Pauline Economy in the Middle Ages ''The Spiritual Cannot Be Maintained Without The Temporal ...'' 2020016560, 2020016561, 9789004424753, 9789004424760

Table of contents :
Contents
Preface
Figures, Tables, Maps, and Diagrams
Abbreviations
Introduction
Chapter 1 The Beginnings of the Order in the Thirteenth and
Fourteenth Centuries
Chapter 2
Estates
Chapter 3
Forest Management
Chapter 4
Townhouses
Chapter 5
Vineyards
Chapter 6
Mills
Chapter 7
Fishponds
Chapter 8
Animal Husbandry
Chapter 9
Other Income
Chapter 10
Salt as Income
Chapter 11
Mortgage, Hypothec, Trade
Conclusion
Appendix 1
Tables 1‒6
Appendix 2 Tables 7‒10, Including Diagrams 1‒3, Maps 1‒6,and Ground Plans (Figures 1‒40)
Bibliography
Index of Names
Index of Places

Citation preview

Pauline Economy in the Middle Ages

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

VOLUME 62

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

Pauline Economy in the Middle Ages “The Spiritual Cannot Be Maintained Without The Temporal …” By

Beatrix F. Romhányi

LEIDEN | BOSTON

Cover illustrations: (front) Vault keystone depicting Saint Paul the Hermit from the one-time Monastery of Budaszentlőrinc, 15th century, BHM, Castle Museum, Budapest, Hungary. Photo: Tihanyi, Bence; (back) Saint Paul visiting Saint Anthony. Woodcut on the first page of the Pauline Missal printed in Venice, 1537. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Romhányi, Beatrix F., author. Title: Pauline economy in the Middle Ages : “the spiritual cannot be  maintained without the temporal ...” / by Beatrix F. Romhányi. Description: Leiden ; Boston : Brill, [2020] | Series: East Central and  Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 450–1450, 1872–8103 ; volume 62 |  Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2020016560 (print) | LCCN 2020016561 (ebook) |  ISBN 9789004424753 (hardback ; alk. paper) | ISBN 9789004424760  (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Pauline Fathers (Order of St. Paul the First Hermit)—  History. | Monasteries—Economic aspects—Hungary—History—To 1500. |  Monasteries—Hungary—Management—History—To 1500. | Church lands—  Hungary—Management—History—To 1500. Classification: LCC BX3884.Z5 H876 2020 (print) | LCC BX3884.Z5 (ebook) |  DDC 271/.79—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020016560 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020016561

Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface. ISSN 1872-8103 ISBN 978-90-04-42475-3 (hardback) ISBN 978-90-04-42476-0 (e-book) Copyright 2020 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi, Brill Sense, Hotei Publishing, mentis Verlag, Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh and Wilhelm Fink Verlag. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Requests for re-use and/or translations must be addressed to Koninklijke Brill NV via brill.com or copyright.com. This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

Contents Preface vii List of Figures, Tables, Maps, and Diagrams ix Abbreviations xii Introduction 1 1

The Beginnings of the Order in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries 7

2 Estates 11 3

Forest Management 33

4 Townhouses 38 5 Vineyards 52 6 Mills 69 7 Fishponds 81 8

Animal Husbandry 86

9

Other Income 94

10

Salt as Income 117

11

Mortgage, Hypothec, Trade 122

Conclusion 127

Appendix 1: Tables 1‒6 139 Appendix 2: Tables 7‒10, Including Diagrams 1‒3, Maps 1‒6, and Ground Plans (Figures 1‒40) 153 Bibliography 205 Index of Names 215 Index of Places 223

Preface Most medieval charters that were preserved in the territory of medieval Hungary concern estates and deal with issues connected to possession rights. This is also true for charters of monastic institutions. As there is no medieval institution whose archive survived completely, writing the history of the orders in Hungary has always been in a way one-sided, researchers dealt much more with secular issues than with spiritual. But, as one of the charters quoted the canon law on monastic orders, “the spiritual cannot be maintained without the temporal” (MNL OL DL 16912), and the economy and management of the various orders were certainly intimately intertwined their spirituality. The present volume is the result of extensive research. Studying the history of the religious orders in medieval Hungary made it abundantly clear that surviving sources about the Paulines offer an exceptionally good range of materials to analyse monastic estate structure and management. On the one hand, a relatively large number of charters have been preserved; on the other hand, their interpretation is facilitated by two early modern sources: the historical work Vitae fratrum of the prior general, Gregorius Gyöngyösi, and the Formularium maius used under the rule of his successor, Valentine Hadnagy. Thirdly, the order’s centralized organization allows the underlying assumption that the estates and the management of individual monasteries fit into a coherent system and thus can be used to contribute to our understanding of the whole. At the same time, the limitations of the work are also obvious: despite their relative abundance, the archives of the monasteries are incomplete, the distribution of sources is uneven. Furthermore, the comparable evidence from Hungary, i.e. the analysis of the economy of other orders, has only been partially completed, and Western European parallels should be used with caution because of the different social and economic environment. Thus, my primary aim is to analyse the available sources concerning Pauline economy and to refer to similar phenomena in Hungary and Western Europe where possible. I wish to express my gratitude to all those who helped my work. First, Professor András Kubinyi, who supported me from the beginning and reviewed the first versions of the text. I also thank the kindness of József Laszlovszky, Gábor Sarbak, László Solymosi and István Tringli who were always keen to offer their helpful advice at various stages of the analyses and called my attention to

viii

Preface

new data. Last, but not least, I am grateful for Zsuzsanna Reed’s help in proofreading the English text, and to my daughter Réka Fülöpp for the drawings. Besides them, many colleagues in Hungary and abroad, whom I cannot list by name in a short preface, shared valuable information with me, read parts of the text, and corrected mistakes.

Figures, Tables, Maps, and Diagrams Figures All ground plans are adapted from Guzsik, A pálos rend építészete a középkori Magyarországon, unless otherwise stated. They were all re-drawn by Réka Fülöpp. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Ground plan of the monastery of Bánfalva 173 Ground plan of the monastery of Baumgarten 174 Ground plan of the monastery of Csáktornya (Šenkovec) with the medieval parts (Tajana Pleše) 175 Ground plan of the monastery of Csatka 176 Ground plan of the monastery of Dédes 176 Ground plan of the monastery of Diósgyőr in the eighteenth century 177 Ground plan of the monastery of Dobra Kuća 178 Ground plan of the monastery of Elefánt (Lefantovce) 178 Ground plan of the monastery of Fehéregyháza 179 Ground plan and environment of the monastery of Felnémet (László Fodor) 180 Ground plan sketch of the monastery of Garić (Tajana Pleše) 181 Ground plan of the church of Gönc and the geophysical survey of the cloister (Károly Belényesy) 182 Ground plan of the monastery of Háromhegy (Róbert Fülöpp) 182 Ground plan of the monastery of Jenő 183 Ground plan of the monastery of Kamensko with the medieval parts (Tajana Pleše) 184 Ground plan of the choir of the church in Kulm 185 Ground plan of the monastery of Lád 185 Ground plan of the monastery of Lepoglava with the medieval parts (Tajana Pleše) 186 Ground plan of the monastery of Mindszent 187 Ground plan of the church of Nosztre with the medieval parts (Lajos Bozóki) 188 Ground plan of the church of Porva 188 Ground plan of the monastery of Pula 189 Ground plan of the monastery of Salföld (Ilona Sch. Pusztai) 190 Ground plan of the church and of the remains of the monastery of Szalónak (Stadtschlaining) (Dehio Handbuch Burgenland 1980) 191

x

Figures, Tables, Maps, and Diagrams

25

Ground plan of the monastery of Szentjakab (Jakabhegy) with the medieval remains (Gergely Buzás) 192 26 Reconstructed ground plan of the monastery of Szentjakab near Sáska 193 27 Ground plan of the church of Szentkereszt near Kesztölc 193 28 Ground plan of the monastery of Szentlélek (Sarolta Lázár) 194 29 The building phases of the church of Szentlőrinc near Buda (Zoltán Bencze, Róbert Fülöpp) 194–195 29 a) Early-fourteenth century 194 29 b) Late-fourteenth century 195 29 c) Early-sixteenth century 195 30 Ground plan of the monastery of Szentpéter 196 31 Reconstructed ground plan of the hermitage of Slat (Tajana Pleše) 197 32 Ground plan of the monastic church of Streza (Tajana Pleše) 198 33 Ground plan of the church of Thal (Marianka) 198 34 Ground plan of the monastery of Toronyalja (Zsuzsa Miklós) 199 35 Ground plan of the monastery of Újház 200 36 Ground plan of the monastery of Újhely with the Baroque parts 201 37 Ground plan of the monastery of Uzsa (Published in Guzsik, A pálos rend építészete a középkori Magyarországon, based on a sketch by Iván Ádám; Franciscan period.) 202 38 Presumed ground plan of the monastery of Vállus 203 39 Ground plan of the monastery of Vázsony 203 40 The Saint Andrew’s monastery of Visegrád at the end of the fifteenth century (Ottó Sztéhlo) 204

Tables

1 2 3 4 5 6

Appendix 1

Manors owned by Pauline monasteries 139 Noble plots and manorhouses owned by the Paulines 140 Townhouses of the Paulines in Buda 142 Other townhouses 142 Mills owned by Pauline monasteries 145 Donations in cash and kind left for Pauline monasteries 151

Figures, Tables, Maps, and Diagrams



7 8 9 10

Appendix 2

Foundation periods and founders of the Pauline monasteries 153 Patron saints of the Pauline monasteries 158 Concordance of the numbers appearing on Maps 2‒6 (pp. 167‒171) 161 The size of Pauline monasteries (see ground plans, Figs. 1‒40) 172

Maps 1 2 3 4 5 6

Pauline monasteries in the Medieval Kingdom of Hungary 166 Hermitages until 1263 167 Pauline monasteries around 1300 168 Pauline monasteries around 1400 169 Pauline monasteries around 1500 170 Short-lived monasteries (mid-13th century–mid-16th century) 171

Diagrams 1 2 3

Social standing of the founders by period 157 Number of foundations by period 157 Number of Pauline monasteries by decade 157

xi

Abbreviations AO 5

Kristó, Gyula, ed. Anjou-kori oklevéltár: Documenta res hungaricas tempore regum andegavensium illustrantia, vol. 5., 1318–1320. Budapest; Szeged: Szegedi Középkorász Műhely, 1998. AO 7 Blazovich, László, and Lajos Géczi, eds. Anjou-kori oklevéltár: Documenta res hungaricas tempore regum andegavensium illustrantia, vol. 7., 1323. Budapest; Szeged: Szegedi Középkorász Műhely, 1991. AO 11 Almási, Tibor, ed. Anjou-kori oklevéltár: Documenta res hungaricas tempore regum Andegavensium illustrantia, vol. 11., 1327. Budapest; Szeged: Szegedi Középkorász Műhely, 1996. Bándi 1985 Bándi, Zsuzsanna. Északkelet-magyarországi pálos kolostor oklevelei: Regeszták. Miskolc: Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén Megyei Levéltár, 1985. Bándi 1986 Bándi, Zsuzsanna. “A szakácsi pálos kolostor középkori oklevelei.” Somogy Megye Múltjából 17 (1986): 27–66. Borsa 2000 Borsa, Iván. “A somogyi konvent oklevelei az Országos Levéltárban (Forrásközlés): Hatodik Közlemény; 1381–1400.” Somogy Megye Múltjából 31 (2000): 7–59. DAP 1–3 Gyéressy, Béla, Ferenc L. Hervay, and Melinda Tóth, eds. Documenta Artis Paulinorum. 3 vols. Budapest: MTA Művészettörténeti Kutató Csoportja, 1975. Formularium F. Romhányi, Beatrix, and Gábor Sarbak, eds. Formularium Maius, Ordinis Sancti Pauli Primi Heremite: Textedition des Pauliner-Formulariums aus der ersten Hälfte des 16. Jahrhunderts (Cod. Lat. 131. der Universitätsbibliothek zu Budapest). Budapest: Szent István Társulat, 2013. Inventarium “Inventarium privilegiorum omnium et singularum domorum ordinis heremitarum sancti Pauli primi heremite (Liber viridis),” n.d. Cod. Lat. 115. University Library, Budapest, fols 1–89. LK 1 Mályusz, Elemér. “A szlavóniai és horvátországi középkori pálos kolostorok oklevelei az Országos Levéltárban, Pt. 1.” Levéltári Közlemények 3 (1925): 100–191. LK 2 Mályusz, Elemér. “A szlavóniai és horvátországi középkori pálos kolostorok oklevelei az Országos Levéltárban, Pt. 2.” Levéltári Közlemények 5 (1927): 136–209. LK 3 Mályusz, Elemér. “A szlavóniai és horvátországi középkori pálos kolostorok oklevelei az Országos Levéltárban, Pt. 3.” Levéltári Közlemények 6 (1928): 87–203.

Abbreviations LK 4

xiii

Mályusz, Elemér. “A szlavóniai és horvátországi középkori pálos kolostorok oklevelei az Országos Levéltárban, Pt. 4.” Levéltári Közlemények 7 (1929): 278–311. LK 5 Mályusz, Elemér. “A szlavóniai és horvátországi középkori pálos kolostorok oklevelei az Országos Levéltárban, Pt. 5.” Levéltári Közlemények 8 (1930): 65–111. LK 9 Mályusz, Elemér. “A szlavóniai és horvátországi középkori pálos kolostorok oklevelei az Országos Levéltárban, Pt. 9.” Levéltári Közlemények 11 (1933): 58–92. LK 10 Mályusz, Elemér. “A szlavóniai és horvátországi középkori pálos kolostorok oklevelei az Országos Levéltárban, Pt. 10.” Levéltári Közlemények 12 (1934): 111–154. LK 11 Mályusz, Elemér. “A szlavóniai és horvátországi középkori pálos kolostorok oklevelei az Országos Levéltárban, Pt. 11.” Levéltári Közlemények 13 (1935): 236–252. MNL OL DF Magyar Nemzeti Levéltár Országos Levéltára, Diplomatic photo collection. MNL OL DL Magyar Nemzeti Levéltár Országos Levéltára, Collectio Ante-Mohacsiana. MTF Csánki, Dezső, ed. Magyarország történelmi földrajza a Hunyadiak korában. Vol. 1. Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, 1890. SZR Bónis, György. Szentszéki regeszták: Iratok az egyházi bíráskodás történetéhez a középkori Magyarországon. Edited by Elemér Balogh. Budapest: Püski, 1997. VF Gyöngyösi, Gregorius. Vitae fratrum eremitarum Ordinis Sancti Pauli primi eremitae. Edited by Ferenc Levente Hervay. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1988. ZSO 1 Mályusz, Elemér. ed. Zsigmond-kori oklevéltár, Vol. 1., 1387–1399. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1951. ZSO 2 Mályusz, Elemér, ed. Zsigmond-kori oklevéltár, Vol. 2., 1400–1410. Vol. 1. 2 vols. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1956. ZSO 3 Mályusz, Elemér, and Iván Borsa, eds. Zsigmond-kori oklevéltár, Vol. 3., 1411–1412. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1993. ZSO 5 Borsa, Iván, and Elemér Mályusz, eds. Zsigmond-kori oklevéltár, Vol. 5., 1415–1416. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1994.

Introduction Sources concerning the medieval history of the Pauline order were preserved in an exceptionally large number compared to other religious communities. Among others, they include archives of larger monasteries, the inventory of important charters prepared by Gregorius Gyöngyösi, as well as a formulary used in the 1530s.1 Another work by Gregorius Gyöngyösi, the Vitae fratrum also contains valuable data and some of the anecdotes recorded by Gyöngyösi shed light on the spiritual background of the rules and of contemporary practices. Some aspects of the Pauline economy are also explained in the Epitoma and in the Directorium, the first being a spiritual guideline for the monks on the way of perfection, while the second contains the detailed description of the tasks of every official in the order, beginning with the prior general and concluding with the steward. The late medieval—or, in European terms, early modern—sources about the order’s history, compiled in the first decades of the sixteenth century by leading Pauline monks, mainly Gregorius Gyöngyösi, are exceptional in Hungarian history. No other order has surviving written evidence, which gives a similarly comprehensive insight not only into estates and privileges, but also into the contemporary understanding and interpretation of rules and practices. Although the Vitae fratrum is usually regarded as the history of the Pauline Order, which is true to some extent, the author’s aim was to instruct his fellow-members in the order by recounting the lives of outstanding leaders or—especially around 1500—of famous artists, poets, and even simple friars. Although it was not Gyöngyösi’s primary focus of interest, the stories feature good and bad ways of using the temporalia several times. The Inventarium and the Formularium preserve documents concerning the estates, estate management, and everyday life. Gyöngyösi did not record all the charters he found in the monasteries he visited, but he registered only those which were necessary for proving the order’s ownership of certain landed estates or their privileges.2 The Inventarium captured the estate structure of the Pauline Order a few years before the Reformation and the Ottoman occupation of the medieval 1  Budapest, University Library, Cod. Lat. 115 and Cod. Lat. 131. The items of the inventory were published in Gyéressy, Hervay, and Tóth, Documenta artis paulinorum. [Henceforth DAP]. The Formularium has been published in Beatrix F. Romhányi and Gábor Sarbak, eds., Formularium maius, Ordinis Sancti Pauli primi heremite: Textedition des Pauliner-Formulariums aus der ersten Hälfte des 16. Jahrhunderts (Cod. Lat. 131. der Universitätsbibliothek zu Budapest) (Budapest: Szent István Társulat, 2013). 2  F. Romhányi, “A pálos rendi hagyomány az oklevelek tükrében.”

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004424760_002

2

Introduction

Kingdom of Hungary, while the Formularium preserves the most frequent or difficult issues connected to estate management as well as information about the social network around the monastic community. Since the case-specific details were not always completely omitted from the charters copied into the formulary, they offer valuable bits of information about the estates of individual monasteries. Most of the original charters are available in the volumes of the Documenta Artis Paulinorum. A huge quantity of excerpts concerning the Slavonian monasteries was published by Elemér Mályusz in the 1920s and 1930s. After World War II, Zsuzsa Bándi published charters of the monasteries in north-eastern Hungary and of the monastery of Szakácsi, while Iván Borsa put out charters of Szerdahely and some other monasteries in Transdanubia. Many documents in connection with the order’s history can also be found in the volumes of the Anjou-kori Oklevéltár and of the Zsigmond-kori Oklevéltár. Excerpts of unpublished charters are accessible on the website of the Hungarian National Archives.3 Just like all other monastic source material in medieval Hungary, these sources deal primarily with economic issues. Their analysis has been hitherto rather superficial: most researchers contented to say that Paulines usually had small estates, managed in a feudal system and in a natural economy. There are, however, a handful of articles which are indeed relevant here as they contain analyses of the estate management of the monasteries in smaller regions. The charters concerning the economy of the Pauline monasteries in Baranya County were studied by Éva Knapp who demonstrates the close economic connection of these monasteries with the bishopric of Pécs.4 The sources about the monasteries of the Zemplén region—mainly published by Zsuzsa Bándi— were used by Károly Belényesy for the reconstruction of the economy and land use of the monasteries in Abaúj County.5 Tamás Guzsik summarised the estate 3  Hungarian National Archives: Magyar Nemzeti Levéltár, accessed May 23, 2019, www.mnl. gov.hu. 4  Éva Knapp, “Pálos gazdálkodás a középkori Baranya megyében,” in Varia Paulina: Pálos rendtörténeti tanulmányok: válogatás a Budapesten, 1991. október 4–5-én megrendezett II. Nemzetközi Pálos Rendtörténeti Szimpózium anyagából, ed. Gábor Sarbak and Vince Árva (Csorna: Stylus Nyomda, 1994). 5  Belényesy, Pálos kolostorok az Abaúji-Hegyalján. This subject was discussed only in a few works. In the late 1980s, an MA thesis dealt with the fish ponds and mills owned by monasteries: Számadó, “Kolostoraink halastavai és malmai a középkorban.” More recently, Sárosi, “Régészeti kutatások Bugac-Felsőmonostoron: egy erősen rombolt lelőhely kutatásának módszertani tanulságai.” László Ferenczi published research on the economy of the Cistercians, with special attention to water management, in Ferenczi, “Estate Structure and Development of the Topusko (Toplica) Abbey: A Case Study of a Medieval Cistercian Monastery”; Ferenczi,

Introduction

3

types in tables, although his interpretation remains brief and perfunctory.6 I have presented a similarly short overview in a conference poster,7 and in the short history of the Paulines in medieval Hungary.8 Although not directly connected to the research on the Pauline order, András Végh’s monograph on the medieval topography of Buda contains useful data both in the analysis and in the documentation.9 The present volume focuses on the published and unpublished charters, and the early modern formularium. The Pauline inventory published in the DAP, charter-based data of the Vitae fratrum by Gregorius Gyöngyösi, and some other, partly non-Hungarian written evidence are also included. There are about five thousand charters preserved in the Pauline archives and several hundred are kept in other archives. However, the number of documents that can be examined in the context of Pauline economy is considerably lower, partly because some charters, usually dealing with the history of certain estates before they were given to the monks, are only loosely connected to the Paulines, and partly because some came down to us in several copies, usually due to legal procedures. Also, some charters in the Pauline archives have nothing to do with the order, they were simply entrusted to the monks provisionally but were never returned to the owners. Finally, there is a group of charters which are not connected to the economy, for example, confraternity charters,10 papal and royal privileges, and different documents concerning legal acts, such as subpoenas, postponements, mandates for solicitors, and so on.

 Economic Management of Cistercian Estates in Medieval Hungary. About monastic landscape and land use, see Laszlovszky, “Középkori kolostorok a tájban, középkori kolostortájak”; Rácz and Laszlovszky, Monostorossáp, egy Tisza menti középkori falu. 6  Guzsik, A pálos rend építészete a középkori Magyarországon, 181–187. The book deals with the architecture of the Paulines, the collection of the sources concerning the estates was a secondary result of Guzsik’s research. 7  F. Romhányi, “L’ordre paulinien et l’innovation agraire en Hongrie (XIV e–XV e siècles).” 8  F. Romhányi, “Die Pauliner im mittelalterlichen Ungarn,” 146–148, 153. 9  Végh, Buda város középkori helyrajza. 10  The fact that somebody was accepted in the confraternity of an order indirectly refers to financial contacts, too. These privileges were sometimes granted in return for a larger donation; in some fortunate cases, some written evidence survived. For instance, Count Sigismund of Szentgyörgy and Bazin who was accepted as confriar of the Paulines by Prior General Peter in 1470, supported the monastery of Thal: MNL OL DL 16869. In other cases, non-financial support was also “paid” in a similar way, see for example the case of the chancellery notary, Peter Söptei, in F. Romhányi, “ ‘Meretur vestre devocionis affectus …’ Egy vallásos középkori budai polgár—Söptei Péter kancelláriai jegyző.” Another instance is the case of King Matthias Corvinus and his mother who became confriars in 1472: MNL OL DL 37646.

4

Introduction

The number of charters varies across individual monasteries. Slavonian monasteries are the best documented among all the regions of the kingdom: about 35–40% of all available material is connected to them. The distribution of the sources is so uneven that statistical methods cannot be applied. In all, more than a thousand charters can be used for analysis, and approximately 800 of them are directly connected to economic issues. The rest deal with personal and social relations, or the privileges of the monasteries and of the order itself. In some cases, it is possible to reconstruct a longer series of events but most of the evidence is isolated. A comprehensive description of Pauline economy is not possible because of the lack of comparative material. Although the economy of the mendicant orders has been analysed, the analysis of the late medieval economy of monastic orders is still missing. In the absence of more complete source material, modern comparative evaluation is necessary. This kind of research will also be needed for the reconstruction of land use and estate management of late medieval monastic institutions.11 After the papal approval in 1308, the Pauline Order spread quickly and became one of the most popular religious communities in medieval Hungary. Importantly, the community had to prove its economic stability in order to secure the canonical approval.12 Despite the indisputable support, the network of the Pauline monasteries could never achieve the level of stability that characterized the Franciscan and Dominican networks. While Pauline monasteries were founded in an uninterrupted succession until the early sixteenth century, certain sites were at the same time abandoned for various reasons. This may also have contributed to the fact that the order never became international. There were about 65–70 monasteries in the late fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, but most of them were much smaller than the contemporary Franciscan or Dominican friaries. The average number of monks was between eight and twelve, and their estates were sufficient only to maintain a monastic community of that size. Regarding the estates, it is important to point out that the order adopted various aspects of other orders’ operation during the period of its formation. Their first hermitages tried to join the emerging order of the Austin Hermits and they had some sort of mutual sympathy with the Dominicans. However, 11  This subject was mainly investigated in England and Wales by Michael Aston, John Blair, and James Bond. In Hungary, József Laszlovszky, Károly Belényesy and László Ferenczi applied this approach in their research. About this see F. Romhányi, “A középkori egyházi épületek kutatása: eredmények és feladatok.” 12  Mályusz, Egyházi társadalom a középkori Magyarországon, 258.

Introduction

5

they always emphasized that the monks should live off their own work, and their regulation forbade both mendication and the possession of villages and tenant plots. However, in the later Middle Ages, both rules were observed with restrictions: certain types of alms and the income paid by tenants were part of their economic “portfolio.”13 These early rules more or less defined the early structure of Pauline estates. The basic elements were types of possession which needed few labourers, hiring extra workforce only occasionally. These include small plough lands, vineyards, fruit-gardens, fishponds, mills, forests, and animals. The management of the growing estates also caused tensions within the order, which remained a constant problem throughout their existence. Gregorius Gyöngyösi, for example, recorded that the prior general, Nicholas, always reminded himself that he was elected superior not to govern animals and the estates, thus he was more concerned with correcting their faults than with enriching the greedy monks. He did not care much for collecting money because he knew that greed is the root of all sins and evil. Therefore, he used to say to those who ran after money: You should remain in the monastery, go to church, and mourn your sins day and night. You need not wait long if you like soil, you will soon have enough of it. It will be beneath you, above you, and in you for you are but ashes and you will return to ashes. Sometimes he answered those who contradicted him: I am not the shepherd of cattle and of sheep, but of the 13  Spekner, “Pálosok és domonkosok Szent Ágoston regulája és a konstitúciók tükrében.” The earliest preserved exemplary of the constitutions was dated by Kaspar Elm between 1365 and 1381. See Elm, Quellen zur Geschichte des Paulinerordens aus Kloster Grünwald im Hochschwarzwald in der Stiftsbibliothek von St. Paul im Lavanttal. For the sympathy between the Paulines and the Dominicans see the two early eremitic communities with churches dedicated to Saint Dominic (Dubica, Szakácsi), but also a brief reference in chapter 9 of Vitae fratrum, saying that Saint Thomas Aquinas helped the legendary founder of the order, Eusebius and his companions in the Roman Curia when they first tried to get papal approval for the new order in 1262. Gyöngyösi, Vitae fratrum eremitarum Ordinis Sancti Pauli primi eremitae. [Henceforth: VF] The interdiction of mendication is quoted in a charter of 1469 as follows, “ipsi fratres et si hostiatim vel per singulos fores ex eorum institutis regularibus non interdiceret, sponte tamen oblata seis elemosinas et fidelium pia in eosdem delata vota libere recipere possunt, huiusmodique elemosinarum impertitionibus labores ipsorum manuales soliti sint relevare”: MNL OL DL 16912. The influence of the monastic tradition is reflected in the prescription of the stabilitas loci which is unusual for the mendicant orders but is included in the rule of Bishop Andrew of Eger dated 1297 and quoted in VF, chap. 17. However, this prescription was later omitted, and—as can be seen in late medieval charters—the personnel of monasteries changed quite often. This practice is common with the mendicant orders.

6

Introduction

souls which had been entrusted to me, I have to account for them when Doomsday comes.14 As noted above, most Pauline monasteries in rural areas had diverse types of landed estates: plough lands, meadows and pastures, vineyards, fruit-gardens, forests, fishponds, and mills. Some monasteries managed to accumulate small but contiguous estates, whose final shape and size, as they are known from the charters, had been shaped either by the intentions of the donators or by the efforts of the monks themselves. The size of the estates varied; there were rather well-off monasteries, as well as poor ones which could hardly sustain themselves from their income. The largest part of the estates served as selfsustenance and their income was in kind. In certain regions of the kingdom, this traditional type of estate management was prevalent or, for example in Slavonia, it was the only type there was. However, it is clear that some part of the estates produced monetary income. Based on their estates, the major monasteries of the order could capitalize their earnings and were able to participate in trade and finance. The present study offers an analysis of this “capitalistic” estate management, while the “feudal elements” of the estates will be briefly touched upon where relevant.15 In addition, even though they are neither essential for the approach in the present study, nor a specialty of the Pauline economy, the role of different types of estates, especially of forests, in the economy of better-documented monasteries will be discussed.

14  V F, chap. 22. 15  Earlier literature regularly uses the expression “feudal landed estates.” However, this is inaccurate and misleading in many respects, as it is actually used to refer to a type of estate management that is based on the work of tenants. In the following, I shall avoid the use of this term. At the same time, it is notable that the capitalistic estate management characterized only a smaller part of the landed estates of the Pauline Order, on the rest of the monastic estates, tenants worked until the early modern period. Expressions describing estate management are generally problematic, since their meaning changed over time, often several times over. Using modern terms for medieval or early modern features which were not used in the periods concerned is not without difficulties either, so caution must be exercised in applying them to medieval cases and concerns.

Chapter 1

The Beginnings of the Order in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries The early history of the Pauline Order is obscure in many respects. It is, however, quite clear that it developed out of very small eremitic communities in about 80 years between the 1220s and the end of the thirteenth century.1 Although the early character of the community changed over the Middle Ages, hermitage-like dwellings still existed as late as 1500.2 This may have been the reason why the Paulines themselves declared in 1327 that they lived in more than sixty houses, while the relation of Archbishop Ladislaus of Kalocsa spoke about only thirty.3 This is probably also the explanation for the unique organization of the order whereby vicars supervised a handful of smaller monasteries led by priors—even where the number of monks was less than twelve—which seems to be one of the monastic features in the order’s organisation. The vicar resided in the largest or in the most easily accessible monastery. This vicariatebased system is documented in both the Inventory compiled by Gregorius Gyöngyösi, and the so-called List of Máriavölgy/Marianka commissioned by Archbishop Peter Pázmány.4 In the thirteenth century, Pauline hermit communities—to sidestep the term “monasteries,” which is unfitting for this early period—were primarily 1   Solymosi, “Pilissziget vagy Fülöpsziget. A pálos remeteélet 13. századi kezdeteihez”; F. Romhányi, “Heremitae—monachi—fratres: Szempontok a pálos rend történetének újragondolásához.” 2  AO 11, no. 351. For instance, the charter of Pope Eugene IV addressed to Archbishop Denis of Esztergom refers to such hermitages (1440: MNL OL DL 13521). The monastery of Diósgyőr is called hermitage in 1343 (MNL OL DL 3667) and that of Remete over Técső in 1554, see in Vince Bunyitay et al., eds., Egyháztörténelmi emlékek a magyarországi hitújítás korából / Monumenta ecclesiastica tempora innovatae Hungariae religionis, vol. 1 (Budapest: Szent István Társulat, 1902), 152; s.v. “Remete 1” in F. Romhányi et al., Kolostorok és társaskáptalanok a középkori Magyarországon. Archaeological data prove that the monastery of Cladova and that of Porva were also such small communities. See Rusu, Dicţionarul mănăstirilor din Transilvania, Banat, Crişana şi Maramureş, 105; F. Romhányi et al., Kolostorok és társaskáptalanok a középkori Magyarországon. 3  Almási, Anjou-kori oklevéltár: Documenta res Hungaricas tempore regum Andegavensium illustrantia, vol. 11., 1327, 338, 342. [Henceforth: AO 11]. 4  Hervay, “A pálos rend elterjedése a középkori Magyarországon.” For the internal organization of the order, see also F. Romhányi, “A pálos rendi hagyomány az oklevelek tükrében.”

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004424760_003

8

Chapter 1

supported by vineyards donated to them, as László Solymosi also notes.5 Besides vineyards, there are donations of small plough lands, meadows, forests, and fishponds but, for example in Baranya County, even manors are known to have been in the hands of the hermitages very early on. In general, sets of estates were sufficient to cover the everyday needs of a few hermits who cultivated the land themselves. Physical work and agriculture played an important role in the life of the order even later. This is evidenced, among others, by a 1421 charter in which Pope Martin V releases the Pauline monk and priest Nicholas, the son of the noble Michael of Szob, and allows him to join the Benedictine order because his superiors forced him to do peasant work, imprisoned him, and threatened with death. Certainly, there are many other, certainly less grim, examples too. For instance, in 1452, Michael, vicar of Zagreb, complained because while two monks Ambrosius and Ivan, as well as the tenants of the monastery, were collecting hay together with on the Pauline estate of Petrusóc on February 22, their neighbour, Clement of Mikcsóc, ploughed part of their meadow.6 These and similar other incidents prove that the Paulines monks never abandoned working on their fields and doing “peasant work,” which was, in fact, expected of them. The first change in the life of the emerging order took place in the last decades of the thirteenth century, under the reigns of Kings Ladislaus IV and Andrew III, when the number of hermitages doubled, and an increasing number of ecclesiastic and lay donators, including the king himself, appeared around the hermits that were to become the Paulines. The hermits obviously received larger estates in preparation for the acquisition process of the papal approval. It was presumably for the same reason that a 1263 charter issued by Bishop Paul of Veszprém was transcribed and confirmed twice in the 1290s: first by Bishop Bartholomew of Veszprém, and two years later by Archbishop Lodomer of Esztergom.7 The situation changed radically after the papal approval of the order in 1308. From this time onward, not only did the number of monasteries increase dynamically, but the size and structure of their estates also underwent significant transformation. From the beginning of the fourteenth century onward, but especially from the 1320s and 1330s until the end of the century, the number of 5  Solymosi, “Pilissziget vagy Fülöpsziget. A pálos remeteélet 13. századi kezdeteihez.” 6  Lukcsics, Diplomata pontificum saec. XV, vol. 1, Martinus Papa V (1417–1431), 113. 1452: Mályusz, “A szlavóniai és horvátországi középkori pálos kolostorok oklevelei az Országos Levéltárban, pt. 2.,” 68. [Henceforth: LK 2]. 7  For a possible interpretation of the double transcription, see F. Romhányi, “A pálos rendi hagyomány az oklevelek tükrében”; F. Romhányi, “Salt Mining and Trade in Hungary before the Mongol Invasion.”

The Beginnings of the Order in the 13th and 14th Centuries

9

houses tripled, although some may have emerged on the site of earlier, undocumented hermitages. The prestige of the order grew considerably due to King Louis I’s intensive support. Both the economic strength of the order and the increasing importance of tenant labour-based estate management are attested to by a charter issued by King Louis I in 1343, in which the king obliges all nobles and landlords who had tenants to allow them to move to Chenik, an estate of the Pauline monastery of Diósgyőr, if their tenants paid all taxes and cleared all debts.8 The king supported the order both by founding new monasteries and by strengthening existing ones, which very likely helped the order spread beyond the borders of the Kingdom of Hungary and establish their monasteries abroad in the Kingdom of Poland. After the great fourteenth-century expansion there were about sixty monasteries all over Hungary and four or five in Croatia and Poland. This means that more than 80% of the Pauline monasteries in Hungary and about two-thirds of the houses in Central Europe were already in existence by 1400. After the death of King Louis, the expansion stopped which may be seen as the beginning of a period of decline or at least stagnation. It is notable, however, that the rising number of monasteries is not the only, and certainly not the most important, indication of a monastic community’s flourishing. The same is found in other orders too, for instance, in the case of the Dominicans almost the complete network of houses was founded in the first period (complete by the early fourteenth century) and the next phase was devoted to the development of already existing sites. Except for some unique cases, the Dominicans began to accept new foundations in relatively large number only as late as the second half of the fifteenth century. Besides the orders’ inner dynamics, the sustaining capacity of the natural and social environment is also a determinant factor of potential expansion. Although the monasteries were not primarily founded to fulfil economic purposes, ecclesiastic leaders always monitored how solid their economic basis was. If considered insufficient, the foundation was not approved, or—in case of later problems—the community had to be dissolved as it happened, for instance, to several Cistercian abbeys in France around 1200. The baronial support of the order was unwaivered, maybe even stronger, under the reign of the next king, Sigismund of Luxemburg. Records show that 8  1343: Bándi, Északkelet-magyarországi pálos kolostorok oklevelei: Regeszták, 561. [Henceforth: Bándi 1985]. The estate with tenants was given the monks by Palatine Stephen and his wife in 1313 (according to VF, chap. 18, Stephen was count of Borsod Count), together with some other estates (1313: MNL OL DL 8784). King Louis I changed it for other estates in the fourteenth century (see below).

10

Chapter 1

the mightiest lords in this period, the Kanizsai, Garai, Cudar, and Kont families, were among the donators from the 1380s onwards. This fact, together with the archaeological and architectural evidence, reveals that most of the Pauline monasteries were enlarged and rebuilt in the early fifteenth century. The support of this social layer changed the structure of the estates, too: from this time on, whole villages were in the hands of the Paulines. This change is addressed in the charter issued by Pope Eugene IV in 1440 saying that “first, the order settled in abandoned, wild forest regions, far from human settlements, and lived monastic life in small cells and chapels, as it can be seen in several places even today, but step by step the gifts of certain donators transformed the cells into huge monasteries, the small chapels into magnificent churches, and all sorts of necessary buildings were built around the monasteries”.9 The following section is devoted to the analysis of the estate structure and estate management from the mid-fourteenth century onwards. The potential breadth of analysis varies in the different periods. For the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries the picture is fragmentary, and the greater number of charters provides a better insight only after the mid-fifteenth century. Even then, it is important to keep in mind that time and again even the largest Pauline archives suffered losses—they were not stored in monasteries living in peaceful seclusion for centuries, they had to be rescued and moved often so the material that remains is often selective and damaged. Damage and loss happen by chance, but the selection was always conscious, aiming to preserve the documents that were important for the order or for the given monastery to restart monastic life if necessary. Thus, most of the surviving documents concern late medieval estates and privileges, with the occasional legal claims in their midst.

9  1440: MNL OL DL 13521. In the charter, the pope entrusts Archbishop Dennis of Esztergom to investigate the origins of all the existing Pauline monasteries, and to confirm the foundations as apostolic legate as if everything had happened legally from the very beginning, to ensure that every monastery could enjoy the privileges of the order equally.

Chapter 2

Estates Most Pauline monasteries acquired their estates step by step. The earliest donations contained ploughlands, vineyards and forests; a few references to manors also appear in documents from as early as the thirteenth century. These early estates were later either expanded, for example by acquiring mills and fishponds, or transformed by cutting part of the forest to plant vineyards or orchards. In the second half of the fourteenth century, some monasteries received entire tenant villages with all their pertinences,1 some acquired manors, and in other cases they were given only some tenant plots or parts of estates or received baronial manor-houses as donation. Earlier literature usually presumed that Pauline estate management in Hungary was based on a natural economy, primarily aimed at self-provision.2 However, the surprisingly large size of the estates possessed by some monasteries certainly exceeded the immediate needs of the local monks. These monasteries include, of course, the central Saint Lawrence Monastery near Buda, some Slavonian monasteries such as Bakva (now Spišić Bukovica, Croatia),3 Dobra Kuća (now in Croatia), Garić (now Bela Crkva, Croatia) and Lepoglava (now in Croatia), as 1  In the fourteenth century some Pauline monasteries received the settlement or the territory where they were built, for example, 1371: Gombaszög (MNL OL DL 5934); 1377: Thal, where the founder King Louis I of Anjou gave the Paulines the Holy Virgin church near Stomfa and Mest with its fields (MNL OL DL 7056); 1381: Örményes (MNL OL DL 6763); 1381: Szentpéter (MNL OL DL 6813) and 1382: a donation also containing a mill, a fishpond and the dam belonging to them (MNL OL DL 6879); 1387: Lád, where the founder, Ban Peter Cudar, gave the village Keresztúr near Mohi to the monks because he considered Lád to be too small for them (Bándi 1985, 621–622); according to another exemplary of the charter (MNL OL DL 7312) the monks furthermore received the vineyards of Emőd and Mály, as well as the fishpond of Szederkény, see Elemér Mályusz, ed., Zsigmond-kori oklevéltár, vol. 1., 1387–1399 (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1951), no. 236. [Henceforth: ZSO 1]. Although the monastery of Szakácsi received its tiny estates in a different period, it is worth mentioning here that local nobles as patrons of the Monastery of Saint Dominic separated the estates of the Paulines (ploughlands, forests, meadows, bushes and other pertinences) from their own in 1382, in the presence of the monastery’s Prior Martin. The charter emphasized that the Paulines used the same possesions earier, as well, but they were hereditary proprietors from that point on. 1382 in Bándi, “A szakácsi pálos kolostor középkori oklevelei,” 29–30/5. [Henceforth: Bándi 1986]. 2  Cf. Kisbán, A magyar Pálosrend története; Mályusz, “A pálosrend a középkor végén.” 3  Place names are used in their historical form with standardized spelling. For the modern-day equivalent of historical placenames please refer to the Concordance in Appendix 2, Table 2 and the Index of place names.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004424760_004

12

Chapter 2

well as Elefánt (now Horné Lefantovce, Slovakia), Gombaszög (now Plešivec, Slovakia), Lád (now Sajólád, Hungary), Szentpéter (now Pogányszentpéter, Hungary), Szerdahely (now Gálosfa, Hungary), Told (Told, Somogy County, Hungary) and Vázsony (Nagyvázsony, Hungary).4 At the same time, written evidence attests to the Paulines’ clear conception about the maximum size of their estates: in an anecdote recorded by Gyöngyösi in Vitae fratrum, the first vicar of Nosztre, Nicholas, refused accepting the excessive landed estate King Louis I intended to donate the new monastery, saying that such a wealth would hinder the monks to enter through the narrow gate.5 The monastery of Jenő, founded by Bishop Nicholas of Győr in 1321, initially received at four vineyards, a mill, oxen, sheep, ploughlands, meadows and fields suitable to plant vineyards.6 The monastery of Gombaszög received from the patron Csetneki family the estate of Gombaszög as pro anima donation,7 and later it was given plots of varied sizes from the nobles of the surrounding region, too. The monastery of Fehéregyháza (now Aranyhegy in District 3, Budapest), founded at the end of the fifteenth century, received donations 4  For the estates of these monasteries see DAP, passim. Most of the estates were parts of villages or smaller domains. Saint Lawrence at Buda: in Heves, Ung, Zemplén and Szabolcs Counties in Central and Northeastern Hungary, in Győr, Veszprém, Fejér and Vas Counties in Transdanubia, and in Hont County in Northern Hungary; Bakva: in Verőce and Kőrös Counties; Dobra Kuća: in Kőrös County; Garić: in Kőrös and Zagreb Counties; Elefánt: in Bars County (before 1429), in Nyitra County; Gombasek: in Gömör and Abaúj Counties; Lád: in Borsod County; Lepoglava: in Kőrös and Varasd Counties; Szentpéter: in Somogy County; Szerdahely: in Somogy County; Told: in Somogy County; Vázsony: in Veszprém and Vas Counties. In 1526, the monks of Vázsony were absolved from military service which would have been their duty connected to their noble plot in Karakó received from the founder Paul Kinizsi (MNL OL DL 39173). The Paulines of Told inherited smaller estates in the market town of Pata and nine villages from the Marcali family in 1455, but only part of them remained in their hands. The tax list of 1536 recorded only Egyházasandocs and Ecsény as possessions of the monastery, see Csánki, Magyarország történelmi földrajza a Hunyadiak korában, 1894, 2:700. [Henceforth: MTF]. The monasteries of Szakácsi and Szentpéter also inherited parcels in several villages, see MTF 2, 694, 696. Several estates of the Paulines were acquired or received gradually, for instance the estate of Ecseg of the central monastery of the order, Saint Lawrence near Buda Mihály Zákonyi, “A Buda melletti Szent-Lőrincz pálos kolostor története,” Századok 45 (1911): 40; András Pálóczi Horváth, “Túrkeve története a honfoglalástól a török idők végéig,” in Túrkeve földje és népe, ed. Julianna Örsi, vol. 1 (Túrkeve: Túrkeve Város Képviselőtestülete, 1992), 75. The estate of Stupna of the Garić monastery, see DAP 3, 316–318; or the estates of Onga and Borzva of the Gombaszög monastery, see MNL OL DL 16954, 16955; and DAP 1, 160–161. 5  V F, chap. 27. 6  V F, chap. 27. 7  1371: Bándi 1985, 580. The transcription was asked by prior Gregory of Diósgyőr, probably the local vicar of the order.

Estates

13

mainly in the early sixteenth century. For instance, in 1507, Józsa Somi gave the entire estate of Tabajd in Pest County which he had bought for 4000 guilders, and asked for three masses per week in return from the Paulines.8 Smaller contiguous estates were also held by the monasteries of Bajcs (now Nagytótfalu, Hungary), Diósgyőr (now part of Miskolc, Hungary), Kaldova (now Păuliş, Romania), Monyorókerék (now Kulm, Austria), Nosztre (now Márianosztra, Hungary), Terebes (now Trebišov, Slovakia), Várad-Kápolna (now part of Oradea, Romania), and Zagreb. The monastery of Örményes (now Ligetfalva, Hungary) received estates in Zala County from the Kanizsai family at the time of its foundation, and acquired further possessions from the mid-fifteenth century partly as pious donations, partly through change and acquisition.9 Even though the Paulines managed to retain or recover but a few original estates when they took over the Benedictine abbey of Szentjobb in 1500, they remained one of the largest landowners within the order in the early sixteenth century. In the 1530s the monastery had 126 tenant plots in seven estates.10 In other cases, however, the “estate” comprised of a single plot, or perhaps a handful at most.11 At times estate donations were sold or swapped by the monks. 8   1507: MNL OL DL 88966. See also footnote 896. 9   D AP 2, 139. The monks had possessions in Örményes itself and in some neighbouring villages, see Csánki, Magyarország történelmi földrajza a Hunyadiak korában, 1897, 3:172. In 1459, they swapped both townhouses in Buda for two estates in Zala County (see Townhouses chapter below). In 1467, a noble woman of Csáford left them her estates in Csáford and Bahotka. In 1478, the monks bought the estate Szentmihálylaka for 300 guilders from Paul Hédervári. In the same year, Hédervári received 70 guilders from the Paulines as mortgage. 10  Bunyitay, Szilágymegye középkori műemlékei, 473–474. In the early sixteenth century, the largest estate was Piskolt with its 82 tenant plots. By that time, a significant part of the estates had already been lost, since in Szentjobb itself the monks had only fifteen tenant plots, while in three other estates altogether eleven, although they had manors in the same villages as well. Further possessions lay in Szentmiklós (Bihar County), as well as in Ecseg (Külső-Szolnok County, the central monastery of Saint Lawrence near Buda had also possessions there, see below). According to evidence from the late fifteenth century, they had three further parcels in Szatmár County then. The names Szentmiklósteleke, Tótteleke and Marhateleke may refer to uninhabited parcels. 11  E.g. 1380: Palatine Nicholas Garai adjudicated a plot with 20 acres of land and a fishpond for the monastery of Bodrogsziget, called Baranyasziget in the charter (MNL OL DL 6667); 1457: the monastery of Batina received a tenant plot with garden, 60 acres of land and the necessary part (debita limitatione) of meadows and pasture in Szentlászló, Bodrog County (MNL OL DL 15135). 1521: the same monastery received also the neighbour of the previous plot (MNL OL DL 23572). 1504: the Paulines of Told received in Szőlős a part of a tenant plot (MNL OL DL 106719). 1460: the monastery of Diósgyőr received a tenant plot in the estate of Csaba, in the vicinity of their mill (MNL OL DL 15489). 1496: the monastery of Elefánt received twelve tenant plots, six in Vicsáp and six in Apáti (MNL OL DL 26064).

14

Chapter 2

For instance, in 1452 the monastery of Zagreb received two tenant plots in a village called Kismlaka from a local noble and his son, but three years later, the vicar Michael sold the two plots for 14 guilders to George of Mlaka and his son, Stephen.12 In the mid-fourteenth century, prior Gregory of Jenő (now Tüskevár, Hungary) and vicar of Enyere (now Óhíd, Hungary) exchanged— among others—a tenant plot of Töttösenyere received as donation for 40 acres of ploughland. The aim of the prior is obvious: he swapped the plot and 8 acres of land for one close to the other ploughlands of the Paulines.13 Similarly, prior Martin of Újhely (now Sátoraljaújhely, Hungary) set out to consolidate the ploughlands of the monastery by making a deal with Stephen, the former judge of the town. According to their agreement, Stephen received four acres of land belonging to the Church of Saint Giles, situated between two roads near the well of Ersi, in return for giving the monastery a parcel of six acres, stretching to the border of a four-acre ploughland of the monastery.14 The possession of tenant plots was quite common at Pauline monasteries, not one is known that had none. But entire villages were rather rare among the estates and they were often very small, hamlet-like settlements, for instance, the three tiny villages of the monastery of Dobra Kuća received at the time of its foundation, or the estates of the Zagreb monastery in Remetinc, in Gordovazela, and in Marince. Charter evidence suggests that certain monasteries owned manors besides (or instead of) villages or tenant plots, which were cultivated with wage work. Relevant sources date mainly from the end of the fifteenth and the beginning of the sixteenth century. The earliest data referring to this type of estate management concern the manors of the The monastery of Háromhegy near Martonyi received seven tenant plots in Martonyi, in 1432 (DAP 1, 182–183). 1512: the executors of the last will of Christoph Fadan gave the monastery of Csáktornya three plots in the village of Krišovc left for the monks in addition to the plot received earlier; the date of the last will was 1505 (MNL OL DL 32824). 1426: the monastery of Bakva received two tenant plots in Oslatinc from local noblemen (MNL OL DL 32768); 1451: Nicholas Újlaki gave a tenant plot between two others received in 1426 to the monastery of Bakva (MNL OL DL 32775); 1448: the monastery of Bakva was given three plots in Pustanc, see Elemér Mályusz, “A szlavóniai és horvátországi középkori pálos kolostorok oklevelei az Országos Levéltárban, pt. 1.,” Levéltári Közlemények 3 (1925): nos. 11, 16, and 19. [Henceforth: LK 1]; 1523: Caspar Terjék of Szenterzsébet gave the monastery of Told a tenant plot in Szőlős as pro anima donation, see Komjáthy, “A somogyi konvent II. Lajos-kori oklevelei az Országos Levéltárban: Első közlemény,” 49/34. Originally, it was Caspar’s father who donated another plot to the Paulines, but Caspar recompensed the monks when it was taken from them by his brother, Bernhard. 12  1452: LK 2, nos. 66 and 67 (introduction); 1455: LK 2, no. 73 (sale). 13  1358: MNL OL DL 5367. 14  1367: Bándi 1985, 695.

Estates

15

Zagreb monastery in Remetinc (1412),15 as well as those of the Kalodva monastery in Martonyi (1441),16 of the Regéc monastery (now Óhuta, Hungary) in Horváti (1461),17 and of the Felnémet monastery (now part of Eger, Hungary) in Bátond (1466, near today Besenyőtelek). The latter was freshly established at the time the charter was issued18 (cf. Appendix 1, Table 1). By the mid-fifteenth century, there were monasteries which rented out their lands. Gyöngyösi cites one such case in his Vitae fratrum: the prior general Stephen annulled the charter of the vicar of Szentpéter, Nicholas, who had obliged the renters of his monastery to pay the yearly rent on the feast of Saint Paul (January 15), which was unusual for that time.19 The function of these manors was to supply food for the monks.20 Still, there is relatively early evidence to suggest that the Paulines needed to buy food, as well. For instance, in 1381, a burgher of Pressburg (Hung. Pozsony, now Bratislava, Slovakia) called Nicholas Prodar declared before the town council in his and his wife Anna’s name that they sold half the Pauline monastery of Thal (now Marianka, Slovakia) a strike (a Pressburg strike was about 64 kg) of grain coming from a mill on the Stupava River, which he had bought from the son of the judge of Pressburg for 9 denier pounds, under the same conditions and for the same price.21 Other data imply the use of wage work, for instance, when certain monasteries received deserted plots as donation or as hypothec. For the former, as will be detailed below, colonisation was morre often the case. For example, an abandoned estate called Szalaipétertelek (the plot of Peter of Szala) was given the monastery of Lád in 1429.22 An example for the latter is the case of the Dobra Kuća monastery in 1462 when a certain Henry of Zeyanhrazthya gave six 15  Early sixteenth century (1506?): MNL OL DL 34693. Pro memoria records in 1412: a monk going to the manor of Remetinc was killed and the charters he had with him concerning the estate were stolen. In 1438, monks no longer lived in the manor, but they continued to use it to overnight: MNL OL DL 34711. The Holy Trinity chapel that regularly occurs in the sources, was in the manorhouse, as noted in 1514: MNL OL DL 34609. 16  1441: MNL OL DL 13623. Kalodva is now Cladova, Romania. 17  D AP 3, 309. 18  1466: MNL OL DL 16453. 19  V F, chap. 52. The charter of Bishop Matthew of Veszprém probably refers to the same issue. The bishop entrusted several parish priests to regulate the services of the tenants of Szentpéter as it had been asked by the prior general and the annual chapter of the Paulines. Spring 1453: György Bónis, Szentszéki regeszták: Iratok az egyházi bíráskodás történetéhez a középkori Magyarországon, ed. Elemér Balogh (Budapest: Püski, 1997), no. 2747. [Henceforth: SZR]. 20  Bándi, 1985, nos. 586, 671; Belényesy, Pálos kolostorok az Abaúji-Hegyalján, 44. 21  1381: MNL OL DL 6848. 22  1429: MNL OL DL 12128.

16

Chapter 2

plots, including four abandoned ones, in the village of Petróc as security for a debt of 100 guilders.23 The Slavonian monasteries of the order need to be discussed separately since the possession of tenant villages and tenant plots prevailed in their economy throughout the Middle Ages. This does not mean that they had no other type of estates—vineyards or mills—, but their income was primarily generated from villages and plots owned. Among them, the monastery of Lepoglava, for instance, founded by the Slavonian Ban Hermann of Cilli, received several estates at the time of its foundation. Further large donations were bestowed upon the monastery after it had been burnt in 1481,24 first by Prince John Corvinus, then by his widow, Beatrix Francopani.25 Unlike the case of Lepoglava, the other Slavonian monasteries acquired their estates piecemeal. For instance, the monastery of Garić (now Moslavina, Bela Crkva, Croatia) first received tiny parcels and its estates were scattered even in the late Middle Ages.26 Vicar Matthew obviously wanted to change this situation in 1474 when he changed eight tenant plots in Szrednamellék and Labasóc for ten plots in Beketinc, paying an additional sum of 220 guilders. The monastery had already possesed some estates in Beketinc.27 Charter evidence suggests that the monastery of Bakva also gathered its scattered estates slowly, mainly through pious donations.28 The monastery of Dobra Kuća had extra small possessions. The founder, Benedict son of Nelepec, gave three tiny settlements (villa) out of which only two had proper names (Mateóc, Ferenclaka), the third was simply described as being between two rivers (duas villas suas 23  1462: Elemér Mályusz, “A szlavóniai és horvátországi középkori pálos kolostorok oklevelei az Országos Levéltárban, pt. 4.,” Levéltári Közlemények 7 (1929): no. 24. [Henceforth: LK 4]. 24  V F, chap. 64. 25  D AP 3, 316. 26  In the mid-thirteenth century, the same can be said of the estates of the monastery of Jakabhegy in Baranya County. In 1252, the monastery owned two mills, 96 acres of ploughland, two clearings, three meadows, five vineyards and two manors at more than 30 sites György Györffy, Az Árpád-kori Magyarország történeti földrajza, vol. 1 (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1963), 400. 27  D AP 3, 318. This very estate suffered one of the biggest acts of might in Slavonia in 1465. According to the complaint of vicar Valentine of Garić Ladislaus of Roh attacked the village with his armed familliares and tenants, robbed the houses, as well as the manor of the monks, took some tenants of the village with him and caused all together damage in the value of 2000 guilders. Furthermore, Andrew Kapitány, similarly with his armed familiars and tenants, robbed the houses of the tenants of the monastery, causing damage in the value of 500 guilders. 1465: Elemér Mályusz, “A szlavóniai és horvátországi középkori pálos kolostorok oklevelei az Országos Levéltárban, pt. 10.,” Levéltári Közlemények 12 (1934): no. 374. [Henceforth: LK 10]. 28  D AP 3, 323.

Estates

17

Matheouch et Ferenchlaka vocatas in predicta Dobrakucha existentes, necnon quandam terciam parvam villam suam similiter in eadem Dobrakucha, utputa inter fluvios Chernech et Soploncha dictos adiacentem). There were five tenants in the unnamed third village, and eighteen people lived on the three settlements altogether. Master Benedict promised to plant a vineyard que se ad centum ligonizatores in una sua ligonizatura debebit extendere, and that until the first harvest there he gave usufruct of the vineyard of his own manor to the monks.29 Beside the founding Nelepec family, the monastery was supported by the Croatian ban, Matko Tallóci, as well as by Nicholas Újlaki and later his son, Lawrence from the mid-fifteenth century.30 In the same period, the Paulines of Dobra Kuća also received some more significant bequests.31 After acquiring these donations, the monastery could participate in some larger hypothec businesses from the 1460s onwards, as will be discussed in the “Mortgage, hypothec, trade” chapter below. Those monasteries which had fragmented possessions made efforts to concentrate their estates using diverse techniques, such as acquisition or exchange of plots, occasionally hypothec, or pious donations received through their good relations with the nobility of the region. The estate of the monastery of Remete near Zagreb, received from King Louis I in 1356, provides an interesting case study. The estate, later called Bánffyvölgye or Novazela, originally comprised seven vineyards, but all of them were subsequently turned into ploughlands.32 In other parts of the kingdom this would have happened the other way round, but in Slavonia, or at least in this specific region, grain seems to have produced higher income than vineyards. The importance of ploughlands is also reflected in the case of the monastery of Streza where the foundation charter only specified the exact size of the ploughlands, while the other elements of the estates were mentioned only in general.33 An act of might that took place in 1463 on the 29  1412: LK 4, no. 6. The Paulines were introduced into their estates in October. The estate was perambulated on this occasion: LK 4, no. 7. 30  1439: Tallóci gave the village Pezyancz which originally belonged to Szentpéter, but then it was separated from it: LK 4, no. 16. 31  In 1441 John, count (comes) of Prata, left his estate called Brezjanc for the Paulines of Dobra Kuća under the condition that his relatives could rebuy it for 200 guilders: MNL OL DL 35573. However, the estate was still in the hands of the monks in 1500, and one of the relatives, Nicholas, donated it again as a new donation for masses to be celebrated for the salvation of his father’s soul: LK 4, no. 49. Tulbert, a cousin of Count John, became confriar of the order in 1452: LK 4, no. 21. 32  D AP 3, 320–321. 33  1381: Elemér Mályusz, “A szlavóniai és horvátországi középkori pálos kolostorok oklevelei az Országos Levéltárban, pt. 3.,” Levéltári Közlemények 6 (1928): no. 16. [Henceforth: LK 3]. The estate was 300 acres of land, meadows, mills, vineyards and forests.

18

Chapter 2

estate called Obressa, which belonged to the monastery of Bakva, was also connected to ploughlands and grain.34 A neighbour, a certain Martin Bedlin, had 200 stooks of the Paulines’ crop threshed for himself and occupied some ploughlands in Gerec.35 In some cases, there is evidence for colonisation by the Paulines. One of the earliest examples is the Szentága estate of the monastery of Szentlászló (Baranya County), which was given to the monks in 1295 by the founder, Konrad of Óvár of the Győr kindred. At that moment, there were already some tenant plots on the estate, but the monastery also received the right to colonise. A 1316 act of might case mentions the village of the Szentlászló hermits.36 Similar examples include Szentpálfalva village, first mentioned in the fifteenth century on the Filefölde estate belonging to the Paulines of Jenő (see below), or Botfölde village (also called Újnépfölde, i.e. “newcomers’ fields”) of the same monastery in Veszprém County.37 Another case reveals different aspects of the colonisation processes. In 1459, the prior general Andrew—not the local prior—wanted to colonise the estate called Monyorós of the Holy Cross’ Monastery of Bodrogsziget and for this he guaranteed the below conditions for the old and the new settlers: – all of them had to offer two loaves of bread and a hen for the feast of the Holy Cross, as well as one loaf of bread and ten eggs for Easter; – they had to contribute a day’s labour in all works typical for the region such as vineyard labour, the necessary chores around the house, mending fences around the garden and yard, in addition they also had to work one day for the monastery, harvesting grain, mowing, collecting and taking in the hay in due time and place, without any delay; – new settlers were free for six years from any services except for the provision of the above described gifts (munera), and they had to start service only after the sixth year.38 A charter from 1466 speaks about the regulation of colonisation. In this document, the Carthusians of Tárkány and the Paulines of Felnémet—with the approval of the Carthusian visitator, Martin, and of the Pauline prior general, Andrew—agreed to divide their jointly owned estate called Bátond. The agreement stipulated that the Carthusians were allowed to build a manor 34  Acts of might (actus potentiae or simply potentia) were crimes of violence against people or property that could be punished with death. See Rady, Customary Law in Hungary Courts, Texts, and the Tripartitum, 109–110. 35  1463: LK 1, no. 20. 36  Györffy, Az Árpád-kori Magyarország történeti földrajza, 1963, 1:388–389. 37  1479: MNL OL DL 45783. 38  1459: MNL OL DL 15416. The case was also mentioned by Gyöngyösi in VF, chap. 54.

Estates

19

on the eastern row where the Paulines already had one, but neither of them was allowed to settle tenants on that side. The other row was equally divided between them, beginning from the plot opposite the wooden chapel in the middle of the village. At the same time, the ninths of grain, the meadows and the pastures also needed to be divided into two equal parts.39 There are many other instances in the charters, which concern tenants on Pauline estates. According to Gregorius Gyöngyösi prior general Benedict, for example, guaranteed a twelve years’ waiver from service for those who wanted to settle on the estate of Ördögluka.40 The monastery of Zagreb-Remete received the village of Petrusóc with Rakitovec forest and Gordovazela meadow from King Sigismund in 1387. Earlier the estate belonged to the castle of Medveđgrad.41 In later times both the name of the forest and of the meadow occur as village names which suggests that the Paulines settled them with tenants in the fifteenth century. In Gordovazela, there were only six plots (sessio) by the end of the fifteenth century, but for a while the three settlements were deserted because of the Ottoman incursions.42 Deserted plots are also likely to have been endowed upon the order with the intension to be populated, especially in the sixteenth century.43 The monastery of Zagreb-Remete, for example, received a whole uninhabited village through a last will. However, as it has turned out later, several other persons claimed the possession. The widow of Balthasar of Mikcsóc, Margaret, bequeathed the village of Maryncz to the Paulines in 1504. The donation charter mentions that the village was not fenced off from the neighbouring village of Jakusevci. In the same year, the donation was attacked by James “Alemannus” of Flich (called James Nemecz, former judge of Zagreb, in a later charter) he was not willing to relinquish his possession unless the Paulines reimbursed the money he spent on Margaret. In the meantime, Balthasar Alapi and George Zsitvaróci occupied the village, and the Paulines naturally objected. Both cases continued in the next year, and a charter of January 1505 says that James demanded 12 guilders. Finally, in 1506, King Wladislaus II confirmed the Paulines’ possession of Maryncz giving them the royal rights pertaining to the estate, too. At this occasion, it is recorded that the “village” consisted of only two houses.44 39  1466: MNL OL DL 16453. Earlier, there was a trial between the two orders which ended with a consensus through mediators. Then, the estate of Bátond was also perambulated: MNL OL DL 16362. 40  V F, chap. 70. 41  1387: LK 2, no. 8. 42  1493: LK 2, no. 125. See also footnote 649. 43  E.g. Bakva in 1500: MNL OL DL 32804; Terebes in 1523 MNL OL DL 47509. 44  Charters concerning the case, issued in 1504–1506: LK 2, nos. 145, 147, 150, 156, 160, 166.

20

Chapter 2

The fragmented nature of the estates and the diminutive size of the settlements were a long-standing problem in Slavonia attested to by evidence from the first half of the fifteenth century onwards. Donations consisting of one or two tenant plots, small parcels or single pertinences, were more frequent there than in other regions of the Hungarian kingdom. The problem of deserting possessions also appears in the sixteenth-century Pauline formularium: one of the formulas concerns tax exemptions for six and for three years granted for new settlers: nos possessionem nostram talem et in tali comitatu existentem populosam efficere volentes omnes igitur, qui ad eandem morandi causa advenerint et in eadem domos novas et edificia erexerint seu disposuerint, sex annos, illos autem, qui in domibus nondum desertis seu ruptis consederint moraturi, infra annos tres adventus sui computando ab omni solucione census, taxe ac contribucionis eos duximus eximendos et libertandos.45 A 1448 charter issued by the prior of Kamensko (now in Croatia), Michael, reveals the types of incomes received from the tenants. Their tenant Matko Grubesich, the judge of the estates of Slat and Dol, received seven years of tax exemption, stipulating that if he was no longer able to serve as judge, he was required to perform the same services as the other coloni of the monastery: offering three gifts (munera) and paying 110 shillings per year, transporting wine from the mountains, as well as the ninth of pigs, the ninth of the crops on his own plot, and of the mill in Dol.46 More than two dozens of monasteries had baronial plots, manor houses or manors, many of which were given as pious donations or as bequests,47 and some acquired through purchase.48 For instance, the monastery of Saint Lawrence near Buda received in a testament a stone house situated in the town of Pápa and a manor house in Kajászószentpéter, while the monastery of Szakácsi was given a noble plot in Nagyszakácsi in return for weekly masses, the monastery of Told acquired a manor house in Szőlős, the monks of Szentpéter one in Iglód, the hermits of Patacs a manor house in Patacs, the hermits of Gombaszög two houses in Onga, the monastery of Vázsony two houses in Csepely, and the monastery of Fehéregyháza received one in Gercse (see Appendix 1, Table 4). The overwhelming majority of the testators were widows. Rare exceptions are the cases of Szakácsi, Patacs and Vázsony. 45  Formularium, fols. 49v–50r. 46  1448: LK 3, no. 11. 47  In some cases, the monks sold the received manor houses, thus they finally got income in cash, see “Other income” chapter below. 48  The monastery of Jakabhegy near Pécs used this opportunity very early, in 1234, when the monks bought a mill and a manor house for 4 marks: DAP 2, 149. A similarly early case is the purchase of the estate of Dol possessed by the monastery of Slat in 1328: LK 3, no. 1.

Estates

21

There are also some examples attesting to indirect possession of estates. A house in Kolos owned by the monastery of Szentmihálykő was in fact the property of the local chapel, the monks came to own it because they received the two immovables together. Similarly, the monastery of Gönc received a manor house in Csécse when they took over the running of the hospital in Telkibánya to which the house belonged. At the same time, the acquisition of the abandoned manor house of Vis by the monastery of Terebes was through purchase, or better to say acquired through closing a hypothec by purchase option. The manor house together with twelve deserted tenant plots was collateral for borrowing 300 guilders by two local noblemen. Failing to pay their debts, they must have sold the whole estate to the monks asking for a certain number of masses for the salvation of their souls. Other hypothec deals involving the Paulines will be discussed below (cf. Appendix 1, Table 2). Landed estates were usually given to the Paulines by donations or last wills, mostly in the form of pro anima donations for certain number of masses or prayers. To mention some examples: in 1386 the monastery of Újhely inherited twelve acres of land and a vineyard on Feketehegy from Emeric son of File, a burgher of the town, on condition that his wife would retain usufruct for life.49 In 1445, the monastery of Zagreb-Remete received the village Blyzna from Ulrich of Cilli for Saturday masses dedicated to the Virgin Mary.50 The donation of a widow named Helena seems to have been rather convoluted. 49  One of the witnesses of the 1386 last will was the local judge: Bándi 1985, 696–697. 50  The village itself was a subject of a trial between the Paulines and the Dominicans 1445: LK 2, no. 45. The prior of the Zagreb Dominicans, George, objected to the introduction of the Paulines, but he withdrew his claim in 1445: LK 2, no. 47. However, the case was not settled as in 1460 the Dominican provincial Peter of Megyes commissioned the vicar Augustine and one of the friars, Michael de Oriente to compromise with the Paulines in the case of Blyzna: LK 2, no. 86. In fact, the agreement was signed in the next year, in 1461, by Prior Anthony, Vicar Augustine and Friar Michael de Oriente in the name of the Dominicans from the one side and by Vicar Anthony and Prior Demetrius in the name of the Paulines from the other: LK 2, no. 87. Six month later, in 1462, the receipt of 100 guilders received by the village was issued by the Dominican Prior Eustachius: LK 2, no. 90. It is not clear for what reason the Dominicans protested, but it is quite clear that they did not want to receive the village itself, but preferred money in hand instead. In the meantime, in 1456 King Ladislaus V also confirmed the rights of possession of the Paulines in Blyzna and gave them the royal rights connected to it: LK 2, no. 74. The actor behind the whole procedure was probably Ulrich of Cilli who wanted to give the estate to the Paulines. There is another, rather unusual charter issued in the same period stating that the village of Blyzna belonged to the domain of the castle of Medveđgrad at the time of the visit of Queen Mary of Anjou to Slavonia and Croatia (between 1382 and 1387) and the Paulines regularly received alms from the village. The witnesses presented by the Pauline prior, Matthew, were allegedly sixty to a hundred years old in 1459: LK 2, no. 82.

22

Chapter 2

She sold her part in the estate of Barta (Ung County) with the consensus of her coproprietors for 200 guilders to John Druget of Homonna on condition that he would give half of the parcel to the Paulines of Ungvár. Her will was fulfilled; the Paulines were introduced into the possession two years later.51 A 1471 charter records that John Tekes of Jósvafő gave his estate in Borzva to the Paulines of Gombaszög as pro anima donation.52 Fifteen years later, the monastery received six tenant plots in the same estate from another member of the family, Stephen.53 In 1493, a tiny part, namely an inhabited plot and a deserted half plot, was donated to the monks by Sigismund of Kápolna and his wife. Finally, the Paulines bought some parts of Borzva in 1497 and some more in 1500, the latter cost them 200 guilders.54 In addition to these froms of acquisition, there are further examples for various ways of purchasing landed estates. In 1312, for instance, King Charles I of Anjou confirmed the monastery of Újhely in the lands and mills given by his predecessors (Kings Béla IV, Stephen V and Andrew III), as well as in the lands and vineyards that the monks had bought from the settlers of Újhely.55 One of these acquisitions took place in 1310 when prior Lawrence of the Saint Giles monastery paid 1 mark of silver for 4 acres of old, and 4 acres of newly cleared ploughlands stuated between the fields of the inhabitants of Újhely, under the castle of Patak, on the left side of the road leading to Patak, to an Újhely burgher named Martin, in the presence of the local parish priest Achilles.56 In 51  1510: MNL OL DL 71886 (introduction: 1512). 52  1470: MNL OL DL 16954 (introduction: 1471). There was a “small problem” with the donation since the estate was earlier pledged to Michael Pataki from whom John Tekes borrowed the 200 guilders. Furthermore, the quarta puellaris (the obligatory heritage part reserved for the daughters) had to be paid for Michael’s wife, Ursula. Thus, the Paulines, after having recognised the situation, sued John in 1473: MNL OL DL 16955. Finally, Michael left the estate to the monks as foundation for masses, as seen in a charter issued two months later: MNL OL DL 16954. 53  1486: MNL OL DL 16954. 54  1493, 1497 and 1500: MNL OL DL 16954. The prehistory of the 1493 donation resembles to that of the 1470s, since in March, the monks complained before King Wladislaus II that Sigismund of Kápolna was harrasing them in the property pledged to them as a security by Stephen Tekes of Jósvafő in Borzva, Torna County: MNL OL DL 16955. Sigismund of Kápolna, who presumably had similar complaints against Stephen Tekes, must have realised in the next few months that it was better for him to “willingly” hand over the estate to the Paulines. 55  1312: Bándi 1985, 691. The charter was confirmed by King Louis I in 1364: MNL OL DL 4710; and transcribed by the Chapter of Buda in 1402: Bándi 1985, 701. 56  1310: Bándi 1985, 690. The contract was made in the presence and consense of several local settlers with whom the prior and the monks drank wine as it was usual in the region (mercipotum et aldamasium).

Estates

23

some cases, the monks would sell a less valuable parcel to purchase something else from the money. For instance, the monastery of Szentmihálykő in Transylvania received an estate in Váradja (Fehér County in Transylvania) from Caspar Horvát of Vingárt and his mother Anna Pázmán as pro anima donation for the salvation of his deceased father’s soul. This estate was then sold by the general vicar of the order and by two local monks to the Chapter of Gyulafehérvár (now Alba Iulia, Romania) in 1520 for 300 guilders, with the consent of the donators.57 The history of the Filefölde estate of the monastery of Jenő (Veszprém County) is especially interesting. The estate was rented out to the Paulines in 1414 by Abbot Peter of Csatár, but as early as in 1418, a charter records that it was returned into the hands of the monks by the nobles of Sárosd.58 The peace of the estate was often disturbed by acts of might,59 the reason for which was probably the peculiar legal situation. The Paulines may have tried to settle the problem some decades later, since evidence shows that the abbot accused the Paulines in 1465 of wishing to acquire the property of Filefölde, even though they only rented it.60 The judge royal ordered an investigation and told the Chapter of Győr to admonish the Paulines. It seems that the Paulines finally gave up trying to purchase the estate and the case was closed. The rental agreement, however, continued to exist between the Paulines and the Abbey of Csatár, as is reflected in the surviving quittances, the last one issued in 1515. According to the receipts, the sum paid by the Paulines was six guilders due two weeks after Michaelmas (13 October).61 In the meantime, a new village called Szentpál(falva) or Pálfalva emerged on the estate with regular mentions in charters from the 1460s onwards, parallel with mentions of Filefölde. In 1415, another settlement, Sárostelek, appears in a charter. At this time, the abbot of Csatár wanted to use it as collateral, but the Paulines complained about his intentions to the palatine.62 Either this settlement or another one called Káptalanfalva, both in the territory of Filefölde, belonged to the Chapter of Fehérvár around the turn of the fifteenth century. The charters speak of a 57  1520: no. 3779 in Jakó, A kolozsmonostori konvent jegyzőkönyvei: 1289–1556. 58  D AP 3, 44. 59  1425: MNL OL DL 43633; 1428: MNL OL DL 43765; 1429: MNL OL DL 43782; 1429: MNL OL DL 43798; 1464: MNL OL DL 45139; 1465: MNL OL DL 45143; 1466: MNL OL DL 45223; etc. 60  1465: MNL OL DL 45188. 61  1470: MNL OL DL 45426; 1473: MNL OL DL 45541; 1476: MNL OL DL 45665; 1482: MNL OL DL 45931; 1484: MNL OL DL 45995; 1501: MNL OL DL 46569; 1509: MNL OL DL 46915; 1512: MNL OL DL 47020; 1513: MNL OL DL 47058; 1515: MNL OL DL 47117. 62  1415: Iván Borsa and Elemér Mályusz, eds., Zsigmond-kori oklevéltár, vol. 5., 1415–1416 (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1994), no. 445. [Henceforth: ZSO 5].

24

Chapter 2

series of conflicts between the inhabitants of Káptalanfalva and the Paulines. The conflict was eventually settled with a perambulation in 1519,63 however, a few days later another charter was issued about the resolution reached by mediators concerning a pasture on the border of the two parties.64 At the end of the same year, a charter refers to Filefölde as deserted.65 The story of Filefölde can inform conclusions about the Paulines’ property dealings in various aspects. First, for more than a hundred years the Paulines considered the estate worthy to be rented, despite their frequent conflicts with the neighbours. Except for one unsuccessful attempt, it seems that they did not wish to appropriate it. Second, the sum they paid as rent was very low, and the profit must have been several times over—among others, from the mill called Filemolna mentioned in charters as early as in 1414. Of course, this was not the only source of income of the monastery: it possessed several vineyards on the Somlyó Hill, in the villages of Szőlős, Kisjenő and Videp, as well as mills in Zakalja and Kisjenő. Still, the estate of Filefölde was probably one of the most lucrative ones. Similar arrangements can be found at other monasteries too. In 1402, the Monastery of Saint Peter in Slat, for example, rented the estate (praedium) of Stirmecz from the Cistercian abbot, John of Topusko, for a yearly sum of 100 shillings, three gifts (munera), and the tithe for pigs, payable on the Feast of Saint Martin. This agreement was made after the previous leaseholder had proven to be malfeasant and neglected the estate and the abbot terminated the lease.66 Elsewhere, the monastery of Zagreb-Remete rented the village of Novak from the Chapter of Zagreb for a yearly sum of 32 deniers from the midfifteenth century onwards, and the neighbouring Alsónovák for 50 deniers. Receipts of payment for the former are from between 1445 and 1517, for the latter from between 1447 and 1520.67 No documents were preserved about the estate management which may suggest that nothing extraordinary happened 63  1519: King Louis II told the convent of the Hospitallers of Fehérvár to issue the charter about the perambulation and hand it over to the Paulines of Jenő: MNL OL DL 47291. 64  1519: MNL OL DL 47295. 65  1519: MNL OL DL 47320. 66  1402: LK 3, no. 6. Although receipts were not preserved, but the connection between the two institutions is proven by a charter of 1523 issued by abbot Andrew Tuskanics: LK 3, no. 25. 67  Data on both estates: LK 2, passim. The Paulines were confirmed in the possessions of the two villages by Pope Pius II in 1460: MNL OL DL 34480. The donation charter is also preserved for Alsónovák. It says that Bishop Benedict of Zagreb donated the village, then inhabited by seven tenants, to the Paulines as eternal alms. In return, the monks celebrated a mass dedicated to Saint Catherine every Tuesday and had to pay half a guilder “in signum dominii”, i.e. as urbarial tax, on Saint Martin’s Day.

Estates

25

to them: the Paulines managed the two villages in peace at least until the early sixteenth century. Other examples include the monastery of Eberau which rented a meadow of the Cistercian Abbey of Pornó in 1525,68 and similar translactions may lie behind the agreement between the Hospitalers of Fehérvár and the Paulines of Csatka concerning the use of the forest of Bodajk.69 What all these cases have in common is that the contract was made between ecclesiastic institutions, and that the lending party was either a chapter or a monastery that was considered to be one of the wealthy landlords in the area. Concerning estate management, two important phenomena are of note. First, that the estates of dissolved monasteries were integrated either into the estates of the monastery closest to them or into those of the central monastery. An example for the former is the meadow of the Holy Trinity’s monastery in Zemplén County which the neighbouring monasteries of Gönc, Regéc and Ruszka jointly demanded from the castellan of Regéc in 1412.70 For the latter, the Kenderes estate of the central Monastery of Saint Lawrence, a more complex case where the estate was in the hands of the central monastery as early as in 1411,71 but the local monastery of Kenderes does not appear in charter evidence until 1453 and 1465.72 As it is attested in a charter from 1470, the estate of Kenderes remained one of the most important possessions of the Paulines even after the monastery itself had been abandoned.73 Secondly, it is important to point out that the central monastery regularly intervened in the business and estate management of single monasteries. This phenomenon will be discussed more in detail concerning the urban houses in Buda below. With regard to landed estates, this phenomenon is apparent in the case of the monastery of Kalodva which was embroiled in regular conflicts with the neighbouring landlords concerning its estate in Szabadhely. Although resolving disputes like these normally fell in the remit of the local prior, in 1517 a representative of the prior general was appointed to settle the

68  1525: MNL OL DL 25315. 69  1460: MNL OL DL 106557. 70  Belényesy, Pálos kolostorok az Abaúji-Hegyalján, 32. 71  D AP 2, 429. 72  1453: MNL OL DL 14709; 1465: no. 224 in Károlyi and Géresi, Codex diplomaticus comitum Károlyi de Nagy-Károly / A Nagy-Károlyi gróf Károlyi család oklevéltára, vol. 2, Diplomata / Okleveleké 1414–1489; F. Romhányi, Kolostorok és társaskáptalanok a középkori Magyarországon: Katalógus, 36. The former prior of the monastery, John, is mentioned in 1465, but this does not mean that monks continued living there by then. 73  1470: MNL OL DL 17062. Two islands, i.e. higher plateaus which were never or rarely flooded, producing large quantities of hay also belonged to the estate.

26

Chapter 2

conflict.74 Similarly, the prior general was involved in determining the services to be rendered by tenants of Bakva monastery in 1380,75 and in regulating the taxes payable to the monastery of Csatka by the tenants in Repce in the mid1440s.76 Further, it was recorded that in 1384, two monks of Saint Lawrence presented the petition of the Paulines of Gönc to Queen Mary of Anjou.77 The central monastery not only intervened on behalf of individual monasteries in agreements or conflicts with third parties but often acted as a representative of the whole order. For instance, in 1425, Vicar Lawrence queried an agreement made between Peter the prior of Csatka and John Vinche concerning a certain ploughland called Zylaswapa on the estate Báránd. Since it was considered detrimental for the whole order, the vicar decided to annul the agreement.78 The previously discussed colonisation of the estate of the Bodrogsziget monastery is also an example for this type of involvement of the central monastery in local estate affairs. Charters do not contain much information about the value of the estates. Most frequently, they reveal the sum to be paid by the heirs to redeem an estate left for the monks. In some cases, charters indicate the amount for which an estate was used as collateral, but the purchase price of estates was hardly ever recorded in the surviving sources. A rare example for the latter is the acquisition of 2.5 acres of land near Dersekuta in 1375 for which the monastery of Újhely paid one guilder and eight groschens to a local burgher. The newly acquired land was bordering a parcel already owned by the monastery.79 The purchase price is given in donation charters in a few Slavonian cases as well. For instance, it is recorded that a local man, in order to secure the salvation of his soul, donated the Paulines of Kamensko a parcel in the village of Korona which he had previously bought for 12 guilders. In another case, two members 74  The prior administered the case: 1484: MNL OL DL 19859; 1501: MNL OL DL 29901; 1511: MNL OL DL 29936. The deleguee of the Saint Lawrence’s monastery administered the case: 1517: MNL OL DL 29958. Later the case was again administered by the prior of Cladova: 1517: MNL OL DL 29960. 75  D AP 3, 323. 76  V F, chap. 48. 77  1384: Bándi 1985, 584. 78  1425: MNL OL DL 11731. The proceedings went on even in the early 1430s, since the judge royal, Matthew Pálóci, postponed it twice: first in 1431: MNL OL DL 12425; then in 1432: MNL OL DL 12442. 79  1375: Bándi 1985, 695. According to another charter of the monastery of Újhely a ploughland of 8 acres next to the lands of the Paulines was sold for eight guilders in 1413 (Bándi 1985, 701). The Paulines received in the same period 20 acres of ploughland from a local burgher named Emeric Korpás. In 1415 the land was near the road leading to Bári, in a parcel called Korpásfölde: MNL OL DL 10413.

Estates

27

of the Kralich kindred sold their land, precisely circumscribed in the charter, to the same monastery for 4 guilders and 40 shillings.80 However, in the absence of information about the actual value of these estates or about the pertinences and other usufructs, it is not possible to draw reliable conclusions. Hypothec documents provide similarly problematic information, since the contracts contain only the estimated value of the estates which was usually lower than the market price. At best, monetary values indicated in the documents shed light on the financial possibilities of the donators rather than those of the beneficiary monasteries. Parallel to the increasing number and size of the estates, the number of acts of might committed against the Paulines was rising. The first cases were documented at the end of the fourteenth century, but the tendency is conspicuous from the mid-fifteenth century onward. By the first decades of the sixteenth century the phenomenon was striking. One of the first cases took place in 1396 when Prior Nicholas Ders and the convent of the monastery of Szakácsi acknowledged at the convent of Somogyvár (as place of authentication) that they had received compensation from Dominicus literatus of Monyorókerék (Somogy County), and from his sons, for the injuries and acts of might. The conflict was probably rooted in the fact that monastic estates were extremely fragmented, and their borders were unclear.81 The severe conflict between the Eszeny monastery and its patrons may have had its roots in a similar situation. Two friars of the monastery complained in 1369 that the sons of Thomas of Eszeny, Simon, Ladislaus, and Emeric, as well as Thomas’s grandson, Ladislaus, occupied the lands and other usufructs of the monastery illegally, they beat John the priest and knocked out the teeth of a lay brother, Dominic, who were both working there. Then they burnt their plough, cut the sinews in the legs 80  1465: Elemér Mályusz, “A szlavóniai és horvátországi középkori pálos kolostorok oklevelei az Országos Levéltárban, pt. 5.,” Levéltári Közlemények 8 (1930): no. 35. [Henceforth: LK 5]. The parcel was changed for another one in 1469: LK 5, no. 36. 81  1396: Bándi 1986, 32/10. The donator Dominic and his sons also took upon themselves that they allow the monks to use the land between the monastery and their own lands, until the end of the lawsuit with the royal cooks of the village Szakácsi concerning the land west from the monastery. The monks also had some parcels on the disputed land. Furthermore, a parcel on the border between the lands of Dominic and those of the monastery remained in common use exept for the plough (praeter araturam) because the perambulation did not clarify to whom it belonged. In the event of Dominic and his sons invalidating this arrangement before the judgement in the abovementioned trial, or if they harrassed the Paulines, they were liable to pay twenty-five heavy marks to the monastery. A good example for the fragmented estates of the Szakácsi monastery is a donation of 1411 when three nobles of Szakácsi gave all together six acres of ploughland in three parcels for the salvation of their souls: Bándi 1986, 36–37/22.

28

Chapter 2

of one of their oxen, and afterwards they even broke into the monastery fully armed, and lashed out at the monks.82 These and other examples show that here was a large variety of infringements: collecting harvest, felling timber, fishing in fishponds or moving tenants to another estate. An example for the latter is a surviving complaint by the monastery of Sztregencs from 1426, which recorded that a certain Oswald of Terebesd and his companions fell upon the monastery’s estate of Szentpéter with arms when the former tenant of Oswald, who lived earlier in the nearby village of Merke, wanted to move to Szentpéter.83 The individuals concerned were different but the situation was similar in the case of the monastery in Lád in 1507, when a tenant of John Szapolyai, the judge of the village of, wanted to move one of the tenants of the monastery, who at the time lived in Déta. The Mályi judge had even paid the one denier for the move, but the judge of Déta protested because the Paulines still had outstanding demands due from their tenant. Thereupon, one of Szapolyai’s officials threatened the friars that he would exact revenge on the monastery with an army during the coming diet.84 In 1438, the monastery of Elefánt also had a conflict with the lay neighbours, this time with castellans and familiars of the Pelsőci family concerning the estate of Velkopoľe (Bars County).85 Sometimes, the Paulines clashed with other clerics. For instance, the Paulines of Garić litigated with the local parish priest and his three chaplains as well as with the parish priest of Gerzence and his two chaplains. The parish priests summoned the friars to the court of Bishop Eberhard of Zagreb, and they occupied the estates and the vineyards of the monastery.86 It was a coincidence that Valentine, the vicar of Garić, asked for the help of the papal legate in 1465 to recuperate the illegally appropriated goods of his monastery.87 82  1369: MNL OL DL 8811. 83  1426: MNL OL DL 11754. At first instance, the trial ended unfavourably for the Paulines, since the vicecomes of Somogy County did not declare Oswald guilty, he even obliged the vicar to reassure the defendant and to pay eighty guilders as legal costs to the vicecomes. Following the monastery’s appeal, King Sigismund ordered the convent of Somogyvár— a place of authentication—to check the case. 84  1507: Bándi 1985, 665. 85  First evidence about the trial: 1438: MNL OL DL 13182. Continuation: MNL OL DL 13177, 13183, 13231, 13232, 13234, 13235. The estate itself was given the Paulines less than a decade earlier, in 1429: MNL OL DL 12098. 86  1409: Elemér Mályusz, ed., Zsigmond-kori oklevéltár, vol. 2., 1400–1410 (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1956), no. 7084. [Henceforth: ZSO 2]. 87  1465: LK 10, no. 373. According to this charter, Matthew, the provost of the Austin monastery of Vaska, summoned the widow of Acacius Csupor and her fellows, and the solicitor of the vicar presented his plaint against the members of the Kapitánfi and Szentléleki

Estates

29

The monastery could not live in peace later either: in 1472, the friars complained of an act of might to the bishop of Zagreb, whereby a nobleman, Michael Powlakowich, and his tenants made them suffer “unspeakable damages.”88 In 1479, the monastery of Bakva suffered the attack of the villicus and other inhabitants of the village who raided the monastery and the cemetery causing considerable harm.89 In an indirect way, the same monastery was the victim of an act of might when, in 1498 tenants of the village of Gordova broke into the village of Ivelóc, and plundered the houses taking everything movable, including vestes, secures, ligones, carnifias viriles et muliebres, ferra, aratrum.90 In another case a certain Michael Stoz and his fellows committed an act of might on the estates of the monastery of Lepoglava, also in Slavonia, in 1499. The friars claimed that they caused serious harm and captured some of the tenants of the Paulines.91 Ten years later, papal judges, referring to the order of Pope Julius II, issued a charter in which they admonished everyone to whom it may concern to return all movable and immovable property of the joint monasteries of Lepoglava and Streza.92 The high-ranking Bernard Herceg of families who did harm to the monastery in the value of 4,000 guilders by plundering and other injuries. The story began more than twenty years earlier. The vicar complained not only about recent damages, but also some others incurred in 1440. Apparently, certain testaments were behind the rankled relations between the monastery and the two families. In 1465, the vicar of Garić tried to strengthen his plaint by lining up a number of witnesses, partly his fellow friars—not only from Garić, but from almost all the Slavonian monasteries of the order and even from the monastery in Rome (altogether eighteen persons)—partly other clerics: LK 10, nos. 376 and 374. The latter included the archdeacon, four canons and three other priests of Čazma, as well as parish priests and priests from elsewhere in the region. The continuation of the case in 1466: LK 10, no. 360; LK 10, no. 379; and SZR, no. 3040. King Matthias transferred the trial to the lay court on March 10, 1466, upon the request of the Csupor family: LK 10, no. 381. A few months later, the solicitor of the defendents protested again at the ecclesiastic court on account of various reasons: LK 10, no. 377. Postponments of the trial in the same year: LK 10, nos. 389, and 391. 88  1472: Elemér Mályusz, “A szlavóniai és horvátországi középkori pálos kolostorok oklevelei az Országos Levéltárban, pt. 11.,” Levéltári Közlemények 13 (1935): no. 409. [Henceforth: LK 11]. Interestingly, twenty years later, in 1492, the Paulines litigated with a widow named Scholastica because of the movable and immovable goods left for the friars by Michael Powlakowych: LK 11, no. 447. 89  1479: LK 1, no. 27; the damages listed: nos. 37–38. A few months later, still in 1479, the hardened, sacrilegious peasants were excommunicated: LK 1, no. 32. A similar case took place thirty years later, in 1509, when the monastery of Dobra Kuća where the castellan of the local castle, together with his familiars and the tenants of duke Lawrence of Újlak, raided the chapel of the monastery and the cemetery: LK 4, no. 52. 90  1498: LK 1, no. 47. 91  1499: LK 2, no. 71. 92  1509: LK 2, no. 91.

30

Chapter 2

Szekcső and his relatives were sued by the Pauline convent of Bodrogsziget because they collected wine from the tenants and coloni (new settlers) of the friars illegally, and they caused other injuries and harm as well.93 Perhaps the most severe infraction took place in 1504 when the Paulines of Szentjobb (Sîniob, Romania) bought the estate of Ónad for a certain sum of money, but they could not have themselves induced into their property because the master of the treasury, Stephen of Telegd, occupied it by act of might.94 Yet another type of conflict was recorded in a charter in 1506. The Paulines of Dobra Kuća accused a layman of using seven guilders and two rings in the value of six guilders for his own purposes, although he should have handed the money and jewelry over to Ban Peter on behalf of the friars as the contribution (tax) of the monastery’s tenants. The defendant claimed that he was given five guilders and eighty deniers, and the rings were entrusted to somebody else. Since the only record about the case is this single charter it is hard to say what really transpired, but if the friars were saying the truth, this seems to be a simple case of misappropriation. The commissionary of Čazma settled the day to hear the witnesses sixteen days after Pentecost, but no evidence survives about the resolution.95 The frequency of various acts of might is also reflected in the fact that the charters were copied into the sixteenth-century formulary. Since the copyist did not omit all the details of the original charter, more information survived than usual, for example, that this particular case concerned the manor of Gönc monastery in Harkány.96 Sometimes, cases like this could ruin smaller monasteries enirely. For instance, when the former voivode of Transylvania, James Lackfi, received the castle of Sólyomkő in 1424, he immediately occupied four vineyards and two mills belonging to the nearby monastery of Buzgó (now Budoi, Romania). The friars had no choice but to leave their monastery.97 Naturally, in some some cases the Paulines infringed on others’ property. The friars of Veresmart, for example, did the Rozgonyi family disservice on April 7, 1457 when their familiars and day-labourers burnt the family’s woods 93  1495: SZR, no. 3686. Further details of the case: SZR, no. 3691. 94  Bunyitay, Szilágymegye középkori műemlékei, 473. 95  1506: LK 4, no. 51. 96  Formularium, 19v–20r. Anthony, who was prior of Gönc when the case began, had to be called from another monastery to give account of the antecedents. The defendent was the noble Albert of Szemere who was accused of aiming for the complete destruction of the manor. Allegedly, the castellan of Tokaj supported him, too. The monastery of Diósgyőr also had estates in Harkány. 97  V F, chap. 42. The mills, or at least one of them, was donated by King Louis I to the monastery of Buzgó.

Estates

31

and coppices, causing damage in eccess of 2,000 guilders.98 The purpose of the clearing was probably to increase the area of ploughlands. In 1508 the tenants of the Paulines of Csatka drove off the pigs of the tenants of the Hospitalers of Székesfehérvár, from Bodajk to their manor in Kagymat. They locked up the tenants who protested and slaughtered part of their herd.99 In late 1492 the abbess of the Poor Clares of Óbuda complained about the occupation of the monastery’s mill and of “a church.” The aggressors were the Paulines of Buda.100 But perhaps one of the most serious cases took place in the early fifteenth century in the Pécs Diocese. The victim was the Bishop of Pécs, Cardinal Valentine himself. The case was taken to the papal curia, where the cardinal accused the Paulines of Szentlászló of trying and successfully winning a lawsuit concerning Dergecse and two other villages at the court of palatine and other lay courts of law. The bishop appealed against the decision, but the monks still occupied the estate and set out to demolish the chapel. In December 1402, the bishop was renounced his claim to Dergecse in favour of the Paulines. However, the judgement was decreed null and void because of the non-competence of the lay court, and the pope ordered the papal trial justice Nicholas Vordis to cancel the agreement.101 The details of this case are interesting. A charter issued four days after the annulment reveals that, in fact, the conflict broke out a few years earlier. The village was then divided between the bishop and the Paulines: the bishop owned twelve, the Paulines sixteen tenant plots. The latter part was also called Szentága.102 In July 1400, the Paulines blocked and dug up Dergecse’s main thoroughfare, as well as the road used for transporting timber from the nearby forest. After that, they occupied a hayfield, beat up the vilicus of the bishop, and released their dogs to maul the villagers’ pigs and calves, worth of 98  1457: MNL OL DL 15166. 99  1508: MNL OL DL 106728. The forest of Bodajk caused long-lasting disputes between the Paulines and the Hospitallers. As early as in 1460, a Hospitaller called Ladislaus of Székesfehérvár is known to have protested before the Buda chapter that their preceptor, John of Gut, gave the convent’s forest to the monastery of Csatka (MNL OL DL 106557). Acts of might, however, were more frequently inflicted on the monks than vice versa, as illustrated in the 1512 case of Kagymat, for instance. See footnote 236. 100  1492: Lukcsics, Monumenta romana Episcopatus Vesprimiensis, vol. 4, 1416–1492, 7.The fact that the nuns did not dare to go on trial against the monks in the Veszprém diocese but requested a special judge from the pope clearly illustrates the power of the Pauline Order in Hungary. The pope delegated the request to the archbishop of Kalocsa, as well as to his suffragan, the bishop of Srim, and to the vicar of Esztergom. 101  1403: ZSO 2, no. 2358. 102  M TF 2, 480, 524. The Paulines possessed some parts of Szentága since 1295 (see footnote 58).

32

Chapter 2

60 guilders.103 The initial reason for the conflict is not quite clear. The accusations levelled against the Paulines are very serious indeed, but it is also noteworthy that the bishop withdrew his action on January 5, 1404.104 While the immediate cause of the conflicts is not always clear, these cases shed light on the phenomena at the root of the disputes in which the Paulines were involved. Some may have broken out because of poorly defined boundaries. In other cases, the issues revolved around the usufruct of rented lands, even in cases where no tenant agreement survived. Last but not least, in the rest of the cases the cause for distress was simple neighbourly aggravation or sheer human malice.

103  1403: ZSO 2, no. 2356. Pope Boniface IX brought the trial to the Curia in 1403 because of the poverty of the monks: ZSO 2, no. 2499. Further acts of the trial: ZSO 2, no. 2554; and SZR, nos. 1812 and 1813. 104  Z SO 2, no. 2908.

Chapter 3

Forest Management Depending on the general economic circumstances and the economic resources typical for the region, which ultimately governed the type of estates given to the the order in various locations, some Pauline monasteries had woodedlands among their estates. The monasteries of Gombaszög,1 Nagyfalu (now Nuşfalău, Romania),2 (Bakony)Szentjakab near Sáska,3 Szentkirály (now Sîncraiu de Mureş, Romania)4 and Zagreb-Remete,5 and even the central monastery of Saint Lawrence near Buda had such estates.6 Other monasteries, too, owned smaller forests, as for instance that of Mindszent which was given the estate of Szemes at the Lake Balaton by Master Lőkös of Raholca in 1325. At this occasion, the estate was perambulated and it was recorded on this occassion that the monastery had already owned a small forest in the confines of Szemes, near the vineyards.7 Similarly, the monastery of Szakácsi must have had parcels of forest: in a 1387 charter, for instance, its prior, Benedict, prohibited Dominic of Monyorókerék and his companions to occupy and to use monastery’s lands, meadows, groves and forests within the territory of Szakácsi.8 Some years later, 1  1476: MNL OL DL 16955. The vicar of the monastery swapped the estate for another one in Onga, which remained in the hands of the monks until the end of the Middle Ages. 2  D AP 2, 1. 3  1370: MNL OL DL 8790. 4  Entz, Erdély építészete a 14–16. században, 378. 5  1387: LK 2, no. 8. Somewhat later, a village under the same name appeared on the territory of the Rakitovec forest donated by this very charter. The Zagreb monastery had another forest in Blyzna, too, as noted in 1519: MNL OL DL 34624. 6  V F, chaps. 18, and 27; György Györffy, Az Árpád-kori Magyarország történeti földrajza, vol. 4 (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1998), 701. The data comes from the first three decades of the fourteenth century. Afterwards, the monks planted vine on the territory, which is how the monastery came to bereferred to as “built in the vineyards” (in promontorio). In the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, there hardly any trees were left in the surroundings of the monastic complex. Engravings from the end of the Ottoman period, for example, depict a completely deforested hill. I am grateful to András Grynaeus who provided me with valuable information. 7  1325: Borsa 1998, 62/91. One of the boundary markers was a tree called Remetekörtvély (hermits’ pear-tree). 8   1387: Bándi 1986, 31/8; Borsa, “A somogyi konvent oklevelei az Országos Levéltárban (Forrásközlés): Hatodik közlemény; 1381–1400,” 481. [Henseforth: Borsa 2000]. The protest seems to have fallen on deaf ears since Prior John protested again in 1394 (Bándi 1986, 32/9; Borsa 2000, no. 516.). A charter issued in 1396 clarified the case saying that the piece of land in question was in common use by the Paulines and the royal cooks of Szakácsi. In fact,

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004424760_005

34

Chapter 3

another charter issued because of an act of might reveals that the forest in question was a coppice.9 Elsewhere, in 1369, the monastery of Elefánt received woodland and ploughland on altogether 100 acres from a certain Master Michael. Unfortunately, the proportion of forest and ploughland is not specified in the charter, so the size of the forest is unknown.10 It is likely that this was the site of an act of might in 1431 when a local named Luke had some wood cut down in the coppice forest of the monastery and carried to his house illegaly.11 Another charter from 1370 records that Master Michael of Szerdahely gave the forest called Sarkad to the Szerdahely monastery under the condition that the monks were not allowed to make clearings therein.12 It is important to emphasize the forests were mainly donated in the early period and that these territories were later often repurposed by the monks, usually making room for vineyards, as it in Saint Lawrence near Buda, for example. In other cases, orchards are recorded to occupy the site of former woods. In a fifteenth-century case, a presumably large orchard given to the monastery of Szentpál was called “wood” in the charter.13 Although this designation seems to be unique, large orchards are recorded ro be situated near other monasteries too, such as the monastery of Diósgyőr, which in 1390 received from Queen Mary a parcel next to its garden and orchard in order to enlarge them.14 Other monasteries preferred owning estate types other than forests. In 1476, for instance, the monastery of Gombaszög traded a forest, situated between Master Dominic and his companions litigated with the cooks, but because of the situation the monks became involved in the case, too (1396: Borsa 2000, 533.) As Csilla Zatykó demonstrated, the parcels in Szakácsi were very small at the time, so it is unsurprising that their boundaries of the monastery’s estate here remained unmarked. See Zatykó, “Reconstruction of the Settlement Structure of the Medieval Nagyszakácsi (Somogy County).” 9  1398: Borsa 2000, 566, and 572. The trespassing was committed by Dominic’s son who also unlawfully occupied the fields of the monastery and had them ploughed. Then his tenant, the judge of Léta, built a mill within the confines of the monastic estate causing serious damage to the monks. 10  1369: MNL OL DL 5805. 11  1431: MNL OL DL 12356. The defendant committed not only an act of might, but defamation too: he swore at the monks while they were praying, then at Friar John and his companions, who dared protest in the village of Felsőelefánt/Horné Lefantovce, and then he threatened Friar John with beating. 12  1370: Iván Borsa, “A somogyi konvent oklevelei az Országos Levéltárban (Forrásközlés): Negyedik közlemény; 1351–1370,” Somogy Megye Múltjából 29 (1998): no. 317. The boundary of the woods was supra villam seu iobagiones eorundem fratrum. 13  1486: Inventarium, fol. 23; Guzsik, A pálos rend építészete a középkori Magyarországon, 88. (Háló-erdeje). 14  1390: ZSO 1, no. 1368. King Sigismund confirmed the donation in 1406. According to the charter, the monks had already converted it into a garden by then.

Forest Management

35

the old and the new bed of the Hernád River on its estate of Kak, for ploughlands and fields in the neighbouring Onga. The latter must have been valuable, since the monks gave in exchange not only the forest but also mill-sites and other pertinences.15 There are scattered data concerning the use of woodlands from all over the country, but most of them come from Slavonia. The outstanding importance of forests is reflected in a note preserved on the verso of one of the charters of Streza monastery, dated to around 1400, noting the monastery’s former conflicts with the neighbouring nobles because of the forest.16 Grazing of the pigs was one of the typical use of wooded areas (see more in Animal husbandry chapter) and certainly, there is evidence for timber production. For instance, in 1377 Master Peter Herceg of Szekcső allowed the hermits of Bodrogsziget and Kőszeg (now Batina, Croatia) to collect wood from the forests.17 In 1429 the monastery of Vállus complained that Ladislaus and Pető, sons of John son of Pető of Gerse, and their tenants from Keszthely, Falud and Zsid, cleared the woods of the monks and beat the monk who dared to protest.18 A similar case took place in 1446 when Prior Stanislaus of Streza ordained an enquiry of Kőrös County since one of their neighbours, George Kandal, and his brother cut a large part of the monastery’s wood between the rivers Konzka and Plavnica,

15  1476: MNL OL DL 16955. 16  “Notandum, quod quandocunque filii Bothka et filii Lacho ceperint litagare nobiscum propter silvam, sicut in generali congregacione lucrati sumus ipsam, tunc semper ab ipsis petantur extra privilegia antiqua, de quibus ipsi fingunt habere se privilegium cum metis inscriptis domini Stephani ducis fratris Lodovici regis, quod illud idem privilegium falsum nobis visum monstrant et si omnino lites habere aliquando voluerint, tunc statim ponantur coram comite et iudicibus iuratis interdictorie litere, cum quibus devincentur de potencia facta super nos. Quare minutissime litere non lanientur, sed serventur. H(umilis) frater Valentinus prior indignus.” (1384: LK 3, no. 22). Although based on the handwriting, Mályusz dated the note to the end of the fourteenth century, since Prior Valentine regularly occurs in charters between 1408 and 1412, it is more justifiable to date the text to that period (1408: MNL OL DL 34648, 34770; 1409: MNL OL DL 34771; 1411: MNL OL DL 34829, 34831; 1412: MNL OL DL 34830). The charter MNL OL DL 34770 also supports this dating. In this charter, King Sigismund confirmed before the congregation of the nobility of Kőrös and Verőce Counties that the royal trustee and the representative of the Čazma Collegiate Chapter perambulated the borders of the monastery’s estates in the presence of the neighbours such as the sons of Bothka and Lacho. The perambulation was initiated by Prior Valentine of Streza, and its most important stretch was the boundary of the monastery’s forest whose neighbours the abovementioned nobles were. 17  1377: MNL OL DL 6395. 18  1429: MNL OL DL 92772. At the same time the defendants occupied four tenant plots of the monastery in Keszthely.

36

Chapter 3

and threatened the villicus of the monastery at the Keresztúr Fair.19 Some years later the monastery of Slat also had a similar problem. According to a charter issued in 1455, the noblemen of Slat almost completely felled the wood of the monastery in the village of Szentpéter, furthermore they occupied part of the wood and attacked some other nobles whom the monks had formerly allowed to fell trees in their forest. One of the latter was killed, the others were injured, beaten, and stripped of all their valuables, including their clothes, axes (!) and money.20 In 1493 the noblemen of Mlaka invaded the Rakitovec wood of the Paulines of Zagreb, and they not only drove the pigs found there, but they even took the tenants’ wooden stakes. The case ended with an agreement according to which the wood remained in common use of the monastery and of the noblemen, the wood could be used to repair the monastic buildings, and the tenants of Rakitovec were allowed to cut wood to sell, but those of Gordovazela were not.21 In 1504 Beatrix Francopani allowed the tenants of the Paulines in Petrusóc and Gordovazela to use the big forest near Rakitovec, including the right to fell timber.22 Most probably, the aim of Jan Kolowrat’s bailiff was to prevent wood-cutting when he decided to commit an act of might by invading the woods of the Paulines near the village of Blyzna. From here he took eight cartloads of wooden stakes and an axe and confiscated the forest for his lord.23 Other examples are more peaceful. At the time of its foundation, the monastery of Csáktornya/Čakovec (now Šenkovec, Croatia) received the privilege granted by Stephen, voivode of Transylvania, to cut wood for their own use in the forest of Várhely.24 According to local custom, the status of primipilatus, which the monastery of Szentkirály received in 1498, included certain privileges of forest use.25 Perhaps similar timber privileges may lie behind some fifteenth-century donations of noble plots and manors (see Appendix 1, table 2). In general, the most commonly used woodland produce was oak-mast, while logging was only allowed for the own needs of the monks. Besides the above-mentioned Slavonian examples, the case of the Ruszka monastery is a further example where the monks acquired a mill on the River Hernád/Hornad 19  1446: LK 3, no. 116. The style of the quarrel is well illustrated by George Kandal’s own words recorded in the charter: he promised to beat the villicus so hard “that he would be taken home in a tub.” 20  1455: LK 3, no. 17. The herding of pigs is also referred to in the charter describing the act of might. 21  1493: LK 2, nos. 121, 182 and 125. 22  1504: LK 2, no. 152. 23  1521: LK 2, no. 200. 24  1376: LK 1, no. 1. 25  See footnotes 643 and 644.

Forest Management

37

in 1486 from a local noble, Ladislaus of Ruszka, and the donator allowed the monks to fell trees in his woods anytime they need timber for the repairs of the mill or the dam.26 The monks were often the real proprietors of a wood, as it is suggested in the case of the Tokaj monastery in 1482. In that year Vicar Simon complained that certain laymen fished the pond on their Tardos estate, and fell trees in the nearby wood, causing over 100 guilders worth of damage.27 Sometimes, the woods were also leased.28 The monetary value of woodland is indicated by one charter: Martin Myrinchych, a colonus of the Paulines in Rakitovec, sold his oakwood and one of his ploughlands which had been Voivode James Lackfi of Szántó’s collateral owed to Martin’s father. The buyers, the Paulines and another local person, paid eight guilders for the estate.29 Unfortunately, the price was given in total so the exact value or the size of the wood remains unknown, but it is sufficient data to infer that the sum could not have been very high.

26  1486: MNL OL DL 16955. 27  1482: SZR, no. 3452. 28  E.g. 1436: LK 2, no. 35. The income generated by the wood was eight guilders. 29  1509: LK 2, no. 174; pledged as security “per condam Jacobum waywodam degentem in confinibus eiusdem possessionis”. The case did not to an end come quickly: the introduction took place in as late as 1517, and the other heir raised objections against it. The local noblemen then went as far as beating the deputy of the ban, which lead to criminal action in 1517: MNL OL DL 34618 and 34617. James Lackfi was voivode of Transylvania between 1403 and 1409.

Chapter 4

Townhouses Most of the urban buildings that belonged to Pauline estates were either leased out or debited with annuity loans, a smaller number were connected to vineyards and to wine trade. The former was especially prevalent in Buda where Pauline monasteries situated all over the country owned buildings, sometimes even more than one. Buildings in smaller towns were usually used by the monks themselves, while those in Buda primarily served as regular income sources for their owners. There were three types of contracts we know of. The simplest type was letting, which was used relatively rarely: in Buda, there were but two houses where this was certifiably the case. The second option was leasing whereby the owner received a larger lump sum payment and an annual rental fee. These contracts, those that survived that is, refer to the transaction as sale (venditio, vendidit),1 which often deceives researchers. The annual fee paid for these houses is very low, which can be problematic, too. The market value of these properties is rarely given, but the few lucky cases show a striking disproportion: the annual fee was infinitesimal compared to the value, in general 0.5–4%. Similar leasing contracts can be found in connection with the vineyards to be discussed later. The third form of income out of urban buildings was the most indirect. In this case, the monastery was not the owner of the real estate, but it received an annual loan as regular pious donation. In addition, the buying of rents (Rentenkauf ) is also relevant here, since it was a special way of generating revenue from urban buildings in the first half of the fifteenth century.2 An example for this was the house on All Saints Street, which was the property of the Pauline monastery of Örményes. This building was acquired by a certain Peter tailor and became the subject of a long litigation between him and the monastery. According to the agreement of 1447 Peter received the house for good “sub solutione pokrechte.” He also pledged to repair the roof of the house, with tiles in the front and with shingles in the back, as 1  Although one of the meanings of venditio is “to let,” the term locatio is used for actual rental transactions. 2  I am grateful to Professor András Kubinyi for having called my attention to this possibility. About the Burgrecht see G. Köbler, “Burgrecht,” in Lexikon des Mittelalters, 10 vols (Stuttgart: Metzler, [1977]-1999), vol. 2, cols 1057–1058, in Brepolis Medieval Encyclopaedias—Lexikon des Mittelalters Online, accessed May 24, 2019, http://apps.brepolis.net. About the Rentenkauf in Buda and the interest rate cut in Matthias’s reign, see Kubinyi, “Budapest története a későbbi középkorban Buda elestéig (1541-ig),” 110–111.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004424760_006

Townhouses

39

well as to maintain the building.3 Since the original contracts and the charters establishing the annual loans and rents did not survive, the latter three income types are difficult to find in the archives. The situation was further complicated by the medieval canon law prohibiting the alienation of church property. Although the assumption is not certifiable in the absence of written evidence, it is likely that this prohibition was circumvented by the parties agreeing to pay a nominal rent or loan to the former owner after the sale. The earliest Pauline householders in Buda were the monasteries of Saint Lawrence, Örményes, Lád and Csatka. The very first building of the order in the town was probably that of the earlier royal palace, the Kammerhof together with the Saint Martin Chapel, given to the monks of Saint Lawrence by King Louis I in 1381.4 Sometime between 1416 and 1423, this building was exchanged for a house in Saint Nicholas Street, owned by Hermann of Cilli, then ban of Slavonia.5 From that time on, this second house was referred to as “Big Pauline House” in the charters,6 and the section of the street where it stood became Saint Paul’s Street.7 In 1392, the master of the treasury, Nicholas Kanizsai, gave three houses in Buda to the Pauline monastery of Örményes (today Ligetfalva) which was under his patronage at the time: one near the houses of Michael Nadler and of the late Ulricus Albus in All Saints’ Street, another between the houses of Peter Rauczan and pharmacist Sigismund in the so-called Keddhely quarter, and the third one near the houses of Michael Rösler and the physician Stephen, probably in the vicus magnus.8 According to a charter issued four days later 3  1447: MNL OL DL 14074. The Burgrecht had already been noted in the previous year when Peter thought it could be paid off: MNL OL DL 13972. 4  Végh, Buda város középkori helyrajza, 272. 5  1416: MNL OL DL 8842 (transcribed in a charter issued on 1 December 1489); 1423: MNL OL DL 11384. About the topography and the detailed history of all these houses see Végh, Buda város középkori helyrajza. 6  The building belonged to Stephen Lackfi earlier. Since there was a chapel in the building, it was suitable for the Paulines who needed that facility not only as liturgical space but as home for the relics of Saint Paul the Hermit that were kept there time and again. Végh, 256–258; Hadnagy, Miracula sancti Pauli primi heremite: Hadnagy Bálint pálos rendi kézikönyve, 1511, chaps. 2, 3, 4, 57. 7  Végh, Buda város középkori helyrajza, 255. 8  1392: MNL OL DL 7817. The earlier history of the other two buildings is also interesting. They were bought for 1800 guilders on November 25, 1392, by George of Kővágóörs, the bailiff of Esztergom, from the councillor Andrew Szentei and five days later he gave them to the treasurer Nicholas Kanizsai in exchange for his estates in Bednek, Somogy County. Nicholas himself made his donation for the Örményes monastery less than two weeks after that transaction. Bernát L. Kumorovitz, ed., Budapest Történétenek Okleveles Emlékei / Monumenta Diplomatica Civitatis Budapest, Vol. 3 (Budapest: Budapesti Történeti Múzeum,

40

Chapter 4

Nicholas gave two further houses—one in Saint Nicholas Street, opposite to the Holy Virgin’s Church, and the other one on Saint Paul’s Street, opposite to the Big Pauline House—to Francesco Bernardi, burgher of Buda, under the condition that he paid the Paulines 60 guilders, two centners of oil, a bottle of tuna, and 100 pieces of salt as loan.9 In this case, the two houses did not become the property of the monks. There was probably some business transaction between Nicholas Kanizsai and Francesco Bernardi behind this loan agreement. Still, one of the two houses, the one in Saint Paul’s Street, became the most stable income source for the monastery which continued to receive the prescribed installments until the sixteenth century.10 The case is obscure indeed. A late fifteenth-century Polish charter can perhaps shed some light on the schemes behind it. Krakow canon Jan Długosz gave an estate in Opatowice to the Pauline monastery of Rupella then let it to a Krakow councillor, Nicholas Wolwram, for 52 marks stipulating that Wolwram should pay a yearly tax of one mark to the chapter and that the 52 marks was payable to the monastery of Rupella in annual instalments of 4 marks.11 Thus, this agreement was in fact a loan between Długosz and Wolwram whereby the loan was payable not to the lender, but to the Pauline monastery. This construction secured an annual income for the monks for a fixed period. Similarly, Nicholas Kanizsai’s donation of five Buda houses was obviously designed to provide his monastery with 1987), nos. 144–146, 149; András Végh, Buda város középkori helyrajza, Monumenta Historica Budapestinensia 15–16 (Budapest: Budapesti Történeti Múzeum, 2006), nos. 94– 97. The later fate of the houses is not always clear. For further details see Végh, 259. 9  1392: MNL OL DL 7818. The contract is very detailed, the rent in kind served the daily needs of the monastery. Archbishop John Kanizsai also made a similar contract in favour of the Collegiate Chapter of Saint Stephen Protomartyr in Esztergom which he had founded in 1391, cf. Végh, Buda város középkori helyrajza, 224–226. About Francesco Bernardi see Mályusz, “Az izmaelita pénzverőjegyek kérdéséhez,” 301–8. About Florentine merchants in Hungary see Arany, “Firenzei kereskedők, bankárok és hivatalnokok Magyarországon (1370–1450).” Francesco was one of the most influential Italian burghers of Buda who was active between 1373 and 1424. He had contacts with both Kanizsai brothers: in 1393 he sold his house in Buda to Archbishop John for 2600 guilders, and he leased it back three years later for a yearly rent of fifty guilders: Mályusz, “Az izmaelita pénzverőjegyek kérdéséhez,” 303. 10  “…  quasdam duas domos suas in castro predicto adiacentes, unam in vicinitate domorum quondam domini Nicolai Konth palatini et beginarum ordinis beati Dominici habitam, aliam vero domibus Iohannis Oemicheyn predicti et sanctimonialium de insula Leporum vicinam …” The first among them was the house of the Örményes monastery in Saint Paul Street. Végh, Buda város középkori helyrajza, 249, 264. 11  Zbudniewek, Zbiór dokumentów Zakonu Paulinów w Polsce, vol. 2, 1464–1550, n. 47. In fact, the monastery was founded by Queen Jadwiga at the end of the fourteenth century, see VF, chap. 27.

Townhouses

41

regular income. It was not his fault that the transaction brought the Paulines of Örményes more headache than profit. Two years later, in 1394, Peter Cudar gave his own house in All Saints’ Street to the monastery of Lád,12 and in 1396 the widow and one of the sons of Palatine Nicholas Kont bequeathed two plots to the Paulines of Csatka. The same son, also called Nicholas, gave them another house near the Dominican friary, close to the house of the Örményes monastery in Saint Paul’s Street. The donation was confirmed in 1400 by the palatine’s grandsons who descended from his other son.13 Finally, in 1402 the custos of Buda, Michael, gave the Paulines of Saint Lawrence a house flanked by those belonging to John Saracenus and Petrus Italicus, perhaps in Italian Street (vicus italicus).14 The first wave of building acquisitions in Buda ended for the Paulines with this donation. The second stage began in 1420 when the monastery of Csatka received another house from the widow of John Csíki. The location and the later history of this building remains unknown.15 Five years later, in 1425, two priors, Andrew of Szentkereszt and Matthias of Szentlélek made a joint purchase of a house in All Saints’ Street from the silversmith Peter for 440 guilders,16 and in the 1440s the monastery of Veresmart received a house situated in Saint John’s Street in the vicinity of the Franciscan friary.17 Finally, sometime before the end of the fifteenth century Kékes monastery received a house in Szombathely, located at the the end of the Italian Street,18 and another one in the early sixteenth century near the Dominican friary, the latter donated by Ladislaus Szentpéteri. This house was situated on the corner of a small passage, which was called Schüller Gasse in the eighteenth century but no longer exists.19 The last building donation in Buda dates from 1544, when Peter Erdődy left two houses, earlier inhabited by blacksmiths, in his manor for the Paulines of Fehéregyháza, however,

12  1394: DAP 1, 217–218; Inventarium, fol. 72. 13  1396: DAP 1, 50; Inventarium, fol. 46; 1400: MNL OL DL 8850. Neither the location of the two plots nor their later history is known. 14  1402: MNL OL DL 8857. Gregorius Gyöngyösi may have referred to this particular building, saying that the monks had swapped it for John of Pozsega’s house in Pest in 1480. VF, chap. 64. For the location of the building, see Végh, Buda város középkori helyrajza, 232. 15  1420: DAP 1, 50; Inventarium, fol. 47. 16  1425: DAP 2, 400–401. 17  1440, 1442 and 1445: DAP 3, 213; Inventarium, fol. 50. The source is problematic in several points since the lease was dated earlier than the donation and the latter one speaks of “three houses”. This may refer to three rooms in the house, but in absence of further evidence, the question cannot be answered definitely. 18  1493: MNL OL DL 20034. 19  1515: DAP 2, 408; Inventarium, fol. 87.

42

Chapter 4

the monks could no longer make use of these because Buda was occupied by the Ottomans in 1541.20 Charter evidence shows that most of the houses listed above were subsequently either let or used in annual loan transactions. One exception is the great Pauline house in Saint Paul’s Street. This building became the Buda residence of the order, and the relics of Saint Paul the Hermit were also temporarily kept here, which explains why it was not rented out.21 The other building in the possession of the Monastery of Saint Lawrence is mentioned only once, at the time when the Paulines acquired it, its later fate is unknown.22 As for the other Pauline possessions, the All Saints’ Street building of the Örményes monastery, situated near Saint George’s Chapel, was rented out for 20 guilders in 1424.23 Twenty years later, in 1444, it was recorded that the prior of the monastery complained about the central management of the order letting it to a tailor, Peter Paldauff for a mere six guilders.24 In early 1454, another charter states that for three years Peter Paldauff’s son, Nicholas, paid only twelve guilders per year, instead of the sixteen guilders that had been agreed upon.25 This suggests that the Paulines of Örményes managed to raise the rent they had complained about in 1444. Another house in the main street (vicus magnus), perhaps identical with the one near Michael Rössler’s house, was rented in 1448 by the merchant John for six years with an annual rent of 24 guilders.26 According to the contract, John pledged to refurbish the house and enlarge the cellar, and it was stipulated that if he failed to do so, the annual rent would rise to 48 guilders. This means that the real rent 48 guilders, but the Paulines waived half of it in return for John’s efforts and investment to improve the building. The latter 20  1544: Végh, Buda város középkori helyrajza, n. 756. 21  As a matter of fact, both wine-tithe registers of 1505 and of 1510 list persons who lived in the Paulines’ house. Végh, 257. The presence of residents is also noted in Hadnagy’s work on the miracles of Saint Paul the Hermit: Hadnagy, Miracula sancti Pauli primi heremite: Hadnagy Bálint pálos rendi kézikönyve, 1511, chap. 57. 22  The only surviving—rather tenuous—detail that may refer to it is found in Formularium, fols. 63r–v, which contain the lease and quittance of a house in Buda, unfortunately without any further specifics. This may have been the house which Vicar Gregory swapped for a house in Pest around 1480. VF, chap. 64. 23  1424: Kumorovitz, Budapest történetének okleveles emlékei, no. 855; Végh, Buda Város Középkori Helyrajza, no. 191. 24  The dispute went on between 1444 and 1452. Végh, Buda város középkori helyrajza, 195– 196. According to Gyöngyösi, Prior General George rented out the house of the Csatka monastery in 1423, and the text makes it clear that the involvement of the order’s leader was taken for granted. The charter was allegedly issued by Buda judge Paul Paldauff. VF, chap. 42. 25  1454: MNL OL DL 14784. 26  1448: MNL OL DL 14162.

Townhouses

43

two houses are likely to have been the ones that were exchanged in 1459 for two estates of Andrew Csapi in Zala County.27 The last piece of evidence referring to the third house donated by Nicholas Kanizsai dates from 1451, when it was mentioned as a neighbour in another case.28 Its later fate—whether the Paulines got to keep it, for example—is unknown. The two houses administered by Francesco Bernardi yielded an exceptionally high income for the Örményes monastery in the last years of the fourteenth century. Converted to money, the donation was worth over 100 guilders, out of which sixty guilders were to be paid in cash. The sum was probably spent on the monastery’s construction works.29 Although the house in Saint Nicholas’s Street was handed over to the monastery by Francesco in 1398, it did not figure in the documents about the monastery’s real estate.30 In contrast, the fate of the house in Saint Paul’s Street can be traced down to the early sixteenth century. In 1398 Francesco sold it to furrier Nicholas of Brno, a burgher of Buda, for 600 guilders but the annuity for the Paulines was incorporated into the sales contract. However, the sum was considerably lower than previously: one centner of oil and a bottle of tuna worth ten and six guilders, respectively.31 The house was mentioned again in 1444, and later in 1483 when the annuity was reduced to eight guilders.32 The house was last mentioned in 1501 when its owner was the cathedral chapter of Esztergom and the annuity was still 8 guilders.33 The house in All Saints’ Street, owned by the Paulines of Lád, was rented out by Prior General George for a similar sum in 1433,34 and the same sum was to be paid in 1436 and in 1489 as an annuity for the house in the same street owned in common by the monasteries of Szentkereszt and Szentlélek.35 In 1498, the 27  1459: DAP 2, 139; Inventarium, fol. 38. One of the two estates was still owned by the monastery in 1563: DAP 2, 148. The charter says that Csapi had received the two estates earlier partly for his services, partly for 600 guilders. 28  Végh, Buda város középkori helyrajza, 165. 29  The monastery was founded around 1378. DAP 2, 138. 30  Végh, Buda város középkori helyrajza, 249. It was inhabited by a goldsmith at that time. 31  Végh, 264. 32  The annuity was probably halved when King Matthias reduced the interest rates in the 1470s. 33  1501: MNL OL DF 238168 and 238169. All available data and their analysis regarding this particular building: Végh, Buda város középkori helyrajza, 264. 34  1433: DAP 1, 217–218; Inventarium, fol. 72. 35  1436, 1489: DAP 2, 401; Inventarium, fol. 82. The case seems to be an annuity loan contract. In 1489, furrier Johann Graff, who used to pay ten guilders to the monastery, sold the house to Martin and John Tárcai for 396 guilders. However, one of the brothers gave the house back to the Paulines in 1493 for the salvation of his soul. The same house was leased again in 1513 to another furrier, Sigismund Peiniczer, who, besides maintaining the building, also had to pay an annuity of 10 guilders. DAP 2, 401; Inventarium, fol. 82.

44

Chapter 4

prior of Kékes, John of Füged, sold the monastery’s house in the Italian Street for 150 guilders, stiupulating that he buyer continue paying an annuity of 10 guilders to the monastery.36 Another house owned by the Kékes monastery was charged with an annuity of 6 guilders in 1515.37 The Saint Paul’s Street house owned by Paulines of Csatka was rented out in 1423 by the aforementioned Prior General George,38 the Saint John’s Street house of the Veresmart monastery by the general vicar, Martin, in 1440.39 Neither charter specifies the rent for these houses (see Appendix 1, Table 3). The urban properties in Buda usually generated a relatively modest annuity for the Pauline monasteries involved—6 to 10 guilders on average. In many cases, there is evidence for the intervention of the order’s central administration, which may have been convenient for monasteries situated in remote areas, but—as it happened to the Örményes monastery—it could also lead to tensions within the order. The sources reveal that the monks of Örményes took objection to the fact that the Monastery of Saint Lawrence intervened in their affairs behind their back, and they deemed the negotiated rent too low. Although eventually they did manage to eke out a more reasonable rent, the quarrel about the payment went on for years. Possibly, this was the reason why they decided to exchange their house for two estates in Zala County with Andrew Csapi in 1459—it was obviously much easier for them to manage those than a house in faraway Buda. The original 48 guilders’ rent of the Örményes Paulines’ building in the vicus magnus was by far the highest among all the contracts, probably justified by the size of the building and by the fact that it had a tower attached. The leaseholder, John the merchant, had to pay only 24 guilders on account of his improvement of the building: he had the cellar enlarged to make room for forty barrels to be stored there. The question is why this work was necessary. Although speculative, it is justifiable to assume that the Örményes Paulines owned vineyards in Buda and they wished to market their own wine. It is even more likely that the enlargement was requested by the central administration to serve the entire order’s needs. Finally, perhaps the least pausible but still possible explanation is that the monks wanted to improve the value of their building in the event of a future sale. It is remarkable that a considerable number of the houses was situated in the vicinity of the Great House of the Monastery of Saint Lawrence, and it was probably not a coincidence that the only house that remained in the hands of 36  1498: DAP 2, 408; Inventarium, fol. 87. 37  1515: DAP 2, 408; Inventarium, fol. 87. 38  V F, chap. 42. 39  1440: DAP 3, 213; Inventarium, fol. 50.

Townhouses

45

the Örményes Paulines until the sixteenth century was the one in Saint Paul’s Street. Most of the houses donated to various Pauline monasteries around 1400 disappeared from the sources in the second half of the fifteenth century. Although no direct evidence survives to ascertain this assumption, it is likely that the more remote monasteries got rid of their estates in the city because of the difficulties caused by their geographical distance. It is equally likely that the order lost some of the houses that secured annuities for monasteries due to new financial regulation enacted by King Matthias around 1470, most importantly a universal interest rate cut and the subsequent redeeming of annuities. At the same time, it must be noted that the Paulines had no aversion to owning townhouses in general: several monasteries owned houses in smaller towns in the country, including those monasteries that acquired houses in Buda in the early fifteenth century. Early examples include the house owned by the Újhely monastery in Újhely, two thirds of which was bought by the monks in 1367 for four guilders and twelve groschen, while the last third of the property was bequeathed to them.40 Another such property was the building owned by the Dubica monastery in Dubica (now Bosanska Dubica, Bosnia). This house was the subject of a 1384 lawsuit in which the monks had sue two burghers because they occupied the building despite the last will and testament of a certain widow, Catherine. Eventually, the archdeacon of Kamarcsa (Novigrad Podravski, Croatia) decided in favour of the Paulines.41 A third house, a manor house in Tata, appears in charters in connection with the Csatka monastery. Prior Nicholas claimed that it was left to his monastery by the late rector, John, but the new rector of the Church of Saint John the Baptist expressed doubts about the alleged bequest. The resolution of the case did not come down to us, but it is telling that the manor house does not figure in later documents about the estate of the Csatka monastery.42 In 1396, the Paulines of Gombaszög also acquired a house in Sajószentpéter from the Bebek family (see Appendix 1, Table 4). The first three cases seem to testify that the Paulines were consciously trying to gain a foothold in nearby market towns as early as the mid-fourteenth century, and the townhouses acquired in Buda may have been an avenue to enhance their urban contacts as well as a central will to help the monasteries to raise significant and stable income. The acquisitions continued in the following century, for instance, that of the Porva monastery’s townhouse in Pápa donated to them in 1441 by their

40  1367: Bándi 1985, 695. 41  1384: SZR, no. 1483. 42  1387: ZSO 1, no. 342.

46

Chapter 4

patrons, the Garai family.43 The founder of the Baumgarten monastery, Ulrich von Grafeneck, also donated three houses in Sopron in 1475. Two of them were inside the town walls, near the gate; the third one was situated in the outskirts, opposite the Holy Spirit Chapel.44 After the dissolution of the monastery, Grafeneck’s daughter, Elisabeth von Topl, managed the estates and made sure that these houses became the property of the Bánfalva monastery together.45 Even the centre of the order, the Monastery of Saint Lawrence, came into the possession of a house in Pápa, donated by the widow of a local burgher in 1513.46 The charters reveal that three monasteries were given houses in Székesfehérvár too. The first to be mentioned in the charters was bequeathed to the Told monastery in 1447.47 In 1478, the Paulines of Csatka were given half of a house in Saint Bartholomew’s Street by a widow called Lady Margaret.48 In 1523 and in 1524, the monastery of Zsámbék received first a house of unknown location within the city walls, then another one in the Italian Street also from a widow, called Lady Helena. Finally, the same Lady Helena left a third house to the Zsámbék monastery in 1534 in Bíró Street (also known as Polgár Street).49 Out of all the houses owned by the Paulines in Székesfehérvár, more detail is known only about the one belonging to the Csatka monastery. Its other half was purchased for the order for 123 guilders by Vicar Andrew in 1479. In 1516, Prior General John of Szalánkemén (now Slankamen, Serbia) rented out the whole property to Emeric literatus for 200 guilders, reserving the use of three rooms for the Pauline monks travelling through Székesfehérvár, and stipulating that the house should fall back to the monastery should Emeric die without issue.50 The house of the Told Paulines is only noted in a charter when Prior General Brictius let it for an annual loan of five guilders.51 In north-eastern 43  1441: MNL OL DL 13610; Kubinyi, “A középkori Pápa,” 89. The donation also comprised the villages Újfalu, Súr (Veszprém County), Szemere, Ménfő (Győr County), and Makk (Komárom County), as well as two mills near Pápa on the Tapolca River. See chapter on Mills below. 44  1475: MNL OL DL 17681. 45  1526: MNL OL DL 24297. For the identification of the houses see F. Romhányi, “Pálos kolostorok Sopron környékén.” 46  1513: MNL OL DL 25864. 47  V F, chap. 49. 48  1478: MNL OL DL 18085. 49  1523: MNL OL DL 23743. The widow reserved the use of the building for her lifetime. In the next year she gave 300 guilders as well as a house in Italian Street (1524: MNL OL DL 23988). About the house in Bíró Street see DAP 3, 303–305. 50  D AP 1, 50. The Paulines tried to retrieve the house after the Ottoman period, in 1688, see DAP 1, 54. 51  V F, chap. 49.

Townhouses

47

Hungary, the Paulines of Diósgyőr received a house in Miskolc in 1408, which was mentioned in 1472 explicitly in connection with wine licence.52 The house in the main street of the market town of Miskolc was exempt of all taxes due to a privilege issued by King Wladislaus II in 1440. According to Éva Gyulai, its location and legal status were therefore similar to manor houses owned by the nobility in Miskolc.53 The monastery of Thal (Máriavölgy/Marianka, now in Slovakia) near Pressburg (Pozsony/Bratislava, now in Slovakia) bought half a house in the town, in Lange Gasse in 1471 for sixty guilders from Count Simon of Szentgyörgy and Bazin and his mother; there was even a chapel in the house.54 In the same year, the Paulines received the other half of the house from Ladislaus Rozgonyi.55 The monastery in Thal had another house in Dévény (Theben, Devín, Slovakia) from the early fifteenth century onwards, which was donated together with vineyards in the area.56 The Bajcs monastery (Baranya County) received a house in nearby Siklós from King Matthias in 1483.57 The Pauline Formularium maius also preserved evidence about a house in Pest owned by a certain Monastery of the Holy Virgin (there were several of them) in the first half of the sixteenth century.58 Although it is not strictly about a townhouse, the lease of a house of the monastery of Várad (Oradea)-Kápolna in Somlyó is relevant here as it was rented out for two guilders per year; the rent was waived by the prior in 1410.59 The plot of the Kékes monastery in Visegrád can also be mentioned among the urban properties of the Paulines. It was sold by the monastery’s prior in 1412 for 13 guilders to an inhabitant of the nearby Bogdány.60 The figures found in surviving evidence 52  1472: MNL OL DL 17337. 53  Gyulai, Szőlőbirtoklás Miskolcon a 16. században, 18. 54  1471: MNL OL DL 17132. In fact, it was a sales contract but partly, since another charter issued on the same day says that Simon and his mother, the daughter of George Rozgonyi, gave as pious donation to the monastery of Thal half a house together with the chapel, in the Lange Gasse of Pressburg. (MNL OL DL 25842). 55  1471: MNL OL DL 17241. The donation was confirmed by King Matthias in 1472 (MNL OL DL 17367). 56  D AP 1, 298. 57  D AP 1, 3; Inventarium, fol. 17. 58  Inventarium, fol. 39v. In the charter, the monks petitioned the king for the exemption of all taxes. 59  D AP 1, 191–192. 60  1412: Elemér Mályusz and Iván Borsa, eds., Zsigmond-kori oklevéltár, vol. 3., 1411–1412 (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1993), nos. 1321, 1889. [Henceforth: ZSO 3]. The charters attest that Prior Gregory of Kékes sold the plot of his monastery in Visegrád with the consent of Prior General Ladislaus and of his brothers for 13 guilders “in vicinitatibus fundorum seu domorum magistri Jacobi litterati ac magistri Jacobi lapicide a parte septemtrionali, recte vadit et transit usque parvam viam in qua vadunt et transiunt ad ecclesiam beatae

48

Chapter 4

show that twenty-five Pauline monasteries had urban houses and plots, and most of them were in their hands on the long run. In this respect, the houses in Buda are exceptions. Even though there is little evidence about how urban properties in countryside towns were put to use, certain signs suggest that some of them were rented out. The three Sopron houses of the Baumgarten (later of the Bánfalva) monastery, and the three Székesfehérvár houses of the Zsámbék monastery, for example, certainly were. Two of the Sopron houses were situated near the slaughterhouses, which indicates that they may have been associated with the butchers in some way. The Székesfehérvár houses of the monasteries of Csatka and Told were let, as demonstrated above. The rest of the houses, however, may have been connected to vineyards and wine trade. In the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries, the income generated by townhouses seems to have been considerable. The houses in Buda were particularly profitable in the early fifteenth century, but the houses in country towns were also valuable assets for the monasteries. Most of the houses were either leased out or provided an annuity for the beneficiary monasteries. In other cases, the townhouses played a role in marketing the wine of the Paulines. This is directly mentioned in reference to houses in Miskolc, Dévény, Sajószentpéter and Debrecen, but based on their proximity to the vineyards of the monasteries the houses in Pápa, Ungvár, Pozsony, Sopron, and maybe even in Buda may have been involved. Holding a wine licence, in some cases, could lead to conflicts with the market towns, as it happened in Miskolc in 1472. Although King Matthias allowed the Paulines to sell their wine in their house, he had to withdraw the licence a month later due to the objection of the town council.61 A similar privilege was granted by the town council to the Remete monastery near Zagreb. More than a decade earlier, in 1473, the Paulines bought a tower together with timber and stone buildings attached from a Zagreb burgher, Martin literatus for 28 guilders.62 The contract obliged the monks to maintain the tower and to hand it over to the town in case of emergency. This clause was included into the earlier sales agreement concerning the tower, too. For nearly fifteen years, nothing happened to the building but in 1487, the town issued a permission to the Paulines to rebuild and fortify their tower, and to build a manor house and a garden on the plot. Furthermore, the Virginis ac etiam inter fundum Johannis filii Stephani dicti Czech a parte meridiei, a parte vero occidentali fundus curiae condam Jacobi de Zeepes habitum et existentem, Nicolao filio Pore de Bogdan dicto.” I am grateful to András Végh for the information. 61  1472: MNL OL DL 17337 (transcribed: 1503); 1472: MNL OL DL 17352. 62  1473: LK 2, no. 102.

Townhouses

49

monks and one of their tenants were given a tax exemption; any further tenants in the manor house were subject to the usual tax. Finally, the town allowed the Paulines to deposit wine in their cellar under the tower once a year, which they were allowed to sell to burghers and aliens, as was permitted to the burghers of the town. They had to pay the judge a yearly sum of 1 guilder for the wine licence.63 Thus the tower played an essential role in the wine trade conducted by the monastery. The privilege ended up in a dispute: as a result, in 1506, King Wladislaus II forbade the town of Zagreb to withdraw the above wine licence of the Paulines.64 The Paulines also had an annuity in the town which was established before 1482 by the late tailor, Nicholas, burgher of Zagreb. His last will and testament stipulated that Blasius Lazarini’s wife, Catherine Mateynicza and her successors, were to pay one guilder every year to the monastery at Candlemas. The house was a very good one: it stood on a corner near the palace of John Perovich, and it had a shop on its ground floor.65 The Formularium maius also contains formulae for house rental. One of them is a fixed-term three-year lease contract specifying a twenty-guilder rent, the other is the receipt.66 Both refer to a house in Buda, and they both stipulate Whitsuntide as the annual cut-off date, which suggests that they may have been counterparts of the same transaction. Before concluding the chapter, two aspects of Pauline ownership of townhouses are of note. One is the nearly complete absence of the Slavonian monasteries among the householders. This can be explained with two factors: on the one hand, the Slavonian monasteries were specialised mainly in crop farming and silviculture—economic activities which did not necessitate urban buildings—so they had manor houses instead. On the other hand, the house owned by the order in Zagreb probably served more than one monastery, which is not suprising considering the order’s organisation structure. Finally, it is notable that in the period when most Hungarian monasteries acquired their urban houses, the Slavonian monasteries already experienced serious difficulties because of the Ottoman raids; thinking in terms of investment was 63  1487: LK 2, no. 115. 64  1506: LK 2, no. 170. A similar wine license was granted to the house of the Paulines of Szentjobb which was situated in the eastern part of Debrecen, rented out in 1531. Unfortunately, it is not known when the house was given to the monastery that was originally a Benedictine abbey. In 1531, the building was leased to the town for 20 guilders. The order received rent until 1556, which was payable to the hospital thereafter. In 1580, General Vicar Christopher sold the whole house to the town for 500 guilders, in Bunyitay, Szilágymegye középkori műemlékei, 473–474. 65  1482: LK 2, no. 109. The annuity was still paid in 1514: LK 2, no. 147. 66  See footnote 177.

50

Chapter 4

no longer a viable option. Indirectly, the case of the Dubica monastery, whose monks acquired a townhouse in the late fourteenth century and even went to court to settle issues of property rights is a case in point, as discussed in the “Townhouses” chapter. The second remark concerns urban properties owned by religious orders in general. Owning townhouses was not exceptional either in Buda or in other towns. Cistercian abbeys owned buildings in Buda and in Pressburg, while Benedictine abbeys and Premonstratensian provostries had houses in Buda and elsewhere, for example the abbey of Tapolca had one in Miskolc. A 1402 document attests to a house in Buda owned by the Carthusian priory of Lövöld.67 Even the Franciscan friary of Segesd had a house in Buda in the mid-fifteenth century.68 Evidence suggests that owning buildings in towns had a similar role in the estate management practice of different monasteries: they either generated annuities, or were used in the trade of monastic products, primarily wine. The two main differences between the Paulines and other orders is the number of their buildings, and the fact that the real owner was the order, not individual monasteries. These two important characteristics of Pauline property ownership are underpinned, on the one hand, by the regular intervention of the order’s central administration into the affairs of the houses, on the other hand, by charters naming the Monastery of Saint Lawrence as the owner of houses which are known to have been donated to individual Pauline monasteries first. Finally, the urban properties of the Croatian and Polish monasteries merit a short remark. The Holy Saviour monastery of Senj had such properties rather early: its houses were rented out in 1375 for five guilders.69 The Polish situation seems to be slightly different. In 1529, the monastery of Rupella received six and a half marks and seven groschen income after eight (!) houses in Kazimierz, and one mark after a mill in Krakow.70 In the same year, a tavern and a mill generated five marks and ten groschen income for the monastery of 67  1402: ZSO 2, no. 1387. 68  Végh, Buda város középkori helyrajza, 219. The house of the Franciscans is mentioned in 1433 as the southern neighbour of the house of the Lád monastery, see “Inventarium,” fol. 72. 69  1375: LK 3, no. 3. In 1381 and in 1399, the monastery acquired further houses in the town. 1381: LK 3, no. 4. 1399: LK 3, no. 7. A document issued in 1417 because of rent-arrear reveals that the annual rent of the house (casale) was at least 6 guilders: MNL OL DL 34388. 70  Zbudniewek, Zbiór dokumentów Zakonu Paulinów w Polsce, vol. 2, 1464–1550, no. 380. The total income of the monastery was 63 and a half marks, and 6 groschen. Two thirds of it was an annuity of 43 marks and 16 groschen paid by the Wieliczka salt mine; the income out of houses came to approximately 10 per cent. Seven of the eight houses were listed in the donation charter of Jan Długosz in 1480, see Zbudniewek, no. 57.

Townhouses

51

Częstochowa, which owned no urban house at all.71 The estate types known in Hungary—and in Rome—were present in Poland, too, but the estate composition is somewhat different. While it is surprising that the largest Pauline monastery in Poland did not have any townhouses to its name, the eight houses of the Rupella monastery—more akin to the estate structure of the Pauline monastery in Rome—are similarly unusual.

71  Zbudniewek, Zbiór dokumentów Zakonu Paulinów w Polsce, vol. 2, 1464–1550, no. 381. The total income of the monastery was 38 and a half marks, and 13 groschen; the share of the tavern and of the mill together was about 13 per cent. The other revenues of the two monasteries were collected from different villages and from census paid by tenants. A tabernator was listed among the tenants (kmethones) of Częstochowa.

Chapter 5

Vineyards Vineyards played a special role in Pauline economy. After the papal approval of the order in 1308, Pope John XXII granted them their earliest privilege that were absolved of paying the tithe for their vineyards they cultivated themselves.1 The importance of vineyards is also indicated by the 1357 privilege granted by King Louis I according to which the Paulines were exempt from the paying of the ninth, a feudal tax payable to the landlord, effective from 1351 onwards in Hungary.2 Fifteenth- and sixteenth-century written evidence attests that almost all the Pauline monasteries had vineyards in their possession. Some of them, for example, Szentlőrinc (in what is now District 2 of Budapest), Fehéregyháza, Garić, Ruszka, Zagreb, were mentioned as being in promontorio—that is “in the vineyards.” There are also some monasteries which are mentioned in connection with vineyards and pertinent paraphernalia, for instance barrels or cellars, more often than others. According to the sources, the Paulines received most of their vineyards as pious donations or assets.3 Such donations bestowed estates—often rather remotely lying ones— upon the monasteries which, in turn, usually sold them because the costs of cultivation would have exceeded their profit.4 A considerable number 1  V F, chap. 21; Mályusz, Egyházi társadalom a középkori Magyarországon, 258. This type of vineyard is mentioned by Gyöngyösi in VF, chap. 68. 2  V F, chap. 32. 3  Out of the many examples, a last will from 1359 contains most of the characteristic elements. With the consent of his wife and of the relatives, the issueless testator called Ladislaus—a confriar of the order—left his vineyard planted by himself in the village of Léta to the monastery of Saint Dominic in Szakácsi as pro anima donation for the salvation of the souls of his wife, all his relatives, and himself. One third of the grape juice produced was reserved for his wife until her death. He also chose to be buried in the monastery. Despite Ladislaus’s efforts, his last will could not be executed peacefully. A few weeks later, on August 11, Prior Valentine complained that another nobleman of Léta threatened the monks, rushed into the house of their confriar and had the corpse buried in the cemetery. Furthermore, he occupied the vineyard and hid the testament. The prior presented the document whose authenticity was testified by the priests of Léta and Szőcsény, the parish priests of Szakácsi and Marcali, and several lay people, noble and non-noble alike. Bándi 1986, 28–29. This type of dispute was frequent in the fifteenth century. 4  In one of the charters preserved in the Formularium maius, the prior of a monastery asks the prior general for permission to sell one of the monastery’s vineyards because “domus nostra sufficientes habet vineas in numero, habet autem unam vineam superfluam, cuius fructus annualis, ecciam quantumque excolatur, ad modicum valde protendit. Nam, ut brevi stilo

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004424760_007

Vineyards

53

of vineyards was in the hands of the Paulines of Csatka, Szentpéter, Diósgyőr, Újhely, Gombaszög, Bereg, Zagreb, Dobra Kuća and Lepoglava. Although not abundant, there is some evidence concerning the vineyards from the earliest period of the history of the order. Some of them were marketable assets, for example, the vineyards of the Kékes monastery in Borosjenő (Pilis County), sold together with the wine press (locus torcularis), for fourteen Buda marks to the Poor Clares of Óbuda in 1351.5 The fact that the neighbouring parcels were also vineyards indicates tha the vineyard sold was part of a larger area under vines. However, it is notable that there were other cultures on the estate, indicated by the fact that part of it was referred to as Barátkaszáló (monks’ hayfield). The first vineyard of the Csatka monastery was mentioned in 1454 when a local nobleman bequeathed one in Ősi.6 A year later they acquired another one in Pét (Veszprém County) from the palatine, Ladislaus Garai, by the mediation of Nicholas Újlaki. The vineyard had earlier belonged to a tenant called John Rédei who also left it to the monastery in his will.7 The same monastery received yet another vineyard in Pázmánd in 1459; this parcel was actually bordered by another vineyard of the monastery.8 The next donation took place in 1472, when the collegiate chapter of Fehérvár introduced the Paulines of Csatka into two vineyards in Peterd (Győr County).9 Finally, a charter of 1512 records an act of might in Kagymat whereby the perpetrators destroyed the vineyard of the monastery and cut down their forest.10 The vineyards of the monastery of Szentpéter were first mentioned in 1454, also in reference to an act of might: a local villein occupied the lower part of the vineyard causing damage in excess of ten guilders.11 Three other vineyards, left for the monastery as pious donation in Szentpéter, crop up in three charters issued on the same day in 1454.12 In 1457 the monastery was given a vineyard perstringam, cum magnis colitur expensis et laboribus, tum propter nimiam distantiam, cum propterea, quod neminem fidelem vinitorem, qui eam excolat, possumus invenire.” However, another document in the same Formularium tells that the monastery of Thal received a vineyard with a house and a cellar in Gyöngyös. Formularium, fol. 48r. 5   Gyula Kristó, ed., Anjou-kori oklevéltár: Documenta res Hungaricas tempore regum Andegavensium illustrantia, vol. 5., 1318–1320 (Budapest; Szeged: Szegedi Középkorász Műhely, 1998), no. 323. [Henceforth: AO 5]. 6  1454: MNL OL DL 14810. 7  1455: MNL OL DL 14951. 8  1459: MNL OL DL 15406. The vineyard was bought earlier by the testators. 9  1472: MNL OL DL 17362. The relatives of the testator protested: MNL OL DL 17362. 10  1512: MNL OL DL 22300. 11  1454: MNL OL DL 38706. 12  1454: MNL OL DL 14823, 14824, 14825.

54

Chapter 5

in Surd by the parish priest of Mórochely, but his donation was contested by a local widow, who claimed that the priest was granted usufruct of the vineyard with her permission only as long as she herself was under age.13 The ruling did not survive, but in autumn 1457 the new priest of Mórochely declared at the convent of Zalavár that the late priest left the same vineyard to the Paulines of Szentpéter, stipulating that the new priest was entitled to the ius quartale regarding this property, and that the monks satisfied his dues in full.14 This means that the Paulines, in fact, were in possession of the vineyard by that time. In 1521, three further vineyards in Sokoród were donated to the monastery as part of a bequest,15 finally, in 1524, John Laki, who was condemned to death, left some of his estates, including a vineyard in Felsőlak, to the Paulines.16 Indeed, a week later King Louis II ordered the convent of Somogyvár to introduce the monastery of Szentpéter into the estates left to them by the late John Laki.17 Concerning Sokoród, a charter was issued in 1522 stating that the tenants of John and Francis Both of Bajna broke into the cellar of one of the tenants of the Paulines, and took a barrel of wine. The latter incident suggests that the monastery had not only vineyards, but tenants, too, in the village. The name of the peasant, Simon Bor, meaning Wine, is also telling.18 A vineyard belonging to the Diósgyőr monastery is first mentioned in 1376 when a burgher of Miskolc left his vineyard, situated in the vicinity of that of the town’s jury, as pious donation to the monks on condition that his wife— who also gave her consent to the donation—would have life-long use of it. The town transferred the ownership of the vineyard to the monastery after careful investigation involving the confessor of the testator’s wife, her brothers, and several burghers of Miskolc.19 In 1406, the Paulines exchanged a vineyard for another one in Miskolc with Michael, the Carthusian prior of Tárkány.20 In 1440, King Wladislaus I issued an exemption from paying the ninth after the vineyards of the monastery in the village of Bábony which pertained to the castle

13  1457: MNL OL DL 15137. 14  1457: MNL OL DL 15189. The ius quartale was cause for litigation in other cases, too, between the Paulines and the local parish priests. A generous solution of such a case was when the priest of Szakácsi gave his part to the Pauline monastery in 1385. See Bándi 1986, 31/7; the donation charter: Bándi 1986, 31/6. 15  1521: MNL OL DL 23600. 16  1524: MNL OL DL 24005. 17  1524: MNL OL DL 24008. 18  1522: MNL OL DL 23695. 19  1376: Bándi 1985, 564. 20  Gyulai, Szőlőbirtoklás Miskolcon a 16. században, 19.

Vineyards

55

of Diósgyőr.21 Almost twenty years later, in 1458 three further vineyards were given to the Paulines in the same area, Saint George’s Hill (Szentgyörgy-hegy).22 One of them was given to them by the abbot of Tapolca, and the other one, right next to it, by some Miskolc burghers.23 In 1461, a further vineyard was donated by another burgher of Miskolc, who reserved half of the income for himself until the end of his own lifetime.24 In the next year, the widow of another burgher left half of a vineyard on Csaba Hill for the Paulines of Diósgyőr; the other half had already been donated by her late husband.25 The testatrix reserved one quarter of the income for herself for as long as she lived. Eventually, a larger estate emerged out of the vineyards received from different persons at different times, which continued to be referred as the “the Paulines’ vineyards” until much later. For example, in 1702 the first land register of Miskolc still records the plot as “of the white friars” (“fejír barátoké 25 kapás”).26 Back in the fifteenth century, the Diósgyőr monastery was also supported by King Matthias: they were granted an exemption from paying the ninth after their vineyards in Miskolc, Diósgyőr, Csaba, and Bábony.27 This royal charter issued in 1464 indicates that the Paulines owned a considerable area under vine in the region. The size of the Paulines’ large estate must have been the reason for the royal privilege which, however, is known to have caused indignation in the town in 1472.28 The vineyards of the Újhely monastery were mentioned as early as in 1307. In a charter dated to this year, the parish priest of the neighbouring Patak, a certain master Achilles, recorded that a man called Sada and his wife, Karachuna, being childless, declared in the presence of Prior Benedict of Újhely that they intended to donate their vineyard to the monastery, reserving a life-long usufruct for themselves. The couple asked the Paulines to pray for their salvation, and they emphasized that the vineyard was their own plantation.29 Some fifteen years later, the widowed Karachuna left another vineyard, situated next to the one donated previously, to the monastery which was represented by Prior Stephen.30 In 1383, a certain Ladislaus dictus Thenkel, burgher of Újhely, left his 21  1440: MNL OL DL 13582. A general papal protection was granted by Pope John XXII in 1333. Gyulai, 17. 22  1458: MNL OL DL 15269. 23  1458: MNL OL DL 15297. 24  1461: MNL OL DL 15547. 25  1462: MNL OL DL 15731. 26  Gyulai, Szőlőbirtoklás Miskolcon a 16. században, 19. 27  Charter from 1501 transcribed by King Wadislaus II, in Gyulai, 18. 28  See footnote 216. 29  1307: Bándi 1985, 689–690. 30  1321: Bándi 1985, 691

56

Chapter 5

vineyard on the Esztáva Hill to the local monastery because he was ill.31 In the next year, the widow of a late burgher also left her vineyard to the monastery after her death.32 A 1391 charter testified that a man called Augustine, deceased by that time, had left his plot and vineyard for his widow and their son, but stipulated that after their death both must be bequeathed to the Paulines.33 In this year there were two other identically formulated testaments issued in the town.34 Another charter from the early fifteenth-century reports about the lease of a vineyard near Újhely, received by the monastery as pious donation, for 150 guilders.35 The high sum indicates that the vineyard was exceptionally valuable and leased on a long-term contact. The period of question was probably two generations, since the charter contains that the vineyard had to fall back to the monastery after the death of the wife and sons of the leaseholder who paid the whole sum when signing the contract. The area was not unknown for the Paulines of Újhely for the leased vineyard was bordered by one they owned. Unfortunately, the subsequent history of this specific vineyard remains unknown. Further vineyards of the Újhely monastery are mentioned in 1428 (received as a bequest),36 in 1451 as a plot neighbouring a vineyard involved in a hypothec deal, (the latter, incidentally, appears to be in the ownership of the Paulines in a document issued six years later),37 and in a 1462 lawsuit between the monastery and Ladislaus, a burgher of Újhely.38 The litigation was conducted between the parties on account of a forest beneath the

31  1383: Bándi 1985, 696. The monks also received a hayfield between two mills on the Ronyva River. The vineyard was on one of the best sites of Sátoraljaújhely producing high-quality wine up to the present. 32  1384: Bándi 1985, 696. 33  1391: ZSO 1, no. 1924. 34  Two charters of the same year (1391) and of similar content: Bándi 1985, 698. A similar last will was made in 1400 by another burgher of Újhely: Bándi 1985, 700. 35  1426: Bándi 1985, 704. The half vineyard left for the Paulines by Emeric File was probably leased out in 1389; the leaseholder was one of the neighbours who paid 18 guilders: ZSO 1, no. 1298. A similar contract was made by the monastery of Saint James, Baranya County, in 1428; the sum was twenty guilders. The use of the word vendidit may refer to both selling and leasing. Both the small value of the vineyard and the fact that the monastery had no other parcel nearby suggest that this specific case may have been a sales transaction. 1428: MNL OL DL 8776. 36  1428: MNL OL DL 12029. 37  1451, transcribed in 1457: MNL OL DL 14453. 38  1462: MNL OL DL 15742. The defendant was condemnd and a new boundary was established with new border-stones. The Paulines were represented by the prior general.

Vineyards

57

monastery’s vineyard called Oremus,39 as well as of a disputed border mark called Sarkanarochya (dragon’s dike) which the defendant annexed to his vineyard by tilling it as his own. The document notes that the wooded area had been previously sold by Prior Lawrence to the defendant for 600 deniers. Finally, the case was settled: Ladislaus and his wife were granted the forest for their lifetime, for to plant a new vineyard, which was to become the estate of the Paulines after their death. The documents attesting to various properties under vine acquired or owned by the Újhely Paulines continue well into the sixteenth century. In 1466, a vineyard of the monastery was mentioned as the neighbour of another vineyard in Kistoronya.40 Three years later, the Paulines of Újhely were given a vineyard situated on Fekete Hill in Újhely by a widow from the village of Kisaszár.41 In 1474 they exchanged either this or another one in the same area for a butcher’s vineyard on Magas Hill. The latter was flanked by the vineyard of the Újhely monastery on one side and that of the Eszeny monastery on the other.42 A charter from the same year records a trial concerning the vineyards of Kistoronya,43 The parties reached a peaceful agreement in the next year: the monastery could keep the vineyard and paid 34 guilders by way of compensation and to cover costs incurred by the other party.44 In 1525 the Paulines inherited another vineyard in the same village.45 Vineyards inherited from local burgher families in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries were situated on Esztáva Hill (1477), on Köves Hill (1505),46 and on Fekete Hill (1523).47 The one on the Esztáva Hill was contested by the sons of the testator, but the priest of Sárospatak finally decided in favour of the monastery.48 The last vine39  For the early history of the famous vineyard, producing high-quality wine up to the present, see Nagy, “‘Vagyon egy Oremus nevű szőllő, fő bort termő …’: A sátoraljaújhelyi Oremus szőlő történetéhez.” 40  1466: MNL OL DL 16377. 41  1469: Bándi 1985, 710. The neighbours of the vineyard were one James Szarvas, judge of Újhely in 1426, and a Matthias Hordós (i.e. cooper), also a respectable burgher of the town (see footnote 261). Accordingly, all their vineyards were situated at the best locations. The Kisaszár widow reserved lifelong usufruct of the vineyard that she left for the monastery. This part of the Újhely wine region was abandoned, nowadays, the Fekete-hegy is woodland. 42  1474: MNL OL DL 17633. 43  1474: MNL OL DL 17600. 44  1475: MNL OL DL 17712. 45  1525: MNL OL DL 24117. 46  1505: MNL OL DL 35797. This part of the wine region was abandoned. 47  1523: MNL OL DL 23823. 48  1477: MNL OL DL 18006. One of the witnesses of the Paulines was a certain Matthew Kerekes who earlier worked for the testator, a cooper. This particular last will, thus, may

58

Chapter 5

yard left for the monastery in the Middle Ages was in Kisbári in 1524, a pious donation by Ambrose of Bári, whose late father had bought the parcel from local villeins.49 A special donation, pertinent to monasterial vineyards and wine production, was recorded in 1477. The monastery was given a small piece of land in front of their gate from a local burgher, enough for turning a cart around (reversionis locum cum curru). The Paulines obviously needed the small piece of land to move their grape and wine in and out of their monastery on carts. In return, the burgher was allowed to store one barrel in the cellar of the monastery, and he got a lifelong exemption from paying census in the mill.50 Elsewhere, the vineyards of the Gombaszög monastery were located almost exclusively in Sajószentpéter and a house was also connected their estate in the same market town.51 The Bereg monastery regularly received vineyards as pious donations from local noblemen in Beregszász (1449, 1451, 1458, 1461, 1466, 1495), and in at least one case they even purchased one in the town.52 Most of the vineyards of the Zagreb monastery were located either next to the monastery itself or along and between the two roads leading to town. A few other parcels were situated on the other side of Zagreb. The first document mentioning the vineyards is from 1382; noting that there were seven vineyards on the estate that had been donated to the monks by Princess Margaret, widow of Prince Stephen of Anjou, in 1356.53 According to this document, the vineyards had been occupied by a certain Mark who was in default of the ius montanum payable after the plots. Eventually, the total estate was granted to the Paulines in a trial in which the disputed vineyards were also perambulated.54 A 1399 lawsuit went back to 1322 when the Paulines had received a parcel, later referred to as Banfelde (i.e. Bánfölde, the land of the ban) in the charters.55 The 1399 litigation was conducted between the monastery and a certain Nicholas whose property bordered Banfelde. The case was settled by a ruling in which the title of the ploughland bordering the monks’ vineyard attest to good business relations between the two. 49  1524: MNL OL DL 23906. 50  1477: MNL OL DL 18005. 51  D AP 1, 160–161. Smaller parcels were also located in Ardó and Teresztenye. In Sajószentpéter, the Pauline of Hangony also had some vineyards: DAP 1, 181. The case of the Slat monastery shows signs of a similar connection between the vineyards and the building situated in the market town: LK 3, no. 22. 52  D AP 3, 9–10. 53  1356: LK 2, no. 4. 54  1382: LK 2, no. 6. 55  1322: LK 2, no. 3.

Vineyards

59

was awarded to the monastery.56 However, the dispute was not over: in 1412, a second agreement was made in which Nicholas pledges to return Bánfölde to the monastery in return for lifelong usufruct on the estate.57 About ten years later, Nicholas complained that the Paulines’ tenants stormed his house and took all his belongings, including his wine. The Paulines claimed that Nicholas was in default of paying the dacium (tribute) which is why they decided to confiscate his property. The ban of Slavonia, Frederick of Cilli, ruled in favour of Nicholas.58 The case was picked up two years later when the Pauline vicar, Andrew, accused Nicholas with malfeasance. These documents reveal that the defendant was the protonotary in Zagreb who allegedly interceded to secure a ruling against the Paulines at the county authorities. This last lawsuit was conducted in the court of judge royal Matthew Pálóci who upheld the earlier judgments of his predecessor, Stephen Kompolti of Nána, and invalidated the ruling of Frederick of Cilli. Thus, the vineyards of Bánfölde were eventually acquired by the Paulines.59 However, the case was still not settled at this point. Bishop John of Zagreb and his brother went to court for the ownership of the estate, but they withdrew their claim when the perambulation proved that their case was legally untenable.60 From the mid-1410s onwards, the Paulines finally peacefully enjoyed their estate on Bánfölde and elsewhere in the vicinity of Zagreb. It was probably the management of these vineyards that necessitated the acquisition of a tower and a manor house in Zagreb in the second half of the fifteenth century, as discussed above in the chapter dealing with the Paulines’ urban properties. The Paulines of Dobra Kuća acquired their vineyards peacemeal. In 1412, the founder, master Benedict, merely promised to plant a good vineyard on a suitable site, “que se ad centum ligonizatores in una sua ligonizatura debebit extendere,” and allowed the monks to use one his own vineyards in Dobra Kuća until their first harvest.61 In 1441, a local nobleman left the village of Brezjanc to the monastery; in 1500 it is recorded that the revenues from this village included income from a number of vineyards, which were among the pertinences.62 In 1464, King Matthias donated among others two vineyards in the villages of Felsőszaplonc and Szentmihály (Kőrös County) which had already been in the 56  1399: LK 2, no. 13. 57  1412: LK 2, no. 19. 58  1423: LK 2, no. 24. 59  1425: LK 2, no. 29. 60  1428: LK 2, no. 31. 61  1412: LK 4, no. 6. 62  1500: LK 4, no. 49. The last will containing the donation: 1441: MNL OL DL 35573.

60

Chapter 5

hands of the monks for some time.63 In 1471 the vineyard of Losanc is described as one directly managed by the monks.64 In 1472, the voivode of Transylvania and count of Verőce, Nicholas Csupor of Moslavina, granted the monastery full exemption from the ninth, including wine, in the villages Losanc, Brezjanc, Peterjanc, and Csernec (Verőce County).65 Although the formulation of the exemption is generic, it does reveal that the monastery had vineyards in at least two of the four villages. In 1479, a local testator left to the Paulines a deserted tenant plot and two vineyards near their hayfield, in return for celebrating two masses a week for the salvation of the souls of the donator and of his relatives.66 The vineyards of the monastery in Szaplonca were mentioned in 1487, when Nicholas Bánfi of Lendva and his brother, James, issued an exemption from the ninth in return for forty masses to be celebrated by the Paulines.67 Altogether, although the number of vineyards does not seem to have been very high, they must have constituted an essential part of the monastic estates. This is primarily attested to by the regularity of charter references to monastic vineyards, as well as that of tax exemptions issued to the Paulines even after the Middle Ages. However, the frequency of references in the sources is not everything. For example, unlike the previous examples, the vineyards of the Lepoglava monastery are mentioned rather rarely, but their importance cannot be underestimated. In 1514, the monks complained that a certain John Gyulai stormed the cellar of one of the tenants of the monastery and took all his wine. Since the wine they seized subsequently spoiled, the Paulines suffered damage in excess of fifteen guilders. At the same time Gyulai also occupied the vineyards in Kaminca, where more than twenty-five (!) vineyards were ruined because they could not be tended until the Feast of St John the Baptist on June 24.68

63  1464: LK 4, no. 23. The charter of the Čazma Collegiate Chapter issued in 1465 about the introduction: LK 4, no. 24. One of the neighbours was the same as in the case of Losanc, see below. 64  1471: LK 4, no. 35 65  1472: LK 4, no. 37. 66  1479: LK 4, no. 39. 67  1487: LK 4, no. 44. A manor house, townhouses, and another vineyard were given to the monastery in Szaplonca in 1504: MNL OL DL 35761. 68  1514: LK 1, no. 108. A similar act of might took place some sixty years earlier, in 1446, at one of the tenants of the Paulines of Garić whose wine cellar was plundered by George and Caspar Csupor of Moslavina: Elemér Mályusz, “A szlavóniai és horvátországi középkori pálos kolostorok oklevelei az Országos Levéltárban, pt. 9.,” Levéltári Közlemények 11 (1933): no. 291. [Henceforth: LK 9]. Large quantities of wine were stolen in both cases, probably to be sold on the market.

Vineyards

61

Besides the monasteries that possessed an exceptionally large number of vineyards, such as those listed above, other monasteries had more than one vineyard: Baumgarten,69 Csáktornya,70 Dédes,71 Enyere,72 Kalodva,73 Lád,74 Porva,75 Regéc,76 Szakácsi,77 Tokaj,78 Kápolna,79 Vetahida,80 and Bánfalva.81 The monastery of Gönc apparently had no other vineyards than those it had received together with the hospital of Telkibánya at the time when it took over the management of the hospital.82 However, since they were exempt from paying the ius montanum as early as in the fourteenth century,83 it is likely that the monks had other vineyards whose documents did not survive. 69  M NL OL DL 17681: In 1475 Ulrich von Grafeneck and his son, Wolf donated among others several vineyards in Baumgarten itself, as well as in nearby Rust and Mörbisch. After the destruction of the monastery, all its estates were given to the monastery of Bánfalva, see footnote 200 above. 70  1505: LK 1, no. 14; 1523: LK 1, no. 16. The second donation contained a cellar and a winepress, too. 71  D AP 1, 64–65. 72  1478: MNL OL DL 18083; 1524: MNL OL DL 24042. 73  Rusu, Dicţionarul mănăstirilor din Transilvania, Banat, Crişana şi Maramureş, 104. 74  The monastery of Lád had vineyards in Mályi near Miskolc already in the fourteenth century. When a burgher of Miskolc sold his vineyard to the Paulines in 1389 for 27 guilders, one of the neighbouring plots was the vineyard of the same monastery. It was flanked by a copse on the other side, which means that the vineyard in question was on the edge of the cultivated area: Gyulai, Szőlőbirtoklás Miskolcon a 16. században, 18. 1507: MNL OL DL 38865. Duchess Hedvig of Teschen, the widow of Stephen Szapolyai, and her sons granted tax exemption for the house in Keresztúr and for the two vineyards given by the local parish priest. 75  1450: MNL OL DL 14424; 1519: MNL OL DL 24373. 76  D AP 2, 309–310. The vineyards of the Regéc monastery were in Tolcsva and Olaszliszka, two villages of the Tokaj wine region. 77  1456: MNL OL DL 15021; 1466: MNL OL DL 16445; 1474: MNL OL DL 17556. 78  A pious donation in Tokaj from 1511: MNL OL DL 22250; Duchess Hedvig of Teschen, the widow of Stephen Szapolyai, and her sons granted tax exemption for the vineyards of the monastery in the market town of Tokaj in 1519: MNL OL DL 24378. 79  1422: MNL OL DL 11218; an acquisition for 24 guilders from a canon of Várad in 1446: MNL OL DL 13918; a bequest of a child in 1496: SZR, no. 3703. 80  Manor house and vineyard, with lifelong usufruct from 1521: MNL OL DL 23519; 1523: MNL OL DL 23859. 81  In 1525 Elisabeth von Topl (née Grafeneck) gave two vineyards of the burned monastery of Baumgarten to the monastery of Bánfalva: MNL OL DL 24164; in 1526 she gave all the estates of the abandoned monastery of Baumgarten, including two further vineyards, to the monastery of Bánfalva: MNL OL DL 24297. 82  1450: MNL OL DL 14390; 1459: MNL OL DL 15368; 1471: MNL OL DL 14392; 1471: MNL OL DL 17177. Although not mentioned explicitly, those were probably the vineyards that were exempted from the ninth by King Matthias in 1471: MNL OL DL 17175. 83  V F, chap. 42.

62

Chapter 5

In the documents, nearly every Pauline monastery is mentioned in relation to vineyards at least once. In 1525, the monastery of Bánfalva received not only vineyards, but two empty barrels as well, from a priest of Sopron.84 The quantity of wine produced on the estates of the Garić monastery must have been significant since they received twenty-eight empty barrels in a last will written in 1465.85 The monasteries of Bakva and Dobra Kuća received income from wine tithes by Count John Marcali of Zala in 1449. His donation was increased by other tithes when he drew up his last will before leaving on pilgrimage to Rome and the Holy Land.86 All these examples suggest that vineyards constituted an essential part of the Pauline estates, and some monasteries possessed an exceptionally large number of them.87 In these latter cases, although the monks certainly did not tend the vineyards themselves or completely on their own, their income generated from wine trade was substantial. This was noted even by eighteenth-century writer Matthias Bél in connection with the monastery of Bánfalva: “Monachos Wohndorffienses, loco eodem, gemino vini proventu esse divites. Scilicet: inferne altero, in cella, altero superne, in vinea.”88 Most of the vineyards were given the Paulines as pious donations or bequests. Vineyards were rarely acquired through purchase,89 but there were cases when the vineyard was partly bought, partly received as pious donation.90 The transactions in which vineyards were exchanged for ones situated elsewhere indicate that the monasteries consciously aimed to aggregate their estates to facilitate cultivation. The choice of the site was obviously influenced by the quality of the wine. The frequency of data increases from the late fifteenth century which is probably connected to a boom in the wine trade. There is no evidence for 84  Házi, Sopron középkori egyháztörténete, 267. 85  1465: LK 10, no. 374. 86  1449: MNL OL DL 38696; 1455: MNL OL DL 14915. Furthermore, in 1413 Queen Barbara gave the tithes of grain and wine to the monastery of Bakva: LK 1, no. 9; in 1472 Nicholas Csupor of Moslavina, voivode of Transylvania and count of Verőce, re-endowed the tithes of grain and wine to the Paulines of Bakva which they had received earlier from King Sigismund (!): LK 1, no. 22. The donation was confirmed in 1488 by Nicholas and James Bánfi: LK 1, no. 40. 87  Vineyards were given to pre-Pauline heremitic communities as soon as in the thirteenth century, cf. Solymosi, “Pilissziget vagy Fülöpsziget. A pálos remeteélet 13. századi kezdeteihez,” 20–21. 88  Bél, Sopron vármegye leírása / Descriptio comitatus Semproniensis, 2:182. 89  An example for buying vineyards is the case of the Kalodva monastery around 1388, when Prior John bought two vineyards for 36 and 48 guilders: VF, chap. 37. 90  For instance, the monastery of Gombasek received in 1496 a vineyard, worth of 50 guilders, partly as alms, partly for 25 guilders: DAP I. 161. Similar solutions occur at other types of estates, too.

Vineyards

63

the Pauline monasteries in north-eastern Hungary being involved in the wine export towards Lesser Poland (Małopolska), but it is reasonable to assume that the monasteries of Diósgyőr, Újhely and Tokaj may have been.91 Similarly, an involvement in wine trade is presumable in the case of Garić monastery which received a huge quantity of wine as bequest from the widow of Andrew Kapitánfi sometime before 1465. The subsequent development in the case also provides an insight into the possible conflicts of interest: the relatives of the late husband took the 1700 cubuli of wine for themselves.92 As the number of vineyards increased, they were leased out more often. A rather complex case, for example, was recorded in 1525 when the monastery of Told allowed a certain Andrew Chakan to use the new vineyard planted by Emeric Toth who had originally received the then wooded parcel from the Paulines. Although Emeric received the parcel for his lifetime, his widow sold the vineyard to Andrew which suggests that the monks acknowledged the sale in the end. The charter contained a proviso that Andrew was to pay the annuity to the monks once the vineyard was producing fruit.93 Similar cases can be found in the archives of other monasteries, too. Leasing out the vineyards was common practice all over the country.94 Evidence shows that there were at least two cases where vineyards were joint property owned by two monasteries. In 1313, Palatine Stephen gave a vineyard to the monasteries of Diósgyőr and Dédes. In 1449, the vicar of Diósgyőr and the prior of Dédes leased out their vineyard to a burgher from Sajószentpéter on a long-term contract (several generations), for an annual contribution of thirty cubuli of wine divided equally between the monasteries.95 Similar contracts were made regularly by the monastery of Zagreb, some of them specifying the rent, too. In 1436, for instance, the monastery let two vineyards, a field and a coppice to a local woman, her son and her grand-children; for the rent of twenty-five deniers, one capon and one loaf of bread for one 91  Only the name of Tokaj can be found in the account books of the northeastern towns, but even that has no reference to the Paulines. Although in the Middle Ages and in the early modern period wine was the most important business in the town of Újhely, and it is unlikely that the Paulines did not find the way to domestic and foreign markets, no direct evidence supports their involvement. I am grateful to István Tringli for his kind help and information. 92  Cubulus (köböl in Hungarian) is a regionally varying cubic measurement. 1465: LK 10, no. 374. 93  1525: MNL OL DL 24044. 94  About the formula in the Formularium maius see below. Other examples include Újhely in 1462: MNL OL DL 1574; Thal in 1491: MNL OL DL 25842; and Vetahida in 1523: MNL OL DL 23859. 95  1313: Bándi 1985, 559; DAP 1, 65.

64

Chapter 5

vineyard; forty deniers, two capons and one loaf of bread for the other vineyard; thirty-two deniers, one capon and one loaf of bread for the field; and eight deniers for the coppice. Thus, the monastery collected annually 105 deniers in cash, as well as four capons and three loafs of bread in kind. Another charter, also about leasing a vineyard, tells that the price of one loaf of bread was one denier.96 The two parties in this case were influential burghers of Zagreb, one of them the judge of the town, and the contract was drawn up in the presence of the Pauline vicar. The value of one of the vineyards is set as 15 guilders, and the contract stipulates that a yearly rent of 35 deniers, one capon, and one loaf of bread was payable to the Paulines by the renter. The price of the other vineyard is undisclosed, the rent is fifteen deniers, half a capon, and half a loaf of one-denier bread. Besides the vineyards, a coppice also changed hands but nothing more is said about it in the charter. The rent of two vineyards were similarly defined in 1501: thirty-five deniers as well as a capon and a half, for the two.97 All three cases prove that the income of the Paulines was mainly collected in cash but rent in kind did not vanish completely. In some cases, the leaseholders were clerics. In 1409, for instance, two vineyards of the Paulines of Streza were tended by the local parish priest. This is known from a lawsuit which recorded that he refused to pay the usual terragium, for which the Paulines sued him. The commissary, Matthew Vicedominis, ruled in favour of the monks. Since the lease was not limited to the individual but pertained to the position, the judgment applied to his successors, too.98 Finally, a contract from the end of the fifteenth century is worth a closer look. In 1492, Vicar Michael leased out the vineyard in Remete near Zagreb, complete with house, garden and copse, for six guilders to George, the rector of Saint Nicholas’s altar at the Church of Saint Mark in Zagreb. According to the contract, George had to pay three guilders only because the vineyard’s previous owner, who owed both the rector and the monks three guilders each, left without their knowledge, and the Paulines subtracted his debt from the rent. The collateral for George’s loan was the defaulting debtor’s grape juice. At the bottom of the charter the Paulines carefully recorded their income out of the vineyard: fourteen Viennese deniers per year, which means that the yearly income was no more than 2.5% of the rent received.99 The value of the vineyards varied widely which is understandable since it depended on both the size and 96  1436: LK 2, no. 35. For the price of bread in 1462: LK 2, no. 92. 97  1510: LK 2, no. 134 (incorrectly dated to March 7, 1501). 98  1409: LK 3, no. 46. 99  1492: LK 2, no. 118.

Vineyards

65

the quality of the vines. The highest price recorded in this region was 32 guilders, which was probably paid in an actual land purchase: Canon Matthew Szentgyörgyvári paid it for a vineyard on the Bukovec Hill, which he then left to the Paulines of Zagreb in 1506.100 A long way away from Zagreb, in Várad, in 1446, the monastery of Kápolna paid twenty-four guilders for one quarter of a vineyard situated between their own vineyard and that of their tenant. In addition to the size and quality, the price in this case may have been influenced by the relative value of the site, i.e. the Paulines known intention to expand their estate may have sent up the price.101 The increasing number of vineyards brought about an increasing need for wageworkers. The first allusion to this can be found in a privilege issued by King Sigismund to the Paulines of Diósgyőr, allowing them to hire day labourers according to their need. The privilege was borne out of the situation that the tenants of the town intimidated the cottars and other poor people to stop them from working in the vineyards of the monastery. It is very likely that the large-scale wine production of the Paulines meant unwanted competition for the tenants.102 A vineyard appears as a readily mobilizable property in a charter issued in 1510. Here, the vicar of Ungvár and the prior of Villye (now Vovkove, Ukraine) testified that they had sold one of the vineyards of the Villye monastery for 28 guilders when the monastery was demolished, provided that they can repurchase it for the same sum after the reconstruction. However, the buyer’s widow refused to resell the vineyard for contracted sum, on account of having new buildings on the land which she and her late husband built in the meantime. Eventually, she changed her mind and gave the vineyard back to the Paulines at the originally set price.103 Rather than a land sale, this case is a special loan contract or hypothec in which the vineyard was used as collateral, even if the charter does not call it as such. It is indeed interesting that the lender invested in the vineyard, which increased its value, but the added value was disregarded when re-purchased by the monks. Among the known charters there is only one that contains a real sales contract. In 1514, with the permission of Prior General Stephen, the prior of Regéc and the vicar of Tokaj sold a vineyard in Tolcsva to a local burgher for twelve guilders; the monastery originally acquired the vineyard in 1348.104 Despite the 100  1506: LK 2, no. 163. 101  1446: MNL OL DL 13918. 102  Gyulai, Szőlőbirtoklás Miskolcon a 16. században, 20. 103  1510: MNL OL DL 22104. 104  D AP 2, 309.

66

Chapter 5

scarcity of evidence, selling land was definitely not unknown in the order, at least not in the sixteenth century. This is attested by the formulas of asking for permission and making a sales contract included in the formulary. The outstanding importance of the vineyards in the sixteenth-century Pauline economy is reflected by the large number of formulas preserved in the Formularium maius. The formulas pertinent to viticulture can be divided as follows: five appeals for tax exemption (fols. 41v–42r, 78r, 78v, 84r–v, 85r; two addressed to the patron, three to the bishop), two requests to raise money for the cultivation of the vineyards (fols. 82v, 85v–86r; permission for selling a missal, one loan contract between two monasteries),105 and the rest dealing with miscellaneous issues (fols. 48r, 62v–63r, 81v, 81v–82r, 87r–v, 86r–v) such as a donation for the monastery of Thal, the sale of half a vineyard to repair the monastery’s roof, the sale of a vineyard on account of its overly remote location, sales contract of a vineyard, lease agreement between a vicar and a layman, and a contract between two laymen written by a vicar as landlord with the proviso of the monastery. In one instance, the justification for requesting an exemption was the increasing frequency of Ottoman raids, which subsequently led to the abandonment of most of the Transdanubian monasteries. The other three documents cite as reasons the general impoverishment and neglected state of the monastery as well as local attacks suffered by the monks, recurring every year. One charter contains direct reference to a vineyard that was bought for cash. The monks present a series of arguments in favour of selling their vineyard: the monastery had enough vineyards, the income of the one up for sale was too low, it was too far away, and nobody wanted to rent it. The lease contract, dealing with an abandoned vineyard, specifies not only the annual quantity of wine to be given to the monastery, but also a proviso about the property right of the monastery in the event of the leaseholder’s or his successors’ “disloyalty” towards the order or the church—a possible allusion to the Reformation. Besides these references to vinyards, one formula in the collection refers to

105  The money was lent on short term as it was referred to by the formula ante festum sancti N nunc affuturum. It is also interesting that the prior asking for money emphasizes that he tried to get the necessary means from other partners in vain. He adds that without the money the vineyards of his monastery would remain uncultivated, causing considerable damage, and that he would ask the prior general of the order to give special thanks to the lender if a loan was secured. A similar loan within the order is mentioned by Gyöngyösi too: in 1492, Prior General Peter Szalánkeméni gave the prior of Zsámbék the quittance about the 12 guilders lent earlier by the vicar of the Monastery of Saint Ladislaus in Baranya. Thus, the leader of the order acted as agent in this case. VF, chap. 68.

Vineyards

67

vineyards as pertinences of two deserted tenant plots (other pertinences were two mills, ploughlands and other usufructs, fol. 88r–v). The formulas concerning vineyards reveal a more or less coherent image. First, there was a relatively large-scale reorganisation going on in the Pauline estates in the 1530s–similarly to many other estates in the country. It is certainly not by chance that the poverty of the order is mentioned so often. The Ottoman incursions and attacks by local population were an unremitting threat to the monks. The leaders of the order tried to reduce the burden of the monasteries by appealing for tax exemptions from both the tithe and the ninth.106 It is not surprising that the Paulines petitioned their bishops more often than their secular lords, the former probably being more sympathetic to their case in a period rife with religious controversies. Another tendency emerging from the documents is the sale of monastic estates. Although no more than two or three charters are preserved in the collection to attest to this practice directly, their presence in a formulary suggests that these documents were necessary for transactions that were not uncommon in the life of the monasteries. The few surviving examples cover the whole procedure from requesting permission to drawing up the actual sales agreement, but they also extend to special cases, for example, when half a vineyard was sold to cover the costs of repairing the roof of the monastery. Tending the vineyards was a considerable burden for the monasteries. The estates were large and dispersed, and the small Pauline communities were unable to do the work themselves. Since wageworkers had to be paid, the monks were sometimes forced to sell their belongings, even liturgical books, to raise the necessary funds. In other cases, they took out a loan, sometimes within the order, which was not always easy. If the community had no other choice, they leased out the vineyard to secure an annuity and tried to keep track of its subsequent fate at the hands of others. For instance, in a charter issued by a prior about the sales contract between two laymen, he carefully copied the proviso of the leasing contract confirming the property rights of his monastery in the event of default of the annuity to be paid in wine. The value of the wine is reflected in two formulas in which a prior and a vicar were reproached for squandering the grain and wine of the monastery. In one of these documents the leadership of the order stipulate that grain, wine and similar goods should be sold only with the consent of senior monks. Finally, two donation charters were also preserved in the formulary: one issued by two priests from Gyöngyös, the other by an unknown nobleman. The 106  Similar charters did survive from the fifteenth century, but their number began to increase to a greater extent in the sixteenth.

68

Chapter 5

latter was a count who made his donation in his last will and testament. This formula is stripped of all specific information, so unfortunately the donator, the beneficiary or the donated goods were omitted from the text. In contrast, the donation of the two priests contains almost all the details: the beneficiary was the far-away monastery of Thal near Pressburg, acquiring a townhouse, a cellar and a vineyard. It was a small but contiguous estate where the house probably served for wine trade.107 A formulary was meant to provide templates for frequently used documents. The majority of economy-related templates, which comprised about 10 percent of all the formulas in the volume, were entries dealing with vineyards. This suggest that this type of estate played an eminent role within the Pauline economy in the first half of the sixteenth century, and the administration of the vineyards required the widest range of documents in all. Regarding the quantity and the diversity of the preserved charters, the Paulines preferred accumulating vineyards because of the considerable income they generated, and they employed various strategies to manage them, including diverse forms of leasing them out. There was a number of reasons for this preference. On the one hand, in some cases the overwhelming majority of the whole monastic estate was comprised of vineyards. On the other hand, the income from rent and wine-licence was high. Polish examples also prove that wine-licence— together with milling—was an essential part of monastic revenues. For instance, in 1480, the Rupella monastery received 6 marks from two millers and two innholders in its estate of Byenczice;108 in 1529, the monastery of Częstochowa received 1 mark and 10 groschens from the local pub, while the rent of a mill at the same place was as high as 4 marks.109 At the same time, it is notable that planting a vineyard required serious investment, and the return on investment was slow. In addition, occasional neglect could ruin the entire vineyard, which is the reason why the communis aestimatio (base price reflecting community norms) of a vineyard was not higher than that of a copse.110

107  A similarly coherent donation was made in 1523 for the monastery of Csáktornya (MNL OL DL 32825). For possible conflicts concerning the wine-licence see footnote 216. 108  Janusz Zbudniewek, ed., Zbiór Dokumentów Zakonu Paulinów w Polsce, Vol. 2, 1464–1550 (Warszawa: Nakl. Red. “Studia Claromontana,” 2004), 192, no. 57. About the differences of Pauline economy in Hungary and in Poland see F. Romhányi, “Unterschiede der Wirtschaftstätigkeit zwischen den Ungarischen und den Polnisch-silesischen Paulinerklöstern im Mittelalter.” 109  Zbudniewek, Zbiór Dokumentów Zakonu Paulinów w Polsce, Vol. 2, 1464–1550, no. 381. 110  Art. 13, § 45, in Werbőczy, The Customary Law of the Renowned Kingdom of Hungary: A Work in Three Parts (The “Tripartitum”).

Chapter 6

Mills The surviving documents attest that nearly half of the Pauline monasteries possessed mills. In fact, many fourteenth-century charters deal exclusively with mills, and there is hardly anything else documented in the archival material from the monasteries of Diósgyőr, Felnémet and Ruszka.1 Importantly, what this type of possession had in common across the order is that the monks usually collected their mill revenues in cash. As was common in medieval Hungary, the Paulines rented out their mills and their income was also guaranteed by drawing the so-called mill soke (compulsory milling custom also known as the “suit of mill”) granted to them in privileges. These privileges went far beyond the estates of the monastery itself and provided a very favourable economic environment for the monks and their mills.2 The overwhelming majority of the mills were used for milling grain, and only a few were used for other purposes. Three fulling mills are mentioned, owned by the monasteries of Porva, Ungvár, and Regéc. A fulling mill in Pápa was given to the monastery of Porva in 1450, and the charter also noted that it can be transformed to mill grain.3 The one owned by the monastery of Ungvár is mentioned together with two grain mills called Remetemolna (hermits’ mill).4 The third source is interesting: according to the description, in the mill of the monastery of Regéc, situated in the village Horváti, one of the wheels was used for milling grain, and the other for fulling.5 Elsewhere, charter evidence records the existence of a saw-mill owned by the monastery of Elefánt (see there),6 and finally, one of the mills of the Regéc monaster was used to mill pulses (cf. Appendix 1, Table 5).7 1  Cf. DAP 1, 68, 154, and 171. 2  The best documented example of the mill soke (in German Mahlzwang) is the privilege of the monastery of Remete near Técső, see below. The mill soke was one of the fief holders’ rights which remained in use in Hungary beyond the abolition of urbarial privileges in the nineteenth century. For English parallels see chapter 3, The Mill and the Manor, in Holt, The Mills of Medieval England, 36–53. I am grateful to István Tringli for calling my attention to and advising about this aspect of medieval mill-rights. 3  1450: MNL OL DL 14424. 4  1482: MNL OL DL 17521, and 18125. 5  D AP 3, 30: “molendinum duarum rotarum, una earundem rotarum fruges moliens, altera vero pannum gryseum torculans.” 6  The Pauline monastery of Cirkvenica in Croatia received in 1430 the permission from Nicholas Francopani, Ban of Dalmatia, to build a saw-mill: LK 1, no. 5. 7  Bándi 1985, nos. 589 and 596.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004424760_008

70

Chapter 6

The monasteries in Baranya had possessed mills from the early thirteenth century onwards.8 Besides these, one of the earliest evidence is the foundation charter of the monastery of Ruszka issued in 1338.9 Ten years later, in 1348, Prior Giles and the monks of Diósgyőr, after having received the consent of the prior general, Nicholas, allowed the sons of a certain Ladislaus to build a mill on the site which had been given to the monastery by Canon Demetrius of Esztergom and his brother. They reserved their use for themselves until the end of their lives but stipulated that the mill should be inherited by the Paulines after their death.10 At another time, the same prior had to make a complaint concerning one of the monastery’s mills. In this case, the damage was caused by none other than the Paulines’ most powerful patron, the king, who had a fishpond and hunting area created near his castle of Diósgyőr. Of course, the king indemnified the monks offering them money to buy another mill in the region. The Paulines used the compensation to buy a mill in Diósgyőr on the Szinva stream.11 In 1380 the king himself donated them another mill in Nagyzsolca on the Sajó River, and he also allowed them to use timber from the copse for repairs made to the mill’s dam, canal, or building.12 Another very early mention of mill ownership is the one appearing among the pertinences of the Újhely monastery. In 1325, the Paulines and the Austin Hermits, also residing in Újhely, went into court because of the hermits’ mill built on the Ronyva River. The problem was that the lower mill of the Austin Hermits raised the water level which caused damage to the mill of the Paulines. Through mediators, the two monasteries agreed to entrust two experts with surveying the mills, which were then regulated to avoid further damages and 8   The Chapter of Pécs proves that a certain Ombus sold the hermits of Saint James his manor house with the half of his mill in 1234: MNL OL DL 195. 9   In addition to the mill, the monastery also received a vineyard: DAP 1, 171. 10  The case seems to be quite “modern”: in return for their investment, Ladislaus and his companions received lifelong usufruct in the mill in 1348, but after their death the income was entirely due to monastery. Bándi 1985, 561. 11  1355: Bándi 1985, 561–562. A yearly gift (munus) of 1 ferto had to be paid for the bailiff. The king confirmed the donation three years later in 1358, and he ordered that people who carried grain and flour to and from the Paulines’ mill should pass unharrassed: Bándi 1985, 562. A few years later, in 1364, the king took the whole estate back from the monks because it was suitable for establishing a fishpond, and he compensated them with a piece of land south of the monastery, bordered by a copse in the south, the Szinva River in the West, and the vineyards of royal tenants of Diósgyőr in the east: Bándi 1985, 562. In 1373, the king gave the monastery further parcels in the same area because it needed more land: Bándi, 563. 12  1380: Bándi 1985, 565. This mill was in the hands of the Paulines only for a short time. In 1387 it was swapped by King Sigismund for another mill in Csaba, near the bridge across the Hejő River: ZSO 1, no. 78; introduction: 1387: ZSO 1, no. 108.

Mills

71

hindrance. The process was overseen by the bishop. The resolution was accepted by the parties with a proviso that in the event of changing the existing status the perpetrator would be excommunicated, unrepealably even by the pope.13 A few decades later, in 1358, the monastery of Kékes received a mill and a mill-site on the Kékes stream in Szentendre from King Louis I.14 The later fate of the mill-site is unknown, but the mill was once again mentioned in 1473 when the monastery received 50 guilders for repairs.15 In 1458, the monastery acquired another mill by exchanging a vineyard for a mill with two wheels in Sződ. The charter records the value of the properties with unusual accuracy: the mill was worth 112, the vineyard 100 guilders.16 The Monastery of Saint James in Baranya County owned mills as early as in the 1240s,17 and they bought another one near the old mill on the Ürög stream in the 1370s. The first half of the mill was paid for in 1371 (8 marks of deniers), the other one in 1375 (10 marks of deniers). In both cases the sellers were renowned burghers of Pécs: in 1371 a furrier and his wife, in 1375 the wife of the former town judge and also widow of the previous judge (see Appendix 1, Table 5). Juridical records also attest to further mills in Pauline hands. The Paulines of Veresmart, for example, resorted to a lawsuit when in 1376 their mill was also claimed by the abbot of Sár. The deputy of the commissionary of Eger conducted a perambulation and decided in favour of the Paulines; the verdict was accepted by the abbot.18 In 1379, the monastery of Slat in Slavonia received among others a milling privilege from its founder, John Besenyő. Although the mill did not necessarily exist at that time, the Paulines were guaranteed exclusive building rights to erect a mill on the Planica stream.19 In 1381, the same John Besenyő confirmed the estates of the Streza monastery comprising of 300 acres of land complete

13  1325: Bándi 1985, 692. 14  1358: Blazovich and Géczi, Anjou-kori oklevéltár: Documenta res Hungaricas tempore regum Andegavensium illustrantia, vol. 7., 1323, 70. [Henceforth: AO 7]. 15  1473: MNL OL DL 17454. 16  In 1458, the other party, a hospes of Szentendre, bought the mill for 80 guilders, and he spent another 32 guilders to improve it. Its selling price was the vineyard plus 12 guilders: MNL OL DL 15203. 17  The Paulines sued the sons of Thomas Pécsi for the mill in Ürög in 1297. (Although Bishop Paul decided in favour of the defendants, the mill is recorded to be owned by the monks in later documents: SZR, no. 519). 18  1376: SZR, no. 1402. 19  1379: LK 3, no. 14.

72

Chapter 6

with hayfields, mills, vineyards and forests.20 A mill was left for the monastery of Slat in 1458 by the widow of the bailiff of Kővár.21 The history of the Pretermül and Reismül, mills of the Thal monastery, also goes back to the fourteenth century. The first piece of charter evidence about their lease comes from the mid-1380s.22 The Zakalja mill, property of the Jenő monastery, was similarly leased out in 1381.23 In 1488, the prior the Szentlászló monastery (Baranya County) leased the monastery’s mill-site in Szederkény to a certain Thomas Moldvai for three generations’ lifetime, obviously with an obligation to build a mill.24 Prior General John in 1526 rented out the abandoned mill of the Regéc monastery in Vizsoly to Valentine Ernei of Korlátfalva for an annual twenty guilders, for his lifetime.25 Sometimes the leaseholders “forgot” to return the mill, as it happened with one of the mills of the Paulines of Vetahida at the end of the fifteenth century. After the leaseholder’s death, his brother, daughter and grandchildren continued to use the mill.26 In some cases the order was was not given the mill itself but received the regular income that it generated. For instance, in 1391, the Paulines of Szentkirály received one tenth out of the income of a mill in Tuson.27 Similarly, in 1416, the monastery of Szentpál (Tolna County) received the income of one week from a mill on the Fizek River in Derecske. In 1435, this amount was 20 guilders.28 In the fifteenth century, the monasteries of Gönc and Ruszka had the highest number of mills, four and six respectively. In fact, two of the mills of the Gönc monastery—one in Olsava and one on the Bánya stream—belonged to the hospital of Telkibánya, which was run by the monastery.29 The other 20  1381: LK 3, no. 16. The monastery was later supported by the son and the widow of the founder, as well, in 1398 they gave the Pauines three plots in the village of Streza: LK 3, no. 35. 21  1458: LK 3, no. 137. Besides the mill, the widow left ten tenant plots, her manor house under the castle, and two vineyards. Six weeks later, the monks were introduced into the estate by the delegates of the ban and of the Collegiate Chapter of Čazma: MNL OL DL 34809. The Paulines had both charters transcribed in the same year in privilegial form by King Matthias: MNL OL DL 34808. The priest of Kővár sued the Paulines about the bequest, but the parties finally came to a mutual agreement. 22  1385 and 1387: MNL OL DL 25842; transcribed by King Sigismund in 1429: MNL OL DL 7313. 23  D AP 3, 45. 24  D AP 2, 405. 25  D AP 2, 311. 26  1492: SZR, no. 3616. 27  Entz, Erdély építészete a 14–16. században, 378. 28  Guzsik, A pálos rend építészete a középkori Magyarországon, 88. 29  1450 charter concerning the mill on the Olsava River, and mill sites within the confines of Telkibánya: MNL OL DL 14390; and 1459, regarding a mill and mill-sites on the Bányapataka Stream: MNL OL DL 15368.

Mills

73

two mills were situated in the market towns of Gönc30 and Zsujta.31 The first evidence for the mills of the Ruszka monastery dates from 1388 when the mill in Vilmány, situated on the Hernád River was mentioned, recording that the monks bought half of it for 150 guilders from seven persons. Five of previous proprietors lived in Vilmány and were burghers, another burgher lived in Gönc, while the seventh person was a tenant peasant probably living in Ruszka.32 The other half of the mill, belonging to the royal castle of Regéc, was given to the monastery in 1461 by King Matthias.33 Two other mills in Hejce were mentioned in a charter of 1421, just recovered from Bishop Stibor of Eger.34 The fourth mill was rebuilt by the Paulines in 1465 in Szántó, on the Aranyos River, with the permission of Emeric Szapolyai.35 In 1486, the monastery received the quarter of a further mill on the Hernád River, this time within the confines of Ruszka, as the pious donation of a local nobleman.36 The last piece of evidence dates from 1504 when Palatine Emeric Perényi introduced the Paulines into the possession of half a mill in Alsókéked, on the Teplice River.37

30  1446 donation charter of Emeric Bebek of Pelsőc about the mill standing on the Bánya or Gönc Stream: MNL OL DL 13965. Also mentioned in 1450: MNL OL DL 14397; and in 1472: MNL OL DL 17322. 31  1450: MNL OL DL 14397. 32  1388: ZSO 1, no. 625. The other half of the mill was owned by the castle of Boldogkő. 33  1461: MNL OL DL 15628. 34  The monastery acquired the mills from hospites of Hejce in 1421: MNL OL DL 11034 (transcribed in 1515). Based on the date of the transcription, at least one of the mills was still in the hands of the Paulines in the early sixteenth century. 35  Bándi 1985, no. 588. 36  1486: MNL OL DL 16955. 37  Introduction into possession in 1504, as well as objection raised against it in the same year: MNL OL DL 16955. The history of the mill of Kéked is also interesting because the process of introducing the Paulines into possession was very complicated. Peter and Andrew of Alsókéked wanted to give the Paulines half of the mill in 1501, but their relatives, namely Vitalis of Felsőkéked and his family objected. Despite their objection, the mill half was handed over to the Paulines, which is attested by a charter from 1502, recording that it had to be redeemed from the monastery. At the introduction in 1504, a loan of 300 guilders is mentioned as the precedent of the donation. Vitalis and his family decided to sue but the case was decided for the Paulines. It is notable, however, that the monastery paid the fine of 100 guilders. Finally, the two parties settled the affair out of court in 1507, and the documents reveal that the Paulines had in fact paid a deposit of 5 guilders, half a barrel of wine, and a horse in 1499, and promised Peter to redeem the mill. This shows that the Paulines of Regéc made a huge effort to acquire half of the mill in Kéked: they went into court and paid altogether 405 guilders across eight years, so it must have been very valuable. See Bándi 1985, nos. 601–606, and Belényesy, Pálos kolostorok az Abaúji-Hegyalján, 42–43.

74

Chapter 6

The monastery of Elefánt also possessed many mills, but it is not clear from the charters how many of them were in the hands of the monks at once—in 1418, for instance, they certainly had three at the same time. In any case, the mill revenues seem to have been high.38 Monasteries that owned three mills simultaneously were Bajcs,39 Nosztre,40 Remete (now in Maramureș County, Romania),41 and Ungvár (today Užhorod, Ukraine).42 Although no evidence survived about the number of mills of the Szentkirály monastery, their primipilatus they received in 1498 meant among others that they were allowed to build mills.43 While most of the monasteries owned one or two mills, some mills had more than one wheels. In 1455, John Marcali gave a triple-wheel mill, worth of 500 guilders, to the monastery of Told.44 The monasteries of Regéc and Szentkirály had two-wheel mills,45 and the mill of the Regéc monastery in Horváti probably also had two wheels, since it was partly used for milling grain, partly for fulling.46 The monasteries of Újhely and of Elefánt owned parts in such mills.47 In some other cases we do not know whether the mill owned by the monastery partly or entirely had one or more wheels.48 38  A document from 1418 tells the story of mill revenues lost. In it, Prior John explains that the monastery had received three mills on the Drahosnice River from a local nobleman (probably by the end of the fourteenth century) in order to make the tenants of the villages of Ugróc, Kalacsina, and Pazsit use the mills of the Paulines. He adds that the agreement also stipulated that if the tenants choose another mill, a local nobleman— who became the defendant in this case—was liable to compensate them for the loss of income. The prior went to court for this compensation because for eighteen years (!) the tenants failed to bring their grain to the monastery’s mills: SZR, no. 2079. 39  D AP 1, no. 3, “Inventarium,” fol. 17. 40  1471: MNL OL DL 17251. 41  D AP 2, 313. 42  1482: MNL OL DL 17521. 43  See footnotes 643 and 644. 44  1455: MNL OL DL 14915. 45  The Regéc monastery’s two-wheel mill in Kéked noted in 1458: MNL OL DL 15203; the Szentkirály monastery’s two-wheel mill in Toldalag, noted in 1471: Entz, Erdély építészete a 14–16. században, 378. 46  D AP 3, no. 30. 47  In 1454, the monastery of Újhely owned one entire mill and one wheel in another mill: MNL OL DL 14898. For the Elefánt monastery’s partial ownership of a mill in Béd: DAP 1, nos. 100, and 102. 48  In 1444, the Paulines of Szerdahely received half of a mill whose other half had been given them earlier by the same donator: MNL OL DL 13826. The monastery of Gombasek is recorded to have had joint ownership in a mill in 1496: MNL OL DL 16955. The monastery of Ruszka owned quarter of a mill in Ruszka, and half of another mill in Alsókéked, see footnotes 372 and 373. In 1456, the Paulines of Lád owned third of a mill in Berente, on the Sajó River: MNL OL DL 15092.

Mills

75

Besides the documents of the long trial concerning the Buda house of the Örményes monastery, most of the preserved litigation charters concern mill ownership.49 These documents give an insight into their high value, for example, those recording the conflict between the Regéc monastery and the bishop of Eger about the mills in Hejce, or the Regéc Paulines’ attempts to acquire the mill in Kéked. Mills were a major cause of conflicts with the neighbours, too. In one simple case, for example, the tenants of Csatár and Sárosd wrecked the mill of the Jenő monastery in Filefölde.50 The monastery of Elefánt which had the most mills over time, had also more frequent problems with them than the average. (cf. Appendix 1, Table 5). Their first recorded lawsuit took place in 1393 when they had to action the nobles of Elefánt who diverted the water from the mills of the monastery on the Nitra River, so that three millstones stopped in the seven-wheel mill (!) of the Paulines. The trial ended in 1411 ordering the restoration of the status quo: the Paulines were allowed to demolish the offending dams as well as to deepen and clean the riverbed as needed.51 In 1424, the dams of a mill on the Nitra River were demolished by another mill-owner who built a new mill on the opposite side of the river, not very far from the monastery’s mill and diverted the water of the river.52 Four years later, a tenant of Mezőkeszi (Poľný Kesov, Slovakia) damaged the local mill of the Paulines.53 Another ten years passed until the monastery was again involved in another conflict because of a mill in Vicsáp. The bailiff of Ugrod Castle, Conrad Sellendorf, and his son, Nicholas, had built a mill in Vicsáp which is why the Paulines sued them. The mill was later handed over to the monastery, but in 1439, Prior Andrew accepted the demolition of the mill and of its ditch on condition that the mill never be rebuilt.54 Elsewhere, in 1495, a Friar Benedict debarred two brothers from using the sawmill standing between Velkapolya (Veľké Pole, Slovakia) and Zsarnóca (Žarnovica, Slovakia).55 The Paulines of Diósgyőr had a mill on the Szinva River, originally donated by King Louis I, which contributed a great deal to their subsistence. In 1440, they complained that in Miskolc that the mill suffered grave damages because the previous bailiff of Diósgyőr built a new mill close to theirs. King Wladislaus I

49  About the legal aspects and the trials concerning the mills see Tringli, “A magyar szokásjog a malomépítésről,” 251–268. 50  1429: MNL OL DL 43798. 51  Z SO 1, no. 3200; ZSO 3, no. 1288. 52  1424: MNL OL DL 11596. 53  1428: MNL OL DL 11982. 54  1439: MNL OL DL 13455. 55  D AP 1, 103.

76

Chapter 6

ordered the new bailiff to investigate the case and have the mill demolished if the Paulines’ complaint was justified.56 Similar cases were recorded elsewhere, too. In 1414, for instance, the mill of the Garić monastery on the Gerzence River became unsalvageable after a new mill and ditch was built next to it.57 Even worse, three mills on the Garam River, belonging to the Nosztre monastery in Bény, were destroyed and their millstones taken in 1471 by the official of the archbishop of Esztergom, allegedly instigated by the provost of the Collegiate Chapter of Saint Stephen Protomartyr.58 Apparently, the case was not exceptional, since in 1473, King Matthias granted his special protection for the monastery.59 In the same period, the Paulines of Gönc complained that the royal market town of Gönc had a new mill built at a site where there was no mill before and it decimated the income of the monastery’s mill.60 The most detailed documentation survived about the trial connected to the mill in Keresztúr owned by the Lád monastery. In 1455, Friar Vincent complained in the name of the monastery that a certain Nicholas literatus built a new mill on the Hejő River in his estate in Szalonta, also at a site where there was no mill before.61 He furthermore raised the dams and lock of his mill so high that the backflow hindered the opeartion of the monastery’s mill, causing damages to the Paulines.62 The complaint seems to have remained ineffective: a year later the count of Borsod investigated the case and the county decided in favour of the monastery but—because of the authority’s bias towards Nicholas—no arbitrament was issued to the Paulines.63 Finally, as attested by a 1457 charter, King Ladislaus V ordered the county to prosecute and Nicholas had to demolish the dams of his mill in the presence of royal deputies. Furthermore, he swore that he would only rebuild the dams if expert arbitrators and other authentic persons marked their maximum possible height.64 The report written to the king was a little late because the situation changed again in the meantime: around Christmas 1456, Nicholas rebuilt his mill, and the backflow continued to damage the monastery’s mill. Therefore, 56  1440: MNL OL DL 13581. The mill is also mentioned in 1478 when King Matthias of Hungary waived all ordinary and extraordinary taxes payable by the monastery: MNL OL DL 18124. 57  1414: LK 10, nos. 112–118. 58  1471: MNL OL DL 17251. 59  The 1473 charter mentions the officials of Bény who caused diverse damages to the monastery earlier: MNL OL DL 17481. 60  1472: MNL OL DL 17322. 61  About the trial see Tringli, “A magyar szokásjog a malomépítésről,” 256–257. 62  1455: MNL OL DL 14969. 63  The Paulines of Lád were represented by the monks of Diósgyőr in 1456: MNL OL DL 15070. 64  1457: MNL OL DL 15098.

Mills

77

King Ladislaus ordered an inquiry investigating whether Nicholas did in fact rebuild his mill and whether it is harmful for the older mill. Nicholas was summoned to the assembly of the county where all the neighbours of the Keresztúr estate as well as the entire nobility of Borsod County were present. The witnesses unequivocally confirmed the Paulines’ claims in every respect, and Nicholas’s mill was demolished the next day. The parties were summoned to the royal court (personalis praesentia) on May 1.65 But the story did not end at that point. A 1465 charter says that the mill built by Nicholas literatus on the Hejő River, found injurious for the Paulines’ mill and demolished by the vicecomes and the judges (iudex nobilium) around September 8, 1465 (!), was rebuilt by Nicholas’s sons. This, again, increased the water level, wrecked the ford and most of the fields of the monastery, and grievously diminished the income of the mill, causing damage in the value of 500 guilders.66 In the following October, the parties settled the case out of court, whereby it was decided that the lower mill could remain in place as long as the lock was lowered.67 Despite the agreement the case dragged on. A 1478 charter reported that in spite of the then recently concluded new decision, the Paulines asked for retrial and the king granted special permission for them to do so.68 However, as no further evidence about the trial survived, presumably the decision made in 1478 remained in force in the end. Thus, the case lasted for about twenty-five years causing huge problems for the monks who were finally forced to accept the existence of a new mill next to theirs. Even if the lower mill caused no physical harm to the higher one after the decision of 1466, the indirect damage remained: the competition no doubt affected their business unfavourably. While, as demonstrated above, the mills were subject of trials remarkably often, the amounts of money involved in these cases were also higher than in other concerns of the Pauline estates, with the exception of townhouses. For example, the monastery of Felnémet bought 1/16 of a mill on the Tárkány River for 64 guilders in 1393, and in 1442 they gave forty guilders for a mill-site without buildings.69 A half mill on the Ronyva River in which the Paulines of Újhely owned the quarter of one wheel, was sold for fifty guilders in 1449.70 It is also remarkable that in 1454, when the Paulines bought the rest of that wheel, 65  1457: MNL OL DL 15133. 66  1465: MNL OL DL 16288. 67  “Ad unius manus palmae simul cum police extento longitudinem descendere faciant.” 1466 (transcribed in 1479): MNL OL DL 16417. All the previous charters issued during the trial were invalidated. 68  1478: MNL OL DL 18128. 69  D AP 1, no. 155. 70  1449: MNL OL DL 14317.

78

Chapter 6

they paid six guilders, and the charter recorded altogether nine joint owners along the monastery. The price paid by the Paulines was then divided between seven of the joint owners. The owner of the half mill was the same person who had bought it 1449 and another joint-owner had a life-long privilege to mill grain without paying the tribute (absque metretae solutione).71 In a 1455 charter, it was stipulated that the mill left in a will to the Told monastery could be redeemed by the relatives for 500 guilders. In the same charter the mill given to the Paulines of Szakácsi was mentioned together with ploughlands and that it could be redeemed for 200 guilders.72 The value of the mill of the Kékes monastery in Sződ was estimated 112 guilders in 1458. Damage estimations also reveal similar sums. As cited above, in 1465 the damage caused to the mill of the Lád monastery in Keresztúr was estimated 500 guilders. In the same year, the Paulines of Csatka claimed to have incurred the same amount of damage when fifty head of cattle and 200 sheep were driven from their estate of Báránd.73 Since mills were built out of wood, they needed regular maintenance just like dams and ditches, which meant further expenses. To give an idea of the scale of these works: in 1506, ninety-six people worked at once on the dam of a mill in Ruszka.74 To sum up, the mills were clearly some of most valuable parts of monastic estates. Their price was much higher than that of vineyards, they were known to fetch the price of a smaller estate even. Despite this fact, their common estimation remained the same for centuries.75 In 1554, for instance the mills of the Remete monastery over Técső (now Remeţi in Maramureş County, Romania) were estimated at five and ten marks.76 It is important to note, however, that neither the price nor the estimated value can be used to infer the revenues generated by mills. The fact that the Paulines kept their mills on the long term, sometimes for a hundred years or longer, suggests that the mills brought calculable and significant profit. The complaint of the Paulines of Diósgyőr in 71  M NL OL DL 14898. Multure was the grain or flour due to the miller in return for milling. Part of the multure collected was paid to the owner as rent. Typically it was specified as 1/16 part of the grain. 72  1455: MNL OL DL 14915. 73  M NL OL DL 16197. 74  Bándi 1985, no. 599. 75  Aestimatio communis, the value of estate elements generally accepted and used in Hungarian customary law. A register of the estimated values was included in Werbőczy’s Tripartitum, as well. See Rady, Customary Law in Hungary Courts, Texts, and the Tripartitum. 76  D AP 2, 313. The latter sum was given for a two-wheel mill. Based on the register of estimated values preserved in Werbőczy’s Tripartitum the mills had overshot wheels and worked over the whole year (Tripartitum 1990. 274).

Mills

79

1440 explicitly confirms this suggestion. Since the overwhelming majority of the mills were grinding grain, it is justifiable to assume that they were more profitable than other types of mills. Acquiring a monopoly of grinding may have been one of the reasons for their lucrativeness. An example for such monopolised situation is the 1363 privilege granted by King Louis I to the Paulines of Remete over Técső, which stipulated that no one was allowed to build another mill either above or below that of the monastery. This privilege was extended in 1389 by Queen Mary, which decreed that the inhabitants of Técső were obliged to bring their grain to the mill of the Paulines. The charter was confirmed in 1421 by King Sigismund and in 1516 by King Louis II, too.77 The monopoly aimed to secure the income of the small, hermitage-like monastery which already owned several mills in the fifteenth century. Naturally, this led to conflicts with the population in the region. The Vitae fratrum, for instance, records that in 1434, the new prior general, Benedict, had to provide for the repairs of the mills of the Técső monastery on the Csergeteg River which were first destroyed by Romanian shepherds and later occupied by certain noblemen.78 The privilege of the Bereg monastery acquired by Prior General Michael in 1447 also aimed to eliminate local competition: the charter prohibited building another mill within one mile from that of the monastery.79 Monopoly, however, did not mean exclusivity. Although mills generated much of the income of Pauline monasteries, it is notable that there is only one example when mills comprised the (nearly) exclusive source of income for a monastery: the monastery of Ruszka was the only Pauline establishment which had hardly any other type of property and depended almost entirely on its mills. Besides the size of potential income, its predictability must have been another important aspect. In order to support the extension of the Kápolna monastery, “lest the number of monks decreased because of the lack of space and of their poverty,” Bishop John of Várad gave them an abandoned mill near the market town Püspöki.80 Although the reconstruction of the mill required some investment, the return on capital was worth the initial efforts. The suggestion that the profitability of grain-mills was significantly higher than others is also supported by the 1450 donation of Palatine Ladislaus Garai, in which he gave the Paulines a fulling mill, but allowed them two convert it into a grain-mill. It is also telling that there are hardly any examples for selling a mill or exchanging 77  D AP 2, 312. 78  V F, chap. 46. 79  V F, chap. 49. 80  1467: MNL OL DL 16570. From the fourteenth century onwards, the Paulines mainly owned vineyards in the market town of Püspöki, see, for example, 1387: MNL OL DL 7235.

80

Chapter 6

it for another type of property. One notable exception is the monastery of Gombaszög which, in 1476, swapped its forest around Kak and mill-sites on the Hernád River for ploughland and meadows in Pusztaonga, Abaúj County.81 Interestingly, despite the outstanding role played by mills in the Pauline economy, there are very few formulas connected to them in the Formularium maius. There are but two items therein, one of them being a general reference to two mills in a donation charter (fol. 88r–v), the other a supplication asking the king to confirm the donation of a mill on the Garam River made by John Szapolyai for an unknown monastery (fol. 89r). Out of all the cases discussed in charters from the late fifteenth and early sixteenth century, not one was included in the formulary compiled in the 1530s.82 This conspicuous discrepancy necessitates further research, including documents issued after 1526. In all, mills constituted the most valuable part of the Pauline estates which provided cash income from the earliest times. Their revenues were also secured by privileges granting monopoly that extended not only to the villeins of the—usually small—estate of the monasteries, but to larger areas in their immediate region. This led to clashes with the neighbouring landowners whose interests were put at risk by the privileges of the Paulines. Despite the frequent lawsuits, probably due to the exceptionally high and steady profitability the Paulines rarely decided to give up their mills. At the same time, the fact that there were hardly any mill-related formulas included in the formulary written in the 1530s may indicate that monastic mill ownership and management underwent fundamental changes some time after the first three decades of the sixteenth century.

81  1476: MNL OL DL 16955. 82  The donation of Szapolyai was issued probably before 1511, the year when he became voivode of Transylvania, which is not noted in the formula. The formulary was concluded with the entry Finis anno Domini 1533, right before this formula.

Chapter 7

Fishponds Fish was an essential part of nutrition in monastic communities, and so it is no wonder that fishponds were present around all the Pauline monasteries.1 However, fishponds are only sporadically mentioned in the archival material. The evidence suggests that the aim was to make fishponds self-sufficient; they were profitable only if there were at least three or four of them. One example is the Hattyas Lake (probably a backwater of the Danube), for which the Bodrogsziget monastery and the noblemen of Monostor fought in a long-lasting trial in the fourteenth century.2 Several fishponds were acquired by the Kőszeg monastery by the end of the fourteenth century when the monks traded their estate of Csatár—except for 32 acres of land—for four fishponds, a section of the Nedec River, and a ploughland of Master Peter Herceg of Szekcső. In the same transaction, the Bodrogsziget monastery also received four fishponds.3 The fishponds of the Saint Lawrence monastery in Ecseg also must have been 1  For archaeological data, see Tamás Guzsik and Rudolf Fehérváry, A Pálosrend építészeti emlékei a középkori Magyarországon: összefoglaló és katalógus, 2. bővített kiadás, or: 2nd, extended edition, Magyar Építészettörténet (Budapest: Budapesti Műszaki Egyetem, Építészettörténeti és Elméleti Intézet, 1980); and volumes of Kornél Bakay, and others, Magyarország Régészeti Topográfiája (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1966–1979). About the monasteries in the Zemplén region, see Belényesy, Pálos kolostorok az Abaúji-Hegyalján. Belényesy argues that there was always a small vivarium in the vicinity of the buildings, in order to keep the fish alive until they were used in the kitchen. Real fishponds were farther away. 2  Györffy, Az Árpád-kori Magyarország történeti földrajza, 1963, 1:326, 713. The archives of the Pauline monasteries in Baranya County and the relations between the monks and the bishopric of Pécs were addressed by Knapp, “Pálos gazdálkodás a középkori Baranya megyében.” The fishpond was given to the monastery as a loan security in 1282 for 10 marks and a barrel of wine: DAP 1, 17. The estimated income was 6 marks in 1366: MNL OL DL 5363. The Bodrogsziget monastery received another fishpond in Csatár as a pious donation in the early fourteenth century: Fejér, Codex diplomaticus Hungariae ecclesiasticus ac civilis, vol. 8, pt. 3, no. 359. A similarly early donation was made by Palatine Stephen in 1304 to the Diósgyőr monastery—he and his wife donated a fishpond on the left bank of the Tisza River as a pious donation: Bándi (1985, 558–559). The fishpond remained in the possession of the monks, as shown by the transcription of the donation charter by King Sigismund in 1407: MNL OL DL 8784. 3  In 1377, Master Peter also allowed the monasteries and their tenants living on the estate of Gyrindya to build three or four mills on the Danube: MNL OL DL 6395. They had the right to pasture in the woods, to feed their swine on acorn, as well as to coppice, and to mow hay for their use. Furthermore, he granted tax exemption for their vineyards. The charter was quoted in VF, chap. 34, adding that Prior General Thomas gave his consent to the transaction. © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004424760_009

82

Chapter 7

of considerable value since they often became subjects of lawsuits. In 1397, the Paulines protested the unauthorised use of two fishponds, the Füzes and the Kerek Lakes. In 1466, they took action against the Kompolti family who possessed the neighbouring estate of Ványa. After a perambulation, the northern part of the Besenyő Lake and the Kerek Lake were adjudged to the monastery. In 1498 another neighbour, John of Kaba used a part of the Ecseg estate, including the Myrok Lake, illegally.4 When Ulrich von Grafeneck and his son, Wolf, founded the Baumgarten monastery in 1475, they endowed it with three fishponds, several fishing places and other possessions.5 After this monastery was dissolved, Elisabeth von Topl (born Grafeneck) passed all of these possessions to the monastery of Bánfalva.6 Several fishponds were given to the Diósgyőr monastery as well when it received the estate of Harkány in 1470.7 For the other monasteries, the available evidence is even more sporadic: their fishponds were usually mentioned only once in the donation charters, and there were hardly any trials over them.8 One of the rare exceptions was when Queen Mother Elisabeth intervened in favour of the Paulines of Diósgyőr and banned the inhabitants of Odorman from fishing in the fishpond of the monastery. She also entrusted her bailiff of Diósgyőr and her officer of Odorman, to make the people of Odorman indemnify the monks, if they would not do so by themselves.9 A similar situation arose on the estate of the Ruszka monastery in Kinizs (Abaúj County), where a tenant of Prügy fished illegally.10 In 1482 the vicar of Tokaj complained that locals, who also coppiced in the forest of the Paulines, fished in the monastery’s fishpond in Torda, causing damages amounting to 100 guilders.11

4   Zákonyi, “A Buda melletti Szent-Lőrincz pálos kolostor története,” 40, 42; Pálóczi Horváth, “Túrkeve története a honfoglalástól a török idők végéig,” 75–76. 5   1475: MNL OL DL 17681. 6   1526: MNL OL DL 24297. 7   1470: MNL OL DL 17033. 8   Cases taken into court were typically the ones that involved several joint owners—either when somebody claimed the estate for himself, or there was a conflict of interest between the parties. Fishponds, however, were rarely shared or claimed, and the profit they generated was usually negligible. It is important to keep in mind that ponds were often associated with mills, and that the latter became the subjects of trials much more frequently than ponds. 9   1373: Bándi 1985, 563. 10  In 1477, the tenants of the monastery caught the thief, but the tenants of the nobles of Prügy broke into the monastery’s house in Kinizs and freed him. Several tenants of the monastery were injured: MNL OL DL 16955. 11  1482: SZR, no. 3455.

Fishponds

83

Fishponds—when given as a bequest—were sometimes withheld by relatives. In 1471 Andrew Toldalagi bequeathed a fishpond along with his estate of Toldalag to the Szentkirály monastery under the condition that they would share the fish with the Franciscans of Vásárhely and Felfalu.12 The donation was contested by the relatives, but in 1478 the testator’s daughter and her husband, after they lost the trial against the Paulines, settled the case out of court, allowing the monastery to use their mill of Toldalag and one third of the fishpond for their lives. Should they die without an heir, their estates of Toldalag, along with three other parcels, would be passed on to the monastery; the relatives could have redeemed the possessions for 200 guilders.13 Before 1474 the same monastery got another fishpond from another member of the family, Stephen. This time, the donation was contested by the Wallachian voivode of Kalotaszeg in the name of the testator’s daughter.14 However, ten years later the woman bequeathed a third fishpond to the monastery, with some other belongings, which made her kinship raise objections.15 Fishponds were donated to the Eszeny monastery as soon as at it was founded in the first half of the fourteenth century, and it received a second one from the grandchildren of the founder in 1358.16 In 1425 the master of the doorkeepers, Stephen Kanizsai, donated a fishpond to the Szentpéter monastery.17 The Paulines of nearby Szerdahely were given a fishing place on the Gerence Stream by a patron in 1470, allowing them to build a dam and a lock there.18 In 1473 the Kékes monastery receied 100 guilders for the reparation of its larger fishpond (which means that there must have been a smaller one, too).19 The Lád monastery was also given a fishpond in Szederkény in 1472 by King Matthias.20 The fishpond of the Szentmihálykő monastery was sold in 1461 by the visitor, friar 12  Entz, Erdély építészete a 14–16. században, 378. The decision became definitive in the following year. 13  1478: Szabó, Székely oklevéltár, vol. 3, 1270–1571, 1. 14  1474: MNL OL DL 36403. 15  1485: MNL OL DL 67246. 16  “Una piscina Istenestow vocata; captura piscium wlgo weyz nuncupata et super fluvio Chornawada habita” 1358: MNL OL DL 98817. No references to fishing places can be found in later documents. 17  1425: MNL OL DL 11690. 18  The 1470 charter says that the Paulines were allowed to build a mill on the site, suggesting that the mill was regarded as a more important source of income: MNL OL DL 17078. Another fishpond of the monastery is mentioned in 1447: DAP 2, 437. (Another example of donating a mill and a fishpond together is the donation made for the Csáktornya monastery in 1496: LK, no. 11). 19  1473: MNL OL DL 17454. 20  1472: MNL OL DL 17335, and 17336.

84

Chapter 7

Nicholas.21 In 1508, two fishponds were given to the same monastery; these belonged to a chapel donated to the monks.22 Based on archaeological data, the monasteries of Saint Lawrence near Buda,23 Bereg,24 Dédes,25 Elefánt,26 Gönc,27 Hangony,28 Jenő,29 Örményes,30 Regéc,31 Szentlászló,32 Szentpéter,33 Szerdahely,34 Streza35 and Vállus,36 also had their fishponds. The Bereg monastery was granted fishing rights on a section of the Borsova River, which the monks themselves transformed into a fishing place earlier, near their mill.37 Fishponds are absent from the charters of the Slavonian monasteries, but this does not necessarily imply that they did not have any, since they certainly had mills (e.g. Kamensko, Streza; about the connection between mills and fishponds, see below). Another way of using the fishponds and fishing places is mentioned in connection with the estate of the Lád monastery in Keresztúr and that of the Saint Lawrence monastery in Ecseg. In 1407 prior Thomas of Lád complained that tenants from Mohi (now: Muhi) cut reed illegally,38 while in Ecseg, one of the neighbours cut reed in 1494.39 21  V F, chap. 56. 22  May 9, 1508: MNL OL DL 36405. 23  Gregorius Révész (ferryman) of Pest donated a large sum for the building of a fishpond: VF, chap. 57. According to Károly Belényesy’s site survey and personal communication, its traces are recognizable in the forest even today. 24  D AP 1, 9–16. 25  1313: Bándi 1985, 559; 1407: transcription by Sigismund of the charters of 1304, 1313 and 1315. 26  D AP 2, 444–446. 27  D AP 1, 167–170; Belényesy, Pálos kolostorok az Abaúji-Hegyalján, 27–28. 28  D AP 1, 180–181; Guzsik and Fehérváry, A Pálosrend épitészeti emlékei a középkori Magyarországon, 8. 29  D AP 2, 437–443; Bakay, Kalicz, and Sági, Magyarország Régészeti Topográfiája, vol. 3, Veszprém megye: A devecseri és sümegi járás, 242–244. 30  D AP 2, 138–148; Guzsik and Fehérváry, A Pálosrend épitészeti emlékei a középkori Magyarországon, 12. 31  D AP 2, 309–311; Belényesy, Pálos kolostorok az Abaúji-Hegyalján, 13–14. 32  Györffy, Az Árpád-kori Magyarország történeti földrajza, 1963, 1:389. 33  July 27, 1425: MNL OL DL 11690. 34  1470: Borsa, “A kaposszerdahelyi pálos kolostor középkori oklevelei,” n. 13. 35  1500: LK 3, no. 214. 36  D AP 3, 200; Bakay, Kalicz, and Sági, Magyarország Régészeti Topográfiája, vol. 1, Veszprém megye; A keszthelyi and tapolcai járás, 164. 37  D AP 1, 9. 38  1407: Bándi 1985, 625. There must have been large wetlands around Keresztúr. A perambulation from 1412 mentions a good number of rivers, brooks, lakes, bogs and fords, see Bándi 1985, 628. 39  Pálóczi Horváth, “Túrkeve története a honfoglalástól a török idők végéig,” 76.

Fishponds

85

In general, it cannot be excluded that fish from the fishponds was marketed in some cases, but it was certainly not a widespread practice and it failed to produce a considerable income. As one sees in the case of Szentkirály, the surplus sometimes covered the needs of another monastic community. Maybe it was because of their low value that acts of might and trials were only rarely recorded in connection with fishponds. This may also explain why there was no formula included into the sixteenth-century formulary. Fishponds were only occasionally donated as a single possession, and mainly in the early period of the order’s history.40 Later, they were usually associated with mills, as Károly Belényesy also observed.41 As early as in 1382, the patron family of the Szentpéter monastery, the Kanizsai family, gave a mill, a fishpond, and the barrier on the Sztrigencs River to the Paulines, for which the monks were obliged to say an additional daily mass for the donators in return.42 Similarly, in 1486 two noblemen donated their fishpond and the mills on it to the Szentpál monastery.43 In 1478 the Toldalagi family allowed the Paulines to use their fishpond and mill.44 A mill and a fishpond was also taken as one unit in a donation made by Christoph Fadan in 1496 for the Csáktornya monastery.45 40  In 1380, the Bodrogsziget monastery received a plot with 20 acres of arable land and a fishpond: MNL OL DL 6667. 41  Belényesy, Pálos kolostorok az Abaúji-Hegyalján, 43. 42  1382: MNL OL DL 6879. 43  Guzsik, A pálos rend építészete a középkori Magyarországon, 88. In 1482 a fishpond and two mills were also mentioned in the same context, because they were destroyed by a flood. However, their relation two each other remains unclear. 44  Csánki, Magyarország történelmi földrajza a Hunyadiak korában, 1913, 5:825. 45  The testator also gave 40 guilders to help restore the immovables listed in the donation in 1496: MNL OL DL 32821.

Chapter 8

Animal Husbandry Little data is available on animal husbandry, but they reveal a coherent picture. Reference is made both to draught animals and other livestock. In chronological order, the first relevant charter dates from 1369 and tells that noblemen of Eszeny cut the nerves of an ox in an act of might; the animal was probably used by the monks as a draught ox.1 A year later, the Szerdahely monastery received a mated mare from its patron.2 Later records mention more animals, or herds. Before 1408, for instance, the Gönc monastery was given a cow with calf, four pigs and a horse in a bequest. The same testament passed on to the Ruszka monastery four pigs and the horse that walked in front of the coffin in the funeral procession.3 In 1465 the lords of the Csókakő castle drove away 50 cattle and 200 sheep of the Csatka monastery from the estate of Báránd (Fejér County) in an act of might, causing a damage amounting to 500 guilders.4 The same monastery received seven yoke oxen and 16 horses in the stud in the last will of Nicholas Koromlai in 1471.5 Another member of the same family, also called Nicholas, left a horse and bees for the Paulines in Csatka twenty years later, on the condition that the monks should never sell the horse.6 It is unclear whether the horse that the abbess of the Vásárhely monastery took from the estate of the Jenő monastery—for which the Pauline vicar made a complaint at the court of Veszprém County—belonged to a stud or not.7 The Paulines certainly had cattle in Filefölde, some of which were driven away in an act of might in 1497 by the tenants of the Székesfehérvár Collegiate Chapter living in the neighbouring Káptalanfalva.8 In the donation charter issued in 1450 by Palatine Ladislaus Garai one reads that monks of the Porva monastery were allowed to graze pigs, sheep, oxen and horses in the Bakony forest, and to feed their swine on acorn there.9 A similar right was 1  1369: MNL OL DL 8811. 2  “unam equam equatialem anno in praesenti poledrum procreantem,” in 1370: MNL OL DL 5831. 3  Bándi 1985, no. 589. Furthermore, the monks received grain, 150 guilders minted in Kassa, and a silver pitcher worth a hundred guilders. 4  1465: MNL OL DL 16197. 5  1471: MNL OL DL 17228. 6  1491: MNL OL DL 19702. 7  1466: MNL OL DL 45233. 8  1497: MNL OL DL 46408. 9  In 1450, the tenants of the Porva monastery in Újfalu received the right of common of the forest in Szerecsen: MNL OL DL 14424. This is interesting because Újfalu is approximately

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004424760_010

Animal Husbandry

87

granted to the Bereg monastery before 1359,10 to the Csáktornya monastery in 1376,11 to the Bodrogsziget and Kőszeg monasteries in 1377,12 as well as to the tenants of the Lepoglava monastery in Misine in 1507, by Andrew Henning.13 A charter from 1455 sheds light on other types of income generated by forests. Then, the Paulines of Slat complained that local nobles cut wood and grazed their swine in their forest of Szentpéter, moreover, they even built sties for their pigs there, and stole the Pauline’s income from pannage.14 In 1441 the Dobra Kuća monastery was beneficiary of the last will of John, count of Prata. He explicitly names certain types of income in connection with the village of Brezjanc, namely those generated by forests, the draught animals, the swine, the sows, and the pannage, called žirovnica in Slavonia.15 In 1474 the same monastery received, among others, 41 pigs as a bequest in the last will of a widow.16 When the monastery of Tisztaberek was founded, it received in donation eight oxen, ten cows, 32 beehives, pigs, horses, and carts.17 In this case, it is likely that the livestock was donated to help the monks realize profit on the market. The Veresmart monastery exchanged their stud for a hayfield in Méra in the mid-fifteenth century.18 The Slavonian monasteries came into several conflicts because of their livestock, usually their pigs, from the fifteenth century onwards. In 1441 the parish priests of the Čazma district were ordered to call upon two tenant peasants to indemnify the Paulines of Garić within fifteen days, because they had driven

40 km from the Bakony Hills, and its distance from Szerecsen is more than 20 km. I am grateful to Péter Szabó for calling my attention to this. Cf. Szabó, Woodland and Forests in Medieval Hungary, 144. 10  D AP 1, 10. 11  1376: LK 1, nos. 1–3. Transcribed in1384; confirmed by King Sigismund in 1406. 12  Master Peter Herceg of Szekcső allowed the monastery to graze pigs and other animals in his forests and meadows in 1377: MNL OL DL 6395. 13  1507: LK 1, no. 78. 14  1455: LK 3, no. 17. 15  1441: LK 4, no. 17. The testator called the settlement villula. The donation was confirmed in 1500, and in this charter the income from pannage is also mentioned: MNL OL DL 35575. This was the so-called žirovnica (žirovina, žirovnina), “census glandinationis,” the income from fattening swine on acorn (Croatian: žir = pannage), see Herkov, Građa za financijsko-pravni rječnik feudalne epohe hrvatske, vol. 2, vol. 602. I am grateful for the help of Stanko Andrić in this matter. 16  1474: LK 4, no. 38. The charter was published in DAP 3, 322, however, it was interpreted incorrectly. The correct text is “Ego Katherina, relicta condam nobilis Gregorii alio nomine vocato Herih de Zeyanahrazthya in lecto egritudinis.” 17  D AP 3, 26. 18  D AP 3, 212.

88

Chapter 8

the monks’ pigs away; otherwise the tenants would be excommunicated.19 In 1455 noblemen of Slat grazed their pigs illegally in the forest of the Slat monastery in Szentpéter. They even built sties and fences for the swine (quaedam stabula et tegumina) and collected the income from pannage.20 In January 1493 some noblemen drove away swine from the estate of the Zagreb monastery in an act of might. A month later, the monks complained that 40 pigs of the monastery were driven away or killed on the same estate, and three pigs in the possession of the monastery’s tenants were also taken.21 In the trial following this act of might, the parties agreed that they would use the forest in common; the tenants of both the Paulines and the nobles, living in the villages of Rakitovec and Gordovazela, were then allowed to graze their pigs in this woodland.22 In 1495 a certain Clement of Csázmafő (from the region of Čazma) stole eight cattle from the tenants of the Paulines living in Szvelóc, while the peasants were driving the animals to the Bakva monastery.23 In the early sixteenth century, Slavonian monasteries made even more complaints about acts of might, and an increasing number of these objections refer to animals driven away from their estates. In 1502 men of Balthasar Alapi stole three oxen and a scythe from a tenant of the Paulines in Petrusóc; in another case five oxen, owned by three tenants, were driven away from the commonly used pasture, and one of the beasts was even slaughtered.24 In 1511 the bailiff of margrave George of Brandenburg in Krapina committed an act of might in the fortified manor of the Paulines in Lepoglava, driving away 16 oxen and many cattle. Thereafter he attacked the manor of Kripihóc (Varasd County) and drove away their livestock as well.25 The Remetinc estate of the monastery of Zagreb was attacked several times in a few years. In 1512 first nine, and then another four oxen were driven away, under orders from the bishop’s administer.26 In 19  1438: LK 9, no. 284. 20  1455: LK 3, no. 17. 21  1493: MNL OL DL 34540; 1493: LK 2, nos. 121, and 123. 22  1493: LK 2, no. 125. 23  1495: LK 1, no. 43. The trial continued before the Collegiate Chapter of Čazma, and Clement was called upon several times to indemnify the monastery: MNL OL DL 32800, and 32801. 24  1502: LK 2, no. 135. The Paulines complained several times that their animals were stolen and slaughtered. In all probability, soldiers in nearby castles used their stocks as occasional meat supply. 25  1511: LK 1, no. 97. The charter says that the manor of Lepoglava was fortified with wooden palisades because of the danger posed by Ottoman troops. The Paulines complained that the men of a margrave imprisoned their lay friar, Peter, for fifteen days; he must have supervised the manor. 26  1512: LK 2, no. 176.

Animal Husbandry

89

May 1514, two acts of might were committed. First, men of the noble judge of Kőrös County drove away fourteen oxen, thirteen cows, eight horses, and stole ploughs and other iron tools, worth of 2 guilders. Ten days later the nobles of Dombró, with the bailiff among them, rushed into the manor house of the Paulines and drove away seven cows, and stole axes, ploughs, and hoes.27 A charter of Beatrix Francopani, in which she allowed the Paulines of Zagreb to graze their sheep and other livestock on the territory of a village belonging to Medveđgrad, shows a more peaceful situation.28 The huge bequest of Lady Margaret, the widow of the elder Andrew Kapitánfi, was subject of a trial in 1465. The Paulines of Garić received seventeen oxen, eighteen cows, five young bulls, three two-year-old and three one-year-old calves, six horses with two foals, 160 geese, fifty ducks, and eight peafowls.29 Some of these animals, including the peafowls, were obviously intended for selling, but the others would have been kept by the Paulines. However, Andrew and Stephen Kapitánfi claimed for themselves the whole bequest of Lady Margaret, both the movable and the immovable properties. Among others, horses from a stud were donated to the Szentmihálykő monastery in the last will of the priest of Kolos.30 In such cases, horses were used as a substitute for cash donation, as they were sold by the monks, just as in the case of the horse mentioned in the last will of Peter Terjék.31 Another horse, however, which was donated to the Thal monastery by a Pressburg burgher in 1404, was certainly meant to be kept by the Paulines, since the testa27  1514: LK 2, nos. 182 and 183. In the first case the conflict broke out because of a lawsuit. The village folk captured and wanted to hand over a convict to the noble judge, but the latter refused to take him. Instead, the judge plundered the village under the pretext of confiscation. 28  1506: LK 2, no.164. 29  1465: LK 10, no. 374. Lady Margaret was wealthy indeed. In addition to the livestock, the two Kapitánfis took five barrels of wine (altogether 500 cubuli), two barrels of vinegar, one hundred blocks of salt, 20 iron sheets, 30 cubuli of flour, 40 cubuli of grain, and a large quantity of other food in the value of 100 guilders; furthermore, several stacks of wheat (60 sheaves each), 40 sheaves of millet, 30 sheaves of sorghum, 40 cubuli of grain, 160 sheaves of wheat, 50 sheaves of oat, 200 carts of hay, 1200 cubuli of wine, 28 empty barrels, 19 pots, 5 bottles and 5 chests. Still unsatisfied, they also took the food reserved for the landlord as tax or gift, in the value of about 200 guilders. The damage was altogether about one thousand guilders. 30  1508: MNL OL DL 36405. 31  1519: MNL OL DL 101530. The custom to donate the horse used in the funerary procession to the ecclesiastical community of the burial place is attested by a large number of sources throughout the Middle Ages. István Vörös, “Ló az Árpád-kori Magyarországon,” Folia Archaeologica 52 (2006 2005): 163–216, also referring to later evidence. A receipt of the sale of a horse was entered in the formulary: Formularium, fol. 34v.

90

Chapter 8

tor also donated a cart with it.32 Draught horses are mentioned in an act of might committed against the Paulines of Elefánt in 1438. This incident happened on the estate of Velkapolya (Bars County), where two of the monastery’s tenants were beaten and injured with arrows; the assaulters took their four draft horses that pulled their cart. The four horses together had a worth of 24 guilders.33 The ox given by a priest called Blasius Schwarz to the Paulines in 1523 was not a draught animal: as it is stated in the document, the donator bought it for 4 pounds 2 shillings 10 deniers in order to improve the nutrition of the monks,34 just in the case of a cow given to the Paulines of Streza in 1402 by Lady Helena,35 or another one that the Csáktornya monastery received from the wife of Lawrence Mezar in 1523.36 Pigs were rarely donated to monasteries, probably because they were kept by the monks themselves, or only processed parts of the butchered animal (e.g. lard) was given to them as alms or gift. Keeping pigs around the monasteries is also testified to by a story in chapter 77 of the Vitae fratrum, in which the prior of the Nosztre monastery threw apples out of the window, to be eaten by the pigs, because the monks wanted to eat the apples against the monastic rules. In addition to records that mention livestock, charters referring to pasture, meadows or hayfields are also relevant in terms of animal husbandry. It is telling that most of these are preserved in the archive of the Jenő monastery. First, the monastery received a hayfield from Bishop Coloman of Győr in 1362.37 In 1459 the Paulines came into conflict with the nuns of Vásárhely because the tenants of the nuns, who lived in Lovas, mowed the monks’ hay.38 In 1462 friar Thomas complained that two neighbours used the meadow of the monastery.39 A charter from 1468 reveals that two years earlier the tenants of the Collegiate Chapter of Fehérvár, who lived in Káptalanfalva, committed the same misdemeanour in the estate of the Paulines called Filefölde.40 In 1519 the Paulines and the Chapter went to court because of a pasture.41 In 1482 a meadow was illegally used by the steward of John Kompolti on the Ecseg estate 32  1404: MNL OL DF 227568. I am grateful to Judit Majorossy for sharing this information with me. 33  1438: MNL OL DL 13235. 34  Házi, Sopron középkori egyháztörténete, 267. 35  1402: LK 3, no. 107. 36  1523: LK 1, no. 16. 37  1362: MNL OL DL 41508. 38  1459: MNL OL DL 44928. 39  1462: MNL OL DL 45013. 40  1468: MNL OL DL 45296. 41  1519: MNL OL DL 47295.

Animal Husbandry

91

of the Saint Lawrence monastery.42 A donation made by Ladislaus Garai also mentions a meadow that belonged to a house in the town of Pápa, and Újfalu in the town’s vicinity also had such fields. An exceptionally large meadow of 70 scythes, and 24 acres of land belonging to the Vállus monastery, were illegally occupied in 1429 by members of the Gersei Pető family.43 The priest of Felsőbakva passed on a meadow along with 43 acres of land to the monastery of Bakva in 1447.44 The monasteries of Bajcs,45 Dobra Kuća,46 Enyere,47 Gombaszög,48 Gönc,49 Kőszeg,50 Lád,51 Nosztre,52 Ruszka,53 Thal,54 Újhely,55 Ungvár,56 Várad-Kápolna57 and Vázsony58 also had meadows or hayfields. On their estate of Kenderes, possessions of the Paulines of the Saint Lawrence monastery suffered significant damages in an act of might in 1470. The noble retainer and the tenants of a local nobleman, Blasius Kenderesi, stole more than 42  Zákonyi, “A Buda melletti Szent-Lőrincz pálos kolostor története,” 42; Pálóczi Horváth, “Túrkeve története a honfoglalástól a török idők végéig,” 76. 43  1429: MNL OL DL 12105. 44  1447: LK 1, no. 13. 45  D AP 1, 2–3. 46  1483: MNL OL DL 35711. 47  1449, 1524: DAP 1, 137. 48  1476: MNL OL DL 16955. 49  The monastery of Gönc received in donation lands of the spital of Telkibánya, including hayfields, in 1450: MNL OL DL 14390; 1459: MNL OL DL 15368. 50  Hayfield and meadow as a pious donation in 1457: MNL OL DL 15135. 51  A meadow in 1425: MNL OL DL 39223; and a hayfield in 1454: MNL OL DL 14888. The monastery of Lád suffered damage when five villeins of Mohi town took their hay in 1454, for which they were excommunicated by the commissioner of Eger. According to the commissioner’s charter issued in 1454, the parties settled the conflict out of court and the locals of Mohi promised to provide six massive, ironbound wagons in compensation. At the same time, they agreed not to use the estate until the king makes his decision on the matter, so in the end the commissioner absolved them: SZR, no. 2798. 52  1467: MNL OL DL 45271. 53  A meadow within the confines of Vizsoly in 1456: MNL OL DL 15088. 54  Ludrét or Ganzwyz in 1385: MNL OL DL 7155; Ludasrét in 1429: MNL OL DL 25842. 55  In 1390, Queen Mary gave the Paulines a meadow, which had formerly belonged to the castle of Patak: ZSO 1, no. 1729. 56  Two meadows or hayfields near the monastery mentioned in 1482: MNL OL DL 17521, and 18125. 57  A large meadow as a pious donation in 1478: MNL OL DL 18075. 58  Although no direct evidence supports this, the manor of the Vázsony monastery in Csepely must have possessed some meadows or hayfields. In 1525, a nobleman of Csepely complained that the Paulines took the hay illegally from two hayfields and he asked the authorities of the county to investigate the case. The result was surprising for both the monks and the nobleman, as the rightful owner turned out to be a third party: MNL OL DL 24234.

92

Chapter 8

a thousand stacks of hay, worth of 100 guilders, from two islands belonging to the estates of the monks, around St Lawrence’s Day (August 10).59 Both the quantity and the value are significant. It cannot be excluded that the Paulines were indirectly involved in large-scale cattle trade and reaped some profit from it. Similar acts of might happened on another estate of the Saint Lawrence monastery in the Great Hungarian Plain, namely in Ecseg in 1481 and in 1483. On both occasions, members of the Kompolti family had the hay of local landowners, including the Paulines, taken away by their tenants (they also used a fishpond of the monks illegally in 1481).60 In Petrusóc in Slavonia, the vicar of Zagreb, Michael complained that one of their neighbours turned a large part of their fields into a ploughland, occupied their thicket, and ploughed one of their meadows earlier in February 1452 when two monks and tenants of the monastery mowed the hay there. In 1503 the Paulines complained again that Balthasar Alapi and George Zsitvaróci ordered their soldiers to take away the hay of the Paulines in Petrusóc.61 There is no unambiguous evidence for the Pauline monasteries to participate actively and on a large scale in cattle trade. Still, cattle were an important source of income for the monasteries of Csatka and Jenő. The intention of the founder of the Porva monastery may have been the same, but there is no evidence for animal husbandry there. As for the other monasteries, their animals served to meet the monks’ immediate needs, while the animals passed on to them in last wills were substitutes for cash donations, i.e. they were later sold by the Paulines. Draught beasts are also often mentioned. In addition to cattle 59  1470: MNL OL DL 17062. The relationship between the monastery and Blasius Kenderesi had been stormy for years. In 1465 a tenant of the Paulines in Kenderes was beaten by one of Kenderesi’s noble retainers, and in the next year he occupied more than 100 acres of the monks’ arable land in Kenderes. When the king came to visit Kenderes in the same year, the Paulines and the local nobleman hosted him at their own cost, but Blasius was unwilling to pay the monks his share of twenty guilders. In autumn 1469, the Paulines paid the neighbouring Cumans seventy guilders to redeem a few pieces of land, but Blasius failed again to pay his share, although he and his tenants used the fields in question. The conflict between Blasius and the Paulines was a personal one. In 1465 the provincial prior of the Dominicans, Mark Debreceni, accepted him, his wife, their children, and even the deceased members of the family as confriars of the order in return for their support of the Dominican friary of Pest. Furthermore, the provincial took on to celebrate daily masses for the salvation of their souls in return for Blasius’ donation of a hundred guilders, a piece of land for a manor, a meadow, a fishpond, and one horse every year in the future. The privilege included prayers and masses after the death of the donators: MNL OL DL 16159. 60  Zákonyi, “A Buda melletti Szent-Lőrincz pálos kolostor története,” 41–42; Pálóczi Horváth, “Túrkeve története a honfoglalástól a török idők végéig,” 75–76. 61  1452: LK 2, no. 68; 1503: LK 2, no. 141.

Animal Husbandry

93

and horses, the charters quite often mention swine, but sheep keeping is only sporadically recorded. Beehives and poultry are mentioned in only one document each. The lack of information on poultry in the documents does not necessarily suggest the absence of these animals around the Pauline monasteries, but rather implies that they were hardly noted in the written sources.

Chapter 9

Other Income Various revenues may be listed as additional types of income for the Pauline monasteries. Direct cash donations were probably the most important source of additional income. These were usually bequeathed to the monasteries in last wills, asking for masses to be said for the deceased (see Appendix 1, Table 6). Such donations were offered, for instance, to the monasteries of Elefánt,1 Háromhegy,2 Zsámbék,3 Thal,4 Szentmihálykő,5 Dobra Kuća,6 and Garić,7 just to name a few. In an early example, a rather generous bequest was made to the monastery of Hangony in 1408: a widow by the name Clara donated 1000 guilders for the building of the monastery (i.e. there was probably a major reconstruction going on at that time).8 In 1410 the Zagreb monastery received 1500 guilders along with silver and gilded vessels from Count Paul Szörény, which were handed over by Paul’s widow to Vicar Stephen.9 People who left different amounts of money for Pauline monasteries came from different social backgrounds: burghers, nobles, magnates, and even clerics of various positions in the hierarchy were present among them. Just to name a few cases, in 1483 canon Mathew of Čazma donated 40 guilders in the form of a pledged hayfield to the monastery of Dobra Kuća;10 in 1495 abbot George of Jásd left 100 guilders for the Paulines of Csatka;11 the parish priest of Ajak, called 1   The sum was 300 guilders in 1505: MNL OL DL 21452. 2   1477: MNL OL DL 74718; 1495: MNL OL DL 85147. The sum was 5 guilders. The testator left the same sum for the Franciscans of Homonna, Sóvár, Patak, and Céke (today Humenné, Solivar, Sárospatak and Cejkov). 3  1524: MNL OL DL 23988. 4   I am grateful to Judit Majorossy for allowing me to use her unpublished PhD thesis: Majorossy, “Church in Town: Urban Religious Life in Late Medieval Pressburg in the Mirror of Last Wills.” 5   The 1449 bequest was 50 guilders: MNL OL DL 36391; The 1454 bequest was five guilders and wax worth two guilders for the candles to be lit when the Body of Christ is revealed during mass. The testator included in his will the Dominican friars and nuns of Cluj too: MNL OL DL 36407. 6   1505: MNL OL DL 101373. The sum was 20 guilders, left for the monks by Ursula, the widow of Ladislaus Grebeni. 7   See footnote 530. The sum was 25 guilders. 8   D AP 1, 180. 9   1415: LK 2, no. 21. 10  See footnote 509. 11  1495: MNL OL DL 20261; transcribed in the charter of the papal legate Orso Orsini issued in the same year. © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004424760_011

Other Income

95

Matthew, bequeathed in his last will in 1494 different sums of money to as many as six Pauline monasteries.12 Even Bishop Francis Várdai of Transylvania donated 20 guilders to the monastery of Szentmihálykő as it was recorded in his account book in 1520.13 Noblemen also made donations, e.g. Count John of Prata bequeathed 100 guilders and his estates in Brezjanc worth of 200 guilders to the Dobra Kuća monastery as a pro anima donation in 1441. The bequeathed estates, however, could be redeemed by the relatives.14 The bequest of Stephen Kanizsai, made in a relatively early stage of the order’s history, should also be mentioned here. In 1428 he left 250 guilders and 16 marks of silver for the building of the monastery of Szentpéter, and after his death his son, John, even increased this sum by donating a golden cup worth of 40 guilders and a bowl made of 5 marks of fine silver as a contribution to the chalice of the high mass.15 One finds many widows among the testators. One example is Clara Nelepec, the widow of Michael Ajtósi, who made her last will in the house of his brother, Francis Nelepec, in 1510. Among other ecclesiastical institutions, she commemorated the Dobra Kuća monastery, which was under the patronage of her family. She donated a carpet and one guilder from the price a horse to be sold.16 The Formularium also contains a document related to such donations: Canon Matthew Tasnádi of Várad was accepted as confriar of the Order because he had donated a certain sum to the monasteries of the Holy Virgin in Kápolna and Jofa (both near Várad, Jofa is now Fughiu, Romania); the two monasteries received 22 guilders altogether (fol. 47r–v). In 1520 the Paulines of Thal received the interests produced by 100 guilders, bequeathed to them by Christopher of Szentgyörgy and Bazin; the money was intended for a chancel lamp.17 Although there is no direct reference to the

12  Solymosi, “Két középkor végi testamentum Szabolcs vármegyéből,” 213. 13  Entz, Erdély építészete a 11–13. században, 472. 14  1441: MNL OL DL 35573. As a comparison, John left 2000 guilders to his wife, 1000 guilders each to his daughters, 30 guilders for his retainer Matthew (32 guilders in another version of the will: MNL OL DL 35574), and 16 guilders for Barnaby. His servant, Hans, inherited half of a plot and 10 guilders. He also had some debts: he owed 180 guilders to Michael Italicus, and 150 guilders to Ladislaus Tors. 15  1428: MNL OL DL 11980. The bequest was handed over in the presence of the Franciscan guardian of Kanizsa, and the Pauline vicar of Örményes. 16  1510: LK 4, no. 54. Lady Clara wished to be buried in the monastery. 17  1520: MNL OL DL 23487. Christopher also decided on 700 guilders and the valuables worth of 2000 guilders, left to a monastery to be built in Aybocz (Moson County?) by the late counts Sigismund and John of Szentgyörgy and Bazin. While the money was probably not enough to finance the construction of the whole building, it was probably not much less than the required funds.

96

Chapter 9

actual amount, based on the common interest rate of the age, it may have been 10 guilders a year.18 In the same year the monks received an annuity of 20 guilders for clothing from King Louis II.19 Agnes Rozgonyi also bequeathed interests produced by her money to the Ungvár monastery in 1473, and the monks celebrated masses in return.20 A similarly regular income was donated to the Zagreb monastery by Ulrich of Cilli in the mid-fifteenth century: an annuity of six pensae (i.e. 240) Viennese deniers and six capons. In 1459 his widow, Catherine, ordered her official in Medveđgrad to hand over the alms,21 and the next owner of the estates, Sigmund von Weispriach, issued a similar charter in 1463.22 The monks of Patacs received a generous donation, 220 guilders for masses from a scholar from Pécs, called Clement, in 1479. Gyöngyösi’s Vitae fra­ trum reveals that this scholar was a confriar and was buried in Patacs, clothed in the habit of the order.23 The nobleman Peter Táhi gave his pro anima donation of 150 guilders partly in order to gain the right to be buried in the monastery of Kékes. In return for his generosity, he, his wife, his sons, and his brother (the provost of Dömös, called Stephen) were also accepted by the prior general as confriars of the order. Unlike many other similar donations, in this case there is information on how the money was used: 100 guilders were spent on the reconstruction of the large fishpond of the monastery and 50 guilders on reparations on a mill on the Kékes Stream in Szentendre.24 Money donations became more common after the mid-fifteenth century. Fifty years earlier, in 1424, the widow of Ban Martin Szerdahelyi and her sons donated 50 acres of land, instead of cash, to the Paulines of Szerdahely, because their parents and relatives were buried in the monastic church.25 In 1478, Andrew and Ladislaus Tordai gave 100 guilders to facilitate the rebuilding of the Kápolna monastery near Várad, which the Ottoman troops burnt to the ground five years earlier.26 In 1492 Stephen Csupor left a much larger sum, 600 guilders for the Garić 18  Although the general interest rates were reduced after 1470 to 5%, in some cases even to 4%, the sources suggest that this was not implemented in Pressburg and Sopron. I am grateful for this piece of information to Judit Majorossy and Katalin Szende. 19  D AP 1, 280. 20  V F, chap. 60. 21  1459: LK 2, no. 81. In addition to the cash, six capons were also provided, probably for the monastery’s kitchen. 22  1463: LK 2, no. 93. 23  V F, chaps. 63–64. 24  In 1473, the donator promised further support and the order undertook celebrating masses for the family every Saturday at the altar dedicated to the Holy Virgin: MNL OL DL 17454. The members of the family were buried in front of the same altar. 25  1424: MNL OL DL 11498. 26  V F, chap. 62.

Other Income

97

monastery, with the same purpose.27 In 1496 Christoph Fadan, provisor curie et comissarius castri Quinqueecclesiensis, donated a mill and a fishpond, as well as 40 guilders for their reparation.28 An annuity of seven guilders, from the income generated by a house in Buda, was donated to the monastery of Fehéregyháza.29 This monastery also received one of the largest bequests in 1515, i.e., 2,000 guilders bequeathed by Józsa Somi, comes of Temes and commander-in-chief of Southern Hungary. Somi’s son, Caspar had to face some difficulties to be able to pay this sum to the order; he exchanged his house in the Italian Street of Buda for a house of Palatine Emeric Perényi facing the building of the Franciscan Beguines near the Franciscan friary. There was a 1200 guilders difference between the worth of the two exchanged buildings, and Caspar received another 800 guilders from the palatine on loan.30 A similar bequest was made a hundred years earlier by Nicholas Zámbó to the monastery of Told, but his widow refused to pay, probably because it was simply too much. The prior general remonstrated upon the case with the Chapter of Buda.31 A number of different factors may have influenced the actual amount of cash donations, such as the financial standing of the testator, his or her connections to the order, the number of beneficiaries mentioned in the last will, or the scale of the necessary reconstructions and reparations in the given monastery. Large amounts of cash were sometimes difficult to raise even for members of the highest social strata. For instance, the count of Zemplén, Anthony Pálóci, writing his testament a month before the Battle of Mohács, left only 50 guilders to the monastery of Újhely, although he was one of its patrons; however, he also gave a number of gold and silver objects, the value of which was obviously higher than the sum given in cash.32 27  1492: MNL OL DL 35727 (transcribed by a public notary in 1493). 28  1496: LK 1, no. 11. The donation was justified by the poverty of the monastery; charter evidence suggests that this was in fact true. Estates of the monastery included: Várhely (1376: MNL OL DL 32807), Šenkovec (1420: MNL OL DL 32811), Maškovec (1467: MNL OL DL 32814), Krišovc (mill, fishpond in 1496: MNL OL DL 32819; 1+3 plots in 1512 [1505]: MNL OL DL 32824), Zazad vineyard (vineyard in 1505: MNL OL DL 32823; vineyard, press, and cellar in 1523: MNL OL DL 32825). Except for Várhely, all the estates, even the villages, were very small. The most valuable of Fadan’s donation was the mill. The monks seem to have been grateful: according to Prior General Benedict’s 1496 charter, Christopher and his family were commemorated by three collects in the mass dedicated to the Virgin Mary on Saturdays: MNL OL DL 32819; this charter dates earlier than the first known copy of the donation charter. 29  1501: DAP 1, 147; “Inventarium,” 83; Végh, Buda város középkori helyrajza, n. 474. Seven guilders out of the income of a Buda house were offered to buy lamp oil. 30  1515: MNL OL DL 22655. Also in Végh, Buda város középkori helyrajza, n. 573. 31  V F, chap. 38. 32  1526: MNL OL DL 82732.

98

Chapter 9

A bequest made in 1423 for the Patacs monastery may also be considered as a form of cash donation. The late Gregorius literatus left one half of his vineyards for the monks; the property, however, was redeemed by his relatives, and so the monastery received cash.33 The case was not exceptional at all; it happened quite often that bequeathed estates were redeemed either by the relatives of the testator or by the de facto owners (in case of hypothecated properties).34 Charters of the Háromhegy monastery reveal a complex case of hypothec. Before 1490, a certain John Orros left an estate of Sáp (Abaúj County) for the Paulines. The estate was originally pledged to him by Andrew, Ladislaus, and Alexander Kapi, but neither they, nor their relatives could redeem it. The Paulines needed cash more than estates, and so they pledged this piece of land to Canon Ambrosius Szigligeti of Eger, who then pledged it again twice: first to Stephen Tomori for 40 guilders in 1490,35 then a few months later, in 1491 to Clement Ettreh of Gecse, for the same amount of money.36 The monks occasionally redeemed estates for themselves,37 although even these landed properties were often sold or pledged later, for a higher price.

33  1423: MNL OL DL 11349. Later, the monks sold the vineyard for 20 guilders, which, of course, is not necessarily the same price for which the relatives redeemed it. 34  E.g. In 1402, Helena, Matthew Horvát’s wife, left her manor house and three tenant plots for his underage son, Fabian under the condition that the usufruct of the estates should be given to the Paulines of Streza (as a form of “social security”) until the child reaches legal age. Should Fabian die earlier, the estate will be donated to the monks, and the sons of Helena’s sister should be able to redeem it for 100 marks, each mark counted as two guilders: MNL OL DL 34666. A few further cases of hypothec include 1426: MNL OL DL 11778, in which the relatives of a man named Matthew Korhi paid the Paulines of Lád nine Buda marks for a forest; 1466: MNL OL DL 95384, a receipt issued by the Elefánt monastery about 400 marks; 1483: MNL OL DL 35711, in which canon Matthew of Čazma left for the Dobra Kuća monastery a hayfield pledged by Dominic and Nicholas Nelepec for forty guilders; 1493: MNL OL DL 36398, a receipt issued by the prior of Nagyfalu about 200 guilders, received for estates in Kraszna County from Emeric Kemeri and his relatives; as well as 1514: MNL OL DL 64526, a receipt issued by the prior of Háromhegy about eight guilders received from Nicholas Kapi for two tenant plots in Szín. The formulary also contains a formula used in such cases: Formularium, fol. 47v. In 1519 a house in Óbuda was donated to the Paulines of Fehéregyháza, stipulating that it would be sold after the testator’s death, and 600 guilders of the price received had to be put toward the construction of a church. DAP 1, 149. 35  1490: MNL OL DL 64480. 36  1491: MNL OL DL 64481. 37  The prior of Elefánt redeemed the parcel of the late Francis Családi in Csiszolc for 30 guilders in 1501: MNL OL DL 59910. In 1524, the Paulines of Szentpéter redeemed the estate of Keresztúr for 12 guilders, which had formerly been the property of the executed John Laki; King Louis II implemented the decision on the same day: MNL OL DL 24005 and 24008.

Other Income

99

The Paulines of Vázsony received a special bequest in 1525. The monks sued Elias and Andrew Csepelyi over 100 guilders which the defendants should have paid to Simon Csepelyi as compensation for the murder of Dominic Csepelyi. After Simon’s death, the money was inherited by the monastery.38 This case is not exceptional: in 1440, a widow bequeathed half of her estate in Vata, half of all her movables (including her cloths, especially those in the chest), and half of the homagium she received as compensation for her son’s murder to the parish church of Miskolc, while the Pauline monastery of Diósgyőr received the other half of these.39 Similarly, according to a charter, the vicar of Lád gave back to the owners certain estates that were seized and given to his monastery in a homagium-related case, in return for cash.40 Another interesting situation was recorded in the last will of a burgher of Dubica in 1411. The testator left all his pecuniary claims, eight entries, altogether 86 guilders, for the Paulines of Dubica. Just to name a few items from the list: a certain Guian owed the testator 30 guilders, given to his wife who wanted to ransom him. At another occasion the testator and his two companions carried goods from Spalato when they met Turks who had Christian captives; the merchants ransomed the prisoners for 12 guilders (half of which was paid by the testator). This sum had to be paid back by the captives’ relatives.41 In a unique case, the Transylvanian voivode Nicholas Újlaki entrusted his tax collector in Komárom County to pay 25 guilders to the Csatka monastery out of the chamber’s profit.42 It is unknown whether it was a pious donation or the voivode cleared a debt, but in a late fourteenth-century context the former seems more likely. The Paulines of the Patacs monastery had to go through a complicated process to acquire a sum left for them. A local nobleman and his son seized a deserted plot and a meadow as a pledge for 13 marks and then the nobleman bequeathed the sum to the Paulines, for a chasuble. However, his widow and his daughters were unable to pay this amount of money, and they were also unwilling to transfer the pledge. Therefore, the Paulines sued them at the court of the bishop of Pécs. The monks agreed to accept a compensation of 8 marks only, at least for the time being. The judge then decided to leave the deserted plot and the meadow in the hands of the women, until the estates would be redeemed by their original owners. If it happens within a year, the widow and 38  1525: MNL OL DL 24214. 39  1440: MNL OL DL 13557. 40  1454: MNL OL DL 14884. 41  1411: LK 5, no. 4. 42  1451: MNL OL DL 49991.

100

Chapter 9

the daughters are obliged to pay the bequeathed sum to the Paulines immediately, otherwise the deadline for payment is in three years.43 As it has been demonstrated, the donated sums are very different, covering a range from alms of a few guilders to donations of several hundreds. The financial standing of the donators must have been decisive. An uncommon and yet characteristic way to spend the inherited money was recorded in the work of Gregorius Gyöngyösi. In the early 1510s when Friar Gregorius (Balázsszentmiklósi) was prior general, he had the choir, the sacristy, and the chapter house of the Saint Lawrence monastery renovated and decorated with red marble. Some of the donators were mentioned by name in Gyöngyösi’s book; the list included, among others, the two bishops of Zagreb, Oswald and Lucas, a burgher of Belgrade called Paul Horvát, a canon of Óbuda by the name Gregorius, and the Voivode of Transylvania, John Szapolyai.44 The bequests made for the Thal monastery by the Pressburg burghers need to be discussed separately. Altogether 72 persons bequeathed money, usually small sums (1–5 guilders), to the Paulines.45 However, some people donated large amounts of money. In 1439 Katherina, widow of Gothard Pokfuss, left 50 guilders (no. 71), in 1455 Liebhart Egkenfelder bequeathed 25 guilders (no. 183). Most probably, both donations aimed to support construction works in the monastery. The other bequests that involved sums of money larger than the average, were around 10 guilders. Among them one can find the last wills of Anna Treletschin (1441, no. 82), Peter Gross (1454, no. 151), Ulrich Wyder (1458, no. 193), Stephan von See (1480, no. 371), Anna Holtzerin (1487, no. 439), Margareta Zhoborin (1488, no. 477), Greymlin (1491, no. 487), Helena Zwicklin (1496, no. 542), Mathes Kegel (1499, no. 573), Mathes Fretter (1501, no. 600), Simon Huter (1502, no. 614), Michel Ernst Peck (1503, no. 639), Margret Eyssenreichin (1505, no. 681), Agnes Ubelagkerin (1506, no. 690), Jacob Aigner the younger (1516, no. 755), and Hans Paxswoll (1529, no. 844). The list reveals two things: first, the biggest donations were made before or around the mid-fifteenth century, and secondly, a bit more than half of those who donated large sums, were men (in a 10:8 ratio). Among those who bequeathed smaller sums, the ratio of the sexes was equal (27 men, 27 women). In general, about 60 per cent of all preserved last wills in Pressburg were made by men;46 however, women were more likely to bequeath possessions to the Paulines. In some 43  1410: ZSO 2, no. 7397. 44  V F, chap. 79. 45  All data cited here come from the Protocollum testamentorum of Pressburg; item numbers are taken from Szende, Otthon a városban, 272–293. 46  Szende, 84.

Other Income

101

cases, both the husband and the wife left some money for the Thal monastery. In 1502, for instance, Peter Eysenreich left 3 guilders (no. 609), while in 1505 his wife left another 11 guilders for the monks (no. 681). The records testify that the burghers of Pressburg regularly made bequests to the Paulines. This type of income was usual until the end of the Middle Ages, even if different, and usually small amounts of money were donated. In addition to money, some landed properties, especially vineyards, were also left for the monastery in last wills. Different types of movables were a rare but valuable part of the bequests. In most cases, last wills refer to them only in general, e.g. in the testaments of Lady Helena in 1402 (Streza),47 of Clement Kapás in 1447 (Szentpéter),48 or of John Koromlai in 1460 (Csatka).49 Some of the movables were sold, e.g. a goblet, a belt, and four spoons, worth of 32, 16, and 4 guilders, respectively, which were left by Nicholas Koromlai for the Csatka monastery,50 or the objects left by a miller of Nitra for the Paulines of Elefánt.51 The monastery of Újhely also received silver objects, silvered and gilded armours, and dresses from Anthony Pálóci, count of Zemplén, to help them obtain liturgical objects and repair the monastery’s buildings.52 In 1474 a widow made a largess for the Dobra Kuća monastery where she wished to be buried, near her late husband. The donation involved 200 guilders out of the income of her estates, as well as half of her dower; the worth of the latter, however, remains unknown. In addition to these, she bequeathed 41 pigs and a black cloak (thoga) to the monks.53 As it was usual, the bequeathed female clothing was probably transformed into liturgical garments or altar-clothes.54 A reference made to a chest (scrinium) 47  1402: LK 3, no. 107. The woman wished to be buried in the monastery, and she left a cow, a chest, and all the valuables (clenodia) in her house to the monks. 48  1454: MNL OL DL 14825. 49  1460: MNL OL DL 15480. 50  1471: MNL OL DL 17228. In the same last will, Koromlai left his animals for the Paulines: 16 horses with foals, and seven yoked oxen. Furthermore, he donated to them the furniture in his house, all his charters, and two barrels that were loaned to somebody at the time. The case was not settled at this point. Although in 1483 judge royal Stephen Bátori ordered the Chapter of Székesfehérvár to officially register the Paulines as owners of the estate, a number of villagers protested: MNL OL DL 26024. 51  1429: MNL OL DL 12045. The list made by a canon of Nyitra contains a silver cross on a silver chain, 51 small buttons, 12 bell-shaped, gilded silver buttons, two buckles called kusen, two necklaces, another 24 kussen buckles, 4 rings, 20 silver buttons, one silver strap end (extremitas seu cauda baltei), and an old silver coin. Out of all these objects, only the cross seems to suit an ecclesiastical environment. 52  1526: MNL OL DL 82732. 53  1474: LK 4, no. 38. 54  In the Middle Ages, the transformation of lay attire into liturgical garments was a widespread practice, even women’s clothing was used for this purpose. Examples are known

102

Chapter 9

probably also indicates the value of the donated clothing. Some of the donated objects could be used by the monks, e.g. the vessels (19 bowls and five bottles), and the five chests left by the widow of Andrew Kapitánfi for the Paulines. The monks could also make use of the twenty sheets of iron also mentioned in this last will.55 The food given by the same testatrix, estimated to be worth of about 100 guilders, was also meant for the monks’ immediate consumption. Last wills rarely provide a detailed description of the donated objects; therefore, they are not suitable for the study of the history of clothing and textiles, or everyday life. However, the goblet and the silver spoons left for the Paulines of Csatka were extremely valuable for certain,56 both for their material and rich ornamentation. In comparison, the estimated value of the spoons of Katherina, the wife of Pressburg mayor Friedrich Voyt, was one guilder each.57 The value of a belt mentioned in this last will was also very high, probably because it was embellished with silver mounts; its value was somewhat higher than the average price of similar accessories in Pressburg (15 guilders).58 Liturgical objects were occasionally also bequeathed by lay people. The Thal monastery received, for instance, a triptych from a Pressburg burgher by the name Liebhart Egkenfelder.59 In his testament he donated two chandeliers to the Paulines and to a Pressburg hospital.60 An iron door intended for the sacristy of the Bánfalva monastery under construction,61 or a carpet left from Pressburg and Sopron, too, see Szende, Otthon a városban, 157–158. Interestingly, a veil is listed in the last will of Pressburg burgher Jorig Hainfelder, Majorossy, “Church in Town: Urban Religious Life in Late Medieval Pressburg in the Mirror of Last Wills,” n. 16. 55  1465: LK 10, no. 374. The bequest was recorded in the context of an act of might whereby the relatives of the previously deceased husband of the testator occupied the estate and ransacked the house. 56  Such objects occur in Sopron, Pressburg, and Eperjes, almost exclusively in wealthy households. The gilded goblet of Sopron burgher Wolfgang Rauch, and that of Pressburg burgher Niclas Gutgesell were both pawned for 30 guilders. Szende, Otthon a városban, 179. 57  Szende, 186. 58  Sometimes, more than one valuable belts are listed in last wills, estimated to be worth of over 20, or even over 40 guilders. Szende, 138–139. A belt of similar value as the one above (14 guilders) was left for the Thal monastery in 1461 by Pressburg burgher Ulrich Wyder. Majorossy, “Church in Town: Urban Religious Life in Late Medieval Pressburg in the Mirror of Last Wills,” n. 16. 59  Szende, Otthon a városban, 199. 60  Szende, 205. 61  Szende, 206. The door donated to the Paulines of Thal by Pressburg burgher Andre Weinmann may have been used in the monastery. He also left a wagon and a horse for the monks. Majorossy, “Church in Town: Urban Religious Life in Late Medieval Pressburg in the Mirror of Last Wills,” n. 16.

Other Income

103

for the church of the same monastery, were objects to be used by the monks themselves.62 It is worth to mention here a 1409 donation, made under unusual circumstances. It remains unclear what it involved—money, movables, or both. In that year King Sigismund confirmed the alms offered to the Garić monastery by a certain Bartholomew from the goods of the late Slavonian Ban Paul Pécsi, who himself was buried in the monastery. The king also forbade anyone to hinder the distribution of these alms, should any parish priest claim one quarter of the late ban’s bequest.63 In fact, the priest of Garić withdrew such a claim several months later, in October 1409.64 In some cases, the relatives were reluctant to hand over the bequest, or there were other interested parties who sued the monasteries over it. An early example is the trial of the Dubica monastery against a widow who refused to hand over the possessions bequeathed to the monks by her father-in-law.65 The prior of Kápolna also took a case to court in 1387, because the widow of a testator tried to reclaim a vineyard left for his monastery; eventually, the case was decided for the Paulines.66 In 1402 friar Lawrence from the Szakácsi monastery made a complaint before the commissioner of the Veszprém bishop about a certain priest called George, who died in the Roman Curia. Although he left 9 guilders at a hospes of Szentgyörgy for the monastery, the money was taken by the parish priest of Szentgyörgy who refused to hand it over to the monks. The priest argued that George left only 100 deniers for the monastery, which he had already given to the monks, and the 9 guilders were intended for his burial, on which it was spent.67 The monastery of Nosztre had to take action against a certain lady by the name Helena in 1404; a vineyard in Szob was bequeathed to the monastery, but the sister of the testator contested the last will. An agreement was made during the trial, according to which the Paulines had to relinquish 62  See footnote 540. A new carpet, worth seven guilders, is listed in the inventory of liturgical objects of the Garić monastery, deposited in Zagreb. Among the additional items, one finds two chalices, two missals, two breviaries, six chasubles, two albae, a velum, three manutergia (two in good and one in poor condition), two humeralia, and charters in a box. A chalice worth ten marks was also deposited in Zagreb, once sold by Vicar Valentine who still owed the price; two old-style lectionalia with antiphons and responsoria, and a breviary. 1460–1480: LK 5, no. 5. 63  1409: ZSO 2, no. 6917. The goods of the Slavonian ban, Paul Pécsi, came into the possession of the king because he failed to write a last will. Sigismund used the goods to purchase books and chalices. 64  1409: ZSO 2, no. 7129. 65  1377: SZR, no. 1411. 66  1387: SZR, no. 1502. 67  1402: ZSO 2, no. 1837.

104

Chapter 9

the house and the vineyard bequeathed to them.68 The prior of Streza also had to step in against the sons of a testator in 1468; that case was settled by an agreement, and the prior had to swear that the estate in question was bequeathed to the monastery in return for saying masses, without any money involved.69 This suggests that the testator’s sons suspected that there was a concealed sale contract instead of a simple pious donation.70 Their suspicion seemed realistic enough to be investigated, which means that the Paulines must have entered into such contracts from time to time. A charter from 1449, in which the daughter of a testatrix declared that her mother bequeathed her estates to the Streza monastery, while she also acknowledged to have received 70 guilders from the Paulines, may be an example of such a concealed contract.71 The Paulines of Csatka also had conflicts with the relatives of a testator in 1497, in a lawsuit over half of a vineyard in Varsány. This case is of special interest because the testator’s brother (uterinus) was a monk in Csatka himself.72 Another interesting point is that the vineyard was on the estate of the abbey of Pannonhalma, although the Paulines were unwilling to recognize this fact.73 According to a charter issued by the custos of Pannonhalma, the trial lasted for long. The testator’s widow took an oath along with her companions, but the defendant contested it for various reasons.74 The son of the testator claimed half of the vineyard from the Paulines, but they were willing to hand over only one quarter of it. The judge ruled that the monks must disclaim half of the vineyard. Thereafter, Paulines appealed to the king, but they failed to meet the deadlines. Eventually, despite their efforts, the judgement issued at the first instance was applied: the testator’s son received half of the vineyard in question. In this case, the testator’s son was able to pursue his interest against the Paulines, and secure at least parts of the bequest for himself. When a local manor house, a vineyard, and a mill were donated to the Patacs monastery, it was not the relatives who contested the will but the parish 68  1404: ZSO 2, no. 3430. 69  1468: SZR, no. 3087. 70  This may have been, in fact, an annuity, as there are other examples for this practice. Here, however, there is no indication for such an agreement. 71  1449: LK 3, no. 119. One year later, the monks were officially registered as the owners of the estate: MNL OL DL 34793. 72  1492: SZR, no. 3726. In 1515, the Paulines of Bodrogsziget sued a woman who used a vineyard that had been bequeathed to the monastery by a priest. The charter is silent about the relation between the late priest and the woman, but she was probably his relative: SZR, no. 4171. 73  1497: SZR, no. 3728. 74  First, the oath takers were not locals, but extranei; second, one of them married his mother-in-law, therefore he was dishonourable (infamis).

Other Income

105

priest of Szentmiklós, who claimed that the testator left the properties for him. Finally, the case was decided for the monastery.75 In the late fifteenth century the Paulines of Szerdahely sued the widow of a testator and her companions.76 In 1465 vicar Valentine of Garić entered into a conflict with the Kapitánfi and Szentléleki families because of different crimes committed against the order in 1440 and 1465. The main charge against both families was that they failed to hand over certain possessions bequeathed to the monks. Members of the Kapitánfi family used several estates in Kőrös County that were left for the Paulines, and they also took a large quantity of movables from the house of the testatrix (for the details, see the chapter on Animal husbandry). The Szentléleki family withheld the bequeathed possessions, especially money, and they also refused the testatrix to be buried in the monastic church. A common point in these two cases is that the last wills of the widows were contested by the relatives of their late husbands.77 Withheld bequests posed a general problem. Albert, archdeacon of Nyitra and vicar of Esztergom, issued a charter in 1468 in which he ordered the parish priests in the dioceses of Esztergom, Győr, and Veszprém to admonish their parishioners—no more than ten people— in fifteen days about their obligations to pay their debts, loans, or bequests, to the Paulines of Örményes. The charter was issued on the request of the Paulines themselves.78 A similar case was recorded in a charter issued by Benedict Héti, commissioner of Eger, in 1472 on the request of Francis, the Pauline vicar of Ungvár, and two priors, Augustine of Eszeny and Martin of Villye.79 Another comparable event is mentioned in another charter issued by Andrew of Szentgyörgy, commissioner of Veszprém, in 1484 for the Paulines of Csatka.80 According to the latter document, the monks made several complaints: certain persons owed them money or movables, and others, especially the bailiffs of the Csókakő Castle and their officers, caused them damage by stopping their wagon carrying food for the monastery, and levying toll on it (pedagium seu quidagium); the toll collectors even threatened them. The Paulines asked for 200 guilders in 75  1409: ZSO 2, no. 7049. 76  1495: Lukcsics, Monumenta Romana Episcopatus Vesprimiensis, vol. 4, 1416–1492, 40. 77  1465: LK 10, no. 374. The monks had a tense relationship with the two families; the vicar accused them both of withholding the bequest and other severe acts of might. 78  S ZR, no. 3083. A very similar document was issued by Bishop Louis of Aquileia in 1484, upon the request of Prior Caspar of Kőszeg and Prior Gallus of Keresztúr, both from the Pécs diocese: SZR, no. 3473. 79  1472: SZR, no. 3200. The document especially addresses the widow of Nicholas of Kisvárda and the Ducho family. 80  1484: SZR, no. 3471.

106

Chapter 9

compensation, which they received. The monks of Kamensko also complained in 1495 about certain movables and landed properties that were left for their monastery but not handed over; in this case, both laymen and clerics were there among the defendants.81 In some cases the relatives changed their minds and eventually approved the bequest. This was the case, for instance, with an estate left for the Paulines of Streza in 1419. First a certain Lucas, grandson of Lucas of Konzkamellék, protested in his and his daughters’ name against his cousins, the daughters of James, son of Lucas, who sold their landed properties between the rivers Konzka and Plavnica to Thomas of Konzkamellék. Later he renounced his claim to the land and accepted that Thomas handed down the estate to the Paulines.82 Sometimes lawsuits over last wills were taken as far as the papal court, especially if a noble family, like the Francopani, was involved. In 1467 Pope Paul II threatened the descendants of Martin Francopani with excommunication if they refuse to comply with a last will favouring the Pauline monasteries of Novi and Tersato. The papal intervention was probably justified by the value of the bequest.83 A charter issued in 1428 explains how last wills were implemented. The Paulines of Szakácsi were the beneficiaries of two last wills. One of them was the testament of Clara Kígyó, the wife of Brictius of Szakácsi, the other was that of John Zsoldos. The official, commissioned to implement both wills, was Michael Kígyó, the brother of Clara and John Zsoldos’s father-in-law. According to the first testament, the monks received a plot in Szakácsi and a vineyard in the so-called Kerekerdő woods, but the Paulines exchanged the latter for 9 acres of Michael’s ploughland near the monastery. In the second testament, the monks received another vineyard in the woods of Kerekerdő, as well as 12 acres of land, and 71 guilders for weekly masses. The official commissioned to implement the wills donated, in addition, two acres of land near the parcel received from John, a meadow, and 3 guilders.84 The story reveals, on the one hand, that the official had some degree of freedom in deciding what he handed over in kind, with the consent of the beneficiaries; on the other hand, in this case it seems that the Paulines preferred the ploughlands to the woods. They received altogether 23 acres of arable land, and they even exchanged the 81  1495: LK 2, no. 67. For similar cases, see 1495: Lukcsics, Monumenta Romana Episcopatus Vesprimiensis, vol. 4, 1416–1492, 42 (Csatka); and 1513: Borsa, “A kaposszerdahelyi pálos kolostor középkori oklevelei,” 56 (Szerdahely). 82  1419: LK 3, no. 71. The charter was transcribed in a privilegial form by the Chapter of Čazma in 1446. 83  1467: LK 1, no. 11. 84  1428 MNL OL DL 11981.

Other Income

107

vineyard left for them by Clara Kígyó for ploughlands. It is also worth to mention that the sum left by John Zsoldos (71 guilders) is quite high compared to other testaments and proves the wealth of the testator. The agreement made between the monastery of Szerdahely and a nobleman by the name Michael of Szerdahely should be mentioned here. Master Michael declared in his and his sons’ name that each year they would donate the monastery ten pensa of deniers and ten “gifts” (munera) for Christmas (one pig, 20 loafs of bread, and 10 hens) and for Easter (one lamb, 100 eggs, and 20 loafs of bread). The fact that the agreement was reached in the presence of the prior general Tristianus clearly shows how important it must have been for the order to receive these donations.85 Revenues generated by tolls for some of the monasteries were of outmost importance; moreover, these were usually paid in cash. This was not a common type of income, only six monasteries are known to have received it on a regular basis. The monastery of Nosztre was granted the right to receive money collected at the toll of Szob from King Louis I and Queen Elisabeth in 1382, and the donation was confirmed by both King Sigismund and King Albert.86 Its importance and the value of the income it generated is shown by a charter of King Albert, in which the Paulines asked the king to confirm this right, because merchants tried to avoid paying the toll on the grounds of their own privileges. This toll was preserved even when the diet of Bács decided to abolish all tolls collected on land (1523), as it is attested by a charter of King Louis II. This also proves that this income was essential for the monks.87 The monastery of Szentpéter in Somogy County received money from a toll in the market town of Szentpál in 1410.88 In 1444 Simon and James Cudar of Ónod granted the monastery of Lád the right to receive the money collected on Fridays at the ford of Luc on the Tisza River, and at the toll of Mohi. It was the donators’ wish that their successors pay 100 guilders to the order, should they change this privilege of the monks.89 No toll of Mohi appears in the sources later. The monks also received the money collected on Tuesdays at the ford of Luc 85  In 1370, in accordance with the agreement the monastery and Michael exchanged some ploughlands and a forest between them: MNL OL DL 5831. The vicar of Baranya also gave his consent. 86  1389: MNL OL DL 6950. The toll was a very valuable source of income: it was collected both on land and waterways, and only goods transported to the queen, her children, her household, and her retinue, were exempt. Confirmation in 1439: MNL OL DL 13383. In 1453, the monastery received a house in Szob from John Hunyadi, to be used as a custom house: MNL OL DL 14662. 87  1520: MNL OL DL 23497. 88  Csánki, Magyarország történelmi földrajza a Hunyadiak korában, 1894, 2:696. 89  1444: MNL OL DL 13756. The donation was confirmed in 1456: MNL OL DL 15107.

108

Chapter 9

in 1447,90 and this toll was in the hands of the Paulines in 1472 and in 1475, too.91 In 1463 Albert Losonci granted the monastery of Eszeny half of the toll revenues on the Tisza River.92 The monastery of Lepoglava received the revenues of two tolls in Varasd County, and they even entered into a lawsuit because of it in the early sixteenth century.93 The sixth monastery that had this kind of income was the Saint Andrew monastery in Visegrád; a document preserved in the Pauline formulary reveals that a chapter held in 1538 in the monastery of Nosztre decided to rent the tolls in Solymár and Szántó to the town of Buda; the revenues of these were collected by the above mentioned monastery.94 The 16 quartalia of tallow that the butchers of Pressburg paid to the monastery of Thal for the use of three slaughterhouses also counts as a type of income.95 Unfortunately, the charter is silent on what grounds the tallow was paid, but it cannot be excluded that the Paulines, in fact, owned the slaughterhouses, and received rent for it in kind.96 A slaughterhouse in Vác was inherited by the Paulines of Nosztre in 141697 and Bishop Simon Rozgonyi of 90  1447: MNL OL DL 14101, and 14102. According to a charter issued three years after the donation, salt transports regularly crossed the river at this ford. Among the listed items one finds salibus, ferris, laminis, pecuniis; and it was forbidden to purchase boats or circumvent the monks’ toll by any other means. Anyone to breech this rule was obliged to pay 200 guilders. 91  1472: MNL OL DL 17336, and 17335, transcribed in 1475. 92  D AP 1, 140. 93  1514: MNL OL DL 49541. 94  Formularium, fol. 44r: “Locatio thelonei ad certum tempus. Nos frater N ordinis heremita­ rum sancti Pauli primiheremitae prior generalis ac caeteri patres diffinitores capituli nostri annualis in Noztre anno Domini 1538 celebrati recognoscimus et praesentium serie fatemur, theloneum nostrum, quod ex nunc in Salmar et Zantho possessionibus exigitur (sic!) ad claustrum nostrum sancti Andreae proveniens isto anno presenti, in festo beati Georgii mar­ tiris egregiis et nobilibus dominis iudici ac iuratis civibus et toti comitati civitatis Budensis pro florenis trigintaquinque in duobus terminis, puta medietatem ad sancti Michaelis et al­ teram medietatem beati Georgii festa post sese sequentia persolvendis in decursum unius integri anni dedisse et oblocasse, immo dedimus et oblocavimus harum nostrarum vigore et testimonio litterarum mediante, ea conditione adiecta, ut anno evoluto libere nobis remitta­ tur et in nostra potestate sit ad usum nostrum nobis retinere vel alteri plus offerenti collocare. Datum ex praescripto claustro nostro Noztre secundo die sacri festi Penthecostis anno quo supra.” The monks of Saint Lawrence were forced to abandon their monastery by this time, and probably that is why the two tolls near Buda were rented out. 95  1482: MNL OL DL 25842. 96  There is evidence for a slaughterhouse owned by the Paulines in the charters of the Roman monastery, too. See Weinrich, Hungarici monasterii ordinis Sancti Pauli primi here­ mitae de urbe Roma Instrumenta et priorum registra, 172, 271. 97  D AP 2, 92

Other Income

109

Eger allowed the Paulines of Veresmart to build a slaughterhouse in Gyöngyös in 1444.98 In 1506 the monastery of Fehéregyháza bought a slaughterhouse in Óbuda for 13 guilders.99 It is also telling that Ulrich von Grafeneck and his son, Wolf, donated two houses near the slaughterhouses of Sopron to the monastery of Baumgarten which they had founded; these buildings were later handed down to the monastery of Bánfalva.100 An annuity in kind was granted to the Diósgyőr monastery by Queen Mother Elisabeth in 1376; this donation consisted of half a quintal of oil and ten pigs and aimed to improve the provision of the monks. These goods had to be allocated either by the royal or by the reginal stewards in the time of Lent.101 A similar donation was made by the patron of the Szerdahely monastery in 1377: ten pensae deniers and gifts at Christmas, namely a good pig to make ham, twenty milk-loaves, and ten chickens, and another ten deniers and gifts at Easter, i.e. an Easter lamb, hundred eggs, and twenty milk-loaves.102 In 1420 the Bakva monastery also received donations in kind, namely two rundlets of wine, an unleavened wheat bread, and a bag of oats, which they were entitled to in exchange for the use of their vineyards by three tenants from two villages, Remetinc and Petretinc.103 Thomas Bakóc, then bishop of Eger, also gave inkind donation to the Paulines of Diósgyőr: three and a half barrels of wine were recorded in his account book as sallarium.104 However, it is unlikely that all the wine was consumed in the monastery; probably it was sold in the wine shop of the Paulines, which means that it was rather a substitute for cash donation.

98  D AP 3, 213. 99  D AP 1, 147. 100  1475: MNL OL DL 17681. The houses were identified by Károly Goda, see F. Romhányi, “Pálos kolostorok Sopron környékén.” There is evidence for the donation of slaughterhouses elsewhere: in 1364, Peter, a canon of Várad and cantor of Buda, donated a vineyard and a slaughterhouse to his sister Clara, who lived in the monastery of Poor Clares in Várad, and through her, to the monastery itself: MNL OL DL 5298. The Carthusian monastery of Lechnic also had a slaughterhouse in Szikszó; it was donated to the community by one of the monks, Nicholas Szmokoda, in the mid-fifteenth century, in 1453: MNL OL DL 14645. Some monasteries owned more than one slaughterhouse; ten and a half slaughterhouses were donated to the Benedictine abbey of Hronský Beňadik (Garamszentbenedek) in 1394: ZSO 1, no. 3285. I am grateful to Noémi Gyöngyvér Szabó for calling my attention to this detail. 101  1376: Bándi 1985, 564–565. 102  1377: Iván Borsa, “A Somogyi Konvent Oklevelei Az Országos Levéltárban (Forrásközlés): Negyedik Közlemény; 1351–1370,” Somogy Megye Múltjából 29 (1998): no. 327. 103  1420: LK 1, no. 10. 104  Gyulai, Szőlőbirtoklás Miskolcon a 16. században, 17–18.

110

Chapter 9

The donation of Frederick of Cilli who gave the ius montanum of a vineyard to the Lepoglava monastery in 1451, could be both in kind and in cash.105 A few charters from the Eszeny monastery mention large expenses, such as buying parcels and a manor house. However, this also serves as indirect evidence for the considerably good financial standing of the community.106 The monastery had an effective strategy to buy and exchange landed properties, and by the end of the fifteenth century they owned a large estate in Endes. The Gönc monastery also had the means to buy an estate in Szada for 200 guilders in 1485.107 Tax exemption was a special form of financial support. Such privileges appear from the late fourteenth, and more frequently from the mid-fifteenth century. Pope Pius II in 1459 granted a general privilege to the order by absolving the Paulines from paying tithes.108 In 1451, John Marcali absolved the Paulines of Dobra Kuća from paying the ninth for their villages of Brezjanc and Peterjanc.109 In 1455, King Ladislaus V decided to make all the Slavonian monasteries subject to exemption from all taxes, including taxa, collecta, cen­ sus, due to the king or to the ban.110 In 1440, king Wladislaus I absolved the Diósgyőr monastery from paying the ninth for their vineyards in Diósgyőr, Miskolc, and Bábony, as pious donation for the salvation of his soul.111 King Matthias granted a similar exemption to the Gönc monastery in 1471,112 to the Pressburg house of the Thal monastery in 1472,113 and to the Diósgyőr monastery in 1478.114 A charter issued by King Wladislaus II in 1492 confirmed the decision of King Matthias to grant tax exemption to the Karakó 105  1451: MNL OL DL 34743. 106  D AP 1, 140–141. In 1482 the friars bought an island and a pond for 400 guilders from two noblemen of Endes, and a third man from Kerekd. In 1484 they also bought the manor house of John of Szalánc in Endes for 80 guilders. 107  Belényesy, Pálos kolostorok az Abaúji-Hegyalján, 20. 108  1459: MNL OL DL 25984, transcribed in 1466. As early as in 1329, the order was absolved from paying the tithe for vineyards cultivated by monks, in a privilege granted by Pope John XXII. Mályusz erroneously interpreted the charter as a general exemption from the tithe, see Mályusz, Egyházi társadalom a középkori Magyarországon, 258. 109  1451: LK 4, no. 20. According to the charter, Marcali absolved the monastery from paying “universas decimas vinorum, bladorum, frugum, apum et agnellorum, aliarumque rerum decimari solitarum.” 110  1455: LK 1, no. 38. 111  1440: MNL OL DL 13582. Confirmed and extended to the vineyards of Csaba by King Matthias in 1464: MNL OL DL 13582. Wladislaus II had both documents transcribed in 1501. 112  1471: MNL OL DL 17175. 113  1472: MNL OL DL 17367. 114  1478: MNL OL DL 18124.

Other Income

111

estate of the Vázsony monastery (Vas County); moreover, the Paulines also qualified for exemption from the mandatory military service connected to the estate (!). The privilege was also confirmed by King Louis II.115 Another charter of Wladislaus II, issued in 1515, also confirmed a decision of Matthias absolving the tenants of the Lepoglava monastery from paying any taxes.116 In 1504, King Wladislaus absolved the Toronyalja monastery from paying the ninth for two vineyards in Kisoroszi.117 In 1470 Emeric Szapolyai, count of Szepes, ordered the bailiff of Szárd not to take toll in Berzéte from the tenants of the Gombasek monastery living in Szalóc (the tenants in the village near the monastery supplied the monks with food).118 A special right, characteristic for the Székely community in Transylvania, namely the primipilatus, was granted to the Szentkirály monastery in 1498.119 From the point of view of the Paulines, two privileges associated with this special status must have been most precious: the right to build mills and to use forests extensively.120 The Lád monastery became subject to tax exemption as a pious donation from Duchess Hedwig of Cieszyn and her sons, John and George Szapolyai in 1507.121 About ten years later, they absolved the Tokaj monastery from paying the ninth for their wine.122 In 1525 the beneficiary was again the monastery of Lád: then, King Louis II absolved them for six years from paying the taxes of their estate in Bázs (Borsod County).123 In 1519 Ladislaus Kanizsai, count of Vas County, absolved the tenants of the Slat monastery from paying the extraordinary taxes for which the monks celebrated three masses a year in return (still, the tenants had to pay the mardurina and other ordinary taxes).124 Although these 115  1492: MNL OL DL 39173, transcribed in 1526. These privileges, very similar to those enjoyed by noblemen, possibly included other rights in addition to tax exemption (e.g. forest and pasture use); however, there is no direct evidence for this. 116  1515: LK 1, no. 112. 117  1504: MNL OL DL 21370. This charter is the only evidence for the vineyards of the Toronyalja monastery. Kisoroszi is a village on the Island of Szentendre, a large island of the Danube between Visegrád and Szentendre. Viticulture was unusual here in the Middle Ages. 118  1470: Bándi 1985, 581. 119  1498: MNL OL DL 37310. A trial was initiated in 1529 when Peter Mihályfi occupied land in Tótfalu that the monastery was entitled to use due to its status of primipilatus, see Rusu, Dicţionarul mănăstirilor din Transilvania, Banat, Crişana şi Maramureş, 227. 120  I am grateful to Elek Benkő for clarifying the medieval notion of the title lófő (primipilatus). 121  1507: MNL OL DL 38865. The ground for the exemption was probably a privilege granted by Queen Mary of Anjou, issued in 1392, in which she exempted the tenants of the Lád monastery in Keresztúr from her tolls in Mohi and in the two villages by the name Zsolca: ZSO (1, no. 2444). 122  1519: MNL OL DL 24378. 123  1525: MNL OL DL 24175. 124  1519: LK 3, 202, no. 24.

112

Chapter 9

exemptions did not yield any income, they meant a significant support for the monasteries. A possible reason of this royal generosity is revealed by a charter of King Sigismund in 1422: the ruler absolved the tenants of the Zagreb monastery living in Petrusóc, Gordovazela, and Rakitovec from paying all the royal taxes because of the frequent Ottoman incursions that brought depopulation in these villages.125 The right to collect tithe provided the monasteries with actual income. An early example for this practice is the Jenő monastery: Bishop Coloman of Győr conferred the right to collect the wine tithe of Szőlős on them in 1351.126 In accordance with a decision of Bishop Emeric of Transylvania, the monastery of Szentmihálykő was entitled to the tithe of the bishopric’s manor in Csand in 1386.127 Tithe revenues seem to have become increasingly important in the fifteenth century, especially after the Paulines took on certain tasks in pastoral care. The Slat monastery received the tithes in the Stenisnak district and the region beyond the Kulpa River128 (the tithe of the Slat Hill paid in wine was part of this income129), before 1451. After the Slat monastery had lost its autonomy,130 the monastery of Kamensko (with which the former monastery was unified) had to enter a lawsuit against the Zagreb chapter because of these privileges in the early 1460s. The trustee of the Holy See, the Cistercian abbot of Zagreb, summoned the Paulines in 1461, but they allegedly failed to receive the summons, for which the Pauline vicar of Zagreb complained. A year later, the Paulines of Kamensko appealed to Pope Pius II because of the abbot’s prejudices against them.131 The income from the tithe was obviously of pivotal importance for the Paulines. In 1451 the monasteries of Slat and Kamensko were 125  1422: MNL OL DL 34698. 126  1351: MNL OL DL 41153. 127  V F, chap. 36. 128  1451: LK 3, no. 14. 129  1463: LK 3, no. 20. 130  A few years before merging the two monasteries upon a papal mandate issued in 1451, the Ottomans destroyed the monastery of Slat, killed several monks. The monastery was abandoned after its estate came into the hands of the enemy. The Slat monastery had been plundered earlier as well, in 1393, as recorded in VF, chap. 38. For the decision about the 1451merger, see LK 3, no. 15. The prior of Kamensko asked for a papal confirmation in the same year: MNL OL DL 34966. The papal bull was transcribed in 1458 by Bishop Francis of Corbavia, acknowledging the merging of the two monasteries: LK 3, no. 18. 131  1461: LK 5, no. 25; 1462: LK 5, no. 27. The trial went on for several years. In 1463 the lawyer of the Paulines claimed that the amount in question was 10,000 guilders: LK 5, nos. 29–33. In 1463 it is noted that the tithe was always collected by the Paulines on the Slat Hill: LK 3, no. 20. The case was brought to the court of the Esztergom archbishop SZR, no. 2982, but the decision has not been preserved—the case may have been settled out of court.

Other Income

113

unified on the grounds of their poverty: the yearly income of Slat did not exceed ten guilders, while that of Kamensko amounted to fifteen guilders.132 Similar donations were offered by lay patrons, too. The Bakva monastery received in 1449 the ninth in grain and wine from the tenants of John Marcali, the master of the doorkeepers, in the region of the castle of Verőce (Virovitica).133 Six years later, Marcali offered the whole ninth to the monasteries of Bakva and Dobra Kuća as pious donation in his last will.134 The Jofa monastery had a unique source of income in the fourteenth century, made possible by local circumstances: it received the taxes paid by an iron mine.135 Finally, indulgences also counted as a source of income. Pilgrims provided some of the Pauline monasteries with a regular income; first of all, the Saint Lawrence monastery near Buda reaped profit from them, but places associated with the cult of the Virgin Mary, such as Thal or Lepoglava, also realized some income from pilgrimage. The amount of money received this way cannot be estimated because of the lack of sources. Still, it is worth taking them into account because they were often connected to building works in the monasteries, and recurring celebrations in the calendar of saints ensured a regular income for the monks. In 1319 Bishop Martin of Eger granted full indulgence to those who visited the chapel of the hermitage near Középnémeti on Saint Ladislaus’ day and gave alms to the monks.136 In the same year, Bishop Lawrence of Vác issued a charter of indulgence for the Zagreb monastery,137 which received another indulgence of 140 days in 1383 from Cardinal Filippo d’Alencono under

132  Revenues from landed estate and tenant peasants alone were insufficient for sustaining a Pauline community in the fifteenth century. Martin Francopani sought to remedy this problem when he donated the archipresbiteriatus of Busan to the newly founded Novi monastery in Croatia, in addition to lands, vineyards, and tenants. In the 1462 charter he explicitly justifies his donation by the scarce income generated by landed properties: LK 1, no. 1. The donation of tithes and taxes was confirmed two decades later, in 1481, by Pope Sixtus IV: LK 1, no. 4. The poverty of the monasteries and the lack of a calculable and steady income was a recurring problem in the mid-fifteenth century. In 1460, for instance, Pope Pius II allowed merging an impoverished Benedictine Abbey in Istria with the Pauline monastery of Crikvenica. The unification was requested by the Paulines on account of the poverty of the abbey, but it is clear that the Paulines needed the potential income of the abbey too: MNL OL DL 15443. 133  1449: MNL OL DL 38696. 134  1455: MNL OL DL 14915. 135  Bunyitay, Szilágymegye középkori műemlékei, 469. Other donated properties included lands and a mill on the Körös River. 136  1319: Bándi 1985, 608–609. Archbishop Thomas of Esztergom confirmed and extended the indulgence by an extra year in 1320: Bándi 1985, 609. 137  1319: LK 2, no.2.

114

Chapter 9

the condition that the pilgrims contribute to the lightening and the decoration of the church.138 In 1382 Cardinal Pietro Pileo di Prata granted an indulgence of a hundred days for the monastery of Streza under construction.139 The same monastery received further indulgences in 1386 from Cardinal Valentine, at that time administer of the Pécs diocese, Bishop John of Győr, and Bishop Nicholas of Belgrade,140 and in 1388 from George, commissioner of the Zagreb diocese.141 Cardinal Valentine granted indulgences on several saints’ days and on their octaves to the Saint James monastery in the Pécs diocese in 1386.142 In 1457, the Saint James monastery was granted another indulgence of a hundred days by the papal legate John, under the condition that the devotees visiting the monastery contribute to its maintenance.143 The Lád monastery received indulgences in 1423 from the auxiliary bishop of Eger, when the bishop reconciled the monastery by consecrating six altars: two in the church, three in the new chapel of the Holy Spirit on the northern side of the church, and an altar dedicated to Saint Nicholas outside the church. This suggests that the indulgence was connected to a recently finished construction work.144 The Streza monastery received an indulgence of forty days in 1424 from the commissioner of the Zagreb diocese, probably because it was plundered a few years earlier by the Ottomans; a similar indulgence was granted to them about twenty years later by Bishop Benedict of Zagreb, too.145 In 1484 the Kamensko monastery received an indulgence from Rome because of the same reason. Its buildings had been burnt to the ground by the Ottomans; parts of them were already rebuilt, but the monks lacked the means to finish the construction. In a charter, the parish priests of the diocese were asked to support the monks with alms and advice.146 A charter of King Sigismund issued in 1412 suggests that certain Pauline monasteries attracted pilgrims in considerable numbers, even if no indulgences were offered (or these were not preserved). According to Sigismund’s charter, the king ordered the bailiff and the officials of Regéc Castle not to collect toll from the pilgrims coming from different parts 138  1383: LK 2, no.7. 139  1382: LK 3, no. 19. 140  1386: LK 3, no. 28. The text of the two subsequent indulgences were subsequently written beneath the first one. 141  1388: LK 3, no. 26. 142  1386: MNL OL DL 7222. 143  1457: MNL OL DL 15168. 144  1423: MNL OL DL 11392. There were altogether seven altars in the church, and indulgences were granted by the bishop both for the day of the consecration, and for the feasts of the patron saints of the altars. 145  1424 and 1443: LK 3, nos. 79, and 108. 146  1484: LK 5, no. 37.

Other Income

115

of the kingdom to visit the Regéc monastery on the day of Saints Philip and James (May 1), or on other days of pilgrimage. One of the main attractions in the monastery was probably the relic of Saint Ladislaus preserved there.147 A charter from 1438 reports an act of might on the estate of the Zagreb monastery in Remetinc; this incident also sheds some light on the types of incomes the monastery had.148 The estate itself was donated to the monastery as a deserted piece of land before 1410. Bishop Eberhard of Zagreb, patron of the monastery and confriar of the order, allowed the future tenants moving to Remetinc (also called Holy Trinity after the chapel standing there) to use the meadows and forests also used by his tenants.149 Later a market was established here, to be held on the day of the Holy Trinity; the above mentioned incident happened on this market. There were three parish priests of the region among the defendants, one of whom, by the name Peter, from the neighbouring Lubena, may have been the initiator. According to the complaint of the Paulines, two infringements were committed: first, Peter and his companions levied a toll on the wine and beer that was sold for the pilgrims, despite the papal privileges and the customary law; i.e., there was a breach of the Paulines’ license to operate a public house. Secondly, the parish priests took the alms donated by the devotees from friar John and Gregory who came to preach on the feast; Peter even threatened friar John and took the alms (in cash) from him by force. Thus, the dispute was over the jurisdiction of the monks and the parish priests. The report also reveals that the alms were counted by two other parish priests, and they put the money into purses; the companions of Peter carried the alms after he confiscated the money. Pope Eugene IV issued a charter less than a month later and ordered the bishop of Pécs to excommunicate those who committed the act of might.150 Next year, however, Friar John and parish priest Peter made an agreement before the bishop’s court, according to which Peter received half of the offertoria collected on the day of the Holy Trinity, as well as one third of the tributes paid for the wine and beer. However, the agreement did not extend to Peter’s successors.151 The background of this case remains unclear; it is obvious, however, that the income from the alms and the wine licence must have been high on that festive day. The feast and the market of Remetinc were mentioned again in the early sixteenth century, this time in connection with a 147  1412: Bándi 1985, 672. 148  1438: LK 2, no. 38. 149  1410: LK 2, no. 17. 150  1438: LK 2, no. 39. At the same time, the pope excommunicated John Repich and his companions because they illegally collected tax from the tenants of the Paulines. The case was settled by an agreement in 1439: LK 2, no. 41. 151  1439: LK 2, no. 41.

116

Chapter 9

scandal. In 1505 the locals asked the bishop to relocate the market to the Saint Nicholas church in the neighbouring village, because the merchants and the visitors of the market caused lots of damage.152 Bishop Lucas implemented their wish next year, adding that public nuisance was frequent, and even a murder was committed on the market.153 The Paulines of Garić also made a complaint about an act of might that probably happened on a market held on a festive day in 1439.154 The monks accused a tenant of Caspar Csupor of stealing a dagger from the sellers, contra libertates claustri, in front of the monastery’s gate on the eve of Purification. The types of income discussed in this chapter were varied; the monks received them either on one occasion, or periodically. Revenues from tithes, as well as the exemption from taxes and tolls, were different forms of support. Single bequests and other pious donations, which are hard to put into any category, usually involved small sums of money; however, they meant a regular and, to some extent, calculable income for the monasteries. In some cases, especially when the bequests were contested by relatives, it is possible that the last will was preceded by a ‘pension contract,’ for which the estates of the other party—a childless couple or a widow—served as financial coverage. 152  Early sixteenth century (1506?): LK 2, no. 161. 153  1506: LK 2, no. 165. 154  1439: LK 9, no. 271. On the same day, two servants of the Csupor family stole fish carried by the tenants of the monastery. They also took by force a cloak and salt carried by another tenant; moreover, the tenants of the Csupor family took the draught ox of the monastery’s tenants by force, as they were carrying wood and a millwheel to the mill on the Gerzence River.

Chapter 10

Salt as Income A donated commodity that generated quite a high income for the Pauline order and some of the monasteries, was salt. According to Gyöngyösi, King Louis I donated salt worth of 300 guilders to the annual general chapter; the salt was delivered from the salt chamber in Máramaros.1 However, there is no charter evidence for this act of donation. Boglárka Weisz suggested that in fact, salt was first donated to the Paulines by King Sigismund of Luxemburg, although there could be some sort of antecedent of it.2 Sigismund’s donation was later confirmed by King Albert of Habsburg.3 Documents ordering the delivery of salt were issued by Kings Wladislaus I4 and Wladislaus II,5 and the annual donation was again confirmed by King Ladislaus V.6 The salt received from the court was one of the major revenues of the order in the Middle Ages. Three formulae, asking the king to send the annual salt portion worth of 300 guilders to the general chapter, even made their way into the Formularium mai­ us.7 Although the Paulines had the privilege to sell the salt at any market, they 1  V F, chap. 27. 2  1391: MNL OL DL 7684; 1406: MNL OL DL 8835. According to Sigismund’s decree issued in 1397, the price of a hundred blocks of salt sold in Buda was 300 new deniers, i.e. 3 guilders: MNL OL DL 8861. Based on this, the quantity of salt donated to the Paulines must have been 10,000 blocks: Wenzel, Magyarország bányászatának kritikai története, 438. This is an enormous quantity, enough to cover the annual supply needed for 5000–10,000 people, depending on its use, cf. F. Romhányi, “A beregi egyezmény és a magyarországi sókereskedelem az Árpád-korban.” However, Sigismund overhauled the entire salt management system for a second time in the 1410s, and the quantity that the Paulines received probably decreased to approximately 7,500 blocks (cf. 1512: MNL OL DL 71123) but the sales price remained 300 guilders. 3  1438: MNL OL DL 13158; transcribed by King Ladislaus V in 1456: MNL OL DL 8833. According to the confirmation charter, the salt chambers of Várad, Debrecen, Poroszló, Szalárd, Szolnok, and Abád were obliged to provide salt to the Paulines. A decree issued by King Albert in 1439 ordered these chambers to issue the salt rightfully claimed by the Paulines for that year: MNL OL DL 13288. 4  1440: MNL OL DL 13562, 13563 (two identical copies). Four days later, King Wladislaus I ordered all royal and other toll keepers not to levy toll on the salt of the Paulines, or on their men, animals, or carts: MNL OL DL 13572. 5  1505: MNL OL DL 21516. 6  1456: MNL OL DL 15059. In this confirmation the king also allowed the Paulines to sell salt in their houses or anywhere else on the market, even near the seats of the salt chambers, including Buda and Pest. 7  Formularium, fol. 59r: “Alia ad eundem pro subsidio petendo ad capitulum”; fol. 90r: “Supplicatoria pro salibus trecentorum florenorum pro capitulo,” and about the usual place of © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004424760_012

118

Chapter 10

usually sold it in Buda and Pest. A charter issued in 1424 by the Serbian despot Stephen reveals that he ordered all his officials (vice counts, toll keepers, officers, and noble retainers) not to levy toll on the monks of the Saint Lawrence monastery when they take the salt donated by King Sigismund to the annual general chapter, to Buda or to any other marketplace.8 It would be especially interesting to explore the role of the “big house” on Saint Paul Street in this business, but so far no evidence has surfaced on this matter. Although the donation itself formally aimed to support the general chapter, it is highly unlikely that the order spent all the money made from the sale of salt on the chapter’s expenses. This annual income must have been used to finance the central administration, too. Despite the act of royal donation, salt was sometimes in short supply. A charter issued by King Sigismund in 1433 in Basel reveals that the Paulines suffered serious losses because of the inflation in the previous years. Therefore, the king ordered the exchange rate of the guilder in Buda to be applied when calculating the salt’s value. Earlier, salt worth of 600 florins— one florin being 100 fyllers or 100 quartniks—was allocated, which meant that the Paulines received a commodity worth less than 60 guilders annually. The king also decreed that the salt should be allocated from the chambers of Várad, Debrecen, Szolnok, Szalárd, Pest, or any other chamber named by the Paulines, but not from the chambers of Dés or Szék. A document to prove the approval of the vicar general of the Saint Lawrence monastery was required in any case.9 Another type of problem is mentioned in a charter issued by King Matthias in 1461: laymen, commissioned to transport the monks’ salt, refused to pay for the amount they reserved for themselves, stating that they failed to receive the one block of salt per carriage that should have been paid to them for the transport. However, the salt chambers attested that they had already given 30 blocks to the cart drivers. Thereafter, the king ordered the cart drivers to pay immediately for the salt they had taken, because the Paulines were in urgent need of money for their Pentecost chapter.10 Salt was in general sold in bulk, at least a case in 1502 supports this idea: friar Blasius, dispensator of the Paulines, complained that the bishop of Milkó (a titular bishop, vicarius of the archbishop

selling the salt: “ut sales ipsi de camera maiestatis vestre solute et reddite in civitate Budensi, Pesthiensi ac ubique locorum vendi possent”; fol. 90r–v: “Alia supplicatoria prioris generalis ad regiam maiestatem pro eadem.” The fourth letter (fol. 14v) in 1532, in which the order asked for the annual sum of 300 guilders in salt, was probably addressed to King John Szapolyai. 8  1424: MNL OL DL 11375. 9  1433: MNL OL DL 12519 and 12551 (the first chater was issued four months earlier). 10  1461: MNL OL DL 15586.

Salt as Income

119

of Esztergom), the custos of Esztergom, and other clerics failed to pay for the salt sold to them.11 The order even received an additional donation of salt from King Ladislaus V in 1455; he donated salt worth of 100 guilders to ensure that all Paulines living in Hungary would be provided with food and clothing. John Hunyadi and other officials in the royal salt chambers were ordered to allocate the required quantity.12 One of the formulas included in the Formularium maius may refer to this donation act, asking the ruler to provide the order with a certain amount of salt, on the grounds of their poverty (fol. 39r). A larger, but probably non-recurrent donation was made by the same king two years later.13 Salt was sometimes donated to single monasteries as well, although not on a regular basis. The first case we know of involves the master of the treasury, Nicholas Kanizsai, who paid the rent of two houses used by Francesco Bernardi to the monastery of Örményes; 100 blocks of salt was part of the payment.14 In 1460 a lay brother from the Szentmihálykő monastery who transported salt from the mines to the monastery, was robbed on the road.15 In 1459 King Matthias apportioned salt worth of 200 guilders to the Dédes monastery from the salt mines of Szék.16 In April 1464 the king issued two charters for two Pauline monasteries within two weeks: the monasteries of Kőszeg and Szerdahely got salt from the chamber of Szeged as a pious donation.17 The latter donation was also confirmed by King Wladislaus II in 1511, suggesting that it was a recurrent income of the monastery.18 Interestingly, the beneficiaries were geographically close to each other as well as to the crossing of the southern salt road on the Danube at Szekcső. The fourth monastery that received salt, worth

11  1502: SZR, no. 3943. 12  1455: MNL OL DL 14949. 13  D AP 2, 431. 14  1392: MNL OL DL 7818. The salt was worth approximately 1.5–2 marks. In 1397, a hundred blocks of salt were sold in Buda for three guilders, see footnote 680. 15  1460: MNL OL DL 36392. The monastery of Szerdahely complained in 1519 that another monk, probably transporting food, was also beaten, see Borsa, “A kaposszerdahelyi pálos kolostor középkori oklevelei,” 57. 16  D AP 1, 64. 17  1464: MNL OL DL 15951, 15970. The salt donated was worth of 150 and 100 guilders, respectively. 18  1511: Borsa, “A kaposszerdahelyi pálos kolostor középkori oklevelei,” 55, no. 40. A charter issued by King Wladislaus II reveals that the salt originated from the Szeged chamber. The charter issued in 1491 by Mathaeus literatus, the camerarius of Pest, presumably refers to the same donation. According to this document, all the nobles, as well as the tax and toll collectors between Pest and the Monastery of Saint Ladislaus, were forbidden to levy toll on salt shipped to the monastery, because the king gave it as alms: Borsa, 52, no. 29. This suggests that the salt may not have come from the Szeged chamber in all cases.

120

Chapter 10

of 150 guilders, from King Matthias, was Diósgyőr in 1460.19 A receipt made out for this amount of salt can be found in the formulary: Nos frater N caeterique fratres conventuales ordinis sancti Pauli primiheremitae in claustro sacratissimi corporis Domini nostri Ihesu Christi in Dyosgewr commorantes universis et sin­ gulis, quibus incumbit, harum serie literarum notificamus, quoniam egregius N de tali comes et camerarius de Maramarws vel Maramarwsiensis iuxta contenta literarum regie maiestatis de salibus tot et tantis vel ad centum et quinquagin­ ta florenos se extendentibus monasterio nostro praefato dari consuetis anno in praesenti nobis et monasterio nostro realem et integralem exhibuit solutionem effective. Ea propter praefatum egregium dominum N comitem et camerarium de praefata solutione reddimus liberum et expeditum harum nostrarum lite­ rarum vigore mediante (fol. 63v). The receipt was probably issued between 1532 and 1536, its place in the formularium suggests 1533. After the death of King Matthias Corvinus in 1493, Queen Beatrix donated salt worth of 50 guilders to the monks of Remete near Técső.20 Salt was sometimes acquired by the monasteries as toll, too. The Lád monastery collected toll at Lúc, partly in the form of salt;21 the monastery of Nosztre also collected toll partly in salt at Szob. Salt was a recurrent income of Pauline monasteries outside Hungary as well. Emperor Frederick III granted the income from salt trade to the monastery of Wiener Neustadt in 1480,22 while in Poland, the monastery of Rupella realized 43 marks of income from the salt mine of Wieliczka, which represented two thirds of its total revenues.23 The income realized from salt certainly played a pivotal role in financing the Pauline order. The costs of the annual chapter were covered from this source from the end of the fourteenth century, perhaps even earlier, and from the mid-fifteenth century onwards, even everyday expenses were met from these revenues. However, it was rather exceptional for individual monasteries to 19  D AP 1, 68. 20  D AP 2, 312. 21  See footnotes 614 and 615. 22  D AP 3, 324: “centum quadraginta quattuor florenorum Renensium in oppido Awsee de salis fodio ante Nativitatem Domini fratribus ad sustentacionem … et fratres habeantur dare quitanciam ac viginti fwder salis.” The donation, made when the monastery was founded, was later confirmed by Emperor Maximillian in 1496. It is likely that Emperor Frederick founded the monastery and donated salt-related income to it to express his claim to the Hungarian throne and strengthen his position against Matthias Corvinus. On Pauline monasteries in present-day Austria, including Wiener Neustadt, and their later history, seeKuhn, “Die deutsche Provinz, 14.–16. Jahrhundert”; Kuhn, “A pálosok osztrák rendtartománya.” 23  Zbudniewek, Zbiór dokumentów Zakonu Paulinów w Polsce, vol. 2, 1464–1550, n. 57. See footnote 225.

Salt as Income

121

have such an income.24 In Örményes, the temporary salt income covered the costs of the ongoing construction works, while in the case of Dédes, Kőszeg, Szerdahely, Diósgyőr, and Remete the aim of King Matthias and, after his death, of Queen Beatrix was to provide extra support to these monasteries, for reasons yet unknown. These donations must reflect the king’s sympathy for the Paulines, since no similar contributions were offered to other orders. The Transylvanian Dominicans received their salt income from John Hunyadi; King Matthias only confirmed the donations made by his father. In the case of the Szentmihálykő monastery, however, it is possible that the salt was intended for the consumption of the monks themselves, and so it cannot be regarded as a proper revenue. 24  About salt donations to the mendicants, see F. Romhányi, Kolduló barátok, gazdálkodó szerzetesek: Koldulórendi gazdálkodás a késő középkori Magyarországon, 117–21. In the later Middle Ages, the Carthusians of Lechnic also received salt revenues in 1440: MNL OL DL 13529, confirmed by King Kazimir IV in 1452, and so did the Poor Clares of Óbuda in 1449: MNL OL DL 14211. Monasteries occasionally served as salt reserves even in the late Middle Ages. For instance, 300 large blocks of salt (sales curruales) were left for Peter Was in the monastery of the Austin Hermits of Torda in 1515: Entz, Erdély építészete a 11–13. században, 490. The monasteries’ regularly participated in salt trade in the Árpád period, especially between the mid-twelfth and mid-thirteenth century; see F. Romhányi, “A beregi egyezmény és a magyarországi sókereskedelem az Árpád-korban.”

Chapter 11

Mortgage, Hypothec, Trade It is worth discussing the diverse hypothecs and loans in a special chapter. Some Pauline monasteries seem to be very active as financial institutions, mainly from the mid-fifteenth century. One of the first examples is a credit agreement between the Saint Lawrence’s monastery and the town of Buda around 1444. The monastery lent 2000 guilders to the town which was to be paid out of the yearly taxes in instalments of 40 guilders.1 Thus, it was a long-term credit for fifty years. It is another question that the first evidence we have about the transaction is a charter of the governor John Hunyadi of 1446 admonishing the town to pay, because they missed the first two prompts. Such a huge credit was not even unique in the history of the order. In the first years of the sixteenth century, before 1515 the Saint Lawrence’s monastery lent a similar sum to the town of Vienna, to be paid in instalments of 100 guilders per year. The contract was preserved in the formulary. Apparently, the central management of the order was quite busy with the administration of the credit, since not less than three coherent charters were copied into the formulary and two of them, the first and the third luckily preserved the dates, too: 1515, 1516 and 1531.2 It is also 1  1446: MNL OL DL 13936. 2  Formularium, fol. 53r–v. The first charter seems to be a compilation, since the prior general was not called Valentine either in 1515 and 1516, or in the following years. The compiler of the formulary probably started the formula with the name of the then incumbent prior general, Valentine Hadnagy, before copying the original text. At the end of the third charter, the Viennese mayor, Hans Rinner, and the jury of the town are also mentioned (Johanni Rynderer magistro civium, iudici totique consulatui inclitae civitatis Viennensis). Rinner, born in Vienna, played an important role in the life of the town. He was a tanner and salt-merchant, he is first noted in a charter in 1501. Between 1514 and 1516, he was the judge of the town, then, in 1516–1517 mayor, in 1518 councillor. He was executed in 1522 in Wiener Neustadt for his participation in the revolt against Archduke Ferdinand of Habsburg. See Csendes, “Die Wiener Salzhändler im 15. und 16. Jahrhundert,” 17; Czeike, Wien und seine Bürgermeister: Sieben Jahrhunderte Wiener Stadtgeschichte, 40; Perger and Hetzer, Wiener Bürgermeister der frühen Neuzeit, 77–78; Perger, Die Wiener Ratsbürger 1396–1526: Ein Handbuch, 235. It may have been his predecessor, Friedrich Piesch of Selmecbánya (Banská Štiavnica), mayor between 1514 and 1515, who contacted the Paulines. He was also condemned to death in Wiener Neustadt, see “Wiener Bürgermeister: Lebens- und Funktionsdaten (seit 1282),” City of Vienna, webpage, accessed May 29 2019, http://www.wien.gv.at/kultur/archiv/politik/bgmbio.html. One of Rinner’s successors, Martin Siebenbürger (originally Mert Kapp), mayor in 1521, was also born in Hungary, in Hermannstadt, and he was also sent to the gallows of Wiener Neustadt in 1522. Czeike, Krug, and Groner, Das grosse Groner-Wien-Lexikon, 111.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004424760_013

Mortgage, Hypothec, Trade

123

worth mentioning that the factor of the Paulines was a well-known burgher of Buda, the merchant Michael Stenczel who was very active in the 1510s.3 We do not have any other evidence for such high credits, but this is absolutely understandable. The creditor was in these two cases not a single monastery, but the order itself. But, smaller credits were given by other monasteries, too, in a surprisingly large number. The short quittance in the formulary is just representing those transactions (fol. 34v). The first, although not very clear case can be found in a charter of the Kápolna monastery, issued in 1457. A canon of Várad gave the monastery his estate called Septely (Bihar County) partly as pious donations for the salvation of his parents’ souls, partly for 300 guilders the vicar already had paid him.4 Based on the formulation, it is possible that an earlier loan contract was transformed in this way into a mixed transaction of donation and selling contract. A vineyard in Miskolc and a parcel in Szada (Zemplén County) were given in the same way partly as alms, partly as security to the Diósgyőr monastery.5 Another charter of 1464 may also refer to such a transaction: Balthasar Rédei, also in the name of his mother and his brothers, gave their parcels in Bátond (Heves County) to the Paulines of Felnémet partly as pious donation, partly for cash.6 Unlike the previous cases, a charter of 1476 tells explicitly the circumstances of the contract between the Paulines of Háromhegy and the family of Matthias Színi. On the one hand, the parties declared that Matthias had paid the 10 guilders he owed the monastery, although with a five-month delay, on the other, he and his family gave seven tenant plots in Martonyi over to the monastery until he could pay another 55 guilders (iusti et boni ponderis).7 Although the charter did not speak about pledging property as security, still, it is a clear case of money lending, the lender being the monastery. The Dobra Kuća monastery paid in 1462 100 guilders for four tenant plots in Petróc, including four deserted,8 and in 1466, it gave 20 guilders for the half of a mowing to members of the Nelepec family.9 Before 1470, the monastery granted a loan of 200 guilders to a noble lady for two manor houses and eight 3  Michael Stenczel, burgher of Buda, born in Bártfa, was juror of the town in 1518 and in 1527. In 1524, he presided the Corpus Christi guild, and in 1529 he left Buda and moved to Pressburg. Kubinyi, “Buda város pecséthasználatának kialakulása,” 251. 4  1457: MNL OL DL 15170. 5  1458: MNL OL DL 15297; 1480: MNL OL DL 16955. 6  1464: MNL OL DL 16059. 7  1476: MNL OL DL 64453. 8  1462: LK 4, no. 22. 9  1466: LK 4, no. 27.

124

Chapter 11

tenant plots in Losanc. Since she was unable to repay the loan, she donated the estates to the monastery.10 Sometimes, the monastery inherited estates given as security, too: in 1483, for instance, canon Mathew of Čazma left the Paulines a mowing, worth of 40 guilders, which he received from the Nelepec family as security.11 The monastery of Streza was also able to lend higher amounts of money. In 1439, it gave 16 guilders for a meadow in Bükalja, near the Plavnica River,12 and in 1448, 18 guilders for a parcel in Klokocs.13 A few years later, in 1451, they granted a loan of 200 guilders for an estate they acquired in 1467 for another 200 guilders.14 In the same year, the Szentpál monastery lent 400 guilders to a nobleman who pledged five tenant plots in Várong.15 In 1478, the Örményes monastery lent 70 guilders to Paul Hédervári.16 The Bánfalva monastery also had capital in cash: in 1482, it had a mortgage of 15 pound deniers on a house in Sopron.17 The Elefánt monastery gave in 1498 8 guilders for a meadow in Alsóelefánt, in 1500 55 guilders for the half of the village of Szalakuz and a half mill in Kér,18 and in the same year the Paulines gave another 75 guilders for the half of the house of the same person.19 In 1510, the Nyitra Collegiate Chapter issued a charter about the transaction between the Paulines of Elefánt and Nicholas Aponyi, the amount was 80 guilders.20 The largest loan the monastery granted was in 1509: they gave 600 guilders for the half of a village and a half mill.21 The Terebes monastery could also grant loans of large amount: in 1523 they gave 300 guilders to two noblemen of the region.22 Two years later, an estate given as security in Vis was redeemed for 48 guilders; in this case

10  D AP 3, 322. 11  1483: MNL OL DL 35711. 12  1439 LK 3, no. 101. The loan was still not redeemed in 1446, since the prior of Streza had the charter transcribed by the Čazma Chapter. 13  1448: LK 3, no. 118. 14  1451: LK 3, no. 125; DAP 3, 319. According to the loan contract, if Paulines have ploughed the land by the time of redeeming, they were entitled to hold on to the liened parcel until harvest and harvest their crops as theirs. 15  Guzsik, A pálos rend építészete a középkori Magyarországon, 88. The brothers of the borrower sold their parcels to the same monastery in the next year for 115 guilders. 16  D AP 2, 139. 17  Házi, Sopron középkori egyháztörténete, 266. 18  D AP 1, 100. 19  1500: MNL OL DL 20986; 1505: MNL OL DL 21426. 20  1510: MNL OL DL 63986. 21  D AP 1, 100. 22  1523: MNL OL DL 47509. The borrowers pledged parcels in Vis, for which the monastery had file a lawsuit in 1524: MNL OL DL 16955.

Mortgage, Hypothec, Trade

125

the redeemer was different from the borrower.23 Interestingly, a few months later, another parcel of Vis was impignorated for the same amount to the monastery.24 Smaller amounts could be lent even by the tiny monastery of Eszeny.25 Loans granted by Pauline monasteries continue to occur in charters issued in the first half of the sixteenth century. Sometimes, the other side had the suspicion that the real goal of the monastery was the acquisition of the estate by granting loan above the estimated value. Such a case appears, for instance, in a charter connected to the Elefánt monastery.26 In some cases, the social attitude of the monks can be traced. In 1461, the monks of Streza granted a loan of 10 guilders for a tenant plot, but regarding the poverty of the borrowers, they returned it to them in the same year.27 A more complex case was recorded in 1454 connected to the Kamensko monastery. A noble called Bartholomew and his sons pledged one of its estates to another nobleman for 16 guilders because of the famine and their poverty. When they asked some more money from the same nobleman to buy food, he did not want to accept their security pledged. Thus, the judge in charge investigated whether anybody of the kinship could redeem the estate, but it has turned out that they were all too poor. Therefore, Bartholomew was allowed to impignorat his estate to anybody who could pay for it. Upon that, Bartholomew gave his estate in the presence of eleven witnesses to the Paulines of Kamensko for 26 guilders. The overlord of the region, Nicholas Francopani also gave his consent to the transaction.28 The economic situation of the family must have been very bad for some time since they got financial support from the monastery two years before, as well: a charter issued five days after the above-mentioned transaction tells that Bartholomew pledged one of his plots with all the pertinences and the tax called othmith which was a yearly sum of six shillings, to the same monastery for twenty guilders in 1452, also because of the famine; the charter was issued because he received another nine guilders for the same plot, and therefore, the Paulines could keep the plot until they received the total amount of 29 guilders.29 The frequency of lending money is reflected in the formulary, too, which contains the formula of the quittance.30 The amount paid (100 guilders) was 23  1525: MNL OL DL 24209. 24  1526: MNL OL DL 24260. 25  D AP 1, 136. In 1486, he took real estate for 20 guilders, in 1514 for 12 guilders. 26  1516: MNL OL DL 90725. The estates in question were in Bars and Nyitra Counties. 27  D AP 3, 320. Finally two tenant plots were left to the Paulines in the borrower’s last will. 28  1454: LK 5, no. 16. The resolution of the case in 1454: MNL OL DL 35612. 29  1454: LK 5, no. 18. 30  Formularium, fol. 34v.

126

Chapter 11

not erased from the text, but it is not written explicitly whether it was the total amount of the loan, or a part of it. However, based on the similar transactions of other monasteries, too, it is more likely that it was the total amount. The two cases described above also indicate that the motivation of the Paulines was not always business and profit. Some pledges covered a sort of primitive social security, another part was connected to low-interest credits.31 This attitude was not foreign for ecclesiastic institutions in general either. In Western Europe such activities were mainly connected to monastic orders. The financial activity of the Paulines was not exceptional in Hungary either, but evidence is much less preserved in the case of other religious communities.

31  One example for this is the acquisition of the estate of Losanc in Verőce County by the monastery of Dobra Kuća in 1470/1471, which demonstrates the whole procedure. In early December 1470 a certain Elisabeth, daughter of John of Losanc, and wife of John of Soploncamellék, gave her estate to the Paulines because she was old and did not have children. On the same day, she pledged the same estate for 150 guilders payable by the monks. This is probably a case when an estate was partly sold, partly donated to a monastery. The estate itself comprised two manor houses, six inhabited and two deserted tenant plots: MNL OL DL 35662, 35663. In April next year, the Chapter of Čazma introduced Prior Matthew and the monks into possession. One of the neighbours was Elisabeth’s husband. 1471: MNL OL DL 35665. Finally, on April 22, 1471, Prior Matthew returned the village of Losanc in the hands of John and his wife for their lifetime, except for a manor house, two deserted tenant plots and a vineyard. The monastery also stipulated that the estate should be inherited by the Paulines after the death of the couple and they “solummodo legitimis proventibus ipsius possessionis Losancz uti et frui, nullasque extraordinarias taxas ad eandem possessionem quovis temporis in processu inponere seu exigere et nunquam eandem possessionem desertare aut aggravari […] debeant et nec possint”: MNL OL DL 35666. The part of the estate reserved for the monastery—the manor house, the deserted plots and the vineyard—are typical fixtures of Pauline estate, cultivated by means of wagework or long-term rent. Despite the agreement, at the end of 1471, Prior Matthew had to raise an objection because certain persons, including the abovementioned couple, petitioned King Matthias to receive the village as royal donation: MNL OL DL 35670.

Conclusion At the time when the Pauline Order emerged, i.e. around 1300, the community being of hermitic character received small parcels. An essential part of the early estates was the vineyards, but according to the local circumstances some hermitages received ploughlands, meadows, mowing, forests or even fishing places. As it had been stated by Éva Knapp, the monasteries lived to some extent in symbioses with the patrons or with other ecclesiastic institutions. This early, autarchic estate structure began to change from the mid-fourteenth century. One of the first documents for this is the charter issued in 1359 for the monastery of Bereg in which the count of Bereg took notice of that the Paulines needed sufficient parcels for vineyards, foreigners were not allowed to fish in the section of the river maintained by them, they were allowed to oak-mast in the forests and nobody should build a mill near their mill. The privileges were granted by the king and the queen-mother and they practically summarised the major sources of income.1 Fishing and pig farming may have contributed to self-provision in Bereg, but in other cases—as we have seen—they could produce incomes in cash, too. Vineyards and mills, however, were clearly sources of cash from the earliest times. These two elements of the estates took always a special position within the set of Pauline estates. A reason for this could be the early banning to accept tenant plots. Vineyards can be cultivated with relatively little manpower and they can be profitable even on small parcels. As for the mills, they used to be rented out anyhow in the late Middle Ages. In fact, mills can be considered as industrial equipment to which different rules were applied. Thirlage and multure assured the monks a constant and predictable income. The dominance of these estate types did not change later either when the Paulines had already tenant plots and villages, because the order aimed to set measures to the size of their estates (see the story about the first prior of Nosztre in Gyöngyösi’s Vitae fratrum) which implied, in return, that the importance of cash incomes increased. This tendency was also supported by that the alms the order received from the fifteenth century on, could never cover the necessary costs of the monasteries and begging remained prohibited throughout the Middle Ages. Due to one of the main patrons of the order, King Louis I the Paulines received considerable higher incomes and many of its privileges originate in that time. A good number of the mills and the first tax exemptions were granted 1  D AP 1, 10. The rights of the Bereg monastery were confirmed by several charters in the fifteenth century.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004424760_014

128

Conclusion

by Louis, and even the yearly salt worth of 300 guilders was later connected to him. Tax exemptions were connected to the production of food and other goods necessary for the daily life of the monks.2 The estates characteristic for the Pauline monasteries in the 1370s were listed in a privilege of King Louis I. The charter was asked for by the prior of the Diósgyőr monastery and it confirmed the right of the community for peaceful possession over all their villages, fields, vineyards, mills forests and any real estates that were in their hands for over forty years, and nobody should compel them to present donation charters about those estates either within or without trial.3 Even the origin of the possession of urban houses can be connected to King Louis I, at least within the Kingdom of Hungary properly meant, as he donated the former royal palace, the Kammerhof of Buda to the order.4 All these things defined the late medieval economy of the Paulines. The monasteries received regular incomes in cash, allowing them to use wage work in their manors and to buy or rent estates. The number of the monasteries stopped increasing from the last decade of the fourteenth century, but this did not mean decline or stagnation. In fact, this was the period when the urban houses in Buda and in other towns became integral part of the Pauline estate structure, and such influential patrons appeared around the order as the Kont, the Cudar or the Kanizsai families. Pauline economy was to some extent double-faced at the end of the Middle Ages. On the one hand, there were monasteries with considerable assets. Their incomes originated partly of their landed estates, partly of renting different elements of the asset (urban houses, mill, and vineyards). The latter was especially important from the fifteenth century. On the other hand, small, hermitage-like monasteries existed all over the Middle Ages which were basically self-sufficient. Manors and urban houses, partly in market towns and boroughs, played a role in self-sufficiency, but they were also essential for marketing the production of the monastic estates. Manors could receive market rights, urban houses had wine-licence. A part of the urban houses was used by several monasteries, in one case there is evidence for common property, too. While the average estate structure of the Pauline monasteries can be reconstructed based on the charters, some estate elements (e.g. mills) could be 2  1375: MNL OL DL 6254; 1381: MNL OL DL 6830. The privileges seem to have been impinged upon quite regularly, as it is indicated both by their multiple confirmations (e.g. 1383: MNL OL DL 8825; 1384: MNL OL DL 7084; 1406 and 1419: MNL OL DL 8825), and by the lawsuits and acts of might. A special case of tax exemption was when the king relinquished his royal privileges. 3  1373: Bándi 1985, 564. 4  This merits special emphasis because urban properties and the rent of townhouses appeared much earlier in Dalmatia, see, for example, the townhouses of the Zengg monasteries (see footnote 223).

Conclusion

129

almost exclusive at certain monasteries. Almost all the larger monasteries were specialised to some extent, i.e. a decisive part of the incomes came from a given estate element or product. Such income sources could be vineyards, mills, but even grain. The available evidence does not prove explicitly, but it does not exclude either that certain monasteries were involved over average into animal husbandry. Such examples can be the pannage regularly mentioned in the charters of the Slavonian monasteries or the large-scale hay production of the Saint Lawrence’s monastery on its estates in the Great Hungarian Plain. The basis of the economy was in the early period definitely the landed estate and its importance remained in the later centuries, too. From the late-fourteenth, early-fifteenth century, there are hints to that the Paulines regularly employed wageworkers which lead to conflicts with their neighbourhood or with the burghers of the nearby market towns (see the protection of King Sigismund issued in 1406 for the Paulines of Diósgyőr). The different parts of the estate produced different profit. The fishponds, coppices and forests, meadows, pastures usually belonged to the low-profit elements, while the vineyards, mills and urban houses (or a part of them) yielded higher profit. Similarly, the tolls and the salt incomes were valuable, but they were not widespread within the order. Among the high-profit income sources, vineyards occur already in the earliest donations of the thirteenth century. Mills were given the monasteries rather from the fourteenth, while urban houses from the late-fourteenth, early-fifteenth century. Formulas dealing with these estate elements were copied into the Formularium maius used around 1530, the only exception being the mills. Most of the formulas were connected to the management of the vineyards, but there is more than one formula about the urban houses and the salt. Surviving data prove that the profitability of the different estate elements could vary from region to region. For instance, forests were especially valuable in Slavonia where even a form of profit, the pannage (žirovnica) unknown in other parts of the country, was connected to. Its importance is underlined by the fact that several charters mentioned only that one by name, referring to the other incomes in general. The dominant type of estate could be different by region (e.g. the Slavonian monasteries had more tenant villages and forests, in North-eastern Hungary the monasteries had more vineyards, in the northern hill region they had more mills), but this did not mean anywhere uniformity. Even monasteries close to each other could have fairy different estate structure. Still, it is striking that there are hardly any charters dealing with the mills of the Slavonian monasteries,5 5  Besides the aforementioned mill monopoly of Streza, two charters of 1454 and 1459 are similarly relevant here. In 1454, the judge, the jury, and the burghers of Kamengrad (Kővár)

130

Conclusion

and only the monastery of Zagreb had an urban house (except for the Dubica monastery in Lower Slavonia which was abandoned rather early). The house of Zagreb played an important role in marketing the Paulines’ wine as it was recorded expressis verbis in one of the charters. The house was special because of its location, too, since it had a tower that also belonged to the defence system of the town, and the manor connected to the house contributed to the everyday purveyance of the monks. The incomes of the Slavonian monasteries came mainly from their ploughlands and vineyards, in some cases from the forests. Incomes were realised partly in cash, partly in kind. Leaseholders regularly paid the rent for the vineyards in wine, in some cases—especially in Slavonia—other taxes or gifts were also paid in kind (capon, bread). The subsisting charters suggest that the economy of the monasteries that received more income in kind, was for a greater part based on incomes out of the forests. This is also a consequence of the natural environment, since most of them were built in hilly regions. Pannage was a wide-spread income source in Slavonia, but other usufructs of the forests were hardly referred to in the charters. The monks were allowed to cut wood for their own use, but we know only one case of logging when they were allowed to sell the wood—not surprisingly, this data also comes from Slavonia. Data about animal husbandry of the Pauline monasteries are few in number and the picture is rather mixed. The monks received animals, mainly horses as indirect cash donation. Such a donation was recorded even in the sixteenthcentury formulary (fol. 34v). Certainly, they had work stock. There were milkcows in some monasteries which may have needed grazing land, but the estates of Kenderes, Ecseg and Filefölde suggest that the order took part in cattle trade, as well. Sheep are rarely mentioned and in a very general way in the surviving documents, based on that one cannot establish their share in the Pauline economy. Swine regularly occur in the charters and other written sources. Most of them served the daily purveyance of the monasteries (pork was the most common meat in medieval monastic meals), but the often-mentioned Slavonian monasteries had also regular incomes out of them—most of the records on the forests also mention the swine. All in all, evidence for animal husbandry are present in the sources; they mostly refer to self-sufficiency. Animals were also kept for trading or the monastic estates participated in other ways in cattle trade, but the amount of income cannot be defined. returned a verdict in the case of a mill discussed by a local burgher and the widow of the bailiff and they decided in favour of the widow. The charter was transcribed in 1459 on the request of the prior of Streza, because the monastery received the mill with the bequest of the widow in 1458. The value of the mill was estimated at 18 marks in 1454: MNL OL DL 34781.

Conclusion

131

The excellent relations with King Matthias in the second half of the fifteenth century resulted in economic benefits, too. Maybe the most important of them was the taking over of abbeys and other monasteries,6 but the salt income granted to certain Pauline monasteries, several landed estates and privileges— including the general tax exemption of the Slavonian monasteries—were results of the good relations.7 The strength and the feudal character of the order was also reflected by the privilege of high justice granted by Matthias.8 The tight relationship with the royal court was maintained even after Matthias’ death which resulted in the taking over of some further Benedictine and Premonstratensian monasteries (Visegrád, Váradhegyfok [now part of Oradea, Romania], Szentjobb), although in that time, the order needed already the effective support of the prelates, as e.g. Thomas Bakóc or Peter Váradi. The order aimed to maintain similar relationship with courts outside Hungary, too, as it is attested by a formula preserved in the sixteenth-century formulary and proving that Paulines monks served in the imperial court as chaplains (fols. 55r–55v, the addressee was Emperor Charles V, the letter was probably issued between 1532 and 1536). Around 1500, there is evidence for the increasing financial activity of the order, i.e. they were regularly involved into mortgage cases.9 Money lending and acquisitions were covered by the in-cash incomes of the vineyards, mills, less frequently tolls and salt. Among these businesses, there were two loans of outstandingly high amount, both granted by the central monastery of Saint Lawrence: first two thousand guilders were lent to the town of Buda, then the same amount was granted to the town of Vienna. Smaller sums, in some cases 6  F. Romhányi, “Königliche Stiftungen des Spätmittelalters in Ungarn.” The analysis of the estates and the estate management of the monasteries taken over from other orders can also shed light on the characteristics of late medieval Pauline economy. For instance, the monastery of Zsámbék received three houses in Székesfehérvár only after it became Pauline. Up to now, there is no evidence that Premonstratensian monstaries ever possessed townhouses in any Hungarian town. 7  1458: MNL OL DL 15253. Since the charter was issued about six months after Matthias’s election, the decision is likely to have been that of his advisors and family members, and not (or perhaps party) by the king himself. However, Matthias continued to support the order until the end of his life, and their excellent rapport was recorded by Greorius Gyöngyösi. Thus, the charter of 1458 can be considered as the ouverture of a long and fruitful relationship. 8  1466: MNL OL DL 16297. Kisbán connected the data to Lepoglava in Kisbán, A magyar Pálosrend története, 60. The same feudal character may have been recognised by Pope Eugene IV when he appointed the prior general of the order as papal judge in 1446: SZR, no. 2600. 9  About this type of financial service provided by other orders see Szabó, “Monasztikus férfikolostorok,” 460–461, nn. 61–63; F. Romhányi, Kolduló barátok, gazdálkodó szerzetesek: Koldulórendi gazdálkodás a késő középkori Magyarországon, 123–26.

132

Conclusion

even several hundred guilders, were occasionally lent even by the smallest monasteries. Among the earliest examples we can refer to the Slavonian monasteries of Streza and Dobra Kuća, lending relatively high amounts of money. Considering that they were also able to regularly buy estates, we can say that their estates must have been very lucrative. Notwithstanding the stable management of the estates, it is clear that the order needed further support for to finance the central administration and sometimes even to help sustaining the monasteries. Means of the royal support were the two salt donations the total value of which was 400 guilders. Entries of the formulary prove that the apportion was regularly urged by the monks even in the 1530s. Besides that, the order needed the pious donations of other donators, too, as it is reflected in both the formulary and the archival material, mainly dating from the sixteenth century. Most of donations were either cash, or real estates, sometimes movable that could easily be converted into cash. Alms were usually single donations, but eventually, there were annuities, too, and in two cases the donation of capital in cash and interest payment were recorded. As for the social status of the testators and of other donators, one can see that they were mainly recruited from three social groups: prestigious urban burghers, members of the lesser nobility and—for a smaller part—magnates. The latter ones were most active in the first decades of King Sigismund’s reign and under the reign of King Matthias. In the first period, the motivation was probably the translation of the relics of Saint Paul the Hermit to the Saint Lawrence’s monastery a few years earlier, while in the second, the personal devotion of the ruler towards the order may have influenced the elite. The major aristocratic donations and bequests can be connected to these two periods and to the subsequent Jagiellonian era. Based on the analysis of fifty aristocratic last wills András Kubinyi demonstrated that most of the donations went to the Franciscans (especially Observants) and to the Paulines, these two orders were the most popular among the nobility.10 The amount of income and the popularity of the Pauline Order can be illustrated with the list given by Gregorius Gyöngyösi in Vitae fratrum about the donators who supported the rebuilding of the church of the Saint Lawrence’s monastery in the time of Prior General Gregorius Balázsszentmiklósi (1512–1516). There were prelates (Bishops Oswald Túz and Lucas Szegedi, canon Gregory of 10  Kubinyi, “Főúri and nemesi végrendeletek a Jagelló-korban,” 334. One example for this favouritism is the last will of John Semsei who left 5 guilders each to four Franciscan friaries (Homonna, Sóvár, Patak, Céke) and a Pauline monastery (Háromhegy) in 1495: MNL OL DL 85147. About the bequests left for monastic communities see Szabó, “Monasztikus férfikolostorok.”

Conclusion

133

Óbuda), representatives of the aristocracy (Palatine Emeric Szapolyai and his younger brother John, the Voivode of Transylvania), but even a wealthy burgher of Belgrade (c.78). Besides the central monastery, significant wealth was accumulated in some other monasteries, too. For instance, Caspar Serédi could reive valuables filling forty carts from the Lád monastery in 1536.11 But the dependence on the alms and bequests point to that the Pauline Order, despite its landed estates, had a semi-mendicant character in the late Middle Ages. As for the content of the testaments, one can see a great variety, with some tendencies. In the early period—approximately till the end of the fourteenth century—donations came mostly from members of the landed gentry aiming to increase the estates of the Paulines. The real period of the last wills was the fifteenth century when urban bequests appeared, too, in an increasing number. While the last wills of the noble continued to leave real estates, eventually giving the heirs the possibility of redeeming, the bequests of the burghers contained mainly various amounts of money given for a certain amount of masses. The third, less frequent type is the donation of usable of convertible movables and animals. It also important to note that—while the number of testators and the value of the bequests did not decrease till the end of the Middle Ages— last wills became also sources of conflicts between the monastic community and the diocesan clergy or the relatives, especially from around 1500. Goods left for the monasteries were frequently withheld. The background of the phenomenon was partly the conflict of interest between the religious—primarily mendicant—orders and the parish priests that can be detected in other aspects, too, but partly also the shift in the public opinion preparing the way for the Reformation. Finally, a few words should be said about the Pauline monastery of Rome the archives of which were published earlier by Lorenz Weinrich.12 The documents reflect the image of a very prosperous monastery with many profitable estates. The Paulines of Rome had a total of 19 urban houses in the mid-sixteenth century, usually rented by cardinals, bishops of employees of the Holy See. For instance, in 1463, the leaseholders paid for the larger part of a house on the Via Recta 30, for the smaller 8 guilders; the house was bought for 600 guilders.13

11  D  AP 3, 226; Kovács, “Elpusztult középkori kolostorok Heves megyében,” 123. In 1552, Francis and Caspar Druget managed to rob movables worth 4870 guilders from the Ungvár monastery, which was smaller than that of Lád. Kovács, 125. 12  The complete archive of the Roman monastery of the Paulines has been preserved. See Weinrich, Hungarici monasterii ordinis Sancti Pauli primi heremitae de urbe Roma Instrumenta et priorum registra. 13  Weinrich, 258.

134

Conclusion

Another house, bought for 400 guilders was rented out for 24 guilders per year.14 The amounts correspond approximately to the rents paid for houses in Buda. However, some palaces were rented for over hundred guilders in the sixteenth century. In 1514 when the prior of the monastery was Gregorius Gyöngyösi a palace on the bank of the Tiberis was rented by Cardinal Bernardino López de Carvajal for 150 guilders. The earlier leaseholder of the house was Archbishop Thomas Bakóc of Esztergom.15 Among the real estates there were a shamble and a soup-kitchen, too.16 The management of the houses was shared between the prior in Rome and the central administration of the order in Buda, as it can be seen in the entries of the formulary. Several formulas remercy the Roman supporters of the order, among them cardinals, for their help. There is also a document recording a conflict with the pope because of one of the houses: Prior et fratres in Urbe ad Sanctum Stephanum in Monte Celio degentes retulerunt nobis, quoniam beatitudo vestra ab eisdem domum quandam abstulerit, nec annuam pensionem ac solutionem eisdem restituere de eadem domo vultis. Quare, apostolicorum omnium praesul dignissime, genu flexo preceque humili supplicamus vestrae mansuetudinis, quatinus ob Dei respectum eiusdemque nostris amorem illorumque devotionem, qui ipsam domum ordini nostro ad continuandas Dei laudes suarumque animarum salutem pio studio et affectu condonar[un]t, eandem dom[um] [ipsis] restitue[re] et remittere dignemini gratiose, ut ipsi fratres habeant necessarium victum et tegumentum, neve cogantur ob victus inopiam hostiatim alimenta acquirere. Habet, pater sacerrime, vicarius Dei, unde alatur cum suis non unam, sed plurimas oves (cf. 2 Sam 12,3). Liceat ergo nobis vel unam saltem possidere domunculam nostram (fols. 73r–v). The formula probably dates from the mid-fifteenth century, since the order received an urban house from Pope Nicholas V in 1454, but Pope Pius II took it back in 1463. Between 1459 and 1462, the house was inhabited by Cardinal Lodovico Giovanni Mila.17 In the 1530s when the order owned more than a dozen houses in Rome, the allusion to the Old Testament sounded rather strange. It is otherwise exceptional that such an old document was copied into the formulary; most of the other entries were issued around or after the Battle of Mohács, by Prior General Valentine Hadnagy or by his predecessors. Thus, alone the fact that an eighty-year old charter was copied, proves the importance of its subject.

14  Weinrich, 259. 15  Weinrich, 109–112. 16  Weinrich, 253–255. 17  Weinrich, 261.

Conclusion

135

Beside the houses, the Rome monastery had landed estates, i.e. ploughlands and vineyards, too. There were eleven vineyards around Rome in the mid-sixteenth century, also leased out, sometimes for wine.18 András Kubinyi wrote in the preface of Weinrich’s book that the monks of S. Stefano Rotondo managed their estates in a capitalistic way, and he added that the priors arriving from different economic environment (i.e. from the Hungarian Kingdom) adapted themselves very well to the circumstances in Rome and they measured up to their tasks.19 Certainly, the economy of the Roman monastery of the Paulines was in several respects different from that of the Hungarian monasteries, but—as we could see in the previous chapters—the elements of the capitalistic estate management were present in Hungary, too. Albeit on a smaller scale, the Hungarian monasteries also leaned increasingly on cash income, and they similarly rented or leased out their landed estates. Therefore, the estate management of the Roman monastery demonstrates the known phenomena on a large scale and in a concentrated way.20 Furthermore, it has to be underlined that the number of documents referring to this capitalistic estate management, as well as the cash flow (the amounts of money and the frequency of the transactions) increased in Hungary, too, in the Early Modern period. In the late Middle Ages, the Pauline Order developed an estate management system that was unique in monastic economy in contemporary Hungary. Based on the income out of their landed estates on the one side and on the privileges and exemptions received from the ruler and from members of the ecclesiastic and political elite, they increasingly turned towards the capitalistic estate management around 1500. Although the early modern documents of the order’s economy were not discussed in this book, they reflect the strengthening of the above tendencies. The transactions connected to the estates were partly made by the single monasteries, partly by the central monastery of Saint Lawrence near Buda. The prior general did not only give his consent to certain economic issues,21 but 18  Weinrich, ix–x. (András Kubinyi: Geleitwort). 19  Weinrich, x. 20  In Western and Southern Europe, monastic economy adopted these tools as early as in the twelfth century and scarce data prove that they were not unknown for Hungarian Benedictine abbeys either, for example, the contract between the Abbey of Csatár and the Pauline monastery of Jenő about the estate Filefölde, as shown in the “Estates” chapter above. 21  For example, in 1477 when King Matthias suspended a trial held at the court of the Zagreb Bishop, because the Pauline vicar of Zagreb actioned without the consent of the prior general, or the convent itself: LK 2, no. 106.

136

Conclusion

he intervened, too, from time to time through his trustees, as it can be seen in both, the survived charters and the work of Gregorius Gyöngyösi. This could lead to conflicts between the given monastery and the central administration of the order, as we could see in the case of a house of the Örményes monastery in Buda. A part of the incomes of the larger monasteries (e.g. Elefánt, Lád, Újhely, Csatka or Lepoglava) had to be handed over to the order’s centre for to cover the financial needs of the poorer communities. This system is referred to by Gregorius Gyöngyösi when he wrote about Prior General Thomas that he ordered in 1478 the wealthier monasteries to provide the smaller and weaker ones.22 The Vitae fratrum also mentions a practice that caused scandal within the order: Prior General John Szalánkeméni (1516–1520) abolished the tithes and other taxes the monasteries had to pay to the Order’s centre for twelve years.23 Still, the donations, alms and annuities in cash and in kind continued to represent a significant part of the incomes which connected the Paulines to the mendicant orders. The alms received for preaching and pastoral care for which we also have some evidence, belong to this circle, too.24 According to the entries of the formulary, the importance of the in-cash alms even increased in the turbulent decades of the sixteenth century. With some exaggeration, we can say that the economy of the order was as complex at the end of the Middle Ages as its religious character. While the latter one adopted all three traditions, the monastic, the hermitic and the mendicant, the first combined the elements of self-sufficient economy based on the landed estates with mendicantlike alms and a new capitalistic estate management. The specialities of the Pauline economy can be seen the best if we compare it to the economy of other orders present in Hungary in the late Middle Ages. The documents of the mendicant orders have been analysed by the author

22  V F, chap. 62. 23  V F, chap. 81. 24  Formulas about preachers and their disposition appear in the formulary too: Formularium, fols. 21v, 23r, and 69r. They were mainly praedicatores ordinis, i.e. they said sermons within the order, but by the end of the Middle Ages Paulines preached in public as well, as noted, for instance, in the case of their estate in Remetinc (see pages 115–116). The monks’ participation in the pastoral care is also attested by a formula entitled Ad eundem pro petenda auctoritate sua, aut si fuerit legatus papalis, asking for a permission to absolve the faithful from sins reserved for the archbishop or for the pope: “Multi autem causa devotionis et confessionis apud nos facienda veniunt ad nos, quorum confessiones audire possumus, sed eorum aliqui habent casus, a quibus eos absolvere non valemus, et propter ea indignari solent, praesertim domini nobiles ac alii in dignitate constituti. Ne igitur, reverendissime domine, a nobis omnino alienarentur, vestre pietati supplicamus etc.” Formularium, fol. 76r.

Conclusion

137

of the present book, that of the Cistercians by László Ferenczi.25 The late medieval estate management of the Benedictine Abbeys of Garamszentbenedek (now: Hronský Beňadik, Slovakia) and Kolozsmonostor (now: Mănăştur, Romania) were also recently discussed by two young scholars.26 Still, more research would be needed, especially on the monastic orders and on the nunneries. In the late Middle Ages—for which written sources are also available in a larger quantity—the economy of all religious order transformed considerably. Money-based economic technics were increasingly wide-spread, telling are just the cases where we do not find them, as for instance at the Observant Franciscans or in the case of the Kolozsmonostor Abbey. Transformation could result in the changing character of the whole order, as it happened to the Dominicans in 1475 when the pope allowed them to keep the estates they were given and parallel to this the order lost its mendicant character.27 In Hungary, the Dominicans received in this period the Benedictine abbey of Vértesszentkereszt from King Matthias, and even the Austin Hermits received the former Cistercian abbey of Ercsi in the same time from the ruler. In both cases, the estates were the reason for the donation, friars settled in the buildings much later, in the first decades of the sixteenth century.28 Further avenues of research include the detailed investigation of the transformations of the Pauline economy, based on the richer archives preserved. However, one has to be aware of the fact that such monasteries are mainly concentrated in Slavonia and their economy was slightly different from the other parts of the Hungarian kingdom. Comparative material to the research of the Pauline economy could be also the foreign monasteries of the order, primarily the Croatian, but the Polish and Southern German monasteries, too. The management of the Roman monastery can also serve as parallel to certain phenomena. The medieval charters of the Polish monasteries were published by Janusz Zbudniewek, a few data were also used in this analysis. The complex investigation of the evidence, however, needs to be done by the Polish colleagues. As for the Austrian and other Southern German monasteries, their archives are also accessible, and the historical evaluation also began due to 25  Ferenczi, “Estate Structure and Development of the Topusko (Toplica) Abbey: A Case Study of a Medieval Cistercian Monastery.” 26  Keglevich, A garamszentbenedeki apátság története az Árpád- és az Anjou-korban, 1075– 1403; Szabó, “A kolozsmonostori bencés apátság gazdálkodása a késő középkorban.” 27  About the economy of the mendicant orders see F. Romhányi, Kolduló barátok, gazdálkodó szerzetesek: Koldulórendi gazdálkodás a késő középkori Magyarországon. 28  F. Romhányi, Kolostorok és társaskáptalanok a középkori Magyarországon: Katalógus, 23, 72–73; F. Romhányi, Kolduló barátok, gazdálkodó szerzetesek: Koldulórendi gazdálkodás a késő középkori Magyarországon, 80–81, 230.

138

Conclusion

the work of Elmar Kuhn and some other German historians, although the economic aspects were not in the focus of their research. The documents of the Roman monastery were published by Lorenz Weinrich and analysed from an economic point of view by András Kubinyi. The archaeological and art historical research of the Slavonian monasteries intensified in the last two decades, thanks to the work of Tajana Pleše and her colleagues. The first steps towards the modern historical evaluation of the Croatian monasteries were made by Kristijan Bertović.29 The first results show that the estates and their management were in many respects similar to the Hungarian situation, but moneybased transactions, e.g. the leasing out of urban houses appeared earlier there. The Croatian and Dalmatian monasteries obviously adapted themselves to the local expectations and possibilities, and maybe they contributed to the spreading of the new way of economic management within the order. In fact, many elements of the Pauline estate management were present in monastic economy in Europe from the late twelfth century. French, English and German abbeys, especially Cistercian abbeys financed themselves using the same technics and their estate structure also transformed in a similar way, just the scale was much larger than in the case of the small Pauline monasteries of hermitic origin. Monastic finances were known in the Hungarian Kingdom, too, some Cistercian abbeys based their economy mainly on income in cash from as early as the end of the twelfth century.30 After the spreading and establishing of the order in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, the Paulines adapted with success the monastic estate management to their needs and possibilities. Their relatively small estates of specific composition were managed in an innovative way, showing some capitalistic characteristics. An increasing share of their income was in cash allowing them to enter financial transactions. The economy of the Pauline order—spread mainly in Hungary— proves to what extent monastic economy and finance followed the European patterns, thus representing the unity of medieval Europe.

29  Bertovic, “The Pauline Pattern of Monastery Site Selection in Medieval Croatia under Frankapan Patronage.” 30  F. Romhányi, “A beregi egyezmény és a magyarországi sókereskedelem az Árpád-korban.”

Appendix 1

Tables 1‒6 Table 1

Manors owned by Pauline monasteries

1) Bakva 2) Bánfalva 3) Csatka 4) Elefánt 5) Fehéregyháza 6) Felnémet 7) Garić 8) Göncruszka 9) Kalodva 10) Lepoglava 11) Regéc 12) Slat

Obressia, manor: 1463a Bánfalva, manor: 1540b Kagymat, manor: 1508c Szarkaház, manor: 1490 Csiszolt, manor: 1500d Buda, two houses in a manor: 1544e Bátond, manor: 1466 Beketinc, manor: 1465 Kinizs, manor: 1482f Martony, manor: 1441 Lepoglava, fortified manor: 1511 Kripihóc, manor with manor house: 1511 Horváti, manor: 1547g Pernya, manor: 1494h

a 1463: LK 1, no. 20. b Házi, Sopron középkori egyháztörténete, 268. The manor of the abandoned monastery was given by the town of Sopron to Florian Auer, a tenant of Bánfalva, until the monks’ return. In the same year, the prior of Wiener Neustadt gave the destroyed vineyard on the hill Goldberg in Mörbisch, once belonging to the monastery of Bánfalva, to Knight Georg Wolfenreit zu Emerberg. About him see: Pálffy, A császárváros védelmében: A Győri Főkapitányság története 1526–1598, 34. c 1508: MNL OL DL 106728. d DAP 1, 100. e 1544: Végh, Buda város középkori helyrajza, n. 756. f DAP 1, 173; Bándi 1985, no. 595: “domus et curia ipsorum exponentium allodialis.” g DAP 2, 311. In 1547, the manor was in the hands of Caspar Serédi, and the Paulines tried to recoup it by legal action. h 1494: LK 3, no. 22. Christopher Subić gave the monastery a manor, a house in the market town and a vineyard. The donation was essentially for the provision of the monks, but the vineyard and the house may also have played some role in wine trade.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004424760_015

140 Table 2

Appendix 1 ‒ TABLE 2 Noble plots and manorhouses owned by the Paulines

1) Bajcs 2) Bodrogszigete 3) Budaszentlőrinc 4) Család 5) Csatka 6) Dobra Kuća 7) Elefánt 8) Fehéregyháza

9) Gombaszög

10) Gönc

Bajcs, manor house: ~1280/1289a Csatár, manor house: 1320, 1334, 1380b Kajászószentpéter, manor house: 1513c Enye, manor house: 1518d Ludány, house: 1524e Koromlya, manor house: 1480f Szaplonca: 1504g Prasnolc, manor house: 1490h Vicsap, manor house: 1546i Tabajd, manor house: 1510 Gercse, manor house: 1517 Gercse, manor house: 1519j Gombaszög, noble plot: 1394k Onga (Borsod County), two manor houses: 1496l Domaháza, manor house: 1511m Csécses, manor house: 1459n Alsókéked: 1504o

a Györffy, Az Árpád-kori Magyarország történeti földrajza, 1963, 1:276. b Györffy, 1:326; DAP 1, 18; Fejér, Codex diplomaticus Hungariae ecclesiasticus ac civilis, vol. 8, pt. 3, no. 359. c 1513: MNL OL DL 25864. The Documenta Artis Paulinorum misinterprets the evidence of the Pressburger Protocollum, and incorrectly refers to this house as the property of the monastery of Fehéregyháza (DAP 1, 149). d DAP 1, 33. e 1524: MNL OL DL 23992. After the destruction of the monastery of Család, the monks moved to Elefánt and the house became property of that monastery. f DAP 1, 53. g 1504: LK 4, no. 50; DAP 3, 323: under the name of Podgracti. h 1490: MNL OL DL 19626. i DAP 1, 102. The manor house was occupied in 1546. j DAP 1, 147. The manor of Tabajd was pledged for 32 guilders by Peter of Fehérvár, the parish priest in Tabajd, but the two manors of Gercse were given as pious donation. One of the two in Gercse was, however, sold in 1519. k DAP 1, 160. The monastery bought it for fifty guilders. l 1496: MNL OL DL 16955. The donators were Barbara and Potentiana, the daughters of Ladislaus of Onga. m DAP 1, 160. n 1459: MNL OL DL 15368. The aim of the donator was to support the hospital of Telkibánya, see Pusztai, “A telkibányai Szent Katalin-ispotály.” o 1504: MNL OL DL 16955. The donation concerned half of a mill and two tenant plots as well. Vitalis of Kéked and his brothers contradicted the introduction.

141

Appendix 1 ‒ TABLE 2 Table 2

Noble plots and manorhouses owned by the Paulines (cont.)

11) Jenő 12) Patacs 13) Regéc 14) Szakácsi 15) Szentmihálykő 16) Szentpéter 17) Szerdahely 18) Streza 19) Terebes 20) Told 21) Vázsony

22) Vetahida 23) Zagreb-Remete

Perecske, third of a manor house: 1499p Patacs, half of a manor house: 1409q Horváti, manor house: 1466r Nagyszakácsi, noble plot: 1473s Kolos (Erdélyi fehér County), house: 1508t Gáld, manor house: 1531u Iglód, manor house: 1524v Szerdahely, manor house: 1488w Ilinc, manor house: 1451 Kovár, manor house: 1458x Vis (Szabolcs County), deserted manor house: 1523y Szőlős (Somogy County): 1505z Csepely (Veszprém County), stone house: 1486aa Csepely, two manor houses: 1519, 1520, 1524ab Lehért, Zarkahaza noble plot: 1520ac Macs, manor house: 1521ad Zagreb: 1487 Remetinc: 1438, 1514

p 1499: MNL OL DL 49977. q 1409: ZSO 2, no. 6855. r DAP 2, 309. The monastery received the manor house from Emeric Szapolyai and it was still the property of the monks in the mid-sixteenth century. s 1473: MNL OL DL 17498. t 1508: MNL OL DL 36405.—The donation aimed at securing the maintenance of the Saint Catherine’s Chapel in Kolos. u Entz, Erdély építészete a 14–16. században, 472. The monks complained that Caspar Boltha of Gáld carried out an attack on their manor house in the same village of Gáld, and broke the gate and the doors. v 1524: MNL OL DL 24005, and 24008. King Louis II ordered the convent of Somogyvár to introduce the Paulines into the estate. w VF, chap. 67. x DAP 3, 319–320. The manor house of Ilinc was given by a certain Lady Ilka, that of Kovár by Lady Margata. Pertinences of the latter comprised ten tenant plots in Kameno, two vineyards, and a mill. y 1523: MNL OL DL 47509. The estate of Vis could not be occupied by the monks since the count of Gömör County, John Toronyaljai was introduced despite their protest in 1524: MNL OL DL 16955. z 1505: MNL OL DL 106721. aa 1486: MNL OL DL 24769. The house was given the monastery by the founder Paul Kinizsi. ab 1519: MNL OL DL 24375; 1520: MNL OL DL 23490; 1524: MNL OL DL 23993. ac 1520: MNL OL DL 23485. ad 1521: MNL OL DL 23519.

142 Table 3

Appendix 1 ‒ TABLES 3‒4 Townhouses of the Paulines in Buda

1) Budaszentlőrinc

2) Örményes

3) Lád 4) Csatka 5) Veresmart 6) Szentkereszt 7) Szentlélek 8) Kékes

Table 4

Kammerhof: after 1362–1416/1423; vicus Sancti Pauli “Big Pauline house”: 1416–[1541]; vicus Italicus?: 1402–around 1480 (?) vicus Omnium Sanctorum: 1392–1459 (?); vicus magnus: 1392–1459 (?); Keddhely: 1392–after 1451; vicus Sancti Nicolai (“opposite the Holy Virgin church”): 1392–after 1398; vicus Sancti Pauli: 1392–after 1501 vicus Omnium Sanctorum: 1394–after 1433 vicus Sancti Pauli: 1396–after 1423; ?: 1420 vicus Sancti Johannis: 1440/1442–after 1445 vicus Omnium Sanctorum: 1425–1513 (rent was paid even later) see Szentkereszt vicus Italicus: 1493-[1498]–after 1504; near a narrow alley leading to Italian Street: 1515

Other townhouses

1) (Virgin Mary’s monastery) 2) Bajcs 3) Bánfalva 4) Baumgarten

5) Bereg 6) Budaszentlőrinc 7) Csatka

Pest: around 1530 Siklós: 1483 Sopron (three houses of the monastery of Baumgarten): 1526 Sopron, two houses between the gate and the house of Andrew butcher, one house opposite the Holy Spirit Chapel: 1475–1495 (1526) Beregszász: 1567a Pest: around 1480b Pápa, vicus magnus: 1513 Tata: 1387c Székesfehérvár, vicus S. Bartholomei: 1478

a 1567: DAP 1, 12. After the demolition of the monastery, the Paulines liened the abandoned buildings and a house in Beregszász which was repeatedly referred to as curia nobilitaris at the end of the sixteenth century. The documents do not allow reveal its exact location within the town. In the mid-fifteenth century, the monastery received two plots in Beregszász, one from the parish priest (1449) and another one from a local burgher in Ardó Street (1459). b VF, chap. 64. The house was probably exchanged for the house in the Italian Street of Buda (see at Buda). c 1387: MNL OL DL 7334.

143

APPENDIX 1 ‒ TABLE 4 Table 4

Other townhouses (cont.)

8) Dédes 9) Diósgyőr 10) Dobra Kuća 11) Dubica 12) Fehéregyháza 13) Gombaszög 14) Kékes 15) Lád 16) Nosztre 17) Patacs 18) Porva 19) Szentjobb 20) Szentkereszt

Miskolc: 1381d Diósgyőr: 1482e Miskolc: 1408f Szaplonca: 1504 (donation of several houses in the market town)g Dubica: 1384h Dubica: 1412i Óbuda: 1517j Sajószentpéter: 1396, 1532k Visegrád: –1412 (plot) Keresztúr: before 1507 Szob: 1453l Pécs: 1482m Pápa, Kristóf Street: 1441/1450–1563 Debrecen: 1531, 1556, 1580 Esztergom: 1476n

d 1381: MNL OL DL 6787. The house was given to the monastery by Clara, the wife of a Miskolc burgher. She inherited the house together with two vineyards from her late husband, Andrew of Wacha. According to the agreement with the monks, she was allowed to stay in the house for her lifetime. The charter was issued upon the joint request of the priors of Dédes and Diósgyőr, and the house is still mentioned as the shared property of the two monasteries even later. DAP 1, 66. e DAP 1, 64. The house and three vineyards were donated by the priest of Diósgyőr. f DAP 1, 68. The house was inherited from a burgher of Miskolc. In 1416, it was already shared property with the monastery of Dédes (DAP 1, 66). The last will was probably written by the end of the fourteenth or maybe in the first years of the fifteenth century. g 1504: LK 4, no. 50. h 1384: SZR, no. 1483. i 1412: ZSO 3, no. 2174. The monastery had at least two buildings in the town of Dubica. j DAP 1, 147. The house was given as a gift. k DAP 1, 160, and 162. The house was given to the monastery in 1396 by Ladislaus and Francis Bebek, and King Sigismund granted the monks tax exemption. The vineyard was bought by the Paulines in 1391 for 340 guilders. In the first half of the fifteenth century (1428, 1446, 1449), the Bebek family gave several vineyards within the confines of the town. l In 1453, John Hunyadi gave a free plot in the market town of Szob to the monastery of Nosztre, for a toll station to collect the tolls granted for them in a privilege by King Louis I. In 1453, John Hunyadi promised to have the donation confirmed by King Ladislaus V: MNL OL DL 14662. m DAP 2, 150. The stonehouse was sold the Paulines for 400 guilders by the goldsmith Bartholomew, burgher of Pécs who lived in Buda at the time. n DAP 2, 401. The house was left by Master Emeric Lovas as pious donation for perpetual masses.

144 Table 4

Appendix 1 ‒ TABLE 4 Other townhouses (cont.)

21) Szentlászló 22) Szentmihályköve 23) Streza 24) Thal 25) Told 26) Újhely 27) Ungvár 28) Zagreb-Remete 29) Zsámbék

Pécs, vicus S. Thomae: 1502 Pécs, vicus S. Ladislai: 1504o Vingárt: 1503p Kolozs: 1508q Kővár: 1458 (plot)r Dévény, Donaugasse: 1416– Pozsony, vicus longus (Langegasse): 1471–s Székesfehérvár: 1447t Újhely: 1367u Újhely: 1391v Ungvár: before 1482 Zagreb: 1473– Székesfehérvár: 1523 Székesfehérvár, vicus Italicus: 1524 Székesfehérvár, Richtergasse: 1534

o DAP 2, 405. The house in Saint Thomas’s Street was given the monastery by the painter Andrew who had entered the order, while the house in Saint Ladislaus’s Street was bought for 50 guilders from a local nobleman. p Inventarium, fol. 54–55. The house with garden and horreum was given the monastery by Ladislaus Geréb, bishop of Transylvania. q Csánki, Magyarország történelmi földrajza a Hunyadiak korában, 1913, 5:307. r 1458: MNL OL DL 34811. The plot had originally been given by Bishop John of Zagreb to Margaret, the wife of Luke, bailiff of Kamengrad and the donation was confirmed by Ulrich of Cilli and his wife Catherine. Finally, Margaret left the plot and her other estates to the Paulines. s The house was still in the hands of the order in the eighteenth century. It burned down around August 20, 1536, and the monks let it on condition that the leaseholder would reconstruct the house during the lease. The house was later leased out. From 1550, the leaseholder was Peter Pálcán for an annual rent of 10 guilders. DAP 1, 292. t VF, chap. 49; DAP 3, 33. u 1367: Bándi 1985, 695. v In that year the monastery received several vineyards and a number of plots in the town, see Vineyards chapter.

APPENDIX 1 ‒ TABLE 5 Table 5

145

Mills owned by Pauline monasteries

1) Bajcs

Nagyfalu: 1394a Győrös: 1472 2) (Bakony)Szentjakab Rátót, Egregy Stream: 1437b (The monastery later inherited a mill of the Kőkút monastery [1487] and a half mill of the Uzsa monastery [1442], both on the Egregy Stream, when those monasteries were lost for the order, see below.) 3) Bánfalva Bánfalva: 1482c 4) Baumgarten Mörbisch: 1475d 5) Bereg Bereg, Borsova River: 1329, 1359, 1448, 1490e 6) Buzgó Budoi: 1424f 7) Csáktornya Muraszentkereszt: 1496g 8) Csatka Nagyréde, Füzegy River: 1439h Koromlya: 1480i 9) Diósgyőr Diósgyőr: 1343,j 1348 (probably destroyed in 1355) Szinva River, near Miskolc: (1355–1382), 1440, 1478 Nagyzsolca, Sajó River: 1380–1387 Csaba, Szenes mill: 1387, 1460, 1478k 10) Elefánt Béd: 1369,l 1375, 1376,m 1398, 1400, 1411n Elefánt, Nitra River: 1375,o 1400,p 1424 Ugróc: 1395 a Inventarium, fol. 16; DAP 1, 2. b 1437: MNL OL DL 88129. c Házi 1939. 266. Pious donation. d 1475: MNL OL DL 17681. e DAP 1, 9–10. f The voivode of Transylvania, James Lack devastated the monastery and occupied four of its vineyards and two mills. g 1496: LK 1, no. 78; DAP 1, 22. The mill had two wheels, and a fishpond attached to it. h 1439: MNL OL DL 13306. The donation was accepted by Friar Bartholomew, the procurator of the monastery. i DAP 1, 53. The mill was given together with the estate and the manor house. j 1343: Bándi 1985, 560–561. k 1387: MNL OL DL 7269; 1460: MNL OL DL 15489; 1478: MNL OL DL 18124. The mill was exchanged for a mill on the Sajó River, see footnote 348 above. l DAP 1, 99. Desiderius Elefánti donated one half of a mill with seven (!) wheels. m 1376: MNL OL DL 6341. n DAP 1, 102. o 1375: MNL OL DL 6257. The last will of Michael Elefánti notes that the mill generated revenues for monastery even before that, namely an annuity of 120 metretae (appr. 40 kg) of wheat, and 120 metretae of rye. The monks received a vineyard too. p DAP 1, 99, and 102.

146 Table 5

APPENDIX 1 ‒ TABLE 5 Mills owned by Pauline monasteries (cont.)

10) Elefánt (cont.)

11) Enyere 12) Felnémet 13) Garić 14) Gombaszög 15) Gönc

q

Zalatna: 1395 Pázsit: 1395q Mezőkeszi, Gedymalom: 1428 Vicsap, Nitra River: 1432,r 1439 (demolished) Béd, Bered mill: 1488 (1/3 mill)s Prasnolc: 1490t Elefánt (Alsó-), Nitra River: 1491, 1499 (1/2 mill)u Velkapolya: 1495 (sawmill) Kér: 1500 (1/2 mill, mortgage)v Kisvásárhely, Marcal River: 1471w Szentgrót: 1478 Felnémet, Tárkány River: 1393 (1/16 part) Felnémet: 1442 (mill-site without buildings) Kőrös County, Puklenc village: 1391x Kőrös County, Gerzence River: 1414y Kak, Hernád River: 1476 (mill-sites, exchanged) Onga, Bársonyos River: 1496 (part of a mill) Szántó: 1438z Zsujta: 1371 (building permit from King Louis I),aa 1450 (introduction) Gönc, Bányapataka (Gönci Stream): 1446, 1450, 1472, 1513ab Telkibánya, Olsava River (of the hospital): 1450, 1471 Csécses, Bányapataka (of the hospital): 1459, 1471

Mills of Ugróc, Zalatna and Pázsit: DAP 1, 99. The estate was originally given to the Paulines in 1395 to build a hermitage there: MNL OL DL 16125. r 1432: MNL OL DL 12454. A trial for the mill was initiated because a certain Konrad Sandorff or Sellendorf and his wife appropriated the two branches of the Nitra River for their new mill in Apáti. The defendant appears in the documents again as the castellan of Ugróc in 1439, when he was involved in another lawsuit with the monastery because of another mill in Vicsap: MNL OL DL 13455. s DAP 1, 100, and 102. The mill was bought by the monks for 6 guilders. t 1490: MNL OL DL 19626. u DAP 1, 100, and 102. v DAP 1, 100. w DAP 1, 135. x 1391: LK 6, no. 29. y Tringli, “A magyar szokásjog a malomépítésről,” 256. z Bándi 1985, 589. aa Bándi 1985, 583. This was transcribed by Queen Mary of Anjou (MNL OL DL 7055), and later by King Sigismund. ab Prior General Stephen rented out the abandoned mill in 1513.

147

APPENDIX 1 ‒ TABLE 5 Table 5

Mills owned by Pauline monasteries (cont.)

16) Göncruszka

17) Hangony 18) Háromhegy 19) Jenő

20) Jofa 21) Kamensko 22) Kékes

23) Kőkút 24) Lád

25) Mindszent

Vilmány, Hernád River: 1388 (1/2 mill), 1461 (the other half of the same mill) Hejce: 1421 (2 mill-site), (1515) Szántó, Aranyos River: 1465 Ruszka, Hernád River: 1483ac Ruszka, Hernád River: 1486 (1/4 mill) Alsókéked, Teplice River: 1496 (1/2 mill), 1501 (the other 1/2), 1504, 1507ad Tapolcsány, Vadna River: 1357, 1393ae Rőzek: 1494af Zakalja: 1381 Filefölde, Fylemolna: 1414, 1429 Kisjenő, Torkavize River: 1404ag Körös River: 1335 Dol: 1448ah Szentendre, Kékes Stream: 1358, 1473 Szentendre, Kékes Stream (mill-site): 1358 Sződ, Rákos Stream: 1458 Diszel, Egregy Stream: 1487 (one wheel)ai Berente, Sajó River: 1454, 1456 (1/3 mill) Keresztúr, Hejő River: 1455, 1456, 1457 (trial because of the damages caused by the neighbouring mill of Szalonta), 1465, 1466, 1478 Székesfehérvár: 1481aj

ac DAP 1, 171. The Paulines received one half of the mill first, and the other half in 1483. ad For data about individual mills see Belényesy, Pálos kolostorok az Abaúji-Hegyalján, 17. ae VF, chaps. 34, and 38. af 1494: MNL OL DL 46266. ag DAP 3, 45. ah 1448: MNL OL DL 34739. ai VF, chap. 67. After the dissolution of the Kőkút monastery, Prior General Thomas donated the mill to the nearby Monastery of Saint James when the widow of Ladislaus Gyulafi asked for it. aj DAP 1, 365. The mill was in need of reconstruction and the monastery received it as pious donation with a plot.

148 Table 5

APPENDIX 1 ‒ TABLE 5 Mills owned by Pauline monasteries (cont.)

26) Nosztre

27) Örményes 28) Patacs 29) Porva 30) Regéc

31) Remete (Técső)

32) Streza

ak al am an

Szob, Bélapataka: 1376ak Szob and Damás között, Bélapataka: 1380al Bény, Garam River: 1366,am 1467, 1471 (three mill) Bény, Garam River: 1471 (1/3, mortgage), 1477 (acquisition)an Csás: 1480 (two wheels)ao Patacs: 1409ap Valkó County, Okorvize: 1512aq (two wheels) Pápa, Tapolca River: 1441, 1450 (two mills, one of them fulling) Tolcsva, Tolcsva River: 1348ar Horváti, Tolcsva River: 1466 (two wheels, one of them fulling) Horváti, Tolcsva River: 1469 (1/2 mills)as Vizsoly, Korlátfalvi Stream: 1526at Técső: 1363, 1554 Huszt: 1406 (1/2) Gercsen: 1481 (1/3) Remete: 1554 Técső: 1554au Mills (at the foundation): 1381av Under the castle Kamengrad, Kapronca River, Salamonschak mill: 1458, 1459aw

DAP 2, 91. The mill was bought for a hundred guilders. DAP 2, 91. The mill was bought for 52 guilders. DAP 2, 91. DAP 2, 91. One third of the mill was first taken as mortgage security for 20 guilders, then bought for 50 guilders. In 1477, the monks bought the other two thirds of the mill for 38 and 37 guilders, respectively. ao Csánki, Magyarország történelmi földrajza a Hunyadiak korában, 1897, 3:172. ap 1409: ZSO 2, no. 6855. aq DAP 2, 150. ar Belényesy, Pálos kolostorok az Abaúji-Hegyalján, 10. as DAP 2, 309. Half of the mill was bought for 10 guilders; the other half was exchanged for a vineyard and 2 guilders. at Belényesy, Pálos kolostorok az Abaúji-Hegyalján, 11. The destroyed mill was then sold for 20 guilders by Prior General John. au DAP 2, 312–313. av 1381: MNL OL DL 34642 aw 1458: LK 3, no. 137. See also 1458: LK 3, no. 138; and 1459: LK 3, no. 148.

149

APPENDIX 1 ‒ TABLE 5 Table 5

Mills owned by Pauline monasteries (cont.)

33) Szakácsi

34) Szentjakab (Ürög)

35) Szentkirály

36) Szentlászló 37) Szentpál

38) Szentpéter

39) Szerdahely

40) Thal

Near the village of Disznó, on the Hazugvíz Stream: 1455ax Monyorókerék: 1474 (parts of a mill)ay Meszes: 1234 (1/2 mill) Ürög: 1252 (Bishop Bartholomew bought it for 3 marks)az Ürög: 1371, 1375ba Tuson, Târnava River: 1391 (tenth of the income) Toldalag: 1471, 1472, 1474 (two mills), 1478 (1/3 mill) Kisfalud, Maros River: 1467bb Szederkény, Krassó River: before 1488 Hásságy, Gyöngyös River: 1514bc Derecske, Fizek River: 1416, 1435 (one-week income = 20 guilders) Szentpál: 1482 (2 mills, destroyed) Berki: 1486 (mills on a fishpond) Inke: 1409 Varaszló: 1417 Páld: 1477bd Taszár, Csapos River, Vozi mill: 1444 (the other half was given earlier) Szerdahely, Gerence Stream: 1470 (mill-site)be Stomfa, Pretermül: 1385, 1387, 1429 (three wheels) Stomfa, Reismül: 1387bf (four wheels) Mayerhof: 1520bg

ax 1455: MNL OL DL 14915. ay 1474: MNL OL DL 17556. az Györffy, Az Árpád-kori Magyarország történeti földrajza, 1963, 1:399–400. ba In 1371, the monks bought one half of a mill in the neighbourhood of their own mill on the Ürög Stream: MNL OL DL 5975. In 1375 the monks bought the other half of the same mill: MNL OL DL 5974, 6295. bb Tringli, “A magyar szokásjog a malomépítésről,” 257. bc DAP 2, 405. bd Csánki, Magyarország történelmi földrajza a Hunyadiak korában, 1894, 2:696. be 1470: MNL OL DL 17078. bf 1387: MNL OL DL 7313. The Paulines rented out their triple-wheeled mill called Pretermül for ten years to Michael and Lawrence, two millers of Stomfa. The Reismül mill was leased to Michael alone. bg DAP 1, 280.

150 Table 5

APPENDIX 1 ‒ TABLE 5 Mills owned by Pauline monasteries (cont.)

41) Tisztaberek 42) Tokaj 43) Told

44) Újhely

45) Ungvár 46) Uzsa 47) Várad-Kápolna 48) Vázsony 49) Veresmart 50) Vetahida

Túr River: before 1486 Hodos River: before 1486bh Keresztúr, Bodrog River: 1494bi Vilmány, Hernád River: 1516bj (1/2 mill) Jut: 1455 (three wheels, redeemable for 500 guilders; the donation of the mill is mentioned by Gyöngyösi: VF, chap. 49) Ronyva River: 1427, 1449, 1454, 1457 Ronyva River (pious donation): 1427, 1449, 1454, 1457, 1465 (one of them: 1468) Ungvár: 1482 (2 called Remetemolna, 1 Karló, i.e. fulling mill) Egregy Stream: 1406 (1/2 mill)bk Püspöki, Körös River: 1467bl Agyaglik: 1511bm Veresmart: 1376bn Gyöngyös: 1476 (mill-site)bo Macsó, Tengelvize Stream: 1492bp

bh DAP 3, 26. Both mills were given the monastery by the founder Nicholas Drágffy of Béltek. bi 1494: MNL OL DL 17867. bj DAP 3, 28. bk VF, chap. 39. One half of the mill was inherited by the Monastery of Saint James in Sáska, when the Uzsa monastery was taken over by the Observant Franciscans in the midfifteenth century (see at Sáska). bl 1467: MNL OL DL 16570. The mill near the village of Püspöki in the fields was donated to the Paulines by Bishop John, and he compensated the bishopric with the estate of Kissinte, Bihar County. bm 1511: MNL OL DL 39172. bn 1376: SZR, no. 1402. The mill was claimed by the Benedictine abbot of Sár, too. bo DAP 3, 213; Kovács, “Elpusztult középkori kolostorok Heves megyében,” 122. The donation was made by Michael Ország for the salvation of his soul; he also gave 30 cubuli of wine (appr. 400 litres). bp 1492: MNL OL DL 19930. The leaseholder paid 32 cubuli (appr. 60–65 kg) of grain and the usual gift (munera) for the mill.

151

APPENDIX 1 ‒ TABLE 6 Table 6

Donations in cash and kind left for Pauline monasteries

1) Csatka 2) Csáktornya 3) Elefánt

4) Fehéregyháza

5) Garić

6) Háromhegy

7) Kékes

8) Szentkirály a 1451: MNL OL DL 49991. b 1496: MNL OL DL 32821. c 1466: MNL OL DL 95384. d Inventarium, fol. 83. e 1515: MNL OL DL 89132. f 1465: LK 10, no. 374. g 1505: MNL OL DL 101372. h 1477: MNL OL DL 74718. i 1495: MNL OL DL 85147. j 1473: MNL OL DL 17454. k 1525: MNL OL DL 74407.

1451: the Transylvanian Voivode Nicholas Újlaki had 25 guilders paid by his tax-collector in Komárom Countya 1496: Christoph Fadan gave 40 guilders for to repair the mill and the fishpond he had given the monasteryb 1466: Ladislaus Surányi paid 400 marks of deniers for an estate in Egresd earlier pledged to a couple of Bán who left it for the monastery for the salvation of their soulsc 1501: the canon of Buda, Anthony, gave 7 guilders out of the income of a Buda house for lamp oild 1515: Caspar Somi paid 2000 guilders in accordance with the last will of his fathere before 1465: the widow of Caspar Castellan, Jacoma, paid 200 guilders and the one-year income of the estates of her late husbandf 1505: the widow of Ladislaus Grebeni, Ursula, left 25 guildersg 1477: the mourning-gift of Elisabeth, the wife of Ladislaus Szemsei, which she left for the monastery, was paid in cash by her son Williamh 1495: John Szemsei left 5 guilders for the Paulines as pro anima donation (the same amount of money was left for each of the Franciscan friaries of Sóvár, Patak and Céke)i 1473: Peter Táhi left 100 guilders for the renovation of the larger fishpond over the monastery and 50 guilders for the reparation of the mill on the Kékes Streamj 1525: Leonhard Barlabási left 25 guilders for the monasteryk

152 Table 6

APPENDIX 1 ‒ TABLE 6 Donations in cash and kind left for Pauline monasteries (cont.)

9) Szentmihálykő

10) Thalo

11) Újház 12) Vázsony

13) Zsámbék

1449: John of Harina left 50 guilders for the Paulinesl 1454: the widow of the burgher Johann Sleser of Kolozsvár, Margaret left 5 guilders for the Paulines and wax in the value of 2 guilders for candles used during the massesm 1520: Bishop Francis Várdai of Transylvania gave 20 guilders for the monasteryn 1520: Christoph of Szentgyörgy and Bazin left the interest of 100 guilders for the monasteryp 1520: Queen Mary of Habsburg ordered a yearly sum of 20 guilders for the cloths of the monks and another 20 guilders for masses in the church from the treasuryq 1477: see Háromhegy 1525: the monastery actioned Elias Csepelyi for the wergild of 100 guilders of Dominic Csepelyi (alias Barnagi), owing first Simon Csepelyi and after his death the Paulinesr 1524: the widow of Ladislaus Onari, Helena left cash to the monastery as well as to other churches in Székesfehérvár and in Tolna Countys

l 1449: MNL OL DL 36391. m 1454: MNL OL DL 36407. n 1520: MNL OL DL 82543. o The burghers of Pressburg often left smaller sums for the monastery of Thal which are listed in the chapter Other Incomes. p 1520: MNL OL DL 23487. q Rupp, Magyarország helyrajzi története fő tekintettel az egyházi intézetekre, vagyis a nevezetesebb városok, helységek, s azokban létezett egyházi intézetek, püspökmegyék szerint rendezve, 165. r 1525: MNL OL DL 24214. s 1524: MNL OL DL 23988.

Appendix 2

Tables 7‒10, Including Diagrams 1‒3, Maps 1‒6, and Ground Plans (Figures 1‒40) Table 7

Foundation periods and founders of the Pauline monasteries

king –1263

1263– 1308

Újhely (~1268) Kalodva (before 1290) Kékes (before 1294) Szentkereszt (1263–1291) Szentlőrinc (1290–1300) Szentlélek (1287) 5

magnate

noble

ecclesiastic

Dédesa (1240/before 1312) 1

Badacsony Szentjakab (~1225) Elek Fülöpsziget 1 (1221) Kőkút Szakácsi Szentjakab 6

Bajcs (1280–1283) Szentlászló (1295) Diósgyőr (before 1304) Regéc (before 1307) Veresmart (1304) 5

Henye (before 1300) Pula (1280– 1300) 2

order

town

unknown

Dubicab Idegsytc 1 (1244/ 1270– 1290) 1

Bodrogsziget (1275–1282) Zagreb (1274–1288) Kápolna (1280–1294) 2

a The hermits mentioned in the 1240 perambulation of Dédes and Tardona were an independent community which later became part of the Pauline order. See Kovács, “Elpusztult középkori kolostorok Heves megyében,” 119. b 1244: MNL OL DL 35141, 35142, 35143 (issued by the burghers of Dubica). Transcribed by King Stephen V in 1270, King Louis I in 1363, by the Chapter of Buda in 1384 and 1394 (following the first exemplar): Fejér, Codex diplomaticus Hungariae ecclesiasticus ac civilis, vol. 4, pts. 1, 349–351. If the charter giving an earlier date of foundation is accepted as authentic, the foundation of the monastery of Dubica can also be connected to the royal family, since the initiator was Prince Coloman, brother of King Béla IV. Of course, this early community was an independent hermitage near the town which did not become Pauline before the end of the thirteenth century. c Some researchers see this name as the distorted form of Hidegkút, north of Lake Balaton, but this remains speculative. See, for example, Holler, “A veszprémi püspök egy 1263. évi okleveléről,” 121.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004424760_016

154 Table 7

APPENDIX 2 ‒ TABLE 7 Foundation periods and founders of the Pauline monasteries (cont.)

king

magnate

noble

ecclesiastic

order

1308–1342 RemeteBereg (1329, queen) 1

[Németi] (1319) 1

Bakva (before 1328) Buzgó (before 1327) Enyere (1339) Háromhegy (1341) Jofa (1325) [Kács] (1317–1332) Mindszent (before 1323) Ruszka (1338) Szerdahely (1335) Uzsa (1320–1333) 10

Jenő (1310–1315) Patacs (1334) 2

Szentpál (1333) 1

1342–1382 Gönc (before 1371) Thal (1377) Nosztre (1352) RemeteTécső (1363) 4

[Boldogasszonypáh] (before 1354) Csáktornya (1376) Csatka (1350–1355) Elefánt (1369) Gombaszög (1371) Örményes (before 1378) Szentpéter (1382) 7

Eszeny (1358) Hangony (1368) Kisbaté (1367–1383) Patlan (–1382) Szentkirály (1350) Strezad (1373) Villye (1380) 7

Toronyalja Felnémet (1340–1347) (1352–1381) Gyulafehérvár 1 (1376) Szentmihály (1363) 3

town

unknown Kőszeg (before 1334) Slat (1304–1328) Tarpasziget (before 1333–1434) Vetahida (before 1317) 4

Gatály (1340–1345) 1

d In 1509, the monastery has already been unified with the monastery of Lepoglava: LK 1, no. 91.

155

APPENDIX 2 ‒ TABLE 7 Table 7

Foundation periods and founders of the Pauline monasteries (cont.)

king

magnate

noble

ecclesiastic

1382–1437 Verőce (1433) 1

[Beckó] (after 1431?) Lád (1387) Lepoglava (before 1435) Nagyfalu (~1400) Újház (1408) Ungvár (1384) 6

Dobra Kuća (1412) Told (1384) 2

Pókafalva (1416– before 1448) 1

Boldogkő (–1392) Kamensko (1404–1407) Szt.Háromság (–before 1412) Szalánkemén (–1393) Vállus (1429) 5

1437–1458

Porva (1439–1441) 1

[Dömös]e (1446) 1

Kenderes (before 1453) 1

1458–1490 Csőt (1477) Zsámbék (1477)

[Aybocz]f (before 1490) Baumgarten (1475)

Vajdaháza (before 1468) 1

order

town

unknown

Bánfalva (1482) 1

e On the request of King Sigismund, Pope Eugene IV gave Saint Margaret’s Collegiate Chapter of Dömös to the Olivetan Benedictines in 1433, but they left the monastery in 1446. Pope Eugene in the same year, then Pope Nicholas V between 1447 and 1449, transformed the abbey into a Pauline monastery, however, the diet and Governor John Hunyadi objected to the infringement of their patronage rights, and successfully petitioned the pope to restore the collegiate chapter. Horváth, Kelemen, and Torma, Magyarország Régészeti Topográfiája, vol. 5, Esztergom és a dorogi járás, 68. f If this is the same as the monastery of Edelstal, also founded by the same family and abandoned after 1546, the monks may have settled there only after 1520, F. Romhányi, “Pálos kolostorok Sopron környékén,” 246. The circumstances of the foundation of the monastery in Aybocz are rather obscure. The family’s contacts to the Pauline order are known from other charters, for instance, Sigismund of Szentgyörgy and Bazin (d. 1493) and his brother John (d. 1492) were accepted as confriars of the Pauline order in 1458. The charter was issued by Prior General Andrew: MNL OL DL 15254. Sigismund also became confriar of the monastery of Thal in 1470 for his generous donation: MNL OL DL 16869. In 1471 the widow of Emeric of Szentgyörgy and Bazin, Helena Rozgonyi, and their son Simon gave the Paulines half of a house in Pressburg, see Townhouses chapter above. Despite the earlier contacts, the foundation of the new monastery must have taken place around or after 1470, since the two brothers not only participated in the Transylvanian insurrection of 1467 but they were even leaders alongside Bertold von Ellerbach, see Nógrády, “A lázadás ára,” 132. Although King Matthias Corvinus granted them mercy after the suppression of the uprising, they lost their office.

156

APPENDIX 2 ‒ TABLE 7

Table 7

Foundation periods and founders of the Pauline monasteries (cont.) king

magnate

noble

ecclesiastic

order

town

unknown

2

2

12

1458–1490 (cont.) Fehéregyháza Monyorókerék (1480) (before 1471) 3 Szalónak (before 1461) Tisztaberek (1470–1486) Tokaj (1466–1472) Vázsony (1480–83) 7 1490–1526 Szentjobb (1498) Visegrád (1493) 2

Család (~1512) Terebes (1502) 2

Sum

30

17

Total number of foundations

Váradhegyfok (1498) 1

28

12

103

The foundation of a Pauline monastery could express their loyalty towards the king. In the same period, three lords of Austrian origin, Andreas Baumkircher, Bertold von Ellerbach, and Ulrich von Grafeneck, founded Pauline monasteries in the western border region (now Burgenland) with the same intention. However, the two brothers did not hurry with the completion of the foundation, probably because their income diminished after they had lost the favour of the king. Thus, their younger brother, Christopher (d. c.1508) was still involved in decisions about the valuables and the money dedicated to the construction of the monastery. Another new foundation made by Ulrich von Grafeneck could not be completed either. The monastery of Baumgarten was eventually settled only by the founder’s daughter, Elisabeth von Topl in 1525 and 1526. It is also worth mentioning that both the three Austrian barons and the family of Szentgyörgy and Bazin were in close contact with Emperor Frederick III and the Holy Roman Empire. They all received estates from the emperor; the family of Szentgyörgy and Bazin even received the title of imperial count (Reichsgraf) in Vienna, 1459: MNL OL DL 15371.

APPENDIX 2 ‒ DIAGRAMS 1‒3

Diagram 1

Social standing of the founders by period

Diagram 2

Number of foundations by period

Diagram 3

Number of Pauline monasteries by decade

157

158 Table 8

APPENDIX 2 ‒ TABLE 8 Patron saints of the Pauline monasteries

Patron saints

Monasteries

Holy Virgin Mary (35)

Baumgarten* Beckó Csáktornya* Család Csatka Enyere Eszeny Fehéregyháza Garić Gombaszög Gönc Kalodva Kamensko Lád Lepoglava Thal Martonyia Nagyfalu Nosztre Örményes Patacs Pókafalva Porva* Remete (Técső) Remete (Bereg) Remete (Zagreb) Szalónak Szentmihálykő Terebes

a In 1474, their patron saint is referred to as Saint John the Baptist: MNL OL DL 64446. Legend: Bánfalva—earlier dedication (chapel or monastery); Szentháromság—short-lived monastery; Dédes*—more than one patron saint

159

APPENDIX 2 ‒ TABLE 8 Table 8

Patron saints of the Pauline monasteries (cont.)

Patron saints Holy Virgin Mary (35) (cont.)

Corpus Christi (4)

All Saints (4)

Saint Anna (4)

Saint Benedict (1) Saint Brictius (1) Saint Dominic (2) Saint Elisabeth (2)

Saint Giles (1) Saint Philip and James (1) Saint Helen (1) Saint Emeric (1) Saint Stephen King (1) Saint James (2)

Monasteries

Tokaj* Told Újhely* Várad-Kápolna Veresmart* Villye Dédes* Diósgyőr Ungvár Vajdaháza Bajcs Csáktornya* Mindszent Streza Dobra Kuća Gyulafehérvár* Hangony Tokaj* Bakva Monyorókerék Szakácsi Dubica (?)b Idegsyt [Gyulafehérvár*] Pula Újhely* Regéc Fülöpsziget (?) Badacsony Szentkirály Szentjakabhegy Szentjakab

b Fejér, Codex diplomaticus Hungariae ecclesiasticus ac civilis, vol. 4, pt. 1, 350. Transcription in 1270: Fejér, vol. 5, pt. 1, 59–60.

160 Table 8

APPENDIX 2 ‒ TABLE 8 Patron saints of the Pauline monasteries (cont.)

Patron saints

Monasteries

Saint John Baptist (3)

Elefánt Újház Veresmart* Jofa Ruszka Bodrogszigete Szentkereszt Kékes Kisbaté* Németi Szentlászló Szerdahely Dédes* Porva* Szentlélek Uzsa Szentlőrinc Elek Felnémet Jenő Kőkút Henye Baumgarten* Kőszeg Toronyalja Vázsony Buzgó Vállus Vetahida Szentpál Szentpéter Slat

Saint Jerome (1) Saint Catherine (1) Holy Cross (2) Saint Ladislaus (5)

Holy Spirit (3)

Saint Lawrence (1) Saint Mary Magdalen (4)

Saint Margaret (1) Holy Saviour (2) Saint Michael (2) Saint Nicholas (3)

Saint Paul Hermit (1) Saint Peter (2)

161

APPENDIX 2 ‒ TABLES 8‒9 Table 8

Patron saints of the Pauline monasteries (cont.)

Patron saints

Monasteries

Saint Sixtus (1) Saint Wolfgang (1) Saint Sigismund (2)

Veresmart* Bánfalva Kisbaté* Verőce Szentháromság [Aybocz] Boldogkő Gatály Kenderes Patlan Szalánkemén Tarpa Tisztaberek

Holy Trinity (1) unknown (8)

Table 9

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18.

Concordance of the numbers appearing on the Maps 2‒6 (pp. 167‒171)

Historical name

Modern name

[Aybocz] Badacsony Bajcs Bakonyszentjakab Bakva Bánfalva Baumgarten Beckó Bodrogszigete Boldogasszonypáh Boldogkő (Borzafő?) Buzgó Csáktornya Család Csatka Csőt Dédes Diósgyőr

– (between the Danube and the Fertő Lake) Badacsonytomaj, HU Nagytótfalu, HU Sáska, HU Spišić Bukovica, CR Sopronbánfalva, HU Baumgarten, AU Beckov, SK near Bački Monoštor, SR Alsópáhok, HU Bocşa Română (?), RO Budoi, RO Šenkovec, CR Veľké Lovce, SK Csatka, HU Budapest XXII, Háros-sziget, HU Dédestapolcsány, HU Miskolc, Diósgyőr, HU

162 Table 9

19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47.

APPENDIX 2 ‒ TABLE 9 Concordance of the numbers appearing on the Maps 2‒6 (pp. 167‒171) (cont.)

Historical name

Modern name

Dobra Kuća Dubica Edelstal Elefánt Elek(szigete) Enyere Eszeny Fehéregyháza Felnémet Fülöpsziget Garić Gatály Gombaszög Gönc Gyulafehérvár Hangony Háromhegy Henye [Idegsyt] Jenő Jofa Kács Kalodva Kamensko Kékes Kenderes Kisbaté Kőkút Kőszeg

Dobra Kuća, CR Bosanska Dubica, BiH Edelstal, AU Horné Lefantovce, SK Zalacsány, HU Óhíd, HU Yavorove, UKR Budapest III, Aranyhegy, HU Eger, Felnémet, HU Révfülöp, HU Mikleuška, Bela Crkva, CR Gătaia, RO Plešivec, SK Gönc, HU Alba Iulia, RO Hangony, HU Martonyi, HU Balatonhenye, HU – (north of Lake Balaton, HU) Tüskevár, HU Fughiu, RO Kács, HU Păuliş, RO Kamensko, CR Pilisszentlászló, HU Kenderes, HU Baté, HU Salföld, HU Batina, CR

163

APPENDIX 2 ‒ TABLE 9 Table 9

48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77.

Concordance of the numbers appearing on the Maps 2‒6 (pp. 167‒171) (cont.)

Historical name

Modern name

Lád Lepoglava Mindszent Monyorókerék Nagyfalu Németi Nosztre Örményes Patacs Patlan Pókafalva Porva Pula Regéc Remete (Kis)Bereg Remete (Técső) Ruszka Szakácsi Szalánkemén Szalónak [Szentháromság] Szentjakab Szentjobb Szentkereszt Szentkirály Szentlászló Szentlélek Szentlőrinc Szentmihályköve Szentpál

Sajólád, HU Lepoglava, CR Balatonszemes, HU Kulm, AU Nuşfalău, RO Hernádnémeti, HU Márianosztra, HU Ligetfalva, HU Pécs, Patacs, HU – (around Țețchea, RO) Păuca, RO Porva, HU Pula, HU Óhuta, HU Nizhni Remeti, UKR Remeţi, RO Göncruszka, HU Nagyszakácsi, HU Slankamen, SR Stadt Schleuning, AU Regéc, HU Pécs, Jakabhegy, HU Sîniob, RO Kesztölc, HU Sîncraiu de Mureş, RO Birján, HU Pilisszentlélek, HU Budapest II, Szépjuhászné, HU Tăuti, RO Somogydöröcske, HU

164 Table 9

78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104.

APPENDIX 2 ‒ TABLE 9 Concordance of the numbers appearing on the Maps 2‒6 (pp. 167‒171) (cont.)

Historical name

Modern name

Szentpéter Szerdahely Slat Streza Tarpasziget Terebes Thal Tisztaberek Tokaj Told Toronyalja Újház Újhely Ungvár Uzsa Vajdaháza Vállus Váradhegyfok Várad-Kápolna Vázsony Veresmart Verőce Vetahida Villye Visegrád Zagreb, Remete Zsámbék

Pogányszentpéter, HU Gálosfa, HU Slavsko Polje, CR Pavlin Kloštar, CR Tarpa, HU Trebišov, SK Marianka, SK Tisztaberek, HU Tokaj, HU Karád, HU Kóspallag, HU Kurityán, HU Sátoraljaújhely, HU Uzhhorod, UKR Lesenceistvándi, HU Voivodeni, RO Vállus, HU Oradea, RO Oradea, RO Nagyvázsony, HU Pálosvörösmart, HU Kisoroszi, HU Lengyeltóti, HU Vovkove, UKR Visegrád, HU Zagreb, Remete, CR Zsámbék, HU

165

APPENDIX 2 ‒ TABLE 9 Table 9

Concordance of the numbers appearing on the Maps 2‒6 (pp. 167‒171) (cont.)

Historical name Croatian and Austrian monasteries 105. Crikvenica 106. Gvozd 107. Novi 108. Zengg 109. Zengg 110. Wiener Neustadt

Modern name

Crikvenica, CR Gvozd, CR Novi Vinodolski, CR Senj, CR Senj, CR Wiener Neustadt, AU

Pauline monasteries in the Medieval Kingdom of Hungary



Map 1

166 APPENDIX 2 ‒ MAP 1

Maps 1‒6

Map 2

Hermitages until 1263 Unknown site: Idegsyt

APPENDIX 2 ‒ MAP 2

167

Map 3

Pauline monasteries around 1300 Unknown site: Idegsyt

168 APPENDIX 2 ‒ MAP 3

Map 4

Pauline monasteries around 1400 Destroyed or abandoned before 1400: Boldogasszonypáh, Boldogkő/Borzafő, Gatály, Gyulafehérvár, Kács, Kisbaté, Németi, Patlan, Szalánkemén

APPENDIX 2 ‒ MAP 4

169

Map 5

Pauline monasteries around 1500 Destroyed before 1500, or the foundation was never completed: [Aybocz], Baumgarten, Beckó, Kenderes, Pókafalva, Verőce Foundations in the early sixteenth century: Család, Terebes, Edelstal (