The Hungarian Historical Review The Hungarian Historical Review The Hungarian Historical Review

Login

  • HOME
  • Journal Info
    • Journal Description
    • Editors & Boards
    • Publication ethics statement
    • Open access policy
    • For Publishers
    • Copyright
    • Submission Guidelines
    • Subscribe
    • Recommend to Library
    • Contact
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Call for Articles
  • Submissions
  • For Authors
  • Facebook
Published by: Institute of History, Research Centre for the Humanities, Hungarian Academy of Sciences

2013_2_Csikós

pdfVolume 2 Issue 2 CONTENTS

Veronika Csikós

The Bishop and His Chapel: The Hédervári Chapel in Győr and the Episcopal Chapels of Central Europe around 1400

Among the spectacular life stories of the prelates of Central Europe, that of János Hédervári, bishop of Győr (northern Hungary), is remarkable from several perspectives. He was one of the bishops who played an active political role in the history of his country and, as a figure of the church who founded a private chapel, also a representative of an important tradition of Central European episcopal patronage. The first part of my paper deals with János’s life, which has not yet been made the subject of detailed study. More precisely, I will emphasize János’s role as a confidant of Queen Elisabeth and someone who assisted as such in her endeavor to hinder the future king, Sigismund of Luxemburg, from seizing the Hungarian crown. János managed to become bishop just a few months before Sigismund ascended to the throne, but he was to spend the first two decades of his episcopal rule in the shadow of political neglect. During these two decades, however, János nurtured a remarkable artistic culture in his episcopal town. Between 1386 and 1403 the Gothic building of the Győr Cathedral was built, as was the delicate structure of the Holy Trinity Chapel, the chapel he himself founded. Through an architectural analysis of the chapel in the second part of the paper, I aim to demonstrate that a structurally complex and prestigious building was constructed under his auspices – and in spite of the fact that the diocese of Győr was by no means the richest among the bishoprics of the country. Furthermore, I will argue that the Holy Trinity Chapel not only integrates the latest architectural features of its era, but also mingles them with a unique structure and adaptations from non-episcopal architectural models, which lends it an individual character and makes the chapel an interesting Hungarian case of episcopal patronage in the late fourteenth century.

Keywords: Héderváry Family, episcopal partonage, church architecture

Introduction

The fresh air of the spring of 1386 brought memorable events in the tranquil life of the town of Győr, seat of the bishopric of the same name in western Hungary. Many decades after its castrum had been chosen to stage the marriage negotiations between the Hungarian and the Czech rulers in 1318,1 in 1386 it became a place of similarly illustrious, though much less friendly political discussions.2 The rivals for the Hungarian throne, contested since September 1382, chose this place to make peace and thereby also the first step towards creating a new basis for central power.

At the same time, a new prelate was appointed to the episcopal seat in the person of János Hédervári (lived 1340–1415, bishop from 1386).3 Although earlier historical research did pay attention to his noble origins and several of his political posts, János’s life has basically remained unresearched in local historical scholarship. So has the history of the Holy Trinity Chapel, his foundation at the Győr cathedral: despite the fact that it was praised as the only surviving building of its kind in Hungary within the entire fourteenth century, it has not been devoted a detailed art historical investigation.

Broadly speaking, this paper intends to fill in both of these lacunae. In the first part of the study, I aim to reconstruct János Hédervári’s biography based on the investigation of primary evidence. I will argue that he, who has been known before mostly for his connections to the military orders, played an influential role in both political upheavals (1382–1387 and 1402–1403) in the early years of King Sigismund’s Hungarian reign. Secondly, I will analyze the architectural features of János’s private chapel by comparing it to other episcopal chapels, the founding of which gained popularity in Central Europe in the fourteenth century.4 Through that, I will demonstrate that contrary to general practice, the building of the Holy Trinity Chapel has a remarkably complex structure and its architectural characteristics are rooted not only in courtly art but also in alternative sources.

Furthermore, through its choice of topic and methodology this study also aims to contribute to current scholarly discourse on art in the Late Middle Ages. Recently, there has been a growing interest in the question of medieval patronage; in particular, much attention has been devoted to the artistic agency of prelates in the works of such excellent scholars as Paul Crossley, Zoë Opacic and Charlotte Stanford.5 Connecting myself primarily to their research, in the present investigation I have tried to treat the bishop and his chapel in terms of founder and foundation as much as possible. That is, I have sought typical (or atypical) characteristics in Hédervári’s biography that were most likely to influence his patronage agency and, with regard to his chapel, I made efforts to put it into the context of similar contemporaneous foundations rather than into that of stylistic analogues.

The Bishop

János Hédervári came from a distinguished noble lineage in the medieval Hungarian kingdom.6 First arriving in the country around 1150, the earliest Hédervári ancestors had acquired a great piece of land along the upper course of the Danube and were appointed to posts of local governance. Although their estates did not extend considerably, during the ensuing decades their descendants were very successful in further increasing the family’s influence. Their success is reflected in the fact that around the middle of the thirteenth century no less than three family members held offices of importance in the kingdom, a sure sign of their influence in the court.7 In the political difficulties occurring after the ancient ruling dynasty had died out (1301) and foreign dynasties raised their claims to the Hungarian throne, the Héderváris maneuvered well in their supporting the Angevin candidate. As a result, under the rule of the Angevin kings (1310–1382) the Héderváris not only maintained the political status their ancestors had reached before, but also further extended their authority. Over the fourteenth century, the Héderváris successfully occupied more courtly dignities—in the queen’s retinue in particular—and also succeeded in augmenting their estates.

Thus, around 1340–45, when János (II) Hédervári was born, the family was clearly in the ascendant.8 As a child, János certainly lived at the center of the family estates, Hédervár, which was located along the Mosoni Danube and, not insignificantly, in the neighborhood of the bishopric of Győr, his future site of activity. These lands around Hédervár offered a rising noble family an ideal place for hunting enterprises because of the rich wildlife there, but they were also important commercially, as the trading route connecting the royally privileged Pressburg (today Bratislava, Slovakia) and Komárom passed through the region. Although no large-scale building activity unfolded during the Middle Ages in Hédervár itself, significant artistic centers such as the aforementioned Győr (episcopal palace and cathedral) or the famous Mons Sancti Martini (Pannonhalma, Benedictine monastery) flourished in its vicinity.9

In his early years, János could look to two of his family members as ideals for leading a virtuous and nevertheless successful life. His great-grandfather, Dezső (1285–1330) must have been known to him from family stories, for he had died a heroic death on the battlefield saving the life of King Charles I of Anjou (1308–1342) by exchanging garments with the ruler.10 Whereas his great-grandfather could have been taken as an icon of valor and loyalty to the ruler, János’s other great ancestor, his uncle Miklós III served him as a model for succeeding in his own space and time. Instead of his early deceased father, the rights of John and his brothers were protected by Miklós, who, besides keeping an eye on family affairs and augmenting the Héderváris’ landed property, made a shining career in the royal court, too.11 In particular, as his dignities show, Miklós was bound particularly to the entourage of Queen Elisabeth, a fact that would later prove decisive for János’s future destiny.12

It was thanks to Miklós’s achievement in particular that the entire generation of János, his brothers and nephews served King Louis I (1342–1382) and/or acquired influential secular dignities. János’s closest relatives, his two brothers György and Mihály, took part in the king’s military campaign against Bosnia as early as 1363;13 György was later also mentioned as ispán of Nógrád County in northern Hungary.14 Unlike his brothers, János is not known to have held any secular posts, though he definitely acquired smaller ecclesiastical dignities, which may suggest that he was preparing for a career in the church. Although we have but a handful of sources on young János’s career, the prebends he held in the early 1370s suggest that he built up a firm position at Buda in the king’s service.15 His later success in becoming a bishop testifies—as opposed, for instance, to his nephew, who also held similar offices—János’s sensitive approach to, and talent in, political matters.16

His excellent skills soon earned him royal recognition, for by 1377 at the latest, he had been entrusted with a confidential position as governor17 of a praeceptorium of a special Hungarian military-religious order, the so-called Stefanites.18 According to recent historical investigations, a governing post of this kind was an invention of late fourteenth-century royal government and aimed to temper the decrease in royal property by extending its control over the wealth of the military-religious orders in the kingdom.19 Understandably, royal trustees usually occupied these positions, which clearly means that János Hédervári belonged to the king’s closest retinue already in the 1370s. Moreover, the particular house he governed was the second largest among those of the Stefanites, also underlining the ruler’s appreciation towards the young János.

King Louis I of Hungary died in September 1382, and, for reasons which cannot be discussed here, the rule over the country was taken over by his daughter Mary (crowned at the age of twelve in 1382) and her mother, Queen Elisabeth.20 The rule of the queens (approximately September 1382 – April 1386), during which a total of three candidates were invited to occupy the Hungarian throne, led to a severe inner crisis that reached its peak only a few months prior to János’s episcopal appointment. After the brutal murder of the freshly crowned candidate, Charles of Anjou, in February 1386, Sigismund of Luxemburg hurried to Hungary backed by a considerable military force in order to make good his claim to the throne. In the spring of 1386 his troops reached Győr, where, facing the resistance of Queen Elisabeth, Sigismund entered into negotiations with her—which was almost exactly the time and venue when János acceded to the episcopal seat of the bishopric of Győr.

The apparently close correspondence in circumstances between the negotiations (Győr, April 1386) and János’s appointment to the local bishopric (before June 1386) implies that his becoming bishop was closely connected to, if not a byproduct of, the political events. A closer look at the sources reporting on the previous year reveals János to have been a highly influential figure in Queen Elisabeth’s political strategy. This is implied by the terminology of the relevant charters,21 his increased presence at the queen’s court,22 and finally, by his appointment (before April 1385) as prior of Aurana (Vrana, Croatia), in the heart of the southern territories, which had provided a refuge for the queen’s greatest opponents.23 We also know that the former bishop of Győr, who had closely cooperated with the queens previously, was put aside suddenly and under mysterious circumstances.24 All these point towards János having acquired the episcopal title thanks to his loyalty to Elisabeth.

János’s episcopal appointment around the late spring of 1386 occurred in the very last moment before political events, thus far favorable for him, took a dramatic turn. Only a few months after he had become bishop, the queens were captured and his greatest supporter, Queen Elisabeth, was murdered by the rebels. The Hungarian throne was finally seized by Sigismund of Luxemburg. János’s high profile in Queen Elisabeth’s retinue, not to mention that his nephew István actively supported the rebels against the ruler, must have discredited him in the eyes of the new king; István was captured in 1388 and sentenced to death (1393).25

These circumstances obviously prompted János to act soon in order to secure his former political positions under the new king and to gain a foothold at the newly forming royal court. A quite tangible sign of his efforts to win Sigismund’s benevolence is reflected by the iconography of János’s episcopal seal, on which the ruler’s highly venerated Árpádian royal saint, Saint Ladislaus, appears at the bottom left corner.26 Furthermore, the new bishop of Győr was willing to confirm his loyalty towards the king by being present at the royal court. Even if János could not hold a dignity in Sigismund’s retinue, he sought and found a means to stay at Buda until as late as 1389.27 Over this period, his name appears in connection with the leading noblemen of the early Sigismund era, for example, the brother of János Kanizsai, who later, as archbishop of Esztergom, founded a chapel (1396) as his burial place at Esztergom Cathedral. These new connections are likely to have influenced the bishop’s foundation, which took place just around this time.

Surviving charters suggest that from 1390 on János lived in Győr, which fits well with the actual dating of his chapel before 1404 (when its rector is mentioned)28 or even before 1402, the outbreak of the rebellion against King Sigismund, in which Bishop János also took part.29 Although evidence about the exact time of the foundation is lacking, the beginning of the campaign is probably marked by affairs about the bishop’s unwarranted tax collection and pledging of property in 1393–94.30

Bishop János and Patronage Agency

As reflected by written evidence, extensive patronage activity could hardly have been characteristic of János. This is also suggested by the fact that there is only one building which can be associated with him.31 Architectural commission was, in any case, an expensive enterprise that not everyone could afford. His general lack of interest in his episcopal duties, which traditionally included donational activity, is another sign of his passivity with regard to artistic patronage.

János’s lack of interest in donations may have been rooted primarily in family issues, since widespread patronage activity was not characteristic of the Héderváris either. In the fourteenth century, family motives of the kind were focused upon one major enterprise, the campaign of the Church of Our Lady at Hédervár, which was connected to burial demands probably already at this time.32 Its dating to the first half of the fifteenth century, however, suggests that this church postdates the Hédervári Chapel, thereby raising the possibility that it was the construction of the church as an intended burial place that was influenced by János’s chapel foundation and not the other way around.

Against this background, the noble fabric of the Holy Trinity Chapel at Győr, János’s only known foundation, emerges in sharp contrast. Very probably, János’s architectural incentive was nourished in the first place by his personal connections in the royal court, where he could get in touch with such prominent patrons of art as, for example, Demeter (archbishop of Esztergom, 1378–1387), founder of the Corpus Christi Chapel at the Esztergom cathedral just around this time.33 The dazzling architectural achievements of his time, particularly in neighboring Prague, which he visited at least once, in 1383, could also have served as a source of inspiration.34 It is easy to imagine that the freshly carved magnificent gisant of Jan Očko of Vlašim (archbishop of Prague, 1365–1380), who was buried in one of the radiating chapels of St. Vitus cathedral, impressed the young bishop, too.35

The Holy Trinity Chapel of the Cathedral of Győr

Sources

About the Hédervári Chapel (Fig. 1). the most important source is undoubtedly a papal bull dated to 1404, which mentions János, bishop of Győr, as founder of the Holy Trinity Chapel at Győr Cathedral.36 Together with a bosse in the chapel’s choir bearing the coat of arms of the Hédervári family, this bull identifies the building adjoining the southwestern corner of Győr Cathedral (recently, Chapel of St. Ladislaus) as the former Holy Trinity Chapel.

The same papal bull also refers to the fact that, at least in the beginning, János tried to avoid directly subordinating the chapel’s benefice to the Győr cathedral chapter and keep it under his personal auspices.37 About the amount of this benefice we are informed from charters from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, which were collected and systematically analyzed by Vince Bedy in 1936.38

Description

The chapel is adjoined to the southern aisle of Győr Cathedral, which was built contemporaneously. It has preserved much of its original form. The chief alterations have been in its western part, where the last bay with the probably original western gallery was demolished during the baroque rebuilding campaign, which was also responsible for diminishing the interior’s architectural decoration. Slight modifications to this baroque state were applied in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and the latest restoration of the chapel was carried out between 1967 and 1972.39

Today, the chapel can be accessed from the southern aisle through a portal of Gothic origin. On the east, the chapel choir terminates in five sides of the octagon and is covered by a ribbed vault with a bosse decorated by the Hédervári coat-of-arms. The choir wall is separated into two horizontal registers, with three windows above and three round-arched sedilia beneath. On the northern wall, a large opening with a rich profile opens to the cathedral space.

The choir and nave are slightly isolated from each other by a richly profiled triumphal arch. The chapel’s nave is five-bay long (the westernmost bay is a seventeenth-century addition) and is covered by a jumping vault. Similar to the choir, the northern wall in the nave features a large opening the same size as the one in the chancel. A pointed-arch sedile fills the wall surface to the east, whereas the Gothic portal stands on its other side. The elevation of the opposite, southern wall follows the pattern in the choir: above, three relatively large ogive windows illuminate the space (their original tracery, if ever executed at all, is now lost), below which five sedilia of different shapes and sizes run along the wall. To the west, under the former western gallery two double-arched niches decorate the wall on both sides.

On its exterior, the wall of the chapel is articulated into multiple horizontal layers of different depths as well as vertical sections (Fig. 2). The thin windows are bound into the rhythm of buttresses and delicate pairs of three-quarter columns, from the top of which wimpergs originally spanned over the windows. At the bottom of the horizontal layers, cylindrical drums support the buttresses, the easternmost of which is somewhat wider than the rest in order to close the row visually.

Dating

Since the chapel’s rector is already mentioned in 1404, the construction must have been completed around this time; questions arise, however, about the process of its erection. Based on observable architectural irregularities, Károly Kozák and Ferenc Levárdy opined that the chapel was erected in two separate periods, first between 1350 and 1360 and then, after a pause, between about 1385 and 1395. To support this theory, they also suggested that the passage “de novo canonice fundavit” contained in the 1404 charter may be understood as referring to a re-foundation of the chapel, implying that János Hédervári only completed a building that was already under construction beforehand.40

In contrast to Kozák and Levárdy’s opinion, Szilárd Papp in 2006 pointed out that, on the one hand, the quoted Latin passage does not necessarily presume two separate building campaigns and, on the other, the chapel building seems to be architecturally homogenous.41

Architectural Features: Burial Function and Liturgy

Given that private chapels were typically built in order to commemorate their founders through regular prayer and also to shelter their tombs, we should assume that Bishop János would have been buried in the Hédervári Chapel. According to general medieval practice, founders were buried in medio ecclesiae, which in the case of this chapel would mean the spot in the nave closest to the choir. Because a crypt was built in the seventeenth century exactly beneath this spot,42 archeologically it can no longer be confirmed whether an episcopal tomb was indeed located there; yet, there is a peculiar architectural element in the chapel, which underlines a possible burial incentive at this spot (Fig. 3). Looking exactly there, one can observe a large opening in the north wall, which, together with its twin in the choir, must have been executed in order to reveal and highlight an outstanding object in the chapel—for example, a prominent burial—to any visitor in the cathedral.

Surprisingly, chapels that are connected to the main cathedral space through similarly large arches are rare in the architecture of the Late Middle Ages. With a dating close to that of the Győr chapel, the St. Catherine Chapel in Strasbourg Cathedral (1340–1350) provides a good example in the Rhineland.43 Another analogue might be the former Gundekarkapelle (today St. John Chapel) in the Cathedral of Eichstätt (Bavaria), a result of a fourteenth-century rebuilding of a structure from the eleventh century.44 In the latter case, the arcades were part of the Romanesque structure and were, especially interestingly from our viewpoint, incorporated into the Gothic building. Given that both chapels open onto the cathedral space through three or four large arcades and also the fact that a bishop was buried in both of them, one can argue that the arcades were instrumental in enhancing the visibility of the burials from the cathedral interior and providing access to them. There is also a third analogue, interestingly again from medieval Hungary, the Chapel of St. John the Evangelist in the Franciscan Church of Pressburg (Bratislava, Slovakia).45 In this chapel, besides the original western entrance, there are two arcades—one large and one small—on the wall common with the church building (both of them are now walled up). Based on the parallels in Strasbourg and Eichstätt, it is likely that the arcades in the Pressburg chapel were connected to the tomb of the founder—a high-ranking citizen of medieval Pressburg.

These analogues also draw one’s attention to an important difference between the Győr chapel and these other examples, namely, that its opening is neither an arcade nor an arch, but a large window. That is, thanks to its low-lying cornice, it is intended not to give access, but rather only a view of the burial/relic possible and exhibits thereby a structure. To my knowledge, such a feature is unprecedented in the chapel architecture of fourteenth-century Central Europe.

There is also a medieval source that reports on the functional aspect of a chapel with an arch. In his brief account about the former St. Nicholas Chapel in the Wawel cathedral, the Polish chronicler Jan Długosz (1412–1480) mentions that its arch was customarily used for putting a prominent relic on display: “...altare sanctorum Innocentium habet capellam propriam versus aquilonem in modum arcus seu fornicis dudum sub loco in quo caput S. Stanislai ostendi solitum est sitam et muratam.” 46 This clearly means that the arch or arcade of the Krakow chapel was meant to elaborate upon a saint’s liturgy—and not insignificantly, that of the most prominent saint in the bishopric of Krakow—which takes us back for a moment to our former examples of Strasbourg and Eichstätt. At both these places, the aforementioned episcopal burials were also distinguished by a saintly cult: in Strasbourg, we know that the bishop’s tomb was transformed into a Holy Grave,47 whereas in the Bavarian cathedral Bishop Gundekar II himself was considered to be saint.48

It is likely then that in the Hédervári Chapel, too, a saintly cult was extant, even if this assumption cannot be buttressed by written or architectural evidence.49 The medieval herm or head-reliquary of St. Ladislaus, which is now displayed on the chapel’s modern main altar, was first transported to Győr from the Cathedral of Várad (Oradea, Romania) in the seventeenth century and later placed in the chapel in the nineteenth century.50 Apart from Győr, one other remarkable example of matching relics and episcopal burial in a fourteenth-century Hungarian episcopal chapel can be found and that is the so-called Gilded Chapel of Our Lady at Pécs in southwestern Hungary. According to a reliable account from the sixteenth century (Miklós Oláh, Archbishop of Esztergom), above the tomb of Bishop Miklós (1346–1360) hung his penitential belt, probably as an indication that he was treated as beatus.51

Besides its peculiar large openings, there is yet another architectural structure in the Hédervári Chapel that may be connected with a (founder’s) burial: the former western gallery. An analogue for the architectural connection of a western gallery and the founder’s burial from medieval Hungary is the thirteenth-century parish church of Felsőörs. This building, in size not much exceeding the dimensions of the Hédervári Chapel, furnishes a good example of a founder being buried under the gallery, where—as the remains of a mensa indicate—mass and prayers served to preserve his memory.52

Architectural Features: Representation of Social Standing and Power

Besides the already mentioned liturgical and burial functions, another important aspect of any private chapel is the representation of the power and social ranking of its founder.

From this viewpoint, too, the Hédervári Chapel exhibits remarkable architectural solutions, first of all, its vaulting. It features a triangular-type of vault, the so-called jumping vault. Broadly speaking, the jumping vault was employed in spaces where opposite supports could not stand exactly opposite to each other. Taking a closer look at its interior, one will recognize that this condition was fulfilled at the Hédervári Chapel: its already analyzed large opening occupied the place of a corbel required for a cross vault, which consequently made the employment of the jumping vault a suitable solution. Besides the architectural necessity, there were other factors at play in employing the jumping vault, which is suggested by the fact that this is the only chapel from Hungary to feature this vaulting type.

In the second half of the fourteenth century, the idea of the jumping vault was no longer new; it had first occurred a century earlier (e.g. Cologne, St. Cunibert Church, cloister).53 It is true, however, that by the second half of the fourteenth century this type of vaulting had come into fashion in certain parts of Central Europe. One of these regions was Silesia, where the first jumping vaults date from 1370-80 and occur mostly in long, narrow spaces: typically in ambulatories or aisles (Wrocław, the churches of the Virgin Mary on the Sand and the Holy Cross; the churches of Namysłów and Góra Śląnska).54 The other region where this type of vaulting appeared was Bohemia, where differing traditions of its use evolved. While it was applied in its classical form in porches (southern porch of St. Vitus Cathedral, before 1368, the western porch of the Church of Our Lady before Týn, 1370–1380),55 it was also popular in a “duplicated” form,56 a solution that is associated with Peter Parler’s genius and one of the best known examples of which is the tower of the Charles Bridge (after 1380).57 Interestingly, none of these solutions appear in chapels in the major artistic centers associated with the Parler family.

It is less known however, that parallel to the Parlerian development there was another tradition unfolding in Bohemia. From 1370 on, we encounter the earliest examples of the employment of the jumping vault in chapels, and in remarkable numbers as well. There is no topographical focus of these chapels’ location, but they were spread generally across Bohemia: such vaulting we found in the sacristy of the All Saint’s Church in Plzeň,58 the northern chapel of the Holy Trinity Church in Sezemice,59 the sacristy of the Saint Nicholas Church in Znojmo,60 and, on the border of Bohemia and Silesia, in the southern chapel of the Church of Our Lady and in the north chapel of the Church of Saint John the Baptist, both in Opava.61

I would argue that employing the jumping vault in Győr was probably inspired by these chapels. The prime mover in the chapel construction, János Hédervári, indeed travelled to Bohemia (Prague) in 1383 and thus could have been acquainted with this fashion.62 The significance of the jumping vault’s employment at Győr cannot be underestimated: with a date of construction around 1395-1400, the Hédervári Chapel belongs among the earliest examples that adopted this modern idea of Bohemian private chapels into the canon of episcopal chapels and thereby introduced it to the courts of Central Europe. With that, the patron of the campaign, Bishop János, put a finger on developments just then unfolding in the architecture of Central Europe.

Apart from its vaulting, another feature of the chapel, its series of sedilia, also reflects Bishop János’s artistic motives (Fig. 4). The sedilia appear on both the nave and choir walls of the chapel, a feature which seems to have permeated the architectural vocabulary of other episcopal foundations in East-Central Europe (meaning especially those in Bavaria, Bohemia, Poland and the Hungarian Kingdom) to a lesser degree; the only, yet not survived example is interestingly in Hungary again, the Corpus Christi Chapel at the former medieval Cathedral of Esztergom (founded by Archbishop Demeter in 1384).63 The similarity between the two Hungarian chapels, which are also chronologically and topographically very close to each other, cannot be by chance, but might derive from the founders’ personal acquaintance in Sigismund’s court.

This seems to indicate that the idea of employing more sedilia in a chapel space is related to the art of the court, a hypothesis that is buttressed by further analogues. Namely, there is a group of private chapels in Austria, roughly contemporary with the Hédervári Chapel, which reveal the same feature. The chapels in Enns (parish church, the so-called Wallseerkapelle), Imbach (Saint Catherine Chapel of the Dominican church) and Raabs an der Thaya (parish church, northern side chapel) are well known monuments of Austrian art historical research due to their remarkable quality.64 Their circle is to be completed by a fourth chapel, the already mentioned Chapel of St. John the Evangelist in the Franciscan Church in Pressburg, the stylistic position of which equals the Austrian examples and was founded by a high-ranking citizen.65

Even if the financial resources he had at hand could not allow him to erect a chapel that could compete with the lavish embellishment of its Austrian counterparts, the remains and imprints of its original decoration still rank the Hédervári Chapel as one of the most richly furnished episcopal chapels of its time. The remains of the wall clearly demonstrate that on the southern wall pinnacles adorned the meeting points of sedilia arches, above every second of which columns rose high up to the corbels, which also bore baldachins.66 Through the assembly of these elements, originally completed by the architecturally certainly highlighted western gallery, a rich and exquisite appearance was lent to the chapel to express the high social ranking of its founder.

Finally, let us take a glance at the chapel fabric as a whole. Its most characteristic feature is its differentiated structure: its space is clearly separated into a choir, a nave and a western gallery. To (visually) separate and connect these spaces, the decoration system of the chapel, in particular the sedilia, were put into work. Differing in size and form, the sedilia in the choir, nave and at the original western gallery emphasize the isolation of these spaces, though their presence (re)binds these parts again. This definitely not unique, yet certainly delicate solution undoubtedly praises the master mason’s refined sense in creating small but complex architectural structures. This is modestly underpinned by two further effects: first, the illumination of the chapel through its proportionally large windows and, in particular, the large openings on its southern choir and nave wall. These latter, both of an identical size, offer a unified view from the cathedral to the chapel space.

Another feature characteristic of the entire chapel space is its embellishment with a handful of delicate and not immediately visible architectural details. A good example of this is the jumping vault’s formeret, which is slightly emphasized by a decorative architectural framework. Another feature of this kind is the way the vaulting ribs run together and turn on the arch of the large opening in the nave. (By comparison, a similar architectural situation was handled in a less elegant way in the already mentioned chapel in Pressburg.) The vivid and fragile contours of the vaulting serve as a compact expression of this highly decorative attitude of the builders.

Through its transparency, illumination and discreet decoration the chapel interior conveys a sense of clarity and modest elegance, which is counterbalanced through the experimental tone of the external wall elevation. In contrast to the interior, here the volume of the wall comes to the foreground through its almost sculptural articulation. The thickness of the wall alternates between moldings and columns, and at the meeting points of horizontal and vertical architectural elements unusual transitional, cylindrical forms emerge that diverge from traditional medieval solutions.

Conclusion

The Holy Trinity Chapel provided an impressive setting for holy masses and diverse liturgical events because of its capacity to accommodate a larger number of priests, its distinctive structure, and its modest, thoroughly planned system of adornments. A study of the chapel reveals János Hédervári to have been a donor who was well acquainted with the most important architectural achievements of his time (e.g., the fourteenth-century use of the jumping vault). Interestingly, he did not rely on episcopal foundations as models for his chapel, but was inspired rather by the architecture of buildings made for the secular nobility (Austrian chapels). Also, his models were not exclusively from the largest artistic centers of Central Europe and their courtly art. This constitutes a major difference between the buildings constructed under his auspices and buildings founded by the royal court, and at the same time means that episcopal patrons – especially those of middle-sized episcopal centers – also looked for models in the artistic traditions of the surrounding areas. Thus the bishops served as a bridge between the achievements of the high culture of the court and the artistic traditions of local and smaller urban settlements.

 

Archival Sources

Magyar Nemzeti Levéltár Országos Levéltára (Hungarian National Archives – MNL OL), Diplomatikai Levéltár (Medieval Charters – DL).

 

Bibliography

A Héderváry-család oklevéltára [The Charter Collection of the Héderváry Family]. 2 vols., edited by Béla Radvánszky and Levente Závodszky. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1909.

Bedy, Vince. A győri székesegyház története [The History of the Győr Cathedral]. Győr: Győregyházmegyei Alap, 1936.

Bedy, Vince. A győri székeskáptalan története [The History of the Cathedral Chapter of Győr]. Győr: Győregyházmegyei Alap, 1938.

Beke, Margit, ed. Esztergomi érsekek 1001–2003 [Archbishops of Esztergom 1001–2003]. Budapest: Szent István Társulat, 2003.

Bodor, Imre, Erik Fügedi, and Imre Takács, eds. A középkori Magyarország főpapi pecsétei [Episcopal Seals of Medieval Hungary]. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1984.

Boroviczény, Károly György. “Cruciferi Sancti Regis Stephani. Tanulmányok a stefaniták, egy középkori magyar ispotályos rend történetéből” [Study from the History of a Medieval Hungarian Hospitaller Order: the Stephanites]. Orvostörténeti Közlemények. Communicationes de Historiae Artis Medicinae 23–24 (1991–1992): 133–40, 7–48.

Brucher, Günter, ed. Geschichte der Bildenden Kunst in Österreich, Gotik. Munich–London–New York: Prestel, 2000.

Crossley, Paul. Gothic Architecture in the Reign of Kasimir the Great. Krakow: Ministerstwo Kultury i Sztuki, 1985.

Csukovits, Enikő. Középkori magyar zarándokok [Medieval Hungarian Pilgrims]. Budapest: História – MTA Történettudományi Intézete, 2003.

Dercsényi, Dezső, ed. The Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle. Budapest: Corvina, 1969. (Facsimile edition.)

Engel, Pál. Középkori magyar genealógia [Medieval Hungarian Genealogy]. Budapest: Arcanum, 2001. (CD-ROM.)

Engel, Pál. Magyarország világi archontológiája [The Secular Archontology of Hungary]. 2 vols. Budapest: História–MTA Történettudományi Intézete, 1996.

Fabian, Jürgen. Der Dom zu Eichstätt. Worms: Wernersche Verlagsgesellschaft, 1989.

Fajt, Jiří, ed. Gotika v západních Čechách (1230–1530) [Gothic in Western Bohemia]. Prague: Národní Galeria v Praze, 1995.

Fraknói, Vilmos, ed. Monumenta Romana Episcopatus Vesprimiensis. Budapest: Franklin, 1899.

Hazai okmánytár [Collection of Domestic Charters]. 8 vols, edited by Imre Nagy, Iván Paur, Károly Ráth and Dezső Véghely. Győr–Budapest: n.p., 1865–1891.

Hierarchia Catholica Medii Aevi. Vol. 1. Edited by Konrad Eubel. Monasterii: sumptibus et typis Libraricae Regensberginae, 1913.

Hunyadi, Zsolt. The Hospitallers in the Medieval Kingdom of Hungary, c. 1150–1387. Budapest: CEU Press, 2010.

Kaliopi Chamonikola, ed. Od gotiky k renesanci. Výtvarná kultura Moravy a Slezska 1400–1550 [From the Gothic to the Renaissance. Fine Art of Moravia and Silesia]. Brno: Moravská galerie v Brně, 1999.

Kapustka, Mateusz, ed. Silesia. A Pearl in the Bohemian Crown. Prague: National Gallery, 2007.

Karácsonyi, János. A magyar nemzetségek a XIV. század közepéig [The Hungarian Kindreds until the Middle of the Fourteenth Century]. 2 vols. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1901.

IX. Bonifácz pápa bullái [The Bulls of Pope Boniface IX]. Vatikáni magyar okirattár. Monumenta Vaticana historiam regni Hungariae illustrantia I/4. Budapest: Franklin, 1886.

Kozák, Károly, János Sedlmayr and Ferenc Levárdy. “A győri székesegyház Szentháromság- (Héderváry-)kápolnája” [The Holy Trinity (Héderváry) Chapel of the Győr Cathedral]. Arrabona 14 (1972): 99–149.

Kuthan, Jiří and Jan Royt, eds. Katedrála Sv. Víta, Václava a Vojtěcha, svatyně českých patronů a králů [The Cathedral of St. Vitus, Wenceslas and Adalbert, the Czech Saint Patrons and Kings]. Prague: Lidové Noviny, 2011.

László, Csaba. “A győri püspökvár építéstörténetének vázlata” [Outline of the Construction History of the Episcopal Castle in Győr]. Arrabona 38 (2000): 97–130.

László, Csaba and Andrea Jámbor. “A hédervári Boldogasszony templom kutatása és helyreállítása” [The Research and Restoration of the Our Lady Church in Hédervár]. Műemlékvédelem 39 (1995): 31–36.

László, Gyula. “Szent László győri ereklyetartó mellszobráról” [The Reliquary Bust of Saint Ladislas in Győr]. Arrabona 7 (1966): 164.

Líbal, Dobroslav. Katalog gotické architektury v České republice do husitských válek [The Catalogue of the Architecture of the Czech Republic until the Hussite Wars]. Prague: Unicornis, 2001.

Lukcsics, József, ed. Monumenta Romana Episcopatus Vesprimiensis. Vol. 2. Budapest: Franklin, 1896–1907.

Marosi, Ernő, ed. Magyarországi művészet 1300–1470 körül [Art in Hungary around 1300–1470]. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1987.

Mencl, Václav. Česká architektura doby Lucemburské [Czech Architecture of the Luxemburg Era]. Prague: Sfinx, 1948.

Mroczko, Teresa and Marian Arszyński. Architektura gotycka w Polsce [Gothic Architecture in Poland]. Warsaw: Instytut Sztuki PAN, 1995.

Nagy, Iván. Magyarország családai czímerekkel és nemzedékrendi táblákkal [The Noble Families of Hungary with Coats-of-arms and Gebealogical Tables]. Vol. V. Pest: Friebeisz István, 1857–1868.

Nussbaum, Norbert. Deutsche Kirchenbaukunst der Gotik. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1994.

Olahus, Nicolaus. Hungaria-Athila. Edited by Kálmán Eperjessy and László Juhász. Budapest: Egyetemi Nyomda, 1938.

Opacic, Zoë and Paul Crossley. “Prague as a new capital.” In Prague, the Crown of Bohemia, edited by Barbara Drake Boehm and Jiří Fajt, 59–74. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2005.

Papp, Szilárd. “Győr, Kathedrale, Dreifaltigkeits (Hédervári-) Kapelle.” In Sigismundus rex et imperator. Kunst und Kultur zur Zeit Sigismundus von Luxemburg 1387–1437, edited by Imre Takács, 649–50. Budapest–Luxemburg: Philipp von Zabern, 2006.

Pór, Antal. “Az Anjouk kora” [The Age of the Angevins]. In A Magyar Nemzet Története, edited by Sándor Szilágyi, vol. 3. Budapest: Athenaeum, 1895.

Sax, Julius. Die Bischöfe und Reichsfürsten von Eichstädt. Landshut: Krüll, 1884–1885.

Schmitt, Otto, Ernst Gall, and E.L. Heydenreich, eds. Reallexikon zur Deutschen Kunstgeschichte. Vol. 4. Stuttgart: Metzler, 1958.

Stanford, Charlotte. “From Bishop’s Grave to Holy Grave: The Construction of Strasbourg Cathedral’s St. Catherine Chapel.” Gesta 46 (2007): 59–80.

Süttő, Szilárd. “Adalékok a 14–15. századi magyar világi archontológiához, különösen az 1384–1387-évekhez” [Contributions to the Hungarian Secular Archontology of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Century, with a Special Regard to the Years between 1384–1387]. Levéltári Szemle 52 (2002): 28–39.

Szakács, Béla Zsolt. “A lovagrendek művészete a középkori Magyarországon” [The Art of the Religious-Military Orders in Medieval Hungary]. In Magyarország és a keresztes háborúk, edited by József Laszlovszky, Judit Majorossy, and József Zsengellér, 195–208. Máriabesnyő–Gödöllő: Attraktor, 2006.

Szávay, Gyula. Győr. Monográfia a város jelenkoráról a történelmi idők érintésével [Győr. Monograph of the Present State of the Town with Reference on its Past]. Győr: Győr. Szab. Kir. Város Törvényhatósága, 1896.

Takács, Imre. “Die Erneuerung der Abteikirche von Pannonhalma im 13. Jahrhundert.”Acta Historiae Artium 38 (1996): 31–65.

Tolnai, Gergely and Gergely Buzás, eds. Az Esztergomi Vármúzeum kőtárának katalógusa [Catalogue of the Esztergom Castle Museum Lapidary]. (Az Esztergomi Vármúzeum Füzetei 2.) Esztergom: Esztergomi Vármúzeum, 2004.

Tóth, Sándor. “Felsőörs késő román templomtornya” [The Late Romanesque Tower of the Church of Felsőörs]. Művészet 21 (1980): 22–26.

Vatikáni magyar okirattár. Monumenta Vaticana historiam regni Hungariae illustrantia. Vol I/4. Edited by Arnold Ipoly (Budapest: Franklin, 1884–1891).

Zala vármegye története. Oklevéltár [The History of Zala County. Charter Collection]. 2 vols. Edited by Imre Nagy, Dezső Véghely and Gyula Nagy. Budapest: Zala vármegye közönsége, 1886–1890.

Zsigmondkori oklevéltár [Charters from the Age of Sigismund]. 12 vols. Edited by Elemér Mályusz, Iván Borsa, Norbert C. Tóth, Tibor Neumann, Bálint Lakatos. Budapest: MOL, 1951–2013.

 

 

List of Illustrations

 

Figure 1. Győr, Holy Trinity Chapel, ground plan

Figure 2. Győr, Holy Trinity Chapel, exterior

Figure 3. Győr, Holy Trinity Chapel, north wall with the two large openings

Figure 4. Győr, Holy Trinity Chapel, interior

1 The marriage of King Charles I (1308–1342) and Beatrix, daughter of John of Luxemburg, King of Bohemia (1310–1346) was arranged in Győr in the spring of 1318. See: Gyula Szávay, Győr. Monográfia a város jelenkoráról a történelmi idők érintésével [Győr. Monograph on the Present State of the Town with Reference to its Past] (Győr: Győr. Szab. Kir. Város Törvényhatósága, 1896), 31.

2 Antal Pór, “Az Anjouk kora” [The Age of the Angevins], in A Magyar Nemzet Története, ed. Sándor Szilágyi (Budapest: Athenaeum, 1895), vol. 3, 381–82.

3 The papal confirmation bull is dated 12 June 1386. Conradus Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica Medii Aevi (Monasterii: Sumptibus et Typis Librariae Regensbergianae, 1913), vol. 1, 282.

4 In average, one should count with one or two chapels pro cathedral. Episcopal chapels in the largest bishoprics of Central Europe are: Prague: St. Vitus cathedral, burial chapel of Archbishop Jan Očko of Vlašim; Gniezno: Our Lady and St. Adalbert cathedral, Our Lady and St. Stanislaw Chapel (Bishop Jarosław of Bogoria and Skotnik); Litomyšl/Leitomischl: former Augustine church, St. Josef Chapel (Bishop Jan of Neumarkt); Wrocław: St. John the Baptist cathedral, Our Lady Chapel (Bishop Preczlaw of Pogorell); Krakow: Wawel cathedral, St. Margaret Chapel (Bishop Nanker); Our Lady Chapel (allegedly Bishop Jan Radlica); St. John the Evangelist Chapel (Bishop Jan Grot); Chapel of the Immaculate Conception (Bishop Jan Bodzanta). From medieval Hungary, the following chapels are known to have existed: Esztergom: former St. Adalbert cathedral, Corpus Christi Chapel (Archbishop Demeter), Our Lady Chapel (Archbishop János Kanizsai), Pécs: Gilded Chapel of Our Lady (Bishop Miklós Neszmélyi) besides the Holy Trinity Chapel in Győr, analyzed in this paper.

5 To cite only their most recent works on the topic, see: Paul Crossley and Zoë Opacic, “Prague as a New Capital,” in Prague, the Crown of Bohemia, ed. Barbara Drake Boehm et al. (New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2005), 59–74; Charlotte Stanford, “From Bishop’s Grave to Holy Grave: The Construction of Strasbourg Cathedral’s St. Catherine Chapel,” Gesta 46 (2007): 59–80.

6 For the most important literature on the Hédervári family, see: Iván Nagy, Magyarország családai czímerekkel és nemzedékrendi táblákkal [The Noble Families of Hungary with Coats-of-arms and Genealogical Tables], (Pest: Friebeisz István, 1857–1868), vol. V, 73–78; János Karácsonyi, A magyar nemzetségek a XIV. század közepéig [The Hungarian Kindreds up to the Mid-fourteenth Century] (Budapest: MTA, 1901), vol. 2, 157–64; Levente Závodszky, A Héderváry-család oklevéltára [The Charter Collection of the Héderváry Family] 2 vols. (Hereafter: Héderváry oklevéltár) (Budapest: MTA, 1909–1922), vol. II, I–LXXXIII; Pál Engel, Magyarország világi archontológiája 1301–1457 [The Secular Archontology of Hungary 1301–1457] 2 vols. (Budapest: História – MTA Történettudományi Intézete, 1996), vol. 2, 96–97.

7 They are: Héder vol. II, ispán of Győr (1223), Héderváry oklevéltár, vol. II; Herrand, ispán of Trencsén and Master of the Horse (1262, 1265–1267), ispán of Moson and master of the horse (1268–1269), tavernicorum regalium magister of the Queen and ispán of Sempte and Bars (1274), judge of the Queen and ispán of Zala (1275), ispán of Vas (1275-1276) ibid. vol. II, IV–V; Héder III, ispán of Hont (1269) ibid., vol. II, VI.

8 His name first appears in a charter dated September 5, 1348; Imre Nagy et al eds., Hazai Okmánytár [Domestic Charters] vol. I/8, (Győr: n.p., 1865–1891), 205, no. 134.

9 Concerning the edifices mentioned, see Géza Entz, “Főpapi építkezések” [Architectural Patronage of the Prelates], in Magyarországi művészet 1300–1470 körül [Art in Hungary, 1300 to c. 1470], ed. Ernő Marosi (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1987), 412–13; Csaba László, “A győri püspökvár építéstörténetének vázlata” [Outline of the Construction History of the Episcopal Castle in Győr], Arrabona 38 (2000): 97–130 (with German summary); Imre Takács, “Die Erneuerung der Abteikirche von Pannonhalma im 13. Jahrhundert,”Acta Historiae Artium 38 (1996): 31–65.

10 Karácsonyi, Magyar Nemzetségek, 161; Dezső Dercsényi, ed., The Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle (Budapest: Corvina, 1969), facsimile edition, 143 and 146.

11 Miklós Hédervári was ispán of Fejér and Tolna counties (1364), ispán of Csongrád County and castellan of Szeged (1365), and ispán of Moson County (1368, 1371); Héderváry oklevéltár, vol. II, X–XI. Miklós’s ties to his ruler are well exhibited by a royal charter from March 27, 1366, in which he is mentioned as “nobilis et magnificus vir (…) fidelis noster et dilectus;” ibid., vol. I, 61, no. 64.

12 He held the titles of the master of the doorkeepers (1361–1374) and count of the court (comes curiae, of the queen 1364); Engel, Archontológia, vol. II, 97.

13 Héderváry oklevéltár, vol. I, 59, no. 62 (March 3, 1363).

14 Engel, Archontológia, vol. II, 96.

15 Archdeacon of Locsmánd (1373) (Héderváry oklevéltár, vol. II, 335, no. 317 (October 13, 1373), canon of Győr. Engel, Archontológia, vol. II, 97.

16 His remarkable talent in the political sphere is well exhibited by the fact that his cousin Dénes appears to have similarly held ecclesiastical prebends, but could not get that as far as did János. This is especially interesting since all these dignities, among others a prebend in the cathedral chapter, tied Dénes to the Győr bishopric, where later not he, but János became bishop. On Dénes’s dignities see Vince Bedy, A győri székeskáptalan története [The History of the Cathedral Chapter of Győr] (Győr: Győregyházmegyei Alap, 1938), 314–15; Pál Engel, Középkori magyar genealógia [Medieval Hungarian Genealogy], CD-ROM (Budapest: Arcanum, 2001), Héder nem, 2. Tábla.

17 “Hodie... Johanni Stephani canonico Jauriensi de magistratu ecclesiarum sancte trinitatis de calidis aquis in Buda Wesprimiensis diocesis et Sancti Stephani prope Strigonium, invicem canonice unitarium, ordinis cruciferorum.... mandavimus provideri...;” Vilmos Fraknói and József Lukcsics, eds., A veszprémi püspökség római oklevéltára [The Roman Charter Collection of the Bishopric of Veszprém] 4 vols. (Budapest: Franklin, 1896–1907), vol. II, 248.

18 The Stefanite order was discovered by Karl-Georg Boroviczény, a German hematologist of Hungarian origin. Károly György Boroviczény, “Cruciferi Sancti Regis Stephani. Tanulmányok a stefaniták, egy középkori magyar ispotályos rend történetéből” [Studies from the History of a Medieval Hungarian Hospitaller Order: the Stephanites], Orvostörténeti Közlemények. Communicationes de Historiae Artis Medicinae 23–24 (1991–1992): 133–140, 7–48.

19 This tendency of royal authority in Hungary to control the property of the military-religious orders was proven in the case of the Hospitaller order by Zsolt Hunyadi, The Hospitallers in the Medieval Kingdom of Hungary, c.1150–1387 (Budapest: CEU Press, 2010). I am especially thankful to Professor Hunyadi for his help and advice concerning the Stefanites.

20 Elemér Mályusz, Zsigmond király uralma Magyarországon [The Rule of King Sigismund in Hungary] (Budapest: Gondolat, 1984), 11–12.

21 Fidelis and devotus: Héderváry oklevéltár, vol. I, 97, no. 90 (April 21, 1385); honestus: Imre Nagy et al., eds., Zala vármegye története. Oklevéltár [The History of Zala County. Charter Collection] 2 vols. (Budapest: Zala vármegye közönsége, 1886–1890), vol. II, 208. (May 18, 1385). Of course, the extent to which the rather routine wording of the charters can be interpreted in this way is open to doubt.

22 In 1385 he is mentioned twice as relator of the queen’s charters. Szilárd Süttő, “Adalékok a 14–15. századi magyar világi archontológiához, különösen az 1384–87-évekhez” [Contributions to the Hungarian Secular Archontology of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries, with Particular Regard to the Years 1384–1387], Levéltári Szemle 52 (2002): 28–39; unpublished and undated charter of Queen Mary from 1385, Hungarian National Archives [MNL OL], Medieval Charters (DL) 28932.

23 Zala vármegye története, vol. II, 208 (May 18, 1385).

24 Engel, Archontológia, vol. I, 71; József Bánk, “A győri püspökök sora” [The Bishops of Győr], in Győregyházmegyei almanach, ed. Győri Egyházmegyei Hatóság (Győr: Győri Egyházmegyei Hatóság, 1968), 37.

25 Héderváry oklevéltár, vol. II, XV.

26 Imre Bodor et al., eds., A középkori Magyarország főpapi pecsétei [Episcopal Seals of Medieval Hungary] (Budapest: MTA, 1984), 53–54.

27 This is suggested by the fact that his auxiliary bishop is mentioned in 1387 and also that no activity of János in Győr is recorded before October 1389; Elemér Mályusz et al., eds., Zsigmond-kori oklevéltár [Charters from the Age of Sigismund] 12 vols. (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1951–2013), vol. I, no. 342 (December 16, 1387); Veszprémi püspökség római oklevéltára, vol. II, 256, no. CCCVI (November 14, 1389).

28 IX. Bonifácz pápa bullái 1396–1404. [The Bulls of Pope Boniface IX]. Vatikáni magyar okirattár. Monumenta Vaticana historiam regni Hungariae illustrantia, vol. I/4 (Budapest: Franklin, 1886), 603 (July 8, 1404).

29 Mályusz, Zsigmond király, 52–53.

30 Zsigmond-kori Oklevéltár, vol. I, no. 2857 (March 2, 1393).

31 Earlier research attempted to attribute to him the leadership of the building campaign on the Stefanite churches in Esztergom and Budafelhévíz, too; Károly Kozák, János Sedlmayr and Ferenc Levárdy, “A győri székesegyház Szentháromság- (Héderváry-)kápolnája,” [The Holy Trinity (Héderváry) Chapel of Győr Cathedral], Arrabona 14 (1972): 103. The theory was convincingly refuted by Béla Zsolt Szakács, “A lovagrendek művészete a középkori Magyarországon” [The Art of the Religious-Military Orders in Medieval Hungary], in József Laszlovszky et al., eds., Magyarország és a keresztes háborúk [Hungary and the Crusades], (Máriabesnyő–Gödöllő: Attraktor, 2006), 195–208, 424.

32 Csaba László and Andrea Jámbor, “A hédervári Boldogasszony templom kutatása és helyreállítása” [Research on and Restoration of the Church of Our Lady at Hédervár], Műemlékvédelem (1995): 31–36.

33 Iván Bertényi, “Demeter,” in Esztergomi érsekek 1001–2003 [Archbishops of Esztergom], ed. Margit Beke (Budapest: Szent István Társulat, 2003), 192.

34 Héderváry oklevéltár, vol. II, 337, no. 321 (June 27, 1383). Allegedly, the aim of the journey was pilgrimage, but it could have been more diplomatic in nature, since choosing Prague as a target of pilgrimage was not characteristic of the peregrinating Hungarian aristocracy. See Enikő Csukovits, Középkori magyar zarándokok [Medieval Hungarian Pilgrims] (Budapest: História – MTA Történettudományi Intézete, 2003), 65–76.

35 Jiří Kuthan and Jan Royt, eds., Katedrála Sv. Víta, Václava a Vojtěcha, svatyně českých patronů a králů [The Cathedral of St. Vitus, Wenceslas and Adalbert, the Czech Patron Saints and Kings] (Prague: Lidové Noviny, 2011), 13–21.

36 “...Johannes, Episcopus Jauriensis, capellam sancte Trinitatis, sitam prope ecclesiam Jauriensem, de novo canonice fundavit...” Vatikáni magyar okirattár, vol. I/4, 603.

37 The chapel’s first priest appointed by John came from the Budafelhévíz praeceptoria, and he very likely did not have a prebend at the Győr chapter, which the papal bull of July 8, 1404 (see note 26) should have otherwise mentioned. The chapel’s income became the property of the chapter in 1538 at the latest. Vince Bedy, A győri székesegyház története [The History of Győr Cathedral] (Győr: Győregyházmegyei Alap, 1936), 78–79.

38 Bedy, Győri székesegyház, 76–78.

39 For the published results of the restoration and archeological excavation made at the site of the chapel, see Kozák, Héderváry kápolna. The detailed documentation is available: research diaries Nos. 11951/1970, 11952–11954, 12822, Forster Gyula Nemzeti Örökséggazdálkodási és Szolgáltatási Központ, Budapest. This restoration was preceded by two other renovations: 1861 (leader: József Lippert) and 1912–1914 (Sándor Aigner); Kozák, Héderváry kápolna, 137.

40 Kozák, Héderváry kápolna, 132–36.

41 Szilárd Papp, “Győr, Kathedrale, Dreifaltigkeits (Hédervári-) Kapelle,” in Sigismundus rex et imperator. Kunst und Kultur zur Zeit Sigismundus von Luxemburg 1387–1437, ed. Imre Takács (Budapest–Luxemburg: Philipp von Zabern, 2006), 649–50.

42 Bedy, Győri székesegyház, 46.

43 Stanford, Bishop’s Grave, 65.

44 Jürgen Fabian, Der Dom zu Eichstätt (Worms: Wernersche Verlagsgesellschaft, 1989), 76–78.

45 Szilárd Papp, “Pressburg, Franziskanerkirche, Johanneskapelle,” in Sigismundus rex et imperator, 118–21.

46 Paul Crossley, Gothic Architecture in the Reign of Kasimir the Great (Krakow: Ministerstwo Kultury i Sztuki, 1985), 24.

47 Stanford, Bishop’s Grave, 69–75.

48 Julius Sax, Die Bischöfe und Reichsfürsten von Eichstätt (Landshut: Krüll, 1884), 157–75.

49 Papp, “Dreifaltigkeitskapelle,” 649.

50 Gyula László, “Szent László győri ereklyetartó mellszobráról” [The Reliquary Bust of Saint Ladislaus in Győr], Arrabona 7 (1966): 164.

51 Nicolaus Olahus, Hungaria-Athila, ed. Kálmán Eperjessy and László Juhász (Budapest: Egyetemi Nyomda, 1938), 15.

52 Sándor Tóth, “Felsőörs késő román templomtornya” [The Late Romanesque Tower of the Church of Felsőörs], Művészet 21 (1980): 22–26.

53 Ernst Gall, “Dreistahlgewölbe,” in Reallexikon zur Deutschen Kunstgeschichte, eds. Otto Schmitt et al. (Stuttgart: Metzler, 1958), vol. IV, 547–48.; Mateusz Kapustka et al., eds., Silesia. A pearl in the Bohemian crown (Prague: National Gallery, 2007), 165–71; Norbert Nussbaum, Deutsche Kirchenbaukunst der Gotik (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1994), 188–89, 217.

54 Teresa Mroczko and Marian Arszyński, Architektura gotycka w Polsce [Gothic Architecture in Poland] (Warsaw: Instytut Sztuki PAN, 1995), vol. 2, 162, fig. 275 (Namisłów), 89–90, fig. 128 (Góra Śląnska).

55 Václav Mencl, Česká architektura doby Lucemburské [Czech Architecture of the Luxemburg Era] (Prague: Sfinx, 1948), 95, no. 42; 96–97, no. 44.

56 The term was used by Nussbaum, Kirchenbaukunst, 188.

57 Mencl, Czech Architecture, 121–22, no. 74.

58 Jiří Fajt, ed., Gotika v západních Čechách (1230–1530) [The Gothic in Western Bohemia] (Prague: Národní Galeria v Praze, 1995), 338–39.

59 Mencl, Czech Architecture, 127, no. 77.

60 Kaliopi Chamonikola, ed., Od gotiky k renesanci. Výtvarná kultura Moravy a Slezska 1400–1550 [From the Gothic to the Renaissance. Fine art of Moravia and Silesia] (Brno: Moravská galerie v Brně, 1999) vol. II 131–35.

61 Dobroslav Líbal, Katalog gotické architektury v České republice do husitských válek [The Catalogue of the Architecture of the Czech Republic until the Hussite Wars] (Prague: Unicornis, 2001), 298–99; Chamonikola, Od gotiky, vol. IV, 43–45, 46–48.

62 See note 34, also quoted by Papp, “Dreifaltigkeitskapelle,” 650.

63 Gergely, Buzás, “Az esztergomi vár románkori és gótikus épületei” [The Romanesque and Gothic Buildings of the Esztergom Castle], in Az Esztergomi Vármúzeum kőtárának katalógusa, ed. Gergely Tolnai et al. (Az Esztergomi Vármúzeum Füzetei 2), (Esztergom: Esztergomi Vármúzeum, 2004), 21.

64 Günter Brucher, “Imbach (Austria), ehemalige Katharinenkapelle, heute Josefkapelle, an der ehemaligen Dominikanerinnenkirche,” in Geschichte der Bildenden Kunst in Österreich, Gotik, ed. Günter Brucher (Munich–London–New York: Prestel, 2000), 259.; Günter Brucher, “Raabs an der Thaya (Austria), Pfarrkirche zu Maria Himmelfahrt am Berge,” in ibid., 279–81; Günter Brucher, “Enns (Austria), Wallseerkapelle (Kapelle Hl. Johannes der Täufer), Pfarrkirche Maria Schnee, ehemalige Minoritenkirche,” in ibid., 260–61.

65 Recently dated to ca. 1361 by Papp, “Johanneskapelle”.

66 Papp, “Dreifaltigkeitskapelle,” 649.

Csikos_01.JPG

Figure 1. Győr, Holy Trinity Chapel, ground plan

Csikos_02.jpg

Figure 2. Győr, Holy Trinity Chapel, exterior

Csikos_03.jpg

Figure 3. Győr, Holy Trinity Chapel, north wall with the two large openings

Csikos_04.jpg

Figure 4. Győr, Holy Trinity Chapel, interior

2013_2_Lucherini

pdfVolume 2 Issue 2 CONTENTS

Vinni Lucherini

The Journey of Charles I, King of Hungary, from Visegrád to Naples (1333): Its Political Implications and Artistic Consequences

The aim of this article is to reconstruct the journey of Charles I, King of Hungary (1310–1342), from Visegrád to Naples in the year 1333. Through an analysis of documents written in the Angevin Chancellery in Naples from 1331 to 1333 (all physically lost, but accessible through transcripts published during the 1800s both in Naples and in Budapest), papal letters of the same period, and some major medieval and modern narrative sources, I try to understand the reasons that brought Charles I to Naples and to clarify the strong political implications, even long-term ones, that the journey had for the history not only of the Kingdom of Jerusalem and Sicily but of the Kingdom of Hungary as well. Looking closely at an Angevin document from 1333, never contextualized in the historical moment it was issued, I will formulate new hypotheses concerning the artistic consequences the journey had on the funerary politics of Robert of Anjou, King of Sicily (1309–1343), and on the commissioning of monumental tombs intended to solemnly guard the remains of prominent members of the Angevin dynasty in the cathedral of Naples.1

Keywords: Angevin succession, royal journey, funeral monuments

The Premise of the Journey: An Unexpected Claim of “Forgotten” Rights of Succession to the Throne of Naples

Before getting to the heart of the debate, we need to recreate a quick historical premise. Charles I had been crowned king of Hungary on August 27, 1310 in the Church of the Virgin at Székesfehérvár (Albareale/Stuhlweissenburg), in a ceremony during which he was invested with the so called “Holy Crown,” a diadem believed to have belonged to Saint Stephen and held as the highest guarantee of legitimacy of the Hungarian monarchy.

Son of Charles Martel, firstborn of Charles II of Anjou, king of the Realm of Jerusalem and Sicily, Charles I had obtained the Hungarian throne through a complex dynastic affair. In 1290, upon the death of King Ladislaus, the last male descendant of the Árpád dynasty, Charles II and his wife Mary, sister of Ladislaus, had claimed the Hungarian crown. In 1291 Charles II had asked the Hungarian barons to consider Mary as the only heir to the throne of Hungary. In 1292 Mary had given the Kingdom of Hungary to her son Charles Martel, already designated heir to the Kingdom of Sicily. But in 1295 Charles Martel had died suddenly in Naples, and his death had introduced serious problems of succession. According to the Salic law then in force, the firstborn son of Charles Martel, the future Charles I of Hungary, then a child of seven, should have one day become king of both Sicily and Hungary; however, by the will of King Charles II and with the support of Pope Boniface VIII, the young Charles was sent to Hungary to reconquer the kingdom that was considered to belong to him as paternal inheritance. Charles Martel’s younger brother, Robert, was given the throne of Sicily and consecrated king in Avignon in 1309.2

In the following decades, the two kingdoms, united by the presence of an Angevin king in both, had virtually no relationship: Charles I was too busy trying to reinforce his power in Hungary,3 and Robert too preoccupied with Italian and imperial issues. In the following decades, there was no claim made by Charles I to obtain what his uncle Robert had taken from him, and the two kingdoms seemed destined to remain divided. But after 1328 an unexpected event, the death of the young Charles, duke of Calabria and only surviving son of Robert, produced an inconvenient change in the status quo.

In February 1331 Pope John XXII wrote to King Robert, transmitting to him a request that had arrived from the Kingdom of Hungary through letters and an ambassador. Charles I had in fact asked John XXII to intercede with his uncle, Robert of Anjou, so that they would restore to him and to his sons the full rights connected to the hereditary title of “prince of Salerno and lord of the honor of Monte Sant’Angelo” (Salernitanus princeps and honoris Montis Sancti Angeli dominus).4 This was a title belonging to the father of King Charles I, always held by the designated successor to the throne of Naples. In 1764 the Hungarian historian György Pray identified precisely the death of Charles of Calabria as the point of origin of the request presented to the pope by Charles I of Hungary,5 because it was surely the absence of a male heir, who could succeed Robert, that emboldened Charles I to ask the pope to have what had been taken from him many years before returned to him. Moreover, the king of Hungary tried to solicit an agreement with Robert regarding the succession to the throne of Sicily, proposing a marriage between one of his sons and Joanna (1326–82), first of the two surviving daughters of Charles of Calabria who had already been publicly designated heir to the Kingdom of Sicily, together with her younger sister Mary, on November 4, 1330.6

Two letters from John XXII just before the death of Charles of Calabria seem to confirm this indirectly. In 1327 the pope conceded the dispensation of marriage for Ladislaus, second-born of Charles I of Hungary (but first in the order of descendants after the death of his firstborn brother Charles in 1321), and Anna, daughter of John of Bohemia. The marriage would have reinforced the peace between the two kingdoms,7 a clear political sign that in this period Charles I was more worried about strengthening his friendships with the Central European kingdoms bordering Hungary than about claiming his right to the throne of Naples.

A series of papal epistles from July 1332 demonstrate that the king of Hungary, after the start of diplomatic negotiations with Robert, must have foreseen a solution that would have closely linked the Neapolitan legacy with the fate of Hungary: following the intentions of King Charles I, two of his children, Louis, having become heir to the throne after the death of his brothers Charles and Ladislaus,8 and Andrew, the fourth-born, should have married Joanna and her younger sister respectively. In order for the two marriages to be celebrated, a special dispensation was needed, given that the future spouses were relatives.

John XXII, who from the beginning had declared himself in favor of any solution that would satisfy the rights of succession legitimately claimed by Charles I and had offered to mediate between the two parties in question, did not at all oppose this solution and authorized the double wedding, hoping that everything would be concluded within a short time, in consideration of the present and future advantages that would have stemmed from this union. Louis therefore would have married Joanna, while his brother Andrew would have taken Mary for consort; in case, however, Louis had died before reaching adulthood and before consummating the marriage, Andrew would have married Joanna, whereas in the case of Joanna’s premature death, Louis or another of the sons of the king of Hungary would have taken Mary for spouse. But if everything went as planned, nothing should have prevented Louis from marrying Joanna, with the consent of the kings of Sicily and Hungary as well as that of the pope.9

Charles I’s Journey to Naples as Narrated by Angevin Documents:
a Complex Arrangement

John XXII’s letters demonstrate that Charles I’s demand to resolve the hereditary question opened by Robert’s accession to the throne must have been approved once and for all even in Naples, where the proposal of the marriage had been accepted. Something, however, must have led to a change in this decision (at precisely what point in the negotiations this occurred is unknown), and Charles I must have ordered Louis to remain in Hungary, while Andrew was to go with him to Naples, seat of the Angevin court, to marry Joanna. From the documentation of the Neapolitan archives, preserved in synthetic form in the studies of Camillo Minieri Riccio10 and in more detail in the precise transcripts edited by Gusztáv Wenzel,11 documents I will use to reconstruct the events which in those years involved the kings of Sicily and Hungary, it seems that the decisions urged by John XXII led to the organization of a delicate mission which brought both Charles I with his son and a full entourage of Hungarian barons and prelates to the capital of the Sicilian Kingdom.

A few months after the start of diplomatic negotiations, on May 22, 1331, Robert wrote to Vice-Admiral Ademario de Scalea ordering him to immediately equip a galley, which was urgently needed for the journey that Charles I would take to the Kingdom of Sicily shortly thereafter.12 The arrival of the Hungarian king was therefore considered imminent, a sign that both sides wanted to conclude the agreement mediated by the pope as soon as possible. However, a year later the embassies were still running from one side of the Adriatic to the other, bringing letters from one king to the other, and the preparations were still ongoing, evidence that the operation was not proceeding as fast as the pope had hoped.

On November 6 and 7, 1332, Robert ordered the equipping of three more galleys, two with 116 oars and one with 120; they were to join those already prepared by Marino Cossa of Ischia, iustitiarius terræ Bari, so that these ships, all under the orders of Ademario, go to the coast of Slavonia to take aboard the king of Hungary and his entourage (including hundreds of horses) and transport them to the Apulian coast.13 A document dated November 8, 1332 attests to a payment of fifteen ounces to the same vice-admiral, who was on his way to get the king of Hungary. On November 9, Robert ordered payment to Gualterio Siripando, magister hostiarus, so that he could acquire the rations necessary for the people who had to navigate the armed galleys that would escort Charles I to Naples. On December 10, Robert wrote to the port masters of Apulia, giving them long and detailed instructions about the ships to be sent to the Croatian coast to collect the king of Hungary and his son Andrew.14

The reason for this delay must have been an attack of gout that had struck Charles I during the voyage: having reached Székesfehérvár, the king of Hungary had in fact turned back to Visegrád at the advice of his barons, both because of the illness and of the oncoming winter.15 Despite these difficulties, in January 1333 the preparations were taken up again: on January 2 Robert paid artisans (some of whom were defined as drapperii, others armaturari) for woolen cloth of different colors in order to make a tent, which was to display the arms of the Kingdom of Sicily and the Kingdom of Hungary and would be covered with a cendato (a lightweight silk) in vibrant colors. The king also ordered cendati of different colors made for banners and flags, to be decorated with fringes, as well as the gold and silver for one of the banners and a waxed linen canvas to cover the tent.16

On April 27, 1333, Robert wrote again to the port masters in Apulia, summarizing in the narratio the events of the past year. Believing that the king of Hungary would have reached Naples with one of his sons (evidently it was still not known at that time that Charles had decided to bring along Andrew and not Louis), he had given orders to equip the galleys with all the men necessary for navigation; such a crew would have been made up of sailors and rowers coming from Brindisi, Taranto or Bari and would have been paid for an entire month, as was customary. The year before, Charles I’s failure to arrive had suspended these arrangements, but now, with the king of Hungary and his son due to arrive at last, it was necessary to re-equip the ships that would convey them to the Apulian coasts. The document lists in detail the expenses of this operation, which also involved the transfer of hundreds of horses between the two Adriatic coasts.17

On May 25, 1333, Robert ordered his ambassadors to go to Segnia (Senj, Croatia), as arranged, and to make sure that everything took place in a manner befitting his honor (secundum quod exigetur pro nostro honore). On June 14, Robert wrote to the port masters and the prosecutors regarding the lodging where Charles I, his son and his retinue of barons and other people close to him would be hosted. A sufficient quantity of wine was to be bought in the land of Bari and the surrounding area (wherever this could be accomplished in the shortest time possible). Various other things, such as wax for candles, firewood and salted meats, were also needed to host so many people. All these goods were to be bought immediately and stored in secure and clean places, so that they could then be used by the king of Hungary, his son and retinue. A document of similar content from June 17 also refers to wheat, bread and beds to be procured for the guests on arrival.18 The Angevin documents have little to say about what happened during the summer of 1333, once the Hungarian delegation had finally reached Naples.

The Political Implications of Charles I’s Stay in Naples as Related
by Medieval and Modern Chronicles

In years not too far removed from the events we are dealing with, the Florentine Giovanni Villani described the arrival of Charles I in the Kingdom of Sicily, saying that Robert had intended to assign his throne to his nephew Andrew. Villani was not aware of the documentation related to the complex organization of the voyage from Visegrád to Naples, but he knew what had been verified at the moment Charles I disembarked on the Apulian shore. From there he went by horse to Naples, where Robert had received him solemnly at the gates of the city and his arrival was celebrated with great pomp.19

More than a century after those facts, János Thuróczy, in his Chronica Hungarorum, published in Brno and in Augsburg in 1488, narrated the journey of Charles I briefly. According to this text, the king had left Visegrád with his six-year-old son Andrew in July 1333, in accordance with the wishes of the pope and the request of the king of Naples, so that his son would be crowned king of Sicily.20 In turn, the court historian Antonio Bonfini, in his Rerum Hungaricarum decades (the manuscript is believed to have been completed in 1498), also citing older sources, wrote about the voyage, adding some more details about the route of the Hungarian delegation and expressing the opinion that Andrew would soon be crowned king.21

Having reached Campania, the king of Hungary and his retinue must have met Robert in the fields of Naples (according to Bonfini), in the fields of Nola (according to Villani), or in Benevento (according to Pray), and must have been escorted to Castelnuovo, the most important castle of the Neapolitan court, to await for the final preparations for the culminating event of his Neapolitan stay: the marriage contract between Joanna and Andrew. As we know from the documents, this key moment for the Hungarian diplomatic mission was finally celebrated, on September 26, 1333, before the notary Marsilio Rufolo and in the presence of the most respected members of the Angevin court of Naples, the principal members of the aristocracy of the Kingdom of Sicily and ambassadors of other centers of power, such as the Florentines.22

Having finalized the agreement with Robert, Charles I could finally head back to Hungary, where the illness that had stricken him in Naples must have raised quite a few fears.23 Leaving Andrew in Naples with a small Hungarian court intended to take care of the little prince, Charles I then departed for Hungary, unaware that not a kingdom but a noose had been prepared for Andrew (ignarus Andreæ his curis non regnum sed laqueum parari, as Pray wrote). From documents collected by Minieri Riccio we learn that the king of Hungary embarked from Apulia towards Slavonia with 456 horses and 522 Hungarians,24 a number that gives an idea of the impressiveness of the Hungarian diplomatic mission.

The journey to Naples, and indeed the entire undertaking, including the celebrations for the promise of marriage, had cost the coffers of the Angevin rulers significant amounts of money. As a document found by Wenzel in the archives of Naples attests, on October 18 Robert wrote to the seneschal of Provence and Forcalquier, communicating what had happened, explaining the number of exceptional expenses that he had had to incur and asking him to intervene financially with a grant.25 Negotiations between the two kingdoms, initiated by the will of Charles I as early as 1330, seemed at this point to have achieved the intended purpose. This is shown by a letter of John XXII from November 1333, in which the pope rejoiced with the king of Hungary over the results of the voyage to Naples, pointed out yet again the advantages of that promise of marriage, and summarized the conditions of the stipulated marriage contract: if Andrew outlived Joanna, he would marry Mary; if Joanna outlived Andrew, one of Charles I’s other sons (Louis or Stephen) would marry her; and if both died before consummating the marriage, another of Charles I’s sons would marry Mary.26 A few days later, John XXII wrote also to Sancha of Majorca, Robert’s wife, in answer to one of her letters, about the king of Hungary’s voyage to Naples, and of the promise of marriage for which the necessary dispensation would be granted.27

On February 26, 1334, Robert ordered that the galleys that had been assembled for Charles I’s transport to the Croatian coast be disarmed. Meanwhile, to raise the young Andrew properly, Robert assigned to him a comitiva, made up of several experts on lodging, cooking, saddles, reins, and other daily necessities, and of other trusted men, including, among others, Archbishop Guglielmo of Brindisi, as confessor to the child, Lorenzo di Landolfo of Aversa, a doctor, and Giovanni Barrile, Pietro di Cadineto and Bartolomeo Caracciolo (also known as Carafa) as chamberlains, plus a certain number of Hungarian maids and squires.28

But the diplomatic mission, which required so much money from Robert, whom the documents show to have been particularly interested in demonstrating his own honor through the rich preparations staged to welcome Charles I and his retinue, did not achieve the result that Charles I himself had planned. In the following years, Andrew was raised in the court of Naples and, having come of age, was finally made a knight on Easter Sunday, 1343. Four days after that Easter, he was joined in marriage to Joanna;29 none of this, however, meant that the Kingdom of Sicily would be awarded to him, as his father and the pope had hoped. And despite the arrival in Naples of Queen Mother Elisabeth in July 1343,30 who worried that the agreements made in that distant summer of 1333 had not been respected, Andrew, never having become king, was barbarically killed in Aversa on September 18, 1345, in a conspiracy of which his wife Joanna was perhaps not unaware.31

We cannot say whether Robert changed his mind in the course of the ten years between the Hungarian mission to Naples and his death, which happened during the night of January 19 and 20, 1343, or whether his idea from the start had been to exclude that child, so incautiously entrusted to him by Charles I, from the succession. There is no doubt, however, that both the historians writing immediately after those events as well as those working during the age of Humanism really did believe that Robert would have conceded his kingdom to the child of Charles I. This is demonstrated by the author of the Chronici Hungarici compositio sæculi XIV, faithfully taken from the end of the fifteenth century by Thuróczy. According to this author, Charles I had departed from Naples in March together with his retinue, leaving behind a son who was not yet crowned, as he had hoped, but under the protection of King Robert; because of his age Robert himself wanted to give up his kingdom and have Andrew succeed him, but, after changing his mind, decided not to relinquish power while he was still living.

Antonio Bonfini confirms this with even greater clarity, writing that Robert, following the suggestions of some friends, decided to continue to rule, putting off the succession until after his death and adopting both Andrew and Joanna so that both could rule together. But even before that, both Giovanni Villani (“King Robert wanted his nephew, son of the King of Hungary, to succeed him after his death”) and Heinrich von Mügeln (in the chapter of his Chronicon entitled Wie der kunig Karl furte herczogen Andres sun und wolt yn kronen) affirmed exactly the same idea.32 According to this interpretation of the events in Naples in the summer of 1333, the king of Hungary had left Naples without seeing his son crowned king, but certain of having left him in trusted hands. Robert, in fact, at that point decrepit with age, wanted to give up the government and make sure that the young Hungarian prince would take his place. And although he did not want to cede his power while still alive, he had established that the child was to succeed him after his death, as a sort of belated compensation for what had happened at the beginning of the century.

This historiographical tradition, I think, has a figurative counterpart in a miniature from just after that time. I refer to the image that adorns and illustrates Ms. BnF fr. 1049 (containing a Provençal planh, a lament for a death; in this case, Robert’s),33 in which Andrew is being crowned by King Robert, who is lying on his deathbed (Fig. 1).34 The text of the poem says that Robert was tormented by remorse for having usurped the throne of Sicily from the son of Charles Martel, Charles I of Hungary, and that he wanted to crown Andrew king upon his death. But in the concrete reality of political events, things did not turn out this way at all.

In the will that Robert dictated three days before his death, on January 16, 1343 (and about which apparently neither Thuróczy, nor Bonfini, nor the medieval historians had knowledge), Andrew was excluded from the succession to the throne of Sicily, and it was confirmed that the kingdom should go to Joanna alone, and that upon her death it would pass to her sister Mary. If Joanna died childless, only the revenues related to the title of the Principate of Salerno were to be given to Andrew, meaning that Robert no longer placed as much value on succession to that title as his ancestors had done. The gesture made by Robert at his death represented an insult to the Hungarian monarchy and King Charles I, recently deceased, who had waited decades for the papacy to take his legitimate requests of succession to the throne of the Kingdom of Sicily into consideration.35

In fact, after Charles I’s departure from Naples, Robert did not comply with the agreements made during the summer of 1333 in any way. I think traces of this situation remain also in a mural painting that is still preserved in the ancient chapter house of the Friars Minor of the royal monastery of Saint Claire in Naples, completed circa 1336. This is an image showing King Robert (Fig. 2) and Queen Sancha (Fig. 3) kneeling before Christ and four Franciscan saints (including Louis of Toulouse), accompanied by two youths, whose garments also bear the Angevin lilies: a female figure with a crown and a male figure with no crown. Based on the iconographic elements that characterize these figures, I believe that here we can recognize Joanna and her betrothed, Andrew: she, already designated as heir to the throne of Sicily, was allowed to be depicted with her crown, while he was still waiting for that long-desired crown to be placed on his head.36

The Commission of New Royal Monumental Tombs in Honor of King Robert

By analyzing surviving archival documents, I have reached the conclusion that the journey of Charles I inspired a very important funerary artistic commission, the results of which radically transformed the interior of the apse of the Gothic Cathedral of Naples.

From an Angevin document issued on May 13, 1333, as the feverish preparations for Charles I’s arrival had been going on for months, we learn that Robert, hoping to complete the construction of the monastery of Saint Martin on the mountain Saint Erasmus started by his son, Charles of Calabria, had communicated to his wife Sancha his decision to dedicate the income of Lucera and Termoli, and also of the land of Somma, to the building of the said monastery. In the same document Robert also stated that the land of Somma would provide the necessary finances for a second royal commission recently undertaken: the preparation of new tombs in the episcopal complex of Naples for the relatives who were already resting there: his grandfather, King Charles I of Anjou (deceased in 1285), founder of the Neapolitan branch of the French royal dynasty, the father of King Charles II, whose third-born son was Robert; his brother, Charles Martel, who, as we have seen, was the father of Charles I of Hungary; and the wife of Charles Martel, Clemence, daughter of Rudolf of Habsburg, both deceased in 1295.37

The document does not attest to Robert’s request to his wife to carry out new burials for these kings, deceased for many decades, but illustrates the reasons of the granting of a pension for their creation and completion, for which Sancha had already bought the stone materials. This means that Robert intervened in decisions already made by Sancha, justifying that intervention on the basis of explanations that Sancha herself must have put forward, perhaps in writing. The vocabulary of this text includes explicit references to Sancha’s thought on the need for new burials (duceris…, videris…, promittens…, and especially iuxta tuæ dispositionis arbitrium, a formula that in medieval documents generally uses the first person singular or plural, indicating the full authority of the subject to find a solution), but also includes a wide range of expressions, adverbs and adjectives whose semantic roots consistently refer to the intertwined concepts of regal dignity and the propriety of that dignity.38

The reasons for Sancha to believe that King Robert should carry out this operation were twofold: Robert’s love for his grandfather and older brother, of course, but especially the honor of Robert, a surprising and unprecedented point in the context of royal sepulchral commissions, where the purpose should be to honor the deceased and not the patron, but also a point surprisingly coincidental with the concepts that recur in Angevin documents related to the preparations for Charles I’s journey to Naples, which dictate that everything had to be done in a way to best honor the king of Sicily. The emphasis on this specific point makes it clear not only that the existing royal tombs did not give honor to the person of Robert, but also that the manifestation of such honor in monumental form was in that moment an unavoidable objective to aim for. Reversing the terms used by Robert in his letter to indicate what characteristics the tombs ordered by Sancha should have, we can deduce that the old burials must have appeared not decent, not appropriate and not dignified in relation to the royalty of the bodies that were buried there: in other words, those graves did not bring honor to Robert as they were unseemly or no longer in fashion, and especially because, located in that site at the time, they must have seemed inappropriate.

But why so much concern for the honor of the king of Naples at that time, in May 1333? And why did such honor have to come through the execution of new burials, and specifically those of King Charles I of Anjou, Charles Martel and Clemence of Habsburg? And where were the old tombs located when the decision to make new ones was justified? A comparison of the archival documents and the wording of historical sources of the modern age shows that the old tombs were still located in the old Neapolitan cathedral, i.e., the Basilica Salvatoris (also called Stefania), then called Santa Restituta, next to which, around 1294, the construction of a new cathedral had been started, in Gothic form, on the orders of the archbishop of Naples, Filippo Minutolo, and with partial financial support from King Charles II of Anjou.

The commission of new tombs for the father and the mother of the king of Hungary, only a few months before his arrival in Naples, cannot be considered a mere coincidence. To set up the new burials, it must have seemed a necessary and rather urgent undertaking to the sovereigns of Naples, to Sancha and consequently to Robert. This enterprise was aimed at the public celebration in monumental form of the branch of the Angevin dynasty from which the king of Hungary was descended and from whom Robert, thanks to a very well-orchestrated agreement between King Charles II of Anjou and the papacy, had taken the throne of Sicily thirty years earlier.

It is probably for this reason that, in the document of May 13, 1333, Robert refers to the fact that Sancha believed this committee to be indispensable pro honore nostro (where nostro, our, alludes to the individual Robert), as if Sancha had first understood how essential the new burials of King Charles I of Anjou and Charles Martel were to the preparations for Charles I of Hungary’s reception.39 Robert could not show a lack of pietas and respect toward the remains of his firstborn brother whose heir had been sent to far-off lands and who had thus become a stranger in the kingdom that was originally his rightful inheritance.

The Angevin tombs were completely destroyed at the end of the sixteenth century, but their memory remains in modern narrative sources. Medieval documents do not tell us exactly where the new tombs ordered by King Robert in 1333 were placed in the Gothic Cathedral of Naples, but the visual testimony of sixteenth-century Neapolitan scholars is clear about the fact that they were in the central apse. After the study of all the evidence that I have mentioned, we can reasonably suppose that it was precisely there, in the apse, that the royal tombs were installed at the moment of their realization in 1333.

Conclusion

The reasons for and consequences of Charles I’s journey to Naples in 1333 were closely embedded in the games of dynastic politics that linked Naples and Hungary in the fourteenth century and beyond. Moreover, the journey triggered the building of an extraordinary funerary exhibition in the apse of the Cathedral of Naples. A reference to this was probably made, many decades later, in the second half of the fourteenth century and by the will of Queen Joanna, in the scenic composition that can still be seen in the Neapolitan monastic church of Saint Claire.40 This is a superb depiction of death in the form of skillfully worked marble (Fig. 4), with Robert in the center, still seen flanked by his son, Charles of Calabria, and his granddaughter, Mary of Durazzo (the same Mary who was urged to marry a Hungarian prince in 1332 and whose life took another turn). That composition evidently played an extraordinary celebratory function of royal power that Joanna herself owed to her father and grandfather, undermining the legitimate heirs to the throne of Sicily: Charles I of Hungary and his children.

 

Bibliography

Aurell, Martin, Noël Coulet, and Jean-Paul Boyer. La Provence au Moyen Âge. Aix-en-Provence: Publications de l’Université de Provence, 2005.

Bonfini, Antonio. Historia Pannonica sive Hungaricarum rerum decades. Coloniæ Agrippinæ: sumptibus hæredum Ioannis Widenfeldt et Godefridi de Berges, 1690.

Eckermann, Willigis. “Ehre (theologisch-philosophisch).” In Lexicon des Mittelalters. Vol. III. Turnhout: Brepols, 1986, 1662–63.

Enderlein, Lorenz. Die Grablegen des Hauses Anjou in Unteritalien. Totenkult und Monumente 1266–1343. Worms am Rhein: Werner, 1997.

Engel, Pál. The Realm of St Stephen. A History of Medieval Hungary. 895–1526. London–New York: I. B. Tauris, 2001.

Galasso, Giuseppe. Storia d’Italia. XV, 1. Il Regno di Napoli. Il Mezzogiorno angioino e aragonese. 1255–1494. Turin: Utet, 1992.

Hóman, Bálint. Gli Angioini di Napoli in Ungheria. 1290–1403. Rome: Reale Accademia d’Italia, 1938.

Katona, István. Historia critica regum Hungariae stirpis mixtae […]. Tomulus I, ordine VIII. Ab anno Christi MCCCI ad annum usque MCCCXXXI. Budae: Typis Catharinæ Landerer, 1788.

Léonard, Émile G. Histoire de Jeanne Ire reine de Naples, comtesse de Provence. 1343–1382. Monaco: Imprimerie de Monaco 1932.

Léonard, Émile G. Les Angevins de Naples. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1954.

Lucherini, Vinni. “Il refettorio e il capitolo del monastero maschile di S. Chiara: l’impianto topografico e le scelte decorative.” In Committenza artistica, vita religiosa e progettualità politica nella Napoli di Roberto d’Angiò e Sancia di Maiorca. La chiesa di Santa Chiara. Proceedings of the International Conference. Naples, April 28–30, 2011. Forthcoming.

Lucherini, Vinni. “Il «testamento» di Maria d’Ungheria a Napoli: un esempio di acculturazione regale.” In Images and Words in Exile, edited by Elisa Brilli, Laura Fenelli and Gerhard Wolf. Forthcoming.

Lucherini, Vinni. “La Cappella di San Ludovico nella Cattedrale di Napoli, le sepolture dei sovrani angioini, le due statue dei re e gli errori della tradizione storiografica moderna.” Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte 70 (2007): 1–22.

Lucherini, Vinni. La Cattedrale di Napoli. Storia, architettura, storiografia di un monumento medieval. Rome: École française de Rome, 2009.

Lucherini, Vinni. “L’arte alla corte dei re «napoletani» d’Ungheria nel primo Trecento: un equilibrio tra aspirazioni italiane e condizionamenti locali.” In Arte di Corte in Italia del Nord. Programmi, modelli, artisti (1330–1402 ca.). Proceedings of the International Conference, Lausanne, May 25–26, 2012, edited by Serena Romano and Denise Zaru. Forthcoming.

Lucherini, Vinni. “La prima descrizione moderna della corona medievale dei re d’Ungheria: il De sacra corona di Péter Révay (1613).” In Mélanges en hommage à de Jean-Pierre Caillet. Forthcoming.

Lucherini, Vinni. “Le tombe angioine nel presbiterio di Santa Chiara a Napoli e la politica funeraria di Roberto d’Angiò.” In Medioevo: i committenti. Proceedings of the International Conference, Parma, September 21–26, 2010, edited by Arturo Carlo Quintavalle, 477–504. Milan: Electa, 2011.

Lucherini, Vinni. “Precisazioni documentarie e nuove proposte sulla commissione e l’allestimento delle tombe reali angioine nella Cattedrale di Napoli.” In Studi in onore di Maria Andaloro. Forthcoming.

Lucherini, Vinni. “Raffigurazione e legittimazione della regalità nel primo Trecento: una pittura murale con l’incoronazione di Carlo Roberto d’Angiò a Spišská Kapitula (Szepeshely).” In Medioevo: natura e figura. Proceedings of the International Conference. Parma, September 20–25, 2011, edited by Arturo Carlo Quintavalle. Forthcoming.

Lucherini, Vinni. “Regalità e iconografia francescana nel complesso conventuale di Santa Chiara: il Cristo in trono della sala capitolare.” Ikon 3 (2010): 151–68.

Lucherini, Vinni. “Tombe di re, vescovi e santi nella Cattedrale di Napoli: memoria liturgica e memoria profana.” In La chiesa e il palazzo. Proceedings of the International Conference, Parma, September 20–24, 2005, edited by Arturo Carlo Quintavalle, 679–90. Milan: Electa, 2007.

Lünig, Johann Christian. Codex Italiæ diplomaticus […] quæ omnia collegit ac elencho indiceque reali instruxit. Tomus secundus. Francofurti et Lipsiæ: Impensis Haeredum Lanckisianorum, 1726.

Magyar diplomacziai emlékek az Anjou-korból. 3 vols, edited by Gusztáv Wenzel. Budapest: MTA, 1874–1876.

Michalsky, Tanja. Memoria und Repräsentation. Die Grabmäler des Könighaus Anjou in Italien. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000.

Minieri Riccio, Camillo. “Genealogia di Carlo II d’Angiò re di Napoli.” Archivio Storico per le Province Napoletane 7 (1882): 15–67.

Pellegrini, Silvio. Il “Pianto” anonimo provenzale per Roberto d’Angiò. Turin: Edizione Chiantore, 1934.

Pray, György. Annales regum Hungariæ […]. Pars II complectens res gestas Carolo I. Roberto ad Wadislaum I. Vienna: Typis Joannis Thomæ de Trattner, 1764.

Regibus de, Adalgisio. “Le contese degli Angioini di Napoli per il trono d’Ungheria (1290–1310).” Rivista storica italiana 5, 1 (1934): 38–85 (I), 264–305 (II).

Sághy, Marianne. “Dévotions diplomatiques: Le pèlerinage de la reine-mère Élisabeth Piast à Rome.” In La Diplomatie des États Angevins aux XIIIe et XIVe siècle. Proceedings of the International Conference, Szeged, Visegrád, Budapest, September 13–16, 2007, edited by Zoltán Kordé and István Petrovics, 219–33. Rome–Szeged: Academia d’Ungheria in Roma, Szegedi Tudományegetem 2011.

Schipa, Michelangelo. “Carlo Martello.” Archivio Storico per le Province Napoletane. Vol. XIV (1889), 17–33; 204–64, 432–58; XV (1890), 5–125.

Szentpétery, Emericus. Scriptores rerum Hungaricarum tempore ducum regumque stirpis arpadianae gestarum. Budapestini: Academia Litteraria Hungarica atque Societate Historica Hungarica, 1937–1938.

Thuróczy, János. “Chronica Hungarorum ab origine gentis, inserta simul chronica Iohannis archidiaconi de Kikullew, ad annum usque Christi MCCCCLXIV et ultra perducta […].” In Scriptores rerum Hungaricarum veteres et genuini partim primum ex tenebris eruti, partim antehac quidem editi […], cum amplissima praefatione Mathiae Belli, cura et studio Joannis Georgii Schwandtneri. Pars prima, 39–278. Vindobona: impensis Ioannis Pauli Kraus, 1746.

Vetera monumenta historica Hungariam sacram illustrantia, Tomus primus. 1216–1352, edited by Augustinus Theiner. Rome: Typis Vaticanis, 1859.

Villani, Giovanni. Cronica. Firenze: Per il Magheri, 1823.

 

 

 

Image Captions:

 

Figure 1. Bibliothèque nationale de France, ms. fr. 1049, Planh for the death of King Robert: Robert crowning Andrew of Hungary.

Figure 2. Naples, Church of Christ and Saint Louis in the royal monastery of Saint Claire (ancient chapter house of the friars), King Robert and Andrew of Hungary kneeling before Christ and four Franciscan saints.

Figure 3. Naples, Church of Christ and Saint Louis in the royal monastery of Saint Claire (ancient chapter house of the friars), Queen Sancha of Majorca and Joanna of Anjou kneeling before Christ and four Franciscan saints.

Figure 4. Naples, Church of Saint Claire, tombs of King Robert (center), Mary of Durazzo (left) and Charles of Calabria (right).

 

1 The topic of this article is connected to a personal project (supported in 2011 by the Central European University’s Institute of Advanced Study in Budapest) on the relationship between Naples and Hungary during the fourteenth century. Various aspects of this research are now in press: Vinni Lucherini, “Il refettorio e il capitolo del monastero maschile di Santa Chiara: l’impianto topografico e le scelte decorative,” in Committenza artistica, vita religiosa e progettualità politica nella Napoli di Roberto d’Angiò e Sancia di Maiorca. La chiesa di Santa Chiara. Proceedings of the International Conference. Naples, April 28–30, 2011 (forthcoming); idem, “Raffigurazione e legittimazione della regalità nel primo Trecento: una pittura murale con l’incoronazione di Carlo Roberto d’Angiò a Spišská Kapitula (Szepeshely),” in Medioevo: natura e figura. Proceedings of the International Conference. Parma, September 20–25, 2011, ed. Arturo Carlo Quintavalle (forthcoming); idem, “Il «testamento» di Maria d’Ungheria a Napoli: un esempio di acculturazione regale,” in Images and Words in Exile, ed. Elisa Brilli, Laura Fenelli and Gerhard Wolf (forthcoming); idem, “L’arte alla corte dei re «napoletani» d’Ungheria nel primo Trecento: un equilibrio tra aspirazioni italiane e condizionamenti locali,” in Arte di Corte in Italia del Nord. Programmi, modelli, artisti (1330–1402 ca.). Proceedings of the International Conference, Lausanne, May 25–26, 2012, ed. Serena Romano and Denise Zaru (forthcoming); idem, “La prima descrizione moderna della corona medievale dei re d’Ungheria: il De sacra corona di Péter Révay (1613),” in Mélanges en hommage à Jean–Pierre Caillet (forthcoming); idem, “Precisazioni documentarie e nuove proposte sulla commissione e l’allestimento delle tombe reali angioine nella Cattedrale di Napoli,” in Studi in onore di Maria Andaloro (forthcoming).

2 Camillo Minieri Riccio, “Genealogia di Carlo II d’Angiò re di Napoli,” Archivio Storico per le Province Napoletane 7 (1882): 15–67; Michelangelo Schipa, “Carlo Martello,” Archivio Storico per le Province Napoletane 14 (1889): 17–33; 204–64, 432–58; 15 (1890): 5–125; Adalgisio de Regibus, “Le contese degli Angioini di Napoli per il trono d’Ungheria (1290–1310),” Rivista storica italiana 5, no. 1 (1934): 38–85 (I), 264–305 (II). On the same historical period: Bálint Hóman, Gli Angioini di Napoli in Ungheria. 1290–1403 (Rome: Reale Accademia d’Italia, 1938); Émile G. Léonard, Les Angevins de Naples (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1954); Giuseppe Galasso, Storia d’Italia, vol. XV, 1. Il Regno di Napoli. Il Mezzogiorno angioino e aragonese. 1255–1494 (Turin: Utet, 1992), 114–50.

3 Pál Engel, The Realm of St Stephen. A History of Medieval Hungary. 895–1526 (London–New York: I. B. Tauris, 2001), 130–37.

4 This document was partially edited by György Pray, Annales regum Hungariæ […]. Pars II complectens res gestas Carolo I. Roberto ad Wadislaum I (Vienna: Typis Joannis Thomæ de Trattner, 1764), 29; István Katona, Historia critica regum Hungariae stirpis mixtae […]. Tomulus I, ordine VIII. Ab anno Christi MCCCI ad annum usque MCCCXXXI (Budae: Typis Catharinæ Landerer, 1788), 646–47.

5 Pray, Annales, 29.

6 Léonard, Les Angevins, 162–63.

7 Vetera monumenta historica Hungariam sacram illustrantia, Tomus primus. 1216–1352, ed. Augustinus Theiner (Romæ: Typis Vaticanis, 1859), 518 (doc. 798: September 8, 1327; 800: December 3, 1327).

8 Minieri Riccio, “Genealogia di Carlo,” 39.

9 Theiner, Vetera monumenta, 589–91 (doc. 872: July 16, 1332; 873: July 16, 1332; 874: July 17, 1332; 875: July 30, 1332).

10 Minieri Riccio, “Genealogia di Carlo,” 42–46.

11 Magyar diplomacziai emlékek az Anjou-korból [Hungarian Diplomatic Records from the Angevin Era], 3 vols., ed. Gusztáv Wenzel (Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akademia, 1874–1876) (hereafter: MDEA), vol. I, 284–320.

12 MDEA, vol. I, 284 (doc. 296).

13 Minieri Riccio, “Genealogia di Carlo,” 43, note 2.

14 Ibid., 43, note 3; MDEA, vol. I, 290 (doc. 301), 296 (doc. 307), 297 (doc. 308), 298–99 (doc. 310).

15 Ibid., vol. I, 301 (doc. 312).

16 Ibid., vol. I, 302–03 (doc. 313).

17 Ibid., vol. I, 304–08 (doc. 315).

18 Ibid., vol. I, 309–12 (doc. 317, 319, 320).

19 Giovanni Villani, Cronica (Florence: Per il Magheri, 1823), vol. V, 280–81 (Libro Decimo, Cap. CCXXII): “Nel detto anno, l’ultimo dì di luglio, Carlo Umberto re d’Ungheria con Andreasso suo secondo figliuolo con molta baronia arrivarono alla terra di Bastia di Puglia, e loro venuti a Manfredonia, da messer Gianni duca di Durazzo e fratello del re Ruberto con molta baronia furono ricevuti a grande onore, e conviati infino a Napoli; e là vegnendo, il re Ruberto gli si fece incontro infino a’ prati di Nola, basciandosi in bocca con grandi accoglienze, e ordinossi e fecesi fare per lo re una chiesa a onore di nostra Donna per perpetua memoria di loro congiunzione. E poi giunti in Napoli, si cominciò la festa grande, e fu molto onorato il re d’Ungheria dal re Ruberto, il quale era suo nipote, figliuolo che fu di Carlo Martello primogenito del re Carlo Secondo, il quale per molti si dicea ch’a lui succedea il reame di Cicilia e di Puglia; e per questa cagione parendone al re Ruberto avere coscienza, e ancora perch’era morto il duca di Calavra figliuolo del re Ruberto, e non era rimaso di lui altro che due figliuole femmine, né il re Ruberto non aveva altro figliuolo maschio, innanzi che ‘l reame tornasse ad altro lignaggio sì volle il re Ruberto che dopo di lui succedesse il reame al figliuolo del detto re d’Ungheria suo nipote. E per dispensagione e volontà di papa Giovanni e de’ suoi cardinali sì fece sposare al detto Andreasso, ch’era d’età di sette anni, la figliuola maggiore che fu del duca di Calavra, ch’era d’età di cinque anni, e lui fece duca di Calavra a dì 26 di settembre del detto anno con grande festa, alla quale il Comune di Firenze mandò otto ambasciatori de’ maggiori cavalieri e popolani di Firenze, con cinquanta familiari vestiti tutti d’una assisa per fare onore a’ detti re, i quali molto gradiro. E compiuta la detta festa, poco appresso si partì il re d’Ungheria e tornò in suo paese, e lasciò a Napoli il figliuolo colla moglie alla guardia del re Ruberto con ricca compagnia.”

20 János Thuróczy, “Chronica Hungarorum ab origine gentis, inserta simul chronica Iohannis archidiaconi de Kikullew, ad annum usque Christi MCCCCLXIV et ultra perducta […],” in Scriptores rerum Hungaricarum veteres et genuini partim primum ex tenebris eruti, partim antehac quidem editi […], cum amplissima praefatione Mathiae Belli, Pars Prima, ed. Johann Georg Schwandtner, pars prima (Vindobona: impensis Ioannis Pauli Kraus, 1746), 39–278 (for Charles I: 154–70; for the citation: 165): “Anno Domini millesimo trecentesimo tricesimo tertio, egressus est rex de Wyssegrad, cum Andrea filio suo, puero sex annorum, in mense Iulii, et perrexit cum bona comitiva militum, per Zagabriam, ultra mare, ut filium suum, per voluntatem summi pontificis, domini scilicet Iohannis Vicesimi Secundi, et ad instantiam et petitionem inclytissimi Roberti, regis Siciliæ, regni eiusdem coronaret in regem. In cuius regis comitiva profecti sunt Chanadinus, archiepiscopus Strigoniensis; Andreas, episcopus Waradiensis; et Iacobus, Longobardus physicus, episcopus Chanadiensis; et magister Donch, supra nominatus; et alii nobiles plurimi de regno.” The main, if not only, source used by Thuróczy in the description of the journey must certainly have been the Chronici Hungarici compositio sæculi XIV, written in Hungary not long after 1333 (Scriptores rerum Hungaricarum tempore ducum regumque stirpis Arpadianae gestarum I–II, ed. Imre Szentpétery (Budapest: Academia Litteraria Hungarica atque Societate Historica Hungarica, 1937–1938), I, 501–02): “Anno Domini MCCCXXXIII, egressus est rex de Uissegrad cum Andrea filio suo puero sex annorum in mense Iulii et perrexit cum bona comitiva militum per Zagabriam ultra mare, ut filium suum per voluntatem summi pontificis, domini scilicet Iohannis XXII, et ad petitionem regni Sicilie, coronaret in regem. In cuius regis comitiva et societate profecti sunt Chanadinus archiepiscopus Strigoniensis, Andreas episcopus Uaradiensis et Iacobus Lumbardus physicus, episcopus Cithanadiensis (sic) et magister Donch supradictus et alii nobiles plurimi de regno.”

21 Antonio Bonfini, Historia Pannonica sive Hungaricarum rerum decades (Coloniæ Agrippinæ: sumptibus hæredum Ioannis Widenfeldt et Godefridi de Berges, 1690), 230: “Et anno trecentesimo trigesimo tertio, ultra millesimum, pater et Andreas ex Vissegrado proficiscuntur, decimoque die Zagabriam perveniunt. Et quum per Dalmatiam iter faceret statuerint, superatis Lapideis montibus, Segniam descendunt, unde comparata classe, quatuor dierum navigatione, in Apulia trajiciunt. Hac spe nimium ductus est pater ut filium, Roberti regis precibus electum, perbrevi quoque Ioannis Vicesimi Secundi pontificis auctoritate coronatum, in Italia relinqueret et Ungariæ Regnum Lodovico primigenio, ut par erat, addiceret: quare se fortunatissimum patrem futurum esse confidebat. Adventandi Robertus gratulabundus occurrit, nepotem Carolum puerumque Andream amplexatur.”

22 Minieri Riccio, “Genealogia di Carlo,” 44.

23 Some letters of John XXII, addressed both to Robert and to Charles I in September and October of 1333, attest to the fact that, immediately after his arrival, the king of Hungary had been stricken with a high fever. Fortunately, as the pope declared, providence had helped him, and he could be considered out of danger. Having regained his strength, he could then proceed back to his kingdom, because a prolonged absence could be detrimental to the fortunes of the Hungarian Kingdom, bringing serious damage to the defense of Christian lands: Theiner, Vetera monumenta, 592–93 (doc. 879: September 9, 1333; 880: September 9, 1333; 881: October 23, 1333).

24 Minieri Riccio, “Genealogia di Carlo,” 45.

25 MDEA, vol. I, 318–19 (doc. 324): “Scire te volumus quod inter spectabilem Iohannam ducissam Calabriæ, primogenitam benedictæ memoriæ Caroli ducis Calabriæ nostri primogeniti et vicarii generalis, neptem nostram carissimam, et spectabilem iuvenem Andream, natum incliti principis dominis Caroli, illustri regis Hungariæ, cum solemnitatibus debitis sponsalia de novo fore contracta. Propter quæ, tam pro adventu ad partes istas dictorum domini Regis Hungariæ et filii, atque plurium prelatorum et magnatum in eorum accedencium comitiva, quam pro aliis ad præmissa apparatibus oportunis magna expensarum onera noscimus subiisse. Actendentes itaque quod ipsi Iohannæ nepti nostræ per barones et feudatarios ac terrarum universitates, seu syndicus et procuratores ipsorum pro eis, tamquam succedenti nobis in Regno Siciliæ, ac comitatibus supradictis et ereditariis bonis aliis, ubi ex nobis filius masculus non supersit, debitum fidelitatis certo modo est præstitum iuramentum, ac provise pensantes quod per ipsos fideles nostros eorundem comitatuum Provinciæ et Forcalquerii subventio focagii nobis de iure, dictorum sponsaliorum occasione seu causa debetur subventionem eandem in quantitate solita per te in singulis terris, civitatibus et locis dictorum comitatuum imponi decrevimus.”

26 Theiner, Vetera monumenta, 593–94, doc. 883 (November 8, 1333): “que omnia inter te, dilectissime filii, et eundem regem Sicilie matura deliberatione prehabita, ordinata et conventa fuerunt, ac vestris, necnon carissime in Chisto filie nostre Sancie regine Sicilie illustris, et nonnullorum prelatorum, comitum et baronum utriusque regni, Ungarie videlicet et Sicilie, tunc vobiscum presentium propriis iuramentis firmata, fuit nobis pro parte tua et eiusdem regis humiter supplicatum, ut premissa habere rata et grata, nostrumque illis impartiri assensum ac providere super eis de oportune dispensationis suffragio dignaremur. Nos igitur multis utilitatibus, que utrique regno ex predictis provenire, ac variis dispendiis, que vitare poterunt, in consideratione deductis, huiusmodi supplicationibus benignius inclinati, ut predictis impedimentis ex eisdem consanguinitatibus vel affinitatibus, seu publice honestatis iusticia que oriri poterit ex dictis sponsalibus, nequaquam obstantibus, possint dicti nati tui cum ipsis filiabus dicti ducis, ut superius exprimuntur, matrimonialiter copulari, prompto animo auctoritate apostolica tenore presentium dispensamus, prolem exinde suscipiendam legitimam decernentes.”

27 Ibid., 594, doc. 884 (November 19, 1333).

28 MDEA, vol. 1, 327–33 (doc. 333–34); Minieri Riccio, “Genealogia di Carlo,” 45–46.

29 Ibid., 46.

30 For the journey: Thuróczy, “Chronica Hungarorum,” 174–76; for his diplomatic purposes: Marianne Sághy, “Dévotions diplomatiques: Le pèlerinage de la reine-mère Élisabeth Piast à Rome,” in La Diplomatie des États Angevins aux XIIIe et XIVe siècle. Proceedings of the International Conference, Szeged, Visegrád, Budapest, September 13–16, 2007, ed. Zoltán Kordé et al. (Rome–Szeged: Academia d’Ungheria in Roma–Szegedi Tudományegyetem 2011), 219–33.

31 Minieri Riccio, “Genealogia di Carlo,” 50.

32 Scriptores rerum Hungaricarum, vol. II, 223: “Nach Cristz gepurt taussent jar, dreyhundert iar in dem drey und dreissigsten iar do rait der kunig Kark von Plindenpurg mit herczog Andres siben sün, der waz dennoch ein kint von siben jaren, und furt mit ym grosz herschaft und furt den sun, herczog Andres, uber mer, daz er yn kronen wolt zu Siczilien und Pullen von pete des volkes und von pete des pabst sant Johannes. Mit dem kunig zohe der erczpischoff von Gran Schanaden genant und Andreas der erczpischoff von Waradein und herre Jacob der pischoff von Czischanaden und der graff Donsch von der Lyptawe und ander edeln vil. Und komen gen Sicilien und kronten den kunig Andres zu dem reich und gaben ym Johannitam, dez kungs Ruprechten tochter zu weybe. Doch wellen etlich daz der kunig Karlein von Vngern sein sun dem kunige Ruprechten enpfahl und liesz yn do ungekront und kom wider mit genad mit den seinen gen Vngern.”

33 Silvio Pellegrini, Il “Pianto” anonimo provenzale per Roberto d’Angiò (Turin: Edizione Chiantore, 1934); Martin Aurell et al., eds., La Provence au Moyen Âge (Aix-en-Provence: Publications de l’Université de Provence, 2005), 209–10, 269.

34 Émile G. Léonard, Histoire de Jeanne Ire reine de Naples, comtesse de Provence. 1343–1382 (Monaco: Imprimerie de Monaco, 1932), vol. I, 219–20, described the image in this way: “Le roi, appuyé sur trois oreillers, mais diadème en tête, est couché sur un lit reposant sur des colonnettes et recouvert d’une fourrure de vair. A sa gauche, la reine Sancia couronné, un personnage à col de fourrure et calotte conique dans lequel nous verrions volontiers un médecin, un autre personnage, barbu et vêtu d’une robe pourpre et d’un manteau rouge en qui il faut peut-être reconnaitre l’évêque de Cavaillon. Au pied du lit, un moine, au froc violet, mais portant la capuche brune. A la droit du malade, André de Hongrie, blond, éperonné, les bras croisés et la front incliné. Et le vieux roi lui impose la couronne.”

35 Johann Christian Lünig, Codex Italiæ diplomaticus […]. Tomus secundus (Francofurti et Lipsiæ: Impensis Haeredum Lanckisianorum, 1726), 1101–10: 1104: “[Robert] instituit sibi hæredem universalem Iohannam ducissam Calabriæ, neptem eius primogenitam, claræ memoriæ inclyti domini Caroli ducis Calabriæ, eiusdem domini regis primogeniti, in Regno Siciliæ ultra citraque Pharum, nec non comitatibus Provinciæ et Forcalquerii et Pedemontis, ac omnibus aliis terris, locis, dominiis, iurisdictionibus, locis et rebus suis stabilibus et mobilibus, ubicumque sistentibus, et quomodolibet competituris. […] Item voluit et mandavit dominus rex, quod in casu, quod absit, quod præfatam dominam Iohannam ducissam decedere contigeret, quandocumque liberis ex suo corpore legitimis non relictis vel illis superstitibus sine legitimis hæredibus descendentibus, succedat sibi præfata domina Maria soror eius vel hæredes sui.”

36 Vinni Lucherini, “Regalità e iconografia francescana nel complesso conventuale di Santa Chiara: il Cristo in trono della sala capitolare,” Ikon 3 (2010): 151–68.

37 Concerning the Angevin tombs, see: Lorenz Enderlein, Die Grablegen des Hauses Anjou in Unteritalien. Totenkult und Monumente 1266–1343 (Worms am Rhein: Werner, 1997); and Tanja Michalsky, Memoria und Repräsentation. Die Grabmäler des Könighaus Anjou in Italien (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000). Specifically about these tombs and their historiographical tradition, see: Vinni Lucherini, “Tombe di re, vescovi e santi nella Cattedrale di Napoli: memoria liturgica e memoria profana,” in La chiesa e il palazzo. Proceedings of the International Conference, Parma, September 20–24, 2005, ed. Arturo Carlo Quintavalle (Milan: Electa, 2007), 679–90; idem, “La Cappella di San Ludovico nella Cattedrale di Napoli, le sepolture dei sovrani angioini, le due statue dei re e gli errori della tradizione storiografica moderna,” Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte 70 (2007): 1–22; idem, La Cattedrale di Napoli. Storia, architettura, storiografia di un monumento medievale (Rome: École Française de Rome, 2009), 238–57.

38 For the document’s textual interpretation, see Vinni Lucherini, “Precisazioni documentarie.”

39 About this concept, see W. Eckermann, “Ehre (theologisch–philosophisch),” in Lexicon des Mittelalters, vol. III (Turnhout: Brepols, 1986), cols. 1662–63.

40 Vinni Lucherini, “Le tombe angioine nel presbiterio di Santa Chiara a Napoli e la politica funeraria di Roberto d’Angiò,” in Medioevo: i committenti. Proceedings of the International Conference, Parma, September 21–26, 2010, ed. Arturo Carlo Quintavalle (Milan: Electa, 2011), 477–504.

fig.%201%20Lucherini%20for%20HHR.jpg

Figure 1. Bibliothèque nationale de France, ms. fr. 1049, Planh for the death of King Robert: Robert crowning Andrew of Hungary.

02.JPG

Figure 2. Naples, Church of Christ and Saint Louis in the royal monastery of Saint Claire (ancient chapter house of the friars), King Robert and Andrew of Hungary kneeling before Christ and four Franciscan saints.

Figure 3. Naples, Church of Christ and Saint Louis in the royal monastery of Saint Claire (ancient chapter house of the friars), Queen Sancha of Majorca and Joanna of Anjou kneeling before Christ and four Franciscan saints.

03.JPG
fig.%204%20Lucherini%20for%20HHR.JPG

Figure 4. Naples, Church of Saint Claire, tombs of King Robert (center), Mary of Durazzo (left) and Charles of Calabria (right).

2013_2_Klaniczay

pdfVolume 2 Issue 2 CONTENTS

Gábor Klaniczay

Efforts at the Canonization of Margaret of Hungary in the Angevin Period

St Margaret of Hungary, the daughter of King Béla IV offered to the service of God, who lived her life in the Dominican convent at the Rabbits’ Island near Buda, constructed for her, and died in 1270, followed the vocation of her aunt, St Elisabeth of Hungary, who was by then one of the most popular saints in Europe. The official investigation around Margaret’s sanctity, supported by the Dominican Order, her brother, King Stephen V, and other royal families, started in 1273, first with a local inquiry, then with a witness hearing in 1276 by papal legates. Nevertheless, this process—as many other similar ones—remained unfinished in the Middle Ages, and after repeated attempts from the Hungarian kings and the Dominicans, the canonization of Margaret only succeeded in 1943. The present study is discussing a chapter in these efforts, the ones during the period of the Angevin rulers, for whom the cult of saint ancestors has been more important than for any other Hungarian royal dynasty. New studies on the canonization processes in general, and new studies on Saint Margaret in particular allow us now to see more clearly three such Angevin attempts, one in 1306, even before their accession to the Hungarian throne, one around 1340, which has been brought by Viktória Hedvig Deák in connection with the Legenda maior of Margaret, written in Avignon by Garinus, and a third in 1379, at the beginning of the Great Schism, the documents of which have recently been discovered by Otfried Krafft.

Keywords: Saint Margaret of Hungary, Dominican Order, Canonizations, Angevins, the Great Schism

 

The historical transformations in the canonic procedures of the canonization of saints have attracted much attention from historians in recent years. When the cults of saints took shape in Late Antiquity, the initiation of a cult of a saint was a matter for the bishops, who judged by the criteria of post mortem ‘saintly reputation’ (fama sanctitatis), the occurrence of miracles near the candidates’ earthly remains, and taking in consideration legends written on their exemplary life. During the canonization procedures the saints’ relics were elevated and placed underneath the altar of a church, a feast day was entered into the diocesan calendar, and the memory of the saint was consequently preserved in annual liturgy.1 This system survived until the twelfth century, although changes were gradually introduced after the first millennium. A tenth-century case set a precedent for local ecclesiastical leaders to request the approval of the Holy See for the canonization of a proposed new saint, and after the reform papacy of Gregory VII, popes in the twelfth century increasingly imposed this as a requirement. The pope’s exclusive right to approve the veneration of new saints was first vindicated by Pope Alexander III (1159–1181) and made a rule by the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215, during the pontificate of Innocent III (1198–1216).2 Books by André Vauchez3 and Michael Goodich4 have pointed to the significance of this change and the fundamental transformation of the cult of saints which the new procedure brought about in the thirteenth century: after a local initiative (the fama sanctitatis, the first miracles and legends), a decision by the Holy See was required to start off the protracted legal procedure of canonization. Following a positive decision—made in only about half of the cases—papal legates went to the spot and heard witnesses, who testified, under oath, on the saintly life and miracles of the saint candidate. The papal consistory then made further investigations and debates, and after a period of some years, decades, or even centuries, decided whether the evidence gathered was sufficient for canonization. From the late twelfth to the early fifteenth century, popes launched seventy-one canonization processes, of which thirty-five ended in canonization during the Middle Ages.

These influential books by Vauchez and Goodich put new life into historical research regarding the canonization procedures. The documents of many canonization processes were published,5 and several major studies and monographs followed: books by Aviad Kleinberg,6 Bernhard Schimmelpfennig,7 Christian Krötzl,8 Luigi Canetti,9 Roberto Paciocco,10 Thomas Wetzstein11 and Otfried Krafft,12 and further books by André Vauchez13 and Michael Goodich14. A major international conference in Collegium Budapest in 2001, attended by many experts in the field, summed up research on the subject.15

It is due to the systematic investigations prescribed by the canonization processes that a wealth of detailed documentation has come down to us about St Margaret of Hungary, the daughter of King Béla IV offered to the service of God, and the people around her. Analysis of this has been one of the rewarding areas of medieval Hungarian religious history, and provided some wide-ranging insights.16 Margaret died as a Dominican nun on January 18, 1270,17 and her brother, King Stephen V, successfully petitioned Pope Gregory X to start a canonization investigation. This fact is recorded in a bull by Innocent V, who ordered the second hearing of witnesses,18 and in the Hungarian legend of St Margaret: ‘King Stephen … sent envoys to Pope Gregory humbly pleading that the almighty God ... for the sake of St Margaret’s virtues, had worked so many great miracles, that it would be unworthy not to invoke her assistance among other saints. Therefore his Holiness should be so gracious as to count her among the saints.’19 Evidence for the fama sanctitatis, required to initiate the canonization procedure, was probably provided by the first great public miracle, which occurred on the anniversary of Margaret’s death in January 1271 ‘on St Prisca’s day, on the anniversary of the death of the virgin,… [in the presence of] King Stephen V, the barons of the realm and indeed the whole royal court,’ when a woman named Erzsébet, suffering from possession by the Devil, was cured beside Margaret’s relics.20 The first committee charged with gathering Margaret’s miracles, consisting of Fülöp, Archbishop of Esztergom, Fülöp, Bishop of Vác and the Cistercian Abbot of Zirc, and—after the death of Archbishop Fülöp in late 1272 or early 1273—Ladomér, Bishop of Várad (later Archbishop of Esztergom) started its work on the Rabbits’ Island (today Margaret Island at Budapest). According to calculations by Vilmos Fraknói—based on the statements of soror Candida—the committee started work in July 1271,21 but Otfried Krafft has proposed, with reference to the chronology of the pontificate of Gregory X, that this be changed to 1272 (Gregory X was elected pope in early September 1271, but his coronation took place only in March 1272, and for canonical reasons it is very unlikely for the investigation to have been launched during an interregnum).22 His view was recently given additional support by the discovery by Bence Péterfi of the relevant bull issued by Pope Gregory X, dated May 4, 1272, which had previously only been known from references.23 Depositions were taken from at least forty witnesses, who related seven miracles performed during Margaret’s life, four miraculous visions connected to her death, and twenty-nine miraculous healings ascribed to the intercession of St Margaret, by then dead, but still present through her relics. The edited compilation of these miracles has been preserved by Margaret’s oldest legend, the Legenda Vetus, which is ascribed to her confessor Marcellus.24

The fact that Pope Innocent V, by a decree of May 14, 1276, ordered another hearing of witnesses, which took place between July 27 and October 12, 1276 on the Rabbits’ Island, has sometimes been interpreted by Hungarian historians as implying that the first inquiry was not sufficiently thorough. In fact, the inquiries into Margaret’s sainthood did not depart from the procedure which had become customary in the thirteenth century: the first stage was always a local inquiry. It was only after its findings—the first life of the saint and the list of miracles attesting to the fama sanctitatis—had been sent to the Curia, that the inquisitio in partibus could begin, in which papal legates interrogated the witnesses to the miracles according to the strictest rules of canon law. In the second stage (or even the third and fourth, as necessity demanded) the body of cardinals which dealt with the process of canonization examined the depositions in the Curia. I will cite two Central European examples. One was the process of canonization of St Elizabeth of Hungary between 1232 and 1235, in which Gregory IX ordered the inquiry after the first lists of miracles and the Summa vitae, written by Conrad of Marburg, had been sent to Rome.25 The same occurred in the case of St Stanislaus of Poland: the Archbishop of Gniezno, the Bishop of Wrocław and the Cistercian Abbot of Lubiąż compiled the first list of miracles in 1250, and after it was sent to Rome, the taking and recording of depositions in the inquisitio in partibus started in 1252, under the leadership of the Italian Giacomo Velletri, appointed by Innocent IV.26

The two papal legates in the second examination of witnesses for Margaret’s cause were the papal chaplain Umberto Bianchi of Piacenza and a canon of Verona, doctor of canon law De La Corre. The surviving record of the examination contains statements by 110 witnesses, but is nonetheless incomplete. Viktória Hedvig Deák has made a credible estimate of how much of the document has been lost (at least another 23 depositions).27 After the depositions had been taken and thoroughly compiled, they were sent to Rome, where, however, the final “curial” stage of the canonization process apparently failed to set off. There could have been several reasons for this, the most important probably being the frequent changes of pope in these years. Innocent V, who had ordered the inquiry, died on June 22, 1276, before the commission could even start its work in Buda, although it was probably somewhat later that the members of the commission got news of this.28 Innocent V’s successor, Hadrian V, occupied the papal throne for hardly more than a month (July 11 – August 18, 1276); when the depositions reached Rome, the pope was already John XXI, but not for long (September 8, 1276 – May 20, 1277). In the following twenty years, there were a further six popes, following each other every two or three years. This state of flux obviously hindered the process considerably, but there was another obstacle as well to canonization procedures in the late thirteenth century, as André Vauchez has pointed out. The openness to new saint cults which had characterized the first half of the thirteenth century came to an end, and the Curia became increasingly critical and dismissive of proposed new cults. Only under express political pressure or in pursuit of its own diplomatic aims did it permit a local initiative to come to fruition. As it has already been mentioned: of the 71 medieval canonization processes, only 36 led to canonization before the end of the Middle Ages.29 The fact that Margaret’s case got stuck was thus anything but exceptional.

What is more surprising, however, is how little her cause benefited from the ascent to the Hungarian throne of the House of Anjou. For, as Vauchez observed, the Angevin dynasty was more successful than any other royal house in having the Curia recognize the cult of saints connected to them.30 The first signs of this special treatment are apparent from the time of the dynasty’s founder, Charles I (1265–1285): in 1270, he initiated the canonization of his brother, King Louis IX of France, who had died in the course of his crusade to Tunis. After protracted inquiries, Louis was eventually canonized in 1296.31 When Charles sought and found for his son, Charles II, a wife from the House of Árpád, in the person of Stephen V’s daughter Mary, he emphatically stated that Stephen, besides being a ‘great and warlike king,’ was ‘descended from a family of saints and great kings.’32 This relationship later served as the basis for the family’s claim to the Hungarian throne, first asserted by Charles I’s grandson Charles Martel and—after his early death in 129533 and the extinction of the House of Árpád in 1301—taken up by his great-grandson Caroberto. On several occasions during the more than ten years of struggle it took Caroberto to secure the crown, he underpinned his suitability for the task by referring to his descent from famous saints on both sides, the French Capetians and the Árpáds.34

It is in this context that we must interpret the information given by Bernard Gui (Bernardus Guidonis), a leading figure and historian of the Dominican order, that in 1306, the King of Hungary sent a Dominican friar, Andrew of Hungary, as procurator to the Holy See to ‘intercede with Pope Clement V in the cause of the canonization of King Béla’s daughter Margaret.’35 Bernard Gui does not mention the king’s name, but there can be little doubt that it was Caroberto, the future Charles I, who had assumed the title in 1301 but was still fighting for the kingdom. A recently discovered document may be linked to this same piece of information: a petition to the pope written by Bishop Imre of Várad, in the same matter and the same year.36 These moves by the party around Caroberto in 1306 may be related to a successful petition made that same year by his uncle, Charles II ‘the Lame’ for the start of the canonization process of Louis of Anjou, Bishop of Toulouse, who had renounced his position as heir to the throne to enter the Franciscan order and lived a saintly life up to his death in 1297.37 That cause bore fruit in a short time: Louis of Anjou was canonized at a ceremony in Marseille in 131738 and became the patron saint of the Angevin dynasty, who celebrated themselves as beata stirps.39 By contrast, Margaret’s canonization process failed to resume momentum, although the privileges of the Dominican convent on the Rabbits’ Island were renewed by Charles I’s third wife Beatrix of Luxemburg in 1319.40

In the fourteenth century, Margaret’s cult found another promoter in Hungary in the person of Elizabeth Piast, daughter of Wladislaw Łokietek, Prince of Krakow and later King of Poland (1305–20; 1320–33), who became Charles Robert’s fourth wife in 1320 and controlled court ceremony and patronage.41 An indication of her commitment to family cult of saints is her foundation (together with her husband) of a Franciscan monastery consecrated to Louis of Anjou in Lippa in 1325.42 We do not know whether she escorted Charles I when he went at the head of a ceremonial delegation to Naples in 1333 for the betrothal of his third-born son Andrew to Joanna, granddaughter of his uncle Robert I ‘the Wise’ (1309–43).43 If so, she would have had the occasion to observe the representation of grand style in which the family saints had been honoured by Mary of Hungary, Charles the Lame’s wife, and Sancia of Aragon, Robert’s wife: above all a cycle of frescoes in the Church of Santa Maria di Donnaregina portraying St Elizabeth and the holy kings of the House of Árpád, and sculptures adorning the family tombs commemorating the two St Louises, the King of France and the Bishop of Toulouse.44

In any case, it must have been due to Elizabeth Piast that a splendid new tomb for the Blessed Margaret was erected on the Rabbits’ Island between 1336 and 1340, probably involving the sculptor responsible for the tomb of Mary of Hungary (d. 1323) in Santa Maria di Donnaregina, Tino de Camaino of Naples, or at least his atelier.45 According to the chronicle of the Dominican Order by Galvano Fiamma, Queen Elizabeth donated silver adornments to the Dominican houses in Bologna and Milan (the resting places of St Dominic and St Peter the Martyr respectively), thus presumably hoping to contribute to the emergence of the cult of Margaret of Hungary in Italy.46 This was no doubt connected to a new attempt by the Hungarian royal family and the Dominican Order, around 1340, to revive Margaret’s moribund canonization process. Viktória Hedvig Deák claims that this could explain why, at just the same time, the Master-General of the Dominican Order, Hugues de Vaucemain, had his fellow-Dominican Garinus de Giaco (Garin Gy l’Évêque) write a new legend using the documents of the canonization process which were held at Avignon.47 Also possibly linked to this development was the inclusion of an image of Margaret, then as yet only Blessed, among the representations of SS Peter and Paul, the Virgin Mary and the Hungaro-Angevin family saints (Stephen, Emeric, St Louis of Toulouse, Ladislaus and Elizabeth) in the embroidery of an altar cloth which Dowager Queen Elizabeth donated to St Peter’s Basilica in Rome during her Italian pilgrimage in 1343.48

Evidence in favour of Deák’s proposal are the parallel attempts by the Luxemburgs of Bohemia, allies of the Hungarian Angevins and also their main rivals, to boost their prestige by promoting a new saint cult connected to their dynastic predecessors. Elizabeth Přemysl, wife of John of Luxemburg, with the help of the Franciscans in Bohemia made repeated attempts between 1328 and 1339 to persuade Pope John XXII and then his successor Benedict XII to start a canonization process for Agnes of Bohemia (d. 1282). Agnes—following the example of her cousin, St Elizabeth of Hungary—renounced her courtly surroundings to live her life in the convent of the Poor Clares in Prague, which she had founded in 1235.49 This resulted, during these years, in the writing of the legend of Agnes and the collection of miracles which occurred at her grave: Queen Elizabeth Přemysl herself contributed two personal miracle stories to the list.50

As for the canonization of Margaret, after the new attempt had ended with failure around 1340, Dowager Queen Elizabeth nevertheless continued to pay considerable attention to the family convent and the maintenance of the memory of the family saint-candidate. In 1353, she requested and received papal dispensation to regularly spend time in the island convent.51

The joint efforts of the Dowager Queen and the Dominican order to promote Margaret’s canonization had an interesting consequence in Italy in the middle of the fourteenth century. The word spread that the beatified Hungarian princess, the sole female Dominican candidate for sanctification whose canonization was in process, had once—like St Francis of Assisi—been honored in a moment of ecstasy by the appearance on her body of the stigmata, the holy wounds of Christ. A painting by the ‘Master of the Dominican Effigies’ (c. 1350) in the sacristy of the Santa Maria Novella in Florence, stands as a record of this belief. It shows St Margaret in the company of other Dominican saints and candidates for canonization. There is a crown on her head and one hand holds a lily; on the other hand, which holds a globe, a stigma is clearly visible.52 The earliest representation of the stigmatisation scene itself appears on a severely degraded triptych-form fresco in San Domenico, Perugia (1368). On the left field, St Margaret is dressed in a white tunic and a hardly-visible cloak and headscarf, kneeling on her right knee, the crown laid on the ground, and receives the stigmata from a seraph crucifix.53 A third pictorial record of Margaret’s stigmatisation is a fresco by an unknown master in the church of San Niccolò in Treviso, near Tommaso da Modena’s famous series of Dominican masters, also made around 1370. The angels above the standing figure of Margaret hold a crown, and her portrait is accompanied by two inscriptions: “Beata Margareta regina Ungariae ordinis fratrum predicatorum” and “Ego enim stigmata Xti in corpore meo porto” – the latter a quotation from the apostle Paul (Gal. 6, 17).54 Another Italian connection from the middle of the fourteenth century is an incomplete Latin legend of her stigmatisation which survives in a manuscript from Pisa, appended to the legend of Garinus,55 and an Italian translation of it worked into the introduction of an Italian translation of a mystical tract called ‘Mirror of simple souls’, by Marguerite de Porete, a Wallonian Beguine burned as a heretic in 1310.56

The Italian fame of Margaret’s stigmatisation had one major consequence: it prepared the religious community for the emergence of a stigmatized saint whom the Italian Dominicans found among their own ranks, the famous mystic of the age Catherine of Siena (1347–80). She was a figure who could stand alongside St Francis of Assisi, putting the Dominicans on equal rank with the other mendicant order in this area.57 Later, when the zealous propagandist for the canonization of Catherine of Siena, Tommaso d’Antonio da Siena (1350–1434), known as Caffarini, Prior of the Dominican friary of San Giovanni e Paolo in Venice, contacted the Hungarian Dominicans to ask what they knew about Margaret’s stigmata, his Hungarian fellows had disappointing news for him. Provincial Gregory wrote in 1409 that the highly detailed thirteenth-century canonization documentation made no mention of stigmata, which must therefore have been a false rumour. He added that this sign of holy favour had in fact been granted to another Hungarian Dominican nun of saintly life, Margaret’s ‘magistra’, the Blessed Helen.58 The Hungarian court must also have been ignorant of the story of Margaret’s stigmata circulating in Italy, otherwise they would surely not have been left behind by the Italian Dominican cloisters in the pictorial representations of this exceptional holy phenomenon. For the Hungarian Angevins were otherwise very keen on keeping up with their Neapolitan relatives in saintly imagery: among the most striking examples are the Hungarian Angevin Legendary59 and the artistic propaganda commissioned by the court and destined for use abroad, which was studied by Ernő Marosi.60

The unbroken veneration of Margaret in the Angevin era is clear from an interesting literary source, a romantic travel account called Paradiso degli Alberti written in 1389 by Giovanni Gherardi da Prato of Padua, which tells of a European tour by a group of Italian youths, including a visit to the court of Louis the Great. There, the young men do not find King Louis in his Buda palace and are informed that the King is ‘on the Island’ (in all probability the Rabbits’ Island). There, indeed, they find him, without royal pomp or retinue, absorbed in solitary meditation. This is interesting and credible eyewitness evidence of the increasingly personal religiosity in the ruling courts of the time, such as, for instance, in the entourage of Holy Roman Emperor Charles IV, who built Karlstein and furnished it with a private sanctuary.61

In the 1370s, the Hungarian Angevins made another attempt to revive Margaret’s canonization process. The relevant documents were recently published by Otfried Krafft. This source, immensely valuable for Hungarian research, is currently in Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Vat. lat. codex 6772 (20r): it is Urban IV’s decree of 1 June 1379 citing the petition of Dowager Queen Elizabeth and commissioning the addressee (an unnamed senior Hungarian cleric) to conduct, together with Stephen, Patriarch of Jerusalem and the bishops of Pécs and Veszprém, an investigation into the life and miracles of Margaret, daughter of King Béla.62

This papal announcement of a fresh canonization process was made in the second year of the Great Schism.63 The double papal election aroused consternation throughout Western Christendom and made the choice between them—Urban VI of Rome and Clement VII of Avignon—the dominant issue in the year 1378–79, as the two popes attempted by diplomatic manoeuvring to win over supporters and followers. This is the context in which we must interpret Urban VI’s decree of 1 June 1379 which, satisfying the repeated petitions of the Hungarian royal dynasty, ordered a new hearing of witnesses in the matter of the sanctity of Béla IV’s daughter Margaret.

One of Urban VI’s main efforts was to secure the alliance of the Angevins, who ruled Hungary and—by then—Poland. Shortly after his election, in May 1378, he openly turned against Queen Joanna I of Naples, threatening to deprive her, by virtue of the feudal lordship of the Holy See over Naples, of her crown and send her to a convent. As her replacement on the Neapolitan throne, the Pope chose her cousin, Charles Durazzo ‘the Small’, who was living in the court of Louis the Great of Hungary, and this became the starting point for an increasingly close alliance with Louis.64

In December 1378, Urban VI sent Cardinal Pileus de Prata on a diplomatic mission to Hungary. He stayed in the country in the first few months of 1379, and also visited Prague.65 It was clearly through his preparatory mediation that Wenceslaus IV, who had recently assumed the Bohemian throne and also bore the title of King of the Romans, agreed on a meeting with Louis the Great. The two kings met in the castle of Zólyom (Zvolen, Slovakia), where they ceremonially announced their joint support for Urban VI, confirmed the engagement of Mary of Anjou and Sigismund of Luxemburg, and in all probability agreed to promote Charles the Small’s claim to the throne of Naples.66 Louis followed this up the same year by sending Charles to Italy at the head of an army. Charles was to carry out military operations against Venice, lend support to Urban VI, and implement the plans for gaining control of Naples.

The reopening of Margaret’s canonization process thus became part of a tide of events that decided political supremacy in Italy for a long time to come. Although the name of Dowager Queen Elizabeth is the only one to appear among the petitioners for Margaret’s canonization, it is reasonable to suppose that this papal gesture towards the royal house of Hungary was actually aimed at strengthening the strategically vital alliance with Louis the Great.

In taking up the cause of the canonization of the Hungarian princess who had become a Dominican nun, Pope Urban VI must have been influenced by a member of his close circle who was very active in securing international support for him: the highly respected visionary within the Dominican Order, Catherine of Siena. Catherine wrote directly to the King of Hungary in the matter in early 1379, and had previously written to his mother Queen Elizabeth in 1375.67 Catherine of Siena and her circle—especially her confessor Raymund of Capua, who would become Master-General of the Dominican Order from 1380, and the scribe of many of Catherine’s letters, Stefano Maconi68—may have known that Margaret of Hungary was venerated as a saint, indeed a stigmatized saint, in the churches of Italian Dominican convents (in Florence, Perugia and Treviso). Thus when Pope Urban VI, surrounded by Dominican counsellors, and giving particular support to Hungarian affairs, ordered a new examination in Margaret’s cause, he was not only supporting the petition for a dynastic cult of a royal family he wanted to win over as an ally, but also taking up the cause of a widespread but still-unofficial cult connected to the Dominican Order, one that was becoming increasingly popular in Italy in the final third of the fourteenth century.

Pope Urban VI’s choice of appointees to the canonization commission is also revealing. Among the twenty-nine new cardinals Urban appointed in an attempt to counterbalance the fraction hostile to him in the College of Cardinals on 28 September 1378, one of his first actions after being elected pope, was the highest Hungarian church dignitary, Demeter, Archbishop of Esztergom since 16 August 1378, previously Bishop of Zagreb. The Pope conferred on him the title of Cardinal of the Sancti Quatuor Coronati, while ordering him to continue to stay in Hungary and act as Archbishop of Esztergom.69 As Krafft argues, Demeter may have been the addressee of the June 1379 decretal letter ordering the new canonization procedure and the head of its commission of examination. An echo of this may be the intitulatio of a charter he issued some months later, on 22 November 1379, in which he called himself, inter alia, in regno Hungariae sedis apostolice legatus.70

The member of the canonization commission named as ‘Stephen, Patriarch of Jerusalem’ was none other than István Szigeti, Archbishop of Kalocsa, the second ecclesiastical dignitary of the realm, a position he held between 1367 and 1382. In a charter of 4 December 1378, he also referred to himself as a papal legate. József Udvardy, in his biographical study on István Szigeti, linked this title to the archbishop’s prominent role in church politics, among others to his appointment in connection with the planned establishment of the Bishopric of Szörény (Turnu Severin, Romania) among the Romanians, under the sign of the unionist movement, but it is also possible that in his case as well the legatine title was linked to the role he was to play in the canonization commission.71

Another appointee to the commission, Bálint Alsáni, Bishop of Pécs, also warrants some attention. He may have been known to Urban VI and his circle from the diplomatic negotiations relating to the war against Venice, held in North Italy in 1378 and 1379, where he was one of Louis the Great’s representatives. At the end of the war, he was again one of the senior members of the Hungarian delegation at the peace conference of Turin in 1381 and was associated with one of the important outcomes of the treaty, the transfer of the body of St Paul the Hermit to Hungary. In 1384, Urban also appointed him a cardinal on similar terms to Demeter, so that he did not have to give up his title of Bishop of Pécs, where he was the main promoter and organizer of the—sadly short-lived—University of Pécs.72

Unfortunately, we have very incomplete information on the fourth member of the commission, the Bishop of Veszprém. Otfried Krafft, on the basis of Conrad Eubel’s twentieth-century book on the Catholic hierarchy73 identifies him as Péter, but according to the archontology of Pál Engel, Péter was only Bishop of Veszprém between January 4 and June 14, 1378, after which the office remained vacant for some time, and his successor, Benedek Himházi, took over only after the issue of a papal bull of June 4, 1379.74 The probable explanation is that the Bishop of Veszprém was included in the commission not for personal reasons but on account of his diocesan competence; a previous passage of the bull reveals the papal chancellery’s awareness that the ‘Island of the Rabbits’, where Margaret lived, belonged to the Veszprém diocese.

Archbishop Demeter of Esztergom, Archbishop István Szigeti of Kalocsa and Bishop Bálint Alsáni of Pécs would have been well qualified to organize the new commission for Margaret’s canonization had it actually started; yet every sign seems to indicate that it did not. This time, the reasons are most probably to look for in the situation within Hungary. As we have seen, the appointed members of the commission had other things on their plate between 1378 and 1380. The petitioner, Dowager Queen Elizabeth, died in December 1380.75 King Louis himself died on 10 September 1382. Margaret’s canonization, as is well known, still had to wait for several more centuries.

In epilogue, we should make mention of King Matthias’ two petitions in her cause: in 1462 and 1464 he petitioned Pope Pius II to revive the ‘interrupted matter’ of Margaret’s canonization process.76 Attempts continued in the modern age: between 1639 and 1643, witnesses were heard in Pressburg (Bratislava, Slovakia) at the initiative of Zsigmond Ferrarius and under the coordination of Antonio Sartori,77 and the Dominican Order renewed its attempts between 1729 and 1770, but all in vain. Margaret was eventually canonized only in 1943.78

 

Bibliography

Áldásy, Antal. A nyugati nagy egyházszakadás története VI. Orbán haláláig [The History of the Great Schism until the Death of Pope Urban VI] 1378–1389. Budapest: Pfeifer Ferdinánd, 1896.

Áldásy, Antal. Alsáni Bálint bíbornok [Cardinal Bálint Alsáni]. Budapest: Magyar Történelmi Társulat, 1903.

Anjou-kori okmánytár [Charters from the Angevin Period]. 7 vols, edited by Imre Nagy and Gyula Nagy. Budapest: MTA, 1878–1920.

Balanyi, György. Csehországi Boldog Ágnes [Blessed Agnes of Bohemia]. Regnum 1. Budapest: Stephaneum, 1939.

Balázs, János P. Szent Margit élete 1510 [Life of St Margaret 1510]. Régi magyar kódexek 10. Budapest: Magyar Nyelvtudományi Társaság, 1990.

Banfi, Florio. “Le stimmate della B. Margherita d’Ungheria.” Memorie Domenicane 50–51 (1934): 304–06.

Banfi, Florio. Ricordi ungheresi in Italia. Rome: Reale Accademia d’Ungheria, 1942.

Bertényi, Iván. “Demeter. 1378. augusztus 16. e. – 1387. február 20.” In Esztergomi érsekek 1000–2003 [Archbishops of Esztergom 1000–2003], edited by Margit Beke. Budapest: Szent István Társulat, 2003.

Blumenfeld-Kosinski, Renate. Poets, Saints and Visionaries of the Great Schism, 1378–1417. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2006.

Boesch Gajano, Sofia. La santità. Rome–Bari: Laterza, 1999.

Bőle, Kornél. Árpádházi Boldog Margit szenttéavatási ügye és a legősibb latin Margit-legenda [The Cause of Canonisation of Blessed Margaret of Hungary and the Oldest Latin Margaret Legend]. Budapest: Stephaneum, 1937.

Bőle, Kornél. “Szent Margit tisztelete és a szenttéavatás története a XIX. és a XX. században” [The History of the Veneration and Canonization of St Margaret in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries]. In Gyöngyvirágok és margaréták Árpádházi Szent Margit oltárán [Lilies of the Valley and Marguerites on the Altar of St Margaret of Hungary], edited by Kornél Bőle. 5–24. Budapest: Credo, 1944.

Cambell, Jacques, ed. Enquête pour le procès de canonisation de Dauphine de Puimichel, Comtesse d’Ariano († 26-XI-1360) (Apt et Avignon, 14 Mai–30 Octobre 1363.) Turin: Bottega d’Erasmo, 1978.

Canetti, Luigi. L’invenzione della memoria. Il culto e immagine di Domenico nella storia dei primi frati Predicator. Spoleto: Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo, 1996.

Carolus-Barré, Louis. Le procès de canonisation de Saint Louis (1272–1297). Essai de reconstitution. Rome: École Française de Rome, 1994.

Catalogus fontium historiae Hungaricae aevo ducum et regum ex stirpe Arpad descendentium ab anno Christi DCCC usque ad annum MCCCI. 3 vols, edited by Albinus Franciscus Gombos. Budapest: Szent István Akadémia, 1937–1938.

“Chronicon Aulae Regiae.” Fontes Rerum Bohemicarum. Vol. IV, edited by Jozef Emler. Prague: Nákl. Nadáni Františka Palackého, 1884.

Coletti, Luigi. Catalogo delle cose d’arte e di antichità di Treviso. Rome: Libreria dello Stato, 1935.

Csukovits, Enikő. Az Anjouk Magyarországon I. I. Károly és uralkodása (1301–1342) [The Angevins in Hungary I. Charles I and His Reign (1301–1342)]. Budapest: MTA BTK Történettudományi Intézet, 2013.

Dąbrowski, Jan. Elżbieta Łokietówna 1305–1380. Krakow: Nakł. Akademii Umiejętności, 1914.

Deák, Viktória Hedvig. La légende de sainte Marguerite de Hongrie et l’hagiographie dominicaine. Paris: Cerf, 2013.

Deák, Viktória Hedvig. “The Birth of a Legend: the So-called Legenda Maior of Saint Margaret of Hungary and Dominican Hagiography.” Revue Mabillon 20 No. 81 (2009): 87–112.

Deák, Viktória Hedvig. “The Techniques of a Hagiographer. The two Legendae of Saint Margaret of Hungary.” In Promoting the Saints. Cults and Their Contexts from Late Antiquity until the Early Modern Period. Essays in Honor of Gábor Klaniczay for His 60th Birthday, edited by Ottó Gecser, József Laszlovszky, Balázs Nagy, Marcell Sebők, and Katalin Szende, 125–36. CEU Medievalia 14. Budapest: CEU, 2011.

Dümmerth, Dezső. “Árpád-házi Szent Margit halála éve és a legendák” [The Year of Death of St Margaret of Hungary and the Legends]. Irodalomtörténeti Közlemények 76 (1972): 617–20.

Elliott, Janis and Cordelia Warr, eds. The Church of Santa Maria Donna Regina: Art, Iconography, and Patronage in Fourteenth-century Naples. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004.

Engel, Pál. Magyarország világi archontológiája 1301–1457 [The Secular Archontology of Hungary]. Budapest: História – MTA Történettudományi Intézete, 1996.

Érszegi, Géza, ed. Árpád-kori legendák és intelmek [Árpád Era Legends and Admonitions]. Budapest: Szépirodalmi Könyvkiadó, 1983.

Eubel, Conrad. Hierarchia catholica medii aevi. Regensburg: Monasterii Sumptibus et typis librariae Regensbergianae, 1898–1923.

Fajt, J. and J. Royt. Magister Theodoricus: Court Painter of Emperor Charles IV. Decorations of the Sacred Places at Castle Karlstejn. Prague: n.p., 1997.

Falvay, Dávid. Magyar dinasztikus szentek olasz kódexekben [Hungarian Dynastic Saints in Italian Codices]. Budapest: ELTE, 2012.

Felskau, Christian-Frederik. Agnes von Böhmen und die Klosteranlage der Klarissen und Franziskaner in Prag. Leben und Institution, Legende und Verehrung. Nordhausen: Traugott Bautz, 2008.

Felskau, Christian-Frederik. “Vita religiosa und paupertas der Přemyslidin Agnes von Prag. Zu Bezügen und Besonderheiten in Leben und Legende einer späten Heiligen.” Collectanea Franciscana 70 (2000): 413–84.

Foreville, Raymonde and Gillian Keir, eds. The Book of St. Gilbert. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987.

Fraknói, Vilmos. Magyarország összeköttetései a római Szent-Székkel I. 1000–1417 [Hungary’s Relations with the Holy See of Rome]. Budapest: Szent István Társulat, 1901.

Fügedi, Erik. “Alsáni Bálint, a pécsi egyetem második kancellárja” [Bálint Alsáni, the Second Chancellor of the University of Pécs]. In A pécsi egyetem történetéből [From the History of the University of Pécs], edited by Andor Csizmadia, 97–110. Pécs: PTE ÁJTK, 1967.

Fügedi, Erik. A 15. századi magyar arisztokrácia mobilitása [The Mobility of the Fifteenth- Century Hungarian Aristocracy]. Budapest: Statisztikai Kiadó Vállalat, 1970.

Gaglione, Mario. “Il san Ludovico di Simone Martini, manifesto della santità regale angioina.” Rassegna Storica Salernitana XXIX/2 No. 58 (2012): 9–125.

Gaposchkin, Cecilia. The Making of Saint Louis: Kingship, Sanctity and Crusade in the Later Middle Ages. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 2008.

Goodich, Michael. Lives and Miracles of the Saints: Studies in Medieval Latin Hagiography. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004.

Goodich, Michael. Miracles and Wonders: The Development of the Concept of Miracle, 1150–1350. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007.

Goodich, Michael. Violence and Miracle in the Fourteenth Century: Private Grief and Public Salvation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995.

Goodich, Michael. Vita Perfecta: The Ideal of Sainthood in the Thirteenth Century. Monographien zur Geschichte des Mittelalters. Vol. 25. Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1982.

Head, Thomas, ed. Medieval hagiography. An Anthology. New York–London: Garland, 2000.

“Inquisitio super vita, conversatione et miraculis beatae Margarethae virginis, Belae IV. Hungarorum regis filiae, sanctimonialis monasterii virginis gloriosae de insula Danubii, Ordinis Praedicatorum, Vesprimis diocesis.” Edited by Vilmos Fraknói. In A veszprémi püspökség római oklevéltára. Monumenta Romana Episcopatus Vesprimiensis. 4 vols. Budapest: Collegium Historicorum Hungarorum Romanum, 1896–1907.

Kaftal, George and Fabio Bisogni. Iconography of the Saints in the Painting of North East Italy. Iconography of the Saints in Italian Painting from its Beginning to the Early XVth Century. Vol. III. Florence: Sansoni, 1978.

Kaftal, George. Iconography of the Saints in Central and South Italian Schools of Painting. Iconography of the Saints in Italian Painting from its Beginning to the Early XVth Century. Vol. II. Florence: Sansoni, 1965.

Kaftal, George. Iconography of the Saints in Tuscan Painting. Iconography of the Saints in Italian Painting from its Beginning to the Early XVth Century. Vol. I. Florence: Sansoni, 1952.

Kaminsky, Howard. “The Great Schism.” In New Cambridge Medieval History. Vol. VI, edited by Michael Jones, 674–96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Karácsonyi, János. Magyarország és a nyugati nagy egyházszakadás [Hungary and the Great Western Schism]. Nagyvárad: n.p., 1885.

Kardos, Tibor. Studi e ricerche umanistiche italo-ungheresi. Debrecen: KLTE, 1967.

Kelly, Samantha. The New Solomon. Robert of Naples (1309–1343) and Fourteenth-century Kingship. Leiden–Boston: Brill, 2003.

Kemp, Eric Waldram. Canonization and Authority in the Western Church. London: Geoffrey Cumberlege, Oxford University Press, 1948.

Kętrzyński, Wojciech, ed. “Miracula sancti Stanislai.” In Monumenta Poloniae Historica. Vol. IV. 285–318. Lviv: n.p., 1884.

Király, Ilona. Árpád-házi Szent Margit és a sziget [St Margaret of Hungary and the Island]. Budapest: Szent István Társulat, 1979.

Klaniczay, Gábor. Holy Rulers and Blessed Princesses. Dynastic Cults in Medieval Central Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

Klaniczay, Gábor. “Il processo di canonizzazione di Santa Elisabetta. Le prime testimonianze sulla vita e sui miracoli.” In Il culto e la storia di Santa Elisabetta d’Ungheria in Europa, 18–19 novembre 2002. Annuario 2002–2004. Conferenze e convegni. 220–32. Rome: Accademia d’Ungheria in Roma, 2005.

Klaniczay, Tibor. “La fortuna di Santa Margherita d’Ungheria in Italia.” In Spiritualità e lettere nella cultura italiana e ungherese del basso medioevo, edited by Sante Graciotti and Cesare Vasoli, 3–27. Florence: Leo S. Olschki, 1995.

Klaniczay, Gábor. “Le culte des saints dynastiques en Europe Centrale (Angevins et Luxembourg au XIVe siècle).” In L’Eglise et le peuple chrétien dans les pays de l’Europe du Centre-Est et du Nord (XIVe–XVe siècles). Actes du colloque ... de Rome (27–29 janvier 1986). 221–47. Rome: École française de Rome, 1990.

Klaniczay, Gábor. “Le stigmate di santa Margherita d’Ungheria: immagini e testi.” Iconographica. Rivista di iconografia medievale e moderna I (2002): 16–31.

Klaniczay, Gábor. “On the Stigmatization of Saint Margaret of Hungary.” In Medieval Christianity in Practice, edited by Miri Rubin, 274–84. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009.

Klaniczay, Gábor, ed. Procès de canonisation au Moyen Âge. Aspects juridiques et religieux – Canonization Processes in the Middle Ages. Legal and Religious Aspects. Collection de l’École française de Rome 340. Rome: École française de Rome, 2004.

Kleinberg, Aviad. Prophets in Their Own Country. Living Saints and the Making of Sainthood in the Later Middle Ages. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press, 1992.

Kleinberg, Aviad. “Proving Sanctity: Selection and Authentication of Saints in the Later Middle Ages.” Viator 20 (1989): 183–205.

Krafft, Otfried. “Árpád-házi Szent Margit szentté avatási perének 1379-es újrafelvétele” [The 1379 Reopening of the Canonisation Process of St Margaret of Hungary]. Századok 140 (2006): 455–65.

Krafft, Otfried. “Kommunikation und Kanonisation: Die Heiligsprechung der Elisabeth von Thüringen 1235 und das Problem der Mehrfachausfertigung von päpstlichen Kanonisationsurkunden seit 1161.” Zeitschrift des Vereins für Thüringische Geschichte 58 (2004): 27–82.

Krafft, Otfried. Papsturkunde und Heiligsprechung, Die päpstlichen Kanonisationen vom Mittelalter bis zur Reformation. Ein Handbuch, Archiv für Diplomatik. Beiheft 9. Cologne–Weimar–Vienna: Böhlau, 1995.

Krötzl, Christian. Pilger, Mirakel und Alltag. Formen des Verhaltens in skandinavischen Mittelalter (12.–15. Jahrhundert). Helsinki: SHS, 1994.

Kuttner, Stephan. “La réserve papale du droit de canonisation.” Revue Historique de Droit Français et Étranger, 4e série 17 (1938): 172–228.

“La Cronaca Maggiore dell’ordine domenicano di Galvano Fiamma.” Edited by Gundisalvo Odetto. Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum 10 (1940): 227–373.

Le Goff, Jacques. “Saint de l’Eglise et saint du peuple: les miracles officiels de saint Louis entre sa mort et sa canonisation (1270–1297).” In Histoire sociale, sensibilités collectives et mentalités: mélanges Robert Mandrou. 169–80. Paris: P.U.F, 1985.

Le Goff, Jacques. Saint Louis. Paris: Gallimard, 1996.

“Legenda Beatae Margaritae de Hungaria.” In Scriptores rerum Hungaricarum tempore ducum regumque stirpis Arpadianae gestarum. 2 vols, edited by Emericus Szentpétery. Kornél Szovák and László Veszprémy compiled the Afterword and the Bibliography, and added the writings published in the Appendices into the material of the 1st edition. 685–709. Budapest: Nap Kiadó, 1999.

Leinweber, Joseph. “Das kirchliche Heiligsprechungsverfahren bis zum Jahre 1234. Der Kanonisationsprozeß der hl. Elisabeth von Thüringen.” In Sankt Elisabeth. Fürstin, Dienerin, Heilige. 128–36. Sigmaringen: Thorbecke, 1981.

Lovas, Elemér. “Árpád-házi B. Margit első életrajzának írója – Marcellus” [The Author of the First Biography of St Margaret of Hungary – Marcellus]. In A pannonhalmi Szt. Gellért főiskola évkönyve. Pannonhalma: n.p., 1940–1941.

Lővei, Pál. “The Sepulchral Monument of Saint Margaret of the Arpad Dynasty.” Acta Historiae Artium 26 (1980): 175–211.

Magyar diplomacziai emlékek az Anjou-korból. 3 vols, edited by Gusztáv Wenzel. Budapest: MTA, 1874–1876.

Marosi, Ernő. “Saints at Home and Abroad: Some Observations on the Creation of Iconographic Types in Hungary of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries.” In Ottó Gecser, József Laszlovszky, Balázs Nagy, Marcell Sebők, and Katalin Szende, eds. Promoting the Saints. Cults and Their Contexts from Late Antiquity until the Early Modern Period. Essays in Honor of Gábor Klaniczay for His 60th Birthday. CEU Medievalia 14. 175–206. Budapest: CEU, 2011.

Menestò, Enrico, ed. Il processo di canonizzazione di Chiara da Montefalco, con un appendice documentaria di S. Nessi. Florence: Nuova Italia, 1984.

Michalski, Tania. “Die Repräsentation einer Beata Stirps. Darstellung und Ausdruck an den Grabmonumenten der Anjous.” In Die Repräsentation der Gruppen: Texte – Bilder – Objekte, edited by Otto-Gerhard Oexle and A. von Hülsen-Esch, 187–224. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998.

Miskolczy, István. Magyar–olasz összeköttetések az Anjouk korában [Hungarian–Italian Connections in the Angevin Era]. Budapest: Szent István Társulat, 1937.

Movrin, David. “The Beloved Disciple: Stephen Maconi and St. Catherine of Siena.” Annual of Medieval Studies at CEU 10 (2004): 43–53.

Muessig, Carolyn, George Ferzoco and Beverly Mayne Kienzle, eds. A Companion to Catherine of Siena. Leiden–Boston: Brill, 2012.

Occhioni OSA, Nicola, ed. Il Processo per la canonizzazione di S. Nicola da Tolentino. Rome: Ecole Française de Rome, 1984.

Offner, Richard. A Critical and Historical Corpus of Florentine Painting. New York: New York University, 1930.

Paciocco, Roberto. “Sublimia negotia.” Le canonizzazioni dei santi nella curia papale e il nuovo Ordine dei frati minori. Padua: Centro Studi Antoniani, 1996.

Pásztor, Edith. Per la storia di san Ludovico d’Angiò (1274–1297). Studi storici 10. Rome: Istituto storico italiano per il medio evo, 1955.

Péterfi, Bence. “Újabb adalékok Árpád-házi Margit középkori csodáinak sorához” [New Additions to the Medieval Miracles of St Margaret of Hungary]. In Micae mediaevales. Tanulmányok a középkori Magyarországról és Európáról, edited by Zsófia Kádár, Gábor Mikó, Bence Péterfi, and András Vadas, 83–105. Budapest: ELTE BTK, 2011.

Pleziowa, Jazmina and Zbigniew Perzanowski, eds. “Cuda Świętego Stanisława.” Analecta Cracoviensia 11 (1979): 47–141.

Polc, Jaroslav. Agnes von Böhmen 1211–1282. Lebensbilder zur Geschichte der böhmischen Länder 6. Munich: Oldenbourg, 1989.

Prato, Giovanni Gherardi da. Il paradiso degli Alberti, edited by A. Lanza. Rome: Salerno, 1975.

Rosario, Iva. Art and Propaganda: Charles IV of Bohemia, 1346–1378. Woodbridge, Eng., and Rochester, N.Y.: Boydell and Brewer, 2000.

Salaniaco, Stephanus de–Bernardus Guidonis. De quatuor in quibus deus praedicatorum ordinem insignivit, edited by Thomas Kaeppeli. MOPH XXII. Rome: Roma Istituto Storico Domenicano, 1949.

Schimmelpfennig, Bernhard. “Heilige Päpste – päpstliche Kanonisationspolitik.” In Politik und Heiligenverehrung im Hochmittelalter, edited by Jürgen Petersohn, 73–100. Sigmaringen: Jan Thorbecke, 1994.

Schmidt, Paul Gerhard. “Die zeitgenössische Überlieferung zum Leben und zur Heiligsprechung der heiligen Elisabeth.” In Sankt Elisabeth. Fürstin, Dienerin, Heilige, edited by Philipp Universität Marburg, 1–6. Sigmaringen: Thorbecke, 1981.

Śnieżyńska-Stolot, Ewa. “Queen Elisabeth as a Patron of Architecture.” Acta Historiae Artium Academiae Scientiarum Hungarice 20 (1974): 13–36.

Śnieżyńska-Stolot, Ewa. “Tanulmányok Erzsébet királyné mecénási tevékenységéről” [Studies on the Patronage of Queen Elizabeth]. Ars Hungarica 7 (1979): 23–32.

Śnieżyńska-Stolot, Ewa. “Tanulmányok Łokietek Erzsébet királyné műpártolása köréből (Ötvöstárgyak)” [Studies in the Patronage of Queen Elizabeth Łokietek (Metalware)]. Művészettörténeti Értesítő 30 (1981): 233–54.

Stachnik, Richard, ed. Die Akten des Kanonisationsprozesses Dorotheas von Montau von 1394 bis 1521. Cologne–Vienna: Böhlau, 1978.

Szakács, Béla Zsolt. A Magyar Anjou Legendárium képi rendszerei [Iconography of the Hungarian Angevin Legendarium]. Budapest: Balassi, 2006.

Szakács, Béla Zsolt. “Le culte des saints à la cour et le Légendier des Anjou-Hongrie.” In L’Europe des Anjou (catalogue Fontevraud). 195–201. Paris: Somogy, 2001.

Szende, László. “Łokietek Erzsébet végrendelete” [The Will of Elizabeth Łokietek]. Kút 3 (2004): 3–11.

Sziénai Szent Katalin. Levelek [St Catherine of Siena, Letters]. Budapest: Szent István Társulat, 1983.

Thomas Antonii de Senis “Caffarini.” Libellus de supplemento, Legende prolixe virginis beate Catherine de Senis, edited by Iuliana Cavallini and Imelda Foralosso. Rome: Edizioni Cateriniane, 1974.

Tolnay Danesi, Lea. “Un affresco senese a Treviso.” L’Arte 37 (1934): 223–29.

Toynbee, Margaret. S. Louis of Toulouse and the Process of Canonisation in the Fourteenth Century. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1927.

Tusor, Péter. “Magyar szentek liturgikus tisztelete és a római Sacra Rituum Congregatio a korai újkorban” [The Liturgical Veneration of Hungarian Saints and the Sacra Rituum Congregation of Rome in the Early Modern Age]. In Szentjeink és nagyjaink Európa kereszténységéért [Our Saints and Our Greats for the Christianity of Europe], edited by Margit Beke, 112–13. Budapest: Esztergom–Budapesti Főegyházmegye Egyháztörténeti Bizottság, 2011.

Udvardy, József. A kalocsai érsekek életrajza (1000–1526) [Biographies of the Archbishops of Kalocsa]. Munich: Görres Gesellshaft, 1991.

Vauchez, André. “Beata stirps: sainteté et lignage en Occident aux XIIIe et XIVe siècles.” In Famille et parenté dans l’Occident médiéval, edited by Georges Duby and Jacques Le Goff, 397–406. Rome: Ecole française de Rome, 1977.

Vauchez, André. “La naissance du soupçon: vraie et fausse sainteté aux derniers siècles du Moyen Age.” In idem Saints, prophètes et visionnaires. Le pouvoir surnaturel au Moyen Âge. 208–19. Paris: Albin Michel, 1999.

Vauchez, André. La sainteté en Occident aux derniers siècles du Moyen Age d’après les procès de canonisation et les documents hagiographiques. Bibliothèques des Écoles françaises d’Athène et de Rome, 241. Rome: École française de Rome, 1981, 1988.

Vauchez, André. “Les origines et le développement du procès de canonisation (XIIe–XIIIe siècles).” In Vita Religiosa im Mittelalter. Festschrift für Kaspar Elm zum 70. Geburtstag, edited by Franz J. Felten and Nikolas Jaspert, 845–56. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1999.

Vauchez, André. Sainthood in the Later Middle Ages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.

Voci, Anna Maria. “Giovanna I d’Angiò e l’inizio del grande scisma d’Occidente.” Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken 17 (1995): 178–255.

Volf, György. Szent Margit élete [Life of St Margaret]. Nyelvemléktár. Vol. VIII. Budapest: MTA, 1881.

Vyskočil, Jan Kapistrán, ed. Legenda blahoslavené Anežky a čtyri listy Sv. Kláry [The Legend of the Blessed Agnes and Four Letters of St Clara]. Prague: Universum, 1934.

Warr, Cordelia. “Der Freskenzyklus der heiligen Elisabeth von Ungarn in Santa Maria Donna Regina in Neapel.” In Elisabeth von Thüringen: Eine europäische Heilige. Aufsätze, edited by Dieter Blume and Mathias Werner, 345–52. Petersberg: Michael Imhof, 2007.

Wenzel, Gusztáv. Magyar diplomacziai emlékek az Anjou-korból [Hungarian Diplomatic Records from the Angevin Era]. Budapest: MTA, 1874–1875.

Wertner, Mór. “Adalékok Demeter bíboros esztergomi érsek életrajzához” [Additions to the Life of Cardinal Demeter, Archbishop of Esztergom]. Századok 38 (1904): 800–02.

Wetzstein, Thomas. Heilige vor Gericht. Das Kanonisationsverfahren im europäischen Mittelalter. Cologne–Weimar–Vienna: Böhlau, 2004.

Wetzstein, Thomas. “Virtus morum et virtus signorum? Zur Bedeutung der Mirakel in den Kanonisationsprozessen des 15. Jahrhunderts.” In Mirakel im Mittelalter. Konzeptionen, Erscheinungsformen, Deutunge, edited by Martin Heinzelmann, Klaus Herbers, and Dieter R. Bauer, 351–76. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2002.

Witkowska, Aleksandra. “The Thirteenth-Century Miracula of St. Stanislaus, Bishop of Krakow.” In Procès de canonisation au Moyen Âge: aspects juridiques et religieux, edited by Gábor Klaniczay, 149–63. Collection de l’École française de Rome 340. Rome: École Française de Rome, 2004.

Würth, Ingrid. “Altera Elisabeth: Königin Sancia von Neapel (1286–1345) und die Franziskaner.” In Religiöse Bewegungen im Mittelalter: Festschrift für Matthias Werner zum 65. Geburtstag, edited by E. Bünz, S. Tebruck, and H. G. Walther, 517–42. Cologne–Vienna–Weimar: Böhlau, 2007.

 

Translated by Alan Campbell

1 Sofia Boesch Gajano, La santità (Rome–Bari: Laterza, 1999); Thomas Head, ed., Medieval Hagiography. An Anthology (New York–London: Garland, 2000).

2 Stephan Kuttner, “La réserve papale du droit de canonisation,” Revue Historique de Droit Français et Étranger, 4e série 17 (1938): 172–228; Eric Waldram Kemp, Canonization and Authority in the Western Church (London: Oxford University Press, 1948).

3 André Vauchez, La sainteté en Occident aux derniers siècles du Moyen Age d’après les procès de canonisation et les documents hagiographiques, Bibliothèques des Écoles françaises d’Athène et de Rome, 241 (Rome: École Française de Rome, 1981, 1988); in English: Sainthood in the Later Middle Ages (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997).

4 Michael Goodich, Vita Perfecta: The Ideal of Sainthood in the Thirteenth Century, Monographien zur Geschichte des Mittelalters, vol. 25 (Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1982).

5 Richard Stachnik, ed., Die Akten des Kanonisationsprozesses Dorotheas von Montau von 1394 bis 1521 (Cologne–Vienna: Böhlau, 1978); Jacques Cambell, ed., Enquête pour le procès de canonisation de Dauphine de Puimichel, Comtesse d’Ariano († 26-XI-1360) (Apt et Avignon, 14 Mai–30 Octobre 1363) (Turin: Bottega d’Erasmo, 1978); Enrico Menestò, ed., Il processo di canonizzazione di Chiara da Montefalco, con un appendice documentaria di S. Nessi (Florence: Nuova Italia, 1984); Nicola Occhioni OSA, ed., Il Processo per la canonizzazione di S. Nicola da Tolentino (Rome: Ecole Française de Rome, 1984); Raymonde Foreville and Gillian Keir, eds., The Book of St. Gilbert (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987).

6 Aviad Kleinberg, “Proving Sanctity: Selection and Authentication of Saints in the Later Middle Ages,” Viator 20 (1989): 183–205; idem, Prophets in Their Own Country. Living Saints and the Making of Sainthood in the Later Middle Ages (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992).

7 Bernhard Schimmelpfennig, “Heilige Päpste – päpstliche Kanonisationspolitik,” in Politik und Heiligenverehrung im Hochmittelalter, ed. Jürgen Petersohn (Sigmaringen: Jan Thorbecke, 1994), 73–100.

8 Christian Krötzl, Pilger, Mirakel und Alltag. Formen des Verhaltens in skandinavischen Mittelalter (12.–15. Jahrhundert) (Helsinki: SHS, 1994).

9 Luigi Canetti, L’invenzione della memoria. Il culto e immagine di Domenico nella storia dei primi frati Predicatori (Spoleto: Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo, 1996).

10 Roberto Paciocco, “Sublimia negotia.” Le canonizzazioni dei santi nella curia papale e il nuovo Ordine dei frati minori (Padua: Centro Studi Antoniani, 1996).

11 Thomas Wetzstein, “Virtus morum et virtus signorum? Zur Bedeutung der Mirakel in den Kanonisationsprozessen des 15. Jahrhunderts,” in Mirakel im Mittelalter. Konzeptionen, Erscheinungsformen, Deutungen, eds. Martin Heinzelmann et al. (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2002), 351–76; idem, Heilige vor Gericht. Das Kanonisationsverfahren im europäischen Mittelalter (Cologne–Weimar–Vienna: Böhlau, 2004).

12 Otfried Krafft, Papsturkunde und Heiligsprechung. Die päpstlichen Kanonisationen vom Mittelalter bis zur Reformation. Ein Handbuch, Archiv für Diplomatik, Beiheft 9. (Cologne–Weimar–Vienna: Böhlau, 1995).

13 André Vauchez, “La naissance du soupçon: vraie et fausse sainteté aux derniers siècles du Moyen Age,” in idem, Saints, prophètes et visionnaires. Le pouvoir surnaturel au Moyen Âge (Paris: Albin Michel, 1999), 208–19; idem, “Les origines et le développement du procès de canonisation (XIIe–XIIIe siècles),” in Vita Religiosa im Mittelalter. Festschrift für Kaspar Elm zum 70. Geburtstag, eds. Franz J. Felten and Nikolas Jaspert (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1999), 845–56.

14 Michael Goodich, Violence and Miracle in the Fourteenth Century. Private Grief and Public Salvation (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995); idem: Lives and Miracles of the Saints. Studies in Medieval Latin Hagiography (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004); idem, Miracles and Wonders. The Development of the Concept of Miracle, 1150–1350 (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007).

15 Gábor Klaniczay, ed., Procès de canonisation au Moyen Âge. Aspects juridiques et religieux – Canonization Processes in the Middle Ages. Legal and Religious Aspects, Collection de l’École française de Rome 340 (Rome: Ecole Française de Rome, 2004).

16 There is an extensive Hungarian literature on the life of St Margaret of Hungary. Unfortunately the work by Elemér Lovas, Elemér Mályusz, László Mezey and Ilona Király is not accessible in foreign languages. On recent literature see Tibor Klaniczay, “La fortuna di Santa Margherita d’Ungheria in Italia,” in Spiritualità e lettere nella cultura italiana e ungherese del basso medioevo, eds. Sante Graciotti and Cesare Vasoli (Florence: Leo S. Olschki, 1995), 3–27; Gábor Klaniczay, Holy Rulers and Blessed Princesses. Dynastic Cults in Medieval Central Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 195–295, 423–28; Viktória Hedvig Deák, La légende de sainte Marguerite de Hongrie et l’hagiographie dominicaine (Paris: Cerf, 2013).

17 Dezső Dümmerth, “Árpád-házi Szent Margit halála éve és a legendák” [The Year of Death of St Margaret of Hungary and the Legends], Irodalomtörténeti Közlemények 76 (1972): 617–20.

18 “Dudum ex parte clare memorie (Stephani) regis Hungarie, felicis recordationos Gregorio papae nostre fuit humiliter supplicatum...” — “Inquisitio super vita, conversatione et miraculis beatae Margarethae virginis, Belae IV. Hungarorum regis filiae, sanctimonialis monasterii virginis gloriosae de insula Danubii, Ordinis Praedicatorum, Vesprimis diocesis,” ed. Vilmos Fraknói (hereafter: Inquisitio), in A veszprémi püspökség római oklevéltára. Monumenta Romana Episcopatus Vesprimiensis, 4 vols., ed. a collegio historicorum Hungarorum Romano (Budapest: n.p., 1896–1907 (hereafter: MREV), vol. I, 160.

19 Géza Érszegi, ed., Árpád-kori legendák és intelmek [Árpád Era Legends and Counsel] (Budapest: Szépirodalmi Könyvkiadó, 1983), 147. Critical editions of the Hungarian legend: György Volf, Szent Margit élete [Life of St Margaret], Nyelvemléktár, vol. VIII (Budapest: MTA, 1881); János P. Balázs, Szent Margit élete 1510 [Life of St Margaret 1510], Régi magyar kódexek 10. (Budapest: Magyar Nyelvtudományi Társaság, 1990).

20 “Legenda Beatae Margaritae de Hungaria,” in Scriptores rerum Hungaricarum tempore ducum regumque stirpis Arpadianae gestarum, 2 vols., ed. Imre Szentpétery. Kornél Szovák and László Veszprémy compiled the Afterword and the Bibliography, and added the writings published in the Appendices into the material of the 1st edition (Budapest: Nap Kiadó, 1999), 685–709.

21 Vilmos Fraknói, “Prolegomena,” in MREV, vol. I, XLI.

22 Otfried Krafft, “Árpád-házi Szent Margit szentté avatási perének 1379-es újrafelvétele” [The 1379 Reopening of the Canonization Process of St Margaret of Hungary], Századok 140 (2006): 455.

23 Archivio Storico Capitolino, Archivio Orsini, Pergamene: II. A. XI. no. 8; cf. Bence Péterfi, “Újabb adalékok Árpád-házi Margit középkori csodáinak sorához” [New Additions to the Medieval Miracles of St Margaret of Hungary], in Micae mediaevales. Tanulmányok a középkori Magyarországról és Európáról, ed. Zsófia Kádár et al. (Budapest: ELTE BTK, 2011), 86.

24 Elemér Lovas argues in favour of Marcellus’ authorship (Elemér Lovas, “Árpád-házi B. Margit első életrajzának írója – Marcellus” [The Author of the First Biography of St Margaret of Hungary – Marcellus], in A pannonhalmi Szt. Gellért főiskola évkönyve (Pannonhalma, n.p., 1940/1941), 21–85, and although Hungarian historians have continued to argue about this identification, most accept it, including the present author. I gave my arguments in Klaniczay, Holy Rulers and Blessed Princesses, 290–91.

25 Paul Gerhard Schmidt, “Die zeitgenössische Überlieferung zum Leben und zur Heiligsprechung der heiligen Elisabeth,” in Sankt Elisabeth. Fürstin, Dienerin, Heilige, ed. Philipp Universität Marburg (Sigmaringen: Thorbecke, 1981), 1–6; Joseph Leinweber, “Das kirchliche Heiligsprechungsverfahren bis zum Jahre 1234. Der Kanonisationsprozeß der hl. Elisabeth von Thüringen,” in Sankt Elisabeth. Fürstin, Dienerin, Heilige, 128–36; Klaniczay, Holy Rulers and Blessed Princesses, 419–20; idem, “Il processo di canonizzazione di Santa Elisabetta. Le prime testimonianze sulla vita e sui miracoli,” in Il culto e la storia di Santa Elisabetta d’Ungheria in Europa, 18–19 novembre 2002. Annuario 2002–2004. Conferenze e convegni (Rome: Accademia d’Ungheria in Roma, 2005), 220–32; Otfried Krafft, “Kommunikation und Kanonisation: Die Heiligsprechung der Elisabeth von Thüringen 1235 und das Problem der Mehrfachausfertigung von päpstlichen Kanonisationsurkunden seit 1161,” Zeitschrift des Vereins für Thüringische Geschichte 58 (2004): 27–82.

26 Wojciech Kętrzyński, ed., “Miracula sancti Stanislai,” in Monumenta Poloniae Historica, vol. IV. (Lviv: n.p., 1884), 285–318; Jazmina Pleziowa and Zbigniew Perzanowski, eds., “Cuda Świętego Stanisława,” Analecta Cracoviensia 11(1979): 47–141; Aleksandra Witkowska, “The Thirteenth-Century Miracula of St. Stanislaus, Bishop of Krakow,” in Procès de canonization, 149–63.

27 Deák, La légende de sainte Marguerite de Hongrie, 239–41; for the latest analysis of the depositions, see ibid., 286–323.

28 This may be inferred from the record of the depositions on July 23 that starts with the words ‘primo anno pontificatus domini Innocentii pape quinti’ — Inquisitio, 165.

29 Vauchez, La sainteté, 71–98.

30 Ibid., 86–94.

31 Jacques Le Goff, “Saint de l’Eglise et saint du peuple: les miracles officiels de saint Louis entre sa mort et sa canonisation (1270–1297),” in Histoire sociale, sensibilités colectives et mentalités: mélanges Robert Mandrou (Paris: P.U.F, 1985), 169–80; idem, Saint Louis (Paris: Gallimard, 1996), 298–315; Louis Carolus-Barré, Le procès de canonisation de Saint Louis (1272–1297). Essai de reconstitution (Rome: Ecole Française de Rome, 1994); Cecilia Gaposchkin, The Making of Saint Louis: Kingship, Sanctity and Crusade in the Later Middle Ages (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 2008).

32 “Dominus Stephanus... natus est de genere sanctorum et maximorum Regum, Princeps potens et bellicosus,” Magyar diplomacziai emlékek az Anjou korból [Hungarian Diplomatic Records from the Angevin Era], 3 vols., ed. Gusztáv Wenzel (Budapest: MTA, 1874–76), vol. I/1. 24.

33 The latest on Charles Martel’s claim to the Hungarian throne is Enikő Csukovits, Az Anjouk Magyarországon I. I. Károly és uralkodása (1301–1342) [The Angevins in Hungary I. Charles I and His Reign (1301–1342)] (Budapest: MTA BTK Történettudományi Intézet, 2012), 48–52.

34 I have analysed this saint cult based propaganda in several places. Gábor Klaniczay: “Le culte des saints dynastiques en Europe Centrale (Angevins et Luxembourgs au XIVe siècle),” in L’Eglise et le peuple chrétien dans les pays de l’Europe du Centre-Est et du Nord (XIVe-XVe siècles), Actes du colloque ... de Rome (27–29 janvier 1986) (Rome: Ecole Française de Rome, 1990), 221–47; idem, Holy Rulers and Blessed Princesses, 1–2, 295–367.

35 “Fr. Andreas Ungarus fuit factus archiepiscopus Antibarensis per dominum Clementem papam V anno domini MCCCVI ... in curia, ubi erat pro canonizatione sancte Margarite filie quondam regis Ungarie nomine Belle optinenda missus a rege Ungarie procurator, cuius sibi in hac parte cooperatus est interventus.” — Stephanus de Salaniaco–Bernardus Guidonis, De quatuor in quibus deus praedicatorum ordinem insignivit, ed. Thomas Kaeppeli (MOPH XXII) (Rome: Istituto Storico Domenicano, 1949), 102–03; Deák, La légende de sainte Marguerite de Hongrie, 221.

36 Archivio Storico Capitolino, Archivio Orsini, Pergamene: II. A. IX. no. 54; Péterfi, “Újabb adalékok Árpád-házi Margit középkori csodáinak sorához,” 88.

37 Margaret Toynbee, S. Louis of Toulouse and the Process of Canonization in the Fourteenth Century (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1927), 151–54; Klaniczay, Holy Rulers and Blessed Princesses, 324.

38 Edith Pásztor, Per la storia di san Ludovico d’Angiò (1274–1297), Studi storici 10 (Rome: Istituto Storico Italiano per il medio evo, 1955); Klaniczay, Holy Rulers and Blessed Princesses, 304–10; Mario Gaglione, “Il san Ludovico di Simone Martini, manifesto della santità regale angioina,” Rassegna storica salernitana XXIX/2, no. 58 (2012): 9–125.

39 André Vauchez, “Beata stirps: sainteté et lignage en Occident aux XIIIe et XIVe siècles,” in Famille et parenté dans l’Occident médiéval, ed. Georges Duby et al. (Rome: Ecole Française de Rome, 1977), 397–406.

40 Anjou-kori okmánytár I–VII [Charters from the Angevin Period], ed. Imre Nagy et al. (Budapest: MTA, 1878–1920), vol. I, 507.

41 Jan Dąbrowski, Elżbieta Łokietówna 1305–1380 (Krakow: Nakł. Akademii Umiejętności, 1914); Ewa Śnieżyńska-Stolot, “Queen Elisabeth as a Patron of Architecture,” Acta Historiae Artium Academiae Scientiarum Hungarice 20 (1974): 13–36; idem, “Tanulmányok Erzsébet királyné mecénási tevékenységéről” [Studies on the Patronage of Queen Elizabeth], Ars Hungarica 7 (1979) 23–32; idem, “Tanulmányok Łokietek Erzsébet királyné műpártolása köréből (Ötvöstárgyak)” [Studies in the Patronage of Queen Elizabeth Łokietek (Metalware)], Művészettörténeti Értesítő 30 (1981): 233–54.

42 “Chronici hungarici compositio saeculi XIV,” ed. Sándor Domanovszky, in SRH, vol. I (Budapest: n.p., 1938), 490.

43 István Miskolczy, Magyar–olasz összeköttetések az Anjouk korában [Hungarian–Italian Connections in the Angevin Era] (Budapest: Szent István Társulat, 1937); Samantha Kelly, The New Solomon. Robert of Naples (1309–1343) and Fourteenth-century Kingship (Leiden–Boston: Brill, 2003); Csukovits, Az Anjouk Magyarországon, 113–15.

44 Janis Elliott and Cordelia Warr, eds., The Church of Santa Maria Donna Regina: Art, Iconography, and Patronage in Fourteenth-century Naples (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004); Cordelia Warr, “Der Freskenzyklus der heiligen Elisabeth von Ungarn in Santa Maria Donna Regina in Neapel,” in Elisabeth von Thüringen: Eine europäische Heilige, ed. Dieter Blume et al. (Petersberg: Michael Imhof, 2007), 345–52; Ingrid Würth, “Altera Elisabeth: Königin Sancia von Neapel (1286–1345) und die Franziskaner,” in Religiöse Bewegungen im Mittelalter: Festschrift für Matthias Werner zum 65. Geburtstag, ed E. Bünz et al. (Cologne–Vienna–Weimar: Böhlau, 2007), 517–42; Klaniczay, Holy Rulers and Blessed Princesses, 336–38.

45 Pál Lővei, “The Sepulchral Monument of Saint Margaret of the Arpad Dynasty,” Acta Historiae Artium 27 (1980): 211; Tania Michalski, “Die Repräsentation einer Beata Stirps. Darstellung und Ausdruck an den Grabmonumenten der Anjous,” in Die Repräsentation der Gruppen: Texte – Bilder – Objekte, ed. Otto-Gerhard Oexle et al. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998), 187–224.

46 “Hoc anno domina regina Hungariae Elizabeth ob reverentiam B. Dominici misit conventi Bononiensi paramenta ecclesiastica totalia, calicem argenteum, ampullas argenteas, propter quod fuit eidem deputata prima missa quae quottidie ad altare beati Dominici dicitur. Misit etiam prefata regina conventui Mediolanensi ob reverentiam B. Petri martyris paramentum unum veluti rubei completum pro altari majori. Aliud insuper paramentum veluti rubei viridisque cum frontali pulcro ac calice argenteo magno” — “La Cronaca Maggiore dell’ordine domenicano di Galvano Fiamma,” ed. Gundisalvo Odetto, Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum 10 (1940): 227–373 (quotation: 369), cf. Deák, La légende de sainte Marguerite de Hongrie, 222.

47 Deák, La légende de sainte Marguerite de Hongrie, 219–24; Idem, “The Birth of a Legend: the So-called Legenda Maior of Saint Margaret of Hungary and Dominican Hagiography,” Revue Mabillon 20 no. 81 (2009): 87–112; idem, “The Techniques of a Hagiographer. The two legendae of Saint Margaret of Hungary,” in Promoting the Saints. Cults and Their Contexts from Late Antiquity until the Early Modern Period. Essays in Honor of Gábor Klaniczay for His 60th Birthday, ed. Ottó Gecser et al. CEU Medievalia, 14 (Budapest: CEU, 2011), 125–36. For the text of the legend, see Catalogus fontium historiae Hungaricae aevo ducum et regum ex stirpe Arpad descendentium ab anno Christi DCCC usque ad annum MCCCI, 3 vols., ed. Albin Ferenc Gombos (Budapest: Szent István Akadémia, 1937–1938), vol. III, 2481–545.

48 The altar ornament is described in a 1361 inventory: “Item unum aliud dossale pro dicto altari de syndone violato, ornatum de novem ymaginibus, videlicet, cum nostra domina in medio et a dextris ejus sanctus Paulus, sanctus Stephanus Rex Ungarie, Sanctus Erricus Dux Ungarie et sanctus Lodoycus, et a sinistris sanctus Petrus et sanctus Ladislaus Rex Ungarie, sancta Helisabet filia regis Ungarie, et sancta Margarita filia regis Ungarie, cum spicis aureis duplicatis inter ipsas imagines et in circuitu una vitis de auro in sindone rubeo cum rosis aureis” — E. Müntz and A. L. Frottingham (Jun.), “Il Tesoro della Basilica di S. Pietro in Vaticano dal XIII al XV secolo con una scelta d’inventari inediti,” Archivio della Società Romana di Storia Patria 6 (1883): 14.

49 “Chronicon Aulae Regiae,” in Fontes Rerum Bohemicarum, vol. IV, ed. Jozef Emler (Prague: Nákl. Nadáni Františka Palackého, 1884), 291–92; Jaroslav Polc, Agnes von Böhmen 1211–1282, Lebensbilder zur Geschichte der böhmischen Länder 6. (Munich: Oldenbourg, 1989), 158–63; Christian-Frederik Felskau, “Vita religiosa und paupertas der Přemyslidin Agnes von Prag. Zu Bezügen und Besonderheiten in Leben und Legende einer späten Heiligen,” Collectanea Franciscana 70 (2000): 413–84 (particularly: 415); idem, Agnes von Böhmen und die Klosteranlage der Klarissen und Franziskaner in Prag. Leben und Institution, Legende und Verehrung (Nordhausen: Traugott Bautz, 2008).

50 Jan Kapistrán Vyskočil, ed., Legenda blahoslavené Anežky a čtyri listy Sv. Kláry [The Legend of the Blessed Agnes and Four Letters of St Clara] (Prague: Universum, 1934), 124–26; György Balanyi, Csehországi Boldog Ágnes [Blessed Agnes of Bohemia], Regnum 1. (Budapest: Stephaneum, 1939), 137–68.

51 MREV, vol. III, 220–21.

52 Richard Offner, A Critical and Historical Corpus of Florentine Painting (New York: New York University, 1930), Sect. III, vol. II, Part I. 58. table XXV; George Kaftal, Saints in Tuscan Painting, Iconography of the Saints in Italian Painting from its Beginning to the Early XVth Century, vol. I (Florence: Sansoni, 1952), coll. 31, 672–73. no. 214; Gábor Klaniczay, “Le stigmate di santa Margherita d’Ungheria: immagini e testi,” Iconographica. Rivista di iconografia medievale e moderna I (2002): 16–31; idem, “On the Stigmatization of Saint Margaret of Hungary,” in Medieval Christianity in Practice, ed. Miri Rubin (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009), 274–84.

53 George Kaftal, Iconography of the Saints in Central and South Italian Schools of Painting, Iconography of the Saints in Italian Painting from its Beginning to the Early XVth Century, vol. II (Florence: Sansoni, 1965), coll. 740–42. no. 243 (a).

54 Luigi Coletti, Catalogo delle cose d’arte e di antichità d’Italia di Treviso (Rome: Libreria dello Stato, 1935), 408; Lea Tolnay Danesi, “Un affresco senese a Treviso,” L’Arte 37 (1934): 223–29; Florio Banfi, Ricordi ungheresi in Italia (Rome: Reale Accademia d’Ungheria, 1942), 173–74; George Kaftal and Fabio Bisogni, Iconography of the Saints in the Painting of North East Italy, Iconography of the Saints in Italian Painting from its Beginning to the Early XVth Century, vol. III (Florence: Sansoni, 1978), 663–65, no. 194 (c).

55 “Cum quadam die virgo Margarita in oratorio suo quod erat inter chorum et murum ecclesie lacrimose oraret, visa est a quadam sorore elevari a terra per cubitos plures, sic quod per spatium duarum horarum se habens, cum postea rediret ad lectum suum visa est ab Idem sorore habere in quinque locis suis corporis, manibus videlicet et pedibus ac latere, stigmata quinque sanguinolenta. A qua virgo sancta precibus obtinuit quod, quam diu viveret, teneret secretum. Unde idipsum, post mortem virginis omnibus revelavit. Et consimiliter confessor virginis hoc ipsum quoque plurimi viderunt et attestati sunt. Et qualiter quidam inquisitores Innocentii quinti, post multum temporis, volentes videre corpus eius, aperientes sepulcrum dicta stigmata, ut prefatum est, invenerunt et inde instrumentum publicum confecerunt.” Thomas Antonii de Senis “Caffarini”, Libellus de supplemento, Legende prolixe virginis beate Catherine de Senis, eds. Iuliana Cavallini and Imelda Foralosso (Rome: Edizioni Cateriniane, 1974), 175; Tibor Klaniczay, “La fortuna di Santa Margherita d’Ungheria in Italia,” in Spiritualità e lettere nella cultura italiana e ungherese del basso medioevo, ed. Sante Graciotti et al. (Florence: Leo S. Olschki, 1995), 3–27.

56 “Standosi un di questa venerabile Margarita divotamente in uno suo horatorio in oratione dinanzi al crocefisso con molta effusione di lagrime, incontenente fu rapta dallo Spirito Santo, et fu levata da terra per misure di quattro comiti, et in questo modo stette per ispatio di due hore e più. Et si come Iddio permise, questa beata così rapta fu veduta da una sua compagna et parente d’uno medesimo habito con questa beata Margarita, colla quale segrete revelationi, le quali da Christo ricevea. E tornata questa beata in sè, insieme con questa sua compagna et parente se ne andò in cella per riposarsi. Et levandosi ella il mantello insanguinato, et le sue mani, e i piedi. Le quale stupefatta di questa cosa, divotamente domandò la beata Margarita quello che questo volesse dire. Allora beata Margarita avuta prima la fede da lei che mentre ch’ella vivesse questo non dovesse manifestare, et allora gli narrò, come Christo crocefisso in ispecie di seraphino gli fermò le stimmate nel corpo suo. Et essendo venuto il tempo, nello quale beata Margarita migrò di questa vita, fu tempo che questa sua parente potè manifestare questo grandissimo miracolo, et così fece, con grandissima reverentia et devotione narrava ciò ad ogni gente… Et innanzi che questa beata fusse seppellita, fu da molti il suo corpo veduto colle ditte stimmate segnato” — Published in Florio Banfi, “Le stimmate della B. Margherita d’Ungheria,” Memorie Domenicane 50–51 (1934): 304–06; cf. Dávid Falvay, Magyar dinasztikus szentek olasz kódexekben [Hungarian Dynastic Saints in Italian Codices] (Budapest: ELTE, 2012), 86–89.

57 Carolyn Muessig et al., eds., A Companion to Catherine of Siena (Leiden–Boston: Brill, 2012).

58 Caffarini, Libellus de supplemento, 173–75.

59 Béla Zsolt Szakács, “Le culte des saints à la cour et le Légendier des Anjou-Hongrie,” in L’Europe des Anjou (catalogue Fontevraud) (Paris: Somogy, 2001), 195–201; idem, A Magyar Anjou Legendárium képi rendszerei [Iconography of the Hungarian Angevin Legendarium] (Budapest: Balassi, 2006).

60 Ernő Marosi, “Saints at Home and Abroad: Some Observations on the Creation of Iconographic Types in Hungary of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries,” in Promoting the Saints, 175–206.

61 Giovanni Gherardi da Prato, Il paradiso degli Alberti, ed. A. Lanza (Rome: Salemo, 1975), 231–35; Tibor Kardos, Studi e ricerche umanistiche italo-ungheresi (Debrecen: KLTE, 1967), 23–30; J. Fajt and J. Royt, Magister Theodoricus: Court Painter of Emperor Charles IV. Decorations of the Sacred Places at Castle Karlstejn (Prague: National Gallery, 1997); Iva Rosario, Art and propaganda: Charles IV of Bohemia, 1346–1378 (Woodbridge: Boydell and Brewer, 2000).

62 Krafft, Árpád-házi Szent Margit, 462–64; this attempt had already been mentioned in Kornél Bőle, Árpádházi Boldog Margit szenttéavatási ügye és a legősibb latin Margit-legenda [The Cause of Canonization of Blessed Margaret of Hungary and the Oldest Latin Margaret Legend] (Budapest: Stephaneum, 1937), 6.

63 For a general description of the historical situation, see János Karácsonyi, Magyarország és a nyugati nagy egyházszakadás [Hungary and the Great Western Schism] (Nagyvárad: n.p., 1885); Antal Áldásy, A nyugati nagy egyházszakadás története VI. Orbán haláláig. 1378–1389 [The History of the Great Western Schism until the Death of Urban VI] (Budapest: Pfeifer Ferdinánd, 1896); Howard Kaminsky, “The Great Schism,” in New Cambridge Medieval History, vol. VI, ed. Michael Jones (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 674–96.

64 Anna Maria Voci, “Giovanna I d’Angiò e l’inizio del grande scisma d’Occidente,” Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken 17 (1995): 178–255; cf. Áldásy, A nyugati nagy egyházszakadás, 78–79.

65 Áldásy, A nyugati nagy egyházszakadás, 120; Vilmos Fraknói, Magyarország összeköttetései a római Szent-Székkel I. 1000–1417. [Hungary’s Relations with the Holy See of Rome] (Budapest: Szent István Társulat, 1901), 283–85.

66 Karácsonyi, Magyarország és a nyugati, 10–11; Áldásy, A nyugati nagy egyházszakadás, 135; Magyar diplomácziai emlékek, vol. III, 183.

67 Sziénai Szent Katalin, Levelek [St Catherine of Siena, Letters] (Budapest: Szent István Társulat, 1983), no. 357, 821–25, no. 145, 335–38. On the political role of Catherine of Siena in the affairs of Urban VI, see Renate Blumenfeld-Kosinski, Poets, Saints and Visionaries of the Great Schism, 1378–1417 (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2006), 46–56.

68 On the group that formed around Catherine of Siena see David Movrin, “The Beloved Disciple: Stephen Maconi and St. Catherine of Siena,” Annual of Medieval Studies at CEU 10 (2004): 43–53.

69 Áldásy, A nyugati nagy egyházszakadás, 96–97; Mór Wertner, “Adalékok Demeter bíboros esztergomi érsek életrajzához” [Additions to the Life of Cardinal Demeter, Archbishop of Esztergom], Századok 38 (1904): 800–02; Erik Fügedi, A 15. századi magyar arisztokrácia mobilitása [The Mobility of Fifteenth-Century Hungarian Aristocracy] (Budapest: Statisztikai Kiadó Vállalat, 1970), 149.

70 “Demetrius miseratione divina tituli sanctorum quatuor coronatorum presbiter cardinalis in regno Hungariae sedis apostolice legatus, Strigoniensis ecclesiae gubernator et summus cancellarius” — Magyar Nemzeti Levéltár Országos Levéltára [MNL OL], Diplomatikai Fényképgyűjtemény [Collection of Photocopies, DF] 237 418, quoted in Iván Bertényi, “Demeter. 1378. augusztus 16. e. – 1387. február 20,” in Esztergomi érsekek 1000–2003 [Archbishops of Esztergom 1000–2003], ed. Margit Beke (Budapest: Szent István Társulat, 2003), 195. Footnote 21.

71 József Udvardy, A kalocsai érsekek életrajza (1000–1526) [Biographies of the Archbishops of Kalocsa] (Munich: Görres Gesellschaft, 1991), 232–42. On p. 238, he quotes document no. 38 of the Museum of Transylvania: “frater Stephanus, magister sacre pagine, Dei et apostolice sedis gratia Patriarcha Jherosolimitanus ac administrator perpetuus ecclesiarum Colocensis et Bachyensis invicem unitarum, provincieque nostre sedis apostolice legatus, ac aule regie cancellarius.”

72 Antal Áldásy, Alsáni Bálint bíbornok [Cardinal Bálint Alsáni] (Budapest: Magyar Történelmi Társulat, 1903); Erik Fügedi, “Alsáni Bálint, a pécsi egyetem második kancellárja” [Bálint Alsáni, the Second Chancellor of the University of Pécs], in A pécsi egyetem történetéből [From the History of the University of Pécs], ed. Andor Csizmadia (Pécs: PTE ÁJTK, 1967), 97–110.

73 Conrad Eubel, Hierarchia catholica medii aevi (Regensburg: Monasterii Sumptibus et typis librariae Regensbergianae, 1898–1923), vol. I, 524.

74 Pál Engel, Magyarország világi archontológiája. 1301–1457, 2 vols. [The Secular Archontology of Hungary] (Budapest: História – MTA Történettudományi Intézete, 1996), vol. I, 78.

75 László Szende, “Łokietek Erzsébet végrendelete” [The Will of Elizabeth Łokietek], Kút 3 (2004): 2, 3–11.

76 The Hungarian translation of one of the letters is published on the basis of University Library, Budapest, Collectio Kaprinayana, vol. LXI, nos. 34, 35 by I. Király, Árpád-házi Szent Margit és a sziget [St Margaret of Hungary and the Island] (Budapest: Szent István Társulat, 1979), 198–99. Interesting new documents on Matthias’ efforts concerning the canonization of Margaret are revealed in Péterfi, “Újabb adalékok Árpád-házi Margit középkori csodáinak sorához,” ibid.

77 Péter Tusor, “Magyar szentek liturgikus tisztelete és a római Sacra Rituum Congregatio a korai újkorban” [The Liturgical Veneration of Hungarian Saints and the Sacra Rituum Congregation of Rome in the Early Modern Age], in Szentjeink és nagyjaink Európa kereszténységéért [Our Saints and Our Greats for the Christianity of Europe], ed. Margit Beke (Budapest: Esztergom–Budapesti Főegyházmegye Egyháztörténeti Bizottság, 2011), 112–13.

78 Király, Árpád-házi Szent Margit, 200–04; Kornél Bőle O.P., “Szent Margit tisztelete és a szenttéavatás története a XIX. és a XX. században” [The History of the Veneration and Canonization of St Margaret in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries], in idem, Gyöngyvirágok és margaréták Árpádházi Szent Margit oltárán [Lilies of the Valley and Marguerites on the Altar of St Margaret of Hungary] (Budapest: Credo, 1944), 5–24.

2013_2_Weisz

pdfVolume 2 Issue 2 CONTENTS

Boglárka Weisz

Mining Town Privileges in Angevin Hungary*

The present study examines the privileges obtained by the mining towns during the Angevin Era. It also looks at the extent to which these privileges diverged from those granted to other towns, and how all this led to the development of the mining town as a distinct class of towns. The question itself is interesting not only with respect to urban history, but also because it brings us closer to an understanding of why these towns acted jointly in defense of their interests, and how all this led to the formation of leagues of mining towns, which by the fifteenth century were organizing themselves on a territorial basis. After a detailed examination of the legal, ecclesiastical and economic privileges the study has come to the conclusion that in the area of both legal and economic privileges significant differences and divergences can be discerned in comparison to privileges bestowed on other towns. The reason for the differences naturally is to be sought in mining, and in the need to secure the royal revenue stemming from it. From a legal standpoint, this shows up not only in the appearance of offices linked to mining, but also in the emergence of comites or rectores appointed by the king to head the mining towns. In discussing economic privileges it may be observed that, whereas other towns were motivated primarily by a desire to obtain commercial privileges (e.g., right to hold markets, exemption from tolls), mining towns were moved by the need to secure the rights connected to mining. Thanks to their special freedoms, the mining towns differed from other towns while also forming an organic part of the urban network.

Keywords: mining towns, privileges, urban policy

 

The fifteenth-century, German-language Chronicle of Szepesszombat (Georgenberger Chronik)1 writes the following about the urban policy of the Angevins: “this king [Louis I] and his father [Charles I] loved the towns of Hungary greatly, and they elevated them and improved [their condition].”2 In what follows we will examine the extent to which this urban development policy held true for the mining towns, which were at this time emerging as a distinct class of towns, as well as the extent to which the privileges acquired by the mining towns diverged from those granted to other towns. From the late fourteenth century, these towns took common action in defense of their interests with increasing frequency, and the basis for this common interest lay in the identical privileges that Charles I and later Louis I bestowed on them over the course of the fourteenth century.

Already during the reign of Charles I (1301–1342) we find reference to the fact that the mining towns had privileges that were uniform or, at least with respect to mining, similar. When on March 12, 1337 King Charles authorized Lukács, son of Kozma, Detre, son of Leusták and Miklós, son of Iván, as well as Gergely, son of Gyula of Kistapolcsá­ny to search for gold, silver as well as other ores and metals, and open mines, within the boundaries of their estates of Dobrocsna (Dobročna, Slovakia), Bohó and Nevidzén (Nevidzany, Slovakia) and in the Divék Valley in Nyitra County, he also gave them an opportunity to establish towns there, which they would be allowed to administer according to the liberty of other mining towns (iuxta libertatem aliarum civitatum montanarum).3 Collective references to settlements of this kind may be cited from the era of the reign of Charles’s successor, Louis I (1342–1382), as well. On March 31, 1349 Louis ordered the marking of the borders of Idabánya (Zlatá Idka, Slovakia) according to the custom of other mines (iuxta consuetudinem aliarum montanarum nostrarum in regno nostro existencium), and within these limits he ceded the forests and other usufructs to the town, as was customary in other royal mines (prout in aliis montanis nostris est consuetum).4 On November 28, 1357 Louis allowed the burghers, hospites and miners of Zalatna (Zlatna, Romania) to possess the same freedoms that other mines in the kingdom enjoyed (qua cetera montana in regno nostro existentia gaudent et fruuntur).5 According to a charter from 1376, the people of Nagybánya (Baia Mare, Romania) were free to elect a judge and jurors (iurati), who were allowed to make judgments in matters arising among them, in a manner similar to that of other towns and mines (ad instar... aliarum civitatum, et montanarum nostrarum).6

What these privileges, referred to only in general terms in the charters quoted above, meant in reality to the burghers of the mining towns is illuminated by a diploma of King Charles dated June 14, 1325. In it, the sovereign granted the town of Aranyosbánya (Baia de Arieş, Romania) the liberties that the masters or workers of other royal gold mines enjoyed (libertatibus, quibus aliarum aurifodinarum suarum magistri seu operarii utuntur). The diploma goes on to list the privileges in detail: 1. they were obligated to pay an eighth of the mine’s profits to the king as a census or tax; 2. neither the palatine, nor the Transylvanian voevode, nor the county ispáns (comites parochiales), nor any judge other than the king or the judge royal (országbíró) could pass judgment on them; 3. the king ceded to them land around the mine in the quantity of one and a half miles (ad quantitatem unius et dimidiae rastae) in accordance with the custom of the other royal gold mines (consuetudine ceterarum aurifodinarum).7 Thus, it was payment of the urbura, the cession of a determined vicinity around the mine (important first and foremost because of the timber required for mining), as well as the right to adjudicate its own affairs that Charles regarded as the rights and obligations that were indispensable to a mining town. Taking one by one the privileges of each mine and mining town, below we will examine how the privileges enumerated in King Charles’s 1325 charter manifested themselves (if at all) in these settlements, as well as what other freedoms tied to mining may be observed there.

Among the settlements that came to be known as mining towns, Selmecbánya (Banská Štiavnica, Slovakia),8 Rimabánya (Rimavská Baňa, Slovakia)9 and Gölnicbánya (Gelnica, Slovakia) obtained town charters back in the Árpád era.10 Neither the precise content nor the date of issue of Bakabánya’s (Pukanec, Slovakia) first charter is known.11 We may place the town’s origin to the era of King Charles at the latest (allowing that it may have received its privileges as early as the second half of the thirteenth century), which is attested not only by the existence of the settlement and mine at that time,12 but also by a charter dated 1337. According to the latter, two burghers of Bakabánya obtained a mill site on the Büksavnica River on the estate of the Abbey of Garamszentbenedek (Hronský Beňadik, Slovakia), in exchange for a tax paid annually for the mill (pro censu annuali), which was needed to work the new mine opened up on the king’s land in Savnic (that is, on the territory of the later Újbánya [Nová Baňa, Slovakia] in Bars County). At the same time, none of the privileges held by the residents of Bakabánya and the hospites of Savnic-Újbánya, whether enjoyed on the basis of customary law, or obtained from royal gift or to be received in the future, applied to this mill.13 In other words, the burghers of Bakabánya in 1337 were actively involved in the exploration of a new mine, which would serve as the embryo of a later independent mining town, while the abbey at Garamszentbenedek, defending its possessory rights on this territory, did not accept the validity of privileges already possessed or to be won in the future. Whereas the former restriction applied presumably to the then already existing privileges of Bakabánya, the basis for the latter may have been the assumption that sooner or later Újbánya, too, would gain privileges of its own. The people of Bakabánya commenced mining in Újbánya around 1337,14 and the burghers of Bakabánya assumed a primary role in the negotiations between this mine and the abbey at Garamszentbenedek up until 1345. On August 16, 1345 it was still the judge and councilors of Bakabánya who were making arrangements for the mill,15 whereas a diploma of September 8, 1345, already mentions a judge and councilors of Újbánya in connection with the use of the abbey’s estates.16 Újbánya therefore must have received its town privileges between August 16 and September 8, 1345.17 If we assume a similar chain of events in Bakabánya, where the people of Selmecbánya began working the mine prior to 1270,18 then we must suppose that the mining privileges were obtained sometime after this, and probably prior to the extinction of the Árpád dynasty.

The town privileges of the burghers and hospites of Rózsahegy (Ružomberok, Slovakia) granted by Dancs, ispán of Zólyom, were set down in writing on November 26, 1318,19 then on November 14, 1340 they received a similar charter of privilege from Charles I.20 Körmöcbánya (Kremnica, Slovakia) was granted its privileges by Charles I on November 17, 1328,21 while on June 14, 1325 the hospites of the royal town of Aranyosbánya received from the ruler the liberties that the foremen or workers of other gold mines enjoyed.22 It must have been still during the reign of Charles that the hospites of Nagybánya received their privileges, since on September 20, 1347 Nagybánya’s parish priest János, judge Márton, notary Péter and councilor Ulrik asked for and received from King Louis the bestowal of their privileges, contained in their old charter destroyed by fire, after the fashion of other principal royal towns (ad instar civitatum nostrarum capitalium).23 The first mention of the judge of Nagybánya, who was at the same time the judge of Felsőbánya (Baia Spire, Romania) as well (comes Corrardus judex civitatum Rivuli Dominarum et de Medio Monte), may be found in a charter dated May 29, 1329,24 and thus the bestowal of the town’s privileges must have taken place prior to this date. The privileges of Nagybánya and Felsőbánya were set down in writing once more by King Louis on March 8, 1376.25 The borders of the royal mining town of Rudabánya were surveyed in 1351,26 while the judge and jurors appear in the charters in 1378.27 Finally, Breznóbánya (Brezno, Slovakia) received privileges from Louis on August 14, 1380.28 Thus far I have demonstrated when each mining town obtained its town privileges; henceforth I will examine the legal, ecclesiastical and economic privileges enumerated in these charters, the extent to which these differ from the privileges found in the charters of other towns, as well as the extent to which it is possible to infer from them the existence of uniform mining town privileges.

Legal Privileges

We begin the survey of the legal privileges of the mining towns by examining the free election of judge or village headman, mentioned in virtually every charter.29 The right to freely elect their judge was obtained by the people of Rózsahegy,30 Körmöcbánya,31 Szomolnokbánya (Smolník, Slovakia),32 Nagybánya,33 Breznó­bánya34 and Libetbánya (Ľubietová, Slovakia).35 When Bakabánya in the late fifteenth century had King Wladislaw II confirm its lost privileges, the ruler recalled the free election of the judge and jurors as an ancient custom (ex antiquo more),36 since this was now regarded completely as the town’s internal matter. Among the mining towns, only the 1340 letter of privilege of Rózsahegy referred to the royal confirmation of the judge;37 this was a restrictive clause that guaranteed the king an opportunity, should the need arise, to place his own candidate in office. The charters of the non-mining towns in almost every case provided for the free election of the judge;38 the king’s right of confirmation was emphasized by the charters dated prior to 1245 almost without exception,39 and scattered references to this are to be found after 1245 also.40 In 1340 the people of Rózsahegy asked King Charles for the privileges of Lipcse in Liptó County, that is, those of a town whose charter likewise contained the requirement of royal confirmation.41

The charters, if they touched upon the judge’s term of office, generally fixed it at one year.42 The king was generally unwilling to fix the date of the election; in 1338, for example, in the privilege of Szomolnokbánya Charles declared that they were to elect from amongst themselves a judge annually on the customary date (in termino consueto) in accordance with the custom of other towns (more aliarum civitatum nostrarum).43 In the charter issued to the people of Nagybánya in 1347 Louis I declared that the judge was to remain in his office for one year, until January 8.44 This meant on the one hand that the election of the judge took place annually, and on the other it alluded to the date of the election also. In 1380 in the charter of Breznóbánya Louis already stipulated that they should elect from amongst themselves a judge for a term of one year (per annum duraturum) in the manner of other royal towns (ad instar aliarum civitatum nostrarum).45 Although the charters stated that the judge was elected for one year, this did not exclude the possibility of the same person being elected the following year; indeed, we generally find that a given person held the office of judge for several years consecutively. In general the election of the jurors was not specifically mentioned by the charters,46 and thus it almost certainly occurred at the same time as the election of the judge and likewise for a period of one year. Fixing the date of the election of the judge or stipulations concerning the election of jurors were not typical in the charters of non-mining towns either.47 This is certainly an indication that the king regarded the election of judges as an internal affair of both the mining and other royal towns.

According to the stipulations of the charters, the judge’s jurisdiction extended to all matters great or small arising within the limits of the town,48 as we can read in the privileges of other towns as well.49 We can read of this in the charters of Rózsahegy,50 Szomolnokbánya,51 Nagybánya52 and Breznóbánya.53 However, the judge’s jurisdiction extended not only to lawsuits arising within the town’s territory but also to the townspeople personally,54 something that can be observed in non-mining towns as well.55 In all their affairs the people of Körmöcbánya were bound to appear only before the court of their judge or villicus (village headman). Moreover, if the judge neglected to render a judgment, he could be summoned to appear before the king. Charles I further supplemented this privilege by declaring that in case the townspeople owed money the debt had to be reclaimed before their own court first.56 Louis I ruled in a similar fashion in 1347 in his charter for the people of Nagybánya, ordering that they could be brought to trial only before their own court, and if the judge and the jurors proved indifferent and neglectful, the judge was to be summoned to appear before the king.57 The only modification brought to this by the 1376 charter of Nagybánya is its inclusion, in addition to the king, of the tárnokmester (magister tavarnicorum).58 A curtailment of the judge’s jurisdiction can be observed in the 1318 privilege of Rózsahegy, which ordered that lawsuits arising between the town burghers and foreigners were to be adjudicated jointly by the villicus of Rózsahegy and the comes of the other side;59 the judge’s competence thus extended only to internal affairs. Of all the Angevin charters granted to the mining towns, only that of Rózsahegy mentioned exemption from the authority of the county ispán.60 In the town privileges this provision disappears in most cases in the fourteenth century, and the king defines only the jurisdiction of the judge. In the case of Rózsahegy, Charles may have considered it necessary to emphasize this separately in 1340 only because the people of Rózsahegy had received their first charter in 1318 from Dancs, ispán of Zólyom.61

In the mining towns we encounter officials who are not to be found in other towns, since their existence was tied to mining. The ruler appointed an ispán (comes) or rector to head the mining towns,62 while the town elected a judge. Buda was headed by a rector, with interruptions of varying duration, from 1264 until the mid-fourteenth century,63 and in the second half of the thirteenth century the rulers appointed a podesta to head the town of Zagreb.64 This, however, also meant that the ruler had suspended the right of these towns to freely elect a judge, whereas in the mining towns the rector or comes worked alongside the judge elected by the town. Of the comes or rector the charters of the mining towns generally make no mention, except for the 1376 charter of Nagybánya;65 their duties and jurisdiction, however, can be reconstructed unequivocally from other sources. The rector administered the town’s affairs in conjunction with the judge and jurors elected by the town.66 The ruler appointed to the mines urburarii (or exactores urburarum),67 who were responsible for collecting the mining tax (urbura). According to the charter of Nagybánya the urburarius was allowed to take from the miners only the share equivalent to the urbura and no more. At the same time, the urburarius could publicly punish those miners who concealed the extracted ores. The urburarius himself could expect punishment if contrary to the law he employed violence against the miners, absconded with the extracted ore and used it for his own profit, or obstructed mining operations. However, the ruler emphasized specifically that the urburarius was not allowed to interfere in the town’s other affairs (for instance, justice and tax collection).68 Yet in 1376 Louis I already decreed that the town’s judge and jurors were to pass judgment on wrongdoers in conjunction with the king’s comes and urburarius.69

The judge, the jurors and the community annually elected a Bergmeister or mine manager (magister montis) as well, who could investigate all matters arising during the working of the mine and render judgments together with the judge.70 Although the Bergmeister was elected by the town authorities, he must nevertheless be regarded as a royal official. This is well illustrated by the Law Code of Selmecbánya: according to this, whereas the Bergmeister was chosen by the judge (and council) of the mining town, his wages were paid by the royal chamber.71 The Bergmeister supervised the mines and saw to the distribution and granting of mining allotments as well as the granting of mining permission.72 In mining matters he could also pronounce judgments in conjunction with other town officials.73

According to the charter of Nagybánya, the judge and jurors also elected mine inspectors (scansores), who constantly monitored the mines and the mining works, primarily in the interests of protecting the urbura, the king’s profit.74 If the scansor proved neglectful and unfaithful, another had to be chosen in his place.75 Although the mining town elected the scansor, he protected first and foremost the interests of the ruler.76 The scansor along with the judge and jurors of the mining town could also pass judgment on a given mine’s affairs, an example of which we find in Selmecbánya.77 Moreover, according to the entry, the Bernhard who was taking care of matters here figured as the scansor of the mines of the king and the Kingdom of Hungary (Bernhardus scansor montanorum regni Ungariae; Bernhardus scansor domini regis et montanorum regni Ungariae). We consider it likely that the jurisdiction of the above-named Bernhard extended only to the mines of (to use a later expression) Lower Hungary, in the company of the representatives of which he sat in judgement at Selmecbánya in 1388.78 The adjudicators there also included a certain Jacob called Rolle, a former royal scansor, who is known to have held the office of judge in Selmecbánya in 1372 and 1379, and was thus a citizen of the town.79 In German-language sources the equivalent of scansor is Steiger.80 This is also attested by one of the judgments of the administration of Selmecbánya regulating mine exploitation, which was taken by the Steiger in concert with the ispán of Selmecbánya, the judge, the jurors and the Bergmeister.81

According to the charter of Nagybánya, the judge, the jurors and the community also elected, without infringing upon the rights of the ispáns of the chamber (kamaraispánok), an experienced auritactor, whose inspection and calculation everyone would accept.82 More can be learned about this office with the help of a charter issued by Louis I on February 2, 1345, in which the ruler decreed that in the customary places of the chamber, in the mines and in the towns there be a “royal house” (domus regalis), where people were to bring the gold and silver for the purposes of selling, smelting and converting. In the mines only the ispán of the chamber could examine the number of carats of the gold, and this exclusively in the royal house, whereupon he marked the gold with the royal sign.83 From this data we may conclude that the auritactor appearing in the charter of Nagybánya must have been a person who performed the examination of the gold in the town,84 while the right to determine officially the number of carats and stamp the royal sign on the gold was left by Louis I firmly within the competence of the ispán of the chamber.85

The privileges determined the manner of appeal as well, and designated the king as appellate forum.86 On June 14, 1325 Charles I, when listing the privileges granted to the town of Aranyosbánya, which other royal gold mines also enjoyed (libertatibus, quibus aliarum aurifodinarum suarum magistri seu operarii utuntur), mentioned that neither the palatine nor the Transylvanian voevode nor the county ispáns (comites parochiales) or any judge but the king or the judge royal could pass judgment on them.87 The privileges of the non-mining towns likewise dealt with possibilities of appeal, in which they designated the king or the judge entrusted by him.88

Among the mining towns only Nagybánya was permitted by King Louis to enclose their settlement and thus defend it against the enemy with palisade and hedge.89

The legal privileges show that the mining towns possessed all those privileges that other towns possessed, while the differences, i.e., the emergence of offices differing from those in other towns, stemmed from mining activity itself.

Ecclesiastical Privileges

The right to freely elect a parish priest can be found in almost every mining town privilege,90 including the charters of Rózsahegy,91 Nagybánya92 and Breznó­bánya.93 Because these were towns where no significant church institution had yet developed prior to the acquisition of the town privilege, it is thus almost natural that there was an opportunity to freely elect the parish priest. Among the privileges we also find the regulation of the tithe obligation. The institution of the libera decima, which meant that it was the parish priest and not the bishop who benefitted from the tithes, can only be demonstrated in Selmecbánya among the mining towns of the Árpád era.94 As for the privileges from the Angevin era, only those of Nagybánya do hint at the fact that the parish priest enjoyed the tithes. For in 1347 King Louis ordered that half of the tithe of the grain and wine should belong to the parish priest of Nagybánya, while the other half should be spent on building a church. It was likewise for the building of the church that Louis pledged the census on the deposition of wine (census depositionis vini), on its measure (census mensurae) and on the authentication of the lead stamp (census staterae plumbi); after the church was completed he ceded all of these to the town.95

In the realm of ecclesiastical privileges the mining towns held the same rights as any other town,96 and no difference whatsoever can be shown.

Economic Privileges

In contrast to other towns,97, among the economic privileges it was not the commercial privileges that held primary importance for the mining towns but rather those linked to mining, above all the guarantee of “mining freedom” (Bergbaufreiheit). This is natural, since whereas the most important economic function of other towns was to ensure the exchange of goods, for the mining towns this was mining. This provided the basis for them to become mining towns, though the acquisition of this privilege did not necessarily lead to the formation of a mining town. The concept of mining freedom meant on the one hand the free exploration for ores, and on the other hand the stipulation of the urbura (one tenth of gold, one eighth of silver and other metals) to be paid to the king. Some of the privileges granted the freedom to mine without territorial restriction;98 others, however, contained territorial restrictions as well. On March 12, 1337 King Charles I granted the opportunity to explore for metals and open mines within the limits of the estates of Dobrocsna, Bohó and Nevidzén and in the Divék Valley in Nyitra County.99 On February 21, 1347 Louis I granted the sons of Gyula Tapolcsányi, Miklós and Gergely, as well as their kinsman, András son of András Tapolcsányi, the right to pan for gold in the Tapolcsány River on the territory of the royal castle of Hrussó (today northwest of Hostie, Slovakia) and the Tapolcsány estate.100 The role assumed by the Tapolcsányi in mining is illustrated not only by these last two documents, but also by the fact that in 1321 Charles also bestowed the silver mine of Bakabánya on the sons of Hazlow of Tapolcsány, Gyula and András.101 On June 25, 1339 Charles gave the sons of Ábrahám of the Hontpázmány kindred, Sebes and Péter, permission to freely extract the gold, silver and other metals found on their estates, and especially in the territory of Bazin (Pezinok, Slovakia) and Szentgyörgy (Svatý Jur, Slovakia), and to pan for gold as well.102 A diploma dated July 13, 1339 already informs us about a dispute on whether the gold and other metals found in the vicinity of Bazin were located within the boundaries of the estates of Sebes and Péter in Bazin or on royal land.103 In this same year a decision in the matter of the gold mine of Nyírújhegy (Novus mons de Nyr)104 located in the vicinity of Sebes’s estate in Sumberg,105 was taken by the king.106 On February 20, 1379 Louis I permitted the sons of Péter Sós of Sóvár, János, György and László, to mine gold, silver and other metals on their estates.107 Those on whose lands we have knowledge of working mines must also have obtained mining licenses from the king, even if their specific mining license is not known.108 In the fourteenth century licenses of settlement plantation sometimes made provision for mines to be explored;109 these, however, enjoyed free mining rights only in possession of a separate royal license.110

The opening of each mine carried within it the possibility that a town might also be founded there. Charles I alluded to this in 1337, when in addition to opening mines in the Divék Valley he also granted the opportunity to plant settlements and found towns there.111 And in 1340, when he authorized László, son of János, son of Langeus of Tolcsva, to open gold, silver and other mines on the estate of Tolcsva in Zemplén County, he also decreed that after the opening of the mines and the establishment of the town László should be the comes, lord or rector of the mines.112 Some of the mining towns, however, were founded by the miners of already existing mining towns (as in the cases of Bakabánya and Újbánya, for example), and thus there was no need to provide a separate mining license for these settlements.

Since in order to work the mines timber was indispensable, it was the privileges related to this that were most important to the mining towns.113 Two processes may be observed: in one of them the ruler permitted the use of the forest within the borders of the town,114 and in the other he assigned the mining town a zone in the range of one, two or three miles within which he authorized the use of the forest.

In the case of the mining towns generally it was the latter solution that prevailed. Bakabánya, for example, must have possessed an area of one mile (cum spacio unius miliaris), since it was together with its adjoining one-mile district that on July 4, 1321 Charles I granted the settlement to the sons of Hazlow of Tapolcsány, Gyula and András.115 When in the late fifteenth century King Wladislaw II confirmed the privileges of the town of Bakabánya, he likewise recalled this one-mile zone (per unum milliare circumquaque).116 The people of Szomolnokbánya, who possessed the same liberty as other royal towns (more aliarum civitatum nostrarum eadem libertate fruencium), received an area of two miles around the town (in spacio duorum miliarium undique pergirando) in 1332.117 On June 14, 1325 Charles I ceded one and a half miles of land (ad quantitatem unius et dimidiae rastae) around the mine to the town of Aranyosbánya in accordance with the custom of the other royal gold mines (consuetudine ceterarum aurifodinarum).118 From 1328 Körmöcbánya was allowed to use the forests subjected to the king’s right of donation within a distance of two miles (ad duo miliaria) without prejudice to another’s right.119 On August 27, 1341 Telkibánya received, among other things, two miles of woodland with mines (duas ratas de silva cum montibus), since the town’s lands had proven inadequate.120 To Nagybánya belonged an area of three miles (circumquaque ad tria milliaria),121 within which, however, in the era of Louis I there were no longer sufficient trees for the support timbering of the mines (sed quia robora et magna ligna operae stolonum, fouearum, ac domorum aedificiis necessaria in metis eorum inueniri non contingat). For this reason, in 1347 Louis allowed the town to fell the necessary trees outside its borders (extra metas eorum) from the king’s forest (in possessionibus et syluis nostris regalibus recipiendi habeant facultatem liberam) without prejudice to the rights of other royal and noble estates.122 In 1376, moreover, Louis allowed the town the free use of the Fekete-erdő (Black Forest) as well as other royal forests situated around the town.123

We possess little information from this period on the manner of timber cutting. In 1342 the citizens of Szomolnok and Gölnicbánya received permission during their lawsuit with the Monastery of Jászó, to take over half of the forest between the Gölnic and Bodva rivers owned by the monastery in exchange for which they were obliged to give one bolt of light white broadcloth to the monastery annually. After they finished cutting down the trees of the forest, they were obligated to return the land to the monastery.124 At the same time the diploma does not inform us about what happened to the cleared forest subsequently. Some light is cast on systematic timber cutting by a later, 1426 charter from the era of King Sigismund (1387–1437). According to this the wood necessary for mining operations (ligna necessaria et sufficientia) was to be provided to the miners from the royal forests (de silvis nostris regalibus). Every year a different area had to be designated for cutting, and once a forested area had been so designated, its trees had to be felled, and only following this was it permitted to move on to another area. The cleared woodland could not be plowed over so that forest could once more grow on it.125

The use of mining measures is addressed by the 1347 decree of Louis I. In it, the ruler directed the miners of Nagybánya to use the old and customary mining measure (antiqua seu consueta montium mensura),126 referring to the system of mining land measurement used in distributing mining allotments.127 The basic units of land measure used in the exploitation of the mine were the Lachter (or Berglachter) and the Lehen, both of German origin.128 According to the mining code of Selmecbánya, one Lachter was equal to three Selmecbánya ells, while seven Lachter equaled one Lehen.129 It is open to doubt whether in the fourteenth century we are dealing with the same measurement in Nagybánya, and also in Felsőbánya, which was closely connected to it, since according to the 1535 regulations on mining in Nagybánya and Felsőbánya, one Lachter equaled three Buda ells.130 There is a substantial difference between the two systems of calculation, since the ell of Selmecbánya was 67.38 cm, while that of Buda was 58.403 cm.131

The practical functioning of the right of the chambers to exchange precious ores was described by Louis I in the 1347 charter of Nagybánya. In it the sovereign ordered the ispáns of the chamber not to hinder the merchants (mercatores) doing business between Nagybánya and Szatmár while they were coming to the Szatmár chamber and returning from there to the mine with pennies (denarii). The diploma unequivocally refers to trade in gold and silver when it notes that whoever leaves the territory of the Szatmár chamber with gold and silver (cum auro et argento) along hidden paths, stealthily, or without the permission of the ispán of the chamber (non obtenta licentia comitum camerarum) is to be punished.132

The charters also made provisions for the right to erect and own buildings that were indispensable during mining work. Thus, the people of Rózsahegy on November 14, 1340 received from Charles I the right to freely build a mill within the borders of their town, without prejudice to another’s rights.133 In 1376 Louis I allowed the hospites and burghers of Nagybánya and Felsőbánya to maintain mills, sheds,134 smelting furnaces, launders,135 allodia and other buildings (molendinum, casas, fornaces, Balnea, allodia et alias quaslibet haereditates aedificari facientes) according to the custom of other royal mines (ritu aliarum nostrarum montanarum).136

Like other towns,137 the mining settlements naturally attempted to obtain permission to hold markets as well,138 though they achieved this for the most part only in the fifteenth century.139 In his diploma granted to Gölnicbánya in 1287 Ladislaus IV also privileged the market of Gölnicbánya140 by decreeing that no markets could be held in the villages within the town’s borders: those living there also had to trade at the market of Gölnicbánya.141 On July 4, 1321 Charles I bestowed Bakabánya along with its market on the sons of Hazlow of Tapolcsány, Gyula and András.142 According to the charter of Bakabánya from the late fifteenth century, this free market (forum liberum) was held in the town on Saturdays.143 In Nagybánya the weekly market was held every Monday, while the fair could be held for fifteen days starting on the Sunday before the feast of Saint Gall (October 16), according to the custom of the royal town of Kassa (more civitatis nostrae Cassensis).144

In 1376 among the privileges of Nagybánya and Felsőbánya Louis I mentioned also that on the day of the market (in die fori) both foreigners and townspeople could freely sell cloth by the bolt and by the ell (cum petiis et etiam ulnis), but during the week (in septimana) the town residents could sell either retail or wholesale, that is, by the ell and by the bolt (cum ulnis et etiam petiis), while foreigners could sell only by the bolt (cum petiis), that is, only wholesale.145 The charter’s allusion to selling independently of the markets raises the suspicion that a staple operated in Nagybánya; in the absence of further information, however, we cannot state for certain that the town possessed staple right as well.

In contrast to other towns,146 mining towns only rarely obtained the privilege of exemption from tolls,147 closely connected to trade. The people of Rózsahegy did receive exemption from tolls at the market held in Rózsahegy from ispán Dancs in 1318.148

In his charter granted to the hospites of Nagybánya in 1347, King Louis decreed that the burghers, merchants and other hospites could freely sell wine. The ruler also allowed them to bring butchered meat (except for bacon) and bread without paying tolls (save that of Zazárkő) to Nagybánya and freely sell them together with other goods on Mondays.149 This measure of Louis shows that the people of Nagybánya possessed the right to sell meat in Nagybánya, and only at the town’s weekly market, held on Mondays, did others also have the opportunity to sell meat. Regulation of wine sales took place once more in 1376, when Louis decreed that until the feast of Saint James (July 25) only wine produced on their land could be sold in the town.150 In 1374 the people of Gölnicbánya saw to it that the inhabitants of the seven villages belonging to them were prevented from the right to either operate a public house (educillatio) or sell meat or textiles; in all these matters the villagers were to adhere to Gölnicbánya.151

The charters also deal with the problem of hunting and fishing in connection with the use of the forest. The inhabitants of the mining towns could freely hunt and fish within the town borders, just as the burghers of other towns could in the Angevin period.152 This provision may be observed in the charters of Gölnicbánya153 and Rózsahegy.154 According to both their 1318 and 1340 charters the people of Rózsahegy could freely hunt and fish within their town borders; however, in the charter of 1318 the ispán of Zólyom, Dancs, did not permit them to fish in the Vág River,155 whereas in the privilege of 1340 the ruler specifically emphasized the right to fish freely in the waters of the Revuca River.156

The charters from the fourteenth century determined the towns’ tax liabilities and the manner of payment as well. The people of Rózsahegy were obligated to pay 50 marks to the king every year.157 The inhabitants of Nagybánya and Felsőbánya according to the charter of 1376 were required to pay 1000 florins around the feast of Saint George (April 24) in token of the annual tax (collecta), the “profit of the chamber” (lucrum camere) and the new year’s gift; above this, however, no other tax could be collected from them.158 According to the charter of Bakabánya from the late fifteenth century, the town was expected to pay the king a total of 90 florins in two instalments as an annual census (pro annuo censu).159

The right of the grantor of the privilege to receive food and lodging (descensus) is found only in the 1318 charter of Rózsahegy, where the grantor, ispán Dancs of Zólyom, reserved for himself the right of descensus; however, he denied it to his officials and retainers.160 Finally, in 1340 King Charles exempted the town from providing descensus to anyone.161

We do not find privileges relating to the question of the transfer of real estate and free disposition of property in the charters of the mining towns. Only King Louis guaranteed the burghers of Nagybánya in 1347 that if someone committed murder and then fled, his movable and immovable assets would be left to his wife, children or heirs.162

 

*

 

It is the principle of “mining freedom” and the privileges tied to mining, whether economic or legal, that differentiate the mining towns from other privileged towns. The burghers of the mining towns could be tied to other mining towns not only by ties of kinship but also economic and political interests and their lawsuits; indeed, we find examples also of new mining towns being established through their collaboration, as in the case of Újbánya, founded by Bakabánya. It was this close relationship that led to the mining towns taking joint action in mining questions beginning in the second half of the fourteenth century, and from the fifteenth century in protection of their economic interests as well, and alliances of mining towns organized on a territorial basis were formed. We encounter the first mention of the alliance of the mining towns which later came to be known as those of “Lower Hungary” (Selmecbánya, Körmöcbánya, Bakabánya, Újbánya, Besztercebánya and Libetbánya) – an alliance not based on the signing of any formal treaty – when they passed a joint decision in 1388;163 this, however, as yet attests only to their solidarity in mining matters. It is only from the fifteenth century on that we do have data about the aforementioned mining towns taking common action for their own interests. The seven mining towns of Upper Hungary (Gölnicbánya, Szomolnok, Rudabánya, Jászó [Jasov, Slovakia], Telkibánya, Rozsnyó [Rožňava, Slovakia] and Igló [Spišská Nová Ves, Slovakia]) entered into an alliance with one another in December 1487.164 Nevertheless, already in the fourteenth century there occurred common affairs in which the individual mining towns of Upper Hungary jointly represented their interests. For instance, in 1342 the judges and jurors of Szomolnok and Gölnicbánya jointly pursued a lawsuit with the Monastery at Jászó regarding the forest owned by the monastery.165 Because of the similarity of their economic status the mining towns formed close relations with one another, and thanks to their special freedoms they stood apart from the other towns while also forming an organic part of the town network.

Archival Sources

Magyar Nemzeti Levéltár Országos Levéltára (Hungarian National Archives – MNL OL), Diplomatikai Levéltár (Medieval Charters – DL).

Magyar Nemzeti Levéltár Országos Levéltára (Hungarian National Archives – MNL OL), Diplomatikai Fényképgyűjtemény (Collection of Photocopies – DF).

Bibliography

Agricola, Georgius. Tizenkét könyv a bányászatról és kohászatról [Twelve Books about Mining and Smelting = De Re Metallica]. Translated by Rezső Brecht, edited by László Molnár. Budapest: OMBKE, n.d. [1985].

Almási, Tibor. “Megjegyzések Gölnicbánya Kun László királytól elnyert privilégiumához és megerősítéseihez” [Notes on the Privilege of Gölnicbánya Obtained from King Ladislaus the Cuman and its Confirmations]. Acta Universitatis Szegediensis de Attila József nominatae. Acta Historica 102 (1995): 43–49.

A zichi és vásonkeői gróf Zichy-család idősb ágának okmánytára [Archives of the Senior Branch of the Zichy Family of Zich and Vásonkeő]. 12 vols, edited by Iván Nagy, Imre Nagy, and Dezső Véghely. Budapest: Magyar Történelmi Társulat, 1871–1931.

Anjou-kori oklevéltár [Charters of Angevin Hungary]. 32 vols, edited by Tibor Almási, László Blazovich, Lajos Géczi, Gyula Kristó, Ferenc Piti, Ferenc Sebők, and Ildikó Tóth. Budapest–Szeged: n.p., 1990–2012.

Anjou-kori okmánytár [Charters from the Angevin Period]. 7 vols, edited by Imre Nagy and Gyula Nagy. Budapest: MTA, 1878–1920.

Árpádkori Új Okmánytár [Charters from the Árpád Age, New Series]. 12 vols, edited by Gusztáv Wenzel. Pest–Budapest: Eggenberger Ferdinánd Akadémiai Könyvtársulás, 1860–1874.

Bogdán, István. Magyarországi hossz- és földmértékek a XVI. század végéig [Measures of Length and Land in Hungary up to the Late Sixteenth Century]. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1978.

Botka, Tivadar. Bars vármegye hajdan és most [Bars County Then and Now]. Vol. I. Pest: n.p., 1868.

Budapest történetének okleveles emlékei I (1148–1301) [Charters Relating to the History of Budapest], edited by Albert Gárdonyi. Budapest: A székesfőváros kiadása, 1936.

Codex diplomaticus et epistolaris Slovaciae. 2 vols, edited by Richard Marsina. Bratislavae: n.p., 1971–1987.

Codex diplomaticus Hungariae ecclesiasticus ac civilis. 11 vols, edited by György Fejér. Budae: Typis Typogr. Regiae Universitatis Ungaricae, 1829–1844.

Das Stadt- und Bergrecht von Banská Štiavnica / Schemnitz. Untersuchungen zum Frühneuhochdeutschen in der Slowakei, edited by Ilpo Tapani Piirainen. Oulu: Universität of Oulu, 1986.

Fügedi, Erik. “Középkori magyar városprivilégiumok” [Medieval Hungarian Town Privileges]. Tanulmányok Budapest Múltjából 14 (1961): 17–108.

Györffy, György. Pest–Buda kialakulása. Budapest története a honfoglalástól az Árpád-kor végi székvárossá alakulásig [The Formation of Pest-Buda. The History of Budapest from the Conquest to Its Development as Capital in the Late Árpád Era]. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1997.

Hazai okmánytár [Collection of Domestic Charters]. 8 vols, edited by Imre Nagy, Iván Paur, Károly Ráth, and Dezső Véghely. Győr–Budapest: n.p., 1865–1891.

Hóman, Bálint. A Magyar Királyság pénzügyei és gazdaságpolitikája Károly Róbert korában [The Finances and Economic Policy of the Kingdom of Hungary in the Age of Charles Robert]. Budapest: Nap Kiadó, 2003 [1921].

Knauz, Nándor. A Garam melletti szent-benedeki apátság [The Abbey of St. Benedek by the Garam River]. Budapest: n.p., 1890.

Magyar, Eszter. A feudalizmus kori erdőgazdálkodás az alsó-magyarországi bányavárosokban 1255–1747 [Forest Management of the Feudal Era in the Mining Towns of Lower Hungary, 1255–1747]. Értekezések a történeti tudományok köréből 101. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1983.

Magyarországi városok régi számadáskönyvei [Old Account Books of Hungarian Towns], edited by László Fejérpataky. Budapest: MTA, 1885.

Monumenta ecclesiae Strigoniensis. 3 vols, edited by Ferdinand Knauz and Lajos Dedek Crescens. Strigonii: n.p., 1874–1924.

Mossman, Stephen. “Georgenberger Chronik,” Encyclopedia of the Medieval Chronicle, Leiden–Boston: Brill Online, 2013. Reference. Accessed March 21, 2013, http://www.paulyonline.brill.nl/entries/encyclopedia-of-the-medieval-chronicle/georgenberger-chronik-SIM_01093.

Pápai tized-szedők számadásai 1281–1375. Rationes collectorum pontificiorum in Hungaria [Accounts of the Papal Tithe Collectors]. Vatikáni Magyar Okirattár. Monumenta Vaticana historiam regni Hungariae illustrantia I/1. Budapest: n.p., 1887.

Paulinyi, Oszkár. “A bányajoghatóság centralizációjának első kísérlete Magyarországon” [The First Attempt to Centralize Mining Authorities in Hungary]. In idem Gazdag föld – szegény ország. Tanulmányok a magyarországi bányaművelés múltjából [Rich Land – Poor Country. Studies from the Past of Mine Exploitation in Hungary], edited by János Buza and István Draskóczy, 351–72. Budapest: Budapesti Corvinus Egyetem, 2005.

Regesta diplomatica nec non epistolaria Slovaciae. 2 vols, edited by Vincent Sedlák. Bratislavae: Sumptibus Acad. Scient. Slovacae, 1980–1987.

Stefánik, Martin. “Entstehung und Entwicklung der Berg- und Münzkammern und ihrer leitenden Beamten in den mittelslowakischen Bergstädten im Mittelalter.” In Wirtschaftslenkende Montanverwaltung – Fürstlicher Unternehmer – Merkantilismus, edited by Angelika Westermann and Ekkehard Westermann, 29–78. Husum: Matthiesen Verlag, 2009.

Scriptores Rerum Hungaricarum tempore ducum regumque stirpis Arpadianae gestarum, edited by Imre Szentpétery. Budapest: n.p., 1938.

Takáts, Sándor. “A magyar léhen és holden. Első közlemény” [The Hungarian Lehen and Holden. First Communication]. Századok 42 (1908): 245–63.

Urkundenbuch zur Geschichte der Deutschen in Siebenbürgen. 7 vols, edited by Franz Zimmermann, Carl Werner, Georg Müller, Gustav Gündisch, Herta Gündisch, Konrad G. Gündisch and Gernot Nussbächer. Hermannstadt–Cologne–Vienna–Bucharest, 1892–1991.

Výsady miest a mestečiek na Slovensku [Privileges of the Towns and Markets in Slovakia], 1238–1350, edited by Ľubomir Juck. Bratislava: Veda, 1984.

Wenzel, Gusztáv. Az alsómagyarországi bányavárosok küzdelmei a nagy-lucsei Dóczyakkal. 1494–1548 [The Struggles of the Mining Towns of Lower Hungary against the Dóczys of Nagy-Lucse, 1494–1548]. Értekezések a történeti tudományok köréből VI/6. Budapest: n.p., 1876.

Wenzel, Gusztáv. Magyarország bányászatának kritikai története [A Critical History of Mining in Hungary]. Budapest: MTA, 1880.

Zycha, Adolf. Das böhmische Bergrecht des Mittelalters auf Grundlage des Bergrechts von Iglau. Berlin: F. Vahlen, 1900.

Zsigmondkori oklevéltár [Charters from the Age of Sigismund]. 12 vols, edited by Elemér Mályusz, Iván Borsa, Norbert C. Tóth, Tibor Neumann, and Bálint Lakatos. Budapest: MOL, 1951–2013.

Zsoldos, Attila. “Városlakók a királyi család szolgálatában” [Town-dwellers in the Service of the Royal Family]. Történelmi Szemle 47 (2005): 193–206.

Zsoldos, Attila. Családi ügy. IV. Béla és István ifjabb király viszálya az 1260-as években [A Family Affair. The Dispute between Béla IV and Rex Iunior Stephen in the 1260s]. Budapest: MTA Történettudományi Intézete, 2007.

 

Translated by Matthew Caples

1* This research was supported by the European Union and the State of Hungary, co-financed by the European Social Fund in the framework of TÁMOP 4.2.4. A/-11-1-2012-0001 ‘National Excellence Program.’

Cf. Stephen Mossman, “Georgenberger Chronik,” Encyclopedia of the Medieval Chronicle, Leiden–Boston: Brill Online, 2013. Reference, accessed March 21, 2013, http://www.paulyonline.brill.nl/entries/encyclopedia-of-the-medieval-chronicle/georgenberger-chronik-SIM_01093.

2 “Dieser konig und seyn fater habin dy stete zu ungern zere gelibit und dy erhaben, und gepessert.” Scriptores Rerum Hungaricarum tempore ducum regumque stirpis Arpadianae gestarum, ed. Imre Szentpétery (Budapest: n.p. 1938), 284.

3 Gusztáv Wenzel, Magyarország bányászatának kritikai története [A Critical History of Mining in Hungary] (Budapest: MTA, 1880), 318–19. The original charter, now missing, had appeared dated 1307 as well; cf. Tivadar Botka, Bars vármegye hajdan és most [Bars County Then and Now] (Pest: n.p. 1868), vol. I, 8–9; and, based on this, Regesta diplomatica nec non epistolaria Slovaciae, 2 vols., ed. Vincent Sedlák (Bratislavae: Veda, 1980–1987), vol. I, 467. For the correct date, see Anjou-kori oklevéltár [Charters of Angevin Hungary], 32 vols., eds. Tibor Almási et al. (Budapest–Szeged: n.p., 1990–2012), vol. II, 65.

4 Výsady miest a mestečiek na Slovensku 1238–1350 [Privileges of the Towns and Markets in Slovakia 1238–1350], ed. Ľubomir Juck (Bratislava: Veda, 1984), 163–64.

5 Magyar Nemzeti Levéltár Országos Levéltára (National Archives of Hungary, hereafter: MNL OL), Diplomatikai Levéltár [Medieval Charters, hereafter: DL], 36 543.

6 Codex diplomaticus Hungariae ecclesiasticus ac civilis, 11 vols., ed. György Fejér (Budae: Typis Typogr. Regiae Universitatis Ungaricae, 1829–1844) (hereafter: CD), vol. IX/5, 97–98.

7 Urkundenbuch zur Geschichte der Deutschen in Siebenbürgen, 7 vols, ed. Franz Zimmermann et al. (Hermannstadt–Cologne–Vienna–Bucharest, 1892–1991) (hereafter: UGDS), vol. I, 396; cf. Anjou-kori oklevéltár, vol. IX, no. 251.

8 Sometime between 1243 and 1255; cf. Das Stadt- und Bergrecht von Banská Štiavnica / Schemnitz. Untersuchungen zum Frühneuhochdeutschen in der Slowakei, ed. Ilpo Tapani Piirainen (Oulu: Universität of Oulu, 1986), 31.

9 In 1268. Árpádkori Új Okmánytár [Charters from the Árpád Age, New Series], 12 vols., ed. Gusztáv Wenzel (Pest–Budapest: Eggenberger Ferdinánd Akadémiai Könyvtársulás, 1860–1874) (hereafter: ÁÚO), vol. VIII, 212–13.

10 It may be assumed that Gölnicbánya received a town charter back in the era of Béla IV, because in 1287, at the request of the judge, councilors and citizens of Gölnicbánya, Ladislaus IV confirmed their privileges received from Béla IV and Stephen V. Výsady miest, 67–68. Cf. Tibor Almási, “Megjegyzések Gölnicbánya Kun László királytól elnyert privilégiumához és megerősítéseihez” [Notes on the Privilege of Gölnicbánya Obtained from King Ladislaus the Cuman and its Confirmations], Acta Universitatis Szegediensis de Attila József nominatae. Acta Historica 102 (1995): 43–49.

11 Regarding the content we may take as our starting point the diploma of King Wladislaw II copied down in the late fifteenth century, which contained confirmation of the privileges set out in the by that time destroyed charter. CD, vol. VII/5, 425–26. In the subsequent analysis it is this charter that we shall use.

12 Cf. 1321: Anjou-kori okmánytár [Charters from the Angevin Period], 7 vols., eds. Imre Nagy and Gyula Nagy (Budapest: MTA, 1878–1920), vol. I, 619–20. Its village headman (Nicolaus villicus de Bakabania) is first mentioned in 1329. MNL OL, DL 86 996.

13 “nulla iustitia, vel libertatis praerogativa, si quam ipsorum concives in Bakabanya, vel hospites in novis montaniis Chavnick vocatis ex consuetudine vel ex donatio regali haberent, vel in posterum habere possent;” CD, vol. VIII/4, 274.

14 Cf. 1337: CD, vol. VIII/4, 273–74; 1345: Monumenta ecclesiae Strigoniensis, 3 vols., eds. Ferdinánd Knauz and Lajos Dedek Crescens (Strigonii: n.p., 1874–1924) (hereafter: MES), vol. III, 565.

15 “Kadoldus urbararius domini regis, civis de Bakabanya, item Dycusch iudex et iurati tunc pro tempore constituti ac universitas civium de eadem;” MES, vol. III, 565.

16 “iudicibus, iuratis, civibus et universis hospitibus, ac montanis in nova montana Schennych vocata nunc constitutis, et eciam ad eandem in posterum venientibus;” MES, vol. III, 567. On January 28, 1348 the judge and councilors of Újbánya together with the town community (nos Ladizlaus dictus Lengel iudex, iurati et tota communitas civium et hospitum de Kvnigesperg) issued a diploma with the town’s seal; ibid., 658.

17 Cf. Nándor Knauz, A Garam melletti szent-benedeki apátság [The Abbey of St. Benedek by the Garam River] (Budapest: n.p., 1890), 217.

18 Cf. ÁÚO, vol. VIII, 253–54.

19 Výsady miest, 91–92.

20 Ibid., 132–33.

21 Ibid., 115–16.

22 UGDS, vol. I, 396.

23 CD, vol. IX/1, 498.

24 Wenzel, Magyarország bányászatának, 410.

25 CD, vol. IX/5, 96–101.

26 MNL OL, DL, 71 888.

27 “judex jurati et cives ac universi hospites de Rudabanya;” A zichi és vásonkeői gróf Zichy-család idősb ágának okmánytára [Archives of the Senior Branch of the Zichy Family of Zich and Vásonkeő], 12 vols., eds. Imre Nagy et al. (Budapest: Magyar Történelmi Társulat, 1871–1932), vol. IV, 37.

28 CD, vol. IX/5, 390–91.

29 Among the mining towns in the Árpád era Besztercebánya (Banská Bystrica, Slovakia) (Codex diplomaticus et epistolaris Slovaciae, 2 vols., ed. Richard Marsina [Bratislavae: n.p., 1971–1987] (hereafter: CDES), vol. II. 341), Németlipcse (Partizánska Ľupča, Slovakia) (Výsady miest, 44) and Rimabánya (ÁÚO, vol. VIII, 212) received the right to freely elect judges. The people of Selmecbánya likely also received the opportunity to freely elect their judge, and their village headman is first mentioned in 1266 (ÁÚO, vol. VIII, 151). In Gölnicbánya, although the charter of Ladislaus IV did not mention free election of judges, because no one apart from the judge and councilors could pass judgment on them, presumably this meant free election of the judge as well; Výsady miest, 68. We do not know the town charter of Radna (Rodna, Romania); however, we may infer its right to freely elect judges, which it must have received from Béla IV, since in 1268 the judge and councilors of Radna issued a diploma bearing the town’s seal; UGDS, vol. I, 99–100.

30 1318: Výsady miest, 91; 1340: ibid., 132.

31 1328: Výsady miest, 115; their first judge (Johannes iudex) appears in 1331 in a diploma bearing the town’s seal. MNL OL, Diplomatikai Fényképgyűjtemény [Collection of Photocopies, hereafter: DF], 250 151.

32 This right was confirmed in 1338. Výsady miest, 128. The sovereign issued the diploma at the request, among others, of the judge of Szomolnokbánya (Albertus iudex Peturman dictus...de civitate nostra Smulnuchbana); ibid.

33 1347: CD, vol. IX/1, 499.

34 1380: ibid., vol. IX/5, 390. The judge of Breznó (Andreas iudex) is first encountered on August 31, 1381; ibid., vol. IX/5, 462.

35 1382: ibid., vol. IX/5, 577.

36 Ibid., vol. VII/5, 425. The first village headman of Bakabánya is known to us from 1329 (Nicolaus villicus); MNL OL, DL 86 996.

37 Výsady miest, 132.

38 Cf. Erik Fügedi, “Középkori magyar városprivilégiumok” [Medieval Hungarian Town Privileges], Tanulmányok Budapest Múltjából, 14 (1961): 59–61.

39 Cf. ibid., 61.

40 E.g., Lipcse (Liptó County), 1263: CD, vol. IV/3, 9; Buda, 1276: Budapest történetének okleveles emlékei I (1148–1301) [Charters Relating to the History of Budapest], ed. Albert Gárdonyi (Budapest: A székesfőváros kiadása, 1936), 157–58.

41 Cf. 1276: CD, vol. IV/3, 9.

42 We find this passage in the charter of Besztercebánya in 1255; see CD, vol. II, 341.

43 Výsady miest, 128.

44 CD, vol. IX/1, 499.

45 CD, vol. IX/5, 390–91.

46 An exception is Körmöcbánya, where we find the free election of judges and councilors among the privileges; Výsady miest, 115.

47 Cf. Fügedi, “Középkori városprivilégiumok,” 61.

48 This can be found already in the privileges of the Árpád era; cf. Besztercebánya (CDES, vol. II, 341), Gölnicbánya (Výsady miest, 68) and Rimabánya (ÁÚO, vol. VIII, 212).

49 Cf. Fügedi, “Középkori városprivilégiumok,” 62–63.

50 1318: Výsady miest, 91; 1340: ibid., 132.

51 1338: ibid., 128.

52 1347: CD, vol. IX/1, 499; Louis I reiterated it in 1376 in his charter issued at the request of Nagybánya and Felsőbánya; ibid., vol. IX/5, 97.

53 1380: ibid., vol. IX/5, 390–91.

54 Cf. Besztercebánya, 1255: CDES, vol. II, 341.

55 Cf. Fügedi, “Középkori városprivilégiumok,” 63.

56 1328: Výsady miest, 115.

57 1347: CD, vol. IX/1, 499–500.

58 Ibid., IX/5, 99.

59 Výsady miest, 91–92. We may observe this limitation in Hibbe (Hybe, Slovakia) as well; 1265: ibid., 49.

60 1340: ibid., 132.

61 Ibid., 91–92; Although the people of Rózsahegy received the privileges of Lipcse in Liptó County both in 1318 and 1340, in 1318 exemption from the count’s adjudication was not included among the privileges; in fact, Dancs personally was allowed to exercise even the right of descensus.

62 In 1355 Louis I appointed the castellan of Makovica, Miklós, son of Jakab Baracskai, to be rector of the ore mines situated above Gibolt (Gáboltó), which belonged to the castle of Makovica, in accordance with the custom of other mines (more et consuetudine aliarum montanarum regni nostri). The rector was obligated to ensure the revenues due the king from the mine; MNL OL, DL 62 500.

63 Cf. György Györffy, Pest-Buda kialakulása. Budapest története a honfoglalástól az Árpád-kor végi székvárossá alakulásig [The Formation of Pest-Buda. The History of Budapest from the Conquest to Its Development as Capital in the Late Árpád Era] (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1997), 194–95; Attila Zsoldos, Családi ügy. IV. Béla és István ifjabb király viszálya az 1260-as években [A Family Affair. The Dispute between Béla IV and Rex Iunior Stephen in the 1260s] (Budapest: MTA Történettudományi Intézete, 2007), 42.

64 Cf. Attila Zsoldos, “Városlakók a királyi család szolgálatában” [Town-dwellers in the Service of the Royal Family], Történelmi Szemle 47 (2005): 197–99.

65 CD, vol. IX/5, 97–98.

66 Cf. July 14, 1331: MNL OL, DF 250 152. 1337: Anjou-kori okmánytár, vol. III, 327–28; 1340: ibid., vol. IV, 9–10; 1344: CD, vol. IX/1. 195–96; 1376: ibid., vol. IX/5, 97–98.

67 1256: CDES, vol. II, 389–90.

68 1347: CD, vol. IX/1, 501–02.

69 1376: ibid., vol. IX/5, 97–98.

70 1347: ibid., vol. IX/1, 500.

71 “Nu setz Wir tzum Ersten wy Vnd von wem man Pergwerk entphohen zal vnd welicher tzeit So Ist tzu wissen, das, der Richtr [und der Rate] einer pergstatt hatt tzu setzen Ein Geschworn Perkmaster, vnd der zal sein zolt haben von der Camr des Khönigs.” Das Stadt- und Bergrecht, 46. The earliest manuscript does not contain the section referring to the council; however, it appears in each of the later manuscripts; cf. Das Stadt- und Bergrecht, 72, 101, 125, 157, 191.

72 Cf. the Mining Law of Selmecbánya, 45§, 46§, 47§, 56§, 57§. Das Stadt- und Bergrecht, 46–48, 50–51. Cf. Martin Stefánik, “Entstehung und Entwicklung der Berg- und Münzkammern und ihrer leitenden Beamten in den mittelslowakischen Bergstädten im Mittelalter,” in Wirtschaftslenkende Montanverwaltung – Fürstlicher Unternehmer – Merkantilismus, ed. Angelika Westermann et al. (Husum: Matthiesen Verlag, 2009), 64–70.

73 1402: MNL OL, DF, 235 721.

74 Cf. Stefánik, “Entstehung und Entwicklung,” 70–73.

75 1347: CD, vol. IX/1, 500.

76 Oszkár Paulinyi identified the scansor with the Bergmeister; see Oszkár Paulinyi, “A bányajoghatóság centralizációjának első kísérlete Magyarországon” [The First Attempt to Centralize Mining Authorities in Hungary], in idem, Gazdag föld – szegény ország. Tanulmányok a magyarországi bányaművelés múltjából [Rich Land – Poor Country. Studies from the Past of Mine Exploitation in Hungary], eds. János Buza and István Draskóczy (Budapest: Budapesti Corvinus Egyetem, 2005), 352, footnote 5.

77 1387, 1388: Wenzel, Magyarország bányászatának, 268.

78 MNL OL, DF, 235 721; Wenzel, Magyarország bányászatának, 268.

79 Magyarországi városok régi számadáskönyvei [Old Account Books of Hungarian Towns], ed. László Fejérpataky (Budapest: MTA, 1885), 16, 22.

80 Cf. Adolf Zycha, Das böhmische Bergrecht des Mittelalters auf Grundlage des Bergrechts von Iglau (Berlin: F., Vahlen, 1900), vol. II, 92–93.

81 1402: “Johannes Smernstempil, des konigs obirster steyger” MNL OL, DF 235 721.

82 1347: CD, vol. IX/1, 500.

83 Bálint Hóman, A Magyar Királyság pénzügyei és gazdaságpolitikája Károly Róbert korában [The Finances and Economic Policy of the Kingdom of Hungary in the Age of Charles Robert] (Budapest: Nap Kiadó, 2003 [1921]), 265.

84 Cf. Stefánik, “Entstehung und Entwicklung,” 74.

85 We will not examine other offices occurring in mining towns, such as the Teiler or the sáfár (steward), since not one of the town charters speaks of these. For more on the sáfár, see Stefánik, “Entstehung und Entwicklung,” 77.

86 See Besztercebánya, 1255: CDES, vol. II, 341; Selmecbánya, Výsady miest, 49–50.

87 UGDS, vol. I, 396 (Anjou-kori oklevéltár, vol. IX, no. 251.).

88 Cf. Fügedi, “Középkori városprivilégiumok,” 64.

89 1347: CD, vol. IX/1, 502.

90 Cf. Besztercebánya, 1255: CDES, vol. II, 341; Rimabánya, 1268: ÁÚO, vol. VIII, 212.

91 1318: Výsady miest, 92. Our first data on the parish priest dates from 1332 (Nicolaus plebanus); Pápai tized-szedők számadásai 1281–1375 [Accounts of the Papal Tithe Collectors]. Vatikáni Magyar Okirattár, Monumenta Vaticana historiam regni Hungariae illustrantia I/1 (Budapest: n.p., 1887), 198.

92 1347: CD, vol. IX/1, 499.

93 1380: ibid., vol. IX/5, 391. The parish priest of Breznó (Dominus Petrus plebanus de Brizna) is first encountered on August 31, 1382; ibid., vol. IX/5. 462.

94 Cf. 1263: Výsady miest, 45. 1270: ibid., 52–53. 1309: CD, vol. IX/1, 544–45.

95 Ibid., vol. IX/1, 501.

96 Cf. Fügedi, “Középkori városprivilégiumok,” 74–77.

97 Cf. ibid., 28.

98 For example, Rózsahegy 1340: Výsady miest, 132.

99 Wenzel, Magyarország bányászatának, 318–19.

100 Anjou-kori okmánytár, vol. V, 19.

101 Ibid., vol. I, 619–20.

102 Wenzel, Magyarország bányászatának, 319. Louis I confirmed the mining permit for János and Miklós, sons of Sebus of Bazin, on February 4, 1365; ibid., 321–22.

103 Ibid., 320.

104 In 1340 it figures under the name “Novus Mons de Nir Pathaka”; see Anjou-kori okmánytár, vol. IV, 12. The Nyírpatak stream flowed between Szentgyörgy and Bazin; cf. 1340: ibid., vol. XXIV, no. 763; 1343: ibid., vol. XXVII, no. 478.

105 Sumberg is located north of Bazin; cf. MES, vol. III, 359–60.

106 Cf. Wenzel, Magyarország bányászatának, 323–24; Anjou-kori okmánytár, vol. III, 608–09; March 19, 1340: ibid., vol. IV, 12–13.

107 CD, vol. IX/5, 322.

108 For example, we learn of mines on the estate of Miklós, brother of Batiz, Miklós, son of Batiz and István, son of Márk in 1312; see Hazai okmánytár [Collection of Domestic Charters], 8 vols., eds. Imre Nagy et al. (Győr–Budapest: n.p., 1865–1891), vol. VII, 368–69. In 1320 the sons of Benedict of the Ákos kindred made provisions for both the lead mine on the estate of Ardó (Gömör County) as well as mines on their estates to be explored later; see Anjou-kori okmánytár, vol I, 545.

109 See for instance Lublópataka (Szepes County), January 21, 1308: Regesta diplomatica nec non epistolaria Slovaciae, 2 vols., ed. Vincent Sedlák (Bratislavae: Sumptibus Acad. Scient. Slovacae, 1980–1987), vol. I. 247; Fridmanvágása (Frydman, Slovakia), July 24, 1308: CD, vol. VIII/1, 259–60; Murány (Muraň, Slovakia), 1321: Anjou-kori okmánytár, vol. I, 644; Dobsina (Dobšiná, Slovakia), 1326: Výsady miest, 109–10.

110 For instance, Kakas, son of Rikalf of Szepes obtained this kind of right through the mining license of the Zipser Saxons. Cf. CD, vol. VIII/1, 259–60.

111 Wenzel, Magyarország bányászatának, 318–19.

112 Anjou-kori okmánytár, vol. IV, 9–10.

113 The significance of timber is shown by those lawsuits which from the fifteenth century on almost constantly raise the issue of forest use. Cf. Gusztáv Wenzel, Az alsómagyarországi bányavárosok küzdelmei a nagy-lucsei Dóczyakkal. 1494–1548 [The Struggles of the Mining Towns of Lower Hungary against the Dóczy of Nagy-Lucse, 1494–1548], Értekezések a történeti tudományok köréből VI/6 (Budapest: n.p., 1876); Eszter Magyar, A feudalizmus kori erdőgazdálkodás az alsó-magyarországi bányavárosokban 1255–1747 [Forest Management of the Feudal Era in the Mining Towns of Lower Hungary, 1255–1747], Értekezések a történeti tudományok köréből 101 (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1983), 46–49.

114 Besztercebánya, 1255: CDES, vol. II, 341; Gölnicbánya, 1287: Výsady miest, 68; Idabánya, 1349: ibid., 163.

115 Anjou-kori okmánytár, vol. I, 619–20.

116 “per unum milliare circumquaque cum omnibus emolumentis et utilitatibus ad eam civitatem ab antiquo spectantibus, iuribus tamen alienis semper salvis permanentibus, uti, frui, et gaudere possint et valeant;” CD, vol. VII/5, 425.

117 Výsady miest, 121.

118 UGDS, vol. I, 396.

119 Výsady miest, 115.

120 Wenzel, Magyarország bányászatának, 348–49. On July 9, 1341 the ruler ordered the boundaries of Telkibánya be marked (ibid., 346), the chapter of Szepes issued a diploma about the boundary inspection, in which it noted that it was within the king’s power to expand or reduce the limits (quicquid autem ultra premissa vestre maiestati eidem civitati augendo, vel minuendo facere placuerit, hoc in vestra constitit maiestate). Ibid., 347–48.

121 Except for already existing villages, lands, forests and the nobles’ estates.

122 CD, vol. IX/1, 499.

123 Ibid., vol. IX/5, 98.

124 MNL OL, DF, 232 783; CD, vol. IX/3, 342–43 (dated 1362).

125 MNL OL, DF, 280 671.

126 CD, vol. IX/1, 500.

127 Cf. István Bogdán, Magyarországi hossz- és földmértékek a XVI. század végéig [Measures of Length and Land in Hungary up to the Late Sixteenth Century] (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1978), 39.

128 Lehen = bányakötél = (pars pro toto) mining allotment.

129 “So ist zw wissnn das das percklocht(er) behellt vnnserer Statt ellnn dreyn, Vnd sybnn lachtter behalttn ein lehnn.” Das Stadt- und Bergrecht, 46.

130 “die perglacher, anch welcher man perkwerk vermisst und vordinget soll werden, soll haben hinfürt drey ofner eln.” Sándor Takáts, “A magyar léhen és holden. Első közlemény” [The Hungarian Lehen and Holden. First Communication], Századok 42 (1908): 261, note 7; Bogdán, Magyarországi hossz- és földmértékek, 101.

131 Ibid., 110–11.

132 CD, vol. IX/1, 500–01.

133 Výsady miest, 132.

134 The casa mentioned in the document may have meant a building in which the miners kept their tools and which on workdays could have served as lodgings for them as well.

135 The ores are cleaned after crushing but prior to roasting by washing. Cf. Georgius Agricola, Tizenkét könyv a bányászatról és kohászatról [Twelve Books about Mining and Smelting = De Re Metallica], trans. Rezső Brecht, ed. László Molnár (Budapest: OMBKE, n.d. [1985]), 294–95, 314–22.

136 CD, vol. IX/5, 98.

137 Cf. Fügedi, “Középkori városprivilégiumok,” 28–36.

138 On Selmecbánya’s weekly market: 14th c: ÁÚO, vol. III. 209; 1505: MNL OL, DF 234 771. On Rózsahegy’s weekly market: 1318: Výsady miest, 92.

139 Rudabánya, 1388: MNL OL, DL, 42 413; 1415: Zsigmondkori oklevéltár [Charters from the Age of Sigismund], 12 vols., ed. Elemér Mályusz et al. (Budapest: Magyar Országos Levéltár, 1951–2013), vol. V, no. 808; Újbánya, 1424: MNL OL, DL, 59 014; 1434: CD, vol. X/7. 569; Rozsnyóbánya, 1430: MNL OL, DL, 16 753; Besztercebánya, 1480: MNL OL, DF, 271 829; Breznóbánya, 1488: MNL OL, DL, 30 856.

140 Its toll regulations were established in 1278; cf. ÁÚO, vol. IX, 204–05.

141 Výsady miest, 68.

142 Ibid., 96.

143 CD, vol. VII/5, 425.

144 1347: ibid., vol. IX/1, 502.

145 Ibid., vol. IX/5, 99.

146 Cf. Fügedi, “Középkori városprivilégiumok,” 36–40.

147 Selmecbánya and Besztercebányahad had possessed such a privilege since the Árpád era; cf. CDES, vol. II, 341.

148 Výsady miest, 92.

149 CD, vol. IX/1, 500.

150 1376: ibid., vol. IX/5, 98.

151 Ibid., IX/4, 564–65.

152 Cf. Fügedi, “Középkori városprivilégiumok,” 48.

153 1287: Výsady miest, 68.

154 1318: ibid., 92; 1340: ibid., 132.

155 Ibid., 92.

156 Ibid., 131.

157 Ibid., 132.

158 CD, vol. IX/5, 99–100.

159 Ibid., vol. VII/5, 425.

160 Výsady miest, 92.

161 Ibid., 132.

162 1347: CD, vol. IX/1, 502.

163 Wenzel, Magyarország bányászatának, 268.

164 Ibid., 361–63.

165 MNL OL, DF, 232 783.

2013_2_Rácz

pdfVolume 2 Issue 2 CONTENTS

György Rácz

The Congress of Visegrád in 1335: Diplomacy and Representation*

The Congress of Visegrád, held in 1335, was one of the outstanding diplomatic events in Central Europe in the fourteenth century. The present study, after outlining the general historical developments which characterized the kingdoms involved, namely Bohemia, Hungary and Poland, in the early decades of the fourteenth century, retraces the immediate preliminaries of the diplomatic summit, before all the efforts at eliminating the political and territorial conflicts which opposed Poland and Bohemia on the one hand, and Poland and the Teutonic order on the other hand, through the mediation of Charles I of Hungary, the senior ranking ruler of the region. The study examines all the chief agreements concluded during the conference, on the basis of all the available charters and the narrative sources, carefully accounting for the differences of viewpoints which characterize the narratives of chroniclers from the various countries. It comes to the conclusion that, contrary to Hungarian historiography, although the conference did have a commercial aspect, it was certainly not the main thrust of the events at Visegrád. Finally, the study makes an effort at establishing, upon the amounts of food consumed, the number of the respective retinues of the Polish and Czech rulers, and thereby determine whether the numbers involved could be regarded as average or whether they implied a conscious show of strength on the part of the two kings.

Keywords: Fourteenth-century diplomacy, Central European politics, princely retinues

 

The Congress of Visegrád was by far the biggest diplomatic event that took place in Central Europe in the first half of the fourteenth century.1 In the following pages we offer a summary of the events, based on the narrative and documentary sources, and make an effort at establishing the respective numbers of the Czech and Polish delegations.

The picturesque little town of Visegrád is located in the largest bend of the river Danube. The historical sources unanimously testify that here, in the autumn of 1335, the leaders of Central European kingdoms held an international conference, a so-called royal summit, in order to resolve international disputes. The meeting was held in the court of the Hungarian King Charles I of Anjou, the actual initiator of the conference. The upper castle on the hilltop was built during the reign of King Béla IV to provide a line of defence in the event of a new Mongol invasion. The strategic significance of this location led to the extension of the upper castle with a massive keep by the Danube, as well as the construction of a fortified wall that connected the upper and lower castles, turning the hillside into a formidable system of fortifications.

Interestingly enough, the Slavic origin of the name Visegrád (meaning “high castle”) does not refer to what is now the upper castle but to an older one built on a hill farther north. What was once a Roman fort later became an ispán’s castle, which the local Slavs called “high castle,” a name retained by the Hungarians even after the building’s dilapidation. Populated by German settlers, the village at the foot of the hill rapidly developed into a town in the second half of the fourteenth century, shortly after King Charles I of Anjou had relocated his seat from Temesvár (Timişoara, Romania) to Visegrád in 1323 and defeated his oligarchic opposition. It was here that the central court and the administration were established. The harmony of landscape and architecture that evolved at the foot of the hill inspired Charles of Anjou to envision what would become one of Central Europe’s most significant royal seats in the fourteenth century. The excavation of the buildings of the royal court destroyed under Ottoman rule has been ongoing since 1934. Archaeologists have uncovered the foundations of the palace built by the Angevins, where an assassination was attempted against Charles I in 1330. By 1335 the castle and the town were able to accommodate the Bohemian King John of Luxemburg, his son and heir Charles, Count of Moravia, Casimir III (the Great) of Poland, Prince Rudolf of Saxony and Boleslaw III, Duke of Silesia, representatives of the Order of Teutonic Knights as well as their entourage for over an entire month.2

In order to understand the reasons that led to the royal summit one needs to study the circumstances of the respective countries at the beginning of the fourteenth century. Although the spread of the Black Death and other epidemics in this period in a sense marked the closure of the Middle Ages in Western Europe, the culture of chivalry was at that time still in full bloom. The fourteenth-century history of the three Central European kingdoms, Bohemia, Poland, and Hungary, features a time of progress and development reflected in similar ways in each country. At the beginning of the century all three neighboring kingdoms had been experiencing frictions and social unrest. By the second half of the century the three leaders had managed to resolve internal conflicts and build up strong countries. In Bohemia and Hungary the old dynasties had died out almost simultaneously at the beginning of the 1300s, while in Poland, Władisław Łokietek – who belonged to one of the branches of the Piast dynasty – ascended to the throne. The demanding tasks that all three countries were about to face influenced as a matter of fact their relationship to one another. Władisław Łokietek I, Prince of Krakow (1306–1320), succeeded in unifying the fractured Polish territories and made himself king upon the approval of the pope in 1320, thus re-making the Kingdom of Poland (ruled from 1320 to 1333). In Hungary, once the lineage of the Árpád dynasty ended in 1301, Charles of Anjou (1301–1342) came to the throne and, like Łokietek, commenced his reign with dedication and a gift for leadership. The rulers of Poland and Hungary supported each other in their struggles against the oligarchs in their own territories, and this alliance would remain one of the pillars of Central European politics throughout the fourteenth century.3

With the end of the Bohemian Přemyslid dynasty in 1306, the rival of the Angevins, John of Luxemburg (1310–1346), ascended to the throne of Bohemia, which brought about stability in Czech–Hungarian relations as well. One indication of this is that Charles of Anjou, having suffered the untimely loss of his first two wives, married Beatrice of Luxemburg, sister of the king of Bohemia, in 1317. The death of Beatrice in 1319, however, put an early end to this marriage. Because John did not have any more sisters to marry, Charles resorted to asking his other neighbor, the Polish king, for a fiancée. His marriage with Elizabeth, daughter of the newly crowned Władisław Łokietek, in 1320 forged a strong alliance between Hungary and Poland. At the same time, King John provided further support to Charles’s campaign against Máté Csák, his major adversary – a favor Charles did not let go unreturned. With the subsequent worsening of Hungarian–Austrian relations, the ties between the two kings strengthened, thanks to the long-standing animosity between the Luxemburgs and the Habsburgs.4

Charles’s good relations with both countries were eclipsed, however, by the enmity between the Bohemians and the Poles. One of the causes of this conflict lies in the Luxemburgs’ claim to the Polish throne, who in this regard simply stepped into the shoes of their Přemyslid predecessors. According to the rules of contemporary international relations, such a claim was legally justifiable and involved the whole heritage of Wenceslas III (1305–1306). The realization of this goal, however, was hindered by the unsuccessful campaign of the Bohemian king on the one hand, and by the diplomatic policies of the Angevins, who supported Łokietek, on the other. As a result, John of Luxemburg reduced his claim to Greater Poland and yielded Pomerania to the Teutonic Order. The Piasts had intended to lay claim to Silesia, a one-time Polish territory, but by the beginning of the fourteenth century the majority of the Silesian rulers were already under the overlordship of the Luxemburgs.

After the death of Władisław Łokietek I in 1333, his son Casimir III ascended to the throne, which breathed new life into the relations of the three countries. Once in power, Casimir launched himself into the task of sorting out matters left to him by his father. Poland was not only burdened by the feud with the Luxemburgs but also by territorial disputes with the Teutonic Order. With the new king on the Polish throne, John of Luxemburg also took an interest in improving Bohemian–Polish relations, for he was in search of an ally against his long-time enemies, the Austrians and Emperor Louis of Bavaria, with whom he had disputes over the heritage of Henry, Duke of Carinthia. In 1334, in order to settle the dispute over the Polish territories, the parties involved decided to choose arbiters: the Polish king appointed Charles of Anjou, while the Teutonic Order appointed John of Luxemburg.5 This move served as a platform for the subsequent peace process. The Hungarian king—who, after the death of Łokietek, became the ranking ruler of the region—set to the task with great zeal and mediated between the old Bohemian king and the young Polish ruler. Chief among his motives was his long-term goal to lay claim to the Polish throne for the Angevin dynasty. With Hungary in the role of mediator, the conference at Visegrád thus marked the closure of a two-year process of diplomatic negotiations between Bohemia and Poland on the one hand, and Poland and the Teutonic Order on the other. The mechanism of diplomatic preparations seems to have been engineered from Visegrád, which meant the constant coming and going of deputies to maintain contact and secure the flow of information.6

As a first step Casimir signed a one-year ceasefire with Charles, Margrave of Moravia and son of the Bohemian King John, at Sandomir on May 28, 1335. In the treaty he included King Charles of Hungary along with two Polish dukes as bails to confirm the peace treaty with their charters.7 Afterwards, on August 24, John’s and Casimir’s deputies met in the Hungarian town of Trencsén (Trenčín, Slovakia). Casimir authorized his deputies to follow the advice of the representatives of the Hungarian king throughout the peace process. The deputies also had the right to assume financial responsibilities on behalf of the king up to 30,000 silver marks. The Polish politicians were well aware that reimbursement of the financially unstable Bohemian king would be the key to the solution. After all, with the exception of the financial aspect, the other points of the peace treaty, which revolved around the Bohemian king’s claims to the Kingdom of Poland, had already been clarified. Consequently, King John, along with his son, waived his rights concerning Poland, while the Polish king gave up his claim to overlordship over Bohemian-governed Silesia and Masovia (Plock). The agreement was documented in a charter issued by the representatives of Casimir and sealed by their own seals, upon the promissory note that the Polish king would confirm it as well.8 With that, the Bohemian delegation went to the Hungarian royal court in Visegrád, where the Bohemian–Hungarian agreement was soon signed. The copy, dated September 3 and issued and sealed by the Hungarian king, has survived in the Czech royal archives.9

The time was now ripe for the commencement of the negotiations between the arbiters and for the meeting of the three kings. At the beginning of November 1335, the 47-year-old Hungarian King Charles of Anjou invited and hosted his brother-in-law and ally, the 25-year-old Polish King Casimir III, the 39-year-old Bohemian King John of Luxemburg, along with his 19-year-old son Charles, Margrave of Moravia (the future Emperor Charles IV), and a great number of Polish, Silesian, and German princes as part of their delegations, as well as the representatives of the Teutonic Order, for over three to four weeks. Contemporary chroniclers soon realized the significance of this event and reported on it in several accounts in all the countries involved. These documents typically highlight one aspect of the event while leaving others in the background.

In contemporary Czech historiography, represented by the Chronicle of Francis of Prague, compiled in the first half of the fourteenth century, the attitude is illustrated by the very title of its relevant chapter: “How the King of Bohemia Alienated Poland.” The author answered the question in the following way. The king of Bohemia, in the company of his firstborn, Charles, and several noblemen, went peacefully to Hungary and visited its king, Charles. There he spent three weeks, in the course of which they mutually preserved the fidelity and concord which existed between them, and confirmed them by oath, whereupon the king of Bohemia and his retinue returned to his kingdom, loaded with gifts. He took with him to Prague Casimir, already king of Poland, to whom he had sold Poland for twenty thousand marks in the presence of the king of Hungary. Here the Polish king spent several days, seeing many honors lavished upon him, and then returned home, where he proclaimed the happy news of having obtained the right and title to the Kingdom of Poland. While still in Hungary, these three kings had sworn a mutual alliance against all princes (contra omnes principes). Part of this alliance was a promise that the daughter of the Polish king would be given in marriage to the brother-in-law of the king of Bohemia, namely the five-year-old son of Henry, duke of Bavaria, who was called John.10

Charles of Luxemburg, Margrave of Moravia and later Holy Roman Emperor, offers an account of the congress in his autobiographies, which amounts to a contemporary report on the event, given that he attended it in person. No wonder he does not go into details about the formalities of hospitality, nor does he provide insight into the dynamics of the talks; yet it comes rather as a surprise that he emphasizes the Bohemian–Polish–Hungarian alliance only, without discussing the arbitration process. In his work he mentions that his father was already in Visegrád when he arrived; he then goes on to explicate the above-mentioned familial relationships among the rulers, and finally describes the roots of the Bohemian–Polish dispute.11 It is worth citing his text verbatim: “After this had taken place, we took the road to Hungary to our father, whom we found in Visegrád on the Danube with King Charles I. This king had earlier been married to the sister of our father, but she had died, and now he was married to the sister of King Casimir of Krakow, with whom he fathered three sons: the first was Louis, the second Andrew, the third Stephen. In that place King Charles brought about a peace between our father and the king of Krakow, by the terms of which our father renounced the rights belonging to him over Lesser Poland, namely Gniezno and Kalisz and the other provinces of Lesser Poland. To our father and the kingdom of Bohemia the king of Krakow renounced in perpetuity for himself and his successors, the kings of Lesser Poland, all his claims to all the duchies of Silesia and Opole and the city of Wrocław. There had previously been dissension between them because our grandfather, King Wenceslas II of Bohemia, held the aforementioned Lesser Poland and the duchies of Krakow and Sandomierz, having married the only daughter of Przemysł, the king of Lesser Poland and duke of Krakow and Sandomierz. On his death this Przemysł gave his kingdom along with the duchies which he possessed to our grandfather and the crown of the kingdom of Bohemia in perpetuity. But the aforementioned Casimir was the princess’s uncle and said that he held the right to the kingdom of Lesser Poland, asserting that a woman did not have the right to inherit the kingdom. And thus for a long time war had continued between the kings of Bohemia and Casimir and his deceased father Władisław, who were the kings of Krakow or Lesser Poland. It was thus that this war was brought to an end by the mediation of the aforementioned king of Hungary. In this he allied himself and promised to aid our father against the duke of Austria, who had taken the duchy of Carinthia from our brother, and against the aforementioned Louis [ie. Wittelsbach]. The following princes were allied together: our father, the king of Hungary, and Duke Henry of Bavaria, who was married to our sister.”12

The fifteenth-century Polish chronicler Jan Długosz highlights this other aspect of the congress in his account: the actual reason why the kings gathered together in Visegrád had been to settle the dispute over those Polish territories seized by the Teutonic Knights. While he thus captured the essence of the event, he provided the text of the charter of peace as well: “When the time approaches for the royal arbitrators to pronounce judgment, the two kings agree to meet in Wyszehrad (!) Castle on St. Elizabeth’s Day and there deliver judgment. King Casimir goes there to present his case in person. King John of Bohemia is there too. The Knights, who have never implemented the condition whereby the town and castle of Brześć were to be transferred to a third party, either the Duke of Mazovia or the Bishop of Włocławek, are represented by [Henry] Reuss of Plauen, the Governor of Toruń and Świecie. Each side presents its case and the documents to back it. But the King of Bohemia behaves more as an advocate for the Knights, than as an arbitrator, and is especially concerned that his sale of Pomerania to the Knights, which had brought him a very sizeable sum in coin, silver and gold, should not be invalidated. The decision, when pronounced, is that Kujawy and Dobrzyn belong to Poland, and Pomerania to the Teutonic Knights. This is a bitter blow for Casimir, for it deprives him of part of his inheritance, but, knowing how weak he is and afraid lest he become weaker still should hostilities be resumed, for he has enemies enough already and is considering declaring war on Ruthenia, he accepts even the condition that the castle of Nieszawa, though belonging to Kujawy, is to remain with the Order, thus giving the latter control of both banks of the Vistula and enabling it to use the river as a waterway. It is further decided that all liegemen, whether of King Casimir or of the Order, who have been expelled from their properties, are to be allowed to return and have their properties and the favour of their liege lord restored to them; or, should they prefer, they may sell their properties and go elsewhere. These decisions are pronounced on November 26.”13

The text of a fourteenth-century chronicle has survived in the work of the fifteenth-century Hungarian chronicler János Thuróczy, which gives a presumably contemporary account of the formal details of the meeting of 1335. Unlike Długosz’s account, this document focuses primarily on formalities; but such a description is just as valuable for us as political information. Let it be quoted here word for word, also because this will be the starting point for our attempt to establish the numbers of the retinues present: “In the 1335th year of the Lord, around the festivities of Saint Martin, King John of Bohemia, his son Charles, and the king of the Poles came to the castle of Visegrád, to the court of King Charles, to seal their alliance with a peace treaty for all time. And so it happened. Out of the generosity of the Hungarian king 2,500 loaves of bread were provided for the lunch of the Czech king, as well as a good share of the royal meals, all in abundance, while the horses’ daily share of fodder was 25 garleta. For the lunch of the Polish king 1,500 loaves of bread and other foods, as well as 180 barrels of wine were provided. The king of Hungary presented the king of Bohemia with various sorts of jewellery: 50 silver jars, two quivers, two belts, a magnificent chess board, two invaluable saddles, a knife with a belt that are worth 200 silver marks, and an elaborate pearl-oyster. Because the king of Poland was to pay homage to the king of Bohemia, and because Charles of Hungary took the sister of the Polish king as his wife, King Charles gave him 500 marks of the finest gold so as to save him from paying taxes to the Bohemian king. It was resolved that in the event of an enemy attack on any one of these countries, the others would help the one in trouble. And this has been sealed by an oath among one another.”14

The official documents issued in Visegrád in the autumn of 1335 do little to nuance the descriptions of the chroniclers. Although the chronicles do contain a kernel of truth, the events that they describe often occurred in different places, at different times, and not in the way they suggest. In the above example the Hungarian chronicler falsely asserts that Poland, as a feudal subject, had financial commitments to Bohemia and that Charles offered the required amount to “ransom” his brother-in-law. On the basis of the documents connected more immediately to the conference, it is possible to draw a more realistic picture. We have seen that at the meeting in Trencsén the “ransom” to be paid to the Bohemian king had not yet been specified. At the Visegrád meeting in November, however, Casimir, facing financial difficulties at the time, had no choice but to haggle over the amount to be paid. He finally agreed to pay 20,000 threescore Prague groschen (20,000 Bohemian silver marks) to the Bohemian king in exchange for the latter’s renunciation of his title of king of Poland. King John, in turn, issued a charter of abdication to be deposited with the Hungarian king. Should Casimir fail to produce the amount missing, the Hungarian king had the choice of giving the deposited charter back to the king of Bohemia or supplying the missing 6,000 marks himself.15 As 6,000 silver marks amount to 500 golden marks, the chronicle cited above has preserved this aspect of the event; however, it is mistaken in identifying the Hungarian king’s collateral statement with the payment itself.16

The actual celebration of the treaty of alliance took place on November 19, the nameday of Elizabeth Piast, wife of the host king.17 Many charters were dated that day, as was the Bohemian–Polish peace treaty,18 one of the most important documents of the meeting. Another charter of the same date provided for the security of the road leading from Poland to Wrocław and the demolition of the castle of Boleslauitz (Bolesławiec).19 Yet another was a marriage contract among the allied dynasties (a usual protocol on such occasions) aimed at protecting the newly forged Bohemian–Polish alliance. Due to the lack of younger sisters to marry, Casimir offered his baby daughter Elizabeth to the six-year-old grandson of the Bohemian king, the only child of Duke Henry of Bavaria and Duchess Margaret of Luxemburg (John’s daughter). Due to the untimely death of the boy in 1340, the marriage was not realized.20

The signing of the peace treaty took place on the same day as the verbal declaration of the arbitration. A thorough study of the historical sources demonstrates that this was the most important underlying reason for the meeting of the kings. The adversaries had been conscientiously preparing for the decisive event of the arbitration proceedings. On September 21, 1335, the Teutonic Order had the charters underpinning their rights transcribed in the archives of the Grand Master of the Order at Marienburg (Malbork),21 while the Polish king had already submitted a lawsuit against the Teutonic Knights to the pontifical court of law in the summer of 1335.22 In Visegrád the arbitration process had already commenced in November with an investigation into the plenipotentiary powers of the representatives of the Teutonic Order. This procedure was inevitable because the Grand Master of the Order was absent from the meeting (as appears from the charter on the peace itself). Once the authorization documents had been approved, it came to the presentation of statements and charters by the two sides. We have no information on the charters presented by the Polish deputies, but the Teutonic Knights certainly had those from the archives at Marienburg in their hands, as well as a complete draft of the peace treaty that they had composed earlier on.23 The arbitration was first declared orally, definitely before November 21, which is the date of the charter addressed by Władisław, Duke of Leczyca and Dobrzyn, to John of Luxemburg. Władisław cites the decree of the court of arbitration, which decided that the territories of Dobrzyn, hitherto under the rule of the Teutonic Order, were to revert to Casimir the Great. The duke reasserts that he had ruled over these territories until the Teutonic Knights and John of Luxemburg seized the area following the war waged against Łokietek.24 According to the charter, after the arbitration Casimir the Great would restore to him the region of Dobrzyn, and the duke would not demand war indemnities from John of Luxemburg.25 Closely connected to this charter is another document issued by Casimir the Great on November 23, in which he requested King John of Bohemia to give back the region of Dobrzyn to Duke Władisław.26

After days of negotiations between the arbiters and the barons, the arbitration was set down in a charter dated November 26. It stipulated that Casimir ruled over Kujawy and Dobrzyn, while the Teutonic Order received Pomerania.27 In his letter dated December 3 the King of Bohemia informed the Master of the Teutonic Knights of the dispositions drawn up during the meeting and of the subsequent duties at hand. He also listed the charters which the negotiating parties had to issue with regard to the case: “To the venerable Lord Theoderic, Knight, Grand Master of the Order of the Glorious Virgin Mary of the German Hospital of Jerusalem, to the beloved friend, John, by divine grace King of Bohemia, the Count of Luxemburg sends greetings, grace, and blessings. Let it be known that, during the three weeks we spent at the court of the Lord King of Hungary, we arranged your affairs and those of the Order, as we could, precisely as your knights who were with us could have reported it. First, the Lord King of Poland ought to guarantee by documents the renunciation of the lands of Culmerland (Chełmno Lands) and Pomerania (Gdansk Pomerania) as well as sincere friendship towards you in the future. Item, the Lord King of Hungary and we ought to give testimonial documents on the aforementioned renunciation of the King of Poland and on the concord and agreement between you and the King of Poland. Item, the King of Poland ought to submit a supplication to the Lord Pope in order that the Pope shall make a confirmation of the donation of the lands of Culmerland and Pomerania to you and to the Order. Item, the King of Poland ought to give documents and receive documents from archbishops and other ecclesiastical and secular persons to the fact that damages of the past war shall not be avenged, and shall not be attacked in any ecclesiastical or secular court. Item, the King of Poland ought to order documents from the King of Hungary on the renunciation of the lands of Culmerland and Pomerania in his and his successors’ names, since his wife is the sister of the King of Poland. Done under our seal on the Sunday when “Ad te levavi” is sung in the year of the Lord 1335.”28

Although there is no indication as to where the letter was written, it is quite certain that it was not written in Visegrád. According to the dates mentioned in the charters, the kings convened around All Saints’ Day, which designates November 1 as the starting date of the conference. In his letter dated December 3 King John talks about a meeting lasting three weeks; but the peace treaty between the Teutonic Order and Poland, which took place on November 26 in the presence of all those invited, indicates that the meeting lasted a bit longer. According to the Prague chronicle cited above, John and Casimir arrived in Prague on December 6. Casimir drafted another charter, addressed to the Teutonic Order and dated May 26, 1336, declaring that he accepted the arbitration.29

In addition to the two main points of the meeting’s agenda (the peace treaties between Bohemia and Poland, and between Poland and the Teutonic Order), we also have information on the follow-up discussions between the three kings that took place after the arbitration process. The lack of written documents on these discussions does not mean that questions unrelated to the arbitration were not addressed. For instance, the alliance forged between Hungary and Bohemia on September 3 was clearly designed against the Austrian dukes.30 It seems certain that the idea of a prospective campaign against them was also conceived in Visegrád. The military events of the following year, presumably also orchestrated from Visegrád, show evidence of prior arrangements, although they have not been documented. Some historians therefore regard the Visegrád meeting as a cradle of war rather than peace.31

Although the meeting received a lot of attention from all sides, as we have seen above, each party tended to highlight its own points of interest. As the event represented a turning point in fourteenth-century Polish international relations, it is not surprising that Polish historiography has addressed it in most detail, primarily focusing on Polish–Teutonic and Polish–Bohemian relations.32 Such aspects remained in the background in the writings of Hungarian chroniclers and the Visegrád meeting has instead been widely understood as a crucible of economic alliances.33 This assumption was based on a decree issued by Charles I in Visegrád on January 6, 1336, which regulated routes of commerce and the customs tariff between Hungary and Bohemia.34 The text of the decree suggests that Charles and King John had thoroughly discussed the issue beforehand – almost certainly in November in Visegrád. The commercial agreement was an important preliminary to the military campaign against the dukes of Austria. Also, the towns in the territory of present-day Slovakia may have played a role in initiating this trade agreement. The meeting in Visegrád therefore did have an economic aspect; yet this should not be generalized into the main focus of the conference.35

Finally, it is worth touching briefly upon the rather anomalous description of the conference that has come down to us as part of the Hungarian Thuróczy Chronicle, cited above, which has hitherto defied historians’ efforts at interpretation. Moreover, a closer examination of the text may probably take us nearer to establishing the size of the princely retinues that came to Visegrád, and thus provide relevant new information to both Czech and Polish historians. According to the ruling opinion of Hungarian historiography, the chapters dealing with the last years of the rule of Charles I of Anjou were probably inserted into the chronicle composition in the time of Louis I, by the hands of a Franciscan friar, thought by some scholars to have been called John Kétyi.36 It was from there that Turóczy adapted it into his own chronicle in the fifteenth century. We have seen above that the 500 marks given by the king of Hungary exactly corresponded to the 6,000 silver marks of which King Charles gave a warranty to King John on behalf of Casimir the Great. Thus, the fourteenth-century Hungarian chronicler was apparently well informed about the financial aspects of the negotiations, which increases our confidence in the reliability of his other data. For the lunch of the Czech king 2,500 loaves of bread were distributed every day, along with an ample portion of the royal victuals. The fodder (pabulum) for the horses amounted to 25 garletas per day. The relevant figure of bread for the Polish king was 1,500 loaves, plus a share in the royal victuals, while 180 barrels (tunella) of wine were also on supply.

The text makes a clear distinction between the amounts of bread due to the retinues of the kings of Bohemia and Poland respectively. As for the amount of wine, the figure given in the text should perhaps be interpreted in the sense that it represents not a daily portion but the total amount consumed by all the participants during the conference. Although fodder turns up only with reference to the retinue of the king of Bohemia, it is highly improbable that the Poles’ horses received none. While the plural form (equis suis) could also be interpreted as including the horses of both kings’ retinues, it is more probable that it refers more precisely to bohemorum, meaning that it was the amount provided for the Czech horses, as the portions supplied for the Poles are listed in a separate sentence. It is only the bread portion which figures separately on both “menus.” It makes evident that the retinue of the Polish king was much smaller than that of his colleague from Bohemia. More can be learned, however, if we can convert the figures of consumption into numbers of persons and animals, thereby gaining important information on the probable numbers of retinues attending the Visegrád summit. It is certainly worth the effort, of course without surveying the entire history of bread in the Middle Ages, especially because we do not know whether we are dealing with leavened bread or with unleavened flatbread, and nor do we have information on the size of bread in 1335.37 We should therefore count in the simplest possible way. We will surely not be too wide of the mark if we take one kilogram as the weight of one loaf of bread, and count with half a kilogram as the daily portion, taking into consideration that it was a princely conference, and thus other victuals, mainly meat, were also abundantly on the offer, as is indeed stated by the chronicler. In this case, the Czech delegation would number 5,000 persons, as opposed to 3,000 on the Polish side.

We can base sounder calculations on the amounts of fodder consumed by the horses. These amounts are given by the Latin text in garleta, a unit which has been interpreted in Hungarian historiography in various ways: it was most commonly translated as either köböl or mérő.38 Whereas the köböl contained 64 liters on average, defining the mérő is much more difficult, for its size varied, although it was generally somewhat smaller than the köböl. The amount obtained by either way of counting, however, is out of keeping with the information we have on the quantities of bread. Moreover, the Latin term for mérő is metreta, and the equivalent of köböl is cubulus, not garleta.39 Neither translation, therefore, is good.

That the garleta was a measure of grain of Italian origin has been known for a long time.40 Its exact size, and thus the meaning of the word, was established beyond doubt by Jenő Szűcs, but his results failed to raise the scholarly interest they merit.41 The number of charter references, which has grown considerably since the publication of the charters from the era of King Sigismund began, support abundantly Szűcs’s calculations.42 After a thorough examination of the sources, Szűcs came to the conclusion that “one gerla of wheat corresponded in modern measures to 13,536 (or at least 11,589) quintals, an enormous quantity, which by its sheer dimensions evokes a good cartload.” This huge number is underpinned, according to Szűcs, by the fact that in a whole series of late medieval Hungarian texts the gerla (girla) is the equivalent of corus (“cart”). Accordingly, he drew the conclusion that “when János Kétyi comments with regard to the royal summit of Visegrád in 1335 that the daily amount of fodder for the horses of the king of Bohemia was 25 garleta of oats, this piece of information is entirely in keeping with those which maintain that the retinue of that king consumed 2,500 loaves of bread and 180 barrels of wine for lunch each day…”43

Now, it is easy to calculate that the 25 cartloads of fodder which the horses belonging to the retinue of the king of Bohemia consumed corresponded to 33,900 kgs. Then we have to turn to consumption itself, however, for, as our source gives no information on either the nature of fodder or the size and type of horses, we do not know whether we are dealing with hay or oats, or a mixed fodder, and whether it was smaller or larger horses which ate it.44 Unfortunately, we have no data on the consumption of fodder by horses from medieval Hungary, but later evidence can be used for estimation.45 Thus, the need for dry matter by a full-grown horse a day would oscillate—depending, of course, on the intensity of work done and on the quality of fodder—between 8 and 12 kgs. In my view, we do not run the risk of making a big mistake if we calculate with a daily amount of 6-7 kgs in the case of horses that were not required to do any hard work during the conference. They were also probably put out to graze on the bank of the Danube, and thus had access to green fodder as well. In this way, we would come to an average of 5,000 Czech horses. However, we also have to take into consideration that a nobleman may have had several horses, and that the fodder must have been of excellent quality, and so it is unlikely for the horses to have consumed 6-7 kgs a day. Yet by reducing the daily portion, our stock of horses increases, and we may end up with as many as seven or eight thousand. However we juggle the numbers, they remain very high, and it is still only the Czechs we have counted with. If we take everything into account, a minimum of 5,000 Czech retainers and 3,000 Polish ones must have meant an onerous burden for the small town of Visegrád, especially in view of a stay there which extended for a whole month. Moreover, these persons and animals had to be not only fed but also accomodated, and the fodder of 25 cartloads a day stored somewhere on the territory of the town. If we take these numbers seriously, and we have no reason not to, as they mutually support each other, then we have to accept the fact that in 1335 the royal court at Visegrád, in the widest sense of the term, was able to host and provision an army of about 8,000 horsemen.46 This certainly indicates a fairly developed logistical ability on the part of the contemporary Hungarian royal court.

In view of this, it is almost unnecessary to engage in the interpretation of the 180 barrels (tunella) of wine. It is, indeed, almost impossible, as the tunella could range anywhere from 50 to 900 liters, which makes any estimation of its actual size illusory. Hungarian historians used to translate tunella as átalag, a barrel used around Tokaj and in the neighboring northeastern counties, which contained roughly 75 liters.47 As a matter of fact, this figure fits neatly with the amounts of bread and fodder. As our source fails to reveal whether this amount belonged to the Czechs or the Poles, we have to suppose that it was the quantity consumed by all the participants in a single day. If we count with barrels of 75 liters, we come to a minimum of 13,500 liters. In the case of a mixed Czech–Polish entourage of 8,000 men, this would yield a per capita consumption of 1.7 liters a day; not too much for just hanging around for a month.

However, wine was certainly consumed not only by the Czechs and the Poles, but also by all those present, the Hungarian hosts and the representatives of the Teutonic Order included. The Hungarian chronicler, besides passing over the fact of the arbitration itself in silence, fails to mention the presence of the representative of the Order. True, the delegation of the latter was led not by the Grand Master but by Count Henry of Plauen, governor of the province of Chulm, but even he certainly had a retinue of his own. As mentioned above, it is only natural that the chronicler limited his narrative to facts which mattered from a Hungarian point of view, as did all the other writers, each of whom framed his own account of the summit from the standpoint of his home country. Yet today we can safely break with the narrowly nationalist approach of the medieval chroniclers and state that the prime cause of the Visegrád royal summit was to provide the occasion for the two arbiters, the kings of Hungary and Bohemia, to make their judgement in the dispute between Poland and the Teutonic Order. The mere fact that the Hungarian chronicler failed to realize this and left the presence of the Order unrecorded, by no means diminishes the value of his work, for he makes several other statements which were clearly based on either the information provided by an eyewitness or some kind of contemporary account. The list of those gifts offerred to the king of Bohemia by his hosts, for instance,48 is more likely to have been taken from a contemporary notice or register than from the narrative of an eyewitness.49 In my opinion, therefore, the chronicler drew on the accounts of the royal court, then still available, in which the expenses of the Hungarian king for 1335 were recorded. This would also account for the lacunae and oddities which can be observed in the text. The author converted columns of numbers into a narrative. As for the expenses of the delegation of the Order, they were probably missing from the royal accounts. Their provision was presumably made from other (their own) sources, which is far from surprising in view of the fact that, unlike Casimir III and John of Luxemburg, the Order was not an ally but merely one of the parties in an arbitration. This may be the reason why the Order remained unmentioned in the accounts on which the chronicler drew and which put into writing the expenses of the Hungarian king in connection with the summit.

Finally, one more question must be asked. Was the enormous size of the royal retinues attending the summit an exception or the norm? The retinue of Sigismund of Luxemburg which escorted him on his well-documented travels in Western Europe amounted occasionally to 1,000 to 1,500 persons,50 and that of the guests who gathered around him at Buda in 1412 also contained several thousand people.51 Prague and Krakow were too near to Visegrád for the kings of Poland and Bohemia to resist the temptation of taking a huge entourage with them. Was their enormous retinue the part of routine representation or did it amount to an extraordinary and purposeful display of strength? In order to answer this question, one has to remember on the one hand that from Bohemia two princes came, each with his own entourage. On the other hand, the kings of Bohemia and Poland engaged not only themselves but also their most powerful subjects in making the peace, and they could not terminate the negotiations without their knowledge and consent. We know that urban delegates were also present, for some of the documents have survived in the city archives of Breslau (Wroclaw). Altogether some forty individual partners can be shown to have participated in the negotiations, the Hungarian lords included. Naturally enough, each brought a retinue of his own, which, together, constituted a mass of some 10,000 people, organized into various hierarchical structures. In all probability, its constituent parts idled away their time by memorable amusements and hunts, excursions to Fehérvár and Buda, and, of course, by chivalric tournaments on the bank of the Danube, while the kings negotiated and made peace up in the Citadel or in the Solomon Tower.

The scope of this study does not allow for a survey of the effects of the decrees passed at the meeting. Suffice it to say that the treaty forged with the Teutonic Order created a precedent and would later serve as a cornerstone of peace. The arbitration concerning Pomerania proved that the parties were willing to settle international conflicts through diplomatic means. The alliance between the three Central European countries lasted for over half a century and provided each country with the right to conduct its international relations autonomously (with the Balkans, the eastern regions, Germany, and Italy). Visegrád would also play an important role in the maintenance and renewal of the alliance in the upcoming years as well. It was here that Charles I renewed the 1335 treaty with Charles, Margrave of Moravia, heir to the throne of Bohemia. The margrave promised that he would support the Hungarian king’s claim to the Polish throne and, in turn, the Hungarian king would relinquish his claims on Silesia if he or his sons ascended to the Polish throne. Casimir and his royal delegation visited Visegrad again in 1339 with the intention of bequeathing Poland to his sister’s son Louis. This agreement ensured that Louis was elected king of Poland in 1370. These events illustrate that throughout the Middle Ages Visegrád functioned as a place for conflict resolution and rightly became an emblem for Central European cooperation over the centuries to come.

 

 

Archival Sources

Magyar Nemzeti Levéltár Országos Levéltára (Hungarian National Archives – MNL OL), Diplomatikai Fényképgyűjtemény (Collection of Photocopies – DF) Accessed September 5, 2013. http://www.mom-ca.uni-koeln.de/mom/CZ-NA/ACK/.

 

Bibliography

Anjou-kori oklevéltár [Charters of Angevin Hungary]. 32 vols. Edited by Tibor Almási, László Blazovich, Lajos Géczi, Gyula Kristó, Ferenc Piti, Ferenc Sebők, and Ildikó Tóth. Budapest–Szeged: n.p., 1990–2012.

Bárány, Attila. “Zsigmond király 1416-os angliai kísérete” [King Sigismund’s Retinue in England in 1416]. Aetas 19, no. 3–4 (2004): 5–30.

Beňko, Ján and Michal Barnovský, eds. Dokumenty slovenskej národnej identity a štátnosti I [Documents of Slovak National Identity and Statehood]. Bratislava: Národné literárne centrum – Dom slovenskej literatúry, 1998.

Bertényi, Iván. A 14. század története [The History of the Fourteenth Century]. Budapest: Pannonica, 2000.

Bertényi, Iván. Magyarország az Anjouk korában [Hungary in the Age of the Angevins]. Budapest: Gondolat, 1987.

Bogdán, István. Magyarországi űr-, térfogat-, súly- és darabmértékek 1874-ig [Cubic, Volume, Weight and Piece Measures in Hungary to 1874]. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1991.

Bonfinis, Antonius de. Rerum Ungaricarum decades. 3 vols, edited by I. Fógel, B. Iványi, and L. Juhász. Lipsiae: B.G. Teubner, 1936.

Boronkai, Iván and Kornél Szovák, eds. Lexicon Latinitatis medii aevi Hungariae. 5 vols. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1987–1999.

Bozóki, Lajos. “A fellegvár leírása és építéstörténete” [The Description and Construction History of the Citadel]. In A visegrádi fellegvár [The Citadel of Visegrád], edited by Gergely Buzás, 7–25. Visegrád: Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum Mátyás király Múzeuma, 2004.

Buzás, Gergely. “A visegrádi királyi palota története” [The History of the Royal Palace at Visegrád]. In A visegrádi királyi palota [The Royal Palace of Visegrád], edited by Gergely Buzás and Krisztina Orosz, 11–17. Budapest: Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum Mátyás király Múzeuma, 2010.

Chlopocka, Helena. “Galhard de Carceribus i jego rola w sporze polsko-krzyżackim w XIV w.” [Galhard de Carceribus and His Role in the Dispute between the Poles and the Teutonic Knights in the Fourteenth Century]. In Europa–Słowiańszczyzna–Polska. Studia ku uczczeniu Profesora Kazimierza Tymienieckiego [Europe–Slavdom–Poland. Studies in Honor of Prof. Kazimierz Tymieniecki], ed. Juliusz Bardach et al., 135–45. Poznań: Wydaw. Naukowe UAM, 1970.

Codex diplomaticus et epistolaris Moraviae: Urkunden-Sammlung zur Geschichte Mährens, 1334–1349. Vols I–II/7, edited by Joseph Chytil. Brünn: Winiker & Schickardt, 1858–1860

Codex diplomaticus Hungariae ecclesiasticus ac civilis. 11 vols, edited by György Fejér. Buda: Typis typogr. Regiae Universitatis Ungaricae, 1829–1844.

Codex diplomaticus Prussicus. Urkunden-Sammlung zur ältern Geschichte Preussens aus dem Königl. Geheimen Archiv zu Königsberg nebst regesten. Vol. 2, edited by Johannes Voigt. Königsberg: Bornträger, 1842.

Codex Diplomaticus Silesiae. Regesten zur Schlesischen Geschichte, vol. 29 (1334–1337), edited by Konrad Wutke. Breslau: Hirt, 1922.

Csukovits, Enikő. Az Anjouk Magyarországon I. I. Károly és uralkodása (1301–1342) [The Angevins in Hungary I. Charles I and His Reign]. Budapest: MTA BTK Történettudományi Intézet, 2012.

Csukovits, Enikő. “Egy nagy utazás résztvevői. (Zsigmond király római kísérete)” [Participants in a Great Journey. (King Sigismund’s Retinue in Rome)]. In Tanulmányok Borsa Iván tiszteletére [Studies in Honor of Iván Borsa], edited by Enikő Csukovits, 11–36. Budapest: Magyar Országos Levéltár, 1998.

Das virtuelle Preußische Urkundenbuch. Regesten und Texte zur Geschichte Preußens und des Deutschen Ordens. Accessed September 5, 2013. http://www1.uni-hamburg.de/Landesforschung/pub/orden1334.html.

Dlugossi, Ioannis. Annales seu cronicae incliti regni Poloniae. Liber nonus, edited by D. Turkowska. Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1978.

Długosz, Jan. The Annales of Jan Długosz, edited and translated by Maurice Michael. Charlton Mill, UK: IM Publications, 1997.

Draskóczy, István. A tizenötödik század története [The History of the Fifteenth Century]. Budapest: Pannonica Kiadó, 2000.

Dubravius, Ioannes. Historiae regni Bohemiae. Francofurti: Bibliopolae Wratislaviensis, 1687.

E. Kovács, Péter. “‘A Szent Koronára! Ez kedvemre telik.’ Zsigmond császár Luccában” [‘On the Holy Crown! This Is to My Liking!’ Emperor Sigismund in Lucca]. Századok 141 (2007): 355–56.

Engel, Pál. “Az ország újraegyesítése. I. Károly küzdelmei az oligarchák ellen (1310–1323)” [The Reunification of the Country. The Struggles of Charles I against the Oligarchs]. Századok 122 (1988): 89–144.

Engel, Pál. The Realm of St Stephen. A History of Medieval Hungary, 895–1526. London–New York: I.B. Tauris, 2001.

Engel, Pál. “Visegrádi kongresszus” [The Visegrád Congress]. In Korai magyar történeti lexikon (9–14. század) [Encyclopedia of Early Hungarian History (Ninth–Fourteenth Centuries)], edited by Gyula Kristó, 732–33. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1994.

Grünhagen, Colmar and Hermann Markgraf, eds. Lehns- und Besitzurkunden Schlesiens und seiner einzelnen Fürstenthümer im Mittelalter. 2 vols. Leipzig: Verlag von S. Hirzel, 1881.

Hatos, Géza. A lovak takarmányozása háborús viszonyok között [The Foddering of Horses under Wartime Conditions]. Budapest: Pátria, 1942.

Hóman, Bálint. A Magyar Királyság pénzügyei és gazdaságpolitikája Károly Róbert korában [The Finances and Economic Policy of the Kingdom of Hungary in the Age of Charles Robert]. Budapest: Nap Kiadó, 2003 [1921].

Iván, László. A visegrádi vár története a kezdetektől 1685-ig [The History of the Castle of Visegrád from the Beginnings to 1685]. Visegrád: Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum Mátyás király Múzeuma, 2004.

Knoll, Paul W. The Rise of the Polish Monarchy: Piast Poland in East Central Europe, 1320–1370. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1972.

Koss, Rudolf. Arhiv Koruny Ceské. 2. Katalog listin z let 1158–1346 [The Archives of the Czech Crown. 2. Catalogue of Charters from the Years 1158–1346]. Prague: Zemsky Správný Výbor, 1928.

Mészáros, Orsolya. A késő középkori Visegrád város története és helyrajza [The History and Topography of the Late Medieval Town of Visegrád]. Visegrád: Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum Mátyás király Múzeuma, 2009.

Miskolczy, István. Magyarország az Anjouk korában [Hungary in the Age of the Angevins]. Historia Incognita. Máriabesnyő–Gödöllő: Attraktor, 2009.

Nagy, Balázs. “Magyar vonatkozások Luxemburgi Károly önéletrajzában” [Hungarian Aspects in the Autobiography of Charles of Luxemburg]. In Auxilium historiae: tanulmányok a hetvenesztendős Bertényi Iván tiszteletére [Studies in Honor of Iván Bertényi on his Seventieth Birthday], edited by Tamás Körmendi and Gábor Thoroczkay, 227–29. Budapest: ELTE BTK, 2009.

Nagy, Balázs and Frank Schaer, eds. Karoli IV Imperatoris Romanorum Vita ab eo ipso conscripta et Hystoria Nova de Sancto Wenceslao Martyre. Autobiography of Emperor Charles IV and his Legend of St. Wenceslas. Central European Medieval Texts. Budapest: CEU Press, 2001.

Ortutay, Gyula, ed. “Kenyér” [Bread]. In Magyar Néprajzi Lexikon [Encyclopedia of Hungarian Ethnography]. Vol. III, K–Né. 145–46. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1980.

Perjés, Géza. Mezőgazdasági termelés, népesség, hadseregélelmezés és stratégia a 17. század második felében (1650–1715) [Agricultural Production, Population, Army Provisioning and Strategy in the Second Half of the Seventeenth Century]. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1963.

Pór, Antal. “A történeti jelenetek korhű reconstruálásáról. Fejedelmi congressus Visegrádon, 1335. novemberben” [On the Faithful Reconstruction of Historical Scenes. A Princely Congress in Visegrád, November 1335]. Századok 27 (1893): 421–28.

Pór, Antal. “Tót Lőrinc, a királyi tárnokok és zászlótartók mestere (1328–1348)” [Lőrinc Tót, Master of the Royal Treasurers and Flagbearers (1328–1348)]. Századok 25 (1891): 347–77.

Rácz, György, ed. Visegrád 1335. Bratislava: International Visegrad Found, 2009.

Regesta diplomatica nec non epistolaria Bohemiae et Moraviae. 4 vols, edited by Karol Jaromir Erben and Joseph Emler. Prague: Typis Gregerianis, 1855–1892.

Reiszig, Ede. “Az Újlaki-család” [The Újlaki Family]. Turul 57 (1943): 1–13, 56–65.

Reliqviae manvscriptorvm omnis aevi, diplomatvm ac monvmentorvm, ineditorvm adhvc. Vol. V, edited by Johann Peter Ludewig. Frankfurt: n.p., 1723.

Sedlák, Vincent ed. Pramene k dejinám Slovenska a Slovákov IV. Pod vládou anjouovských kráľov [Sources on the History of Slovakia and the Slovaks IV. Under the Rule of the Angevin Kings]. Bratislava: Literárne informačné centrum, 2002.

Skorka, Renáta. “A bécsi lerakat Magyarországra vezető kiskapui” [Backstairs of the Vienna Depository towards Hungary]. Történelmi Szemle 54, no. 1 (2012): 1–16.

Szczur, Stanisław. “A lengyel diplomáciai testület Nagy Kázmér korában” [The Polish Diplomatic Corps in the Age of Casimir the Great]. In Visegrád 1335. Tudományos tanácskozás a visegrádi királytalálkozó 650. évfordulóján. Visegrád 1985. szeptember 30–október 1, edited by József Köblös, 97–102. Budapest: Pest Megyei Levéltár, 1988.

Stanisław Szczur. “Az 1335. évi visegrádi királyi találkozó” [The 1335 Royal Summit in Visegrád]. Aetas 1 (1993): 26–42.

Szczur, Stanisław. “Dyplomaci Kazimierza Wielkiego w Awinionie” [The Diplomacy of Casimir the Great in Avignon]. Nasza Przeszlosc 66 (1986): 43–106.

Szczur, Stanisław. Historia Polski: Średniowiecze [The History of Poland: The Middle Ages]. Krakow: Wydawnictwo Literackie, 2002.

Szende, László. “Piast Erzsébet, a hitves, az édesanya, a mecénás” [Elizabeth Piast, Wife, Mother, Patroness]. In Károly Róbert és Székesfehérvár [Charles Robert and Székesfehérvár], 78–100. Székesfehérvár: Székesfehérvári Egyházmegyei Múzeum, 2011.

Szűcs, Jenő. “A gabona árforradalma a 13. században” [The Revolution in Grain Prices in the Thirteenth Century]. Történelmi Szemle 27 (1984): 14–18.

Thurocz, Johannes de. Chronica Hungarorum I. Textus, edited by Erzsébet Galántai and Gyula Kristó. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1985.

Thurocz, Johannes de. Chronica Hungarorum II. Commentarii 2. Ab anno 1301 usque ad annum 1487, edited by Elemér Mályusz, with the help of Gyula Kristó. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1988.

Thuróczy, János. A magyarok krónikája [Chronicle of the Hungarians]. Translated by János Horváth. Budapest: Európa Könyvkiadó, 1980.

Veszprémy, László. “Csatamének, paripák és hátaslovak. A középkori hadilovakról” [Destriers, Coursers and Rounceys. On Medieval Warhorses]. In idem. Lovagvilág Magyarországon [The World of Chivalry in Hungary]. Budapest: Argumentum, 2008, 155–70.

Zachová, Jana ed. Chronicon Francisci Pragensis / Kronika Františka Pražského. Fontes rerum Bohemicarum, series nova [Prameny dějin českých, Nová řada]. Vol. 1. Prague: Nadace Patriae, 1997.

Zolnai, Gyula. Nyelvemlékeink a könyvnyomtatás koráig [Our Linguistic Relics until the Age of Printing]. Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, 1894.

Zsigmondkori oklevéltár [Charters from the Age of Sigismund]. 12 vols, edited by Elemér Mályusz, Iván Borsa, Norbert C. Tóth, Tibor Neumann, Bálint Lakatos. Budapest: MOL, 1951–2013.

 

1* The present study is the revised version of: György Rácz, The Congress of Visegrád, in Visegrád 1335, ed. György Rácz (Budapest: International Visegrád Fund, 2009), 17–80.

A realistic assessment of the congress on the Hungarian side is Pál Engel, “Visegrádi kongresszus” [The Visegrád Congress], in Korai magyar történeti lexikon (9–14. század) [Encyclopedia of Early Hungarian History (Ninth–Fourteenth Centuries)], ed. Gyula Kristó (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1994), 732–33.

2 The most recent literature on the town, the castle and the palace: László Iván, A visegrádi vár története a kezdetektől 1685-ig [The History of the Castle of Visegrád from the Beginnings to 1685] (Visegrád: Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum Mátyás király Múzeuma, 2004), especially 24, 37; Lajos Bozóki, “A fellegvár leírása és építéstörténete” [The Description and Construction History of the Citadel], in A visegrádi fellegvár [The Citadel of Visegrád], ed. Gergely Buzás (Visegrád: Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum Mátyás király Múzeuma, 2004), 7–25; Orsolya Mészáros, A késő középkori Visegrád város története és helyrajza [The History and Topography of the Late Medieval Town of Visegrád] (Visegrád: Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum Mátyás király Múzeuma, 2009), 19–27; Gergely Buzás, “A visegrádi királyi palota története” [The History of the Royal Palace at Visegrád], in A visegrádi királyi palota, ed. Gergely Buzás and Krisztina Orosz (Budapest: Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum Mátyás király Múzeuma, 2010), 11–17.

3 On the contemporary situation of the three countries and their political history, I have used the following basic works, to which I make no reference henceforth: Paul W. Knoll, The Rise of the Polish Monarchy: Piast Poland in East Central Europe, 1320–1370 (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1972); Stanisław Szczur, Historia Polski: Średniowiecze [The History of Poland: The Middle Ages] (Krakow: Wydawnictwo Literackie, 2002); Pál Engel, The Realm of St Stephen. A History of Medieval Hungary, 895–1526 (London–New York: I.B. Tauris, 2001), 130–34, 136–37. On the details of Hungarian domestic policies, see Pál Engel, “Az ország újraegyesítése. I. Károly küzdelmei az oligarchák ellen (1310–1323)” [The Reunification of the Country. The Struggles of Charles I against the Oligarchs], Századok 122 (1988): 89–144. A modern, balanced survey on the reign of Charles I is Enikő Csukovits, Az Anjouk Magyarországon I. I. Károly és uralkodása (1301–1342) [The Angevins in Hungary I. Charles I and His Reign] (Budapest: MTA BTK Történettudományi Intézet, 2012).

4 On the marriages and family relations of Charles I in general see Csukovits, Az Anjouk 109–13.

5 May 15, 1334: Casimir, King of Poland, having taken the counsel of his barons listed, acknowledges King Charles of Hungary on his part, and John King of Bohemia on the part of the Teutonic Order, as arbiters elected to judge in and terminate his dispute with the said Order. Codex diplomaticus Prussicus. Urkunden-Sammlung zur ältern Geschichte Preussens aus dem Königl. Geheimen Archiv zu Königsberg nebst regesten, vol. 2, ed. Johannes Voigt (Königsberg: Bornträger, 1842), 194–95. See also: Das virtuelle Preußische Urkundenbuch. Regesten und Texte zur Geschichte Preußens und des Deutschen Ordens. 2.842 Accessed September 5, 2013, http://www.uni-hamburg.de/Landesforschung/pub/orden1334.html.

6 On Polish diplomatics see also Stanislaw Szczur, “Dyplomaci Kazimierza Wielkiego w Awinionie” [The Diplomacy of Casimir the Great in Avignon], Nasza Przeszlosc 66 (1986): 43–106; Idem, “A lengyel diplomáciai testület Nagy Kázmér korában” [The Polish Diplomatic Corps in the Age of Casimir the Great], in Visegrád 1335. Tudományos tanácskozás a visegrádi királytalálkozó 650. évfordulóján. Visegrád 1985. szeptember 30–október 1, ed. József Köblös (Budapest: Pest Megyei Levéltár, 1988), 97–102.

7 Original: Národni archív, Praha [National Archives, Prague], AČK, Inv. Nr. 162. Accessed September 5, 2013, http://www.mom-ca.uni-koeln.de/mom/CZ-NA/ACK/162/charter; published edition: Codex diplomaticus Hungariae ecclesiasticus ac civilis, 11 vols., ed. György Fejér (Budae: Typis typogr. Regiae Universitatis Ungaricae, 1829–1844), vol. VIII/4, 62–65; Regesta diplomatica nec non epistolaria Bohemiae et Moraviae, 4 vols., eds. Karol Jaromir Erben and Joseph Emler (Prague: Typis Gregerianis, 1855–1892) (hereafter: RBM), vol. IV, 62–63 (no. 164); Codex Diplomaticus Silesiae. Regesten zur Schlesischen Geschichte 1334–1337, vol. 29, ed. Konrad Wutke (Breslau: Hirt, 1922), 48 (no. 5459); Rudolf Koss, Arhiv Koruny Ceské. 2. Katalog listin z let 1158–1346 [The Archives of the Czech Crown. Catalogue of the Charters from the Years 1158–1346] (Prague: Zemsky Správný Výbor, 1928) 140–41 (no. 176) with the data of previous editions.

8 Original lost. Published edition: Johann Peter von Ludewig, Reliqviae manvscriptorvm omnis aevi, diplomatvm ac monvmentorvm, ineditorvm adhvc (Frankfurt: n.p., 1723), vol. V, 599. Following him: Codex diplomaticus et epistolaris Moraviae: Urkunden-Sammlung zur Geschichte Mährens, vols. VII/1–2 (1334–1349), ed. Joseph Chytil (Brünn: Winiker & Schickardt, 1858–1860), 56–57; Lehns- und Besitzurkunden Schlesiens und seiner einzelnen Fürstenthümer im Mittelalter, 2 vols., eds. Colmar Grünhagen and Hermann Markgraf (Leipzig: Verlag von S. Hirzel, 1881), vol. 1, no. 1; Hungarian abstract: Anjou-kori oklevéltár [Charters of Angevin Hungary] 32 vols, eds. Tibor Almási et al. (Budapest–Szeged: n.p., 1990–2012), vol. XIX, 234–35 (no. 523).

9 Original: Národni archív, Praha, AČK, Inv. Nr. 167. Accessed September 5, 2013, http://www.mom-ca.uni-koeln.de/mom/CZ-NA/ACK/167/charter. (Photocopy: Magyar Nemzeti Levéltár Országos Levéltára [Hungarian National Archives], Diplomatikai Fényképgyűjtemény [Collection of Photocopies, DF] 287 457). The latest edition is: Visegrád 1335, ed. György Rácz (Bratislava: International Visegrad Found, 2009) 83–85 (with English, Czech, Hungarian, Polish and Slovak translations of all the charters published in that volume). Earlier editions: RBM, vol. IV, 78–79 (no. 202); Codex Diplomaticus Silesiae, 57 (no. 5499); Koss, Arhiv Koruny České, no. 180; Hungarian abstract: Anjou-kori oklevéltár, vol. XIX, no. 539 (with the information on earlier editions).

10 Chronicon Francisci Pragensis / Kronika Františka Pražského, ed. Jana Zachová, Fontes rerum Bohemicarum, series nova, vol. 1 (Prague: Nadace Patriae, 1997) 159–160.

11 Karoli IV Imperatoris Romanorum Vita ab eo ipso conscripta et Hystoria Nova de Sancto Wenceslao Martyre. Autobiography of Emperor Charles IV and his Legend of St. Wenceslas, eds. Balázs Nagy and Frank Schaer, Central European Medieval Texts (Budapest: CEU Press, 2001), 80–83.

12 Hungarian translation and comments: Balázs Nagy, “Magyar vonatkozások Luxemburgi Károly önéletrajzában” [Hungarian Aspects in the Autobiography of Charles of Luxemburg], in Auxilium historiae: tanulmányok a hetvenesztendős Bertényi Iván tiszteletére [Auxilium Historiae: Studies in Honor of Iván Bertényi on his Seventieth Birthday], eds. Tamás Körmendi and Gábor Thoroczkay (Budapest: ELTE BTK, 2009), 227–29.

13 Ioannis Dlugossi, Annales seu cronicae incliti regni Poloniae. Liber nonus, ed. D. Turkowska (Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1978); Jan Długosz, The Annales of Jan Długosz, ed. and transl. by Maurice Michael (Charlton Mill, UK: IM Publications, 1997), 285–86.

14 „Anno domini millesimo tricentesimo tricesimo quinto circa festum sancti Martini Johannes rex Bohemorum cum Karolo filio suo, et rex Polonorum venerunt ad regem Karolum in Hungariam ad castrum Wyssegrad pro perpetue pacis concordia componenda, quod et factum est. Omni enim die ad prandium regis Bohemorum ex magnificentia regis Hungarie expendebantur duo millia et quingenti panes, et de cibis regalibus copiose, pabulum etiam equis suis per singulos dies viginti quinque garlete. Ad prandium vero regis Polonorum mille et quingenti panes, de cibariis etiam habundanter. De vino autem expense sunt centum et octoginta tunelle. Remuneravit autem rex Ungarie regem Bohemorum diversis et preciosis clenodiis, videlicet quinquaginta vasis argenteis, duabus pharetris, duobus baltheis, et una tabula pro scacis mirabili, duabus sellis inestimabilis precii, uno biccello valente ducentas marcas argenti, et una concha margaritharum mirabili opere composita. Item quia rex Polonie erat regi Bohemorum censualis, et quia rex Hungarie Karolus habebat sororem regis Polonie in uxorem, dedit ei rex Hungarie idem Karolus ad redimendum eum regem de solutione censuali regi Bohemorum quingentas marcas auri purissimi, et ibi ordinatum est, ut quemquam ipsorum regum vel regna eorum hostis invaderet aliquis, ceteri debeant in sui adiutorium et iuvamen festinare. Et istud fuit confirmatum inter eos magno federe iuramenti.” Johannes de Thurocz, Chronica Hungarorum I. Textus, eds. Erzsébet Galántai and Gyula Kristó (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1985), 152–53.

15 See the charter issued by King Casimir and his sureties, dated November 22, 1335. Original: Wroclaw, Wojewódszkie Archiwum Panstwowe, Archivum miasta Wroclawia [The State Archives of Wroclaw, Archives of the City of Wroclaw] no. 237; published editions: Codex Diplomaticus Moraviae, vol. VII, 69–70 (no. 89), dated November 12 following the previous editions; RBM, vol. IV, 85–86 (no. 221); Codex Diplomaticus Silesiae 62 (no. 5522); Anjou-kori oklevéltár, vol. XIX, no. 688, again with a wrong date, following Codex Diplomaticus Moraviae, although the Codex Diplomaticus Silesiae had already called attention to the errors in the previous editions (61, no. 5515).

16 The exact conversion/commutation of the monetary data was done by Elemér Mályusz in his commentaries to the critical edition of the Thuróczy Chronicle: Johannes de Thurocz, Chronica Hungarorum II. Commentarii 2. Ab anno 1301 usque ad annum 1487, ed. Elemér Mályusz, with the help of Gyula Kristó (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1988), 78–79.

17 On her life, and the important political role she played beside her husband, see László Szende, “Piast Erzsébet, a hitves, az édesanya, a mecénás” [Elizabeth Piast, Wife, Mother, Patroness], in Károly Róbert és Székesfehérvár [Charles Robert and Székesfehérvár] (Székesfehérvár: Székesfehérvári Egyházmegyei Múzeum, 2011), 78–100.

18 Original: Národni archív, Praha, AČK, Inv. No. 168. Accessed September 5, 2013, http://www.mom-ca.uni-koeln.de/mom/CZ-NA/ACK/168/charter. Published editions: Codex diplomaticus Moraviae, vol. VII, 71–72 (no. 91) on the basis of a copy and of previous editions, maintaining that the original is in Vienna; RBM, vol. IV, 87–88 (no. 223); Codex Diplomaticus Silesiae, 61 (no. 5518); Koss, Arhiv Koruny České, no. 181; Anjou-kori oklevéltár, vol. XIX, no. 707; Rácz, Visegrád 1335, 105–06. (English, Czech, Hungarian, Polish and Slovak translations, 107–16).

19 Original lost. Edition: Ludewig, Reliqviae, vol. V, 588–89. Following him, and each other: RBM, vol. IV, 88–89 (no. 225); Codex Diplomaticus Silesiae 62 (no. 5520).

20 The original is missing. Edition: Ludewig, Reliqviae, vol. V, 292–93 (dated 1305); Codex Diplomaticus Moraviae, vol. VII, 70–71 (no. 90, on the basis of previous editions); RBM, vol. IV, 86 (no. 222, on the basis of previous editions); Codex Diplomaticus Silesiae 61 (no. 5519);

21 Preußisches Urkundenbuch (1335–1342), vol. I/3, ed. Max Hein (Königsberg: Hartung, 1944), nos. 11–16; Das virtuelle Preußische Urkundenbuch 3. 11–16.

22 Helena Chlopocka, “Galhard de Carceribus i jego rola w sporze polsko-krzyżackim w XIV w.” [Galhard de Carceribus and His Role in the Dispute between the Poles and the Teutonic Knights in the Fourteenth Century], in Europa–Słowiańszczyzna–Polska. Studia ku uczczeniu Profesora Kazimierza Tymienieckiego [Europe–Slavdom–Poland. Studies in Honor of Prof. Kazimierz Tymieniecki], ed. Juliusz Bardach et al. (Poznań: Wydaw. Naukowe UAM, 1970), 135–45.

23 The articles of the peace treaty are known from a fifteenth-century copy: Das virtuelle Preußische Urkundenbuch 3. 27.

24 Original: Národni archív, Praha, AČK, Inv. Nr. 169. Accessed September 5, 2013, http://www.mom-ca.uni-koeln.de/mom/CZ-NA/ACK/169/charter. Judging by the place where it is kept now, it must have been the copy of John of Luxemburg. Published editions: Preußisches Urkundenbuch, vol. I/3, no. 30; RBM, vol. III, no. 2060; Codex Diplomaticus Silesiae 62. In the dating tricesimo tercio is an evident misspelling of tricesimo quinto.

25 Cf. Stanisław Szczur, “Az 1335. évi visegrádi királyi találkozó” [The 1335 Royal Summit in Visegrád], Aetas 1 (1993): 26–42 (31).

26 Original: Národni archív, Praha, AČK, Inv. Nr. 170. Published editions: Codex Diplomaticus Prussicus, vol. III, no. 31; RBM, vol. IV, 89 (no. 227); Codex Diplomaticus Silesiae 62 (no. 5523); Koss, Arhiv Koruny České, 145 (no. 182).

27 Original: Geheimes Staatsarchiv Preussischer Kulturbesitz Berlin–Dahlem XX. HA, Urkunden, Schieblade 109, no. 39 (MNL OL, DF, 288 349). Published editions: RBM, vol. IV, 89–90 (no. 228); Preußisches Urkundenbuch, vol. I/3, 32; Codex Diplomaticus Silesiae 63 (no. 5526); Anjou-kori oklevéltár, vol. XIX, no. 725.

28 Original: Geheimes Staatsarchiv Preussischer Kulturbesitz Berlin–Dahlem, vol. XX, Ha. StA. Königsberg 109.40 (MNL OL, DF, 288 350). Published editions: Rácz, Visegrád 1335, 156; Codex Diplomaticus Moraviae, vol. I/7, 75 (no. 98); Preußisches Urkundenbuch, vol. I/3, 33; Anjou-kori oklevéltár, vol. XIX, no. 739.

29 Preußisches Urkundenbuch, I/3, no. 64.

30 Iván Bertényi, Magyarország az Anjouk korában [Hungary in the Age of the Angevins] (Budapest: Gondolat, 1987), 108.

31 Iván Bertényi, A 14. század története [The History of the Fourteenth Century] (Budapest: Pannonica, 2000), 152..

32 For a brief historiography, see Szczur, “Az 1335. évi visegrádi,” 28–29.

33 On this view, see Bálint Hóman, A Magyar Királyság pénzügyei és gazdaságpolitikája Károly Róbert korában [The Finances and Economic Policy of the Kingdom of Hungary in the Age of Charles Robert] (Budapest: Nap Kiadó 2003 [1921]) 66–68.

34 Original: Archiv města Brna [Archives of the City of Brno], A 1/1 – Archiv města Brna – sbírka listin, mandátů a listů, 1208–2000, sign. 93. (MNL OL, DF, 267 832). The editions are listed in Anjou-kori oklevéltár, vol. XIX, no. 6. The newest edition: Rácz, Visegrád 1335, 164–178. The charter was also translated into Slovak in two published versions: Dokumenty slovenskej národnej identity a štátnosti I [Documents of Slovak National Identity and Statehood], ed. Ján Beňko et al. (Bratislava: Národné literárne centrum – Dom slovenskej literatúry, 1998), 150–51; Pramene k dejinám Slovenska a Slovákov IV. Pod vládou anjouovských kráľov [Sources on the History of Slovakia and the Slovaks IV. Under the Rule of the Angevin Kings], ed. Vincent Sedlák (Bratislava: Literárne informačné centrum, 2002), 108–09. It has to be noted that the name “Laurencius Sclavus,” which figures in the charter, has been rendered as “Vavrincovi Slovákovi” in these translations, which is an evident mistake since the person in question, known as Lőrinc Tóth in Hungarian historiography, was a man of Southern Slav origins with ancestors from the county of Dubica (Croatia); see Antal Pór, “Tót Lőrinc, a királyi tárnokok és zászlótartók mestere (1328–1348)” [Lőrinc Tót, Master of the Royal Treasurers and Flagbearers (1328–1348)], Századok 25 (1891): 347–77; Ede Reiszig, “Az Újlaki-család” [The Újlaki Family], Turul 57 (1943): 1–13, 56–65, Table 65; consequently, the word sclavus should be interpreted in a general sense and by no means as synonymous with Slovak.

35 Hungarian historiography now interprets differently the opening of the trading route of Brünn (Brno, Czech Republic), which had taditionally been explained in terms of an effort to get round the staple right of Vienna. Renáta Skorka, “A bécsi lerakat Magyarországra vezető kiskapui” [Backstairs of the Vienna Staple towards Hungary], Történelmi Szemle 54, no. 1 (2012): 1–16.

36 Elemér Mályusz, “Krónika-problémák” [Chronicle Problems], Századok 100 (1966): 725–47; Gyula Kristó, “Anjou-kori krónikáink” [Our Chronicles from the Angevin Period], Századok 101 (1967): 467; idem, Magyar historiográfia I. Történetírás a középkori Magyarországon [Hungarian Historiography I. The Writing of History in Medieval Hungary] (Budapest: Osiris, 2002), 86.

37 “Kenyér” [Bread], in Magyar Néprajzi Lexikon [Encyclopedia of Hungarian Ethnography], vol. III, K–Né, ed. Gyula Ortutay (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1980), 145–46.

38 Antal Pór (“Tót Lőrincz, a királyi tárnokok és zászlótartók mestere,” 363) translated it as “köböl” (“köböl, Muth, korec”), while János Horváth rendered it as “mérő”: János Thuróczy, A magyarok krónikája [Chronicle of the Hungarians], transl. János Horváth (Budapest: Európa Könyvkiadó, 1980), 223.

39 István Bogdán, Magyarországi űr-, térfogat-, súly- és darabmértékek 1874-ig [Cubic, Volume, Weight and Piece Measures in Hungary to 1874] (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1991), 218–19, 328–29; Lexicon Latinitatis medii aevi Hungariae, 5 vols., eds. Iván Boronkai and Kornél Szovák (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1987–1999), vol. II, 430.

40 Gyula Zolnai, Nyelvemlékeink a könyvnyomtatás koráig [Our Linguistic Relics until the Age of Printing] (Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, 1894), 90. The author lists its occurrences in linguistic relics in the forms gerla/garleta.

41 Jenő Szűcs, “A gabona árforradalma a 13. században” [The Revolution in Grain Prices in the Thirteenth Century], Történelmi Szemle 27 (1984): 14–18.

42 Zsigmondkori oklevéltár [Charters from the Age of Sigismund], 12 vols. (1387–1425), eds. Elemér Mályusz et al., (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, Magyar Országos Levéltár, 1951–2013), vol. I, no. 2247; vol. III, no. 1591; vol. V, no. 1832; vol. VIII, no. 72; Lexicon Latinitatis Hungariae, vol. IV, 183.

43 Szűcs, “A gabona árforradalma,” 16. Since in his thorough manual of cubic measures István Bogdán does not include the data of Szűcs, nor does the latter make reference to his work, it is evident that Bogdán worked independently, yet he came to roughly the same results. See Bogdán, Magyarországi űrmértékek, 289, where he cites data of 1611, 1208, and 916 kgs, and finally opts for the latter as the most authoritative.

44 László Veszprémy, “Csatamének, paripák és hátaslovak. A középkori hadilovakról” [Destriers, Coursers and Rounceys. On Medieval Warhorses], in idem, Lovagvilág Magyarországon [The World of Chivalry in Hungary] (Budapest: Argumentum, 2008), 155–70.

45 Géza Perjés, Mezőgazdasági termelés, népesség, hadseregélelmezés és stratégia a 17. század második felében (1650–1715) [Agricultural Production, Population, Army Provisioning and Strategy in the Second Half of the Seventeenth Century] (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1963), 60; Géza Hatos, A lovak takarmányozása háborús viszonyok között [The Foddering of Horses under Wartime Conditions] (Budapest: Pátria, 1942), 25.

46 According to Mátyás Szőke (personal communication) there are archeological finds in Visegrád that could be interpreted as grain-storage pits.

47 Bogdán, Magyarországi űrmértékek, 155–56; Antal Pór, “A történeti jelenetek korhű reconstruálásáról. Fejedelmi congressus Visegrádon, 1335. novemberben” [On the Faithful Reconstruction of Historical Scenes. A Princely Congress in Visegrád, November 1335], Századok 27 (1893): 421–28; István Miskolczy, Magyarország az Anjouk korában [Hungary in the Age of the Angevins], Historia Incognita (Máriabesnyő–Gödöllő: Attraktor, 2009), 26–27.

48 It would be interesting to follow the traces, if any, of these gifts in later Czech tradition. The historians who dealt with the topic give the lists with variations: Antonius de Bonfinis, Rerum Ungaricarum decades, 3 vols., eds. I. Fógel et al. (Lipsiae: B.G. Teubner, 1936), vol. II, 213 (2. 9. 360); Ioannes Dubravius, Historiae regni Bohemiae (Francofurti: Bibliopolae Wratislaviensis, 1687), 562.

49 A Hungarian historian in the nineteenth century opined that the chronicler may have received his information from a tavarnicus, that is, a person employed in the provision of the court; Pór, “Tóth Lőrinc,” 363.

50 Enikő Csukovits, “Egy nagy utazás résztvevői (Zsigmond király római kísérete)” [Participants in a Great Journey (King Sigismund’s Retinue in Rome)], in Tanulmányok Borsa Iván tiszteletére [Studies in Honor of Iván Borsa] ed. E. Csukovits (Budapest: Magyar Országos Levéltár, 1998), 11–36; Attila Bárány, “Zsigmond király 1416-os angliai kísérete” [King Sigismund’s Retinue in England in 1416], Aetas 19, no. 3–4 (2004): 5–30; Péter E. Kovács, “‘A Szent Koronára! Ez kedvemre telik.’ Zsigmond császár Luccában” [‘On the Holy Crown! This Is to My Liking!’ Emperor Sigismund in Lucca], Századok 141 (2007): 355–56.

51 István Draskóczy, A tizenötödik század története [The History of the Fifteenth Century] (Budapest: Pannonica Kiadó, 2000), 150.

r%c3%a1cz.jpg

János Thuróczi, Chronica Hungarorum, 1488, Theobald Feger, Erhard Ratdolt. Augsburg, 165 (Széchényi National Library, Budapest, Manuscript Collection, Inc. 1143.)
Accessed September 3, 2013, http://www.corvina.oszk.hu/corvinas-html/hub1inc1143.htm.

2013_2_Skorka

pdfVolume 2 Issue 2 CONTENTS

Renáta Skorka

With a Little Help from the Cousins – Charles I and the Habsburg Dukes of Austria during the Interregnum*

With the death of King Andrew III of Hungary in January 1301 the male line of the Árpád dynasty that had ruled the Kingdom of Hungary for precisely three centuries died out. It was self-evident and natural to everyone that a ruler who was linked to the Árpáds through the female line must be elected to head the kingdom; however, opinions were divided as to who actually should wear the Hungarian crown. One of the important factors of the interregnum prevailing in Hungary in the first decade of the fourteenth century examined below is the support for royal candidates arriving from outside the country’s borders, which in many respects contributed to the coronation of the last remaining candidate in accordance with expectations and traditions in 1310.

Keywords: royal succession in Hungary, Holy Crown, Angevins, Habsburgs, Papacy

 

By the end of the Árpád era the coronation of kings already had set rules in Hungary. According to custom, the ceremony had to take place in the basilica of Székesfehérvár, founded by the first king of Hungary, (Saint) Stephen I (1001–1038) and dedicated to the Blessed Virgin Mary; during the coronation the Holy Crown, kept in the basilica and held to be the royal diadem of Saint Stephen, had to be placed on the future ruler’s head; and the ceremony had to be performed by the archbishop of Esztergom. At the time of King Andrew’s death the title of archbishop of Esztergom was held by Gergely Bicskei; many, however, called his dignity into question, since at the time of his election a few of the members of the cathedral chapter of Esztergom, opposing the will of the majority, from the outset rejected him. For this reason the pope did not confirm the divisive archbishop in his office, but instead appointed him as procurator of the Archbishopric of Esztergom as a temporary solution.1 Bicskei’s position had been further weakened by the end of the reign of Andrew III, for the king deprived him of control over the estates that were the reigning archbishop’s due.2 All this indicates that officially he was no longer regarded as elected archbishop of Esztergom either, and this is why the author of the Illuminated Chronicle, dating from the mid-fourteenth century, could state in reference to the year 1301 that “at that time the archiepiscopal see of Esztergom was not occupied.”3

The cause of the prelate’s loss of favor essentially foreshadowed the political crisis that took place after Andrew’s death. In fact, Bicskei, abandoning his loyalty to the sovereign, had gone over to the side of the lords of Slavonia and Croatia who supported the claims of the Angevins, rulers of the Kingdom of Naples, to the throne of Hungary against Andrew. The king of Naples, Charles II (the Lame), and his wife, Queen Mary, who was the daughter of the Hungarian king Stephen V (1270–1272), not only tried to strengthen the position of their first born son, Charles Martel, by winning over adherents in Hungary, but through the marriage of Charles Martel and Clemence, the daughter of King Rudolf I of Germany, they also made the Habsburgs an interested party in the matter, which in any case reveals wise foresight. The Angevins’ claim to the throne of Hungary did not cease with the death of Charles Martel in 1295, for in August 1300 the only son of Charles Martel and Clemence of Habsburg, Charles Robert, came ashore in Dalmatia to assume his rightful paternal inheritance. The young prince, probably twelve years old at the time, was received by one of the most powerful Croatian lords, Paul Šubić, and Gergely Bicskei, who regarded himself as archbishop of Esztergom beyond any doubt.4 Andrew III was in all probability prepared to fend off the power crisis ushered in by the Angevin duke’s appearance; however, the implementation of his plans was foiled because of his death on January 14, 1301. While the country’s inhabitants, lay and ecclesiastical—at least according to a contemporary account—mourned the last male member of the House of Árpád in the manner of Rachel (more Rachelis deplorantes),5 Bicskei was not overcome by mourning, and appeared at the gates of the coronation town with the Angevin prince at his side in February 1301. Because the people of Székesfehérvár, who were moved much rather by dismissal of the archbishop than by antipathy towards Charles Robert, refused to allow the prelate and his protégé into their town, the determined archbishop crowned the prince with an occasional diadem of unknown origin in Esztergom, probably in early April. The new king of Hungary, the grandson of Queen Mary of Naples, and great-grandson of Stephen V of the Árpád dynasty, bore the name of Charles.6 If we take into account the reservations concerning Bicskei’s archiepiscopal dignity, we may state that the ceremony accorded with the coronation customs established in the Kingdom of Hungary in virtually no respect whatsoever, and this, in turn, made the legitimacy of the newly crowned king’s rule questionable and disputable.

To Charles’s misfortune, apart from Gergely Bicskei he had another supporter whose person and ambition aroused antipathy in many. Pope Boniface VIII, who could thank both the pro-Angevin Orsini party of cardinals7 and his thorough knowledge of canon law for his ascension to power, had incessantly supported the claim to the Hungarian throne of the Angevin dynasty since his election in 1294. The lawyer-pope, who himself had searched out the laws needed to procure the resignation of his predecessor, Pope Celestine V,8 and had “attentively provided for” the house arrest of the ex-pontiff as well, revived the centuries-old idea of papal supremacy over secular authority.9 According to this, as he explained to the French ruler in a bull composed in 1301, it was within the rights of the reigning pontiff both to elevate kings and to deprive them of their dignity.10 Boniface in any case did not consider Europe’s most important rulers worthy of his favors (or did so only reluctantly). He became embroiled in a fateful conflict with King Philip IV (the Fair) of France,11 and he accused King Albert of Germany, who, after the defeat of Adolf of Nassau in the Battle of Göllheim in 1298, followed in the footsteps of his father Rudolf I, of treachery and regicide, and was so unwilling to recognize his election12 that he summoned even the electors to appear before the papal tribunal.13 Being close to the Angevins, the pope identified himself with the cause of Charles of Hungary, all the more so since, according to the opinion of the Holy See, which dated back to the eleventh century, King (Saint) Stephen I of Hungary had offered up his crown to Saint Peter, and thus the right to decide who should sit on the throne of the Kingdom of Hungary belonged to the head of the Holy Roman Church.14 Although both the Árpáds and tradition in Hungary rejected the papal assertion, Rome grasped every possible opportunity to assert papal supremacy over Hungary.15 In this respect the acceptance of the pope’s protégé, the Angevin prince, as king of Hungary in the eyes of the Hungarians would have been tantamount to the utterly unwelcome spread of papal influence in Hungary. Thus the Hungarian lords, according to the straightforward wording of the chronicler, “lest they lose the freedom of a free country by accepting the king given by the church,”16 chose a candidate of their own to occupy the vacant throne, namely the thirteen-year-old son of the Czech king Wenceslas II, also named Wenceslas. The young Wenceslas, who was the great-grandson of the sister of Stephen V of Hungary, and was thus tied to the Árpáds through the female line, was crowned king of Hungary with the Holy Crown on August 27, 1301 at Székesfehérvár by the archbishop of Kalocsa, János.17 Although the legality of the ceremony on this occasion, too, was questionable, as it was not performed by the archbishop of Esztergom, it appears that the majority of the country stood on the side of Wenceslas, called Ladislaus in Hungary, against Charles.

Already in May Boniface VIII had reckoned that the Czech Přemyslid dynasty could enter into the struggle for the Hungarian throne with serious chances,18 and his counter-measure was not long in coming. He addressed a letter to Wenceslas II in which he warned the Czech king, who, according to the pope, had consented to his son’s election in Hungary out of obvious error. The boy’s coronation, the pontiff continued, he considered unlawful, because the ceremony had been performed by the archbishop of Kalocsa,19 whom he summoned along with the two rulers concerned before the papal curia for the purpose of a hearing about this.20 Nor did Boniface fail to call upon the Czech king to cooperate with that same Niccolò Boccasini who, as papal emissary vested with full legatine authority, had been residing in Hungary, pushed to the brink of disaster because of internal dissension, since September 1301.21

In order to save the Kingdom of Hungary and restore its internal peace, Cardinal Boccasini, bishop of Ostia and Velletri, convoked a meeting of the prelates of Hungary for October 25 in Buda, where only a short time earlier the two kings, Charles and Ladislaus, had also conducted negotiations with one another.22 However, at the Synod of Buda, held in late October and early November, the papal legate was forced to accept that his efforts were not enough even to bring the positions closer together. Gergely Bicskei, who clung tenaciously to his office, almost completely lost the support of all the prelates of Hungary, and it was precisely in these weeks (thus before he could be called to account by the Holy See), that the archbishop of Kalocsa, János, departed this world.23 The experiences of the Synod of Buda with regard to Bicskei in any case shook papal confidence in the chosen archbishop of Esztergom, and Boniface VIII therefore instructed his emissary to inquire with proper circumspection about the person of a candidate suited for heading the Archbishopric of Esztergom.24 At the same time, with regard to the filling of the archiepiscopal see of Kalocsa, which had become vacant with the death of János, the pontiff unambiguously and firmly stated that he reserved for himself the right to decide the fate of the archbishopric.25

The papal emissary’s movements in Hungary reflect clearly how beginning in late 1301 Charles and his adherents were gradually being forced out of the central areas of the country. While the legate, who at first had resided in Esztergom and Buda, transferred his headquarters to Pressburg in December 1301,26 which was just then in Austrian hands through the widow of Andrew III, Queen Agnes of Habsburg, Charles, following an unsuccessful attack against Buda, returned to the southern areas that had supported him earlier also. Buda, the country’s capital, fell into Ladislaus’s (Wenceslas’s) hands, while the castle of Esztergom was conquered by the palatine and ispán of Sopron, the pro-Přemyslid János (or Iván) Kőszegi. In return for a significant sum of money Kőszegi handed it over to King Ladislaus, who put the family’s loyal man, Zdislav Měšec, in charge of the castle.27 The newly appointed castellan of Esztergom was a citizen of Uherské Hradiště in Moravia,28 and his sobriquet měšec or ‘money purse’ suggests that he may have been a financial support to the Czech crown during the Hungarian adventure as well. As castellan, Měšec did not treat the church of Esztergom with kid gloves, seizing the chapter’s assets and seriously violating its economic privileges.29 King Wenceslas of Bohemia was nonetheless dissatisfied with how his son’s fate was unfolding, and the rumor spread that he regretted having intervened in the internal affairs of the Kingdom of Hungary.30 The Czech king’s disappointment may have stemmed from the widely known fact that the Hungarian lords “had not granted a single castle, a single dignity or office, or a single royal prerogative whatsoever” to his son, just as they had not granted anything to Charles either; in other words, they only nominally regarded both rulers as king.31 In truth, those few families that had been able in recent decades to increase their estates at the expense of the central authority and by the time Andrew III died held sway over expansive territories were now seeking to exercise actual power. In their own provinces these lords acted in the image of the king, that is, they exercised the sovereign rights otherwise belonging to the reigning ruler, bestowed noble titles, sat in judgment, or pursued an independent foreign policy.

Nor could Pope Boniface VIII be completely satisfied with how the situation of his protégé, King Charles, was evolving. However, before he pronounced a judgment in the power crisis in Hungary, he had to decide on the legal claim of another lay ruler. On April 30, 1303, after almost five years of rigid resistance, the pontiff appeared ready to recognize the rule of the German king, Albert of Habsburg, and was not averse to the latter’s coronation as emperor either, provided the German king’s emissaries made concessions to him which would in fact amount to acknowledging that the King of the Romans was the servant and immediate subject of the Holy Father.32 Albert I accepted the (for him) humiliating conditions, and thus the last obstacle was removed from his way to the Empire, where he followed, after a short interruption, his father as the second Habsburg duke on the imperial throne. Regarding the interested parties in the dispute over the Hungarian throne the Holy Father made his decision one month later, on May 31. Queen Mary of Naples, summoned before the papal curia, appeared in person, while King Charles of Hungary was represented by István, the new, pro-Angevin archbishop of Kalocsa elected by the pope in 1302, who was accompanied by the bishops of Győr, Zagreb, and Veszprém.33 The Hungarian prelates were accompanied by the provosts of Esztergom, Vác, and Vasvár, as well as the archdeacon of Transylvania, who probably also were on Charles’s side.34 Compared to the distinguished Angevin delegation from Hungary, the delegation of the Czech side was disappointingly modest. The Czech king Wenceslas and his son through their emissaries, two priests and a lay lawyer, sent word to the pope that they did not wish to litigate regarding their rule over the kingdom of Hungary, since the Hungarians had elected the young Wenceslas as king unanimously and according to canon law.35 Knowing the previous stance of the Holy See, truly no one was surprised by the judgment of Boniface VIII and the College of Cardinals, according to which Hungarian rulers came to power through inheritance and not by election. Therefore, because Queen Mary and her grandson Charles were the closer heirs (propinquior erat successor et haeres), they had a stronger claim to the Hungarian throne.36 The papal bull issued under the terms of the decision stripped Ladislaus (Wenceslas) of the right to use the royal title and Boniface VIII released everyone from the oath taken to him, at the same time declaring that the obedience and tax of the subjects belonged to Charles, and threatened those prelates, priests, monastic orders and lay people who might turn against him with the penalty of excommunication.37 The delegation led by the archbishop of Kalocsa could depart from Anagni, not far from the pope’s seat at Rome, completely satisfied. On June 11 they were already in the vicinity of Naples when the pontiff’s letter caught up with them, in which the archbishop and the bishop of Zagreb received the instructions to make sure the judgment of the curia was promulgated in Bohemia as well.38 During their journey Charles’s emissaries naturally could also rely on the solicitous support of the Hungarian king’s grandfather, the ruler of Naples, and Charles II ensured their journey home by sea as well. The ferrymen of Apulia transporting the delegation left the shores of Italy in late June, and after a boat journey of nearly a month arrived in the territory of the Kingdom of Hungary.39 Thus, Boniface’s May bull was officially published in Hungary from the penultimate day of July; upon instructions from the archbishop of Kalocsa and Bishop Mihály of Zagreb it was proclaimed first before the collegiate chapter of Csázma (Čazma, Croatia) and later before the cathedral chapters of Bosnia and Bács.40 Apart from the southern areas, which backed the Angevins in any event, the judgment of the papal curia was sent to Székesfehérvár and Transylvania only.41 Despite the papal decision and the prospective interdict for the disobedient, in the territory of the Kingdom of Hungary more remained on the side of the Czech Ladislaus (Wenceslas), who continued to maintain his headquarters in Buda, regarded as the center of the country. We know that the town of Sopron continued to recognize him as the ruler of Hungary,42 just like the cathedral chapter of Eger,43 or the Kőszegis, who numbered among the most eminent oligarchs of the kingdom. It is important to emphasize, therefore, that the position of the Přemyslid dynasty did not become untenable in Hungary after the papal decision, and, with a little paternal assistance, it could even have been maintained in the long run.

Boniface VIII informed the German king, whom he had very recently readopted to his favor, of the Holy See’s decision of May 31 on that same day, then in mid-June in a separate letter he asked Albert and his son, Duke Rudolf of Austria, to render all the aid they could to the Angevin prince,44 who was Rudolf’s cousin through the maternal line.45 Thereafter Charles himself turned to his uncle for help a number of times, first through the bishop of Várad, and later the bishop of Zengg (Senj, Croatia) and other secular ambassadors.46 Assistance against the Czechs on the part of the Habsburg relatives, however, could only be realized if it was in the interest of the Empire and the Habsburgs to turn against the Kingdom of Bohemia. King Albert’s relationship with the Czech king Wenceslas II could be described as basically good, since as an elector in 1298 Wenceslas himself had supported Albert,47 and in a separate letter to the pope he admitted also that he regarded the Habsburg, at that time considered by Rome to be a traitor and a regicide, as king of Germany.48 Albert in return did not block Wenceslas’s expansionist policy towards Poland; indeed, in June 1300 he guaranteed him the Polish territories that had fallen into Czech hands.49 He also acquiesced in his imperial subject’s coronation as king of Poland in August 1300. Nor did he raise his voice when, beginning in 1301, his eastern neighbor attempted to extend his power to Hungary as well. Albert in fact needed the support of the Czech king in these years, both because Rome had not yet recognized his rule, and because the Rhenish electors had entered into an alliance against him in 1300. Albert was able to check his enemies within the Empire only through war, and the auxiliary troops of Wenceslas II of Bohemia contributed to his decisive victory in 1302.50

In 1303, however, the time seemed ripe for breaking the excessive power of the Přemyslids. Albert as king of Germany approached the Czech ruler with territorial and financial demands to which he himself knew Wenceslas could not agree and which would thus lead to the disintegration of their alliance.51 The occasion to attack the Kingdom of Bohemia was provided almost by Wenceslas II himself, when in June 1304,52 in order to “consolidate his own son’s dominion over the Hungarians,” he arrived in Hungary with a sizeable armed retinue.53 He first set up camp at the ferry of Kakat situated opposite Esztergom; then, crossing the Danube, he put the archbishop of Esztergom to flight, and reinforced the Czech-held castle of Esztergom54 and Visegrád.55 Arriving in Buda, however, Wenceslas was soon deterred from his original intention. According to the account of the Styrian (or Austrian) Rhymed Chronicle, while secretly planning for their departure with his son, he attempted to convince the Hungarian notables summoned to Buda that he was preparing to chase Charles from the country. After he had won the trust of the Hungarians, Wenceslas put forward the wish that during the next church feast day he would like to see his son entering the church for the holy mass wearing the Hungarian royal vestments. The royal insignia, hitherto kept in the sacristy, were thus produced. Donning these, Ladislaus (Wenceslas) appeared in the church, while during the mass the Czech king’s soldiers, camped near the gates, lined up in front of the building. When the mass neared its end the youth, departing with the crown on his head, was quickly put on a horse and escorted to his quarters. The ceremony complete, the Czech king hosted the lords and prelates staying in Buda in lavish fashion, after which he showered them with gifts. Following this Wenceslas, alluding to the danger threatening his country from the direction of the Austrian territories, left Buda with his travel-ready retinue and son and set out for home.56 Before entering the territory of Moravia they were overtaken by the bishop of Győr, who asked the Czech ruler not to take the Hungarian coronation regalia out of the country. To the words of the pro-Charles prelate Wenceslas angrily replied that nobody had a better right to them than the king, who was none other than his son.57

The precise date of the Czechs’ departure is not known; what is certain is that on July 7 Ladislaus (Wenceslas) was still residing in Buda, whereas on September 22 Wenceslas II was once more dating his diplomas from Prague.58 Based on the account cited above, we may consider it likely that the Czech king had indeed arrived to Buda with the intention of strengthening his son’s rule in Hungary. The circumstances of their departure, however, in any event allow us to conclude that during his stay in Hungary Wenceslas II learned of some event that imperiled not only the Kingdom of Bohemia but also his son resident in Buda, causing him to return home in haste, albeit not empty-handed. What could have been that unexpected event which thwarted his original plans? It was undoubtedly the fact that Charles, leaving the southern marches of the kingdom behind, had entered into an alliance with his cousin, Duke Rudolf of Austria, in Habsburg-held Pressburg on August 24.59 The most important prelates of Hungary adhered to the agreement,60 which was also signed by a dozen lay notables, the majority of whom had been on Charles’s side previously. In other words, it was not the news of the theft of the crown that had brought about the alliance. A few days later, the King of the Romans, Albert, who was just preparing for his campaign against Moravia, called upon the bishops and barons of Hungary to provide the Austrian duke armed assistance.61 According to the records from the Cistercian abbey at Zwettl in Lower Austria, Charles and Rudolf launched attacks against the Kingdom of Bohemia at virtually the same time: while Rudolf looted and burned the neighbouring areas of Bohemia and Moravia, his cousin, with his army that was highly overestimated in size, reached Znaim (Znojmo, Czech Republic), taking many prisoners and obtaining much booty along the way.62 With King Albert arriving in Linz on September 8, part of his imperial armies to march against Bohemia assembled at Freistadt in Upper Austria, while the remainder, including the armed force led by the Count Palatine of the Rhine, stationed at Budweis (České Budějovice, Czech Republic), where according to the plans they were to join the armies of Rudolf and Charles gathering between Weitra and Gmünd.63 However, after the army, made up of Hungarians and Cumans and allegedly numbering twenty thousand, also ravaged the northern areas of Lower Austria on its way from Znojmo to Gmünd, Albert commanded them to disband and release their prisoners. Defying the Roman king’s request, the Hungarians were dealt with by Duke Rudolf at Altenburg, near Zwettl, on October 2.64 Despite the incident we can safely state that there were still Hungarian auxiliary troops in the Roman king’s army, which lay siege to Europe’s most important silver mine, Kuttenberg (Kutná Hora, Czech Republic), on October 18.65

As a result of the anti-Czech collaboration, bolstered by Habsburg-Angevin family bonds, Charles, returning to Hungary and rid of his competitor, was finally in a position to begin to rule; at least this is what one would expect, for in reality the king completely disappears from the sources in 1305. From later references it may be concluded that he spent a long time in the northern regions of the country, in Szepes County, where the castle of Szepesvár (Spišsky Hrad, Slovakia), still held by the Czechs, was retaken,66 and the castle of Esztergom, which following the Czechs’ departure had once more fallen into the hands of Iván (János) Kőszegi, was probably also reoccupied in that year.67 Following the failed Bohemian campaign the Habsburgs did not make peace with the Czechs; indeed, in the late spring of 1305 they were preparing another campaign against them,68 which was only prevented by the death of Wenceslas II on June 21. On August 18 in Nuremberg the German king lifted the imperial ban against the Přemyslid dynasty and relinquished all his territorial demands against Wenceslas III (who succeeded his father on the throne) as well as his share deriving from the silver mines of Kuttenberg. The resulting peace emphasizes that Albert reconciled himself not just with the newly consecrated Czech ruler but with the latter’s helpers and supporters as well. First listed among these supporters were the two dukes of Lower Bavaria, Otto III and his brother, Stephen I.69

The dukes of Lower Bavaria were the sons of Duke Henry XIII of Bavaria, notorious for his hostility to the Habsburgs, and the sister of King Stephen V of Hungary, Elisabeth, which meant that they, too, were related to the Árpád dynasty of Hungary through the female line. This would account for the claim contained in the Chronica de Ducibus Bavariae that in 1301 the anti-Angevin Hungarian lords had offered the Hungarian crown first to Otto III, who, however, rejected the invitation,70 and thus did the choice fall on the Czech ruler’s son. Otto, restless and bellicose (vir strennuus et bellicosus) according to the same source, inherited his father’s policy. In the battle of Göllheim in 1298 he had fought on the side of Adolf of Nassau, and he remained a steadfast enemy of the Habsburgs even after the election of Albert I as king of Germany.71 It was thus only logical that in 1304 Otto, together with his brother, ended up on the side of Wenceslas II, who appointed him commander-in-chief of his armies. Otto did not rest even after the peace of 1305, continuously seeking the opportunity to inflict damage on his southeastern neighbors.

With the death of Wenceslas II, Wenceslas III, who inherited the Polish and Czech thrones, was ready to relinquish the weakest link of his dominions, the Kingdom of Hungary, in favor of his ally. Otto, having acquired the Hungarian coronation regalia from Prague, was ready to depart for Hungary at the first call of Wenceslas’s remaining supporters or perhaps of the German-speaking Transylvanian Saxons, and thus box the Habsburgs in from three sides, Lower Bavaria, Hungary and Bohemia. The Czech ruler used the Hungarian royal title for the last time on October 10, 1305,72 and on the basis of the narrative sources it appears that Otto was crowned as king of Hungary by the bishops of Veszprém and Csanád on December 6, 1305.73 The coronation ceremony could hardly have been more than a play acted out for the Bavarian duke, the purpose of which may have been merely to retrieve the Holy Crown and deposit it once more in the safety of the basilica in Székesfehérvár. The very identity of the prelates who performed the ceremony guaranteed that the coronation would be anything but legally valid. Moreover, Bishop Benedek of Veszprém was so much an adherent of Charles that he had been one of those representing the ruler before the papal tribunal in Anagni on May 30, 1303. Less is known about Bishop Antal of Csanád, a Franciscan friar, but what is certain is that he assisted the work of the papal legate Boccasini in Hungary.74 Probably nobody anticipated that after his coronation Otto would not wish to part with the insignia of his rule, and on feast days, according to the chronicler’s disapproving comment, he would try to win over the people of Buda, opposed to Charles in any case, by marching in the streets and squares of the town with the Holy Crown on his head.75

On August 4, 1306 Otto’s plans were jeopardized when Wenceslas III was murdered at Olmütz (Olomouc, Czech Republic) on his way to a campaign in Poland. With his death the male line of the Přemyslid dynasty became extinct, and the duke of Lower Bavaria lost his ally. In addition, it was precisely in these days that Pope Clement V took the decision that he would apply the same punishment against those who invited Duke Otto to Hungary against Charles that his predecessor, Boniface VIII, had proposed.76 The fact that the German ruler Albert I regarded the Kingdom of Bohemia as an electorate reverting to the empire, and as such he would have liked to secure it that same August for his son, Duke Rudolf of Austria, represented an additional threat to Otto. Some hope was offered by the majority of the Czech nobles supporting the aspirations of Duke Henry of Carinthia, brother-in-law of Wenceslas III, instead of the Habsburgs, to the Czech crown, who had already been appointed by the deceased king as regent for the duration of his campaign in Poland. While the German king, together with his son Rudolf, spent the second half of the year 1306 with a new campaign in Bohemia, where they attempted to exert pressure on the Czechs by laying siege to Prague itself,77 Otto, not budging from the central areas of the Kingdom of Hungary, awaited developments in Buda and the vicinity of Pest.78 By October the fears of the Bavarian prince had been justified. Duke Henry of Carinthia fled from Bohemia, and the Habsburgs acquired the Přemyslid inheritance, thereby uniting the Austrian provinces, the Kingdom of Bohemia, the Margraviate of Meissen, Eger (Cheb, Czech Republic) and Pleissen, as well as certain areas of Silesia and Poland, in their hands. By late 1306 Otto’s plan to surround the Habsburg territories had not only failed but backfired, since the southeastern and northeastern areas of Lower Bavaria now bordered on Habsburg possessions along their entire length, as did the western and northern borders of the Kingdom of Hungary. Following the acquisition of the Czech throne, the Austrian provinces passed to the younger son of Albert I, Frederick. Duke Frederick of Austria did not fail to assure the Hungarian nobles and prelates on behalf of his father and brother that the Habsburgs would continue to back Charles, and essentially hoped for the same from the Hungarians as well.79

Having been blocked by the Habsburgs from his imperial territories, the time had come for Otto to leave Buda and look for allies. It is certainly no coincidence that in the sources relating to the duke of Lower Bavaria, such as the previously mentioned chronicle of the dukes of Bavaria, it is during his stay in Hungary that the possibility of a marriage is raised,80 which in accordance with the customs of the period meant the establishment of a military and political alliance as well. In early 1307 Otto set out towards Transylvania, and we can probably accept the assumption that his purpose was marriage to the Transylvanian voevode’s daughter. The lord of Transylvania, one of Hungary’s most prominent oligarchs, whose excommunication the pope had initiated in late 1306 because of his stubborn resistance to Charles,81 could have been an ideal ally for Otto against the Habsburg-Angevin party from every possible standpoint. However, for reasons unknown, the planned alliance ran aground. Otto and the Holy Crown were imprisoned in one of the castles of the Transylvanian voevode, László Kán, though the former was freed within a short time, probably in the summer of 1307. By this time, however, Buda had fallen into Charles’s hands,82 and it had also been decided on that a new papal legate would come to Hungary in order to settle Charles’s case.83 Moreover, the Hungarian lords who appeared at the general assembly held on the Plain of Rákos in October, unanimously acknowledged Charles as their sovereign.84 The year 1307 brought about another unexpected turn in Bohemian events as well. In early July 1307 the Czech king Rudolf died; the Czech lords, breaking the oath they had previously taken (namely, that in the event of Rudolf’s death without an heir they would elect his eldest living brother as their ruler), once more went over to the side of Duke Henry of Carinthia.85 King Albert of Germany lost no time in advocating the interests of his son, Duke Frederick of Austria, launching a campaign against Bohemia, which, however, ended in failure in late 1307. While the German king returned to the Empire to gather strength over the winter for his next campaign in Bohemia, the Czechs turned to Albert’s enemies within the Empire for assistance. They first sought out Duke Otto of Lower Bavaria,86 for whom the events of the second half of 1307 promised new hope of a triumph over the Habsburgs. Probably still in late 1307, leaving Transylvania and Hungary via a circuitous eastward route, he entered into an alliance with the militarily quite active Duke Henry III of Glogau (Głogów, Poland), a descendant of the Silesian branch of the Piasts, and betrothed the latter’s daughter, Agnes. Then in February 1308 he returned to Lower Bavaria.

Otto’s departure left Charles the sole candidate in the Kingdom of Hungary, and henceforth his lawful coronation was only a matter of time, depending on the eventual reobtention of the Holy Crown from the voevode of Transylvania. In the consolidation of Charles’s power in Hungary and his getting rid of the rival pretenders, the diplomatic skill and military strength of his external supporters and at the same time his relatives, the Habsburg dukes, proved indispensable.

 

Bibliography

Acta Aragonensia. Quellen zur deutschen, italienischen, französischen, spanischen, zur Kirchen- und Kulturgeschichte aus der diplomatischen Korrespondenz Jaymes II. (1291–1327), edited by Heinrich von Finke. 2 vols. Berlin–Leipzig: Dr Walther Rothschild, 1908.

Anjou-kori oklevéltár [Charters of Angevin Hungary]. 32 vols, edited by Tibor Almási, László Blazovich, Lajos Géczi, Gyula Kristó, Ferenc Piti, Ferenc Sebők and Ildikó Tóth. Budapest–Szeged: n.p., 1990–2012.

Canning, Joseph. Ideas of Power in the Late Middle Ages 1296–1417. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011.

Codex diplomaticus et epistolaris Moraviae. 15 vols, edited by Antonín Boček, Josef Chytil, Peter von Chlumecký, Vincenc Brandl and Berthold Bretholz. Olmütz–Brünn: Verlag des Mährischen Landes Ausschusses, 1835–1903.

Codex diplomaticus Hungariae ecclesiasticus ac civilis. 11 vols, edited by György Fejér. Budae: Typis Typogr. Regiae Universitatis Ungaricae, 1829–1844.

„Cronica de ducibus Bavariae.” In Bayerische Chroniken des XIV. Jahrhunderts, edited by Georg Leidinger. Hannover–Leipzig: Hahnsche Buchhandlung, 1918.

Duffy, Eamon. Saints and Sinners. A History of the Popes. New Haven–London: Yale University Press, 2006.

Gerics, József. „A Hartvik-legenda mintáiról és forrásairól” [About the Models and Sources of the Hartvik Legend]. Magyar Könyvszemle 97, no. 3 (1981): 175–88.

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

Képes Krónika. Translated by János Bollók. Budapest: Osiris Kiadó, 2004.

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

Kristó, Gyula and Ferenc Makk, eds. Károly Róbert emlékezete [The Memory of Charles Robert]. Budapest: Európa Könyvkiadó, 1988.

Lenkey, Zoltán and Attila Zsoldos. Szent István és III. András [Saint Stephen and Andrew III]. Budapest: Kossuth Kiadó, 2003.

Lichnowsky, Eduard Maria. Geschichte des Hauses Habsburg. 8 vols. Vienna: Schaumburg und Compagnie, 1836–1844.

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

Ottokars Österreichische Reimchronik, edited by Joseph Seemüller. Hannover: Hahnsche Buchhandlung, 1890–1893.

Regesta Diplomatica nec non Epistolaria Bohemiae et Moraviae. 4 vols, edited by Karol Jaromír Erben and Josef Emler. Pragae: Typis Grégerianis, 1855–1892.

Ullmann, Walter. A Short History of the Papacy in the Middle Ages. London: Methuen, 1972.

Vaníček, Vratislav. Velké dějiny zemí koruny české III. 1250–1310. Prague: Pesaka, 2002.

Watts, John. The Making of Polities. Europe, 1300–1500. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.

Wittelsbachische Regesten von der Erwerbung des Herzogtums Baiern (1180) bis zu dessen erster Wiedervereinigung (1340), edited by Johann Friedrich Böhmer. Stuttgart: J. G. Cotta’scher Verlag, 1854.

Zsoldos, Attila. „Anjou Károly első koronázása” [The First Crowning of Charles Anjou]. In Auxilium Historiae. Tanulmányok a hetvenesztendős Bertényi Iván tiszteletére [Auxilium Historiae. Studies in Honor of Iván Bertényi on his Seventieth Birthday], edited by Tamás Körmendi and Gábor Thoroczkay, 405–13. Budapest: Eötvös Loránd Tudományegyetem Bölcsészettudományi Kara, 2009.

 

Translated by Matthew Caples

1* The author’s research is supported by Bolyai János Research Fellowship (BO/00099/12/2)

Anjou-kori oklevéltár [Charters of Angevin Hungary], 32 vols., ed. Tibor Almási et al. (Budapest–Szeged: n.p., 1990–2012), vol. I, no. 470.

2 Zoltán Lenkey and Attila Zsoldos, Szent István és III. András [Saint Stephen and Andrew III], (Budapest: Kossuth Kiadó, 2003), 214.

3 Képes Krónika [The Illuminated Chronicle], transl. János Bollók (Budapest: Osiris Kiadó, 2004), 120.

4 Zsoldos–Lenkey, Szent István és III. András, 219.

5 For Palatine István Ákos’s diploma, dated February 26, 1303, see Imre Nagy and Gyula Nagy, eds., Anjou-kori okmánytár [Charters from the Angevin Period], 7 vols. (Budapest: MTA Könyvkiadó Hivatala, 1878–1920), vol. I, 52.

6 For the circumstances of Charles Robert`s first coronation, see Attila Zsoldos, „Anjou Károly első koronázása” [The First Crowning of Charles of Anjou], in Auxilium Historiae. Tanulmányok a hetvenesztendős Bertényi Iván tiszteletére [Auxilium Historiae. Studies in Honor of Iván Bertényi on his Seventieth Birthday], eds. Tamás Körmendi and Gábor Thoroczkay (Budapest: Eötvös Loránd Tudományegyetem Bölcsészettudományi Kara, 2009), 412.

7 Walter Ullmann, A Short History of the Papacy in the Middle Ages (London: Methuen, 1972), 270.

8 Karl-Friedrich Krieger, Die Habsburger im Mittelalter. Von Rudolf I. bis Friedrich III. (Stuttgart: Verlag W. Kohlhammer, 2004), 94.

9 Eamon Duffy, Saints and Sinners. A History of the Popes (New Haven–London: Yale University Press, 2006), 159.

10 Joseph Canning, Ideas of Power in the Late Middle Ages, 1296–1417 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 16.

11 John Watts, The Making of Polities. Europe, 1300–1500 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 162.

12 Alois Niederstätter, Die Herrschaft Österreich. Fürst und Land im Spätmittelalter (Vienna: Ueberreuter 2004), 106.

13 Eduard Maria Lichnowsky, Geschichte des Hauses Habsburg, 8 vols. (Vienna: Schaumburg und Compagnie, 1836–1844), vol. 2, CCXXXI/307.

14 József Gerics, „A Hartvik legenda mintáiról és forrásairól” [About the Models and Sources of the Hartvik Legend], Magyar Könyvszemle 97 (1981): 178.

15 Zsoldos–Lenkey, Szent István és III. András, 135.

16 Képes Krónika, 120.

17 Zsoldos, „Anjou Károly első koronázása,” 410.

18 See the pope’s letter to Wenceslas, dated May 13, 1301, in Anjou-kori oklevéltár, vol I, no. 41.

19 „qui auctoritatem reges Ungariae coronandi non habebat de consuetudine vel de iure,” in Regesta Diplomatica nec non Epistolaria Bohemiae et Moraviae, 4 vols., ed. Karol Jaromir et al. (Pragae: Typis Grégerianis, 1855–1892) (henceforward RBM), vol. II, 814.

20 Anjou-kori oklevéltár, vol. I, nos. 88–89.

21 Boccasini’s appointment as legate was dated May: see Anjou-kori oklevéltár, vol I, nos. 39–42; his presence in Hungary can be dated from September: see Anjou-kori oklevéltár, vol I, nos. 72, 89. „statu miseribili dicti regni, quod proh dolor in spiritualibus et temporalibus multipliciter est collapsum, et in quo undique bella fremunt.” RBM, vol. II, 815.

22 Anjou-kori oklevéltár, vol I, no. 96; „de concordia facienda inter dilectos filios nobiles viros Carolum […] ac Wenceslaum […] habitum fuisse tractatum” — RBM, vol. II, 819.

23 „praelati regni Ungariae quasi omnes communites Strigoniensi adversabantur electo” — RBM, vol. II, 818; „et archipiscopus, qui coronavit regem Boemiae, propter hoc citatus erat ad curiam, sed mors prevenit citacionem” — Acta Aragonensia. Quellen zur deutschen, italienischen, französischen, spanischen zur Kirchen- und Kulturgeschichte aus der diplomatischen Korrespondenz Jaymes II (1291–1327), 2 vols., ed. Heinrich Finke (Berlin–Leipzig: Dr Walther Rotschild, 1908), vol. 1, 112.

24 Anjou-kori oklevéltár, vol. I, no. 106; „a nobis te diximus praesentialiter informandum, videlicet ut de praeficiendo eidem ecclesiae praefato electo vel alio, si ad eam alium eligi vel postulari contingeret, te intromittere non deberes, […] ac volumus ut ad id sine nostra licentia speciali non apponas ullatenus manum tuam” — RBM, vol. II, 818.

25 Anjou-kori oklevéltár, vol. I, no. 105.

26 The relevant datings in Anjou-kori oklevéltár, the last in Pressburg, June 1302 (vol. I, 230), the first in Vienna, July 1302 (vol. I, no. 250.).

27 In Hungarian sources his name occurs in the form Mesych dictus Sdyzlaus and/or Zdyzlaus; see Anjou-kori oklevéltár, vol I, nos. 398–99. In the Czech source material he figures as witness in a land donation in 1298 under the name Sdizlao dicto Meschitz. RBM, vol. II, 769.

28 On Měšec’s origins, see Vratislav Vaníček, Velké dějiny zemí koruny české: 1250–1310 [The History of the Lands of the Czech Crown: 1250–1310] (Prague: Pesaka, 2002), 305.

29 For his loyal service, however, King Wenceslas on April 22, 1303 bestowed on the returning citizen the market town of Hluk in Moravia. RBM, vol II, 841.

30 „ex aliquorum relationibus et conjecturis versimilibus percepisti [...] Wenceslaum regem Boemiae illustrem, de inchoatis et attentatis per ipsum super regnum Ungariae praelibato non modicum poenitere” — RBM, vol II, 818.

31 Képes Krónika, 121.

32 Krieger, Die Habsburger, 98.

33 Anjou-kori oklevéltár, vol. I, no. 392.

34 Ibid., no. 386.

35 „in regem Ungariae concorditer et canonice proponebat electum” — Codex diplomaticus Hungariae ecclesiasticus ac civilis, 11 vols., ed. by György Fejér (Budae: Typis Typogr. regiae Universitatis Ungaricae, 1829–1844) (hereafter CD), vol. VIII/1, 207. The diploma’s correct date of issue is August 10, 1306, since king Wenceslaus III is still mentioned as living: „negotium quondam Wenceslai eiusdem regis filli nunc viventis” — Anjou-kori oklevéltár, vol. II, no. 221 (dated 1307).

36 „regnum ipsum Ungariae successionis iure provenit, et electionis suffragio arbitrioque non defertur” — CD, vol. VIII/1, 210.

37 Anjou-kori oklevéltár, vol. I, nos. 392, 406.

38 Ibid., nos. 403, 443.

39 Ibid., no. 415.

40 Ibid., nos. 426, 432, 433.

41 Proclamation at Székesfehérvár: ibid., no. 434; proclamation in Transylvania: ibid., no. 417.

42 Ibid., no. 634.

43 Ibid., nos. 593–94.

44 Ibid., nos. 393, 404, 405.

45 Clemence and Albert of Habsburg were siblings.

46 Anjou-kori oklevéltár, vol. I, nos. 510, 511, 611.

47 Lichnowsky, Geschichte des Hauses Habsburg, vol. II, CCV, no. 87.

48 Ibid., CCXII, no. 138.

49 Ibid., CCXXVII–CCXXVIII, no. 280.

50 Krieger, Die Habsburger, 100.

51 Ibid., 101–02.

52 On May 23, 1304 Wenceslas was still dating his letters from Brno. Codex Diplomaticus et Epistolaris Moraviae, 15 vols., ed. Antonín Boček et al., (Olmütz–Brünn: Verlag des Märischen Landes Ausschusses, 1835–1903), vol. VII, no. 160.

53 Gyula Kristó and Ferenc Makk, eds., Károly Róbert emlékezete [The Memory of Charles Robert], (Budapest: Európa Könyvkiadó, 1988), 64.

54 Anjou-kori oklevéltár, vol. I, nos. 657, 756.

55 Ibid., no. 705.

56 Ottokars Österreichische Reimchronik, ed. Joseph Seemüller (Hannover: Hahnsche Buchhandlung, 1890–1893) (henceforward: Reimchronik), 1090–92.

57 Reimchronik, 1095–96.

58 Anjou-kori oklevéltár, vol. I, no. 634; RBM II, no. 2013.

59 Anjou-kori oklevéltár, vol. I, no. 643.

60 Ibid., no. 644.

61 Ibid., no. 674. In his letter Albert mentions Neuburg on the Danube as his most recent location, which means that the letter was composed between August 20 and September 8, since the king was still in Nuremberg on the former date and in Linz on the latter. Lichnowsky, Geschichte des Hauses Habsburg, vol. II, CCLI–CCLII, 454, 457.

62 Károly Róbert emlékezete, 65.

63 Ibid., 65; RBM vol. II, 871.

64 Károly Róbert emlékezete, 65.

65 For the date of the siege of Kuttenberg, see Lichnowsky, Geschichte des Hauses Habsburg, vol. II, CCLII, no. 457.

66 Anjou-kori oklevéltár, vol. II, no. 44; vol. III, no. 230.

67 Ibid., vol. II, no. 47.

68 Wittelsbachische Regesten von der Erwerbung des Herzogtums Baiern (1180) bis zu dessen erster Wiedervereinigung (1340), ed. Johann Friedrich Böhmer (Stuttgart: J. G. Cotta’scher Verlag, 1854), 57.

69 Lichnowsky, Geschichte des Hauses Habsburg, vol. II, CCLVI, 494.

70 Cronica de ducibus Bavariae, in Bayerische Chroniken des XIV. Jahrhunderts, ed. Georg Leidinger (Hannover–Leipzig: Hahnsche Buchhandlung, 1918) (henceforward: Cronica), 151.

71 Ludwig Holzfurtner, Die Wittelsbacher. Staat und Dynastie in acht Jahrhunderten (Stuttgart: Verlag W. Kohlhammer, 2005), 65.

72 RBM, vol. II, 888.

73 Cronica, 151.

74 Anjou-kori oklevéltár, vol. I, nos. 119, 165.

75 Képes Krónika, 122.

76 RBM, vol. II, 907.

77 Krieger, Die Habsburger, 104–05.

78 Anjou-kori oklevéltár, vol. II, no. 70.

79 Ibid., nos. 65–66.

80 Cronica, 151.

81 Anjou-kori oklevéltár, vol. II, nos. 62, 114.

82 Ibid., no. 173.

83 Ibid., no. 221.

84 Ibid., no. 243.

85 Krieger, Die Habsburger, 106–07.

86 Lichnowsky, Geschichte des Hauses Habsburg, vol. II, 280.

2013_2_Zsoldos

pdfVolume 2 Issue 2 CONTENTS

Attila Zsoldos

Kings and Oligarchs in Hungary at the Turn of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries

In the decades around the turn of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries Hungarian royal authority sank into a deep crisis. While previously the king had been the exclusive supreme lord of the country, from the 1270s on some members of the nobility managed to build up powers in the possession of which they could successfully resist even the king. The present study explores the road which led to the emergence of oligarchical provinces. It presents both the common and the individual features of these provinces, defining the conceptual difference which apparently existed between the oligarchs who opposed royal power and the lords of territories who remained loyal to the ruler. Consequently, the study analyses the measures which were taken first by the last Árpáds, and then by the first member of the new, Angevin dynasty, Charles I, in order to neutralize oligarchical powers. By the end of the study it becomes apparent why it was Charles I who finally managed to break the power of the oligarchs and dismember their provinces.

Keywords: political history, royal authority, oligarchs, last Árpáds, Charles I of Anjou

 

After successfully completing his mission to conclude a mutual marriage agreement sealing the alliance between the houses of Anjou and Árpád, Abbot of Monte Cassino Bernhard Ayglerius reported enthusiastically to his lord, King Charles I of Naples: “The Hungarian royal house has incredible power, its military forces are so large that nobody in the East and the North dares even budge if the triumphant and glorious king mobilizes his army.”1 Weddings between scions of the two ruling dynasties soon took place: just a half year later, Ladislaus, the grandson of Hungarian King Béla IV (1235–1270) and son of future King Stephen V (1270–1272), married Elizabeth of Sicily, the youngest daughter of King Charles I of Naples, while the son of the latter king, the future Charles II of Naples, married Stephen’s daughter, Mary. The latter marriage established the foundation for the claim of the Angevins of Naples to the throne of Hungary following the extinction of the House of Árpád. This claim to succession was by no means uncontested: although the Angevins of Naples considered the heirless death of King Ladislaus IV (1272–1290) to represent the extinction of the House of Árpád, an alleged member of the latter dynasty, known to the Angevins merely as “some Venetian named Andrew” [quidam de Venetiis Andreatius nomine], assumed the throne and ruled Hungary as King Andrew III for more than a decade (1290–1301).2 Although nobody in Hungary questioned the extinction of the male line of the House of Árpád3 following the death of this king of disputed origins,4 Charles I (1301–1342), grandson of Mary of Hungary, Queen of Naples, struggled for more than two decades after coming to the throne to secure his rule over the country. Although reluctance to accept a prince supported by the papacy undoubtedly played a role in the difficulty which King Charles I had to face,5 it was mostly the result of a situation which was later described in a royal charter from the year 1332 in the following way:

 

When we were in a tender age and had not yet acquired total rule over the country, the faithless barons and depraved betrayers of our predecessors, the illustrious former kings, committed with a hard eye cast upon the royal throne manifold felonies of high treason against the person of the king and seized all opportunity to forcibly usurp sovereign prerogative, murdering with horrible slaughter the most distinguished nobles of the country lest they bind themselves to us and the Holy Crown with requisite zeal, destroying those of lower rank in various fashion as well.6

Developments that occurred in the half century beginning in 1269 provide an explanation for the conspicuous discrepancy between accounts in that year depicting the foreign power of the Hungarian king and reports describing the domestic weakness of the Hungarian sovereign in the first two decades of the fourteenth century.

Charles I did, indeed, inherit from his predecessors the situation described in the 1332 charter: over the last third of the thirteenth century, the king was frequently compelled to take up arms in order to force his will upon rebellious subjects, if at all he had sufficient power to do so. The significant decline in the once nearly limitless power of the Hungarian king was due to several historical factors that emerged during this period, first acting independently, then over time reinforcing one another.

The process that produced a fundamental change in relations between prominent landowners and the king began around the beginning of the thirteenth century. In the eleventh and twelfth centuries, the nobility possessed a relatively modest amount of personal wealth, their power and means stemming primarily from royal office and the income it provided. However, as a result of the largesse of King Emeric (1196–1204) and, to an even greater degree, King Andrew II (1205–1235), those who enjoyed royal patronage were able to accumulate a relatively vast personal fortune. The transformation of land-ownership proportions progressed inexorably in favor of the nobility to the detriment of the king throughout the thirteenth century. Moreover, the major land-owning nobility aspired to an ever-greater degree during the second half of the century to concentrate their holdings geographically, which resulted in the formation of larger, enclosed estates in place of previously scattered domains of various size.

The construction of modern stone castles, which in Hungary began in the second half of the thirteenth century, contributed significantly to the transformation of the nature of great landed estates in the kingdom. The building of such castles, a lesson learnt from the shock caused by the 1241–1242 Mongol invasion, was expressely supported by the royal power. Although royal authority was responsible for the construction of some of these stone castles, members of the kingdom’s major land-owning nobility had the majority of them erected on their estates. Although no precise data exists as to how many stone castles were built in Hungary during this period, according to a reasonable estimate their number was already around 100 at the time of the death of King Béla IV in 1270, and increased to nearly 300 by the end of the thirteenth century. The construction of castles, though officially requiring authorization from the king, soon slipped from the control of central royal authority. Fear from a castle-building neighbor, rather than the need to strengthen the kingdom’s defensive capabilities, provided the main motive for building stone castles at this time, as landowners gradually realized the equation of castle with power. A veritable castle-building race developed in Hungary during the final decades of the thirteenth century, in which it was highly advisable to participate. Moreover, during the civil war that took place in the 1260s between King Béla IV and his eldest son, the future King Stephen V, these castles proved able to withstand the siege of royal armies if their defenders possessed enough water, food and determination.

Meanwhile, an increasing number of smaller landowners placed themselves in the service of the castle-owning nobility, either in the hope of profiting from their growing power or because of the fear it caused. Those who allied themselves with more powerful landowners in this way were referred to as familiares: they belonged to the broader family of their lord (the word itself stems from the Latin word for family), and thus owed him obedience even over and against their loyalty to the king. If necessary, the familiaris went to battle alongside his lord, managed his estates in time of peace, represented him in various capacities, and acted as his deputy in some of his offices. In compensation, the familiaris received military protection and support and occasional material or monetary remuneration. It was in the paramount interest of the major landowners to turn the greatest possible number of the neighboring nobility into their familiares: this not only provided them with more soldiers, but also extended the area over which they exercised influence beyond the borders of their own estates. The large estate, the castle and the army of familiares constituted the three pillars upon which some of the most powerful nobility managed by the 1270s to construct considerable private power structures, sometimes extending over several counties within the kingdom, in which the only will in operation was that of the lord who dominated the lands and castles and commanded the familiares. The first such major landowners to establish personal power of this magnitude emerged during the reign of King Béla IV (1235–1270). Among them was Pál of the Geregye kindred, who immediately recognized the advantages to be gained from the building of castles, and accordingly constructed at least two on the western slopes of the mountains dividing Transylvania from the Great Hungarian Plain, another two being erected in the region by either himself or his sons. It soon appeared, however, that Pál was not satisfied with the fruits of the king’s grace, and already in the 1250s many landowners in the area felt the consequences of his greed. Although the king compelled Pál to return some of the territory he had seized,7 his four sons continued to expand the family’s domains until the army of King Ladislaus IV defeated them in battle at the end of the 1270s.8 During the latter conflict, local nobles who had not previously dared to resist the Geregye, including some members of the distinguished, though not particularly wealthy Borsa family, allied themselves with the king. The significant contribution of Tamás Borsa and his six sons, who had not previously played a role in the kingdom’s politics, to defeat of the Geregye, did not go unrecognized: King Ladislaus IV not only granted them almost all of the defeated family’s estates and castles, but offered them positions within his royal administration, appointing the eldest Borsa son, Roland, as voevode of Transylvania, while his younger brother Jakab, most often referred to simply as “Kopasz” [Bald], entered the royal council as Master of the Horse.9 King Ladislaus IV felt that he may have found in the Borsa family allies “whose loyalty, bravery and industry—as enunciated in one of his diplomas—successfully governed and defended Hungary during the time of our forefathers.”10 The king was not initially disappointed: Roland and his brothers proved to be brave and successful commanders of royal armies on several occasions.11 However, the Borsa family found the taste of power to its liking, prompting them to seek independent authority and turn against their king. In the spring of 1287, the Borsas and their confederates routed the forces of King Ladislaus IV in a relatively small-scale engagement.12 From this time on, relations were hostile between the Borsa family and the king, whose control over Transylvania and the central portion of the Trans-Tisza region became scarcely more than nominal.

The Borsa family supported the claim of King Andrew III, the grandson of King Andrew II, to the throne of Hungary following the death of King Ladislaus IV in 1290, thus laying the foundation for several years of smooth relations with the Venetian-born monarch. In the middle of 1294, however, Roland Borsa, voevode of Transylvania, decided to expand his estate to the detriment of the Bishop of Várad (Oradea, Romania), and lay siege to one of the castles belonging to the bishopric. The defenders finally decided to surrender the fortification to Roland and his brothers on terms.13 In response, King Andrew III retaliated by taking the castle of Adorján, the Borsa family’s headquarters, following a siege, though it is not known whether the king’s armies launched campaigns against the Borsas elsewhere in Transylvania or eastern Hungary. The Borsa family submitted to royal authority following the fall of their castle, and the king deprived Roland of his office as voevode of Transylvania. However, both Roland and his brothers continued to exercise authority over a large portion of the Trans-Tisza region for decades thereafter.14

King Andrew III appointed László of the Kán kindred to replace Roland as voevode of Transylvania. László was also the member of a great and powerful noble family that possessed large estates in southern Transylvania and southeastern Transdanubia and whose members had belonged to the political elite of the kingdom for generations. László governed Transylvania for more than two decades following the king’s suppression of the Borsa uprising.15

The “Kőszegi” branch of the Héder family, known as such because the center of its estates was the town of Kőszeg, represented another early example of the establishment of oligarchical power in the Kingdom of Hungary. The ancestors of the family migrated to the kingdom from Styria in the middle of the twelfth century. The foundations for the power of the kindred’s Kőszegi branch were laid by Henrik, who, characteristically, later came to be known as “the Great”.16 Henrik, just as Pál Geregye, was one of the most trusted followers of King Béla IV. His family estates were located in Vas County, where he built his first castles, receiving at least two more as grants from the king. In this way, Henrik gained control over the county located in western Transdanubia, making it possible for his descendants to extend their authority over a large portion of the region.17 Unlike Pál Geregye, Henrik Kőszegi was able to build his personal power without coming into conflict with his king, Béla IV. He did oppose Béla’s successors, Stephen V and Ladislaus IV, however. Following the death of Henrik “the Great” two years later in battle against a rival,18 his sons Miklós, Iván (or János) and Henrik Jr. assumed control over their father’s estates, while another son, Péter, became Bishop of Veszprém.19 The two eldest sons, Miklós and Iván, took possession of Henrik’s most valuable Transdanubian domains, dividing his Vas County castles between themselves and apparently striking an agreement regarding further expansion of the family holdings. Miklós extended his authority in a southeasterly direction, over Zala County, while Iván did so in a northerly direction, over the entire northwestern part of Transdanubia. Miklós disappears from the historical records after 1299, presumably due to his death,20 while his son “Kakas” Miklós appears in the year 1314,21 thus producing a gap of a decade and a half in the known history of this branch of the Kőszegi family. In the meantime, Henrik Jr. used his base in castles located on the southwestern corner of the kingdom to expand his power south of the Drava river in the region of Slavonia. Though the stages and first results of this expansion are unknown, sources show that he possessed the title of ban of Slavonia from 1301 until his death in 1310, and together with it the greatest part of the province. Henrik Jr. chose southeastern Transdanubia as the area for his further territorial expansion, in all certainty in order to avoid encroaching upon the spheres of interest of his older brothers and their descendants. The sons of Henrik Jr, János and Péter, the latter known as “Herceg,” continued to extend their zone of influence in southeastern Transdanubia. Thus, two of the sons of Henrik “the Great,” namely Henrik Jr. and Iván (and their scions) managed to carve out real provinces of their own, which virtually dwarfed the territory over which the third son of Henrik, Miklós (and his son, “Kakas” Miklós) exerted authority.22

Over time, local potentates emerged in the northern part of the Kingdom of Hungary as well—one in the east and one in the west. One of them was Finta, son of Dávid of the Aba kindred, which descended from King Samuel Aba, ruler of the kingdom for some years in the middle of the eleventh century (1041–1044). Finta served as palatine, the highest-ranking official in the Kingdom of Hungary, for a brief period during the reign of King Ladislaus IV before coming into conflict with the monarch. Although Finta disappears from sight in the middle of the 1280s, his younger brother, Amadé, took the leadership and emerged as the unrivaled lord of the northeastern regions by the last years of king Ladislaus IV’s reign. His power extended gradually and almost unpercieved to the territory between the river Tisza and the northeastern marches of the kingdom, where his remained the dominant authority until his death in the year 1311.23

The northwestern part of the Kingdom of Hungary was brought by Máté of the Csák kindred under his control in the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries. The Csák, one of the most illustrious kindreds in the Kingdom of Hungary, had split into a dozen branches by the thirteenth century. There were few regions of the kingdom in which members of one of the offshoots of the kindred did not possess bigger or smaller estates. Máté began to make his voice heard in the politics of the kingdom in 1291. In 1293 he was appointed by King Andrew III as Master of the Horse, and as palatine three years later. However, after establishing his power base around his inherited estate of Tapolcsány (Topolčany, Slovakia), in Nyitra County, Máté Csák broke with King Andrew and entered into armed conflict with forces loyal to the king in the second half of 1297.24 King Andrew III proved unable to subjugate Máté, who by the first years of the fourteenth century had extended his influence all the way to the Danube in the south and the Garam and beyond in the east.25

Hungarian historiography most often refers to those listed above and others who exercised similar local power within the Kingdom of Hungary as “provincial lords” [tartományúr] or “oligarchs” [oligarcha]. (In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the term “petty king” [kiskirály] was also used, but by now has become obsolete.) However, due mostly to the lack of clarity surrounding these very terms, it is difficult to determine precisely who among the kingdom’s more powerful landowners belonged to these categories in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries.

The confusion becomes even greater if one approaches the question from the perspective of the institution of the province. The existence of institutionalized authority over a portion of the Kingdom of Hungary as the sole representative of the royal will there had certainly not been unknown since at least the beginning of the thirteenth century, as this was the very essence of both the voevodship of Transylvania and the banate of Slavonia. Transylvania and Slavonia can therefore legitimately be qualified as provinces, just as the voevode and the ban, with their extensive official authority, as lords of their respective provinces.26 The system of governing parts of the kingdom at the provincial level proved to be so successful that King Charles I (1301–1342) decided to extend this system to other parts of the realm where, contrary to Transylvania and Slavonia, it had never previously existed. Thus emerged from the mid-1310s a province of ever growing extension in the northeastern part of the kingdom under the Apulian Fülöp Druget, who had arrived to Hungary together with Charles I himself27 in the year 1300.28 In the western marches of Transylvania Charles entrusted a considerable stretch of territory to the government of Dózsa Debreceni,29 and he built up the southern province of the ban of Macsó (Mačva, Serbia) between 1319 and 1333.30 The provincial status of these territories was secured by the fact that the barons who headed them governed their counties with palatinal authority even when the office of palatine was held by someone else.31 Dózsa Debreceni’s province survived for the shortest period of time among the three, gradually declining after his death in late 1322 or early 1323.32 Fülöp Druget’s province existed until 1342, enduring for 15 years under his son Vilmos until King Louis I, the successor of King Charles I, decided to abolish it for unknown reasons.33 The province of the Ban of Macsó persisted for the longest period of time, expanding in size even in the late fourteenth century, long after the death of its founder.34

There must obviously have existed conspicuous differences, perceptible even at the time, between the various locally governed provincial territories in the kingdom if King Charles I chose to eliminate some of them at the cost of more than two decades of war, while founding others himself.

The reason for this contrast may seem obvious: because King Charles I had put Dózsa Debreceni, the Drugets and the Bans of Macsó in charge of their provinces, the authority they exercised over these regions sprang directly from royal power, thus ensuring that they would faithfully provide their lord with the military support and strategic counsel expected of loyal barons in the Middle Ages. Amadé Aba’s power rested upon this same foundation, however. At the beginning of his reign in 1290, King Andrew III confirmed Amadé in all of his estates,35 and he remained steadfastly loyal to both King Andrew III and his successor, Charles I, never rising in rebellion against them as one might expect from an oligarch.36 But if Amadé did not rebel against royal power, why then did his sons do so?

The answer can be sought in distinguishing between the concepts of “provincial lord” and “oligarch.” Hungarian historiography has until now used these terms as synonyms, though it would be more accurate to use them according to the well-defined differences in their meaning as demonstrated clearly in the example of the Treaty of Kassa (Košice, Slovakia).

The burghers of Kassa murdered Amadé of the Aba kindred while he was staying in their town in early September 1311.37 Representatives of Charles I mediated an agreement between the burghers of Kassa and the widow and sons of Amadé in order to assuage the resulting discord. However, this agreement38 represented a de facto dictate aimed at liquidating the deceased magnate’s power.39 It is therefore not surprising that Amadé’s sons accepted the agreement only under the weight of temporary compulsion, rising against the king at the first available opportunity. The Treaty of Kassa, drafted in the name of Amadé’s wife and sons, regulated the future relationship between the king and the sons of Amadé, stipulating that the latter should cede Újvár and Zemplén counties to the king and permit the nobles residing in the counties that remained under their authority (nobiles quoscunque in quibuscunque comitatibus et terris sub potestate nostra constitutis) to freely serve the king or anybody else. These provisions make it clear that King Charles I, while aiming to reduce the size of the province dominated by the Amadé sons, did nevertheless reckon that there would continue to be some areas “subjected to their authority.” The further conditions imposed on the sons of Amadé in the agreement constitute an itemized list of criteria defining the “oligarch” as opposed to the “provincial lord”: they should return the unlawfully acquired royal lands to the king; suppress customs levied arbitrarily and promise not to establish new ones; obtain royal permission to build new castles; let the royal judges try the nobility instead of compelling them to appear before their own tribunals; promise to remain loyal to the king.40 At the same time these stipulations indicate that King Charles I, while clearly determined to suppress the sons of Amadé as oligarchs, was willing to tolerate their continued existence in the kingdom as provincial lords. They also provide clear evidence of the difference in the definition of “provincial lord” and “oligarch” that made itself felt on a practical, everyday basis in the fourteenth century: an oligarch was a provincial lord who excluded the power of the king from his domains and engaged in the arbitrary exercise of royal authority.

The essential difference between the provincial lord and the oligarch did not, therefore, lie in their degree of loyalty toward the king,41 an issue that characteristically represents only a minor element in the Treaty of Kassa. The main distinction between the provincial lord who supported the king and the loyal oligarch becomes evident if one compares the measures that King Charles I took between 1301 and 1311 affecting the lands, on the one hand, of the Borsa clan and, on the other hand, those of Ugrin Csák, the latter located in the southern portion of the kingdom between the towns of Pozsega (Požega, Croatia) and Temesvár (Timişoara, Romania). King Charles held the counties located in the latter region firmly under his jurisdiction,42 bestowing property and the right to impose customs duties,43 granting judicial44 and tax exemptions45 as well as maintaining the prerogative to assume control over estates whose owners died without heirs.46 The king also made donations in the Borsa-held territories, though in this instance to the benefit of only one of the Borsa brothers, Beke,47 and a powerful Borsa familiaris.48 Royal mandates of inquiry were directed exclusively at resolving legal infringements committed to the detriment of the Borsa family.49 When the king ordered the Bishop of Várad to transfer litigation to the royal court, the prelate refused to comply,50 presumably, as other sources explicitly state, because the Borsas were directly implicated in the matter51 and he thought it unwise to raise their ire. It is thus clear that whereas Charles I was able to exercise the full array of established royal prerogatives on the estates of Ugrin Csák, the Borsas, though staunchly loyal to the throne—one of the Borsa brothers, “Kopasz” Jakab, in fact served as the king’s palatine52—allowed the king to intervene in the affairs of their dominions only if it was to their advantage.

The difference between the provincial lord and the oligarch becomes evident from another perspective in connection to the issue of inheritance. Although Ugrin Csák had a son,53 royally appointed ispáns appear at the head of the counties which belonged to his province following his death.54 Although in the case of the Drugets, Fülöp’s nephew, Vilmos, became the heir to his estates, his inheritance was preceded by and conditional on a special royal order,55 and when Louis the Great decided to eliminate the Druget province, the heirs of Vilmos, his two younger brothers, acknowledged the king’s will without protest even though it entailed the loss of a significant portion of the family’s private property.56 Conversely, the descendants of the oligarchs regarded the inheritance of their father’s power as a self-evident right, as is reflected in a charter issued by the oligarch András Kőszegi, grandson of Iván, in which he explicitly stated that he had lawfully inherited the governance, i.e. the province, of his ancestors.57 The exclusion of royal authority from the province and the claim to inheritance which necessarily stemmed therefrom provides an explanation for the as yet largely unexamined fact that on some occasions it was not the oligarchs themselves but their sons who rose up in revolt against the king, and precisely right after the death of their father.

Based on the considerations outlined above, one can identify six oligarchical provinces in the Kingdom of Hungary, those under the control of the following oligarchs: Iván Kőszegi (and his successors); Henrik Kőszegi Jr. (and his successors); Máté Csák; Amadé Aba; László Kán; and the Borsa brothers. Pál Šubić and the Babonić family also controlled oligarchical provinces that developed under significantly different circumstances along the Adriatic coast of Croatia, which had become part of the Kingdom of Hungary only at the end of the eleventh century, and extended into Slavonia and Dalmatia, respectively.

Little is known about the internal political relations within the oligarchical provinces. However, the sporadic sources and data that exist make it possible to determine some of the common and unique traits regarding the exercise and distribution of power within these regions. It is clear that a single person typically held total control over provinces within the kingdom. In the case of Amadé Aba, László Kán and Máté Csák, their exclusive authority stemmed from the early deaths of brothers who also possessed legitimate claims to power within the given province, whereas the Kőszegi, as previously mentioned, divided the family-held province into individually controled territories and thereafter refrained from encroaching upon one another’s domains. Only the province of the Borsa family represents an exception from this standpoint. The six sons of Tamás Borsa—Roland, István, Jakab (or “Kopasz”), László, Benedek (or “Beke”) and János—worked in close cooperation with one another to establish the province, yet even in this case the evidence suggests that the brothers divided the castles located in the territory among themselves. Naturally, this situation changed over time: among the sons of Tamás Borsa, István was no longer living in May 1294,58 Roland last appears in historical sources at the beginning of 1301,59 and is proclaimed dead by October 16, 1303,60 while János fell in battle during the 1304 Bohemian campaign of King Charles I,61 and the last evidence indicating that László was still alive comes from the year 1307.62 Among the sons of Tamás Borsa, only Kopasz and Beke lived to see the collapse of the family’s province, whereas their nephews all survived until that time: Roland’s sons István, János and László; István’s son István Jr.; László’s son János; to whom the son of Kopasz himself, called Bekcs, can be added.63 Governing the Borsa province essentially required the coordination of the interests and ambitions of all these members of the family. However, cooperation between two members of the province’s founding generation—Kopasz and Beke—was occasionally far from harmonious: the latter, subverting the family solidarity, sometimes seized the opportunity to challenge the authority that his older brother exercised over the family province in accordance with the established order among Hungarian noble families, treating the lands he had acquired in the northern section of the territory as his exclusive property over which his brothers could have no claim. Serious conflict erupted between Kopasz and Beke as a result of this situation at the end of 1308, which, however, was resolved through the mediation of prominent Borsa familiares. There is vague evidence to suggest that the accord between Kopasz and Beke was based on the division of territory within the province, similar to that which occurred within the Kőszegi family.64

The immediate examples for the organisation of administration in the oligarchical provinces should be looked for in the governmental peculiarities of the two royally established provinces of the kingdom, Transylvania and Slavonia. It was by the middle of the thirteenth century, that is, shortly before the process of establishing oligarchical provinces began in the kingdom, that the situation obtained in which the voevode of Transylvania and the ban of Slavonia could appoint the ispáns who governed the counties under their jurisdiction. These ispáns, then, unlike those at the head of counties to the west of Transylvania and north of the Drava river, did not receive direct appointment from the king, whereas the royal castles in the latter provinces were also under the control of the voevode and the ban.65 Fitting squarely into this arrangement was the general circumstance that the emergence of provinces based on oligarchical personal power affected the historical institution of the counties only in as much as it was the lord of the province who appointed his familiares as deputy ispáns of the individual counties. These persons, who sometimes bore the title of ispán (comes), were also, in some cases demonstrably, in others presumably, the castellans of the oligarch’s castles in the province. This phenomenon can be observed in the territories under the control of Aba Amadé,66 Máté Csák,67 the Borsa family68 and even László Kán.69 Although the oligarchs exercised the authority of ispán as a matter of course, they bore the title of county ispán itself with conspicuous infrequency. And even if they did use the title in their charters, they named only one county at a time, apparently without any recognisable underlying logic.

As previously mentioned, the Treaty of Kassa, imposed upon the sons of Amadé Aba following their father’s murder in 1311, prohibited them from forcing local nobles to appear in their courts.70 Although there is no concrete evidence indicating that Amadé forced nobles living on his territory to appear in his courts, it is a fact that from the mid-1290s the head of the Aba kindred maintained in Vizsoly, one of the more important settlements of his province, a regularly functioning court,71 where his deputy judges (viceiudex) bearing the title of court judge (iudex curie) sat in judgement.72 The court judges of Máté Csák,73 János Kőszegi,74 László Kán75 and probably the castellan at Adorján of Kopasz Borsa performed similar functions.76 Máté Csák,77 the son of Henrik Kőszegi Jr., János,78 and perhaps the others79 entrusted the economic affairs of their provinces to their magistri tavernicorum, obviously imitating the established distribution of duties within the royal court.

The majority of the oligarchs attempted to bring the churches existing on the territory of their provinces under their control. The means of achieving this objective varied significantly. In case a bishopric became vacant in their zone of influence, they might exert pressure in order to fill it with a person who would most conveniently fit their expectations. It was thus that László Kán attempted to have his son appointed bishop of Transylvania, though he finally settled for his secondary candidate for the office.80 The election of Iván Kőszegi’s illegitimate son, Miklós, as bishop of Győr in 1308 could scarcely have been unrelated to the fact that the bishopric was located on Iván’s territory,81 whereas Henrik Jr., the younger brother of Iván, forced upon the bishopric of Pécs a follower of his own, who openly declared his dependence from the oligarch.82 Máté Csák, on the other hand, was apparently not interested in such methods, preferring to exploit the economic potential of church property to strengthen his own power.83 As for Amadé Aba and the Borsa family, they maintained friendly relations with the bishops of Eger and Várad respectively, while Kopasz Borsa even went as far as to provide merchants transporting goods to the latter prelate with an armed escort on at least one occasion.84

The oligarchs often assumed the titles of traditional high-ranking officials within the Kingdom of Hungary: János Kőszegi, Máté Csák, Amadé Aba and Kopasz Borsa referred to themselves as palatine, Henrik Kőszegi Jr. as ban of Slavonia and László Kán as voevode of Transylvania in their charters. However, it was clear to contemporaries that the power of these oligarchs was much greater and of different quality than that of their predecessors, and accordingly often referred to them as “prince” (fejedelem).85 That the oligarchs themselves had no doubts as to the extent of their authority is proved by the fact that they maintained diverse and multiple relations with foreign aristocrats, and even rulers, on the principle of equality. Máté Csák, for example, first sought for his son, also named Máté,86 a bride from the ducal family of Austria,87 before eventually opting for a noble Silesian wife.88 László Kán betrothed his daughter to the son of King Stefan of Serbia despite the opposition of papal legate Gentilis.89 The sons of Henrik Kőszegi Sr. fought a war against Duke Albert of Austria in 1288–1289,90 while Máté Csák came into conflict with King John of Bohemia in the year 1315.91

The quality of relations among the oligarchs themselves was equally as heterogeneous in nature. Initially these relations entailed a significant degree of antagonism: serious confrontations took place between the sons of Henrik Kőszegi Sr. and the Babonić family during the second half of the 1270s, lasting until the two sides concluded an agreement clearly defining their spheres of interest.92 Iván and Miklós Kőszegi probably came to a similar accord with Máté Csák, who had begun his career by waging a successful war precisely against the Kőszegi brothers in the service of King Andrew III.93 The lack of evidence that the Borsas attempted to regain their power in Transylvania from László Kán is also conspicuous. However, examples of cooperation also emerge over time: the Kőszegis and the Borsas fought in alliance against Ladislaus IV in 1287,94 while evidence suggests that the latter family cooperated with Amadé Aba to defeat a rival family in the northern Trans-Tisza region.95 Máté Csák carried such cooperation to the greatest degree, dispatching significant military forces to assist the sons of Amadé Aba in their rebellion against King Charles I. 96

The battle in which the armies of Máté Csák and those of the Amadé brothers fought alongside one another took place on the outskirts of the village of Rozgony (Rozhanovce, Slovakia) on June 15, 1312. As the fourteenth-century chronicler reported, “ …a combat of such ferocity ensued as had not occurred in Hungary since the time of the Mongol invasion.”97 Strife between King Charles I and the oligarchs was nearly incessant between 1311 and 1323. Sources indicate that several battles of similar intensity to that which took place near Rozgony were fought in the kingdom during the decade, while even professional historians must work hard to compile a comprehensive list of the total number of castle sieges that occurred during this period. The decision of the aforementioned chronicler to make reference only to the Battle of Rozgony in his account of the conflict between Charles I and the oligarchs has exercised a profound influence on the modern understanding of this struggle, generating the impression that the royal victory at Rozgony decided its outcome in the king’s favor.

In truth, the best part of the struggle was still ahead. King Charles I was not devoid of experience, as by then the confrontation had been going on for decades with varying intensity. The initial attempts of the future oligarchs to build bases of personal power in the kingdom had begun, as previously mentioned, during the reign of King Béla IV, who, along with his successor, Stephen V, proved able to thwart this challenge to their authority. However, the accession of Ladislaus IV to the throne at the age of ten in the year 1272 provided favorable opportunities for “the disruptors […] of the order of the kingdom” (status regni […] disturbatores), “the treacherous […] trouble makers and fomenters of discord” (infidelis […] tanquam zyaniarum et guerrarum suscitator) and “the deceitful tyrants” (dolosus tyrannus).98 Much of the early years of the child king’s reign was spent with fighting between various groups within the aristocracy for the major baronial offices. Consequently, these changed hands no less than eleven times between 1272 and 1277. The Hungarian churches suffered significant hardship during these years of anarchy, it was therefore no coincidence that high-ranking clergymen led those interest groups which wanted to put an end to the disorder within the kingdom. Ladislaus IV was declared of age “at a general assembly” (in generali congregatione)99 in 1277,100 and made to swear an oath to subdue the “disturbers of the peace” (pacis turbatores). King Ladislaus directed the previously mentioned defeat of the Geregye family soon thereafter.

The “general assembly” and the military campaign against the Geregyes constituted two aspects of the strategy aimed at reasserting royal authority over the oligarchs. The latter strategy—responding to force through force—was an established procedure in the Middle Ages and therefore does not require any special explanation. Radical response of this type offered the prospect of quick results, but required a degree of power that Hungarian royal authority sorely lacked during these years. Nevertheles, Ladislaus IV attempted repeatedly with stubborn consistency to bring the oligarchs to their knees, generally to no avail.

Hungarian prelates thought to have found a more effective means with which to curb the ambitions of the aristocrats who monopolized the baronial offices and abused the advantages which these offerred. It was the introduction of the political system most commonly known as the “regime of estates” (Hung. rendiség). Although certain facets of this system clearly served to restrict royal authority, it was established primarily in order to create the political conditions necessary to bring the realm’s oligarchs under the control of the king. This transformation of state governance affected the most powerful political decision-making institutions in the kingdom. Representatives of the nobility received appointment to the royal council, which was responsible for making operative decisions, in addition to the prelates and barons who had previously constituted this body to the exclusion of others. Congregations of a governmental or judicial nature had already been held previously; these, however, were basically sessions of the royal council, to the discussions of which some of the magnates without formal office were occasionally also invited. Under the new system, nobles could take part in the council meetings, either personally or by proxy, and participate actively in the decision-making process. Following the death of Ladislaus IV in 1290, high-ranking Church officials expected Andrew III, whom they had helped to the throne,101 to maintain these policies even though it had become clear that they were not effective in terms of imposing royal authority upon the oligarchs. In 1298, Andrew III concluded regular treaties with five barons, a clear indication that the king was already looking for a new method of dealing with the oligarchs. These pacts defined the mutual rights and obligations of both sides and as such were decidedly contractual in nature, thus representing an unprecedented element in relations between the king and his subordinates, no matter how strong the latter were.

These treaties clearly reflect the political conception of King Andrew III: to cooperate with those among the magnates who are inclined to do so. Among the five barons who concluded treaties with the king, Amadé Aba was an oligarch, while the others aspired to attain this status. This alliance between the king and the barons was therefore based not on solid foundations of principle, but on a temporary convergence of interests. King Andrew needed to exploit every opportunity to increase his power and manifestly regarded the potential military assistance of the loyal barons to be of greater significance than even the most elevated of principles.102 The king’s enemies did not fail to respond to the new royal policy: Hungarian chronicles indicate that in 1299 a group of powerful landowners asked Pope Boniface VIII to provide the realm with a new king in place of Andrew III.103 In the court of Naples, which did not recognize the royal accession of King Andrew III, the decision was taken in the spring of 1300 to send Prince Charles, the thirteen-year-old son of Charles Martel of Anjou, to the Kingdom of Hungary in order to press his claim to the throne. However, by the time Charles disembarked on the Adriatic coast of Dalmatia in August 1300, the political situation in the kingdom had undergone a profound change.

The essence of this transformation is revealed in a letter dated September 18 from Petrus de Bonzano, whom King Andrew III had sent to the Papal Court presumably with the aim of obtaining there the appointment of Antal, Bishop of Csanád, as Archbishop of Esztergom.104 In the letter to Venetian nobles, the diplomat wrote that, while he was still staying in Hungary, “the sons of Henrik” (that is, the Kőszegi brothers, Iván, Miklós and Henrik Jr.) had come to the king and made a general agreement with him, while Máté Csák and many other barons who had previously rebelled against Andrew III had submitted to royal authority.105

Thus it is possible to know what happened, but not why it happened. One can exclude the possibility that Andrew III compelled the most formidable oligarchs to recognize his supremacy by force of arms: not only would a military campaign of the magnitude required to achieve this objective have left its mark in contemporary sources, but it also had become clear over the previous years that the king’s armies were not capable of defeating those of Máté Csák and the Kőszegi family. One must therefore postulate that the king struck an agreement with his powerful adversaries, offering them conditions that they deemed more valuable than anything they could have hoped to receive from the Angevins.

One can surmise with a great degree of certainty the nature of the proposal that King Andrew III made to Iván Kőszegi and Máté Csák in the summer of 1300: in exchange for their loyalty, he would recognize their lordship over lands under their actual control and grant them the title of palatine. One may also presume that Henrik Kőszegi Jr. became ban of Slavonia and László Kán voevode of Transylvania in the same way. At the same time, Andrew III accorded the same privileges to four members of his inner circle—Roland Rátót, Apor Péc, Amadé Aba and István Ákos. Although the king’s strategy may appear novel, it did not, in fact, represent a significant departure from the established system of governance. The status of a loyal palatine possessing authority over a stipulated territory was in practice not significantly different from that of a subservient voevode of Transylvania or ban of Slavonia. The example of László Kán, who, while governing Transylvania, never once came into conflict with Andrew III, may have convinced the king that such a system could be effective, even in the case of lords with oligarchic ambitions. This was, therefore, the response of Andrew III to the political crisis caused by the arrival of the Angevin pretender to the Kingdom of Hungary.

All this explains not only why several people held the title of palatine simultaneously in the first decade of the fourteenth century—those privileged by Andrew III were joined as seventh by Kopasz Borsa, appointed as palatine by Charles I —,106 but also why the oligarchs opposed Charles I so vehemently even in the most hopeless situations: they were defending what they believed to be theirs, and that from a foreign king.

During the first decade and a half of his reign, Charles I tried, as had done Andrew III before, to compel the oligarchs to cooperate with him, going as far as to recognize the palatinal titles granted by his predecessor. In 1314, however, Charles abandoned this policy of compromise,107 and set his mind on suppressing the oligarchical provinces in a war which was to draw on for a decade, sometimes simultaneously in several regions of the country. The Angevin ruler conquered the northern part of the Borsa-controlled territory at the end of 1314, and forced the sons of the deceased László Kán to make peace with the crown at the beginning of 1315. He then abolished the authority of János Kőszegi, the son of Henrik Kőszegi Jr., over the southern portion of Transdanubia in 1316, reestablishing royal control over a part of Slavonia in that year as well. In 1317, the king completed his conquest of the Borsa province, suppressed that of András Kőszegi, the grandson of Iván, in the northwestern section of Transdanubia, and put down the second rebellion of the Amadé sons as well. In 1318, fighting erupted again in Transylvania, where the Borsas, already ousted from their province, rose together with their allies in rebellion against royal authority. András Kőszegi launched a new attack against Charles I in 1319, though not even the help of Austrian knights could save him from defeat. Rebellion broke out again in Transylvania during the years 1320–1321. In the meantime, Charles had gradually reduced the territory under the control of Máté Csák as a result of military victories gained in 1314, 1317 and 1320, eliminating his province altogether following the oligarch’s death in the spring of 1321.108

Several circumstances enabled King Charles I to achieve the objective of abolishing the power of the oligarchs that had eluded his predecessors from the dynasty of Árpád. The most significant of these factors was probably that, with the exception of Máté Csák prior to the Battle of Rozgony, the oligarchs did not attempt to join forces in alliance against the king.109 The reason for this lack of cooperation among the oligarchs may have been the fact that their provinces had reached the limits of their expanding potential by the second decade of the fourteenth century. From this time on, the oligarchs could only have increased their territories by encroaching on each other’s spheres of interest, something they wanted to avoid. Consequently, nor were they in a position to offer anything in exchange for help.

The foreign political options of the oligarchs had also been profoundly modified. During the reign of Ladislaus IV, they could support the claim of Andrew to the throne of the Kingdom of Hungary, as the Kőszegis did on at least two occasions,110 while they could play the Angevin card against Andrew after he had become king, a means which again it was the Kőszegis who used most consciously.111 By the beginning of the fourteenth century, only the Borsas considered the use of foreign powers to promote their political objectives, contriving to support the claim of a Russian prince to the throne of Hungary against Charles I.112 However, this idea apparently never advanced beyond the planning stages. Charles, for his part, concluded an alliance with Duke Rudolf of Austria as early as 1304,113 renewing it with Rudolf’s successor, Frederick,114 and also established friendly relations with John of Luxemburg, crowned in 1311 as King of Bohemia.115 Thus the oligarchs could expect support neither from one another, nor from potential allies abroad. In the event of attack from royal forces, they were compelled to rely solely on the strength of their own armies.

However, this strength was fading. As long as the star of the oligarchs was on the rise, their power exerted very great attraction over the nobility living on their territories. But this attraction decreased remarkably over time: even the most powerful oligarch, Máté Csák, had to confront a rebellion of local nobles in 1316.116 Other members of the nobility preferred emigration from the oligarchical provinces to outright revolt, and such emigrees swelled as a matter of fact the ranks of Charles’s armed supporters.117 There is much evidence to suggest that King Charles was aware of the possibilities thus offerred: the king’s defeat of the Borsas was, in fact, due in great part to his success in winning over many of the leading Borsa familiares already before the armed conflict started.118 Similarly, in the reconquest of Southern Transdanubia, controlled by Henrik Jr and then by his sons, a key role was played by the switching of some of the Kőszegi familiares to the king’s side.119 This phenomenon can be shown to have been common among the familiares of other oligarchs as well.120 That the tide had turned is proved by the fact that some two decades before, in 1296–1297, it was still the opposite case when the castellan of King Andrew III helped Máté Csák gain control of a royal castle in Trencsén.121

The decision of any familiaris to transfer his loyalty from an oligarch to the king was obviously conditioned by several considerations, most of which are impossible to discern today. Two conjectures can safely be risked in this respect, however. First, the military successes that Charles I began to achieve in 1312 made it obvious to all nobles that there was an alternative power to serve in case one wanted to quit his lord; it is in this, but only this, that the decisive importance of the battle of Rozgony resided. Second, loyalty tied the familiares to their original lord and not to their sons, and it was the latter with whom Charles came into conflict for the most part.122 A conspicuous example is that of the leading familiares of the late Amadé Aba, roughly half of whom already fought at Charles I’s side at Rozgony, whereas many of those who had remained faithful to Aba’s sons transferred their allegiance to the king after the battle, thereby further accelerating the decline of the familia that had begun with the death of Amadé.123

The ambition of Charles I to win the allegiance of the familiares of the oligarchs was the result of a learning process. Charles initially followed the example of the last two Árpád kings, Ladislaus IV and Andrew III, who had attempted to reach accord with the oligarchs if they saw no other means of curbing their power. Cardinal Gentilis, who had been sent by pope Clement V to Hungary in 1307, negotiated personally with Máté Csák in order to convince him to recognize Charles I as his legitimate ruler.124 The result of the effort was identical to that following similar such episodes at the time of Ladislaus IV and Andrew III: the oligarch appeared willing to cooperate with the king for a certain period of time before again electing to pursue a course of open conflict with royal authority.125 Charles I drew the appropriate conclusion from this, when, contrary to his Árpád predecessors, he sought thereafter to gain the support of the familiares of the oligarchs rather than that of the oligarchs themselves. This strategy proved to be effective and contributed significantly to the final success of the Angevin king.

Finally, the impact of personal abilities on the outcome of events cannot be ignored. Poor decisions on the part of King Ladislaus IV gradually turned his potential supporters against him. The close relations Ladislaus IV maintained with the Cumans living in the Kingdom of Hungary produced particularly strong aversion among many of his subjects. The open affinity that Ladislaus displayed toward the Cumans—his mother was a Cuman princess—was considered to be so subversive that Pope Nicholas IV launched an investigation following the king’s death to find out if at all he had died as a Christian.126 Andrew III was a much more judicious king than Ladislaus IV. The mere fact that he managed to sustain his reign for ten years within a foreign environment and, for many years, without foreign allies, bears witness to his prudence. However, Andrew’s political oeuvre remained incomplete because of his unexpected death. In comparison to Andrew III, Charles I enjoyed the significant advantage of having grown into adulthood in Hungary, allowing him to become familiar with local conditions. The resolution of Charles I not to resort to military support from the Cumans, who according to a 1301 memorandum supported his rule (dicitur, quod Cumani sunt cum eo),127 in his fight against the oligarchs provides evidence of this familiarity.128 Charles was obviously aware of the political consequences that such military assistance from the Cumans against the oligarchs would have entailed. The Angevin king’s political acumen is also proved by the ability with which he chose confidentials who then would remain faithful to him for several decades.129

The decision that King Charles I made in 1314 to abolish the power of the oligarchs by force rather than make further attempts to come to agreement with them was directed not at the elimination of the provinces, some of which he had established himself. Instead, it signified a return to the Árpád-era model of governing the kingdom according to which the right to exercise power belonged exclusively to the king and to those with whom he voluntarily decided to share it.

 

Archival Sources

Magyar Nemzeti Levéltár Országos Levéltára (Hungarian National Archives – MNL OL), Diplomatikai Levéltár (Medieval Charters – DL).

Magyar Nemzeti Levéltár Országos Levéltára (Hungarian National Archives – MNL OL), Diplomatikai Fényképgyűjtemény (Collection of Photocopies – DF).

Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv (Vienna), Erdődy család levéltára [The Archives of the Erdődy Family].

Bibliography

A Pécz nemzetség apponyi ágának az Apponyi grófok családi levéltárában őrizett oklevelei I. 1241–1526 [Charters from the Family Archives of the Apponyi Counts of the Apponyi Branch of the Pécz Kindred I. 1241–1526], edited by Ernő Kammerer. Budapest: Franklin Társulat, 1906.

A római szent birodalmi gróf széki Teleki család oklevéltára [The Archives of the Holy Roman Imperial Counts of Teleki of Szék]. 2 vols, edited by Samu Barabás. Budapest: Magyar Történelmi Társulat, 1895.

A zichi és vásonkeői gróf Zichy-család idősb ágának okmánytára [Archives of the Senior Branch of the Zichy Family of Zich and Vásonkeő]. 12 vols, edited by Iván Nagy, Imre Nagy and Dezső Véghely. Budapest: Magyar Történelmi Társulat, 1871–1931.

Acta Aragonensia. Quellen zur deutschen, italienischen, französischen, spanischen, zur Kirchen- und Kulturgeschichte aus der diplomatischen Korrespondenz Jaymes II. (1291–1327), edited by Heinrich von Finke. 2 vols. Berlin–Leipzig: Dr Walther Rothschild, 1908.

Acta legationis Gentilis, 1307–1312. Vatikáni magyar okirattár. Monumenta Vaticana historiam regni Hungariae illustrantia I/2 (Budapest: Franklin, 1885; Budapest: Magyar Egyháztörténeti Enciklopédia Munkaközössége, 2000).

Anjou-kori oklevéltár [Charters of Angevin Hungary], 32 vols, edited by Tibor Almási, László Blazovich, Lajos Géczi, Gyula Kristó, Ferenc Piti, Ferenc Sebők and Ildikó Tóth. Budapest–Szeged: n.p., 1990–2012.

Anjou-kori okmánytár [Charters from the Angevin Period]. 7 vols, edited by Imre Nagy and Gyula Nagy. Budapest: MTA, 1878–1920.

Árpádkori Új Okmánytár [Charters from the Árpád Age, New Series]. 12 vols, edited by Gusztáv Wenzel. Pest–Budapest: Eggenberger Ferdinánd Akadémiai Könyvtársulat, 1860–1874.

Budapest történetének okleveles emlékei I (1148–1301) [Charters relating to the History of Budapest], edited by Albert Gárdonyi. Budapest: A székesfőváros kiadása, 1936.

Bunyitay, Vince. “Kopasz nádor: életrajz a XIII–XIV. századból” [Palatine Kopasz: Biography from the Thirteenth–Fourteenth Centuries]. Századok 22 (1888): 15–32, 129–55.

Chronici Hungarici compositio saeculi XIV, edited by Sándor Domanovszky. Scriptores rerum Hungaricarum tempore ducum regumque stirpis Arpadianae gestarum, 2 vols. Budapest: n.p., 1937–1938.

Codex diplomaticus Hungariae ecclesiasticus ac civilis. 11 vols, edited by György Fejér. Budae: Typis Typogr. Regiae Universitatis Ungaricae, 1829–1844.

Codex diplomaticus regni Croatiae, Dalmatiae et Slavoniae. Vols. II–XV, edited by Tade Smičiklas. Zagrabiae: Tiskom D. Albrechta, 1904–1934.

Csukovits, Enikő. “Le serpent tortueux” et les satellites du Satan: l’image de l’ennemi dans les narratives des chartes de donation des rois Anjou en Hongrie.” In La Diplomatie des États Angevins aux XIIIe et XIVe siècles. Actes du colloque international de Szeged, Visegrád, Budapest 13–16 septembre 2007. Edited by Zoltán Kordé and István Petrovics, 339–48. Roma–Szeged: Univ. degli studi di Szeged, JATEPress, Accad. d’Ungheria in Roma, 2010.

Dienst, Heide and Irmtraut Lindeck-Pozza, eds. Die Güssinger. Beiträge zur Geschichte der Herren von Güns/Güssing und ihrer Zeit (13./14. Jahrhundert). Eisenstadt: Burgenländisches Landesmuseum, 1989.

Engel, Pál. A nemesi társadalom a középkori Ung megyében [Noble Society in Ung County during the Middle Ages]. Budapest: MTA Történettudományi Intézete, 1998.

Engel, Pál. “Az ország újraegyesítése. I. Károly küzdelmei az oligarchák ellen (1310–1323)” [The Reunification of the Country. The Struggles of Charles I against the Oligarchs (1310–1323)]. Századok 122 (1988): 89–144.

Engel, Pál. “Honor, vár, ispánság: Tanulmányok az Anjou-királyság kormányzati rendszeréről” [Honor, Castle, Ispánate: Studies on the Governing System of the Angevin Kingdom]. Századok 116 (1982): 880–922.

Engel, Pál. Magyarország világi archontológiája 1301–1457 [Hungarian Secular Archontology 1301–1457]. 2 vols. Budapest:  MTA Történettudományi Intézete, 1996.

Engel, Pál. Magyarország világi archontológiája 1301–1457 – Középkori magyar genealógia [Hungarian Secular Archontology, 1301–1457 – Medieval Hungarian Geneology]. Hungarian Medieval Archives. CD-ROM, Budapest: MTA Történettudományi Intézete, 2001.

Engel, Pál. “Nagy Lajos ismeretlen adományreformja” [Louis the Great’s Unknown Reform of Land Grants]. Történelmi Szemle 39 (1997): 137–57.

Engel, Pál. The Realm of St Stephen. A History of Medieval Hungary 895–1526. London–New York: I. B. Tauris, 2001.

Fedeles, Tamás, Gábor Sarbak and József Sümegi, eds. A Pécsi Egyházmegye története I. A középkor évszázadai (1009–1543) [History of the Diocese of Pécs. I. The Centuries of the Middle Ages (1009–1543)]. Pécs: n.p., 2009.

Gerics, József. A korai rendiség Európában és Magyarországon [The Early Regime of Estates in Europe and Hungary]. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1987.

Hazai Oklevéltár [National Charters] 1234–1536, edited by Imre Nagy, Farkas Deák and Gyula Nagy. Budapest: Magyar Történelmi Társulat, 1879.

Hazai okmánytár [Collection of Domestic Charters]. 8 vols, edited by Imre Nagy, Iván Paur, Károly Ráth and Dezső Véghely. Győr–Budapest: n.p., 1865–1891.

Karácsonyi, Béla and Gyula Kristó, eds. Oklevelek a Csák-territórium történetéhez [Documents on the History of the Csák Territory]. Szeged: Hungária, 1971.

Karácsonyi, János. A magyar nemzetségek a XIV. század közepéig [The Hungarian Kindreds until the Middle of the Fourteenth Century]. Budapest: Nap Kiadó, 1995.

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

Kristó, Gyula. “A Kőszegiek kiskirálysága” [The Principality of the Kőszegis]. Vasi Szemle 29 (1975): 251–68.

Kristó, Gyula. A rozgonyi csata [The Battle of Rozgony]. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1978.

Kristó, Gyula. Csák Máté tartományúri hatalma [The Oligarchical Lordship of Máté Csák]. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1973.

Kristó, Gyula. “I. Károly király harcai a tartományurak ellen (1310–1323)” [The Struggles of Charles I against the Oligarchs (1310–1323)]. Századok 137 (2003): 297–347.

Kristó, Gyula. “Kán László és Erdély” [László Kán and Transylvania]. Valóság 21 (1978): 83–96.

Kristó, Gyula. Tájszemlélet és térszervezés a középkori Magyarországon [Regional Perspective and Spatial Organization in Medieval Hungary]. Szeged: Szegedi Középkorász Műhely, 2003.

Lenkey, Zoltán and Attila Zsoldos. Szent István és III. András [Saint Stephen and Andrew III]. Budapest: Kossuth, 2003.

Magyar diplomacziai emlékek az Anjou-korból [Hungarian Diplomatic Records from the Angevin Era]. 3 vols, edited by Gusztáv Wenzel. Budapest: MTA, 1874–1876.

Makkai, László. “Honfoglaló magyar nemzetségek Erdélyben” [Hungarian Kindreds in Transylvania at the Time of the Hungarian Conquest of the Carpathian Basin]. Századok 78 (1944): 163–91.

Monumenta ecclesiae Strigoniensis. 3 vols, edited by Ferdinand Knauz and Lajos Dedek Crescens. Strigonii: n.p., 1874–1924.

Oklevelek Hontvármegyei magán-levéltárakból. Első rész: 1256–1399 [Documents from private archives in Hont County], edited by Ferenc Kubínyi. Budapest: n.p., 1888.

Piti, Ferenc. “Az 1342. évi nádorváltás” [The 1342 Change of Palatines]. Századok 140 (2006): 435–41.

Pór, Antal. “László erdélyi vajda (1291–1315): rajzok Erdély múltjából a középkorban” [László Voevode of Transylvania (1291–1315): Sketches from the History of Transylvania in the Middle Ages]. Erdélyi Múzeum 8 (1891): 433–81.

Pór, Antal. Trencsényi Csák Máté 1260–1321 [Máté Csák of Trencsény]. Budapest: Méhner Vilmos, 1888.

Regesta diplomatica nec non epistolaria Slovaciae. 2 vols, edited by Vincent Sedlák. Bratislavae: Sumptibus Acad. Scient. Slovacae, 1980–1987.

Schwandtner, Joannes Georgius, ed. Scriptores rerum Hungaricarum veteres ac genuini. 3 vols. Vindobona: Kraus, 1746–1748.

Szőcs, Tibor, ed. Az Árpád-kori nádorok és helyetteseik okleveleinek kritikai jegyzéke [Critical Register of the Charters of the Árpád Era Palatines and Their Deputies]. Budapest: Magyar Országos Levéltár, 2012.

Szűcs, Jenő. Az utolsó Árpádok [The Last Árpáds]. Budapest: MTA Történettudományi Intézete, 1993.

Vajk, Ádám. “Mibe került ezen hűségi levél? Kőszegi Miklós győri püspöksége és az országos politika” [What Was the Cost of that Letter of Loyalty? Miklós Kőszegi as Bishop of Győr and National Politics]. In In labore fructus. Jubileumi tanulmányok Győregyházmegye történetéből [In labore fructus. Anniversary Studies on the History of the Diocese of Győr], edited by Gábor Nemes and Ádám Vajk, 411–40. Győr: Győri Egyházmegyei Levéltár, 2011.

Vetera monumenta historica Hungariam sacram illustrantia maximam partem nondum edita ex tabulariis Vaticanis deprompta, collecta ac serie chronologica disposita. 2 vols, edited by Agustinus Theiner. Rome: Romae Typis Vaticanis, 1859–1860.

Urkundenbuch des Burgenlandes und der angrenzenden Gebiete der Komitate Wieselburg, Ödenburg und Eisenburg. 5 vols, edited by Hans Wagner and Irmtraut Lindeck-Pozza. Graz–Cologne–Vienna: Hermann Böhlaus Nachf., 1955–1999.

Urkundenbuch zur Geschichte der Deutschen in Siebenbürgen. 7 vols, edited by Franz Zimmermann, Carl Werner, Georg Müller, Gustav Gündisch, Herta Gündisch, Konrad G. Gündisch, and Gernot Nussbächer. Hermannstadt–Cologne–Vienna–Bucharest: n.p., 1892–1991.

Weisz, Boglárka. “A szatmári kamara története a 14. század közepéig” [The History of the Szatmár Chamber until the Middle of the Fourteenth Century]. In Az ecsedi Báthoriak a XV–XVII. században [The Báthoris of Ecsed in the Fifteenth–Seventeenth Centuries], edited by Sarolta Szabó and Norbert C. Tóth, 73–92. Nyírbátor: Báthori István Múzeum, 2012.

Wertner, Mór, “Csák Máté utódai” [The Descendants of Máté Csák]. Turul 20 (1902): 104–12.

Wertner, Mór. “Újabb nemzetségi kutatások VIII: a Kán-nemzetség erdélyi vagy vajdai ága” [New Research on the Kindreds VIII: the Transylvanian or Voevodal Branch of the Kán Kindred]. Turul 26 (1908): 122–29.

Zsoldos, Attila. A Borsa-tartomány igazgatásának kérdései [The Administration of the Borsa Province]. (Forthcoming.)

Zsoldos, Attila. “A Henrik-fiak: A Héder nembéli Kőszegiek családi története” [The Henrik Sons: The Family History of the Kőszegis of the Héder Kindred]. Vasi Szemle 64 (2010): 651–61.

Zsoldos, Attila. “Debrecen mint igazgatási központ a 14. század elején” [Debrecen as Administrative Center at the Beginning of the Fourteenth Century]. In Debrecen város 650 éves: Várostörténeti tanulmányok [The City of Debrecen Turns 650: Studies on Municipal History], edited by Attila Bárány, Klára Papp and Tamás Szalkai, 53–65. Debrecen: Debreceni Egyetem Történelmi Intézete, 2011.

Zsoldos, Attila. “Egész Szlavónia bánja” [The Ban of Entire Slavonia]. In Tanulmányok a középkorról [Studies on the Middle Ages], edited by Tibor Neumann, 269–81. Budapest–Piliscsaba: Argumentum, 2001.

Zsoldos, Attila. “Kassa túszai: Pillanatfelvétel 1311-ből Aba nembéli Amadé famíliájáról” [The Hostages of Kassa: 1311 Snapshot of the Amadé Family of the Aba Kindred]. Történelmi Szemle 39 (1997): 345–62.

Zsoldos, Attila. Magyarország világi archontológiája 1000–1301 [Hungarian Secular Archontology]. Budapest: MTA Történettudományi Intézete, 2011.

Zsoldos, Attila. “III. András hat nádora” [The Six Palatines of Andrew III]. In Erősségénél fogva várépítésre való. Tanulmányok a 70 éves Németh Péter tiszteletére [By its Strength Fit for Castle-Building. Studies in Honor of Péter Németh on His Seventieth Birthday], edited by Juan Cabello and Norbert C. Tóth, 289–99. Nyíregyháza: Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg Megyei Önkormányzat Múzeumok Igazgatósága, 2011.

Zsoldos, Attila. “IV. László és a Kállaiak ősei” [Ladislaus IV and the Ancestors of the Kállais]. In A nyíregyházi Jósa András Múzeum Évkönyve. Vol 42. Nyíregyháza: Jósa András Múzeum, 2000: 77–87.

 

Translated by Sean Lambert

1 1269: “Domus Hungarie incredibilem habet potenciam, indicibilem quidem armatorum gentem, ita quod in partibus Orientis et Aquilonis nullus sit pedem ausus movere, ubi triumphator, rex scilicet gloriosus, potentem exercitum suum movit.” Árpádkori Új Okmánytár [Charters from the Árpád Age, New Series], 12 vols., ed. Gusztáv Wenzel (Pest–Budapest: Eggenberger Ferdinánd Akadémiai Könyvtársulás, 1860–1874) (hereafter ÁÚO), vol. VIII, 316.

2 1291: Magyar diplomacziai emlékek az Anjou-korból [Hungarian Diplomatic Records from the Angevin Era], 3 vols., ed. Gusztáv Wenzel (Budapest: MTA, 1874–1876) (hereafter MDEA), vol. I, 76.

3 1303: Anjou-kori okmánytár [Charters from the Angevin Period], 7 vols., eds. Imre Nagy and Gyula Nagy (Budapest: MTA, 1878–1920), vol. I, 52.

4 Doubt on the legitimate descent of Andrew III is cast by the fact that the adult sons of Andrew II accused the last wife of their father, Queen Beatrix, who was pregnant at the time of the king’s death in 1235, of adultery, and consequently never recognized the father of the future Andrew III, prince Stephen, as their half-brother. This remained the official opinion of the Hungarian royal court until the summer of 1290, when, upon the death of Ladislaus IV the clerical and lay leaders of the country declared Andrew, the son of prince Stephen and the Venetian Thomasina Morosini, to be a legitimate member of the royal family.

5 According to the Hungarian chronicler, the majority of Hungarians supported the son of Wenceslaus II of Bohemia over Charles I for the following reason: “Ne regni liberi libertatem amitterent in susceptione per ecclesiam dati regis.” “Chronici Hungarici compositio saeculi XIV,” c. 188, Scriptores rerum Hungaricarum tempore ducum regumque stirpis Arpadianae gestarum, 2 vols., ed. Imre Szentpéteri (Budapest: n.p., 1937–1938) (hereafter SRH), vol. I, 480.

6 1332: “Nobis in etate tenera constitutis et nondum regni gubernaculum plene adeptis, dum infideles barones et nostrorum progenitorum condam illustrium regum Hungarie nefphandissimi proditores conmissoresque in eorundem regum personas multiplicis criminis lese maiestatis, oppresso regali solio regnum et regia iura undique occupata detinerent manu violenta, fideles regni nobiles pociores, ne nobis et sacre corone devocione debita adhiberent, dire necis perimentes excidio ceteros inferioris status fine vario consummentes.“ Urkundenbuch des Burgenlandes und der angrenzenden Gebiete der Komitate Wieselburg, Ödenburg und Eisenburg, 5 vols., eds. Hans Wagner et al. (Graz–Cologne–Vienna: Hermann Böhlaus Nachf., 1955–1999) (hereafter UB), vol. IV, 135.

7 1256: ÁÚO, vol. VII, 458.

8 1278: ÁÚO, vol. IX, 196–97.

9 Attila Zsoldos, Magyarország világi archontológiája 1000–1301 [Hungarian Secular Archontology] (Budapest: MTA Történettudományi Intézete, 2011), 40, 58.

10 1274: “Quorum fidelitate, virtute et industria ipsum regnum Hungarie defensatum fuerat predecessorum nostrorum temporibus et feliciter gubernatum.” ÁÚO, vol. XII, 98.

11 1285: Codex diplomaticus Hungariae ecclesiasticus ac civilis, 11 vols., ed. György Fejér (Budae: Typis Typogr. Regiae Universitatis Ungaricae, 1829–1844) (hereafter: CD), vol. V/3, 258–61.

12 1287: Oklevelek hontvármegyei magán-levéltárakból. Első rész: 1256–1399 [Documents from Private Archives in Hont County. Part One: 1256–1399], ed. Ferenc Kubinyi (Budapest: n.p., 1888), 30.

13 1294: ÁUO, vol. X, 153–54.

14 For a summary of the history of the Geregye and Borsa families see Zoltán Lenkey and Attila Zsoldos, Szent István és III. András [Saint Stephen and Andrew III] (Budapest: Kossuth, 2003), 130–31, 142–43 and 188–89. For information regarding the Borsa family see Vince Bunyitay, “Kopasz nádor: életrajz a XIII–XIV. századból” [Palatine Kopasz: Biography from the Thirteenth–Fourteenth Centuries], Századok 22 (1888): 15–32 and 129–55.

15 Antal Pór, “László erdélyi vajda (1291–1315): rajzok Erdély múltjából a középkorban” [László Voevode of Transylvania (1291–1315): Sketches from the History of Transylvania in the Middle Ages], Erdélyi Múzeum 8 (1891): 433–81; Mór Wertner, “Újabb nemzetségi kutatások VIII: a Kán-nemzetség erdélyi vagy vajdai ága” [New Research on the Kindreds VIII: the Transylvanian or Voevodal Branch of the Kán Kindred], Turul 26 (1908): 122–29; and Gyula Kristó, “Kán László és Erdély” [László Kán and Transylvania], Valóság 21 (1978): 83–96.

16 1332: CD, vol. V/3, 258–61.

17 Kristó Gyula, “A Kőszegiek kiskirálysága” [The Principality of the Kőszegis], Vasi Szemle 29 (1975): 251–68; Heide Dienst and Irmtraut Lindeck-Pozza, eds., Die Güssinger. Beiträge zur Geschichte der Herren von Güns/Güssing und ihrer Zeit (13./14. Jahrhundert) (Eisenstadt: Burgenlandisches Landesmuseum, 1989).

18 1274: ÁÚO, vol. XII, 89.

19 Zsoldos, Archontológia, 101.

20 See János Karácsonyi, A magyar nemzetségek a XIV. század közepéig [The Hungarian Kindreds until the Middle of the Fourteenth Century] (Budapest: Nap Kiadó, 1995), 599; and Pál Engel, Magyarország világi archontológiája 1301–1457 – Középkori magyar genealógia [Hungarian Secular Archontology, 1301–1457—Medieval Hungarian Geneology], CD-ROM (Budapest: MTA Történettudományi Intézete, 2001). Héder nem, 4. tábla: Kőszegi [és Rohonci].

21 1314: Anjou-kori Okmánytár, vol. I, 335.

22 Attila Zsoldos, “A Henrik-fiak: A Héder nembéli Kőszegiek családi története” [The Henrik Sons: The Family History of the Kőszegis of the Héder Kindred], Vasi Szemle 64 (2010): 651–61.

23 See Gyula Kristó, A rozgonyi csata [The Battle of Rozgony] (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1978), 27–39; and Attila Zsoldos, “Kassa túszai: Pillanatfelvétel 1311-ből Aba nembéli Amadé famíliájáról” [The Hostages of Kassa: 1311 Snapshot of the Amadé Family of the Aba Kindred], Történelmi Szemle 39 (1997): 345–62.

24 1297: CD, vol. VI/2, 82–83.

25 For more information regarding Máté Csák see the following works: Antal Pór, Trencsényi Csák Máté 1260–1321 [Máté Csák of Trencsény] (Budapest: Méhner Vilmos, 1888) and Gyula Kristó, Csák Máté tartományúri hatalma [The Oligarchical Lordship of Máté Csák] (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1973).

26 See Pál Engel, “Honor, vár, ispánság: Tanulmányok az Anjou-királyság kormányzati rendszeréről” [Honor, Castle, Ispánate: Studies on the Governing System of the Angevin Kingdom], Századok 116 (1982): 902; and Pál Engel, The Realm of St Stephen. A History of Medieval Hungary 895–1526 (London–New York: I. B. Tauris, 2001), 124–25.

27 1317: Anjou-kori Okmánytár, vol. I, 445–48.

28 „Historia de gestis Romanorum imperatorum et summorum pontificum a Micha Madio de Barbazanis de Spalato,” Scriptores rerum Hungaricarum veteres ac genuini, 3 vols., ed. Johann Georg Schwandtner (Vienna: Kraus, 1746–1748) vol. III, 638.

29 Attila Zsoldos, “Debrecen mint igazgatási központ a 14. század elején” [Debrecen as Administrative Center at the Beginning of the Fourteenth Century], in Debrecen város 650 éves: Várostörténeti tanulmányok [The City of Debrecen Turns 650: Studies on Municipal History], ed. Attila Bárány et al. (Debrecen: Debreceni Egyetem Történelmi Intézete, 2011), 53–65.

30 Engel, “Honor, vár, ispánság,” 914; Pál Engel, Magyarország világi archontológiája 1301–1457, [Hungarian Secular Archontology 1301–1457], 2 vols. (Budapest: MTA Történettudományi Intézete, 1996), vol. I, 27; and Gyula Kristó, Tájszemlélet és térszervezés a középkori Magyarországon [Regional Perspective and Spatial Organization in Medieval Hungary] (Szeged: Szegedi Középkorász Műhely, 2003), 149.

31 Zsoldos, “Debrecen mint igazgatási központ,” 56–66. It should be noted that Dózsa Debreceni (1322), Fülöp Druget (1323–1327) and his successor as governor of the province, his nephew Vilmos Druget (1334–1342), also served as palatine. See Engel, Magyarország világi archontológiája, vol. I, 2–3.

32 See Engel, Magyarország világi archontológiája, vol. I, 2.

33 Engel, “Honor, vár, ispánság,” 907; and idem, A nemesi társadalom a középkori Ung megyében [Noble Society in Ung County during the Middle Ages] (Budapest: MTA Történettudományi Intézete, 1998), 43–44; and Ferenc Piti, “Az 1342. évi nádorváltás” [The 1342 Change of Palatines], Századok 140 (2006): 435–41. Also see Pál Engel, “Nagy Lajos ismeretlen adományreformja” [Louis the Great’s Unknown Reform of Land Grants], Történelmi Szemle 39 (1997): 145–48.

34 Engel, Magyarország világi archontológiája, vol. I, 206.

35 1290: ÁÚO, vol. XII, 496–98.

36 See Gyula Kristó, A feudális széttagolódás Magyarországon [Feudal Fragmentation in Hungary] (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1979), 143.

37 See 1312: A zichi és vásonkeői gróf Zichy-család idősb ágának okmánytára [Archives of the Senior Branch of the Zichy Family of Zich and Vásonkeő], 12 vols. eds. Imre Nagy et al. (Budapest: Magyar Történelmi Társulat, 1871–1932) (hereafter: Zichy), vol. I, 137; and 1312: Magyar Nemzeti Levéltár Országos Levéltára [Hungarian National Archives, hereafter MNL OL], Diplomatikai Levéltár [Medieval Charters, hereafter: DL), 68 680.

38 1311: Regesta diplomatica nec non epistolaria Slovaciae, 2 vols., ed. Vincent Sedlák (Bratislavae: Sumptibus Acad. Scient. Slovacae, 1980–1987) (herafter: RDES), vol. I, 391–93. Also see CD, vol. VIII/1, 405–12.

39 Kristó, A rozgonyi csata, 40–47; and Pál Engel, “Az ország újraegyesítése. I. Károly küzdelmei az oligarchák ellen (1310–1323)” [The Reunification of the Country. The Struggles of Charles I against the Oligarchs (1310–1323)], Századok 122 (1988): 89–144, 98–100.

40 RDES, vol. I, 391–92.

41 See, on the other hand, Kristó, A feudális széttagolódás, 139–44.

42 1303: MNL OL, DL, 91 154; 1308: MNL OL, Diplomatikai Fényképgyűjtemény [Collection of Photocopies, hereafter: DF], 285 246; 1308: Anjou-kori Okmánytár, vol. I, 155–56.

43 1302: MNL OL, DL, 33 726; 1303: MNL OL, DL, 91 154; MNL OL, DL, 2071; 1304: Anjou-kori Okmánytár, vol. I, 80–82; Codex diplomaticus regni Croatiae, Dalmatiae et Slavoniae, vols. II–XV, ed. Tade Smičiklas (Zagreb: Tiskom D. Albrechta, 1904–1934) (Hereafter: CDCr), vol. VIII, 91; 1307: MNL OL, DF, 285 245; 1308: Monumenta ecclesiae Strigoniensis, 3 vols., ed. Ferdinánd Knauz et al. (Strigonii: n.p., 1874–1924) (hereafter: MES), vol. II, 582–83; 1310: CDCr, vol. VIII, 259–61 and MES, vol. II, 628–29.

44 1303: Anjou-kori Okmánytár, vol. I, 67; 1304: MNL OL, DL, 91 155; 1310: MNL OL, DF, 208 960.

45 1311: CDCr, vol. VIII, 296.

46 1303: MNL OL, DL, 91 154; and 1308: MES, vol. II, 582–83.

47 1302: MNL OL, DL, 40 285; 1307: MNL OL, DL, 40 308; and Anjou-kori Okmánytár, vol. I, 131–33.

48 1311: Zichy, vol. I, 132–33; MNL OL, DL, 1783; Anjou-kori Okmánytár, vol I, 235–36. See Zsoldos, “Debrecen mint igazgatási központ,” 49–51.

49 1310: Anjou-kori Oklevéltár, [Charters of Angevin Hungary], 32 vols., ed. Tibor Almási et al. (Szeged–Budapest: n.p., 1990–2012), vol. II, no. 1014; and 1311: Zichy, vol. I, 130, 131.

50 1310: MNL OL, DL, 40 327.

51 See: 1311: Anjou-kori Okmánytár, vol. I, 219–20.

52 Engel, Magyarország világi archontológiája, vol. I, 2; see also Attila Zsoldos, “III. András hat nádora” [The Six Palatines of Andrew III], in Erősségénél fogva várépítésre való. Tanulmányok a 70 éves Németh Péter tiszteletére [By its Strength Fit for Castle-Building. Studies in Honor of Péter Németh on His 70th Birthday] ed. Juan Cabello and Norbert C. Tóth (Nyíregyháza: Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg Megyei Önkormányzat Múzeumok Igazgatósága, 2011), 298–99.

53 1317: CDCr, vol. VIII, 469–70; see Engel, Középkori Magyar Genealógia. Csák nem 8. Újlaki ág.

54 Engel, Magyarország világi archontológiája, vol. I. 100, 122, 142, 164, 199, 202, 221.

55 1327: Anjou-kori Okmánytár, vol. II, 316–18; 1328: MNL OL, DF, 209 870; 1330: CD, vol. VIII/3, 512–14; and 1332: MNL OL, DL, 1798.

56 Engel, “Honor, vár, ispánság,” 907; Piti, “Az 1342. évi nádorváltás,” 437–38.

57 1314: “nos, cui gubernacula predictorum predecessorum nostrorum de iure pervenerant.” Anjou-kori Okmánytár, vol. I, 337.

58 1294: ÁUO, vol. X, 153.

59 1301: Budapest történetének okleveles emlékei (1148–1301) [Charters Relating to the History of Budapest], vol. I, ed. Albert Gárdonyi (Budapest: A székesfőváros kiadása, 1936), 351.

60 1303: MNL OL, DF, 255 287.

61 1307: Anjou-kori Okmánytár, vol. I, 132.

62 1307: CD, vol. VIII/1, 220; see Engel, Középkori Magyar Genealógia. Borsa nem 1. Kopasz ága 1. tábla.

63 Karácsonyi, Magyar nemzetségek, 224; and Engel, Középkori Magyar Genealógia. Borsa nem 1. Kopasz ága 1. tábla.

64 Attila Zsoldos, A Borsa-tartomány igazgatásának kérdései [The Administration of the Borsa Province] (forthcoming).

65 László Makkai, “Honfoglaló magyar nemzetségek Erdélyben” [Hungarian Kindreds in Transylvania at the Time of the Hungarian Conquest of the Carpathian Basin], Századok 78 (1944): 187–88; and Engel, “Honor, vár, ispánság,” 902–04; Attila Zsoldos, “Egész Szlavónia bánja” [The Ban of Entire Slavonia] in Tanulmányok a középkorról [Studies on the Middle Ages], ed. Tibor Neumann (Budapest–Piliscsaba: Argumentum, 2001), 279–80.

66 1302: RDES, vol. I, 64–65; 1303: Anjou-kori Okmánytár, vol. I, 60–61; 1307: Zichy, vol. I, 114; RDES, vol. I, 234; and 1308: MES, vol. III, 66.

67 1305: MNL OL, DL, 61 203; 1307: Anjou-kori Okmánytár, vol. I, 122; ibid., vol. I, 122–23; and 1318: CD, vol. VIII/2, 174.

68 1306: CD, vol. VIII/7, 367; 1308: Zichy, vol. I, 116–17; 1309: MNL OL, DL, 96 052; Zichy, vol. I, 122–23; 1310: ibid., vol. I, 124–26; Anjou-kori Okmánytár, vol. I, 198; and cca. 1314–1317: MNL OL, DF, 278 728.

69 1312: MNL OL, DF 255 259; MNL OL, DL 30 598; and 1314: A római szent birodalmi gróf széki Teleki család oklevéltára [The Archives of the Holy Roman Imperial Counts of Teleki of Szék], 2 vols., ed. Samu Barabás (Budapest: Magyar Történelmi Társulat, 1895) vol. I, 33.

70 1311: „nec compellemus eos [sc. nobiles] a modo astare nostro iudicio aut officialium nostrorum.” RDES, vol. I, 392.

71 See, for example: 1296: Zichy, vol. I, 121; cca. 1299–1300: Az Árpád-kori nádorok és helyetteseik okleveleinek kritikai jegyzéke [Critical Register of the Charters of the Árpád-era Palatines and Their Deputies], ed. Tibor Szőcs (Budapest: Magyar Országos Levéltár, 2012), 255; and 1300: ibid., 257.

72 1304: MNL OL, DL, 83 158; 1305: MNL OL, DF, 269 488; and 1307: RDES, vol. I, 217, 221–22.

73 1308: Hazai okmánytár [Collection of Domestic Charters], 8 vols., eds. Imre Nagy et al. (Győr–Budapest: n.p., 1865–1891) (hereafter HO), vol. VII, 337; 1309: ibid., vol. VII, 339; and 1310: ibid., vol. VII, 325.

74 1302: Anjou-kori Oklevéltár, vol. I, 24.

75 1308: Zichy, vol. I, 122.

76 Zsoldos, A Borsa-tartomány igazgatásának kérdései.

77 1309: CD, vol. VIII/1, 341; 1310: RDES, vol. I, 353; and MES, vol. II, 631, 632.

78 1310: MNL OL, DL, 86 913.

79 See Boglárka Weisz, “A szatmári kamara története a 14. század közepéig” [The History of the Szatmár Chamber until the Middle of the Fourteenth Century], in Az ecsedi Báthoriak a XV–XVII. században [The Báthoris of Ecsed in the Fifteenth to Seventeenth Centuries], eds. Sarolta Szabó and Norbert C. Tóth, (Nyírbátor: Báthori István Múzeum, 2012), 77–79.

80 Acta legationis Gentilis, 1307–1312. Vatikáni magyar okirattár. Monumenta Vaticana historiam regni Hungariae illustrantia I/2 (Budapest: Franklin, 1885; Budapest: Magyar Egyháztörténeti Enciklopédia Munkaközössége, 2000) (Hereafter: Acta Gentilis), 154–77.

81 Ádám Vajk, “Mibe került ezen hűségi levél? Kőszegi Miklós győri püspöksége és az országos politika” [What Was the Cost of that Letter of Loyalty? Miklós Kőszegi as Bishop of Győr and National Politics], in In labore fructus. Jubileumi tanulmányok Győregyházmegye történetéből [In labore fructus. Anniversary Studies on the History of the Diocese of Győr], eds. Gábor Nemes and Ádám Vajk (Győr: Győri Egyházmegyei Levéltár, 2011), 411–40.

82 Acta Gentilis, 126–53; see also Tamás Fedeles et al., eds. A Pécsi Egyházmegye története I. A középkor évszázadai (1009–1543) [History of the Diocese of Pécs I. The Centuries of the Middle Ages (1009–1543)], (Pécs: n.p., 2009), 90–91. (The relevant part is the work of László Koszta).

83 See two charters issued on the same day by János, bishop of Nyitra (Nitra, Slovakia) for extensive information regarding Máté Csák’s attempts to increase his power to the detriment of the prelate. March 3, 1318: CD, vol. VIII/2, 170–81, 181–83.

84 1310: Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv (Vienna), Erdődy család levéltára [The Archives of the Erdődy Family], Urkunden 43.

85 1308: CD, vol. VIII/1, 251; Acta Gentilis, 205; 1312: Hazai Oklevéltár 1234–1536 [National Charters], eds. Imre Nagy et al. (Budapest: Magyar Történelmi Társulat, 1879), 185; Chronici Hungarici compositio saeculi XIV, c, 188 (SRH, vol. I, 479).

86 1309: A Pécz nemzetség apponyi ágának az Apponyi grófok családi levéltárában őrizett oklevelei, I. 1241–1526 [Charters from the Family Archives of the Apponyi Counts of the Apponyi Branch of the Pécz Kindred], ed. Ernő Kammerer (Budapest: Franklin Társulat, 1906), 43–44.

87 1318: CD, vol. VIII/2, 173.

88 Mór Wertner, “Csák Máté utódai” [The Descendants of Máté Csák], Turul 20 (1902): 104–12.

89 1309: Acta Gentilis, 371–73.

90 Engel, “Az ország újraegyesítése,” 105.

91 1278: CDCr, vol. VI, 240–42; 1280: ibid., vol. VI, 362–63.

92 Ibid.

93 Kristó, Csák Máté tartományúri hatalma, 35.

94 1287: Oklevelek Hontvármegyei magán-levéltárakból, 30.

95 Attila Zsoldos, “IV. László és a Kállaiak ősei” [Ladislaus IV and the Ancestors of the Kállais] in A nyíregyházi Jósa András Múzeum Évkönyve [Yearbook of the András Jósa Museum in Nyíregyháza], vol. 42 (Nyíregyháza: Jósa András Múzeum, 2000), 77–87.

96 Engel, “Az ország újraegyesítése,” 102.

97 Chronici Hungarici compositio saeculi XIV. c. 196 (SRH, vol. I, 488) “prelium durissimum est commissum, quale a tempore Tartarorum in Hungaria non contigit celebrari.”

98 1317: Anjou-kori Okmánytár, vol. I, 427, 446; 1323: Zichy, vol. I, 219; see Enikő Csukovits, “Le serpent tortueux” et les satellites du Satan: l’image de l’ennemi dans les narratives des chartes de donation des rois Anjou en Hongrie,” in La Diplomatie des États Angevins aux XIIIe et XIVe siècles. Actes du colloque international de Szeged, Visegrád, Budapest 13–16 septembre 2007, eds. Zoltán Kordé and István Petrovics, (Rome–Szeged: Univ. degli studi di Szeged, JATEPress, Accad. d’Ungheria in Roma, 2010), 339–48.

99 1277: Urkundenbuch zur Geschichte der Deutschen in Siebenbürgen, 7 vols., ed. Franz Zimmermann et al. (Hermannstadt–Cologne–Vienna–Bucharest: n.p., 1892–1991), vol. I, 131.

100 1277: HO, vol. VII, 165.

101 József Gerics, A korai rendiség Európában és Magyarországon [The Early Regime of Estates in Europe and Hungary] (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1987).

102 For an appraisal of these treaties, see Gerics, Korai rendiség, 308–09; and Jenő Szűcs, Az utolsó Árpádok [The Last Árpáds] (Budapest: MTA Történettudományi Intézete, 1993), 337–41.

103 SRH, vol. I, 477.

104 1300: ÁÚO, vol. V, 261, 262, 263–64.

105 1300: ÁÚO, vol. V, 260–61.

106 Zsoldos, “III. András hat nádora.”

107 Engel, “Az ország újraegyesítése,” 104–08.

108 Ibid. See also Gyula Kristó, “I. Károly király harcai a tartományurak ellen (1310–1323)” [The Struggles of Charles I against the Oligarchs (1310–1323)], Századok 137 (2003): 297–347.

109 See Engel, “Az ország újraegyesítése,” 108.

110 1278: CDCr, vol. VI, 244, 245–46; 1286: ibid., vol. VI, 555–57; and 1287: UB, vol. II, 204.

111 1292: MDEA, vol. I, 81; and UB, vol. II, 268.

112 1317: Anjou-kori Okmánytár, vol. I, 412; 1321: CD, vol. VIII/2, 293; see Engel, “Az ország újraegyesítése,” 114.

113 1304: CD, vol. VIII/1, 158–59; ibid., vol. 160–61.

114 1314: ibid., vol. VIII/7, 108.

115 1312: Acta Aragonensia. Quellen zur deutschen, italienischen, französischen, spanischen zur Kirchen- und Kulturgeschichte aus der diplomatischen Korrespondenz Jaymes II. (1291–1327), vol. 2, ed. Heinrich Finke (Berlin–Leipzig: Dr Walther Rotschild, 1908), vol. I, 322–25.

116 1316: Béla Karácsonyi and Gyula Kristó, eds., Oklevelek a Csák-territórium történetéhez [Documents on the History of the Csák Territory] (Szeged: Hungária, 1971), 15, 16, 17, 17–18, 18, 19.

117 See: 1319: Anjou-kori Okmánytár, vol. I, 520–23; and 1329: ibid., vol. II, 403–04.

118 The future palatine of King Charles I, Dózsa Debreceni, was among those who changed sides. Zsoldos, “Debrecen mint igazgatási központ,” 50–51; for another example, see 1325: MNL OL, DL, 1045.

119 Engel, “Az ország újraegyesítése,” 113.

120 1321: CD, vol. VIII/2, 296–97; 1324: Anjou-kori Okmánytár, vol. II, 124–26; 1325: HO, vol. I,
137–43, etc.

121 Kristó, Csák Máté tartományúri hatalma, 36.

122 Amadé Aba died before 8 Sept, 1311, Henrik Kőszegi Jr before 5 May, 1310, Iván Kőszegi on 5 April, 1308, László Kán sometime before 12 August, 1315. See Zsoldos, Archontológia, 282, 308, 315; Kristó, “I. Károly király harcai,” 320.

123 Zsoldos, „Kassa túszai,” 361–62.

124 1308: Acta Gentilis, 112–15.

125 1311: Acta Gentilis, 384–91.

126 1290: Vetera monumenta historica Hungariam sacram illustrantia maximam partem nondum edita ex tabulariis Vaticanis deprompta, collecta ac serie chronologica disposita, 2 vols., ed. Augustinus Theiner (Rome: Romae Typis Vaticanis, 1859–1860), vol. I, 369. For more information regarding the reign of King Ladislaus, Szűcs, Az utolsó Árpádok, 279–321.

127 1301: Acta Aragonensia, vol. I, 112.

128 In typical fashion, a previously unknown Cuman named Aydud fought on the side of the Borsas against the king. See 1329: Anjou-kori Okmánytár, vol. II, 404.

129 Engel, The Realm of St Stephen, 143–45.

More Articles ...

  1. 2013_1_Tüskés
  2. 2013_1_Kiss
  3. 2013_1_Balázs
  4. 2013_1_Ács
  5. 2013_1_Erdélyi
  6. 2013_1_Csepregi
Page 45 of 49
  • Start
  • Prev
  • 40
  • 41
  • 42
  • 43
  • 44
  • 45
  • 46
  • 47
  • 48
  • 49
  • Next
  • End
  1. You are here:  
  2. Home
  3. Articles

IH | RCH | HAS

Copyright © 2013–2025.
All Rights Reserved.

Bootstrap is a front-end framework of Twitter, Inc. Code licensed under Apache License v2.0. Font Awesome font licensed under SIL OFL 1.1.