Rákóczi Family

Úvodné slovo

Východoslovenské múzeum v Košiciach patrí medzi najstaršie zbierkotvorné inštitúcie na Slovensku. Založené bolo v roku 1872 ako Hornouhorský múzejný spolok a počas doterajších 145 rokov svojej činnosti malo viacero názvov a zriaďovateľov. V dejinách múzea sa, samozrejme, odzrkadlili aj všetky štátoprávne a územné zmeny, ktoré sa dotkli Košíc. Múzeum vzniklo ako občianska iniciatíva Košičanov a aj preto dodnes často spolupracuje s občianskymi združeniami.
Jedným z našich stálych partnerov je aj Košický občiansky klub. Počas svojich dejín múzeum nieslo aj meno Františka II. Rákócziho ako Hornouhorské Rákócziho múzeum. Táto skutočnosť vyplývala z jednej z hlavných úloh múzea začiatkom 20. storočia – zbierať a uchovávať pamiatky na knieža Rákócziho. Už z výstavy v roku 1903, ktorá sa konala na počesť 200. výročia Rákócziho povstania, sa viacero artefaktov dostalo do zbierok múzea. Ďalším dôležitým impulzom bolo privezenie ostatkov Rákócziho, Zrínskej a im blízkych a ich znovupochovanie v Dóme sv. Alžbety v roku 1906. Na základe konečného rozhodnutia objekt Rodošta bol postavený v areáli Katovej bašty začiatkom 40. rokov 20. storočia, ale ako expozícia sa začal využívať až v roku 1991.
Dôležitým počinom našej inštitúcie bolo zorganizovanie unikátnej výstavy „Thaly a Rákóczi 100-ročný príbeh” na počesť 100. výročia prevezenia v roku 2006 v spolupráci s Dériho múzeom z Debrecína. Ďalším míľnikom v tradícii uchovávania a obnovovania pamiatok na Františka II. Rákócziho bola nová expozícia v roku 2013, ktorá vznikla vďaka cezhraničnému projektu - Miesta Rákócziho slávy.
Tieto fakty som si dovolil krátko zrekapitulovať, aby čitateľom zborníka
z konferencie – Rákóczi 110 rokov v Košiciach – bolo zrejmé, že vzhľadom na význam Františka II. Rákócziho a na jeho vzťah k nášmu mestu sa naša inštitúcia zapája do aktivít, ktorými si pripomíname túto osobnosť maďarských aj slovenských dejín. Preto sme privítali návrh KOK a stali sme sa spoluorganizátormi konferencie, ktorá priniesla mnohé nové poznatky a fakty, pomocou ktorých môžeme lepšie vyskladať mozaiku dejín skúmaných období.
PhDr. Pollák Róbert
riaditeľ Východoslovenského múzea v Košiciach

With regard to the last years of György Rákóczi II, prince of Transylvania, the dominant view in both Hungarian and foreign historiography is one of an obstinate and thoughtless politician, who failed to take account of the consequences of Grand Vizier Köprülü Mehmed's takeover in Istanbul, and thus drew his principality into destruction. The opinion of the authors is that a better understanding of the events and of the motivations of Rákóczi can only be based on a much more detailed analysis of Transylvanian-Ottoman relations than has hitherto been available. In the first part of our study we wanted to offer a basis for the consequent analysis of the events themselves: we have examined the medium and network system within which the prince was moving. Transylvanian diplomacy had long established its positions at Istanbul, the background to which was constituted partly by Hungarians integrated into the top leadership of the Empire - pashas, chiauses, interpreters -, partly by that group of Ottoman leaders which the Transylvanian diplomacy succeeded in attaching to itself through money or the offering of various political advantages. (One of the available techniques was the gesture of adoption as father or brother.) Another factor to be considered is the time and circumstances when and among which the Transylvanians aimed to achieve whatever success. The stormy domestic policies of the Ottoman Empire in the middle of the 17th century put to a very tough test the diplomatic machinery of all states. The present study examines the very actors of this scene, and tries to reconstruct the interest groups which may have stood in the background of individual decisions (and who consequently had
to be targeted by the Transylvanian diplomats). The organisational patterns of the various groups within the Ottoman domestic policies in terms of family, ethnicity and territory, likewise have to be taken into account. The study also briefly deals with the problem of how the background of the Ottoman political elite in occupied Hungary had been transformed at Istanbul by the middle of the 17th century.

The Castle of Regéc, located in what is today Northeastern Hungary, is one of the largest fortresses built at the turn of the 13th and 14th century. The fortified castle has a complex history; in the post-mediaeval era, several noble and aristocratic families owned it (among others, the Alaghy, Mágóchy, Esterházy, and Rákóczi families). As the Haban wares became increasingly popular in the 17th century in the western, northeastern, and eastern areas of the Carpathian Basin, this type of ceramic can be found at Regéc as well.

Besides the numerous small potsherds and stove tiles, a plate and many fragments of a unique type of floor brick have been excavated. The latter two objects were selected for the present study, which will perhaps show that besides the traditional art historical analysis of ceramics stored in museums or private collections, it is just as important to make comparative studies to evaluate the historical archaeological material.

The present study gives an introduction to the selected material. The Haban plate, dated to 1659 by its inscription, is a unique piece; similar types can be found in some collections. The type of decorated floor bricks is possibly the only identified masterpiece of Haban craftsmen among those that have been found in the region.

"Unique Haban wares from the Castle of Regéc - Preliminary Report" Acta Ethnographica Hungarica, 60/2 (2015), pp. 445-461.

Despite fragmentation, heterogeneity and the continuous pressure of the Ottoman Empire, early modern “divided Hungary” witnessed a surprising cultural flourishing in the sixteenth century, and maintained its common cultural identity in the seventeenth century. This could hardly have been possible without intense exchange with the rest of Europe. This three-volume series about early modern Hungary divided by Ottoman presence approaches themes of exchange of information and knowledge from two perspectives, namely, exchange through traditional channels provided by religious/educational institutions and the system of European study tours (Volume 1 – Study Tours and Intellectual-Religious Relationships), and the less regular channels and improvised networks of political diplomacy (Volume 2 – Diplomacy, Information Flow and Cultural Exchange). A by-product of this exchange of information was the changing image of early modern Hungary and Transylvania, which is presented in the third and in some aspects concluding volume of essays (Volume 3 – The Making and Uses of the Image of Hungary and Transylvania). Unlike earlier approaches to the same questions, these volumes draw an alternative map of early modern Hungary. On this map, the centre-periphery conceptions of European early modern culture are replaced by new narratives written from the perspective of historical actors, and the dominance of Western-Hungarian relationships is kept in balance due to the significance of Hungary’s direct neighbours, most importantly the Ottoman Empire.

The editors of the volumes—Gábor Almási, Szymon Brzeziński, Ildikó Horn, Kees Teszelszky and Áron Zarnóczki—are based at Hungarian, Polish and Dutch institutions of historical research. Their collaboration is the result of a joint research programme generously financed by the Hungarian Scientific Research Fund and carried out at the Eötvös Loránd University of Budapest.

One of the firmly entrenched opinions of Hungarian historiography is that in the first half of the 17th century the Ottoman Empire was so much tied down by its own internal problems that little of its attention was spared for the European peripheries, and, consequently, its vassals there managed to enlarge their room for manoeuvre. Yet a thorough examination of the sources has proved that in the middle third of the century the Transylvanian diplomacy had its eyes constantly fixed on
Constantinople, and anxiously followed all the moves of the Porte. This seems to have been even more characteristic of the reign of György II Rákóczi than of that of his father. Indeed, it appears clearly from the reports of Transylvanian envoys that Transylvania itself was part of the power struggles which tore the Ottoman Empire, and it is even possible to outline a group of Ottoman supporters who, time and again, engaged themselves to embrace the affairs of Transylvania. It is also evident that even Transylvanian intervention in Moldavia and Wallachia was made upon Ottoman instigation or outright petition in 1653 and 1655.
The problem of prince György II Rákóczi was thus not that he had a limited intelligence of the affairs of the Porte. It was, rather, that in the spring of 1656 the Empire was plunged into a deep crisis, whereupon the tough-handed intervention of the new grand vizier, Köprülü Mehmed, turned against him almost the entire political elite of the Ottoman state. According to previous practice, this should as a matter of fact have been ended by the fall of the grand vizier. Although Köprülü Mehmed
did face a series of challenges, any of which could have provoked his downfall, he, astonishingly enough, managed to retain power by a fruitful combination of tough will, obstinacy and a good amount of pure luck.
On the basis of experience gained in the past decades, the story and success of grand vizier Köprülü Mehmed was at once unimaginable and unpredictable. No political rationality either in the Empire itself or outside could suggest that such a turn will come about. Prince György II Rákóczi
was thus perfectly aware of the situation at the Porte, correctly assessed the fragility of the grand vizier’s position, and, consequently, rightly hoped until the very last moment that events might take
a turn favourable to himself. On the last account, however, the strong-willed grand vizier proved an „anomaly” of Ottoman domestic policy, who undermined all the political calculations of Rákóczi, no matter who well informed he was and how closely he followed the example of his predecessors.

The collection of weapons in the National Museum of Banat includes two 19th century Hungarian ceremonial swords which feature many design and ornamental elements that can mislead the laymen in the field of old heritage weapons. Made in accordance with the tendencies of the historical style, the two pieces imitate the design of the end of the Middle Ages Transylvanian princely swords. Moreover, representations and inscriptions dedicated to the Transylvanian princes Gabriel Báthory (prince between 1608–1613) and Gheorghe Rákóczi I (between
1630–1648) are preserved on both sides of the blades.
The two swords from the NMoB collection are part of a larger series of pieces inscribed with the names of Transylvanian princes, similar swords having been identified both in the online bibliography and in two other museum collections in our country: at the National Museum of Romanian History (Gabriel Báthory) and in the collection of the National Military Museum “King Ferdinand I” in Bucharest (Gabriel Báthory and Gheorghe Rákóczi II). The common element of all these swords is the blade, the basic component of the weapon, which is identical in all these pieces, from a typological point of view: it has a curved shape, with a wide fuller placed under the blunt edge, on both sides, more than two-thirds of the length of the blade. The decorative motifs and inscriptions are engraved in identical layout in all the analyzed pieces. Regarding the arrangement of the engraved decoration, it must be emphasized that it is laid out on superimposed registers, perpendicular to the length of the
blade, in the same order on all the swords examined. As regards the inscriptions present on these blades, especially the princely portraits, we can appreciate that the main source of inspiration was the Transylvanian princely numismatic heritage, preserved to this day in museums or private collections. The princely portraits present on the blades
of the swords are copies of representations present on the obverse of the vintage coins. The princely bust and the official title, which appear on the obverse of the coins, are elements shown on the reverse side of the blades, while the princely coat of arms, present on the reverse of the coins, is engraved on the reverse side of the swords.
The swords from the NMoB collection were analyzed with an XRF spectrometer, and the results obtained show a very high similarity between the two blades: a very high concentration of iron and an insignificant presence of other related chemical elements. The other components of the swords are of different types and shapes and the
materials used range from solid gilded silver to plain brass. Based on the results offered by the XRF spectrometer, we can conclude that the blades used on the two swords were made in the same time interval, using modern metal processing techniques. The differences found in the other components of the swords indicate a ranking of the pieces according to value, which corresponds to the social status of the sponsors.
From a chronological point of view, the two bladed weapons from the NMoB collection date from the second half of the 19th century, possibly the last decades of that century. We agree to this point of view, given the evolution and impact of the historical style in this space, an artistic current which the two analyzed weapons represent.
The lack of information on the origin of the two swords negatively contributed to the long process of identifying and documenting the parts. The two swords were registered in the museum’s inventory on January 8, 1959, being part of a swords lot which also includes that of the noble Osztoics family from Șemlacu Mare and Șemlacu Mic.
Given the uncertainty surrounding the origin of the swords, we hope that future research will elucidate this mystery and will be able to identify the sponsors of the pieces.

The assassination of the Wallachian Voivode Michael the Brave turned the political balances in Wallachia in favour of the Ottoman Empire. However, intervention of the Habsburgs to Wallachian government through Radu Şerban changed the balance of power in the region. Matei Basarab came to power after the pro-Greek voivodes with the support of Transylvanian Prince I. Gheorghe Rákóczy and Abaza Mehmed Pasha. In this respect, he acted together with Transylvanian Principality in foreign policy, and he did not hesitate to form an alliance against Ottoman Empire. On the other hand, he had to struggle with Vasile Lupu who acted with his passion for voivodeship. During this period, Wallachian area witnessed many struggles between Matei Basarab and Vasile Lupu. As a matter of fact, when Vasile Lupu was planning to organize an expedition on Wallachia, appeared a group of boyars led by Gheorghe Ştefan in Moldavia, turned all his plans upside down. Vasile Lupu's rivals taking advantage of this, they sent G. Ştefan to Moldavia and made him as a voivode. However, Vasile Lupu helps of his son in law, Timus, he distracted the rebels away. Finally, his attack against Matei Basarab whom he held responsible all this, prepared his end in Moldavia.

Zborov and the Rákoczi Family
The Zboró/Zborov castle of the huge Makovica dominion in the county of Sáros/Šariš built in the market town of Zboró (today: Zborov, Slovakia) has been the residence of the Rákóczi family and its heirs for 300 years. Although the castle was almost completely destroyed in the First World War, the relationship between Zboró and the Rákóczi family can be reconstructed on the basis of archival sources. The Zborov manor house of Serédyek, together with the castle of Makovica was bought by the Reformed religion Zsigmond (Sigismund) Rákóczi (1544–1608; Prince of Transylvania: 1607–1608) from the Polish Prince Janusz Ostrogski (1554–1620) in 1601. His sons, the Catholic Count Pál Rákóczi (1596–1636) and the Protestant Prince George I Rákóczi of Trasylvania, and then the next generations of the two branches of the dinasty shared Castle of Zborov as a residence, George I. Rákóczi and his wife, Susanne Lorántffy, also had a Reformed church built in the castle area in 1630. The main residence of the castle was made by Pál Rákóczi’s son, László (Ladislaus) Rákóczi (1633–1664), his wife, Erzsébet Nagymihály Bánffy, who converted to Catholicism, was also buried in the medieval parish church of Zborov in 1663. In 1661 the princely branch of the Rákóczi family became also Catholic, so from then on, the castle was inhabited only by Catholic Lords. In 1666 Frances I Rákóczi (1645–1676) held his wedding with Ilona Zrínyi here. Frances I. Rákóczi and his mother, Zsófia Báthory (1629–1680) had the court church of St. Sophia built to the residential wing of the castle. At the end of the 17th century, the daughter of László Rákóczi, Countess Erdődy neé Countess Erzsébet Rákóczi (1654–1707) born in Zboró, and her second-degree nephew and niece, the children of Frances I. Rákóczi: Prince Frances II. Rákóczi and Princess Julianna Barbara Rákóczi, who lived in Vienna, co-ruled the manor of Zboró. The Princess and her niece were generous donors of the parish of Zborov, Julianna Rákóczi built the St. Anne’s Chapel, which still stands next to the parish church. In 1699, at the end of a lawsuit, Frances II Rákóczi relinquished his share of market town Zborov in favor of his sister, but retained the other dominion shares. After the Rákóczi War of Independence (1703–1711), the prince’s estates were confiscated by the Habsburg government, but the estate of Julianna Rákóczi remained her property and it was inherited by members of the Aspremont Counts’ family. Count Charles Gobert of Aspremont (1720–1749), imperial and royal chamberlain, cavalry general, died on November 9, 1749 in Zboro and was buried in the parish church. At the beginning of the 19th century, the remains of some family members were placed in the crypt of the court church than already dedicated to St. John of Nepomuk by Countess Maria Ottolina Gobertina of Aspremont-Baindt (1787–1866), but the crypt was destroyed after World War I and the humiliated remains by order of the Minister Plenipotentiary for the Administration of Slovensko (Czecho-Slovakia) were reburied in the Zboro Cemetery on May 22, 1920. After the liberation of the serfs, the last Aspremont heiress: Countess György Erdődy, Countess Mária Aspremont (†1866), received landlords’ compensation for serf plots of the Makovica estate, including Zborov. The Erdődys sold their estate and the Zborov Castle at the end of the 19th century, then in 1907 the estate and the manor were bought by the Hungarian state treasury, so the former Rákóczi private estate became state property.