions and their offices lasted as long as they held the high office of the kingdom, but once they had lost it, they did not retain any other offices in Dalmatia. An exception to this was Raphael de Surdis, who was vicarius generalis and also comes of Zadar in the spring of 1373 but who remained in Dalmatia after his mandate as governor had ended and was referred to in the sources as the comes of Zadar and the comes of Nin until 1378. Among the officials of the Hungarian monarch, the admirals of the fleet were in a very different position compared to the bans. They were not from the Hungarian nobility. They were either local men skilled in naval warfare, such as the royal knight Jacob Cesamis or Nicholas de Petracha of Split, or experienced Genoese sailors, such as Baldasar de Sorba and Simon Doria, who settled comfortably in the region.

Among those who arrived from outside of Croatia and Dalmatia, there was a strikingly large number who had come directly from Italy or were of Italian origin but had already had impressive careers in Hungary. Many of them had put down roots in the region, and they were involved in local trade and economic life, in addition to the roles they played in their offices. These people were sometimes the link between the Kingdom of Hungary and the cities of Italy. An excellent example of this is the case of Florence, when in 1365 the city asked Baldasar de Sorba, the officer of the king in Dalmatia, to recommend the Florentines to the favour of the king.159 This tendency could be observed in the management of the Hungarian salt and thirtieth tax chamber offices in Dalmatia, where Florentine merchants and financiers took over the administrative leadership from the 1370s.

Among the leaders of the administration of the Hungarian king in Dalmatia and Croatia of Italian origin, the de Surdis of Piacenza brothers occupied a prominent place, due to the fact that these two men held the office of vicarius generalis successively.160 In addition to John and Raphael de Surdis, who were in charge of the administration of the region, other relatives and presumably also members of their circle from Piacenza arrived with them, such as Galeaz de Surdis and Raymond Confalonieri. We do not know why Louis I entrusted the office of vicarius generalis and other offices in Croatia-Dalmatia to the de Surdis family. John de Surdis, who himself had had a close relationship with the Hungarian king through another bishop from Piacenza, Jacob of Zagreb, was the king’s envoy to the papal court in Avignon on several occasions in the 1360s, so it is clear that he was one of the king’s confidants. To all this we might add that they were not the first members of the de Surdis family to play a significant role in the region. Francis de Surdis, the son of Manfred, had been notary in Zadar from 1349 to 1350161 and then in Split (1356–1358)162 and finally in Dubrovnik in 1360.163 This may not have had any influence on John’s or Raphael’s appointment as vicarius generalis, but it is possible that they were better acquainted with local affairs through their kinship. Although the family had initially settled in Zadar, they eventually won Lipovec as a donation from Louis I, and the donation included his brothers and the son of an unnamed brother. The family’s history was then mainly connected with the county of Zagreb and their estate.164

From among the arrivals from outside of Croatia-Dalmatia, the members of the de Sorba and Doria families of Genoa settled in Dalmatia as well. Baldasar de Sorba and Simon Doria were in command of Louis I’s fleet. The former was also involved in the chamber of salt and thirtieth tax in Dalmatia and Croatia, and both families were active in trade and finance. The emergence of the two Genoese admirals was due to the close alliance between the Hungarian king and Genoa, from where experienced leaders came to head the Hungarian fleet. Baldasar de Sorba may have arrived in Dalmatia in the early 1360s, settling in Zadar, and then becoming a royal shipbuilder, head of the Dalmatian-Croatian salt and thirtieth chamber, and royal admiral from 1366. He left this post around 1370 and was Philip II of Taranto’s governor in the Principality of Achaea during his dukedom until 1373. Baldasar and the de Sorbas were not disconnected from Zadar, as he is believed to have returned to Dalmatia after 1373 and was appointed by the king as comes of Trogir between 1379 and 1381. The de Sorbas became part of the Zadar citizenry, Baldasar was joined in the region in the 1360s by his brother Nicolo, who was Baldasar’s deputy in 1367 on the island of Hvar. Also related to Baldasar was Raphael Rouere (de Sorba), who was the admiral’s deputy on the islands of Hvar and Brač in 1366. Baldasar’s greatest aid and companion in the region was his own son Raphael, who also served as comes of Split during the period, and after the death of Louis he also held the office of comes of Šibenik (1384) and was given offices in Zadar, including being elected rector and judge on several occasions.165

The members of the Genoese families were easily integrated into Dalmatian urban society and local trade, as evidenced by the numerous records of their activities.166 Among the members of the Doria family, in addition to Simon, his brothers Bartol and Hugolin were engaged in trade, and Augustinus Doria is found as the deputy of the admiral in Hvar. The later admiral of the naval fleet of King Sigismund was Hugolin Doria, but he no longer lived in Zadar, as the city was in Venetian hands, and he established his headquarters in Trogir.167 In addition to the royal officers, the Genoese presence in the region was significant during the reign of Louis I. This was due not only to the fact that royal officials from Genoa were present, but also to the fact that Genoese merchants enjoyed trade privileges in Hungary that the Florentines could only have wished for in the 1370s.168 Beside the de Sorbas and Dorias, the Spinola family, which was one of the most important in Genoa at the time,169 was represented in the region thanks to their commercial activities.170

Apart from those from Piacenza and Genoa, the presence of the Neapolitans among Louis I’s Dalmatian-Croatian leaders is most notable. Pietro Bellante, who distinguished himself as an adviser to the Hungarian king in his campaign in Naples in 1349 and acquired a patrimony in Transylvania in the 1360s, then acquired positions of leadership in Počitelj, Bužan, and Obrovac as well as the office of Zadar. Although Nicolo Aldemarisco was not a comes of any Dalmatian city, he was deputy comes of Zadar after 1371, probably due to Charles of Durazzo. His relative Luigi Aldemarisco later became admiral to Charles’ son, Charles of Naples, who was fighting for the Hungarian throne. From among those who came from the Hungarian territories, two are worth mentioning: John Besenyő of Nezde and Jacob Szerecsen of Padova, who were appointed to the leader­ship of Dalmatian cities without holding a national office in Croatia-Dalmatia. The royal knight Besenyő and Szerecsen, who played the most prominent roles in the management of the Hungarian financial administration in the 1370s, had not only a distinguished career in Hungary in the narrow sense of the word (i.e. not only in the territories of what at the time would have been considered Hungary proper) but also in Croatia-Dalmatia. Besenyő was the only Hungarian nobleman who was comfortably and securely settled in Croatia-Dalmatia, but his example illustrates that there was a door for mobility.

Archival Sources

Nadbiskupski Arhiv u Splitu [Archbishopric Archive in Split] (NAS)

Rukopisna građa Ivana Lučića MS 528, 531–542

Magyar Nemzeti Levéltár Országos Levéltára [Hungarian State Archives] (MNL OL)

Diplomatikai Fényképgyűjtemény [Diplomatic photo collection] (DF)

Diplomatikai Levéltár [Diplomatic archive] (DL)

Državni arhiv u Zadru [State archive in Zadar] (DAZd)

Curia maior ciuilium (CMC)

Korčula (KA)

Spisi zadarskih bilježnika [Documents of Zadar Notaries] (SZB)

Petrus Perençanus (PP)

Vannes condam Bernardi de Firmo (VBF)

Nacionalna i sveučilišna knjižnica, Zagreb [National and University Library, Zagreb] (NSK)

Bibliography

Printed sources

ADE = Magyar diplomácziai emlékek az Anjou-korból. Acta extra Andegavensia I–III [Hungarian diplomatic records from the Angevin era]. Edited by Gusztáv Wenzel. Budapest: MTA, 1874–1876.

Anjou oklt. = Anjou-kori oklevéltár I–XV., XVII–XXXVIII., XL., XLII., XLVI–XLIX., L. [Charters of the Angevine era]. Edited by Gyula Kristó et al. Szeged–Budapest: Szegedi Középkorász Műhely, 1990–2020.

B. Halász, Éva, and Ferenc Piti. Az Erdődy család bécsi levéltárának középkori oklevélregesztái 1001–1387 [The medieval charter registers of the Erdődy family’s Vienna archive 1001–1387]. Budapest–Szeged: Magyar Nemzeti Levéltár Pest Megyei Levéltára, 2019.

CDCr = Codex diplomaticus regni Croatiae, Sclavoniae et Dalmatiae. Vols. 1–18. Edited by Tadija Smičiklas. Zagreb: JAZU, 1904–1934.

Krekich, Antonio. “Documenti per la storia di Spalato (1341–1414).” Atti e memorie della Società Dalmata di Storia Patria 3/4 (1934): 57–86.

Listine = Listine o odnošajih izmedju južnoga Slavenstva i Mletačke Republike [Documents on the relations between the Southern Slavs and the Republic of Venice]. Vols. 1–10. Edited by Šime Ljubić. Zagreb: Albrecht, 1868–1891.

Rački, Franjo. “Notae Joanni Lucii.” Starine JAZU 13 (1881): 83–124.

Serie dei Reggitori di Spalato. Bullettino di archeologia e storia dalmata 10 (1887): 198–99; Bullettino di archeologia e storia dalmata 11 (1888): 62–64, 76–77, 94–96.

Šišić, Ferdo. “Ljetopis Pavla Pavlovića Patricija Zadarskoga.” Vjesnik Kr. Hrvatsko-Slavonsko-Dalmatinskog Zemaljskog Arkiva 6 (1904): 1–59.

Spisi splitskog bilježnika = Grbavac, Branka, and Damir Karbić, and Arijana Kolak Bošnjak. Spisi splitskog bilježnika Albertola Bassanege od 1368. do 1369. godine. Zagreb: Hrvatska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti, 2020.

UGDS = Urkundenbuch zur Geschichte der Deutschen in Siebenbürgen. Vols. 1–7. Edited by Gustav Gündisch et al. Hermannstadt–Bucharest: Franz Michaelis, Georg Olms. 1892–1991.

Varjú, Elemér. Oklevéltár a Tomaj nemzetségbeli Losonczi Bánffy család történetéhez [Charter collection for the history of the Losonczi Bánffy family of the Tomaj clan]. Budapest: Hornyánszky Viktor Könyvnyomdája, 1908.

Velika bilježnica = Karbić, Damir, Maja Katušić, and Ana Pisačić. Srednjovjekovni registri Zadarskog I Splitskog kaptola (Registra Medievalia Capitulorum Iadre et Spalati). Vol. 2, Velika bilježnica Zadarskog kaptola (Quaternus magnus Capituli Iadrensis). Zagreb: Croatian State Archives, 2007.

Vuletić Vukasović, Vid. Catalogo dei Conti, Vicari e Rettori che si succedettero nel governo di Curzola (Dalmazia) dall’ anno 998–1796. Dubrovnik: n.p., 1900.

Secondary literature

Albini, Giuliana. “Piacenza dal XII al XIV secolo: reclutamento ed esportazione dei podestà e capitani del Popolo.” In I podestà dell’Italia comunale: Reclutamento e circolazione degli ufficiali forestieri (fine XII sec.-metà XIV sec.), edited by Jean-Claude Maire Vigueur, 405–45. Rome: École française de Rome, 2000.

B. Halász, Éva. “Generalis congregatiók Szlavóniában a 13–14. században” [General congregations in Slavonia in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries]. Történelmi Szemle 59 (2017): 283–98.

Bartulović, Anita. “Integracija došljaka s Apeninskog poluotoka u zadarskoj komuni (1365.–1374.)” [Integration of immigrants from the Italian peninsula in the Zadar commune (1365–1374)]. Radovi Zavoda za povijesne znanosti HAZU u Zadru 61 (2019): 135–77.

Bećir, Ante. “Plemstvo kasnosrednjovjekovnoga Trogira: politička zajednica, frakcije i dinamika konflikta” [The late medieval nobility of Trogir: political community, fractions and dynamics]. PhD diss., Zagreb, Hrvatsko katoličko sveučilište, 2022.

Bettarini, Francesco. “Notai-cancellieri nella Dubrovnik tardo medievale.” Italian Review of Legal History 7 (2021): 691–718.

Botica, Ivan, and Antun Nekić. “A Feather or a Sword? About Count Novak and His Glagolitic Missal.” Konštantinove Listy 17 (2024): 36–46.

Brătianu, George. “Les Vénitiens dans la mer Noire au XIVe siècle, après la deuxième guerre des Détroits.” Revue des études byzantines 33 (1934): 148–162.

Brković, Milko. “Ugovor o sklopljenom miru u Zadru 1358. između Ludovika I Venecije” [Treaty on peace concluded in Zadar in 1358 between Louis and Venice]. In Humanitas et litterae: Zbornik u čast Franje Šanjeka, edited by Lovorka Ćoralić, and Slavko Slišković, 205–22. Zagreb: Kršćanska sadašnjost, 2009.

C. Tóth, Norbert. A kalocsa-bácsi főegyházmegye káptalanjainak középkori archontológiája [The medieval archontology of the chapters of the Kalocsa-Bács archbishopric]. Kalocsa: KFL, 2019.

C. Tóth, Norbert. Az esztergomi székes- és társaskáptalanok archontológiája 1100–1543 [Archontology of the Cathedral and Collegiate Chapters of Esztergom 1100–1543]. Budapest: MTA, 2019.

Confalonieri, Giuseppe. Monografia della nobile famiglia Confalonieri di Piacenza. Firenze: Stab. Ramella, 1923.

Csákó, Judit. “A padovai krónikák, Nagy Lajos és a guerra dei confine” [The Padua chronicles, Louis the Great, and the guerra dei confini]. Világtörténet 13 (2023): 251–77.

Csukovits, Enikő. Az Anjouk Magyarországon. Vol. 2, I. Nagy Lajos és Mária uralma (1342–1395) [The Angevins in Hungary. Vol. 2, The reign of King Louis I the Great and Queen Mary, 1342–1395]. Budapest: MTA Történettudományi Intézet, 2019.

Dokoza, Serđo, and Mladen Andreis. Zadarsko plemstvo u srednjemu vijeku [The nobility of Zadar in the Middle Ages]. Zadar: Sveučilište u Zadru, 2020.

Draskóczy, István. “András Kapy: Carrière d’un bourgeois de la capitale hongroise au début du XV e siècle.” Acta Historica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 34 (1988): 119–57.

Engel, Pál. Magyarország világi archontológiája 1301–1457. Budapest: História, MTA Történettudományi Intézete, 1996.

Fabijanec, Sabine Florence. “Pojava profesije mercator i podrijetlo trgovaca u Zadru u XIV. i početkom XV. stoljeća.” Zbornik Odsjeka za povijesne znanosti Zavoda za povijesne i društvene znanosti Hrvatske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti 19 (2001): 83–125

Fekete Nagy, Antal: A magyar-dalmát kereskedelem [Hungarian-Dalmatian trade]. Budapest: Egyházmegyei Könyvnyomda, 1926.

Gál, Judit. “The Roles and Loyalties of the Bishops and Archbishops of Dalmatia (1102–1301).” Hungarian Historical Review 3 (2014): 343–73.

Gál, Judit. “Zadar, the Angevin Center of the Kingdom of Croatia and Dalmatia.” Hungarian Historical Review 11, no. 3 (2022): 570–90. doi: 10.38145/2022.3.570

Gál, Judit. “The Changes of Office of Ban of Slavonia after the Mongol Invasion in Hungary (1242–1267).” In Secular Power and Sacral Authority in Medieval East-Central Europe, edited by Suzana Miljan, and Kosana Jovanović, 37–48. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2018.

Gál, Judit. Dalmatia and the Exercise of Royal Authority in the Árpád-Era Kingdom of Hungary. Budapest: Research Centre for the Humanities, 2020.

Gerő, Győző. “II. ker. Fő utca 82–84. sz.” [Budapest, II district, Fő utca 82–84.] Budapest Régiségei 19 (1959): 266.

Grbavac, Branka. “Notari kao posrednici između Italije i Dalmacije: studije, službe, seobe između dvije obale Jadrana.” Acta Histriae 16, no. 4 (2008): 503–26.

Grbavac, Branka. “Prilog proučavanju životopisa đenoveškog i zadarskog plemića Baltazara de Sorbe, kraljevskog admirala” [Contribution to the study of the biography of the Genoese and Zadar Nobleman Baltazar de Sorba, royal admiral] In Humanitas et literae: Zbornik u čast Franje Šanjeka, edited by Lovorka Čoralić, and Slavko Slišković, 227–40. Zagreb: Kršćanska sadašnjost, 2009.

Grbavac, Branka. “Prilog proučavanju životopisa zadarskog plemića Franje Jurjevića, kraljevskog viteza” [Contribution to the study of the biography of the Zadar nobleman Franjo Jurjević, royal knight]. Zbornik Odsjeka za povijesne znanosti Zavoda za povijesne i društvene znanosti Hrvatske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti 22 (2004): 35–54.

Grbavac, Branka. “Zadarski plemići kao kraljevski vitezovi u doba Ludovika I. Anžuvinaca” [Nobles of Zadar as royal knights in the era of Louis I]. Acta Histriae 16 (2008): 89–116.

Györffy, György. “Szlavónia kialakulásának oklevélkritikai vizsgálata” [Source criticism and analysis of the emergence of Slavonia]. Levéltári Közlemények 41 (1970): 223–40.

Jacoby, David. “Rural Exploitation and Market Economy in the Late Medieval Peloponnese.” In Viewing the Morea: Land and People in the Late Medieval Peloponnese, edited by Sharon E.J. Gerstel, 213–76. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2013.

Janeković-Römer, Zdenka. Višegradski ugovor temelj Dubrovačke Republike [The Visegrád treaty as the foundation of the Republic of Dubrovnik]. Zagreb: Golden Marketing, 2003.

Jékely, Zsombor. “A magyarországi Anjou-kori elit műpártolása” [The patronage of the Angevin elite of Hungary]. In Az Anjou-kor hatalmi elitje, edited by Csukovits Enikő, 291–316. Budapest: Magyar Történelmi Társulat, 2019.

Juhász, Ágnes. “A raguzai tisztségviselők a XIV. század közepén” [Officers of Dubrovnik in the mid-fourteenth century]. In Középkortörténeti tanulmányok 5, edited by Éva Révész, and Miklós Halmágyi, 41–53. Szeged: Szegedi Középkorász Műhely, 2007.

Juhász, Ágnes. A késő Anjou-kori dalmát és magyar tengeri hajózás az 1381 és 1382-ből származó oklevelek alapján [Dalmatian and Hungarian shipping in the late Angevine Era according to charters from 1381 and 1382]. Szeged: JATE, 2006.

Karbić, Damir, and Suzana Miljan. “Knezovi Zrinski u 14. i 15. stoljeću između staroga i novoga teritorijalnog identiteta” [The Zrinski Counts in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries: Between old and new territorial identity]. In Susreti dviju kultura: Obitelj Zrinski u hrvatskoj i mađarskoj povijesti [Encounters of two cultures: The Zrinski family in Croatian and Hungarian history], edited by Sándor Bene, Zoran Ladić, and Gábor Hausner, 15–43. Zagreb: Matica hrvatska, 2012.

Karbić, Damir. “Horvát főurak, nemesek és a Magyar Korona a kései Árpád-kor­ban és az Anjou királyok idején” [Croatian barons, nobles and the Crown of Hungary in the late Árpádian and the Angevin kings]. In A horvát–magyar együttélés forduló­pontjai, edited by Pál Fodor, and Dénes Sokcsevits, 119–25. Budapest: MTA Bölcsészettudományi Kutatóközpont, 2016.

Klaić, Nada, and Ivo Petricioli. Zadar u srednjem vijeku do 1409 [Zadar in the Middle Ages until 1409]. Zadar: Filozofski fakultet, 1976.

Klaić, Vjekoslav. “Hrvatski hercezi i bani za Karla Roberta i Ljudevita I. (1301–1382).” Rad Jugoslavenske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti 142 (1900): 126–218.

Klaić, Vjekoslav. “O knezu Novaku (1368)” [On Count Novak]. Vjesnik Arheološkog muzeja u Zagrebu 4 (1900): 177–80.

Klaić, Vjekoslav. “Admirali ratne mornarice hrvatske godine 1358–1413” [The admirals of the Croatian navy 1358–1413]. Vjestnik Kr. hrvatsko-slavonskogdalmatinskog zemaljskog arkiva 2 (1900): 32–40.

Klaić, Vjekoslav. “Hrvatski bani za Arpadovića. (1102–1301.)” [Bans of Croatia under the Árpáds, 1102–1301]. Arhivski vjestnik kraljevsta hrvatsko-slavonsko-dalmatinskog zemaljskog arkiva 1 (1899): 129–38.

Kolanović, Josip. Šibenik u kasnome srednjem vijeku [Šibenik in the late Middle Ages]. Zagreb: Školska knjiga, 1995.

Kosanović, Ozren. “Potknežin i vikar kao službenici knezova Krčkih u Senju (od 1271. do 1469. godine)” [Vicecounts and vicars as officers of the Counts of Krk in Senj from 1271 until 1469]. Zbornik Odsjeka za povijesne znanosti Zavoda za povijesne i društvene znanosti Hrvatske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti 31 (2013): 1–20.

Kristó, Gyula. A feudális széttagolódás Magyarországon [Feudal territorial division in Hungary]. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1979.

Kurcz, Ágnes. A lovagi kultúra Magyarországon a 13–14. században [The culture of chivalry in Hungary in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries]. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1988.

Ladić, Zoran. “Last Will: Passport to Heaven. Urban Last Wills from Late Medieval Dalmatia with Special Attention to the Legacies pro remedio animae and ad pias causas.” Zagreb: Srednja Europa, 2012.

Lővei, Pál. “Mittelalterliche Grabdenkmäler in Buda.” In Budapest im Mittelalter. Aus­stellungs­katalog, edited by Gerd Biegel, 351–65, 527–30, 538. Braunschweig: Braun­schweigisches Landesmuseum, 1991.

Lővei, Pál. “Oklevelek, jegyzékek, városok, épületek [könyvismertetések]” [Charters, registers, cities and buildings. (book reviews)]. Művészettörténeti Értesítő 59 (2010) 123–35.

Majnarić, Ivan. “Personal Social and Legal Statuses in Eastern Adriatic Cities: Norms and Practices of Zadar in the Mid-14th Century.” In Towns and Cities of the Croatian Middle Ages: The City and the Newcomers, edited by Irena Benyovsky Latin and Zrinka Pešorda Vardić, 127–45. Zagreb: Hrvatski institut za povijest, 2020.

Mályusz Elemér. “Az izmaelita pénzverőjegyek kérdéséhez” [On the issue of Ishmaelite mint marks]. Budapest régiségei 18 (1958): 301–11.

Mlacović, Dušan. Građani plemići: Pad i uspon rapskoga plemstva [Noble citizens: the decline and rise of the Rab nobility]. Zagreb: Leykam International, 2008.

Mladen Ančić. “Rat kao organizirani društveni pothvat: Zadarski mir kao rezultat rata za Zadar” [War as an organized social undertaking: The Treaty of Zadar as a result of the war for Zadar]. In Zadarski mir: Prekretnica anžuvinskog doba, edited by Mladen Ančić, and Antun Nekić, 39–136. Zadar: Sveučilište u Zadru, 2022.

Morelli, Serena. “Társadalom és hivatalok Dél-Itáliában a 13–15. században” [Society and offices in Southern Italy in from the thirteenth until the fifteenth century]. In Az Anjou-kor hatalmi elitje [The elite of the Angevine era], edited by Enikő Csukovits, 15–40. Budapest: Magyar Történelmi Társulat, 2020.

Novak, Grga. Povijest Splita [The history of Split]. Vol. 1. Split: Matica hrvatska, 1957.

Papp, Róbert. “A Raguza város és I. Lajos magyar király között 1358-ban létrejött megállapodás kapcsán keletkezett oklevelek regesztái” [The summaries of the charters that were issued in connection with the agreement between Dubrovnik and King Louis I of Hungary in 1358]. Belvedere Meridionale 29 (2017): 101–8.

Petti Balbi, Giovanna. “Gli Spinola nel 12° secolo. Nascita di un’aristocrazia urbana.” Atti della Società Ligure di Storia Patria 57 (2017): 5–65.

Popić, Tomislav. “Službenici zadarskoga Velikoga sudbenoga dvora građanskih sporova iz druge polovice 14. stoljeća” [The officials of the Zadar high court of civil disputes in the second half of the fourteenth century]. Acta Histriae 22 (2014): 207–24.

Popić, Tomislav. Krojenje pravde: Zadarsko sudstvo u srednjem vijeku (1358.–1458.) [Tailoring justice: the Zadar judiciary in the Middle Ages (1358–1458)]. Zagreb: Plejada, 2014.

Pór, Antal. De Surdis II. János esztergomi érsek [Archbishop John II de Surdis of Esztergom]. Budapest: Szent István Társulat, 1900.

Pór, Antal. Nagy Lajos: 1326–1382 [Louis the Great 1326–1382]. Budapest: Magyar Történelmi Társulat, 1892.

Raukar, Tomislav. “I fiorentini in Dalmazia nel secolo XIV.” Archivio Storico Italiano 153 (1995): 657–80.

Raukar, Tomislav. “Zadarska trgovina solju u XIV i XV stoljeću” [The salt trade of Zadar in the fourteenth and fifteenth century]. Radovi Filozofskog fakulteta: Odsjek za povijest 7–8 (1970): 19–79.

Šišić, Ferdo. Pregled povijesti hrvatskoga naroda [An overview of the history of the Croatian nation]. Zagreb: Matica hrvatska, 1962.

Skorka, Renáta. “Érdekházasságok, kényszermátkaságok: A dinasztikus megállapodások politikai, gazdasági és jogi jellemzői a 14. századi Magyar Királyságban” [Marriages of convenience, forced marriages: Political, economic and legal features of dynastic arrangements in the fourteenth-century Kingdom of Hungary]. Századok 155 (2021): 1181–208.

Spreti, Vittorio. Enciclopedia storico-nobiliare italiana. Vol. 2. Milano: Ed. Enciclopedia Storico-Nobiliare Italiana, 1929.

Stjepović, Stijepo. “Habitatores et forenses Arbi: Identitet stranaca i doseljenika u srednjovjekovlju” [Habitatores et forenses Arbi: identity of foreigners and settlers in the Middle Ages]. Europa Orientalis 37 (2018): 273–87.

Szakálos, Éva. “A százdi templom XIV. századi falképei” [Fourteenth century murals of the church of Százdi]. In Adalékok a szlovákiai magyarok nyelvéhez és kultúrájához [Contributions on the language and culture of the Hungarians in Slovakia], edited by Judit Gasparics, and Gábor Ruda, 201–15. Pilisvörösvár: Argumentum Kiadó, 2016.

Szőcs, Tibor. “Az Anjou elit kormányzati feladatai” [The role of the Angevin elite in the government]. In Az Anjou-kor hatalmi elitje [The elite of the Angevine era], edited by Enikő Csukovits, 165–88. Budapest: BTK TTI, 2020.

Teke, Zsuzsanna. “Firenzei üzletemberek Magyarországon 1373–1403” [Florentine businessmen in Hungary 1373–1403]. Történelmi Szemle 37 (1995): 139–150.

Virágh, Ágnes. “Egy itáliai krónika interpretációs lehetőségei: a magyar hadi vezetők Domenico da Gravina krónikájában” [Possibilities of interpretation of an Italian chronicle: the Hungarian military leaders in Domenico da Gravina’s chronicle]. Hallgatói Műhelytanulmányok 5 (2021): 159–71.

Vitale, Giuliana. “Nobiltà napoletana dell’età durazzesca.” In La noblesse dans les territoires angevins à la fin du Moyen Âge, edited by Noël Coulet, and Jean-Michel Matz, 363–421. Rome: École Française de Rome, 2000.

Weisz Boglárka. “A szerémi és pécsi kamarák története a kezdetektől a XIV. század második feléig” [The history of the Szerém and Pécs chambers from their beginnings to the second half of the 14th century]. Acta Universitatis Szegediensis: acta historica 130 (2009): 33–53.

Weisz, Boglárka. “Ki volt az első kincstartó? – A kincstartói hivatal története a 14. században” [Who was the first royal treasurer? – The history of the office of royal treasurer in the fourteenth century]. Történelmi Szemle 57 (2015): 527–40.

Wertner, Mór. “Földvári és pataji Zuborok.” Turul 26 (1908): 87–89.

Wertner, Mór. “Az Árpádkori bánok” [The bans of the Árpád era], Századok 43 (1909): 378–415.

Wertner, Mór. “Az esztergomi érsekek családi történetéhez” [To the family history of the archbishops of Esztergom]. Turul 30 (1912): 114–23.

Zsoldos, Attila. “’Egész Szlavónia bánja’” [The ban of whole Slavonia]. In Tanulmányok a középkorról, edited by Tibor Neumann, 271–86. Budapest: Argumentum, 2001.

Zsoldos, Attila. Magyarország világi archontológiája 1000–1301 [The secular archontology of Hungary 1000–1301]. Budapest: História, 2011.

  1. 1 On the war, see Ančić, “Rat kao organizirani društveni pothvat”; Csukovits, I. (Nagy Lajos), 63–69; Pór, Nagy Lajos, 321–35; Brković, “Ugovor.”

  2. 2 On the social tensions, see Novak, Povijest Splita, 222; Ančić, “Rat kao organizirani društveni pothvat,” 107–8; Bećir, “Plemstvo,” 135–67.

  3. 3 On the Árpád era royal policy, see Gál, Dalmatia, 98–116.

  4. 4 On the role of the prelates in the Árpád era royal policy, see Gál, “Roles.”

  5. 5 On the development of the institution of ban, see Zsoldos, “Egész Szlavónia”; Klaić, “Hrvatski bani za Arpadovića”; Wertner “Az Árpádkori bánok,”; Kristó, A feudális széttagolódás Magyarországon, 88–90;

  6. 6 Varasd and Verőce Counties, both south of Drava River, were not part of the Banate of Slavonia until the end of the Middle Ages.

  7. 7 On the bans of the Maritime Region, see Gál, Dalmatia, 132–33; Klaić, “Hrvatski bani za Arpadovića,” 243; Györffy, “Szlavónia kialakulásának oklevélkritikai vizsgálata,” 238; Šišić, Pregled povijesti hrvatskoga naroda, 242; Kristó, A feudális széttagolódás Magyarországon, 126–27.

  8. 8 In 1275, John, son of Henry of the Héder kindred and Nicholas son of Stephen of Gutkeled clan held the title of ban of Slavonia together, with the latter ruling Croatia and Dalmatia. In 1290, Paul Šubić took the title of ban of Croatia, governing the Croatian-Dalmatian territories. See Zsoldos, Világi archontológia, 48; Karbić, “Horvát főurak,” 122–25.

  9. 9 Engel, Világi archontológia, 38–39.

  10. 10 On the social background, power, and roles of the bans of Croatia-Dalmatia (and Slavonia), see Klaić, “Hrvatski hercezi”; Szőcs, “Az Anjou elit,” 174–75.

  11. 11 Engel, Világi archontológia, 39.

  12. 12 Raukar, “Zadarska trgovina,” 24.

  13. 13 It is possible that Baldasar de Sorba came into contact with the Hungarian king in the period of diplomatic contacts in connection with the Hungarian-Genoese alliance of 1352 or later in connection with the Hungarian-Venetian wars. The possible involvement of Baldasar de Sorba in diplomacy may be indicated by the fact that in the mid-1350s he was acting as an envoy between Genoa, the Genoese colony of Tana in the Crimea, and Venice. On his diplomatic mission, see Bratianu, “Les Vénitiens,” 150–151, 160. On Baldasar de Sorba in general, see Grbavac, “Baltazar de Sorba.”

  14. 14 Raukar, “Zadarska trgovina,” 25–26.

  15. 15 Ibid., 26–28.

  16. 16 Raukar, “I fiorentini.”

  17. 17 Prince Philip II of Taranto was part of the alliance that King Louis of Hungary formed against the Upper Bavarian-Luxembourg-Habsburg alliance around 1367. The alliance of the Hungarian king included the prince of Taranto, Prince Charles II of Durazzo (the later duke of Slavonia), and the Wittelsbachs. Prince Philip II married Elizabeth, the niece of King Louis I in 1370, and it can be assumed, that probably the wedding or the diplomatic events surrounding the formation of the alliance offered the opportunity for Philip and Baldasar to form connections. On the alliance and the wedding of Elizabeth, see Skorka, “Érdekházasságok,” 1197–99.

  18. 18 Jacoby, “Rural Exploitation,” 267.

  19. 19 On the admirals, see Klaic, “Admirali,” 35–40; Juhász, Tengeri hajózás, 6–8.

  20. 20 Vuletić-Vukasović, Catalogo dei conti, 19–21.

  21. 21 The foundations of the relationship between the city and the Kingdom of Hungary were laid by the treaties and royal privileges signed in Visegrád in May–June 1358. Dubrovnik was granted wide-ranging autonomy in practice, including the freedom to elect the rectors who governed the city. In the case of Dubrovnik, there was no royal control over the election of the city leaders, as was the case with the other Dalmatian cities. See: Janeković-Römer, Višegradski ugovor, 69–79; Papp, “A Raguza város,” 102; Juhász, “A raguzai tisztségviselők,” 42.

  22. 22 Gál, Dalmatia, 107–10.

  23. 23 Gál, “Office of Ban,” 41–44.

  24. 24 NAS, MS 538, fol. 204–210.

  25. 25 NAS, MS 540, fol. 1–8.

  26. 26 Kolanović, Šibenik, 13–14.

  27. 27 CDCr, vol. 12, 437–39.

  28. 28 Gál, “Zadar,” 581.

  29. 29 CDCr, vol. 14, 52.

  30. 30 See: Grbavac, “Prilog,” 35–54; Grbavac, “Zadarski plemići”; Kurcz, Lovagi kultúra, 290–97.

  31. 31 At this point, I would like to express my deep gratitude to Damir Karbić, who made his own collection on the medieval archontology of Dalmatian cities available to me, without which this paper would not have been complete.

  32. 32 For example on the leadership of Senj under the counts of Krk, see Kosanović, “Potknežin.”

  33. 33 Engel, Világi archontológia, 37.

  34. 34 Gál, “Zadar,” 576–78.

  35. 35 Raukar, “Zadarska trgovina,” 24.

  36. 36 Fekete, A magyar-dalmát, 52–53; MNL OL, DF 238 791; MNL OL, DF 238 835; UGDS, vol. 2, 337–39.

  37. 37 Gál, Dalmatia, 133.

  38. 38 November 11, 1358: NAS, MS 528. fol. 66.

  39. 39 The first record of Nicholas Szécsi’s office as ban of Croatia-Dalmatia originates from a document dated January 2, 1359, while the data from Zadar in 1358, preserved by the collection of Iohannes Lucius, suggests that he could have taken over the office of ban in November of that year. See NAS, MS 528. fol. 66. cf. Engel, Világi archontológia, 39.

  40. 40 Engel, Világi archontológia, 39; MNL OL, DL 103320.

  41. 41 November 17, 1358: CDCr, vol. 13, 586.

  42. 42 November 20, 1366: CDCr, vol. 13, 593; Engel, Világi archontológia, 39.

  43. 43 December 6, 1366: DAZd, SZB, PP, b. 1., fasc. 4., fol. 7–8.

  44. 44 October 28, 1367: MNL OL, DL 5538.

  45. 45 April 8, 1368: DAZd, SZB, PP, b. 1, fasc. 9, fol. 48.

  46. 46 Engel, Világi archontológia, 39.

  47. 47 April 14, 1368: DAZd, SZB, PP, b. 1, fasc. 9, fol. 49.

  48. 48 CDCr, vol. 14, 165.

  49. 49 Ibid.

  50. 50 CDCr, vol. 14, 175; Engel, Világi archontológia, 39.

  51. 51 Engel, Világi archontológia, 39.

  52. 52 Pietro Bellante distinguished himself in front of the king during the Neapolitan Wars in the 1340s. For his merits he probably received the estates of Pankota (today Pâncota, Romania) and Dézna (today Dezna, Romania) in Transylvania, and from 1367 onwards he is known as lord of two royal castles in Croatia. On the entering into office of Pietro Bellante: DAZd, SZB, VBF, b. 1, fasc. 1 / 4, fol. 44; for the Pankota and Dézna estates: Varjú, Oklevéltár, 244.

  53. 53 On Počitelj and Ostrovica: October 25, 1367: CDCr, vol. 14, 94; March 6, 1371: CDCr. vol. 14, 309–10; On Obrovac: B. Halász and Piti, Az Erdődy család, 271.

  54. 54 On King Louis I’s Neapolitan Wars, see Csukovits, I. (Nagy Lajos), 27–44.

  55. 55 On his role in the Neapolitan Wars: Virágh, “Egy itáliai krónika,” 167.

  56. 56 Csukovits, I. (Nagy Lajos), 66–67.

  57. 57 October 1, 1372: CDCr, vol. 14, 437; December 21, 1373: MNL OL, DL 6149.

  58. 58 January 25, 1376: MNL OL, DL 6320; May 6, 1376: MNL OL, DL 38492.

  59. 59 CDCr, vol. 14, 411.

  60. 60 Emeric Bebek arrived in Zadar on December 19, 1380 from where Nicholas Szécsi left on Decem­ber 25. Šišić, “Ljetopis Pavla Pavlovića,” 3. Cf. Engel, Világi archontológia, 39.

  61. 61 Engel, Világi archontológia, 39.

  62. 62 CDCr, vol. 16, 145; CDCr, vol. 16, 373.

  63. 63 DAZd, SZB, PS, b. 2, fasc. 12, fol. 1; Šišić, “Ljetopis Pavla Pavlovića,” 3.

  64. 64 John de Surdis was the bishop of Vác between 1363 and 1375, and later the archbishop of Esztergom between 1376 and 1378. He also held other prominent offices, including the royal treasurer from 1373 until 1375. On his career, see Pór, De Surdis; Weisz, “Kincstartó,” 534; C. Tóth, Az esztergomi, 166, C. Tóth, A kalocsa-bácsi, 83, 112. On his tenure of office in Zadar, see CDCr, vol. 14, 426, 470.

  65. 65 On his tenure of office in Zadar, see CDCr, vol. 14, 471; CDCr, vol. 15, 360.

  66. 66 CDCr, vol. 14, 426, 470.

  67. 67 CDCr, vol. 14, 502.

  68. 68 CDCr, vol. 14, 519–20.

  69. 69 B. Halász, “Generalis,” 287.

  70. 70 On his tenure of office in Zadar, see CDCr, vol. 14, 471; CDCr, vol. 15, 360.

  71. 71 CDCr, vol. 12, 629; Spisi splitskog bilježnika, no. 336.

  72. 72 On Novak, see Botica and Nekić, “Feather,” 36–46.

  73. 73 On his tenure of office in Nin, see NAS, MS 528, 52; CDCr Suppl. vol. 2, 334; CDCr, vol. 14, 501; CDCr, vol. 16, 171.

  74. 74 CDCr, vol. 14, 509.

  75. 75 CDCr, vol. 14, 501.

  76. 76 CDCr, vol. 15, 148

  77. 77 CDCr, vol. 12, 574–75; NAS, MS 540, fol. 65.

  78. 78 NAS, MS 528, 57.

  79. 79 NAS, MS 528, 57.

  80. 80 NSK, R 3931, 24.

  81. 81 On Galeaz de Surdis, see Popić, Krojenje pravde, 82.

  82. 82 CDCr, vol. 12, 528; CDCr, vol. 14, 504; NAS, MS 540, fol. 43.

  83. 83 NAS, MS 540, fol. 117.

  84. 84 CDCr, vol. 14, 504.

  85. 85 CDCr, vol. 14, 516.

  86. 86 NAS, MS 540, fol. 143.

  87. 87 Jacob Raduchis came from the Raduk clan of Senj, and his relatives included several city officials. He himself obtained a doctorate in law in Padua after 1367, and after his return, he held various positions in the Zadar city administration. Popić, Krojenje pravde, 80; Popić, “Službenici,” 213–14.

  88. 88 Rački, “Notae,” 243; NAS, MS 540, 162.

  89. 89 CDCr, vol. 12, 432, Krekich, “Documenti,” 84.

  90. 90 Serie dei Reggitori di Spalato, vol. 10, 199.

  91. 91 Spisi splitskog bilježnika, no. 101; CDCr, vol. 14, 391.

  92. 92 Serie dei Reggitori di Spalato, vol. 11, 62–63.

  93. 93 Serie dei Reggitori di Spalato, vol. 11, 64, 77, 94–95.

  94. 94 NAS, MS 528, fol. 50.

  95. 95 CDCr, vol. 14, 361.

  96. 96 Jacob Szerecsen (Saracenus) was a Padovan-born burgher and merchant from Buda who began his national career as a royal pharmacist. In 1352, he was appointed ispan of the chambers of mint of Pécs and Szerém, a post he still held in 1370. He visited Dalmatia and Croatia on a royal commission as a visitator, probably in connection with which he was granted the island of Osor and Cres by Louis I. After he died without an heir, Queen Mary granted the islands to his brother John. On Szerecsen, see Weisz, “Kamara,” 41–42; Csákó, “Padovai krónikák,” 258–59; Mályusz, “Az izmaelita,” 301–11; Jékely, “Anjou-kori elit,” 302; Szakálos, “Százdi templom,” 35–36.

  97. 97 Stjepović, “Forenses,” 285.

  98. 98 MNL OL DL 36286.

  99. 99 Miljan and Karbic, “Knezovi Zrinski”, 23.

  100. 100 CDCr, vol. 13, 312.

  101. 101 Between 1353 and 1361, Gregory Banich was also the landlord of Bužan, which he handed over to the Hungarian king in exchange for financial compensation. After that, the next known comes was Pietro Bellante, who was later also in charge of Zadar between 1371 and 1372.

  102. 102 CDCr, vol. 15, 42.

  103. 103 Mlacović, Građani plemići, 156.

  104. 104 We find John Besenyő of Nezde in the service of Denis Lackfi, in 1350 as deputy master of the horse, and in 1357 as castellan of the castle of Érsomlyó in Krassó County. Four years later, the first mention of his royal knighthood appears. In 1361, he was also the ispan of Moson and the castellan of the castle of Óvár with that title. In 1369, he appears in the sources as castellan of Fehérkő in Somogy. He founded the Pauline monastery of Streza (now Strezojevo, Croatia), less than 40 kilometers south of Zagreb. When the monarch died in 1382, the widowed Queen Elizabeth sent him to Zadar and the Dalmatian cities to calm the troubled local society. He reached the peak of his career afterwards, when in 1383 he was made ispan of the county of Veszprém. On Besenyő, see Botica and Nekić, “Feather,” 38–39; Engel, Világi archontológia, 56, 183, 270, 359, 440, 543.

  105. 105 Mlacović, Građani plemići, 156.; CDCr, vol. 15, 349.

  106. 106 CDCr, vol. 16, 259.

  107. 107 Jacob Cessamis (1358–1364): CDCr, vol. 12, 451; DAZd, SZB, PP, b. 1, fasc. 3, fol. 33; Baldasar de Sorba (1366–1370): CDCr, vol. 13, 569; CDCr, vol. 14. 275.; Nicola de Petracha (1372): CDCr, vol. 14, 415; Simon Doria (1373–1381): NAS, MS 528, fol. 69.

  108. 108 Vuletić-Vukasović, Catalogo dei conti, 16.

  109. 109 DAZd, KA, b. 1., fasc. 2, fol. 26; Vuletić-Vukasović, Catalogo dei conti, 17.

  110. 110 CDCr, vol. 13, 569; CDCr, vol. 14, 275.

  111. 111 Vuletić-Vukasović. Catalogo dei conti, 19–20; CDCr, vol. 14, 442.

  112. 112 Vuletić-Vukasović. Catalogo dei conti, 20.

  113. 113 Ibid., 21.

  114. 114 CDCr, vol. 12, 520–21.

  115. 115 NAS, MS 64, fol. 4.

  116. 116 NAS, MS 528, fol. 42.

  117. 117 Engel, Világi archontológia, 37.

  118. 118 ADE, vol. 3, no. 84.

  119. 119 See footnote no. 96; CDCr, vol. 16, 9–10; Velika bilježnica, 58.

  120. 120 1382: CDCr, vol. 16, 324.

  121. 121 As an envoy of the king in Avignon: Anjou oklt., vol. 36, no. 528.

  122. 122 Simon Doria’s deputy on the island of Korčula in 1272 and 1276 was shown to have been Grisogonus de Georgiis, who was given the island’s administration in exchange for 340 ducats a year. See Klaić and Petricioli, Zadar, 434.

  123. 123 In 1358, Nicholas Debrői was a familiar of Nicholas Szécsi, and from 1364, he was a knight of the queen. Kurcz, Lovagi kultúra, 67; For official records: DAZd, CMC, b. 4, fasc. 10, p. 165

  124. 124 Nicolo Aldemarisco was a relative of Luigi Aldemarisco, who later commanded the fleet of Ladislas of Naples, who fought for the Hungarian throne. The Aldemarisco was an old family from Calabria, Naples, whose members can be found in the service of the Angevins and in various local posts in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Vitale, “Nobiltà napoletana,” 408–11; DAZd, CMC, b. 4, fasc. 10, p. 165; CDCr, vol. 14, 379.

  125. 125 Dokoza and Andreis, Zadarsko plemstvo, 533.

  126. 126 The Confalonieri family is an old noble family in Piacenza, whose members first appear in the city’s sources in the twelfth century. Members of the family were regularly in the service of the Bishop of Piacenza. Saint Conrad of Piacenza was also a member of the Confalonieri family. Spreti, Enciclopedia, 526; Confalonieri, Monografia; NAS, MS 541, fol. 179–79.

  127. 127 Serie dei Reggitori di Spalato, vol. 10, 198–99.

  128. 128 NAS, MS 540, fol. 73, 89.

  129. 129 On his relationship to the de Sorba family, see Bartulović, “Integracija,” 173.

  130. 130 CDCr, vol. 13, 569.

  131. 131 CDCr, vol. 14, 72.

  132. 132 Vuletić Vukasović, Catalogo dei conti, 19–20.

  133. 133 CDCr, vol. 14, 416.

  134. 134 NAS, MS 528, 69.

  135. 135 CDCr, vol. 16, 37–38.

  136. 136 Kurcz, Lovagi kultúra, 290–97.

  137. 137 Grbavac, “Prilog”; Gál, “Zadar,” 581–86.

  138. 138 CDCr, vol. 11, 260–61.

  139. 139 Grbavac, “Prilog,” 95.

  140. 140 CDCr, vol. 12, 451–52.

  141. 141 CDCr, vol. 12, 497.

  142. 142 Grbavac, “Prilog,” 103.

  143. 143 Ibid., 107.

  144. 144 Ibid., 109.

  145. 145 On Novak, see: Botica and Nekić, “Feather,” 38; Klaić, “Novak,” 177–80.

  146. 146 Kurcz, Lovagi kultúra, 211.

  147. 147 Engel, Világi archontológia, 459.

  148. 148 Botica and Nekić, “Feather,” 38.

  149. 149 CDCr, vol. 12, 142–44.

  150. 150 Listine, vol. 4, 17–20.

  151. 151 CDCr, vol. 14, 159.

  152. 152 Listine, vol. 4, 121.

  153. 153 CDCr, vol. 13, 308.

  154. 154 On the formation of the local elite of the king under the Hungarian-Venetian war, see Ančić, “Rat kao organizirani društveni pothvat.”

  155. 155 Morelli, “Társadalom.”

  156. 156 Coss, The Origins, 44–68.

  157. 157 On the Nassis family in Zadar, see Ladić, Last will, 57; Dokoza and Andreis, Zadarsko plemstvo, 410–28.

  158. 158 The proof of the provenance is the marble tombstone found during the renovation of the Király Baths in Budapest in 1958. The tombstone was probably transported from the Church of Saint Peter in Víziváros (a neighborhood in Buda) by the Ottomans when the bath was built. According to the inscription on the tombstone, Jacob, the son of the former royal admiral Mateus de Cezamis de Iadra, who was the lord of Pataj, was buried there. Gerő, “II. ker.,” 266; Lővei, “Buda,” 351, 355, 361; Draskóczy, “Kapy,” 122–23; Wertner, “Zubor,” 87–89. I am deeply grateful to Pál Lővei, who shared with me the details of the tombstone, which is still in the Király Baths, now located on the eastern side of the courtyard corridor.

  159. 159 Teke, “Firenzei,” 129–130.

  160. 160 The de Surdis family appeared in the sources of Piacenza in the twelfth century, and from the very beginning they were prominent in commercial and banking-financial activities. They were actively involved in the administration of the town and some members of the family also held offices alongside the bishop. See Albini, “Piacenza,” 438–39.

  161. 161 Majnarić, “Personal,” 134–35.

  162. 162 Grbavac, “Notari,” 513.

  163. 163 Bettarini, “Dubrovnik,” 699.

  164. 164 On the de Surdis family, see Pór, De Surdis; Wertner, “Az esztergomi érsekek,” 121–23.

  165. 165 Dokoza and Andreis, Zadarsko plemstvo, 530.

  166. 166 Fabijanec, “Pojava,” 100.

  167. 167 Klaic, “Admirali,” 39–40.

  168. 168 The city of Florence was probably trying to obtain privileges and the patronage of the king in Hungary for its merchants as early as the 1360s. In 1376, the city asked the king to grant the Florentine merchants a privilege similar to that of the Genoese and to lighten their financial and economic burdens. See Teke, “Firenzei,” 129–30.

  169. 169 On the Spinola family, see Petti Balbi, “Gli Spinola,” 5–65.

  170. 170 See Klaić and Petricioli, Zadar, 434–35.

Emotional Responses to the Beginning and End of the Rulepdf of Louis I
in Dalmatia

Valentina Šoštarić and Krešimir Baljkas

University of Zadar

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Hungarian Historical Review Volume 14 Issue 1 (2025): 3-29 DOI 10.38145/2025.1.3 

This paper presents a brief historical background of the rule of Louis I of Hungary in Dalmatia, followed by an analysis of the emotional reactions of the ruling circles in Zadar, Split, and Dubrovnik to two crucial events in 1358 and 1382, which marked the establishment and subsequent weakening of Angevin rule. Although the sociopolitical context of Louis’ rule is well established, the role of emotions during these critical moments has not received sufficient scholarly attention. This innovative problem-centered approach requires methodological clarification of the applications of the concept of emotions in historiography, as well as the possibilities and limitations arising from the nature of archival sources. The emotions expressed in these sources will be considered as a powerful tool with which to provoke tangible changes in the real world, specifically to motivate historical actors to take concrete actions. These rhetorical devices and narrative structures, understood here as expressions of emotion, will be scrutinized within the wider framework of sociopolitical, cultural, and religious interconnections. Through an analysis of primary sources, this study aims to offer insights concerning a possible range of emotions experienced by historical actors during the tumultuous political events surrounding the establishment of Angevin rule and the dissolution of the same after Louis’ death. Specifically, the paper interprets elements of the texts as expressions of emotions such as fear, insecurity, anxiety, envy, disappointment, dissatisfaction, happiness, love, and hatred in order to provide a deeper understanding of how these decisive moments were understood and presented by the authors at the time. This study aims to enrich our current understanding by emphasizing the significance of appeals to and expressions of emotional responses as a lens through which to examine political and social change.

Keywords: Dalmatia, Croatian history, Angevin dynasty, King Louis I, history of emotions

Research Topic: Issues and Possibilities

The establishment of Angevin rule in Dalmatian cities marked a significant turning point in the course of historical events along the eastern Adriatic coast. Having successfully concluded the conflict with Venice and adeptly pacified the influential nobility in the immediate hinterland, Louis the Great paved the way for the reintegration of coastal communities with their natural hinterlands. This harmonization unfolded within the new, strengthened political framework of the Hungarian and Croatian Kingdom. The triumphant culmination of decades-­long efforts by the new dynasty, formally crowned with the signing of the Zadar Peace Treaty in 1358, created the conditions for the social and economic development of the eastern Adriatic coastal region.1 Furthermore, the reaffirmation of royal authority in the immediate hinterland established the patterns of the structures upon which the social and political life of the Croatian nobility would now rest, and which would last until finally disintegrating under the Ottoman conquests.2 While extensive scholarly attention has been devoted to almost every facet of Louis’s ascension to power, including its repercussions for preexisting sociopolitical3 and economic dynamics,4 artistic evolution,5 and legal codification,6 scant scholarly interest has been given to the emotional responses of the ruling circles of Dalmatian cities, as expressed in the textual sources, following Louis’ triumph over the Venetians and during the years characterized by uncertainty in the aftermath of his demise.

Historians have typically confined the study of emotions to the field of psychology, and in the contemporary scholarship, neuroscience has come to the forefront.7 Emotions, long overlooked in historiography, started to gain attention in the mid-twentieth century8 and were made a central research topic within the social sciences and humanities by the end of the century.9 Within historiographical research, the “field of emotions”10 is frequently marked by conflicting theories, methodologies, and diverse perspectives on complex issues, and this has fostered its rapid development as a subject of study.11 The diversity of concepts, methodological approaches, and research questions posed has led to such an abundance of studies that contemporary researchers now refer to as a paradigm shift, often termed the “emotional/affective turn.”12

Considering the multitude of potential definitions of the term “emotions,”13 it is important to emphasize that, in this paper, they will be approached as sociocultural, situational, and relational constructs.14 Emotions play a significant role in shaping social interactions15 and decision-making processes, particularly within the sphere of high politics.16 Against this backdrop, this article aims to discern textual expressions of emotions in relation to the medieval system of dependency and power relations, the prevailing culture, and the influence of specific emotional responses on the course of historical events.

In part as an attempt to address the existing lacuna in the secondary literature, the interpretation focuses on the expression of specific emotions in the narrative and administrative records of the councils of Zadar, Split, and Dubrovnik in the context of the two aforementioned historical changes. This will be attempted primarily by referring to elements in the surviving sources on the basis of which hypotheses can be ventured concerning the collective emotions of the ruling elite of the eastern Adriatic urban centers. Since the councilors were not a homogeneous “emotional community”17 and they did not share the same political worldviews during the transitional moments analyzed in this paper, it is important to consider which individuals within these communities might have experienced certain emotions, and whether these emotions were genuinely felt or were they a part of a specific manipulative rhetorical strategy. While administrative sources are the product of meticulous consideration and extensive discussions, the complete suppression of any expression of emotions within these text seems to have been challenging. The places where these expressions of emotion appear are symptomatic and warrant scientific attention and interpretation. Some of these expressions of emotion can be recognized as recurring themes, while others seem to have been the result of sudden changes in the realm of high politics. On the other hand, chronicles were used to a lesser extent, and when evaluating them, it is important to consider authorship and the historical-temporal context of their creation.

To a certain extent, these examples reveal the existence of stereotypical emotions. There are several different models that explain how emotions arise and the possibilities for their use. For the purposes of the inquiry here, the most applicable model is a combination of cognitive and social constructivism. While the first theoretical approach argues that the choice of which emotions to express depends on whether these emotions would be perceived as useful or harmful,18 the second approach holds that expressions of emotions depend on language, expectations, values, cultural practices, moral beliefs, and rules according to which these expressions of emotion can be correctly decoded.19 In this sense, expressions of emotion can be consciously employed and manipulated in a specific context to provoke a desired effect.20 Although it is impossible for us today to answer the question of whether a specific emotional expression was truly felt or was simply a matter of textual, rhetorical performance and strategy, this is ultimately not important. What matters is that a given expression of emotion would have been recognized and accurately interpreted (interpreted as the author presumably wanted it to be) by its intended readership. Finally, it is crucial to detect how expressions of emotions are managed, considering the personal power and reputation of individuals or groups, as well as their status, origins, and the relationships among the interlocutors. In other words, it is of paramount interest to observe who gives expression to particular emotions, when and where they do so, and who they are addressing, much as it is also of interest to consider their possible reasons for giving expression to these emotions and how these emotions may have influenced the relationships among political actors and shaped their specific actions.

Establishment of Angevin Rule

The authorities in Dubrovnik21 were well aware of the establishment of Louis’ rule in Dalmatian cities. While some councilors expressed enthusiasm and excitement about Louis’ successes and the prospect of rejecting Venetian rule, others viewed these changes with concern and expressed fear and anxiety.22 The division within the ruling elite concerning loyalty to Venetian rule or the integration of their homeland into the community of the lands annexed to the Crown of St. Stephen led to the formation of two factions, one pro-Venice and the other pro-Hungarian.23 Even among the noblemen who favored claiming Louis as their new sovereign there was no consensus regarding the position of Dubrovnik in the new community. Nenad Vekarić, in his research, has demonstrated that in 1358 the Gundulić clan was dominant, with its two factions, the Gundulić faction and the Gučetić faction.24 Both factions were characterized by a pro-Hungarian orientation, but the Gundulić clan sought greater Ragusan autonomy, while the Gučetić faction supported less autonomy for the small maritime republic. A conflict arose between Marin Klementov de Gozze, the king’s confidant and a supporter of the Gučetić clan, and Marin Lukarov de Bona and Marin Junijev de Mençe, members of the Gundulić clan. This conflict led to Marin filing charges against the two aforementioned noblemen before the court of the Ban of Dalmatia and Croatia in 1361. Marin’s actions were prompted by previous accusations made by his opponents, who had cast doubt on Marin’s loyal service to the city in front of the Ragusan government.25

Nevertheless, the councilors promptly prevented the factional split of the nobility, as well as uprisings by the commoners, which were common in other Dalmatian cities during these turbulent years.26 The rigidity of the Ragusan ruling structures aimed at preserving, even nominally, internal harmony and consistency in foreign affairs. This is particularly evident if one compares the same mechanisms of internal control with other Dalmatian cities where they failed. Split, Trogir, and Šibenik were, one after another, shaken by the escalation of factional struggles among the city nobility at the time and immediately after the significant political changes. In contrast with Ragusa, in these cities, the final resolution of the internal divisions had to come “from outside,” or in other words, it had to be imposed by the intervention of royal representatives.27

The Ragusan councilors ultimately agreed to send their representatives promptly to Louis I in Visegrád to negotiate the most favorable terms for the city’s integration into the Archiregnum Hungaricum. Emotions tied to the aura surrounding the ambassadors sent to Hungary awoke suspicions among the authorities and prompted them to show caution, as they feared potential betrayal.28 These ambassadors, as privileged individuals enjoyed significant personal power, and some of them possessed inherited emotional capital from previous encounters with the king.29 In this context, it is noteworthy to mention the case of the king’s close confidant, Marin Klementov de Gozze, who faced an investigation in his hometown for surpassing entrusted authority and having made arbitrary decisions. Marin was ultimately released due to the king’s direct intervention in his favor.30 However, the authorities in Dubrovnik did not hesitate to protest, and they beseeched Louis to refrain from intervening in such a manner on Marin’s behalf or on the behalf of any other Ragusan noblemen.31 Dubrovnik was in something of a unique position after having become part of the Crown of St. Stephen. Apart from Zadar, it was the only city in Dalmatia with a notable number of noblemen among its denizens who had successfully established individual relationships with the ruler. Still, predominant position in the new regime belonged to the members of the Zadar’s nobility. Royal knights from the ranks of Zadar’s nobility, thanks to this accumulated symbolic and direct political capital, played a significant role in the political and social infrastructure of Angevin rule in Dalmatia, holding important positions in other Dalmatian cities.32

The Ragusans used sophisticated emotional strategies concerning the establishment of Louis’ rule in Dalmatia. Chronicler Junije Resti cautioned the Ragusan councilors to be wise in navigating between two equally dangerous forces. He warned them not to arouse Venetian jealousy toward Louis due to the loss of Dalmatia. Resti concluded his reflections by praising the emotional intelligence of the city’s authorities, contrasting it with the ruling elites of Zadar, who, lacking it, continually faced the consequences of Venetian military interventions.33

During the years it spent under the protection of a powerful yet distant sovereign, Dubrovnik enjoyed a security that allowed it to develop autonomously, ushering in its golden era.34 In the period following the recognition of Angevin rule, many Dalmatian cities expressed great disappointment with the royal house and its blatant violations of agreements it had reached with them. These frustrations led to conspiracies and rebellions. Dubrovnik, in contrast, was satisfied, in general, with the conditions according to which it had recognized Louis as its sovereign. It is thus not surprising that the authorities frequently emphasized their loyalty to the crown and king, often motivated by the privileges and various benefits he had granted them, such as the right freely to elect the city rector35 and also trade privileges with Serbia and Venice, even in the case of war between the Croatian-Hungarian king and one of these countries.36 Hence, it is unsurprising that the Ragusan authorities often expressed their “love” and “affection” for the crown and king.

While discussions among the Ragusan elite were primarily concentrated on the rights and obligations arising from having become part of the Angevin Archiregnum, events and circumstances in other Dalmatian communities were characterized by various expressions of a much greater range of emotions due to the distinctive political and geographical backdrops in each of these communities.37 With the systematic suppression of all forms of local autonomy by Venice and the introduction of a new administrative structure that excluded the local nobility, the perspectives and emotions of the Zadar elite became more challenging to discern.38 In other words, following the Venetian suppression of the rebellion in 1346, many members of the Zadar elite were physically removed from the city through forced internment in Venice, and many of them then escaped and fled to areas beyond the reach of the Venetian authorities. Nevertheless, despite the removal and the flight of the most prominent members of the Zadar elite, Venice, by all indications, was unable to pacify the rebellious city completely. During the war, specifically in 1357, lingering dissatisfaction with Venetian rule persisted. A conspiracy was hatched in the city, but it was discovered and thwarted.39 The continued presence of dissidents and “internal enemies” in Zadar, at least from the perspective of Venice, was confirmed by the turmoil, namely the looting and destruction of property, at the moment of the entry of the royal army.40

The political arena of the city of Split during the turbulent period of the establishment of Angevin rule and the immediate aftermath provides a dynamic and significantly more fruitful field for the study of the emotional states of factions within the city elite. After the upheaval had ended,41 the rebellion against Venetian rule had emerged triumphant, and the Angevin banner had been raised over the city.42 Nonetheless, the continued war and the advance of royal forces in Dalmatia were closely monitored by the leading circles of the Split commune. The news of the entry of the royal army into Zadar, announced to the Split Grand Council by the ambassador from Šibenik, was met with joy by the city nobility. Prompted by this news and “as a sign of joy and in honor of the royal highness and the commune of Split,” the Grand Council decided to present the envoy with new clothes.43 The broader context suggests that this act was not merely a matter of a pro forma gift but was in fact a sincere expression of the emotional state of the decision-making members of the Grand Council. Apart from the continuously empty city treasury,44 the Šibenik commune had, in the immediate aftermath of the upheaval in Split, participated in the Venetian punitive expedition against the Split held island of Šolta.45 The messenger from Šibenik was now, just a few short months later, generously rewarded at the municipal expense by the decree of the Split Grand Council. The generosity towards former enemies, especially emphasized by the unfavorable financial circumstances of the Split commune, can further be interpreted through those emotional states whose existence we can only glimpse indirectly. Besides, almost certainly, giving impetus to thoughts of the imminent end of the war,46 the news of the entry of royal forces into Zadar likely instilled a sense of relief among the members of the Split elite. Their choice during the recent coup, siding with the Angevin sovereign, had seemingly been vindicated.47 However, when shortly afterward the official news about the success of the royal arms at Zadar arrived in Split, this time conveyed by the envoy of the Ban John Csúz, knight Kónya, it is hard to escape the impression that the initial euphoria within the ranks of the Split elite has somewhat dampened. The invitation of the city podestà Gentilis for the Great Council of Split to act in accordance with the ban’s wishes and to appropriately reward his messenger is met with nominal approval, but this time without the overt expressions of joy. Furthermore, the decision was accompanied with a somewhat measured clause stating that the final value of the gift should not exceed, still not insignificant, sum of 40 ducats.48

A less easily traceable but undoubtedly more significant case of the cor­relation between the emotions and the concrete steps taken by political actors occurred in the middle of 1359. At the session of the Grand Council in July of that year, the main point of discussion was the question of how to proceed with the unnamed conspirators against the honor of “our lord the King.”49 While neither the names nor the social statuses of the conspirators (not to mention the ultimate goal of the conspiracy) are clear to us today, we can say much more about the disagreements and tensions between the Split commune and the royal authorities that preceded the conspiracy and therefore probably had a significant impact on its formation.

The period following the conclusion of the Peace Treaty of Zadar bore witness to the rapid shaping of a new administrative infrastructure through which the Angevin king intended to rule.50 While the position of Zadar was seemingly vindicated,51 it became increasingly apparent that the new power configuration was diametrically opposed to the desired, idealized vision of the postwar order inherited by the leading strata of the Split elite. Angevin control over the leading administrative functions in the city, demonstrated by the abolition of the position of the city podestà and the reaffirmation of the role of the city count,52 along with interference in the judicial autonomy of the com­mune,53 likely resulted in a growing sense of dissatisfaction among some of the city nobility.54 The existence of a certain level of dissatisfaction in the new periphery was apparently acknowledged even in the center of the kingdom. The charter granted by the royal commission to the neighboring city of Trogir in August 1359 explicitly states that economic benefits were provided with the aim of resolving issues or complaints.55 Taking into account the aforementioned actions of the political center, as illustrated by the example of Split, it is not unreasonable to assume that the charter issued by the royal commission was intended to achieve several different goals. Apart from alleviating the economic difficulties peculiar to Trogir,56 the charter likely represented a step towards mitigating the (presumably significantly broader) wave of complaints. Said complaints, which were apparently also being made in other Dalmatian cities, were evidently caused by both the administrative and the new economic policies implemented by the Angevin dynasty in Dalmatia.57

Did the dissidents in the region, who we can presume were there and were active on the basis of the Trogir charter, hide the unnamed participants in the failed conspiracy that was discussed in the Split Great Council in July 1359? Unfortunately, we cannot give a reliable answer to this question.58 Similarly unclear is whether, due to royal pressure on municipal autonomy, there had been a resurgence of the pro-Venice party.59 Alternatively, was the failed conspiracy an internally generated attempt to revise the existing political stratification of the Split commune at the moment of or, more precisely, immediately after a radical political change, similar to earlier examples in Trogir and Šibenik?60 Could we identify, as a factor in the final galvanization of accumulated dissatisfaction, the growing apprehension of the urban elite concerning its gradual loss of control over the local levers of power? Apprehension that was seemingly made manifest in the royal imposition of the Ban of Dalmatia and Croatia on the office of the city count? The sources do not permit us to offer clear answers to these questions.61 We can reasonably assume, however, that during the period that began with the establishment of royal authority over Split through the years following the end of the war, members of Split’s political and social elite gave expression to a relatively wide range of emotions. The victories of the royal forces in Dalmatia may very well have been met with shows of joy, enthusiasm, and relief. The consolidation of Angevin authority and especially the implementation of a new political and social order in the province, however, have led to a radical shift in the emotional state of the urban nobility. In stark contrast to the initial positive emotional responses to the establishment of Angevin rule, the consolidation of Louis’ reign nurtured feelings of dissatisfaction and disappointment among the Split nobility with the actions of the new ruler. These accumulated resentments would eventually find form in the ultimate sin on the medieval political stage: a conspiracy against the sovereign in July 1359.

Turmoil after Louis’ Death

The death of Louis in the autumn of 1382 in Nagyszombat (today Trnava, Slovakia) marked the end of an era.62 At that moment, love for the king was confirmed through the expression of posthumous honors and the organization of a memorial service. However, in Dubrovnik and, indeed, in the whole of Dalmatia unrest and uncertainty had taken hold. The first measure was to organize defense under these extraordinary circumstances.63 This was confirmed by the decision, voted on by Dubrovnik’s Great Council on September 25, 1382, pro dando salvamentum nobis et nostre civitati et rebus nostris occasione obitus domini nostri naturalis domini regis Ungarie.64 The commune of Dubrovnik was particularly afraid of the Bosnian ban Tvrtko, who planned to establish a competing salt market in Novi.65 The prevailing uncertainty in years that followed Loius’ death nurtured fears among the people of Dubrovnik, who sought to mitigate the turmoil caused by dynastic conflicts by forming an alliance with the people of Zadar against Venice. It is interesting to point out that the people of Zadar took the initiative to establish communication and cooperation among the Dalmatian cities against the expansionist ambitions of the Serenissima.66 On numerous occasions during that period, initiatives for the creation of an alliance of Dalmatian cities were put forward.67 Thus, fear seems to have functioned as a driving emotion in those uncertain times and resulted in collaboration and joint action among the Dalmatian cities.

Although the carefully maintained Angevin infrastructure on the periphery of the kingdom did not begin immediately begin to splinter after Louis’ death, it was not long before the first cracks started to appear in the rest of Dalmatia as well. Concern about the uncertain future on the threshold of a new era can be indirectly discerned from the previously mentioned hectic diplomatic activity of the commune of Zadar. One month after Louis’ death, in October 1382, the people of Zadar established “a bond of unity, brotherhood, and eternal friendship” with Count Butko Kurjaković, all the while pledging their “loyalty to our queens and to the Holy Crown of Hungary.”68 Although at first glance this information may seem insubstantial, the diplomatic move by the Zadar commune suggests a prevailing sense of insecurity that took hold in the immediate aftermath of the king’s death. This line of reasoning, or more precisely, the interpretation according to which one can see, in this diplomatic act, Zadar’s desire to acquire at least some semblance of security, even if it be only in the immediate hinterland, can be further underlined by the fact that previous attempts to connect political factors inside the territory of Angevin Dalmatia during Louis’ lifetime were stopped by the royal authorities.69 Judging by this diplomatic activity and from the presumed perspective of the city’s nobility, the task of preserving the city’s security, which before had been firmly placed in the hands of the Angevin ruler for a period of decades, had once again become the duty of the local elite. This would suggest that the recent developments had given rise to a sense of unease. The nobility of Zadar, previously firmly integrated into the Angevin administrative structure, felt the need to act independently under these new circumstances and to take care of the city’s security with their own resources.

Uncertainty about the development of events in Dalmatia and possibly also a certain degree of mistrust in the loyalty of the local political factors likely existed in the center of the kingdom as well. Queen Elizabeth therefore attempted to strengthen the loyalty of the urban centers on the east Adriatic coast, first indirectly by means of letters and envoys and then through a personal visit.70 The course of events that took place in Zadar provides us with a revealing, albeit borderline, indicator of broader sentiment in Dalmatia.71 Namely, the previously mentioned mistrust of the royal government with regards to the local authorities seemed to prove justified. In the middle of 1384, the city authorities in Zadar were forced to deal brutally with several conspirators against Angevin rule. In the immediate aftermath of the executions, local authorities were compelled to carry out once again the social ritual of swearing fealty in front of representatives of the crown.

Although the scant number of conspirators who were executed does not suggest that the plot had broader backing within the ranks of the city elite, the number of councilors listed at the ceremony in 1384 is revealing. The fact that only 23 councilors took the new oath of fealty, in contrast with the 75 councilors who had been present for the same ceremony in 1383, indirectly leads to the conclusion that there had been a discernible and clearly notable stratification among the ranks of the city nobility in terms of loyalty to the crown.72 In contrast to previous and somewhat united efforts to resist Venetian rule, the noble class of Zadar was by then presumably fractured with significantly more pronounced divisions than had been the case in previous times. Although we can determine neither the causes of the dissatisfaction that prompted the aforementioned conspiracy nor the actions that immediately preceded its open culmination, it is particularly significant to note that the betrayal occured in Zadar, a city that represented a stronghold of Angevin authority in Dalmatia.73 Given the particularities of the city and its elite within the Angevin administration, the events in Zadar still offer a valuable indicator of the possible sentiment present in other Dalmatian communes. In any case, the events in Zadar gradually began to match the pace of the unrest in the broader Croatian territory, thus offering an ominous prelude to future events.

Conclusion

A comparison of emotional reactions regarding the establishment of Louis’ rule in Dalmatia reveals noticeable sentiments of excitement and uncertainty, accompanied by divisions within the noble class. Recognition of Louis as their sovereign allowed the people of Dubrovnik to experience autonomous development under his protection. Provided with security and prosperity, Dubrovnik expressed a strong sense of loyalty towards the Crown. With the notable exception of Zadar, which would now come to enjoy a privileged position, with its nobility playing a significant role in the new regime, other cities in Dalmatia were added to the Crown of St. Stephen under less favorable conditions. These conditions were sometimes grossly violated, leading to expressions of dissatisfaction with and bitterness towards the authority of the individuals who worked in the king’s service. During Louis’ rule, the people of Split initially experienced joy and expressed enthusiasm for the new sovereign. However, as time went on, they began to express increasing disappointment and eventually open dissatisfaction, as their expectations regarding the strengthening of municipal self-governance remained unfulfilled. The imposition of a royal confidante who served in the role of the city count was a particularly great blow, as this figure was a foreign magnate who violated the old rights and customs of the city. Dissatisfaction with the actions of the new authorities eventually found expression in the unsuccessful rebellion against royal rule.

After Louis’ death, a sense of fear and uncertainty was felt in all Dalmatian cities, further amplified by Tvrtko’s and Venetian expansionist aspirations. The crisis, uncertainty, and vulnerability, along with the feelings of anxiety, insecurity, and fear that they fueled, could have either strengthened the internal cohesion of the ruling elites or ignited divisions among them. The tumult following Louis’ death caused internal dissension and disagreements among the nobility in Zadar. Meanwhile, the real and perceived threats united the ruling elite of Dubrovnik and made them act in unison. Divisions among the nobility of Zadar regarding the succession and the question of loyalty to the new queens resulted in an attempted rebellion, foretelling the significant turmoil that would affect the city in the coming years.

Another important consequence of the crisis was the creation of an alliance of Dalmatian cities, driven by the people of Zadar, which was a novelty compared to previous periods, when integration and cooperation among the cities on the eastern Adriatic coast were mostly absent. Similar efforts in the past, when attempted under the unifying banner of the royal crown, were halted in their infancy. The fact that then, after almost half a century of Angevin rule, there was a renewed need for and independent initiative aimed at collective protection reflects the atmosphere of uncertainty that prevailed on the kingdom’s periphery following Louis’ death.

Ultimately, it is evident that the various emotions expressed, whether enthusiasm, fear, satisfaction, disappointment, excitement, anxiety, love, or resent­ment, both originated in and actively influenced the relationship that a particular city had with its sovereign and communication between this city and the ruler. Only if we consider these emotions, as well as the causes behind them and the potential outcomes associated with them, from analyzing the significant historical changes which came with the establishment and end of Louis’ rule, are we in a position to provide a more comprehensive understanding and draw more complete conclusions about these, in many respects pivotal, events.

Archival Sources

Državni Arhiv u Dubrovniku [State Archive in Dubrovnik] (SAD)

Reformationes, ser. 2, vol. 18.

Bibliography

Primary sources

Dinić, Mihailo, ed. Odluke veća Dubrovačke republike, Knjiga I. [Decision of the Council of the Republic of Dubrovnik, Book 1]. Zbornik za istoriju, jezik i književnost srpskog naroda 15. Beograd: SANU, 1951.

Gelcich, Joseph, ed. Monumenta Ragusina: Libri reformationum. Vol. 2. Monumenta Spectantia Historiam Slavorum Meridionalium. Zagreb: Jugoslavenska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti, 1882.

Gelcich, Joseph, ed. Monumenta Ragusina: Libri reformationum. Vol. 3. Monumenta Spectantia Historiam Slavorum Meridionalium. Zagreb: Jugoslavenska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti, 1895.

Gelcich, József, and Lajos Thallóczy, eds. Diplomatarium relationum reipublicae ragusanae cum regno Hungariae. Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, 1887.

Kostrenčić, Marko, ed. Diplomatički zbornik Kraljevine Hrvatske, Dalmacije i Slavonije. Codex diplomaticus Regni Croatiae, Dalmatiae et Slavoniae. Vol. 16, 1379–1385. Zagreb: Jugoslavenska akademija znanosti i umjetnost, 1976.

Lucii, Joannis. De regno Dalmatiae et Croatiae libri sex. Amsterdam, 1666.

Lucio, Giovanni. Memorie istoriche di Tragurio ora detto Traù [Historical testimonies about Trogir, now called Traù]. Venezia: Presso Stefano Curti, 1673.

Lučić, Ivan. Povijesna svjedočanstva o Trogiru I [Historical testimonies about Trogir I]. Split: Čakavski sabor, 1979.

Resti, Junije. Chronica Ragusina Junii Restii (ab origine urbis usque ad annum 1451) item Joannis Gundulae (1451–1484). Edited by Natko Nodilo. Monumenta Spectantia Historiam Slavorum Meridionalium. Zagreb: Ex Officina Societatis Typographicae, 1893.

Rismondo, Vladimir, ed. and trans. A Cutheis tabula. In Legende i kronike, edited by Vedran Gligo, and Hrvoje Morović. Split: Čakavski sabor, 1977.

Smičiklas, Tadija, ed. Diplomatički zbornik Kraljevine Hrvatske, Dalmacije i Slavonije. Codex diplomaticus Regni Croatiae, Dalmatiae et Slavoniae. Vol. 12, 1351–1359. Zagreb: Jugoslavenska akademija znanosti i umjetnost, 1914.

Ljubić, Šime, ed. Listine o odnošajih izmedju južnoga slavenstva i Mletačke Republike. Vol. 4, 1358–1403 [Charters regarding the relationship between South Slavs and Republic of Venice]. Zagreb: Jugoslavenska akademija znanosti i umjetnost, 1874.

Šišić, Ferdo. “Memoriale Pauli de Paulo patritii Iadrensis (1371–1408).” Vjestnik kr. Hrvatsko-dalmatinsko-slavonskog zemaljskog arkiva 6, no. 1–2 (1904): 1–59.

Zapisnici Velikog vijeća grada Splita / Libri maioris consilis civitatis Spalati 1352–1354, 1357–1359. Edited by Jakov Stipišić and Miljen Šamšalović. Zbornik Odsjeka za povijesne znanosti istraživačkog centra JAZU 12. Zagreb: Jugoslavenska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti, (1982): 63–266.

Secondary literature

Ahmed, Sara. The Cultural Politics of Emotion. London: Routledge, 2004.

Ajzen, Icek. “Attitudes, Traits, and Actions: Dispositional Prediction of Behavior in Personality and Social Psychology.” In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 20, edited by Leonard Berkowitz, 1–63. San Diego: Academic Press, 1987. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60411-6

Ančić, Mladen. Putanja klatna: Ugarsko-hrvatsko kraljevstvo i Bosna u XIV. stoljeću [The path of the pendulum: The Kingdom of Hungary–Croatia and Bosnia in the fourteenth century]. Zadar–Mostar: Zavod za povijesne znanosti HAZU u Zadru – ZIRAL, 1997.

Ančić, Mladen. “Rat kao organizirani društveni pothvat: Zadarski mir kao rezultat rata za Zadar” [War as organized social enterprise: The Zadar Peace Treaty as result of war for Zadar]. In: Zadarski mir: prekretnica anžuvinskog doba, eds.: Mladen Ančić and Antun Nekić, 39–136. Zadar: Sveučilište u Zadru, 2022.

Antoljak, Stjepan. “Vladarski dvor (palača) i kraljevske kuće u srednjovjekovnom Zadru (s posebnim osvrtom na doba Arpadovića i Anžuvinaca)” [The royal court and royal residences in medieval Zadar (with particular reference to the period of Arpad and Angevin dynasties)]. In Radovi Zavoda za hrvatsku povijest Filozofskoga fakulteta Sveučilišta u Zagrebu 17, no. 1 (1984): 55–76.

Antoljak, Stjepan. “Izumiranje i nestanak hrvatskog plemstva u okolici Zadra” [The extinction and the disappearance of Croatian nobility in the vicinity of Zadar]. In Radovi Instituta Jugoslavenske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti u Zadru, vol. 9, edited by Grga Novak, and Vjekoslav Maštrović, 55–115. Zadar: Institut Jugoslavenske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti u Zadru, 1962.

Bak, János M. “Roles and Functions of Queens in Árpádian and Angevin Hungary (1000–1386 A.D.).” In Medieval Queenship, ed. John Carmi Parsons, 13–24. New York: St. Martins Press, 1998.

Bećir, Ante. “Plemstvo kasnosrednjovjekovnog Trogira: politička zajednica, frakcije i dinamika konflikta” [The nobility of late medieval Trogir: Political community, factions and the conflict dynamics]. PhD diss., Hrvatsko katoličko sveučilište, Zagreb, 2022.

Bially Mattern, Janice. “A practice theory of emotion for International Relations.” In International Practices, edited by Emanuel Adler, and Vincent Pouliot, 63–86. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511862373.006

Burkitt, Ian. “Social Relationships and Emotions.” Sociology 31, no. 1 (1997): 37–55.

Dixon, Thomas. “Emotion: One Word, Many Concepts.” Emotion Review 4, no. 4 (2012): 387–88. doi: 10.1177/1754073912445826

Crawford, Neta C. “The Passion of World Politics: Propositions on Emotions and Emotional Relationships.” International Security 24, no. 4 (2000): 116–56.

Ćirković, Sima. Istorija srednjovekovne bosanske države [The history of medieval Bosnian state]. Beograd: Srpska književna zadruga, 1964.

Dokoza, Serđo. “Struktura zadarske elite prije i nakon Zadarskog mira” [Structure of the Zadar elite before and after the Peace Treaty of Zadar]. In Zadarski mir: prekretnica anžuvinskog doba, edited by Mladen Ančić, and Antun Nekić, 137–70. Zadar: Sveučilište u Zadru, 2022.

Elliott, John Huxtable. “A Europe of Composite Monarchies.” Past and Present 137, no. 1 (1992): 48–71. doi: 10.1093/PAST/137.1.48

Engel, Pál. The Realm of St Stephen: A history of medieval Hungary, 895–1526. London–New York: I.B.Tauris Publishers, 2001.

Eustace, Nicole et al. “AHR Conversation: The Historical Study of Emotions.” American Historical Review 117, no. 5 (2012): 1487–531. doi: 10.1093/ahr/117.5.1487

Febvre, Lucien. “Sensibility and History: How to Reconstitute the Emotional Life of the Past.” In A New Kind of History: From the Writings of Febvre, edited by Peter Burke, 12–26. New York: Harper & Row, 1973.

Febvre, Lucien. “La sensibilité et l’histoire: Comment reconstituer la vie affective d’autrefois?” Annales d`historie sociale 3, no. 1–2 (1941): 5–20.

Foretić, Vinko. “Godina 1358. u povijesti Dubrovnika” [Year 1358 in the history of Dubrovnik]. Starine 50 (1960): 251–78.

Foretić, Vinko. Povijest Dubrovnika do 1808 [The history of Dubrovnik until 1808]. Vol. 1. Zagreb: Matica hrvatska, 1980.

Gollwitzer, Peter M. “Implementation Intentions: Strong Effects of Simple Plans.” American Psychologist 54, no. 7 (1999): 493–503. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.54.7.493

Grbavac, Branka. “Zadarski plemići kao kraljevski vitezovi u doba Ludovika I. Anžuvinca” [Zaratin noblemen as royal knights in the period of Louis I of Anjou]. Acta Histriae 16, no. 1–2 (2008): 89–116.

Grbavac, Branka. “Prilog proučavanju životopisa zadarskog plemića Franje Jurjevića, kraljevskog viteza” [A contribution to the biography of Francis Jurjević, a noble­man of Zadar and a royal knight]. In Zbornik Odsjeka za povijesne znanosti Zavoda za povijesne i društvene znanosti Hrvatske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti, vol. 22, 35–54. Zagreb: Hrvatska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti, 2004.

Greve, Werner. “Traps and Gaps in Action Explanation: Theoretical Problems of a Psychology of Human Action.” Psychological Review 108, no. 2 (2001): 435–51. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.108.2.435

Gruber, Dane. “Dalmacija za Ludovika I. (1358–1382)” [Dalmatia under Louis I, 1358–1382]. In Rad Jugoslavenske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti, vol. 166, 164–215. Zagreb: Jugoslavenska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti, 1906.

Gruber, Dane. “Borba Ludovika I. s Mlečanima za Dalmaciju (1348–1358)” [The struggle of Louis I with the Venetians for Dalmatia, 1348–1358]. In Rad Jugoslavenske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti, vol. 152, 32–161. Zagreb: Jugoslavenska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti, 1903.

Gruber, Dane. “Vojevanje Ljudevita I. u Dalmaciji s hrvatskim velmožama i Mlečanima itd. (1342–1348.)” [The campaigning of Louis I. in Dalmatia against the Croatian magnates and the Venetians]. Izvješće kralj. velike gimnazije u Požegi koncem školske godine 1887./1888, 3–101. Požega, 1888.

Halász, Éva B. “The congregatio generalis banalis in Slavonia in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries.” In Reform and Renewal in Medieval East and Central Europe: Politics, Law and Society, edited by Suzana Miljan, Éva B. Halász, and Alexandru Simon, 283–98. Cluj Napoca–Zagreb–London, 2019.

Havrylyshyn, Oleh and Nora Srzentić. Economy of Ragusa, 1300–1800: The Tiger of the Medieval Mediterranean. Zagreb: Croatian National Bank, 2014.

Jakšić, Nikola. “Od hagiografskog obrasca do političkog elaborata – škrinja Sv. Šimuna, zadarska arca d’oro” [From a hagiographical pattern towards a political manifesto – Shrine of St Simenon at Zadar as a local arca d’oro]. Ars Adriatica, no. 4 (2014): 125–54.

Janeković Römer, Zdenka. “Priznanje krune svetog Stjepana – izazov dubrovačke diplomacije” [The recognition of St Stephen’s Crown – challenge for the Republic of Dubrovnik’s diplomacy]. In Zbornik diplomatske akademije, vol. 3, edited by Svjetlan Berković, 293–301. Zagreb: Diplomatic Academy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and European Integration, 1998.

Janeković Römer, Zdenka. Okvir slobode: dubrovačka vlastela između srednjovjekovlja i humanizma [The frame of freedom: The patriciate of Ragusa (Dubrovnik) between the Middle Ages and Humanism]. Zagreb–Dubrovnik: Zavod za povijesne znanosti Hrvatske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti u Dubrovniku, 1999.

Janeković Römer, Zdenka. Višegradski ugovor temelj Dubrovačke Republike [Visegrad privilege: Foundations of the Republic of Dubrovnik]. Zagreb: Golden marketing, 2003.

Kagan, Jerome. What Is Emotion? History, Measures, Cultural and Meanings. New Haven–London: Yale University Press, 2007.

Karbić, Damir. “Defining the position of Croatia during the restoration of royal power (1345–1361).” In …The Man of Many Devices, Who Wandered Full Many Ways… Festschrift in Honor of János M. Bak, edited by Balázs Nagy, and Marcell Sebők, 520–26. Budapest: CEU Press, 1999.

Klaić, Nada. “Značenje vladavine Anžuvinaca za hrvatske zemlje, napose za Dalmaciju” [The meaning of the Angevin rule for the Croatian states and especially for Dalmatia]. Radovi. Razdio društvenih znanosti 23, no. 10 (1984): 225–31.

Klaić, Nada, and Ivo Petricioli. Zadar u srednjem vijeku do 1409 [Zadar in the Middle Ages until 1409]. Zadar: Filozofski fakultet Zadar, 1976.

Klaić, Nada. Povijest Hrvata u razvijenom srednjem vijeku [History of Croats in the High Middle Ages]. Zagreb: Školska knjiga, 1976.

Kleinginna, Paul R., Jr., and Anne M. Kleinginna. “A Categorized List of Emotion Definitions, with Suggestion for a Consensual Definition.” Motivation and Emotion, no. 5 (1981): 263–91.

Kovačević, Marijana. “Ophodni križ – još jedan anžuvinski ex voto u Zadru?” [Processional cross – Another Angevin ex voto in Zadar?]. Radovi Instituta za povijest umjetnosti, no. 31 (2007): 29–42.

Kravar, Miroslav. “Oko toponima Ragusa za Dubrovnik” [Regarding the toponym Ragusa for Dubrovnik]. Folia onomastica Croatica (1994): 77–87.

Lebow, Richard N. “Reason, Emotion and Cooperation.” International Politics, no. 42 (2005): 283–313.

Lemmings, David, and Ann Brooks. “The Emotional Turn in the Humanities and Social Sciences.” In Emotions and Social Change. Historical and Sociological Perspectives, edited by David Lemmings, and Ann Brooks, 3–18. New York: Routledge, 2014.

Magaš, Damir. “Zadarski mir 1358.: geografski, geopolitički i geostrateški okvir” [Peace treaty of Zadar of 1358: Geographical, geopolitical and geostrategic framework]. In Zadarski mir: prekretnica anžuvinskog doba, edited by Mladen Ančić, and Antun Nekić, 173–96. Zadar: Sveučilište u Zadru, 2022.

Mahnken, Irmgard. Dubrovački patricijat u XIV veku [The patriciate of Dubrovnik in the 14th century]. Vol. 1. Beograd: Srpska akademija nauka i umetnosti, 1960.

Majnarić, Ivan. “The Title of New Donation and Its Role in Structuring the Society and Family in the Kingdom of Croatia (the 14th Century).” In Reform and Renewal in Medieval East and Central Europe: Politics, Law and Society, edited by Suzana Miljan, Éva B. Halász, and Alexandru Simon, 411–32. Cluj Napoca–Zagreb–London, 2019.

Majnarić, Ivan. Plemstvo zadarskog zaleđa u XIV. i XV. stoljeću [Nobility in the hinterland of Zadar in 14th and 15th centuries]. Zadar: Sveučilište u Zadru, 2018.

Majnarić, Ivan. “Kasnosrednjovjekovna obiteljska struktura hrvatskoga plemstva” [Late medieval family structure of the Croatian nobility]. Povijesni prilozi 34, no. 48 (2015): 7–31.

Majnarić, Ivan. “Niže i srednje plemstvo Lučke županije i širega zadarskoga zaleđa u radovima Stjepana Gunjače” [Lower and middle nobility in Lučka županija (the County of Luka) and the wider area of the hinterland of Zadar in the works of Stjepan Gunjača]. In Zbornik Stjepan Gunjača i hrvatska srednjovjekovna povijesno-arheološka baština 1: zbornik radova sa Znanstvenog skupa “Stjepan Gunjača i hrvatska srednjovjekovna povijesno-arheološka baština”: u povodu 100. obljetnice rođenja akademika Stjepana Gunjače, Split 3–6. studenog 2009, edited by Tomislav Šeparović, Nikolina Uroda, and Mate Zekan, 337–45. Split: Muzej hrvatskih arheoloških spomenika, 2010.

Mandressi, Rafael. “Le temps profond et le temps perdu: Usages des sciences et des sciences cognitives en histoire.” Revue d`histoire des sciences humaines, no. 25 (2011): 165–202.

Matković, Petar. “Prilozi k trgovačko-političkoj historiji Republike Dubrovačke” [Contributions to the commercial and political history of the Republic of Dub­rov­nik]. Rad JAZU 7 (1869): 180–266.

Matt, Susan J. “Current Emotion Research in History: or, Doing History from the Inside Out.” Emotion Review 3, no. 1 (2011): 117–24. doi: 10.1177/1754073910384416

Matt, Susan, and Peter N. Stearns, eds. Doing Emotions History (The History of Emotions). Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2014.

Medini, Milorad. Dubrovnik Gučetića [Gučetić’s Dubrovnik]. Beograd: Srpska akademija nauka, 1953.

Munk, Ana. “Kraljica i njezina škrinja. Lik ugarske kraljice Elizabete, rođene Kotromanić (oko 1340–1387.), u historiografiji i na škrinji svetog Šimuna u Zadru” [The queen and her shrine: The representation of Hungarian queen Elizabeth, born Kotromanić, around 1340–1387, in the historiography and on the shrine of Saint Simeon in Zadar]. In Žene u Hrvatskoj, ženska i kulturna povijest, edited by Andrea Feldman, 77–104. Zagreb: Institut “Vlado Gotovac,” Ženska infoteka, 2004.

Novak, Grga. Povijest Splita I [History of Split I]. Split: Čakavski sabor, 1978.

Peričić, Eduard. “Zadar u doba prvih veza s Anžuvincima 1269–1280” [Zadar at the time of the first connections with the Angevin dynasty, 1269–1260]. Radovi. Razdio društvenih znanosti 23, no. 10 (1984): 251–56. doi: 10.15291/radovidru.2059

Plamper, Jan. The History of Emotions: An Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.

Plamper, Jan. “The History of the Emotions: an Interview with William Reddy, Barbara Rosenwein, and Peter Stearns.” History and Theory 49, no. 2 (2010): 237–65.

Popić, Tomislav. Krojenje pravde: Zadarsko sudstvo u srednjem vijeku (1358–1458) [Tailoring justice: Zadar’s Judiciary in the Middle Ages, 1358–1458]. Zagreb: Plejada, 2014.

Raukar, Tomislav. Zadar u XV. stoljeću: Ekonomski razvoj i društveni odnosi [Zadar in the fifteenth century: Economic development and social relations]. Zagreb: Sveučilište u Zagrebu - Institut za hrvatsku povijest, 1977.

Raukar, Tomislav. “Komunalna društva u Dalmaciji u XIV stoljeću” [Communal societies in Dalmatia in XIV century]. Historijski zbornik 33–34, no. 1 (1981): 139–209.

Raukar, Tomislav. “Hrvatske zemlje u doba bitke na Kosovu 1389” [Croatian lands at the time of the battle of Kosovo 1389]. Historijski zbornik 42, no. 1 (1989): 31–36.

Raukar, Tomislav. Hrvatsko srednjovjekovlje - prostor, ljudi, ideje [Croatian Middle Ages – land, people, ideas]. Zagreb: Školska knjiga, 1997.

Raukar, Tomislav. “Arpadovići i Anžuvinci na hrvatskom prijestolju” [The Árpáds and the Angevins on the Croatian throne]. In Povijest Hrvata, vol. 1, Srednji vijek, edited by Franjo Šanjek, 185–231. Zagreb: Školska knjiga, 2003.

Raukar, Tomislav. “Hrvatska u kasnom srednjem vijeku” [Croatia in the Late Middle Ages]. In Povijest Hrvata, vol. 1, Srednji vijek, edited by Franjo Šanjek, 321–70. Zagreb: Školska knjiga, 2003.

Raukar, Tomislav. Studije o Dalmaciji u srednjem vijeku: odabrane studije [Studies about Dalmatia in the Middle Ages: chosen studies]. Split: Književni krug, 2007.

Reddy, William M. The Navigation of Feeling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

Reddy, William M. “Against Constructionism: The Historical Ethnography of Emotions.” Current Anthropology 38, no. 3 (1997): 327–51. doi: 10.1086/204622

Rosenwein, Barbara H. Generations of Feeling. A History of Emotions, 600–1700. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016.

Rosenwein, Barbara H. “Worrying about Emotions in History.” The American Historical Review 107, no. 3 (2002): 821–45. doi: 10.1086/ahr/107.3.821

Rosenwein, Barbara H. Emotional Communities in the Early Middle Ages. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2006.

Rosenwein, Barbara H. “Problems and Methods in the History of Emotions.” Passions in Context: International Journal for the History and Philosophy of the Emotions 1, no. 1 (2010): 1–32.

Ruberg, Willemijn. “Interdisciplinarity and the History of Emotions.” Cultural and Social History 6, no. 4 (2009): 507–16. doi: 10.2752/147800409X467631

Smith-Lovin, Lynn. “The Sociology of Affect and Emotion.” In Sociological Perspectives on Social Psychology, edited by Karen S. Cook, Gary Alan Fine, and James S. House, 118–48. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1995.

Stearns, Peter, and Carol Stearns. “Emotionology: Clarifying the History of Emotions and Emotional Standards.” The American Historical Review 90, no. 4 (1985): 813–36.

Šoštarić, Valentina. “Universitatis fidelium et dilectorum nostrorum civium de Ragusa: Političko prijateljstvo Dubrovčana i Anžuvinaca – čimbenik (ne)stabilnosti” [Universitatis fidelium et dilectorum nostrorum civium de Ragusa: Political friendship of Dubrovnik and the Angevins in the sphere of diplomacy – factor of (in)stability]. Paper presented at the scientific conference with international participation: Doba (dez)integracije: društveno političke strukture za vladavine Anžuvinaca, December 14 2022, University of Zadar, Zadar. Manuscript

Šoštarić, Valentina. “Dubrovački poklisari – posrednici između lokalne zajednice i anžuvinskoga dvora” [Ragusan ambassadors – Mediators between the local community and the Angevin court]. Zbornik radova Filozofskog fakulteta u Splitu, no. 15 (2022): 169–85. doi: 10.38003/zrffs.15.9

Vekarić, Nenad. Nevidljive pukotine: Dubrovački vlasteoski klanovi [Invisible fissures: Ragusan patrician clans]. Zagreb–Dubrovnik: Hrvatska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti, Zavod za povijesne znanosti u Dubrovniku, 2009.

  1. 1 Raukar, “Komunalna društva,” 140; Magaš, “Zadarski mir 1358,” 177–78.

  2. 2 According to Antoljak, the Ottoman advance serves as a plausible explanation for the disappearance of the Croatian nobility in the hinterland of Zadar: Antoljak “Izumiranje i nestanak,” 108–9. Differing perspectives on the nobility’s vanishing act, examined through the lens of contemporary social changes, are presented by Majnarić: “Niže i srednje plemstvo,” 341; Majnarić, Plemstvo zadarskog zaleđa, 14–15. Correlations between the Angevin restoration in Croatia and the new patterns of the social and political structures are shown in Majnarić, “Kasnosrednjovjekovna obiteljska struktura”; Majnarić, Plemstvo zadarskog zaleđa, 14, 44–55, 61. On the broader context of the establishment of Angevin rule in the cities of the eastern Adriatic region, see: Gruber, “Borba Ludovika I. s Mlečanima”; Gruber, “Dalmacija za Ludovika I. (1358–1382)”; Klaić and Petricioli, Zadar u srednjem vijeku; Klaić, Povijest Hrvata; Klaić, “Značenje vladavine Anžuvinaca”; Karbić, “Defining the Position of Croatia”; Engel, The Realm of St Stephen; Ančić and Nekić, Zadarski mir.

  3. 3 Ančić and Nekić, Zadarski mir; Halász, “The congregatio generalis banalis”; Karbić, “Defining the position”; Majnarić, “The Title.”

  4. 4 Raukar, “Arpadovići i Anžuvinci,” 231.

  5. 5 Antoljak, “Vladarski dvor (palača) i kraljevske kuće”; Jakšić, “Od hagiografskog obrasca”; Kovačević, “Ophodni križ,” 29–42; Munk, “Kraljica i njezina škrinja.”

  6. 6 See: Gruber, “Vojevanje Ljudevita I. u Dalmaciji.”

  7. 7 Mandressi, “Le temps profound.”

  8. 8 Febvre, “La sensibilité et l’histoire.” This essay has been published in English translation: “Sensibility and History.” For a concise overview of the historical development of emotions, see: Rosenwein, “Problems and Methods.”

  9. 9 For the impact of cultural studies on the natural and social sciences in the study of emotions and how their models, theories, and concepts can be used by historians, see: Ruberg, “Interdisciplinarity and the History of Emotions.”

  10. 10 A new field for studying the history of emotions is marked by the term “emotionology.” See: Stearns and Stearns, “Emotionology.”

  11. 11 Plamper, “The History of the Emotions”; Matt, “Current Emotion Research in History”; Eustace et al., “AHR Conversation”; Matt and Stearns, Doing Emotions History.

  12. 12 Lemmings and Brooks, “The Emotional Turn”; Lebow, “Reason,” 284.

  13. 13 The terminological plurality in the usage of emotions, feelings, and affects is clarified by Smith-Lovin, “The Sociology.” For an exploration of various concepts defining the term “emotions” see: Dixon, “Emotion.” Despite these efforts, consensus remains elusive regarding the triggers of emotions and the distinctions among emotions, feelings, sentiments, and affects, Kleinginna Jr. and Kleinginna, “A Categorized List”; Kagan, What Is Emotion?; Rosenwein, Generations of Feeling, 1–3.

  14. 14 Ahmed, The Cultural Politics.

  15. 15 Harré, The Social Construction. Some researchers believe that emotions arise and are shaped exclusively through human interactions, Burkitt, “Social Relationships.”

  16. 16 Emotions are not only a part of social interaction processes but also play a significant role in the sphere of high politics, Reddy, The Navigation, 124, 128; Reddy, “Against Constructionism,” 335.

  17. 17 Barbara H. Rosenwein defines the term “emotional communities” as “groups in which people respect and act according to the same norms that define the rules for expressing emotions and values, and evaluate or devalue the same or related emotions,” Rosenwein, Emotional Communities, 2.

  18. 18 Crawford, “The Passion of World Politics.”

  19. 19 Bially Mattern, “A practice theory.” For this concept and the accompanying literature, see also: Rosenwein, “Worrying about Emotions,” 834–37.

  20. 20 Ajzen, “Attitudes”; Gollwitzer, “Implementation intentions.” For contrasting viewpoints, see: Greve, “Traps.”

  21. 21 In this paper, the names Dubrovnik and Ragusa are used in parallel for the city. Alongside the Slavic name Dubrovnik, the city is also referred to in historical sources by the pre-Slavic term R(h)agusa or R(h)agusium/R(h)acusium. Miroslav Kravar proposes the Greek lexeme rhagoûs(s)a as the etymon of the name, a feminine adjective meaning ‘full of cracks, crevices, or karst formations’ (i.e., an island), which aptly corresponds to the coastal configuration of the site in question. For more on this and the course of research on the etymology of the name Ragusa and its variants, see: Kravar, “Oko toponima Ragusa,” 77–87.

  22. 22 Gruber, “Borba Ludovika I. s Mlečanima,” 142–43; Medini, Dubrovnik Gučetića, 19–39; Gelcich, Monumenta Ragusina, vol. II, 155, 168.

  23. 23 Vekarić discerns the disunity within the Ragusan noble class through the division into the Bobaljević, Gučetić, and Gundulić clans. He defines them as groups of mutually favorable families with politically recognizable activities, established and maintained on the principles of strong family tradition. On the clan division in this crucial period, see: Vekarić, Nevidljive pukotine, 35–84, and for the Hungarian supporters: 54–67.

  24. 24 Vekarić, Nevidljive pukotine, 37–38.

  25. 25 Gelcich, Monumenta Ragusina, vol. III, 110, 114, 175; Šoštarić, “Dubrovački poklisari,” 170–71.

  26. 26 Resti, Chronica Ragusina, 136; Gelcich, Monumenta Ragusina, vol. II, 207–8, 210–11, 219, 234, 244; Gruber, “Dalmacija za Ludovika I. (1358–1382),” 171, 180–81; Gruber, “Borba Ludovika I. s Mlečanima,” 84–86.

  27. 27 In addition to the upheaval that brought the city centers of Dalmatia under the rule of the Angevin sovereign, the existence of divisions within the ranks of the city nobility becomes apparent through revolts that ensued during the initial phase of subjugation to royal authority. This occurred in a period characterized by the instability of the new political order, which had not yet stabilized, making it susceptible to further changes. The rebellion in Trogir, though briefly mentioned, serves as a poignant illustration of these internal challenges: Lucii, De regno, 384; Rismondo, A Cutheis tabula, 198–99. On the upheavals in Trogir in December 1357 and also for a brief report on the rebellion in Šibenik in June 1358, see: Lucio, Memorie istoriche, 265–71; Lučić, Povijesna svjedočanstva, 596–607. The resolution of disagreements in Trogir was imposed through the intervention of the Ban John Csúz, Bećir, “Plemstvo,” 145–46. The situation in Šibenik had to be addressed by the new Ban Nicholas Szécsi. Klaić believes that the unrest in Šibenik was caused by conflicts between the pro-Hungarian or noble faction and the pro-Venice or popular faction, Klaić, Povijest Hrvata, 176. Of course, the question arises whether the case in Šibenik was truly a “class conflict” or if the common people were merely mobilized by one of the conflicting noble factions. The circumstances under which factional struggles in the local political scene are prone to escalation and the correlation of conflict intensity with the degree of influence of external political factors, as well as the events in the timeframe considered here, have been discussed in detail, for example, in the case of Trogir: Bećir, “Plemstvo,” 135–67.

  28. 28 The fear of the Dubrovnik authorities regarding the connection of its subjects with foreign rulers is evident in a series of regulations which, under the threat of severe penalties, prohibited individuals from accepting possessions, privileges, and titles from foreign political entities. Similar apprehension was expressed towards individuals who held high positions at foreign courts, Janeković Römer, Okvir slobode, 32–35, 87–88, 249; Janeković Römer, Višegradski ugovor, 102–3.

  29. 29 Šoštarić, “Dubrovački poklisari,” 173–75.

  30. 30 Janeković Römer, Višegradski ugovor, 103–8; Vekarić, Nevidljive pukotine, 54–56; Šoštarić, “Universitatis fidelium,”

  31. 31 SAD, Reformationes, ser. 2, vol. 18, f. 89r (23.8.1361); Gelcich, Monumenta Ragusina, vol. III, 114–15.

  32. 32 Concerning the royal knights emerging from the Zadar nobility, see: Grbavac, “Prilog”; Grbavac, “Zadarski plemići.” Regarding the circumstances and contacts through which the Zadar nobility established connections with representatives of royal authority in the prewar period, laying the groundwork for subsequent privileges, see: Ančić, “Rat kao organizirani društveni pothvat,” 87–97.

  33. 33 Li Zaratini, che avevano continua inclinazione verso il re d’ Ungaria, non volendo maneggiar il fatto con destrezza (come li Ragusei), s’ erano, la settima volta, alienati dai Veneziani, i quali però avevano mandato un grosso esercito per ricuperar quella città. Resti, Chronica Ragusina, 130.

  34. 34 Havrylyshyn and Srzentić, Economy of Ragusa, 22–23.

  35. 35 Medini, Dubrovnik Gučetića, 72–80; Mahnken, Dubrovački patricijat, 244–47; Janeković Römer, “Priznanje,” 296; Janeković Römer, Višegradski ugovor, 83, 145.

  36. 36 Janeković Römer, Višegradski ugovor, 83.

  37. 37 Here, we particularly mean the relative geographical proximity of the two opposing state centers, namely the fact that the Dalmatian cities were precisely the (albeit only one) battleground where Angevin and Venetian interests were in armed conflict. On the divergence of proclaimed war goals, mastery of Dalmatia, and those actually realized, see: Ančić, “Rat kao organizirani društveni pothvat.”

  38. 38 The imposition of a new administrative system aimed at the systematic political demobilization of those members of the city nobility who had escaped deportation to Venice, Klaić and Petricioli, Zadar u srednjem vijeku, 311–12; Dokoza, “Struktura zadarske elite,” 138–40, 143–45. Despite the efforts of Venetian authorities, the exiled Zadar nobility played a significant role in the Angevin conquest of the city, as demonstrated by Ančić: Ančić, “Rat kao organizirani društveni pothvat,” 120–24.

  39. 39 Gruber, “Borba Ludovika I. s Mlečanima,” 130, 131.

  40. 40 Ančić, “Rat kao organizirani društveni pothvat,” 95–97. This certainly does not mean that Venetian rule did not have its supporters among the ranks of the Zadar nobility. For more or less certain Venetian adherents from the ranks of the Zadar elite, see: Dokoza, “Struktura zadarske elite,” 164–68.

  41. 41 The sequence of events is presented by Cutheis, a chronicler of Split, Lucii, De regno, 383; Rismondo, A Cutheis tabula, 196–98. Regarding the reasons for the rebellion, see: Lucio, Memorie istoriche, 255–56; Lučić, Povijesna svjedočanstva, 576–77; Novak, Povijest Splita I, 222; Ančić, “Rat kao organizirani društveni pothvat,” 107–8.

  42. 42 In the context of the study of emotions, especially with an understanding of emotions as cognitively staged information, it is revealing to consider the letter from Doge Giovanni Delfino, addressed to Split and Trogir on July 15, 1357, in which the Doge expressed his considerable dissatisfaction with their actions: “Audivimus non sine displicentia multa mentis, quod inter vos fuerunt aliqua novitates per quas comitem et gentes nostras licentiasse videmini”, Smičiklas, Diplomatički zbornik, vol. 12, 424, doc. 322. Lučić translates this as “great sorrow” (gran dispiacere), Lucio, Memorie istoriche, 258; Lučić, Povijesna svjedočanstva, 583, while Novak mentions “great discomfort,” Novak, Povijest Splita I, 226. Regardless of the exact translation, it is evident that the Doge, ultimately unsuccessfully, tries to harness emotions to achieve a specific goal: the return of the two communes under the protection of Venice. This interpretation finds support in the concluding words of the letter, which strive to evoke an emotional atmosphere by drawing associations with family relations: “quam paratam et promptam remissa qualibet iniura vobis offermius cim firmo porposito vos habendi carissimos et recommendatos sicut unquam habimus et vestram consercationem et bonum cordialiter ac totius viribus procurandi ac personas et bona nostra pro vobis,sicut bonus pater facit pro filiis liberaliter exponere.” Smičiklas, Diplomatički zbornik, vol. 12, 425, doc. 322.

  43. 43 “In signum gaudii et honoris magnificentis domini nostri domini regis et pro honore comunis Spaleti.” Stipišić and Šamšalović, Zapisnici Velikog vijeća, 166, no. 86. Although not particularly significant in concrete actions, the session mentioned still offers an example of a case in which the affective state could not be completely suppressed and spilled over into open expression of emotion, which, moreover, was attributed to otherwise formal expressions preserved in the records of the Grand Council.

  44. 44 Decisions concerning funds for municipal expenses were often the subject of sessions of the Grand Council. The podestà Gentilis, shortly after the events described here, claimed that the municipal treasury was empty, Stipišić and Šamšalović, Zapisnici Velikog vijeća, 168, no. 89.

  45. 45 On the campaign and the crimes committed by the people of Šibenik, together with the Venetians, against the inhabitants of Šolta, see: Lucii, De regno, 383; Rismondo, A Cutheis tabula, 198. The case of Šibenik, or the anti-Venetian uprising that occurred there at the end of 1357, clearly illustrates the correlation between emotions and practical actions in immediate reality. Seeking to preventively avoid a repetition of the events in Split and Trogir, the Venetian authorities took certain violent measures against the inhabitants of Šibenik. Contrary to the desired outcome, these acts caused widespread dissatisfaction and prompted a general uprising among the commoners, likely channeled by pro-Angevin-oriented individuals, Ančić, “Rat kao organizirani društveni pothvat,” 111–12. Without delving into a closer identification of the supporters of royal authority in the city itself, the course of events in Šibenik suggest that certain actions by the political actors were indeed motivated by or at the very least occurred under significant influence of emotional states and did not exclusively unfold within the domain of some municipal Realpolitik.

  46. 46 If anyone among the Split elite did in fact entertain the said notion, it ultimately proved to be true. In addition to the significance of Zadar from the perspective of the strategic concepts of the Venetian side, it is also worth mentioning the thesis of M. Ančić about Zadar as a key objective in the eyes of the royal forces: Ančić, “Rat kao organizirani društveni pothat,” 97. The loss of Zadar was a matter of great distress for the Venetian authorities, as evidenced by the fate of the Venetian count of Zadar at the moment of its fall (or liberation), Michele Faliero. Shortly after the war, the now former count of Zadar was punished in Venice with imprisonment and loss of all honors, as well as the loss of the right to participate in public administration, Gruber, “Borba Ludovika I. s Mlečanima,” 149–50.

  47. 47 According to chronicler Cutheis, the coup in Split was undertaken by “all the nobles and many commoners of the city of Split” (“omnes nobiles et plures populares Civitatis Spaleti”), Lucii, De regno, 383; Rismondo, A Cutheis tabula, 197. Although the endeavor is portrayed as the result of a singular purpose on the part of the Split noblemen, it is highly unlikely that this was truly the case and that the Venetian authorities had no support among the city elite. Doubts about the narrative of the Split chronicler are also put forward by: Ančić, “Rat kao organizirani društveni pothvat,” 108–10.

  48. 48 Stipišić and Šamšalović, Zapisnici Velikog vijeća, 167, no. 88. The seemingly calmer and more rational approach of the council in the case of the ban’s emissary can also be interpreted in another way. In addition to the incoming news (which was already known), the initiative for rewarding the messenger now came from the representative of the central government, meaning that it was practically imposed both by words and by the reputation of the original sender. Despite dealing with the emissary from the highest representative of royal power in the region, the noblemen of Split found it appropriate to weigh the practicality of the ban’s request against the state of the city’s coffers. It can be seen as ironic that the proposal for frugality in fulfilling the ban’s wishes came from Kamurcije Franjin, one of the economically most powerful members of the Split nobility. During a later dispute with the Split commune, Kamurcije used the right of appeal to that same royal authority on whose representative’s endowment he had proposed limitations. A concise overview of Kamurcije Franjin’s political and economic activities can be found in: Raukar, Studije o Dalmaciji, 257–58.

  49. 49 Stipišić and Šamšalović, Zapisnici Velikog vijeća, 243, no. 200.

  50. 50 The extent to which the Angevin approach to governing Dalmatia is truly innovative, as opposed to representing continuity with the political system of the preceding Arpadović dynasty, is clearly indicated by: Klaić and Petricioli, Zadar u srednjem vijeku, 327; Klaić, Povijest Hrvata, 631. Regarding the modalities of governance over annexed territories in pre-modern societies, see: Elliott, “A Europe of Composite Monarchies,” 48–71.

  51. 51 Under Angevin rule, Zadar would come to enjoy a dominant position among the Dalmatian cities, Klaić and Petricioli, Zadar u srednjem vijeku, 330–32. Apart from its unique judicial status regarding its internal affairs, which can be observed in the authority enjoyed by the city’s rectors, the nobility of Zadar would play an important role in the royal administration of the province. On the “duality of rule” in Zadar, see: Klaić and Petricioli, Zadar u srednjem vijeku, 335; Klaić, Povijest Hrvata, 629; Popić, Krojenje pravde, 10. On the role of Zadar noblemen in the royal administration, see: Grbavac, “Zadarski plemići.”

  52. 52 During the meeting in July 1358, the podestà of Split, Gentilis, informed the Great Council that the royal representatives in Dalmatia had requested his departure, Stipišić and Šamšalović, Zapisnici Velikog vijeća, 199–200, no. 133. In August of the same year, Gentilis requested his resignation from the position of podestà before the council, citing “legitimate reasons,” Stipišić and Šamšalović, Zapisnici Velikog vijeća, 206, no. 143. The Angevin concept of governance over Dalmatian cities is reflected in the verdict of the Ban John Csúz given in the city of Trogir in August 1358, as emphasized by Nada Klaić: Klaić, Povijest Hrvata, 629. Regulating the agitated relations inside the Trogir commune, the verdict stated that: “quia nullus potest ese in civitatibus Dalmatie potestas vel capitaneus, nisi de voluntate regia et de eius commissione.” Smičiklas, Diplomatički zbornik, vol. 12, 506–7, doc. 390. Lučić included the verdict in his history of Trogir in: Lucio, Memorie istoriche, 268–69; Lučić, Povijesna svjedočanstva, 601–3.

  53. 53 In December 1358, Split delegates found themselves in front of the count of Trogir, Franjo de Georgis, where they challenged his and, therefore, royal jurisdiction over a legal dispute initiated by Kamurcije Franjo, a nobleman of Split. Kamurcije’s case eventually turned into a legal tangle and remained a subject of argument before the royal court of law as late as June 1359, Gruber, “Dalmacija za Ludo­vika I. (1358–1382),” 200–3; Novak, Povijest Splita I, 249–50, 251.

  54. 54 Emotional states, considered here as one of the possible origins of later concrete political actions, have been observed in earlier historiography dedicated to this period. G. Novak states that there was “great discontent” in Split, prompted by Louis’ restriction of Split’s autonomy, Novak, Povijest Splita I, 53. D. Gruber also states that the measures taken by the Angevin Crown, this time in the form of an appeal letter from Franjo de Georgis to the Split commune regarding the complaint of Split citizen Kamurcije Franjin, had “greatly angered” the people of Split, Gruber, “Dalmacija za Ludovika I. (1358–1382),” 201. A certain methodological restraint is necessary, however, when interpreting the unexpressed emotional states of past historical actors, particularly when making claims about such strong convictions. That being said, the indication that there was indeed some dissatisfaction with the previous actions of the central government in the new province can be gleaned from the document we cite in the immediate continuation of the paper.

  55. 55 “In quarum gratiarum et ordinum presentium et retractationem gravaminum predictorum.” Smičiklas, Diplomatički zbornik, vol. 12, 592, doc. 443. Lučić included the charter in his history of Trogir in: Lucio, Memorie istoriche, 273–75; Lučić, Povijesna svjedočanstva, 611–15.

  56. 56 Lučić emphasizes the poor quality of local salt, Lucio, Memorie istoriche, 275; Lučić, Povijesna svje­do­čanstva, 615.

  57. 57 D. Gruber primarily interprets dissatisfaction as expressed in the complaints made in the Dalmatian cities from the perspective of administrative changes, Gruber, “Dalmacija za Ludovika I. (1358–1382),” 199–200. The severity of the new royal fiscal policy in Dalmatia is colorfully illustrated by the words of Venetian envoy Bartolomeo Ursio. In a report about his diplomatic activities in Dalmatia in 1360, Ursio stated that the conditions were so dire that the people “don’t even dare show anything beautiful that they have, if they have any such thing.” Ljubić, Listine, vol. 4, 20, no. 43. Novak, Povijest Splita I, 254.

  58. 58 The provision stated that, after the investigation was concluded, the punishment should be assigned, among other things, according to the status of the person who committed the crime (“et inuentos culpabiles punire et condemnare secundum formam statuti et ultra formam statuti inspecta conditione, persona et qualitate delicti.” Stipišić and Šamšalović, Zapisnici Velikog vijeća: 243, no. 200). This paragraph suggests that the composition of the group of conspirators was diverse, or at the very least, included individuals whose social position could not be assessed en masse. By translating the final part of the here cited text “conditione, persona et qualitate delicti” as “position of the person and the crime he committed,” G. Novak seemingly draws the same conclusions. Referring to the session of the Grand Council held on July 15, 1359, where a three-member committee with relatively broad powers was voted in, the author, concluded, quite euphemistically compared to his previous statements about the emotional states of the populace of Split, that “at that time, Split found itself in trouble,” Novak, Povijest Splita I, 253. The record of the session of the Grand Council from July 15, in which a three-member committee practically received free rein in their actions, can be further analyzed. Radical decisions by the Grand Council were likely elicited by both fear and uncertainty due to the incomplete knowledge of the full extent of the uncovered conspiracy, Stipišić and Šamšalović, Zapisnici Velikog vijeća, 243–44, no. 201.

  59. 59 This is implied by: Novak, Povijest Splita I, 253. It is important, once again, to bring attention to the aforementioned narrative presented by Cutheis, according to whom the initial revolt of 1357 was the result of consensus (which in reality would have been extremely unlikely) among the noble families of Split. As pointed out by M. Ančić, the narrative of the Split chronicler likely represents an “urban legend.” Being somewhat akin to a medieval “official version of events,” the narrative sought to emphasize the collective nature of the actions of the local elite while reducing the role of the actual leaders of the endeavor, Ančić, “Rat kao organizirani društveni pothvat,” 108–9. Therefore, it is worth noting the possibility that the aforementioned “official version” of the coup may have also sought to diminish in the collective memory the almost certain existence of members of the local elite who remained loyal to the Venetian authorities.

  60. 60 The circumstances and factional background of the rebellion in Trogir are thoroughly analyzed by: Bećir, “Plemstvo,” 135–67.

  61. 61 Here we will, once again, draw attention to the perspectives of M. Ančić, who questions the veracity of Cutheis’ claims. In doing so, we steer his considerations in a different direction. While examining the collective nature of the upheaval, Ančić warns of a series of decisions made by the Great Council that aimed to regulate communication between the members of the Split commune and the royal authorities, Ančić, “Rat kao organizirani društveni pothvat,” 108–109. In addition to offering a compelling indication of the presence of prominent leaders of the royal party within the city itself, the progressively stricter penalties for unsanctioned communication with representatives of central authority can be contextualized as a reflection of the, as previously witnessed in the case of Dubrovnik, suspicions and fears of the municipal authorities concerning private individuals and their potential for acquiring personal gain by establishing reciprocal relationships with the sovereign.

  62. 62 Raukar, “Hrvatska u kasnom srednjem vijeku,” 321; Raukar, Hrvatsko srednjovjekovlje, 86; Raukar, “Hrvatske zemlje,” 32.

  63. 63 Dinić, Odluke veća, 145, 258–60, 273.

  64. 64 Ibid., 295; For comparison, see: Ančić, Putanja klatna, 208.

  65. 65 Resti, Chronica Ragusina, 171; Ćirković, Istorija, 148–51; Foretić, “Godina 1358,” 268; Ančić, Putanja klatna, 203, 209–18.

  66. 66 “Prima pars est de faciendo unionem cum comune et civitate Jadre et cum omnibus aliis civitatibus de Dalmacia, cum modis et pactis infrascriptis, videlicet: quod nos sumus parati, dispositi et contenti supra dictam ligam et unionem cum civitate Jadre et cum aliis civitatibus Dalmacie, prout ipse ambassiator nos requisivit, contra Venecias; si ipsa civitas Veneciarum oppresserit vel ad opprimendum venerit aliquam ex civitatibus Dalmacie, quod nos omnes civitates Dalmacie teneremur una aliam adiuvare. Et quod in presenti liga et unione comprehendantur omnes nostri cirumvicini de terra firma, quod contra eos facta liga ipsa intelligatur, cui civitatem nostram opprimere vellent.” October 22, 1382. Dinić, Odluke veća, 262–63.

  67. 67 Dinić, Odluke veća, 262–63; Gelcich and Thallóczy, Diplomatarium, 701–2; Resti, Chronica Ragusina, 170; Matković, “Prilozi,” 209; Foretić, Povijest Dubrovnika, 164; Raukar, Zadar u XV. stoljeću, 32; Raukar, Hrvatsko srednjovjekovlje: 86; Ančić, Putanja klatna, 208–9.

  68. 68 “Iuravimu invicem et visissim unitatem, fraternitatem et amicitiam perpetuam et iuavare alter alteri toto posse et scitu, semper in fidelitate et fidei constantia dominarum nostrarum reginarum et sacrae coronae ungariae.” Šišić, “Memoriale,” 5–6. N. Klaić points out the interesting emphasis on the loyalty to both queens, Klaić, Povijest Hrvata, 655.

  69. 69 The king himself halted the diplomatic initiative of Dubrovnik at the beginning of 1358, directed at other Dalmatian cities with the goal of preserving their recently acquired freedom. D. Gruber interprets this royal action as a result of Louis’ mistrust and, in particular, the king’s fear that such an alliance of cities would likely restrict royal rights in the newly acquired province. Gruber, “Dalmacija za Ludovika I.,” 172–73.

  70. 70 Queen Elizabeth had sent her envoy John Besenyő to the Dalmatian cities, who was then received by the Zadar commune, Kostrenčić, Diplomatički zbornik, vol. 16, 324, doc. 259, 330, doc. 263. The citizens of Zadar took an oath of fealty before the queen’s envoys, Kostrenčić, Diplomatički zbornik, 344–45, doc. 273; Šišić, “Memoriale,” 6. Both the queen mother Elizabeth and the junior queen Maria arrived in Zadar in October of 1383, Šišić, “Memoriale,” 6. The arrival of the queens can certainly be put into the context of the already active rebellious activities in the nearby fort of Vrana. Klaić, Povijest Hrvata, 655–56.

  71. 71 The exceptional position of Zadar and its nobility within the Angevin politics in the province, as well as the proximity of the rebels in Vrana, should not be dismissed as a significant differentiating factor in determining the mood within the city itself, as well as in its comparison with and potential extrapolation to other Dalmatian municipal centers.

  72. 72 Šišić, “Memoriale,” 8–9. Problematizing this case, N. Klaić asserted that the reason for the growing dissatisfaction in Zadar should be sought in the absence of privileges granted by the two queens during their stay. According to Klaić, the people of Zadar, who simultaneously inherited close ties with Charles of Durazzo, were disappointed by the lack of the clearly expressed favor of the new rulers, Klaić and Petricioli, Zadar u srednjem vijeku, 355. Apart from this disruption of the delicate balance between the center and the periphery of the kingdom, in order to understand the dissatisfaction and particularly the uncertainty in the new political order, it is important to consider the mental landscape of that time. Namely, the coronation of Mary in 1382 represents a rare example of a woman ascending to the Hungarian throne. The fact that Mary was officially crowned “rex Hungariae” also indicates the extent to which the aforementioned course of events constituted an anomaly for the milieu in question: Bak, “Roles and Functions of Queens,” 21.

  73. 73 The gravity of this information, that is, the importance of the fact that the rebellion against the Angevin ruling house was emerging precisely in Zadar, becomes even more apparent when we consider not only the position of the city under Angevin rule but also the length of the relationship between Zadar and the Angevin dynasty. A brief overview of the connections between Zadar and the Angevins can be found in: E. Peričić, “Zadar u doba prvih veza s Anžuvincima.”

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Fathers of Budapest, Daughters of the Countryside:pdf
Recontextualizing Cultural Change in Fin-de-Siècle Hungary

Ábel Bede

Durham University

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Hungarian Historical Review Volume 13 Issue 4 (2024): 623-654 DOI 10.38145/2024.4.623

There is a historiographical consensus that there was a cultural paradigm shift in the first decade of the twentieth century in Hungary, though its exact characteristics have not been clearly defined. This article will demonstrate that there was a unifying theme in the works and philosophy of the generation that came to cultural relevance around 1905 which transcended ideological boundaries. The members of the new generation had a negative image of Budapest and idealized rural areas and rural communities. This essay will examine newspapers of the period, such as the Catholic Alkotmány (Constitution), the feminist A Nő és a Társadalom (Woman and Society), and the liberal Nyugat (The West) and argue that anti-Budapest sentiments and the idealization of the countryside were present in writings published in all of them. It will also show that novels from the period by Margit Kaffka and Terka Lux all revolve around criticism of Budapest and praise of the rural world.1

Keywords: fin-de-siècle Hungary, anti-urban sentiments, cultural change, literature, journalism, Budapest

In the second half of the nineteenth century in Hungary, the Liberal Party won eight elections in a row between 1875 and 1905. During this period, after having been officially created in 1873 and thanks in no small part to capitalist enterprise and laissez-faire liberalism, Budapest became a city described by historians such as Péter Hanák, John Lukacs, Mary Gluck, Judit Frigyesi, Gábor Gyáni, and Markian Prokopovych as a thriving metropolis with a booming cultural life.2 Between 1870 and 1910, Budapest’s population tripled from 270,685 to 863,735.3 The number of schools more than doubled between 1875 and 1900, and as a result, by 1910, the city’s literacy rate reached 90 percent.4 Budapest’s population was also ethnically (and linguistically) diverse.5 The city’s emerging entrepreneurial spirit also gave rise to numerous cafés all over Budapest, which served as venues where new newspapers, the products of an industry that exploded at the turn of the century, could be read.6 However, on average, the rural parts of the country provided a sharp contrast to the capital. The economic growth rate of the villages and towns in rural Hungary was below the Eastern European average.7 Literacy rates outside Budapest were significantly lower, at 50 percent.8

As this article will show, as a reaction to these processes, around 1905, a generation came of age that turned away from the metropolis and towards the glorification of the rural world and its perceived attributes. The period was a significant turning point in Hungary. In 1906, The Party of Independence and 48 ended the three-decade-long rule of the Liberal Party. The same year, Endre Ady published his influential collection of poems Új Versek (New Poems), and The Hungarian Fauves held their first exhibition.9 1907 saw the launch of the country’s first feminist journal, A Nő és a Társadalom (Woman and Society) as well as antisemitic student protests against prominent Jewish lecturers.10 These years also saw the launch of the influential journal Nyugat (The West) in 1908 and the foundation of the avantgarde group of painters The Eight. The cultural tide was turning.

Anti-Urbanism and Cultural Change

The idealization of nature and landscape was a key feature of Romanticism, and emphasis on the negative consequences of modernization and urban living, in contrast with an idealized countryside, were prominent features of European culture in the nineteenth century.11 Historians acknowledged that some form of anti-urbanism was present in European fin-de-siècle politics as part of a counterreaction to modernism and urbanization.12 Georg Simmel’s 1903 essay “The Metropolis and Mental Life” offers an excellent analysis of pro- and anti-metropolitan sentiments. Simmel wrote extensively about the alienating nature of the city.13 Similarly, in Britain, J. A. Hobson worried about urbanization, suggesting that metropolitan citizens develop a mob mentality and receptiveness to sensationalist messaging.14

This article will show that similar anti-urban sentiments were present in Hungary in the same period. But the foundations for these sentiments and the image of Budapest as a “sinful city” were laid in nineteenth-century writings. As early as 1790, József Gvadányi’s Egy falusi nótáriusnak budai utazása (A village notary’s journey to Buda) criticized the inhabitants of Buda and Pest for following fashion trends and not adhering to the culinary and cultural traditions safeguarded by the people who lived in the rural parts of the country.15 Several historians argued that, in the mid-nineteenth century, a number of Hungarian crime and mystery authors, drawing inspiration from The Mysteries of Paris series (1842–1843) by Eugéne Sue, depicted Budapest as a sinful city full of crime and prostitution.16 They mention works such as Ignác Nagy’s Magyar titkok (Hungarian secrets, 1844–1845), Lajos Kuthy’s Hazai rejtelmek (Homeland mysteries, 1846–1847), József Kiss’ Budapesti rejtelmek (Budapest mysteries, 1874), and Soma Gúthi’s short stories and novellas (1907–1908). Mónika Mátay and András Horváth J. showed that sensationalized crime reporting in late nineteenth-century newspapers and the city’s high suicide rates also contributed to the trope that Budapest was a “sinful city” which was dangerous for young rural women.17

Yet the anti-Budapest materials published later, in the first decade of the twentieth century, have special significance. When Nagy or Kuthy or let alone Gvadányi wrote their texts, Budapest had not yet even existed, given that it was only established as a unified city in 1873. As Károly Vörös argued, Budapest’s prominent architectural, infrastructural, cultural, and economic features were only in the process of taking shape between 1873 and 1896 and could only be considered “complete” at the start of the millennium exhibition in 1896.18

The texts discussing the social and cultural ills of Budapest earlier in the nineteenth century describe those of a city in the process of being born and having the potential to change for the better.19 As Anna Márton-Simon demonstrated, Nagy’s Magyar titkok, while portraying Pest-Buda’s sinful nature, contrasted the city with Paris and highlighted how it had not yet reached the same level of modernity infrastructurally or socially, and wished for faster urbanization.20 Márton-Simon has also argued that Kuthy proposed efforts to protect the Hungarian identity of the city by ensuring that its inhabitants spoke Hungarian and had a commitment to Hungarian culture, as he feared the “potential and probable” loss of the nation’s capital.21 Finally, as she also notes, in Kiss’s novel, Budapest appears as a construction site. The city’s key attribute is constant change, making it capable of overcoming its flaws.22 As for the 1880s–90s, Mónika Mátay demonstrates that there were two schools of thought in relation to the capital’s problems with prostitution, and neither perceived it as an inherent feature of Budapest. One line of argument highlighted that it was due to social problems and poverty. The other blamed the alleged ill morals of the prostitutes themselves.23

As the discussion below shows, a significant difference compared to the nineteenth-century attitudes to Budapest is that while some of the post-1900 discourse around the metropolis still treated Budapest as a new city, unlike their predecessors, this generation was able to speak about a city with a more established identity. They perceived Budapest’s “sinful” aspects not as something that could be changed but rather as already solidified, inherent features of the city. Additionally, it is worth noting that the aforementioned nineteenth-century examples of “sinful Budapest” depictions were mystery/crime novels or newspaper crime reports. In contrast, none of the novels that will be discussed in this essay are crime or mystery novels and none of the newspaper articles are crime reports, yet they all depict Budapest negatively. This shows a broad extension of the trope of the sinful city, indicating a wider cultural change in attitudes towards Budapest.

The idea of a cultural change in Hungary in the first decade of the twentieth century has not gone unnoticed by historians. There are plenty of narratives as to what led to the cultural paradigmatic shift of the early 1900s, which is often described as a conflict between two generations. Mary Gluck highlighted increasing disillusionment with capitalism as the chief cause of the conflict between two generations, which she labeled, in the title to the third chapter of her book, “Liberal Fathers and Postliberal Children.”24 Gluck’s work served as an inspiration for this article, however her term “postliberal” is too narrow to describe the newly emerging generation, as it does not offer any indication of the values of this generation apart from them having turned their backs on liberalism.

Other historians, such as John Lukacs and Judit Frigyesi, acknowledged that the paradigm shift of early 1900s Hungary had some urban-rural dimensions.25 However, the latter thought that the new generation lacked a shared ideological vision, and its members were only united by mutual personal connections and their desire for change, while the former stated that the main conflict of the period was between the Jewish and non-Jewish populations of the country. Miklós Lackó also wrote of an “anti-town mood,” which he claimed grew stronger in turn-of-century Hungarian literature, though he did not elaborate on the ways in which it found expression.26 Gábor Kovács acknowledged the presence of what he described as an anti-urban counterculture in fin-de-siècle Hungary, however he perceived it as an exclusively rightwing phenomenon.27 Finally, Robert Nemes explained the changing cultural landscape by arguing that the formerly influential ethnically Hungarian gentry was losing its influence and wealth and, as a result, turned to Catholic nationalism, which often contained a heavy strain of antisemitism.28

The discussion below argues that antisemitic tensions were only part of the main cultural conflict of the period. It demonstrates that there was a unifying theme in the works and philosophy of the generation that came to cultural relevance around 1905. As opposed to their fathers who built the metropolis, the members of the new generation had an overwhelmingly negative view of Budapest and an idyllic one of rural Hungary. These sentiments were present not only in rightwing circles, such as in the newspaper Alkotmány (Constitution) but also in liberal and feminist newspapers (such as Nyugat and A Nő és a Társadalom) and in the novels of the newly emerging female writers of the period, Terka Lux and Margit Kaffka.

If one seeks to understand the political changes in Hungary in the first decade of the twentieth century, then it is crucial to understand the cultural changes that took place around 1905, the only time the Liberal Party lost an election in fin-de-siècle Hungary. A more nuanced grasp of the cultural context of the Independence Party’s victory furthers a better understanding of its electoral success. Rising nationalism eventually also played a part in the collapse of the Monarchy. By understanding the urban-rural divide in Hungary in the early 1900s, we might thus arrive at a more complex understanding of why Austria-Hungary collapsed. Finally, anti-Budapest rhetoric that portrayed the capital as a sinful city that lacked Hungarian character was also a feature of the emerging Horthy regime in the 1920s.29 Understanding the origins of this rhetoric may lead to a better grasp of its later reemergence as an effective political tool.

“The Business of Abandoned Villages”: Journalism

The turn of the century saw the rise of numerous new journals and newspapers in Hungary across the political spectrum. Budapest’s liberal cultural elite could read, for example, A Hét (The Week), which first went into publication in 1890, and then Nyugat from 1908. Feminists could read A Nő és a Társadalom, which was launched in1907, and, in addition to the existing periodical Magyar Állam (The Hungarian State, 1868–1908), Catholic activists could enjoy Alkotmány between 1898 and 1919 and Néppárt (People’s Party) between 1899 and 1909. The fact that anti-Budapest discourse was present in these ideologically diverse papers shows how prevalent anti-urban sentiments were in the first decade of the twentieth century.

The fact that Alkotmány, a periodical backed by Catholic radicals, contained heavily anti-urban and antisemitic passages should not come as a surprise. The role of the Catholic Church in the rise of nineteenth-century European antisemitism has been widely discussed.30 What this section will focus on is the specific anti-urban nature of the articles in Alkotmány. Antisemitism in fin-de-siècle Hungary already has a rich historiography. From the Tiszaeszlár blood libel scandal to the resurgence of antisemitic Catholic radicalism in Austria-Hungary, the topic has been covered from various angles.31 A substantial share of the secondary literature, however, discusses antisemitism or the rise of the far right in isolation, when in reality, turn-of-century antisemitism can also be understood as a manifestation of a wider metropolitan-rural divide.

It is a widely held view that antisemitism has had an anti-urban component in Europe.32 By turning to antisemitic tropes, rightwing agrarians could summarize their anti-capitalist, anti-cosmopolitan sentiments.33 There were three manifestations of anti-urban antisemitism in Alkotmány: opposition to capitalism, opposition to liberalism and cosmopolitanism, and opposition to Budapest’s alleged lack of national character. An article from 1901 offers an example of the predominantly anti-capitalist antisemitism in the writings published in Alkotmány:

Just look at the hundreds of millionaires in Lipótvárosand its surrounding neighborhoods: the foreign breweries, slaughterhouses, and gamblers. They got rich, did not risk anything, and lived happily even before the state discounts because destroying the common man’s small businesses created enough advantages for them already. […] The moving cosmopolitan capital, which has settled down in the country out of do ut des reasons, has always tried to remain in close friendship with the liberal governments.34

While at first glance the text is simply anti-capitalist, there are several signs that demonstrate its antisemitism. For instance, the idea of a “cosmopolitan capital” that has good relations with liberal parties was a frequent antisemitic trope.35 Additionally, the text specifies “Lipótváros and its neighborhoods” as the center of capitalist destruction. Alkotmány frequently portrayed this part of the city as an area defined by its Jewish population. Thus, the criticisms of the liberal elite, which the paper claims ignored the negative consequences of fin-de-siècle entrepreneurism and industrialization and the effects of large corporations on small businesses, are given an antisemitic coating either because the author genuinely thought this way or simply to appeal to the paper’s readership by finding a scapegoat for complex issues that were the result of urbanization and capitalism.

Another example of anti-urban and anti-capitalist antisemitism is apparent in this article from 1904:

Today, in the golden age of liberalism, the Jews are the lords of Hungary. […] They have the land, the money, the banks and loans, as well as the companies. […] The vast majority of the doctors and lawyers are Jewish. They swarmed the theaters, the arts, literature, and the press. They infiltrated the universities and teach at the academies, high schools, and community schools. […] First, they demand money from the taxpayer, then they want their rabbis and butchers to be above the law so that they can create a state within the state based on the laws of Moses.36

The article contains several familiar antisemitic tropes, such as references to banks and loans, opposition to liberalism, and anxiety about the emergence of a thriving Jewish society at the perceived expense of the wider Hungarian population. However, at closer look, the unifying theme among these professions, which are labeled “Jewish” in the article, is their metropolitan attributes. The middle-class professions of doctors and lawyers mostly thrive in cities. The vast majority of Hungary’s papers were printed in Budapest, which was also the center of the country’s art scene and the site of its most prestigious universities. Thus, the unifying theme that the antisemitic Alkotmány despised was not inherently aspects of Jewish life but the life and culture of the metropolis.

This life and culture most easily found expression in the newly emerging literary life. Therefore, it should be no surprise that the newly founded Budapest-based papers were a frequent target of Alkotmány’s journalists. Alkotmány even labeled one of the most prominent papers of the period, A Hét, a Jewish paper:

We read in the Jewish papers that the weekly Jewish paper A Hét is celebrating the tenth anniversary of its first publication. The […] anniversary-edition, […] according to Budapesti Napló [Budapest Diary], was created by the entirety of the Hungarian literary world. Hold on! We happily concede that the Jewish literary are present in A Hét, a paper unfit for the desk of a Hungarian. However, no one dare say that “the entirety of the Hungarian literary world” merely comes from Lipótváros and its surrounding neighborhoods. Thank God, there are still plenty of Christian Hungarian writers. Jewish Hungarian writers do not exist. There are Jewish writers who write in Hungarian, that’s it.37

As in the case of the earlier passages, it is worth examining the primary target of the attack in this passage. The journalist states that the values represented by A Hét are unworthy of being on the desk of a Hungarian person and cannot be considered part of the literary canon. A Hét primarily wrote for the middle-class liberals of Budapest, but the author purposefully identifies this societal segment with the Jews exclusively. For example, as was true of the earlier writing, this passage also includes the phrase “Lipótváros and its surrounding neighborhoods.”

The fact that the author identifies “Lipótváros and its surrounding neighbor­hoods” as both predominantly Jewish and as the personification of everything the author seems to despise lays bare the core of Alkotmány’s value system. Contrary to what Alkotmány regularly indicates, Lipótváros district was not a Jewish-majority neighborhood. In both 1900 and 1906, only 28 percent of the district’s population were Jewish, with the largest religious group being Roman Catholic (56 percent).38 If Alkotmány really sought simply to stir hatred against the Jews as an ethnic group, they could have identified Terézváros district as their primary target, given that its Jewish population in its central areas almost matched its Catholic population (42 percent and 45 percent respectively).39

However, the key lies in the class composition of the two districts. While Lipótváros was an affluent neighborhood, Terézváros was an impoverished district.40 Thus, Alkotmány did not simply attack Jews. Rather, it vilified Jews who allegedly had benefited from urbanization and capitalism, who were perceived by the periodical as more influential. Any admission that the Hungarian elites had also taken part in the creation of an urban, liberal, and capitalist new Hungary would not have fit their narrative. With exaggerations, Alkotmány could portray the middle-class Jewish minority of Lipótváros,who fit the prevalent antisemitic stereotypes because of their wealth and influence in the city, as powerful foreign figures intent on destroying Hungarian values. Thus, the antisemitism of Catholic radicals in Hungary was heavily influenced by their contempt for a cosmopolitan, liberal Budapest, and not vice-versa.

One finds further support for this conclusion in the numerous articles published in Alkotmány in which antisemitism is merely a smaller part of a wider criticism of liberalism and cosmopolitanism. An article printed in Alkotmány in late 1900 argues that liberalism had once been a Hungarian national project but now exclusively had come to serve cosmopolitanism:

Liberalism ceased to be Hungarian. It became cosmopolitan. […] Cosmopolitan liberalism in its Hungarian disguise merely preaches [tolerance] but does not practice it. It preaches patriotism yet excludes all anti-liberal Hungarian Christians. It preaches religious freedom yet does not satisfy the deeply hurt Catholics but retreats from the Jews.41

Thus, for the author of this article the primary grievance concerned the cosmopolitan aspects of liberalism. Catholic Hungarians were allegedly excluded from the liberal project. It is beyond the scope of this article to examine the extent to which claims that the Liberal Party was intolerant of Catholics or Hungarian nationalists are legitimate, but it is worth bearing in mind that the liberal Hungarian elite often compromised on the public expression of certain manifestations of Hungarian identity by censoring lyrics if imperial delegations were present at plays or by refusing to attend memorials and funerals of revolutionary heroes in an official capacity.42

This article is also noteworthy because it recognizes the emerging counter­culture that started to find its foot around the time the article was published: “Cosmopolitan liberalism will not always be present in Hungary. It is already on its way out. […] Hungarian Christians started to organize politically and economically. They started to organize in literature, in science, and in schools.”43

The Catholic radicals recognized the beginnings of certain cultural processes that in five years’ time would contribute to the outcome of the 1905 elections. Alkotmány itself had gone into publication in 1898, only two years before the article was printed, and the Catholic People’s Party was founded in 1895.

In an earlier article published in Alkotmány, there was an explicit link between the downfall of the gentry articulated by Robert Nemes and the emerging cultural anxiety and anti-metropolitan, anti-urban sentiments:

In one or two years, the unique representatives of the middle classes, the gentry, will be a thing of the past. […] Because the inhabitants of the patriarchal noble mansions are disappearing from the villages, and their place is being taken over by some cosmopolitan-type landowners. The gentry goes to the city and sets camp in the county or national bureaus just to become [a clerk]. […] There is no better way for Hungarian society to rid itself of its cosmopolitan character than strengthening the class for whom every inspiration comes from the land: the Hungarian land soaked in the blood of our ancestors.44

The article goes on to call the landowners “the cosmopolitan type race, whose land grabs have intensified in the past decades,” clearly claiming that it was Jewish landowners who had acquired the lands of the lower gentry.45 The entire article is perhaps the clearest example of Alkotmány’s many pieces that reflect an important trend in the Zeitgeist: opposition to the established city culture, with its liberal politics, disappearing Hungarian gentry, and presence of Jews.

Interestingly, the notion that Budapest was  “un-Hungarian” appeared not only in the writings of radical Catholics but also in the liberal press. In the prominent, Western-oriented literary journal Nyugat, Aladár Schöpflin, a liberal critic who was the first to spot several later literary giants, discussed the potential reason for the differences between the city and the rest of the country.46

Hungarians never had a city. The second they started to grow, they were crushed by the horrors of history. […] The cities that slowly but surely started to develop, Buda, Pest, Arad, Temesvár, and Nagyvárad, were all formed of German elements, and at the beginning of the nineteenth century, they were exclusively German. Ethnic Hungarians lived in villages.47

Thus, we see how Schöpflin attributes the metropolitan-urban divide to historical and ethnic origins. The cities were predominantly German, and Hungarians lived in villages and towns. In his interpretation, it is this ethnic conflict that resulted in the generational conflict of his times:

It was the generation of our fathers that made Budapest Hungarian. […] Very few of the people of Budapest who bear original Hungarian names were actually born in Budapest. The majority of ethnic Hungarians are still alien in the capital. […] The present ruling generation still hasn’t formed Budapest to their own image. Parliament is managing the country’s business in a county-like and village-like manner. […] In Budapest’s public life, we rarely see any ethnic Hungarians: they are still more interested in the business of abandoned villages or counties than that of the capital in which they live and in which their sons will live.48

It is difficult to confirm Schöpflin’s contentions concerning the other cities he mentions (detailed ethnographic data regarding those cities is only available from 1880), but it is true that in Pest-Buda, even in 1850, 49 percent of the population identified as German and only 31 percent as Hungarian, which does partially support his claims.49 However, given that there was a significant Hungarian population earlier, it is an exaggeration to say that very few Hungarians were born in Budapest.

Schöpflin wrote this article in 1908, two years after the coalition led by the Party of Independence formed its government. Therefore, by the “present ruling generation” Schöpflin means the nationalist intelligentsia of the Party of Independence and its coalition partners, who were hostile to the metropolis. For many of the ethnic Hungarians who came from outside the city’s borders, Budapest felt unfamiliar and foreign despite the fact that most of the denizens of the city spoke Hungarian by the early 1900s. However, the greatest difference between them and the liberal, Hungarian-speaking children of the German middle class was that they did not consider Budapest’s “un-Hungarian” nature inherently negative. The liberal intelligentsia’s problem with the capital, as shown through Margit Kaffka’s writings, was something entirely different. It is also evident, on the basis of Schöpflin contentions, that some grievances regarding the liberal negligence of rural Hungary in favor of Budapest were legitimate. Schöpflin dismissed those who tried to improve small town communities by labeling them “abandoned villages and counties.”

Dissatisfaction with the capital was also present in periodicals in which one would not necessarily have expected to find it. As elsewhere in Europe, discussions of gender-based inequality were becoming part of the discourses of the political and cultural mainstream. Partially thanks to capitalist economic development, the idea of the “new woman,” who could express herself through her profession, became prominent.50 To help facilitate these discussions, official feminist organizations were formed, which also led to more representation of women in contemporary periodicals. In 1904, Róza Bédy-Schwimmer and Vilma Glüklich founded the Feminist Association, which started publishing its own journal, A Nő és a Társadalom, in 1907.51

Dóra Czeferner has argued that the Feminist Association’s first official journal played an important role in spreading feminist ideas both in Budapest and outside the capital.52 The journal was distributed freely to members of the association (there were 2,100 members in 1907 and 5,175 in 1914) and also had additional subscribers, plus a readership in cafés, restaurants, and reading groups.53 While this may not seem a high number, Czeferner notes that this meant a larger readership than that of similar publications had in Austria.54 Moreover, regardless of the readership, as the official outlet of the Hungarian Feminist Association, A Nő és a Társadalom is an invaluable source on mainstream contemporary feminist thinking.

Contrary to what one would expect, feminist journalists considered Budapest the hotbed of patriarchy, not the more traditional rural towns and villages. The first issues of A Nő és a Társadalom, for instance, regularly published reports on the operations of feminist organizations outside Budapest as well as calls for women to move to the countryside. A 1908 issue of the journal started with a report on the operation of the local feminist organization of Balmazújváros (a town in the Northern Great Plain). The extensive report, authored by Róza Bédy-Schwimmer (1877–1948), the editor-in-chief of the paper, wrote in admiration of the Balmazújváros group and dismissed those who looked down on feminists outside the capital:

This is not a joke. This is much more than “Mucsa feminism.” This doesn’t mean that the wives and daughters of Balmazújváros’s educated elite have sworn an oath to the flag of feminism. This means much more. […] In Balmazújváros, the Feminist Organization can be found in the center of the National Peasant Party.55

The fact that Bédy-Schwimmer felt it important to defend feminists in rural Hungary from condescending terms such as “Mucsa” (a slur of sorts against the people of rural Hungary which implied backwardness) indicates that many before her must have looked down on them. The text clearly has a class element as well. By drawing comparisons with the National Peasant Party and dismissing the “wives and daughters of the Balmazújváros elite,” the article reinforces the idea that the group is popular among the lower classes of Balmazújváros as well.

A Nő és a Társadalom not only praised the feminists of rural Hungary but also actively encouraged its readers to move out of the overcrowded Budapest, as the rural world offered a better life for them. An earlier issue of the paper featured an article by the president of The Feminist Association, Janka Groszmann, which offered the following argument:

Until the evolution and expansion [of cities] were not having a negative effect on the citizens, it bothered no one. However, now the skyscrapers, the overcrowded flats, the noise of the metropolis traffic, the rush, and the nervous pace made it possible to change our approach to how we think about urban development.56

Groszmann goes on to describe the city as lacking air and vegetation, and she argues that the idea of building villas with plenty of green spaces will only benefit the well-off.57 She argues that for women of more modest means, there is only one solution that will also help them break out of the patriarchal system:

Those who do not have strong practical or emotional ties to the capital can easily help the situation by moving to rural areas, at least for a few years. […] Fathers are proud if their sons […] succeed in a different environment. But they would under no circumstances allow their daughters to explore the world. Unfortunately, the girls don’t notice how humiliating these loving fears are either. […] Just like those who are opposed to feminism, people who oppose opportunities for women to work in different towns […] keep listing the reasons that haven’t proven totally unfounded during the long fight for economic independence for women.58

Groszmann then lists other benefits of rural life:

Exercise, walking, and studying are all wonderful ways of spending the evening leisure time, and there is much more time and opportunity for these in rural areas than in the metropolis. […] For the individual, the easier livelihood and the healthier environment both make living in the rural world an experience much to be recommended, and the feminist movement also demands that its members help women organize throughout the country, not just in the capital.59

Groszmann’s articles encapsulate contemporary attitudes to Budapest and the rural world. She considered life in overcrowded Budapest undesirable, and she encouraged women to move to the countryside.

Given that regardless of one’s political affiliation, journalists blamed the capital for the contemporary social and political developments they opposed, it is worth considering whether it was actually Budapest they had a problem with or just its imagined attributes. After all, the Catholic radicals of Alkotmány blamed Budapest for the decline of the patriarchy, while the feminists encouraged women to leave it because they claimed the city upheld its institution. As the excerpts indicate, the capital did genuinely contain some elements these two groups found undesirable. Alkotmány and the Catholic radicals disliked cosmopolitanism because it directly contradicted their values. Feminists could rightfully be wary of the increased accumulation of wealth and capital by businessmen, which increased their power and consequently women’s reliance on them. However, Catholic radicals and feminists projected other disliked features of their times that were otherwise unrelated to the capital. They thus gave the city of Budapest exclusively negative connotations, effectively demonizing it.

Their ideas about rural Hungary were also often naive or false. A Nő és a Társadalom may have celebrated the feminists of Balmazújváros, but in reality, their feminist organization had a much stronger foothold in Budapest than anywhere else.60 Alkotmány’s journalists,who falsely identified Jews as the sole representatives of the complex forces that decreased their cultural influence, naively or purposefully used an imagined topography of Budapest and Hungary. In reality, there was a significant Jewish population in the Hungarian countryside and liberalism and capitalism were present outside the metropolis as well.

The Budapest Flâneuse: Women’s Literature

The early years of the twentieth century saw an increased representation of women in literary life. A number of public spaces opened up for women, some of whom even got to contribute to the era’s most influential journals.61 The women in this chapter, Terka Lux and Margit Kaffka, represented different branches and different degrees of commitment to feminism. Yet they both articulated similar ideas about the relationship between Budapest and rural Hungary.

Lux wrote extensively about life in Budapest as experienced by women. These novels contain explicit social criticism regarding life in the metropolis, yet they are often analyzed only in the context of women’s literature. By understanding them as part of a wider cultural paradigm shift, one discovers other themes in their pages.

Born in Szilágysomlyó and having grown up in poverty, Terka Lux (1873–1938) was a social democratic feminist, meaning she was in favor of female suffrage but her priorities were to address the social and economic inequalities of women.62 She wrote a number of novels and short stories, most of which centered around the female experience of the capital’s social dynamics.63 Two of these novels, Leányok (Girls)and Budapest, articulate her thoughts on life in the capital most clearly. Both of these books star young women from rural Hungary, and follow their coming of age as they explore the metropolis.

Leányok, published in 1906, follows the story of three maids in Budapest, Juli, Janka, and Baba, who, like most maids in the period, come to the capital from rural communities. All three protagonists face challenges and meet characters who exemplify the world of Budapest at the time. There are several ways in which Lux portrays the city as the “villain” of the book. The first is the plot and the overall message of the novel. All three protagonists are seduced by some aspect of city life. Two of them fail to resist. Baba’s arc is the clearest manifestation of the city’s villainy. She tries to pursue an acting career with some degree of success. She ends up falling in love and becomes pregnant. The man disappears from her life, so she tries to abort the child, but complications arise, and she does not survive the procedure.

The city ruins Janka’s life in a different way. Her main problem is that she represents “the traditional woman” who, because of her values, can be more easily exploited in the big city. Janka refuses to study anything apart from music in the expectation that she can meet and marry a rich man. Her wish is fulfilled, but she ends up marrying a man she does not love at all.

The only protagonist who resists the temptations of the city and ends up leading a happy life is Juli. She represents “the New Woman” who, alongside her day job, studies to be a nurse. She encounters similar temptations as Baba and Juli, but resists them. She rejects free love, and when Baba asks for her help with her abortion, she refuses on moral grounds. Her “reward” will be to move back to rural Hungary and marry. But unlike Janka, she chooses to marry, and she is not forced into marriage because she has no other option. She is free to choose how she performs her femininity.

This plot clearly reflects Lux’s type of feminism and contemporary fears. She condemned free love, which she thought led to the destruction of family unity (hence Lux’s strong condemnation of abortion in her novel).64 Budapest is the “villain” of the novel because it poses a threat to young women, who will give up on their familial duties by encouraging them to love freely. Juli “wins the game” because she resists the temptations of the city and moves to Lux’s idea of the more peaceful, morally pure rural world.

Judit Kádár argues that this ending symbolizes the dominance of the rural patriarchy.65 However, the message of the novel is slightly more complex. As she noted, Lux considered starting a family the ideal way of performing femininity, but women had to be economically independent and able to choose their path and the man whom they would marry.66 Thus, the rural world is not portrayed as a place full of prejudice. Rather, it is where Juli’s femininity can be expressed ideally as a result of her choice. As a qualified nurse, she will be able to provide for her family independently if necessary.

The subjective portrayal of life in Budapest does not end at Leányok’s plot. Lux uses her literary skills to paint a negative, somber, and sometimes frightening picture of the city. She introduces it from the point of view of young women. Whenever Lux describes the exterior of the city, her words create a negatively charged environment:

It was a dark, dirty, and narrow garden in Király Street, full of boxes and carts. Pale and dirty children were playing amongst the crates. In the sombre, quiet, and lukewarm September rain, the girls could hear the deafening screeches of the streets through the open gate. Baba looked from right to left, glaring at the tall buildings while she listened to the ugly, hellish noise of the city almost lustfully.67

Lux also uses Budapest’s street aesthetics to convey the degree of the poverty in which her characters live. She even goes so far as to blame the city’s atmosphere for the misery of those living in it:

[The walls of the house] were crumbling. […] The chimneys kept fuming filthy, thick smoke all day. It smelled like soot. The smoke covered everything like a nightmare. It was in the air, in the houses, and even in people’s souls. The air is smothering, the houses are filthy from the inside out, and the workers are exhausted and apathetic. Their souls are full of sorrow.68

The two excerpts show that, in Lux’s version of the capital, there is something inherently bad in the Budapest air that makes the lives of the city’s inhabitants terrible.

Budapest, Lux’s better-known novel, explores similar themesbut less skillfully than its predecessor. In the introduction,Lux openly states that the book should be read as a Budapest-guidebook. This guidebook can both be interpreted literally but also as a guidebook to Budapest’s society and its character:

The reader should treat my writing like an illustrated guidebook to Budapest. […] This is our Budapest. […] The scorned, despised, excluded, and profaned stone-lady, who […] takes away everything; happiness, peace, honor, and life.69

Similarly to Leányok, Budapest is also about a young woman who is tempted by various stereotypical challenges and characters in the city. Fáni Schneider, however, unlike Juli in Leányok, learns to fight back and becomes as immoral as the city itself. At one point, she even says, “[t]his was the city that stole everything from me! Now it’s my turn to take everything from it.”70 Fáni becomes disillusioned and arrogant by the end of the novel, suggesting the corrupting nature of the capital.

Like in her previous book, Lux makes the city the main villain of the story. Crucially, Fáni encounters the first “immoral” temptation on its streets in the form of a sculptor who becomes her lover.71 Elsewhere, the book’s characters openly articulate Lux’s opinions of the city to an almost comically blatant extent:

“They all said the street taught them! The street seduced them. […] You filthy capital! You!” And she spat on the street. “Everything belongs to you: honor, money, land, life! Everything belongs to the [financial] capital. To the palaces! To this!”72

Thus, in Budapest, Lux names the main reason why the city is so sinful and corrupt. She aims to show throughout the novel that it is the rule of capital that makes Budapest a terrible place for young women to live in.73

Thus, similarly to some of the nationalists, Lux’s main problem with Budapest was the capitalist world that flourished there. Lux portrayed the capital in a heavily distorted way by completely ignoring the fact that, though undoubtedly stronger in the metropolis, capitalism was also present in rural Hungary. However, contrary to the Catholic radicals, she does not equate capitalism with the Jews or cosmopolitanism. The accumulation of capital appears as the main problem rather than as a symptom of something else.

It would be impossible to discuss fin-de-siècle women’s literature in Hungary without examining the works of its most famous representative, Margit Kaffka (1880–1918). Kaffka is an ideal choice to explore the social dynamics of Budapest and rural Hungary from a female point of view, as she experienced life in both places in the same era. She was born in Carei, or Nagykároly by its Hungarian name, a small town in Transylvania.74 After spending time as a teacher in Miskolc, Kaffka rose to prominence in Budapest as the leading woman writer of the period.75 In his analysis of her novel Színek és évek (Colours and years), Robert Nemes examines the ways in which Kaffka was able to write social commentary concerning the crisis of the gentry as well as the hierarchy of Budapest and rural towns.76

Állomások (Stations), one of Kaffka’s other novels, also offers criticism of Budapest’s liberal elite, a longing for the countryside, and most crucially, an example of how Kaffka also portrayed Budapest as the city of sin. While the first edition of the novel was published in 1914, which is slightly later than the period discussed in this article, due to its autobiographical nature and the story building on the author’s past experiences, it deals with the relevant period and thus can be considered a valuable source on perceptions of the culture of Budapest around 1905.

Györgyi Horváth aptly referred to Kaffka as a flâneuse, i.e. a female wan­derer who observes the city.77 Állomások provides an excellent portrayal of contemporary Budapest and its society. The semi-autobiographical novel follows the life of Éva Rosztoky, a painter from rural Hungary who joins Budapest’s elite circles. Kaffka was rather critical of this elite, as she felt that they tried to fulfil the social expectations of the city instead of expressing their individuality. She thought this was no different from the prejudices for which many criticized the world of rural Hungary. She communicates this criticism through her main character in Állomások:

There were others in this “city-center” group who she looked down on. She knew well that all their laws are external. They all had their prejudices, which were only distinguished from the prejudices of the stricter country people by their false and easily trickable nature.78

Kaffka’s Budapest was not only judgmental but, similarly to Terka Lux’s interpretation of the capital, it was also the very embodiment of sinfulness. Towards the end of the novel, Éva and her bohemian friends retire to the hills behind Buda and look at the city from the distance with disgust. This provides a literary perspective from which Kaffka can observe and describe the entire metropolis and label it a “rioting, bloody, hungry, and poisoned city.”79 Similarly, in the final pages of the book, Éva is sitting on a tram and reflecting on the city while observing her surroundings:

Oh this city! This hungry city, this poisoned city! […] Where is that contagious substance, that rotting mushroom that makes everything good, beautiful, and promising start corrode, collapse, or disintegrate? Is it in the air or is it under the cobblestones?80

As these excerpts make clear, like Lux, Kaffka thought that there was something inherently bad and corrupting in the city.

Given Budapest’s allegedly sinful nature, Kaffka’s Éva Rosztoky needed a more peaceful place to which she could escape, and this was her childhood home, Aranyoskút. In Állomások, Kaffka, despite her criticism of its dullness, portrays Aranyoskút and the surrounding countryside in an idyllic, peaceful, and sometimes even sensual way, in contrast to the busy, “poisonous” Budapest. For example:

They were unreserved, free, and happy there. They loved each other “en plein air” under the sunshine, in the luscious, evergreen valley. Here, in the beginning, their nice, naive, and easy joy for life was sincere.81

Kaffka also suggests in her novel that, in contrast to the world of rural Hungary, Budapest did not have its own culture. The culture of the city was, in her depiction, merely an adaptation of that of its rural immigrants. In the early stages of the story, Éva has a conversation with Róbert Vajda, her first love interest in the novel. Vajda delivers the following lines, with which Éva agrees:

Hungary, its entire culture […] is so rural, so village-like [falusi], it tastes of peasants; just like us. That’s not surprising, given that the entire population of Greater Budapest, this whole generation, emigrated from the rural areas. That’s where they bring their attitudes, traditions, accents, everything from. […] Budapest is a new city. It hasn’t created its own culture yet.82

Thus, according to Kaffka, Budapest does not yet have a unique culture, and the only way its artistic elite can become accomplished is by evoking the cultural imagery of the rural world from which they came.

Terka Lux and Margit Kaffka shared several grievances concerning the metropolis with the nationalist, feminist, and liberal journalists, be it Lux’s critique of Budapest’s alleged immorality and rampant capitalism or Kaffka’s idea of a city without a unique culture. Lux and Kaffka, however, nonetheless insist that they love the city despite their harsh criticism of it. In her introduction to Budapest, Lux makes it clear that she loves the city.83 Similarly, during the concluding thoughts of Állomások, Éva remarks that alongside its inherent “poison,” Budapest also contains plenty of good that “forces its inhabitants to love it anyway.”84

What was it in the capital that attracted them to it, despite its alleged sinfulness? Lux answers this question:

I love [Budapest] because […] Fáni Schneider, despite its genial rottenness, retained a lot of her nice, childish traits. […] I love Budapest, this poor Fáni Schneider with a bad reputation. No one concluded how she acquired this rottenness. Was it genetics or trauma? […] The world does not ask how you gained your sin, only how you lost your morals. I don’t think I’ll succeed, but I’ll try to find the answer to this.85

With this introduction, Lux makes it clear that Fáni’s fate can be interpreted as an allegory for Budapest.86 With this in mind, the line “This was the city that stole everything from me! Now it’s my turn to take everything from it.” becomes the key to our understanding of the author’s image of Budapest. The secondary literature suggests that Lux did not blame the city for its character.87

The aforementioned line also answers a key question with which Lux grappled for years: Why was Budapest ruining the lives of its inhabitants? Lux suggests that modern Budapest and its culture had emerged out of capitalism, and that capitalism inherently meant the immoral exploitation of its citizens, and the only way to uphold living standards and booming culture in the city was to continue this process of exploitation, especially of newcomers.

Margit Kaffka did not leave such clear statements behind. Her correspondence with her friends and some parts of Állomások, however, nonetheless offer clues to her views. Between 1902 and 1905, Kaffka was teaching in Miskolc, a city in northeastern Hungary.88 During her stay, she wrote the following in a letter to fellow poet Oszkár Gellért:

This is a boring, dusty farmer’s town [csizmadiaváros]. […] The school is full of ink marks, my students are all hopeless idiots, and my grandmother insists that I marry. […] There are no emotions, and I couldn’t even find any in this environment. Every matter of the “heart” here is blindly tied to practical success in life. […] Don’t laugh, but I need a superior, more sophisticated life, which I had for three years in the capital. You love to chide the capital, but I know that you actually love it.89

It is evident from this letter that Kaffka had a problem with rural Hungary. She found it uninspiring and was also bothered by its oppressive social conservatism. She revealed this sentiment in Állomások when her main character, Éva Rosztoky expresses her relief that her children will grow up in Budapest, because there they “at least have purpose” and “there is someone to educate them,” unlike in Aranyoskút.90

Thus, for Kaffka, the main argument in support of living in Budapest is that there were more opportunities for a good life and individual self-expression than elsewhere. As Róbert Vajda says in Állomások, Budapest may not be the birthplace of unique style and culture, but for Kaffka, it was certainly the only place where culture could blossom. She might have joked about Oszkár Gellért and the metropolitan artists “chiding” Budapest while simultaneously loving it, but by the time she wrote Állomások, she was doing the same.

Conclusion

This article offered a new way to contextualize a major cultural shift in fin-de-siècle Hungary. It argued that there was a common theme in the writings of members of the generation that reached professional maturity shortly after the turn of the century. This generation turned towards the countryside, and in doing so, they broke with their parents, who were members of the cosmopolitan generation that had built the capital city. It demonstrated how, in their frequent attacks on the Jewish population of the country, the antisemitic Catholic radicals writing for Alkotmány mostly targeted aspects of metropolitan life, such as cosmopolitanism, liberalism, and emerging multiculturalism. This paper does not question the scale or significance of antisemitism on the Hungarian right at the turn of the century, but it does argue that this form of Catholic antisemitism was part of a wider pattern of dissatisfaction with the Budapest-centric status quo of the previous 30 years rather than an entirely independent phenomenon. It also demonstrated how feminist journalists and female authors depicted Budapest as a seductive city of sin and rural Hungary as a safe and calm place that was ideal for women. As the article demonstrated, even the figures who, by their own admission, loved the capital portrayed it overwhelmingly negatively. As the paper showed, the portrayal of the metropolis as sinful appeared to be universally relatable, vastly expanding its reach from its nineteenth-century confines of urban crime writing. Unlike most of the writings about Pest-Buda and, after 1873, Budapest in the nineteenth century, post-1900 discourses about the city concerned a metropolis with an already established identity, not one that was being formed.

This article has not discussed another important group that was formed in the first decade of the twentieth century. The Galilei Circle, a group of atheist freethinkers, was also founded in 1908. Their philosophy, however, differed from those discussed in this chapter, as they by no means idealized the rural world. As Péter Csunderlik has demonstrated, members of the circle regularly referred to rural Hungary as “black country,” implying the disproportional and in their view negative and backwards influence of the clergy on villages, where the “life of the peasantry was dire.”91

However, Csunderlik’s monograph also revealed that the Galilei Circle did try to reach out to rural communities. They actively discussed and called for the redistribution of church land in the provinces and, in the 1910s, prepared to popularize their goals in villages.92 They even explicitly stated that such propaganda activities should be undertaken by members who are from the provinces and can “speak the language of the peasantry.”93 Given that the Galilei Circle’s framing of these rural societal issues was to help the peasantry, it could be argued that they were not that dissimilar to other members of their generation discussed in this article.

On the other hand, the extended version of Csunderlik’s study demonstrates that while the Galilei Circle supported feminist demands, it was rather critical of the Feminist Association for accepting a limited extension of female suffrage instead of a full, universal one.94 Additionally, the first publication of their flagship journal Szabadgondolat (Free Thought) in 1911 falls just outside the first decade of the twentieth century (the focus of this article), and their anti-clerical ideology was a reaction to the strengthening of “clerical forces.”95 Therefore, in a way, the Galilei Circle and its ideology, while it accepted some of the basic tenets of cultural change, is an early reaction to the cultural processes (such as the rise of Catholic radicalism) discussed in this article. Further research could reveal the nuances of this complex relationship.

This article showed that despite their expression of grievances regarding Budapest’s elitism, unregulated capitalism, and neglect of its lower classes, both the negative portrayals they offered of Budapest and the idealized visions they crafted of rural Hungary were exactly that: a dream world or a constructed nightmare of the given writer’s hopes and fears. The Catholic radicals might have perceived Budapest to be an entirely Jewish city and Lipótváros an entirely Jewish district, but both in fact were multiethnic. Ethnic Hungarians were just as present as Jews or Germans, and they also helped shape and build Budapest and its culture. Feminists such as Terka Lux or Róza Bédy-Schwimmer might have considered the capital dangerous for women, but the reality was that women outside Budapest were more likely to be exposed to the workings of the patriarchy.

One could rightfully ask why, if frustration with Budapest was so widespread, was there no movement that could unify these voices? One could argue in response, however, that there was indeed a political movement that managed to do so. In 1905, the Party of Independence and its coalition partners did incorporate some anti-Budapest elements into their campaign, and they were more electorally successful in rural Hungary than in the capital.96 Their success was tied to the cultural processes described in the paper. Still, the 1905 coalition cannot exclusively be labeled a coherent anti-Budapest movement. After all, apart from Alkotmány, no protagonists of this paper participated in the popularisation of the 48ers or their coalition partners.

The answer to the question could be that the grievances of all these various groups concerning the capital were mere projections that often contradicted each other. The Catholic radicals dreaded the influence of Budapest because it undermined the patriarchy, while feminists encouraged women to leave the city for rural Hungary so that they could escape their controlling fathers. Due to these contradictions, it is difficult to say whether there was one common element that could explain why so many different figures disliked the capital. There certainly are recurring themes, such as anti-capitalism. But upon closer examination, we may conclude that it was the highly individualistic culture of Budapest that many across the political spectrum despised. After all, both feminism and Catholic radicalism had a preference for the community over the individual.

The real significance of this fin-de-siècle cultural shift only became truly apparent in the Horthy era. One of the basic pillars of the regime was its anti-Budapest sentiments. The regime’s propaganda machine spread the narrative of the capital as a “sinful city” that was supposedly incompatible with national values.97 This article aimed to contribute to our understanding of the origins of these sentiments. The generation of Hungarians discussed above was not only connected by personal relations, nor were they merely critics of the liberals. They also were not defined exclusively by antisemitism.

Crucially, this cultural shift took place at a time when women writers who had arrived from rural Hungary began to be influential. Margit Kaffka, Terka Lux, and the journalists of A Nő és a Társadalom were all able to tell stories that acknowledged the struggles of metropolitan life, aspects of which were particularly harmful for women. Without them, many legitimate concerns regarding metropolitan life would have remained unheard. In the first decade of the twentieth century, as the businessmen who had built Budapest reached old age, a new generation came to artistic maturity, this time with a number of prominent female figures in their ranks. At the turn of the century, shortly after the sun set for the fathers of Budapest, it rose again for the daughters of the countryside.

Bibliography

Primary Sources

“A zsidók” [The jew]. Alkotmány, June 9, 1094. 2–3.

“Hegedüs diadala” [Triumph of Hegedüs]. Alkotmány, May 1, 1901. 1–2.

“Napi hirek: (Az egész magyar literatura?)” [Daily news. The whole Hungarian literature?]. Alkotmány, December 24, 1899. 9.

“Tanulságok” [Lessons]. Alkotmány, December 2, 1900. 1–2.

Bédy-Schwimmer, Róza. “Nőmozgalom Balmazújvárosban” [Feminist movement in Balmazújváros]. A Nő és a Társadalom, September 1, 1908. 143–45.

“Budapest etnikai adatbázisa (1850–1950)” [Ethnic database of Budapest, 1850–1950]. Internet Archive Wayback Machine. Last accessed July 17, 2024. https://web.archive.org/web/20200331104447/http://konyvtar.ksh.hu/bea_1850_1950/index.html

Csernay, Ödön. “A pusztuló gentry” [The dying gentry]. Alkotmány, May 24, 1900. 1–2.

Groszmann, Janka. “Fővárosi nőtisztviselők vidéken” [Women clerks from the capital city in the countryside]. A Nő és a Társadalom, March 1, 1908. 42–43.

Kaffka, Margit. “Gellért Oszkárnak” [Letter to Oszkár Gellért]. In A lélek stációi: Kaffka Margit válogatott levelezése [Stations of the soul: Selected correspondence of Margit Kaffka], edited by Zsuzsa Simon, 102–4. Budapest: Nap, 2010.

Kaffka, Margit. “Állomások” [Stations]. In Margit Kaffka, Kaffka Margit regényei [The novels of Margit Kaffka], 85–282. Last accessed July 18, 2024. https://mek.oszk.hu/05900/05909/05909.pdf

Lux, Terka. Budapest.Budapest: MEK Egyesület, 2017. Last accessed July 18, 2024. https://mek.oszk.hu/17500/17520/pdf/17520.pdf

Lux, Terka. Leányok [Girls]. Budapest: MEK Egyesület, 2018. Last accessed July 18, 2024. https://mek.oszk.hu/17800/17828/pdf/17828.pdf

Schöpflin, Aladár. “A város” [The city]. Nyugat, no. 7, 1908. Last accessed October 5, 2024. https://epa.oszk.hu/00000/00022/00007/00164.htm

Secondary Literature

Barenscott, Dorothy. “Trafficking in Photographs: Representational Power and the Case of Lajos Kossuth, Budapest 1894.” History and Memory 22, no. 2 (2010): 34–67. doi: 10.2979/his.2010.22.2.34

Bede, Ábel. Populism without the People: The Campaign of the Opposition during the Hungarian Elections of 1905. BA. diss., Durham University, 2019.

Bihari, Péter. “Aspects of Anti-Semitism in Hungary 1915–1918.” Quest. Issues in Contemporary Jewish History. Journal of Fondazione CDEC, no. 9 (2016): 58–93. doi: 10.48248/issn.2037-741X/803 Last accessed October 5, 2024. https://www.quest-cdecjournal.it/aspects-of-anti-semitism-in-hungary-1915-1918/

Blanning, Tim. The Romantic Revolution: A History. Modern Library Chronicles. London–Phoenix: Random House, 2010.

Borgos, Anna. “»Mit csinálhatok az én embervoltommal…« Kaffka Margit” [What can I do with my human self…]. In Nőírók és írónők: Irodalmi szerepek a Nyugatban [Women writers: literary roles in the journal West], edited by Anna Borgos, and Judit Szilágyi, 33–78. Budapest: Noran, 2011.

Borgos, Anna, and Judit Szilágyi. “Bevezetés” [Introduction]. In Nőírók és írónők: Irodalmi szerepek a Nyugatban [Women writers: Literary roles in the journal West],edited by Anna Borgos, and Judit Szilágyi,7–32. Budapest: Noran, 2011.

Császtvay, Tünde. “A hét bagoly esete a magyar irodalomban” [The case of the seven owls in the Hungarian literature]. Budapesti Negyed 16–17, no. 2–3 (1997). Last accessed October 5, 2024. https://epa.oszk.hu/00000/00003/00014/csaszt.htm

Csunderlik, Péter. Radikálisok, szabadgondolkodók, ateisták: A Galilei Kör története (1908–1919) [Radicals, free-thinkers, atheists: The history of the Galilei Circle, 1908–1919]. Budapest: Napvilág Kiadó, 2017.

Csunderlik, Péter. A Galilei Kör története [The history of the Galilei Circle]. Budapest: Napvilág Kiadó, 2022.

Czeferner, Dóra. Kultúrmisszió vagy propaganda: Feminista lapok és olvasóik Bécsben és Budapesten [Cultural mission or propaganda: Feminist journals and their readers in Vienna and Budapest]. Budapest: HUN-REN Bölcsészettudományi Kutatóközpont, 2021.

Czeferner, Dóra. “Schwimmer Rózsa lapszerkesztői tevékenysége 1907 és 1913 között” [Editorial work of Rózsa Schwimmer 1907–1913]. In Nők, időszaki kiadványok és nyom­tatott nyilvánosság, 1820–1920 [Women, periodicals and printed publicity, 1820–1920], edited by Zsuzsa Török, 335–59. Budapest: Reciti, 2020.

Eszik, Veronika. “Rural Reactions to Modernization: Anti-Modernist Features of the 1883 Anti-Hungarian Peasant Uprising in Croatia.” The Hungarian Historical Review 12, no. 1 (2023): 37–65. doi: 10.38145/2023.1.37

Frigyesi, Judit. Béla Bartók and Turn-of-the-Century Budapest.London: UC Press, 1998.

Gluck, Mary. Georg Lukács and His Generation. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1985.

Gluck, Mary. The Invisible Jewish Budapest: Metropolitan Culture at the Fin de Siècle. London: UW Press, 2016.

Gyáni, Gábor. Identity and Urban Experience: Fin-de-siècle Budapest. Boulder: East European Monographs, 2004.

Hanák, Péter. The Garden and the Workshop. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998.

Hobson, John Atkinson. The Psychology of Jingoism. London: Grant Richards,1901.

Horváth, Györgyi. “Kószálónők a régi Budapesten. Nagyvárosi térhasználat és a női művészlét. Kaffka Margit: Állomások” [Streetwalkers in old Budapest. Urban space use and female artistry. Margit Kaffka: Stations]. In Nő, tükör, írás: Értelmezések a 20. század első felének női irodalmából [Woman, mirror, writing: Interpretations from women’s literature of the first half of the 20th century], edited by Virág Varga, and Zoltán Zsávolya, 162–90. Budapest: Ráció, 2009.

Horváth J., András. “Költői látomás – főkapitányi láttamozás: a ‘Híd-avatás’ alakjai. Budapest öngyilkosai 1877–ben” [Poetic vision – captain-in-chief’s approval: the figures of the poet ‘Bridge Inauguration’. Budapest’s suicides in 1877]. Budapesti Negyed 47–48, no. 1–2 (2005). Last accessed October 5, 2024. https://epa.oszk.hu/00000/00003/00034/horvath.html

Kádár, Judit. Engedelmes lázadók: Magyar írónők és nőideál-konstrukciók a 20. század első felében [Obedient rebels: Hungarian women writers and constructions of women models in the first half of the 20th century]. Budapest: Jelenkor, 2014.

Kádár, Judit. “Two Austro-Hungarian Women Writers, Anna Tutsek and Terka Lux, Creating New Urban Identities in Early Twentieth-Century Budapest.” Hungarian Cultural Studies 8 (2015): 24–33. doi: 10.5195/ahea.2015.214

Kálai, Sándor. “Az intézményesülő magyar krimi egyik első példája (Gúthi Soma bűnügyi történetei)” [One of the first examples of the institutionalized Hungarian crime novel (Soma Gúthi’s crime stories)]. REÁL – az MTA Könyvtárának Repozitóriu­ma, 2015. Last accessed October 5, 2024. https://real.mtak.hu/26974/

Kálai, Sándor. “Médium, műfaj, mediáció. Kuthy Lajos: Hazai rejtelmek” [Medium, genre, and mediation. Lajos Kuthy, Homeland mysteries]. In “Szirt a habok közt”: Tanulmányok Imre László 70. születésnapjára [“Rock among the waves”: Studies for the 70th birthday of László Imre], edited by Péter Bényei, Mónika Gönczi, and Pál S. Varga, 179–85. Debrecen: Debreceni Egyetemi Kiadó, 2014.

Kálai, Sándor. “‘Minden rejtély vonz és ingerel’ (Bűnmegjelenítés és városreprezentáció Kiss József Budapesti rejtelmek című regényében)” [“Every mystery attracts and excites” (Crime representation and city representation in József Kiss’ novel Budapest Mysteries]. REÁL – az MTA Könyvtárának Repozitóriuma, 2015. Last accessed October 5, 2024. https://real.mtak.hu/26973/

Koranyi, James. “The Thirteen Martyrs of Arad: A Monumental Hungarian History.” In Sites of Imperial Memory: Commemorating Colonial Rule in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries, edited by Frank Lorenz Müller, and Dominik Geppert, 53–69. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2015. doi: 10.7765/9781526111890.00011

Kovács, Bea. “A nő, ha ír – A nő, ha fejlődik” [If the woman writes – If the woman develops]. Prae.hu, May 4, 2013. Last accessed July 18, 2024. https://www.prae.hu/article/6077-a-no-ha-ir-a-no-ha-fejlodik/

Kovács, Gábor, “From the Guilty City to the Ideas of Alternative Urbanization and Alternative Modernity: Anti-Urbanism as a Border-Zone of City-Philosophy and Cultural Criticism in the Interwar Hungarian Political Thought.” Philosophy, Communication 25 (2017): 99–109. doi: 10.3846/cpc.2017.282

Kövér, György. A tiszaeszlári dráma: Társadalomtörténeti látószögek [The drama of Tisza­eszlár: Social history perspectives]. Budapest: Osiris, 2011.

Krzywiec, Grezgorz. “Between Anti- and Another Modernity: Anti-Judaism, the Imaginary Jew, and Catholic Antisemitism in Fin-de-Siècle Poland (1880–1914).” In The Medieval Roots of Antisemitism: Continuities and Discontinuities from the Middle Ages to the Present Day, edited by Johnatan Adams, and Cordelia Heß, 107–20. New York: Routledge, 2018.

Lackó, Miklós. “The Role of Budapest in Hungarian Literature: 1890–1935.” In Budapest and New York: Studies in Metropolitan Transformation, 1870–1930, edited by Thomas Bender, and Carl E. Schorske, 352–66. New York: Russel Sage Foundation, 1994.

López, Bravo, Fernando. “Crusade and Mission: The Islamophobia of French Catholic Anti-Semites during the Nineteenth Century.” Studia historica. Ha. contemporánea 34 (2016): 403–35.

Lukacs, John. Budapest 1900: A Historical Portrait of a City and its Culture. New York: Weindenfeld & Nicolson, 1988.

“Lux Terka.” In Írónők a hálón 1880–1945 [Women writers on the web 1880–1945]. Last accessed August 29, 2020. http://ironok.elte.hu/index.php/portrek/lux-terka

“Lux Terka.” In Magyar Életrajzi Lexikon [Hungarian biographical encyclopedia]. Last accessed July 18, 2024. http://mek.oszk.hu/00300/00355/html/ABC09006/09729.htm

Márton-Simon, Anna. “The Hungarian Market of Nineteenth-Century Urban Nationalism and the Recycling of the Urban Mystery Novel.” Hungarian Studies 33, no. 1 (2019): 5–22. doi: 10.1556/044.2019.33.1.1 Last accessed October 5, 2024. https://real.mtak.hu/106354/1/044.2019.33.1.1.pdf

Mátay, Mónika. “Agycentizők a századfordulón” [Brain scanners at the turn of the century]. Budapesti Negyed 13, no. 47–48 (2005). Last accessed October 5, 2024. https://epa.oszk.hu/00000/00003/00034/matay.html

Mátay, Mónika. “Egy prostituált lemészárlása: A Város, a Nő és a Bűnöző” [Murder of a prostitute: The City, the Woman, and the Criminal]. Médiakutató, Autumn, 2003. Last accessed October 5, 2024. https://mediakutato.hu/cikk/2003_03_osz/01_egy_prostitualt

Mátay, Mónika. “Egy reformkori író-celeb: Nagy Ignác” [A writer celebrity in the Reform era: Ignác Nagy]. Magyar Könyvszemle 139, no. 3–4 (2023): 337–57.

Michel, Boris. “Anti-semitism in Early 20th-Century German Geography: From a ‘spaceless’ People to the Root of the ‘Ills’ of Urbanization.” Political Geography 65 (2018): 1–7. doi: 10.1016/j.polgeo.2018.03.006

Mosse, George, L. Toward the Final Solution: A History of European Racism. New York: Howard Fertig, 1985.

Nemes, Robert. Another Hungary: Nineteenth-Century Provinces in Eight Lives. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2016.

Paksa, Rudolf. A magyar szélsőjobboldal története [History of the Hungarian far right]. Budapest: Jaffa, 2014.

Prokopovych, Markian. In the Public Eye: The Budapest Opera House, the Audience and the Press, 1884–1918. Vienna: Bohlau Verlag, 2014.

Prokopovych, Markian. “Scandal at the Opera: Politics, the Press, and the Public at the Inauguration of the Budapest Opera House in 1884.” Austrian History Yearbook 44(2013): 88–107. doi:10.1017/S0067237813000088

Schorske, Carl. E. Fin-de-siècle Vienna: Politics and Culture. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1980.

“Schöpflin Aladár.” In Magyar Életrajzi Lexicon [Hungarian biographical encyclopedia]. Last accessed July 18, 2024. https://www.arcanum.hu/en/online-kiadvanyok/Lexikonok-magyar-eletrajzi-lexikon-7428D/s-778D5/schopflin-aladar-77A2B/

Schwartz, Agatha. “Budapest and its Heroines in Fin-de-Siècle Hungarian Literature.” Hungarian Studies Review 39, 1–2 (2012): 45–74.

Simmel, Georg. “The Metropolis and Mental Life.” In Classic Essays on the Culture of Cities, edited by Richard Sennett, 49–59. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1969.

Stewart, Fiona. “In the Beginning was the Garden”: Anna Lesznai and Hungarian Modernism, 1906–1919. PhD diss., University of York, 2011.

Szilágyi, Márton and Vaderna, Gábor. “A nemzeti identitás összetettsége (Gvadányi József: Egy falusi nótáriusnak budai utazása)” [The complexity of national identity (József Gvadányi: A village notary’s journey to Buda)] In Magyar irodalom, edited by Tibor Gintl, 359–61. Budapest: Akadémiai, 2010.

Szívós, Erika. “Fin-de-Siècle Budapest as a Center of Art.” East Central Europe 33, no. 1–2. (2007): 141–68.

Ulin, Donald. The Making of the English Countryside: Tourism and Literary Representation in Nineteenth-Century England. PhD diss., Indiana University, 1998.

Vari, Alexander. “The Nation in the City: Ceremonial (Re)burials and Patriotic Mythmaking in Turn-of-the-Century Budapest.” Urban History 40, no. 2 (2013): 202–5. doi: 10.1017/S0963926813000084

Vörös, Károly. “A világváros útján: 1873–1918” [On the road of a metropolis]. Budapesti Negyed 20–21, no. 2–3 (1998). Last accessed October 5, 2024. https://epa.oszk.hu/00000/00003/00016/voros.htm

  1. 1 This article is a shortened and revised version of an MA Dissertation submitted to Durham University in September 2020. The original text also included discussions of the Nagybánya Artists’ Colony (with the help of István Réti’s writings and the paintings by members of the group) and the poems and graphic design of Anna Lesznai. To meet the word count requirements of The Hungarian Historical Review, these sections were removed, but they too showcased heavy anti-Budapest sentiments and idyllic portrayals of rural Hungary, showing how widespread these attitudes were in the period.

  2. 2 See Frigyesi, Béla Bartók;Gluck, Georg Lukács and His Generation; Gyáni, Identity and Urban Experience; Hanák, The Garden and The Workshop; Lukacs, Budapest 1900; and Prokopovych, In the Public Eye.

  3. 3 Schwartz, “Budapest and its Heroines,” 45.

  4. 4 Ibid., 46; Lukacs, Budapest 1900, 136.

  5. 5 Schwartz, “Budapest and its Heroines,” 45.

  6. 6 Lukacs, Budapest 1900, 146; Szívós, “Fin-de-Siècle Budapest as a Center of Art,” 164–68.

  7. 7 Schwartz, “Budapest and its Heroines,” 46; Nemes, Another Hungary, 8.

  8. 8 Schwartz, “Budapest and its Heroines,” 46; Lukacs, Budapest 1900, 146.

  9. 9 Stewart, “In the Beginning was the Garden,” 34.

  10. 10 Gluck, Georg Lukács and His Generation, 60–61.

  11. 11 See, for example, Blanning, The Romantic Revolution, 28–30, 138–57, 177–78; Ulin, The Making of the English Countryside.

  12. 12 See Kovács, G., “From the Guilty City to the Ideas of Alternative Urbanization,” 99; Eszik, “Rural Reactions to Modernization.”

  13. 13 Simmel, “The Metropolis and Mental Life.”

  14. 14 Hobson, The Psychology of Jingoism, 7–8.

  15. 15 Szilágyi and Vaderna “A nemzeti identitás összetettsége.”

  16. 16 See, for example, Mátay, “Egy prostituált lemészárlása”; Mátay, “Egy reformkori író-celeb”; Márton-Simon, “The Hungarian Market of Nineteenth-Century Urban Nationalism”; Kálai, “‘Minden rejtély vonz és ingerel’”; Kálai, “Médium, műfaj, mediáció”; Kálai, “Az intézményesülő magyar krimi egyik első példája”; Császtvay, “A hét bagoly esete a magyar irodalomban.”

  17. 17 See Mátay, “Egy prostituált lemészárlása”; Mátay, “Agycentizők a századfordulón”; Horváth J., “Költői látomás – főkapitányi láttamozás.”

  18. 18 Vörös, “A világváros útján.”

  19. 19 Miklós Lackó’s study reveals that this was also true in the case of texts that were less critical of Budapest. See Lackó, “The Role of Budapest in Hungarian Literature,” 356.

  20. 20 Márton-Simon, “The Hungarian Market of Nineteenth-Century Urban Nationalism,” 10.

  21. 21 Ibid., 12–16.

  22. 22 Ibid., 15–16.

  23. 23 Mátay, “Egy prostituált lemészárlása.”

  24. 24 Gluck, Georg Lukács and His Generation, 21.

  25. 25 Lukacs, Budapest 1900, 186; Frigyesi, Béla Bartók, 74.

  26. 26 Lackó, “The Role of Budapest in Hungarian Literature,” 354.

  27. 27 Kovács, G., “From the Guilty City to the Ideas of Alternative Urbanization,” 100.

  28. 28 Nemes, Another Hungary, 174.

  29. 29 Kovács, G., “From Guilty City to the Ideas of Alternative Urbanisation,” 99.

  30. 30 See López, “Crusade and Mission”; and Krzywiec, “Between Anti- and Another Modernity.”

  31. 31 For the rise of the far right, see for example Paksa, A magyar szélsőjobboldal története. For the Tiszaeszlár and its aftermath scandal, see Kövér, A tiszaeszlári dráma, and for Catholic radicalism, see Schorske, Fin-de-siècle Vienna.

  32. 32 Michel, “Anti-semitism in Early 20th-Century German Geography,” 1.

  33. 33 Mosse, Toward the Final Solution, 121.

  34. 34 “Hegedüs diadala,” 1.

  35. 35 Bihari, “Aspects of Anti-Semitism in Hungary 1915–1918,” 68.

  36. 36 “A zsidók,” 2.

  37. 37 “Napihirek: (Az egész magyar literatura?),” 9.

  38. 38 “Budapest etnikai adatbázisa (1850–1950).”

  39. 39 Ibid.

  40. 40 Gluck, The Invisible Jewish Budapest, 22–28.

  41. 41 “Tanulságok,” 1.

  42. 42 Bede, Populism without the People, 10. See also Prokopovych, “Scandal at the Opera”; Koranyi, “The Thirteen Martyrs of Arad,” 6; Vari, “The Nation in the City,” 215; Barenscott, “Trafficking in Photographs,” 36.

  43. 43 “Tanulságok,” 1–2.

  44. 44 Csernay, “A pusztuló gentry,” 1.

  45. 45 Ibid., 1.

  46. 46 “Schöpflin Aladár,” in Magyar Életrajzi Lexikon.

  47. 47 Schöpflin, “A város.”

  48. 48 Ibid.

  49. 49 “Budapest etnikai adatbázisa (1850–1950).”

  50. 50 Kádár, Engedelmes lázadók, 19.

  51. 51 Stewart, “In the Beginning was the Garden,” 301.

  52. 52 Czeferner, “Schwimmer Rózsa lapszerkesztői tevékenysége,” 335.

  53. 53 Czeferner, Kultúrmisszió vagy propaganda, 123–26.

  54. 54 Ibid., 123.

  55. 55 Bédy-Schwimmer, “Nőmozgalom Balmazújvárosban,” 143.

  56. 56 Groszmann, “Fővárosi nőtisztviselők vidéken,” 42.

  57. 57 Ibid., 42.

  58. 58 Ibid., 43.

  59. 59 Ibid., 43.

  60. 60 Kádár, Engedelmes lázadók, 19.

  61. 61 Ibid., 20; Borgos and Szilágyi, “Bevezetés,” 8.

  62. 62 “Lux Terka,” in Magyar Életrajzi Lexikon; Kádár, Engedelmes lázadók, 52; “Lux Terka,” in Írónők a hálón.

  63. 63 Kádár, Engedelmes lázadók, 44.

  64. 64 “Lux Terka,” in Írónők a hálón.

  65. 65 Kádár, Engedelmes lázadók, 46.

  66. 66 Kádár, “Two Austro-Hungarian Women Writers,” 31.

  67. 67 Lux, Leányok,5.

  68. 68 Ibid., 49.

  69. 69 Lux, Budapest, 4.

  70. 70 Ibid., 19.

  71. 71 Ibid., 8.

  72. 72 Ibid., 11–12.

  73. 73 Also see, ibid., 15 and 42.

  74. 74 Kádár, Engedelmes lázadók, 101.

  75. 75 Borgos, “‘Mit csinálhatok én az embervoltommal,’” 35–37.

  76. 76 Nemes, Another Hungary, 216–17.

  77. 77 Horváth, Gy., “Kószálónők a régi Budapesten,” 164.

  78. 78 Kaffka, “Állomások,” 115.

  79. 79 Ibid., 257–58.

  80. 80 Ibid., 282.

  81. 81 Ibid., 92.

  82. 82 Ibid., 109.

  83. 83 Lux, Budapest, 5.

  84. 84 Kaffka, “Állomások,” 282.

  85. 85 Lux, Budapest, 5.

  86. 86 Kovács, B., “A nő, ha ír – A nő, ha fejlődik”; “Lux Terka,” in Írónők a hálón.

  87. 87 “Lux Terka,” in Írónők a hálón.

  88. 88 Nemes, Another Hungary, 212.

  89. 89 Kaffka, “Gellért Oszkárnak,” 103.

  90. 90 Kaffka, “Állomások,” 116.

  91. 91 Csunderlik, A Galilei Kör története, 313–14.

  92. 92 Ibid., 354–69.

  93. 93 Ibid., 357.

  94. 94 Csunderlik, Radikálisok, szabadgondolkodók, ateisták, 194–95.

  95. 95 Csunderlik, A Galilei Kör története, 297–98.

  96. 96 Bede, Populism without the People, 44–45.

  97. 97 Kovács, G., “From Guilty City to the Ideas of Alternative Urbanisation,” 99.

From Pioneer to Latecomer:
Relations between Austria and the Soviet Union (Russia) in the Oil and Gas Sectorpdf

Walter M. Iber and Christoph Huber

University of Graz

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Hungarian Historical Review Volume 13 Issue 4 (2024): 596-622 DOI 10.38145/2024.4.596

Cooperation between Austria and the Soviet Union and then Russia in the oil and gas sector has a long history. When Austria fell under Soviet occupation after World War II, the Soviets confiscated the Austrian oil fields and founded the Soviet Mineral Oil Administration (Sowjetische Mineralölverwaltung, SMV). Most of the Austrian oil produced was exported to communist Central and Eastern Europe. Through agreements within the framework of the State Treaty, Austria was able to bring the Soviet mineral oil complex under its administration. Austrian Mineral Oil Administration (Österreichische Mineralölverwaltung AG, ÖMV) was founded in 1956. In 1968, Austria became the first Western European country to import Soviet natural gas from the other side of the Iron Curtain. The steel producer VÖEST supplied pipelines to the Soviet Union for this purpose. The gas contract was extended several times and is now valid until 2040.

Keywords: Austria, Soviet Union, Oil, Gas, OMV, Soyuznefteksport

Today, the Austrian Mineral Oil Administration1 (Österreichische Mineral­ölver­waltung AG, OMV2) is one of the most important Austrian industrial companies, with a turnover of around 62 billion euros (2022) and a total of 22,300 employees. It is active in the areas of crude oil, natural gas, and petrochemicals, both in production and processing.3 The “Russian business” of the partly state-owned OMV4 has repeatedly been the subject of controversial discussions in recent years. In fact, OMV’s cooperation with Gazprom has been very close. OMV has invested heavily in Russia and holds shares in Russian oil fields. In addition, OMV was involved in financing the North Stream 2 pipeline. Moreover, as a contractual partner of Gazprom, OMV has been purchasing Russian gas for decades.5 The deliveries of Russian gas to OMV were suspended in November 2024.6

Due to the full-scale invasion of Ukraine by Russia in February 2022, many European countries have tried to reduce their dependence on Russian oil and gas. Between 2021 and 2023, the share of European Union’s total Russian gas imports declined7 from 45 percent to less than 15 percent.8 OMV decided in March 2022 that Russia was no longer a core region and that it would no longer invest there. 9 In 2023, however, Austria still purchased an average of 64.7 percent10 of its gas from Russia.

In 2018, the gas delivery contract between OMV and Gazprom had been prolonged until 2040, in the presence of Austrian Federal Chancellor Sebastian Kurz and Russian President Vladimir Putin. In this year, the fiftieth anniversary of the Austrian-Soviet natural gas contract of 1968 was celebrated.11 Austrian Energy Minister Eleonore Gewessler called on OMV to withdraw from the current contract with Gazprom. In April 2023, Gewessler’s idea was to nationalize OMV’s gas division for a limited period of time by transferring it to the state holding company ÖBAG (Österreichische Beteiligungs AG; Austria Holding PLC) in order to decide more directly where gas is purchased. ÖBAG manages the holdings of the federal government and also those of OMV.12

In March 2024, Ukrainian Energy Minister Herman Halushchenko declared in an interview that Ukraine will no longer allow Russian gas to pass through its territory from the beginning of 2025.13 So, there was speculation in the Austrian media how OMV can withdraw from the long-term supply contract with Gazprom and whether the Ukrainian transit stop would give OMV the opportunity to with­draw without penalty.14 The OMV itself, however, intended to continue to adhere to the existing contract with Gazprom. In May 2024, OMV CEO Alfred Stern declared at the Annual General Meeting that the company “complies with applicable law. This includes the legal framework, sanctions, embargoes, but also existing contracts. […] OMV is obliged to comply with the valid supply contract with Gazprom.”15 However, this long-standing supply in the natural gas sector was discontinued in November 2024. When Gazprom had to pay OMV 230 million euros following an arbitration ruling due to irregular deliveries, OMV sus­pended the payments for the imported natural gas. As a result, Gazprom discontinued supplying natural gas to OMV.16 Russian gas continues to arrive in Austria in November 2024. This gas is “purchased by other market participants on the exchange and delivered to customers in Austria.”17

What developments led to this point? Cooperation between Austria and the Soviet Union and then Russia in the oil and gas sector has a long history. Its roots go back to the immediate postwar period and the time between 1945 and 1955, when Eastern Austria18 formed the Soviet occupation zone.

Three milestones can be identified as the basis for Austrian-Soviet relations in the field of oil and gas:

  • During the postwar period, the Soviets confiscated the Austrian oil fields in the Vienna Basin and the refineries as “German property”19 and founded their own administration for this purpose. The Soviet Mineral Oil Administration (SMV) was the “predecessor” of OMV. The company was founded in 1956, after the withdrawal of the occupying forces, out of the former SMV. At that time, the firm was still called ÖMV, and in the 1990s it was renamed OMV due to increasing internationalization.20
  • To get the Soviet mineral oil complex under Austrian administration, Austria had to deliver ten million tons of crude oil within ten years to four Central and Eastern European states starting in 1955. This deal was part of the Austrian State Treaty (Annex 2)21 and the agreement on oil supplies.22 Ultimately, reductions and Soviet counter-deliveries to Austria reduced the oil deliveries from ten million tons to six, which Austria had to deliver by 1963–64.23
  • In 1968, Austria was the first Western European country to import natural gas from the Soviet Union. In a certain way, the natural gas sector developed into a model for other Western European states. As part of this deal, the Austrian steel producing company VÖEST delivered gas pipes to the Soviet Union. The corresponding contract between OMV and Soyuznefteksport has been extended several times in the meantime and is currently valid until24 2040.25

The Soviet Union and Austrian Petroleum after World War II:
The SMV Period

When the Germans invaded the Soviet Union during World War II, Stalin tried to prevent that the Soviet oil industry would fall into the hands of the Germans. The Soviet leadership therefore had oil plants moved from the Caucasus to the east (Volga-Ural). In the production areas of Grozny and Baku, which were not conquered by the Wehrmacht, boreholes were covered with concrete. Soviet oil production fell by a third between 1940 and 1946.26

The oil fields in the Austrian parts of the German Reich (Ostmark) played a significant role in the German economy during World War II. Up to two-thirds of the oil production of the Third Reich came from the Ostmark. Oil extraction was expanded enormously under Nazi rule.27 In Austria and in Hungary, considerable German capital was invested in oil production. These investments, which were “driven by Hitler’s desire for autarky,” made the facilities in question more modern than those in the Caucasus and Romania.28 By the end of the war in 1945, Austria was the third largest oil producer in Europe, after the Soviet Union and Romania.29

Through their intelligence services, the Soviets knew about the Austrian oil potential since 1943 at the latest. After eastern Austria was invaded by the Red Army in the spring of 1945, they quickly seized oil fields and refineries. At first, Moscow dismantled plants and transported them to the east, but there were many logistical problems caused by the complications of proper dismantling and transport.30 According to Soviet figures, 31,200 wagons were needed to dismantle and transport the materials from Austria.31

20 percent of all confiscated industrial companies and stocks in Austria in 1945–46 were in the oil industry.32 The CIA estimated that up to 83 percent of the available materials (mainly drilling equipment) in the Austrian oil fields had been brought to the western parts of the country and only the rest were taken to the Soviet Union. That is why the agency made the incorrect assumption that the Soviet Union was unaware of the “true value of Lower Austria [sic] oil.”33

After the Potsdam Agreement of August 1945, the Soviets changed their economic strategy in Austria from that of dismantling and removal into an occupation economy by managing resources on site. For this purpose, the Soviets made general use of the so-called “German property.” The victorious powers had awarded this property to one another in Potsdam in their respective occupation zones. With regard to Austria, this was an elegant solution for the Soviets, since under international law, no reparations could be demanded in this case because Austria had not been a sovereign state during the war and thus had not formally been a participant in the war. But the agreement reached in Potsdam nonetheless gave Moscow access to the German foreign property in Austria, since officially, these were German34 reparations.35

Discussions were underway to have the Soviet exploitation of its Austrian occupation zone organized in the field of petroleum management with the establishment of a joint venture called Sanafta.36 This company was envisioned as a cooperative venture between the occupier (the Soviet Union) and the occupied (Austria). The Soviets would have contributed all German petroleum assets to Sanafta, while the Austrians would have been responsible for the necessary capitalization. The project was negotiated in the summer of 1945. It failed because of the veto of the Western powers, which in turn represented the interests of their own oil companies in Austria.37

After the Sanafta plans failed, Soviet Union decided to establish its own extraterritorial administrations as a kind of repository for the confiscated German property. Therefore, SMV (Soviet Mineral Oil Administration) was founded in September 1945, a separate administration for the petroleum industry.38 The company was a “state within the state”39 because it formed a planned economic enclave that was exempt from the Austrian administration. Within this company people from the Soviet Union held all the top positions.40 The gas stations of OROP held a monopoly position in the mineral oil distribution sector in the Soviet occupation zone. They were also part of the assets which were confiscated by the USSR.

As the Soviets exported most of the Austrian oil, a CIA-report of 1948 quoted that “only about 40 percent of the minimum monthly requirements of the Austrian economy is furnished to the Austrian Government for distribution.”41 SMV’s crude oil was included in Soviet economic planning starting in 1951, due to the sharp increase in production. This enabled a refinery in western Ukraine to be supplied with Austrian crude oil. The Soviet Union increased or decreased its oil imports from Austria, depending on the capacity utilization of the Soviet refineries. Once the Soviet minimum demand was covered, the markets in Eastern Europe were also considered.42 It was not until 1952 that the Austrian market could be adequately supplied with crude oil, as by then there was sufficient availability.43 As the Austrian oil was of high quality, there was also a demand in the other communist Central and Eastern European countries, especially in Czechoslovakia, East Germany, and later Poland and Hungary. These countries processed the Austrian oil in their refineries. Crude oil and surplus amounts of refined oil were exported to these states.44 In the almost ten years of its existence, the Soviet oil complex in Austria produced around 17.8 million tons of crude oil. It had a profit of around 288 million US dollars in 1955 prices.45

Negotiating with the Soviets: Oil in the Austrian State Treaty

The negotiations of the Austrian State Treaty46 should provide the withdraw of the occupying powers in Austria. An important factor in these negotiations was the question of what should happen to the assets of the “German property” after the end of the occupation. In 1949, the proposal was made that the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics, USSR should get concessions to four oil fields for 30 years for the assets of SMV and OROP. This would have corresponded to an annual production volume of 900,000 tons of oil. However, in 1949, negotiations on the State Treaty came to a halt. Due to the break between Stalin and Tito, the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Austria, which was also the will of the Western powers, would have seemed to Stalin like support for Tito. In September 1949, shortly before the avoidable conclusion of the State Treaty, Stalin was told about the potential of the recently discovered oil field in Matzen-Auersthal. It was the largest known contiguous oil field in Central Europe. Between 1945 and 1949, only three million tons had been produced. After the discovery of the oil field of Matzen-Auersthal, between 1949 and 1955, the Soviets produced 15 million tons of oil in Austria worth around 260 million US dollars. The Soviet leadership jeopardized the conclusion of the Austrian State Treaty and overused the Trieste question47 as a pretext. In the further negotiations of 1950, the Soviets increased their demands. They demanded concessions on 26 oil exploration areas.48

By 1955, the years of the socialist planned economy in Austria had left their mark, and SMV was in poor economic condition.49 Due to political and economic reasons, the Soviet leadership invited an Austrian delegation to Moscow in April 1955. The basis for the economic negotiations was still the State Treaty draft of 1949. This draft stipulated that Austria would have to hand over 60 percent of the oil fields to the Soviet Union for 30 years. During the negotiations of the Moscow Memorandum, Austrian Chancellor Julius Raab would have been in favor of this solution. He had information according to which these companies were run down.50 The socialist delegation, with Vice Chancellor Adolf Schärf and Foreign State Secretary Bruno Kreisky, wanted the Soviet companies back completely.51 If the Soviets had kept the oil concessions in Austria, Kreisky argued, this would have meant a kind of “semi-colonial status” of Austria vis-à-vis the USSR.52 The fear of their coalition partner Österreichische Volkspartei, ÖVP, on the contrary, was that the return of these companies would have considerably strengthened the socialist power base.53

Under the leadership of Deputy Prime Minister Anastas Mikojan, the Austrians offered the Soviet delegation 50 percent of the previous year’s production as compensation for the Soviet oil complex in Austria. The Soviet negotiators thus knew that the Austrians were unaware of the true value of the oil industry.54 Soviet Foreign Trade Minister Ivan Kabanov had made preliminary55 calculations about the value of the oil complex as a basis for the negotiations. They were significantly lower than the sum of ten million tons of crude oil over ten years that was finally achieved in the Moscow Memorandum.56 This crude oil was to be delivered “carriage paid to the Austrian border, free of taxes and customs duties.”57 Within the Austrian State Treaty58 of May 15, 1955, the agreements of the “Moscow Memorandum” were written down. The main aim of the Austrian delegation was to end the ten years of occupation by the Allied powers.59

In summer of 1955, Austrian-Soviet negotiations were held in Moscow on the delivery conditions. The agreement on oil deliveries was finally concluded on July 12. This agreement gave the Soviet trade representation in Vienna the right to carry out quality tests on the crude oil supplied.60 Austria committed itself to the supply of ten million tons of crude oil to replace the Soviet oil complex. In addition, oil was also to be supplied as part of the so-called “Commodity Agreement” to replace the Soviet-administered USIA companies. In total Austria should supply around 1.2 million tons of crude oil.61 Oil deliveries would begin two months after the signing of the State Treaty.62 However, as the SMV had not yet been handed over to Austria in July 1955, the first deliveries did not begin until August 28, 1955.63

During the occupation period, the US administration was interested in knowing about Soviet administrated petroleum in Austria. In January 1955, US Secretary of State John Foster Dulles asked Llewellyn E. Thomson, the US Ambassador in Austria, about the quality64 of Austrian gasoline. He also asked whether, due to a “shortage […] in Soviet bloc, [the] embassy [was] satisfied that lead and leaded gasoline [were] likely to remain in Austria.”65 The US Ambassador, who saw a lack of information, answered that he was “unable [to] give positive assurance since direct control and accurate confirmed information [was] impossible.”66 The Americans were interested in this kind of information in order to negotiate with the Austrians. Not only did Austria have to compensate the Soviet Union, but it also had to negotiate the mining rights of Anglo-American oil companies.67 These companies had had these mining rights from the time before World War II. Therefore, five days before the State Treaty, on May 10, 1955, the “Vienna Memorandum”68 was concluded. However, a final agreement was not reached until 1960. The aim of Socony Mobil, which was one of the companies that negotiated with the Austrians, was restitution of the Lobau refinery, their exploration rights, and other ownership rights.69 In 1958, the Americans used economic leverage, namely the withholding of ERP loans, and reminded the Austrian federal government of its financial obligations under the Vienna Memorandum. This led to negotiations at government and company levels.70 In the end, Austria paid compensation of 16 million US dollars for the nationalization of assets, founded a joint71 crude oil processing company, and privatized some companies.72 During the negotiations of the final agreement, Austrian Foreign Minister Bruno Kreisky was aware that permanent Austrian cooperation with US and UK oil companies “might cause difficulties with the Soviet Union.”73 In the bloc mentality of the Cold War, the comment by Radio Moscow was that the USA was expanding its influence on Austria’s oil industry.74

Although the SMV years were very hard for Austria, which had no access to its own oil and suffered great economic damage, relations between Austria and the Soviet Union developed. Soviet management and Austrian employees got to know each other and created networks. Thousands of Austrians, including many leading engineers, worked for SMV in the oil fields.75 In 1954, the company managed by SMV had 9,700 employees.76 Under Austrian management, this number declined from 9,996 in 1956 to 7,556 ten years later.77

One of those who had a particularly tragic connection between the Soviet industrial complex in Austria and the later founded ÖMV was Margarethe Ottillinger. After World War II, she led the Planning section within the Austrian Ministry of Property Security and Economic Planning. In this position she gathered information on the Soviet industrial complex. In 1948, she was arrested and accused of spying for the US. Between 1948 and 1955, she was held in various Soviet prisons, where she learned Russian. In 1956, she was employed as a consultant by the ÖMV, and one year later, she was appointed to the board of the ÖMV as the only woman. She was one of those who negotiated the natural gas contract with the Soviet Union in 1968.78

The Early Years of ÖMV and the Replacement Deliveries

At the first meeting of the Austrian Council of Ministers, which was held two days after the conclusion of the State Treaty, the Council received protest resolutions from the SMV against the delay in implementing the State Treaty. These called for early nationalization by the Austrian state.79 In July 1955, the name “Österreichische Mineralöl Aktiengesellschaft” appeared in a draft law on nationalization from the Ministry of Transport and Nationalized Companies.80

On August 13, 1955, SMV and OROP and other Soviet administrated companies were transferred, along with their inventories, from Soviet to Austrian hands. The operations remained in the custody of the Austrian state, which now set about creating an Austrian company out of SMV’s inherited assets. However, it was not until 1956 that “Österreichische Mineralölverwaltung AG (ÖMV AG)” was finally entered in the commercial register.81

After it was founded, an internal investigation by ÖMV came to the conclusion that the facilities, which ÖMV had taken over from SMV were “makeshift facilities built with makeshift equipment, the construction of which neither took into account the state of the art nor economic considerations.”82 The division into five locations83 “often did not and cannot satisfy the consumers’ corrected quality demands.”84 Due to Austria’s domestic demand and the replacement deliveries to the Soviet Union, it is not possible to cover demand in the long term. The ÖMV saw three possibilities to meet this demand: by increasing Austrian oil production, by the substitution of the replacement deliveries to the USSR in the form of money or other deliveries, or by importing crude oil from the “Eastern states” or the Middle East. The study was in favor of constructing a new refinery,85 which was built between 1958 and 1961 in Schwechat, next to the old refinery.86

The willingness of the Austrian government to transform the replacement deliveries was reported by the Soviet Embassy in Austria to Moscow in 1956.87 ÖMV had to pay for the replacement deliveries under the oil agreement itself88 until 1957, which was the beginning of the third year of delivery. As part of the goods agreement, Austria was originally also supposed to deliver 1.2 million tons of crude oil to the Soviet Union as a replacement for USIA operations. In contrast to the oil agreement, ÖMV was paid 478.5 Austrian schillings per ton for deliveries from the Republic in the goods agreement.89 As heating oil became scarce during the Suez crisis, Austria was allowed to supply steel plate instead of 100,000 tons of crude oil from January to March 1957. The following delivery year, 200,000 tons of crude oil were replaced by deliveries of goods.90 The Federation of Austrian Industries had already called for this in May 1955, fearing that Austrian domestic oil supplies were too low.91

Molotov’s dismissal as Soviet foreign minister in June 1957 gave Austria greater room for negotiation, with regard to a reduction in oil supplies. Two months later, the Soviet leadership indicated that it would be prepared to forego half of the replacement deliveries. Washington assumed, that this should show “Western Europe” that it was possible to negotiate with the Soviet Union on a responsible basis.92 This Soviet offer again fitted in with Khrushchev’s concept, who spoke of “peaceful coexistence” with the capitalist countries at the XX Party Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, CPSU in 1956. Khrushchev based the doctrine of “peaceful coexistence” on Lenin, whom he interpreted generously. This doctrine included mutual respect and economic cooperation.93

Soviet oil policy changed in the era Khrushchev as well. The Soviet Union no longer saw its “cordon sanitaire” in Central and Eastern Europe primarily as a supplier but rather began to supply these countries itself with cheap energy. By the late 1950s, the USSR had begun to reenter the international market as a major oil supplier.94 The Austrian crude oil from the replacement deliveries went to the German Democratic Republic, Czechoslovakia, Poland, and Hungary, as the Soviet Union had concluded supply contracts with these countries. This oil was easy to process due to its low sulfur content, which spared the refineries in these nations the need for technical innovations.95

On July 9, 1958, ÖMV urged Federal Chancellor Raab by letter to convince the Soviets of a reduction of oil supplies within the redemption deliveries. ÖMV was of the opinion that the Austrian oil reserves in 1955, when these supplies were finally negotiated, were overestimated by half.96 Twelve days later, an Austrian delegation, including Raab, Vice Chancellor Pittermann and State Secretary Kreisky, set off on an eight-day state visit to Moscow. The aim of the Soviet leadership was to prevent a pro-American Austrian foreign policy. Instead, they wanted to make concessions to Austria in the economic sphere. During his welcoming speech at the airfield in Moscow, Chancellor Raab protested against the US flights97 over Austria during the Lebanon crisis. The Austrian leadership thus risked a deterioration in relations with the USA. During this visit, Khrushchev declared his willingness to offer compensation for a share of the crude oil deliveries with Soviet counter-deliveries to Austria.98 During the ensuing negotiations in August 1958, the Soviet representatives were asked by ÖMV to supply crude oil with a low sulfur content until the new refinery in Schwechat was completed. The construction of a new desulfurization plant would not pay off for the ÖMV.99 In the end, the Soviet Union supplied half a million tons of crude oil to Austria in 1959–60 and 1960–61 and a quarter of a million tons in 1961–62, and Austria continued to supply its crude oil to the four “people’s democracies” in Central and Eastern Europe.100

During his nine-day state visit to Austria in 1960, Khrushchev negotiated with Raab on July 5 from 11 p.m. to 1 a.m. at the Parkhotel in Villach. The result was that Khrushchev canceled the tenth and therefore last delivery year 1964–65. Ultimately, the reductions and counter-deliveries lowered Austrian oil supplies from 10 to 6 million tons.101 After the replacement deliveries, which ended in 1963, ÖMV could reduce its crude oil production for 1964 by four percent. ÖMV’s annual audit for the 1964 financial year concluded that Austria’s crude oil supply would be secure in the long term.102

In 1958 and 1959, under the direction of Enrico Mattei, the Italian energy company ENI (Ente Nazionale Idrocarburi) concluded its first oil import deals with the Soviet Union.103 This triggered protests from NATO and the USA.104 One year later, Mattei had plans to build an oil pipeline across Austria to Trieste. As a connection to the Czechoslovakian pipeline in Bratislava was already under consideration, this meant for Harrison Freeman Matthews, US Ambassador to Austria, quoting an anonymous source, “to bring Russian oil into Western Europe. This plan, if carried out, ‘could destroy Western oil companies in Europe,’ with consequent security implications for Western Europe.”105 So, the Americans feared that the construction of an oil pipeline across Austria could spread Soviet influence in the energy sector to Western Europe. Furthermore, they feared that this could mean the displacement of Western oil companies from Western markets. However, the world market price for oil was quite low at that time, so it was not possible to speak of a major dependency between the Soviet Union and Western Europe.106

In November 1962, as the Cold War had come to a head with the construction of the Berlin Wall (1961) and the Cuban Missile Crisis (October 1962), the NATO Council passed a resolution prohibiting the supply of steel pipes to the Soviet Union. This was intended to undermine the oil (Druzhba) and natural gas pipelines under construction. As a consequence, USSR faced severe problems, because in 1963 it needed up to 700,000 tons of steel pipes, half of which had been ordered from the West, including 230,000 tons from the Federal Republic of Germany and 95,000 tons from Italy, Sweden, and Japan. This embargo was formally lifted in 1966. In 1968, half of the 85.8 million tons of oil exported from the Soviet Union were shipped to Western Europe.107

The Adria-Wien-Pipeline GmbH was founded in 1967. ÖMV was able to appoint seven of the 13 members of the supervisory board. ÖMV therefore held a 51 percent stake in the company, while ENI held four percent and other European and US energy companies like Shell and Mobil held the rest. The Adria-Vienna Pipeline (AWP) was finally completed in 1970. It runs from Schwechat to Carinthia, where it connects to the Transalpine Oil Pipeline (TAL) in Würmlach and continues on one side to Trieste and on the other to Germany.108

Pipe-Gas-Contracts of 1968

After the end of World War II, the Soviet leadership under Stalin focused increasingly on coal mining in the USSR. Natural gas was seen primarily as an opportunity to reduce the consumption of oil and firewood.109 In 1956, Nikita Khrushchev marked a turning point in the Soviet energy policy when he declared at the XX Party Congress of the CPSU that the production of gas (and oil) was “of great significance for further growth in the output of consumer goods.”110 It is therefore not surprising that the Soviets did not recognize the economic potential of natural gas in Austria until the second half of the 1950s. SMV sup­plied the city of Vienna with natural gas.111 During the occupation, SMV produced an estimated four billion cubic meters of natural gas (around 1.9 billion cubic meters of dry gas and 2.1 billion cubic meters of wet gas),112 whereby most of the wet gas was flared off or was used as an aid to oil production (gas lift).113

Between 1950 and 1959, the share of coal as a source of energy in Austria fell from around 67 to 42 percent and the share of natural gas rose from two to eight percent. In Austria, during the 1950s, coal was increasingly replaced by other energy sources, such as hydropower, oil, and natural gas.114 In the 1960s, it became clear that Austria’s economy had grown so much and so rapidly that the existing domestic gas supply was no longer sufficient. If no new major discoveries were made, natural gas production was likely to be insufficient due to the high demands on gas production at the time, at least according to ÖMV’s audit for 1964. Although this audit treated the “possibility of cheap natural gas imports […] with skepticism for the time being,”115 industry in particular exerted pressure and insisted on further expansion or on natural gas imports. Imports were finally identified as the solution that would take effect most quickly. There were several options to choose from, ranging from natural gas supplies from Algeria to a Western European pipeline that would secure natural gas supplies from the gas fields in the Netherlands. These plans were made by Austria Ferngas, a joint company of ÖMV’s three mayor customers.116 ÖMV was thus under considerable pressure. In January 1964, the announcement was made that the “Brotherhood” (Bratstvo) pipeline would be constructed from Ukraine to Bratislava. Natural gas from the Soviet Union would run all the way to Czechoslovakia, right on Austria’s doorstep.117

Negotiations with the Soviets began in the same year as the announcement as part of Austria’s bilateral trade discussions with the USSR.118 In 1966, a bilateral production agreement was concluded with the Czechoslovakian foreign trade agency Metalimex. Under this agreement, ÖMV would increase its gas production in the Zwerndorf field, and on the far side of the border, the Czechoslovaks would reduce their production. The Austrian side was to pay economic compensation.119 One year later, a contract was signed with Metalimex for the supply of summer gas volumes. A gas pipeline 6.5 kilometers long was built between Baumgarten in Austria and Vysoká in Czechoslovakia. Vysoká and, thus, Austria was later connected to “Brotherhood.”120

In the 1960s, the USSR expanded oil and gas production in the north of Western Siberia. Major gas fields such as Urengoy (which was the second biggest worldwide), Yamburg, and Medvezhye were developed there.121 In 1966, the Soviets decided to enter the Western European gas market. In the same year a delegation from the Italian ENI and an Austrian delegation independently visited the Soviet Union. The Austrian delegation was led by Vice Chancellor122 and Minister of Trade Fritz Bock and managers of ÖMV and the nationalized steel producer VÖEST. In March 1967, Federal Chancellor Josef Klaus was invited to Moscow for negotiations. It was agreed that further talks should be held about Soviet gas supplies and a Soviet-Italian pipeline crossing Austria. The Soviet Union wanted to be paid for the gas supplied in convertible currency and, to a not inconsiderable extent, by pipes from the Austrian steel company VÖEST.123

In August 1967 and in 1969, ENI signed gas import agreements with the USSR. According to the agreement of 1967 Italy should import 1.2 billion normal cubic meters of Soviet gas starting in 1971. It was settled that the Italians should provide steel pipes, valves and cables to the USSR to build pipelines, and Italian financial institutes should offer credit allowances.124 For the Italian connection to the “Brotherhood” pipeline a transit through Austria was needed.

On June 1, 1968, a General Agreement was concluded between the Soviet Ministry of Foreign Trade on the one hand and ÖMV and VÖEST on the other. The deal was signed in Vienna. Due to and in addition to this agreement, three contracts were signed. The first contract was concluded between VÖEST and the Soviet foreign trade company Promsyrioimport. VÖEST had to deliver 520,000 tons of pipes and equipment worth 100 million US dollars for the installation of gas fields and the construction of a natural gas pipeline in the Soviet Union. As VÖEST did not possess a pipe factory, the German companies Mannesmann and Thyssen delivered 270,000 tons themselves as a subcontractor. For the rest (250,000 tons), VÖEST supplied steel to the two German companies, which used it to produce pipes.125 These economic ties lasted until the second half of the 1970s, when VÖEST-Alpine delivered 200,000 tons of pipes to the Soviet Union via Promsyrioimport.126 The second agreement between the Foreign Trade Bank of the Soviet Union and the Austrian Kontrollbank granted a loan of 110 million US dollars with six percent interest and a term of seven years until 1975 to pay for VÖEST’s deliveries to Promsyrioimport. The third agreement was signed between ÖMV and Soyuznefteksport on the supply127 of 32 billion normal cubic meters until 1990. The price was fixed at 14.10 US dollars per 1,000 normal cubic meters for the first seven years. On June 14 and July 11, 1968, ÖMV signed a contract with Erdgaswirtschaftsgesellschaft m. b. H and with its domestic costumers (BEGAS, NIOGAS, Steirische Ferngas Gesellschaft, and Wiener Stadtwerke) on the purchase of Soviet natural gas.128 Article 8 in the Soviet-Austrian General agreement stipulated that the ÖMV should enable gas transit to Italy and France without Soviet involvement.129

Until the deliveries began, however, it was unclear whether the Soviets would actually turn on the gas tap. Warsaw Pact troops had invaded Czechoslovakia and put down the “Prague Spring” on the night of August 20–21, 1968. On September 1, 1968, the first Soviet gas crossed the Iron Curtain, nine days earlier than planned. This made Austria the first Western European country to get Soviet natural gas. The Austrian reaction to the Prague Spring was also restrained due to the energy partnership.130 At the ceremonial festival at Baumgarten celebrating the first Soviet gas in Austria, Aleksei Kortunov, the Soviet Minister for the Gas Industry, was present. During this visit, he expressed the Soviet wish to purchase fittings and other equipment for oil pipelines in Austria. B. F. Podtserob, the Soviet Ambassador to Austria, expressed thanks for the “amicable atmosphere” which Minister Kortunov had been received. Austrian Foreign Minister Waldheim hoped to intensify the economic ties between Austria and the Soviet Union.131

Conclusion

After World War II, due to the need for foreign oil sources, the Soviet Union founded the Soviet Mineral Oil Administration in its Austrian occupation zone as early as September 1945. The company formed an extraterritorial administrative body for confiscated German property. Up to 60 percent of the oil produced during the SMV period was exported to communist Central and Eastern Europe. As part of the framework of the negotiations of the State Treaty of 1955, the Austrian state acquired its own oil industry of the former Soviet mineral oil complex. Before World Word II, big parts of the oil complex had been in the hands of Anglo-American companies. Austria had to deal with both the Soviet and the Anglo-American claims to Austrian oil. An agreement was reached with the USSR according to which Austria had to deliver ten million tons of crude oil within ten years. As part of Khrushchev’s “peaceful coexistence,” this was eventually reduced to six million tons, which the Soviet Union sold to four of its “brother countries” in Central and Eastern Europe.

As the production of natural gas in Austria in the 1950s and 1960s could no longer keep pace with demand, the search was on for import options. Within the Austrian administrated ÖMV, many of the leading engineers had created networks with Soviets during the SMV period and afterwards maintained. Negotiations with the Soviets began after the announcement in 1964 that a gas pipeline would be built for the delivery of Soviet gas to the Austrian border. These negotiations about a natural gas pipeline across Austria towards Italy and Soviet natural gas supplies dragged on until 1968. Austria was made the first Western European country to get Soviet gas across the Iron Curtain. Already in August 1967 and in December 1969, the Italian ENI, made natural gas supply contracts with the Soviet Union. The Trans-Austria Gas Pipeline (TAG) went into operation in 1974. Soviet gas flowed through Austria via TAG to Italy. In February 1970, the Federal Republic of Germany signed natural gas contracts with the USSR. The Soviet-German contracts were comparable to the Soviet-Austrian and Soviet-Italian contracts (they included gas deliveries, pipe purchases, and bank loans). Soviet gas supplies to the Federal Republic of Germany were also scheduled to continue until 1990, as was the case with Austria. Finland followed with its gas contract with the USSR in December 1971. As these countries needed ten times more natural gas than Austria, a new pipeline system was necessary, which was completed in 1973–74. The last Western European country to conclude a contract with the Soviet Union was France, which signed its deal in 1976.132

In Austria, the agreement was viewed very positively and was considered a “great success” well after 1968 because the Soviet Union and then Russia were seen as a loyal partner which delivered despite every crisis. And after some time, the treaty was probably also seen as a success in many Western European countries (and imitated by more than a few).

Tempura mutantur, as the Latin saying goes. In the meanwhile, Austria has changed from pioneer to latecomer. Today, against the backdrop of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, the perspective on Austria’s dependence on Russian gas has changed completely and is seen as disadvantageous by many sides.

Archival Sources

Arkhiv vneshnei politiki Rossiiskoi Imperii, Moscow [Foreign Policy Archives of the Russian Federation] (AVP RF)

Karl von Vogelsang-Institut, Vienna (KvVI)

The National Archives and Records Administration, College Park (NARA)

CIA Records Search Tool

Österreichisches Staatsarchiv, Vienna (ÖStA)

Archiv der Republic (AdR)

Bundeskanzleramt (BKA)

Bundesministerium für Handel und Wiederaufbau (BMfHuW)

Wirtschaftsarchive (WA)

Stiftung Dr. Bruno Kreisky Archiv, Vienna (SBKA)

Bibliography

Auer, Matthias. “Österreich droht neue Gaskrise.” Die Presse, April 11, 2024.

Auer, Matthias. “Österreich, Moskaus treuer Kunde.” Die Presse, November 16, 2023.

Bayer, Florian. “Kein Russengas mehr für Österreich.” Wiener Zeitung, November 21, 2024. Accessed November 26, 2024. https://www.wienerzeitung.at/a/kein-russengas-mehr-fuer-oesterreich.

Bini, Elisabetta. “A Challenge to Cold War Energy Politics? The US and Italy’s Relations with the Soviet Union, 1958–1969.” In Cold War Energy: A Transnational History of Soviet Oil and Gas, edited by Jeronim Perović, 201–30. Cham: Palgrave Macmillian, 2017.

Bischof, Günter, and Peter Ruggenthaler. Österreich und der Kalte Krieg: Ein Balanceakt zwischen Ost und West. Graz and Vienna: Leykam, 2022.

Blasi, Walter. “Die Libanonkrise 1958 und die US-Überflüge.” In Österreich im frühen Kalten Krieg 1945–1958: Spione, Partisanen, Kriegspläne, edited by Erwin Schmidl, 239–59. Vienna: Böhlau, 2000.

Brunner, Waltraud. “Das deutsche Eigentum und das Ringen um den österreichischen Staatsvertrag 1945–1955.” PhD diss., University of Vienna, 1976.

Compass-Verlag, ed. Finanz-Compass Österreich. Vienna: Compass Verlag, 1976.

Compass-Verlag, ed. Der Finanz Compass Österreich: Industrie, Handel, Dienstleistungen. Vol. 2.Vienna: Compass Verlag, 1995.

Die Presse. “Ukraine liefert ab 2025 kein russisches Gas mehr.” Die Presse, March 7, 2024.

European Council. “Where does the EU’s gas come from?” March 21, 2024. Last accessed on May 24, 2024. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/infographics/eu-gas-supply/.

Feichtinger, Friedrich, and Hermann Spörker. ÖMV–OMV: Die Geschichte eines öster­reichischen Unternehmens. Horn: Ferdinand Berger & Söhne, 1994.

Fritz, Peter, and Walter M. Iber. “Adolf Schärf, Bruno Kreisky und der Staatsvertrag.” In Österreich ist frei! Der Österreichische Staatsvertrag 1955: Beitragsband zur Ausstellung auf Schloss Schallaburg 2005, edited by Stefan Karner, and Gottfried Stangler, 371–75. Horn and Vienna: Verlag Berger, 2005.

Graf, Maximilian. “Austria and Trieste 1945–1955: Interconnected Histories of the Early Cold War.” In The Alps-Adriatic Region 1945–1955. International and Transnational Perspectives on a Conflicted European Region, edited by Wolfgang Mueller, Karlo Ruzicic-Kessler, and Philipp Greilinger, 135–56. Vienna: New Academic Press, 2018.

Graf-Steiner, Anna. Brückenbauer im Kalten Krieg: Österreich und der lange Weg zur KSZE-Schlussakte. Graz,–Vienna–Berlin: Leykam, 2024.

Graf-Steiner, Anna. “Soviet-Austrian Economic Relations 1955–1975: The Beginning of Austrian Economic Dependence on Moscow or Essential Element of Détente?” Journal of Cold War Studies [forthcoming].

Grubmayr, Herbert. “Julius Raab und Nikita Chruščev: Zwischen Öl, Kaltem Krieg und Supermachtpolitik.” In Der Wiener Gipfel 1961: Kennedy – Chruschtschow, edited by Stefan Karner et al., 833–51. Innsbruck–Vienna–Bozen: StudienVerlag, 2011.

Grünwald, Oskar. “Die Geschichte der Erdölindustrie in Österreich.” In Business History: Wissenschaftliche Entwicklungstrends und Studien aus Zentraleuropa, edited by Alice Teichova, Herbert Matis, and Andreas Resch, 203–09. Vienna: Manz, 1999.

Hayes, Mark H. Algerian Gas to Europe: The Transmed Pipeline and Early Spanish Gas Import Projects. Geopolitics of gas working paper series, Working Paper 27. Stanford, 2004. Last accessed on May 29, 2024. https://fsi9-prod.s3.us-west-1.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/Transmed_FINAL.pdf.

Högselius, Per. Red Gas: Russia and the Origins of European Energy Dependence. New York: Palgrave Macmillian, 2013.

Huber, Christoph. “Österreichisch-sowjetische Wirtschafts- und Handelsbeziehungen 1955–1963/64: Unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Ablöselieferungen.” PhD diss., University of Graz, in progress.

Iber, Walter M. Die Sowjetische Mineralölverwaltung in Österreich: Zur Vorgeschichte der OMV 1945–1955. Innsbruck–Vienna–Bozen: StudienVerlag, 2011.

Iber, Walter M. “Erdöl statt Reparationen: Die österreichische Mineralölverwaltung 1945–1955.” Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte 57, no. 4 (2009): 571–605.

Iber, Walter M. “Occupation and Exploitation. Soviet Economic Policy toward Austria from 1945 to 1955/63.” In The Red Army in Austria: The Soviet Occupation, 1945–1955, edited by Stefan Karner, and Barbara Stelzl-Marx, 123–48. Lanham et al.: Lexington Books 2020.

Iber, Walter M., and Peter Ruggenthaler. “Sowjetische Wirtschaftspolitik im besetzten Österreich: Ein Überblick.” In Stalins Wirtschaftspolitik an der sowjetischen Peripherie, edited by Walter M. Iber, and Peter Ruggenthaler, 187–210. Innsbruck–Vienna–Bozen: StudienVerlag, 2011.

Karner, Stefan. Im Kalten Krieg der Spionage: Margarethe Ottillinger in sowjetischer Haft 1948–1955. Innsbruck–Vienna–Bozen: StudienVerlag, 2016.

Karner, Stefan, and Peter Ruggenthaler. “Austria and the End of Prague Spring: Neutrality in the Crucible?” In The Prague Spring and the Warsaw Pact Invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968, edited by Günter Bischof, Stefan Karner, and Peter Ruggenthaler, 419–40. Lanham et al.: Lexington Books, 2010.

Legradi, Helene, and E. R. Fiala. Handbuch des österreichischen Osthandels. Vienna: Self-published by Österreichisches Büro für den für Ost-West-Handel, 1967.

“Memorandum über die Ergebnisse der Besprechung zwischen Mitgliedern der öster­reichischen Bundesregierung und den Botschaftern Ihrer Königlichen Britannischen Majestät und der Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika (‘Wiener Memorandum’), 10. Mai 1955.” In Der Kampf um den Staatsvertrag 1945–1955: Ost-West-Besetzung, Staatsvertrag und Neutralität Österreichs, edited by Gerald Stourzh, and Wolfgang Mueller, 658–62. Vienna–Cologne–Weimar: Böhlau, 2020.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the USSR. “Memorandum über die Ergebnisse der Besprechung zwischen der Regierungsdelegation der Sowjetunion und der Regier­ungs­delegation der Republik Österreich, 15 April 1955.” In UdSSR-Österreich 1938–1979: Dokumente und Materialien, 81–85. Moscow, 1980.

Mueller, Wolfgang. “Peaceful Coexistence, Neutrality and Bilateral Relations across the Iron Curtain. Introduction.” In Peaceful Coexistence or Iron Curtain? Austria, Neutrality, and Eastern Europe in the Cold War and Détente, 1955-1989, edited by Arnold Suppan and Wolfgang Mueller, 7–29. Vienna: Lit-Verlag, 2009.

Mueller, Wolfgang. “The Soviet Factor in the Alps-Adriatic Region, 1945–1947: The Issues of Trieste, Carinthia and South Tyrol.” In The Alps-Adriatic Region 1945–1955: International and Transnational Perspectives on a Conflicted European Region, edited by Wolfgang Mueller, Karlo Ruzicic-Kessler, and Philipp Greilinger, 233–61. Vienna: New Academic Press, 2018.

Musial, Bogdan. “Sowjetische Demontagen und Beschlagnahmungen in Polen und in den ehemaligen deutschen Ostgebieten.” In Stalins Wirtschaftspolitik an der sowjetischen Peripherie, edited by Walter M. Iber, and Peter Ruggenthaler, 45–71. Innsbruck–Vienna–Bozen: StudienVerlag, 2011.

Nekrasov, Viacheslav. “Decision-Making in the Soviet Energy Sector in Post-Stalinist Times: The Failure of Khrushev’s Economic Modernization Strategy.” In Cold War Energy: A Transnational History of Soviet Oil and Gas, edited by Jeronim Perović, 165–99. Cham: Palgrave Macmillian, 2017.

OMV. “Adria Wien Pipeline.” Accessed on May 28, 2024. https://www.omv.at/de-at/ueber-uns/versorgung/adria-wien-pipeline.

OMV. “OMV im Überblick.” 2022. Accessed November 20, 2023. https://reports.omv.com/de/geschaeftsbericht/2022/lagebericht/unternehmen/omv-im-ueberblick.html.

OMV. “OMV prüft Dekret zur OMV-Beteiligung in Russland.” December 20, 2023. Accessed May, 27, 2024. https://www.omv.com/de/news/231220-omv-prueft-dekret-zur-omv-beteiligung-in-russland.

ORF. “Erdgasvertrag bei Putin-Besuch verlängert.” June, 5, 2018. Accessed November 20, 2023. https://wien.orf.at/v2/news/stories/2917064/.

Pavlenko, Olga, and Peter Ruggenthaler. “Die Sowjetunion und der Weg zur öster­reichischen Neutralität 1955.” In Österreich – Russland: Stationen gemeinsamer Geschichte, edited by Stefan Karner, and Alexander Tschubarjan, 203–17. Graz–Vienna: Leykam, 2018.

Peebles, Curtis. Shadow Flights: America’s Secret Air War against the Soviet Union. Novato: Presidio Press, 2001.

Perović, Jeronim. Rohstoffmacht Russland: Eine globale Energiegeschichte. Vienna–Cologne: Böhlau, 2022.

Pflügl, Jakob. “Kommt die OMV aus den Verträgen mit Russland wirklich nicht heraus?” Der Standard, March 6, 2023. Accessed May 23, 2024. https://www.derstandard.at/story/2000144173593/kommt-die-omv-aus-den-vertraegen-mit-russland-wirklich-nicht.

Rathkolb, Oliver. Washington ruft Wien. US-Großmachtpolitik und Österreich 1953–1963: Mit Exkursen zu CIA-Waffenlagern, NATO-Connection, Neutralitätsdebatte. Vienna: Böhlau, 1997.

Rehschuh, Felix. Aufstieg zur Energiemacht: Der sowjetische Weg ins Erdölzeitalter 1930er bis 1950er Jahre. Vienna–Cologne–Weimar: Böhlau, 2018.

Resch, Andreas. “Der österreichische Osthandel im Spannungsfeld der Blöcke.” In Zwischen den Blöcken: NATO, Warschauer Pakt und Österreich, edited by Manfried Rauchensteiner, 497–556. Vienna–Cologne–Weimar: Böhlau, 2010.

Ruggenthaler, Peter. “So nah und doch so fern: Zur sowjetischen Haltung bei den Staatsvertragsverhandlungen 1949/50.” In Österreich ist frei! Der Österreichische Staatsvertrag 1955: Beitragsband zur Ausstellung auf Schloss Schallaburg 2005, edited by Stefan Karner, and Gottfried Stangler, 289–95. Horn–Vienna: Verlag Berger, 2005.

Ruggenthaler, Peter, and Harald Knoll. “Nikita Chruščev und Österreich: Die öster­reichische Neutralität als Instrument der sowjetischen Außenpolitik.” In Der Wiener Gipfel 1961: Kennedy – Chruschtschow, edited by Stefan Karner et al., 759–807. Innsbruck–Vienna–Bozen: StudienVerlag, 2011.

Schattenberg, Susanne. “Pipeline Construction as ‘Soft Power’ in Foreign Policy: Why the Soviet Union Started to Sell Gas to West Germany, 1966–1970.” Journal of Modern European History 20, no. 4 (2022): 554–73. doi: 10.1177/16118944221130222.

Seidel, Hans. Österreichs Wirtschaft und Wirtschaftspolitik nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg. Vienna: Manz, 2005.

Stern, Silke. “ ‘Eine Höflichkeitsvisite mehr protokollarischer Natur.’ Der Staatsbesuch Nikita Chruščevs in Österreich 1960.” In Der Wiener Gipfel 1961. Kennedy – Chruschtschow, edited byStefan Karner et al., 735–58. Innsbruck–Vienna–Bozen: StudienVerlag, 2011.

Stourzh, Gerald, and Wolfgang Mueller. A Cold War over Austria: The Struggle for the State Treaty, Neutrality, and the End of East-West Occupation, 1945–1955. Lanham et al.: Lexington Books, 2018.

Strobl, Günther. “OMV denkt nicht an freiwilligen Ausstieg aus russischem Gas.” Der Standard, May 28, 2024. Accessed June 5, 2024. https://www.derstandard.at/story/3000000221832/omv-denkt-nicht-an-freiwilligen-ausstieg-aus-russis­chem-gas.

Strobl, Günther. “Wie die OMV von einer Insolvenz der Nord Stream 2 AG betroffen sein könnte.” Der Standard, March 2, 2022. Accessed May 27, 2024. https://www.derstandard.at/story/2000133788669/wie-die-omv-von-insolvenz-der-nord-stream-2-ag.

Strobl, Günther, and Regina Bruckner. “Schwieriger Umstieg: Kommt Österreich weg vom Gastropf?” Der Standard, November 23, 2024. Accessed November 28, 2024. https://www.derstandard.at/story/3000000246162/kommt-oesterreich-weg-vom-­gastropf.

Subok [Zubok], Wladislaw, and Konstatin Pleschakow. Der Kreml im Kalten Krieg: Von 1945 bis zur Kubakrise. Hildesheim: Claassen, 1997.

Wessely, Kurt. “Österreich und die Erdölwirtschaft der Ostblockländer.” Osteuropa 8, no. 10/11 (1958): 694–99.

WIFO-Monatsbericht, vol. 33, no. 64 (1960).

WIFO-Monatsbericht, vol. 35, no. 5 (1962).

Zollinger, Manfred. “Karl Waldbrunner – Schnittstellen eines Lebens zwischen Industrie und Politik.” In Karl Waldbrunner: Pragmatischer Visionär für das neue Österreich, edited by Hannes Androsch, Anton Pelinka, and Manfred Zollinger, 17–141. Vienna: Carl Gerold’s Sohn, 2006.

  1. 1 Preparatory work for this article was conducted at the University of Graz in collaboration with the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Research on Consequences of War (BIK), Graz – Vienna – Raabs and the City of Graz. It was supported by the FWF in the context of the project “Soviet-Austrian Trade and Economic Relations, 1955–1964” (10.55776/I5306). The authors would like to thank Anna Graf-Steiner and the reviewers of the Hungarian Historical Review for their beneficial comments on the manuscript.

  2. 2 From 1956 until 1974, the company traded under the name Österreichische Mineralölverwaltung AG (ÖMV AG). Between 1974 and 1995, its name was “ÖMV Aktiengesellschaft.” In 1995, it was changed to “OMV Aktiengesellschaft.” See: Compass-Verlag, Der Finanz Compass Österreich, 1995, 119.

  3. 3 OMV, “OMV im Überblick,” 2022.

  4. 4 The Austrian state owns a stake of 31.5 percent of OMV.

  5. 5 Strobl, “Wie die OMV von einer Insolvenz der Nord Stream 2 AG betroffen sein könnte”; OMV, “OMV prüft Dekret zur OMV-Beteiligung in Russland.”

  6. 6 Bayer, “Kein Russengas mehr für Österreich.”

  7. 7 EU’s gas imports (LNG and pipeline gas) from Russia declined from 150 billion cubic meters (bcm) in 2021 to less than 43 bcm in 2023. In the same period, imports from the USA increased from 18,9 bcm to 56,2 bcm. Imports from Norway grew from 79,5 bcm to 87,7 bcm. Imports from other countries went up from 41,6 bcm to 62 bcm.

  8. 8 Data for calculation taken from: European Council, “Where does the EU’s gas come from?” March 21, 2024.

  9. 9 OMV, “OMV prüft Dekret zur OMV-Beteiligung in Russland.”

  10. 10 Data taken from: Die Presse, “Ukraine liefert ab 2025 kein russisches Gas mehr,” 17.

  11. 11 ORF, “Erdgasvertrag bei Putin-Besuch verlängert.”

  12. 12 Auer, “Österreich, Moskaus treuer Kunde,” 1; ORF, “Gewessler will OMV-Gassparte verstaatlichen.” ORF, April 28, 2023.

  13. 13 Auer, “Österreich droht neue Gaskrise,” 1.

  14. 14 Die Presse, “Ukraine liefert ab 2025 kein russisches Gas mehr,” 17; Pflügl, “Kommt die OMV aus den Verträgen mit Russland wirklich nicht heraus?”

  15. 15 Strobl, “OMV denkt nicht an freiwilligen Ausstieg aus russischem Gas.”

  16. 16 Bayer, “Kein Russengas mehr für Österreich.”

  17. 17 Strobl and Bruckner, “Schwieriger Umstieg: Kommt Österreich weg vom Gastropf?”

  18. 18 Burgenland, Lower Austria, Mühlviertel, and parts of Vienna.

  19. 19 At the Potsdam Conference in July-August 1945, the Allies decided that Austria, as a “liberated country”, did not have to pay any war reparations. However, they granted each other access to “German property”. In their Austrian occupation zone, the Soviet authorities claimed “all companies that had passed into German hands by the end of the war or had been newly established or expanded with Reich-German capital” as “German property.” See: Brunner, “Das deutsche Eigentum und das Ringen um den österreichischen Staatsvertrag 1945–1955,” 27–75.

  20. 20 Iber, Die Sowjetische Mineralölverwaltung in Österreich.

  21. 21 State Treaty, Federal Law Gazette for the Republic of Austria No. 152/1955.

  22. 22 ÖStA, AdR, GfA (Company for Replacement Deliveries), Abkommen über Erdöllieferungen an die Union der Sozialistischen Sowjetrepubliken als Ablöse der Erdölunternehmungen, die von der Sowjetunion an Österreich übergeben werden, 12 June 1955.

  23. 23 Resch, “Der österreichische Osthandel,” 515–20; on the Austrian replacement deliveries, see the chapter “Ablöselieferungen und Restitution“ in Iber, Die Sowjetische Mineralölverwaltung in Österreich, 213–24; “Von Kompensation zu Kooperation” in Graf-Steiner, Brückenbauer im Kalten Krieg, 45–50; Huber, “Österreichisch-sowjetische Wirtschafts- und Handelsbeziehungen 1955–1963/64.”

  24. 24 In November 2024, the fifty-six-year continuous deliveries of natural gas from Gazprom to OMV were suspended. However, Russian gas continues to arrive in Austria in November 2024. See: Bayer, “Kein Russengas mehr für Österreich”; Strobl and Bruckner, “Schwieriger Umstieg: Kommt Österreich weg vom Gastropf?”

  25. 25 Högselius, Red Gas, 58–65; ORF, “Erdgasvertrag bei Putin-Besuch verlängert.” June 5, 2018.

  26. 26 Perović, Rohstoffmacht Russland, 73–78.

  27. 27 Iber, Die Sowjetische Mineralölverwaltung in Österreich, 38–47.

  28. 28 Rehschuh, Aufstieg zur Energiemacht, 174–75.

  29. 29 Iber, Die Sowjetische Mineralölverwaltung in Österreich, 38–47.

  30. 30 Ibid., 47–48.

  31. 31 Musial, “Sowjetische Demontagen und Beschlagnahmungen,” 59.

  32. 32 Iber, Die Sowjetische Mineralölverwaltung in Österreich, 50.

  33. 33 NARA CIA Records Search Tool, CIA-RDP81-01043R003700130004-9. Soviet Occupation Economy in Austria. Final Report, December, 1957, 45–50a.

  34. 34 This was a problem in itself, because due to the economic penetration of Austria after the “Anschluss” in 1938, it was no longer possible to separate Austrian from German assets.

  35. 35 Iber and Ruggenthaler, “Sowjetische Wirtschaftspolitik im besetzten Österreich,” 187–94.

  36. 36 Sanafta can in principle be compared with the “Maszolaj” joint venture in Hungary and with “Sovrompetrol” in Romania.

  37. 37 Iber, Die Sowjetische Mineralölverwaltung in Österreich, 55–59.

  38. 38 Ibid., 88.

  39. 39 Grünwald, “Die Geschichte der Erdölindustrie in Österreich,” 204.

  40. 40 Ibid.; Iber and Ruggenthaler, “Sowjetische Wirtschaftspolitik im besetzten Österreich,” 195.

  41. 41 NARA CIA Records Search Tool, CIA-RDP78-01617A001500080001-6, Austria, May 1948, II-5.

  42. 42 Rehschuh, Aufstieg zur Energiemacht, 188–291.

  43. 43 Ibid., 291.

  44. 44 Iber, Die Sowjetische Mineralölverwaltung in Österreich, 130–33; Iber, “Occupation and Exploitation,” 132; NARA CIA Records Search Tool, CIA-RDP81-01043R003700130004-9. Soviet Occupation Economy in Austria. Final Report, December, 1957, 91–92.

  45. 45 Iber, Die Sowjetische Mineralölverwaltung in Österreich, 88–144; Iber, “Occupation and Exploitation,” 132–33; Feichtinger and Spörker, ÖMV–OMV, 50–64.

  46. 46 On the way to the Austrian State Treaty, see: Stourzh and Mueller, A Cold War over Austria.

  47. 47 After the end of the Second World War, Yugoslavia and Italy came into conflict over the question of who belonged to Trieste and its hinterland. Since, despite the proclamation of a “Free Territory of Trieste” under a UN protectorate in 1947, there was still a provisional administration by the British and Americans in Zone A. The Soviet leadership argued that the unresolved Triest issue represented a violation of the Italian peace treaty, and it could therefore not be ruled out that the Western powers would also commit a “breach of treaty” during the Austrian negotiations. “Trieste was now a trump card that could be played [by the Soviet government] at any time.” See: Bischof and Ruggenthaler, Österreich und der Kalte Krieg, 80; on Austria and the Triest question see in detail: Graf, “Austria and Trieste 1945–1955,” 135–56; Mueller, “The Soviet Factor in the Alps-Adriatic Region, 1945–1947.”

  48. 48 Pavlenko and Ruggenthaler, “Die Sowjetunion und der Weg zur österreichischen Neutralität 1955,” 207–10; Iber and Ruggenthaler, “Sowjetische Wirtschaftspolitik im besetzten Österreich,” 197–99; Ruggenthaler, “So nah und doch so fern,” 294–95.

  49. 49 Iber, Die Sowjetische Mineralölverwaltung, 196; Iber and Ruggenthaler, “Sowjetische Wirtschaftspolitik im besetzten Österreich,” 201.

  50. 50 Grubmayr, “Julius Raab und Nikita Chruščev,” 834; Stourzh and Mueller, A Cold War over Austria, 350–58.

  51. 51 Stourzh and Mueller, A Cold War over Austria, 357.

  52. 52 During a radio address for the German station Süddeutscher Rundfunk (SDR), State Secretary Bruno Kreisky made this quote in the course of the 1956 election campaign. Transcript of Kreisky’s address: “The provision was included in the draft of the State Treaty that the Soviet Union was to receive concessions on 60% of the oil fields, which corresponded to around 85% of Austria’s oil production, for 30 years after the conclusion of the State Treaty. But that was not enough. The Soviet Union was also to be reserved 60% of all shearing rights eight years after the state treaty. If oil was found within this period, the Soviet Union would have had the right to exploit these oil wells for 25 years. If these provisions of the State Treaty had come into force, Austria would have been placed in a semi-colonial status for more than three decades.” (Transcribed and translated by the authors.) Österreichische Mediathek, 99-56023, k02, “Radiovortrag von Staatssekretär Bruno Kreisky über Erdöl”, 1956, Accessed April 10, 2024. https://www.mediathek.at/katalogsuche/suche/detail/?pool=BWEB&uid=01782B37-1A6-00D50-00000BEC-01772EE2&cHash=a8451e45bb00b45168b8a8b805028982.

  53. 53 Zollinger, “Karl Waldbrunner – Schnittstellen eines Lebens zwischen Industrie und Politik,” 106; Fritz and Iber, “Adolf Schärf, Bruno Kreisky und der Staatsvertrag,” 372–73.

  54. 54 Iber, Die Sowjetische Mineralölverwaltung in Österreich, 199–200.

  55. 55 Ivan G. Kabanov calculated 4.1 million tons of oil over six years. See: Iber, Die Sowjetische Mineralölverwaltung in Österreich, 197–200; Iber, “Erdöl statt Reparationen,” 602.

  56. 56 Ibid.

  57. 57 Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the USSR, “Memorandum über die Ergebnisse der Besprechung zwischen der Regierungsdelegation der Sowjetunion und der Regierungsdelegation der Republik Österreich, 15 April 1955,” 84.

  58. 58 In Annex 2 of the State Treaty the agreements of the Moscow Memorandum were set down. Article 22 touches on the provisions of the earlier negotiations with the Soviets on “German property,” which had not fully entered into force. Annex 2 of the State Treaty stipulates the following: “1. On the basis of the pertinent economic provisions of the April 15, 1955 arrangements between the Soviet Union and Austria, the Soviet Union will transfer to Austria within two months from the date of entry into force of the present Treaty, all property, rights and interests to be retained or received by it in accordance with Article 22, except the Danube Shipping Company (D.D.S.G.) assets in Hungary, Roumania and Bulgaria. 2. It is agreed that in respect of any property, right or interest transferred to Austria in accordance with this Annex, Austria’s rights shall be limited only in the manner set out in paragraph 13 of Article 22.” State Treaty for the re-establishment of an independent and democratic Austria, Treaty Series No. 58 (1957), London.

  59. 59 Iber, “Erdöl statt Reparationen,” 602.

  60. 60 ÖStA AdR, GfA (Company for Replacement Deliveries), Abkommen über Erdöllieferungen an die Union der Sozialistischen Sowjet­republiken als Ablöse der Erdölunternehmungen, die von der Sowjetunion an Österreich übergeben werden, July 12, 1955.

  61. 61 Iber, Die Sowjetische Mineralölverwaltung in Österreich, 213–17.

  62. 62 ÖStA AdR, GfA (Company for Replacement Deliveries), Abkommen über Erdöllieferungen an die Union der Sozialistischen Sowjet­republiken als Ablöse der Erdölunternehmungen, die von der Sowjetunion an Österreich übergeben werden, July 12, 1955.

  63. 63 Iber, Die Sowjetische Mineralölverwaltung in Österreich, 214.

  64. 64 John Foster Dulles to US Embassy in Austria: “Is Austrian gasoline in fact not useable without additional tetraethyl lead?” Answer from US Embassy in Vienna (Llewellyn E. Thomson): “Austrian gas rating 62 octan raised to 75 by tetraethyl lead. 70 usable minimum.”

  65. 65 NARA RG (Registry Group) 59, EN (Entry Number) A1 205-N, B 2013. John Foster Dulles to Embassy Vienna, January 19, 1955.

  66. 66 NARA RG 59, EN A1 205-N, B 2013. Llewellyn E. Thomson to Secretary of State, January 28, 1955.

  67. 67 Shell, Socony Vacuum, Standard Oil, Van Sickle, Steinberg-Naphta, Austrogasco.

  68. 68 “Memorandum über die Ergebnisse der Besprechung zwischen Mitgliedern der österreichischen Bundesregierung und den Botschaftern Ihrer Königlichen Britannischen Majestät und der Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika (‘Wiener Memorandum’), May 10, 1955,” In Der Kampf um den Staatsvertrag 1945 – 1955, 658–62.

  69. 69 NARA RG 59, EN A1 1611, B 2678. H. J. Schmidt to Christian A. Herter, September 9, 1960, 4.

  70. 70 Rathkolb, Washington ruft Wien, 167–71.

  71. 71 ÖMV held a 74% stake in Österreichische Rohöl-Verwertungs-GmbH (ÖRG) of the share capital of one million schillings. Shell Austria AG and Mobil Oil Austria AG held 13%. See: ÖStA, AdR, RH (Court of Auditors), Unternehmungen, GZ AE 3250-15/1969, U 148, Gr.Zl. 1100-15/69, Kt. 847. Österreichische Mineralölverwaltung Aktiengesellschaft, Wien. Prüfungsergebnis, November 4, 1969, 5.

  72. 72 Seidel, Österreichs Wirtschaft und Wirtschaftspolitik nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg, 456–57.

  73. 73 NARA RG 59, EN A1 205-N, B 2012. Memorandum of Conversation. Subject: Vienna Memorandum, September 23, 1959.

  74. 74 NARA RG 59, EN A1 1611, B 2676. Airgram. Radio Moscow Charges “United States Oil Monopoly” Danger, August 8, 1960.

  75. 75 See the oral history interviews in: Feichtinger and Spörker, ÖMV–OMV, 287–328.

  76. 76 Iber, Die Sowjetische Mineralölverwaltung in Österreich, 145.

  77. 77 Feichtinger and Spörker, ÖMV – OMV, 124.

  78. 78 Karner, Im Kalten Krieg der Spionage; ÖMV, Bericht über das Geschäftsjahr 1957, 16.

  79. 79 ÖStA AdR BKA MRP (Ministerratsprotokolle), 2. Republik, Raab I, Kt. 135. Beschlußprotokoll Nr. 92 über die Sitzung des Ministerrates am 17. Mai 1955. 1f) 10 Protestresolutionen von Betrieben der SMV gegen die Verzögerung des Staatsvertrages und Verstaatlichung, May 17, 1955.

  80. 80 ÖStA AdR BKA MRP (Ministerratsprotokolle), 2. Republik, Raab I, Kt. 138. Verhandlungsschrift Nr. 101 über die Sitzung des Ministerrates am 19. Juli 1955. Bundesministerium für Verkehr und verstaatlichte Betriebe. Vortrag an den Ministerrat über einen Gesetztesentwurf betreffend das in das Eigentum der Republik Österreich übertragene, bisher unter der Bezeichnung “Sowjetische Mineralölverwaltung” betriebene Unternehmen, July 18, 1955.

  81. 81 Iber, Die Sowjetische Mineralölverwaltung, 201–3.

  82. 82 ÖStA AdR WA, ÖIAG, Unternehmensdokumente, OMV AG, Kt. 134. Untersuchung über die Errichtung neuer Mineralölverarbeitungsanlagen, 1957, 3–24.

  83. 83 Refineries in Schwechat, Moosbierbaum, Lobau, Korneuburg, Vösendorf.

  84. 84 Ibid.

  85. 85 Ibid.

  86. 86 Feichtinger and Spörker, ÖMV–OMV, 117–58.

  87. 87 AVP RF F. 66, op. 39, p. 216, d. 8. Politicheskie voprosy. Austrian politics one year after the signing of the State Treaty, 3.4-17.12.1956.

  88. 88 In September 1955, at the second meeting of the Commission for the Supply of Goods, Josef Stangelberger, Head of Section in the Austrian Finance Ministry, referred to a regulation that ÖMV should pay for its former Soviet assets with oil. See: ÖStA AdR GfA (Company for Replacement Deliveries), Österreichische Kommission für Warenlieferungen zur Ablöse des Vermögens, das an Österreich übergeben wird. Protokoll der 2. Sitzung am 6. September 1955.

  89. 89 Iber, Die Sowjetische Mineralölverwaltung in Österreich, 215.

  90. 90 SBKA VII.2 BKAA, B 13. Mitteilungen des Ministerrates vom 4. Dezember, betreffend die Herab­minderung der Öllieferungen an die UdSSR, December 5, 1956; WIFO-Monatsbericht, 35/5 (1962), 216.

  91. 91 ÖStA AdR BMfHuW, Sek. IV 1955, GZ 218.080-IV/28/55, 409, Gr.Zl. 203.259/55, Kt. 3294. Memorandum betreffend die bei den bevorstehenden Moskauer Verhandlungen über die Lieferungen von Waren im Werte von 150 Mio. $ sich ergebenden Fragen, May 14, 1955.

  92. 92 NARA RG 59, EN A1 205-N, B 2664. Summary of Vienna Telegram 553, August 28 Concerning Possible Visit of Austrian Chancellor Rabb to Moscow to Negotiate Reductions in Austrian Compensation Shipments to the USSR, August 29, 1957.

  93. 93 Mueller, “Peaceful Coexistence, Neutrality and Bilateral Relations across the Iron Curtain,” 11–12; Subok and Pleschakow, Der Kreml im Kalten Krieg, 262–63.

  94. 94 Perović, Rohstoffmacht Russland, 78.

  95. 95 Iber, Die Sowjetische Mineralölverwaltung in Österreich, 215.

  96. 96 KvVI 1209, ÖMV to Julius Raab. Rohölablöselieferungen an die Sowjetunion, July 9, 1958.

  97. 97 See: Blasi, “Die Libanonkrise 1958 und die US-Überflüge.”

  98. 98 Bischof and Ruggenthaler, Österreich und der Kalte Krieg, 148; Ruggenthaler and Knoll, “Nikita Chruščev und Österreich”; Wessely, “Österreich und die Erdölwirtschaft der Ostblockländer,” 694–96.

  99. 99 ÖStA AdR BMfHuW, Sek. V 1958, GZ 216.623-V/31/58, 409, Gr.Zl. 205.025, Kt. 4570. Erdöllieferungen aus der UdSSR. Spezifikation, August 19, 1958.

  100. 100 WIFO-Monatsbericht, 35/5 (1962), 214–16.

  101. 101 Ibid., 214; Stourzh and Mueller, A Cold War over Austria, 362; Iber, Die Sowjetische Mineralölverwaltung in Österreich, 197; Stern, “Eine Höflichkeitsvisite mehr protokollarischer Natur,” 746.

  102. 102 ÖStA AdR WA, ÖIAG, Unternehmensdokumente, OMV AG, Kt. 158. Beeideter Wirtschaftsprüfer Rudolf Edelberger. Österreichische Mineralölverwaltung Aktiengesellschaft. Bericht Nr. 285/65 über die Prüfung des Jahresabschlusses zum 31. Dezember 1964 (Hauptbericht – Band I), 12–14.

  103. 103 Bini, “A Challenge to Cold War Energy Politics? The US and Italy’s Relations to the Soviet Union, 1958–1969,” 208.

  104. 104 Hayes, Algerian Gas to Europe, 8

  105. 105 NARA RG 59, EN A1 1611, B 2678. ENI Pipeline and Refinery Project in Austria, October 14, 1960; NARA RG 59, EN A1 1611, B 2678. US Embassy in Vienna to Secretary of State, July 1, 1960.

  106. 106 Perović, Rohstoffmacht Russland, 98–102.

  107. 107 Ibid.

  108. 108 ÖStA AdR WA, ÖIAG, Unternehmensdokumente, OMV AG, Kt. 135. Einladung zu der am 31. Oktober 1967, 16 Uhr, in der Generaldirektion der Österreichischen Mineralölverwaltung A.G., Wien IX., Otto Wagner Platz 5, Souterrain, stattfindenden Sitzung des Aufsichtsrates der ÖMV AG, October 25, 1967, 1; ÖStA AdR WA, ÖIAG, Unternehmensdokumente, OMV AG, Kt. 159. Bericht des Beeideten Wirtschaftsprüfers und Steuerberaters Dr. iur. Friedrich Grumptmann über die bei der Österreichischen Mineralölverwaltung Aktiengesellschaft, Wien vorgenommene Prüfung des Jahresabschlusses 1967, August 30, 1968, 15; OMV, “Adria Wien Pipeline.” Accessed on May 28, 2024. https://www.omv.at/de-at/ueber-uns/versorgung/adria-wien-pipeline.

  109. 109 Rehschuh, Aufstieg zur Energiemacht, 157–58.

  110. 110 Nekrasov, “Decision-Making in the Soviet Energy Sector in Post-Stalinist Times,” 168.

  111. 111 Feichtinger and Spörker, ÖMV–OMV, 75–76; Iber, Die Sowjetische Mineralölverwaltung in Österreich, 113–17.

  112. 112 NARA CIA Records Search Tool, CIA-RDP81-01043R003700130004-9. Soviet Occupation Economy in Austria. Final Report, December, 1957, 84–85.

  113. 113 Feichtinger and Spörker, ÖMV – OMV, 106; Iber, Die Sowjetische Mineralölverwaltung in Österreich, 113.

  114. 114 WIFO-Monatsbericht, 33/64 (1960), 4.

  115. 115 ÖStA AdR WA, ÖIAG, Unternehmensdokumente, OMV AG, Kt. 158. Beeideter Wirtschaftsprüfer Rudolf Edelberger. Österreichische Mineralölverwaltung Aktiengesellschaft. Bericht Nr. 285/65 über die Prüfung des Jahresabschlusses zum 31. Dezember 1964 (Hauptbericht – Band I), 12–14.

  116. 116 NIOGAS, Wiener Stadtwerke, Steirische Ferngas.

  117. 117 Högselius, Red Gas, 48–50.

  118. 118 On the Soviet-Austrian gas negotiations, see: Graf-Steiner, “Soviet-Austrian Economic Relations 1955–1975.”

  119. 119 Ibid., 50.

  120. 120 Feichtinger and Spörker, ÖMV – OMV, 151.

  121. 121 Perović, Rohstoffmacht Russland, 116.

  122. 122 From 1966 to 1970, there was the first sole government which was not a coalition between the two major parties ÖVP and SPÖ in Austria’s Second Republic, led by Josef Klaus (ÖVP).

  123. 123 Högselius, Red Gas, 50–65.

  124. 124 Bini, “A Challenge to Cold War Energy Politics? The US and Italy’s Relations to the Soviet Union, 1958–1969,” 220.

  125. 125 ÖStA AdR WA, ÖIAG, Unternehmensdokumente, OMV AG, Kt. 160. Bericht des beeideten Wirtschaftsprüfers und Steuerberater Dr. iur. Friedrich Grumptmann über die bei der Österreichischen Mineralölverwaltung Aktiengesellschaft vorgenommene Prüfung des Jahresabschlusses 1968, Band I, September 1, 1969, 16–17; Högselius, Red Gas, 63–65.

  126. 126 Compass-Verlag, Finanz-Compass Österreich, 1976, 753.

  127. 127 From Sept. 10, 1968: 130-200 million Nm3, 1969: 800 million Nm3, 1970: 1 billion Nm3, from 1971 1.5 billion Nm3 until 1990.

  128. 128 ÖStA AdR WA, ÖIAG, Unternehmensdokumente, OMV AG, Kt. 160. Bericht des beeideten Wirtschaftsprüfers und Steuerberater Dr. iur. Friedrich Grumptmann über die bei der Österreichischen Mineralölverwaltung Aktiengesellschaft vorgenommene Prüfung des Jahresabschlusses 1968, Band I, September 1, 1969, 16–20; Högselius, Red Gas, 63–66.

  129. 129 Högselius, Red Gas, 63.

  130. 130 Ibid., 91–92.

  131. 131 AVP RF F. 66, op. 47, p. 100, d. 6. From the diary of the Soviet Ambassador to Austria, B. F. Podcerob, September 28, 1968, 197; Karner and Ruggenthaler, “Austria and the End of Prague Spring: Neutrality in the Crucible?” 431.

  132. 132 Feichtinger and Spörker, ÖMV–OMV, 152; Högselius, Red Gas, 219; Schattenberg, “Pipeline Construction as ‘Soft Power’ in Foreign Policy,” 571.

More Articles ...

  1. 2024_4_Horvath
  2. 2024_4_Smiljanic
  3. 2024_4_Kubu_Stolleova
  4. 2024_3_Bagdi
  5. 2024_3_Schlett
  6. 2024_3_Kwiatkowski
Page 1 of 49