Elisabeth of Luxembourg (1409–1442): A Hungarian Queen of the 15th Century 9789004722552, 9004722556

Table of contents :
Front Cover
Half Title
Series Information
Title Page
Copyright Page
Contents
Abbreviations of Libraries, Archives and Their Collections
Introduction: Elisabeth of Luxembourg, a Woman of
Great Ambitions
1
Elisabeth, Queen of Hungary
2
The Short Rule of King Albert (1439)
3
The Resolute Queen (November 1439–May 1440)
4
The Queen Comes to Bratislava (1440)
5
For Life and Death (1441)
6
Two Victories, Two Defeats
Conclusion
Bibliography
Index
Back Cover

Citation preview

A Hungarian Queen of the 15th Century

 Daniela Dvořáková

E A S T C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U ROPE I N T H E M I DDL E AGE S , 450 1450

E A S T C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U ROPE I N T H E M I DDL E AGE S , 450 1450

Elisabeth of Luxembourg (1409–1442)

Elisabeth of Luxembourg (1409–1442)

East Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 450–1450 General Editors Florin Curta and Dušan Zupka

volume 96

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/ecee

Elisabeth of Luxembourg (1409–1442) A Hungarian Queen of the 15th Century By

Daniela Dvořáková

LEIDEN | BOSTON

Cover illustration: Lithograph of Elisabeth of Luxembourg by Josef Kriehuber, ca. 1828. Vienna: Lithographic Institute. Available in the public domain via Wikimedia Commons. This work is the partial result of the Project no. APVV-21-0371 “The glamour and fall of nobility. Strategies of noble representation in the History of Slovakia”. The research was supported also by the project VEGA 2/0094/24. Translated from Slovak by David McLean. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Dvořáková, Daniela, 1965- author. Title: Elisabeth of Luxembourg (1409-1442) : a Hungarian queen of the 15th  century / by Daniela Dvořáková. Description: Leiden ; Boston : Brill, 2025. | Series: East Central and  Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 1872-8103 ; volume 96 | Includes  bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2024059722 (print) | LCCN 2024059723 (ebook) | ISBN  9789004722545 (hardback) | ISBN 9789004722552 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Elisabeth, Queen, consort of Albert II, Holy Roman Emperor,  1409-1442. | Queens—Holy Roman Empire—Biography. | Holy Roman  Empire—History—House of Luxemburg, 1308-1437. | Holy Roman  Empire—History—Albert II, 1438-1439. | Holy Roman Empire—Kings and  rulers—Biography. Classification: LCC DB931.9.E55 D96 2025 (print) | LCC DB931.9.E55  (ebook) | DDC 943/.027092 [B]—dc23/eng/20250121 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2024059722 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2024059723 Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface. issn 1872-8103 isbn 978-90-04-72254-5 (hardback) isbn 978-90-04-72255-2 (e-book) DOI 10.1163/9789004722552 Copyright 2025 by Daniela Dvořáková. Published by Koninklijke Brill BV, Plantijnstraat 2, 2321 JC Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill BV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Schöningh, Brill Fink, Brill mentis, Brill Wageningen Academic, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Böhlau and V&R unipress. Koninklijke Brill BV reserves the right to protect this publication against unauthorized use. Requests for re-use and/or translations must be addressed to Koninklijke Brill BV via brill.com or copyright.com. For more information: [email protected]. This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

Contents Abbreviations of Libraries, Archives and Their Collections vii Introduction: Elisabeth of Luxembourg, a Woman of Great Ambitions 1 1 Elisabeth, Queen of Hungary 4 2 The Short Rule of King Albert (1439) 34 3 The Resolute Queen (November 1439–May 1440) 73 4 The Queen Comes to Bratislava (1440) 118 5 For Life and Death (1441) 155 6 Two Victories, Two Defeats 189 Conclusion 220 Bibliography 223 Index 233

Abbreviations of Libraries, Archives and Their Collections AAV Archivio apostolico Vaticano AČ Archiv český AMB G Archív mesta Bratislavy Grundbuch AMB K Archív mesta Bratislavy Kammerrechnungen AMBard Štátny archív v Prešopve, pracovisko Archív Bardejov CDH Codex diplomaticus Hungariae ecclesiasticus ac civilis CDLS Codex diplomaticus Lusatiae superioris CDP Codex diplomaticus patrius DRH Decreta Regni Hungariae DRTA Deutsche Reichtagsakten FRA Fontes rerum Austriacarum HAN Sammlung von Handschriften und alten Drucken (ÖNB) HHStA Haus- Hof- und Staatsarchiv Vienna MNL OL DF Magyar nemzeti levéltár. Országos levéltár. Diplomatikai fényképmásolatok. Budapest MNL OL DL Magyar nemzeti levéltár. Országos levéltár. Diplomatikai levéltár. Budapest ÖNB Österreichische Nationalbibliothek Vienna RG Repertorium Germanicum RI Regesta imperii SNA Slovenský národný archív, Bratislava SRA Scriptores rerum Austriacarum ŠA Štátny archív WStLA Wiener Staats- und Landesarchiv Vienna ZsO Zsigmondkori oklevéltár

INTRODUCTION

Elisabeth of Luxembourg, a Woman of Great Ambitions Elisabeth of Luxembourg, Austrian Duchess and Queen of Hungary, and as the wife of Albert II also the uncrowned Bohemian and Roman queen, is an exceptional historical figure. We know her mainly as the protector of the rights of her young son Ladislaus, whom she gave birth to after the death of her husband, and who therefore entered into history with the attribute “the Posthumous”. Her fate, as well as her functioning as the queen alongside Albert of Habsburg, has thus far received only marginal attention by historians, despite the fact that Elisabeth acted as a monarch so independently and self-confidently that she can at the very least be considered an equal co-ruler with her husband.1 Her character, inherited from her ancestors, practically predetermined this. She was the daughter of Sigismund, the granddaughter of Charles IV, and the great-granddaughter of John of Luxembourg; on her mother’s side she was a Cilli, and although as a historical figure she has remained in the shadow of her ancestors, this is not completely fair, because in no way did she lag behind them in terms of her character, courage or resolution. When life put her into a situation in which she, as a widow, had to battle for the rights of her only son, she didn’t back away but instead entered into this fight with unprecedented courage. Like her father, Sigismund of Luxembourg, she led a hard battle with the rebellious Hungarian lords, even though her hopes for victory were slim from the start. And yet, Elisabeth ultimately won her fight – her son become the Hungarian and Bohemian king – though she did not live to see this it and may have even paid for it with her life. Death overtook when she was just 33, a mere four years after her ascent to the Hungarian throne. And though her fate spanned such a short time, she showed herself to be an exceptionally capable and energetic ruler. In strongly patriarchal Hungary, however, the independent 1 Thus far not a single monograph has been written about Elisabeth of Luxembourg. Elisabeth of Luxemburg’s character is marginally dealt with in some of the works cited in this book. Most recently, Julia Burkhardt paid attention to Queen Elisabeth in a study Julia Burkhardt, “Das Erbe der Frauen. Elisabeth von Luxemburg und Elisabeth von Habsburg,” in Heilige, Helden, Wüteriche: Herrschaftsstile der Luxemburger (1308–1437), eds. Bauch, Martin, Julia Burkhardt, Tomáš Gaudek, and Václav Žůrek (Cologne /Weimar/Vienna: Böhlau Verlag, 2017), pp. 261–84 and partially in edition of Helena Kottanerin’s memoirs Julia Burkhardt and Christina Lutter, Ich, Helene Kottannerin. Die Kammerfrau, die Ungarns Krone stahl (Darmstadt: wbg Theis, 2023). © Daniela Dvořáková, 2025 | doi:10.1163/9789004722552_002

2

Introduction

rule of a woman sparked opposition and was all but unacceptable, and so Queen Elisabeth, whatever abilities she had, could do nothing to change this. Elisabeth of Luxembourg was born in 1409 as the only daughter of forty-one year old Hungarian King Sigismund of Luxembourg and his second wife, seventeen-year-old Barbara of Cilli,2 who engaged Elisabeth as a two-year-old to the then fourteen-year-old Austrian Prince Albert. The engagement was arranged in 1411 in Bratislava,3 and the wedding itself took place in 1422 in Vienna, that is shortly after the bride reached the legitimate age of twelve years old.4 Sigismund also arranged for the royal future of his only daughter – she was to become his successor to the Bohemian and Hungarian thrones, where she was to sit alongside Albert of Habsburg, not only as his wife, but as his equal co-ruler. In the final years of Sigismund’s rule reports spread that he wanted to have his daughter crowned even before his own death.5 Testimony of Sigismund’s love for his only daughter was left behind by biographer Eberhard Windecke, who wrote that in 1419, when a marital breach that lasted three-quarters of a year occurred between Sigismund and Barbara, it was ten-year-old Elisabeth who was credited with mending it. According to the chronicler, the king would hear nothing of reconciliation with his wife until Elisabeth, whom Sigismund loved very much, came to visit him.6 What relations were like between mother and daughter is difficult to say. From later events it is clear that they were not without problems, because a conflict that smouldered between Barbara and Elisabeth’s husband Albert broke out in full force at the time of Sigismund’s death. A letter that Barbara wrote in May 1437 from Prague to one widow Agatha working in Elisabeth’s court bears indirect testimony to the mother’s distrust of her daughter at that time. In the letter, Barbara appeals to the widow to provide her with information, as she has ordered in the letter, and to remain close to Elisabeth until her return, for 2 Daniela Dvořáková, Barbara of Cilli (1392–1451) (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2021), pp. 44–45. 3 ZsO 3, no. 1030. 4 Duke Albert notified the town of Sopron about his marriage in a letter from 3 May 1422, in which he announces that on that day his wedding with Elisabeth had taken place, see Jenő Házi, Sopron szabad királyi város története. 1/3. Oklevelek és levelek 1430-től 1452-ig (Sopron: Székely és Társa, 1924), p. 219. Details on the circumstances of the marriage agreements are in Petr Elbel unter Mitarbeit von Stanislav Bárta, Stanislav und Wolfram Ziegler, “Die Heirat zwischen Elisabeth von Luxemburg und Herzog Albrecht V. von Österreich. Rechtliche, finanzielle und machtpolitische Zusammenhänge (mit einem Quellenanhang),” in Manželství v pozdním středověku: rituály a obyčeje. Colloquia mediaevalia Pragensia 14, eds. Paweł Kras and Martin Nodl (Prague: Filosofia, 2014), pp. 79–152. 5 Wilhelm Wostry, König Albrecht II. 1437–1439, 1 (Prague: Rohlíček und Sievers, 1906), p. 143. 6 Eberhard Windecke Denkwürdigkeiten zur Geschichte des Zeitalters Kaiser Sigismunds, ed. Wilhelm Altmann (Berlin: Gaertner, 1893) pp. 138–39.

Elisabeth of Luxembourg, a Woman of Great Ambitions

3

which she promised her a rich reward: that she and her children will never be poor.7 This clearly was a negotiations with Barbara’s spy, who sent her a report on Elisabeth’s and thus also Albert’s intention and the events at their court. Barbara’s fears of her daughter, but especially of her husband, were obviously not without reason. On 9 December 1437, Hungarian, Bohemian, German and Roman King and Emperor Sigismund of Luxembourg died in Znojmo on the road from Prague to the Kingdom of Hungary. 7 MNL OL DF 260 491.

Chapter 1

Elisabeth, Queen of Hungary The death of King Sigismund, though not a great surprise given his age and health, affected the fates of many people. The change of persons on a royal throne nearly always brought uncertainty and fear, the exception being (and not always) situations when rule passed from father to son. This, however, was not the case in the Kingdom of Hungary in 1437. Sigismund’s successor was a member of a different dynasty, the Habsburgs, a foreigner, who did not speak the language of the country he was to rule and who had never lived in it. Sigismund chose him as his successor to the crown and as the husband of his only daughter, Elisabeth, because he himself did not have a son to whom he could leave his possessions. The problem with this plan was the wealthy and confident queen-widow, Barbara, who was perhaps forty-five years old at the time of her husband’s death. She ruled a large portion of Upper Hungary, roughly the territory of today’s Slovakia, and her close relatives, her brother Frederick and nephew Ulrich, held additional huge estates in Slavonia. At the time of Sigismund’s death the queen owned, aside from the mining towns, the revenues from the mining chamber, the striking of coins and the so-called “thirtieth” tax, as well as extensive feudal dominions consisting of roughly thirty castle estates. It can be said that Barbara controlled a major portion of the royal assets from all of Hungary, which were her private property and could assure her massive influence on the events in the country. It seemed that it would be almost impossible for the new king to rule independently of the “old queen”, as Barbara is referred to in period sources. The heir to the Hungarian royal crown, Barbara’s son-in-law Austrian Prince Albert V, was well aware of this fact. The marriage contracts that Albert had concluded with Sigismund in Bratislava in 1421 after long years of negotiations were notably disadvantageous for Albert; not only did they cost him a lot of money, but they ensured the very strong position of his mother-in-law, Queen Barbara, even in the event of Sigismund’s death.1 For example, Albert was bound by the contracts that if his wife bore him a son, he would hand the boy over to Barbara to raise, if Sigismund were no longer alive at that time. What’s more, in the event of death, if no male heir remained after him, his widow, Queen Elisabeth, could use the property in Moravia (Sigismund made Albert 1 HHStA, Familienurkunden, Nr. 434/1 and HHStA AUR, 1421 September 28. For more on the marriage contracts see Elbel, Die Heirat, pp. 111–18. © Daniela Dvořáková, 2025 | doi:10.1163/9789004722552_003

Elisabeth, Queen of Hungary

5

a Moravian margrave and put the country under his administration) only under the supervision of her mother, Queen Barbara. Thus, after the death of Sigismund, Albert’s potential son would grow up completely under the influence of his grandmother and not his own parents. The Austrian duke was well aware of all of this as well as the lamentable state of the royal properties. While the monarch possessed only 30 castle estates in 1437, the Cillis owned as many as 47. Thus, the “old queen”, in combination with her relatives, possessed far more property than the future king. It must have been clear to Albert that governing with such a distribution of power and such a wealthy and forceful mother-in-law behind him would be difficult. But not only that, Barbara was – unlike him – at a great advantage, because she lived in Hungary, had a network of personal connections already built, knew the local relations as well as the mentality and what’s more – unlike Albert – she spoke the language. Queen Barbara favoured an orientation on the Polish court; she would have preferred seeing the Polish Jagellions as successors to the Hungarian and Bohemian thrones alongside her two granddaughters, Albert and Elisabeth’s daughters. The question of Polish succession was a real one in Hungary and in the Bohemian Kingdom; a part of the Utraquist nobility, particularly from the eastern Bohemia, and the Taborites, would only with difficulty wish Albert of Habsburg on the Bohemian throne. The only way to liquidate this inconvenient queen was to strip of her of property and sideline her from political power. Therefore, Albert had Barbara imprisoned and accused her of a conspiracy. On 5 December 1437, allegedly on the order of the dying King Sigismund, Queen Barbara, her ladies of the court and several important courtiers were arrested.2 The imprisoning of Queen Barbara and others close to her had its justification. Albert had to act quickly, because  – despite the agreements with Sigismund over succession  – he was far from being certain in regard to the Hungarian throne. In the Hungarian Kingdom, too, was a very strong group of magnates who preferred the Polish succession. They wanted to see Polish King Władysław Jagellion on the throne as the wife of one of Albert’s daughters. In this context, the information that Sigismund up to the last moment of his life was expecting a Polish messenger in Znojmo in order to conclude a marriage contract of his two granddaughters with Władysław and his brother Casimir, is exceedingly of interest.3

2 Dvořáková, Barbara of Cilli, p. 179. 3 This information comes from John Dlugosz, Dlugosii, Ioannis Annales seu cronice incliti regni Poloniae. Lib. 11–12, 1431–1444. (Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, 2001), p. 584; hereafter

6

Chapter 1

Although Albert referred to the heritable right of his wife Elisabeth, the emperor’s daughter, for his claims on Sigismund’s inheritance, the heritable right the royal throne did not apply on the female side in Hungary; in such a case an election was to decide on the monarch. Prelates and barons of the kingdom had the right to elect a monarch, and they decided whether to accept the heir to the throne and her husband. Thus, the dying Sigismund could only recommend to his magnates that they elect Albert as king. This is also confirmed by instructions for a papal ambassador to Hungary and the Bohemian Kingdom, written in the second half of December 1437 (it is undated, but from the context it is clear that it came after Emperor Sigismund’s death). The ambassador received instructions even in the event that Albert was not elected king in Hungary. If that were to occur, the emissary was to pass through without evaluation, until he personally arrived to the Kingdom of Hungary and became familiar with the direction, intentions and decision of the barons.4 The instructions explicitly emphasise that if the Hungarian barons are not united and one side prefers the Polish king and the other Duke Albert, then the ambassador should maintain strict neutrality and not show favour towards one candidate or the other, but should only urge the barons to be unified and peacefully decide on one or the other. The text then tells the ambassador how to proceed if the Hungarians were to choose only Albert. At the time the instructions for the papal ambassador were written by the papal office, they had no idea that Albert had already been chosen as the Hungarian king. On 19 December in Rome, they did not even know that Sigismund is dead; on that day the pope issued a letter for the Bishop of Pécs in which he refers to the emperor as a living person.5 The instructions for the ambassador thus had to be written only after this date. It was therefore clear that despite Sigismund’s will, the selection did not absolutely have to end successfully for Albert. Sigismund’s son-in-law was fully aware of this; he knew that the Polish side had a strong position in Hungary and that his own election as Hungarian king was far from certain. That’s why cited as Dlugosz. His report is confirmed by other sources, references to it are in Wostry, König Albrecht II. 1, p. 27, note 3. 4 Codex epistolaris saeculi decimi quinti 1–3 vols., 1. 1384–1492, eds. August Sokołowski, and Joseph Szujski. (Monumenta medii aevi historica res gestas Poloniae illustrantia 2) (Cracow 1876) 2. 1382–1445, ed. Anatolius Lewicki, (Monumenta medii aevi historica res gestas Poloniae illustrantia 12) (Krakow 1891) 3. (1392–1501) ed. Anatolius Lewicki (Monumenta medii aevi historica res gestas Poloniae illustrantia 12), (Krakow 1894), 2, p. 362, DRTA 13/1, p. 167. 5 Stephanus Katona, Historia critica Regvm Hvngariae stirpis mixtae 5 (Budae: Typis Regiae Vniversitatis, 1790), p. 827.

Elisabeth, Queen of Hungary

7

he decided to act. The path he chose led him to the designed end, but he ultimately paid too high a price for it. The disposal of potential adversaries present at the time of Sigismund’s death among the emperor’s entourage in Znojmo was only the first, easier step. Additional important tasks were to keep the report of Sigismund’s death secret as long as possible and speed up the elections, so that followers of Władysław would not have time to attend. Of course, keeping the emperor’s death completely secret was not possible; such news spread rapidly, thanks especially to messengers of individual members of Sigismund’s entourage, though the information was confusing and unclear. The first, freshest report on the arrest of Barbara came from 9 December, that is on the day the emperor took his last breath. It was written by Count Palatinate Christopher, who worked in the service of Sigismund, in a letter to his father John of Neumarkt. In it he notifies his father that the emperor died at three o’clock in the afternoon and that Duke Albert, his wife and several Hungarian lords were there beside him until his death. He writes that on the next day a requiem mass was to be held and then the dead emperor was to be taken to Oradea.6 He himself will accompany the procession with the dead sovereign up the Hungarian border and then return home, because he has lost his lord. Christopher further wrote that on the Thursday before the date of this letter (thus, on 5 December) the emperor had, before his death, ordered the arrest of the empress here in Znojmo and that all of her ladies be sent away.7 On the Saturday before the date of this charter (7 December) he had the empress escorted to Bratislava. “And the one from Austria oversaw it all and took part in it, about which I cannot write. It is said that he from Austria is to become the Hungarian king, and this is completely public.”8 The death of the emperor and the imprisonment of Barbara was also announced by Sigismund’s courtier Matko of Talovac (Talóci) in a letter to the city of Dubrovnik dated in Vienna on 11 December 1437. According to Talóci, Sigismund died on 9 December an hour before sunrise.9 In a report of the city of Frankfurt from January 1438 on the burial rites that the city had organised in honour of the deceased emperor, it is written that Sigismund died 6 Hungarian Nagy Várad. 7 The date of Barbara’s arrest, 5 December, is also given by Nuremberg burgher Tucher, in his own chronicle (Memorialbuch) in an entry that he wrote around 1439; Die Chroniken der deutschen Städte 10, Die Chroniken der fränkischen Städte. Nürnberg IV (Leipzig: Verlag von S. Hirzel, 1872), p. 21. 8 DRTA 13/1:3–4. 9 Nicolae Jorga, Notes et extraits pour servir à l´histoire des croisades au XVe siècle. Vol. 2 (Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1899), p. 346.

8

Chapter 1

on 9 December (this was the Monday after the Feast Day of the Immaculate Conception) at three o’clock in the afternoon. This obviously came from the information of Palatinate Christopher.10 In Nuremberg they had a report that the emperor had died two hours before midnight.11 Eberhard Windecke, a merchant from Mainz who lived for a certain time at Sigismund’s court, devoted extensive attention  – two full chapters  – to Sigismund’s death in his work – a biography of the emperor.12 One passage that is frequently quoted in the literature and is the subject of more than one historical study is worth mentioning. According to Windecke’s testimony, Sigismund grandly stage managed his dying, conceiving it in an impressive, theatrical style. On the day when he knew he must depart this world, he ordered first thing in the morning that he be dressed in his ceremonial robe, in which he read the gospels during a Christmas mass, and then heard the mass with his imperial crown on his head. After the mass, he asked that the ceremonial clothing be removed and that they instead dress him in funereal garments. Thus, prepared for death, he asked to be placed on the throne, where he was sitting when he eventually died. Before dying, he expressed the desire that after his death he be left exhibited for two-three days in a seated position on the throne, “so that all people in the world could see that the lord of the world is dead …” Windecke adds that on the day before his death, the emperor summoned his son-in-law to him, as well as Hungarian and Bohemian lords, and asked them to accept Albert as the monarch. Windecke called Albert his son not only because he was the husband of his daughter but also because Sigismund really did consider him a son to a certain degree. In 1404 he allegedly promised the dying Albert’s father, Albert IV, that he would take in his then seven-year-old son and protect him after the death of his father. According to Windecke, Sigismund warned the Hungarian lords against calling the Polish king to the throne, because this would lead to wars, and peace would never reign in the kingdom again. He commanded that Queen Barbara be arrested and held until the moment when Albert was elected and crowned. The dying Sigismund supposedly told the same to the Bohemian lords.13 10 Johannes Janssen, ed., Frankfurts Reichskorrespondenz nebst andern verwandtenAktenstücken von 1376–1549, 1 (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder’sche Verlangshandlung, 1863), no. 782, p. 420. 11 Chronik aus Kaiser Sigmund’s Zeit bis 1434 mit Fortsetzung bis 1441 in Die Chroniken der deutschen Städte I. Die Chroniken der fränkischen Städte. Nürnberg. 1 (Leipzig: Verlag von S. Hirzel, 1862), p. 399. 12 Eberhard Windecke, Denkwürdigkeiten zur Geschichte des Zeitalters Kaiser Sigismunds, ed. Wilhelm Altmann (Berlin: Gaertner, 1893), pp. 446–48, chap. 367 and 368. 13 Windecke, Denkwürdigkeiten, p. 447, chap. 368.

Elisabeth, Queen of Hungary

9

Aeneas Silvius Piccolomini describes Sigismund’s speech to the Hungarian and Bohemian lords almost identically in his work Historia Bohemica.14 Neither Piccolomini, nor Windecke, however, were in Znojmo at the time of Sigismund’s death, and their description is tendentious and strongly propagandistic; both drew from the same source. Analysis of written sources on the emperor’s death, from eyewitness reports to chronicles and literary works, clearly show that this is a story invented by Chancellor Kaspar Schlick. Windecke himself admits in his chronicle that he obtained the information from the letter of an eyewitness, Kaspar Schlick.15 And Chancellor Schlick spread his reports in a targeted way: his task was to legitimise the unprecedented and unlawful steps of Albert – the imprisonment of a queen and followers of the Polish succession – to ensure his successful election as the Hungarian king.16 Of interest is the fact that not even Chancellor Schlick, who was actually present at Sigismund’s death, nor any of the other eyewitnesses, wrote a description of the dying Sigismund sitting on his throne or of his subsequent public display after death in this position. Windecke’s colourful description is with the greatest probability a mere literary fiction of the author. Even the illustration in Windecke’s chronicle depicting the dead emperor on throne is a fantasy. The model for it was the depiction of King Sigismund on the majestic seal which goldsmith Arnold Boemel made for Sigismund in 1417 in Constance. The illustrator of the chronicle took the image with only one slight difference, that he now depicted Sigismund with closed eyes.17 The enthroning of the emperor, who at the time of his death was still a mentally active “ruler” dictating a will in favour of his son-in-law and issuing commands, was to give even greater weight to Albert’s claims to the Bohemian and Hungarian thrones.18

14 Aeneae Silvii [Piccolomini], Historia Bohemica. Ediderunt et in linguam Bohemicam verterunt Dana Martínková, Alena Hadravová, and Jiří Matl. Praefatus est František Šmahel. – Enea Silvio, Historie česká. K vydání připravili a z latinského originálu přeložili Dana Martínková, Alena Hadravová a Jiří Matl. Úvodní studii napsal František Šmahel (Prague: Koniasch Latin Press, 1998), pp. 175–77. 15 Klára Benešovská and Jan Chlíbec, “Dne 9. prosince 1437. Znojemský chrám sv. Mikuláše v době smrti císaře Zikmunda,” in Středověký kaleidoskop pro muže s hůlkou. Věnováno Františku Šmahelovi k životnímu jubileu, eds. Eva Doležalová and Pavel Sommer (Prague: Nakladatelství Lidové noviny, 2016), p. 290. 16 Dvořáková, Barbara of Cilli, pp. 175–204. 17 This is pointed out by Terézia Kerny, “Begräbnis und Begräbnisstätte von König Sigismund” in Sigismundus rex et imperator. Kunst und Kultur zur Zeit Sigismunds von Luxemburg 1387–1437, Ausstellungskatalog (Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern, 2006), p. 476. On the authorship of Sigismund’s majestic seal see caption 3.18, pp. 186–87. 18 Image in the Windecke Chronicle, manuscript, Vienna, ÖNB HAN, cod. 13 975, fol. 439r.

10

Chapter 1

It is difficult to say whether the story that the dying Sigismund, prior to his death, gathered the Bohemian and Hungarian lords and appealed to them to be loyal to Albert and appointed Chancellor Schlick as the executor of his will, is true or not. Other authors later adopted it in various forms; for example, Antonio Bonfini, the court historian of King Matthias Corvinus.19 In his telling, however, Sigismund was not placed on the throne; he put the event in the bedroom of the dying emperor. The essence, however, remained the same, spiced up with an emotional description of the lamentations and the solemn oath of those present. But this is not of such importance for our story. Regardless of whether he publicly declared it shortly before his death, Sigismund really did want Albert to be his successor alongside his only daughter. Although historians usually accept Windecke’s impressive testimony about the lavish death of the emperor and consider it as trustworthy,20 they nevertheless point out several curiosities. The desire that they dress king the king in special funereal clothing, supposedly clothing from grey linen as a sign of humility, was not a custom with monarchical burials; we do not come across it with any other royal funeral.21 This funereal dress is not specified in any way in Windecke’s work; therefore, considerations on the choice of clothing, from grey linen as an act of humility or a signal of the ideal of poverty, are only the speculations of historians. Death in a sitting position or displaying the body of a dead monarch in a sitting position was not customary; such a ritual never appeared before or after Sigismund in any Roman-German king, though this was a typical demonstration of power in ancient times. In the Middle Ages, this method of presenting the corpse occurred only among high ecclesiastical dignitaries, especially in the case of popes (occasionally bishops), who were exhibited sitting in a chair, the symbol of their office, because deceased popes received absolution, from the cardinals in this position. It is highly unlikely that Sigismund would want to imitate a papal funeral, as there was no similar 19

Antonio Bonfini, Rerum Ungaricarum Decades, eds. József Fógel, Béla Iványi, and László Juhász (Lipsiae: B.G. Teubner, 1936–1976), Decas III. Liber, III, pp. 72–3. 20 Kerny, Begräbnis, p. 476, Rudolf J. Meyer, “Überlegungen zum Begräbnis Kaiser Sigismunds in Wardein im Jahre 1437” in Der Tod des Mächtigen. Kult und Kultur des Todes spätmittelaltzerlicher Herrscher, ed. Kolmer Lothar (Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöning, 1997), pp. 321–24, František Šmahel, “Poslední chvíle, pohřby a hroby českých králů,” in Slavnosti, ceremonie a rituály v pozdním středověku, eds. Martin Nodl and František Šmahel (Prague: Argo, 2014), p. 167. The newest Benešovská and Chlíbec, “Dne 9. prosince 1437”. All biographical works devoted to Sigismund adopted Windecke’s statement on the death of emperor. 21 Meyer, Überlegungen, p. 322 and note 13.

Elisabeth, Queen of Hungary

11

absolution ritual for emperors.22 With the onset of the Renaissance, describing the death and burial of a monarch in the spirit of ancient ideals became popular in literature. At that time, the legend of the supposed burial of Emperor Charlemagne sitting on the throne, which historians and archaeologists long ago refuted, was evidently still alive.23 The motif of the deceased emperor sitting in vestments on the throne was also found in a description of Emperor Frederick III’s death written in the first half of the 16th century. The displaying of the seated corpse of Emperor Frederick III is unlikely, given that no contemporary source mentions any such a thing, and historians reject it as a literary fiction from a later period.24 The story of Sigismund’s death described by Eberhard Windecke is also doubted in other sources. Only three days after Sigismund’s death, on 12 December, the Count of Bratislava County, Stephen Rozgonyi, wrote a letter to the city of Bratislava from Zistersdorf, Austria, stating that in the coming days the Austrian prince, together with his wife and the body of the deceased emperor, would be arriving in Bratislava and that the town should provide them with food as best they could.25 Zistersdorf is some 75 km distant from Znojmo, and it was from there that the procession with the dead king could go to Bratislava, as it is the logical road leading from Znojmo to Bratislava. The presence of Stephen Rozgonyi in Zistersdorf could not be explained otherwise. Even if we admit that we don’t need to know the reasons for his stay in this Austrian town, it is difficult to imagine that Albert in Znojmo would know on 9 December that the Count of Bratislava County was in Zistersdorf and that he sent a quick messenger to him there. Furthermore, we know that Stephen and his brother George Rozgonyi were in Sigismund’s entourage in Znojmo.26 Thus, it seems that shortly after Sigismund’s death, evidently on the next day, i.e. on Tuesday, 10 December, the procession with the dead emperor and the arrested queen set off on the road. They chose a road through Austria, which was safer and faster, since Albert needed Sigismund’s death to remain a secret for as long as possible. This could only have been done with great difficulty were the procession to travel through the Kingdom of Hungary. The nearly eighty kilometres that separate Znojmo from Zistersdorf also correspond to two days of travel; thus, the date of Stephen’s letter fits into the mosaic 22 Meyer, Überlegungen, pp. 323–24, notes 15 and 18. 23 The first was at the end of the 19th century, Theodor Lindner, Zur Fabel von der Bestattung Karls des Grossen (Aachen: Cremersche Buchhandlung, 1893). 24 In this sense Rudolf J. Meyer, König- und Kaiserbegräbnisse im Spätmittelalter. Von Rudolf von Habsburg bis zum Friedrich III. (Cologne – Weimar – Vienna: Böhlau, 2000), p. 177. 25 Katona, Historia critica 5, p. 820. 26 MNL OL DL 13 121, 13 124, 13 126.

12

Chapter 1

of the story. We recall that on 11 December, Matko of Talovac also sent his report on the emperor’s death to the city of Dubrovnik, surprisingly from Vienna. At the time of Albert’s election, he would be by his side in Bratislava; thus, either he joined the entourage in Austria or travelled with it from Znojmo.27 Reports on the monarch were missing in Hungary for a long time. Still during Sigismund’s life, on the eve of the Feast Day of St. Nicholas (5 December), the Sopron Town Council wrote to Bratislava that it had been unable to find out any information about the emperor. They therefore asked the Bratislava aldermen whether they could provide them with any.28 We don’t know how the people of Bratislava responded and whether they had any reports on Sigismund until after 12 December, when they received a letter from the Count of Bratislava County. We also don’t know the exact day when Albert’s procession arrived in Bratislava with the body of the dead emperor. It had to have been before 18 December, because the election took place on that day. Contemporary reports also list 17 December as the election date, but one of the transcripts of Albert and Elisabeth’s election oath (the electoral capitulation) has been preserved with the date of 18 December, which clearly states that this is the day the election took place.29 The election assembly thus took place prior to news of Sigismund’s death spreading across the country. This news spread very slowly, and on 22 December, four days after the election of Albert as King of Hungary and nearly two weeks after Sigismund’s death, the Győr Chapter (which is 70 km from Bratislava, a distance a rapid messenger could cover in one day) still did not know that Sigismund is dead, and they addressed a charter to him.30 In the agreement preceding the act of the election itself, the so-called electoral capitulation,31 Albert and Elisabeth conspicuously apologised to those 27 MNL OL DF 208 612. 28 AMB, no. 1541. 29 An overview of sources with both dates is given by Wilhelm Wostry, König Albrecht II. 1437–1439.1 (Prague: Rohlíček und Sievers, 1906–1907), p. 50 note 1. Wostry also published the electoral capitulation, Wostry, König Albrecht II. 2, pp. 145–49, however, without the final passage, which includes information on the sealing with the seals of his Austrian courtiers, and without the part that is dated. One of the transcripts of the electoral capitulation has been preserved in a codex stored at the Bavarian State Library in Munich, Codices Ms. 729, on photocopy MNL OL DF 290 162. 30 DL 13 136. This is also pointed out by Dezső Szabó, “Albert királlyá választása” in Emlékkönyv Fejérpataky László életének hatvanadik évfordulója ünnepére, ed. Imre Széntpétery (Budapest: Franklin-Társulat Nyomdája, 1917), p. 319. 31 Electoral capitulation was an agreement between the elected future ruler and his voters, setting the boundaries of his future power.

Elisabeth, Queen of Hungary

13

voters who were not present at the election assembly and promised that they would reconcile with them through amiable messages, letters or even personally, so that they would not feel aggrieved that that the election of a king had taken place without their participation. Albert emphasised that he would be equally kind and charitable to those absent and will include them in his benefits and graces the same as those who had been to Bratislava and elected him king. If a majority of those who had the right to elect a king had taken part in the election, such an article would certainly have not been part of the electoral capitulation.32 The future king and queen had to make further concessions in their vows, which meant limitations on royal power. Albert committed to the repeal of some of Sigismund’s reforms which infringed on the privileges of the aristocracy as harmful innovations. A major restriction of royal rights was also the obligation that if the monarch wanted to finance the military from his Hungarian revenues, he had to ask for the consent of the magnates. Albert and Elisabeth not only rushed the election, but also the royal coronation, setting the date for it as New Year’s Day, i.e. 1 January 1438. When they actually buried the body of the deceased emperor remains still a question. Historians think that the funeral took place between the election and the coronation. Again, they rely here on Windecke’s report: the dead king was taken from Bratislava via Komárno, Esztergom, Visegrád, Vác and Buda to Oradea, where he was ceremoniously buried. The path of the funeral procession is credible, but the burial could not have taken place before the coronation, because if the procession carrying the emperor’s dead body had set out for Oradea immediately on the day after the election, that is on 19 December,33 then it would have to have literally raced against time, because on 31 December, the future royal couple and their Hungarian supporters were in Székesfehérvár. We know, however, from a letter of John of Schaumburg dated 19 December in Bratislava that the royal procession was still preparing to travel from Bratislava up to 21 December, and that its goal was not Oradea and the funeral of the deceased monarch, but Székesfehérvár and the coronation.34 The notion that in the ten days remaining between leaving Bratislava and arriving in Székesfehérvár the royal court moved to Oradea, 450 kilometres away, took part in funeral ceremonies and then travelled another 300-plus 32 Wostry, König Albrecht II., 2, pp. 145–49. 33 On 19 December 1437, Matko of Talovac, who we know was in Albert’s escort, dated a charter in Bratislava. MNL OL DF 208 612. 34 AČ 21, p. 291: “Wir lassen euch wissen, das wir vor meinem hern dem herczogn gein Prespurg chomen sein vnd wir mitt den vngerischen hern sein sach aussgetragen haben; vnd mein herr wirt sych abheben an sand Tomans tag (21 December) gein Weyssenburg, da wellen sy in chrönen zu dem new iar, vnd die lantschafft yst ym gar willig.”

14

Chapter 1

kilometre back, can be ruled out. This would have involved over 750 kilometres of travel in the middle of winter! The travelling speed of the royal entourage, which included wagons, only rarely exceeded 20–25 km per day in winter. Even if the funeral procession had completed part of the trip to Buda in boats, which was for the most part unrealistic or at least dangerous on the frozen Danube in winter due to ice floes and the level of the river, they would still have had to continue at an absolutely fantastic speed of around 75 km per day; therefore, this is all but excluded. Furthermore, winter was very harsh that year with a great deal of snow.35 It is more or less certain that the deceased emperor’s funeral took place either without the participation of Elisabeth and Albert, or it was postponed until after the coronation, which seems more likely. We know for certain that the empress-widow, Queen Barbara, did not attend the funeral, because she and her court ladies were still imprisoned by Albert in Bratislava at the beginning of February 1438.36 Not only was their insufficient time for Emperor Sigismund’s funeral between the election and Albert and Elisabeth’s coronation, but moving away from Székesfehérvár and Buda before the coronation would have been very risky. The situation was far from trouble-free, as it may appear in some reports on Albert’s election.37 Even Piccolomini himself, who improved Albert’s image to as great an extent as possible, says in his biography of this monarch that many nobles did not know of his election and did not want him as king. Albert, however, came out to meet these incensed noblemen and mollified them, and he was then crowned in peace.38 One authentic historical source, a charter 35

On the basis of the judgment charter, the Eger Chapter was to carry out the assessment of the property of the Druget family of Humenné (Homonnai) by 13 January. The ambassadors of the chapter could not fulfil the order due to the huge amount of snow, “propter nimam nivium densitatem”, SNA, Premonstratensian Prepository of Leles (Acta saeculi) XV.st. Fasc.III, Nr. 186, MNL OL DF 234 249. 36 AMB, no. 1554, CDH 11, p. 60. Regarding the fate of Barbara in this period, see also Dvořáková, Barbara of Cilli, pp. 182–99. 37 For example, the report of papal ambassador Giovanni Francesco Capodolista, who notified Venice about the election of Albert in a letter dated 18 December in Vienna. According to his information, Albert was elected in Bratislava by the general consent of the barons: “per barones Hungarie in civitate Prespurchg in regem Hungarie communi concordia fuisse electum.” DRTA 12, p. 214. In the quoted letter from John of Schaumburg (note 115), the author in turn states that the landed estates accepted Albert with complete willingness: “die lantschafft yst ym gar willig”; the problem was that only a portion of the representatives of the landed states was present in Bratislava. 38 Enee Silvii Piccolominei Pii P II De viris illustribus, ed. Adriano van Heck (Cittá del Vaticano, 1991), hereafter cited as Piccolomini, De viris ilustribus, p. 56: “fuerunt complures nobiles, qui se nihil de sua electione sciuisse contenderent, nec eum in regem uolebant, quibus Budam uenientibus is obuiam exiuit, iratosque nobilium animos tanta humanitatis exhibitione

Elisabeth, Queen of Hungary

15

issued on 31 December 1437 in Székesfehérvár, indicates that the situation was much more dramatic than Albert and the official reports of those in his inner circle presented. This charter, addressed to the Bratislava Chapter, by which the prelates and barons postponed the date of the oath of Ladislaus Garai from the octave of the Epiphany (13 January) to the octave of St. George (1 May) is very valuable for several reasons.39 On the one hand, it is clear which magnates supported Albert, but mainly it is clearly evident that riots broke out in the country in connection with the death of Sigismund and the election of a new monarch. Ladislaus Garai, Ban of Mačva (Hungarian Macsó) was fully engaged in “quieting” the riots and the shocks that swept through the kingdom after the death of Sigismund, so he could not take part in the oath in Bratislava at the appointed time.40 After the successful coronation, Albert sent out messengers to announce the news to all parties.41 Perhaps Emperor Sigismund’s funeral took place sometime around this period. The striking absence of charters issued by King Albert between 9 and 22 January, which is enough time to travel from Buda to Oradea and back, would also indicate this. Whether the deceased emperor was buried without the presence of his daughter and son-in-law in December 1437, which is indicated in the reports of Austrian chronicler Thomas Ebendorfer and German chronicler Hartung Kammermeister,42 or was accompanied by them in January of the following pacauit coronatusque est cum omni pace” In the text, Piccolomini says that the dissatisfied marched to Buda, where Albert came out to meet them. It is possible that before the coronation, on the way to Székesfehérvár, Albert and his loyalists secured Buda as the centre of the kingdom. 39 MNL OL DF 273 840. 40 The document tells of the riots following the death of Sigismund and the role of Ladislaus Garai: “quia magnificus vir Ladislaus de Gara banus machoviesis. propter instantes et arduos expediciones Regni mortuo condam invictissimo domino nostro domino Sigidmundi Romanorum imperatore, Hungarie etc. Rege de et super noui regis eidem Regno Hungarie eiusque felici regimine profectione aliisque eiusdem Regni motionibus et turburibus sopiendis et sedandis emergentes …”. 41 On 2 January Albert notified the city of Dubrovnik of the coronation still from Székes­ fehérvár, József Gelcich and Lajos Thallóczy, eds., Raguza és Magyarország oklevéltára (Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia Tört. Bizottsága, 1887), no. 248, p. 407. On 9 January he sent a report on the coronation, this time from Buda, to Austrian Prince Frederick, József Teleki, Hunyadiak kora Magyarországon. Oklevéltár 10 (Pesten: Emich Gusztáv Könyvnyomdája, 1853), p. 10. 42 Thomas Ebendorfer, Chronica Regum Romanorum, ed. Harald Zimmermann, Monumenta Germaniae historica. Scriptores rerum Germanicarum. Nova series 18, (Hannover: Hahnsche Buchhandlung, 2003), 1, p. 586: “Cuius et funus curando conduxit, pariter suis impensis ministrando singula pro exequiis necessaria, usque Posonium prefatus Albertus cum

16

Chapter 1

year, one thing is certain – that his final resting place is in Oradea, Romania, a location he had selected himself many decades before. Sigismund was not yet 40 years old when he decided that he wanted to rest in the Oradea Cathedral after his death. The reason was not only that he held the Hungarian national saint, St. Ladislaus, who was buried in Oradea, in high esteem, but that some of his loved ones also rested there: his predecessor, father-in-law and protector, Louis I of Hungary; his first wife, Louis’s daughter, Maria of Anjou; or a great-great auntie of the Luxembourg family, Queen Beatrice, the third wife of Charles I of Hungary.43 Sigismund first spoke of Oradea as his final place of rest in a charter from 1406. In it, the king stated that he had selected this as his burial place; he declares respect for St. Ladislaus and describes in detail the miracle that occurred in Oradea several years before (we know that it was around 1400). A carelessly forgotten candle in the sacristy of the cathedral caused a great fire, which destroyed all the rare treasures of the chapter: liturgical items, rare documents, clothing. The only thing the fire did not destroy was the reliquary of St. Ladislaus. In the charter Sigismund describes that the mighty flames completely melted the box (the herm), but the relic itself remained untouched, not even the smoke from the fire marked it.44 With this charter the monarch confirmed the chapter’s ownership of several ancient estates. The date of issue of the privilege is not accidental; King Sigismund’s first journey after his marriage to Queen Barbara of Cilli took him to Oradea in 1406. He also liked to take important guests here; in 1412 he spent the Easter holidays here with King Władysław II Jagiełłon of Poland. On that occasion, he gifted him a fragment from the relic of St. Ladislaus, for which the Polish king had his own herm made at home, similar to the one Sigismund had had rebuilt after the fire.45 The king returned to Oradea regularly, whenever circumstances allowed. He later acquired another rare relic for the Oradea cathedral – the remains of his personal patron, St. Sigismund – and he founded a chapel there dedicated to this saint. It was Sigismund’s father, Emperor Charles IV, who brought the sua coniuge, sepulture quoque tradidit Baradini in mausoleo, quod olim in ecclesia, qua et beatus Ladislaus quiescit, sibi regio apparatu fabricavit.” Hartung Kammermeister, see Die Chronik Hartung Cammermeisters, ed. Robert Reiche, Herausgegeben von der Historischen Commission der Provinz Sachsen, 35. Band, (Halle 1986), p. 63, states in connection with the death of Sigismund that the emperor died in the town of Znojmo and that they transported him in a great hurry to Hungary, to Oradea, where he was buried: “unde wart gefurt in sin konigriche zu Ungern gein Wardyn in dy stad in grosser snellikeit …” 43 Kerny, Begräbnis, p. 475. 44 CDH 10/4, pp. 518–25, on the miracle p. 523. 45 Kerny, Begräbnis, pp. 475–76.

Elisabeth, Queen of Hungary

17

cult of St. Sigismund, a Burgundian saint, to the Bohemian Kingdom. In 1365 he was able to obtain the body of the saint from the Abbey of Saint-Maurice d’Agaune and he transported the rare remains to Prague and deposited them in the St. Vitus Cathedral at Prague Castle. The head of St. Sigismund was stored in a splendid herm of pure gold, to which two crowns belonged. In 1420, during his stay in Prague, Sigismund of Luxembourg seized the rare relics and took them to Hungary, and the herm with the head of St. Sigismund probably ended up in Oradea.46 We don’t know any details about Emperor Sigismund’s funeral. The postponement of the funeral ceremony and the long transport of the deceased emperor was only possible because it was a harsh winter and the body did not succumb to natural decay so quickly. In this context, the completely unnoticed report of one Nuremberg chronicler that Sigismund’s body was not embalmed after his death – allegedly at his express request – is interesting. We look at this chronicler’s record, because it is rather exceptional. Let us first examine what the chronicler actually wrote: “But then, in the 37th year, the emperor left Prague because he developed a ‘rose’ on one toe. Then, on the Monday before St. Lucy, two hours before night, he died in a town called Znojmo, in Moravia. Before that, he had legally secured all matters with the Hungarian and Bohemian lords and others who were by his side, with his son-in-law, Duke Albert of Austria, and with the Duchess. They spoke with him, and up to his passing he was completely of mind and fully humble. They took him to Oradea, in Hungary, and buried him there. They did not embalm him, as this was his last will. The Empress was not there; they had previously sent her to Pressburg [Bratislava] and were holding her captive at the duke’s castle so that she surrender her castles in the country.”47 46 Regarding the cult of St. Sigismund, which the Luxembourgs brought to Bohemia, see Milada Studničková, “Kult svatého Zikmunda v Čechách,” in Světci a jejich kult ve středověku. Sborník Katolické teologické falkulty Univerzity Karlovy. Dějiny umění – historie IV (Prague: Tomáš Halama, 2006), pp. 283–324. The chronicler Veit Arnpeck, Sämtliche Chroniken, ed. Georg Leidinger. Quellen und Erörterungen zur bayerischen und deutschen Geschichte, Neue Folge 3 (Munich, 1915), pp. 709–845 wrote about the placement of the remains of St. Sigismund at Oradea, for more, see Illés Horváth, “Váradra jöttünk a legszentebb László király sírjának és ereklyéinek maglátogatására – Zsigmond király és Szent László városa,” in Fejezetek erdélyi történetéről, Studia Historica Transylvaniensia 1, ed. Áron Tőtős, (Nagyvárad, 2018), p. 232. 47 Chronik aus Kaiser Sigmund´s Zeit, p. 399: “Item darnach aber im 37 jar da zog fer kaiser kranck von Prag weg, wan er hett gewunnen das wild fewer an einer zehen. da starb er an darnach am Montag vor Lucie zwo stunt vor nachts in der statt Znaim genant in Merhern und er schicket vor alle ding mit den ungerischen und behmischen herren, und die anderen, die dan bey im waren, herzog Albrecht von Osterreich sein aiden und die herzogin auch, und

18

Chapter 1

To what extent we can believe the report of an anonymous Nuremberg chronicler that Sigismund expressly requested that he not be embalmed after his death is, of course, debatable. Reports of Sigismund’s death came to Nuremberg by means of a messenger from Prague in about mid-December, and as we already know, information about the emperor’s death reached Prague considerably filtered and altered by Chancellor Schlick.48 This chronicler, too, like others informed by the Chancellor, emphasises that the emperor was fully conscious until the last moment and bequeathed his kingdoms to Albert and Elisabeth in the presence of the Hungarian and Bohemian lords. What is surprising, however, is the news that the embalming of the deceased monarch’s body was not done at his explicit request, which he allegedly made just before his death. Embalming the bodily remains of kings was part of the funeral protocol; there was no doubt about this. There were not only practical reasons for this, since from the death of a monarch to a funeral was almost always a long time, but also out of respect for royal majesty, which the monarch enjoyed after death. Even Sigismund’s father, Emperor Charles IV, was autopsied and embalmed after his death, as confirmed by study of his remains: he had a longitudinal incision along his sternum and a mummification sponge placed in his abdomen.49 And Sigismund’s successor to the imperial throne, Frederick III Habsburg, was embalmed immediately after his death. The day after his death in Linz, the court marshal of his successor, Maximilian I, reported that the entrails had been removed from Frederick’s corpse and that he had been properly embalmed. The marshal also secured a coffin and requested instructions on whether he should await Maximilian’s arrival or send the deceased to Vienna.50 Thus, it is clear that there was not enough time to embalm the body of the deceased Emperor Sigismund or for long-lasting funeral rites. We have already mentioned that on the day after Sigismund’s death, the procession carrying his body set out for Bratislava. The freezing December weather enabled the redten mit im und er was gar vernunftig mit großer demutikeit untz an sein ent. und er wart gefürt gen Vardein in Ungern und wart da begraben; er wart nit gewaident, das schuff er an dem ent. die Kaiserin was nicht dabey, sie was vor zu Preßburg geschickt auf das schloß des hertzogen gefangen, das sie aufgebe die schloß im lant.” 48 The city accounts mention the arrival of a messenger from Prague bringing news of the emperor’s death, see Die Chroniken der deutschen Städte, 2, p. 52. 49 Šmahel, Poslední chvíle, p. 184, note 73. 50 Joseph Chmel, Urkunden, Briefe und Actenstücke zur Geschichte der Habsburgischen Fürsten: K. Ladislaus Posth., Erzherzog Albrecht VI. und Herzog Siegmund von Österreich. Aus den Jahren 1443–1473 (Vienna: K.k. Hof- und Staats-Druckerei, 1850), p. 1.

19

Elisabeth, Queen of Hungary

funeral to be postponed to a later date, even without embalming. Of course, we cannot rule out that Sigismund actually did not want his remains to be handled and therefore asked that they not be embalmed. However, the idea that during the struggle that followed Sigismund’s death no room remained for common funeral protocols fits well into the mosaic of the whole story, and those around the king later tried to justify this. Legends about Sigismund’s humility and modesty as he approached his own death do not correspond to the pomp with which he prepared his final resting place years in advance, when he had a magnificent “mausoleum” built in Oradea. We know that the remains of Emperor Sigismund rested in a splendid tomb, where liturgical acts (they sang psalms, served funeral masses) were conducted continuously day and night for another hundred years after his death. Sigismund secured these “for all time” during his lifetime with endowments.51 As is often the case in the human world, a desire for “evermore” is unfeasible, and Sigismund’s legacy was destroyed in the second half of the 16th century. The professional literature often declares that the Oradea Cathedral and the graves of Hungarian monarchs, including Sigismund’s, were ravaged by the Turks, but this is not true. The Turks did not destroy the burial place of the Hungarian kings in Oradea; Christians who fought cruel wars among themselves in the 16th century after the spread of Protestantism bear the blame for that. The bishop and the chapter departed Oradea as early as 1557; the destruction of the cathedral and royal tombs took place several years later. In June 1565, fanatical hordes of Protestants invaded the church, plundered it and destroyed the tomb of St. Ladislaus; his bodily remains were scattered, and all the other royal graves saw a similar fate. Part of the treasures were taken to Ecsed Castle, the seat of the Báthory family in Transylvania. The fortified episcopal complex with the cathedral in Oradea was later converted into a military building, and in the centuries that followed various remnants of destroyed graves and miscellaneous rare objects were found during building modifications. No one, however, knew for sure which of the graves was truly that of Emperor Sigismund. Not even the famous archaeologist, Bratislava native Flóriš Rómer, who lived in the 19th century and became a canon in Oradea, which enabled him to examine the remains in the Oradea necropolis, was able to find the lost tomb of Sigismund of Luxembourg, despite great efforts.52

⸪

51 Kerny, Begräbnis, p. 477, this follows from the report of the Archbishop of Esztergom, Nicholas Oláh, from 1536. 52 Meyer, Überlegungen, pp. 327–30, Kerny, Begräbnis, pp. 478–79.

20

Chapter 1

Albert of Habsburg achieved his aim. He became the elected and crowned king of Hungary and the first member of the Habsburg dynasty to sit on the Hungarian throne. In the end, however, the situation he found himself in was not an enviable one. The kingdom was divided; a portion of the nobility did not recognise him as its ruler. As Dominican monk George (Georgius de Hungaria), who experienced Sigismund’s death and the rise of Albert as a fifteen- or sixteen-year-old student in the Transylvanian city of Sebeș, wrote: “After the death of the Roman Emperor Sigismund, great conflicts broke out between the Hungarians and the Germans over the election of a new king, because Sigismund did not leave a legitimate heir.”53 Not even the Polish monarch recognised Albert as the King of Hungary. Still in November 1438, nearly a year after Albert’s coronation, the vice-chancellor of Cracow, Peter Szafraniec, called Albert in a letter to Kežmarok resident, the “Austrian prince, who is called the king of Hungary, and was crowned by some lords”.54 Albert had great problems in Transylvania, which still faced the uprising of his subjects. The new king rejected any negotiations with the rebellious peasants and ordered the hard suppression of the uprising that broke out Cluj. As early as 9 January 1438, a large aristocratic army attacked the city and it soon fell.55 The bloody settling with the uprising leaders stifled further attempts at revolt. But though the subjects were defeated, peace did not come to Transylvania; on the contrary, it increasingly faced Turkish attacks, and riots and wars also struck other parts of the kingdom. A letter from King Albert sent from Buda and addressed to the city of Bratislava on 17 February 1438 indicates that stormy relations also predominated in Upper Hungary and that even Bratislava was in danger. The monarch appealed to the city’s officials to guard Bratislava well and assured them that he was working with his knights on how to occupy and protect the border areas of Upper and Lower Hungary. Another big problem that Albert had to resolve was that of the imprisoned Queen Barbara. The Bohemian nobility, as one of the conditions of Albert’s accession to the throne, demanded that he release the queen without any ultimatums and persecution. Although Albert did release Barbara after a few months, he forced her to relinquish most of her property, leaving her only five 53

Georgius de Hungaria, Tractatus de moribus condictionibus et nequicia Turcorum, Traktat über die Sitten, die Lebensverhältnisse und die Arglist der Türken. Nach der Erstausgabe von 1481 herausgegeben, übersetzt und eingeleitet von Reinhard Klockow (Cologne: Böhlau 1993), p. 148. 54 MNL OL DL 44 221: “dominus dux Austrie et assertus Rex Vngarie unacum aliis dominis certis Vngarie, qui ipsum in Regem coronarunt”. 55 A charter issued on 9 January 1438, by which the representatives of the Transylvanian nobility, on the orders of King Albert, called for the help of the Transylvanian Saxons, states that the siege began “today”, MNL OL DF 244 726.

Elisabeth, Queen of Hungary

21

castle estates in the territory of today’s Slovakia. The queen accepted the agreement, but relations between her and her son-in-law later again became more complicated, and after Albert left the country sometime in the second half of 1438, the queen fled to Poland under the protection of the Polish king.56 In order pacify the restless, tumultuous kingdom, Albert needed loyal magnates and money to pay his army. Therefore, the first two months of his reign saw generous donations, by which he repaid his obligations to those who helped him to the Hungarian crown. The king tried to obtain money where he could. The easiest way was to collect from the royal cities he had under his control. Albert’s letter of 19 February 1438, in which he requested an extraordinary donation of 400 florins from the town of Bardejov, has been preserved in the town’s archives. His justification for this is laughable: he needs money urgently to defend against the attacks of his many foreign enemies, but since he is new to ruling, he does not yet know how to obtain money from other sources, so it seems to him the easiest way is to ask for it from the people of Bardejov and other royal cities and towns. Let us further add that in the letter’s introduction Albert announced to the people of Bardejov the “news” that only now, most recently, did Emperor Sigismund die.57 Things were even worse for Bratislava: it had to pay an extraordinary tax of 1,000 florins to Albert.58 The cities not only had to pay; they also to take part in battles. The above-mentioned citizens of Bardejov were to send their own cavalry and infantry into war with the “malicious” Poles, the “depraved” Bohemians and other bandits attacking along the northern border of Hungary.59 Not all royal towns paid willingly and immediately. In many cases, Albert had to urge them to pay; for example, on 20 March 1438, he wrote to the city of Košice that he does not know why they have not yet paid the commander of the army the money needed for the military campaign, and he commanded them to pay immediately.60 Problems beleaguered King Albert not only on the northern, but on the southern border, too, where a large army had to be sent to stop the advancing Turks. As soon as early March 1438, the palatine postponed the court dates from 1 May to the octave of Michael, i.e. to 6 October, due to the calling up of a general army against the Turks.61

56 57 58 59 60 61

Dlugosz 12, p. 595, Teleki, Hunyadiak kora 10, p. 43. AMBard. no. 326, MNL OL DF 213 009. AMB no. 1558. AMBard. no. 328, MNL OL DF 213 011. MNL OL DF 271 264. MNL OL DL 55 129.

22

Chapter 1

The situation was not peaceful even in the heart of the kingdom, in Buda itself, where Albert and Elisabeth had essentially remained since their coronation. The presence of the “German” king sparked tensions between the Hungarians and the Germans in the city, which led to open violence. The chronicler John of Thurocz (Thuróczy) informs about the looting that took place Buda: according to his information, an uprising broke out against the Germans in the first year of Albert’s reign, that is in 1438. But the specific events the chronicler describes did not actually take place until 1439; therefore, historians have evaluated his reports as erroneous and dated the anti-German uprising in Buda to 1439.62 The truth is on both sides, however, as neither John of Thurocz nor the historians were in error. Attacks on the Germans, in fact, occurred twice, both in 1438 and in 1439, during both of the king’s stays in Buda. The sources are completely clear in this regard. Valuable testimony to the events of 1438 is a letter from the mayor of Bratislava, who along with two town burghers was in Buda shortly after the events. On Thursday, 20 March 1438, city representatives wrote a letter to the Bratislava City Council, informing them of the “great unrest and rebellion” between the king’s people and the people of Buda, which arose due to a certain Jorig Diák. The unrest were said to have taken place on Friday night (14 March), but the authors of the letter did not know what had actually happened and why.63 Walter of Schwarzenberg also informs about the wild events in Hungary and the growing hatred of Hungarians for Germans and Bohemians that prevailed in the Kingdom of Hungary in his letter to the city of Frankfurt dated 29 March 1438. He had received reports from Buda from the royal master of the court. He didn’t want to write the details in the letter, but he reportedly knew the whole truth.64 One reason for the Hungarians’ hatred towards foreigners may have been the fact that the ruling couple did not keep their pre-coronation promises, especially their promise not to distribute property to foreigners. A typical 62 Johannes de Thurocz, Chronica Hungarorum, vol. 1, Textus, ed. Elisabeth Galántai and Julius Kristó (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1985); vol. 2, Commentarii. 2. Ab anno 1301 usque ad annum 1487, ed. Elemér Mályusz and Gyula Kristó (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1988), 2/2, p. 292 note 802. 63 AMB, no. 1561, DF 239 687: “… fritag nacht ein grus rumor and auflauf ist gewesen gegen dem Jorig Dyak … mit des Kunigs lewten vnnd auch mit dem Statfolk zu Ofen. Aber wir wissen nicht warum das geschehen ist oder was der sach ist.” 64 Janssen, Frankfurts Reichskorrespondenz, 1, no. 797, p. 435: “Man sagit welde leyffte nach von Ungern, dy ich dach nyt schriben wile, ich wesze dan gancz warheyt. Wolle sagt man daz dy Ungern dy Duczen und dye Beheymen mee haszen dan sy vor ye han gethan.” Both letters (note 69 and 70) are also pointed out by Wostry, König Albrecht II., 1, p. 59. He comes to the conclusion that there were two uprisings, a smaller one in March 1438 and a larger one in May 1439.

Elisabeth, Queen of Hungary

23

example of this broken promise was the donations made to Chancellor Kaspar Schlick. The chancellor had played a major role in side-tracking the opposition and the election of Albert as both the Hungarian and Bohemian king, and he expected a reward for his services. The monarch adroitly avoided violating his electoral oath by the fact that Schlick and his brothers, with the help of loyal prelates and barons, were solemnly received among Hungarian citizens on 2 March 1438 at the Franciscan monastery of St. John at Buda Castle.65 That same month Schlick acquired Holíč Castle from the king in eternal holding.66 He had no idea how much trouble the ownership of this castle would eventually bring him. Chancellor Schlick was Albert’s right-hand-man throughout the king’s entire reign. He is listed as the relator on several of Albert’s papers and letters, for example in the mandate of 26 March addressed to the town of Sopron. In that document, the king announced that he is preparing for a trip to the Bohemian Kingdom to take over rule after the deceased Sigismund and to calm the latest riots that had broken out there. He is also taking the cantors of the royal chapel with him, so that his chapel (in the sense of the institution, not the building), as an ornament of the royal court, can work without restrictions. For these purposes, he allocated 300 florins to the cantors that the people of Sopron were to pay to them.67 Additional sources, mostly reports from various ambassadors, also testify to the role of Schlick as the grey eminence of the royal court. For example, Diprand of Reibnitz, who on 4 April 1438 sent a detailed report from Bratislava to Wrocław about what was happening at Albert’s court, mentions him.68 In his letter, Diprand also returns to the attacks on the Germans that occurred in Buda in March and mentions the danger that the monarch and all the Germans along with him faced. Only a few Germans remained near the king, as all the others had left him, though the reason was not only the attacks, but also the huge expenses in Buda. Albert found himself in serious financial trouble; his resources were limited, and he spent a lot of money on the constant battles. Almost no income could expect from the tax levied in Hungary on St. George’s Day (24 April), because prior to his death, Emperor Sigismund managed to donate this money and commit it to various creditors. Of interest is the report

65 MNL OL DL 107 525. 66 MNL OL DL 36 293. The charter was preserved only in a description dated 30 March 1438. 67 MNL OL DF 202 655, Házi, Sopron 1/3, p. 160, Bernát L. Kumorovitz, Budapest történetének okleveles emlékei. 3 (1382–1439) (Budapest: Budapesti történeti Múzeum, 1987), p. 297. 68 Published by Wostry, König Albrecht II., 2, no. 8, p. 159.

24

Chapter 1

that Queen Elisabeth did not plan to accompany her husband on the upcoming journey but intended to remain in Buda. “God give her luck,” Diprand added. At the beginning of April, King Albert handed over rule in the Kingdom of Hungary to his wife and set off with his court to Vienna.69 There a report reached him about being elected the King of Rome and Germany. In Piccolomini’s telling, the ambassadors of the imperial princes – the king’s electors – demanded that Kaspar Schlick not be chancellor. Albert allegedly replied, “If the electors can entrust me with the Empire, why can they not tolerate me choosing a chancellor?”70 The stay of the king cost the Viennese a considerable sum of money. At the time of arrival in the city, they honoured him with a sum of 250 pounds (pfunts).71 The news of Albert’s election as the Roman King was also expensive for the Viennese, as the city organised grand celebrations, and festival bonfires were lit in many places. The ambassadors of the prince-electors received 12 rare horses and 26 gilded cups from the king, which were ceremoniously carried to their accommodation in the presence of trumpeters.72 Representatives of the prince-electors received Albert as the Roman-German king on the day after St. George’s day, on Friday, 25 April, at a ceremonial mass in St. Stephen’s Cathedral. It was therefore necessary to pay the organist, as well as the trumpeters who accompanied the ceremonial procession around the city, and to pay for the wood on the fires in several places as well as the waggoneers who distributed the wood, gratuities for the valets, expenses for tar and other needs for torches, by which the gates were ceremoniously lit, as well as other items associated with the celebrations.73 Even before the actual 69 On 8 April 1438, a mandate of the city of Bratislava, AMB no. 1563, MNL OL DF 239 688. At the same time from 8 April to 15 April, Albert issued charters dated in Vác, Hungary. These, however, were documents issued on behalf of the monarch either by Elisabeth herself or by the royal council. Throughout Albert’s absence from Hungary (almost a year), the Hungarian royal office produced charters on his behalf. The fact that the Hungarian royal seal remained in the country is evident in Albert’s mandate of 24 April 1438, dated in Vienna: due to the absence of the seal that he uses as the king of Hungary, he sealed the charter with his princely seal MNL OL DF 285 589. 70 Piccolomini, De viris ilustribus, p. 58. 71 Converting currencies to the Hungarian florin is rather complicated, as exchange rates have changed. One pound had 240 pfennigs, 1 florin was exchanged for about 205 pfennigs in Albert’s time. Otto Brunner, Die Finanzen der Stadt Wien von den Anfängen bis ins 16. Jahrhundert. Studien aus dem Archiv der Stadt Wien 1/2 (Vienna, 1920), p. 25. In honour of the King upon his arrival in Vienna, ibid. 261 with a reference to the account 22r: “Dem Römischen kunig zu erung, als er nach seiner krönung von Ungern her gen Wienn komen ist, nach gescheft des rats 250 pfunt.” 72 Chronik aus Kaiser Sigmund’s Zeit, p. 399: “und er ließ denn rätten allen schencken 12 pfert und 26 bar vergulter kopf, iedem seinen thail zu seiner herberg gefürt mit posaunen.” 73 Brunner, Die Finanzen der Stadt Wien, p. 262 with a reference to the account from year 1438, 61v.

Elisabeth, Queen of Hungary

25

ceremony, the city paid 4 florins to the messenger who brought the burgomaster the news of a successful election.74 The money that the bearers of the good news received is called “Botenbrot” (literally the “messenger bread”) in the accounts, and this was the more pleasant side of the work of messengers. It needs to be noted, however, that messengers often had to carry bad news, and if the recipients were an enemy, it could cost them their lives, and this very often did happen. Representatives of the Bohemian estates also travelled to Vienna to see Albert to discuss the terms for his accession to the Bohemian throne. The situation was made more dramatic after an assembly of the eastern Bohemian nobility offered the crown to Prince Casimir, the younger brother of Polish king, in February. A Bohemian messenger returned home with Albert’s response to the individual articles of the electoral capitulation, but the moderate Utraquist party was not pleased with Albert’s Vienna response, considering it a nonfulfilment of the electoral capitulation (including in the question of Queen Barbara). Therefore, the assembly at Kutná Hora spoke clearly in favour of the Polish candidacy. A messenger was immediately dispatched to Poland and returned with the reply that the Polish side accepts the offer of the Bohemian crown for Prince Casimir, the younger brother of the Polish king.75 Albert decided not to postpone the trip to Prague and to take the Bohemian throne by force. Many Hungarian lords were commanded to join the king with their forces and they began raising the money needed to accompany him to Prague.76 Representatives of the city of Bratislava also journeyed to Vienna to see the monarch. Thanks to the mayor Stephen Ranes, who took care to inform his fellow burghers in detail, we know that they came there to settle their financial claims. The king, however, was in Baden at that time, and the people of Bratislava were unable to arrange anything; Albert’s treasurer could only shower them with promises. What’s more, as they moaned about at the end of the letter, there is no good wine to be found anywhere in Vienna, not even in the taverns.77 At the end of May, Albert left Vienna, and after passing through Korneuburg, reached Znojmo, the place where his father-in-law and predecessor had died not quite half a year before. Who can say what he felt upon returning to this 74 Brunner, Die Finanzen der Stadt Wien, p. 262 with a reference to account 22r. 75 Martin Šandera. Hynce Ptáček z Pirkštejna. Opomíjený vítěz husitské revoluce. (Prague: Vyšehrad, 2011), pp. 52–53. 76 One of them was the ban of Mačva Nicholas of Ilok (hung. Újlaki), who borrowed 100 florins for the trip from his familiar and castellan at Tematín Castle MNL OL DL 44 199. The king was accompanied by the second ban of Mačva, Ladislaus Garai, MNL OL DL 44 198. 77 AMB no. 1570, MNL OL DF 241 751: “Auch klagen wir auch lieben herren daz wir kaynen guten wein zu Wien noch in der tavern vynden mogen an chomen.”

26

Chapter 1

place? He wrote to the city of Vienna from Znojmo on 3 June that he had just received a reliable message that the enemy Poles had marched out in full force against him; therefore, in the coming days he is setting off for Bohemia to face them in battle. He ordered the people of Vienna to ready themselves for a military campaign and to come with wagons, arms and equipment to the place announced by him or his people.78 Albert moved from Znojmo to Jihlava, where he convened an assembly of the Bohemian estates. He again submitted his answer to the terms of the Prague electoral capitulation, and this time he was successful, as the representatives of the Bohemian estates approved his answer and recognised him as the heir to the Bohemian crown. Albert immediately issued a charter confirming the Prague election articles, but with exceptions approved in advance.79 He wrote to Vienna from Jihlava on 9 June that the date of the coronation in Prague was set for 24 June, in agreement with the Bohemian estates. At the same time he announced that the Polish king and his army had already marched out of Cracow and was now 10 miles away from it and heading for the Bohemian Kingdom, where he had been invited by some of the Bohemians. He repeated his call to ready the city for battle.80 Albert did not remain long in Jihlava; he left on 10 June and rushed to Prague, passing through Německý Brod, Čáslav and Český Brod along the way and entering the city on 13 June.81 Hynek Ptáček tried to come to a diplomatic solution one final time, sending a message to Prague requesting that Albert, in the interest of maintaining peace, wait for the result of the assembly and at least postpone his coronation.82 But Albert rejected Ptáček’s requests and on 29 June, on the Feast Day of St. Peter and Paul, had himself crowned the King of Bohemia in the St. Vitus Cathedral. Albert’s coronation in Prague led to another flaring up of the war, with the “Albert” and the “Polish” sides standing against one another. In August, the two armies met near Tábor, where the Bohemian-Polish army withdrew into the city, which Albert’s troops besieged unsuccessfully. They were unable to either “starve out” or to conquer Tábor, and reports circulated about Władysław’s planned incursion into Silesia.

78 79 80 81

WStLA Hauptarchiv, nr. 2645. Wostry, König Albrecht II., 1, p. 139 with a reference to Albert’s Charter of 8 June 1438. WStLA Hauptarchiv, nr. 2647. He describes his journey in detail in a letter to the city of Vienna, WStLA, nr. 2649, Karl Uhlirz (ed.), Quellen zur Geschichte der Stadt Wien. (Vienna: Verlag d. Vereines für Geschichte der Stadt Wien, 1900), 2/2 nr. 2649. 82 Šandera. Hynce Ptáček, p. 55.

Elisabeth, Queen of Hungary

27

Albert did not want to lose any more time at Tábor, so on 15 September, he withdrew his army from the besieged city.83 The match between Albert and the Jagiellons moved from Bohemia to Silesia, where the Polish armies led by King Władysław and Prince Casimir had invaded with the aim of annexing Silesia to Poland. Albert also set off for Silesia, leaving Prague at the end of October and reaching Wrocław on 18 November 1438.84 But let us return to the turbulent Kingdom of Hungary, where we left twenty-nine-year-old Queen Elisabeth, who faced the uneasy task of defending the kingdom from enemies attacking from each side. The ambitious Elisabeth demonstrated that the same blood runs in her veins as that of her unwavering royal parents. Recall that at that time she was also a mother; she had two daughters, Anna and Elisabeth (born in 1432 and 1436), and one tragedy in her life: her eldest son George, born in February 1435 in Vienna, died shortly after being born; according to a Viennese chronicler, he lived only three hours.85 The first preserved charter from Elisabeth issued as the Queen of Hungary testifies to her equal standing with the monarch. The former Count of Temes County, Stephen Rozgonyi, had the same donation charter issued by her on 2 April 1438 as King Albert had sent to him only a few days before. Albert’s original charter also bears a chancellor’s note that the charter was drawn up by order of the king based on the queen’s announcement.86 Thus, the queen herself can be sought for the donation. Her chancellor, Provost Wenceslas, is mentioned as the relator on the queen’s charter. Despite the fact that the title Queen’s Chancellor was traditionally supposed to go to the Bishop of Veszprém,

83 For a description of the battles of supporters of the Polish and Habsburg parties, see, e.g. Petr Čornej and Milena Bartlová, Velké dějiny zemí koruny české 6 (1437–1526) (Prague: Paseka, 2007), pp. 52–54. 84 For the history of Silesia in the Middle Ages, see Martin Čapský, Zrození země. Komunikující společenství pozdně středověkého Slezska (Prague: Argo, 2013) and an extensive synthesis of Silesian history Robert Antonín et al., Slezsko v dějinách českého státu I: Od pravěku do roku 1490. (Prague: Nakladatelství Lidové noviny, 2012). 85 Austrian chronicler Veit Arnpeck, Sämtliche Chroniken informs about this: “praedicta domina Regina Elizabeth ex Alberto marito quatuor liberos procreavit; Georgium, qui in pueritia obiit …”, as does a short chronicle of an anonymous Viennese chronicler, a record from 16 February 1435: “Da waren 9. Wochen zwischen, da cham Chaiser Sigmund her von Prespurch an sand Antoni Tag, und war drey Wochen hie, und fur darnach wider gen Prespurkch auf Schliten, wan es war das Jar gar ein langer herter Winter und grosser Snee, das in manigen Jaren nie so grosser Sne isst gefalln. Darnach an Sand Juliana Tag der heiligen Junchfrawen genas die herzogin eins Chindes eins Chnaben, der lebt auf drey Stund.” SRA 2, p. 550. 86 MNL OL DL 13 170. Albert’s charter from 27 March 1438 MNL OL DL 13 163, with the Chancellor’s note: “commissio propria domini Regis domina Regina referente.”

28

Chapter 1

Elisabeth selected her own loyal and reliable chancellor, and Wenceslas is visible around her in the following period, as well.87 The queen’s activities as the ruling monarch increased even more after Albert left the Kingdom of Hungary. She now issued donation charters in her own name as an independent ruler or in the name of the king. Most of her charters, as well as some of Albert’s, bear a chancellor’s note: “on the Queen’s own order.” Charters issued in Albert’s name during his absence from the Kingdom of Hungary usually had a note: “on the order of the Queen and the vicars: prelates and barons.”88 Aside from rewards for loyal magnates, she also resolved a number of other problems: she decided legal disputes, collected money belonging to the king and distributed various mandates to towns and their officials. The most acute problem she had to confront was the defence of the country. The area of what is today western Slovakia was under the threat of enemy attacks from Moravia, and the north of the country, particularly the Spiš region, was exhausted by constant conflicts with the Poles. All of this required money, which, however, was constantly lacking and becoming more and more difficult to collect. The special tax that Albert and Elisabeth had imposed was collected only with great difficulty.89 The situation in the north of the country was very dramatic, as the war had lasted for many long months. In November 1438, Cracow chamberlain Peter Szafraniec wrote a letter to the town of Kežmarok in which he reproachfully emphasises that the peace agreement made between the Polish king and the ambassadors of the Kingdom of Hungary, who represented the entire “community of the holy crown”, had been violated by “Prince Albert, who is called the king”, together with some of those who crowned him, despite the fact that their seals are on the peace treaty. Only yesterday, the Hungarians had surrounded and conquered Podolínec.90 Szafraniec appeals to Kežmarok to make peace, but above all to respect the customs and regulations that permit traders, townspeople and messengers to do their job and travel safely. Since the people of Kežmarok are violating all conventions, are detaining messengers and recently even burned one Polish messenger, let alone messengers who would be willing to travel with documents to Kežmarok or its surroundings. Merchants are not safe either; only yesterday a Polish merchant’s wagons loaded with goods were confiscated along with 87 E.g. WStLA, nr. 2668. 88 E.g. MNL OL DL 31 493: “ex commissione domine regine ac prelatorum, baronum vicariorum.” 89 In this regard, see, e.g., the letter from Queen Elisabeth to Kremnica dated 3 December 1438, DF 249 921. 90 Podolínec was part of the Polish deposit that King Sigismund had transferred to the Polish king in 1412 along with other Spiš towns.

29

Elisabeth, Queen of Hungary

the merchant’s horses. Szafraniec appealed to the town of Kežmarok to return both the wagons and the horses, to release the imprisoned messengers and inform him of the result. He notified them that he wanted to broker peace, but that the security of ambassadors and messengers must first be guaranteed.91 Historians have more than once interpreted this border war as aggression on the Polish side: radical groups of the Polish nobility, supported by Bohemian Calixtines with the unspoken consent of the Cracow court, supposedly wanted to harm Albert of Habsburg and block his military forces.92 The reality is more complicated than can ultimately be seen from the above-cited letter of Peter Szafraniec. In the Hungarian Kingdom, a civil war broke out in connection with Albert of Habsburg’s not quite correct accession to the throne, as we already know, and the Poles logically supported the opposition to Albert focused on the Polish monarch’s court. Furthermore, there was a large group of nobility closely linked with Queen Barbara, and many of them had not come to terms with the fate of the “old” queen, because her fall, to a certain extent, was their fall. These were mainly the castellans of her castles who – despite the king’s order – did not relinquish their castles. The situation on the northern border of the Kingdom of Hungary in the autumn of 1438 worsened to such an extent that the queen was forced to send an army there in November led by the Count of both Bratislava and the Spiš counties, Stephen Rozgonyi. In a letter she wrote to the city of Prešov in early December, she asked that the city support Stephen’s army.93 Stephen’s military brigades (perhaps in this case it is impossible to speak of an army) used the royal cities as a staging area, because without exception they remained loyal to the ruling couple, perhaps also because most of their population was made up of Germans. The fighting in the Spiš lasted for months.94 The war played out not only there, but also in other areas of what is today Slovakia.

⸪

The endless wars on several fronts massively depleted the royal treasury. And Albert’s journey to the Bohemian crown itself and the subsequent campaign 91 MNL OL DL 44 221. 92 Peter Kartous, “Akcie poľských vojsk na území Slovenska v rokoch 1438–1439” in Historický časopis XXI (1973), no. 1, p. 35. 93 MNL OL DF 228 646. 94 On 19 February 1439, Albert (or his royal office in Buda) postponed the dispute of a certain nobleman to 1 May, because he was staying in Spiš in the service of Stephen Rozgonyi to defend and protect him (pro custodia et tuitione), MNL OL DL 13 308.

30

Chapter 1

in Silesia also necessitated enormous expenditures. If we consider how much money was needed to defend a country surrounded by enemies on all sides and the liquidation of the anti-Habsburg opposition, it becomes clear that Queen Elisabeth had to raise money wherever she could. In some parts of the kingdom, she even collected taxes a year in advance. At the beginning of November 1438, she addressed a mandate to the nobles of Zvolen County that the following year’s “chamber profit” (lucrum camerae), i.e. the tax that nobles collected from their subjects for the “state”, must be paid immediately, because she had to borrow money from Buda burghers Michal Nadler, Henrich Münich (of Munich) and the Florentine Niccòlo Lamberteschi (in the Queen’s mandate as a Lampertiskys), to whom she leased the chamber profit in Zvolen County. As she wrote, she urgently needed the money to defend the country against the Turks as well as other enemies, particularly the Poles.95 The Queen also acquired money in many other ways, not only via loans from merchants. In early 1439, she collected an extraordinary tax from the towns; in the case of Sopron, for example, this was 1,500 florins, which were to be used to buy food and maintain the royal court.96 The most negotiable appeared to be the mortgaging of castle estates, which, however, was only possible when there were rich interested parties and as long as there was something to pay out. The queen did not hesitate to donate property which they had from other owners. In November, she thus handed over the lifelong holding of the castles of Jelšava and Fiľakovo to the master of the treasury John Perényi.97 Both castles had originally belonged to Queen Barbara, who had them in deposit from Sigismund for 5,707 florins. In 1435, Sigismund again mortgaged the castles for 2,000 florins to the Bubeks of Plešivec (Pelsőci), saying that they had to pay off Queen Barbara. Elisabeth succeeded in increasing the price of both castle estates even higher; she put them into the lifelong holding of John Perényi for 6,000 florins, while he had to pay another 6,007 florins to the Bubek family. Thus, the amount nearly doubled from the price of 5,707 florins in 1435. The Bubeks, however did not intend to hand over the castles, especially since they considered Jelšava to be a strategic asset. They ignored the queen’s donation

95 MNL OL DF 268 922. 96 MNL OL DF 202 675, in a sharply written letter to the town of Sopron dated 6 February 1439, the queen demanded that they immediately pay money to the Count of Bratislava County and at the same time to the captain of Trnava, George Rozgonyi, whom she had sent to them. 97 MNL OL DL 38 655. Two days later, at the royal office in Buda, Elisabeth had a document issued in Albert’s name drawing up her consent to the mortgaging of the castles, MNL OL DL 13 249.

Elisabeth, Queen of Hungary

31

for John Perényi, and the protests of the new owner were clearly in vain.98 Although Elisabeth obtained 6,000 florins to defend the country, she at the same time made enemies for life, and not only the Bubek family, but, as it eventually turned out, the lords Perényi, too.99 The absence of the monarch, who on the campaign to Bohemia and Silesia blocked a large part of the armed forces, as well as attacks from Poland and Moravia, unrest and local skirmishes caused by domestic opposition, all made the Kingdom of Hungary very vulnerable, and it was only a matter of time before the main enemy, the Ottoman Empire, took advantage of this. In the summer of 1438, supposedly at the behest of Venice, the Turkish Sultan Murad II invaded Transylvania with a massive army. The rapidly summoned emergency defence forces were unable to stop Murad’s advance, and so within a few months he completely devastated the whole of Transylvania.100 Reports of the Ottoman attack on Hungary and the devastation of Transylvania, during which the Turks allegedly captured and dragged up to 80,000 women and men into captivity, spread all the way to Germany in October 1438.101 The majority of the people taken away by the Turks were later released for high ransom or sold into slavery. To be fair, this was not only a Turkish speciality; Christians also treated their enemies in this way. In the same period, Albert himself gathered up prisoners during his campaign from Prague to 98 On 11 March 1439, master of the treasury John Perényi protested against the Bubek family at the court days in Buda, claiming that they had seized and held Jelšava, see MNL OL DL 13 323. We only learn of the ignoring of royal donations to Jelšava and Fiľakovo from documents in 1453 and 1454. This is pointed out in Monika Tihányiová, Bubekovci z Plešivca. Úspechy a pády jedného rodu v politike a umení (Georgius Bubek, 2017), p. 126. 99 The royal treasurer John Perényi was one of the members of a delegation of Hungarian magnates who, after Albert’s death, invited the Polish king to the Hungarian throne and fought by his side against Queen Elisabeth. Ádám Novák, “János Perényi, Master of the Treasury and his Relationship with Upper-Hungarian Cities (1438–1458)” in Mesto a dejiny, 5 (2016), pp. 76–88. 100 Postponements of legal disputes to participation in the Land’s defence army against the Turks appear from June to November 1438 MNL OL DF 234 252, DL 83 708, DL 59 243, DF 234 241, DL 59 243, DF 234 245, DL 13 257, CDH XI, 190, DL 64 332. Later sources also testify to the destruction of many towns; on 20 December 1438, for example, Queen Elisabeth wrote to the Transylvanian town of Bistriça that she had learned of the destruction of their town fortifications as well as the fact that they were not seeing to their restoration. She ordered that all the inhabitants of the city and the surrounding area participate in the repair of the walls of MNL OL DF 247 255. 101 A letter from Ambassadors Walter of Schwarzenberg and Henne Stralenberg to the city of Frankfurt on 19 October 1438, published by Janssen, Frankfurts Reichskorrespondenz 1, p. 463, nr. 830. Ibid. also on the role of Venice, which supposedly incited the Turkish Sultan to attack Hungary: “Man riddet und maynit daz die Venediger sere darczu geraden haben.”

32

Chapter 1

Silesia, whom he intended to monetise. We know from Austrian sources that they were transported from Olomouc to Vienna. And although such prisoners were rare and significant, the conditions in which they were imprisoned were cruel. They were placed in the largest city tower in Vienna’s fortifications, the so-called Kärntnerturm, because it was intended for prisoners of war.102 In December, Albert wrote from Wrocław to Vienna a mandate to address the difficulties with prisoners. He had heard that they were permitted to eat only twice a day, to drink only water, and some were so weakened that there was a fear that they would die of starvation or become seriously ill. Since among them were rare prisoners, too, he ordered them to be properly fed and given them wine or beer.103 Although King Albert did not send prisoners of war to the slave markets, he only did not because his military expeditions were being undertaken in Europe and his prisoners were Christians. This does not mean, however, that medieval Europe did not know the slave trade. In Venice and other Italian as well as Spanish cities, slave ownership was a social etiquette that shined its light on the lives of wealthy patricians. It was seen at the end of the Middle Ages, and the number of slaves brought to southern Europe was so immense that historians even label it a genocide of some nations. Berber, Turkish, Caucasian, Tatar and Greek slaves were among the more popular.

⸪

Queen Elisabeth spent most of her time in the relative safety of Buda, from where she departed for Komárno for some time in the autumn. We don’t know the reasons for her journey; we know of her stay in Komárno thanks to a complaint from the Archbishop of Esztergom, George Palóci, who was displeased that the queen and her court were fishing in his waters. In the vicinity of Komárno, at the confluence of the Danube and Váh rivers, special fishing grounds were built for cloistered orders to fish for the rare sturgeon. These were barricades built from wood, made by a series of wooden wheels pushed into the riverbed, thus creating a trap for the mighty fish, into which they were driven by noise and boats.104 The problem was that the queen’s people were 102 Brunner, Die Finanzen der Stadt Wien, p. 202 with a reference to books of the city accounts, 1438, 63v, ff.: “Auf die gevangen, so man des suntags Judica in der vasten von Olomuncz bracht und in Kertnerturn gelegt hat anno 38 mo.” 103 WStLA, nr. 2675. 104 In regard to fishing for sturgeon at the confluence of the Váh and the Danube, see Daniela Dvořáková, Rytier a jeho kráľ: Stibor zo Stiboríc a Žigmund Luxemburský. Sonda do života

Elisabeth, Queen of Hungary

33

fishing in the enclosures that belonged to the Archbishop of Esztergom. The queen accepted the archbishop’s protest and forbade the castellans to fish at sites that did not belong to the castle.105 Thanks to this dispute, we learn of the queen’s autumn residence in Komárno. Despite the idyllic image of Queen Elisabeth and her courtiers resting in Komárno, where they fished for sturgeon, which was an attraction the court often took part in, the situation in the kingdom was increasingly menacing. Reports on the unhappy situation in Hungary also spread abroad. In January 1439, a representative of the city of Nuremberg wrote to the Frankfurt City Council about news that had reached him by means of messengers. In the letter, he mentioned various news items, from information about the king’s stay in Wrocław to the situation at Albert’s individual holdings. In March an imperial assembly was to be held in Frankfurt, but the author of the letter was very sceptical that King Albert would appear in person there. Much more pressing problems were awaiting the monarch. According to the reports they had in Nuremberg, there was the danger that if Albert remained out of Hungary much longer, the Hungarians would expel all the Germans from there.106 It was high time for the king to return. stredovekého uhorského šľachtica s osobitným zreteľom na územie Slovenska, 3rd extended edition (Budmerice: Rak, 2017), pp. 198–99. 105 MNL OL DF 237 904. 106 DRTA 13/2, p. 767: “und man meint, blibe er lange uß Ungern, die Unger werden die Tuytschen uß dem lande driben.”

Chapter 2

The Short Rule of King Albert (1439) Despite the troubling situation in both Hungary and Bohemia, King Albert did not experience hard times in Silesia. The military venture more and more resembled a journey of honour, which other Bohemian monarchs before him had previously undertaken. During stops at the individual feudal towns, the monarch received an oath of allegiance from their representatives, a so-called tribute, by which they publicly acknowledged his sovereignty. Albert and his army did not march from Prague to Silesia by the shortest route. He chose a longer but safer route through Lusatia to avoid travelling part of the route through enemy territory. After a stay of more than two weeks in Görlitz, where he was given a solemn tribute from the local councillors, he continued through Legnica to Wrocław, the heart of the Silesian principality. The Polish city of Wrocław lies on the Oder River and is sometimes referred to as the “Venice of the North” because of its many islands and river canals. The city has retained its charm over the centuries, and in the Middle Ages this most important and richest city in Silesia, the seat of a bishop, must have made a truly magnificent impression. Wrocław had been part of the Bohemian crown since the time of the Bohemian King John of Luxembourg. After coronation, each new Bohemian monarch had the obligation to journey to Wrocław for tribute, because according to tradition, its residents took the oath of allegiance to the new monarch in person only, and this was done directly in their city.1 The stay of individual rulers in Wrocław was often extended for several months, and Albert, too, spent three and a half months there. Albert entered the Silesian metropolis with great pomp on 18 November 1438.2 The city’s officials went out to meet him three-quarters of a mile from the city

1 Mlada Holá, “Dvorské slavnosti ve Vratislavi za pobytů českých králů v pozdním středověku,” in Všední a sváteční život na středověkých dvorech. Mediaevalia Historica Bohemica 12 (2009), Supplementum 3, Dvory a rezidence ve středověku III, eds. Dana Dvořáčková Malá, and Jan Zelenka, (Prague: Historický ústav, 2009), p. 193. Mlada Holá, “Fuit honorifice susceptus. Holdovací cesty českých panovníků do Vratislavi v pozdním středověku” in Rezidence a správní sídla v zemích České koruny ve 14.–17. století. Korunní země v dějinách českého státu, eds. Lenka Bobková, and Jana Konvinčná (Prague: Togga, 2007), pp. 275–76. Mlada Holá, Holdovací cesty českých panovníků do Vratislavi: v pozdním středověku a raném novověku (1437–1617) (Prague: Casablanca, 2012). 2 Rudolf Urbánek, Věk Poděbradský 1, České dějiny 3/1 (Prague: Jan Laichter, 1915), p. 407.

© Daniela Dvořáková, 2025 | doi:10.1163/9789004722552_004

The Short Rule of King Albert ( 1439 )

35

gates, and he was ceremoniously received by Bishop Konrad of Wrocław in the city itself. One week after Albert’s arrival, on 25 November, the people of Wrocław, on the square where a wooden podium had been built for this purpose, swore a solemn act of oath to the new monarch, thus recognising his sovereignty. They paid tribute not only to Albert, but also to Elisabeth as the heiress of Sigismund. Several days later, Silesian princes also paid tribute to the royal couple in the same place while also emphasising in their oath that Elisabeth is the heiress.3 In both cases, the oath of tribute referred to the inheritance claims, and the election was not much emphasised in it. Therefore, it was important to address an oath to Elisabeth, too, from whom these claims were derived, although she was not personally present in Wrocław. The king’s stay in the city  – even with the approaching winter  – was extended for several months and became an opportunity for many festivities. The monarch spent the winter amid amusement and distraction, and it’s possible that for a short time he succumbed to the notion that things were going in his way, even though the situation in his kingdoms was far from under control. Developments on the side of his enemy, Polish King Władysław, could have given him a sense of optimism. At an assembly of the Polish Estates in Piotrków, at which King Władysław III was legally proclaimed an adult, a moderate party seeking an agreement with Albert won out. The assembly resolved to send a messenger to Wrocław to negotiate peace with King Albert. The Polish ambassadors arrived in Wrocław a few days before Christmas, on 18 December. The peace talks were held at the town hall, and not only did both opposing parties take part, but also representatives of the council or the papal legate, Bishop John of Senj with three Doctors of Law from Florence. Although they addressed various partial issues at the meeting (one of which was the fate of Queen Barbara), the main question was that of Bohemian succession. The negotiations for Albert were led by his chancellor, Kaspar Schlick, who constantly invoked Elisabeth’s right of inheritance and pressured the Polish side to comply with the conciliation decision of the pope or the council. The Poles were aware of how such a “reconciliation” decision would look and demanded that the supporters of both sides be rid of previous promises and oaths and that a new election take place in the Bohemian Kingdom. Albert did not want to submit himself to this at any cost, and perhaps not only because he did not believe he would be successful, but rather out of fear of questioning the legitimacy of the previous election. The Poles later ironically commented 3 Urbánek, Věk Poděbradský 1, p. 409.

36

Chapter 2

that if Albert claimed to have been elected by a “larger and more reasonable part” of the electorate, he should have been sure of his re-election victory and that he wanted to prevent it at all costs, thus only confirming the allegations made against him.4 While Albert could still refer to majority support in the Bohemian Kingdom, because both Catholics and the moderate Utraquists were on his side, in Hungary his standing was not so clear. The Polish deputation left the Wrocław meeting without success, but the peace negotiations were not finished. On the initiative of the Poles, negotiations continued in Namysłów between the delegates of Albert and the King of Poland, and after several weeks, on 10 February 1439, they at least reached an armistice agreement. The peace was to last until the Feast Day of St. John (24 June) and during this time, on 14 May, the disputing sides were to meet at the Hungarian border to negotiate a final peace. Both rulers and their magnates issued a charter on the armistice, as did the papal legate and ambassadors of the council, as guarantors.5 After concluding the armistice, Albert had no reason to remain in Silesia. Further, troubling reports and appeals for his speedy return came from Hungary. It must have been hard for the king to leave the colourful life in Wrocław and return to Hungary, to the problems and unpleasantness that had grown in his absence. According to the witness of chroniclers, even the usually austere and strict Albert felt completely relaxed and succumbed to the charm of court life while in Wrocław. One chronicler noted that Albert organised frequent parties with maids and young ladies, and the people of Wrocław would talk about these parties.6 The variety and splendour of the court festivities were multiplied by rare guests. The stay of the Albert’s Court in Wrocław attracted many influential and powerful people from different countries to the city, including various princes, the margraves of Brandenburg, representatives of the Teutonic Order, ambassadors from various kingdoms, papal plenipotentiaries, representatives of imperial cities, ambassadors from Burgundy, Venice, Milan, Florence and other cities and principalities. Thanks to the lively diplomatic and social life, we have a relatively large number of trustworthy and authentic reports about the stay of Albert’s court in Wrocław. Among the most valuable is the testimony of one eyewitness, the 4 Urbánek, Věk Poděbradský 1, pp. 424–25. 5 Charter on the armistice issued by John, Bishop of Senj, MNL OL DF 289 001, original charter in Warsaw, Archiwum Główne Akt Dawnych w Warszawie. 6 Staré letopisy české z Vratislavského rukopisu, ed. František Šimek (Prague: Historický spolek a Společnost Husova musea, 1937), p. 85.

The Short Rule of King Albert ( 1439 )

37

Spanish knight Pero (Pedro) Tafur, who journeyed to Wrocław out of curiosity. Tafur was an exceedingly interesting man, someone we today might call a traveller, adventurer and writer. In the years 1436–1439 he travelled across three continents, and in 1453 and 1454 he wrote the book The Adventures and Journeys of Pero Tafur in Different Parts of the World (Andanças e viajes de Pero Tafur por diversas partes del mundo avidos).7 From the point of view of our topic, the most interesting chapter of this work is the 26th, which describes his stay in Wrocław. In 1438, Pero, who was then travelling through Germany, met Chancellor Kaspar Schlick in Nuremberg. An imperial congress was taking place in the city at that time, and the Spanish traveller was forced to wait for it to finish before he could continue on his subsequent journey together with Schlick, whose entourage he had joined. Schlick was heading to the Bohemian Kingdom to see the emperor (as he called Albert, although he was only the elected Roman-German king) and, after the intercession of some Castilians, permitted Tafur to join him, as he otherwise could hardly avoid the danger of death on the road. The adventurous Castilian thus spent many weeks in Cheb in the accompaniment of Schlick, where he attended the wedding of Schlick’s brother, and where they stayed for six days, then in Prague and finally in Wrocław, which they reached three days before Christmas 1438. Tafur met King Albert in Wrocław. The opportunity arose at the wedding of Wenceslas I Duke of Cieszyn with the sister of the Hohenzollern princes, the widowed princess of Legnica and Brzeg, where Tafur reportedly even sat at the monarch’s table. According to Tafur, on the day of the wedding, Albert organised a tournament and then personally took part in it, his opponent being the Margrave of Brandenburg, Albert III Achilles, the bride’s brother, who knocked the monarch out of his saddle. Luckily, the king suffered no injuries in the fall; he gathered himself from the ground, removed his helmet and put on a hat decorated with an expensive brooch. He then stepped up to the bride, gallantly gave her the rare brooch from the hat, and led her hand-in-hand to her palace, accompanied by important lords and nobles. At vespers, they all met again for a ceremonial banquet. The ladies dined separately, aside from the bride, who sat with the groom at the king’s table, where Tafur also sat. The banquet lasted until midnight, followed by a dance that lasted until dawn. The banquet and the dance with the ladies were overshadowed by Tafur’s main experience: meeting the monarch. According to his description, the “emperor” was cordial and elegant; his personality and face bore signs of grace, although his physique was a little unusual (it is hard to imagine what 7 In English translation Pero Tafur, Travels and Adventures (1435–1439), ed. and trans. Malcolm Henry Ikin Letts (London: George Routledge & Sons, 1926), available at https://bit.ly/3lY9JGN.

38

Chapter 2

Tafur wanted to convey with this modest statement). He had dark skin, so the Germans stated that he had Castilian blood. The king behaved generously towards the Spanish guest, reportedly taking his hand and leading him to the ladies to choose the one with whom he would dance best. The monarch even personally carried a light in front of Tafur two or three times. Tafur was filled with pride by the king’s favour (who knows, of course, the extent to which he exaggerated his experiences, which he wrote down only fifteen years later). He also included in the book other episodes that demonstrated how the monarch respected him. Once when he was dining with the Bishop of Burgos, Albert’s Hungarian herald, named Tusol, came to see him. He brought him a silver-plated chalice filled with 300 florins as a gift from the king. Through the herald, Tafur told the monarch that he would accept the chalice, but not the money, since he didn’t need it and it would be too great a burden for him. If the story is true, it is a pleasant and inspiring example of knightly virtue: to not take more than I need. Tafur’s descriptions of the country and the city of Wrocław are also of interest. Being a Spaniard, he found the country very cold, of course. Chimneys and stoves did not provide sufficient heat in the freezing winter weather, but the local residents found a way to stay warm. Something like underfloor heating was built into the upper storeys of the houses: heat from the lower rooms rose upward through openings in the floors. People then sat in the chairs above these holes so that the heat from below warmed their feet. The frost on the streets was so severe, Tafur reported, that when the monarch and courtiers wanted to be taken somewhere, they used shuttered wooden wagons for this; horses shod in iron pulled them, as was the custom in those counties. Others moved around the city in carriages pulled by eight or ten horses. These coaches were covered with roofs and heated with warming pans. Those who did not want or could not travel by wagon or carriage walked, but no one, not even the wealthy, rode horses. The streets were so iced over that everyone was afraid of falling. The travelling Castilian perhaps most wondered at how the townsmen of Wrocław took great supplies of food and drink with them everywhere they went and kept getting stronger. “It perhaps seems strange to us,” he wrote of the custom, and continued: “I think they spend more money here on furs and spices than half the world.” The people of Wrocław gave him the impression of great wealth; they had a lot of silver, a high income, and since they did not keep many servants, they therefore did not have great expenses, and so they lived very well. The Spaniard also noted that the city residents are very pious, and that everyone attends midnight mass, including children.

The Short Rule of King Albert ( 1439 )

39

The mention of midnight mass was evidently linked to the fact that Tafur spent Christmas in Wrocław. King Albert also took part in a solemn Mass on 25 December, gifting a symbolic two florins to the church on that occasion.8 After Christmas and after Epiphany, King Albert and his court in Wrocław also experience the merriest time of the year, Shrovetide, or Carnival. One party was followed by another: balls, banquets, tournaments, costume parades or various games. The city and its rare guests completely surrendered to the Carnival madness. This is also evident from the complaints of envoys from Görlitz, who grumbled that nothing was being discussed in the court, because lords and princes are constantly engaged in knightly games in the presence of the king. Some tournaments were explicitly adrenaline-fuelled, as their participants fought “for real”, with genuine weapons and without armour, armed only with shields.9 Pero Tafur, too, confirmed this form of entertainment. According to his description, hardly a day passed without a tournament; the fighters did not use tournament poles (i.e. blunt wooden poles), but sharply honed spears. They were said to be so well-trained and skilled that there was no greater danger and no one was seriously hurt, though this was not always the case. Wrocław chronicler Eschenloer noted that during one such tournament, which took place several decades later, during the visit of Matthias Corvinus to the city, a knight was stabbed with a spear and only survived his injury by a miracle.10 In 1511, a participant from Głogów cut off the hand of a Hungarian courtier in the heat of battle in one tournament and then nearly lost his life when the enraged members of the Hungarian entourage dragged him out of church to avenge their severely wounded friend.11 Despite the optimistic claim of Pero Tafur that no injuries occurred, the opposite is true. King Albert himself suffered a relatively serious injuries with lifelong consequences. The departure of the monarch from Wrocław was planned for Wednesday, 18 February, the first day of the Easter fast, but the unfortunate injury that Albert reportedly suffered at the tournament in early February dashed all the plans.12 On Thursday, 12 February, the Saxon knight Busse Vitzthum informed 8 9

Holá, Dvorské slavnosti ve Vratislavi, p. 200. Urbánek, Věk Poděbradský 1, p. 411, CDLS 4, p. 59. References to other sources on amusements in Wrocław, see Wostry, König Albrecht II. 2, p. 69, note 1. 10 Holá, Dvorské slavnosti ve Vratislavi, p. 203. 11 Holá, Dvorské slavnosti ve Vratislavi, p. 203. 12 Several sources tell of the accident. Among others is the author of Coronatio Adalberti regis Romanorum, Ungarie et Boemie 1438. Scriptores rerum Silesiacarum 12, ed. Franz Wachter (Breslau: Josef Max & Comp., 1883), p. 28. The accident was said to have taken

40

Chapter 2

his master, the Saxon prince, that the king, due to injury, had to change his date of departure. He had dislocated his knee in a fall, and though doctors had corrected it, he cannot yet walk or ride a horse.13 A week later, Busse wrote that the king wanted to leave on 26 February, but even that date was not realistic. On 20 February, the monarch himself wrote to the Saxon prince that he must lie in bed and would hardly be able to travel for eight days after the accident.14 Piccolomini, too, mentions King Albert’s injury, which caused him to limp for the rest of his life. He states, however, that Albert injured his leg by falling down some stairs.15 It is all but certain that one of the doctors who treated the king’s injuries was the Spiš provost and doctor of medicine John Stock. Albert had “inherited” this prominent doctor from his father-in-law, Emperor Sigismund. When Sigismund named Stock as his personal physician in 1434, he stated in the appointment letter that he had served him for 12 years. Stock came from Silesian Głogów and his participation in Albert’s entourage is logical. He could provide the king not only medical, but also interpreting and diplomatic services. John Stock was at that time a mature man. He had begun his career in 1411, when he matriculated at the university in Cracow. He then went on to study medicine in Vienna and Padua, where he became a Doctor of Medicine in 1422. Stock gradually acquired several benefits in the service of the Hungarian king, and in 1433, when the post of provost of the Spiš Chapter became vacant because the Hussites abducted the original provost and he died in captivity, Sigismund granted this priory to his favourite physician.16 It is of interest that at the end of Sigismund’s life, in 1437, Stock requested the absolution of the place after the Feast Day of the Purification of the Virgin Mary, i.e. after 2 February at the knightly games: “Item dornoch alz noch purificacionis Mariae do thete em der konig we an eyme beyne, scherzinde mit seyner ritterschafft off dem hawse alze das her dy knyscheibe adir das kny aws der stad hatte gefallen, das her vor fastnacht nicht gegen kunde.” 13 Wostry, König Albrecht II. 2, p. 100, reference to source note 1: “das her uf ein bein sere gefallen hat und di kni scheibe usgefallen hat, die im dann die erzte weddir ingericht haben.” 14 Wostry, König Albrecht II. 2, p. 100, reference to source note 1: “mussin in dem bette ligen, das wir uns bei acht tagen kouwn werdin mogen furen lassen.” 15 Piccolomini, Historia Bohemica, chap. 55, p. 185. This report was also taken from him by Veit Arnpeck, Sämtliche Chroniken, p. 796. 16 Peter Labanc and Miroslav Glejtek, Spišské prepoštstvo na prelome stredoveku a novoveku. Príspevok k náboženským dejinám Spiša (Trnava: Filozofická fakulta Trnavskej univerzity, 2015), p. 35. John’s brother, Nicholas Stock, who also studied medicine, also worked in Hungary. Both were among King Sigismund’s advisers and closest associates. Regarding the personality of John Stock, see also Gábor Buják, “Stock János és a szepesi egyház kiváltságai.” in Mátyás király és az egyház, ed. Tamás Fedeles (Pécs: University of Pécs, 2019), pp. 203–31.

The Short Rule of King Albert ( 1439 )

41

Pope for the future, if some of the patients he treated died as a result of his inexperience.17 It is possible that the doctor was aware of the irresolvable health state of his prominent patient and was providing for his death. It is far more likely, however, that he was then already facing the accusations of his enemies. We know that John, as the Spiš provost, had many enemies, including for his sternness and uncompromising attitude. We know from a text that was written only after his death that they reproached him for his long-term absence from the Spiš Chapter and accused him of killing patients when performing his medical profession (in the sense that some patient occasionally died on him). He thus violated canonical law and became “inhabilis”, i.e. unfit to practice the profession of priest and provost of the Spiš Chapter.18 John Stock did, indeed, stay away from the chapter for many years, not only because of his duties at the royal court, but also for security reasons after the death of King Albert. Since in the civil war he was on the side of Queen Elisabeth and then Ladislaus the Posthumous, he did not feel safe in the Spiš Chapter. He therefore moved to Levoča, where he mainly lived until his death in 1464.19 Another of Albert’s physicians was Siegfried Degenberg, whom he also inherited from Emperor Sigismund. It is of interest that for some time Siegfried, originally from Prussia, was the provost at the Bratislava Chapter (1429–1430/31) and also lived in Bratislava in person. Albert took him into his service as a familiar and personal physician in May 1438 in Vienna, before departing for Bohemia. It is all but certain that he travelled with the monarch to Wrocław, as he later became the administrator of the Wrocław diocese and ultimately died and was buried there in 1451.20 Among King Albert’s personal physicians was 17

Miriam Hlavačková, “Contraria contrariis curantur. Lekár a pacient v stredoveku.” in Od symbolu k slovu. Podoby stredovekej komunikácie, ed. Miriam Hlavačková (Bratislava: VEDA, Historický ústav SAV, 2016) pp. 128–29. Regest of supplikation addressed to the papal office RG 5. nr. 05760, online (Datum 06.11.2023). 18 MNL OL DF 272 794: “cum medicina interfector periurus seu alias inhabilis compariatur declarandum.” 19 Buják, Stock János, p. 210. In the last years of his life, John Stock promoted the reconstruction of the Church of St. Martin in the Spiš Chapter, which he considered the church and religious centre of the whole region. He died in 1464 at the age of 70, when he grew ill on a strenuous journey to Buda. Although he did not succeed in rebuilding the future cathedral during his lifetime, he handed down 5,000 florins for the planned reconstruction, Buják, Stock János, p. 225. 20 Regarding the life and career of Siegfried Degenberg, see Miriam Hlavačková, “Lekár troch kráľov. Bratislavský a vyšehradský prepošt Siegfried Degenberg a jeho zdravotné rady,” in Studia historica Tyrnaviensia XVI. Litteris ac moribus imbutus, ed. Vladimír Rábik (Krakow/Trnava: Spolok Slovákov v Poľsku v spolupráci s Filozofickou fakultou Trnavskej univerzity v Trnave, 2014), pp. 260–66. Regarding his appointment by King Albert as a

42

Chapter 2

also the learned Viennese physician Heinrich Stoll of Hammelburg, who was the rector of the University of Vienna in the school year 1422/23. The monarch even awarded him a coat-of-arms in April 1439, during his stay in Bratislava.21

⸪

At the beginning of March, King Albert’s health status in Wrocław improved so much that he began preparing for his return to Hungary. Aside from his painful leg, the situation was complicated by the debts of the Hungarian members of his entourage with the burghers of Wrocław, because they did not want to release them from the city without payment. The situation was ultimately resolved by the eloquent Chancellor Schlick, whose negotiations resulted in the indebted Hungarians being permitted to leave. Therefore, on 4 March 1439, Albert and his court finally left Wrocław.22 The entourage with the injured king passed through Moravia to Bratislava and from there to Vienna. On 22 March they stopped in Pohořelice near Brno, some 120 km from Bratislava.23 Pero Tafur had taken the same route shortly before King Albert, and thanks to his memoirs, we can vividly imagine winter travelling from Silesia to Vienna. After crossing the border, Tafur entered the land of the Moravian Margraviate, where he saw the marks of war at every turn; many places were destroyed and burned. The journey across Moravia to Vienna took twelve days and the entourage had to cross two rivers. Since the weather was bitterly freezing, the horses and wagons crossed the river on ice. For a Castilian used to an utterly different climate, where the rivers never freeze, this had to have been an experience as intense as the persistent frost. “It was so cold that my teeth almost fell from my mouth. It is a terrible undertaking to travel through such lands in winter,” he wrote in his memoirs.24 Albert’s entourage travelled more slowly than Tafur’s relatively small group comprising two nobles of the royal court and a procession of about 200 riders. The first stop in Hungary was for Albert – as for Sigismund many times before him – Bratislava. There his wife, Queen Elisabeth, was waiting for him. During his stay in the city, Albert engaged his eldest daughter Anna to the Saxon prince William III, called the Brave, the younger brother of Prince Frederick II, familiar and physician, see Heinrich Koller, Das Reichregister König Albrechts II. (Vienna: Berger, 1955), no. 18, p. 37. 21 CDH 11, p. 233. 22 Wostry, König Albrecht II. 2, p. 102. 23 Koller, Das Reichregister, no. 208, p. 149. 24 The description is in the 27th chapter of Tafur’s text.

The Short Rule of King Albert ( 1439 )

43

the Gentle.25 This was a reward for the military support that Frederick had provided to Albert in Bohemia and Silesia, which we spoke of at the beginning of the chapter.26 At the time of her engagement Anna was seven years old, and her fiancé was fourteen. With this decision, King Albert laid the ground for his daughter’s suffering for the rest of her life as well as her likely premature death. The marriage was an unhappy one; William banished Anna and did not hesitate to physically attack her when she attempted to return to him. He lived openly with his concubine, and his wife was exiled de facto to Eckartsburg Castle, where she died in solitude at the age of 30.27 If the wishes of Anna’s grandmother, Queen Barbara, had been fulfilled, Anna would have been sent to Poland and could have had a happier life. Her younger sister Elisabeth lived a long, fruitful and seemingly happy life alongside her husband, Polish King Casimir IV Jagiellon. Albert moved from Bratislava to Vienna, where he remained for almost all of April. During his stay in Austria, he also set off on a pilgrimage to Mariazell and spent three days in the popular town of Perchtoldsdorf. The castle there was the dower house of the Habsburg princesses, but the reason for Albert’s visit was clearly that the parish in Perchtoldsdorf was administered by Thomas Ebendorfer, a diplomat and historiographer, from whom we also learn about the king’s stay. Ebendorfer is also an important source of information about other events. In his telling, the king received, after returning to Vienna, increasingly urgent letters from both the queen and the magnates to return to Hungary, where the situation was growing increasingly critical, due especially to the imminent Turkish invasion. There were even threats that if he did not return, his antagonist (King Władysław) would be given space. Although his faithful adherents discouraged him from making the trip to Hungary, he succumbed to the queen’s insistence and, laden with cannons and ammunition, headed to Buda.28 Ebendorfer’s information is not strictly accurate. The king did return to Bratislava sometime around 20 April, where Queen Elisabeth and the Hungarian

25 Teleki, Hunyadiak kora 10, pp. 34–36. 26 This is also mentioned in Thomas Ebendorfer, Chronica Austriae. Scriptores rerum Austriacarum veteres ac genuine II, ed. Hieronymus Pez (Lipsiae: Joh. Frid. Gleditsch, 1725), p. 592. 27 Chmel, Joseph. Monumenta Habsburgica. Actenstücke und Briefe zur Geschichte des Hauses Habsburg im Zeitalter Maximilian’s I. Abt. 1, Bd. 1. (Vienna, 1854), p. 130. 28 Thomas Ebendorfer, Chronica Regum Romanorum, ed. Harald Zimmermann, Monumenta Germaniae historica. Scriptores rerum Germanicarum. Nova series 18 (Hannover: Hahnsche Buchhandlung, 2003), p. 592. Ebendorfer, Chronica Austriae, p. 377.

44

Chapter 2

court were waiting for him.29 Representatives of Bratislava, who were in Vienna, also wrote of his departure from Vienna to Bratislava, and Albert provided them with an audience.30 Unfortunately, they dated their letter very vaguely (the Tuesday before the consecration of the Church of the Preachers, i.e. perhaps the Dominican Church, which they likely witnessed). In the letter, they notified their fellow citizens that the king was getting ready for a trip to Bratislava next Friday. In association with charters issued by Albert, the most probable date of writing this letter is Tuesday, 14 April, with Albert planning to leave Vienna on Friday, 17 April. The letter also provides additional interesting details not only about how the mayor and his companion “lobbied” the royal adviser to speak for the monarch, but also about how they tried to secure the arrival of the king in Bratislava. During their discussions with the king, they asked him what welcome they should prepare for him, to which he replied the best possible and at the highest level. The important piece of information in the letter is that the Hungarian lords insist that Germans in the position of royal advisers cannot interfere in any way with the affairs of Hungary and that the king must not even have German advisers in Hungary. “But we will discuss this in person when we reach home,” they concluded. The anti-German mood, talked about for a long time by everyone who visited Hungary, which Thomas Ebendorfer had warned about and the Bratislava ambassadors had confirmed, was growing stronger, and it really did represent a danger to the king, as was later shown. Still from Vienna, Albert organised help in the battle with the Poles, Bohemians and Turks, which in his view had joined forces to deprive him of his kingdoms; he sent his ambassador to Frankfurt to ask for military aid for an anti-Turkish campaign. The divisions they would send were to assemble on the Feast Day of St. James on 25 July.31 Albert and Elisabeth spent more than three weeks together in Bratislava. The date of his return to Hungary was not coincidental; the octave of the Feast Day of St. George, i.e. the week of 24 April to 1 May, was the traditional period for the Royal Court sessions, and Albert considered it important to personally take part in these court days. In addition, he used his stay in Bratislava to solidify 29

The Hungarian Royal Chancellor also issued charters on behalf of the king in Bratislava during Albert’s stay in Vienna, sometimes with clerical notes “by order of the Queen” or “on the written order of the King” or through a relator. Charters issued on behalf of the monarch in Bratislava during his absence: MNL OL DF 227 174, CDH X, p. 232, MNL OL DL 102 477, DL 13 355, DL 13 351, DF 226 925. At that time, Albert dated charters in Vienna; regarding this, see Koller, Das Reichregister, no. 209 to 239. The first charter issued in Bratislava on the king’s own order is dated 22 April MNL OL DL 13 358. 30 AMB no. 1612. 31 Janssen, Frankfurts Reichskorrespondenz 1, no. 857, pp. 478–81.

The Short Rule of King Albert ( 1439 )

45

his position among the Hungarian nobility, particularly through the generous bribery of supporters, issuing one deed of donation after another. Another important task was – with the help of the Queen – to secure money not only for the planned military campaign, but also to finance the soldiers defending the southern border. Two brothers, both named John Hunyadi (although it seems very strange to us today, they both really did have the same name), provided him with invaluable services, maintaining garrisons at the Danube border castles of Szörény, Görény, Orșova and the not too distant Miháld to protect the mountain pass to Transylvania. In Bratislava, King Albert extended the agreement he had previously made with both brothers. Both Johns had also provided Albert’s predecessor, Emperor Sigismund, with military services by using hired warriors. Through a charter issued on 21 September 1437 in Prague, Sigismund had extended the agreement for an additional three months, on the basis of which both Johns were to provide him with specific military services. Since Sigismund had no money, he raised the deposit on the contract to include property that the brothers already had in advance anyway.32 According to Albert’s new contract, in effect from 10 May, the Hunyadi brothers undertook to maintain military garrisons at the mentioned castles for an additional three months. Albert credited them with 2,757 florins in pure gold for this purpose,33 and Queen Elisabeth apparently provided the money for them. On the same day as the monarch, she issued a charter by which for the 2,000 florins needed to maintain the aforementioned castles of Szörény, Görény, Orșova and Miháld (in the words of the charter lying almost in the jaws of the Turks), she mortgaged to certain nobles her town of Kecskemét, along with a toll, and the village of Csongrád.34 The king and queen acted “as one” in other cases, too, which foreign diplomats at the Hungarian court noticed. They solved several problems together, such as the disobedience of the Máramaros Count and count of the local salt chamber, who refused to pay the royal parishes a weekly fee of 12 denari and to hand over to them cloth and fur for clothing as a compulsory gift. The obligation for the count of the salt chamber to pay the regular weekly fee is specified in the charter as “court money” (odvarpenz) and enables us to examine the system by which the royal court secured its operation.35 32 MNL OL DL 13 088. Both Johns are identified in the document as Wallachians, sons of Vojka Hunyadi (utrique Johanni Olah filiis condam Woyk de Hwnyad). They were to serve the king with 50 lances. One lance was an armed knight on horseback and about three archers. The agreed payment was 25 florins per lance. 33 MNL OL DL 13 376. 34 MNL OL DL 30 171, DF 257 941 and a simple duplicate of the charter MNL OL DF 266 848. 35 MNL OL DL 13 358.

46

Chapter 2

In May, Albert was still waiting for a personal meeting with the Polish king, which had been agreed on during the time of the armistice in winter in Silesia. But Albert had no intention of attending the meeting scheduled for 14 May, so on 3 May he appointed proxies who were to represent him. Among the ambassadors at the first meeting was Chancellor Kaspar Schlick (already mentioned in the monarch’s charter as Kaspar of Holíč).36 The royal couple travelled from Bratislava to Buda to take part in the regional assembly and to prepare a military expedition against the Turks. Prior to leaving Bratislava, Albert summoned his younger daughter, who was under the supervision of the court lady Helene Kottannerin in Austria.37 It is possible that both of Albert’s daughters – in part with regard to their safety – were raised in Vienna. Another important event also occurred in May: during this time Queen Elisabeth became pregnant again. The royal procession set off on 10 or 11 May, and after stops in Altenburg (today Mosonmagyaróvár, Hungary) and Győr, arrived in Buda, where Albert’s stay is documented from 14 May.38 Just as in 1438, Albert’s presence this time led to unrest in the city, which ultimately led to great bloodshed. The detonator was the drowning of John Ötvös, an eminent and popular burgher of Buda of Hungarian origin, on the orders of the Buda mayor, a German native. According to the chronicler John of Thurocz, Ötvös was allegedly even cruelly tortured before his death.39 The anti-German insurrection broke out on 23 May. Elisabeth’s court lady and educator of the royal children, Helene Kottannerin, also experienced it: “We had not been in Buda for a long time when a revolt against the Germans broke out there,” she wrote in her memoirs.40 Not only was the entire royal court residing in Buda at that time, but also prelates, barons and their familiars and many nobles from various parts of Hungary, who came there as representatives of the individual counties for the assembly. Many of them were involved in the rampage, in which they murdered all the German inhabitants of the city and looted, destroyed and burned their houses. There was a great reaction to 36 MNL OL DF 289 002. In addition to Schlick, the treasurer John Perényi, the Count of Bratislava and Spiš Stephen Rozgonyi, Stephen of Hohenberg and Zvolen Captain Stephen Pohárnok Berzevici (of Brezovica) were appointed proxies. 37 Daniela Dvořáková and Mária Papsonová, eds. Spomienky Heleny Kottannerovej. (Budmerice: Rak, 2008), p. 28. 38 Albert dated it on 10 May MNL OL DF 289 237, 11 May in Altenburg, 12 May in Győr DL 102 479 and 14 May in Buda CDH 11, p. 235. 39 For details on the events, see Wostry, König Albrecht II., 2, pp. 119–23. Testimony of Johannes de Thurocz, see Thurocz, Chronica Hungarorum 1, pp. 232–33. 40 Dvořáková and Papsonová, Spomienky, p. 28.

The Short Rule of King Albert ( 1439 )

47

the events in Buda, and almost all chroniclers who wrote about King Albert made mention of them. Aeneas Silvius Piccolomini claimed that the monarch himself was endangered, and, frightened by the events, hid together with Elisabeth in Buda Castle. Several bolder figures attempted to calm the fanatical crowds, among them the Franciscan preacher James of the Marches. This was the James of the Marches who in Csanád in 1437, prior to the anti-Turkish campaign, gave a fiery sermon to raise the morale of the soldiers taking part in the expedition. In this case, however, the monk overestimated his own options: although he moved among the raging Hungarians with a crucifix in his hand and “begged them in a doleful voice to stop what they had started,” he did not calm them down; they became even more enraged.41 When he saw that the situation was getting even worse, he retreated to the safety of the monastery. Chronicler John of Thurocz bases his description of the events on Piccolomini’s work De Europa.42 Piccolomini also mentions James of the Marches in another of his works, De viris illustribus, in a chapter devoted to the famous preacher and mystic Bernardino of Siena.43 James of the Marches was namely a student of Bernardino, as was another exceptional Franciscan, John of Capistrano. Even Albert’s father-in-law, King Sigismund, once met the venerated Bernardino during his stay in Siena, and fully succumbed to the charisma and wisdom of this man. Bernardino then accompanied him on his donkey to the imperial coronation in Rome. Piccolomini mentions Bernardino’s donkey, too: the learned Franciscan used to ride on it when he was tired from a long walk, but he mainly used it to carry books. After Bernardino’s death, the donkey was taken to Siena, where local women rushed at it and completely stripped it of its fur, because everyone wanted to have some memory of the beloved and revered Franciscan, who was declared a saint six years after his death.44 James of the Marshes was not fully at ease in Hungary. He sparked controversy and fell into a dispute with local church officials, so that he was even excommunicated in Hungary in May 1438.45 The fact that he came to Hungary as an inquisitor also did not win him many well-wishers. In November 1438, the pope wrote to King Albert asking him to personally protect James of the Marches, who had been sent to Hungary in the role of inquisitor and who was to see to the purity of the Catholic faith and root out all “evil seeds and

41 42 43 44 45

Thurocz, Chronica Hungarorum 1, p. 233. Thurocz, Chronica Hungarorum 2/2, p. 292. Piccolomini, De viris illustribus, p. 40. Piccolomini, De viris illustribus, p. 39. CDH 11, p. 165.

48

Chapter 2

poisonous roots” from enemies causing him many difficulties.46 In some places where James worked as an inquisitor, open rebellion broke out against him.47 James was also in a difficult situation because he did not speak the language; he did not know Hungarian and evidently not even German and had to deliver his sermons through interpreters. Piccolomini again tells of this and also presents a completely bizarre story in which James preached in Buda against both female and male vanity and “as a prop” brought the head of a dead man, which he showed to his listeners to dramatize the effect of his words.48 No wonder then, that his efforts to calm the situation in Buda were unsuccessful; a vagabond monk, screaming in Italian or Latin, had no chance to appease the mob. Only Queen Elisabeth’s cousin, Ban Ladislaus Garai, who enjoyed great authority among the people, was said to have succeeded in doing that.49 He mounted his horse, left the safety of the castle, and bravely went into the city among the rampaging masses, and his balance and authority helped to calm the situation in the city.50 On 29 May 1439, only a few days after the bloody events of Buda, Albert, under strong pressure from the Hungarian nobility, issued a decree at the assembly in Buda which significantly strengthened aristocratic liberties at the expense of royal power and was considered a great victory for the Hungarian estates.51 The Hungarian King had to repeal all harmful changes and customs from the time of King Sigismund and was not permitted to grant castles or other property or ranks and offices to any foreigners, only to Hungarians. The same was also true of the queen; offices and honours could only be given exclusively to Hungarians. By adopting the decree, Albert submitted to the demands of the magnates, who reciprocated by definitively consenting to the donating of the former property of Queen Barbara: on 11 June 1439 Albert issued at least four charters of donation in favour of his wife, namely “after consultation, from his will 46 Augustin Theiner, Vetera monumenta histroica Hungariam sacram illustrantia (Romae: Typis Vaticanis, 1860), p. 218. 47 Regarding the activity James of Marches in southern Hungary, see György Galamb, “Eretnekség és inkvizíció Dél-Magyrországon” in Fehér Lovag. Tanulmányok Csernus János 65. születésnapjára, eds. Gálffy László and Sáringer János (Szeged: Lazi Könyvkiadó, 2015), pp. 139–51. 48 Piccolomini, De viris illustribus, p. 40. 49 Ladislaus Garai was the Ban of Mačva in the years 1431–1441 and then 1445–1447, and was a palatine from 1447. He was a cousin to Queen Elisabeth, because his mother Anna was the sister of Elisabeth’s mother Barbara of Cilli; both were daughters of Hermann of Cilli. 50 Piccolomini, De viris illustribus, p. 57. 51 DRH, p. 283.

The Short Rule of King Albert ( 1439 )

49

and with the consents of prelates, barons and the entire the aristocratic community and the inhabitants gathered at the current General Congregation in Buda”. The charters are surprisingly sealed only with the king’s secret seal, and not the large one, as was common on this type of document.52 The official reason for the confiscation of Barbara’s property was no longer a conspiracy against Sigismund or Albert, which the Hungarian king had referred to up till then. We do not find a single word about any conspiracy in Elisabeth’s deeds of gift; on the contrary, they were written in the spirit as if Barbara had used her possessions normally after Sigismund’s death, which was in no way true. The reason why the king stripped her of her property is given as the fact that she decided to go to Poland, having previously handed over her castles to unfaithful enemies and abandoned them herself. With the new donation of all of Barbara’s estates, Albert completed the great injustice committed against Queen Barbara. In the Hungarian environment, there was no longer even a need to justify stealing from her with a conspiracy theory. The invented accusation of Barbara conspiring with Bohemian lords was meant to defend Albert, especially abroad, since it was necessary to prevent harm to the good reputation of the Hungarian king aiming for both the Bohemian and Roman-German crowns. The unprecedented illegal act committed by the monarch himself could have significantly shaken Albert’s position, which eventually did happen, in fact. The unlawful donating of Barbara’s property had to have poured oil on the fire of hatred that already existed between the two hostile enemies. Reports of civil war and unrest had already spread abroad, including the latest on the anti-German insurrection in Buda. Albert tried to alleviate the situation with the help of Chancellor Kaspar Schlick. In a letter of 15 June 1439 to the Grand Master of the Teutonic Order, notifying him that on the Feast Day of St. Margaret (13 July) he intends to set off on a military campaign against the Turks, he also devoted himself to the events in Buda. Albert convinced the Grand Master not to believe the reports saying that there was resistance against him in Hungary. According to the king’s letter (which was actually written by Schlick), this was not an uprising against him, but an insignificant event: the Buda mayor had ordered a Hungarian be drowned and this had caused great dissatisfaction among his friends, who subsequently caused unrest, to which the city’s riff-raff had joined in. And although the rebels had indeed looted and damaged the houses and shops of several German merchants, these were only a few. No one had died, aside from one wretch. The unrest had lasted only a few 52 The charters are deposited at the HHStA in Vienna, in photocopies at MNL OL DF 258 085–258 088. Publ. Teleki, Hunyadiak kora 10, pp. 43–55.

50

Chapter 2

hours and was immediately quelled on the order of the king. Albert emphasised that, thanks to God, he had complete power in the Hungarian Kingdom, that everyone showed him obedience and no one spoke out against him. The king concludes the letter: “If someone told you something else, you must not believe him, because the matter happened this way, and no other,” adding that the same situation regarding obedience to him prevails in Bohemia.53 Albert’s letter need not be trusted too much. Not only the period chroniclers, but also diplomats who had first-hand reports or were even staying in Buda at that time, stated otherwise. The Frankfurt ambassador in Buda also mentions the problems of Albert, as well as his Chancellor Schlick, with Hungarians in a letter dated 21 June 1439.54 He attributes the delays in obtaining some documents to the difficulties that Chancellor Schlick is having with the Hungarians. In his telling, Hungarians now occupy all the offices, because they do not want any Germans, and all previous officials had departed from the chancellor. Likewise, all the servants of the old emperor (Sigismund) wish to leave Albert’s court. The Turks are attacking from the south; there is danger of Hungary losing Transylvania, and the Serbian despot (Đurađ Branković) wants to ally with the Turks. Enemies are causing great harm to the king in the country; they are seriously damaging Kremnica and burning and looting the property of Kaspar Schlick. Around Bratislava and Svätý Jur those who could had already fled. The author of the letter predicts that great misfortune awaits Hungary this year. The reports of the Frankfurt ambassador are also confirmed by a letter from Schlick’s castellan at Holíč Castle, John of Klux (Hanns von Klux), dated 29 May 1439.55 Albert was left with no other choice but to rely on captains, castellans and royal town to defend Upper Hungary, which remained loyal to him. Originally the most vulnerable area, the Spiš, was slowly coming under his control. Stephen Rozgonyi defeated Polish brigades led by Peter Szafraniec there in three major battles, and now only local skirmishes were taking place,56 though on the territory of today’s western Slovakia the situation remained critical. 53 Anatol Lewicki, Albrecht II. und Sigmund, Großfürst von Litauen (Cracow, 1899), no. 6, p. 315. Chancellor Kaspar Schlick, Lord of Holíč, is listed as the relator (dominus Novi castri). 54 Janssen, Frankfurts Reichskorrespondenz 1, p. 484. 55 John of Klux was originally a castellan of Stibor of Beckov at Plavecký hrad castle; he is documented in the service of Stibor as early as 1428. See Dvořáková, Rytier a jeho kráľ, p. 536. Therefore, it is no coincidence that we find him at the original Stibor Castle in Holíč; he evidently passed into the service of the new lord in Holíč. Letter of 29 May 1439 AMB, no. 1618. 56 Stephen Rozgonyi earned a rich reward for his military achievements: an important Danube ferry under Bratislava, which was part of the trip to Žitný ostrov (hung. Csallóköz).

The Short Rule of King Albert ( 1439 )

51

The most acute threat, however, was the Turkish one, because in the spring of 1439 the Ottoman Empire conquered Serbia, and Albert had to concentrate his main forces on an anti-Turkish campaign, which was to begin on 25 July. The army gathered in Szeged, where King Albert’s stay on 25 July 1439 is also documented.57 Before then, the monarch had to secure the Hungarian holy crown, because enemies were threatening to seize it in his absence. Since Albert’s coronation, the royal crown had been in the hands of the Archbishop of Esztergom and the chief royal chancellor, George Palóci, who had also crowned Albert. In January of 1439 George Palóci was already seriously ill. Bratislava ambassadors were in Buda at that time and related in a letter home that the very ill archbishop had just left and had arrived in Esztergom in an even worse condition.58 In June, Albert gifted Hajnáčka Castle, originally part of the property of Queen Barbara, to George Palóci. The archbishop first received the castle only as an advance, but a year later acquired it as a hereditary possession as a reward for his support.59 In the deed of donation from 15 June 1439, the death of the recipient is already taken into account and heirs appointed. The archbishop, in fact, died soon after, perhaps within a few days of the charter being issued. Immediately after the news of the archbishop’s death reached Buda, Albert and Elisabeth travelled to Esztergom, where the king dated the deed on 7 July.60 He immediately appointed governors who were to take over the Archdiocese of Esztergom. We know that on 16 July, one of them was on his way to Esztergom.61 The royal couple took the crown and coronation insignia to Visegrád Castle.62 Prior to that, Albert sent his younger daughter, three-year-old Elisabeth, there, With the toll and the local owner, p. MNL OL DL 13 424, DL 13 425, DL 13 421, for life hold of Spiš Castle: MNL OL DL 13 420, Šintava Castle and other properties in Bratislava and Nitra counties: MNL OL DL 13 422, CDH XI, 281, Čeklís Castle: MNL OL DL 13 423. 57 MNL OL DF 253 855. 58 AMB, no. 1603. 59 Pledge of Hajnáčka Castle 14 May 1438: MNL OL DL 71 961, donation 15 June 1439: MNL OL DL 13 401. 60 Albert’s stay in Esztergom is documented on 5 July, MNL OL DL 57 692. 61 One of the three governors was Ladislaus Töttős of Bátmonostor, Albert’s master of the treasury, who, in a letter dated 16 July, announced that the monarch now needed him in his service: “et primo de comissione eiusdem domini regis unacum eidem nostris familiaribus ad occupandum archiepiscopatum Strigoniensis sumus ituri.” MNL OL DL 80 691. Three governors of the Archbishopric of Esztergom are mentioned in a charter dated 24 July 1439, AMB, no. 1625 (aside from Ladislaus Töttős, Ladislaus of Štítnik (Csetneki), elected bishop of Nitra, and John of Bosnia). 62 Visegrád is a castle and a small town in the Pilis County in present-day Hungary. The castle had been one of the residences of the Hungarian monarchs since the time of Charles Robert. The royal castle consisted of two complexes, an impregnable castle on the cliff and a comfortable palace down in the town. During the reign of Albert, George of Pezinok

52

Chapter 2

accompanied by Kottannerin (the older, seven-year-old Anna, who was engaged in Bratislava, had probably left for her future husband’s court immediately after her engagement, as she is not mentioned anywhere in Kottannerin’s memoirs). In addition, Helene Kottannerin noted that the queen at that time was in a blessed state, which makes the news that she went on a military campaign alongside her husband all the more shocking. The royal pair left Buda in the second half of July, and on 25 July their stay in Szeged is documented.63 From the start, the whole expedition did not develop well; Albert was unable to assemble a sufficiently large army, since a relatively large segment of the nobility refused to obey him. Although the king also admitted former enemies into the army, Bohemian captains who originally battled as mercenaries against him and shifted to his side for money or promise of the return of confiscated property, there were not enough of them.64 What’s more, the army was demoralised; it lacked provisions, and at the time of the king’s stay in Szeged, only a portion of those who were required by law to go into battle (so-called general emergency) had gathered. Even those who remained loyal to the king did not rush off to the battlefield; for example, Stephen Bánfi of Lučenec (Losonci) wrote a letter to a nobleman on 4 August saying that he was soon going to King Albert, but before that he wanted to stop at his castle Sebesvár in Transylvania.65 He responds to the addressee of his letter about whether he could take refuge in his castle with his wife if the Turks were to invade Hungary. Stephen assured him that he could, not only at Sebesvár Castle, but at any of his castles.66 The letter is testimony enough that he did not much believe in the victory of Albert’s army and that whoever could was seeking a safe place to save himself. It is likewise surprising that although the army was to assemble in Szeged in July, Stephen Bánfi is writing about the planned trip to the army on 4 August. Albert, accompanied by his wife, marched into the field after two weeks in Szeged.67 Surprisingly, he did not cross the Tisza River and did not move to help the besieged town of Smederevo by the nearest route. He progressed slowly along the river, dated a charter in Kisdi on 14 August, and a day later

63 64 65 66 67

was the castellan of the Visegrád castle as well as the royal cup-bearer. Albert’s stay in Visegrád is documented on 7 July 1439, (MNL OL DL 13 420, CDH XI, p. 281, MNL OL DL 13 422, DL 13 423, DL 12 923). MNL OL DF 253 855. Koller, Das Reichregister, pp. 219–20. The Romanian name of the castle is Bologa. MNL OL DF 253 703. I had the document available for a photocopy. A photocopy of the back side, where the addressee is located, was missing; therefore, I do not know to whom the letter was actually addressed. Albert’s last charter issued in Szeged is dated 2 August MNL OL DF 268 758.

The Short Rule of King Albert ( 1439 )

53

Queen Elisabeth also issued a deed there. The charter is especially remarkable in that the queen literally performs as the king in it: she dated it “in the village of Kisdi on our military campaign”.68 It seems that the queen did not feel that she was formally accompanying her husband, but that she confidently considered herself an equal military commander. The later testimony of Aeneas Silvio Piccolomini also confirms this, as he colourfully described the relations in this military campaign: the army passed through swampy, fetid regions (the swamps are also mentioned in this connection by Kottannerin), where there was insufficient wine or food. Queen Elisabeth decided exclusively on the distribution of the incoming provisions based on a publicly announced order; not a word was said about her husband. When the enemy approached, the army dispersed, leaving Albert in danger with only a handful of loyalists. Piccolomini considered the queen to be the cause of the poor moral status of the army. As an example of the “disorder” that prevailed there, he states that the Hungarians entered freely to Elisabeth, even when she was lying in bed.69 A point of interest is that during his stay in Kisdi, on 20 August, Albert assigned to his wife a lifetime annuity of 20,000 florins, 6,000 from the so-called mardurinum tax70 and an additional 14,000 from the income of the Kremnica mining chamber,71 for a total of 40,000 florins. It is hard to say why Elisabeth did not receive this money in Buda back in June, when the king donated all of Queen Barbara’s property to her, but only after some time and in the midst of a military campaign. In any case, with the vast donation from her husband Elisabeth also surpassed her mother, Queen Barbara, in terms of wealth. Albert and Elisabeth remained in Kisdi for at least 12 days. From there, they moved to the area around the town of Titel, to an important ford across the Danube called Tüdőrév (sometimes also known as Titelrév) opposite Slankamen (in what is today Serbia). Albert dated the first charters there on 31 August.72 68 Albert dated charters on 12 August “in vila Zenthandras in progressi nostro exercituali” MNL OL DF 249 924, on 13 August “in Kabal”, Teleki, Hunyadiak kora 10, p. 62, on 14 August in the military camp “bei Kisdi an der Theisa”, CDH 11, p. 315, Elisabeth on 15 August “in villa Kysdy in nostro progressu exercituali” MNL OL DF 202 681. The monarch issued several documents in Kisdi, the last from 26 August, MNL OL DF 247 022. 69 Piccolomini, De viris illustribus, p. 58. 70 The tax paid in Croatia and Slavonia, the equivalent of chamber profit (lucrum camerae), i.e. the tax paid by the residents to the royal treasury. From Roman times, taxes were paid in this area in marten furs, and after the reform of King Coloman, this tax was then collected in money, but its name remained mardurinum (Croatian kunovina); therefore, the Croatian national currency is still called the kuna (marten). 71 MNL OL DF 258 228, Teleki, Hunyadiak kora 10, p. 65. 72 Albert dated several charters in the military camp at the port or ford on the Danube River (in descensu nostro campestri in portu Danubiali Tyderew vocato, in descensu nostro

54

Chapter 2

Donations predominated among his charters, but he also addressed the defence of Upper Hungary. After his departure, the attacks of Bohemians and Poles on the territory of what is today western Slovakia intensified; therefore, under the threat of confiscation of all property, Albert ordered the local nobles to enter the army on the instructions Count of Bratislava County George Rozgonyi and Paul Bánfi, who were entrusted with defending this part of the country.73 While Albert was at the Tüdőrév military camp, news of the fall of Smederevo reached him. He speaks of this in a decree that he issued alongside the queen and the prelates and barons present on 17 September. In the decree they state the complete collapse of the military expedition: the assembling of troops was reportedly delayed, and therefore some of the soldiers left for home. It was thus impossible to continue with the remainder of the army to help Smederevo, and so the castle fell after a three-month siege. The king and queen charged an extra tax of 100 denarii for each household, so that in the spring of the following year they could build a new army against the Turks, made up mainly of mercenaries.74 One of those who put the seal on Albert and Elisabeth’s decree was Serbian despot Đurađ Branković. Smederevo was defended by his eldest son Grgur (sometimes in literature as Gurgur), while his younger son Stephen lived at that time at the court of the Turkish sultan, because Đurađ Branković gave his daughter Mara to the sultan as his wife, and so Stephen left with his sister to the sultan’s court. By marrying off his daughter, the Serbian despot wanted to ensure neutrality (through the marriages of his children, he was related to the Turkish and Hungarian royal courts). The plan did not come to fruition, as planned, however, and so it happened that Grgur defended the fortress of Smederevo from his own brother-in-law. The besieged and starving Smederevo, facing massive artillery, could have only been saved by rapid help from outside. But this, as we already know, due to bad organisation, slowness and an unwillingness to fight, never arrived. Young Branković acceded to the sultan’s proposal and voluntarily issued a promise of free departure from Smederevo. The chronicler Laonikos Chalkokondyles stated that Grgur gave up the fortress in hopes of a reward and went to the sultan’s court to see his brother. Two years

campestri prope vadum Tyderew) at the time from the mentioned date to 17 September. Some charters from this place are also dated as “on a military expedition near Slankamen” (prope Slankamen). 73 The mandate is dated 5 September, MNL OL DL 48 753, CDP 2, p. 287. 74 MNL OL DL 39 290, Teleki, Hunyadiak kora 10, p. 70. DRH, p. 304.

The Short Rule of King Albert ( 1439 )

55

later, however, Sultan Murad had the two brothers blinded and imprisoned due to contacts with their father.75 The military campaign to save Smederevo was unstoppably heading for complete catastrophe. The chronicler Johannes de Thurocz also mentions the arbitrary mass abandonment of the army from the camp in Tüdőrév: “The Hungarians were fed up with the long-term camping, especially because several were suffering from dysentery. According to their ancient custom, they shouted: Wolf! And against the king’s will, they recklessly left the camp and set off without any order.” 76 Other chroniclers, in addition to Bonfini, who did not experience these events, also mention riots in the army, as did Albert’s contemporary, Austrian chronicler Thomas Ebendorfer of Haselbach, who has already been mentioned several times.77 Albert set up a military camp in a swamp with fetid air and waited the arrival of the promised Hungarian army. He remained in this swampy area for two months and eventually began to suffer from persistent diarrhoea, which also affected his people; many of them even died. The king felt that the dysentery that had made him ill was worsening; he felt deceived and frustrated, and they also blamed the fate of Queen Barbara on him. Only a few of his people remained, and even those who did arrive quickly left the camp.78 The infection, which we today know as dysentery or military fever, was a common problem in military camps, where very poor hygiene prevailed. The illness, which is manifested in persistent diarrhoea, also spread through Albert’s army, and in the end he himself became ill, too. Period chroniclers could have no idea of the shigella bacteria that caused the disease, so they 75 Laonikos Chalkokondyles, Poslední zápas Byzance (Prague: Odeon, 1988), p. 152. 76 Thurocz, Chronica Hungarorum 1, p. 234. The calling out of “Wolf ” (lat. lupus) was to be an ancient signal of retreat, the chronicler claims, though we have no other evidence of such a custom in the army. The only use of the cry “Wolf !” reported in the literature dates back to 1099, when, after the defeat of King Coloman’s Hungarian army by the Cumans, the winners killed the fleeing soldiers with a victorious cry of “Wolf! Wolf!”, Thurocz, Chronica Hungarorum 2/2, p. 296. 77 Bonfini, Rerum Ungaricarum Decades. Decas III, Liber IV, p. 83; Ebendorfer, Chronica regum Romanorum, p. 593. 78 Mention of the fact that the fate of Queen Barbara and Albert’s share in it were not forgotten is relatively hidden here. Ebendorfer, Chronica Regum Romanorum, p. 593 says that Albert was reproached by “Sigismund’s warning” (Rex vero senciens in se dissenteriam invalescere et se frustratum ac verbis contra Sigismundi monita circumventum); the Sigismund’s “warning” to which the chronicler refers was supposed to be Sigismund’s alleged warning against Queen Barbara, on the basis of which Albert had her arrested: “Cum eciam specialia coram aliis positis dedit paterna monita, precipue ut circa socrum suam cautus esset”, Ebendorfer, Chronica Regum Romanorum, p. 586.

56

Chapter 2

looked for causes elsewhere. Some assumed that the king had become ill with the unbearable heat, others that the diarrhoea was caused by excessive consumption of melons, which the monarch used to cool himself off.79 The royal couple evidently left the demoralised military camp immediately after 17 September and headed to Buda. It seems that the couple travelled together, though it is often reported in the literature that Elisabeth left the military camp earlier, without her husband.80 From Slankamen they moved slowly along the Danube, and on 18 and 19 September Albert dated charters in Petrovaradin (in today’s Serbia), about 40 km from Tüdőrév.81 A few days after, Albert arrived with Elisabeth to Futog in Serbia (Hungarian: Futak), a small town that belonged to the Garai family, where they remained for about one week.82 On 26 September, Albert issued from Futog a mandate to the city of Bratislava, which related to the archbishop’s tithes: the tithe collected in Bratislava was originally given by the governor of the Archbishopric of Esztergom and current Count of Nitra County, Ladislaus of Štítnik, as a deposit to the people of Bratislava for 4,000 florins. Albert, however, urgently needed this money.83 In Futog, the king extended the contract with the Hunyadi brothers for the defence of the castles on the southern border by another three months. These three months cost the king (or the queen, because the charter states that it was issued on her command) 6,000 florins. They were able to pay out 2,000 florins in gold and silver, but they gave the Hunyadis a large part of Temes County in Transylvania for the remaining 4,000.84 79 Regarding fevers as the cause of the disease, see, e.g. Bonfini, Rerum Ungaricarum Decades. Decas III, Liber IV, p. 83. on melons Piccolomini, Historia Bohemica, p. 186, from him clearly Dlugosz 12, p. 613. A German chronicler, a burgher from Erfurt, also tells of a terrible heat wave, when the river also dried up, Die Chronik Hartung Cammermeisters, p. 65. As a result of this, the King contracted bloody diarrhoea, „fluxum sanguinis gewann.” 80 Elisabeth’s charter of 30 September, reportedly from 1439 and dated in Buda, is considered to be proof MNL OL DL 65 053. This charter, however, is damaged in the part where the year is stated, only the last two letters are legible “uo”. This suggests that in the text was written octa/uo not nono and was therefore it was issued in 1438. In September and October 1438, Elisabeth was in Buda, so logically it fits together. 81 18 September: MNL OL DL 30 436, Teleki, Hunyadiak kora 10, p. 74, 19 September SNA Leleský konvent HM, Introd. P 256, MNL OL DF 212 164. 82 Ladislaus Garai also took part in the military expedition and was among the signatories of the decree of 17 September. Albert issued a charter in Futog on 26 September, AMB, no. 1627.1, 27 September MNL OL DL 13 440, DL 93 757, DL 13 439, 28 September MNL OL DL 27 871, 3 October MNL OL DL 102 087. 83 AMB, no. 1627.1. 84 MNL OL DL 13 439. Another of Albert’s charters, a donation for the Queen’s vice-chancellor, Doctor of Laws Peter Agmandi, or an order to a Cluj convent to put it into the donated property, are further evidence of Elisabeth’s presence, MNL OL DL 27 871.

The Short Rule of King Albert ( 1439 )

57

Another stop for the royal entourage was the village of Szond, where the king issued charters on 8 and 9 October, and finally Bodrog, a town that at this time was slowly heading towards its demise. In the times of Arpad, a castle stood there, the centre of a county, but in 1439 it no longer existed, and during the 15th century, the town, too, originally located somewhere on the site of today’s Serbian village of Bački Monoštor, also disappeared.85

⸪

From Serbia, the procession with the sick king set off along the Danube towards Visegrád.86 Visegrád Castle was intended to be a mere stop on the journey to Austria; Albert wanted to get to Vienna quickly, because he believed that only there would they be able to save him. Other events were described in detail by our chief informant, Helene Kottannerin. We already know that prior to leaving on the military campaign, Albert had sent her, together with his three-year-old daughter, whom she was caring for, to Visegrád. According to Kottannerin, Albert’s steward (dapifer) secured the transport of the seriously ill king, carried on a stretcher.87 After arriving in Visegrád, Albert was installed in the Lower Palace, where physicians from Vienna came to see him. We don’t know how the Viennese doctors treated the seriously ill king, but he reportedly improved moderately. Not only doctors but also those around the king tried to help him, particularly through a variety of magical practices. For example, they sent him a shirt that his daughter had worn on her body, the idea being that washing or rubbing such a shirt should help with both human and animal diseases. One of his servants, a man named Vinsterel, brought him an amulet: a small bag with a clasp to which two pictures were attached (no doubt these were pictures of saints) and a pea husk as a “charm” (zauber in the German text). Up until the 18th century the word zauber was used to refer to an amulet, and in folk medicine, great power was attributed to peas. But the shirt, the magic and the sacred images did not help the king, who became worse and worse.

85 Albert’s presence in Szond (written in the sources as Zond): 8 October MNL OL DF 278 534, 9 October MNL OL DL 80 698, DL 80 699, Bodrog: 10 October MNL OL DL 13 450, 12 October MNL OL DL 13 447, DL 13 450. 86 Albert dated a charter in Bodrog on 12 October 1439. 87 At that time, the royal steward was Michael Ország of Gút (today in Ukraine), who demonstrably took part in the military campaign; he is one of the signatories of the Albert’s decree of 17 September, DRH, p. 304. Stretchers are mentioned in Ebendorfer, Chronica Austriae, p. 378.

58

Chapter 2

The queen’s behaviour at this time was surprising. She left her husband behind and travelled to the property of her cousin, Ban Ladislaus Garai, beyond Buda.88 Albert sent a messenger in vain summoning her to come to him. It is possible that Elisabeth was already counting on the death of her husband at the time and was preparing to assume power, which she could only succeed at with the help of the respected Ban Ladislaus. On 18 October, she issued a charter in Old Buda that freed the inhabitants of Ladislaus’s town of Pápa from paying the thirtieth tax,89 and sometime around that time, she named her cousin as the Visegrád castellan, because he already appears with that title in the mentioned charter. Visegrád Castle was of key importance to the queen, as the Crown of St. Stephen was kept there. In the charter, the queen emphasised their close family relations and that she knew that she would very much need Ladislaus in the coming period. At the time Elisabeth dated the charter in Old Buda, her husband was already in Esztergom, where on 17 October he appointed emissaries with a power of attorney to negotiate with the King of Poland.90 On the next day, he wrote a relatively rude letter to the city of Bratislava, in which he demanded that they get him the 4,000 florins he was asking for without delay.91 From Esztergom, the king moved along the Danube towards Komárno, which is about 50 kilometres to the west and corresponded to a path that could be travelled comfortably in one day over the plain. The next logical stop was Győr, where ambassadors from the city of Bratislava were awaiting the king. The king reached neither Komárno nor Győr, however. The entourage stopped 15 kilometres before Komárno in the village of Neszmély (German: Langendorf). An express envoy from there reached Győr on Tuesday, 20 October, and reported that the king was seriously ill. Because two ambassadors from Bratislava were waiting for Albert in Győr, we know the details, as they immediately informed Bratislava about the events taking place. The messenger said that the king was very ill, that he was staying in Neszmély and that the doctors did not want to permit him to continue his journey. In the view of the Bratislava ambassadors, “raffal” wine could potentially help the seriously ailing king; therefore, they wanted to travel to him in the night and bring him a barrel of this wine. The messenger who carried the message from Neszmély to Győr had to head back that very evening, despite his fatigue, and the Bishop of Győr gave him

88 89 90 91

Dvořáková and Papsonová, Spomienky, p. 29. Teleki, Hunyadiak kora 10, p. 76. The charter is dated on the queen’s own order. MNL OL DF 289 003. CDH 11, p. 298. AMB, no. 1630.

The Short Rule of King Albert ( 1439 )

59

a fresh horse to make this possible.92 News of the monarch’s serious health condition soon reached Komárno. The envoy Peter, who had brought it there, notified the city officials that the king was so ill in Neszmély that they were anticipating his imminent death. The Komárno Town Council immediately forwarded this message to Bratislava.93 But neither the magic amulets nor the “raffal” wine, which was a red wine made from a favourite grape variety called runcinula, helped King Albert. His condition quickly deteriorated and he never left the village of Neszmély. His final day in office was Friday, 23 October, though it is questionable to what extent it was really the king who decided and issued charters. One of the last charters issued by Albert was a donation to Chancellor Kaspar Schlick, who well knew that the dying monarch is an opportunity that would not be repeated. He had verified this the first time at the end of Emperor Sigismund’s life, when he prepared one forged document after another. Through Sigismund’s supposed charters, Schlick found himself elevated to the status of a count, became a palatine, and with the granting of the imperial fief of Bassano in northern Italy, even a prince. In addition to his position, he also altered his family genealogy, and his mother became the daughter of the Count of Collalto.94 It is possible that a similar scenario was also repeated with the death of King Albert, and it is more than curious that Albert managed to donate the Pajštún Castle estate to his chancellor while lying on his deathbed.95 The deed of donation, issued on the king’s personal command, is sealed with his secret seal and differs in a number of details from the usual Hungarian official practice. Above all, there are witnesses to the donation, which itself rarely occurs with 92 AMB, no. 1631. 93 AMB, no. 1632. The letter is not dated exactly; its authors stated only “on Monday in Komárno”, but based on the circumstances, it can only be determined that it was written on 19 or 26 October. 94 For details on this, see Petr Elbel and Andreas Zajic, “Die zwei Körper des Kanzlers? Die „reale“ und die „virtuelle“ Karriere Kaspar Schlicks unter König und Kaiser Sigismund – Epilegomena zu einem alten Forschungsthema.” in Mediaevalia historica Bohemica 15 (2012), no. 2, pp. 47–143; 16 (2013), no. 1, pp. 55–212; 16 (2013), no. 2, pp. 73–157. Some of the false charters were created before 1437, some, in contrast, later. Schlick evidently used sealed blanks, blank charters, a sufficient number of which he made up before he publicly destroyed the seals after Sigismund’s death, according to protocol. Details about the relationship with the Collalto family, which may not have been fully fabricated, but it could also be a convention about fictitious kinship between Schlick and the Collalto family, most recently Petr Elbel, “Collaltovská stopa v Čechách v 15. století, aneb pocházel Kašpar Šlik z hraběcího rodu Collalto?” in Z Trevisa do Brtnice. Příběhy šlechtického rodu Collalto ukryté v českých archivech (katalog výstavy), eds. Petr Elbel, Ondřej Schmidt, and Stanislav Bárta (Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2017), pp. 73–92. 95 MNL OL DL 13 454.

60

Chapter 2

this type of charter; moreover, only Austrians and Germans figure here as witnesses. There is not a single Hungarian magnate among them, although several magnates accompanied the king and the donation concerned property in the Kingdom of Hungary.96 Also surprising is that King Albert donated to Schlick a castle that already had an owner: the Counts of Svätý Jur and Pezinok. The fact that the castle would first have to be acquired from them is also accounted for in the deed of donation, and according to the deed’s wording, the queen was to see to it, in that she was given the task of “in the name of the fidelity and love we have for her and her loyalty to her (us) to hand over the said castle and have the necessary deed drawn up sealed by him or her seal according to the customs of the Hungarian country.” Another curiosity of the donation is that together with the castle estate, Schlick also received an unspecified “Torgelt” fee. I have never come across such a fee on any other medieval Hungarian deed of donation for a castle estate. The torgelt was collected at the entrances to the towns; it was commonly used to repair walls and maintain fortifications. It is possible, however, that in this case Schlick also wanted to acquire the castle estate with a “state” tax, which was collected for the king over the whole country and was called a portal tax or gate tax. The German translation of Torgelt would then correspond to that. Another document, Albert’s supposed will, issued on 23 October, the last day Albert “functioned” as king, is also engulfed in doubts. Historians have long considered it a forgery made by Schlick and Ulrich Eizinger, but today, in contrast, they lean towards thinking it is more authentic.97 This dispute is not easily resolved, and with the current state of knowledge it likely never will be. The will was made in three copies (for the Austrian Principality, the Kingdom of Hungary and the Bohemian Kingdom). To this day, only one parchment original has been preserved, namely in the Rožmberk (Rosenberg) Archive in Třeboň in the Czech Republic. The other two supposed originals are lost. A transcription from the 15th-century will is also preserved in the Haus-, Hof- und 96 Nicodemus, Bishop of Freising, Austrian Chancellor Hanns von Eberstoff, Erhard Doss, Master of the Royal Forests, in the Czech language we would call him the “Chief Royal Hunter” (Vorstmeister), Ulrich Eizinger, Austrian Hubmeister (Chief Revenue Administrator of the Austrian Princely Chamber). 97 The authenticity of the will was questioned in particular by Otto H., Stowasser, Ulrich von Eizing und das Testament König Albrecht II. Mitteilungen des Vereins für Geschichte de Stadt Wien, Heft 3 (Vienna/Berlin/Leipzig/Munich, 1922); in contrast, its authenticity is defended by Karl, Gutkas, “Der Mailberger Bund von 1451. Studien zum Verhältnis von Landesfürst und Ständen um die Mitte des 15. Jahrhunderts,” in Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung 74 (1966), 1: 51–94, 2: 347–92, here p. 347, with, however, acknowledgement of the manipulations of the will by Eizinger.

The Short Rule of King Albert ( 1439 )

61

Staatsarchiv in Vienna, where documents from the former court archives are located and was probably part of some codex.98 The authenticity of the will was even questioned in the Middle Ages, and it is no wonder, given that Schlick and Eizinger stood by his origin. We already well know Kaspar Schlick from the events following the death of Emperor Sigismund of Luxembourg, and Ulrich Eizinger (in the sources Eizing, Eyczing, Eitzing, Eyzinger, etc.) was made of very similar material. From an insignificant knight, he became a favourite of Albert in the 1430s (at that time still Austrian prince Albert V) and from 1437, as his “Hubmeister”, he was the all-powerful administrator of Austrian finances.99 At the time of Albert’s death, he was considered to be the most powerful man in the country, with major influence on the political situation in both Hungary and Austria. We will come across him in the further telling, but we will here reveal that after the death of Ladislaus the Posthumous in 1458, the Austrian prince Albert VI had Eizinger arrested. The accusations against him state, among other things, that Eizinger, through Schlick, had falsified King Albert’s will.100 Piccolomini, too, expressed doubts about the validity of the will. Historians who doubt the authenticity of Albert’s will refer to Piccolomini’s work Historia Austrialis (History of Austria), where he is said to have stated directly that the will was falsified, which is not entirely true.101 He did, unequivocally, reject the authenticity of the will, however, in his Speech against the Austrians, delivered in Vienna in December 1452, where he devoted extensive attention to the will. His main argument against its authenticity was the fact that the Austrians, Bohemians and Hungarians unequivocally rejected it.102 What was actually in the will, if doubts about its authenticity arose several years after it was written? Let’s take a look at the individual political provisions. First and foremost, Albert addressed the issue of his successor. Were Elisabeth to give birth to a son, his mother and the oldest representative of the Austrian 98 Gutkas, Der Mailberger Bund, p. 51. 99 The office called “Hubmeister” was in charge of all the country’s financial affairs; today we would probably call him Minister of Finance, but with more extensive competencies. 100 Stowasser, Ulrich von Eizing, p. 11f., Gutkas, Der Mailberger Bund, p. 52, in note 5 reference to additional literature. 101 Piccolomini, Historia Austrialis, p. 8. There is no mention of forgery in the text itself: “Cum testamentum Alberti factum diceretur, quo cautum esset, si masculus sibi nasceretur  …”, although some historians believe that the word factum should be read as false in the given place, which others reject, p. 8, note 35. 102 Michael von Cotta-Schönberg, Collected Orations of Pope Pius II, 4th edition, ed. and trans. Michael von Cotta-Schönberg. Vol. 4: Orations 14–20 (1450–1452) Scholars’ Press 2019. Oration “Sentio” (December 1452 Vienna), p. 393.

62

Chapter 2

princes would be his guardians. They were to have counsellors selected from each country available: three from the Kingdom of Hungary, three from the Kingdom of Bohemia and three from the Principality of Austria. The boy should be raised in Bratislava, because of its excellent location with regard to his holdings. All officials and dignitaries were to be appointed by Elisabeth and the eldest representative of the Habsburg princes, and when the boy came of age, his tutors were to hand over his accounts. The debts left behind by King Albert were to be paid by the individual countries. An unmarried daughter of Elisabeth and all other daughters who may be born are to be married by their mother and the oldest member of the Austrian prince’s family. If anyone refuses to submit to his son or children, he obliges all his subjects to force them to submit. Albert did not forget about Eizinger while on his deathbed. The will contains an article that highlights the merits of the loyal hubmeister; he reportedly managed his office well, but he spent a lot of money on it, so under the supervision of the appointed Austrian representatives, they must settle his claims.103 It is clear that Eizinger had great interest in making the will seem credible. At the Vienna Assembly on 13 December 1451, he told “his own” version of the will: the king in Neszmély, in a large room in the presence of his advisers from Austria, Bohemia and Moravia, had all three copies for the three countries sealed with his own ring, which he had removed from his hand and he then himself handed over the documents to the representatives of these countries.104 Ebendorfer also accepted these claims.105 However, we must also take Ebendorfer with a large reserve; he twisted history on the orders and demands of his patrons, and as a member of King Albert’s most inner circle, he certainly had good relations with both Eizinger and Schlick. It is also interesting that in 1451, when describing the origin of the will, Eizinger did not mention the Hungarians at all, claiming instead that there were representatives of Austria, Bohemia and Moravia. At the same time, the Kingdom of Hungary was what was mainly at stake, particularly the ambitions of the queen. The arguments of historians who doubt the authenticity of the will rest not only on the claims of Piccolomini, whom we can consider as biased, but also on an anonymous report on the activities of Eizinger prepared at the request of Albert VI in 1458, which served as the basis for his accusation. According to this report, Eizinger, through “Lord Kaspar” (Schlick) had the will adjusted in 103 The whole text of the will was published by Gutkas, Der Mailberger Bund, pp. 382–85. 104 Joseph Chmel, Materialien zu österreichische Geschichte. Aus Archiven und Bibliotheken, 1 (Vienna: Peter Rohrmann, 1837), p. 365. 105 Ebendorfer, Chronica regum romanorum, p. 594.

The Short Rule of King Albert ( 1439 )

63

certain articles to his own needs, especially that the queen should rule in place of her son. The queen acquired power, unjustifiably, via the manipulated will, which was to belong to the representatives of all countries, thus depriving the Austrian princes of their inherited rights.”106 The accusation falls completely in the context of events. Schlick and Eizinger needed government continuity to maintain their standing. It was as if the situation of 1437, when Sigismund died, was being repeated. From what we already know about Elisabeth, and especially from what followed, the events around the will make sense. It doesn’t actually matter if Chancellor Schlick and Hubmeister Eizinger removed the seal ring from the king’s finger as he lay in agony and sealed the will they had themselves written, or that the dying king succumbed to pressure and appointed his wife as a guardian with extensive powers. In either case, the will gave the queen competencies that in no way belonged to her – she was to rule instead of her unborn son. They decided on Bratislava as the place from which she was to rule, which, as we will see, the queen did in fact later choose as her seat (possibly influenced by the plans of her father, Sigismund of Luxembourg, who wanted to make Bratislava the new centre of the kingdom). The will of King Albert certainly did reach Austria and the Kingdom of Bohemia (where, as we already know, it was not recognised), as trustworthy documents on this exist. We will likely never know to what extent it really expressed King Albert’s last will and testament. And so we do not even know whether the monarch really wished to be buried in Vienna, as is stated in the will, though given his desperate desire to leave the Kingdom of Hungary, this is very likely. This wish was not heard, however. This is also mentioned in Vienna city book, the so-called Eisenbuch, which describes the death of King Albert in Neszmély. Albert expressed in his will the desire that he be transported to Vienna for eternal rest, but the Hungarians present did not permit it and took the king’s dead body further to Győr and from there to Székesfehérvár, where it was buried.107 Perhaps at least one of Albert’s wishes was fulfilled: that a Holy Mass be held for him in Mariazell and every Monday a funeral Mass at Stephansdom in Vienna.108 Albert died in Neszmély four days after the writing of the will, on the eve of the Feast Day of St. Simon and Judah, i.e. on 27 October. On the same day, the 106 Nottizenblatt. Beilage zum Archiv für Kunde österreichische Geschichtsquellen 7 (1857), pp. 231–34, 245–47, here p. 233, Gutkas, Der Mailberger Bund, p. 351. 107 Gutkas, Der Mailberger Bund, p. 347, with reference to the City Archive of Vienna, Eisenbuch, fol. 118. 108 Gutkas, Der Mailberger Bund, p. 383.

64

Chapter 2

Count of Bratislava County, Stephen Rozgonyi, informed the city of Bratislava of this from Tata. Stephen also called on the people of Bratislava to guard the city well, because it was clear that the king’s death would lead to the mobilisation of all his enemies.109 The news of Albert’s death soon spread abroad, and the usual assumptions that someone had poisoned the monarch immediately appeared. The blame for Albert’s alleged poisoning was attributed to someone: Queen Barbara, George of Poděbrady or the treacherous Hungarians.110 In one version, an unnamed Hungarian lord was said to have handed Albert a cup of poisoned wine when the ailing Albert called for wine.111 According to a later tradition, they embalmed the body of the deceased king in Neszmély and buried his entrails there. It was alleged that there was an inscription on a metal plaque to this effect located in Neszmély at the time of Maria Theresa. She reportedly had the entrails of the long-deceased king taken to Vienna. They buried the body of the monarch at the burial site of the Hungarian kings in Székesfehérvár. We know almost nothing about the funeral rites of that time. Only a short register of funeral participants representing Albert’s holdings was preserved. There were always four, one bearing a flag, and the others a shield, a sword and a helmet. Each group was also accompanied by a ceremoniously dressed horse with a cendeline blanket, on which the coat of arms of that country was painted.112 We have relatively abundant information about such funeral ceremonies that took place in Vienna, Prague and other cities. Albert, who ruled as the Roman-German king under the name Albert II (although he was never crowned as the Roman-German King), was forty-two years old when he died and left behind a pregnant thirty-year-old widow. We can form an idea of the married couple’s appearance from their depiction on the so-called Albert’s altar in Klosterneuburg. The altar was built between 1438 and 1439; thus, the artist had the opportunity to meet Albert and Elisabeth in person. Elisabeth appears to be charming and young, which corresponds to the description of contemporary authors who characterised her as a very pretty woman. Albert also seems here to be man of pleasant appearance, with a shaved chin and moustache in the Austrian fashion. With all certainly, 109 AMB, no. 1633. 110 Wostry, König Albrecht II., 2, p. 141. An overview of the sources on Albert’s death is available in the commentary on the regest RI 12, nr. 1178a available online at www.regesta-imperii.de and in Urbánek, Věk Poděbradský 1, pp. 453–54. 111 Die Chronik Hartung Cammermeisters, p. 65. 112 Cendeline is a type of fine silk fabric. The inventory was published by Wilhelm Hauser, “Der Trauerzug beim Begräbnis des deutschen Königs Albrecht II. (1439)” in Adler. Zeitschrift für Genealogie und Heraldik 23 (1967) 13/14, pp. 191–95.

The Short Rule of King Albert ( 1439 )

65

however, these are strongly idealised images, as are later portraits of Albert from the 16th century (although they likely worked with period models). We will permit the chroniclers to speak, too, because their testimony is just as interesting. John of Thurocz characterised Albert as “a man appropriately handsome, who had a face more dark than pale, who was gentle in nature and accommodating to the wishes of his (people).”113 Piccolomini somewhat identically states that this was “a man of great stature, hungry for hunting, well-versed in arms, who preferred deeds to speech. He did not make decisions alone but heard the advice of those he considered to be good. He had a black face with terrible eyes and was an enemy of all evil.”114 In another work about Albert, he wrote: “He had a handsome figure, a muscular, husky body, a terrible face and a shaved chin in the fashion of (his) nation.”115 Polish chronicler Długosz described him thus: “He had black hair, an adroit and powerful figure, large eyes, slender calves, an oval and noble head, a cheerful red face with full lips and overgrown, crooked teeth that appeared disfigured when he smiled and talked.”116 All basically agreed that although the king had a pleasant, well-made figure, his face seemed quite repellent, even if they didn’t say so directly. In this context, the claim of eyewitness Pero Tafur that the king had a somewhat strange figure is of interest. Perhaps Albert seemed too tall or too big for the smaller Castilian. Not only in his face but also in terms of character Albert appeared to have been rather repellent. Although it is not right to assess historical figures from today’s perspective, in the case of this monarch it is difficult to avoid doing so. Even in the Middle Ages, he exceeded the limits of what was considered acceptable. He lacked the qualities that his father-in-law and predecessor, Sigismund of Luxembourg, had: generosity, insight, diplomatic skills, excellent education and language skills. Hungarian historian Pál Lendvai wrote that Sigismund of Luxembourg was from a fine family and had a European upbringing par 113 “Erat rex Albertus homo competentis proceritatis, faciei plus ad nigredinem quam albedinem tendentis, mitium morum et petitioni suorum flexibilis”. Thurocz, Chronica Hungarorum 1, p. 234. 114 “Fuit uir magnae staturae, uenationis cupidus; in armis promtus, facere quam dicere malebat; non ipse per se cernens, sed aquiescens consiliis eorum, quos bonos existimauit; nigra facie, oculisque terribilibus; malorum omnium hostis.” Piccolomini, De viris illustribus, p. 58. 115 “Statura eius procera fuit, nervosum et validum corpus, facies terrifica, more gentis erasa barba”. Thurocz, Chronica Hungarorum 2/2, p. 296 with reference to Piccolomini’s “Europe”. 116 “Princeps … nigro capillo, corpore vegeto et robusto, oculis grandibus, tibiis tenuibus, capite rotundo et decenti, vultu hilari et rubeo, labiis tumentibus, excrescentiam et disproportionem in dentibus habens, quae illi dum ridebat vel loquebatur, aliqualem deformitatem ingerebat.” Dlugosz 12, p. 613.

66

Chapter 2

excellence. Sigismund’s mother tongue was French, but he also fluently spoke Latin, German, Czech, Hungarian and Italian. One anecdote says that he commented on his phenomenal linguistic talent as follows: “I speak with the Pope in Latin, with poets in Italian, with magnates in Hungarian or Czech, with horses in German and with myself in French.” Albert spoke no languages aside from his native German. A few years later, when Piccolomini wrote a text about the upbringing of Albert’s son, Ladislaus the Posthumous, he emphasised that the boy should be taught foreign languages from an early age. His educators should provide him with companions who would speak Hungarian, Czech, German and all together Latin and that the languages were to be alternated in conversations. Thus, Ladislaus would effortlessly and in the form of a game learn the languages he would one day need to communicate with his subjects in various countries. By mastering their language, he would gain their support and understand their complaints in their national languages, which is important because in many cases, delicate matters cannot be dealt with through interpreters. We have already said that he mentioned Ladislaus’s grandfather Sigismund as the example to follow and his father Albert as a cautionary example, as he was greatly harmed by his ignorance of the languages.117 Albert was first of all a rugged soldier, rough enough that he bordered on being cruel. During the Hussite wars, contrary to the customs of the time, he did not spare prisoners; he refused ransom and had them killed.118 Although the inexorability towards the Hussites in some chroniclers and contemporaries has earned him the title of the “most Christian” prince, fighting uncompromisingly for the Catholic faith, even in the guise of noble goals, the essence of his cruel nature is obvious. It was fully expressed in the events that took place in the years 1420–1421 in Austria and entered history as the Viennese “Gesera”. This was the largest Jewish pogrom in the medieval Austrian principality. The pogrom took place in two waves, in 1420 and 1421, and Albert, then still only an Austrian prince, bears full responsibility for it. The first stage of the pogrom began in May 1420, when Albert had all Jews on the princely estates arrested and in June ordered the entire Jewish population of Vienna to leave the city. This affected only poor Jewish families, who were put on boats and sent to Hungary. Wealthy Jews were not sent away, but were arrested and tortured to reveal where their money was hidden (which only demonstrates that the reasons for the pogrom were financial, not political or theological). The attack on Jews in the following year 1421 was even more brutal. The pretext for the 117 FRA 2/67, pp. 120–21. 118 Urbánek, Věk Poděbradský 1, pp. 230 and 231 with reference to sources.

The Short Rule of King Albert ( 1439 )

67

persecution was an alleged host desecration, which a woman from Enns helped with when she sold it to Jews. On the basis of this sham accusation, not only was the woman condemned after first being severely tortured in Vienna, but so were all the Jews remaining in the country, to death by burning. All the Jews of Vienna who had survived the first pogrom were taken on the same day to Gänseweide in Erdberg and burned to death there. Today there is a popular tourist attraction on this site – Hundertwasser House – and few visitors to this architectural work, full of imagination, merriment and colours, suspect that they are standing in a place where hundreds, perhaps thousands, of human lives were cruelly snuffed out. Innocent victims – supposed heretics, witches, sodomites (as homosexuals in the Middle Ages were usually called), perjurers – died by fire here. And Jews, too. The liquidation of the Jewish population was thorough. Historians agree on the fact that Albert completely exterminated the medieval Jewish settlement in the Principality of Austria. Not only did the people disappear but traces of them disappeared, too. In Vienna, they demolished the synagogue and used the materials from it to build the Faculty of Theology building. Similarly, in Linz a church was built on the site of a demolished synagogue. Perhaps we could say that the Middle Ages were simply like that; pogroms happened and Albert was merely a reflection of his time. He was also allegedly led to the harsh crackdown on Jews for political reasons in that the Jews reportedly cooperated with the Hussites and supplied them with weapons. Historians Petr Elbel and Wolfram Ziegler have refuted all of these arguments. They thoroughly analysed Prince Albert’s financial situation during this time and put it in the context of events,119 and they came to a clear conclusion: Albert urgently needed money, and the easiest way to get it was by means of a pogrom. This occurred at the time when Albert was negotiating with King Sigismund about marriage to his only daughter, Elisabeth. As we already know, Elisabeth’s mother, Queen Barbara, wanted to orientate the power-political ties to the Kingdom of Poland, but Sigismund decided on the Habsburgs, and he had Prince Albert pay greatly for this decision. Albert not only had to finance two anti-Hussite expeditions (1420 and 1421), but on the basis of marriage and alliance agreements concluded in Bratislava, he also had to pay 100,000 florins in cash as donations to Elisabeth directly to her father, not to Elisabeth herself. 119 Petr Elbel and Wolfram Ziegler, “Am schwarczen suntag mardert man dieselben juden, all die zaigten vill guets an under der erden …: die Wiener Gesera: eine Neubetrachtung.” in “Avigdor, Benesch, Gitl” Juden in Böhmen, Mähren und Schlesien im Mittelalter: Samuel Steinherz zum Gedenken. (1857 Güssing–1942 Theresienstadt), eds. Helmut Teufel, Milan Řepa, and Pavel Kocman (Brno/Prague/Essen: Klartext-Verlag, 2016), pp. 201–68.

68

Chapter 2

If we add up the cost for the two military expeditions, Albert’s marriage to the royal daughter cost 300,000 florins, plus the loss of an additional 100,000 florins, which Sigismund was originally to pay as Elisabeth’s dowry. Although for the sum of 400,000 florins that Albert de facto invested, he received some castles and towns in advance (České Budějovice, Jihlava, Znojmo, Jemnice and Pohořelice), these were far from having such value.120 Marrying the heiress of Sigismund of Luxembourg was a huge opportunity, however, so Albert decided to secure funding in any way possible. Winning the hand of a Luxembourg princess promised a profit of three royal crowns. Acquiring Hungary was especially appealing, because it meant obtaining a kingdom with lucrative gold mines and an annual income of about 200,000 florins, making Albert one of the wealthiest princes in the empire. With the Bohemian Kingdom, he would have lost money rather than gained, because the financial situation there was very unfavourable due to the religious wars, though it would in turn bring the rank of Imperial Elector. The third crown was the Roman-German crown, which the Habsburgs would regain after a hundred years without it.121 Albert’s marriage with the heiress of the Luxembourg holdings was well beyond the financial possibilities of the Austrian duke. He could only carry out this ambitious wedding alliance at the price of the relentless murder and robbery of Austrian Jews. Albert could also have chosen a more honest but longer route (in addition to the Jewish tax of 2,300 marks annually, he could have borrowed from Jews or issued special taxes). But he chose the fastest route: a pogrom, which according to rough estimates, could earn him up to 250,000 marks of net income in one fell swoop.122 The primary motivation of the Vienna Gesera was to obtain money. Although Albert attempted to retrospectively legalise the unprecedented violence and improve his image in contemporary public opinion through the loyal chronicler Ebendorfer, who was the only one to relate the fictional story of the stolen host, the stamp remains on his reputation. Ebendorfer, of course, did not invent the story; that was Albert’s doing, because the charter of judgment of March 1421, which speaks of the desecrated host, has been preserved.123

120 Similarly, regarding the issue, see Elbel, Die Heirat, pp. 79–152. 121 Elbel and Ziegler, Am schwarczen suntag, pp. 259–60. 122 Elbel and Ziegler, Am schwarczen suntag, p. 259. The authors followed on Klaus Lohrmann’s older estimates and analysed them in detail. 123 Petr Elbel also drew my attention to the fact that the supposed host desecration in Enns took place several years earlier, according to contemporary sources, and at that time did not lead to any mass pogroms. Albert in 1421 simply used the old case as a pretext for the extermination of Austrian Jews.

The Short Rule of King Albert ( 1439 )

69

As we follow the story of King Albert, it is difficult to prevent ourselves from feeling a sense of historical justice. He ultimately paid an exorbitant price for all his unscrupulous acts. He ruled only with great difficulty the kingdoms that he acquired, and aside from a few carefree months in Wrocław, his reign was one of constant struggle. A struggle that Albert repeatedly lost. Fate also prepared for him an undignified and completely unregal death: in his own excrement on the run from the kingdom that he had so longed for …

⸪

Queen Elisabeth found herself in an unenviable situation. Whether or not she perceived it that way herself is debatable. Immediately after Albert death, she began to act energetically. We do not know whether she was with Albert in Neszmély (more likely not than yes), but it seems that the procession carrying the deceased monarch moved from Neszmély to Győr, where the queen waited or soon arrived. On 31 October, Hungarian prelates and barons from the royal procession issued a mandate addressed to representatives of the city of Bratislava, by which they requested (in line with the king’s previous orders) that the people of Bratislava hand over 4,000 florins, which made up the revenues from the archbishop’s tithe (they had them on loan). They demanded the money “in the name of and on the authority of the Queen”; therefore, it is likely that she was also present in Győr.124 The town was in an unenviable situation: it had no money, so it requested postponement, which Elisabeth rejected uncompromisingly, urging them again on 3 November to pay the 4,000 florins.125 From Győr the procession bearing the dead king left for Székesfehérvár, where Albert was buried; the queen then headed for Buda. Along the way, on 1 November in the village of Adony, she dated a letter addressed to the Bohemian estates asking them to convene an assembly to discuss Albert’s will and to maintain their fidelity to her and her children.126 Upon her arriving in Buda, the queen did not settle in the royal castle, but at her own castle in Old Buda. From here she issued charters and deeds, with small breaks, until the end of the year. Her itinerary from this period with relatively precision is identical with what the eyewitness Helene Kottannerin wrote about this period. The queen supposedly received a report from an unknown man 124 AMB, no. 1634. 125 AMB, no. 1639. The collection of this tithe was very dramatic; violence erupted and one man was killed, for more, see MNL OL DL 44 281. 126 MNL OL DF 289 240 (State Regional Archive in Třebon, Historica no. 454).

70

Chapter 2

that Albert had taken the royal crown with him when he left Visegrád. “This really frightened her grace,” Kottannerin said.127 Elisabeth immediately wrote to Count Nicholas of Pezinok and his son George, who, as the castellans of Visegrád (already revoked at the time), had access to the crown to find out if this was true. The Counts of Pezinok arrived in Visegrád and, in the presence of Kottannerin, made sure that the crown was where it belonged. They brought it out of the vaulted room where it was stored, inspected it for damage, and put it into a smaller case with the crown of the queen. Preserved written sources confirm the credibility of Kottannerin’s testimony. The Queen was already at Visegrád on 9 November and issued a charter by which she confirmed that Count George of Pezinok had handed her the royal crown with all of the other crown jewels that King Albert had entrusted to him. The crown was secured with the seals of prelates and barons, and Elisabeth confirmed that the seals and royal insignia had not been damaged. Selected magnates, members of the royal council, were present at the handover, and they, too, confirmed their personal participation at the end of the charter.128 The queen had the crown in her hands. That was for her the most important thing at that time. Her pregnancy was already visible, and she was convinced that she was carrying a son – the future king – below her heart. Without the help of the appointed prelates and barons, she would not have succeeded, so remuneration followed. We don’t have available all the charters she issued at that time, but even from the few that are preserved, it is clear that the participating lords were richly rewarded for their helpfulness: the Count of Temes County, Stephen Rozgonyi, took possession of the property he had before only had as a lifelong holding,129 Dessew of Lučenec received several villages from the holdings of the royal town of Bistriça.130 Count George of Pezinok in turn exacted a donation for his familiar.131 127 Dvořáková and Papsonová, Spomienky, p. 29. 128 CDH 11, p. 328, MNL OL DL 13 457. Present were: Bishop Benedict of Győr; Duke of Transylvania, Dessew of Lučenec (Losonci); Court Judge Stephen Báthory; the Count of the Székelys, Michael Jakcs of Kusala and Francis Csak; Count of Temes County, Stephen Rozgonyi; John, son of Peter Perényi; Court master George, Count of Krbava; the queen’s Master of treasury, Thomas Szécsi; and Michael, son of Stephen of Zend (Kálnai). The chancellor’s note informs that the charter was issued on the personal order of the queen by decision of the barons. 129 MNL OL DL 7 497, DL 13 466, DL 88 167, DL 56 803, DL 88 159, DL 88 893, DL 88 914, the donation also applied for still unborn sons, who would have with their new wife, the daughter of the late Nicholas, the son of Dessew of Lučenec. Recall that her brother (of the same name as her grandfather) Dessew was one of those who took part in the issuing of the queen’s crown. See also MNL OL DL 19 214. 130 MNL OL DF 247 256 (Arhivele statului Judetul Cluj-Napoca). 131 SNA Bratislavská kapitula HM C. 2, f. 3, Nr. 21, MNL OL DF 225 632.

The Short Rule of King Albert ( 1439 )

71

Elisabeth moved with the box containing the two royal crowns to her chamber, literally to the bed. In addition to the queen, two of her court ladies slept in the room “so that they could attend to her in the night, as is the custom for princesses; a wax candle would burn there”. One of the ladies got up in the night and inadvertently knocked the candle over. She didn’t notice, however, and a fire started in the room, eventually reaching the trunk with the crowns. This caught fire, as did the pillow on which the chest lay. Helene Kottannerin was sleeping in another room with Elisabeth’s daughter. She was awakened by the cries of the court ladies who were sleeping in the queen’s room. Fearless and determined, Helene ran into her lady’s room, which was full of smoke and extinguished the fire. She then ventilated and scented the room so that the queen could still sleep there. Making living spaces more pleasant with scents, which was most often done using incense burners, was performed by medieval inhabitants of castles not only in critical situations, such as a smoky chamber, but commonly, as other written sources suggest. We come across the purchase of censers for purifying the air in the king’s dwelling place, for example, in accounts from the royal court.132 In the morning, the queen told the Hungarian lords present of the night’s incident and they urged that the holy crown be returned to its original safe place in the vaulted chamber. And that is what happened; they returned the crown to its previous place and sealed the door. But the seal was not as before, Kottannerin wrote. The keys to Visegrád Castle were held by Elisabeth’s relative Ladislaus Garai, whom she made the new castellan, and he also secured the room with the crown: he wrapped a scarf around the seals of the lords, to which he affixed his own seal. After securing the crown, the queen left Visegrád and travelled to Buda to discuss the future of the country with the magnates. No one aside from Kottannerin and Ladislaus Garai (or the castellan of the castle appointed by him) had access to the royal crown. Kottannerin further guarded the jewellery and the queen’s crown.133 Elisabeth returned to Buda at the end of November. Long and difficult negotiations awaited her with the prelates and barons, for whom it was unacceptable that a woman should rule the country. They considered finding the queen an appropriate groom to be their primary task. Furthermore, the current situation in the war-torn country needed to be addressed. The death of the monarch encouraged all of his enemies, both open and latent. Enemies rolled into 132 For example, data relating to the year 1525: “Eodem die ad manus Laurencii rutheni Regie Maiestatis pro emendo trucisco ad fumigandas domus sue Maiestatis dedi d. XVI,” see Vilmos Fraknói, “I. Lajos király szamadási könyve 1525 jan. 12–július 16.” in Magyar Történelmi Tár 22 (Budapest, 1877), p. 92. 133 Dvořáková and Papsonová, Spomienky, pp. 30–31.

72

Chapter 2

Hungary, mainly from Moravia, and many of them demanded payment of the soldier’s pay that King Albert was supposed to have provided them for military service during expeditions against the Hussites and to Silesia. War raged in the country, mainly on what is today Slovakia, then called Upper Hungary. This is evident not only from the quoted letters of the local castellans, but from other sources, too. In one letter to a familiar from December 1439, the Count of Tekov County wrote quite clearly: this is war. He refused to give the familiar the two villages he had requested from him because the death of King Albert had changed everything. Because of the current war, he needs money for soldiers and cannot give away anything.134 On 23 December, Queen Elisabeth wrote to the town of Kežmarok telling it to use the tax that it was to pay to her as the salary for a hundred infantry soldiers called “trabants”, but that they select those who are experienced and loyal and, if necessary, let them into the town so that they can defend it together with them.135 Aside from the military support of her followers, Elisabeth also tried to quell unrest through negotiations.136 From Buda, Queen Elisabeth dealt not only with the country’s defences and everyday problems, but also foreign policy issues. She was absolutely and steadfastly convinced that she was carrying a son, the future king, below her heart, and she attempted to secure for him all of his father’s holdings, which would allow her to rule in the position of the guardian of the minor king. The birth was fast approaching; thus, the most important thing for Elisabeth was to appeal, at least by letters, to her followers in each country, to maintain their loyalty to her. From her castle in Old Buda on the Feast Day of St. Nicholas, i.e. 6 December, she wrote to one of the most powerful Bohemian lords, Ulrich (Oldřich) of Rožmberk, that he cannot come to the assembly being prepared in person but should only send his envoys. “As soon as we are free, Lord willing, from the maternity bed, which we are already close to, we long to come among you …” Elisabeth wrote, unaware that she would never set foot in the Kingdom of Bohemia. 134 MNL OL DL 72 657. 135 MNL OL DF 281 451, publ. CDH 11, p. 334 and Michael Schmauk, ed., Supplementum Annalectorum terrae Scepusiensis 2 (Szépesváralja: Typis Typographiae Episcopalis, 1889), p. 266. 136 MNL OL DF 281 455, CDH 11, p. 335.

Chapter 3

The Resolute Queen (November 1439–May 1440) Queen Elisabeth of Luxembourg is a forgotten figure in our history, possibly because her life was so short. She had become Queen of Hungary on 1 January 1438 at the age of twenty-nine, but the key period of her in this function was the last three years of her life, which she lived as a widow. Only then was her nature fully shown, for better and for worse. The courage of the young pregnant widow standing “against all” to remain the reigning queen was admirable. Although her unyielding struggle acquired the romantic varnish of her stalwart fight for her son’s rights, the main motivation was Elisabeth’s own personal ambitions. Queen Elisabeth had figured and acted as the ruling queen during her husband’s lifetime, and she wanted to remain so even after his death. She based her claims on a decree of 29 May 1439, by which the ruling couple submitted to the demands of the nobility in exchange for recognition of the legitimacy of their rule. Article 12 of that decree expressly stated that Queen Elisabeth is the “heiress of the kingdom” (heres huius regni).1 This article was inserted into the decree under other circumstances – it was intended to legitimise the rule of Albert of Habsburg – but after the death of her husband, Elisabeth began to invoke this right of inheritance herself. In charters, she was entitled as “the true heir of the crown” and claimed full power following from the authority of the king.2 And so she ruled not only as a crowned queen, but also as the king, from the position of “royal authority”, which belonged to her as the heiress of the kingdom and on the basis of which she had the “fullness of royal power”, which she repeatedly emphasised in her charters.3 This, understandably, met with opposition from the magnates, for whom a female ruler was unacceptable and effectively contrary to Hungarian law, which did not admit the inheritance of royal estate for women. Elisabeth’s situation would be resolved by the birth of a son, because in such a case she could rule as a guardian until he had come of age. That would not be an unusual

1 DRH, p. 290. 2 MNL OL DF 281 455, CDH 11, p. 335.: “Grata reputatur erga nos, atque praemiatione digna illa vestra sincera fidelitas, quam hactenus semper constanter immutatam, jam in nos, tamquam verum Coronae haeredem transtulistis.” 3 For example, MNL OL DL 13 527: “auctoritate regia, qua pro nunc uti heres regni huius”, DF 218 755: permitted to rule “tamquam vera et legitima huius / Regni / heres”. MNL OL DF 258 544: “plena auctoritate Regia, qua fungimur uti heres Regii regiminis.”

© Daniela Dvořáková, 2025 | doi:10.1163/9789004722552_005

74

Chapter 3

situation. The Hungarian lords, however, tried to eliminate Elisabeth’s influence by pressuring her into a new marriage. One of the candidates for a royal husband was Lazar II Branković, the son of the Serbian despot Đurađ Branković. It has not been ruled out that Ulrich II, Count of Cilli, whose wife was the despot’s sister Katarina, was the one behind this marriage plan. Even if it was Cilli’s idea, Elisabeth quickly won him to her side and persuaded him to abandon this plan. On 10 January she donated Kostajnica Castle in Croatia to him and his father Frederick for the services that her dearest “brother and blood relative” Ulrich had rendered to her “by vigilant conduct and prudent advice” upon Albert’s death.4 The queen immediately refused Lazar Branković as a possible husband and, according to her chamber woman, Helene Kottannerin, told the Hungarian lords: “Dear gentlemen, do not make a pagan of me; rather marry me to a Christian farmer.”5 Kottannerin’s report is also confirmed by a letter from the Bratislava burgher Lienhart Horndl, written in Vienna on 14 January 1440, informing the people of Bratislava that the Hungarian lords are very divided and some want to force the queen to marry the young despot, but that she refuses. Horndl at the same time told of the message of Kaspar Schlick and the “hubmeister”, i.e. Ulrich Eizinger, sent to Buda. The Bratislava ambassador wrote that Schlick and Eizinger had returned from Hungary with news that the Hungarians were making a “great clamour” and want to attack Austria with a huge army. One reason for the animosity was the attacks of Christopher of Liechtenstein. Evidence of the serious antagonism between the Hungarians and the Germans is a letter of Count of Bratislava County Stephen Rozgonyi to the citizens of Bratislava. City officials asked him for a “salvus conductus” – a letter of safe conduct – guaranteeing safe travel for envoys from Vienna and Brno. Stephen wrote to them that it was not in his power to issue them the requested document, because the Hungarian lords (the Palatine, Archbishop of Esztergom and others) did not respect his letters of safe conduct. Therefore, he can only secure them with the passage through his own territories, not through foreign ones.6 Horndl’s letter also contains other trustworthy and valuable information; the Bratislava ambassador really was well informed. He relayed home the news that affairs in Buda had developed well in favour of the Poles and a report from the Spiš that the Polish king intends to move to Hungary soon and has 4 MNL OL DF 258 544, Stephanus Katona, Historia critica Regvm Hvngariae stirpis mixtae 6 (Pestini: typis Ioannis Michaelis Landerer, 1790), pp. 14–17. 5 Dvořáková and Papsonová, Spomienky, p. 31. 6 AMB, no. 1661.

The Resolute Queen ( November 1439–May 1440 )

75

already informed the royal cities of Levoča and Košice in this regard.7 The fact that there was a Polish messenger in Buda in January who was returning to Poland with promising news is also confirmed by a document issued by Hungarian magnates on 18 January 1440. This shows that they had travelled to Buda as ambassadors of the Polish king. At the meeting in Buda, they agreed that the Hungarians will send their own deputies to Cracow, who would respond to the Polish proposals and negotiate the details. The following were appointed as deputies: Bishop of Senj John of Dominis, Ban Matko Talovac, former court judge Stephen Báthory, treasurer John Perényi, Chief Royal Chancellor Ladislaus Palóci and royal steward Emeric Marcali.8 By the wording of the charter, their main task was to conclude a definitive peace with the Poles, but in fact they went to arrange the wedding of Queen Elisabeth with the Polish king. Chronicler John of Thurocz states the same, listing the names of the Hungarian ambassadors to the Cracow court almost identically, and Polish chronicler John Długosz gives the same information.9 As early as during the January assembly, the magnates pressured the thirty-one-year-old queen, who has in a late stage of pregnancy, to promise that she would marry the barely sixteen-year-old Polish king, whom they had chosen as her husband and whose face, according to chronicler John Długosz, was not yet covered by its first down.10 Piccolomini added, in regard to the plan to marry the young Polish king with the much older queen-widow, that this is the misfortune of the rulers, who do not select a spouse for themselves, but for the kingdom, and then subsequently commit shameful adulteries with concubines.11 7 8

AMB, no. 1660. Empowering charter MNL OL DF 289 006 (Archiwum Główne Akt Dawnych Warszawa, Archiwum Koronne Krakowskie), Codex epistolaris saeculi decimi quinti 2, no. 268, p. 409. 9 Thurocz, Chronica Hungarorum 1, p. 235. He made a mistake only in the person of the Bishop of Senj; he incorrectly states the Bishop of Knin (Tinin) instead of the Bishop of Senj and omitted Stephen Báthory and John Perényi. According to the publishers of the latest edition of this chronicle, Stephen Báthory probably refused to take part in the expedition with the message, because no Polish sources make mention of him. But John Perényi was in Poland; John of Thurocz is silent about him, because at the time of the chronicle, the lords Perényi had fallen into the king’s displeasure. Thurocz, Chronica Hungarorum 2/2, p. 299. Polish chronicler John Długosz also names the members of the message; in addition to the above, he also mentions Michael Ország (of Gút) and Rajnold (Rozgonyi), the envoys of Ulrich of Cilli and representatives of Košice, Bardejov, Levoča and others. Dlugosz 12, p. 615. 10 Dlugosz 12, p. 624. 11 Piccolomini, Historia Austriae, p. 13: “Sed habent suam quoque miseriam reges, ut uxores non sibi sed regno ducere cogantur, illi tamen concubinis et adulteriis scelus expiant.” He wrote elsewhere about the sufferings of kings who do not select a wife for themselves, but for the kingdom, ibid. p. 11.

76

Chapter 3

Although the queen initially resisted the pressure, eventually leaving Buda and taking shelter in Visegrád, she was unable to resist the pressure of the Hungarian lords and finally – at least for the sake of appearances – gave in. When an ambassador from the assembly arrived to see her, she agreed to marry under a certain three unspecified conditions.12 According to Kottannerin, she backed down because she was convinced that the lords would be unable to keep these three promises. We are also grateful to Helene Kottannerin for additional details that would otherwise have remained hidden from us forever. She described other events in a spellbinding way, in which Queen Elisabeth’s determined indomitability clearly shine through. Her primary aim was to lay hold of the “holy crown”. “She did so with the intention that if she were to give birth to a son, they would not deprive him of power in the empire, and if she bore a daughter, she would still be in a better negotiating position with the Hungarian lords,” Kottannerin wrote. The Holy Crown at that time was out of reach, locked in the well-protected room at Visegrád Castle, where the Hungarian lords were staying at that time. It would be impossible to remove it from there unseen. The magnates present pressured the queen to give birth at Visegrád itself and then spend her six weeks lying-in there. Elisabeth felt this to be a great threat, logically assuming that she would be too vulnerable in the castle, and the Hungarian magnates could very easily imprison her there even with her newborn child. Therefore, she was at that time already determined to escape from Visegrád Castle. She prepared the escape meticulously, step by step. She first left the upper castle, which at any time could turn into a trap with no hope of escape, and moved to the lower palace in the town. She took with her only her young daughter Elisabeth, the faithful Kottannerin and two ladies of the court. She left her entire female court in its original place. She thus disguised her intentions and enabled Kottannerin to move between the two palaces, so that she could immediately ask her to smuggle jewellery, as well as her own royal crown, out of the upper castle. Kottannerin did just that, shifting the queen’s treasures, hidden under clothing, to the lower palace on a sled. When she was met by a group of riders comprising Hungarian lords, and one of them, Ladislaus Garai, asked her what she was carrying, Kottannerin answered without hesitation

12 Dvořáková and Papsonová, Spomienky, p. 31. She sets out the following three conditions: maintaining influence in the rule of country as the genuine heir even after the new king takes over, ensuring the succession (inheritance) rights of her child (children), if she gives birth to a boy, and legally defining the status of the child if a daughter is born.

The Resolute Queen ( November 1439–May 1440 )

77

that she was moving her own clothes.13 Kottannerin’s regality and courage were the only path to success, because to do something in complete secrecy, without witnesses, was more or less impossible in times when intimacy and privacy were almost non-existent. As follows from Kottannerin’s telling, she rarely managed to be alone, as did the queen – someone else always lingering near them. The modesty of the rooms inhabited by the queen and her ladies of the court is also surprising. Not only were there very few spaces that could be locked, the furnishings were also very austere. For example, the chamber where Kottannerin slept together with her rare charge, the queen’s daughter, was almost without furnishings. When she wanted to hide the queen’s crown in it, she could only slip it under the bed, because there was not so much as a trunk in the room.14 Three charters issued by the queen during the final days of her stay in Visegrád, on 27 January 1440 for Viennese burgher Simon Wachsgiesser, are conspicuous. One of these is a letter of safe conduct, according to which Simon was to haul several barrels of fish to Vienna on behalf of the queen and, conversely, bring back things necessary for her court. The other two charters are addressed to the cities of Buda and Győr, and the queen orders them to return to Simon the property they had confiscated. It is possible that Simon Wachsgiesser was in charge of supplying the queen and her court after their escape from Visegrád.15 The question also arises about whether or not the queen’s jewellery and crown departed in Simon Wachsgiesser’s barrels, allegedly filled with fish, and made it to safety in Vienna, where they later appeared. After the Hungarian lords left Visegrád and returned to Buda to send a message to the Polish king, Elisabeth began to act immediately. She left the dangerous castle and moved to her own castle in Komárno, thus openly defying the will of the Hungarian magnates; she had decided to play a dangerous game of all or nothing. This showed incredible daring, because at that time only her relative Ulrich of Cilli was on her side. In the midst of a harsh winter (even the Danube was frozen), the queen was transported to Komárno in the late stage of pregnancy, from where she wanted to continue to Bratislava. She selected Bratislava as her seat; she felt safe there, had very good relations with the city’s officials and wanted to give birth there. This was, after all, a part of Albert’s will, which we discussed in the previous chapter. Therefore, Elisabeth ostentatiously fulfilled the last will of her husband: she wanted to raise her son from Bratislava as his guardian. Elisabeth did not choose Komárno as a stopping 13 Dvořáková and Papsonová, Spomienky, pp. 31–32. 14 Dvořáková and Papsonová, Spomienky, p. 32. 15 WStLA, nr. 2714, 2715, 2716.

78

Chapter 3

point on the road randomly; the castle belonged to her, which meant that she had a castellan and a reliable garrison there. But fate arranged things completely differently, and in the end Komárno Castle became the birthplace of the future king. But let’s not get ahead of events. Elisabeth’s presence in Komárno is documented on 8 February, when she wrote to the people of Bratislava to send two or three members of the City Council there, as she wanted to speak to them without delay.16 Almost immediately after her arrival in Komárno, Elisabeth began securing the royal towns, and on 12 February 1440, she addressed a mandate to the towns of Bardejov, Levoča and Prešov urging them to remain loyal and to defend themselves against anyone, until they receive further instructions from her.17 The mentioned cities, however, not only received mandates from the queen; they also got them from the other side – from the ambassadors who were on the road to see the Polish king. John, Bishop of Senj, Ban Matko of Talovac, Master of Treasury John Perényi, Master of the Court Ladislaus Palóci and Emeric Marcali came to Košice on 17 February and informed the royal cities of their commission to negotiate with the King of Poland. They emphasised that they were pressed for time, but that if they managed to reach an agreement on a union with the King of Poland, representatives of the cities should appear on the scene according to instructions notifying them of their personal presence and advice in the affairs of the kingdom.18 The mentioned royal town convened a joint meeting in the confusing situation and on 24 February issued a “general resolution of the four towns”, where they declared that despite the instructions of the treasurer (John Perényi) and the lords who are now in Poland, they would remain on the side of the Holy Crown and their natural lady, the queen, and they will not allow anyone into the city until the coronation of the “natural” king, that is Elisabeth’s son. A draft of the resolution issued on behalf of the “four towns” is preserved in the archives of the town of Bardejov, and although it is not written which towns are involved, these are clearly the town of the so-called Pentopolitana – Bardejov, Košice, Levoča and Prešov – but without Sabinov, which did not figure among them in this period.19 Elisabeth wasted no time in Komárno, because the date of giving birth was drawing near. Her closest relative and supporter, Ulrich of Cilli, travelled 16 AMB, no. 1668. The queen maintained continuous communication with Bratislava, see also AMB, no. 1670. 17 Katona, Historia critica 6, p. 35. 18 The mandate addressed to the city of Prešov is preserved, MNL OL DF 228 660. From the wording of the charter, it follows that the same mandate was sent to the other towns. 19 AMBard, no. 364, MNL OL DF 213 046.

The Resolute Queen ( November 1439–May 1440 )

79

to see her so that together they could find a way to get to the royal crown. Elisabeth had another success at that time: on 15 February 1440, the pope named Dionysius Szécsi, whom she had favoured and who was devoted to her, as Archbishop of Esztergom.20 He was also a distant relative of Elisabeth. She thus gained a prelate whose duties included crowning the Hungarian king. It still remained to get hold of the royal crown, which was stored and guarded at Visegrád Castle. This was an essential condition for her to fulfil her plans, because only a king who satisfied the three conditions of the coronation act was considered the legitimate ruler: he was crowned with the original Crown of St. Stephen, by the Archbishop of Esztergom and in Székesfehérvár, the coronation city of the Hungarian kings. It was necessary to prevent “that Pole”, as Elisabeth would call him in the following years, from getting to the crown first. Therefore, in Komárno, Elisabeth, together with Ulrich of Cilli, devised a plan to steal the crown jewels stored in the Upper Castle of Visegrád. It was in no way easy to find the right person who would venture to take part in such a risky event. Only Elisabeth’s court lady, Helene Kottannerin, proved to have such extraordinary courage. But she needed a helper, and this was another problem. When Helene selected one and invited him to a secret meeting with the queen, he was nearly shocked to death when he learned what he was to do. Kottannerin later wrote of this: “This man was so frightened that he changed colour as if he were half dead. And indeed, he did not agree and departed to the stable, to his horses, and I don’t know if it was God’s will or if he was so frightened that this rumour would spread, but he immediately experienced an ugly fall from his horse. When he recovered, he married, sat on a horse and left for Croatia, so the thing had to be postponed for a longer period. My mistress was sad that this coward now knew of her plan, and I was also very worried.” Ultimately, this turned out to be a blessing in disguise, because if the queen had obtained the crown sooner, she would have departed with it to Bratislava and events would have turned out differently. The search for an ally continued and eventually ended in success, as one Hungarian, whose name Kottannerin did not mention for the man’s safety, took part in the theft of the crown. The audacious court lady, together with her helper, set off from Komárno to Visegrád Castle on the pretext that she was going for Elisabeth’s court ladies, whom she was to escort to the queen. On the night from Saturday to Sunday, 20 to 21 February, Kottannerin and her companion succeeded in stealing the Crown of St. Stephen from the treasury of Visegrád Castle. They took the crown from the castle sewn into a pillow 20 Pál Lukcsics, A XV. századi pápák oklevelek 2. IV. Jenő pápa (1431–1447) és V. Miklós pápa (1447–1455) (Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, 1938), no. 672.

80

Chapter 3

and after a dramatic journey, when even the ice on the Danube broke down under their sledges and they almost drowned in the ice river, they delivered it to the queen. The story is well known, but it is worth taking a moment to examine it, as it provides us with a great deal of information not only about the event itself, but also about the way of life in royal castles, in this case in regard to the lives of their inhabitants, the ladies of the court. From Kottannerin’s narrative, it follows that the life of the ladies of the court, particularly at times when their lady was not present, was not very amusing and to a certain measure may recall life in a boarding school. The ladies were said to be very happy to learn that they were to leave Visegrád and travel to the queen. They ordered a chest to be made for their things, and they prepared all day for the journey until eight o’clock in the evening.21 The life of court ladies and the satisfying of their needs, from food to safety, had to be managed and provided in the absence of the queen. According to Kottannerin’s testimony, two specifically appointed important courtiers from among the queen’s familiars – Franz Pöker and Ladislaus Tamási (in the text as Vajdafi, because he was the son of the Duke of Transylvania John) – saw to the needs of Elisabeth’s court ladies. Pöker in particular, who must have been very young, was an absolutely dutiful and reliable servant of the queen who had served her since childhood.22 Both of Elisabeth’s familiars handled the women’s day-to-day problems, took care of their needs, organised trips for them, assigned escorts on journeys, as well as protection and servants, and gave them the queen’s orders relating to the ladies of the court. When the monarch sent a command from Komárno to Visegrád that her ladies of the court pack and travel to her, she addressed it to the two men mentioned, who oversaw the fulfilment of Elisabeth’s order.23 The Visegrád castellan also watched over the safety of the court ladies, ensuring that no men linger around their rooms in the night. At the time of Kottannerin’s story, the Visegrád castellan slept in a bed in front of the room where the Holy Crown was stored and which adjoined the “women’s spaces” of the castle. When he fell ill and had to leave 21 Dvořáková and Papsonová, Spomienky, p. 34. 22 Franz or Francis Pöker (Pewker) was a long-time familiar of Queen Elisabeth, who had allegedly served her since childhood. During a military campaign in 1439, he received property from King Albert in Pilis County (MNL OL DL 13 438, charter dated 8 September 1439). This donation was de facto only a repetition of the same of 4 March 1439 (MNL OL DL 13 301), which Elisabeth had issued on behalf of King Albert. The monarch at that time was outside the territory of Hungary, and Elisabeth’s court master Ivanka, Count of Krbava, is stated as the relator on the deed. 23 Dvořáková and Papsonová, Spomienky, pp. 33–34.

The Resolute Queen ( November 1439–May 1440 )

81

his provisional bed, Kottannerin was relieved by the situation. Because of the illness he could not sleep on the bed in front of the women’s rooms, and, as she wrote, “he did not dare send servants there because these were the quarters of the ladies of the court”. During the day and evening, however, men commonly lingered in the women’s wing. Particularly servants, who were constantly available to the ladies, as evidenced by Kottannerin’s telling about the files that she and her companion hid under the wood near the fireplace and which were noticed by servants serving the ladies (fortunately they did not address this further). Male visitors in the women’s wing were not unusual; after all, Kottannerin’s companion and accomplice in the theft of the crown spent the evening before the dramatic night having fun with the ladies in their room.24 The spaces for the court ladies also had sanitary facilities; a bathing room can be assumed (Kottannerin also mentions the bathing of the queen in a tub at Komárno Castle) and a toilet, probably a latrine, which the author of the memoirs explicitly mentions, because she threw away used files.25 Kottannerin’s mention of the “main entrance” to the ladies’ chambers also demonstrates that the spaces for the court ladies comprised several rooms.26 We have already said that the furnishing of the rooms was very simple. The lighting was also very modest. While candles burned all night in the queen’s room, the others had to settle for candles as rationed and save on light only whenever necessary. When Helene Kottannerin needed more candles for her secret night event, she had to request them from a designated person, in this case an unnamed old woman. She had to lie to justify the increased use of candles, saying that she wished to pray for a long time in the night. The candles were later lost, and she had to wake the old woman in the night to get more for her prayers.27 Despite some minor complications (loss of the candles, servants who noticed the files ready for the night’s work under the wood by the fireplace, the lengthy and noisy sawing of individual locks on the door, because large locks could not be cut through and had to be burned, causing a lot of smoke and odour) the courageous venture was successful. Kottannerin, who was aware that betrayal would mean death even to her own young children, prayed earnestly the whole time as her accomplice and one assistant helped saw the locks to the room with the holy crown. She promised the Virgin Mary that she would go barefoot 24 25 26 27

Dvořáková and Papsonová, Spomienky, p. 34. Dvořáková and Papsonová, Spomienky, p. 36. Dvořáková and Papsonová, Spomienky, p. 35. Dvořáková and Papsonová, Spomienky, p. 34.

82

Chapter 3

on a pilgrimage to Mariazell, and if she did not complete this pilgrimage, she would not sleep under duvets on Saturdays for the rest of her life and spend every Saturday night praying to the Virgin Mary. We do not know whether or not she fulfilled her promises, but it is very likely, because the medieval people made such promises with great seriousness. This is why Kottannerin, in her promises, acknowledged in advance that she would rather give up her duvet for one night a week than walk barefoot to a place of pilgrimage. Who was this remarkably brave woman, at the time about forty years old and, according to medieval criteria, already of mature age, who, out of devotion to her lady, was willing to risk her own life and the fate of her entire family? A woman whom historians label as wise, far-sighted, literally gifted, courageous and well-informed. How did a work that still arouses admiration for its observational skills, literary talent, common sense and the author’s excellent memory come about? I think it’s worth devoting some attention to Helene Kottannerin at this point, because she was a truly exceptional woman and, moreover, she is surprisingly linked with Slovakia, where she owned property. We know relatively little about Helene Kottannerin, and historians have spent many decades putting together even that small amount. Helene (in the literature also Elena or Ilona) Kottannerin (in her memoir written as Kottannerin, Quottannerin or Kottannerinn) was born the daughter of a small nobleman in Sopron around 1400. She married the Sopron burgher Petr Gelusch (Sikul), who died sometime around 1430. In 1432 she married for a second time – Viennese burgher Johannes Kottanner – who worked in the service of the provost of the Cathedral of St. Stephen in Vienna. He was younger than Helene; we know that he only reached lawful age in 1426. Helene Kottannerin worked in the service of the future queen, then still a princess, as the guardian of her daughter Elisabeth at the Viennese princely court, probably from 1436, when little Elisabeth was born. In April 1439, she brought the three-year-old girl to Bratislava to see her royal parents, and from that moment until June of the following year we know of Helene’s fates from her own telling. After this period, her image again becomes blurred and disappears from the sources. All we know is that her husband had a house in Vienna, near the castle, and that Kottannerin is documented in Vienna until 1470; thus, she lived to a blessed age. Historians date the origin of Kottannerin’s work to around 1450, but certainly before 1457, because it was written during the lifetime of Ladislaus the Posthumous, but also after 1442, when Elisabeth died. These dates are based on the mention in the text that Kottannerin could never tell Elisabeth all the details about the theft of the Crown of St. Stephen crown, because she never

The Resolute Queen ( November 1439–May 1440 )

83

managed to be alone with her long enough. “We were always together for only a short time,” says Kottannerin, and therefore “her grace knew nothing about those miracles and signs of God’s help that took place there, and she died without ever knowing them.” And so Queen Elisabeth departed for the other world and never knew everything her faithful court lady had done for her.28 Perhaps this is why Helene Kottannerin decided to record her experiences in writing – so that the courageous act in which she risked her life would not be forgotten. Preserving memories for eternity, for descendants and future generations; this was the only protection against the eternal silence that death brings to a person. We often come across such reasoning and similar reasoning in the texts of the Hungarian royal donation deeds, in which the nobles had their heroic deeds, military service and services rendered to the king recorded. Kottannerin could have had a similar motivation. Some historians believe that Kottannerin wrote the manuscript for Ladislaus the Posthumous as a memorial text, so that he knew of circumstances that directly affected him. Others think that the text may have been attached to a donation request. We know that in 1452, when Emperor Frederick released Ladislaus the Posthumous from his hands and he was definitively recognised as the King of Hungary, Helene Kottannerin was finally rewarded. On 17 March 1452, Governor John Hunyadi issued a charter in Bratislava, by which he donated to “Johannes Kottanner and his wife Helene for the many services they had shown – and especially Helene – to the noble King Ladislaus, not worrying about success or adversity” the village of Vieska, located on Žitný Ostrov, belonging to Bratislava Castle.29 Still in 1470, Helene Kottannerin sent a letter of petition to King Matthias Corvinus in connection with this property. And this is the last mention of her during her lifetime. Whatever Helene Kottannerin’s motivation was to leave behind her memoirs, she could not have known the kind fame she would gain, not only as the author of the oldest female memoir written in German, but also with a riveting personal story and, last but not least, the valuable and very faithful historical testimony that she left for us. If you ever travel from Bratislava to Komárno, stop in the village of Vieska near Orechová Potôň (located about halfway between the two cities) and remember the courageous Helene, the long-forgotten owner of this village. 28 Several researchers have devoted themselves to the life of Helene Kottannerin. An extensive overview of the state of research is provided by Mollay, Die Denkwürdigkeiten, pp. 70–73. For a latest summary of Helena Kottannerin’s research results, see Burkhardt and Lutter, Ich, Helene Kottannerin, pp. 146–55. 29 The document is published in Magyar Sion 1863, pp. 791–92. Its original is kept in the Slovak National Archives, in the Bratislavská kapitula HM, C. 3, f. 2, nr. 7.

84

Chapter 3

The village lies symbolically in the middle of the triangle formed by Vienna, Győr and Bratislava, cities that played such a major role in Kottannerin’s life. Another question that historians deal with is that of Helene Kottannerin’s authorship as the writer of the manuscript. Most historians are inclined to believe that the lady of the court dictated her memories to someone. An analogous case from the same period justifies this assumption. At approximately the same time (in the years 1436–1438) the oldest woman’s memoir written in English originated – The Book of Margery Kempe – and its author was known to be illiterate and to have dictated her work.30 Historians have also addressed the issue of whether the text, which is kept in the Manuscripts Department of the Austrian National Library in Vienna, is an original or a later copy. Here, experts more or less agree: in all likelihood it is the original. Evidence of this is the places in the manuscript where the names of Helene Kottannerin or her assistant in the theft of the Holy Crown have been omitted. Helene Kottannerin likely did not want to mention them for security reasons. Her name, however, is in several places written additionally in another hand (according to some authors her own,31 which is unprovable, however); in some places only the initials of her name are found. If the Viennese manuscript were a transcript, the names and other text would be written by one hand. Helene Kottannerin and her work thus remain full of questions and incomplete answers, even though scholars have been studying them for more than half a century. The discoverer of Helene Kottannerin was Stephan Ladislaus Endlicher, who first published her work under the title Aus den Denkwürdigkeiten der Helene Kottanerin. Therefore, Helene Kottannerin’s text is also known in our literature as Denkwürdigkeiten (Monuments), although the original manuscript was untitled. Endlicher examined the manuscript for nearly twenty years, and only in 1846 did he publish a critical edition in Leipzig. Aside from the source text itself, it also contained notes, excerpts from several sources, a chronological overview of events, a register of names and a glossary. Let us add that Endlicher, a native of Bratislava, was himself a very interesting character. He studied theology, joined the Minorites, and from 1804 to 1849 worked in 30 The Memoirs of Helene Kottanner (1439–1440), Trans. from the German with Introduction, Interpretative Essay and Notes, ed. Maya Bijvoet Williamson (Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 1998), p. 7. 31 Heimito von Doderer, “Helene Kotanner. Denkwürdigkeiten einer Wienerin von 1440,” in Die Wiederkehr der Drachen. Aufsätze/Traktate/Reden, ed. Wendelin Schmidt-Dengler (Mimich: Biederstein, 1970), p. 226.

The Resolute Queen ( November 1439–May 1440 )

85

Vienna as a university professor. He was celebrated particularly as a botanist, and for a time he was even the director of the botanical garden in Vienna. He described many new plant species, particularly from the genus of Sequoias – his success in this field is still recalled by the genus name Endlicheria. Further, he was a successful numismatist and sinologist (he was the author of a basic Chinese grammar). In 1828, he was commissioned to organise the manuscript collection of the Court Library and there he came across a manuscript which – as we have already said – he was the first to make available twenty years later.32 Medieval chroniclers and writers dealing with the events in Hungary in the years 1439–1440 avoid the theft of the Crown of St. Stephen either by silence or by a simple statement that Queen Elisabeth seized it. Only one chronicler, Wolfgang von Steyr, a monk from Melk, recorded in his Itinerarium in 1440 that little Ladislaus (the Posthumous) was crowned as king with a crown that a foresighted, wise (“mulier prudens”) woman had stolen from the Hungarians.33 We don’t know if the chronicler meant Queen Elisabeth or a real actor in the event. And it doesn’t matter, because Wolfgang’s characterisation fits Helene Kottannerin well anyway. She demonstrated foresight and wisdom mainly by putting her memories into writing, thus seeing to her immortality in an unforgettable form.

⸪

But let us return to freezing Komárno in February 1440. On the evening of Sunday, 21 February, the procession of court ladies reached Komárno with Kottannerin, her assistant and the rare cargo. The crown, still sewn into a pillow, was taken to the castle, where the queen was waiting for it impatiently. Part of the procession was housed in the town beneath the castle; only those closest lived directly at the castle, and Kottannerin was among them. Queen Elisabeth received her in her chamber that evening, even though she was already lying 32 Stephan Ladislaus Endlicher ed. Aus den Denkwürdigkeiten der Hellene Kottannerin. 1439–1440 (Leipzig, 1846). However, Hungarian Germanist and historian Karl Mollay devoted the most work to Helene Kottannerin’s text. He published the work, furnished with extensive notes and introductory and concluding studies, in Vienna in 1971. He managed to identify many of the characters appearing in Kottannerin’s memoirs. He also translated Helene Kottannerin’s work into Hungarian. 33 “Itinerarium venerabilis patris Wolfgangi de Styra, in quo primo notantur quaedam commemoranda”: “Anno Domini 1440. Ladislaus filius dicti Regis Ungariae etc. tunc mortui nascitur et statim in cunabulis jacens coronatur+ corona tamen regni prius per mulierem prudentem Ungaris furatur. Nascitur autem dictus Ladislaus in mense Februario annorum Domini praetactorum, in die (ut dicitur) Cathedrae Petri.” SRA 2, pp. 447–56.

86

Chapter 3

in bed preparing to sleep. Based on predictions, the queen remained in childbirth for a whole week; therefore, she wanted to move the following morning with her court from Komárno to Bratislava. The wagons were loaded and the courtiers packed. Fate, however, arranged things differently. During the evening conversation, Elisabeth confided in Kottannerin that two women who had served her, widows from Buda, had bathed her on that day and that she was not feeling well after the bath. What is interesting is that one of the women was the widow of Buda mayor John Siebenlinder (in Latin Johannes de Septemtiliis), who likely came from Lipany in the Šariš County. John was one of the victims of the anti-German uprising in 1439, and Elisabeth evidently cared for his widow by accepting her into her service.34 Both matrons were to be helpful not only with the queen’s daily hygiene, but also later in childbirth and subsequent lying-in. They also brought their own wet-nurse and midwife for these purposes. Kottannerin did not leave the information about the queen’s nausea unnoticed, because she correctly sensed that the birth was approaching. She looked at Elisabeth with her experienced eye: “I lifted the blanket because I wanted to see her naked. I noticed several signs that told me that it would not take long for the birth of a child,” she later remembered. She ordered the queen to get out of bed and start “working for childbirth,” that is, walking around the room. The problem was that both of the queen’s Buda “nurses” also slept in the town with their midwife and the wet-nurse, not at the castle. Luckily, there was another midwife at the castle, the one sent as very experienced and good to the queen by Count John of Schaumburg’s wife. It was a common matter at that time for noble and highborn ladies to provided one another with proven and experienced midwives. The lives of both mother and child very often depended on them. After the difficulties of waking up the hard-sleeping midwife, everything eventually went well, and within half an hour the queen gave birth to her coveted son in the presence of Kottannerin and two other court ladies. The entire birth happened very quickly, which was also related to the fact that it was at least the fourth birth for Elisabeth. As Kottannerin wrote: “At the same hour, when the Holy Crown arrived from Visegrád to Komárno, King Ladislaus was born.” At this point we will forgive Helene Kottannerin a bit of poetic licence. It is clear from her story that the arrival of the crown and the birth of Ladislaus 34 Kottannerin mentions women under the names SubenLinderinn and Zawzehinn. Both were identified by Mollay, Die Denkwürdigkeiten, p. 55 ref. 73 and 74. The second woman was the widow of the Buda Mintmaster Nicholas Zauzach; there is a written record of this as early as 1411. She is mentioned as a widow in 1427.

The Resolute Queen ( November 1439–May 1440 )

87

the Posthumous could not have happened at the same time. According to a Nuremberg chronicler, the future king was born at four o’clock in the morning, adding that he was born in the most favourable position of the planets and celestial signs.35 Austrian chronicler Ebendorfer states that Elisabeth suppressed her woman’s modesty and left the door open during childbirth to avoid any suspicion that the child had been changed and that she had not given birth to a boy.36 This motif of open doors during childbirth is rather common, though it is more literary fiction than fact. We know that Ebendorfer defended the interests of Ladislaus the Posthumous, and therefore the addition of this story to his work is not surprising, as he wanted to emphasise that Ladislaus is indeed the rightful heir to the kingdom. Even if Elisabeth had wanted to avoid any doubts that she had given birth to a son, it would have been difficult to find an audience. Her birth took place as no queen before her: on the run, with no husband, with no preparation, at speed, only in the presence of the nearest court ladies. A queen giving birth under normal circumstances was a significant event and was prepared for several weeks in advance. The preparations were made very responsibly, since childbirth almost always posed a high risk of death for both mother and child. We know from Polish sources that it was customary to decorate the queen’s chamber and maternity bed in splendour with rare fabrics adorned with gold, precious stones and pearls.37 Royal, princely and other highborn women prepared themselves not only spiritually (votive gifts, serving of masses, prayers), but also practically: they sought out and borrowed not only midwives, doctors and wet-nurses, but also various means, amulets, magical objects and relics that were supposed to make it easier for them to give birth. We’ll never know whether Queen Elisabeth had some amulet or magic charm at her son’s birth, but she had been preparing for childbirth long in advance. We know that in her court was an unknown man named Vinsterel (Vinsterlein), who at the time of Albert’s illness brought the king magical amulets to help him recover.38 Prior to giving birth, Elisabeth sent this same man with a votive gift, a large silver image of the Child (i.e. Jesus), to a pilgrimage site in Wilsnack. It seems that the word “picture” was used to describe statues, too, in the Middle Ages, and Vinsterel actually carried a larger silver statuette to 35 Chronik aus Kaiser Sigmund´s Zeit, p. 407. 36 Ebendorfer, Chronica Regum Romanorum 1, p. 595, 2, p. 831, Ebendorfer, Chronica Austriae, p. 383. 37 Dlugosz 10, p. 231. 38 Dvořáková and Papsonová, Spomienky, p. 29.

88

Chapter 3

Wilsnack.39 Wilsnack, a place of adoration of the “holy blood”, was one of the cult pilgrimage sites of the Luxembourgs. Elisabeth’s paternal grandmother, Empress Elisabeth of Pomerania, had thanked the “holy blood”, too, for her miraculous healing and out of gratitude had gone to Wilsnack herself.40 When giving birth, however, she relied on the help of St. Sigismund. The canons of the Church of St. Vitus had reportedly brought his head to the delivery bed (the same one that King Sigismund later transported to Oradea), so that her saint could help her in the difficult hour. Out of gratitude for the happy birth, the parents then named their newborn son Sigismund.41 In addition to the picture (or statuette) that Vinsterel took to Wilsnack, Queen Elisabeth also sent a votive gift to the tomb of St. King Ladislaus in Oradea, asking him for help and promising that if a son was born to her, she would name him Ladislaus.42 We owe this intimate detail to Helene Kottannerin, who wrote it down. However, Elisabeth’s choice of name – of a national saint of Hungary – was not only an expression of gratitude for the saint’s intercession, but also a clear political message: the indisputable claims of Ladislaus the Posthumous to the Hungarian crown. We also have other details from Helene Kottannerin directly from the queen’s chambers. After giving birth, they put the queen to bed and only Helene stayed with her. This modest information is in itself also interesting, as it suggests that the newborn child was not with his mother. He was taken immediately to the milking parlour. We know from Kottannerin’s telling that the Buda widows who were to take care of Elisabeth’s birth (and in the end didn’t, because they slept in the town and there was no time to call them to the castle) had brought a wet-nurse with them. And since it was believed that the milk of a woman who gave birth to a son was better than that from a woman who had given birth to a daughter, they chose a woman who had just breastfed her son. She had also come to Komárno with her boy, and thus fed two children. Queen Elisabeth herself did not breastfeed her son or even her previous children. At least that’s how it appears from one of the queen’s preserved letters, in which she mentions the wet-nurse for her daughter Elisabeth, a poor Viennese woman named Prennerin. The queen ordered the city of Vienna to

39 Studničková, Kult svatého Zikmunda v Čechách, p. 292 note 82. 40 Jan Hrdina. “Wilsnack, Hus und die Luxemburger” in Die Wilsnackfahrt. Ein Wallfahrts- und Kommunikationszentrum Nord- und Mitteleuropas im Spätmittelalter, eds. Felix Escher and Hartmut Kühne (Frankfurt am Main/Berlin/Bern/Bruxelles/New York/Oxford/Vienna: Peter Lang, 2006), pp. 45–46. 41 Studničková, Kult svatého Zikmunda v Čechách, p. 291. 42 Dvořáková and Papsonová, Spomienky, p. 40.

The Resolute Queen ( November 1439–May 1440 )

89

give this woman a keg of beer.43 Both of Elisabeth’s children were breastfed by town women, and Queen Elisabeth evidently did not address the issue of appropriate nursing. The problems and tasks before her did not allow her to do so. In addition to the immense joy from the birth of a longed-for son, she must have felt anxiety from the uncertainty that accompanied this joyful event as well as fear for her child’s life, because she had too many enemies who would benefit from his death. One of the first people to learn the news was her closest relative, Count Ulrich of Cilli (Elisabeth’s mother Barbara was the sister of Ulrich’s father Frederick). Since Elisabeth was an only child, cousin Ulrich could be seen almost as a brother. He organised the celebration of the birth of the future king. He had a huge bonfire lit and people rode in wagons along the water carrying torches and celebrated until midnight.44 First thing in the morning, they summoned the Archbishop of Esztergom, Dionysius Szécsi, to come and baptise the little prince. The christening was also very modest. Where were the times when Elisabeth’s father, Sigismund of Luxembourg, summoned important guests not only from his own kingdom but also from abroad for the baptism of his first and only daughter? The baptism of royal children usually took place one or two weeks after the birth specifically due to the wait for such rare guests. Little Ladislaus, however, was baptised as soon as possible, in the presence of just a few people. He was carried to the baptism by Elisabeth’s court mistress, lady Margit, who was also present at the night of the birth and thus the godmother of the future king. Margit had to be very close to Elisabeth, and the road to the queen often led through her.45 They place little Ladislaus on Elisabeth’s black widow’s cloak and then placed it on a red cloak quilted with gold brocade, which likely belonged to someone present. The news of the birth of a royal son spread rapidly thanks to the envoys sent out by Ulrich and Elisabeth. Various Hungarian lords gradually began to straggle into Komárno to greet the queen with the child and pay tribute to the future king. “The poor woman lying-in did not have a moment of peace, because a lot was going on, and the lords did not want to act without Her Grace, so they often went to see her,” Kottannerin sighed. She mentioned in particular the visit of Palatine Laurence Hédervári and his wife. “The lady gave the wet-nurse four 43 WStLA, nr. 2695. 44 Dvořáková and Papsonová, Spomienky, p. 40. 45 Kottannerin refers to her in her memories as ässin Margit, or Margit ässin, which is the Hungarian word asszony (lady). Her identity is unknown. In November 1439, the city of Bratislava entered in its accounts the expense of 10 tankards of wine for the queen’s court lady and her servant when she came to the mayor at his invitation. AMB K2, p. 391.

90

Chapter 3

florins and commended them in kind words,” Helene Kottannerin recalled, continuing: “He (the palatine) was full of good and sweet speech towards her grace my lady, but it later turned out that he had two faces.”46 The Palatine was not the only one who came to greet the heir to the throne and declared allegiance to Elisabeth, but in the end sided with her enemies. Another important man who came to Komárno was Nicholas of Ilok. The queen trusted him so much that she consigned Székesfehérvár to him.47 The guests brought gifts to the mother, as was the custom. On 28 February, the city of Bratislava sent two barrels of wine to the queen on which city officials had attached four city coats-of-arms they had ordered from a painter for twenty Viennese pfennigs. The city paid not only for wine and the coats-of-arms, but also for pulling the barrels out of the cellar, loading them into a wagon and transporting them to Komárno, which itself was a demanding logistical operation.48 A standard medieval wine barrel (a so-called dreiling or ternarius) could weigh up to 600 kg empty and hold up to 1,360 litres of wine.49 It was also necessary to hire an armed escort for the wagon, which consisted of two riders and one man sitting on the car.50 The city’s ambassador, Janus Verberi, also accompanied the gift to Komárno and had to be reimbursed for travel expenses.51 The gifted wine was therefore very expensive for the people of Bratislava. From the city accounts (the so-called chamber books) we learn not only about the wine for Elisabeth but also about the celebrations for the birth of Ladislaus that the city organised. Two days after the birth of the “young king”, on 24 February, the Bratislava City Council organised celebrations, a part of which was a ceremonial procession and the ringing of bells. According to an entry in the ledger, eight people were needed to ring the bells for a good hour.52 46 Dvořáková and Papsonová, Spomienky, p. 41. 47 Nicholas of Ilok (Ujlaki) or of Hlohovec (Freistadt in German, which is why the chronicler Długosz also refers to it as the Freistadt surname) was in the years 1438 to 1458 the ban of Mačva and count of several counties, later also a Duke of Transylvania and the ban of Severin. That Székesfehérvár was in the hands of Nicholas of Ilok is also mentioned by Dlugosz 12, p. 632. Despite swearing allegiance to the queen, he later sided with King Władysław. According to the Hungarian chronicler Johannes de Thurocz, “he was more zealous than others in supporting his side”. Thurocz, Chronica Hungarorum 1, p. 237. 48 AMB K2, p. 190. 49 Renata Skorka and Boglárka Weisz, “The Town and the Widow: The Journey of Elisabeth of Luxembourg to Pozsony”, in Mesto a dejiny, 2/2019, pp. 6–21, p. 10, states the amount of wine donated to the queen at 2148 litres. 50 AMB K2, p. 359. 51 AMB K2, p. 414. 52 AMB K2, p. 188: “Item am Mitichen an sand Mathias tag hab wir geben VIII gesellen dy gelaut haben als man es dem jungen kunig begieng mit der process als er porn ward ydem VII den wiener. das sy ein gute stund gelaut haben facit XLVIII den. wien.”

The Resolute Queen ( November 1439–May 1440 )

91

The two messengers who brought the news of Ladislaus’s birth from Komárno to Bratislava received a shockingly high reward of 20 florins as “Botenbrot”.53 For comparison, let us recall that the messenger who brought news to King Albert of his election as King of Rome-Germany from Germany to Vienna received 4 florins. In addition, the two men who brought the report were housed and fed at the city’s expense, including their horses.54 Elisabeth recovered quickly from childbirth and could not bear the isolation or the prescribed six weeks of lying-in. Throughout the whole time she not only received visits, but also actively ruled the country; she issued charters, sent out mandates and envoys, and looked for allies. After the end of the six-week lying-in period, the women attended a church ceremony, by which they ceremonially returned to the church (they were not permitted to do so during the lying-in period). The queen, surrounded by courtiers, arrived at the church and stopped in front of the church door with a burning candle in her hands to sing the antiphon from Psalm 51: “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me”. The bishop sprinkled holy water on the queen still in front of the church and prayed for her. She then took hold of his tippet and entered the church with the bishop. The ceremony continued at the altar; the bishop prayed over the kneeling queen, thanked her for returning to the church, and at the end permitted her kiss the relic. A formal mass followed as on the Feast Day of the Purification of the Virgin Mary.55 Although we know of these details from the Polish environment, they probably took place exactly the same way in the Kingdom of Hungary. This is also indicated by Helene Kottannerin’s telling of it, but the ceremony took place “only” in the chapel of Komárno Castle and the queen had a son in her arms at the time. This took place on Easter Sunday, 27 March, which was barely five weeks after the birth.56 As Kottannerin adds: “The noble and stalwart Count Ulrich of Cilli was always by her Grace, my lady, and stood faithfully by her side.” Elisabeth, encouraged by Ulrich of Cilli, first and foremost attempted to stop the negotiations with the King of Poland. Immediately after giving birth, she sent messengers to Poland to tell the Hungarian lords to discontinue the negotiations and to return home immediately. The chronicler John Długosz, who was a direct participant in the events, provides us with a very detailed testimony about the events in Poland. 53 AMB K2, p. 413. Skorka and Weisz, The Town and the Widow, p. 10. 54 AMB K2, pp. 250–51. 55 Dorota Żolądż-Strzelczy, “‘A blessing most desired’ – expecting a child and the first tribulations od life among the polish Jagiellons” in Hofkultur der Jagiellonendynastie und verwandter Fürstenhäuser, eds. Urszula Borkowska and Markus Hörsch, Studia Jagellonica Lipsiensia 6 (Ostfildern: Thorbecke, 2010), p. 195. 56 Dvořáková and Papsonová, Spomienky, p. 41.

92

Chapter 3

Despite the queen’s order for the ambassadors to return, they decided to continue negotiations with Władysław, who eventually agreed with the offer to accept the Hungarian crown even at the cost of a marriage with a much older Elisabeth. On 8 March 1440, Władysław issued a charter with an election capitulation, by which he undertook to respect all the rights, freedoms and good customs of the kingdom, as well as the decrees of his predecessors, to defend the rights and property of the church and to defend the country, especially against the Turks. He promised to respect all donations granted, especially those granted by Queen Elisabeth. One very important promise was the return to the Kingdom of Hungary of the deposited Spiš towns and Ľubovňa Castle, and without a claim on payment of the deposit amount. The final parts of the election promise were devoted to “problematic persons”. First of all was Empress Barbara, who after fleeing Hungary had found refuge in the court of the Polish king. Władysław committed that he would not bring Barbara or have her brought back to Hungary, that he will see to her provisioning at his own discretion beyond the Kingdom of Hungary.57 The future King of Hungary undertook not to grant mercy and not to permit the return to the kingdom of persons who had been expelled from the kingdom as rebels or unfaithful to the king, and likewise not to grant mercy to the convicted widow of John Garai, who during the reign of Emperor Sigismund had been sentenced to the loss of her head and property and since that time had been kept in prison, and that he will not punish her judges in any way.58 With these last articles, Hungarian magnates secured impunity in cases where they had clearly violated the law in the past. The election capitulation contained other articles that related to the territory of the Red Russia (Galicia), Podolie59 and Moldova, the method of defending the Kingdom of Poland and Hungary, and others. There was no mention in the text of the potential marriage to Elisabeth; the Polish king merely stated that the Hungarian lords had chosen him as their king. On the same day, 8 March, King Władysław of Poland (in Poland he ruled as Władysław III) issued another charter concerning his obligations to Queen 57 58

59

More in Dvořáková, Barbara of Cilli, p. 207. Election capitulation MNL OL DF 288 388, published by Katona, Historia critica 6, p. 23. The widow of John Garai is incorrectly mentioned in the document as Margaret, it was Hedviga of Mazovia, a member of the Polish royal Piast family, who was the widow who was unjustly convicted in a fabricated trial in 1435 as a means to seize her property. More in Daniela Dvořáková, “Komunikácia medzi dvorom kráľa a kráľovnej: dvor Barbory Celjskej – pobočka dvora Žigmunda Luxemburského alebo konkurenčná dvorská klika?” in Od symbolu k slovu. Podoby stredovekej komunikácie, ed. Miriam Hlavačková (Bratislava: VEDA, Historický ústav SAV, 2016), pp. 86–90. A historical territory in the southern part of Ukraine.

The Resolute Queen ( November 1439–May 1440 )

93

Elisabeth.60 First of all, Władysław committed to marrying Elisabeth before he was crowned King of Hungary. At the same time, he promised that he would not require the queen to “consummate the marriage” (in today’s words, have sexual intercourse) until the anniversary of her husband’s death, i.e. until the period of mourning for her husband had passed. The other commitments to Elisabeth are clearly generous concessions – it appears that these are exactly the unnamed demands of Elisabeth that seemed unfulfilled to Kottannerin. Władysław promised to leave untouched and in personal ownership of Elisabeth, “for the maintaining of the court”, all the property she had received from her husband (that is, those that Albert had illegally confiscated from her mother, Queen Barbara). Namely, the Zvolen, Vígľaš, Ľupča, Šášov and Dobrá Niva castles and all the towns, small towns and villages in and outside Zvolen County were mentioned, as were the castles at Diósgyőr, Komárno, Old Buda, Szanda, Csepel Island with the queen’s Kumans, the incomes from the collection of the mardurinum tax in all of Slavonia, as well as the town of Kremnica with both chambers (mining and mint) and all the mining towns, exactly as it was in the deed of King Albert. Władysław guaranteed that immediately after the coronation he would issue under his own seal a new donation for all these possessions for the queen. He likewise guaranteed the queen that she could freely appoint and dismiss all her own officials, courtiers and familiars, just as in her husband’s time. Special attention was paid to the rights of Ladislaus the Posthumous. Władysław undertook to keep ownership of all inherited lands with the exception of the Kingdom of Hungary, which were to be inherited by a possible descendant of Władysław and Elisabeth. Ladislaus would inherit the Kingdom of Hungary only if Władysław were to die without a son. Władysław also left Elisabeth the right to decide on the future bride for Ladislaus. On that same day the successful election of Władysław as King of Hungary was ceremonially announced during a solemn mass in Cracow Cathedral in the presence of representatives of both kingdoms, Władysław’s mother Queen Sophia, and even in the presence of the Turkish ambassador. Chronicler John Długosz, who was evidently present himself at the ceremony, tells of it in great detail. The Bishop of Senj, John of Dominis, made a long speech in Latin for the Hungarian side. Then the young king spoke, making a short but pleasant speech and saying that he accepted his election as the King of Hungary. Majestic celebrations followed: the Te Deum laudamus was sung in all the churches, bells were rung throughout the city at night, and huge bonfires were lit.61 The ceremonial acceptance of the election in Cracow Cathedral is also mentioned in a 60 MNL OL DL 39 291. 61 Dlugosz 12, p. 617.

94

Chapter 3

document issued by the Hungarian ambassadors on the next day, 9 March, in which they set the coronation date for the Feast Day of St. Philip and James, that is, on 1 May.62 Ulrich of Cilli’s envoy was also in Cracow at this time; evidently he had brought the news of the birth of Ladislaus the Posthumous to the court of the Polish king with the queen’s order not to continue the negotiations. His mission was unsuccessful, however.63 In this period, Ulrich of Cilli had a very significant influence on all of the queen’s decisions. Since arriving in Komárno, Cilli took the initiative, and it appears that he was the only one who profusely nurtured the queen’s intransigence regarding the Polish king. He acquired ever more power, and those who arrived in Komárno to see the queen knew that the path to her passed through her cousin. On 11 March 1440, Peter Jungettel, a representative of the city of Bratislava, wrote home to Bratislava about his stay in Komárno. He had arrived in the city the day before writing the letter, at noon on Wednesday, and did not get an audience with the queen until Thursday afternoon; he immediately sent home a message.64 He came to Queen Elisabeth with various requests: Bratislava needed to be supplied with weapons (which the queen promised) and to obtain financial support for the construction of the planned new bridge. The queen was pleased by the plan to build a new bridge and promised to support it with 100 florins for the time being and to raise additional money for its construction in the future.65 Jungettel wrote that he had been ordered by the queen and Count Ulrich not to leave Komárno yet.66 The second part of the letter is also interesting, as it shows how favourable decisions were obtained 62 Katona, Historia critica 6, pp. 37–40, MNL OL DF 289 004. 63 Dlugosz 12, p. 615, Rudolf Durst, “Königin Elisabeth von Ungarn und ihre Beziehungen zu Österreich in den Jahren 1439–1442,” in Jahresbericht über das k k Staatsgymnasium in Böhm.-Leipa, 1906–1907 (herafter as 1), pp. 1–26, 1907–1908 (hereafter as 2), pp. 1–21, 1. p. 13. 64 He set off on the journey on 7 March on horseback and accompanied by another man. Both were taken across the Danube and continued to Komárno, probably on the southern route through Mosonmagyaróvár and Győr. Given the great deal of snow and poor roads, their roughly 140 km long journey took nearly four days, AMB K2, p. 192. 65 Skorka and Weisz, The Town and the Widow, p. 10, believe that it was a new slaughterhouse, the so-called Schlachtpruk (i.e. Schlachtbrūck), which was being built in Bratislava at that time on the fortifications between the Vydrica Gate and the tower of St. Martin, as is clear from the chamber accounts. In the Middle Ages, slaughterhouses were built on bridges for hygienic reasons. In this case, however, this was probably not a Schlachtpruk, or slaughter bridge, but the bridge over the Danube. Already in July 1439, the people of Bratislava received from Albert a destroyed bridge over the Danube built during the time of Sigismund, AMB, no. 1624. It is much more likely that in 1440 they were raising money for this bridge, which had to be rebuilt. 66 We know from the accounts of the city of Bratislava that he stayed in Komárno for 9 days, AMB K2, p. 359.

The Resolute Queen ( November 1439–May 1440 )

95

at the royal court. The Bratislava ambassador was visited by John (Hanns), the Chancellor and “kitchen master” of Count Cilli. He came with a request of whether the people of Bratislava could not buy for Ulrich of Cilli two cents (more than 100 litres) of olive oil, 8 cents of figs (which represented more than 400 kg of this rare fruit),67 100 good herrings and could not throw in a barrel of sweet wine for the chancellor himself, but let there is no record of it; let it be a gift. John assured them that this would please Count Ulrich very much, and it would certainly be worth it. Also, that they pay for the rental of the wagon that will transport the requested items to Komárno, and it will be returned to them once.68 The collection of food corresponded to the period of Lent fasting, a time when it was forbidden to consume animal fat; therefore the consumption of vegetable oil, fish and fruit increased. We know, thanks to precisely managed accounts, how many Bratislava residents received this consideration. Olive oil cost 9 florins, figs – although instead of the required eight cents, they sent only two – 3 florins, and almonds, which were also 3 florins. The people of Bratislava also packed for 3 florins the requested sweet Italian wine and small specialties needed for fasting dishes, such as rice, black pepper and saffron.69 To this must be added the cost of the wagon and the armed man who accompanied the load.70 Olive oil, figs and almonds were probably among the aristocracy’s favourite foods for periods of fasting. At the same time, the Countess of Pezinok had precisely this same assortment of food brought from Bratislava.71

⸪

After the conclusion of agreements on the union of the Kingdom of Hungary and the Kingdom of Poland through a common king, some of the Hungarian lords present with Władysław remained in Cracow to accompany him on his journey to Hungary. Others returned home to prepare for his arrival and to inform Queen Elisabeth. The most thankless of tasks – to give the message to the queen and hand over the documents drawn up in Cracow – fell to Ban Matko of Talovac and Emeric Marcali. The mutual distrust is evidenced by the fact that Elisabeth 67 In Bratislava in the 15th century, they used the Viennese cent (Centner, Zentner, Latin Centenarius), which weighed 55.58 kg. 68 AMB, no. 1679. 69 AMB, K2, p. 606. 70 AMB, K2, p. 359. 71 AMB, K2, p. 451.

96

Chapter 3

did not allow the lords enter into Komárno Castle. In the telling of eyewitness Helene Kottannerin, Elisabeth dressed ceremoniously, as pertains to a widow, and went out of the castle to speak with them. This situation was also not safe for the queen, so after returning to the castle, she followed the advice of her supporters and secured the castle with soldiers and only then invited the Hungarian lords inside for a further meeting. They clearly notified her that they would not accept Ladislaus the Posthumous on the throne, even if he were ten years old, because he could not lead an army against the Turks. They had chosen Władysław as their king. The queen’s cousin, Ladislaus Garai, also took part in the meeting, and as we have already noted, he enjoyed exceptional authority; therefore, neither side dared to resort to violence. Elisabeth began to act as soon as Ladislaus Garai departed from Komárno. Both magnates, Marcali and Talóci, were staying in the town of Szőny on the other side of the Danube, opposite Komárno Castle. The queen ordered the Cilli and Šmikouský divisions to be transported across the Danube late at night, under the pretence of preparing for her journey to Tata. In the morning, she rose and accompanied by Kottannerin went to the walls to watch what was happening. From the walls, the two women could see the house where Marcali and Talóci were staying and learned that the brother of court judge Michael Ország of Gút, John (Janus), had come to see them with four other riders. They then saw with their own eyes the attack of the Cilli and Šmikouský soldiers, who surrounded the house and captured all three lords.72 News of the queen’s unprecedented attack on the free Hungarian lords sparked immediate dismay. The capture of leading magnates of the kingdom was all the more offensive because it had been perpetrated by a woman. Under these circumstances, the ambassadors of the Polish king, who were travelling to see Elisabeth loaded with gifts, did not dare to continue on their way and instead turned back for home. Elisabeth had declared open war on the Hungarian magnates, and from that moment on, there was no going back; weapons came to the fore. Nearly all the barons and prelates in the country, even those with whom she was related by blood, gradually opposed Elisabeth. By capturing important Hungarian barons, who furthermore had travelled to Poland with her consent as ambassadors of the Hungarian estates, the queen indicated that she had ruled out further negotiations. The queen’s violent act sparked great indignation and increased tension in the country, which had been vexed by restlessness since Emperor Sigismund’s death. Open quarrels and rifts broke out in many places. One such conflict 72 Dvořáková and Papsonová, Spomienky, p. 42 and Dlugosz 12, p. 619.

The Resolute Queen ( November 1439–May 1440 )

97

arose between the Count of Bratislava County, Stephen Rozgonyi, and the city of Bratislava itself. Rozgonyi sent his people to demolish part of the walls at the Water Tower and take the material, particularly the wood, to repair the walled fortifications of Bratislava Castle. The Bratislava City Council objected to this act, but Rozgonyi replied very sharply to them in a letter written on 4 April in Trnava: they had not built the city fortifications near the Water Tower themselves; Emperor Sigismund had ordered them to be built. If Rozgonyi were able to purchase the necessary wood for money, he would do so and not take it from the Bratislava fortifications (apparently the people of Bratislava had not permitted him to buy wood). The Bratislava Count, however, was also deeply embittered by the fact that the city officials had not informed him about the events in Komárno: “We greatly reproach you for knowing that our Lady Queen had captured and robbed the Barons, who, at her command, in good will and for the common good of the whole Kingdom of Hungary travelled for the election (King of Hungary) to the King of Poland and back and that she is still holding them in heavy shackles. Although you knew of this, you did not notify us, even though we trusted you.” Rozgonyi then continued that the queen, whether she had acted of her own free will or on the evil advice of someone else, “did her Ladyship, but also to her son and our master, a great shame.”73 Stephen Rozgonyi correctly surmised that the queen was not making her own decisions. It seems that in the case of capturing of the envoys, she was following the encouragement and advice of her cousin Ulrich of Cilli rather than her own judgment. Even the Chronicles of the Counts of Cilli make no secret of the fact that the capture of Talovac and Marcali was the work of Ulrich of Cilli.74 The chronicle was started in the times of Ulrich of Cilli (before 1456), and its author was a Franciscan monk from the Cilli monastery. His information is therefore reliable, although presented with a strong bias in favour of his masters. The Cilli and the Talovac families had long shared an antagonism towards one another which was kept in check by the strong personality of Sigismund of Luxembourg. After his death, however, it was only a matter of time before the rivalry would escalate into open warfare.75

73 AMB, no. 1685. Relations were later settled, at least a while, because the Bratislava City Council undertook to pay 160 Hungarian florins to Andreas Besseny, a servant of the Count of Bratislava County Stephen Rozgonyi and at the same time to the burgrof (castellan) of the Water Tower. Regarding this, see AMB, no. 1689. 74 Franz Xaver Krones, Die Freien von Saneck und ihre Chronik als Grafen von Cilli (Graz: Verlag von Leuschner & Lubensky, 1883), p. 97. 75 Tamás Pálosfalvi, “Cilleiek és Tallóciak: küzdelem Szlavóniáért (1440–1448),” in Századok 134 (2000), pp. 45–98.

98

Chapter 3

The report on the capture of Ban Matko of Talovac spread throughout the country. On 10 April, nobleman Ladislaus Jakcs of Kusala wrote to the Count of the salt chamber in Dés from the Romanian village of Hodod (Hadad). The salt chamber in Dés was controlled by Matko of Talovac, and it was clear that the queen’s side would soon try to seize all of Talovac’s property. Ladislaus Jakcs wrote that he had yesterday received news of the capture of Ban Matko from the Bishop of Oradea, who at the same time asked that he occupy and defend all the episcopal estates and castles, as well as the salt chamber. Therefore, Ladislaus Jakcs asked the count of the salt chamber to immediately take all the salt from Dés by ship to the safer Udvarhely (today Odorheiu Secuiesc, Romania) and defend the chamber for as long as possible. His fear of a potential retaliation by Ban Matko of Talovac if he managed to be released was stronger than his fear of the queen.76 The Kingdom of Hungary paid an exorbitant price for Elisabeth’s decision to start a fight for the crown at all costs. Her blind struggle was almost incomprehensible. In the High and Late Middle Ages, a monarch’s sovereignty was founded primarily on the election or acceptance of the monarch by the estates, not by coronation, which was a sacral-ritual rather than a legal act.77 So, even a king whose coronation followed the traditional and prescribed customs could rule only to a limited extent if he were not recognised by the landed elites, as we saw in the case of Albert of Habsburg. At the same time, the terms offered to Elisabeth by the King of Poland were from the beginning more than generous. In effect, virtually all the wealth that she and Albert had illegally confiscated from Queen Barbara would be left to her, and the legacy of the Hungarian throne was, in one way or another, guaranteed for her son, although not her first-born, but still her own, if she were to give birth to a son for Władysław. In the case of the husband’s untimely death, the throne would then fall to the first-born Ladislaus the Posthumous. Elisabeth perhaps would have been able to significantly influence and manipulate the much younger Władysław, though on the other hand, her resistance to marrying such a young boy is understandable. A comparison arises with Queen Beatrice of Aragon, who, after the death of her husband, Matthias Corvinus, desperately fought, as the queen-widow, over marriage with his successor, King Władysław II Jagiellonian, even at the cost of a humiliating trial in the papal mansion. She lost the fight and eventually had to leave Hungary as well as all of her possessions. Elisabeth’ position was much more favourable because she had given 76 MNL OL DL 55 202. “Nos enim morte preventi a parte domini Bani alienamur”. 77 Martin Nodl, “Dětské korunovace: blasfemie rituálu,” in Gestá, symboly, ceremónie a rituály v stredoveku, eds. Peter Bystrický and Pavol Hudáček (Bratislava: VEDA, 2019), p. 52.

The Resolute Queen ( November 1439–May 1440 )

99

birth to a legitimate heir, but it was clear that under the political constellation, in a country hard pressed by the Ottoman Empire, the rule of a woman was unacceptable. “Was the throne the right place for a woman and a child at this time, full of tumultuous yeast?” rightly asked Czech historian Rudolf Urbánek, and he stated that Elisabeth strongly overestimated her own abilities and was unable to make new friends without creating many new enemies at the same time.78 Her decision to enter into a mad power struggle, no matter what it cost, was massively fed by her cousin Ulrich of Cilli, three years younger, who initially stood as a grey eminence behind her deeds. On 23 March, Cilli met with Prince Albert VI of Austria at Kittsee Castle, and the hostile Liechtenstein and began negotiations with them. It’s possible that already then he presented Albert with a proposal for guardianship over little Ladislaus.79 At this time, Elisabeth also had to deal with succession in the other countries her deceased husband had ruled. The situation became especially urgent in the Bohemian Kingdom, where the Bohemian estates began to consider the candidacy of Albert of Bavaria. Although Elisabeth originally thought to send Ulrich of Cilli to Prague for an assembly 24 April, it was clear that in this situation she must keep him by her side. Therefore, on 6 April she wrote from Komárno to Oldřich of Rožmberk that she could not send Ulrich to the assembly because she urgently needed him and asked that the assembly to be postponed to a later date.80 On 10 April, the queen announced to the City Council of Vienna that she had entrusted the custody of her recently born son Ladislaus and the rule over Austria to twenty-two-year old Albert VI of Austria, the younger brother of the

78 Urbánek, Věk Poděbradský 1, pp. 503–04. 79 The castellan of Kittsee, Hans Schellendorf, informed the city of Bratislava of this by letter on 23 March, writing that Prince Albert and Liechtenstein had already arrived, and that the arrival of Ulrich of Cilli and Hans Junker is expected today at noon. AMB, no. 1681. Cilli’s negotiations with Liechtenstein had been going on for longer than shown in other sources: in the accounts of the town of Sopron, which was under Ulrich of Cilli’s administration as captain of the city at the time, are items for hosting Liechtenstein and for messengers to him, Házi, Sopron 2/3, p. 173. Mention is also made in a letter of Queen Elisabeth from 2 April addressed to the city of Bratislava, by which Elisabeth informed the people of Bratislava that Liechtenstein and other gentlemen would be arriving to see her in the coming days. At the same time, she demanded that the city be well guarded and promised them early help, AMB, no. 1683. On 26 March Cilli stayed in Altenburg, where the Bratislava ambassador was with him, AMB K2, p. 199. 80 MNL OL DF 289 243.

100

Chapter 3

recently elected Roman-German King Frederick.81 By doing so, Elisabeth came into conflict with the decision of the Austrian estates from 15 November 1439, according to which the guardianship of Ladislaus clearly belonged Albert’s older brother Frederick, who protested sharply against Elisabeth’s decision, which was a clear violation of his rights.82 Relations between the two Habsburgs had long been very tense. A direct glimpse of what the “frozen relations” between the two members of the ruling family looked like was left to us (again) by the people of Bratislava. The city’s ambassador Lienhart Horndl, who was living in Vienna at the beginning of January, wrote home to Bratislava that the princes were in dispute, not speaking and not visiting each other. The older one is staying at the court (in Hofburg), the younger in the city. The younger is organising sleigh rides almost daily, the older occasionally undertaking them, but everyone rides with their own society. The alienated princes had chosen their own proxies who were to achieve peace between them.83 Elisabeth only poured oil on the fire with this decision, without achieving anything. No one accepted the appointing of Albert VI as the guardian Ladislaus the Posthumous anyway; Frederick protested against it, and the assembly held on 17 April completely ignored such a guardianship.84 Disturbing reports also began arriving from Poland. Although the long inaction of the Cracow court since the election on 8 March may have given hope to Elisabeth that the Polish king would not dare be drawn into the Kingdom of Hungary, it was a false hope. The reasons were not the doubts of the “elected” Hungarian King Władysław, but the harsh winter that was then taking place, at least according to chronicler Jan Długosz. In his telling, the winter endured 81 Teleki, Hunyadiak kora 10, pp. 81–83, MNL OL DF 258 091, Chmel, Materialien 1, p. 10 nr. 276, Uhlirz, Quellen zur Geschichte der Stadt Wien 2/2, p. 179, nr. 2724, Ernst Birk, “Beiträge zur Geschichte der Königin Elisabeth und ihres Sohnes König Ladislaus 1440–1457,” in Quellen und Forschungen zur vaterländischen Geschichte, Literatur und Kunst (Vienna, 1848), p. 214. 82 Brigitte Haller, “Friedrich III. und die Stephanskrone,” in Mitteilungen des österreichischen Staatsarchiv, 26 (1973), pp. 96–97 also with references to the sources. Reports of Frederick’s refusal to accept guardianship were untrustworthy, and on 29 April he protested against Albert’s guardianship, arguing that, as the elder of the two, this right belonged to him and that Elisabeth’s decision was therefore invalid. From the position of the King of Rome, he appealed to Albert to accept it Uhlirz, Quellen zur Geschichte der Stadt Wien 2/2, p. 179, nr. 2727. 83 AMB, no. 1659. 84 Albert’s letters of protest issued on 22 April at Forchtenstein Castle Uhlirz, Quellen zur Geschichte der Stadt Wien 2/2, nr. 179, no. 2725 and 2726. The City of Vienna responded that without Frederick’s consent they could not accept his guardianship and obey him, which Albert had to accept, WStLA, nr. 2727.

The Resolute Queen ( November 1439–May 1440 )

101

through the end of April and a great many fruit trees, animals and birds froze as a result. Furthermore, the year before had seen a very poor harvest, so high prices and hunger ruled in the country and bread was allegedly baked from mistletoe or leaves, grass and roots. Not only people starved, but domestic animals, too, for which there was not enough food. Therefore, the truly desperate had to tear away their thatched roofs and feed them to the starving livestock. Deep snow and frost was a constant from the Feast Day of St. Martin (11 November) to the Feast Day of St. George (24 April). Hungarian written sources are also testimony to the harsh winter at the start of 1440. Let us recall how Helene Kottannerin crossed the frozen Danube with loaded wagons on 21 February. The bitter winter was also reflected in the accounts of the city of Bratislava, where items for snow removal appear almost continuously from January to March. Some accounting records suggest the small dramas caused by bad weather: the knocking over of a Bratislava envoy’s horse in deep snow, the fall of another rider and a horse on icy terrain into a city ditch, or the freeing of a boat stuck in a frozen Danube.85 The Polish king initially wanted to set off for Hungary two weeks after Easter, i.e. on 10 April. The snow and ice had begun to melt at that time, however, making travel completely impossible. Therefore, the planned journey had to be postponed for nearly two more weeks, and the ceremonial procession of the Polish king did not start until about 20 April. After saying goodbye to his mother, who was waiting for Władysław in Sącz, the future Hungarian king crossed the Polish-Hungarian border. Władysław’s first stop was in Kežmarok. Although Queen Elisabeth had appealed to the royal town of Kežmarok in December of the previous year to hire and pay 100 mercenary foot-soldier to help defend against the enemy and on 3 January 1440 had promised to confirm all privileges to the town if it remained loyal to the crown’s true heiress, the Polish king entered the city without any resistance on 23 April and settled there. He spent ten days in Kežmarok until the Polish knights had joined him with their troops to move to Buda in full force.86 The people of Kežmarok earned a reward from the King of Poland for this: he permitted them to freely trade throughout the whole Kingdom of Poland and freed them from paying tolls.87 Elisabeth soon lost another royal city: the Bishop of Eger, Simon Rozgonyi, who organised and managed the arrival of the Polish king, besieged and conquered Prešov.88 We know 85 86 87 88

AMB K2, pp. 176, 177, 179, 182–184, 187, 189, 191, 194, 195, 203, 410, 411, 415. Dlugosz 12, pp. 627–28. Katona, Historia critica 6, p. 54. Dlugosz 12, p. 628.

102

Chapter 3

the details of Władysław’s next move thanks to the chronicler Jan Długosz, who evidently accompanied Władysław personally as a member of the royal procession. On 4 May the king’s procession departed Kežmarok, heading to Spišská Nová Ves and from there to Spišské Podhradie, Sabinov and the freshly conquered Prešov, where members of the important aristocratic Cudar family came to pay tribute to Władysław. While Władysław was in Prešov, however, a large hailstorm struck, which was considered a bad omen. From Prešov, the king’s path led to Rozhanovce, where the Bishop of Eger, Simon Rozgonyi, provided him with everything he needed, and the next stop was in Vizsoly. The small town of Vizsoly, now a little-known village in Hungary, was then an important stop at the crossroads of major roads (especially from Poland to central Hungary or further south) and an important crossing of the Hornád River – there was even a bridge here in the Middle Ages.89 The river turned fatal for one of Władysław’s courtiers, the royal chancellor. He made use of the stop in a town for hunting ducks with falcons, and when he wanted to save one of his falcons that had become tangled in the river, he himself drowned. They buried the deceased chancellor directly in Vizsoly and continued on their way. Until the tragedy with the unfortunate chancellor, the journey of the future Hungarian king had been trouble-free. It was clear, however, that Queen Elisabeth already had information by then about the movement of her antagonist and the loss of the first royal towns. The priority for both sides was to get hold of the capital Buda and carry out the coronation as soon as possible. Therefore, Bishop Simon Rozgonyi left Władysław, who was slowly advancing towards Buda, and hurried with his forces to occupy the capital and prepare for the arrival of the future monarch. The occupation of Buda did not take place without bloody incidents. Długosz recorded the case of a follower of Elisabeth’s who sat on a horse and rode through the streets of Buda defaming Władysław’s election as King of Hungary in vulgar words. Familiars of Bishop Simon immediately intervened against the man, chopping up the man and his horse on the spot with their swords.90 Fires of hatred flared up in other places, too. The area of the Central Slovak mining towns began being threatened by the son of Voivode Peter Czech of Levice (Lévai) Ladislaus. At the beginning of May, the queen wrote to the town of Kremnica asking it to provide military assistance to Pukanec, because Ladislaus was intending to force the town to pay tribute to the Polish king. In 89

Sigismund of Luxembourg also made stops at Vizsoly, dating charters here in 1396 (when he travelled from Stará Ľubovňa to Oradea) and in 1412 (on the way from Kežmarok to Oradea). 90 Dlugosz 12, pp. 631–32.

The Resolute Queen ( November 1439–May 1440 )

103

the letter, Elisabeth informed them that she had ordered her castellans from Zvolen to damage and ravage the territories of Ladislaus Czech of Levice.91 The hostility of Ladislaus Czech was understandable, as Matko of Talovac, captured by the queen, was his brother-in-law.92 If Elisabeth and Ulrich of Cilli thought that the capturing of Matko of Talovac, Emeric Marcali, John Ország and other gentlemen would gain them something, they were greatly mistaken. On the contrary, they thus also lost those who initially sympathised with the queen. Ulrich of Cilli, through his servant, had the rare prisoners taken to Sopron, a city he controlled thanks to Elisabeth. However, Ban Matko Talovac succeeded in escaping imprisonment with the help of Sopron burgher Thomas Sörös. Although chronicler John Długosz states that the Matko was released from prison by a Sopron barber, in this case his information is not exact.93 Thomas Sörös belonged among the city’s elite; he appears in the sources as a “litteratus”, i.e. he could read and write, and he was a city notary as early as 1432.94 The courage of the Sopron citizen has to be admired. Not only did he risk his life, but he also lost all of his possessions in Sopron. The queen punished him by seizing his house with all of its fields, meadows and vineyards and donating them  – quite unsurprisingly  – to the Chancellor of Ulrich of Cilli, John Meusenreuter of Pakenstein. This is exactly the “Hanns” who demanded bribes from the people of Bratislava in the form of figs, oil and herring. Together with Meusenreuter, the Cilli Marshal also became the new co-owner of the confiscated house.95 The liberated Ban Matko Talovac acted immediately, wanting revenge for his injury and humiliation. He contacted Ladislaus Garai and requested a meeting with him, which took place on 2 May in the village of Pata. Other barons were also present at the meeting, among them John, the son of Emeric Marcali, who was still being held prisoner by the queen. Ban Matko and Marcali’s son were full of anger, and they announced to Ladislaus Garai that due to the injustice the queen had committed against them, they would unleash great evil in the kingdom. The sober and respected Ladislaus Garai, at that time the ban of Mačva and castellan of the Visegrád and Liptov castles, was able to at least partially calm the enraged men and gain a deferment. They agreed that Ladislaus would send his own negotiators to the queen, who would ask her to free Voivode 91 MNL OL DF 249 991. 92 The second wife of Matko of Talovac was the daughter of Peter Czech of Levice, Ladislaus’s sister, see. Elemér Mályusz, “A négy Tallóci fivér,” in Történelmi Szemle 4 (1980), p. 558. 93 Dlugosz 12, p. 635. 94 Házi, Sopron 1/3, pp. 48 and 171. 95 MNL OL DF 202 696.

104

Chapter 3

Marcali and the remaining lords in her captivity. “We hope in God that the queen will not act otherwise,” Ladislaus wrote in a letter of 3 May to Ladislaus Töttős of Bátmonostor. Both Bán Matko and John Marcali agreed that they would wait with the war against the kingdom until the return of Garai’s messengers and not to take any action until then. “Then we’ll see what we do next,” Ladislaus wrote in the mentioned letter and asked the addressee not to leave home and wait for his messenger with further news.96 Three weeks later (24 May), Ladislaus Garai wrote to the same addressee that his messengers had returned from the queen only with the uncertain promise that the queen will come to him when she could, and then discuss the matter of Emeric Marcali and the others. Ladislaus Garai must have been disillusioned by the queen’s reply, but he clearly had no great illusions about the outcome of his mission, because at that time he had already made contact with the Polish king, who invited him to a meeting in Buda on 27 May. Ladislaus Garai contemplated going to Buda together with Matko of Talovac, the young John Marcali and other lords who were attending the meeting in Pata. Garai also appealed to Ladislaus Töttős to join them along the way. The aim of the negotiations with Władysław was to come to an agreement between the two sides. Ladislaus in conclusion wrote that Peter Agmandus (sometimes Agmand or Agmandi), the queen’s chancellor, was just then with him, and he will send him back to the queen with the same request he had sent to the Polish king: that until an agreement was reached they should keep the entire matter secret, thus preventing the further spread of hatred.97 At the time when Ladislaus Garai was preparing to meet with the Polish king in Buda, the Kingdom of Hungary already had a newly crowned king: the three-month-old Ladislaus the Posthumous. The coronation took place at Whitsuntide (also called Turice or Pentecost) on 15 May in Székesfehérvár. Elisabeth had originally counted on the participation of Ladislaus Garai, whom she had notified by messenger that she had the Crown of St. Stephen in Komárno and intends to have her son crowned with it. We can only guess with what emotions Ladislaus received this message, but it is certain that he did not come to Elisabeth and refused to take part in the infant’s coronation. The details of the journey to Székesfehérvár and the coronation itself were again left to us by the court lady and governess of little Ladislaus, Helene Kottannerin. On the afternoon of 12 May, the queen left Komárno with her 96 Codex diplomaticus domus senioris comitum Zichy de Zich et Vásonkeő. A zichi és vásonkeői gróf Zichy-család idősb-ágának okmánytára, 1–12, ed. Imre Nagy et al. (Budapest: Magyar Történelmi Társulat, 1871–1931) (hereafter cited as Zichy), 9, no. 9, p. 9. 97 Zichy 9, no. 10, p. 10.

The Resolute Queen ( November 1439–May 1440 )

105

infant son, four-year-old daughter, her closest servants and the lords who accompanied her. Driven by a strong wind, they were transported by boat to the other bank of the Danube and headed in the direction Székesfehérvár. Kottannerin travelled in the group that carried Ladislaus in a wooden cradle, but the baby did not last long in it and cried. His governess had to get down from her horse and walk with the baby in her arms, which was all the more difficult because it was raining unpleasantly. It is clear from Kottannerin’s telling that the queen and her little daughter and some lords were in a different group than Kottannerin and Ladislaus, mainly because she wanted to speak with Palatine Laurence Hédervári. Kottannerin did not know the content of the conversation (we later learn that Elisabeth sent the palatine to defend Buda); she only wrote that he “spoke nicely” with the queen, but this was only a pretence. During the journey, he told the queen that he had reached his old age with honour and would be glad to be put into his grave with honour. He then left the procession and headed for Buda. The travellers spent the first night in Tata, where they arrived late in the night. Kottannerin spent the second night with the child and companions at a hunting lodge in Gerencsér. “There we were dry with a roof over our heads,” she later recalled, and continued: “We would have liked to have something to eat, but we didn’t find much, because it was a Friday during a fasting period. We spent the night there and waited for my Lady Grace to join us.” On Saturday, 14 May the procession – now with the queen – set off on the last leg of their journey to Székesfehérvár. Nicholas of Ilok, accompanied by 500 riders, came out to meet them and they entered the coronation city together. It turned out that Elisabeth’s choice to entrust Székesfehérvár to Ilok was the right one. Whether the coronation would even take place now depended on his loyalty. And it did take place. On the following day, Sunday, 15 May – Whitsuntide – Ladislaus the Posthumous was crowned as Ladislaus V. He was not the only child-king in Hungarian history. In the time of the Arpads, such a situation occurred repeatedly (Solomon I became a ruler at the age of ten, Gejza II at the age of eleven, Ladislaus III at the age of four and Ladislaus IV at the age of ten).98 In any case, he was the youngest crowned king in the country’s long history. The problem was that although the basic conditions were adhered to during the coronation (the coronation was carried out by the Archbishop of Esztergom in Székesfehérvár, with the original crown of St. Stephen), the Hungarian estates did not accept Ladislaus as king. The child became someone 98 Nodl, “Dětské korunovace,” p. 61.

106

Chapter 3

whom he in fact could not be, and the act of coronation itself was more a parody than a dignified sacral-ritual act, says Czech historian Martin Nodl, who labelled the coronation of children as blasphemy, i.e. disrespectful or contemptuous towards the coronation ritual.99 Although the whole coronation ceremony was absurdly adapted to the situation, the prescribed parts of the coronation act were in fact complied with. Thanks to the eloquent Kottannerin from the position of a direct participant in it, we have available the most detailed description of the Hungarian coronation ceremony for the medieval period. If we ignore the unusual circumstances, the information about the coronation itself is greatly valuable. The clothing of the future king during the coronation act was essentially a priest’s chasuble, comprising an alb, a humeral veil, a tippet and a maniple.100 It was also necessary to find the prescribed ceremonial coronation clothing for three-month-old Ladislaus. This was not easy, however, because Elisabeth had decided to carry out the coronation in a rush; therefore, there was no time to find the necessary things for the child. The queen sent her own servant to buy cloth for the coronation clothes in Buda for one florin, but the man did not return for a long time; therefore, they had to improvise. Helene Kottannerin in secret, locked in the chapel of Komárno Castle, sewed all parts of the coronation garment for the future king, including gloves and boots, using the cloak of his grandfather, Emperor Sigismund, which had been found in a chapel where it was used as a robe. Before the coronation act itself, little Ladislaus, dressed in a red-and-gold suit with silver patterns that his devoted governess had made him from Sigismund’s cloak, had to undergo on the day of the coronation several rituals which the future king would normally have had done long ago: confirmation and being dubbed as a knight. While canon law permits the confirmation of an infant in certain circumstances (for example, when in danger of death), dubbing a child a knight is inherently nonsense. The child again became something that he could not be. Nicholas of Ilok took over the dubbing and carried it out with a sword donated by Ulrich of Cilli. Of interest is that the future king was not held in the hands of any important Hungarian nobleman, nor even his mother, but in those of his governess Helene Kottannerin. The blows from the 99 Nodl, “Dětské korunovace,” p. 51. 100 An alb is a long white priest’s robe. A humeral is a square canvas scarf tied around the neck with two ribbons, which was supposed to protect the alb from being dirtied; the tippet is a part of a liturgical robe in the form of a long belt, which the priest places over his shoulders and which then flow down to the knees; the maniple is a belt of fabric the priest holds on his left forearm, originally a towel to wipe sweat, later a badge of official rank.

The Resolute Queen ( November 1439–May 1440 )

107

sword that Ilok gave Ladislaus in the act of dubbing were so forceful that they surprised Kottannerin and frightened the queen. Elisabeth allegedly turned to Nicholas, with the words, “For God’s sake, don’t hurt him!” The anointing of the new king was done by the Archbishop of Esztergom, Dionysius Szécsi, who also put the crown on the child’s head and held it there. Other prescribed parts of the coronation were performed in representation; for example, the text of the coronation oath was not recited by little Ladislaus, of course, but by his uncle Ulrich of Cilli. During the coronation, they used – with the exception of the crown – substitute coronation insignia. Kottannerin hid this in her memoirs (she may not even have known it), when she described how they carried a sceptre, an apple and a legation cross in front of the newly crowned king. The official coronation insignia was still in Visegrád and therefore could not be used during the coronation ritual. Despite the fact that Helene Kottannerin wrote her memories many years after the events, her description is consistent with information from other sources. The only discrepancy is the statement that Albert VI Habsburg, chosen by Elisabeth and Cilli as guardian of the little king, took part in the coronation. According to Kottannerin, he was expected to arrive in Székesfehérvár on the day of the coronation, at the cost that the riders in his procession overrode many horses to death along the way.101 She mentions his participation in yet another place in her memoirs, but there only stated that Albert rushed to Székesfehérvár “to serve and help the brightest prince, King Ladislaus, his cousin. In this way the noble Prince Duke Albert provided proof of the natural right that when there is an emergency, one blood will not leave another.”102 It is interesting that Kottannerin mentioned Albert’s participation twice and both times emphasised his great haste. We know that Albert VI did not participate in the coronation act on 15 May. He didn’t make it there, nor did representatives of the city of Bratislava. We know many of the details thanks to the letter they wrote in Komárno on 17 May.103 101 Dvořáková and Papsonová, Spomienky, p. 44. 102 Dvořáková and Papsonová, Spomienky, p. 48. 103 Magyar Tudományos Akadémia Könyvtár és Információs Központ Budapest, Kézirattár és régi Könyvek Gyűjteménye, Czech János Gyűjteménye, Tört. Okl. 4, 14. The document, which was originally kept in the Bratislava City Archives, has been preserved only on a photocopy in the estate of János Czech. The document is also mentioned by Skorka, and Weisz, The Town and the Widow, p. 12. The authors assume that the Bratislava ambassadors were late to the coronation, because along the way they took Stephen into the carriage, in their view this was probably Stephen Rozgonyi. This claim is unfounded and also very unlikely because of the bad relations between Bratislava and Stephen Rozgonyi, Count of Bratislava County, who took the “Polish” side from the very beginning. In the letter,

108

Chapter 3

The queen’s decision regarding the date of the coronation must have been completely unexpected and sudden; Elisabeth apparently decided only a few days before Whitsuntide and changed the different, originally planned date. Otherwise, it would make no sense that the representatives of Bratislava set off for the coronation of Ladislaus the Posthumous in Székesfehérvár on the eve of Whitsuntide, May 14. The city’s account books record an expenditure on 14 May for the mayor, Stephen Ranes, and two councillors, Lienhart Horndl and one Lang, for a trip to Székesfehérvár for the coronation, where they were to remain for four weeks. For provisions they received not only money (51 florins and some denarii), but also food for the wagon: buns, salt, bread, saffron, black pepper, ginger, olive oil and wine.104 The city also paid for the coach with three horses, which Lienhart Horndl provided for the mentioned four weeks. It can be absolutely ruled out that the city’s ambassadors travelled from Bratislava to Székesfehérvár in one day. They themselves weren’t even counting on it, because they had no idea that the date of the coronation was 15 May. They reached Komárno at noon on Tuesday, 17 May, and were surprised to learn that Elisabeth was not in the town. On that same day, they heard the shocking news that the coronation had already taken place from a man who had just returned from Székesfehérvár and within an hour they sent a letter home to Bratislava with the news. And so we know that when the Bratislava councillors arrived in Komárno and did not find the queen, they learned that she had decided to leave Komárno with her court on Thursday evening (12 May, exactly according to Kottannerin’s telling) and have Ladislaus crowned as king in Székesfehérvár. The Bratislavans also learned that prior to the coronation, the Ban’s son Nicholas (of Ilok) was to knight the future king and that Prince Albert and Liechtenstein were not present at the coronation; they, too, didn’t arrive on time, though according to reports, they were to arrive in Székesfehérvár that day (17 May). Ranes and his companions also found out that after leaving Komárno, the queen sent the palatine (Laurence Hédervári) and the son of Peter Czech of Levice to Buda during the journey to guard the town. This again conforms with Kottannerin’s information that the palatine had separated from the queen’s procession and a certain lord Stephen notes that he arrived with them in Komárno for lunch on Tuesday. Who this Stephen was is not certain and it has nothing to do with the reason for missing the coronation. 104 AMB K2, p. 361: “Item am heiligen Pfingstag abund (14. mája) ist unser Richter vnd der Linhard Horndl vnd der Lanng Pauel aufgefaren mit etzlichen reitunden gesellen ken Weissenpurgkch zu vnser genedigen frawen der kunigin als man vnser genedigen herren den jungen kunigk Lasla kronen schold vnd beliben aus vntz in dy vierde wochen den hab wir mit geben zu zerung …”

The Resolute Queen ( November 1439–May 1440 )

109

headed for Buda. Additional information was related to the Polish occupation of Buda and is basically identical to that provided by chronicler John Długosz. On the day of the coronation, the sacred day of Whitsuntide, 15 May, Bishop of Eger Simon Rozgonyi arrived at the gates of Buda with Simon Palóci and demanded that the town be opened. As we already know, the queen had entrusted palatine Laurence Hédervári to defend the city, and he refused to let the Polish king’s supporters through its gates; they only got as far as the castle. Eventually, however, the palatine opened the gate dividing the city and the castle, and the Bishop of Eger, supported by soldiers of Michael Ország (in the text Micheln volk), entered Buda without any resistance. The support of Michael Ország is understandable, as his brother John was being held prisoner by Elisabeth. Both chronicler John Długosz and Helene Kottannerin confirm the information from the letter of Bratislava’s representatives. Kottannerin, understandably, put the blame for giving up the city on the palatine Hédervári, who in her view was already resolved to betray the queen when he was sent to Buda. The city refused to let the Polish king’s supporters in, so the palatine opened Buda Castle for them, and this later allowed “him from Poland” to move into the city.105 Chronicler Długosz describes the events in the most detail, stating that the palatine refused to hand over the city due to a promise made to Elisabeth. Therefore, the Polish king spent two days in Pest on the opposite bank of the Danube. Ultimately, however, Laurence gave in and let the future monarch into Buda on 21 May.106 Elisabeth still tried to turn events around and sent Ulrich of Cilli with the army to Buda.107 In their letter the Bratislavans wrote that Cilli had 2,000 cavalry with him; Długosz wrote that it was 500.108 Since the city had in the meantime been handed over to supporters of the Polish king, the mission was unsuccessful, and Elisabeth’s side did not dare to take any further action. The Bratislava ambassadors ended their letter in a very pessimistic tone. They were preparing a journey to see the queen in Székesfehérvár, and from there, with God’s help, they would manage to get back home. They knew that the occupation of Buda by the Polish kings had fundamentally changed the situation. “What will come of this, only God knows,” they wrote. “We do not know where our queen wants to flee to or how she will proceed in the event of war.” 105 Dvořáková and Papsonová, Spomienky, p. 48. 106 Dlugosz 12, p. 633. 107 Dvořáková and Papsonová, Spomienky, p. 49. 108 Dlugosz 12, p. 632. In this section, Długosz repeatedly refers Ulrich of Cilli by his father’s name, Frederick of Cilli.

110

Chapter 3

It was clear that war was on the horizon, so they called on their fellow citizens to repair the Bratislava city moats, because now, given the favourable weather, is the right time. The report of the loss of Buda caught up to the queen in Székesfehérvár, and she had to resolve the question of where to go next. Refuge was in the end offered to her by the bishop of Győr; therefore, the distressing journey of the queen’s procession this time led to Győr. It again migrated in the rain, all day and deep into the night, and the caring Kottannerin tried to protect the little king from the bad weather, either carrying him in her arms as she walked or covering the cradle with her fur coat. Nevertheless, the child was completely soaked in the cradle at times, and the wind was so strong that “the noble king could barely open his eyes”. It seems strange that the little king survived this journey without harm to his health. We can get an idea of how bad the weather got from Helene Kottannerin’s comment about the flood “like no one could remember”, which later struck them in Sopron. The royal crown was hidden in Ladislaus’s cradle the entire journey, and only Elisabeth and Kottannerin, who had put it there just before they left Székesfehérvár, knew of this: “In the morning I took the holy crown, wrapped it well in a linen cloth, and stored it in the straw in the cradle, because his grace did not yet lie on down swaddling. I also placed a long spoon next to it, which they use to mix porridge for children. I did this because were someone to reach into the cradle, then he would think that something lay there in which they prepared a gruel for the noble king.”109 The distance from Székesfehérvár to Győr is about 90 km and the queen’s procession, accompanied by armed warriors, infantry and cavalry, covered it in a record time of just two days. They always travelled well into the late at night. The procession travelled with great concerns, especially through the Vertés Hills, a wooded area with abandoned villages, where the locals had fled in fear of the armed procession. And evidently they knew why, as Kottannerin’s further narrative reveals that some of the soldiers had plundered them along the way. The men-at-arms protecting the queen combed through the forest thickets, and Kottannerin, who up to then had been travelling alternately on horseback and on foot, climbed with little Ladislaus into the carriage that Elisabeth and her daughter were riding in. The ladies of the court formed a circle around Elisabeth and her children to stop any shots in the event of an attack.

109 Dvořáková and Papsonová, Spomienky, pp. 50–51.

The Resolute Queen ( November 1439–May 1440 )

111

Late in the evening on the following day, probably 24 May, they reached Győr.110 However, they were not let into the city until midnight, because the bishop refused to permit the whole procession to enter. And so the queen and Ulrich of Cilli spent the night before the gates of Győr, debating who would reside in the city, who would live at the castle, and who would remain outside the fortifications. A rift arose between the Hungarians and the Germans, because everyone wanted to be safely inside the city. In the end, the bishop permitted only the queen to enter the castle with her closest family and selected lords. They lowered the small drawbridge for them, over which they immediately crossed, and then they pulled it up again. The town of Győr thus became the seat of Elisabeth’s court for more than two weeks.111 Not only was Prince Albert of Austria present, but also Ulrich of Cilli, Ulrich Eizinger, Nicholas of Ilok and other lords who were (so far) on Elisabeth’s side. And our delegation of Bratislava residents, whom we left before they went to see Elisabeth in Székesfehérvár, was with them, too. Not much news about their movement had reached Bratislava, at least based on the records in the city accounts. After two nights, on 23 and 24 May, the Bratislava City Council paid three men with a boat to go to the other bank of the Danube, where they were to wait all night for the arrival of the mayor and his companions, because it was said that they were to return from seeing the queen in Székesfehérvár.112 But on 25 May, they no longer held the night guard, because by then they had already received word that the mayor and Lienhart Horndl were with the queen. On that day they sent a ship from Bratislava (evidently at their request) loaded with buns and bread to Győr in honour of the queen,113 bundling malvasia wine in it for themselves.114 Three days later, ambassadors from Győr arrived with a detailed report of all the events at Elisabeth’s court.115 Thanks to these Bratislava ambassadors, we are informed in detail about what was taking place not only in Győr, but throughout the country. We can be grateful to them for sending their messages in writing and not just orally via messengers, as was commonly done in those days. In the 15th century, the spoken word was still the main medium of information, even in long-distance communication through messengers and envoys. Even important messages were often delivered orally, and writing was used 110 The convincing dating of the arrival in Skorka, and Weisz, The Town and the Widow, p. 14. Elisabeth dated the first charter in Győr on 27 May, MNL OL DF 202 696. 111 She issued her last charter there on 7 June Zichy 9, p. 12, MNL OL DL 80 722–80 724. 112 AMB K2, pp. 243, 244. 113 AMB K2, p. 393. 114 AMB K2, p. 362. 115 AMB, no. 1704.

112

Chapter 3

more to verify the identity of the person sending the information (letters of recommendation, which often state literally that the information spoken by messenger should be received as if he is a credible person whose every word must be believed, etc.).116 The method of delivering a report was often decided by its content. If the information was confidential or even secret, it was safer to send it “orally”, since letter could be seized by the wrong people. On the other hand, however, the content of a report was now known to another person, which not only carried the risk of it being disclosed, but not everyone enjoyed having to share confidentiality with a messenger. The Bratislava ambassadors wrote two letters from Győr, and both are full of current information. Strangely enough, historians have thus far not paid much attention to them, although they offer answers to several questions. In the first letter, written on 28 May, the Bratislava ambassadors complained that they had not yet had the opportunity to talk to the queen in person about the crisis that Bratislava found itself in (evidently they had not yet succeeded in arranging an audience with her). They had only had a promise from the chancellor of Ulrich of Cilli that as long as the war lasted, the queen would forgive them the payment of the thirtieth tax (good relations with Chancellor John, maintained by the occasional wine donations, had benefitted the people of Bratislava).117 Although the ambassadors did not know whether it would be for one year, two years or only half a year, they were hoping for the most favourable result. Indeed, two days later (30 May), the queen issued a charter to them waiving their thirtieth tax for one year.118 A few days after that (on 2 June), she credited to them all the fees and taxes that the Jews of Bratislava had paid into the royal treasury.119 The report of the Bratislava ambassadors also tells of the queen’s intention to travel to Bratislava and to seek an agreement with “der Span”, i.e. the Count of Bratislava County, who had Bratislava Castle in his power. The mention of Ban Ladislaus (Laszlo Ban), which was undoubtedly Ladislaus Garai, is important here. The information that the Bratislavans had was accurate and fits into the whole story. Let us recall Ladislaus’s letter of 24 May, in which he wrote that 116 For all of them, we cite as an example the document of Stephen Rozgonyi dated 3 April, 1440, with which he sent his envoy to Bratislava: “Transmittimus ad vestras amicicias nobilem Valentinum de Themeskez nostrum fidelem pro certis nostris agendis cuius verbis et dictis tamquam ab ore nostro prolatis fidem in omnibus creditiuam adhibere velitis.” AMB, no. 1684. 117 Wine was donated to Chancellor John (Hanns) not only in April but also in June 1440, AMB K2, ps. 393. 118 AMB, no. 1705. 119 AMB, no. 1707, published by Teleki, Hunyadiak kora 10, p. 84.

The Resolute Queen ( November 1439–May 1440 )

113

Elisabeth’s chancellor was presently with him and that he was sending him back to the queen with a report on his intention to go to Buda to negotiate with the King of Poland. The Bratislava ambassadors effectively wrote the same thing: on the Friday before the date of this letter (i.e. on 27 May) the queen’s chancellor returned from Ban Ladislaus (and one other unidentified Philip), who assured the queen that he remained on her side and would come to see her in Győr, but he would also like to go to Buda to become a mediator between Elisabeth and the Polish king, whom he wants to induce to leave the country. The reports from Ban Ladislaus were encouraging, but no one knew what was actually happening in Buda. The Bratislava ambassadors stated in their letter that no messenger had come from Buda for five days, and those who had departed had lost their way. It follows from the letter, that Elisabeth was also trying to find a path to the enemy Michael Ország, whose brother John (Janus) she had originally taken captive in Komárno. She succeeded in getting John on her side (at least temporarily) and he, together with Ulrich of Cilli and Christopher Liechtenstein, each sent a message to Michael Ország with a request to come to the queen. The end of the letter of the Bratislava mayor and his companion is devoted to a calculation of the queen’s followers, particularly from the ranks of foreigners willing to fight for her. “A lot of people would be found, but there is not sufficient money,” the ambassadors stated. They paid special attention to the former Hussite captain John Šmikouský, who was waiting for the arrival of his divisions before Šamorín, from where he wanted to move on to Vác and conquer it. Soldiers from Topoľčany were expected to join him in the near future. Kottannerin, too, mentions the Bohemian mercenary John Šmikouský several times. Šmikouský had already come to offer his services to Queen Elisabeth in Komárno at the time when Ladislaus was born. It was in fact Šmikouský who, together with Ulrich of Cilli, captured Matko of Talovac and his companions. He demonstrated tireless devotion to his lady, and Elisabeth was aware of this and must have trusted him absolutely. Therefore, upon leaving Győr, she appointed him captain of the city. At some point during this period John Jiskra also entered into the queen’s services. Perhaps he was one of the Bohemian lords mentioned by Kottannerin during her stay in Győr. They had come there to negotiate with Elisabeth and wanted to see the little king. Kottannerin brought the baby, naked and lying on a pillow, into them, but the lords were too noisy for the little king; they laughed and shouted and frightened the child. He began to cry hard, but they had a solution for such situations at Elisabeth’s court: a little eunuch, disguised as a clown, who always managed to calm the boy down by singing and playing the lute.120 120 Dvořáková and Papsonová, Spomienky, pp. 51–52.

114

Chapter 3

Ladislaus, surrounded by the care of his governess, wet-nurses and servants, soothed by the sweet singing of the poor disabled boy, knew nothing of the royal crown that adorned his head, the danger that faced him, or the terrible war that would take place on his behalf, and which could no longer be averted. The situation was growing worse every day. On 2 June, word reached Győr that the King of Poland had occupied Buda. Bratislava mayor Stephen Ranes, who along with his companion Lienhart Horndl was still with the queen in Győr, sent his messenger to find out the details.121 Both men then set off the next day for Bratislava, but that same evening they returned to the queen in Győr (where they remained until 7 June). The travels that the Bratislava mayor and Horndl undertook from the moment they left Bratislava on 14 May were admirable. Perhaps their suffering was alleviated by the fact that at least sometimes they travelled more comfortably in a carriage and not on horseback. On the city accounts they received not only a certain amount of money for provisions (zerung), what we would today call a “per diem”, but also snacks in the carriage. These were most commonly buns and wine, and with longer trips other foodstuffs. Even on the night-time journey of 3 June, the Bratislava ambassadors received wine, in fact, malvasia wine, and buns in the carriage – part for consumption and part as a gift for the queen. In addition, they had packed carp, black pepper, saffron, olive oil, leeks and axle grease to treat the carriage wheels.122 Sometimes vinegar also appears among the “in the carriage” items.123 This, too, was an important part of the “travel packages”, given that vinegar was an important disinfectant. Provisioning with food in the carriage was not an end in itself. Each trip represented a genuine risk, and difficulties along the way were more or less expected in advance. The most common problems were things like a broken wheel or another part of the carriage, a horseshoe dropped from a horse’s hoof or the impassability of a road due to a sudden change in weather. Lienhart Horndl came to Győr a little earlier than the mayor, in his own three-horse-drawn carriage. It appears that the mayor did not travel with him, but arrived separately on horseback. Their growing concern can be felt in the letter they sent home on 4 June.124 The author of the letter was Lienhart Horndl 121 The town recorded the item: “1 reitunden poten hat vnser richter von Rab ausgeschikt, als er pey der kunigin do was, als der künig von Kroka Ofen stat in nam, der maer zu erfragen vnd was ausbeliben gancz VIIII tag”, AMB K2, p. 425. 122 AMB K2, p. 363. 123 City representatives also got the vinegar during the coronation trip to Székesfehérvár, AMB K2, p. 362. 124 AMB, no. 1708.

The Resolute Queen ( November 1439–May 1440 )

115

alone, but at the end he added that the mayor Stephen Ranes had arrived in Győr at noon that day “and with God’s help we will both try to arrange things as best we can in which God protect us.” Lienhart Horndl’s letter contains some valuable information. If we leave aside the financial matters related to Ulrich of Cilli, Count George of Pezinok and the queen, the most important parts of the letter are focused on political matters. From the list it follows that there was a group of magnates who were desperately attempting to stop the impending war and find a peaceful solution. According to Horndl, on 2 June, the Count Stephen Rozgonyi (as in other letters from the people of Bratislava referred to as “der Span”) and Nicholas of Ilok (Bansmiclos) arrived from Buda. In Buda, they agreed on further peace talks, which were to take place the following Tuesday, on 7 June, in Tata. Elisabeth was to send 10 Hungarians and 2 Germans as her representatives to Tata. The Polish king was to do the same, sending 10 Hungarians and 2 Poles to Tata. The 24 men were to meet in Tata and attempt to come to an agreement, then return to their domains with any remaining disputes. However, the queen was told that there was pressure to choose all 24 plenipotentiaries exclusively from Hungary and that no German would represent Elisabeth, a condition that she rejected, fearing that this would continue in the future. After Stephen Rozgonyi’s arrival from Buda, Elisabeth continued to negotiate with him that he hand over Bratislava Castle to her. According to Horndl, no agreement had yet been reached, and the negotiations were to continue in Tata. Horndl also wrote that Elisabeth wants to remain in Győr for now and that he had asked her permission to return home. It was not granted, however, as the queen asked him to remain for two more days and promised him that Bratislava would not come up short and Horndl would head home with good things for the city. Lienhart believed that this would happen “if God keeps her alive and if her cause develops better.” He added a pleasant parable that explained why he did not pressure the queen: “Once a man came to a certain house and asked the farmer for a loaf of bread. But the farmer did not want to give it to him and only cut a single slice of bread for him. The bread pleased the petitioner, so he came to the farm once again, but this time he got less or nothing at all.” “The situation with us is similar now,” Horndl continued, thinking that if they asked for something smaller now, the queen would comply, but in the future she will reject them if they ask for something more. At the time when Lienhart Horndl wrote his letter, at the beginning of June, the queen did not know what to do next. “I would like to write to you where our queen wants to live, but she herself does not know yet,” he wrote. If the negotiations in Tata turned out well, she would remain in Győr, but if no

116

Chapter 3

agreement is reached and there is a war, she cannot remain in Győr. In such a case, she would probably leave for Sopron, but if she can agree with the Count of Bratislava County, she would prefer to go to Bratislava. So much for Bratislava councillor Lienhart Horndl. We can reconstruct other events from the telling of Helene Kottannerin. Although she does not mention the Tata peace negotiations at all, it is clear that if they were held at all, they went badly. And in Győr itself, the tension seems to have increased, which is suggested by Kottannerin’s information that later, after the royal family had left, a revolt broke out in the city.125 The time had come to move on. The decision was not an easy one, because it was necessary to split up the family for security reasons. According to Kottannerin, the queen’s young daughter Elisabeth was supposed to stay in Győr (in the end, this did not happen, as we will see later). Finding refuge for baby Ladislaus was more difficult and took longer. Trenčín or Beckov Castle came to mind (Trenčín was under the control of Ulrich of Cilli, Beckov under Paul Bánfi of Lindava), but in the end they rejected this possibility for fears that Ladislaus travelling and staying so deep in the country would not be safe. Thus, the choice came down to Forchtenstein Castle (in Austria), which was ruled by Prince Albert of Austria, and the town of Sopron, which was under the Cillis, and the decision was ultimately made for Sopron. Elisabeth’s choice – despite the fact that she had not reached an agreement with the Count of Bratislava County – was for Bratislava. The reason was not only the location of the city on the Moravian-Austrian-Hungarian border and good relations with its representatives, but also, last but not least, for political reasons. The queen was proceeding in the intentions of the alleged last will of her late husband, who wanted his son to be brought up in Bratislava. By choosing Bratislava as her seat, Elisabeth wanted to add a point of legitimacy to her actions. When Elisabeth tearfully said goodbye to her little son in Győr, she certainly believed that the separation was only temporary and they would soon meet in Bratislava. Little King Ladislaus was to be accompanied to Sopron by Helene Kottannerin, who had to leave her husband and her own daughter in Győr. Parting was not easy for her either. Before leaving, all the members of Ladislaus’s court, including the wet-nurse and women, had to swear on relics in the presence of the queen, Ulrich of Cilli and the bishop of Győr that they would maintain loyalty to the king. Ulrich Eizinger was to lead the procession to Sopron. We will thus for now leave poor Ladislaus, who survived yet another painful and dangerous 125 Dvořáková and Papsonová, Spomienky, p. 54.

The Resolute Queen ( November 1439–May 1440 )

117

journey, this time to Sopron, and remain with Queen Elisabeth, who also left Győr and on Saturday, 11 June 1440, arrived in Bratislava. This is clearly evident in the Bratislava city accounts, where an entry appeared on this day: “Further, on the Saturday before St. Vitus our noble lady, the queen, arrived for dinner and other things, as recorded below in the year of the Lord 1440 [we paid]”. A list of individual items then follows. We can thus look at the queen’s menu and judge the size of her court, which likely is to be counted in dozens of people. The most important information from this entry, up to now unnoticed, is the fact that the queen also came to Bratislava with her daughter. Among the expenses are found strawberries and cherries for the “young queen”, while the “old queen” also got cherries.126 The dinner for the queen and her court was very diverse; aside from various types of meat and fish, we also find a surprising amount of vegetables and fruits. And wines. Wine was served with the food and the courtiers also got it as a “Schlaftrunk” (a sleepy drink), what today we might call a “nightcap”, or a drink for a good night’s sleep. Among the wine is also a special item: “four bottles of wine separately for the queen”.127 Given the fact that one bottle, according to the record, contained 6 pints, this was more than 33 litres; thus, the queen had her wine taken care of for some time. Drinking the “goodnight” or “nightcap” wine was a common practice, which was indulged not only by the queen and her courtiers, but also by the canons of Bratislava, for example.128 126 AMB K2, p. 604: “Item umb erdper der jungen künigin 24 den. wienner. Item der jungen künigin und der alden umb 1 putten kyrischen und ander leuten 70 den, wienner.” 127 AMB K2, p. 604: “Item umb 4 flaschn mit wein der kunigin besunder.” 128 The travel accounts of the Bratislava canons from 1508 contain items for wine “ad bonam noctam” or “pernoctando pro vino”. The accounts are published in Magyar Sion, 1863, pp. 222–28.

Chapter 4

The Queen Comes to Bratislava (1440) Queen Elisabeth left without her son, without the loyal Helene Kottannerin, without her chief adviser Ulrich of Cilli and without other faithful lords for Bratislava to lead the fight for rule in the Kingdom of Hungary, and with her arrival, the city became a war zone. While before then, enemy divisions only roamed the city surroundings and the Bratislava City Council expended funds mainly on the scouts and spies to watch their movements, from roughly July to August, the situation changed. In June, Bratislava Count Stephen Rozgonyi was still attempting to maintain correct relations with the queen and with the city’s representatives.1 The people of Bratislava even complained to the Count that the queen had come to the city with a small group of her familiars, but now her “family”, i.e. her court, is constantly adding newcomers. “You are sufficiently equipped with your foresight and wisdom to know best what needs to be done and what to leave,” he replied to their complaints.2 At that time, Stephen Rozgonyi was already staying in Trnava in order to secure this important royal town for King Władysław.3 Communication with Bratislava, however, was still “civil”; on 24 June, Stephen asked the mayor and the City Council by letter whether he could bring food and wine barrels to the castle and thus ensure its supply. They should likewise write to him if they need to do something in Elisabeth’s service.4 The battles that soon broke out between the city on the side of Elisabeth and the castle on the side of Władysław severely affected the daily life of all the people of Bratislava, but also the life of Stephen Rozgonyi, because his wife and children were trapped in the besieged Bratislava Castle. It was no longer possible to supply the castle, so they suffered from food shortages. Elisabeth’s soldiers built siege towers on the castle hill, and the conquest of the starving castle was only a matter of time. Stephen, “embittered by the suffering of his wife and children,” reportedly managed to break the siege and keep hold of the castle. The reality was more complicated, as we will see, but for his alleged bravery he earned a donation from Władysław: the king confirmed to the Rozgonyi family the ownership of several estates in Bratislava County and extended them 1 2 3 4

AMB, no. 1711, 1713. Letter from Stephen Rozgonyi dated 20 June 1440. AMB, no. 1711. His stay in Trnava is documented from 4 April, AMB, no. 1685. AMB, no. 1713.

© Daniela Dvořáková, 2025 | doi:10.1163/9789004722552_006

The Queen Comes to Bratislava ( 1440 )

119

to others, including the Danube ford.5 Stephen and his brother George also received three stone houses in Trnava from the king that had been confiscated for the “disloyalty” of two Bratislava and one Viennese burgher.6 The generous donations from King Władysław continued in the following period.7 Information about the siege of Bratislava Castle from Władysław’s donations for the Rozgonyi family is also confirmed in the accounts of the Bratislava City Chamber, which is the primary source for the queen’s residence in the city. Because they were kept with great precision and clarity, the accounts are a source of a surprisingly large amount of information not only about everyday life in the city, but also about political or military history. We therefore know that the queen’s arrival in Bratislava and the ensuing battles that resulted represented not only a huge financial burden for the city, but literally a complete disruption of life. The city had to use its revenues to pay mercenaries, who became residents of Bratislava for many months. In addition to regular soldiers, there were also commanders and various specialists (such as experts in cannons and firearms). They also had to buy huge quantities of weapons, and some, such as large cannons, could only be acquired in Vienna. The city’s ambassadors thus repeatedly took trips to make purchases and the city’s spending grew menacingly. Among other items, they bought muskets, musket balls, incendiary arrows, incendiary balls, and gunpowder or substances for its manufacture. Expenditures on craftsmen of various kinds rose sharply, as well as those for the purchase of building materials and wood, because the fortifications had to be repaired and built. Mercenaries built siege towers made of wood and wicker on the castle hill,8 and ditches and barricades were built in various places in the town and its surroundings. Part of the town hall was converted into an armoury, and gunpowder was made there, for example. We know from the accounts that they also added vinegar and that the master gunsmith received a ration of wine for his activities.9 In 1441, the town had already built a powder mill, which is mentioned in the accounts almost daily. The mercenaries not only had to be paid a salary but also had to be fed; thus, the city

5 Charter dated 21 September 1440 with an enumeration of the merits of Stephen Rozgonyi, MNL OL DL 24 533. The imprisoning of his wife and children and the conquest of the castle are also mentioned in the deed of donation of 11 November 1440, by which the Rozgonyi family received two other villages from Bratislava Castle, MNL OL DL 13 594, also the deed of donation for the castle in Tolna County from 17 January 1441, MNL OL DL 13 605. 6 MNL OL DL 13 583. 7 E.g. MNL OL DL 13 605 (17 January 1441). 8 AMB K2, p. 285. 9 AMB K2, e.g. pp. 295, 296, vinegar into gunpowder, e.g. p. 297.

120

Chapter 4

provided them with food, most often meat, bread, wine or cider to drink. If they needed to be transported, the city also paid the cost of ships or wagons. The defenders of Bratislava Castle, understandably, actively defended themselves, despite their limited possibilities. The soldiers who besieged the castle, as well as the city itself, were often shot at, and so in the accounts we come across expenses for the doctor who treated the wounded under the castle,10 or an item for taking a seriously injured man from the castle hill and wine, with which they not only washed out his wound but also used to refresh him and ease his pain.11 The queen even provided her own doctor, Erhart, who treated mercenaries as well as other wounded and sick people.12 Shots from the castle not only endangered soldiers but ordinary residents, too, and cannonballs from the castle sometimes flew all the way to the city, once scattering the masons working behind the city school;13 other times they ended up in the garden of the burgher Laurence (the city then paid for the wine to the men who removed them from the garden).14 In this period, outlays on spies and night-time guards also rose significantly, not only in the city itself, but also in the surrounding area. Spies or intelligence gatherers were to acquire information about the enemy’s movements, and the ordinary residents of the city often took on these tasks. At the same time, messengers and spies from other cities and castles came to the city with warnings about the enemy. And the people of Bratislava had to reward them, too. Such spies often walked up to 50 km, because they were much less conspicuous than riders on horseback. They walked day and night, and what is also surprising, women were rather often used for these dangerous jobs.15 More than once they literally tore their shoes on their long journeys, and so the city bought new shoes at least occasionally for those who performed this service often.16 Being a messenger or a scout in times of war was not the safest profession, and we actually come across cases of capture, robbery, injury or even the killing of messengers and spies in the accounts.17 Only here does one realise the 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

17

3 August 1440, AMB K2, p. 285. 17 August 1440, AMB K2, p. 292. 18 January 1441, AMB K3, p. 231. 19 July 1440, AMB K2, p. 274. 13 August 1440, AMB K2, p. 289. AMB K2, e.g. pp. 415, 417–20, 424 and other. AMB K2, p. 198, On 23 March 1440, they bought a new pair of shoes for a woman who walked very often with a message. People sent on reconnaissance were sometimes referred to in the accounts as “messengers” (Boten); sometimes they had the task of gathering news, other times carrying a letter or message or fulfilling some other set task. Violence against city messengers and spies, e.g. AMB K2, pp. 193, 217, 406, 411, 414, 425, 427.

The Queen Comes to Bratislava ( 1440 )

121

courage these mostly nameless, unknown and forgotten people must have had to take on such adventurous deeds for the benefit of the city for such a small reward. The desperate situation of some inhabitants of Bratislava can be felt from the dry accounting documents; instead of devoting themselves to their trade, crafts, vineyards and everyday life, they had to deal with mercenaries, weapons and spies, and every departure from the city walls for them meant exposing themselves to the threat of death. The war cost Queen Elisabeth a great deal of money, too. She paid for a large portion of the mercenaries, and the city chamber kept these expenses separately. All of this, however, was only a tiny fraction of the queen’s financial outlays for the war she had decided to wage on behalf of her son. Since nearly the entire Hungarian nobility was standing on the side of her enemy, Elisabeth had to rely mainly on hired mercenaries coming to Hungary from all over Central Europe, but particularly from Bohemia. “Whoever wanted to serve and wage wars”, their journey led to the Kingdom of Hungary, a Bohemian chronicler wrote about this period.18 Experienced mercenary captains, hardened from the Hussite times, and professional warriors hired by them were Elisabeth’s main military force. Among the commanders who entered her service, the most important were John Šmikouský of Žďár, Nicholas Sokol of Lamberk, Henry (Jindřich) Čeček of Pakoměřice, but especially John Jiskra of Brandýs, who became a legendary figure in Czech and Slovak history thanks to his fighting for the rights of Ladislaus the Posthumous. We should add that King Władysław also hired Bohemian mercenaries, but in much smaller numbers. For example, he had in his service the former Orphan hetman and Hussite radical John Čapek of Sány, with whom the Kingdom of Hungary had unfortunate experiences from the time of the “graceful rides” of the Hussites in the 1430s. The help of mercenaries was effective, but it was also expensive. The queen was looking for money wherever she could. She had begun to raise money as early as during her stay in Komárno at the beginning of May 1440, when she decided to have her son crowned King of Hungary and initiate the battle for his rights. On 8 May, Elisabeth’s proxy, Buda burgher Michael Nadler, deposited the queen’s jewellery, including her own crown, with Ulrich Eizinger in Vienna for 2,500 florins.19 The calculation of the queen’s jewellery and jewels that Nadler handed over to Eizinger is staggering, as their worth must have far exceeded the deposited amount. In June, the queen borrowed another 4,000 “piles” of Bohemian groschen from Eizinger, which she promised

18 Urbánek, Věk Poděbradský 1, p. 507. 19 Birk, Beiträge, no. 7, p. 242.

122

Chapter 4

to return within a year.20 The choice of Michael Nadler as her broker in depositing the crown and other valuables was no accident; he was an experienced businessman from whom Elisabeth had borrowed money as early as 1438. Nadler had also served her mother, Barbara of Cilli, regarding financial matters.21 As a wealthy textile merchant whose business activities can also be seen in Venetian sources, he not only had money but also contacts and experience.22 In June 1440, Michael Nadler again raised money for the queen, and this time he was able to extract from the burghers of Vienna some of the silverware that Emperor Sigismund had once given them as a deposit. On 25 June 1440, Elisabeth asked city representatives to return part of the silver, because it has a significantly greater value than the deposit amount. The Viennese were to keep only the portion of the things corresponding to a worth of the 7,300 florins that they had paid in advance upon their receipt.23 On 28 June, Michael Nadler, together with another of Elisabeth’s servants, Ladislaus Farkas (he also appears in documents as Lassla), issued a charter confirming the receipt of items for the queen. Like the deposit with Eizinger, this document, too, is also extremely interesting, because both men weighed and assessed the silver treasure, while they also described the items in some detail.24 Buda mayor Ladislaus Farkas, who was also involved in this matter, like Nadler, was a rich businessman and had lent money to the queen. He was not satisfied with jewellery or gold plate as a deposit, but he asked directly for a castle: for borrowing the money Elisabeth mortgaged her castle at Szanda in Nógrád County.25 This castle estate was one of those that Albert had illegally confiscated from Queen Barbara and donated to Elisabeth, and whose ownership king Władysław had guaranteed to her during the negotiations in Cracow. Although Farkas did not remain lord of the castle for very long,26 we will find him, like Nadler, near the queen in the following years as well. The running of the war in the Kingdom of Hungary was just one of the many problems Elisabeth faced at the time. No less serious were dynastic-political 20 Teleki, Hunyadiak kora 10, p. 85, DF 258 094. 21 Dvořáková, Barbara of Cilli, p. 149. 22 Katalin Prajda, Network and Migration in Early Renaissance Florence 1378–1433. Friends of Friends in the Kingdom of Hungary (Amsterdam: Amsterodam University Press, 2018), pp. 38, 56. 23 WStLA, nr. 2739 and 2740. 24 Uhlirz, Quellen zur Geschichte der Stadt Wien 2/2, p. 183, nr. 2741, WStLA, nr. 2739. 25 In March 1440 in Komárno, the queen donated Szanda Castle to her vice-treasurer George of Zagorhid with the condition that he pay Ladislaus Farkas, who had the castle in deposit from her, MNL OL DF 248 687. 26 MNL OL DL 39 291.

The Queen Comes to Bratislava ( 1440 )

123

matters in other hereditary countries, which grew more and more complicated. Elisabeth received disconcerting news in particular from the Bohemian Kingdom, where her son’s inheritance rights were beginning to be seriously under threat. Part of the Bohemian nobility offered the crown to Albert of Bavaria, and the assembly that followed unanimously elected him as the future Bohemian king from among the other candidates for the Bohemian throne. Elisabeth could only react in the given situation via diplomatic channels, so in a letter on 31 July 1440 she appealed, “as the heiress and mistress of the Kingdom of Bohemia”, to Albert to reject the candidacy and, as a “Christian, righteous prince”, to acknowledge her inheritance rights, as well as the fact that the Bohemians and neighbouring countries paid tribute and had sworn allegiance to her and her children.27 Elisabeth’s fortune was that Albert was not sufficiently ambitious or even determined to embark on the struggle for the Bohemian crown and the problems taking shape, and perhaps his own conscience, eventually discouraged him from accepting the offer. The start of the summer of 1440 on the whole bore bad signs for Elisabeth. Plans for negotiations of the hostile parties in Tata foundered. Although Elisabeth, in a letter dated 13 June addressed to the Bohemian estates, stated that the Polish side had rejected negotiations, we know, thanks to the Bratislava ambassadors, that the conditions of the meeting in Tata were unacceptable for her as well.28 Disturbing news also arrived from other sides. Elisabeth’s closest adviser, Ulrich of Cilli, fell into the hands of the Polish king. After the queen departed for Bratislava, Cilli remained in Győr to defend it along with John Šmikouský. From Bratislava, the queen had several ships loaded with mercenaries and provisions sent to him, mainly grain and flour, along the Danube.29 Little Ladislaus, as we already know, had been taken to Sopron, a town that also belonged to Cilli at this time. Several donation deeds of King Władysław (especially for the Bishop of Eger, Simon Rozgonyi) mention the dramatic events of Ulrich’s 27 Urbánek, Věk Poděbradský 1, p. 540. 28 Letter to the Bohemian estates DF MNL OL 289 246 (State Regional Archive in Třeboň). Birk, Beiträge, no. 8, p. 243. We spoke of the reports of the Bratislava ambassadors in the preceding chapter. 29 On 13 June, the Bratislavans accompanied Cilli’s messengers, who had apparently come to ask for help, across the Danube, K2, p. 257. On the next day the city purchased a boat, which carried the mercenaries to Cilli in Győr, AMB K2, p. 608. The city also bought containers for flour and bread, AMB K2, p. 608, and sent Cilli’s chancellor Hanns a bottle of wine, AMB K2, p. 393 and paid for another boat on which they sent grain and flour to Győr, AMB K2, pp. 606 and 608. Two more boats left for Cilli in Győr, but the city did not pay for these. AMB K2, p. 608.

124

Chapter 4

capture,30 but we have the most information from chronicler John Długosz, who devoted an entire chapter to the capture of the queen’s closest relative. However, he again writes erroneously about Frederick of Cilli, not Ulrich.31 At the urging of Bishop Simon Rozgonyi, the main initiator of all of Władysław’s actions after his arrival in the Kingdom of Hungary, Władysław sent a large army to besiege and conquer Győr. He obviously assumed that Elisabeth was still living at the castle with her newborn son, and ideally with the crown of St. Stephen, too. The castle was conquered primarily by divisions of the mentioned Bishop of Eger, Simon Rozgonyi, and the royal cup-bearer Stephen Kompolt of Nana. Though they did not conquer the fortress itself, they managed to capture a rare prisoner for the king, for which they received a rich reward: Elisabeth’s Szanda Castle, the same castle that Elisabeth had donated to her vice-treasurer in March and previously deposited with Ladislaus Farkas.32 Similar donations, plentifully granted by both Elisabeth and Władysław, meaning the gifted castle estates had two owners at once, were common at the time. The new owners typically had to conquer the castle from an enemy, which was highly advantageous for the monarch: the conquest of the enemy castle was handled by the recipients themselves and not the royal army. Even Bishop Simon Rozgonyi received a few weeks later as a reward Kapušany Castle, which had other owners.33 Bishop Simon further acquired the stone palace in Buda (domum magnam lapideam), which originally belonged to the Serbian despot Đurađ Branković. This was a house at a prominent address, on “Italian Street”, today Országházi utca in the heart of the castle district near Buda Castle.34 Despite being summoned, Branković, as Ulrich of Cilli’s father-in-law, refused to appear before the king to pay tribute to him, and he damaged Władysław’s supporters from his own castles. When calculating his level of guilt, they also added, among his other misdeeds, the fact that his two children lived “among the Turks”.35 30 MNL OL DL 13 570 (2 August 1440), MNL OL DF 258 541 (28 October 1440), MNL OL DL 13 589 (7 November 1440), MNL OL DL 13 605 (17 January 1441), MNL OL DL 13 619 (18 April 1441), MNL OL DL 13 620 (18 April 1441). 31 Dlugosz 12, pp. 636–37. 32 MNL OL DL 13 570. 33 MNL OL DL 13 589. 34 András Végh, Buda város középkori helyrajza I (Budapest: Budapesti Történeti Múzeum, 2006), p. 81. 35 MNL OL DF 258 541: “propter notam infidelitatis et rebellionis eiusdem, quam idem nobis modo premisso hoc Regnum legitime ingredientibus, se a nostri facie absentans et nec vocatus comparens et presertim, quia ultra illud, quod duo eius filii in medio Turcorum huius Regni emulorum idem vastantium existunt, solus partem Regine predicte contra nos et hoc

The Queen Comes to Bratislava ( 1440 )

125

Władysław’s donation deeds do not give the details of Cilli’s capture, so in this case John Długosz remains our primary informant. In his telling, Ulrich managed to escape from the besieged castle to a certain island on the Danube, from where he planned to head for Bratislava to find Elisabeth. The king’s soldiers, however, found out from the tracks left behind that a cavalry unit had escaped from the castle and so they pursued it. The men from Cilli’s group drew the attention of the persecutors and were caught to enable their master to escape. The Poles were still not sure if Ulrich was on the run or had remained in the castle. Then some Polish knight craftily cajoled them into telling the truth, when he said that their master, unprotected and abandoned by their own men, had been killed on the run. They responded to this with laments, which confirmed that Ulrich of Cilli was hiding outside the castle. Catching up with him was then only a matter of time. Afterwards, the rare prisoner was taken to Buda and on 19 June he was brought in chains before King Władysław. So much for Długosz. The Chronicle of the Counts of Cilli (Cilli Chronicle) informs us in a similar spirit, thought only briefly. Ulrich, imprisoned in the besieged Győr Castle, made an unwise decision when he decided to leave. The chronicler acknowledged that he likely wanted to go to Bratislava to seek the help of the queen for besieged Győr, but he never reach his final destination, because he was captured along the way. The captured count was taken to Buda, where he spent a long time in captivity until he was exchanged for his own prisoners.36 However, we will discuss that later. Additional details about Cilli’s capture are again provided by Bratislava’s chamber accounts. We know from the previous telling that before her departure Elisabeth named John Šmikouský as the castle captain, and he fulfilled his role and defended the castle. This can clearly be deduced from an entry in the accounts: on 16 June, the Bratislava mayor ordered payment of a messenger who had brought a letter from Altenburg with news of how the Hungarians fared before Győr from Šmikouský.37 Who knows why Ulrich was in such a rush to see Elisabeth in Bratislava, when he must have known that leaving the castle would put him at great risk. Helene Kottannerin also heard the rumour of Cilli being capture very quickly and ends her story with this devastating report:

Regnum fovet, et homines sui de suis castris in hoc Regno habitis fidelium nostrorum regnicolarum bona vastant et predantur …” 36 Krones, Die Freien von Saneck, p. 98. 37 AMB K2, p. 426: “Item am pfincztag nach sand Veits tag schueff vnser richter ze geben I poten von Aldenburg, der den herren I prief pracht von maer wegen, wie es Vngern vor Rab ergangen wer von dem Smykofsky XXI den. wien.”

126

Chapter 4

Shortly afterwards, the news came that the Polish king had captured the distinguished Count Ulrich of Cilli. The members of our court were very distressed by this report, because we well knew that this would mean a great loss of property and people for my master and my mistress. Not long after, additional bad news came about the capture of a dignified prelate, the Bishop of Esztergom, and Lord Ladislaus Garai. They had been on their way from Poland with a letter of safe conduct, and he nevertheless captured them, because they were to help him with being crowned the king of the Hungarian Empire. They thought the holy crown was still at Visegrád, because the seals and the lock were still (on the doors).38 Other chroniclers also mention the capture of Esztergom Archbishop Dionysius Szécsi and Ban Ladislaus Garai. Upon arrival in Buda, King Władysław called an assembly of representatives of the Hungarian nobility, also inviting supporters of Queen Elisabeth, the aforementioned Archbishop Dionysius Szécsi and Ladislaus Garai. Letters of safe conduct should have ensured a safe return for them.39 Both actually came to Buda, but the moment they entered Buda Castle, the gates were closed behind them and they became prisoners. Under the pressure of the circumstances, on 29 June they had to swear allegiance to the Polish king and agree to his coronation.40 The charter by which Hungarian magnates paid tribute to their future monarch still exists and is kept in the Central Archives of Historical Records in Warsaw.41 Dozens of seals of the Hungarian lords present are appended to it (there are supposedly 88 of them), each on a parchment strip on which the name of the owner of the seal is written. The list of those who swore allegiance to Władysław is long, and among them are those who were originally on the side of Queen Elisabeth. Aside from Dionysius Szécsi and Ladislaus Garai, who were compelled to do so, we also find Nicholas of Ilok, a man the queen trusted very much, on the side of the Polish king. It was he who had dubbed Ladislaus the Posthumous as a knight before the coronation and to whom Elisabeth had entrusted Székesfehérvár. The issuers of the charter, the Hungarian magnates, recalled in its text the entire history of Władysław’s election as King of Hungary in Cracow and stated that Władysław had agreed to and promised to satisfy all the terms that 38 Dvořáková and Papsonová, Spomienky, p. 55. Helene Kottannerin’s text has not been preserved in its entirety, so it ends unexpectedly in the middle of the sentence. 39 Władysław issued a letter of safe conduct for Ban of Mačva Ladislaus Garai and judge of the Royal court John of Korog on 15 June 1440, DL 13 554. 40 Thurocz, Chronica Hungarorum 1, pp. 237–38. 41 Archiwum Główne Akt Dawnych w Warszawie. Signature on a photocopy in the Hungarian National Archives in Budapest, MNL OL DF 289 006.

The Queen Comes to Bratislava ( 1440 )

127

the queen, at that time still in a blessed state, had set. The coronation of little Ladislaus, done in spite of and against their will, was declared invalid. Some authors question the forced detention of Dionysius Szécsi and Ladislaus Garai,42 saying that they had joined Władysław voluntarily. But other events indicate otherwise. Archbishop Dionysius was again found very quickly alongside Queen Elisabeth as Władysław’s enemy, so it is clear that circumstances had indeed forced him to recognise Władysław.43 It is certain that from the very beginning he had attempted to find a peaceful solution, and did so contrary to Elisabeth’s will. For example, in May 1440, Queen Elisabeth wrote to the town of Kremnica that she would send reinforcements to destroy the property of Peter Czech of Levice, who was on Władysław’s side and wanted to seize Pukanec.44 One month later, on 6 June 1440, Dionysius wrote to Peter Czech of Levice that he had taken no part in destroying his property, that he wanted to show him friendship and brotherhood, not hostility.45 After the arrival of Dionysius to Buda and the already mentioned oath of fealty to the Polish king on 29 June, Władysław wrote a letter to Peter Czech of Levice two days later that the archbishop had sworn allegiance to him and agreed with his coronation; therefore, he should no longer destroy his property.46 In the telling of the chronicler Długosz, Elisabeth attempted to reverse the still unfavourable situation by having the Polish king assassinated. She allegedly sent a devout Hungarian of low origin to Buda with the task of killing Władysław with poison or iron. In an effort to obtain a greater reward, the assassin betrayed the plans, but for his treachery he received a cruel punishment: they had him torn to pieces while still alive with red-hot tongs and then quartered.47 The credibility of this story is doubtful, as the chances of an assassin of “low” origin getting anywhere close to the king were almost nil. The coronation date for the new king was set for 17 July 1440. The date was evidently not chosen entirely at random. On that day, in addition to being the 42

43 44 45 46 47

For example Ádám Pálfi, “Magyar Királyság zűrzavaros évtizedei: Szécsi Dénes a hatalom szorításában,” in Szakkolégiumi Füzetek 6 a Móra Ferenc Szakkollégium évkönyve (Szeged, 2019), p. 75. In this sense, the Polish chronicler Dlugosz 12, p. 642, who states that Ladislaus was captured by the Hungarians themselves when they learned of the theft of the Hungarian crown and Władysław, on the contrary, saved his life. Długosz himself wrote about Ladislaus and Dionysius that they had others on their hearts than on their tongues and that “they used the beautiful charm of words to hide their cunning.” Dlugosz 12, p. 635. MNL OL DF 249 991. MNL OL DL 13 552. MNL OL DL 59 262. Dlugosz 12, p. 643.

128

Chapter 4

Feast Day of St. Alexius, it is also the Feast Day of Saints Svorad and Benedict, a holiday that very closely connects Poland with Hungary (especially with the territory of today’s Slovakia). Saint Svorad (originally Andrew) was a Polish monk who settled as a hermit at Skalka near Trenčín. He had a strong cult particularly in Nitra. The symbolism of the coronation was perhaps further emphasised by the aspect of “reciprocity” of Poland and Hungary. Even in the deed of tribute by which the Hungarian lords pledged fealty to Władysław, they referred to the common heritage of Poles and Hungarians from the reign of King Louis the Great, who as the King of Hungary and Poland united the two kingdoms into a personal union. In the charter they literally wrote that people are still living who heard the memories of those who experienced the Polish-Hungarian connection and emphasised its benefits. The Archbishop of Esztergom, under pressure, had to accompany Władysław to Székesfehérvár and there, on 17 July, he crowned him as King of Hungary using a replacement crown taken from the relics of St. Stephen (the remaining coronation insignia were the original). Thus, Hungary had  – not for the first time in history – two kings: the infant Ladislaus and the sixteen-year-old Władysław, both of whom had the crown put on their heads from the hands of the same Archbishop of Esztergom and in the same place. For many long centuries, this brought poor Dionysius Szécsi the reputation of being a perfidious man. In this case details of the coronation were left to us by Polish chronicler Długosz. The same as in the case of little Ladislaus, the ceremonies in the cathedral were followed by a procession accompanying the new monarch to the church of St. Peter and Paul, where the new king heard two legal disputes about a great injustice committed, discussed them, judged them, and ordered the sentences to be carried out. “This has been handed down so that any king may consider the burden of his labour and dispense justice. There is no obligation more inherent in the king than the preservation and administration of justice. He should with his authority defend the lower against the higher against any injustice and wrongdoing. Władysław then mounted his horse, rode a circuit around the city and came to the church of St. Martin, located outside the fortifications. He climbed the tower in front of the people assembled there and, with his sword drawn, pointed to the four corners of the world: East, West, South and North, to indicate that he wanted to protect the Kingdom of Hungary from all sides.”48

48 Dlugosz 12, p. 645.

The Queen Comes to Bratislava ( 1440 )

129

On the day of the coronation, the prelates present, barons representing the whole of the aristocratic community, issued a decree. They acknowledged for him the substitute crown “full of the mystery and power” of the original crown, which had been stolen by Queen Elisabeth and hidden in an unknown place. The magnates pledged to try to get the crown back, but in the event that they were not successful, they assigned this replacement crown as a legitimate crown that could be used to crown other monarchs in the future. They emphasised that Władysław had all the remaining insignia at the coronation – the sword, the sceptre, the apple and the cross – the original ones, which belonged to King Stephen I. In this way Władysław’s coronation satisfied the necessary requirements, and he became a king with full powers: from now on, he could rule as all his predecessors crowned with the original crown of St. Stephen had ruled.49 The report of King Władysław’s coronation caught up with Elisabeth in Bratislava. The queen ended up in an almost hopeless situation: all of her closest supporters were either in captivity (Ulrich of Cilli, Archbishop of Esztergom Dionysius Szécsi, Ladislaus Garai) or had sided with the new king (Nicholas of Ilok and many others). After Ulrich’s capture, it was clear to Elisabeth that Sopron was no longer a safe place for her son. The situation there could change from day to day, because the city had been left without a master. Therefore, the queen decided to move her son to the safer Forchtenstein Castle. On 30 June, she wrote a letter from Bratislava to all her servants, both Germans and Hungarian, who were with her son in Sopron, that Austrian Prince Albert and Anna, the widow of Count Paul of Forchtenstein, will receive her son and her entourage at Forchtenstein Castle. The queen undertook to compensate Albert, Anna and her children, both castellans appointed at Forchtenstein Castle, as well as other servants, for any damage they may suffer. Anna and Albert, on the other hand, said that the queen and her courtiers could come to the castle freely and leave according to their needs.50 Forchtenstein Castle, also known under the Hungarian name of Fraknó, belonged to the Kingdom of Hungary in the Middle Ages; it is only 40 km from Sopron. Under King Sigismund and then Albert II it belonged to Count Paul of Forchtenstein; after his death it belonged to his widow Anna and her daughters. The female owners of the castle probably did not know how to defend the manor sufficiently, so in 1440 Anna mortgaged the castle (or initially only part

49 Katona, Historia critica 6, pp. 91–100, MNL OL DF 289 009. 50 MNL OL DF 258 095 (HHStA) DF 287 143 (HHStA), Chmel, Materialien 1, p. 12 nr. 289 (regest).

130

Chapter 4

of it) or left it to Prince Albert VI, probably on the condition that she could stay there with her daughters.51 At the time, a part of Forchtenstein Castle also belonged by inheritance right to a relative of Anna’s deceased husband, Count Wilhelm of Kabold. He, however, sided with the Polish king. Queen Elisabeth solved this dilemma not only by confiscating his castle at Kobersdorf, just 20 km from Forchtenstein, but also his share in Forchtenstein itself. She then immediately donated all of the confiscated property to Anna and her two daughters Margaret and Walpurga.52 In the deed of donation, dated in Bratislava on 5 July 1440 (thus, only a few days after the queen moved her son to Forchtenstein), Elisabeth floridly described not only the disloyalty of Count Wilhelm, but in particular the merits of Anna as well as her own tendentious situation. In the deed, she described herself as a poor widow with orphaned children, who is being cruelly persecuted by the chief enemy of her poor husband, the King of Poland and his Hungarian followers. In the words of the deed, the queen had to flee to Upper Hungary, which is a safer place for her. Despite threats from Count Wilhelm, Anna chose to comply with Elisabeth’s request and to offer her and her son, King Ladislaus, refuge in her castle and hand over her keys to its gates. We should add that – like other donations by Elisabeth – this one, too, only remained on parchment. Count Wilhelm continued to hold Kobersdorf Castle and eventually resolved the situation by mortgaging the castle in 1441 to Prince Albert VI, who later handed it over to his brother Emperor Frederick together with Forchtenstein Castle.53 Both castles, Forchtenstein and Kobersdorf, still stand and are beautifully preserved. Hungary lost them with the Treaty of Trianon, and since 1921 they have been located in Burgenland, Austria. The widow Anna of Forchtenstein was not the only wealthy woman to support Elisabeth. The Silesian princess Jitka, the widow of Paul Wolfurt of Červený Kameň (hung. Vereskő), was also her strong supporter. Jitka, the daughter of Přemek (or Przemko) I, Duke of Opava, had stayed at Elisabeth’s court as a court lady, and Kottannerin also mentions her in two places of her memoirs – she was among the ladies who journeyed from Visegrád to Komárno to see the queen. During her stay in Komárno, Elisabeth issued three charters in favour 51 Anna’s complaint about looting on the castle estate of 29 January 1440, MNL OL DF 202 691 (GyMS lt. Sopron). On the acquisition of the castle by Albert VI, see Pál Engel, Magyarország világi archontológiája 1301–1457, 1–2 (Budapest: História-MTA Történettu­ dományi Intézete, 1996), 1, p. 313. The mention of two castellans in the document testifies to the common use of the castle DF 258 095. Albert dated charters in the castle as early as April 1440, Birk, Beiträge, no. 2, p. 237, no. 3, p. 238. 52 MNL OL DF 262 421. 53 Engel, Magyarország világi archontológiája 1, pp. 334–35.

The Queen Comes to Bratislava ( 1440 )

131

of Jitka: first, she freed all of her properties from paying the chamber profit; she then gave her Červený Kameň castle on deposit in advance (women could not inherit in the Middle Ages, so she was not entitled to the castle after her husband’s death); finally, she had her and her daughter Hedwiga declared male heirs (this rarely used legal act was called praefectio) and donated the castle to their heritable holdings.54 Jitka, however, ruled the castle as a widow for only a short time, as in 1441 she married Count George of Pezinok, Elisabeth’s faithful follower. Jitka brought Červený Kameň castle to her marriage as a dowry, and George immediately donated the castle to her as a dower (a gift given by her husband to his wife, also called the Morgengabe or “morning gift”). In this way they ensured that the castle legally belonged to both of them even after the death of their partner.55 After Elisabeth’s departure for Bratislava, Duchesses Jitka remained at Altenburg Castle (now Mosonmagyaróvár), which was also the inheritance of her husband. This is the specific reason why Elisabeth frequently sent her messengers from Bratislava to Altenburg and, vice versa; it was from there that the messengers came with important messages (such as the report on the defence of Győr). Sometimes the Bratislava chamber accounts explicitly state that the messenger went to Altenburg to find Wolfurt’s widow.56 Even the widow Jitka herself dated her documents there.57 The self-confidence of the young widow (born around 1422) is also seen in the fact that she gave donations – for example, she gifted two manor houses attached to Altenburg Castle to her notary for his faithful services – and Elisabeth later, out of gratitude, confirmed her donation for her devoted loyalty.58 The support of wealthy widows and a handful of followers could not save Queen Elisabeth from the acute lack of funds required to wage war. In the summer of 1440 Elisabeth was in an almost hopeless situation; nevertheless, she embarked on a seemingly lost struggle. Only some individuals maintained allegiance to her: aside from the persistently devoted treasurer Ladislaus Töttős of Bátmonostor, Bishop Benedict of Győr, all relatives of Dionysius Szécsi (particularly Thomas) and several other lords, as well as some castellans, such as the castellan of Nitra Castle, Laurence of Lúčka, who handed over the castle 54 MNL OL DL 13 527 (16 February 1440), MNL OL DL 13 544 (11 November 1440), MNL OL DF 254 588 (18 May 1440), MNL OL DL 13 546. 55 Imre Nagy, ed., Sopron vármegye története. Oklevéltár 2 (1412–1653) (Sopron: Sopron vármegye közönsége, 1891), no. 176, p. 306, MNL OL DL 13 649. 56 For example, 2 July 1440, AMB K2, p. 436, listed as “Wolfurterin” in the record. 57 For example, on 15 September 1440, she urged the return of money to the Bratislava burgher Heinrich Harschar, AMB no. 1716. 58 SNA Bratisl. kap. HM C. 6 f. 4 nr. 14, MNL OL DF 226 084.

132

Chapter 4

to her.59 Among the ranks of the Hungarian nobility, however, these were exceptions rather than the rule. The queen’s main support came from the royal towns, or most of the royal towns. Władysław obtained two key cities: Buda and Székesfehérvár. But in the territory of today’s Slovakia, where the majority of the royal towns were located, only a few remained to him, such as Prešov, occupied in the spring by Bishop Simon Rozgonyi, and Trnava, which was occupied for Władysław by Stephen Rozgonyi and Michael Ország of Gút. Most of the royal towns in what is today Slovakia – Bratislava, Košice, Bardejov, Levoča, but above all its mining towns with the key Kremnica – remained on the queen’s side. Therefore, maintaining these towns at all costs became a priority for her. And it is at this moment that the legendary bohemian soldier, John Jiskra, whom Queen Elisabeth owed for reversing the situation threatening her, enters the story. It is fair to say that it was John Jiskra who saved the Hungarian throne for Ladislaus the Posthumous.60 Although hundreds of reports about Jiskra have been preserved in documents, letters, chronicles and accounting records, he still remains largely unknown to us. We learn a lot from the sources about his specific fates, about victories and defeats and about political stances, but we know almost nothing about him as a real flesh and blood man. The only “more personal” information about the form and character of this famous warrior was left to us by Aeneas Silvius Piccolomini, in the work De viris illustribus. This is a book devoted to the most important persons of Piccolomini’s time, and so the inclusion of a mercenary commander in the list of prominent European figures, alongside emperors, kings and popes, is – regardless of the tendentious nature of the work – a great tribute to Jiskra.61 Piccolomini’s information always needs to be approached with great caution. He worked at the court of Emperor Frederick, and his works are heavily stamped with propaganda in favour of the Habsburgs. Even so, we are grateful for the information about Jiskra, although in the chapter on Jan Jiskra, Aeneas devoted much of the text to his enemy, Pongrác of Svätý Mikuláš. Although this was done at the expense of telling about Jiskra, it is very good for our story, and in the following chapters we will come across Piccolomini’s stories about Pongrác.

59 Regarding Bishop Benedict, MNL OL DL 44 296. Regarding the surrender Nitra Castle to Elisabeth, MNL OL DL 13 568. The surrendering of Nitra Castle was a consequence of the fact that the Bishop of Nitra Ladislaus of Štítnik sided with Elisabeth’s side and also worked as its chaplain. 60 Michal Faist, “Jan Jiskra z Brandýsa. Záchrance uherského trůnu Ladislava Pohrobka 1440–1445,” in Historica Olomucensia 46 (2014), pp. 13–38. 61 Piccolomini, De viris illustribus, pp. 107–10.

The Queen Comes to Bratislava ( 1440 )

133

According to Aeneas, Jiskra started his career as a mercenary in Italy, where he evidently learned the arts of war. He then served Emperor Sigismund and his son-in-law Albert II in battles against the Turks, which is confirmed by Hungarian sources. Jiskra, experienced and hardened by many battles, entered the service of Queen Elisabeth in the summer of 1440 as a man of about thirty years old at the peak of his physical strength. Piccolomini described him as a swarthy man of medium stature and rugged expression, but with a cheerful and strong spirit. He was not greedy or miserly; he rather tended to waste money, so he was always lacking it. When a knight asked for an unpaid wage from him, he took off his own clothes and gave them to him. Aeneas adds that Jiskra also lived in a nice, even luxurious house with his wife, the niece of Eger Bishop Simon Rozgonyi. Although we are getting ahead of our narration with this information, because the marriage of the niece of the arch enemy did not occur until the time of the peace negotiations in 1443, it is important for relating the characteristics of John Jiskra. According to Piccolomini, fears arose that Jiskra, under the influence of his wife, would join the “Polish” side and betray Ladislaus the Posthumous. Regarding concerns about being disloyal to King Ladislaus, to whom he had sworn allegiance, John Jiskra was said to have replied: “Those who think that my wife will not follow my loyalty, but that I will follow hers, are fools.” And he continued with words of breathtaking vulgarity: “I don’t value any vulva enough for me to break my loyalty (because of it).”62 The rough and offensive statements about his wife may or may not be true. There is no need to have any great illusions about Jiskra’s sensitivity towards a woman who served as something like a seale on a document confirming peace. On the other hand, Piccolomini’s anecdotes must also be taken with a grain of salt. In his works, he sometimes deals rather obsessively with sexuality; when describing the degeneracy of the Counts of Cilli or other enemies, the reader must even pause to consider the imagination of the future pope. Jiskra was without a doubt a hard man; indeed, he ultimately made his living by fighting and killing his whole life. At the same time, it needs to be acknowledged that he was a genuinely brilliant duke and a man of firm moral principles. His allegiance to Ladislaus the Posthumous never wavered. The first task that Elisabeth entrusted to Jiskra was to secure Košice and from there the mining towns. The only source we have on Jiskra from this time is a brief entry in the account book of the city of Košice. It is a short text, but nevertheless some historians have come to far-reaching conclusions from it. 62 Piccolomini, De viris illustribus, p. 110: “Stulti sunt, inquit, qui non fidem meam secuturam uxorem, sed me ultro secuturum feminam rentur. Non ego tanti unam facio vulvam, ut fidem perdam.”

134

Chapter 4

Elisabeth allegedly appointed Jiskra as administrator of the Abov-Torna County on 1 August 1440, and Jiskra apparently set out from Bratislava to Košice on that day. Along the way, he was captured by Pongrác of Svätý Mikuláš and his captivity lasted eight days; he was to be released on 8 August. After being set free, Jiskra supposedly went back to Bratislava to find Elisabeth, from where he headed off on a second campaign to eastern Slovakia on 22 August. At Kalište Castle, he came across Pongrác of Svätý Mikuláš, but this time he defended himself.63 A reader will meet with such statements with larger or smaller deviations in most of the works devoted to this period. Let’s examine more closely what the Košice account book actually says. A clerk recorded the expenditure of 70 florins for “zerung”, which – as we already know – was something like “per diem” travel expenses, i.e. to ensure the cost of food and other expenses during a trip, in this case for John Jiskra, who was to arrive to Pongrác of Svätý Mikuláš on 28 August. The entry literally states: “Further, in the year one thousand four hundred and forty, on the eighth day after the Feast Day of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary (23 August 1440), lord John Jiskra came to Košice because he had been defeated and captured at Svätý Beňadik; he was to return on the Feast Day of St. Augustine (28 August 1440) to Pongrác of Svätý Mikuláš” and the city paid him the mentioned 70 florins for expenses for these purposes on the basis of the queen’s letter.64 Polish chronicler John Długosz also confirms the information about Pongrác capturing Jiskra. But neither he nor the clerk for the Košice accounts noted the date of the capture. He only stated that Elisabeth named Jiskra as captain of the mercenaries recruited from Moravia, Bohemia, Austria and Silesia, namely after “King Władysław freed him from his recent captivity, when he was taken in a skirmish by the commanders of the (king’s) army, Pongrác and Michael Ország.”65 Długosz here points out Jiskra’s ingratitude – despite Władysław’s promoted his release, Jiskra battled further against him. 63 In this spirit Faist, Jan Jiskra z Brandýsa, p. 18. On the appointing of Jiskra as the Abov Count, see Pál Tóth-Szabó, Giskra, különös tekintettel Abaujmegyére (Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, 1903), p. 8, Peter Kartous, “Habsbursko- jagelovské dvojvládie v Uhorsku v rokoch 1440–1444,” in Historické štúdie 14 (1980), pp. 235–36 with references to other literature. 64 Lajos Kemény ifj., Kassa város régi szamadáskönyvei: 1431–1533 (Košice: Bernovits Ny., 1892), p. 22: “Item in der jarzal Cristi tusundt vierhundert vierzig am achten tage unser lieben frawen worczeweyhunge (8 February), do qwam her Jan Giskrae gen Cassa und wart dofur dernedir gelecth von Sente Benedicten und gefangen, da her sich wedir solte gesteilen an Sente Augustincz tag Pangkracien von Sente Miclos etc. zu zerunge und seyner notdurft nach der frawen kunigynne zeliger brieffe und durch Maternen den Statschreiber an Albrechts hwefe an Golde … fl. auri 70.” 65 Dlugosz 12, p. 659.

The Queen Comes to Bratislava ( 1440 )

135

From other documents we know that the battles at Svätý Beňadik took place as early as May 1440. We came across them while speaking about Archbishop Dionysius Szécsi. The siege of Hronský Beňadik was a part of the battles over the mining towns of what is today central Slovakia. Let us recall how Elisabeth warned Kremnica on 2 May that Władysław’s supporter Ladislaus Czech of Levice wanted to obtain Pukanec, announcing that her castellan from Zvolen would fight against Ladislaus and that they were to provide support.66 A month later, Dionysius wrote to Ladislaus Czech that he did not want to be his enemy and that his subjects had taken part in the conquest of the monastery in Hronský Beňadik not of his own free will, but had been forced to do so by the Count of Zvolen County.67 The battle over Hronský Beňadik therefore took place sometime in May. It is possible, even rather probable, that John Jiskra fell into captivity then. He certainly did not travel from Győr to Bratislava with the queen. The chamber accounts of the city of Bratislava capture with absolute accuracy everyone who came to Bratislava or stayed there for some time, and there is not a single mention of Jiskra in them at this time (unlike later volumes). Jiskra disappeared from written sources completely in the first half of 1440. The first mention then comes from the Košice record. The same applies to Pongrác. He disappears from written sources in May and June, only to reappear in Buda at the end of June 1440, when he put his seal on the deed of tribute to King Władysław. It is completely imaginable that Pongrác and Michael Ország captured Jiskra in May near Hronský Beňadik and took him to Buda, where the Polish king was involved in his liberation, as Długosz states. Let us again recall that Długosz, as a direct participant in the events, provides the most credible, albeit ideologically tinged, testimony. All the other chroniclers of that time tell of the events from a great distance or borrow entire passages from Piccolomini, who, as a “poeta laureatus”, court poet and secretary, worked at the court of Emperor Frederick from 1443 (in 1443, however, Emperor Frederick was still the Roman-German King known as Frederick IV; as the Austrian prince had the name Frederick V, after the Roman coronation in 1452 he became emperor Frederick III; thus Frederick III, IV and V is one and the same person). Secretary Piccolomini, together with a friend, Chancellor Kaspar Schlick, also served Frederick in the area of government propaganda, both of them creating the image of people and events that their patron wanted. Aeneas, as a talented and popular writer, brought this adapted image into his literary works, and thus it spread throughout Europe. Reality meets fiction in his historical 66 MNL OL DF 249 991. 67 MNL OL DL 13 552.

136

Chapter 4

works, and sometimes it is very difficult to disentangle this bunch of true and false information. In any case, Piccolomini almost certainly met Jiskra personally, so we can trust him with some information, such as the physical description of the famous warrior. Evidently, their previous relations played a big part in getting Jiskra freed from Pongrác’s captivity. As early as 1437, they had battled together against the Turks on a military expedition to Smederevo. Knightly honour commanded them to show respect, even though this time they were on opposite sides of the battlefield. It was a convention of the time that noble prisoners were not killed or imprisoned for a long time but were released after the specified conditions were met. Pongrác evidently released Jiskra for ransom, and this is likely what the entry in the Košice account book is referring to. Jiskra was to arrive on 28 August 1440 before Pongrác, perhaps specifically to pay the ransom. As we already know, shortly before, on 23 August, he had come to Košice, a city that would become his main base for many months. According to another entry in the Košice account books, Jiskra was definitely free in September and came to Levoča. He was released from captivity by John Ország of Gút, which again corresponds with information from John Długosz that Pongrác and Michael Ország captured Jiskra together.68 In the case of prisoners of war, particularly when more important people were involved, it was common for them to be temporarily released on bail or after the provision of hostages or even just a word of honour in order to obtain the amount needed for ransom. Such was also the case with Ulrich of Cilli, and even Pongrác himself, who would also be captured. Breaking a promise thus given was a serious damage to a nobleman’s honour and occurred only rarely. Releasing John Jiskra was probably the biggest mistake made by the “Polish side”, as it was John Jiskra who effectively overturned Elisabeth’s hopeless situation and brought King Władysław to the brink of defeat. Jiskra’s army of mercenaries comprised of former Hussite fighters proved much more capable than the Hungarian aristocratic divisions. Jiskra, as well as other captains in the queen’s service – Nicholas Brcal, John Talafús and John Uškert – gradually won one victory after another. In the autumn of 1440, they obtained Prešov, Gelnica, Šariš Castle, Kysak Castle and gradually took control over a large part of today’s Slovakia, including important mining towns.69 68 Kemény, Kassa város, p. 23: “Item als nu her Jan Giskrae durch her Orsag Janusch gelost wart unde in die Lewcza qwam …” 69 Regarding the military operations in detail, see Kartous, Habsbursko- jagelovské dvojvládie, pp. 237–38. Older literature, including the cited work of P. Kartous and after him also others, e.g. Faist, Jan Jiskra z Brandýsa, pp. 20–21 state that John Šmikouský, who was

The Queen Comes to Bratislava ( 1440 )

137

Queen Elisabeth had to pay for these military achievements, of course. While Władysław was able to maintain his army by distributing donations to individual Hungarian lords (there were dozens of them), Elisabeth had to raise cash to pay her mercenaries. These were huge sums; to illustrate: in October 1440, she owed the new captain of Győr Castle, Henry Čeček of Pakoměřice, 7,500 florins.70 To pay such sums without foreign help was impossible, at least in the initial phase of the war. The queen was aware that the connection with the Austrian prince Albert VI would not provide her the money needed, so she began to find her way to his older brother, the Roman-German King Frederick. The fact that Ulrich of Cilli, who had turned the queen to focus on Albert VI, was being held captive and no longer influenced the queen’s decisions, evidently played an important role in this. She took the first steps towards approaching him in July,71 and in August negotiations were already taking place between them. At the beginning of August, Elisabeth mortgaged her royal crown to Frederick for 2,500 florins, for two years.72 This is the same crown that Ulrich Eizinger and his brother had early had on deposit.73 The charter on the depositing of the crown issued by Elisabeth on 3 August in Bratislava is often misinterpreted. Historians have identified Elisabeth’s crown with the crown of St. Stephen, and the information that Elisabeth had deposited the Hungarian royal crown for 2,500 florins thus got into the professional historical literature. The holy crown was thus said to have left the territory of the Hungarian kingdom for more than twenty years. It did not return until 1463, when King Matthias Corvinus managed to get it back from Emperor Frederick for an incredible 80,000 florins.74 This statement is only half true, captured by John Ország in the battles near Szerencs, worked in south-eastern Slovakia in the area of the Buk and Tokaj hills. The authors draw on the Košice account book, Kemény, Kassa város, p. 23, where there is an entry that at the time of acquiring Szerencs, John Ország (Janusch Orsag) captured one Smygorisk (Smygorisken). Although many authors have identified him with Šmikouský, it is very difficult to agree with this view. Šmikouský was the captain of Győr and as such he appears in the sources all the time; he repeatedly visited the queen in Bratislava and vice versa, she sent messages to him in Győr, or accompanied her on trips to Vienna (AMB K2, 288, 393, K3, pp. 106, 302, 374, 376 426, 435, K4, 44). Šmikouský was certainly not Jiskra’s hetman, as claimed by Faist, Jan Jiskra z Brandýsa, p. 21. On the contrary, at that time, Šmikouský was much more important and closer to the queen than Jiskra. 70 MNL OL DF 287 150 (HHStA). 71 On 4 July 1440, the queen sent a messenger from Bratislava to Frederick “to Vienna, Neustadt or where he will find him”. AMB K2, p. 436. 72 3 August 1440: MNL OL DF 258 375 (HHStA). 73 Details in Haller, Friedrich III. und die Stephanskrone, pp. 98–100. 74 For example Kartous, Habsbursko-jagelovské dvojvládie, p. 231.

138

Chapter 4

however. Although the Hungarian royal crown did indeed leave the kingdom in 1440 (and remained in Austria until 1463), Elisabeth never deposited it for money. The crown deposited with King Frederick at the beginning of August was clearly the queen’s crown, not the crown of St. Stephen. In her charter Elisabeth referred to it as “our royal crown”, and Frederick called it “one golden crown” in a charter issued on the same day in Hainburg, giving a detailed description. It weighed 9 marks and six lots (about 2.5 kg) and was decorated with 53 sapphires, 50 emeralds and 336 pearls.75 The deposit amount of 2,500 florins could not solve Elisabeth’s problem with the lack of resources for financing the war. At the end of August, she took a radical step that she undoubtedly regretted many times later. She decided to entrust her son to King Frederick as his new guardian. On 23 August, Elisabeth concluded a guardianship agreement with him in Hainburg, where the king had previously come because of its nearness to Bratislava; the original guardian, Albert VI, was also present. As the little king’s new guardian, King Frederick loaned Elisabeth 5,000 florins. Elisabeth issued a charter on that same day specifying the conditions for providing this money.76 Of interest is that the day before, on 22 August, the city paid a scribe who, on the queen’s command, wrote a list of all the taxpayers of the city of Bratislava.77 Apparently Elisabeth wanted to go to the meeting with King Frederick prepared and focused on how much money she actually needed. On Tuesday, 23 August, representatives of the king and queen issued a guardianship agreement between the two sides. Kaspar Schlick is also listed among the intermediaries.78 Frederick took custody of Ladislaus, in the charter written – as in most documents – as King Laszló (Lassla), and Elisabeth left Frederick half of all the inheritance and widowhood in the Principality of Austria. The queen was to soon receive the loan of 5,000 florins from Frederick: 2,000 the next Saturday and another 3,000 within eight days. Compensation for Prince Albert was also part of the agreement: he received two-fifths of the income of the hereditary Austrian lands, 10,000 florins in cash and several castles and towns for surrendering trusteeship.79 Elisabeth, now with the King of Rome backing her, wrote an indignant letter from Hainburg on 27 August to the Bohemian estates, in which she accused 75 Adam Franciscus Kollar, Analecta Monumentorum omnis aevi Vindobonensia 2 (Vienna: Typis Joannis Thomae Trattner, 1762), pp. 845–46. 76 MNL OL DF 287 148 (HHStA). 77 AMB K2, p. 295. 78 Kollar, Analecta Monumentorum 2, pp. 845–50. 79 Haller, Friedrich III. und die Stephanskrone, p. 100.

The Queen Comes to Bratislava ( 1440 )

139

them of not respecting her pleas to elect her uncle Albert of Bavaria as the ruler at the assembly. The queen appealed to the Bohemian estates for loyalty under the threat of the Roman king’s intervention: “We fully believe that having justice before the eyes of God, your honour and the good of the land before you, you will do the right thing, for with the help of God and our appointed brother, the King of Rome, our affairs in Hungary and our son are in good condition, so we, if God permits, shall keep this land. If you did not do so and want to summon a foreign prince against our law, which we do not believe you will do, we would have to use the advice and help of the King of Rome and all the Christian kings, electors and other friends to avoid being unjustly shunted away from our heritage.”80 As we already know, Prince Albert of Bavaria retreated from this risky enterprise himself. During Elisabeth’s stay in Hainburg, Bratislava faced a serious threat, as the enemy forces evidently wanted to take advantage of the queen’s absence. We don’t know the details, but on 23 August two rapid messengers were sent from Bratislava to Hainburg, one of them in the middle of the night “for the sake of rescue”, when the enemy was about to attack the city. The next day another envoy travelled from Bratislava to Hainburg to see the queen to ask for urgent help.81 We know from Bratislava’s city accounts that Elisabeth returned immediately to the city and actively participated in organising the defences. At that time, Bratislava – and the queen with it – was in grave danger, with enemies literally standing at the gates.82 Elisabeth sent envoys to Vienna to buy gunpowder,83 find workers for the fortifications and to send letters to all parties asking for help. One of the envoys headed for Neustadt to the princes – presumably Albert and Frederick – to ask that they send troops.84 The accounts also provide us with details about enemy movements, because the city, thanks to its spies, knew with relatively exactness where they were located and what their intentions were.85 Not until 6 September does a record appear in the 80 MNL OL DF 289 247: “wierzime wam v plnie, ze magicze boha a sprawedliwost przed oczyma swu czest atee zemie dobre wtom opatrzite, neb s pomoczi bozy a gmenowaneho bratra nasseho krale rzimskehi y w Vhrziech nasse y syna nasseho wieczi w dobrem polozeny gsu gessto my bohda przite zemy zuostanem paklibisste toho neuczinili a wzdyknieze czyze predsie chtieli wzicti proti prawu nassemu, genz wam toho wzdy newierzime, gyz bichom musily rady a pomoczy krale rzimskeho y wssech kralow krzestianskich corfersstuo w y ginich przatel nassich poziti abichme tak nesprawedliwie nebyli adtisstieny nasseho diedicztwie.” 81 AMB K2, p. 429. 82 AMB K2, 437, 5 September 1440 enemies near the bastion. 83 AMB K2, p. 437. 84 AMB K2, p. 437. 85 On 23 August 1440, the city sent spies to Pezinok and Svätý Jur, since reports had reached Bratislava that the enemy wants to attack AMB K2, p. 429, On 30 August 1440, they sent

140

Chapter 4

accounts stating that the enemies had withdrawn. Since a military retreat was often a feint and defenders could fall into the trap, the people of Bratislava sent spies to follow the retiring enemies and find out where they had gone.86 The support of the Roman king changed the situation. The other side was also aware of this; therefore, in September 1440 King Władysław initiated through ambassadors peace negotiations with Frederick. In addition to Polish Chancellor John, Władysław’s side was also represented by Elisabeth’s former chancellor Peter Agmandi. Agmandi evidently disagreed fundamentally with Elisabeth’s non-compliance, and this led him into her enemy’s camp. We cannot deny him the efforts to find a peaceful solution, however, because he was the one who undertook the peace negotiations between Frederick and Władysław. For doing so, he earned as a reward from Władysław three villages that had been confiscated from Elisabeth’s supporters.87 King Frederick sent his own diplomats to Hungary – an unnamed bishop and one knight – to discuss peace and agree on a meeting place between the two monarchs. Due to the “busyness” of the conflicting sides, no personal meeting had yet taken place, but ambassadors from both sides were to continue the negotiations. Władysław wanted to prepare himself thoroughly for the discussions; therefore, before they began he summoned important barons and prelates for consultation, who were to come on 1 November to the place where the king would be staying at that time.88 The meeting of Elisabeth, Władysław and Frederick was planned for the Feast Day of St. Lucia, i.e. on 13 December in Bratislava. The legates of the Council of Basel sent this report, obtained from the Archbishop of Salzburg, on 18 December 1440, to Prince Albert of Bavaria. The archbishop did not know whether the meeting had ultimately taken place or not; he only had a promise from King Frederick, who told the legates that he would then come personally to Nuremberg for an assembly, regardless of whether or not the Bratislava four spies from Bratislava to Stupava in the night, when it was said that the Bratislava Count wanted to conquer Stupava. In those days, representatives of Bratislava sent out many spies, sometimes several a day, to Svätý Jur, Pezinok, Červený Kameň and Trnava, where they recorded soldiers in the woods, but also in the direction of Devín, Lamač and Stupava. AMB K2, pp. 429, 430. At the same time, the city intensified the guarding of the bridge over the Danube. 86 AMB K2, p. 308. 87 MNL OL DL 30 178. 88 The information is from a letter dated 20 October 1440, by which King Władysław invited Ladislaus Töttős of Bátmonostor to a meeting scheduled for 1 November, stating that other barons and prelates had received the same letter. Zichy 9, no. 21, p. 20, MNL OL DL 80 733.

The Queen Comes to Bratislava ( 1440 )

141

meeting went well.89 Thanks to documents and Bratislava chamber accounts, we know that this did not happen. After October, when the planned meeting of the three monarchs was being considered, several things occurred that fundamentally changed the situation. Elisabeth was growing stronger militarily and had lost interest in make concessions. One major success was the capitulation of Stephen and George Rozgonyi, the castellans of Bratislava Castle, on 18 October 1440. Thus, the hard fighting ceased between the town and the castle. The reason was perhaps the fact that Stephen Rozgonyi’s wife and children were still being held in the castle. The queen’s mercenaries kept the castle surrounded and it was not possible to supply it. The fact that Elisabeth’s supporters had recently conquered Essegvár Castle belonging to the Rozgonyi family probably also compelled Stephen to compromise.90 The queen had also offered them a generous reward for peace. The agreed peace was confirmed in two charters from 18 October: one issued by Elisabeth and one by Stephen. Stephen’s charter bears a surprisingly humbled spirit; he regretted his previous opposition to Queen Elisabeth, “the true heiress and lord of the kingdom,” and swore allegiance to her. As written in the charter, the most merciful queen forgave him all of his trespasses and pardoned him for the rebellion he had committed against her. Stephen therefore personally swore by touching the wood of the cross and the relics in the name of his “faith, humanity and honour” that he recognised Queen Elisabeth and her son, King Ladislaus, as heirs and lords of the kingdom; he swore allegiance to them on behalf of his brother George and promised that he will defend them from all enemies, especially the king of Poland. He will keep Bratislava Castle for the queen and her son and no later than the next Feast Day of St. George (24 April 1441) will hand it over to her. In the charter, Stephen also considered the possibility that he will die or be captured by then; therefore, he left his wife, children, castellans and familiars at the castle more or less in the position of hostages, so that in such a case they would release the castle. At the conclusion, Stephen stated that he was acting voluntarily, without coercion and at his own discretion.91 It is apparent from the text of Stephen’s charter that this was not a truce that warring parties concluded from time to time, but that this enemy of Elisabeth really had submitted and promised allegiance to her under oath. On that same day, the queen issued a charter stating that after a long besieging of Bratislava Castle, its captain, Stephen Rozgonyi, remembered the benefits he 89 DRTA 15, no. 297, p. 520. 90 MNL OL DL 102 486. 91 Original: MNL OL DF 287 149 (HHStA), transcription: MNL OL DF 258 544.

142

Chapter 4

had received from her father, Emperor Sigismund, had turned away from the “rebellion” and swore his loyalty to her. She reiterated Stephen’s commitment to surrender the castle to her on the next Feast Day of St. George and on the “queen’s word” promised him compensation for the expenses he had incurred in maintaining Bratislava Castle since the time of Emperor Sigismund.92 The compensation was to be Červený Kameň Castle, which the queen also promised to hand over to him on the Feast Day of St. George. This promise was truly shocking, because Elisabeth had only recently donated the castle to the widow of Wolfurt of Červený Kameň, Duchess Jitka, who supported Elisabeth and stayed at her court for a long time. This could possibly be explained by the fact that Stephen was Jitka’s brother-in-law by marriage: his wife Elena was the sister of Jitka’s late husband. The widowed Duchess Jitka would probably have the opportunity to live in the castle or the queen would compensate her with another castle (at that time she had not yet remarried to George of Pezinok), but we cannot rule out the possibility that Elisabeth had simply decided to violate her property rights out of complete pragmatism. In the queen’s defence, the charter also admitted the possibility that she would not be able to obtain the castle for the Rozgonyi family, in which case she promised them Komárno Castle. The handing over of Komárno would be a great satisfaction for Stephen and George Rozgonyi, as the castle had been entrusted to them by Sigismund of Luxembourg precisely for the purpose of compensating them for the reconstruction of Bratislava Castle, which they had managed and partially financed in his time. King Albert had taken Komárno Castle away from them and given it to his wife. Perhaps this was then the resentment of the Bratislava castellans towards the queen was born. King Władysław received the report on Stephen and George Rozgonyi’s agreement with the queen calmly and afterwards gave to Bishop Simon of Eger, his most loyal supporter, the donations he had intended to give to Simon’s brothers, Stephen and George. In November 1440 he even granted one donation for Stephen himself, gifting him two villages from Bratislava Castle – Hrubý Šúr and Malý Šúr (now part of the village of Kostolná pri Dunaji) – for his merits, particularly in defending Bratislava Castle. When calculating Stephen’s heroic deeds, the monarch gives a completely different picture of events: Stephen liberated Bratislava Castle when it was only one step away from surrender due to lack of food, and the queen, “frustrated” with conquering the castle, concluded a ceasefire with Stephen for several days.93 92 MNL OL DL 13 586. 93 MNL OL DL 13 594: “prefatus comes Stephanus, cuius consors et filii medio tempore in castro Posoniensi per gentes Regine predicte contra nos obsesso et cottidiana expugnacione afflicto

The Queen Comes to Bratislava ( 1440 )

143

The handing over of Bratislava Castle to Queen Elisabeth in fact never took place. Although Stephen observed the terms of the armistice at the set time,94 when the time had passed, the fighting for Bratislava Castle broke out with new force, this time without the active participation of Stephen, whose neutrality was more or less accepted by Elisabeth and Władysław. Neither of them took a hostile stance towards the Rozgonyi family because they could not: Bishop Simon was the main support of King Władysław, and his relative John Rozgonyi, in contrast, served Elisabeth. Another family member, Rajnold, significantly contributed to the release of Ulrich of Cilli from captivity and received a rich reward for the help provided to Ulrich. The freeing of Ulrich of Cilli from King Władysław’s captivity was very expensive for Cilli. He had to swear on his honour that he will return Trenčín Castle to the king, which he held since the time of Albert. He also had to promise to return the five named castles that Elisabeth’s or his own troops had conquered. Ulrich issued the charter with this commitment on 6 November 1440 in Buda and confirmed it in a coarsely written letter: “We Ulrich ratify everything previous.”95 A few days later, on 11 November, Ulrich of Cilli, now at liberty, issued another charter. He dated it in Esztergom and with it he rewarded Rajnold Rozgonyi for the many merits he had shown him during his captivity. Were it not for his negotiations, advice, services, messages between him and King Władysław, “we would not have been liberated,” Ulrich wrote in the charter. Rajnold obtained castle Traburg in Carinthia (now Slovenia) for life as a reward.96 On the same day, Ulrich issued yet another handwritten document in Esztergom, by which he committed himself to all the Rozgonyi lords, namely Bishop Simon, Count of Bratislava County Stephen, and finally young Rajnold, saying that he would

reclusis, per defectum et penuriam (victualium valida fame, prochdolor, ad extremum pro nobis laborabat, aggregatis gentibus, quibus potuit utpote dolore socie et filiorum amarificatus ad ipsum castrum non sine sui et suorum imminenti periculo expugatis plurimis sub eadem per emulos structis fortaliciis et eiectis de sub eodem hospitibus, uti vir spectate strenuitatis irruens castrum ipsum, quod iam in capcionis fuerat articulo per forcia victualibus refertum ab hospitibus liberavit per quod tandem Regina predicta captionis huiusmodi castri spe frustrata certorum dierum cum ipso comite Stephano treugas fecit.” 94 AMB, no. 1745, a cease fire was also concluded by Michael Ország of Gút, who together with Stephen defended Trnava. MNL OL DF 250 460, AMB no. 1755, MNL OL DL 44 307, DL 94 970, AMB, no. 1769, no. 1773, no. 1776. 95 MNL OL DL 92 906. 96 MNL OL DL 13 590. The ruins of the castle are located near the town of Dravograd. It is named after the River Drava, over which it rises.

144

Chapter 4

help them with his people and castles, and if he broke his word, may he lose his honour and may they malign him in the worst way possible.97 We know from the Cilli Chronicle, as well as from Władysław’s later documents, that Ulrich had to send several of his important familiars into captivity in his place, and they were to remain in captivity until the castles were handed over to the king. According to the Cilli chronicle, Count Ulrich’s “venerable servants” sat in the Buda prison for a rather long time.98 The war was expensive not only for Ulrich of Cilli and others, who were unlucky enough to be captured, but for the country as a whole, particularly for its two rulers battling over life and death. It brought profit only to the professional soldiers for hire. If they did not receive a wage, they changed into enemies day-to-day. Elisabeth was convinced of this several times. For example, in March 1441, Vienna asked for an urgent loan to pay the mercenary captains Roman (Peter Roman of Vítovice), Schaumberg (Nicholas of Bítov and Šaumburk) and “the one from Topoľčany” (John of Messenpek).99 For an unpaid wage, such allies became dangerous enemies who occupied the church in Svätý Jur and controlled the access road to Bratislava, threatening to march on Austria as well.100 They further joined forces in Skalica and Devín, so according to the queen, they totalled up to 1,400 riders. The mercenaries of Ladislaus Garai attacked from Devín, also due to unpaid wages. They thus caused their lord some very unpleasant moments, because in February 1441 they penetrated as far as Austria and plundered Fischamend and its surroundings. This, understandably, greatly complicated the negotiations with the King of Rome, in which Ban Ladislaus was just taking part alongside Elisabeth. The hiring of mercenaries was thus a double-edged sword that could turn against one at any time in the event of a lord’s insolvency. What’s more, the stay of rough professional warriors in Bratislava caused problems of various kinds. As early as December 1440, the queen sent her servant Frederick (Bedřich) to Bratislava from Wiener Neustadt to examine the damage done by 97 MNL OL DL 13 591. 98 Krones, Die Freien von Saneck, p. 98. 99 On the identification of persons, see Rudolf Urbánek, K historii doby Jiskrovy na Slovensku a ve východní Moravě (Prague: Královská česká společnost nauk, 1940), pp. 34–35. On the details of the captains of the mercenaries Jiří Jurok, Příčiny, struktury a osobnosti husitské revoluce (České Budějovice: Veduta, 2006). 100 WStLA, nr. 2783. Already in January 1441, Elisabeth warned Bratislava against the Roman and ordered them to not let him into the city AMB, no. 1657. There is an error in the date here; the scribe stated the year 1440, although it was undoubtedly the year 1441. It is dated in Esztergom; in January 1440 Elisabeth was still in Buda; she stayed in Esztergom in January 1441. This is pointed out by Urbánek, K historii doby Jiskrovy, p. 35.

The Queen Comes to Bratislava ( 1440 )

145

the aforementioned Roman (often listed as Romanko in the sources) and other Bohemians in Bratislava. On that occasion, the people of Bratislava honoured Frederick with a bottle of clove wine.101 Queen Elisabeth’s stay in Wiener Neustadt in November and early December 1440 is a key moment in her story. Namely, she decided to take her young son from Hungary to the Austrian court of King Frederick and hand him over to her uncle. She committed to this step in August while in Hainburg, when she concluded a guardianship agreement with Frederick. The stay of little Ladislaus in Forchtenstein, which belonged to Prince Albert, was no longer wanted or safe, as the castle was defended by a widow. What’s more, Elisabeth needed a large new loan, and it was unthinkable that Frederick would provide it to her without her handing Ladislaus over to him. According to an entry in the Bratislava chamber accounts, the queen left the city on Saturday, 29 October 1440, in the carriage of Michael Pollaner. Based on information in the accounts, the waggoner remained on the road for 16 weeks, and Elisabeth was away from Bratislava even longer (she did not return to the city until 11 March 1441).102 We don’t know by which road the queen travelled and whether she came to Forchtenstein in person to take Ladislaus and the others to her uncle, or if she went to meet them at Frederick’s court. Her stay in Wiener Neustadt is not documented until 9 November, when she dated a charter there, which, however, does not rule out that she had come to the city earlier.103 She also arrived at the court of the Roman-German king carrying the crown of St. Stephen. She namely had to hand over the little king with the royal crown, a symbol of his legitimacy. The scene of Elisabeth handing over the little king and the holy crown has been preserved in a book published in 1580 in Augsburg. The kneeling queen hands over the royal crown to Frederick, who is sitting on the throne, while a boy (Ladislaus) kneels in the foreground. The unhappy woman is asking for help, while the king, aware of his duty to protect widows and orphans, accepts the request.104 The picture is strongly stylised and idealised; little Ladislaus 101 AMB K3, p. 103: “Item am pfincztag nach sannd Andre tag hab wir geert nach der herren gescheft den herren Bedersich, den dy kunigin her schikket, dy schaden zu beschawen, dy herr Romankcho vnd ander Pehaim genomen hatten in der kunigin dinst mit I flaschen Nagl wein von dem Mathes Meindl zu XII halb per VI den. wien. facit LXXII den. wien.” Although the accounts tell of “bottles”, with respect to their volume they were more like smaller demijohns. 102 AMB K2, p. 336. Return of the queen to Bratislava AMB K3, p. 105. 103 MNL OL DF 202 705. 104 The image appears in the MS Effigierum Caesarum opus Augustae Rhaeitiae a. 1580 (ÖNB HAN cod. 15.167), On the subject, see Haller, Friedrich III. und die Stephanskrone, p. 94.

146

Chapter 4

was nine months old at the time, so he would have a hard time kneeling before Frederick, but the scene of handing over the child and the crown really did take place in November 1440. Only at this moment did King Frederick get his hands on the crown of St. Stephen. It had its own logic and several chroniclers confirmed it. We can thus say almost with certainty that Queen Elisabeth never deposited the Hungarian royal crown in exchange for money (and absolutely not for 2,500 florins). Historians have wronged her in that regard. She delivered the crown into Frederick’s custody along with the baby king,105 and it remained in his treasury for 23 years. King Frederick undertook by a charter from 22 November 1440 to do nothing with her children, son Ladislaus and daughter Elisabeth, without Elisabeth’s consent, and if Elisabeth were to find a suitable castle in Hungary where she could take the little king, he would hand the boy over to her. He also committed to taking care of the children in the event of Elisabeth’s death.106 The following day, on 23 November, Elisabeth issued a charter by which she left her dowry properties in Austria to Frederick in exchange for a loan of 9,000 Hungarian florins and promised to mortgage the town of Sopron as soon as she got it back into her hands (Ulrich of Cilli had it on deposit). From that 9,000 florins that Elisabeth borrowed, the Austrian dowry property was assessed at 3,000 florins and Sopron at 6,000 florins.107 Three days later, Elisabeth made another concession to Frederick, pledging that if she found a suitable castle for her son in Hungary, she would hand over the castle to Frederick to guard the little king there. She only reserved the condition that she would be able to visit him freely.108 Then, on 2 December Elisabeth borrowed an additional 2,000 florins from Frederick, which she promised to return to the next Feast Day of St. John (24 June 1441).109 Elisabeth’s depositing of the town of Sopron was not entirely correct by Elisabeth’s relatives and supporters, the Counts of Cilli. During her stay in Wiener Neustadt, Elisabeth even had Sopron pay a tax of 400 florins, which the city was obliged to pay to Ulrich of Cilli as captain of the city.110 The Cillis also had to reluctantly accept Elisabeth’s alliance with King Frederick and hand little Ladislaus over to him, even though they had been at war with King Frederick since 1437. The reason was an old dispute over the occupation of the 105 References to the sources in Haller, Friedrich III. und die Stephanskrone, pp. 101–02. 106 Teleki, Hunyadiak kora 10, p. 92. 107 MNL OL DF 287 152 (HHStA). 108 Teleki, Hunyadiak kora 10, 94–95, MNL OL DF 287 153. 109 MNL OL DF 287 154 (HHStA). 110 MNL OL DF 202 705.

The Queen Comes to Bratislava ( 1440 )

147

Diocese of Gurk in Carinthia.111 Elisabeth attempted to reconcile the relationship between her two allies, at least to the extent that they did not fight one another. An accommodating step towards the Cillis was a charter issued on 6 December in Wiener Neustadt, which permitted them to choose the Zagreb bishop during their lifetime, thus putting the diocese under their power.112 The mutual antagonism of the Cillis and King Frederick complicated life for Elisabeth, who needed the support of both. Therefore, she tried to broker at least an armistice between them, which she succeeded in doing in March 1441. On 12 March 1441, Frederick and Ulrich of Cilli issued a ceasefire charter from the castle in Celje, which was to last from the Feast Day of St. John (24 June) to the Feast Day of St. Michael (29 September). However, they soon also made peace with King Władysław and temporarily withdrew from the struggle for the Hungarian crown. The peace between the Cillis and King Władysław was preceded by turbulent winter events, when the war between Elisabeth and Władysław reached its worst stage. We already know that King Władysław released Ulrich of Cilli from captivity in November, leaving only the hostages who were to remain in prison until the conditionally released count surrendered the required castles to him. Ulrich’s father Frederick of Cilli, armed with a letter of safe conduct from King Władysław, came to Buda to negotiate the conditions for the release of the hostages on behalf of his son. According to the Cilli Chronicle, the discussions developed favourably, and Count Frederick also tried to reconcile Elisabeth with Władysław. He therefore visited the queen at Győr Castle (her stay at Győr Castle is documented after 18 December 1440), where the queen’s reaction was clearly negative, and the convergence of Frederick of Cilli with King Władysław provoked her so much that she decided to take her uncle captive. Thanks to a warning from an unknown supporter, however, Frederick of Cilli escaped from Győr Castle in the middle of the night with a small group of his most loyal adherents, though he had to leave behind all his wagons loaded with silver, weapons and provisions. His chancellor remained imprisoned in the castle, however, and he reportedly died in captivity.113 These events are mentioned only by the Cilli Chronicle. No other chronicler mentions them; therefore, due to the lack of sources we cannot assess the extent to which the chronicler’s story is true. It is possible that this story is a complete invention, 111 Peter Štih, “Die Grafen von Cilli, die Frage ihrer landesfürstlichen Hoheit und des Landes Cilli,” in Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung 110 (2002), pp. 88–89. 112 MNL OL DF 287 155 (HHStA), MNL OL DF 288 288 (HHStA), MNL OL DF 258 345 (HHStA). 113 Krones, Die Freien von Saneck, pp. 99–100.

148

Chapter 4

as the chronicler wanted to morally justify the fact that the Counts of Cilli had made peace with King Władysław in April 1441 and did not become more involved in the war on the side of Elisabeth. If the chronicler was telling the truth about this, other events in the first months of 1441, when the Cillis were still fighting for Elisabeth, would not make sense. Invigorated with the money from King Frederick, Elisabeth went on a massive attack. This money may have also partially financed the Cilli military expedition to Hungary, which took place that winter. The Cilli army, led by the experienced Bohemian captain John Vítovec, penetrated as far as Székesfehérvár and inflicted enormous damage. Its aim was to ravage the enemy’s territory,114 and it succeeded, as chronicler John of Thurocz wrote many years after: “The elders in Slavonia still recall and tell their sons with a deep impression how her uncle Ulrich of Cilli tried to avenge the queen these days.”115 We can consider this information as tendentious, too, since this chronicler was a party to the Hunyadi family and had no lost love for the Counts of Cilli. But other sources do confirm the cruelty of Elisabeth’s troops, and we will talk about them. Władysław sent a strong army against the Cillis, and it marched as far as the Croatian castle of Samobor, which belonged to the dominion of the Counts of Cilli. The two enemy armies met there in combat in February 1441,116 with John Vítovec winning a brilliant victory for his masters, turning back the Hungarian army and destroying it. The Cilli Chronicle tells of the battle in detail. After the victory, Vítovec’s army chased down the fleeing Hungarian fighters, and those not captured or killed were drowned with their horses in the marshes. The victors sacked the enemy’s military camp and plundered tents, wagon, lots of gold, silver, and other items, as well as more than 500 saddled horses. Among the many prisoners, the most valuable capture was the “Duke of Lendava” (Herzog von Lindau), i.e. a member of the Bánfi family. Ulrich of Cilli then exchanged these prisoners for his own captured hostages in Buda.117 Cilli’s victory over the Polish king’s forces (we do not know whether at Samobor or elsewhere) is also mentioned in two charters from March 1440. The queen addressed the first on 8 March to the town of Bardejov. She thanked the town for the support it had provided to John Jiskra, thus helping him to victory, and promised that it would soon be rewarded. At the same time, she informed them that John Szécsi, together with the army of Cilli, had defeated 114 Krones, Die Freien von Saneck, pp. 99–100. 115 Thurocz, Chronica Hungarorum 1, p. 241. 116 Details in Krones, Die Freien von Saneck, pp. 100–02. 117 Krones, Die Freien von Saneck, p. 102.

The Queen Comes to Bratislava ( 1440 )

149

the army of John Hunyadi, Stephen Bánfi and other magnates. The victors had captured many prisoners, including very noble ones, and had seized many wagons as well as three large cannons and five smaller ones, and killed more than 600 enemy fighters.118 Elisabeth called this excellent news, but for us – the people of the 21st century – her unadulterated joy at the killing 600 people is a little shocking. The defeat of the Hungarians is also mentioned by the Bohemian lord Nicholas Jindřichův in a letter to Ulrich of Rožmberk dated 15 March 1441 in Wiener Neustadt, where he estimated the number of enemy dead to be one thousand five hundred.119 Once military fortune stood on one side and then on the other. The success of Cilli’s army at Samobor was preceded by a great victory of Władysław’s side, when in January 1441 forces led by Nicholas of Ilok and John Hunyadi defeated the queen’s troops led by Ban Ladislaus Garai in the Battle of Bataszék (also known as the Battle of Cikador after the name of the local abbey). The military campaign of Ladislaus Garai started at the end of November, with his troops arriving from the south along the Danube towards Buda. At that time King Władysław did not have a sufficient force to stop the advance, because his main forces were concentrated in the anti-Turkish fighting in southern Hungary. He therefore tried to negotiate, but unsuccessfully.120 In a desperate situation, he summoned John Hunyadi and Nicholas of Ilok from the southern border and drafted them in to fight against Garai. It was a good decision, because they managed to defeat Garai’s army in the battle of Cikador. The chroniclers John Długosz, John of Thurocz and later the pro-Hunyadi Bonfini also inform about the military clash in some detail, since “their side” won. We also know the details from some of Władysław’s donation charters.121 The battle took place at Cikador Abbey in the town of Szék (today named Bataszék). Bataszék is located less than 30 kilometres from Mohács, the site of one of the most famous (and tragic) battles of the Middle Ages, which took place in 1526. This area was an important communication artery along the Danube River to the south. The abbey originally belonged to the Cistercians, but in 1420, when it was nearly abandoned, King Sigismund moved the Benedictines to it and even later visited the monastery in person.122

118 AMBard, no. 376. 119 Rynešová, Listář a listinář 2, no. 116, p. 94. 120 Dąbrowski, J. Władysław I, p. 52. 121 DL 71 964 (donation for Ladislaus of Marot of 2 February 1441), CDP IV, no. 242, p. 329, (donation for John Hunyadi from 8 October 1441). 122 ZsO 7, no. 2206, Zichy VI, p. 632.

150

Chapter 4

The battle at Cikador or Bataszék was also important in that John Hunyadi shined again. Chronicler John Długosz literally wrote about it: “John Hunyadi, hardly known before, made his name in this battle. Although he was a person born in an unknown place, he had a keen spirit and longed for great things. The Hungarian and Polish king brought him out of anonymity and insufficiency to the forefront of wealth.”123 Długosz was exaggerating, of course, because John Hunyadi, as a northern ban at the time, was certainly not unknown and insignificant; he had achieved major victories in battles with the Turks, which is why Władysław summoned him. But the truth is that the victory at Cikador increased his credit even more so. The defeat of Ban Ladislaus Garai, a man with great authority, courage and rich military experience, was an important success. In addition to Ladislaus Garai, his son-in-law John, son of Phillip of Korog (husband of Ladislaus’s daughter Barbara), and the son of Duke Tamási, Henry, as well as Andrew Botos of Harapek, also fought on Elisabeth’s side. The last mentioned, Andrew Botos, fell in battle and the chronicler John of Thurocz added that in his person “a cruel man died a cruel death”. Długosz also refers to Botos’s death and labels him a “bellator expertus”, what we today might call an “expert warrior”. Henry Tamási fell into captivity, but Ban Ladislaus Garai escaped along with his son-in-law. Thuroczy could not help himself the mocking remark that they were both close to the body, but despite their greater weight, they ran from the battlefield as equally as fast as the others.124 Both Ilok and Hunyadi earned the rank of Dukes of Transylvania from the king for their success, which until then had been held by Elisabeth’s supporter Dionysus of Lučenec (Losonci). According to Długosz, Ladislaus Garai fled from the battlefield to Esztergom, where the queen was waiting for him. At this point, however, we have to stop and go back a few weeks, because we left Queen Elisabeth on 6 December 1440 in Wiener Neustadt, when she issued a charter of patronage to the Zagreb Diocese for the Cillis. This is the queen’s last charter issued in this city; the following day she was already in Eisenstadt (Hungarian: Kismarton), at the castle which belonged to the widow of John of Kanizsa and her son. The journey to Eisenstadt was unexpected. Ambassadors from Bratislava who regularly visited the queen in Wiener Neustadt were shocked by her sudden departure.125 Elisabeth stayed only briefly in Eisenstadt, and on 7 December 123 Dlugosz 12, p. 661. 124 Thurocz, Chronica Hungarorum 1, p. 239. 125 Messages from the Bratislavans to the queen to Wiener Neustadt 8 November, AMB K2, p. 364; 12 November, AMB K2, p. 432; 26 November, AMB K3, p. 360; 1 December, AMB K3, p. 360; 3 December, AMB K3, p. 360. On 9 December, a messenger on horseback travelled to Neustadt, but did not find the queen there; he continued to Eisenstadt, where he caught up with her, AMB K3, p. 366. The Bratislava mayor, who wanted to go by carriage

The Queen Comes to Bratislava ( 1440 )

151

she sent her envoy with a letter to Ulrich of Rožmberk.126 On the next day she was in Sopron, where she remained for ten days. Elisabeth had an uneasy task in Sopron: to prepare the townspeople and the Town Council for the fact that she wanted to hand their city over to the Roman-German king and that they would become de facto residents of another state. Elisabeth expected resistance from the people of Sopron and tried to prevent it. First, it was necessary to increase the city’s defences. For security reasons, all the houses and farmsteads in the suburbs, those beyond the city fortifications, were to be demolished. However, the queen had to compensate the owners of these houses in some way and house them somewhere else. Since she had no money, she chose a simple path that her husband had previously proven: she confiscated the homes of the Sopron Jews within the town, all but four of them that is, into which all the Jews were to move. The vacated houses were then to be distributed to the inhabitants who had been forced out of the suburbs, according to their merits and taking into account the amount of damage they had suffered.127 On the same day, at the request of the city, she issued a charter granting Sopron the warehousing right for the sale of salt imported from Austria. All the salt was to be deposited in the city and sold from there. The queen also restricted the sale of salt to the people of the kingdom on the Sopron side of the Rába River in favour of the people of Sopron; they were not permitted to carry it anywhere except Sopron.128 Two days later, on 11 December, the town confirmed its annual markets, in two terms: on the Feast Days of St. Elisabeth and of St. Margaret. The market for the Feast Day of its patroness St. Elisabeth was to last 28 days, and the second was to be shorter, just 16 days.129 It is very likely that the queen intended to secure Sopron militarily. Her stop in Eisenstadt on the way to Sopron was no accident. The roads from Austria, from Wiener Neustadt, led through the lands of the Kanizsai family. The widow of Ladislaus of Kanizsa and Emeric, the son of John of Kanizsa, owned not only the Eisenstadt estate, but also the neighbouring Szarvkő (today Hornstein in Austria), both in the immediate vicinity of Sopron. On 16 December, Elisabeth addressed a letter from Sopron to the commander of her army, John Steinar, that the army should in no case damage the property of the said widow and

126 127 128 129

to Neustadt on 11 December, was also shocked, but there were reports that the queen had left. The coachman thus had to wait all day ready whether the mayor would set off or not, as he probably did not know where the queen was, AMB K3, p. 366. MNL OL DF 289 250. MNL OL DF 202 707. MNL OL DF 202 709. Házi, Sopron 1/3, no. 248, p. 207. DF 202 710, Házi, Sopron 1/3, no. 249, p. 209.

152

Chapter 4

her son, who are among her loyal followers and who are currently residing with her.130 The widow, who is not mentioned by name in the queen’s charter, was the queen’s cousin Dorothy, the sister of Ban Ladislaus Garai. Both Ladislaus and Dorothy were the children of King Sigismund’s long-time palatine, Nicholas Garai, and Anna of Cilli, Queen Barbara’s sister. Despite her close family relationship, Dorothy had her own experiences with the queen and her people, just as the people of Sopron. Not quite a year earlier, in January 1440, she had written an urgent letter to her brother, Ban Ladislaus Garai, asking for help. She had been visited by burghers of Sopron with a complaint against the queen’s collector of the tithe, the already known to us Ladislaus Farkas, who accused the burghers of unjustly crucifying some of his familiars – collectors of the thirtieth tax. Thus, the people from Sopron were extremely angry with the queen. Dorothy defended the burghers, and the punished Farkas familiars were, according to her statements, fraudsters who had terrorised the entire Sopron County area. When the people of Sopron did not detain them, they looted and plundered her subjects and the burghers of Sziget and robbed them of all their possessions. The condemnation of Farkas’s familiars was therefore absolutely just. The widow asked Ban Ladislaus to explain this to the queen and defend the people of Sopron.131 The hardness and cruelty of collecting taxes was not uncommon at the time, but Ladislaus Farkas’s collectors must have been excessively predatory and ruthless if they were punished so cruelly as being nailed to the cross. No wonder the widow feared the presence of the queen’s troops near her lands. We should add that Dorothy was yet another of the powerful widows who managed her own possessions with a firm hand. A letter from her castellan in Eisenstadt and another servant has been preserved in which they notified their mistress in detail how, using the silver she had sent to them, they had paid the weekly wage to her familiars serving with a weapon and with a different number of horses (riders).132 The individually named familiars had from two to nine horses, and for each horse, i.e. a person serving as a rider, they received 1 florin per week. Hiring armed men was an absolute necessity in those days for those who wanted to defend their property, and as can be seen from this document, it was not a cheap matter. The queen departed Sopron on 17 December, this time moving to Győr. From the time she left Bratislava at the end of November, the queen’s mobility was admirable, all the more so in that it took place during the winter months. 130 Nagy, Sopron vármegye 2, no. 172, p. 300, MNL OL DL 13 599. 131 MNL OL DF 202 687. 132 MNL OL DL 13 614.

The Queen Comes to Bratislava ( 1440 )

153

With her regular moving, she brought the Bratislava ambassadors in particular to the point of desperation, as they had to travel after her and were ever lagging behind. In the records of the Bratislava account books from this period, a note appears repeatedly that when the lords arrived at some place, the queen was no longer there, or they had to set off on a journey without knowing where to find her.133 There is nothing to envy these men of Bratislava, as the entries in the account books also testify to the weather in December 1440 and January 1441: mentions of snow, poor roads or the Danube full of ice appear there regularly.134 And the Bratislava ambassadors again ended up the same this time. On Thursday, 15 December, mayor Stephen Ranes and his companions set out on a journey to see the queen in Sopron. They had herring loaded onto the wagon and for the mayor in particular other fish, buns, candles, saffron, ginger, cloves, black pepper, oats for the horses, wine and grease for the carriage wheels. A waggoner drove them to Sopron in a carriage drawn by four horses.135 After a difficult, three-day journey, they finally reached their destination. But bad news reached them just shy of Sopron: the day before, on Saturday, 17 December, the queen had left the town. The mayor and his companions were frustrated, because the road they had travelled was difficult; the horses harnessed in the carriage did not cooperate, and it was clear that they would have to rent other horses because they had walked more than they had ridden. They wrote home to Bratislava about their difficulties on 18 December and ironically added: “Our queen probably thinks we are a little too comfortable and wants to activate us.” They certainly showed no lack of humour. According to the reports they received, the queen had settled in Győr, but no one knows where she will go next. The mayor wrote that they would go to Győr and try to meet her there.136 From the accounts we know that the Bratislavans caught up with Elisabeth in Győr and then returned home to Bratislava on Christmas Eve.137 The queen spent both the Christmas and New Year holidays

133 134 135 136 137

For example, AMB K3, pp. 93, 94, 366, 367. AMB K3, pp. 366–69 (December, January). AMB K3, p. 93. AMB, no. 1725. AMB K3, p. 93. The accounts incorrectly state that they left Sopron, where they did not find the queen, and went to Komárno (instead of Győr): “Item am freitag vor sannd Thomas tag ist vnser Richter ausgefaren vnd etzlich herren mit ym ken Odenburg zu vnser genedigen Frawen der Kunigin, dy was nicht do, vnd von dan ken Gamarn wo man dy fund mit IIII Rossen vnd cham haim am heiligen Weynacht obund vnd haben verczert VIIII fl. abzeraiten per I lb. den. facit VIIII lb. den. wien.” The city sent messengers after the mayor in Győr (or where they will finds him) on 20 December 1440, AMB K3, p. 367.

154

Chapter 4

in Győr, but on the eve of Epiphany (5 January), she was already dating a charter in Esztergom.138 Esztergom was a safe place for the queen, because the Archbishop of Esztergom, Dionysius Szécsi, along with his brothers, were clearly on the side of Elisabeth and her son, Ladislaus the Posthumous.139 Proof of this lies in the fact that the archbishop carried out Władysław’s coronation as King of Hungary involuntarily and under duress. From Esztergom, the queen, along with Ladislaus Garai, organised a military campaign, which  – as we already know  – ended in a great failure. After losing the battle near Cikador Abbey, Ladislaus fled to Esztergom, where the queen was then staying. The queen had left Esztergom before 14 January, since she was already dating a deed in Komárno then.140 This information is important for dating the battle of Cikador. For their support of Queen Elisabeth, Dionysius Szécsi and his relatives, like Ladislaus Garai and many others, faced the confiscation of their property by Władysław.141 Even one of Dionysius familiars lost a house in Trnava because alongside the archbishop he showed distrust for Władysław when he devastated the property of his followers.142 Confiscations and donations were the order of the day at the time; both sides used them as weapons of war. In reality, the owner of a property was always the person who controlled the property and was able to maintain it. This does not change, however, the fact that the rash violation of property rights contributed to the disintegration of society as well as hatred and chaos. The constant fighting and the plundering of the enemy’s properties took the country into a deep crisis. All the inhabitants of the kingdom, both voluntarily and involuntarily, had to share in the life and death battle between the king and queen. Chronicler John of Thurocz described the sad situation in the Kingdom of Hungary at that time: “Towns and villages burned, set on fire over and over, and flames spewing to the heights polluted the surrounding air. The whole of Hungary lived through the terrible years of these iron times, and the blood of the slain lords and servants alike was spilled over the fallow fields. How many innocent people lost their lives and shed blood! … It was enough for everyone if they merely preserved their lives amidst the danger that deprived them of all other things.”143 138 139 140 141

AMB, no. 1742. In this regard, see, for example, MNL OL DL 13 618. AMB, no. 1746. On 25 March 1441, Władysław issued a charter donating part of the village in Vas County, originally belonging to Archbishop Dionysius and his brothers, which they had lost due to disloyalty, to his followers Ladislaus and Petew of Gerse MNL OL DL 92 921. 142 MNL OL DF 279 632. 143 Thurocz, Chronica Hungarorum 1, p. 241.

Chapter 5

For Life and Death (1441) The start of 1441 was a difficult time for Queen Elisabeth. Ladislaus Garai came to see her in Esztergom with the news of the tragic defeat at the Cikador, glad that he himself had managed to save his freedom or even his life. Władysław’s side, encouraged by the victory, went on the counterattack. Despite the fact that the queen had concluded a ceasefire with some of the enemies around Bratislava, the pressure was still great on other fronts. What’s more, she had to face problems caused by her own mercenaries. Esztergom itself became the nearest target of Władysław’s army. Therefore, Elisabeth moved to Komárno, where it was safer, and organised another army from there. Komárno and all of Komárno County were ruled by Thomas Szécsi, who was the queen’s treasurer and the Count of Komárno County. He was also the brother of the Archbishop of Esztergom and was extremely devoted to his mistress. This is evident not only from the number of charters that the queen issued on his behalf or on which he appears near her, but also from the telling of chronicler John of Thurocz. He, too, confirmed that this man was more devoted to the queen than were others. According to John of Thurocz, Thomas was “in view of his figure and bodily robustness, truly worthy of being called a man, and in the Kingdom of Hungary who was not among the last to be considered the most important.”1 Thomas not only protected Komárno Castle, but he also stayed at Esztergom Castle, from where he conducted raids on enemy territory. During one of them, he made his was as far as the suburbs of Buda, to Felhévíz, and burned it before the eyes of King Władysław.2 He advanced to less than two kilometres from the walls of Buda Castle, which must have sparked great concern at Władysław’s court. The arrival of military reinforcements from Poland in early 1441 allowed the king to organise a strong counterattack.3 In the given situation, the queen needed additional money to continue with the war. Shortly before leaving Esztergom, she borrowed 600 florins from the town of Kremnica “because of her need and struggle”, for which she deposited

1 Thurocz, Chronica Hungarorum 1, p. 239. 2 Thurocz, Chronica Hungarorum 1, p. 240 informs about this. Félhévíz is today a part of central Budapest, located on the level of Margitsziget Island from the Buda side. 3 On the forces from Poland, Dlugosz 12, pp. 662–63 and 665.

© Daniela Dvořáková, 2025 | doi:10.1163/9789004722552_007

156

Chapter 5

a mill as an advance to the townspeople.4 On 14 January (now from Komárno), she requested military reinforcements from Bratislava: 5 good powerful wagons (undoubtedly for the purposes of a wagon fort) and ten fully armed trabants in each of them. The word trabanti was used for mercenaries without a horse, i.e. hired infantry.5 Each trabant was to be equipped with a crossbow according to her instructions, and each wagon was to have 300 arrows and other weapons available: pistols, cannons, howitzers, mortars and much more. Along with the soldiers, the Bratislavans were supposed to send at least two good musketeers, i.e. those who prepared gunpowder and were responsible for firearms.6 The queen further requested weapons for Sopron, which, as we already know, she secured militarily so that she could hand it over to the Roman-German King Frederick. As soon as on 11 January, a waggoner drove small and large cannons with cannonballs from Bratislava to Sopron for the queen.7 The constant demands the queen made on Bratislava caused the city officials worry, as their financial possibilities were not endless. Therefore, they expected the queen to satisfy their own demands for the assistance provided. This, too, was one reason why the city so often sent its representatives to see the queen. Shortly after Bratislava sent weapons to Sopron, another delegation set off to find the queen, this time travelling by boat; they even bought a boat for this purpose.8 On 14 January, seven city officials boarded a vessel loaded with foodstuffs (again, there was no lack of wine, bread and buns, but also cooking and baking meat, eggs, onions, salt and large and small pots, which means that the gentlemen had cooked from their own supplies) and travelled to Győr or Esztergom, depending on where they would find the queen.9 Unfortunately, they did not find the queen at any destination, though they went as far as Esztergom.10 Elisabeth was already in Komárno at that time. After a long journey, the delegation finally found the queen in Komárno. From there, one of them, Niklas, the son of Lienhart Horndl, wrote a letter to Bratislava on 26 January about all the news they had learned at the queen’s court.11 Thanks to this, we again know a great many details. According to reports available to Horndl, Jr., the queen was preparing to travel from Komárno to 4 5

The charter is dated in Esztergom on 11 January 1441, MNL OL DF 249 993. In regard to this, e.g. a charter from 1439: “centum pedites stipendiariorum, vulgo drabant,” Schmauk, Supplementum Annalectorum terrae Scepusiensis 2, p. 267. 6 AMB, no. 1746. 7 AMB K3, p. 307. 8 13 January 1441, AMB K3, p. 229. 9 AMB K3, p. 94. Only Horndl and Flins are named among the ambassadors. 10 AMB K3, p. 95. 11 AMB, no. 1748.

For Life and Death ( 1441 )

157

Győr in two days and from there to Altenburg, where King Frederick’s advisers were to come to see her. Horndl advised the city officials who remained at home to go to Altenburg to see the queen and “what we could not arrange with her Grace here in Komárno according to your wishes and will, even if we would have liked to do so, can be done through you when you are closer to the mercy of our Lady and when Her Grace feels the breath of the sweet Bratislava air.” If this fails, they should remain patient. Horndl also informed his fellow citizens about a report that came directly from the court: the Polish army was stationed in the village of Pok (not far from Győr). The Poles have 700 horses and are intending to move on Esztergom (Horndl’s information was correct). A part of Władysław’s army even wants to march as far as Kremnica. The author of the letter also mentions a large cannon that the queen requested from the people of Bratislava; she allegedly did not talk about it with them. Not everything the ambassadors experienced or heard at the queen’s court could be entrusted into writing. And so Niklas wrote at the conclusion of his letter: “We will tell you personally what we did not write to you.” And below the text in tiny letters in the lower left corner, he wrote a charming note: “bona vita est in Comaron” (the good life is in Komárno). Niklas was certainly a young man; his father Lienhart had participated in messages up to then, and its seems that this was the young Horndl’s first journey (or at least the first message he had sent). Youthful carelessness can be felt from the short note at the end of the letter, written at a time when few people felt optimistic, as well as from a humorous comment that the queen may be influenced by the breeze of the sweet Bratislava air. Who knows what made life so pleasant for the Bratislava ambassador in Komárno that winter? The low prices, the good food or perhaps the court ladies? The queen’s “maidens” travelled with their mistress on the road; we know about this thanks to entries in the Sopron and Bratislava accounts from this period, where expenses are entered for wine on the maidens’ table and the townspeople often dined with the queen’s ladies.12 Despite the good life in Komárno, in nearby Esztergom, they had no reason to be happy. King Władysław set off on a military campaign and its first target was Esztergom. This was the first military expedition in which he personally took part. In 1440, the Hungarian lords still protected the young monarch from direct participation in battles; others fought in his place, not only against Elisabeth, but also against the Turks. It needs to be noted that Władysław was 12 Házi, Sopron 2/3, p. 253. A gathering of Bratislava councillors with the queen and her maidens in the garden, e.g. AMB K3, p. 105.

158

Chapter 5

not yet sixteen years old at the time of his coronation; he was really still a boy.13 Długosz, too, wrote that after the coronation in Székesfehérvár in July 1440, the king returned to Buda, where he remained throughout the summer and autumn and performed his duties as the ruler. He occasionally went to Csepel Island and hunted to relax from his work and peevishness.14 This time, however, the boy-king personally took command of the army.15 Military campaigns usually took place in the summer months, when there was sufficient feed for horses, good roads and favourable conditions for camping outdoors. In this, too, we can see the determination of the adversarial forces, who really fought for life and death and not even the cold could stop them. The Polish chronicler also wrote that Władysław’s army was not daunted by the ruthless winter, the snowfall or the lack of food. Despite the winter and the period of great fasting, the king decided not to leave the battlefield until he had gained all the occupied castles and towns under his power. John of Thurocz tells of the siege of Esztergom in relative detail. Ultimately, Władysław’s forces did not have to conquer the castle, as Archbishop Dionysius Szécsi of Esztergom surrendered it voluntarily. The chronicler attributes this to his good human qualities; reportedly as a man with inborn compassion, a noble nature and a pure life, he could not come to terms with the bloodshed that was taking place before his eyes.16 We can trust this description of Dionysius personality; he was a truly exceptional man, judicious, educated and respected both at home and abroad. He was an excellent speaker and diplomat and preferred negotiations to violence; during his lifetime he was responsible for resolving several seemingly unresolvable conflicts.17 Thus, King Władysław could date charters directly at Esztergom Castle on 2 February 1441.18 Some weeks later, the monarch confiscated additional properties from Dionysius. The reason was not the archbishop himself, but mainly the continuing hostility of his brothers, John, Nicholas and Thomas, who

13 14 15 16 17 18

He was born on 31 October 1424. Dlugosz 12, p. 651. Dlugosz 12, p. 665. Thurocz, Chronica Hungarorum 1, p. 240. Daniela Dvořáková, “Ostrihomský arcibiskup Dionýz zo Seče, významný prelát, politik a diplomat 15. Storočia, in Studia Historica Nitriensia 24 (2020), no. 2, pp. 294–307, Pálfi, Magyar Királyság, pp. 73–82. A donation for Ladislaus of Marot, which was also a reward for taking part in this military expedition MNL OL DL 71 964 and a command order MNL OL DL 71 965. The command order based on another donation, dated 2 February in Esztergom SNA Leleský konvent HM, T 83, MNL OL DF 212 394.

For Life and Death ( 1441 )

159

were first and foremost affected by the confiscation.19 Dionysius’s castellan at Esztergom Castle also lost his house in Trnava,20 and later Dionysius sided with Władysław in an effort to mediate peace with Queen Elisabeth. Władysław’s army left Esztergom to the south-east, heading towards Zala County up to the Mur River, and along the river from Murska Sobota (today in Slovenia) they again turned north to Szombathely Castle to Vas County. The campaign ended at Veszprém Castle, near the seat of the Bishop of Veszprém. The aim of the campaign was not just to conquer the castles belonging to the enemy (particularly to Ladislaus Garai), but especially to reconquer those castles of Władysław’s loyal followers that Elisabeth’s side had occupied a year earlier. It is especially necessary to stop at the final conquest of Veszprém, because the situation of the Bishop of Veszprém, who was Matthias Gatalóci at the time, was very similar to that of the Archbishop of Esztergom. Even Bishop Matthias was drawn into the war, despite his deep opposition to violence of any kind. After the original bishop, Simon Rozgonyi, became administrator of the Eger diocese, the pope appointed the bishop of Senj, John of Dominis, whom we already know was one of the initiators of the Polish king’s invitation to Hungary, as administrator of the Veszprém diocese. Together with Simon Rozgonyi, he led a delegation to Cracow at the beginning of 1440. Elisabeth persuaded the pope to cancel the appointment, and in May 1440, at her urging, he named Matthias Gatalóci as the bishop of Veszprém.21 Veszprém was thus under the power of Elisabeth and therefore became the target of Władysław’s attack. Bishop Matthias, the uncle of the famous John Vitéz, by the way, was already an older man who had a successful career behind him. Although he came from the middle aristocracy, he worked his way up for many years to being Sigismund’s chancellor (from 1424 to 1433 he was secret secretary, then chancellor until Sigismund’s death) and administrator of the Vác diocese (from 1436).22 Albert, too, used his experience and appointed him first as his chancellor, later as the chief chancellor of Hungary. 19 25 March 1441, MNL OL DL 92 921. 20 21 March 1441, MNL OL DF 279 632. 21 The nomination of Matthias Gatalóci Monumenta Romana episcopatus Vesprimiensis. 3. 1416–1492. ed. Joseph Lukcsics (Budapest: Franklin Ny., 1902), p. 112. The mayor of Veszprém, Thomas Himfi of Döbröntö, a former notary of Emperor Sigismund, was also on the side of Elisabeth (in this regard MNL OL DL 39 208), MNL OL DL 102 486, DF 287 150. 22 Erik Fügedi, “A XV. századi magyar püspökok,” in Történelmi Szemle 8/1965, no. 4, p. 488, Engel, Magyarország világi archontológiája 2, p. 82, Elemér Mályusz, Kaiser Sigismund in Ungarn 1387–1437 (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1990), p. 182.

160

Chapter 5

The war between Elisabeth and Władysław put Gatalóci in an irresolvable situation. He was loyal to his mistress but had absolutely no desire to engage in her struggle with King Władysław. We have available a letter from Elisabeth’s Chaplain Wenceslas to the city of Bratislava, which we will discuss elsewhere, but we can here reveal that it is full of confidential information. Many people attempted to influence the queen through her chaplain, who was also her confessor. On 7 April 1441, Wenceslas wrote from Komárno, where he had accompanied Elisabeth, that Bishop Matthias of Veszprém had come to see him and in tears had begged for help, because he had been ordered by the Polish king to come to his castle in Veszprém by Palm Sunday (9 April). If he does not, his castles will be confiscated. The bishop felt great apprehension and dread, fearing violence against his person and the danger of death if he went to Veszprém.23 As we already know, he did not go, so Władysław conquered the castle in early May (although he probably did not seize it). He also conquered the bishop’s castle Sümeg, about 60 km south-west of Veszprém. We learn of the siege of Sümeg Castle from a source where we would not expect such information, namely from a register of requests (supplications) in the Archives of the Apostolic Penitentiary (Archivio di’Penitencieria Apostolica), which collects written sources from the activities of curial offices – Apostolic Penitentiary (Sacra Poenitentiaria Apostolica). Believers, clergy and laity alike, submitted requests “in matters of conscience” to this papal office, that is, requests for the forgiveness of the most serious sins, as well as dispensations from the most various trespasses towards canonical law, which were reserved for papal authority; thus, domestic priests or even local higher ecclesiastical authorities could not acquit or grant absolution for them. Believers from the Kingdom of Hungary also came with applications for the papal penitentiary. Unlike other registers of supplications filed directly in the papal office, where the applicants were mostly rulers and members of the aristocracy, the social composition of applicants addressing the papal penitentiary was much more varied. They were often ordinary pastors, burghers, lesser nobles, members of the lower clergy, the service population in castles and the like. The applications were recorded in registers called the “Registra matrimonialium et diversarum”, and these registers are an exceedingly valuable and information-rich source not only for the daily lives of medieval people, 23 AMB, no. 1772: “Signanter dominus Mathias olim cancellarius episcopus vesprimiensis lacrimando me petivit atque inter cetera dixit, quia vocarent ipsum ad castra sua et si infra hinc in diem dominicum palmarum non veniret extunc castra sua tradentur ad manus regis Polonie et multum auxius timet violacionem proprii corporis si illuc veniret imo periculum mortis etc.”

For Life and Death ( 1441 )

161

but also for a number of other areas of historical research. The individual cases logged in the penitentiary registers are a record of a colourful range of personal stories, sometimes tragic, sometimes with a happy ending. The registers of applications are in some cases written in great detail; they are literally a transcript of what the supplicant said upon submitting the application, often even containing direct speech. This is therefore a very lively and engaging source that allows us a glimpse into the everyday life at castles, especially in difficult and turbulent times. One such story played out at the previously mentioned bishop’s castle in Sümeg. At the time when the castle was conquered by the army of the Polish king, a priest named George was staying there, who encouraged the defenders of the castle not to give up, but to defend it and to fight. In his own words, he did not lift a weapon against the enemy or even throw anything out of the castle. Even so, he feared that someone would later accuse him of killing, because some of the enemies had indeed fallen while besieging the castle. For him, this would make him unable to serve as a priest; therefore, he wanted to make a statement of his innocence, a so-called declaration.24 Another case also comes from this same period. In a supplication submitted by Sebastian, a priest from a village in the Diocese of Veszprém, he tells of a captain of Queen Elisabeth and his Bohemian mercenaries, who settled in an unnamed castle. From there, on clear nights, they sent raids into the surrounding villages, where they robbed and murdered, not sparing women, children, orphans or clergymen. As a result, many residents left their houses and found refuge with a nobleman in a certain village, including the parish priest Sebastian, who hid there for six months, where he acted as chaplain to this nobleman. One night, when the Bohemians attacked, the nobles organised the defence of their own home and village. They managed to get back the loot that the Bohemians plundered and carried in twenty wagons, while killing five Bohemians in battle.25 A nearly identical supplication, dated on the same day and submitted by another pastor, George, is supplemented by the conquest of the mentioned castle, which George, as chaplain to the unnamed nobleman, had to take part in. Several warriors from the noble side died during the conquest, and when the rest saw that they would not conquer the castle, they burned at least the village that was closest to the castle.26 Both priests requested absolution in the penitentiary, because if they did not request this

24 AAV, Penitenziaria, Vol. 2bis, 322v. 25 AAV, Penitenziaria, Vol. 2bis, 212r. 26 AAV, Penitenziaria, Vol. 2bis, 212r–v.

162

Chapter 5

grace and continued to practice the priesthood, they would be automatically excommunicated. From the presented cases it can be see that in times of danger, people sought refuge in fortified manor houses, chateaux or castles of local nobles, or in the worst case, at least in the local church.27 From the several cases mentioned, it is clear how much the war affected the lives of many people, not just the fighters themselves. Members of the privileged classes and the inhabitants of the towns had at least this opportunity to find safety; ordinary peasants, the inhabitants of the villages and small towns had it much worse. They could find salvation only in fortified churches, but there, however, their enemies threatened to overrun them with fire. The ravaging of the countryside, the murdering of the civilian population, the burning of villages or looting with the intention of damaging the enemy’s property were the worst consequences of the war, but they also had a number of other indirect consequences on people’s lives. As we have seen, merely being at the site of a battle could deprive priests of their vocation. But even those who never made it to the battle or to a besieged castle had a hard time bearing the consequences of the war. Very often, for example, they had a problem with ordination, since two bishops from the two opposing sides were appointed in several places, and if there was only one bishop, he was unable to perform his duties due to the war. Novices waiting for ordination were thus in a difficult situation, which each had to deal with in his own way, and some even found the way at the cost of breaking the rules.

⸪

Sümeg Castle, which belonged to the Bishop of Veszprém, was likely defended by the castle garrison for its master, and King Władysław did not conquer it. Perhaps the charisma of the brave priest George also played a role. Despite minor setbacks, King Władysław’s military campaign in the winter and spring of 1441 can be considered victorious. Though it was not sufficient for a final victory, it shifted the balance of power in favour of Władysław. The chronicler John Długosz was disenchanted that the army did not push further into Upper Hungary and did not conquer Košice, Bardejov, Levoča, Kremnica and Prešov, which were held by John Jiskra. Although the original plans of Władysław’s side also counted on heading in this direction (let us recall the report by Niklas Horndl), they ultimately had to back away from this. According to the 27

For example, AAV, Penitenziaria, Vol. 5, 187v.

For Life and Death ( 1441 )

163

chronicler, this was due to the aversion of his Hungarian warriors, who were tired and were weary with the hardships of war.28 However, just a few sentences later, the chronicler claims the exact opposite: “The king’s departure from the battlefield after so many happy victories and successes was unfortunate for many Hungarian and Polish nobles. They bore it with difficulty that the king sent such a strong army home instead of leading it to the enemy, especially the Bohemians. Surrounded by the force of so many nations, he could have brought the rebellious towns to obedience and defeated all his enemies.”29 Władysław reportedly believed that Queen Elisabeth wanted to negotiate peace, and refrained from another fight. This is not entirely true. Władysław’s army did fight further, but without the personal participation of the monarch. At the beginning of July, Władysław’s side was preparing a major offensive against Košice, from where John Jiskra controlled a significant part of today’s Slovakia.30 Part of the king’s army was led into battle by Emeric Bubek of Plešivec, but the main commander of Władysław’s army was the mercenary captain John Čapek of Sány. Jiskra not only defended the city and inflicted great losses on the enemy; he also marched into the field. News of this success reached Bratislava in early September, from where city representatives sent it on to Vienna.31 John Jiskra himself informed the city of Vienna in detail about his success by letter of 18 September, and at the time of the dating the document he was already back in Košice.32 According to Jiskra, Čapek besieged Košice with the help of a wagon fort for many weeks, but in the end, with great damage and at the cost of the death of many fighters, he was forced to withdraw. If the besiegers had remained there for a few more days, there would be hardly anyone left to leave. Jiskra then

28 Dlugosz 12, p. 665. 29 Dlugosz 12, p. 666. 30 On 6 July 1441, Władysław freed from participation in the army, which at the time was called against Košice, “presentis exercitus contra Cassovienses instaurati”, a notary of the Royal Chancellery, whom he needed in the service of the Chancellery. MNL OL DL 97 181. On 24 August 1441, the king granted mercy to a certain nobleman who was sentenced to loss of property because he secretly and without permission left the current army against Košice, MNL OL DL 44 320. Regarding the summer campaign to Košice, see also Kartous, Habsbursko-jagelovské dvojvládie, pp. 240–41. 31 WStLA, nr. 2822, Uhlirz, Quellen zur Geschichte der Stadt Wien 2/2, p. 200, nr. 2822. In the letter of the Bratislavans, it is written that the enemy besieging Košice attacked the city fortifications, that Jiskra repulsed their attack, killing 200 enemies, capturing many and that others escaped by fleeing. Jiskra then marched himself into the field to stop the enemy; along with the infantry, he had 1800 good riders available. 32 WStLA, nr. 2826, Uhlirz, Quellen zur Geschichte der Stadt Wien 2/2, p. 201, nr. 2826.

164

Chapter 5

counterattacked, preventing Rajnold Rozgonyi from capturing the monastery in Vranov and forcing him to pay homage to the queen. Długosz’s disappointment at the result of the military campaign is therefore understandable. He thought that if the main army led by Władysław had supported the fighting in Upper Hungary, the result could have been different. The Polish chronicler was disillusioned not only by the results of the campaign, but also by the behaviour of the army. It was hard to take that soldier fighting in the midst of the pre-Easter period had broken the commanded strict fast: “In the war that Władysław was waging during the Great Lent, the king’s soldiers acted recklessly and shamefully when they ate a hare and died suddenly. Someone else committed a similar offence and devoured two eggs when he had sufficient other food, and on the spot he knocked over 20 fresh and whole eggs with the shell.”33 Dying in Władysław’s army was more a consequence of the beginning of the plague than God’s punishment for consuming a hare. At the time of his return to Buda, a plague epidemic was spreading in the Kingdom of Hungary, which lasted until the spring of the following year. In fact, it had appeared as early as 1440 in several areas of Hungary, such as Transylvania, where in some areas it reportedly wiped out up to two-thirds of the population and caused an acute labour shortage.34 In the summer of 1441, the plague was raging not only in central Hungary, but also on the periphery of the kingdom, such as in the Spiš region. The spread of the plague in this area is evidenced by a document from August 1441, which tells of a threat that due to excommunication for non-payment of tithes, plague victims will have to buried in the fields.35 It is evident from the sources that while people in the countryside died, those in the cities were many times more endangered. In the summer of 1441, King Władysław often left Buda for Csepel Island, not only to escape his duties and cheer himself up with hunting, but mainly to escape the plague. John Długosz wrote that “the plague spread throughout the summer, autumn and winter and did not calm down until the spring came. When the plague no longer stood in its way, there was again fierce fighting on both sides.”36

33 Dlugosz 12, p. 666. 34 Charter from 19 June 1440, MNL OL DL 55 213: “plaga pestilencia hominum in tantum regnavit quod vix tercia pars hominum remansit” and this caused a labour shortage for salt-mining. 35 MNL OL DL 39 738. 36 Dlugosz 12, p. 666.

For Life and Death ( 1441 )

165

The plague seems to have bypassed Bratislava and Queen Elisabeth’s court. We have no mention of a plague epidemic in Bratislava, but it is true that – to our great detriment – the city accounts from May 1441 to May 1442 are missing. One volume of the Kammerrechnungen must have been lost, because the third volume ends in April 1441 and the fourth begins in May 1442. This is a great shame, because so we lose a lot of literally first-hand information. Władysław’s troops conquered the city in early 1442, and we would have found a great many details in the accounts. What’s more, the queen returned to Bratislava in May 1441 and spent most of her time there. The city accounts would provide us with many answers to the question of what she was doing. The queen was in constant motion for months prior to arriving in Bratislava. As we already know, at the beginning of 1441 she was residing in Komárno, where she had moved from the endangered Esztergom. She was focusing her attention on completing her aim of depositing the town of Sopron with King Frederick. In early February she sent her ambassadors to him, and soon after she came to him in person. Before that, however, she managed to go to Devín to see Ban Ladislaus Garai. His mercenaries in Devín, who had made enemy raids on Austria, was a big problem that had greatly complicated her situation. Elisabeth’s journey to Devín must have taken place at great speed. On Tuesday, 7 February the Bratislava city councillors presented the queen’s courtmaster Ladislaus and the kitchen administrator (chef) Demeter with fish and wine, and the courtmaster also received a new saddle from the people of Bratislava.37 The following day, mayor Stephen Ranes travelled to Devín to see the queen,38 and the people of Bratislava also sent by boat for the queen the city’s favourite consideration: 200 buns.39 On Thursday, 8 February, they further gifted the queen’s chancellor with wine, and they shipped by boat to the queen in Devín a hunted deer and buns, but they did not find their mistress there.40 We know with relative exactness why the queen had come to Devín from a charter issued by King Frederick on 19 February. The Roman-German king informed the city of Vienna that Elisabeth had sent him a message because of Sopron, and he in turn because of the raids from Devín. At the time of its writing the queen was already with Frederick, and they were also dealing with Garai. Elisabeth assured the king that she had spoken to Ban Ladislaus in person, that he had promised to stop the attacks and that he would come with her 37 38 39 40

AMB K3, pp. 103, 104. AMB K3, p. 95. AMB K3, p. 473. Wine for the chancellor AMB K3, p. 10. Gifts for the queen in Devín, where she was no longer found AMB K3, pp. 238, 239.

166

Chapter 5

to Wiener Neustadt. In the end, Garai did not come with Elisabeth, as he feared for his safety; therefore, he first demanded a letter of safe conduct. When he received it, he, too, appeared before King Frederick. The bad luck for him was that during his stay in Wiener Neustadt, his mercenaries made another raid into Austria, this time reaching Fischamend, where they did enormous damage. They burned the town and the surrounding villages and murdered or kidnapped the inhabitants. This information so angered Frederick that he had Ban Ladislaus taken prisoner and sent to a castle (in the charter he writes to the people of Vienna that this was preceded by three days of discussions with Ladislaus, who refused to take responsibility for the damages and compensate for them). The monarch knew that more raids would follow, so he ordered representatives of Vienna to send a hundred infantry to defend the endangered Hainburg.41 The attacks of the Devín mercenaries on the Austrian side of the Danube did not stop, and the king had to send an army against them.42 The chronicler John Długosz also noted the news of Frederick’s imprisonment of Ladislaus Garai, i.e. Queen Elisabeth’s chief ally, with great satisfaction. He stated that Ladislaus was kept in a difficult dungeon for a long time and that his release was ultimately brought about by King Władysław, who went a great deal of effort and trouble to do so, while Garai had to pay Frederick a ransom of 70,000 florins for his release. It appears that Ban Ladislaus did indeed spend a relatively long time in the dungeon and that he was probably released only after the queen’s death, sometime between 1443 and 1444.43 Still in September 1442, he imploringly requested help from his place of imprisonment, Styria’s Phannberg Castle.44 The path to Ladislaus’s liberation was a long one, and not even the urgent pleas of Queen Elisabeth, of which we will speak again, helped. The reason for the attacks of the Devín mercenaries was unpaid wages. Others joined with Devín mercenaries, including the closest ally of Pongrác of Svätý Mikuláš, Ladislaus of Necpaly, the captain of Skalica. The city of Bratislava was disturbed by the movement of enemy troops and turned to 41 Elisabeth’s presence in Neustadt is documented as early as 16 February MNL OL DF 228 722. Letter of Frederick: WStLA, nr. 2773, Uhlirz, Quellen zur Geschichte der Stadt Wien 2/2, p. 190, nr. 2773. 42 WStLA, nr. 2774, nr. 2776, nr. 2779, Uhlirz, Quellen zur Geschichte der Stadt Wien 2/2, p. 190, nr. 2774, nr. 2776, p. 191, nr. 2779. 43 Dlugosz 12, p. 661. 44 Zichy 12, p. 194, MNL OL DL 80 769. The letter is addressed to Ladislaus Töttős of Bátmonostor, the royal treasurer who sided with King Władysław in 1441, and it would correspond to Długosz’s information that King Władysław was involved in the liberation of Ladislaus.

For Life and Death ( 1441 )

167

Bratislava Count Stephen Rozgonyi, who assured them that the ceasefire was still valid, that Ladislaus of Necpaly was preparing to move on to Austria, but the ceasefire with them was not affected.45 During her stay in Wiener Neustadt, Elisabeth fulfilled her plan to deposit the town of Sopron with Frederick. The queen’s chancellor, doctor Augustine Salánki, who was also a citizen of Sopron (in the second half of the 1440s, he achieved the rank of Bishop of Győr), prepared a pledge agreement on behalf of the queen on 25 February 1441. With it, the Roman-German king acquired Sopron for 8,000 gold.46 On the same day, the town’s representatives paid tribute to him as their new master.47 Several days after, on 3 March, Jacob Löffler, a messenger from Bratislava, wrote about the depositing of Sopron in a letter from Wiener Neustadt.48 We know from the city accounts that he took a trip on 27 February, travelling on horseback. He was not in a carriage and no provisions were packed for him, so in this case he was just a messenger, not an ambassador.49 In order for the queen to give him an audience, he was provided with a letter of credentials from the city officials. On 3 March, he wrote that he had handed the letter to the queen, that she had received it amicably and promised him a reply and urgent equipping.50 Of value for us are the parts of the letter that inform about the depositing of Sopron. Although the official from Sopron had already promised fealty and obedience to the new lord, on the day of the deposit, 25 February, according to Jacob Löffler’s testimony, they were not in the least reconciled to the situation. The people of Sopron told him that the queen had deposited their town with King Frederick for a large sum of money and the same could also happen to Bratislava. “Representatives of Sopron are here now and want to protest and prevent this from happening, because they are one of seven (free royal) towns and do not want to be separated from the Holy Crown,” Jacob wrote, adding that the Bratislavans should think about this danger, and perhaps they will be able to prevent this from happening in advance. The deposit charters were already issued regarding Sopron, Löffler said.51 45 46 47 48 49 50 51

MNL OL DF 250 460. MNL OL DF 287 157, DF 258 231. MNL OL DF 287 158, DF 258 230. AMB, no. 1754. AMB K3, p. 372. Which she did on 5 March, though the reply was a negative, AMB, no. 1755. AMB, no. 1754: “Item auch las ich ewr weishait wissen, daz mir die von Odenburg gesagt haben, wie vnser gnedige Fraw Ir stat Odenburg vmb ein grosse Summe gelts dem Romischen Konig verseczt hab vnd sey auch des willen Prespurg auch zu verseczen, nu sind die von Odenburg hie vnd wellen das widersprechen vnd vndersten, daz das nicht geschehe, wann

168

Chapter 5

The depositing of Sopron to King Frederick sparked outrage among the Hungarian magnates who were accompanying King Władysław on a military campaign. On 14 March, from a military camp beneath Márványkő Castle, they issued a letter addressed to the town of Sopron with a strong protest and an order not to admit or extradite any foreigners into or out of the town. The punishment that the people of Sopron would suffer if they handed over the town to Frederick or his people was appalling: the magnates referred to an “issued law confirmed by a decree” that would make it possible to punish every single inhabitant of Sopron anywhere in the country with the loss of their head. “And we and the whole kingdom will annihilate you to the point of complete destruction,” promised the sixteen appointed prelates and barons, who wrote the charter.52 For the people of Sopron, this meant that if anyone left the gates of their city, they could be sentenced to death and executed. We can no longer imagine it today, but in the Middle Ages, collective guilt did indeed apply, and a whole community, family or society, often to pay for someone’s guilt. Queen Elisabeth thus put the people of Sopron in a very difficult situation, with which – as is evident from Jacob Löffler’s letter – they fundamentally disagreed with. The second valuable information in the letter from the Bratislava messenger relates to the peace negotiations with the Polish side. John Długosz informs about the offer of peace negotiations, too. Władysław allegedly ended the military expedition prematurely because he believed Elisabeth’s proposal for peace negotiations.53 Löffler’s letter confirms this information: Elisabeth reportedly sent letters of safe conduct to the Polish king’s ambassadors and spokesmen: Eger Bishop Simon, Palatine Laurence Hédervari, Nicholas of Ilok and three Polish courtiers, in total for 300 persons and horses for the whole month of March for negotiations in Sopron or Eisenstadt. War fatigue was already showing on both sides, and ideas about making peace emerged in both camps. In several places, the warring sides came to at sy der Siben stet ayne sind vnd wellen sich von der heiligen Cron nicht tailen lassen. Darumb tue ich ewr weishait, das zewissen, daz sich ewr weishait darauff bey zeiten bedenken vnd villeicht vndersten mag, wann Ir noch nicht versaczt seyt aber uber Odenburg nu brieff ausgangen sind.” 52 Nagy, Sopron vármegye 2, no. 173, p. 301. This is also information about which magnates took part in the ongoing military expedition: the bishop of Eger and chancellor Simon Rozgonyi, Csanad Bishop Peter, Palatine Laurence Hédervári, Vaivoda od Transylvania Nicholas of Ilok, former Vaivoda of Transylvania Michael Jakcz of Kusala, Royal Treasurer Michael Ország of Gút, the Marshall Simon Palóci, Simon Cudar of Olnód, Emeric of Kanizsa, Paul Bánfi of Lindava, Stephen and Dietrich Pohárnok of Brezovica, Mauricius de Zdench (?), Nicholas of Várda, Ákos of Čop (Csapi). 53 Dlugosz 12, p. 666.

For Life and Death ( 1441 )

169

least a temporary separate peace, such as the armistice agreement concluded in March 1441 by Nógrád Count Ladislaus Szécsényi and Heves Count, Paul Kompolt, with Elisabeth’s captain from Zvolen, Hašek Schellendorf and the Central Slovak mining towns, including Kremnica. Elisabeth’s castles in Zvolen County – Zvolen, Šášov, Ľupča, Dobrá Niva – were also included in the armistice, which was to last until the Feast Day of St. John (24 June).54 We don’t know how Elisabeth received this separate ceasefire, nor to what extent she was willing to make concessions in the case of peace negotiations with the Polish side. Given that the attempted negotiation ended in complete collapse, it is likely that nothing changed in Elisabeth’s position, despite the original initiative. It seems that Długosz was close to the truth when he claimed that this was more a tactic on the part of Elisabeth to gain time. Elisabeth travelled from Wiener Neustadt to Sopron55 and from there to Bratislava, where she arrived on Saturday, 11 March. The townspeople honoured her with pike and carp on the day of her arrival, as it was the period of the Lent.56 On Monday, 13 March, the queen issued a charter, by which she left to the people of Bratislava, out of thanks for their faithful service and as compensation for damages, all the fees that the Jews of Bratislava will pay to the royal treasury for ten years.57 The people of Bratislava thanked the queen, and on Sunday, 19 March, they organised a feast in the garden of one of the burghers, which was attended by the queen and her ladies and servants. The queen’s chancellor (responsible for issuing the charter) even received a gilded goblet from city officials that day.58 The surroundings of Bratislava were very dangerous at that time due to the mercenaries from Devín and their allies; thus, spies, night guards and mentions of great unrest again appear in the accounts. Only the day before the queen’s arrival in Bratislava, one fisherman spent the entire night on guard, on a boat on the Danube and on the shore, because a report had reached the city that the enemies would “come by water”.59 On 12 March, when Queen Elisabeth was already in the city, the Bratislavans sent guards to castle hill, “when bad reports about enemies arrived”.60

54 MNL OL DF 276 215 (HHStA). Confirmed on 9 October in Szécsény, extended to Hont County MNL OL DF 249 795. 55 She dated a charter in Sopron on 8 March, AMBard, no. 376. 56 AMB K3, p. 105. 57 AMB, no. 1758. 58 AMB K3, pp. 105, 106. 59 AMB K3, p. 258. 60 AMB K3, p. 259.

170

Chapter 5

It is possible that the tumultuous situation around Bratislava forced Elisabeth to again move to the safety of Komárno. Some of her Hungarian servants departed on Sunday, 19 March, and the queen herself left the following day. At the city’s expense a waggoner with three horses carried her things to the Danube, from where she travelled by boat.61 Several days later, the mayor and councillors also went to Komárno to see the queen, but they chose to travel by carriage, properly equipped with supplies. Since it was the time of fasting, the lords brought olive oil, buns, vinegar, fresh ginger, cloves and practical things, like candles, ropes and the like.62 We also know, thanks to the account books, that they stayed in Komárno for exactly one week. Since the Easter season was approaching, the queen needed a confessor, who was typically one of the chaplains from her court. Several chaplains worked in her service. In 1441 one named Jorig, of whom nothing is known, was with her in Bratislava.63 The elected Bishop of Nitra, Ladislaus of Štítnik, was also one of Elisabeth’s chaplains.64 In the spring of 1441, another of her chaplains, the priest Wenceslas, was also present in Bratislava. He is a very interesting character, so we will stop and look at him for a moment. The priest and chaplain Wenceslas, who was close to the queen in 1441, is most likely identical to her former chancellor Wenceslas. We have no proof of this, but it more or less follows from the context of the information available. Wenceslas had previously worked as chancellor in the service of Elisabeth’s mother, Queen Barbara. He served in Barbara’s office continuously from 1432, first as her vice-chancellor (1432–1434), and from March 1434 as chief chancellor.65 In December 1435, Wenceslas issued a charter at Turňa Castle, where he not only acted as the queen’s chancellor, but also as a provost of the Esztergom Collegiate Chapter at the Church of St. Thomas.66 Wenceslas also accompanied his mistress on a journey to the Bohemian Kingdom in 1436, was certainly involved in her coronation as the Bohemian queen, and was close to the royal 61 AMB K3, pp. 264, 374. 62 AMB K3, p. 96. The olive oil that the mayor took with him when they went to Komárno was purchased from a certain woman named Thomanyn. AMB K3, p. 301. Elisabeth dated charters in Komárno on 27 March MNL OL DL 94 970, 31 March, AMB, no. 1767, 5 April MNL OL DF 289 254. 63 AMB K3, p. 269. On 31 March, 1441, the city paid him 1 pound of Viennese denarii as a “zerung”. 64 Documented as chaplain in 1442, MNL OL DL 44 333. Elected Bishop of Nitra means that he had not yet been appointed by the pope. 65 Vice-chancellor: MNL OL DF 249 982 (29 September 1432), MNL OL DL 15 681 (15 February 1434). Chancellor: MNL OL DF 249 913 (3 March 1434). 66 MNL OL DF 212 980.

For Life and Death ( 1441 )

171

couple until Sigismund’s death in Znojmo in December 1437.67 After the fall of Queen Barbara, he rapidly adapted and from 1438 acted as vice-chancellor and secretary of Queen Elisabeth,68 becoming a secretary that Elisabeth trusted exceptionally, to the extent that she even gave him her seal. In doing this, she definitively antagonised the Bishop of Veszprém, Simon Rozgonyi, who, due to his rank, was supposed to be the queen’s chancellor, as we have already discussed in one of the previous chapters. The offended bishop even turned with a complaint to King Albert, but unsuccessfully, and the seal remained in the hands of Wenceslas, who shortly afterwards became Elisabeth’s chancellor.69 Then for a time, Chancellor Wenceslas is lost from the sources (we know that in 1440 he was chancellor for Bishop Peter Agmandi, in 1441 Augustine Salánki), and only in the spring of 1441 did the priest Wenceslas, who stayed with the queen in Bratislava and subsequently in Komárno, reappear in the immediate vicinity of Queen Elisabeth. He left Bratislava a little later than Elisabeth, on 2 April, and on the same day he was paid money to provision the queen’s trip to Komárno.70 Several days later, the people of Bratislava sent their messenger to Komárno with a letter for the Archbishop of Esztergom, who, however, was not to deliver it to the place, but to hand it to Wenceslas in Komárno. Wenceslas received the letter and forwarded it to Esztergom, informing the people of Bratislava of this on 7 April and adding it to all the news that had taken place in Komárno.71 On the day the priest Wenceslas reached Komárno, Count Sigismund Frangepan (Sigismundus comes de Croacia) also arrived there, whom the queen shortly before had sent as her ambassador to Ulrich of Rožmberk and to the February assembly of the Bohemian Estates in Prague.72 The count brought 67 RI 11, nr. 11305a, State Regional Archive in Třeboň, Historica no. 376, no. 386, Blažena Rynešová, ed., Listář a listinář Oldřicha z Rožmberka, 1. 1418–1437 (Prague: Nákladem Ministerstva školství a národní osvěty, 1929), Vol. 2. 1438–1444. (Prague: Nákladem Ministerstva školství a národní osvěty, 1932), 1, pp. 212, 223. 68 He appears as the relator on a charter issued by Elisabeth on 2 April 1438 in Buda: “Relatio magistri Venceslai prepositi beati Thome Martiris de promontorio Strigoniensi secretari Reginalis Maiestati”, MNL OL DL 13 170. Other mentions of Wenceslas on 26 June 1438 MNL OL DF 268 757. As the queen’s chancellor in September 1438 MNL OL DF 200 450. 69 MNL OL DF 200 450. 70 AMB K3, p. 99 (in the entry as Wenczlav Pfaff). 71 AMB, no. 1772. 72 The queen in Komárno issued a letter of credential to Sigismund, Count of Krk, Modruša and Senj, in Komárno on 22 January 1441, Rynešová, Listář a listinář 2, no. 112, p. 90, DF 289 251, A Frangepán család oklevéltára. Codex diplomaticus comitum de Frangepanibus, 1, eds. Lajos Thallóczy and Samu Barabás. Monumenta Hungariae historica, Diplomataria, 38 (Budapest: A Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, 1910), p. 331.

172

Chapter 5

good news from Prague: the Bohemians, Moravians and Silesians are united in accepting King Ladislaus as their ruler and are willing to submit to Queen Elisabeth. Together with the Austrian magnates, they want together to elect a guardian who would represent the king in all four countries. The final decision is to be made at the assembly in Vienna, which is planned for the Feast Day of St. George (24 April) and the queen greatly desires to go there. The chaplain further wrote that he guesses that the queen will move from Komárno on the following Monday (the letter is written on a Friday) and will spend the Easter holidays with them in Bratislava. He warns the Bratislavans to provide a sufficient amount of fish, because the queen, if the people she has summoned in her charters come to her, will arrive in Bratislava before Palm Sunday (that is, still at the time of fasting, when fish in particular was consumed). Then a part of the letter follows in which the chaplain speaks very openly about the fact that the queen’s blind struggle, which she is leading even at the cost of the country’s complete devastation, has caused ever-growing concern even among her loyal adherents. Although he was Elisabeth’s chaplain and probably quite close to her, he had no illusions about his mistress. According to Wenceslas, the queen’s forces had plundered the surroundings of Buda, committing great looting, killing people and depopulating the wine-growing areas around the city. Many of the queen’s leading and most well-known people had implored him to lead her during confession to not permit the Kingdom of Hungary to continue to be so devastated. In the letter, Elisabeth’s chaplain also touched on her stubbornness; according to his word, she at that time had a messenger from the Polish king asking for a letter of safe conduct (salvus conductus) for himself and his barons, because the king wants to discuss a common agreement with her face to face. The queen, however, flatly rejected this, so the foremost members of her court had informed him. They also asked the chaplain to move her and lead her to end the fighting and to choose the path of harmony and friendly agreement. Wenceslas also writes about the Bishop of Veszprém, Matthias Gatalóci, whom the queen had put into an irresolvable situation, as we have already mentioned. The Veszprém bishop confided in Wenceslas not only with the fear of returning to his castle, as Władysław had demanded of him under an ultimatum, but he also interpreted to the priest the queen’s wish that Wenceslas make her a confessor: “There is still much to write, but the departure of the messenger limits me. The queen has detained me and through Lord Matthias instructed me to join the court for at least one year, because she has not confessed for a long time and this neglect can hardly be replaced in a year, but I resist; I will write the reasons to your envoy returning from Esztergom.”

For Life and Death ( 1441 )

173

Chaplain Wenceslas, as he titled himself in the letter, is almost certainly identical to Elisabeth’s former chancellor Wenceslas. The very content of the letter also testifies to Wenceslas’s important position, despite his modest title: the most important members of the queen’s court addressed him and he had reports literally first hand. The title of chaplain to the king and queen was often an honorary one, and the chaplains did not really stay in the court, which is perhaps why the queen asked Wenceslas to join her court for a year. Although Wenceslas had no interest in becoming the queen’s confessor, he did so, as the Bratislava city accounts show us. On 29 April, there is a record in the chamber book that two men escorted Wenceslas to the Lower Port when he travelled to see the queen in Komárno to hear her confession.73 Being a royal confessor must have been a very thankless task. It is hard to imagine that the priest would not grant the queen absolution, because this would complicate the situation of the entire country. Even in the case of grave sins, the absolving of which was reserved for the pope, rulers had an exception. In their case, a bishop could grant absolution even in the case of such grievous sins, because a trip to Rome and absence from the country would negatively affect other people. In the summer of 1441, Elisabeth asked the pope for permission to freely select a confessor, who then acquired extensive powers: he could grant her absolution in the event of any sin (even those reserved for a bishop) and liberate her from excommunication and interdiction. The pope granted the queen’s request on 26 August 1441; therefore, it is possible that the queen’s supplication was directly related to Chaplain Wenceslas.74 She also received permission from the pope to use a portable altar, to have Mass served before dawn and do so in places of interdiction. In such cases, the rites had to take place behind closed doors, in a low voice and with no ringing of bells. It is of interest that the queen also requested that the fast be relaxed by allowing the consumption of dairy products. Unlike many applicants, she was not interested in the opportunity to eat meat. She apparently liked fish, evidence of which is ultimately in the Bratislava city accounts.75 Thus, the priest Wenceslas did not have an easy task. Although significant member of the queen’s court implored him to guide her to stopping the 73 AMB K3, p. 376. 74 Teleki, Hunyadiak kora 10, p. 102, MNL OL DF 287 174 (HHStA). 75 Both requests Lukcsics, A XV. Századi pápák oklevelek 2, no. 735, p. 200. On 2 December, the Archbishop of Esztergom, Dionysius Szécsi, also permitted the queen to freely elect a confessor for one year. The confessor could have granted her absolution for all the sins against God from which she confessed, even those reserved for the bishop. At the same time, a portable altar was permitted, Teleki, Hunyadiak kora 10, p. 11, MNL OL DF 258 232.

174

Chapter 5

violence in the kingdom, this role was probably beyond his power. Several period sources testify to the rumours of the cruelty of Elisabeth’s forces, and we already know from the previous narration that reports of the murder of civilians by the queen’s mercenaries had reached the Vatican.76 It becomes clear from other sources, documents and letters that Elisabeth had in her service several people of a very dubious nature who also caused consternation in the society of the time, where violence and killing were everyday realities, for example, even legally when enforcing the law. Let us recall Andrew Botos, killed at Cikador, who for many years after his death was known as a cruel man, or Nicholas Ördög of Prodavíz, another follower of Elisabeth, who was of a similar stamp. The Hungarian attribute Ördög, or “devil”, which was born not only by him but also by his father, was not given to members of the family by accident. In June 1439, King Albert confirmed a sentence that had already been handed down of beheading for Nicholas, and donated his confiscated Đurđevac Castle to Ban Matko of Talovac. The crimes for which Nicholas was convicted were genuinely diabolical: he had a noblewoman and her servant’s eyes burned with a hot iron; another nobleman was burned with his sister, who was in the ninth month of pregnancy. The savage description of how the woman’s abdomen burst under the heat and the child fell into the fire is only for those of a strong nature.77 For people of Nicholas’s making, the war was a great opportunity. Since Matko of Talovac, the new owner of his castle, was Elisabeth’s arch enemy, Nicholas entered the queen’s service and was shortly after rewarded for doing so.78 And so we will not be far from the truth by stating that Elisabeth was willing to join with anyone, and this may also be one of the reasons why some of her followers from among the ranks of Hungarian magnates lost their desire to continue fighting for her in the spring of 1441 and sought every way possible to compel the queen into peace negotiations. Several of them completely abandoned the queen, including some of her closest relatives, the Counts of Cilli, who definitively reconciled with King Władysław and swore allegiance to him. King Władysław also took an oath: on 19 April 1441, he swore an oath on the cross and on relics in a military camp near the town of Szombathely in the presence of plenipotentiaries of the Counts of Cilli that he recognises them as genuine and legitimate members of the Crown of the Kingdom of Hungary and his loyal subjects, to whom he

76 AAV, Penitenziaria, Vol. 2bis, 212r. 77 MNL OL DF 258 226. 78 MNL OL DL 44 303.

For Life and Death ( 1441 )

175

will grant favour and against whom he renounces any hostility.79 Elisabeth was still counting on the military support of Frederick of Cilli at the beginning of July, but in vain, as the Cillis focused only on defending their own properties.80 Further testimony of the deteriorating relationship between the Counts of Cilli and Queen Elisabeth is an unpleasant incident that played out in Vienna at this same time. Ulrich of Cilli sent his servant to Vienna to purchase spears and helmets for him. The Viennese, with whom Elisabeth had very good relations, refused to allow Ulrich’s servant to export the purchased weapons and helmets from the city. The outraged Cilli wrote a letter to the Viennese dated 28 July in Varaždin, in which he also mentioned his services demonstrated to Elisabeth in the past: “It has never occurred to us before that you would create such obstacles for us. Because we needed it in the service of our Lady Queen, which we provided to her that year when we greatly supported her and accompanied her as she left Hungary. And you have so unkindly prevented us from doing this, and we always expected something better from you. Perhaps we will find a metalworker in Cilli who will make sufficient helmets for us so that we do not have to turn to you for such help.”81 Ulrich is referring here to the year when he accompanied the Queen from Hungary, which undoubtedly meant the dramatic journey from Székesfehérvár to Győr in 1440.82 The queen usually ensured the free export of weapons purchased in Vienna in advance by a letter of safe conduct addressed to the city officials. In October 1441, she wrote thus on behalf of John Jiskra, who at that time was also the captain of Košice and Spiš, who sent his servant to buy saltpetre in Vienna for the production of gunpowder, weapons and other necessary items.83 The fact that the Viennese did not permit Cilli to export weapons only confirms that the purchase of the weapons had nothing to do with the queen. The situation at the start of the summer of 1441 did not appear very optimistic for Elisabeth. Perhaps she did not know of the loss of support from the 79 MNL OL DF 258 347 (HHStA), MNL OL DF 287 161 (HHStA). A part of the reconciliation was a number of specific agreements from 19 to 21 April, see MNL OL DF 287 162 (HHStA), DF 258 346 (HHStA), DL 67 807, DF 287 163 (HHStA). 80 On 8 July she wrote to the town of Kremnica that Frederick of Cilli was preparing a military campaign to support her, MNL OL DF 249 990. 81 WStLA, nr. 2810. 82 In the 15th century, the name Hungary, the Hungarian landscape (Ungerland) sometimes referred to only the territory of central Hungary, i.e. of today’s Hungary, not the entire Kingdom of Hungary. For more, see Daniela Dvořáková, “The Chronicle of Ulrich Richental as an Exceptional Source for the History of Slovakia,” in Historický časopis 58 (2010) Supplement, pp. 19–20. 83 WStLA Hauptarchiv nr. 2839.

176

Chapter 5

Cillis at the time and for some time after continued to count on their help, but the imprisonment of Ban Ladislaus Garai was an immediate and palpable injury. Another hard blow to the queen’s authority was the release of Emeric Marcali from the captivity of Prince Albert VI. Marcali had been imprisoned by the queen on the request of Ulrich of Cilli back in 1440, when he returned from the Polish king with Matko of Talovac. His release was clear evidence that since removal of the guardian rights over Ladislaus some tension remained in Elisabeth’s relationship with Albert.84 On 30 May 1441, King Władysław himself and Marcali’s close friend (and former fellow prisoner) Matko of Talovac secured the release of Emeric from the captivity of the Roman-German king. Both guaranteed with large sums (the king 50,000 florins and the Talovaci 20,000 florins) that the released Emeric Marcali would come to the great hall of Forchtenstein Castle at Christmas on 25 December to meet the conditions of the release.85 But let us return to Queen Elisabeth. In addition to Cilli, her closest supporters gradually fell away from her in the summer of 1441. Even the unshakeably faithful Ladislaus Töttős of Bátmonostor, who fought alongside Ladislaus Garai in the battle of Cikador and saved his life by fleeing with him,86 began in May to negotiate a peace with King Władysław.87 One month later, he was completely reconciled with the monarch, and Władysław returned all the property he had confiscated from him. Since up to then Ladislaus Töttős had fought on the other side and his confiscated property already had new owners, King Władysław had to issue several letters of safe conduct for him. Palatine Laurence Hédervári even recognised him as an adoptive brother and promised

84 Durst, Königin Elisabeth 2, p. 2. 85 Władysław’s charter: Chmel, Materialien 1, p. 16, Nr. 323, MNL OL DF 287 165. Charter of Matko Talovac: Teleki, Hunyadiak kora 10, pp. 97–99, Chmel, Materialien 1, p. 16, Nr. 323, MNL OL DF 287 166. Both guaranteed with their assets, which were encumbered by a mortgage for the given amounts (ypotetica). 86 A deed of donation of King Władysław I for Ladislaus of Marot from 2 February 1441 tells of his participation, MNL OL DL 71 964, as does as a deed of donation for John Hunyadi from 8 October 1441, CDP 4, no. 242, p. 329. 87 On 13 May 1441, Władysław addressed a mandate to the nobles besieging Máré Castle belonging to Ladislaus Töttős, who at that time came to Buda to negotiate peace. The monarch provided him with a letter of safe conduct, but Töttős’s enemies took advantage of his absence in Máré and tried to conquer the castle, in which his wife and children remained, which the monarch had strictly forbade them to do. MNL OL DL 80 759, Zichy 9, no. 35, p. 37. A similar mandate was given by the King to Tolna County, MNL OL DL 80 758, Zichy 9, no. 34, p. 35.

For Life and Death ( 1441 )

177

him all-round support.88 On the order of the king, the Vaivoda of Transylvania and Ban of Mačva Nicholas of Ilok personally took on the protection of Töttős’s underage children and sisters.89 Despite the protection of the king and influential magnates, the situation for Ladislaus Töttős remained difficult, as reconciliation with former antagonists after so many battles and injustices was not easy. At times Ladislaus even refused to travel for fear of his enemies.90 Despite his leaving the queen’s camp, he continued to maintain close contact with some of her supporters and later carefully looked into whether a possible return to her side would be possible.91 Another important supporter who left Elisabeth in May 1441 and swore allegiance to Władysław was her Vaivode of Transylvania, Dessew of Lučenec.92 An even more serious loss was that of Serbian despot Đurađ Branković. The queen reassured the town of Kremnica at the beginning of July that her affairs were on a good path: she could count not only on the help of King Frederick or her relative Frederick of Cilli, who intends to undertake two military campaigns for her, but also with the help of Đurađ Branković, who is coming to country with large armies to fight for it.93 The queen’s optimism was not very appropriate. The Serbian despot at that time had long be negotiating peace with King Władysław. On 6 June the monarch issued a charter in Buda, by which he returned confiscated property to Đurađ Branković. As the charter states, he considered the Serbian despot to be unfaithful in the past, but now as he awaits his arrival at his court, he is returning his properties to him, because in fact Đurađ has never done anything against the monarch and has always remained faithful to him.94 Although this is in strict contrast to all of Władysław’s previous charters confiscating Đurađ’s property, the alliance now suited both the despot and the king, because the Turkish attacks on the southern border had intensified. 88 MNL OL DL 88 173, Zichy 9, no. 28, p. 28, MNL OL DL 80 748, Zichy 9, p. 32, no. 31, MNL OL DL 88 175, DL 88 176, Zichy 9, no. 34, p. 35. 89 MNL OL DL 88 175, Zichy 9, no. 33, p. 34. 90 Zichy 12, no. 151, p. 193, MNL OL DL 80 735. 91 Zichy 12, no. 133, p. 194. 92 As Elisabeth’s supporter and enemy of King Władysław: MNL OL DL 27 303, DL 55 236. On 16 May 1441, King Władysław issued a charter confirming to Dessew all the donations given to him by Queen Elisabeth as compensation for unpaid salary in the amount of 11,830 florins, because Dessew was the most recent to promise him obedience and take an oath of allegiance, MNL OL DF 253 704. Order for the leading to gifted property MNL OL DL 27 304. 93 MNL OL DF 249 990. The queen added that she is also able to find enough fighters from Bohemia and Moravia. 94 MNL OL DL 39 817.

178

Chapter 5

The Bishop of Veszprém eventually joined Władysław, too; he did not have the courage to do so in April, but in September he was now dating a charter in Buda and in the period that followed acted as Władysław’s proxy.95 Likewise, Esztergom Archbishop Dionysius Szécsi also left Elisabeth’s side and focused his energy on mediating peace. In September 1441, he led peace talks with Elisabeth as a Deputy of King Władysław.96 The queen at first reacted with anger; she confiscated his archbishop’s tithes and had them collected for herself, but after personal negotiations with Dionysius Szécsi, she restored some confiscated revenues to his income and their relationship stabilised.97 Perhaps Elisabeth understood that the archbishop was not her enemy but was looking for a way out of an exhausting, never-ending war, while still respecting her son’s rights. The relationship between Elisabeth and King Frederick, who refused to hand over her children and the Hungarian crown, did not develop very promisingly. With this aim, in early June 1441 Elisabeth travelled to Vienna, where she took part in the Austrian assembly. This had to have been one of the most humiliating experiences of the queen’s entire life. She arrived to a city where she had spent the greater part of her life as a ruler. She had first come to Vienna as a twelve-year-old girl, who on 3 May 1422 was married to Duke Albert V of Austria.98 As the first lady of the Austrian principality, she had a right to the highest of honours; she lived in the prince’s residence in Hofburg and maintaining lively contact with city officials. In June 1441, Elisabeth came to Vienna not only as the Austrian ducheness, but also as the Hungarian queen. We would expect her to have lived directly in the Hofburg, where she would be received with all the honours of a crowned queen. The Counts of Cilli also had a palace in Vienna and could have provided the queen with hospitality.99 Nevertheless, Elisabeth looked for a house where 95 MNL OL DL 92 929. Bishop Matthias appears as one of the guarantors of King Władysław on the letter of safe conduct for Elisabeth of 17 August 1442, which was to guarantee her safety during the peace negotiations. Teleki, Hunyadiak kora 10, p. 118. 96 MNL OL DL 44 321. 97 On 6 September 1441, the queen wrote to Vienna that she would collect this year’s tithe for the needs of her court; therefore, she sent her servant to Vienna to buy 200 chests for this purpose. She asked the city representatives to help him and let him export the purchased vats from the city WStLA, nr. 2823, Uhlirz, Quellen zur Geschichte der Stadt Wien 2/2, no. 2823, p. 200. 98 Duke Albert notified the town of Sopron about the wedding by a letter dated 3 May 1422, in which he announced that his wedding to Elisabeth had taken place that day, see Házi, Sopron 1/2, p. 219. 99 Amalienburg, today a part of the Hofburg, Neue Burg or Amalientrakt. At the time, when the owners were the Cillis (1356–1456), it was called Pfannbergsche Haus (Pfannenbergerhof, Pfannbergerhof) and was located on the Schauflergasse.

For Life and Death ( 1441 )

179

she could reside somehow with dignity. She wrote a letter from Bratislava on 29 May to Viennese burgher and wealthy merchant Henry Heiden, asking whether there would be a nice house with a suitable location among his houses, where she could be appropriately accommodated. At the same time, she asked him to find an inn for the Bratislava mayor, the Burghermaster and council members so that they would not be far from away from her.100 The queen ultimately found a house in Vienna. She stayed in the so-called Prague House (Praghaus) not far from the Church of St. Rupert. This house had belonged to Austrian dukes since the beginning of the 15th century, and they used it as an inn and occasionally as a prison for prominent captives. It was in this house that the Bohemian King Wenceslas IV had been interned in 1402, when he was captured by his younger brother Sigismund of Luxembourg and delivered to the Austrian duke Albert IV to be guarded. King Wenceslas managed to escape from Vienna in disguise, however, when he took advantage of the inattention of the guards during the St. Martin’s day celebrations. Since then, the house had been called Little Prague or the Prague House.101 On Whitsun Sunday, 4 June, Queen Elisabeth appeared before King Frederick and the deputies assembled at the Augustinerkirche in Hofburg and delivered her speech. For the queen it must have been very painful that this was on the same holiday as when her infant son’s coronation as the King of Hungary with the crown of St. Stephen exactly one year before. She now stood as a supplicant before a gathering of men, whom she attempted to persuade in every way possible that the king return the children and the crown, or at least relocate them to a place where she would have some influence and be able to visit them. King Frederick was unable to even listen to Elisabeth’s speech attentively; it was said to be too long for him, so he asked her to deliver it to him in writing. The queen did so, and as a result we know what she spoke about before the monarch and the assembled estates.102 First of all, she asked Frederick to send her children, Ladislaus and Elisabeth, together with the Hungarian royal crown, to one of the Austrian castles that belonged to her son. Frederick kept the boy in Wiener Neustadt, which in the Middle Ages was in Styria, not Austria. Even the chronicler Thomas Ebendorfer stated with indignation that Frederick did not permit the boy to be placed near the border with the Kingdom of Hungary and did not allow him to visit Vienna, but only alternately moved him between Wiener Neustadt

100 WStLA, nr. 2805, Uhlirz, Quellen zur Geschichte der Stadt Wien 2/2, no. 2805, p. 197. 101 Peter Csendes and Ferdinand Oppl, Wien im Mittelalter. Zeitzeugnisse und Analysen (Vienna/Cologne: Böhlau, 2021), p. 95. 102 Text published by Kollar, Analecta Monumentorum 2, pp. 915–24.

180

Chapter 5

and Graz.103 Elisabeth was aware that her cause was losing support in Hungary in part because the king was not in the country, and it became increasingly difficult for her to fight for the interests of the pretender “from abroad”.104 The time that little Ladislaus spent outside the Kingdom of Hungary added to the popularity of King Władysław. The queen’s second request was for King Frederick to personally come to a meeting in Hainburg, where negotiations were to continue. The third was that the queen asked Frederick to release the captured Ban Ladislaus Garai. This part of the queen’s speech was very emotional. She referred to Ban Ladislaus as her friend and appealed to Frederick to free him, because his captivity is harming both her and her son, an unfortunate widow and an orphan. Elisabeth claimed that King Władysław had already occupied most of the castles belonging to the captured ban, leaving him with only the last four or five castles, and that he would soon lose these, too. How would he then be able to pay the ransom if he had no property left, the queen asked. He will only be able to pay with his body. Elisabeth tried to convince the king that he could also harm himself with the long captivity of Ban Ladislaus, because he would not pay a ransom. She guaranteed that Ladislaus would pay for all damages; she would see to it personally. Elisabeth also devoted a large part of her speech denigrating her enemy, King Władysław. It is possible that at that time she already had news that Władysław had contacted King Frederick and that they were negotiating together.105 Therefore, she tried to portray the Polish king in the worst light: not only was he crowned with an invalid crown “against God,” but he was a king of pagan origin; his ancestors were unbelievers, and therefore he himself associated with pagans and unbelievers. It was he who had summoned the Turks to Hungary. Elisabeth also reached back in time to touch on sensitive wounds in the relationship of the Habsburgs and Jagiellonians: Władysław’s father humiliated and insulted Prince William of Habsburg by stealing his wife and expelling him from the country.106 Elisabeth’s husband Albert reportedly could never forget this insult and he did not want to marry any of his daughters to Poland or make friends with the Polish king. 103 Ebendorfer, Chronica Austriae, p. 413: “Hic tamen serenissimus infans neque ad fines Ungarie venire permissus est, sed neque Wiennam, prout ardenter sitivit, meruit invisere …” 104 Haller, Friedrich III. und die Stephanskrone, p. 104. 105 On 29 April, King Władysław wrote to Dorothy, widow of Ladislaus of Kanizsa, that she provide armed escort to his ambassador, Chancellor John Koniecpolski, returning from King Frederick, MNL OL DL 13 622. 106 This was a conflict in 1385, when the daughter of Louis I the Great, Jadwiga of Anjou, despite her valid marriage agreements with William of Habsburg, married the Jagiellonian Prince, who received baptism and the Polish crown alongside Jadwiga, thus becoming the founder of the Jagiellon dynasty.

For Life and Death ( 1441 )

181

The queen finished speaking and demanded an answer immediately. She stated that troops were mustering in Hungary and that in three days she must be present in person for the long campaign against the enemy. However, she did not receive an answer until the next day, when the king’s ambassadors brought it to her at the Praghaus Inn. The monarch politely refused all of Elisabeth’s demands: the king would continue to support Ladislaus (no mention that he would move him anywhere), but that he will not come to Hainburg; he will send ambassadors there, and he will release Ban Ladislaus when he acknowledges all of his guilt and liabilities; there is goodwill on the side of the king. In defence of King Frederick, it needs to be said that at that time he himself faced great problems and it is no wonder that the problem of Ladislaus the Posthumous was not paramount for him. Guardianship over the little Hungarian king had already cost him a lot of money, and Elisabeth asked for more and more, and no end was foreseeable. He was unwilling to comply with the request to return the little king in whom he had invested such a huge amount of money. This may seem very cruel to us, but since we already know the end of this whole story, Frederick may have done the best he could in regard to the boy’s interests by not handing him over to his mother. He may have even saved his life. Even though we will approach events such that King Frederick pursued only his own interests and had an interest in the boy only to the extent that it benefited him, he objectively did not have many options in the summer of 1441. The financial demands placed on him were coming from every side, and at the June assembly, where Elisabeth spoke, he himself suffered many unpleasantries. Vienna did not consider him its ruler. He was only the guardian of little Ladislaus the Posthumous. In order understand this situation, we need to take a short excursion into the history of the Habsburgs. In 1379, the brothers Albert III and Leopold III met in Neuberg and divided the Habsburg holdings by agreement. Albert acquired Austria itself and the revenues of the Salt Chamber; Leopold gained Styria, Carinthia, Carniola, Tyrol and some territories in the Adriatic region (later Leopold’s heritage was divided into two more parts). While Albert and his son Ladislaus the Posthumous belonged to the Albertinian line, Frederick belonged to the Leopoldian branch of Habsburg line, which had no rights to Vienna. The Viennese did not even consider Frederick to be an Austrian; he was a foreigner to them. They had even allegedly shouted “Khetz geen Gretz!” (Go to Graz!) at his father, Duke Ernest, during a visit to Vienna.107 Frederick met with a similar “heartfelt” reception 107 Alphons Lhotsky, “Kaiser Friedrich III., sein Leben und seine Persönlichkeit,” in Ausstellung Friedrich III., Kaiserresidenz Wiener Neustadt: St. Peter an der Sperr, Wiener Neustadt: 28. Mai bis 30. Oktober 1966, ed. Peter Weniger (Vienna: Amt der Niederösterreichischen

182

Chapter 5

in Vienna just after the death of King Albert II, when he came to the city for inheritance negotiations. Frederick faced even greater hostility at the June assembly in 1441. Repre­ sentatives of the Austrian estates gathered at the Augustinerkirche welcomed him with a shout of “King of the Jews!” and some went even further and shouted, “Crucify him!”108 They were alluding to Frederick’s protection of the Jews, which was in stark contrast to the treatment of the Jewish population by his predecessor, Albert II. Let us recall the horrors of the Vienna Gesera from the years 1420–1421, which we have already mentioned. The cause of hatred was, as usual, money. The estates demanded from Frederick the old debts of Albert II for mercenary soldiers that he used during the campaigns in Bohemia and Silesia in 1438 (these debts were to rise as high as 300 thousand florins!).109 Frederick stated that the debts should be paid by the estates of individual countries, not him, which, of course, did not earn him much sympathy. He was likely rather surprised by the hateful welcome, since he wrote in his notebook that the Austrians (and certainly he was thinking of the Viennese in particular) are worse than the Bohemians and the Hungarians.110 King Frederick satisfied Elisabeth with vague promises, a tactic he utilised throughout his reign. He thus earned the reputation of being the “arch-sleeper” of the Roman Empire, who not only liked to sleep physically for a long time, but also that his rule resembled sleep. Historians today assess King Frederick more favourably; his tactic of letting things lie or literally rot has over the long term proved much more successful than rapid decisions and constant struggles. Landesregierung, 1966), p. 26 and ibidem Karl Gutkas, “Friedrich III. Und die Stände des Landes Österreich,” p. 154. 108 Brigitte Haller-Reiffenstein, “Zu den Aufenthalten Friedrichs III, in Wien.” Wiener Geschichtsblätter 48 (1993), pp. 84–85. 109 The payment of debts was further discussed at the assembly in St. Pölten in November 1441, Karl Schalk, Aus der Zeit des österreichischen Faustrechtes 1440–1463. Das Wiener Patriziat um die Zeit des Aufstandes von 1462 und die Gründe dieses Ereignisses (Vienna: Verlag des Vereines für Geschichte der Stadt Wien, 1919), pp. 37–38. Historian Petr Elbel pointed out to me that a whole line of written claims of Moravian lords and knights against Albert and then Frederick as the guardian of King Ladislaus have been preserved in Vienna’s HHStA. These unpaid debts led to a war lasting several years between Moravia and Austria, which further complicated the situation during the interregna in both countries. 110 The “Notizbuch” (notebook) of King Frederick, Vienna ÖNB, CVP 2674, fol. 1r, p. 576, quoted according to Alphons Lhotsky, “AEIOV. Die ‘Devise’ Kaiser Friedrichs III. und sein Notizbuch,” in Mitteilungen des Instituts für österreichische Geschichtsforschung 60 (1952), pp. 199–200. Regarding the notebook of Frederick III, Harald Tersch, Österreichische Selbstzeugnisse des Spätmittelalters und der Frühen Neuzeit (1400–1650) (Vienna: Böhlau, 1998), p. 87.

For Life and Death ( 1441 )

183

This had to have been a difficult situation for Elisabeth, who was the exact opposite of Frederick. The vague promises the king snubbed her with may have hurt her, but without his financial support additional fighting was completely unrealistic. The unhappy queen returned to Bratislava to continue in the fight, which was becoming increasingly difficult. Nothing remained for Elisabeth but the battle, since the peace talks with Władysław’s side ended unsuccessfully. At an assembly in Buda in September 1441, ambassadors were chosen on behalf of King Władysław, to represent him in peace negotiations with Elisabeth in Bratislava. The king initially proposed seven men, but a day later the assembled prelates and barons expanded the list of ambassadors to include the king’s master of the cupbearers.111 At the same time, they decided that if there were differences of opinion between the ambassadors and some of them were causing obstructions, three of them would have the main say: Eger Bishop Simon, Stephen Báthory, and Michael Jakcs of Kuszala. In mid-September, the delegation set off, and on 17 September, they were with the Archbishop of Esztergom, Dionysius, in Esztergom, who had joined King Władysław’s ceremonial deputation. In Esztergom they all together issued and sealed a charter with their own seals, by which they swore to the representatives of Bratislava that they would come to the city with their entourage exclusively in matters of peace negotiations and would not threaten Bratislava in any way.112 The ambassadors arrived in Bratislava gradually on 22 and 23 September. This follows from the mandate of Bratislava Count, George Rozgonyi, who called on city officials to ensure peace and prevent any barriers and inconveniences to their arrival.113 The peace negotiations took place peacefully, but no conclusions were reached. Queen Elisabeth refused to back down and persisted regarding the unquestioned succession rights of her son. The chronicler John Długosz wrote: “When important royal ambassadors and Hungarian and Polish barons came to Bratislava to conclude peace according to the offer given, the queen gave them a firm response, declaring that no peace or settlement could soften her and that it is not possible to be led to such madness, which could be said to be more beneficial to King Władysław of Hungary and Poland than to her own son.”114

111 9 September 1441: Teleki, Hunyadiak kora 10, p. 104, MNL OL DL DL 39 292, DL 13 644. 10 September 1441: Teleki, Hunyadiak kora 10, p. 107, MNL OL DL 13 644, DL 39 293. 112 MNL OL DL 44 321. On the presence of Dionysius in Bratislava is his charter of 27 Septem­ ber dated in Bratislava, MNL OL DL 272 715, in transcript MNL OL DL 71 283. 113 AMB, no. 1791. 114 Dlugosz 12, p. 666.

184

Chapter 5

After the collapse of the peace negotiations, Elisabeth again turned to Frederick in early October with the request to hand her son, daughter and the Hungarian crown over to her. The reason for the urgency was also the fact that Frederick was preparing for a trip to Aachen for the royal coronation, and the children could have been endangered during his absence. Where else should the children be than with their mother when the king is travelling, the queen wrote. After the unsuccessful discussions in Bratislava, she again realised that the absence of little King Ladislaus from the country was highly detrimental to him, and this motive is probably the strongest in her letter.115 This time the king did not respond to Elisabeth’s requests, and he again did not hand over the children or the crown to her. Elisabeth’s request to King Frederick to return her son came at an unsuitable time. It was then in October that Frederick had to pay high compensation to Pongrác of Svätý Mikuláš and Ladislaus of Necpaly. The charter that the two men issued together from the position of captains of Skalica on 16 October in Břeclav states that they have claims against Austria and King Frederick as the guardian of King Ladislaus. These were debts for military services provided for King Albert from the times of the Bohemian, Silesian, and in this case probably also Transylvanian campaigns, which were heaped onto Frederick from all sides.116 Since Pongrác was a very unpleasant neighbour, of which King Frederick was already convinced, he agreed to pay both men damages in the amount of 3,000 florins. They received the first instalment of 2,000 florins in Břeclav.117 Queen Elisabeth, too, faced constant financial demands. Győr captain Henry Čeček of Pakoměřice demanded the payment of a salary in the amount of 7,500 florins in October 1441; the queen promised to repay the money gradually, with the first instalment of 2,000 florins to be handed over by Christmas.118 We know that the people of Bratislava lent her 1,000 florins for this purpose in December and paid another 2,000 florins for it in January 1442.119 At the time, Elisabeth also hired new mercenaries; George Weihenberger (in documents also as Jorg Weichenperger), with whom she concluded a contract in Bratislava on

115 MNL OL DF 287 175, Kollar, Analecta Monumentorum 2, p. 988. 116 In October 1441, Győr Captain John Šmikouský and Henry Čeček of Pakoměříce also demanded payment from Frederick due to a debt from the time of King Albert, MNL OL DF 287 176. 117 MNL OL DF 258 096. Pongrác is listed in the charter with the predicate “of Liptov and Brancz” (Pangracz von der Lipttaw vnd Brancz). 118 Teleki, Hunyadiak kora 10, p. 109. 119 AMB, no. 1728. DF 250 462.

For Life and Death ( 1441 )

185

19 November, joined her120 and undertook to hand over all the castles and fortresses he conquered to the queen. The property of Bratislava Count Stephen Rozgonyi became his first target, despite the fact that Stephen remained neutral towards Elisabeth and had not participated in any battles against her. On 26 November, just a few days after Elisabeth and Weihenberger agreed to cooperate, Stephen Rozgonyi wrote to his friend John Forgáč that Weihenberger and his accomplices were currently attacking his castle in Rovinka (in sources as Chelle, Czelle, which is a transliteration of the Hungarian name Csölle). They reached Žitný ostrov by boat, surrounded Stephen’s castle in Rovinka and conquered it.121 The castle in Rovinka was evidently built by Elisabeth’s Bohemian and Austrian mercenaries, from whom Stephen Rozgonyi had long ago conquered it before receiving it as a donation from King Władysław.122 The aim of Weihenberger’s activities was probably to seize not only the castle, but in particular its owner. He would be an exceedingly valuable captive, because he could help Elisabeth in acquiring Bratislava Castle, which she reportedly conquered at the time. This is indicated at least by a letter from Stephen Rozgonyi himself, written to the representatives of Bratislava on 28 November. The Count of Bratislava County was exceptionally embittered that the people of Bratislava offered help to the attackers. He reminded them that he had always regarded them as the most Christian confreres, as special and favourite friends to whom he had always, when asked, shown friendship, even during the time of the deceased emperor, when he heard their grievances, intervened and, from the bottom of his heart, promoted their interests. Stephen also reminded the people of Bratislava how he recently helped them when they faced the hostility of Pongrác and Ladislaus of Necpaly. It was he who, at his own expense, mediated the definitive reconciliation between them. From the day he became the Bratislava Count, he always showed them good will, never provoking conflicts with Bratislava and not acting as an enemy to the city. And yet they denied all of this friendship when they provided the attackers with support and weapons, particularly fellow citizen Wolfgang Ranes and others. The attackers thought they would surprise and surround Stephen in Rovinka, but he escaped them. “The Maker of all creation has protected me from the enemies, and His divine nature will protect me through my hope in the future,” wrote Stephen. He knew that the people of Bratislava had permitted the enemy to freely cross their ford on the grounds that they were going to help Jiskra. The Bratislava Count expressed the hope that this did not happen 120 Chmel, Materialien 1, p. 67, MNL OL DF 258 097 (HHStA) and MNL OL DF 287 180 (HHStA). 121 MNL OL DL 59 272. 122 MNL OL DL 13 641.

186

Chapter 5

with the queen’s knowledge and ironically rejected their excuses of helping Jiskra: “We very well know that the Danube does not flow through Košice.”123 The hope of Stephen Rozgonyi that Weihenberger’s attacks took place without the queen’s knowledge was not completely correct, since they occurred only a few days after Elisabeth took Weihenberger into her service. Elisabeth’s captain, however, did not conquer the castle in Rovinka, however, and the people of Bratislava later tried to settle the dispute with the Bratislava Count.124 The assault on the Rovinka castle was part of Elisabeth’s autumn offensive. On 21 October, she wrote to Görlitz that Jiskra, Šmikouský and Čeček (of Pakoměřice) had triumphed over her enemies.125 At that time, Elisabeth had hired a large number of new mercenaries, and according to John Długosz, her main aim was Bratislava Castle.126 At the beginning of November, Kaspar Schlick also confirmed a report on the hiring of new mercenaries, notifying the town of Görlitz about various reports that had come from Hungary. Since he dated the letter at his castle Loket, which is almost 500 km from Bratislava, it is obvious that he had received word from Elisabeth’s messengers. He stated that there are another 300 excellent mercenaries with horses on the way to Elisabeth127 and described Elisabeth’s situation in the letter very hopefully: “it is said that many Hungarian lords and prelates have sided with Her Grace, so the one from Poland is not well at all.” And a few lines lower, Schlick claims that the queen is faring well, and so the matter between her and thus from Poland will soon be resolved or a ceasefire will be concluded. An almost completely identical statement appears in Elisabeth’s letter to Ulrich of Rožmberk, which she dated in Bratislava on 4 December. Here, too, she spared no optimism. She reiterated that she was faring well and happily, that many of the Hungarian lords who had sinned against her and her son had now sided with her, and that she had decided to send her forces to Buda.128 Statements about the poor situation of the Polish king, about Elisabeth’s supremacy, and the mass shift of the Hungarian lords to her side were more of a devotional desire than a reality. As we could see from the reconstruction of the events of 1441 on the basis of preserved written sources, the queen had lost more of her adherents than she gained. The forces were balanced; one side won 123 AMB, no. 1797. 124 AMB, no. 1823. The communication between the town and Stephen Rozgonyi was provided by Stephen’s familiar and castellan of Bratislava Castle Valentine Temesközi, who dated the charter in Rovinka on 14 May 1442, AMB, no. 1823. 125 CDLS 4, p. 202. In October, John Jiskra’s forces captured Kežmarok for Elisabeth. 126 Dlugosz 12, p. 669. 127 CDLS 4, p. 203. 128 Rynešová, Listář a listinář 2, no. 165, p. 130, MNL OL DF 289 258.

For Life and Death ( 1441 )

187

once, then the other. Thanks to her mercenary troops, particularly John Jiskra, the queen had remained in Upper Hungary, though the rest of the country was basically lost. In December 1441, she could not even think about an expedition to Buda, as she claimed. On the contrary, she herself had to face Władysław’s army before Bratislava for a short time. The optimistic reports she sent abroad are understandable: the queen was asking for help and support, and few would provide her help over a lost cause. Ulrich of Rožmberk was supposed to come to the Prague assembly with reports of Elisabeth’s successes and to promote her son’s interests there. Therefore, it is clear that he should have gone there with the information that victory for King Ladislaus was within reach. King Władysław was already on a military campaign at the end of November. He himself commanded an army that was heading for Bratislava, according to the chronicler John Długosz, to help the besieged Bratislava Castle.129 Already on 29 November and then through all of December, the monarch dated his charters in military camps. His army headed north from Buda to Vác and Nógrád, castles that had once belonged to Elisabeth’s former chancellor, now a loyal supporter of King Władysław, Bishop of Vác Peter Agmandi. From there it turned to the north-west, and through the property of the Archbishop of Esztergom in Dolná Streda it headed for Trnava. King Władysław’s campaign again took place in the middle of a harsh, frosty winter, with an abundance of snow, as Długosz informs us. The king moved with his army to Trnava, where he spent the end of the year in a military camp. Before then, troops commanded by Andrew of Tęczyn, who “caused much damage and looting to the city of Bratislava, scattering the city herds and cattle and destroying the outskirts by fire”, had already arrived in Trnava.130 The poor people of Bratislava were thus facing war again after a short period of ceasefire. It is a great pity that the accounts of the Bratislava chamber from this period were not preserved, from which we could reconstruct just how they got through this difficult period. As in 1440, the queen bought weapons in Vienna.

129 Dlugosz 12, pp. 669, 671. The chronicler states that the castle was poorly supplied with food and was in danger of starvation. Stephen Rozgonyi therefore came to Buda to personally ask the king for help. Here the chronicler apparently linked the conquest of the castle in 1440 with the events of 1441. 130 Dlugosz 12, p. 669. Andrew (Andrzej) of Tęczyn died a very cruel death in 1461 in Cracow. An argument with the metalworker, who was supposed to repair his armour, turned fatal, because he was not satisfied with the work and did not pay the agreed amount. The nobleman attacked the craftsman, first with a slap and then injuring him. An angry and impassioned crowd of Cracow residents revenged the humiliated craftsman; Andrew, hidden in a Franciscan monastery, was dragged away, lynched and his corpse was dishonoured.

188

Chapter 5

Her financial possibilities, however, were very limited, and Viennese merchants had little desire to provide her with the necessary things on credit.131 Another year of war had passed and the situation was exactly the same as the previous winter. Elisabeth and Władysław both were determined to fight to the final victory. This time only the walls of the Bratislava fortifications was to separate them. Who knows if the queen ever went to the tower of the city fortifications, as she had once done in Komárno with Helene Kottannerin, to look out at the enemy camp set up before the city and try to get a glimpse of the hated king she had never seen before. 131 On 4 December, she wrote to Vienna asking them to send arrows and gunpowder worth 40 florins via her messenger, WStLA, nr. 2853. On 14 December, she repeatedly urged the city of Vienna to send her gunpowder and arrows worth 200 florins and promised to pay for them soon, WStLA, nr. 2858.

Chapter 6

Two Victories, Two Defeats The chronicler John Długosz gave a relatively detailed report on the siege of Bratislava. He vividly described the brutal winter weather that prevailed at the time, as well as Władysław’s determination to put an end to recalcitrant queen and Bratislava. He added the story of how Queen Elisabeth fled to the safety of Vienna as soon as she learned of King Władysław’s intention to conquer the city.1 We already know that we cannot trust all the information of John Długosz, and this story ranks among the completely fabricated. Elisabeth, in fact, remained in the besieged city and very intensively prepared for the attack of “the one from Poland”. At the beginning of January, she appointed a new captain of the town, former Hussite captain Nicholas Sokol of Lamberk. On 5 January 1442, he issued a charter in Bratislava committing himself as the queen’s appointed captain of the city that neither he nor his mercenaries and servants would do any harm to the city’s residences, rich or poor, but would defend them from King Władysław and all the queen’s enemies.2 Elisabeth had been preparing for battle since early in the year, as it was clear that Władysław would not stop with only the conquering of Bratislava. His aim was also mining towns, especially wealthy Kremnica.3 If he managed to stop the flow of money of Elisabeth, the hope of ending the war would rise significantly. Elisabeth, however, also knew this, so on 28 January she entrusted Kremnica, along with the other mining towns and the entire Zvolen County, to John Jiskra.4 The queen was resolved to fight to the last man. Her courage certainly cannot be denied, a courage that in a highborn woman was perceived as inappropriate at that time. Piccolomini eloquently expressed the view of the time when he wrote that Elisabeth had a man’s spirit in a woman’s body. From the beginning of January 1442, it was clear that Bratislava would soon be besieged, and given the determination of Władysław’s side, the fall of the city could not be excluded. Nevertheless, the queen decided to remain there and fight, not even for a moment thinking about fleeing to Austria, where she 1 Dlugosz 12, p. 672. 2 AMB, no. 1807. 3 He tells explicitly about this in a document dated 28 December 1441, issued already in the military camp near Trnava, Codex epistolaris saeculi decimi quinti 1, p. 128: “Nos enim Deo propitio his partibus videlicet Pozoniensi et Cremniciensi prout spem firmam in domino habemus in brevo ad obedienciam reductis …” 4 MNL OL DF 249 994.

© Daniela Dvořáková, 2025 | doi:10.1163/9789004722552_008

190

Chapter 6

would be safe. She asked the city of Vienna for help, and the Vienna Senate, at its meeting on 7 January, discussed as the first item on the agenda the queen’s request for help, brought to Vienna by her ambassador, Ladislaus Farkas. Elisabeth asked Vienna officials for 10,000 arrows, six cents of gunpowder, three cannons and 200 infantry fighters – trabants. At the same time, the people of Bratislava themselves urgently requested help through their ambassador, Paul Maltzhofer, the stated reason being that the siege of Bratislava was more or less certain, and that if it does occur, they would need soldiers. The Vienna City Council also discussed this point, but the answer was evasive: they cannot decide on such assistance themselves, but they will make a request at the forthcoming parliament in Tulln. If, however, the queen and the people of Bratislava wanted to buy arrows, weapons, gunpowder, flour and wood in Vienna, the city would permit them without any problems.5 Maltzhofer notified Bratislava of the Senate’s decision by letter dated 8 January. He told the Bratislavans exactly what was written in the minutes of the Vienna Senate meeting: their request would be decided at the Tulln assembly.6 The preparations for the siege are also reflected in the Bratislava chamber accounts for many months afterwards. Debts still remained from the winter months, because at the given time the city did not have enough money.7 On 1 February, the eve of the Feast Day of the Purification of the Virgin Mary (at present the Feast Day of the Sacrifice of the Lord, or Candlemas), the army of King Władysław besieged Bratislava.8 Soldiers, protected by a wagon fort, surrounded the city to undertake raids and attempt to break through the city fortifications.9 On that same day, the Vienna municipality negotiated urgent assistance to Bratislava, and a report on the siege was evidently carried to 5 Kollar, Analecta Monumentorum 2, pp. 1026–27. 6 AMB, no. 1808. 7 Thus, in November the city paid Paul Lang, who at the time the “Polish king” was to come to besiege the city went to Vienna for mercenaries and gunpowder and the city could not reimburse the expenditures at that time K4, p. 95. At the time the mercenaries were also paid by privateers, so the city faced a financial liability; for example, the city was left with a debt of 23 florins towards Paul Maltzhofer for eight mercenaries he paid at the time the Polish king was before the city. AMB K4, p. 96. 8 Regarding the siege of Candlemas, “post festum videlicet Purificatione Sanctae Mariae Virginis,” which fell on 2 February, see Dlugosz 12, p. 671. Already on 1 February, on the eve of Candlemas, King Władysław dated a charter in a military camp during the siege of Bratislava (in obsidione civitatis Posoniensis), MNL OL DL 105 494. 9 On the wagon fort in the resolution of the Vienna City Council on aid to Elisabeth: “so vnser gnedige Frau die Kunigin, vmb hilff vnd rettung des gesloss su Prespurg, her der Stat getan hat wider den Kunig von Polan, der sich für dieselbig Stat mit ainer wagenburg gelegert hett.” Kollar, Analecta Monumentorum 2, p. 1029.

Two Victories, Two Defeats

191

Vienna by express messengers. This time, the city’s representatives decided on immediate support; they agreed to send 1,000 hired infantry to help Bratislava. Trumpeters were to begin declaring a call to battle throughout the city, so that everyone could prepare their weapons and everything needed for the time they would let them know. The decision to provide help was to be delivered to the queen in writing as soon as possible to encourage her in a difficult situation. Vienna was also willing to provide weapons, gunpowder, stones for hurling into the enemy camp as well as food. Viennese bakers got the order to bake day and night so that the food aid was ready as soon as possible. Further, the queen and representatives of Bratislava could purchase any food and other needs in Vienna and export them from the city. It is also evident from the minutes of the municipal meeting that a request came from Duke Albert to provide support to Elisabeth and the people of Bratislava.10 This generous help from Vienna greatly increased the queen’s chances of holding onto the city. It is touching how the Viennese councillors agreed to immediately send a report to Bratislava to encourage the queen, and in the Bratislava city archives there is indeed a letter that the Viennese wrote on that day, 1 February. They expressed their support for the Bratislavans and promised that help would soon come from them, that they were just negotiating how to transport it to the besieged city as soon as possible. If the Bratislavans were lacking bread or flour, they should send a message to Vienna, so that the missing items could be provided to them.11 Austrian duke Albert also wrote a letter of encouragement to Bratislava.12 Unfortunately, we don’t know by what method and when the soldiers, food and weapons arrived from Vienna. We would have learned all such information from the Bratislava chamber account books, but they have likely been irretrievably lost from this period. Help may have come on boats across the Danube, but only if the river were not frozen over. In the opposite case, soldiers would have had to do battle to access the city, as Władysław’s army had already camped in front of its walls. We can estimate its strength at about 5,000 riders and several thousand infantry and support personnel.13 Several war-hardened and experienced Hungarian lords were present in the military with their own units, including Ladislaus (the son of Peter Czech of Levice) and the royal 10 11 12 13

Kollar, Analecta Monumentorum 2, pp. 1029–32. AMB, no. 1814. AMB, no. 1815. Władysław’s army reportedly lost 3,000 horses during the siege of Bratislava, and they retreated from Bratislava with two thousand riders, so the total number could be around five thousand.

192

Chapter 6

treasurer Michael Ország of Gút, together with his brother John, who, aware of the danger of death, concluded a mutual friendship and brotherhood agreement directly in the military camp. They agreed on their inheritance should one of the parties die without male descendants.14 Three days after the conclusion of that agreement, an additional agreement was made between John Ország of Gút and Ladislaus of Levice, the aim of which was to provide for potentially widowed wives and orphaned daughters.15 The king also called the Vaivoda of Transylvania, Nicholas of Ilok, a hero from Cikador, to the military campaign in Bratislava, hoping that he would repeat his success.16 Nicholas with his troops joined with the royal army, despite the fact that the situation on the southern border of Hungary, where he served as commander-in-chief of the military, was very dramatic due to the attacking Turks. The king mentioned the summoning of Ilok to Bratislava in a letter to the Polish state he sent from the military camp near Trnava on 28 December 1441,17 in which he asked the Polish lords to send him help immediately, because the situation in the Kingdom of Hungary is desperate. Władysław warned that he could no longer resist the attacks of the Turks, who were decimating and depopulating the southern parts of the country. The defence against the Turks was entrusted to the Vaivode of Transylvania, Nicholas of Ilok. Now, however, the king needed him, so he had to summon him. On the Hungarian-Polish border and in the surroundings of Košice, John Jiskra, “a wretch, with his property lower than all”, was running rampant, forcing many in the vicinity of Košice to serve him. Władysław spared no contempt for Jiskra, repeatedly calling him, insultingly, a “miser homuncius” (a miserable little man) and disparaging his military achievements: “Just as people are capable of calling all Poles thieves because of the theft of one cow, just like this insignificant man, when he somehow luckily won somewhere, he is considered a victor.” Władysław complained that Jiskra is attacking the Polish-Hungarian border and that – since the Polish lords had not offered him any help – he was paying mercenaries with his own money and has available very few Hungarians to send against him. Therefore, 14 10 February 1442, MNL OL DL 88 177. 15 13 February 1442, MNL OL DL 88 178. 16 The presence of Nicholas of Ilok is documented by his own deed charter, dated in Trnava on 5 March 1442, MNL OL DL 13 666. Nicholas was forced to ask nobleman Michael of Očkov for a loan of 600 florins. For this he gave him a deposit in Piešťany and half of the village of Horná Streda (Szerdahely), which were the largest villages tied to Nicholas’s Tematín Castle, see Zdenko Gálik, “Mikuláš Ujlaki (Ilocký) a jeho hradné panstvá na území dnešného Slovenska  – Korlátka Hlohovec, Tematín,” in Studia Historica Nitriensia 20 (2016), no. 1, p. 76. 17 Codex epistolaris saeculi decimi quinti 1, no. 116, p. 127.

Two Victories, Two Defeats

193

he demanded that the Polish estates send an army that will march directly on Košice. In the meantime, he himself will force Bratislava and Kremnica to obey, and then they will unite with the Poles near Košice and triumph together. Though King Władysław’s plans were grand, the “homuncius” Jiskra, the resolute Queen Elisabeth, the courageous people of Bratislava, the solidarity assistance of some foreign cities (Vienna, Olomouc), and the harsh Hungarian winter completely thwarted these plans. Władysław was also relying on Elisabeth not getting any support from Austria, because he had contacted King Frederick and negotiated a peace with him. In this he was correct; Frederick refused to help to the queen, saying that he was negotiating peace with Władysław’s ambassadors, and this would not be appropriate. He was thus displeased that the city of Vienna was helping Elisabeth “without his will and awareness”.18 Elisabeth’s ability to get sufficient food for the besieged city in the middle of winter was a great advantage over the enemy. Although Bratislava had to borrow money to buy food,19 neither the city’s inhabitants nor its defenders suffered from hunger. The people of Bratislava also managed to acquire milled flour from distant Olomouc in exchange for Bratislava wine. The good relations from the past now brought great benefits.20 Wagons loaded with flour left Olomouc for Bratislava via Vienna and returned by the same route loaded with Bratislava wine.21 King Władysław’s army was much worse off in this regard. According to John Długosz, there was famine among the soldiers and not only people suffered, but horses died of starvation, too, “because they could not find fodder and straw for them anywhere or in distant places. Over several days, the leaves from the trees were the main food for the horses.”22 They had no such cares in the city, as horses stabled outside the city gates had winter supplies of feed stored in barns, as they did every winter, while horses in the military camp had a major problem in the winter months. 18 Kollar, Analecta Monumentorum 2, pp. 1038–39. 19 On 11 February, “out of need”, they borrowed 1000 florins from the Kingdom of Hungary for three years, AMB, no. 1816. 20 The cities maintained an active correspondence and trade relations with one another (the townspeople of Olomouc bought wine in Bratislava). These exceptionally good relations between Bratislava and Olomouc may have been a remnant of the stay of the Bishop of Olomouc, John Železný, in Bratislava in the years 1426–1430. For more on the stay of John Železný in Bratislava, see Petr Elbel, “Olomoucký biskup Jan Železný a Zikmund Lucemburský. Příspěvek k poznání Zikmundovy spojenecké sítě v českých zemích a jeho dvorských struktur,” in Studia Mediaevalia Bohemica 6 (2014), no. 1, pp. 57–62. 21 A letter of the burgher meister and the Olomouc City Council requesting free passage through Vienna with loaded wagons is dated 2 March 1442, WStLA, nr. 2861. 22 Dlugosz 12, p. 672.

194

Chapter 6

Despite such difficulties, victory initially seemed to lean towards the side of King Władysław. Using intensive artillery, his army damaged the walls of the fortifications and destroyed several houses in the city. On 22 February, Emeric Marcali, from his village of Kálmáncsa, notified Ladislaus Töttős of Bátmonostor of the news he had received about the siege of Bratislava.23 Marcali spared no optimism: the king was continuously besieging Bratislava; he had already damaged most of the city walls with artillery fire, and special mention should be made of the Water Tower, which he had razed to the ground. Therefore, everyone believes that he will conquer Bratislava in the coming days, probably this week.24 Emeric Marcali could not have known that on the day he wrote his letter, the fight for Bratislava had already been decided for several days: the people of Bratislava had defended their city and Władysław had to draw back as the defeated. This occurred on 19 February, and Queen Elisabeth immediately sent a letter by her messenger to Ulrich of Rožmberk, informing him that today Władysław had withdrawn from Bratislava with great damage and shame.25 It is understandable that Emeric Marcali, who was in a village nearly 300 km from Bratislava, received the news with a great delay, even more so because it was cold and the roads did not allow travel at great speed. Ladislaus Töttős of Bátmonostor, the recipient of Marcali’s letter, received another letter a month later, this time from Elisabeth’s supporter, Duke Henry Tamási. We already know that Ladislaus Töttős, although he switched sides to join Władysław, did not break contact with his friend Duke Tamási, who remained on Elisabeth’s side, and they kept each other informed about what was happening in the two camps. In a letter dated 20 March at Kaposujvár Castle, Henry Tamási thanked Töttős for the reports “on his side” and in return provided him with news written by the Archbishop of Esztergom and other magnates about the fighting near Bratislava. Tamási informed him that the Polish king had been forced to withdraw from Bratislava in great shame and damage and is now in Trnava.26 “Our brightest lady, the queen, is full of joy and merriment in good health in Bratislava,” wrote the informant, and then continued with the news that the queen’s army and her followers from the castles of Győr, Esztergom, Nitra and 23 The charter is dated “de Cheh”, which is the village of Kálmáncsehi, today Kálmáncsa. MNL OL DL 80 762. 24 MNL OL DL 80 762: “serenissimus dominus Rex civitatem Posoniensem obsidet et continue expugnaret. maximamque muneri partem ipsius civitatis cum pixidibus iam destruere fecit signanter turrem aquaticam funditus fecit evertere (et ut speratur hiis diebus ebdomadis obtinebit civitatem prenotatam.” 25 MNL OL DF 289 260, Rynešová, Listář a listinář 1, no. 171, p. 135. 26 MNL OL DL 80 763, Zichy IX, no. 39, p. 40.

Two Victories, Two Defeats

195

Tata were devastating and looting the area around Buda and Székesfehérvár and will continue to do so. We have another report on the defeat of King Władysław from 30 March, this one authored by Frederick of Donín, Elisabeth’s ambassador to Ulrich of Rožmberk.27 He waited in vain for an entire week in Třeboň with a message for Rožmberk from Queen Elisabeth. Ultimately, he could wait no longer, so he left a written message in which he informed him about the outcome of the siege of Bratislava. According to Frederick of Donín, the Polish king suffered great harm near Bratislava; the Poles themselves estimated that they had lost 3,000 horses near the city, as they either died or were seized by Elisabeth’s side. After Elisabeth’s victory, ten additional castles joined her cause, and on the Saturday before Palm Sunday (24 March), Jiskra’s hetman from Nitra wrote that Władysław was encamped about a mile from Nitra, that he had barely two thousand fighters (the letter specified them as “good” and “bad”, by which it probably meant able to fight or those who were more or less excluded from fighting due to illness or injury) and would like to cross the river to Buda, but it was not possible. The hetman wrote that he and Władysław’s army had been in a melee in which about 70 people were killed. Austrian chronicler Thomas Ebendorfer described the hardships of Władysław’s army and his defeat in a very colourful way: “Such severe winter frosts struck that nearly all their cattle died and the people became very weak, so they were unable to conquer. Many of them were taken to the city and many others perished in the cold.”28 Ebendorfer’s report on the prisoners is confirmed by Bratislava’s chamber accounts, where expenditures for guarding the captured “Poles” appeared in the summer of 1442.29 Władysław’s defeat near Bratislava did not escape the attention of the Prague chronicler either. In his telling, the news of the failure of the Polish king before Bratislava came to the “noble lords and towns of Prague” before Palm Sunday (which fell on 25 March).30 The young king was shaken by his failure at Bratislava. Frederick of Donín stated in the mentioned letter that Władysław wanted to march back to Poland for good, but the Hungarian lords did not allow it and took him back to Buda against his will. We can believe Frederick on this report; the chronicler John Długosz also noted that the Hungarian lords did not want to send King Władysław to fight near the Kingdom of Poland, because they were afraid that 27 MNL OL DF 289 262, Rynešová, Listář a listinář 1, no. 181, p. 141. 28 Ebendorfer, Cronica Austriae, p. 384. The chronicler incorrectly mentions the year 1440, which is also pointed out by the chronicle editor. 29 AMB K4, pp. 68, 75, 91. 30 Staré letopisy české, p. 95.

196

Chapter 6

he would leave Hungary and never return.31 The king himself, in a letter that he wrote to a Polish lord while in a military camp near Trnava in December 1441, recalls his own tears and pleas not to send him to the Kingdom of Hungary at the time when he was offered the Hungarian royal crown in Cracow in 1440.32

⸪

King Władysław eventually returned safely to Buda. His encampment a mile from Nitra, when he could not cross the “water”, was most likely the ford at Sereď, where he crossed the Váh to Šintava Castle. The beginning of spring and the melting of the snow had likely raised the level of Váh; thus, the army had trouble crossing to the other side. In the end it managed to do so, and the monarch and the remnants of his army moved along the ancient Bohemian road from Šintava through Tvrdošovce, Nové Zámky and Esztergom and on to Buda. At the end of March, the king was again issuing charters at Buda Castle. The winter military campaign almost cost Nicholas of Ilok his life, who became so ill that reports of his death were spread. On 17 April, Duke Tamási wrote a reply to a letter from Ladislaus Töttős of Bátmonostor and also responded to his question about whether it was true that Duke Nicholas had died. Tamási knew nothing of his death; he had only received news that Duke Nicholas was very ill. “Whatever we hear of him, we will pass along to you,” Tamási promised. If we take into account the distances and the fact that a report first had to reach Ladislaus Töttős and then travel from him to Tamási, who dated the letter at Kaposújvár Castle, on the southernmost border of today’s Hungary, as well as the fact that Ilok must have already been ill for some time, if news of his death had spread, then his illness must have occurred during the military expedition to Bratislava. At the beginning of June, Nicholas was already out of danger, as he was dealing with official matters from Buda.33 Nicholas of Ilok’s recovery was also good news for the country, as he soon played an important role in the peace negotiations with Queen Elisabeth to end the war. Elisabeth, encouraged by her success in defending Bratislava, was full of plans for additional fighting, as we also saw from Henry Tamási’s letter of 17 April, where he mentioned attacks from her castles on the area around Buda and Székesfehérvár. In a similar spirit, she wrote a request to Vienna for further 31 Dlugosz 12, p. 665. 32 Codex epistolaris saeculi decimi quinti 2, no. 116, p. 127. 33 On 9 June 1442, MNL OL DL 92 933. On 23 June he stayed at his castle Bátorkő, where he issued a deed of donation for his pastor from Ilok for the services he provided to him at different times and in different places. MNL OL DL 13 683.

Two Victories, Two Defeats

197

assistance, which she justified with the planned campaign against Władysław and the further fortification of Bratislava.34 However, a major turnaround occurred in early May, when the papal legate, Cardinal Giuliano Cesarini, came to Bratislava. His arrival in Hungary was supposedly the diplomatic work of the Archbishop of Esztergom, Dionysius Szécsi.35 Given Dionysius contacts in the papal curia, this is not out of the question, just as it is possible that Cesarini arrived directly at the request of Queen Elisabeth. The queen was in contact with Pope Eugene IV and the current council in Florence, and she had sent her ambassador, Bratislava provost and theologian of law, Master Michael of Prievidza, there as early as in January 1441.36 Michael is another interesting figure in Queen Elisabeth’s circle. He studied in Vienna, where during his studies he was already awarded a laurel wreath and became a member of the university council.37 In 1440 he was a canon of Spiš, but in the following year he became the head of the Bratislava Chapter and entered into Elisabeth’s service as her scribe. The task that Pope Eugene IV had given to Cardinal Cesarini was to achieve an agreement between the enemy sides and end the civil war in Hungary, because the growing pressure from the Turkish military required an effective and united approach. Chronicler John Długosz mentions three tasks of Cesarini’s mission: to achieve peace between Elisabeth and Władysław, to convince Władysław and the Hungarian magnates to undertake a military campaign against the Turks, and to prevent a schism in the church, as the rival Basel Council had elected its own pope, Felix V.38 Cesarini was an experienced diplomat, with a long career behind him. He had now come to the Kingdom of Hungary to attempt the impossible – to reconcile the life and death enemy sides of Queen Elisabeth and King Władysław. We don’t know when the cardinal left Florence, but he was in Venice at the end of March, where he met with the Doge and informed him of his commission.39 After a short break, he then continued on the road to the Kingdom of Hungary.

34 WStLA, nr. 2864. 35 Pálfi, Magyar Királyság, p. 77. 36 DRTA 15, p. 526: “nuncius dominae mee Elisabeth Ungarie etc. regine magister Michael de Prividia, in decretis licenciatus ejusque cancellarie scriptor.” 37 Miriam Hlavačková, “In Posonio est locus valde sanus  … Kultúrne kontakty Bratislavy a Viedne v 15. storočí,” in Stredoveké mesto ako miesto stretnutí a komunikácie, eds. Ján Lukačka and Martin Štefánik (Bratislava: Historický ústav SAV, 2010), p. 146. 38 Dlugosz 12, p. 677. 39 Vilmos Fraknói, Cesarini Julián bibornok magyarországi pápai követ élete (Budapest: Hornyánszky Viktor, 1890), pp. 19, 107–08, note 18 and 23.

198

Chapter 6

John Długosz states that Cesarini went first to Vienna to see King Frederick, with whom he negotiated for about a month, before moving from Vienna to Buda in June to see Władysław.40 Długosz’s information has one fundamental flaw, however. Cesarini could not have negotiated with King Frederick in Vienna, because he had been on the coronation journey to Aachen since the beginning of February and did not return to Vienna until the autumn. Hungarian historian Vilmos Fraknói, on the other hand, believed that the apostolic legate’s route led directly to Buda through Senj and Zagreb, because Cesarini dated a charter there on 27 May, reportedly the first he issued in Hungary.41 But Vilmos Fraknói was also wrong. Thanks to the people of Bratislava and their faithful accounts, which we fortunately have at our disposal from May 1442, we know that Cesarini was indeed in Vienna (although he did not speak with King Frederick) and from there travelled directly to Bratislava, which was his first stop in the Kingdom of Hungary. Vienna was a logical stop on the journey from Venice to Bratislava. Travellers could get from Italy to the Kingdom of Hungary via two main routes. One of them, the so-called Ljubljana or Styrian road (Friuli – Gorizia – Ljubljana – Celje  – Ptuj  – Murska Sobota  – Körmend  – Sopron) was more comfortable and led to central Hungary. Although travellers had to cross mountains, these were significantly more negotiable than the Alpine passes. In April 1442, when Cesarini travelled with his entourage, this route was very dangerous. We know that merciless battles between the Counts of Cilli and their enemies were still taking place in this area at that time.42 Therefore, the cardinal chose the more demanding but more frequently used and safer route through the Canal Valley, crossing the Predil Pass (today between Italy and Slovenia). First, he got from Venice via Aquileia via the so-called Venetian route to Udine, and from there he continued through Carinthia in the direction of Vienna (Udine – Tarvisio – Villach – Semmering – Vienna). Today, a comfortable and fast motorway runs through here and travellers do not even notice that they are crossing the Alps, as it moves almost flat through long tunnels. In the Middle Ages, however, travellers had to cross over the mountains. In the sources, this route is also referred to as the “German and Hungarian route” (strata Teutonicorum et Hungarorum) or as the overland route (via terrae).43 In his work Historia Austrialis, Aeneas Silvius 40 41 42 43

Dlugosz 12, pp. 677–78. MNL OL DL 13 679. Regarding this, e.g. DL 103 595. Martin Štefánik, Obchodná vojna kráľa Žigmunda proti Benátkam: stredoveký boj o trhy medzi uhorsko-nemeckým kráľom a Republikou svätého Marka (Bratislava: Historický ústav SAV, 2004), pp. 22–23.

Two Victories, Two Defeats

199

Piccolomini described this trip in a very colourful way, though going in the opposite direction as the cardinal travelled, i.e. from Vienna to Udine. After leaving Villach and crossing the Drava River, a narrow road followed which was lined on the right and left by mountains rising to the heavens, eternally covered in snow. According to Piccolomoni, the Bohemians and Hungarians who came here admired the roughness of the landscape, the narrow roads and the steep mountain trails above the abysses. People here spoke three languages – German, Italian and Slovenian – but not one language purely.44 Cardinal Cesarini travelled to Hungary in April, when the weather was more favourable and crossing the Alps safer than in the winter months. Even so, he evidently enjoyed several days of rest in Vienna before starting for Bratislava to see Queen Elisabeth. The cardinal ceremoniously entered Bratislava on 5 May, and the bells of the St. Martin’s Cathedral sounded out in his honour.45 City officials certainly came out to welcome him. Traces of the recent siege and artillery must still have been visible in Bratislava, but life had returned to its daily rhythm, which was only disrupted by exceptional events, as the arrival of a papal legate undoubtedly was. From Vienna to Bratislava, the cardinal was accompanied by armed mercenaries provided by the people of Vienna. One man accompanied three of them, on horseback, as far as Hainburg on the return journey on 16 May at the expense of the city.46 We know very little about Cesarini’s stay in Bratislava and the content of his negotiations with Elisabeth. Elisabeth herself informed Ulrich of Rožmberk at the beginning of June that the pope had sent his legate, Cardinal Giuliano, to broker peace. She wrote that she had informed the cardinal of her position and that he had travelled to see the “Polish” king in Buda. She herself is awaiting his return with a reply from Władysław, but when concluding agreements she will need Rožmberk’s help and advice and asks him to come immediately.47

44 Eneas Silvius Piccolomini, Historia Austrialis 1–2, eds. Martin Wagendorfer and Julia Knödler. Monumenta Germaniae historica. Scriptores rerum Germanicarum. Nova series, 24. (Hannover: Hahnsche Buchhandlung, 2009), p. 288: “Caesar relicto Villaco, Dravoque flumine transmisso, Alpes ascendit, quae Germaniam Italiamque disungunt, atque in locum descendit, cui Canale est nomen. Ibi montes dextra levaque caelo vicini perpetua nive rigentes mirum in modum iter angustant. Quo cum Bohemi et Hungari pervenissent, mirati locorum asperitatem, angustos aditus, preruptas semitas, montium altitudines. In alium se migrare orbem existimabant, recteque tales Romaano imperio metas natura datas arbitrabantur, Ibi accolae triplici sermone utuntur: Italico, Sclavonico, Teutonico, nullum tamen horum rite pronuntiant.” 45 AMB, K4. 46 AMB, K4. 47 Rynešová, Listář a listinář 2, no. 191, p. 148, MNL OL DF 289 264.

200

Chapter 6

There were no extraordinary expenses associated with the stay of the papal legate in Bratislava. Cesarini was noted for his modesty, reportedly shocking his contemporaries by refusing rare gifts from prelates and kings.48 These statements appear to be true, because unlike other rare guests, Cesarini’s stay in Bratislava cost the city almost nothing. The only record in the city’s accounts relating to his stay dates to Monday, 7 May, when the city’s representatives honoured the cardinal with three “sandwich” loaves from baker Wolfgang, as well as fish bought by the burgomaster himself, and wine.49 No other gifts or favours are entered into the accounts. It is possible, however, that local clerics had to pay a certain fee for his stay (a so-called procuration).50 In contrast, the people of Bratislava benefitted from the papal legate’s stay in the city. Cesarini granted their request and on 12 May issued an indulgence charter for the Bratislava Chapel of the Body of God, according to which anyone who visits the chapel on certain holidays or sends money for its construction and repair will be pardoned.51 After Cesarini’s departure, Elisabeth also left Bratislava, heading to Baden, Austria. We don’t know the destination of Elisabeth’s journey; perhaps she wanted to inform Duke Albert, who was staying in Baden during this period, about the results of her negotiations with the cardinal.52 In Austria, as before in Bratislava, she also developed extensive diplomatic activities in order to achieve the return of her son and the Hungarian royal crown. This issue was very painful for the queen, and she dealt with it continuously, but utterly without success.53 Elisabeth complained to Frederick, who refused to hand over her children and the crown and forbade the Viennese to help her against Władysław. She even asked Albert of Bavaria, her former opponent for the Bohemian throne, for help.54 It is possible that the desperate letters sent by the 48 Fraknói, Cesarini, p. 18. 49 AMB, K4, p. 41. For the loaves of bread, the term “semlen wekken” is used in the accounts, (a baked good similar to a croissant but about the size of a loaf of bread). English “sandwich” refers mainly to a food made of two slices of bread, but we do not yet have a better word. 50 The most details on the papal legates, including the financial conditions of their stay, is in Antonín Kalous, Plenitudo potestatis in partibus: Papežští legáti a nunciové ve střední Evropě na konci středověku (1450–1526) (Brno: Matice moravská, 2010). 51 AMB, no. 1822. 52 He dated a charter then on 16 April, MNL OL DL 13 676. 53 On 1 May, she wrote a long letter from Bratislava to Speyer asking for help in the struggle to return the crown and children. She sent similar letters to many other recipients. The text is transcribed in the Speyer Chronicle: Speierische Chronik, in Quellensammlung der badischen Landesgeschichte. 1, ed. Franz Joseph Mone (Karlsruhe: Druck und Verlag von E. Macklot, 1848), pp. 377–80. 54 Urbánek, Věk Poděbradský 1, p. 602.

Two Victories, Two Defeats

201

queen on all sides influenced Brandenburg Margrave Albert III Hohenzollern, who offered Elisabeth marriage. He did not address the offer directly to the queen, but in April 1442 he promised the Archbishop of Trier an annual salary of 5,000 florins if he can mediate a marriage for him with the queen of Hungary. For Elisabeth, marriage to Albert, who was five years her junior and had earned the name Achilles for his chivalrous virtues and qualities, could have provided effective help in the fight against Władysław, but the queen had no intention of backing down from her plans and rejected the offer.55 Although Elisabeth achieved nothing at all in her efforts to get her children and the Hungarian royal crown returned, developments of the situation in the Kingdom of Hungary at least provided her with a reason for optimism. After the visit of Cardinal Cesarini to Bratislava, things began to move miraculously. Right before leaving for Baden, the queen made a temporary 14-day peace with her enemies in the surroundings of Bratislava. We know this from a letter that her devoted supporter, Count George of Pezinok, wrote to the Bratislava Count and the City Council on 26 May. He was responding to a report sent to him by his servant that the queen had made a fourteen-day peace with her enemies and would continue to negotiate with them. Count George of Pezinok declared his loyalty to Elisabeth, standing by her in peace and in war. He asked that they inform him when peace negotiations would continue, because, he, too, would like to send his representatives there.56 Count George repeated his interest in taking part in the peace talks in a letter to the people of Bratislava dated 30 May, as the end of the fourteen-day ceasefire drew near.57 George also probably met with Cesarini in person or through his own ambassador, because on 27 May, now from Buda, the cardinal granted him a lifetime licence to use a portable altar and to have a Mass or other sacraments served in appropriate and dignified places in the presence of family and familiars by means of his own or a foreign priest.58 The Bratislavans also took the first steps towards reconciliation with Bratislava Count George Rozgonyi, who warmly welcomed their initiative, replying to them from Trnava on 26 May by a letter in which how much everyone wanted an end to the war can be felt. Rozgonyi referred to their good relations before the war broke out: “God knows we have always desired peace and not war, and what we did to you (during the war) we had to do to protect our lives and 55 Urbánek, Věk Poděbradský 1, p. 602, the author considers the information on the offered marriage to be reliable. 56 AMB, no. 1827. 57 AMB, no. 1828. 58 MNL OL DL 13 679.

202

Chapter 6

property.” He welcomed their peace proposal; indeed, they in the end had felt themselves what war brings, and he mentioned the good Bratislava of a friend Eylaussemrokch, who does not entertain with water, but with his own good wine, “which may God indulge you with”.59 The Eylaussemrokch mentioned in George’s letter was an interesting and important figure of the Bratislava elite; he was also the city mayor for a certain time, but above all he was a large wine producer. We come across him rather often in the city accounts, because the wine that the townspeople donated to rare guests or sent to the royal court was often purchased from him. In 1441, they gifted his wine to Elisabeth’s court master and cook.60 His unusual name, which contemporaries spelled in various mutilated forms, is a substantial curiosity, as it contains the whole sentence: “Eil’aus dem Rock”, which is translated roughly as “Hurry get out of your coat!” or even “Get undressed, fast!” Bratislava’s city accounts have preserved a spicy story about the character of Hans Eylaussemrokch: in 1434, during his stay in Bratislava, Emperor Sigismund ordered that sewage and manure be taken and dumped in front of Eylaussemrokch’s house.61 Who knows how the prominent winegrower had so upset the monarch. Did he sell him bad wine? Did he not want to sell wine to him? George Rozgonyi had good memories of Eylaussemrokch. Who knows how much wine they drank with the lords of Bratislava in its “green room”, where the people of Bratislava hosted rare guests with wine.62 Whether Eylaussemrokch shared similar feelings towards George Rozgonyi is difficult to say given the events of 1440. At that time, George and Stephen Rozgonyi held 59 AMB, no. 1826. On 23 June city representatives travelled to see “den Span” (Bratislava Count) for peace by boat along the Danube to Trnovec (Tyrnawetz), AMB K4, p. 71. Negotiations with the Bratislava Count evidently began during the cardinal’s stay in the city, because on 10 June the Bratislava ambassadors went by boat to the same place (Tiernawecz), K4, p. 37. 60 AMB, K3, p. 103: “Item am Mantag in die Dorothee virginis (1441 febr. 6.) hab wir geert der Kunigin hofmaister herren Lasla von Masawcz vnd der Kunigin Kuchenmaister herren Demeter mit II flaschen mit wein zu XII pinten per VI den. wien. von dem Eilausenrock facit LXXII den. wien.” 61 AMB K1, p. 40: “Item am freitag noch Concepcionis Marie schuff unser gnediger her der kayser das man das kot vor dem Eylausenrokch solt lassen wbereinander slahen VIII per XL den facit L lb LXXX den.” The expenses of this occurrence were covered by the city. The word kot meant dirt, faeces, mud. Regular payments for the so-called Kot König, a man who exported manure, faeces and other impurities from the city, are recorded in the city accounts. 62 Eylaussemrokch as the owner “Grunstübel” in the land register, the so-called Grundbuch, of the city of Bratislava from 1439, AMB G, p. 109r: “Item Grunstübel des Eylausinrockhs frey,” the owner therefore did not pay taxes on this property. The room was painted with plant motifs, hence its name.

Two Victories, Two Defeats

203

Eylaussemrokch’s house in Trnava, which had been donated to them by King Władysław, after it was confiscated for his disloyalty to the king and for taking Queen Elisabeth’s side.63 The people of Bratislava kept Queen Elisabeth, who was in Austria, regularly informed about the ongoing negotiations and events in the city. In addition to reports, ambassadors and messengers always brought some sort of consideration to their mistress. Thus, on 30 May, they carried not only a letter to Baden but also a barrel of cherries.64 One of those who visited the queen in Baden was the well-known former Bratislava mayor Stephen Ranes, who brought wine to Elisabeth as a gift as well as good news about the extension of the peace with the enemies, specifically with the Bratislava Count, but also others, until Christmas of the same year.65 On 30 May Elisabeth replied to the people of Bratislava from Baden: although the report on the peace they had made with the named enemies was good, what can protect them from further damage may hurt others all the more, as enemies are now attacking Kremnica and the mining mines. The queen asked that the defence of the mining towns be included in the terms of the peace agreement. At the same time, she notified the Bratislavans that she was keeping Stephen Ranes with her for the time being, because she urgently needed him in regard to important matters, but that she would bring him with her when she returned to Bratislava from Vienna.66 Ultimately, this was not the case, and Stephen Ranes had to shuttle between Bratislava and Vienna, as not only the city accounts show, but also Queen Elisabeth’s letter of 8 June addressed to the Bratislava mayor and the City Council. The queen ordered that Ranes be given one of the two horses belonging to the captured Polan, to choose the better one, and to take it to the home of the former mayor. Stephen Ranes, “our old mayor”, as Elisabeth called him, has to keep riding here and there in her service and does not have enough suitable horses to do so.67 It is highly probable that Ranes himself brought the letter to Bratislava with the queen’s order to give him a horse. He immediately returned to Vienna, 63 MNL OL DL 13 583. 64 Expenditures for cherries, AMB K4, a message and a barrel in which he carried the cherries K4, pp. 41, 61 and 128. 65 Stephen Ranes left to go see the queen in Baden with wine on 28 May, AMB K4, pp. 37, 60. 66 AMB, no. 1829. 67 AMB, no. 1832. The Polan mentioned in the document was obviously Michal Polan (i.e. Poliak), who had debts with the Vienna burghers AMB, no. 1833. Elisabeth had him imprisoned, probably at the behest of the Viennese. During her absence, the people of Bratislava released Polan, to which the queen immediately responded with an order to arrest him again and imprison him AMB, no. 1830.

204

Chapter 6

evidently now equipped with a well-rested and more powerful animal.68 But he did not travel to Bratislava just to change his horse; he also carried a letter from Queen Elisabeth, dated 8 June, in which she responded to the new peace proposal sent to her by the people of Bratislava. This time she was satisfied, because the wording of the agreement also contained the commitment of the other side to not provide any help to the King of Poland, not in people nor in goods, during the current ceasefire. This in particular related to the assistance of Eger Bishop Simon Rozgonyi, who at the time was leading the campaign against Kremnica and the mining towns.69 Elisabeth stayed in Vienna until the end of June. Not only was she addressing the issue of her children, but – as she often had before – she was raising money. At the beginning of June, a certain Viennese burgher offered her a loan of 700 florins, for which she deposited her jewels with him. The brokers of the loan were her long-standing “financial advisors” Frank Pöker and Ladislaus Farkas.70 Despite the loan, the queen was still lacking money, so she asked Ulrich of Rožmberk to postpone the deadline for repaying a debt that still remained after King Albert.71 She also turned to Ulrich of Rožmberk in the matter of her children. She entreated him to work hard for the release of her son and the return of the royal crown in Austria as well, asking him to request of the Bishop of Passau, the lords of Schaumberg and Wallsee and others, that they speak to the king about returning to her the crown and her son.72 The situation was even made more complicated because Frederick had supposedly sent little Ladislaus to an unknown castle on the Austrian-Italian border, as the Bohemian chronicler wrote, “on the border of the Austrian land”, perhaps so that Elisabeth did not seize him during his absence from Austria.73 The removal of the boy reportedly so outraged the Counts of Cilli, both older and younger (Frederick and Ulrich) that declared war on Frederick and conquered several of his places “for his dishonesty and deceit, which he secretly has against the

68 On 11 June, Stephen Ranes travelled together with Peter Kraus from Bratislava to Vienna to see the queen, AMB K4, p. 38. 69 AMB, no. 1831. 70 Frank de Poker et Ladislaus Farkas de Buda. Publ. Teleki, Hunyadiak kora 10, pp. 112–113, MNL OL DF 258 376. 71 Rynešová, Listář a listinář 2, no. 193, p. 150. 72 Rynešová, Listář a listinář 2, no. 183, p. 142. 73 In the view of historian Petr Elbel, this could be somewhere near Trieste in the Austrian seaside, which at the time was the “italian” land of Austria. South Tyrol also partly belonged there, but this was not Frederick’s part of the Austrian holdings.

205

Two Victories, Two Defeats

queen, and for sending her children elsewhere”.74 It’s possible that the moving of little Ladislaus, contrary to the agreements that King Frederick and Elisabeth made, outraged the Counts of Cilli and became the detonator causing a resumption of their war against each other, temporarily quieted by the armistice. The cause of the antagonism, which lasted intermittently from 1437 to 1443, was an old dispute over the occupation of the bishopric in Gurk. The military conflict of the Cillis with Frederick of Habsburg was not an insignificant local dispute, but a genuine war connected with the conquest of castles, the plundering and burning of enemy property and the killing and capturing of people. The Cillis themselves had three of their own castles demolished because they were not sufficiently protected and the enemy could have used them against the Cillis after conquering them. From the start, the Cillis had a clear advantage in the war, thanks to the excellent Bohemian Hussite captain Ján Vítovec, but later luck began to lean towards the side of Habsburg. The conflict finally ended with a peace treaty concluded in 1443 in Wiener Neustadt.75

⸪

Elisabeth returned to Bratislava on Tuesday, 3 July. She was accompanied from Vienna to Bratislava by 40 Viennese burghers, whom the people of Bratislava honoured with four large demijohns of wine.76 The situation in Bratislava and its surroundings was calm, aside from occasional minor incidents, such as the moving of city’s cattle to Skalica.77 But for the most part there was peace, and Bratislava also began peace talks with the troublesome mercenaries from Devín.78 Cardinal Cesarini, meanwhile, was negotiating in Buda with King Władysław’s side. At the end of June, an assembly gathered in Buda to decide what to do next. It was now clear that the help from Poland that Władysław and the Hungarian lords had requested in April was not coming. At their own assembly, the Polish magnates refused to further support the civil war in the Kingdom of Hungary and sent a letter to Buda dated 30 April stating this decision. They 74 Staré letopisy české, p. 96: “pro neupřiemost a lest, kterúž má proti králové tajně, a že přenesl a poslal jinam děti jejie.” 75 Štih, Die Grafen von Cilli, pp. 89–90. 76 AMB K4, pp. 41–42: “Item am Erichtag noch unser frawen tag visitacionis Marie hab wir geert dy erbern von Wyenn dy der kunigin ein gelait hatten gegeben pey LX person noch des purgermaistrer gescheft mit IIII grossen flaschen mit wein dar in gegangen was XXVII pint per VI den. wien. Facit V sol. XII den. wien.” 77 AMB K4, p. 130. 78 AMB, no. 1834.

206

Chapter 6

sharply denounced the senseless war being waged between the people of the Kingdom of Hungary and emphasised that they had already provided help and now recommended that they make peace with one another. If all the forces being consumed by their internal war had instead been turned against the Turks, they could have driven them from the country long ago.79 Despite the rejection, the Hungarian magnates sent still another request for help from the Buda assembly to Poland, stating that they were negotiating peace, but that it would be easier for King Władysław to make peace if he had sufficient strength.80 The charismatic Cardinal Cesarini was successful in Buda. He obtained an answer from Władysław regarding Elisabeth’s requests and returned to Bratislava with it in July. He stopped at the queen’s castle in Komárno, from where on 14 July he sent her a letter telling her that he had arrived in Komárno late last night and that together with Archbishop Dionysius of Esztergom, Vaivoda of Transylvania Nicholas of Ilok, Sigismund Báthori and eight other gentlemen, he would continue on their journey, “Because I desire to see smoke and hope that the matter will end well in honour and benefit of Your Clarity”.81 The cardinal here was using the metaphor of the pope’s election, when white smoke announced the good news that a new pope had been elected. Immediately after receiving word of the approaching delegation from Buda, Elisabeth urged the mayor and the Vienna City Council to send their representatives to her for the negotiations.82 We know from her letter of gratitude dated at the beginning of August that the Viennese ambassadors were John (Hanus) Ebendorfer, Ulrich Eizinger and Konrad of Waldaw.83 The queen also requested advisers from the University of Vienna, asking that four doctors be sent to consult with her, but the university eventually approved only two, one theologian (Narcissus Herz) and one lawyer (John Polzmacher).84 Also present for the queen were representatives of her towns, including from her Moravian towns, such as Znojmo, who also served as an advisory committee.85 A significant Bohemian diplomat and nobleman, Menhart of Hradec, also arrived in 79 80 81 82 83 84

Codex epistolaris saeculi decimi quinti 2, p. 434. Codex epistolaris saeculi decimi quinti 1, no. 120, p. 133. MNL OL DF 258 541. The letter is dated 16 July 1442, WStLA, nr. 2875. AMB, no. 1838. Durst, Königin Elisabeth 2, p. 10. Polzmacher came from the burgher family Polzmacher from Brno and became the provost of the chapter in Brno. He also preserved his law library, which he donated to the Scottish monastery. Thanks go to Peter Elbel for this information. 85 AMB K4, p. 42.

Two Victories, Two Defeats

207

Bratislava; he presided over the provincial assembly as the highest burgrave of Prague. Menhart was a close friend of Ulrich of Rožmberk, and their mutual correspondence is a rich source of information about this period. Menhart was very actively involved on behalf of Elisabeth for the release of Ladislaus the Posthumous from the hands of King Frederick. For this reason, he spent several months in Austria in 1441 at the displeasure of the Bohemian states, which could not meet in assembly due to his absence.86 He now came to Bratislava to help Elisabeth in the negotiations, probably also on behalf of Ulrich of Rožmberk, to whom Elisabeth had originally turned.87 Elisabeth also summoned her faithful to Bratislava: Šmikouský from Győr, Henry Tamási and Thomas Szécsi,88 Count George of Pezinok and Svätý Jur,89 John Jiskra90 and many others. Elisabeth’s people first gathered in the city and only then let the “enemies”, surely carrying letters of safe conduct, through the city gates. It seems that Cardinal Cesarini, Esztergom Archbishop Dionysius and the lords sent by Władysław as his proxies first came from Komárno to Nicholas of Ilok’s castle in Hlohovec, and on 18 July, a messenger from Bratislava carried a letter to them and immediately brought back their reply.91 Their stay in Bratislava is documented only on 24 July, when in addition to Cardinal Cesarini and the Archbishop of Esztergom, the individual envoys (Nicholas Bánfi, Emeric Marcali and others) are found in the city accounts, in some places called “landherren”, meaning land holders. The townspeople honoured them, too, with wine, beer and, due to the summer season, pears. The cardinal and Nicholas Bánfi also received fish from the city as a consideration.92 Within not quite two weeks, Cesarini’s diplomatic skills led to the first agreement: the queen agreed to meet with King Władysław on 21 September in Esztergom. Elisabeth, however, asked that three conditions be met, which she clearly formulated in a charter issued on 8 August 1442: first, she demanded a letter of safe conduct from King Władysław, prelates and barons, which was to ensure her personal safety. She further demanded King Władysław’s patent deed guaranteeing that she would not be forced into an engagement, 86 Urbánek, Věk Poděbradský 1, pp. 589–90. 87 AMB K4, p. 42. On Sunday, 21 July, the people of Bratislava honoured him with three large bottles of wine and beer. 88 AMB K4, p. 43. 89 AMB K4, p. 42. 90 AMB K4, p. 42. 91 AMB K4, p. 130: “Item auch an dem tag I poten mit briefen ken Tyrnaw und zu herren Jorigen Rosgon und ken der Freyen stat zu pischolf von Gran und zum Cardinal noch des purgermaister gescheft der er wider brief hat von in gepracht.” 92 AMB K4, pp. 42–44.

208

Chapter 6

marriage or other union against her free will, and thirdly she wanted to have letters of safe conduct from Ban Nicholas of Ilok and Stephen Báthory. All these documents were to be delivered to the papal legate. Only when these documents were delivered to the cardinal and confirmed with a personal oath by King Władysław was she willing to come to Esztergom Castle in the escort of Cesarini and Nicholas of Ilok. The charter was sealed with the seals of Cardinal Giuliano, Archbishop of Esztergom Dionysius Szécsi and Władysław’s ambassadors Nicholas of Ilok and Stephen Báthory.93 It is of interest that although Nicholas of Ilok had moved to the side of Elisabeth’s opponent and had only recently taken part in the conquest of Bratislava, the queen absolutely trusted him. This is testimony to his authority and perhaps also to the human qualities that his contemporaries appreciated in him, regardless of which side he fought on. Elisabeth immediately informed her towns about the negotiations with the ambassadors of the Polish king and their results, and in these letters she also mentioned in the first place, as the ambassadors of King Władysław, Nicholas of Ilok (Niclos von der Freyestat, i.e. Nicholas of Hlohovec) and Stephen Báthory. These two men, together with Cardinal Cesarini, evidently played the most significant role in the negotiations. In her letters, the queen asked the town officials to send their representatives to the planned meeting in Esztergom, who would be at her disposal, and that they bring with them a procession, food and feed for the horses.94 On Tuesday, 14 August, the Bratislava councillors said goodbye to King Władysław’s delegation with a ceremonial banquet, as was the custom after successful negotiations. Several items appear in the chamber accounts for that date. At the town hall, they donated wine and bread, spices and food for the table to the “landherren”; they even served meals several times during the day (breakfast, lunch, dinner). The city also paid two chefs and others who provided services for the banquet,95 and Cardinal Cesarini received two different fish that day, as well as three sandwich loaves and wine.96 93 Durst, Königin Elisabeth 2, p. 13. A transcription of the charter can be found in the Bardejov Town Archives collection of medieval documents, AMBard, no. 397. 94 Two of these letters, for Košice and Kremnica, have been preserved. She sent a mandate to the city of Košice on 12 August 1442: AMBard, no. 399, to the town of Kremnica, 14 August 1442: Teleki, Hunyadiak kora 10, p. 116. She probably sent similar letters to all of her towns. 95 AMB, K4, p. 81. 96 AMB, K4, p. 44. Information about the fish for the cardinal on the day when the councillors hosted the entire estate is of interest and may indicate that Cesarini did not eat meat. On his first visit to Bratislava, too, he received fish, buns and wine, although there was

Two Victories, Two Defeats

209

The stay of a great many people in the city meant not only increased expenditures of various kinds (for hospitality, gifts, personnel, increased protection of the city, etc.), but also brought other curious costs. On the day when the Hungarian lords and the cardinal were guests of the Bratislava City Hall, the city paid a man to bury a dead horse that had fallen into the city moat at Michael’s Gate. The dead animal smelled so bad that no one could remain at the gate, which was not proper to an official entrance to the city.97 Less than two weeks later an even worse job awaited the poor man: stray dogs had dug through a carcass and he had to bury it again due to the unbearable stench.98 We can vividly imagine what such work with a long dead horse in the middle of the summer heat would be like. We know with certainty that Cardinal Cesarini left Bratislava together with the Hungarian lords shortly after 14 August, because he and the Hungarian lords no longer appear in the city accounts. They likely returned to Buda carrying Queen Elisabeth’s answer. As early as 16 August, King Władysław issued the required “salvus conductus” in Buda, a letter of safe conduct for Elisabeth for her journey to Esztergom. The list bears the seals of 50 prelates, barons and the most important nobles, both Polish and Hungarian, who guaranteed the queen’s safety on the way to Esztergom and back. Among the guarantors of King Władysław we can find the names of those who until recently had been on Elisabeth’s side and who were very close to her: Bishop Matthias of Veszprém, Serbian despot Đurađ Branković, Count Frederick of Cilli. Other members of the royal council were on the list, including, of course, Bishop Simon Rozgonyi in Eger, Nicholas of Ilok, Matko of Talovac, Stephen Báthory and many others.99 Surprisingly, the planned meeting in Esztergom never took place. Historians have consistently stated that the reasons for its cancellation are unknown and that the final months of the queen’s life are shrouded in mystery. Why was there no meeting in Esztergom? What compelled the queen change her plans so suddenly? The Bratislava city accounts from this period offer at least a clue no fasting period and on 7 May; it was also a Monday, when fasting did not apply, AMB K4, p. 41. 97 AMB K4, p. 75: “Item auch an dem tag (Erichtag in vigilia Assumpcionis gloriose virginis Marie 14 August) hab wir geben Henniger von ainem toden Roß inczegraben das In den Stat graben gefallen was pey sannd Michaels tor das feynleich stank das nyemant pey dem tar bleiben mocht 4 lb. den. wien.” 98 AMB K4, p. 83: “Item auch an dem tag (Pfincztag in vigilia Bartholomei 23 August) hab ich geben dem Heiniger noch des purgermaister gescheft, das er das ros das man vormals in dem Stat graben in gegraben hat vnd das hatten dy hunt hinwider ausgegraben das er das con gestank wegen mit erdreich hinwider wol beschut hat XXXVIII den. wien.” 99 MNL OL DF 258 234, Teleki, Hunyadiak kora 10, pp. 118–20.

210

Chapter 6

about where to look for answers to these questions. A surprising mention of a threat to the queen’s life appears in them on 14 September 1442: a payment for two waggoners who transported the queen with three horses from Bratislava to Kittsee when she escaped death in Bratislava.100 This event is also mentioned elsewhere in a bill of wine that the queen sent to Kittsee on Friday, the Feast Day of Exaltation of the Holy Cross (14 September), when she escaped from death in Bratislava.101 Perhaps this trifling mention in the Bratislava city accounts is the key to the mystery. Had the queen escaped an assassination attempt? If we put the information from the accounts into a mosaic of other sources, it seems possible or even probable. On 13 September, the eve of the Feast Day of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross, Elisabeth unexpectedly sent a letter from Bratislava to the people of Bardejov stating that the meeting in Esztergom, to which she had invited them, had been cancelled and moved to Győr, though she stated the reason very vaguely: “We are letting you know that for a number of reasons we have decided to remove to Győr to instead of Esztergom”. She asked the Bardejov officials to come to her Győr, together with the surrounding nobles, castellans and representatives of other towns. The queen specified that, due to supply difficulties, they not travel with a large escort, as she had previously ordered.102 On the next day, the Feast Day of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross, as we already know, she “escaped from death” by moving from Bratislava to Kittsee. Then on 16 September, now from Kittsee, she wrote to the Bardejov again, saying that God willing, she will be in Győr next Saturday, and asked them to come there. At the same time the queen emphasised that the city’s representatives and other loyalists come earlier than the Hungarian lords.103 Two days later she wrote to Bardejov again. Her use of messengers at this time must have been enormous, because, in her own words, she sent letters to other places as well. In the letter, the queen repeated that on Saturday she would go to Győr, where her uncle, Frederick of Cilli, was to come to see her along with 100 AMB, K4, p. 38: “Item am freitag in die Exaltationis s. Crucis (14 September) hab wir gehat II furman yden mit III Rossen dy der kunigin gut gefurt haben ken Choczsee als sy den Tot floch und haben ydem geben IIII sol. den. wien. Facit VII sol. den. wien.” 101 AMB K4, p. 39: “Item auch an dem Tag (Montag vor Symonis et Jude) hab wir erst beczalt XXXIII halb wein dem Meidlem per V den. wien. dy man genomen hat zu Kunigsfelder dar umb des Jorig Weinbachter vinglein gestanden ist und den man der Kunigin ken Choczsee geschikt hat am freitag in die Exaltationis s. Crucis als dy den Tod von Prespurgk floch facit VI sol. den. wien.” 102 AMBar, no. 401. The charter was dated “am des Heiligen Crewcz abend Exaltationis,” thus, it could have been issued on the night from 13 to 14 September. 103 AMBar, no. 402.

Two Victories, Two Defeats

211

other important Hungarian lords, and she emphasised that it would also be suitable for her to have enough people to give her help and advice. She also entreated them to come to Győr before the Hungarian lords.104 She sent still another messenger to Bardejov on 27 September, this time without a letter, but with a confidential report, that was to be delivered to them orally.105 The tone of Elisabeth’s letters changed after the mysterious event of 14 September. Although she did not mention anything specific in the letters, a change can be felt in them. The queen was now asking more than commanding, and her letters are more humble and less authoritative. Elisabeth’s fears may have been allayed by the fact that she already had a letter of safe conduct from Duke Nicholas of Ilok, which she requested in Bratislava as one of her three main conditions. Nicholas dated the letter on 23 September at his Bátorkő Castle and with it, under the oath of the queen, guaranteed safety on the journey to and from the meeting. The duke referred to his faith, christening, good reputation, human dignity, the Lord God, the Virgin Mary and all the saints. He vowed to ensure the safety not only of the queen, but also of all her familiars, Hungarians, Bohemians, the Moravians, Austrians, Germans and anyone else of any standing, nationality or language.106 The queen apparently arrived in Győr on Saturday, 22 September, as announced. On Wednesday, 26 September, the Archbishop of Esztergom, Dionysius was already in Győr,107 as was his brother Thomas. On 11 October, they both affixed their seals to Elisabeth’s letter of safe conduct for Frederick of Cilli, who was supposed to come to the queen for King Władysław, with 50 to 100 horsemen.108 On 4 October, the queen wrote another letter to the town of Bardejov stating that she plans to continue in Győr the peace negotiations that began when Ban Nicholas and other lords were behind her in Bratislava. Therefore, she asked the people of Bardejov to send two or three ambassadors to Győr in compliance with her previous order, because she does not want to make a peace agreement without their presence and knowledge. What’s remarkable is the part in which the queen comments on the information spreading through the country that she wishes to marry King Władysław. Elisabeth expressed deep astonishment that someone considered it even possible to have such a 104 AMBar, no. 400. 105 AMBard, no. 403: “was derselb Nicloss unser diener also auf diczmal mit euch reden wird, das Ir Im das glaubet als uns selbst.” 106 MNL OL DL 44 335. 107 AMB, no. 1845. 108 Teleki, Hunyadiak kora 10, pp. 121–22, MNL OL DF 258 350. Elisabeth’s vice-chancellor, Doctor of Law Augustine Salánki, is listed as the relator.

212

Chapter 6

plan, which would damage the rights of her son Ladislaus. “You surely cannot believe such a rumour about us, and when you come to us, we wish to talk to you about all these things,” the queen wrote.109 It is striking that this is the second mention of a possible marriage of Elisabeth to Władysław in a short period of time, though few would have assumed that the idea of this union could still be alive in 1442. The queen’s fearfulness when she asked for a written promise from the king not to be forced into marriage testifies to the fact that there was still a group of people who had not given up on the idea of Elisabeth and Władysław marrying.110 John Jiskra, meanwhile, was notably absent in Győr. He, from Hollókő Castle, had extended the armistice with the estates of Nógrád and Hont counties on 17 September, until April of the following year.111 He later remained in Košice, from where he wrote a letter to Bardejov on 5 November, asking them to travel to Elisabeth in Győr for peace negotiations, that he himself was ready to move to Győr when he received another order. Meanwhile, he was still waiting for a letter of safe conduct.112 It seems that Jiskra, for reasons unknown to us, had no desire to take part in negotiations with the Hungarian lords in person; perhaps he considered his presence in Košice to be more important, or he was sceptical about the negotiations themselves. He would not be unique in this regard; the author of one letter addressed to Ulrich of Rožmberk before 21 September also expressed his doubts: it did not seem to him that the queen would agree on anything with Władysław without King Frederick’s presence and that no important matters would be discussed at all.113 Not only Jiskra, but some towns, too, remained indifferent to the queen’s pleas and did not send their representatives to Győr. On 12 November Elisabeth wrote an urgent letter to Banská Štiavnica that the Polish king would come to Pannonhalma today or tomorrow, so they should come to her without delay. Through her messenger, she also sent them a letter of safe conduct from King Władysław, so that they would feel safe when travelling to see her.114 Ladislaus Töttős of Bátmonostor, Elisabeth’s former treasurer, now on the side of King Władysław, was now heading for the negotiations in Győr. On 14 November, he wrote a letter to his wife Anna and his sister, Sophia, that 109 AMBard, no. 404. 110 This was one of Elisabeth’s demands, which she declared in a letter dated 8 August. AMBard, no. 397. 111 MNL OL DF 249 997. 112 AMBard, no. 397. 113 MNL OL DF 289 265 “I nezdat mi se byt ona zaze ktem czassu biti mohla a take bez krale rzimskeho, take my se nezda by tu welike wyeczy gednany billi.” 114 MNL OL DF 234 686 (orig), transcript: MNL OL DF 267 027, DF 286 841.

Two Victories, Two Defeats

213

he had today left Buda and is travelling [to Győr] because of the agreement between the king and queen, and he believes they will negotiate a “good” peace. The letter is very appealing, as Ladislaus urged his wife and sister not to have any sadness and to live and take care of themselves as best they can.115 John Długosz tells in relative detail the events in Győr, where Elisabeth met Władysław for the first time in her life. When the sides agreed to make peace, they drew up a number of peace treaties setting out the terms. Queen Elisabeth first of all demanded that King Władysław relinquish the title of King of Hungary. He was to marry Elisabeth’s older daughter, and until her son Ladislaus turned fifteen years old, he was to rule and have full power to donate, confiscate, and exercise all royal rights, as did the king and lord of the kingdom. She further proposed that she would compensate him for the losses he had suffered in the election of the King of Hungary by the eternal annexation of the territory of Spiš to the Kingdom of Poland. She also promised him Silesia as a dowry worth 200,000 florins and proposed that King Władysław become the heir to the throne in the Kingdom of Hungary should Ladislaus die before reaching the age of maturity or without offspring. She further offered to have Casimir, King Władysław’s brother, take Elisabeth’s second daughter as his wife and receive 120,000 florins as a dowry. Władysław was willing to accept such a peace, but the Hungarian barons and prelates were unambiguously against it, as this called into question Władysław’s coronation of 1440. Długosz says that the peace talks in Győr began on the Feast Day of St. Catherine (25 November) in the great hall of Győr Castle. Both opponents saw each other for the first time in their lives, and after the administration of the Right they reportedly introduced themselves to one another, because they had never met in person. After lengthy negotiations, they reached a peace agreement, which they declared in three languages in the cathedral. Władysław’s commitment to help Elisabeth get back her son and the crown, for good or by force, was also part of the agreement. The chronicler Długosz presents the whole event in a rather tendentious way, sparing no words when describing the enthusiasm and admiration that the queen allegedly felt for Władysław. Both rulers gifted each other several rare furs; Władysław gave Elisabeth a fur made of sable, and she gave him one of Persian lamb. Władysław also invited Elisabeth to Buda on the first Sunday of Lent, and then he departed Győr, leaving his adviser, the Dean of Cracow, Nicholas Lasocki, to assist her. Three days after Władysław’s departure, on 19 December 1442, Queen Elisabeth unexpectedly died.116 115 Zichy 9, no. 43, p. 45, MNL OL DL 80 770. 116 Dlugosz 12, pp. 678–80.

214

Chapter 6

This time we have the opportunity to confront Długosz’s detailed report with several sources. On 2 December, Elisabeth wrote to the people of Bratislava the news that the negotiations with the Polish king had begun after various estates arrived (in Győr). After her “main thirty-year-old”, Ladislaus Farkas, she orally made her demands on them.117 On the same day, Cardinal Cesarini dated two charters in Győr.118 Then, on 17 December, the queen notified the people of Bratislava that, after thorough negotiations with Władysław, during which she had persisted in her initial position that she could not and did not want to harm her son Ladislaus’s rights, they had made peace, and she was sending the agreement to them through two of their fellow townsmen.119 On that same day, 17 December, vaivode Nicholas of Ilok also dated two charters in Győr. These were issued on behalf of Ladislaus Töttős of Bátmonostor, but they also mention the peace that has just been concluded. Nicholas of Ilok wrote that one of the articles of peace that Queen Elisabeth and King Władysław had just concluded was that all donations of foreign property would be declared invalid and returned to the original owners. This meant that all castles, fortresses, cities, towns and villages forcibly confiscated during the war and donated to the other party must be returned to their original owners. Nicholas of Ilok wrote in the charter that he had promised the king, queen, prelates and barons that he would lead by example and return everything he or his people had so gained. He therefore ordered his familiars to return to Ladislaus Töttős of Bátmonostor all the property and villages taken from him that they had acquired.120 With a second charter dated the same day, he ordered several addressees to return all the confiscated riding horses to Töttős. The most valuable message relating to the peace is Cardinal Cesarini’s letter to the ruler of Mantua, Gianfrancesco Gonzaga. This is an absolutely authentic testimony, because the cardinal was located directly at Győr Castle, and the signed peace agreement was largely his work. Cesarini began writing his letter on Sunday, 16 December. He informed the addressee, the ruler of Mantua, who formerly had very close and friendly relations with Elisabeth’s father, Emperor Sigismund, that peace between Elisabeth and Władysław had been concluded and confirmed on Friday, 14 December. Cesarini described his efforts and the work he had put into the peace, as well as all the expenses and dangers he had incurred. It is evident from the letter that King Władysław did not remain at Győr Castle during the peace negotiations. 117 118 119 120

MNL OL DL 44 338. MNL OL DF 272 782, DF 272 712. AMB, no. 1853. Zichy 9, no. 44, p. 46, MNL OL DL 80 773, DL 80 772. The charters are addressed to two different addressees. There must have originally been many more.

215

Two Victories, Two Defeats

The peace agreement was concluded on Friday by his ambassadors. He had personally come to Győr on Saturday, 15 December, together with his Hungarian and Polish lords, to confirm and verbally swear to the treaty. Cesarini informed Gonzaga in detail about the various provisions of the peace: 1. The queen will retain all the cities, towns, castles and forts in her power to this day. In addition, she is to get several more castles to balance the forces of both sides. 2. To confirm the peace, the queen promised to give her older daughter to Władysław as a wife. 3. As for the royal title, the queen declared that she would rather die than release it to King Władysław. They therefore agreed that there would be silence about the royal title. 4. The Peace Treaty permitted the queen to make a solemn declaration of her son’s rights in the Kingdom of Hungary. And so the queen – as she had many times before  – solemnly declared that with this peace and agreement nothing had changed or in any way infringed or damaged her son’s rights. The purpose of Her Clarity is and shall be to preserve the rights of her son in their entirety and intact. The participants welcomed the conclusion of the peace and the agreement with applause and expressions of joy; they thanked God and sang “Te Deum laudamus”. Before Cardinal Cesarini could send his letter, however, everything changed. Three days after the departure of the Polish king and his entourage, Elisabeth died. Cesarini wrote a few lines about this in the letter of 20 December. According to him, the great joy of the peace was replaced by sorrow. On Saturday, 15 December, the King of Poland came to Győr and left on that same day. On Monday, 17 December, the queen began to feel unwell; the next day she worsened and on Wednesday, 19 December, she died. “I hope that such a brutal and furtive death does not destroy the peace, born by such effort, hardship and dangers overcome, and that my work, which has lasted so many months, was not in vain,” Cesarini wrote, adding that this tragic event had caused the delayed departure of the messenger, who was ready to travel a few days ago.121

⸪

121 Archivio di Stato Mantua, Busta 533. Published Rudolf Knott, “Ein Schreiben der Kardinallegaten Julian Cesarini an der Markgrafen von Mantua Johann Franz von Gonzaga über den Friedenschluß zwischen der Königin Elisabeth und Wladislav IV. von Ungarn und den Tod Elisabeths,” in Jahres-Bericht des K. K. Staats-Obergymnasiums in Teplitz-Schönau für das Schuljahr 1905–1906, (Teplitz-Schönau, 1906), p. 5.

216

Chapter 6

The death of the queen was so sudden, unexpected and quick that it is difficult to believe Długosz and other authors who say that the queen died of dysentery, or the long-term abdominal pain that she was ashamed to entrust to a doctor.122 Piccolomini claimed in one of the letters from 1445 that the queen had died of uterine pain that she suffered from, although he admitted that reports of her being poisoned were also circulating.123 The suspicion that Elisabeth had been poisoned was voiced by several chroniclers. Austrian chronicler Veit Arnpeck claimed that the poison was in the fur coat that Władysław had given to the queen.124 The truth about what actually happened in Győr is hard for anyone to uncover today. Poisoners worked reliably and in a very refined way. From the registers of applications in the Apostolic Penitentiary, we know of several hereditary cases in which the culprit  – despite the fact that secular power never revealed or punished him – came to the papal mansion after many years seeking absolution. The queen began having her first difficulties two days after the departure of Władysław and the Hungarian lords. After the departure of her “enemies” from Győr, she apparently began to feel safe and relaxed her vigilance. It seems that the killer was one of her own people, someone who was willing to do this abominable work, be it for money or some other promise. The queen was healthy up to then; her loyal Henry Tamási had informed about her full health in March. Testimony to Elisabeth’s good health also lies in her physical performance; the queen was constantly on the road, full of activity and life. There was never a single hint of any problems. The queen’s health was taken care of by her personal physician, the prominent doctor John Zeller of Vienna, a multiple dean of the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Vienna (in 1441, 1447 and 1452).125 Elisabeth had been known to Zeller from the 1430s, when she lived in Vienna as an Austrian princess. We know that on Albert’s request, that he organised pre-Easter and Easter passion plays in 1431, probably with his students, which caused a great deal of reluctance from the dean of the Faculty 122 References to the relevant authors in Durst, Königin Elisabeth 2, p. 17. 123 FRA 2/61, p. 565. 124 Arnpeck, Sämtliche Chroniken. 125 He appears as the queen’s physician in her letter of 8 December 1441, dated in Bratislava and addressed to the city of Vienna. The queen asked them to help her friend and servant of her doctor John Zeller (Hanns Czeller unser Arczt), Simon, to obtain the priesthood in Vienna, WStA, nr. 2853. Regarding Zeller as the Dean of the Medical Faculty of the Vienna University, see Stephanie Plefka, Akademische Ärzte der Medizinischen Fakultät Wien und deren Intaraktionen mit Stadt, Hof und Umland im späten Mittelalter. Diplomaarbeit. (Vienna: Universität Wien, 2015), p. 67.

Two Victories, Two Defeats

217

of Arts. According to the faculty statutes, no master was allowed to organise similar plays without the express consent of the university. The faculty solved the problematic plays organised by Zeller not only in 1432, but also decided on his request to perform plays the following year. The plays were rejected again, despite the fact that they were to take place at the express request of Prince Albert, Elisabeth’s husband.126 Zeller was an exceptionally learned and interesting man. He came from Augsburg and in 1423 was matriculated at the Medical Faculty of the University of Vienna and graduated in 1435 with a doctorate in medicine. The first autopsy performed at the University of Vienna is attributed to him. In 1438, along with other doctors and pharmacists, he fought with the Vienna City Council to ban charlatans.127 By charlatans, he meant “empiricists” who operated on a medical licence without a medical education and the consent of the Faculty of Medicine. Many years after Elisabeth’s death, in 1453, Johannes Zeller became the personal physician of Elisabeth’s son Ladislaus the Posthumous. He tragically died in the service of the king in 1456 while crossing the Danube near Belgrade at the time when Ulrich of Cilli was murdered there.128 We don’t know whether Elisabeth’s doctor was with her at Győr Castle, and we don’t even know how she was treated. Her condition must have been very serious from the first moment, since they did not even try to transport the queen to Vienna or Bratislava, where she would have had more hope of saving. Cardinal Cesarini, however, was certainly at her deathbed and apparently provided her with extreme unction. The body of the deceased thirty-three-year-old queen was reportedly taken to Székesfehérvár and buried alongside her husband.129 Many people must have wished for the queen’s death. Let us recall information about how the queen had escaped death in September in Bratislava, or Długosz’s report that the Hungarian magnates considered the agreement with Elisabeth on her son’s rights a disgrace which negated their election and they disagreed with it. The peace she made with King Władysław was a de facto victory for her and did not resolve the situation. Even the planned restitution of gifted property must have been a nightmare for many magnates. The death of the queen may have made this process more difficult or impossible.

126 Hans Rupprich, Geschichte der deutschen Literatur. 4/1: Das ausgehende Mittelalter, Humanismus und Renaissance 1370–1520 (Munich: C.H. Beck, 1994), p. 252. 127 Plefka, Akademische Ärzte, pp. 50, 53. 128 Hlavačková, Contraria contraii, pp. 129–30. 129 Dlugosz 12, p. 680.

218

Chapter 6

A living Elisabeth was too great a complication and a potential threat, even though she recognised Władysław’s lifelong rights to the Hungarian throne (without a royal title) and her son was to succeed only after Władysław’s death. Effectively, the country would be ruled by two rulers, Elisabeth and Władysław. It was also clear that if Władysław were to have a legitimate son, the country would continue to face double rule in the future. The queen, who obtained property from her mother Barbara of Cilli in 1439, was also one of the richest people in the country, although the war had destroyed her financially. Elisabeth was too strong a personality and could not be expected to remain in seclusion. Years of brutal civil war had made her a number of inveterate enemies, men she had humiliated by captivity, defeat through mercenaries and depriving them of property. There were plenty of reasons to remove this inconvenient queen. Elisabeth’s unexpected death caused shock. Representatives of the city of Wrocław sent a letter to Vienna on 9 January, expressing their dismay at the unexpected death of the queen and requesting information about how and by what disease the queen had died. They also asked what will happen to the towns and castles that had sided with Elisabeth.130 Who will be the king? Ladislaus or Władysław? If someone really did have Elisabeth killed in the hope that it would eliminate the problem, then the plan didn’t work. John Jiskra himself suspected that the queen’s unexpected death had its plotter. He stated this rather clearly in a letter he wrote to the city of Vienna while in Kremnica sometime in the octave after the Three Kings (after 6 January) in 1443: “With sorrow and bitterness in our hearts, we are letting your Wisdom know that the death of our most merciful mistress and noble queen, Lady Elisabeth, late of highly honoured memory, which Her Grace so suddenly found during these peace negotiations perhaps as the act of one of their participants or mediators, causes us great pain, immense sorrow and devastating grief.” Jiskra, who in the letter was named as the Count of Šariš and the Supreme hetman of King Ladislaus, declared that even after the queen’s death he would defend the interests of Ladislaus the Posthumous.131 The new war thus began only a few days after the conclusion of the hoped for peace. The queen’s towns of Kremnica, Prešov, Košice and others declared for Jiskra.132 Cardinal Cesarini’s fears that peace would not last long were fulfilled. 130 Joseph Frhr. von Hormayr von Hortenburg, ed., Wien, seine Geschichte und seine Denkwürdigkeiten. 1/1–5, 2/1–4 (Vienna, 1823–1825), 2/1, p. 103. 131 WStA, nr. 2889. 132 MNL OL DF 276 216, DF 290 166.

Two Victories, Two Defeats

219

King Władysław had won. His adversary was dead. Rule in the Kingdom of Hungary now belonged to him with the royal title that Elisabeth was willing to die for. Although Władysław won, he wasn’t really a winner. He acquired a kingdom devastated by the civil war, divided by mutual hatred, vexed by daily attacks from the Turks, which did not permit him to breathe. It was as if the young king’s destiny was only to fight. When he arrived in the Kingdom of Hungary at the age of sixteen, as Helene Kottannerin noted, he declared: “I did not come to fight. I came because I wanted to dance and enjoy myself”.133 Marriage with the older queen terrified him, but he was willing to submit to it. He had no idea that the only thing that awaited him in Hungary was a permanent stay in military camps, in summer or winter, a plague epidemic, conflicts, problems, and finally death on the battlefield at the age of twenty. Władysław and Elisabeth both won; the queen conquered the throne for her son, and Władysław became the only reigning king for only a short time. But they both lost, too, because they paid for it with their own lives. 133 Dvořáková and Papsonová, Spomienky, p. 49.

Conclusion On the Sunday before Christmas, 23 December, 1442, bells rang out in Bratislava. This time this was not a ceremonial ringing, but a sad death-knell, eight men ringing for God’s grace for the deceased queen. Bratislava was saying farewell to its mistress.1 News of Elisabeth’s death reached Bratislava almost immediately. Repre­ sentatives of the city were with her in Győr, and communication between the city and the queen ran almost continuously and had from the moment the queen left for Győr Castle in early November.2 Sometimes only city messengers went to Győr; other times the city officials themselves, such as Andrew of Fronaw on 8 December, who was go to the queen by boat.3 The burgher of Bratislava was richly loaded with food: poultry, ham, saffron, black pepper, wine, bread and other travel necessities. The obligatory sandwich loaves were being taken to the queen and the cardinal as a consideration.4 In December 1442, as usual, the winter was severe, but Andrew was still transported by boat, while his servant, who was sent to Győr a day later, travelled by sleigh.5 At that time, sheets of ice on the Danube, as well as snow and a cold, were often mentioned in the accounts, and they sometimes trapped messengers on the road for longer than expected.6 The city’s delegation travelled in carriages drawn by four horses to Győr to see the queen on 15 December, when the news reached the town hall that an agreement had been reached in Győr. According to the payment to the waggoner, the men stayed with the queen for two days, and evidently were not at the castle at the time of her death.7 They then got the news of Elisabeth’s death in Bratislava almost immediately and the next day, on 20 December, they sent a messenger to Vienna with

1 AMB K5, p. 53: “Item am Suntag vor Weynachten hab wir gehat VIII gesellen, dy vnser genedigen frawen der künigin Elizabeth aus geleut haben der Got genad vnd haben idem geben III den, wien, facit XXIII den. wien.” 2 5 November: AMB K4, p. 125, 5 December 1442: AMB K5, p. 164, 10 December 1442: AMB K5, p. 164. 3 AMB K5, pp. 127, 128. 4 AMB K5, p. 127. 5 AMB K5, p. 127. 6 For example, 10 December 1442, AMB K5, p. 164: “Item am Montag nach vnser frawen tag concepcionis Marie ainem poten als di Tuna see mit eys raan, zu vnser genedigen frawen der künigin vnd zu dem Andree von Frona mit briefen der aws was beliben von eys wegen vnd von kelden wegen 2 lb XX den.” 7 AMB K5, pp. 127, 128.

© Daniela Dvořáková, 2025 | doi:10.1163/9789004722552_009

Conclusion

221

this sad news.8 Another envoy left for Győr on 23 December with three letters: for the Archbishop of Esztergom, for his brother Thomas Szécsi and for Cardinal Cesarini, and because of the severe winter, he remained on the road for four weeks.9 The people of Bratislava probably wanted to know what to do next. Her courtiers, who remained without their mistress from day to day, also had to come to terms with the loss of the queen. Who knows what happened to Elisabeth’s court ladies, for example. The last mention of them comes from 5 January 1443, when at the expense of the city they hosted “the queen’s lady Fladnerin and other ladies”. The ladies were served two different fish, good pike and carp, which due to the hard winter (and harder fishing) were more expensive than usual. They also received 12 pints of wine.10 If two fish were enough for Elisabeth’s ladies, then it was probably not a large community. We don’t know how these young women ended up. A period had come to an end, not only for Elisabeth’s court ladies, but also for other Elisabeth’s courtiers and servants, as well as for Bratislava itself. It had been a difficult period which also brought the city many privileges and new revenues. The urban environment had suited the queen, perhaps reminding her of life in Vienna at the time of her youth. The German patriarchy had supported her, and she had very good, even friendly relations with the city officials. Bratislava was decidedly closer to Austria and the Habsburgs than to the Hungarian lords. The city was an important centre of trade, a major stop on international long-distance trade routes.11 The chauvinist and nationalist attacks experienced by the German inhabitants of Buda during this period never occurred in Bratislava. Elisabeth – though under duress – followed the legacy of her father, Emperor Sigismund, who wanted to build the capital of the kingdom from Bratislava. We know from the city’s books (Grundbuch and Satzbuch), which registered ownership changes in the city from 1439 to the turn of 1510 and 1511, that the king owned four houses in the town. According to information from 1439, there was a house and a bath in the settlement of Vydrica; then a house in the city centre, at the Laurinská Gate; at the Chapel of the Corpus Christi; and on the 8 9 10 11

AMB K5, p. 164. AMB K5, p. 164. AMB K5, p. 137. Judit Majorossy, “Towns and nobility in medieval western Hungary,” in Mittler zwischen Herrschaft und Gemeinde. Die Rolle von Funktions- und Führungsgruppen in der mittelalterlichen Urbanisierung Zentraleuropas, eds. Elisabeth Gruber, Susanna Pils, and Herwig Weigl. Forschungen und Beiträge zur Wiener Stadtgeschichte 56 (Vienna/Innsbruck/Bozen: Studien Verlag, 2013), p. 124.

222

Conclusion

corner of Ventúrska and Dlhá (now Panská) streets. Three of these houses changed owners in the 1440s and only the house on Ventúrska Street remained a “royal house”. Later, King Matthias Corvinus and his wife, Queen Beatrice, lived there.12 We don’t know in which of the houses Queen Elisabeth lived during her stay in Bratislava. With great probability likely in the one which later remained the only royal house in the city, i.e. on the corner of Ventúrská and Panská streets.

⸪

We don’t know what Queen Elisabeth was really like. Certainly exceptional. And contrary. Purposeful, courageous, probably educated, because she surrounded herself with educated and wise people. On the other hand, she was ruthless, tough, and what we today we call cruel. Her unyielding struggle for the Hungarian crown brought death to a huge number of people and led to the impoverishment of the country. Who knows how she would have ruled, if she had been given the opportunity. For that, however, she would have had to be born in another era, as this was not possible in the Kingdom of Hungary in the first half of the 15th century. Humanity is fated to know only what is written, said the Hungarian writer Sándor Lénard. About the heroes of our story we only know what was written, and the image of both Queen Elisabeth and Władysław is undoubtedly only partial, incomplete, and to some extent distorted. This cannot be different. The role of the historian is to collect and present everything that the historical sources have left us about these persons. The rest is up to the imagination of each reader. 12 Majorossy, Towns and nobility, p. 124. Judit Majorossy, “A pozsonyi városi elit és az udvar (az udvari nemesség) kapcsolatának megközelítési módjai a keső középkorban és a kora újkorban,” in Urbs. Magyar Várostörténeti Évkönyv 7 (2012), pp. 183–84, 187. It is often stated in the literature and in various articles that the royal house stood on the site of the later Witmann House (University Library). Hungarian historian Judit Majorossy has located all the royal properties in Bratislava and we consider her placement of the royal home to be the correct one.

Bibliography

Primary Sources

Archiv český čili staré písemné památky české i moravské 1–6, ed. František Palacký. Prague, 1840–1872; ed. Josef Kalousek et al. Prague, 1887–1904. Arnpeck, Veit. Sämtliche Chroniken. Ed. Georg Leidinger. Quellen und Erörterungen zur bayerischen und deutschen Geschichte, Neue Folge, 3. Munich 1915. Bonfini, Antonio. Rerum Ungaricarum Decades. Eds. József Fógel, Béla Iványi, László Juhász. Lipsiae: B.G. Teubner, 1936–1976. Burkhardt, Julia, and Christina Lutter. Ich, Helene Kottannerin. Die Kammerfrau, die Ungars Krone stahl. Darmstatt: wbg Theiss, 2023. Chalkokondyles, Laonikos. Poslední zápas Byzance. Prague: Odeon, 1988. Chmel, Joseph. Materialien zu österreichische Geschichte. Aus Archiven und Bibliotheken. Vol. 1. Vienna: Peter Rohrmann, 1837. Chmel, Joseph. Monumenta Habsburgica. Actenstücke und Briefe zur Geschichte des Hauses Habsburg im Zeitalter Maximilian’s I. Abt. 1, Bd. 1. Vienna 1854. Chmel, Joseph. Urkunden, Briefe und Actenstücke zur Geschichte der Habsburgischen Fürsten: K. Ladislaus Posth., Erzherzog Albrecht VI. und Herzog Siegmund von Österreich. Aus den Jahren 1443–1473. Vienna: K.k. Hof- und Staats-Druckerei, 1850. Codex diplomaticus domus senioris comitum Zichy de Zich et Vásonkeő. A zichi és vásonkeői gróf Zichy-család idősb-ágának okmánytára, 1–12, ed. Imre Nagy et al. Budapest: Magyar Történelmi Társulat, 1871–1931. Codex diplomaticus Hungariae ecclesiasticus ac civilis 1–11, ed. Georgius Fejér. Budae: Typis Typogr. Regiae Universitatis Ungaricae, 1829–1844. Codex diplomaticus Lusatiae superioris 4. Oberlausitzer Urkunden von 1437–1457, ed. Richard Jecht. Görlitz: Selbstverlag der Oberlausitzischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, 1911–1927. Codex diplomaticus patrius. Hazai okmánytár, 1–8, ed. Imre Nagy et al. Jaurini (Győr): Typis Victoris Sauervein, 1865–1873, Budapest: Franklin-Társulat Könyvnyomdája, 1876–1891. Codex epistolaris saeculi decimi quinti. 3 vols., 1. 1384–1492, eds. August Sokołowski, and Joseph Szujski. (Monumenta medii aevi historica res gestas Poloniae illustrantia 2) Cracow 1876. 2. 1382–1445, ed. Anatolius Lewicki, (Monumenta medii aevi historica res gestas Poloniae illustrantia 12) Cracow 1891. 3. (1392–1501) ed. Anatolius Lewicki (Monumenta medii aevi historica res gestas Poloniae illustrantia 12), Cracow 1894. Coronatio Adalberti regis Romanorum, Ungarie et Boemie 1438. Scriptores rerum Silesiacarum 12, ed. Franz Wachter, Breslau: Josef Max & Comp., 1883.

224

Bibliography

Cotta-Schönberg, Michael von. Collected Orations of Pope Pius II. Edited and translated by Michael von Cotta-Schönberg. Vol. 4: Orations 14–20 (1450–1452). 4th version. Scholars’ Press 2019. Decreta Regni Hungariae. Gesetze und Verordnungen Ungarns, 1301–1457, eds. Ferenc Döry, and György Bónis, and Vera Bácskai. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1976. Deutsche Reichstagsakte. 1–12, ed. Julius Weizsäcker et al. Münich et al., 1867–1901. 13/2 ed. Gustav Beckmann. Gotha: Friedrich Andreas Perthes, 1916. Die Chronik Hartung Cammermeisters, ed. Robert Reiche, Herausgegeben von der Historischen Commission der Provinz Sachsen, 35. Band, Halle 1986. Die Chroniken der deutschen Städte 1. Die Chroniken der fränkischen Städte. Nürnberg. Leipzig: Verlag von S. Hirzel, 1862. Die Chroniken der deutschen Städte 10. Die Chroniken der fränkischen Städte. Nürnberg IV. Leipzig: Verlag von S. Hirzel, 1872. Dlugosz  =  Dlugosii, Ioannis Annales seu cronice incliti regni Poloniae. Lib. 11–12, 1431–1444. Varsaviae: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, 2001, Lib. 12, 1445–1461, Krakow: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, 2003. Dvořáková, Daniela, and Mária Papsonová, eds. Spomienky Heleny Kottannerovej. Budmerice: Rak, 2008. Ebendorfer, Thomas. Chronica Austriae. Ed. Alphons Lhotsky, Berlin  – Zurich: Weidmannsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1967. Ebendorfer, Thomas. Chronica Regum Romanorum, ed. Harald Zimmermann, Monumenta Germaniae historica. Scriptores rerum Germanicarum. Nova series 18. Hannover: Hahnsche Buchhandlung, 2003. Effigierum Caesarum opus Augustae Rhaeitiae a. 1580. Ms ÖNB Vienna HAN cod. 15.167. Endlicher, Stephan Ladislaus. ed. Aus den Denkwürdigkeiten der Hellene Kottannerin. Leipzig 1846. Fontes rerum Austriacarum 2. Diplomataria et acta. Bd. 61, 62, 67, 68 Ed. Rudolf Wolkan. Der Briefwechsel des Eneas Silvius Piccolomini. Vienna: K. K. Hof-  und Staats-Druckerei 1909–1918. Fraknói, Vilmos (ed.). “II. Lajos király szamadási könyve 1525 jan. 12–július 16.” In Magyar Történelmi Tár 22, Budapest 1877. A Frangepán család oklevéltára. Codex diplomaticus comitum de Frangepanibus, 1. eds. Lajos Thallóczy, and Samu Barabás. Monumenta Hungariae historica, Diplomataria, 38. Budapest: a Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, 1910. Gelcich, József, and Lajos Thallóczy, eds. Raguza és Magyarország oklevéltára. Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia Tört. Bizottsága, 1887. Házi, Jenő. Sopron szabad királyi város története. 1/3. Oklevelek és levelek 1430–től 1452-ig. Sopron 1924. de Hungaria, Georgius. Tractatus de moribus condictionibus et nequicia Turcorum, Traktat über die Sitten, die Lebensverhältnisse und die Arglist der Türken. Nach

Bibliography

225

der Erstausgabe von 1481 herausgegeben, übersetzt und eingeleitet von Reinhard Klockow. Cologne: Böhlau 1993. Janssen, Johannes, ed. Frankfurts Reichskorrespondenz nebst andern verwandten Aktenstücken von 1376–1549. Vol. 1. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder’sche Verlangshandlung, 1863. Katona, Stephanus. Historia critica Regvm Hvngariae stirpis mixtae 5. Budae: Typis Regiae Vniversitatis, 1790. 6. Pestini: typis Ioannis Michaelis Landerer, 1790. Kemény, Lajos ifj. Kassa város régi szamadáskönyvei: 1431–1533. Kassa: Bernovits Ny., 1892. Knott, Rudolf. “Ein Schreiben der Kardinallegaten Julian Cesarini an der Markgrafen von Mantua Johann Franz von Gonzaga über den Friedenschluß zwischen der Königin Elisabeth und Wladislav IV. von Ungarn und den Tod Elisabeths.” Jahres-Bericht des K. K. Staats-Obergymnasiums in Teplitz-Schönau für das Schuljahr 1905–1906. Teplitz-Schönau 1906. Kollar, Adam Franciscus. Analecta Monumentorum omnis aevi Vindobonensia. Vol. 2. Vienna: Typis Joannis Thomae Trattner, 1762. Koller, Heinrich. Das Reichregister König Albrechts II. Vienna: Berger, 1955. Krones, Franz Xaver. Die Freien von Saneck und ihre Chronik als Grafen von Cilli. Graz: Verlag von Leuschner & Lubensky, 1883. Kumorovitz, L. Bernát. Budapest történetének okleveles emlékei. 3. (1382–1439). Budapest: Budapesti történeti Múzeum, 1987. Lukcsics, Pál. A XV. Századi pápák oklevelek 2. IV. Jenő pápa (1431–1447) és V. Miklós pápa (1447–1455). Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, 1938. Mollay, Karl, ed. Die Denkwürdigkeiten der Helene Kottannerin (1439–1440). Wiener Neudrucke 2. Vienna: Österreichischer Bundesverlag, 1971. Speierische Chronik. In Quellensammlung der badischen Landesgeschichte. 1. Ed. Franz Joseph Mone. 367–520. Karlsruhe: Druck und Verlag von E. Macklot, 1848. Monumenta Romana episcopatus Vesprimiensis. 3. 1416–1492. Joseph Lukcsics (ed.) Budapest: Franklin Ny., 1902. Nagy, Imre (ed.). Sopron vármegye története. Oklevéltár 2. (1412–1653). Sopron: Sopron vármegye közönsége, 1891. [Piccolomini], Aeneas Sylvius. De viris illustribus = Enee Silvii Piccolominei Pii P II De viris illustribus, ed. Adriano van Heck, Vatican 1991. Piccolomini, Aeneas Sylvius. Historia Austrialis. E codice Vaticani edidit et sequente translatione Theodori Illgen curaverit Jürgen Sarnowsky. Österreichische Geschichte aus dem vatikanischen Manuskript herausgegeben und auf der Grundlage der Ūbertragung Theodor Illgens übersetzt von Jürgen Sarnowsk. Darmstadt 2005. [Piccolomini], Aeneae Silvii. Historia Bohemica. Ediderunt et in linguam Bohemicam verterunt Dana Martínková, and Alena Hadravová, and Jiří Matl. Praefatus est František Šmahel. – Enea Silvio, Historie česká. K vydání připravili a z latinského

226

Bibliography

originálu přeložili Dana Martínková, Alena Hadravová a Jiří Matl. Úvodní studii napsal František Šmahel. Prague: Koniasch Latin Press, 1998. Repertorium Germanicum 5. Eugen IV. (1431–1447), Part 1, Text 1, ed. Hermann Diener – Brigide Schwarz, red. Christoph Schöner. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, 2004. Rynešová, Blažena, ed. Listář a listinář Oldřicha z Rožmberka, 1. 1418–1437. Prague: Nákladem Ministerstva školství a národní osvěty, 1929, 2. 1438–1444. Prague: Nákladem Ministerstva školství a národní osvěty, 1932. Schmauk, Michael (ed.). Supplementum Annalectorum terrae Scepusiensis 2. Szépesváralja: Typis Typographiae Episcopalis, 1889. Scriptores rerum Austriacarum. Tomus 2. Hieronymus Pez (ed.). Lipsiae: Sumptibus J. F. Gleditschius e filius, 1743. Staré letopisy české z Vratislavského rukopisu, ed. František Šimek. Prague: Historický spolek a Společnost Husova musea, 1937. Tafur, Pero. Travels and Adventures (1435–1439), ed. and trans. Malcolm Henry Ikin Letts, London: George Routledge & Sons, 1926. Teleki, József. Hunyadiak kora Magyarországon. Oklevéltár 10. Pesten: Emich Gusztáv Könyvnyomdája, 1853. The Memoirs of Helene Kottanner (1439–1440). Translated from the German with Introduction, Interpretative Essay and Notes. Ed. Maya Bijvoet Williamson. Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 1998. Theiner, Augustin. Vetera monumenta historica Hungariam sacram illustrantia. Rome: Typis Vaticanis, 1860. de Thurocz, Johannes. Chronica Hungarorum. Vol. 1, Textus, ed. Elisabeth Galántai, and Julius Kristó. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1985; vol. 2, Commentarii. 2. Ab anno 1301 usque ad annum 1487, ed. Elemér Mályusz, and Gyula Kristó. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1988. Uhlirz, Karl (ed.). Quellen zur Geschichte der Stadt Wien 2/2, Abt. 2, Regesten aus dem Archive der Stadt Wien, Bd. 2, Verzeichnis der Originalurkunden des Städtischen Archives 1412–1457. Vienna: Verlag d. Vereines für Geschichte der Stadt Wien, 1900. Windecke, Eberhard. Denkwürdigkeiten zur Geschichte des Zeitalters Kaiser Sigismunds. Ed. Wilhelm Altmann, Berlin: Gaertner 1893. Zsigmondkori oklevéltár. 1–12 (1387–1425). Eds. Elemér Mályusz, and Iván Borsa, and Norbert C. Tóth, and Tibor Neumann. Budapest 1951–2013.



Secondary Works

Antonín, Robert et al. Slezsko v dějinách českého státu I: Od pravěku do roku 1490. Prague: Nakladatelství Lidové noviny, 2012. Benešovská, Klára and Chlíbec, Jan. “Dne 9. prosince 1437. Znojemský chrám sv. Mikuláše v době smrti císaře Zikmunda.” In Středověký kaleidoskop pro muže s

Bibliography

227

hůlkou. Věnováno Františku Šmahelovi k životnímu jubileu, eds. Eva Doležalová and Pavel Sommer, 279–97. Prague: Nakladatelství Lidové noviny, 2016. Birk, Ernst. “Beiträge zur Geschichte der Königin Elisabeth und ihres Sohnes König Ladislaus 1440–1457.” In Quellen und Forschungen zur vaterländischen Geschichte, Literatur und Kunst, pp. 209–58. Vienna, 1848. Brunner, Otto. Die Finanzen der Stadt Wien von den Anfängen bis ins 16. Jahrhundert. Studien aus dem Archiv der Stadt Wien 1/2. Vienna, 1920. Buják, Gábor. “Stock János és a szepesi egyház kiváltságai.” In Mátyás király és az egyház, ed. Tamás Fedeles, 203–31. Pécs: University of Pécs, 2019. Burkhardt, Julia. “Das Erbe der Frauen. Elisabeth von Luxemburg und Elisabeth von Habsburg.” In Heilige, Helden, Wüteriche: Herrschaftsstile der Luxemburger (1308–1437), eds. Bauch, Martin, Julia Burkhardt, Tomáš Gaudek, and Václav Žůrek, 261–84. Cologne/Weimar/Vienna: Böhlau Verlag, 2017. Čapský, Martin. Zrození země. Komunikující společenství pozdně středověkého Slezska. Prague: Argo, 2013. Čornej, Petr and Milena Bartlová. Velké dějiny zemí koruny české 6 (1437–1526). Prague: Paseka, 2007. Csendes, Peter and Oppl, Ferdinand. Wien im Mittelalter. Zeitzeugnisse und Analysen. Vienna/Cologne: Böhlau, 2021. Doderer, Heimito von. “Helene Kotanner. Denkwürdigkeiten einer Wienerin von 1440.” In Die Wiederkehr der Drachen. Aufsätze/Traktate/Reden, ed. Wendelin SchmidtDengler, 221–6. Mimich: Biederstein, 1970. Durst, Rudolf. “Königin Elisabeth von Ungarn und ihre Beziehungen zu Österreich in den Jahren 1439–1442.” In Jahresbericht über das k k Staatsgymnasium in Böhm.-Leipa, 1906–1907, 1–26, 1907–1908, 1–21. Dvořáková, Daniela. Barbara of Cilli (1392–1451). Trans. David McLean. Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2021. Dvořáková, Daniela. “Komunikácia medzi dvorom kráľa a kráľovnej: dvor Barbory Celjskej  – pobočka dvora Žigmunda Luxemburského alebo konkurenčná dvorská klika?” In Od symbolu k slovu. Podoby stredovekej komunikácie, ed. Miriam Hlavačková. 73–91. Bratislava: VEDA, Historický ústav SAV, 2016. Dvořáková, Daniela. “Ostrihomský arcibiskup Dionýz zo Seče, významný prelát, politik a diplomat 15. storočia.” Studia Historica Nitriensia 24 (2020), no. 2: 294–307. Dvořáková, Daniela. Rytier a jeho kráľ: Stibor zo Stiboríc a Žigmund Luxemburský. Sonda do života stredovekého uhorského šľachtica s osobitným zreteľom na územie Slovenska, 3rd ext. ed. Budmerice: Rak, 2017. Dvořáková, Daniela. “The Chronicle of Ulrich Richental as an Exceptional Source for the History of Slovakia.” Historický časopis 58 (2010) Supplement: 3–21. Elbel, Petr. “Collaltovská stopa v Čechách v 15. století, aneb pocházel Kašpar Šlik z hraběcího rodu Collalto?” In Z Trevisa do Brtnice. Příběhy šlechtického rodu Collalto ukryté v českých archivech (katalog výstavy), eds. Petr Elbel, Ondřej Schmidt, and Stanislav Bárta, 73–92. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2017.

228

Bibliography

Elbel, Petr. “Olomoucký biskup Jan Železný a Zikmund Lucemburský. Příspěvek k poznání Zikmundovy spojenecké sítě v českých zemích a jeho dvorských struktur.” Studia Mediaevalia Bohemica 6 (2014), no. 1: 17–68. Elbel, Petr unter Mitarbeit von Stanislav Bárta, und Wolfram Ziegler. “Die Heirat zwischen Elisabeth von Luxemburg und Herzog Albrecht V. von Österreich. Rechtliche, finanzielle und machtpolitische Zusammenhänge (mit einem Quellenanhang).” In Manželství v pozdním středověku: rituály a obyčeje. Colloquia mediaevalia Pragensia 14, eds. Paweł Kras and Martin Nodl, 79–152. Prague: Filosofia, 2014. Elbel, Petr and Andreas Zajic. “Die zwei Körper des Kanzlers? Die „reale“ und die „virtuelle“ Karriere Kaspar Schlicks unter König und Kaiser Sigismund – Epilegomena zu einem alten Forschungsthema.” In Mediaevalia historica Bohemica 15 (2012), no. 2, 47–143; 16 (2013), no. 1, pp. 55–212; 16 (2013), no. 2, pp. 73–157. Elbel, Petr and Wolfram Ziegler. “Am schwarczen suntag mardert man dieselben juden, all die zaigten vill guets an under der erden  …: die Wiener Gesera: eine Neubetrachtung.” In „Avigdor, Benesch, Gitl“ Juden in Böhmen, Mähren und Schlesien im Mittelalter: Samuel Steinherz zum Gedenken. (1857 Güssing–1942 Theresienstadt), eds. Helmut Teufel, Milan Řepa, and Pavel Kocman, 201–68. Brno/Prague/Essen: Klartext-Verlag, 2016. Engel, Pál. Magyarország világi archontológiája 1301–1457, 2 Vols. Budapest: HistóriaMTA Történettudományi Intézete, 1996. Faist, Michal. “Jan Jiskra z Brandýsa. Záchrance uherského trůnu Ladislava Pohrobka 1440–1445.” Historica Olomucensia 46 (2014): 13–38. Fraknói, Vilmos. Cesarini Julián bibornok magyarországi pápai követ élete. Budapest: Hornyánszky Viktor, 1890. Fügedi, Erik. “A XV. századi magyar püspökok.” Történelmi Szemle 8/1965, no. 4, pp. 477–98. Galamb, György. “Eretnekség és inkvizíció Dél-Magyrországon.” In Fehér Lovag. Tanulmányok Csernus János 65. születésnapjára, eds. Gálffy László and János Sáringer, 139–51. Szeged: Lazi Könyvkiadó, 2015. Gálik, Zdenko. “Mikuláš Ujlaki (Ilocký) a jeho hradné panstvá na území dnešného Slovenska – Korlátka Hlohovec, Tematín.” Studia Historica Nitriensia 20 (2016): 64–90. Gutkas, Karl. “Der Mailberger Bund von 1451. Studien zum Verhältnis von Landesfürst und Ständen um die Mitte des 15. Jahrhunderts.” Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung 74 (1966): 51–94 Gutkas, Karl. “Der Mailberger Bund von 1451. Studien zum Verhältnis von Landesfürst und Ständen um die Mitte des 15. Jahrhunderts.” Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung 74 (1966): 347–92 Gutkas, Karl. “Friedrich III. Und die Stände des Landes Österreich.” In Ausstellung Friedrich III., Kaiserresidenz Wiener Neustadt: St. Peter an der Sperr, Wiener Neustadt: 28. Mai bis 30. Oktober 1966, ed. Peter Weniger, 154–79. Vienna: Amt der Niederösterreichischen Landesregierung, 1966.

Bibliography

229

Haller, Brigitte. “Friedrich III. und die Stephanskrone.” Mitteilungen des österreichischen Staatsarchiv, 26 (1973): 94–147. Haller-Reiffenstein, Brigitte. “Zu den Aufenthalten Friedrichs III. in Wien.” Wiener Geschichtsblätter 48 (1993): 79–100. Hauser, Wilhelm. “Der Trauerzug beim Begräbnis des deutschen Königs Albrecht II. (1439).” Adler. Zeitschrift für Genealogie und Heraldik 23 (1967): 191–5. Hlavačková, Miriam. “Contraria contrariis curantur. Lekár a pacient v stredoveku.” In Od symbolu k slovu. Podoby stredovekej komunikácie, ed. Miriam Hlavačková, 123–41. Bratislava: VEDA, Historický ústav SAV, 2016. Hlavačková, Miriam. “In Posonio est locus valde sanus … Kultúrne kontakty Bratislavy a Viedne v 15. storočí.” In Stredoveké mesto ako miesto stretnutí a komunikácie, eds. Ján Lukačka and Martin Štefánik, 135–56. Bratislava: Historický ústav SAV, 2010. Hlavačková, Miriam. “Lekár troch kráľov. Bratislavský a vyšehradský prepošt Siegfried Degenberg a jeho zdravotné rady.” In Studia historica Tyrnaviensia XVI. Litteris ac moribus imbutus, ed. Vladimír Rábik, 260–266. Cracow/Trnava: Spolok Slovákov v Poľsku v spolupráci s Filozofickou fakultou Trnavskej univerzity v Trnave, 2014. Holá, Mlada. “Dvorské slavnosti ve Vratislavi za pobytů českých králů v pozdním středověku.” In Všední a sváteční život na středověkých dvorech. Mediaevalia Historica Bohemica 12 (2009), Supplementum 3, Dvory a rezidence ve středověku III, eds. Dana Dvořáčková Malá and Jan Zelenka, 193–206. Prague: Historický ústav 2009. Holá, Mlada. “Fuit honorifice susceptus. Holdovací cesty českých panovníků do Vratislavi v pozdním středověku.” In Rezidence a správní sídla v zemích České koruny ve 14.–17. století. Korunní země v dějinách českého státu, eds. Lenka Bobková and Jana Konvinčná, 273–99. Prague: Togga, 2007. Holá, Mlada. Holdovací cesty českých panovníků do Vratislavi: v pozdním středověku a raném novověku (1437–1617). Prague: Casablanca, 2012. Hormayr von Hortenburg, Joseph Frhr. Von, ed. Wien, seine Geschichte und seine Denkwürdigkeiten. 1/1–5, 2/1–4. Vienna, 1823–1825. Horváth, Illés. “Váradra jöttünk a legszentebb László király sírjának és ereklyéinek maglátogatására – Zsigmond király és Szent László városa.” In Fejezetek erdélyi történetéről, Studia Historica Transylvaniensia 1, ed. Tőtős, Áron, 225–40. Nagyvárad 2018. Hrdina, Jan. “Wilsnack, Hus und die Luxemburger.” In Die Wilsnackfahrt. Ein Wallfahrtsund Kommunikationszentrum Nord- und Mitteleuropas im Spätmittelalter, eds. Felix Escher and Hartmut Kühne, 41–63. Frankfurt am Main/Berlin/Bern/Bruxelles/New York/Oxford/Vienna: Peter Lang, 2006. Jorga, Nicolae. Notes et extraits pour servir à l´histoire des croisades au XVe siècle. Vol. 2, Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1899. Jurok, Jiří. Příčiny, struktury a osobnosti husitské revoluce. České Budějovice: Veduta, 2006. Kalous, Antonín. Plenitudo potestatis in partibus: Papežští legáti a nunciové ve střední Evropě na konci středověku (1450–1526). Brno: Matice moravská, 2010.

230

Bibliography

Kartous, Peter. “Akcie poľských vojsk na území Slovenska v rokoch 1438–1439.” Historický časopis 1 (1973): 21–36. Kartous, Peter. “Habsbursko-  jagelovské dvojvládie v Uhorsku v rokoch 1440–1444.” Historické štúdie 14 (1980): 225–63. Katona, István. Historia critica regum Hungariae: Stirpis mixtae, Tom. 5, Ab anno Christi MCCCCX ad annum usque MCCCCXXXIX, Pestini: Weingand et Koepf, 1790. Kerny, Terézia. “Begräbnis und Begräbnisstätte von König Sigismund.” In Sigismundus rex et imperator. Kunst und Kultur zur Zeit Sigismunds von Luxemburg 1387–1437. Ausstellungskatalog, 475–479. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern, 2006. Labanc, Peter and Glejtek, Miroslav. Spišské prepoštstvo na prelome stredoveku a novoveku. Príspevok k náboženským dejinám Spiša. Trnava: Filozofická fakulta Trnavskej univerzity, 2015. Lewicki, Anatol. Albrecht II. und Sigmund, Großfürst von Litauen. Cracow, 1899. Lhotsky, Alphons. “AEIOV. Die „Devise“ Kaiser Friedrichs III. und sein Notizbuch.” Mitteilungen des Instituts für österreichische Geschichtsforschung 60 (1952): 155–93. Lhotsky, Alphons. “Kaiser Friedrich III., sein Leben und seine Persönlichkeit.” In Ausstellung Friedrich III., Kaiserresidenz Wiener Neustadt: St. Peter an der Sperr, Wiener Neustadt: 28. Mai bis 30. Oktober 1966, ed. Peter Weniger, 16–47. Vienna: Amt der Niederösterreichischen Landesregierung, 1966. Lindner, Theodor. Zur Fabel von der Bestattung Karls des Grossen. Aachen: Cremersche Buchhandlung, 1893. Magyar Sion. 1 (1863), Esztergom. Majorossy, Judit. “A pozsonyi városi elit és az udvar (az udvari nemesség) kapcsolatának megközelítési módjai a keső középkorban és a kora újkorban.” Urbs. Magyar Várostörténeti Évkönyv 7 (2012): 171–99. Majorossy, Judit. “Towns and nobility in medieval western Hungary.” In Mittler zwischen Herrschaft und Gemeinde. Die Rolle von Funktions- und Führungsgruppen in der mittelalterlichen Urbanisierung Zentraleuropas, eds. Elisabeth Gruber, Susanna Pils, and Herwig Weigl, 109–50. Vienna/Innsbruck/Bozen: Studien Verlag, 2013. Mályusz, Elemér. “A négy Tallóci fivér.” Történelmi Szemle 4 (1980): 531–76. Mályusz, Elemér. Kaiser Sigismund in Ungarn 1387–1437. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1990. Meyer, Rudolf J. König- und Kaiserbegräbnisse im Spätmittelalter. Von Rudolf von Habsburg bis zum Friedrich III. Cologne/Weimar/Vienna: Böhlau, 2000. Meyer, Rudolf J. “Überlegungen zum Begräbnis Kaiser Sigismunds in Wardein im Jahre 1437.” In Der Tod des Mächtigen. Kult und Kultur des Todes spätmittelaltzerlicher Herrscher, ed. Kolmer Lothar, 321–31. Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöning, 1997. Nodl, Martin. “Dětské korunovace: blasfemie rituálu.” In Gestá, symboly, ceremónie a rituály v stredoveku, eds. Peter Bystrický and Pavol Hudáček, 51–64. Bratislava: VEDA, 2019.

Bibliography

231

Nottizenblatt. Beilage zum Archiv für Kunde österreichische Geschichtsquellen 7 (1857), pp. 231–4, 245–7. Novák, Ádám. “János Perényi, Master of the Treasury and his Relationship with Upper-Hungarian Cities (1438–1458).” Mesto a dejiny, 5 (2016): 76–88. Pálfi, Ádám. “Magyar Királyság zűrzavaros évtizedei: Szécsi Dénes a hatalom szorításában.” Szakkolégiumi Füzetek 6 a Móra Ferenc Szakkollégium évkönyve (2019): 73–82. Pálosfalvi, Tamás. “Cilleiek és Tallóciak: küzdelem Szlavóniáért (1440–1448),” Századok 134 (2000): 45–98. Papajík, David. Ladislav Pohrobek /1440–1457/. Uherský a český král. České Budějovice: Veduta, 2016. Plefka, Stephanie. Akademische Ärzte der Medizinischen Fakultät Wien und deren Intaraktionen mit Stadt, Hof und Umland im späten Mittelalter. Diplomaarbeit. Universität Wien, 2015. Prajda, Katalin. Network and Migration in Early Renaissance Florence 1378–1433. Friends of Friends in the Kingdom of Hungary. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2018. Rupprich, Hans. Geschichte der deutschen Literatur. 4/1: Das ausgehende Mittelalter, Humanismus und Renaissance 1370–1520. Munich: C.H. Beck, 1994. Schalk, Karl. Aus der Zeit des österreichischen Faustrechtes 1440–1463. Das Wiener Patriziat um die Zeit des Aufstandes von 1462 und die Gründe dieses Ereignisses. Vienna: Verlag des Vereines für Geschichte der Stadt Wien, 1919. Skorka, Renata and Boglárka Weisz. “The Town and the Widow: The Journey of Elisabeth of Luxembourg to Pozsony.” Mesto a dejiny, 2/2019: 6–21. Stowasser, Otto H. Ulrich von Eizing und das Testament König Albrecht II. Vienna/ Berlin/Leipzig/Munich, 1922. Studničková, Milada. “Kult svatého Zikmunda v Čechách.” In Světci a jejich kult ve středověku. 283–324. Prague: Tomáš Halama, 2006. Szabó, Dezső. “Albert királlyá választása.” In Emlékkönyv Fejérpataky László életének hatvanadik évfordulója ünnepére, ed. Imre Széntpétery, 312–25. Budapest: FranklinTársulat Nyomdája, 1917. Šandera, Martin. Hynce Ptáček z Pirkštejna. Opomíjený vítěz husitské revoluce. Prague: Vyšehrad, 2011. Šmahel, František. Poslední chvíle, pohřby a hroby českých králů. In Slavnosti, ceremonie a rituály v pozdním středověku, eds. Martin Nodl and František Šmahel, 122–97. Prague: Argo, 2014. Štefánik, Martin. Obchodná vojna kráľa Žigmunda proti Benátkam: stredoveký boj o trhy medzi uhorsko-nemeckým kráľom a Republikou svätého Marka. Bratislava: Historický ústav SAV, 2004. Štih, Peter. “Die Grafen von Cilli, die Frage ihrer landesfürstlichen Hoheit und des Landes Cilli.” Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung 110 (2002): 67–98.

232

Bibliography

Tersch, Harald. Österreichische Selbstzeugnisse des Spätmittelalters und der Frühen Neuzeit (1400–1650). Vienna: Böhlau, 1998. Tihányiová, Monika. Bubekovci z Plešivca. Úspechy a pády jedného rodu v politike a umení. s.l.: Georgius Bubek, 2017. Tóth-Szabó, Pál. Giskra, különös tekintettel Abaujmegyére. Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, 1903. Urbánek, Rudolf. K historii doby Jiskrovy na Slovensku a ve východní Moravě. Prague: Královská česká společnost nauk, 1940. Urbánek, Rudolf. Věk Poděbradský 1, České dějiny 3/1, Prague: Jan Laichter, 1915. Wostry, Wilhelm. König Albrecht II. 1437–1439. 2 vols. Prague: Rohlíček und Sievers, 1906–1907. Żolądż-Strzelczy, Dorota. “‘A blessing most desired’ – expecting a child and the first tribulations od life among the polish Jagiellons.” In Hofkultur der Jagiellonendynastie und verwandter Fürstenhäuser, eds. Urszula Borkowska and Markus Hörsch, Studia Jagellonica Lipsiensia 6, 193–198 Ostfildern: Thorbecke, 2010.

Index Aachen 184, 198 Adony 69 Agatha, widow 2 Agmandi (Agmandus, Agmand), Peter 56n, 104, 140, 171, 187 Albert II of Habsburg (as Austrian duke Albert V) 1–14, 14n, 15, 15n, 17, 20, 20n, 21–24, 24n, 25–29, 29n, 30n, 31, 31n, 32–44, 44n, 45–51, 51n, 51n2, 51n3, 52, 52n, 53, 53n, 54–55, 55n, 56, 56n, 56n2, 57, 57n, 57n2, 57n3, 58–64,64n, 65–68, 68n, 69–70, 72–74, 77, 80n, 91, 93, 94n, 98, 122, 129, 133, 142–143, 159, 171, 174, 178, 178n, 180–182, 182n, 184, 184n, 204, 216–217 Albert III Achilles (Hohenzollern), Margrave of Brandenburg 37, 201 Albert III of Habsburg 181 Albert IV of Habsburg 8, 179 Albert VI of Habsburg 61–62, 99, 99n, 100, 100n, 100n2, 107–108, 111, 116, 129–130, 130n, 136, 138–139, 145, 176, 191, 200 Albert of Bavaria 99, 123, 139–140, 200 Altenburg (Mosonmagyaróvár) 46, 46n, 94n, 99n, 125, 131, 157 Anna, widow of Count Paul of Forchtenstein 129–130, 130n Margaret, daughter of Anna 130 Walpurga, daughter of Anna 130 Aquileia 198 Arnpeck, Veit 216 Augsburg 145, 217 Bački Monoštor 57 Baden 25, 200, 201, 203, 203n Bánfi of Lučenec (Losonci), Stephen 52, 149 Bánfi of Lindava 148 Nicholas 207 Paul 54, 116, 168n Banská Štiavnica 212 Barbara of Cilli 2–5, 7, 8, 14, 14n, 16, 20, 25, 29, 30, 35, 43, 48–49, 51, 53, 55, 55n, 64, 67, 88, 92–93, 98, 122, 152, 170–171, 218. See also Cilli Bardejov 21, 75n, 78, 132, 148, 162, 210–212 Bassano 59

Bataszék 149–150 Báthory, family 19 Sigismund 206 Stephen 70n, 75, 75n, 183, 208–209 Bátmonostor, Ladislaus Töttős of 51n, 104, 131, 140n, 166n, 176, 176n, 177, 194, 196, 212–214 his wife Anna 212 his sister Sophia 212 Bátorkő, castle 196n, 211 Beatrice of Aragon 98, 222 Beatrice of Luxembourg 16 Beckov 116 Beckov. See Stibor of Beckov Belgrad 217 Benedict, Bishop of Győr 70n, 131, 132n Bernardino of Siena. See Siena Berzevici (of Brezovica), Stephen Pohárnok 46n, 168n Besseny, Andreas 97n Bistriça 31n, 70 Bítov and Šaumburk, Nicholas of 144 Bodrog 57, 57n Boemel, Arnold 9 Bonfini, Antonio 10, 55, 149 Bosnia, John of 51n Botos of Harapek, Andrew 150, 174 Brandýs, of. See Jiskra Branković Đurađ 50, 54, 74, 124, 177, 209 Grgur 54 Katarina 74 Lazar II 74 Mara 54 Stephen 54 Bratislava 2, 4, 7, 11–14, 14n, 15, 17–20, 22–23, 24n, 25, 41–44, 44n, 45–47, 50, 50n, 51–52, 56, 58–59, 62–64, 67, 69, 74, 77–78, 78n, 82–84, 86, 89n, 90, 91, 94, 94n, 94n2, 95, 95n, 97, 97n, 99n, 100, 101, 103, 107, 107n, 108–112, 112n, 113–117, 117n, 118–119, 119n, 120–121, 123, 123n, 123n2, 125, 129–131, 131n, 132, 134–135, 137, 137n, 137n2, 138–139, 139n, 140, 140n, 141–144, 144n, 145, 150, 150n, 152–154, 156–157, 157n, 160, 163, 163n,

234 Bratislava (cont.) 165–173, 179, 183, 183n, 184–186, 186n, 187–190, 190n, 191, 191n, 192–193, 193n, 194–200, 200n, 201–202, 202n, 202n2, 203, 203n, 204, 204n, 205–207, 207n, 208, 208n, 209–211, 213–214, 216n, 217, 220–221, 222n Brcal, Nicholas 136 Břeclav 184 Brezovica, of. See Berzevici Brno 74, 206 Bubek of Plešivec (Pelsőci) 30, 31n Emeric 163 Buda 13–15, 15n, 15n2, 20, 22–24, 29n, 30n, 31n, 32, 41n, 43, 46–53, 56, 56n, 58, 69, 71–72, 74–77, 86, 101–102, 104–105, 108–110, 113–115, 124–127, 132, 135, 143–144, 144n, 147–149, 155, 155n, 158, 164, 171n, 172, 176n, 177–178, 183, 186–187, 187n, 195–196, 198–199, 201, 205–206, 209, 213, 221 Budapest 155n Čapek of Sány, John 121, 163 Capistrano, John of 47 Capodolista, Giovanni Francesco 14n Casimir IV Jagellion 5, 25, 27, 43, 213 Čáslav 26 Čeček of Pakoměřice, Henry 121, 137, 184, 184n, 186 Čeklís, castle 51n Celje (Cilli) 147, 198 Červený Kameň (Vereskő) 131, 140n, 142 Červený Kameň, Wolfurt of 142 Cesarini, Giuliano 197–201, 205–208, 208n, 209, 214–215, 217–218, 221 České Budějovice 68 Český Brod 26 Chalkokondyles, Laonikos 54 Charlemagne, Emperor 11 Charles I of Hungary 16 Charles IV of Luxembourg 1, 16, 18 Charles (I) Robert 51n Cheb 37 Christopher, Count Palatinate 7, 8 Cikador, abbey 149–150, 154–155, 174, 176, 192 Cilli. See Celje Cilli, Counts of 1, 5, 97, 116, 133, 146–150, 174–176, 178, 178n, 198, 204–205 Anna 48n, 152 Barbara. See Barbara of Cilli

Index Frederick 4, 74, 89, 109n, 124, 147, 175, 175n, 177, 204, 209–211 Ulrich II 4, 74, 75n, 77–79, 89, 91, 94–97, 99, 99n, 103, 106–107, 109, 109n, 111–113, 115–116, 118, 123, 123n, 124–126, 129, 136, 143–144, 146–148, 175–176, 204, 217 Cluj 20, 56n Collalto 59, 59n Coloman 53, 55n Constance 9 Čop (Csapi), Ákos of 168n Cracow 26, 40, 75, 93–95, 122, 126, 159, 187, 196 Csak, Francis 70n Csanád 47 Csapi. See Čop Csepel Island 93, 158, 164 Csetneki. See Štítnik Csölle. See Rovinka Csongrád 45 Cudar of Olnód 102 Simon 168n Czech, János 107n Degenberg, Siegfried 41, 41n Demeter 165 Dés 98 Devín 140n, 144, 165, 165n, 166, 169, 205 Diák, Jorig 22 Diósgyőr 93 Długosz, John 65, 75, 75n, 90n, 91, 93, 100, 102–103, 109, 124–125, 127, 127n, 128, 134–136, 149–150, 158, 162, 164, 166, 166n, 168–169, 183, 186–187, 189, 193, 195, 197–198, 213–214, 216–217 Dobrá Niva, castle 93, 169 Döbröntö. See Himfi Dolná Streda 187 Dominis, of. See John Donín, Frederick of 195 Doss, Erhard 60n Dravograd 143 Druget of Humenné (Homonnai), family 14n Dubrovnik 7, 12, 15n Đurđevac Castle 174 Ebendorfer of Haselbach, Thomas 15, 43–44, 55, 62, 68, 87, 179, 195 Ebendorfer, John (Hanus) 206 Eberstoff, Hanns von 60n

Index Eckartsburg Castle 43 Ecsed, castle 19 Eisenstadt (Kismarton) 150–152, 168 Eizinger, Ulrich 60, 60n, 60n2, 61–63, 74, 111, 121, 137, 206 Elena, wife of Stephen of Rozgon 142 Elisabeth of Luxembourg. Passim Elisabeth of Pomerania 88 Endlicher, Stephan Ladislaus 84 Enns 67, 68n Erhart 120 Eschenloer, Thomas 39 Essegvár, castle 141 Esztergom 13, 51, 51n, 58, 143, 144n, 150, 154–156, 156n, 157–158, 158n, 159, 165, 171–172, 183, 194, 196, 207–210 Eugene IV, Pope 197 Eylaussemrokch, Hans 202, 202n, 203 Farkas, Ladislaus 122, 122n, 124, 152, 190, 204, 204n, 214 Felhévíz 155 Felix V, Pope Fiľakovo, castle 30, 31n Fischamend 144, 166 Fladnerin 221 Flins 156n Florence 36, 197 Forchtenstein (Fraknó), castle 100n, 116, 129–130, 145, 176 Forchtenstein, Paul of 129. See also Anna Forgáč of Gýmeš, John 185 Frangepan, Sigismund 171, 171n Frankfurt a. Main 7, 22, 31n, 33, 44, 50 Frederick II the Gentle 42, 43 Frederick III, Emperor 11, 83, 100, 100n, 100n2, 130, 132, 135, 137, 137n, 138–140, 145–148, 156–157, 165–168, 177–180, 180n, 181–182, 182n, 182n2, 183–184, 184n, 193, 198, 200, 204–205, 207, 212 Frederick III, Austrian Duke 18 Frederick of Cilli. See Cilli Frederick (Bedřich), servant 144 Friuli 198 Fronaw, Andrew of 220 Futog (Futak) 56, 56n Garai, family 56 Barbara 150 Dorothy, widow of Ladislaus of Kanizsa 152, 180n

235 John 92, 92n Ladislaus 15, 15n, 25n, 48, 48n, 56n, 58, 71, 76, 96, 103–104, 112–113, 126, 126n, 127, 120127n, 127n2, 144, 149–150, 152, 154–155, 159, 165–166, 166n, 176, 180–181 Nicholas 152 Gatalóci, Matthias 159, 159n, 160, 161, 172, 178n, 209 Gejza II 105 Gelnica 136 Gelusch, Petr 82 George of Hungary (Georgius de Hungaria) 20 George of Poděbrady 64 George, priest 161–162 George, chaplain 161 Gerencsér 105 Gerse, of Ladislaus 154n Petew 154n Głogów 39, 40 Gonzaga, Gianfrancesco 214–215 Görény, castle 45 Gorizia 198 Görlitz 34, 39, 186 Graz 180 Gurk 147, 205 Gút, Ország of John (Janus) 96, 103, 109, 113, 137n, 192 Michael 57n, 75n, 96, 109, 113, 132, 134–136, 143n, 168n, 192 Győr 46, 46n, 58, 63, 69, 77, 84, 94n, 110–111, 111n, 112–117, 123, 123n, 124–125, 131, 135, 137, 137n, 147, 152–153, 153n, 154, 156–157, 175, 194, 207, 210–217, 220–221 Habsburg dynasty 20, 62, 67–68, 205, 221. See also Albert II, Albert III, Albert IV, Albert VI Anna 27, 42–43, 52 Elisabeth 27, 43, 76, 82, 146, 179 Ernest 181 Frederick. See Frederick III, Emperor, Frederick III, Austrian Duke George 27 Leopold III 181 William 180, 180n Hainburg 138–139, 145, 166, 180–181, 199 Hajnáčka, castle 51, 51n, 51n2 Harapek, of. See Botos Harschar, Heinrich 131

236 Hartung. See Kammermeister Hédervári, Laurence 89, 105, 108–109, 168, 168n, 176 Hedviga of Mazovia 92n Heiden, Henry 179 Herz, Narcissus 206 Himfi of Döbröntö, Thomas 159n Hlohovec 207 Hlohovec, Nicholas of. See Ilok Hodod (Hadad) 98 Hohenberg, Stephen of 46n Holíč 23, 50, 50n Hollókő Castle 212 Horná Streda (Szerdahely) 192n Horndl, Lienhart 74, 100, 108, 111, 114–116, 157 Niklas 156, 156n, 157, 162 Hradec, Menhart of 206–207 Hronský (Svätý) Beňadik 134–135 Hrubý Šúr 142 Hunyady, family 148 John 45, 45n, 56, 83, 149, 149n, 150, 176 John 45, 45n, 56 Ilok 196n Ilok (Újlaki), Nicholas of 25n, 90, 90n, 105–108, 111, 115, 126, 129, 149–150, 168, 168n, 177, 192, 192n, 196, 206–209, 211, 214 Jadwiga of Anjou 180n Jagellions 5. See also Casimir, Władysław Jagellion Jakcs of Kusala. See Kusala James of the Marches. See Marches Jelšava, castle 30, 31n Jemnice 68 Jihlava 26, 68 Jindřichův, Nicholas 149 Jiskra z Brandýsa, John 113, 121, 132–134, 134n, 135–136, 137n, 148, 162–163, 163n, 175, 185–186, 186n, 187, 189, 192–193, 195, 207, 212, 218 Jitka, the widow of Paul Wolfurt of Červený Kameň (Vereskő) 130–131, 131n, 142 John (Hanns). See Meusenreuter John, Polish Chancellor 140 John of Dominis, Bishop of Senj 35, 36n, 75, 78, 93, 159

Index John of Capistrano. See Capistrano John of Luxembourg 1, 34 John of Neumarkt 7 Jorig 170 Jungettel, Peter 94 Junker, Hans 99n Kabold, Wilhelm of 130 Kalište, castle 134 Kálmáncsa (Kálmáncsehi) 194, 194n Kálnai. See Zend Kammermeister, Hartung 15 Kanizsai (of Kanizsa), family 151 Emeric 168n John 150 Kaposújvár Castle 194, 196 Kapušany, castle 124 Kecskemét 45 Kežmarok 20, 28, 29, 72, 101–102, 102n, 186n Kisdi 52–53 Kittsee 99, 99n, 210 Klosterneuburg 64 Klux, John (Hanns) of 50, 50n Kobersdorf, castle 130 Komárno 13, 32, 33, 58–59, 59n, 77–81, 83, 85–86, 88–91, 93–94, 94n, 94n2, 95–97, 104, 106–108, 108n, 113, 121, 130, 142, 153n, 154–157, 160, 165, 170, 170n, 171, 171n, 172–173, 188, 206–207 Kompolt of Nana, Paul 169 Stephen 124 Koniecpolski, John 180n Konrad, bishop of Wrocław 35 Körmend 198 Korneuburg 25 Korog, John 126n, 150 Košice 21, 75, 75n, 78, 132–136, 137n, 162–163, 163n, 163n2, 175, 186, 192–193, 208n, 212, 219 Kostajnica, castle 74 Kostolná pri Dunaji 142 Kottanner, Johannes 82–83 Kottannerin, Helene 46, 52, 53, 57, 69–71, 74, 76–77, 79–83, 83n, 84–85, 85n, 86, 86n, 88–89, 89n, 90–91, 93, 96, 101, 104– 110, 113, 116, 118, 125, 126n, 130, 188, 219 Kraus, Peter 204n

237

Index Krbava, George of 70n Ivanka 80 Kremnica 28n, 50, 53, 93, 102, 127, 132, 135, 155, 157, 162, 169, 175, 177, 189, 193, 203–204, 208n, 218 Kusala, Jakcs of Ladislaus 98 Michael 70n, 168n, 183 Kutná Hora 25 Kysak, castle 136 Ladislaus III 105 Ladislaus V the Posthumous 1, 41, 61, 66, 82–82, 85–91, 93–94, 96, 98–100, 104– 108, 110, 113, 116, 121, 123, 126–128, 130, 132–133, 138, 141, 145–146, 154, 172, 176, 179–180, 181, 182n, 184, 187, 204–205, 207, 212–214, 217–218 Ladislaus, courtmaster 165 Lamač 140n Lamberk, of. See Sokol Lamberteschi, Niccòlo 30 Lang, Paul 108, 190n Lasocki, Nicholas 213 Laurence, burgher of Bratislava 120 Legnica 34 Leipzig 84 Lénard, Sándor 222 Lendvai, Pál 65 Leopold III. See Habsburg Levice (Lévai), Czech of Ladislaus 102, 103n, 191–192 Peter 102–103, 103n, 108, 127, 135, 191 Levoča 41, 75, 75n, 78, 132, 136, 162 Liechtenstein, Christopher of 74, 99, 99n, 108, 113 Lindava, of. See Bánfi Linz 18 Lipany 86 Liptov, castle 103 Ljubljana 198 Löffler, Jacob 167, 168 Loket 186 Losonci. See Bánfi Losonci. See Lučenec Louis I the Great of Hungary 16, 128, 180n Ľubovňa, castle 92

Lučenec (Losonci), Dessew of 70, 70n, 70n2, 177, 177n Dionysius 150 Nicholas 70n Lúčka, Laurence of 131 Ľupča 93, 169 Luxembourg, dynasty 88. See also Sigismund of Luxembourg Maltzhofer, Paul 190, 190n Malý Šúr 142 Mantia 214 Marcali, Emeric 75, 78, 95–97, 103–104, 176, 194, 207 John 103 Marches, James of the 47–48, 48n Máré Castle 176 Margit 89, 89n Maria of Anjou 16 Maria Theresa 64 Mariazell 43, 63, 82 Marot, Ladislaus of 149n, 158n, 176 Márványkő Castle 168 Matko of Talovac (Talóci). See Talovac Matthias Corvinus, King 10, 39, 83, 98, 137, 222 Maximilian I 18 Melk 85 Messenpek, John of 144 Meusenreuter (of Pakenstein), Hanns 95, 103, 112, 112n, 123n Miháld 45 Milan 36 Mohács 149 Mollay, Karl 85n Mosonmagyaróvár. See Altenburg Münich, Henrich 30 Murad II 31, 55 Murska Sobota 159, 198 Nadler, Michal 30, 121–122 Namysłów 36 Nana, of. See Kompolt Necpaly, Ladislav of 166, 167, 184–185 Německý Brod 26 Neszmély (Langendorf) 58–59, 62–64, 69 Neuberg 181 Neustadt. See Wiener Neustadt

238 Nicodemus, Bishop of Freising 60n Nitra 128, 131, 132n, 194–196 Nógrád, castle 187 Nové Zámky 196 Nuremberg 8, 18, 33, 37, 140 Očkov, Michael of 192n Old Buda 58, 69, 72, 93 Olomouc 32, 193, 193n, 193n2 Oradea 7, 13, 15, 16, 16n, 17, 19, 88, 102n Ördög of Prodavíz, Nicholas 174 Orechová Potôň 83 Orșova, castle 45 Ország. See Gút Ötvös, John 46 Padua 40 Pajštún, castle 59 Pakoměřice, of. See Čeček Palóci (of Pavlovce) George 32, 51 Ladislaus 75, 78 Simon 109, 168n Pannonhalma 212 Pápa 58 Pata 103–104 Pelsőci. See Bubek Perchtoldsdorf 43 Perényi John 30, 31, 31n, 31n2, 46n, 75, 75n, 78 Peter 70n Pest 109 Peter, Bishop of Csanad 168n Peter, envoy 59 Petrovaradin 56 Pezinok 139, 140n Pezinok, Counts of 60, 70 Countess 95 George of 51n, 70, 115, 131, 142, 201, 207 Nicholas 70 Phannberg Castle 166 Philip 113 Piast, dynasty 92n Piccolomini, Aeneas Silvius 9, 14, 15n, 24, 40, 47–48, 53, 61–62, 65–66, 75, 132–133, 135–136, 189, 199, 216 Piešťany 192n Piotrków 35 Plavecký hrad, castle 50n

Index Podolínec 28, 28n Pohořelice 68 Pok 157 Pöker, Franz (Frank) 80, 80n, 204, 204n Polan (Pollaner), Michael 145, 203n Polzmacher, John 206, 206n Prague 2, 17, 18, 18n, 25–27, 34, 37, 45, 64, 99, 171–172, 187, 195, 207 Přemek (or Przemko) I, Duke of Opava 130. See also Jitka Prennerin 88 Prešov 29, 78, 78n, 101–102, 132, 136, 162, 218 Pressburg. See Bratislava Prievidza, Michael of 197 Prodavíz, of. See Ördög Ptáček, Hynek 26 Ptuj 198 Pukanec 102, 127, 135 Ranes Stephen 25, 108, 114–115, 153, 165, 203, 203n, 204n Wolfgang 185 Reibnitz, Diprand of 23, 24 Roman (Romanko) of Vítovice, Peter 144, 144n, 145 Rome 6, 47, 173 Rómer, Flóriš 19 Rovinka (Csölle) 185–186, 186n Rozgonyi (of Rozhanovce) 119, 141–143 George, Count of Bratislava County 11, 30n, 54, 119, 141–142, 183, 201–202 John 143 Rajnold 75n, 143, 164 Simon, Bishop of Eger 101–102, 109, 124, 132, 133, 142–143, 159, 168, 168n, 171, 204, 209 Stephen, Count of Bratislava County 11, 29, 29n, 46n, 50 50n, 64, 74, 97, 97n, 107n, 112n, 115, 118, 118n, 119, 119n, 123, 132, 141–143, 143n, 167, 183, 185–186, 186n, 187n, 202 Stephen, Count of Temes County 27, 70, 70n Rozhanovce 102 Rozhanovce, of. See Rozgonyi Rožmberk (Rosenberg) 60 Ulrich (Oldřich) 72, 149, 151, 171, 186–187, 194–195, 199, 204, 207, 212

239

Index Sabinov 78, 102 Sącz 101 Salánk. See Schalanky Sány, of. See Čapek Samobor 148–149 Šamorín 113 Šariš 136 Šášov 93, 169 Šaumburk. See Bítov Salánki, Augustine of 167, 171, 211n Schaumberg 204. See also Bítov Schaumburg, John of 13, 14n, 86 Schellendorf, Hans (Hašek) 99n, 169 Schlick, Kaspar, Chancellor 9, 10, 18, 23, 24, 35, 37, 42, 46, 46n, 49–50, 50n, 59, 59n, 60–63, 74, 135, 138, 186 Schwarzenberg, Walter of 22, 31n Sebastian, priest 161 Sebeș 20 Sebesvár (Bologa) 52, 52n Semmering 198 Senj 198 Sereď 196 Siebenlinder, John 86 Siena 47 Siena, Bernardino of 47 Sigismund of Luxembourg 1–15, 15n, 16, 16n, 17–21, 23, 28n, 30, 35, 40, 40n, 41–42, 45, 47–50, 59, 59n, 61, 63, 65–68, 89, 92, 94n, 97, 102n, 106, 122, 129, 133, 142, 149, 152, 159, 159n, 171, 179, 202, 214, 221 Simon, servant of John Zeller 216n Šintava, castle 51n, 196 Skalica 144, 166, 184, 205 Skalka 128 Slankamen 53, 54n, 56 Smederevo 52, 54–55, 136 Šmikouský of Žďár, John 96, 113, 121, 123, 125, 136n, 137n, 184n, 186, 207 Smygorisk 137n Sokol of Lamberk, Nicholas 121, 189 Solomon I 105 Sophia, Queen 93 Sopron 2n, 12, 23, 30, 30n, 82, 99n, 103, 110, 116–117, 123, 129, 146, 151–153, 153n, 156–157, 165, 167–169, 169n, 178n, 198 Sörös, Thomas 103 Speyer 200n Spiš, castle 51n

Spišská Nová Ves 102 Spišské Podhradie 102 Stará Ľubovňa 102n St. Pölten 182n Steinar, John 151 Stephen I 129 Steyr, Wolfgang von (from) 85 Stibor of Beckov 50n Štítnik (Csetneki), Ladislaus of 51n, 56, 132n, 170 Stock, John 40, 40n, 41, 41n Stock, Nicholas 40n Stoll of Hammelburg, Heinrich 42 Stralenberg, Henne 31n Stupava 140n Sümeg 160–162 Svätý Beňadik. See Hronský Beňadik Svätý Jur 50, 139, 140n, 144 Svätý Jur, Counts of 60 Svätý Mikuláš (Szentmiklósi), Pongrác of 132, 134–136, 166, 184, 184n, 185 Szafraniec, Peter 20, 28, 29, 50 Szanda, castle 93, 122, 122n, 124 Szarvkő (Hornstein) 151 Szécsény 169n Szécsényi, Ladislaus 169 Szécsi, Dionysius, Arcbishop of Esztergom 79, 89, 107, 126, 127, 127n, 128–129, 131, 135, 154, 154n, 158–159, 173n, 183, 183n, 197, 206–208, 211, 221 John 148, 158, 178 Nicholas 158 Thomas 70n, 131, 155, 158, 207, 211, 221 Szeged 51–52, 52n Székesfehérvár 13–15, 15n, 63–64, 69, 79, 90, 90n, 104–105, 107–111, 114, 126, 128, 132, 148, 158, 175, 195–196, 217 Szentmiklósi. See Svätý Mikuláš Szerencs 137n Szombathely Castle 159, 174 Szond (Zond) 57, 57n Szőny 96 Szörény, castle 45 Tábor 26, 27 Tafur, Pero (Pedro) 37–39, 42, 65 Talafús, John 136

240 Talovac (Talóci), Matko of 7, 12, 13n, 75, 78, 95–98, 103, 103n, 104, 113, 174, 176, 176n, 209 Tamási, Henry 150, 194, 196, 207, 216 Ladislaus (Vajdafi) 80 Tarvisio 198 Tata 64, 96, 105, 115–116, 123, 195 Tęczyn, Andrew of 187, 187n Tematín Castle 25n, 192n Temesközi, Valentine 186n Thomanyn 170n Thurocz (Thuróczy), John of 22, 46, 46n, 47, 55, 65, 75, 75n, 148–150, 154–155, 158 Titel 53 Topoľčany 113 Traburg 143 Třeboň 60, 195 Trenčín 116, 128, 143 Trieste 204n Trnava 30n, 97, 118, 118n, 119, 132, 140n, 143n, 154, 159, 187, 189n, 192, 192n, 194, 196, 201, 203 Trnovec 202n Tucher, Nuremberg burger 7n Tüdőrév (Titelrév) 53–56 Tulln 190 Turňa Castle 170 Tusold, herald 38 Tvrdošovce 196 Udine 198, 199 Udvarhely (Odorheiu Secuiesc) 98 Újlaki. See Ilok Ulrich of Cilli. See Cilli Uškert, John 136 Vác 13, 24n, 113, 187 Varaždin 175 Várda, Nicholas of 168n Venice 14n, 31, 32, 36, 197–198 Verberi, Janus 90 Veszprém Castle 159, 159n, 160 Vienna 2, 7, 12, 14n, 18, 24, 24n, 25–26, 26n, 27, 32, 40–44, 44n, 46, 57, 61–64, 66–68, 74, 77, 82, 84–85, 85n, 88, 91, 99, 100n, 119, 121, 122, 137n, 137n2, 139, 144, 163, 165–166, 172, 175, 178, 178n, 179, 181–182,

Index 182n, 187–188, 190, 190n, 191, 193, 193n, 196–199, 203, 203n, 204, 204n, 205–206, 216, 216n, 217–218, 221 Vieska 83 Vígľaš 93 Villach 198–199 Vinsterel 57, 87–88 Visegrád 13, 51, 51n, 52n, 57, 58, 70–71, 76, 77, 79–80, 86, 103, 107, 126, 130 Vizsoly 102, 102n Vitéz, John 159 Vítovec, John 148, 205 Vitzthum, Busse 39, 40 Vranov 164 Wachsgiesser, Simon 77 Waldaw, Konrad of 206 Wallsee, of 204 Warsaw 126 Weihenberger, George (Jorg Weichenperger) 184–186 Wenceslas I Duke of Cieszyn 37 Wenceslas IV 179 Wenceslas, chancellor 27–28, 160, 170–171, 171n, 172–173 Wiener Neustadt 137n, 139, 145–147, 149–150, 150n, 151, 151n, 166, 166n, 167, 169, 179, 205 William III of Saxon 42–43 Wilsnack 87–88 Windecke, Eberhard 2, 8–11, 13 Władysław I (as Hungarian King) III (as Polish King) Jagellion 5, 7, 26, 27, 35, 43, 90n, 92–93, 95–96, 98, 100–102, 104, 118–119, 121–126, 126n, 127, 127n, 128–129, 132, 134–137, 140, 140n, 142– 144, 147–150, 154, 154n, 155, 157–160, 162–163, 163n, 164–166, 166n, 168, 172, 174, 176, 176n, 176n2, 176n3, 177, 177n, 178, 178n, 180, 180n, 183, 185, 187–190, 190n, 191, 191n, 192–201, 203, 205–209, 211–216, 218–219, 222 Władysław II Jagiełłon of Poland 16 Władysław II Jagiełłon, Hungarian and Bohemian King 98 Wolfgang, baker of Bratislava 200 Wolfurt. See Červený Kameň and Jitka Wrocław 23, 27, 32–39, 39n, 41, 42, 69, 218

Index Zagorhid, George of 122n Zagreb 198 Zauzach, Nicholas 86n Žďár, of. See Šmikouský Zdench, Mauricius de 168n Zeller, John 216, 216n, 217

241 Železný, John Bishop of Olomouc 193n Zend (Kálnai), Michael of 70n Zistersdorf 11 Znojmo 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 16n, 17, 25, 26, 68, 171, 206 Zvolen 93, 103, 135, 169

This book is dedicated to an exceptional and almost forgotten figure of European medieval history, Queen Elisabeth of Luxembourg. Through the story of her life, the author of this volume examines one of the most dramatic periods of Hungarian medieval history (1437–1442), when after the death of Emperor Sigismund of Luxembourg, the kingdom lacked a strong monarch. Daniela Dvořáková, Ph.D. D.Sc. (1993), Slovak Academy of Sciences, is a senior researcher at the Institute of History of the Slovak Academy of Sciences. She has published several monographs and many articles on medieval history, including Rytier a jeho kráľ [The Knight and his King] (Vydavateľstvo RAK, 2003) and Čierna kráľovná [The Black Queen] (Vydavateľstvo RAK, 2013).

brill.com/ecee –  1872-8103

Although the primary focus of this book is Queen Elisabeth, much attention is also paid to her husband, the Duke of Austria and the Roman-German King Albert II of Habsburg. The author reconstructs his short reign in the Kingdom of Hungary on the basis of hitherto unpublished sources, as well as Queen Elisabeth’s struggle for the Hungarian crown, which she finally won at the cost of her own life. Through the inclusion of discussions on topics such as the status of women, hygiene, medicine, piety, and travel, the author sheds light not just on the details of Elisabeth’s life, but also on life during this period of medieval history more generally.

9 789004 722545