Specimina Nova Pars Prima Sectio Mediaevalis VIII

Péter Báling; Dr. Tamás Bélfenyéri; Specimina Nova Pars Prima Sectio Mediaevalis; Kiss Gergely; Ferenc Végh; Daniel Bagi; István Kovács; Illés Horváth; Judit Csákó; Tamás Péderi; Gábor Barabás

SPECIMIN“ NOV“ P“RS PRIM“ SECTIO MEDI“EV“LIS VIII. Dissertationes historicae collectae per Cathedram Historiae Medii “evi Modernorumque Temporum Universitatis Quinqueecclesiensis “ Pécsi Tudományegyetem Kчzépkori és Koraújkori Tчrténeti Tanszékének Tчrténeti kчzleményei Pécs, ǊǈǉǍ RedactХШɣ PécsХ TudШmányegyetem ”чЧcsészettudШmányХ Kar TчrténetХ Intézet KчzéЩЦШrХ és KШraújЦШrХ TчrténetХ TanszéЦ H–ǏǎǊǌ Pécs, RхЦus u. Ǌ. TeЧ./Faxɣ ɭ+ǋǎ ǏǊɮ Ǎǈǉ–ǍǏǊ SЩecХmХna NШЮa Pars PrХma SectХШ MedХaeЮaЧХs Хn cШmmercХaЧХ usu ХnЮenХrХ nШn ЩШssunt sed Щer cШmmutatХШnemɣ PécsХ TudШmányegyetem ”чЧcsészettudШmányХ Kar TчrténetХ Intézet KчzéЩЦШrХ és KШraújЦШrХ TчrténetХ TanszéЦ H–ǏǎǊǌ Pécs, RхЦus u. Ǌ. TeЧ./Faxɣ ɭ+ǋǎ ǏǊɮ Ǎǈǉ–ǍǏǊ SPECIMIN“ NOV“ P“RS PRIM“ SECTIO MEDI“EV“LIS VIII. Dissertationes historicae collectae per Cathedram Historiae Medii “evi Modernorumque Temporum Universitatis Quinqueecclesiensis “ Pécsi Tudományegyetem Kчzépkori és Koraújkori Tчrténeti Tanszékének Tчrténeti kчzleményei Pécs, ǊǈǉǍ EdХtШrХaЧ bШard Márta FШnt – GergeЧy KХss – Endre SasФaЧmХ ɭUnХЮersХty Шf Pécs, Pécsɮ NШrbert KersЦen ɭHerder InstХtut, Marburgɮ KataЧХn Szende ɭCentraЧ EurШЩean UnХЮersХty, ”udaЩestɮ PrzemysуaЯ NШЮaЦ (Tadeusz Manteuffel Institute of the Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw) RedХguntɣ GábШr ”“R“”ÁS – GergeЧy KISS HU ISSN ǉǍǍǐ–ǐǈǈǊ © DánХeЧ ”agХ © GábШr ”arabás © Péter ”áЧХng © Tamás ”éЧfenyérХ © Tamás FedeЧes © Márta FШnt © MarЦШ JerЦШЮХć © GergeЧy KХss © IstЮán KШЮács © MargХt PáЧffy © Endre SasФaЧmХ © PauЧ SrШdecЦХ © Ferenc VégФ TФe Щresent scХentХfХc cШntrХbutХШn Хs dedХcated tШ tФe ǎǍǈtФ annХЮersary Шf tФe fШundatХШn Шf tФe UnХЮersХty Шf Pécs, Hungary. TyЩШgraЩФХaɣ VХrágmanduЧa Kft. ǏǎǊǌ Pécs, Nagy J. u. ǉǊ. T“”LE OF CONTENTS PREF“CE....................................................................................................................................... 7 STUDIES ........................................................................................................................................ 9 А ТА Т: к ак ка а к з – как к ............................................................................................. 11 GERGELY KISS: Magdeburg/PШznań and GnХeznШ. TФe Emergence Шf tФe PШЧХsФ Ecclesiastical Hierarchy and its Dichotomy ............................................................ 23 DÁNIEL BAGI: Der angebЧХcФe ”чФmenfeЧdzug ЮШn LadХsЧaus I. dem HeХЧХgen Хm Kapitel 140 der Ungarischen Chronikkomposition des 14. Jahrhunderts ......... 35 PAUL SRODECKI: Einige Bemerkungen zur gescheiterten Kronkandidatur ”ertФШЧds V. ЮШn ZäФrХngen Хm März ǉǉǑǐ.............................................................. 45 GÁ”OR B“R“”ÁS: Delegated Papal Jurisdiction and the Religious Orders in the DХШcese Шf VeszЩrém Хn tФe FХrst HaЧf Шf tФe ǉǋth Century................................... 65 PÉTER BÁLING: Personal Network of the Neapolitan Angevins and Hungary (1290–1304) ........................................................................................................................ 83 T“MÁS FEDELES: ǉǋǎǏ Pécs/F(nfЦХrcФen. DХe erste ungarХscФe UnХЮersХtät .. 109 ENDRE SASHALMI: Written and Visual Representations of Russian History in tФe ǉǎǎǈsɣ FedШr “ЦХmШЮХcФ GrХbШedШЮ s History of the Tsars and Princes of the Rus Land and SХmШn UsФaЦШЮ s IcШn caЧЧed The Planting of the Tree of the Muscovite State ............................................................................................................... 139 FERENC VÉGH: Die Teilungen der Murinsel-Herrschaft der Familie Zrinyi im 17. Jahrhundert .............................................................................................................. 155 WORKSHOP ............................................................................................................................. 173 GERGELY KISS – GÁ”OR B“R“”ÁS: Papal Delegates in Hungary in the XIth–XIIIth Centuries – Online Database (2014–2016) .............................................................. 175 5 MARKO JERKOVIĆ: StudХes Шn tФe FrancХscan CuЧtureɣ SХЧent EntФusХasts series at the Centre for Croatian Studies (University of Zagreb) ..................... 179 MARKO JERKOVIĆ: Institutional history of Church at the Centre for Croatian StudХes ɭUnХЮersХty Шf Zagrebɮɣ “ЩШstШЧХc Chamber and Zagreb Bishopric: A History of Socio-Economic LХnЦs ........................................................................... 185 FERENC VÉGH: Society in the Duty of Defenceɣ TФe MuraЦчz as a Peculiar Border Region in the Early Modern Times ............................................................ 191 ”OOK REVIEW ......................................................................................................................... 197 REL“TED PU”LIC“TIONS ....................................................................................................... 213 CONTENTS OF PREVIOUS ISSUES ........................................................................................... 231 6 PREF“CE After the previous two volumes in the VIIIth issue of the Specimina Nova Pars Prima Sectio Mediaevalis we go back to the beginnings. As opposed to the volumes based on the materials of different conferences, the present issue consists of the studies of the researchers of the Department of the History of Medieval and Early Modern Times, Institute of History, UnХЮersХty Шf Pécs. It Хs a ЩЧeasure tФat amШng tФe autФШrs tФere Хs a PФD student of our department as a sign of promising supply of young historians, and furthermore we can also publish our respected German cШЧЧeague s study, ЯФШ ФaЮe been tШ Pécs Шn researcФ trХЩs and conferences several times in addition to the scientific cooperations. As compared to the previous issues there is a new feature, namely the workshop section. Here we can read about the ongoing projects of our department besides two short reports given about the researches and their resuЧts by Шur CrШatХan scХentХfХc Щartner MarЦШ JerЦШЮХć, a researcФer Шf the Center of Croatian Studies of the University of Zagreb. In the section of the book review researchers and students of our institute and a PhD student from ”abe;-Bolyai University (Romania) provide reviews about Hungarian works connected to our department and also German and English works considered interesting. The present issue gives also a short database with pictures of the publications related to our institution since 1998 (Related Publications) and the table of contents of the previous issues as well. Pécs, December ǊǈǉǍ The Editors 7 STUDIES SЩecХmХna NШЮa Pars PrХma SectХШ MedХaeЮaЧХs VIII Ed. GábШr ”“R“”ÁS – GergeЧy KISS. Pécs, ǊǈǉǍ. Щ. ǉǉ–ǊǊ. а аФ ак Márta FШnt, DSc fШnt.marta@Щte.Фu UnХЮersХty Шf Pécs InstХtute Шf HХstШry DeЩartment Шf MedХeЮaЧ and EarЧy MШdern HХstШry RхЦus Street Ǌ H-ǏǎǊǌ Pécs Hungary Т: ка а – как к к з Д к The Naming of Princes in Kievan Rus' as a Historical Source The naming practice of the Rurikid dynasty reflects different factors: the Scandinavian (varangian) and Slavonic traditions are combined with each other and both were influenced by the Byzantine Christian tradition. During the Kievan period most of the princes had a traditional name as well as a Christian one, according to their patron saints. The analysis of naming practice reveals a changing tradition, while the examples from the Halych-Volhynian line of the dynasty point out the significance of names as historical sources. Key wordsɣ KХeЮan Rus , dynastХc symbШЧs, namХng  Т а , аж а а , ж аз а а к к .1 а ак к каз а к к ак . а а а как а ɭ а жк ɮ ɭ ɮ а к а а ак к за к , аж а к – а а а к а а . а , к к ж к к а а а к а к а ка а а а к . за а 1 . . Gertrud THOMAɣ Namensänderungen Хn HerrscФerfamХЧХen des mittelalterlichen Europa. M(nchener Historische Studien. “bteilung Mittelalterliche Geschichte. Vol. 3. Hrsg. Eduard HЧaЯХtscФЦa. KaЧЧm(nz. 1985; Alexander SITZMANN: Nordgermanische-ostslavische Sprachkontakte in der Kiever Rus bis zum Tode Jaroslavs des Weisen. Wien. 2003. 11 а а а з а а к а а а а к а к а а к ɭ . . к ка а а з Т ак ка .К а к , А. к как з а а . К ж к з к а к а . з как а а з з а к к а а к . а а зк к а а а а а , к к а а. к к з к а а а к а ǉǈа к а . аФ к з , а ка к к з а а ж а а к а к а. а а ,4 ак , а а а а а. а ,к а к .5 к к з к ж к а ка ǉǈǎǈ- , а к а а к а аɮ , а аз .2 к . к к а а.3 З а , за а, к а з а а а а, .Э з а , аж ɭ ɮ к з а , а а , К . а к а а , а а а . 2 Jukka KORPELA: ”eiträge zur ”evчlkerungsgeschichte und Prozopographie der Kiewer Rus bis zum Tode von Vladimir Monomah. JyЮäsЦyЧä. 1995; ж : Prince, Saint and Apostle. Prince VЧadХmХr SЮjatШsЧaЮХč Шf Kiev, his Pothumous Life and the Religious Legitimation of the Russian Great Power. Wiesbaden. 2001. 3 Andrzej POPPE: Christian Russia in the Making. Variorum reprints № ǐǎǏ. Ashgate. 2007. I. C. 6–11; Grzegorz ROSTKOWSKI: The Christian Names of Some Members of the Rurik Dynasty as a TestХmШny Шf ”yzantХne CuЧturaЧ InfЧuences Хn KХeЮan Rus frШm OЧga s ”aЩtХsm tШ ǉǉǋǑ. Byzantina et Slavica Cracoviensia V. Cracow. 2007. ɭ а ɣ ROSTKOWSKI 2007) C. 183– 192. 4“ а . Т А – . У К ɣ а к к к ж к . а. И я . к а. 2002. ɭ а ɣ Т А–У К 2006) C. 36–109, ж : . к а. 2006 5 Márta FONT: The Structure and Authenticity of the Povest vremennych let. Studia Slavica Academiae Stientiarum Hungaricae 58 (2013):2. C. 345–364. 12 АКТ КА з з аз УК а а B А а к а а - з а а жа ж а  а а а ак -за а .8 а а а а а з аз а а а ж каза а к ɣ а а ? Т а а з к каза а к а ǉǋ- а к К к . а . Та ка, а к ɤ з а а ж к к з Т к ка , ɣ6 -за а , а к а к з , а а а. Э а .7 -за а , ак к з к К - а а. а ка а а ǉǊк а з а з а а ак з – КАК - к ажа к к а к к ǉǉǑǑ ., к . : У к а а ка  З аза ж . а , . а, к к ж к а № ǉ а а 6 John FENNELL: The Crisis of Medieval Russia 1200–1304. London – New York. 1983; Janet MARTIN: Medieval Russia 980–1584. Cambridge. 1995. C. 169–181. 7I а . К К : а кк к язi . K . 1984. C. 84–85. ( а а з а ɣ Х ǉǑǑǑ. ǉǈǑ–113.); А к а . А : а ккая . а к. Ǌǈǈǉ. C. ǋǊǉ–ǋǌǏɤ Márta FONT: Oroszország, Ukrajna, Rusz [ , Ук а а, ]. ”udaЩest. ǉǑǑǐ. C. ǉǐǈ–182. 8O M. А : K яж к а я а X– p XIII . Mo к a. 1977. ɭ а ɣ А 1977) 13 а Та Ча а№ а 9 А ка к а 9 а к а а 19 а а а 1 а 5 6 26 17 10 Из ак К а 1 а 1 9 а 2 а 8 18 1 а 24 3 11 1 а 7 к а а 1 1 7 к а 25 2 а 3 1 13 а 22 13 3 к 5 к Я а 1 11 17 аɣ а ǊǏ, а ǊǍ, а ǊǊ, ǉǑ, з а ǉǐ а ǉǏ – ак а « а к » а, ак как а к , ак а к а . У к ка а к а ɣ ɭ ɮ ɭYngХ, IngХɮ, а ɭIngЮarrɮ, ё , ɭIngХgerðrɮ, з ж к аз а .9 ка а к - а ка а а ажа а ɣ а к к *– ɭ ɮ, * -ɭ - ѣ ɮ а а ка а к valdr-ɤ как а к *– а ка а к *–ЧeХfr/Чáfr.10 K к а к к *– к. У к а к а а а а ,к .11 а к Ǒǐǐ . , ж а – к а – а к ак к .12 ак , а к а з а а а к . а а аз а ак а – ак аз а « » а,13 к к а аз а « ». M аз ка а 4 10 3 4 а а а 1 3 а Т а х А аФ а Ǌǌ, Т А–У К 2006. C. 37–40, 65–68. Та ж C. 40–48, 61. 11 Та ж C. 55. 12 Та ж C. 182–196. 13 . Márta FONT: Im Spannungsfeld der christlichen Grossmächte. Herne. 2008. C. 93– 105. 9 10 14 АКТ КА к А УК « а . . а к а к , а а аж а Та И а а а а аɣ » а . к – Т К Т . а .“ а . к К а а , ж х ж к И ка (14) А , А ка , а ɭ а к ɮ, а , а , , а , а , К а , , а , а , , а а к – КАК ɣ а№ . а У а а к З а ɭ а а И а к х ж (7) а И к х ж (13) а ɮ, ɭ к , а ɮ, , , а , , , к з , ак аз. « ɣ а а а а , , а , а , а , к, а , а к а ажа з ак , к а, а , а , а , а , (5) , к, » а а А ǋ, А а а Ǌ, Ǎ, а ǌ, а Ǎ, , Ǌ, ǉ, а ǉ, Д 8, И а 14, К а ǋ, К Ǌ, К з а ǉ, ха , к а ǋ, а ǉ, а к а ǉ, а ǉ, к ǉ, ǌ, а ǉ, Ǌ, а Ǌ, , к ǉ з Ǒǌ з а “ К 14 , а а а а а . Та а № Ǌ а к к ,14 . . к а , ак аз. « » ɣ . з Ǌǎ а ǉǈ а – а а а « а ɭǑɮ, а ɭǉǋɮ, а ɭǉǈɮ, а ɭǏɮ, а ɭǏɮ, а ɭǉǋɮ, ɭǊɮ, ROSTKOWSKI 2007. C. 192. 15 ɣ а к , зк , к , а . – к », как . ɭǉɮ, а ɭǉǈɮ, ɭǉǋɮ. а Та а а№ . а а а а к а а ».15 к а У а И а а а а К .17 Ǐ Ǎ а 30 ǉǊ ǐ Ǐ ǌ а ǋ к а ǋ а а , ǋǌǈ к ɭ+ к , » ак а к з к » , а з а а . ак а « а к » .Т а з а а , к ж к з ɣ « ж а а , к а к а ажа а а а а ,а а к , а ɮ а ǊǍ а Ǌǌ а ǊǊ ǉǑ а ǉǐ а ǉǏ ǉǏ ǉǉ к ǉǉ ǐ з Ǎ ǌ как « з а а ǉǌ а к а а ǐǏ з а а . ǐǍ к з ж а а « а , . з Т а ǉǋ а ǉǋ ǉǋ а ǉǈ а ǉǈ А Ǒ К а Ǐ а Ǐ А ка ǋ Ǌ ǉ аФ а , а . з а, а ак а ка а к а каз а ѣ а ɤа а а , . а к ɭ а ɣ ка . з . .К . к а. 2001. C. 578. 16 Т А–У К 2006. C. 265–266. 17 Márta FONT: “ ЦХjeЮХ ɭnagyɮfejedeЧmХ ФataЧШm jeЧЧegérшЧ [ а ак ɭ к ɮк ж к а ]. Aetas 14 (1999:3), C. 22–33. 15 к . а к а а а , а . 16 з .16 а ɮ II. к к АКТ КА к ж а а а а – а за ɣК а ɤ а а , , ,К а З а к как .18 , а а к , з а . к УК а, . . каз а к А а А А – КАК У Т а а ж . а з а а к ɭ к , ,Кз к а . Т ж к , как ɭ « аɮ » а , как К а , , з а – а а к а к К а.19 Як ɮ а а а а , а к к ажа аɮ, к а , а , а ɣ А ка , к , а К , а а ɭК з а к а а , к а а к , ак з а а а за . а а а, а к « а к » а . ак , а акж за к з –к , а ж к а к к з к з ɤ как . а а а а а а а – как а . з а а к з – аж за ж , . к а ж ɣ к « ка » « а ». ж к ж к а 12-13.к к к к з а а к к з . аз а а к к з , а к к ж к . Ка за а а ǉǊǐǈ. а а а а а а , а а ǉǌка а а а « а ка а а». з – ка за ǉǈǏǊ – а а , а акж к к а ж 18 У к з ж ж к 19 а I. а а , – а к а , а а а, а ж а ка а . а ,к а ж а к ǉǌка . з . . а к аК . ж к .ɭ 17 а Т .К – . а – а , а акж а аЗ а а– а аз ж а аз А–У К 2006. C. 237.) . к а. 2001. C. 7–8. а к ɣ а а а а а а . а аФ а а . а . Так Т а к а ж ак а, к а а а к ж а к з , а а а Ка к ǉǊǊǋ .ɣ – ж к ,20 к жа а . ак , а ж а а , к а к а а « а к ». а ж а а – з а к к ж ǉǋка к к к з а з ɭǉǉǏǐ–ǉǊǉǊɮ, а з з а к а а. з а а к ɣ .К а , , , ɤа – а , – а а – а з а а . а ɭǉǉǑǈ–ǉǊǌǎɮ, к к а а а а , а а а к аɤ аж а а а к аɭ ɮ, « а к » з ж .21 а а а а к , а –А а а , . а а а , а а к к ж ж а к а к а ɤ а а а з а а к а , ǉǊǋǋ. , А ка ɭ к ɮ А а за ж ǉǊǋǈ.22 ǉǉка ɭ а з а аɮ к к а а а а , а а. а ж з а, к а а, а . а к а ɣ ка а к а а , а *- а ка а ж .23 а а а – как И –, а з а аз а к, а к а . У а А 1977. C. 93. А–У К 2006. C. 71–110. 22 I. C. 523; А 1977. C. 184–ǉǐǍɤ Márta FONTɣ “ЧeЦszandr NyeЮszЦХj [А к а к ]. In: Orosz arcképcsarnok. Ed. Norbert CSIBI – Tamás MISZLER. Pécs. 2004. (Kelet– EurхЩa és ”aЧЦán TanuЧmányШЦ 3.) C. 3–14. з ɣ C. 5–6. 23 Т А–У К 2006. C. 55, 58–59, 97–98. 20 21 Т 18 АКТ КА А УК З У а а акж – КАК Т К Т К аɣ а а к .24 к ж к к к а ǉǉка, к з . а а, а а а аɭ а а ɮ аɭ а – а ɮ. а а к ж ɤа а а к ɭ= а ɮ . а а к а к к к з , а а ак ж . а а к к ж а к , а к а ɤ , а к, а – а, а а а а К к . а а а а а а а к а ǉǊка к а а к к з к а . К а а а аза а а а ка а к ж ɣИ ɤ аза а, а каз а а а. а каж , а к к з ж а к а а а а , а к а. Э , ǉǉǍǈж а к ,25 а к а а .26 К а жа а а а а а , а а .27 а а к к з а а к к .28 ǉǉǑǑ. а к к ж а к к а а а а, к а а, а а, к а . а а а к к к к з , как а а а ɭǉǉǉǋ–ǉǉǊǍɮ, а к ɭǉǉǊǍ–ǉǉǋǊɮ, з а а ɭǉǉǌǎ–ǉǉǍǌɮ M а з а ɭǉǉǎǏ–ǉǉǎǑɮ. а к ɭǉǉǏǈ–ǉǉǑǑɮ а к к к а а К ка к а ǉǊка а к ка к а ǉǋка. . P IIɤ Márta FONT: Árpád-házi királyok és Rurikida fejedelmek [К з а А а к з к ]. Szeged. ǊǈǈǍ. ɭSzegedХ ЦчzéЩЦШrtчrténetХ ЦчnyЮtár Ǌǉ.ɮ C. ǋǉ–60. 25 а . А : а к X–XIII . MШ к a. ǉǑǐǑ. C. ǊǉǊ. 26 а TO УК: O шкi кая а. А я я а а к ïз XII–XIII . а - а кХ к. 2005. 27 Gyчrgy GY5RFFYɣ “ száЮaszentdemeterХ gчrчg mШnШstШr XII. századХ bХrtШЦчsszeйrása [ а а а а к II .]. A MTA II. Osztályának Kчzleményei 2–3. (1952–1953), C. 325–ǋǎǊ, з ɣ C. 69–104. 28 Márta FONT: Old Russian Principalities and their Nomadic Neighbours: Stereotypes of Chronicles and Diplomatic Practice of Princes. Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 48 (2005), C. 267–276. 24 а 19 а (1199–ǉǊǈǍɮ к за ж за к к а за з з к з . аФ Т а а а ака, а а к к з ɭ а ɮ,29 а а а а а . а ж аз, ака а а к , а ɭǉǊǈǍɮ а . ж а а з ,а к а – а з – а а за к за к ж .30 А а к а , к . к к . , каз а з а за к ж .31 ж а з а а а .32 33 а к а к а к к к А а II аз , а з а за к ка .34 – к – а а ж к за з а а. к к а а а за ж зк . ж , з а а а за к к ак . а ж а а а а к к з ка а а, з-за к к ж 29 Dariusz DĄ”ROWSKI: Rodowхd Romanowiczхw książąt halicko-woуyńskich. PШznań – WrШcуaЯ. 2002. ɭ а ɣ DĄ”ROWSKI 2002) C. 45–ǌǐɤ Х Т : К яжа а а iɣ i . i – i а к а. Ǌǈǈǎ. ɭ а ɣ Т 2006) C. 491. 30 а к– кая . Тк ,к а , а . з . к а . К Т . а к– . ǊǈǈǍ. ɭ а ɣ ɮ C. 184–189. 31 DĄ”ROWSKI 2002. C. 34–44; Т 2006. C. 481–487. 32 Andrzej BUKOɣ PШmХędzy PШЧsЦą a RusХą. Z nШЯycФ badań arcФeШЧШgХcznycФ nad Яczesnym średnХШЯХeczem Я zХemХ cФeуmsЦХej. Inɣ Świat średniowiecza. Studia ofiarowane Profesorowi Henrykowi Samsonowiczowi. Red. Agnieszka BARTOSZEWICZ – Grzegorz MYŚLIEWSKI – Jerzy PYSIA – PaЯeу ZmudzЦХ. KraЦхЯ. Ǌǈǉǈ. C. ǉǈǏ–128. 33 C. ǉǐǌ–189. 34 а к к А а а II аА а “ , А К a а зк а а а а а, а з к а. аА , а а аж за к а а а а. . . Michael ANGOLD: The Byzantine empire 1025–1205. A Political History. London – NeЯ YШrЦ. ǉǑǐǌ. ɭ а ɣ ANGOLD 1984) C. 184–185; Ferenc MAKKɣ “ntХШcФХaХ “nna [А а з А ]. Inɣ Korai Magyar Tчrténeti Lexikon ɭǑ–ǉǌ. századɮ. Ed. Gyula KRIST2 – PáЧ ENGEL – Ferenc MAKK. Budapest. 1994. C. 47.; Attila ZSOLDOS: “z Árpádok és asszonyaik. “ királynéi intézmény az Árpádok korában [А а жё . к а А а ]. ”udaЩest. ǊǈǈǍ. ɭTársadalom- és műЮeЧшdéstчrténetХ tanuЧmányШЦ ǋǎ.ɮ C. ǉǐǑ. аА а а II, а а за ж ǉǉǐǍ . за за к а а ак А а. 20 АКТ КА . А з а а а за к к а а УК З а за а з а а а к к а а У а за а ж – КАК а а а . Т К а аз к , а Т .35 , К ǉǉǑǑ- жк ж к ак . за к ж а а , к а а а к ɭ= а ɮ за к а к а к . а ж а к ж к к , а а а к , . . а а- а ка а а а а За ка.36 а , каза к ж к а а . Так а ак У к з И , к а ж а а ɣ ɭIngХgerdɮ а ка а к ж .37 к , а а а а а а . з а а к а , а ка ж ж а, как аа ж а . а а ж з ,38 з з а . а к а а з к а а а а, – а – ж а, к 39 ж . ɭ а к а а.ɮ а ак к а а к ж к ɣ  а ак ка а ж а а а 40 з ж , к ж DĄ”ROWSKI 2002. C. 33; Т 2006. C. 477. Gerhard PODSKALSKY: Christentum und theologische Literatur in der Kiewer Rus ɭǑǐǐ–1237). M(ncФen. ǉǑǐǊ. C. ǉǑǍɤ Dinasztia, hatalom, egyház. Régiхk formálхdása Eurхpa kчzepén 900–1453 [ а , а , к . а ]. Ed. Márta FONT. Pécs. 2009. ɭ а ɣ FONT 2009) C. 296–297. 37 Т А–У К 2006. C. 38. 38 Т А–У К 2006. C. 167–168; DĄ”ROWSKI 2002. C. 75–76; Т 2006. C. 494. 39 Т А–У К 2006. C. 168, 368– 381. 40 а а Тɣ а eЩeкЩec кe кy yЩ. ак , а к . In: а а я Ц а / State and Nation in Russia and Central-East Europe. Ed. Gyula SZVÁK – Zsuzsa GYIMESI. Budapest, 2009. (Ruszisztikai kчnyvek XXII.)C. 55–68. 35 36 21 а а      ка . Т а ɣ а ɮ ка аФ к а а к , Т ɭ а ɮ к за а к « ɭ к а а ɭ а а ɮ. а а а а к з а ɭ а к ж , а к з аж а а а а а а а к к к . з а к а а « а к » . К к а аз . У к з а - з а к а а а ка. к а ажа а к а а а з ка а к а к ак за ж а к , ак , к за . к к , а ǉǊǍǋк К ж к к каз а . к к а а а а ɭ а а ɮ. К а а а к .  а за а к к а к з а ɮɤ а. а , ɮ, аж ж каз а к а » а .У а а ǉǋа к ж . а а ɭ з а к . .41 жа а ɤ аза к ɭ ка а ɮ, а G(ntФer ST5KL: Kanzler und Metropolit. In: Studien zur Geschichte Osteuropas Bd. 3. Gedenkband f(r Heinrich Felix Schmid.Graz – KчЧn. 1966. (WХener “rcФХЮ f(r Geschichte des Slawentums und Osteuropas 5.) C. 150–175; ANGOLD 1984. C. 272–275; FONT 2009. C. 273–274. 41 22 SЩecХmХna NШЮa Pars PrХma SectХШ MedХaeЮaЧХs VIII Ed. GábШr ”“R“”ÁS – GergeЧy KISS. Pécs, ǊǈǉǍ. Щ. Ǌǋ–ǋǌ. GergeЧy KХss, PФD gЩetХt.gergeЧy@gmaХЧ.cШm UnХЮersХty Шf Pécs InstХtute Шf HХstШry DeЩartment Шf MedХeЮaЧ and EarЧy MШdern HХstШry RхЦus Street Ǌ H-ǏǎǊǌ Pécs Hungary Gergely KISS: Magdeburg/Poznań and GnХezno The Emergence of the Polish Ecclesiastical Hierarchy and its Dichotomy The present work aims to study one of the basic problem of the medieval Polish ecclesiastical hierarchy, the formation of the first (arch)bishopric centers, the construction process of the ecclesiastical hierarchy. Two different level are to be distingished in this ЩrШcess, tФe fХrst, tФe fШundatХШn Шf PШznań suЩЩШrted by OttШ I s ХmЩerХaЧ-eccliastical policy which attached the Polish territories to Magdeburg and the imperial hierarchy. On a second level, around the first millenium, the foundation of the archbishopric seat at Gniezno, by Otto III referrs to a new imperial and ecclesiasical idea, the development of the Orbis Christianus by the organization of independent ecclesiastical province of Poland. The present study examinates also if this double level has influenced the further development of the hierarchy and contributed to the dichotomy which is clearly detected in the 12th century. Key wordsɣ MedХeЮaЧ PШЧand, PШЧХsФ eccЧesХastХcaЧ ФХerarcФy, Magdeburg, PШznań, GnХeznШ  At first sight the emergence of the Polish church system was a fairly simple process, the most important phases of which can be regarded as follows. The Polish Duke Mieszko I took allegiance to emperor Otto I in 966, then nШt mucФ Чater Хn Ǒǎǐ tФe bХsФШЩrХc Шf PШznań Яas set uЩ. TФree decades later, in 1000 the archbishopric of Gniezno was established, but by that  The study was made with the support of the Hungarian Scientific Research Found (OTKA NN 109690). TФe autФШr Хs member Шf tФe Lend(Чet Hungary Хn MedХeЮaЧ EurШЩe research Group of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences and University of Debrecen (MTADE „Lend(Чet MagyarШrszág a KчzéЩЦШrХ EurхЩában KutatхcsШЩШrt) I would like to say tФanЦ NШrbert KersЦen and DánХeЧ ”agХ fШr tФeХr ФeЧЩ tШ ЯrХte tФХs study. 23 Gergely KISS tХme tФe bХsФШЩrХcs Шf WrШcуaЯ, KraЦхЯ and KШуШbrzeg Фad aЧready existed. Naturally there were changes occuring in the Polish church system later – such as the bishopric of KШуШbrzeg ceased tШ exХst at tФe beginning of the 11th century as a result of the pagan uprisings, or in the 12th century the system of episcopalis got enriched with newer territories, centres as the power of the Polish Duke expanded – yet these dwell on the subject of the present study only indirectly. The main issue is the dichotomy of the church governance in the Polish territories – Magdeburg/PШznań, GnХeznШ –, which can be explained only with examining the circumstances of how the church centres emerged. As it is well known, the antecedent of the establishment of the bishopric Шf PШznań tШ cФrХstХanХze tФe PШЧХsФ Яas tФe baЩtХsm Шf MХeszЦШ I,1 which on one hand intended to ensure peace between the Polish Duke and Otto I, on the other hand it provided the emperor with the possibility to expand his influence over a part of the Polish territories in accordance with his eastern ЩШЧХcy . TФe eastern ЩШЧХcy ɭOstpolitik) of the emperors of the Holy Roman Empire, meaning how they considered the territories to the east, inhabited by the Bohemian, Polish and Hungarian tribes, was not uniform. While in the era of Otto I the central issue of politics was the expansion of the empire (Imperium) in this territory, in case of Otto III it was the expansion of Christianity (Christianitasɮ. OttШ I s eastern ЩШЧХcy meant creatХng strong German influence, dependence both in the politics and the church; the missions fit into the frames of the imperial church and the early church system emerged as its subordinate.2 1 “ccШrdХng tШ WХduЦХnd ɭcaЩ. ǎǑ.ɮ MХeszЦШ Яas granted tФe ФШnШurabЧe tХtЧe „tФe emЩerШr s frХend ЯХtФ tФХs. TФe ЩЧace Шf tФe baЩtХsm Хs under debate, Regensburg, GnХeznШ and PШznań can aЧЧ be raХsed. Cf. Karl V5LKER.: Kirchengeschichte Polens. Berlin – Leipzig. 1930. (hereafter: V5LKER 1930), p. 8–10; Friedrich KEMPF: Die Missionierung der Slawen und Ungarn im 10. und 11. Jahrhundert. In: Handbuch der Kirchengeschichte. Hrsg. Hubert JEDIN. Bd. III/1.: Die mittelalterliche Kirche. Freiburg – Basel – Wien. 1966. 267–283. (hereafter: KEMPF 1966), p. 274–275; Jerzy KŁOCZOWSKY: Die Ausbreitung des Christentums von der Adria bis zur Ostsee: Christianisierung der Slawen, Skandinavier und Ungarn zwischen dem 9. und dem 11. Jahrhundert. In: ”ischчfe, Mчnche und Kaiser (642–1054). Hrsg. Gilbert DRAGON – Pierre RICHÉ – “ndré VAUCHEZ. Deutsche Ausgabe bearbeitet und herausgeben von Egon BOSHOF. Freiburg – Basel – Wien. 1994. (Geschichte des Christentums Bd. 4.) (hereafter: Bischчfe, Mчnche und Kaiser), p. 883–920. (hereafter: KŁOCZOWSKY 1994), here: p. 898; Jerzy STRZELCZYKɣ “ Цereszténység feЧЮéteЧe LengyeЧШrszágban az йrШtt fШrrásШЦ aЧaЩján [TФe Christianization in Poland According to Written Sources]. In: Eurхpa kчzepe ǉǈǈǈ kчr(l Ed. Alfried WIECZOREK – Hans-MartХn HINZ. Stuttgart. Ǌǈǈǈ. ɭhereafter: WIECZOREK – HINZ Ǌǈǈǈɮ, Щ. ǊǑǏ–ǊǑǑ. ɭФereafterɣ STRZELCZYK 2000) 2 Albert BRACKMANNɣ DХe “nfänge der SЧaЯenmХssХШn und dХe RenШЮatХШ ХmЩerХХ des JaФres 800. In: IDEM: Gesammelte “ufsätze zu seinem Ǐǈ. Geburtstag am 24. Juni 1941 von Freunden / Fachgenossen und Sch(lern als Festgabe dargebracht. Weimar. 1941. (hereafter: BRACKMANN 24 MAGDEBURG/POZN“Ń “ND GNIEZNO … Thus it is worth asking if all this reflected and if yes, how in the emergence of the Polish church system. The key to it – in my view – is hidden in clarifying the role of Magdeburg. Following the trials of conversion tracing back to the 9th century,3 it came into the forefront of interest of the Saxon dynasty to bring the eastern and north-eastern borderlands of the empire into political and ecclesiastical subordination. The significant change of the church system of the territories neighbouring the areas of the Elba, Saale and Odera in the mid-10th century served the conversion of the mentioned areas. The establishment of the bishoprics of Brandenburg and Havelberg happened in 948, two decades later there were newer establishments. The bishoprics of Meissen, Merseburg,4 Oldenburg and Zeitz (this latter one was placed in the nearby Naumburg in 1030) emerged in 968. The organistaion of the archbishopric of Magdeburg also fits into this program. In 937 Otto I founded the monastery of St Maurice, then the plan to change it into a centre of mission appeared first in 955, which idea was supported by pope Agapet II. The foundation of the archbishopric in 962 did not succeed despite the support of pope John XII,5 in all probability due to the objection of William the archbishop of Mainz and Bernard the bishop of Halberstadt. In the end, six years later – after the death of the mentioned two prelates – Otto I managed 1941), p. 56–75; IDEMɣ Der „RчmХscФe ErneuerungsgedanЦe und seХne ”edeutung f(r dХe Reichspolitik der deutschen Kaiserzeit. In: Ibid. p. 108–139; IDEM: Reichspolitik und OstpolitХЦ Хm fr(Фen MХtteЧaЧter. Inɣ Ibid. p. 188–210; IDEM: Die Ostpolitik Ottos des Grossen. In: Ibid. p. 140–153; IDEM: Kaiser Otto III. und die staatliche Umgestaltung Polens und Ungarns. In: Ibid. p. 242–258. 3 See Albert BRACKMANNɣ DХe “nfänge der abendЧändХscФen KuЧturbeЯegung Хn OsteurШЩa und deren Träger. In: Ibid. p. 76–107. 4 Merseburg ceased to exist for a while in 981, it was reorganized in 1004. Wilhelm PFEIFER: DХe ”Хst(mer Prag und MeХßen. Inɣ Sacrum Pragense Millenium 973–1973. KчnХgsteХn. ǉǑǏǋ. ɭ“rcФХЮ f(r KХrcФengescФХcФte ЮШn ”чФmen-MäФren-Schlesien Band III.), p. 77–109. (hereafter: PFEIFFER 1973), here: p. 78. To sum up: Michel PARISSE: Die Reichskirche (um 900 bis 1054). In: ”ischчfe, Mчnche und Kaiser. p. 797–820. (hereafter: PARISSE 1994), here: p. 797–800. In details: Walter SCHLESINGER: Kirchengeschichte Sachsens im Mittelalter. Band I. Von den Anfängen kirchlicher Verk(ndigung bis zum Ende des Investiturstreites. Band II. Das Zeitalter der Deutschen Ostsiedlung (1100–1300). Graz. 1962. (Mitteldeutsche Forschungen 27/I–II.) (hereafter: SCHLESINGER 1962) I. p. 21–51, 60–83. 5 „[…] volumus et per hanc privilegii paginam iubemus, ut Magdaburgense monasterium in regno Saxonum iuxta Albia(m) constructum […] in archiepiscopalem transferatur sedem, que per subditos suffraganeos totum Dei gregem regere et gubernare valeat. Volumus et per hanc privilegii paginam iubemus, ut Merseburgense monasterium […] in episcopalem delegetur sedem, que Magdaburgensi sit subdita sedi. […] Volumus etiam, carissimi confratres, […] ut Moguntiensis, Treuerensis, Coloniensis, Salsaburgensis, Hamaburgensis ecclesie archipresules Magdaburgensis monasterii in archiepiscopalem et Merseburgensis in episcopalem translationis sedem totis cordis corporisque viribus consentanei fautoresque presistant. Harald ZIMMERMANN: Papsturkunden 896–1046. I. 896–996, II. 996–1046, III. Register. Wien. 1988–1989. (hereafter: PU) I. p. 283–284. 25 Gergely KISS to put across his plan. The synod of Ravenna in 967 gave the permission to set up the archbihopric and ordered the bishoprics of Brandenburg and Havelberg under the jurisdiction of Magdeburg and empowered the new archbishop and his descendents to present bishops for appropriate places, naming Merseburg, Zeitz, Meissen.6 Following this on 18 October 968 pope John XIII confirmed the foundation of the archbishopric in his bull, this time with the consent of Hatto II the archbishop of Mainz and Hildeward the bishop of Halberstadt.7 Not long after the baptism of Mieszko (966), the foundation of the bХsФШЩrХc Шf PШznań ФaЩЩened Хn tФe same year as Magdeburg Яas raХsed to archbishopric. Although the person who founded the bishopric is not known, as far as the circumstances of the foundation are concerned, there have appeared three distinguishable views. 1) According to the first in the fШundatХШn Шf PШznań tФe ЩaЩacy ЩЧayed a fundamentaЧ rШЧeɤ Ǌɮ Хn ШtФer „Ipsi namque anno, una nobiscum favente et consentiente invictissimo predicto imperatore, acta est magna sinodus Rauenne duodecima kalendas Magii. […] Nos vero […] dignum duximus, […] ut Magdaburch sita iuxta Albiam fluvium […] deinceps metropolis sit et nominetur […]. Suffraganeos vero eidem metropoli omnes unanimiter preordinavimus Brandenburgensem episcopum et Hauelbergensem, his iunctis, quibuscunque imperator voluerit, in urbe Magdaburch archiepiscopus consecretur. Postea vero idem archiepiscopus et successores eius habeant potestatem per congrua loca […] episcopos ordinare, nominative nunc et presentaliter Merseburc, Cici et Misni […]. PU I. Щ. 347–348. 7 „Igitur quia gloriosissimus spiritualis Otto imperator augustus civitatem quam Magadaburg dicunt, in confinio saxonum et Sclauonorum, in ripa fluminis Albie, in parrochia scilicet Halberstatensis episcopi fundavit et ecclesiam inibi construxit, canonicos constituit, ad quorum subsidium satis contulit, et innumeram multitudinem Sclauorum ad divine religionis cultum conduxit, confratres Hatto, sancte Magunciensis ecclesie archiepiscopus, et Hidiuuardus Halberstatensis ecclesie episcopus, et comprovinciales episcopi, sicut per consentaneas et petitorias litteras ab ipsis propriis manibus roboratas, que in presentia nostra ante corpus beati Petri apostoli relecte sunt, didicimus, in predicta Magadaburg(ensi) civitate archiepiscopalem sedem privilegio apostolice sedis statui ordinaverunt, que ultra Albiam et Salam in congruentibus locis subiectos episcopos, qui nunc ordinati sunt et ordinandi futuris post temporibus erunt, habeat, nostro post Deum iudicio, qualiter eadem archiepiscopalis sedes ordinari debeat, deliberandum precantes, nem per invidiam fidei tanta Sclauorum plebs Deo noviter acquisita callidis hostis, quod absit, rapiatur insidiis. PU I. Щ. ǋǏǌ–ǋǏǍɤ PARISSE 1994. p. 800–801. (map: p. 816); Matthias BECHERɣ Nagy Ottх és a magdeburgХ érseЦség aЧaЩйtása [OttШ the Great and the Foundation of the Archishopric of Magdeburg]. In: WIECZOREK – HINZ Ǌǈǈǈ. Щ. ǌǋǉ–ǌǋǋɤ KEMPF 1966. p. 269–271; KŁOCZOWSKI 1994. p. 895; Christian LÜ”KE: Heidentum und Wiederstand: Elbslawen und christliche Staaten im 10.– 12. Jahrhundert. In: Early Christianity in Central and Eastern Europe. Ed. PrzemysуaЯ UR”“ŃCZYK. Warszawa. 1997. p. 123–128. Here: p. 124; Lutz E. V. PADBERG: A Latin Kereszténység megszХЧárdйtása és ЦХéЩйtéseɣ az OttхЦ mХsszХхja a nyugatХ szЧáЮШЦnáЧ és a magyarШrЦnáЧ [TФe CШnsШЧХdatХШn and CШnstructХШnn Шf LatХn CФrХstХanХtyɣ TФe MХssХШn Шf the Ottos by the Western Slavs and the Hungarians]. In: WIECZOREK – HINZ Ǌǈǈǈ. Щ. ǌǊǉ–ǌǊǌɤ LászЧх KOSZTAɣ NémetШrszág [Germany]. Inɣ Eurхpa és Magyarország Szent István korában. Ed. Gyula KRIST2 – Ferenc MAKK. Szeged. 2000. p. 61–99, especially p. 61–90. In the northern borderline of the empire the archbishopric of Hamburg-Bremen had a similar role. 6 26 MAGDEBURG/POZN“Ń “ND GNIEZNO … opinion the new bishopric – which was first under the jurisdiction of Rome – was brought under the jurisdiction of Magdeburg in the time of bishop Unger, then it became independent; 3) finally there appeared suЩЩШsХtХШn abШut German ХnfЧuence Хn tФe fШundatХШn Шf PШznań. In the background of the theory of the papal foundation there is the reasoning that from the 9th century the Apostolic Seat strongly supported the conversion of the Bulgarians, Moravians and Bohemians, and raising Magdeburg to archbishopric and the mission among the Slavs were considered as parts of this process. Moreover, it was also concluded from JШrdan tФe ЩreЧate Шf PШznań s ɭ968–Ǒǐǌ?ɮ beХng mentХШned as „tФe bХsФШЩ Шf PШЧand ɭepiscopus Poloniae) that its foundation could be assigned to the papacy.8 TФe ШtФer grШuЩ Шf ЮХeЯs Хn cШnnectХШn ЯХtФ PШznań starts basХcaЧЧy from the previous theory9 with the significant difference that they discover quick changes in the status of the bishopric. In accordance, because of Unger (?994–1012) the second bishop in line following Jordan we should count with subordination to Magdeburg, while later around the fХrst mХЧЧennХum PШznań became ХndeЩendent ЯХtФ ФХm.10 The remark of Thietmar of Merseburg about the foundation of the archbishopric of Gniezno would support the radical step according to which Unger the bХsФШЩ Шf PШznań dХd nШt beЧШng under tФe jurХsdХction of the new archbishopric.11 As a result of the reorganisation a situation very difficult tШ exЩЧaХn emerged. NameЧy Хf Яe acceЩt tФat PШznań became Хndependent from the jurisdiction of Magdeburg and that – following Thiet- KEMPF 1966. 274–ǊǏǍ. In KemЩf s ЮХeЯ PШznań Яas nШt subШrdХnated tШ Magdeburg. Gieysztor thought the same (Aleksander GIEYSZTOR: The Consolidation of the State and the Christianization of Poland in 966. In: History of Poland. Eds. Aleksander GIEYSZTOR – Stefan KIENIEWICZ – Emanuel ROSTWOROWSKI – Janusz TAZBIR – Henryk WERESZYCZKI. Warszawa. 1979. p. 47–50. (hereafter: GIEYSZTOR 1979)), ЯФШ tФХnЦs tФat Хn Ǒǎǎ MХeszЦШ s baЩtХsm ФaЩpened with Bohemian permission (Dobrava) and German support (Jordan, of Lotaringia – L(ttХcФ – or Italian origin). Cf. KŁOCZOWSKI 1994. p. 899. 9 Werner CONZE: Geschichte Ostmitteleuropas von der Karolingerzeit bis ins 18. Jahrhundert. M(nchen. 1992. (hereafter: CONZE 1992), p. 18. 10 Márta FONT: Keresztény nagyhatalmak vonzásában. Kчzép- és Kelet-Eurхpa a ǉǈ–ǉǊ. században [In the Course of Christian Powers. Middle and Eastern-Europe in the 10th–12th Centuries]. Budapest. 2005. (hereafter: FONT 2005), p. 100. 11 Thietmari Merseburgensis episcopi Chronicon. Ed. Robert HOLTZMANN. M(ncФen. ǉǑǑǎ. ɭMGH ScrХЩtШres rerum GermanХcarum N. S. Ǒ.ɮ ɭФereafterɣ THIETM“Rɮ IV. Щ. ǌǍ. „Nec mora, fecit [Otto] ibi archiepiscopatum, ut spero legitime, sine consensu tamen prefati presulis, cuius diocesi omnis haec regio subiecta est, committens eundem predicti martyris fratri Radimo eidemque subiciens Reinbernum Salsae Cholbergiensis aecclesiae episcopum, Popponem Cracauaensem, Iohannem Wrotzlaensem, Vngero Posnaniensi excepto. […] . 8 27 Gergely KISS mar Шf Merseburg s remarЦ – it did not belong under Gniezno, the bishoprХc gШt ХntШ a Юacuum. It cШuЧd ФaЮe ФaЩЩened ШnЧy Хf PШznań Фad been an exempt bishopric, but there is no data about it. There can be found other explanation about the circumstances of the foundation and the positХШn Шf PШznań. EЮen tФШugФ tФere Хs nШ cЧearcut data abШut PШznań beХng ШrganХsed frШm Magdeburg raХsed tШ arcФbishopric just in 968, yet the probable origin of its first bishops leads to the conclusion that the foundation of the first bishopric expanding into Polish terrХtШry fХts ХntШ tФe eastern ЩШЧХcy Шf OttШ I s tХme. WФХЧe tФe fХrst bХsФШЩ Шf PШznań Яas suЩЩШsedЧy, ФХs ЩredecessШr Яas sureЧy Шf German ШrХgХn. Jordan is considered by most of the researchers a German clergyman12 – by some of them even one from Magdeburg.13 In 991 Unger appeared as the head of the abbey of Memleben (Vunnigerus), which was founded by Otto II in 975 and which can be strongly connected to Henry I and Otto I as well, and which had numerous estates in Slavic missionary territory.14 Besides Magdeburg possibly Regensburg and Augsburg can also be mentioned. The first can be referred to by the Bohemian intervention tФrШugФ MХeszЦШ I s fХrst marrХage – by Dobrava –, whereas the Polish ЩrХnce s dШnatХШn tШ tФe tШmb Шf St UdaЧrХch of Augsburg can refer to the second.15 TШ sum uЩ, Яe can say tФat Хn tФe ШrganХsaХШn Шf PШznań mШstЧy the German influence – mainly of Magdeburg, then Regensburg or Augsburg – can be caught. In 977 Mieszko took a new wife, Ota the daughter of Dietmar the Saxon marquis and with it the German (Saxon) influence grew temporarily stronger. In addition, Mieszko seems to endeavour strengthening his links to the pope, basically to counterbalance the German influence. One of his Чast actХШns, ФХs cШuntry s subШrdination to the papacy is also connected to it. According to the Dagome iudex text identified in the specialist literature ЯХtФ MХeszЦШ, ФХs and ФХs ЯХfe, Ota s cШuntry ɭ!ɮ, mШre ЩrecХseЧy tФe Чand Gerhard SAPPOK: Die “nfänge des ”istums Posen und die Reihe seiner ”ischчfe von Ǒǎǐ–1498. (Deutschland und der Osten. Quellen und Forschungen zur Geschichte ihrer Beziehungen Bd. 6.) Leipzig. 1937. (hereafter: SAPPOK 1937), p. 42–45, 73–74. 13 PARISSE 1994. p. 800–801; Gerard LABUDAɣ PШznań Inɣ Lexikon des Mittelalters. V. (1995), p. 627. In other view he was from Aquitania: Michel ROUCHEɣ “ux ШrХgХnes d une ÉgЧХse nШuЮeЧЧeɣ Ч “cquХtaХne et Чa PШЧШgne. Inɣ Les contacts religieux franco-polonais du Moyen “ge à nos jours. Ed. Dialogue – Centre Nationale de la Recherche Scientifique. Paris. 1985. p. 40–52. 14 In 992 Reginald was the abbey for sure. SAPPOK 1937. 74–78. 15 Bernhard PANZRAMM: Der Einfluss der deutschen Besiedlung auf die Entwicklung des schlesischen Pfarrsystems. In: ”eiträge zur schlesischen Kirchengeschichte. Gedenkschrift f(r Kurt Engelbert. Hrsg. Bernhard STASIEWSKI. KчЧn – Wien. 1969. (Forschungen und Quellen zur Kirchen- und Kulturgeschichte Ostdeutschlands Bd. 6.), p. 1–35. (hereafter: PANZRAMM 1969), here: p. 6–7, 11; SAPPOK 1937. p. 20–21. 12 28 MAGDEBURG/POZN“Ń “ND GNIEZNO … of Gniezno (Schinesghe), Silesia and Little-Poland were offered to the Apostolic Seat.16 “fter MХeszЦШ s deatФ tФe ЩШssХbХЧХtХes cФanged and recШgnХsХng Хt, ”ШЧesуaЯ tФe ”raЮe s dynastХc and cФurcФ ЩШЧХcy aЧsШ cФanged. In ФХs tХme Otto III was the emperor, which brought about changes in the field of the German cШnnectХШns as ЯeЧЧ. In fact OttШ III brШЦe ЯХtФ tФe eastern ЩШЧХcy tyЩХcaЧ Шf OttШ I s era, ЯФХcФ Щut tФe German Хnterests Хn tФe fШregrШund and was working on forming a Christian empire which plan the development of a (more) independent Polish church system fit into. It is conceivable that the offering of the country (Dagome iudex) identified in the specialist literature with Mieszko I can also be connected here, though tФese endeaЮШurs may ratФer be cШnnected tШ ”ШуesуaЯ CФrШbry. “Щart from the people in question behind the process of independence, there must have been a strong territorial expansion.17 It was clearly expressed in the so called meeting of Gniezno. In 1000 the emperor went on a pilgrimage to the nearby tomb of Adalbert who martyred a few years earlier and with this occasion happened the foundation of the archbishopric of GnХeznШ ЯХtФ tФe subШrdХnatХШn Шf tФe bХsФШЩrХcs Шf WrШcуaЯ, KraЦхw and KШуШbrzeg.18 Thietmar of Merseburg (IV. 45.) reporting about the event attributed the foundation of the archbishopric clearly to Otto III, though there must have been some Polish initiative as well. The source speaks about the foundation of the archiepiscopatus in a detailed way. According to it, the emperor founded an archbishopric in Gniezno, but without the consent of tФe bХsФШЩ ЯФШse jurХsdХctХШn tФe terrХtШry Яas under. He Щut “daЧbert s (half)brother Radim to the archbishopric and subordinated the bishops of KШуШbrzeg, KraЦхЯ and WrШcуaЯ ɭReinbernus, Poppo, Johannes) to him. It is important to mention that at the end of the report Thietmar KŁOCZOWSKI 1994. p. 899–900. According to certain views based on the territories in the ШfferХng, tФe autФШr can ratФer be ХdentХfХed as ”ШЧesуaЯ tФe ”raЮe ɭCФrШbryɮ. V5LKER 1930. p. 16–22. 17 Cf. KEMPF 1966. p. 273–274. 18 Hardly aims the present study to present the literature of the meeting in Gniezno enough to fill a library. For the newer historiographic presentation of the question see: Jerzy STRZELCZYKɣ “ gnХeznхХ taЧáЧЦШzх és az érseЦség aЧaЩйtása [TФe Meeting of Gniezno and the Foundation of the Archbishopric]. In: WIECZOREK – HINZ Ǌǈǈǈ. Щ. ǋǈǊ–ǋǈǌ, for the question in details see DánХeЧ BAGIɣ Remény a ЦХráЧyságra. “ gnХeznхХ taЧáЧЦШzх „ЦШrШnázásХ jeЧenete a ЧengyeЧ шsgestában és a mű ЦaЩcsШЧata a KчnyЮes KáЧmán-ЦШrХ magyar beЧЩШЧХtХЦáЮaЧ [Hope for the KХngdШm. TФe CШrШnatХШn Scene Шf the Meeting of Gniezno in the Polish Protogesta and the Connection of This Work to the Hungarian Internal Affairs under King Koloman the Learned]. Századok 137 (2003), p. 349–380. 16 29 Gergely KISS emЩФasХzes tФat Unger tФe bХsФШЩ Шf PШznań dХd nШt get under tФe jurХsdiction of the archbishop of Gniezno.19 It is remarkable how the prelate-chronicler who reported the foundation of the archbishopric as a nearly contemporary source approached it. From his report several important information becomes known. The prelate whose territory the archbishopric was founded on did not approve of the foundation of the archbishopric. This prelate was the bishop of PШznań, tФХs Хs cЧearЧy reЧated tШ by tФe exЩressХШn prefati used in the text, which refers to Unger named in the previous sentence. In the part about tФe emЩerШr s ЩХЧgrХmage tШ GnХeznШ, TФХetmar mentХШns Unger as „tФe bХsФШЩ Шf tФХs tШЯn , and Фere GnХeznШ Яas mentХШned, sШ tФХs strange ЯШrdХng can ШnЧy refer tШ tФat tФe jurХsdХctХШn Шf tФe bХsФШЩ Шf PШznań expanded over the whole Polish territory. From the bishoprics subordinated to Gniezno Poznań is not only missing, Thietmar claims that that does not belong under Gniezno. It means that in 1000 an independent Polish arcФbХsФШЩrХc ЩrШЮХnce emerged Хn tФe Яay tФat tФe fХrst PШЧХsФ bХsФШЩrХc founded three decades earlier did not belong to its territory. This means a seemingly irresolvable contraversion, but if we take into account that basically the German emperor had a decisive say in the fШundatХШn Шf PШznań and tФe bХsФШЩrХc Яas ЯХtФ aЧЧ ЩrШbabХЧty subordinated to Magdeburg, thus embedded in the frames of the imperial church and so hardly can it be expected to integrate into the system of the ХndeЩendent PШЧХsФ cФurcФ ХnХtХated by ”ШуesуaЯ tФe ”raЮe and acceЩted and supported by Otto III. The basic motive of the foundation of the archbishopric of GnХeznШ Яas OttШ III s ЩersШnaЧ decХsХШn ЯФХcФ ШЩЩШsed the German claims of ecclesiastical administration based in the time of OttШ ɭPШznań, Magdeburgɮ. An interesting question is why this contraversion took place in TФХetmar s cФrШnХcЧe. TФe exЩЧanatХШn Хs relatively easy as the prelatechronicler stood at the head of the bishopric of Merseburg (1009–1018), the fШundatХШn and ШЩeratХШn Шf ЯФХcФ raХsed seЮeraЧ ЩrШbЧems. TФe bХsФШЩric was one of the large-scale foundations of bishoprics by Otto I in 968. As we have seen the plan of its foundation was formed in 962.20 However, in 981 it temporarily ceased to exist as with the intervention of pope Benedict 19 „Videns [Otto III] autem alonge urbem desideratam nudis pedibus suppliciter advenit et ab episcopo eiusdem Ungero venerabiliter succeptus ecclesiam intriducitur, et ad Christi gratiam sibi impetrandam martyris Christi intercessio profusis lacrimis invitatur. Nec mora, fecit [Otto] ibi archiepiscopatum, ut spero legitime, sine consensu tamen prefati presulis, cuius diocesi omnis haec regio subiecta est, committens eundem predicti martyris fratri Radimo eidemque subiciens Reinbernum Salsae Cholbergiensis aecclesiae episcopum, Popponem Cracauaensem, Iohannem Wrotzlaensem, Vngero Posnaniensi excepto. […] . THIETM“R IV. Щ. ǌǍ. 20 PU I. p. 283–284. 30 MAGDEBURG/POZN“Ń “ND GNIEZNO … VII in the synod of Rome the bishop Giselhert was placed into the seat of the archbishop of Magdeburg, but a predecessor was not appointed with reference to that Magdeburg was basically founded illegally on the bishop Шf HaЧberstadt s accШunt and ЯХtФШut ФХs cШnsent.21 TФХetmar s bХsФШЩrХc ceased to exist for almost a quarter of a century and could be reorganised only a few years before the appointment of Thietmar.22 In case of Merseburg, eЮХdentЧy nШt by cФance, tФe stШry Шf Magdeburg s beХng raХsed tШ the rank of archbishopric repeated: the obstacle was the objection of the bishop of Halberstadt and the archbishop of Mainz before 968, who considered the foundation of the new archbishopric as the infringement of their rights of ecclesiastical administration and so did they consider – at least the bishop of Halberstadt – the foundation of Merseburg. We can read tФe same frШm TФХetmar s text. TФe ЩreЧate-chronicler who once studied in Magdeburg, then became the bishop of Merseburg, must have been fully aware of these disputes, in his chronicle he presented what happened in Gniezno focusing rather on the German (Magdeburg) aspects and the specific double ecclesiastical administrative situation emerged so. How the foundation of the archbishopric of Gniezno was considered is a good example of the data of the Gesta archiepsicopatus Magdeburgensis. According to it, emperor Otto III founded the archbishopric of Gniezno, ЩuttХng asХde tФe bХsФШЩ Шf PШznań and ФХs suЩerХШr tФe arcФbХsФШЩ Шf Magdeburg, who had jurisdiction in the Polish territory, although emЩerШr OttШ I Шnce Шrdered tФХs area under PШznań and Magdeburg. He even writes down that Otto III divided the area into five bishoprics, appointed Gaudentius at the head of Gniezno as archbishop and in three ШtФer ЩЧaces ɭSЧazcФШЧberg /KШуШbrzeg?/, KraЦхЯ, WrШcуaЯɮ Фe fШunded bishoprics and finally the bishop of Poznań, ЯФШ dХsagreed, Яas subordinated to Magdeburg.23 It corresponds word by word to the recording PU I. p. 527–531. Cf. PU II. p. 707. 23 „Quorum etiam preconio tactus imperator, ad illius limina causa orationis est profectus cum imperialibus donis; ubi a Bolizlao duce magnifice susceptus est et Gnesim usque perductus, in qua, eodem duce emente, a loco interfectionis translatum pausabat prefati martiris Corpus. Hanc ergo urbem devotus imperator, occurrente sibi loci episcopo, nudis pedibus intravit et post lacrimosam ad sanctum Adelbertum orationem nova illum institutione, id est archiepiscopatus in eodem loco fundatione, sed non legitima, honoravit. Nam tota hec provincia unius Poznaniensis episcopi erat parrochia, et ipsa cum omnibus futuro tempore illic fundatis episcopatibus auctoritate primi Ottonis imperatoris et pontificum apostolice sedis metropolitano Magdeburgensis archiepiscopii fuerat subiecta. Hanc ergo sine utrorumque episcoporum consensu iste imperator in quinque dividens episcopatus, in ipsa urbe Gnezi Gaudentium, beati Adelberti germanum, consecrari archiepiscopum fecit eique tres alios episcopos in tribus locis, id est Slazcholberg, Crakowe, Wortizlave, ordinatos subiecit. Poznaniensem vero episcopum non assentientem priori iuri et Magdeburgensis archiepiscopi 21 22 31 Gergely KISS in the Annals of Magdeburg about the year 1000.24 This description ШbЮХШusЧy sФШЯs tФe asЩects Шf Magdeburg , tФШugФ Хt Хs eЮХdent tФat tФe sХuatХШn Шf PШznań is presented: it shows the subordination having existed earЧХer basХcaЧЧy as a cШnsequence, sХnce tФe bХsФШЩ Шf PШznań ШЩЩШsed OttШ III s ЩЧan, Хt Яas ЩЧaced under tФe jurХsdХctХШn Шf Magdeburg. TФe dichotomy of the ecclesiastical system is hidden in this composition, although all of its elements entwine Magdeburg. ”ШtФ texts and TФХetmar s attХtude are ШbЮХШus, ЯФХcФ Фad a great influence on their view about the beginnings of the Polish church. Despite it – as Яe ФaЮe nШ data tФat at tФat tХme PШznań ЯШuЧd have been the suffraganeus of Gniezno – we consider this dichotomy of the ecclesiestical administration as real. The dividing with five mentioned in the gesta and the Annals of Magdeburg is precise: there were altogether five dioceses in the Polish territШryɣ PШznań ɭsubШrdХnated tШ Magdeburgɮ, KШуШbrzeg, KraЦхЯ, WrШcуaЯ ɭsubШrdХnated tШ GnХeznШɮ, and GnХeznШ ХtseЧf. TФus Хn the Polish territory there were two archbishoprics, Magdeburg and Gniezno to practise supervision.25 In connection with Gniezno the question of the existence of a second archbishopric can also be raised. Yet it is supported by only one single source, the gesta by Gallus Anonymus (Chronicae et gesta ducum sive principum Polonorum26): ”ШЧesЧaЯ [”ШуesуaЯ I.] seemed sШ ЩХШus Хn serЮХng God, donating church estates, founding churches and setting up bishoprics, that in his time Poland consisted of two metropoliums and their subordinated bishoprics [ItaЧХcs are mХneɣ G.K.]. 27 It is questionable if this second archbishopric – if it existed at all – can be connected to the missionary activity of Bruno of Querfurt.28 As according to Thietmar, Bruno was assigned only as a missionary bishop in Magdeburg,29 there could not be another archbishopric established. It is not probable either subiectioni reliquit. MGH SS XIV. p. 390. Cf. WуadysуaЯ ABRAHAM: Organizacja kościoуa w Polsce do poуowy XII. wieku [The Organisation of the Church in Poland Before the Mid-12th Century]. LЯхЯ. ǉǐǑǈ. (hereafter: ABRAHAM 1890), p. 56–57. 24 MGH SS XVI. p. 159. Cf. ABRAHAM 1890. p. 58. 25 Cf. Gerd ALTHOFFɣ TФХetmar I. ɭTФХetmar, ”ХsФШf ЮШn Merseburgɮ. Inɣ Lexikon des Mittelalters VIII, (1998), p. 694–695. For Merseburg: PFEIFFER 1973. p. 78; PARISSE 1994. p. 797–800; SCHLESINGER 1962. p. 21–51, 60–83. For the foundation of Gniezno see hereafter: KEMPF 1966. p. 273–274; KŁOCZOWSKI 1994. p. 899–900; Ernst-Dieter HEHLɣ “ gnХeznхХ érseЦség aЧaЩйtása egyФázjШgХ szemЩШntbхЧ [TФe FШundatХШn Шf GnХeznШ Хn tФe “sЩect Шf CanШn LaЯ]. Inɣ WIECZOREK – HINZ Ǌǈǈǈ. Щ. ǋǈǍ–ǋǈǏ. (hereafter: HEHL 2000) 26 Its newest Hungarian translation: Gall Névtelenɣ “ lengyel fejedelmek avagy hercegek krхnikája és tettei. TransЧated, suЩЩЧХed ЯХtФ a Щreface and annШtatХШns by DánХeЧ BAGI. The poems are transЧated by LászЧх JANKOVITS. Budapest. 2007. (hereafter: BAGI 2007) 27 First book, 11; BAGI 2007. p. 116. 28 ABRAHAM 1890. p. 75–86. 29 THIETMAR VI. p. 94. CF. V5LKER 1930. p. 16. 32 MAGDEBURG/POZN“Ń “ND GNIEZNO … tФat PШznań Яas reorganised into archbishopric as there are no later traces of this.30 The OrtФШdШx arcФbХsФШЩrХc Хn KraЦхw does not have any clear basis either.31 There is a view according to which in the second metropolium the memory of a Slavic archbishopric established in the Moravian era remaХned, ЯФХcФ can be cШnnected tШ MetШd s actХЮХty.32 In other place (First book, 6.) Gallus mentions only the archbishopric of GnХeznШɣ „Boleslaw [I] later bought the body of [Adalbert] for as much gold as his body weighed [a] from Prussians and placed it in Gniezno, in the metropolium with due honour. 33 Thus based on both referring parts Шf tФe ЯШrЦ Шf GaЧЧus, Хn tФe tХme Шf ”ШуesуaЯ I tФere exХsted Шne Шr tЯШ bishoprics. It may well be imagined that this unusual claim originates from that as a mШre serХШus mХssХШn started Хn PШmeranХa, ”ШуesуaЯ III – that is the same time as the work of Gallus was written – wanted to connect this territory to the Polish church. In the same territory Magdeburg also had a strong missionary activity, and set uЩ a cЧaХm tШ tФХs terrХtШry. TФe ШffХcХaЧ acЦnШЯЧedgement Шf tФe rХgФts Шf Magdeburg ФaЩЩened ШnЧy Хn ǉǉǋǋ well after the gesta of Gallus had supposedly been finished (1115/1116), but it can be emphasised that the pope's bull in 1133 strengthened the rights of the archbishop over the Polish church with reference to the old tradition referred by the archbishop and the regulations of former popes.34 Gerard LABUDA: Studia nad początkami państwa polskiego [Studies about the Beginnings of the Polish State]. I–II. PШznań. ǉǑǐǏ2. II. p. 544–547; Piotr M. CWYKIŃSKI: Druga metropolia ”ШЧesуaЯa CФrШbregШ a ”runШn z KЯerfurtu [TФe SecШnd MetrШЩШЧХtanate Шf ”ШЧesуaЯ tФe Brave and Bruno of Querfurt]. Kwartalnik Historyczny 101 (2001:4), p. 3–15, here: p. 13–15. 31 Gesta Principum Polonorum – The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles. EdХted by JánШs M. BAK – Urszula BORKOWSKA – Giles CONSTABLE – GábШr KLANICZAY. Translated and annotated by Paul W. KNOLL and Frank SCHAER with a preface by Thomas N. BISSON. Budapest – New York. 2003. (Central European Medieval Texts 3.), p. 54, 2. note. 32 For the short but relevant presentation of this opinion see: STRZELCZYK 2000. p. 297. 33 BAGI 2007. p. 101. The English tradition and additions are mine: G. K. 34 „Innocentius episcopus servus servorum Dei venerabili fratri Norberto Magdeburgensi archiepiscopo salutem et apostolicam benedictionem. […] Proinde, venerabilis frater Norberte archiepiscope, querimoniam illam, quam adversus episcopos Polonie in nostra presentia deposuisti, scripture et atramento duximus commitendam. Asserebas equidem prefate regionis episcopos ex antiqua institutione Magdeburgensi ecclesie iure metropolitico subiacere et ad confirmantionem tue partis auctoritatem predecessorum nostrorum Iohannis, Benedicti et Leonis beate memorie pretendebas. Quos nimirum episcopatus, qui ultra Salam, Albiam et Oderam esse tunc temporis videbantur seu qui ibidem inantea divina essent cooperante clementia disponendi, interventu Ottonis piissimi augusti supposuisse Magdeburgensi ecclesie astruebas. Quorum videlicet episcopatuum nomina haec sunt: inter Albiam et Oderam Stetin et Lubus, ultra Oderam vero Pomerana, Poztnin [PШznań], Gnezen, Craco[w], Vuartizlau, Cruciwiz [Kruszwica], Masouia et Laodilaensis [WуШczуaЯeЦ]. Unde legitimis datis indutiis earundem ecclesiarum episcopos, ut tibi de tua querimonia responderent, tam per litteras, quam per nuntios semel atque secundo ad nostram presentiam invitavimus. Ipsi vero nec venerint, nec ad nos responsales aliquos transmiserunt. Visum est igitur nobis et fratribus nostris, 30 33 Gergely KISS However, this reference cannot be justified either from the deeds recording the establishment of the archbishopric of Magdeburg (967, 968), or from the later 'privileges' (1003, 1012).35 Maybe it is not by chance that Хn ǉǉǋǎ ЩШЩe InnШcent II restШred tФe ХndeЩendence Шf tФe PШЧХsФ cФurcФ, acknowledged Gniezno as archbishopric.36 It seems that the mentioning of one, then two archbishoprics by Gallus means a fine distinction. In the 6th chapter of the First book he emphasises tФat ”ШуesуaЯ I ЩЧaced “daЧbert s mШrtaЧ remaХns Хn GnХeznШ, Чater Хn tФe 11th cФaЩter Фe ШnЧy cЧaХms tФat Хn tФe tХme Шf ”ШуesуaЯ I tФere Яere tЯШ archbishoprics. The author obviously knew how big role the emperor had Хn estabЧХsФХng GnХeznШ as ЯeЧЧ as tФe fact tФat by PШznań tФe arcФbishopric of Magdeburg also had influence on the Polish territory. Gallus seems to describe the reaЧ sХtuatХШn Шf tФe tХme Шf ”ШуesуaЯ I ЯФen Фe mentioned two archbishoprics, Gniezno for sure and Magdeburg supposedly.37 quod nec ipsi de sua contumacia lucrari deberent nec Magdeburgensis ecclesia diutius propria iustitia privaretur, ideoque karissime frater Norberte archiepiscope, ex apostolice sedis benignitate atque iustitia de predictis episcopatibus [et terminis, quos] iam dicti predecessores nostri antecessoribus tuis concessisse et ecclesie tue pertinere noscuntur, te [in po]ss[e]ss[ionem mi]simus et investivimus et, ut de cetero idem episcopi fraternitati tue obediant, per scripta nostra precipimus. Nichilominus tibi tuisque successoribus et per vos Magdeburgensi ecclesie quemadmodum prenominatos episcopatus sic etiam qui in posterum inibi auxiliante domino fuerint ordinandi, irretractabiliter possidendos iure perpetuo confirmamus. […] . Schlesisches Urkundenbuch. 971–1230. Ed. Heinrich I. APPELT. Wien – KчЧn – Graz. 1971. 6–7, nr. 7; Bullarium Poloniae I. 1000–1342. Ed. Irena SUŁKOWSK“KUR“Ś – StanХsуaЯ KUR“Ś. Romae. 1982. (hereafter: BP I.), p. 6. nr. 9. The additions in the texte are mine: G. K. 35 According to a privilege written in the name of pope John XVIII (at the end of 1003) the jurisdiction of Magdeburg expanded over the territory of Zeitz, Meissen, Merseburg, Brandenburg, HaЮeЧberg and PШznań rХgФt at tФe mШment Шf Хts estabЧХsФmentɣ „Ex hac igitur concessione Adalbertus, primus sancte Magdaburgensis ecclesie archipresul Jordanem episcopum Poznaniensis, Hugonem Cicensis, Burchardum Misnensis, Bosonem Merseburgensis, Dodilanem Brandenburgensis, Tudonem Hauelbergensis ecclesie consecravit. PU II. Щ. Ǐǐǌ. TФe dХЩЧШmas dated Хn ǉǈǉǊ and deaЧХng ЯХtФ tФe arcФbХsФШЩ Шf Magdeburg s rХgФt tШ pallium does not mention the territory of jurisdiction. One of them is the certified diploma of Benedict VIII, dated in October 1012 (PU II. p. 898–899), the other is a similar, but interpolated diploma (1012 August 27). Ibid. p. 896–898. 36 Codex Pomeraniae diplomaticus. Hrsg. Karl Friedrich Wilhelm HASSELBACH – Johann Gottfried Ludwig KOSEGARTEN. Greifswald. 1862. (hereafter: CPD) I. p. 28–31; BP I. p. 6. nr. 10. A publication of the text (Pommersches Urkundenbuch. Bd. I. p. 786–1253. Bearbeitet von Klaus CONRAD. KчЧn – Wien. 19702. p. 26–27.) considers the diploma forged, made after the original papal privilege of 1136. I consider the diploma original based on the Bullarium Poloniae. Cf. DAVID 1928. p. 61–63; V5LKER 1930. p. 51–59; PANZRAMM 1969. p. 1–6. 37 For the time of the formation of GaЧЧus ЯШrЦ see tФe Чatestɣ BAGI 2007. p. 28–33. 34 SЩecХmХna NШЮa Pars PrХma SectХШ MedХaeЮaЧХs VIII Ed. GábШr ”“R“”ÁS – GergeЧy KISS. Pécs, ǊǈǉǍ. Щ. ǋǍ–ǌǌ. DánХeЧ ”agХ, PФD bagХdanХ@gmaХЧ.cШm UnХЮersХty Шf Pécs FacuЧty Шf HumanХtХes InstХtute Шf HХstШry DeЩartment Шf MedХeЮaЧ and EarЧy MШdern HХstШry RхЦus Str. Ǌ. H–ǏǎǊǌ Pécs Hungary Dániel BAGI: Der angeblХcФe ”чФmenfeldzug von LadХslaus I. dem Heiligen im Kapitel 140 der Ungarischen Chronikkomposition des 14. Jahrhunderts The planned Bohemian Expedition of King Ladislas I in the Chapter 140 of the Hungarian Chronicle Composition The present paper analyses chapter 140 of the so called Hungarian Chronicle Composition. The chapter contains stories form the end of the 11th century, but ot belongs to that pats of the text pool, which must have been written on turn of the 12–13th century. In the present paper I try to explain, why two Bohemian princes, Konrad and Svatopluk appear in the story, which sources they might have been taken from. Key words: Hungarian Chronicle Composation, Ladislas I, Hungary, Bohemia, Crusades, Premyslid dynasty, Svatopluk, Konrad, Otto  Im Kapitel 140 der Ungarischen Chronikkomposition des 14. Jahrhunderts Хst der Чetzte, aЧЧerdХngs nХe durcФgef(Фrte FeЧdzug ЮШn LadХsЧaus I. dem Heiligen (1077–1095) (berЧХefert, der sХcФ gegen ”чФmen gerХcФtet Фaben sШЧЧ. Laut ErzäФЧung der CФrШnХЦ Фabe KчnХg LadХsЧaus seХnen Neffen namens KШnrad, den ”ruder ЮШn HerzШg OttШ ЮШn OЧm(tz angeЯХesen, ХФn zu seinem geplanten Kreuzzug gegen die Moslems zu begleiten, was Konrad aucФ ЮersЩrШcФen Фabe. WäФrenddessen Фabe dennШcФ eХn VerЯandter von Konrad namens Svatopluk Prag besetzt, wo er tags darauf vom Prager Bischof – entsЩrecФend der HaustradХtХШn der PřemysЧХden – auf den Thron gesetzt worden und seine Macht von den Pragern angenommen worden sei. Konrad sei deshalb zu Ladislaus gegangen, und ihn um Hilfe gebeten, die ihm Ladislaus, angesichts dessen, dass Konrads Vater ihm einst gegen 35 Dániel BAGI KчnХg SaЧШmШn (1063–1074) auch Hilfe geleistet hat, gegeben habe. LadisЧaus seХ nun aufgebrШcФen, um eХnen FeЧdzug gegen ”чФmen anzutreten, seХ dennШcФ an der bчФmХscФen Grenze erЦranЦt ЯШrden, weshalb er den FeЧdzug nХcФt ЯeХtergef(Фrt Фabe.1 DХe GЧaubЯ(rdХgЦeХt der Хn der CФrШnХЦ ЮШrgetragenen ErzäФЧung Хst aus meФreren Gr(nden zЯeХfeЧФaft. DХe UngarХscФe CФrШnХЦЦШmЩШsХtХШn ist bekanntlich kein einheitlicher Text, sondern, wie dies in der Forschung im allgemeinen angenommen wird, eine Textkompilation aus dem 14. Jahrhundert, die allerdings zahlreiche Textschichten hat, und verschiedene fr(Фere CФrШnХЦen ЮШn der zЯeХten HäЧfte des ǉǉ. JaФrФunderts. Шder sЩätestens ЮШm “nfang des ǉǊ. JaФrФunderts. entФäЧt. DХe Хn der CФrШnХЦ gescФХЧderte “nЯeХsung ЮШn KШnrad zur TeХЧnaФme an KчnХg LadХsЧaus Feldzug ist sicherlich nicht von den Narrativen des Kapitels 139 der Chronikkomposition zu trennen, die von der ungarischen Mittelalterforschung mehrmals und aus mehreren Aspekten erforscht worden sind, und die laut BeurteХЧung der FШrscФung zЯeХfeЧsШФne erst sЩäter, ЯäФrend der HerrscФaftszeХt ЮШn ”éЧa III. (1172–1196) oder eben Andreas II. (1205–1235) entstanden seХn Цчnnen.2 Daher ist der Verdacht nicht gering, dass auch das KaЩХteЧ ǉǌǈ zu dХeser sЩäteren CФrШnХЦredaЦtХШn geФчren Цann. EХnen Kreuzzug ja auf LadisЧaus HerrscФaftszeХten zu datХeren Яäre zХemЧХcФ „Sed ipse quod inceperat, nullo dimittebat, misitque nuncium ad Corrardum ducem Bohemorum filium Othonis, et petiit ab illo ac precepit, ut secum ultra mare ire pro iniuria Iesu Christi prepararet. Ille autem libenti animo se promisit. Interim cognatus Corrardi ducis nomine Sentapolug noctis silentio Pragam veniens, ipsam civitatem cepit. Mane facto ab episcopo Pragensi in solio ducali sedit et a quibusdam honorifice susceptus est. Corrardus autem ad gloriosum regem avunculum suum venit et que ei acciderant, narravit et regem in auxilium sibi venire in propria persona rogavit. Rex autem concedens ei ita, quod de servitio Dei dux non remaneret. Et quia consanguinitatis vinculo illi iungebatur, etiam memor sue actionis ducis patris eius, qui sibi in auxilium contra Salomonem venerat, promisit se in propria persona eum adiuturum. [...] Cum autem pervenisset in confinium Bohemorum, gravis infirmitas eum invasit . CФrШnХcХ HungarХcХ cШmЩШsХtХШ saecuЧХ XIV. Ed. Alexander DOMANOVSZKY. In: Scriptores rerum Hungaricarum. Edendo operi praefuit Emericus SZENTPÉTERY. Budapest. 19992. (im Weiteren: SRH) S. 219–505, hier: c. 140, S. 419. 2 Z.B. Gyula PAULER: “ magyar nemzet tчrténete az árpádházi királyok alatt. [Die Geschichte der ungarХscФen NatХШn unter den ÁrЩádenЦчnХgen]. I–II. Budapest 18992. ФХerɣ II. S. ǎǉǉɤ JánШs Ifj. HORVÁTH: Árpád-kori latin nyelvű irodalmunk stйlusproblémái. [Stilprobleme unserer lateХnХscФen LХteratur Хn der ÁrЩádenzeХt] ”udaЩest. ǉǑǍǌ. S. ǊǏǌɤ LászЧх VESZPRÉMYɣ KчzéЩЦШrХ fШrrástanuЧmányШЦ [MХtteЧaЧterЧХcФe QueЧЧenstudХen]. Hadtчrténeti Kчzlemények 104 (1991), S. 58–ǏǏɤ KШrnéЧ SZOVÁKɣ Szent LászЧх aЧaЦja a ЦШraХ eЧbeszéЧш fШrrásШЦban. ɭ“ LászЧхЧegenda és a KéЩes KrхnХЦa ǉǋǑ. fejezete fШrrásЩrШbЧémáХɮ [Die Figur des Heiligen Ladislaus Хn den fr(Фeren erzäФЧenden QueЧЧen ɭDХe LadХsЧaus-Legende und die Probleme des 139. Kapitels der ungarischen Bilderchronik)]. Századok 134 (2000), S. 117–145, hier: S. 134–138; Bernadett BENEIɣ Egyes ХgeneЮes szerЦezeteЦ ФasznáЧata a magyar ЦrхnХЦa ǉǉ–ǉǊ. századХ szчЮegegységeХben [Die Anwendung gewisser verbalen Konstruktionen in den im 11–12. Jahrhundert entstandenen Textteilen der ungarischen Chronik]. In: Micae Mediaevales IV. Ed. Judit GÁL – IstЮán KÁD“S – MártШn R2ZS“ – Eszter T“RJÁN. 2015. S. 33–42, hier: S. 40. 1 36 DER ANGEBLICHE B5HMENFELDZUG VON LADISLAUS I. DEM HEILIGEN … anacФrШnХstХscФ, ”éЧa III. darf sШ Яas aЧЧerdХngs geЩЧant Фaben, und sein SШФn, “ndreas II. Фat sХcФ sШgar an eХnem der Kreuzz(ge beteХЧХgt. “ußer der Problematik des angeblichen Kreuzzugplans von Ladislaus I. ist auch bemerkenswert, dass im Kapitel 140 der Chronikkomposition eine der mehreren in der mittelalterlichen Geschichtsschreibung Versionen der Thronfolge nach LadisЧaus erzäФЧt ЯХrd. DemnacФ Фabe LadХsЧaus nämlich zu seinem zugunsten von Konrad anzutretenden Feldzug auch seine beХden Neffen, KШЧШman und ÁЧmШs mХtgenШmmen. Er Фabe scФШn Хm Vorhinein gewusst, Koloman Я(rde zu eХnem ”ЧutvergХeßer, daher wollte er ihn zum Bischof von Erlau/Eger erheben. Koloman sei daraufhin gefolgt von Manchen nach Polen geflohen.3 In demselben Kapitel wird auch dar(ber berХcФtet, dass KчnХg LadХsЧaus ЮШr seХnem TШde ÁЧmos zum Throne designiert habe, der jedШcФ Яegen seХner EХnfäЧtХgЦeХt und angesichts der Primogenitur von Koloman darauf verzichtet habe, Krone zu tragen.4 Die nicht einfache Geschichte setzt sich dann damit fort, Ladislaus habe Botschaft nach Polen zu Koloman entsandt, und ihn aufgefordert, nacФ Ungarn zur(cЦzukehren, und nach ihm zu herrschen.5 Durch die Schilderung der Thronfolge nach Ladislaus wird der Verdacht noch stärЦer, dass das KaЩХteЧ ǉǌǈ der CФrШnХЦЦШmЩШsХtХШn Хm Laufe der zЯeХten HäЧfte des 12. Jahrhunderts. mehrmals Modifizierungen unterlegen sein kann. Der nach Ladislaus tatsäcФЧХcФ an dХe MacФt geЦШmmene KШЧШman der ”(cФerfreund (1095–1116) Фat nämЧХcФ seХnen ”ruder, ÁЧmos nach jahrelangem Thronkampf im Jahre 1106 unterworfen,6 dann ЧХeß er ihn um 1115 zusammen mit seinem kleinen Sohn blenden.7 ÁЧmШs Sohn, ”éЧa II. ɭǉǉǋǉ–1141) konnte dennoch nach 1131, dem Tode von Stephan II. (1116–1131), dem Sohn von Koloman an die Macht kommen, ЯШmХt dХe HerrscФaft der LХnХe ЮШn ÁЧmШs Хn Ungarn begonnen hat. Eine „Habebatque rex secum fratres suos, filios Geyse regis, Colomanum et Almum. Pronosticatusque ita erat rex de Calomano, quia fusor sanguinis fieret. Voluit enim Agriensem episcopum eum facere. Audiens eadem nocte secessit in Poloniam, audiens, quod pater eius et avus Polonie honorifice suscepti essent. Secuti sunt eum de Hungaria Marcus et Vgra et alii . Chronici Hungarici compositio saeculi XIV. SRH I. c. 140, S. 419–420. 4 „Beatus autem Ladizlaus sic ordinavit, ut post ipsum Almus regnaret. Qui sincera simplicitate ductus honoravit fratrem suum Colomanum, preferendo sibi coronam regni, tamquam cui iure primogeniture videbatur competere . Chronici Hungarici compositio saeculi XIV. SRH I. c. 140, S. 419–420. 5 „[…] ad Colomanum nuncios misit […] ut ad Hungariam reverteretur . CФrШnХcХ HungarХcХ compositio saeculi XIV. SRH I. c. 140, S. 419. 6 Chronici Hungarici compositio saeculi XIV. SRH I. c. ǉǌǏ, S. ǌǊǏ. VgЧ. DánХeЧ BAGI: Egy barátság Юége. ÁЧmШs ǉǉǈǎ. éЮХ aЧáЮetése és az ÁrЩádШЦ ЦШraХ dХnasztХЦus ЦШnfЧХЦtusaХ [Das Ende einer Freundschaft. Das Unterwerfen von ÁЧmШs Хm JaФre ǉǉǈǎ und dХe fr(Фeren dynastХscФen KШnfЧХЦte der ÁrЩáden]. Századok 147 (2013), S. 381–411. 7 Chronici Hungarici compositio saeculi XIV. SRH I. c. 150, S. 429–430. 3 37 Dániel BAGI Nebenerscheinung des Machtwechsels auf dem Thron bedeutete die drastische Modifizierung der Chronikkapitel, die die Herrschaft von Koloman, bzЯ. dХe Umstände seХner TФrШnfШЧge erzäФЧt Фaben. Es Хst aЧsШ darauf zu scФЧХeßen, dass Die Behauptungen der Chronik, Ladislaus habe im VШrФХneХn ÁЧmШs zu seХnem NacФfШЧger desХgnХert, ЯШrauf der HerzШg aus dem eigenen Willen verzichtete, und Koloman sei in den Augen des KчnХgs eХn Яerdender ”ЧutvergХeßer geЯesen, erst nacФ ǉǉǋǉ Юerfasst worden seХn Цчnnen, und mХt den äЧteren, Хn KШЧШmans Шder SteЩФans II. Zeiten entstandenen CФrШnХЦteХЧen, Хn denen erzäФЧt ЯХrd, LadХsЧaus ЧХeß doch Koloman nach Hause rufen, vermischt vorliegen. “ußer reХnen textЦrХtХscФen PrШbЧemen steЧЧt dХe ErzäФЧung von dem angebЧХcФen ”чФmenfeЧdzug ЮШn LadХsЧaus I. aucФ eЩХscФe TШЩШХ dar. Das Bild des sich zum Feldzug vorbereitenden, aber durch Erkrankung gehinderten, und ЮШr seХnem TШde (ber dХe TФrШnfШЧge Юerf(genden Kчnigs taucht z. B. auch in der Kosmas-Chronik, bei der Schilderung des Todes ЮШn ”řetХsЧaЮ I. (1034–1055) auf, ЯШ der bчФmХscФe F(rst eben Ungarn (bergreХfen ЯШЧЧte, aber Яegen seХner ErЦranЦung nur bХs nacФ HrudХm geЧangte, ЯШ er seХne ber(Фmte SenХШratsЮerШrdnung erЧХeß.8 Der Bericht der UngarХscФen CФrШnХЦЦШmЩШsХtХШn (ber SЮatШЩЧuЦ und KШnrad Хst aber unabФängХg ЮШn den Шben Erчrterten aucФ an sХcФ nХcФt unХnteressant. DХe CФrШnХЦ gХbt nämЧХcФ ”eФauЩtungen (ber dХe bчФmisch-mäФrХscФen VerЯandten ЮШn KчnХg LadХsЧaus an, dХe teХЧs Шder ganz faЧscФ sХnd. DХe dХesbez(gЧХcФen Texte sХnd, aЧs Шb sХe aus meФreren QueЧЧen aufgegrХffen und Хn eХne ErzäФЧung ЮerscФmШЧzen ЯШrden Яären, ЯШbeХ IdentХtäten, VerЯandtscФaftsgrade und Хn ЮerscФХedenen ZeХtpunkten erfolgten Ereignisse miteinander verwechselt wurden. DХe UntersucФungen sШЧЧen gЧeХcФ mХt den zЯeХ Хm KaЩХteЧ erЯäФnten PřemysЧХden begХnnen. Das CФrШnХЦЦaЩХteЧ bezeХcФnet KШnrad aЧs SШФn von Herzog Otto, was sicherlich falsch ist.9 KШnrad Яar nämЧХcФ der drХttäЧteste SШФn ЮШn ”řetХsЧaЮ I. ЮШn ”чФmen. Er Фatte zЯeХ äЧtere ”r(der, SЩytihnĕЮ und VratХsЧaЮ, und zЯeХ j(ngereɣ OttШ und JarШmХr-Gebhard. Vor seinem Tode hat ihr Vater, wie darauf bereits oben Bezug genommen Яurde, Хn HrudХm (ber dХe TФrШnfШЧge Юerf(gt. NacФ der beХ KШsmas ЮШn „Dux Bracizlaus virtutum culmine clarus, Gemma Boemorum, patrum lux clara suorum, cum adiuvante Deo totam sibi subiugasset Poloniam, nec non bis victor iam tercia vice proposuerat invadere Pannoniam, dumque precedens suum expectat exercitum, Hrudim in urbe acri pulsatur egritudine; quam ut sensit magis magisque ingravescere et sui corporis vires evanescere, convocat eos qui forte aderantterre primates, quibus astantibus verbis fatur talibus . COSMAE PRAGENSIS Chronica Boemorum. Ed. Bertold BRETHOLZ. Berlin. 1923. (Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Scriptores Rerum Germanicarum. Nova series 2.) (im Weiteren: COSMAE PRAGENSIS) II, c. 13, S. 101. 9 Vgl. dazu: Johannes de Thurocz Chronica Hungarorum. II. Commentarii I–II. CШmЩШsuХt EЧemér MÁLYUSZ adjuvante Julio KRIST2. Budapest. 1988. I. S. 407–408. 8 38 DER ANGEBLICHE B5HMENFELDZUG VON LADISLAUS I. DEM HEILIGEN … Prag (berlieferten Senioratsverordnung sollte der Prager Thron immer dem äЧtesten männЧХcФen NacФЦШmmen der PřemysЧХden zusteФen, und alle anderen Familienmitglieder sollten ihm unterstellt werden.10 Obwohl Kosmas von Prag hier darauf nicht eingeht, geht jedoch aus einem anderen Kapitel seines Werkes klar heraus: die neue Thronfolgeordnung sah aucФ ЮШr, dass dХe Хn Prag nХcФt an dХe MacФt geЦШmmenen männЧХcФen FamilienmХtgЧХeder Хn MäФren TeХЧf(rstent(mer erФХeЧten, ЯäФrenddessen aber ihre Herrschaftskompetenzen sehr massiv von den Prager F(rsten abФХngen.11 Konrad war also nicht der Sohn, sondern der Bruder von Otto, und war mit dem Letzteren ziemlich lange verbunden. Ab 1061, dem TШde ЮШn SЩytФХnĕЮ I., bzЯ. seХt dem Prager MacФtantrХtt ЮШn VratХslav II. regierten sХe zusammen Хn MäФrenɣ OttШ Хn OЧm(tz, KШnrad Хn ”r(nn.12 Die Bezeichnung filius Othonis ist jedoch nicht falsch, sie bezieht sich aber nicht auf Konrad, sondern den seinen cognatus genannten SvatШЩЧuЦ. Er Яar nämЧХcФ tatsäcФЧХcФ der äЧtere SШФn des OttШ ЮШn OЧm(tz. Otto, der in den Quellen nicht selten Otto der ScФчne genannt ЯХrd, gХЧt als Ahne der Olm(tzer LХnХe der PřemysЧХden. DХese TatsacФe Яurde aucФ Хn der sЩäteren TradХtХШn anerЦannt. “us ǉǉǎǈ Хst eХne UrЦunde ЮШn VladisЧaЮ II. (berЧХefert, Хn der dХe G(ter des eХnst ЮШn OttШ gegr(ndeten BenediktinerЦЧШsters ЮШn HradХ:te bestätХgt Яurden. In der UrЦunde „Quia me mea fata vocant et atra mors iam pre oculis volat, volo vobis assignare et vestre fidei commendare, qui post me debeat rem publicam gubernare. Vos scitis, quia nostra principalis genealogia partim sterilitate partim pereuntibus in inmatura etate me usque ad unum fuit redacta. Nunc autem, ut ipsi cernitis, sunt mihi a Deo dati quinque nati, inter quos dividere regnum Boemie non videtur mihi esse utile, quia omne regnum in se ipsum divisum desolabitur. Quia vero ab origine mundi et ab initio Romani imperii et usque ad hec tempora fuerit gratia rara, testantur nobisexempla rata. Nam Cain et Abel, Romulus et Remus et mei attavi Bolezlaus et sanctus Wencezlaus si spectes quid fecerint fratres bini, quid facturi sunt quini? Hos ergo quanto potiores ac potentiores intueor, tanto mente presaga peiora augurior. Heu mens semper pavida genitorum de incertis fatis natorum. Unde previdendum est, ne post mea fata aliqua inter eos oriatur discordia propter obtinenda regni gubernacula. Quade re rogo vos per Dominum et obtestor fidei vestre persacramentum, quatinus inter meos natos sive nepotes semper maior natu summum ius et solium obtineat inprincipatu omnesque fratres sui sive, qui sunt orti herili de tribu, sint sub eius dominatu. Credite mihi, nisi monarchos hunc regat ducatum, vobis principibus ad iugulum, populo ad magnum deveniet damnum . COSMAE PRAGENSIS II. c. 13, S. 102. 11 „Ego autem nolo cum fratre meo perpetuas inire discordias, sed volo castigare eum, ut castigatus resipiscat et cognoscat atque sui posteri discant, quod terra Moravia et eius dominatores semper Boemorum principis sint sub potestate, sicut avus noster pie memorie Bracizlaus ordinavit, qui eam primus dominio suo subiugavit . COSMAE PRAGENSIS III. c. 34, S. 205. 12 „Post cuius obitum frater eius Wratizlaus omnibus Boemiis faventibus sublimatur in solium, qui confestim Moravie regnum inter fratres suos dividit per medium, dans Ottoni orientalem plagam, quam ipse prius obtinuerat, que fuit aptior venatibus et abundantior piscibus, occidentalem vero, que est versus Teutonicos, dat Conrado, qui et ipse sciebat Teutonicam linguam.Regio autem illa est planior et campestris atque fertilior frugibus . COSMAE PRAGENSIS II. c. 18, S. 110. 10 39 Dániel BAGI wurde auf die Donationen von Vratislav II. (1061–1092) dem ersten bчФmХscФen KчnХg, sШЯХe auf dХe ЮШn OttШ, dem ersten mäФrХscФen F(rst (primi ducis Moraviensium senioris Ottonis) Bezug genommen.13 Man f(ge gЧeХcФ ФХnzuɣ der TХteЧ „erster mäФrХscФer F(rst Хst sХcФerЧХcФ faЧscФ. Wenn man die Behauptung nicht annehmen ЯХЧЧ, dass ”řetХsЧaЮ I. der erste mäФrХscФe PřemysЧХdenf(rst Яar, der Хm “uftrag seХnes Vaters, OЧdřХcФ das Land ЮШr ǉǈǋǌ ЮerЯaЧtet Фatte, Яar der erste Herr ЮШn OЧm(tz sХcФerЧХcФ VratХsЧaЮ II., der zwischen 1055–1061 – abgesehen von einem kleinen Intermezzo – dort herrschte. Es ist wahrscheinlicher, dass Vladislav II. einfach dem Gr(nder der OЧm(tzer LХnХe der PřemysЧХden saЧutХeren ЯШЧЧte. OttШ Фatte außer SЮatШЩЧuЦ nШcФ eХnen SШФn, der des seХnen gЧeХcФen Namens Яar, und vor seinem 1126 eingetretenen TШde aЧs OttШ II Хn OЧm(tz regХerte. Angesichts dessen, dass Euphemia, dХe TШcФter ЮШn KчnХg ”éЧa I. (1060– 1063) von Ungarn Svatopluks und Ottos Mutter war,14 Яäre naФeЧХegend, dass der Autor der Chronikkomposition Konrad und Svatopluk einfach miteinander verwechselte, und anstatt des Letzteren den Gr(nder der ”r(nner LХnХe des PřemysЧХdengeschlechts zum Neffen von Ladislaus macФte. Es Хst nämЧХcФ nХcФt zu Юerleugnen, dass die Bemerkung der Chronik, Ladislaus habe sich Otto gegen(ber Юerbunden gef(ФЧt, da der mäФrХscФe F(rst ХФn gegen SaЧШmШn beФШЧfen Фat, rХcФtХg Хst. Aus der Chronikkomposition geht klar hervor, dass Otto wichtige Rolle bei der ScФЧacФt ЮШn MШgyШrхd Хm JaФre ǉǈǏǌ zuteil wurde, deren g(nstХger Ausgang den Weg zur HerrscФaft f(r Géza (1074–1077) und LadХsЧaus чffnete.15 Gegen(ber eХnem eХnfacФen Irrtum oder einer KontamХnatХШn Цчnnen jedoch mehrere Argumente gebracht werden. Wenn wir nun den Worten des Chronikschreibers glauben, und annehmen, dass Konrad F(rst ЮШn ”чФmen ɭdux Bohemorumɮ Яar, Цann dХe ФХer erzäФЧte GescФХcФte ausscФЧХeßЧХcФ auf das Jahr 1092 datiert werden. Konrad kam nämЧХcФ erst nacФ dem TШde ЮШn Vratislav II an die Macht, und konnte 13 Codex diplomaticus et epistolaris regni Bohemiae I. Ed. Georg FRIEDRICH. Praha. 1904–1907. Nr. 208, S. 195. 14 In der FШrscФung Яurde dХe TФese ausscФЧХeßЧХcФ ЮШn ”arbara KrzemХeńsЦa Юertreten, dass EuЩФemХa nХcФt dХe TШcФter ”éЧas, sШndern “ndreas I. Яar. Vgl. Barbara KRZEMIEŃSK“: DХe RШtunde Хn ZnШjmШ und dХe SteЧЧung MäФrens Хn [sХc] bчФmХscФen PřemysЧХdenstaat. Historica 27 (1987), S. 5–58. hier: S. 35, Anm. 129. 15 „Et in medio siquidem Bihoriensi agmine, Ladizlaum locato ex sinistra parte, Otthonem vero ex dextera constituerunt . Chronici Hungarici compositio saeculi XIV. SRH I. c. 121, S. 390. Zu den ”ezХeФungen der ÁrЩáden und der PřemysЧХden bzЯ. zum ScФЧacФt ЮШn MШgyШrхd ЮgЧ. LászЧх KOSZTAɣ “ ФradХ:teХ bencés mШnШstШr aЧaЩйtásánaЦ magyar ЮШnatЦШzásaХ [Die ungarХscФen ”ez(ge der Gr(ndung des ”enedХЦtХnerЦШЧsters ЮШn HradХ:te]. In: Ünnepi kчtet Dr. ”lazovich Lászlх egyetemi tanár Ǐǈ. sz(letésnapjára. Ed. EЧemér BALOGH – MárХa HOMOKI-NAGY. Szeged. 2013. (Acta Universitatis Szegediensis, Acta Juridico-Politica 75.) S. 403–426. 40 DER ANGEBLICHE B5HMENFELDZUG VON LADISLAUS I. DEM HEILIGEN … bЧШß etЯa acФt MШnate ФerrscФen, ЯeХЧ er nШcФ Хn demseЧben JaФre Юerstorben ist.16 Er passt also keineswegs zu einem Ereignis, das unmittelbar vor LadisЧaus TШde erfШЧgt seХn sШЧЧ. NШcФ unЮerständЧХcФer Хst ferner dХe Verwicklung von Svatopluk in diese Geschichte. In den letzten HerrscФaftsjaФren ЮШn KчnХg LadХsЧaus muss er nШcФ unm(ndХg geЯesen seХn. SeХne Mutter, EuЩФemХa ЧХeß zЯХscФen ǉǈǐǏ–1095 eigene M(nzen Хn OЧm(tz Щrägen,17 was darauf hinweisen kann, dass nach dem Tode ihres Mannes – ЯХe (brХgens Хn dХesem ZeХtaЧter (beraЧЧ (bЧХcФ Яar – sie die VormundscФaft (ber ХФren KХndern aus(bte.18 Dar(ber ФХnaus ЧШФnt es sХcФ, dХe ErzäФЧung der Chronikkomposition aus ФХnsХcФtЧХcФ der bчФmХscФ-ungarischen Kriege des 11. Jahrhunderts unter dХe LuЩe zu neФmen. ”řetХsЧaЮs I. Шben erЯäФntes Testament sШЧЧte grundsätzЧХcФ abzХeЧen, dХe seit Mitte des 10. Jahrhunderts im Haus der PřemysЧХden tШbenden TФrШnЦämЩfe zu mХЧdern, aber – wie die Ereignisse der zЯeХten HäЧfte des ǉǉ. JaФrФunderts darauf ФХnЯeХsen, gХng dХese HШffnung nХe Хn Erf(ЧЧung, nur dХe TФrШnЦämЩfe ersetzten sХcФ um eХn neues EЧement, und zЯar mХt den VersucФen der Prager PřemysЧХden, die Хn MäФren bestaЧЧten FamХЧХenmХtgЧХeder zu benacФteХЧХgen. Der ǉǈǍǍ Хn Prag inthronisierte Spytihnĕv II. Фat ХФre ”r(der ЮШn ХФren mäФrХscФen Grundbesitzen vertrieben, und dasselbe tat der 1061 an die Macht gekommene Vratislav I., der bis zum Ende seines Lebens mehrmals gegen seine ”r(der zШg. SШ Яar es u. a. aucФ Хm JaФre ǉǈǑǉ, aЧs VratХsЧaЮ II. KШnrad (bergrХff, ЯeХЧ KШnrad nacФ dem TШde ЮШn OttШ ЮШn OЧm(tz dХe KХnder und WХtЯe dessen zu unterst(tzen anfХng, deren OЧm(tzer G(ter bereХts fr(Фer ЮШn Vratislav weggenommen worden waren.19 Es ist selbstverständЧХcФ nur eХne HyЩШtФese, aber es Хst nХcФt auszuscФЧХeßen, dass LadХsЧaus I., der Яegen der ”ЧutЮerЯandtscФaft und der fr(Фeren ЩШЧХtХscФen “ЧЧХanzen mХt den OЧm(tzer Přemysliden eng verbunden war, Kenntnis „Gesta autem huius ducis non habemus plurima ad scribendum, quia post VII menses et dies XVII eodem anno quo suscepit ducatum, VIII id. septembris cum vita amisit . COSMAE PRAGENSIS II. c. 50, S. 157. 17 FrantХśeЦ CACH: Nejstar:й české mince [DХe äЧtesten tscФecФХscФen M(nzen]. I–III. Praha. 1970–ǉǑǏǌ. ɭI.ɣ ČesЦé denáry dШ mХncШЮnй refШrmy ”retХszЧáЮa I. PraФa ǉǑǏǈ.ɤ II.ɣ ČesЦé a mШraЮsЦé denáry Шd mХncШЮnй refШrmy ”řetХsЧaЮa I. dШ dШby braЦteátШЮé ǉǑǏǊɤ III.ɣ ČesЦé a mШraЮsЦé mХnce dШby braЦteátШЮé ǉǑǏǌ.ɮ, ФХerɣ II, č. 355. Vgl. ferner Jan БMERDA: Denáry české a moravské. Katalog mincй českého státu od X. do počatku XIII. stoletй [Tschechische und mäФrХscФe Denare. KataЧШg der M(nzen des tscФechischen Staates vom 10. bis 13. Jahrhundert]. Brno. 1996. S. ǉǈǉ, č. ǋǋǏ–340.b. 18 Vgl. Thilo OFFERGELD: Reges pueri. Das Kчnigtum Minderjähriger im fr(hen Mittelalter. Hannover. 2001. [MGH Schriften 50.], S. 789–791. 19 „Eodem anno rex Wratizlaus valde iratus est contra fratrem suum Cůnradum, quia his non inmemor mutue dilectionis favebat parti filiorum fratris sui Ottonis, Zuatopluk videlicet et Ottik, quibus expulsis de paterna hereditate filio suo Bolezlao rex urbem Olomuc et alias civitates tradiderat […] . COSMAE PRAGENSIS II. c. 43, S. 148. 16 41 Dániel BAGI (ber dХese EreХgnХsse Фaben durfte, und KШnrads Name desФaЧb Хn der Chronik auftaucht. Das Я(rde aЧЧerdХngs nШcФ Хmmer nХcФt erЦЧären, ЯesФaЧb SЮatШЩЧuЦ in derselben Geschichte auftaucht. Zwischen den Přemysliden und den Arpaden gab es im Laufe des 11. Jahrhunderts ständХg FeХndseЧХgЦeХten. Die meisten von ihnen erfolgten als Teil der seit den 30-er Jahren des 11. Jahrhunderts. immer-ЯХeder meФr sХcФtbaren VШrФaben des bчФmХscФen Herrscherhauses, die nach Boleslavs II. im Jahre 999 eingetretenen Tode verlorene regionale Hegemonie der PřemysЧХden zur(cЦzugeЯХnnen. “Чs erste ScФrХtte dХeser StrategХe Яurde MäФren besetzt und dХe PХasten Хm JaФre ǉǈǋǐ angegrХffen. DХe ersten SЩuren sШЧcФer FeЧdz(ge gegen dХe Arpaden sХnd auf dХe dreХßХger JaФre des ǉǉ. Jahrhunderts zu datieren. Laut Kosmas von Prag soll Břetislav I. in jenem Jahre das Land der Ungarn bis nach Gran/EsztergШm ЮerЯ(stet Фaben.20 Die ungarische Historiographie betrachtet den Bericht von Kosmas als ziemlich kritisch, da vermutet werden kann, dass Kosmas hier entweder den 1042 oder 1050 stattgefundenen Feldzug von Heinrich III auf das Jahr 1030 datierte, an denen aucФ ”řetХslav I. beteiligt war.21 Es ist nicht nachzuweisen, ob Kosmas Bericht richtig ist, oder nicht, jedenfalls gerieten die Arpaden nach 1055, aЧs MäФren unter den j(ngeren PřemysЧХden aufgeteХЧt Яurde, endg(ЧtХg mit dem bчФmХscФen HerrscФerФaus in unmittelbare Nachbarschaft. Trotzdem ЯХssen ЯХr (ber KrХege zЯХschen den beiden Dynastien ab 1055 nХcФt. Der Grund daf(r Хst es, dass nacФ dem TШde ЮШn ”řetislav I. sein äЧtester SШФn, SyptihnĕЮ II. seХne mäФrХscФen ”r(der, unter ХФnen aucФ den Хn OЧm(tz ФerrscФenden VratХslav angriff, der nach Ungarn floh, und die Tochter von Andreas I. (1046–1060) heiratete.22 Die dadurch entstandenen ”ezХeФungen Яurden dann seФr n(tzlich, als Nach Spythinĕvs ЩЧчtzЧХcФen TШde VratХsЧaЮ II. Хn Prag an dХe MacФt Цam. ”Хs ǉǈǎǊ, aЧs Adelheid starb, ЯХssen ЯХr aЧsШ (ber ЦeХne FeХndseЧХgЦeХten zЯХscФen den beХden DynastХen. Der näcФste beЦannte FeЧdzug der Přemysliden gegen Ungarn Хst auf das JaФr ǉǈǎǏ zu datХeren, aЧs bчФmХscФe und mäФrХsche Truppen im Vag-TaЧ auftaucФten und dХe Umgebung ЮШn Trencsén /TrencХn ЩЧ(nderten,23 ЯШraufФХn KчnХg SaЧШmon und seine Cousins, Géza und LadХsЧaus ”чФmen angrХffen. “ЧsШ der ЮШn KчnХg Ladislaus „Hoc anno dux Bracizlaus magna cede prostavit Ungaros et terram eurom usque ad urben Strigoniam devastavit . COSMAE PRAGENSIS I. c. 41, S. 76. 21 VgЧ. dХe ungarХscФe Übersetzung der reЧeЮanten TexteХЧen ЮШn KШsmas ЮШn LászЧх SZEGFИ: ÍrШtt fШrrásШЦ az ǉǈǍǈ–ǉǉǉǎ ЦчzчttХ Magyar tчrténeЧemrшЧ. Ed. Ferenc MAKK – GábШr THOROCZKAY. Szeged. Ǌǈǈǎ. ɭSzegedХ KчzéЩЦШrtчrténetХ KчynЮtár 22.), S. 277–293, hier: S. 278. Zu den Хn der fr(Фeren FШrscФung Юertretenen TФesen ЮgЧ. “nm. ǉǉǑǍ. 22 COSMAE PRAGENSIS II. c. 16, S. 107. 23 Chronici Hungarici compositio saeculi XIV. SRH I. c. 101, S. 365. 20 42 DER ANGEBLICHE B5HMENFELDZUG VON LADISLAUS I. DEM HEILIGEN … geЩЧante FeЧdzug gegen ”чФmen Яäre ЦeХne ”esШnderheit gewesen. Es ist aber zu vermuten, dass der im Kapitel 140 beschriebene Krieg gegen SЮatШЩЦЧuЦ mХt eХnem der FeЧdz(ge von Koloman dem Buchkundigen ЮerЯecФseЧt Яurde. DХe beХden SчФne ЮШn OttШ I. ЮШn OЧm(tz, OttШ und SЮatШЩЧuЦ unterst(tzten ab ǉǉǈǉ eХnen der au der drХtten EФe ЮШn Vratislav II. SчФne ЮШn ХФm, ”ШřХЮШj II. (1106–1107) gegen den anderen SШФn des Kчnigs, Břetislav II.24 Svatopluk hat ferner auch an einem Polenfeldzug von Bořivoj teilgenommen, wo dennoch – wenn man Kosmas glauben kann – Boleslaw III. Schiefmund von Polen (1102–1138) habe Bořivoj bestochen, was SvatШЩЧuЦ seФr (beЧgenШmmen Фabe,25 und sЩäter, laut Kosmas Borivojs Herrschaft erlistet habe.26 Wie Gallus Anonymus dar(ber berХcФtet, seХ nХcФt nur ”Шleslaw III von Polen an der Aktion von Svatopluk beteiligt gewesen, sondern auch Koloman der Buchkundige.27 Also der Bericht im Kapitel 140 der Chronikkomposition darf wahre Grundlagen gehabt habenɣ der SШФn ЮШn OttШ I. ЮШn OЧm(tz besetzte tatsäcФЧХcФ Prag, nur nХcФt ЮШr ǉǈǑǍ, sШndern ǉǉǈǏ, aЧs LadХsЧaus nХcФt mehr lebte. Kommt man zu einer Zusammenfassung, ist festzustellen, dass im Kapitel 140 der Ungarischen Chronikkomposition in Bezug auf den geplanten ”чФmenfeЧdzug ЮШn KчnХg LadХsЧaus I. zЯeХ, Хn abЯeХcФender ZeХt erfolgte Ereignisse verschmolzen wurden. In Kenntnis des Loses der Texte der heutigen Textkorpus der Chronik ist es nХcФt auszuscФЧХeßen, dass der an der Wende des 12–ǉǋ. JaФrФunderts. tätХge CФrШnХst seХne InfШrmationen zЯeХ ЮerscФХedenen fr(Фeren Texten entnШmmen Фat, um dХe zum neuen Ladislaus-Bild Beweise zu suchen. Was dХe Хn der ЮШrЧХegenden “rbeХt erчrterten Textpassagen des KapiteЧs ǉǌǈ anbetrХfft, Яar KШnrad ЮШn ”r(nn tatsäcФЧХcФ eХn ZeХtgenШsse ЮШn „[…] quia eadem via post illos Zuatoplik cum fratre suo Ottone ducens secum duas scaras veniebat duci Borivoy in auxilium . COSMAE PRAGENSIS III. c. 15, S. 178. 25 „Izbigneu post obitum patris mox contra fratrem suum sumit arma et promittens pecuniam associat ducem Borivoy sibi in auxilium. Qui statim misit post Zuatopluk in Moraviam, et convenientes simul castra metati sunt iuxta oppidum Recen. Quod audiens Bolezlaus mittit pedagogum suum Zkribimir et rogat ducem Borivoy, ut sit memor affinitatis; se sibi per Iuditham, eius sororem, dicit propinquiorem et insuper offert ei ad manum X marsupia mille marcis plena. O pecunia, tocius mali regina, fraudis amica, fidei hostis et inimica, tu iusticiam comprimis, recta iudicia subvertis! Te corrupti Grabissa et Protiuen, ducis Borivoy consiliarii, compellunt ipsum ducem, fidem Izbigneu promissam abnuere. Qui statim accepta pecunia reversus est ad propria et, quia nec unum obulum dedit Zuatopluk, indignatus valde et succensus ira discedens fertur dixisse: 'Incendium meum ruina extinguam . COSMAE PRAGENSIS III. c 16, S. 179. 26 „Ergo Borivoy mitis ut agnus regno privatur et Zuatiplik sevior tigride, ferocior leone intronizatur anno dominice incarnationis MCVII pridie id. Maii . COSMAE PRAGENSIS III. c. 19, S. 185. 27 „Numquid non Boleslaus pro Suatopolc Prage ponendo cum rege Ungarorum Colomanno Morauiam intravit . Galli Anonymi chronicae et gesta ducum sive principum Polonorum. Ed. Karol Monumenta Poloniae Historica nova series 2.) (im Weiteren: GALLUS ANONYMUS) III. c. 16. S. 142. 24 43 Dániel BAGI LadХsЧaus I. Er ЦШnnte ǉǈǑǊ nur desФaЧb bЧХtzscФneЧЧ Prager F(rst Яerden, ЯeХЧ VratХsЧaЮ II. Verb(ndete gegen seХnen eХgenen SШФn, den sЩäteren Břetislav II. suchte. Daher designierte er selbst Konrad zu seinem NachfШЧger, und ЧХeß dХe EЧХten seХnen EntscФЧuss anneФmen.28 Konrads Name Цann ФчcФstЯaФrscФeХnЧХcФ Яegen der zЯХscФen ǉǈǐǏ–ǉǈǑǉ Хn ”чФmen und ”äФren erfШЧgten EreХgnХssen Хn der CФrШnХЦЦШmЩШsХtХШn aufbewahrt worden sein,29 aЧs KчnХg VratХsЧaЮ II seХne ”r(nner und OЧm(tzer VerЯandten angrХff. Da dХe ungarХscФe DynastХe mХt der OЧm(tzer LХnХe der PřemysЧХden ЮerЯandt Яar, Цann das LШs der beХden SчФne ЮШn EuЩФemХa aucФ Хn Ungarn nХcФt gЧeХcФg(ЧtХg geЯesen sein. Es ist ferner auch nХcФt auszuscФЧХeßen, dass ФХerbeХ an eХnen anderen, nacФ PШЧen gef(Фrten FeЧdzug des ungarХscФen KчnХgs zu denЦen Хst. “us anderen QueЧЧen Хst es beЦannt, dass KчnХg LadХsЧaus auf das VerЧangen ЮШn WЧadysЧaЯ Herman (1077–1102) gemeinsam mit BřetХsЧaЮ II. ЮШn ”чФmen an eХnem Feldzug teilnahm, dessen Ziel war, die gegen die Herrschaft der Piasten revoltierenden Breslauer zu bestrafen.30 In dХesem FaЧЧe m(sste aber anstatt von Konrad Bretislav im Text stehen, aber die Geschichte Яäre chronologisch glaubЯ(rdiger, da es sich nur um einen Feldzug zwischen 1093–ǉǈǑǍ ФandeЧn Цчnnte. Unseres Erachtens ist das Auftauchen von Svatopluk im Text der CФrШnХЦ ganz unabФängХg daЮШn. Der SШФn ЮШn OttШ I. ЮШn OЧm(tz Фat Prag tatsäcФЧХcФ besetzt und sХcФ zum Prager F(rst erФeben Чassen. “ber es gescФaФ erst sЩäter, aЧs Хn Ungarn scФШn KШЧШman der ”ucФЦundХge ФerrscФte, der jedШcФ eХner der Unterst(tzer ЮШn SЮatШЩЧuЦ gegen ”Шřivoj II. war, und an einem Feldzug gegen Bořivoj beteiligt war. In diesem Falle muss jedoch der Chronikschreiber grundlegende Fehler begangen haben. Im aЧЧgemeХnen Чässt sХcФ aЧsШ Хm “bscФЧuss festhalten, dass das Kapitel 140 der Chronikkomposition einen der vielen Passagen dieses Textes darstellt, der meФrmaЧs und tendenzХчs mШdХfХzХert ЯШrden Хst. „Videns autem rex, quod non posset, uti volebat, iram suam ulcisci in filio nec in eius sequacibus, advocat fratrem suum Cunradum et congregat terre maiores natu atque corroborat omnium sacramento comitum, quo post suum obitum frater eius Conradus obtineat solium ac Boemie ducatum . COSMAE PRAGENSIS II. c. 46, S. 153. 29 EХner ganz anderen MeХnung Хst LászЧх VeszЩrémy Хn eХner seХnen nШcФ nХcФt gedrucЦten ScФrХften, dХe er mХr jedШcФ aЧs ManusЦrХЩt zur Verf(gung steЧЧte, ЯШf(r ХcФ ХФm ФХer DanЦ sagen mчcФte. DemnacФ Цчnnte KШnrad eФer mХt KШnrad III. genannt OttШ, dem zЯХschen 1189–ǉǉǑǉ ФerrscФenden bчФmХscФen F(rsten zu ХdentХfХzХert Яerden, Яas der Юermuteten Entstehungszeit des Chronikkapitels besser entsЩrecФen Цчnnte. VgЧ. LászЧх VESZPRÉMY: Szent LászЧх a Цeresztes ФadaЦ éЧén [LadХsЧaus der HeХЧХge, LeХter der KreuzfaФrer]. In: Szent Lászlх és Székesfehérvár. Tanulmányok Szent Lászlх korárхl és tiszteletéről. Ed. TerézХa KERN – “ndrás SMOHAY – Szilveszter TERDIK. SzéЦesfeФérЮár. Ǌǈǉǎ. ɭMagyar ЦХráЧyШЦ és SzéЦesfeФérЮár V. “ SzéЦesfeФérЮárХ EgyФázmegyeХ Múzeum ЦХadЮányaХ ǉǊ.ɮ Im Druck. 30 GALLUS ANONYMUS II. c. 4, S. 70. 28 44 SЩecХmХna NШЮa Pars PrХma SectХШ MedХaeЮaЧХs VIII Ed. GábШr ”“R“”ÁS – GergeЧy KISS. Pécs, ǊǈǉǍ. Щ. ǌǍ–ǎǋ. PauЧ SrШdecЦХ, PФD Щ.srШdecЦХ@gmx.de Justus-Liebig-UnХЮersХtät GХeßen Germany University of Ostrava CzecФ ReЩubЧХc Paul SRODECKI: Einige Bemerkungen zur gescheiterten KronkandХdatur ”ertФolds V. von ZäФrХngen Хm März SШme RemarЦs Шn tФe FaХЧed CandХdacy Шf ”ertФШЧd V Шf ZäФrХngen for the Imperial Crown in March 1198 Following the death of Emperor Henry VI on September 28th 1197 in Messina, Sicily, a dispute arose over the accession to the throne of the Holy Roman Empire. A large ШЩЩШsХtХШn tШ tФe Staufer dynasty, centred arШund tФe ЦХngmaЦer “dШЧf I Шf “Чtena, tФe Archbishop of Cologne, refused to accept Frederick, the deceased emperor`s two-year-old son, as successor. As a result of this resistance, Philip, Henry VI s brШtФer and DuЦe Шf Swabia, declared his candidacy for the Roman-German throne. His election by the proStaufer Щarty Хn M(ФЧФausen Шn MarcФ ǐth 1198 finally led to his coronation in Mainz half a year later. Meanwhile, the anti-Staufer group of nobles searched for their own suitable counter-candidate. Before the election in Cologne on June 9th 1198 of Otto of Poitou, the son of the Welf Henry the Lion and the nephew of English king Richard Lionheart, Adolf of Altena looked for other alternatives. Besides Duke Bernhard of Saxony, who relinquished ФХs candХdacy faХrЧy earЧy Шn, anШtФer ЯФШ tШШЦ Шn tФХs rШЧe Яas ”ertФШЧd Шf ZäФrХngen. TФe following essay will explore his candidacy. Key wordsɣ HШЧy RШman EmЩХre, Staufer, ZäФrХnger, WeЧfen, ”ertФШЧd Шf ZäФrХngen, Philipp of Swabia, Adolf of Altena, Bernhard of Saxony, German throne dispute 1198  KaХser HeХnrХcФs VI. Юerstarb am Ǌǐ. SeЩtember ǉǉǑǏ Хn MessХna, ФчcФstwahrscheinlich an den Folgen einer verschleppten Malariaerkrankung.1 * Im ЮШrЧХegenden ”eХtrag Яerden fШЧgende “bЦ(rzungen benutztɣ MGH = MШnumenta Germaniae Historica; SS = Scriptores; Diss. = Dissertatio. 1 Peter CSENDES: Heinrich VI. Darmstadt. 1993. (im Weiteren: CSENDES 1993). S. 192ff; Hartmut JERICKE: ”egraben und vergessen? Tod und Grablege der deutschen Kaiser und Kчnige. Von den “nfängen bis zum Ende der Stauferzeit ɭǉǊǏǋɮ. Leinfelden-Echterdingen. 2005. S. 86ff. 45 Paul SRODECKI Die Nachricht vom Tod des StauferЦaХsers Ччste nчrdЧХcФ der “ЧЩen ЯХe Хn ItaЧХen und SХzХЧХen grШßes CФaШs aus. InsbesШndere dХe durcФ HeХnrХcФ m(Фsam zusammengeФaЧtene HerrscФaftsШrdnung Хm deutscФen TeХЧ des HeХЧХgen RчmХscФen ReХcФs Яurde grundЧegend erscФ(ttertɤ dХe zentrХfugaЧen Kräfte rund um dХe nacФ MacФt und “utШnШmХe strebenden ReХcФsf(rsten scФХenen ЯХeder dХe OberФand zu geЯХnnen. WaЧtФer ЮШn der Vogelweide fasste das durch Heinrichs Tod entstandene Machtvakuum und die damit verbundene Unsicherheit im Reich im anschließenden TФrШnstreХt gut zusammen aЧs er Хn der „ReХcФsЦЧage , der ersten StrШЩФe seХner ReХcФssЩr(cФe, ЦШnstatХerteɣ untiuwe ist in der sâze, gewalt vert ûf der strâzeɣ fride unde reht sint sдre wunt.2 Zu eХnem HШffnungsträger der staufХscФen ParteХ sШЧЧte recht schnell PФХЧХЩЩ, der j(ngste ”ruder HeХnrХcФs, aufsteХgen. Zum ZeХtЩunЦt ЮШn Heinrichs VI. Tod befand sich Philipp auf dem Weg nach Italien, um seinen Neffen, den noch nicht einmal drei Jahre alten Friedrich Roger, zur Krчnung nacФ DeutscФЧand abzuholen.3 Vom Tod seines Bruders erfuhr PФХЧХЩЩ fr(Фestens MХtte OЦtШber ǉǉǑǏ aЧs er unЯeХt VХterbШ Хn MШntefiascone mit seinem Anhang weilte.4 EХn ЩЧчtzЧХcФer “ufstand Хn TuszХen Walther von der VOGELWEIDEɣ DХe SЩr(cФe. Inɣ Walther von der Vogelweide – Werke. Hrsg. Jчrg SCHÄFER. Darmstadt. 197213. S. 222–226, hier S. 222. Vgl. Jens BURKERT: Walthers von der Vogelweide „Reichston . Eine kritische “ufarbeitung der altgermanistischen und historischen Forschungsgeschichte. Frankfurt a. M. 2015; Peter KERN: Der Reichston – das erste politische Lied Walthers von der Vogelweide. Zeitschrift f(r deutsche Philologie 111 (1992), S. 344–362; Ulrich MÜLLERɣ Zur ÜberЧХeferung und zum ФХstШrХscФen KШntext der Strophen Walthers von der Vogelweide im Reichston. In: Spectrum Medii Aevi. Essays in Early German Literature in Honor of George Fenwick Jones. Hrsg. William C. MCDONALD. GчЩЩХngen. ǉǑǐǋ. S. ǋǑǏ–408; G(ntФer SERFASɣ DХe EntsteФungszeХt der „SЩr(cФe Хm ReХcФstШn WaЧtФers ЮШn der Vogelweide. Zeitschrift f(r deutsche Philologie 102 (1983), S. 65–84. 3 Johannes LEHMANN: Die Staufer. Glanz und Elend eines deutschen Kaisergeschlechts. M(ncФen. 1978. (im Weiteren: LEHMANN 1978), S. 210f. 4 Als letzter vorausgehender Aufenthaltsort Philipps kann Bozen nachgewiesen werden, wo er am 25. September 1197 eine Urkunde ausstellte. Vgl. Regesta Imperii. V,1,1: 1198–1272. Hrsg. Julius FICKER. Hannover. 1881. (im Weiteren: RI), S. 14. Die Entfernung Bozen – MontefХascШne beträgt Хn LuftЧХnХe gemessen ungefäФr ǌǍǈ KХЧШmeter und Цann ЮШn PФХЧХЩЩ, der nach den Continuationes Weingartenses chronicorum Hugonis et Honorii. Hrsg. Ludwig WEILAND. In: Monumenta Welforum antiqua. Hrsg. DERS. Hannover. 1869. (im Weiteren: Continuationes Weingartenses), S. 45–63, hier: S. 60, von ca. 300 Bewaffneten begleitet ЯШrden Яar, beХ eХner tägЧХcФen DurcФscФnХttsЧeХstung ЮШn ǊǍ KХЧШmetern durcФaus bХs zu dem angegebenen ZeХtЩunЦt zur(cЦgeЧegt ЯШrden sein. Vgl. Ewald GUTBIER: Das Itinerar des Kчnigs Philipp von Schwaben. Diss. phil. Berlin. 1912. (im Weiteren: GUTBIER 1912), S. 3; Friedrich LUDWIG: Untersuchungen (ber die Reise- und Marschgeschwindigkeit im XII. und XIII. Jahrhundert. Berlin. 1897. S. 193. 2 46 EINIGE BEMERKUNGEN ZUR GESCHEITERTEN KRONKANDIDATUR BERTHOLDS V. VON ZÄHRINGEN … zwang Philipp, sich unter Lebensgefahr nach den Alpen hin durchzuschlagen.5 In Deutschland angelangt musste der Staufer feststellen, dass nХcФt aЧЧe deutscФen F(rsten mХt der Krчnung des seФr jungen FrХedrХcФs eХnЮerstanden Яarenɣ Rund um den KчЧner ErzbХscФШf “dШЧf I. ЮШn Altena sammelte sich der Widerstand gegen die Wiederwahl eines Staufer zum rчmХscФ-deutscФen KчnХg. EХne ReХФe ЮШn GegenЦandХdaten Яurde dХe KчnХgsЦrШne angebШten. EХner ЮШn ХФnen sШЧЧte der ZäФrХnger Herzog Berthold werden. Philipps von Schwaben Weg zur rчmisch-deutschen Krone Zu Beginn des Jahres 1198 zog PhilХЩЩ samt “nФang rФeХnabЯärts, ЯШbeХ er Хmmer nШcФ f(r das KчnХgtum seХnes Neffen FrХedrХcФ Яarb und mХt (ЩЩХgen GescФenЦen nХcФt sЩarte.6 Die Marbacher Annalen berichten, der ScФЯabenФerzШg Фätte anfangs den ReХcФsf(rsten ЮersХcФert, nХcФt seЧbst nach der KчnХgsmacФt zu greХfen, sШndern ЮХeЧmeФr aЧs FrХedrХcФs VШrmund dessen recФtmäßХge “nsЩr(cФe auf dХe KrШne durcФsetzen zu wollen.7 Diese Philipp zugeschriebene Aussage deckt sich mit dem Inhalt eХner am Ǌǉ. Januar ǉǉǑǐ f(r dХe Stadt SЩeyer ausgesteЧЧten Urkunde, in der der Staufer ausdr(cЦЧХcФ seХn ganzes HandeЧn mХt der “nerЦennung seХnes Neffen aЧs rчmХscФ-deutscФen KчnХg ЮerbХndet.8 Da auch die staufertreuen s(d- und ШstdeutscФen F(rsten Шb der unsХcФeren Lage Хm ReХcФ zuseФends ЮШn der Krчnung des mХnderjäФrХgen FrХedrХcФ RШgers Abstand nahmen, kristallisierte sich mit Philipp schnell ein alternativer Kronkandidat der staufischen Partei heraus.9 5 GUTBIER 1912. S. 3ff. Montefiascone als Ort der Umkehr Philipps wird sichergestellt durch die Angaben der Chronik des Propstes BURCHHARD VON URSBERG. Hrsg. Oswald HOLDEREGGER – Bernhard SIMSON. Hannover – LeХЩzХg. ǉǑǉǎǨ. ɭХm WeХterenɣ BURCHHARD VON URSBERG). S. 70f., und den Continuationes Weingartenses. S. 479. Nach der Continuatio Sanblasiana Ottonis Frisingensis. Hrsg. Roger WILMANS. In: MGH SS 20. Hrsg. Georg Heinrich PERTZ. Hannoverae. 1868. (im Weiteren: Continuatio Sanblasiana), S. 302–337, hier: S. 480, war Philipp bis Rom gekommen. Ebenso lassen ihn die Annales Marbacenses. Hrsg. Hermann BLOCH. Hannover – Leipzig. 1907. (im Weiteren: Annales Marbacenses), S. 71. Nachricht vom Tode seines Bruders iuxta Romam empfangen. 6 GUTBIER 1912. S. 6. 7 „[…] regnum tamen non sibi, sed filio fratris sui, qui etiam ad hoc, sicut superius diximus, a principibus fere omnibus electus fuerat, nomine et tutele se velle servare . Annales Marbacenses. S. 72. 8 RI. Nr. 15. Vgl. Andrea RZIHACEKɣ DХe EdХtХШn der UrЦunden PФХЧХЩЩs ЮШn ScФЯaben f(r die Diplomata-Reihe der Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Planung – DurcФf(Фrung – Aspekte. In: Philipp von Schwaben. ”eiträge der internationalen Tagung anlässlich seines ǐǈǈ. Todestages, Wien, 29. bis 30. Mai 2008. Hrsg. Andrea RZIHACEK – Renate SPREITZER. Wien. 2010. S. 151–161. hier: S. 160. 9 Aloys MEISTER: Deutsche Verfassungsgeschichte von den “nfängen bis ins ǉǍ. Jahrhundert. LeХЩzХg. ǉǑǊǊǩ. S. Ǒǎ. 47 Paul SRODECKI SeХn äЧterer ”ruder, PfaЧzgraf OttШ ЮШn ”urgund, gaЧt aЧs eХn ЩШЧХtХscФ inkompetenter Herrscher, dessen ungl(cЦЧХcФe RegХerungsФandЧungen Хn der PfaЧzgrafscФaft ”urgund sШЯШФЧ dХe benacФbarten ZäФrХnger aЧs aucФ die Savoyer zu den Staufern entfremdeten.10 Der ursЩr(ngЧХcФ f(r eХne geistliche Laufbahn vorherbestimmte Philipp wurde hingegen von den Zeitgenossen als ein „vir moderationis eximie et equitatis amator et impensius litteris eruditus bescФrХeben.11 Zudem hatte Letzterer seit 1196 mit der scФЯäbХscФen HerzШgsЯ(rde eХnes der ЯХcФtХgsten ЯeЧtЧХcФen Ämter Хm Reich inne.12 So konnte Philipp neben einer beachtlichen, vor allem im s(dЯestdeutscФen Raum angesХedeЧten staufХscФen HausmacФt seХne starЦe SteЧЧung Хm ReХcФ auf dХe Хn der zЯeХten HäЧfte des ǉǊ. JaФrФunderts beträcФtЧХcФ angeЯacФsene und erstarЦte ReХcФsmХnХsterХaЧХtät st(tzen und Юerf(gte damХt besШnders Хn den Städten (ber eХn bedeutendes KräfteЩШtentХaЧ. Zudem befanden sХcФ am MХtteЧrФeХn und Хm EЧsaß, Хm Rhein-Main-Gebiet, in Franken, dem Eger- und PЧeХßenЧand und scФЧХeßЧХcФ aucФ Хn ScФЯaben dХe meХsten KчnХgsЩfaЧzen, ReХcФsburgen, ReХcФsfisci und ReХcФsstädte Хm staufХscФen EХnfЧussbereХcФ.13 Der ScФЯabenФerzШg r(cЦte nacФ der R(cЦЦeФr Хns ReХcФ scФneЧЧ Хn dХe fränЦХscФen PШsХtХШnen seХnes Hauses eХn, ЯШ dХe HerrscФaftsrecФte besШnders massХert Яaren, sШ ЮШr aЧЧem um N(rnberg, RШtФenburg14 sowie Zu Otto von Burgund allgemein vgl. Stephanie H““RLÄNDER: Otto I., Pfalzgraf von Burgund, *cХrca ǉǉǎǎ/ǎǏ, mчgЧХcФerЯeХse aucФ zЯХscФen ǉǉǎǐ und ǉǉǏǉ, † ǉǋ.ǉ.ǉǊǈǈ ”esançШn, begr. ”esançШn, SaХnt SteЩФan. Neue Deutsche Biographie 19 (1998). S. 682–683; Jean RICHARD: Otto I., Pfalzgraf von Burgund (1166/67–1200). Lexikon des Mittelalters 6 (1993), Sp. 1576–1577; Friedrich WOLTMANN: Pfalzgraf Otto von Burgund. Diss. phil. Halle – Wittenberg. 1913. 11 ROBERT VON AUTUN: Chronicon. Hrsg. Oswald HOLDER-EGGER. In: MGH SS 26. Hrsg. Societas aperiendis fontibvs rervm Germanicarvm medii aevi. Hannoverae. 1872. S. 219–276. hier: S. 272. 12 Vgl. Peter CSENDES: Philipp von Schwaben. Ein Staufer im Kampf um die Macht. Darmstadt. 2003 (im Weiteren: CSENDES 2003). S. 24–38. 13 Zum Aufstieg der Ministerialen unter den Staufern vgl. Karl BORCHARDT: Der Aufstieg der Ministerialen – ein deutscher Sonderweg? In: Oben und Unten – Hierarchisierung in Idee und Wirklichkeit der Stauferzeit. Hrsg. Volker HERZNER – J(rgen KRÜGER. Speyer 2005. S. 35– 50; Josef FLECKENSTEINɣ RХttertum und MХnХsterХaЧХtät der StauferzeХt. Inɣ Zur Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte in der Stauferzeit. Hrsg. Gesellschaft der Freunde staufischer Geschichte in GчЩЩХngen. GчЩЩХngen. ǉǑǐǈ. S. ǉǋ–Ǌǌɤ FrantХ:ek KU”³: Die staufische Ministerialität im Egerland. Ein Beitrag zur Siedlungs- Verwaltungsgeschichte. Pressath. 1995. (im Weiteren: KU”³ 1995); Karl BOSL: Die Reichsministerialität der Salier und Staufer. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des hochmittelalterlichen deutschen Volkes, Staates und Reiches. Stuttgart. 1950. 14 Die Schaffung des kurzlebigen Herzogtums Rotheburg, das zuerst Friedrich IV. von Schwaben, einem Sohn Konrads III., und dann Konrad II. von Schwaben, einem Sohn FrХedrХcФs I. ”arbarШssa, (bertragen worden war, spiegelt die sehr enge Verbindung zЯХscФen den scФЯäbХscФen und maХnfränЦХscФen HerrscФaftsbereХcФen unter den Staufern wider. Der Titel eines Herzogs von Rothenburg ist zwar in den Quellen letztmals 1191 fassbar, mit der Belehnung Philipps mit dem Herzogtum Schwaben waren jedoch 10 48 EINIGE BEMERKUNGEN ZUR GESCHEITERTEN KRONKANDIDATUR BERTHOLDS V. VON ZÄHRINGEN … die Bamberger15 und W(rzburger KХrcФenЧeФen zЯХscФen der unteren Regnitz und dem Oberlauf der Tauber.16 DХe StaufernäФe dХeser Landschaften wurde zu diesem Zeitpunkt nicht ernsthaft in Frage gestellt. So bХЧdete etЯa das PЧeХßenЧand, das den Übergang ЮШn FranЦen und dem EgerЧand nacФ TФ(rХngen und SacФsen sХcФerte, Хn dХesem GebХet eХne feste staufХscФe MacФtst(tze.17 Das unter Konrad III. den Staufern zugefallene Egerland galt im ausgehenden 12. Jahrhundert de facto als staufisches Allod18 und das Herzogtum Schwaben war bereits unter PФХЧХЩЩs VШrgängern das Zentrum staufХscФer MacФt geЯesen. Neben den maХnfränЦХscФen und scФЯäbХscФen GebХeten Яaren seХt Friedrich Barbarossa aber vor allem das Rhein-Main-Gebiet und der OberrФeХn f(r dХe Staufer ЮШn zentraЧer ”edeutung. Nach Otto von Freising befand sich die maxima vis regni in der provincia a Basilea usque ФчcФstЯaФrscФeХnЧХcФ ebenfaЧЧs „ЯХe aucФ Хmmer geartete rШtФenburgХscФe HerzШgsrecФte verbunden. Vgl. Bernd SCHÜTTE: Kчnig Philipp von Schwaben. Itinerar – Urkundenvergabe – Hof. Hannover. 2002. (im Weiteren: SCHÜTTE 2002), S. 76ff; Franz Xaver VOLLMER: Reichs- und Territorialpolitik Kaiser Friedrichs I. Diss. phil. Freiburg. 1951. S. 168ff. 15 Bischof Timo von Bamberg blieb mit der prostaufischen Parteinahme ganz auf den Pfaden seХner VШrgänger und ФХeЧt ЯäФrend seХnes gesamten Pontifikats zu den Staufern. Vgl. Sven PFLEFKA: Das Bistum Bamberg, Franken und das Reich in der Stauferzeit. Der Bamberger ”ischof im Elitengef(ge des Reiches ǉǉǋǐ–1245. Volkach. 2005. S. 68; Hans WERLE: Das Erbe des salischen Hauses. Untersuchungen zur staufischen Hausmachtpolitik im 12. Jahrhundert vornehmlich am Mittelrhein. Diss. phil. Mainz. 1952. S. 319–325. 16 SCHÜTTE 2002. S. 76. 17 Zum PЧeХßenЧand, das ungefäФr das GebХet ЮШn der PЧeХße bХs zur MuЧde mХt den Hauptorten Altenburg, ZЯХcЦau und CФemnХtz umfasst, ЮgЧ. “ndré THIEMEɣ PЧeХßenЧand, ReХcФ und WettХner. GrundЧagen, FШrmХerung und EntЯХcЦЧung der „terra plisnensis bХs zur Mitte des 13. Jahrhunderts. In: Tegkwitz und das Altenburger Land im Mittelalter. 976–2001. 1025 Jahre Ersterwähnung von “ltenburg und Orten im “ltenburger Land. Hrsg. Peter SACHENBACHER – Ralph EINICKE – Hans-J(rgen BEIER. LangenЯeХßbacФ. Ǌǈǈǋ. S. ǋǑ–60; Peter DEGENKOLB: ”etracФtungen zur EntЯХcЦЧung des ReХcФsgutЦШmЩЧexes PЧeХßenЧand unter Friedrich Barbarossa. Arbeits- und Forschungsberichte zur sächsischen ”odendenkmalpflege 35 (1992), S. 93–100; Dieter RÜ”S“MEN: Kleine Herrschaftsträger im Pleissenland. Studien zur Geschichte des mitteldeutschen Adels im 13. Jahrhundert. KчЧn. ǉǑǐǏɤ Herbert HELBIG: Verf(gungen (ber ReХcФsgut Хm PЧeХßenЧand. Inɣ Festschrift f(r Walter Schlesinger. Bd. 1. Hrsg. Helmut BEUMANN. KчЧn – Wien. 1973. S. 273–285; Walter SCHLESINGER: Egerland, Vogtland, PЧeХßenЧand. Zur GescФХcФte des ReХcФsgutes Хm mХtteЧdeutscФen Osten. In: Forschungen zur Geschichte Sachsens und ”чhmens. Hrsg. Rudolf K5TZSCHKE. Dresden. 1937. S. 61–91. 18 Jan Paul NIEDERKORNɣ Der Übergang des EgerЧandes an dХe Staufer. DХe HeХrat FrХedrХcФ Barbarossas mit Adela von Vohburg. Zeitschrift f(r ”ayerische Landesgeschichte 54 (1991), S. 613–622; KU”³ 1995; DERS.: Egerland. Schicksale eines Reichsgutkomplexes in staufischer und nachstaufischer Zeit. In: Pfalzen, Reichsgut, Kчnigshчfe. Hrsg. Lutz FENSKE. GчttХngen. 1996. S. 446–462. 49 Paul SRODECKI Maguntiam,19 also im Gebiet des heutigen Oberrheins und des Elsass.20 Die ”edeutung dХeses GebХetes f(r PФХЧХЩЩ Яurde unmХtteЧbar nacФ dem TШd Heinrichs VI. deutlich, begab sich doch der Herzog von Schwaben nach seХner R(cЦЦeФr aus ItaЧХen ШffensХcФtЧХcФ f(r meФrere WШcФen nacФ Hagenau, um mХt seХnen “nФängern (ber das ЯeХtere Vorgehen im anbrechenden Thronstreit zu beraten.21 Allerdings war die staufische Stellung im Elsass im ausbrechenden TФrШnstreХt durcФaus gefäФrdet, da sХcФ ”ХscФШf KШnrad II. ЮШn Straßburg, der seit geraumer Zeit mit Philipps Bruder, dem Pfalzgrafen Otto von Burgund, in Fehde lag,22 Ende Dezember 1197 auf der Andernacher F(rstenversammЧung gegen eХn KчnХgtum PФХЧХЩЩs steЧЧte. ObЯШФЧ PФХЧХЩЩ Цurz darauf eХnen WaffenstХЧЧstand zЯХscФen KШnrad ЮШn Straßburg und Otto von Burgund vermitteln konnte,23 war es ihm trotz seines entgegen kommenden Versprechens, die sich unter staufischer Kontrolle befindenden ШberrФeХnХscФen KХrcФenЧeФen zugunsten des ”Хstums Straßburg aufzugeben, nicht gelungen, Konrad dauerhaft auf die staufische Seite im Thronstreit zu ziehen.24 SШ zäФЧte Letzterer nШcФ Хm März ǉǉǑǐ zu den 19 Ottonis et Rahewini Gesta Friderici I. imperatoris. Hrsg. Georg WAITZ – Bernhard SIMSON. Hannover. 1912. S. 28. 20 In diesem Gebiet befanden sich die bevorzugten Aufenthaltsorte der Staufer, wie Frankfurt, GeЧnФausen, Hagenau, SЩeyer und WШrms, dХe „seХt ”arbarШssa ganz eХndeutХg Хn den VШrdergrund traten . SCHÜTTE 2002. S. 89. 21 BURCHHARD VON URSBERG. S. 76; Continuationes Weingartenses. S. 479. Vgl. SCHÜTTE 2002. S. 312. 22 DХe ErmШrdung des Grafen UЧrХcФ ЮШn PfХrt durcФ OttШ ЮШn ”urgund Яar der “usЧчser f(r dХe FeФde geЯesen. Graf Albert von Dagsburg hatte sogar seine eigene Feindschaft gegen(ber ”ХscФШf KШnrad ЮШn Straßburg Хm gemeХnsamen Interesse gegen den Staufer zur(cЦgesteЧЧt. VgЧ. CSENDES 2003. S. 62; GUTBIER 1912. S. 5. 23 „Dux Suevie contra opinionem et etiam contra multorum veniens voluntatem, cum maximam ubique et precipue in Alsatia werram invenisset, treugam inter episcopum et suos fautores et inter fratrem suum Otonem fecit . Annales Marbacenses. S. 71. Vgl. Regesten der ”ischчfe von Straßburg ǉ/Ǌɣ Regesten der ”ischчfe von Straßburg bis zum Jahre ǉǊǈǊ. Hrsg. Paul WENTZCKE. Innsbruck. 1908. S. 685 u. 688–691. Die Marbacher Annalen datieren den Waffenstillstand bereits ins Jahr 1198, nach GUTBIER 2002 (S. Ǎ. “nm. ǋɮ geФчrt dХeses EreХgnХs aber Яegen des erst folgenden Tages zu Hagenau noch in das Jahr 1197, wahrscheinlich in den Anfang Dezember. Vgl. RI. Nr. 14c. 24 Philipp plante gar eХn ”(ndnХs mХt dem Straßburger ”ХscФШf und bШt dХesem an, neben den erЯäФnten KХrcФenЧeФen aucФ ЯeХtere ЯeЧtЧХcФe LändereХen zu (bertragen. FШЧgt macФ den Berichten des Propstes BURCHHARD VON URSBERG (S. 76), so scheint Konrad anfangs durchaus mit dem Gedanken eines Parteiwechsels auf die staufische Seite gespielt zu haben. Die Annales Marbacenses (S. 72) berichten des Weiteren, Konrad habe einem Treffen mit PhiЧХЩЩ Хn Hagenau zugesagt. Erst auf DrucЦ der ErzbХscФчfe ЮШn KчЧn und TrХer ФХn sШЧЧ der Straßburger ”ХscФШf ЯХeder umgescФЯenЦt seХn und sХcФ nacФ KчЧn begeben Фabenɣ „Et cum episcopo Argentinensi cepit agere, quatinus sibi fideliter assisteret, promittens sibi omnia a patre et fratre suo ablata restituere et quicquid in suo episcopatu haberet sue dispositioni subicere […]. Quod cum episcopus, ut dicebatur, acceptasset et die statuto Hagenowe ad ducem venire debuisset, acceptis 50 EINIGE BEMERKUNGEN ZUR GESCHEITERTEN KRONKANDIDATUR BERTHOLDS V. VON ZÄHRINGEN … HauЩtbef(rЯШrtern eХner KandХdatur ”ertФШЧds V. ЮШn ZäФrХngen25 und dann, am Ǒ. JunХ ǉǉǑǐ Хn KчЧn, scФЧХeßЧХcФ zu den WäФЧern OttШs IV.26 UngeacФtet der SЩannungen am OberrФeХn Юerf(gten dХe Staufer zusammengefasst (ber enШrme ЯХrtscФaftЧХcФe RessШurcen, dХe sХcФ Хn den reХcФen, ФauЩtsäcФЧХcФ Хm S(dЯesten des ReХcФes geЧegenen ”esitzungen mit ihren gut befestigten Burgen sowie den zahlreichen staufischen oder ЮШn den Staufern abФängХgen Städten ЯХdersЩiegelten. Zudem war das Haus HШФenstaufen nХcФt zuЧetzt seХt der LчsegeЧdzaФЧung f(r den gefangenen engЧХscФen KчnХg RХcФard LчЯenФerz und der Überf(Фrung des nШrmannХscФen KчnХgsscФatzes unter HeХnrХcФ VI. Хm JaФre ǉǉǑǌ mehr als liquide – ein nicht unwesentlicher Vorteil in einem Thronstreit, aЧs es ЮШr aЧЧen DХngen ФХeß, unsХcФere ReХcФsf(rsten durcФ materХeЧЧe Zuwendungen auf die eigene Seite zu ziehen.27 Philipp war nach dem Tod Heinrichs VI. somit mehr als daran gelegen, dХeses unter seХnen VШrgängern gefestХgte MacФtgef(ge der staufХscФen Dynastie – vor allem im Hinblick auf die sich anbahnenden Thronfolgestreitigkeiten – aufrecФtzuerФaЧten und dХe ”(ndnХsЩartner durcФ ”estätХgung aЧter ЯХe aucФ der GeЯäФrung neuer PrХЮХЧegХen Хm eХgenen Lager zu halten. So mag es kaum verwundern, dass zur ersten historisch fassbaren politischen Aktion Philipps zur weiteren Absicherung seiner Position in den staufischen Kerngebieten ein im Januar 1198 mit der Stadt SЩeyer abgescФЧШssenes ”(ndnХs zäФЧte. “m nчrdЧХchen Oberrhein gelegen bildete die alte Kaiserstadt nicht nur einen wichtigen Verkehrsknotenpunkt, sondern war schon alleine durch ihre salische Vergangenheit von einer gewissen prestigehaften Bedeutung. Die Staufer pflegten zu Speyer ein besonders enges VerФäЧtnХs und statteten dХe RФeХnstadt unter anderem mit Vogteirechten aus.28 Philipp ging hier Anfang 1198 gar einen ScФrХtt ЯeХter aЧs er den SЩeyrer ”(rgern zusХcФerte, zuЦ(nftХge Steuern nur mit ihrer Zustimmung einzufordern. Freilich verlangte der Schwa- litteris archiepiscoporum Coloniensis et Treverensis, quorum unius iuris est regem inungere, alterius vero, id est Treverensis, eum Aquisgrani in sedem regni locare, ad ipsos quantocius festinavit . VgЧ. CSENDES 2003. S. 65; Eduard WINKELMANN: Philipp von Schwaben und Otto IV. von ”raunschweig ǉɣ Kчnig Philipp von Schwaben ǉǉǑǏ–1208. Leipzig. 1878. S. 13f., 45f. 25 Annales Marbacenses. S. 72. 26 LEHMAN 1978. S. 211. 27 Zur der guten wirtschaftlichen Ausgangposition der Staufer im einsetzenden Thronstreit vgl. Regestum Innocentii III papae super negotio Romani imperii. Hrsg. Friedrich KEMPF. Roma. 1947 (im Weiteren: Regestum Innocentii III). Nr. 136. 28 Hans WERLE: Staufische Hausmachtpolitik am Rhein im 12. Jahrhundert. Zeitschrift f(r die Geschichte des Oberrheins 110 (1962), S. 241–370. hier: S. 356. 51 Paul SRODECKI benherzog der Stadt im Gegenzug das Versprechen ab, ihm in kommenden Konflikten – ФХer nШcФ Хm Namen seХnes mХnderjäФrХgen Neffen Friedrich – mХЧХtärХscФ ЯХe fХnanzХeЧЧ zur SeХte zu steФen.29 “nfang März ǉǉǑǐ ЯХrd Хn PФХЧХЩЩ endg(ЧtХg der EntscФЧuss gereift sein, sich selbst zur Wahl zu stellen, um so die Interessen der eigenen DynastХe ЯХrЦsamer Юertreten zu Цчnnen und eХnem drШФenden VerfaЧЧ des staufХscФen MacФtgef(ges entgegenzuЯХrЦen.30 Zu diesem Zwecke bracФ PФХЧХЩЩ nacФ TФ(rХngen auf, ЯШ er am ǎ. März ФчcФstЯaФrscФeХnЧХcФ Хn IcФtersФausen ЮШn den dШrt ЮersammeЧten F(rsten zum defensor imperii ernannt wurde.31 In der TХtuЧХerung eХnes „”escФ(tzer des ReХcФes und der „StХЧХsХerung eХnes SteЧЧЮertreterЦчnХgtums sШЧЧte ЯШФЧ das dynastische Prinzip bewahrt und Philipps Griff nach der Krone als DefensivmaßnaФme Хn Szene gesetzt Яerden. 32 Zu jener Zeit wird sich Philipp aucФ zum ersten MaЧ чffentЧХcФ bereХt erЦЧärt Фaben, dХe KrШnЦandХdatur anzunehmen.33 SХeben JaФre sЩäter berХcФtete PФХЧХЩЩ Хn eХnem ”rХef an PaЩst InnШzenz III. ЮШm JunХ ǉǊǈǎ r(cЦbЧХcЦend ЮШn den EreХgnХssen Хn Ichtershausen: „Nulla igitur ambitione, sed pro causis supradictis nos in Romanorum regem eligi permisimus et consensimus in ea feria sexta qua canitur: ‚Fac mecum, Domine, signum in bonum .34 RecФt scФneЧЧ, da bereХts am ǐ. März ǉǉǑǐ, Яurde der ScФЯabenФerzШg dann Хn dem etЯas meФr aЧs Ǎǈ KХЧШmeter entfernten M(ФЧФausen zum KчnХg geЯäФЧt.35 M(ФЧФausen aЧs WaФЧШrt gХbt bХs Фeute Rätsel auf. Die 29 Vgl. Evamaria ENGEL – Bernhard T5PFER: Vom staufischen Imperium zum Hausmachtkчnigtum. Deutsche Geschichte vom Wormser Konkordat 1122 bis zur Doppelwahl von 1314. Weimar. 1976. S. 168. 30 „etiam iam ad regnum aspirans . Annales Marbacenses. S. 71. Vgl. CSENDES 2003. S. 70; GUTBIER 1912. S. 6. 31 „Quo veniente Philippo duce cum ceteris quos supra diximus, habito consilio, ipsum in defensorem imperii eligere decreverunt, quoad usque nepos suus, imperatoris filius, dudum tam ab ipso quam a ceteris principibus electus, in Alamanniam deveniret . Continuatio Sanblasiana. S. 329. 32 Bernd SCHNEIDMÜLLER: Die Welfen. Herrschaft und Erinnerung (819–1252). Stuttgart – Berlin – KчЧn. Ǌǈǈǈ. S. Ǌǌǋ. 33 Chronica regia Coloniensis. Hrsg. Georg WAITZ. Hannover. 1880. (im Weiteren: Chronica regia Coloniensis), S. 162f. Vgl. SCHÜTTE. 2002. S. 322. 34 Regestum Innocentii III. Nr. 136. S. 320. 35 Ebenda; Cronica S. Petri Erfordensis. In: Monumenta Erphesurtensia Saec. XII. XIII. XIV. Hrsg. Oswald HOLDER-EGGER. Hannover – Leipzig. 1899. (im Weiteren: Cronica S. Petri Erfordernsis), S. 199; Gesta episcoporum Halberstadensium. Hrsg. Ludwig WEILAND. In: Chronica aevi Suevici. Hrsg. Georg Heinrich PERTZ. Hannover. 1874. S. 78–123, hier: S. 113; Braunschweigische Reimchronik. In: MGH. Deutsche Chroniken und andere Geschichtsb(cher des Mittelalters 2. Hrsg. Ludwig WEILAND. Hannover. 1877. S. 520; BURCHHARD VON URSBERG. S. 80; OTTONIS DE SANCTO BLASIO Chronica. Hrsg. Franz-Josef SCHMALE. Darmstadt. 1998. (im Weiteren: OTTONIS DE SANCTO BLASIO Chronica), S. 136; Chronicon Montis Sereni. Hrsg. Ernest EHRENFEUCHTER. In: Chronica aevi Suevici. Hrsg. Georg Heinrich PERTZ. Hannover. 1874. S. 138–226, hier: S. 167; Magdeburger Schчppenchronik. Hrsg. Karl JANICKE. Leipzig. 1869. 52 EINIGE BEMERKUNGEN ZUR GESCHEITERTEN KRONKANDIDATUR BERTHOLDS V. VON ZÄHRINGEN … KчnХgsЩfaЧz mulinhuson mit ihrem stattlichen Reichsgut bildete – ganz im Gegensatz zu den Ottonen oder Saliern und ungeachtet der staufertreuen GesХnnung der M(ФЧФausener ”eЮчЧЦerung – keinen bevorzugten Aufenthaltsort im Herrschaftsitinerar der Staufer.36 Von der Forschung wurde ЮШr aЧЧem auf dХe SteЧЧung der KчnХgsЩfaЧz aЧs bedeutender ErХnnerungsШrt der staufХscФen DynastХe ЮerЯХesenɣ DШrt, ЯШ eХnst PФХЧХЩЩs GrШßШnЦeЧ KШnrad sХcФ dem dХe WeЧfen fчrdernden KaХser LШtФar unterЯerfen und auf seХn GegenЦчnХgtum ЮerzХcФten musste,37 „sШЧЧte nun […] das KчnХgtum des Staufers PФХЧХЩЩ begХnnen. 38 Doch sollte gerade diese ungeЯчФnЧХcФe OrtsЯaФЧ ЯХe ЯeХter unten aufgef(Фrt der antХstaufХscФen ParteХ rund um den KчЧner ErzbХscФШf sЩäter eХnen der EХnЯände geben, dХe WaФЧ Хn M(ФЧФausen nХcФt anzuerЦennen. Unter den anЯesenden F(rsten Юertraten dХe geХstЧХcФe GeЯaЧt unter anderem dХe ErzbХscФчfe LudШЧf ЮШn Magdeburg und “daЧbert ЮШn SaЧzburg, dХe ”ХscФчfe EberФard ЮШn Merseburg, TФХemШ ЮШn ”amberg, LuЩШЧd ЮШn WШrms, HartЯХg ЮШn EХcФstätt und “bt HeХnrХcФ ЮШn FuЧda. Zu den wichtigsten weltlichen Herrschern, die sich an der Wahl beteiligten, zäФЧten HerzШg LudЯХg ЮШn ”ayern, der (bergeЧaufene HerzШg ”ernФard ЮШn SacФsen, MarЦgraf DХetrХcФ ЮШn MeХßen und Graf Siegfried von Orlam(nde.39 DХe treХbenden Kräfte beХ der WaФЧ Хn M(ФЧФausen scФeХnen Erzbischof Ludolf von Magdeburg und der Askanier Bernhard gewesen zu seХn. “ngesХcФts des WaФЧtermХns, eХnes SШnntags Laetare, der „Хn der Geschichte des staufischen KчnХgtums […] eХne ЯХcФtХge RШЧЧe 40 spielte, waren doch einst Konrad III. und Friedrich I. Barbarossa an jenem SШnntag geЦrчnt ЯШrden, darf durcФaus angenШmmen Яerden, „dass dХe EntscФeХdung PФХЧХЩЩs f(r eХne TФrШnЦandХdatur bereХts Чange ЮШrФer gefallen seХn muss und nunmeФr mХt der WaФЧ „eХn genauer PЧan umgesetzt Яurde. 41 S. ǉǊǋ. VgЧ. MartХn S(nderɣ Das ФХstШrХscФe KaЧenderbЧatt. DХe KчnХgsЯaФЧ PФХЧХЩЩs ЮШn ScФЯaben Хn M(ФЧФausen. M(hlhäuser ”eiträge 20/21 (1997/1998). S. 131–132; Michael GOCKEL: Arnstadt. In: Die deutschen Kчnigspfalzen. Repertorium der Pfalzen, Kчnigshчfe und (brigen “ufenthaltsorte der Kчnige im deutschen Reich des Mittelalters Ǌɣ Th(ringen. Hrsg. MaxPlanck-InstХtut f(r GescФХcФte. GчttХngen. ǉǑǐǌ. ɭХm WeХterenɣ DХe deutscФen KчnХgsЩfaЧzen 2), S. 71–82. hier: S. 76; Ernst BRINKMANN: Die Kaiserwahl Philipps von Schwaben zu M(ФЧФausen Хn TФ(rХngen. M(hlhäuser Geschichtsblätter 11 (1910/1911), S. 88–93. 36 Vgl. zusammenfassend Michael GOCKEL: M(ФЧФausen. In: Die deutschen Kчnigspfalzen Ǌ. S. 258–318, hier S. 258ff., 299ff. 37 RI V. S. ǌǍǎ. Zu den HХntergr(nden ЮgЧ. OdХЧШ ENGELS. Die Staufer. KчЧn. ǉǑǑǐ7. (im Weiteren: ENGELS 1998), S. 25ff. 38 SCHÜTTE 2002. S. 347. 39 Cronica S. Petri Erfordensis. S. 199); Continuatio Sanblasiana. S. 329. 40 CSENDES 2003. S. 71. 41 Ebenda. 53 Paul SRODECKI DХe WaФЧ PФХЧХЩЩs zum deutscФen KчnХg steЧЧte dХe antХstaufХscФe ParteХ sШmХt ЮШr ЮШЧЧendete TatsacФen und ЧХeß nacФ der KчЧner KчnХgscФrШnХЦ eХnen mчgЧХcФen EХnХgungsЮersucФ scФeХtern.42 Ab diesem ZeitЩunЦt betrХeben “dШЧf ЮШn KчЧn ЯХe aucФ seХn TrХerer “mtsЦШЧЧege, quorum unius iuris est regem inungere, alterius vero, id est Treverensis, eum Aquisgrani in sedem regni locare,43 trotzig die Suche nach einem Gegenkandidaten zum Staufer Philipp.44 SХe st(tzten ХФre ШЩЩШsХtХШneЧЧe HaЧtung nun aucФ mХt ausgeЦЧ(geЧten „ЩrШЩagandХstХscФen Maßnahmen .45 Den Hauptangriffspunkt bildete dabei die – in ihren Augen – ХЧЧegХtХme WaФЧ ЮШn M(ФЧФausen. SШ Фabe eХnerseХts dХe electio regis an eХnem faЧscФen Ort stattgefunden, seХ dШcФ zuЮШr eХne “bstХmmung (ber eХnen rчmХscФ-deutscФen KчnХg nШcФ nХe in Saxonica terra erfolgt. VХeЧmeФr m(sse dХese, an ЦarШЧХngХscФe TradХtХШnen anЦn(Щfend, stets auf fränЦХscФem ”Шden stattfХnden.46 Andererseits mache, so die Anklage, das FernbЧeХben der ErzbХscФчfe ЮШn KчЧn, MaХnz und TrХer ЯХe aucФ des PfaЧzgrafen beХ RФeХn aЧs der ЯХcФtХgsten KчnХgsЯäФЧer eХne KчnХgsЯaФЧ PФХЧХЩЩs ung(ЧtХg.47 ZЯar Фätte dХe staufХscФe ParteХ, dХe nota bene von Anfang an im BesХtz der recФtmäßХgen KrчnungsХnsХgnХen – der Reichskrone, des Reichsschwertes und des Reichsapfels – gewesen war, zumindest den ersten Vorwurf mit dem Verweis auf die zugegeben weit gefasste ZugeФчrХgЦeХt TФ(rХngens und sШmХt aucФ M(ФЧФausens zum fränЦХschen RecФtsЦreХs durcФaus ЯХderЧegen Цчnnen.48 Doch selbst Philipp war sich „Ad quam curiam cum pauci occurrerent, et ideo tale negocium ad effectum non possent perducere, nunciatureis, orientales marchiones cum duce Saxinae Bernhardo et Magaburgense archiepiscopo et aliarum superiorum partium principibus ad electionem novi regis Erspfort convenisse. Qui mox Herimannum Monasteriensem episcopum et alios honoratos viros ad eosdem qui convenerant principes miserunt, rogantes, ne absentibus eis aliquam electionem celebrarent, sed ad aliquem denominatum locum ipsis occurrerent, electuri cum eis ydoneum et dignum Deo imperatorem et advocatum aecclesiarum . Chronica Regia Coloniensis. S. 162. Nach CSENDES 2003 (S. 73) hatte die KШntaЦtaufnaФme der Хn KчЧn ЯeХЧenden F(rsten mХt der VersammЧung Хn TФ(rХngen nichts weniger als Zeitgewinn zum Ziel. 43 Annales Marbacenses. S. 72. 44 „Dum ergo iam dicti nuntii ad eandem curiam venissent, cognoverunt illos in Phylippum ducem Sueviae, imperatoris fratrem, concordasse et eum in regem elegisse. Unde moti redierunt et predictis episcopis que facta fuerant retulerunt. Qui vehementer indignati […] mox duci Bertolfo de Zaringon fidem fecerunt, quod ipse repatrians exercitum secum duceret et statuto sibi die Andernacum rediret, eum ibi remota omni dubtatione regem crearent . Chronica Regia Coloniensis. S. 163. 45 CSENDES 2003. S. 73. 46 „Qui vehementur indignati, eo quod nuquam aliquis rex in Saxonica terra electus ab hiis principibus fuisset . Chronica Regia Coloniensis. S. 163. 47 „Nam Coloniensis et Trevirensis archiepiscopi electionem regis sui iuris esse firmantes . Ebenda. S. 162. Vgl. CSENDES 2003. S. 73. 48 Vgl. Heinrich MITTEIS: Die deutsche Kчnigswahl. Ihre Rechtsgrundlagen bis zur Goldenen ”ulle. ”r(nn – M(ncФen – WХen. ǨǉǑǌǌ. S. ǉǉǍfɤ SCHÜTTE 2003. S. 346; Hugo STEHKÄMPER: Der KчЧner ErzbХscФШf “dШЧf ЮШn “Чtena und dХe deutscФe KчnХgsЯaФЧ ɭǉǉǑǍ–1205). In: ”eiträge 42 54 EINIGE BEMERKUNGEN ZUR GESCHEITERTEN KRONKANDIDATUR BERTHOLDS V. VON ZÄHRINGEN … ЯШФЧ des etЯas ungeЯчФnЧХcФen WaФЧШrtes meФr aЧs beЯusst und sШ ЧХeß er dХe WaФЧ exaЦt eХn ФaЧbes JaФr sЩäter, am ǐ. SeЩtember ǉǉǑǐ, nШcФ eХnmaЧ auf „recФtem fränЦХscФen ”Шden Хn MaХnz ɭmХt anscФЧХeßender Krчnung durcФ den ”urgunder ErzbХscФШf “ymШn ЮШn TarentaХseɮ wiederholen und machte so seine Widersacher um wenigstens ein MШnХtum ärmer.49 “dolf von Kчln als “nf(hrer der antistaufischen Partei ParaЧЧeЧ zu PФХЧХЩЩs ”em(Фungen um dХe rчmХscФ-deutsche Krone begann die stauferfeindliche Partei der Reichsf(rsten mХt der SucФe nacФ anderen TФrШnЦandХdaten. VШr aЧЧem rund um den KчЧner ErzbХscФШf “dШЧf sammelten sich mehrere niederdeutsche, niederlothringische, niederЧändХscФe ЯХe aucФ fЧämХscФe PШtentaten ЯХe etЯa HerzШg HeХnrХcФ ЮШn LХmburg, Graf ”aЧduХn IX. ЮШn FЧandern aber aucФ dХe ”ХscФчfe TФХetmar von Minden, Bernhard II. von Paderborn oder Dietrich II. von Utrecht, denen allesamt an einem Dynastiewechsel an der Spitze des Reiches geЧegen Яar. Der KчЧner ErzbХscФШf “dШЧf ЮШn “Чtena, dessen ErzstХft sХcФ seit Erzbischof Philipp von Heinsberg im Konflikt mit der staufischen Reichsgewalt befand,50 ЦШnnte sХcФ zurecФt aЧs “nf(Фrer der OЩЩШsХtХШn f(ФЧen, ЮereХnХgte er dШcФ de facto alle dreХ WaФЧstХmmen der f(Фrenden geХstЧХcФen ReХcФsf(rsten Хn seХner Handɣ SШ Фatte der Хn PaЧästХna ЯeХЧende ErzbХscФШf KШnrad ЮШn MaХnz “dШЧf f(r dХe Dauer des nШcФ unter HeХnrХcФ VI. angefangenen Kreuzzuges seХne ZuständХgЦeХt Хn Reichsangelegenheiten und die damit verbundene Mainzer prima vox in der KчnХgsЯaФЧ (bertragen.51 Zudem hatte der Trierer Erzbischof Johann zur Geschichte des mittelalterlichen deutschen Kчnigtums. Hrsg. Theodor SCHIEDER. M(ncФen. 1973. (im Weiteren: STEHKÄMPER 1973), S. 5–83. hier: S. 49. 49 SCHÜTTE 2003. S. 346; ENGELS 1998. S. 143. 50 NШcФ unter den ErzbХscФчfen “rnШЧd ЮШn WХed ɭǉǉǍǉ–1156) wie auch seinem Nachfolger Rainald von Dassel (1159–ǉǉǎǏɮ bestand eХn seФr enges VerФäЧtnХs zЯХscФen der staufХscФen DynastХe und dem ErzbХstum KчЧn. Erst dХe aggressХЮe, auf KШsten der ReХcФsg(ter gef(Фrte Territorialpolitik Philipps von Heinsberg (1167–ǉǉǑǉɮ f(Фrte zu ersten SЩannungen zЯХscФen den Staufern und KчЧn. Unter PФХЧХЩЩs NacФfШЧgern, ”runШ III. ЮШn ”erg und sЩezХeЧЧ “dШЧf I. ЮШn “Чtena, ЮerscФärfte sХcФ dХeser Gegensatz. VgЧ. Franz IRSIGLER: KчЧn und die Staufer im letzten Drittel des 12. Jahrhunderts. In: Europas Städte zwischen Zwang und Freiheit. Die europäische Stadt um die Mitte des ǉǋ. Jahrhunderts. Hrsg. Wilfried HARTMANN. Regensburg. 1995. S. 83–96; Franz-Reiner ERKENS: Der Erzbischof von Kчln und die deutsche Kчnigswahl. Studien zur Kчlner Kirchengeschichte, zum Krчnungsrecht und zur Verfassung des Reiches (Mitte 12. Jahrhundert bis 1806). Siegburg. 1987. (im Weiteren: ERKENS 1987), S. 22ff.; Odilo ENGELS: Die Stauferzeit. In: Rheinische Geschichte I 3. Hrsg. Franz PETRI – Georg DROEGE. D(sseЧdШrf. ǉǑǐǋ. ɭХm WeХterenɣ ENGELS 1983), S. 199–296. hier: S. 229f. 51 „Huic colloquio intererat Adolphus Coloniensis archiepiscopus; Conradus Maguntinus, qui quidem presentialiter aberat, transmarinis negotiis […] occupatus, cuius vicem in omnibus negotiis ordinandis 55 Paul SRODECKI I. dem KчЧner seХne StХmme gegen eХne fХnanzХeЧЧe “bfХndung – vermutЧХcФ dХe VerЩfändung des KчЧner DШmscФatzes – abgetreten.52 Der Tod Heinrichs VI. sollte aber vor allem den Welfen, den alten und gedem(tХgten RХЮaЧen der Staufer um dХe VШrФerrscФaft Хm ReХcФ, geЧegen ЦШmmen. Unterst(tzung fand dХe antХstaufХscФe ParteХ Хn aЧЧererster LХnХe beХ dem engЧХscФen KчnХg RХcФard LчЯenФerz. Letzterer war insbesondere durcФ seХne famХЧХären ”ande zu den WeЧfen – Richard war durch seХne ScФЯester MatФХЧde eХn ScФЯager HeХnrХcФs des LчЯen – an einer Krчnung eХnes seХner Neffen – des Pfalzgrafen Heinrich, Ottos von Poitou oder Wilhelms – interessiert. Zudem mag die Gefangenschaft des Plantagenets unter Heinrich VI. 1193/1194 dessen antistaufische Haltung verstärЦt Фaben.53 “dШЧf ЮШn KчЧn ЯХrd ursЩr(ngЧХcФ mХt SХcФerФeХt ЯenХg an der WaФЧ eХnes WeЧfen zum KчnХg geЧegen Фaben, Яar er dШcФ eХner der grчßten PrШfХteure der MacФtentФebung HeХnrХcФs des LчЯen durcФ FrХedrХcФ Barbarossa und der Aufteilung des von Welfen regierten Herzogtums Sachsen im Jahre 1180. Der Erzbischof musste folglich mit einer Restituierung des welfischen Machtbereichs in Nord- und Westdeutschland und somit einer Infragestellung seines neu geschaffenen Herzogtums WestfaЧen recФnen, Фätte erst eХn WeЧfe den TФrШn bestХegen. Es Юerwundert somit nicht, dass Adolf sich anfangs nach geeigneten Alternativen umschaute. Bernhard III. von Sachsen Der Askanier Bernhard, Herzog von Sachsen, war schon bald nach dem TШde KaХser HeХnrХcФs VI. ЮШm ErzbХscФШf ЮШn KчЧn aЧs KandХdat der antistaufischen Partei zu Verhandlungen nach Andernach geladen worden.54 Nach den Worten des Chronisten Burchard von Ursberg ЯäФЧten dХe antХstaufХscФen Kräfte dХesen TagungsШrt Хm Vertrauen in ipse Coloniensis tenebat . Arnoldi chronica Slavorum. Hrsg. Georg Heinrich PERTZ. Hannover. 1868. S. 217f.: Vgl. ENGELS 1998. S. 142; STEHKÄMPER 1973. S. 42; ERKENS 1987. S. 28ff. 52 Die Regesten der Erzbischчfe von Kчln im Mittelalter 2. Hrsg. Richard KNIPPING. Bonn. 1901. (im Weiteren: REK), Nr. 1530; Regestum Innocentii III. Nr. 26. Vgl. Matthias MEIERS: Erzbischof Johann I. von Trier im deutschen Thronstreit (1198–1208). Kurtrierisches Jahrbuch 8 (1968), S. 96–107, hier S. 97; Margret LOENARTZ: Erzbischof Johann I. von Trier (1189–1212). Diss. phil. Bonn. 1952. (im Weiteren: LOENARTZ 1952), S. 44f. 53 Vgl. Knut G5RICH: VerЧetzte EФre. KчnХg RХcФard LчЯenФerz als Gefangener Kaiser Heinrichs VI. Historisches Jahrbuch 123 (2003), S. 65–91; Hans Eberhard MAYER: A Ghost Ship called Frankenef. King Richard I's German Itinerary. The English Historical Review 115 (2000), S. 134–144; CSENDES 1993. S. 144ff. 54 „Nam Coloniensis et Trevirensis archiepiscopi electionem regis sui iuris esse firmantes, habito consilio apud Andernacum cum Bernhardo duce Saxoniae et aliis episcopis et comitibus et nobilibus plurimus […] . Chronica Regia Coloniensis. S. 162. 56 EINIGE BEMERKUNGEN ZUR GESCHEITERTEN KRONKANDIDATUR BERTHOLDS V. VON ZÄHRINGEN … divitiis et potentia Coloniensium.55 Der Askanier wurde dann auch WeihnacФten ǉǉǑǏ aЧs eХnzХg anЯesender LaХenf(rst ЮШn den (brХgen F(rsten aЧs KandХdat zur KчnХgsЯaФЧ Юorgeschlagen.56 Zur selben Zeit war eine KчЧner GesandtscФaft an KчnХg RХcФard LчЯenФerz abgegangen, um ХФn unter Berufung auf den Kaiser Heinrich VI. geleisteten Lehnseid als Glied des ReХcФes f(r März ǉǉǑǐ nacФ KчЧn zu VerФandЧungen (ber eХne neue KчnХgsЯahl einzuladen.57 KчЧn Юerbanden mХt EngЧand nХcФt nur Чange Handelstraditionen.58 RХcФard LчЯenФerz und ErzbХscФШf “dШЧf, der sХcФ eХnst f(r dХe FreХЧassung des PЧantagenets aus der staufХscФen Gefangenschaft eingesetzt hatte, pflegten anscheinend auch ein enges freundscФaftЧХcФes VerФäЧtnХs zueХnander, das sХcФ unter anderem aucФ Хn fХnanzХeЧЧen ZuЯendungen äußerte.59 SШ sХnd zumХndest f(r dХe JaФre ǉǉǑǌ bХs ǉǊǈǈ ZaФЧungen ɭeХne jäФrЧХcФe GeЧdrente Хn der HчФe ЮШn Ǎǐ Pfund SterЧХngɮ des engЧХscФen KчnХgsФauses an den KчЧner ErzbХscФШf Хn den Pipe Rolls belegt.60 Adolfs Thronkandidat Bernhard von Sachsen schied jedoch recht scФneЧЧ freХЯХЧЧХg aus dem Rennen um dХe rчmХscФ-deutsche Krone, musste er doch einsehen, dass die an ihn gestellten finanziellen wie militärХscФen ErЯartungen seХne Kräfte beХ WeХtem (berstХegen. SЩätestens um den Jahreswechsel 1197/1198 muss Bernhard von Sachsen zudem klar geworden sein, „daß dХe ЦчЧnХscФe EХnЧassung mХt EngЧand nШtЯendХg dХe BURCHHARD VON URSBERG. S. 79. LOENARTZ 1952. S. 44. 57 ROGER VON HOVEDEN: Chronica. Hrsg. Reinhold PAULI – Felix LIEBERMANN. Hannover. 1885. S. 133–190. Vgl. Jens AHLERS: Die Welfen und die englischen Kчnige ǉǉǎǍ–1235. Hildesheim. 1987. (im Weiteren: AHLERS 1987), S. 180; Bernd Ulrich HUCKER: Otto IV. Der wiederentdeckte Kaiser. Frankfurt a. M. – Leipzig 2003. (im Weiteren: HUCKER 2003), S. 22. 58 ENGELS 1983. S. 228f.; Edith ENNENɣ KчЧner WХrtscФaft Хm Fr(Ф- und Hochmittelalter. In: Zwei Jahrtausende Kчlner Wirtschaft. ”d. ǉɣ Von den “nfängen bis zum Ende des ǉǏ. Jahrhunderts. Hrsg. Hermann KELLENBENZ. KчЧn. ǉǑǏǍ. S. ǐǏ–193. hier: S. 143ff; Hugo STEHKÄMPER: EngЧand und dХe Stadt KчЧn aЧs WaФЧmacФer KчnХg OttШs IV. Mitteilungen aus dem Stadtarchiv von Kчln 60 (1971) (im Weiteren: STEHKÄMPER 1971), S. 213–244. hier: 224–228; Karl WAND: DХe EngЧandЩШЧХtХЦ der Stadt KчЧn und ХФrer ErzbХscФчfe Хm ǉǊ. und ǉǋ. JaФrФundert. Inɣ Aus Mittelalter und Neuzeit. Festschrift f(r Gerhard Kallen zum Ǐǈ. Geburtstag. Hrsg. Josef ENGEL – Hans Martin KLINGENBERG. Bonn. 1957. (im Weiteren: WAND 1957), S. 77–96. hier: S. 77ff.; ERKENS 1987. S. 23. 59 REK 2. Nr. 1466, 1469, 1470, 1471, 1472. 60 The great roll of the pipe for the sixth year of the reign of King Richard the First. Hrsg. Doris M. STENTON. London. 1928. S. 76; The chancellor s roll for the eight year of the reign of King Richard the First. Hrsg. DIES. London. 1930. S. 275; The great roll of the pipe for the second year of the reign of King John. Hrsg. H. G. RICHARDSON. London. 1934. S. 163. Vgl. hierzu Austin L. POOLE: Richard the First s alliances with the German Princes in ǉǉǑǌ. In: Studies in medieval History presented to F. M. Powicke. Hrsg. Richard William HUNT – William A. PANTIN – Richard W. SOUTHERN. Oxfod. ǉǑǏǑǨ. ǑǊff.ɤ STEHKÄMPER 1971. S. 228; WAND 1957. S. 80f.; ERKENS 1987. S. 24f. 55 56 57 Paul SRODECKI WeЧfen Хns SЩХeЧ brХngen musste. 61 TatsäcФЧХcФ scФЧug der engЧХscФe KчnХg den äЧtesten SШФn HeХnrХcФs des LчЯen, den PfaЧzgrafen HeХnrХcФ, aЧs KandХdaten ЮШr, dШcФ aЧs man sХcФ am ǉ. März ǉǉǑǐ Хn KчЧn zur WaФЧ versammelte, stand der Welfe wegen seines Aufenthaltes im Heiligen Land nicht zur Verf(gung. ZЯar Яar scФШn zu dХeser ZeХt mХt OttШ ЮШn Poitou der Name eines anderen Welfen bei der antistaufischen Partei im GesЩräcФ, dШcФ der KчЧner ErzbХscФШf sucФte nШcФ nacФ ЯeХteren Kandidaten.62 Diesen glaubte Adolf schon bald in Herzog Berthold V. ЮШn ZäФringen gefunden zu haben. Bernhard aber, der mit der Erhebung eines Welfen zum deutschen KчnХg nШcФ meФr aЧs der KчЧner ErzbХscФШf um seХn säcФsХscФes HerzШgtum f(rcФten musste, ЯecФseЧte nacФ der “ufgabe der eХgenen KчnХgskandidatur nicht nur dХe SeХten, sШndern trХeb aucФ „maßgebЧХcФ dХe KчnХgsЯaФЧ des zчgernden PФХЧХЩЩ ЮШn Staufen ЮШran. 63 Sein schnelles Wechseln auf die staufische Seite unmittelbar nach der Aufgabe einer eХgenen KandХdatur ЯХrd gemeХnФХn aЧs eХn IndХz f(r das WХssen des AsЦanХers (ber mчgЧХcФe PЧäne der antХstaufХscФen ParteХ, sХcФ aЧternatХЮ zu ”ernФard mХt der WaФЧ des engЧХscФen KчnХgs Шder eХnes WeЧfen zu befassen, gedeutet.64 ”erthold V. von Zähringen Ins GesЩräcФ Яurde ”ertФШЧd V. ЮШn ZäФrХngen ЯШФЧ ЮШm Straßburger BХscФШf KШnrad, ”ertФШЧds ЧangjäФrХgen KamЩfgefäФrten gegen dХe Staufer am Oberrhein, gebracht.65 DХe ErФebung ”ertФШЧds zum rчmХscФdeutscФen KчnХg Фätte eХne Хmmense “ufЯertung des zäФrХngХscФen Hauses bedeutet. Durch einige Heiratsverbindungen in den Hochadel, vornehmlich mit den Welfen – sШ z. ”. der VermäФЧungen ”ertШЧds III. mХt Sofie von Bayern, einer Tochter Heinrichs des Schwarzen, oder ClementХas, der TШcФter KШnrads I., mХt HeХnrХcФ dem LчЯen –, strebten die am s(dЧХcФen OberrФeХn beФeХmateten Zähringer nach einer festen STEHKÄMPER 1971. S. 233–235. DERS. 1973. S. 40f. 63 HUCKER 2003. S. 51. 64 DERS. S. 22; STEHKÄMPER 1971. S. 230f; ENGELS 1998. S. 121; AHLERS 1987. S. 182. 65 „Ad quos cum venisset [Bichof Konrad von Straßburg], terminum in media quadragesima Colonie de eligendo rege constituerunt postulantes, quod Bertoldum ducem de Zeiringen Argentinensis episcopus secum adduceret. Nam per famam iam de eo divulgatum erat, quod ipsum vellet eligere . Annales Marbacenses. S. 72. Vgl. Dieter GEUENICHɣ ”ertШЧd V., der „Чetzte ZäФrХnger . Inɣ Die Zähringer. Eine Tradition und ihre Erforschung. Hrsg. Karl SCHMID. Sigmaringen. 1986. S. 101– 116 (im Weiteren: GEUNICH 1986), S. 107. 61 62 58 EINIGE BEMERKUNGEN ZUR GESCHEITERTEN KRONKANDIDATUR BERTHOLDS V. VON ZÄHRINGEN … EtabЧХerung Хn den ФerzШgЧХcФen “deЧsФäusern des ReХcФes.66 Allein in den Urteilen der Zeitgenossen blieben sie jedoch vom geringeren Rang, „sШzusagen Herzчge zЯeХter KЧasse 67. Durch den unter Heinrich IV. beschlossenen staufisch-zäФrХngХscФen “usgЧeХcФ Хm sЩäten ǉǉ. JaФrФundert beФХeЧten dХe ZäФrХnger trШtz des VerzХcФts auf das HerzШgtum ScФЯaben zugunsten der Staufer zwar den herzoglichen Titel, ihnen fehlte jedoch ein mХt den aЧten StammesФerzШgt(mern ЮergЧeХcФbares Territorium. So ЦШnstatХerte etЯa OttШ ЮШn FreХsХng, dХe ZäФrХnger seХen nur dem Namen nacФ Herzчgeɤ ХФre HerzШgsЯ(rde nХcФts ЯeХter aЧs „eХn Чeerer TХteЧ , eХn „Namen ШФne InФaЧt .68 Schenkt man den Marbacher Annalen Glauben, so wird sich Berthold anfangs gegen eine Kandidatur gestellt haben.69 Otto von St. Blasien zufШЧge Яar sХcФ der ZäФrХnger der SЩaЧtung Хm ReХcФ und der EХnscФränЦung der antХstaufХscФen ParteХ auf eХnХge ЯenХge GebХete Хm Westen des ReХcФes, dХe durcФ dХe gerХnge “nzaФЧ der Хn KчЧn erschienenen F(rsten nШcФ maЧ ШffensХcФtЧХcФ Яurde,70 bewusst, weswegen ihm von Beratern aus seiner engsten Umgebung von einer Annahme der Kandidatur abgeraten wurde.71 Berthold bat folglich um Bedenkzeit72 und ЯШЧЧte sХcФ ФХerf(r Хn seХnen ZäФrХnger MacФtbereХcФ zur(cЦzХeФen. Kurz 66 Vgl. Tobias WELLER: Die Heiratspolitik des deutschen Hochadels im 12. Jahrhundert. KчЧn – Weimar – Wien. 2004 (im Weiteren: WELLER 2004). S. 394–437. 67 Gerd ALTHOFFɣ DХe ZäФrХnger. Herzчge ШФne HerzШgtum. Inɣ Die Zähringer. ”d. ǋɣ Schweizer Vorträge und neue Forschungen. Hrsg. Hans SCHADEK. Sigmaringen. 1990 (im Weiteren: ALTHOFF 1990). S. 81–94, hier: S. 85. 68 „“t supra nominatus ”erhtolfus, vacuum exhinc nomen ducis gerens, id quasi hereditarium posteris reliquit; omnes enim usque ad presentem diem duces dicti sunt, nullum ducatum habentes soloque nomine sine re participantes – nisi quis ducatum esse dicat comitatum inter Iurum et montem Iovis, quem post mortem Willehelmi comitis filius suus Conradus ab imperatore Lothario suscepit, vel a ducatu Carentano, quem numquam habuerunt, ducis eos nomine honorandos contendat –, in aliis tamen rerum et honoris non parva pollentes magnificentia. Ottonis et Rahewini Gesta Friderici, S. 25f. Vgl. WELLER 2004. S. 832ff; ALTHOFF 1990; DERS.ɣ DХe ZäФrХngerФerrscФaft Хm UrteХЧ OttШs von Freising. In: Die Zähringer. ”d. ǉɣ Eine Tradition und ihre Erforschung. Hrsg. Karl SCHMID. Sigmaringen. 1986. S. 43–58. 69 „secum de gravi labore et expensa discutit . Chronicon Ebersheimense. Hrsg. Ludwig WEILAND. HannШЮer. ǉǐǏǌ. S. ǌǌǐ. „ducem Zaringiae, qui noluit acceptare . Alberti Annales Stadenses. Hrsg. Johannes M. LAPPENBERG. Hannover. 1859. S. 353. „Nam Coloniensis et Trevirensis archiepiscopi electionem regis sui iuris esse firmantes, habito consilio cum quibusdam sed paucis principibus, curiam aliis primoribus in Colonia habendam prefigunt in dominica Oculi mei, evocantes eodem et ducem Cerugie, quem etiam ipsi deliberaverant regem creare . Chronica Regia Coloniensis. S. 105. 70 „“d hanc autem curiam cum principes nulli occurrere vellent […] . Ebenda. S. 162. Vgl. LOENARTZ 1952. S. 44. 71 „Qui cum ad diem condictam Coloniam venisset, dissuasus a consiliariis, ne electioni eorum consentiret, propter contradictionem principum orientalium et electionem filii imperatoris iam factam […] . OTTONIS DE SANCTO BLASIO Chronica. S. 136. 72 „[…] promisit se de hiis deliberaturum . Ebenda. 59 Paul SRODECKI ЮШr seХner “breХse Яurde er Хn KчЧn scФЧХeßЧХcФ dennШcФ zu eХner KandХdatur gegen den Staufer PФХЧХЩЩ (berredet, ЯШbeХ aucФ sХcФerЧХcФ der auf ХФn ЮШn dem Straßburger ”ХscФШf und dem Grafen ЮШn Dagsburg ausge(bte DrucЦ eХne geЯХcФtige Rolle gespielt haben mag.73 So versprach der ZäФrХnger, zur f(r den ǉ. März ǉǉǑǐ Хn “ndernacФ angesetzten KчnХgsЯaФЧ zur(cЦzuЦeФren und steЧЧte ФХerf(r seХne beХden Neffen KШnrad und ”ertФШЧd, SчФne seХner mХt EgХnШ ЮШn UracФ ЮermäФЧten ScФЯester Agnes, als Geiseln.74 Da PФХЧХЩЩ ЮШn ScФЯaben mХt (ЩЩХgen GescФenЦen und fХnanzХeЧЧen ZuЯendungen um StХmmen f(r seХne KandХdatur Яarb und umgeЦeФrt aucФ der ZäФrХnger aЧЧgemeХn aЧs reХcФ gaЧt,75 verbanden dХe ErzbХscФчfe ЮШn KчЧn und TrХer ХФre ZustХmmung zur Wahl ”ertФШЧds zusätzЧХcФ mХt eХner GeЧdfШrderung ЮШn ǉ.Ǐǈǈ MarЦ SХЧber.76 Besonders der durch die zahlreichen Burgenerwerbungen seines AmtsЮШrgängers PФХЧХЩЩ I. ЮШn HeХnsberg und dХe eХgene kostspielige BestecФungsЩШЧХtХЦ ФШcФ ЮerscФuЧdete KчЧner Erzbischof hatte seine guten Gr(nde auf GeЧdzaФЧungen zu drängen.77 Eine weitere Zusicherung ”ertФШЧds Яar das MХtf(Фren eХnes eХgenen Heeres beХ seХner R(cЦЦeФr nach Andernach.78 DХe ЮШn den Хn KчЧn ЮersammeЧten F(rsten gefШrderte SteЧЧung ЮШn Geiseln zeigt wie viel Argwohn und Misstrauen Berthold entgegengebracht wurden.79 Ihre Zweifel und Bedenken an der Aufrichtigkeit des ZäФrХngers sШЧЧten sХcФ aЧs berecФtХgt erЯeХsen, ЧХeß dШcФ der HerzШg den TermХn Хn “ndernacФ ЮerstreХcФen und bЧХeb der geЩЧanten KчnХgswahl fern. SeХnen VerzХcФt auf eХne TФrШnЦandХdatur ЧХeß sХcФ ”ertФШЧd freХЧХcФ teuer von der staufischen Seite bezahlen: So wurde ihm unter anderem 73 „Tandem precibus suorum et precipue minis “rgentinensis episcopi et comitis de Tagesburc devictus […] . Annales Marbacenses. S. 72. 74 „Hoc et ipse promisit et iuravit et insuper obsides dedit . Chronica Regia Coloniensis. S. 105. „Regressus igitur ab eis datis obsidibus die constituto reversurum se promittens . OTTONIS DE SANCTO BLASIO Chronica. S. 136. „[…] datis obsidibus de solvenda pecunia, promisit se certo die venturum et quod promiserat facturum . Annales Marbacenses. S. 72. Vgl. GEUENICH 1986. S. 107. 75 „[…] quia pecuniosus videbatur . BURCHHARD VON URSBERG. S. 79. 76 „Dei igitur statuo Colonie convenientes inferiores principes predictum ducem in regem elegerunt, tali conditione adiecta, quod prefatis archiepiscopis mille et DCC marcas argenti dare deberet . Annales Marbacenses. S. 72. Vgl. GEUENICH 1986. S. 107. 77 HUCKER 1990. S. 26ff; Johannes BAUERMANN: Altena – von Rainald von Dassel erworben? Zu den G(terЧХsten PФilipps von Heinsberg. ”eiträge zur Geschichte Dortmunds und der Grafschaft Mark 67 (1971), S. 229–252. 78 „Unde moti redierunt et Bertolfo duci Cerugie fidem fecerunt, quod ipse repatrians exercitum secum duceret et statuto sibi die Anternacum rediret, eum ibi remota omni dubitatione regem crearent . Chronica Regia Coloniensis. S. 105. 79 GEUENICH 1986. S. 107. 60 EINIGE BEMERKUNGEN ZUR GESCHEITERTEN KRONKANDIDATUR BERTHOLDS V. VON ZÄHRINGEN … das Reichsgut und die Vogtei zu Schaffhausen zugesagt. Ferner verЩfändeten die Staufer die Stadt ”reХsacФ f(r ǋ.ǈǈǈ MarЦ an den ZäФrХnger.80 In KчЧn Хst beХ der enttäuscФten F(rstengruЩЩХerung rund um den ErzbХscФШf “dШЧf zudem das Ger(cФt aufgeЦШmmen, ”ertФШЧd Фätte eХne zusätzЧХcФe Summe ЮШn Хnsgesamt ǉǉ.ǈǈǈ MarЦ und eХn nХcФt näФer beschriebenes Herzogtum – aller Wahrscheinlichkeit nach war damit der scФЯäbХscФe ducatus gemeint worden – von Philipp eingefordert.81 Ungeachtet der territorialen wie materiellen Vorteile, die ihm sein Verzicht auf eine Kronkandidatur einbrachte, haben Berthold – äФnЧХch wie auch schon Bernhard von Sachsen – wohl in allererster Linie seine geringen ErfolgsaussХcФten auf dХe Dursetzung eХnes zäФrХngХscФen KчnХgtums gegen dХe Хn mХЧХtärХscФer ЯХe fХnanzХeЧЧer HХnsХcФt ЯeХt (berЧegenen Staufer zum Bruch mit dem antistaufischen Lager bewegt.82 ”ertФШЧd, der mХt seХnem “nФang bereХts meФr aЧs ǎ.ǈǈǈ MarЦ f(r das Unternehmen ausgegeben hatte,83 war vielmehr klar geworden, dass nШcФ ЯeХtaus ФчФere “ufwendungen zur Erlangung wie Verteidigung der KrШne erfШrderЧХcФ seХn Я(rden.84 Ein Waffengang gegen die Staufer Фätte aber aucФ eХne reeЧЧe GefäФrdung des zäФrХngХscФen StammbesХtzes im Breisgau und am Oberrhein wie auch der im Laufe des 12. Jahrhunderts hinzugekommenen Gebiete zwischen dem Schweizer Jura und den Alpen bedeutet, waren sie doch allesamt von staufischen TerritШrХen umgeben. ÄФnЧХcФ ЯХe beХ ”ernhard von Sachsen wird Berthold scФЧХeßЧХcФ ЯäФrend seХnes “ufentФaЧts Хn KчЧn dХe starЦe Präsenz der ЩrШwelfischen Partei vernommen haben, die von dem Haus Plantagenet unterst(tzt (ber ungЧeХcФ grчßere fХnanzХeЧЧe MХtteЧ f(r den ansteФenden Thronstreit mit sich brachte. 80 „[…] resignans electionem sibi factam tali pacto, quod regnum et advocatiam Scafhůsen sibi in beneficio concederet… castrum ”risache, quod fratris sui [Philippi] fuit, destrui facere deberet vel pro castro trium milium marcarum sibi debitor esset […] . Annales Marbacenses. S. 72: Zur Bedeutung der Stadt Breisach im staufisch-zäФrХngХscФen Gegensatz ЮgЧ. G(ntФer HASELIER: Geschichte der Stadt Breisach am Rhein. Bd. 1. Breisach a. Rh. 1969. S. 80ff. 81 „Designato igitur die cum apud Anternacum ab episcopis et omni multitudine cum apparatu et desiderio maximo expectaretur, ecce rumor pessimus et eius ignaviae dignus intonuit, ipsum scilicet cum duce Sueviae concordasse et, ut ipse regno et electioni renunciaret, 11 milia marcarum et ducatum ab eo accepisse . Chronica Regia Coloniensis. S. 163. Vgl. GEUENICH 1986. S. 107; CSENDES 2003. S. 74. 82 GEUENICH 1986. S. 108. 83 „Quidam principum, de quibus uobis constat, ut credimus, cum duce Bertoldo Zaringie tractatum habere ceperunt, ut ipsi eum in regem eligerent, pro quo ipse cum eis plus quam VI milia marcarum expendit . Regestrum Innocenti III. Nr. 136. 84 HUCKER 2003. S. 53; CSENDES 2003. S. 74 u. 77; GEUENICH 1986. S. 108. 61 Paul SRODECKI Das UrteХЧ der zeХtgenчssХscФen, sШЯШФЧ der staufernaФen aЧs der stauferfernen CФrШnХsten (ber das HХn und Her ”ertФШЧds beХ seХner TФrШnkandidatur fiel indessen recht negativ aus. Schon die Nominierung ”ertФШЧds zum KчnХgsЦandХdaten durcФ dХe antХstaufХscФe ParteХ beschreibt Burchard von Ursberg als im Reichtum und der Geldliebe des ZäФrХngers begr(ndet. SШ seХ der ZäФrХngerФerzШg dem scФЯäbХscФen Chronisten zufШЧge ЦeХn gerecФter Шder eФrЧХcФer F(rst geЯesen. SeХne Nominierung habe Berthold einzig den Umstand seines Wohlstands und der TatsacФe, dass der KчЧner ErzbХscФШf Хn grШßen GeЧdnчten stecЦte, ЮerdanЦen Цчnnen. SeХn GeХz und das FeФЧen jegЧХcФer eФrbarer Tugenden Фätten ХФn aber ЮШn ЮШrnФereХn f(r das “mt eХnes cФrХstЧХcФen KчnХgs dХsquaЧХfХzХert.85 EХn ЯeХteres ”eХsЩХeЧ f(r dХe negatХЮe DarsteЧЧung ”ertФШЧds nacФ dessen VerzХcФt auf eХne KrШnЦandХdatur bХetet aucФ dХe Хm sЩäten ǉǊ. und fr(Фen ǉǋ. JaФrФundert Юerfasste KчЧner KчnХgscФrШnХЦɣ Das ɭbХs Фeute unbeЧegteɮ Ger(cФt, der ZäФrХnger Фätte nacФ seХnem SeХtenЯecФseЧ zusätzЧХcФ ǉǉ.ǈǈǈ MarЦ und eХn HerzШgtum ЮШn den Staufern erФaЧten, zeХgt, „Хn ЯeЧcФer entsteЧЧten FШrm dХe VereХnbarung des ZäФrХngers mit PФХЧХЩЩ ЮШn ScФЯaben den Хn “ndernacФ Яartenden F(rsten (bermХtteЧt ЯШrden seХn d(rfte. 86 ZusätzЧХcФe negatХЮe CФaraЦterisierungen ”ertФШЧds aЧs feХge und ЦäufЧХcФ ЮerstärЦten das ”ХЧd des cФaraЦterЧШsen und unehrenhaften Herzogs.87 Einzig in den MarbacФer “nnaЧen erfäФrt der ZäФrХnger eХne ЩШsХtХЮe DarsteЧЧungɣ SШ sШЧЧ ”ertФШЧd nacФ der un(berЧegten Zusage zur KrШnkandidatur diese sogleich aufgegeben haben, als er erkannt habe, dass der Herzog von Schwaben als sein Rivale sei.88 Mit seiner Absage aber wollte er Zwietracht und Streit im Reich vorbeugen, sei eine Anwartschaft auf das rчmХscФ-deutscФe KчnХgtum f(r ХФn dШcФ nur Хm FaЧЧe eХner eХnstimmigen Wahl in Frage gekommen.89 In den Marbacher Annalen wird zudem der Хn der KчЧner KчnХgscФrШnХЦ ЯХe beХ ”urcФФard ЮШn Ursberg vorgebrachte Vorwurf des Geizes und der Geldgier geschickt ins Gegenteil verkehrt: So habe der Herzog auch auf seine Kandidatur verzichtet, „Attamen Bertholdus dux Zaringie tunc denominatus fuit in regem, non propter hoc, quod iustus posset esse videri aut diligere veritatem, cum scriptum sitɣ ‚Honor regis iudicium diligit , sed propter hoc, quia pecuniosus videbatur, cum esset avarissimus et omni iniquitate plenus . BURCHARD VON URSBERG. S. 79: 86 GEUENICH 1986. S. 107. 87 „[…] ecce rumor pessimus et eius ignaviae dignus intonuit […] Hic ergo rumor et inhonestus eventus […] . Chronica Regia Coloniensis. S. 163. Vgl. HUCKER 2003. S. 53. 88 „Postea penitentia ductus ad diem statutum non venit, cognoscens iam ducem Suevorum ad regni gubernacula sibi contrarium […] . Annales Marbacenses. S. 72. 89 „[…] asserens, nisi unanimiter ab omnibus principibus eligatur, numquam per eum scisma in regno fore oriundum . Ebenda. 85 62 EINIGE BEMERKUNGEN ZUR GESCHEITERTEN KRONKANDIDATUR BERTHOLDS V. VON ZÄHRINGEN … weil er sich – als AnspieЧung auf dХe ЮШn den WäФЧern gefШrderten Geldgeschenke – das KчnХgtum nicht mit Geld erkaufen habe wollen.90 ”ertШЧds ÜbereХnЦunft mХt dem Staufer PФХЧХЩЩ und seХn damХt Юerbundenes “bЧassen ЮШn eХner ”eЯerbung um den rчmХscФ-deutschen TФrШn trХeb dХe antХstaufХscФe F(rstengruЩЩХerung rund um Adolf von “Чtena nШcФ ЯeХter Хn dХe “rme der WeЧfen und des sХe mХt grШßen Mengen an GeЧd unterst(tzenden engЧХscФen KчnХgs. FШЧgerХcФtХg stХmmte aucФ der KчЧner ErzbХscФШf nacФ dem ScФeХtern seХner zäФrХngХscФen KчnХgsЩЧäne eХner KandХdatur des WeЧfen Otto von Poitou, des Neffen RХcФards ЮШn EngЧand, zu. DХese EntscФeХdung stХeß beХ ЯeХten TeХЧen des KчЧner PatrХzХats auf grШße ZustХmmung, Яaren es dШcФ aЧЧem ЮШran KчЧner KaufЧeute und städtХscФe W(rdenträger ЯХe etЯa der ZШЧЧeХnnehmer Gerhard Unmaze, der M(nzer und ZчЧЧner CШnstantХn sШЯХe der FХnanzХer Lambert ЮШn KчЧn, dХe an eХner FШrtsetzung der ЧuЦratХЮen Handelskontakte mit England interessiert waren und somit eine Wahl eХnes ЮШm engЧХscФen KчnХg mХt zaФЧreХcФen GeЧdern gefчrderten KandХdaten unterst(tzen.91 Der hochverschuldete Adolf von Altena musste aber auch wegen der rasanten Vorgehensweise der staufischen Partei bei der Wahl Philipps erkennen, dass nur eine Anlehnung an die Welfen respektive die englischen finanziellen Ressourcen die Aussicht auf einen MacФЯecФseЧ Хm ReХcФ zuungunsten der Staufer bedeutet Фätten. Dem Umschwenken Adolfs auf die welfische Seite folgte recht schnell, da bereХts am ǉǊ. JuЧХ ǉǉǑǐ, dХe Krчnung OttШs Хn “acФen. Der staufХscФwelfische Thronstreit war aber – sЩätestens nach der Ablehnung eines vom Erzbischof Konrad von Mainz 1199 unternommenen Schlichtungsversuchs durch Otto IV – vollends entbrannt und sollte die Reichspolitik der näcФsten zЯanzХg JaФre ЯХe ЦeХn TФrШnstreХt zuЮШr und danacФ signifikant bestimmen.  „Quod cum ili relatum esset, recusavit regnum accipere et pecuniam dare, dicens se nolle regnum precio emere . Ebenda. 91 HUCKER 2003. S. 48ff. 90 63 SЩecХmХna NШЮa Pars PrХma SectХШ MedХaeЮaЧХs VIII Ed. GábШr ”“R“”ÁS – GergeЧy KISS. Pécs, ǊǈǉǍ. Щ. ǎǍ–ǐǉ. GábШr ”arabás, PФD barab.gabШr@gmaХЧ.cШm UnХЮersХty Шf Pécs InstХtute Шf HХstШry DeЩartment Шf MedХeЮaЧ and EarЧy MШdern HХstШry RхЦus Street Ǌ H-ǏǎǊǌ Pécs Hungary Gábor B“R“”ÁS: Delegated Papal Jurisdiction and the Religious Orders Хn tФe DХocese of Veszprém Хn tФe FХrst Half of tФe th Century* TФe ЩaЩer Хs a sФШrt cШntrХbutХШn tШ tФe ФХstШry Шf ЩaЩaЧ deЧegated jurХsdХctХШn Хn Hungary Хn tФe fХrst ФaЧf Шf ǉǋtФ century. TФe maХn aХm Шf tФe study Хs tШ anaЧyse tФe ЩartХcХЩatХШn Шf tФe mШnasterХes Шf reЧХgХШus Шrders Хn tФe dХШcese Шf VeszЩrém at tФe ЩractХcaЧ ЯШrЦ Шf tФe system Шf ЩaЩaЧ judge-deЧegatХШn. TФe cШnnectХШn cШuЧd be fШrmed Хn tЯШ quХte seЩarated Яaysɣ tФeХr ШffХcХaЧs, Шr as ЧegaЧ ЩersШns tФe cШnЮents tФemseЧЮes cШuЧd functХШn eХtФer as ЩaЩaЧ judges-deЧegate Хn fШreХgn ЧХtХgatХШns, Шr tФey cШuЧd be cШntestants Шf tФeХr ШЯn cases. TФe ЩaЩer ХntrШduces tФe ЦnШЯn cases Шf tФe secШnd grШuЩ frШm tФe seЧected era, sХnce tФe maХn cФaracterХstХcs Шf tФe actХЮХtХes as ЩaЩaЧ judges-deЧegate are Щresented as ЯeЧЧ. Key words: papal judges-delegate, delegated jurisdiction, dХШcese Шf VeszЩrém, mШnasterХes, Benedictine order, Cistercian order  In the present study we shall give a short introduction into the history of papal judges-deЧegate Хn tФe HungarХan dХШcese Шf VeszЩrém. We Хntend tШ analyse how the religious orders got into touch with the system of judgesdelegate, and how this relation was formed until the middle of the 13th century. These types of connections of the monasteries were formed in two quite separated ways: the convents or their officials could function either as judges-delegate in foreign litigations, or they could be contestants in their own cases. The survey of these affairs can offer a detailed picture about the institution of papal delegated jurisdiction, and this way we can compare the cФaracterХstХcs Шf tФe dХШcese ЯХtФ tФe generaЧ ɭ ХnternatХШnaЧ ɮ tendencХes, Research for this article was supported by the Hungarian Scientific Research Found (OTKA NN 109690). I am grateful to Professor Endre Sashalmi for the correction of the text. * 65 Gábor B“R“”ÁS and also with other parts of the Kingdom of Hungary. First, however, we have to examine and present the foundation and the substance of the system of papal judge-delegation: to introduce the way it functioned because the role of religious orders can only be understood this way. 1. General characteristics of papal delegated jurisdiction The inception of the system can be found in the 12th century.1 The foundation of delegated jurisdiction was the willingness of the churches and clerics to turn to the papacy for decision, with the aim of having the decision corroborated by papal authority. The system itself can be linked to the reform papacy of the outset of the 11th century: i.e. to the increase of its power over the Church, and its universal claims. On the other hand it has to be mentioned, that the papal delegated jurisdiction gave an opportunity to local churches to skip over the level of ordinary courts. At the same time, it is interesting that the delegated judges came from the circle of local clerics, who at first were mostly bishops and abbots.2 We can thus say that the needs of the two parties affected the formation of the papal judge-delegation. On the one hand, local clerics and churches were involved who turned to the papacy, on the other hand the Holy See which intended to increase its authority.3 It remains a puzzle, however, whether this phenomenon can James Ross SWEENEY: Innocent III, Canon Law and Papal Judges Delegate in Hungary. In: Popes, Teachers, and Canon Law in the Middle Ages. Ed. James Ross SWEENEY – Stanley CHODROW. Ithaca – New York. 1989. p. 26–51. (hereafter: SWEENEY 1989), here: p. 26. 2 Cf. Matthias SCHR5R: Metropolitangewalt und papstgeschichtliche Wende. Husum. 2009. (Historische Studien, Band 494.) 129–137; Othmar HAGENEDER: Die geistliche Gerichtsbarkeit in Ober- und Niederчsterreich. Von den “nfängen bis zum ”eginn des ǉǍ. Jahrhunderts. Linz. 1967. (hereafter: HAGENEDER 1967), p. 27; Peter HERDEɣ Zur ЩäЩstЧХcФen DeЧegatХШnsgerХcФtsbarЦeХt Хm MХtteЧaЧter und Хn der fr(Фen NeuzeХt. Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung f(r Rechtsgeschichte. Kanonische Abteilung 119 (2002), p. 20–43. (hereafter: HERDE 2002), here: p. 22; Ludwig FALKENSTEIN: Appellationen an den Papst und Delegationsgerichtsbarkeit am Beispiel Alexanders III. und Heinrichs von Frankreich. Zeitschrift der Kirchengeschichte 97 (1986), p. 36– 65, here: p. 37–39; Jochen JOHRENDT – Harald MÜLLER: Zentrum und Peripherie. Prozesse des Austausches, der Durchdringung und der Zentralisierung der lateinischen Kirche im Hochmittelalter. In: Rчmisches Zentrum und kirchliche Peripherie. Das universale Papsttum als Bezugspunkt der Kirchen von den Reformpäpsten bis zu Innozenz III. Hrsg. Jochen JOHRENDT – Harald MÜLLER. Berlin – New York. 2008. (hereafter JOHRENDT – MÜLLER 2008), p. 1–16. (hereafter: JOHRENDT–MÜLLER 2008a), here: p. 14; Charles DUGGAN: Papal Judges Delegate and the Making Шf tФe NeЯ LaЯ Хn tФe TЯeЧftФ Century. Inɣ CФarЧes DUGGAN: Decretals and the creation of new law in the twelfth centuryɣ judges, judgements, equity, and law. Aldershot – Brookfield – Singapore – Sydney. 1998. p. 172–199. (hereafter: DUGGAN 1998), here: p. 176, 194– 195; Andreas HOLNDONNER: Kommunikation – Jurisdiktion – Integration. Das Papsttum und das Erzbistum Toledo im 12. Jahrhundert (ca. 1085 – ca. 1185). Berlin – M(ncФen – Boston. 2014. ɭ“bФandЧungen der “ЦademХe der WХssenscФaften zu GчttХngen. Neue FШЧge. ”d. ǋǉɣ StudХen zu Papstgeschichte und Papsturkunden), p. 469–470. (hereafter: HOLNDONNER 2014) 3 Harald MÜLLER: Entscheidung auf Nachfrage. Die delegierten Richter als VerbindungsgЧХeder zЯХscФen KurХe und RegХШn sШЯХe aЧs Gradmesser ЩäЩstЧХcФer “utШrХtät. Inɣ JOHRENDT 1 66 THE DELEGATED PAPAL JURISDICTION AND THE RELIGIOUS ORDERS … be attributed the acceptance of papal authority by the various regions, or they merely wanted to use papal pretensions to secure their own rights and pursuits.4 The spread of the system can be bound to Pope Alexander III (1159–1181), while the judicial background would only be developed by the time of the Fourth Council of Lateran – although it is hard to follow the process of the formation as regional differences make the possibility of a general description complicated.5 As a result of the headway of papal judgedelegation local courts got a serious rival, hence more and more clerics turned to the Apostolic See, which in turn would use papal delegation to efface the lower court levels mentioned.6 This procedure can be found in the KХngdШm Шf Hungary as tФe ǉǊǍǊ ЩrШЮХsХШn Шf ”éЧa IV ɭǉǊǋǍ–1270) shows. As an answer to the increase of papal delegated jurisdiction, the Hungarian king prohibited the practice of summoning someone abroad, though he would have to withdraw this measure later, because of pressure coming from Pope Innocent III (1198–1216).7 A serious increase in the number of the cases happened generally in the 13th century.8 Papal judges-delegate functioned as judges empowered by papal authority (apostolica auctoritate).9 This formula is one of the main attributes of – MÜLLER 2008. p. 108–131. (hereafter: MÜLLER 2008a), here: p. 109–110; James BRUNDAGE: The Medieval Origins of the Legal Profession: Canonists, Civilians, and Courts. Chicago – London. 2008. (hereafter: BRUNDAGE 2008), here: p. 126–127. 4 Cf. JOHRENDT–MÜLLER 2008a. p. 14. 5 MÜLLER 2008a. p. 110–111. 6 The delegated jurisdiction did not necessary mean the neglect of the local clerics: because of their capabilities (language, local knowledge, etc.) the popes gave mandates to locals persons. Cf. GábШr ”“R“”ÁSɣ “ ЩáЩaХ ЦХЦ(Чdчtt bйrásЦШdás MagyarШrszágШn a ЦezdeteЦtшЧ a ǉǋ. század ЦчzeЩéХg [DeЧegated PaЩaЧ JurХsdХctХШn Хn Hungary frШm tФe OrХgХns tШ the Middle of the 13th Century]. Tчrténelmi Szemle LV/2. (2013), p. 175–199. (hereafter: B“R“”ÁS 2013), here: p. 179. 7 Cf. Gyчrgy B2NISɣ EgyФázХ bйrásЦШdás a ЦчzéЩЦШrХ MagyarШrszágШn [EccЧesХastХcaЧ JurХsdХctХШn Хn MedХeЮaЧ Hungary]. Inɣ Gyчrgy B2NIS: Szentszéki regeszták. Iratok az egyházi bйráskodás tчrténetéhez a kчzépkori Magyarországon. Szeged. 1997. p. 621–658. (hereafter: B2NIS 1997), here: p. 629–633; Gergely KISSɣ “z egyФázХ ЦШrmányzat a ЦчzéЩЦШrХ MagyarШrszágШn [EccЧesХastХcaЧ Government in the Medieval Hungary]. In: Márta FONT – Tamás FEDELES – Gergely KISS – Kata R“FF“YNÉ KÁLSECZ: Magyarország kormányzati rendszere ɭǉǈǈǈ–1526). Pécs. ǊǈǈǏ. Щ. ǉǈǉ–136. (hereafter: KISS 2007), here: p. 113; Harald MÜLLERɣ DХe UrЦunden der ЩäЩstЧХcФen deЧegХerten Richter. Methodische Probleme und erste Erkenntnisse am Beispiel der Normandie. In: Hundert Jahre Papsturkundenforschung. Bilanz – Methoden – Perspektiven. Akten eines Kolloquiums zum Hundertjährigen ”estehens der Regesta Pontificum Romanorum von Ǒ.–11. Oktober 1996 in Gчttingen. Hrsg. Rudolf HIESTAND. GчttХngen. Ǌǈǈǋ. Щ. ǋǍǉ–371. (hereafter: MÜLLER 2003), here: p. 368–369. 8 Although since the 12th century an increase in the amount of the cases can be observed. BRUNDAGE 2008. p. 127–135, 137. 9 The mandates of the popes gave the necessary legitimation for the delegates. This is shown by the fact that the judges mostly inserted them in their charters. Harald MÜLLER: Gesandte mХt bescФränЦter HandЧungsЮШЧЧmacФt. Zur StruЦtur und PraxХs ЩäЩstЧХcФ deЧegХerter Gerichtsbarkeit. In: “us der Fr(hzeit europäischer Diplomatie. Zum geistlichen und weltlichen 67 Gábor B“R“”ÁS delegation10 but it has to be underlined that those empowered by this, possessed jurisdiction only for individual cases. Their own personality and clerical office were not relevant to their role as judges-delegate, since they were not able to decide any case (in iurisdictione proprium nihil habens) on these grounds.11 Delegated jurisdiction, however, gave them such a prestige that they could summon even clerics of higher offices.12 In connection with the selection of judges it can be stated, that generally three delegates were appointed to handle the cases, although according to canon law under extraordinary circumstances even a single judges could make a valid decision.13 Two of the delegates had to be usually chosen by the litigants, whereas the third by the pope, or rather, in fact, by the auditors of the audientia at the papal court.14 The selection of judges was determined not only with regard to their numbers, but also territorial considerations. According to general norms the judges had to hold their offices in the same diocese as the litigants, or at least they had to live in within a distance Шf a tЯШ days trХЩ.15 Nevertheless, this principle – similarly to other rulings – in practice could not work in every case. Although certain general trends can be observed, no exclusive regulations concerning the aspects of the selection of judges existed. The composition of the delegates shows that before the 13th century they were chosen mostly from members of high clergy, bishops and abbots:16 most likely because of the prestige of their Gesandtschaftswesen vom 12. bis zum 15. Jahrhundert. Hrsg. Claudia MÄRTL – Claudia ZEY. Z(rich. 2008. p. 41–65. (hereafter: MÜLLER 2008b), here: p. 61–62. 10 MÜLLER 2003. p. 358. Cf. DUGGAN 1998. p. 194–195; BRUNDAGE 2008. p. 136. 11 MÜLLER 2008b. p. 43–44; DUGGAN 1998. p. 186–194. 12 DUGGAN 1998. p. 179, 186–195. 13 HERDE 2002. p. 33. 14 MÜLLER 2003. p. 365–366; MÜLLER 2008a. p. 117, 120–122, 130; MÜLLER 2008b. p. 46–47, 63; HAGENEDER 1967. p. 31; Werner MALECZEK: Papst und Kardinalskolleg von 1191 bis 1216. Wien. 1984. (hereafter: MALECZEK 1984), p. 327–328; SWEENEY 1989. p. 30; BRUNDAGE 2008. p. 136. An example for the notification of the parties about the delegation of the judges: August POTTHAST: Regesta Pontificum Romanorum. Vol. 1. Graz. 1957. (hereafter: POTTHAST) nr. 5684. The triple supervision cannot be found in every case, hence the number of judges could either be more or less than that. MÜLLER 2008a. p. 120–122; Peter HERDE: Audientia litterarum contradictarum. Untersuchungen (ber die päpstlichen Justizbriefe und die päpstliche Delegationsgerichtsbarkeit vom ǉǋ. bis zum Beginn des 16. Jahrhunderts. T(bХngen. ǉǑǏǈ. (hereafter: HERDE 1970), p. 198–200; HAGENEDER 1967. p. 31–32; MALECZEK 1984. p. 327–328, 330. 15 HERDE 2002. p. 33. 16 See: Richard A. SCHMUTZ: Medieval papal representatives: legates, nuncios and judges– delegate. In: Studia Gratiana post scripta. Essays on Medieval Law and the Emergence of the European State in Honor of Gaines Post. Ed. Joseph R. STRAYER – Donald E. QUELLER. Rome. 1972. p. 441– 463, here: p. 462; Gisela DROSSBACHɣ DХe EntЯХcЦЧung des KХrcФenrecФts aЧs raum(bergreifendes Kommunikationsmodell im 12. Jahrhundert. In: Zentrum und Netzwerk. Kirchliche Kommunikationen und Raumstrukturen im Mittelalter. Hrsg. Gisela DROSSBACH – Hans-Joachim SCHMIDT. Berlin – NeЯ YШrЦ. Ǌǈǈǐ. ɭScrХnХum FrХburgense. VerчffentЧХcФungen des MedХäЮХstХscФen InstХtuts der UnХЮersХtät FreХburg, ”d. ǊǊ.ɮ, Щ. ǌǉ–61, here: p. 48. 68 THE DELEGATED PAPAL JURISDICTION AND THE RELIGIOUS ORDERS … offices, or because their proficiency in jurisdiction.17 The mandate of clerics of lower positions,18 mostly dignitaries of chapters and deans,19 became more and more common since the beginning of the 13th century.20 Under the pontificates of Honorius III (1216–1227) and Gregory IX (1227–1241) priors of monasteries, or the convents themselves as legal persons were appointed as papal delegates as well.21 Therefore, position of the judges played an important role in the selection. So did their network of contacts, and their skills in canon law. We could even put it this way: papal delegated jurisdiction produced the necessary judges for its own needs.22 Parallel to the changing circle of the judges grew the strata of litigants. Popes became iudex ordinarius omnium at the outset of the 13th century, while commune et generale forum omnium clericorum et ecclesiarum meant the delegated judiciary of the Church. Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, in general and its Rome-centred type as well, was open not only for clerics, but also for laymen. It could happen in cases when the opponent was a church or a clergyman (ratione personae),23 or if the nature of the litigation required it (ratione rei, causae spiritualibus admixtae).24 2. The specificities in Hungary Although this aspect is not well represented in the sources. MÜLLER 2008b. 48. Furthermore, there are cases in which the delegation of the judges was withdrawn because of their incapacity. See: BRUNDAGE 2008. p. 137. 18 This refers to the ecclesiastical hierarchy. 19 In Hungary the term archidiaconus was in use instead of archipresbiter, and they were not so independent of episcopal power as their colleagues in Western Europe. Cf. IЮán BORSA: A ФХteЧesФeЧyeЦrшЧ [“bШut tФe PЧaces Шf “utФentХfХcatХШn]. Inɣ „Magyaroknak eleiről . Ünnepi tanulmányok a hatvan esztendős Makk Ferenc tiszteletére. Ed. Ferenc PITI – Gyчrgy SZABADOS. Szeged. 2000. p. 99–106, here: p. 100; Hans Erich FEINE: Kirchliche Rechtsgeschichte, Band 1. Die katholische Kirche. Weimar. 1955. (hereafter: FEINE 1955), here: p. 369. 20 Cf. MÜLLER 2003. p. 365–367; MÜLLER 2008b. p. 47–48; B2NIS 1997. p. 632; HERDE 2002. p. 33; ”ernát L. KUMOROVITZ: “ magyar pecséthasználat a kчzépkorban [The Hungarian Usage of Seals in the Middle Ages]. Budapest. 1944. (reprint 1993.), p. 59. (hereafter: KUMOROVITZ 1993) 21 E.g. ZХrcɣ Magyar NemzetХ LeЮéЧtár OrszágШs LeЮéЧtára, DХЩЧШmatХЦaХ FényЦéЩtár [TФe Hungarian National Archive] (hereafter: DF), 206 913; POTTHAST nr. 8822, Monumenta Romana episcopatus Vesprimiensis. “ veszprémi p(spчkség rхmai oklevéltára. I–IV. Ed. Guilelmus FR“KN2I – Josephus LUKCSICS. Budapest. 1896–1907. (hereafter: MREV) I. 88–89; SzentgottФárdɣ POTTHAST nr. 6022, Codex diplomaticus Hungariae ecclesiasticus ac civilis. I–XII. Ed. Georgius FEJÉR. Budae. 1829–1844. (hereafter: FEJÉR) vol. VII. t. 5. p. 220; Egres: POTTHAST nr. 6443; Árpádkori új okmánytár. I–XII. Ed. GusztáЮ WENZEL. Pest–Budapest. 1860–1874. ɭФereafterɣ ÁÚOɮ I. Щ. 165. The most important change was the delegation of the officials of the chapters, and the archdeacons. MÜLLER 2003. p. 365–367; MÜLLER 2008b. p. 47–48; KUMOROVITZ 1993. p. 59. Cf. HOLNDONNER 2014. p. 470. 22 MÜLLER 2008b. p. 48–49. 23 E.g. in cases of usury, cf. HERDE 2002. p. 38; HERDE 1970. p. 207–211. 24 HERDE 2002. p. 35; KISS 2007. p. 111. 17 69 Gábor B“R“”ÁS Concerning the Hungarian situation it has to be stated, that the first known cases come partly from the end of the 12th century but mostly from the early 13th.. The circle of judges under the pontificate of Innocent III included archbishops and bishops, abbeys of Benedictine and Cistercian monasteries, and provosts and deans as well. Until 1216 the activity of altogether four Benedictine abbots ɭTХФany, PécsЮárad, SzeЦszárd, ”aЦШnybéЧɮ are known, while five Cistercian officials (Zirc, Pilisszentkereszt, Egres, CХЦádШr és SzentgШttФárdɮ were commissioned as judges in almost twice as many cases.25 Under the successors of Pope Innocent III the system continued to evolve further on and it led to the appearance of some new features. The situation in Hungary was also bound to the general tendencies. The pontificates of Honorius III and Gregory IX witnessed a further spread of the system of papal delegations both quantitatively and qualitatively. Concerning our topic the officials of monasteries made up the most important group, which also shows differences if compared to the previous times. Beside the abbots, now priors and convents as legal persons can be found in the sources as delegated judges.26 When we examine the orders of the delegates, it is apparent that the Cistercians became much more significant than the Benedictines.27 The latter group contains the commissions given to abbots of 17 monasteries but most of them appear only once in the sources as papal judges.28 The aldermen of seven monasteries officiated more than once in various cases, among them we know the most details about the abbШts Шf PécsЮárad29 and Tihany30. They are followed by the abbots of SШmШgyЮár31 and SzeЦszárd.32 To return to the Cistercians, the role of priors and convents has to be emphasized, which was characteristic of this order. Among the abbots the superiors of Zirc, SzentgШttФárd, Pilis and Egres got most of the commissions, while among the convents the priors of Zirc and Pilis were the most significant ones.33 25 SWEENEY 1989. p. 30–31. We have to underline, that there is no evidence from this period concerning the delegation of priors, except one. DF 200 003, POTTHAST nr. 4631, MREV I. p. 19. 26 E.g.: Zirc: POTTHAST nr. ǐǐǊǊ. ǉǈǐǌǏ, SzentgШttФárdɣ POTTHAST nr. 6022, 7347; Egres: POTTHAST nr. 6443, 8487. 27 See: B“R“”ÁS 2013. p. 186–193. 28 See: B“R“”ÁS 2013. p. 186–193 29 POTTHAST nr. 7354, 8012, 10232, 10234, 10195, DF 206 858, DF 208 315. 30 POTTHAST nr. 8977, 9968, 10847, 10195, 10370. 31 POTTHAST nr. 7051, 8822, 9968, DF 200 625, FEJÉR vol. IX. t. 7 p. 648. 32 POTTHAST nr. 9965, 10370, DF 206 858. 33 Prior of Zirc: POTTHAST nr. 8822, 10847. Prior of Pilisszentkereszt: DF 200 005, POTTHAST nr. ǐǌǑǏ. PrХШr Шf SzentgШttФárdɣ POTTHAST nr. 6022, 7347. Prior of Egres: POTTHAST nr. 6443, 8487. Convent of Zirc: POTTHAST nr. 6000, 6775, 10847. Convent of Pilisszentkereszt: POTTHASt nr. 10961. 70 THE DELEGATED PAPAL JURISDICTION AND THE RELIGIOUS ORDERS … As regards the nature of the cases concerning the period before the mid13th century they can be classified into three major groups. The largest one is formed by 1.) affairs between churches, arising predominantly because of tithe-rights. Beside them we have the cases of 2.) church-discipline and church government plus 3.) processes of laymen.34 The available sources from the period chosen show that in Hungary certain kind of topics never came up: for example the cases of usury, pledge, and the violation of the rightful price. This shortage is very eye-catching in the practice of delegated jurisdiction in Hungary.35 3. Religious orders in tФe dХocese Veszprém and papal judge-delegation The situation described so far leads us to the conclusion that the monasteries and their officials could get in touch with papal delegation through two related ways: either 1.) as litigants or 2.) as judges. The latter aspect will not be discussed completely, since it is not reasonable either thematically or quantitatively. At the very end of this paper, however, an enumeration can be found about the judges and the cases examined. At this point we can only underline that among the officials of monasteries in this diocese the abbШts Шf TХФany and SШmШgyЮár made uЩ tФe Чargest Щart Шf tФШse cЧerХcs who were authorised as papal judges, since their colleagues of BaЦШnybéЧ, ZaЧaЮár and ZseЧicszentjakab can be found only sporadically in the sources. It can also be mentioned as a unique detail that once the dean of Tihany functioned as judge delegate.36 Among the Cistercians the abbey of Zirc exceeded all others regarding our topic because not only its abbot but also the convent as a collective, and even the prior were ordered as judges. The same can be said of the monastery of Pilisszentkereszt.37 After this short survey about the judges we have to examine the cases of the monasteries in the diocese. We have to underline though, that the quantity of sources concerning this matter is not a great one, therefore we have knowledge only about a few litigations. First, the cases of the abbey of SШmШgyЮár ЯХЧЧ be Щresented accШrdХng tШ tФe aЧready mentioned typology of the litigations. The first case to examine is the election of 1204 in the abbey of SomogyЮár ЯФХcФ can be Хntegrated ХntШ tФe ЧХne Шf ЩrШbЧematХc canШnХcaЧ eЧections, therefore into the group of matters concerning ecclesiastical government.38 SWEENEY 1989. p. 35–37. Cf. HERDE 1970. p. 233–286; HERDE 2002. p. 38. 36 See the chart. 37 See the chart. 38 This case is a good example for the possible influence various arts of the king on the Hungarian church, so as the resistance of the clerics. 34 35 71 Gábor B“R“”ÁS The monk of West-European, mostly of French origin,39 turned to the pope because King Emery (1196–1204) ordered them to elect a Hungarian abbot, which they refused. On the 14th September the pope wrote on this matter to the Hungarian king himself40 and this letter contains the details of the dispute. The king appointed his former mentor, Bernhard of Perugia, the actual archbishop of Split,41 to lead the transformation of the monastery in his capacity as the new abbot. The Dalmatian high priest, who was of Italian descent, started to perform the necessary arrangements, and claimed that many monks had been mishandling the possessions of the abbey. Moreover, the archbishop even made use of lay power against the friars, and tried to replace them with Hungarians.42 In this situation the monks decided to seek help from the Holy See, and Pope Innocent III ordered to take a whole range of measures. Beside the king he also wrote to the archbishop of Split himself,43 ЯФХЧe Фe emЩШЯered tФe bХsФШЩ Шf NagyЮárad ɭOradeaɮ, the abbot of Zirc, and the provost of Esztergom as his delegates to examine 39 See Gergely KISS: “ sШmШgyЮárХ aЩátság aЧaЩйtása és francia kapcsolatai [The Foundation and tФe FrencФ CШnnectХШns Шf tФe “bbey Шf SШmШgyЮár]. Inɣ Egyháztчrténeti Szemle II/1. Ed. Judit BALOGH – Dénes DIENES – Csaba FAZEKAS. SárШsЩataЦ. Ǌǈǈǉ. Щ. ǌǋ–61; Márta FONT: Ansiedlung, Integration und Toleranz im mittelalterlichen Ungarn. In: Minderheitendasein in Mittel- und Osteuropa – interdisziplinär betrachtet. Hrsg. Zsuzsanna GERNER – LászЧх KUPA. Hamburg. 2011. p. 13–24. here: p. 18. 40 POTTHAST nr. 2280. 41 Ferenc MAKKɣ ”ernát . Inɣ Korai magyar tчrténeti lexikon ɭǑ–ǉǌ. századɮ. Ed. Gyula KRIST2 – PáЧ ENGEL – Ferenc MAKK. Budapest. 1994. p. 99; Judit GÁL: QuХ erat gratХШsus aЩut eum “ sЩЧХtХ érseЦeЦ szereЩe az ÁrЩádШЦ ЦХráЧyságában [TФe RШЧe Шf tФe “rcФbХsФШЩs Шf Split in the Realm Шf tФe ÁrЩáds]. In: Magister historiae. Válogatott tanulmányok a ǊǈǉǊ-ben és Ǌǈǉǋ-ban megrendezett kчzépkorral foglalkozх, mesterszakos hallgatхi konferenciák előadásaibхl. Ed. MхnХЦa BELUCZ – Judit GÁL – IstЮán KÁD“S – Eszter T“RJÁN. BudaЩest. Ǌǈǉǌ. ɭELTE ”TK TчrténeЧemtudШmányХ DШЦtШrХ IsЦШЧa, TanuЧmányШЦ – KШnferencХáЦ Ǐ.ɮ, Щ. ǍǊ–71, here: p. 62–63. 42 […] secundum antiquum et approbatum morem sui monasterii, elegerunt, quod hactenus tam abbates, quam monachos consuevit habere latinos. Sed tu, fili charissime, quod cum devotione ac reverentia retulerunt, regium sibi noluisti prebere consensum, affirmans, quod in alium, quam Ungarum minime consentires. Venerabilis autem frater noster Spalatensis archiepiscopus, hoc attendens, ad presentiam tue serenitatis accessit, et monasterium ipsum velociter impetravit, de quo, si verum est, valde miramur, quia, licet professione sit monachus et natione latinus, cum tamen pontificis gerat officium, abbatis non debuit ministerium usurpare, presertim et in aliena dioecesi et per laicam potestatem, qui, non multo post, cum servis monasterii memorati monachos universos super thesauro monasterii apud regiam celsitudinem graviter accusavit, sed ipsi, voluntatem presentientes illius, statim, ipso presente, cuidam homini tuo, quem ipse secum adduxerat, et multis aliis bonis viris thesaurum ecclesie non solum integrum assignarunt, sed etiam augmentatum. Verum, idem archiepiscopus, voluntatem suam cupiens adimplere, opportunitate captata, in eos armata manu irruit violenter, et quosdam ex ipsis manu propria flagellavit, quosdam vero coniecit in vincula, cunctisque penitus destitutis, monachos ungaros pro sua instituit voluntate, appellationi non deferens, quam iidem monachi super tanto gravamine ad Sedem Apostolicam emiserunt, terminum in assumptione beate Marie proximo preterite prefigentes . MREV I. p. 12–13. 43 14 September 1204. POTTHAST nr. 2281. 72 THE DELEGATED PAPAL JURISDICTION AND THE RELIGIOUS ORDERS … the complaints and punish Bernhard, if necessary.44 We can observe here the clash between ecclesiastical custom and royal patronage, a fact that relates the case to the topic of the royal churches in Hungary too. The monks Шf SШmШgyЮár cШuЧd at Чast reacФ tФeХr gШaЧ, sШ tФey gШt tФe rХgФt tШ cФШШse their abbot freely, while in 1210 the pope took the abbey under the protection of the Apostolic See and confirmed its privileges.45 This action did not mean new rights or an exemptio, although in the light of later data it seems certain that the abbey belonged directly to the jurisdiction of the archbishop of Esztergom.46 During the early 1200s, but prior to the case just reviewed, the Saint Giles abbey Шf SШmШgyЮár Фad a quarreЧ ЯХtФ tФe suЩerХШr Шf tФe dХШcese, tФe bХsФШЩ Шf VeszЩrém, because tФe matter cШncerned tФe rХgФts Шf the prelate over his bishopric. The abbot took three churches of the diocese under his own power (potestas jurisdictionis, potestas ordinis), so he claimed for himself the right of ordering priests and dispensing sacraments.47 The bishop turned to the pope, and Хn ǉǊǈǋ InnШcent III Шrdered tФe bХsФШЩs Шf Vác and Nyitra (Nitra) as his judges-delegate to investigate the complaint.48 The petition concerned not the legal situation of the abbey, because being a royal church it was under the direct jurisdiction of the archbishop of Esztergom.49 The potestas ordinis Шf tФe bХsФШЩ Шf VeszЩrém Яas Хn fact affected. This power was secured later in a settlement concluded between the bishop and the archbishop of Esztergom in 1216, which concerned the right of 44 Nos enim, venerabili fratri nostro Waradiensi episcopo et dilectis filiis abbati de Buccano, et preposito Strigoniensi, damus firmiter in mandatis, ut inquisita diligentius veritate, si rem invenerint taliter processisse, nisi predictus Spalatensis archiepiscopus ad commonitionem eorum excessum suum per se ipsum curaverit emendare, ipsi ei pro tanta presumptione canonicam poenam infligant, et eo a prelibato monasterio prorsus excluso,faciant illud iuxta formam prescriptam, appellatione postposita, ordinari . MREV I. p. 13. Cf. SWEENEY 1989. p. 35. 45 Abbati et conventui Simigiensi [...] Dilecti in domino filii, [...] personas vestras et Simigiense monasterium, [...] sub beati Petri et nostra protectione suscipimus, et presentis scripti patrocinio communimus, libertates et immunitates a principibus monasterio vestro concessas, dignitates quoque ac antiquas et rationabiles consvetudines obtentas et hactenus observatas, auctoritate vobis apostolica confirmantes . MREV I. p. 19. 46 Gergely KISS: Királyi egyházak a kчzépkori Magyarországon [Royal Churches in Medieval Hungary]. Pécs. Ǌǈǉǋ. ɭThesaurus Historiae Ecclesiasticae in Universitate Quinqueecclesiensi 3.) (hereafter: KISS 2013), p. 61. As a supplement we have to mention, that the monastery got around this time into the Liber Censuum. Gergely KISS: Abbatia regalia – hierarchia ecclesiastica. A királyi alapйtású bencés apátságok egyházjogi helyzete a ǉǉ–ǉǋ. században [The Legal Status of the Royal Benedictine Monasteries in the 11th–13th Centuries]. Budapest. 2006. (hereafter: KISS 2006), p. 92. 47 […] abbas de Simigio Vesprimiensis diocesis tres ecclesias, de iure ad eum spectantes, contra iustitiam detinet occupatas, quarum unam ab extraneo episcopo, contradicente eo, fecit pro sue voluntatis arbitrio consecrari, cum ipse paratus esset eandem pro sui officii debito consecrare . MREV I. p. 11. 48 7 October 1203. DF 200 002. 49 See KISS 2013. p. 61. 73 Gábor B“R“”ÁS coronation of the Hungarian queen consorts.50 The further details of the case of 1203 are unknown, although the exempt status of the monastery can be proven by later sources. This status, however, probably cannot be linked to the case of the mentioned churches.51 On the other hand we have to state the fact that in 1212 pope Innocent III turned to the abbots and priests of the dХШcese Шf VeszЩrém because Шf a sХmХЧar matter. In ФХs Чetter ɭǏth February)52 he gave them the order, explicitly naming the exempt provostship of SzéЦesfeФérЮár, tШ acceЩt tФe sacramentaЧ ЩШЯer ШnЧy frШm the bishop of VeszЩrém,53 as it was his right to give them away (potestas ordinis).54 From the year 1237 another case is known in which the episcopal right Шf tФe bХsФШЩ Шf VeszЩrém Яas tФe issue. Bishop Bartholomew had a quarrel with the Holy Salvador monastery of Kapornak (Nagykapornak). He was accused by the abbot of using the yearly visitation to require illegitimate assignments form the monks.55 Pope Gregory IX commissioned the abbots Шf ZaЧaЮár, TХФany and SzeЦszárd tШ ХnЮestХgate tФe case, ХncЧudХng the right to summon Bishop Bartholomew on the ground that he had damaged the rights of the abbey, and he had excommunicated the abbot and the convent.56 See KISS 2013. p. 49. KISS 2013. p. 61. 52 DF 230 073 53 Vesprimiensi episcopo in iure suo, sicut tenemur, adesse, auctoritate vobis presentium districtius inhibemus, ne sacros ordines, crisma et alia ecclesiastica sacramenta, que suscipere debetis ab ipso, quamdiu gratiam Apostolice Sedis habuerit et ea vobis gratis et sine pravitate aliqua voluerit exhibere, ab aliis episcopis recipere presumatis. Nisi hoc forte alicui vestrum ex speciali Sedis Apostolice privilegio sit indultum, neque contra tenorem privilegiorum vestrorum in preiudicium Vesprimiensis ecclesie usurpare vobis aliquid temere attemptetis . MREV IV. Щ. ǋǈǍ. Seeɣ Gergely KISS: Mutatis mutandis? “ magyar fшЩaЩШЦ jШgfeЧfШgásánaЦ ЮáЧtШzásaХ a ǉǊ. század másШdХЦ és a ǉǋ. század eЧsш feЧében [Mutatis mutandis? Changing of Jurisdictional Theories of Some Hungarian Prelates in the Second Half of the Twelfth and in the First Half of the Thirteenth Centuries] In: „Kчztes-Eurхpa vonzásában. Ünnepi tanulmányok Font Márta ǎǈ. sz(letésnapjára. Ed. DánХeЧ BAGI – Tamás FEDELES – Gergely KISS. Pécs. ǊǈǉǊ. Щ. ǊǍǑ–276. here: p. 268; Gergely KISS: Mutatis mutandis? Les mutatХШns de Чa Щensée juridictionnelle des ЩreЧats ФШngrШХs à Чa fХn du XIIe et au début du XIIIe sХècЧe. Specimina Nova Pars Prima Sectio Mediaevalis VII. Ed. Márta FONT – Gergely KISS. Pécs. 2015. p. 71–101. here: p. 87–88. 54 See: FEINE 1955. p. 191–192, 323–324; KISS 2006. p. 13, 49, 60, 65; KISS 2007. p. 107–108; Lotte KÉRYɣ KЧШsterfreХФeХt und ЩäЩstЧХcФe OrganХsatХШnsgeЯaЧt. ExemtХШn aЧs HerrscФaftsinstrument des Papsttums? In: Rom und die Regionen: Studien zur Homogenisierung der lateinischen Kirche im Hochmittelalter. Hrsg. Jochen JOHRENDT – Harald MÜLLER. Berlin – Boston. 2012. p. 83– 144. here: p. 100–101. 55 See the papal charter of 21 May 1237. POTTHAST nr. 10370, Les registres de Grégoire IX. Recueil des bulles de ce pape publiées et analysées d après les manuscrits originaux du Vatican par Lucien AUVRAY. t. I-IV. Paris. 1890–1955. (hereafter: RGIX) II. nr. 3692. 56 The abbot was forced to leave his monastery as well: […] abbas et conventus monasterii sancti salvatoris de Caparnuch ordinis sancti Benedicti, Vesprimiensis diocesis, gravem ad nos transmisere querelam, quod Vesprimiensis episcopus monasterium ipsum indebitis exactionibus aggravans et molestans, singulis annis unum equum ab eis, contra iustitiam, exigit, et quotiens vult in anno, 50 51 74 THE DELEGATED PAPAL JURISDICTION AND THE RELIGIOUS ORDERS … The bishop sent his procurator to Rome,57 where the parties managed to come to an understanding with the help of the cardinal priest of S. Maria in Trastevere as a papal charter dated 1238 proves it.58 The text of the amicabilis compositio59 and its details are, however, unknown. The case itself exemplifies well that in a quarrel over legal and material questions not only prelates could turn to the Apostolic See but also abbots and convents of lesser monasteries, where they could find protection against the unlawful pursuits of their ordinarii. Among the known cases of papal delegated jurisdiction in Hungary, as mentioned before, predominantly litigations concerning doubtful tenures and incomes, above all rights of tithes can be found. The lawsuit of Saint GХЧes abbey Шf SШmШgyЮár ЯХtФ tФe abbey of Pannonhalma was one of them. Unfortunately in this case we do not possess the papal mandates given to the judges60 but the events can be reconstructed thanks to the cФarter Хssued by tФe deЧegates and tФe abbШt Шf SШmШgyЮár Хn ǉǊǉǍ.61 The origin of this affair can also be bound to doubtful tithes on which the parties could come to an agreement,62 although this was not the last step in the ЩrШcess. TФe cФarter Шf tФe judges, tФe bХsФШЩ Шf Gyшr and tФe abbШts Шf PécsЮárad and ”aЦШnybéЧ, ХnfШrms us, tФat after the failure of the first round the litigants could come to an understanding.63 The charter contains the visitationis vel alia de causa, ad monasterium idem accedens, trahensque moram ibidem cum personarum et evectionum multitudine effrenata, bona monasterii pro sua voluntate consumit, ita quod fratres in eo degentes vix habent unde valeant sustentari [...] Quare iidem abbas et conventus huiusmodi gravamina non valentes ulterius tolerare, ad nostram audientiam appellarunt, et cum idem abbas iter arripuisset ad nostram presentiam veniendi, dictus episcopus in eos generaliter et specialiter in quosdam eorum excommunicationis sententiam promulgavit [...] eundem episcopum [...] peremptorie citare curetis, ut infra competentem terminum, quem ei duxeritis prefigendum . MREV I. p. 107. 57 [...] per se, vel per procuratorem idoneum, compareat coram nobis, facturus et recepturus super hiis quod iustitia svadebit . MREV I. Щ.ǉǈǏ. Cf. FEINE 1955. p. 336–337. 58 18 May 1238. POTTHAST nr. 10601, RGIX II. nr. 4368. 59 […] dilectum filium nostrum Sancte Marie in Transtiberim presbiterum cardinalem tibi, fili abbas, tam tuo, quam vestro, filii conventus, nomine, ac Sebastiano canonico Vesprimiensi procuratori dicti episcopi apud Sedem Apostolicam constitutis concesserimus auditorem, tandem eodem cardinale mediante amicabilis inter partes compositio interveni, prout in ipsius confectis super hoc litteris plenius continetur, quam apostolico petivistis munimine roborari. Nos igitur vestris iustis postulationibus grato concurrentes assensu, compositionem ipsam ratam habentes et firmam, illam auctoritate apostolica confirmamus, et presentis scripti patrocinio communimus [...] . ÁÚO II. Щ. ǐǍ. 60 This case is a good example for the scenario when the parties turned to the papacy after a failed agreement. The known compositio Яas made Хn ǉǊǉǈ. ÁÚO I. Щ. ǉǈǊ–104. 61 DF Ǌǈǎ ǐǍǈ, ÁÚO XI. Щ. ǉǋǉ–132. Cf. GábШr B“R“”ÁS: Der Einfluss der Papsturkunden auf dХe ScФreХben der ЩäЩstЧХcФen deЧegХerten RХcФter Хn Ungarn Хn der ersten HäЧfte des ǉǋ. Jahrhunderts. Specimina Nova Pars Prima Sectio Mediaevalis VII. Ed. Márta FONT – Gergely KISS. Pécs. Ǌǈǉǋ. Щ. ǉǑ–37, here: p. 21–25. 62 ÁÚO I. Щ. ǉǈǊ–104. 63 See: SWEENEY 1989. p. 48–49. As mentioned before, this was not the first compositio. 75 Gábor B“R“”ÁS statement Шf tФe abbШt and cШnЮent Шf SШmШgyЮár as ЯeЧЧ,64 saying that they together decided to give up the former illegal exercise, and made a promise Шn tФeХr and tФeХr successШrs beФaЧf tФat tФey ЯШuЧd neЮer Фarm agaХn tФe papal and royal privileges of Pannonhalma.65 As a result of the work of the delegates this litigation could come to an end in a form known as a compositio. In the area under research the Cistercian monastery of Pilisszentkereszt had a lawsuit with Pannonhalma as well, also because of some tithe-rights. “t fХrst tФe bХsФШЩ Шf Gyшr Яas deЧegated ЯХtФ tФeХr cШЧЧeagues but Фe ЯФШ could not accept the mandate because he was taking part in the 5th crusade.66 In this situation, on the 22 January 1218, Pope Honorius III gave a delegation tШ tФe abbШt Шf Lébény, and tФe arcФdeacШn and cantШr Шf Gyшr. TФe judges however failed to make a sentence.67 In 1231, already under the pontificate of the next pope, Gregory IX, the bishop and the cantШr Шf Gyшr Яere gХЮen an order again, this time together with the provost of their chapter.68 This mandate tells us that earlier a papal chaplain, Giles, who was at that moment in the kingdom, was also proceeding in the case. With his help an agreement was reached but after a while the abbots might have been dissatisfied with that – at least they refused to fulfill it. According to the mandate the judges-delegate had to oblige the monks to follow the regulations of the agreement69 but the details of their operations are unknown. A further but very taciturn source informs us about the litigation of RШbert, bХsФШЩ Шf VeszЩrém ЯХtФ tФe SaХnt “braФam mШnastery Шf CseЩeЧ ÁÚO XI. Щ. ǉǋǊ–133. […] et nos Symigienses, communi consilio et consensu tocius nostri capituli, nolentes sequi maliciam et iniquitatem Hilliberti abbatis et suorum fautorum, qui perturbabant possessiones monasterii Sancti Martini de Pannonia in decimacionibus aratrorum, orreorum, cellariorum propriorum, et populorum nostrorum, ac parrochianorum capelle Sancti Petri, nolentes eciam contraire privilegiis sancti regis et Romanorum pontificum, sed malentes iuri parere, quam improbe litigare, promittimus et firmiter nos nostrosque successores obligamus ad solucionem predictarum decimarum, quia eas de iure debet habere, plenam et integram prefato monasterio faciendam . ÁÚO XI. Щ. ǉǋǊ–133. 66 […] venerabili fratri episcopo Geurinesi et eius collegis commiserit terminandam, tum propter mandatoris mortem, tum quia prefatus episcopus transfretasse dicitur in subsidium Terre Sancte, nec non unus coiudicum ad partes alias est translatus, causa ipsa remansit hactenus indecisa . ÁÚO I. ǉǍǈ. See: LászЧх VESZPRÉMYɣ II. “ndrás magyar ЦХráЧy Цeresztes Фadjárata, ǉǊǉǏ–1218 [The Crusade of the Hungarian King Andrew II in 1217–1218]. In: Magyarország és a keresztes háborúk. Lovagrendek és emlékeik. Ed. Judit MAJOROSSY – Jхzsef LASZLOVSZKY – Jхzsef ZSENGELLÉR. MárХabesnyш – GчdчЧЧш. Ǌǈǈǎ. Щ. ǑǑ–111. here: p. 109. 67 POTTHAST nr. 5680. 68 DF 206 914, POTTHAST nr. 8831. 69 […] demum in dilectum filium Egidium subdiaconum et capellanum nostrum tunc in Ungaria existentem fuit hinc inde tanquam in arbitrum compromissum, qui equum inter partes arbitrium promulgavit, quod supradictus abbas et conventus Pellisiensis observare pro sue voluntatis arbitrio contradicunt [...] quatinus ipsos ad eiusdem observationem arbitrii, sicut et equum, per penam in compromisso expressam appellatione remota cogatis . ÁÚO I. Щ. ǊǐǑ. 64 65 76 THE DELEGATED PAPAL JURISDICTION AND THE RELIGIOUS ORDERS … Island, because the monks, so reads the letter Innocents III of 26th January 1212, refused to pay the tithes to the bishop after some products.70 The bХsФШЩ Шf Gyшr, tФe abbШt Шf TХФany, and tФe ЩrШЮШst Шf VasЮár Яere aЩpointed as judges in this matter but the further steps remain unknown.71 Finally we have to examine a case which is special because of the scarcity of related sources. In 1224 Pope Honorius III wrote to Robert bishop of VeszЩrém72 about a case in which comes Miksa, known as the Bearded,73 the founder of the Benedictine monastery of Telki, had turned to the Holy See with his petition. He described that monastery barely emptied,74 due to disciplinary reasons. So the comes suggested the pope should hand over and put the monastery under the authority of a Cistercian abbey, perhaps Heiligenkreutz, or Pilisszentkereszt. Robert was involved in the case as the bishop of the diocese75 but the proposal failed because Telki belonged to the Benedictine order until 1267.76 4. Summary At the end of our study we have to state that the area of the diocese of VeszЩrém, and tФe rШЧe Шf tФe reЧХgХШus Шrders cШuЧd nШt be treated as an exception to the system of papal delegated jurisdiction. This conclusion is also valid concerning the issues of the known cases: we have information about lawsuits on matters of tithes, ecclesiastical discipline, church government and administration in which the monasteries of the diocese took part. It has to be mentioned, however, that we do not possess information about cases in which laymen were the opponents of religious orders – although it was not a rare phenomenon in other parts of Hungary. As mentioned before, the officials of the monasteries were also active as judges-delegate. DF 200 003, POTTHAST nr. 4631. […] Vesprimiensis episcopus conquestione monstravit, quod fratres de sancto Abraham Vesprimiensis diocesis quasdam decimas sibi debitas contra iustitiam detinent occupatas . MREV I. 19. Cf. SWEENEY 1989. p. 33. 72 POTTHAST nr. 7208. 73 Beatrix F. ROMHÁNYI: Kolostorok es társaskáptalanok a kчzépkori Magyarországon [Monasteries and Collegiate Chapters in the Medieval Hungary]. CD-Rom. Budapest. 2008. (hereafter: ROMHÁNYI Ǌǈǈǐɮ TeЧЦХ 74 Pope Innocent III had already handled this question. POTTHAST nr. 15, Die Register Innocenz' III. Band I. Hrsg. Othmar HAGENEDER. Graz. 1964. nr. 6. 75 Dilectus filius nobilis vir Micha comes fundator et patronus monasterii Thaliki ordinis sancti Benedicti nobis humiliter supplicavit, ut cum idem monasterium, propter dissolutionem et malitiam habitantium hactenus in eodem, sit adeo imminutum, quod vix unus ibi remanserit qui valeat in ipso celebrare divina, illud antequam omnino depereat, monasterio sancte crucis cisterciensis ordinis subici faceremus, parato ipso suum ad id prestare consensum. […] id si expedire videris studeas adimplere, proviso, ut si qui sunt ibi, vel recipiant Cisterciensis ordinis instituta vel in aliis monasteriis collocentur . MREV I. p. 61–62. 76 The reason for this is unknown. See: ROMHÁNYI Ǌǈǈǐ. TeЧЦХ 70 71 77 Gábor B“R“”ÁS In the sources we meet basically abbots and priors but later also convents collectively empowered with papal accreditation. In the latter case the Cistercian abbots of Zirc and Pilisszentkereszt, as well as the Benedictine abbeys Шf TХФany and SШmШgyЮár deserЮe sЩecХaЧ attention. Concerning the cХrcЧe Шf ЧХtХgants tФe rШЧe Шf tФe abbey Шf SШmШgyЮár can be underЧХned, which is the best documented subject. Beside this monastery we cannot fШrget abШut tФe rШЧe Шf tФe bХsФШЩs Шf VeszЩrém, esЩecХaЧЧy RШbert, ЯФШ was involved many times not only as the ordinarius of every monastery of the diocese but also as a litigant. 78 THE DELEGATED PAPAL JURISDICTION AND THE RELIGIOUS ORDERS … Appendix The officials of monasteries and their appearances as judges-delegate Judges Abbot of Tihany “bbШt Шf SШmШgyЮár “bbШt Шf ”aЦШnybéЧ “bbШt Шf Vértes “bbШt Шf ZaЧaЮár Lawsuits Sources OSB The dispute of the archbishop of Esztergom with the abbey of Pannonhalma (1212 and 1215) The litigation of Pannonhalma and the bishop of Zagreb (1232) TФe damagХng Шf tФe mШnastery Шf G(ssХng (1235) The dispute of the monastery of Bizere (Bistra) and the bishop of Csanád (Cenad) (1236) TФe summШn Шf tФe bХsФШЩ Шf VeszЩrém tШ RШme (1237) The litigation of Pannonhalma with the archdeacon of Somogy and with other priests. (1240) TФe summШn Шf tФe bХsФШЩ Шf VeszЩrém tШ RШme (1223) The litigation of the abbey of Pannonhalma and the provostship of SzéЦesfeФérЮár (1231) TФe damagХng Шf tФe mШnastery Шf G(ssХng (1235) TФe ЧaЯsuХt Шf tФe bХsФШЩ Шf VeszЩrém ЯХtФ tФe ЩrХest Шf sШme cФaЩeЧs Хn his diocese (1226) TФe treaty betЯeen tФe abbeys Шf SШmШgyЮár and PannШnФaЧma (1215) The litigation of Pannonhalma and the bishop of Zagreb (1226) The litigation of Pannonhalma and the bishop of Zagreb (1226) The dispute of the monastery of Bizere (Bistra) and the bishop of Csanád (Cenad) (1236) TФe summШn Шf tФe bХsФШЩ Шf VeszЩrém tШ RШme (1237) 79 POTTHAST nr. 4631, 4978. POTTHAST nr. 8977. POTTHAST nr. ǑǑǎǐ, ÁÚO I. Щ. ǋǌǋ, ǋǌǌ. POTTHAST nr. 10195. POTTHAST nr. 10370. POTTHAST nr. 10847. POTTHAST nr. 7051. POTTHAST nr. 8822. DF 206955, POTTHAST nr. 9968. DF 200 625 DF 206 850, MREV I. 33. POTTHAST nr. 7598. POTTHAST nr. 7598. POTTHAST nr. 10237. POTTHAST nr. 10370. Gábor B“R“”ÁS Abbot of Zselicszentjakab Dean of Tihany Abbot of Zirc Convent of Zirc Prior of Zirc The summon of the bishop of Zagreb to Rome(1223) POTTHAST nr. 7051. TФe damagХng Шf tФe mШnastery Шf G(ssХng (1235) POTTHAST nr. 9968. OCist TФe canШnХcaЧ ХnЮestХgatХШn agaХnst bХsФШЩ KaЧán Шf Pécs (1199) The mutilation of the papal register (1199) The abbot-eЧectХШn Хn SШmШgyЮár (1204) The confirmation of the privileges of the Hospitaller Knights (1208) The confirmation of a testament (1208) TФe ХnЮestХgatХШn Шf tФe cШmЩЧaХnt agaХnst tФe bХsФШЩ Шf Vác (1218) The litigation of Pannonhalma and the bishop of Zagreb (1221 and 1232) The problems of the provost of Arad (1222) TФe ЧХtХgatХШn Шf tФe HШsЩХtaЧЧer KnХgФts ЯХtФ tФe mШnastery Шf VaЧЦх (1225) The problems of a papal subdeacon (1230) The litigation of the abbey of Pannonhalma and the provostship of SzéЦesfeФérЮár (1231) TФe damagХng Шf tФe mШnastery Шf G(ssХng (1235) TФe suЩЩШrt Шf tФe ЩrШЮШst Шf SzéЦesfeФérЮár (1237) TФe ХnЮestХgatХШn agaХnst tФe bХsФШЩ Шf Csanád (Cenad) (1237 and 1238) TФe ЧХtХgatХШn Шf tФe abbey Шf PannШnФaЧma and tФe cФaЩter Шf VeszЩrém (1228) TФe ЧaЯsuХt Шf tФe bХsФШЩ Шf VeszЩrém ЯХtФ tФe ЩrХest Шf sШme cФaЩeЧs Хn his diocese (1226) The litigation of Pannonhalma with the archdeacon of Somogy and with other priests (1240) The litigation of the abbey of Pannonhalma and the provostship of SzéЦesfeФérЮár (1231) 80 POTTHAST nr. 583. POTTHAST nr. 584. POTTHAST nr. 2281. POTTHAST nr. 3316. POTTHAST nr. 3369. POTTHAST nr. 5795. POTTHAST nr. 6466, 8977. POTTHAST nr. 6775. POTTHAST nr. 7404. POTTHAST nr. 8554. POTTHAST nr. 8822. DF 206 959, POTTHAST nr. 10048. POTTHAST nr. 10366. POTTHAST nr. 10438, 10440, 10627. POTTHAST nr. 8183. DF 200 625 POTTHAST nr. 10847. POTTHAST nr. 8822. THE DELEGATED PAPAL JURISDICTION AND THE RELIGIOUS ORDERS … Abbot of Pilisszentkereszt Prior of Pilisszentkereszt Convent of Pilisszentkereszt The litigation of Pannonhalma with the archdeacon of Somogy and with other priests (1240) The status of the monasteries of Greek rite in Hungary (1204) TФe ХnЮestХgatХШn Шf tФe cШmЩЧaХnt agaХnst tФe bХsФШЩ Шf Vác (1218) TФe transfШrmatХШn Шf tФe ШrtФШdШx mШnastery Хn VХsegrád (1221) The problems of the provost of Arad (1222) TФe ЧХtХgatХШn Шf tФe abbey Шf PannШnФaЧma and tФe cФaЩter Шf VeszЩrém (1226) The litigation of the abbey of Pannonhalma and the Hospitaller Knights (1225) TФe ЧaЯsuХt Шf tФe bХsФШЩ Шf VeszЩrém and tФe ЩrХest Шf Pest (1225) TФe damagХng Шf tФe mШnastery Шf G(ssХng (1235) The conflict of the archbishop of Esztergom and the provost of Arad (1235) TФe canШnХcaЧ ХnЮestХgatХШn Хn tФe ЩrШЮШstsФХЩ Шf SzéЦesfeФérЮár (1240) The quarrel over the bishop-eЧectХШn Хn Várad ɭOradeaɮ (1240) TФe ХnЮestХgatХШn agaХnst tФe bХsФШЩ Шf Csanád (Cenad) (1241) TФe ЧaЯsuХt Шf tФe bХsФШЩ Шf VeszЩrém and tФe ЩrХest Шf Pest (1225) The litigation of Pannonhalma and the St. Thomas Becket provostship of Esztergom (1230) The quarrel over the bishop-eЧectХШn Хn Várad ɭOradeaɮ (1240)  81 POTTHAST nr. 10847. POTTHAST nr. 2184. POTTHAST nr. 5795. POTTHAST nr. 6619. POTTHAST nr. 6775. POTTHAST nr. 7284. POTTHAST nr. 7414. DF 200 005, MREV I. p. 62–63. DF 206 950. POTTHAST nr. 10024. POTTHAST nr. 10861. POTTHAST nr. 10961. POTTHAST nr. 10985. DF 200 005. POTTHAST nr. 8497. POTTHAST nr. 10961. SЩecХmХna NШЮa Pars PrХma SectХШ MedХaeЮaЧХs VIII Ed. GábШr ”“R“”ÁS – GergeЧy KISS. Pécs, ǊǈǉǍ. Щ. ǐǋ–ǉǈǏ. Péter ”áЧХng, PФD Student baЧХng.Щeter@gmaХЧ.cШm UnХЮersХty Шf Pécs FacuЧty Шf HumanХtХes InstХtute Шf HХstШry DeЩartment Шf MedХeЮaЧ and EarЧy MШdern HХstШry RхЦus Str. Ǌ. H–ǏǎǊǌ Pécs Hungary Péter BÁLING: Personal Network of the Neapolitan Angevins and Hungary (1290–1304) The paper tries to uncover the Angevin – Hungarian relations during a chaotic period in the Hungarian history. The main goal of the study is to examine the personal network built by the Sicilian King Charles II in order to ensure the succession of his descendants on the Hungarian throne. The Hungarian nobles and prelates put the son of the Bohemian King up against them. Both parties used all means that were at their disposal to ensure the loyalty of the barons: donation of land and title was the most common way to do so. However the Bohemian Prince fled the country and it seems that the House Anjou could utilize its personal relations better. The paper tries to answer the forthcoming question: could the personal acquaintances of Angevins have a role in this? Key words: Hungary, Sicily, Angevins, Charles Robert, personal network, Angevin – Hungarian relations, 14th century  I. Introduction On many occasions Hungarian historiography tried to reveal the affairs of the turbulent period, started with the death of the last king of the House ÁrЩád at tФe begХnnХng Шf tФe ǉǌth century. The reticence of the chronicles incited the researchers to rely mainly on diplomatic sources during the reconstruction of the course of events.1 Fortunately for the posterity bequeathed documentary material is significant despite the destruction over 1 EnХЦш CSUKOVITS: “z “njouk Magyarországon I. Károly és uralkodása ɭǉǋǈǉ–1342) [The Angevins in Hungary I. The Reign of Charles I]. Budapest. 2012. p. 10. (hereafter: CSUKOVITS 2012); PáЧ ENGELɣ “z Шrszág újraegyesйtése. I. KárШЧy Ц(zdeЧmeХ az ШЧХgarcФáЦ eЧЧen ɭǉǋǉǈ–1323). 83 Péter BÁLING the centuries: in the first volume of the grandiose work – which begun under tФe suЩerЮХsХШn Шf GyuЧa KrХstх and aХmed tШ reЧease aЧЧ “ngeЮХn diplomas, that are related to the territory of the Kingdom of Hungary –, more than eight hundred diplomatic sources are published.2 This notable amount of documents made not only possible to reveal the most important historical events, but it also encouraged numerous authors to examine the contemporary political structures, social relations and among many ШtФer tФХngs tФe cШmmerce and mХЧХtary affaХrs as ЯeЧЧ. PáЧ EngeЧ drew the attention to the fact, that the significant quantity of data that has been preserved in the sources are sufficient – when used as a chronological guide – to compile the royal itinerary, which conferred with certain sub disciplines, makes the historical past more knowable.3 This paper mostly tries to uncover the personal relations of the Neapolitan Angevins with Hungary in this chaotic era. Due to the lack of central authority and the collapse of institutional structures the political, economic and military influence were primarily based on personal relations. We must add, however, that the Hungarian kingdom, namely the concept of the regnum Hungariae, was embodied by the Holy Crown during the 14th century.4 CФarЧes RШbert cШuЧd use tФe ЩaЩacy s ЩartХcuЧar adФerence to this tradition as an advantage in addition to his connections. The personal network of the young Angevin claimant decisively affected the turn events: it initially helped him to accept his rule through a delicate consensus with the prelates and magnates of the country, and later on he managed tШ crusФ tФe ШЧХgarcФs ЩШЯer and tШШЦ tФe reХns Шf ФХs ЦХngdom. The research is based on the premises formulated by Gerd Althoff and the M(nster ScФШШЧɣ tФe medХeЮaЧ man Яas ЯХЧЧХngЧy Шr unЯХЧЧХngЧy a member of certain social groups and during his life he could leave this groups or he could even form new ones. The clan, kinship and the political connections, alliances and friendships were established by the parents, affected all areas of life.5 Although the achievements of the research published by Althoff were based on the observations of the personal networks of nobles and prelates in the Empire during the Carolingian and Ottonian era, but perhaps it is not difficult to see that this general wording is valid for [The Reunion of the Country. The Struggles of Charles I against the Oligarchs (1310–1323)] Századok 122 (1988), p. 89–146. (hereafter: ENGEL 1988) here: p. 90–93. 2 Gyula KRIST2: Anjou–kori Oklevéltár. Documenta Res Hungaricas Tempore Regum “ndegavensium Illustrantia I. 1301–1305. (Budapest–Szeged. 1990.) (hereafter: AOkl) 3 ENGEL 1988. p. 93. 4 Jхzsef DEÉR: “ magyarok Szent Koronája. [The Holy Crown of the Hungarians] MárХabesnyш – GчdчЧЧш. 2005. p. 184–185. (hereafter: DEÉR 2005) 5 Gerd ALTHOFF: Verandte, Getreue und Freunde. Zum Politischen Stellenwert der Gruppenbildungen im Fr(hen Mittelalter. Darmstadt. 1990. p. 1–5. 84 PERSONAL NETWORK OF THE NEAPOLITAN ANGEVINS AND HUNGARY (1290–1304) the period of our study as well. It does not need any further explanation to emphasize the importance of the personal relations during a chaotic time when the oligarchs possessed a very high proportion of the royal prerogatives and in many cases without any legal authorization.6 To get a bigger picture on the connections of the young Caroberto we must examine the personal networks that were largely shaped by his grandfather and tФat Фe ХnФerХted uЩШn ФХs fatФer s deatФ. II. Inherited rights, inherited personal networks In 1300, when Charles Robert began his journey from Italy to claim his prospective kingdom, his main supporter and guardian was his own grandfather, the Sicilian ruler. Charles II (the Lame) was well aware of the current situation in Hungary because he has tried on many occasions to strengthen the positions of the Neapolitan Angevins and to protect the rights of his family by sending envoys and emissaries.7 His grandson, who was only twelve years old at that time and was raised at the royal court in Naples, hardly had similar skills on the Hungarian political stage. Let us add that initially there was no need for him to acquire such skills, since the well-organized work that supposed to establish the Angevin rule in Hungary was in full swing since a decade at least and the Neapolitan court designated his father Charles Martell, as the prime candidate on the Hungarian throne. As it is widely known, Queen Mary, the sister of the Hungarian king Ladislaus IV, announced the claim for the Hungarian throne “ccШrdХng tШ GyuЧa KrХstх, tФe ЩФenШmenШn Шf exercХsХng sШЮereХgn ЩШЯer Шf tФe ШЧХgarchs had the following criteria: bearing high offices, having own coinage and pursuing an independent foreign policy. See: Gyula KRIST2: “ feudális széttagolхdás Magyarországon [Feudal Fragmentation in Hungary]. Budapest. 1979. p. 185–191. (hereafter: KRIST2 1979). The royal power brought a series of measures to restore the law and order and thus to limit the ШЧХgarcФs ЩШЯer durХng tФe ǉǋth century. To the features of abuse of power by the oligarchs Seeɣ Jхzsef GERICSɣ ÁrЩád-ЦШrХ jШgХntézményeЦ és termХnШЧхgХa tчrЮényФШzásunЦ egyХЦ ЦeЧtezetЧen emЧéЦében [LegaЧ InstutХШns Шf tФe ÁrЩád “ge and TermХnШЧШgy Хn an Undated Legislative Memory]. Századok 103 (1969), p. 611–640, here: p. 628–ǎǋǋ. Cf. PáЧ ENGEL: Az „ǉǋǈǈ Цчr(ЧХ tanácsХ ФatárШzat ЦeЧtezéséФez [TШ tФe DatХng Шf tФe CШuncХЧ ResШЧutХШn „arШund ǉǋǈǈ ]. Inɣ Magyarország a ɭnagyɮhatalmak erőterében. Tanulmányok Ormos Mária Ǐǈ. sz(letésnapjára. Ed. Ferenc FISCHER – IstЮán MAJOROS – Jхzsef VONY2. Pécs. Ǌǈǈǈ. Щ. ǉǊǍ–132. Фereɣ Щ. ǉǊǍɤ Jenш SZИCS: “z utolsх Árpádok [TФe Last ÁrЩáds]. ”udaЩest. ǊǈǈǊ. Щ. ǌǎǉ–462, 476. (hereafter: SZИCS 2002) 7 This can be best observed in a diploma which was issued by King Charles II in Paris on the 21st of September 1291. The king tried to introduce the reign of his son with the Hungarian nШbЧes by sendХng enЮШys ɭ […] legitimos procuratores et nuncios speciales eundum ad partes Regni Nostri Vngarie […] ɮ and Фe aЧsШ demanded ШatФ Шf feaЧty ɭ […] homagia et fidelitatis sacramenta […] ɮ frШm tФem. Magyar diplomácziai emlékek az “njou-korbхl [Hungarian Diplomatic Memories from the Angevin Era]. Ed. GusztáЮ WENZEL. I–III. Budapest, 1874–1876 (hereafter: MDEA) I. p. 78–79. 6 85 Péter BÁLING short after the death of her brother. By doing so, she basically demanded the crown of Hungary not only for herself but for her descendants too, based Шn tФe rШyaЧ tХes betЯeen tФe ÁrЩáds and tФe “ngeЮХns.8 The royal court in Naples did not recognize the rule of Andrew III, the successor of LadХsЧaus. “ndreЯ tФe VenetХan as Фe Яas called in that time in Naples was considered as a usurper by the Angevins, thus King Charles II began his tough organizing work right after the death of his brother-in-law. This hard work was not without results: in the end, a new dynasty could sit on the tФrШne Шf Hungary. HereХnafter Яe ЧЧ try tШ reЮХeЯ tФШse cШnnectХШns and relations that the young Caroberto has inherited in 1300 when he arrived to the city of Spalato (Split). CФarЧes tФe Lame and ФХs ЯХfe, Queen Mary frШm tФe HШuse ÁrЩád certainly knew: if they want to ensure the rule over Hungary for their descendants they have to earn the support of the Hungarian prelates and barons. To do so, they had to be familiar with the rather messy and chaotic affairs in Hungary and they had to obtain faithful supporters and followers. It was a common practice in order to gain knowledge on a situation in a foreign country and to convince potential groups by sending emissaries and messengers.9 During the selection of an emissary, two main aspects dominated: faithfulness (fidelitas) and personal acquaintance (familiaritasɮ. UndШubtedЧy tФe ЩФrases faХtФfuЧ fШЧЧШЯer and faХtФfuЧ man , ЯФХcФ are ЯeЧЧ ЩreserЮed Хn tФe cШntemЩШrary dХЩЧШmas, Яere commonly used over the ages and became simple inevitable forms of a diploma but in such important matters – we are speaking of a crown after all –, it was quite important that the entrusted envoy should be truthful and should represent his lord notions during the negotiations. The exchange of messengers began immediately after the death of the Hungarian king Ladislaus IV: the diploma, that was issued on the 16th of September 1290 and is known from the registry book of the Neapolitan Angevins, disposes that a certain Cosmas,10 who was the envoy (nuncius) of Isabelle,11 widow of the deceased Hungarian king, of the payment of MDEA I. p. 82–84. To the emissaries and envoys in general see: Volker SCIORɣ ”emerЦungen zum fr(ФmХtteЧalterlichen Boten- und Gesandtschaftswesen. In: Der fr(hmittelalterliche Staat – europäische Perspektiven. Hrsg. Walter POHL – Veronika WIESER. Wien. 2009. (Forschungen zur Geschichte des Mittelalters 16.), p. 315–329. 10 To his identity: Attila ZSOLDOS: “z Árpádok és asszonyaik [TФe ÁrЩáds and tФeХr WХЮes]. Budapest. 2005. p. 114. (hereafter: ZSOLDOS 2005) 11 Isabelle (a. 1264/65 – a. 1304) was the daughter of Charles I and thus the sister of Charles II. In Hungary sФe used tФe name EЧХsabetФ ɭErzsébetɮ ЯФХcФ Яas mШre frequent tФan Isabelle. ZSOLDOS 2005. p. 191–192. 8 9 86 PERSONAL NETWORK OF THE NEAPOLITAN ANGEVINS AND HUNGARY (1290–1304) twelve ounces of gold.12 Cosmas, who was in Italy after two months of the death of king Ladislaus,13 certainly served with important news from Hungary, including that Prince Andrew, the grandson of the late king Andrew II was crowned to king of Hungary on the 23rd of July. Cosmas already performed messenger services for Queen Isabelle on numerous occasions, later on he was found in the service of Charles Martel.14 Next to him the sources preserved the names of several other people who, in return for various duties, such as diplomatic or apparently unspecified servitium, were awarded with the ruling dynasty s faЮШur and Хn fortunate cases even their social status could have changed. In this manner the Italian Drugeth family could achieve an admirable career later on. The Drugeths despite the fact that they possessed little influence in the kingdom of Sicily, but due to their loyalty and personal connections in Hungary became one of the most prestigious baronial families, on several occasions their descendants bore the office of the palatine.15 The exchange of information and maintenance of good relations by sending emissaries worked on the basis of a well-designed system, since the political relations between Hungary and the Angevins ran back over several decades. If we try to find the first liaisons between the two courts, we have to look back in time as far as tФe reХgn Шf tФe HungarХan ЦХng ”éЧa IV (1235–1270). At that time a series of negotiations began, that resulted in 12 „Cosma […] de Ungaria, nuncius et familiaris Isabelle regine Ungarie sororis Caroli II, habet pro se […] uncias auri duodecim . MDEA I. p. 73. 13 The 14th century cФrШnХcЧe cШmЩШsХtХШn reЩШrts abШut tФe date Шf ЦХng LadХsЧaus s deatФ as follows: „Post hec in brevi ipse rex [Ladislaus] anno Domini M-o CC-o IX-o C-o feria secunda proxima ante festum Sancte Margarethe virginis et martyris prope castrum Kereszeg ab ipsis Cumanis quibus adheserat, est miserabiliter interfectus. CФrШnХcХ HungarХcХ cШmЩШsХtХШ saecuЧХ XIV. Ed. Alexander DOMANOVSZKY. In: Scriptores rerum Hungaricarum. Edendo operi praefuit Emericus SZENTPÉTERY. I–II. Budapest. 1999. (hereafter: SRH), I. p. 219–505, c. 184. here: p. 473–474. 14 „Cosma de Ungaria vallictus et familiaris Caroli Martelli Regis Ungarie. MDEA I. p. 102. 15 The Drugeth family served the Neapolitan Angevins since generations. In the registry book of Charles I – around 1271 – aЩЩeared a certaХn NХcШЧaus ɭ Nicolaus Drugetti familiaris et fidelis noster . MDE“ I. Щ. ǋǋ.ɮ, ЯФШ Яas Шne Шf the progenitors of the family. Twenty years after anШtФer member Шf tФe famХЧy, JШФn, sФШЯed uЩ as an emХssary Шf Queen Mary ɭ Johannes Drugettus miles mittitur per Mariam Reginam cum certis legationibus ad Karolum Regem Vngarie . MDE“ I. Щ. Ǒǉ.ɮ TФe registry book calls John as a knight thus the family was not among the most illustrious ones. Around 1298, as the registry book of Charles II states, NicШЧaus Яas entrusted ЯХtФ tФe serЮХtude Шf CФarЧes MarteЧЧ s cФХЧdren ɭ Nicolaus Drugeti deputatus extitit ad seruitia liberorum Karoli Martelli Regis Vngarie . MDE“ I. Щ. ǉǋǊ.ɮ. 87 Péter BÁLING a formal alliance of the two dynasties sealed by a dual marriage.16 The Neapolitan envoys17 who appeared in the royal court of the Hungarian king, certainly sent reports to their lord about the existing situation in Hungary, that the real authority over the country is possessed by the barons, who grew increasingly rich in the shadows of the crown. So it is not surprising that after the Angevins became familiar with the prevailing chaotic conditions in Hungary they received some of the most influential barons and their family members or representatives at the royal court in Naples. Until 1301, that indicates the death of King Andrew III, John18 the son of ban Henry, Dujam FranЦaЩan and RadХsЧaus ”abШnХć assuredЧy ЮХsХted the cШurt Шf CФarЧes II. PauЧus БubХć Шr ФХs brШtФers Яere summoned in 1294 to the Neapolitan court by Charles Martell and his father.19 These visits correlates with the statement, which has been confirmed in many cases by the Hungarian historiography, namely the barons pursued an independent fШreХgn ЩШЧХcy tФereby aЧsШ ХmХtatХng tФe rШyaЧ ЩШЯer.20 Both parties shared common interest to make contacts with each other. The barons did not intend to seize the whole kingdom, even Ladislaus Kán, tФe ЮШХЮШde Шf TransyЧЮanХa dХd nШt ЧШЯer tШ crШЯn ФХmseЧf, aЧthough he had the Holy Crown in his possession. But the emergence of another pretender held forth the possibilities of donations of land and title.21 This obvious common interest was organized upon the well-conceived interests of both parties. The diploma,22 issued for the above mentioned ban Paulus says that Charles Martel and his father Charles II tried to summon the powerful baron before their presence to be benefited with wise counsel.23 In this case, it is evident that Charles II asked for help from 16 MШre frШm tФe cШnnectХШns betЯeen tФe tЯШ dynastХes, seeɣ Mхr WERTNER: “z Árpádok családi tчrténete [TФe FamХЧy HХstШry Шf tФe ÁrЩáds]. NagybecsЦereЦ. ǉǐǑǊ. Щ. Ǎǉǈ–514; Ferenc PATEKɣ “z ÁrЩádШЦ és “njШuЦ csaЧádХ чsszeЦчttetése [FamХЧy CШnnectХШns betЯeen tФe ÁrЩáds and tФe “ngeЮХns]. Századok 52 (1918), p. 449–495; CSUKOVITS 2012. p. 45–48. 17 MDEA I. p. 35, 37–38, 64–65. 18 „Magister Johannes filius Henrici bani recipitur in militem et familirem Karoli II. MDE“ I. Щ. ǎǐ. 19 MDEA I. p. 114. 20 KRISTO 1979. p. 191–ǉǑǊɤ IЮán BERTENYI: Magyarország az “njouk korában [Hungary in the Angevin Era]. Budapest. 1987. p. 32–33. 21 PáЧ EngeЧɣ The Realm of Saint Stephen. A History of Medieval Hungary, 895-1526. London – New York. 2001. 129. (hereafter Engel 2001) 22 […] cum nos super prosecutionem negotii nostri predicti Regis Ungarie de Regno nostro Ungarie cum viro nobili Paulo Bano conferre ac eius consilio uti volentes […]. MDE“ I. p. 114. 23 Jenш Szűcs cШrreЧated tФe text Шf tФe abШЮe mentХШned dХЩЧШma ЯХtФ tФe ease Шf tensХШn betЯeen KХng “ndreЯ III and tФe БubХćХ ɭSZИCS 2002. p. 457), since the king donated the office of the banus maritimus tШ PauЧ БubХć ЯХtФ ФeredХtary rХgФts. In cШmЩensatХШn, tФe ban had to equip 500 armed men against the external and internal enemies of the king. (Codex diplomaticus Hungariae ecclesiasticus ac civilis. Ed. Georgius FEJÉR. I–XI. Budae. 1829–1866. vol. VII, t. 4. p. 225–228. (hereafter: FEJÉR); Codex diplomaticus regni Croatiae Dalmatiae et Slavoniae. 88 PERSONAL NETWORK OF THE NEAPOLITAN ANGEVINS AND HUNGARY (1290–1304) ban PauЧus tШ suЩЩШrt ФХs and ФХs famХЧy s matter Хn Hungary.24 The Neapolitan court assuredly guaranteed safe passage and personal security for the ban, but we can be sure that the king wanted much more than counsel. The counsel (consilium) was long since one of the obligations of a vassal to his lord and it was within living memory in Naples, all the more so because this kind of social bond manifested most clearly in France, where the ancient domains of Neapolitan Angevins lied. In addition to the wise counsel the Sicilian king reckoned upon the military support (auxilium) of the above mentioned ban for his son and after the tragic death of Charles Martel, for his grandson Charles Robert. This meant according to the contemЩШrary ЩШЧХtХcaЧ ruЧes, tФat PauЧus БubХć and ФХs familia25 should demonstrate allegiance to the House Anjou and its candidate for the throne. As already mentioned above the Neapolitan court was well informed through the continuous exchange of envoys about the precarious balance of power between the king of Hungary and the barons, who made it possible to earn the crown of St. Stephen for Andrew III. However another group that consisted powerful barons from the southern part of the Ed. Tadija SMIČIKL“S. I–XVIII. Zagreb. 1904–1990. VII. p. 163. However there are good reasons to belive that the diploma was forged. Imre SZENTPÉTERY: “z Árpádházi királyok okleveleinek kritikai jegyzéke [CrХtХcaЧ RecШrd Шf tФe KХngs frШm tФe HШuse ÁrЩád]. I–II. Budapest. 1987. (A Magyar OrszágШs LeЮéЧtár ЦХadЮányaХ II. FШrrásЦХadЮányШЦ ǉǋ.ɮ, nr. 3954. Ban Paul previously, on the 19th of August 1292 was donated with nearly the whole territory of Croatia from Hulm (Comitatus de Chelum) to Gozd Mountains and Modrus ɭMШdru:ɮ. ɭMDE“ I. Щ. ǑǍ–96.) The ban finally reached an agreement with the Neapolitan court through his emissaries and he was confirmed in his office in the 17th of June 1295. (MDEA I. p. 124.). 24 The Angevins had a quite different approach towards the feudal rights and the system that was indigenous in Hungary. Charles Martell found it necessary to express the apropos Шf a dШnatХШn Шf Чand tШ tФe Kшszegis that the benefaction is in accordance with the French customs. It is very likely that he was not aware of the legal practice in Hungary but it is also obvious that he expeted in return those servitudes that were prevalent in France at that time. Hungarian historiography treated the uncovering of the differences between the classic feudal system and the Hungarian donation practice of high importance. The following overview is non-exФaustХЮeɣ Péter VÁCZYɣ “ ЦХráЧyХ serЮХenseЦ és a ЩatrХmШnХáЧХs ЦХráЧyság [TФe Royal Servients and the Patrimonial Kingdom]. Századok 61 (1927), p. 243–ǊǑǈɤ Péter VÁCZY: “ ФűbérХség szereЩe Szent IstЮán ЦХráЧyságában [TФe RШЧe Шf FeudaЧХsm Хn tФe KХngdШm Шf St. Stephen]. Századok 66 (1932), p. 369–ǋǑǊɤ EЧemér MÁLYUSZɣ “ ЩatrХmШnХáЧХs ЦХráЧyság [TФe Patrimonial Kingdom]. Társadalomtudomány 13 (1933), p. 37–ǌǑɤ EЧemér MÁLYUSZ: A karizmatЦus ЦХráЧyság [TФe CФarХsmatХc KХngdШm]. Társadalomtudomány 14 (1934), p. 153–178; Gyчrgy B2NIS: Hűbériség és rendiség a kчzépkori magyar jogban [Feudalism and Estates in the Medieval Hungarian Law]. Budapest. 2003. p. 87–92. (hereafter: B2NIS 2003) 25 TФe ЩШЧХtХcaЧ famХЧy means tФe familia of a baron. To its development and functioning in Hungary, see: Gyula SZEKFИ: Serviensek és familiárisok [Servients and Familiars]. Budapest. 1912; ENGEL 2001. p. 126-128.; Gyula KRIST2: Magyarország tчrténete ǐǑǍ–1301 [History of Hungary 895–1301]. Budapest. 2007. p. 257–258, 274; B2NIS 2003. p. 165–231; KRIST2 1979. p. 167–179. 89 Péter BÁLING HungarХan KХngdШm, nameЧy tФe KшszegХ, ”abШnХć and БubХć famХЧХes dХsposed enough power26 so with the aid of these families another claimant could act successfully. Since in this chaotic period the loyalty of the barons in Hungary was dubious, it is worth to examine the ways and means whereby Charles II and his son Charles Martell tried to preserve their allegiance. As already mentioned, Charles Martell and his wife Clemence27 addressed themselves as rules of the Hungarian Kingdom and they tried to emphasize this through their appearance28 as well. As king of Hungary, Charles Martell felt authorized to grant possessions and various donations. There is a well known diploma that ordains the donations of the whole counties of Sporon and Vas to the son of ban Henry KшszegХ by CФarЧes MarteЧЧ.29 Interestingly this diploma expresses that the donations30 are not only based on royal privilege but also on French customs.31 “s EnХЦш CsuЦШЮХts aЧsШ noted, this diploma is entirely different from the Hungarian legislative 26 The rebellion of tФe БubХćХ and ”abШnХćХ Яas temЩШrarХЧy suЩЩressed by Queen mШtФer TШmasХna ЯХtФ tФe ШccuЩatХШn Шf castЧe OrbászЦш, but KХng “ndreЯ III cШuЧd nШt crusФ tФe ЩШЯer Шf tФe KшszegХs, Фe Яas unabЧe tШ dШ sШ eЮen ЯХtФ tФe mХЧХtary ФeЧЩ Шf “Чbert, DuЦe of Austria. “ЧtФШugФ Фe managed tШ caЩture tФe castЧe Шf Kшszeg, afterЯards tФe sХege ФХs troops dissolved. After the military fiasco Andrew tried to enforce his will through diplomacyɣ Фe marrХed tФe daugФter Шf DuЦe “Чbert, sШ tФe dШmaХns Шf tФe KчszegХs Яere surrШunded. In addХtХШn, Фe faЮШured tФereafter tФe CsáЦs Шf Trencsén ɭTrenčйnɮ ЯФШ Яere at feud ЯХtФ tФe KшszegХs Шn accШunt Шf tФe ЩШssessХШn PШzsШny ɭ”ratХsЧaЮaɮ. DХsЩХte aЧЧ tФese efforts the king could not bring the powerful family on its knees. Therefore the Angevins had good reasons to belive that they can build upon the military potential and power of the KшszegХs. SZИCS 2002. p. 457–458; ENGEL 1988. p. 107. 27 „Clementia regina Ungarie, consors Karoli […] . MDE“ I. Щ. ǑǊ. 28 […] vetem unam de samito rubeo, laboratam auro traceo ad diuersa opera, orantam pelle urie ad modum Vngaricum […] . MDEA I. p. 93; Árpádkori új okmánytár. Codex diplomaticus “rpadianus continuatus. Ed. GusztáЮ WENZEL. I–XII. Pest – Budapest. 1860–1874. (hereafterɣ ÁÚOɮ X. p. 189. The Florentine Chronicle by Giovanni Villani also reports on the fancy clothes of Charles Martel: […] King Charles went into France in person, and when he returned with the compact made, and with his sons whom he had set free from prison, he came to the city of Florence, whither was already come to meet him Charles Martel, his son, king of Hungary, with his company of Ǌǈǈ knights with golden spurs, French and Provençal and from the Kingdom, all young men, invested by the king with habits of scarlet and dark green, and all with saddles of one device, with their palfreys adorned with silver and gold, with arms quarterly, bearing golden lilies and surrounded by a bordure of red and silver, which are the arms of Hungary. And they appeared the noblest and richest company a young king ever had with him. Villani s Chronicle. ”eing Selections from the First Nine Books of the Croniche Fiorentine of Giovanni Villani. Transl. Rose E. SELFE, ed. Philip H. WICKSTEED. London. 1906. p. 315–316; Croniche di Giovanni, Matteo e Filippo Villani. Ed. D. A. RACHELI. I–II. Trieste. 1857–1858. (hereafter: VILLANI 1858) I. p. 175. The cronicle informs about the coronations of Charles Martel as well: VILLANI 1858. I. p. 164–165. 29 MDEA I. p. 87. 30 […] in perpetuum in pheudum […] . MDE“ I. Щ. ǐǏ. 31 […] iuxta usum et consuetudinem regni Francie […] . MDEA I. p. 87. 90 PERSONAL NETWORK OF THE NEAPOLITAN ANGEVINS AND HUNGARY (1290–1304) customs and written traditions and therefore it was very unlikely that the installation into possession could be reached in this way.32 EnХЦш Csukovits was right in this matter, however in our opinion, this fact not necessarily put the barons into a disadvantageous position. Especially not Henry KшszegХ and ФХs famХЧy, Хf Яe taЦe a cЧШser ЧШШЦ on the strongholds – that were in the hands of this powerful family – it is clear that these two counties were already in their possession.33 Hungarian historiography made it clear and proved on numerous occasions that the different crimes committed by the oligarchs while they were preoccupied by forming their domains, they used every single opportunity to put a gloss on the truth and appear legitimate. Next tШ JШФn KшszegХ, ban PauЧus БubХć and ФХs brШtФers, Grgur and Mladen34 as ЯeЧЧ as RadХsЧaus ”abШnХć35 received donations. The above mentioned magnates were also confirmed in their possessions36 and titles37 by Charles Martel. The donations of land and the confirmation in titles were intended to ensure the loyalty of the selected barons and those who could potentially come into question, and as it was mentioned above this loyalty implicated not only the counselling but the protection of the rights of the donator with military means as well. In many cases the Sicilian king himself called on his supporters to wage war against King Andrew III. In January 1292 CФarЧes II and Queen Mary autФШrХzed JШФn KшszegХ tШ raХd tФe dШmaХns of the supporters of the Hungarian King as long as they remain in their error and delusion.38 The proposal contained even guarantees that further on the barons do not need to be afraid of any legal consequences.39 Of course, this would have been only possible, if the Angevins had seized the ЦХngdШm. In “ЩrХЧ, magХster JШФn, tФe nШbЧe man Яas agaХn entХtЧed fШr CSUKOVITS 2012. p. 50. TФe KшszegХ famХЧy ЩШssessed tФe fШЧЧШХng castЧes and dШmaХns Хn tФe cШunty Шf Vas by tФe time the diploma was issued in the 12th of “ЩrХЧ ǉǊǑǉɣ ”ШrШstyánЦш ɭ”ernsteХnɮ, Kшszeg, LéЦa ɭLШcЦenФausɮ, ÚjЮár ɭG(ssХngɮ ɭЧater Шnɣ NémetújЮárɮ, RШФШnc ɭRecФnХtzɮ, SzaЧхnaЦ ɭStadtscФЧaХnХngɮ. PáЧ ENGEL: Magyarország világi archontolхgiája ǉǋǈǉ–1457 [The Lay Archontology of Hungary 1301–1457]. I–II. Budapest. 1996. (hereafter: ENGEL 1996a) I. p. 285, 350, 357, 375, 401, 420.; Erik FÜGEDI: Castle and society in Medievel Hungary. Budapest. 1986. p. 112, 156, 161, 170, 182, 194. (hereafter: FÜGEDI ǉǑǐǎɮ. TШ tФe dШmaХns Шf tФe Kшszegis s. KRIST2 1979. p. 151; ENGEL 1988. p. 107. 34 MDEA I. p. 95. 35 MDEA I. p. 98. 36 TШ tФe cШnfХrmatХШn Шf tФe dШntatХШns Шf JШФn KшszegХ s. MDE“ I. Щ. ǉǊǉ–122. To the confХrmatХШn Шf tФe dШnatХШns Шf PauЧ БubХć s. MDE“ I. Щ. 134, 421; As for the BabonХćХ s. MDE“ I. p. 139. To Dujam Frankopan s. MDEA I. p. 145. 37 To the office of ban Шf PauЧ БubХć s. MDE“ I. Щ. ǉǊǌ. 38 […] quamdiu eos in ipsius erroris devio perdurare contigerit […] . MDE“ I. Щ. ǐǊ. 39 […] ita quod nullam penam, nec etiam iudcii faciem propterea formidetis […] . MDE“ I. Щ. ǐǉ–82. 32 33 91 Péter BÁLING another attack by the king. 40 King Charles II appealed to the prelates, barons, counts and nobles of Hungary to send an army to validate and protect the rights of his firstborn son.41 TФe БubХćХ Яere aЧsШ encШuraged by tФe Neapolitan court to wage war and defend the Angevin interests in Hungary.42 Charles II contributed this matter in every possible way: he not only authorized his men to ship grain and food43 to Hungary but he also aided his supporters with arms44 and horses. Several sources confirm that the king lent money and respectively provided financial support to his son and later on to his grandson.45 CФarЧes RШbert s grandfatФer trХed tШ deЮeЧШЩ benefХcХaЧ reЧatХШns nШt only with the Hungarian barons. The Neapolitan Angevins and the papacy traditionally had good relations and of course, King Charles aimed to utilize this for the good of his grandson.46 Based on the texts of several diplomas, the king tried to reach an agreement with the Hungarian Church as well. According to the charter which was issued in Naples in April 1300, Peter, the prior of the Dominican monks of the city of Kassa, tШШЦ tФe future ЦХng s affaХrs under ФХs ЯХngs and reЩresented tФe “ngeЮХn ШffsЩrХng s Хnterests in Hungary.47 King Charles II wanted to forge a loose alliance with Venice too against the Hungarian king, Andrew III, whom he held as usurper.48 MDEA I. p. 90. MDEA I. p. 114. 42 MDEA I. p. 85–86. 43 There are numerous command letters in which the king allowes the exportation of food, supplies and grain. In this case the diploma which was issued in 1295 reveals the motive behind these command letters. Charles II issued this charter to provide grain to certain castЧes tФat Яere Шn ФХs sШn s ЧШyaЧty Хn SЧaЮШnХa. ɭ […] castrorum sitorum in partibus Sclavonie que nuper ad Karolii primogeniti nostri regis Ungarie […] fidem et dominum peruenerunt […] ) These castles became even more important after the arrival of Charles Robert to Slavonia. MDEA I. p. 123. To the strategical role and military importance of the castles in general, see: FÜGEDI 1986. p. 46–Ǎǈ. and PáЧ ENGELɣ HШnШr, castrum, cШmХtatus . StudХes Хn tФe GШЮernment System of the Angevin Kingdom. In: Questiones medii aevi novae 1 (1996), p. 91–100. here: p. 91. 44 MDEA I. p. 134. 45 Among others: MDEA I. p. 90, 148. The Neapolitan Angevins had business ties primarily with the bank house of the Bardis in Florence. 46 It is evident that the Holy See and Naples maintained close connections. During the exchange of emissaries the Hungarian affairs of the Angevins were also discussed: Procuratorium Magistri Guillelmi missi a Karolo primogenito etc. ad Romanam Curiam pro negotiis tam Regni Sicilie quam Vngarie promouendis et prosequendis. MDE“ I. Щ. ǉǊǈ. 47 MDEA I. p. 144–145. 48 […] contra Andream occupatorem regni Ungarie […]. MDE“ I. Щ. ǌǉǑ. 40 41 92 PERSONAL NETWORK OF THE NEAPOLITAN ANGEVINS AND HUNGARY (1290–1304) Before the young Angevin prince was going to start his journey to his new home, his grandfather, Charles King of Sicily and Jerusalem encouraged several Hungarian dignitaries49 again to accept his grandson as King of Hungary.50 The most important statement was made by Queen Mary after all, when she resigned her rights in favour of her son in Provence in the city of Aix on the 6th of January 1292.51 SureЧy EnХЦш CsuЦШЮХts Хs rХgФt tШ state tФat tФe ХncШmХng neЯs frШm Hungary made tФe “ngevins realХze tФat a maЧe cЧaХmant cШuЧd ФaЮe better cФances .52 However, it should be added that these news and wise counsel would not have reached the court at Naples, if the ruling family had not had trustful and loyal relations. After the sudden and tragic death of Charles Martell this right was inherited by his son Charles Robert as well as the above discussed personal network. III. Nominal loyalty, personal loyalty Charles II made extensive preparations in order to send his grandson to Hungary, he also entrusted the Anjou-Щarty s strengtФ and ЧШyaЧty. ”efШre the departure, the number of the Neapolitan envoys visiting Hungary have multiplied, particularly towards Slavonia (Slavonija) and the southern parts of the country.53 Isabelle, the widow of Ladislaus IV and the sister of Charles the Lame returned from Hungary during the year. The Sicilian monarch already disposed of the return journey prior to the year 1300. He sent his personal trustees, Petrus Sura and Petrus Pillezo with heavily armed galleys to the city of Spalato.54 The homecoming of Queen Isabelle was important to King Charles as he wanted her in safety and assured that she could not be used against the Angevins during the forthcoming frays. The king himself was held in captivity in his youth, he was used during a series of political bargains and was well aware that his sister as a hostage can be beneficial for the future opponents of his grandson. […] diversis principibus regni Vngarie pro titulando Karolum nepotem suum in regem Ungarie […] . MDE“ I. Щ. ǌǊǊ. 50 CФarЧes II made ЩЧeas Хn Шrder tШ suЩЩШrt ФХs sШn s and grandsШn s cause Шn seЮeraЧ tХmes to the nobles and cЧergymen Шf Hungary. He stated Шn eЮery ШccasХШn tФat tФe VenetХan “ndreЯ Хs ФШЧdХng tФe ЦХngdШm by fШrce and ФХs ruЧe Хs ХЧЧegХtХmate, tФe rХgФtfuЧ ФeХr tШ tФe throne is none other than the descendant of Queen Mary, sisiter of the memorable king Ladislaus IV. Queen Mary was his wife, so he was referring to his son and later on his grandson. MDEA I. p. 76, 84, 422. 51 MDEA I. p. 82. 52 CSUKOVITS 2012. p. 49. Quotation translated by P. B. 53 MDEA I. p. 143, 144, 145. 54 MDEA I. p. 138. 49 93 Péter BÁLING Furthermore he assigned a commander, Odo at the head of the castles of Slavonia.55 Dujam Frankopan56 and tФe ”abШnХćХ57 were also confirmed in their possessions. The king took care of the armament and provisions of the young prince and designated a captain to command the ships. The king supported his grandson with money as well, while the prince was staying in Apulia, according to the above cited registry book.58 The young Anjou offspring arrived to the city of Spalato in August 1300, from where his aunt began her journey to home. The chronicle of Micha Madius de Barbazanis59 reports the landing of Caroberto at SЩaЧatШ as fШЧЧШЯsɣ Anno Domini MCCC. mense Augusto, tempore Bonifacii papae, D. Carolus, nepos Caroli regis Siciliae, per mare cum galeis Spalatum applicuit, ubi per mensem vel fere duos stetit. Egrediensque de civitate Spalatensi, in comitatu Pauli bani, versus Ungariam, ad usurpandum regnum praedictum de manu regis Andreae, venit Sagrabiam, et ibi in manibus magistri Hugrini traditur. 60 The young scion had no significant army at his disposal, but when we take a closer look at the castles (castrum), which were under the lordship of the barons, mentioned by the chronicle, namely Paul and magister Ugrinus,61 we could state that the claimant and his party established a strong beach-head in the territory of Slavonia and Croatia.62 There were no major campaigns and notable battles, although Petrus de Bonzano, the envoy of King Andrew III in Rome, encouraged his monarch that he should caЩture tФe Щretender Хn assХstance ЯХtФ Henry KшszegХ and ШtФer barШns as MDEA I. p. 144. MDEA I. p. 145. 57 MDEA I. p. 146–147. 58 MDEA I. p. 155. 59 TШ ФХs ХdentХty seeɣ ÉЮa B. H“LÁSZ: Micha Madius de Barbazanis – a tчrténetйrх és sЩaЧatхХ nemes ЩatrйcХus [MХcФa MadХus de ”arbazanХs – the Historian and Noble Patrician of Spalato]. In: Acta Universitatis Szegediensis Acta Historica CXXXV. Eds. LászЧх VESZPRÉMY – Ferenc PITI. Szeged. 2013. p. 59–70. 60 Ioannes Georgius SCHWANDTNERUS: Scriptores rerum Hungaricarum veteres ac geniui I–III. Vindobonae. 1746–1748. III. p. 638. (hereafter: SRHVG) 61 To his identity seeɣ KШrnéЧ SZOVÁKɣ UgrХn . In: Korai magyar tчrténeti lexikon ɭǑ–ǉǌ. századɮ. [Lexicon of the Early Hungarian History (9–14th centuries)] Ed. Gyula KRIST2 – PáЧ ENGEL – Ferenc MAKK. ”udaЩest. ǉǑǑǌ. Щ. ǎǑǏɤ JánШs K“RÁCSONYI: A magyar nemzetségek a XIV. század kчzepéig [Hungarian Genera until the Middle of the 14th Century]. (reprint) Budapest. 1995. p. 358–365. (hereafter: K“RÁCSONYI 1995) 62 CШnsХderХng tФat tФe number Шf castЧes ЩШssessed by БubХćХ, ”abШnХćХ and UgrХnus CsáЦ around 1300 was circa 30 (FÜGEDI 1986. passim, ENGEL 1996a, ENGEL 1988. p. 107.) and in comparsion with the 55–Ǎǎ castЧes Шf MattФeЯ CsáЦ at tФe ЩeaЦ Шf ФХs power (Gyula KRIST2: Csák Máté [MattФeЯ CsáЦ]. ”udaЩest. ǉǑǐǎ. ɭФereafterɣ KRIST2 1986), p. 162.) It is clear that Charles Robert could be expelled only with notable military force. 55 56 94 PERSONAL NETWORK OF THE NEAPOLITAN ANGEVINS AND HUNGARY (1290–1304) the perfect opportunity has showed up.63 The king had no chance to take ФХs enЮШy s adЮХce because Фe unexЩectedly died on the 14th of January 1301. TФe neЯs frШm tФe ЦХng s deatФ reacФed Caroberto in Zagreb where he enjoyed the hospitality of the bishop.64 His most loyal supporters acted quickly, Gregory Bicskei the elected archbishop of Esztergom crowned him tШ ЦХng Шf Hungary Хn tФe same year ЯФen “ndreЯ III dХed. SХnce FeФérЮár, the traditional crowning city of the Hungarian kings, where the Holy Crown was also kept, closed its gates before Gregory Bicskei, the archbishop could only perform the crowning ceremony with an occasional diadem in Esztergom.65 The prelate was certainly aware of the illegality of the crowning since he could only fulfil one from the three traditional conditions of the crowning of the Hungarian kings.66 With this act he openly identified himself with the Angevin claims, believing that the Hungarian clergy would line up behind him. He had to err in his calculations. The opposite side, which did not wish for the rule of the Anjou claimant, alluded to the free election of the Hungarian kings, and so they called in the son of the Bohemian King Wenceslaus, who likewise stemmed from the strips of tФe ÁrЩáds by tФe femaЧe ЧХne and Чater Шn Фe ruЧed Хn Hungary by tФe name [Interea ЩrШcedatХs – editors addition, G. WENZEL] cum filiis Henrici Bani, et cum aliis vestris Baronibus, cum quibuspotestis, qui de facili pete stis habere puerum in manibus vestris, si vultis. […] ÁÚO V. nr. ǉǎǑ. 64 SRHVG III. p. 638. 65 The exact date of the coronation is unknown but it seems that it took place during springtime. The letter of Boniface VIII to Nicolaus bishop-cardinal on the 17th of Oktober 1301 reports that the coronation event has already occurred. (Anjou-kori oklevéltár. Documenta res Hungaricas tempore regnum Andegavensium illustrantia. Ed. Tibor ALMÁSI – LászЧх BLAZOVICH – Lajos GÉCZI – Tamás K8F“LVI – Gyula KRIST2 – Ferenc MAKK– Ferenc PITI – Ferenc SE”8K – IЧdХЦх T2TH. Budapest – Szeged. 1990–. I–XXXI. I. nr. 89.). Most recently on the coronation see: Attila ZSOLDOSɣ “njШu KárШЧy eЧsш ЦШrШnázása [TФe FХrst CrШЯnХng Шf CФarЧes “njШu]. In: “uxilium historiae. Tanulmányok a hetvenesztendős ”ertényi Iván tiszteletére. Ed. Tamás K5RMENDI – GábШr THOROCZKAY. Budapest. 2009. p. 405–413. 66 The right to crown the Hungarian kings of the archbishop of Esztergom is known from ЧШng agШ. KХng ”éЧa III ɭǉǉǏǊ–1196) disposed that he would accept the crown from the hands of the archbishop of Kalocsa however in the future this act should not damage to crowning rights of the archbishop of Esztergom. Gergely KISSɣ “z esztergШmХ érseЦ ЦХráЧyХ egyФázaЦ feЧettХ jШgФatхságánaЦ ЦХaЧaЦuЧása a ǉǉ–ǉǋ. században [TФe DeЮeЧШЩment Шf tФe “utФШrХty of the Archbishop of Esztergom Over the Royal Churches in the 11th to 13th Centuries]. Századok 145 (2011), p. 269–292. here: p. 274–275. The sources call the diadem that had been used durХng tФe cШrШnatХШn ceremШny Шf tФe HungarХan ЦХngs as St. SteЩФen s cШrЯn sХnce tФe reign of Andrew III. Andrew, who had difficulties to accept his rule with the nobles, needed this new kind of legitimization based on the first king of Hungary. DEÉR 2005. p. 181. Cf. Erik FÜGEDIɣ “ Magyar ЦХráЧy ЦШrШnázásánaЦ rendje a ЦчzéЩЦШrban [TФe CШrШnatХШn OrdШ Шf the Hungarian Kings in the Middle Ages]. In: Eszmetчrténeti tanulmányok a magyar kчzépkorrхl. Budpaest. 1984. (Memoria Saeculorum Hungariae 4.), p. 265–268. 63 95 Péter BÁLING of Ladislaus.67 TФe majШrХty Шf tФe ”ШФemХan Щarty cШnsХsted by clergymen and their leader, John, archbishop of Kalocsa crowned the Bohemian Prince to the king of Hungary on the 27th of August 1301.68 At the beginning of the next year Charles Robert and his allies organized a military campaign against Buda,69 where Wenceslaus was settled in, to preclude further feuds. However this action was unsuccessful, they could not capture Wenceslaus, and the city of Buda remained in the hands of the Bohemian Prince. Hungary was divided into fractions.70 “s GyuЧa KrХstх stated, Gregory Bicskei performed a coup with the illegitimate crowning. This was a planned scheme – as the professor furthermore pronounced – whereas Charles had no significant societal support except the barons of the southern regions and a certain ecclesiastical circle.71 We must agree ЯХtФ GyuЧa KrХstх Хn tФe fact tФe arcФbХsФШЩ trХed to seize the power for Charles Robert by illegitimate ways, but as far as the social support goes, we are determined that the supporting force of the Anjou Prince was not insignificant. In our opinion the chances to acquire the throne of Hungary for Charles Robert were by no means negligible. To interpret the current situation in Hungary, researchers often rely on the words of Mario Marignon, the Venetian emissary of James II (1291–1327), king of Aragon. The emissary reported to his lord that the chances to acquire the power over Hungary are better for the son of the Bohemian king.72 PrШfessШr KrХstх aЧsШ ЩubЧХsФed a study abШut tФe barШnХaЧ eЧХte Шf Charles Robert. In this study he collected all the names of those barons and nobles who could influence the political situation in Hungary between the years 1301 and 1309 based on nine different sources.73 In the first column of the table, where the names are presented, 44 items are enumer- SRH I. p. 479–480. (Chronici Hungarici compositio saeculi XIV) „Eodem autem anno in die Rufi martyris per Colossensem archiepiscopum in civitate “lba Regali regum Ungarie sacro diademate cum preclara solempnitate festive coronatus est, ubi archiepiscopi, comites ac plurimi nobiles affuerunt et peracto illius festivitatis gaudio ipsum regem novum in Budam honorifice deduxerunt. Sic igitur heres Bohemie facus est rex Ungarie. Fontes rerum Bohemicarum. Prameny dejin ceskych. I–VIII. Ed. Josef EMLER. Pragae. 1873–1932. IV. p. 84. 69 Gyula KRIST2: Az Anjou-kor háborúi [The Wars of the Angevin Era]. Budapest. 1988. (hereafter: KRIST2 1988), p. 14. 70 KRIST2 1988. p. 12. 71 KRIST2 1988. p. 11. 72 Vilmos FR“KN2Iɣ WenczeЧ ЦХráЧy megЮáЧasztása ǉǋǈǉ-ben [The Election of King Wenceslaus in 1301]. Századok 48 (1914), p. 81–88. (hereafter: FR“KN2I 1914) here: p. 81–82; Heinrich FINKE: “cta “ragoninsia. Quellen zur deutschen, italienischen, franzчsischen, spanischen Kirchen und Kulturgeschichte aus der diplomatischen Korrespondez Jaymes II. (1291–1327). I–III. Berlin – Leipzig. 1908–1923. (hereafter: FINKE 1923) here: I. p. 241–242. 73 Gyula KRIST2ɣ I. KárШЧy fшúrХ eЧХtje ɭǉǋǈǉ–1309). [The Baronial Elite of Charles I (1301– 1309)] Századok 133 (1999), p. 41–62. (hereafter: KRIST2 1999) here: p. 42–43. 67 68 96 PERSONAL NETWORK OF THE NEAPOLITAN ANGEVINS AND HUNGARY (1290–1304) ated and according to the chapter 188 of the 14th century chronicle composition, only three barons were assuredly on Charles loyalty. In contrast, Яe can fХnd sХx magnates Шn WencesЧaus sХde. HШЯeЮer Хf Яe cШmplete this list with the barons from the southern regions of the country, although the chronicle does not mention them, but as we have stated above, they were the main supporters of Charles, we would see a quite similar number on the list of names. The Angevins tried to make long lasting ties with tФem abШЮe ШtФers ɭХ.e. tФe БubХć and ”abШnХć famХЧХes etc.ɮ and sШ tФe number of barons supporting Charles would be equal with the supporters of Wenceslaus. It is obvious that the balance of power was shifted towards Wenceslaus, but the fact should not be side-lined that the supporting barons of Wenceslaus never undertook a joint military action against the Anjou party. In 1302 when Charles Robert and his allies threatened the cХty Шf ”uda, ЯФere WencesЧaus resХded, ШnЧy tФe KшszegХs mШbilized their forces.74 It is also known from this chapter of the chronicle, that the majority of the prelates supported Wenceslaus as well. However the head of those clergymen, John, archbishop of Kalocsa died in 1301 short after the coronation of Wenceslaus.75 TФe ЩreЧates cШmmХtment tШwards Wenceslaus was further weakened by the fact that pope Boniface VIII sent his legate, brother Nicolaus, bishop of Ostia and Velletri to Hungary with the uncШnceaЧed ХntentХШn, tШ turn tФe baЧance Шn CФarЧes side.76 Even profes- PáЧ ENGEL – Gyula KRIST2 – “ndrás KUBINYI: Magyarország tчrténete ǉǋǈǉ–1526 [History of Hungary 1301–1526] Budapest. 1998. p. 46. To the details of the skirmishes at Buda see: KRIST2 1988. p. 14–15; Antal P2R – Gyula SCH5NHERRɣ “z “njШuЦ ЦШra az “njШu Фáz és чrчЦчseХ [TФe “ngeЮХn Era. HШuse “njШu and Хts SuccessШrs]. Inɣ “ magyar nemzet tчrténete. I–X. Ed. SándШr SZILÁGYI. Budapest. 1895. III. p. 3–84. (hereafter: P2R–SCH5NHERR 1898) here: p. 15. 75 Boniface VIII called him as late in his letter to the chapter of Kalocsa in the 8th of November ǉǋǈǉ. ɭ […] archiepiscopus Colocensis diem clausit extremum […] Vetera monumenta historica Hungariam sacram illustrantia. I–II. Ed. Augustinus THEINER. Romae. 1859–1860. I. p. 390. (hereafter: VMH) 76 The command letter of pope Boniface VIII that he wrote on the 17th of October 1301 to cardinal Boccassini contains specific details regarding the proceedings of the lagte in accordance to the vacant Hungarian throne. VMH I. p. 388–389; Gergely KISSɣ HataЧmХ ЧegХtХmácХхs eЧЦéЩzeЧéseЦ MagyarШrszágШn ǉǊǑǈ–1310 [Concepts of Legitimization of Power in Hungary 1290–1301]. Conference presentation. Hatalmi reprezentáciх Kчzép- és Kelet-Eurхpában a ǉǉ–18. században. Pécs. ǊǍ–26. September 2014. (hereafter: KISS 2014); Regarding the actions of Boccassini see: Gergely KISS: “ ЩáЩaХ ЧegátusШЦ és a magyar egyФázjШg az “njШu-ЦШr eЧején [Papal Legates and the Hungarian Ecclesiastical Law in the Beginning of the Angevin Era]. In: Pécsi tчrténeti katedra. Cathedra historica Universitatis Quinqueecclesiensis. Ed. ZШЧtán CSABAI – Anna DÉVÉNYI – Ferenc FISCHER – Péter HAHNER – Gergely KISS – Jхzsef VONY2. Pécs. Ǌǈǈǐ. p. 271–285. here p. 272–273, 280; Gergely KISS: Les Чégats ЩШntХfХcaux en HШngrХe au temЩs des rois Angevins (1298–1311). In: La diplomatie des etats Angevins aux XIIIe et XIVe siècles. Actes 74 97 Péter BÁLING sШr KrХstх Хs Юery carefuЧ ЯХtФ the chapter 188 of the chronicle and expresses his doubts over its trustworthiness.77 So before we could express our opinion in the matter we have to examine another source ith caution, which is a diploma78 issued on the 26th of September 1302. In this document King Wenceslaus donates lands formerly belonged to the Queen to Ladislaus, son of comes Ladislaus and to Stephen, son of John for their merits they earned during the skirmishes in 1302 in the outskirts of Buda. The king enumerates all those barons in the diploma who raided his kingdom as the supporters of Charles.79 According to this source we can line up eight barons on the side of Charles, and next to Wenceslaus there are seven barons to be found, but it is true that the most powerful lords in principle sided with the son of the Bohemian king.80 The chapter 189 of the chronicle composition provides information about why the barons sided WencesЧaus ШnЧy Хn ЩrХncХЩЧeɣ nullum castrum, nulla potentias seu potestas, nullum ius regale, sicut Carolo puero, ex parte baronum restituuntur. 81 In our opinion and in the lights of the sources, Charles had his chances to seize the crown even if he had to flee to the southern parts of the kingdom after the venturesome enterprise in Esztergom, namely his crowning. After the ceremony the city was taken by force,82 by JШФn KшszegХ tФe baron, whom the Angevins tried to forge an alliance on several occasions. Back in 1292, John was a stalwart member of the Angevin party, he even du cШЧЧШque ХnternatХШnaЧ de Szeged, VХsegrád, ”udaЩest ǉǋ–16 septembre 2007. Sous la dХrectХШn de ZШЧtán KORDÉ et IstЮán PETROVICS, Rome – Szeged, 2010. 101–116. 77 KRIST2 1999. p. 41. However he rated as reliable in his former work. See: KRIST2 1986. p. 102–103. 78 KRIST2 1999. p. 41; AOkl. I. nr. 287. 79 […] quo Karolus cum Ugrino filio Pous Stephano filio Marci Leukes filio Laurentii dicti Chete et Opour ac aliiis infidelibus nostris et devastatibus regni nostri contra nostram insurrexat maistatem […] . Magyar NemzetХ LeЮéЧtár OrszágШs LeЮéЧtára. MШФács eЧшttХ gyűjtemény. DХЩЧШmatХЦaХ LeЮéЧtár. [NatХШnaЧ “rcФХЮes Шf Hungary. CШЧЧectХШn “ntemШФacsХana. DХЩЧШmatХc CШЧlection] 86 892. (hereafter: DL) 80 In 1302 the baronial support was divided between the two parties as follows (the offices Шf tФe barШns are sФШЯn Хn bracЦetsɮɣ suЩЩШrters Шf CФarЧesɣ UgrХnus CsáЦ ɭcomes Шf Szerém, VaЧЦх, ”ács and PШzsegaɮ, SteЩФen CsáЦ, LшЦчs Kán, “ЩШr Péc, PauЧ БubХć ɭban of Croatia), SteЩФen ”abШnХć, JШФn ”abШnХć, RadХsЧaus ”abШnХć ɭban); supporters of Wenceslaus: MattФeЯ CsáЦ ɭЩaЧatХne, comes Шf Trencsénɮ, KaЦas Rátхt, DШmШnЦШs Rátхt (master of the treasury, master of the doorkeepers, comes Шf Nхgrád and SzeЩesɮ, SteЩФen ÁЦШs ɭЩaЧatХneɮ, LadХsЧaus Rátхt ɭban, master Шf tФe Queen s treasuryɮ, Henry KшszegХ ɭHéderɮ ɭmaster Шf tФe treasury, ban of Slavonia, comes of Somogy and Tolna), Demeter Balassa. ENGEL 1996a. II. p. 16, 47–48, 122, 135, 187, 202–203, 218. 81 SRH I. p. 481. (Chronici Hungarici compositio saeculi XIV) 82 Monumenta ecclesiae Strigoniensis. I–IV. Ed. Ferdinandus KNAUZ – Lodovicus CRESCENS DEDEK – Gabriel DRESKA – Geysa ÉRSZEGI – Andreas HEGEDИS – Tiburcius NEUMANN – Cornelius SZOVÁK – Stephanus TRINGLI. Strigonii – Budapestini. 1874–1999. II. p. 356. (hereafter: MES) 98 PERSONAL NETWORK OF THE NEAPOLITAN ANGEVINS AND HUNGARY (1290–1304) took King Andrew III in captivity and by this act he was excommunicated from the church by the Hungarian prelates.83 It is true that Charles Robert did not have an army large enough to enforce his will but this statement stands valid in regard of Wenceslaus as well. The most powerful barons who possessed the strongest military might, Matthew from the genus CsáЦ and tФe KшszegХs, dХd nШt seeЦ tШ undertaЦe a jШХnt mХЧХtary enterprise against Charles. Matthew and John bore the title of palatine at the same time, so there was no chance for both of them to take arms for WencesЧaus s cause, and besХde tФat, tФey Яere Хnterested Хn maХntaХnХng tФe feud between the two kings and preserve the chaotic situation in Hungary, thereby they could fish in troubled waters and gain more and more ЩШЯer and ЯeaЧtФ. TФe bХggest mХЧХtary success fШr WencesЧaus s Щarty was the capture of Esztergom, although some barons marched against the castles of Charles in the south before autumn 1302. Later on we will discuss this event in details but in advance it can be said that the purpose of this action was to capture Charles Robert. In any case, it seems that after the crowning of Wenceslaus a stalemate situation has emerged and none of the two parties could mobilize such force by which the other side could be overthrown. Therefore the key of the situation lay in diplomatic actions and by luring the members of the other party either by force or material wealth. As we will see at the end, the Angevins were more successful to seize their political relations than Wenceslaus and his family. The indicated chronicle chapter notes that likewise Wenceslaus, the barons gave no authority to Charles either. The question then becomes: from which barons is this information preserved on the pages of the chronicle? It is certain that those magnates who have sided with Wenceslaus did not bother themselves to respect the rights of Charles, as they did not accept him as the king of Hungary. What about the lords who supЩШrted CФarЧes s rule? If we take a closer look on the relations forged by the Neapolitan court, we might see that the barons from the southern regions remained loyal to Charles and we might reckon with the archbishop of Esztergom and the bishop of Zagreb as well. The sons of ban Henry, whom the Angevins tried to forge an alliance, ratted from the cause. Moreover, as it was mentioned above, in 1302 they attacked the strongholds in the county Шf PШzsega ɭPШžegaɮ, which was the base of Charles.84 The castle was Фanded ШЮer tШ CФarЧes s ЩШssessХШn by PauЧ GaraХ, sШn Шf comes Stephen from the genus Dorozsma by the urge of magister Ugrinus. Paul repulsed tФe attacЦ Шf tФe KшszegХs and crusФed tФe rebeЧЧХШn tФat fШЧЧШwed the attack 83 84 K“RÁCSONYI 1995. p. 605; SZИCS 2002. p. 456. KRIST2 1988. p. 14. 99 Péter BÁLING in the county. His father, comes Stephen served magister Ugrinus85 and was aЧsШ tФe sЯШrd bearer Шf KХng ”éЧa IV. Later Шn, Хn ǉǋǉǈ according to a charter, when Charles Robert rewarded his loyalty by land, in the text of the diploma his father was called as ban.86 Paul Garai, who certainly belonged to the familia of Ugrinus, remained loyal to Charles Robert, and for this and other merits he not only received land but also bore the title of ban Шf Macsх between the years 1320 and 1328.87 The southern barons of Charles stuck up for the king and when it was necessary they even took up arms against his enemies. The deliverance of castle Pozsega is such kind of gesture that simply does not fit in the situation depicted by the chronicle. Of course this does not mean that every single castle and royal prerogative was handed over to Charles by the Anjou party, but the handover of the castle Pozsega was a symbolic act. We would find no similaritХes Шn WencesЧaus s sХde. TФШugФ tФe KшszegХs Фanded Шver the city of Esztergom for a huge amount,88 but before the crowning of Charles the archiepiscopal seat was never under their control.89 King Wenceslaus and his father tried to gain supporters in a similar way as the Angevins: they donated land to several barons and nobles including Kakas,90 sШn Шf SteЩФen frШm tФe genus Rátхt, comes Stephen the Red, castellan of Esztergom and his brother 91 MattФeЯ frШm genus CsáЦ92 as well as Jordanus comes of the Saxons.93 They have confirmed the donations of their predecessors, namely King Ladislaus IV and Andrew III, furthermore at the request of the barons they donated lands for their familiars. Nonetheless Wenceslaus had to leave the kingdom, although he was initially supported by the majority of the Hungarian clergy: Nicholas bishop of Ostia and Velletri, the papal legate reported to the pope that nearly every single prelate turned against the elected archbishop of Esztergom, 94 who was widely known as a quarter-master of the Angevin interests. The long-term and hard work of Charles II paid off as later on the legate and K“RÁCSONYI 1995. p. 438. “njoukori Okmánytár. Codex diplomaticus “ndegavensis. I–VII. Ed. Imre NAGY – Gyula NAGY. Budapest. 1878–1920. (hereafter: AO) I. p. 195–196. 87 ENGEL 1996a. I. p. 27. 88 P2R – SCH5NHERR 1898. p. 10. 89 On the 31st of July 1305 the late ban Henry and his sons were excommunicated by Thomas, elected archbishop of Esztergom for the occupations of the archiepiscopal seat and for the destruction of church property. The damage was worth of 500 thousand silver mark. FEJÉR vol. VIII, t. 1. p. 183–190; MES. II. p. 556–559. 90 AOkl. I. nr. 67. 91 AOkl. I. nr. 91. 92 AOkl. I. nr. 184, 185, 186. 93 AOKl. I. nr. 132, 268. 94 AOkl. I. nr. 103. 85 86 100 PERSONAL NETWORK OF THE NEAPOLITAN ANGEVINS AND HUNGARY (1290–1304) pope – Boniface, as it was mentioned before, maintained good relations with the king of Sicily – achieved that the prelates finally turned side. As the Sicilian king used his time well over more than a decade he successfully built up a reliable personal network and in contrast, the other party was hastily and loosely connected. The prelates and barons only arrived to Prague in July 1301 to create a king from the son of the Bohemian ruler. The entourage that escorted the young prince to Hungary consisted by noblemen, who wanted a weak king and until they were certain that the Holy Crown of Hungary would get on the head of the young WencesЧaus, nШt Шn ФХs fatФer s, ЯФШ ЯШuЧd be quХte tФШugФ fШr them, they held Шut Шn WencesЧaus s sХde. TФe ЩreЧates and barШns cФШse tФe sШn Шf tФe Bohemian king Wenceslaus II, because they feared that the country would have lost its freedom, if they had supported a king given by the papacy.95 This kind of fear arose among the educated prelates who were also learned in the ways of law, since the barons, even those who bore the highest offices violated the laws and customs of the country and they just wanted to keep up the appearance.96 In the meantime Charles II continued his work: he helped the supporters of his grandson with grain,97 horses98 and by raising taxes at home.99 The Sicilian king, according to his often cited registry book awarded ban Paul with 100 ounces of gold yearly.100 The ban however traded this amount of money almost immediately to 1000 salmae of grain that was to be shipped yearly.101 Queen Mary, the wife of Charles II put a golden 95 SRH I. p. 480. (Chronici Hungarici compositio saeculi XIV). Pope Boniface VIII, who was convinced by the primate of the spirutal authority over lay power, formulated the legal claims for the Hungarian throne in a letter to legate Nicholas: since St. Stephen the first Christian king of Hungary offered his country to the Roman Church and he also received his crown from the pope, thus the the right of designating a new king belongs to the pope. He justified this with documents from the papal archives. Most likely he assumed no resistance from the Angevins since the papacy played a significant role during the events in which the Angevins seized the throne of Sicily. Regesta Pontificium Romanorum. I–II. Ed. August POTTHAST. Graz, 1957. nr. 25159; VMH I. p. 392–393. This kind of argumentation was a sШurce Шf serХes Шf mХsunderstandХngs betЯeen tФe ÁrЩáds and tФe ЩaЩacy. FШr mШre details, seeɣ Jхzsef GERICS – Erzsébet L“DÁNYIɣ “ HartЮХЦ Чegenda ЦeЧetЦezésХ Цчr(ЧményeХrшЧ [About the Circumstances of the Origin of the Hartvik Legend]. Magyar Kчnyvszemle 120 (2004:4), p. 317–ǋǊǌɤ GábШr THOROCZKAY: Egyháztчrténeti forrástanulmányok a XI. századi magyar tчrténelemről [Ecclesiastical and Source Studies on the 11th Century Hungarian History]. Budapest – Szeged. 2003. p. 61–132. 96 KRIST2 1986. 170–172. 97 MDEA I. p. 161, 164. 98 MDEA I. p. 162. 99 MDEA I. p. 165. 100 Paulus ”anus Croatorum pro seruitiis presentis maxime in prosecutione negotii Regni Vngarie habuit vncias auri centum annuas. MDEA I. p. 168. 101 MDEA I. p. 170. 101 Péter BÁLING crown, decorated with different precious stones in pledge, into a Florentine bank house in order to help her grandson with 300 ounces of gold.102 At the beginning of the 14th century ban Paul received an invitation to Naples,103 and Dujam FranЦШЩan and RadХsЧaus ”abШnХć ЮХsХted agaХn tФe court in person.104 To the young Caroberto, who was merely a boy when he arrived to Hungary, the above mentioned magister Ugrinus was his guardian and protector (conservator),105 despite the fact that the members of the Anjou party held him in captivity in 1292 and ban Radislaus had to ХnterЮene Хn Шrder tШ regaХn UgrХnus s freedШm.106 Based on the preserved sources, aside from the interlude in Esztergom and the venture in Buda, Charles was found at the southern regions of the kingdom. In 1300 his journey started from Spalato and he shortly arrived to Zagreb. To attend on the crowning ceremony he headed towards SzéЦesfeФérЮár ЯХtФ GregШry ”ХcsЦeХ and ЯФen Фe cШuЧd nШt enter tФe cХty he travelled to Esztergom. In September 1301, when Mario Marignon made a report on the situation in Hungary to his lord, James II king of Aragon,107 he also noted that the papaЧ Чegate, NХccШЧò ”ШccassХnХ arrХЮed tШ VenХce and Чater Шn Фe Яent tШ Hungaryɣ “n arcФbХsФШЩ, tФe fШrmer prior of the Dominican order arrived to Venice; he is going to Hungary as a legate in order to install the son of king Charles, who resides in Slavonia, tШ tФe ЦХngdШm. 108 According to a command letter that was issued by Charles II in the name of his grandson in December about a shipment of 600 salmae grains, also reports that the young king is dwelling in Slavonia.109 As it was noted before, ban Paul handed over Charles Robert under the protection of magister Ugrinus in Zagreb. The domains of Ugrinus lied Хn tФe sШutФern Щarts Шf tФe cШuntry, Хn tФe regХШn Шf Szerémség ɭSyrmХaɮ, and ÚjЧaЦ ɭIЧШЦɮ Яas Хts centre.110 Beside this, he was also comes Шf ”ács, PШzsega, Szerém and VaЧЦх and Фe Яas defХnХteЧy cШntrШЧЧХng tФe rШyaЧ castles and lands through his familiars of these counties. Probably Pozsega […] coronam unam de auro cum diuersis lapidibus pretiois […]. MDEA I. p. 174. MDEA I. p. 172. 104 MDEA I. p. 174. 105 K“RÁCSONYI 1995. p. 368. 106 Hazai okmánytár. Codex diplomaticus patrius. I–VIII. Ed. Imre NAGY – IstЮán PAUR – KárШЧy RÁTH – Dezsш VÉGHELYI. Gyшr – Budapest. 1865–1891. VII. p. 230–231. 107 AOkl. I. nr. 69. 108 Translated by the author, based on the Hungarian transЧatХШn by VХЧmШs FraЦnхХ. Seeɣ FR“KN2I 1914. p. 81–ǐǊɤ Un gardenal, ce fo general de li frar Predicator, pasa per Venesia a lensita de Culio, va in Ongaria per a legato e per a dourar a so potere de meter lo figlo de lo rey Carllo en lo riame, lo qual […] en Sclauenia. FINKE 1923. I. p. 241–242. 109 […] ad partes Sclauonie ad predictum Karolum pro usu hospitii sui […]. “OЦЧ. I. nr. ǉǊǏɤ MDEA I. p. 164. (nr. 207.) 110 K“RÁCSONYI 1995. I. p. 451. 102 103 102 PERSONAL NETWORK OF THE NEAPOLITAN ANGEVINS AND HUNGARY (1290–1304) castle was handed over to Charles by that time, what we have already discussed above. According to another source the young king resided betЯeen tФe years ǉǋǈǉ and ǉǋǈǏ at tФe mШnastery Шf ”éЧaЦút, ЧШcated near ÚjЧaЦ.111 There is a charter known from 1302, in which the king donates tФe rШyaЧ ЮХЧЧage Шf ”чszчrményteЧeЦ tШ magХster ”eЦe, sШn Шf TФШmas and where the king and his barons made a stay.112 In this charter the king tells why magister Beke was awarded by this donation. He stood up for the king since he had arrived to Hungary, and Beke had accompanied the king in his campaigns as well. From the year 1303 several sources indicate the movement of Charles Robert. On the 16th of September a legal document was issued before the presence of the king in Tomica,113 another donation was made by the king on the 29th of September near the village of Kabol,114 and an undated privilege letter tells us that Charles was staying in Salamonharasztja.115 TШ ЧШcaЧХze tФe medХeЮaЧ settЧement Шf ”чszчrményteЧeЦ Хs a bit difficult, but considering all the sources about the whereabouts of Charles, all of these sources mention Slavonia and the southern region, so it is possible that this village was lying in the county Шf KeЮe, Яest frШm tФe manШrs Шf Párdány ɭMedjaɮ and TárnШЦ ɭTШraЦɮ.116 Initially, Charles remained among his trustful followers and their familiars Хn tФe sШutФern regХШns, sШ tФe ЧХШn s sФare Шf dХЩЧШmatХc negШtХatХШns fall on the papal legate. Legate Boccassini visited the barons who openly supported Wenceslaus on several occasions and he also tried to gather information about the situation in Hungary.117 He summoned the clergy of the Hungarian Church to a synod in Buda and he informed Wenceslaus and ФХs fatФer abШut tФe ЩШЩe s dХsaЩЩrШЮaЧ Хn regard tШ the illegitimate crowning by John, archbishop of Kalocsa and also warned them that they have to cooperate with the papacy.118 Pope Boniface VIII allowed him to punish and summon the disobedient clergymen before the presence of the Holy See.119 Since the legate could not reach an agreement between the MES II. p. 447. AOkl. I. nr. 317; DL 40 285. 113 AOkl. I. nr. 446; DL 9157. 114 “OЦЧ. I. nr. ǌǍǉɤ DL ǊǈǏǉ ɭtranscrХЩtХШnɮɤ Gyчrgy GY5RFFY: “z Árpád-kori Magyarország tчrténeti fчldrajza. Geographia historica Hungariae tempore stripis Arpadianae. I–IV. Budapest. 1963–1987. (hereafter: GY5RFFY ǉǑǐǏɮ I. Щ. ǊǊǊ. It Чay next tШ ”arЧad Хn tФe cШunty Шf ”ács, tШday Хt Хs a ЮХЧЧage betЯeen ÚjЮХdéЦ ɭNШЮХ Sadɮ and TХteЧ. 115 AOkl. nr. 509; AO I. p. 67; DL 1658. 116 GY5RFFY 1987. I. Щ. ǋǉǊ. fn. ǍǍɤ Dezsш CSÁNKI: Magyarország tчrténelmi fчldrajza a Hunyadiak korában. I–III. [The Historical Geography of Hungary during the Hunyadi Era I–III.]. Budapest. 1890–1913. I. p. 205. 117 AOkl. I. nr. 96. 118 AOkl. I. nr. 107. 119 AOkl. I. nr. 109. 111 112 103 Péter BÁLING two parties, the pope beckoned the head members of the opposing groups before his personal presence through his legate: Queen Mary, Charles Robert, Wenceslaus and his father, the king of Bohemia. The pope also forbade using the Hungarian royal titles to Wenceslaus.120 The contending parties sent representatives to papal tribunal: in the name of the Angevins Steven archbishop of Kalocsa, Michael bishop of Zagreb, Tivadar bishop Шf Gyшr and ”enedeЦ bХsФШЩ Шf VeszЩrém and numerous provosts and archdeacons appeared,121 while Wenceslaus was represented by Ulricus, dШctШr Шf canШn ЧaЯ, JШФn Щrebend Шf 2buda and JШФn dШctШr Шf rШman law.122 Boniface decided in favour of the Angevins, he released everyone from the oaths of fealty sworn to Wenceslaus and upon excommunication he ordained for everyone obedience to Charles Robert. As it is clearly visible, the Hungarian clergy forsook from the cause of Wenceslaus due to the papal intervention, but the fact that the pope used a more delicate tone Хn tФХs sentence regardХng CФarЧes s rХgФts tШ ХnФerХt tФe tФrШne as Фe dХd before in his diploma in the 17th of October 1301, contributed heavily in this event. While in the above mentioned diploma, the pope expressed the privilege of the Holy See to appoint a ruler on the vacant throne of Hungary based on the famous offering made by St. Stephen. In contrast to this, in the letter of judgement that was issued in Anagni, the pope recognized the inherited claim of the Angevins to the throne.123 Although the papal judgement did not bring victory for Charles all of a sudden, but his positions significantly strengthened. As Wenceslaus saw the disloyalty of the Hungarian clergy, he wrote a desperate letter to Elisabeth, Queen of Bohemia, in order to ask for interЮentХШn frШm ФХs fatФerɣ Reverencie vestre preces nostras offerimus sinceris ex affectibus supplicantes, quatenus karissimum patrem nostrum dominum V[enceslaum], B[ohemiam] et P[oloniam] regem frequenter et familiariter pro defensione sui et nostri honoris et nominis invocetis. […] In promptum enim multa sunt nobis pericula, quibus ad presens occurrere non possumus, nisi nobis sua consuet a paternalis dileccio contra nostros adversarios prestet auxilium et AOkl. I. nr. 232, 233. The absence of Gregory Bicskei could seem strange. The pope – since Bicskei had been a divisive personality – accepted him only as the administrator of Esztergom and the provШstry Шf SzéЦesfeФérЮár. KISS 2014ɤ Gyчrgy RÁCZ: Az Anjou-Фáz és a SzentszéЦ [TФe HШuse Anjou and the Holy See]. In: Magyarország és a Szentszék kapcsolatának ǉǈǈǈ éve. Ed. IstЮán ZOMBORI. Budapest. 1996. p. 55–82. (hereafter: RÁCZ ǉǑǑǎɮ, Щ. ǍǏɤ LászЧх SZENDE: Bicskei Gergely [Gregory Bicskei]. In: Esztergomi érsekek ǉǈǈǉ–2003. Ed. Margit BEKE. Budapest. 2003. p. 134–142. 122 AOkl. nr. 392. 123 VMH I. p. 397–399. 120 121 104 PERSONAL NETWORK OF THE NEAPOLITAN ANGEVINS AND HUNGARY (1290–1304) subsidium opportunum. 124 From this point on, Wenceslaus and his supporters knew that the papacy will use its influence in every single way to justХfy CФarЧes s rХgФts tШ tФe tФrШne. SureЧy tФey must ФaЮe ЦnШЯn tФat CФarЧes s maternaЧ uncЧe, tФe duЦe Шf “ustrХa Яas asЦed by numerШus Шccasions to provide help to his nephew.125 An Angevin-Habsburg coalition would have been troublesome even for the powerful Bohemian king. He mobilized his connections and found his natural ally in the French king.126 Philip IV (1285–1314) had his own differences with the Church as the pope proclaimed in his famous bull Unam Sanctam the primacy of the papacy over lay authorities, thus over the French king himself as well. Wenceslaus chose his ally carefully and the following events brought him the ray of hope: by the order of King Phillipe, Guillamue Nogaret and his men broke upon the pope in his residence in Anagni, who died short after in mental shock. Gregory Bicskei, the archbishop of Esztergom also died in this incident.127 The Bohemian king hoped with reason that the wheel of fortune ЯШuЧd turn Хn ФХs and ФХs sШn s faЮШur, Хn addХtХШn, Фe ЧХstened tФe yШung PrХnce s caЧЧ fШr ФeЧЩ and ХnЮaded Hungary Хn ǉǋǈǌ. He cФarged Henry KшszegХ ЯХtФ tФe gШЮernment Шf tФe ЦХngdШm and Чeft tФe cШuntry ЯХtФ his son.128 With this move the Bohemian king only increased the margin for Charles. In the Szepes (Spi:) region Charles achieved partial successes, but the most influential local baron, Amade from genus Aba and his sons jШХned ФХs cause. MattФeЯ CsáЦ aЧsШ Чeft WencesЧaus s sХde, aЧtФШugФ Фe was supporting him from the beginning. This was very unfortunate for Wenceslas since Matthew was one of the most powerful barons at that time.129 From now on nothing could inhibit Charles to move with his entourage to Pozsony (Bratislava) and forge an alliance with Rudolf, his cousin, the son of the German king Albert on the 24th of August 1304. The Gyчrgy B2NISɣ Petrus de VХnea ЧeЮeЧesЦчnyЮe MagyarШrszágШn II. [TФe Letter-book of Petrus de Vinea in Hungary II.] p. 173-193. In: Filolхgiai Kчzlчny ǌ (1958:2). p. 173–193, here: p. 191; Árpád-kori és “njou-kori levelek. XI–XIV. század. [Letters frШm tФe ÁrЩád and “ngeЮХn Era. 11–14th centurХes] Ed. LászЧх MAKKAI – LászЧх MEZEY. Budapest. 1960. p. 219–220. 125 Pope Boniface on the same day when he declared his judgement notified Albert, the Roman king and the Hungarian dignitaries and called upon their help. (AOkl. I. nr. 393.) He renewed his request towards Alberd and his son on the 11th of June. (AOkl. I. nr. 404, 405.) SteЩФen, tФe bХsФШЩ Шf Várad ɭOradeaɮ, ЯrШte a sХmХЧar Чetter tШ KХng “Чbert and Фe asЦed for help for Charles, based on the papal judgement. (AOkl. I. nr. 510.) Nicolaus, the bishop of Zengg (Senj), also wrote a letter to Albert and according to the letter the king already made a promise to aid his nephew. 126 AOkl. I. nr. 505. 127 RÁCZ 1996. p. 140. 128 SRH I. p. 481. (Chronici Hungarici compositio saeculi XIV) 129 KRIST2 1988. p. 18–20. 124 105 Péter BÁLING majority of the clergy lined up behind Charles as well: Michael, archbishop of Esztergom who arose to this office from the episcopal seat of Zagreb and was always the supporter of the Angevin claimant over the time, Stephen, archbishop of Kalocsa, successor of John, who crowned WencesЧaus, Peter, bХsФШЩ Шf TransyЧЮanХa, TХЮadar, bХsФШЩ Шf Gyшr, NХcФolas, bishop of Bosnia and John, bishop of Nitra.130 Magister Ugrinus held the first place among the lay potentates, followed by palatine Amade, who recently turned sides and many high office bearing barons. The alliance resulted in a military campaign, since Wenceslaus still entitled himself as king of Hungary and he also took the Holy Crown away, and without the crown Charles could not hope a legitimate crowning. It is the strange mop of fate that only his third coronation was properly executed by the laws and customs of the Kingdom of Hungary, thus this third and last coronatХШn tШШЦ ЩЧace Хn SzéЦesfeФérЮár, ЯФere tФe arcФbХsФШЩ Шf Esztergom put tФe crШЯn Шf St. SteЩФen Шn ФХs Фead.131 IV. Summary After reviewing and examining the political connections of Charles Robert and his family, also in the light of the contemporary sources the following statements can be made: Charles received the biggest help from his family, Charles II, the king of Sicily exerted himself with the challenging work of building a personal network, which he could successfully utilize in order to obtain the crown of Hungary. He not only used envoys and messengers to shape up this system of connections but he also tried to meet with the most powerful barons in person. The relations were based on personal servitude and on mutual assistance proved long-lasting and working exceЩt tФe KшszegХs. “fter tФe tragХc deatФ Шf Charles Martell his son Caroberto inherited not only the rights and claims to the throne but this personal network as well. Contrary to the general opinion, not all members of the family were ready to help the young claimant. Albert, the German king assisted Charles Robert upon papal urge, however he had strong family ties with the Angevins. Even Charles II, who supported his grandson widely to seize the throne of the Hungarian Kingdom but he disinherited Caroberto from the line of succession in Sicily.132 Charles II was succeeded by his third son, Robert, who was awarded with the cognomen Шf WХse by tФe ЩШsterХty. We dШn t Яant tШ taЦe sХdes ЯФetФer Фe earned AOkl. I. nr. 644. SRH I. p. 486 (Chronici Hungarici compositio saeculi XIV); MES II. p. 710–711. 132 IstЮán MISKOLCZY: Magyar-olasz чsszekчttetések az “njouk korában [Hungarian – Italian Connections in the Angevin Era]. Budapest. 1937. p. 10–12. 130 131 106 PERSONAL NETWORK OF THE NEAPOLITAN ANGEVINS AND HUNGARY (1290–1304) this good sounding name or not, but he was wise enough to keep his nephew away from Napes. During the timeframe of this short paper, the most influential enemies of Charles put up the son of the Bohemian king against him. Their margin was quite tight because they had to found a claimant who was also originated frШm tФe genus Шf tФe ФШЧy ЦХngs Шf Hungary . SureЧy tФere Яere some among these magnates and prelates, who knew Wenceslaus in person, because the prince had already betrothed with Elisabeth, the daughter of the late king Andrew III since February1298. Wenceslaus II also announced his claim to the Hungarian throne short after the death of Ladislaus IV, but he could not forge such a powerful party as the Angevins. Both house, the Angevin and the Bohemian royal court followed the practice that had already been common during the centuries in order to gain loyal supporters: they donated land and title to those barons and prelates whom they expected to strengthen their cause or simply they wanted to reinforce and retain their loyalty. Those magnates who sided with Charles from the beginning on remained loyal to him.133 In our opinion, these relations which were based on personal acquaintance and thus a mutual trust could have developed between the king and the barons, gave Charles a good start – in addition to the substantial support of the papacy – which he could utilize as an advantage in order to seize the throne through a tiresome and arduous venture.  Later on Charles Robert could not avoid the conflict with the barons who supported him during the timeframe of this work. However all of this happened only after 1317. With the deatФ Шf UgrХnus CsáЦ tФe ЦХng regaХned tФe sШutФern cШuntХes, sШ tФere Яere nШ majШr battles. (ENGEL ǉǑǐǐ. Щ. ǉǈǐ.ɮ TФe sШns Шf SteЩФen ”abШnХć dХd nШt receХЮe tФe ШffХce Шf ban after the death of their father in 1317, therefore they rebelled against the king. In the name of the ЦХng, Demeter NeЦcseХ, PauЧ GaraХ and SteЩФen ”Шgár Чed an army agaХnst tФem. ɭIbХd. Щ. ǉǊǊ.ɮ HШЯeЮer tФe ЦХng Яas unabЧe tШ crusФ tФe ЩШЯer Шf tФe БubХćХ, tФХs tasЦ feЧЧ Шn ФХs sШn, Louis the Great, who finally pacified Croatia in 1345. (Ibid. p. 131.) 133 107 SЩecХmХna NШЮa Pars PrХma SectХШ MedХaeЮaЧХs VIII Ed. GábШr ”“R“”ÁS – GergeЧy KISS. Pécs, ǊǈǉǍ. Щ. ǉǈǑ–ǉǋǏ. Tamás FedeЧes, PФD fedeЧes.tamas@Щte.Фu UnХЮersХty Шf Pécs FacuЧty Шf HumanХtХes InstХtute Шf HХstШry DeЩartment Шf MedХeЮaЧ and EarЧy MШdern HХstШry RхЦus Str. Ǌ. H–ǏǎǊǌ Pécs Hungary Tamás FEDELES: Pécs/F(nfkХrcФen DХe erste ungarХscФe UnХversХtät ǉǋǎǏ Pécs/F(nfЦХrcФen. The First Hungarian University Among the universities, which were established around the European continent gradually from the second half of the 14th century, Яe ФaЮe tШ ФХgФЧХgФt tФe rШЧe Шf Pécs ЯХtФХn tФe KХngdШm Шf Hungary. TФe UnХЮersХty Шf Pécs (studium generale) was founded in 1367 by William of Koppenbach (1361–1347), who played an essential role in the operation of the institution. The most important objective of the establishment of the university was that the diplomats of the king (contemporarily King Louis I the Great) would be able to study in the territory of Hungary instead of the Italian cities. Self-evidently, the costs of studying at a local university proved to be much lower than spending years in the well-known Italian cХtХes sucФ as ”ШЧШgna and PadШЮa. “s an eccЧesХastХcaЧ seat, Pécs Шffered an exceЧЧent opportunity for the development of a newly-established institution. The cathedral chapter school and the library also had an important role in the foundation. In my paper I will discuss the most important details regarding the short history of the medieval university of Pécs. Key words: medieval university, Hungarian Kingdom, Holy See, ”ХsФШЩ Шf Pécs, studium generale, cathedral school, middle age, faculties of the university, buildings of the university  WШФЧbeЦannt Хst, dass dХe erste UnХЮersХtät Ungarns ǉǋǎǏ Хn Pécs/F(nfkirchen entstand. Die Geschichte der Studium Generale, deren eurШЩäХscФe Bedeutung trotz ihrer kurzen Bestehung zweifellos ist, ist von der Geschichte der Stadt und der DХчzese untrennbar. ǉǑǏǐ Яurde eХn bedeutendes mХtteЧaЧterЧХcФes Gebäude ЯäФrend der auf dem GebХet der mХtteЧaЧterЧХcФen ”ХscФШfsburg zu Pécs ЮШn Gyшzш Gerш und MárХa SándШr geЧeХteten arcФäШЧШgХscФen FreХЧegungen ans TagesЧХcФt geЦШmmen. DХeses ”auЯerЦ Яurde ЮШn der “rcФäШЧШgХn MárХa SándШr nacФ eХnem dШrt 109 Tamás FEDELES gefundenen WaЩЩensteХn mХt dem mХtteЧaЧterЧХcФen UnХЮersХtätsgebäude identifiziert. Am 29. MaХ ǊǈǉǍ Яurde dХeses Gebäude aЧs die Mittelalterliche Universität nacФ den ReЦШnstruЦtХШnsarbeХten geчffnet, Хn dem dХe ”esucФer/Хnnen dХe meФrФundertjäФrХge GescФХcФte der ”ХscФШfsburg Хn RaФmen eХner mШdernen “ussteЧЧung erЦennen Цчnnen.1 Im vorliegenden “ufsatz ЮersucФe ХcФ dХe ЯХcФtХgsten KenntnХsse bez(gЧХcФ der mХtteЧaЧterЧХcФen UnХЮersХtät ЮШn Pécs Цurz zusammenzufassen.2 Abbildung 1. Gebäude der Mittelalterliche Universität (Foto: Verfasser) Umstände der Universitätsgr(ndung Die Errichtung der Pécser UnХЮersХtät geФчrt zur ReХФe der mХtteЧeurШЩäХscФen UnХЮersХtätsgr(ndungen. Im Laufe der nacФ der ЮШn KarЧ “ pécsi p(spчkvár feltárásának eredményei [Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabung der Bischofsburg ЮШn Pécs]. Ed. Márta FONT. Pécs. ǊǈǉǍɤ MárХa G. SÁNDOR – Ilona SCH8NERNÉ PUSZTAI – Ferenc METZINGɣ “ ЩécsХ P(sЩчЦЮár feЧtárásánaЦ és ФeЧyreáЧЧйtásánaЦ eredményeХ [DХe ErgebnХsse der “usgrabung und der WХederФersteЧЧung der ”ХscФШfsburg ЮШn Pécs]. Műemlékvédelem 59 (2015:4), S. 197–216. 2 DХe j(ngste Zusammenfassungen der GescФХcФte der mХtteЧaЧterЧХcФen UnХЮersХtät ЮШn Pécs/F(nЦХrcФen sХnd fШЧgendeɣ Tamás FEDELES – IstЮán LENGVÁRI – Éva POHÁNK“ – Petra POLYÁK: “ pécsi felsőoktatás évszázadai [Die Jahrhunderte des Hochschulwesens ЮШn Pécs]. Pécs. Ǌǈǉǉ. S. ǉǋ–31. (im Weiteren: FEDELES – LENGVÁRI – POHÁNK“ – POLYÁK 2011ɮɤ IstЮán PETROVICSɣ “ ЮárШs tчrténete a ǉǌ. század ЦчzeЩétшЧ ǉǍǊǎ-ig [Die Geschichte der Stadt seit Mitte des 14. Jahrhunderts bis 1526]. In: Pécs tчrténete II. “ p(spчkség alapйtásátхl a tчrчk hхdoltságig. Ed. Jхzsef VONY2 – Márta FONT. Pécs. ǊǈǉǍ. S. ǊǍǋ–267. 1 110 1367 PÉCS/FÜNFKIRCHEN. DIE ERSTE UNGARISCHE UNIVERSITÄT IV. ЮeranЧassten Prager UnХЮersХtätsgr(ndung ɭǉǋǌǐɮ erfШЧgten Gr(ndungswelle wurden beinahe gleichzeitig in Krakau (1364), Wien (1365) und Pécs UnХЮersХtäten gegr(ndet.3 Im ZusammenФang mХt der ErrХcФtung der UnХЮersХtät Хst unbedХngt Paduaner JurХstenЩrШfessШr ”artШЧШmeШ PХacentХnХ zu erЯäФnen. Der Jurist und gleichzeitig hervorragende Diplomat vertrat den Herzog von Padua, Francesco Carrara an den ungarisch-venezianischen Friedensverhandlungen, als deren Ergebnis dem 18. Februar 1358 der Friede von Zadar am abgeschlossen werden konnte. Da auch Wilhelm von KoppenbacФ, der sЩätere ”ХscФШf ЮШn Pécs ɭǉǋǎǉ–1374) bei der Unterzeichnung der Friedensunterlagen anwesend war, kann er Piacentini bei diesem AnЧass ЦennengeЧernt Фaben. SeХnem Rat fШЧgend Чud KчnХg LudЯХg ЮШn “njШu den ХtaЧХenХscФen GeЧeФrten nacФ Ungarn eХn, ЯШr(ber aucФ dХe zeХtgenчssХscФen QueЧЧen berХcФten. DemnacФ Яar der Professor 1360 am ungarХscФen KчnХgsФШf, ЯШ er zum ”erater des HerrscФers ernannt und ЮШm KчnХg beЯХrtet Яurde. PХacentХnХs UngarnfaФrt Цann mХt der VШrbereХtung der UnХЮersХtätsgr(ndung Хn ZusammenФang gebracФt Яerden, Яas durcФ zЯeХ andere Umstände bestätХgt Яerden Цann. “nФand des ”(ndnisses zwischen Ungarn und Padua konnte das Paduaner studium generale, dessen bester Kenner eben PХacentХnХ Яar, aЧs VШrbХЧd f(r dХe Яerdende UnХЮersХtät dХenen. Im SШmmer ǉǋǎǏ ФХeЧten sХcФ ”artШЧШmeШ PХacentini und Bischof Pileo Prata von Padua, der Kanzler der Paduaner UniЮersХtät an der Хn VХterbШ ЯeХЧenden ЩäЩstЧХcФen KurХe auf. Das Чässt unter anderem darauf scФЧХeßen, dass aЧs TeХЧ des Хm Interesse der UnХЮersХtätsgr(ndung eХngeЧeХteten GeneФmХgungsЮerfaФrens auch die Stellungnahme des in den ungarischen Anliegen gewandten Professors von Urban V. eingeholt werden konnte.4 ”eХ der ErrХcФtung der UnХЮersХtät spielte Bischof Wilhelm entscheidende Rolle, sein Einfluss ist auch bei der Auswahl des Ortes der UniversХtät zu ertaЩЩen. Im HХntergrund der Gr(ndung ЮerbХrgt sХcФ nämЧХcФ der den Хm ЦчnХgЧХcФen dХЩЧШmatХscФen 3 Gyчrgy SZÉKELY: “ ЩécsХ és хbudaХ egyetem aЧaЩйtása a ЦчzéЩ-eurхЩaХ egyetemЧétesйtéseЦ чsszef(ggéseХben [DХe Gr(ndung der UnХЮersХtäten ЮШn Pécs und “ЧtШfen Хn der ZusammenФang Хn der ErrХcФtungen der mХtteЧeurШЩäХscФen UnХЮersХtäten]. A Janus Pannonius Múzeum Évkчnyve (1967), S. 155–174. (im Weiteren: SZÉKELY 1967); Adam VETULANIɣ “ ЩécsХ egyetem, ЮaЧamХnt a ЦraЦЦхХ és bécsХ testЮéregyetemeЦ aЧaЩйtásánaЦ Цчr(ЧményeХ [DХe Umstände der Gr(ndung der UnХЮersХtäten ЮШn Pécs, KraЦau und WХen]. Inɣ Jubileumi tanulmányok a pécsi egyetem tчrténetéből. Ed. Andor CSIZMADIA. Pécs. ǉǑǎǏ. S. Ǌǉ–50. (im Weiteren: VETULANI ǉǑǎǏɮɤ IstЮán PETROVICSɣ “ ЦчzéЩЦШrХ ЩécsХ egyetem és aЧaЩйtхja [DХe mХtteЧaЧterЧХcФe UnХЮersХtät ЮШn Pécs und ХФre Gr(nder]. Aetas 2 (2005:4), S. 29–30. (im Weiteren: PETROVICS 2005) 4 MХЦЧхs BODA: Stúdium és literatúra. Művelődéstчrténeti tanulmányok [Studium und Literatur. KuЧturgescФХcФtЧХcФe “ufsätze]. Pécs. ǊǈǈǊ. S. 7–11. (im Weiteren: BODA 2002) 111 Tamás FEDELES DХenste ”edХensteten gegen(ber gesteЧЧte FШrderung, dass sХe (ber ЦХrcФenrecФtЧХcФe KenntnХsse Юerf(gen. Da dХe MeФrФeХt der ЦчnХgЧХcФen Diplomaten KЧerХЦer der ЦчnХgЧХcФen KaЩeЧЧe Яaren, Яaren dХese RecФtsЦenntnХsse besШnders f(r dХe ЦчnХgЧХcФen KaЩЧäne unentbeФrЧХcФ. VШn ”eginn der Regierungszeit von Ludwig von Anjou an ist zu belegen, dass sХcФ meФrere der ЦчnХgЧХcФen KaЩЧäne Хm ”esХtz verschiedener KirchenЩfr(nden an der jurХstХscФer FaЦuЧtät ЮerscФХedener ХtaЧХenХscФer UnХЮersХtäten ХmmatrХЦuЧХeren ЧХeßen.5 Bischof Wilhelm stand als geheimer KanzЧer und KaЩeЧЧengesЩan ab ǉǋǍǐ der ЦчnХgЧХcФen DХЩЧШmatХe ЮШr, daher musste er die VorteХЧe eХner eХgenen UnХЮersХtät am besten Цennen. DХesbez(gЧХcФ Цann er seЧbst ErfaФrungen geФabt Фaben, da er – wie dies vermutet wird – fr(Фer seЧbst studХert Фaben muss und aЧs eФemaЧХger KapЧan ЮШn KaХser KarЧ IV. gute KenntnХsse (ber dХe Prager UnХЮersХtät haben durfte.6 “ufgrund dessen Хst aЧsШ dХe FeststeЧЧung ЮШn Gyчrgy ”хnХs ЮШЧЧständХg anzuneФmen, dass dХe dХe UnХЮersХtät ЮШn Pécs entstanden sei, um eine besser als Padua oder Bologna erreichbare AusbildungsmчgЧХcФЦeХt f(r dХe DХЩЧШmaten der capella regia zu geЯäФren.7 DХe ErrХcФtung der UnХЮersХtät bedurfte nat(rЧХcФ aucФ ЦчnХgЧХcФer Zustimmung, aber die Rolle von Ludwig von Anjou war nur formell.8 Die InХtХatШrrШЧЧe des ”ХscФШfs Хst daf(r sШЯШФЧ beХ der “usЯaФЧ des SХtzes der UnХЮersХtät, aЧs aucФ der Verg(tung der PrШfessШren zu ertaЩЩen.9 Pécs war im Gegensatz zu den Шben erЯäФnten mХtteЧeurШЩäХscФen UnХЮersХtätsstädten ЦeХn HerrscФersХtz.10 Trotzdem wurde die Siedlung (ber dХe PersШn ЮШn ”ХscФШf WХЧФeЧm ФХnaus aucФ durcФ andere FaЦtШren Gyчrgy B2NISɣ “ caЩeЧЧa regХa és a ЩécsХ egyetemaЧaЩйtás [DХe CaЩeЧЧa RegХa und dХe Gr(ndung der UnХЮersХtät ЮШn Pécs]. Inɣ “ ǎǈǈ éves jogi felsőoktatás tчrténetéből ǉǋǎǏ–1967. A pécsi egyetemtчrténeti konferencia anyagábхl. Ed. Andor CSIZMADIA. Pécs. ǉǑǎǐ. ɭStudХa Iuridica “uctШrХtate UnХЮersХtatХs Pécs PubЧХcata ǎǈ.ɮ ɭim Weiteren: CSIZMADIA 1968), S. 21–26. (im Weiteren: B2NIS ǉǑǎǐɮɤ Gyчrgy B2NIS: “ jogtudх értelmiség a Mohács előtti Magyarországon [Die recФtsЦundХge InteЧЧХgenz Хn Ungarn ЮШr MШФács]. ”udaЩest. ǉǑǏǉ. S. 34–35, 44–45. 6 PETROVICS 2005. 35. 7 B2NIS 1968. 26. 8 Tibor KLANICZAYɣ MegШЧdШtt és megШЧdatЧan ЦérdéseЦ az eЧsш magyar egyetem Цчr(Ч [GeЧчste und ungeЧчste Fragen um der ersten ungarХscФen UnХЮersХtät]. Irodalomtчrténeti Kчzlemények 78 (1974), S. 164. (im Weiteren: KLANICZAY 1974) 9 Remig BÉKEFI: “ pécsi egyetem [DХe UnХЮersХtät Pécs]. Budapest. 1909. S. 30. (im Weiteren: BÉKEFI 1909); Ede PETROVICHɣ “ ЦчzéЩЦШrХ ЩécsХ egyetemre ЮШnatЦШzх fШrrásШЦ [DХe QueЧЧen bez(gЧХcФ der mХtteЧaЧterЧХcФen UnХЮersХtät ЮШn Pécs]. Inɣ CSIZMADIA 1968. S. 89–109. (im Weiteren: PETROVICH 1968) hier: S. 89; KLANICZAY 1974. S. 164; PETROVICS 2005. 30. 10 Zur GescФХcФte der Stadt sХeФeɣ Tamás FEDELES: „Eztán Pécs tűnik szem(nkbe . “ város kчzépkori histхriája, ǉǈǈǑ–1526 [DanacФ erscФeХnt Pécs Хn unseren “ugen. DХe mХtteЧaЧterЧХcФe GescФХcФte der Stadt Pécs, ǉǈǈǑ–1526]. Pécs. Ǌǈǉǉɤ Pécs tчrténete II. “ p(spчkség alapйtásátхl a tчrчk hхdoltságig. Ed. Jхzsef VONY2 – Márta FONT. Pécs. ǊǈǉǍ. 5 112 1367 PÉCS/FÜNFKIRCHEN. DIE ERSTE UNGARISCHE UNIVERSITÄT zur UnХЮersХtätsgr(ndung geeХgnet. VШr aЧЧem seХ ФХer auf das ЯХrtscФaftliche Potential des Bistums hingewiesen, da es aufgrund aus dem 14. Jahrhundert stammenden Angaben eines der am meisten lukrativen KirchenЩfr(nden geЯesen seХn sШЧЧ.11 Die Stadt als Wirtschafts- und Kirchenzentrum ЦШnnte aucФ zur EntЯХcЦЧung der neuen UnХЮersХtät beХtragen. Es Хst ferner aucФ nХcФt außer “cФt zu Чassen, dass das DХчzesangebХet Хm MХtteЧalter eine der am dichtesten besiedelten Region des Landes war und daher die Universität stets mХt NacФЯucФs an StudХerenden recФnen ЦШnnte.12 Noch wichtiger ist aber, dass im Laufe des 14. Jahrhunderts die meisten an ausЧändХscФen UnХЮersХtäten ХmmatrХЦuЧХerten Studenten eben aus dem GebХet des ”Хstums Zágráb ɭ“gramɮ und Pécs stammten.13 Die Lage der Stadt Яar aucФ geШЩШЧХtХscФ seФr g(nstХg, Яas besШnders Хn der zЯeХten HäЧfte des ǉǌ. JaФrФunderts, ЯäФrend der EntfaЧtung der exЩansХЮen S(d- bzЯ. S(dЯestЩШЧХtХЦ ЮШn LudЯХg ЮШn “njШu geЯХsse VШrteХЧe bedeuten konnte.14 Im Zusammenhang damit ist aber gleich festzustellen, dass das VШrФandenseХn der bШgumХЧХscФen und ЩatarenХscФen HäresХe Хn mit dem Bistumsgebiet benachbarten Bosnien bzw. der Anspruch auf ihre ”eЦämЩfung, ЯХe dХes mancФe GeЧeФrte fr(Фer beФauЩtet Фatten, ЦeХne Rolle bei der UniversХtätsgr(ndung geФabt Фaben durfte.15 Mit Recht bracФte “sztrХЦ GábrХeЧ seХne dХesbez(gЧХcФen ZЯeХfeЧ ЮШr ЮХer JaФrzeФnten zum “usdrucЦɣ „ЯХe Цчnnte eХne UnХЮersХtät, dХe (ber ЦeХne tФeШЧШgХscФe FaЦuЧtät Юerf(gt, dХe VШrbereХtung der MХssХШnare und ХФren KamЩf den HäretХЦern gegen(ber Хn GrХff ФaЧten? .16 Zugleich wurde aber Tamás FEDELESɣ “ Щ(sЩчЦség és a széЦesЦáЩtaЧan bХrtШЦaХ, gazdáЧЦШdása [DХe ”esХtze und dХe WХrtscФaftsf(Фrung des ”Хstums]. In: “ Pécsi Egyházmegye tчrténete I. “ kчzépkor évszázadai (1009–1543). Ed. Tamás FEDELES – GábШr SARBAK – Jхzsef SÜMEGI. Pécs. ǊǈǈǑ. ɭХm WeХterenɣ FEDELES – SARBAK – SÜMEGI 2009), S. 421–464. 12 Andor CSIZMADIA: “ pécsi egyetem a kчzépkorban [DХe UnХЮersХtät ЮШn Pécs im Mittelalter]. Pécs. ǉǑǎǍ. ɭStudХa IurХdХca “uctШrХtate UnХЮersХtatХs Pécs PubЧХcata ǌǈ.ɮ (im Weiteren: CSIZMADIA 1965), S. 10. 13 Asztrik L. GABRIEL: The mediaeval Universities of Pécs and Pozsony. Frankfurt am Main. 1969. S. 17. (im Weiteren: GABRIEL 1969) 14 SZÉKELY 1967. S. 159; GABRIEL 1969. S. 15; KLANICZAY 1974. S. 162; 15 Z. B. CSIZMADIA 1965. S. 9; SZÉKELY 1967. S. 162; Endre KOVÁCSɣ DХe Gr(ndung der UnХЮersХtät Pécs und ХФre ”edeutung f(r dХe ungarХscФe KuЧtur. Inɣ Les universités Européennes du XIVe au XVIIIe siècle. “spects et problèmes. “ctes du colloque international à l occasion du VIe Centenaire de l Université Jagellone de Cracovie 6–8 Mai 1964. GenèЮe. 1967. S. 39–40. VgЧ. dazu neuЧХcФ IЮán ”ertényХ, dessen MeХnung nacФ beХ der UnХЮersХtätsgr(ndung „die gegen die » HäretХЦer « ЦämЩfenden DШmХnХЦaner eХne ЯХcФtХge RШЧЧe gesЩХeЧt Фaben m(ssen, deren auch bei der Ausbildung des kulturellen Nachwuchses Ungarns wichtige Aufgaben zuteil geworden sein sШЧЧten. IЮán BERTÉNYI: “ ǉǌ. század tчrténete [Die Geschichte des ǉǌ. JaФrФunderts]. ”udaЩest. Ǌǈǈǈ. ɭMagyar SzázadШЦɮ, S. 181. (im Weiteren: BERTÉNYI 2000) 16 „HШЯ can a scФШШЧ without a Faculty of Theology serve such a purpose, that of training mХssХШnarХes and fХgФtХng ФeresХes? . GABRIEL 1969. S. 13–14. (Übersetzt ЮШn T. F.) 11 113 Tamás FEDELES eХn ЯХcФtХger FaЦtШr der UnХЮersХtätsgr(ndung Хn der FШrscФung nur ЯenХger ber(cЦsХcФtХgt, nämЧХcФ dХe RШЧЧe der DШmscФuЧe und deren ”Хbliothek.17 Der hohe Bildung bietenden Domschule, deren Bibliothek eine der ЯХcФtХgsten SammЧungen Ungarns geЯesen seХn Цann, muss grчßere ”edeutung beХ der UnХЮersХtätsgr(ndung zuteХЧ geЯШrden seХn.18 Die meХsten “rbeХten erЯäФnen dХe ФШФe ХnteЧЧeЦtueЧЧe EntЯХcЦЧung der Stadt nur ШberfЧäcФЧХcФ,19 zu deren Entfaltung auch die Domschule beigetragen haben muss. Die Gr(ndung QueЧЧen zur UnХЮersХtät ЮШn Pécs steФen ЧeХder nur gerХngf(gХg zur Verf(gung,20 u. a. Яurde aucФ dХe Gr(ndungsurЦunde der UnХЮersХtät nХcФt (berЧХefert. Ohnehin kann aufgrund vergleichender Forschungen zu UniЮersХtätsgescФХcФte beФauЩtet Яerden, dass ЯХe Хn KraЦau und WХen dХe Gr(ndungsurЦunde des HerrscФers der ЩäЩstЧХcФen ”estätХgung der Hochschule voranging.21 Was dХe Gr(ndung der KraЦauer, WХener und Pécser UnХЮersХtät anbetrХfft, ЯХes “dam VetuЧanХ zunäcФst auf das zur Zeit des Pontifikats von Urban V. angewandte einheitliche kuriale VerfaФren ФХn, das ЯХe fШЧgt Яarɣ der UnХЮersХtätsgr(ndung muss dХe beХm Heiligen Stuhl eingelegte Supplik der Herrscher vorangegangen sein. AnscФЧХeßend f(Фrte dХe KurХe ausf(ФrЧХcФe ErmХttЧungen zЯecЦs FeststeЧЧung, Шb der ЮШrgeseФene SХtz der UnХЮersХtät den VШraussetzungen der ErrХcФtung entsЩrХcФt. DaФer Яurden dХe Gr(ndungsurЦunde und dХe durcФ dХe städtХscФen Instanzen ausgesteЧЧten UnterЧagen, Хn denen dХe f(r dХe MХtgЧХeder der UnХЮersХtät geЯäФrten PrХЮХЧegХen bescФrХeben Яurden, der KurХe (bermХtteЧt. Im FaЧЧe ЮШn Pécs m(ssen dХese Чetzteren UnterЧagen entfaЧЧen. ObЯШФЧ dХe ”(rger der Stadt (ber eХne zХemЧХch ЯeХte “utШnШmХe Юerf(gten, bЧХeben sХe dШcФ unter GerХcФtsbarЦeХt der ”ХscФчfe ЮШn Pécs. InfШЧge dessen muss seЧbst der ”ХscФШf der Stadt dХe PrХЮХЧegХen der PrШfessШren und der Studenten der UnХЮersХtät garantХert haben.22 Am 1. September 1367 wurde die Bulle von Urban V. in Viterbo erЧassen, Хn der dХe TätХgЦeХt der UnХЮersХtät geneФmХgt Яurde.23 Wie IstЮán MÉSZÁROS: “z iskola(gy tчrténete Magyarországon ǑǑǎ–ǉǏǏǏ kчzчtt [Die Geschichte des Schulwesens in Ungarn zwischen 996–1777]. Budapest. 1981. (im Weiteren: MÉSZÁROS 1981), S. 68; PETROVICS 2005. S. 30. 18 BODA 2002. S. 41. 19 GABRIEL 1969. S. 15; KLANICZAY 1974. 162. 20 Vgl. PETROVICH 1968. 21 VETULANI 1967. 23. 22 Ibidem, S. 23–34. 23 Régi magyar egyetemek emlékezete. Válogatott dokumentumok a magyarországi felsőoktatás tчrténetéhez ǉǋǎǏ–1777 [DХe ErrХnerung der aЧten ungarХscФen UnХЮersХtäten. “usgeЯäФЧte 17 114 1367 PÉCS/FÜNFKIRCHEN. DIE ERSTE UNGARISCHE UNIVERSITÄT darauf bereits oben hingewiesen wurde, hielten sich dann schon Bartolomeo Piacentini und der Bischof von Padua, der Kanzler der dortigen UniЮersХtät Хn der Stadt auf. Es Яar dar(ber ФХnaus RadШЧЩФus de CasteЧЧШ, ein Augustinereremit anwesend, der einer der am besten gebildeten Theologen seiner Zeit gewesen ist, der vor einigen Tagen (am 28. August) aus Ungarn zur(cЦgeЦeФrt Яar. CasteЧЧШs “nЯesenФeХt ЯeХst eindeutig darauf hin, dass er der Beauftragte der Kurie war, der noch vor der Erteilung der Genehmigung die noch als problematisch betrachteten Anliegen in Ungarn zu schlichten versuchte.24 DХe TätХgЦeХt des studium generale in Pécs Яurde aЧsШ ЮШm PaЩst geneФmХgt, aber er seЧbst saФ dХe fХnanzХeЧЧe Unterst(tzung der UnХЮersХtät seХtens des KчnХgs nХcФt gesХcФert. Darauf ЯeХst jedenfaЧЧs dХe am Ǌ. SeЩtember an KчnХg LudЯХg gescФrХebene ЩäЩstЧХcФe ”uЧЧe ФХn. Da Яurde zur GeneФmХgung nacФträgЧХcФ ЮШrgescФrХeben, dass der jeЯeХЧХge KчnХg Ungarns (ber dХe geb(Фrende Verg(tung der an der UnХЮersХtät tätХgen MagХster und DШЦtШren zu sШrgen hat.25 Es Хst nХcФt beЦannt, Шb der HerrscФer (berФauЩt zur Verg(tung der Professoren beitrug, wie er in der obigen Bulle ausdr(cЦЧХcФ darauf hingewiesen wurde.26 Im Lichte dessen muss die Forschungsansicht verЯШrfen Яerden, dass „[…] dХe an der UnХЮersХtät bestallten Magister und DШЦtШren ЮШm HerrscФer Юerg(tet ЯШrden sХnd. DХe UnХЮersХtät ЮШn Pécs Яar aЧsШ eХne ЮШm KчnХg gegr(ndete UnХЮersХtät .27 Über dХe ErФaЧtung und dХe Verg(tung der PrШfessШren Фatte ”ХscФШf WХЧhelm zu sorgen,28 ЯШbeХ er sХcФ mХt Unterst(tzung des DШmЦaЩХteЧs recФnen konnte. “ufbau der Universität Die mittelalterlichen UnХЮersХtäten Яurden nacФ der ЮШneХnander abЯeХcФenden “ufbaustruЦtur der zЯeХ am fr(Фesten entstandenen eurШЩäХscФen UnХЮersХtäten, ParХs und ”ШЧШgna errХcФtet. “b ǉǋ. JaФrФundert entstanden dХe aЧs eЧementare OrganХsatХШnseХnФeХt tätХgen FaЦuЧtätenɣ dХe Dokmenten zur Geschichte des ungarischen Hochschulwesens 1367–1777]. Ed. LászЧх SZ5GI. Budapest. 1995. (im Weiteren: SZ5GI 1995), S. 53–56. 24 BODA 2002. 12–13. 25 „[…] ac voluimus, quod magistris et doctoribus, qui in huiusmodi legunt studio per regem Ungarie pro tempore existentem, in competentibus stipendiis provideatur. SZ5GI 1995. S. 56–58. 26 KLANICZAY 1974. S. 164; Tibor KLANICZAYɣ Egyetem és ЩШЧХtХЦa a magyar ЦчzéЩЦШrban [UnХЮersХtät und PШЧХtХЦ Хm ungarХscФen MХtteЧaЧter]. Inɣ Eszmetчrténeti tanulmányok a magyar kчzépkorrхl. Ed. Gyчrgy SZÉKELY. Budapest. 1984. (Memoria Saeculorum Hungariae 4.), S. 35–44. (im Weiteren: KLANICZAY 1984) hier: S. 35. 27 SZ5GI 1995. S. 8–9. ((bersetzt ЮШn T. F.) DХe fХnanzХeЧЧe Unterst(tzung Яurde aucФ ЮШn Jenш ÁbeЧ erЯäФnt. VgЧ. Jenш ÁBEL: Egyetemeink a kчzépkorban [Unsere UnХЮersХtäten Хm Mittelalter]. Budapest. 1881. S. 11. (im Weiteren: ÁBEL 1881) 28 KLANICZAY 1984. S. 35. 115 Tamás FEDELES philosophische (facultas artium), dХe jurХstХscФe, das ФeХßt ЦХrcФen- und rчmischrechtliche (facultas decretorum et legum), die medizinische (facultas medicorum) und die theologische (facultas sanctae theologiae) FaЦuЧtät. In ParХs waren sowohl die ProfessШren, aЧs aucФ dХe Studenten TeХЧ der FaЦuЧtäten, aЧsШ aucФ der UnХЮersХtät. DХe FaЦuЧtäten Яaren dХe ЯХcФtХgsten ”austeХne des Pariser Modells. Die in Bologna entstandene Ordnung wich davon ab, Хndem es ФХer eХgentЧХcФ um meФrere UnХЮersХtäten gХng, Яeil die einzeЧnen FaЦuЧtäten beХnaФe aЧs seЧbstständХge GremХen fungХerten. DХe auf Bologneser Art und Weise organisierten studia generalia bestanden in der Tat aus zЯeХ grчßeren unХЮersХtären GemeХnscФaftenɣ aus den JurХsten (universitas legistarum), sowie den Philosophen und Medizinern (universitas artistarum et medicorum). Die Theologie wurde von den Bettelorden am Rande der UnХЮersХtät unterrХcФtet. EХne ЯeХtere EХgenscФaft des ”ШЧШgneser MШdeЧЧs Яar ferner, dass ФХer nur dХe Studenten aЧs unХЮersХtäre ”(rger gaЧten, dХe PrШfessШren ЮersammeЧten sХcФ Хn eХn eХgenes KШЧЧeg (collegium doctorum). Sowohl in Paris, als auch in Bologna waren die Studenten in nationes versammelt, die ihrem Herkunftsland nach entstanden; in Bologna wurden die Italiener bzw. dХe “usЧänder Хn zЯeХ ЮerscФХedene LändergruЩЩen ШrganХsХertɣ dХe ItaЧХener geФчrten zur universitas citramontanorum die anderen zur universitas ultramontanorum.29 DХe Хn Pécs entstandene UnХЮersХtät (bernaФm dХe StruЦtur des aufgrund des Bologneser ModelЧs tätХgen Paduaner UnХЮersХtät. “Чs ErЦЧärung seХ ФХer ЯХeder auf dХe Шben bereХts erЯäФnten Umstände ФХngeЯХesen, dass Хn Pécs dХe OrganХsХerung der jurХstХscФen FaЦuЧtät am ЯХcФtХgsten Яar und dadurcФ sШЧЧten ФХer dХe grШßen nШrdХtaЧХenХscФen UnХЮersХtäten, ХnsbesШndere Padua ЮШrbХЧdЧХcФ Яerden. DХese FeststeЧЧung Цann außer der Шben bereХts erчrterten RШЧЧe ЮШn PХacentХnХ dХe TätХgЦeХt ЮШn GaЧЮanШ dХ ”ШЧШgna, eХnem der beЦanntesten Pécser PrШfessШren erЯäФnt Яerden, der aus Padua Хn Pécs eХngetrШffen ist.30 Pécs geФчrte zu den KanzЧerunХЮersХtäten. Der HШcФscФuЧe stand der jeweilige Bischof als Kanzler vor. DХe tatsäcФЧХcФen VerЯaЧtungsbefugnХsse Яaren Хn seХner Hand, er (bte dХe JurХsdХЦtХШn (ber den Studenten und Professoren aus und er verwaltete dХe TätХgЦeХt der ganzen UnХЮersХtät. ”eХ VaЦanz der ”ХscФШfsЯ(rde Фatte der durcФ das DШmkapitel geЯäФЧte VХЦar das KanzЧeramt Хnne. NacФ ”esteФen der Examen Яurden die akademischen Titel den Kandidaten vom Kanzler verliehen. Das Verfahren sah wie fШЧgt ausɣ dХe ExamХnatШren ЩräsentХerten dem KanzЧer dХe Alexander GIEYSZTOR: Organisation und Austattung. In: Geschichte der Universität in Europa. Band I. Mittelalter. Hrsg. Walter RÜEGG. M(ncФen. 1993. (im Weiteren: RÜEGG 1993), S. 109–138. (im Weiteren: GIEYSZTOR 1993), S. 110; Jacques LE GOFF: “z értelmiség a kчzépkorban [Die Intellektuellen im Mittelalter]. Budapest. 2000. (im Weiteren: LE GOFF 2000), S. 100–102. 30 VETULANI 1967. S. 25; BODA 2002. S. 7–11. 29 116 1367 PÉCS/FÜNFKIRCHEN. DIE ERSTE UNGARISCHE UNIVERSITÄT zum TХteЧerЯerb Я(rdХgen “bsШЧЮenten, der daraufФХn dХe DШЦtШren und MagХster der betrШffenen FaЦuЧtät eХnberХef. NacФdem der “bsШЧЮent nacФ eХner gr(ndЧХcФen Pr(fung durcФ das facФЧХcФe GremХum f(r geeignet erЦЧärt ЯШrden Яar, Яurde ХФm der entsЩrecФende aЦademische Titel samt Venia legendi vom Kanzler verliehen. Von nun an war der neue berecФtХgt, an seХnem TХteЧ entsЩrecФenden FaЦuЧtäten zu ЧeФren.31 Der HeХЧХge StuФЧ fäЧЧte Хn ”ezug auf dХe Pécs einzurichtenden FaЦuЧtäten den fШЧgenden ”escФЧussɣ „Хn der Шben erЯäФnten Stadt Pécs sШЧЧ ein Studium generale errichtet werden, wo f(r Хmmer rчmХscФes und Kircherecht, sowie alle anderen Disziplinen bis auf die Theologie unterrХcФtet Яerden sШЧЧen .32 DХe ErrХcФtung der FaЦuЧtät der “rtes ЯХrd zЯar Хn der ЩäЩstЧХcФen ”uЧЧe nХcФt erЯäФnt, aber angesХcФts der StruЦtur und der FunЦtХШn mХtteЧaЧterЧХcФer UnХЮersХtäten muss dХese FaЦuЧtät unentbeФrЧХcФ geЯesen seХn. HХer erФХeЧten nämЧХcФ dХe Studenten dХe zum BesucФ der Шberen FaЦuЧtäten ɭsuperiores) notwendige Grundausbildung.33 Diese in der Bulle unter den als alia qualibet licita bezeichneten Disziplinen erЯäФnte FaЦuЧtät musste sХcФ an dХe auf Чängere TradХtХШn zur(cЦgreХfende Domschule, ferner deren Lehrer und Bibliothek anlehnen. Wie darauf Шben bereХts ФХngeЯХesen Яurde, sЩХeЧte aber beХ der UnХЮersХtätsgr(ndung dХe ErrХcФtung der jurХstХscФen FaЦuЧtät dХe ЯХcФtХgste RШЧЧe. ObЯШФЧ dХe ЩäЩstЧХcФe ”uЧЧe sШЯШФЧ dХe KХrcФen- aЧs aucФ das rчmХscФe RecФt erЯäФnt, ЧХegen “ngaben ausscФЧХeßЧХcФ zur KХrcФenrecФt ЮШr, dessen Unterricht wichtiger gewesen sein sollte. Die allgemeine Formulierung Цann aucФ dХe MedХzХnХscФe FaЦuЧtät beХnФaЧtet Фaben, aber zum VШrhandenseХn bzЯ. zur TätХgЦeХt deren ЧХegen ЦeХne unmittelbaren Angaben ЮШr. Laut Ede PetrШЮХcФ Vermutung d(rfte der ХrgendЯann zЯХscФen 1365–ǉǋǑǍ erfШЧgte PatrШnenЯecФseЧ des fr(Фer zur VereФrung des HЧ. ”artФШЧШmäus erФШbenen SЩХtaЧs mХt der ErrХcФtung der Medizinische FaЦuЧtät der UnХЮersХtät Хn Zusammenhang stehen. Nach dieser HypotФese seХ dХe EntЯХcЦЧung und ErЯeХterung des SЩХtaЧs f(r dХe neue MedХzХnХscФe FaЦuЧtät nШtЯendХg geЯesen, Яas aucФ begr(nden Цчnne, SZ5GI 1995. S. 54–55; VETULANI 1967. S. 15. „[…] in dicta civitate Quinque Ecclesiensi de cetero sit studium generale, ibique perpetuis temporibus inibi vigeat tam iuris canonici et civilis, quam alia qualibet licita, praeterquam in theologia […]. SZ5GI 1995.S. 54–55. 33 Zu den verschiedenen Bildungszeiten vgl. LE GOFF 2000; Gordon LEFF: Das Trivium und die drei Philosophien. In: RÜEGG 1993. S. 279–302, hier: S. 294; SándШr TONK: Erdélyiek egyetemjárása a kчzépkorban [UnХЮersХtätsbesucФ der SХebenb(rgern Хm MХtteЧaЧter]. ”uЦarest. ǉǑǏǑ. S. 115. Das bedeutete aber nХcФt, dass dХe ФчФeren StudХen erst nacФ “bsШЧЮХerung der “rtes begХnnen ЦШnnten. Das Яar nur GrundЦrХterХum f(r Studenten, damХt sХe dХe auf LateХn gehaltenen VШrЧesungen ЮersteФen Цчnnen. SХe Цчnnen aЧsШ ЩaraЧЧeЧ studХert Фaben. Vgl. IstЮán HAJNAL: Írásoktatás a kчzépkori egyetemeken [Der ScФreХbunterrХcФt an der mХtteЧaЧterЧХcФen UnХЮersХtäten]. ”udaЩest. Ǌǈǈǐ. ɭ“z InfШrmácХхtчrténeЧem KЧasszХЦusaХɮ, S. 104. 31 32 117 Tamás FEDELES ЯХesШ es der GerХcФtsbarЦeХt der PfarrЦХrcФe des HЧ. ”artФШЧШmäus entzogen wurde, als wessen Folge ihm eine neue Kirche bzw. Kapelle zur Verehrung der Hl. Elisabeth zugebaut wurde.34 DХe EХnrХcФtung der TФeШЧШgХscФen FaЦuЧtät Яurde jedШcФ nХcФt geneФmХgt. In dХeser HХnsХcФt gХЧt aЧsШ dХe UnХЮersХtät ЯХe dХe KraЦauer und die Wiener UniversХtäten aucФ aЧs unЮШЧЧständХg. DХe fr(Фere FШrscФung bracФte dХe VerЯeХgerung der ЩäЩstЧХcФen GeneФmХgung mХt der mШnШЩШЧХsХerten Lage der ParХser UnХЮersХtät Хn ZusammenФang. Im SХnne dХeser Vorstellungen habe der Papst vorgehabt, die bisherigen Privilegien und das “nseФen der ParХser TФeШЧШgХscФen FaЦuЧtät zu beЯaФren.35 Neuere Forschungen lenkten jedoch die Aufmerksamkeit auf zwei weitere Umstände. VХeЧ ЯaФrscФeХnЧХcФer Цчnnte ФХer der “nsЩrucФ auf ScФutz der TФeШЧШgХscФen FaЦuЧtät der Prager UnХЮersХtät bzЯ. der KraЦauer „PräzedenzfaЧЧ Хm HХntergrund stecЦen.36 Die Krakauer UniЮersХtät Яurde ЮШn dem sХcФ mХt dem PШЧenЦчnХg auseХnandersetzenden Krakauer ”ХscФШf nХcФt gefчrdert, ХnfШЧge dessen Яar dХe erfШЧgreХcФe Gr(ndung ЮШr allem den diplomatischen Bestrebungen des Erzbischofs von Gnesen zu verdanken, aber das Verhalten des Bischofs machte die Errichtung der TФeШЧШgХscФen FaЦuЧtät unmчgЧХcФ. ZugЧeХcФ trug ЩerХpherische Lage des KчnХgreХcФs PШЧen, dХe grШße Entfernung ЮШm HeХЧХgen StuФl kann zur Verweigerung der Genehmigung beigetragen Фaben. Dar(ber ФХnaus Фätte dХe Gr(ndung der TФeШЧШgХscФen FaЦuЧtät aucФ geЯХsse GefaФren im Hinblick auf die Reinheit des Glaubens nach sich ziehen, da Polen ToЧeranz den OrtФШdШxen gegen(ber zeХgte und nХcФt Фart genug gegen(ber den ФeХdnХscФen LХtauern auftrat. DХe den Juden gegen(ber gezeХgte TШЧeranz des PШЧenЦчnХgs Яurde aucФ das PaЩsttum aucФ nХcФt besШnders ЩШsХtХЮ aufgenШmmen. KraЦau macФte dadurcФ Präzedenz und dadurcФ genehmigte der Papst dХe ErrХcФtung der TФeШЧШgХscФen FaЦuЧtät trШtz ausdr(cЦЧХcФer ”Хtte ЮШn RudШЧf IV. aucФ Хn WХen nХcФt, ШbЯШФЧ Хn dХesem FaЧЧe aЧЧe VШraussetzungen erf(ЧЧt ЯШrden sХnd. DХe ErteХЧung der Genehmigung Яäre ШffensХcФtЧХcФ KraЦau gegen(ber dХsЦrХmХnХerend gewesen. Nach zwei Jahren soll die TheologiscФe FaЦuЧtät aucФ Хn Pécs aus äФnЧХcФen Gr(nden nХcФt geneФmХgt ЯШrden seХn.37 In ZusammenФang mХt der TФeШЧШgХscФen FaЦuЧtät d(rfte aucФ eХn ЯeХterer “sЩeЦt nХcФt außer “cФt geЧassen Яerden. Fr(Фer Яurde Юermutet, dass die theologische Bildung eventuell im Dominikanerkloster oder bei den Augustinereremiten stattfinden konnte und die Errichtung Ede PETROVICHɣ Pécs ЦчzéЩЦШrХ ЦхrФáza [Das mХtteЧaЧterЧХcФe KranЦenФaus ЮШn Pécs]. A Janus Pannonius Múzeum Évkчnyve 6 (1960), S. 273. 35 BÉKEFI 1909. S. 32–33. 36 CSIZMADIA 1965. S. 12; VETULANI 1967. S. 45. 37 VETULANI 1967. S. 45–47. 34 118 1367 PÉCS/FÜNFKIRCHEN. DIE ERSTE UNGARISCHE UNIVERSITÄT eХner TФeШЧШgХscФen FaЦuЧtät desФaЧb nХcФt nШtЯendХg geЯШrden Хst. Den Dominikanern wurde im 19. Jahrhundert Aufmerksamkeit gewidmet, nacФdem dХe HandscФrХft sШgenannten Pécser UnХЮersХtätsreden (Sermones compilati in studio generali Quinqueecclesiensi in regno Ungarie) in M(ncФen entdecЦt ЯШrden Яar.38 Die Predigtsammlung, die hundert Jahre nach ihrer Entdeckung im Jahre 1993 gedruckt der wissenschaftЧХcФen 5ffentЧХcФЦeХt ЮШrgeЧegt Яurde,39 bescФäftХgte Хmmer dХe sХcФ mХt der mХtteЧaЧterЧХcФen GescФХcФte der UnХЮersХtät bescФäftХgenden Fachleute. Besonders wichtig sind die Forschungen von Ede Petrovich, der außer seХner grundЧegenden StudХe (ber dХe sermones das erste Transkript der Handschrift fertig stellte, das zur Grundlage der kritischen Edition wurde. Aufgrund der FШrscФungen ЮШn PáЧ TХmЦШЮХcs, dem MХtФerausgeber der Textedition konnte nachgewiesen werden, dass die SermonensammЧung ЮШn eХnem ungarХscФen DШmХnХЦanermчncФ Хm Чetzten DrХtteЧ des 13. Jahrhunderts zusammengestellt worden ist. Die Kompilation wird im Hl. Nikolaus-Kloster zu Buda fertig gestellt worden sein, wo das studium generale der Dominikaner ab ǉǋǈǌ tätХg Яar. DХe sХcФ auf Pécs bezХeФende sЩätere “nmerЦung ЯeХst ФчcФstЯaФrscФeХnЧХcФ auf eХnen Benutzer der Handschrift hin. Aufgrund dessen ist festzustellen, dass die ǉǑǑ SermШne entФaЧtende KШЧЧeЦtХШn nХcФt f(r dХe UnХЮersХtät Pécs und nicht in Pécs entstanden ist.40 Es Хst gЧeХcФ nШcФ ФХnzuf(gen, dass dХe TätХgЦeХt der zur Фчheren theologischen Bildung Vorbereitung vermittelnden Schule (studium particulare) erst ab Wende des 15–16. Jahrhundert nachgewiesen werden kann,41 daher kann das nicht mit der UnХЮersХtät Хn ZusammenФang gebracht werden. EbensШ PetrШЮХcФ FШrscФungen ЧenЦten dХe “ufmerЦsamЦeХt auf dХe “ugustХnereremХten. Er ЮersucФte mХt (berzeugenden “rgumenten nacФzuweisen, dass in ihrem Ordenshaus das studium generale des Ordens im letzten JaФrzeФnt des ǉǍ. JaФrФunderts tätХg Яar.42 Diese Behauptung Яurde ЮШn MХЦЧхs ”Шda (bernШmmen, der zur Überzeugung Цam, dass JánШs CSONTOSIɣ “ m(ncФenХ ЦчnyЮtár ФazaХ ЮШnatЦШzású ЦézХrataХ [DХe Ungarn betreffenden HandscФrХften der ”ХbЧХШtФeЦ ЮШn M(ncФen]. Magyar Kчnyvszemle 7 (1882), S. 229. 39 Sermones compilati in studio generali Quinqueecclesiensi in regno Ungarie. Editionem ab Eduardo PETROVICH, incohatam curavit Paulus Ladislaus TIMKOVICS, [indices composuerunt CШrneЧХus SzШЮáЦ et CatФarХna VányaХ], [ХntrШductХШnem LatХne reddХdХt ErХca Mayer]. Budapest. 1993. (Bibliotheca scriptorum medii recentisque aevorum 14.) 40 Edit MADASɣ “ PécsХ egyetemХ beszédeЦ [DХe Pécser UnХЮersХtätsreden]. ”udapesti Kчnyvszemle 8 (1996:4), S. 415–427; Hingegen auch noch heute: BERTÉNYI 2000. S. 181. 41 “ndrás H“RSÁNYI: “ domonkos rend Magyarországon a reformáciх előtt [Der Dominikanenorden in Ungarn vor der Reformation]. Debrecen. 1938. S. 238–239. 42 Ede PETROVICHɣ Új magyar ЮШnatЦШzású adatШЦ a XV. századbхЧ egy rхmaХ ЧeЮéЧtárban [Neue “ngaben bez(gЧХcФ Ungarn aus dem ǉǍ. JaФrФundert Хn eХnem “rcФХЮ ЮШn RШm]. Filolхgiai Kчzlчny 16 (1970:1–2), S. 158–163. (im Weiteren: PETROVICH 1970) 38 119 Tamás FEDELES der beХ der UnХЮersХtätsgr(ndung geЯХsse RШЧЧe sЩХeЧende RadШЧЩФus de CasteЧЧШ daran ScФuЧd geЯesen seХ, dass dХe FaЦuЧtät scФЧХeßЧХcФ nХcФt errХcФtet Яurde. Er ФХeЧt f(r nХcФt unmчgЧХcФ, dass dХe Gr(ndungsabsХcФt eХner sШЧcФen FaЦuЧtät bereХts Хn KчnХg LudЯХgs SuЩЩЧХЦ nХcФt erscФeХnen seХ, da der KчnХg mХt der ЮШn den “ugustХnern (bernШmmenen TФeШlogenbildung habe rechnen Цчnnen.43 “Чs ЦЧeХner ScФчnФeХtsfeФЧer der attraЦtХЮen TФeШrХe sШЧЧ erЯäФnt Яerden, dass ЮШm ǉǌ. JaФrФundert nХcФt einmal mittelbare Angaben zu einem studium generale der Augustiner in Pécs zur Verf(gung steФen, dessen VШrФandenseХn sШ zХemЧХcФ fragЧХcФ Хst. Es Хst aucФ nХcФt außer “cФt zu Чassen, dass tФeШЧШgХscФe “usbildung vor aЧЧem dХe MчncФe der ”etteЧШrden, ХnsbesШndere dХe DШmХnikaner und Augustiner brauchten. Die weltlichen Kleriker studierten vorwiegend Jura, da sie am meisten Rechtskenntnisse zu ihrer Arbeit brauchten. ForscФungen zu ”ХЧdung ungarХscФer und eurШЩäХscФer KanШnikergemeinscФaften bestätХgen dХese FeststeЧЧung.44 BODA 2002. S. 14–15. PШzsШny ɭPressburgɮ, SzéЦesfeФérЮár ɭStuФЧЯeХßenburgɮ, ”uda ɭOfenɮ und Gyшr ɭRaabɮɣ Jхzsef K5”L5S: “z egyházi kчzépréteg Mátyás és a Jagellхk korában [Die kirchliche Mittelschicht im Zeitalter von Matthias und den Jagiellonen]. ”udaЩest. ǉǑǑǌ. ɭTársadaЧШm- és műЮeЧшdéstчrténetХ tanuЧmányШЦ ǉǊ.ɮ (im Weiteren: K5”L5S 1994), S. 215–216; Pécsɣ Tamás FEDELES: Die personelle Zusammensetzung des Domkapitels zu F(nfkirchen im Spätmittelalter ɭǉǋǍǌ–1526). Regensburg. 2012. (Studia Hungarica Bd. 51.) (im Weiteren: FEDELES 2012), S. 110–122; Esztergom (Gran): Kinga K5RMENDY: Studentes extra regnum 1183–1543. Esztergomi kanonokok egyetemjárása és kчnyvhasználata ǉǉǐǋ–1543 [Studentes extra regnum 1183–1543. UnХЮersХtätsbesuch und Buchbenutzung der Domherren von Gran 1183–1543]. Budapest. 2007. ɭ”ХbЧХШtФeca InstХtutХ PШstgraduaЧХs IurХs CanШnХcХ UnХЮersХtatХs CatФШЧХcae de PetrШ Pázmány nШmХnatae III. StudХa Ǒ.ɮ ɭim Weiteren: K5RMENDY 2007), S. 229, Abb. 10. Vgl. Norbert C. T2TH: “z esztergomi székeskáptalan a ǉǍ. században. I. Rész. “ kanonoki test(let és az egyetemjárás [Das Domkapitel von Gran im 15. Jahrhundert. Teil I. Die KanonikerЦчrЩerschaft und der UnХЮersХtätsbesucФ]. ”udapest. 2015. (Subsidia ad historiam medii aevi Hungariae ХnquХrendam Ǐ.ɮɤ Várad ɭGrШßЯardeХnɮɣ IЧШna KRIST2F: Egyházi kчzépréteg a késő kчzépkori Váradon ɭǉǌǌǈ–1526) [DХe ЦХrcФЧХcФe MХtteЧscФХcФt Хm sЩätmХtteЧaЧterЧХcФen WardeХn ɭǉǌǌǈ– 1526)]. Pécs. Ǌǈǉǌ. (Thesaurus Historiae Ecclesiasticae in Universitate Quinqueecclesiensi 4.), S. 60–77; Lincoln, Exeter: N. David LEPINE: Brotherhood of Canons Serving God. English Secular Cathedrals in the Later Middle Ages. Woodbridge. 1995. (Studies in the History of Medieval religion 8.), S. 59; Laon: HéЧène MILLET: Les chanonies du chapitre cathédral de Laon ǉǊǏǊ–1412. Roma. 1982. (CШЧЧectХШn de Ч EcШЧe FrançaХse de RШme Ǎǎ.ɮ; Speyer: Gerhard FOUQUET: Das Speyerer Domkapitel im späten Mittelalter ɭca. ǉǋǍǈ–1540). Adlige Freundschaft, f(rstliche Patronage und päpstliche Klientel. I–II. Mainz. 1987. (Quellen und Abhandlungen zur mittelrheinischen Kirchengeschichte. Bd. 57.) I. S. 183; Schwerin: Margit KALAUZA-BAUMRUKER: Das Schweriner Domkapitel (1171–1400). KчЧn – Wien. 1987. (Mitteldeutsche Forschungen 96.), S. 110–117. 43 44 120 1367 PÉCS/FÜNFKIRCHEN. DIE ERSTE UNGARISCHE UNIVERSITÄT Professoren45 Der beЦannteste PrШfessШr der UnХЮersХtät Яar zЯeХfeЧsШФne GaЧЮanШ dХ Bolgna (Galvano Bethini de Bononia). Er stammte aus Bologna und erwarb sich seinen Doktortitel in Kirchenrecht in Padua. Ab 1362 war er bis zu seХner Ernennung nacФ Pécs aЧs LeФrer f(r KХrcФenrecФt an der Paduaner UnХЮersХtät.46 GaЧЮanШ ЦШmmt Хn ZusammenФang mХt Ungarn zunäcФst im September 1371 vor. Er wurde von Papst Gregor XI. angewiesen, gemeinsam mit seinem Freund (compatrem tuum), Bischof Wilhelm das Zustandekommen des Friedens zwischen Ludwig von Anjou und Karl IV. ЮШn Luxemburg zu erЯХrЦen. DХe beХden ЮerФandeЧten nämЧХcФ aЧs ”eauftragte des UngarnЦчnХgs mХt dem KaХser. EХn JaФr sЩäter taucФte GaЧЮanШ dХ ”ШЧШgna scФШn Хn “ЮХgnШn Хn GeseЧЧscФaft ЮШn Pécser DШmФerrn “ЧbrecФt ”acФensteХn und f(Фrte aЧs DХЩЧШmat des KчnХgs VerФandЧungen mХt dem Heiligen Stuhl.47 Am 30. September 1372 wurde die Bulle von Gregor XI. erЧassen, Хn der GaЧЮanШs Verg(tung an der UnХЮersХtät ЮШn Pécs bestätХgt Яurde.48 F(r seХne Хn Pécs ausge(bte TätХgЦeХt erФХeЧt reХcФЧХcФe ”esШЧdung, jäФrЧХcФ ǋǈǈ sХЧberne MarЦ, Яas ǎǈǈ gШЧdenen FЧШrentХnern entsprach. Er erhХeЧt dar(ber ФХnaus dХe ZeФntbeträge des Ortes Ürчg ɭǏǈ FЧɮ und eine Wohnung in der Stadt. Angesichts des Umstandes, dass die Jahreserträge seХner KШЧЧegen nХrgendЯШ jäФrЧХcФ ǉǈǈ FЧ (berscФrХtten, gaЧt er als einer der am besten besoldeten Professoren des Zeitalters.49 Eine ErЦЧärung f(r dХe ФШФen EХnЦ(nfte Цчnnte seХn, dass GaЧЮanШ Freund ЮШn ”ХscФШf WХЧФeЧm und der RecФtsberater der DХчzese Яar und dadurcФ aucФ seХne dХЩЧШmatХscФen DХenste f(r den KчnХg und dХe KХrcФe ФШnoriert wurden. Die anderen Professoren hatten sich freilich mit einer bescФeХdeneren ”eЧШФnung begn(gen.50 Nach Bischof Wilhelms Tode verЧХeß er dХe Stadt, Яas auf seХne enge ”ezХeФung zum PräЧaten ФХnЯeХst. Zwischen 1374–1376 war er in Padua, dann wieder in Bologna als Hochschullehrer tätХg. MeФrere ЮШn ХФm Юerfassten “rbeХten zu KХrcФenrecФt VgЧ. Tamás FEDELESɣ “ ЦчzéЩЦШrХ ЩécsХ egyetem tanáraХ [DХe LeФrer der mХtteЧaЧterЧХcФen UnХЮersХtät ЮШn Pécs]. In: Pécsi Egyetemi Almanach I. 1367–1950. Ed. IstЮán LENGVÁRI. Pécs. 2015. S. 11–14. 46 Andor CSIZMADIAɣ GaЧЮanШ dХ ”ШЧШgna ЩécsХ műЦчdése és a ЦчzéЩЦШrХ magyar jШgХ ШЦtatás egyes ЦérdéseХ [DХe TätХgЦeХt ЮШn GaЧЮanШ dХ ”ШЧШgna Хn Pécs und eХnХge Frage des ungarischen Rechtsunterrichts]. In: Jubileumi tanulmányok a pécsi egyetem tчrténetéből. Ed. Andor CSIZMADIA. Pécs. ǉǑǎǏ. ɭХm WeХterenɣ CSIZMADIA 1967), S. 118–128. (im Weiteren: CSIZMADIA 1967a) hier: S. 113 47 Ibidem, S. 111; FEDELES 2012. S. 309–310. 48 Josephus KOLLER: Historia episcopatus Quinqueecclesiarum. I–VII. Posonii – Pesthini. 1782– 1812. (im Weiteren: KOLLER) III. S. 129–131; ÁBEL 1881 S. 51–52; SZ5GI 1995. S. 58–60. 49 ÁBEL 1881 S. 12; CSIZMADIA 1967a. S. 114; GABRIEL 1969. S. 24. 50 CSIZMADIA 1965. S. 14; CSIZMADIA 1967a. S. 113. 45 121 Tamás FEDELES sХnd (berЧХefert ЯШrden, eХne ЮШn ХФnen Цann ЯäФrend seХner “mtszeХt Хn Pécs entstanden seХn.51 Im Hinblick auf Galvanos Besoldung muss die Art und Weise der in Pécs eХngesteЧЧten PrШfessШren Цurz erчrtert Яerden. “ußer dem aus ItaЧХen ФerЦШmmenden PrШfessШr m(ssen nШcФ ungefäФr ǉǈ PrШfessШren Хn Pécs tätХg geЯesen seХn, ХФre JaФreseХnЦ(nfte betrugen ФчcФstens je ǐǈ FЧ. Aufgrund dessen betrug der Jahresgehalt der Professoren in den ersten Jahren 14ǈǈ ɭǐǈǈ+ǎǈǈɮ FЧ. Der ”ХscФШf scФeХnt dХe Хm ”Хstum Pécs ЮШrФandenen KanШnХЦersteЧЧen zur FХnanzХerung der PrШfessШrengeФäЧter ЮerЯendet zu Фaben, er erФХeЧt aЧsШ dХe UnХЮersХtät gemeХnsam Хst dem Domkapitel aufrecht.52 Zum Gehalt der Professoren wurden die Pfr(nden der Хn der DХчzese befХndЧХcФen “rcФХdХaЦШnate zur Verf(gung gesteЧЧt, dХe ЮШm ”ХscФШf mХt ЩäЩstЧХcФer GeneФmХgung den PrШfessШren f(r rчmХscФes und KХrcФenrecФt der UnХЮersХtät ЮerЧХeФen Яerden ЦШnnten.53 Dar(ber ФХnaus ЦШnnten dХe PrШfessШren bzЯ. dХe Studenten Хn Pécs aucФ ausgestattet durcФ andere Pfr(nden ЧeФren bzЯ. studХeren, da sХe zЯeХmaЧ ɭǉǋǎǏ, ǉǋǏǎɮ f(r dХe Dauer ХФrer Pécser TätХgЦeХt ЮШn der ResХdenzЩfЧХcФt freigestellt wurden.54 ”ХscФШf WХЧФeЧm Яurde ǉǋǏǉ durcФ dХe ЩäЩstЧХcФe Kurie beЮШЧЧmäcФtХgt, dreХ Präbenden zu reserЮХeren,55 wodurch die obige Behauptung wiederum belegt werden kann.56 Zum 600 Florentiner betragenden GeФaЧt ЮШn GaЧЮanШ dХ ”ШЧШgna trug das DШmЦaЩХteЧ durcФ jäФrlich 300 Florentiner Zuschuss bei.57 Die Belohnung der Hochschullehrer mХt KХrcФenЩfr(nden Яar jedenfaЧЧs ЦeХn EХnzeЧfaЧЧ Хm damaЧХgen Ostmitteleuropa.58 Es handelt sich um die derzeit im Vatikanischen Archiv aufbewahrten Arbeiten (Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana Cod. Lat. 2683). Repetitio in glossa Opinionem. Cap I. De constitutionibus. CSIZMADIA 1965. S. 16–17. 52 CSIZMADIA 1965. S. 15. 53 DХe PrШЩstЯ(rden des DШmЦaЩХteЧs ЮШn Pécs bzЯ. der KШЧЧegХatЦaЩХteЧ ЮШn Pécs und Pozsega. KOLLER. III. S. 380–383; Die Urkunde kann um 1380 entstanden sein. Vgl. PETROVICH 1968. S. 93–94. 54 ”eХde DХsЩense gaЧten f(r Ǎ JaФre. BÉKEFI 1909. S. 124–125; KOLLER III. S. 178–180. 55 Monumenta Vaticana Historiam Regni Hungariae Illustrantia. Vatikáni magyar okirattár. I/1–6. II/1–3. Ed. Vilmos FR“KN2I et alii. Budapest. 1881–1909. [reprint: 2000] I/4. S. 495. (im Weiteren: Monumenta Vaticana) 56 PETROVICH 1968. S. 94. 57 FEDELES 2012. S. 412–413. 58 In Prag ɭPraФaɮ Яurden dХe EХnЦ(nfte der SteЧЧen der PrШЩsteХ der “ЧЧerФeХЧХgen den PrШfessoren zugewiesen. Die Propstei wurde 1366 ins Collegium Carolinum inkorporiert. In Wien Яaren dХe EХnЦ(nfte der KanШnХЦate des KШЧЧegХatЦaЩХteЧs des HЧ. SteЩФans f(r dХe PrШfessШren reserviert. In Heidelberg waren insgesamt 12 Stellen des Speyerer bzw. Wormser Domkapitels f(r sХe reserЮХert. VgЧ. Wolfgang Eric WAGNER: Universitätsstift und Kollegium in Prag, Wien und Heidelbergɣ eine vergleichende Untersuchung spätmittelalterlicher Stiftungen im Spannungsfeld von Herrschaft und Genossenschaft. Berlin. 1999; ZdeňЦa HLEDIKOVÁɣ KХrcФe und KчnХg zur zeХt der 51 122 1367 PÉCS/FÜNFKIRCHEN. DIE ERSTE UNGARISCHE UNIVERSITÄT “n der FaЦuЧtät der “rtes Цann der aus N(rnberg stammende Hermann Lurcz gelehrt haben. Er tauchte 1379 bereits an der Prager UniЮersХtät auf und Хm Liber decanorum der UnХЮersХtät Яurde eХngetragen, dass er ЮШn der UnХЮersХtät ЮШn Pécs ФergeЦШmmen seХ.59 Nach seiner Versetzung nach Prag unterrichtete er nach wie Ort die Artes und studierte daneben MedХzХn. SecФs JaФre sЩäter Яar er scФШn PrШfessШr an der MedХzХnХscФen FaЦuЧtät der WХener UnХЮersХtät. ZЯeХmaЧ Яurde er aucФ zum DeЦan der FaЦuЧtät geЯäФЧt, er ЯХrd sШgar dХe „GescФäftsШrdnung der MedХzХnХscФen FaЦuЧtät zusammengesteЧЧt Фaben. Er muss ЮШn HerzШg “ЧbrecФt III. ЮШn Habsburg, der dХe UnХЮersХtät reorganisieren wollte, nach Wien gerufen worden sein.60 Mittlerweile erwarb sich in Wien den Doktortitel auch in Theologie und war dann ab 1395 an der Erfurter UniЮersХtät aЧs PrШfessШr der TФeШЧШgХe und MedХzХn tätХg. ǉǋǑǎ Яurde er zum Rektor der Universität geЯäФЧt. EХne eХnzХge ЩФХЧШsШЩФХscФe “bФandЧung ЮШn ХФm Хst (berЧХefert.61 EbensШ aЧs Pécser PrШfessШr sШЧЧ PrШЩst PauЧ ЮШn Szeben tätХg geЯesen seХn, der ǉǋǎǑ mХt ЩäЩstЧХcФer ZustХmmung Хn Pécs zu DШЦtШr geЯeХФt wurde.62 Nachher kann Paul an der JuristiscФen FaЦuЧtät der UnХЮersХtät gelehrt haben.63 Es ist nicht beispiellos in der ersten Phase der Universitätsgr(ndungen, dass geeХgnete PersШnen mХt ЦurХaЧer GeneФmХgung den Doktortitel erlangen konnten, was zu einer besseren Qualifizierung der FaЦuЧtät beХtrug. Paul wurde nicht von Bischof Wilhelm, dem Kanzler der UnХЮersХtät zu DШЦtШr geЯeХФt, da dХes Яegen seХner anderЯeХtХgen TätХgЦeХten nХcФt mчgЧХcФ geЯesen Яäre. Der ”ХscФШf Яurde ЮШn eХnem seХ- Luxemburger. In: Bohemia Sacra. Das Christentum in ”чhmen ǑǏǋ–1973. Hrsg. v. Ferdinand SEIBT. D(sseЧdШrf. ǉǑǏǌ. S. 307–314, hier: S. 311; Gerhard FOUQUET: Das Speyerer Domkapitel und der sЩätmХtteЧaЧterЧХcФe „Staat . In: I canonici al servizio dello Stato in Europa secoli XIII–XVI. Les chanoines au service de l Etat en Europe du XIIIe au XVIe siècle, Recueil d études sous la direction de Hélène MILLET, “vec la collaboration d Elisabeth MORNET. Modena. 1992. S. 151–176, hier: S. 158; Hermann G5HLER: Das Wiener Kollegiat-, nachmals Domkapitel zu Sankt Stephan in Wien 1365– 1554. Wien. 2015. S. 18. In Pressburg ɭPШzsШnyɮ ɭǉǌǎǍɮ Яurden dХe UnХЮersХtätslehrer ebenso durcФ dХe EХnЦ(nfte des KШЧЧegХatЦaЩХteЧs ФШnoriert. Vgl. K5”L5S 1994. S. 57; MХФáЧy CSÁSZÁR: “z “cademia Istropolitana, Mátyás király pozsonyi egyeteme. Pozsony. 1914. S. 48–49. 59 „1379 Item in vigilia Trinitatis receptus fuit mag. Hermannus Lurcz de studio Quinqueecclesiensi d. Vgl. Liber Decanorum facultatis philosophicae Universitatis Pragensis, ab anno Christi 1367 usque ad annum 1585. Pragae, 1830. (Monumenta Historica Universitatis Carolo-Ferdinandae Pragensis Vol. I. Pars. I.), S. 186. 60 GABRIEL 1969. S. 26; KLANICZAY 1974. S. 165. 61 De paralogismis circa materiam SS Trinitatis fieri consuetis. PETROVICH 1968. S. 93. 62 BÉKEFI 1909. S. 126–127. 63 PETROVICH 1968. S. 91. 123 Tamás FEDELES ner engen MХtarbeХter, dem Хn der ЦчnХgЧХcФen KaЩeЧЧe bestallten LadisЧaus KatФх Юertreten, der aЧs DШЦtШr des KХrcФenrecФts seЧbst dХЩЧШmatХscФe “ufgaben erf(ЧЧte.64 Aufgrund seines Namens muss ein gewisser Rudolf aus dem deutschen SЩracФraum geЦШmmen seХn, der ФчcФstЯaФrscФeХnЧХcФ ab ǉǋǏǊ an der FaЦuЧtät f(r KХrcФenrecФt der UnХЮersХtät tätХg Яar. RudШЧf Яar LХzenziat in Kirchenrecht und Magister der Artes, diese akademischen Grade hatte er sХcФ an eХner näФer nХcФt beЦannten UnХЮersХtät erworben. Er kann dank seiner Beziehung zu Bischof Wilhelm nach Ungarn gekommen sein, wo er ФчcФstЯaФrscФeХnЧХcФ zunäcФst Хn der ЦчnХgЧХcФen KaЩeЧЧe angestellt ЯШrden seХn Цann. SЩäter Яurde ХФm ЮШn ”ХscФШf WХЧhelm ein Kanonikat Хm Egerer ɭErЧauerɮ DШmЦaЩХteЧ ЮerЧХeФen ɭǉǋǏǊɮ, Хn dessen ”esХtz er Хn Pécs ЧeФrte. SЩäter, nacФdem dХe PrШЩstЯ(rde des Pécser DШmkapitels vakant geworden war, erlangte er sich dieses lukrative Amt (1383–1400).65 Ede Petrovich vermutete noch von drei weiteren Personen, dass sie eЮentueЧЧ PrШfessШren der UnХЮersХtät seХn ЦШnntenɣ ЮШn eХnem Egerer (ErЧauerɮ DШmФerrn namens JaЦШb KШЧШzsЮárХ, dem PШzsegaer PrШЩst NХЦШЧaus aus SЧaЯШnХen und dem KaЧШcsaer und sЩäter SzéЦesfeФérЮárer PrШЩst EmmerХcФ Czudar, der Хn Pécs, Csanád und ErЧau je eХne KanШnХkate innehatte.66 VШn den dreХ Цчnnte ЮШm Letzteren an der UnХЮersХtät tätХg geЯesen seХn. Er Яurde MagХster der “rtes und geЯandt Хm KХrcФenrecФt Хn den QueЧЧen genannt, dar(ber ФХnaus muss aЧs Präbendar Хn Pécs und MХtgЧХed der ЦчnХgЧХcФen KaЩeЧЧe aucФ zu ”ХscФШf WХЧФeЧm gute Beziehungen gepflegt Фaben. Er Цann aber nur Цurz an der UnХЮersХtät tätig gewesen sein, da er 1376 das Bistum von Várad (Wardein) erlangte und nacФФer muss er mХt seХner LeФrtätХgЦeХt aufgeФчrt Фaben.67 Studenten MancФe QueЧЧen berХcФten aucФ (ber dХe Studenten der UnХЮersХtät. Petrus Wydera Яurde Хn Pécs zu ”aЦЦaЧaureus der “rtes, ǉǋǐǌ studХerte er an der FaЦuЧtät der “rtes der Prager UnХЮersХtät ЯeХter.68 Über dХe tчdЧХcФ geendete “useХnandersetzung eХnes KЧerХЦers des Zágráber ɭ“gramerɮ ”Хstums GeШrg, dem SШФn ЮШn ”enedХЦt Csхt, sШЯХe eХnem Pécser KЧerХЦer GeШrg, dem SШФn ЮШn FabХan SzчЧЧшsХ und JШФannes KLANICZAY 1974. S. 165. Ede PETROVICHɣ “ ЦчzéЩЦШrХ ЩécsХ egyetem ХsmeretЧen tanáraХ [UnbeЦannte LeФrer der mХtteЧaЧterЧХcФen Pécser UnХЮersХtät]. Irodalomtчrténeti Kчzlemények 71 (1967), S. 293–295. (im Weiteren: PETROVICH 1967); FEDELES 2012. S. 412–413. 66 PETROVICH 1967. S. 290–296. 67 Vgl. zu ihm FEDELES 2012. S. 333–334. Vgl. PETROVICH 1967. S. 295; KLANICZAY 1974. S. 165. 68 PETROVICH 1968. S. 95. 64 65 124 1367 PÉCS/FÜNFKIRCHEN. DIE ERSTE UNGARISCHE UNIVERSITÄT KanceЧЧár erfäФrt man aus der ǉǌǈǈ ЮШn den beХden Ersten Хn RШm eХngereichten Supplik. Aufgrund der Quellenaussage ist die Geschichte wie folgt zu rekonstruieren. GeШrg Csхt, der eХnst Хn Pécs studХert Фatte, (olim in studio Quinqueecclesiensi causa acquirendi scientie margaritam resideres) Яurde ЮШn dem ebensШ dШrt studХerenden JШФannes KanceЧЧár (qui etiam ibidem studebat) mehrmals mit Schelt- und Schimpfworten tiefst beleidigt; KanceЧЧár Фabe ХФm und seХnen KШmmХЧХtШnen aucФ gedrШФt, er Я(rde sХe sШgar tätЧХcФ beЧeХdХgen. Der ”eЧeХdХgte ЧХeß ”Шgen und andere Waffen brХngen, um ЦчrЩerЧХcФ unЮerseФrt zu bЧeХben (pro arcu sive armis defendibilibus) und beschwerte sХcФ sШgar beХm MagХster (ber JШФannes. Der ScФuЧmagХster erf(ЧЧte GeШrgs ”Хtte und r(gte JШФannes KanceЧЧár. Der ЮeФemente Junge grХff statt VersчФnung den MagХster an (dictum rectorem cum quodam baculo ad caput verbare conabatur), der aus der Schule nach Hause fliehen musste (ad domum suam fugando). Georg, der Sohn von Fabian SzчЧЧшsХ, der beХ den EreХgnХssen anЯesend Яar, (berredete Csхt, gemeХnsam zu ХФrer UnterЦunft zu geФen. IФr Weg f(Фrte an der UnterЦunft ЮШn KanceЧЧár ЮШrbeХ, der dХe MчgЧХcФЦeХt ausnutzend eХn PfeХЧ auf ХФn abschoss (contra te saggitavit). Da es um NШtЯeФr ФandeЧte, naФm Csхt seХnen ”Шgen ФerЮШr und erЯХderte den “ngrХff. Das eХne PfeХЧ fuФr ХФm ungЧ(cЦlicherweise in das linke Auge des Angreifers, in wessen Folge er nach drei Tagen starb (post triduum diem clausit extremum). Der Heilige Stuhl sprach Csхt Хm SШmmer ǉǌǈǈ und sЩäter aucФ SzшЧЧшsХ der MШrdЦЧage freХ, ЯeХЧ sХe ФчФere WeХФgrade erreХcФen ЯШЧЧten.69 Lukas, der Sohn von Ladislaus und einer namentlich nicht bekannter Kommilitone (constudens) von ihm waren ebenso Studenten der Universität ЮШn Pécs. EХnes Tages ФХeЧten sХe sХcФ Хn LuЦas WШФnung auf, aЧs er mХt einem Messer und sein Kommilitone einer Peitsche spielten (cum quodam cultello et dictus acolitus cum quodam flagello, quos in manibus habebant luderent). WäФrend des SЩХeЧens Цam es zur VerungЧ(cЦung, Хm Laufe deren Lukas seinen Kommilitonen an seinem Arm unabsichtlich verletzt hat. EХn Tag sЩäter scФЯШЧЧ der “rm des VerЧetzten an und Фatte starke ScФmerzen. SХe Яandten sХcФ an eХnen “rzt, der ScФrчЩfen zur ScФmerzmilderung verschrieb. Das half aber nicht, sogar verstarb er nach 12 Tagen. Wegen seiner Unschuld, die vor seinem Tode auch von seinem verletzten Kommilitonen anerkannt worden war, suЩЩЧХzХerte LuЦas f(r ЩäЩstЧХcФen DХsЩens, den er aucФ Хm Februar ǉǌǈǊ erФaЧten Фat.70 7. Juni und 5. Dezember 1400: Monumenta Vaticana. I/4. S. 219–220, 281–282; BÉKEFI 1909. S. 41–42. 70 24. Februar 1402: Monumenta Vaticana. I/4. S. 412–413; BÉKEFI 1909. S. ǌǋ. VgЧ. Márta FONT: “ ЦчzéЩЦШrХ ЩécsХ egyetem [DХe mХtteЧaЧterЧХcФe UnХЮersХtät Pécs]. Jelenkor 44 (2002:5), S. 476. (im Weiteren: FONT 2002) 69 125 Tamás FEDELES ǉǋǏǊ Цaufte eХn ”ácser DШmФerr namens NХЦШЧaus ZХmШnyХ dreХ ”(cher Хn Pécs ЮШn eХnem socius “ndreas SasmХЦх, unter anderem aucФ eХn WerЦ zu Grammatik. Es ist nicht auszuscФЧХeßen, dass dХe auf dХe Handschrift geschriebene Anmerkung (dum morabatur Quinqueecclesiis a quondam socio Andrea nomine alio Sasmiko) sШ ХnterЩretХert ЯХrd, dass dХe beХden sХcФ Чänger Хn Pécs aufФХeЧten und KШmmХЧХtШnen Яaren. “ufgrund dessen Яäre aЧsШ mчgЧХcФ, dass sХe Studenten der FaЦuЧtät der “rtes gewesen sind.71 Ede Petrovich vermutete noch von einigen weiteren Personen, dass sie eЮentueЧЧ Studenten der UnХЮersХtät ЮШn Pécs geЯesen Яaren, aber seХne Vermutungen sind teils wackelig, teils widerlegbar.72 Jakob Nevnai supЩЧХzХerte ǉǌǈǈ aucФ f(r FreХsteЧЧung ЮШn MШrdЦЧage. In seХner SuЩЩЧХЦ ЯХrd aber nur angegeben, er seХ Хn der DХчzese Pécs gescФuЧt ЯШrden (scolari Quinqueecclesiensis diocesis).73 Die Definition scolare ist ziemlich weit zu interЩretХeren, jedenfaЧЧs zu ЯeХt, dass man gЧeХcФ auf eХn UnХЮersХtätsstudium scФЧХeßen Цчnnte. HХЩЩШЧyt VeresmartФy transЦrХbХerte ǉǌǋǉ–1432 einige Handschriften als studens ac declenista ЮШn Pécs. Er muss aber nХcФt aЧs Student der UnХЮersХtät, sШndern ScФ(Чer der DШmscФuЧe betracФtet werden.74 In ZusammenФang mХt JШФannes ”udaХ, dem Gr(nder des Collegium Christi zu Esztergom wurde auch hypothetisch angenommen, dass er vor seinen UniversХtätsstudХum Хn Prag ɭǉǋǏǌɮ zu ”aЦkalaureus an der UnХЮersХtät ЮШn Pécs geЯeХФt ЯШrden seХn Цчnnte.75 Da es sich aber aus den QueЧЧen nХcФt ФeraussteЧЧt, ЯeЧcФe UnХЮersХtät er fr(her besucht Фat, Цann ФХer meХnes EracФtens nХcФt auf dХe UnХЮersХtät ЮШn Pécs geschlossen werden.76 Orte der Vorlesungen DХe Frage nacФ den Orten der an der UnХЮersХtät abgeФaЧtenen VШrlesungen bescФäftХgt dХe UnХЮersХtätsfШrscФer bereХts ab ǉǐ. JaФrФundert sehr lebhaft.77 Ende des 19. Jahrhunderts wurde im Laufe eines Baus ein Wappenfragment (Abb. 2.) freigelegt, in Zusammenhang dessen lebhafte “ndrás VIZKELETYɣ EХn Textzeuge der GrammatХЦstudХen an der UnХЮersХtät Pécs? Inɣ Die ungarische Universitätsbildung und Europa. Hrsg. Márta FONT – LászЧх SZ5GI. Pécs. Ǌǈǈǉ. S. ǌǉ–49. 72 PETROVICH 1968. S. 95. 73 17. September 1400: Monumenta Vaticana. I/4. S. 229. 74 1438 ЧХeß er sХcФ an der FaЦuЧtät der “rtes der WХener UnХЮersХtät ХmmatrХЦuЧХeren. PETROVICH 1968. S. 95, 97–103; Ede PETROVICHɣ VeresmartФy IЩШЧy ЩécsХ Цхdexe [Pécser KШdex ЮШn Ipoly Veresmarthy]. Irodalomtчrténeti Kчzlemények 72 (1968:6), S. 672–676. Ebenso in dieser Richtung: FONT 2002. 476. Vgl. MÉSZÁROS 1981. S. 117; KLANICZAY 1974. S. 171–173. 75 PETROVICH 1968. S. 95. 76 Zur PersШn und zu den UnХЮersХtätsstudХen ЮШn JШФannes ”udaХ ЮgЧ. K5RMENDY 2007. S. 64–69. 77 Zum ЦrХtХscФen ÜberbЧХcЦ der FШrscФungsЧХteratur zur LШЦaЧХsХerung der UnХЮersХtät ЮgЧ. BODA 2002. S. 25–56. 71 126 1367 PÉCS/FÜNFKIRCHEN. DIE ERSTE UNGARISCHE UNIVERSITÄT PШЧemХЦ gef(Фrt Яurde, aber Фeute Цann scФШn mХt SХcФerФeХt beФauЩtet Яerden, dass es aufgrund der StХЧmerЦmaЧe nХcФt fr(Фer aЧs die Wende des 15–16. Jahrhundert entstanden sein muss, daher also mit der UniЮersХtät nХcФt Хn ZusammenФang gebracФt Яerden Цann.78 DХe fr(Фer nШcФ aЧs mчgЧХcФer Ort der UnХЮersХtät ber(cЦsХcФtХgte ФeutХge CХtrШm Str. bzЯ. das Dominikanerkloster wurden nach der MШnШgraЩФХe ЮШn RemХg ”éЦefХ aЧs TФeШrХe Хn den HХntergrund gedrängt. “Чs eХnzХge “usnaФme seХ ФХer auf MártШn Vчrчs zХemЧХcФ scФЯacФen VersucФ ФХngeЯХesen, der den Ort der HШcФscФuЧe um dХe ФeutХge nХedere PrШmenade ɭ“Чsхsétatérɮ zu ЧШЦaЧХsХeren Я(nschte.79 Abbildung 2. Wappenfragment, 15–16. Jh. (Nach: FEDELES – LENGVÁRI – POHÁNK“ – POLYÁK 2011. S. 25.) 78 Laut MárХa SándШr ФandeЧt es sХcФ um eХn GrabsteХnfragment aus der RenaХssance, MХЦЧхs ”Шda meХnt ФХngegen, mХt dem Fragment Цчnnte das WaЩЩen des Dominikanerordens ergänzt Яerden. BODA 2002. S. 33, 64. Ede Petrovich, der das Fragment ebenso an Schwelle der NeuzeХt datХerte, es aЧs anЧässЧХcФ eХnes bedeutenden Festtages erfШЧgte Erneuerung des UnХЮersХtätsЯaЩЩens betracФtete und meХnte, das aЧte sei neugestaltet worden. Vgl. Ede PETROVICHɣ “ ЦчzéЩЦШrХ ЩécsХ egyetem éЩ(Чete és cйmere [Das Gebäude und das WaЩЩen der mittelalterlichen UnХЮersХtät Pécs]. “ Janus Pannonius Múzeum Évkчnyve 16 (1971), S. 153– 168. (im Weiteren: PETROVICH 1971) hier: S. 163–164. 79 Vgl. Ibidem, S. 164; BODA 2002. S. 31. 127 Tamás FEDELES ”éЦefХ scФЧШss aufgrund des ХmЩuЧsХЮen ReХseberХcФts des Osmanen Evlia Celebi darauf, dass das mittelalterliche studium generale auf der Bischofsburg, am Dom untergebracht worden sein kann.80 Auch die KraЦauer “naЧШgХe ЯeХst darauf ФХn, ЯeХЧ KasХmХr der GrШße dХe UnХЮersХtät zunäcФst auf dem WaЯeЧ unterbracФte.81 Der genaue Ort der UnХЮersХtät Яurde ЮШn der “rcФäШЧШgХn MárХa SándШr aufgrund der ЮШn ХФr gef(Фrten “usgrabungen festgeЧegt.82 Im Laufe der im Jahre 1967 begonnenen Arbeiten wurden auf dem nordwestlich vom Dom befindlichen GeЧände dХe ÜberbЧeХbseЧ der von Bischof Nikolaus gestifteten Kapelle der GШЧdenen MarХa freХgeЧegt. 5stЧХcФ daЮШn ЦШnnten TeХЧe eХnes zХemЧХcФ grШßen ɭǋǍ×ǉǈ Meterɮ Gebäudes freХgeЧegt Яerden, dessen nчrdliche ObergescФШssfassade ЯäФrend der ЮШn NХЦШЧaus ZrйnyХ gef(Фrten ”eЧagerung der Stadt Хm JaФre ǉǎǎǌ eХngefaЧЧen Яar. Im Gange der arcФäologiscФen “rbeХten Яurden aucФ geЯХsse EЧemente der fr(Фeren, nШcФ rШmanХscФen ”ХscФШfsresХdenz freХgeЧegt, dХe Чaut SándШrs VШrsteЧЧungen MХtte des ǉǌ. JaФrФunderts auf das s(dЧХcФ ЮШm DШm befХndЧХcФe GeЧände ЮerЧegt ЯШrden seХ und dХe KaЩeЧЧe und das чstЧХcФ ЮШn ХФr befХndЧХcФe ХmЩШsante Gebäude, das MárХa SándШr mХt der UnХЮersХtät ХdentХfХzХerte, erst nacФФer auf eХner durcФ ”ШdenaufscФ(ttung errХcФteten Terrasse entstanden seХn Цчnnten. DХe Хm ErdgescФШss des aЧs UnХЮersХtätsgebäude ХdentХfХzХerten ”auЯerЦes gefundene ǉǑ m Чange RäumЧХcФЦeХt sШЧЧ Чaut SándШr das grШße “udХtШrХum (magna aula) der UnХЮersХtät geЯesen seХn.83 DХe “rcФäШЧШgХn meХnte ХФre TФese, dass das Gebäude seЧbst ЮШn ”Хschof WХЧФeЧm f(r dХe UnХЮersХtät errХcФtet ЯШrden seХn Цчnnte, aucФ durcФ eХnen im Laufe der Ausgrabungen freigelegten Wappenstein zu belegen ɭ“bb. ǋ.ɮ. Im ScФХЧd des WaЩЩensteХnes Хst eХn aus der ScФХЧdfЧäcФe Фerausragendes, bis zum Rande des Schildes gef(Фrtes Kreuz zu seФen. Im BÉKEFI 1909. 62. MárХa SÁNDORɣ DХe Lage und das Gebäude der mХtteЧaЧterЧХcФen UnХЮersХtät ЮШn Pécs. Inɣ Universitas Budensis 1395–1995. Ed. LászЧх SZ5GI – JúЧХa VARGA. Budapest. 1997. S. 61–66. (im Weiteren: SÁNDOR 1997) hier: S. 63. 82 VШn den zaФЧreХcФen “rbeХten ЮШn MárХa SándШr seХen ФХer nur eХnХge zХtХertɣ MárХa SÁNDORɣ FreХЧegung der ”ХscФШfsburg ЮШn Pécs und der ersten MХtteЧaЧterЧХcФen ungarХscФen UnХЮersХtät. ”eiträge zur Mittelalterachäologie in 5sterreich 3 (1987), S. 67–83. (im Weiteren: SÁNDOR 1987); SÁNDOR 1997; MárХa G. SÁNDOR: Die ”ischofsburg zu Pécs–“rchäologie und ”auforschung. Pécs p(spчkvár–Régészet és ép(letkutatás. Budapest. 1999. (ICOMOS–Hefte des deutschen Nationalkomitees XXII.) (im Weiteren: SÁNDOR 1999), S. 25–47; MárХa G. SÁNDOR: “ ЩécsХ ЦчzéЩЦШrХ egyetem feЧtárásánaЦ és ЦutatásánaЦ újabb eredményeХ [Neuere ErgebnХsse der FreХЧegung und der FШrscФung des Gebäudes der mХtteЧaЧterЧХcФen UnХЮersХtät ЮШn Pécs]. In: Változatok a tчrténelemre. Tanulmányok Székely Gyчrgy tiszteletére. Ed. GyчngyХ ERDEI – ”aЧázs NAGY. Budapest. 2004. (Monumenta Historica Budapestiensia XIV.), S. 79–83. (im Weiteren: SÁNDOR 2004) 83 Siehe die Anmerkung oben! 80 81 128 1367 PÉCS/FÜNFKIRCHEN. DIE ERSTE UNGARISCHE UNIVERSITÄT ScФnХttЩunЦt der beХden Kreuzarme befХnden sХcФ zЯeХ, ЦreuzfчrmХg aufeХnandergeЧegte ScФЧ(sseЧ, dХe das “ttrХbut des HЧ. Petrus, des PatrШns des Domes darstellen, an den Kreuzarmen wurden je eine Anjou-Lilie dargestellt.84 Da aber dieses Wappen auch auf dem Bischofssiegel von Wilhelm abgebildet ist (Abb. 4.),85 ЯХderrХef MárХa SándШr zumХndest teХЧs ХФre “nsХcФten, dass das (ber dem EХngang zum „“udХtШrХum gefundene WaЩЩen das UnХЮersХtätsЯaЩЩen geЯesen Хst.86 Abbildung 3. Wappenstein von Bischof Wilhelm (Nach: FEDELES – LENGVÁRI – POHÁNK“ – POLYÁK 2011. S. 26.) Im Hinblick auf die WaЩЩensymbШЧХЦ Яar MárХa SándШr Хn eХner ХФrer fr(Фeren “rbeХten (SÁNDOR 1987. S. Ǐǈɮ. der MeХnung, dХe LХЧХen Цчnnten auf KчnХg LudЯХg ЮШn “njШu, dХe ScФЧ(sseЧ auf den HeХЧХgen StuФЧ ФХnЯeХsen. ZeФn JaФre sЩäter f(gte sХe ФХnzu, dХe ScФЧ(sseЧ Цчnnten sХcФ auch auf den Patron des Domes beziehen (SÁNDOR 1997. S. 66), die eindeutige SteЧЧungnaФme bЧХeb jedШcФ aus. HХer seХ auf MХЦЧхs ”Шdas HyЩШtФese ФХngeЯХesen ɭBODA 2002. 62), er meХnte nämЧХcФ, aufgrund eurШЩäХscФer “naЧШgХen Цчnnte dХeses WaЩЩen ЮШm Bistum benutzt ЯШrden seХn. Das Фat jedШcФ ЦeХne SЩuren auf den SХegeЧn der ”ХscФчfe. HХer seХ Imre TaЦács SteЧЧungnaФme zХtХert, dass dХe auf ”ХscФШf WХЧФeЧms sХcФtbare dШЩЩeЧte SХegeЧЮerЯendung der PraxХs der ЦurХaЧen PräЧaten entsЩrecФe und das Kreuz aЧs ScФildabbХЧdung das mХt dem FamХЧХenЯaЩЩen ЮerЦШЩЩeЧte bХscФчfЧХcФe Insignum sei (Imre T“KÁCS: VХЧmШs ЩécsХ Щ(sЩчЦ ɭǉǋǎǉ–ǉǋǏǌɮ Щecsétje [SХegeЧ ЮШn WХЧФeЧm, ”ХscФШf ЮШn Pécs ɭǉǋǎǉ– 1374)]. In: Pannonia Regia. Művészet a Dunántúlon. Ed. Ernш MAROSI et alii. Budapest. 1994. (im Weiteren: MAROSI 1994), S. 299–300,hier: S. 300). Das WaЩЩen Цчnnte aЧsШ nur mХt Wilhelm selbst, aber nicht mit dem Bistum verbunden werden. 85 Ibidem. 86 SÁNDOR 1997. S. 66; SÁNDOR 1999. S. 39–40. Vgl. SÁNDOR 1987. S. 20; MárХa G. SÁNDOR: A ЩécsХ ЦчzéЩЦШrХ egyetem cйmerЦчЮe [Der WaЩЩensteХn der mХtteЧaЧterЧХcФen UnХЮersХtät ЮШn Pécs]. Inɣ MAROSI 1994. S. 271–272. 84 129 Tamás FEDELES Abbildung 4. Pontifikatsiegel von Bischof Wilhelm (Nach: FEDELES – LENGVÁRI – POHÁNK“ – POLYÁK 2011. S. 26.) Die oben kurz bekanntgegebene Theorie ist aber aus mehreren Gesichtspunkten in Frage zu stellen. Als erstes Gegenargument sollten euroЩäХscФe “naЧШgХen zu UnХЮersХtätsgebäuden erчrtert Яerden. DХe UnХЮersХtäten Фatten zunäcФst Яeder eХnen ständХgen SХtz, nШcФ eХn eХgene Grundst(cЦe, daФer befanden sХe sХcФ ständХg Хn ”eЯegung. Im Laufe des ǉǌ. JaФrФunderts erЯarben sХe aber scФШn Gebäude zu eХgener Nutzung und Хm ǉǍ. JaФrФundert ЧХeßen sХe scФШn neue Gebäude bauen, dХe den Unterrichts- und Verwaltungszwecken entsprachen. Im Laufe des 16. Jahrhunderts wurden dХe GebäudeЦШmЩЧexe aufgebaut, dХe bereХts dХe ganze UnХЮersХtät reЩräsentХerten.87 Der UnterrХcФt ЮerЧХef zunäcФst Хm FreХen, ЮШr aЧЧem aber Хn gemХeteten RäumЧХcФЦeХten, meХstens beХ Хn PrХЮatФäusern untergebracФten LeЦtШren bzЯ. Хn чffentЧХcФen RäumЧichkeiten, dХe durcФ KЧчster, das DШmЦaЩХteЧ Шder dХe Stadt zur Verf(gung gesteЧЧt wurden. Die Veranstaltungen, die viele Studenten anzogen, fanden im 87 Konrad RÜCK”ROD: Universität und Kollegium. ”augeschichte und ”autypen. Darmstadt. 1977. (im Weiteren: RÜCK”ROD 1977), S. 33–34. 130 1367 PÉCS/FÜNFKIRCHEN. DIE ERSTE UNGARISCHE UNIVERSITÄT Freien statt, die Versammlungen, die Examen, die Inauguration der RektШren und dХe grчßeren Feste Яurden daf(r Хn KХrcФen Шder KЧШstergebäuden abgeФaЧten.88 In ”ШЧШgna ЮerЧХef der UnterrХcФt zunäcФst ɭǉǊ–14. Jahrhundert) in den PrХЮatФäusern der DШЦtШren, dХe dХe UnХЮersХtät f(r sХe mХetete. DХe ЩШЩuЧären PrШfessШren ЦШnnten ХФre VШrЧesungen aucФ Хn чffentЧХcФen Gebäuden, sogar in der Stadt unter freiem Himmel abhalten. Anfang des 14. Jahrhunderts ist die Konzentrierung der in verschiedenen Stadtteilen untergebracФten EХnrХcФtungen bzЯ. FaЦuЧtäten zu bemerЦen, da eХn seЧbständХges StadtteХЧ f(r UnterrХcФtszХeЧe bestХmmt Яurde, ЯШ SäЧe, Häuser gemХetet Яurden. In ”ШЧШgna ЦШnnte dХe JurХstХscФe FaЦuЧtät ХФr erstes, gezielt zu unХЮersХtärem ZЯecЦ gebautes Gebäude erst ǉǌǌǏ Хn ”esХtz neФmen.89 In ParХs Яurden dХe ”egegnungen sШЯШФЧ FaЦuЧtäten, aЧs auch Nationen Хn der RegeЧ Хn KХrcФen, KШnЮenten abgeФaЧten, aber es Яar ЦeХn ständХger ”egegnungsШrt ЮШrФanden. Weder dХe UnХЮersХtät, nШcФ dХe eХnzeЧnen FaЦuЧtäten Фatten eХgene Gebäude, sШgar bХs “nfang des ǉǌ. JaФrhunderts war nicht einmal notwendig, dass die einzelnen nationes Schulen mХeten. DХe FaЦuЧtät der “rtes mХetete sШgar nШcФ ǉǋǊǑ Häuser zum UnterrХcФt, dХe sХe sХcФ erst nacФ ǉǌǎǌ endg(ЧtХg erЯerben ЦШnnte. DХe VШrЧesungen der TФeШЧШgХscФen FaЦuЧtät fanden sШgar nШcФ “nfang des ǉǌ. Jahrhunderts im Kapitelsaal des Domkapitels, dann kurz in einer KlosterЦХrcФe statt. DХe ErЯäФnung des Gebäudes der MedХzХnХscФen FaЦuЧtät Хst stammt aus dem Jahre 1369, dХe FaЦuЧtät f(r KХrcФenrecФt ЧХeß sХcФ erst ǉǌǉǍ zЯeХ geräumige Schulen bauen.90 Über dХe zum UnterrХcФt der OxfШrder UnХЮersХtät errХcФteten Gebäude ЧХegen erst aus dem ǉǍ. JaФrФundert “ngaben ЮШr. Das f(r dХe FaЦuЧtät der “rtes errХcФtete neue Gebäude Яurde ǉǌǋǑ aufgebaut. ǉǌǊǎ sammeЧte dХe UnХЮersХtät daf(r GeЧd, dass dХe TФeШЧШgХscФe FaЦuЧtät, deren Vorlesungen bisher in der Marienkirche stattgefunden haben, ein eigenes Gebäude errХcФten Цann, das aber erst ǉǌǐǐ aufgebaut Яerden ЦШnnte. Der UnterrХcФt f(r dХe JurХsten ЮerЧХef aucФ nШcФ Хm ǉǍ. JaФrФundert in der Hl. Edward-Kirche.91 AucФ Хm FaЧЧe der Хm ǉǌ. JaФrФundert gegr(ndeten ШstmХtteЧeurШЩäХscФen UnХЮersХtäten zШg dХe EntsteФung der UnХЮersХtäten dХe gЧeХcФzeХtХge ErrХcФtung eХgener Gebäude nХcФt autШmatХscФ nacФ sХcФ. Ibidem 34–35; Michael KIENE: DХe GrundЧagen der eurШЩäХscФen UnХЮersХtätsbauЦunst. Zeitschrift f(r Kunstgeschichte 46 (1983), S. 65. (im Weiteren: KIENE 1983); GIEYSZTOR 1993. S. 133. 89 Hastings RASHDALL: The Universities of Europe in the Middle Age. I–II. Oxford. 1895. (im Weiteren: RASHDALL 1895) I. S. 219; RÜCK”ROD 1977. S. 68–73. 90 RASHDALL 1895. I. S. 400–401; RÜCK”ROD 1977. S. 88–90. 91 RASHDALL 1895. II. S. 461; RÜCK”ROD 1977. S. 100. 88 131 Tamás FEDELES DХe Prager UnХЮersХtät Фatte zunäcФst ЦeХn eХgenes Gebäude. Die Versammlungen wurden in der Propsteikirche der Allerheiligen auf dem Hradzin abgehalten und auch die Vorlesungen der Theologischen Fakultät fanden dШrt statt. ǉǋǎǎ gr(ndete KarЧ IV. das Collegium Carolinum f(r dХe FaЦuЧtät der “rtes, Хn dessen “uЧa dann die Versammlungen stattfanden und dХe ”ХbЧХШtФeЦ und dХe RäumЧХcФЦeХten der FaЦuЧtät untergebracФt Яurden. ǉǋǏǉ erФХeЧten dХe JurХsten, sЩäter aucФ dХe MedХzХner je eХn UnterrХcФtsgebäude.92 Das Krakauer Collegium Maius, dessen Vorbild das Collegium Carolinum bzw. das Bologneser Collegio di Spagna war, entstand im Laufe des 15. Jahrhunderts.93 Was aber die Collegia anbetrifft, ist gleich zu betonen, dass sie sich von den nur zu den vorgesehenen Gebäuden dadurcФ unterscФХeden, dass Хn ХФnen sХcФ gЧeХcФzeХtХg aucФ dХe UnterЦ(nfte der PrШfessШren befanden.94 Gutes IndХz ЧХefert daf(r dХe GescФХcФte des ЮШn “ЧbrecФt III. ǉǋǐǌ gegr(ndeten WХener Collegium Ducale. In dem Gebäude des Collegium wurden euch die Wohnungen der 12 Professoren eingerichtet, die samt ХФren DХenern eХnen grчßeren TeХЧ des Hauses nutzen. InfШЧge dessen bЧХeb f(r den UnterrХcФt seФr ЯenХg Raum freХ. ǉǌǉǊ beantragte dХe FaЦuЧtät der “rtes, dass das UnХЮersХtätsgebäude erЯeХtert ЯХrd. ScФЧХeßЧХcФ Яurden ǉǌǉǏ mХt KШnsens des HerzШgs zЯeХ Grundst(cЦe Хn der NäФe der UnХЮersХtät geЦauft, ǉǌǊǉ Цaufte seЧbst der HerzШg nШcФ eХn zum UnХЮersХtätsgebäude zugebaute aЧte Haus auf. ǉǌǊǍ Яurde dann das neue UnХЮersХtätsgebäude fertХg, das dem grШßen “udХtШrХum nacФ “uЧa genannt wurde. Die Aula wurde im Obergeschoss untergebracht, sie wurde sШЯШФЧ zu VШrЧesungen der FaЦuЧtät, aЧs aucФ an grчßeren Festtagen genutzt. Im ErdgescФШss erФХeЧten dreХ ЯeХtere FaЦuЧtäten je eХnen VШrЧesungssaal. Dar(ber ФХnaus Яurden nat(rЧХcФ aucФ (brХge Gebäude genutzt, f(r dХe TФeШЧШgen fanden z. ”. VШrЧesungen Хn der NХЦШЧausЦХrcФe oder bei den Dominikanern statt.95 Im LХcФte der Шben erчrterten Хst Hasting Rashdalls Feststellung im allgemeinen anzunehmen, dass die eigenen UnХЮersХtätsgebäude erst Хm ǉǍ. JaФrФundert errХcФtet Яurden und dХe Ibidem. Konrad ESTREICHER: Collegium Maius, Stammsitz der Jagellonischen Universität Krakau. Geschichte, ”räuche, Sammlungen. Warszawa. 1974. S. 11–15. 94 KIENE 1983. S. 94. 95 Joseph ASCHBACH: Geschichte der Wiener Universität im ersten Jahrhunderte ihres ”estehens. Wien. 1865. S. 39–40, 191–195; Paul UIBLEINɣ DХe UnХЮersХtät WХen Хm ǉǌ. und ǉǍ. JaФrhundert. In: Das alte Universitätsviertel in Wien. Hrsg. Ю. G(ntФer HAMANN – Kurt MÜHL”ERGER – Franz SKACEL. WХen. ǉǑǐǍ. ɭScФrХftenreХФe des UnХЮersХtätsarcФХЮs Ǌ.ɮ ɭХm WeХterenɣ HAMANN – MÜHL”ERGER – SKACEL 1985), S. x–y, hier: S. 11, 19–30; Richard PERGER: UniversХtätsgebäude und Bursen vor 1623. In: HAMANN – MÜHL”ERGER – SKACEL 1985. S. 86–87. 92 93 132 1367 PÉCS/FÜNFKIRCHEN. DIE ERSTE UNGARISCHE UNIVERSITÄT Professoren erst von dieser Zeit an anstatt der eigenen Wohnungen die unХЮersХtären Gebäude zu UnterrХcФtszЯecЦen zu nutzen anfangen.96 Im Lichte dessen stellt sich mit recht dХe Frage, ЯХesШ eben Хn Pécs zur ZeХt der UnХЮersХtätsgr(ndung nШtЯendХg geЯШrden Яäre, eХgens UnХЮersХtätsgebäude zu Фaben? DХe zu den VШrЧesungen und (brХgen LeФrЮeranstaЧtungen nШtЯendХgen RäumЧХcФЦeХten m(ssen ХnnerФaЧb der Bischofsburg zur Verf(gung gestanden haben, daher kann unseres EracФtens ausgescФЧШssen Яerden, dass ”ХscФШf WХЧФeЧm f(r dХe UnХЮersХtät eХn seЧbstständХges Gebäude errХcФtet Фätte. DХe ErrХcФtung und der Umbau des ЮШn MárХa SándШr freХgeЧegten Gebäudes sХnd aufgrund des Шben erЯäФnten WaЩЩensteХnes unbedХngt mХt ”ХscФШf WХЧФeЧm Хn ZusammenФang zu brХngen. “ber das eХnst nШrdчstЧХcФ ЮШm DШm gestandene Gebäude Яurde aufgrund j(ngster FШrscФungen Хn den ersten zЯeХ JaФrzeФnten des ǉǍ. JaФrФunderts aЧs bХscФчfЧХcФe ResХdenz genutzt.97 Es ist ebenso problematisch, aufgrund des freigelegten Wappens auf irgendЯeЧcФe FunЦtХШnen zu scФЧХeßen. Es Яar nämЧХcФ Хm aЧЧgemeХnen ЮerbreХtet, dass dХe ”auФerren auf den ЮШn ХФm errХcФteten Gebäude das eХgenen WaЩЩen abbХЧden ЧХeßen.98 Daraus fШЧgt aЧsШ, dass das ШmХnчse Gebäude tatsäcФЧХcФ ”ХscФШf WХЧФeЧm errХcФten ЧХeß bzЯ. dass dХe ”auarbeХten ЯäФrend seХner “mtszeХt beendet Яurden. Abbildung 5. Die Bischofsburg am Ende des 14. Jhs. (Rekonstruktion: Pazirik Informatikai Kft.) RASHDALL 1895. I. S. 219. Gergely BUZÁSɣ “z egyФázmegye éЩйtészetХ emЧéЦeХ [DХe arcФХteЦtШnХscФe DenЦmäler der DХчzese]. In: FEDELES – SARBAK – SÜMEGI 2009. S. 655–656; Tamás FEDELES: Eine ”ХscФШfsresХdenz Хn S(dungarn Хm MХtteЧaЧter. DХe ”urg zu F(nfЦХrcФen ɭPécsɮ. Inɣ Quaestiones Medii Aevi Novae 13. (Palatium, Castle Residence) Hrsg. Wojciech FALKOWSKI. Warszawa. 2008. S. 179-218. (im Weiteren: FEDELES 2008), hier: S. 208–209. 98 Zur VeraЧЧgemeХnerung des WaЩЩengebraucФs der UnХЮersХtäten ЮШm ǉǍ. JaФrФundert vgl. GIEYSZTOR 1993. S. 137. 96 97 133 Tamás FEDELES Abbildung 6. Das sogenannte Universitätsgebäude (Rekonstruktion: Pazirik Informatikai Kft.) Der UnХЮersХtätsunterrХcФt, ЯХe dХe ШbХgen ”eХsЩХeЧe darauf ФХnЯХesen, Яar nХrgendЯШ Хn EurШЩa mХt eХgenen Gebäuden Юerbunden. MХt recФt konnte auch Ede Petrovich bemerЦen, dass man aucФ Хn Pécs ЦeХn Gebäude fХnden Цчnnte, Хn dem dХe ganze UnХЮersХtät untergebracФt ЯШrden Яäre.99 ”eХ den LШЦaЧХsХerungsЮersucФen der Orte des UnХЮersХtätsunterrХcФts fäЧЧt gЧeХcФ eХn HХatus der KШnzeЩtХШn ЮШn MárХa SándШrɣ sХe ЧХeß die am DШm tätХge DШmscФuЧe ЮчЧЧХg außer “cФt, ШbЯШФЧ auf deren ”edeutung bereits Petrovich aufmerksam machte.100 Interessanterweise will SándШr an dХeser SteЧЧe beЯeХsen, aЧs Шb dХe UnХЮersХtät nacФ ХФrem Untergang zu eХner DШmscФuЧe umgestaЧtet ЯШrden Яäre.101 In der Wirklichkeit ЦШnnte dХe DШmscФuЧe Хm ǉǌ. JaФrФundert bereХts auf Чängere Tradition zur(cЦgreХfen,102 und ХФr ФШФes ”ХЧdungsnХЮeau macФte sХcФer mчgЧХcФ, dass dХe FaЦuЧtät der “rtes dШrt untergebracФt Яurde.103 Folglich brauchte dХe ScФuЧe RäumЧХcФkeiten und eine Bibliothek, die noch vor der Er- 99 PETROVICH 1971. S. 158–159. angenШmmen nШcФ ЮШn MХЦЧхs ”Шda (BODA 2002. S. 31) und ЮШn LászЧх JanЦШЮХts ɭLászЧх JANKOVITSɣ HagyШmánytХszteЧet és fШrrásЦrХtХЦa [TradХtХШnsverehrung und Quellenkritik]. Jelenkor 44 (2002:5), S. 507.). 100 PETROVICH 1971. 101 SÁNDOR 1999. S. 40; SÁNDOR 2004. S. 80. 102 Vgl. Remig BÉKEFI: A káptalani iskolák tчrténete Magyarországon ǉǍǌǈ-ig [Die Geschichte der Kapitelschulen in Ungarn bis 1540]. Budapest. 1910. S. 132–ǉǋǋ. NacФ VШrbХЧd ЮШn Pécs Яurde das LeЦtШrat Хn PШzsega und aucФ dХe Хn Pécs tätХge DШmscФuЧe dХente aЧs VШrbХЧd der in Pozsega errichteten Kapitelschule. Vgl. LászЧх KOSZTA: Írásbeliség és egyházszervezet [Schriftlichkeit und Kirchenorganisation]. Szeged. 2007. (Capitulum III.), S. 161. 103 Es ЧШФnt sХcФ ФХer eХne FeststeЧЧung ЮШn MХЦЧхs ”Шda zu zХtХeren, mХt der man ЮчЧЧХg eХnverstanden seХn Цannɣ „“ufgrund der ЮШrЧХegenden “ngaben Хst festzusteЧЧen, dass sХcФ dХe DШmscФuЧe Хn Pécs aucФ nacФ dem durcФ den MШngШЧen(berfaЧЧ ЮerursacФten ”rucФ bХs zur OsmanenzeХt ununterbrШcФen entЯХcЦeЧte. Es Яäre aЧsШ unЯ(rdХg, Яenn sХe Хm ǉǍ–16. JahrФundert aЧs eХne zur(cЦentЯХcЦeЧte, ЮerЦ(mmerte ‚NacФunХЮersХtät betracФtet Яäre. BODA 2002. S. Ǎǈ. ɭÜbersetzt ЮШn T. F.ɮ 134 1367 PÉCS/FÜNFKIRCHEN. DIE ERSTE UNGARISCHE UNIVERSITÄT rХcФtung der UnХЮersХtät entstanden waren. Im Hinblick auf die LokalisХerung der DШmscФuЧe Яurde Хn der FШrscФung bereХts fr(Фer erчrtert, dass, dem s(dчstЧХcФen Turm des DШmes zugebautes s(dЧХcФ ausgeЧegtes Gebäude, aЧsШ das KaЩХteЧФaus, geeХgnet seХn Цчnnte, dass Хn ХФm dХese Einrichtungen untergebracht werden.104 Es Хst ferner beЦannt, dass ”ХscФШf GeШrg SzatmárХ ɭǉǍǈǍ–1521) dieses Gebäude “nfang des ǉǎ. JaФrФunderts Хn RenaХssancenstХЧ umbauen ЧХeß, (Aedes Sacmarianae),105 Яas darauf ФХnЯeХst, dass es bereХts fr(Фer ЮШrФanden seХn musste. Neuere arcФäШЧШgХscФe und geШЩФysХЦaЧХscФe FШrschungen scФeХnen PetrШЮХcФ Vermutungen zu bestätХgen. S(dЧХcФ ЮШm DШm ЦШnnte nämЧХcФ eХn der ”asХЧХЦa zugebautes quadratfчrmiges GebäudeЦШmЩЧex ɭKreuzgangɮ ausgeЯХesen Яerden, dessen Ost- und S(dfЧ(geЧ zur UnterbrХngung der ScФuЧe geeХgnet seХn ЦШnnte.106 Das alles Чässt darauf scФЧХeßen, dass dХe DШmscФuЧe und dХe ”ХbЧХШtФeЦ Хm eФemaligen, erst Ende des 18. Jahrhunderts abgerissenen Kapitelhaus untergebracФt ЯШrden seХn Цчnnen.107 WХe darauf Шben bereХts ФХngeЯХesen Яurde, sЩХeЧten dХe UnterЦ(nfte der Professoren und der Studenten, die sogenannten hospitia ebenso wichtХge RШЧЧe beХm UnterrХcФt. PrШfessШr GaЧЮanШ Юerf(gte aucФ (ber eХne eХgene Unterkunft, daher konnten kleinere Lehrveranstaltungen auch bei ihm stattfinden.108 DХe besser besucФten VШrЧesungen Цчnnen aucФ Хn Pécs in Kirchen, insbesondere im Dom selbst abgehalten worden sein. Was dХe FunЦtХШn des ЮШn MárХa SándШr freХgeЧegten Gebäudes anbetrХfft, Цчnnte fШЧgendes beФauЩtet Яerden. WХe bereХts darauf ФХngewiesen wurde, kann hier bis zum ersten Viertel des 15. Jahrhunderts die bХscФчfЧХcФe ResХdenz untergebracФt ЯШrden seХn, nacФФer ЮerЧegte ”Хschof Heinrich von Alben (1421–ǉǌǌǌɮ sХe auf dХe s(dЯestЧХcФe SeХte des DШmes. “nscФЧХeßend Цчnnte das Gebäude durcФ das DШmЦaЩХteЧ genutzt ЯШrden seХn. InfШЧge der ЮХeЧfäЧtХgen “ufgaben der DШmФerrengemeinschaft muss das Domkapitelhaus schon zu eng gewesen sein. Ins neue Gebäude Цчnnen dХe DШmscФuЧe und dХe ”ХbЧХШtФeЦ ЮerЧegt ЯШrden seХn. InfШЧge dessen Яurden Хm fr(Фeren DШmЦaЩХteЧФaus meФrere RäumЧХcФЦeХten freХ, dХe durcФ dХe KanzЧeХ und das “rcФХЮ des gЧaubЯ(rdХgen PETROVICH 1971. S. 157–158. Péter FARBAK: Szatmári Gyчrgy, a mecénás [GeШrg SzatmárХ, der Mäzen]. ”udaЩest. ǊǈǈǊ. S. 50–51. ɭMűЮészettчrténetХ F(zeteЦ ǊǏ.ɮ Vgl. Zsolt VISYɣ Újabb adatШЦ a ЩécsХ Юár éЩйtéstчrténetéФez [Neure “ngaben zur ”augescФХcФte der ”ХscФШfsburg ЮШn Pécs]. Inɣ Tanulmányok Pécs tчrténetéből ǉǑ. Ed. ZШЧtán KAPOSI. Pécs. ǊǈǈǏ. S. ǋǍ–58, hier: S. 46. 106 Ibidem S. 50. Es ist gЧeХcФ ФХnzuzuf(gen, dass PrШfessШr VХsy aucФ das UnХЮersХtätsgebäude zu fХnden ЮersucФte. 107 BODA 2002. S. 45–46; FEDELES 2008. S. 209. 108 MХЦЧхs ”Шda macФte darauf aufmerЦsam. VgЧ. BODA 2002. S. 63. 104 105 135 Tamás FEDELES Ortes weitergenutzt wurden,109 die sie wegen der ab 14. Jahrhundert verЮХeЧfacФten gЧaubЯ(rdХgen TätХgЦeХt des DШmЦaЩХteЧs benчtХgten. Zugleich musste zwecks Aufbewahrung der in Bezug auf die Guts- und Wirtschaftsanliegen des Domkapitels entstandenen Unterlagen auch ein Privatarchiv errichtet werden und auch dХe KaЩХteЧЮersammЧungen Цчnnen ФХer geФaЧten ЯШrden seХn. MХt R(cЦsХcФt auf dХe Шben erчrterten Хst dХe Vermutung nХcФt unbegr(ndet, dass das sХcФ ФХnter dem DШm befХndЧХcФe Gebäude dХesem ZЯecЦ am meХsten entsЩrecФen ЦШnnte. Der Untergang der Universität MeФrere FШrscФer ЮersucФten das VШrФandenseХn der UnХЮersХtät bХs Mitte des 15. Jahrhunderts, manche sogar aufgrund der Chronik von MХЦЧхs IstЮánffy bХs ǉǍǌǋ zu erstrecЦen.110 DХe am meХsten gr(ndЧХcФe Konzeption wurde von Ede Petrovich erarbeitet. Laut seiner Vermutung Яurde dХe UnХЮersХtät Хm ersten DrХtteЧ des ǉǍ. JaФrФunderts zu eХner schola maior, das ФeХßt zu eХner UnХЮersХtät mХt „eХngeb(ßten FunЦtХШnen degradiert.111 Diese Vermutung wurde bereits von Tibor Klaniczay widerlegt,112 und Хn KenntnХs der ErgebnХsse ЮШn MészárШs Хst nun zЯeХfeЧЧШs, dass die Bezeichnung schola maior sich auf die Domschule bezog. Im Laufe des 15–16. Jahrhundert entstanden in Ungarn auf Basis der DШmscФuЧen dХe städtХscФen ScФuЧen, dХe Хm Grunde genШmmen aus zЯeХ Teilen bestanden. Aus der Unter- und Mittelprima entstand die sogenannte schola minor, welche Bezeichnung jedoch in den Quellen nicht vorkommt. Die Oberprima der Domschulen war als schola maior tätХg, ЯШ sХe dХe ScФ(Чer etФХscФ-philosophische und theologische Kenntnisse aneignen konnten. Auch andere Disziplinen konnten unterrichtet werden, so u. a. Astronomie, Musiktheorie, Rechtswissenschaft.113 Das bedeutet aber, scФreХbt MészárШs, „dass Хn Pécs aucФ eХne schola minor vorhanden sein musste. EbensШ ЯХe Хn Zágráb, Eger und KarЧsburg, sХeФt man aucФ Хn Pécs eХne aus zЯeХ TeХЧen besteФende ScФuЧenart. 114 FEDELES, Tamásɣ “ ЩécsХ széЦesЦáЩtaЧan ФХteЧesФeЧyХ ЧeЮéЧtára a ЦчzéЩЦШrban [Das “rcФХЮ des DШmЦaЩХteЧs ЮШn Pécs Хm MХtteЧaЧter]. Inɣ Tanulmányok a kчzépkorrхl. Ed. LászЧх BALOGH – Jхzsef SZARKA – ”ШgЧárЦa WEISZ. Szeged. 2001. S. 39–53. 110 Z. B. ÁBEL 1881. S. 17; BÉKEFI 1909. S. 49; Ede PETROVICH: A ЦчzéЩЦШrХ ЩécsХ egyetem megszűnése [Das “ufФчren der mХtteЧaЧterЧХcФen UnХЮersХtät ЮШn Pécs]. “ Janus Pannonius Múzeum Évkчnyve 11 (1966), S. 153–170. (im Weiteren: PETROVICH 1966); BODA 2002. S. 19, 44. 111 PETROVICH 1966. S. 166; “sztrХЦ GábrХeЧ Яar Хn “nЧeФnung an Jenш ÁbeЧ aucФ äФnЧХcФer MeХnungɣ „We are ХncЧХned tШ acceЩt tФe ШЩХnХШn Шf sucФ ФХstШrХans as ÁbeЧ tФat tФe UnХЮersХty Шf Pécs Яas nШt Хn fuЧЧ exХstence Хn tФe fХfteentФ century. VgЧ. GÁ”RIEL 1969. S. 33. 112 KLANICZAY 1974. S. 171–173. 113 MÉSZÁROS 1981. S. 109–110. 114 Ibidem 117. 109 136 1367 PÉCS/FÜNFKIRCHEN. DIE ERSTE UNGARISCHE UNIVERSITÄT Aufgrund dessen scheint sicher zu sein, dass das mit Bischof Wilhelm verbundene studium generale nacФ dem TШde des Gr(nders untergХng. ”ХscФШf VaЧentХn “ЧsánХ ɭǉǋǏǌ–ǉǌǈǐɮ Яar nШcФ aЧs KanzЧer der UnХЮersХtät tätХg,115 aber ЯäФrend seХner “mtszeХt, ХrgendЯann Хn den ǉǋǑǈer JaФren ЯХrd dХe UnХЮersХtät untergegangen seХn, zur ZeХt der UnХЮersХtätsgr(ndung Хn 2buda ɭǉǋǑǍɮ Яar sХe nХcФt meФr tätХg.116  115 Erik FÜGEDIɣ “ЧsánХ ”áЧХnt, a ЩécsХ egyetem másШdХЦ ЦanceЧЧárja [VaЧentХn “ЧsánХ, der zЯeХte KanzЧer der UnХЮersХtät ЮШn Pécs]. In: CSIZMADIA 1967. S. 97–107; SZÉKELY, Gyчrgyɣ EgyetemХ ЦanceЧЧárШЦ a ǉǌ–ǉǍ. század fШrduЧхján [UnХЮersХtätsЦanzЧern an der Wende ЮШm 14–15. Jahrhunderts]. Századok 131 (1997), S. 158–159. 116 Henri DENIFLE: Die Entstehung der Univeristät des Mittelalter bis ǉǌǈǈ. Berlin. 1885. S. 418; CSIZMADIA 1965. S. 19; KLANICZAY 1974. S. 171; KLANICZAY 1984. S. 36; MÉSZÁROS 1981. S. 67; FONT 2002. 137 SЩecХmХna NШЮa Pars PrХma SectХШ MedХaeЮaЧХs VIII Ed. GábШr ”“R“”ÁS – GergeЧy KISS. Pécs, ǊǈǉǍ. Щ. ǉǋǑ–ǉǍǌ. Endre SasФaЧmХ, DSc endresasФaЧmХ@gmaХЧ.cШm UnХЮersХty Шf Pécs FacuЧty Шf HumanХtХes InstХtute Шf HХstШry DeЩartment Шf MedХeЮaЧ and EarЧy MШdern HХstШry RхЦus Str. Ǌ. H–ǏǎǊǌ Pécs Hungary Endre SASHALMI: Written and Visual Representations of Russian History in the 1660s: Fedor “kХmovХcФ GrХboedov’s History of the Tsars and Princes of the Rus Land and SХmon UsФakov’s Icon called The Planting of the Tree of the Muscovite State The relations between tsar Alexis and patriarch Nikon between 1652–1658 can be seen as the realization of the Byzantine idea of symphony, but there was a sharp break from 1658 on which finally led to the deposition of Nikon. It means that by the time Fedor Griboedov set out to write his work in the 1660s, the symphony between the tsar and the patriarch had already been over. The ideological struggle between the tsar and the patriarch exerted a great influence on the chronicle which must be interpreted in the context of this conflict. GrХbШedШЮ s cФrШnХcЧe cШmЩЧeteЧy abandШned tФe Хdea Шf symЩФШny aЩЩarent Хn tФe Book of Degrees, though its structure closely resembled the latter and it quoted extensively from the Book of Degrees. The icon called The Planting of the Tree of the Muscovite State painted by Ushakov Яas a ЮХsuaЧ reЩresentatХШn Шf tФe symЩФШny exХstХng ШnЧy durХng MШscШЯ s historical past, and it also connected the salvation of Russia to the piety of the tsar and his family. Key words: ”ook of Degrees , FedШr GrХbШedШЮ s Chronicle, ЩШЧХtХcaЧ ХcШnШgraЩФy, tФe ХcШnɣ The Planting of the Tree of the Muscovite State , the problem of symphony  Introduction The terminus ante quem Шf tФe cШmЩЧetХШn Шf FedШr “ЦХmШЮХcФ GrХbШedШЮ s chronicle can be established on the basis of a chancery source: fulfilling Tsar “ЧexХs s Шrder ɭuЦazɮ, GrХbШedШЮ Яas remunerated Шn ǊǏ December ǉǎǎǐ fШr ФaЮХng ЯrХtten tФe Stepennaia Kniga ɭ ”ШШЦ Шf Degrees ɮ Шf tФe 139 Endre SASHALMI faХtФfuЧ and ЩХШus rШШt Шf tФe RШmanШЮs .1 According to the 19th-century editors of this work, the chronicle was possibly intended to be a basic manuaЧ Шf RussХan HХstШry fШr tФe tsar s cФХЧdren.2 This view, however, was cФaЧЧenged by I. TФyrдt ЯФШ cЧaХmedɣ MШst ЧХЦeЧy tФe ЯШrЦ Яas cШmmХssХШned by tФe cШurt tШ sФШЯcase tФe RШmanШЮ dynasty. 3 Z. Kohut, ЧХЦeЯХse, cШmmented tФat GrХbШedШЮ s RussХan ФХstШry Хs tФe ФХstШry Шf dynastic rule, and his principal concern is to establish dynastic legitimacy and cШntХnuХty frШm VШЧШdХmer tШ “ЧeЦseХ RШmanШЮ .4 I agree with the latter two interpretations, yet, they tell just half of the story in my view. FШr I tФХnЦ Хt Хs crucХaЧ tШ ЩЧace GrХbШedШЮ s ФХstШry Хn the very context of the time when it was written and this issue requires to give a short survey on the prehistory of this chronicle. In 1657 a new chancery, the Chancery of Records (Zapisnoi prikaz) was created by the order of Tsar Alexis: the task of the chancery was to write an uЩdated ”ШШЦ Шf Degrees Шf tФe RussХan ruЧers frШm tФe deatФ Шf tsar Fedor, the last member of the Rurikids (1598) to the present, i.e. the time of Alexis. 5 The small chancery was terminated in 1659 because it could not accomplish the task.6 A. Sirenov concluded that this attempt of the tsar showed on the one hand the need and the intention to provide a course of Russian History from ancient times to the mid-17th century, and tФe Хmpossibility of accomplishing this task on tФe basХs Шf tФe ”ШШЦ Шf Degrees , on the other.7 Though the chancery disappeared from the scene, the intention to write an updated history of the tsars was not abandoned and the ЯШrЦ Яas taЦen ШЮer by a cЧerЦ, named GrХgШrХj KunaЦШЮ. Yet, tФe ФХstШry of tФe RШmanШЮs Яas ЯrХtten by sШmeШne eЧse, FedШr “ЦХmШЮХcФ GrХboedov around 1667.8 TФe tХme gaЩ betЯeen “ЧexХs s ХnХtХatХЮe and tФe reaЧХzatХШn Шf tФe ЯШrЦ is of great importance in my view for it coincided with the deterioration of Aleksei Vladimirovich SIRENOV: Stepennaia kniga i russkaia istoricheskaia misl XVI–XVIII vv. Moscow – St Petersburg. 2010. (hereafter: SIRENOV 2010.), p. 287. 2 Fiodora Griboedova Istoriia o tsariah i velikikh kniaziakh zemli Russkoi. Ed. Sergei Fedorovich PLATONOV – Vladimir Vladimirovich MAIKOV. St. Petersburg. 1896. (hereafter: GRIBOEDOV 1896), p. I, XI–XII, XV; Zenon E. KOHUT: A Dynastic or Ethno-Dynastic Tsardom? Two Early Modern Concepts of Russia. In: Extending the Borders of Russian History. Essays in Honour of Alfred J. Rieber. Ed. Marsha SIEFERT. Budapest. 2003. p. 17–30. (hereafter: KOHUT 2003.) here: p. 17. 3 Isolde THYRÊT: Between God and Tsar: Religious Symbolism and the Royal Women of Muscovite Russia. De Kalb. 2001. (hereafter: THYRÊT 2001.), p. 199, e.n. 91. 4 KOHUT 2003. p. 17. 5 SIRENOV 2010. p. 289. 6 SIRENOV 2010. p. 289. 7 SIRENOV 2010. p. 290. 8 Aleksei Vladimirovich SIRENOV: Dinasticheskii krizis XVI–XVII vv. Rossii i Stepennaia Kniga. Cahiers du monde Russie 50. (2009:2–3), p. 557–566. (hereafter: SIRENOV 2009.) here: p. 562. 1 140 WRITTEN AND VISUAL REPRESENTATIONS OF RUSSIAN HISTORY IN THE 1660S … relations between tsar Alexis and patriarch Nikon. While their close relationship between 1652–1658 can be seen as a realization of the Byzantine idea(l) of symphony (i.e. cooperation and harmony between the emperor and the patriarch) these relations were getting worse and worse from 1658 onwards, leading to the self-exile of Nikon. Though Nikon did not resign, he did not perform his functions as patriarch either. Alexis summoned a Russian Church Council in 1660 to solve the problem which eventually deposed Nikon but the patriarch declared the decision null and void. The NХЦШn-affaХr Яas ШnЧy sШЧЮed Хn ǉǎǎǎ ЯХtФ tФe Great CФurcФ CШuncХЧ attended by two eastern patriarchs, the patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch – this council also deposed Nikon but left his Church reforms in force. By the time Griboedov set out to write his work in the 1660s the symphony between the tsar and the patriarch had already gone, and the impact of the conflict was inevitably reflected in his writing: both in its structure and content. For GriboedoЮ s cФrШnХcЧe cШmЩЧeteЧy abandШned the idea of symphony which had been crucial both to the structure and content of Stepennaia Kniga (hereafter: SK), the work that Griboedov otherЯХse ФeaЮХЧy reЧХed Шn. “ЧtФШugФ tФe structure Шf GrХbШedШЮ s cФrШnХcЧe resembled that of the SK and he even quoted extensively (very often even verbatim) from it, the message of his chronicle was that the piety and the sanctity of the Rurikids and Romanovs developed independently of the Russian Church and its hierarchs. The outcome of the conflict between Alexis and Nikon is crucial to the understanding of the other source to be analysed here, i.e. Simon UshaЦШЮ s icon The Planting of the Tree of the Muscovite State (1668). Seen from this context the icon can be considered a visual representation of the contrast between past and present, i.e. the symphony characteristic of Moscow s historical past on the one hand, and the present dominance of the tsar over the Church on the other. This state of affairs ensued that salvation of Russia was inexorably and solely linked to the piety of the reigning tsar and his family. As it has become evident from the above introduction, SK exerted a great ХnfЧuence Шn GrХbШedШЮ s cФrШnХcЧe, and my cШntentХШn Хs tФat tФe same can be said of UsФaЦШЮ s ХcШn. CШnsequentЧy, Хt Хs ХndХsЩensabЧe tШ give a basic sketch of ideas of the SK to understand these sources. Before that, however, a short comment on 16th–17th-century Muscovite ideology seems plausible, for History in Russia at that time was mainly used and ХnterЩreted tШ exЩress tФe dХЮХne rХgФt Шf RussХa s ruЧers and SK Яas nШt an exception to that. Rather, it was the most grandiose written manifestation of divine right presented through the course of Russian History from Vladimir to Ivan IV. 141 Endre SASHALMI Until the late 17th century divine right of the tsars allowed no place for ЧaЯ and ЩФХЧШsШЩФy, tФerefШre ЩШЧХtХcaЧ Хssues Яere cШnceХЮed as reЧХgХШus Хssues9 ЯФХcФ eЮen questХШns tФe use Шf tФe term ЩШЧХtХcaЧ tФШugФt in Muscovy. Muscovite thought on power existed primarily within the framework of Orthodox theology and was expressed mostly in iconography, religious public rituals, and admonitions by clergymen.10 AccШrdХngЧy, tФe origin, purpose and limits Шf tФe tsar s autФШrХty Яere aЧmШst aЧЯays dХscussed Хn a reЧХgХШus cШntext. 11 The preface of the SK is an eloquent example of this theological perception of power and the flow of Russian History. In G. LenФШff s ЯШrdХng tФe Щreface sets fШrtФ tФe bШШЦ's theological premises in terms of metaphors serving as figures or types for Russia's historical course: the tree (linking the genealogical tree of the rulers, the Jesse Tree, and the tree in King Nebuchadnezzar's prophetic dream); the ladder (a conflation of Jacob's ladder and St. John Climacus's divine ladder of perfection); and water ɭbaЩtХsmɮ. 12 These metaphors are manifested in the preface as follows: “ taЧe Шf tФe holy piety of Russia s rulers and their holy seed, and others; a book of degrees of the royal genealogy, which was (manifested) in the piety of the divinely-affirmed scepter-holders who shone forth in the Russian land, who were from God, like trees of paradise, planted by the rivers of water, and who were watered with Orthodoxy, and nurtured with divine wisdom and grace; and who shone forth with divine glory; who were like a garden: luxuriant, and with beautiful foliage and blessed flowers; fruitful and ripe and exuding a divine fragrance; great and tall, and with many noble offshoots, extending like bright branches, growing through virtues pleasing to God. And many from its root and its branches through diverse labors, as on golden steps, erected a ladder, which ascends to heaven and does not Daniel B. ROWLAND: Muscovy. In: European Political Thought 1450–1700. Religion, Law, Philosophy. Ed. Howell A. LLOYD – Glenn BURGESS – Simon HODSON. New Haven – London. 2007. p. 267–299, here: p. 269. 10 Endre SASHALMI: GШd Хs ФХgФ uЩ, tФe Tsar Хs far aЯay. TФe Nature Шf PШЧХty and PШЧХtХcaЧ Culture in Seventeenth-Century Russia. A Comparative view. In: Empowering Interactions. Political Cultures and the Emergence of the State in Europe 1300–1900. Ed. Wim BLOCKMANS – “ndré HOLENSTEIN – Jon MATHIEU. Farnham – Burlington. 2009. p. 131–147. 11 D. Rowland s words from his unpublished paper are quoted by Valerie KIVELSON. Autocracy in the Provinces. The Muscovite Gentry and Political Culture in the Seventeenth Century. 1996. Stanford. p. 213. Italics in the above quoted text are mine: E.S. 12 Gail LENHOFF, Book of Degrees. In: Gale Encyclopedia of Russian History. http://www.answers.com/topic/book-of-degrees – downloading date: 25 Feburary 2012. Italics in the above quoted text are mine: E.S. 9 142 WRITTEN AND VISUAL REPRESENTATIONS OF RUSSIAN HISTORY IN THE 1660S … falter, securing for themselves and for those who came after them unФХndered access tШ GШd. 13 Since ideology of power in Russia was, in fact, theology of power, and considering the fact that Orthodox theology was/is incomprehensible ЯХtФШut tФe cШnceЩt Шf Хmage/ХcШn ɭbecause tФe ХcШn [Хn L. UsЩensЦХХ s well-ЦnШЯn ЯШrdХng] Хs a ЩaХnted tФeШЧШgy ɮ, tФe use Шf metaЩФШrs Хs a good proof of the peculiarity of Muscovite ideology of power which even Хn ЯrХtten sШurces ФeaЮХЧy reЧХed Шn metaЩФШrs, Х.e. ɭreЧХgХШusɮ Хmages . The story of the Russian princes in the SK is presented in 17 degrees in the framework of the abovementioned theological premises to which the Orthodox idea of symphony must be added. Indeed, the symphony between the Russian Church and the Russian rulers is the golden thread of Russian History in the SK14. This history is moving towards the present on the basis of premises laid down in the preface, and symphony is reflected in the counsels of the metropolitans given to the rulers and also in the prayers of the Church hierarchs and the whole Russian Church which ЩrШЮХde tФe ЩrШtectХШn Шf ФХgФer ЩШЯers fШr RussХa.15 Furthermore, the idea of symphony is clearly reflected in the very structure of the SK for each degree is a story of a ruler and his contemporary metropolitan(s). Having known the most important notions of SK relevant to our topic, now we can turn to the analysis of the two sources. The Planting of the Tree of the Muscovite State I am grateful to Gail Lenhoff for providing me with her translation of the preface. Italics in the above quoted text are mine: E.S. 14 Stepennaia Kniga tsarskogo rodosloviia po drevneishim spiskam. I–III. Ed. Nikolai Nikolaevich POKROVSKII – Gail LENHOFF. Moscow. 2007–2011. (hereafter: STEPENNAIA KNIGA) PШЦrШЮsЦХХ s ХntrШductХШnɣ I. ǊǈǈǏ. Щ. ǉǉǋ. 15 STEPENNAIA KNIGA I. 2007. p. 113–114. 13 143 Endre SASHALMI . InterpretatХon of TФe PlantХng of tФe Tree of tФe MuscovХte State How did this icon of Ushakov reflect Russian History and how were the basic notions of SK modified by the Russian political context of the 1660s? These are the only principal issues to be addressed here. UsФaЦШЮ s ХcШn teЧЧs a ФХstШry but, tШ be sure, Хn a Юery sЩecХaЧ Яay. “s L. HugФes aЩtЧy fШrmuЧated, tФe ХcШn Щresents a seЧectХЮe ЮersХШn Шf MШscШЯ s sacred ФХstШry, taЦХng accШunt Шf tФe long-term context of divine histШry and RussХa s ЩЧace ЯХtФХn Хt and tФe ШrtФШdШx ЮХeЯ Шf tФe ЯШrЧd .16 At the same time the icon had an immediate political relevance when it was ЩaХnted. TФe fact tФat UsФaЦШЮ sЩecХfХcaЧЧy dated ФХs ЯШrЦ ЯХtФ reference to “ЧexХs s reХgn Хs nШt ШnЧy crucХaЧ tШ tФe ХnterЩretatХШn Шf tФe ХcШn17 but was also quite unusual. Even more unusual than the practice spreading in 17th-century Russia that icon painters, as Ushakov in this case, wrote their name on the bottom of the icons. In my view the indication of historical time in an icon i.e. a special genre of visual expression to which otherwise the conception of timelessness or eternity is essential,18 is of great significance. Moving to the short description of the conceptual framework of the icon, three layers of time and space can be separated in the compositional structure.19 On tФe bШttШm – the earth, the present, the material dimension – the earthly tsar with the tsaritsa and the children; on the top – the heaven, the future, the spiritual sphere – tФe ФeaЮenЧy ЦХng. 20 At the same time, the antХtФesХs Шf tФese tЯШ sЩФeres Хs cШmЩЧemented ЯХtФ tФe Хdea Шf a ЧХnЦ betЯeen tФem as reЩresented by tФe tree tФereby maЦХng a tФХrd zШne. 21 In this space-and-time triad the mediators are the deceased figures, the representatives of Russian History.22 Russian History, however, is represented nШt ШnЧy tФrШugФ tФe tree but aЧsШ by tФe natХШnaЧ ХcШn, tФe ХcШn of the Vladimir Mother of God which not only provides the link with the Kievan past but also functions as the most important intercessor for Russia. Lindsey HUGHES: SХmШn UsФaЦШЮ s IcШn TФe Tree Шf tФe MuscШЮХte State . In: Russische und Ukrainische Geschichte vom 16–18. Jahrhundert. Hrsg. Robert O. CRUMMEY – Holm SUNDHAUSSEN – Ricarda VULPIUS. Wiesbaden. 2001. p. 223–234. (hereafter: HUGHES 2001) here: p. 232. 17 HUGHES 2001. p. 232. This icon was painted in the 7176th year [ i.e. 1667–68] from the creation of the world flowing under the sun in the time of the pious and Christ-loving sovereign Tsar and Great Prince Aleksei Mikhailovich, Autoctrat (samoderzhets) of all Great and Little and White Russia. HUGHES 2001. 227. footnote 12. 18 For the conception of time in icon art see Clemena ANTONOVA: Space, Time and Presence in the Icon. Aldershot. 2010. 19 V. G. CHUBINSKAIAɣ IЦШna SХmШna UsФaЦШЮa ”ШgШmater VЧadХmХrsЦaХa . Inɣ Trudy otdela drevnerusskoi literatury 38 (1985), p. 290–308. (hereafter: CHUBINSKAIA 1985.) here: p. 292. 20 CHUBINSKAIA 1985. p. 292. 21 CHUBINSKAIA 1985. p. 292. 22 CHUBINSKAIA 1985. p. 292. 16 144 WRITTEN AND VISUAL REPRESENTATIONS OF RUSSIAN HISTORY IN THE 1660S … The tree is a modified Tree of Jesse23 for besides princes it depicts various Russian saints representing different forms of sainthood. Christ is on the top of the icon, in accordance with princely genealogical trees modelled on the Tree of Jesse, but he is separated in a cloud (marking the boundary between heaven and earth) and he holds a mantle in his right hand (probably a mantle of protection associated with Mary)24 while a crown in his left. He is in the company of two angels floating below him on both sides. The tree growing out ɭnШt Шf Jesse s grШХns Шr tФe fШunder s Шf tФe dynasty as usual but) of the Assumption Cathedral of the Kremlin is ЩЧanted by tФe reaЧ fШunder Шf MШscШЯ s greatness, Grand PrХnce IЮan Kalita (1325–1341) and watered by metropolitan Peter, the first metropolitan who transferred the metropolitan see to Moscow in 1326 and died there the same year. On the left side of the tree there are important metropolitans and two patriarchs in chronological order: all metropolitans are from the times of the Rurikid rulers, while the two patriarchs, Iov (1589– 1607) and Filaret (1619–1633) provide the continuity from the Rurikids to the Romanovs, Filaret being, at the same time, the father of the first Romanov tsar, Mikhail. The top three figures are princes: tsarevich Dmitrii (1591) on the very top and (going down and from left to the right) Tsar Fedor (1584–1598) the last Rurikid tsar, and to his right most possibly the first Romanov tsar, Mikhail.25 On the right side we find, also in a chronological order, one princesaint, Alexander Nevskii (also a dynastic and spiritual link) and 6 monastic saints (the most famous of them is Sergii Radonezhskii) followed by the top 3 figures who are holy fools: Ivan the Big Hat (on the very top), and (going down and from left to the right) Basil the Blessed (the most famous of all the holy fools) and finally Maxim the Blessed. As for the figures deЩХcted Шn tФe tree, Хt must be mentХШned tФat aЧЧ tФe men Шn tФe Чeft Фand branch were buried in the Kremlin […] and thus intimately associated ЯХtФ tФe ХcШn s ЧandscaЩe , ЯФХЧe mШst Шf tФe saХnts Шn tФe rХgФt Яere assocХated ЯХtФ tФe exЩansХШn Шf MШscШЯ .26 Thus, the sacred landscape is the Kremlin area which is clearly recognizable in the lower register. On the bottom, on the left side of the tree stands the reigning tsar Alexis – embЧematХcaЧЧy near tФe SaЮХШur s ”astХШn/Gate Шf tФe KremЧХn and ЩrayХng tШ CФrХst. It Яas tФХs gate, tФe mШst sacred Шf aЧЧ tФe KremЧХn entrances 23 Franz KÄMPFER: Das Russische Herrscherrbild. Von “nfängen bis Peter dem Grossen. Recklinhgausen. 1978. p. 242. 24 Wil VAN DEN BERCKEN: The Canonisation of Nicholas II in Iconographical Perspective: Political Themes in Russian Icons. In: Orthodox Christianity and Contemporary Europe. Ed. Jonathan SUTTON – Wil VAN DEN BERCKEN. Leuven – Paris – Dudley (MA). 2003. p. 183–209. (hereafter: VAN DEN BERCKEN 2003.) here: p. 186. 25 THYRÊT 2001. p. 71. 26 HUGHES 2001. p. 232, 145 Endre SASHALMI tФrШugФ ЯФХcФ majШr ЩrШcessХШns Шf tФe crШss Щassed – these processions started from the Assumption Cathedral.27 The wife of the tsar and their two sons, Aleksei Alekseevich (the heir to the throne presented publicly Хn ǉǎǎǏɮ and FedШr are near tФe St. NХcФШЧas s ”astХШn/Gate. One curХШsХty of the icon is that living people, the reigning tsar and his family are depicted in the sacred space of the icon, and they are even nimbed as the saints are. Each of the figures in the icon (except Christ, the Mother of God and tsarevich Fedor) holds a scroll in their hand with an inscription on it. The inscriptions call the plant invariably a tree or a vine which is not unusual considering that the Tree of Jesse was often (as here) depicted in the fШrm Шf a ЮХne. G. FХЧХmШnШЮ summarХzed tФe cШnceЩtХШn Шf UsФaЦШЮ s icon as fШЧЧШЯsɣ He Яanted tШ deЩХct tФe strengtФ Шf MШscШЯ Хn Хts ФХstШrХcal development, which in his interpretation was nurtured by a special grace coming from above. This was the very reason he needed the Assumption Cathedral with its founders and the blossoming tree growing out of it and containing the Mother of God in its centre, the saints of Moscow on its sides, and the walls of the Kremlin with the then reigning ruling ФШuse. 28 This grace and protection began with Ivan Kalita and metropolitan Peter and now it is enjoyed by the Romanovs.29 The icon is unusually rich in inscriptions. Some of them are taken from the Bible, from the Psalms and the Revelations; for the most part, however, the texts (the inscriptions on the medallions and on the scrolls held by the tsaritsa and her son) are written in the genre of the Akathistos hymn, with occasional adaptations of the original.30 TФe Хdea tФat tФere are anaЧШgХes betЯeen tФe ХcШn and tФe SK Яas already raised by L. Hughes but only in a very general way and this claim was not substantiated by any analysis.31 Furthermore, only the motif of the tree was singled out as an analogy32 while the role of other premises/metaphors was not mentioned. It seems quite plausible on the basis of the engravings published by Chubinskaya that the Ukranian engravings of the 1660s provided the concrete models for Ushakov.33 Yet, it cannot be excluded, in my view, that SK served as an inspiration for the icon because its theological premises, such as the tree and the water are present in the icon explicitly. Likewise, as I intend to prove, the ladder of perfection, HUGHES 2001. p. 231. Georgii Dmitrievich FILIMONOV: Simon Ushakov i sovremennaia emu epokha Russkoi ikonopisi. In: Sbronik na 1873 god. Moscow. 1873. (hereafter: FILIMONOV 1873.), p. 38. 29 FILIMONOV 1873. p. 39. 30 THYRÊT 2001. p. 74–76., p. 212. notes 96, 105. 31 HUGHES 2001. p. 230. 32 HUGHES 2001. p. 230. 33 CHUBINSKAIA 1985. p. 293. 27 28 146 WRITTEN AND VISUAL REPRESENTATIONS OF RUSSIAN HISTORY IN THE 1660S … Шr Хn ШtФer ЯШrds, tФe sЩХrХtuaЧХzatХШn Шf man 34 is also implied in the icon, though not so explicitly as in the SK, together with the idea of symphony. In the relevant section of the SK the founding of the Assumption Cathedral and the blessing of God on Muscovy is described with the following words given to the mouth of metropolitan Peter addressing Ivan Kalita: […] listen to my advice, my son, and erect in your town, in Moscow a cathedral church of stone dedicated to the immaculate Mother of God, and you shall be blessed and glorified by the Lord preferring you to other princes […] and the rulers from your seed shall not wither away who shall possess and rule this place from generation to generation for ever […]. And even the prelates shall dЯeЧЧ Хn Фere […]. “nd there was always a spiritual harmony (veselie dukhovnoeɮ betЯeen tФem […] 35 TФe Чeft brancФ Шf tФe tree ɭЯФere ЩrХnces and ЩreЧates dЯeЧЧ Хn harmony) and the lower register show remarkable similarity with this quotation. The idea of symphony is clearly apparent in the icon in the close cooperatХШn ЯФere IЮan tФe MШneybag plants while Metropolitan Peter waters the tree/vine. The identification of the plant as a vine by some of the inscriptions (a vine which curiously enough produces not only grapes but also roses) means the Church metaphorically. This meaning of the vine is decoded visually by the depiction of the Assumption Cathedral36 (from which the vine grows out) the foundations of which were, indeed, laid down by Ivan and Peter. Commenting on what the meaning of planting and watering could mean in the political context when the icon was painted, Hughes wrote: UsФaЦШЮ remХnded ЮХeЯers Шf tФe symЩФШny Шf CФurcФ and State, which officially remained a pillar of the Muscovite ideology, but in the light of recent historical events suggested reconciliation and co-operation […] ratФer tФan equaЧХty. NХЦШn s fate underlined the fact that the ruler Яas dШmХnant. 37 I claim, however, that the symphony depicted in the icon is merely the symphony of the past, not of the present, and the aim of the icon was not to hide but rather express the contrast between past and present. It is eloquent that the acting patriarch is not depicted.38 And it is also eloquent in my view that the crown in the hand of Christ is very similar to THYRÊT 2001. p. 74. STEPENNAIA KNIGA I. p. 562. 36 HUGHES 2001. p. 229. 37 HUGHES 2001. p. 232. 38 HUGHES 2001. p. 232. 34 35 147 Endre SASHALMI tФe deЩШsed ЩatrХarcФ s great crШЯn – a fact noted only by Filimonov but without drawing any conclusion from it.39 HugФes agreed tФat tФere are undШubtedЧy ЩШЧХtХcaЧ asЩects tШ UsФaЦШЮ s ХcШn 40 – at the same time she crХtХcХzed CФubХnsЦaХa ЯФШ saЯ tФe ХcШn as tФe mШst ХmЩШrtant ЩШЧХtХcaЧ document of this era and eЮen cЧaХmed tФat Tsar “ЧexХs usurЩed the functions of the patriarch.41 V. van den Bercken also underlined the political cШncerns Шf tФe ХcШn statХng tФat Хt exЩressed tФe ”yzantХne ХdeaЧ Шf eccЧesХastХcaЧ and ЩШЧХtХcaЧ symЩФШny Хn tФe MuscШЮХte emЩХre . 42 At the same time he also noted that the icon was painted after the conflict between Nikon and Alexis had been settled in 1666: therefore, the icon was termed a reЧХgХШus-ХdeШЧШgХcaЧ ХcШn by ФХm.43 TФe ХdeШЧШgХcaЧ meanХng Хs nШt Хn the religious portraying of monarchs, but in the portrayed unity of the cФurcФ and state – he claimed.44 However, I have to state again that symphony in the icon was a symphony of the past (beginning with Ivan and Peter), and not of the present. I can secШnd tШ tФe ЮХeЯ ЯФХcФ treats tФe ХcШn as a ЩШЧemХcaЧ treatХse abШut tФe cФangХng nature Шf ruЧersФХЩ – as Hughes summarized CФubХnsЦaХa s ХnterЩretatХШn.45 But I have to add immediately that, in accordance with the notions of Muscovite thought on rulership, this polemics was inevitably expressed in a theological framework – a statement, one would say, sounds quite tautological in case of an icon. In this sense we can treat the icon a visual representation of the de facto situation which characterized the relations between the tsar and the Church after 1666: though there was a patriarch, his influence became negligible. At the same time, the icon could have been a visual response to the cФaЧЧenge ЩШsed by NХЦШn s tФeШry Шf tЯШ sЯШrds cЧaХmХng fШr ФХmseЧf an independent sphere of action: the right to govern the affairs of the Church without the interference of the tsar. There is a further hidden evidence supporting this interpretation besides the missing figure of the acting patriarch. The only living people depicted in the icon are the tsar himself and members of his family. Tsar Alexis prays directly to Christ ( Save, Lord, your people and bless your heritage ), while his wife and his children, together with the deceased saints (among them even Church hierarchs) represented on the tree, pray to the Mother of God.46 In my view the enhanced role of the tsar is implied by the very words of his praying which make FILIMONOV 1873. p. 34. HUGHES 2001. p. 233. 41 HUGHES 2001. p. 233; CHUBINSKAIA 1985. p. 306–307. 42 VAN DEN BERCKEN 2003. p. 186. 43 VAN DEN BERCKEN 2003. p. 186. 44 VAN DEN BERCKEN 2003. p. 186. 45 HUGHES 2001. p. 233; CHUBINSKAIA 1985. p. 306–307. 46 THYRÊT 2001. p. 74–75. 39 40 148 WRITTEN AND VISUAL REPRESENTATIONS OF RUSSIAN HISTORY IN THE 1660S … him appear to perform a priestly function! My claim is based on the fact that the above Biblical words uttered by him were part of the Orthodox liturgy of St John Chrysostom where they are said by the priest. Visual and textual (liturgical) evidence taken together the message is clear: salvation for Russia is rested with the living pious tsar and his pious family, who are supported by the intercession of holy ancestors and Russian saints, and first of all, by the Mother of God. The prayers of saintly ancestors and saints are important but the role of any other living people, including even the patriarch, can be neglected. I think we can also trace the motif of perfection in the icon which was crucial to the SK. The inscription in the icon above metropolitan Peter and Ivan Kalita reads: LШrd, ЧШШЦ dШЯn frШm HeaЮen and see. “nd ЮХsХt tФХs ЮХneyard and complete (sovershi) Хt ЯФХcФ yШur rХgФt Фand Фas ЩЧanted. (Psalms 80:14–15 adjusted) TФe ЯШrdХng cШmЩЧete Хt ЯХtФ regard tШ tФe ЮХne strХЮХng uЩЯards tШ heaven, towards Christ, who is represented in the company of angels, and the words surrounding Christ ( ”e faithful to me until Death, and I will give you the crown of life. He who is victorious will be dressed in a white shirt, and his name will not be erased from the book of life. Rev. 2:10, and 3:5.) clearly implies the same ideas expressed by the visual representations (icons or manuscript illustrations) of the Ladder of Paradise where the faithful and pious climbing to the very top of the ladder are received and rewarded by angels and by Christ himself when they enter the Paradise. I contend that in the icon the place of the ladder was taken by the representation of the Mother of God. Not only the size of the image implies this conclusion but also the fact that Mary is called the ladder leading to heaven in the Akathistos hymn which undoubtedly exerted a great influence on the icon. My interpretation is substantiated by the fact that the rose is the symbol of both Mary and the Paradise, and roses are abundant in the icon especially around Mary. The roses and the grapes and the inscriptions referring to the gorgeous tree/vine also suggest the image of the Paradise.47 TФШugФ TФyrдt dШes nШt mentХШn tФe metaЩФШr Шf tФe Ladder Шf Perfection/Paradise she probably had in mind the same notion but her argument rests on a different ground: TФe cШsmШЧШgХcaЧ ЩersЩectХЮe Шf tФe icon can also be gleaned from the layout of the tree motif, which depicts tФe CФrХstХan saЧЮatХШn drama Хn terms Шf sЩХrХtuaЧХzatХШn Шf man […]. TФe spiritual status of each figure in the tree is reflected in its position within 47 Stephen L. BAEHR: The Paradise Myth in Eighteenth-Century Russia. Stanford. 1991. p. 26–27. 149 Endre SASHALMI tФe brancФes. 48 Therefore the three holy fools, or fools-in-Christ are on the tШЩ because tФey enjШy greater cФarХsma tФen tФe mШnastХc saХnts.49 Despite the fact that the spiritualization of man features prominently in the icon it is questionable to claim in my opinion that UsФaЦШЮ s rendition of the tree places less emphasis on dynastic than on spiritual successХШn ,50 considering the painful efforts the Romanovs made to represent themselves as true relatives of the Rurikids. The greater number of saints compared to the number of saintly ancestors can be interpreted as tФe ЩrШШf Шf RussХa s sanctХty. TФe fШЧЧШЯХng anaЧysХs Шf GrХbШedШЮ s chronicle, written at the same when the icon was made, underlines the crucial importance of dynastic continuity. . GrХboedov’s cФronХcle and tФe SK In ФХs anaЧysХs Шf GrХbШedШЮ s cФrШnХcЧe Z. KШФut, ЯФХЧe cШmЩarХng tФe chronicle with the SK, paid no attention to the alterations Griboedov introduced into the structure and the content of his work. Referring to SK KШФut ЯrШteɣ It Яas tФХs narratХЮe sequence, eЮen tШ tФe extent Шf nШtХng tФe degree Шf eacФ ruЧer tФat GrХbШedШЮ adШЩted. He uЩdated tФe stШry by addХng aЧЧ tФe tsars ЯФШ came after IЮan IV. GrХbШedШЮ s maХn cШntrХbution consisted in his multifarious attempts to link the Romanov dynasty with Volodimer. 51 A. Sirenov cЧaХms tФat GrХbШedШЮ s ЯШrЦ, tФШugФ Хt used SK and Яas caЧЧed a tФe RШmanШЮs SK , cannШt be cШnsХdered tФe cШntХnuatХШn Шf SK because tФe dХЮХsХШn ХntШ degrees Хs mХssХng frШm Хt whХcФ Хs tФe genre sЩecХaЧty Шf SteЩennaХa KnХga .52 Consequently Sirenov caЧЧs GrХbШedШЮ s ЯШrЦ a ФХstШrХcaЧ treatХse ЯФХcФ Фad SK as Хts maХn source.53 Indeed, Griboedov adapted, rather than adopted the structure of SK. Although it is true that he did not use tФe ЯШrd degree ХtseЧf ЯФen Фe structured ФХs ЯШrЦ ɭФe caЧЧed ФХs unХts cФaЩters Хn tФe cШntentsɮ yet, Фe numbered the same princes until Ivan IV in the same order as the SK had done it. Therefore, his division corresponds to the division into degrees in the SK. Furthermore, as it also had been the case in the SK, occasionally he even used tФe term degree ХtseЧf ЯФen mentХШnХng tФe geneaЧШgХcaЧ dХstance of some rulers from Vladimir and Rurik. The crucial difference between GrХbШedШЮ s cФrШnХcЧe and tФe SK Хn terms Шf tФe structuraЧ-conceptual THYRÊT 2001. p. 74. THYRÊT 2001. p. 74. 50 THYRÊT 2001. p. 73. 51 KOHUT 2003. p. 22. 52 SIRENOV 2009. p. 562. 53 SIRENOV 2009. p. 562. 48 49 150 WRITTEN AND VISUAL REPRESENTATIONS OF RUSSIAN HISTORY IN THE 1660S … frameЯШrЦ Хs tФat untХЧ tФe ǉǏth ruЧer ɭ steЩ / degree ɮ GrХbШedШЮ mentions only rulers both in the table of contents and in the narrative itself when he defines the chronological units, whereas metropolitans, lives of saints etc. are missing from the chronicle. In my forthcoming analysis I intend to concentrate on the structural and cШnceЩtuaЧ dХfferences betЯeen tФe SK and GrХbШedШЮ s cФrШnХcЧe. The chronicle contains a very short foreword, followed by the table of contents of 36 chapters (the original extended version contained 36 units), and their exposition. Foreword: TФe history, or you may say, the chronicle or tale in short about the noble, the most mighty God-given tsars and grand princes living ФШЧy ЧХfe ЯФШ ФaЮe ruЧed tФe Rus Чand Хn a Яay ЩЧeasХng tШ GШd, and who began with the holy Vladimir Stvyatoslavich, a ruler equal tШ tФe aЩШstЧes, tФe baЩtХzer Шf tФe Rus Чand ЯХtФ ФШЧy baЩtХsm, and also about others descending from his holy and true kin, similarly about the God-elected […] Mikhail Fedorovich the autocrator of all Rus and his royal son Aleksei Mikhailovich […] at ЯФat tХme tФey became great ЧШrds […] Шf tФe cШuntrХes Шf tФe RussХan state […] and ФШЯ in them the God-planted root which has strengthened and grown and then blossomed gave such a well-shaped beautiful fruit. 54 Here we have the well-known tree motive associated with the Romanovs. This motive is immediately reinforced and historicized, for the 1st chapter of the chronicle begins with the introductory paragraph of the SK quoted above – it is almost a word by word quotation (except for one word which might well be a miswriting).55 OЧga s euЧШgy ЯФХcФ fШЧЧШЯs tФe Щreface Хn tФe SK Хs, ФШЯeЮer, mХssХng frШm GrХbШedШЮ s cФrШnХcЧe.56 Instead, Griboedov immediately considers VЧadХmХr s reaЧ and Чegendary ancestШrs mentХШnХng RurХЦ and Prus, tФe fictive brother of Emperor Augustus, thereby establishing the connection betЯeen VЧadХmХr and tФe unХЮersaЧ mШnarcФy Шf RШme .57 The story then covers the history of the rulers from Vladimir to 1667 when the presentation of Aleksei Alekseevich, the heir to the throne took place. As Хt Фas been saХd, untХЧ IЮan IV GrХbШedШЮ s dХЮХsХШn cЧШseЧy fШЧЧШЯs tФe division of SK: in SK Ivan IV was the 17th degree (whose reign was the cuЧmХnatХШn Шf RussХan HХstШryɮ, sШ Яas Фe Хn GrХbШedШЮ s cФrШnХcЧe. TФe message of GribШedШЮ s ЯШrЦ Хs as fШЧЧШЯsɣ “t eЮery steЩ GrХbШedШЮ trХes GRIBOEDOV 1896. p. 1. (Italics in the above quoted text are mine: E.S.) In the STEPENNAIA KNIGA we have blagorazumnyi instead of bogorazumnyi. 56 KOHUT 2003. p. 17. 57 KOHUT 2003. p. 17. 54 55 151 Endre SASHALMI to promote the notion that Moscow and its dynasty were divinely eЧected. 58 Crucial to us is the 9th chapter/degree dealing with Daniil, the founder of the Moscow dynasty which is even marked by an inner heading ( On the Moscow princes ) – the only one in the whole work. GrХbШedШЮ states tФat GШd s bЧessХng Яent ШЮer tШ and Яas cШnferred Шn Moscow for ever: And this blessed Daniil was selected by God and God committed him the God-given government of the abovementioned town of Moscow as an inheritance and his true seed was loved and glorified by God and who even wanted them to reign from generation to generatХШn. 59 This passage was again an almost verbatim quotation from the SK as was the 10th degree written on Ivan Kalita who was called the faithful and God-elected receiver and heir of the pious state of the God-loved Russian tsardom. 60 Ivan is glorified here and in the icon as well. But where is metropolitan Peter? – he is not mentioned at all by Griboedov! After Ivan IV Griboedov exposes the remaining 8 decades of Russian History until 1667 in 19 stages – thus the history of cc. 80 eighty years covered is divided into more units than the previous cc. 600 years, and this relatively short time span occupies more space (31.5 pages) compared to tФe ЩreЮХШus ǉǏ degrees ɭǊǌ.Ǎ Щagesɮ. TФe RШmanШЮs stШry, frШm tФe eЧection of Mikhail, is given in the chapters starting from 26. It is thus clear that after Ivan IV Griboedov completely abandoned the idea structuring the SK in which each degree was one generation: the numbering of chapters became quite hectic which explains the great number of degrees after Ivan IV. In GrХbШedШЮ s ЩresentatХШn nШt ШnЧy tФe ruЧers following Ivan IV (such as Fedor or Godunov) but also the genealogy of Anastasia or the death of tsarevich Dmitrii and even the translation of his relics are treated as separate degrees! This free treatment of degrees is even more apparent with the RomanШЮsɣ famХЧy eЮents, sucФ as tФe tsar s marrХage, deatФ Шf tФe tsar or tsaritsa, or even a coronation, i.e. important events within a single reign, are numbered as separate degrees. Nevertheless, similarly to the previous period only rulers (and sometimes their wives) feature in each step – the role of Church hierarchs is neglected, (except Filaret) and there is no mention of the Church reform and tФe NХЦШn affaХr at aЧЧ. EЮen tФe name Шf tФe actХng ЩatrХarcФ Хs Чeft unmentioned. There is not the slightest hint of the symphony between the KOHUT 2003. p. 18. GRIBOEDOV 1896. p. 18–19. 60 GRIBOEDOV 1896. p. 19. 58 59 152 WRITTEN AND VISUAL REPRESENTATIONS OF RUSSIAN HISTORY IN THE 1660S … tsar and the patriarch. As family events, marriages, births, deaths dominate the story of the Romanovs, the culmination of Russian History is also a family affair: the presentation of the heir to throne in 1667 where the role of the patriarch and other Church hierarchs was merely to give blessing. GrХbШedШЮ s attemЩts tШ ЧХnЦ tФe RШmanШЮs tШ tФe RurХЦХds61 were not new at all. The three ways mentioned by Kohut which were used by GrХbШedШЮ tШ ЧegХtХmХze and gЧШrХfy tФe RШmanШЮ dynasty ɭХ.e. establishing dynastic links between the different members of Rurikids and Romanovs through the mixture of sometimes fictive, sometimes real relations;62 the pre-seЧectХШn Шf MХЦФaХЧ by GШd ЯФХЧe Фe Яas Хn ФХs mШtФer s womb; the election of Mikhail by God and the people alike)63 were neither new at all nor were they the only means of the Romanov legitimization. They were not new, not the least, because they were taken by Griboedov from earlier sources written in 1613 and after that. In dealing with the ideШЧШgХcaЧ Хssues Шf tФe cФrШnХcЧe tФe edХtШrs eЮen state tФat GrХbШedШЮ dХd nШt ХncЧude any Хdea Шf ФХs ШЯn 64 in his writing which, in fact, was merely a compilation and not an individual intellectual piece of work.65 (The sources of the compilation were also identified and documented by the editors.) There is one more question which needs to be answered. Since the number of degrees was consciously chosen 17 in the SK, for 17 was the number of prophets foretelling the coming of Christ,66 it can be thought that a similar motivation, i.e. a conscious calculation was behind the 36 chapters/degrees contained in the original extended version Шf GrХbШedШЮ s work which he thought as final (the shorter redaction had 34 units). Here follows some possible explanations taking into account the different meanings attributed to number 36 in Christian numerology. Both East and West established the number 36 as the backbone of the Fast, with some extra days added – Sundays are nШt ХncЧuded Хn tФe numberХng Шf tФe days Шf tФe Lent. 67 Number ǋǎ reЩresented, and stХЧЧ represents, giving a tithe or a tenth of the year back to God. 68 36 became a mystical and a symbolic number with other meanings: the Revelation of John contains KOHUT 2003. p. 18. TФerefШre GrХbШedШЮ s ЯШrЦ Хs nШt free Шf cШntradХctХШns. 63 KOHUT 2003. p. 18–19. 64 PLATONOV – MAIKOV 1896. p. XV. 65 PLATONOV – MAIKOV 1896. p. XIII–XV. 66 GaХЧ LENHOFFɣ PШЧХtХcs and FШrm Хn tФe Stepennaia Kniga. Inɣ The ”ook of Royal Degrees and the Genesis of Russian Historical Consciousness/ Stepennaia Kniga Tsarskogo Rodosloviia I Genezis Russkogo Istoricheskogo Soznaniia. Ed. GaХЧ LENHOFF – “nn M. KLEIMOL“. ”ЧШШmХngtШn. Ǌǈǉǉ. Щ. ǉǍǏ–ǉǏǌ, Фereɣ Щ. ǉǏǈ–ǉǏǉ, en. ǐǈ. 67 E. Carver MCGRIFF: Lectionary Preaching Workbook. Series VI. Cycle C. Lima – Ohio. 2000. (hereafter: MCGRIFF 2000.), p. 101. 68 MCGRIFF 2000. p. 101. 61 62 153 Endre SASHALMI 36 visions; it is also the number of days Jesus spent in the wilderness. Last, but nШt Чeast Хt cШuЧd cШnЮey sucФ Хdeas as eternity, the endlessness of time .69 Examining the text of the chronicle I argue that the last meaning of number 36 seems the most plausible. Chapter 35 contains the presentation of the heir on 1st September 1667, which took place as part of the (annual) NeЯ Year s RХtuaЧ. UntХЧ ǉǏǈǈ ǉst September was the beginning of the new year, and during this liturgy identical Biblical passages were read on behalf of both the tsar and the patriarch: these passages expressed the hope in the blessing of God for the future.70 Chapter 36 contains the long prayers delivered by both the tsar and then by the church hierarchs who appealed tШ tФe HШЧy TrХnХty Хn tФe end tШ ЦeeЩ tФe dynasty befШre utterХng “men . The content of these two closing chapters points to the interpretation of 36 units as suggested above.  MCGRIFF 2000 p. 101. Michael S. FLIER: Political Ideals and Rituals. In: Cambridge History of Russia. I. Ed. Maureen PERRIE. Cambridge. 2006. p. 387–408, here: p. 401–402. 69 70 154 SЩecХmХna NШЮa Pars PrХma SectХШ MedХaeЮaЧХs VIII Ed. GábШr ”“R“”ÁS – GergeЧy KISS. Pécs, ǊǈǉǍ. Щ. ǉǍǍ–ǉǏǉ. Ferenc VégФ, PФD ЮegФ.ferenc@Щte.Фu UnХЮersХty Шf Pécs FacuЧty Шf HumanХtХes InstХtute Шf HХstШry DeЩartment Шf MedХeЮaЧ and EarЧy MШdern HХstШry RхЦus Str. Ǌ. H–ǏǎǊǌ Pécs Hungary Ferenc VÉGH: Die Teilungen der Murinsel-Herrschaft der Familie ZrйnyХ Хm . Jahrhundert DХЮХsШns Шf tФe MuraЦчz/MeгХmurje dШmaХn Шf tФe ZrйnyХ/ZrХnsЦХ FamХЧy in the 17th Century TФe Щresent ЩaЩer Хs a cШntrХbutХШn tШ tФe researcФ Шf tФe MuraЦчz/MeгХmurje ɭaЧsШ ЦnШЯn as CsáЦtШrnya/ČaЦШЮecɮ dШmaХn Шf tФe ZrйnyХs tФat tШШЦ uЩ aЧmШst tФe entХre terrХtШry Шf the Drava-Mura-triangle in the early modern times. The frontier domain acquired in 1546 Яas tФe „jeЯeЧ Шf tФe HungarХan-CrШatХan arХstШcratХc famХЧy s crШss bШrder stШcЦ Шf ЩШssessions, making up about nearly half of its value. The study attempts to sketch the eventful history of possession of the domain until 1691, emphasizing its obvious similarities to the ZrйnyХs SЧaЮШnХan estates ЧyХng Шn tФe KuЧЩa/KuЩa rХЮer. Key wordsɣ MuraЦчz, MeгХmurje, ZrйnyХ, ZrХnsЦХ, ФХstШry Шf ЩШssessХШn, earЧy mШdern tХmes, Hungarian-Croatian aristocracy  Die Familie ZrйnyХ/ZrХnsЦХ Хst eХne der meХst erfШrscФten Magnatenfamilien in Mittel-EurШЩa der fr(Фen NeuzeХt, danЦ des ХmmerФХn seХt anderthalb Jahrhunderten ungebrochenen Interesses der ungarischen und kroatischen Geschichtsschreibung, denen sich erfreulicherweise neuerdings auch die tschechische Forschung angeschlossen hat. Das ist eine beachtenswerte Leistung, insbesondere in Anbetracht der Tatsache, dass nacФ der zunäcФst ЮШm PaЧatХn Franz WesseЧényХ angef(Фrten ɭХn der ЦrШatischen Historiographie Zrinski-FranЦШЩanɮ VerscФЯчrung ɭǉǎǏǈɮ das  Die vorliegende Abhandlung wurde vom Ungarischen Forschungsfond der Wissenschaf- ten (OTKA) (Projektnummer PD 108 ǋǑǉɮ gefчrdert. 155 Ferenc VÉGH Archiv der Familie verloren ging. Nur ein Bruchteil davon ist in den Archiven der Nachfolgestaaten der einstigen Habsburgermonarchie aufzufinden.1 Sowohl die ungarische als auch die kroatische Geschichtsschreibung konzentrierten sich in erster Linie auf die politische und militärХscФe TätХgЦeХten, bzЯ. auf das ЧХterarХscФe WХrЦen eХnХger Фerausragender FamХЧХenmХtgЧХeder, ЯХe zum ”eХsЩХeЧ NХЦШЧaus VII. ZrйnyХ ɭǉǎǊǈ– 1664) und dessen an der Magnatenkonspiration beteiligter Bruder Peter (1621–1671).2 ”eЮШrzugt Яurden aucФ dХe PersШn ЮШn NХЦШЧaus IV. ZrйnyХ (1508–ǉǍǎǎɮ, der bХnnen ЯenХger JaФrzeФnten den G(terЦШmЩЧex der Familie zusammenschmiedete und die Familie selbst in den Herrenstand der Habsburgermonarchie erhob, und neulich dessen Sohn, der Protestant Georg IV. (1549–1603).3 ”eХ Letzteren Яurde neben deren „etabЧХerten RШЧЧen aucФ ХФre KШnfessХШnaЧХtät unter dХe LuЩe genШmmen.4 DХe GescФХcФte des famХЧХären ”esХtzbestandes ФХngegen, äФnЧХcФ ЯХe bei anderen Familien des Hochadels des Ungarisch-KrШatХscФen KчnХgreХcФs, Фatte ЦeХne PrХШrХtät Хn ЦeХnem der beХden Länder.5 Die wurde nur Zita HORVÁTH – ÉЮa TURBULY: A muraЦчzХ uradaЧШm ǉǏ–ǉǐ. századХ gazdaság- és társadaЧШmtчrténeténeЦ fШrrásaХ ɭЦutatásХ beszámШЧхɮ [QueЧЧen zur WХrtscФafts- und Gesellschaftsgeschichte der Murinsel-Herrschaft im 17–18. Jahrhundert. (Forschungsbericht)]. Levéltári Szemle 55 (2005:4), S. 71–79. 2 Tibor KLANICZAY: Zrйnyi Miklхs [NХЦШЧaus ZrйnyХ]. ”udaЩest. ǉǑǎǌ2. (im Weiteren: KLANICZAY 1964ɮɤ KárШЧy SZÉCHY: Grхf Zrйnyi Miklхs 1620–1664 [Graf NХЦШЧaus ZrйnyХ ǉǎǊǈ– 1664]. I–V. Budapest. 1896–1902. (im Weiteren: SZÉCHY 1896); Ferdo БIБIĆ: Posljedni Zrinski Х FranЦШЩanХ [DХe Чetzten ZrйnyХs und FrangeЩans]. Inɣ Posljedni Zrinski i Frankopani na braniku domovine. Hrsg. Ante KOБTELIĆ. Zagreb. 1908. (Reprint: Zagreb. 2008) 9–125. (im Weiteren: БIБIĆ 1908)ɤ Géza PERJÉS: Zrйnyi Miklхs és kora [NХЦШЧaus ZrйnyХ und seХn ZeХtaЧter]. Budapest. 1965; Gyula PAULER: Wesselényi Ferencz nádor és társainak чsszeesk(vése ǉǎǎǌ–1671 [DХe VerscФЯчrung des PaЧatХns Franz WesseЧényХ und seХner KШmЩЧХzen ǉǎǎǌ–1671]. Budapest. 1876. 3 Géza PÁLFFYɣ Egy ФШrЮát-magyar fшúrХ csaЧád a Habsburg MШnarcФХa nemzeteЦ feЧettХ arХsztШЦrácХájában. “ ZrйnyХeЦ ФatárШЦШn átйЮeЧш ЦaЩcsШЧataХ [Eine kroatisch-ungarische ФШcФadЧХge FamХЧХe Хn der (bernatХШnaЧen “rХstШЦratХe der HabsburgermШnarcФХe. DХe ”ezХeФungen der ZrйnyХs (ber die Grenzen hinaus]. In: Zrйnyiek a magyar és horvát histхriában. Hrsg. SándШr BENE – GábШr HAUSNER. Budapest. 2007. (im Weiteren: BENE – HAUSNER 2007), S. 39–ǎǍɤ Nata:a БTEFANEC: Heretik njegova veličanstva. Povijest o Jurju IV. Zrinskom i njegovu rodu [HäretХЦer Eurer Majestät. GescФХcФte GeШrg IV. ZrйnyХs und seХnes GescФЧecФts]. Zagreb. 2001. (im Weiteren: БTEFANEC 2001) 4 Szabolcs VARGAɣ ZrйnyХ MХЦЧхs ЮaЧЧásШsságánaЦ ФХstШrХШgráfХája [Die Historiographie hinsХcФtЧХcФ der ReЧХgХШnszugeФчrХgЦeХt ЮШn NХЦШЧaus ZrйnyХ]. In: „Hйr a dicső tettek ragyogása. Tanulmányok a Zrйnyi család és Szigetvár kora újkori tчrténetéből. Hrsg. Szabolcs VARGA. SzigetЮár. Ǌǈǉǉ. S. ǌǍ–ǎǊɤ Nata:a БTEFANECɣ IV. és V. ZrйnyХ Gyчrgy. [GeШrg IV. und V. ZrйnyХ]. Inɣ BENE – HAUSNER 2007. S. 87–112. (im Weiteren: БTEFANEC 2007) 5 Über dХe ”esХtzЮerФäЧtnХsse des UngarХscФen KчnХgreХcФs um dХe MХtte des ǉǏ. JaФrФunderts auf Grund der Pfortenverzeichnisse siehe Erzsébet NAGYɣ MagyarázatШЦ a „Legna- 1 156 DIE TEILUNGEN DER MURINSEL-HERRSCHAFT DER FAMILIE ZRÍNYI IM 17. JAHRHUNDERT im Kontext des Lebenslaufes der obigen Familienmitglieder, nahezu nebenbeХ angesЩrШcФen. Das Чässt sХcФ aucФ daran erЦennen, dass meФrere TeХЧungsurЦunden, dХe dХe ФäufХgen G(terteХЧungen festЧegten erst ЮШr kurzem entdeckt worden sind. Auch die systematische Aufarbeitung des zerstreuten “rcФХЮguts Чässt nШcФ auf sХcФ Яarten, sШgar auf der Ebene der einzelnen Herrschaften.6 Mangels GrundfШrscФungen m(ssen dХe FШrscher immer noch auf die Angaben der an der Wende vom 19. zum 20. Jahrhundert, im Zeitalter der romantischen Geschichtsschreibung verfassten, ЮШn erЯecЦendem NatХШnaЧХsmus geЩrägten MШnШgraЩФХen und “bhandlungen bzw. ЩШЩuЧärЯХssenscФaftЧХcФe WerЦe zur(cЦgreХfen.7 Die auf PrХmärqueЧЧen beruФenden neueren “bФandЧungen erЯeХterten unsere KenntnХsse (ber das ”esХtzgut der FamХЧХe erФebЧХcФ, zumХndest ФХnsichtlich des ohnehin besser erforschten 16. Jahrhunderts.8 Die Wirtschaftsgeschichtsforschung, die in den Ostblockstaaten vor dem FaЧЧ der Mauer aus ХdeШЧШgХscФen Gr(nden ЮerständЧХcФerЯeХse ЩräferХert ЯШrden Яar, untersucФte auf Grund der Хn grШßer ZaФЧ erФaЧten geblieben und zum Teil auch publizierten Konskriptionen eingehend die OrganХsatХШn und den WХrtscФaftsbetrХeb des GrШßgrundbesХtzes, sШЯХe dХe ScФХcФten und Lasten der HчrХgen.9 UngЧ(cЦЧХcФerЯeХse setzten sХcФ gyШbb fчЧdbХrtШЦШsШЦ a Habsburg-ЦХráЧyХ MagyarШrszágШn az ǉǎǋǈ–40-es éЮeЦben c. térЦéЩФez [ErЦЧärung zur MaЩЩe „DХe grчssten GrundbesХtzer Хn Ungarn Хn den ǉǎǋǈ–40-er Jahren ]. “grártчrténeti Szemle 29 (1987), S. 190–213. 6 Vera ZIMÁNYIɣ “ ZrйnyХ csaЧád tengermeЧЧéЦХ bХrtШЦaХ [DХe Meerg(ter der FamХЧХe ZrйnyХ]. Századok 115 (1981), S. 372–374. (im Weiteren: ZIMÁNYI 1981) 7 Emil LASZOWSKI: Grad Ozalj i njegova okolina: Mjestopisne i povjesne crtice [Burg Ozalj und Umgebung: Ortskunden- und Geschichtskizze]. Zagreb. 1929; IDEM: Gorski Kotar i Vinodol: Dio državine knezova Frankopana i Zrinskih [Gorski Kotar und Vinodol. Teil des Besitzbestandes der Grafen FrangeЩans und ZrйnyХs]. Zagreb. 1923; Ferenc SALAMON: “z első Zrйnyiek [Die ersten ZrйnyХs]. Pest. ǉǐǎǍ. 8 Szabolcs VARGAɣ “daЧéЦШЦ a ZrйnyХ csaЧád feЧemeЧЦedéséФez. “ KarЧШЮХcs-чrчЦség [“ngaben zum “ufstХeg der FamХЧХe ZrйnyХ. Das Erbe der KarЧШЮХcs ]. In: Zrйnyi Miklхs élete és чrчksége. “ Ǌǈǈǐ. november Ǐ–8-án Zrйnyi Miklхs sz(letésének Ǎǈǈ. évfordulхja alkalmábхl Szigetváron rendezett konferencia előadásainak szerkesztett szчvege. Hrsg. ZШЧtán VARGA. SzХgetЮár. 2010. S. 4–ǊǏɤ JánШs BABOSɣ ”ХrtШЦЮáЧtШzásШЦ ZrйnyХ III. és IV. MХЦЧхs Хdejében [”esХtzЮeränderungen zur Zeit von NХЦШЧaus III. und IV. ZrйnyХ]. Inɣ Tanulmányok évszázadok tчrténelméből. Hrsg. Zsuzsanna J. ÚJVÁRY, unter MХtЯХrЦung ЮШn “ndrás FORG2 und Péter ILLIK. Piliscsaba. 2006. S. 40–54; БTEFANEC 2001. S. 19–40. 9 “ Murakчzi uradalom gazdasága és társadalma a ǉǏ–ǉǐ. században. Válogatott források [Die WirtscФaft und GeseЧЧscФaft des GutsФШf MurХnseЧ Хm ǉǏ. und ǉǐ. JaФrФundert. “usgeЯäФЧte Quellen]. Hrsg. Zita HORVÁTH. ZaЧaegerszeg. Ǌǈǉǈ. ɭZaЧaХ Gyűjtemény ǎǐ.ɮ ɭim Weiteren: MU 2010); Monumenta Zrйnyiana. ”ona Maritima. Tomus I. RedegХt Ágnes R. VÁRKONYI. Digessit, introductione Germanica et indice instruxit Vera ZIMÁNYI. Opera socius in reЮХsХШne ЩФХЧШЧШgХca textuum Gyшzш KENÉZ. Budapest. 1991. (im Weiteren: MZBM 1991); Monumenta Zrйnyiana. Pars oeconomica. Tomus II. Insula Murakчz ɭǉǎǋǍ–1720) Redegit Vera ZIMÁNYI. DХgessХt, ХntrШductХШne GermanХca et ХndХce ХnstruxХt IstЮán M. KISS. Budapest. 1991. (im Weiteren: MZPO 1991); Monumenta Historica Familiarum Zrinski et Frankopan. 157 Ferenc VÉGH die renommierten Forscher der Agrargeschichte die Verfolgung der im Besitzbestand im Laufe der Zeit eХngetretenen Veränderungen nХcФt zum Ziel.10 “ucФ dХe ЮШrЧХegende “rbeХt Цann und ЯХЧЧ dХese L(cЦe ЮerständЧХcФerЯeХse nХcФt scФЧХeßen. Unsere ZХeЧsetzung bescФränЦt sХcФ darauf, mХt der Aufarbeitung der die Murinsel-Herrschaft betreffenden Archivalien die bisherigen Resultate der ungarisch-ЦrШatХscФen Fr(ФneuzeХtfШrscФung zu ergänzen und Яenn nчtХg, zu ЦШrrХgХeren. WХr tun das Хn der HШffnung, zu den neuen, zukunftweisenden Untersuchungen einen Beitrag leisten zu Цчnnen.11 Die kammerlichen Konskriptionen der 1670-er JaФre (ber den ”esХtzanteХЧ ЮШn Péter ZrйnyХ, der des HШcФЮerrats f(r scФuЧdХg befunden Яurde, und den der WaХsen ЮШn NХЦШЧaus VII. ZrйnyХ ermчgЧХcФen uns den Besitzbestand der ungarisch-kroatischen Magnatenfamilie zu bestimmen.12 Den Wert des Хm GescФäftsgang der UngarХscФen Kammer Хn dХe MurХnseЧ ɭInsuЧaɮ, sЧaЯШnХscФe ɭ”Шna CrШatХcaɮ und Meerg(ter ɭ”Шna MarХtХmaɮ untergeteХЧten G(terЦШmЩЧexes gab man ǉǎǏǊ mХt ǉ.ǏǈǏ.ǎǑǐ RfЧ. an.13 Das ЯХscФtХgste GЧХed, man Цчnnte sagen der JuЯeЧ des ”esХtzЮermчgens, das sХcФ ЮШn der “drХaЦ(ste bХs ФХn zu dem Mura FЧuss erstrecЦte, Tomus 1. Conscriptiones et aestimationes bonorum (1672–1673). Digessit, praefatione et indice instruxit Rajka MODRIĆ. Zagreb. 1974; Emil LASZOWSKI: Izbor isprava velikih feuda Zrinskih i Frankopana. ɭGraгa za gospodarsku povijest Hrvatske. Knjiga ǉ.ɮ [Auswahl von den Schriften der Grossgrundherren Zrйny und FrangeЩan. QueЧЧen zur WХrtscФaftsgescФХcФte KrШatХens. Band 1.]. Zagreb. 1951; Urbaria lingua croatica conscripta. Hrvatski urbari. Svezak I. Sabrao i ЩrШtumačХШ RadШsЧaЮ LOP“БIĆ. Zagreb. 1894. (Monumenta historio-juridica slavorum meridionalium) 10 ZIMÁNYI 1981. S. 368–416; Josip AD“MČEK: “grarni odnosi u Hrvatskoj od sredine XV. stoljeća do kraja XVII. stoljeća. [“grarЮerФäЧtnХsse Хn KrШatХen ЮШn der MХtte des XV. bХs zum Ende des XVII. Jahrhunderts]. Zagreb. 1980; IDEM: Zrinsko-franЦШЩansЦХ ЩШsjedХ u XVII. stШЧjeću. [ZrйnyХscФ-FrangeЩanХscФe G(ter Хm XVII. JaФrФundert]. Radovi Instituta za hrvatsku povijest. br. 2. Zagreb. 1972. S. 23–46. (im Weiteren: AD“MČEK 1972) 11 Nata:a БTEFANEC: Struktura posjeda na zrinskim imanjima i porezni ЩШЩХsХ MeгХmurja Х okolice (c. 1550. – c. 1610.) [G(terstruЦtur der ZrйnyХ-Besitzungen und die Steuerverzeichnisse der Murinsel und Umgebung (ca. 1550 – ca. 1610)]. In: Politička, kulturna i dru:tvena djelatnost Zrinskih i Frankopana u Hrvatskoj. Zbornik radova sa znanstvenog skupa održanog u Čakovcu ǎ. i Ǐ. listopada 2010. Hrsg. Juraj KOL“RIĆ. ČaЦШЮec. Ǌǈǉǉ. S. ǉǋ–26. (im Weiteren: БTEFANEC 2011); Hrvoje PETRIĆɣ PrХЧШzХ ЩШznaЮanju ЩШЮХjestХ stanШЮnХ:ta MeгХmurja u ЮrХjeme ZrХnsЦХФ [”eХträge zur ErscФЧХeßung der GescФХcФte der ”eЮчЧЦerung der MurХnseЧ zur ZeХt der ZrйnyХs]. Ebenda S. 27–50. Die Zusammenfassung der bisherigen Erkenntnisse: Vladimir K“LБ“N: Meгimurska povijest [GescФХcФte der MurХnseЧ]. ČaЦШЮec. Ǌǈǈǎ. 12 MODRIĆ 1973. S. 201–ǋǏǌɤ DХe ZusammenrecФnung der Werte eХnzeЧner G(ter MZ”M 1991. S. 55–57. “ucФ dХe Erfassung der G(ter der Erben ЮШn NХЦШЧaus ZrйnyХ Яar nчtХg, da „der “btheilung halber unterschiedliche Streitigkeiten sich ereignet . Magyar NemzetХ LeЮéЧtár OrszágШs LeЮéЧtára, ”udaЩest ɭMNL–OL) Magyar Kamara Archivuma (MKA) E 156 Urbaria et Conscriptiones (U et C) Fasc. 247. Nr. 9. 13 „Die Croatischen Commissaryen drey Gradus ihrer Schätzung machen, und alles nach dem hчgsten, geringeren und geringsten wehrt in anschlag bringen auch auf solche weiß der g(ter 158 DIE TEILUNGEN DER MURINSEL-HERRSCHAFT DER FAMILIE ZRÍNYI IM 17. JAHRHUNDERT Яar das auf ǎǐǍ.ǌǍǌ RfЧ. gescФätzte MurХnseЧ-HerrscФaft mХt CsáЦtШrnya ɭČaЦШЮecɮ aЧs SХtz Хm KШmХtat ZaЧa.14 DХe ErЯerbung der „InseЧ , ЯХe dХe Zeitgenossen das Drau-Mur-Dreieck schlХcФt nannten, ermчgЧХcФte es den ZrХnyХs, dХe neben den aЧten ЦrШatХscФen G(ter um dХe MХtte des ǉǎ. JaФrФunderts aucФ Хn SЧaЯШnХen (ber bedeutende ”esХtzungen Юerf(gten, sХcФ in das ungarische politische Milieu zu etablieren. Das setzte bekanntlich das DaseХn eХner ausgedeФnten HerrscФaft nчrdЧХcФ der Drau, d.Ф. Хn Ungarn im engeren Sinne aus. Die Murinsel-Herrschaft (eigentlich die ZugeФчrХgЦeХten der ”urgen CsáЦtШrnya und SrХgШɮ geЧangte ǉǍǌǎ nacФ dem “usterben der FamХЧХe Ernuszt Хn dХe Hände ЮШn NХЦШЧaus IV. ZrйnyХ aЧs sШ genannte gemХscФte DШnatХШn, d.Ф. teХЧs aЧs KШmЩensatХШn f(r seХne Unkosten, teils als Anerkennung seiner geleisteten Dienste.15 Der Held von SzХgetЮár, äФnЧХcФ seХnen ZeХtgenШssen Яar bestrebt, den ScФЯerЩunЦt seiner wegen des VormarscФes der Osmanen gefäФrdeten G(ter nacФ Transdanubien zu verlagern. Im Zeichen dieses Vorhabens hatte er 1557 dХe HerrscФaften MedЮeЮár ɭMedЮedgradɮ Хm KШmХtat “gram und Rakolnok (Rakovec) – Чetztere umfasste damaЧs aucФ dХe ZugeФчrХgЦeХten des Schlosses Verbшc ɭVerbШЮecɮ – Хm KШmХtat Kчrчs gegen dХe ”esХtzungen ЮШn Peter II. Erdшdy, nämЧХcФ MШnyШrхЦeréЦ ɭEberauɮ és VчrчstШrШny (Rotenturm) im Komitat Eisenburg eingetauscht.16 Letztere als kroatischsЧaЯШnХscФer ”anus Яar eben an MeФrung seХner G(ter zЯХschen der Drau und der Save interessiert.17 Der Umtausch stellte jedoch den Vorrang der HerrscФaft CsáЦtШrnya nХcФt Хn Frage. ǉǍǑǊ Яurden auf den ZugeФчrХgЦeХten der ”urgen MШnyШrхЦeréЦ und VчrчstШrШny Цaum meФr als halb so viel (58%) Hufen registriert, wie auf der Murinsel.18 Die beschprochene Konskription verzeichnete die Besitzanteile Georgs IV. Ehefrau und dessen Halbruders, Johanns (1565–1612) allerdings nicht.19 Obwohl Georg IV. und Johann 1591 auf beide Herrschaften sogar neue Donation Einkomben durch 4. 5 und 6 per Cento gezogen, und solchemnach ein dreyfaches Capitale constituiren. Das ФeХßt, dХe KШnsЦrХЩtШren betracФteten den JaФresertrag der eХnzeЧnen ”esitzungen und den Wert der ImmШbХЧХen aЧs ZХns. Den ”etrag muЧtХЩЧХzХerten ɭgemäß dem damaЧХgen ZХnsfuß ЮШn ǌ bХs ǎ%ɮ mХt ǊǍ Шder Ǌǈ Шder ǉǎ.ǎǏ um das KaЩХtaЧ ɭǉǈǈ%ɮ zu bekommen. MNL–OL MKA E 156 U et C Fasc. 247. Nr. 9. Im Weiteren geben wir immer den ФчcФsten ScФätzЯert an. 14 MZBM 1991. S. 55–57. 15 Samu B“R“”ÁS: Zrйnyi Miklхs a szigetvári hős életére vonatkozх levelek és okiratok [Briefe und UrЦunden bez(gЧХcФ des Lebens ЮШn NХЦШЧaus ZrйnyХ, dem HeЧden zu SzХgetЮár]. II. ”udapest. 1899. S. 164–167. (im Weiteren: B“R“”ÁS 1899) 16 Ebenda S. 346–350. 17 Samu B“R“”ÁSɣ ZrйnyХ Gyчrgy bХrtШЦaХnaЦ fчЧbecsЧése [DХe “bscФätzung der G(ter von GeШrg ZrйnyХ]. Tчrténelmi Tár ǉǐǑǍ. S. 329–357. (im Weiteren: B“R“”ÁS 1895) 18 Ebenda. 19 MNL–OL Magyar KanceЧЧárХaХ LeЮéЧtár ɭMKLɮ “ ǍǏ LХbrХ regХХ ”d. 4. S. 682–684. 159 Ferenc VÉGH erhielten, ЮermШcФten dХe Erdшdys dХese ǉǎǉǋ auf dem RecФtsЯeg zur(cЦzuerlangen.20 Im 17. Jahrhundert war also die Murinsel-Herrschaft die bedeutendtste ”esХtzung der ZrйnyХs. DХe ”edeutung des ”esХtzes Хm ZЯХscФenstrШmЧand Чässt sХcФ neben den Фerausragenden WХrtschaftsdaten auch daran erЦennen, dass dХe eХgentЧХcФen FamХЧХenШberФäuЩte der ZrйnyХs ШФne “usnaФme Хn CsáЦtШrnya resХdХerten. Dem SteuerЮerzeХcФnХs aus dem Jahr 1610 zu Folge waren 87% der Steureinheiten (insgesamt 111 Pforten) Хn den Händen ЮШn NХЦШЧaus VI. ZrйnyХ ɭ?–1625).21 Die an der Mura liegenden ”ШttШrnya ɭPШdturenɮ, “ЧsхferencfaЧЮa ɭFerЦetХnecɮ, MХЦхfa ɭMХЦЧaЮecɮ és MuraszentЦereszt ɭKrХžШЮecɮ ɭǐ,Ǎ PfШrtenɮ Яaren Хm ”esХtz ЮШn Franz II. ”attФyány, aber aucФ andere ЯeЧtЧХcФe ”esХtzer Юerf(gten (ber mehr oder weniger (insgesamt 5,75) Pforten.22 Von den kirchlichen PossessШren Хst der PauЧanerШrden an erster SteЧЧe zu erЯäФnen, der danЦ der Vergabe des UngarnЦчnХgs MattФХas I. ɭǉǌǍǐ–1490) und der Grafen Cillei, die sich im 15. Jahrhundert im Besitz der Murinsel befanden, konnten sich ab ǉǌǏǐ dХe Dчrfer SzentХЧШna ɭБenЦШЮecɮ und NyйrЮчЧgy ɭMačЦШЮecɮ ɭǊ PfШrtenɮ f(r sХcФ beФauЩten und zЯar dХe ganze EЩШcФe ФХndurcФ.23 Um dХe MХtte des ǉǏ. JaФrФundert Юerf(gte der EХnsХedЧerШrden (ber den grчssten ”esХtzbestand in dem Mur-Drau-Dreieck.24 Der ”esХtzanteХЧ der ZrйnyХs auf der MurХnseЧ Фatte sХcФ mХttЧerЯeХЧe beteutend ausgeЯeХtet. Das ”attФyányХscФe Gut Фatte ǉǎǌǌ Peter ZrХnsЦХ erkauft, obwohl er mit der Pfandsumme offensichtlich schuldig blieb.25 Adam I. BattФyány Фatten dХe ununterbrШcФenen T(rЦeneХnfäЧЧe auf dХe MurХnseЧ dazu beЯegt, seХnen “nteХЧ zu ЮerЩfänden.26 Dadurch ist er auch Rчvid magyar kronika sok rend-beli fő historiás kчnyvekbчl nagy szorgalmatossággal egybe szedetett és irattatott Petthч Gergelytчl [Kurze ungarХscФe CФrШnХЦ, aus meФrerЧeХ ФХstШrХscФen ”(cФern mХt grШßem FЧeХß eХngesammeЧt und zusammengescФrХeben ЮШn GeШrg PettФш]. Kassa. 1753. (reprint: Budapest. 1993). S. 180. 21 MNL–OL MKA E 158 Conscriptio portarum. Tomus LIV. (Filmrolle Nr. 1664.) fol. 573– 576; БTEFANEC 2011. S. 26. 22 Ebenda. 23 MZPO 1991. S. 570. 24 MU 2010. 454–455; MNL–OL MKA E 158 Conscriptio portarum. Tomus LIV. (Filmrolle Nr. 1664.) fol. 660. 25 “ndrás KOLTAI: ”atthyány Ádám. Egy magyar főúr és udvara a XVII. század kчzepén [Adam ”attФyány. Ein ungarischer Hochadelige und sein Hof in der Mitte des 17. Jahrhunderts]. Gyшr. ǊǈǉǊ. S. ǌǎǋɤ MNL–OL P ǉǋǉǌ “ ”attФyány csaЧád ФercegХ ágánaЦ ЧeЮéЧtára. MХssХЧes. Nr. Ǎǌǉǌǐ. Peter ZrйnyХ an “dam ”attФyány. CsáЦtШrnya, den ǉǊ. OЦtШber ǉǎǌǌ., Nr. ǍǌǉǍǈ. Peter ZrйnyХ an “dam ”attФyány. RХbnХЦ. ǉǎǌǍ. ɭnäФeres Datum nicht angegeben). 26 Josip BEDEKOVIĆ: Natale solum magni ecclesiae doctoris sancti Hieronymi in ruderibus Stridonis occultatum. Neostadii Austriae. 1752. S. 290–291. 20 160 DIE TEILUNGEN DER MURINSEL-HERRSCHAFT DER FAMILIE ZRÍNYI IM 17. JAHRHUNDERT dХe beträcФtЧХcФen UnterФaЧtsЦШsten der SШЧdaten der WacФtФäuser ЧШsgeworden.27 DurcФ dХe ”esХtznaФme ЮermШcФten dХe ZrйnyХs die Verteidigung der Herrschaft entlang der Mur einheitlich zu organisieren. EbenfaЧЧs eХn ЯertЮШЧЧer ErЯerb Яar das Landgut ЮШn NХЦШЧaus MaЧaЦхczy, das dХe Хm JaФr ǉǍǋǐ ЮШn GasЩar Ernuszt ЮerscФenЦte Dчrfer T(ndérЧaЦ ɭHЧaЩХčХnaɮ und Nemes-”(ЦЦчsd ɭ”uЦШЮje), ferner die von Georg IV. ZrйnyХ ǉǍǑǏ f(r ǌǈǈǈ Фung. fЧ. zum Pfand gesetzte G(ter umfasste.28 All dХese Яurden ЮШn NХЦШЧaus VII. ZrйnyХ um ǉǎǌǑ recФtsЯХdrХg entzШgen, Яas zu eХnem Чangen RecФtsstreХt mХt den GescФädХgten zur FШЧge Фatte. 1667 kam es schlХeßЧХcФ zu eХner EХnХgung, Хndem dХe MaЧaЦШczys f(r ǐǈǈǈ RfЧ., eХn Pferd und eХnХge FaФrnХsse ХФre G(ter an MarХa SШЩФХa LчbЧ, die WХtЯe des NХЦШЧaus VII. erbrecФtЧХcФ (berЧХeßen.29 DХe ZrйnyХs ЧХeßen sХcФ aucФ dХe ЦЧeХneren MurХnseЧg(ter nХcФt entgehen. UngarnЦчnХg MattФХas II. ɭǉǎǈǐ–ǉǎǉǑɮ ЮerscФenЦte ǉǎǉǉ dХe G(ter ЮШn VХnzenz ”eЦШЮХcФ Хn ”eЧХce und Хm KШmХtat Kчrчs, dХe nacФ dessen erbenЧШsen TШd der KrШne zufХeЧen, an NХЦШЧaus VI. ZrйnyХ.30 Die Familie Bekovich blieb jedoch auch danach im Besitz einiger MurХnseЧg(ter.31 RácЦanХzsa ɭRazЦrХžjeɮ samt marШdem ScФЧШss und GábШrЮчЧgy ɭGrabrШЮnХЦɮ ɭǉǎǌǐ eХne PfШrteɮ Фatte NХЦШЧaus VII. ZrйnyХ ǉǎǍǊ f(r ǌǈǈǈ Фung. fЧ. ЮШn der ebenfaЧЧs aЧteХngesessenen FamХЧХe ”énnyeХ ergattert.32 Um diesen Zeitpunkt hatten die ZrйnyХs ǑǊ% der PfШrten Хn ХФrem ”esХtz. Der PrШzentsatz Чässt sХcФ aЧЧerdХngs nur scФЯХerХg mХt dem ЮШm JaФr ǉǎǉǈ vergleichen, da sich der Pfortenbegriff in der Zwischenzeit wesentlich Юeränderte.33 InfШЧge der ШffenЦundХgen ”estrebung der ZrйnyХs nacФ Vergrчßerung ХФrer MurХnseЧg(ter fХeЧen dХe Grenzen der LandscФaft und dХe der ZrйnyХ-Herrschaft in der Mitte des 17. Jahrhundert im WesentЧХcФen (bereХn. Der transdanubische Besitzbestand der Familie erweiterte sich nicht nur mХt der ErЯerbung etЧХcФer G(ter auf der Murinsel. Nikolaus VII. ZrйnyХ Цaufte ǉǎǌǑ dem Шben genannten NХЦШЧaus MaЧaЦхczy aucФ dХe MNL–OL P ǉǋǉǌ “ ”attФyány csaЧád ФercegХ ágánaЦ ЧeЮéЧtára. MХssХЧes. Nr. ǌǑǋǑǋ. JШФann SХmШnХ an “dam ”attФyány. DeЦanШЮec, den ǉǈ. JunХ ǉǎǋǎ. 28 HrЮatsЦХ držaЮnХ arФХЮ ɭHD“ɮ, Zagreb. HD“–ǎǐǉ VЧasteЧХnstЮШ ČaЦШЮec. ScФ. ǋǌ. Nr. 2230., 2233., 2234; Sch. 10. Nr. 1359. 29 Ebenda. 30 MNL–OL MKL A 57 Libri regii Bd. 6. S. 275–277; MKA E 148 Neo–regestrata acta (NRA) Fasc. 1439. Nr.2. 31 MNL–OL MKA E 158 Conscriptio portarum. Tomus LIV. (Filmrolle Nr. 1664.) fol. 591– 594. 32 MNL–OL MKL A 57 Libri regii Bd. 14. S. 10–19; MU 2010. S. 454–450. 33 Lajos JUHÁSZ: “ porta tчrténete ǉǍǊǎ–ǉǎǌǐ. Jobbágygazdálkodásunk egysége és az adхegység [Die Geschichte der Pforte 1526–1648. Die Einheit unserer Leibegenenwirtschaft und die Steuereinheit]. ”udaЩest. ǉǑǋǎ. ɭK(ЧчnЧenyШmat a SzázadШЦ ǉǑǋǎ. éЮХ Щхtf(zetébшЧɮ, S. ǋ–84. 27 161 Ferenc VÉGH ”urg SzécФХszХget Хm KШmХtat ZaЧa ab, dХe er mХt ХФren Хn den KШmХtaten ZaЧa und EХsenburg ЧХegenden ZugeФчrХgЦeХten testamentarХscФ seХner Gemahlin hinterЧХeß.34 ǉǎǌǊ beЦamen NХЦШЧaus VII. ZrйnyХ und ХФr ”ruder Peter ǋǍ Dчrfer Хn den KШmХtaten SШmШgy und ”aranya gescФenЦt, dХe durcФ den ЦХnderЧШsen TШd ЮШn “ndreas Csшszy ФerrenЧШs geЯШrden Яaren.35 “Чs GrundФerren der HerrscФaft Csurgх Юerf(gten dХe ZrйnyХs schon seХt der MХtte des ǉǎ. JaФrФunderts (ber LХegenscФaften.36 1592 umfasste ХФr dШrtХger ”esХtzbestand eХnen MarЦt, ǉǋ Dчrfer sШЯХe f(nf W(stungen.37 Ein Verzeichnis, das zwischen 1686 und 1691 verfasst wurde, verzeichnet 30 Ortschaften allein im Komitat Baranya im Besitz von Adam ZrйnyХ, dem eХnzХgen SШФn des NХЦШЧaus VII., aЧЧerdХngs Яar nur eХn DrХtteЧ der Dчrfer beЯШФnt.38 DХe ШbХgen, nчrdЧХcФ der Drau ЧХegenden Dчrfer feФЧen, aus bХsФer unbekannter Ursache, auch in den nach 1670 angefertigten kammerlichen KШnsЦrХЩtХШnen, und bЧХeben desЯegen außerФaЧb der SХcФtЯeХte sШЯШФЧ der ungarischen als auch der kroatischen Forschung. Weitere, zielgerichtete UntersucФungen sХnd nчtХg um zu ЦЧären, Шb dХe ZrйnyХs ХФr ”esХtzrecht auf diese Ortschaften geltend machen konnten. Feststeht jedoch, dass der ungarische Besitzbestand der Magnatenfamilie im 17. Jahrhundert ausgedeФnter Яar, aЧs bХsФer angenШmmen. DХe Хn T(rЦХscФ Ungarn Шder Хm umЦämЩften RandstreХfen des ЦчnХgЧХcФen LandesteХЧs ЧХegenden Besitzungen ЦШnnten dХe zu ”egХnn des JaФrФunderts entfaЧЧene Erdшdy G(ter ЯШФЧ Цaum ersetzen. DХe ”esХtzgescФХcФte der ЯertЮШЧЧsten HerrscФaft, der MurХnseЧ Яar äußerst turbuЧent Хm ǉǏ. JaФrФundert. Der TШd ЮШn GeШrg IV. ZrйnyХ ɭǉǎǈǋɮ, der das Familienerbgut mit aller M(Фe zusammenФХeЧt, Ц(ndХgte eХne Wende in der Geschichte der Besitzungen der Magnatenfamilie an.39 Die nacФЦШmmenden GeneratХШnen teХЧten sХcФ nämЧХcФ dХe LändereХen unter sХcФ auf. Den äЧteren SШФn, NХЦШЧaus VI. Фatte seХn gerade zu ЮШЧЧjäФrХg erЦЧärter junger Bruder, Georg V. unter dem Vorwand seiner Verlobung gedrängt, ХФren ErbanteХЧ auszugeben, Яas ЮШr aЧЧem seХn zuЦ(nftХger Zrйnyi Miklхs чsszes művei [SämtЧХcФe WerЦe ЮШn NХЦШЧaus ZrйnyХ]. Hrsg. SándШr IЮán KOBudapest. 2003. (im Weiterenɣ ZM5M Ǌǈǈǋ.ɮ ǍǌǑ–550, 565–568, 814–826; MNL–OL MKA E 158 Conscriptio portarum. Tomus LIV. (Filmrolle Nr. 1664.) fol. 660–664. 35 MNL–OL MKL A 57 Libri regii Bd. 9. S. 422–423. 36 B“R“”ÁS 1899. S. 208–211. 37 B“R“”ÁS 1895. S. 353–355. 38 MNL–OL MKA E 156 U et C. Fasc. 90. Nr. 92. 39 БTEFANEC 2001. S. 19–40. 34 VÁCS. 162 DIE TEILUNGEN DER MURINSEL-HERRSCHAFT DER FAMILIE ZRÍNYI IM 17. JAHRHUNDERT ScФЯХegerЮater TФШmas SzécФy bef(rЯШrtete.40 Im Jahr 1616, unter MitЯХrЦung ЮШn GregШr PetФш, dem CФrШnХsten teХЧten dХe ”r(der die Murinsel-HerrscФaft Хn zЯeХ, ungefäФr gЧeХcФЯertХge TeХЧe auf, ШbЯШФЧ sХcФ dХe HaЧbХerung der WeХngärten bХs MaХ näcФsten JaФres auf sХcФ Яarten ЧХeß.41 Im Jahr 1617 kam die Herrschaft Ozaly (Ozalj) an die Reihe, vermutlich mХt anderen G(ter Хm KШmХtat Agram, und aller Wahrscheinlichkeit nach teХЧten sХe aucФ VХnШdШЧ, das zu der “drХaЦ(ste ЩaraЧЧeЧ Чaufende, frucФtbare Tal (Vinodol=Weintal) unter sich auf.42 Nikolaus VI. blieb auch nach der TeХЧung Хn CsáЦtШrnya, ЯäФrend seХn ”ruder dХe ”urg OzaЧy bezog. Nach dem Tod des Ersteren (1625) verwaltete Georg nun alleine das FamХЧХenЮermчgen. GeШrg V. ZrйnyХ, der ǉǎǊǊ mХt UmgeФung des äЧteren ”ruders zum ЦrШatisch-sЧaЯШnХscФen ”anus ernannt Яurde, naФm aЦtХЮ an den KämЩfen des DreХßХgjäФrХgen KrХeges ɭǉǎǉ8–ǉǎǌǐɮ teХЧ. “ucФ seХn ЩЧчtzЧХcФer TШd Хm JaФr ǉǎǊǎ, Хm “Чter ЮШn Ǌǐ JaФren Чässt sХcФ damХt Хn VerbХndung gebracФt werden.43 Im Namen seХner KХnder, dem acФtjäФrХgen NХЦШЧaus VII. und Peter, der Цaum eХn JaФr j(nger Яar, Фatte eХn f(nfЦчЩfХges GremХum aЧs VШrmund dХe G(ter zu ЮerЯaЧten, und zЯar unter dem VШrsХtz ЮШn SteЩФan SennyeХ, dem ”ХscФШf zu Vác.44 In der PraxХs Ц(mmerte sХcФ Franz ”attФyány aЧЧeХne um dХese “ngeЧegenФeХten, EntscФeХdungen ЦШnnte er jedoch nur mit Zustimmung aller Mitglieder treffen.45 1632 trennte sich ”attФyány ЮШn seХnem PШsten Яegen der gegen ХФn Чaut geЯШrden ”escФЯerden. VШn dХesem ZeХtЩunЦt ab (bernaФm SteЩФan SennyeХ seЧbst dХe G(terЮerЯaЧtung.46 NacФ seХnem TШd Хm JaФr ǉǎǋǍ Ц(mmerte sХcФ Peter Pázmány, der ErzbХscФШf zu Gran um dХe ZrйnyХ-WaХsen, ЯШmчgЧХcФ aucФ um ХФre G(ter.47 40 Gyula NAGYɣ ”attФyány Ferenc ЧeЮeЧeХ TФurzх GyчrgyФчz és TФurzх ImréФez ǉǎǈǎ–1620 [DХe ”rХefe ЮШn Franz ”attФyány an EmmerХcФ TФurzх ǉǎǈǎ–1620]. Tчrténelmi Tár 1879. S. 117, 120. 41 NacХШnaЧna Х sЮeučХЧХ:na ЦnjХžnХca, Zagreb. ɭNSKɮ R ǍǉǊǑ. NХЦШЧaus ZrйnyХ an GeШrg PetФш. PШmurje, den Ǌǎ. “ЩrХЧ 1617; Levente NAGYɣ PetФш GergeЧy RчЮХd magyar ЦrхnХЦája és ZrйnyХ MХЦЧхs [DХe Kurze CФrШnХЦ ЮШn GeШrg PetФш und NХЦШЧaus ZrйnyХ]. Irodalomtчrténeti Kчzlemények 102 (1998:3–4), S. 295. Vgl. KLANICZAY 1964. S. 55. 42 NSK R Ǎǉǋǉ. NХЦШЧaus ZrйnyХ an GeШrg PetФш. OzaЧy, den Ǌǈ. Februar ǉǎǉǏɤ БTEFANEC 2007. S. 90. 43 SándШr T“KÁTSɣ ZrйnyХ MХЦЧхs és Péter gyámjaХ [Die Vormunde von Nikolas und Peter ZrйnyХ]. Inɣ IDEM: Magyar k(zdelmek. Budapest. [s. a.] (im Weiteren: T“KÁTS), S. 69–102; MNL– OL MKA E 148 NRA Fasc. 318. Nr. 34. 44 T“KÁTS S. d. S. 83. 45 Ebenda. S. 83. 46 Ebenda. S. 88. 47 Ebenda. S. 93. 163 Ferenc VÉGH ”eХ der “ufteХЧung ЮШn ǉǎǋǐ, dХe ЮШn CФrХstШЩf ”ánffy, dem Oberschatzmeister und Obergespan der Komitate Zala und Somogy durchgef(Фrt Яurde, dХenten ШffensХcФtЧХcФ dХe “bЦШmmen aus den JaФren 1616/1617 als Vorbild.48 NХЦШЧaus VII. ZrйnyХ und Peter teХЧten dХe HerrscФaften MurХnseЧ, OzaЧy und RХbnХЦ äФnЧХcФ ЯХe ХФre VШrfaФren auf, Яas dХe ZЯeХteХЧung der Hufen der HчrХgen bedeutete. DХe ”r(der Юerf(gten aЧsШ tФeШretХscФ (ber genau sШ ЮХeЧe Hufen, da sШgar der Bestand des dХenstЩfЧХcФtХgen “deЧs ФaЧbХert Яurde. “ucФ dХe WeХnberge, WäЧder, M(ФЧen und sШgar dХe PfarreХen bzЯ. dХe KaЩeЧЧen Яurden aufgeteХЧt. Im FaЧЧe der (brХgen sЧaЯШnХscФen G(ter, nämЧХcФ RaЦШЧnШЦ, Verbшc, ”ШzsjaЦх ɭ”ШžjaЦШЮХnaɮ ЮerfШЧgten dХe ”r(der eФer EХnzeЧmetФШden, auf dХe jetzt nicht eingegangen werden kann. Die Herrschaft Brod am Oberlauf der Kulpa blieb ungeteilt, die grundherrlichen Einnahmen gingen allerdings durch zwei.49 ”eХ der VerteХЧung der Meerg(ter ЮШm “ЩrХЧ ǉǎǌǉ naФmen Nikolaus und Peter ebenfaЧЧs an eХner fr(Фeren VereХnbarung ”eХsЩХeЧ. Der j(ngere SШФn, der gemäß des GeЯШФnФeХtsrecФts des Landes aЧs Erster ЯäФЧen d(rfte, beansЩrucФte f(r sХcФ den “drХaФafen ”uccarХ ɭ”aЦarɮ und dХe ”urg GrШbnХЦ bzЯ. das DШrf GerШЮШ, ЯäФrend Buccarica (Bakarac), Porto Re (Kraljevica), Szelca (Selce) und Czirkvenica (Crikvenica) bzw. Hrelyn ɭHreЧХnɮ, DreЮenХЦ ɭDrХЮenХЦɮ, GrХsane ɭGrХžaneɮ und ”rХbХr Хm VХnШdШЧ Nikolaus zufielen.50 GeШrg IV. und NХЦШЧaus VI. teХЧten auf äФnЧХcФer Weise die Meerg(ter andertФaЧb JaФrzeФnte zuЮШr.51 DХe “drХaФäfen und das ǉǎǍǉ Хn ”etrХeb genШmmene EХsenЯerЦ zu Csabar ɭČabarɮ macФten ǉǎǏǊ ungefäФr eХn DrХtteЧ ɭ!ɮ ɭǍǎǊ.Ǒǐǎ RfЧ.ɮ des ZrйnyХ-Vermчgens aus, und zwar ohne die Herrschaften Buccari und Grobnik, was das Volumen des vor allem mit Eisenwaren, Holz und Salz bzw. Getreide und Wein getriebenen HandeЧs eraФnen Чässt.52 Die ungarische Forschung zweifelsohne beЧegte, dass sХcФ das WХrtscФaftsЩrШfХЧ der Meerg(ter eХndeutХg den “nsЩr(cФen des mХt ItaЧХen gef(Фrten Fernhandels anpasste und diese voneinander unzertrennlich waren.53 Es Чässt sХcФ mХt der sЩezХfХscФen EХn- MU 2010. S. 93–204; MNL–OL MKA E 148 NRA Fasc. 1445. Nr. 7, Fasc. 319. Nr. 38. Ebenda. 50 MNL–OL MKA E 148 NRA Fasc. 319. Nr. 39. 51 БTEFANEC 2007. S. 90. 52 Ebenda. 53 ZIMÁNYI 1981. S. 368–416. 48 49 164 DIE TEILUNGEN DER MURINSEL-HERRSCHAFT DER FAMILIE ZRÍNYI IM 17. JAHRHUNDERT ЦШmmensstruЦtur der Meerg(ter erЦЧären, dass dХe EХnnaФmen zum grШßen TeХЧ aucФ ЯeХterФХn ungeteХЧt bЧХeben.54 Im Juli 1642 verzichtete Nikolaus VII. auf eХnХge, ХФm zusteФende EХnЦШmmen, dХe ”esХtzЮerФäЧtnХsse der besЩrШcФenen G(ter bЧХeben jedШcФ unЮerändert.55 WХe uns dХe EХnЧeХtung der “ufteХЧungsurЦunde ЮШm März ǉǎǌǑ, Яenn aucФ nur Хm “ЧЧgemeХnen Юerrät, erЯХes sХcФ das fr(Фere “bЦШmmen, das die HalbХerung der G(ter festЧegte, aЧs unfunЦtХШnsfäФХg.56 Im Sinne der erneuten Teilung (dem Wortgebrauch nach Umtausch) erwarb Peter die an der KuЧЩa ЧХegenden HerrscФaften OzaЧy, RХbnХЦ, ”rШd sШЯХe ”ШzsjaЦх und dХe Meerg(ter, ЯäФrend NХЦШЧaus dХe MurХnseЧ-Herrschaft, die HerrscФaften RaЦШЧnaЦ und Verbшc Хm KШmХtat Kчrчs und das Haus Хn WХen erlangte.57 ObЯШФЧ dХe ЦrШatХscФe FШrscФung seХt Чängerem Юermutet, dass Letztere aucФ dХe (brХgen transdanubХscФen G(ter m(sste beЦШmmen Фaben, das besagte DШЦument erЯäФnte lediglich die im Komitat Zala, außerФaЧb der HaЧbХnseЧ ɭextra InsuЧamɮ ЧХegenden ”esХtzungen.58 Auch das 1660 erstellte Verzeichnis des Benediktinerordens, dem der Zehent des KШmХtats SШmШgy zustand, gab aЧs ”esХtzer der dШrtХgen ZrйnyХ-G(ter dХe beiden ”r(der an, Яas ebenfaЧЧs dХe ШbХge HyЩШtФese zu ЯХederЧegen scheint.59 DХe “ufteХЧung der FamХЧХeng(ter dХeser “rt bracФ sШЯШФЧ mХt der fr(Фeren, aЧs aucФ der sЩäteren PraxХs, dХe dХe ZЯeХteХЧung eХnzeЧner HerrscФaften ЮШrsaФ. HХnsХcФtЧХcФ der HХntergr(nde, die die nahezu verbindlicФen TradХtХШnen der besЩrШcФenen EЩШcФe ЮerdunЦeЧn ЧХeßen, sШЯХe der IdentХtät des InХtХatШrs sХnd ЯХr ЯeХterФХn auf Mutmaßungen angeЯХesen. Wohlbekannt ist allerdings ihr Streit um die Hinterlassenschaften von ElizabetФ SzécФy, der Witwe ihres Onkels Nikolaus VI. im Jahr 1646.60 ZwiscФen NХЦШЧaus und Peter gab es eХnen HХerarcФХeЦШnfЧХЦt aucФ bez(gЧХcФ MNL–OL MKA E 148 NRA Fasc. 319. Nr. 39. MNL–OL MKA E 148 NRA Fasc. 319. Nr. 32. 56 „Quod nos attentis et consideratis variis iisque gravibus periculis, quae nobis pro temporum varietatibus, occurrantibus mallorum (sic!) occassionibus, s[a]epe etiam praeter spem et voluntatem nostram, tam contra leges Divinas, quam ipsum etiam jus sangvinis in communi et uno bonorum dominio degentibus et habitantibus intercedere et evenire possent, volentes itaque omnium mallorum occassiones evitare tauscФten dХe ”r(der ХФre G(ter um. MNL–OL MKA E 148 NRA Fasc. 319. Nr. 30. 57 Ebenda. 58 БIБIĆ 1908. S. 14. 59 Szulpicz MOLNÁR: “ pannonhalmi főapátság tчrténete. Negyedik korszak. Nagy háborúk kora, a magyar Szent-Benedek-rend fчloszlása és feléledése ǉǍǋǍ–1708 [Die Geschichte der Erzabtei zu Pannonhalma. Vierte Epoche. Zeitalter der grШßen KrХege, dХe “ufЧчsung und Wiedererweckung des Benediktinerordens in Ungarn 1535–1708]. Budapest. 1906. (A Pannonhalmi-Szent-Benedek-rend tчrténete IV.) S. 817. 60 Gyula SCH5NHERRɣ “ bécsХ udЮarХ Цamara ЧeЮéЧtáránaЦ magyar ЮШnatЦШzású ШЦЧeЮeЧeХ [DХe UrЦunden der WХener HШfЦammer bez(gЧХcФ Ungarn]. Tчrténelmi Tár 1887. S. 724–726. 54 55 165 Ferenc VÉGH des KШmmandШs (ber dХe GarnХzШn ЮШn Légrád ɭLegradɮ, Хn dem aucФ der HШfЦrХegsrat zu Gunsten des äЧteren ”ruders ParteХ ergreХfen musste und zЯar gemäß dem ШbererЯäФnten “bЦШmmens ЮШn ǉǎǋǐ.61 Es sprach sХcФ aucФ f(r eХne ЯХederФШЧte G(teraufteХЧung, dass Peter Хm “ЩrХЧ ǉǎǌǏ zum KШmmandanten der UsЦШЦen zu SХcФeЧberg ɭŽumberaЦɮ und der ”urgen SЧuХn und VeЧemerХć ernannt Яurde, Яas seine Machtposition im ЦrШatХscФen GrenzgebХet ЯesentЧХcФ ЮerstärЦte.62 Nikolaus erhielt fast zeitgleich die kroatisch-sЧaЯШnХscФ ”anaЧЯ(rde, dХe zu der EntscФeХdung ebenfaЧЧs d(rfte beХgetragen Фaben.63 Die Untersuchung der sichtlich mit KШnfЧХЦten beЧasteten ”ezХeФung der Gebr(der ZrйnyХ muss eХne der ЯХcФtХgsten ZuЦunftsaufgaben der ungarХscФen und der ЦrШatХscФen ZrйnyХForschung sein.64 NacФ dem JagdtШd ЮШn NХЦШЧaus VII. ZrйnyХ Хm JaФr ǉǎǎǌ Яurde seХne WХtЯe, dХe den G(teranteХЧ ХФrer KХnder ЮerЯaЧtete, ЮШn dem ХnzЯХscФen zum ”anus ernannten Peter zu eХner NeuaufteХЧung gedrängt. Im SХnne des “bЦШmmens ЮШm Dezember ǉǎǎǍ Яurden dХe HerrscФaften CsáЦtШrnya, OzaЧy, RХbnХЦ und ”rШd erneut zЯeХgeteХЧt, Яährend BozsjaЦх weiterhin im Peters Besitz verblieb.65 IФm Яurde ermчgЧХcФt, beХde HäЧften der HerrscФaft MedЮeЮár aЧs Pfand zu besХtzen. Im Gegenzug verzichtete Peter auf seinen Anteil auf den Herrschaften Rakolnok und Verbшc, dХe dadurcФ seХner ScФЯägerХn (berЧХeß.66 ”Хs zur VШЧЧjäФrХgЦeХt ЮШn “dam ZrйnyХ ɭǉǎǎǊ–1691), dem Sohn des Nikolaus VII. ergatterte Peter auch das Schloss Brezovica unter dem Vorwand seiner, dem Jungen zugesagten Ц(nftХgen Unterst(tzung. Peter ZrйnyХ ЩacФtete außerdem dessen Meerg(ter gegen einen eher symbolischen Betrag von 5000 Hfl.67 Im JuЧХ ǉǎǎǏ unter dem VШrsХtz des Obersten LandrХcФters Franz Nádasdy Юerfasstes ÜbereХnЦШmmen reduzХerte dХe PacФtsumme auf ǌǍǈǈ HfЧ.68 Im SeЩtember desseЧben JaФres (berЧХeß dХe WХtЯe (ber Ǌǋ Hufen auf der MurХnseЧ ХФrem ScФЯager gegen seХne PШrtХШn Хn den KurХen ÚjudЮar MNL–OL MKL A 14 Insinuata Consilii Bellici Nr. 78. den 7. Mai 1640. SZÉCHY 1896. S. 245. 63 NХЦШЧaus ZrйnyХs Ernennung zum ”anusɣ MNL–OL MKL A 57 Libri regii Bd. 9. S. 655–656. 64 Ein literaturhistorisch gerichteter Versuch dazuɣ SándШr IЮán KOVÁCSɣ „Najgu:će žestШЦe . “z „“drХansЦШga mШra Syrenaɣ GrШff ZrХnsЦХ Petar ɭVeЧence, 1660) egyik epigrammája mХnt a ZrйnyХ fХЮéreЦ Цчzчs чnЮaЧЧШmása [„Najgu:će žestШЦe . Eine Epigramme ЮШn „“drХansЦШga mШra Syrenaɣ GrШff ZrХnsЦХ Petar ɭVenedХg, ǉǎǎǈɮ aЧs gemeХnsames SeЧbstbeЦenntnХs der Gebr(der ZrйnyХ]. In: Hrvatska/Maгarska. Stoljetne književne i likovnoumjetničke veze. Hrsg. Jadranka DAMJANOV. Zagreb. 1995. S. 364–369. 65 MNL–OL MKA E 148 NRA Fasc. 319. Nr. 23; Auszugweise Fasc. 1092. Nr. 7. 66 Ebenda. 67 Ebenda. 68 MNL–OL MKA E 148 NRA Fasc. 1092. Nr. 7. 61 62 166 DIE TEILUNGEN DER MURINSEL-HERRSCHAFT DER FAMILIE ZRÍNYI IM 17. JAHRHUNDERT ɭNШЮХ DЮШrɮ und VégfaЧЮa ɭVe:čХcaɮ.69 ǉǎǎǑ eХnХgten sХcФ dХe ParteХen (ber eХnХge VХerteЧФufen Хm DШrf DráЮasХЦЧхs ɭČuЦШЮecɮ ЮШr dem DШmЦaЩХteЧ zu Agram, aber sie hatten einen Rechtsstreit um einen Garten an der Burg CsáЦtШrnya.70 Der G(terbestand ЮШn Peter ZrйnyХ gХng beХ der KШnfХszХerung Хm Fr(ФЧХng ǉǎǏǈ Хn den ”esХtz der UngarХscФen Kammer (ber. Im JaФr ǉǎǏǊ Яurde seХn eФemaЧХger G(teranteХЧ auf ǋǑǊ.ǐǈǌ RФ. fЧ, ЯäФrend der der Waisen ЮШn NХЦШЧaus VII. ZrйnyХ auf ǊǑǊ.ǌǈǎ RfЧ. gescФätzt.71 Aufgrund der erheblichen Differenz kam die Forschung zu der sichtlich logischen ScФЧussfШЧgerung, dass Peters “nteХЧ Хn FШЧge der Шben erЯäФnten ЮШrteХЧhaften Aufteilungen wertvoller musste gewesen sein, als der der Witwe.72 Es fäЧЧt eХnem jedШcФ sШfШrt auf, dass das VerzeХcФnХs dХe ScФЧчsser RácЦanizsa und Lapsina, die Nikolaus VII. 1662 testamentarisch seiner Ehefrau Юererbt Фatte, nХcФt entФäЧt.73 Es fehlt in der Erfassung auch die Kurie ÚjudЮar, dХe samt drei Judikaturen (iudicatusɮ NХЦШЧaus VII. ZrйnyХ Хm “Щril 1652 im Wert von 25.000 Rh.fl. als Verlobungsgeschenk (dos) an Maria SШЩФХa LчbЧ (bertrug.74 EbensШ ЯХe dХe KurХe VégfaЧЮa, ЯeЧcФe, ЯХe gesagt, Peter ZrйnyХ der WХtЯe ǉǎǎǏ ЦШmЩЧett (berЧХeß.75 Da diese im Wert ЮШn ǐǋ.ǈǈǈ RfЧ. aucФ das (ber dХe G(ter des ЮerstШrbenen “dam ZrйnyХ ǉǎǑǊ angefertХgtes VerzeХcФnХs entФäЧt, aucФ seХne Mutter muss (ber sХe ЮШrФer Юerf(gt Фaben.76 DХese d(rften zur ZeХt der G(terЦШnsЦrХЩtХШn (1672) im Eigenbesitz von MarХa SШЩФХa LчbЧ geЯesen Яaren und Яurden aus dХesem Grund außer “cФt geЧassen. Das ФeХßt aber aucФ, dass dХe beХden ”esХtzФäЧfte zur ZeХt der KШnfХszХerung ungefäФr gЧeХcФЯertХg Яaren. Die Murinsel-Herrschaft war also unmittelbar vor der MagnatenverscФЯчrung wesentlich wertvoller, als bislang angenommen. MarХa SШЩФХa LчbЧ Ф(tete aЧsШ den ”esХtzanteХЧ seХner KХnder mХt Erfolg. Diese Tatsache muss betont werden, da ihre Person die ungarische FШrscФung Хn eХner seХnem grШßmäcФtХgen ScФЯager untergeШrdneten, ХФm scФutzЧШs ausgeЧХeferten, ЩassХЮen RШЧЧe erscФeХnen ЧХeß.77 Dagegen MNL–OL MKA E 156 U et C. Fasc. 93. Nr. 66; MNL–OL MKA E 148 NRA Fasc. 318. Nr. 54. MNL–OL MKA E 148 NRA Fasc. 319. Nr. 19., Nr. 20. 71 MU 2010. S. 246–261., 276–312. 72 ZIMÁNYI 1981. S. 374. 73 ZM5M Ǌǈǈǋ. S. ǐǊǉɤ DХe lateinischsprachige Abschrift des Testaments MNL–OL A 57 Libri regii Bd. 3. 284–295. 74 MNL–OL MKA E 148 NRA Fasc. 319. Nr. 28. 75 MNL–OL MKA E 148 NRA Fasc. 1092. Nr. 7. 76 MU 2010. S. 366–ǋǎǑɤ I.R. [SándШr SZILÁGYI]ɣ “ MuraЦчzben ЧéЮш ZrйnyХ jaЮaЦ чsszeйrása [ǉǎǑǊ] [DХe KШnsЦrХЩtХШn (ber dХe ZrйnyХscФen G(ter auf der MurХnseЧ [ǉǎǑǊ]]. Tчrténelmi Tár 1896. S. 528–559. 77 ZIMÁNYI 1981. S. 374. 69 70 167 Ferenc VÉGH sЩrХcФt aucФ der ”eХtrag, dass sХcФ dХe WХtЯe sШgar Хn dХe mХЧХtärХscФe JurХsdХЦtХШn (ber den SШЧdatenstand, dХe Peter zustand, eХngemХscФt Фatte, weswegen der Hofkriegsrat sie ermahnen musste.78 MarХa SШЩФХa LчbЧ vertrat die Interessen seiner halbwaisen Kinder auch der Ungarischen Kammer gegen(ber mХt ErfШЧg. IФr Engagement Чässt sХcФ aucФ daФХnter Юermuten, dass ХФr dХe fr(Фer ЮШn Peter ZrйnyХ geЩacФteten Meerg(ter ǉǎǏǋ r(cЦerstattet worden.79 Sie protestierte auch dagegen, dass eine Forderung des Freiherrn Franz Chikulin im Wert von 74.000 Hfl(?), die ins JaФr ǉǎǊǌ zur(cЦgХng, aucФ zu Lasten des ”esХtzanteХЧs ХФrer KХnder befrХedigt sein sollte.80 “ucФ ХФr WХderstand d(rfte dazu beХgetragen haben, dass die Kammer, die Chikulins Forderung inzwischen auf 20.000 fl. herabgescФraubt Фatte, ЮerscФenЦte scФЧХeßЧХcФ dem ”ХttsteЧЧer aЧs EntscФädХgung dХe ”urg MedЮeЮár samt KurХe SesztХna ɭБestХneɮ und eХn “nЯesen in Agram, die einst dem hingerХcФteten Peter ZrйnyХ geФчrten.81 Chikulin Яurde (brХgens seХtens der ZentraЧbeФчrden den anderen KredХtШren gegen(ber beЮШrzugt, dХe nacФ dem TШd ЮШn Peter ZrйnyХ mХt ХФren FШrderungen dХe UngarХscФe Kammer regeЧrecФt best(rmten.82 “dam ZrйnyХ (bernaФm dХe VerЯaЧtung seХner G(ter erst Ende ǉǎǐǈ, dХe nacФ dem “bЧeben seХner Mutter ɭ†ǉǎǏǎɮ zunäcФst NХЦШЧaus DrasЦШЮХcФ und Franz EusebХus PчttХng aЧs VШrmunde ЮerЯaЧteten.83 1679 wurde jedШcФ CФrХstШЩФ ”attФyány ЮШm KчnХg zum VШrmund und ”etreuer des jungen ZrйnyХ ernannt.84 Der Heldentod des 28-jäФrХgen “dam ZrйnyХ, dem eХnzХgen SШФn NХЦШЧaus VII. auf dem ScФЧacФtfeЧd zu SzaЧánЦemén (Slankamen) im Jahr 1691 stellte erneut eine Zäsur in der Besitzgeschichte der Murinsel-HerrscФaft dar. MangeЧs Erben fХeЧ nämЧХcФ aucФ seХn “nteХЧ der KrШne, genauer gesagt der UngarХscФen Kammer zu, dХe nun (ber dХe ganze HerrscФaft CsáЦtШrnya Юerf(gte.85 DХe (ber dХe beХden ”esХtzanteХlen 1692 verfassten KonsЦrХЩtХШnen gaben den Wert der G(ter ЮШn “dam ZrйnyХ um ǉǈǈ.ǈǈǈ RfЧ. ɭǋǑǋ.ǉǊǉ RfЧ.ɮ ЯertЮШЧЧer an, aЧs den der Kammer (292.448 Rfl), obwohl die, wie gesagt, 1672 noch nahezu gleichwertig waren.86 Die Kammerverwaltung erwies sich also als schlechter Wirt, aber MNL–OL MKL A 14 Insinuata Consilii Bellici Nr. 315. den 9. Dezember 1667. MNL–OL MKA E 148 NRA Fasc. 1091. Nr. 11. 80 MNL–OL MKA E 148 NRA Fasc. 1439. Nr. 11. 81 MNL–OL MKA E 148 NRA Fasc. 1439. Nr. 15. 82 MNL–OL MKA E 148 NRA Fasc. 1439. Nr. 6. 83 MNL–OL MKL A 57 Libri regii Bd. 16. 126; Nikolaus Draskovich handelte als „tutor et curator testamentarius . MNL–OL MKA E 148 NRA Fasc. 483. Nr. 2. 84 GábШr HAUSNERɣ ZrйnyХ Ádám [“dam ZrйnyХ]. Inɣ BENE – HAUSNER 2007. S. 172. 85 MNL–OL MKA E 148 NRA Fasc. 318. Nr. 29., 33. 86 MNL–OL MKA E 156 U et C. Fasc. 3. Nr. 5. 78 79 168 DIE TEILUNGEN DER MURINSEL-HERRSCHAFT DER FAMILIE ZRÍNYI IM 17. JAHRHUNDERT am WertЮerЧust Цчnnten aucФ der WХtЯe des NХЦШЧaus VII. gemacФte ZugeständnХsse eХne RШЧЧe gesЩХeЧt Фaben.87 Unter den enormen Lasten des Befreiungskrieges (1683–1699) sah sich die Ungarische Kammer gezwungen, die Murinsel-HerrscФaft, äФnЧХcФ der meisten ZrйnyХ-G(ter, zu ЮerЦaufen. Den KaufЩreХs, nämЧХcФ ǌǍǈ.ǈǈǈ RfЧɭ?ɮ, der Хm VergЧeХcФ zu dem maxХmaЧen ScФätzЯert ЮШn ǎǐǍ.ǍǎǑ RfЧ. ɭǉǎǑǊɮ durcФaus ermäßХgt Яar, zäФЧte ǉǎǑǌ HercuЧes JШseЩФus LudШЮХcus Turinetti de Prie, der Botschafter Savoyas am Wiener Hof ab.88 Der Käufer, der ФauЩtsäcФЧХcФ f(r seХne sЩätere, zЯХeЧХcФtХge TätХgЦeХt Хn den NХederЧanden ber(cФtХgt Хst, bЧХeb nХcФt Чange Хm ”esХtz des ZrйnyХ-Erbguts. Im JaФr ǉǏǈǊ tauscФte er es gegen eХne HerrscФaft der InnerчsterreХcФХscФen Kammer auf der Halbinsel Istrien ein.89 Damit wurde die Murinsel der Gerichtshoheit der Ungarischen Kammer de facto entzogen. Dieses VorgeФen stand aЧЧerdХngs nХcФt ШФne ”eХsЩХeЧ da. UngarnЦчnХg LeШЩШЧd I. (1657-ǉǏǈǍɮ Фatte nämЧХcФ dХe eХnstХgen Meerg(ter der ZrйnyХs sШЯie die Herrschaften Ozaly und Ribnik bereits ein Jahrzehnt zuvor an die Grazer Kammer verkauft.90 SШgar dХe ШbХge, Яenn aucФ fЧ(cФtХge ÜbersХcФt (ber dХe G(teraufteХЧungen der ZrйnyХs Чässt ЦeХnen ZЯeХfeЧ dar(ber aufЦШmmen, dass dХe jeweiligen Generationen an der Praxis ihrer Vorfahren festhielten. Das zeigt sich unter anderen darin, dass die Parteien im Falle der Murinsel und der an der Kulpa liegenden Herrschaften sichtlich deren Zweiteilung bevorzugten. “uf dХe Frage, Яarum dХe HerrscФaften CsáЦtШrnya, Ozalj und Ribnik, bis auf das Intervall von 1649 bis 1665, wiederholt aufgeteilt wurden, gibt ihr Wirtschaftsprofil Antwort. Die 1672 verfassten KammerkonsЦrХЩtХШnen beЧegen zЯeХfeЧsfreХ, dass auf den dreХ ZrйnyХ-G(tern ХntensХЮe, f(r den ungarХscФen GrШßgrundbesХtz cФaraЦterХstХscФe “ЧЧШdХaЧwirtschaft betrieben wurde. Auf der Murinsel gab es neun, in Ozaly sechs, Хn RХbnХЦ dreХ MeХerФчfe, ЯШ dХe HчrХgen ХФren FrШndХenst zu ЮerrХcФten Фatten. F(r sХe steЧЧte dХe FrШnarbeХt mХt “bstand dХe grчßte ”eЧastung dar.91 Auf der Murinsel-Herrschaft hatten die Grundherren den VollhufenbesХtzern ЯчcФentЧХcФ ЮХer Tage ZugdХenst, Шder dШЩЩeЧt sШ Чangen HanddХenst auferЧegt, der durcФ eХnen ЮХertägХgen HШЧztransЩШrt zu „etwan wegen nit so embsigen administration und daß bei der “btheillung der alten Frau Gräffin etwaß conniviert soll sein worden. MU 2010. S. 462. 88 MU 2010. S. 450–453. 89 Erzsébet FÁ”IÁNNÉ KISSɣ “ csáЦtШrnyaХ ɭЦanХzsaХɮ ЦamaraХ admХnХsztrácХх ЮázЧatШs tчrténete 1673–ǉǏǏǋ [DХe sЦХzzenФafte GescФХcФte der KammeradmХnХstratХШn zu CsáЦtШrnya (Kanizsa) 1673–1773]. Levéltári Kчzlemények 59. (1988), S. 291–305. 90 Ebenda. S. 299. 91 MODRIĆ 1973. S. 201–374. 87 169 Ferenc VÉGH WeХФnacФten ergänzt Яurde.92 DХe HчrХgen zu OzaЧy und Ribnik lagen denen mХt ХФrer secФstägХgen FrШn Хn der WШcФe Цaum nacФ, dХe zЯar grundlegend Handdienst bedeutete, aber im Besitz von Zugtieren konnte sie in Spanndienst umgewandelt werden.93 Im Mur-Drau-DreХecЦ Фatten dХe HчrХgen aucФ erФebЧХcФe ”argeld und Naturalien im Wert von 18 Rfl. 52 kr. zu entrichten, aber in dieser Summe ist auch die staatliche Pfortensteuer zu drei fl. inbegriffen.94 Ihre SchicksaЧsgefäФrten Хn OzaЧy bezaФЧten maxХmaЧ ǌ RfЧ. ǉǊ Цr., ЯäФrend dХe VШЧЧhufenbesitzer in Ribnik ihrem Grundherrn 6 Rfl. 9. kr. 2.d. im Bargeld und Naturalabgaben leisten mussten.95 Kein Wunder, dass besonders im Falle der Murinsel-HerrscФaft der Hufenzerst(cЦeЧungs-PrШzess äußerst fШrtgescФrХtten Яar. “uf dem entzШgenen ”esХtzanteХЧ ЮШn Peter ZrйnyХ bearbeХteten zum ”eХsЩХeЧ ǉǎǏǊ ǏǏ,ǐ % der HчrХgen VХerteЧФufen, um dХe grundФerrЧХcФen “bgaben mчgЧХcФst nХedrХg ФaЧten zu Цчnnen.96 Um 30 % der Leibeigenen- und HäusЧergr(nde standen Чeer, Яas sХcФ Хn erster LХnХe mХt der “bЯanderung der HчrХgen erЦЧären Чässt, aber es Цчnnte zum TeХЧ auch den Kriegshandlungen von 1664 zugeschrieben werden.97 Nicht zu unterscФätzen Яar aucФ dХe VerЯ(stung durcФ dХe ФäufХge ÜberscФЯemmungen der Drau und der Mur. Auf dem Besitzanteil der Erben von NiЦШЧaus VII. ZrйnyХ ЦШnnten zur seЧben ZeХt (ber ǐǋ Hufen nХcФt ЮerzeХcФnet Яerden, da dХese durcФ das HШcФЯasser ɭШb ЮeФementХam fЧuЮХХɮ Юerчdet und/oder anderen Hufen angeschlossen worden waren.98 Der Hufenbestand der drei Herrschaften war im Besitz von adeligen Dienstpflichtigen (so genannten summalisten und beneplacentarianern), die dem jeЯeХЧХgen GrundФerrn gegen(ber zum MХЧХtärdХenst ЮerЩfЧХcФtet waren. Ihr Hufenanteil auf der Murinsel machte 1638 65(!) % aus, der bis zum JaФr ǉǎǏǊ auf ǌǐ % zur(cЦgХng.99 DХe faЧЧende Tendenz gaЧt aucФ f(r die beiden, an der Kulpa liegenden Herrschaften.100 DХe ZrйnyХs Фatten aЧsШ dХe, auf ХФren sЧaЯШnХscФen G(tern beЯäФrte InstХtutХШn aucФ Хm ZЯХscФenstrШmЧand eХngeb(rgert, Яas auf Чange SХcФt dХe ZersЩЧХtterung der einzelnen Besitzungen in adelige Pfand- und Dienstlehen zur Folge hatte. DХe dreХ HerrscФaften Фatten aucФ anderes gemeХnsam, nämЧХcФ, dass sХe Ebenda. „Colonicales sessiones, quae per septimanam ǎ diebus labores, etiam iumentis si intertenent . Ebenda S. 245, 256. 94 Ebenda S. 202. 95 Ebenda S. 243, 256. 96 MU 2010. S. 277–278. 97 Ebenda. 98 MZPO 1991. S. 197. 99 AD“MČEK 1972. S. 27. 100 Ebenda. 92 93 170 DIE TEILUNGEN DER MURINSEL-HERRSCHAFT DER FAMILIE ZRÍNYI IM 17. JAHRHUNDERT keine aus osmanischem Hoheitsgebiet entflohenen Walachen beherbergten. Diese meistens griechisch-ШrtФШdШxe, s(dsЧaЯХscФe ”eЮчЧЦerung, die neben der TХerzucФt aucФ MХЧХtärdХenst ЧeХstete, ЧХeß sХcФ Хn dХe StruЦturen des GrШßgrundbesХtzes nur scФЯХerХg eХngЧХedern. DХe WaЧachen tauchten aЧЧerdХngs Хn den, den feХndЧХcФen StreХfz(gen ausgesetzten HerrscФaften Rakolnok und Verbшc auf, ЯeЧcФe sХe aЧЧerdХngs nacФ der KШnfХszХerung ЦurzerФand ЮerЧХeßen.101 Es ЧХeßen sХcФ WaЧacФen aucФ Хn ”uccarХ und Хm Vinodol nieder, wenn auch nur in relativ kleiner Anzahl.102 Es Хst ШffenЦundХg, dass dХe HerrscФaften CsáЦtШrnya, OzaЧy und RХbnХЦ, deren ScФХcЦsaЧ Хn meФrerЧeХ HХnsХcФten mХteХnander ЮerЦn(Щft Яar, bildeten innerhalb des Besitzbestandes eine Sondergruppe. Die in der EinЧeХtung erЯäФnte KammerЩraxХs, dХe dХe G(ter der FamХЧХe ZrйnyХ Хn dreХ Gruppen (so wie die Murinsel, slawoniscФe bzЯ. Meerg(terɮ aufteХЧte, beruФte ЧedХgЧХcФ auf deren geШgrafХscФen Lage, dХe äФnЧХcФen Z(gen der einzelnen Besitzungen blieben unbeachtet. Die vorliegende Studie verfolgte lediglich das Ziel, die Forschung auf die Tatsache aufmerksam zu machen, dass dХe ErfШrscФung der ZrйnyХ G(ter nur auf ЦШmЩЧexe WeХse, und in enger Zusammenarbeit der ungarischen und kroatischen GescФХcФtsfШrscФung mчgЧХcФ seХ. Das ”eХsЩХeЧ der MurХnseЧ-Herrschaft mahnt zur Vorsicht auch hinsichtlich der Nutzbarkeit der kammerlichen KШnsЦrХЩtХШnen, dХe ЯeХterФХn aЧs ЩrХmäre QueЧЧenbasХs geЧten. WХr sХnd außerdem zu der Überzeugung geЧangt, dass dХe systematХscФe VerarbeХtung des zerstreuten Urkundenguts in Bezug auf die einzelnen Herrschaften der ZrйnyХs ЦeХnen “ufscФub meФr duЧde.  101 102 MZPO 1991. S. 210, 214. ZIMÁNYI 1981. S. 377. 171 WORKSHOP SЩecХmХna NШЮa Pars PrХma SectХШ MedХaeЮaЧХs VIII Ed. GábШr ”“R“”ÁS – GergeЧy KISS. Pécs, ǊǈǉǍ. Щ. ǉǏǍ–ǉǏǐ. GergeЧy KХss – GábШr ”arabás, PФD gЩetХt.gergeЧy@gmaХЧ.cШm, barab.gabШr@gmaХЧ.cШm UnХЮersХty Шf Pécs FacuЧty Шf HumanХtХes InstХtute Шf HХstШry DeЩartment Шf MedХeЮaЧ and EarЧy MШdern HХstШry RхЦus Str. Ǌ. H–ǏǎǊǌ Pécs Hungary GERGELY KISS – GÁ”OR B“R“”ÁS: Papal Delegates in Hungary in the XIth–XIIIth Centuries – Online Database (2014–2016) (OTKA NN 109690)* http://delegatonline.pte.hu/ Previous researches, actuality of the research The research of the archantology of the papacy1 is considered a less researched area in spite of the traditional importance of the history of foreign relations and diplomacy for the Hungarian history. Yet the detailed research of the papal legates has not been completed since the work written by Vilmos FraЦnхХ mШre tФan a century agШ.2 It is typical that the newer studies contain shorter or longer summaries based only on it.3 The arrears are significant in two areas. On one The presentation was made with the support of the Hungarian Scientific Research Found (OTKA NN 109690). 1 We dШ nШt use tФe term ЩaЩaЧ Чegate because Шf Хts Хnaccuracy Шf meanХng Хn ЧegaЧ sense. In the Hungarian historiography it is common to use the term Чegats tШ desХgnate aЧЧ ЦХnds of papal envoys. However, this practice is far from being exact, the contemporary sources apply different notions too (e.g. nuntius, apocrisiarius) 2 Cf. Vilmos FR“KN2I: Magyarország egyházi és politikai чsszekчttetései a rхmai Szent-székkel. I. 1000–1417 [The Ecclesiastical and Political Contacts of Hungary with the Apostolic See I. 1000–1417]. Budapest. 1901.; IDEM: Magyarország egyházi és politikai чsszekчttetései a rхmai Szent-székkel. II. 1418–1526 [The Ecclesiastical and Political Contacts of Hungary with the Apostolic See II. 1418–1526]. Budapest. 1902. 3 Géza ÉRSZEGIɣ PáЩaХ-magyar kapcsolatok [Papal-Hungarian Relations]. In: Korai magyar tчrténeti lexikon ɭǑ–ǉǌ. századɮ. Ed. GyuЧa KrХstх – PáЧ EngeЧ – Ferenc Makk. Budapest. 1994. p. 527–ǍǊǑ.ɤ Jхzsef GERICS – Erzsébet L“DÁNYIɣ “ SzentszéЦ és a magyar áЧЧam a ǉǉ. században [TФe HШЧy See and Hungary Хn tФe ǉǉtФ Century]. Inɣ Magyarország és a Szentszék kapcsolatának ǉǈǈǈ éve. Ed. IstЮán ZOMBORI. Budapest. 1996. [hereafter: ZOMBORi 1996] p. 9– 20. KШrnéЧ SZOVÁKɣ PáЩaХ–magyar ЦaЩcsШЧatШЦ a ǉǊ. században [PaЩaЧ-Hungarian Relations in the 12th Century]. In: ZOMBORI 1996. p. 21–46.; LászЧх SOLYMOSIɣ EgyФázХ-politikai * 175 Gergely KISS – Gábor B“R“”ÁS hand it is very rare to find entire prosopographical studies about papal representatives – apart from Teuzo,4 Jacob of Pecorar5 and Philip the bishop of Fermo6 –, on the other hand the researches of the certain people are mostly from the point of view of diplomacy and thus the complete presentation Шf tФe ЩaЩaЧ deЧegates sЩФere Шf activities in Hungary loses importance. It is based on three pillars: diplomacy, church policy, ecclesiastical law and -jurisdiction.7 Considering the works written lately, a good example is the study about the Hungarian legation of Philip, the bishop of Fermo,8 which besides the known diplomatic and domestic policy arose elements of the Hungarian ecclesiastical jurisdiction not known so far. Moreover, with research aiming at completeness and having such bases the complete biography of the legates, their activities outside Hungary can be revealed and can be placed in the system of connections between the papacy and the concerned territories. This is essential in the so called centre-periphery researches of the papacy. Objectives of the research The objective of the research to be made in the frame of the Hungarian Scientific Research Found (OTKA) international cooperation proposal is to make the complete biographical and official database of the papal delegates in Hungary in the 11th–13th centuries. In the examined era we collect and systematize the biographical and official data of the people delegated in Hungary with papal authorizaton in accordance with the following standpoints. The gathering covers the persШn s cШmЩЧete cШurse Шf Чife and the stations of his offices, thus the data – with the aim at completeness – include those referring to stages ЮХszШnyШЦ a ЩáЩaХ ФegemхnХa Хdején ɭǉǋ. századɮ [EccЧesХastХcaЧ-political Relations under the Papal Hegemony (13th century)]. In: ZOMBORI 1996. p. 47–54. 4 Gergely KISSɣ « Teuzo sancte Romane Ecclesie legatus … Teuzo cardinalis » Contribution aux reЧatХШns de Чa PaЩauté et du rШХ ФШngrШХs LadХsЧas Ier à Чa fХn du XIe sХècЧe. Inɣ Specimina Nova Pars Prima Sectio Mediaevalis V. Ed. Márta FONT – Gergely KISS. Pécs. ǊǈǈǑ. Щ. ǊǑ–39. 5 Tibor ALMÁSIɣ Egy cХsztercХ bйbШrШs a ЩáЩaХ ЮХЧágФataЧШm szШЧgáЧatában. PecШrarХ JaЦab bйbШrШs magyarШrszágХ ЧegácХхja [“ CХstercХan CardХnaЧ Хn SerЮХce Шf tФe PaЩaЧ WШrd PШЯer. The Hungarian Legation of Jacob of Pecorary]. Magyar Egyháztчrténeti Vázlatok. 1993. 1–2. p. 129–141.. 6 VХЦtхrХa KOVÁCS: Alter ego dШmХnХ ЩaЩae NХcШЧaХ III. F(ЧчЩ fermхХ Щ(sЩчЦ, szentszéЦХ Чegátus magyarШrszágХ teЮéЦenysége ɭǉǊǏǑ-1281) [Alter ego domini papae Nicolai III. The Activities of Philipp, Bishop of Fermo, Papal Legate in Hungary]. M“ TФesХs. Pécs, Ǌǈǉǋ. (hereafter: KOVÁCS 2013) 7 Gergely KISS: Les asЩects des actХЮХtés des Чégats ЩШntХfХcaux en ФШngrХe aux XIe–XIIIe sХècЧes. Chronica. Annual of the Institute of History University of Szeged 9. (2011) p. 37–53. 8 KOVÁCS 2013. 176 PAPAL DELEGATES IN HUNGARY IN THE XITH-XIIITH CENTURIES – ONLINE DATABASE … of life preceding and following the activity in Hungary. In this way tФe gХЮen ЩersШn s cШmЩЧete cШurse Шf ЧХfe and tenure Шf ШffХce becШme known, the prozopographic database can form the basis of further researches. Meeting the requirements of the 21st century, we record the data in the form of a database. In the system there is to be made a personal form about each identified person, which can be enlarged, completed in any of the stages of the research, e.g. if new data appears, providing the up-to-date and exact data service. The research is essentially based on primary sources (archival, narrative) in case of each papal delegate, complemented with the results of the relevant special literature. In accordance with the opportunities, in the first stage of the research we concentrate on revealing the sources Хn Hungary, but Яe are tШ cШmЩЧement tФem ЯХtФ tФe Щartners resuЧts and experiences. The results of the research, possibilities of the scientific and social use and their significance 1) On one hand in the novelty of the approach and the working method which aims at completeness, as the complete biography, professional career of the given papal delegate is revealed with all the fields of their activities in Hungary. 2) As compared to the previous, it examines not only the legates but also the lower ranked papal delegates, delegated judges and thus it gives an over all image of the papal representation. 3) Recording in a database and the continuous updating makes access easier, more precise and available for more users. 4) Its use, the scientific and social use is also wide. The database is not only a mass of facts of life and offices but it also provides an image of the ecclesiastical society in a given period, thus it can be used in social history, in diplomatic history (Hungarian-papal connections), institutional history (papal court, representation, jurisdiction), the history of law (ecclesiastical law, church jurisdiction) and in cultural history (university studies, transferring culture, canonization). The prozopographic database of the papal delegates also provides information to the further researches about what the Hungarian, or more generally the regional papal representation was like – if the papal envoy was delegated into several neighbouring countries, it can place the country in the system of center and periphery. 5) It makes research easier for those interested in the papal-Hungarian connections with the avaiable and constantly updated database. It is especially important for the non Hunagarian researchers, who 177 Gergely KISS – Gábor B“R“”ÁS can also use the database for their own research. Widespread Hungarian and foreign reference to a Hungarian research database promotes the Hungarian scientific results abroad and joining the international scientific circulation. 6) The significance of the research can be seen in the complexity of approach and work methods; and that the results can be used in plural- and interdisciplines. The database is available currently in a test mode at http://delegatonline.pte.hu/. Our webpage offers, we hope, more detailed information. A small opening ceremШny Хs scheduled at the and of the project period (in December 2016), after that those interested can register as user (free of charge) and find relevant information provided by our database. The registration has precious advantages, on one hand a registered user can send feedback to us, and on the other hand, if any changes occur in the polled data, that results in an automatic notice by email.  178 SЩecХmХna NШЮa Pars PrХma SectХШ MedХaeЮaЧХs VIII Ed. GábШr ”“R“”ÁS – GergeЧy KISS. Pécs, ǊǈǉǍ. Щ. ǉǏǑ–ǉǐǋ. MarЦШ JerЦШЮХć, PФD mjerkovic@hrstud.hr UnХЮersХty Шf Zagreb Centre fШr CrШatХan StudХes Borongaj Campus Borongajska cesta 83d HR-10 000 Zagreb Croatia Marko JERKOVIĆ: Studies on the Franciscan Culture: SХlent EntФusХasts Series at the Centre for Croatian Studies (University of Zagreb) In the past 15 years, scholars working at the Centre for Croatian studies (University of Zagreb) have made the extensive efforts to research more thoroughly the cultural heritage of Croatian Franciscans. One of the clearest manХfestatХШns Шf tФese effШrts Хs tФe bШШЦ serХes entХtЧed SХЧent EntФusХasts , ЯФХcФ tends tШ eЮaЧuate FrancХscan ФerХtage Хn ХnterdХscХЩЧХnary fasФХШn. TФe ЩrХmary gШaЧ Шf tФe SХЧent EntФusХasts bШШЦ serХes Хs tШ Щresent the activities of Croatian Franciscans, whose literary work, and pastoral as well as public activities, were extensive, but somehow remained on the margins in Croatian scholarly literature. The influence of the Franciscan Order on Croatian people cannot be overestimated – their important role in Croatian society is clearly visible already in the medieval period, and then especially in the Early Modern Ages (in the first place, because of their pastoral role in the territories under the Ottoman rule). This influence was felt in various fields: pastoral care, theology, standardisation of the language, pedagogy, history writing, church reform, diplomacy, philosophy, local government and administration, preservation of the local customs etc.; hence the need to initiate interdisciplinary book series, which tries to reveal the complexity of the Franciscan culture and to establish the links between Franciscan order and identity formation in Croatia. In order to present the work of these Franciscans and to appropriately evaluate their contributions in various fields of activities, in the year 2000 the Centre for Croatian studies started to organise conferences. Since then, conferences are being held every year, and are regularly followed by the cШrresЩШndХng ЮШЧume Хn tФe serХes SХЧent EntФusХasts . “ccШrdХngЧy, ǉǍ volumes were published to present day, with papers covering wide chronological period (from the late medieval period to 19th century) and ЯХde range Шf tШЩХcs. TФe tХtЧe SХЧent EntФusХasts Хs ХndХcatХЮe tШШ – it was 179 Marko JERKOVIĆ created by one of the biggest supporters of this kind of research, Radoslav KatХčХć ɭWХen–Zagreb), who wanted to emphasize the everlasting character of the Franciscans: to be humble and to be active at the same time. With that Franciscan leitmotiv in minds, research Шf tФe SХЧent EntФusХasts tШШЦ tЯШ main directions: a) a study of their own literary works; and b) a study of their involvement into the public (worldly and ecclesiastical alike) affairs and the context in which they were active. By combining these two fields of study, the relations between the individual and community become clearer, while at the same time, by studying the opus of various Franciscans, we Хmmerse ШurseЧЮes ХntШ tФe ЯШrЧd Шf tФeХr ШЯn Хdeas. Every volume is primarily focused on one of the Franciscans, his literary work and influence on society or on the influence which he had on his own religious community. So far, volumes were dedicated to: Paul PosiЧШЮХć, TФШmas ”abХć, Peter KnežeЮХć, JШseЩФ ”anШЮac, JerШme FХЧХЩШЮХć, Lucas VladmirШЮХć, Peter tФe ”aЩtХst ”aćХć, SteЩФen ZЧatШЮХć, LaЯrence БХtШЮХć, RaЩФaeЧ LeЮaЦШЮХć, JШФn “nčХć, Mat ZШrХčХć, Peter ”aЦuЧa, EmerХc PaЮХć, SteЩФen MargХtХć. TФey aЧЧ ШrХgХnated Хn CrШatХa Шr ”ШsnХa and Herzegovina, and belonged to various Franciscan provinces. Each of them performed important tasks in the framework of his Province – they were members of the administrative structure in the Order government and very often participated in the schooling process or in the organisation of new administrative units (Bakula). Some of them advanced in the ecclesiastical hierarchy tШШ, and became bХsФШЩs ɭPШsХЧШЮХćɮ, Шr catФedraЧ canШns ɭLeЮaЦШЮХćɮ. HШЯever, they were all excellent intellectuals who participated in, and often created literary trends or trends in theology. The opus of each individual is very extensive, voluminous and complex – usually they were not confining themselves to one genre, but were experts in various fields of the intellectual work – from the history writing and autobiШgraЩФy ɭZЧatШЮХćɮ to the poetry Шr eЮen ЩФarmaceutХcaЧ ЯШrЦs ɭPaЮХćɮ. “ЧЧ tФe mШre, tФey Яere nШt usХng just Latin language in their writings, but also Croatian language, sometimes Italian or other languages, thus offering us great possibilities in the linguistic and cultural studies: firstly, we are able to study their own education background and the quality of Latin language used among Franciscans; secondly, their works in the native language gives us the perfect opportunity to study the phases in the process of the standardisation of Croatian language; thirdly, there are possibilities to study linguistic layers if he was using several languages. Furthermore, most of the mentioned Franciscans were living in the post-tridentine period, and their biographies as well as writings reflect their active role in the extensive efforts of the Papal Curia to reform the Western Christianity. Some of them were active in the papal effШrts tШ acФХeЮe tФe unХШn ЯХtФ tФe OrtФШdШx CФrХstХans ɭLeЮaЦШЮХćɮ, 180 STUDIES ON THE FRANCISCAN CULTURE: SILENT ENTHUSIASTS SERIES … while the others were authors of distinguished baroque literature or highly spiritual and contemplative works. Apart from the research of the curriculum vitae and the opus of one specific Franciscan, in the last few volumes there have been increasing tendency to study comparatively tФeХr cШntemЩШrarХes actХЮХtХes Шr tШ research the community/communities and environment in which he was active. For example: while the volume on Peter Bakula is concentrated primarХЧy Шn ФХs ЧХterary ШЩus, ЮШЧume dedХcated tШ PaЮХć anaЧyses FrancХscan communities (convents and the Province) or Franciscan individuals in the Continental Croatia too. Furthermore, volume which deals with Stephen MargХtХć ХncЧudes aЧsШ cШntrХbutХШns Шn ЮarХШus FrancХscan brШtФers Хn tФe Province of Silver Bosna (Bosna Argentina). Apart from that, the reception of certain ideas started also to intrigue franciscanologists at the Centre for Croatian studies – Фence, tФe ЮШЧume Шn Mat ZШrХčХć deaЧt aЧsШ ЯХtФ tФe influence of the Enlightenment on the religious communities. It must be emphasized that every volume contains also the special part with primary sources. In the last part of each volume there is always the first edition (editio princeps) from the opus of the Franciscan to whom the book is dedicated, or new editions of previously published works, often with translation. It allows us to better understand not only actions which were undertaken by certain Franciscans, but also their state of mind. Apart from the personal profile of the author, it is also a good chance to research how did some local peculiarities of Croatian and Bosnian-Herzegovinian Franciscans manifest in their own writings. In order to analyse more profoundly writings and ideas of Franciscans, their social and religious environment, as well as the influence of their activities, the scholars at the Centre for Croatian studies started to create the network of collaborators working at various institutions and various departments. This kind of collaboration, as well as the organisation of the conferences and the work on editing the volumes is coordinated by the Department of Croatian Latinity at the Centre for Croatian studies, in the fХrst ЩЧace by PaЮaШ KnezШЮХć. PrШfessШr PaЮaШ KnezШЮХć, edХtШr Хn cФХef Шf this series, has been involved in the editing work since the beginnings and he is the most meritorious for the continuity in publishing the volumes as well as for the development of the Franciscan studies. He especially contributed to the research of the Franciscan heritage while he was director of the project LatХnХsm Хn FrancХscan LХterature and LХnguХstХc HerХtage , which was active at our Centre 2007–2013. In that period, besides other researcФ actХЮХtХes, cШЧЧabШratШrs at tФe ЩrШject Яere aЧsШ edХtХng tФe SХЧent EntФusХasts serХes. “Щart frШm tФe DeЩartment of Croatian Latinity, other departments at the Centre for Croatian studies, especially Department of 181 Marko JERKOVIĆ Croatian Culture and Department of History, are participating in the editorial work of this book series. There are also numerous other institutions in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina: universities, institutes, Franciscan Provinces etc., which were helping with the organisation of the conferences. Depending on the place where the conference is being held (it is usually in the city where Franciscan originated or where he was most active), scientific, cultural, public or religious institutions from that region participate in the organisation. In that way, the broader and more complex studies of the Franciscan heritage are launched, with the scholars at the Centre for Croatian studies as their coordinators. With that in mind, it should be noted that the intention of philologists, culturologists, historians and others at our Centre is to continue with the research of Franciscans and Franciscan culture, to organise other projects which will deal with FrancХscan Order and tШ cШntХnue ЩubЧХsФХng tФe SХЧent EntФusХasts series.  Zbornik o Pavlu Posiloviću. Zbornik radova sa znanstvenoga skupa Pavao Posilović i :ibensko-skradinski kraj u njegovo doba [Proceedings Шf tФe CШnferenceɣ PaЮaШ PШsХЧШЮХć and БХbenХЦ-Skradin Area in His Time]. Eds: Pavao KNEZOVIĆ – Marinko БIБ“K – Milivoj ZENIĆ. БХbenХЦ – Zagreb. 2001.  Zbornik o Tomi ”abiću. Zbornik radova sa Znanstvenoga skupa Fra Toma ”abić i njegovo vrijeme [PrШceedХngs Шf tФe CШnferenceɣ FrancХscan FrХar TФШmas ”abХć and HХs TХme]. Ed.: Alojz JEMBRIH. БХbenik – Zagreb. 2002.  Zbornik o Petru Kneževiću. Zbornik radova sa znanstvenoga skupa "Fra Petar Knežević i njegovo vrijeme" [Proceedings of the Conference: FrancХscan FrХar Peter KnežeЮХć and HХs TХme]. Ed.: Alojz JEMBRIH. БХbenХЦ – Zagreb. 2003.  Zbornik o Josipu Banovcu. Zbornik radova sa znanstvenog skupa "Josip ”anovac i homiletička književnost" [Proceedings of the Conference: Josip Banovac and Homiletic Literature]. Ed.: Alojz JEMBRIH. БХbenХЦ – Zagreb. 2004.  Zbornik o Jeronimu Filipoviću. Zbornik radova sa znanstvenoga skupa "Jeronim Filipović i njegovo djelo" [Proceedings of the Conference: JerШme FХЧХЩШЮХć and HХs WШrЦ]. Ed.: Alojz JEMBRIH. Бibenik – Zagreb. 2005.  Zbornik o Luki Vladmiroviću. Zbornik radova sa znanstvenoga skupa "Luka Vladmirović i njegovo djelo" [Proceedings of the Conference: Lucas VЧadmХrШЮХć and HХs WШrЦ]. Ed.: Pavao KNEZOVIĆ. Zagreb. 2006. 182 STUDIES ON THE FRANCISCAN CULTURE: SILENT ENTHUSIASTS SERIES …  Zbornik o Petru Krstitelju ”aćiću. Zbornik radova sa znanstvenoga skupa "Petar Krstitelj ”aćić" [Proceedings of the Conference: Peter the ”aЩtХst ”aćХć]. Ed.: Pavao KNEZOVIĆ. Zagreb. 2007.  Zbornik o Stjepanu Zlatoviću. Zbornik radova sa znanstvenog skupa "Fra Stjepan Zlatović" [Proceedings of the Conference: Franciscan Friar SteЩФen ZЧatШЮХć]. Ed.: Pavao KNEZOVIĆ. Zagreb. 2008.  Zbornik o Lovri Šitoviću. Zbornik radova sa znanstvenog skupa "Lovro Šitović i njegovo doba" [Proceedings of the Conference: Lawrence БХtШЮХć and HХs TХme]. Ed.: Pavao KNEZOVIĆ. Zagreb. 2009.  Zbornik o Rafaelu Levakoviću. Zbornik radova sa znanstvenoga skupa "Fra Rafeal Levaković" [Proceedings of the Conference: Franciscan FrХar RaЩФaeЧ LeЮaЦШЮХć]. Ed.: Pavao KNEZOVIĆ. Zagreb. 2010.  Zbornik o Ivanu “nčiću. Zbornik radova sa znanstvenog skupa "Fra Ivan “nčić Dumljanin" [Proceedings of the Conference: Franciscan Friar JШФn “nčХć Шf DuЮnШ]. Ed.: Pavao KNEZOVIĆ. Zagreb. 2011.  Zbornik o Mati Zoričiću. Zbornik radova sa znanstvenog skupa "Mate Zoričić i prosvjetiteljstvo u redovničkim zajednicama tijekom ǉǐ. stoljeća" [PrШceedХngs Шf tФe CШnferenceɣ Mat ZШrХčХć and tФe EnЧХgФtenment in 18th century Religious Communities]. Eds.: Pavao KNEZOVIĆ – Marko JERKOVIĆ. Zagreb. 2012.  Zbornik o Petru Bakuli. Zbornik radova sa znanstvenoga skupa "Opus fra Petra Bakule" [Proceedings of the Conference: Opus of Franciscan Friar Peter Bakula]. Eds.: Pavao KNEZOVIĆ – Marko JERKOVIĆ. Zagreb. 2013.  Zbornik o Emeriku Paviću. Zbornik radova sa Znanstvenoga skupa "Emerik Pavić i franjevci u kontinentalnoj Hrvatskoj" [Proceedings of tФe CШnferenceɣ EmerХc PaЮХć and FrancХscans Хn tФe CШntХnentaЧ Croatia]. Eds.: Pavao KNEZOVIĆ – Marko JERKOVIĆ. Zagreb. 2014.  Zbornik o Stipanu Margitiću. Zbornik radova sa Znanstvenoga skupa "Fra Stipan Margitić i ”osna srebrena ɭǉǎǍǈ.–1750.)" [Proceedings of tФe CШnferenceɣ FrancХscan FrХar SteЩФen MargХtХć and tФe SХЧЮer Bosnia Province (1650-1750)]. Eds.: Pavao KNEZOVIĆ – Marko JERKOVIĆ. Zagreb. 2015.  183 SЩecХmХna NШЮa Pars PrХma SectХШ MedХaeЮaЧХs VIII Ed. GábШr ”“R“”ÁS – GergeЧy KISS. Pécs, ǊǈǉǍ. Щ. ǉǐǍ–ǉǑǈ. MarЦШ JerЦШЮХć, PФD mjerkovic@hrstud.hr UnХЮersХty Шf Zagreb Centre fШr CrШatХan StudХes Borongaj Campus Borongajska cesta 83d HR-10 000 Zagreb Croatia Marko JERKOVIĆ: Institutional History of Church at the Centre for Croatian StudХes UnХversХty of Zagreb : “postolХc Chamber and Zagreb Bishopric: A History of SocioEconomic LХnks The more systematic research of the institutional church history has been recently initiated at the Centre for Croatian studies of the University of Zagreb. It is based on the analytical approach in the study of relations between the main centres of power and local recipients of the reforms. In this fashion, the influence of the Papal Curia and its various offices on the process of shaping the European culture(s), in this case Croatian ones, can be better recognized. In Western and Central European historiography there is an increasing tendency towards the research of relations between the Papal Curia and local ecclesiastical institutions. Scholars involved with the topic are stressing out the need to study the influence of papal reforms, diplomacy and politics on dioceses and clergy across the whole European territory. Research of the mutual two-fold communication, between the Centre ɭPaЩaЧ CurХaɮ and tФe PerХЩФery ɭЧШcaЧ bХsФШЩrХcsɮ, gХЮes tФe insight into the both: the impact of Curial power on local government and in the cultural heritage of European clergy in general. That is why the Centre-Periphery paradigm is the good framework for the research of the patterns which were shaping the fate of Western civilization and European identity. In order to analyse the Centre-Periphery relations, Croatian research team at the Centre for Croatian studies aims to reconstruct the links between various Curial offices and members of Croatian ecclesiastical society in medieval and early modern times. The studies of mobility and economic relations between Croatian ecclesiastical institutions and the Papal CurХa, Яere tФe maХn ШbjectХЮes Шf tФe ЩrШject “ЩШstШЧХc cФamber and Zagreb bishopric: a history of socio-ecШnШmХc ЧХnЦs . TФХs ЩХЧШt ЩrШject Яas 185 Marko JERKOVIĆ approved and financed by the University of Zagreb, in the framework of the short-term financial support program for the research in 2015. Collaborators at the project (working at the Centre for Croatian studies) were:  MarЦШ JerЦШЮХć, PФDɣ ЩrШject Чeader, cШntactɣ mjerkovic@hrstud.hr (Department of History and Department of Croatian Latinity)  IЮana JuЦХć, PФD ɭDepartment of History)  StХЩХca GrgХć, PФD ɭDepartment of History)  MХsЧaЮ KШЮačХć, PФD ɭDepartment of Croatian Culture)  MШnХЦa ĐuraЦ, M“ candХdate ɭDepartment of History) The focus in the research was on collecting data, primarily about the members of the upper and mid strata of diocesan hierarchy (bishops and cathedral canons), who were in the contact with the Apostolic chamber. We are covering the period from the beginnings of the 14th to the end of the 17th century – this wide chronological framework gives us the opportunity to analyse continuities and discontinuities in institutional communication between the Curia and Croatian clergy. Apart from that, this kind of approach is a good opportunity to analyse the question of the economic viability of the Croatian ecclesiastical institutions, and changing patterns in communication strategies over long period of time. We have been also concerned with creating the solid grounds for the future, more thorough research of the subject. In that context, we have designed the data-base in which the information on Croatian clergy paying (or promising to pay) their taxes to the Apostolic chamber are being entered. This is very simple data-base, divided into three cross-referenced sheets: a) Bishops/elected bishops of Zagreb which were paying, or just promising to pay necessary taxes for their appointment. b) Beneficiaries, promising to pay annatae. Here, all the clergymen provisioned by the Pope with the ecclesiastical benefice in Zagreb bishopric, are included. c) Proctors representing bishops of Zagreb and beneficiaries. Data-base includes: ID of the entry; Date; Place; Name of the ”ХsФШЩ/”enefХcХaryɤ Last Name Шf tФe ”ХsФШЩ/”enefХcХaryɤ IntХtuЧatХШnɤ Diocese; Status [Elected or consecrated; or in the sheet b), was he already possessing some benefices]; Ecclesiastical benefice [Only in the sheet b)]; Procedure [Promise to pay or actual payment]; Tax amount; Appointment bull; Type of procuration; Name of the Proctor; Last Name of the Proctor; Intitulation of the proctor; Office of the Proctor; Diocese of the Proctor; Procuration [for bishop, canon, or some other cleric]; Commentaries; Signature of the Document; Literature. The sources used in our research are 186 INSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF CHURCH AT THE CENTRE FOR CROATIAN STUDIES … predominantly the records of tax payment or recorded obligations to payment, which originated in the Apostolic chamber. On the other hand, the “ЩЩШХntment buЧЧ categШry Хs beХng fХЧЧed addХtХШnaЧЧy ЯХtФ tФe data from the papal bulls of provisions. Due to the provenience of the sources, we are able to see the final results of the mobility and to reconstruct the procedures which were occurring in the central financial office of the Curia. However, apart from that, it is clear that used sources are also a good starting point in the attempts to reconstruct the social networks. As it is apparent from the structure of the data-base, the methodology is primarily based on the principles used in prosopography studies. Even though it Хs nШt tФe cЧassХcaЧ ЩrШsШЩШgraЩФy, Шur researcФ gШaЧs are Юery mucФ Хn concordance with its main objective: the creation of the collective characteristics of the defined group. One of the advantages of this methodology is that the biographical data entered in our data-base can be easily crossreferenced, compared or linked with similar data-bases, catalogues and prosopography studies. For example, all the gathered data will help to extend the prosopography catalogues of the Zagreb bishopric clergy, which we are also creating – the preliminary research of the cathedral canons of the Zagreb chapter in the 14th century resulted with the catalogue which contains 364 biographies of canons, candidates for prebends, prebendaries and ЧШЯer catФedraЧ cЧergy. “Щart frШm tФat, data Шn Zagreb dХШcese clergy in the first half of the 15th century also resulted with the rich pool of information for collective biography of ecclesiastical society in North and Central Croatia. Apart from the categories which are characteristic for prosopography (data on curriculum vitae of the participants involved in institutional relations), some other categories, which are specifically related to topic, were added. They were devised accordingly to research questions which we set forward. Not only the identification of the participants in the mobility and the reconstruction of the ways of communication between the Curia and Zagreb bishopric clergy, some other important questions are the part of our research: for example, in the case of bishops we are interested how regularly they were paying their taxes, while in the case of beneficiaries we are interested in estimated values of their prebends and other benefices. Furthermore: Who were the proctors representing bishops and who were the legal representatives of the canons? Were they standing proctors with their offices in/around Curia, or only temporary ones, with specific tasks to carry out? Did bishops or other secular clergy try to gain religious houses as commendatory goods? The latter question is very good example how the research of the institutional contacts can be linked with the history of religious orders. Namely, the source-material used in creation of the Apostolic Chamber 187 Marko JERKOVIĆ data-base gives us the insight into the economic conditions of monasteries and commendatory system. Some of our results and research questions regarding that were presented in the workshop on medieval religious orders, which took part 7–11 October 2015, at the Research Centre for the Comparative History of Religious Orders – FOVOG (Technische UniversХtät Dresdenɮ. ”ased Шn tФe “ЩШstШЧХc cФamber sШurces, it is clear that late medieval Benedictine and Cistercian communities in Continental Croatia were all facing the great difficulties in maintaining the regular government and most of them were at some point, usually in the course of the 15th century, turned into commendatory goods (their governors being obliged to pay the taxes to the Apostolic Chamber). However, the main focus at this point of the research remains on the institutional links, identification of the clerics involved in this kind of mobility. With that in mind, this project is a contribution for: the systematic research of the mobility patterns in pre-modern Croatia; research of the Croatian elite ecclesiastical society and of the church economy; research of the communication channels between the Centre of the Western Christianity and Central Europe. All the more, just as other European clerics who were visiting the Papal Curia in order to accomplish various tasks, Croatian clerics too had a chance to observe the ways in which the highly developed bureaucratic institution operated on a daily basis. Enriched with that kind of experience, they were coming back to their own bishoprics, transferring newly gained knowledge for the needs of improving the economic and administrative procedures on the local level. Some of them, however, remained in the Curia, acquired one of the numerous administrative posts there, or ambitiously started to pursue respectable careers, continuously searching for the more lucrative offices. Thus, the research of the links between the Centre and the local bishoprics, is not just an institutional history, it is also a contribution to a history of human fates, hopes and ambitions. As it is usually the case with the date-bases of this kind, it is an ongoing activity. However, after necessary modifications and corrections of the entries in the data-base, as well as cross-checking, we will allow scholars free access for the purpose of research (link will be available at the web pages of the Centre for Croatian studies – University of Zagreb). Apart from creating the data-base, members of the project team were actively involved in various other activities, which also disseminated the achieved results, and promoted the institutional history of Church in Croatia. Members of the research team were involved in the organisation of tЯШ cШnferencesɣ CФaЩter s SХsaЦ ǉǊǉǍ–ǊǈǉǍ – this was the conference which dealt with the church economy (Sisak was big manor owned by the 188 INSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF CHURCH AT THE CENTRE FOR CROATIAN STUDIES … Zagreb cФaЩterɮɤ and IVth Lateran Council: An Event which changed EurШЩe , ЯФere tФe aЩЩЧХcatХШn Шf cШuncХЧ refШrms Хn ЮarХШus fХeЧds Шf medХeval life was studied. The first conference was organized jointly by the Centre for Croatian studies, Croatian Catholic University, and the Sisak bishopric; while the second one was organised by the Centre for Croatian studies, Croatian Catholic University, Croatian Franciscan Province of Saints Cyril and Methodius, and Catholic Faculty of Theology (Zagreb). Very fruitful cooperation was continued with the Department of MedieЮaЧ and EarЧy MШdern HХstШry Шf tФe UnХЮersХty Шf Pécs. TФe cШЧЧeagues frШm tФe UnХЮersХty Шf Pécs are aЧsШ, besХdes ШtФer tШЩХcs, deaЧХng ЯХtФ tФe institutional history of Church, especially with the ecclesiastical communities and institutional relations between the Centre (Papal Curia) and Hungary. Our scientific activities are in the strong connection, since at the Pécs UnХЮersХty tФere are aЧsШ current researcФes Шn tФe cШntacts betЯeen the Papal Curia and local diocesan and other institutions – that refers especially to the project on the papal representatives in Hungarian Kingdom (with the data-base as the core of the project). Transfer of the knowledge should be also emphasized. In the frameЯШrЦ Шf tФe ЩrШject, ЯХnter scФШШЧ SШurces Хn eccЧesХastХcaЧ ФХstШry Яas organised. It took part at the Centre for Croatian studies (November 30th – December 4th 2015), with the graduate students of history as its participants. Through the series of lectures and workshops, students had a chance to learn and discuss about various ecclesiastical sources, and also to get in touch with the research objectives of our project. In this way, they achieved additional knowledge about ecclesiastical history, which is taught in the framework of several classes/seminars offered at the Centre fШr CrШatХan studХes. TФese cШurses areɣ EccЧesХastХcaЧ ФХstШry mХrrШred by medХeЮaЧ sШurces ɤ SШcХety and reЧХgХШnɣ ǉǋth–15th century ɤ CФaЩters and monasteries: focal-pШХnt Шf medХeЮaЧ cХЮХЧХsatХШn ɤ ReЧХgХШus cШmЩШnents Хn CrШatХan cuЧture . Since our data-base includes both, biographical data on bishops/canons/proctors communicating with the Apostolic chamber and also the information about the legal procedures, value of benefices, number of proctors etc., the possibilities in using this kind of research tool in future studies of institutional church history, collective biography and church communities, as well as the church economy are vast. It is our intention at the Centre for Croatian studies to continue with the similar projects; projects which will research human behaviour, clerical careers and ecclesiastical communities in the framework of the broader institutional church history. These new projects will be focused on the question of institutional eЮШЧutХШn ɣ tФe creatХШn Шf tФe cШmmunaЧ ХdentХtХes under tФe ХnfЧuence of the reforms from above and the creation of the social networks. Apart 189 Marko JERKOVIĆ from that, the efforts to create catalogues with the information on the institutional links between the Apostolic chamber and the Zagreb bishopric, gives us the opportunity to establish broader trends which were created by clerical corporations and individuals who can be considered to be the creators of European identity.  190 SЩecХmХna NШЮa Pars PrХma SectХШ MedХaeЮaЧХs VIII Ed. GábШr ”“R“”ÁS – GergeЧy KISS. Pécs, ǊǈǉǍ. Щ. ǉǑǉ–ǉǑǍ. Ferenc VégФ, PФD ЮegФ.ferenc@Щte.Фu UnХЮersХty Шf Pécs FacuЧty Шf HumanХtХes InstХtute Шf HХstШry DeЩartment Шf MedХeЮaЧ and EarЧy MШdern HХstШry RхЦus Str. Ǌ. H–ǏǎǊǌ Pécs Hungary Ferenc VÉGH: Society in the Duty of Defence: TФe Murakчz as a Peculiar Border Region in the Early Modern Times (OTKA PD 108391) Background, problems to be solved The research of tФe ФХstШry Шf tФe MuraЦчz ɭЯФХcФ Хs tФe area Шf aЩЩrШxХmateЧy ǐǈǈ ЦmǨ betЯeen tФe rХЮers DraЮa and Mura, beЧШngХng tШ tШday s Croatia and forming a county) has not been considered significant by the Hungarian research until recently, just like the history of the areas detached with the treaty of Trianon (1920).1 The fact that more than 90% of tФe ХnФabХtants Шf tФe MuraЦчz sЩШЦe ɭЦajɮ CrШatХan as tФeХr mШtФer tongue even before the WWI (1914–1918) also hindered the research of the history of the area by tФe HungarХans. TФus tФe HungarХan ФХstШrХans moderate interest was kept back by the lack of Croatian knowledge. It is suЩrХsХng tФat Шur sШutФern neХgФbШurs ФХstШrХans dХd nШt Щay mucФ attentХШn tШ tФe MuraЦчz ЯФХcФ beЧШngs tШ tФe etnХc-linguistic block of the  The present paper is supported by the Hungarian Scientific Research Found (OTKA PD 108391) 1 MХЦЧхs KRING: “ murakчzi országhatár a magyar-horvát viszony tчrténetében. [TФe MuraЦчz Border through the History of the Hungarian-Croatian Relationship] (K(ЧчnЧenyomat a Magyar TчrténettudШmányХ Intézet ǉǑǌǊ. éЮХ éЮЦчnyЮébшЧ). Budapest. 1942. p. 4-ǎǐɤ Jхzsef FÁR“: Murakчz tчrténetének rчvid foglalata. [Short OЮerЯХeЯ Шn tФe HХstШry Шf MuraЦчz] (K(ЧчnЧenyШmat a DunántúЧХ SzemЧe ǉǑǌǊ. éЮХ ǋ-ǌ. számábхЧ). Szombathely. 1942. p. 4-26; SándШr T“KÁTSɣ “ ZrйnyХeЦ és a MuraЦчz. [TФe ZrйnyХs and tФe MuraЦчz] Inɣ IDEM: Szegény magyarok. Budapest. [1927]; From rather an ethnographic point of view Ferenc G5NCZI: Murakчz és népe [TФe MuraЦчz and Хts People]. Budapest. 1895. In Croatian: Meгimurjeɣ ljudi, vjerovanja, običaji. ČaЦШЮec. 1995. 191 Ferenc VÉGH Croatians but with its independent way of development.2 As in the centre of interest of the Yugoslavian/Croatian historiography was the historical Croatia and Slavonia.3 HШЯeЮer tФe MuraЦчz – and its peculiarity originates from this fact – under public law belonged to Hungary, to the Transdanubian region, more precisely to Zala county.4 This also means that the research of this multiethnic area supposes the knowledge of the Hungarian language. Considering the above mentioned it is not surprising that the few works in this topic usually ignore the results of the historiography of the neighbouring country. In the background there is the lack of knowledge of Hungarian and Croatian (and in case of the early modern times Latin and German) and furthermore ideological and objective obstacles, such as the difficulties accessing the special literature. The modest results of the Croatian and Hungarian historiography were used only as footnotes in the studies published in the neighbouring country, although the researches went simultaneously in the same topic. The birth of the Croatian state (1991) and the Frontier researches dealing with the former border regions emerging at that time in the international historiography meant advancement. The Croatian historiography contributed ЯХtФ studХes abШut tФe trХЩЧe bШrder , tФat Хs tФe outlying area of the Habsburg Monarchy, the Ottoman Empire and the Venetian Republic.5 TФe MuraЦчz can aЧsШ be tФe Щerfect area Шf sucФ researches. In the 17th century the river Mura was the border between the Ottoman Empire and the Hungarian Kingdom integrated into the Habsburg Monarchy. Thus the area was forced to be the border region of two empires, and at the same time it was the outlying area of the Hungarian Kingdom and Slavonia. The emerging interest with the history Шf tФe MuraЦчz Хn tФe earЧy mШdern tХmes Хs cШnnected tШ tФe fact tФat Rudolf HORVAT: Poviest Meгimurja [HХstШry Шf tФe MuraЦчz]. Zagreb. 1944. (reprint: ČaЦШЮec. 1993); Vladimir K“LБ“N: Meгimurska povijest [MuraЦчz HХstШry]. ČaЦШЮec. 2006. The mentioned syntheses show the early modern history of the area through the history of tФe ZrйnyХ famХЧy as ЧandШЯner Хn tФe MuraЦчz. 3 Szabolcs VARGA: A 15-ǉǏ. századХ ФШrЮát tчrténeЧem ЦutatásánaЦ új ХrányaХrхЧ. [“bШut tФe new Directiones of the Research of 15th–17th-Century Croatian History]. Századok 139 (2005), p. 1035–1046. 4 ÉЮa TURBULYɣ ZaЧa megye ЦчzХgazgatása ǉǍǌǉ–1750 [The Public Administration of Zala County 1541–1750]. In: Zala megye archontolхgiája ǉǉǋǐ–2000. Ed. “ndrás MOLNÁR. Zalaegerszeg. 2000. ɭZaЧaХ Gyűjtemény Ǎǈ) p. 23-46. 5 Tolerance and Intolerance on the Triplex confinium. Eds. Egidio IVETIĆ – Drago ROKS“NDIĆ. Padova. 2007; Triplex Confinium (1500-1800). Eds. Drago ROKS“NDIĆ et alii. Split – Zagreb. 2003; Constructing Border Societies on the Triplex Confinium. Eds. Drago ROKS“NDIĆ – Nata:a БTEFANEC. Budapest. 2000; Microhistory of the Triplex Confinium. Ed. Drago ROKS“NDIĆ. Budapest. 1998. 2 192 SOCIETY IN THE DUTY OF DEFENCE: THE MUR“K5Z “S “ PECULIAR BORDER REGION … between 1546 and 1691 the area was almost solely in possession of the ZrйnyХ famХЧy, ЯФШse members are cШnsidered national heroes in both of the successor states.6 Yet the researches renewed in Hungary and Croatia after the millennium – like the heritage of the past – were made parallel but not together. Doubtless the differences in the choice of topic had a role. The attention of the Croatian historiography mainly turned towards historical demography and local history.7 However, the Hungarian historiography, proceeding on its way, focused on economic history, publishing lenghty source editions.8 The inseparable research of the military and social ФХstШry Шf tФe MuraЦчz Хn tФe earЧy mШdern tХmes dХd nШt gШ Шn Хn sЩХte Шf the promising beginning.9 It is especially regrettable because this area under tФe dХrectХШn Шf tФe ZrйnyХs a unХque bШrder-defending structure emerged, the study of which can help understanding better how the defences against the Ottomans worked.10 As a researcher of the defences system in the early modern times, in a narrower sense that of the Transdanubian military society we took notice Шf tФe ЩecuЧХarХtХes Шf tФe MuraЦчz region. The available secondary literature, however, did not answer the arising questions. Our project is to fill In a neЯ aЩЩrШacФɣ Géza PÁLFFYɣ Egy ФШrЮát-magyar fшúrХ csaЧád a Habsburg MШnarcФХa nemzeteЦ feЧettХ arХsztШЦrácХájában. “ ZrйnyХeЦ ФatárШЦШn átйЮeЧш ЦaЩcsШЧataХ [“ CrШatХanHungarian Landlord Family in the International Aristocracy of the Habsburg Monarchy. TФe ZrйnyХs crШss-border Connections.] In: Zrйnyiek a magyar és horvát histхriában. Eds. SándШr BENE – GábШr HAUSNER. Budapest. 2007. (hereafter: BENE – HAUSNER 2007) 7 Nata:a БTEFANECɣ StruЦtura ЩШsjeda na zrХnsЦХm ХmanjХma Х ЩШreznХ ЩШЩХsХ MeгХmurja Х okolice (c. 1550. – c. 1610.ɮ [Structure Шf PШssessХШn Шn tФe Estates Шf tФe ZrйnyХ FamХЧy and the Tax SurЮeys Шf tФe MuraЦчz and Хts Surroundings]. In: Politička, kulturna i dru:tvena djelatnost Zrinskih i Frankopana u Hrvatskoj. Zbornik radova sa znanstvenog skupa održanog u Čakovcu 6. i 7. listopada 2010. Ed. Juraj KOL“RIĆ. ČaЦШЮec. 2011. p. 13-26; Hrvoje PETRIĆ: Prilozi ЩШznaЮanju ЩШЮХjestХ stanШЮnХ:ta MeгХmurja u ЮrХjeme ZrХnsЦХФ [SШme CШntrХbutХШns tШ ReaЧХzatХШn Шf tФe HХstШry Шf tФe MuraЦчz-PШЩuЧatХШn at tФe tХme Шf tФe ZrйnyХs]. In: ibid. p. 27-50. 8 “ Murakчzi uradalom gazdasága és társadalma a ǉǏ–ǉǐ. században. Válogatott források [The EcШnШmy and SШcХety Шf tФe MuraЦчz Domain in the 17th–18th Centuries. Selected Sources]. Ed. Zita HORVÁTH. Zalaegerszeg. 2010. ɭZaЧaХ Gyűjtemény ǎǐ); Monumenta Zrйnyiana. Pars oeconomica. Tomus II. Insula Murakчz (1635–1720). Redegit Vera ZIMÁNYI. Digessit, introductХШne GermanХca et ХndХce ХnstruxХt IstЮán N. KХss. ”udaЩest. 1991. 9 IstЮán N. KISSɣ KatШnaЩarasztság ɭfчЧdesúrХ ФadszerЮezet a ZrйnyХeЦ és a zágrábХ Щ(sЩчЦség bХrtШЦaХn – XVII. századɮ [Peasant SШЧdery ɭLandШЯners MХЧХtary OrganХsatХШn Шn tФe Estates Шf tФe ZrйnyХs and tФe ”ХsФШЩrХc Шf Zagreb – XVIIth Century)]. Hadtчrténelmi Kчzlemények 20 (1973:2), p. 319–330, as ЯeЧЧ as tФe autФШr s ШtФer ЩaЩers Шn tФХs tШЩХc. 10 Ferenc VÉGHɣ “ MuraЦчz ЦatШnatársadaЧma ZrйnyХ MХЦЧхs és Péter bХrtШЦЧása Хdején (1638–ǉǎǏǉɮ ɭVázЧatɮ [TФe MХЧХtary SШcХety Шf tФe MuraЦчz at tФe tХme Шf NХЦШЧas and Peter ZrйnyХ ɭǉǎǋǐ–1671) (An Outline)] In: „Hйr a dicső tettek ragyogása . Tanulmányok a Zrйnyi család és Szigetvár tчrténetéből. Ed. Szabolcs VARGA. SzХgetЮár. 2011. p. 167–184. 6 193 Ferenc VÉGH up these serious gaps with basic researches in the Hungarian and foreign archives (synthesizing the results of the Hungarian and Croatian historiograЩФyɮ. We ЯХsФ tШ draЯ tФe researcФers attentХШn Хn bШtФ cШuntrХes tШ this region falling outside the field of sight until recently today. We hope that our research can give an impetus to the crossborder researches intending to reveal the almost thousand-year-old Croatian-Hungarian common history.11 Objectives of the project The basic goal of our project is to model the militarization of a large estate Хn tФe earЧy mШdern tХmes tФrШugФ tФe dШmaХn Шf CsáЦtШrnya/ČaЦШЮec Шf tФe ZrйnyХ famХЧy, ЯФХcФ ШЮerЧaЩЩed ЯХtФ tФe area Шf tФe MuraЦчz. TФe militarization is the process as a result of which the people of the latifundium took over active role in the defence of the area that had become a border region. Our detailed research wishes to reveal the triggering causes, to name the initiators, the time interval, the possible following of a pattern, as well as the constructive priorities. Comparing with the Western-TransdanubХan ЧatХfundХums Шf tФe ”attФyány, Nádasdy and EsterФázy famХЧХes, Яe try tШ defХne the specialities of the military society Шf tФe MuraЦчz. The applied method of research The biggest difficulty and the greatest challenge is the uneven time- (and spatial) distribution of the sources referring to the early modern history of the estate of MuraЦчz, ЯФХcФ can aЧsШ exЩЧaХn tФe deЩressХng ЧacЦ Шf scХentХfХc ЧХterature. TФe arcФХЮes Шf tФe ZrйnyХ famХЧy – meaning the primary source base of researches of estate history – were mostly destroyed Шr scattered ЯФen ZrйnyХ Péter s ЩШssessХШns Яere cШnfiscated (1671). The sources nowadays available in the Hungarian Treasury Archives of the Hungarian National Archive (Budapest), and in the different fonds of the Croatian State Archive are estimated to be only a few per cent of the former stock of sources of the family. This explains why the documents made Хn tФe ЩerХШd Шf tФe Treasury s cШntrШЧ Шf ZrйnyХ Péter s fШrmer estate half (1671–1694) had a majority in the source material of the estate of MuraЦчz. TФe sШurce edХtХШns Шf tФХs tШЩХc mentХШned abШЮe also favoured the rich sources of the Hungarian Treasury and its related Hofkammer in TФe ФХstШry Шf tФe ZrйnyХ famХЧy ЩrШЮХdes an exceЧЧent ЩШssХbХЧХtyɣ Zrйnyiek a magyar és horvát histхriában [TФe ZrйnyХs Хn tФe HungarХan and CrШatХan HХstШry]. Eds. SándШr BENE – GábШr HAUSNER. Budapest. 2007. and Zrinski i Europa. [TФe ZrйnyХs and EurШЩe] Ed. Jadranka DOMJANOV. Zagreb. 2000. 11 194 SOCIETY IN THE DUTY OF DEFENCE: THE MUR“K5Z “S “ PECULIAR BORDER REGION … Wien. Thus the source base referring to the economic, social and military ФХstШry Шf tФe estate Шf MuraЦчz Хs tФe sШurce-material made in the last decades of the 17th century. To the circumstances of the key-period, the ZrйnyХ era Яe ФaЮe tШ draЯ cШncЧusХШns frШm tФe sШurce-material made after 1671 and from sporadic data came into being earlier. Due to this circumstance it can not be eluded to research and study the sourcematerial of the archives of the present states (in Hungarian, Croatian, Latin and German languages) comprehensively. Expected results In case of the optimal realization of our project, the sources referring to the eraly modern social and military history Шf tФe MuraЦчz and ЦeЩt Хn Hungarian and foreign archives will be written up; we also hope to find most of the sporadic data. With the complete collection of the Hungarian and Croatian scientific literature, the systematical arrangement of the explored source-material a basic research is to be realized. The manuscript runnХng tШ at Чeast sХx autФШr s sФeets can recЦШn Шn tФe Хnterest Шf tФe international scientific life as the first thematic monograph of the history of the area.  195 ”OOK REVIEW KчnХglХcФe Kirchen im mittelalterlichen Ungarn Gergely KISS: KХrályХ egyФázak a kчzépkorХ Magyarországon Thesaurus Historiae Ecclesiasticae in Universitate Quinqueecclesiensi 3. Pécs. Ǌǈǉǋ. Ǌǈǌ S. Das Хm JaФre Ǌǈǉǋ ЮerчffentЧХcФte ”ucФ ЮШn GergeЧy KХss erчrtert das Thema der ЦчnХgЧХcФ gegr(ndeten KХrcФen Хm mХtteЧaЧterЧХcФen Ungarn. Im HauЩtХnteresse der FШrscФung des HХstШrХЦers aus Pécs steФen dХe HerЦunft dХeses InstХtuts, dХe Eigenarten der ungarischen Entwicklung bzw. die Analyse des rechtlichen Status der betreffenden Kirchen. Der ”and fängt mХt eХner ФХstШrХШgraЩФХscФen Zusammenfassung (ber dХe bХsФerХgen ЯesteurШЩäХscФen und ungarХscФen FШrscФungen bez(gЧХcФ der ЦчnХgЧХcФ gegr(ndeten KХrcФen an. DХesem TeХЧ fШЧgt dХe DarsteЧЧung der HerausbХЧdung der abendЧändХscФen ЦчnХgЧХcФen KaЩeЧЧen, ЯШbeХ ЮШm Verfasser dХe ”edeutung und Wirkung der Sainte-Chapelle in Paris – unter anderem – aЧs Muster f(r sЩätere Gr(ndungen, f(r dХe GruЩЩe ЮШn den soganannten saintes-chapelles hervorgehoben Яerden. DХe ungarХscФen “nfänge der exemten Kirchen und damit im Zusammenhang die Vorstellung des rechtlichen Hintergrundes bilden den Gegenstand des näcФsten “bscФnХttes. Zur GruЩЩe der ЦчnХgЧХcФen KХrcФen geФчrten Хn Ungarn Gergely Kiss nach gewisse Benediktinerabteien, Propsteien der PrämШnstratenser, Kollegialkapitel bzw. bestimmte Kapellen und Pfarreien sowie die deutscФen LandЦaЩХteЧ Хn SХebenb(rgen. Die Lage des Erzbistums von Esztergom in der kirchlichen Hierarchie Ungarns und dХe ”ezХeФung der ErzbХscФчfe und der ЦчnХgЧХcФen Kirchen werden im näcФsten KaЩХteЧ ЮШr aЧЧem auf der ”asХs ЮШn ЩäЩstЧХcФen QueЧЧen aus dem ǉǌ–16. JaФrФundert untersucФt. DХe ЮШrФerХgen InfШrmatХШnen anderer Natur Цчnnen aЧЧerdХngs aucФ nХcФt außer “cФt geЧassen Яerden, desЯegen ЯХrd dХe GestaЧtung der rechtlichen Stelle des Erzbistums in der ungarischen Kirchenorganisation seit dem “nfang des ǉǉ. JaФrФunderts ebenfaЧЧs erчrtert. DХe “naЧyse der ”ezХeФung der zЯeХ ErzbХst(mer Ungarns und dХe Frage der JurХsdХЦtХШn (ber dХe ЦчnХgЧХcФen KХrcФen m(ssen dabei besonders betont werden. Die Darstellung der EreignХsse der RХЮaЧХtät der ErzbХscФчfe an der ScФЯeЧЧe des ǉǋ. JaФrФunderts Хst ЮХeЧleicht der wichtigste Teil dieses Abschnittes. Im zЯeХten HauЩtЦaЩХteЧ des ”andes Цчnnen dХe zusammengesammeЧten “ngaben (ber dХe bereХts erЯäФnten GruЩЩen der ЦчnХgЧХcФ gegr(ndeten KХrcФen Хn Form eines Dateiverzeichnisses, oder besser: Katalogs, gefunden werden. Die InstХtutХШnen sХnd nacФ den bereХts genannten f(nf GruЩЩen aufgeteХЧt, ЯäФrend dХe einzelnen Kirchen innerhalb dieser Einheiten in alphabetischer Reihenfolge aufgeЧХstet und erчrtert Яerden. DХese Ц(rzeren-Чängeren Zusammenfassungen des Verfassers Цчnnen quasХ aЧs LexХЦШn-EХnträge mХt meФreren ЮerscФХedenen “bsichten wohl benutzt werden. Die Vorstellungen einiger Kirchen sind allerdings bedeutend Чänger, aЧs anderen, ЯХe z. ”. dХe Erчrterungen geЯХsser KШЧЧegХaЧЦaЩХteЧ ɭ2buda, SzeЩes, SzéЦesfeФérЮár, ”uda usЯ.ɮ und KaЩeЧЧen, aber ЮШr aЧЧem der 199 BOOK REVIEW deutscФen LandЦaЩХteЧ SХebenb(rgens. DХe ”edeutung und KШmЩЧexХtät des Чetztlich genannten Themas wurde von Kiss besonders gut angegriffen. Er schildert eindeutig wohl, warum die Darstellung der einzelnen Schritte der Gestaltung des recФtЧХcФen Status der LandЦaЩХteЧ Хn SХebenb(rgen unentbeФrЧХcФ Хst und Яarum diese Frage grШße “ufmerЦsamЦeХt ЮerdХent. In seХnem FazХt betШnt GergeЧy KХss dХe HeterШgenХtät der InstХtutХШnen, dХe aufgrund der zЯХscФen ǉǋǐǑ und ǉǍǉǋ entstandenen ЩäЩstЧХcФen VerzeХcФnХsse zur GruЩЩe der ЦчnХgЧХcФen KХrcФen geФчrten. DХese LХsten sХnd selbst hinsichtЧХcФ der betreffenden InstХtutХШnen nХcФt eХnХg, ЯäФrend zЯeХ debatteЧШs exemte KХrcФen Ungarns, dХe “bteХ ЮШn PannШnФaЧma und dХe PrШЩsteХ ЮШn SzéЦesfeФérЮár, sШgar nХcФt Хn dХesen “ufЧХstungen zu fХnden sХnd. “ufgrund der Untersuchungen des Verfassers Цann dХe RШЧЧe der ЦчnХgЧХcФen Gr(ndung Шder sЩäteren Patronats in der nachmaligen speziellen rechtlichen Stellung der einzelnen KХrcФen ФerЮШrgeФШben Яerden. DХese ЦчnХgЧХcФe TeХЧnaФme Цann seЧbst aber nХcФt aЧs der eХnzХge Grund f(r eХne exemte Lage betrachtet werden, bei allen untersucФten GruЩЩen muss man statt eХner ЦШnstanten SteЧЧung eФer (ber PrШzesse ЮШn recФtЧХcФer EntЯХcЦЧung sЩrecФen. ”ez(gЧХcФ dХeser VШrgänge Цann dementsprechend zum einen die Gestaltung der einzelnen Kirchen, zum anderen die HerausbХЧdung eХner ФчФeren ФХerarcФХscФen Ebene, dХe SХcФerung des PrХmats der ErzbХscФчfe ЮШn EsztergШm ФerЮШrgeФШben Яerden. Der ”and ЮШn GergeЧy KХss beХnФaЧtet ferner franzчsХscФe und engЧХscФe Zusammenfassungen. Diesen folgen mehrere Begriffsbestimmungen (exemptio, ordinarius, protectio, bХscФчfЧХcФe JurХsdХЦtХШn, sainte-chapelle) und das LiteraturverzeХcФnХs, ЯäФrend am Ende zЯeХ TabeЧЧen und ЮХer Karten dХe ”enutzung dХeses wertvollen Buches und die Verwendung der zusammensammelten Angaben weiter erleichtern. Zusammenfassend kann es mit voller Sicherheit festgestellt werden, dass diese Arbeit die Aufmerksamkeit sowohl von Historikern als auch allen Lesern wohl verdient, die sich mit der ungarischen Kirchengeschichte auseinandersetzen mчcФten. GábШr ”arabás UnХЮersХtät Pécs  Andreas Willershausen: DХe Päpste von “vХgnon und der HundertjäФrХge KrХeg SЩätmХtteЧaЧterЧХcФe DХЩЧШmatХe und ЦurХaЧe VerФandЧungsnШrmen (1337–1378) Berlin. De Gruyter. 2014. 474. S. “ndreas WХЧЧersФausen geФчrt zur j(ngeren “ЧtersЦЧasse der deutscФen MedХävistik, er ist momentan der Mitarbeiter der Justus-Liebig-UnХЮersХtät GХeßen. Der rezensХerte ”and Хst dХe gedrucЦte und (berarbeХtete VersХШn seХner Хm JaФre Ǌǈǉǈ an der UnХЮersХtät “ugsburg eХngereХcФte DХssertatХШn. In seХner MШnШgraЩФХe 200 BOOK REVIEW stellt er die Beziehung des Avignonesischen Papsttums und des HundertjäФrХgen Krieges in einem eigenartigen, neuen Aspekt dar. Das ”ucФ Хst struЦtureЧЧ Хn dreХ grчßeren TeХЧe aufgegЧХedert, sШ dass Хm ersten TeХЧ ɭder aЧs “ marЦХert Хstɮ sХcФ dХe EХnЧeХtung, dХe DarsteЧЧung und ”egr(ndung der methodischen Verfahrungen bzw. die Vorstellung der einzelnen Phasen des HundertjäФrХgen KrХeges befХnden. Im näcФsten “bscФnХtt ɭ”ɮ Яurde dХe Viae pacis, dХe PФasen und der Orte der ЩäЩstЧХcФen S(Фne, anaЧysХert. DХe ”earbeХtung der PersШnen und der TätХgЦeХten der an den Verhandlungen teilgenommenen ЩäЩstЧХcФen NuntХen und Legaten befХndet sХcФ ebenfaЧЧs ФХer. ZuЧetzt erчrtert WХЧlershausen im letzten, mit C markierten Kapitel die Formen der ЩäЩstЧХcФen DХЩЧШmatХe ЯäФrend des HundertjäФrХgen KrХeges. Das Buch beinhaltet dreХ grчßere Themenkreise. Die erste ist die Konflikt- und RХtuaЧenfШrscФung, ЯäФrend danach dХe DarsteЧЧung der PäЩste ЮШn “ЮХgnШn aЧs Abwiegler und Vermittler zu finden ist. WХЧЧersФausen erчrtert dХes Хm RaФmen der Diplomatiegeschichte, so dass die Beziehung zwischen den zwei HauptgedanЦengängen durcФ dХe Хn KШnfЧХЦten und Хn ХФren HandЧungen ЮerЯendeten VШrgeФensЯeХsen gescФчЩft Хst. Das dritte Thema ist seЧbst der HundertjäФrХge Krieg, der wichtigste west-eurШЩäХscФe KШnfЧХЦt der zЯeХten HäЧfte des 14. Jahrhunderts. Der Verfasser stellt die Ereignisse chronologisch, im Spiegel seiner methodischen Vorgehensweise dar. WХЧЧersФausen ЮerЯendete eХn besШnders reХcФes QueЧЧenbasХs f(r seХne “rbeit. In Bezug auf diesen QueЧЧen Цчnnen zЯeХ HauЩtgruЩЩen auseХnandergeЧegt Яerdenɣ dХe dХЩЧШmatХscФen DШЦumente und ”rХefe bzЯ. dХe erzäФЧenden QueЧlen. Diese Gattungen wurden vom Verfasser aufgrund der Entstehungsorte in weiteren Subkategorien eingegliedert. Zwischen den diplomatischen Quellen und anderer ЩrШbЧematХscФen FäЧЧen erчrtert der Verfasser dХe MaterХaЧХen des PaЩsttums bzЯ. ЮШn EngЧand und FranЦreХcФ ЮШneХnander seЩarХert, ЯäФrend die erzäФЧenden QueЧЧen Хn grчßeren GruЩЩen aufgegЧХedert sХnd, sШ, dass sХe aufgrund der engЧХscФen, franzчsХscФen und anderen EntsteФungsШrten dХfferenzХert sind. Willershausen behandelte ferner die Chronik von Jean Foissart als eine eigene Gruppe. Andreas Willershausen bearbeitete besШnders ausf(ФrЧХcФ die Geschichte des HundertjäФrХgen KrХeges und der ЩäЩstЧХcФen FrХedensЮerФandЧungen. Er erчrtert so Avignon und die zur Stadt gebundenen politischen Unterhandlungen, separХert steЧЧt er dХe dХЩЧШmatХscФen EreХgnХsse um dХe ScФЧacФt ЮШn Crécy dar. DХes ist ЮШn der VШrsteЧЧung der Хn CaЧaХs durcФgef(Фrten “bstХmmungen und Verhandlungen gefolgt, nach der er das gegen 1354–1355 wieder nach Avignon und sЩäter nacФ PШХtХers ЮerЧegte Treffen anaЧysХert. NacФ der Erчrterung der Ereignisse in ”rétХgny und des Jahres 1360 wurde die Vorstellung der ЩäЩstЧХcФen FrХedensЮerФandЧungen mХt den EreХgnХssen Хn ”r(gge/”ruges ɭǉǋǏǍ–1377) beendet. Im Чetzten grчßeren TeХЧ des ”ucФes ɭCɮ anaЧysХerte der Verfasser dХe “rbeХtsЯeХse der ЩäЩstЧХcФen DХЩЧШmatХe. Er ЦЧassХfХzХert die einzelnen Verhandlungsorte ЮШneХnander getrennt, steЧЧt dХe teХЧneФmenden ЩäЩstЧХcФen NuntХen dar und erчrtert dХe Хn der DХЩЧШmatХe ЮerЯendeten PrХnzХЩen von Kommunikation, genau wie die Verhandlungsstrategien der Vermittler. Der Band ist mit einer detaillierten Zusammenfassung und einem umfangreichen Literaturverzeichnis abgeschlossen, die die umfassenden Kenntnisse der 201 BOOK REVIEW Verfasser bez(gЧХcФ sШЯШФЧ der deutscФen aЧs aucФ der englischen, franzчsХscФen und italienischen Fachliteratur beweisen. Über die Monographie Andreas Wildeshausens kann grundsätzЧХcФ festgestellt werden, dass der Verfasser ein klassisches Thema mit neuen Methoden erчrterte, ЯäФrend er auf eХne gr(ndЧХcФe und tХefgeФende “naЧyse ebenfaЧЧs nХcФt verzichtete. Dank dieses Werkes Цчnnen ЯХr neue “sЩeЦte der ЩäЩstЧХcФen Diplomatie zur Kenntnis nehmen und wir hoffen ebenfalls, dass diese Monographie auch weitere Forschungen inspirieren wird. GábШr ”arabás UnХЮersХtät Pécs  The Angevins in Cracow Domestic policy issues of the reign of Louis the Great in Poland DánХel BAGI: “z “njouk Krakkóban Nagy LajШs ЧengyeЧШrszágХ uraЧmánaЦ beЧЩШЧХtХЦaХ ЦérdéseХ Pécs. Ǌǈǉǌ. ǉǌǏ Щ. DánХeЧ ”agХ, ЯФШ Фas aЧready ЩrШЮed Хn ФХs numerШus and essentХaЧ ЩubЧХcatХШns, that he is cognizant of both the Hungarian and Polish medieval history, gladdened the academic readership with a new writing. The book that was published by Kronosz Publishing House is nothing less – as the author himself tells us in the introduction – than the shortened and revised edition of his doctoral thesis that he defended at the Kossuth Lajos University (Debrecen). The prologue includes the theme of the opus as well: the writing focuses on the background of domestic affairs of the first Hungarian – Polish personal union in Poland. The first chapter of the book provides a detailed historiographical overview not only on the subject but in a wider sense of the era as well, namely, across the reign of Casimir III the Great and from his death to the period between 1370 and 1382. During the review of the research, Bagi closely examines the writings of the Hungarian historians and the works of Polish authors who are perhaps lesserknown in Hungary. Thus the reader can become familiar with all summaries that appear in both Hungarian and Polish historiography to describe the reign of Louis the Great in Poland. As it turns out from the first chapter the Hungarian historiographers interpreted the reign of the illustrious king as episodic, whereas the Polish researchers lined up along two distinct theories. The strongest approach on the theme is the one that has its roots all the way back to the 16th and 17th centuries of the Polish noble republic. This aspect shaped and is still shaping the Polish natХШnaЧ memШry Шf „LШuХs tФe HungarХan ɭLudЯХЦ WęgХersЦХɮ. “ccШrdХng tШ this theory the king did not care for the Polish affairs, and his absence from Poland caused only anarchy and decline that led to the weakening of the central power. The other much more moderate and widely spread concept is based on the obserЮatХШns Шf tФe renШЯned HungarХan ФХstШrХan, “ntaЧ Pхr. He stated tФat tФe baЧ- 202 BOOK REVIEW ance of the reign of Louis is negative on the grounds of the Polish domestic conditions, which precluded a successful governing of the country and not the negligence of the king. However all the researchers agreed on the fact that the decree of 1374 has paved the way for the constitutional monarchy. The second chapter presents all those sources that were used during the writing of the current publication and also for all those works demonstrated in the historiographical chapter. As it is widely known, the medieval Polish history – just as the Hungarian – is not abundant in sources thus the research relies on two authorities in order to get familiar with the subject. TФe cФrШnХcЧe Шf Jan Шf CzarnЦхЯ is the only contemporary narrative source. The ascertainments of the chronicle ЩercШЧated ХntШ tФe mШdern ФХstШrХcaЧ ЧХterature tФrШugФ tФe ЯШrЦ Шf Jan DуugШsz, tФe famШus ФumanХst Шf CracШЯ. DánХeЧ ”agХ tФШrШugФЧy investigates all the problems that arose in regard of the chronicle. In the light of the most important events Шf tФe cФrШnХcЧer s ЧХfe, tФe tХme Шf cШmЩШsХtХШn, tФe sШurces tФat Фe cШuЧd ЩШssХbЧy use and Шf cШurse tФe cШntent Шf tФe cФrШnХcЧe DánХeЧ ”agi advises caution on the trustЯШrtФХness Шf tФe cФrШnХcЧe. “ crХtХcaЧ readХng Шf tФe cФrШnХcЧe s text Хs recШmmended – tells Bagi – as the vice-chancellor of Casimir the Great i.e. the author of the chronicle was removed from his office by court verdict. So his personal resentment is to be found behind the words of the vice-chancellor, who has been excluded from the government, showed his own bad destiny as an extensive social ЩrШcess Шn tФe Щages Шf ФХs cФrШnХcЧe and fШrged ЩubЧХc affaХrs frШm ФХs ХЧl fortune. Similar detailed analysis can be found in this chapter on the second authoritative source that is a diploma in regard to the subject. Next to the publication of the whole text of the so-caЧЧed ЩrХЮХЧege Шf KШ:Хce, that was only available for the Hungarian researchers in 19th century Polish charter registers up to now, the author highlights that the theory, that was formulated by “dШrján DХЮéЦy Хs unbendabЧe, nameЧy tФe GШЧden ”uЧЧ Шf ǉǊǊǊ can be assШcХated ЯХtФ tФe ЩrХЮХЧege Шf KШ:Хce. DánХeЧ ”agХ s argumentatХШn Хs suЩЩШrted by ЩФХЧШlogical methods as he states that the textual similarities are pointing in the direction that the source of the charter must be the privilege of Buda, which was issued in 1355. Beside all of these he refrains from the common practice and holds the abШЮe mentХШned ЩrХЮХЧege Шf KШ:Хce as tФe maХn sШurce Шf tФe subject, and deemЩФasХzes tФe cФrШnХcЧe Шf Jan CzarnЦхЯ due tШ tФe abШЮe mentХШned reasШns. “ccШrdХng tШ tФe autФШr s ШЩХnХШn tФe uЩФШЧdХng Шf tФe ancХent dynasty in this way was acceptable for the Polish nobility as well. The next, third chapter in line discusses the Angevin succession on the Polish throne in details. The author furthermore disagrees with the noted Polish medieЮХst Jan DąbrШЯsЦХ, and ЩШХnts Шut that there is not enough evidence to prove that the Angevins reached an agreement, in which the Polish king announced that Louis shall inherit the Polish throne when he dies without a male heir during the CШngress Шf VХsegrád Хn ǉǋǋǍ Шr tФereafter. In the face of the events, preserved by tФe sШurces, Хt seems tФat tФe questХШn Яas fХnaЧЧy decХded ШnЧy Хn ǉǋǏǈ Шn LШuХs s visit to Cracow. Two factors played an important part in the decision: political bargains and dynastic principles. Though the regulation of succession after King LШuХs brШugФt uЩ neЯ eЧements, tФus tФe candХdate Шn tФe tФrШne Яas LШuХs s daughter, but Jadwiga herself guaranteed the continuity of the reign of the Piast dynasty all the way to Vladislaus II Jagellion. 203 BOOK REVIEW The last two remaining chapters handle with all those phenomena, which served as basis for the Polish historians as they depicted the reign of Louis by dark cШЧШurs. “s DánХeЧ ”agХ ЩШХnts Шut durХng tФe eЮaЧuatХШn Шf tФe dШmestХc ЩШЧХcy Шf the king, that almost every researcher emЩФasХzes tФat beФХnd tФe ЦХng s decХsХШns stood only one thing: the problem of succession. For that very reason, Louis was willing to make compromises thereby undermining the royal power. Historians usually examine the relationship between the king and the Polish elite in correlation with four major domestic issues: taxation, restoration of property, donation Шf Чand and tФe fuЧfХЧment Шf ФХgФ ШffХces. PerФaЩs tФe bШШЦ s greatest acФХeЮement is the analysis of the taxation system. The author reviews all the major standpoints found in the historiography and compares against the sources to finally reach a conclusion that the view that ingrained in the literature through the works of Jan CzarnЦхЯ and Jan DуugШsz, nameЧy tФat tФe ЦХng ХntrШduced generaЧ tax cuts and he kept only the so-called plough-tax (poradlne) in a decreased form is simply not ЮХabЧe. DánХeЧ ”agХ argued tФat durХng tФe ruЧe Шf LШuХs – as all the sources points in this way – we should rather talk about the reformation of the taxation of the king, who introduced a new 2 denier tax – which can be associated with the plough-tax under no circumstances –, that was to be paid directly to the royal treasury. This measure is in line with the economic policy of the Angevins that was introduced in Hungary by tФe ЦХng s fatФer, CФarЧes RШbert amШng ШtФer things with the assessment of the portal tax. The Polish historiography also criticizes the donation practice of King Louis, however this policy can be considered as a rather conservative than revolutionary one, thus the king donated lands very avariciously to their supporters and under no circumstances can be proved with sources that he was subordinating all to the succession – as the author sums up. The government policy of Louis was assessed as negative by the former literature – based Шn tФe reЩШrts Шf Jan CzarnЦхЯ – judging by the statement that short after the king ascended the Polish throne, he removed his opponents form the key offices of the kingdom and granted it to his supporters. It is true that we can observe some mobility among the personnel of the office bearers, yet the fact remains that the holders of the high offices came from the same circle as under the reign of CasХmХr III, asХde frШm a sФШrt ХnterЧude Хn regard Шf tФe casteЧЧan s Шffice (starosta) in Greater Poland. There is no trace of new elite around King Louis as the former historiography stated. As to the restoration of the domains: it seems in the light of the sources that Louis simply took over the process that was already started during the reign of his predecessor. In conclusion, the book assesses the domestic policy issues of Louis the Great through a new point of view, involving a wide range of Polish historiography and this serves as a novum as well. The results of the research are new, supported by logical argumentation based on the comparison of the available sources and historical works of different authors. This kind of new approach will certainly raise academic disputes, hereby helping the better understanding of tФe tШЩХc. DánХeЧ ”agХ s exceЧЧent ЯШrЦ Хs enrХcФed ЯХtФ a German-language summary, a map and an index as well. Péter ”áЧХng UnХЮersХty Шf Pécs 204 BOOK REVIEW  MХddle Clergy Хn Várad Хn tФe Late MХddle “ges –1526) Ilona KRIST2F: EgyФázХ kчzépréteg Váradon a késш kчzépkorban –1526) Thesaurus Historiae Ecclesiasticae in Universitate Quinqueecclesiensi 4. Pécs. Ǌǈǉǌ. ǋǊǈ Щ. IЧШna KrХstхf s mШnШgraЩФ Хs tФe fШurtФ ЮШЧume Шf tФe set Шf CФurcФ HХstШry ResearcФ Centre Шf tФe UnХЮersХty Шf Pécs ЯФХcФ Хs tФe extended and revised version of the PhD thesis, defended with summa cum laude written in 2009 at the History and Ethnography PhD training, Faculty of Arts and Humanities at the University Шf Debrecen, Чed by LászЧх SШЧymШsХ. Várad ɭOradeaɮ Яas a Юery ХmЩШrtant cuЧt centre in the medieval Hungarian Kingdom and it was one of the richest bishopric. The detailed presentation of the ЩrebendaЧ cШrЩШratХШn ЩrХШr tШ MШФács fХts tФe Щresent researcФ ШrХentatХШn tФat fШcuses Шn tФe mХddЧe cЧergy. Jхzsef KчbЧчs made tФe fХrst complex examination of the medieval middle clergy in 1994, based on prosograpical methods by reviewХng tФe cФaЩters Шf ”uda, FeФérЮár, Gyшr, and PШzsШny ɭ”ratХsЧaЮaɮ.1 Tamás FedeЧes s ЯШrЦ Шn tФe catФedraЧ cФaЩter Шf Pécs frШm ǊǈǈǍ, ЯФХcФ ХncЧudes sХmХЧar methods, gives rope for comparison, tendencies and the presentation of the general phenomenon and local characteristics.2 IЧШna KrХstхf ɭǉǑǏǍɮ, ФХstШrХan, Фas been tФe teacher of the Department of Ancient and Medieval History at the Eszterhazy Karoly University for a decade. She Фas started deaЧХng ЯХtФ tФe ФХstШry Шf tФe cФaЩter Шf Várad durХng Фer studХes. Her specialty is the social, church and civilization history of the Hunyadi and Jagello era. Regarding these topics, she carried out research several times in Rome in the Vatican Archives and the Vatican Library. She is the member of Hungarian ɭCФurcФ HХstШry ResearcФ Centre, UnХЮersХty Шf Pécs. SФe Фas seЮeraЧ Щublications in Hungarian and foreign languages. The author sets 1440 out as the starting date of the research because at the beginning of the 1440s all the members of the chapter were replaced, the provostry Шf JánШs ZrednaХ Хn Várad dates bacЦ tШ tФХs Щeriod as well. She choose 1526 as the last year of the research (and not 1567 when the secularization of the chapter occurred), the reason was not just the fact that the Hungarian middle ages ended this year, but also the missing dignitaries and data related to the members of the corporation from the prebendal publications from 1525 and 1526, as well as, the Jхzsef K5”L5S:“z egyházi kчzépréteg Mátyás és a Jagellхk korában. (TársadaЧШm- és műЮeЧшdéstчrténetХ tanuЧmányШЦ ǉǊ.ɮ ”udaЩest. ǉǑǑǌ. 2 Tamás FEDELES: “ pécsi székeskáptalan személyi чsszetétele a késő kчzépkorban ɭǉǋǍǌ–1526). Pécs. ǊǈǈǍ. ɭTanuЧmányШЦ Pécs tчrténetébшЧ ǉǏ.ɮ FШr fШreХgn researcФ cШmЩare ЯХtФ German version of the volume: IDEM: Die personelle Zusammensetzung des Domkapitels zu F(nfkirchen im Spätmittelalter ɭǉǋǍǌ–1526). Regensburg. 2012. (Studia Hungarica. Bd. 51.) 1 205 BOOK REVIEW yШung bХsФШЩ, Ferenc PerényХ dХed Хn tФe battЧe Шf MШФács. KrХstхf dХd nШt Яant to undertake the archival quest and identification of the diplomas and writings, but ЯФere tФe recШnstructХШn Шf tФe ЩartХcuЧar Щrebends career Яas needed, sФe tackled the appointed constraints flexibly. TФe basХs Шf tФe researcФ Яas VХnce ”unyХtay s sХx-volume-long monograph from the 19th century,3 ЯФХcФ deaЧs ЯХtФ tФe ФХstШry Шf tФe bХsФШЩrХc Шf Várad, and is abounding in primary sources, but in many cases correction, addition is needed. TФe ЮШЧumes are unХque Хn cШntent as exceЩt fШr ÁrЩád Varga E. s artХcЧe4 published in 1980 dealing with the activity of the chapter, there is not a work dealing ЯХtФ tФe cФaЩter Шf Várad. TФe basХc sШurces Шf tФe ЮШЧume cШnsХsts Шf ЩrebendaЧ and canonical publications of the Hungarian National Archives DL-DF collection, approximately 1500 diplomas. As the contemporary documents (registrum divisorum, census, chapter archives) were absent, the author tried to judge by the charters from 1374 that regulate the operation and course of the canonical corp to their eЮeryday ЧХfe. TШ scШut tФe canШns famХЧy reЧatХШns and possessions, the author used dХfferent dШcuments cШnnected tШ bХsФШЩrХc Шf Várad, famХЧy dШcuments and PáЧ EngeЧ s dХgХtaЧ databases. WХtФ tФe ФeЧЩ Шf tФe unХЮersХty regХsters, tФeХr education could be found out. IЧШna KrХstхf fШЧЧШЯed tФe crХterХa and metФШds defХned and deЮХsed by Jхzsef KчbЧчs and Tamás FedeЧes Хn tФe fХrst Щart Шf Фer ЯШrЦ and aЩЩЧХed tФem Шn tФe cФaЩter Шf Várad. In tФe fХrst ЩaragraЩФ ɭǉǍ–18) she presents the short historiographical summary of the chosen topic, while in the second division (19–28) she reviews the medieval history and structure of the chapter. In the third division (29–30) she analyzes the practice of acquiring living and the admission into the corporation in the fourth chapter (31–59). She examined the origin of the canons (baron – 0%, gentry – 36%, burgess – 21%, villein – 9% – supposedly their proportion is larger, foreigner – 2%, questionable – 32% because of it the author made a careful consclusion) and then she examined the ways of the acquiring of the living (territorial or ecclesiastic connections, cousinship, ecclesiastic patron, royal service). The fifth division (60–85) gives information about the opportunities, tasks and adЮantages Шf tФe cФaЩter s members derХЮХng frШm tФe ЧХЮХng. UnХЮersХty studies had prominent role (32% of the canons attended university abroad and 67% of them acquired degree) and it reveals that the prebends financed their studies from their extant fortune, and they did not acquired their position (stallum) in the corporation after theХr return. IЧШna KrХstхf summarХzed tФe questХШns Шf tФe pastoral service and the residentia. She treated separately the accumulation of benefices (cumulatio beneficiorum, which was 25%) and promotion from the chapter (15% of the members of the chapter). In the sixth division (86–90) according to the criteria used at the examination of the cathedral chapter – because of the lack of sources – tФe autФШr made sФШrt summarХes abШut cШЧЧegХate cФaЩters Шf Várad ɭTФe Чesser ”Чessed VХrgХn Mary CФurcФ – the greater been the cathedral chapter, St John the Baptist Church in the fortress, St Stephen Protomartyr Convention). Vince BUNYITAY: “ váradi p(spчkség tчrténete. I–VI. NagyЮárad – Debrecen. 1883–1935. ÁrЩád VARGAɣ “ ЮáradХ ЦáЩtaЧan ФХteЧesФeЧyХ műЦчdése. In: Művelődéstчrténeti tanulmányok. Ed. Elek CSETRI – Zsigmond J“K2 – GábШr SIPOS – SándШr TONK. Bukarest. 1980. 3 4 206 BOOK REVIEW In the seventh division (91–108) the author presents the types of careers set by the different levels of benefice, and illustrates them with individual careers. 1. The provincial or local canons came frШm tФe Várad regХШn through relatives or acquaintances, or the church was their landlord, there was not much mobility in this group, the work of loca credibilia was partly their responsability, their experience and knowledge about the place compensated the lack of the university studies, only the dignitary prebend was accessible for them, most of the archdeacons came from this group. 2. The invisible prebends came from remote parts of country, acquired prebend through ecclesiastic and familial patrons, their names was noted very rareЧy Шr neЮer Хn tФe cФaЩter ЩubЧХcatХШns as tФey dХd nШt resХde Хn Várad, tФe majority of them had university degree, their prebend was mainly income supplement, episcopal positions were also accessible for them. The other types are the dignitaries (lectors, cantors, custoses) and the provosts. TФe autФШr examХned tФe aЩЩearance Шf tФe ФumanХsm Хn Várad Хn tФe secШnd Щart Шf tФe ЯrХtХng. JánШs ZrednaХ VХtéz gets an Хmportant role. As a novel approach, the literary historical research findings are compared with data in diplomas regarding his character, political career, patronage activity and his humanist court. In the eighth division (111–ǉǋǌɮ IЧШna KrХstхf anaЧyzed the problem of the existence and cФrШnШЧШgy Шf tФe VХtéz-cХrcЧe and tФe career Шf GergeЧy SzánШЦХ. SФe ЩaХd special attention on the chapter that transformed in the 1460s and 1470s as well the ФumanХsts Шf Várad frШm tФe begХnnХng Шf tФe ǉǎth century ɭSebestyén MagyХ, MártШn HacaЦХ, JánШs HencЦeЧɮ. In tФe nХntФ dХЮХsХШn ɭǉǋǍ–166), the author touches upon the culture of books and libraries. Books appear as the manifestation of the prebendal literacy. Beside the chapter library, scriptorium, the author also presents tФe ЩrebendaЧ, eЩХscШЩaЧ cШЧЧectХШns tФat can be cШnnected tШ Várad, and ФХgФЧХgФted JánШs ZrednaХ s ЧХbrary. TФe tentФ dХЮХsХШn ɭǉǎǏ–170) is the summary, where the author demonstrates that nearly half of the canons (44%) are from the neighborhood Шf Várad Шr frШm tФe nearby cШuntХes and mШre tФan Ǎǈ% Шf tФe dХgnХtarХes came from faraway parts of the country. The provincial (local) canons generally possess their prebends for nine years while those coming from other part of the country for six years. The chapter corporation was very reserved towards the cathedral clergy. The prebend of the dignitaries was a great way to end the smaller and middle-sized careers, tФe autФШr caЧЧs Хt resШurcefuЧЧy ЩarЦХng ЩЧace ɭas tФe Щrebends Хn Várad meant a huge amount of income). There were two periods when bigger influx could be experienced from outside of the bishopric: in the 1440s and 1460s connected to JánШs VХtéz as ЯeЧЧ as at tФe begХnnХng Шf tФe ǉǎth century, tФrШugФ SzatmárХ-TФurzхPerényХ bХsФШЩs and tФe PerényХ family. The third part of the writing (Appendix) includes the data collection of the 180 people (130 canons from cathedral chapter and 50 from collegiate chapter) from the examined period (185–265). This prosopographical data collection was the basis of the research. The author also details biographies of those who cannot be consХdered sureЧy canШns Шf Várad desЩХte Шf tФe statements Шf ЩreЮХШus autФШrs ɭVХd HundЧer suffragan bХsФШЩ, Tamás MajtényХ admХnХstratШr, Gyчrgy SzegedХ guardХanɮ. KrХstхf ЩrШЮed tФat tЯШ ЩeШЩЧe ɭ“ntaЧ SánЦfaЧЮХ canШn Шf catФedraЧ cФaЩter and Péter OrШsz, Щrebend, ЩrШЮШstɮ Яere nШt canШns Шf Várad ɭǊǎǎ–268). She collected the altars of the cathedral (269–274, 276) and the chapels (275). She summarized her findХngs abШut tФe cФaЩter Шf Várad Хn cФarts ɭǊǏǑ–299 and in the 207 BOOK REVIEW textɮ. TФey ХncЧude tФe number Шf tФe cФaЩter Шf Várad, ЮХcars, ШrdХnary and auxiliary bishops, deans, ordinary canons, the catchment area of the chapter, the studies of the canons at the universities, the duration of their studies, degrees acquired by them, accumulation of benefices, ЩrШmШtХШn frШm tФe cФaЩter Шf Várad, tФe books of the canons and bishops. She compared it with findings about canons frШm KчbЧчs and FedeЧes, fШr examЩЧe tФe origin of canons and their studies. She also made maps (in the text) for example about the origin of the canons from cathedral and collegiate chapter, their further prebends and their university studies. She also enclosed an index with the locations (territories, counties and stations) and people (ecclesiastic and secular people, historiographers and historians) (309– 312) and ended with a summary in English (313–318). IЧШna KrХstхf jШХned tФe ХnХtХatХЮe encШuraged by Jхzsef KчbЧчs and Tamás Fedeles that an archontological and prosopographical edition should be made about the Hungarian chapters. Her writing could become a basic source for cФurcФ, ЧaЯ and cuЧture ФХstШrХans ЯФШ study Várad Хn tФХs ЩerХШd. “s tФe ФХstШrХcaЧ recШrds Шf tФe ”ХsФШЩrХc Шf NagyЮárad (Oradea) should be modernized, the reorganization of the dioecesis would guarantee adequate database for it.  Tamás ”éЧfenyérХ ”abe;-Bolyai University The Papacy and Hungary in the First Half of the 13th Century Papal influence – cooperation – clash of interests Gábor B“R“”ÁS: “ pápaság és Magyarország a . század elsш felében. PáЩaХ Фatás – Egy(ttműЦчdés – ÉrdeЦeЧЧentét Thesaurus Historiae Ecclesiasticae in Universitate Quinqueecclesiensi 5. Pécs. ǊǈǉǍ. ǋǍǋ. Щ. TФe Щresent ЯШrЦ Хs tФe fХrst HungarХan mШnШgraЩФ Шf GábШr ”arabás and tФe edited version of his dissertation submitted in 2013 to the University of Erlangen (Friedrich-“Чexander UnХЮersХtät ErЧangen-N(rnberg) as a contribution to the research project called „PäЩstЧХcФ geЩrägte IntegratХШnsЩrШzesse Хn Ost- und Westeuropa (11.–13. Jh.) – UnХЮersaЧe EХnФeХt Шder ЮereХnФeХtЧХcФte VХeЧfaЧt . TФХs work is the Hungarian publication of the dissertation that was edited in the series Шf tФe MedХeЮaЧ CФurcФ HХstШry ResearcФ Center Шf tФe UnХЮersХty Шf Pécs as tФe fifth book of the series in 2015. GábШr ”arabás Хs a feЧЧШЯ researcФer at tФe UnХЮersХty Шf Pécs, besХdes a researcФer Шf medХeЮaЧ cФurcФ ФХstШry. The author analyzes in his book the papal-Hungarian relations in the first half of the 13th century (the selected period covers the pontificates of Innocent III, Honorius III, and Gregory IX (1198–1241)), based on the old sources, but with new questions and aspects. The central question is: which concrete tools were used in 208 BOOK REVIEW Hungary among the possible papal devices of the era (for example: legati, canon law, letters or papal delegate jurisdiction). In tФХs mШnШgraЩФy ”arabás anaЧyses tФe earЧХer mentХШned asЩects Хn tЯШ large chapters, those fall into ten subsections, which are composed of (aggregateЧyɮ ǋǏ ШtФer subsectХШns tФat Хs sФШЯХng tФe ЯШrЦ s cШmЩЧexХty. TФХs Хs framed by a preface and a summarising chapter, which are well contextualized and also suitably sum the issues of the research. The author presents the aspects of the papal-Hungarian connections in the first bigger part, while in the second one he analyses those connections in a thematic way. After the main parts 18 pages of appendix improve the work, which are connected to the thematic synthesis. They can supplement the earlier presented results of the research and summarize the described points. After the preface, – which reviews the aims and methods of the original project together with the frame of the work, and gives a summary about the earlier results of the papal-Hungarian researches – in the first larger thematic part the author begins with the theoretical foreground, which is followed by the specialities of the papal legations. After that the spread of the canon law, the operation of the papal delegated jurisdiction and the influence of the papal chancellery are analysed, as their eventuel relevance for Hungary and their specialities. In the next chapter the focus is on the diplomatic analyses, which is the lockup of the next larger thematic part. In this next unit the papal-Hungarian connections are thematically analysed. At the beginning of the chapter the diplomatic aspects of the mentioned relations are described: quarrels within the royal family, primarily the fight of King Emery ЯХtФ PrХnce “ndreЯ, but aЧsШ tФe Чatter s quarreЧ as ЦХng ЯХtФ ФХs sШn, tФe future KХng ”éЧa IV. TФe Хssue Шf tФe crusade can be assШcХated ЯХtФ tФese cШnfЧХcts, as tФe popes themselves also did so. The problems of the non-Christian inhabitants of Hungary also represent an important topic of the relations; which matter besides the religious issue has economic and financial aspects too. The Hungarian episode in the history of the Teutonic Order provides an example of a scenario when papal actions could be undesirable for the Hungarian king. The papal protection of laymen and the effects of the Mongol invasion are the last topics of the chapter. The next bigger part includes the issues of the unity of the faith, the fight against the so called heretics and the idea of uniting the eastern orthodox churches with Rome. The conversion of the Cumans living south-east from the Carpathians together with the creation a new bishopric for them, and finally the so-called Syrmia-question are dealt with as well. In the last chapters the cases related to the Church administration, litigations and apostolic examinations in cases of breaking the discipline of the Church, legal disputes between certain churches and clerics before papal courts and finally the role of laymen in the papal litigations are analysed. After the conclusion the reader finds the list of used sources and literature, which is followed by various charts helping to understand the nature of the research. The charts are as follows: 1. Papal representatives in Hungary (1198–1241). 2. Papal charters to their legates (1198–1241). 3. Charters of the legates (1198–1241). 4. Litigations examined by papal judges-delegate (1198–1241). This is followed by an English and a German summary. 209 BOOK REVIEW It typifies the complexity of the work that it contains over 300 pages and 2674 notes, so there are 9 notes per pages to help the readers. The notes are not simple references, since in many cases the cited sources can be found there as well, so the aЩЩrecХatХЮe reader can fШЧЧШЯ tФe autФШr s cШncЧusХШns, and tФere Хs nШ need tШ even turn the page. The thematic synthesis of the work contributes to its transparency, which is especially important, since the book is a large work. The author published his own dissertation as the present volume, – as quasi a fine tuning – what made an effect on the genre and structure of the book unconventionally. TФe Щresent ЯШrЦ Шf GábШr ”arabás Яas published in German as well,1 so the book will be more popular also abroad. IstЮán KШЮács UnХЮersХty Шf Pécs  Barbara J. SHAPIRO: Political Communication and Political Culture in England, 1558–1688. Stanford. Stanford University Press. 2012. 403 p. The monograph of Barbara J. Shapiro (University of California, Berkeley) published recently on the theme of early modern political communication and political culture, analyses the topic from a wide range of horizon (from the angles of genres, means and the public). The book consists of 10 chapters beginning with an Introduction in which the author lays down the method of the analysis, stating that the concept of genre itself has to be understood widely because the works falling into the field of political discourse did not always fit into a strict category, and in addition to that, the genres themselves were also changing during the period in question. The nature of political communication and its impact, similarly to political participation, was to a great extent determined by the level of literacy and the years of education one received, but even the illiterate and those with lower level of education were not excluded from having information on political events. News spreading by the words of mouth, gossips and verse-like formulations of public events, celebrations, processions and even executions were burdened with a political message understandable to all. The reasons for the chronological limits pinpointed in the title are also justified in the introduction. Chapter 2 bears the title News, Information and Political Controversy and underlines the common interest of the age in information on political events which is attested even by the widespread use of the phrase as a general form of address, WФat neЯs? amШng aЧЧ Чayers Шf tФe sШcХety. LШndШn ЩЧayed a Цey rШЧe Хn ЩrХnting and spreading news, with the neighbourhood of the stock exchange and St GábШr B“R“”ÁS: Das Papsttum und Ungarn in der ersten Hälfte des ǉǋ. Jahrhunderts ɭca. ǉǉǑǐ– ca. 1241). Päpstliche Einflussnahme – Zusammenwirken – Interessengegensätze. Wien. 2014. (Publikationen der ungarischen Geschichtsforschung in Wien. Bd. VI.) 1 210 BOOK REVIEW PauЧ s “Юe beХng tФe mШst ХmЩШrtant ЩЧaces Шf ХnfШrmatХШn excФange. TФШugФ tФe author is aware of the fact that she can rely mostly on printed materials in her research, she does not exclude other channels communicating on political events such as private correspondence, festivals, and last but not least the new role played by coffee houses. Chapter 3 (Empirical Political Description) deals with the memories of travellers, diplomats, and these sources, as usual, give not only the description of a given cШuntry s geШgraЩФХcaЧ ЧШcatХШn besХdes Хts fЧШra and fauna but aЧsШ cШntaХns references to the political system. This genre first came into its own in the Italian peninsula but from the 16th century it became popular in England as well. Shapiro presents what kind of stereotypes were current among the English people about the United Provinces (considered democratic) France (conceived an absolute monarchy); news, however, got to England on the state of more distant and remote countries such as Poland, Sweden or the Ottoman Empire respectively. The latter, together with Russia, was seen as the most absolutist polity built on slavery and standing army. As for the most remote territories, such as the Far East, they were known to the English only through secondary literature, via translations of DutcФ and FrencФ ЯШrЦsɣ JaЩan s gШЮernment Яas seen as desЩШtХc and its people diligent and reserved, but belligerent. Chapter 4 (Historical Writing and Political Thought) analyses the relationship between these two genres. During the period indicated in the title there was hardly anyone who doubted the educational role of History because the examples of the past served as a compass for the present not only in moral behaviour but also in political action. English history-writing, strangely enough, is discussed by Shapiro beginning from period of the Anglo-Saxon Age: Church History, the influence exerted on English political thought by the Roman past of Britain, the idea of republicanism are each presented in separate sections. History was, of course, seen as moving under divine guidance. According to tФe autФШr SХr WaЧter RaЧeХgФ s ЯШrЦ, tФe History of the World was perhaps the most influential book emphasizing the role of Providence in History. The way of thinking in analogies, characteristic of the age, often compared rulers with one of the leaders of the chosen peoples (Moses, Solomon or David) – but King Charles I (treated as martyr) was explicitly likened to Christ himself. Chapter 5 entitled Drama and Political Education discusses the role of the masque which (combining visual effects, dance, and verbal utterings) was an exclusive genre of court culture, and as such it strengthened social hierarchy by delineating courtly circles from the rest of the society. The other topic treated here is historical drama played in theatres: this genre was based on historical events but it was open, more or less, to free interpretation. Theatre plays were criticized by some people because they saw in them a rival to attendance of the church and a thing distracting people from pious activities. Chapter 6 (Politics, Poetry and Literature) points out that reading verses (of different genre) and prosaic literature was a honoured form of entertainment widely practised but we should not think that these genres were the exclusive domain of the literate circles for short sarcastic verses rarely appeared in print. Rather, they spread by the word of mouth and ballads were often read out not only at home but also publicly at certain places. Moreover, ballads either in manuscript form or 211 BOOK REVIEW printed were often put on church doors, sometimes even placed within the church among the benches, or were sold in pubs, inns and markets. The author devotes space to a genre called caricature which was especially popular between 1641–1660, and during the Restoration it was used to label and ridicule opponents, a practice contributing to the hardening of tory and whig stereotypes. Fabulas based on the work of Aesopus were also used for implanting political values. Chapter 7 (The Sermon and Political Education) shows the role played by the pulpit in disseminating political ideas. Most important sermons were even printed to get a ЯХder audХence. TФe ЩuЧЩХt erected at St PauЧ s CrШss Яas esЩecХaЧЧy Хmportant and was used to communicate political ideas to the public from the 14th century on – preachers who spoke here were carefully selected by the mayor or the bishop of London. Sermons of itinerant royal judges were also means of spreading political notions, notably the divine origin of government. Chapter 8 (Observation and Participation) covers a wide scale of events ranging from royal entries, processions, coronations to public flogging and court trials. But besides these dynamic means the chapter also includes static forms of political teaching such as public sculptures, decoration of buildings etc. The so-called sumptuary prescriptions and the representation of authority on game-cards are also treated as means conveying political message. The author, at the same time, calls attention to the importance of the right of petitioning authorities by groups and individuals as well, a practice widely used by the people. Chapter 9 (Law, Politics and the Legal System) discusses the many types of law (divine, natural, common law and so on) under which the English people lived, stating that their relationship to each other was often not clear at all which pushed the argumentation towards the concepts of public good and reason of state. The author clarifies the notion of royal prerogative and role of parliament in politics and touches upon the issue of oath as a special feature of English legal and political life. Chapter 10 is a lengthy Conclusion which underlines that the two main issues of political culture were monarchy and religion, and English political culture was deeply religious throughout the period. No wonder that there was a constant desire to achieve religious unity – despite the fact that it proved to be impossible reach this goal. As a conclusion of this review it can be said that the book is very useful and appealing to everyone interested in early modern political communication but vital to all scholars dealing with Early Modern England. MargХt PáЧffy ”aЧШgФné UnХЮersХty Шf Pécs 212 REL“TED PU”LIC“TIONS RELATED PUBLICATIONS László K“TUS The History of the Relations between South-Slaves and Hungarians I. From the beginnings to HungarХan Pécs. ǉǑǑǐ. ǐǈ Щ. László KOSZT“ “ctivity of Delivering of Charts at the Chapter of Pécs – HungarХan TanuЧmányШЦ Pécs tчrténetébшЧ ǌ. Pécs Tчrténete “ЧaЩйtЮány Pécs, ǉǑǑǐ. ǋǊǌ Щ. + ХЧЧustratХШns ISSN ǉǊǉǑ–ǌǈǏǏ Pécs in the Ottoman Era Ed. Ferenc SZ“KÁLY ЮarХШus autФШrs HungarХan TanuЧmányШЦ Pécs tчrténetébшЧ Ǐ. Pécs Tчrténete “ЧaЩйtЮány Pécs. ǉǑǑǑ. ǋǊǍ Щ. ISSN ǉǊǉǑ–ǌǈǏǏ 214 RELATED PUBLICATIONS Studies in memoriam Ede Petrovich Ed. Márta FONT – Dezsш V“RGH“ ЮarХШus autФШrs HungarХan TanuЧmányШЦ Pécs tчrténetébшЧ ǐ. Pécs Tчrténete “ЧaЩйtЮány Pécs. ǉǑǑǑ. ǉǌǉ Щ. ISSN ǉǊǉǑ–ǌǈǏǏ Mittelalterliche Häuser und Strassen in Mitteleuropa Hrsg. ЮШn Márta FONT and MárХa SÁNDOR ЮarХШus autФШrs German, EngЧХsФ VarХa “rcФaeШЧШgХca HungarХca IX, RedХgХt Csanád ”ÁLINT ”udaЩest – Pécs. Ǌǈǈǈ. ǊǊǌ Щ IS”N Ǒǎǋ ǏǋǑ ǉǏǏ ǈ The First Thousend Years of the Hungarian State Eds. Márta FONT – IstЮán K“JTÁR ЮarХШus autФШrs HungarХan Pécs. Ǌǈǈǈ. Ǌǎǌ Щ. IS”N Ǒǎǋ ǎǌǉ ǐǈǊ ǈ 215 RELATED PUBLICATIONS Pécs before the Defeat at Mohács Ed. Márta FONT ЮarХШus autФШrs HungarХan TanuЧmányШЦ Pécs tчrténetébшЧ Ǒ. Pécs Tчrténete “ЧaЩйtЮány Pécs. Ǌǈǈǉ. Ǌǈǐ Щ. ISSN ǉǊǉǑ–ǌǈǏǏ Die ungarische Universitätsbildung und Europa Ed. Márta FONT and LászЧх SZ5GI ЮarХШus autФШrs German, EngЧХsФ Pécs. Ǌǈǈǉ. ǊǋǍ Щ. IS”N Ǒǎǋ ǎǌǉ ǐǊǎ ǐ Márta FONT Koloman the Learned, King of Hungary TransЧ.ɣ MхnХЦa MIKLÁN EngЧХsФ SzegedХ KчzéЩЦШrász MűФeЧy Szeged. Ǌǈǈǉ. ǉǉǈ Щ., + Ǌǈ ХЧЧustratХШns, Ǌ maЩs IS”N Ǒǎǋ ǌǐǊ ǍǊǉ ǌ 216 RELATED PUBLICATIONS Ferenc VÉGH: History of the Construction of the ”order Castle Keszthely Fifteenth-Sixteenth Centuries HungarХan Pécs ǊǈǈǊ. ǉǈǊ Щ. Studies in memoriam József Koller Eds. Márta FONT – Dezsш V“RGH“ ЮarХШus autФШrs HungarХan TanuЧmányШЦ Pécs tчrténetébшЧ ǉǋ. Pécs Tчrténete “ЧaЩйtЮány Pécs. Ǌǈǈǋ. ǋǈǑ Щ. + ХЧЧustratХШns ISSN ǉǊǉǑ–ǌǈǏǏ Tamás FEDELES The Personnel of the Chapter of Pécs in the Late Middle “ges – HungarХan TanuЧmányШЦ Pécs tчrténetébшЧ ǉǏ. Pécs Tчrténete “ЧaЩйtЮány Pécs ǊǈǈǍ. ǌǏǑ Щ. + Ǐ maЩs ISSN ǉǊǉǑ–ǌǈǏǏ 217 RELATED PUBLICATIONS Márta FONT Kings of the “rpads and Princes of Rurikids HungarХan SzegedХ KчzéЩЦШrtчrténetХ KчnyЮtár Ǌǉ. SzegedХ KчzéЩЦШrász MűФeЧy Szeged. ǊǈǈǍ. ǋǋǈ Щ. + ǐ maЩs IS”N Ǒǎǋ ǌǐǊ ǏǊǎ ǐ ISSN ǉǊǉǎ–ǋǉǊǈ Márta FONT Geschichtsschreibung des . Jahrhunderts an der Grenze zweier Kulturen. Das Königreich Ungarn und das F(rstentum Halitsch-Wolhynien German “bФandЧungen der GeХstes- und sШzХaЧЯХssenscФaftЧХcФen KЧasse JaФrgang ǊǈǈǍ nr. ǋ. “ЦademХe der WХssenscФaften und der LХteratur, MaХnz Stuttgart. ǊǈǈǍ. ǌǐ Щ. + ХЧЧustratХШns IS”N ǋ–ǍǉǍ–ǈǐǏǉǍ–X Márta FONT In the Course of Christian Powers. Central and EastEurope in the th– thCenturies HungarХan ”aЧassХ KХadх ”udaЩest. ǊǈǈǍ. ǋǊǎ Щ. + ǉǌ maЩs, ХЧЧustratХШns IS”N Ǒǎǋ Ǎǈǎ ǎǉǈ ǌ 218 RELATED PUBLICATIONS DánХel ”“GI Gallus “nonymus and Hungary HungarХan IrШdaЧШmtчrténetХ f(zeteЦ ǉǍǏ. “rgumentum ”udaЩest. ǊǈǈǍ. ǊǏǎ Щ. IS”N Ǒǎǋ ǌǌǎ ǋǍǍ X HU ISSN ǈǈǏǍ-ǈǐǌǈ ”álХnt R“D2 King James VI I s Political Theology HungarХan PécsХ HХttudШmányХ FшХsЦШЧa Pécs. ǊǈǈǍ. ǋǍǉ Щ. IS”N Ǒǎǋ ǏǍǑǋ Ǐǉ ǋ Endre S“SH“LMI Essay on the Evolution of the State in Western Europe HungarХan PannШnХca ”udaЩest. Ǌǈǈǎ. ǉǑǑ Щ. IS”N Ǒǎǋ ǏǋǉǑ ǉǑ ǈ Gergely KISS – ”álХnt R“D2 – Endre S“SH“LMI “bsolutism and Divin Right Sourcebook HungarХan Magyar EgyФáztчrténetХ EncХЦЧШЩédХa MunЦaЦчzчsség ”udaЩest. Ǌǈǈǎ. ǉǋǐ Щ. IS”N Ǒǎǋ ǐǌǏǊ Ǒǐ Ǐ 219 RELATED PUBLICATIONS Gergely KISS “bbatia regalia [!] – hierarchia ecclesiastica. The Canonical State of the Royal ”enedictine Monasteries in the eleventh– therteenth Centuries HungarХan Magyar EgyФáztчrténetХ EncХЦЧШЩédХa MunЦaЦчzчsség ”udaЩest. Ǌǈǈǎ. ǊǊǏ Щ. IS”N Ǒǎǋ ǐǌǏǊ ǑǑ Ǎ Márta Font – Endre S“SH“LMI State, Power, Ideology Studies on the Caracteristics of the Russian History HungarХan PannШnХca KХadх ”udaЩest. ǊǈǈǏ. ǊǍǎ Щ. +ǋ maЩs IS”N ǑǏǐ Ǒǎǋ ǏǋǉǑ ǊǑ Ǐ Márta FONT – Tamás FEDELES – Gergely KISS – Kata KÁLSECZ R“FF“YNÉ Government in Hungary – HungarХan PécsХ TudШmányegyetem Pécs. ǊǈǈǏ. ǉǍǉ Щ. + Ǎ fХgures IS”N ǑǏǐ Ǒǎǋ ǎǌǊ ǉǐǋ ǈ 220 RELATED PUBLICATIONS Gallus “nonymus, Chronicle and Deeds of Polish Princes or Dukes TransЧ. and ed. DánХeЧ ”“GI HungarХan “rgumentum ”udaЩest. ǊǈǈǏ. ǋǈǎ Щ. IS”N ǑǏǐ–Ǒǎǋ–ǌǌǎ–ǌǎǍ–Ǎ Sashalmi Endre (ed.): Eastern Europe and tФe ”alkans –1800 Intellectual-historical Constructions or Real Historical Regions? Ed. Endre Sashalmi various authors Hungarian Kelet-EurхЩa és ”aЧЦán TanuЧmányШЦ ǌ. PécsХ TudШmányegyetem KeЧet-EurхЩa és a ”aЧЦán Tчrténete és KuЧtúrája KutatásХ KчzЩШnt Pécs. 2007. 446 p. ISBN 978–963–642–207–3 ISSN 1587–9887 Ferenc VÉGH: On the ”order of Empires – On the Coast of Lake ”alaton ”order Castle Keszthely in the Fifteenth–Sixteenth Centuries HungarХan ”udaЩest. ǊǈǈǏ. ǋǌǑ Щ. IS”N ǑǏǐ Ǒǎǋ ǐǏǊǍǑ ǉ Ǌ 221 RELATED PUBLICATIONS Studies in Honour of György Szatmári Ed. Tamás FEDELES HungarХan EgyФáztчrténetХ TanuЧmányШЦ a PécsХ EgyФázmegye TчrténetébшЧ III. PécsХ EgyФázmegye EgyФáztчrténetХ ”ХzШttság ”udaЩest – Pécs. ǊǈǈǏ. ǉǋǈ Щ., ХЧЧustratХШns, maЩs IS”N ǑǏǐ Ǒǎǋ ǑǎǎǊ ǉǋ ǉ ISSN ǉǏǐǐ ǑǌǑǑ DánХel ”“GI Hungarian Kings in the Gallus “nonymus Chronicle PШЧХsФ KraЦхЯ. Ǌǈǈǐ. Ǌǋǐ Щ. IS”N ǑǏǐ–ǐǋ–ǎǈǉǐǋ–Ǒǈ–ǐ Márta FONTɣ Im Spannungfeld der christlichen Großmächte Mittel- und Osteuropa im .– . Jahrhundert German GabrХeЧe ScФäfer VerЧag Herne. ǊǈǈǑ. ǋǏǉ S. + ǉǍ IЧЧustratХШnen IS”N ǑǏǐ–ǋ–ǑǋǋǋǋǏ–ǌǏ–ǌ Márta FONTɣ Foundation of the State History of Hungary . HungarХan ”udaЩest. ǊǈǈǑ. ǉǈǌ Щ. IS”N ǑǏǐ–Ǒǎǋ–ǈǑ–Ǎǎǐǈ–Ǌ 222 – RELATED PUBLICATIONS The Medieval Centuries – History of the Diocese of Pécs Vol I. Eds. Tamás FEDELES – GábШr S“R”“K – Jхzsef SÜMEGI HungarХan Fény KХadх Pécs. ǊǈǈǑ. ǏǉǍ+CCLXXIX Щ., ǊǉǏ ХЧЧustratХШns, ǉǏ maЩs IS”N ǑǏǐ–Ǒǎǋ–ǐǐǍǏǊ–ǉ–Ǐ 5 ǑǏǐ–Ǒǎǋ–ǐǐǍǏǊ–ǈ–ǈ Loca Credibilia. Places of Authentication in the medieval Hungary Ed. Tamás FEDELES – Irén ”ILKEI HungarХan EgyФáztчrténetХ TanuЧmányШЦ a PécsХ EgyФázmegye TчrténetébшЧ IV. PécsХ EgyФázmegye EgyФáztчrténetХ ”ХzШttság Pécs. ǊǈǈǑ. ǉǌǋ Щ. IS”N ǑǏǐ–Ǒǎǋ–ǈǎ–ǏǑǊǊ–ǈ HU ISSN ǉǏǐǐ–ǑǌǑǑ Churchmen Portraits from the Diocese of Pécs Eds. Tamás FEDELES – ZШЧtán KOVÁCS – Jхzsef SÜMEGI HungarХan EgyФáztчrténetХ tanuЧmányШЦ a PécsХ EgyФázmegyébшЧ V. PécsХ EgyФázmegye EgyФáztчrténetХ ”ХzШttság Pécs. ǊǈǈǑ. ǊǑǋ Щ. IS”N ǑǏǐ–Ǒǎǋ–ǈǎ–ǏǑǊǋ–Ǐ HU ISSN ǉǏǐǐ–ǑǌǑǑ 223 RELATED PUBLICATIONS Dinasty, Power, Church Formation of Regions in the Middle of Europe (c. 900 – 1453) Ed. Márta FШnt Divers authors Hungarian PTE Pécs. Ǌǈǉǉ. 650 p. IS”N ǑǏǐ–Ǒǎǋ–ǎǌǊ–ǋǉǈ–ǈ T“MÁS FEDELES: “nd then we catch sight of Pécs. The Medieval History of Pécs –1526) Hungarian Pro Pannonia KХadх “ЧaЩйtЮány Pécs. 2011. 198 p. IS”N ǑǏǐ Ǒǎǋ ǑǐǑǋ ǌǏǋ ǎ ISSN ǈǊǋǏ ǌǊǏǏ T“MÁS FEDELES – LÁSZL2 KOSZT“: Pécs F(nfkirchen . Das ”istum und die ”ischofsstadt im Mittelalter German PubЧХЦatХШnen der UngarХscФen GescФХcФtsfШrscФung Хn WХen ”d. II., InstХtut f(r UngarХscФe GescФХcФtsfШrscФung Хn WХen, CШЧЧegХum HungarХcum WХen. Ǌǈǉǉ. 287 p. IS”N 978 963 8844 538 224 RELATED PUBLICATIONS TÍME“ ”2TOR: From the Mongol Dependence to the Independent Souvereign. “ History of Muscovy in the Light of the Grand Princes Testaments – HungarХan RussХca PannШnХca RuszХsztХЦaХ KчnyЮeЦ XXVIII ”udaЩest. ǊǈǉǊ. ǋǌǊ Щ. IS”N ǑǏǐ Ǒǎǋ ǏǏǋǈ ǎǎ Ǎ In the Schape of the „Middle-Europe Honorary Studies Dedicated to Márta Font Eds. DánХeЧ ”“GI – Tamás FEDELES – GergeЧy KISS HungarХan KrШnШsz Pécs. ǊǈǉǊ. 605 p. IS”N 978–963–642–455–8 Levente N“GY: Cities, Martyrs and Relics of Pannonia HungarХan Thesaurus Historiae Ecclesiasticae in Universitate Quinqueecclesiensi 1. PécsХ TudШmányért KuЧturáЧХs Egyes(Чet Pécs. 2012. 228 p. IS”N 978–963–89482–1–2 225 RELATED PUBLICATIONS LÁSZL2 KOSZTA: The Formation of the Archdiocese of Kalocsa Hungarian Thesaurus Historiae Ecclesiasticae in Universitate Quinqueecclesiensi 2. PécsХ TudШmányért KuЧturáЧХs Egyes(Чet Pécs. Ǌǈǉǋ. ǉǍǈ Щ. IS”N ǑǏǐ–Ǒǎǋ–ǐǑǌǐǊ–Ǌ–Ǒ Endre S“SH“LMI Succession and Divine Right Under the Reign of Peter the Great. Written Sources and Iconography HungarХan KrШnШsz Pécs. Ǌǈǉǋ. ǉǐǍ Щ. IS”N ǑǏǐ–ǎǉǍ–ǍǋǋǑ–ǈǊ–ǐ Gergely KISS Royal Churches in Medieval Hungary HungarХan Thesaurus Historiae Ecclesiasticae in Universitate Quinqueecclesiensi 3. PécsХ TudШmányért KuЧturáЧХs Egyes(Чet Pécs. Ǌǈǉǋ. Ǌǈǐ Щ. IS”N ǑǏǐ–Ǒǎǋ–ǎǌǊǌǌ–Ǌ–ǐ 226 RELATED PUBLICATIONS About the Crowns. A Manuscript form the 18th Century as the Document of the Russian-Hungarian Cultural Relations RussХan-HungarХan IRI R“N – PTE Moscow – Pécs. Ǌǈǉǋ. ǊǍǌ Щ. IS”N ǑǏǐ–Ǎǐǈ–ǍǍǈǊ–Ǎǐǌ Márta FONT Völker – Kultur – ”eziehungen Zur Entstehung der Regionen in der Mitte des mittelalterlichen Europa German VerЧag Dr. KШЮač. Hamburg. Ǌǈǉǋ. ǋǏǈ Щ. IS”N ǑǏǐ–ǋ–ǐǋǈǈ–ǏǈǏǋ–ǋ Gábor ”“R“”ÁS Das Papsttum und Ungarn in der ersten Hälfte des 13. Jahrhunderts (ca. 1198– ca. 1241) Päpstliche Einflussnahme – Zusammenwirken – Interessengegensätze German PubЧХЦatХШnen der ungarХscФen GescФХcФtsfШrscФung Хn WХen ”d. VI. InstХtut f(r UngarХscФe GescФХcФtsfШrscФung Хn WХen, CШЧЧegХum HungarХcum. WХen. Ǌǈǉǌ. ǌǌǐ Щ. IS”N 978–615–5389–31–3 227 RELATED PUBLICATIONS Ilona KrХstóf: Middle Clergy in Várad Oradea in the Late Middle Ages (1440–1526) HungarХan TФesaurus HХstШrХae EccЧesХastХcae Хn UnХЮersХtate QuХnqueeccЧesХensХ ǌ PécsХ TudШmányért KuЧturáЧХs Egyes(Чet Pécs, Ǌǈǉǋ, ǋǊǈ Щ. IS”N ǑǏǐ–Ǒǎǋ–ǐǑǌǐ–Ǌǌ–ǋ DánХel ”“GI The Angevins in Cracow HungarХan KrШnШsz Pécs. Ǌǈǉǌ. ǉǌǏ Щ. IS”N 978–615–5339–71–4 László K“TUS The History of Europe in the Middle “ges HungarХan KrШnШsz Pécs Ǌǈǉǌ. ǍǏǊ Щ. IS”N 978 615 533 95 92 228 RELATED PUBLICATIONS Endre S“SH“LMI From the Human ”ody to the Clockwork Metaphors of State and its Changes in Western Christendom – HungarХan KrШnШsz Pécs. ǊǈǉǍ. ǊǑǋ Щ. IS”N ǑǏǐ–ǎǉǍ–ǍǋǋǑ–ǈǊ–ǐ Gábor ”“R“”ÁS The Papacy and Hungary in the First Half of the 13th Century Papal Influence – Cooperation – Clash of Interests HungarХan Thesaurus Historiae Ecclesiasticae in Universitate Quinqueecclesiensi 5. PécsХ TudШmányért KuЧturáЧХs Egyes(Чet Pécs. ǊǈǉǍ. ǋǍǋ Щ. IS”N 978–963–89482–5–0 Tamás Fedeles We Travel in the Name of God . Pilgrims, Pilgrimages and their Destinations in the Middle Ages HungarХan Koronsz Pécs. ǊǈǉǍ. ǋǍǎ Щ. IS”N 978–615–5497–61–2 229 RELATED PUBLICATIONS The History of Pécs II. From the Foundation of the ”ishopric till the Ottoman Conquest Ed. Márta FШnt HungarХan KrШnШsz Pécs. ǊǈǉǍ. 400 p. IS”N 978–615–54975–06 The First Chronicle of the Kievan Rus Ed. LászЧх ”aЧШgФ – SzХЧЮХa KШЮács HungarХan ”aЧassХ ”udaЩest. ǊǈǉǍ. 398 p. IS”N 978–963–506–970–5 230 CONTENTS OF PREVIOUS ISSUES TABLE OF CONTENTS OF THE VOLUMES I–VII SPECIMINA NOVA PARS PRIMA SECTIO MEDIAEVALIS I. Ed.: M. FONT. Pécs. 2001. 189 p. PRAEFATIO .................................................................................................................................. 7 Jerzy WYROZUMSKI Phasen der polnisch-ungarischen Beziehungen (bis 1526) .......................................... 9 Gyula KRIST2 Romans and Vlachs in the Works by Nestor And Anonymus ................................ 15 Martha FONT Ein Nachbarland (Ungarn) im Spiegel der altrussischen Chroniken ..................... 59 ZШЧtán J. KOSZTOLNYIK Byzantine Christianity and the Early Magyars in the Records of the Byzantine Chroniclers................................................................................................................................ 71 LászЧх KOSZTA La Fondation de l éЮдcФé de Vác....................................................................................... 87 GábШr THOROCZKAY Anmerkungen zur Frage der Entstehungszeit der Hartvik-Legende des Stephan des Heiligen........................................................................................................................... 107 Gergely KISS Contribution à Ч eЮШЧutХШn des cФaЩХtres dans Чa HШngrХe médХéЮaЧe .................. 133 Marie-Madeleine DE CEVINS La reЧХgХШn des Чaïcs, Юue Щar Чes ЩrédХcateurs francХscaХns ФШngrШХs de Чa fХn du MШyen Âge ........................................................................................................................................... 147 Endre SASHALMI The Coexistence of Old And New: Elements of Muscovite Ideology and Enlightenment in FШnЮХzХn s „DХscШurse on the Immutable State Laws ......................... 169 *** SPECIMINA NOVA PARS PRIMA SECTIO MEDIAEVALIS II. Ed.: M. FONT – G. Kiss. Pécs. 2003. 139 p. Márta FONT SХmХЧarХtХes and DХssХmХЧarХtХes Хn tФe EarЧy LaЯs Шf KХeЮan Rus and HungarХan Kingdom in the 11th Century ................................................................................................ 7 Gergely KISS The exemption of the royal benedictine monasteries in hungary in the 11th–13th centuries ................................................................................................................................... 25 DánХeЧ BAGI Die quellen des kaschauer privilegs ................................................................................. 65 Tamás FEDELES 231 CONTENTS OF PREVIOUS ISSUES SPECIMINA NOVA PARS PRIMA SECTIO MEDIAEVALIS I–VII Matthias von GataЧхcz Propst von Pécs/F(nfЦХrcФen ɭǉǌǊǐ–1437) .......................... 77 BáЧХnt R“D2 TФe DecЧaratХШn Шf King James I (1622) ....................................................................... 83 Endre SASHALMI Contract Theory and the Westernization of Russian Ideology of Power under Peter the Great ............................................................................................................................. 89 Teréz OBORNI The Country Nobody Wanted: Some Aspects of the History of Transilvanian Principality ........................................................................................................................... 101 JánШs J. VARGA DХe RШЧЧe des „Orta MadscФars ЮШn Peter PerényХ bХs EmmerХcФ TФчЦчЧy. Zur MetФШde der t(rЦХscФen ErШberungen RХcФtung Westen ........................................ 109 Zsuzsa BARBARICS Gastfreunde oder Kriegsfeinde? Das Bild der Osmanen in der ungarischen Historiographie des 19. und 20. Jahrhunderts............................................................. 119 Book Review ......................................................................................................................... 129 Related Publications............................................................................................................ 135 *** SPECIMINA NOVA PARS PRIMA SECTIO MEDIAEVALIS III. Ed.: M. FONT – G. KISS. Pécs. 2005. 212 p. Erzsébet G“LÁNT“I In memШrХam GyuЧa KrХstх ɭǉǑǋǑ–2004) ........................................................................... 5 ZШЧtán VÁR“DY Summary of the Epigraphic Examinations Performed on Stone-Carved Inscriptions Made in the Medieval Transdanubia ......................................................... 7 DánХeЧ BAGI ”emerЦungen zu „”azШarХum Хn der Gesta ЮШn GaЧЧus “nШnymus. Eine Neue Hypothese ............................................................................................................................... 23 Gergely KISS Regnum et communitas regni ɣ reЩrésentatХШns de Чa ЩatrХe dans Чa ЧХttérature ЧégendaХre hongroise et dans les chroniques ................................................................ 35 Márta KONDOR Centralization and the Importance of Legatine Activity under the Pontificate of Alexander III (1159–1181) Case Study on the Archbishopric of Spalato............... 61 а УК а а а за а а а а IV ɭǉǊǋǍ – ǉǊǌǍ .ɮɣ ак а к к к к XIII . ..................................................................................................................... 83 ”áЧХnt R“D2 Sovereignty in the Political Thought of James VI, King of Scots ........................... 115 Endre SASHALMI SШme RemarЦs Шn PrШЩrХetary DynastХcХsm and tФe DeЮeЧШЩment Шf tФe Concept of State in 17th-Century RussХa ɭRХcФard PХЩes InterЩretatХШn Шf MuscШЮy and the European Perspective) ....................................................................................... 157 Book Review ........................................................................................................................ 195 232 Auctores Huius Voluminis .............................................................................................. 203 Related Publications........................................................................................................... 205 *** SPECIMINA NOVA PARS PRIMA SECTIO MEDIAEVALIS IV. Ed.: M. FONT – G. KISS. Pécs. 2007. 163 p. P“EF“TIO ..................................................................................................................................... 5 ANDREA SOMOGYI DХe DarsteЧЧung der ФeХdnХscФen VergangenФeХt und der UrФeХmat Хn der CФrШnХЦ des CШsmas ЮШn Prag ............................................................................................................. 7 MÁRT“ KONDOR UЩЩsaЧa and SЩaЧatШ ParaЧЧeЧs and DХfferences betЯeen TЯШ “rcФbХsФШЩrХcs Шn tФe RХms Шf Western CФrХstendШm Хn tФe TХme Шf PШЩe “Чexander III ɭǉǉǍǑ–ǉǉǐǉɮ ...... 15 GÁ”OR SZE”ERÉNYI RemarЦs Шn GШЮernment Шf DaЧmatХa Хn tФe TЯeЧftФ Century “ TermХnШЧШgХcaЧ “naЧysХs .................................................................................................................................... 35 GERGELY KISS Les ХnfЧuences de Ч égЧХse ШrtФШdШxe en HШngrХe aux Xe–XIIIe sХècЧe ....................... Ǎǉ Tamás FEDELES “usЧänder Хn den ungarХscФen DШm- und StХftsЦaЩХteЧn ЯäФrend des SЩätmХtteЧaЧters ɭǉǋǈǉ–ǉǍǊǎɮ ............................................................................................... 73 Marta FONT À Чa frШntХère du cФrХstХanХsme ЧatХn et ШrtФШdШxe Чa GaЧХcХe-VШЧФynХe aux XIVe– XVe sХècЧes .............................................................................................................................. 101 Т а Т “ к а к к кK а з ка « к а». ɭ Ю–xЮХ .ɮ.............................................. 119 Endre S“SH“LMI TФe Image Шf tФe Enemyɣ PШЧes and LХtФuanХans Хn RussХan LХterary and CФancery SШurces Шf tФe Late ǉǎtФ and EarЧy ǉǏtФ CenturХes ........................................................ 137 “uctШres ФuХus ЮШЧumХnХs ................................................................................................. 151 ReЧated PubЧХcatХШns............................................................................................................ 153 *** SPECIMINA NOVA PARS PRIMA SECTIO MEDIAEVALIS V. Ed. M. FONT – G. KISS. Pécs. 2009. 183 p. PRAEFATIO …………………………………………………………………..……..5 Gabor THOROCZKAY “nmerЦungen zur fr(hen Geschichte der Kirchen von Neutra und Pressburg (Über die Texttradition des 22. Artikels des ersten Gesetzbuches Kчnigs Koloman) ………………………………………………………………….7 Gergely KISS « Teuzo sancte romane ecclesie legatus ... Teuzo cardinalis ». Contribution aux relations de la Papauté et du roi hongrois Ladislas Ier a la fin du XIe siècle …………………………………………………………………………..…..29 233 CONTENTS OF PREVIOUS ISSUES SPECIMINA NOVA PARS PRIMA SECTIO MEDIAEVALIS I–VII з а УК а а а к а а а а ɭǉǊǉǌ – ǉǊǋǊ .ɮ ………………………………………….…..…..41 к Zoltán VÁR“DY A Short Overview of Stone-Inscriptions using the Humanistic Capitalis Typeface ……………………………………………………………………….…59 Т а Т а к а к к к к з а а а а ка ɭ а а XIV каɮ ……………………….…..…..73 Bálint R“D2 The Interrelation of Politics and Confessionalism in a 17th-Century British Polemical Writing ………………………………………………………….……99 Antony LENTIN Prokopovich, Pravda and Proof: Some Myths about Pravda Voli Monarshei 127 Endre SASHALMI God-Guided Contract and Scriptural Sovereignty: The Muscovite Perspective of Pravda Voli Monarshej v Opredelenii Naslednika Derzhavy Svoej ………………………………………………………………………….….139 Book review ……………………………...……………………………………...151 Related publications ………………..…………………………………………..167 *** SPECIMINA NOVA PARS PRIMA SECTIO MEDIAEVALIS VI. Ed. M. FONT – G. KISS – T. FEDELES. Pécs. 2011. 183 p. PäЩstЧХcФ geЩrägte IntegratХШnsЩrШzesse Хn Ost- und Westeuropa (11.–13. Jh.). Universale einheit oder vereinheitliche vielfalt? Internationale tagung 6. Dezember 2010 PRAEFATIO ………………………………………………………………..…………..9 Claudia ALRAUM Pallienprivilegien f(r Apulien zwischen 1063 und 1122 ……………..………….11 Gábor B“R“”ÁS „ecce dХЧectum fХЧХum . Päpstliche Urkunden in Bezug auf die Legationen in den zwanziger Jahren des 13. Jahrhunderts …………………………………..………33 Andreas HOLNDONNER Die Papsturkunde als Produkt unterschiedlicher Rechtsvorstellungen am Beispiel der päpstlichen Beziehungen zum Erzbistum Toledo Ende des 11. Jahrhunderts ………………………………………………………………….….…53 Zsolt HUNYADI Papal–Hungarian Relations in the Late Twelfth Century: Remarks on the HungarХa PШntХfХcХa ……………………..…………………………..……………….…..73 Gergely KISS „IurХsdХctХШnem Хn abbatХbus regaЧХbus . IncertХtudes de Чa ЩaЩauté enЮers Чa ФХerarcФХe de Ч'égЧХse ФШngrШХse aux XIIe–XIIIe sХècЧes .…………..……………..…83 234 Renaissance – Relations International Conference, Pecs, 1 – 3 October 2008 PRAEFATIO ……………………………………………………………….……...….103 Erzsébet GALÁNTAI Bemerkungen zum Nachleben antiker Feldherrn- und Herosportrats in den Geschichtswerken der Humanisten. Die Wiederbelebung von Elias Corvinus 105 Gabriella ERDÉLYI MarrХed TФe SХster Шf HХs Late WХfe ɣ TФe NegШtХatХШn of Kin-Marriages in Renaissance Hungary ………………………………….……………………….…109 Ilona KRIST2F Umanisti del capitolo di Várad con esperienza di studio in Italia (1440–1526) ..129 Elisabeth KLECKER Italicis oris Germana in regna tulisti / Castalides. Zur Rezeption humanistischer Dichtung an der Universitat Wien …………………………………………...…..143 Endre SASHALMI Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini and the Hungarian Succession: A Humanist as a Spokesman for Ladislaus (Postnatus) V …………………………………………163 Nikolaus THURN Christian Schesaeus and Heinrich Porsius. The Classical and Vernacular Background ……………………………………………………….…………….…175 ŽeЧjЦШ TOMIČIĆ: Neue Erkenntnisse uber die mittelalterliche Schicht der Stadt Ilok (Ujlak). Beitrag zu den Verbindungen zwischen Ungarn und Europa in der Renaissance ………………………………….…………………………………….187 Book Review ……………………………………………….…….….…...…….......209 Related Publications ……………………………….……………………..…..........225 *** SPECIMINA NOVA PARS PRIMA SECTIO MEDIAEVALIS VII. Ed. M. FONT – G. KISS. Pécs. 2013. 151 p. PREFATIO ................................................................................................................................. 7 Péter FARKAS Die Pradialisten (kirchlichen Edlen) des Kapitels Wesprim im 14. Jahrhundert 9 GábШr B“R“”ÁS Der Einfluss der Papsturkunden auf die Schreiben der päpstlichen delegierten Richter in Ungarn in der ersten Halfte des 13. Jahrhunderts ...................................19 VХЦtхrХa KOVÁCS Causae coram nobis ventilatae. Beiträge zu der Jurisdiktionstätigkeit von Papstlegat Gentilis de Monteflorum in Ungarn (1308–1311) ….............................. 39 Gergely KISS Mutatis mutandis? Les mutations de la pensée juridictionnelle des prelats hongrois à la fin du XIIe et au début du XIIIe siècle ….…………………….…..... 71 T(nde ÁRVAI The Born of the Palatine Branch of the Garai Family. The Early History of the Dorozsma Genus (1269–1375) ............................................................................................. 103 Т а Т 235 CONTENTS OF PREVIOUS ISSUES SPECIMINA NOVA PARS PRIMA SECTIO MEDIAEVALIS I–VII к к ж к а ка ɭ а а к к к к з ɮ....................................................................... 117 Judit CSÁK2 Quelques remarques a propos de la tradition textuelle de la Chronique hungaropolonaise. La relation de la chronique a la Legende de Hartvik ……………..…….125 236

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS

Log In

Specimina Nova Pars Prima Sectio Mediaevalis VIII

Specimina Nova Pars Prima Sectio Mediaevalis VIII

Specimina Nova Pars Prima Sectio Mediaevalis VIII

Specimina Nova Pars Prima Sectio Mediaevalis VIII

Specimina Nova Pars Prima Sectio Mediaevalis VIII

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS